Jeffrey H. Tigay on Deuteronomy 32 :43

Deuteronomy 32:43

 

It is likely that divine beings were also eliminated from the text of verse 43. As noted in the Commentary, three different versions of this verse are known—the Masoretic text, the Qumran text, and the Septuagint—and it is possible that none of them reflects the original version exactly. The Masoretic text is almost certainly incomplete since the first and fourth colons, unlike any others in the poem, lack parallel colons. These are supplied in the Qumran manuscript and the Septuagint, which have, respectively, three and four pairs of colons, or bicolons. Here are the three texts, with the bicolons designated by letters and their component colons by numbers:

 

	Masoretic Text	4QDeutq	Septuagint
a1.	O nations, rejoice His people	O heavens, rejoice with Him	O heavens, rejoice with Him
a2.		Bow to Him, all divinities	Bow to Him, all sons of the divine.
a3.			O nations, rejoice with His people
a4.			And let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in Him.
b1.	For He’ll avenge the blood of His servants,	For He’ll avenge the blood of His sons,	For He’ll avenge the blood of His sons,
b2.			Be vengeful
	And wreak vengeance	And wreak vengeance	And wreak vengeance and recompense justice
	on His foes,	on His foes,	on His foes,
c1.		Requite those who reject Him,	Requite those who reject Him,
c2.	And will	And will	And the Lord will
	cleanse His people’s land.	cleanse His people’s land.	cleanse His people’s land.

 

In the Qumran and Septuagint texts, every colon has a parallel: a1 is parallel to a2 (and, in the Septuagint, a3 // a4), and the colons in b and c are chiastically parallel (b1 // c2 and b2 // c1). Since the rest of the poem consists almost entirely of parallelistic bicolons, the original text of the verse probably had a structure like this.

 

The most notable colon in these texts is a2, “Bow to Him, all divinities” (ʾelohim; the Septuagint reflects a virtually synonymous reading “sons of the divine [benei ʾelohim]”). It is identical to Psalm 97:7b and similar to Psalm 29:1, “Ascribe to the Lord, O sons of the divine [benei ʾelim] … glory and strength … bow down to the Lord.” This colon was probably part of the original text, like the reading “sons of the divine” in verse 8, and, like it, eliminated from the Masoretic text to prevent an angelological or polytheistic interpretation.

 

Most of the other differences between the three texts are probably due to the fact that they derived from alternative versions of the original, in which the same ideas were expressed in slightly different ways. It was common for slightly different versions of a text to develop as it was transmitted; there are, for example, similar differences between 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18, which are alternative versions of the same poem. In the present case, in colon a1 the alternatives were “heavens” and “nations,” and in bi “sons” or “servants.¹⁶ The Septuagint’s colons a3–a4 are to be explained the same way; they are simply a variant of a1–a2. They are probably based on a Hebrew text that originally read “O nations, rejoice with Him, / Let all sons of the divine [benei ʾelohim] exult,” but had become corrupted to “O nations, rejoice with His people, / Let all sons of the divine strengthen themselves in Him.” “With Him” became “with His people” by dittography: ʿ-m-v, “with Him,” was miswritten as ʿ-mʿ-m-v, “with His people.” “Exult” probably became the awkward “strengthen themselves in Him” by a transposition of letters: the original reading was probably v-y-ʿl-v-z-v, “let them exult,” which was miscopied, or misread, as v-y-ʿ-z-v l-v, “let them be strong to Him.” “Angels of the divine” in a4 is a variant translation of a2’s benei ʾelohim, “sons of the divine”; the Septuagint commonly uses either “angels of the divine” or “sons of the divine” for the Hebrew phrase (see ). This translation indicates that a3–a4 were translated into Greek by someone other than the person who translated a1–a2; it is unlikely that a single translator would have rendered the same phrase differently in the same context. All this implies that a scribe/editor of the Septuagint found an extra copy of Haʾazinu in Greek that contained a variant version of a1–a2, based—without his realizing it—on a corrupt Hebrew text, and added it to the text as a3–a4.

 

The absence of colon c1 can be explained by haplography—the scribe’s eye skipping from the vav at the beginning of c1 to that at the beginning of c2.

 

Textual changes of the type found in verses 8 and 43 were part of a process that is reflected elsewhere in the Bible. Psalm 29:1, “Ascribe to the Lord, O sons of the divine” (benei ʾelim),” is revised in Psalm 96:7 (and in 1 Chron. 16:28) to read “Ascribe to the Lord, O families of peoples.” The revision of 4:19 in the Septuagint, according to rabbinic tradition, was also motivated by concern over polytheistic misinterpretation of the text. Personal names in the Bible were sometimes revised for the same reason. According to the Book of Chronicles, several individuals, including members of the family and associates of David and Solomon, had names containing the element Baal, such as Eshbaal and Beeliada (Baaliada). In the Masoretic text of the Book of Samuel, however, all these names were revised, becoming Ish-bosheth, Eliada, and the like.²³ Apparently the word baʿal, literally “lord,” was once considerered a legitimate epithet of God, like its synonym ʾadon, and was used as such in personal names. Later, however, when the cult of the Canaanite storm god, who was also called baʿal, became a serious threat in Israel, the epithet was shunned, and manuscripts mentioning such names were revised to avoid giving the impression that Saul and David had honored the Canaanite god. The Masoretic text of the Book of Samuel derives from manuscripts that underwent such revision, whereas that of Chronicles does not.

 

Such revisions were not made systematically throughout the Bible. There were varying attitudes toward such passages. References to the ʾelohim (divinities) in God’s retinue were not inherently problematic since ʾelohim, in addition to its use for “God” and for pagan gods, sometimes meant angel, as noted above. Since the term had this innocuous meaning, it was allowed to remain in many biblical passages, such as Psalm 97:7, cited above, and 4QDeut^q. The same is true of the synonymous ʾel, benei ʾelim, and benei ʾelohim, as in Psalm 29:1; Job 1–2; and 4QDeut^j, cited above, as well as Deuteronomy 3:24, “You whose powerful deeds no divinity [ʾel] in heaven or on earth can equal”; Exodus 15:11, “Who is like You, O Lord, among the divinities” (ʾelim); and the strange story about the benei ʾelohim in Genesis 6:1–4. It is not always clear why a particular reference was preserved or revised. The case of Deuteronomy 32:8 is understandable, since the original reading seems to imply that God shares His authority with other divine beings. But it is not clear why the account of marriage between benei ʾelohim and humans in Genesis 6:1–4 was allowed to remain. Nor is it clear why Deuteronomy 32:43 was revised when an identical phrase was preserved in Psalm 97:7. The inconsistent treatment of these references, and of names with the element baʿal, seems to imply that as individual books of the Bible were copied and recopied, the decision in each case depended on the judgment of individual scribes, or scribal schools, as to whether or not the reference might give rise to theological misunderstanding, and that such judgments varied depending on conditions in different times and places and the scribes’ personal, perhaps subjective evaluation of those conditions.

 

By rabbinic times, the text of the Bible was fixed and no longer subject to revision. Remaining passages that might be misunderstood were handled by interpretation instead of revision. For example, the benei ʾelohim of Genesis 6:2 were interpreted as sons of officials or judges, and the benei ʾelim in Exodus 15:11 were explained as “the mighty,” “those who minister to God in heaven,” and in other ways. The rabbis were probably unaware that the textual revisions discussed here had taken place. But they did believe that something similar had happened in other passages. There is a rabbinic tradition that several readings in the Masoretic text are the result of small corrections by the scribes (tikkunei soferim) to alter expressions that might seem disrespectful toward God. For example, they stated that “Abraham remained standing before the Lord” (Gen. 18:22) is a revision of “the Lord remained standing before Abraham,” which seemed to put God in a subservient position, and that “[Eli’s] sons scorned themselves” (la-hem, 1 Sam. 3:13) is a euphemistic correction of “scorned God” (ʾelohim, a reading reflected in the Septuagint). The assumption underlying this tradition—that the sanctity of the biblical text was not so inviolable as to risk disrespect for God—is very similar to the belief that must have motivated earlier scribes who made the revisions discussed here: the sanctity of the text is not so inviolable as to risk misleading people in ways that might compromise monotheism.

