The Carthage Conspiracy: Who Really Killed Joseph Smith?

 

The Carthage Conspiracy: Who Really Killed Joseph Smith?

Excerpts from Søren Wichmann, “A Conservative Look at Diffusion Involving Mixe-Zoquean Languages" (1998)

  

(18) MAIZE. MZ form: None

 

Comment: This set deals with forms in Tarascan, Xinca, Lenca, Cacaopera, Matagalpa, Sumu, and Proto-Mixtecan which look like Proto-Mayan *ʔeʔm. A form pMZ *mo:k is mentioned, but it is stated that ‘terms for maize . . . are borrowed throughout Meso-America, though probably not from MZ’ (C/K: 85).

Conclusion: It seems likely that this is a case of diffusion from Mayan that does not involve Mixe-Zoquean.

 

. . .

 

(21) DOG. MZ form: pM *ʔuku ‘dog’ (Justeson et al. 1985: 23 write *uka)

 

Diffused to: Yucatec *ʔuk, as a calendrical day name.

Comment: C/K cite Huastec ok ‘fox’ and Kanjobalan ʔoʔq, ʔoq ‘coyote’ as possible cognates for the Yucatec word but state that they nevertheless believe the Yucatec form to be a borrowing. Justeson et al. (1985: 24) add the observation that <oc> is also the tenth day name in the ritual calendar;³ they argue, more cautiously than C/K, that this must be a late borrowing happening after the *k > *č shift in pre-Cholan-Tzeltalan and possibly even later.

Conclusion: Probably entered Yucatecan and Cholan from early Mixean.

 

(22) AXE. MZ form: pM *puš ‘to cut with a machete’, pM *puš-an ‘axe’ (vs C/K pMZ *pus ‘to cut with a knife or axe’, *pusan ‘metal (axe?)’)

 

Diffused to: Nahua pus-tekì ‘to cut’, te-pos-(tli) ‘axe, metal’, Pokom pos ‘stone war axe’, ax pos ‘wonder worker’, pus ‘witch’, Cakchiquel pos ‘polished stone’; Quiché pos, pus ‘to sacrifice men by removing their hearts, to cut, polished stone, magic power’, Huave apš ‘to chop with axe’, Proto-Central Otomian *bes-na ‘metal, lead’, Proto-Popolocan *pos ‘hard stone’.

Comment: Since the form is limited to pMixean I take it that it diffused from Oto-Manguean languages. If the item had diffused in Olmec times it is strange that there should be no trace of it in Zoquean. Cakchiquel and Quiché have pus-nawal ‘magic power, witch’. The second compound member is a Nahua form. This points to the possibility of Nahua having been a stage in the diffusion of the item.

 

Conclusion: The item pos ‘hard stone’ probably spread from Proto-Popolocan into pM, Mayan, Otomian, and Nahua. From Nahua it diffused further into Mayan languages as a result of Toltec influence.

 

. . .

 

(27) BEE, WASP, WASP’S NEST. MZ form: Sierra Popoluca ʔokwoŋ (vs C/K pMZ *ʔa:kaw)

 

Diffused to: Huastec ʔokow, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tojolabal ʔáko (with unexpected first syllable stress).

Comment: C/K posit a pMZ form where in fact the form is just attested in a single Zoquean language. Huastec is just as likely a donor as Sierra Popoluca.

 

Conclusion: A late diffusion from Huastec. (Søren Wichmann, “A Conservative Look at Diffusion Involving Mixe-Zoquean Languages,” in Archaeology and Language II: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses, ed. Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs [One World Archaeology 29; London: Routledge, 1998], 306-7, 308)

 

 

Incomplete Commentary on Matthew (Opus Imperfectum) (5th century) on Matthew 6:12

  

¹²“And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.”

 

With what hope does someone pray who harbors enmity against another person by whom perhaps he was harmed? For just as he is lying when he prays (for he says, “I forgive” and does not forgive), so he seeks forgiveness from God and yet it is not granted to him. Thus, if he who has been injured prays to God without hope unless he forgives him who has wronged him, how do you think that a person prays who has not been hurt by another but hurts and burdens others by his wickedness? But many people who do not wish to grant forgiveness to those who sin against themselves flee to pray this prayer. What fools! First, because he does not pray as Christ taught, nor is he Christ’s disciple. Second, because the Father does not gladly hear a prayer that the Son has not composed. For the Father acknowledges the intentions and words of his own Son but does not accept whatever human arrogance has thought up but only those things that the wisdom of Christ has taught. Therefore you can indeed say a prayer, but you cannot circumvent and deceive God, nor do you receive forgiveness unless you yourself have first forgiven. (Incomplete Commentary on Matthew (Opus Imperfectum), 2 vols. [trans. James A. Kellerman; Ancient Christian Texts 1; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2010), 1:125)

 

Trude Dothan (1982) on the Origin of the Philistines

  

ORIGINS OF THE PHILISTINES

 

The problem of determining the origin and homeland of the Philistines has been studied by scholars from the standpoint of three different disciplines: philology, archaeology, and literature (mainly the Greek myths). Because of the fundamental differences between the three approaches, it is hardly surprising that the conclusions they reached are mutually exclusive. Scholars from various disciplines have suggested homelands ranging from Crete to Asia Minor, but no consensus has ever been reached.

 

The biblical identification of Caphtor with Kriti (Crete) is one of the keys to the puzzle of Philistine origins. If this identity could be verified philologically, there would be no choice but to conclude that Crete and her nearby islands were indeed the Philistines' homeland, or at least the final stop on their great migration to Canaan. Although most scholars tend to agree that Caphtor and Kephtiu are Crete, some interpret the Septuagint's translation of Caphtor as Cilicia to indicate that Caphtor and Kephtiu are the names of a country in southeast Asia Minor, specifically, Cappadocia. This translation, however, may reflect a distortion influenced by Cappadocia' s position of importance in the Mediterranean world at the time of the composition of the Septuagint. The Caphtor-Kriti equation, which is borne out by biblical evidence, finds additional support in the written records of three different lands. The Akkadian inscriptions describe Caphtor as a distant land and, in one account, as a land beyond the sea. In the Ugaritic documents, Caphtor designates a country that is almost certainly Crete. Finally the Egyptian word for Crete, kephtiu, is very similar linguistically to Caphtor, and its identification with Crete is well supported by archaeological evidence.

 

The limited but important onomasticon of Philistine words and names presents another area rich in philological and ethnological possibilities. Some of the Sea Peoples' names are known from the el-Amarna tablets and from the annals of Ramesses II, but the most important source is the list of Ramesses III. As mentioned above, Ramesses' list groups the Philistines with the Tjekker and the Denyen. It is logical to assume, therefore, that some bond or relationship existed between them. The Egyptians, at the beginning of the twelfth century, had some knowledge of this connection and may in fact have known the last stop-off of the Sea Peoples prior to their invasion of Palestine, if not their land of origin. There are, however, divergent opinions on this question, and the ethno-geographic and linguistic aspects allow an almost unlimited field of speculation.

 

Some of the main theories regarding the meaning and origin of the names of the Sea Peoples are as follows. The Denyen (dnyn; Assyrian, Danuna) are associated by some authorities with Cilicia on the basis of the bilingual Phoenician and hieroglyphic Hittite inscription from Karatepe (ninth century B.C.). Others suggest a connection with Cyprus, noting that the island's Assyrian name (mat) Ia-da-na-na can be interpreted as "the island of the Danuna (Denyen)."

 

The Tjekker (tkr) are considered by some scholars to be the Homeric Sikeloi who occupied the island of Sicily. Others see them as the Homeric τευχροι of Cilicia, who, according to Greek mythology, founded the city of Salamis on Cyprus. The two depictions of Sea People warriors-probably Tjekker-discovered in Enkomi (chapter 5, figs. 13 and 14) near Salamis, assume a special significance in this theory and emphasize the crucial role of Cyprus in the wanderings and settlement of the Sea Peoples.

 

The Philistines (plst = Peleset) are the most controversial of the three groups. The theory that seeks their origin in the Aegean world finds support in the ideogram of the head of a man wearing a "feathered" headdress, which appears on the Phaestos Disk from southern Crete (pl. 3). A more specific proposal identifies the Philistines with the Pelasgians. This is supported by a somewhat doubtful etymology and the Homeric tradition that the Pelasgians were one of the five nations that inhabited Crete. Another theory seeks to connect the Philistines with one of the Illyrian peoples whose name was derived from the place name Palaeste and who were called Palaestini in the Illyrian language.

