Derek R. Brown on Romans 16:20

  

Gen 3:15 and Rom 16:20

 

There are several reasons, however, to doubt such an allusion to Gen 3:15 in Rom 16:20 as well as its direct influence on Paul’s thought. First, Paul’s wording does not follow either the Hebrew or Greek versions of Gen 3:15, which suggests Rom 16:20 does not contain either a citation or echo of the text of Genesis in mind. Second, Paul’s verb choice does not seem to fit the possible allusion to Genesis 3. Whereas the MT has the Hebrew verb שׁוף (“to bruise”) and the LXX confusingly uses τηρέω (“to guard” or “to keep”), Paul employs the more violent συντρίβω (“to crush” or “to break”). Third, if Gen 3:15 is in Paul’s mind here, one would probably expect to find the Greek term for serpent (ὁ ὄφις) instead of ὁ σατανᾶϛ. Although by the first century C.E. the serpent of the Genesis narrative was likely identified with the figure of Satan, Paul’s only other allusion to the serpent of Genesis 3 uses the term ὁ ὄφις (2 Cor 11:3), not ὁ σατανᾶϛ. Finally, although Luke 10:19, Heb 2:14, and Rev 12:7 are cited as additional NT allusions to the “Proto-Evangelium” – none of which are certain allusions – this theological motif is not common. in the rest of the New Testament writings and conspicuously absent in Paul. If Gen 3:15 has influenced Paul’s thought here, it has done so indirectly through the broader apocalyptic hope of an ultimate defeat of the evil powers and of Satan being “crushed under foot.” (Derek R. Brown, The God of This Age: Satan in the Churches and Letters of the Apostle Paul [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 409; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015], 106)

 

 

Psa 110:1 and Rom 16:20:

 

Rather than reading Rom 16:20 as an allusion to the Genesis narrative and the ancient promise of the crushing of the serpent, what seems to be the case is that Paul is evoking the early Christian appropriation of Ps 110:1 as a means of emphasizing the believer’s share in God’s defeat over all evil, including Satan and those who oppose the community of faith. This textual allusion is more probable for several reasons. First, Ps 110 – at times interpreted in conjunction with Ps 8:7 – was the most cited Hebrew Bible text within early Christianity writings. Second, Paul alludes to or echoes the text of Ps 110:1 elsewhere within his letters. This suggests there is a greater likelihood that Paul would have drawn from the language of Ps 110 than the Genesis text. Third, unlike the alleged Gen 3:15 allusion which lacks a clear verbal link, the phrase ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας in Rom 16:20 corresponds directly to the LXX text of Ps 8:7 (LXX 8:6) and 110:1 (LXX 109:1) (ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν/ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν) as well as conceptually to the Hebrew expressions in the respective Psalms ( הדם לרגליך/תחת־רגליו ). In view of these points, the most plausible explanation of the scriptural allusion in Rom 16:20 is that Paul has incorporated both the words and metaphorical imagery of Pss 8 and 110 in order to underscore his reminder of Satan’s assured eschatological demise. (Derek R. Brown, The God of This Age: Satan in the Churches and Letters of the Apostle Paul [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 409; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015], 106-7)

 

Matthew Lynch on Yahwistic Temples Outside of Jerusalem

  

Yahwistic Temples beyond Yehud

 

The Chronicler’s was also a time of cultic and religious diversity among adherents of Yhwh in Samaria and the Diaspora. Diversity within Yhwh-devotion of the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods existed as part of the geographical separation between Jewish communities in Samaria, Yehud, Idumea, Babylon, Egypt (e.g., at Elephantine, Heracleopolis, and Alexandria), and elsewhere. Judaism lacked a real center during this period, with at least four Jewish temples, and possibly others, coexisting during the Persian and early Hellenistic periods alone.