 

Source: Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 516-18.

Robert L. Millet, The Atonement as Taught in the Book of Mormon

Robert L. Millet, The Atonement as Taught in the Book of Mormon (Audio)

Daniel I. Block on Deuteronomy 32:8, 43

 

. . . changes in the text of Deuteronomy become part of the transmission process, and their resolution becomes part of the text critical process. The Song of YHWH in chapter 32 provides several illustrations of the issues represented here. Some English translations of verse 8 follow the Masoretic text in rendering the last phrase as “according to the number of the sons of Israel,” which reflects Hebrew  לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (NIV, cf. CSB, NKJV). However, most render the phrase, “according to the number of the sons of God, which reflects the Greek LXX, κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ, and two fragmentary readings from the Qumran scrolls, בני אלים, “sons of God.” The last verse of the Song (v. 43) provides an even more interesting study, since the ancient manuscripts reflect three different textual traditions (Table 3.2). While the message is not affected fundamentally by the variations in readings, many scholars have wrestled with the significance of these differences, and whether we are able to establish which of them is original.

 

Table 3.2

 

A Synopsis of the Textual Variations of Deuteronomy 32:43

Masoretic Text	Qumran Fragment	Septuagint
	Celebrate, O heavens with him	Celebrate, O heavens with him
	and bow down to him all gods.	and bow down to him, all sons of God.
Celebrate, O nations, with his people.		Celebrate, O nations, with his people.
		And let all the angels of God strengthen themselves.
See, the blood of his servants he will avenge;	See, the blood of his sons he will avenge;	See, the blood of his sons he will avenge;
and take vengeance on his enemies.	and take vengeance on his enemies	and avenge and take vengeenoe on his enemies.
	He will pay back those who hate Him;	He will pay back those who hate Him,
He will atone for his land and people.	and atone for the land of his people.	and atone for the land of his people.

 

Source: Daniel I. Block, The Triumph of Grace: Literary and Theological Studies in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Themes [Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2017], 43-44)

Robert F. Smith's Proposal for the Etymology of Korihor

 Source:

Robert F. Smith, “Who was Korihor in the Book of Mormon, and why are his teachings considered to be against the gospel of Jesus Christ?,” July 18, 2025, Quora.com

 

Korihor (Corihor) may originally be from hypothetical Sumerian *kur2-ḫur “Inscribed-Enemy,” as a homonymous personal-name — based on Sumerian kur, kur₂, ku-ra, gur “‘enemy’, be different; to change; deny, dispute; remove; strange, hostile.”[1] But perhaps reinterpreted metonymously as Sumerian Kiri-ḫur “Scratch-nose,” a cultural sign of submission (= Akkadian labānu ša appi "to stroke the nose [as gesture of submission]"),[2] since he did submit to the truth in the end.

 

[1] ePSD2, http://oracc.org/epsd2/o0032638

 

[2] ePSD2, http://oracc.org/epsd2/o0032210

Willem dan der Meer on the Debate Concerning If Psalm 110:2 has Two or Three Cola

  

The commentaries differ in their analysis of the number of cola present in vs. 2. Are there three or two cola? In any event the verse may be divided into two poetic lines. Line 2a consists of מטה־עזךָ ישׁלח יהוה מציון and line 2b consists of רדה בקרב איביךָ. This is indicated by the absence of direct parallelism between 2a and 2b. The two lines are indirectly joined by the imagery of ruling, but this can also be attributed to the external connection between the two lines. Separation of the two lines is argued for by the fact that 2a speaks of an action of the Lord, while in 2b the party addressed is summoned to rule. The imperative at the beginning of 2b may also indicate the beginning of a new line. This makes it clear that 2b is a unicolon. It is more difficult to decide in 2a. Those who divide the verse into three cola see this poetic line as a bicolon. The first section consists of מטה־עזךָ and the second colon is ישׁלח יהוה מציון. Although direct parallelism is absent between these cola, there are a number of indicators which suggest division into two cola. A more semantic parallel is present through mention in 2aA of the might of the one addressed, while 2aB speaks of Zion as the center of might. Furthermore, מטה and מציון form a phonological wordplay via the מ. And finally, the emphatic placement of מטה־עזךָ at the beginning of the line argues for a separate colon. On the basis of these considerations it appears that vs. 2 consists of 2 poetic lines, the bicolon 2a and the unicolon 2b. (Willem dan der Meer, “Psalm 110: A Psalm of Rehabilitation?,” in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry, ed. Willem van der Meer and Johannes C. de Moor Johannes [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 74; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988], 212-13)

 

Harm W.M. van Grol on the 3+3 Pattern in Hebrew Poetry

The following is taken from:

 

Harm W.M. van Grol, “Classical Hebrew Metrics and Zephaniah 2–3,” in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry, ed. Willem van der Meer and Johannes C. de Moor Johannes (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 74; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 202–204.

 

I have found a theoretical basis in generative metrics. Generative metrics reveals, in the iambic pentameter (stress-syllable metre), that metrical deviations are often simply variations which conform to strict rules, and that the analysis can not be focused upon the deviating unit (the foot) but must focus on the next textual level (the verse-line). Similarly, I view the deviating unit (the verse-line) in light of the next textual level (the strophe), and I describe the extremely variable rhythmic patterns as regular realizations of a number of abstract metrical themes.

 

The provisional results of my studies of rhythm are formulated in a number of metrical rules, which I summarize here:

 

(1) Classical Hebrew poetry has four metrical themes: 2+2, 3+2, and 4+4 (metrical units).

(2) The strophe contains line patterns which are all realizations of the same metrical theme.

(3) The following realizations of the metrical themes are distinguished:

 

(a) The base pattern		e.g. 3+3 for theme 3+3
(b) the tricolic pattern		e.g. 3+3+3 for theme 3+3
(c) and (limited to the first and/or last line of the strophe!)
	the hypercatalectic pattern	e.g. 4+4 for theme 3+3
	the brachycatelectic pattern	e.g. 3+2 for theme 3+3
	the hypercatalectic combination pattern	e.g. 3+2+3 for theme 3+2
	the brachycatelectic combination pattern	e.g. 3+3+2 for theme 3+3
(d) in addition to these stylistic pattern		e.g. 2+2+2 for theme 3+3

 

 

(4) The regularity on a level higher than the strophe can be noticed in repetitive patterns of metrical themes and/or strophe forms.

 

These metrical rules produce two types of strophes, pure strophes and marked strophes. Pure strophes consist of a base pattern and/or a tricolic pattern. Marked strophes contain a hyper-or brachycatalectic marking. Some marked strophes are susceptible to multiple interpretations. A 3+3, 3+2 strophe can belong to a 3+3 metrical theme (with a brachycatalectic ending) or to a 3+2 metrical theme (with a hypercatalectic beginning). In such a situation only the context can be determinative.

