Isaiah 14:32 (=2 Nephi 14:32) and the Reading of Nation vs. Nations

Isa 14:32 in the KJV reads:

 

What shall one then answer the messengers of the nation? That the Lord hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust in it.

 

When this verse is quoted in 2 Nephi 24:32, it reads nations:

 

What shall the answer the messengers of the nations? That the Lord that founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust in it.

 

The Masoretic text is singular (מַלְאֲכֵי־ג֑וֹי “messengers of the nation”) as does 1QIsa^a at Col. XIII, line 4 (מלכי גוי “kings of a nation”).

 

However, the LXX has a plural. The Göttingen text reads:

 

καὶ τί ἀποκριθήσονται βασιλεῖς ἐθνῶν; ὅτι κύριος ἐθεμελίωσε Σιων, καὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ σωθήσονται οἱ ταπεινοὶ τοῦ λαοῦ.

 

And what will the kings of the nations answer? That the Lrod founded Zion, and through him the low among the people will be saved. (Lexham English Septuagint 2d ed.)

 

There is no textual variant concerning εθνων at this verse, per a consultation of the critical apparatus of Göttingen.

 

The Targum Jonathan for Isa 14:32 reads also “nations” or “Gentiles” (same word in Hebrew and Aramaic):

 

וּמָא יְבַסְרוּן אִזגַדֵי עַמְמַיָא אְרֵי יוי שַכלְלַה לְצִיֹון וּבַה יִתרַחְצוּן וְיִחדֹון חַשִיכֵי עַמָא

 

And what will the messengers of the Gentiles announce as good news? For the LORD has founded Zion, and in her the needy of his people will trust and rejoice. (The Isaiah Targum [trans. Bruce D. Chilton; The Aramaic Bible 11; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1990], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

The Peshitta also reads a plural. The following is taken from Leiden Peshitta (Leiden: Peshitta Institute Leiden, 2008), Logos Bible Software edition:

 

One can transliterate the above thusly:

 

naʿnānā  le‑malakā  d‑ʿammāyā  d‑maryā metqān   štāśyāh  d‑ṣahyōn ū‑beh    nistatrōn  b‑yišyē  d‑ʿammāh

 

The phrase d‑ʿammāyā means “of the nations.” One potential translation of the above is:

 

Given answer to the messenger of the Lord’s nations, who has ordained Zion’s disgrace; and in that calamity they shall hide themselves among the ruins of her people.

 

Charles Landon on Jude 4 and the Readings δεσποτην θεον and δεσποτην in the manuscript tradition

  

Variation Unit 4.4

 

δεσποτην θεον K L P Ψ 049 syr^{Ph, h}

δεσποτην 𝔓72 𝔓78 א A B C

 

If it can be shown conclusively that the word δεσπότην in v. 4 refers unequivocally to Jesus Christ, then δεσπότην θεόν can be rejected on contextual grounds. The first part of my discussion, therefore, attempts to establish whether δεσπότην in v. 4 is indeed a reference to Jesus Christ.

 

Bigg, Bauckham, Kistemaker and Bolkestein all believe that the word δεσπότην at v. 4 is a reference to Jesus Christ, a view which presupposes that δεσπότην is the better variant. In defence of this view, Bauckham cites Eusebius HE 1.7.14, where there is a reference to Jewish people known as δεσπόσυνοι. The background in Eusebius concerns Jewish people whose birth certificates and other family records had been burned by Herod. To preserve the memory of their pure lineage, the members of some Jewish families memorized these records. The term δεσπόσυνοι in Eusebius underscores the point that certain Jews were of good stock because of their family connections with τὸ σωτήριον—the Saviour—a word which appears to be a reference to Jesus; although, Bauckham omits to tell his readers that τὸ σωτήριον could equally well refer to God, as it does in v. 25. Bauckham does not deny here that the chronology of his citation from Eusebius makes his argument one of inference rather than proof.

 

Kistemaker’s view that the word δεσπότης at v. 4 refers to Jesus Christ is underwritten by a grammatical rule mentioned in Dana and Mantey. Kistemaker says that ‘… in the Greek only one definite article precedes the nouns Sovereign [master] and Lord. The rule states that when one article controls two nouns the writer refers to one person’. The applicability of this rule here is questionable. Bauckham recalls the same rule, but points out that κύριος often appears without an accompanying article. It is quite normal for κύριος to be anarthrous in the New Testament, since like θεός, κύριος is near to being a proper noun.

