Faith | Freedom | Family

NO HIDING: Finding Faith & Freedom to walk out an authentic relationship with God, His Family, and His Word. Through: Biblical Studies | Stories | Scholarship

Search This Blog

Friday, May 9, 2025

Class Assignment: John 2.13-15 Table Flipping Jesus in the Fourth Gospel

For a link to this paper in paper format: John 2.13-15 Table Flipping Jesus in the Fourth Gospel

INTERPRETIVE WORKING PAPER (IWP)

John 2:13–25 | Table Flipping Jesus in the Fourth Gospel

by Darrell Wolfe

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the course New Testament Introduction: New Testament Introduction

Professor Janette Ok

Monday, April 14, 2025

 

I - TABLE FLIPPING JESUS

JOHN 2:13–25

“The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, with the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” The Jews then said to him, “What sign can you show us for doing this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking of the temple of his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. When he was in Jerusalem during the Passover festival, many believed in his name because they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to testify about anyone, for he himself knew what was in everyone.” (John 2:13–25, NRSVue)[1]

OUTLINE of John 2:13–25 (NRSVue)

1.      Introduction and Setting (v. 13–14)

a.       New Scene: Passover in Jerusalem (v. 13)

b.      Upon arrival, merchants are selling things at their tables (v. 14)

                                                              i.      Background Context Required for Conflict: Tanakh and 2nd Temple Judaism.

2.      Jesus Flips Out (v. 15–16)

a.       Jesus ‘Flips Out’ (v. 15)

b.      Jesus Explains His Anger (v. 16)

3.      Parenthetical Authorial Interpretation (v. 17)

a.       Author inserts interpretation for the reader (motive) (v. 17)

4.      Jesus’ Authority Challenged (v. 18–20)

a.       Unidentified “Jews” challenge his authority (v. 18)

b.      Jesus responds with a cryptic response (which John’s author will payoff in a future section) (v. 19)

c.       Unidentified “Jews” scoff at his cryptic response (v. 20)

5.      Parenthetical Authorial Interpretation (v. 21)

a.       Author inserts interpretation for the reader (the key to the cryptic response) (v. 21)

Note: This is parenthetical to the above section, and not part of the conclusion

6.      Conclusion: Authorial Interpretation with Hindsight (v. 22-25)

a.       Author inserts a final interpretation for the reader (v. 22-25)

                                                              i.      Foreshadowing the end of the gospel (v. 22)

                                                            ii.      Results of his actions, many believe (v. 23)

                                                          iii.      Hesitance in Jesus to get too close (Messianic Secret) (v. 24)

                                                          iv.      Omniscient Jesus (or at least wisely cautious) (v. 25)

II - EXEGETICAL ISSUES

Boundaries

In the Fourth Gospel (John), 2:12 ends with a conclusion for the previous pericope, v. 13 picks up with a new scene setting to start a new narrative entry. One could argue that the pericope ends with v. 22 as the conclusion of the event. However, the author continues the interpretive conclusion into v.25, and 3:1 begins a new narrative pericope with a new introduction. So, the data-driven boundaries are 2:12-25.

Translations

The key to this pericope is Jesus’ anger at the temple workers. The following translations reflect a strong similarity in the migration of the Greek for this pericope into English. While the synoptics use a different phrasing (“cave of robbers”), the author of the Fourth Gospel is focused on turning the Sacred Space of Yahweh’s temple into a common profit center, or business center.

·         He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!”” (John 2:16, NRSVue)

·         And to the ones selling the doves he said, “Take these things away from here! Do not make my Father’s house a marketplace!”” (John 2:16, LEB)

·         To those who sold the doves he said, “Take these things away from here! Do not make my Father’s house a marketplace!”” (John 2:16, NET 2nd ed.)

·         He said to the dove sellers, “Get these things out of here! Don’t make my Father’s house a place of business.”” (John 2:16, CEB)

·         And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.” (John 2:16, KJV 1900)

·         and to the pigeon-sellers he said, “Get these things out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market?”” (John 2:16, CJB)

·         And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”” (John 2:16, ESV)

Keywords

·         Key Words: Temple and House, Hebrew (בַּ֫יִת, bayit) Greek (οἶκος, oikos) has intricate ties to the Tanakh, specifically 2 Samuel 7 (David’s House / Yahweh’s House), see discussion below.

·         Key Words: Marketplace (Greek: ἐμπόριον, emporion). It is worth noting that the synoptics all use “den of thieves” or “cave or robbers” for this in lieu of “Marketplace”, indicating a different narrative goal or possibly a different oral tradition.

Authorship

            Echevarría points out that the gospels were all originally anonymous, being assigned authorship as they were shared in early Jesus communities.[2] While many attribute authorship either to the apostle John or John the Elder, deSilva posits an interesting case for understanding the author as Lazurus.[3] Whoever the Beloved Disciple was, his testimony has the feel of someone intimately familiar with Jesus and with the life situation of the residence of Israel before the temple was destroyed. Keener points out that the author of this gospel is “noteworthy not for including the Greek translation but rather for including the Semitic terms that are translated.”[4] Johannine scholarship has begun to recognize the influence of E.P Sanders’ and Mark Nanos’ work on Jesus within Judaism, reflecting that John’s gospel does not “drift away from Judaism towards Greek patterns of thought” but rather “fits within the variety of Jewish ideas about God found in the first century C.E.”[5] Meanwhile, Tat Yu Lam demonstrated that the Gospel of John sits within the 2nd Temple Judaism ecosystem as part of the “Temple Cleansing-Rebuilding Tradition”.[6] Lam’s argument is to see larger themes within the cultural landscape as a framework for understanding John’s Gospel within this tradition. When we see the hyper-Jewishness of John’s Gospel, we cease to see his use of “the Jews” as a racial slur against Jewish people in general, and instead we see this as an internal debate between Jewish Jesus Followers and Jewish non-Jesus-Followers. When we read the gospel within this framework interpretive options around the temple cleansing theme become more apparent.

