Examples of Both Complentarians and Egalitarians Agreeing on the Significance of Adam Naming Eve

In his defense of complementarianism vs. egalitarianism,  Christadelphian apologist Jonathan Burke wrote:

 

Ian and Averil claim that Adam did not name Eve twice,²³⁹⁵ but standard commentaries on the Hebrew by both complementarians and egalitarians agree with Sparks on this point,²³⁹⁶ and agree with the significance of Adam naming Eve.^{2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404} (Jonathan Burke, “A Review of ‘All One’: Revisionism Examined,” December 2010, p. 392; cf. Jonathan Burke, Rightly Dividing the Word: A Review of ‘All One’ [Bible Interpretation Series 1; LivelyStones Publishing, 2012], 225-26)

 

Here are the notes from pp. 392-93:

 

2395 ‘It is incorrect to say that Adam “names” Eve in Genesis 2:23 “as he does the animals (2:20)” before the fall. As we point out, the expressions and circumstances are very different. He does name her in 3:20, after the fall, though even then it is not reasonable to suggest that this is intended to expresses authority over her. It is a statement of fact, not a declaration of authority.’, ‘Reply 2’, p. 81 (April 2009)

 

2396 The same Hebrew verb is used in Genesis 2:20 when Adam names the animals, Genesis 2:23 when he names Eve, and Genesis 3:20 when he names Eve again; it is the verb commonly used throughout the Old Testament when people are given names by their parents, or by those in authority over them

 

2397 ‘Here the first man names the first woman in a similar fashion. Though they are equal in nature, that man names woman (cf. 3:20) indicates that she is expected to be subordinate to him, an important presupposition of the ensuing narrative (3:17).’, ’20-21 Like the second scene (2:18–25), this, the penultimate scene, has the man’s naming of his wife and a mention of their clothing.’,

 

Wenham, ‘Genesis 1-15’, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 1, pp. 70, 93 (2002) 2398 ‘Now, however, the man gives out the name: she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man.’, ‘The man called his wife’s name Eve: because the Hebrew for man contains the article, RSV switches back to The man. However, TEV now calls him “Adam,” since the woman is named for the first time here also.’, Reyburn & Fry, ‘A Handbook on Genesis’, UBS Handbook Series, pp. 75, 97 (1997)

 

2399 ‘Insofar as the power of naming implies authority, the text voices the social reality of the ancient Near East. Yet the terminology used here differs from that employed in verse 20 for naming the animals. Here the man gives her a generic, not a personal, name, and that designation is understood to be derived from his own, which means he acknowledges woman to be his equal.’, ‘20. The man named his wife Previously he had given her a generic name (2:23). Now she acquires a personal one that expresses her nature and destiny positively and sympathetically.’, Sarna, ‘Genesis’, JPS Torah Commentary, pp. 23., 29 (1989)

 

2400 ‘The man has already called her “woman” (2:23); why a double naming?’, Hamilton (egalitarian), The Book of Genesis: chapters 1-17’, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, p. 206 (1990) 2401 ‘Adam gives his wife a name, but she already has a name (2:23b)’, Coats, ‘Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature’, Forms of the Old Testament Literature, volume 1, p. 56 (1983)

 

2402 ‘Fourthly, the wife is under the authority of her husband: he names her woman (23) and later Eve (3:20), just as earlier he had named the animals (19). This concept of the man’s head-ship is taken for granted elsewhere in the Bible (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Pet. 3:1–6).’, Carson et al, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21st century edition’ (4th rev. ed. 1994)

 

2403 ‘Adam earlier had named the animals, which was a demonstration of his authority over them. Here his naming of Eve suggests Adam’s position of rule, as referred to in verse 16.’, Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas, ‘IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament’, p. (electronic ed. 2000)

 

2404 ‘The one with authority to name (2:19), in his climactic act, captures the essence of this newest creature.’, Ortlund, ‘Man and Woman’, in Alexander & Rosner, ‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ (electronic ed. 2001)

 