 

Two basically conflicting schools of thought exist with regard to the question of Philistine origins and the geographic, historical, and ethnological problems involved. On the one hand Crete, or the Aegean area in general, is held to be the Philistine homeland. The theory of an Illyrian origin agrees with this supposition, for its advocates contend that after migrating from their native Illyria, the Philistines took to the sea and reached the Aegean islands and Crete. The leading proponents of the Aegean theory, while differing on details, concur on the basic assumption that the Tjekker, the Denyen, and the Philistines are tribes of Indo-European origin (Illyrian, Pelasgian, ThracoPhrygian, etc.). The opposing school maintains an Anatolian origin, locating the Philistine homeland in western Cilicia, more specifically on the banks of the Calycadnus River, where the Philistines and the Tjekker probably dwelt together.

 

The Philistine words and personal names found in the Bible are another possible key to the enigma of Philistine origins through similarities to other languages, especially those of Asia Minor. The word seren, preserved only in the plural, has been the subject of much research and is thought to be a proto--Greek Illyrian or Lydian word that later entered the Greek language. The name Achish, ‘Αγχους; in the Septuagint and Homer, which closely resembles the name lkûsu, king of Ekron· in the Essarhadon annals, is sometimes compared with ‘Αγχισης; (Homer, Iliad, 2:819). ‘Αηχισης in Greek tradition, was related to the Dardanians, one of the Illyrian tribes that later migrated to Asia Minor and Greece. The three Hebrew words koba' ("helmet," "hat"), 'argaz ("box," "chest," "basket") and plleges ("concubine") are possibly of southwestern Anatolian, Cilician, or Illyrian origin. Opinion is divided on the names Pichol, Goliath, and Ziklag. Goliath is sometimes compared to the Lydian ‘Αλυαττης.

 

Written records and other evidence bearing on the question of Philistine origins are still undergoing intensive philological and historical examination. A new document could throw much light on the picture or even change it completely. The publication of documents recently discovered in the Ugaritic archives is sure to have a marked effect on the subject. So far only a summary of their contents has been published It is known that the documents include correspondence between the kings of Ugarit and Cyprus at the end of the thirteenth century-just prior to the fall of Cyprus and the Hittite empire, Ugarit, to the invading Sea Peoples. They mention, inter alia, the dispatch of warships to the land of the Luku (Lycians), a tribe of Sea Peoples known from the Merneptah inscriptions. The archives may also contain evidence of a treaty between Egypt and her former enemies and their attempt to unite in time to repel the encroaching Sea Peoples.

 

Continued progress in historical and philological research will certainly broaden the basis of our understanding of Philistine culture and may even hold the promise of a solution to the question of Philistine origins. (Trude Dothan, The Philistines and their Material Culture [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982], 21-23)

 

Kenneth A. Kitchen (1973) on the Origin of the Philistines

  

b.  The Background, from Extra-Biblical Sources

 

1.  Origins. While ancient Near-Eastern sources enrich several aspects of our knowledge of the Philistines, nothing very positive or convincing can yet be offered on the Casluhim.3 However,

Caphtor can now be definitively identified with Crete, and so the Caphtorim as Cretans.

 

    The name ‘Caphtor’ recurs in cuneiform documents as Kaptara, and is identifiable with Egyptian Keftiu. People from Keftiu are represented in tomb-chapels at Thebes of the fifteenth century B.C.; those paintings that are demonstrably first-hand representations clearly depict the same people as feature in the frescoes at Knossos in Minoan Crete, and correspond to what is known of Minoans and Mycenaeans alike. A Theban topographical list of Amenophis III (c. 1400 B.C.) demonstrates textually just what the Egyptians understood by Keftiu. Two names on the right side—Keftiu and Tanayu—define the area(s) of the thirteen surviving names on the left side. Tanayu itself best corresponds to the Greek Danaoi, used of Greeks in the Argolid and soon more widely.

 

The correspondence between Crete plus the Argolid and Aegean and the twelve names legible out of thirteen can be tabulated as follows.

 

                Keftiu (Crete)                       Tanayu (Danaoi)

 

1.  Amnisos (i)                                   4.  Mycenae

2.  Phaistos (??)                                5.  Dqis = ?

3.  Cydonia                                        6.  Messenia

 

10. Knossos                                       7.  Nauplia

11. Amnisos (ii)                                  8.  Cythera

12. Lyktos                                        9.  Wilia (Ilios ??)

 

This table speaks for itself. Four names (one duplicated), perhaps five, clearly belong in Crete. Cythera leads one to the mainland, especially the Argolid, with three clearly identifiable names. Troy remains an alluring if doubtful possibility from further north.

 

Thus, if the Philistines reached Canaan from Caphtor, they did so from Crete—as did the Caphtorim of Deuteronomy 2: 23. In turn, the Cherethites (Kreti) can be ‘Cretans’ without qualms. Beyond Crete, the further origins of the Philistines are less clear. Ramesses III of Egypt (c. 1190 B.C.) includes them (Prst) among ‘the foreign countries making a conspiracy in their isles’, who came east and south through Syria to Egypt. The ‘isles’, again, are Crete and the Aegean basin. Hints in this general direction come from the limited evidence for ‘Philistine language’ having possible affinities with west-Anatolian languages (see below), and the often- suggested identification of Philistines and ‘Pelasgoi’, which latter are associated with western Asia Minor and Greece in some strands of the confused Greek traditions. Further one cannot go. (Kenneth A. Kitchen, “The Philistines,” in Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D. J. Wiseman [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973], 54, 56)

 

The "Cherethites" of Zephaniah 2:5 Being a Reference to People from Crete

  

Zephaniah identified the Philistines as “Kerethites,” a term that may identify a clan of the Philistines or may be associated with the island of Crete, from which most assume the Philistines migrated. In Amos 9:7, Deut 2:13, and Jer 47:4, the Philistines are associated with Caphtor, which may have been Crete. David recruited part of his bodyguard from the Kerethites (2 Sam 8:18). In the present context Zephaniah referred to the whole nation by the name of Kerethites. (Kenneth L. Barker, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah [The New American Commentary 20; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999], 456)

 

 

Nation of Cherethites. Peoples of Crete, a designation for the Philistines. The Cherethites are elsewhere associated with the Philistines (Ezek 25:16 and cf. 1 Sam 30:14), since Philistine origins are in the Mediterranean islands. Ben Zvi finds a wordplay in krtym, “Cherethites,” and krt, “cut off” (cf. Ezek 25:16). Cf. also Zeph 2:6, nwt krt. (Adele Berlin, Zephaniah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 25A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 104-5)

 

 

[2:5] The oracle begins with the direct, second-person address of the threatened party so characteristic of hôy-oracles. Zephaniah first gets their attention with the exclamation and a couple of designations for the Philistines. He addresses them as the inhabitants of the seacoast, because the main Philistine centers were located in the coastal plain, and he refers to them as the nation of the Kerethites, because the Kerethites, a subgroup of the Philistines that apparently traced their origins to the island of Crete, were a dominant element in the Philistine population (1 Sam. 30:14; 2 Sam. 8:18 and passim; Ezek. 25:16). He then informs them that the word of Yahweh is against them and addresses them with two more designations before quoting Yahweh’s direct words to them: “I will destroy you, leaving no inhabitant.” He addresses them as Canaan, the land of the Philistines, because the Philistines were early settlers in Canaan (K. A. Kitchen, “The Philistines,” in POTT, 53–78; Trude Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982]), and they remained the dominant non-Israelite population that still occupied a significant portion of ancient Canaan that impinged directly on Judean territory. Their territory is reckoned as Canaanite in Josh. 13:2–4. The prophet’s failure to mention the Phoenicians in his oracles against the foreign nations may suggest either that their relations to Judah at the time were friendly or that their remoteness from Judah made their relations relatively insignificant to Zephaniah. (J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991], 196-97)

 

Radak (David Kimhi) on Zephaniah 3:20

  

Radak on Zephaniah 3:20:1

בעת ההיא, ובעת קבצי אתכם.  ובעת ההיא יהיה קבצי אתכם יהיה חסר ומלת ההיא שזכר עומדת במקום שתים וכן תרגם יונתן ובעדנא ההיא: 

 

Radak on Zephaniah 3:20:2

שבותיכם. לשון רבים וכן ושבות שביתך כתוב הנה לשון רבים ושבותכם בוי"ו שור"ק ושביתך ביו"ד ובחירק: (source)

 

 

Radak on Zephaniah 3:20:1
“At that time, and at the time of My gathering you” — “at that time” refers to “My gathering you,” and the phrase is elliptical. The expression “at that time,” which he mentioned, stands in place of two words. Jonathan likewise translated: “and at that time” (u-ve‘idna hahi).

 

Radak on Zephaniah 3:20:2
“Your captivities” — this is a plural form, as in “and you shall take captive your captives” (ve-shavita shevitkha), which is written there in the plural. And “your captivity” is spelled with a vav and shuruk, whereas “your captives” is spelled with a yod and ḥiriq.