The 3+3 pattern in Hebrew and Ugaritic Poetry

  

Poetic Principles

 

The dominating principle of both Ugaritic and biblical poetry is the same, namely, that of balance or symmetry, the famous parallelismus membrorum. The Ugaritic texts are mainly in the 3+3 pattern, as would be expected in epic poetry; the 2+2 sequence is also common and there are numerous instances of mixed patterns, of 3+3 and 2+2. (Mitchell Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AYB 16; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], xxiii)

 

Eric D. Svendsen on Mark 3:21, 31

  

The Meaning of οί παρ' αύτοθ (ν. 21)

 

The traditional reading of this passage sees the phrase oi παρ' αύτοϋ (literally, "those beside him") as a reference to the members of his family who then show up in v. 31 (Martin, 1973:116). Those who challenge the traditional reading posit that the phrase could mean "his friends" (i.e., his disciples), or "those in the house" (i.e., that part of "the crowd" that was able to fit inside the house). There are difficulties with both of these solutions. First, as the MNT taskforce notes (Brown et al, 1978:55), the dialogue between Jesus and the scribes (vv. 22-30) is likely to be seen as a "filler" to account for the time it takes Jesus' family to set out on their journey in v. 21 until they arrive in v. 31. Mark uses this same "sandwiching" style in Mark 5:21-43. In 5:21-24 (the "setting out") Jesus is asked by Jarius (the synagogue ruler) to go to his house and heal his daughter. In 5:25-34 (the "filler") Jesus, on his way to the house of Jarius, encounters the woman who touches his cloak hoping to be healed of her bleeding. Finally, in 5:35-43 (the "arrival") Jesus comes to the house of Jarius and heals his daughter (see also Brown, 1982:375). The parallels between the sandwiching technique used in this passage and that used in 3:20-35 are too great to be ignored. This makes it all but certain that oi παρ' αύτοϋ must refer to the family members who arrive in v. 31.

 

Second, the meaning "those in the house seize the crowd" is equally unlikely since, as the MNT taskforce points out (Brown et al, 1978:55), in that case there is no completion of the sequence-"the 'his own' never come to the crowd." Similarly, the phrase έξήλθον κρατήσαι αύτόν (“they set out to seize him") can hardly refer to those who are already in the house with him; for what need would they have to "set out" if they were already there? If it is argued that αύτόν refers to the crowd (as above) then it must also be pointed out that "the crowd" is said to be in the house with him as well (Best, 1975:311). The most likely solution is still that this phrase refers to Jesus' family members who arrive in v. 31. (Eric D. Svendsen, "Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism [PhD Dissertation; Potchefstroom University and Greenwich School of Theology, November 2001], 78-79)

 

 

Evidence Supporting the Traditional View

 

In addition to the points above, the traditional view (i.e., that Jesus' family is saying that Jesus is out of his mind) is supported by the following (Best, 1975:313): First, the subject of "they were saying" is most easily read as the same subject of "they went out"-a change of subjects would be awkward at best. Second, the parallel that this view creates between vv. 20-21 (Jesus' family accuses him of insanity) and vv. 22-30 (the teachers of the law accuse Jesus of demon possession) provides a backdrop for vv. 31-35 (Jesus rejects biological ties and inaugurates the eschatological family) that is more forceful than the other views allow:

 

a. there is a "group" in each pericope (family and teachers of the law)

b. each group is introduced by a participle (ακουσαντες, v. 21; καταβαντες, v. 22)

c. ελεγον is used in both Gust as the teachers of the law "were saying," so those in Jesus' family "were saying")

d. the charge in v. 22 is clearly against Jesus, and this suggests that the charge in v. 21 refers to him as well

e. the statement in v. 22 has a harsh tone and this suggests that the tone in v. 21 be harsh as well (i.e., Jesus is accused of insanity rather than being overworked)

 

Third, this view is consistent with Mark's "sandwiching" technique that he uses elsewhere in his gospel (5:21-43). In the words of Lambrecht (1974:252): "Since 'sandwiching' (ABA' ) is a favourite Markan literary technique used also elsewhere in his gospel, one can hold without much risk of illusion that the tendency to structurize ... is not accidental." Moreover, this instance of the "sandwiching" technique is strengthened by the fact that Mark places it in chiastic form (Wansbrough, 1971:125):

 

3:20-21 The biological relatives of Jesus fail to understand his mission

22a Accusation of an evil spirit

22b Accusation that he drives out devils by the prince of devils

23-26 Saying about Satan

27 Answer to second accusation

28-29 Answer to first accusation

31-35 The true, eschatological relatives of Jesus

 

These considerations force us back to the traditional view of this passage which, at the end of this day, is still the best option. (Eric D. Svendsen, "Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism [PhD Dissertation; Potchefstroom University and Greenwich School of Theology, November 2001], 81-82)

 

Robert A. Sungenis on Mark 3:21, 31

While arguing that the "brothers" of Jesus are cousins, and trying to distance Mary from the family members who believe Jesus was "mad," Robert Sungenis does believe that the family of Jesus is in view in Mark 3:21: 

 

“when his friends had heard of it”: ακουσαντες οι παρ' αυτου εξηθον κρατησαι αυτόν. The phrase, οι παρ' αυτου (DR: “his friends”) is an idiom for one’s family or relatives. Since this was Jesus’ home, it was where Mary and his brothers and sisters lived . . . (Robert A. Sungenis, Commentary on the Catholic Douay-Rheims New Testament from the Original Greek and Latin, 4 vols. [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2022], 1:33 n. 68)

 

“they went out to lay hold on him”: εξηλτον κρατησαι αυτον, a verb structure with two aorists, one in the infinitive, showing the brothers had a fixed intent to seize Jesus. Their reasons were not due to concerns for Jesus’ safety, per se, but because they—being unbelievers—were embarrassed because of him, for he had made their home a meeting place of religious fanatics who were most likely in a spiritual frenzy due to the miraculous healings. (Ibid., 1:33 n. 69)

 

“for they said: He is become mad”: ελεγον γαρ οιτ εξεστη, with ελεγον in the imperfect, thus better translated as, “for they were saying, ‘that he is mad.’” That Jesus was mentally deranged was the brothers’ excuse for attempting to grab him and take him away from the crowd. Mary was not involved in this action against Jesus but the οι παρ' αυτου (the unbelieving cousins of Jesus, as noted in Jn 7:5), were the instigators. (Ibid., 1:33 n. 70)

 

On Mark 3:31, Sungenis offers the following comments:

 

“behold your mother and your brethren without seek for you”: ιδου η μητηρ σου και αδελφοι σου και αι αδελφαι σου εξχ εητουσιν σε, which from vr. 21 we already know their intentions, that is, to say Jesus was out of his mind so as to have an excuse for extracting him from the crowd he was teaching, although from the general context it is the male cousins of Jesus are leading this effort, while Mary, if present, is only swept along for more innocent reasons. Perhaps the cousins were influenced to think of Jesus in a more negative vein once the Pharisee’s charge of him having an unclean spirit was heard. Jesus, of course, is unflappable in the midst of all these extracurricular efforts to stop his teaching. He has already silenced the Pharisees and their blasphemous accusation; and now he silences his cousins who have charged him with being insane. Jesus does so by pointing to the crowd, mostly men, and designating them as the true believers he seeks to give his teaching—thus they are his spiritual “mother and brothers and sisters”—while his real relatives are given no spiritual significance at all. They are, after all, unbelievers (Jn 7:5) and Jesus treats them accordingly. They get no special time or influence with Jesus just because they are related, his mother being the only exception. (Ibid., 1:34 n. 78)

 

The Use of Aramaic in Genesis 31:47

  

And Laban called it Jegarsahadutha: but Jacob called it Galeed. (Gen 31:47)

 

 

Genesis 31:47 reflects usage of Hebrew and Aramaic by two individuals who were contemporaries: Jacob, the father of the Israelites, referred to a certain memorial or “witness heap” by the Hebrew term; his father-in-law, Laban, called it by its Aramaic counterpart. (Larry Lee Walker, “Biblical Languages,” in Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988], 1:336)

 

47  Laban first names the site in his own Aramaic tongue: Jegar-sahadutha. Jacob follows with a Hebrew name: Galeed. Jacob is bilingual (he has lived in an Aramaic-speaking country and an Aramaic-speaking home for 20 years) and is able to translate Laban’s phrase into Hebrew (or “Judaic/Judean” to use the OT term; see Isa. 36:11, 13). This is the only instance in which translation is involved between Abrahamites and Labanites, suggesting two languages sufficiently similar to each other to permit conversation, as in the case with Abraham and the Philistines. (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50 [The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995], 314)

 

Laban the Aramean gave the place an Aramaic name which means “witness pile” or “the pile is a witness.” (Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes [Biblical Studies Press, 2006], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

Jeffrey H. Tigay on Deuteronomy 32:8

  

Deuteronomy 32:8

 

As noted in the Commentary, the variant reading of verse 8, “equal to the number of sons of the divine” (le-mispar benei ʾelohim), obviates several problems that are raised by the Masoretic reading “equal to the number of the sons of Israel” (le-mispar benei yisraʾel). For this reason, the variant is most likely the original reading.