Related New Covenant texts (Intertextual - NT)

The author of the Fourth Gospel is generally believed to have written long after the synoptics were complete and circulating (circa 90 C.E.) and “incorporates earlier traditions.”[7] Rather than simply rehash the other gospels or oral traditions, John provides new insights into the person of Jesus. There is an overlap and difference with this event in the other gospels.[8] Matthew presents the driving out of the money changers but provides other details about the events, miracles, and children crying praises. Then he segues into a retreat for the night and shows more events the next day in which the challenges to his authority continue (Matt 21:1–46). Likewise, Mark provides slightly different details in a different order of events (Mark 11:1–33). Luke mentions the story, citing the “cave of robbers” line, but downplays the physical events of Jesus’ actions, focusing instead on challenge to Jesus’ authority (Luke 19:28–47). Also, Luke makes it sound like these Jerusalem temple trips were a daily occurrence for a season, each night retreating to home base (Luke 20:1). Blum says that the synoptics including this event at the end of Jesus’ public ministry means there were two separate cleansing events, citing some dissimilarities in the details. [9] The radical nature of the cleansing event makes it unlikely to have occurred twice. If the historicity of the event is assumed, it is far more likely the synoptics got the timing correct, as a culmination event leading to the temple leadership seeking the death of Jesus as he interrupted their center of power in such a dramatic way. It is far more likely, given the various narrative and stylistic choices for the author of the Fourth Gospel, and the likely Socio-Historical contexts, that the author placed the story here to set the tone of why Jesus’s cleansing was important and to set the tone of his ministry, rather than a strict adherence to details of history that is foreign to ancient biographers.

Internal (Intratextual) Literary Contexts

Brown simplifies the Fourth Gospel into two books, “the book of signs” (chs. 1–12) and “the book of glory” (chs. 13–21).[10] David deSilva provides a brief overview of the structure of the fourth gospel as a whole:

“Prologue: Jn 1:1–18

The “Book of Signs”: Jn 1:19–12:50: Jesus’ ministry to the world

The “Book of Glory”: Jn 13:1–20:31

Jesus’ instructions to his followers: Jn 13:1–17:26

Passion and resurrection appearances and conclusion: Jn 18:1–20:31

Epilogue: Additional resurrection appearance and conclusion: Jn 21:1–25”[11]

The temple cleansing narrative is located at the front end of the Book of Signs, demonstrating the meaning-centered view of the events surrounding Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. The placement at the front of the text provides a book end to the moment where Jesus’ body is destroyed, and he raises from the dead three day later, as he promised he would in the start of the narrative (John 2:19). This is a narrative literary move showing “meaning and moment of the incarnate Word.”[12] Gupta notes that some early interpreters considered John a “spiritual gospel”.[13]

Literary & Rhetorical (Intratextual) Observations

The Tanakh indicates that a Jewish currency (half-shekel) was to be paid to the priests/temple as a “ransom” and to fund the temple activities (Exod 30:11-16). For people to fulfill this Torah command in the 2nd Temple Period under Greco-Roman occupation, “Roman money was changed into Jewish money to pay the Temple tax.”[14] Given that this type of activity is advocated in the Torah, or it is at least an attempt to fulfill the Mitzvah of Torah, one then wonders why Jesus found it so abhorrent. Commenting on this, Grassmick notes that it was the way in which the half-shekel command was handled, casually turning the temple into a center of commerce, that was at the root of Jesus’ anger.[15] This speaks to debates and splits between Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and the Qumran sects.[16] Jesus’s Way finds itself in conflict with each, though to differing levels. Here in this pericope, the conflict is directed at the Sadducee handling of Torah and Temple. Understanding this conflict gives us a deeper understanding of the tension Jesus is addressing with his display of righteous anger.

Socio-Historical (Extratextual) Contexts

For the sake of brevity, a full discussion of the Ancient Near East (ANE) and Tanakh concepts of Sacred Space is omitted here, but this gives further background to the discussion that follows regarding the 2nd Temple Period tensions regarding the temple. This framework also provides additional context as to the source of Jesus’ anger regarding the handling of Temple as Sacred Space. For that background, see Jesus and the Forces of Death by Matthew Thiessen.[17] For the more immediate context, we examine the current tensions between Jewish sects regarding the handling of the temple, and how that played out after its destruction.

The destruction of the temple in 70 C.E. is a factor largely overlooked by some interpreters of the New Testament.[18] By 85 C.E (though certainly before this), non-Jesus-follower Jews were purging their synagogues of Jesus-follower Jews. This inside-baseball rivalry between the Jewish sects led to questions about the legitimacy of each sides’ perspectives. This becomes a “recurrent concern in John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2.”[19] The author of the fourth gospel is writing this gospel after the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem, and the perspective of the author processing this radical event must be considered when looking at the passage of Jesus cleansing the temple. In this, the author justifies The Way of Rabbi Yeshua as legitimate cleanser and ultimate representation of Torah, despite the devastating loss of Judaism’s center of activity.

Throughout the Tanakh there was a “longstanding tradition of Temple critique.”[20] While the entire Tanakh could be seen as a commentary by the biblical redactors against the long history of syncretism in Israel, this criticism reached a fever pitch during the 2nd Temple period. Several sects divided over issues of Torah observance, leading in one case to the cache of texts discovered at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls). To understand the more immediate history into which Jesus is stepping, we pull back briefly to look at the events leading up to the current state of Temple affairs.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.E.) led a series of persecutions against the Jewish anti-Hellenizers, which (among other things) included idol worship, cult-prostitutes, and unclean-animal sacrifices in the Temple of Jerusalem (this is the action referred to by author of Daniel as “the abomination that causes desolation”, Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). The Maccabean Revolt of 168-164 B.C.E. led to the restoration and cleansing of the temple in 164 B.C.E., which Jewish communities worldwide still celebrate as Hanukkah (rededication) to this day.

On one hand, this temple cleansing was a huge win for the Jewish community in Jerusalem. On the other hand, it led to a deep chasm in the life of various Jewish communities, when the long-held Zadokite line of priests was ousted by the new Hasmonaean priestly line. These events eventually led to the division of 2nd Temple Judaism into multiple sects, of which the most well-known are the Sadducees (primary caretakers of the Temple), Pharisees (involved in temple life, but more involved in small local synagogues and day-to-day life of Jewish people), and Essenes (a hyper purity group, less is known about them), and the Qumran/Dead Sea sect that may or may not be related to the Essenes, but who considered themselves separate from the Temple primarily due to its impurities. Skarsaune also mentions a fact relevant here in relation to the opposition parties; the “Sadducean chief priests, who denied the resurrection of the dead (Mt 22:23–33; Acts 23:6–9)”.[21] These were the ruling elite, and the primary source of Jesus’ opposition. While the Pharisees had their disputes, many of their disputes with Jesus could be seen as disputes within the same group, not outsiders. While he stands alone in his own Halakhic tradition, Jesus is closest in scope to the Pharisees.

