Strack and Billerbeck on the Negative Attitude Towards Shepherds (cf. Luke 2:8)

  

2:8 A: Shepherds were nearby.

 

Shepherds were despised. Others suspected that they did not hold fast to the principle of what is mine and what is yours. Therefore, they were excluded from giving testimony in court.

 

Midrash Psalms 23 § 2 (99B): R. Yose b. Hanina (ca. 270) said, “You will find that there is no more contemptible occupation in the world than that of the shepherd הרועה, for throughout his life he walks with his staff and his bag. And yet, David calls God a shepherd (Ps 23:1).” ‖ Tosefta Sanhedrin 5.5 (423): They added to the list in m. Sanh. 3.3 of those unsuitable for the office of judge and the role of witness: robbers, shepherds, violent people, and (entirely) everyone who is suspected of loving money. Their testimony is always invalid. A parallel passage can be found in b. Sanh. 3.3: They added to them (those named in m. Sanh. 3.3): shepherds, the tax collectors, and publicans. It was initially thought that the shepherds did it accidentally (feeding their flocks on other people’s land), but when they believed it to be on purpose making them guilty of robbery, the rabbis determined (that they were not to be permitted to testify). ‖ Mishnah Baba Qamma 10.9: One was not allowed to buy wool, milk, (or goats) from shepherds (because you never know if it is stolen).—A less stringent judgment is found in t. B. Qam. 11.9 (370). There, the rule is set out as follows: Everything that a shepherd can steal without the owner noticing may not be purchased from him. But what he cannot steal without the owner noticing may be purchased from him. ‖ Mishnah Qiddušin 4.14: Abba Gurion of Sidon (ca. 180?) said in the name of Abba Saul (ca. 150), “A man should not train his son to be a donkey driver, a camel driver, a barber, a skipper, a shepherd, or a grocer. For their trade is the trade of robbers.”—It is similarly said in a baraita in y. Qidd. 4.66B.26. ‖ Exodus Rabbah 2 (68B): “Moses was a shepherd of small livestock for his father-in-law” (Exod 3:1). In Prov 30:5, this means, “Every word of God is refining” (according to the Midrash). God does not give greatness to a man until he has tested him in a minor matter. Then he leads him up to greatness. Behold, you have two great men in the world, whom God has tested in a little matter, and since they were faithful, he led them up to greatness. He tested David with small livestock, and he drove them into the wilderness to keep them away from robbers. For Eliab said to David in 1 Sam 17:28, “For whom have you left those few sheep in the desert?” This teaches that David adhered to the judgment in the Mishnah, “You are not permitted to raise small livestock in the land of Israel” (m. B. Qam. 7.7). God said to him, “You were found to be faithful with the small livestock, come and feed my sheep” (Ps 78:71). And likewise, Moses says, “He drove the small livestock in the west side of the wilderness” (Exod 3:1) to keep them from the robbers. Then God took him to feed Israel; as it says, “You led your people like sheep by the hand of Moses and Aaron” (Ps 77:20). (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:131-32)

 

François Bovon on Κεχαριτωμένη in Luke 1:28

  

Κεχαριτωμένη is rare in profane Greek, but fairly frequently attested in biblical Greek. The Vulgate translation gratia plena (“full of grace”) is deceptive, because the word in Luke alludes to God’s favor, not to the grace that makes humans holy. Mary is first addressed by name in the angel’s second speech (v. 30). Like Gideon long ago (Judg 6:12), she receives here a divinely appointed, salvation-historical address. God has already expressed his favor to her in the mere fact of his visit. (François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 [trans. Christine M. Thomas; Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002], 50)

 

Michael Mathes on Bows, Arrows, Arm Shields ("Bucklers") and Armor being "Traditional" among Cortes's Native Allies

  

Following the taking of Tenochtitlan, in which 20,000 Tlaxcaltecans participated, on opening his campaign in Panuco in March 1522, Cortes depended upon the support, not only ofTlaxcaltecas, but also of new Texcocan and Mexica allies, the majority of whom were armed with their traditional bows and arrows, arm shields, quilted cotton armor, and terrible macanas, however some had Castilian equipment, horses, and held titles of don and captain. (Michael Mathes, “Non-Traditional Armies in New Spain during the Habsburg Viceroyalties and their Service in Explanatory Expeditions,” Terrae Incognitae: The Journal of the Society for the History of Discoveries 35, no. 1 [2003]: 24, emphasis in bold added)

 

Amy Seymour on "Remembrance" (זכר; cf. αναμνηεσις)

  

However, while I find the metaphysical theorizing rich, such literal non-remembrances do not appear necessary or merited given a strict reading of the textual language alone. The passages regarding the word ‘remember’ do not appear to promise or indicate complete removal of evil and sin from God’s thought. The root Hebrew word that is here translated as ‘remember’ is ‘ זכר’] ‘ zakar’], which has an active component. The remembering is not simply intellectual—it is meant to move one to action based on what one is remembering and one’s relationship or duties to the events or persons involved. It is also used in contexts of announcing, praising, holding against, and proclaiming.

 

We can see this in other passages with the same word, where it seems clear God had not eliminated either the thought or existence of the relevant person: “Then God remembered Rachel, and heeded and opened her womb” (Genesis 30:22). If I ‘zakar’ my mother’s birthday, I will not just know that it is today—I will give her a call. Remembering that it is trash day, on this conception, is not just intellectually knowing trash is collected—I will go outside and move the cans to the curb. If I do not remember, in this way, an action someone did against me, I will not go about proclaiming it to others and acting in accordance with it. (Amy Seymour, “Time and the Nature of the Atonement,” in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, ed. L. Kvanvig Jonathan [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013], 188)

 

J. Reiling and J. L. Swellengrebel on Luke 1:28 and 1:30

 

Luke 1:28:

 

kecharitōmenē perfect participle of charitoō (‡) here ‘to bestow favour upon’, ‘to bless’, The precise meaning of the verb here (which to Mary is not quite clear as v. 29 shows) is explained by the angel in v. 30 ‘you have found favour with God’, charis being the key to both expressions, cp. on v. 30. (J. Reiling and J. L. Swellengrebel, A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1993], 51)

 

Luke 1:30:

 

You have found favour with God, or ‘favour in God’s sight’. Syntactic shifts may be preferable, e.g. ‘the favour of God has happened upon you’ (Marathi), ‘God has shown you his grace’ (Kituba), “God has been gracious to you” (NEB). for favour, or ‘grace’, cp. Nida, BT, 223; TBT, I.I20f, 1950. (J. Reiling and J. L. Swellengrebel, A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1993], 54)

 

Rashi on Psalm 36:2 and the Evil Inclination (Yetzer Hara)

  

The word of the transgression to the wicked man, in the midst of my heart, etc. This is a transposed verse. I feel within my heart that the transgression i.e., the evil inclination says to the wicked man that the fear of God should not be before his eyes. (source)

 

Craig R. Koester on Hebrews 7:12

Commenting on Heb 7:12, biblical scholar Craig R. Koester noted the following:

 

7:12. For when there is a change of the priesthood. This runs counter to the idea that the Levitical priesthood was permanent (Exod 40:15; Num 18:19; 25:13). The high priesthood was changed from one house to another within the Levitical family (Josephus, Ant. 12.387), but when the Syrians changed the practice (1 Macc 7:5–9; 10:20; 11:27; 2 Macc 4:24, 29; 14:3), many Jews protested (T. Mos. 6:6; 7:9–10; 1QpHab VIII, 8–9; XI, 4–8; 4QpPs 37 II, 17–19). Hebrews, however, speaks not about a change within the Levitical family, but a change from the Levitical priesthood to a different type of priesthood. (Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, [AYB 36; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 354, emphasis in bold added)

 

Of course, I believe this is a misinterpretation of the meaning of μετατίθημι in Heb 7:12. Further, it shows that only Latter-day Saint theology helps preserve the consistency between the New and Old Testaments on this issue.

Robert Alter on Psalm 23:4 and צַלְמָוֶת (cf. Isaiah 9:1)

  

in the vale of death’s shadow. The intent of the translation here is not to avoid the virtually proverbial “in the shadow of the valley of death” but rather to cut through the proliferation of syllables in the King James Version, however eloquent, and better approximate the compactness of the Hebrew—begey tsalmawet. While philologists assume that the Masoretic tsalmawet is actually a misleading vocalization of tsalmut—probably a poetic word for “darkness” with the ut ending simply a suffix of abstraction —the traditional vocalization reflects something like an orthographic pun or a folk etymology (tsel means “shadow,” mawet means “death”), so there is justification in retaining the death component. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:71)

 

Cornelius à Lapide (d. 1637) on Luke 2:52

  

Ver. 52.—And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. For stature the Greek has ἡλικίᾳ, “age,” or “proficiency.” See also chap. 12:25. Both renderings are true and apposite.