 

According to Job 1–2, the “sons of the divine” are a group that periodically present themselves before God to report on their assignments. One of them, called “the Adversary” (the satan), is a sort of roving investigator and prosecutor who reports to God what he has seen on earth. In Hebrew these beings are called benei ʾelohim, “sons of ʾelohim” meaning “members of the ʾelohim class.” The equivalent term in other Canaanite languages is benei ʾel(im), and according to Ugaritic mythology there are seventy such beings. Although ʾelohim and ʾel(im) literally mean “god/gods,” they also refer to various types of supernatural beings and heavenly bodies that form God’s retinue, as noted in the Comment to 3:24. These include spirits, angels (malʾakhim, lit., “emissaries”), the sun, moon, stars, and “the host of heaven.”

 

In some passages one encounters traces of a belief that these beings and bodies govern the earth for God. Genesis 1:16 and 18 say that God created the sun and moon “to rule” (lememshelet, li-mshol) over the day and night. The existence of such beliefs is also reflected in passages that criticize or combat them. For example, in Psalm 82 God rebukes the “divinities” (ʾelohim) for judging unjustly and the psalmist calls upon God to judge all nations personally and take them all as His allotment.

 

The idea stated in the variant reading, that the number of nations equals the number of “sons of the divine,” suggests that each of these beings is paired with a nation. Jewish sources of the Hellenistic and talmudic periods elaborate on this picture, indicating that God appointed divine beings to govern the nations on His behalf. Ben Sira paraphrases our passage as follows:

 

In dividing up the peoples of all the world,

Over every people He appointed a ruler,

But the Lord’s portion is Israel.

 

The “rulers” are Ben Sira’s equivalent of Deuteronomy’s “sons of the divine.” The book of Daniel, from the same period as Ben Sira, refers to them as “governors” or “princes” (Heb. sarim) and describes them as angelic patrons and champions of various nations. It mentions those of Persia and Greece and—here it disagrees with Deuteronomy and Ben Sira—one for Israel, too. The same picture is also known in a variety of forms in Jewish Hellenistic and rabbinic literature, where the number of these beings is seventy.

 

The sources indicate that the “sons of the divine” were angel-like beings under God’s authority, a belief compatible with the monotheistic viewpoint expressed in Deuteronomy 32:17, 21, and 39. The designation benei ʾelohim, “sons of the divine,” may even have been chosen to emphasize their inferiority. Nevertheless, the concept seemed problematic. At the very least, it indicates that God shared the world with supernatural beings associated with individual nations and seems to imply that He intended the other nations to worship those beings (see Excursus 7). The scribes responsible for transmitting the text of the Bible were probably concerned that readers not envisage them as having the power and authority that would encourage Jews to worship them along with God, an act completely incompatible with Deuteronomy’s opposition to angelology (see Comments to 4:19, 37 and 13:6). They may also have considered the concept too reminiscent of polytheistic pantheons, such as the Canaanite “assembly of benei ʾel” (it may, in fact, have evolved from such a concept). For one or both of these reasons, they eliminated the reading benei ʾelohim, “sons of ʾelohim,” and replaced it with benei yisraʾel, “sons of Israel.” This reading preserved the numerical aspect of the verse, for according to Deuteronomy 10:22 there were seventy Israelites at a key point in Israel’s history, equal to the number of divine beings and nations. Hence the text still meant that God divided the human race into seventy nations.

 

The original reading of verse 8 survived in the Septuagint, which was made for Greek-speaking Jews and preserved by Greek-speaking Christians (it is still used today in the Greek Orthodox Church). Traces of it survived among Jews as well. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan actually reflects both readings, as indicated by italics here:

 

When the Most High allotted the world to the peoples that came forth from the sons of Noah, when he gave separate scripts and languages to humanity in the Generation of the Division, at that time He cast lots with the seventy angels, princes of the nations, with whom He revealed himself [when going down] to see the city [where the Tower of Babel was being built], and at the same time He established the boundaries of the nations equal to the number of seventy Israelite persons who went down to Egypt.

 

What is more, the version of this story related in the eighth-century-c.e. work Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer tells of God casting lots with the seventy angels and appointing them over the seventy nations, and says nothing about the number seventy matching the number of Israelites, even though it alludes to our verse. Apparently this is an old tradition that goes back to a text of Deuteronomy that stated that the number of nations was based on the number of “sons of the divine.” As late as the tenth century c.e. Saadia Gaon felt compelled to rebut the view that the text implies that God shared the world with other supernatural beings.

 

The issues raised in verse 8 are also involved in 4:19 which implies that God took Israel for Himself and allotted the heavenly bodies to other peoples to worship. Allotting the heavenly bodies to other peoples is the converse of the idea in 32:8 that God allotted the nations to the “sons of the divine.” As noted in the Comment to 4:19 and in Excursus 30, the statement that God allotted the sun, moon, and stars to other nations, instead of allotting the nations to the divine beings, seems to be a way of revising 32:8 (or the tradition underlying it) so as to eliminate any suggestion that the gods of the nations are supernatural beings who own or govern the other peoples. However, as noted in Excursus 7, even the formulation of 4:19, implying that worship of the heavenly bodies by other nations was ordained by God, struck many as unlikely, and according to a tradition in rabbinic literature, the original Septuagint revised the text of that verse to read that the Lord allotted the heavenly bodies to other peoples “to give light to them,” in other words to give light, but not to rule.

 

The idea that God distributed the nations among the angels is unique to the Bible. Elsewhere we hear of the major gods dividing the regions of the universe among themselves by lot, or of a chief deity distributing cities, lands, and regions to other gods. These myths are concerned with the allotment of residences and cult centers to the gods, not with relationship of the gods to the people of these places. In the Bible the motif serves to express God’s relationship to humanity and his election of Israel. (Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy [The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996], 514-15)

 

Clyde J. Williams, "Thus We See": Teachings of Mormon

Clyde J. Williams, "Thus We See": Teachings of Mormon (Audio)

The Use of "Wherefore" in 2 Nephi 15:4 (= Isaiah 5:4) and 2 Nephi 7:2 (= Isaiah 50:2)

  

Isa 5:4 (KJV)	2 Nephi 15:4
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?	What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it? Wherefore when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, it brought forth wild grapes.

 

 

Isa 50:2 (KJV)	2 Nephi 7:2
Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst.	Wherefore when I came, there was no man; when I called, yea, there was none to answer. O house of Israel, is my hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea. I make the rivers a wilderness and their fish to stink because the waters are dried up and they dieth because of thirst.

 

In these two verses, the Book of Mormon interprets "wherefore" (Heb: מַדּוּעַ), not as an interrogative, but a conjunction. According to David P. Wright,

 

The BoM reading depends on the ambiguity or polysemy of the English “wherefore.” . . . the BoM reading uses “wherefore” as a conjunction which is not possible for Hebrew maddûa^c, which reveals the BoM’s dependence on the English text. (David P. Wright, “Joseph Smith in Isaiah: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah,” in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002], 168)

 

While this is possible, it is also possible that an ancient scribe or interpreter would understand it to have the sense of “therefore” or be a rhetorical question.