 

Ibn Ezra on Zephaniah 3:20

  

Ibn Ezra on Zephaniah 3:20:1

בעת ההיא - תשרת בעבור אחרת ובעת ההיא בקבצי אתכם ותחסר אות בי"ת ובי"ת בעת תשרת, בעבור אחרת בקבצי, זאת דעת רבי משה. ואין צורך: 

 

Ibn Ezra on Zephaniah 3:20:2

את שבותיכם - כמו: ושבית שביתיך בתוכהנה.

 

Ibn Ezra on Zephaniah 3:20:3

לעיניכם - בעיניכם תראו. זה שאמר השם וקדמונינו ז"ל חברו אלה השנים עשר ספרים, ושמום ספר אחד בחשבון כ"ד ספרים, בעבור היות הספרים קטנים והם מטעם אחד כי כולם נבואות עתידות ואין ככה החמש מגילות, כי איכה הפך שיר השירים ובעבור היות צפניה בימי יאשיהו, שמוהו תשיעי כי האחרים היו אחר גלות בבל. (source)

 

 

Ibn Ezra on Zephaniah 3:20:1
“At that time” — tishret is in place of another word. And “at that time, when I gather you” — the letter bet is omitted, and the bet in be-‘et (“at the time of”) functions in place of another word, namely beqibtsi (“when I gather”). This is Rabbi Moses’ view. But there is no need for that.

 

Ibn Ezra on Zephaniah 3:20:2
“Your captivity” — like “and you shall take captive your captives within it.”

 

Ibn Ezra on Zephaniah 3:20:3
“Before your eyes” — you shall see it with your own eyes. This is what the Lord said. And our sages of blessed memory joined these twelve books together and made them one book among the twenty-four books, because the books are small and all of them are of one kind, since they are all prophecies of future events. It is not so with the Five Megillot, for Lamentations is the opposite of Song of Songs. And because Zephaniah was in the days of Josiah, they placed it ninth, since the others were after the Babylonian exile.

 

Robert Alter on Zephaniah 3:16

  

He renews His love. The Masoretic Text reads yaḥarish beʾahavato, “He is silent in His love,” but it is unclear why the living God should be silent. The translation follows the reading of the Septuagint, which appears to have used a Hebrew text that showed yeḥadesh ʾahavato (the Hebrew graphemes for r and d being quite close). (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1350)

 

Radak (David Kimhi) on Malachi 1:11

 Source

 

Radak on Malachi 1:11:1

כי ממזרח שמש ועד מבואו. כל היישוב הוא ממזרח למערב ואיננו כן מצפון לדרום כי איננו מיושב כולו: 

 

Radak on Malachi 1:11:2

גדול שמי בגוים. כי אף על פי שעובדים לצבא השמים מודים בי שאני הסבה הראשונה אלא שעובדים אותם לפי דעתם שיהיו אמצעיים ביני ובינם ואמרו רז"ל דקרו ליה אלהא דאלהין: 

 

Radak on Malachi 1:11:3

ובכל מקום מוקטר ומוגש לשמי. אם הייתי מצוה אותם כמו שצויתי אתכם היו מקטירים ומגישים לשמי ועוד כי מנחה טהורה היו מגישים לא כמו שאתם עושים שאתם מגישים מנחה טמאה ונבזה או פירושו אף על פי שהם מקטירים ומגישים לעכו"ם דעתם לשמי:

 

 

Radak on Malachi 1:11:1

“‘From the rising of the sun even unto its setting’—the entire inhabited world lies from east to west, and it is not so from north to south, because that whole stretch is not inhabited.”

 

Radak on Malachi 1:11:2

“‘My name is great among the nations’—for even though they worship the host of heaven, they acknowledge Me as the First Cause; only they worship them according to their view, in order that they may serve as intermediaries between Me and them. And our sages said that they call Him ‘the God of gods.’”

 

Radak on Malachi 1:11:3

“‘And in every place incense is offered and presented to My name’—if I had commanded them as I commanded you, they would have offered incense and presented [it] to My name. Moreover, they would have brought a pure meal offering, unlike what you do, in bringing a defiled and contemptible offering. Or the meaning is: although they burn incense and bring offerings to idolatry, their intention is toward My name.”

 

Robert Alter on Habakkuk 3:13

  

down to bedrock. The Masoretic Text has tsawʾar, “neck,” but razing has to move downward, not upward, so this is in all likelihood a mistake for tsur. The error would have been triggered by the fact that the word translated as “top” in the preceding verset has the more common meaning of “head.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1339)

 

Robert Alter on Habakkuk 2:16

  

expose yourself. This is the plausible understanding of the verb heʿareih (instead of the Masoretic heʾareil, of obscure meaning), reflected in the Targum Yonatan and in at least one medieval interpreter. What is involved is measure-for-measure justice. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1336)

 

Robert Alter on Habakkuk 1:12

  

You shall not die. The Masoretic Text shows “We shall not die,” but this is a tiqun sofrim, a euphemistic scribal correction so as to eliminate the necessity of saying “God shall not die,” when all know that death is not a category that applies to God. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1332)

 

Robert Alter on Nahum 3:8

  

water is her wall. The Masoretic Text reads miyam, “from the sea,” but a simple revocalization of those three consonants to mayim yields the more coherent “water.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1327)

 

Robert Alter on Nahum 2:8

  

And the mistress is brought out, exiled. The Masoretic Text is not coherent here. It begins with a masculine verb, wehutsav, “and it was stationed, set up,” followed by two feminine verbs. This translation is based on a frequently proposed emendation, but without great confidence, and there are no ancient versions that reflect it. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1324)

 

Jonathan C. Sheppard on Genesis 3:15

 While Jonathan C. Sheppard’s book, The Sola Scriptura of Roman Catholicism: Uncovering Rome's Doctrinal Selectivity is rather flawed, it does have some good “counters” to popular-level Roman Catholic apologetics here and there. One such example is his discussion of the popular Roman Catholic appeal to Gen 3:15 to support the personal sinlessness and Immaculate Conception of Mary:

 

First and foremost, the “woman” in the text is Eve, the actual person standing before God in the garden. There is no indication in the passage that it refers to anyone else. The prophecy is that one of her descendants, her “Seed,” would crush the serpent’s head. The text does not predict that a future woman would give birth to a seed; it explicitly identifies the seed as Eve’s own descendant, which Protestants understand to be ultimately fulfilled in Christ many generations later. Significantly, the text shifts to the singular masculine, “He shall bruise your head,” pointing to an individual male descendant, not to the woman herself. The focus is on her offspring, not on Mary’s moral condition.

 

Even if Mary is seen as a typological fulfillment of the “woman,” that typology does not require sinlessness. In fact, biblical typology often uses imperfect people to foreshadow something greater. David, for example, foreshadowed the coming Messiah through his God-given role as king, yet he was far from sinless. The nation of Israel foreshadowed the Church, yet frequently fell into disobedience. Eve was created without sin and fell, and Mary, though sharing in the fallen condition of humanity, was faithful and obedient in fulfilling her role in God’s redemptive plan. There is no need to insist that a typological parallel requires moral or ontological equivalence.

 

Moreover, the idea that perfect enmity must imply complete moral separation from sin has no textual support. God declares enmity not only between the serpent and the woman, but also between their seeds, meaning this enmity applies to generations of people, many of whom were obviously sinful. Scripture speaks often of God’s enmity with the wicked or between spiritual forces, but these statements do not demand sinless perfection to be meaningful. Mary’s role in opposing Satan, by faithfully submitting to God’s plan, does not require her to be sinless any more than the prophets or apostles needed to be sinless to carry out their God-given missions.

 

In conclusion, the attempt to insert Mary’s sinlessness into this verse reflects what we’ve already seen in Luke 1:28: a doctrine looking for a prooftext. The passage nowhere addresses Mary, her conception, her spiritual condition, or her relationship to original sin. It speaks of Christ, the woman’s descendant, who will defeat Satan, not the woman herself. To build a major dogma like the Immaculate Conception on such a distant and indirect reference is not only theologically unsound; it’s an example of reading Church tradition into the text, rather than drawing doctrine from it. (Jonathan C. Sheppard, The Sola Scriptura of Roman Catholicism: Uncovering Rome's Doctrinal Selectivity [The Narrow Road Publishing, 2026], location 3282 to 3298 of 6842 of Kindle ed.)