 

To the question whether Jesus really progressed in wisdom and grace, as He did in age and stature, S. Athanasius (Serm. 4 Contra Arianos) and S. Cyril (Thesaurus, 1. x.) seem to answer in the affirmative; for they seem to say that the humanity of Christ drew greater wisdom from the Word by degrees, just as the Blessed Virgin and other men and women did.

 

But the rest of the fathers teach differently. For, from the first instant of His conception, Jesus was, as has been said at v. 40, full of wisdom and grace, this being due to that humanity on account of its hypostatic union with the Word. S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 20 in laudem Basilii) says, “He progressed in wisdom before God and men, not that He received any increase, since He was, from the beginning, absolute in grace and wisdom, but these gradually became apparent to men [hitherto] unaware of them.” For, as Theophylact says, “the shining forth of His wisdom is this very progress;” just as the sun, though it always gives the same degree of light, yet is said to increase in light as it unfolds it more and more from morning until midday. It is to be noted that there were in the soul of Christ three kinds of knowledge—(1) beatific, by which He saw God, and all things in God, and so was rendered blessed; (2) knowledge infused by God; (3) experimental knowledge guided by daily use. The two former were implanted in Christ in so perfect a degree from the first moment of His conception that He could not increase them. I assert the same with respect to His habitual grace and glory. So say S. Augustine (De peccat. mor. et rem., l. iii. c. xxix.), S. Jerome (on the words of Jer. 31:22, “A woman shall compass a man”), S. Athanasius, Cyril, S. Gregory Nazianzen, Bede, and others, S. Thomas and the schoolmen everywhere—for this is required by the hypostatic union.

 

Christ, therefore, is said to have progressed in wisdom and grace as He progressed in years—1. In the estimation of men, and in outward seeming. For sometimes Scripture speaks according to what is seen outwardly, and the judgment formed by men. So Origen, Theophylact, Nazianzen, S. Athanasius, and Cyril.

 

2. Christ did really increase in experimental wisdom, for from mere use He acquired experience—“He learned obedience by the things which He suffered” Heb. 5:8.

 

3. Though Christ did not increase in habitual, yet He did increase in actual and practical wisdom and grace. For, even while yet a child, He daily exerted more and more of the strength of mind and heavenly wisdom that lay hidden in His soul; so that in face and manner, in word and deed, He ever acted with greater and greater modesty, gravity, prudence, sweetness, and piety.

To the objection that Christ is said to have increased in grace before God, S. Thomas (p. iii. Quæst. vii.), answers that Christ increased in grace in Himself, not as regards the habit, but as regards the acts and effects produced by it.

 

Among other differences between the grace which Christ had, and that which we have, there are the four following:—

 

1. Christ had grace, as it were, naturally by virtue both of the hypostatic union and of His conception of the Holy Ghost; but with us all grace is undue, gratuitous, adventitious, and supernatural.

 

2. In us grace (1) wipes out original sin, and whatever actual sins there may be, and so (2) makes us pleasing to God; but in Christ grace existed not only previously to sin, but actually without it, sanctifying Him per Se primo, for from the grace of the union with the Word emanated habitual grace, as rays from the sun, immediately and naturally. So that we are adopted and are called sons of God, but Christ is truly and naturally the Son of God, as S. Hilary (De Trinit., l. xii.), and Cyril (In Joannem, l. iii. c. xii.), teach.

 

3. In us grace is peculiar to the individual, justifying the man in whom it resides; but the grace of Christ is the grace of the Head, and so sanctifying us. For “of His fulness have we all received, and grace for grace” S. John 1:16.

 

4. Grace increases in us (even in the case of the Blessed Virgin) by good works; but in Christ it did not increase, because, proceeding from the union with the Word, which from the beginning was full and perfect, this fulness of grace, which could not be increased, was given Him at the moment of that union.

 

Tropologically, Damascene (De fide, l. iii. c. xxii.) says that Christ progresses in wisdom and grace, not in Himself, but in His members, that is, in Christians. For He went on producing greater acts of virtue day by day that He might teach us to do the same. All our life is without ceasing either a progress or a falling off; when it is not becoming better it is becoming worse, as S. Bernard tells us. Ep. 25.

 

With God and man. “For,” says Theophylact, “it behoves us to please God first and then man.” If we please God He will make us pleasing to men. It is not enough to please man, for this is often false and feigned, nor to please God only, for this is peculiar to oneself and unseen, but we must please “God and man,” that we may show to men that grace by which we are pleasing to God, and so attract them to it. “To God,” says S. Bernard, “we owe our conscience, to our neighbours our good reputation.” (Cornelius à Lapide, The Great Commentary of Cornelius À Lapide: S. Luke’s Gospel, 4 vols. [4^th ed.; trans. Thomas W. Mossman; Edinburgh: John Grant, 1908], 4:137-40)

 

Robert Alter on Psalm 22:30

  

Yes, to Him will bow down / all the netherworld’s sleepers / . . . all who go down to the dust. The received text seems to say, “They ate and bowed down,” ʾakhlu wehistaḥawu, which does not make much sense. The translation adopts a commonly proposed emendation that involves merely a respacing of the consonants and one change in a vowel, ʾakh lo hishtaḥawu. This inclusion of the dead among God’s worshipful subjects is unusual because a reiterated theme in Psalms is that the dead, mute forever, cannot praise God. Perhaps the poet, having imagined God’s dominion extending to the far ends of the earth, also wants to extend it downward—against common usage—into the very underworld. The Masoretic Text continues to be incoherent here, reading kol-dishney-ʾarets, “all the fats [?] of the earth.” The translation assumes a widely accepted emendation, kol-yesheiney-ʾarets (the last word, ʾarets, means both “earth” and “netherworld”). (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:69)

 

W. H. P. Hatch, "The Text of Luke 2:22"

  

THE TEXT OF LUKE 2:22

 

This verse contains a textual problem which has perplexed editors of the New Testament since the days of Erasmus and the Complutensian edition. The question is, What pronoun should be read after καθαρισμοῦ?—αὐτῶν, or αὐτοῦ, or αὐτῆς

 

Αὐτῶν is attested by אABLWΓΔΠ etc., by nearly all the minuscules, by the Peshitta, the Harclean, and the Palestinian Syriac, and by three minor ancient versions (Ethiopic, Armenian, and Gothic). The Arabic Diatessaron also has the plural pronoun, agreeing with the Peshitta at this point. Origen found αὐτῶν in his text of the Gospel, and, so far as is known, he was acquainted with no other reading in this place. He quotes Luke 2:22 in his Fourteenth Homily on Luke, which deals with the Circumcision and Purification, and he discusses the difficulty involved in the plural αὐτῶν without mentioning any variant reading. If he had known of such, he would certainly have made some reference to it. The Homiliae in Lucam were written at Caesarea, after Origen’s withdrawal to that city from Alexandria in the year 231. We may therefore assume that αὐτῶν formed part of Luke 2:22 in the text current at Caesarea and Alexandria in the early part of the third century, and that there were no rival claimants for the place. It was also the Antiochian, or ‘Syrian,’ reading, as its predominance in the minuscule manuscripts proves.

 

Αὐτῶν is sometimes explained as referring to the Jews.^* But this is contextually objectionable, because the subject understood of ἀνήγαγον is the parents of Jesus. Moreover, this interpretation becomes much more difficult, not to say impossible, if one believes, as the present writer does, that the first two chapters of Luke (except the preface) are based on a Semitic original. Some think the plural pronoun is used of Mary and Jesus; whilst others, with much better reason in view of the context, refer αὐτῶν to Joseph and Mary. But both of these explanations are fraught with the difficulty that the Mosaic Law prescribed purification only for the mother after childbirth. No ceremonial impurity attached to the father or to the child.

 

The feminine pronoun αὐτῆς is found in no Greek manuscript of the New Testament. Its attestation is not only of inferior quality; it is also extremely scanty, being limited to a citation in a work wrongly ascribed to Athanasius, to a catena on the Gospel, and to Erpenius’s edition of the Arabic published in 1616. Αὐτῆς is obviously a learned correction either of the reading αὐτῶν or of the variant αὐτοῦ, which is discussed below. It was made by some one who knew that the woman only according to the Jewish Law needed purification after the birth of a child.

