John Calvin on Mark 9:39-40 (cf. Luke 9:49-50)

  

39. Forbid him not. Christ did not wish that he should be forbidden; not that he had given him authority, or approved of what he did, or even wished his disciples to approve of it, but because, when by any occurrence God is glorified, we ought to bear with it and rejoice. Thus Paul, (Philip. 1:18,) though he disapproves of the dispositions of those who used the Gospel as a pretence for aggrandizing themselves, yet rejoices that by this occurrence the glory of Christ is advanced. We must attend also to the reason which is added, that it is impossible for any man who works miracles in the name of Christ to speak evil of Christ, and therefore this ought to be reckoned as gain; for hence it follows, that if the disciples had not been more devoted to their own glory than anxious and desirous to promote the glory of their Master, they would not have been offended when they saw that glory heightened and enlarged in another direction. And yet Christ declares that we ought to reckon as friends those who are not open enemies.

 

40. For he who is not against us is for us. He does not enjoin us to give a loose rein to rash men, and to be silent while they intermeddle with this and the other matter, according to their own fancy, and disturb the whole order of the Church: for such licentiousness, so far as our calling allows, must be restrained. He only affirms that they act improperly, who unseasonably prevent the kingdom of God from being advanced by any means whatever. And yet he does not acknowledge as his disciples, or reckon as belonging to his flock, those who hold an intermediate place between enemies and friends, but means that, so far as they do no harm, they are useful and profitable: for it is a proverbial saying, which reminds us that we ought not to raise a quarrel till we are constrained. (John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 3 vols. [trans. William Pringle; Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2010], 2:373, emphasis in bold added)

 

Brant Gardner on the Mesoamerican Background to Ether 13:13

 Commenting on Ether 13:13 and its Mesoamerican background, Brant Gardner wrote that:

 

. . . Ether, like the prophet’s in Shule’s time, was in physical danger. For his own protection, he hid in the “cavity of a rock,” or a cave. A cave offers protection from the elements, provides a defensible position against wild animals, and is not a humanmade construction, therefore not advertising human presence. In addition to being an effective hiding place, in Mesoamerica it was also a sacred place where the levels of the world met. The Mesoamerican tower-temples touched the level of the heavens, while caves touched the underworld. If Ether participated in the Mesoamerican mindset, he would logically understand a cave as a potential place to commune with God. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 6:306)

 

In a footnote for the above, Gardner quotes from Karen Bassie-Sweet, From the Mouth of the Dark Cave: Commemorative Sculpture of the Late Classic Maya (1991). Here is a somewhat fuller quotation of the work:

 

The importance of caves in Precolumbian Mesoamerican culture has been discussed by several scholars (Grove 1973; Heyden 1975; Schavelzon 1980). Numerous kinds of historical activities occurred at caves.

 

The rites associated with caves were initiations related to social incorporation, such as baptisms or the entrance to adolescence or adulthood, and sociopolitical ceremonies, such as investitures and ascensions (Heyden 1975). Other rites involving exorcism and the cure of illness were also carried out in caves. As well, many mythological events were thought to have occurred at caves. A cave was the location of the birth of gods and races. The sun and moon were said to be born from a cave (Heyden 1975:134; Schavelzon 1980:159). The Aztec believed they originated from Chicomostoc (Seven Caves). A womb/vagina is represented in many Mesoamerican birth metaphors by a cave (Heyden 1975; Brady 1988:52).

 

The importance of caves during the Classic period in the Maya region can also be demonstrated. In this chapter, I will establish that certain signs and symbols in Mays art represent the personification of specific caves and cave tunnels, and that many of the rituals illustrated in Classic Maya art, including the Period Ending events and accession events, were performed at cave locations. (Karen Bassie-Sweet, From the Mouth of the Dark Cave: Commemorative Sculpture of the Late Classic Maya [Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991], 77)

 

 

Robert Alter on Proverbs 21:6, 8, 9, 12, and 28

  

Prov 21:6:

 

and snares of death. The Masoretic Text reads mevaqshey mawet, “seekers of death,” a problematic reading because the phrase does not accord well with “vanished breath” and the plural creates a syntactic incoherence. The translation follows a reading shown in some variant manuscripts, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate: umoqshey mawet, “and snares of death.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:416)

 

 

Prov 21:8:

 

a stranger-man. The Hebrew, literally “man and stranger,” looks suspect. Some emend ʾish wazar to ʾish kazav, “a lying man,” which reads smoothly, though it has no textual warrant. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:416)

 

 

Prov 21:9:

 

a spacious house. The Hebrew beyt ḥaver would be literally “house of a friend”—perhaps a welcoming house. But a reversal of the order of consonants yields bayit raḥav, “a spacious house.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:416)

 

 

Prov 21:12:

