Author Archives: catholicbiblestudent

Who Were the M‘amadot?

Yesterday, I came across a pretty obscure reference in a book by Jim Davila, the most profilic of biblical bloggers to whom I have linked for years. He wrote a commentary on some of the Dead Sea Scrolls entitled Liturgical Works (Eerdmans, 2000). On p. 242, I found this tidbit on the so-called “Words of the Luminaries” (4Q504, 4Q506). Davila speculates that the text

“was used in the m‘amadot service (a pre-Mishnaic institution in which delegations of lay representatives would participate in the temple sacrificial services for a week at a time).”

Twenty-Four Divisions of Lay People

Huh? I had never heard of the m‘amadot. Who were they? Unfortunately, there is very little information about them out there. The word is a feminine plural, which means “stands” or “posts.” The Encylopedia Britannica has a tiny entry on them. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia is extremely sparing in its reference.  It distinguishes between on the one hand, the “mishmarot,” which were the 24 divisions of the Levitical priests who would take turns serving at the temple, and on the other hand, the m‘amadot, which were 24 divisions of lay people that mirrored the 24 divisions of the Levitical priests. The JE says that “on the return from the Exile 24 (Israelite) ammudim (m‘amadot) were established, parallel to the priestly and Levitical mishmarot (Tosef., Ta’an. 4:2).”

 

The Talmud on the m‘amadot

There is a reference to the m‘amadot in Ta’anit 27b: “Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said that Rav Asi said: Were it not for the non-priestly watches and the Temple service, heaven and earth would not continue to exist, as it is stated: “And he said: Lord God, by what shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (Genesis 15:8)” (see sefaria.org). So the laity, not just the priests, kept watches in the temple—and at least to some rabbinic authorities, their role in the temple service was cosmically necessary. This section also goes on to describe the deeds of the m‘amadot: they would remain “in their towns and would assemble in the synagogue and observe four fasts each week to correspond with the days of creation:

  • Monday: a fast for seafarers, “as the sea was created on Monday”
  • Tuesday: a fast for “those who walk in the desert, as the dry land was created on Tuesday”
  • Wednesday: a fast that children would not fall subject to croup – corresponding to the day on which the luminaries (me’orot) were created (a word similar to “curses” me’erot)
  • Thursday: for pregnant women for “living beings” were first created on this day
  • Friday: no fast since it was Sabbath eve
  • Sabbath: no fast

I’m left wondering when these people would eat! I guess they would eat a huge feast on the sabbath to be sustained throughout all these fasts.

 

The Word of the Luminaries and the M‘amadot

Davila points to a source by Daniel K. Falk to illustrate his point. I’ll quote a whole paragraph here so we get some context:

“Another possibility, if we continue our speculation along these lines a bit further, is a connection of the weekly prayers in Words of the Luminaries with the lay ma‘amadot services. About these little is known, and there is not even a hint that communal prayer placed any part in these services, although scholars often assume that it must have. Nevertheless, that each course [i.e. division, of the 24 divisions] met for one week would make a weekly cycle of prayer appropriate, and their reading of particular passages from the creation story in sequence for each day of the week is at least analogous to the weekday prayers in Words of the Luminaries which also follow a historical progression, albeit from creation to post-exilic times.” (Daniel K. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, & Festival Prayers, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, vol. XXVII [Brill, 1998] p. 91)

Now Falk doesn’t say a whole lot here, but he does highlight the fact that the nature of these m‘amadot services likely included communal prayer. The groups met for a week at a time and perhaps this one source we have from the Dead Seas Scrolls, “The Words of the Luminaries,” is an example of a text that they would pray when they gathered.

Consolidating Insights on the m‘amadot

While the sources are patchy at best, we can pull together a few key insights on the groups of lay people referred to as the m‘amadot:

  1. There were twenty-four divisions of m‘amadot that paralleled the twenty-four divisions of the Levitical priests.
  2. These groups took turns attending the daily temple liturgies (the Tamid) a week at a stretch.
  3. Their observance included specific daily fasts for specific intentions.
  4. Their observance probably included communal daily prayer.

