News

In the book of Joshua, we find a repeatedly told story of a complete conquest of the entire land. This comes through most clear in two summary texts, one at the middle of the book and one found at the end. Each uses the word kol (כֹּל, “all, every, whole”) repeatedly to highlight the theme that all was conquered according to all that God had promised. So, we find in the first passage:

Joshua conquered the whole (כל) of this region: the hill country of Judah, all (כל) the Negeb, the whole (כל) land of Goshen, the Shephelah, the Arabah, and the hill country and coastal plain of Israel—everything from Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir, all the way to Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon at the foot of Mount Hermon; and he captured all (כל) the kings there and executed them.… Apart from the Hivites who dwelt in Gibeon, not a single city made terms with the Israelites; all (כל) were taken in battle.… Thus, Joshua conquered all the (כל) the country, according to all (כל) the LORD had promised Moses; and Joshua assigned it to Israel to share according to their tribal divisions. And the land had rest from war

(Josh. 11:16–17, 19, 23; translation custom).

At the end of the book, we find:

The LORD gave to Israel the whole (כל) country which He had sworn to their fathers that He would assign to them; they took possession of it and settled in it. The LORD gave them rest on all sides, according to all (כל) He had promised to their fathers on oath. Not one man of all (כל) their enemies withstood them; the LORD delivered all (כל) their enemies into their hands. Not one of all (כל) the good things which the LORD had promised to the House of Israel was lacking. Everything (כל) was fulfilled

(Josh. 21:41–43; in some editions, vv. 43–45; translation custom).

“Here the repetition of the word kol seems meaningful: it is like a bell rung over and over so as to sound a continuous thematic note. We call a repeated word that helps give structure and meaning to a literary unit a “leading word.” (Bible scholars often use the German equivalent, Leitwort.) Leading words provide guidance to the reader; they are keys to a unit’s meaning.

Many contemporary translations—including that of Jewish Publishing Society (JPS)—seek to render the Hebrew’s plain sense into normal English idiom. Their translation approach often does not precisely convey the repetition of leading words in the original language. Partly, this is because normal English discourse avoids such repetitions as awkward or monotonous. More to the point, a given Hebrew word usually has more than one sense, and a plain-sense translation by nature chooses whichever English word best expresses its meaning in each context. A disadvantage of the idiomatic translation approach is that a biblical unit’s theme may literally be lost in translation, as our two summary passages in Joshua illustrate.

In contrast, other translation approaches are more sensitive to the text’s use of a leading word. In particular, in their Bible translation, the two great twentieth-century German-Jewish thinkers, Franz Rosenzweig and Martin Buber, reflected such repetitions whenever possible by repeating the same German word. A contemporary translator of the Bible into English, Everett Fox, is continuing to follow Buber and Rosenzweig’s principles.”[1]

When translations (on account of methodology or good English style) remove or obscure these repetitions or are unable, due to no fault of their own, to replicate them into the reciprocate language, some of the meaning is lost and what the author was attempting to do in crafting the book and its movements is lost. We, the 21st-century reader, can and do fail to catch the significance and importance of such movements when we are seeking to read and study the text. For this text, through the strategic use of leading words, Joshua highlights the claim that “the LORD gave to Israel the whole (כל) country which He had sworn to their fathers that He would assign to them” (Josh. 21:41). 

Footnotes

[1] Brettler, M. Z. (2005). How to Read the Bible (pp. 97–98). Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society

Several peer-reviewed articles have been written on this topic.[1] They have multitudinous views to share regarding this issue. Therein seems to be zero agreement between scholars outside of a religious context.[2] Perowne writes:

“There is scarcely any passage of the Old Testament, the true reading and interpretation of which have given rise to so much discussion”[3]

The issue here is the vowel pointing of many Masoretic manuscripts, which reads כָּ֝אֲרִ֗י kā·ʾǎr “like a lion” and which is followed by Jewish Publication Society (JPS), Complete Jewish Bible (CJB), Lexham English Bible (LEB), and New English Translation (NET). The reading is then “Dogs surround me; a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like lions they maul my hands and feet.” (JPS Tanakh). Whereas the LXX has ὤρυξαν ōryxan “dug,” supplying then “they have dug my hands and feet” which early Christian interpretation understood as “they have pierced my hands and feet”. We then find a similar rendering in Syriac and Latin translations.

“The LXX may already have been trying to make sense of a corrupt text by reading from כארו ידי ורגלי. Not finding a root כאר (bind), they corrected it with the Hebrew root כרה (dig), thereby giving the sense ‘to dig.’”[5] What is even stranger is that when we look into Aquila’s version and Symmachus’s readings it seems possible that, from an early period, there was a probable attempt to avoid association with Jesus by Greek-speaking Jews to purposely eschew the translation within those two versions.

“However, not only did these readings disagree, but Aquila himself produced two different readings. The first edition rendered the problematic word ᾔσχυναν, “they have disfigured,” but in the second, he changed it to ἐπέδησαν, “they have bound” (similar to Symmachus’s ὡς ζητοῦντες δῆσαι “like those who seek to bind”). Apparently, this second-century scholar, who earned a reputation for so conscientiously trying to render a translation as close as possible to the literal meaning of the original that the resulting Greek seemed poor and stilted, was uncertain about the Hebrew from which he worked. The word כארי, “like a lion,” which was eventually accepted by the Masoretes as the best text, may have gained popularity from a Jewish reaction to the Christian reading” [6]

This seems all the more likely since we find the pierced reading in a few Hebrew manuscript witnesses along with the Dead Sea Scrolls. [7] Likewise, Tertullian reads “’ They pierced,’ says He, ‘my hands and my feet,’” [8] and Chrysostom reads here “’ They pierced My hands and My feet, and parted My garments among them, and cast lots upon My vesture’ (Ps. 22:16, 18).” [9] Likewise, we find the same reading in Augustine, albeit much later.[10]

It would make good sense to say “to dig” of the LXX and other manuscripts (MSS) has the meaning “to pierce” with reference to hands and feet mentioned in the same passage. While the writer uses several animal motifs, he never uses them to describe himself; only his enemies. For if we translate the Hebrew of the Masoretic literally without supplying any words into the text, it would read “they have encircled me like the lion my hands and my feet...”, [11] making the lion apply to the Psalmist, which is something he does not do. Interestingly, the Masora notes themselves in Numbers 24:9 expressly deny the meaning of “as a lion” for כָּ֝אֲרִ֗י kā·ʾǎr which would seemingly detract from the classical Jewish reading here in the Psalms.

