The Branch of the Lord - A Superior Reading in the MT?

It is often claimed that the LXX provides clearer and more precise translations of messianic prophecies in the OT, where the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) obscures them. In at least one cases shown here, the reverse appears to be the case:

Is. 4:2

(MT) ביום ההוא יהיה צמח יהוה לצבי ולכבוד ופרי הארץ לגאון ולתפארת לפליטת ישראל
bayyōm hahū' yihyeh ṣemaḥ yhwh lǝṣḇī ūlḵāḇōḏ ūprī hā'āreṣ lǝgā'ōn ūlṯip'ereṯ liplēṭaṯ yiśrā'ēl.
In that day, the Branch of the LORD will be comely and glorious, and the fruit of the earth will be majestic and beautiful for the escaped of Israel.

(LXX) τῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἐπιλάμψει ὁ θεός ἐν βουλῇ μετὰ δόξης ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τοῦ ὑψῶσαι καὶ δοξάσαι τὸ καταλειφθὲν τοῦ Ισραηλ
In that day, God will shine in counsel with glory upon the earth to exalt and glorify the escaped of Israel.

Given that the original Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX was unvocalized, it is apparent that the LXX translators read צמח as the verb ṣāmaḥ, meaning "to shine forth," rather than the noun ṣemaḥ, "branch." However, in order to do this, the verb must be paraphrastic with the preceeding yihyeh "it will be", giving a participial construction, yihyeh ṡōmeaḥ "he will be shining forth."

The syntax of the rest of the sentence is also problematical with the ל prepositional phrases used with nouns apparently giving an adjectival meaning - literally "to/for beauty, etc." One would expect the ב preposition "in/with/by." The LXX misunderstood this peculiar syntax, and conequently the phrase "the fruits of the earth." (The Syriac Peshitta follows the LXX, but the Vulgate the Hebrew with germen, "bud or shoot").

While the Hebrew is difficult, it is not beyond the expression of Hebrew poetry, which will often use these a more obscure syntax in order to maintain parallelism or some other kind of poetic device.

It is interesting to note that the Aramaic Targum translates and interprets this verse correctly, or rather in a messianic manner, giving יהי משיחא דיוי, yhē mšīḥā dywy, "The Messiah of the LORD will be."

While this is one isolated case, I believe that this shows the MT (also the pre-Masoretic texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls) to not be wholly corrupt, but a valuable resource to occasionally consult in conjunction with the LXX and the other translations such as the Peshitta and the Vulgate which have been used within the Church. While the LXX will forever remain (and rightly so) the authoritative OT for the Church, and God must have his reasons for inspiring it the way he did, I do not believe that these good prophetic and messianic readings found in the Hebrew are abrogated or nullified by the differing LXX translation, nor the contrary that the LXX is somehow abrogated or nullified by a "better" Hebrew reading. Rather, both may stand side by side interpreting one another together.

Back in the Coffee Roasting Business

Well not business per se - I'm not actually selling my coffee. But, yes after a long hiatus, I roasted my first batch of coffee in a long while. I did manage a few batches in late August while I was on vacation with my family, but they were coffees that I had previously roasted on many occasions - my stock favorites of Ethiopia Harar and Arabian Mokha Sanani. The present goal is two-fold: to produce a great espresso blend or two, and build a repertoire of coffees for general drip and French press brewing. I have found a few coffees that work as single-origin espressos, but no blend has yet grabbed my attention.

My most recent roast is the Brazil Jakabu Bird Coffee. As you might guess this is one of the rare "animal-processed" coffees, which means that an animal, sometimes a monkey and in this case a bird, eats a coffee cherry, which is "processed" as the cherry is digested and passed through the bird's system. The waste product is a perfectly unharmed coffee bean, which is subsequently washed and readied for shipping. To be quite honest, this is not an amazing coffee in and of itself. The initial flavor is a strong nutty, roasty flavor which increases as the coffee cools. At lower temperatures, the flavor is overpowering and quite nasty. However, at brew temperature, the coffee is good, but not great. It has great body, which makes a hardy cup of coffee. A light chocolaty sweetness is detectable on the finish preventing the nuttyness from being too overwhelming. The only perk to his coffee is knowing where it comes from, although some might be a bit too squeamish for that sort of thing. It's a novelty and nothing more.

