Results 2801 - 2818 of 2818 for because (0.002 seconds)
(0.06)(Rom 5:1)

tc A number of significant witnesses have the subjunctive <span class="greek">ἔχωμενspan> (<span class="translit">echōmenspan>, “let us have”) instead of <span class="greek">ἔχομενspan> (<span class="translit">echomenspan>, “we have”) in v. <data ref="Bible:Ro 5:1">1data>. Included in the subjunctives support are <span class="hebrew">אspan>* A B* C D K L 33 81 630 1175 1739* <i>pmi> lat bo. But the indicative is not without its supporters: <span class="hebrew">אspan><sup>1sup> B<sup>2sup> F G P <span class="greek">Ψspan> 0220<sup>vidsup> 104 365 1241 1505 1506 1739<sup>csup> 1881 2464 <i>pmi>. If the problem were to be solved on an external basis only, the subjunctive would be preferred. Because of this, theArating on behalf of the indicative in the UBS<sup>5sup> appears overly confident. Nevertheless, the indicative is probably correct. First, the earliest witness to <data ref="Bible:Ro 5:1">Rom 5:1data> has the indicative (0220<sup>vidsup>, third century). Second, the first set of correctors is sometimes, if not often, of equal importance with the original hand. Hence, <span class="hebrew">אspan><sup>1sup> might be given equal value with <span class="hebrew">אspan>*. Third, there is a good cross-section of witnesses for the indicative: Alexandrian (in 0220<sup>vidsup>, probably <span class="hebrew">אspan><sup>1sup> 1241 1506 1881 <i>ali>), Western (in F G), and Byzantine (noted in NA<sup>28sup> as <i>pmi>). Thus, although the external evidence is strongly in favor of the subjunctive, the indicative is represented well enough that its ancestry could easily go back to the autograph. Turning to the internal evidence, the indicative gains much ground. (1) The variant may have been produced via an error of hearing (since <i>omicroni> and <i>omegai> were pronounced alike in ancient Greek). This, of course, does not indicate which reading was the initial textjust that an error of hearing may have produced one of them. In light of the indecisiveness of the transcriptional evidence, intrinsic evidence could play a much larger role. This is indeed the case here. (2) The indicative fits well with the overall argument of the book to this point. Up until now, Paul has been establishing theindicatives of the faith.” There is only one imperative (used rhetorically) and only one hortatory subjunctive (and this in a quotation within a diatribe) up till this point, while from ch. <data ref="Bible:Ro 6">6data> on there are sixty-one imperatives and seven hortatory subjunctives. Clearly, an exhortation would be out of place in ch. <data ref="Bible:Ro 5">5data>. (3) Paul presupposes that the audience has peace with God (via reconciliation) in <data ref="Bible:Ro 5:10">5:10data>. This seems to assume the indicative in v. <data ref="Bible:Ro 5:1">1data>. (4) As C. E. B. Cranfield notes, “it would surely be strange for Paul, in such a carefully argued writing as this, to exhort his readers to enjoy or to guard a peace which he has not yet explicitly shown to be possessed by them” (<i>Romansi> [ICC], 1:257). (5) The notion that <span class="greek">εἰρήνην ἔχωμενspan> (<span class="translit">eirēnēn echōmenspan>) can even naturally meanenjoy peaceis problematic (<i>ExSyni> 464), yet those who embrace the subjunctive have to give the verb some such force. Thus, although the external evidence is stronger in support of the subjunctive, the internal evidence points to the indicative. Although a decision is difficult, <span class="greek">ἔχομενspan> appears to be the authentic reading.

(0.06)(Joh 21:15)

tn Is there a significant difference in meaning between the two words for love used in the passage, <span class="greek">ἀγαπάωspan> and <span class="greek">φιλέωspan> (<span class="translit">agapaōspan> and <span class="translit">phileōspan>)? Aside from Origen, who saw a distinction in the meaning of the two words, most of the Greek Fathers like Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, saw no real difference of meaning. Neither did Augustine nor the translators of the Itala (Old Latin). This was also the view of the Reformation Greek scholars Erasmus and Grotius. The suggestion that a distinction in meaning should be seen comes primarily from a number of British scholars of the 19th century, especially Trench, Westcott, and Plummer. It has been picked up by others such as Spicq, Lenski, and Hendriksen. But most modern scholars decline to see a real difference in the meaning of the two words in this context, among them Bernard, Moffatt, Bonsirven, Bultmann, Barrett, Brown, Morris, Haenchen, and Beasley-Murray. There are three significant reasons for seeing no real difference in the meaning of <span class="greek">ἀγαπάωspan> and <span class="greek">φιλέωspan> in these verses: (1) the author has a habit of introducing slight stylistic variations in repeated material without any significant difference in meaning (compare, for example, <data ref="Bible:Jn 3:3">3:3data> with <data ref="Bible:Jn 3:5">3:5data>, and <data ref="Bible:Jn 7:34">7:34data> with <data ref="Bible:Jn 13:33">13:33data>). An examination of the uses of <span class="greek">ἀγαπάωspan> and <span class="greek">φιλέωspan> in the Fourth Gospel seems to indicate a general interchangeability between the two. Both terms are used of Gods love for man (<data ref="Bible:Jn 3:16">3:16data>; <data ref="Bible:Jn 16:27">16:27data>); of the Fathers love for the Son (<data ref="Bible:Jn 3:35">3:35data>; <data ref="Bible:Jn 5:20">5:20data>); of Jesuslove for men (<data ref="Bible:Jn 11:3">11:3data>, <data ref="Bible:Jn 11:5">5data>); of the love of men for men (<data ref="Bible:Jn 13:34">13:34data>; <data ref="Bible:Jn 15:19">15:19data>); and of the love of men for Jesus (<data ref="Bible:Jn 8:42">8:42data>; <data ref="Bible:Jn 16:27">16:27data>). (2) If (as seems probable) the original conversation took place in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), there would not have been any difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love. In the LXX both <span class="greek">ἀγαπάωspan> and <span class="greek">φιλέωspan> are used to translate the same Hebrew word for love, although <span class="greek">ἀγαπάωspan> is more frequent. It is significant that in the Syriac version of the NT only one verb is used to translate vv. <data ref="Bible:Jn 21:15-17">15-17data> (Syriac is very similar linguistically to Palestinian Aramaic). (3) Peters answers to the questions asked with <span class="greek">ἀγαπάωspan> areyeseven though he answers using the verb <span class="greek">φιλέωspan>. If he is being asked to love Jesus on a higher or more spiritual level his answers give no indication of this, and one would be forced to say (in order to maintain a consistent distinction between the two verbs) that Jesus finally concedes defeat and accepts only the lower form of love which is all that Peter is capable of offering. Thus it seems best to regard the interchange between <span class="greek">ἀγαπάωspan> and <span class="greek">φιλέωspan> in these verses as a minor stylistic variation of the author, consistent with his use of minor variations in repeated material elsewhere, and not indicative of any real difference in meaning. Thus no attempt has been made to distinguish between the two Greek words in the translation.

(0.06)(Joh 20:22)

sn <i>He breathed on them and said,i> “<i>Receive the Holy Spiriti>.” The use of the Greek verb <i>breathed oni> (<span class="greek">ἐμφυσάωspan>, <span class="translit">emphusaōspan>) to describe the action of Jesus here recalls <data ref="Bible:Ge 2:7">Gen 2:7data> in the LXX, wherethe Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” This time, however, it is Jesus who is breathing the breath-Spirit of eternal life, life from above, into his disciples (cf. <data ref="Bible:Jn 3:3-10">3:3-10data>). Furthermore there is the imagery of <data ref="Bible:Eze 37:1-14">Ezek 37:1-14data>, the prophecy concerning the resurrection of the dry bones: In <data ref="Bible:Eze 37:9">37:9data> the Son of Man is told to prophesy to thewind-breath-Spiritto come and breathe on the corpses, so that they will live again. In <data ref="Bible:Eze 37:14">37:14data> the Lord promised, “I will put my Spirit within you, and you will come to life, and I will place you in your own land.” In terms of ultimate fulfillment the passage in <data ref="Bible:Eze 37">Ezek 37data> looks at the regeneration of Israel immediately prior to the establishment of the messianic kingdom. The author saw in what Jesus did for the disciples at this point a partial and symbolic fulfillment of Ezekiels prophecy, much as Peter made use of the prophecy of <data ref="Bible:Joe 2:28-32">Joel 2:28-32data> in his sermon on the day of Pentecost as recorded in <data ref="Bible:Ac 2:17-21">Acts 2:17-21data>. What then did Jesus do for the disciples in <data ref="Bible:Jn 20:22">John 20:22data>? It appears that in light of the symbolism of the new creation present here, as well as the regeneration symbolism from the <data ref="Bible:Eze 37">Ezek 37data> passage, that Jesus at this point breathed into the disciples the breath of eternal life. This was in the form of the Holy Spirit, who was to indwell them. It is instructive to look again at <data ref="Bible:Jn 7:38-39">7:38-39data>, which states, “Just as the scripture says, ‘Out from within him will flow rivers of living water.’ (Now he said this about the Spirit whom those who believed in him were going to receive; for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”) But now in <data ref="Bible:Jn 20:22">20:22data> Jesus was glorified, so the Spirit could be given. Had the disciples not believed in Jesus before? It seems clear that they had, since their belief is repeatedly affirmed, beginning with <data ref="Bible:Jn 2:11">2:11data>. But it also seems clear that even on the eve of the crucifixion, they did not understand the necessity of the cross (<data ref="Bible:Jn 16:31-33">16:31-33data>). And even after the crucifixion, the disciples had not realized that there was going to be a resurrection (<data ref="Bible:Jn 20:9">20:9data>). Ultimate recognition of who Jesus was appears to have come to them only after the postresurrection appearances (note the response of Thomas, who was not present at this incident, in v. <data ref="Bible:Jn 20:28">28data>). Finally, what is the relation of this incident in <data ref="Bible:Jn 20:22">20:22data> to the account of the coming of the Holy Spirit in <data ref="Bible:Ac 2">Acts 2data>? It appears best to view these as two separate events which have two somewhat different purposes. This was the giving of life itself, which flowed out from within (cf. <data ref="Bible:Jn 7:38-39">7:38-39data>). The giving of power would occur later, on the day of Pentecostpower to witness and carry out the mission the disciples had been given. (It is important to remember that in the historical unfolding of Gods program for the church, these events occurred in a chronological sequence which, after the church has been established, is not repeatable today.)