NET: τεκνογονία in 1 Timothy 2:15 is "a synecdoche in which child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved"

  

σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης· (1 Tim 2:15)

 

But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control. (NET)

 

In the note for 1 Tim 2:15, we read the following from the NET Bible:

 

²⁴ tn Or “But she will be preserved through childbearing,” or “But she will be saved in spite of childbearing.” This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret, though there is general agreement about one point: Verse 15 is intended to lessen the impact of vv. 13–14. There are several interpretive possibilities here, though the first three can be readily dismissed (cf. D. Moo,”1 Timothy 2:11–15: Meaning and Significance,” TJ 1 [1980]: 70–73). (1) Christian women will be saved, but only if they bear children. This view is entirely unlikely for it lays a condition on Christian women that goes beyond grace, is unsupported elsewhere in scripture, and is explicitly against Paul’s and Jesus’ teaching on both marriage and salvation (cf. Matt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:8–9, 26–27, 34–35; 1 Tim 5:3–10). (2) Despite the curse, Christian women will be kept safe when bearing children. This view also is unlikely, both because it has little to do with the context and because it is not true to life (especially life in the ancient world with its high infant mortality rate). (3) Despite the sin of Eve and the results to her progeny, she would be saved through the childbirth—that is, through the birth of the Messiah, as promised in the protevangelium (Gen 3:15). This view sees the singular “she” as referring first to Eve and then to all women (note the change from singular to plural in this verse). Further, it works well in the context. However, there are several problems with it: [a] The future tense (σωθήσηται, sōthēsētai) is unnatural if referring to the protevangelium or even to the historical fact of the Messiah’s birth; [b] that only women are singled out as recipients of salvation seems odd since the birth of the Messiah was necessary for the salvation of both women and men; [c] as ingenious as this view is, its very ingenuity is its downfall, for it is overly subtle; and [d] the term τεκνογονία (teknogonia) refers to the process of childbirth rather than the product. And since it is the person of the Messiah (the product of the birth) that saves us, the term is unlikely to be used in the sense given it by those who hold this view. There are three other views that have greater plausibility: (4) This may be a somewhat veiled reference to the curse of Gen 3:16 in order to clarify that though the woman led the man into transgression (v. 14b), she will be saved spiritually despite this physical reminder of her sin. The phrase is literally “through childbearing,” but this does not necessarily denote means or instrument here. Instead it may show attendant circumstance (probably with a concessive force): “with, though accompanied by” (cf. BDAG 224 s.v. δία A.3.c; Rom 2:27; 2 Cor 2:4; 1 Tim 4:14). (5) “It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood” (Moo, 71). In this view τεκνογονία is seen as a synecdoche in which child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved. Thus, one evidence (though clearly not an essential evidence) of a woman’s salvation may be seen in her decision to function in this role. (6) The verse may point to some sort of proverbial expression now lost, in which “saved” means “delivered” and in which this deliverance was from some of the devastating effects of the role reversal that took place in Eden. The idea of childbearing, then, is a metonymy of part for the whole that encompasses the woman’s submission again to the leadership of the man, though it has no specific soteriological import (but it certainly would have to do with the outworking of redemption). (The NET Bible First Edition Notes [Biblical Studies Press, 2006], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

 

Juha Pakkala on the Meaning of "Before Me" (על-פני) in the First Commandment

  

Meaning

 

The first commandment (thus consisting of Ex 20:3, 5-6a / Dt 5:7, 9-10a) is plainly and explicitly intolerant of other gods: One may not have other gods. Although one could suggest that the על-פני in the first part of the command (Ex 20:3 / Dt 5:7) limits the prohibition in some way, the second part of the command (Ex 20:5 / Dt 5:9) reveals the intention of the first part as well: לא־תשתחוה and לא־תעבד explicitly and generally prohibit the worship of other gods. Accordingly, the first part should be understood as a general prohibition against having any gods in one's life. Moreover, the jealousy or zeal of Yahwe (אל קנא) is best understood in relation to other gods: One of His characteristics is that He is The use of this word not only implies the existence of 10 intolerant or zealous towards them. other gods but also that Yahwe does not accept them in the lives of the Israelites. (Juha Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History [Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 76; Helsinki/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999], 62-63)