More tasting notes to come!

New Books on the Psalter

I discovered two new books on the Psalter today while browsing the Seminary Co-op. 1st is a comparative Psalter with parallel versions of the Masoretic text, the LXX, the NRSV, and the New English Translation of the LXX. It looks to be a valuable resource for those who wish to do comparative work but do not have access to an electronic version such as Bible Works or Accordance. The other is a new translation with commentary of the MT Psalter by Robert Alter. Alter is known for his artful renderings of the Old Testament due to emphasis on the narrative structure and other literary features of the Hebrew Bible. While his translation would never be appropriate for liturgical use (or private devotion for that matter), his rendering of the Psalter will no doubt provide excellent insights into native Hebrew tradition from which it sprang.

(Gabriel, if you ever wish to borrow these, let me know. My library is your library.)

On the Orthodox Western Rite

While trudging through the discouragingly difficult syntax of Syriac poetry this morning, I began listening to the King's College Choir of Cambridge production of the Mass of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, one of my favorite recordings of Gregorian chant. While listening to this recording, I was reminded of all that I truly love about the pre-schism Western Rite. In a word, it is the aesthetic of the pre-schism Western Church that I love. The sweet melodies of Gregorian plainsong bring it all back to me. After listening to rather copious amounts of liturgical chant the past few days on Ancient Faith Radio, I think Gregorian plainsong is perhaps my favorite among styles of chant. Some (but certainly not all) Russian chant, while very beautiful, often becomes too ornate and artsy, given the influence of later Western music. While the Divine Liturgies of Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky are beautiful to listen to, in the words of iconographer Vladislov Andrejev, they are not "iconic" of the Orthodox tradition. Some Russian choral arrangements of Orthodox liturgical pieces are so complex as to be almost impossible for an average parish choir to sing, and even more impossible for the congregation to join in singing with (which is, of course, the purpose of having a parish choir: to lead the congregation). Byzantine chant, on the other hand, avoids much of the temptations of Russian music in that it is wholly different than any form of secular music. There is no four-part harmony or counterpoint to allow the composer or arranger to add his or her "artistic expression." Liturgical music is not "art," per se, but rather an icon of the worship and theology of the Church, and as such, it should be devoid of humanistic artistic expression. While Byzantine chant accomplishes this, to Western ears, it is often dissonant and even jarring. While some, like myself, eventually get used to the melodies of Byzantine chant and even grow to love them, most westerners remain culturally alienated from it. Gregorian plainsong, then is, in my opinion, a wonderful alternative for Westerners, having the iconic simplicity of Byzantine chant, yet with tonal melodies that are pleasing to the Western ear.

This aesthetic of the pre-schism Western tradition is broader than liturgical music, but extends throughout the visual and auricular liturgical expressions, be it the vestments, architecture, the the Liturgy and Daily Office, and even the Western iconographic tradition (before the Renaissance). It is this aesthetic expressing the Western Orthodox tradition that has nourished countless Western saints unto salvation, saints such as St. Benedict, St. Bede, St. Patrick, and others. It is because of these saints that we know that at least in their time, the Western liturgical tradition was Orthodox, divinely inspired, and profitable for salvation.