 

On the other hand Codex Bezae and at least eight minuscules have αὐτοῦ after καθαρισμοῦ. The Sahidic version and the Amsterdam edition of the Armenian also have ‘his cleansing’ here. Eius of the Old Latin and the Vulgate, as well as the pronominal suffix in the Sinaitic Syriac, are ambiguous; they may be interpreted either as masculine or as feminine. But inasmuch as αὐτοῦ is an early ‘Western’ reading, being found in Codex Bezae and the Sahidic version, whereas αὐτῆς is very slightly attested and is doubtless only a learned correction of αὐτῶν or αὐτοῦ, it seems altogether probable that αὐτοῦ rather than αὐτῆς underlies the Old Latin and the Sinaitic Syriac. For the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions were made from manuscripts of the ‘Western’ type. Moreover, there is no evidence that the reading αὐτῆς was in existence when either of these versions was made. It is quite possible, however, that many readers of the Old Latin and Sinaitic Syriac understood the mother of Christ to be meant. Αὐτοῦ can only refer to Jesus, whose circumcision and naming are recounted in verse 21. But from the point of view of the Mosaic Law it is erroneous to speak of the purification of the child. Nevertheless, Griesbach regarded αὐτοῦ as a speciosa lectio, and Zahn thinks that it may be the right reading in Luke 2:22.

 

A few authorities have no pronoun at all after καθαρισμοῦ. The omission undoubtedly arose from a feeling that the Evangelist could not have written either αὐτῶν or αὐτοῦ in this place. This reading, however, has no more claim to be regarded as correct than the feminine pronoun αὐτῆς.

 

The Complutensian editors, followed by Beza and the Elzevir editions, adopted αὐτῆς; but Erasmus and Stephanus printed αὐτῶν in their New Testaments. The Antwerp and Paris Polyglots adhere to the Elzevir tradition, whereas the London Polyglot reproduces the text of Stephanus. Αὐτῶν is read by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Baljon, and von Soden. No editor has ever adopted αὐτοῦ, and none since Alter has printed αὐτῆς.

 

The present writer believes that the first two chapters of Luke (except the preface) are based on a Semitic source. The Greek variants in Luke 2:22 can be readily explained if one assumes, with Bousset, Gressmann, Plummer, and Moffatt, that the underlying document was written in Aramaic; and this assumption seems reasonable at least so far as the narrative parts of the chapters are concerned.

 

The source in Luke 2:22, like the Targum of Onkelos on Lev. 12:4 and 6, probably had יומי דכותה. The suffix in דכותה was intended to be read as feminine, meaning ‘her purification.’ Luke, or whoever translated the source into Greek, having read in the preceding verse about the circumcision and naming of Jesus, took it as masculine, ‘his purification,’ and translated it by καθαρισμοῦ αὐτοῦ. This was the original text of Luke 2:22. But before the time of Origen it was perceived that αὐτοῦ could not be right, and it was changed to αὐτῶν, which was suggested by the verb ἀνήγαγον and seemed to improve the sense. In course of time αὐτῶν became the dominant reading, though αὐτοῦ survived in texts which preserved the ‘Western’ tradition. But neither αὐτοῦ nor αὐτῶν was universally satisfactory, since the Mosaic Law demanded purification of the woman after childbirth and of her only. Accordingly αὐτῆς appeared as a learned correction, but its range was extremely limited until the appearance of the Complutensian edition in 1522. The adoption of αὐτῆς into the text of several early printed editions of the New Testament is due in part to the Vulgate eius, which was understood as a feminine pronoun. (W. H. P. Hatch, “The Text of Luke 2:22,” The Harvard Theological Review 14, no. 4 [October 1921]: 377-79)

 

Robert Alter on Psalm 11:7

  

The upright behold His face. With the wicked disposed of in the previous verse, the psalm ends on this positive note of the upright beholding God— even as God from the heavens beholds all humankind. In the Hebrew, the noun is singular and the verb is plural; presumably one of the two (probably the verb) should be adjusted. The Masoretic Text reads “their face,” with no obvious antecedent for the plural, but variant Hebrew versions have “His face.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:46)

 

Discussion with a Disingenuous Baptist (Adam)

Update: Adam keeps trying to get the video taken down. So here are the Zoom details so you can download it:

https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/7nHap6qpk3cP_TzDGl0t2Yri8PT4TBVfHl4QaVak9bMElayg7fGfK2hUfN0qLHXX.T680M5GqWnNx1naG 

Passcode: 4r@?FP!+

Please download and upload onto your own youtube and other channels. You have my express permission to do such.

Alberto Rus Lhuillier on Medicine among the Maya

  

Medicine

 

The Maya in common with other Mesoamerican groups believed that illnesses could have both natural and supernatural causes. To treat illnesses due to natural causes the healers first determined the symptoms and then made use of the vast supply of natural cures available (animal, mineral and plant), prescribed in a variety of different forms. Amongst these were infusions, poultices and ointments. Hundreds of recipes used to cure many aches and pains have been collected from colonial documents, and a great number of these prehispanic remedies were still used today and their effectiveness is well proven.

 

Illnesses caused the “bad winds” or by enemies, those provoked by failure to fulfill religious obligations or for any other unknown reasons were considered to have magic or supernatural origins. It was also necessary to cure them by these means. The Ritual of the Bacabs, a manuscript written in Maya and translated into English, records many spells as well as medical prescriptions. Cure by faith healers (brujos) is still a common practice today for sicknesses of supernatural origin. (Alberto Rus Lhuillier, The Ancient Maya [trans. Margaret Shrimpton; Mérida, Mexico: Dante, 1992], 53-54)

 

Joseph A. Fitzmyer on Luke 2:48

  

have been terribly worried and have been searching for you. Lit. “suffering pain, we are searching for you.” The ms. D and some ancient versions (OL, Curetonian OS) add another ptc., “and grieving.” Still other mss. (C, D, Θ, the Koine text-tradition) read the impf. ezētoumen, “we were searching,” instead of the preferred reading, the pres. indic. (translated here as a pf.). The verb odynasthai is used exclusively by Luke in the NT (see 16:24, 25; Acts 20:38); it expresses mental torment or anguish. Mary’s reproach implies that an obedient or responsible son would have acted otherwise. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I–IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AYB 28; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008], 443, emphasis in bold added)

 

Notes on Job 42:13 and the MT vs. Targum on the Number of Job’s Daughters

  

13. The form of the numeral (šiḇʿānāh) is peculiar. Targ. construed it as a dual, thus doubling the number of sons without increasing the daughters. A surplus of girls ordinarily would be regarded as a calamity; cf. Ecclesiasticus 26:10–12, 42:9–11. The pagan Arabs used to bury unwanted daughters at birth (cf. Sale, The Koran, pp. 199, 438). Job’s daughters, well endowed with beauty and wealth, figure more prominently than the sons who are not even mentioned by name. Sarna (JBL 76 [1957], 18) suggests that the numeral šiḇʿānāh may be a genuine archaism related to the Ugaritic form šbʿny. (Marvin H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AYB 15; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 352)

 

 

The Targum of Job reads:

 

והוו ליה ארבסר בנין ותלת בנן

 

 

13. And he had fourteen sons, and three daughters. (The Targum of Job and The Targum of Proverbs and The Targum of Qohelet [trans. Céline Mangan, John F. Healey, and Peter S. Knobel; The Aramaic Bible 15; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1991], Logos Bible Software edition)

  

Taking šib‘ābāh as dual, corresponding to the doubling of all Job’s possessions in v. 12: see 1:3. (Ibid., n 9)

 

Robert Alter on Psalm 9 (LXX: Psalms 9-10)

 

 

This psalm and the next one are a striking testimony to the scrambling in textual transmission that, unfortunately, a good many of the psalms have suffered. The Septuagint presents Psalms 9 and 10 as a single psalm, and there is formal evidence for the fact that it was originally one poem. Psalm 9 in the Hebrew begins as an alphabetic acrostic: verses 2 and 3, aleph (four times); verse 4, bet; verse 6, gimmel (dalet, the next letter, is missing); verse 7, heh; verses 8–11, waw; verse 12, zayin; verse 14, ḥet; verse 16, tet; verse 18, yod; verse 19, kaf. It is notable that some lines of poetry have been interspersed between the acrostic lines, unlike other acrostic psalms in which the sequential letters of the alphabet occur in consecutive lines. Then Psalm 10 begins with the next letter of the alphabet, lamed, after which the acrostic disappears, to surface near the end of the psalm with the last six letters of the alphabet—verse 7, peh; verse 8, ayin; verse 12, qof; verse 14, resh; verse 15, shin; and verse 17, taw. Now, what accompanies this confusion is a whole series of points, especially in the second half of the psalm, at which the text is not intelligible and is in all likelihood defective. Something along the following lines seems to have happened to our psalm: at some early moment in the long history of its transmission, a single authoritative copy was damaged (by decay, moisture, fire, or whatever). Lines of verse may have been patched into the text from other sources in an attempt to fill in lacunae. Quite a few phrases or lines were simply transcribed in their mangled form or perhaps poorly reconstructed. When the chapter divisions of the Bible were introduced in the late Middle Ages, the editors, struggling with this imperfect text, no longer realized that it was an acrostic and broke it into two separate psalms. The result of this whole process, alas, is that we are left with a rather imperfect notion of what some of the text means. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:40)

 

Alberto Rus Lhuillier on Astronomy among the Maya

  

Astronomy

 

In comparison to the ancient peoples of the Old World (Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Chinese, Greek), the methods used by the Maya for astronomy were rudimentary. The Maya used a pole set upright on the ground to mark the moment when the sun passed by the zenith of a particular spot and rods with intercrossed threads to trace the sight lines to significant astronomical points. We know some buildings were constructed for astronomical purposes, amongst these, the so called Caracol or Observatory at Chichén Itzá and Mayapán, the tower of the Palace at Palenque and the F. Group Complex at Uaxactun. In these structures sight lines leaving from a point on the staircase of the pyramid and directed towards three temples aligned on a platform opposite, determine the points on the horizon from where the sun rises at the equinoxes and solstices.

