The flagship journal of the Society of Biblical Literature, The Journal of Biblical Literature promotes critical and academic biblical scholarship and brings the highest level of scholarly expertise to bear on the study of biblical literature. The Logos edition of The Journal of Biblical Literature gives you access to nearly 20,000 pages of articles, reviews, and news published between 1981 and 2006, written by top scholars from the past two decades of biblical scholarship.
The powerful search tools in Logos give you instant access to all of the content in The Journal of Biblical Literature. You can search by author, topic, and Scripture passage—and find it all instantly. What’s more, Scripture texts are linked to the Greek and Hebrew texts—and the wealth of language resources in your digital library—and links within each volume of the journal allow you to quickly move from the table of contents to the index to the articles you need and back again. Save yourself from turning pages, cross-referencing citations, and unnecessarily complex research projects. The Logos edition of The Journal of Biblical Literature also allows you to cut and paste the content you need for citations—and automatically create footnotes in your document using your preferred style guide.
With The Journal of Biblical Literature, combined with the power of Logos, you have the most important tools you need for your research projects, sermon preparation, and biblical study!
“But there is abundant attestation of sleeping with one’s father’s wives as a means of usurpation.52 Absalom’s infamous public intercourse with his father’s concubines (2 Sam 15:20–23), Reuben’s relations with Bilhah (Gen 35:22; 49:3–4), David’s acquisition of Saul’s concubines (2 Sam 12:8), and Adonijah’s attempt to acquire David’s wife Abishag (2 Kgs 2:13–25) are all notable examples of a son attempting to unseat his father through relations with the paternal consort(s). Ezekiel rebukes his contemporaries for committing this sin (Ezek 22:10).” (Page 37)
“Exegetes since antiquity have identified Ham’s deed as either voyeurism, castration, or paternal incest.” (Page 26)
“This article will argue for a fourth possible explanation of Ham’s deed: maternal incest, which simultaneously explains the gravity of Ham’s offense and the rationale for the cursing of Canaan, who is the fruit of the illicit union.” (Page 26)
“The currently popular paternal-incest interpretation has much to commend it, but in almost every case the evidence marshaled for this view actually better suits the maternal-incest theory. The heuristic strengths of the maternal-incest interpretation are manifold: it explains (1) the gravity of Ham’s sin, (2) the rationale for the cursing of Canaan rather than Ham, (3) Ham’s motivation for committing his offense, (4) the repetition of ‘Ham, the father of Canaan,’ and (5) the sexually charged language of the passage. In addition, biblical and ancient Near Eastern analogues for Ham’s crime are easy to find, and the related passages of the Pentateuch fit together more elegantly on this interpretation.” (Page 40)