Whether it is in our own day, is a matter of serious debate among the Orthodox. Saints and sinners alike have added their voice to the debate, and only time will tell who is right. I often remind people that, at least in my opinion, the Orthodox Western right is still in a "beta" stage, if you will excuse the computer analogy. There is still much work to be done by our clergy to standardize and Western Rite. As all things regarding the Church, these decisions and actions are not made overnight, but take time as our bishops discern the Holy Spirit and "rightly divide the word of truth." It is in this state of development that the Orthodox Western Rite may leave some, including myself, with an uneasy feeling at certain points, points where the aesthetic described above is obscured. Of course, this is a subjective judgment, and not at all worthy of being a standard. Yet, when the magnificent Gregorian plainsong is substituted for Willin or Marbeck, and acapella voices are substituted for organs, my sense of the aesthetic that originally brought me to Orthodoxy is obscured. This is not merely a Western Rite phenomenon. As I explained above, some Russian liturgical music suffers from the same ill effects, and organs are not unknown in the Greek churches. Again, why are they bad, in my opinion? Because they are not iconic. We know the difference between a Byzantine icon and De Vinci's Last Supper. But, as even the history of the iconographic tradition demonstrates, that distinction is often obscured. Thankfully, God still works his grace in spite of it, and men and women are saved, but it is not ideal.

What is the conclusion of the matter? I simply wish to express a bit of sympathy with those who are critical of the Western Rite. I understand these criticisms, and believe that they are valid points to be made. However, I urge patience among those who are quick to dismiss the Western Rite as I truly believe from experience, that there is something truly worth reviving in the Western tradition, something iconic that accurately and beautifully reflects the glory of our God as does the Eastern tradition. Instead of opposing the saints and bishops who have worked to establish the Orthodox Western Rite, let us pray with them and for them, that the Western Rite may continue to mature and grow in accordance with the inspiration and grace of the Holy Spirit.

The Cockpit or The Library?

Sometimes I glance up at the sky watching a 747 make its final approach, and I wonder, whether or not I made the right career decision. The cockpit of a Piper Warrior became my 'office' for two months as I finished my flight training. The plane I flew, "Tuna," took on special sentimental significance for me (excuse the alliteration). Sitting in Tuna's left seat for those thirty-some-odd hours was an experience that I will take with me for the rest of my life. It was wonderful, not because it was easy and "fun," although it was a blast. No, it was difficult - perhaps the greatest challenge I have faced thus far. As I have explained to several people, flying requires of me an entirely different set of skills than Semitic philology. In the library, I sit with my dictionaries and grammars where I am at leisure to take as much time as I need to solve a philological problem. I may spend half and hour or more working through just one difficult sentence. In the air, I am required to make split-second decisions, communicate with ATC, maintain situational awareness, and respond to emergency situations with quick, calm, and decisive action. All of this is is mental, but it must be translated into tactile responses through the manipulation of the flight controls. Pitch + Power = Performance, etc. The result of meeting this challenge and developing these skills is great satisfaction at achieving a monumental goal and the thrill of getting to experience the miracle of flight while being at the controls.

But I am equally thrilled when working with the languages and history of the ancient world. I find great wonder and awe in deciphering an ancient Aramaic inscription or reading the Dead Sea Scrolls. I know that I am at the University of Chicago doing what I love, and I know that my motives for doing it are not tied into some fruitless and vain desire to "understand the Bible more" by learning the Biblical languages. Orthodoxy has given me all that I could ever want or handle in that regard. That is not to say there is no connection between my faith and my studies of the ancient and medieval Near East. There is a sense that, in studying these eras, I can vicariously live in them and experience them - the very eras that gave birth to and developed the faith that I cherish. The fact that I have the privilege to study them here at the University of Chicago is a blessing that I never want to take lightly. At the end of the day, the fact that I am here, instead of Embrey Riddle Aeronautical University, confirms that I am doing the right thing.

But what about the cockpit? Where does that fit in to my life? I am not quite sure yet, but I hope and pray that it will factor in to things in some significant way. At any rate, what drives me to achieve at both of these fields of study and others is the desire to be excellent at them, to master them, to achieve. Whether it be reading ancient languages, flying airplanes, drawing portraits, or roasting coffee, I want to take the desires, talents, and gifts that God has given me, and put them to use. I suppose it is like the parable of the talents - I hope to make many returns on the blessings that have been given to me.