 

Despite the lack of accurate instruments the Maya determined precisely the cycles of the moon, the sun and of Venus, as well as some of the constellations. For the Moon they observed a cycle of approximately 29 and a half days. According to the Dresden Codex their exact calculation was for 29.53086 days and today modern scientists calculate the figure as 29.53059 days.

 

According to modern observations the actual tropical year (the solar cycle) has a duration of 365.2422 days. With the addition of the leap year every four years in the Gregorian calendar, the cycle is estimated at 365.2425 days, which is more accurate than the Gregorian calendar by one day in every 10 thousand years. The correction to the accumulated error was made with the civil calendar of 365 days.

 

For the cycle of Venus they established a pattern of 584 days divided into different phases. The morning star phrase was 236 days, for 90 days the planet disappeared, returned for 250 days in the evening star phase and then finally another disappearance, this time for 8 days. In modern astronomy, the Venus cycle has the following phases, respectively: 240, 90, 240, 14 with a total duration oscillating between 580 and 587 days, averaging 583.92 days.

 

Although it is unproven, the Maay ought to have known the cycles of the other planets whose hieroglyphs appear on their inscriptions. Great importance was given to stars and constellations. Some of the most important ones were the Pole Star Xaman Ek, or the big star, that guided merchants and travelers, the Pleiades or Tzab, “the rattles” and Geminin or Ac, “the turtle”. The representation of animals hanging from the celestial belt in the Paris Codes has led to the suggestion that a zodiac was used for some prophesying.

 

In the Dresden Codex, a table or register predicting eclipses has been identified that is valid for 33 consecutive years, and repeated to infinity. Modern calculations show that the table is in general accurate. Differences are small, not exceeding one day. (Alberto Rus Lhuillier, The Ancient Maya [trans. Margaret Shrimpton; Mérida, Mexico: Dante, 1992], 37, 39)

 

Robert Butterworth (Jesuit Priest) on Creation

 On Genesis 1:

 

It would be difficult to maintain that the first Genesis account expressly teaches that God created all things out of nothing. The notion of ‘nothing’ was unimaginable to the unphilosophical author, but he can still get across the essential truth that whatever does exist was created by God. For this reason everything that exists is good, as the author repeatedly insists. There is no dualism of a good and a bad principle at play in the work of creation. Evil did not exist alongside God, and cannot have come from him. Man, too, stands in a privileged position, directly and specially created by God with God-like qualities: no mixture of clay and a dead god’s blood. (Robert Butterworth, The Theology of Creation [Theology Today Series 5; Butler, Wis: Clergy Book Service, 1969], 37)

 

 

Commenting on 2 Maccabees 7:

 

Not only does this mother’s speech display the sustaining power that faith in God the Creator had come to have among the Jews; it also shows how, through contact with Greek thinking, the Jews were able to make clear, in a way that had been beyond the author of the first Genesis account, that God created what exists out of nothing. The myth of pre-existing chaos, independent of God, had been finally laid to rest. (Robert Butterworth, The Theology of Creation [Theology Today Series 5; Butler, Wis: Clergy Book Service, 1969], 41)

 

In other words, before 2 Maccabees and the influx of Greek thinking among the Jews, the Genesis 1 account, as well as creation itself, was understood as being ex materia. Of course, I dispute the reading proposed for 2 Maccabees, as do many scholars.

Genesis 1 Teaching Creation from Pre-Existing Materials in the March 1, 1888 Issue of "The Christadelphian"

While browsing materials on the "guph" in the Bible, I came across the following. It is interesting to note that the author of this article in The Christadelphian concluded that the Genesis 1 creation was discussing creating from pre-existing materials (i.e., creation ex materia) in 1888 (*) 

 

1. In the beginning.—We have here the first note of divine revelation; less than this it could not be, for man had not yet been called into existence. The question afterwards addressed by the Almighty to Job, might with equal propriety have been addressed to Adam—“where wast thou,” said Yahweh, “when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4.) The introductory words of this oracle tell us plainly, that there was a divinely initiated starting point, to all that constitutes heaven and earth; and that therefore, what has come to be called “matter,” is not eternal, with respect to its past existence (as some say.) This is confirmed by the Spirit of wisdom speaking through Solomon, for says wisdom, ‘the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there was no depths, I was brought forth; when there was no fountains abounding with water; before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest parts of the dust of the world” (Prov. 8:22–26). The Genesis beginning is the beginning of a purpose, requiring as the basis of its operations, the creation of a human habitation, commensurate with the vastness, and far-reaching character of the scheme, before the divine mind. The phrase “in the beginning,” may therefore be said to cover the whole of the productions embraced in the first chapter; for while chapter one commences with the words “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”; chapter two begins with the declaration “thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them” The first verse of the first chapter comprehends the generation of the substance out of which the subsequent six days creations were developed. This is to be inferred from the fact, that at the beginning of the six days work, the Spirit begins to operate upon already existing materials, to wit, an earth “without form and void,” a deep enveloped in darkness, and a heaven without light (Jer. 4:23). How long these pre-existing materials had been in course of formation, we are not informed, for the chronology of human affairs commences with the second verse. (“Expository Notes: Genesis, Chapter 1,” The Christadelphian 25, no. 285 [March 1, 1888]: 168-69, emphasis in bold added)

 

(*) Christadelphians do affirm creation ex nihilo (although Robert Roberts, the second pioneer of the movement, did not like that phrase in his works).

John Turner Marshall on the Pre-existence of Souls and the "Guph"

  

PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOULS.—The only hint in NT of a belief in the existence of human souls prior to birth is in Jn 9:2, where the disciples of Jesus put the question, ‘Rabbi, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?’ The primâ facie interpretation of this passage certainly is that the disciples believed it possible that the soul of this man had sinned before the man was born. Many commentators, as, e.g., Dr. David Brown, hold this to be untenable, because ‘the Jews did not believe in the pre-existence of souls.’ If by this is meant that this belief did not form part of the older Jewish religion, that would be correct, for the tenor of OT teaching is distinctly traducian. In Gn 2:7 we are taught that the soul of the first man was due to the Divine in-breathing; and Gn 5:3 tells that ‘Adam begat a son, after his image.’ But to affirm that Jews in Christ’s time did not believe in pre-existence, is simply inaccurate. The disciples of Jesus had at all events some points of affinity with the Essenes; and Josephus expressly states that the Essenes believe that the souls of men are immortal, and dwell in the subtlest ether, but, being drawn down by physical passion, they are united with bodies, as it were in prisons (BJ ii. viii. 11). In Wis 8:11 the doctrine is clearly taught: ‘A good soul fell to my lot: nay rather, being good I came into a body that was undefiled.’ Philo also believed in a realm of incorporeal souls, which may be arranged in two ranks: some have descended into mortal bodies and been released after a time; others have maintained their purity, and kept aloft close to the ether itself (Drummond, Philo Judæus, i. 336). In the Talmud and Midrash, pre-existence is constantly taught. The abode of souls is called Guph, or the Treasury (אוֹצִד), where they have dwelt since they were created in the beginning. The angel Lilith receives instruction from God as to which soul shall inhabit each body. The soul is taken to heaven and then to hell, and afterwards enters the womb and vivifies the fœtus. (Weber, Lehren des Talmud, 204, 217 ff. [Jüd. Theologie auf Grund des Talmud², etc. 212, 225 ff.]).