(0.06)(Joh 1:18)

tc The textual problem <span class="greek">μονογενὴς θεόςspan> (<span class="translit">monogenēs theosspan>, “the only God”) versus <span class="greek">ὁ μονογενὴς υἱόςspan> (<span class="translit">ho monogenēs huiosspan>, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the <span class="smcaps">mssspan>, since both words would have been contracted as <i>nomina sacrai>: thus <span class="uncial">qMsspan> or <span class="uncial">uMsspan>. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read <span class="greek">θεόςspan> or <span class="greek">υἱόςspan>. The majority of <span class="smcaps">mssspan>, especially the later ones (A C<sup>3sup> <span class="greek">Θspan> <span class="greek">Ψspan> ƒ<sup>1,13sup> <span class="Apparatus">Mspan> lat), read <span class="greek">ὁ μονογενὴς υἱόςspan>. <span class="Apparatus">Pspan><sup>75sup> <span class="hebrew">אspan><sup>1sup> 33 have <span class="greek">ὁ μονογενὴς θεόςspan>, while the anarthrous <span class="greek">μονογενὴς θεόςspan> is found in <span class="Apparatus">Pspan><sup>66sup> <span class="hebrew">אspan>* B C* L. The articular <span class="greek">θεόςspan> is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous <span class="greek">θεόςspan>, for <span class="greek">θεόςspan> without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports <span class="greek">μονογενὴς θεόςspan>. Internally, although <span class="greek">υἱόςspan> fits the immediate context more readily, <span class="greek">θεόςspan> is much more difficult. As well, <span class="greek">θεόςspan> also explains the origin of the other reading (<span class="greek">υἱόςspan>) because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found <span class="greek">υἱόςspan> in the text he was copying would alter it to <span class="greek">θεόςspan>. Scribes would naturally change the wording to <span class="greek">υἱόςspan> however, since <span class="greek">μονογενὴς υἱόςspan> is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. <data ref="Bible:Jn 3:16">John 3:16data>, <data ref="Bible:Jn 3:18">18data>; <data ref="Bible:1Jn 4:9">1 John 4:9data>). But <span class="greek">θεόςspan> as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word <span class="greek">θεόςspan> as in apposition to <span class="greek">μονογενήςspan>, and the participle <span class="greek">ὁ ὤνspan> (<span class="translit">ho ōnspan>) as in apposition to <span class="greek">θεόςspan>, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, <i>The Orthodox Corruption of Scripturei>, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective <i>everi> used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, <span class="greek">μονογενήςspan> in <data ref="Bible:Jn 1:14">John 1:14data> is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, <span class="greek">μονογενήςspan> is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. <data ref="Bible:Lu 9:38">Luke 9:38data>; <data ref="Bible:Heb 11:17">Heb 11:17data>]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. <i>PGLi> 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a <i>substantivali> adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., <data ref="Bible:Ro 1:30">Rom 1:30data>; <data ref="Bible:Ga 3:9">Gal 3:9data>; <data ref="Bible:1Ti 1:9">1 Tim 1:9data>; <data ref="Bible:2Pe 2:5">2 Pet 2:5data>.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: <span class="greek">μονογενήςspan> alone, without <span class="greek">υἱόςspan>, can meanonly son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see <data ref="Bible:Jn 1:14">1:14data>). Furthermore, <span class="greek">θεόςspan> is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in <data ref="Bible:Jn 1:1">1:1cdata>, where <span class="greek">θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγοςspan> (<span class="translit">theos ēn ho logosspan>) meansthe Word was fully Godorthe Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, <span class="greek">ὁ ὤνspan> occurs in <data ref="Bible:Re 1:4">Rev 1:4data>, <data ref="Bible:Re 1:8">8data>; <data ref="Bible:Re 4:8">4:8data>; <data ref="Bible:Re 11:17">11:17data>; and <data ref="Bible:Re 16:5">16:5data>, but even more significantly in the LXX of <data ref="Bible:Ex 3:14">Exod 3:14data>. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

(0.06)(Joh 1:34)

tcWhat did John the Baptist declare about Jesus on this occasion? Did he say, “This is the Son of God” (<span class="greek">οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦspan>, <span class="translit">houtos estin ho huios tou theouspan>), orThis is the Chosen One of God” (<span class="greek">οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦspan>, <span class="translit">houtos estin ho eklektos tou theouspan>)? The majority of the witnesses, impressive because of their diversity in age and locales, readThis is the Son of God” (so <span class="Apparatus">Pspan><sup>66,75sup> A B C L <span class="greek">Θ Ψspan> 0233<sup>vidsup> ƒ<sup>1,13sup> 33 1241 aur c f l q bo as well as the majority of Byzantine minuscules and many others). Most scholars take this to be sufficient evidence to regard the issue as settled without much of a need to reflect on internal evidence. On the other hand, one of the earliest <span class="smcaps">mssspan> for this verse, <span class="Apparatus">Pspan><sup>5sup> (3rd century), evidently read <span class="greek">οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦspan>. (There is a gap in the ms at the point of the disputed words; it is too large for <span class="greek">υἱόςspan> especially if written, as it surely would have been, as a <i>nomen sacrumi> [<span class="uncial">uMsspan>]. The term <span class="greek">ἐκλεκτόςspan> was not a <i>nomen sacrumi> and would have therefore taken up much more space [<span class="uncial">eklektosspan>]. Given these two variants, there is hardly any question as to what <span class="Apparatus">Pspan><sup>5sup> read.) This papyrus has many affinities with <span class="hebrew">אspan>*, which here also has <span class="greek">ὁ ἐκλεκτόςspan>. In addition to their combined testimony <span class="Apparatus">Pspan><sup>106vidsup> b e ff<sup>2*sup> sy<sup>s,csup> also support this reading. <span class="Apparatus">Pspan><sup>106sup> is particularly impressive, for it is a second third-century papyrus in support of <span class="greek">ὁ ἐκλεκτόςspan>. A third reading combines these two: “the elect Son” (<i>electus filiusi> in ff<sup>2csup> sa and a [with slight variation]). Although the evidence for <span class="greek">ἐκλεκτόςspan> is not as impressive as that for <span class="greek">υἱόςspan>, the reading is found in early Alexandrian and Western witnesses. Turning to the internal evidence, “the Chosen Oneclearly comes out ahead. “Son of Godis a favorite expression of the author (cf. <data ref="Bible:Jn 1:49">1:49data>; <data ref="Bible:Jn 3:18">3:18data>; <data ref="Bible:Jn 5:25">5:25data>; <data ref="Bible:Jn 10:36">10:36data>; <data ref="Bible:Jn 11:4">11:4data>, <data ref="Bible:Jn 11:27">27data>; <data ref="Bible:Jn 19:7">19:7data>; <data ref="Bible:Jn 20:31">20:31data>); further, there are several other references tohis Son,” “the Son,” etc. Scribes would be naturally motivated to change <span class="greek">ἐκλεκτόςspan> to <span class="greek">υἱόςspan> since the latter is both a Johannine expression and is, on the surface, richer theologically in <data ref="Bible:Jn 1:34">1:34data>. On the other hand, there is not a sufficient reason for scribes to change <span class="greek">υἱόςspan> to <span class="greek">ἐκλεκτόςspan>. The term never occurs in John; even its verbal cognate (<span class="greek">ἐκλέγωspan>, <span class="translit">eklegōspan>) is never affirmed of Jesus in this Gospel. <span class="greek">ἐκλεκτόςspan> clearly best explains the rise of <span class="greek">υἱόςspan>. Further, the third reading (“Chosen Son of God”) is patently a conflation of the other two. It has all the earmarks of adding <span class="greek">υἱόςspan> to <span class="greek">ἐκλεκτόςspan>. Thus, <span class="greek">ὁspan> <span class="greek">υἱός τοῦ θεοῦspan> is almost certainly a motivated reading. As R. E. Brown notes (<i>Johni> [AB], 1:57), “On the basis of theological tendencyit is difficult to imagine that Christian scribes would changethe Son of GodtoGods chosen one,’ while a change in the opposite direction would be quite plausible. Harmonization with the Synoptic accounts of the baptism (‘You are [This is] my beloved <i>Soni>’) would also explain the introduction ofthe Son of Godinto John; the same phenomenon occurs in vi 69. Despite the weaker textual evidence, therefore, it seems bestwith Lagrange, Barrett, Boismard, and othersto acceptGods chosen oneas original.”

(0.06)(Mat 21:31)

tc Verses <data ref="Bible:Mat 21:29-31">29-31data> involve a rather complex and difficult textual problem. The variants cluster into three different groups: (1) The first son saysnoand later has a change of heart, and the second son saysyesbut does not go. The second son is called the one who does his fathers will. This reading is found in the Western witnesses (D it). But the reading is so hard as to be nearly impossible. One can only suspect some tampering with the text, extreme carelessness on the part of the scribe, or possibly a recognition of the importance of not shaming ones parent in public. (Any of these reasons is not improbable with this group of witnesses, and with codex D in particular.) The other two major variants are more difficult to assess. Essentially, the responses make sense (the son who does his fathers will is the one who changes his mind after sayingno”): (2) The first son saysnoand later has a change of heart, and the second son saysyesbut does not go. But here, the first son is called the one who does his fathers will (unlike the Western reading). This is the reading found in <span class="hebrew">אspan> C L W (Z) <span class="greek">Δspan> 0102 0281 ƒ<sup>1sup> 33 565 579 1241 1424*<sup>,csup> <span class="Apparatus">Mspan> and several versional witnesses. (3) The first son saysyesbut does not go, and the second son saysnobut later has a change of heart. This is the reading found in B <span class="greek">Θspan> ƒ<sup>13sup> 700 and several versional witnesses. Both of these latter two variants make good sense and have significantly better textual support than the first reading. The real question, then, is this: Is the first son or the second the obedient one? If one were to argue simply from the parabolic logic, the second son would be seen as the obedient one (hence, the third reading). The first son would represent the Pharisees (or Jews) who claim to obey God, but do not (cf. <data ref="Bible:Mt 23:3">Matt 23:3data>). This accords well with the parable of the prodigal son (in which the oldest son represents the unbelieving Jews). Further, the chronological sequence of the second son being obedient fits well with the real scene: Gentiles, tax collectors, and prostitutes were not, collectively, Gods chosen people, but they did repent and come to God, while the Jewish leaders claimed to be obedient to God but did nothing. At the same time, the external evidence is weaker for this reading (though stronger than the first reading), not as widespread, and certainly suspect because of how neatly it fits. One suspects scribal manipulation at this point. Thus the second reading looks to be superior to the other two on both external and transcriptional grounds. But what about intrinsic evidence? One can surmise that Jesus didnt always give predictable responses. In this instance, he may well have painted a picture in which the Pharisees saw themselves as the first son, only to stun them with his application (v. <data ref="Bible:Mat 21:32">32data>). For more discussion see <i>TCGNTi> 44-46.