As we delve deeper and deeper into this issue, it seems all the more likely that the reading of the Masorites gained popularity as a Jewish reaction to the Christian reading. In fact, some later writers have some strong words on this issue such as Martin Luther, who said,

“To us, who believe in Christ—we hold that this entire psalm spoke about Christ with gospel authority—it is easy to prove that the reading should be “they pierced,” not “like a lion.” For we do not explain the substance according to Scripture’s mysteries, but we explain Scripture’s mysteries according to the substance. That is, we illuminate the ancient Scriptures with the gospel, not the other way around.… Therefore because we are certain that Christ’s hands and feet were nailed to the cross, nor are we less certain that this psalm fits Christ, moreover, the sense marvelously agrees and absolutely demands that “they pierced” be read, especially because no grammarian’s rigidity opposes it, without controversy and hesitation we read “they pierced.” But their absurdity will urge the first sense [“like a lion”] on our adversaries.… None of their nonsense will drown out our understanding, but everything fits most appropriately, so that even if neither caari nor caru had been placed there, still the substance would clearly teach what it means.…

The only grammar that remains should yield to theology. For the words yield and are subjected to the substance, not the substance to the words. And the expression rightly follows the sense and the letter, the Spirit.” [12]

Likewise, John Calvin had this to say,

“According to the text the phrase here is “like a lion at my hands.” Now, because all the Hebraica resources agree in this reading, to depart from such a consensus would have been taboo to me, except that the scope of the passage compels such a departure and there are credible reasons for conjecturing that this passage has been fraudulently corrupted by the Jews. At any rate there is no doubt that the Greek translators [LXX] read the letter wāw where the text now has a yôd. That the Jews jabber that the literal sense has been deliberately turned upside down by our rendering [“they have pierced”] has absolutely no justification. For what need was there to trifle so audaciously in an unimportant matter? But suspicion of falsehood—not at all trivial—falls on them, who with focused zeal seek to strip the crucified Jesus of his marks, lest he be found to be the Christ and Redeemer.

If we accept what they want to be the reading, the sense will be greatly confused and obscured. First, it will be ungrammatical speech. To complete the phrase, they say that it is necessary to supply the word besieging. But what is that? “To surround hands and feet”? For a siege considers not just these members but the entire person. Recognizing this, they flee to deluded fables—according to their custom—saying that when a lion comes across some prey, it makes a circle around it with its tail before it falls on its prey. From this, it is clear enough that they have no reason for their translation. Even so, because David used the simile of a lion in the verse before, its repetition here would be superfluous. I omit what some of our expositors have observed, that this word, when the letter for similes [kāp] is attached, should almost surely be pointed differently. Still, I am not striving to convince the Jews, whose obstinacy in disputes is untameable. I only wanted to show briefly how wickedly they attack Christians on account of their different reading of this passage.” [13]

It seems as though the grammarians of our day agree with the ancient grammarians, that כארי was commonly regarded as a verb is shown by the reading of two MSS. כארו (כָּאֲרוּ)  for כָּרוּ.

[Note: The remarks of Gesenius are sufficient to shew any unprejudiced reader that כָּאֲרִי in this passage, does not mean, as a lion; it is to be observed,

1.      That all the ancient versions take it as part of a verb, and most of them in the sense of to pierce; and this, as Gesenius has shewn, is explicable with the present reading.

2.      The Jews themselves (see the Masora on Num. 24:9.), expressly disclaim the meaning of “as a lion.”

3.     Ben Chaim states that, in the best MSS., he found a ק׳  and כ׳  on the word כארי, כארו.

4.      כָּאֲרוּ is actually the reading of some MSS. (see De Rossi). The sense will be just the same whether we read כארי as a participle pl., or whether we read כארו  pret. of the verb; the latter is apparently preferable. We may either take it from כּוּר with א inserted, or from a kindred root כאר (compare ראם and רוּם). It is hardly needful to state how certain it is that the Psalm applies to Christ and not to David; the authority of the New Testament proves this, even if it had not been clear from the contents of the Psalm.]” [14]

According to the New Testament, this Psalm is extremely important and according to the New Testament it is a messianic Psalm and all early Christians indeed read it this way. We have made clear that the rendering of “pierced” is indeed the way it should be read. It seems as though the Masorites clearly attempted to change it in response to Christian doctrine and so here is yet another example of Masoretic corruption of the Hebrew text.

Footnotes

[1] see Gary A. Rendsburg, “Philological Notes,” HS 43 (2002): 21–30; Brent A. Strawn, “Psalm 22:17b: More Guessing,” JBL 119 (2000): 439–51; John Kaltner, “Psalm 22:17b: Second Guessing ‘The Old Guess,’” JBL 117 (1998): 503–6; Gregory Vall, “Psalm 22:17B: ‘The Old Guess,’ ” JBL 116 (1997): 45–56.

[2] cf. J. J. M. Roberts, “A New Root for an Old Crux, Ps. XXII 17c,” VT 23 (1973): 247–52. Vall, “Psalm 22:17B,” 51–52. Rendsburg, “Philological Notes,” 25–26.

[3] Perowne, J.J. Stewart (1878). The Book of Psalms; A New Translation, with Introductions and Notes, Explanatory and Critical, Vol. 1. Pg. 246

[4] Brannan, R., Penner, K. M., Loken, I., Aubrey, M., & Hoogendyk, I. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Septuagint (Ps 21:17). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.’