 

Whence did Judaism derive a creed so much at variance with its earlier faith? Most probably from Plato. There are some scholars, however, who find support for the doctrine even in the OT: e.g. Job 1:21 ‘Naked came I from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither.’ To find pre-existence here, one must suppose the mother’s womb to be the abode of souls, and ‘I’ to be the naked soul. Sir 40:1 seems to be explaining the word ‘thither’ in Job 1:21, when it says, ‘Great travail is created for every man, from the day they go forth from their mother’s womb to the day of their return to the mother of all living.’ Again, in Ps 139:13–15 some scholars find an account of the origin, first, of the body, then of the soul: ‘Thou hast woven me in the womb of my mother. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was formed in the secret place, when I was wrought in the deeps of the earth.’ Since the doctrine of pre-existence is not in the line of Revelation, most divines are reluctant to admit that it is taught in these passages. Dr. Davidson on Job 1:21 says, ‘The words “my mother’s womb” must be taken literally; and “return thither” somewhat inexactly, to describe a condition similar to that which preceded entrance upon life and light.’ And as for Ps 139:15, Oehler, Dillmann, and Schultz prefer to interpret it of the formation of the body in a place as dark and mysterious as the depths of the earth. The passage in Jn 9:2 simply represents the earlier creed of the disciples. There is no evidence that it formed part of their mature Christian faith. (John Turner Marshall, “PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOULS,” in A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents Including the Biblical Theology, ed. James Hastings et al. 5 vols. [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911–1912], 4:63)

 

François Bovon on Luke 2:48

  

Τί ἐποίησας ἡμῖν οὕτως (“why have you treated us like this?”) is a Hebrew Bible formulation. It belongs “always in the context of a deception, out of which it is spoken; thus it is an expression of ‘disillusionment’ or ‘disappointment.’ In this sense, the idiom also suits perfectly the situation presupposed in Luke 2:48.” The postpositioned οὕτως (“like this”), which refers back to v. 43 and not to Jesus’ last action (vv. 46–47), appears instead of the proleptic τοῦτο (“this”), which shows that Luke is consciously using this old formulation. Usually, “I” takes the first place in a coordinated formula (“I and Barnabas,” 1 Cor 9:6). Mary says here, “Your father and I.” According to Augustine, Mary is following the ordo conjugalis (in Eph 5:23, the man is the head of the woman); but Luke is rather trying to make the wordplay about the two fathers clearer (vv. 48, 49). (François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 [trans. Christine M. Thomas; Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002], 113-14, emphas in bold added)

 

J. Reiling and J. L. Swellengrebel on Luke 2:48

  

ho patēr sou kagō odunōmenoi ezētoumen se ‘your father and I were looking for you in great anguish’. The subject consists of a noun in the 3rd person and a pronoun in the 1st, hence the verb is in the 1st person plural. odunōmenoi ‘(being) in great anguish’ goes with the subject of the verb ezētoumen, and indicates the state of mind in which Joseph and Mary were during their search.

 

^. . .

 

Anxiously. Versions in English and several other languages have to render the attributive participle, qualifying the state of mind of the agent, by an adverbial expression, qualifying the action performed by the agent while being in that state of mind. Elsewhere it is better to shift to a co-ordinate verbal clause, ‘and we were worrying’, “and have been very anxious” (Goodspeed). Several translators follow Goodspeed in using a stronger expression than RSV does. e.g. ‘much distressed/troubled’ (Thai, Tagalog, Kapauku, Sundanese), “in anguish and grief” (BFBS), in order to give expression to the emphatic position the word has in the clause. For anxious, i.e. worrying and apprehensive of ills that may happen, c.p. on 10:41. (J. Reiling and J. L. Swellengrebel, A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Socities, 1993], 152)

 

The Syriac Chronicle Known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene (6th-century) Discussing Soteriology

  

"For you rightly and justly say that the doctors are not in opposition to one another, even as Paul is not in opposition to James when the one says, By faith is a man justified with- out works,' while the other wrote, 'Faith without works is dead'; because Paul spoke of faith before baptism, which is the perfection of confession out of a pure heart, when it has not previously displayed good works in the world, but such a man is justified by believing and confessing and being baptized; while James referred to faith after baptism, when he said that it is dead without works, if a man does not confirm it by right action. For baptism is the earnest of a good conversation; since even our Lord, who was to us an instructor, after He had hallowed the water and been baptized by John and given us the institution of baptism, went up to the mountain and underwent a struggle with the tempter and destroyed all his power, thereby guiding us, that we might know that after the divine cleansing we ought to display a contest in deed and to struggle according to law with the adversary, therein displaying our virtues.

 

"But someone will object, and say, 'Behold ! Paul took Abraham as a proof that a man is justified by faith without works, saying, "Therefore they that are in the faith are blessed with the believing Abraham" and, "To him that hath not worked but hath believed on Him that can justify sinners his faith is reckoned for righteousness" while James proved by the case of Abraham that a man is not justified by faith only, but by works confirmed by faith. And how are these not contradictory? for the same Abraham is an example of those who have not worked but believed, and of those who have shown faith by faiths.’

 

Wherefore he said of Abraham also that" I am ready to explain from the Holy Scriptures. For he who examines the periods of Abraham's life [will see] that he is an instance of both, of the faith which before baptism confesses salvation by believing in Christ, and of that after baptism which is joined with works, which is a reproduction of the old circumcision of the flesh, which drives away5 the denial of uncircumcision and brings to us the adoption as sons by God; wherefore Moses also was ordered to say thus to Far'oh; And say thou unto Far'oh, "Israel is my son, my firstborn."' Wherefore Paul writes to the Colossians and says, 'In whom ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the flesh of sins and in the circumcision of Christ, and ye were buried with Him in baptism.' he was justified by faith without works while he was in un- circumcision, before he was circumcised, thus pointing to confession before baptism without works, writing to the Romans, 'To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness. How? Not through circumcision, but in uncircumcision.' And he did not speak falsely; for the words of Moses are witness, which say of God that He said to Abraham, 'Look toward heaven and tell the stars, if thou be able to tell them'; and He said, 'So shall thy seed be': and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.

 

"But again our master James also took the same Abraham as an example in the faith which saves by works after baptism, he being then circumcised and not in uncircumcision. And we may learn from the Scripture; for he writes thus: 'Wilt thou know, O man, that faith without works is dead? For our father Abraham was justified by works, when he offered Isaac his son as a burnt-sacrifice. Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was made perfect. And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith," Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness: and He was called his friend."' It is easy again for one who reads the writings of Moses to learn from the book of Genesis that Abraham, after he was circumcised, offered Isaac as a burnt-sacrifice5 and fulfilled the commandment and was justified by works, giving us an instance of faith after baptism, which is a spiritual circumcision, justifying a man by works; for it is written, 'Abraham was circumcised, and Ishmael his son, and those born in his house, and those bought with his money from strange peoples'; and then God, trying Abraham, said to him, 'Take thy son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee to the high land; and offer him there as a burnt-sacrifice.' Accordingly these words of the apostles and those written in the old law do not seem to be in opposition to one another, but to be one, and to have been spoken by one spirit concerning faith before baptism, which justifies the man who presents him-self upon a short confession only without action, baptism being full salvation if a man depart from the world forthwith, and another faith, which is after baptism, which requires the proof of good works and also raises the man to the measure of perfection and to high place. And so also James very properly says of it that faith is made perfect by works; since the wise Paul also in another place gives similar teaching respecting faith, saying that it is made perfect through works: for the Galatians, after they had been baptized and been reckoned sons of God through the Spirit, were perverted to Judaism and were circumcised, since they vainly supposed that by the circumcision of their flesh they gained something in Christ beyond the uncircumcised; and he wrote to reprove them, saying, 'In Jesus Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth anything; but faith which is worked out by love.' From this also, therefore, it is plain that that kind of faith after baptism is of avail and saves with which work is joined and united in love; and what work done in love is Paul declares and says, 'Love is long-suffering and kind; love is not envious and excited and puffed up, nor is it ashamed; and it seeketh not its own, and is not provoked; and it imputeth no evil; and rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; and it hopeth all things, and endureth all things. Love doth not quickly fail.' These things are for the direction of action and labour and toil, that many may be profited and be saved, when united to faith. And who will dare to find fault? for respecting this our Lord also said, 'If ye love Me, keep My commandments.' (The Syriac Chronicle Known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene, Book 9, Chapter 13 [trans. F. J. Hamilton and E. W. Brooks; Byzantine Texts; London: Methuen & Co., 1899], 239-42)

 

Miguel León-Portilla on the Nahuatl Belief the World was Surrounded by Water (cf. Helaman 3:8)

  