(0.06)(Jon 2:4)

tc OrYet I will look again to your holy temple,” orSurely I will look again to your holy temple.” The MT and the vast majority of ancient textual witnesses vocalize consonantal <span class="hebrew">אךspan> (<span class="translit">ʾkhspan>) as the adverb <span class="hebrew">אַךְspan> (<span class="translit">ʾakhspan>), which functions as an emphatic asseverative likesurely” (BDB 36 s.v. <span class="hebrew">אַךְspan> 1) or an adversative likeyet, nevertheless” (BDB 36 s.v. <span class="hebrew">אַךְspan> 2; so <i>Tgi>. <data ref="Bible:Jon 2:4">Jonah 2:4data>: “However, I shall look again upon your holy temple”). These options understand the line as expressing hopeful piety in a positive statement about surviving to worship again in Jerusalem. It may be a way of saying, “I will pray for help, even though I have been banished” (see v. <data ref="Bible:Jon 2:8">8data>; cf. <data ref="Bible:Da 6:10">Dan 6:10data>). The sole dissenter is the Greek recension of Theodotion. It reads the interrogative <span class="greek">πῶςspan> (<span class="translit">pōsspan>, “how?”), which reflects an alternate vocalization tradition of <span class="hebrew">אֵךְspan> (<span class="translit">ʾekhspan>)—a defectively written form of <span class="hebrew">אֵיךְspan> (<span class="translit">ʾekhspan>, “how?”; BDB 32 s.v. <span class="hebrew">אֵיךְspan> 1). This would be translated, “How shall I again look at your holy temple?” (cf. NRSV). Jonah laments that he will not be able to worship at the temple in Jerusalem againthis is a metonymical statement (effect for cause) that he feels certain he is about to die. It continues the expression of Jonahs distress and separation from the <span class="smcaps">Lordspan>, begun in v. <data ref="Bible:Jon 2:2">2data> and continued without relief in vv. <data ref="Bible:Jon 2:3-7">3-7adata>. The external evidence favors the MT; however, internal evidence seems to favor the alternate vocalization tradition reflected in Theodotion for four reasons. First, the form of the psalm is a declarative praise in which Jonah begins with a summary praise (v. <data ref="Bible:Jon 2:2">2data>), continues by recounting his past plight (vv. <data ref="Bible:Jon 2:3-6">3-6adata>) and the <span class="smcaps">Lordspan>’s intervention (vv. <data ref="Bible:Jon 2:6-7">6b-7data>), and concludes with a lesson (v. <data ref="Bible:Jon 2:8">8data>) and vow to praise (v. <data ref="Bible:Jon 2:9">9data>). So the statement with <span class="hebrew">אֵךְspan> in v. <data ref="Bible:Jon 2:4">4data> falls within the plightnot within a declaration of confidence. Second, while the poetic parallelism of v. <data ref="Bible:Jon 2:4">4data> could be antithetical (“I have been banished from your sight, <i>yeti> I will again look to your holy temple”), synonymous parallelism fits the context of the lament better (“I have been banished from your sight; will I ever again see your holy temple?”). Third, <span class="hebrew">אֵךְspan> is the more difficult vocalization because it is a defectively written form of <span class="hebrew">אֵיךְspan> (“how?”) and therefore easily confused with <span class="hebrew">אַךְspan> (“surelyoryet, nevertheless”). Fourth, nothing in the first half of the psalm reflects any inkling of confidence on the part of Jonah that he would be delivered from imminent death. In fact, Jonah states in v. <data ref="Bible:Jon 2:7">7data> that he did not turn to God in prayer until some time later when he was on the very brink of death.

(0.06)(Eze 14:9)

tn The translation is uncertain due to difficulty both in determining the meaning of the verbs stem and its conjugation in this context. In the Qal stem the basic meaning of the verbal root <span class="hebrew">פָּתַהspan> (<span class="translit">patahspan>) isto be gullible, foolish.” The doubling stems (the Pual and Piel used in this verse) typically give such stative verbs a factitive sense, hence eithermake gullible” (i.e., “entice”) ormake into a fool” (i.e., “to show to be a fool”). The latter represents the probable meaning of the term in <data ref="Bible:Je 20:7">Jer 20:7data>, <data ref="Bible:Je 20:10">10data> and is followed here (see L. C. Allen, <i>Ezekieli> [WBC], 1:193; R. MosisEz 14, 1-11 - ein Ruf zur Umkehr,” <i>BZ 19i> [1975]: 166-69; and <i>ThWATi> 4:829-31). In this view, if a prophet speaks when not prompted by God, he will be shown to be a fool, but this does not reflect negatively on the Lord because it is God who shows him to be a fool. Secondly, the verb is in the perfect conjugation and may be translated asI have made a fool of himorI have enticed him,” or to show determination (see <i>IBHSi> 439-41 §27.2f and g), or in certain syntactical constructions as future. Any of these may be plausible if the doubling stems used are understood in the sense ofmaking a fool of.” But if understood asto make gullible,” more factors come into play. As the Hebrew verbal form is a perfect, it is often translated as present perfect: “I have enticed.” In this case the Lord states that he himself enticed the prophet to cooperate with the idolaters. Such enticement to sin would seem to be a violation of Gods moral character, but sometimes he does use such deception and enticement to sin as a form of punishment against those who have blatantly violated his moral will (see, e.g., <data ref="Bible:2Sa 24">2 Sam 24data>). If one follows this line of interpretation in <data ref="Bible:Eze 14:9">Ezek 14:9data>, one would have to assume that the prophet had already turned from God in his heart. However, the context gives no indication of this. Therefore, it is better to take the perfect as indicating certitude and to translate it with the future tense: “I will entice.” In this case the Lord announces that he will judge the prophet appropriately. If a prophet allows himself to be influenced by idolaters, then the Lord will use deception as a form of punishment against that deceived prophet. A comparison with the preceding oracles also favors this view. In <data ref="Bible:Eze 14:4">14:4data> the perfect of certitude is used for emphasis (seeI will answer”), though in v. <data ref="Bible:Eze 14:7">7data> a participle is employed. For a fuller discussion of this text, see R. B. Chisholm, Jr., “Does God Deceive?” <i>BSaci> 155 (1998): 23-25.

(0.06)(Jer 20:7)

tn The translation is admittedly interpretive but so is every other translation that tries to capture the nuance of the verb rendered herecoerced.” Here the Hebrew text reads, “You [—]ed me, and I let myself be [—]ed. You overpowered me and prevailed.” The value one assigns to [—] is in every case interpretive, based on what one thinks the context is referring to. The word is rendereddeceivedortrickedby several English versions (see, e.g., KJV, NASB, TEV, ICV), as though God had misled him. It is renderedenticedby some (see, e.g., NRSV, NJPS), as though God had tempted him with false hopes. Some go so far as to accuse Jeremiah of accusing God of metaphoricallyrapinghim. It is true that the word is used ofseducinga virgin in <data ref="Bible:Ex 22:15">Exod 22:15data>, and that it is used in several places to refer todeceivingsomeone with false words (<data ref="Bible:Pr 24:28">Prov 24:28data>; <data ref="Bible:Ps 78:36">Ps 78:36data>). It is also true that it is used ofcoaxingsomeone to reveal something he does not want to (<data ref="Bible:Jdg 14:15">Judg 14:15data>; <data ref="Bible:Jdg 16:5">16:5data>), and ofenticingsomeone to do something on the basis of false hopes (<data ref="Bible:1Ki 22:20-22">1 Kgs 22:20-22data>; <data ref="Bible:Pr 1:10">Prov 1:10data>). However, it does not always have negative connotations or associations. In <data ref="Bible:Ho 2:14">Hos 2:14data> (<data ref="BibleBHS:Ho 2:16">2:16data> HT) GodcharmsorwoosIsrael, his estrangedwife,’ into the wilderness, where he hopes to win her back to himself. What Jeremiah is alluding to here is crucial for translating and interpreting the word. There is no indication in this passage that Jeremiah is accusing God of misleading him or raising false hopes; God informed him at the outset that he would encounter opposition (<data ref="Bible:Je 1:17-19">1:17-19data>). Rather, he is alluding to his call to be a prophet, a call which he initially resisted but was persuaded to undertake because of Gods persistence (<data ref="Bible:Je 1:7-10">Jer 1:7-10data>). The best single word to translate “…” with is thuspersuadedorcoerced.” The translation spells out the allusion explicitly, so the reader is not left wondering about what is being alluded to when Jeremiah speaks of beingcoerced.” The translationI let you do itis a way of rendering the Niphal of the same verb, which must be tolerative rather than passive, since the normal passive for the Piel would be the Pual (See <i>IBHSi> 389-90 §23.4g for discussion and examples.). The translationyou overcame my resistanceis based on allusion to the same context (<data ref="Bible:Je 1:7-10">1:7-10data>) and on the parallel use of <span class="hebrew">חָזַקspan> (<span class="translit">khazaqspan>) as a transitive verb with a direct object in <data ref="Bible:1Ki 16:22">1 Kgs 16:22data>.