The FAA Check Ride

I'm back! I apologize to my (few) readers for my web-logging hiatus. I have been "under the gun" so-to-speak in finishing by flight training. For those of you who were keeping up with my training, for your own purposes, I will give you an update and a description of its conclusion.

I stopped logging each flight as it became too tedious and repetitious to do so. The basic trajectory of my training went as follows -

There are two overarching parts to flight training - the actual flight experience and the ground instruction. The flight training itself is preparation for the practical check ride with an FAA examiner, and the ground instruction is preparation for the written FAA knowledge test as well as the oral portion of the check ride. In my case, since I had completed the ground school offered by my flight school several years ago, my instructor trusted me to study on my own to prepare for the written exam. I went through the ASA Private Pilot study guide, which contains every question and answer on the exam verbatim. Having this and other resources available made the actual exam quite easy.

The flight training was initially concerned with satisfying the various hour requirements set by the FAA for the student pilot. This included ten hours of cross-country flight, five of which were to be solo, three hours of night flight, three take-offs and landings at a towered airport, etc. After satisfying these requirements (which was a challenge in the Houston weather), my training took a more focused approach to preparing for the check ride.

The check ride contains two portions - a cross-country portion and a maneuver portion. The general tendency of examiners is to have the student set out on a cross-country flight to a predetermined location. After reaching the first checkpoint having demonstrated adequate pilotage and dead-reckoning skills, the examiner will give the student a diversion to an unknown airport. This exercise is intended to simulate a situation where the intended destination is under inclimate weather or such that would prevent the pilot from reaching it. On the diversion, the pilot is to turn in the general direction of the airport, and begin plotting a new course on the sectional chart. A general heading corrected for magnetic deviation and wind is to be calculated as well as distance, time enroute, and fuel consumption. These calculations are done with the E6B flight computer either manual or electronic. After these calculations are completed, the examiner will have the student perform steep turns at +- 10 KIAS and +- 100ft indicated altitude and enter slow-flight and demonstrate power-off and power-on stalls and recovery. At the same altitude, the student will "go under the hood" and demonstrate simulated instrument procedures including straight and level flight, standard rate turns, VOR tracking, and unusual attitude recovery. Subsequently, after descending to 1000 ft AGL, the examiner will have the student preform a series of ground-reference maneuvers such as turns-about-a-point and S-turns. At some point, the examiner will initiate a simulated emergency situation such as an engine-out. The student must demonstrate restart procedures and finding an adequate field to make the forced landing. This is a good time to demonstrate a slip-to-landing and go-around. Subsequently, the student will return to the airport to demonstrated short- and soft-field take-offs and landings. This concludes the check ride. If the student has demonstrated each section to satisfaction within the prescribed error margins, he or she will be awarded a private pilot's certificate.

I am happy to say, that I passed and am now a licensed pilot.

My checkride was a bit rough due to the weather and the fact that my examiner was easily distracted by other trivia going about in the flight school. We were barely able to make the required altitude for slow-flight and steep turns. If the ceiling was just 500 feet lower, we would have had to scrub the whole thing. The cross-country portion went well and very quick. He allowed me to home in on the Navasota VOR and even keep the Garmin 430 GPS up, though I did not use it. After I got my first check point, he gave me the diversion, which I quickly calculated, and we were on to the maneuvers. Because of the weather (I assume) he did not ask me to do all of the maneuvers. We did about 1.5 turns about a point, and no S-turns. The emergency procedure was an engine-out, which, at the advice of my instructors, I was warned would be close to a grass strip somewhere. As soon as he cut the throttle, I glanced at the GPS, and, sure enough, 9X9 was just behind me. After running through my re-start sequence, I turned the plane around and slipped into the approach and performed a go-around, satisfying three requirements at one time. That saved me a great deal of time that I needed because of the weather. As we climbed out, we noticed a funnel cloud about five miles to the west that was threatening to drop. Thankfully, it did not. Back in the pattern at Weiser, I finished up the checkride with my short-field and soft-field takeoffs and landings. My short-field landing was extremely hard - I mean, I really plopped the thing down. But, no matter, as long as I touch down within the 200 ft margin, it passes. I even cut the throttle so hard that the engine almost quit on me, I was barely able to get it restarted on taxi. My soft-field was fine, but again hard, partially do to a nasty crosswind from an impending thunderstorm to the south. We were just getting the downdrafts from that cell as we made our final landing. Because of the hard landings, I was a bit unsure of the outcome, so I was relieved to see Mr. Gandy whip out the yellow booklet of temporary airmen's certificates instead of the pink try-it-again-next-time slips. After the thunderstorm had passed, we took the customary photo, and I was off with my new pilot's license.