 

Brigham Young on the Lord's Supper/Eucharist and Other Ordinances (October 23, 1853)

While looking up 19^th-century Latter-day Saint discussions of John 6 for a lesson I will be teaching this Sunday, I came across the following from Brigham Young:

 

It is an easy matter for me to understand the information the Lord has imparted to me, and then communicate the same to you. Will the bread administered in this ordinance add life to you? Will the wine add life to you? Yes; if you are hungry and faint, it will sustain the natural strength of the body. But suppose you have just eaten and drunk till you are full, so as not to require another particle of food to sustain the natural body; you have eaten all your nature requires; do you then receive any benefit from. the bread and wine as mere articles of food? As far as the emblems are concerned, you receive strength naturally, when the body requires it, precisely as you would by eating bread, and drinking wine, at any other time, or on any other occasion.

 

In what consists the benefit we derive from this ordinance? It is in obeying the commands of the Lord. When we obey the commandments of our heavenly Father, if we have a correct understanding of the ordinances of the house of God, we receive all the promises attached to the obedience rendered to His commandments. Jesus said—Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of God, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Again, "He that eateth me," "shall live by me." Again, "Whose eateth my flesh, and drinketh, my blood, hath eternal life." "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

 

Can you understand these sayings of the Saviour? These sayings are but isolated portions of the vast amount of instructions given by him to his followers in his day. Had a thousandth part of his teachings to them been handed down to us, and all his doings been faithfully recorded and transmitted to us, we should not have known what to do with such a vast amount of information. The Apostle says, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

 

Allow me to explain this text. The Apostle could not possibly mean what the language of the quotation implies —that the whole earth would have been covered with books to a certain depth; no, but he meant, by that saying, there would have been more written than the world of mankind would receive, or credit. The people then were as they are in this day—they are continually reaching after something that is not revealed, when there is more written already than they can comprehend. Instead of saying the world could not contain the books, we will say there would have been more written than the people would carry out in their lives.

 

I will now tell you what the Saviour meant by those wonderful expressions touching his body and blood. It is simply this—"If you do not keep the commandments of God, you will have no life of the Son of God in you." Jesus, as they were eating, took the bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them; saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." What were they required to drink it for? What are we partaking of these emblems for? In token of our fellowship with him, and in token that we desire to be one with each other, that we may all be one with the Father. His administering these symbols to his ancient disciples, and which he commanded should be done until he came, was for the express purpose that they should witness unto the Father that they did believe in him. But on the other hand, if they did not obey this commandment, they should not be blessed with his spirit.

 

It is the same in this, as it is in the ordinance of baptism for the remission of sins. Has water, in itself, any virtue to wash away sin? Certainly not; but the Lord says, "If the sinner will repent of his sins, and go down into the waters of baptism, and there be buried in the likeness of being put into the earth and buried, and again be delivered from the water, in the likeness of being born—if in the sincerity of his heart he will do this, his sins shall be washed away. Will the water of itself wash them away? No; but keeping the commandments of God will cleanse away the stain of sin.

 