This history is in the minds of all the hearers of Jesus’ words in the temple that day, and the subsequent history is in the minds of John’s Jewish and Gentile audience, especially in light of both the destruction of the temple in real space-time and the synagogue cleansing activities of non-Jesus-follower Jews in the aftermath.

The author of the Fourth Gospel is writing this within a few years after the temple’s destruction and placing Jesus’ temple cleansing activity just a decades before. Schiffman and Potok note that when the Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem purged by the Romans in 70 C.E., most of these groups were eliminated or at least lost their base of operations. Of these, only the Pharisees were equipped to continue existing and thriving without the temple or Jerusalem as their base of operations.[22] Likewise, Skarsaune posits that a subset of two sects of 2nd Temple Judaism “were mentally prepared to cope with the new situation,”[23] namely, the Pharisees and The Way of Rabbi Yeshua (Christ-Followers) were the two groups most well situated to carry on.

Therefore, placing this narrative at the front of his Gospel (whereas the synoptics place it at the end of theirs (Luke 19:46, Mark 11:17, Matthew 21:13), sets the tone of this gospel in a context where John’s audience is not only facing questions about the legitimacy of a Jewish Messiah without the temple but also in light of their expulsion from traditionally Jewish spaces (diaspora synagogues).

Author’s use of Sources (Intertextual - Tanakh, Other NT Authors, Other contemporary works)

            When Jesus refers to the Temple as “my father’s house” (v. 16) and then refers to his body as the temple (v. 19), he is drawing a long history of interpretation regarding the interchangeable terms Temple and House. In my paper on 2 Samuel 7,[24] I discussed the how the author of 2 Samuel uses the concept of “House” (Hebrew: בַּ֫יִת, bayit) in multiple interwoven meanings. David wants to build Yahweh a structure (temple/house) then Yahweh decides to build David a dynasty (house) and Yahweh goes further to say that he will use David’s descendant to build himself a house (both structure and dynasty). Throughout the Tanakh and into the 2nd Temple Judaism literature, the hope was building for a descendant of David to come and make things right.[25]/[26]

The author of John ends his prologue with declarations that Jesus is the “Son of God” and “King of Israel”, both kingly declarations that draw upon the wider Messianic hope that builds on the promise of a son of David, that would eventually be the culmination of the physical and dynastic “House” for Yahweh, as promised to David in 2 Samuel 7. In these images, the author of the Fourth Gospel is weaving Jewish and Greek expectations. The author’s use of “Zeal for your house will consume me” (v. 17) is a reference to a Psalm written from David’s perspective, reflecting on this House/Temple/Dynasty promise, “It is for your sake that I have borne reproach, that shame has covered my face. I have become a stranger to my kindred, an alien to my mother’s children. It is zeal for your house that has consumed me; the insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” (Psalm 69:7–9, NRSVue)[27]

            In this way, the author of the Fourth Gospel is drawing a reader familiar with the Messianic hopes of 2nd Temple Judaism to the longstanding hope that David’s descendant would come and clean house and make everything right again. Carrying the concept forward, then, the author shows Jesus reimagining the promise further blurring the lines between House, Temple, Dynasty, and now his physical body, showing that his life, death, and resurrection (coming at the end of John’s gospel) would be the culmination of this David Covenant promise.

Wisdom of the text

            The author of the Fourth Gospel had a purpose in including the narratives they chose to include. Echevarria says that while “some speculate the John’s gospel addresses deficient beliefs of his followers in Asia Minor…” we should focus on the resulting gospel, and what it tells us about Jesus, not speculations regarding what it might have been correcting.[28] The author is writing to a post 70 C.E. audience who’ve been ejected from diaspora synagogues while following the ways of a Jewish Messiah. The author wants to encourage his audience that this path is the correct path, despite increasing persecution both from non-Jesus-follower Jews and from the Roman Empire as a whole. By including this narrative at the front of the text, the author agrees with the Qumran sect that the temple was corrupt and needed to be cleansed, and that those who are in Jesus are the new Temple. At the point of this writing, the temple was already gone, and persecution was widespread. What motivation is there that the followers of Jesus should continue in The Way despite all those odds against them? The author provides this story to answer the question of which group had the better answers after the temple’s destruction and which group had The Way of Life.

III - SIGNIFICANCE FOR THEOLOGY AND PREACHING

I spent the better part of the last five years visiting as many different churches and church traditions as I could fit into my schedule (and emotional bandwidth). I attended a Catholic Mass recently that reminded me of a temple, with iconography and stained glass and ornate fixtures. A prominent open-air gift shop displayed trinkets, crosses, rosaries, prayer shawls, and other iconographic wares for sale. I thought about this narrative from John and wondered, “What would Jesus feel about this gift shop?” I then thought about all the bookstores and coffee shops in the ubiquitous Mega Churches I’ve visited and joined over the years. I thought about specialty Bibles with our favorite celebrity pastor’s name on the cover. I thought about how an entire wing of white US-American evangelicals sold their soul to a scam artist and huckster whose dedication to Jesus is so plastic, so surface, so veneer, that it is plain to all who did not buy his snake oil. Then I thought about how he doubled down on this pseudo-Christianity by selling them a Bible with his name on it and then blending a feigned love of God with love of country (a Yahweh-Roman syncretistic hybrid). In a post 70 C.E. world, Jewish people were seeking an identity without a temple. Some went to The Way of Rabbi Yeshua, others went with the Pharisees. Today, many of us who are disillusioned with both the USA and the Churchianity we were raised with are also looking for an identity without them. Some have gone with the Pharisees and followed the way of MAGA. Others have been left feeling homeless and asking what it would mean to continue being Jesus Followers without our temples.


 

IV - ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Course Assigned Texts

1.      Nijay K. Gupta. A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Studies: Understanding Key Debates. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020.

– Gupta’s text provides a framework for new students to begin asking interpretive questions of the text, including text critical discussions. There is a discussion introducing each book’s most common questions, including John’s Gospel.