[5] Swenson, K. M. (2004). Psalm 22:17: Circling around the Problem Again. Journal of Biblical Literature, 123, 638. see also Vall, “Psalm 22:17B,” 45. Further supporting (though not conclusively) this possibility of an early emendation of the LXX is the fact that it translates “many dogs” in the preceding clause.

[6] Swenson, K. M. (2004). Psalm 22:17: Circling around the Problem Again. Journal of Biblical Literature, 123, 638–639.

[7] “The only text from the Dead Sea Scrolls that corresponds to Ps 22:17 is XḤev/Se 4 frag. 11 line 4, dating from sometime in the second half of the first century to the second century C.E.). Peter Flint records it as כארו (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Psalms [STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 83, 87). However, the facsimile (PAM 42.190) reveals a badly faded text that is nearly impossible to read (see Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson, A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls [2 vols.; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991]). Furthermore, Strawn notes that other instances in the fragment indicate little difference between י and ו (“Psalm 22:17b,” 448 n. 41).” – found in (2004). Journal of Biblical Literature, 123. Later studies have shown however that the reading of “to pierce” in the DSS is clear see, Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., … Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (Ps 22:16). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[8] Tertullian. (1885). The Five Books against Marcion. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), P. Holmes (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 337). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

[9] John Chrysostom. (1889). Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. John. In P. Schaff (Ed.), G. T. Stupart (Trans.), Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and Epistle to the Hebrews (Vol. 14, p. 46). New York: Christian Literature Company.

[10] Augustine of Hippo. (1888). Expositions on the Book of Psalms. In P. Schaff (Ed.), A. C. Coxe (Trans.), Saint Augustin: Expositions on the Book of Psalms (Vol. 8, p. 59). New York: Christian Literature Company.

[11] checked against many Interlinears and resources such as The Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible, Hebrew English Interlinear Old Testament, Interlinear Scripture Analyzer, Reverse Interlinear’s in Logos, and a close look at each Hebrew word. 

[12] Selderhuis, H. J., George, T., Manetsch, S. M., & McNutt, D. W. (Eds.). (2015). Psalms 1–72: Old Testament (Vol. VII, pp. 177–178). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

[13] Selderhuis, H. J., George, T., Manetsch, S. M., & McNutt, D. W. (Eds.). (2015). Psalms 1–72: Old Testament (Vol. VII, p. 178). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

[14] Gesenius, W., & Tregelles, S. P. (2003). Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (p. 388). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

In previous posts, we have spoken of the cognitive environment of the Biblical text and its authors (see more in the introductory post here). This understanding is especially poignant when it comes to Abram. The narratives woven through Genesis 11:27-25:11 relate how Abrams family migrates from Ur (most likely associated with city life in Babylonia) and then settles in Haran (upper Mesopotamia) en route to Canaan. According to Joshua 24:2, 14, Abram’s father Terah (and so probably Abram himself) worshiped the Mesopotamian gods of their native land. This would make them aware of the literature of those people and the accounts of their gods and creation narratives. It is also true, based on the accounts we find in the Pentateuch, that Abram interacted with Kings and Pharaoh of various lands (Gen 14:13; 20:2, 11-14; 21:22-24). And he enjoyed good relations with settled communities (Gen 23:10, 18 mentions the city gate). All of this would have shaped the transmission of the accounts that later became part of the Pentateuch.

When we communicate with people, especially people of various religious beliefs and languages, we tend to pick up on commonalities and differences, and the oral/written accounts of Abram most certainly would have used religious language and commonly shared “cognitive environment” attributes in order to communicate to the people of the Ancient Near East (ANE) truths about the Most High God, and His plans, even if elements of how that God operated would have been strange to these people in certain ways (for example, sending Abram on a long journey only to not see the promises He made come to pass until generations later). This is crucial because if God wanted to communicate with Abram, his family, and the ancient people He would have needed to do so in language and communication that would be understandable to those people. From what we find in the Pentateuch that is exactly the case.

This demonstrates then why it is important for us to look at ANE texts, artifacts, images, iconography, and the like to formulate, to the best of our abilities, the common cognitive environment of that world so that we in the modern era can properly understand these ancient texts we call Scripture.

As Christians, we should have deep care and love for the Bible. We should want to understand it because it is God’s way of communicating His will, purposes in the world, way of living, holiness, love, and heart. With that being said, if we misunderstand a language then we will misunderstand a text. This is what makes linguistics and the study of the original languages important for a full understanding of the text of Scripture. God chose to communicate through Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, written by human authors, so if we want to respect His word we must have concern for topics such as linguistics and the original languages. This is the essential heart of this series of blog posts. In this post, we will give a basic introduction to language and meaning.

Linguistics is the study of language as language—that is, how language works as a system.[1]

In the process of studying patterns of language, linguists have discovered “that language is a system so organized that by learning a manageable set of elements and the rules for their combination, we can produce an indefinite variety of particular messages.”[2]

This means that there is a set of rules by which the system of language is set up, which we can use to understand what is being said throughout given texts and acts of communication. Examples of these rules at a basic level are the alphabet, vocabulary, paradigms, and syntax. 

Paradigms = A systematic arrangement of a group of words with the same root but different grammatical features. See also conjugation (verbs) and declension (nouns, pronouns, adjectives, articles).

Conjugation = The pattern of morphological changes to a verb.

Declension = The pattern of morphological inflection of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and articles.

Syntax = The word “syntax” comes from the Greek syntassein, which means “to place in order together.” According to Webster’s Dictionary “syntax” is “the way in which words are put together to form phrases, clauses, or sentences.” It is a branch of grammar.[3]

These are important concepts to understand in the study of language in order to form meaning, but there are also important concepts such as polysemy within language which is the ambiguity that a language allows and the multiple, related meanings it permits a given word to have (ex. diamond can mean a shape, a baseball infield, or a precious stone). “For non-native speakers of a language, polysemous words cause endless difficulty, but native speakers have no trouble understanding and correctly using different senses of the same word largely due to their greater familiarity with the socio-cultural context.”[4] Another important aspect of the study of language and any text within a given language is that that there can always be more than one way to say the same thing.