 

the hearts of the wicked. The translation follows the Septuagint, which shows libot, “the hearts of,” instead of the Masoretic leveyt, “to the house of.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:417)

 

 

Prov 21:28:

 

a man who listens to counsel will speak. The Masoretic Text reads “a man who listens will forever [lanetsah]̣ speak,” which scarcely seems the outcome one would want from an attentive person (presumably, attentive in a court of justice). The translation adopts the emendation of leʿetsah, “to counsel.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:418)

 

Robert Alter on PRoverbs 20:28

  

Let a king keep. The translation assumes a singular, yitsor, for the plural yitsru in the received text. This assumption is encouraged by the Masoretic linking of the verb with a hyphen to melekh, “king,” suggesting that this singular noun is the grammatical subject of the verb. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:415)

 

Sid Zalman Leiman on the Book of Deuteronomy and 2 Kings 22

  

The notion that the law scroll discovered in 621 B.C. was a copy of Deuteronomy was first suggested in modern times by W.M.L. De Wette in 1805. The identification had been suggested earlier by Jewish and Christian sources. For the Jewish sources, see L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol.6, p. 377, n.116; cf. pseudo-Rashi on 2Ch34:14. For the Christian sources, see the references cited by E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, p.1, n.2. The notion that Deuteronomy was a "pious forgery" written shortly before its "discovery" in 621 B.C. received its classic formulation in Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. He wrote, op.cit., p. 9:

 

About the origin of Deuteronomy there is still less dispute; in all circles where appreciation of scientific results can be looked for at all, it is recognized that it was composed in the same age as that in which it was discovered, and that it was made the rule of Josiah's reformation, which took place about a generation before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans.

 

Against Wellhausen's view, scholars have noted that one of Josiah's reforms, as described in 2K23:9, contradicts Deut.18x6-8. It is most unlikely that the reformers would have composed a law only to neglect its observance. More likely, Deuteronomy was authored long before 621 B.C.; some of its legislation could no longer be implemented when rediscovered in 621 B.C. Furthermore, the Josianic episode clearly describes a lost book, called ספר התורה, which was suddenly found. Neither Josiah nor anyone else doubted its authenticity. Huldah the Prophetess was consulted, not in order to authenticate the book, but in order to inquire of her how Josiah could avert the doom it foretold. It seems likely that a formerly canonical book was conveniently "lost” during the reigns of Manasseh (ca. 687-642) and Amon (ca. 642-640), and rediscovered during the reign of Josiah. (According to rabbinic legend, Manasseh and Amon attempted to destroy or alter all copies of the Torah. See Sanhedrin 103b, and cf. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol.6, pp. 376-377, notes 112 and 115. If such an attempt did occur, the disappearance of all Torah scrolls shortly before the discovery of Josiah's scroll becomes plausible, Deuteronomy 31:10-13 implies that Torah scrolls did not generally circulate among the people. When Jehoshaphat engages in educational activity among the populace (2Chl7:9), he must carry a copy of the Torah with him. It would have been a relatively simple matter for a monarch to destroy all copies deposited in the temple archives, and the very few copies, if any, in circulation. Moses Stuart, Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, p. 77, cites the following analogy from the French Reign of Terror:

 

In less than an eighth part of the time in which idolatry prevailed under Manasseh and Amon, France had succeeded so entirely in obliterating all traces of the Scriptures, in and about Paris, numerous as Bibles were in that city at a period preceding the reign of terror, that for many weeks the Committee of the Bible Society could not find a single copy from which they might print a new edition. How much easier to produce a like effect in the time of Manasseh, when the copies of the Scriptures were so very few, and when almost every individual who possessed them, must be publicly known as possessor.)

 

In any event, the narrative as it unfolds in 2k 22:8 ff. assumes the existence of a pre-Josianic torah. Moreover, the people could hardly have been held accountable for violating a law code which neither they nor their forefathers had ever seen. For these and other reasons, many scholars have assigned an early date to Deuteronomy. These include Theodor Oestreicher, Das Deuteronomische Grundgesetz; Adam C. Welch, The Code of Deuteronomy, and Deuteronomy: The Framework of the Code; Franz Domseiff, "Die Abfassungszeit des Pentateuch und die Deuteronomiumsfrage," ZAW 56 (1938) 64-85; Edward Robertson, The Old Testament Problem: G. T. Manley, The Book of the Law; U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis: M. H. Segal, "The Composition of the Pentateuch— A Fresh Examination," Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961) 68-114; and E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament. (Sid Zalman Leiman, “The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence for the Canonization of Hebrew Scripture” [PhD Dissertation; University of Pennsylvania, 1970], 22-23 n. 76)

 

Sid Zalman Leiman on גנז *gzh and the Storage of Sacred Texts in a Genizah/Treasury

  

Use of גנז in Aggadic Passages.