 

What is interesting is that the LXX of Isa 5:4 interprets the passage as being indicative:

 

‎What more shall I do for my vineyard that I did not do for it? Because I waited for it to produce grapes, but it produced thorns. (Lexham English Septuagint, Second Edition)

 

The Greek reads:

 

τί ποιήσω ἔτι τῷ ἀμπελῶνί μου καὶ οὐκ ἐποίησα αὐτῷ; διότι ἔμεινα τοῦ ποιῆσαι σταφυλήν, ἐποίησε δὲ ἀκάνθας. (Göttingen)

 

The word διοτι, according to BDAG, is "1. marker of a causal connection between two statements, because" and "2. marker used to introduce an inference, therefore."

 

For a similar usage in the Hebrew is Exo 3:3:

 

And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why (מַדּוּעַ) the bush is not burnt.

 

Examples of מַדּוּעַ being used in the sense of a rhetorical question, consider the following examples:

 

Then king Jehoash called for Jehoiada with the other priests and said to them, “Why (מַדּוּעַ) are you not repairing the house? Now therefore do not accept any more money from your donors but hand it over for the repair of the house. (2 Kgs 12:7 [Heb: v. 8])

 

As for me, is my complaint to man? And if it were not so, why (מַדּוּעַ) should not my spirit be troubled? (Job 21:4)

 

John H. Elliott on Various Words, Phrases, and Formulas Used by Early Christians as an Apotropaic Against the Evil Eye

  

The Speaking and Inscribing of
Potent Words, Phrases, and Formulas

 

Uttering certain powerful words, formulaic phrases, the names of God, Jesus, and the angels, liturgical expressions, and incantations were all considered by Christians as effective means for warding off or repelling the Evil Eye. Examples of such expressions also are found in written form on amulets and are presented below.

 

. . .

 

--The naming of children “Abaskantos” (“Unharmed by the Evil Eye”) and the regular speaking of that name also were deemed effective prophylaxis.

 

. . .

 

--The Chi Rho monogram is a symbol formed by the superimposition of the first two Greek letters of the name CHRistos (X + R, chi + rho). As a Christian symbol it was used widely since emperor Constantine (fourth century CE) to identify all things Chrisitan. It recalls the crucifixion of Jesus and his confession to being a king of a kingdom not of this world (John 18:36). IT also served Christians as a popular apotropaic, especially in Syria but also across the Mediterranean world including Gaul and Spain. The monogram was put over doors and windows, at entrances to churches and grave sites, on sarcophagi, on the shields of Constantine’s soldiers (where previously the crescent moon had stood to ward off the Evil Eye) and also on the helmuts of the emperor of his sons. It is on the sarcophagus of arch-bishop Theodore of Ravenna, on the columns of the Antonius and Faustina temple in Rome, and , with a Byzantine cross and Alpha and Omega, on Rome’s Porta Latina. It also appears in conjunction with other Evil Eye apotropaic symbols and inscriptions.

 

--The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, alpha and omega, appear in Rev 1:8; 21:6, and 22:18 as the letters by which God and Christ identify themselves in the book of Revelation. These letters were inscribed on parchments and papyri, on buildings (in Syria above the house portals), amulets, jewelry boxes, medallions and on bells, in the company of other anti-Evil Eye words and symbols (Meisen 1950:162).

 

--Other letters of the Greek alphabet were also used to form potent abbreviations: CH M G (= “CHrist-Michael-Gabriel,” or “Mary bore Christ” [Christon Maria Genna]). These were used for exorcistic purposes and also as protection against the Evil Eye.

 

. . .

 

--Figures of Christian crosses were inscribed on amulets, buildings, churches, sarcophagi, and tombs. Christians in Egypt removed from buildings the images of the deity Serapis (pagan protector against the Evil Eye) and replaced them with the cross of Christ.

 

. . .

 

--The names of angels (e.g., Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, also Uriel Archaf) were thought to have apotropaic power. They too were inscribed on amulets, lamina, put at thresholds and above the entrance to churches and grave sites, along with other words and symbols.

 

--Holy persons likewise were ascribed power as protective patrons against the Evil Eye. Under this heading Meisen’s illustrative list includes Solomon, Daniel in the lion’s den, the Three Young Men in the fiery furnace, the Magi at Jesus’s birth, the four Evangelists, St. Sisinnios, St. Theodore, St. John and St. Veit. Their names appear on amulets and apotropaics, often in combination with other prophylactics against the Evil Eye. (John H. Elliott, Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World, 4 vols. [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2017], 4:107, 108-10)

 

John H. Elliott on the Fish (ISHTHYS) Symbol Being Used as an Apotropaic By Early Christians

  

Christians, like their neighbors, considered the fish to have apotropaic power. The individual letters of the Greek word for “fish,” ICHTHYS, also formed an acronym representing the Greek Words Iēsous Christos, THeou Yios Sôtêr (“Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior”). The term ICHTHYS thus was considered an employed by Christians as a powerful apotropaic. Where found as an inscription, the acronym generally identifies distinctly Christian apotropaic and amulets. An amulet in the Berlin Bode Museum (previously the Kaiser Friedrich Museum) shows two fish under a cross. A phallus amulet shaped like a fish at one end and having its own end, a mano fica is a composite amulet, which shows even more clearly the Christian association of fish, phallus, and mano fica as related conventional designs for warding off the Evil Eye. The Christus Rex (“Christ the King”) monogram on phylacteries also was ascribed apotropaic power and marked the phylacteries as Christian. (John H. Elliott, Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World, 4 vols. [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2017], 4:103)

 

John H. Elliott on the Development of the Evil Eye and Its Assocation with Demons or the Devil in the Post-Christian Period

  

It is not until the post-biblical period that Christians explicitly link the Evil Eye with an external demonic force, namely the chief of demons, the devil, or Satan. . . . The Evil Eye spoken of in the New Testament writings is a strictly human phenomenon and is regarded as part and parcel of everyday human experience and conduct. (John H. Elliott, Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World, 4 vols. [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2016], 3:113)

 

(1) In contrast to Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greco-Roman sources, the biblical authors make no mention of an Evil Eye demon, a baskanos daimôn, alias the “demon of envy” (phthoneros daimôn). This Evil Eye demon was associated with Hades and, often in funerary inscriptions and tomb epitaphs, said to be responsible for the deaths of those remembered in the epitaphs. In the Bible, the Evil Eye is never presented as a demon attacking humans from without. It is rather always depicted, lamented, and warned against as a human defect arising within the human heart and communicated by an ocular glance. Only in the post-biblical period was the Evil Eye associated by the Christian communities with Satan/the Devil.

 

. . .

 

(2) The Evil Eye, furthermore, is never attributed to God, but only to humans. Israelites and Christians never attributed an Evil Eye or envy to Yahweh, in contrast to the Greeks who ascribed both to the gods. The God of Israel rather is portrayed as rescuing his favorites from the baneful effect of the Evil Eye in typically unexpected or unpredictable ways, as the stories of Joseph and David make evident. (Ibid., 279)

 

 

The Martyrdom of Polycarp—The Evil Eye and the Devil

 

The Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. 160-170 CE) is an account of the recent death of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor. The details of his death, which occurred c. 155-157 CE under the Roman proconsulship of Statius Quadratus (21:1), are contained in a letter from the church of the city of Smyrna to the church of Philomelium (Prescript). Toward the end of the description of his execution and the events leading to it (chs. 3-18), the letter emphasizes the role that the Devil played in the treatment of Polycarp’s charred corpse. Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:1 reads:

 

The envious (antizêlos), Evil-Eyeing (baskanos) and evil (ponêros) One [i.e. the Devil, cf. 2:4], who resists the family of the righteous ([i.e. the Christian community], however, when he saw the greatness of his [Polycarp’s] martyrdom, and his life-long blameless career, and that he [Polycarp] was crowned with the crown of immortality and had carried off the unutterable prize, he [the Devil] saw it that not even his [Polycarp’s] poor body should be carried away by us, though many desired to do this and to have a share in his holy flesh.

