麻豆影院

CU-麻豆影院 prof employs 23 ancient Near East languages in a quest for biblical understanding

Modern readers of the Holy Bible鈥攂oth the Hebrew Bible and New Testament鈥攐ften say that context is critical.

Samuel Boyd, assistant professor of religious studies at the 麻豆影院, heartily agrees. And he should know.

After all, when he conducts research into the origins and interpretation of the Bible, he has no fewer than 23 ancient NearEast tongues at his disposal, including four dialects of both Hebrew and Aramaic 鈥� the language of Jesus 鈥� and two each of Greek and Babylonian, not to mention Hittite, Ugaritic, Ethiopic, Punic and others.

鈥淭o really study biblical texts in their historical contexts, how they were produced, how they were handled by ancient audiences, you have got to touch all these ancient languages,鈥� says Boyd, who recently was named the Rocky Mountains-Great Plains Regional Scholar for 2016 by the Society of Biblical Literature.

鈥淚f someone wants to travel with me to Finland, I鈥檓 useless. But if you ever want me to translate ancient Phoenician, I can help.鈥�

In truth, many modern Bible adherents haven鈥檛 even read the full text in English, much less in its original languages, and few understand the historical, legal, cultural or linguistic contexts in which the documents came to be written.

Boyd can tell you, for example, how the many names for God in the Hebrew Bible (known to many Christians as the Old Testament)鈥擜donai, Elohim, El Elyon, Pachad Itzak (Isaac鈥檚 fear), 鈥渞ider of the clouds鈥� and more鈥攔eveal the polytheistic heritage of the ancient Israelites.

鈥淚n Psalm 68, god is called a 鈥榬ider of the clouds.鈥� That鈥檚 the same imagery, the same phraseology, as a storm god in Ugaritic named Baal,鈥� Boyd says. Baal is known to most modern Bible readers only as a 鈥渇alse god鈥� worshipped by the Israelites.

Boyd says the ancient Hebrews moved toward a monotheistic concept of God at least partly as a result of continual suffering at the hands of bigger, more powerful societies. In ancient cultures, destruction of a god鈥檚 temple and exile of its people was clearly understood as the defeat of that deity. But following the Israelites鈥� period of Babylonian exile, they began to refashion their concept of god.

鈥淭hey asked, 鈥榃hat if our god didn鈥檛 lose? What if he鈥檚 more transcendent? What if it鈥檚 our fault? What if there鈥檚 really only one God?鈥欌�� Boyd says.

Despite the protests of biblical literalists, scholarship on the historical and linguistic context of the Bible reveals a highly mutable, indisputably human document. Boyd sees modern attempts to read the book as inerrant as fraught with danger. For example, Leviticus 18 is commonly interpreted as condemning homosexuality.

鈥淟eviticus 18 is one opinion (on homosexuality). But it鈥檚 not the only one in the ancient context,鈥� Boyd says. 鈥淭he way we conceive of law codes wasn鈥檛 practiced in the ancient world. There was a statue in the back of the temple with the law, and most people couldn鈥檛 read. Law codes were ideological, not practiced. If we are going to use Leviticus 18 in modern political debates, what gives us that right, when it wasn鈥檛 practiced as part of a law code to begin with?鈥�

Boyd, who has done archaeological work in southern Turkey and Israel, is distressed about the loss of monuments and other evidence to violence in the Middle East, as groups like the Islamic State seek to destroy anything that does not agree with its interpretation of the Quran.

鈥淚t鈥檚 so sad that we live in a time when monuments are being lost by the second,鈥� he says. 鈥淚 try to use that as leverage in class, to show how important this knowledge is.鈥�

Boyd approaches his subjects from a strictly secular, scholarly perspective in the classroom, fully aware that he may challenge students who are believers.

鈥淭hat can be threatening for students, to know that the person standing up there is affirming that these documents aren鈥檛 inerrant, that they are human productions,鈥� he says.

鈥淏ut I鈥檓 not there to tell them if God exists, or attack anyone鈥檚 beliefs or convert them. I just want them to think critically about a fascinating book. 鈥� It鈥檚 like Plato鈥檚 caves: Wouldn鈥檛 you rather go see everything in the light? It鈥檚 so much more interesting that way.鈥�

Clay Evans is a free-lance writer in 麻豆影院.

听