(0.06)(Sos 5:4)

tn <i>Hebi> “hole.” Probablylatch-holeorkey-hole,” but possibly a euphemism (<i>double entendrei>). The noun <span class="hebrew">חֹרspan> (<span class="translit">khorspan>, “hole”) is used in OT in a literal and metaphorical sense: (1) literal sense: hole bored in the lid of a chest (<data ref="Bible:2Ki 12:10">2 Kgs 12:10data>); hole in a wall (<data ref="Bible:Eze 8:7">Ezek 8:7data>); hole in the ground or cave used as hiding places for men (<data ref="Bible:1Sa 13:6">1 Sam 13:6data>; <data ref="Bible:1Sa 14:11">14:11data>; <data ref="Bible:Is 42:23">Isa 42:23data>); hole in the ground, as the dwelling place of an asp (<data ref="Bible:Is 11:8">Isa 11:8data>); and a hole in a mountain, as the den of lions (<data ref="Bible:Na 2:13">Nah 2:13data>); and (2) figurative sense: hole of an eye (metonymy of association), that is, eye-socket (<data ref="Bible:Zec 14:12">Zech 14:12data>) (<i>HALOTi> 348 s.v. II <span class="hebrew">חֹרspan>; BDB 359 s.v. III <span class="hebrew">חֹרspan>). While the meaning of <span class="hebrew">חֹרspan> in <data ref="Bible:So 5:4">Song 5:4data> is clear—“hole”—there is a debate whether it is used in a literal or figurative sense. (1) Literal sense: The lexicons suggest that it denoteshole of a door, that is, key-hole or latch-opening” (<i>HALOTi> 348; BDB 359). Most commentators suggest that it refers to a hole bored through the bedroom door to provide access to the latch or lock. The mention in <data ref="Bible:Song 5:5">5:5data> of <span class="hebrew">כַּפּוֹת הַמַּנְעוּלspan> (<span class="translit">kappot hammanʿulspan>, “latches of the door-bolt”) suggests that the term refers to some kind of opening associated with the latch of the bedroom door. This approach is followed by most translations: “the hole in the door” (JB), “the latch-hole” (NEB), “the latch-opening” (NIV), “the latch-hole” (NEB), “the latch” (RSV, NJPS), andthe opening of the door” (KJV). The assumption that the hole in question was a latch-hole in the door is reflected in Midrash Rabbah: Rabbi Abba ben Kahana said, “Why is the hole of the door mentioned here, seeing that it is a place where vermin swarm?” The situation envisaged by his actions are often depicted thus: In ancient Near Eastern villages, the bolting systems of doors utilized door-bolts and keys made of wood. The keys were often stored either on the outside (!) or inside of the door. If the key was placed on the inside of the door, a small hole was bored through the door so that a person could reach through the hole with the key to unlock the door. The key was often over a foot in length, and the keyhole large enough for a mans hand. Apparently, he extended his hand through the hole from the outside to try to unbolt the door latch on the inside. He could put his hand through the hole, but could not open the door without the key. (2) Figurative sense: Because of the presence of several erotic motifs in <data ref="Bible:Song 5:2-8">5:2-8data> and the possibility that a <i>double entendrei> is present (see notes below), several scholars suggest that the term is a euphemism for the female vagina (<i>HALOTi> 348). They suggest that <span class="hebrew">חֹרspan> (“hole”) is the female counterpart for the euphemistic usage of <span class="hebrew">יָדspan> (“hand”) in <data ref="Bible:Song 5:4">5:4data>. See A. S. Cook, <i>The Root of the Thing: A Study of Job and the Song of Songsi>, 110, 123; Cheryl Exum, “A Literary and Structural Analysis of the Song of Songs,” <i>ZAWi> 85 (1973): 50-51; M. H. Pope, <i>Song of Songsi> (AB), 518-19.

(0.06)(Ecc 1:1)

tn The meaning of <span class="hebrew">קֹהֶלֶתspan> (<span class="translit">qoheletspan>) is somewhat puzzling. The verb <span class="hebrew">קָהַלspan> (<span class="translit">qahalspan>) meansto assemble, summon” (<i>HALOTi> 1078-79 s.v. <span class="hebrew">קהלspan>), and is derived from the noun <span class="hebrew">קָהָלspan> (<span class="translit">qahalspan>, “assembly”; <i>HALOTi> 1079-80 s.v. <span class="hebrew">קָהָלspan>). Thus <span class="hebrew">קֹהֶלֶתspan> might mean: (1) convener of the assembly, (2) leader, speaker, teacher, or preacher of the assembly, or (3) member of the assembly. Elsewhere in the book, <span class="hebrew">קֹהֶלֶתspan> is used in collocation with statements about his position as king in Jerusalem (<data ref="Bible:Ec 1:12">Eccl 1:12data>), his proclamations about life (<data ref="Bible:Ec 1:2">Eccl 1:2data>; <data ref="Bible:Ec 7:27">7:27data>; <data ref="Bible:Ecc 12:8">12:8data>), and his teaching of wisdom and writing wise sayings (<data ref="Bible:Ec 12:9-10">Eccl 12:9-10data>). Thus, <span class="hebrew">קֹהֶלֶתspan> probably meansthe leader of the assemblyorspeaker of the assembly.” (See also the following study note.) Rabbinic literature treats <span class="hebrew">קֹהֶלֶתspan> as a traditional surname for Solomon, that is, “Qoheleth,” relating it to the noun <span class="hebrew">קָהָלspan>. For example, this explanation is found in rabbinic literature (Qoheleth Rabbah 1:1): “Why was his name called Qoheleth [<span class="hebrew">קֹהֶלֶתspan>]? Because his words were proclaimed in public meeting [<span class="hebrew">קָהַלspan>], as it is written (<data ref="Bible:1Ki 8:1">1 Kgs 8:1data>).” The LXX rendered it <span class="greek">ἐκκλησιαστήςspan> (<span class="translit">ekklēsiastēsspan>, “member of the assembly,” LSJ 509), as was the custom of relating Greek <span class="greek">ἐκκλησίαspan> (<span class="translit">ekklēsiaspan>, “assembly”) to Hebrew <span class="hebrew">קָהָלspan>. The books English title, “Ecclesiastes,” is simply a transliteration of the Greek term from the LXX. Symmachus’ <span class="greek">παροιμιαστήςspan> (<span class="translit">paroimiastēsspan>, “author of proverbs,” LSJ 1342 s.v.) is not a translation of <span class="hebrew">קֹהֶלֶתspan> but refers to his authorship of many proverbs (<data ref="Bible:Ec 12:9-10">Eccl 12:9-10data>). In terms of the participial form, <span class="hebrew">קֹהֶלֶתspan> is used substantively to designate the profession or title of the author. The term is used in <data ref="Bible:Pr 12:8">12:8data> with the article, indicating that it is a professional title rather than a personal surname: <span class="hebrew">הַקּוֹהֶלֶתspan> (<span class="translit">haqqoheletspan>, “the Teacher”). Substantival participles often designate the title or profession of an individual: <span class="hebrew">כֹּהֵןspan> (<span class="translit">kohenspan>), “priest”; <span class="hebrew">רֹזֵןspan> (<span class="translit">rozenspan>), “ruler”; <span class="hebrew">שֹׁטֵרspan> (<span class="translit">shoterspan>), “officer”; <span class="hebrew">נֹקֵדspan> (<span class="translit">noqedspan>), “sheep-breeder”; <span class="hebrew">שֹׁפֵטspan> (<span class="translit">shofetspan>), “judge”; <span class="hebrew">יֹצֵרspan> (<span class="translit">yotserspan>), “potter”; <span class="hebrew">כֹּרֵםspan> (<span class="translit">koremspan>), “vine-dresser”; <span class="hebrew">יֹגֵבspan> (<span class="translit">yogevspan>), “farmer”; <span class="hebrew">שׁוֹעֵרspan> (<span class="translit">shoʿerspan>), “gate-keeper”; <span class="hebrew">צוֹרֵףspan> (<span class="translit">tsorefspan>), “smelter”; and <span class="hebrew">רֹפֵאspan> (<span class="translit">rofeʾspan>), “doctor” (<i>IBHSi> 614-15 §37.2a). In terms of its feminine ending with a male referent, Joüon 1:266-67 §89.b suggests that it is intensive, e.g., <span class="hebrew">מוֹדַעַתspan> (<span class="translit">modaatspan>) “close relativefrom <span class="hebrew">מוֹדָעspan> (<span class="translit">modaʿspan>) “kinsman.” The feminine ending is used similarly in Arabic in reference to a male referent, e.g., Arabic <span class="translit">rawiyatspan> “a great narratorfrom <span class="translit">rawispan> “narrator” (C. P. Caspari, <i>A Grammar of the Arabic Languagei>, 1:233c). So <span class="hebrew">קֹהֶלֶתspan> may meanthe leader/teacher of the assemblyfrom the noun <span class="hebrew">קָהָלspan>. When used in reference to a male referent, feminine forms denote a professional title or vocational office (as in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Aramaic), e.g., <span class="hebrew">סֹפֶרֶתspan> (<span class="translit">soferetspan>), “scribe”; <span class="hebrew">פֹּכֶרֶתspan> (<span class="translit">pokheretspan>), “gazelle-catcher”; <span class="hebrew">פֶּחָהspan> (<span class="translit">pekhahspan>), “provincial governor”; and <span class="hebrew">פְּרָעוֹתspan> (<span class="translit">p<sup>esup>raʿotspan>), “princes” (GKC 393 §122.<i>ri>). Occasionally, a professional name later became a personal name, e.g., the title <span class="hebrew">סֹפֶרֶתspan> (“scribe”) became the nameSophereth” (<data ref="Bible:Ezr 2:55">Ezra 2:55data>; <data ref="Bible:Ne 7:57">Neh 7:57data>), <span class="hebrew">פֹּכֶרֶתspan> (“gazelle-catcher”) becamePokereth” (<data ref="Bible:Ezr 2:57">Ezra 2:57data>; <data ref="Bible:Ne 7:59">Neh 7:59data>), and perhaps <span class="hebrew">קֹהֶלֶתspan> (“assembler”) became the surnameQoheleth” (<i>HALOTi> 926 s.v. <span class="hebrew">פֹּכֶרֶת הַצְּבָיִיםspan>). Many translations render <span class="hebrew">קֹהֶלֶתspan> as a professional title: “the Speaker” (NEB, Moffatt), “the Preacher” (KJV, RSV, YLT, MLB, ASV, NASB), “the Teacher” (NIV, NRSV), “the Leader of the Assembly” (NIV margin), “the Assembler” (NJPS margin). Others render it as a personal surname: “Koheleth” (JPS, NJPS) andQoheleth” (NAB, NRSV margin).