 

 

Steven J. Duby on Habakkuk 2:4

  

In anticipation of Paul’s use of this verse in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11, it is worth asking whether Habakkuk uses אֱמוּנָה to signify trust. Most or nearly all occurrences of אֱמוּנָה demand taking the word to highlight something like faithfulness, steadfastness, or firmness rather than concentrating on trust per se. There may be an exception, though, in the use of the cognate noun אֵמוּן in Isaiah 26:2–4: ‘Open the gates, so the righteous [צַדִּיק] nation keeping אֱמֻנִים [a plural form of אֵמוּן] will enter. The inclination of the one being upheld you preserve in the highest peace. For in you he is trusting [בָּטוּחַ]. Trust [בִּטְחוּ] in YHWH forever. For in YHWH is the rock of ages.’ The righteous nation is the nation that continues in אֱמֻנִים, which is parallel with trusting in YHWH. It is possible here that the noun אֱמֻנִים is essentially equivalent to trust. Alternatively, if אֱמֻנִים should be translated steadfastness or firmness, then the thing in which the nation is steadfast is precisely trust in YHWH. In other words, it is possible to conceive of steadfastness being focused not on just any facet of life before God but particularly on persistence in the habit of trusting. This is a point of some significance for Habakkuk 2:4b. Even if one concludes that אֱמוּנָה must be translated ‘steadfastness’ or ‘firmness’, that does not yet settle a crucial question: steadfast with respect to what? If the contrast in Habakkuk 2:4–5 between the person with אֱמוּנָה and the person full of pride implies that the person with אֱמוּנָה relies upon or trusts in God rather than his own strength or prowess, then the person with אֱמוּנָה is ‘steadfast’ or persistent precisely in looking away from himself and trusting in God’s promises.

 

Second, the LXX translates the Hebrew אֱמוּנָה with the Greek πίστις. In the LXX, πίστις can signify faithfulness, loyalty, or honesty (e.g., Deut. 32:20; 1 Sam. 26:23; 2 Kgs 12:16; 22:7; 2 Esdras 5:1; Ps 32:4; Prov. 12:17, 22; 14:22; Jer. 5:3; 9:3; 15:18; 40:6;) or a duty or pledge entrusted to someone (1 Chron. 9:22, 26, 31; 3 Macc. 3:10). The usage in 4 Maccabees, though, suggests that the significance of πίστις can include not only loyalty but also trust in God (4 Macc. 15:24; 16:22; 17:2). If πίστις in the ἐκ πίστεώς μου of Habakkuk 2:4b is taken to signify faithfulness or loyalty, then one could take the genitive μου to be a genitive of possession (i.e., the righteous by God’s faithfulness will live). Alternatively, if the πίστις in the ἐκ πίστεώς μου is taken to signify trust, then one could take the genitive μου to be an objective genitive (i.e., the righteous by trust in God will live).

 

Third, the treatment of Habakkuk 2:4b in 1QpHab appears to construe אֱמוּנָה as a matter of believing in or trusting someone, where the relevant part of the text—באמונתו (‘by his faith’)—is interpreted to mean בעבור עמלם ואמנתם במורה הצדק (‘on account of their toil and their faith in [ב] the Teacher of Righteousness’). The point is not that the Qumran community were correct in their beliefs about the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’. Rather, the point is that apparently the word אֱמוּנָה was susceptible to being read as ‘trust’ even apart from the influence of Paul’s ministry. (Steven J. Duby, Habakkuk [The International Theological Commentary on the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments; London: T&T Clark, 2025], 101-3)

 

David J. Clark and Howard A. Hatton on Habakkuk 2:4

  

The second statement, in its kjv form “the just shall live by his faith,” is the best known text in the book of Habakkuk. rsv replaces “just” with righteous, which is less ambiguous (compare neb, tev, niv, njv). jb uses the more modern term “upright.” In Habakkuk’s time, to be “righteous” or “upright” meant to obey God’s law and to treat other people fairly. So gecl translates “whoever keeps faith with me and does what is right.” A good summary of the conduct intended is given in Psalm 15. The righteous here are the people of Judah, or at least those of them who share Habakkuk’s concerns. Righteous may be rendered as “good people,” “straight people,” “upright people,” “people who obey (are loyal to) God,” or even figuratively as “people with straight livers.”

 

The word translated faith in rsv is more accurately “faithfulness” (rsv footnote, jb; compare “faithful” in mft, neb, tev). This means being loyal to God and obedient to his law, even when outward circumstances make it difficult, as they did in Habakkuk’s day. In modern speech we may perhaps use the word “integrity,” though this does not have the religious overtones that “faithfulness” has. (David J. Clark and Howard A. Hatton, A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Habakkuk [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1989], 92)

 

Ibn Ezra on Habakkuk 2:4

  

Ibn Ezra on Habakkuk 2:4:1

הנה עפלה נפשו גבהה כמו עופל ובחן.

 

Ibn Ezra on Habakkuk 2:4:2

לא ישרה בו ואף כי צדיק ממנו ומלת לא תשרת בעבור אחרת.

 

Ibn Ezra on Habakkuk 2:4:3

וכן הוא צדיק באמונתו לא יחיה מידו, והטעם: לא ישרה נפשו בו והוא רואה כי צדיק ממנו לא חיה מידו, ואף הוא שיחיה וימלט. והטעם: דרך תימה, הנה הוא רואה כי צדיק בעבור אמונתו לא ימלט מידו ואיך לא יחשב על עצמו שנפשו עפלה ולא ישרה, והוא איש היין בוגד וגבר יהיר, אשר כל אלה הגזרות והרעות הוא עשאם, ואיך לא יחשוב בעצמו כי עליו ישאו משל, ויחודו חידות הנסתרות ממנו בדרך מליצה, ובאר היטב כמו שכתוב הוי המרבה וכל הכתוב אחריו. (source)

 

 

Ibn Ezra on Habakkuk 2:4:1
“Behold, his soul is puffed up” means that it is exalted, like ʿophel and bāḥan.

 

Ibn Ezra on Habakkuk 2:4:2
“It is not upright within him,” and also even more so, “the righteous one.” The word “not” serves also for the other clause.

 

Ibn Ezra on Habakkuk 2:4:3
And so too: “the righteous shall live by his faith” means, from his hand, i.e., he shall not be upright within himself. The sense is: he sees that the righteous man does not live by his hand, yet he himself thinks that he will live and escape. And the meaning is a matter of astonishment: behold, he sees that the righteous man, because of his faith, will not escape from his hand—so how does he not consider for himself that his soul is puffed up and not upright? He is a man of wine, a traitor, and a proud man, who has brought about all these decrees and evils; so how does he not think that people will speak a proverb about him, and express the hidden matters concerning him in riddle-like language, and explain it clearly, as it is written, “Woe to him who increases…” and the rest of the passage.

 

Radak (David Kimhi) on Habakkuk 2:4

  

Radak on Habakkuk 2:4:1

הנה עפלה לא ישרה נפשו בו. אמר מי שלא ישרה נפשו בעצמו ואין לו אמנה באל יתברך גבהה נפשו והתנשאה ולא תפחד שיבא הרע וכזה היא נפש נבוכדנצר ונפש בלשצר בן בנו שנתגאו כנגד האל יתברך:  

 

Radak on Habakkuk 2:4:2

וצדיק. אבל הצדיק אינו כן כי נפשו שפלה ומפחד תמיד מהאל יתברך לפיכך יחיה באמונתו באל יתברך וינצל מהרעה שתבא לרשע ואלו הם ישראל שגלו לבבל עם צדקיהו שנכנעו בגלות ולא עבדו עכו"ם והאמינו באל יתברך וכשכבש כורש בבל ונהרגו הכשדים ישראל שהיו צדיקים היו באמונתם באל יתברך ונצלו מחרב הפרסיים ויצאו מגלות בבל: 

 

Radak on Habakkuk 2:4:3

עפלה. ענין גבהות הלב וזדון וכן ויעפילו לעלות אל ראש ההר ורבי אחי רבי משה ז"ל פירש הנה עפלה מן עופל ובחן שהוא מבצר גבוה אמר מי שלא ישרה נפשו בו עפלה כלומר תשים עצמה בעופל ובחן להשגב שם מפני האויב ולא תשוב לאל ולא תבקש ממנו להצילה אבל הצדיק לא יצטרך להשגב במבצר כי באמונתו יחיה: (source)

 

 

Radak on Habakkuk 2:4:1
“Behold, his soul is not upright within him.” He says: whoever is not upright in his own soul and has no faith in God Most High, his soul becomes haughty and exalted, and he does not fear that evil will come. Such was the soul of Nebuchadnezzar and the soul of Belshazzar his grandson, who became proud against God Most High.

 

Radak on Habakkuk 2:4:2
“But the righteous…” But the righteous is not like this, for his soul is humble and he is always in fear of God Most High. Therefore he lives by his faith in God Most High and is saved from the evil that will come upon the wicked. These are Israel, who went into exile to Babylon with Zedekiah, who humbled themselves in exile and did not worship idols, but trusted in God Most High. And when Cyrus conquered Babylon and the Chaldeans were killed, Israel, who were righteous, were sustained by their faith in God Most High, were saved from the sword of the Persians, and came out of Babylonian exile.