 

These temples included the following: (1) The temple of the God YHW (i.e., Yhwh) in Elephantine, Egypt: Egyptian Jews built this temple sometime prior to the conquest of Cambyses in 525 B.C.E. It was destroyed ca. 410 B.C.E., probably due to the expansion of the nearby temple of Knum, but was probably rebuilt before 402 B.C.E. as suggested by its mention in a later bill of sale. Because the Elephantine papyri date only until 399 B.C.E., it is not certain how long this temple persisted. (2) “The House of Yhwh” on Mount Gerizim: Until recently scholars assumed on the basis of Josephus’ account that Jews built the temple on Mount Gerizim in the Hellenistic period, recent excavation reports suggest otherwise. Most likely, the temple to Yhwh on Gerizim was built sometime around the mid-fifth century B.C.E. and stood until the end of Ptolemaic rule in the land. This temple exhibits Phoenician influences. Jews rebuilt the temple ca. 200 B.C.E. after the Seleucid conquest, but it was destroyed by the Hasmonean John Hyrcannus I ca. 112–111 B.C.E. (3) The Jerusalem temple: Though traditionally dated to 515 B.C.E. under the leadership of Zerubbabel, there have been recent attempts to date the temple’s construction to the reign of Artaxerxes I and the mission of Nehemiah (ca. 465 B.C.E.). If this proposal proves correct, it would suggest a nearly simultaneous construction (or at least, restoration) of the Jewish temples on Mount Gerizim and Jerusalem. At present, however, the redating of the Jerusalem temple’s construction has not achieved a consensus, and it may be the case that the temple was simply expanded or renovated during Artaxerxes’ reign. (4) The “BYT YWH” in Idumea:A land transfer recorded on Idumean ostraca no. 283 mentions a ruined BYT YWH somewhere in Idumea, most likely in Khirbet el-Kôm/Maqqedah. Based on comparative epigraphy, this temple appears to date from the Babylonian or Persian periods, though precision is difficult. The text also refers to two other temples in close proximity, a “BYT ‘Z’ ” (temple of ‘Uzza), and a “BYT NBW” (temple of Nabu).

 

In sum, the Jerusalem temple of the late Persian-early Hellenistic period sat among several Yhwh temples. (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], 57-59)

 

Philip W. Comfort on 1 Corinthians 11:29

  

1 Corinthians 11:29

 

WH NU            ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων κρίμα ἐαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα

“for the one eating and drinking eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body”

𝔓⁴⁶ א* A B C* 33 1739 cop

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

 

variant/TR       ο γαρ εσθιων και πινων αναξιως κριμα εαυτω εσθιει και πινει, μη διακρινων το σωμα του κυριου

“for the one eating and drinking unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord”

א² C^c D F G (Ψ) Maj syr

kjv nkjv niv nltmg hcsbmg

 

The WH NU reading has the support of the five earliest manuscripts, as well as of 1739 and Coptic manuscripts. The variant reading shows two scribal interpolations, both of which were intended to clarify the meaning of the text. The first addition makes it absolutely clear that a person can only be judged for eating and drinking the Eucharist if he does so in an unworthy manner. One imagines that the unworthiness would come from not being able to distinguish the Eucharist meal from common food. But this has already been made clear in 11:27. The second addition intends to specify “the body” as being the Lord Jesus’ body (as represented by the bread), as opposed to the body of Christ, the church. tniv and nlt identify the body as being “the body of Christ.” But Paul probably intended a double meaning here—that is, “the body” is both the body of Jesus and the body which is the church. This goes back to 10:16–17, where the breaking-of-bread imagery symbolizes both Christ’s sacrifice and the unity of the many members of the church. The one bread, Christ’s body, eaten by all the members of the church, makes them one bread and one body. (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], 512)

 

Robert Alter and Ronald F. Youngblood on Job 7:20 as an Example of Tiqqune Sopherim

  

I became a burden to You. The Masoretic Text reads “to myself,” but this is a famous case of a tiqun sofrim, a euphemistic scribal correction. That is, the scribes did not want to write the virtually blasphemous phrase that Job had become a burden to God, so they substituted the first-person pronoun for the second person. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:483)

 

 

A tantalizing example is Job 7:20, where most MSS of the MT read, “I have become a burden (מַשָּׂא) to myself (עָלַי).” That reading, however, represents one of the eighteen tiqqune sopherim, the purpose of which was a pious attempt to remove what were considered to be objectionable statements about God. The LXX, as well as a few MSS of the MT, read, “I have become a burden to you (עָלֵיךָ)” in Job 7:20. The NIV chooses an admirable via media by retaining the more difficult reading but softening it into a question, which also respects the context: “Have I become a burden to you?” (Ronald F. Youngblood, “נָשָׂא,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed. Willem VanGemeren, 5 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997], 2:1112)

 

What happened to the Stone box? Responding to LDS Discussions with Josh Gehly

 

What happened to the Stone box? Responding to LDS Discussions with Josh Gehly

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)