Nathan MacDonald on Isaiah 31:3 and the Theme of "Spirit" and "Power" in the Old Testament

  

First, in the Old Testament there is a close relationship between the spirit and power, but in two apparently contradictory directions. On the one hand, as a wind רוח can be something that lacks substance, and the term can be used of that which is worthless and deceptive. This use is found most notable in Ecclesiastes, often in association with the similar term הבל, but is also used in Isa 41.29 of divine images. The Babylonian idols are רוח ותהו, which NRSV translates as “wind and confusion”. On the other hand, the wind is a powerful, but invisible, force in the natural world. In addition, since L74 gives life, it is the animating power in people and animals. Numerous biblical texts trace the origins of this life back to God himself who also has a רוח. God’s רוח can be presented as a potent force or as the annulment of power and might.

 

The power of God’s רוח is expressed in what is often considered a genuine Isaianic oracle where the prophet contrasts the human to the divine and the flesh to the spirit:

 

The Egyptians are human and not God their horses are flesh and not spirit (31.3).

 

The prophet’s intent is not to articulate a flesh-spirit dualism, but simply to warn those who would seek support from Egypt. In comparison to the power of the spirit, the flesh is weak and feeble. Similarly in Zech 4.7 God’s spirit is the antithesis of reliance on human resourcefulness: “not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit”. The power of God’s spirit is also vividly depicted in the effect that it has on individuals. The prophet Ezekiel describes how the spirit lifts (נשא) him from the ground and transports him to another place (Ezek 3.12, 14; 8.3; 11.1, 24; 43.5; cf. 37.1 [יצא]). A possibly more violent version of the same imagery is found in the story of Elijah. He too can be miraculously lifted (נשא) by the spirit and transported elsewhere (1 Kgs 18.12). When Elijah is taken into heaven by a whirlwind (סערה), the prophetic band offer to look for him reasoning that he might have been lifted up by the spirit and thrown down on a mountain or in a valley (2 Kgs 2.16).18 The Elijah narratives emphasize not only the power of God’s spirit, but also its unpredictability. As an expression of the divine will, the activity of the spirit cannot be foreseen by human beings.

 

The power and, arguably, the unpredictability of God’s spirit is ingredient to the stories in the book of Judges and 1 Samuel. The spirit of YHWH rushes (צלח) upon Israel’s leaders enabling them to undertake their mighty acts of deliverance (Judg 14.6, 19; 15.14; 1 Sam 10.6, 10; 11.6; 16.13; 19.20, 23; cf. Judg 3.10; 6.34; 11.29; 1 Sam 19.20, 23). Niditch neatly summarizes the portrayal of the spirit in these books,

 

“The Spirit of Yhwh” is powerful, empowering, dangerous, and difficult to control, endows the hero with the charisma to defeat his enemies and confront other challenges; it is a criterion of various kinds of leadership roles including judgeship, prophetic status, and kingship. (NIDITCH, Judges, 133)

 

The examples of Samson and Saul suggest not a permanent endowment, but an enabling that comes upon the leader for a specific purpose. In the case of Samson the spirit comes upon him time and again as he does his mighty deeds. (Nathan MacDonald, “The Spirit of YHWH: An Overlooked Conceptualization of Divine Presence in the Persian Period,” in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism, ed. Nathan MacDonald and Izaak J. De Hulster [Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe 61; Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013], 99-100, emphasis in bold added)

 

Philip W. Comfort on Luke 22:17–20

  

Luke 22:17–20

 

TR WH NU       ¹⁷ καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν· λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς· ¹⁸ λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. ¹⁹ καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· τοῦτο ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. ²⁰ καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματι μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

“¹⁷ Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks for it, he said, ‘Take this and share it among yourselves. ¹⁸ For I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the Kingdom of God comes.’ ¹⁹ Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had given thanks for it, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ ²⁰ And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’ ”

𝔓⁷⁵ א A B C L T W Δ Θ Ψ f^,13 it^c syr^p cop^sa,

kjv nkjv rsv nrsv esv nasb niv tniv nebmg rebmg njb nab nlt hcsb net

 

variant 1          omit 22:19b–20, yielding this translation:

“¹⁷ Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks for it, he said, ‘Take this and share it among yourselves. ¹⁸ For I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the Kingdom of God comes.’ ¹⁹ Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had given thanks for it, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body.’ ”

D it^,d,i, Didache

nkjvmg rsvmg nrsvmg esvmg nasbmg neb reb nabmg nltmg hcsbmg netmg

 

variant 2          transposed order (22:19a, 17, 18)

“^19a Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had given thanks for it, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body.’ ¹⁷Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks for it, he said, ‘Take this and share it among yourselves. ¹⁸ For I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the Kingdom of God comes.’ ”

it^b,

none

 

variant 3          transposed order (22:19, 17, 18)

“¹⁹ Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had given thanks for it, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ ¹⁷Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks for it, he said, ‘Take this and share it among yourselves. ¹⁸ For I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the Kingdom of God comes.’ ”

syr^c

none

 

variant 4          transposed order (22:19, 20a, 17, 20b, 18)

“¹⁹ Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had given thanks for it, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ ^20a And after supper, ¹⁷ he took a cup, and when he had given thanks for it, he said, ‘Take this and share it among yourselves; ^20b this is my blood of the new covenant. ¹⁸ For I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the Kingdom of God comes.’ ”

syr^s

none

 

variant 5          shortened version (22:19–20)

“¹⁹ Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had given thanks for it, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ ²⁰ And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’ ”

syr^p

none

 