 

Radak on Habakkuk 2:4:3
“Puffed up” means arrogance of heart and insolence, as in “and they presumptuously went up to the top of the mountain.” And my brother, Rabbi Moshe ז״ל, explained: “Behold, his soul is not upright within him”—that “puffed up” is from ofel u-vachan, meaning a high fortress. He says that whoever is not upright in himself makes himself into an ofel u-vachan, that is, he places himself in a fortress to be sheltered there from the enemy, and does not return to God or seek from Him to save him. But the righteous does not need to shelter himself in a fortress, for by his faith he shall live.

 

Use of Matthew 6:12 in Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, chapter 2

  

"Wherefore, girding up your loins," "serve the Lord in fear" and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and "believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave Him glory," and a throne at His right hand. To Him all things in heaven and on earth are subject. Him every spirit serves. He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead. His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him. But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witness; "not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing," or blow for blow, or cursing for cursing, but being mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: "Judge not, that ye be not judged; forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you; be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again;" and once more, "Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God." (Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, chapter 2 [ANF 1:33])

 

Metzudat David and Metzudat Zion (18th century) on Malachi 1:11

 Source

 

Metzudat David on Malachi 1:11:1

כי ממזרח שמש. אשר ממקום זריחת השמש עד מקום שקיעתו גדול שמי בין העכו״ם כי כולם מודים בו יתברך שהוא הסיבה הראשונה המשפעת בכולם רק איזה מהם יחשבו שהנהגת העולם השפל בא הכל ממערכת השמים: 

 

Metzudat David on Malachi 1:11:2

ובכל מקום מוקטר מגש לשמי. ת״ל מה שהעובדי עכו״ם מקטירים למערכת השמים להתרצות לפניהם כוונתם הוא שבזה יכבדו ויעבדו את סבתם הראשונה ובזה באמת יטעו כי לא נגה עליהם אור התורה והנבואה: 

 

Metzudat David on Malachi 1:11:3

ומנחה טהורה. ומה שמביאים לקרבן ותשורה היא טהורה ונקיה לפי דעתם הנראה בעיניהם: 

 

Metzudat David on Malachi 1:11:4

כי גדול שמי בגוים. ולכן לפי טעותם יקריבו למערכות השמים מנחה טהורה:

 

Metzudat Zion on Malachi 1:11:1

מבואו. ענין שקיעה כמו כי בא השמש (ראשית כא): 

 

Metzudat Zion on Malachi 1:11:2

מקטר. מל׳ הקטרה: 

 

Metzudat Zion on Malachi 1:11:3

מגש. ענין הקרבה:

  

 

Metzudat David on Malachi 1:11:1

“‘For from the rising of the sun’—that is, from the place of sunrise to the place of sunset, My name is great among the nations, for they all acknowledge Him, may He be blessed, as the First Cause that influences all things. Only some of them think that the governance of the lower world comes entirely from the host of heaven.”

 

Metzudat David on Malachi 1:11:2

“‘And in every place incense is offered and presented to My name’—that is, what the idolatrous nations burn incense to the host of heaven in order to find favor before them is intended, in their view, to honor and serve their First Cause. In this they are indeed mistaken, because the light of Torah and prophecy has not shone upon them.”

 

Metzudat David on Malachi 1:11:3

“‘And a pure meal offering’—and what they bring as a sacrifice or gift is pure and clean, according to what appears correct in their eyes.”

 

Metzudat David on Malachi 1:11:4

“‘For My name is great among the nations’—therefore, according to their mistaken belief, they offer a pure meal offering to the host of heaven.”

 

Metzudat Zion on Malachi 1:11:1

“‘Its going down’—meaning sunset, as in ‘for the sun was set’ (Genesis 21).”

 

Metzudat Zion on Malachi 1:11:2

“‘Incense’—from the language of burning incense.”

 

Metzudat Zion on Malachi 1:11:3

“‘Presented’—meaning brought near or offered.”

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 102: An Leabhar Mhórmoin (with Darrach Ó Duibh)

 

Episode 102: An Leabhar Mhórmoin (with Darrach Ó Duibh)

.

JoAnna M. Hoyt on the Use of Micah 3:12 in Jeremiah 26:17-19 and the Conditional Nature of Prophecy

  

In addition to Micah’s connection with Isaiah, it also has a connection to Jeremiah. In Jer 26:17–19 the elders of the land, in an effort to rebuff Jeremiah, stand up and recount Micah’s prophecy recorded in Mic 3:12 and 4:1.

 

Then some of the elders of the land rose up and spoke to all the assembly of the people, saying, “Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Thus the Lord of hosts has said, “Zion will be plowed as a field, And Jerusalem will become ruins, And the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.” ’ Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and the Lord changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves.” (Jer 26:17–19 NASB)

 

The elders’ paraphrase of Micah’s prophecy shows that Micah’s prophecies were known and revered by the people. Their description of the outcome of the prophecy places the prophecy during the time of Hezekiah and also gives a glimpse into how they understood prophecy. Prophecy from Yahweh requires a response, which Hezekiah gave. And it also has an element of contingency. Micah prophesied destruction, but Yahweh relented destruction (at that time) because Hezekiah responded in fear and sought mercy from Yahweh (JoAnna M. Hoyt, Amos, Jonah, & Micah [Evangelical Exegetical Commentary; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2018), 551-2)

 

Ibid., 552 n. 36 to the above reads:

 

Too often prophecy is misunderstood as a final ultimatum. Yet, this passage and the people’s response to it show very clearly that “unfulfilled” prophecy was not problematic. When one responds appropriately to Yahweh, Yahweh may choose to relent his judgment (at least for a time).

 

Joseph Blenkinsopp on Jeremiah 26:16-19 Showing that Micah 3:12 Was Later Reinterpreted as a Conditional Prophecy

  

Another absentee is Micah, who issued a categoric prediction of doom on Jerusalem, along the lines of the “back to nature” theme often heard in Isaiah: “Because of you, Zion will be a ploughed field, Jerusalem will be a heap of ruins, and the temple mount will become wooded heights” (Mic 3:12). About a century later, Jeremiah’s life was saved by a timely citing of this prediction, no longer understood as an unconditional announcement of disaster, which it clearly was, but as a call to repentance addressed to Hezekiah, one which he accepted and acted on (Jer 26:16–19). The trial narrative in Jeremiah 26, in which the citing of this prediction played a major role, is the continuation of the temple sermon in 7:1–8:3, the Deuteronomistic character of which is unmistakable. As the trial unfolds, we recognize the same hand at work in such expressions as “emend your ways and your deeds” and “obey the voice of Yahveh your God.” The death penalty for what was considered Jeremiah’s false prophesying is also in keeping with Deuteronomistic guidelines about prophecy (Jer 26:8–9, 11; Deut 18:20). This would therefore be a case of an unconditional prophecy of doom reinterpreted as conditional, not unlike Jonah’s announcement of doom on Nineveh, which underwent a similar transformation. The incident also throws another sliver of light on what is emerging as an alternative account of Hezekiah’s reign. Micah’s prediction of the destruction of Hezekiah’s Jerusalem follows immediately after condemnation of a corrupt ruling class which, while professing confidence in the protection of Yahveh, “build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with wrongdoing” (Mic 3:9–11). This must be the ruling class surrounding Hezekiah, one of the Historian’s great heroes. (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006], 40, emphasis in bold added)

 

Robert Alter on Micah 5:14 (Heb. v. 13)

  

I will destroy your icons. The Masoretic Text reads “I will destroy your towns [ʿareykha].” This looks rather odd in a catalogue of destruction of pagan cultic objects and may well be an inadvertent scribal replication of the destruction of “towns” in verse 10. This translation assumes the original text reads ʿatsabeykha, “your icons.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1312)

 

Use of Matthew 6:12 in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.17.1

  