El concepto náhuatl del mundo era expresado por la palabra cemanáhuac que, analizada en sus componentes, significa: cem-, “enteramente, del todo”, y a-náhuac: “lo que está rodeado por el agua” (a modo de anillo). El mundo era, pues, “lo que enteramente está circundado por el agua”. Idea que encontraba una cierta verificación en lo que se conocía del llamado imperio mexica, que terminaba por el occidente en el Pacífico y por el oriente en el golfo, verdadero mare ignotum, más allá del cual sólo estaba el mítico “lugar del saber”: Tlilan, Tlapalan. Con la palabra cemanáhuac y el verbo tlahuia: “iluminar”, “aplicar una luz”, se forma el compuesto: “aplica una luz sobre el mundo”. Esta idea atribuida al tlamatini, o sabio, da a éste el carácter de investigador del mundo físico. (Miguel León-Portilla, La Filosofía Náhuatl: Estudiada En Sus Fuentes [Instituto De Investigaciones Históricas Serie Cultura Náhuatl: Monografías 10; Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma De México, 2017], 113-14)

 

English translation:

 

The Nahuatl concept of the world was expressed by the word cemanáhuac, which, when analyzed into its components, means: cem- (“entirely,” “altogether”) and a-náhuac (“that which is surrounded by water,” like a ring). The world, therefore, was “that which is entirely encircled by water.” This idea found a certain confirmation in what was known of the so-called Mexica empire, which extended westward to the Pacific and eastward to the Gulf—truly a mare ignotum, beyond which there existed only the mythical “place of knowledge”: Tlilan, Tlapalan. From the word cemanáhuac and the verb tlahuia (“to illuminate,” “to cast light upon”), there is formed the compound meaning “to cast light upon the world.” This idea, attributed to the tlamatini (that is, the wise man), gives him the character of an investigator of the physical world.

 

Joseph A. Fitzmyer on Luke 1:47 and Rudolf Bultmann on ἀγαλλιάω (KJV: "rejoiced")

  

God my Savior. This phrase is parallel to “Lord” in v. 46, showing that kyrios there is to be understood of Yahweh, the source of blessing to Mary. The two following verses, both introduced by hoti, explain the reasons for Mary’s extolling of the Lord. This phrase is derived from the LXX of Ps 25:5; one can also compare with it Isa 12:2 and Mic 7:7. It is the first occurrence of the title “Savior” in the Lucan writings and introduces the theme of salvation (see p. 222 above). The title is here applied to Yahweh, but in 2:11 it will be given to Jesus. Mary’s “delight” in God echoes vv. 14 and 44; it conveys the atmosphere of conscious and spontaneous rejoicing, characteristic of those who are aware of the new period about to begin, to be inaugurated by God’s saving act in Jesus Christ. It is the delight of the eschaton (see further R. Bultmann, TDNT 1. 19–21). (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I–IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AYB 28; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 366-67)

 

Here is Rudolf Bultmann, “Ἀγαλλιάομαι, Ἀγαλλίασις,” from TDNT 1:19-21, as referenced by Fitzmyer above:

 

ἀγαλλιάομαι, ἀγαλλίασις

 

A.         ἀγάλλω in Greek literature.

 

Ἀγαλλιάω, or the much more common mid., is a new construct from ἀγάλλω or ἀγάλλομαι, and is found only in the language of the Bible and the early Church (with the single exception of P. Oxy., 1592, 4, 4th century a.d., possibly under Christian influence). The word ἀγάλλω, and esp. the mid., is of long standing in Greek poetry and prose (with ἄγαλμα and composites), and may be found also in P. Masp., 3, 8, 6th century a.d. In ancient Christian literature the term ἀγάλλομαι occurs as a variant in 1 Cl., 33, 2. Otherwise the word is replaced by ἀγαλλιάομαι under LXX influence, the sense of the latter term being determined by that of the Greek ἀγάλλεσθαι.

 

As ἀγάλλω means “to make resplendent” or “adorn,” so the mid. means “to preen or plume oneself”, “to be proud”. Thus what the term denotes is not so much a mood of satisfied joy as a consciousness of joyful pride expressed in the whole attitude. The expression of this joy, to which there does not have to be any reference in the word, has the character of demonstration rather than impartation. Thus ἀγάλλεσθαι appears as the opposite of αἰσχύνεσθαι in Hdt., I, 143; Thuc., III, 82; Xenoph. Ag.,5, 5, or alongside μεγαλύνεσθαι in Xenoph. Oec., 21, 5. But as ἀγάλλω is specifically the celebration of a god (Eur. Herc. Fur., 379; Aristoph. Pax, 399; Thesm., 128; Plat. Leg., XI, 931 ad; Eleusin. Law in Porphyr. Abst., IV, 22), so ἀγάλλομαι is cultic and perhaps ecstatic festal joy (Eur. Ba., 157; Tro., 452).

 

B.         ἀγαλλιάομαι in the LXX and Judaism.

 

Accordingly, in the LXX ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι or its derivative ἀγαλλίασις (and ἀγαλλίαμα) seems to be used as a rendering for גִּיל (possibly selected because of the similarity of sound) and רָנַן, rather less frequently of other verbs like הָלַל (Hitp.) and שׂוּשׂ or of the related substantives. But this use is almost entirely restricted to the Psalms and the poetic parts of the Prophets. The meaning of the word is the cultic joy which celebrates and extols the help and acts of God, whether shown to the people or community or to the individual (cf. ψ 50:14: ἀπόδος μοι τὴν ἀγαλλίασιν τοῦ σωτηρίου σου). Even when it is no longer a question of cultic rejoicing in the narrower sense, the word still retains its “religious” meaning and indicates either joy in God or joy before Him. The praise of God and the pride of the community or the pious individual constitute a distinctive unity. As the μεγαλυνθῆναι of God attained by ἀγ. (ψ 34:27; 91:5 f.) is also a μεγαλυνθῆναι of the pious individual (ψ 19:6); as God’s ὑψωθῆναι (ψ 96:8 f., Is. 12:6) corresponds to the ὑψωθῆναι of the community (ψ 88:17), so ἀγ. can be referred to God Himself (Is. 65:19; Tob. 13:13). Like ὑψωθῆναι and μεγαλυνθῆναι, εὐφραίνεσθαι, καυχᾶσθαι and related verbs are often conjoined with ἀγ. Especially striking is the linking up with it of ἐξομολογεῖσθαι (for הוֹדָה) and ἐξ- (ἀν-) αγγέλλειν. The ἀγ. declares the acts of God. Antonyms are αἰσχυνθῆναι, ταπεινοῦσθαι, κλαυθμός, δάκρυα, etc. The demonstrative character of ἀγ. finds particular expression in the fact that in poetic language cosmic magnitudes like heaven and earth and mountains and islands are summoned to participate in ἀγ. (ψ 88:3; 95:11 f. etc.; also Test. L., 18, 5). Finally, ἀγ. is used as an eschatological term. It denotes the joy of the last time represented as cultic festivity (ψ 95:11 f.; 96:1, 8; 125:2, 5f.; Is. 12:6; 25:9 etc.; also Test. L., 18, 14; Jud. 25, 5; B. 10, 6). Thus even on the Rabbinic view perfect joy and rejoicing characterise the future world. If ἀγ. is lacking in Jos., who has ἀγάλλεσθαι == “to plume oneself” (Ant., 16, 64; 17, 112; 18, 66; 19, 191), and also in Aristeas, it is found in Sir. (in the profane sense) and Test. XII (v. supra).

 

C.         ἀγαλλιάομαι in the NT.

 

In the NT ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι (and the act. in the same sense in Lk. 1:47 and Rev. 19:7 v.l.) and ἀγαλλίασις are used in the same way as in the LXX. The term signifies profane joy supremely in Jn. 5:35: ἠθελήσατε ἀγαλλιαθῆναι πρὸς ὥραν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ αὐτοῦ. God’s help is always the theme of the ἀγ. which is a jubilant and thankful exultation. As related terms we find χαίρειν (Mt. 5:12; Lk. 1:14; Jn. 8:56; 1 Pt. 1:8; 4:13; Rev. 19:7), διδόναι δόζαν (Rev. 19:7), and μεγαλύνειν (Lk. 1:46 f.). It is indeed the eschatological act of divine salvation which is supremely the theme of rejoicing, as is seen most clearly in the song of Revelation 19:7: χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν καὶ δώσομεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ ὅτι ἧλθεν ὁ γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου. When the δόξα of Christ is manifested, we shall rejoice: ἀγαλλιώμενοι (1 Pt. 4:13), and according to Jd. 24 we shall stand before the δόξα of God: ἄμωμοι ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει. But this ἀγ. is anticipated in faith. That there may be hesitation whether the ἀγαλλιᾶσθε of 1 Pt. 1:6, 8 is meant to be present or future is grounded in the character of faith; both are possible. Mt. 5:12 is to be understood in the same way, and perhaps also Jn. 8:56: (Ἀβρ.) ἠγαλλιάσατο, ἵνα ἴδῃ τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν. Even when ἀγ. is the individual joy of Zacharias and Elisabeth at the birth of John (Lk. 1:14), it is still eschatological joy; for John is the fore-runner, and therefore he rejoices (ἐσκίρτησεν ἐν ἀγ.) in his mother’s womb when he meets the mother of the Messiah (Lk. 1:44), as does also Elisabeth that the divine work of salvation begins in her (Lk. 1:47). The word thus characterises the consciousness of the community that it is the community of the last time constituted by the saving act of God. If the word is not found in Paul, this is because καυχᾶσθαι (q.v.) is sometimes used instead The thing itself is perhaps to be found in 1 C. 11:26, where καταγγέλλειν perhaps corresponds to ἀγ.