(0.06)(Pro 2:18)

tc The MT reads <span class="hebrew">שָׁחָהspan> (<span class="translit">shakhahspan>) from <span class="hebrew">שׁוּחַspan> (<span class="translit">shuakhspan>) or the biform <span class="hebrew">שָׁחַחspan> (<span class="translit">shakhakhspan>): “she sinks down to death her house.” However most English versions take <span class="hebrew">בֵּיתָהּspan> (<span class="translit">betahspan>) “her house” (masculine singular noun with third person feminine singular suffix) as the subject (e.g., KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, CEV): “her house sinks down to death.” The LXX reflects <span class="hebrew">שָׁתָהspan> (<span class="translit">shatahspan>) from <span class="hebrew">שִׁיתspan> (<span class="translit">shitspan>): “She has placed her house near death.” This is a matter of simple orthographic confusion between <span class="hebrew">חspan> (<span class="translit">khetspan>) and <span class="hebrew">תspan> (<span class="translit">tavspan>). The MT preserves the more difficult reading, which is often to be preferred. The question is whether the reading is too difficult because the syntax is unworkable. The MT and LXX both read the verb as Qal perfect third person feminine singular. Contextually the subject would be theloose womanof <data ref="Bible:Pr 2:16-17">2:16-17data>. But the MTs reading from <span class="hebrew">שׁוּחַspan> (“to sink down”) does not expect a direct object, leaving no role for the masculine nounhouse.” K&amp;D 16:83 suggests that <span class="hebrew">בֵּיתָהּspan> (“her house”) is a permutative noun that qualifies the subject: “she <i>together with all that belongs to heri> [her house] sinks down to death” (GKC 425 §131.<i>ki>). D. Kidner suggests thather houseis in apposition todeath” (e.g., <data ref="Bible:Job 17:13">Job 17:13data>; <data ref="Bible:Job 30:23">30:23data>; <data ref="Bible:Pr 9:18">Prov 9:18data>; <data ref="Bible:Ec 12:5">Eccl 12:5data>), meaning that death is her house: “she sinks down to death, which is her house” (<i>Proverbsi> [TOTC], 62). However the verb also has to operate in the next line where the verb is understood again though the technique of ellipsis and double duty. The parallelism should expect the same role forher pathsas forher house.” But this is unworkable for the second half of the line. Further the picture ofsinking downin English may be misleading. The Arabic cognate may suggest sinking into the ground, but the Akkadian cognate suggestscrumbling” (of a building) orwasting away” (of health). The Hebrew root <span class="hebrew">שָׁחַחspan> (<span class="translit">shakhakhspan>) seems to meancrouch downelsewhere (e.g. <data ref="Bible:Job 38:40">Job 38:40data>; <data ref="Bible:Ps 10:10">Ps 10:10data>). The <i>BHSi> editors attempt to resolve this syntactical problem by suggesting a conjectural emendation of MT <span class="hebrew">בֵּיתָהּspan> (<span class="translit">betahspan> “her house”) to the feminine singular noun <span class="hebrew">נְתִיבָתָהּspan> (<span class="translit">n<sup>esup>tivatahspan>, “her path”) which appears in the plural in <data ref="Bible:Pr 7:25">7:25data> (though they cite <data ref="Bible:Pr 7:27">7:27data>), to recover a feminine subject for the verb: “her path sinks down to death.” This would solve the problem of subject-verb agreement, but may not resolve whether this verb can really be modified by the prepositional phraseto death.” It also seems problematic to propose a difficult conjectural emendation for the sake of keeping a syntactically difficult text. Most of the versions follow the MT, trying to make the picture ofsinking down to deathwork. However the LXX reading is simple to explain textually (confusion of two similar looking letters) and restores reasonable syntax, although the preposition <span class="hebrew">אֶלspan> (<span class="translit">ʾelspan>) is more typical of another verb meaningto set, to place,” <span class="hebrew">שִׂיםspan> (<span class="translit">simspan>).

(0.06)(Exo 6:3)

sn There are a number of important issues that need clarification in the interpretation of this section. First, it is important to note thatI am Yahwehis not a new revelation of a previously unknown name. It would be introduced differently if it were. This is the identification of the covenant God as the one calling Mosesthat would be proof for the people that their God had called him. Second, the titleEl Shaddayis not a name, but a title. It is true that in the patriarchal accountsEl Shaddayis used six times; in Job it is used thirty times. Many conclude that it does reflect the idea of might or power. In some of those passages that reveal God asEl Shadday,” the nameYahwehwas also used. But Wellhausen and other proponents of the earlier source critical analysis used <data ref="Bible:Ex 6:3">Exod 6:3data> to say that P, the so-called priestly source, was aware that the nameYahwehwas not known by them, even though J, the supposed Yahwistic source, wrote using the name as part of his theology. Third, the texts of Genesis show that Yahweh had appeared to the patriarchs (<data ref="Bible:Ge 12:1">Gen 12:1data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 17:1">17:1data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 18:1">18:1data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 26:2">26:2data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 26:24">26:24data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 26:12">26:12data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 35:1">35:1data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 48:3">48:3data>), and that he spoke to each one of them (<data ref="Bible:Ge 12:7">Gen 12:7data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 15:1">15:1data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 26:2">26:2data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 28:13">28:13data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 31:3">31:3data>). The nameYahwehoccurs 162 times in Genesis, 34 of those times on the lips of speakers in Genesis (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” <i>EBCi> 2:340-41). They also made proclamation of Yahweh by name (<data ref="Bible:Ex 4:26">4:26data>; <data ref="Bible:Ex 12:8">12:8data>), and they named places with the name (<data ref="Bible:Ex 22:14">22:14data>). These passages should not be ignored or passed off as later interpretation. Fourth, “Yahwehis revealed as the God of power, the sovereign God, who was true to his word and could be believed. He would do as he said (<data ref="Bible:Nu 23:19">Num 23:19data>; <data ref="Bible:Nu 14:35">14:35data>; <data ref="Bible:Ex 12:25">Exod 12:25data>; <data ref="Bible:Ex 22:24">22:24data>; <data ref="Bible:Ex 24:14">24:14data>; <data ref="Bible:Ex 36:36">36:36data>; <data ref="Bible:Ex 37:14">37:14data>). Fifth, there is a difference between promise and fulfillment in the way revelation is apprehended. The patriarchs were individuals who received the promises but without the fulfillment. The fulfillment could only come after the Israelites became a nation. Now, in Egypt, they are ready to become that promised nation. The two periods were not distinguished by not having and by having the name, but by two ways God revealed the significance of his name. “I am Yahwehto the patriarchs indicated that he was the absolute, almighty, eternal God. The patriarchs were individuals sojourning in the land. God appeared to them in the significance of El Shadday. That was not his name. So <data ref="Bible:Ge 17:1">Gen 17:1data> says thatYahweh appearedand said, ‘I am El Shadday.’” See also <data ref="Bible:Ge 35:11">Gen 35:11data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 48:2">48:2data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 28:3">28:3data>. Sixth, the verbto knowis never used to introduce a name which had never been known or experienced. The Niphal and Hiphil of the verb are used only to describe the recognition of the overtones or significance of the name (see <data ref="Bible:Je 16:21">Jer 16:21data>, <data ref="Bible:Is 52:6">Isa 52:6data>; <data ref="Bible:Ps 83:17">Ps 83:17ffdata>; <data ref="Bible:1Ki 8:41">1 Kgs 8:41ffdata>. [people will know his name when prayers are answered]). For someone to say that he knew Yahweh meant that Yahweh had been experienced or recognized (see <data ref="Bible:Ex 33:6">Exod 33:6data>; <data ref="Bible:1Ki 18:36">1 Kgs 18:36data>; <data ref="Bible:Je 28:9">Jer 28:9data>; <data ref="Bible:Ps 76:2">Ps 76:2data>). Seventh, “Yahwehis not one of Gods namesit is his only name. Other titles, likeEl Shadday,” are not strictly names but means of revealing Yahweh. All the revelations to the patriarchs could not compare to this one because God was now dealing with the nation. He would make his name known to them through his deeds (see <data ref="Bible:Eze 20:5">Ezek 20:5data>). So now they willknowthename.” The verb <span class="hebrew">יָדַעspan> (<span class="translit">yadaʿspan>) means more thanaware of, be knowledgeable about”; it meansto experiencethe reality of the revelation by that name. This harmonizes with the usage of <span class="hebrew">שֵׁםspan> (<span class="translit">shemspan>), “name,” which encompasses all the attributes and actions of God. It is not simply a reference to a title, but to the way that God revealed himselfGod gave meaning to his name through his acts. God is not saying that he had not revealed a name to the patriarchs (that would have used the Hiphil of the verb). Rather, he is saying that the patriarchs did not experience what the name Yahweh actually meant, and they could not without seeing it fulfilled. When Moses came to the elders, he identified his call as from Yahweh, the God of the fathersand they accepted him. They knew the name. But, when they were delivered from bondage, then they fully knew by experience what that name meant, for his promises were fulfilled. U. Cassuto (<i>Exodusi>, 79) paraphrases it this way: “I revealed Myself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in My aspect that finds expression in the name ShaddaiI was not known to them, that is, it was not given to them to recognize Me as One that fulfils his promises.” This generation was about toknowthe name that their ancestors knew and used, but never experienced with the fulfillment of the promises. This section of Exodus confirms this interpretation because in it God promised to bring them out of Egypt and give them the promised landthen they would know that he is Yahweh (<data ref="Bible:Ex 6:7">6:7data>). This meaning should have been evident from its repetition to the Egyptians throughout the plaguesthat they might know Yahweh (e.g., <data ref="Bible:Ex 7:5">7:5data>). See further R. D. Wilson, “Yahweh [Jehovah] and <data ref="Bible:Ex 6:3">Exodus 6:3data>, ” <i>Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretationi>, 29-40; L. A. Herrboth, “<data ref="Bible:Ex 6:3">Exodus 6:3bdata>: Was God Known to the Patriarchs as Jehovah?” <i>CTMi> 4 (1931): 345-49; F. C. Smith, “Observation on the Use of the Names and Titles of God in Genesis,” <i>EvQi> 40 (1968): 103-9.