 

2.      Janette H. Ok, Osvaldo Padilla, and Amy L. B. Peeler. The New Testament in Color: A Multiethnic Bible Commentary. Edited by Esau McCaulley. IVP Academic, 2024.

– Specifically, Miguel G. Echevarría provides a breakdown for the “Gospel of John”. Like deSilva, Echevarría also mentions the possibility of Lazarus being the Beloved Disciple. Echevarría discusses various text critical elements of John’s Gospel as well as the over arching themes present within the text.

 

Commentaries

1.      C. S. Keener, “John, Gospel Of,” in Nicholas Perrin, Jeannine K. Brown, and Joel B. Green. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (DJG). IVP Bible Dictionary Series. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2013

 – Keener provides additional details about text critical issues regarding John’s gospel. Specifically, the section 2.3.2 Judaism was helpful in providing context regarding this passage.

 

2.      DeSilva, David Arthur. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation. Second Edition. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2018.

– DeSilva’s text pairs well with the two course texts in introducing the reader to text critical issues and interpretive methods. He also provides a breakdown of Narrative Criticism which is helpful when discussing Johannine literature.

 

3.      Edwin A. Blum, “John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 279–280.

– While not a text from after 2000, this text deserves an honorable mention as it helped provide some additional insights into the larger/longer debates in Johannine studies.

Monographs

1.      Craig R. Koester, The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008)

– This text helps take some of the text critical and historical hats off, and place a “so what” hat on. Why does this gospel matter? How can it help one think theologically about the text.

 

2.      Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

– This text is helpful for understanding the cultural moment in which the gospels take place.

 

3.      Jipp, Joshua W. The Messianic Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids (Mich.): William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020.

- This text is helpful for understanding Messianism in the 2nd Temple Judaism.

 

4.      Schiffman, Lawrence H., and Chaim Potok. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Pr, 1995.

- This text provides a detailed breakdown of the history of Qumran’s break with the Hasmonean dynasty; and thus the Sadducees and Pharisees. It also provides a Jewish Rabbinical scholarship breakdown of Messianism in 2nd Temple Judaism without Christian filters.

 

5.      Matthew Thiessen. Jesus and the Forces of Death: The Gospels’ Portrayal of Ritual Impurity within First-Century Judaism. Paperback edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021.

– While not discussed or referenced much, this text heavily influenced my understanding of the way a Jewish audience understands what a temple is and why it matters to Jesus.

 

Journal Articles

1.      Tat Yu Lam. “Hyper-Intertextuality: The Temple Cleansing-Rebuilding Tradition as a Compositional Framework in John’s Gospel” (2023).

– This article makes a compelling argument for how themes within a culture and narrative traditions can help us better understand the biblical texts without being one-for-one quotes or directly linked phrasings.

 

2.      Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer. “The Johannine Literature and Contemporary Jewish Literature.” in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies. Edited by Judith M. Lieu and Martinus C. de Boer. Oxford University Press, 2018.

– The Oxford Handbook is a series of articles showing the state of Johannine studies to date. While I read and saved multiple articles from this collection, this article in particular was helpful in further reading the Fourth Gospel in light of its 2nd Temple Judaism contexts.

 

V - WORD COUNT

Leaving out the biblical text plus outline and final works cited, the total word count for this IWP paper is 4,819.

 


 

VI - WORKS CITED

 

Adams, Paul. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (IVP Bible Dictionary). IVP Bible Dictionary. Downers Grove: IVP, 2016.

Darrell G. Wolfe. “INTERPRETATION OF 2 SAMUEL 7.1-17.” Introduction to Old Testament: OT500. Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary, 2024. https://www.academia.edu/126053128/INTERPRETATION_OF_2_SAMUEL_7_1_17.

David deSilva. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation. Second Edition. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2018.

Gregerman, Adam. Building on the Ruins of the Temple: Apologetics and Polemics in Early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. First Edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

Janette H. Ok, Osvaldo Padilla, and Amy L. B. Peeler. The New Testament in Color: A Multiethnic Bible Commentary. Edited by Esau McCaulley. IVP Academic, 2024.

Jeannine K Brown. “BI131 Introducing Literary Interpretation” presented at the Logos Mobile Education, Lexham Press. Bellingham, WA, 2015.

Jipp, Joshua W. The Messianic Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids (Mich.): William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020.

John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary, eds. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books, 1983.

Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer. “The Johannine Literature and Contemporary Jewish Literature.” Page 0 in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies. Edited by Judith M. Lieu and Martinus C. de Boer. Oxford University Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739982.013.9, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739982.013.9.

Matthew Thiessen. Jesus and the Forces of Death: The Gospels’ Portrayal of Ritual Impurity within First-Century Judaism. Paperback edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021.

Michael David Coogan, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Carol Ann Newsom, eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); with the Apocrypha ; An Ecumenical Study Bible. Fully revised fifth edition. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Nijay K. Gupta. A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Studies: Understanding Key Debates. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020.

Oskar Skarsaune. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Schiffman, Lawrence H., and Chaim Potok. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Pr, 1995. https://ref.ly/logosres/reclaimdss?ref=Page.p+101&off=1239.

Selvén, Sebastian. “Building on The Ruins of the Temple: Apologetics and Polemics in Early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.” J. Theol. Stud. 69.1 (2018): 277–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flx230, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=9886d0f8-4c68-389f-89c9-6687d9f28e4e.

Tat Yu Lam. “Hyper-Intertextuality: The Temple Cleansing-Rebuilding Tradition as a Compositional Framework in John’s Gospel” (2023). https://doi.org/10.1163/15685152-20231746, https://brill.com/view/journals/bi/32/1/article-p71_004.xml.

Weiss, Dov. “Building on The Ruins of the Temple: Apologetics and Polemics in Early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.” AJS Rev. 42.1 (2018): 219–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0364009418000223, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=b244192f-4ce4-3949-ab00-e947a89d99e0.

New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition (NRSVue). Logos Bible Software. USA: Friendship Press, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, 2021.

 

 

 

Footnotes


[1] New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition (NRSVue), Logos Bible Software. (USA: Friendship Press, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, 2021).

[2] Janette H. Ok, Osvaldo Padilla, and Amy L. B. Peeler, The New Testament in Color: A Multiethnic Bible Commentary, ed. Esau McCaulley (IVP Academic, 2024), 173; Miguel G. Echevarría, “Gospel of John,”.