1. The Creator is the one who in respect to love is the Father, in respect to power the Lord, and in respect to wisdom our Maker and Fashioner. It was his commandment that we transgressed and became his enemies. For this reason, in the last times the Lord restored us to friendship through his incarnation, having been made Mediator between God and man. On our behalf he appeased the Father against whom we had sinned; and he came to the aid of disobedience by his obedience, granting us the gift of living with our Maker and of being subject to him. That is why he taught us to say in prayer, and forgive us our transgressions; certainly, because this is our Father, whose debtors we were because we had transgressed his commandment. But who is this? Is it some unknowable Father who never gives a commandment to anyone? Or is it the God who is preached by the Prophets and whose debtors we were because we transgressed his commandment? The commandment was given to man by the Word. For Adam, Scripture says, heard the Voice of the Lord God. Correctly, then, does his Word say to man, Your sins are forgiven. It is the same one against whom we had sinned in the beginning who grants us remission of sins in the end. Now, if we transgressed the commandment of someone else than the one who said, Your sins are forgiven, such a one is not good or truthful or just. Really, how is he good if he does not give of his own things? Or how is he just if he steals what does not belong to him? And how are the sins truly forgiven unless the very one against whom we have sinned grants remission through the heart of our God’s mercy, by which he visited us through his Son? ^b(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.17.1 in St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies Books 4 & 5 [trans. Dominic Unger and Scott D. Moringiello; Ancient Christian Writers 72; Mahwah, N.J.: The Newman Press, 2024], 163)

 

Radak (David Kimhi) on Isaiah 5:9

  

Radak on Isaiah 5:9:1

באזני. מאמר הקדוש ברוך הוא, אמר מה שאתם מדברים ביניכם ומסכימים לגזול העניים באזני עלה כי אני אדון צבאות מעלה וצבאות מטה ובידי להשפיל ולהרים, ואני אומר בתים רבים לשמה יהיו, אתם הייתם חושבים שאתם תשבו לבדכם ואני אומר שאתם תגלו מהם ובתיכם שהיו רבים וגדולים יהיו שממה מאין יושב: 

 

Radak on Isaiah 5:9:2

אם לא. לשון שבועה, וכן אם לא כאשר דמיתי כן היתה, אם לא שויתי ודוממתי, והוא כאדם שאומר לא יהיה זה אם לא יהיה זה: 

 

Radak on Isaiah 5:9:3

רבים. כמו רבי המלך, כלומר חשובים בבנין יפה, וכן גדולים וטובים, והוא כפל ענין במלות שונות, ויונתן תרגם הפסוק כן אמר נביא באודני הויתי שמע וגו': (source)

 

 

Radak on Isaiah 5:9:1
“In my ears.” The saying of the Holy One, blessed be He: He said, what you are saying among yourselves and agreeing to do—to rob the poor—has come into my ears, for I am the Lord of the hosts above and the hosts below, and in my hand is to bring low and to raise up. And I say that many houses shall become desolate. You thought that you would dwell there alone, but I say that you will be exiled from them, and your houses, which were many and great, shall become desolation, with no one inhabiting them.

 

Radak on Isaiah 5:9:2
“If not” is an expression of oath, as in “If not, as I have planned, so has it happened,” and “If not, I have calmed and made quiet.” It is like a person saying, “This shall not be unless that shall be.”

 

Radak on Isaiah 5:9:3
“Many” is like “many” of a king, that is, important ones in beautiful construction; and similarly “great and good.” This is a repetition of the idea in different words. Jonathan translated the verse thus: “He said in my ears, I heard,” etc.

 

 

Joseph F. Fantin on Pauline Authorship of Ephesians: The Minimal Personal Detail in the Letter

  

Fourth, the accusation that Ephesians is not personal and therefore not Pauline can be answered in a number of ways. First, Paul’s letters exhibit a varying level of personal content, and some do not include specific greetings in the conclusion. For example, although in Galatians Paul discusses himself, he does not make any personal comments to anyone specifically. Second, if Ephesians was not written by Paul, one might wish to include such greetings to make it look more like an authentic letter. Third, the reason that Paul did not include much personal data about himself may be explained in the letter. Near the end of the letter the author mentions that he is sending Tychicus in order to inform the readers of his circumstances (Eph. 6.21-22). There is no need (and/or other reasons) to duplicate this information in the letter. Finally, the most persuasive argument may be that the letter was intended to be circular. The phrase εν ‘Εφεσω is most likely a later addition to the text. It is lacking in the oldest and most important manuscripts of this passage (e.g. p⁴⁶ [c. 200 CE], the original hands of א and B [fourth century] and the later [tenth century] but important minuscule 1739). However, the phrase was added by the seventh-century corrector of א and the sixth-seventh century corrector of B. The earliest extant Greek manuscript with the phrase is A (fifth century), and it has the support of the Western (D, F, G) and Byzantine traditions (included within gothic M). The former has a tendency to include additions, and the latter has a tendency to harmonize. Also, the omission is favoured because it is the shorter and possibly more difficult reading. Finally, it is difficult to explain why it would have been deleted if original. Therefore, given both internal and extant external evidence, the original text of Ephesians does not identify a destination.

 

This in itself does not demand that we consider it a circular letter. In fact, the sending of Tychicus, as noted above (Eph. 6.21-22), seems to imply an intended audience. Also, one must explain how the location phrase became inserted into the text. When one considers all the factors, the following reconstruction seems to account for the details. The letter was intended as a circular letter for the churches throughout Asia Minor. There are a number of reasons why Ephesus would be an ideal initial destination for the letter. First, Ephesus was probably the most important city in the province. Second, it had a port and thus was an ideal first stop on a trip to Asia Minor. Third, the church there was probably one of the more established Pauline churches. Finally, the church was very close personally to Paul. For these reasons Ephesus probably had the resources and could be trusted to circulate a letter containing important teaching that Paul desired all to know. Tychicus thus brought the letter there and explained Paul’s desire and instruction. Additionally, it may even be speculated that Tychicus, after stopping in Ephesus, took the letter with him to Laodicea and then went on to Colossae. Tychicus’s instructions about relating Paul’s circumstances are repeated in Col. 4.7, which supports the notion that the letters were simultaneously dispatched. Thus, the letter coming from Laodicea mentioned in Col. 4.16 was in fact our circular letter. If this is the letter Marcion called the letter to the Laodiceans, this can explain Marcion’s title (certainly based partially on Col. 4.16), although he was incorrect if he assumed that the Laodiceans were primary recipients. Since Colossians was specifically addressed to the church at Colossae, it was to be read there first. Paul then instructs the church to have the letter (Colossians) read in Laodicea. The role of the Ephesian church in this process resulted in its name being attached to the letter. This reconstruction is highly speculative, and I acknowledge that it also raises a number of problems. It is also impossible to prove (or disprove). Additionally, our attempt to trace Tychicus’s travel route is even more tenuous and is not necessary for our more general reconstruction to be accurate. Nevertheless, this suggestion (with or without the Colossian connection) is plausible and does provide explanation for some of the problems raised by those who cannot justify Pauline authorship. The circular nature of the letter may also explain some of the differences with the letter to the Colossians, which was primarily directed to a specific church.

 

Thus, it is reasonable to maintain Pauline authorship of Ephesians. In fact, even in present New Testament scholarship there are strong voices for authenticity. Although the major commentaries by Best in the International Critical Commentary series and Lincoln in the Word Biblical Commentary series favour pseudonymity, two other recent commentaries, those by O’Brien and Hoehner, defend Pauline authorship. Additionally, Hoehner has compiled a list of commentaries and other important works from ancient to modern times with their position on Pauline authorship noted. There has been division over this issue for some time. Nevertheless, even in modern times, although one position may be slightly favoured over the other from decade to decade, there is consistently around a fifty-fifty split over this issue. (Joseph F. Fantin, The Lord of the Entire World: Lord Jesus, a Challenge to Lord Caesar? [New Testament Monographs 31; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011], 279-81)

 

Malbim and Malbim Beur Hamilot (19th century) on Malachi 1:11

 Source

 

Malbim Beur Hamilot on Malachi 1:11:1

מקטר מגש לשמי. מי שמוגש לשמי ר"ל הקרוב אלי, הוא מוקטר שמקטירים אליו קטורת, בעבור שהוא מוגש וקרוב אלי לפי דעתם, ומקטירים לו מנחה טהורה, ובזה אזל כל מה שנלחצו המפורשים בזה:

 

Malbim on Malachi 1:11:1

כי ממזרח שמש ועד מבואו, הגם שכל האומות עובדים ע"ז, בכ"ז גדול שמי בגוים, שכולם יודעים שיש סבה ראשונה עלוון על כולם וקרי ליה אלהא דאלהיא רק שאומרים שאין כבודו להשגיח בשפלים ושמסר הנהגת עולם השפל למשרתיו כמלך שמוסר ההנהגה לשריו ועבדיו ורוצה שיחלקו להם כבוד באשר הם הנגשים אל המלך והם האמצעים בינו ובין העם וכבודם הוא כבוד המלך, וכן כל מה שמקטירים לכוכבים ומזלות הוא מצד שאומרים שהם הקרובים אל הסבה הראשונה ומקבלים השפע מאתו, וז"ש ובכל מקום מקטר מגש לשמי, שמי שהוא מוגש לשמי הוא מוקטר, ר"ל שהם מקטירים קרבנות למי שהוא מוגש וקרוב לשם ה', ומי שחושבים בו שהוא מוגש לשם ה' הוא מוקטר, היינו שמקטירים אליו, ומצד זה מקטירים לצבא השמים שחושבים שהם מוגשים וקרובים לשם ה', והם מקטירים אליהם מנחה טהורה ונקיה, לא בעל מום ודברים בלתי טהורים ונכבדים, וזה מצד כי גדול שמי בגוים, עד שיכבדו כל המוגש לשמו והקרוב אליו:

 

 

Malbim Beur Hamilot on Malachi 1:11:1

“‘Offered and presented to My name’ means: whoever is presented to My name, that is, whoever is close to Me, is ‘offered’—for they burn incense to him because, in their view, he is presented and near to Me, and they offer him a pure offering. And with this, everything that the commentators were forced to say on this verse falls away.”

