Robert Alter on Psalm 111:2

  

who desire them. The Masoretic Text reads “their desires.” The translation revocalizes the word as ḥafeitseyhem, “those who desire them.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:266)

 

Mark 9:25-26 and the Ontological Existence of Evil Spirits

  

When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the soul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead. (Mark 9:25-26)

 

In this passage, there is a numerical distinction of person between the demonized person and the "foul spirit." The Greek has Jesus address the unclean spirit, as seen in the use of the dative in the phrase ἐπετίμησεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ λέγων αὐτω. Jesus also speaks to "τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν πνεῦμα" (the evil/unclean spirit) and commands such a spirit to come out (εισερχομαι) the demonized person. As with Luke 433-35, 40-41, this passage only makes sense if the biblical authors believed in the ontological existence of demons (contra Christadelphians and others).

 

Commenting on this text, Adela Yarbro Collins noted that:

 

Jesus’ statement, “I command you … and from now on, do not enter into him” (ἐγὼ ἐπιτάσσω σοι … καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν), is similar to Josephus’s account of an exorcism performed by a certain Eleazar, “he made him swear that he would never come back into him” (μηκέτʼ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐπανήξειν ὥρκου). Such commands appear to be a technique designed to prevent a relapse.

 

The departure of the spirit (v. 26) is described in terms similar to those of Jesus’ first exorcism (1:26). In both cases, the spirit “convulses” (σπαράσσω) the possessed person, although here “greatly” (πολλά) is added. In both cases, the spirit “cries out,” although different terms are used. Even if the cry is inarticulate, this element is an indication that the spirit itself is not mute; rather, it causes its victim to become mute (cf. T. Sol. 12:2). Distinctive here is the result of the departure of the spirit: the young man “became like a corpse” and the bystanders thought that he had died. Jesus then “raised him up and he rose” (ἤγειρεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀνέστη). Although the story does not imply that the boy was actually dead, the dual expression in v. 27 attracts the attention of the audience and may call to mind the raising of the daughter of Jairus who had died. Jesus also grasped her hand; he asked her to “wake up” or “rise up” (ἔγειρε); and she also rose (ἀνέστη) (5:41–42). In both stories the extraordinary power of Jesus is gloriously manifested. (Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007], 439; the reference to Josephus comes from Antiquities of the Jews 8.47)

 

Kondrad Schmid and Jens Schröter Dating the Silver Amulets from Ketef Hinnom to "the seventh century BCE"

  

There is one possible example of a Bible text that has survived from biblical times: the silver amulets from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem, which were discovered at a burial site and are thought to date from the seventh century BCE . . . (Kondrad Schmid and Jens Schröter, The Making of the Bible: From the First Fragments to Sacred Scripture [trans. Peter Lewis; Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2021], 29)

 

παις (servant/slave; cf. Luke 7:7) in A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint

  

παῖς, παιδός   N3M/F 126-184-39-47-74=470

 

Gn 9,25.26.27; 12,16; 14,15

 

child (in relation to parents) Prv 29,15; slave, servant Gn 9,25; courtier, attendant 1 Sm 22,17; servant (of humans in relation to God) Is 41,8; girl, young lady Gn 24,28; girl, slave, maid Ru 2,6; παῖδες children Prv 4,1

 

ἐκ παιδός from childhood, from youth Gn 46,34

 

Gn 26,18 οἱ παῖδες the servants-עבדי (Sam. Pent.) for MT בימי in the days of; Gn 47,21 εἰς παῖδας for servants-ל/עבדים for MT ל/ערים into the cities; Jos 7,7 διεβίβασεν ὁ παῖς σου your servant brought over-עבדך העביר for MT העביר העברת you surely brought over; Jer 47 (40),9 τῶν παίδων of the servants of-מעבדי for MT מ/עבוד from serving, see also 2 Kgs 25,24; Prv 1,4 παιδὶ δὲ νέῳ but to a young child, but to a little child double transl. of MT נער young man (“παις, παιδος,” in A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, comp. Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie [rev. ed.; Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart, 2003], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

Robert Alter on Psalm 110:3

  

from the womb of dawn. The second of the two nouns here in the Masoretic Text, mishḥar, is doubtful in meaning. The translation follows the Septuagint in reading mireḥem shaḥar, “from the womb of dawn.” A scribe may have inadvertently repeated the mem at the end of reḥem and at the beginning of shaḥar as well (an instance of dittography). The image is evidently of an army sallying forth at daybreak.

 

yours is the dew of your youth. This somewhat mystifying phrase might refer to the fresh energy of a young king. Many manuscripts read “I gave you birth” instead of “your youth” (a difference only of vocalization), but this scarcely improves matters because the idea of giving birth to the king like (?) dew is puzzling. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:265)

 

Kondrad Schmid and Jens Schröter on Deuteronomy 32:7-9 and Psalm 82

On Deut 32:7-9:

 

Although the biblical text uses the phrasing “sons of Israel” instead of “sons of God,” the version using “God” is confirmed both by one of the Dead Sea Scrolls fragment (4QDeut^j) and by the Septuagint. The current reading with “sons of Israel,” is almost certainly the result of an orthodox correction that was meant to erase the polytheistic undertones of the passage. In what was probably the original version, with “sons of God,” the passage represents the position that God established the different peoples according to the number of minor deities, and that only the nation of Israel (expressed in the metonymic formulation “Jacob”) is assigned directly to him as the highest God. Yet in religious-historical terms, the title “the Most High,” which here refers to YHWH, evokes associations with the supreme god El, to whom this title was originally applied. This passage thus retains a gentle reminder of the fact that YHWH was not always the supreme deity. (Kondrad Schmid and Jens Schröter, The Making of the Bible: From the First Fragments to Sacred Scripture [trans. Peter Lewis; Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2021], 117)