When we eat of this bread, and drink of this water, do we eat the literal flesh of the Son of God? Were I a priest of the Roman Catholic church, and had been trained from my youth in that faith, I might believe fully, with my whole heart, that my prayers would transform the bread of the eucharist into the literal flesh, and the wine into the literal blood, of the Son of God. But notwithstanding my faith on that matter, the bread and wine would be just the same in their component parts, and would administer to the mortal systems of men, or of beasts, the same amount and kind of nutriment that the same quantity of unblessed bread and wine would. If bread and wine are blessed, dedicated, and sanctified, through the sincerity and faith of the people of God, then the Spirit of the Lord, through the promise, rests upon the individuals who thus keep His commandments, and are diligent in obeying the ordinances of the house of God. So I understand all the ordinances of the house of the Lord. You know we used to get down upon our knees and pray for the remission of sins; and we would pray until we got peace of mind, and then we thought our sins were forgiven. I have no fault to find with this, it is all right. Many in this way have been made to rejoice in the hope of eternal life, to rejoice in the gift of the Spirit of the Lord, and in the light of His countenance. Many received heavenly visions, revelations, the ministering of holy angels, and the manifestations of the power of God, until they were satisfied; and all this before the ordinances of the house of God were preached to the people. They obtained those blessings through their faith, and the sincerity of their hearts. It was this that called down heavenly blessings upon them. It was their fervency of spirit, and not their obedience to the celestial law, through which they received such blessings; and it was all right. What is required of us when the law comes? We must obey it, as old Paul did. He was a servant of God in all good conscience, when he took care of the clothes of those who stoned Stephen to death; but when the law came, sin revived in his, and he said, "I died." That is, his former notions of serving God, his former incorrect traditions, all appeared to him in their true light, and that upon which he had trusted for salvation as baseless as a dream, when the law of the Lord came by Jesus Christ; and in it he found the promises and the gifts and the blessings of the holy Gospel, through obedience to the ordinances. That is the only legal way to obtain salvation, and an exaltation in the presence of God. (Brigham Young, “The Gospel—Growing in Knowledge—the Lord's Supper—Blessings of Faithfulness—Utility of Persecution—Creation of Adam—Experience,” October 23, 1853, JOD 2:3-5)

 

It is also striking that Brigham understands that water baptism is the instrumental means of remission of sins; getting immersed in water merely does not bring about remission of sins and regeneration.

 

Here is the transcription from the Pitman version from LaJean Carruth:

 

it would be an easy matter for me to understand what the Lord has given me and then to tell you what I understand will the bread add life to you will the wine add life to you yes if you are hungry and fainting it sustains the body but suppose you have just eat drunk and you are full you need not another mouthful not another particle no crumb to sustain your natural body you have all your nature requires is there any benefit do we receive strength as far as these emblems are concerned you receive strength naturally precisely as you would from eating bread and drinking wine at any other place or on any other occasion but where is the benefit this is the question it is in obeying the commandment of the Lord when we obey the commandment of Lord our Father if we have a correct understanding of ordinances of house of God we receive precisely according to promises given through that commandment Jesus says if you eat not you drink not you have no life in you again he that eateth of this bread eats of my body how can you understand that he that drinks of this cup drinks my blood how can you understand that I can tell you in a word not the hundredth thousand millionth part of instructions he gave to his disciples was handed to us no if acts words and saying and doing of Savior had been written there would have been more than they known what done with it apostle says world would not receive it you may understand it so. Or say more books that covered the earth to the depth of [illegible] done the people no good I will tell you what the apostle meant by that saying I will take this New Testament and now then suppose I am one of his apostle [sic] I am preaching to the people explaining as fast as I can possibly faster than they can understand the people were then as they are now why not tell us something more I will say there is more written than you can understand though that is the way I explain it instead of saying the world could not contain there is more written than you carry out in your lives that will explain it now I will tell what the Savior meant and what I mean if you don't keep the commandments of God you will have no life of the Son of God in you Jesus says take this bread and eat of it take this cup and drink of it what for I want you should do it in token of your fellowship with me that your desire to be one with each other with me as I and Father are one I want you should take this as proof testimony if you do this in all sincerity you shall have my Holy Spirit to attend the ordinances but if you don't you shall not have my spirit just as it is in the case of baptism has water any way to wash away sin no certainly not the efficacy of water can't wash away your sins but the Lord says if you will repent of your sins go down in water baptized and there be buried in likeness of being put into earth and being born again and when you are brought forth if you do this in all sincerity your sins shall be washed away will the water wash them away how many times this question asked elders no but keeping the commandments of God will wash them away and cleanse us from all the sin when we eat of this bread and drink of water do we eat the flesh of Son of God do we drink his blood perhaps if I was a Catholic priest I would pray over it and turn it into blood and bread into flesh in my own estimation but it would be just as good for chickens mice or person to eat as it was before or any of the creatures of God to eat but if it was dedicated sanctified and blessed through the sincerity faith of people to before/bear/br/bfr[?] themselves the Spirit of Lord there the promise rests upon the individual who keeps the commandments and ordinances of house of God so I understand all the ordinances of the house of the Lord one the same as another we used to get down you know and pray for remission of sins how long would we pray until we got peace of mind then we thought our sins were forgiven all right many have been made to rejoice in the hope of eternal life to rejoice in the gifting of the Spirit of the Lord in the light of his countenance many have received vision and visions and revelations and ministering of angles the manifestations of power of God until they are satisfied and were satisfied before the ordinances of house of God was preached to the people that is through their sincerity their faith that called down the blessings it was their fervency of spirit to yield obedience to all the requirements of law when they that received the blessing of light what will we do when the law comes we will have to do the whole of it as Paul did a servant of God in all good conscience when he held clothes of those stoned Stephen but when he the law came then sin revived in him and he said I died that is to his former notions of serving God it was all gone when the law came he found the law promises the covenants and blessings of holy gospel through the ordinances of his house and that is the legal way to preserve them to themselves and be saved by them well simply in a few words that is the way I understand all the ordinances of house of God there is no [perform?]