 

Malbim on Malachi 1:11:1

“For from the rising of the sun even unto its setting, although all the nations worship idolatry, nevertheless My name is great among the nations, for they all know that there is a First Cause above all causes, and they call Him ‘the God of gods’; only they say that it is not fitting for His honor to oversee the lower realms, and that He has entrusted the governance of the lower world to His ministers, like a king who hands over administration to his princes and servants and wants honor divided among them, since they are the ones who approach the king and stand between him and the people, and their honor is the king’s honor.

 

Likewise, all that they burn incense to the stars and constellations is because they say that these are the beings nearest to the First Cause and receive abundance from Him. This is what it means: ‘and in every place incense is offered and presented to My name’—that whoever is presented to My name is ‘offered,’ meaning that they burn sacrifices to whoever is presented and close to the name of the Lord. And whoever they think is presented to the name of the Lord is ‘offered,’ that is, incense is burned to him. And on account of this they burn incense to the host of heaven, because they think they are presented and close to the name of the Lord, and they offer them a pure and clean offering, not one that is blemished or impure or unworthy. And this is because ‘My name is great among the nations,’ such that they honor all who are presented to His name and close to Him.”

 

 

Excerpts from the Works of John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435)

  

That faith itself must be given us by the Lord.

 

But so thoroughly did the Apostles realize that everything which concerns salvation was given them by the Lord, that they even asked that faith itself should be granted from the Lord, saying: “Add to us faith” as they did not imagine that it could be gained by free will, but believed that it would be bestowed by the free gift of God. Lastly the Author of man’s salvation teaches us how feeble and weak and insufficient our faith would be unless it were strengthened by the aid of the Lord, when He says to Peter “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed to my Father that thy faith fail not.” And another finding that this was happening in his own case, and seeing that his faith was being driven by the waves of unbelief on the rocks which would cause a fearful shipwreck, asks of the same Lord an aid to his faith, saying “Lord, help mine unbelief.” So thoroughly then did those Apostles and men in the gospel realize that everything which is good is brought to perfection by the aid of the Lord, and not imagine that they could preserve their faith unharmed by their own strength or free will that they prayed that it might be helped or granted to them by the Lord. And if in Peter’s case there was need of the Lord’s help that it might not fail, who will be so presumptuous and blind as to fancy that he has no need of daily assistance from the Lord in order to preserve it? Especially as the Lord Himself has made this clear in the gospel, saying: “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine, so no more can ye, except ye abide in me.” And again: “for without me ye can do nothing.” How foolish and wicked then it is to attribute any good action to our own diligence and not to God’s grace and assistance, is clearly shown by the Lord’s saying, which lays down that no one can show forth the fruits of the Spirit without His inspiration and co-operation. For “every good gift and every perfect boon is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.” And Zechariah too says, “For whatever is good is His, and what is excellent is from Him.” And so the blessed Apostle consistently says: “What hast thou which thou didst not receive? But if thou didst receive it, why boastest thou as if thou hadst not received it?” (John Cassian, “III. Conference of Abbot Paphnutius: On the Three Sorts of Renunciations,” chapter 16 [NPNF2 11:327-28])

 

 

 

 

Chapter XXI.

 

An objection on the power of free will.

 

Germanus: This passage very clearly shows the freedom of the will, where it is said “If My people would have hearkened unto Me,” and elsewhere “But My people would not hear My voice.” For when He says “If they would have heard” He shows that the decision to yield or not to yield lay in their own power. How then is it true that our salvation does not depend upon ourselves, if God Himself has given us the power either to hearken or not to hearken?

 

Chapter XXII.

 

The answer; viz., that our free will always has need of the help of the Lord.

 

Paphnutius: You have shrewdly enough noticed how it is said “If they would have hearkened to Me:” but have not sufficiently considered either who it is who speaks to one who does or does not hearken; or what follows: “I should soon have put down their enemies, and laid My hand on those that trouble them.” Let no one then try by a false interpretation to twist that which we brought forward to prove that nothing can be done without the Lord, nor take it in support of free will, in such a way as to try to take away from man the grace of God and His daily oversight, through this test: “But My people did not hear My voice,” and again: “If My people would have hearkened unto Me, and if Israel would have walked in My ways, etc.:” but let him consider that just as the power of free will is evidenced by the disobedience of the people, so the daily oversight of God who declares and admonishes him is also shown. For where He says “If My people would have hearkened unto Me” He clearly implies that He had spoken to them before. And this the Lord was wont to do not only by means of the written law, but also by daily exhortations, as this which is given by Isaiah: “All day long have I stretched forth My hands to a disobedient and gain-saying people.” Both points then can be supported from this passage, where it says: “If My people would have hearkened, and if Israel had walked in My ways, I should soon have put down their enemies, and laid My hand on those that trouble them.” For just as free will is shown by the disobedience of the people, so the government of God and His assistance is made clear by the beginning and end of the verse, where He implies that He had spoken to them before, and that afterwards He would put down their enemies, if they would have hearkened unto Him. For we have no wish to do away with man’s free will by what we have said, but only to establish the fact that the assistance and grace of God are necessary to it every day and hour. When he had instructed us with this discourse Abbot Paphnutius dismissed us from his cell before midnight in a state of contrition rather than of liveliness; insisting on this as the chief lesson in his discourse; viz., that when we fancied that by making perfect the first renunciation (which we were endeavouring to do with all our powers), we could climb the heights of perfection, we should make the discovery that we had not yet even begun to dream of the heights to which a monk can rise, since after we had learnt some few things about the second renunciation, we should find out that we had not before this even heard a word of the third stage, in which all perfection is comprised, and which in many ways far exceeds these lower ones. (John Cassian, “III. Conference of Abbot Paphnutius: On the Three Sorts of Renunciations,” chapters 21-22, NPNF2 11:329-30)

 

 

Chapter V.

 

An objection, how God Himself can be said to create evil.

 

Germanus: We often read in holy Scripture that God has created evil or brought it upon men, as is this passage: “There is none beside Me. I am the Lord, and there is none else: I form the light and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil.” And again: “Shall there be evil in a city which the Lord hath not done?”

 

Chapter VI.

 

The answer to the question proposed.

 

Theodore: Sometimes holy Scripture is wont by an improper use of terms to use “evils” for “affliction;” not that these are properly and in their nature evils, but because they are imagined to be evils by those on whom they are brought for their good. For when divine judgment is reasoning with men it must speak with the language and feelings of men. For when a doctor for the sake of health with good reason either cuts or cauterizes those who are suffering from the inflammation of ulcers, it is considered an evil by those who have to bear it. Nor are the spur and the whip pleasant to a restive horse. Moreover all chastisement seems at the moment to be a bitter thing to those who are chastised, as the Apostle says: “Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy but sorrow; but afterwards it will yield to them that are exercised by it most peaceable fruits of righteousness,” and “whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth: for what son is there whom the father doth not correct?” And so evils are sometimes wont to stand for afflictions, as where we read: “And God repented of the evil which He had said that He would do to them and He did it not.” And again: “For Thou, Lord, are gracious and merciful, patient and very merciful and ready to repent of the evil,” i.e., of the sufferings and losses which Thou art forced to bring upon us as the reward of our sins. And another prophet, knowing that these are profitable to some men, and certainly not through any jealousy of their safety, but with an eye to their good, prays thus: “Add evils to them, O Lord, add evils to the haughty ones of the earth;” and the Lord Himself says “Lo, I will bring evils upon them,” i.e., sorrows, and losses, with which they shall for the present be chastened for their soul’s health, and so shall be at length driven to return and hasten back to Me whom in their prosperity they scorned. And so that these are originally evil we cannot possibly assert: for to many they conduce to their good and offer the occasions of eternal bliss, and therefore (to return to the question raised) all those things, which are thought to be brought upon us as evils by our enemies or by any other people, should not be counted as evils, but as things indifferent. For in the end they will not be what he thinks, who brought them upon us in his rage and fury, but what he makes them who endures them. And so when death has been brought upon a saint, we ought not to think that an evil has happened to him but a thing indifferent; which is an evil to a wicked man, while to the good it is rest and freedom from evils. “For death is rest to a man whose way is hidden.” And so a good man does not suffer any loss from it, because he suffers nothing strange, but by the crime of an enemy he only receives (and not without the reward of eternal life) that which would have happened to him in the course of nature, and pays the debt of man’s death, which must be paid by an inevitable law, with the interest of a most fruitful passion, and the recompense of a great reward. (John Cassian, “VI. Conference of Abbot Theodore: On the Death of the Saints,” chapters 5-6 [NPNF2 11:354])

 

 

 

 

How spirit cannot be penetrated by spirit, and how God alone is incorporeal.