(0.05)(1Jo 4:2)

tn This forms part of the authors christological confession which serves as a test of the spirits. Many interpreters have speculated that the author of 1 John is here correcting or adapting a slogan of the secessionist opponents, but there is no concrete evidence for this in the text. Such a possibility is mere conjecture (see R. E. Brown, <i>Epistles of Johni> [AB], 492). The phrase may be understood in a number of different ways, however: (1) the entire phraseJesus Christ come in the fleshmay be considered the single object of the verb <span class="greek">ὁμολογεῖspan> (<span class="translit">homologeispan>; so B. F. Westcott, A. Brooke, J. Bonsirven, R. E. Brown, S. Smalley, and others); (2) the verb <span class="greek">ὁμολογεῖspan> may be followed by a double accusative, so that bothJesus Christandcome in the fleshare objects of the verb; the meaning would beconfess Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (so B. Weiss, J. Chaine, and others). (3) Another possibility is to see the verb as followed by a double accusative as in (2), but in this case the first object isJesusand the second isthe Christ come in the flesh,” so that what is being confessed isJesus <i>asi> the Christ come in the flesh” (so N. Alexander, J. Stott, J. Houlden, and others). All three options are grammatically possible, although not equally probable. Option (1) has a number of points in its favor: (a) the parallel in <data ref="Bible:2Jn 7">2 John 7data> suggests to some that the phrase should be understood as a single object; (b) option (2) makesJesus Christthe name of the preincarnate second Person of the Trinity, and this would be the <i>onlyi> place in the Johannine literature where such a designation for the preincarnate <span class="greek">Λόγοςspan> (<span class="translit">Logosspan>) occurs; and (c) option (3) would have been much clearer if <span class="greek">Χριστόνspan> (<span class="translit">Christonspan>) were accompanied by the article (<span class="greek">ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Χριστόνspan>, <span class="translit">homologei Iēsoun ton Christonspan>). Nevertheless option (3) is preferred on the basis of the overall context involving the secessionist opponents: Their christological views would allow the confession of the Christ come in the flesh (perhaps in the sense of the Spirit indwelling believers, although this is hard to prove), but they would have trouble confessing that <i>Jesusi> was (exclusively) the Christ incarnate. The authors failure to repeat the qualifying phrases (<span class="greek">Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθόταspan>, <span class="translit">Christon en sarki elēluthotaspan>) in the negative repetition in <data ref="Bible:1Jn 4:3">4:3adata> actually suggests that the stress is on <i>Jesusi> as the confession the opponents could not or would not make. It is difficult to see how the parallel in <data ref="Bible:2Jn 7">2 John 7data> favors option (1), although R. E. Brown (<i>Epistles of Johni> [AB]<i>,i> 492) thinks it does. The related or parallel construction in <data ref="Bible:Jn 9:22">John 9:22data> (<span class="greek">ἐάν τις αὐτὸν ὁμολογήσῃ Χριστόνspan>, <span class="translit">ean tis auton homologēsē Christonspan>) provides further support for option (3). This is discounted by R. E. Brown because the verb in <data ref="Bible:Jn 9:22">John 9:22data> occurs between the two accusative objects rather than preceding both as here (<i>Epistles of Johni> [AB], 493although Brown does mention <data ref="Bible:Ro 10:9">Rom 10:9data> as another parallel closer in grammatical structure to <data ref="Bible:1Jn 4:2">1 John 4:2data>). Brown does not mention the textual variants in <data ref="Bible:Jn 9:22">John 9:22data>, however: Both <span class="Apparatus">Pspan><sup>66sup> and <span class="Apparatus">Pspan><sup>75sup> (along with K, ƒ<sup>13sup> and others) read <span class="greek">ὁμολογήσῃ αὐτὸν Χριστόνspan> (<span class="translit">homologēsē auton Christonspan>). This structure exactly parallels <data ref="Bible:1Jn 4:2">1 John 4:2data>, and a case can be made that this is actually the preferred reading in <data ref="Bible:Jn 9:22">John 9:22data>; furthermore, it is clear from the context in <data ref="Bible:Jn 9:22">John 9:22data> that <span class="greek">Χριστόνspan> is the complement (what is predicated of the first accusative) since the object (the first accusative) is <span class="greek">αὐτόνspan> rather than the proper name <span class="greek">᾿Ιησοῦνspan>. The parallel in <data ref="Bible:Jn 9:22">John 9:22data> thus appears to be clearer than either <data ref="Bible:1Jn 4:2">1 John 4:2data> or <data ref="Bible:2Jn 7">2 John 7data>, and thus to prove useful in understanding both the latter constructions.

(0.05)(1Ti 3:16)

tc The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (<span class="hebrew">אspan><sup>3sup> A<sup>csup> C<sup>2sup> D<sup>2sup> <span class="greek">Ψspan> [88] 1241 1505 1739 1881 <span class="Apparatus">Mspan> <i>ali> vg<sup>mssup>) read <span class="greek">θεόςspan> (<span class="translit">theosspan>, “God”) for <span class="greek">ὅςspan> (<span class="translit">hosspan>, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other <span class="smcaps">mssspan> tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the textual problem. At least two <span class="smcaps">mssspan> have <span class="greek">ὁ θεόςspan> (69 88), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous <span class="greek">θεόςspan>. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun <span class="greek">ὅςspan> is strongly supported by <span class="hebrew">אspan>* A* C* F G 33 365 1175 Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, <span class="greek">ὅspan> (<span class="translit">hospan>, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports <span class="greek">ὅςspan> since it could not easily have been generated if <span class="greek">θεόςspan> had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered the <i>Ausgangstexti>: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of <span class="greek">ὅςspan>. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change <span class="greek">θεόςspan> to <span class="greek">ὅςspan> intentionally? “Whois not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of <data ref="Bible:1Ti 3:16">3:16data>, beginning with <span class="greek">ὅςspan>, appears to form a hymn with six strophes. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we <i>noti> look for an antecedent for <span class="greek">ὅςspan> (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the authors style (cf. also <data ref="Bible:Col 1:15">Col 1:15data>; <data ref="Bible:Php 2:6">Phil 2:6data> for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with <span class="greek">θεόςspan> written as a <i>nomen sacrumi>, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: <span class="uncial">q-=sspan> vs. <span class="uncial">osspan>. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced <span class="greek">θεόςspan> with <span class="greek">ὅςspan>. How then should we account for <span class="greek">θεόςspan>? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the <span class="greek">θεόςspan> reading came into existence, either via confusion with <span class="greek">ὅςspan> or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the <span class="smcaps">mssspan> it came in contact with (including <span class="smcaps">mssspan> already written, such as <span class="hebrew">אspan> A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, <span class="greek">ὅspan>. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly acorrectionof <span class="greek">ὅςspan>, conforming the gender to that of the neuter <span class="greek">μυστήριονspan> (<span class="translit">mustērionspan>, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the <span class="greek">θεόςspan> reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when theWesterntext seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of <span class="greek">ὅςspan> outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for <span class="greek">ὅςspan> is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As <i>TCGNTi> 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (<span class="greek">Ψspan>) supports <span class="greek">θεόςspan>; all ancient versions presuppose <span class="greek">ὅςspan> or <span class="greek">ὅspan>; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading <span class="greek">θεόςspan>.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that <span class="greek">θεόςspan> has to be original must be seen as special pleading. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western <i>fathersi> who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as <span class="greek">θεόςspan>. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to <span class="greek">θεόςspan>, a far more natural choice would have been <span class="greek">Χριστόςspan> (<span class="translit">Christosspan>, “Christ”) or <span class="greek">κύριοςspan> (<span class="translit">kuriosspan>, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See <i>ExSyni> 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)

(0.05)(Ecc 2:8)

