John B. Whitley on the use of לוּחַ in the text of Ezekiel 37:16 of Targum Jonathan

  

The Targum of Jonathan takes a slightly different path toward a similar end. It distributes (and slightly expands) its translation of the Hebrew term עץ among four occurrences of Aramaic לוח (tablet) and six occurrences of שבט, whose meaning here requires further discussion. The translation לוח is used when עץ is the object that Ezekiel physically holds in his hands where שבט is used when עץ is part of the inscription on the sticks/tablets. The translation שבט is significant precisely because of its ambiguity: it can mean both “tribe” and “rod,” and there is good reason to believe that its use here is intended to play on both of these meanings. In connection with the meaning “rod,” שבט seems to encode an additional play on the more precise nuances of “scepter” and “shepherd’s staff,” as has been observed with the use of the Greek ῥάβδος in the LXX above. This aspect of the play enhances the connection between the sign act in vv. 16–19 and the messianic content of vv. 21–28. In connection with the meaning “tribe,” it may be noted that שבט is used to translate ושבטי ישראל (and the tribes of Israel) in v. 19, and in the six instances in which it translates Hebrew עץ it always precedes the name of a traditional tribal designation (Judah, Joseph, Ephraim). Thus, in Tg. Jon., each use of שבט fully comprehends the meaning “scepter / shepherd’s staff / tribe” so that the symbolic unification of the tablets signifies both the restoration of the monarchy and the uniting of the tribes. One difference from the LXX here is that Tg. Jon. attempts to improve the coherence of this passage by modifying the content of the inscriptions on the tablets whereas, in the LXX, it is the description of the physical sticks as ῥάβδοι that gives the act messianic importance.

 

One additional modification in Tg. Jon. is worthy of note and is comparable to the LXX’s attempt to improve this passage. As we have seen above, the MT in v. 19 retains the symbolic imagery of the sticks in its first interpretation of the sign act, and the LXX seeks to make this verse more of a true interpretation by translating two instances of עץ in this verse with φυλή (tribe). The LXX does not, however, see this change through entirely since it also retains mention of the tribes becoming one “stick” (ῥάβδος). The Targum of Jonathan carries this change through more thoroughly by emending “and I will make them one stick” in the MT to “and I will make them one people.”

 

Thus, it appears that the additions that were added by TS^R caused the later translators of the LXX and Tg. Jon. to make v. 19 more of a first interpretation of vv. 16–17, to ponder the meaning of עץ in this passage, and to search for an explanation for how the symbolism in vv. 16–19 relates to the messianic content of vv. 21–28. Both adopted the same basic tactic of expanding the connotations of the stick imagery in a way that relates to both the messianic shepherd and Davidic ruler images later in this passage, although they went about this in different ways. The trajectory of interpretive revision begun in TS^R, therefore, was continued and strengthened in these later versions. (John B. Whitley, “The Literary Expansion of Ezekiel’s ‘Two Sticks’ Sign Act (Ezekiel 37:15-28),” Harvard Theological Review 108, no. 2 [April 2015]: 322-23)

 

 

Jaco Gericke on Genesis 20:13

  

EXPLICIT REFERENCES TO DIVINE CAUSATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

 

In a sense, the theory of DCP is completely inferential. That is, biblical Hebrew has no direct equivalent for the English word “cause.” The concept of causation, however, can presumably be inferred, first of all from what is understood to be a correct interpretation of functions within Hebrew grammar. Here the verbal system is said to contain forms indicative of causation (e.g. especially in certain types of pi‘el, pu‘al and hip‘il formations). This is why English translations have a few instances where the word “cause” occurs in the rendition. For example, a simple word search in the RSV with “cause” as the only extension and pertaining to divine agency shows only a number of cases. These occur across a variety of sources and shows complex causation in all instances, for example:

 

(i) And when God (Hebrew: “gods”) caused me to wander from my father’s house . . . (Gen 20:13)

 

. . .

 

Besides interpretations of grammar, also lengthier depictions of YHWH as causal agent as well as theological propositions implicating YHWH in the actualisation of certain states of affairs seem to constitute the other side of the textual data from which causation has been inferred. In addition, textual representations of the working of both human and divine characters in tandem are held to warrant the inference of a duality in causation, especially if these two agencies are the only ones that are kept in view, and internally undifferentiated at that. (Jaco Gericke, “Rethinking the ‘Dual Causality Principle’ in Old Testament Research—A Philosophical Perspective,” Old Testament Essays 28, no. 1 [2015]:93, 94, emphasis added; other texts are quoted in Deut 28:27; 2 Kgs 19:7; 21:8; Ezek 36:27; Psa 88:18; 106:46)

 

Peter Stravinskas: "Fewer than a dozen" texts have been Infallibilty Interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church

  

Father Raymond Brown, writing in the Jerome Biblical Commentary (the best single guide available for Scripture study), categorically asserts that “the Church has the power to determine infallibly the meaning of Scripture in matters of faith and morals”; however, he immediately goes on to note that this never involves technicalities like authorship or dating of a book. In point of fact, the Church exercises great restraint in offering authoritative interpretations of individual pericopes (texts); fewer than a dozen such instances can be pointed to in her two-thousand-year history, most of them at the Council of Trent. (Peter M. J. Stravinskas, The Catholic Church and the Bible [rev ed.; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996], 15, emphasis in bold added)

 

Keil and Delitzsch on the Conditional Nature of the Prophecy in Judges 13:2-7

  