Example:

     Let’s have lunch at the café.

     I want to have lunch with you at the café.

     Do you want to go to the café for lunch?

     You and I should have lunch at the café.

     The café for lunch?

How such differences influence meaning and what motivates the speaker’s choice of one combination of words over another is an important key to meaning. This is the significance of linguistic choices and it informs meaning of any text. Someone who is just learning, or does not know a language well, will not be able to detect the importance of the choice of certain words and phrases and will thus have a hard time detecting the significance of their meaning.

Thus far, the linguistic principles we have introduced show you the importance of a broader understanding of language for grasping meaning. However, many people are interested in the meaning of words individually, and to this Grant Osborn has something helpful to say: 

“Contrary to popular assumptions, terms really do not carry meaning by themselves. It is true that some terms do produce a word picture in the mind, like “apple” or “house.” However, they confer this meaning as part of sentences or “speech acts,” and often they do not carry that particular meaning at all, as the term “pineapple” or the sentence “His suggestion housed several different ideas” illustrates.

Thus, there is no inherent meaning in a word. As Stephen Ullmann has noted, dictionaries give us the impression that words carry abstract content by their very nature (1964:39). Yet, in reality, words are arbitrary symbols that have meaning only in a context. They function on the basis of convention and practical use in any language system, and they must be studied descriptively, how they are actually employed, rather than prescriptively, according to preconceived rules. Nida provides a working definition of meaning as “a set of relations for which a verbal symbol is a sign” and adds that a word should be understood as “a token or a symbol for this or that meaning” (1975:14). Similarly, Benjamin Kedar begins his discussion by noting that speech is primarily a “symbol system” (1981:9). In other words, the individual term is not the basic unit of meaning. “As Saussure has shown decisively in one way, and Wittgenstein decisively in another, the meaning of a word depends not on what it is in itself but on its relation to other words and to other sentences which form its context” (Thiselton 1977:78–79).”[5]

“Semantic core of a word (the word-picture it calls up) is the result of convention and use, thus No necessary reason (i.e. inherent in Language or in the nature of things) why the word dog rather than, say, cat, is used of canines; otherwise we would not expect a Spanish speaker to be able to use a completely different symbol, perro, with the same meaning.”[6]

Below you will find the semantic triangle which is related to what Silva was saying above; it is how linguists determine meaning. 

“The “sense” is the picture built in the mind by the term, that image which is connoted. For instance, if we say ‘The ship is at the docks,’ we have a symbol (ship), a sense (a large boat) and a referent (the Queen Mary). Let us consider Peter’s confession at Philippi, ‘You are the Christ’ (Mk 8:29). The symbol ‘Christ’ actually refers to Jesus (as we know from the context) but its sense is that of the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. In most other cases we must deal with sense more than reference. Abstract terms like faith, hope, love fit only this former category. In tracing salvific terms in the Old Testament (see Sawyer 1972), we are dealing with sense relations.”[7]

The sense a word takes is thus dependent on the function it has in the larger linguistic unit, the sentence. This realization is at the heart of a structural view of language. Terms then only have meaning as part of the larger structure. Thus, context does not merely help us understand meaning, it virtually makes meaning as Silva asserts. So, this demonstrates the importance of linguistics and, as such, to come to correct and full meanings we must understand the construction and format the original languages take, which means having an understanding of the original languages if we are to come to full meaning of a given text. 

This means things like style, situational context, syntax, paradigms, linguistic units, rhetoric, genre, author, authorial use, discourse features, and the like. If we do not use these things as part of our exegetical tool bag, we will come to misunderstandings of the biblical text. This blog series is set to explore examples of this in order to express the importance of the original languages for the study of Scripture. For some, this means that they might want to learn the languages, for others it means to rely upon resources which can guide them in observing the important elements related to the original languages, and for yet others it may mean simply relying on other solid Christians who know the languages for things they may be missing in their studies of Scripture. 

Check back soon to read more on this topic!

[1] Widder, W. L. (2016). Introduction to Linguistics and the Bible. In D. Mangum & J. Westbury (Eds.), Linguistics & Biblical Exegesis (Vol. 2, p. 1). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[2] David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 10.

[3] Campbell, D. K. (1991). Foreword. In C. Bubeck Sr. (Ed.), Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (p. 117). Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook.

[4] Widder, W. L. (2016). Introduction to Linguistics and the Bible. In D. Mangum & J. Westbury (Eds.), Linguistics & Biblical Exegesis (Vol. 2, p. 3). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press

[5] Osborne, G. R. (2006). The hermeneutical spiral: a comprehensive introduction to biblical interpretation (Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed., p. 94). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

[6] Silva, Moises (1994). Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An introduction to Lexical Semantics. (pg. 104)

[7] Osborne, G. R. (2006). The hermeneutical spiral: a comprehensive introduction to biblical interpretation (Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed., p. 96). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

If there was a single book that, in one fell swoop, helped to deal with lots of poor biblical interpretation, and that every Christian should own, it would be D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies. For most people, this book will shatter what they thought they knew about Bible study and Bible passages. For others, it will strengthen their growing understanding of the biblical text. For yet others, it will help the beginner avoid the mistakes made by those who have come before them. Here are just a few quotes from the back cover:

“If given the attention it deserves, Exegetical Fallacies will make its readers more careful and honest expositors of the Bible” – Gerald Mattingly, the (Cincinnati) Seminary Review

“This book…is a must for teachers, pastors, and serious Bible Students. Carson’s methodological approach is full of wisdom, it is penetrating, and it is clearly expressed.” - Tomas Schreiner, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

“[It is]well written, easy to read, and thought-provoking. It is highly recommended to all who truly desire to handle accurately the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15)” – Jeff Guimont, Grace Theological Journal  

You know that a book is foundational and a must-have when other hermeneutics, inductive study, and Biblical interpretation books footnote it. That is true of this book. This book is a keystone work that was foundational when I (Raleigh) started studying God's word more seriously and it is one that every Christian should have in their library. If every Christian learned the content in its pages, then obviously poor or incorrect exegesis would be far less acceptable. If you learn the contents of this book well, you will be on a good track to being a thoughtful reader and listener of teachers, pastors, fellow brothers & sisters, and you will be on the path to avoiding all-too-common misinterpretations. This book is simply necessary to any serious Student of the Bible.