 

 

"Wild Beasts of the Islands" in Isaiah 13:22 (= 2 Nephi 23:22)

Commenting on the use of “wild beasts of the islands” in the KJV of Isa 13:22 (cf. 2 Nephi 23:22), David P. Wright wrote:

 

Isa. 13:22//2 Ne. 23:22: “Wild beasts of the islands.” The Hebrew would is not connected with “coast, region”; it should be rendered simply “wild/desert beasts” or specifically “jackals” or “hyenas.” (David P. Wright, “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or, Joseph Smith in Isaiah,” in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002], 172)

 

This may be another case (common throughout the essay) of Wright imposing modern meanings of words/phrases back into the 1830 Book of Mormon and the 1611 KJV. As Albert Banes, a 19^th-century commentator, wrote:

 

22. And the wild beasts of the islands (אִיִּים); see Notes, ch. 11:11; 41:1, on the word rendered ‘islands.’ The word denotes islands, or coasts, and as those coasts and islands were unknown and unexplored, the word seems to have denoted unknown and uninhabited regions in general. Bochart supposes that by the word here used is denoted a species of wolves, the jackal, or the thoes. It is known as a wild animal, exceedingly fierce, and is also distinguished by alternate howlings in the night (see Bochart’s Hieroz. i. 3. 12). The word wolf probably will not express an erroneous idea here. The Chaldee renders it, ‘Cats.’ (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Isaiah, 2 vols. [London: Blackie & Sons, 1851], 1:261, emphasis in bold added)

 

Note on 11:11:

 

And from the islands of the sea. This expression probably denotes the islands situated in the Mediterranean, a part of which were known to the Hebrews. But, as geography was imperfectly known, the phrase came to denote the regions lying west of the land of Canaan; the unknown countries which were situated in that sea, or west of it, and thus included the countries lying around the Mediterranean. The word translated ‘islands’ here (אִיִים) means properly habitable dry land, in opposition to water; Isa. 42:13: ‘I will make the rivers dry land;’ where to translate it islands would make nonsense. Hence, it means also land adjacent to water, either washed by it, or surrounded by it, that is, a maritime country, coast, or island. Thus it means coast when applied to Ashdod (Isa. 20:6); to Tyre (Isa. 22:2, 6); to Peloponnesus or Greece (called Chittim, Ezek. 27:6). It means an island when applied to Caphtor or Crete (Jer. 47:4; Amos 9:7). The word was commonly used by the Hebrews to denote distant regions beyond the sea, whether coasts or islands, and especially the maritime countries of the West, to them imperfectly known through the voyages of the Phenicians; see Note on ch. 41:1; comp. Isa. 24:15; 40:15; 42:4, 10, 12; 51:5. (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Isaiah, 2 vols. [London: Blackie & Sons, 1851], 1:236)