Judg. 13:2–7. Whilst the Israelites were given into the hands of the Philistines on account of their sins, and were also severely oppressed in Gilead on the part of the Ammonites, the angel of the Lord appeared to the wife of Manoah, a Danite from Zorea, i.e., Sur’a, on the western slope of the mountains of Judah (see at Josh. 15:33). Mishpachath Dani (the family of the Danites) is used interchangeably with shebet Dani (the tribe of the Danites: see Judg. 18:2, 11, and 18:1, 30), which may be explained on this ground, that according to Num. 26:42, 43, all the Danites formed but one family, viz., the family of the Shuhamites. The angel of the Lord announced to this woman, who was barren, “Thou wilt conceive and bear a son. And now beware, drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean: for, behold, thou wilt conceive and bear a son, and no razor shall come upon his head; for a vowed man of God (Nazir) will the boy be from his mother’s womb,” i.e., his whole life long, “to the day of his death,” as the angel expressly affirmed, according to v. 7. The three prohibitions which the angel of the Lord imposed upon the woman were the three things which distinguished the condition of a Nazarite (see at Num. 6:1–8, and the explanation given there of the Nazarite vow). The only other thing mentioned in the Mosaic law is the warning against defilement from contact with the dead, which does not seem to have been enforced in the case of Samson. When the angel added still further, “And he (the Nazarite) will begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines,” he no doubt intended to show that his power to effect this deliverance would be closely connected with his condition as a Nazarite. The promised son was to be a Nazarite all his life long, because he was to begin to deliver Israel out of the power of his foes. And in order that he might be so, his mother was to share in the renunciations of the Nazarite vow during the time of her pregnancy. Whilst the appearance of the angel of the Lord contained the practical pledge that the Lord still acknowledged His people, though He had given them into the hands of their enemies; the message of the angel contained this lesson and warning for Israel, that it could only obtain deliverance from its foes by seeking after a life of consecration to the Lord, such as the Nazarites pursued, so as to realize the idea of the priestly character to which Israel had been called as the people of Jehovah, by abstinence from the deliciae carnis, and everything that was unclean, as being emanations of sin, and also by a complete self-surrender to the Lord (see Pentateuch, p. 674). (Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols. [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 2:292-93)

 

Susan Gillingham on Psalm 41:3 and 9 and its Use in the New Testament

  

Verses 3 and 9 (about the betrayal by a close friend, having possible correspondences with 35:14) result in the psalm being read in Jewish tradition as a personal psalm of one suffering in body and soul. Even Rashi sees this is about real, physical sickness. For those who argue the psalm should first be seen in the light of David, verse 9 is seen as a reference to Ahithophel, and verse 10 as alluding to the true cause of David’s distress which was in not being allowed to build the Temple.

 

This personal reading is paralleled in Christian tradition, where instead of reading the psalm through the viewpoint of the distress of David it is read through the sufferings of Christ. The best example is in Jn. 13:18, set in the context of the Last Supper, where John refers to Jesus using 41:9 as a prophecy about the imminent betrayal of Judas (‘But it is to fulfil the scripture, ‘The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me’). The Greek used here is different from the Septuagint—there is a different word for ‘eat’, and ‘bread’ is in the singular—but the specific reference to ‘eating bread’ becomes an appropriate literal reference to Judas receiving bread from Jesus during the following Passover meal, Jesus telling Judas to do what he was going to do, and Judas leaving (Jn. 13:21–30). So, according to John, Jesus uses Ps. 41:9 (which would probably have some resonance with Ahithophel’s betrayal of David) but this is to show that he is no longer the victim of circumstance, as was David, but one who is able to anticipate his own fate.

 

It is possible that this psalm is also alluded to in the account of Judas’ betrayal in Mk. 14:17–21. The fact that this is taking place ‘as it is written of him’ (Mk. 14:21) and that the reference is to eating and betrayal (verse 18) might suggest that Ps. 41:9 also shaped the account: Jesus, like the psalmist, is the ‘righteous sufferer’. Furthermore, in Acts 1:16 Peter’s first sermon refers to scripture being fulfilled, ‘which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas’: it is more than likely, given the reference to ‘David’ and hence to the psalms, that Ps. 41:9 is the ‘prophecy’ referred to here. (Susan Gillingham, Psalms through the Centuries, 3 vols., [Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Sussex, U.K.: Wiley Blackwell, 2018], 2:248-49)

 

Mary Jane Woodger on the "Zion"

Context: Discussion of D&C 57:

  

Zion does not always refer to a geographical location. The location of the center place of Zion, however, is a specific location. (Mary Jane Woodger, The Essential Doctrine and Covenants Companion: Key Insights to your Gospel Study [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2012], 112)

 

Radak (David Kimhi) on Isaiah 53:6

 

Radak on Isaiah 53:6:1

כלנו כצאן תעינו. ר"ל כצאן מבלי רועה, לפיכך אמר כצאן בפתח הכ"ף לידיעה כי אותו הצאן הוא תועה שאין לו רועה: (source)

 

"All we like sheep have gone astray." That is to say, like sheep without a shepherd. Therefore he says kaṣṣō'n ("like the sheep"), with the kaf vocalized with pataḥ, indicating definiteness, because it refers to that particular flock—the flock that wanders because it has no shepherd.

 

Radak on Isaiah 53:6:2

הפגיע. העון הוא הפוגע בהם והאל הוא המפגיע ששולח להם הרע, פירוש עון עונש העון, כמו כי לא שלם עון האמרי עד הנה:

 

"Has laid [it] upon" (הפגיע). The iniquity is what strikes them, while God is the one who causes it to strike—that is, who sends the calamity upon them. Here, "iniquity" (עון) means the punishment for iniquity, as in, "for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete" (Genesis 15:16).