Psalms 2:12 is a unique case in the textual tradition of the Hebrew Bible where there is vast difference in manuscript traditions. Jacob ben Chayim’s Masoretic Recension as found in the Masoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, as well as codex Manuscriptus Hebraicus (which is a manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud known as the Munich codex Hebraicus 95), are the only two extant Hebrew Manuscripts which contain the Aramaic word בַ֡ר  bar which means “son,” instead of the Hebrew word for “son,” ben, which, if we take the word בַ֡ר   bar as “son,” would give the rendering:  

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. 

Ibn-Ezra also appears to support this rendering: 

“’‘Serve the Lord’ refers to HaShem, and ‘Kiss the Son’ refers to the Messiah; the meaning of bar, ‘son,’ is as we find it in Proverbs 31:2,’ [where “bar” appears three times, clearly meaning “son”] (Cited in The Messianic Outreach 11:2 (1992), p. 17).” [1]

The Peshitta and Jerome’s translation contain “son” as well. The Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (HOTTP) supports this rendering. It would appear, however, that other recensions of the Masoretic text do not contain the word and, in fact, many medieval manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible have בְרַגְלָיו (foot) instead. If we look to the LXX and vulgate [2] they both have “take hold of instruction” and Augustine reads in this verse “Lay hold of Discipline” [3]. The Targums also render “accept instruction” [4]. Here we have a complex textual issue then, not just in terms of manuscript disagreement but also in the appearance of Aramaic in this text.

If we date this Psalm to David’s time, that is pre-exilic [5], then we have the issue that Aramaic would not have emerged yet (Aramaic is understood to have emerged in the Babylonian exilic and post exilic periods) and thus the reading is not original. Likewise, we have the issue of the Psalm earlier using בֵּן bēn (v. 7), the Hebrew word for son, which makes this an especially strange place for an Aramaic insertion. It is for these reasons that this reading seems suspect to many scholars. The problem is that the disparity between LXX, Vulgate, Targums, medieval Hebrew manuscripts vs. the rendering found in the two earlier Hebrew witnesses to בַ֡ר   bar is so high that something has gone afoul here.

It has been suggested that the Aramaic word בַ֡ר   bar can mean “pure,” among other things, [6] which could mean that the word was misunderstood by the translators of the LXX and other versions. The problem with this view is that one, no modern lexicon or dictionary even gives “pure” as a possible meaning of בַ֡ר   bar [7] and there cannot be found a single example in any Aramaic text in or outside of Israel of the word being read in this way. And two, בַ֡ר   bar does appear in the Hebrew Bible in another text (Proverbs 31:2) where it is clearly talking of someone’s son. In fact, all the versions previously discussed (LXX, Vulgate, Targum, etc.) have son/child for that verse. And three, “… because many of the restless tribes on Israel’s threatened boarders were Arameans. Also, the poet may have wished to avoid a discordant rhyming assonance of ben with the next word pen (lest). The poet also used the Aramaic word rʽʽ (“to break”) in v. 9 instead of the normal Hebrew verb rṣṣ. The Aramaic word in that verse also confused the ancient translators.” [8] This would mean that the psalm was speaking of or to those Arameans who would be the ones commanded to kiss the son.

Many have argued that “kiss the son,” meaning the Messiah, cannot be justified by usage or context even still [9]. Thus, they have come up with various solutions to this issue. They propose emendations (changes) of vv. 11b-12a. For example, Robert Alter even admits that the Hebrew nashqu bar is difficult to translate and is a quite complicated textual issue. But his own solution of revocalizing bar as bor, "purity," and his taking of nashqu as "to bear [or wield] arms" both seem like something that can easily be defeated. He himself admits that the idea of an idiom meaning to arm oneself with purity is unattested to in the Bible. His rendering then, "with purity be armed" seems made as if to attempt to avoid the textual issue altogether while supplying a parallel to an earlier idea in the Psalm. However, his rendering is, by his own admission, a bit faulty and when you think through the decisions he made to get there they do not hold up well to scrutiny whatsoever. In trying to balance out the admittedly strange concoction of Aramaic and Hebrew in the text he created an even stranger and arguably more difficult to justify translation. 

Likewise, the rendering "kiss his feet" of the RSV & NRSV is not acceptable either as no manuscript contains the word "he." In fact, underlying the RSV and NRSV is still the word bar. The rendering seemingly attempts to avoid controversy at all and in doing so presents itself as the weakest translation of the bunch. There is no justification, not even unsurety, for translating bar as "his."

W. J. Holladay (VT 28 [1978]: 110–12), building on Dahood, conjectures nōšê qeber “forgetters of the grave.” Still, no ancient Heb. Mss. or versions have this reading, and the verb nšh is never used for nšk (“forget”) in the Psalms [10]. Thus, many “modern translations, like RSV and TEV, change the Hebrew text, either by emending it or punctuating it differently. (To emend the Hebrew text means to change it, either by a change of one or two letters in a word, or by a more extensive change, which at times may be based on the text of an ancient version such as the Greek Septuagint. Sometimes a distinction must be made between emending the Hebrew text and emending the Masoretic text, since in some passages some of the ancient Hebrew manuscripts, such as the Qumran manuscripts, will be different from the Masoretic text.) SPCL has “Worship the Lord with joy and reverence; bow down before him with fear”; NEB “tremble, and kiss the king”; NAB “with trembling pay homage to him”; NJB “with trembling kiss his feet” (also Zürcher Bibel [ZÜR]); NJV “pay homage in good faith”—with a footnote saying that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.” [11]

All of these have clear and attestable issues of changing the text or appealing to incorrect understandings of the word in question. We have already shown a number of points in favor of rendering בַ֡ר   bar as son and, in fact, that it would make sense for it to be the correct original rendering of the verse here. However, we would like to bring up yet another thing in support of this view. And that would be an example where Ancient Near Eastern iconography and background lends support to the verse’s veracity. 