All Greek manuscripts except D testify to the presence of Luke 22:19b–20 in the account of the Last Supper. Very likely, the Bezaean editor (D) was puzzled by the cup/bread/cup sequence, and therefore deleted this portion, but in so doing the text was left with the cup/bread sequence, contrary to Matt 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; and 1 Cor 11:23–26. As far as we know, the Bezaean order is found only in the Didache 9.2–3 and some Old Latin manuscripts. The other four variants show translators’ attempts to resolve the same problem of cup/bread/cup, but their deletions and transpositions produce the more usual bread/cup sequence. The Bezaean editor, Latin translators, and Old Syriac translators must not have realized that the cup mentioned in 22:17 was the cup of the Passover celebration, occupying 22:15–18. Going back to 22:16, it seems clear that the food of the Passover is implied when Jesus speaks of never again eating it until the kingdom of God is realized. Then, according to 22:17–18, Jesus passed around a cup of wine, again saying that he would not drink of it until the kingdom of God came. Thus, 22:16–18 has its own bread/cup sequence as part of the Passover meal. Following this, 22:19–20 has the bread/cup sequence of the new covenant.

 

All the translations except the neb and reb include this portion, though several provide a marginal note as to its omission. Tasker (1964, 422–423) provides a lengthy discussion as to why the translators of the neb did not include Luke 22:19b–20. The reb persists in leaving the shorter reading in the text. (Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations [Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008], 231-32)

 

The Presence of “Standards” (cuachpantli) in Mesoamerica

  

Each xiquipilli has a standard – cuachpantli – to carry on the road and into the battle. Codex Mendoza lists four types of standards, even though there were probably additional banners for lesser divisions that were worn by the leaders of those smaller units. Such leaders were called yaotequihuaque, and they wore extra layer of colorful insignia over the customary cotton shirt armor in addition to ornaments constructed from bark paper, feathers and cloths attached to their backs by leather straps in the manner that would not interfere with their ability to war and maneuver. Those cuachpantli banners or standards served to indicate the position of each unit while helping coordinate its movements on the battlefield. Zoe Saadia, “Army with no Beasts of Burden,” Pre-Columbian Americas, August 29, 2017)

 

Robert Alter on Esther 10:1 and “the coastlands” (KJV: “isles of the sea”)

  

the coastlands. In Hebrew, ‘iyey hayam mans “islands of the sea,” but in biblical usage it refers to far-flung places that may be either along the shore of the Mediterranean or actual islands. Here the idiom stands instead of phrases used earlier for the vast extent of the empire. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:744)

 

Further Reading:

John Tvedtnes on "Isle of the Sea" in the Book of Mormon

Bava Batra 15a and the debate about the historicity of Job

  

יָתֵיב הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: אִיּוֹב לֹא הָיָה וְלֹא נִבְרָא, אֶלָּא מָשָׁל הָיָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ הָיָה בְאֶרֶץ עוּץ, אִיּוֹב שְׁמוֹ״.

 

The Gemara relates that one of the Sages sat before Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani and he sat and said: Job never existed and was never created; there was never such a person as Job. Rather, his story was a parable. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said to him: In rebuttal to you, the verse states: “There was a man in the Land of Utz whose name was Job” (Job 1:1), which indicates that such a man did indeed exist.

 

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״וְלָרָשׁ אֵין כֹּל כִּי אִם כִּבְשָׂה אַחַת קְטַנָּה, אֲשֶׁר קָנָה וַיְחַיֶּהָ וְגוֹ׳״, מִי הֲוָה? אֶלָּא מָשָׁל בְּעָלְמָא, הָכָא נָמֵי מָשָׁל בְּעָלְמָא. אִם כֵּן, שְׁמוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירוֹ לָמָּה?

 

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, that the words “there was” prove that Job existed, what shall we say about the parable that Natan the prophet presented to David: “There were two men in one city; the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing except one little lamb, which he had bought and reared” (II Samuel 12:3)? Was there really such a person? Rather, it was merely a parable; here too it is merely a parable. The Gemara answers: If so, that it is a parable, why state his name and the name of his city? Rather, Job was clearly a real person. (source)

 

Scholar Critiques GodLogic Vs. Jacob Hansen Debate

 

Scholar Critiques GodLogic Vs. Jacob Hansen Debate

Notes on Textual Variants in Mark 14:24

  

Mark 14:24a

 

WH NU            τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης

“my blood of the covenant”

א B C D L Θ Ψ 565 it

nkjvmg rsv nrsv esv nasb niv tniv neb reb njb nab nlt hcsb net

 

variant/TR       το αιμα μου της καινης διαθηκης

“my blood of the new covenant”

A f^,13 Maj syr

kjv nkjv rsvmg nrsvmg esvmg nivmg tnivmg nltmg hcsbmg netmg

 

The addition of “new” to “covenant” is a late, Byzantine expansion, borrowed from the liturgical texts, Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25. (See note on Matt 26:28.)

 

Mark 14:24b

 

After the expression εκχυννομενον υπερ πολλων (“poured out for many”), a few scribes (W f) added εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων (“for the forgiveness of sins”)—transported verbatim from Matt 26:28. Several manuscripts (D W Δ Θ f¹³ 565 syr) omit πολλων (“many”) in the expression, “poured out for many”—probably in an effort to solve the problem of why Jesus would die for “many” and not “all.” In Isa 53:11–12, Qumran usage, and rabbinic teaching, the word “many” is a key word that refers to the chosen people in God’s kingdom. (Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations [Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008], 149)

 

 

Mark 14:24

 

τῆς διαθήκης

 

He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Most early manuscripts have “of the covenant” but one early manuscript and related later witnesses have “of the new covenant.” When “new” is present, the status of the covenant is more explicit. Further, when “new” is present, the phrasing is like that found in parallel passages in Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25, and may be reflective of harmonization. (Rick Brannan and Israel Loken, The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible, Lexham Bible Reference Series [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2014], Logos Bible Software edition)