 

The Devil is not explicitly mentioned but is clearly implied by the epithets and the context as the transcendent agent directing the action here. An earlier passage of the letter describing the modes of torture and death used against the Christians concludes, “For the Devil used many wiles against them” (2:4). This same though of the Devil manipulating human agents appears in 17:2: “Therefore he [the Devil] put forward Niketas, the father of Herod, and the brother of Alce, to petition the governor not to give his [Polycarp’s] body” [to the Christians]. “The envious, Evil-Eyeing, and evil one,” the letter states, is the Devil working his malice through human hands.

 

This is the first direct Christian association of the Evil Eye with the Devil, Satan, the prince of demons. It is the beginning of a tradition that continues in Christian circles down to the present. IN this tradition, the Evil Eye, as well as envy (“through the Devil’s envy death entered the world,” Wis 2:24) are attributed to the Devil, Sata, who then infects humans and enlists them as his agents of the Evil Eye and envy. This association of the Evil Eye with the Devil has been labeled a “paradigm shift” that constitutes a distinctive Christian perspective on the subject. While a significant development, it must be pointed out, however, that this association of the Evil Eye and the Devil in particular begins not with Jesus or the writings of the New Testament, but only in the post-biblical period. Throughout the Bible, the Evil Eye is described as a human characteristic and not as a demonic external power, as it is presented in various Greek and Roman sources. This “shift” is later than the biblical writings and the nascent Jesus movement. In actuality, it represents a turning or return in the post-biblical period to the conceptuality of the pagan world and the attribution of the Evil Eye to an Evil Eye demon (baskanos daimôn).

 

This coupling of the Evil Eye and the Devil, once established in the Chrisitan communities, had a lasting influence on future generations. It set the stage for an association of the Evil Eye with heretics as well as with witches (Hexen and Hexenaguen—withces and witches’ eyes)—both classified as enemies of God and the church. Consequently in the Middle Ages, casting an Evil Eye became equated with bewitching (verhexen) as an action of the Devil and his minions operating through witches (Hexen) as human agents, accompanied by the gradual disappearance of the Greek and Latin terms baskainein and fascinare. Witchhunts included searches for possessors and wielders of an Evil Eye, now deemed a telltale and malignant feature of witches. Whereas the Greeks thought of the Evil-Eyeing envy of the gods and imagined Evil-Eyeing demons, the Christian church, demonizing the phenomenon of the Evil Eye, saw humans as under the sway of an envious Evil Eyeing Devil and as pawns of Satanic Evil eyeing malice. In this regard there was no separation of a pagan popular religiosity, on the one hand, and on the other, an enlightened Christian theology tolerant toward the relics of pagan culture. (John H. Elliott, Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World, 4 vols. [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2017], 4:52-54)

 

 

Address to the Greeks

 

A further text of this early post-biblical period, the Address to the Greeks (Cohortatio ad gentiles), attributed to Justin Martyr, refers to its conclusion (ch. 38) to the Sibyl’s prediction of the coming of

 

our savior Jesus Christ who . . . restored to us the knowledge of the religious of our forefathers, which those who lived after them abandoned through the teaching of the Evil-Eyeing demon (didaskalia baskanou daimonos) and turned to the worship of those who were not gods. (Address to the Greeks 38; PG 6.307-308B)

 

Here the Greek designation for the Evil-Eyeing demon (baskanos daimôn) is used in reference to the Devil of Israelite and Christian parlance, as in the Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:1.

 

A Christian inscription in the Catacomb of Priscilla on the Via Saleria, Rome, one of the largest and oldest of the catacombs, illustrates this association of the Evil Eye and the Devil. It names the Devil baskanos pikros (“spiteful fascinator/Evil-Eyer”). The catacomb was used for Christian burials from the mid-second to fourth centuries CE. (Ibid., 55)

 

Michael S. Heiser on Paul's Reference to the Idols/Gods of Deuteronomy 32:17 and Their Ontological Existence

  

Paul’s Reference to Deuteronomy 32:17

 

In 1 Cor 10:21–22, Paul is having a discussion about sacrificing to idols and eating the meat sacrificed to idols. He warns the believers there in Corinth in these two verses to avoid all of this, to avoid this meat. Why? Because you have to be careful, because if you partake of it, you enter into fellowship with demons.

 

Now, Paul believed demons were real. He’s quoting Deut 32:17 and assigning reality to the shedim, to the other elohim from these other nations that the Israelites fell into idolatry with.

So, let’s put all that together. We have a person under inspiration, the apostle Paul, quoting this passage in Deut 32, affirming that the elohim here were real; they’re real beings. Paul refers to them as demons. These beings were allotted to the other nations. These elohim allotted to the other nations are called the host of heaven, the sun, moon, and stars in Deut 4.

 

So Deuteronomy, all through the whole book (chapter 4 all the way to 32), assumes the existence, the reality, of these other gods. But it’s in that same chapter, Deut 4, where all of this starts, where this thread starts, where we have this phrase that “there is none beside me.”

 

Yahweh’s Incomparability Negates Contradiction

 

Now, if such statements like that were to telegraph the idea that these entities don’t really exist, then either Deut 32 is wrong or Paul is wrong, or both. We don’t have that problem though if we just say, “Look, statements like ‘there is none besides me’ just mean that Yahweh is incomparable. These other elohim exist; they are inferior. They are not like Yahweh. He is species unique.” There is no problem theologically if we take the verse—and not just this verse, but the whole statement found in other verses and similar statements found in many places in the Old Testament—if we just take them as statements of incomparability, we don’t have a theological contradiction. (Michael S. Heiser, Sons and Daughters of God: The Believer’s Identity, Calling, and Destiny, [Logos Mobile Education; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2019], Logos Bible Software Edition)

 

 

Paul on Deuteronomy 32:17

 

The apostle Paul quotes Deut 32:17, which calls these real spirit beings “demons.” He quotes that passage in 1 Cor 10:21–22, when he warns the Corinthians not to eat meat sacrificed to idols because they would be in fellowship with demons. “Outside the temple context,” Paul says in 1 Cor 8, “it’s okay, but when it’s connected to a temple complex, you do this, you are in fellowship with demons.” Paul took these beings, the gods of these nations, who are called shedim, translated “demons” in the OT—he took them as real entities.

 

This is part of the OT rationale for how to view reality, how to view the world. Israel was alone against the nations in part because all those nations had other gods. Initially it was because they were punished with them, because of what happened at Babel, but eventually those beings seduced the Israelites into moving away from the true God, worshiping them, and that really frames the entirety of the rest of the OT.