 

Note on 41:11:

 

O islands (אִיִּים). This word properly means islands, and is so translated here by the Vulgate, the LXX., the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Arabic. But the word also is used to denote maritime countries; countries that were situated on sea-coasts, or the regions beyond sea (see Note on ch. 20:6). The word is applied, therefore, to the islands of the Mediterranean; to the maritime coasts; and then, also, it comes to be used in the sense of any lands or coasts far remote, or beyond sea (see Ps. 72:10; Isa. 24:15; Notes on ch. 40:15; 41:5; 42:4, 10, 12; 49:1; Jer. 25:22; Dan. 11:18). Here it is evidently used in the sense of distant nations or lands; the people who were remote from Palestine, and who were the worshippers of idols. The argument is represented as being with them, and they are invited to prepare their minds by suitable reverence for God for the argument which was to be presented. (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Isaiah, 2 vols. [London: Blackie & Sons, 1851], 2:79)

 

 

 

Adam Clarke on Genesis 12:13 and 20:12

  

Gen 12:13:

 

Verse 13. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister] Abram did not wish his wife to tell a falsehood, but he wished her to suppress a part of the truth. From chap. 20:12, it is evident she was his step-sister, i. e., his sister by his father, but by a different mother. Some suppose Sarai was the daughter of Haran, and consequently the grand-daughter of Terah: this opinion seems to be founded on chap. 11:29, where Iscah is thought to be the same with Sarai, but the supposition has not a sufficiency of probability to support it. (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 6 vols. [Bellingham, Wash.: Faithlife Corporation, 2014], 1:93-94)

 

Gen 20:12:

 

Verse 12. She is my sister] I have not told a lie; I have suppressed only a part of the truth. In this place it may be proper to ask, What is a lie? It is any action done or word spoken, whether true or false in itself, which the doer or speaker wishes the observer or hearer to take in a contrary sense to that which he knows to be true. It is, in a word, any action done or speech delivered with the intention to deceive, though both may be absolutely true and right in themselves. See the note on chap. 12:13.

 

The daughter of my father, but not—of my mother] Ebn Batrick, in his annals, among other ancient traditions has preserved the following: “Terah first married Yona, by whom he had Abraham; afterwards he married Tehevita, by whom he had Sarah.” Thus she was the sister of Abraham, being the daughter of the same father by a different mother. (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 6 vols. [Bellingham, Wash.: Faithlife Corporation, 2014], 1:129)

 

 

Carmel McCarthy on Evidence That Theologically-Driven Corrections Were Made to the Masoretic Text

The following is taken from chapter 6, “An Examination of Certain Biblical Verses Which Illustrate With Reasonable Certitude That Theological Corrections Did Really Take Place”

 

1. “Seeing the Face of God” or “Appearing before God?”

 

There are certain passages in the Bible, which, in their present niph’al form of punctuation, are connected with “appearing before the LORD” [i.e., Ex 23:15; 34:20; Deut 16:6b//Ex 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16a//Ex 34:24; Deut 31:11; Is 1:12//1 Sam 1:22//Ps 42:3]. There seems to be no doubt that this niph’al punctuation represents a deliberate emendation or theological correction, the aim of which was to render the anthropocentric expression of “seeing the fact of God” in a theologically more acceptable formula, in keeping with a more perceptive outlook which was mindful of Ex 33:20. S. D. Luzzatto puts it well in his commentary on Is 1:12 as follows:

 

“When you come to appear before the LORD”. The intention of the prophet is to say, “To see the face of”. This is a metaphorical figure of speech, as when a man comes to visit his superior, comparable to “For truly, to see your face is like seeing the face of God” (Gen 33:10). However, the punctuators (according to the tradition in their possession from the sages of the Second Temple) corrected the expression out of respect, on account of the ordinary simple folk, for they do not understand metaphorical usage . . .