[3] David deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation, Second Edition. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2018), 341–42.

[4] Paul Adams, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (IVP Bible Dictionary), IVP Bible Dictionary (Downers Grove: IVP, 2016), 423–24; C. S. Keener, “John, Gospel Of,” 2.3.2 Judaism.

[5] Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, “The Johannine Literature and Contemporary Jewish Literature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies, ed. Judith M. Lieu and Martinus C. de Boer (Oxford University Press, 2018), 156, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739982.013.9, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739982.013.9.

[6] Tat Yu Lam, “Hyper-Intertextuality: The Temple Cleansing-Rebuilding Tradition as a Compositional Framework in John’s Gospel” (2023), https://doi.org/10.1163/15685152-20231746, https://brill.com/view/journals/bi/32/1/article-p71_004.xml.

[7] Michael David Coogan, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Carol Ann Newsom, eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); with the Apocrypha ; An Ecumenical Study Bible, Fully revised fifth edition. (Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), §Introduction to John.

[8] Michael David Coogan, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Carol Ann Newsom, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, n. Pointed out to me by the textual note: "2:13–25 The demonstration against corruption in the Temple (cf. Mt 21:17; Mk 11:15–19; Lk 19:45–48).".

[9] John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary, eds., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books, 1983), §Pg 279-280. Edwin A. Blum, “John,” ; Section 5. JESUS’ FIRST MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM (2:13–3:21).  Subsection a.      Jesus’ cleansing of the temple (2:13–25).

[10] Jeannine K Brown, “BI131 Introducing Literary Interpretation” (presented at the Logos Mobile Education, Lexham Press, Bellingham, WA, 2015).

[11] David deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament, 352.

[12] David deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament, 341; "Earlier assessments of the lack of historical value to John’s Gospel have given way to a more balanced assessment of the tradition behind this Gospel, but we are still struck more by the Gospel’s focus on the meaning and moment of the incarnate Word than by its contributions to a “life of Jesus.”".

[13] Nijay K. Gupta, A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Studies: Understanding Key Debates (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 33.

[14] Michael David Coogan, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Carol Ann Newsom, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, n. Michael D. Coogan, Commentary on Jn 2:14. “2:14 Animals were sold for sacrifice. Different currencies used by worshipers had to be changed to the official half-shekel of Tyre for the Temple tax (see Ex 30:11–16). Roman money was changed into Jewish money to pay the Temple tax.”.

[15] John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 157–158; John D. Grassmick, “Mark,”: “Though a small surcharge was permitted in these transactions, dealings were not free from extortion and fraud. In addition (according to Mark 11:16) people loaded with merchandise were taking shortcuts through this area, making it a thoroughfare from one part of the city to another. Jesus was outraged by this blatant disregard for the temple area specifically set apart for Gentile use. So He overturned the money changers’ tables and the dove-sellers’ benches, and would not allow people to use the area as a thoroughfare. Other certified markets were available elsewhere in the city.”.

[16] Nijay K. Gupta, A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Studies, 32. See Gupta's discussion on how John lumps "the Jews" together as an internal debate among Jewish Jesus followers and non-Jesus followers, not as an epithet against the ethnicity or people.

[17] Matthew Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death: The Gospels’ Portrayal of Ritual Impurity within First-Century Judaism, Paperback edition. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021).

[18] Adam Gregerman, Building on the Ruins of the Temple: Apologetics and Polemics in Early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, First Edition. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), n. The case was made by Adam Gregerman in this text, but I could not obtain a copy of the text. I referenced two academic reviews to get the gist of his argument, with which I agree.; Sebastian Selvén, “Building on The Ruins of the Temple: Apologetics and Polemics in Early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism,” J. Theol. Stud. 69.1 (2018): 277–79, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flx230, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=9886d0f8-4c68-389f-89c9-6687d9f28e4e; Dov Weiss, “Building on The Ruins of the Temple: Apologetics and Polemics in Early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism,” AJS Rev. 42.1 (2018): 219–21, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0364009418000223, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=b244192f-4ce4-3949-ab00-e947a89d99e0.

[19] David deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament, 27-62. See discussion on the synagogues.

[20] Michael David Coogan, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Carol Ann Newsom, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, n. Michael D. Coogan: Commentary on 2:19 “Destroy this temple …, reflects a longstanding tradition of Temple critique (cf. 4:21; 2 Sam 7:5–7; see Jer 7:1–15; 35:2–10; Ezek 10:18–19; Acts 7:48).”.

[21] Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 149.

[22] Lawrence H. Schiffman and Chaim Potok, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran, Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Pr, 1995), 69-81. Note: The entire discussion of pages 69-81 is summarized in my review, but the final conclusion is in the last pargraphs of page 81., https://ref.ly/logosres/reclaimdss?ref=Page.p+101&off=1239.

[23] Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple, 155.

[24] Darrell G. Wolfe, “INTERPRETATION OF 2 SAMUEL 7.1-17,” in Introduction to Old Testament: OT500 (Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary, 2024), https://www.academia.edu/126053128/INTERPRETATION_OF_2_SAMUEL_7_1_17.

[25] Schiffman and Potok, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, n. See Chapter 19: The Messianic Idea.

[26] Joshua W. Jipp, The Messianic Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids (Mich.): William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020), n. See also Jipps text, discussing how the ideas of Messiah in 2nd Temple Judaism played in the New Testament texts.

[27] NRSVue, v. Psalm 69:7–9.

[28] Janette H. Ok, Osvaldo Padilla, and Amy L. B. Peeler, The New Testament in Color (NTIC), 175. Miguel G. Echevarría, “Gospel of John,”.






Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!
Darrell Wolfe
Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o


Saturday, May 3, 2025

The Interpretive Question: How to understand the Bible, methodically.

There is critical thinking (textual criticism) and then there is outright skepticism.


When scholars like Bart D. Ehrman or Daniel McClellan make big sweeping claims, like "The Bible never..." or "There are no data that support..." or "Jesus nowhere said..." or "The scholarly consensus is..."; they are speaking scholar-eese.

The thing is, a lot of what they say is accurate. Sometimes, however, their commitment to a particular worldview or bias shows, and this is where it gets interesting. We have our own commitments to worldviews and biases. You'll hear Dan say that certain claims are just "dogma", but he never admits that his own biases are dogma as well.