“The Assyrian palace relief shows a scene which might have served as a model for Ps 2:12. The Assyrian king has conquered the Elamites and deposed the hostile king, Teumman. As agent of the Assyrian king, a general presents the nephew of the deposed Teumman for homage by the Elamite nobles.

The nephew is friendly to Assyria (cf Plate XXV//, part of the same scene). The first of the Elamite nobles is about to kiss the feet of the envoy of the Great King. Indeed, this homage before the new king is primarily a pledge of loyalty to the Great King who appointed him. Similarly, the homage of the "kings of the earth" before the Judaic king on Zion would be a tribute to Yahweh.” [12] 

The vassal kings in the Ancient Near East kissed the ground immediately before the feet of the overlord’s representative. In Ancient Near Eastern Pictures Relating to the Old Testament pg. 35a one can find the famous Black Obelisk showing the symbols of the Assyrian deities over the Assyrian king, and Jehu licking the dust at Shalmaneser’s feet. The NET Bible notes, 

“The verb נָשַׁק (nashaq, “kiss”) refers metonymically to showing homage (see 1 Sam 10:1; Hos 13:2). The exhortation in v. 12a advocates a genuine expression of allegiance and warns against insincerity. When swearing allegiance, vassal kings would sometimes do so insincerely, with the intent of rebelling when the time was right. The so-called “Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon” also warn against such an attitude. In this treaty the vassal is told: “If you, as you stand on the soil where this oath [is sworn], swear the oath with your words and lips [only], do not swear with your entire heart, do not transmit it to your sons who will live after this treaty, if you take this curse upon yourselves but do not plan to keep the treaty of Esarhaddon … may your sons and grandsons because of this fear in the future” (see J. B. Pritchard, e.d., The Ancient Near East, 2:62).”[13] 

This makes the most sense within the logic of the Psalm. The “son” who is understood as the Messiah-king, who is the representative of Yahweh on the earth, should be given homage. Because to show fidelity to him is to show fidelity to Yahweh which is true of other messianic and kingly texts in the Hebrew Bible and is true, again, of the Ancient Near Eastern environment around Israel. It is also very clearly true of Jesus in the New Testament. However, the logic clearly stands within the Psalm in its own environment and so, too, does the clear meaning of בַ֡ר bar as son and its Aramaic use here.

This is a good example of the majority of manuscripts not always being correct. It is also a good example of a few manuscripts in Hebrew and in the ancient rabbinic sources disagreeing with the Masoretic text (at least a number of recensions of it), showing that not all of the Masoretic manuscripts are uniform and not all are agreed upon. The messianic nature of this Psalm is clearly understood from early periods (see our Deity of Messiah study) and the usage of bar is not as problematic as some think and best fits the character, meaning, and purpose of the Psalm. A rendering only found in 2 Hebrew manuscripts including a rabbinic manuscript appears to be the best renderings we have for this text.

Tune in for more in the future.

Footnotes

[1] Stern, D. H. (1996). Jewish New Testament Commentary: a companion volume to the Jewish New Testament (electronic ed., 2 Co 4:1). Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications.

[2] Checked against the clementine vulgate and the Biblia Sacra Vulgate

[3] Augustine of Hippo. (1888). Expositions on the Book of Psalms. In P. Schaff (Ed.), A. C. Coxe (Trans.), Saint Augustin: Expositions on the Book of Psalms (Vol. 8, p. 4). New York: Christian Literature Company

[4] Cathcart, K., Maher, M., & McNamara, M. (Eds.). (2004). The Aramaic Bible: The Targum of Psalms. (D. M. Stec, Trans.) (Vol. 16, Ps 2:11–12). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press

[5] cf. Dahood, M., S. J. (2008). Psalms I: 1-50: Introduction, translation, and notes (Vol. 16, p. xxx). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

[6] Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 135). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[7] Checked against: Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994–2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 153). Leiden: E.J. Brill; Clines, D. J. A. (Ed.). (1993–2011). The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Vol. 2, p. 257). Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press; Sheffield Phoenix Press; Gesenius, W., & Tregelles, S. P. (2003). Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (p. 138). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[8] Waltke, B. K., Houston, J. M., & Moore, E. (2010). The Psalms as Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary (p. 177). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

[9] for example Briggs, C. A., & Briggs, E. G. (1906–1907). A critical and exegetical commentary on the book of Psalms (p. 17). New York: C. Scribner’s Sons.

[10] Waltke, B. K., Houston, J. M., & Moore, E. (2010). The Psalms as Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

[11] Bratcher, R. G., & Reyburn, W. D. (1991). A translator’s handbook on the book of Psalms (p. 32). New York: United Bible Societies.

[12] Keel, Othmar. (1997) The Symbolism of the Biblical world: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the book of the psalms. (p. 268).

[13] Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Ps 2:12). Biblical Studies Press.