 

On Psa 82:

 

A similar text can be found in Psalm 82, which forms part of the so-called Elohistic Psalter (Psalms 42-82). In this section of the book of Psalms, the tetragrammaton YHWH has been replaced almost entirely by the Hebrew term Elohim (“God”); thus it is reasonable to assume that Psalms 82 originally made reference to YHWH. This text, too, has a monotheistic profile: YHWH is the only God, and the other gods must perish. It is played out within a conceptual world that is still polytheistic, however, in an imaginary courtroom scene in which YHWH, as the prosecutor, declares that the other gods are the sons of the “Most High”:

 

God [YHWH] stands in the divine assembly, in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
“How long will you judge unjustly and favor the wicked? Selah.
Do justice for the lowly and the orphaned, for the destitute and needy provide equity. . . .
I have spoken: ‘You are gods and all of your sons of the Most High.’
However: Like a human you will die and like the princes you will fall.”
Arise, God [YHWH], judge the earth, for you have an inheritance in all peoples. (Psalm 82:1-3, 5-8)

 

Psalm 82 can no longer be dated to the pre-exile period, though it does appear to have retained some suggestions of early forms of Judaism. The psalm formulates its monotheistic program within the context of a polytheistic language game. (Kondrad Schmid and Jens Schröter, The Making of the Bible: From the First Fragments to Sacred Scripture [trans. Peter Lewis; Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2021], 117-18)

 

James R. White on 1 Kings 7:23 and the Value of Pi

  

The circumference of thirty cubits (LXX: “thirty-three” may be a dittography) is an approximation, pi (3.14+) being unknown. (Mordechai Cogan, I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 10; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 264)

 

The following is from James R. White’s Answers to Catholic Claims (1990). While reading this, I realized that White (and other Protestant apologists for inerrancy) would use one set of standards for the accuracy of the Bible and that of the Book of Mormon (this would be a “go-to” proof of the Book of Mormon being false if such appeared in that text and not the Bible):

 

We see, then, that the Scriptures themselves claim a divine origin. We can also give an answer to the question, does the claim of inspiration necessarily carry with it the conclusion of an "inerrant" text? When one recognizes that Paul teaches that the Scriptures themselves have their origin in God, then the inerrancy of the text is as certain as the inerrancy of God Himself. A "God- breathed" text must be an inerrant text if God is God at all. Scripture, if it finds its origin and basis in God, must partake of those attributes of God that would be relevant to it- in this case, the consistency of God demands the consistency of Scripture, the truth of God demands the truth (and hence the accuracy) of Scripture. Yet, we must be careful to define what we mean by "inerrant." Acceptance of the Biblical claim to inerrancy (as seen in the Biblical claim of inspiration) does not entail as a result a system of interpretation that is characterized by absurd literality. The most common tactic used to ridicule and deride inerrancy is to apply some unreasonable standard of literality to a particular text of Scripture and say, "see, if you read that literally, it is in error! Therefore, no inerrancy ... " Inerrancy exists right alongside of the recognition of the style of the writer, the kind of writing (whether didactic, poetic, apocalyptic, etc.), the historical context, and all those elements that go into solid historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture. Scholars who accept the Word of God's claims for itself are well aware of the proper limits placed upon "inerrancy" by the text itself. One example should suffice.

 

In 1 Kings 7:23 we read of the making of the "cast metal sea" for the temple in Jerusalem. This large circular bowl is described as follows in Scripture: "Now he made the cast sea ten cubits from edge to edge, round in form, and its height was five cubits, and it was thirty cubits around." Hence, the Bible says the object was ten cubits across, and 30 cubits around. A quick check of the math indicates one of two things: either it was not perfectly round (which is a possibility) or, much more likely, the writer was not attempting modem mathematical precision, for if it were exactly ten cubits across, it would be 31.41592654 cubits in circumference. Or, if it were exactly 30 cubits in circumference, it would be 9.549296585 cubits in diameter. Either way, the description given in the text would not be exactly correct. In fact, one could even say that the figures just given are not exactly correct, because the value of pi was only taken out to a certain point: pi is a non-repeating number. Hence, theoretically, one could say that it is impossible to say exactly what the circumference of anything really is. Of course, this level of literality is absurd on the face of it. The text is not in error, for it is not attempting to define with mathematical precision the exact value of pi, nor the exact measurements of the metal sea in the Temple. The text is accurate in what it is attempting to communicate, and we are given the proper bounds of "correctness" by the language and style of the text itself. To attempt to disprove inerrancy with passages such as this is a useless task, as the doctrine itself does not indicate that, given the divine origin of the text, every statement is going to adhere to some external definition of "accuracy". The text will define its own limitations and parameters. (James R. White, Answers to Catholic Claims: A Discussion of Biblical Authority [Southbridge, Mass.: Crowne Publications, 1990], 26-27)

 

One is reminded of the following scene from The Simpsons (way back when it was funny):