Textual Criticism is good, it asks us to throw off dogma, assumptions, biases, and ask what's really going on in, behind, and in front of the text. It asks us to be willing to change our understanding of what we see in the text. This is healthy skepticism.

Then there is unhealthy skepticism that assumes the worst possible about a thing from moment one. Scholars sometimes over-react to the dogma of the church with their own dogma against the church.

When you hear me or anyone else use sweeping claims, exaggeration of evidence, hasty generalizations, false dichotomies (must be this or that), absolutisms (always, never, none), it is an indication that we are likely tending toward the unhealthy skepticism side of the pendulum.

Unhealthy: There is no evidence for... All scholars agree...

    Hint: I've read a lot of scholars, there is no such thing as consensus. You can have majority and minority. You can even have either no representation of an idea, or such little representation for it that it is fringe. But you cannot have 100% unanimity on any position or claim.

Healthy: Most scholars (or most scholars I've read within my circle of influence) agree about...

Healthy: Scholars generally agree that interpretation D is not textually valid, but they usually land divided between A, B. and C. I lean toward C for the following reasons...

Healthy: Group-A makes this claim. I (being in Group-B) think that claim is nonsensical and the data do not support that claim. Here is what I see in the data. I want to freely admit to the biases, worldviews, and assumptions I am bringing to the conversation, and why I outright reject some or all of Group-A's claims.


Missing Data

It is often the case that as I read Group-A (Dogmatic holding to Church traditions) and Group-B (dogmatic holding to secular positions), that I see them as the same group.

I look for scholars who freely to admit to how often they've changed their mind or changed a position upon new evidence. I look for scholars who show which positions they've considered and why they chose the position they arrived at, up to this point.

I often find that people who arrived in a different position I did have either (1) never heard of the data I've considered or (2) have heard it and have reasons for rejecting it, reasons which I would like to know and understand. I may or may not agree with their reasons, but I want to understand it. Understanding it will either strengthen my view of the data, or, cause me to reject my view for a more accurate view. 

We must find a balance.

Dogmatic Churchianity and Dogmatic Secular Skepticism are both extremes.

So, how do we find that balance?

Simple ask one simple but difficult Interpretive Question:
  • What is this author attempting to communicate to this author's audience?
We...
    • Don't assume that this author is attempting to mislead us.
    • Don't assume this author is intending to be literal or historical.
    • Do assume that this author has a worldview and is operating within the literary conventions of their time and place.
    • Do assume that this author has an audience, and is attempting to communicate some idea or emotion or construct to their audience in the manner which is common for them.

To answer the Interpretive Question is less simple:

This requires us to start asking increasingly complicated questions that require PhD(s) and several lifetimes worth of study. We simply don't live 2000+ years ago, in a non-English speaking part of the world, without modern assumptions. The past is a foreign world, and they did things differently there.

So, we get as much material as we can, compiled by thousands of people who've done those PhD(s) in various different fields attempting to answer aspects of the questions, and we call those compilations by names like:
  • Dictionary
  • Lexicon
  • Commentary
  • Monograph
  • Journal Article
  • Textual Notes
  • Among other names... 

Then we sift through those works, understanding that some of the PhD(s) will have the same level of bias that a Flat Earther has, but most of them will provide us with good data we can use to answer the questions we'll need to ask.


Redactors and Authorial Goals


Also, we refuse to think of "The Bible" as one monolithic work. We understand that each "book" was originally a scroll or document in its own right. Even that "book" or scroll may have originally been many other works that are lost to history, and what we have is a compilation by some final editor or redactor.
ChatGPT Explains Redactor: A redactor is someone who collects, arranges, modifies, and combines source materials (oral or written traditions) into a new, cohesive literary work. This person isn't just correcting grammar or updating words—they're shaping theological meaning, narrative flow, and even historical framing.
In any given text, we are seeing potentially several source documents underneath that text, plus editors along the way who make editorial inserts (look in the Tanakh for "to this day"). We are also seeing redactors who compiled these into a final work of some kind for some kind of purpose. It is ultimately these redactors who play the most crucial role in the document we have in its final form.

We can begin to ask questions that will help us start to understand the world, worldview, purposes, and goals of the authors/editors/redactors who gave us this final text document.


Interpretive Questions

This is how we start digging into the Interpretive Question, and this can take a lifetime, so we take bite sized pieces.

Here are just a few of the kinds of questions we can begin to ask of the text:
  • What can we know about the author(s), editors, and redactors?
  • What can we know about the time period the text is speaking about?
  • What can we know about the time period of the author and intended audience, and how might that be different that the time period of the narrative/text?
  • What are some plausible things we can understand about the author and audience?
  • What kinds of rhetorical goals might this author have in communicating with their audience(s)? Are there things we know about the larger culture, or clues within the text itself to help us answer that question?
  • What genre, style, and conventions that other authors in that period are following, how does this author follow or diverge from those?
  • What level of detail or historicity can/should we expect of any author from this time period, in this part of the world?
  • What are the author's rhetorical goals?
  • What other texts (either in the target language, or in languages adjacent to the target languages/context) might this author be aware of, or be drawing inspiration from?
  • What are the worldview elements that everyone in this and surrounding cultures just assume is correct, such that it is adopted and brought into the text without question?
  • What are the semantic ranges of the keywords in the target text's language, and how might that semantic range flavor our understanding in the translated language (English in our case)?
These are just some entry level questions, there are many hundreds or thousands of other questions, depending on where these might lead.

We have to admit that these are ancient peoples writing within their genres and contexts, and not assume they are doing something a modern would do while also not assuming they are completely fabricating everything to lie to us. They're just not us.

Closing thoughts...

What are some conclusion that I've arrived at, in which I might still change my mind but this is where I land today?