 

This is why there is such spiritual conflict. This is why we have apostasy. This is ultimately why we have the exile. There was a spiritual warfare going on in the OT, and it all starts with Deut 32:8–9. It is the introduction to what scholars call “cosmic geography.” Israel is Yahweh’s domain. All the other nations are under dominion of other real spiritual entities. (Michael S. Heiser, B161 Problems in the Bible Interpretation: Difficult Passages I [Logos Mobile Edition; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2016], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

Byron Merrill, Moroni: The Man and the Message (Parts 1 and 2)

Byron Merrill, Moroni: The Man and the Message (Parts 1 and 2) (Audio)

Harry Whittaker on the Writings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts Often Being Preferred Over the Bible by Christadelphians

Harry Whittaker, who, up until his death in 1992, was a leading Christadelphian apologist, preacher, and author, cautioned against how many in the community privileged the writings of the “Pioneers” (i.e., John Thomas and Robert Roberts) over the Bible:

 

A mistaken emphasis

 

Here, incidentally, is where certain among us blunder badly (though with the best of intentions). They dogmatically urge you to "read the 'pioneers' and keep on reading them." Almost invariably behind this attitude is the tacit assumption that the worthies of an earlier time succeeded in discovering everything of real value that is to be discovered in Holy Scripture. A sorry proposition, truly, which those fine men–each one of them learners to the end of their days–would have had precious little esteem for. (Harry Whittaker, Reformation: A Book for Christadelphians [Warwick: Biblia, 2022], 31)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues (e.g., Ruth McHaffie on Divine Inspiration being Imputed to John Thomas by Himself and Other Early Christadelphians)

Examining Taylor Marshall's Claims Concerning Genesis 3:15

Taylor Marshall, in an effort to defend the Marian interpretation of Gen 3:15, wrote:

 

Our three best Jewish witnesses to Gen 3:15 interpret the passage as “she shall crush.” These are Philo Judaeus, Josephus the roman historian, and Moses Maimonides, the great medieval Jewish philosopher. Philo argues that the Hebrew parallel poetry of Gen 3:15 demands the reading of “she shall crush.” Josephus, also writing in Greek, describes the passage for us as reading “she shall crush.” Then last of all, Maimonides also states that Gen 3:15 teaches that the woman shall crush the head of the serpent. (Taylor Marshall, “Who Crushes Satan’s Head in Genesis 3:15? (Mary of Jesus?)”)

 

Marshall provides zero references. And for two of these authors, he is simply wrong. Let us consider the evidence below.

 

Philo of Alexandria

 

In his Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis, III, Philo of Alexandria interprets Gen 3:15 to concern a male figure, not a female:

 

XXI. (65) “And the Lord God said to the serpent, Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed above all cattle and every beats of the field; upon thy breast and upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity in the midst between thee and between the woman, and in the midst between thy seed and between her seed, He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” What is the reason why he curses the serpent without allowing him to make any defence, when in another place he commands that “both the parties between whom there is any dispute shall be heard,” and that one shall not be believed till the other has been heard? (66) And indeed in this case you see that he did not give a prejudged belief to Adam’s statement against his wife; but he gave her also an opportunity of defending herself, when he asked her, “Why hast thou done this?” But she confessed that she had erred through the deceitfulness of serpent-like and diversified pleasure. Why, therefore, when the woman had said, “The serpent deceived me,” did he forbid the putting of the question to the serpent whether it was he who had thus deceived her; and why did he thus appoint him to be condemned without trial and without defence? (Philo of Alexandria, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged [trans. Charles Duke Yonge; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995], 57)

 

LXVII. (188) And the expression, “He shall watch thy head, and thou shalt watch his heel,” is, as to its language, a barbarism, but, as to the meaning which is conveyed by it, a correct expression. Why so? It ought to be expressed with respect to the woman: but the woman is not he, but she. What, then, are we to say? From his discourse about the woman he has digressed to her seed and her beginning. Now the beginning of the outward sense is the mind. But the mind is masculine, in respect of which one may say, he, his, and so on. Very correctly, therefore, does God here say to pleasure, that the mind shall watch your principal and predominant doctrine, and you shall watch the traces of the mind itself, and the foundations of the things which are pleasing to it, to which the heel has very naturally been likened.  (Philo of Alexandria, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged [trans. Charles Duke Yonge; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995], 71-72)

 

 

Flavius Josephus

 

Again, Marshall is in error. In chapter 1 of The Antiquities of the Jews, we read:

 

(48) However, Adam excused his sin, and entreated God not to be angry at him, and laid the blame of what was done upon his wife; and said that he was deceived by her, and thence became an offender; while she again accused the serpent. (49) But God allotted him punishment, because he weakly submitted to the counsel of his wife; and said, the ground should not henceforth yield its fruits of its own accord, but that when it should be harassed by their labor, it should bring forth some of its fruits, and refuse to bring forth others. He also made Eve liable to the inconveniency of breeding, and the sharp pains of bringing forth children, and this because she persuaded Adam with the same arguments wherewith the serpent had persuaded her, and had thereby brought him into a calamitous condition. (50) He also deprived the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam. Besides this, he inserted poison under his tongue, and made him an enemy to man; and suggested to them that they should direct their strokes against his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous designs towards men, and it being easiest to take vengeance on him that way: and when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, and made him go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground. (51) And when God had appointed these penalties for them, he removed Adam and Eve out of the garden into another place.  (Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged [trans. William Shiston; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987], 30)

 

Here is the relevant Greek text:

 

48  ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ συνειδότι πονηρῷ Ἄδαμος δὲ παρῃτεῖτο τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὑτὸν καὶ παρεκάλει τὸν θεὸν μὴ χαλεπαίνειν αὐτῷ τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ γεγονότος αἰτιώμενος καὶ λέγων ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐξαπατηθεὶς ἁμαρτεῖν ἡ δ᾽ αὖ κατηγόρει τοῦ ὄφεως 49  ὁ δὲ θεὸς ἥττονα γυναικείας συμβουλίας αὐτὸν γενόμενον ὑπετίθει τιμωρίᾳ τὴν γῆν οὐκέτι μὲν οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς ἀναδώσειν αὐτομάτως εἰπών πονοῦσι δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις τριβομένοις τὰ μὲν παρέξειν τῶν δ᾽ οὐκ ἀξιώσειν Εὔαν δὲ τοκετοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξ ὠδίνων ἀλγηδόσιν ἐκόλαζεν ὅτι τὸν Ἄδαμον οἷς αὐτὴν ὁ ὄφις ἐξηπάτησε τούτοις παρακρουσαμένη συμφοραῖς περιέβαλεν 50  ἀφείλετο δὲ καὶ τὸν ὄφιν τὴν φωνὴν ὀργισθεὶς ἐπὶ τῇ κακοηθείᾳ τῇ πρὸς τὸν Ἄδαμον καὶ ἰὸν ἐντίθησιν ὑπὸ τὴν γλῶτταν αὐτῷ πολέμιον ἀποδείξας ἀνθρώποις καὶ ὑποθέμενος κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς φέρειν τὰς πληγάς ὡς ἐν ἐκείνῃ τοῦ τε κακοῦ τοῦ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους κειμένου καὶ τῆς τελευτῆς ῥᾴστης τοῖς ἀμυνομένοις ἐσομένης ποδῶν τε αὐτὸν ἀποστερήσας σύρεσθαι κατὰ τῆς γῆς ἰλυσπώμενον ἐποίησε

 

Commenting on Josephus’s interpretation of the narrative in Genesis 3, Thomas W. Franxman noted that:

 

Deprivation of speech is a completely new element in this narrative. It replaces the formal curse given in the MT and is of its very nature related directly to the faculty by which the serpent caused his mischief. Jos. again highlights Adam, however, as the victimized party in altering the “this” (i.e., the beguiling of Eve) to a malignant act against the man. The poison beneath the tongue rationalizes the enmity between man and serpent, and the rationalization process is carried into the interpretation of the bruising of head and heel. That the serpent had feet of which to be deprived is, in its turn, the conclusion logically and easily drawn from the nature of the punishment. This third punishment is somewhat emphasized by being put last in the order instead of in the earlier position where the MT has it, and the original’s stress by repetition (“upon your belly you shall go and dust shall you eat”) is well retained in the version of our author. (Thomas W. Franxman, Genesis and the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus [Biblica et Orientalia 35; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979], 62)

 

 

Moses Maimonides

 

Proving a broken clock can be right twice a day, Marshall is correct in his claim concerning Maimonides (1138-1204). Maimonides believes that it is Eve who is in view in Gen 3:15:

 