 

Passage 66                                   (TZ, p. 60) תוספתא פאה ד:יח

 

מעשה במונבז המלך שעמד וביזר אוצרותיו בשני בצורת. שלחו

לו אחיו אבותיך גנזו אוצרות והוסיפו על של אבותם...אמר להם

אבותי גנזו אוצרות למטה ואני גנזתי למעלה.

 

Tosefta Peah 4:18

 

It is related of King Monobaz that he dissipated his hoards in years of scarcity. His brothers wrote him: Your fathers stored up hoards and added to those of their fathers... He replied: My fathers stored up hoards below but I am storing up above.

 

Passage 67                                   שבת קה:

 

אמר ר' שמעון בן פזי א"ר יהושע בן לוי משו' בר קפרא כל

המוריד דמעות על אדם כשר הקב"ה סופרן ומניחן בבית גנזיו.

 

Shabbath 105b

 

R. Simeon b. Pazzi (290-320) said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi (220-250) in Bar Kappara's (200-220) name: If one sheds tears for a worthy man, the Holy One, blessed be He, counts them and lays them up in His treasure house.

 

The root גנז appears six times in Scripture: Ezekiel 27:24 גנזים ,ונגנזי בנתמ ; Esther 3:9 and 4:7 גנז;

and Ezra 5:17 and 6:1 ,גנזיא and 7:20 ,גנוזי. The Ezekiel reference is difficult in its own right and, possibly, is not to be related in meaning to the root being discussed here. The Esther references clearly mean, and have been rendered, "the king's treasuries." The occurrences in Ezra are in Aramaic and mean "treasures." W. Baumgartner lists the post-biblical verbal form as a denominative of the Aramaic noun גנז. Our concern here is only with its usage in post-biblical Hebrew.

 

The basic meaning of גנז is "to store away." The Hebrew noun גנז* is "that which is stored away" and by extension "the place where objects are stored." These usages appear in passages and 67 and throughout Talmudic and midrashic literature. So in aggadic passages; in the halachic literature, however, גנז has assumed a specialized meaning. . . When these objects cease to be functional, they may neither be used for secular purposes nor destroyed. Due to their sacred status, they are to be stored away for safekeeping. גנז, then implies sanctity, not profanity. (Sid Zalman Leiman, “The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence for the Canonization of Hebrew Scripture” [PhD Dissertation; University of Pennsylvania, 1970], 159-61)

 

Sid Zalman Leiman on the Status of the Book of Sirach in Talmudic Literature

  

Status of the Book of Ben Sira.

 

The following passages bear directly on the status of the Book of Ben Sira in talmudic literature. They are here presented in the probable chronological order of their formulation.

 

Passage 72                                       תוספתא ידיים ב:יג

הגליונים וספרי המינין אינן מטמאין את הידים. ספרי,

בן סירא וכל ספרים שנכתבו מכאן ואילך  אינן מטמאין את הידים

 

Tosefta Yadayim 2:13

 

The Gospels and heretical books do not defile the hands. The books of Ben Sira and all other books written from then on, do not defile the hands.

 

Passage 69                                   28a          ירושלמי סנהדרין

ר' עקיבא אומר את הקורא בספרים החיצונים כגון ספרי בן

סירא וספרי בן לועז אבל ספרי המירס וכל ספרים שנכתבו מכן

והילך הקורא בהן כקורא באיגרת מאי טעמא ויותר מהמה בני הזהר

וגו' להגיון ניתן ולא ליגיעה לא נתנו.

 

J. Sanhedrin 28a

 

R. Akiba (110-135) adds: one who reads the outside books such as the books of Ben Sira and the books of Ben La'aga. But he who reads the books of Homer and all other books that were written from then on, is considered like one who is reading a secular document, for it is written: And furthermore, my son, beware of making many books, and much study of them is a weariness of flesh (Eccl.12:12). Hence casual reading is permissible but intensive study (Sid Zalman Leiman, “The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence for the Canonization of Hebrew Scripture” [PhD Dissertation; University of Pennsylvania, 1970], 193-95)

 

 On the use of the singular vs. plural for book/scroll (ספר), we read the following note:

 

It is noteworthy that here and in passage 69, the rabbis speak of the Books of Ben Sira (ספרי בן סירא). All the other references to Ben Sira in rabbinic literature refer to the Book of Ben Sira (ספר בן סירא) or to Ben Sira himself (e.g. אמר בן סירא). M. H. Segal, ספר בן סירא השלם, p. 15, adduces evidence that the Book of Ben Sira originally consisted of two separate works by Ben Sira. He suggests that this would account for the plural form. More likely, the plural form is an allusion to the numerous recensions of the Book of Ben Sira . . . (Ibid., 194 n. 142)