 

As has been pointed out by Fuchs and Reymond, elsewhere in his epistle, the writer is careful to make the distinction between Jesus Christ and God, and in v. 25 he specifically uses the adjective μόνος in agreement with θεός. Jude is unlikely to have deviated from the set expressions which appear at vv. 17, 21 and 25 as unequivocal references to Jesus Christ: at none of these verses is δεσπότης extant, thus nowhere in Jude is the word δεσπότης linked to any of the set expressions which refer to Jesus Christ, so my deduction is that at v. 4, the word δεσπότης is separate from the set expression κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν. It would seem that the epithets used of God and of Jesus Christ in vv. 4, 21 and 25 follow the pattern discernible elsewhere in the New Testament, with Jesus Christ being referred to within a set expression as κύριος rather than δεσπότης, and with God as δεσπότης. The reference of δεσπότης to God is unequivocal at Lk. 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10; and 2 Tim. 2:21.

 

The relationship between Jesus and his disciples need not necessarily be perceived as a ‘slave-master’ relationship. Voelz has made the suggestion that the way in which Jesus hands over authority to his disciples in Lk. 9:1 signifies that they were in a rabbi-pupil relationship, not in a slave-master relationship. If this view is correct, then it decreases further the likelihood that δεσπότην at v. 4 is a reference to Jesus Christ.

 

The proposition should be considered that the word δεσπότης is not used of Christ anywhere in the New Testament other than at 2 Pet. 2:1. Bauckham has argued convincingly that 2 Peter is dependent upon Jude on the grounds of Jude’s more polished and tightly constructed literary structure, and that the word δεσπότης at 2 Pet. 2:1 is borrowed from Jude. However, this hypothesis need not undermine my theory that δεσπότην θεόν may have been the original reading in v. 4. The author of 2 Peter may have seen δεσπότην θεόν in v. 4, and decided for his own reasons to break with Jude’s traditional usage. This would account for the appearance of δεσπότην in 2 Pet. 2:1 as an apparent reference to Jesus Christ.

 

The evidence considered thus far suggests that the word δεσπότην in v. 4 is no less likely to be a reference to God than to Jesus Christ, and so the contextual argument in favour of the reading δεσπότην is not decisive. Thus far I have shown that the reading δεσπότην θεόν cannot be rejected on intrinsic grounds.

 

Two positive intrinsic arguments can be cited briefly in defence of δεσπότην θεόν: (1) since Jude’s source material derives from extra-canonical and Old Testament authors, it is possible that Jude wrote τὸν μόνον δεσπότην θεόν to re-express slightly a phrase known to writers such as Josephus; (2) the presence of a comparatively high number of hapax legomena in Jude should prepare us not only to expect words which occur nowhere else in the New Testament, but also phrases which are equally rare, such as δεσπότην θεόν.

 

Regarding the transcriptional evidence, commentators who have looked at this problem invariably stress that the reading δεσπότην θεόν has θεόν appended to make the sentence less ambiguous since δεσπότην could refer either to Jesus Christ or to God. However the possibility that θεόν was deliberately removed rather than added must also be considered. The reading δεσπότην θεόν is unlikely to be a doctrinally altered reading, whereas the same cannot be said of δεσπότην without θεόν. Ehrman has noted a tendency towards anti-adoptionist corruptions of the New Testament text in 𝔓72:

 

A striking example [of anti-adoptionist corruption] occurs in the salutation of 2 Pet. 1:2: ‘May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of our Lord Jesus’. 𝔓72 omits the conjunction ‘and’ (καί), leading to the identification of Jesus as God: ‘in the knowledge of God, our Lord Jesus’. That this omission was not an accident is confirmed by similar modifications in the same manuscript.

 

This example from 2 Pet. 1:2 can be used as a paradigm for the problem at Jude 4. If Ehrman is correct about the direction of corruption away from adoptionist ‘heresies’, and if the conflict between adoptionism and orthodoxy is the reason for the variation at the unit here, then it is likely that δεσπότην θεόν as the reading at v. 4 which shows God and Jesus as two separate entities was shortened by anti-adoptionist orthodox scribes to remove the word θεόν. Such an alteration is explicable as a wish to show God and Jesus as the same entity, thereby stressing the divinity of Christ.

 

My decision to accept δεσπότην θεόν at this unit is based mainly on transcriptional evidence, which suggests that of the two readings, it alone resists orthodox interference. (Charles Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 135; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996], 63–67)

 

Kent P. Jackson, Adam Clarke and Isaiah in the Book of Mormon

Interpreter has published a great article by Kent P. Jackson responding to Colby Townsend's joke of an article:

Kent P. Jackson, "Adam Clarke and Isaiah in the Book of Mormon," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 66 (2025): 131-150 (PDF)

Reading both Colby's article (copy in my possession) and Jackson's, one will realize that, as with his other work, Colby's comparative analysis is very flat. At Jackson concludes:

This is not an academic project but a search for ways to justify a predetermined conclusion. It is not serious scholarship.