And that is that - now to build pilot-in-command hours here in Chicago and prepare to work on my instrument rating.

For all of you reading this who are or will be flying at MVP, drop me any questions, and I will be happy to answer them.

Messianic Prophecy in Habakkuk

Before I continue my exegesis of Habakkuk 2:4, I want to share an interesting find a little further on in this extraordinary book.

Habakkuk 3:13 is perhaps the most explicit case of what Christians would interpret to be Messianic prophecy in Habakkuk, prompting even the Orthodox canon of Paschal matins to include a reference to Habakkuk's vision of the Messiah. Most interesting in this verse is the ambiguity that exists in the Hebrew text which is translated differently by the various versions (LXX, Targum, Vulgate, etc.)

The Hebrew text reads as follows:
יצאת לישע עמך לישע את-משיחך
yaṣā'ṯā lyēša' 'āmmekā lyēša' 'et-mšīḥekā
"You went out to save your people, to save (with) your Anointed."

The issue revolves around the particle את, which, depending upon context, may signify two different particles which have fallen together in Hebrew orthography and pronunciation. The first is the common definite direct object marker. When a direct object is definite, i.e. possesses a definite article, a possessive pronoun, or is a proper noun, it may take this particle to signify it as the direct object. The first verse of the Bible says that God created את-the heavens and את-the earth. The second particle is the (somewhat rare) preposition meaning "with." Both are written and pronounced exactly the same when written without pronominal suffixes. So, which one is it?

The LXX opted for the former by simply giving the accusative of χριστος. However, strangely enough, it gives the plural τους χριστους instead of the singular as we might expect. The translation of the LXX would read "to save (his) anointed ones." (note: this reading is supported by a few Hebrew mss. as well as codes Vaticanus and Siniaticus of the LXX. Because I do not have a full LXX critical apparatus with me at the moment, I cannot give a more complete analysis of the extant sources. Perhaps my good friend Gabriel can supply me with the official Orthodox LXX reading.)

The Aramaic Targum agrees with the LXX by giving the equivalent of את, which, in Aramaic is the rare particle ית, a derivative of the same proto-Semitic particle.

The Latin Vulgate, reads the particle to be the preposition, giving "cum christo tuo."

( I would also give the Syriac text, though I do not currently have it with me, though I will supply it when I get it.)

The Hebrew text itself is ambiguous. The translations, on the other hand, offer (roughly) three different interpretations:

• The LXX (B,S) appears to generalize the statement and place it in closer parallelism with "to save your people." As "people" is a collective reference to a plurality of individuals, the translator of the LXX thought it appropriate to supply a plural term in the second parallel colon.
• The Aramaic Targum states that the Lord will "save his anointed." From a Christian perspective, this is entirely congruent with other Messianic prophecies where the resurrection is pictured as the Lord's salvation of the Messiah from corruption, death, etc.
• The Vulgate gives the most explicit Messianic interpretation that the Lord will "save with his Anointed."

Which one is correct? Perhaps there is room for all three to be correct and offer different perspectives on the salvific work of the Messiah and the subsequent "anointing" of all who follow him in faith and obedience.