 

For even if spirit is mingled with this crass and solid matter; viz., flesh (as very easily happens), should we therefore believe that it can be united to the soul, which is in like manner spirit, in such a way as to make it also receptive in the same way of its own nature: a thing which is possible to the Trinity alone, which is so capable of pervading every intellectual nature, that it cannot only embrace and surround it but even insert itself into it and, incorporeal though it is, be infused into a body? For though we maintain that some spiritual natures exist, such as angels, archangels and the other powers, and indeed our own souls and the thin air, yet we ought certainly not to consider them incorporeal. For they have in their own fashion a body in which they exist, though it is much finer than our bodies are, in accordance with the Apostle’s words when he says: “And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial:” and again: “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body;” from which it is clearly gathered that there is nothing incorporeal but God alone, and therefore it is only by Him that all spiritual and intellectual substances can be pervaded, because He alone is whole and everywhere and in all things, in such a way as to behold and see the thoughts of men and their inner movements and all the recesses of the soul; since it was of Him alone that the blessed Apostle spoke when he said: “For the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow; and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; and there is no creature invisible in His sight, but all things are naked and open to His eyes.” And the blessed David says: “Who fashioneth their hearts one by one;” and again: “For He knoweth the secrets of the heart;” and Job too: “Thou who alone knowest the hearts of men.” (John Cassian, “VII. First Conference of Abbot Serenus: On Inconstancy of Mind, and Spiritual Wickedness,” chapter 13 [NPNF2 11:366-67])

 

 

 

 

Chapter III.

 

Of the offering of tithes and firstfruits.

 

For indeed by the Lord’s command tithes were consecrated to the service of the Levites, but oblations and firstfruits for the priests. But this was the law of the firstfruits; viz., that the fiftieth part of fruits or animals should be given for the service of the temple and the priests: and this proportion some who were faithlessly indifferent diminished, while those who were very religious increased it, so that the one gave only the sixtieth part, and the other gave the fortieth part of their fruits. For the righteous, for whom the law is not enacted, are thus shown to be not under the law, as they try not only to fulfil but even to exceed the righteousness of the law, and their devotion is greater than the legal requirement, as it goes beyond the observance of precepts and adds to what is due of its own free will.

 

Chapter IV.

 

How Abraham, David, and other saints went beyond the requirement of the law.

 

For so we read that Abraham went beyond the requirement of the law which was afterwards to be given, when after his victory over the four kings, he would not touch any of the spoils of Sodom, which were fairly due to him as the conqueror, and which indeed the king himself, whose spoils he had rescued, offered him; and with an oath by the Divine name he exclaimed: “I lift up my hand to the Lord Most High, who made heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread to a shoe’s latchet of all that is thine.” So we know that David went beyond the requirement of the law, as, though Moses commanded that vengeance should be taken on enemies, he not only did not do this, but actually embraced his persecutors with love, and piously entreated the Lord for them, and wept bitterly and avenged them when they were slain. So we are sure that Elijah and Jeremiah were not under the law, as though they might without blame have taken advantage of lawful matrimony, yet they preferred to remain virgins. So we read that Elisha and others of the same mode of life went beyond the commands of Moses, as of them the Apostle speaks as follows: “They went about in sheepskins and in goatskins, they were oppressed, afflicted, in want, of whom the world was not worthy, they wandered about in deserts and in mountains, and in caves and in dens of the earth.” What shall I say of the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab, of whom we are told that, when at the Lord’s bidding the prophet Jeremiah offered them wine, they replied: “We drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, saying: Ye shall drink no wine, ye and your sons forever: and ye shall build no house, nor sow any seed, nor plant vineyards nor possess them: but ye shall dwell in tents all your days”? Wherefore also they were permitted to hear from the same prophet these words: “Thus saith the Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel: there shall not fail a man from the stock of Jonadab the son of Rechab to stand in My sight all the days;” as all of them were not satisfied with merely offering tithes of their possessions, but actually refused property, and offered the rather to God themselves and their souls, for which no redemption can be made by man, as the Lord testifies in the gospel: “For what shall a man give in exchange for his own soul?”

 

Chapter V.

 

How those who live under the grace of the Gospel ought to go beyond the requirement of the law.

 

Wherefore we ought to know that we from whom the requirements of the law are no longer exacted, but in whose ears the word of the gospel daily sounds: “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come follow Me,” when we offer to God tithes of our substance, are still in a way ground down beneath the burden of the law, and not able to rise to those heights of the gospel, those who conform to which are recompensed not only by blessings in this present life, but also by future rewards. For the law promises to those who obey it no rewards of the kingdom of heaven, but only solaces in this life, saying: “The man that doeth these things shall live in them.” But the Lord says to His disciples: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven;” and: “Everyone that leaveth house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or field for My name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.” And this with good reason. For it is not so praiseworthy for us to abstain from forbidden as from lawful things, and not to use these last out of reverence for Him, Who has permitted us to use them because of our weakness. And so if even those who, faithfully offering tithes of their fruits, are obedient to the more ancient precepts of the Lord, cannot yet climb the heights of the gospel, you can see very clearly how far short of it those fall who do not even do this. For how can those men be partakers of the grace of the gospel who disregard the fulfilment even of the lighter commands of the law, to the easy character of which the weighty words of the giver of the law bear testimony, as a curse is actually invoked on those who do not fulfil them; for it says: “Cursed is everyone that does not continue in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.” But here on account of the superiority and excellence of the commandments it is said: “He that can receive it, let him receive it.” There the forcible compulsion of the lawgiver shows the easy character of the precepts; for he says: “I call heaven and earth to record against you this day, that if ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord your God ye shall perish from off the face of the earth.” Here the grandeur of sublime commands is shown by the very fact that He does not order, but exhorts, saying: “if thou wilt be perfect go” and do this or that. There Moses lays a burden that cannot be refused on those who are unwilling: here Paul meets with counsels those who are willing and eager for perfection. For that was not to be enjoined as a general charge, nor to be required, if I may so say, as a regular rule from all, which could not be secured by all, owing to its wonderful and lofty nature; but by counsels all are rather stimulated to grace, that those who are great may deservedly be crowned by the perfection of their virtues, while those who are small, and not able to come up to “the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,” although they seem to be lost to sight and hidden as it were by the brightness of larger stars, may yet be free from the darkness of the curses which are in the law, and not adjudged to suffer present evils or visited with eternal punishment. Christ therefore does not constrain anyone, by the compulsion of a command, to those lofty heights of goodness, but stimulates them by the power of free will, and urges them on by wise counsels and the desire of perfection. For where there is a command, there is duty, and consequently punishment. But those who keep those things to which they are driven by the severity of the law established escape the punishment with which they were threatened, instead of obtaining rewards and a recompense. (John Cassian, “XXI. The First Conference of Abbot Theonas: On the Relaxation During the Fifty Days,” chapters 3-5 [NPNF2 11:503-5])

 

 

 

 

He shows that those who patronize this false teaching acknowledge two Christs.

 

But still, I had begun to say, that as you certainly make out two Christs this very matter must be illustrated and made clear. Tell me, I pray you, you who sever Christ from the Son of God, how can you confess in the Creed that Christ was begotten of God? For you say: “I believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His Son.” Here then you have Jesus Christ the Son of God: but you say that it was not the same Son of God who was born of Mary. Therefore there is one Christ of God, and another of Mary. In your view then there are two Christs. For, though in the Creed you do not deny Christ, you say that the Christ of Mary is another than the one whom you confess in the Creed. But perhaps you say that Christ was not begotten of God: how then do you say in the Creed: “I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God?” You must then either deny the Creed or confess that Christ is the Son of God. But if you confess in the Creed that Christ is the Son of God, you must also confess that the same Christ, the Son of God, is of Mary. Or if you make out another Christ of Mary, you certainly make the blasphemous assertion that there are two Christs. (John Cassian, "The Seven Books of John Cassian On the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius," Book 6, chapter 15 [NPNF2 11:599])