 

He rightly points out that the present construction with the niph’al and the particle את is awkward. This fact is best seen in those cases where the infinitive construct is punctuated in a niph’al form but lacks the usual he (Ex 34:24; Deut 31:11 and Is 1:12). If one compares these three forms with other normal niph’al infinitive constructs (cf. Judg 13:21; 1 Sam 3:21; 2 Sam 17:17; 1 Kings 18:2; Ez 21:29) one notices that:

 

(a) the he is present in all these other forms;
(b) it is absent only in those forms which are specifically concerned with coming to the sanctuary “to appear before the LORD”.

 

The simplest explanation for this is that these three forms were originally qal forms which required no he for the infinitive construct. Examination of the contexts of other pentateuchal passages shows that they too are concerned with the statutory pilgrimage to the Temple, and that the awkwardness of the expression is removed once the qal punctuation is restored. . . .

 

That this type of theological correction took place at an early stage, and that the Masoretes are merely preserving a very ancient traditional emendation becomes evident on examination of the textual situation for these passages. The pentateuchal passages have scarcely any hint of an original qal. The LXX and Vulgate textual tradition faithfully record the MT niph’al punctuation in their renderings. The same is true for the Targums of Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti, with one slight exception in the last mentioned. The Fragmentum Targum for Ex 34:20 also attests an active verbal form, למחמי, “to see”. One may rightly ask whether these two isolated targumic readings constitute sufficient textual evidence as to warrant the adoption of the “original” reading throughout the eight pentateuchal passages?

 

This question becomes more acute in the case of 1 Sam 1:22. Hannah does not go up to Shiloh to join in the yearly sacrifice of the LORD, explaining to her husband, that “as soon as the child is weaned, I will bring him, that he may appear in the presence of the LORD” (MT). there is no textual evidence for anything other than the MT niph’al punctuation. Yet, the similarity of the consonantal phrase, ובראה את פני, together with the awkwardness already mentioned when this is pointed as niph’al, as well as a typical context of pilgrimage to the sanctuary, makes it almost certainly a case where the original phrase must have been “Then we shall see the face of the LORD”. The ease with which the change could be made from the first person plural qal (cohortative) to the third person singular, niph’al (perfect), together with the sequence of events involved, probably accounts for the total success of this particular emendation. Here is a textual situation parallel to that observed above in the case of 1 Sam 20:16. It is probably most prudent and, at the same time, consistent, to adopt the same approach here as there.

 

The textual evidence for an original qal in Is 1:12 and Ps 42:3 is a little more encouraging, although not spectacular. In the case of Is 1:12, de Rossi notes on MS as attesting a qal punctuation, which is also the reading of the Syriac. Ps 42:3 has both Targum and Syriac attesting an original qal, as well as a small number of de Rossi’s MSS. One might add that the New Testament statement in Rev 22:4: “They shall see his face”, which occurs in a context of messianic fulfilment, appears as a direct answer to the psalmists’s question: “When shall I enter and see your face?” In both cases then, there is a minimal amount of textual evidence for the original qal punctuation, which, when taken in conjunction with the observations made above concerning the awkwardness of construction and the obvious theological motivation behind the change of punctuation, makes it possible to adopt the qal for these two readings. (Carmel McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament [Orbis Biblicus Et Orientalis; Fribourg: Biblical Institute of the University of Fribourg, 1981], 197-200, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

 

 

Neofiti at Deut 31:11 attests an active form, למחמייה, “to see”, in contradistinction to the other pentateuchal passages it has the passive/reflexive form, למתחמייה, “to appear”. It is a pity that the Spanish, French and English translations in Diez Macho’s edition of Neofiti (Neophyti I, Vol. V, Deuteronomio, Madrid 1978) do not recognise the existence of this variant at Deut 31:11, but assimilate their translations to the other seven passages, “to appear before” (even if the variant be only the result of an inadvertent omission of a single constant, tau). (Ibid., 199 n. 8)