  • Genesis 1-11 was written during the Babylonian exile and is fiction to make a theological point as it interacts with the shared cultural worldview of that time and place.
  • The earth is billions of years old; it was not created in 6-literal days 6,000 years ago. Augustine agrees with me. But more importantly, the author of Genesis 1 wasn't making that claim. That is you doing poor Bible reading in English Bibles without even bothering to compare all the creation narratives (including Psalms). Even a rudimentary comparison of Genesis 1 and 2 would tell you that kind of reading has issues from square one. Is it an interpretive option? Maybe, if you throw out the Interpretive Question and adopt a less academic process for your reading. I just don't see how you arrive at that conclusion when you really take the text seriously. I do see how people arrive there, I did for years, but it requires not knowing the Interpretive Question, or even how to read very well.
  • Genealogies in Matthew and Luke are fiction, they are narrative devices to show a theological linkage between Jesus and the story of Israel, they are not intended by the authors to be literal history.
  • Some scholars work very hard to prop-up Dispensational Theology that produces concepts like a "Rapture" and "7-Year Tribulation". I simply cannot see that as a viable reading of the texts in their original contexts. I would not even consider those to be among the viable interpretive choices, based on the data. I understand well-meaning people see it differently. I would love and respect those people but would avoid them as teachers. Why? Because the commitments they had to make to arrive at those conclusions will mean that they are not faithfully engaging with the Interpretive Question as outlined above.
  • The Jewish Rabbi, Yeshua (Iesos/Jesus) was a real individual in the 1st century, he was killed by the Romans in the 30s AD. Most scholars, even secular scholars, do find agreement on this point.
  • Unlike the secular scholars (who have a worldview and pre-commitment against miracles as a viable interpretive option), I have seen the risen Jesus with my own eyes. I believe he died, rose bodily, and is returning bodily to earth someday.
    • That is a bias and commitment I bring to the interpretive question.
    • Is it possible that I hallucinated as a child and the core-memory childhood imagination is now driving my interpretative choices? Yes. That's possible. I have checked with both my gut and trained therapists, and I don't believe this is the case. However, it could be. Nevertheless, I do believe my experience(s) to be legitimate and thus they do drive some of my pre-assumptions; or at least, they force me to consider as possible things that secular scholars reject as possible without considering them.

This last part is what I mean by being critical without being skeptical. If you want to begin the Interpretive Question by claiming that miracles are impossible and therefore all such claims are fabrications or hallucinations, that is fine. But you cannot claim that you are more objective than the dogmatic Young Earther. You should admit that you are bringing that bias to your research and claims. Own it, and don't try to hide behind scholarly consensus. We all have biases, own yours, and your conclusions will be more honest (No Hiding). 

To find people who are asking good questions, check out my resource pages linked here:





Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!
Darrell Wolfe
Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o



Wednesday, April 16, 2025

Seow (Inspired) Hebrew Grammar Practice Test Answer Key

Answer Key: Inspired by C. L. Seow's A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Revised Edition) - Practice Test


Section 1: Vocabulary Recognition

  1. God/gods
  2. King
  3. Woman/wife
  4. Peace
  5. Servant/slave
  6. Book/scroll
  7. Way/path
  8. Land/earth
  9. Hand
  10. House
  11. Judgment/justice
  12. Truth
  13. Prophet
  14. Blood
  15. Water
  16. Name
  17. Head/leader
  18. Voice/sound
  19. Eye/spring
  20. Gold

Section 2: Parsing Nouns & Adjectives

  1. Masculine, singular, definite – the king
  2. Masculine, plural, indefinite – sons
  3. Feminine, singular, definite – the woman
  4. Masculine, plural, indefinite – prophets
  5. Feminine, dual, indefinite – eyes
  6. Masculine, plural, indefinite – books
  7. Masculine, singular, definite – the book
  8. Feminine, singular, possessive – my hand
  9. Masculine, plural, indefinite – men
  10. Masculine, singular, definite – the tree
  11. Masculine, singular, definite – the name
  12. Masculine, plural, indefinite – words/things
  13. Feminine, singular – a good woman
  14. Masculine, singular – an evil king
  15. Masculine, singular – a small son

Section 3: Parsing Verbs

  1. Qal, perfect, 3ms, root: כתב – he wrote
  2. Qal, perfect, 1cs, root: שמע – I heard
  3. Qal, perfect, 1cp, root: אהב – we loved
  4. Qal, perfect, 3ms, root: ישב – he sat
  5. Qal, perfect, 2ms, root: לקח – you took
  6. Qal, perfect, 3ms, root: עמד – he stood
  7. Qal, imperfect, 3ms, root: ישב – he will sit
  8. Qal, perfect, 3ms, root: נתן – he gave
  9. Qal, perfect, 3ms, root: שלח – he sent
  10. Qal, perfect, 3ms, root: קרא – he called/read
  11. Qal, perfect, 3ms, root: שפט – he judged
  12. Qal, perfect, 2fs, root: ידע – you (f) knew
  13. Qal, imperfect, 3mp, root: כתב – they will write
  14. Qal, imperfect, 3mp, root: שמר – they will keep
  15. Niphal, perfect, 3ms, root: שמע – it was heard
  16. Qal, perfect, 3ms, root: נשא – he lifted/bore
  17. Qal, imperfect, 3ms, root: ירד – he will go down
  18. Hiphil, perfect, 3ms, root: בוא – he brought
  19. Qal, perfect, 3ms, root: נפל – he fell
  20. Qal, perfect, 1cs, root: הלך – I walked

Section 4: Sentence Translation

  1. The king is in the house.
  2. David wrote a book.
  3. The woman sat in the city.
  4. A servant sent a word to the king.
  5. A prophet judged the people.
  6. A priest (is) in the house of the Lord.
  7. The words are not in the book.
  8. Peace to you, O king.
  9. We heard the voice of the Lord.
  10. We knew the truth.
  11. Who will dwell in the heavens?
  12. Moses gave the Torah to Israel.
  13. You went to the city.
  14. I wrote a small book.
  15. There is no king in this city.
  16. In the beginning God created.
  17. The warrior fell in the battle.
  18. I found a book in the house.
  19. Eyes saw a wonderful thing.
  20. The name of the prophet is great.

Section 5: Fill-in-the-Blank Conjugations

  1. כָּתַב
  2. כָּתַבְנוּ
  3. יִשְׁמְרוּ
  4. אָכַלְתְּ
  5. נָתַתָּ
  6. אֵדַע
  7. לָקְחוּ
  8. רָאָה
  9. הָיָה
  10. תֵּלֵךְ
  11. שָׁפַטְתִּי
  12. נָפַלְנָה
  13. שָׁאֲלוּ
  14. בֵּרֵךְ
  15. יָצְאוּ

Section 6: Multiple Choice

  1. B. הַ
  2. C. אִשָּׁה
  3. B. In/at/with
  4. C. Simple/active action
  5. B. שָׁלוֹם
  6. C. ־ִי
  7. C. אֵת
  8. B. אִישׁ
  9. C. ־ַיִם
  10. B. Ongoing or future action

 



Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!
Darrell Wolfe
Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o


Seow (Inspired) Hebrew Grammar Practice Test

Inspired by C. L. Seow's A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Revised Edition) - Practice Test (100 Questions)


Section 1: Vocabulary Recognition (20 Questions)

Write the English meaning of each Hebrew word.