When we look to the period of the Judges, the Israelite material culture and that of the Canaanites is indistinguishable. Material culture means the culture learned about through the items and objects those cultures made. For example, looking at some Iron Age (ca. 1200-1000) cooking pots and storage jars that were found at Giloh, we can see that they represent a pottery tradition continuous with the late Bronze Age. [1] Items such as these, the sour-room house, collared-rim stone jars, and hewn cisterns, were all once thought to distinguish the culture of the Israelites in the highlands from the Canaanite culture of the coast and valleys. However, now all these are attested to across the valleys, coast, and the entire extent of the Trans-Jordan. [2] If we look at the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age periods, burial patterns, Arcosolia, and bench tombs, we find that there are two types of rock-cut tombs that are attested to in all these regions across Canaanite and Israelite culture. [3][4]

At this point you may be asking yourself, why does this matter? Why does it have significance to reading more than the Bible? The answer is multifaceted. Showing that there was substantial cross culturalization in material culture contributes to the ideas that John Hilber (in Old Testament Cosmology and Divine Accommodation: A Relevance Theory Approach), John Walton (in Ancient Israelite Literature In Its Cultural Context), and Michael Heiser (in The Bible Unfiltered Approaching Scripture On Its Own Terms) develop, namely that understanding "cognitive environment" is essential to interpreting and understanding the biblical text. 

"Cognitive environment" may broadly be defined as the thought space of a particular culture or society. The environment of how that culture or people think about things (like the world, their god(s), and more) and communicate is shared because they have shared understandings of how things function in the world, shared cultural practice, shared figurative language, and the like. All of this means that we need to have some shared "cognitive environment" in the process of communication if we wish to understand each other.

A modern example would be good for demonstration. In the cognitive environment of English-speaking Western countries, I could lift up my hand in a fist and say "No, I am your father". Most people immediately know that I am referencing Star Wars and can use that knowledge to connect with whatever my communicative intention was by saying that line. However, if we were to go to a Middle Eastern country filled with people who do not watch Western movies, my communicative intention would be lost entirely. Even though the ancient people did not have movies, they still had elements of literature, culture, daily life, and understanding of the way the world works that would form a cognitive environment by which they would be able to communicate ideas and concepts cross-culturally. 

The fact that there is substantial material crossover between the Israelites and Canaanites contributes to the cognitive environment understanding, especially the example of the tombs because it shows they had practices, imagery, architecture, and more in common with one another. This, in addition to the study of these cultures, ancient texts, and languages, shows substantially that the peoples of the Ancient Near East (including Israel) had a shared "cognitive environment" which makes comparative study of these peoples and their texts essential if we want to understand the biblical text correctly. This is what it means to get into the mind of the ancient writers and readers of the biblical text in order to interpret the text in its own context. Remember, the Bible was written for us not to us. 

If you want to get more into the cognitive environment of the ancient people to better understand the Bible, check out our introduction blog post in this series to learn more. 

Stay Tuned.

Footnotes

[1] See A. Mazar, “Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site Near Jerusalem,” IEJ 31 (1981): 20-27, 32-33; Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites? 26, 28; I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988), 270-91, 337

[2] For a lack of diagnostic features distinguishing Canaanite and Israelite material culture in the Judges period, see Ahlström, Who Were the Israelites? 28-35; Callaway, “A New Perspective,” 37-41; W. G. Dever, “The Contribution of Archaeology to the Study of Canaanite and Early Israelite Religion,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 235; M. M. Ibrahim, “The Collared Rim Jar of the Early Iron Age,” in Archaeology and the Levant: Essays in Honor of Kathleen Kenyon, ed. R. Moorey and P. Parr (Warminster, England: Aris & Philips, 1978), 116-26; A. Schoors, “The Israelite Conquest: Textual Evidence in the Archaeological Argument,” in The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations, ed. E. Lipinski, Orientalia Lovansiensia Analecta 19 (Louvain: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985), 78-92. See also G. and O. van Beek, “Canaanite-Phoenician Architecture: The Development and Distribution of Two Styles,” El 15 (1981): 70*-74*. See also the continuity of the practice of terrace agriculture; see S. Gibson, “Agricultural Terraces and Settlement Expansion in the Highlands of Early Iron Age Palestine: Is There Any Correlation between the Two?” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar, with the assistance of G. Mathias, JSOTSup331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 113-46

[3] R. Gonen, “Regional Patterns and Burial Customs in Late Bronze Age Canaan,” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society (1984-85): 70-74; E. M. Bloch-Smith, “Burials, Israelite,” ABD 1.785-89; idem, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, JSOTSup 123, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). See also her essay, “The Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material Remains,” JBL 111 (1992): 213-24. See further R. Tappy, “Did the Dead Ever Die in Biblical Judah?” BASOR 298 (1995): 59-68.

[4] This information is derived from The Early History of God Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel pg. 58-59. Including the above footnotes. 

In Exodus 14:25 the Masoretic Text (MT) has a reading that does not cohere with the rest of the text, and it reads:

וַיָּ֗סַר אֵ֚ת אֹפַ֣ן מַרְכְּבֹתָ֔יו [1]

“...he removed the wheels of their chariots."[2]

In the story of Exodus 14, the Egyptian chariots continued onward toward the Israelites into the sea (v. 26-29). Thus, the reading found in the MT (KJV, NKJV, LEB) is simply incorrect in this text. For, if the wheels were removed how could the chariots continue towards the sea? Surely, they would have toppled over before reaching the sea at all. We must take an aside to speak of the Hebrew word וַיָּ֗סַר wǎy·yāʹ·sǎr. There are clear parallels to this word in the close Semitic languages of Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Old South Arabian with the meaning of “to remove.” HALOT gives the meaning of “to remove something.” [3] The KJV, NKJV, and LEB in fact supply the correct rendering here for the word from the MT: “took off"/"removed". So, it should be clear that the Hebrew word properly means "removed" and is an incorrect word to be used in this context. The solution is found in the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch (wy’sr), the Syriac Peshitta, and the Septuagint (LXX).  The LXX rendering is given below.

 kai synedēsen tous axonas autōn tōn harmatōn

“He bound the axles of their chariots." [4]

"Bound" is known to have the sense of clogged by many.[5] The majority of modern translations go with either the word or sense found in the LXX (ESV, RSV, NRSV, NET, JPS, etc..) or they translate out something like "He caused their chariot wheels to swerve" (NASB95, NLT, CSB). Either way, it should be clear from the context, the manuscript evidence, and the modern consensus of commentators, translators, and linguists, that the LXX rendering is correct, and the MT is incorrect.