It is especially of importance to notice that the serpent did not approach or address Adam, but all his attempts were directed against Eve, and it was through her that the serpent caused injury and death to Adam. The greatest hatred exists between the serpent and Eve, and between his seed and her seed; her seed being undoubtedly also the seed of man. More remarkable still is the way in which the serpent is joined to Eve, or rather his seed to her seed; the head of the one touches the heel of the other. Eve defeats the serpent by crushing its head, whilst the serpent defeats her by wounding her heel. This is likewise clear. (Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed [2d ed.; trans. M. Friedländer; London: Routledge & Sons Ltd., 1919], 217)

 

However, Maimonides was a minority voice among Jewish Medieval commentators. Rashi (1040-1105) interpreted the Hebrew of Gen 3:15 to read he, not she:

 

הוא ישופך HE WILL BRUISE (or, POUND) THEE— Like (Deuteronomy 9:21), “And I beat in pieces” which Onkelos translates by ושפית “I pounded it.” (source)

 

Moses ben Nachman (Ramban) (1194-1270) offered the following commentary:

 

AND THOU SHALT BRUISE THEIR HEEL. This means man will have an advantage over you [the serpent] in the enmity between him and you for he will bruise your head but you will bruise him only in his heel, with which he will crush your brain. (source)

 

Ibn Ezra (1089-1167) understood Gen 3:15 to be they, not she:

 

AND I WILL PUT ENMITY…THEY SHALL BRUISE THY HEAD. Her children shall smite thee upon thy head. Yeshufeni (bruise) in He that would break me (yeshufeni) with a tempest (Job 9:17) is similar to yeshufekha (shall bruise thee). Look at what follows and you will see that it is so. A bet has been omitted from the word rosh (head) in they shall bruise thy head. We find the same in into the house (bet) of the Lord (II Kings 12:17). (source)

 

When one examines the Targums, we see that there is no hint at this interpretation, too:

  

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:

 

15. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, between the offspring of your children and the offspring of her children. And when the children of the woman keep the commandments of the Law, they will take aim and strike you on your head. But when they forsake the commandments of the Law you will take aim and wound them on their heels. For them, however, there will be a remedy; but for you there will be no remedy; and they are to make peace in the end, in the days of the King Messiah.”

 

 

Targum Neofiti:

 

15. And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your sons and her sons. And it will come about that when her sons observe the Law and do the commandments they will aim at you and smite you on your head and kill you. But when they forsake the commandments of the Law you will aim and bite him on his heel and make him ill. For her sons, however, there will be a remedy, but for you, O serpent, there will not be a remedy, since they are to make appeasement in the end, in the day of King Messiah.”

 

 

Targum Onqelos:

 

15. And I will place enmity between you and (between) the woman, and between your children and (between) her children, it will remember what you did to it in ancient time and you will sustain (your hatred) for it to the end {of time}.”

 

Roman Catholic Apologists and Scholars on Genesis 3:15

 

Many conservative Roman Catholics who are defenders of the Immaculate Conception disagree with Marshall and argue that the evidence favors the reading of “he,” not “she.” Consider the following representative examples:

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible on Genesis 3:15 and Romans 16:20

Gen 3:15:

 

he shall: The Hebrew would be read individually (“he shall” or collectively (“they shall”). The earliest known Jewish interpretation of this (Gk. autos, “he” in the Greek LXX). (The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, ed. Scott Hahn and Curtis J. Mitch [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2024], 63)

  

Rom 16:20:

 

crush Satan under your feet: Paul desires the Roman Christians to understand the true difference between “good” and “evil” (16:19) and so share in Christ’s victory over the devil (! Jn 1:8). Paul is alluding to the first biblical prophecy, Gen 3:15, which promises that a Redeemer will trample the satanic serpent underfoot. Paul extends the prophecy about the Messiah to the entire messianic people. (The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, ed. Scott Hahn and Curtis J. Mitch [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2024], 2018)

 

Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, S. J. on Gen 3:15:

  

CONFLICTING TRANSLATIONS?

 

Why does the Vulgate say, “She will crush the head” while modern translations say, “He will crush his head”?

 

The Hebrew (hu’) and the Greek Septuagint (autos) clearly read the masculine pronoun here. However, the thirteenth-century Paris manuscript of the Latin Vulgate reads ipsa (she), and that was the manuscript used for the Clementine edition and the Douay-Rheims Catholic English translation of the Bible. However, earlier manuscripts read ipse (he). We will follow the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin manuscripts by reading “he,” which makes this line of Genesis focused on Christ. (Mitch Pacwa, Mary, Margin, Mother, and Queen: A Bible Study for Catholics [Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2014], 25)

René Laurentin on Genesis 3:15

Genesis 3:15—The Posterity of the Woman, Enemy of the Serpent

 

After the original fall, God cursed the serpent in these terms: “I will make you enemies of each other: you and the woman, your offspring and her offspring. It will attack your head and you will attack its heel.” This text is full of meaning. It signifies on the whole, without referring to the outcome, the struggle which will go on until the end of time between mankind and the devil. The Vulgate interprets the text in the light of further revelation, and in a twofold way goes beyond the inspired text in translating. “She (the woman) will crush your head.” In the Hebrew, it is the offspring of the woman that will be struggling with the offspring of the serpent. René Laurentin, A Short Treatise on the Virgin Mary [6^th ed.; trans. Charles Neumann; Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022], 272

Robert Sungenis on Favouring "He" instead of "She" in Genesis 3:15

"He": Controversy concerning this word is ongoing. Haydock notes: "Ipsa, the woman, so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin; others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same, for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head." [NB: the Latin ipse = he; ipsa = her; and ipsum = it]. Quoting Sigonius: "The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous. He mentions one copy which had the ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572 . . . The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint, agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and thus we may argue with the probability with the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants . . . H. Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far  when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, etc., mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood" (op. cit., p. 17). The problem centers on the Hebrew words for “he” (הוּא, pronounced “hu” or “hua”) and “she” (הִיא, pronounced “hiy” or “hia”). Although these words are distinguished by the middle letter (וּ as opposed to י), the problem is that the feminine הִיא is written as הִוא, which is very similar to the masculine form, throughout the Pentateuch in all but eight cases (Gn 14:2; 26:7; Ex 1:16; Lv 5:11; 11:39; 13:6; 16:31; 21:9), and the reason  is uncertain. Even in Gn 3:12: “The woman whom you gave to me she (הִוא) has given me . . .” uses the modified form הִוא instead of הִיא. Some verses even use both forms, as noted in Gn 26:7 which addresses Rebecca as both הִוא and הִיא (BHS, p. 39, although BHS footnotes a variant in the Samarian Pentateuch that inserts היא for both cases). The problem is compounded because the ancient Hebrew did not use vowel pointing (the both beneath the ה in הִוא or dot inside the ו of הוּא), thus making the modified female pronoun הוא identical in consonant form to the male pronoun הוא. Because of this ambiguity, neither form can be discounted but preference should go to the masculine pronoun because the following verb and nouns, “you shall bruise his” (תשׁופנוּ) and “the heel” (עקב) are masculine. The NABC holds: “since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring . . .a more exact rendering . . . would be ‘They will strike . . . at their heels’” (op cit., p. 10), but the pronoun and noun are Hebrew singulars, not plurals. The LXX also contains masculine singular pronouns (σου and αυτου). NABC correctly concludes, however, “ . . . the passage can be understood as the first promised of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ” (ibid). (Robert A. Sungenis, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-11 [Catholic Apologetics Study Bible Volume IV; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 34-35 n. 89)

 

Conclusion

 

Marshall did not provide any source(s) to support his controversial claims. As we have seen, he was wrong on two of his three claims. This is typical of pop-level Roman Catholic apologists who play fast-and-loose with the Bible and historical sources to desperately defend their dogmatic theology (for another example, see Answering Joe Heschmeyer's Deceptive Abuse of Mary Being the New Eve to Support Roman Catholic Mariology).