 

In connexion with the eschatological sense ἀγ. has a cultic. Nor does this mean only that the time of salvation has the aspect of a cultic festival. In the cultus the community actually celebrates and acknowledges the divine act of salvation. It celebrates its meals ἐν ἀγ. (Ac. 2:46; cf. 16:34; on 1 C. 11:26 supra). It is said in Ac. 2:26 (following ψ 15:9) and Hb. 1:9 (following ψ 44:8) that the person of Christ Himself is characterised by ἀγ. Worthy of note is Lk. 10:21: ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἠγαλλιάσατο τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ εἶπεν, where ἀγ. seems to have the meaning of inspiration (cf. also Jn. 8:56?).

 

Analogies may perhaps be seen in Eur. Ba., 157, and Tro., 452, in which the feasts of Phoibos or Dionysus might be regarded as ecstatic. Above all we may refer to j Sukka, 55 and other Rabbinic passages in which ecstatic joy at the feast of the drawing of water within the Feast of Tabernacles is related to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (following Is. 12:3).

 

D.         ἀγαλλιάομαι in the early Church.

 

Ἀγ. is often used by Ign. to characterise the eschatological community and its living expression, as in Phld., passim; Eph., 9, 2; Mg., 1, 1; but cf. also 1 Cl., 63, 2; Barn., 1, 6. and esp. Herm., where ἀγ., like ἱλαρότης, belongs to the very essence of the πνεῦμα of the pious man, m., V, 1, 2; 2, 3; s., IX, 24, 2. The cultic sense emerges in M. Pol., 18, 3, the eschatological in M. Pol., 19, 2. The word hears a more general sense in Cl. Al. Paed., 1, 8, 70, 1: οὗ γὰρ τὸ πρόσωπον κυρίου ἐπιβλέπει, εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγαλλίασις, οὗ δὲ ἀπέστραπται, παρείσδυσις γίνεται πονηρίας.

 

Robert Alter on Job 34:26

  

For their wickedness. Textual difficulties proliferate from here through verse 31. Instead of the Masoretic reshaʿim, “the wicked,” this translation reads rishʿam, “their wickedness.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:554)

 

Matthew Lynch on the Worship of the Davidic King in 1 Chronicles 29:20

  

David as Co-Recipient of Worship?

 

On several occasions, Chronicles blurs dramatically the lines between actions directed at Yhwh and actions directed at the king such that they share an exalted status. A particularly intriguing instance of blurred lines between divine and human royal exaltation occurs immediately preceding Solomon’s coronation, where we read,

 

Then David said to all the assembly, “Bless Yhwh your God.” So all the assembly blessed Yhwh, God of their ancestors, bowing to worship (ויקדו וישׁתחוו) Yhwh and king. (1 Chr 29:20)

 

What is the significance of the congregation’s actions in this scene? Do the people worship Yhwh and David as equals? The verbal hendiadys *קדד + *חוה is a common way of expressing deferential prostration toward God or humans in the Hebrew Bible.75 Several scholars thus contend that bowing toward and worshipping David is similar to other texts where the roots קדד  and חוה combine to depict deferential prostration toward humans, as when Ornan prostrates himself before David (1 Chr 21:21//2 Sam 24:20), when officials do obeisance before Joash (2 Chr 24:17, without Vorlage), or when Bathsheba twice prostrates herself before David (1 Kgs 1:16, 31). David falls prostrate before Saul (1 Sam 24:9) and Saul falls prostrate before Samuel’s spirit (1 Sam 28:14). Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, Joseph’s brothers bow reverentially before him (Gen 43:28). In short, the idiom *קדד*  + חוה  is not necessarily a cultic act, but rather an act of yielding submission to a superior. According to this line of reasoning, translating the hendiadys as “worship” is appropriate only insofar as the people ascribe great worth to Yhwh and the king, or as the acts denoted by the verbal pair occur in cultic contexts.

 

However, the foregoing view does not capture the uniqueness of this scene, in which a human (David) and Yhwh receive the same acts of ritual prostration. As Japhet contends, “such a close conjunction of God and king in an act of worship … is not found elsewhere in the Bible.” It is not only the acts, but the recipients and contexts that determine the significance of the hendiadys *קדד   and *חוה  . That Yhwh and David are corecipients of ritual obeisance speaks strongly to the king’s exalted status in Chronicles.

 

Several contextual features suggest why this is so. First, Chronicles states only three verses later that Solomon “sat on Yhwh’s throne in place of his father David” (v. 23), indicating that David sat previously on the same throne. The close proximity of this claim to v. 20 may account for the worship and obeisance directed at Yhwh and David. As Japhet observes, Chronicles never refers to the “throne of David,” but instead speaks of the “throne of the Lord” or the “throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel” (1 Chr 28:5), or the “throne of Israel” (2 Chr 6:10, 16; cf. 1 Kgs 8:20, 25) or simply the “royal throne in Israel” (1 Chr 22:10; 2 Chr 7:18; cf. 1 Kgs 9:5). By eliminating references to the Davidic seat of power, and identifying it instead with God’s throne within the theocracy, Chronicles indicates that the divine office-bearer was uniquely positioned for obedience and reverence also directed at Yhwh himself. Second, v. 20 suggests that David qua king plays a dual role as cult leader and exalted recipient of worship.

 

Therefore, he is and is not on par with Yhwh in this scene. On the one hand, David directs the congregation to “bless” Yhwh (v. 20a). Thus, they “bless Yhwh” and not David. On the other hand, David receives the congregation’s worship with Yhwh (v. 20b) as bearer of the divine royal office. David played both roles as intermediating king. He was Israel’s deferential king, who led all Israel to exalt Yhwh as king (as in his preceding prayer and 1 Chr 16), but was also the concrete representative of Israel’s exalted divine ruler, and one who participates in Yhwh’s rule. (Matthew Lynch, Monotheism and Institutions in the Book of Chronicles [Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe 64; Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism 1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014], 232-34, emphasis in bold added)

 

Joel B. Green on Luke 1:47

  

Mary speaks of the Lord God as “my Savior,” using language familiar from Hab 3:18 (cf. Ps 24:5; Isa 12:2; Zeph 3:17). How she perceives God fulfilling this role and, thus, why she praises him thus are outlined in the ensuing verses. The use of the verb “rejoice,” in this particular setting where “joy” and “gladness” are related to the eschatological coming of God (vv 14, 28, 44), already provides strong hints, however. (Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke [The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997], 102)

 

Kelly P. Kearse, "The relics of Jesus and Eucharistic miracles: scientific analysis of shared AB blood type" (2025)

I have not studied Eucharistic miracles in much detail, but this seems like a good article:

Kelly P. Kearse, "The relics of Jesus and Eucharistic miracles: scientific analysis of shared AB blood type," Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology 21 (2025): 1507-10

Nemesius of Emessa (d. 420), "De Natura Hominis" Chapter 2 and the Nature of Scripture

The following is from chapter 2 of De Natura Hominis by Nemesius of Emessa (d. 420). I am reproducing it here as it is sometimes used as a proof-text for the patristic acceptance of Sola Scriptura.