tn The meaning of the superlative construction <span class="hebrew">שִׁדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹתspan> (<span class="translit">shiddah v<sup>esup>shiddotspan>) is uncertain because the term <span class="hebrew">שִׁדָּהspan> (<span class="translit">shiddahspan>) occurs only here in the OT. There are four basic approaches to the phrase: (1) Most scholars suggest that it refers to a royal harem and that it is in apposition tothe sensual delights of man” (<span class="hebrew">וְתַעֲנוּגֹת בְּנֵי הָאָדָםspan>, <span class="translit">v<sup>esup>taʿanugot b<sup>esup>ne haʾadamspan>). There are four variations of this approach: (a) There is a possible connection to the Ugaritic <span class="translit">shtspan> “mistress, ladyand the Arabic <span class="translit">sittspan> “lady” (<i>HALOTi> 1420 s.v. <span class="hebrew">שִׁדָּהspan>). (b) German scholars relate it to Assyrian <span class="translit">sadaduspan> “love” (Delitzsch, Konig, Wildeboer, Siegfried); however, BDB questions this connection (BDB 994 s.v. <span class="hebrew">שׁדהspan>). (c) Ibn Ezra relates it to II <span class="hebrew">שַׁדspan> (<span class="translit">shadspan>) “plunder; spoilor <span class="hebrew">שׁדהspan> “[women] taken by violence,” and suggests that it refers to the occupants of the royal harem. (d) BDB connects it to the Hebrew noun I <span class="hebrew">שַׁדspan> (<span class="translit">shadspan>, “breast”; e.g., <data ref="Bible:Is 28:9">Isa 28:9data>; <data ref="Bible:Eze 16:7">Ezek 16:7data>; <data ref="Bible:Eze 23:3">23:3data>, <data ref="Bible:Eze 23:21">21data>, <data ref="Bible:Eze 23:34">34data>; <data ref="Bible:Ho 2:4">Hos 2:4data>; <data ref="Bible:Ho 9:14">9:14data>; <data ref="Bible:So 1:13">Song 1:13data>; <data ref="Bible:So 4:5">4:5data>; <data ref="Bible:So 7:4">7:4data>, <data ref="Bible:So 7:8">8data>, <data ref="Bible:So 7:9">9data>; <data ref="Bible:So 8:1">8:1data>, <data ref="Bible:So 8:8">8data>, <data ref="Bible:So 8:10">10data>; <data ref="Bible:Job 3:12">Job 3:12data>) adding that <span class="hebrew">שׁדהspan> is related to the cognate Arabic and Aramaic roots meaningbreast” (BDB 994 s.v.). This would be a synecdoche of part (i.e., breast) for the whole (i.e., woman), similar to the idiomone womb, two wombs” (<span class="hebrew">רַחַם רַחֲמָתַיִםspan>, <span class="translit">rakham rakhamatayimspan>) wherewomb” = woman (<data ref="Bible:Jdg 5:30">Judg 5:30data>). This is the approach taken by most English versions: “many concubines” (NASB, RSV, NRSV), “a wife and wives” (YLT), “mistresses galore” (MLB), “many a mistress” (Moffatt), anda harem” (NIV). This is the approach suggested by the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project: “une femme et des femmes” = one or two women (e.g., <data ref="Bible:Jdg 5:30">Judg 5:30data>); see D. Barthélemy, ed., <i>Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Projecti>, 3:566. (2) The NJPS connects it to the Mishnaic Hebrew noun <span class="hebrew">שִׁדָּהspan> which became <span class="hebrew">שִׁידָּהspan> (“a strong box, chest”; Jastrow 1558 s.v. <span class="hebrew">שִׁידָּהspan>) and renders the phrasecoffers and coffers of themin apposition to the phrasethe luxuries of commoners” (<span class="hebrew">וְתַעֲנוּגֹת בְּנֵי הָאָדָםspan>). (3) KJV and ASV take the phrase in apposition tomale and female singersand translate it asmusical instruments.” However, there is no known Hebrew term that would justify this approach. (4) The LXX related the term to the Aramaic root <span class="hebrew">שׁדאspan> (“to pour out [wine]”) and rendered the phrase as <span class="greek">οἰνοχόον καὶ οἰνοχόαςspan> (<span class="translit">oinochoon kai oinochoasspan>), “a male-butler and female cupbearers.” Aquila took a similar approach: <span class="greek">κυλίκιον καὶ κυλίκιαspan> (<span class="translit">kulikion kai kulikiaspan>), “wine cups and wine vessels.” This is reflected in the Vulgate and Douay: “cups and vessels to serve to pour out wine.” Although the semantic meaning of the term <span class="hebrew">שִׁדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹתspan> (“a breast and breasts”) is uncertain, the grammatical/syntactical form of the phrase is straightforward: (1) It is in apposition to the preceding line, “the delights of the son of men” (<span class="hebrew">וְתַעֲנוּגֹת בְּנֵי הָאָדָםspan>). (2) The phrase is a superlative construction. When the second word is plural and it follows a noun from the same root which is singular, it indicates the best or most outstanding example of the person or thing so described. In addition to the <data ref="Bible:Jdg 5:30">Judg 5:30data> parallel cited above, see the expressiona generation, generationsin <data ref="Bible:Ps 72:5">Pss 72:5data>; <data ref="Bible:Ps 102:25">102:25data>; <data ref="Bible:Is 51:8">Isa 51:8data>. Unlike, <data ref="Bible:Ec 2:8">Eccl 2:8data>, this juxtapositioning of the singular and plural to express the superlative usually involves a construct form. See <span class="hebrew">קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁיםspan> (<span class="translit">qodesh haqqodashimspan>, “the holy of holies,” i.e., the most holy place”; <data ref="Bible:Ex 26:33">Exod 26:33data>), <span class="hebrew">שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִיםspan> (<span class="translit">shir hashirimspan>, “the song of songs,” i.e., “the most excellent song”; <data ref="Bible:So 1:1">Song 1:1data>), <span class="hebrew">אֱלֹהֵי הָאֱלֹהִים וַאֲדֹנֵי הַאֲדֹנִיםspan> (<span class="translit">ʾelohe haʾelohim vaʾadone haʾadonimspan>, “the God of gods and Lord of lords,” i.e., “the Highest God and the Supreme Lord”; <data ref="Bible:De 10:17">Deut 10:17data>), and <span class="hebrew">עֶבֶד עֲבָדִיםspan> (<span class="translit">ʿeved ʿavadimspan>, “a slave of slaves,” i.e., “the most abject slave”; <data ref="Bible:Ge 9:25">Gen 9:25data>). See GKC 431 §133.<i>ii>; R. J. Williams, <i>Hebrew Syntaxi>, 17-18, §80; <i>IBHSi> 154 §9.5.3j. If the semantic meaning of the terms <span class="hebrew">שִׁדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹתspan> denotesa breast (among) breastsora lady (among) ladies” (<data ref="Bible:Ec 2:8">Eccl 2:8data>, but see the previous note on the phrasea mans sensual delights”), the superlative construction may connotethe most beautiful breasts” (metonymy of part for the whole) orthe most beautiful woman.” This might refer to a harem of concubines or to one woman (the wife of the king?) who was the most beautiful woman in the land.

(0.05)(Gen 17:1)

tn OrGod Almighty.” The name <span class="hebrew">אֵל שַׁדַּיspan> (<span class="translit">ʾel shaddayspan>, “El Shaddai”) has often been translatedGod Almighty,” primarily because Jerome translated it <i>omnipotensi> (“all powerful”) in the Latin Vulgate. There has been much debate over the meaning of the name. For discussion see W. F. Albright, “The Names <i>Shaddaii> and <i>Abrami>,” <i>JBLi> 54 (1935): 173-210; R. Gordis, “The Biblical Root <i>sdy-sdi>,” <i>JTSi> 41 (1940): 34-43; and especially T. N. D. Mettinger, <i>In Search of Godi>, 69-72. Shaddai/El Shaddai is the sovereign king of the world who grants, blesses, and judges. In the Book of Genesis he blesses the patriarchs with fertility and promises numerous descendants. Outside Genesis he both blesses/protects and takes away life/happiness. The patriarchs knew God primarily as El Shaddai (<data ref="Bible:Ex 6:3">Exod 6:3data>). While the origin and meaning of this name are uncertain (see discussion below) its significance is clear. The name is used in contexts where God appears as the source of fertility and life. In <data ref="Bible:Ge 17:1-8">Gen 17:1-8data> he appeared to Abram, introduced himself as El Shaddai, and announced his intention to make the patriarch fruitful. In the role of El Shaddai God repeated these words (now elevated to the status of a decree) to Jacob (<data ref="Bible:Ge 35:11">35:11data>). Earlier Isaac had pronounced a blessing on Jacob in which he asked El Shaddai to make Jacob fruitful (<data ref="Bible:Ge 28:3">28:3data>). Jacob later prayed that his sons would be treated with mercy when they returned to Egypt with Benjamin (<data ref="Bible:Ge 43:14">43:14data>). The fertility theme is not as apparent here, though one must remember that Jacob viewed Benjamin as the sole remaining son of the favored and once-barren Rachel (see <data ref="Bible:Ge 29:31">29:31data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 30:22-24">30:22-24data>; <data ref="Bible:Ge 35:16-18">35:16-18data>). It is quite natural that he would appeal to El Shaddai to preserve Benjamins life, for it was El Shaddais miraculous power which made it possible for Rachel to give him sons in the first place. In <data ref="Bible:Ge 48:3">48:3data> Jacob, prior to blessing Josephs sons, told him how El Shaddai appeared to him at Bethel (see <data ref="Bible:Ge 28">Gen 28data>) and promised to make him fruitful. When blessing Joseph on his deathbed Jacob referred to Shaddai (we should probably readEl Shaddai,” along with a few Hebrew <span class="smcaps">mssspan>, Smr, the LXX, and Syriac) as the one who provides abundant blessings, includingblessings of the breast and womb” (<data ref="Bible:Ge 49:25">49:25data>). (The direct association of the name withbreastssuggests the name might meanthe one of the breast” [i.e., the one who gives fertility], but the juxtaposition is probably better explained as wordplay. Note the wordplay involving the name and the root <span class="hebrew">שָׁדַדspan>, [<span class="translit">shadadspan>, “destroy”] in <data ref="Bible:Is 13:6">Isa 13:6data> and in <data ref="Bible:Joe 1:15">Joel 1:15data>.) Outside Genesis the name Shaddai (minus the elementEl” [“God”]) is normally used when God is viewed as the sovereign king who blesses/protects or curses/brings judgment. The name appears in the introduction to two of Balaams oracles (<data ref="Bible:Nu 24:4">Num 24:4data>, <data ref="Bible:Nu 24:16">16data>) of blessing upon Israel. Naomi employs the name when accusing the Lord of treating her bitterly by taking the lives of her husband and sons (<data ref="Bible:Ru 1:20-21">Ruth 1:20-21data>). In <data ref="Bible:Ps 68:14">Ps 68:14data>; <data ref="Bible:Is 13:6">Isa 13:6data>; and <data ref="Bible:Joe 1:15">Joel 1:15data> Shaddai judges his enemies through warfare, while <data ref="Bible:Ps 91:1">Ps 91:1data> depicts him as the protector of his people. (In <data ref="Bible:Eze 1:24">Ezek 1:24data> and <data ref="Bible:Eze 10:5">10:5data> the sound of the cherubims wings is compared to Shaddais powerful voice. The reference may be to the mighty divine warriors battle cry which accompanies his angry judgment.) Finally, the name occurs 31 times in the Book of Job. Job and hisfriendsassume that Shaddai is the sovereign king of the world (<data ref="Bible:Job 11:7">11:7data>; <data ref="Bible:Job 37:23">37:23adata>) who is the source of life (<data ref="Bible:Job 33:4">33:4bdata>) and is responsible for maintaining justice (<data ref="Bible:Job 8:3">8:3data>; <data ref="Bible:Job 34:10-12">34:10-12data>; <data ref="Bible:Job 37:23">37:23bdata>). He provides abundant blessings, including children (<data ref="Bible:Job 22:17-18">22:17-18data>; <data ref="Bible:Job 29:4-6">29:4-6data>), but he can also discipline, punish, and destroy (<data ref="Bible:Job 5:17">5:17data>; <data ref="Bible:Job 6:4">6:4data>; <data ref="Bible:Job 21:20">21:20data>; <data ref="Bible:Job 23:16">23:16data>). It is not surprising to see the name so often in this book, where the theme of Gods justice is primary and even called into question (<data ref="Bible:Job 24:1">24:1data>; <data ref="Bible:Job 27:2">27:2data>). The most likely proposal is that the name meansGod, the one of the mountain” (an Akkadian cognate meansmountain,” to which the Hebrew <span class="hebrew">שַׁדspan>, [<span class="translit">shadspan>, “breast”] is probably related). For a discussion of proposed derivations see T. N. D. Mettinger, <i>In Search of Godi>, 70-71. The name may originally have depicted God as the sovereign judge who, in Canaanite style, ruled from a sacred mountain. <data ref="Bible:Is 14:13">Isa 14:13data> and <data ref="Bible:Eze 28:14">Ezek 28:14data>, <data ref="Bible:Eze 28:16">16data> associate such a mountain with God, while <data ref="Bible:Ps 48:2">Ps 48:2data> refers to Zion asZaphon,” the Canaanite Olympus from which the high god El ruled. (In <data ref="Bible:Is 14">Isa 14data> the Canaanite god El may be in view. Note that Isaiah pictures pagan kings as taunting the king of Babylon, suggesting that pagan mythology may provide the background for the language and imagery.)