Harry Whittaker on the Lack of Agreement Among Christadelphians Concerning the Interpretation of Biblical Texts

  

There are a few instances where it can hardly be said that there is unanimity among Christadelphians as to what is the precise meaning of a passage, even though there may be complete agreement as to what it does not mean. (Harry Whittaker, “Some Wrested Scriptures,” The Christadelphian 94, no. 1114 [April 1957], 143)

 

 Further Reading:

Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues

V. A. Spence Little (1934) on Tatian's Subordinationist Christology

  

The subordination of the Logos

 

The principle underlying the Subordination of the Logos to the Deity is indicated clearly by the statement that it is “By His (God’s) simple will” that the Logos “springs forth” to become the “Firstborn Work.” But also in various other passages the Logos is shown to be subject to the Divine Will, e.g., He is begotten by the Father; in imitation of the Father He creates man; and in entering upon creative work in general He is undoubtedly fulfilling the Father’s will. In fact, the while relationship of Logos to the Father is suggestive of the secondary position of the former.

 

HIS GENERATION IMPLIES SUBORDINATION

 

Again, the fact that Logos is “brought into being” to be an individual also indicates His subordination. This aspect of Subordination Tatian illustrates by the metaphor of many fires lit from one torch. Though each of the fires be identical in essence with the blaze of the torch, and even though each be self-subsistent, the fact of their derivation from the torch constitutes them secondary thereto. Likewise the Logos, identical in essence with the Father, is subordinate in an economic sense, since HE was prolated by the will and initiative of a senior Divine Person. Another, though minor, indication of the secondary divine rank of the Logos may be discerned in certain references to Christ which presumably imply the identity of the Logos with Him.

 

BUT HIS SUBORDINATION ECONOMIC

 

Though the Subordination of the Logos is everywhere assumed, Tatian does not express his views thereon in so explicit terms nor in so much detail as does Justin. However, sufficient is stated to establish the theory, and further, to make it clear that the secondary character of the Logos relates only to His functions and activities in the universe, and not to His essential nature. (V. A. Spence Little, The Christology of the Apologists [London: Duckworth, 1934], 190-91)

 

 

H. A. G. Houghton on New Testament Textual Criticism

  

Evidence for thoroughgoing alternation of the New Testament text is very limited, however, and seems largely to be restricted to the first couple of centuries when the nature and form of the corpus were still under development (e.g. the assembly of letter collections, the production of an early harmony of the gospels, editorial activity such as that associated with Marcion). The translation of biblical books into other languages in this period also contributed to their textual diversity, in that this process inaugurated new traditions which could represent several potential wordings in the source language and which then went on to develop in their own ways. The scarcity of documents surviving from these centuries makes it difficult to establish the extent of textual variation commonly present in the earliest copies and the degree to which these writings may have circulated in ‘free’ forms alongside a more controlled tradition. Nevertheless, if the manuscripts which have been preserved are representative of the situation in antiquity, there are no grounds for serious doubt as to the consistency of the New Testament tradition. (H. A. G. Houghton, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion to the Sixth Edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025], 1*)

 

Baptismal Regeneration in the Glossa Ordinaria for 1 John 3:9

  

3:9 ^aEveryone that is ^bborn of God, commits not sin: *because his *seed abides in him, and he ^ccannot sin, because he is born ^dof God.

 

He commits not sin. He is not talking about all sin: IF we say that he have no sin, we deceive ourselves (1:8), but (he is talking) about the profanation of charity, which he who has in himself the seed of God, that is the word of God by which he was reborn, cannot commit and the things that follow him refer to this, or it can be taken as being talking of any criminal sin. (Bede Expo. On 1 John)

 

Because his seed. A true son cannot forget the law of the Father. The law of the Father is: Love one another.

 

^a Thus does he dissolve because whoever . . . ^b In Baptism. *Though this he avoids sins, because the word through which he is conceived abides. “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit (Matt. 7:18) ^c I have hated and abhorred iniquity, etc. (Ps. 118:163) (he cannot sin) Not only does he not sin, but he even cannot sin as long as he keeps the word. ^d In whom there is no sin. (The Glossa Ordinaria—Epistles of St. John 1-3: An English Translation [Consolamini Commentary Series: trans. Sarah Van Der Pas; West Monroe, La.: Consolamini Publications, 2015], 34)