 

Greek (PG 40:588-89):

 

πολλῷ διενήνοχεν ἀλλήλων τὰ μόρια τῶν ζῴων, ὅτι καὶ αἱ ψυχαί. Πάλιν δὲ, προκόπτων ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ βιβλίῳ, προστίθησιν ἐπὶ τοῦ [ἀσαφές] καὶ τοῦτο· « Καὶ μήν, ὦ σοφώτατε κατήγορε, λέξεν ἂν ἡ φύσις πρὸς σέ, γελοίαν τὴν ψυχὴν ζῴῳ γελοίαν χρὴν δοθῆναι σώματος κατασκευήν· » οὕτως οἶδε τοῖς διαφόροις κατ’ εἶδος σώμασι διαφόρους ἐνούσας ψυ- χάς. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν περὶ τούτων Εἰ δὲ τὴν ψυ- χὴν ἀπεδείξαμεν μήτε σῶμα οὖσαν, μήτε ἁρμονίαν, μήτε κράσιν, μήτε ἄλλην τινὰ ποιότητα, δῆλον ἐκ τούτων, ὡς οὐσία τίς ἐστιν ἀσώματος ἡ ψυχὴ. Ὅτι μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ὁμολογεῖται πᾶσιν εἰ δὲ μήτε σῶμα, μήτε συμβεβηκός, δῆλον, ὅτι ἀσώμα- τός ἐστιν οὐσία καὶ οὐδὲν τῶν ἐχόντων ἐν ἄλλῳ τὸ εἶναι. Ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ γίνεται καὶ ἀπογίνεται χωρὶς τῆς τοῦ ὑποκειμένου φθορᾶς· τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς χωριζομένης, τὸ σῶμα πάντως φθείρεται. Τοῖς αὐτοῖς δὲ χρησάμενον ἔστιν ἀποδεῖξαι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀθάνατον οὖσαν. Εἰ γὰρ μήτε σῶμά ἐστιν (ὅπερ φύ- σει διαλυτὸν ἀποδειχθῇ καὶ φθαρτόν), μήτε ποιότης, μήτε ποσότης, μήτε ἄλλο τι τῶν φθειρομέ- νων, δῆλον, ὅτι ἀθάνατός ἐστι. Πολλαὶ μὲν οὖν εἰσι τῆς ἀθανασίας αὐτῆς ἀποδείξεις παρὰ τε Πλάτωνι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις· ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖναι μὲν περισχε- λεῖς καὶ δυσεκτανόητοι, καὶ μόλις τοῖς ἐντεθραμμένοις ἐκείναις ταῖς ἐπιστήμαις γνώριμοι· ἡμῖν δὲ ἀρχή, πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἀθανασίας αὐτῆς, ἡ τῶν θείων λογίων διδασκαλία, τὸ πιστὸν ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς ἔχουσα, διὰ τὸ θεόπνευστος εἶναι· πρὸς δὲ τοὺς μὴ κα- ταδεχομένους τὰ τῶν Χριστιανῶν γράμματα ἀρχή, τὸ μηδὲν εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν φθειρομένων ἀποδεί- ξαι. Εἰ γὰρ μηδὲν ἐστι τῶν φθειρομένων, ἔστι δὲ ἄφθαρτος, ἔστι καὶ ἀθάνατος. Ὥστε τοῦτο μὲν ἀρχούντως ἔχειν παραλειπτέον.

 

It seems that Galen, the admirable physician, also follows this view: that in each kind of animal there is, he thinks, a different kind of soul. For he says right at the beginning of the first book of his treatise On the Usefulness of the Parts: “And if this is so, there will be many parts in animals, some larger, some smaller, and some altogether indivisible into another kind; and all of them are needed by the soul. For the body is its instrument, and for that reason the parts of animals differ greatly from one another, because the souls too differ.” Again, as he proceeds in the same book, he adds this: “And indeed, most wise accuser, nature would say to you that a ridiculous soul ought to be given a ridiculous bodily constitution.” Thus he knows that different souls dwell in bodies differing according to kind. So much for this. But if we have shown that the soul is neither body, nor harmony, nor mixture, nor any other quality, it is clear from this that the soul is a certain incorporeal substance. That it exists, indeed, is admitted by all. And if it is neither body nor an accident, it is clear that it is an incorporeal substance and nothing among the things whose being consists in being in something else. For these things both come into being and pass away apart from the corruption of the underlying subject; but when the soul is separated, the body necessarily perishes. By the same arguments one can prove that the soul is immortal. For if it is not a body—something that by nature is dissolvable and corruptible—nor a quality, nor a quantity, nor anything else among perishable things, it is clear that it is immortal. There are many proofs of this immortality, in Plato and in others; but those are elaborate and difficult to understand, and scarcely familiar even to those trained in those disciplines. For us, however, the starting point for proving its immortality is the teaching of the divine oracles, which carries conviction from itself because it is God-inspired. And for those who do not accept the writings of Christians, the starting point is to show that the soul of perishable things is nothing. For if it is nothing among perishable things, then it is imperishable, and therefore also immortal. So this part can be left here for the time being.

 

Here, the Greek text uses θεοπνευστος (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) to describe “the divine oracles” ("τῶν θείων λογίων"); however, unless one reads into θεοπνευστος “formal sufficiency,” it is not a meaningful proof-text for Sola Scriptura. It is true that Nesemius believed that “the divine oracles” “carries conviction from itself,” but again, only if one thinks that Scripture carrying any weight/authority in and of itself is one to one equivalent to Sola Scriptura can one conclude such. Furthermore, he limits its “sufficiency” only to the immortality of the soul in this passage.

 

The same applies to the Latin version:

 

Latin (PG 40:587, 590):

 

Videtur autem nostram hanc opinionem approbare etiam admirabilis ille medicus Galenus, et in quaque specie animalis diversam esse animae speciem arbitrari. Scribit enim statim in principio libri primi De usu partium, hoc modo: « Atque si hoc ita est, multae animalium partes erunt, aliae maiores, aliae minores, aliae etiam quae in aliam speciem secari non possunt, quibus omnibus animae opus est. Nam corpus ejus est instrumentum, eamque ob rem multum a se differunt partes animalium, quandoquidem et anima. Deinde in progressu ejusdem libri addit et hoc de simia: « Atqui, sapientissime accusator, dicat natura tibi, animali anima ridiculo oportuit ridiculam corporis structuram dari. » Ita differentibus specie corporibus differentes inesse animas cognovit. Atque ista quidem de his disputata sunt. Quod si animam ostendimus neque corpus esse, neque harmoniam, neque temperationem, neque aliam ullam qualitatem, dubitandum non est quin substantia quaedam sit anima, vacans corpore: nam esse quidem, inter omnes constat. Si autem neque corpus est, neque accidens, profecto substantia est corporis expers, neque de iis est quorum, ut ita dicam, esse in alio est positum. Haec enim adveniunt et recedunt, sine subjecti interitu: at anima dum sejungitur, prorsus corpus exstinguitur. Eisdem rationibus licebit uti ut eam immortalem esse doceamus. Si enim neque corpus est (quod natura sua dissolvi et interire probatum est), neque qualitas, neque quantitas, neque aliquid e numero caducorum, obscurum non est quin immortalis sit. Multae quidem sunt ejus immortalitatis certissimae rationes apud Platonem et alios, sed spinosae et ad cognoscendum difficiles, et vix iis notae qui in illis scientiis magno opere versati sunt. Nobis autem satis est ad demonstrationem animae immortalitatis doctrina divinarum Litterarum, quae a se fidem habet, nec foris petita probationis eget, quia divino instinctu et inflatu data est. Adversus eos qui Christianorum Litteris non utuntur, satis est quod non numerari animam in iis quae occidunt demonstravimus. Si enim nihil est eorum quae occidunt, sed interitum omnem effugit, immortalis profecto est. Itaque hoc, quod abunde declaratum sit, omittendum est.

 

The admirable physician Galen also seems to approve this view of ours, and to think that each species of animal has a different kind of soul. For he writes immediately at the beginning of the first book of On the Usefulness of the Parts as follows: “And if this is so, there will be many parts of animals: some larger, some smaller, some also incapable of being cut into another species, and all of them are needed by the soul. For the body is its instrument, and for that reason the parts of animals differ greatly from one another, since the souls too differ.” Then later in the same book he adds this about the monkey: “Indeed, most wise accuser, nature would say to you that a ridiculous animal ought to be given a ridiculous bodily structure.” Thus he recognized that different souls dwell in bodies differing by species. So much, then, for these matters. But if we have shown that the soul is neither body, nor harmony, nor temperament, nor any other quality, there can be no doubt that the soul is some incorporeal substance, devoid of body; for that it exists is admitted by everyone. And if it is neither body nor accident, it is plainly a substance without body and not one of those things whose being, so to speak, consists in being in something else. For such things come and go without the destruction of the underlying subject; but when the soul is separated, the body is completely destroyed. By the same arguments we may also prove that the soul is immortal. For if it is neither body — something shown by nature itself to be dissoluble and perishable — nor quality, nor quantity, nor anything else among the things that pass away, it is obvious that it is immortal. There are indeed many very certain arguments for its immortality in Plato and others, but they are intricate and difficult to understand, and scarcely known even to those who have devoted much study to those disciplines. For us, however, the teaching of the divine Scriptures is enough for demonstrating the immortality of the soul; that teaching carries conviction from itself and needs no proof sought from outside, because it has been given by divine inspiration. Against those who do not accept the writings of Christians, it is enough that we have shown that the soul is not to be numbered among perishable things. For if it is nothing among the things that perish, but escapes every kind of destruction, then it is certainly immortal. So this point, having been sufficiently made clear, may be passed over.