(0.04)(Nah 2:6)

tn Orthe palace collapses and crumbles.” The Hophal perfect third person masculine singular <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> (<span class="translit">v<sup>esup>hutsavspan>) is from either I <span class="hebrew">נָצַבspan> (<span class="translit">natsavspan>, “to stand”; <i>HALOTi> 715 s.v. I <span class="hebrew">נצבspan>; BDB 662 s.v. <span class="hebrew">נָצַבspan>) or II <span class="hebrew">נָצַבspan> (“to dissolve, weaken”; <i>HALOTi> 715 s.v. II <span class="hebrew">נצבspan>). Many scholars who take <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> from I <span class="hebrew">נָצָבspan> (“to stand”) suggest that the meaning isit is fixed; it is determined” (BDB 662 s.v. <span class="hebrew">נָצַבspan>). This is followed by several English versions: “it is decreed” (NIV, NRSV) andit is fixed” (NASB). This is a rather awkward idea and does not seem to fit the context of the description of the destruction of the palace or the exile of the Ninevites. On the other hand, several scholars suggest that <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> is derived from <span class="hebrew">נָצָבspan> II (“to be weak”; cf. <data ref="Bible:Ps 39:6">Ps 39:6data>; <data ref="Bible:Zec 11:16">Zech 11:16data>) which is related to Arabic <span class="translit">nasibaspan> (“to be weak”) or Arabic <span class="translit">nasabaspan> (“to suck out, to dissolve”) and Assyrian <span class="translit">natsabuspan> (“to suck out”); see W. H. F. Saggs, “Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh,” <i>JTSi> 20 (1969): 220-21; R. D. Patterson, <i>Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniahi> (WEC), 69-70. As a parallel word to <span class="hebrew">נָמוֹגspan> (<span class="translit">namogspan>, “is delugedormelts”), <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> (“is weakenedoris dissolved”) describes the destructive effect of the flood waters on the limestone foundations of the palace. The verse divisions in the MT place <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> at the beginning of v. <data ref="Bible:Na 2:7">7data> ET [<data ref="BibleBHS:Na 2:8">v. 8data> HT]; however, it probably should be placed at the end of v. <data ref="Bible:Na 2:6">6data> ET [<data ref="BibleBHS:Na 2:7">v. 7data> HT] and connected with the last two words of the line: <span class="hebrew">וְהַהֵיכָל נָמוֹג וְהֻצַּבspan> (<span class="translit">v<sup>esup>hahekhal namog v<sup>esup>hutsavspan>, “the palace is deluged and dissolved”; see Patterson, 69-70). This is supported by several factors: (1) the gender of <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> is masculine, while the verbs in v. <data ref="Bible:Na 2:7">7data> are feminine: <span class="hebrew">גֻּלְּתָה הֹעֲלָתָהspan> (<span class="translit">gull<sup>esup>tah hoʿalatahspan>, “she is led into exile and taken away”); (2) the gender of the final verb in v. <data ref="Bible:Na 2:6">6data> is masculine: <span class="hebrew">נָמוֹגspan> (“[the palace] is deluged”); (3) both <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> and <span class="hebrew">נָמוֹגspan> are passive verbs (Niphal and Hophal); (4) both <span class="hebrew">נָמוֹגspan> (“is deluged”) and <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> (“is dissolved/weakened”) are parallel in meaning, describing the effects of flood waters on the limestone foundation of the royal palace; (5) this redivision of the lines produces a balanced 3+3 and 2+2 colon count in these two lines; and (6) this produces a balance of two verbs each in each colon. The meaning of <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> is notoriously difficult. Scholars offer over a dozen different proposals but only the most important are summarized here: (1) Most scholars take <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> as Hophal perfect third person masculine singular with <span class="translit">vavspan> (<span class="hebrew">וspan>) conjunction from I <span class="hebrew">נָצַבspan> (“to stand”), meaningit is fixed; it is determined” (BDB 662 s.v. <span class="hebrew">נָצַבspan>). This is followed by several English versions: “it is decreed” (NIV, NRSV) andit is fixed” (NASB). The LXX translation <span class="greek">καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασιςspan> (<span class="translit">kai hē hupostasisspan>, “and the foundation”) reflects a reading of <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> with a meaning similar to its use in <data ref="Bible:Ge 28:12">Gen 28:12data> (“a stairway resting on the earth”) or a reading of <span class="hebrew">וְהַמַּצָּבspan> (<span class="translit">v<sup>esup>hammatsavspan>) from the noun <span class="hebrew">מַצָּבspan> (<span class="translit">matsavspan>, “place of standing”; cf. BDB 662 s.v. <span class="hebrew">מַצָּבspan>; <i>HALOTi> 620 s.v. <span class="hebrew">מַצָּבspan>). (2) The <i>BHSi> editors suggest emending to Hophal perfect third person feminine singular <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצְאָהspan> (<span class="translit">v<sup>esup>hutsʾahspan>) from <span class="hebrew">יָצָאspan> (<span class="translit">yatsaʾspan>, “to go out”), meaningshe is led out into exileorshe is led out to be executed” (<i>HALOTi> 427 s.v. <span class="hebrew">יצאspan>; see, e.g., <data ref="Bible:Ge 38:25">Gen 38:25data>; <data ref="Bible:Je 38:22">Jer 38:22data>; <data ref="Bible:Eze 14:22">Ezek 14:22data>; <data ref="Bible:Eze 38:8">38:8data>; <data ref="Bible:Eze 44:5">44:5data>; <data ref="Bible:Am 4:3">Amos 4:3data>). (3) Early Jewish interpreters (Targum Jonathan, Kimchi, Rashi) and modern Christian interpreters (e.g., W. A. Maier, <i>Nahumi>, 259-62) view <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> as the proper name of an Assyrian queen, “Huzzab.” This is adopted by several English versions: “And Huzzab is exiled” (cf. KJV, RV, NJPS). However, this view has been severely criticized by several scholars because no queen in Assyrian history is known by this name (G. R. Driver, “Farewell to Queen Huzzab!” <i>JTSi> 16 [1965]: 296-98; W. H. F. Saggs, “Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh,” <i>JTSi> 20 [1969]: 220). (4) Several scholars suggest that <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> is the Hophal perfect of II <span class="hebrew">נָצַבspan> which is related to Assyrian <span class="translit">nasabuspan> (“to suck out”) and Arabic <span class="translit">nasabaspan> (“to suck out; to dissolve”), as in <data ref="Bible:Ps 39:6">Ps 39:6data> and <data ref="Bible:Zec 11:16">Zech 11:16data>. Taking <span class="hebrew">גֻּלְּתָהspan> (<span class="translit">gull<sup>esup>tahspan>) as the nouncolumn-base” (see translators note on the wordexilein this verse), Saggs translates the line as: “its column-base is dissolved” (W. H. F. Saggs, “Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh,” <i>JTSi> 20 [1969]: 220-21). Patterson connects it to the last two words of the previous line: <span class="hebrew">וְהַהֵיכָל נָמוֹג וְהֻצַּבspan>, “The palace collapses and crumbles” (Patterson, 69-70). (5) Driver revocalizes it as the noun <span class="hebrew">וְהַצֹּבspan> (<span class="translit">v<sup>esup>khatsovspan>, “and the [captive] train”) which he relates to the Arabic noun <span class="translit">subspan> (“train”): “the train of captives goes into exile” (so NEB). This is reflected in the Greek text of the Minor Prophets from Nahal Heber which took <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> aswagon, chariot.” (6) Cathcart suggests that the MTs <span class="hebrew">וְהֻצַּבspan> may be repointed as <span class="hebrew">וְהַצַּבspan> which is related to Assyrian <span class="translit">hassabuspan> (“goddess”). (7) Several scholars emend to <span class="hebrew">וְהַצְּבִיspan> (<span class="translit">v<sup>esup>hats<sup>esup>vispan>, “the Beauty”) from <span class="hebrew">צְבִיspan> (<span class="translit">ts<sup>esup>vispan>, “beauty”) and take this as a reference to the statue of Ishtar in Nineveh (K. J. Cathcart, <i>Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitici> [BibOr], 96-98; M. Delcor, “Allusions à la déesse Istar en Nahum 2, 8?” <i>Bibi> 58 [1977]: 73-83; T. Longman, “Nahum,” <i>The Minor Prophetsi>, 2:806). (8) R. L. Smith (<i>Micah-Malachii> [WBC], 82) derives consonantal <span class="hebrew">והצבspan> from <span class="hebrew">נְצִיבspan> (<span class="translit">n<sup>esup>tsivspan>, “pillar”; <i>HALOTi> 716-17 s.v. <span class="hebrew">נְצִיבspan>) which is related to Assyrian <span class="translit">nisibispan> which refers to the statue of a goddess.