While this particular issue does not create any major "doctrinal" problems, it does present a bizarre logic problem for the given text. The earlier commentators try to gloss over it and give a meaning to the word in the text that it does not have because as they were aware it did not work. However, it is best to simply understand that the MT got this text wrong. It i’s possible that the scribe misread the word here as the Syriac provides a word which could possibly if rendered in Hebrew, look close to וַיָּ֗סַר  wǎy·yāʹ·sǎr. that being wy’sr and, thus, it is possible the scribe simply copied incorrectly or misspelled. However, this is just speculation. In any case, it is clear that the MT is insufficient to give us a proper rendering of this text.

This demonstrates well the point of this blog series: there is no one text. The MT is by no means perfect, inspired, or correct in all points. Yes, textual criticism and textual families are important for proper translation and understanding of the biblical text. The reader need not be dismayed, however, because through the use of multiple translations, the translator footnotes therein, and perhaps either a good commentary or translation resources (like the NET Bible notes or the UBS handbooks) you, too, can easily access and be aware of the better readings and trust in your biblical text through diligent study in order to show yourself approved

Footnotes:

[1] The Lexham Hebrew Bible. (2012). (Ex 14:25). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[2] Van der Merwe, C. (2004). The Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible (Ex 14:25). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[3] Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994–2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 748). Leiden: E.J. Brill.

[4] Brannan, R., Penner, K. M., Loken, I., Aubrey, M., & Hoogendyk, I. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Septuagint (Ex 14:25). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[5] see, Owens, J. J. (1989). Analytical key to the Old Testament (Vol. 1, p. 302); Carpenter, E. (2012). Exodus. (Vol. 1, p. 519); Propp, W. H. C. (2008). Exodus 1–18: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 2, p. 500); The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Ex 14:25); etc.  

In James 5:10 the word ὑπόδειγμα hypodeigma, which translates example, model or copy, is found only two other times in the New Testament. An examination of its root δείκνυμι deiknymi, which translates to 'show', and its lexical field, the word group it exists within Greek, along with these other occurrences (Jn 13:15, 2 Pe 2:6) reveals that we are mainly able to translate it based upon its context and in relation to outside usage. A cross examination of Sirach 44:16 and 2 Maccabees 6:28 makes the translation of "example" with the meaning of "pattern/model" for our present text clear. Furthermore, Josephus, J.W. 6.2.1 gives even further attestation to the usage of this term that we find within the New Testament. Similarly, the tyrant Antiochus exhorts his troops using the example or model of the Maccabees, " For the tyrant Antiochus, when he saw the courage of their virtue and their endurance under the tortures, proclaimed them to his soldiers as an example (hypodeigma) for their own endurance" (4 Macc. 17:23); “Therefore, tyrant, put us to the test; and if you take our lives because of our religion, do not suppose that you can injure us by torturing us. For we through this severe suffering and endurance, shall have the prize of virtue and shall be with God, on whose account we suffer” (4 Macc. 9:8). Thus, the prophets were an example that form the basis of how we are to model our lives of faith. They show us the pattern we are meant to follow in Christ.

Our present term reflects the Maccabean tradition of the heroic example of the Jewish martyrs. In fact, the Greek itself parallels the Maccabean passage 4 Macc 9:8 "tēs kakopatheias kai hypomonēs." The phrase thus rendered "example of suffering" would refer to the prophet’s willingness to undergo persecution for the sake of the call of God, and those aware of the tradition would place the weight of the Maccabean suffering patiently for God’s sake on this dialogue as well.

This helps us to see why we need resources outside of the Bible, not only to translate the biblical text into English, but also to interpret those words correctly within their given contexts. This example does not end there, however, for verse 11 provides us with something all the more intriguing. 

 In v. 11 it states, "…You have heard of the longsuffering and patience of Job" (BE).[1] The word for "longsuffering and patience" is ὑπομονή hypomonē and it carries both of the meanings the Bible for Everyone uses above along with "expectation". The strange thing is that for anyone of us who has read the story of Job, "patience" and "longsuffering" (slow to anger) are not necessarily attributes of Job the reader is struck with even from the beginning of the story. However, the idea of these attributes being something applied to Job seems to be a striking echo of the apocryphal writing, the Testament of Job 1:5 which reads,

"I am your father Job, fully engaged in endurance. But you are a chosen and honored race from the seed of Jacob, the father of your mother."

Of course, if you read to the end of the story, Job does "endure". However, our present word does not simply imply endurance but also these other attributes we have discussed earlier. And in this tradition, along with others (see Aristeas the Exegete and Testament of Abraham), we find where the ideas come from, This helps us to better follow along with the reasoning of James’ argument in fusing together the imagery of Job, the Maccabean martyrs, and the prophets to teach us what the model of living for God really looks like, thus teaching us how we might live the way we should in accordance with our faith.

In going through this example, we have not only demonstrated why translators, and those who want to be sure of their exegesis, need texts outside the Bible, but also why the one who is reading the texts and trying to follow the argumentation through might need this information to follow the logic through completely as well. However, we would also like to point out that, as our ending note indicates, those who are not trained in the languages or skilled in finding parallels themselves, or who might not have the time, would benefit from secondary sources. Sources like theological dictionaries, commentaries, and encyclopedias, composed by those who have been given to the task of finding such parallels and expounding upon them, will aid you in your study. Therefore, when trying to understand the Scriptures, such resources can be invaluable to coming to correct final views of the text. This is why we should use original sources and the secondary material to aid us in our Bible study. 

For more on this topic see "The Testament of Job: Job Becomes an Example of Patient Endurance" in deSilva, David A. The Jewish Teachers of Jesus, James, and Jude: What Early Christians Learned from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha page 237.

Footnotes -

Goldingay, J., & Wright, T. (2018). The Bible for Everyone: A New Translation (Jas 5:10). London: SPCK.

Charlesworth, J. H. (1983). The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1, p. 839). New York; London: Yale University Press.