"The Hebrew Terminology of Lot Casting and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context," by Anne Marie Kitz. Pp. 207-214 in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Volume 62, No. 2, April 2000.

Summary:
The author examines two lot-casting arguments put forth by Hebrew Bible scholars, surveys Hebrew verbs connected with lot-casting activity, examines lot casting activity within the broader context of ancient Near Eastern cultures, and then distinguishes which argument is superior. J. Lindblom argued that lot-casting in ancient Israel involved two steps: (1) the tossing of lots into a receptacle (the verbs hislik and hutal) and then (2) having an official person draw out a lot (the verbs yasa and ala). O. Eissfeldt agreed with Lindblom on the first step, but argued that an official person did not draw out the lot with his fingers, but rather he agitated the receptacle in such a way that the lot jumped out without human touch. The author briefly explains that in ancient Near Eastern cultures lot casting was a means of determining divine will. She then presents nine Hebrew verbs. Along with the four already mentioned, she introduces tul, qilqal, napa, yara, and yada. She selected these nine verbs because all nine occur at least once with the noun goral "lot". In the largest portion of the article entitled "Contextual Analysis", the author examines biblical and extra biblical texts while discussing the nine Hebrew verbs. For example, she compares Proverbs 16:33a "into the pouch the lot is cast" with a selection from the Iliad in which Homer describes lot casting. During her contextual analysis she refers to texts from the Hebrew, Greek, Hittite, Babylonian, Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Assyrian. These references are footnoted extensively. The author concludes that "Otto Eissfeldt was correct in his preliminary assessment of the method of casting lots reflected in the Hebrew Bible."

Response:
The article by Kitz sheds light on this ancient tradition of casting lots. I learned much from the article and I see "casting lots" in a more complete context . However, the distinction between the two arguments did not interest me nearly as much as the scholarly discussion, methodology, and analysis used to distinguish the superior argument. I believe that the author did a good job in supporting her position through contextual analysis. In the end, I agree with her conclusion that lots were not chosen by hand but "leaped" out. Her selection of nine Hebrew verbs that co-appear with the Hebrew word "lots" appears to be complete. Her contextual analysis seems to be extensive with exegesis in Hebrew, Greek, Hittite, Babylonian, Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Assyrian texts. I am ignorant in both Hebrew and other ancient languages, so I can only trust her judgment in these matters. What I did find interesting was this. While Lindblom relied chiefly on the Hebrew text for argument, Eissfeldt relied mostly on extra biblical text. This leads me to wonder. Do those who rest arguments solely on the Hebrew Bible arrive at different conclusions than those who rely on both biblical and extra biblical sources? Perhaps Anne Kitz found Eissfeldt's argument more cogent because like Eissfeldt (and unlike Lindblom) she relied on extra biblical insight. I would have included one argument beyond that of contextual analysis. I think that "reason" has a role to play in distinguishing which argument is superior. The author never discusses this. If the casting of lots is a method of determining divine mispat then it makes sense that human involvement within the process be kept to a minimum. Allowing lots to leap from the receptacle appears to be fairer, more reasonable, and therefore more divine than allowing an official person to draw out the lot.

"A Fresh Look at the Garden of Eden," by Mary Phil Korsak. Pp. 131-144 in Semeia 81, Ed: Daniel Patle, 1998.

Summary:
In her opening paragraphs, the author states that "certain attributes of the Godhead have been forgotten by interpreters". She refers readers to her own translation of Genesis called At the Start … Genesis Made New and states that her purpose is to "give the myth new life and keep it in touch with modern (post modern?) times". She says that her translation provides "fresh hermeneutical insights" which she then expounds upon for several pages of the article. The author juxtaposes thirteen portions of the Genesis story taken from the Revised Standard Version against thirteen of her own translations. Her intent is to point out "verbal repetitions and distinctions that have often been lost or obscured in the translation process." She translates adam/adama with the equivalent paronym "groundling/ground" and isha/ish as "wo-man/man", explaining that these translations provide insight into the text. She also explains the word play of havva/hay with the name "Eve" saying that this name has drifted away from its original meaning of "life" and is now associated with sin, guilt and death. The author also explores passages in Genesis, Chapter 3, to argue that God intended Eden to be temporary, and that the destiny of humankind lay outside the garden. To this end, she states in a concluding section that "An analogy between the Garden of Eden story and the birth process has given rise to this article. Actual evidence has been has been brought forward to support the view that the garden, like the womb, is a temporary dwelling place, that from the outset it is part of the divine plan that the groundling should leave the garden to assume its destiny, which includes the experience of good and bad, of life an death."

Response:
My response to this article is negative and visceral. I feel that "A Fresh Look at the Garden of Eden" is an example of "isogesis" at its worst. It appears to me that the author reads into Genesis the personal viewpoint that she reveals in the last two sentences of her article: "A shift of emphasis to a mother-like divine figure, affected by human experience, good and bad, brings God closer to us, makes God more worthy of our veneration and especially of our care." Her article appears to be an attempt to make Genesis conform to this viewpoint. I was troubled by her decision to base this article on a previously published Genesis translation of her own making. She compares portions of RSV translations against her own and finds her own to be superior. Why does this not surprise me? I was additionally troubled by her self-description as a Hebrew "translator" and "interpreter". Can she do both, honestly and simultaneously? Can she also be a "discerner of vital forces" in Genesis without an agenda? Many of the author's arguments appear tenuous. In order to arrive at a "Fresh Look at the Garden of Eden", she relies on a possible grammatical mistake (Genesis 2:15), a definite article (ha) that appears in front of the noun adam as she predicts in only 2 of 3 cases. Often, a certain Hebrew word "suggests" a meaning to the author and later that meaning provides the key for interpreting several other passages. I found this hermeneutic disconcerting. On a positive note, I did learn three new word pairs: adam/adama, ish/isha, and havva/hay. I also concur that Eve is not the villainess of the Eden story. However, it seems to me that the author is twisting Genesis to meet her own feminist and modernist agenda. With apologies to Moses, let me conclude by paraphrasing Genesis 1:27: "And Mary Korsak created God in her own image, in the image of Mary created she him".