  1. אֱלֹהִים
  2. מֶלֶךְ
  3. אִשָּׁה
  4. שָׁלוֹם
  5. עֶבֶד
  6. סֵפֶר
  7. דֶּרֶךְ
  8. אֶרֶץ
  9. יָד
  10. בַּיִת
  11. מִשְׁפָּט
  12. אֶמֶת
  13. נָבִיא
  14. דָּם
  15. מַיִם
  16. שֵׁם
  17. רֹאשׁ
  18. קוֹל
  19. עַיִן
  20. זָהָב

Section 2: Parsing Nouns & Adjectives (15 Questions)

For each Hebrew word, identify gender, number, definiteness, and provide a translation.

  1. הַמֶּלֶךְ
  2. בָּנִים
  3. הָאִשָּׁה
  4. נְבִיאִים
  5. עֵינַיִם
  6. סְפָרִים
  7. הַסֵּפֶר
  8. יָדִי
  9. אֲנָשִׁים
  10. הָעֵץ
  11. הַשֵּׁם
  12. דְּבָרִים
  13. אִשָּׁה טוֹבָה
  14. מֶלֶךְ רָע
  15. בֵּן קָטָן

Section 3: Parsing Verbs (20 Questions)

Parse the following verbs: stem, aspect, person, number, gender, and root.

  1. כָּתַב
  2. שָׁמַעְתִּי
  3. אָהַבְנוּ
  4. יָשַׁב
  5. לָקַחְתָּ
  6. עָמַד
  7. יֵשֵׁב
  8. נָתַן
  9. שָׁלַח
  10. קָרָא
  11. שָׁפַט
  12. יָדַעְתְּ
  13. יִכְתְּבוּ
  14. יִשְׁמְרוּ
  15. נִשְׁמַע
  16. נָשָׂא
  17. יֵרֵד
  18. הֵבִיא
  19. נָפַל
  20. הָלַכְתִּי

Section 4: Sentence Translation (20 Questions)

Translate the following Biblical Hebrew sentences into English.

  1. הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּבַּיִת.
  2. דָּוִד כָּתַב סֵפֶר.
  3. הָאִשָּׁה יָשְׁבָה בָּעִיר.
  4. עֶבֶד שָׁלַח דָּבָר אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ.
  5. נָבִיא שָׁפַט אֶת־הָעָם.
  6. כֹּהֵן בַּבֵּית־יְהוָה.
  7. הַדְּבָרִים אֵינָם בַּסֵּפֶר.
  8. שָׁלוֹם לְךָ, מֶלֶךְ.
  9. אֲנַחְנוּ שָׁמַעְנוּ לְקוֹל יְהוָה.
  10. יָדַעְנוּ אֶת־הָאֱמֶת.
  11. מִי יֵשֵׁב בַּשָּׁמַיִם?
  12. מֹשֶׁה נָתַן תּוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
  13. אַתָּה הָלַכְתָּ אֶל־הָעִיר.
  14. אֲנִי כָּתַבְתִּי סֵפֶר קָטָן.
  15. אֵין מֶלֶךְ בָּעִיר הַזֹּאת.
  16. בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים.
  17. נָפַל הַגִּבּוֹר בַּמִּלְחָמָה.
  18. מָצָאתִי סֵפֶר בַּבַּיִת.
  19. עֵינַיִם רָאוּ דָּבָר נִפְלָא.
  20. הַשֵּׁם שֶׁל־הַנָּבִיא גָּדוֹל.

Section 5: Fill-in-the-Blank Conjugations (15 Questions)

Conjugate the following roots in the given form.

  1. כָּתַב — Qal Perfect 3ms
  2. כָּתַב — Qal Perfect 1cp
  3. שָׁמַע — Qal Imperfect 3mp
  4. אָכַל — Qal Perfect 2fs
  5. נָתַן — Qal Perfect 2ms
  6. יָדַע — Qal Imperfect 1cs
  7. לָקַח — Qal Perfect 3fp
  8. רָאָה — Qal Perfect 3ms
  9. הָיָה — Qal Perfect 3ms
  10. הָלַךְ — Qal Imperfect 2ms
  11. שָׁפַט — Qal Perfect 1cs
  12. נָפַל — Qal Perfect 3fp
  13. שָׁאַל — Qal Perfect 3mp
  14. בָּרַךְ — Qal Perfect 3ms
  15. יָצָא — Qal Perfect 3fp

Section 6: Multiple Choice Grammar Questions (10 Questions)

Choose the best answer.

  1. The definite article in Hebrew is: A. לְ
    B. הַ
    C. בְּ
    D. אֵת
  2. Which of the following is a feminine noun? A. מֶלֶךְ
    B. סֵפֶר
    C. אִשָּׁה
    D. עֶבֶד
  3. What does the preposition בְּ mean? A. To
    B. In/at/with
    C. Like/as
    D. From
  4. The Qal stem expresses: A. Passive action
    B. Intensive action
    C. Simple/active action
    D. Causative action
  5. The Hebrew word for “peace” is: A. אֲמָנָה
    B. שָׁלוֹם
    C. חָסֶד
    D. בְּרִית
  6. Which pronominal suffix means “my” (1cs)? A. ־ָם
    B. ־וֹ
    C. ־ִי
    D. ־ְךָ
  7. Which word is the direct object marker? A. לְ
    B. בְּ
    C. אֵת
    D. עַל
  8. What is the Hebrew word for “man”? A. אִשָּׁה
    B. אִישׁ
    C. אָדָם
    D. גֶּבֶר
  9. A dual noun often ends in: A. ־וֹת
    B. ־ִים
    C. ־ַיִם
    D. ־ֵי
  10. The imperfect tense indicates: A. Completed action
    B. Ongoing or future action
    C. Intensive action
    D. Passive voice

End of Test