It would be nice if we had more ancient sources describing the function and practice of the m‘amadot but there is not much there. Perhaps there are some interesting works out there that say more. For now, I think of the m‘amadot as the daily Mass-goers of Second Temple Judaism. They were dedicated lay people who came to the temple to worship every day when their division was on duty. In this way, they were quasi-priestly kind of like the Nazirites who would take a special vow for a time period. They remind me also of the apostles in the book of Acts who were “going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour” (Acts 3:1), which would indicate the time of the evening sacrifice. While we cannot be sure, perhaps some of the early believers were members of the m‘amadot. I hope that over time we can learn more about these interesting devout Jewish worshippers from the Second Temple era.

 

For further reading:

The only additional reference that I have not had time to pursue is Esther Eshel and Ḥanan Eshel, “4Q471 Fragment 1 and Maʻamadot in the War Scroll,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21 March 1991, 611–20, (Brill, 1992).

Online Archives of Charismatic Magazines

The Recency Bias of the Internet

One of the great challenges of the Internet is that it came online after so many other wonderful information technologies like the printing press, radio, tape recording, newspapers, magazines, and so on. While much of that material has been “digitized” in so far as it has been scanned and uploaded, so much of it is inaccessible, hard to find, and not truly adapted to the current version of the Internet (are we on 3.0 now?). As a result the Internet has a terrible recency bias. Whatever was published most recently gets the most click-throughs, links, hits, and eyeballs. Oftentimes, the better information requires a little more digging—not that we have to go through dusty old boxes of papers, but we need to know where to search and look for what. We need to understand the stories and beliefs that drove people to do what they did.

Finding Pre-Online Sources

I have been reading a bit about the history of the charismatic movement of the 1960s–1980s and finding that the sources available are thin. That is, very few well documented books about this era exist. However, the recent book Age of the Spirit by John Maiden (Oxford, 2023) is a welcome exception. It is a superbly documented book of the “Spiritscape” of those times. But what about contemporary sources? No one in the ‘70s had a website or a blog, but what they did have was magazines galore! The way you got your message out was through magazine production: articles, photographs, letters to the editors, columns, and so on. This was also the dawning age of the cassette tape, so plenty of teaching and information was distributed through tape sets you could buy from listings in the magazines. I’m interested in tracking down and posting links to all the charismatic magazines to help researchers find their way into this material. I came up with a list and I thought that some other people might find it helpful.

Charismatic Renewal Magazines From the 1960s-1980s

Trinity magazine (1961–66)

Trinity was the first mainline Protestant charismatic magazine. It was launched by editor Jean Stone, a parishioner at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California. It was there in 1960 that the pastor Dennis Bennett announced that he had received the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which divided his congregation. The magazine was only published for about five years: 1961–66. http://www.societyofstephen.org/pubs.php (I have no idea why there’s a chicken in the picture!)

 

Pastoral Newsletter (1967–1971)

This informal newsletter was published by the Catholic/ecumenical charismatic groups in Ann Arbor and South Bend, which would soon become True House, People of Praise and the Word of God. It was succeeded by New Covenant. I have not found an online version of this newsletter yet. (Edit: Hat tip to commenter, who pointed out that this publication’s last issue was June 1971.)

 

New Covenant magazine (1971–2002)

New Covenant was the official voice of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services Committee, originally edited by Ralph Martin and published in Ann Arbor. While it was largely for the Catholic movement, it included a strong ecumenical flavor with some articles and announcements by non-Catholic charismatic writers and groups. You can find a complete archive here: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000554189

 

New Wine (1969–1986)

New Wine was originally launched by Eldon Purvis and his Holy Spirit Teaching Ministry (HSTM), which later became Christian Growth Ministries (CGM). It was the principal publication of the so-called “Shepherding Movement” of the 1970s led by the “Fort Lauderdale Five”: Derek Prince, Ern Baxter, Charles Simpson, Don Basham, and Bob Mumford. https://csmpublishing.org/publications/new-wine-magazine/

 

Pastoral Renewal (1976–1990)

Pastoral Renewal was a monthly quasi-academic pastoral publication published by the Word of God community in Ann Arbor, Michigan for leaders and pastors in the charismatic movement. It was edited by Peter S. Williamson. It ceased publication after the Ann Arbor community broke apart. I have not found it online yet, but it is available in quite a few libraries around the country under OCLC number 4303284 and ISSN, 0744-8279. A few books were published under its auspices, for example, Summons to Faith and Renewal (1983); Christianity in Conflict (1986); and Christian Allies in a Secular Age (1987). Pastoral Renewal was briefly succeeded by Faith & Renewal: For Christian Leaders, but I think that only lasted one issue.

 

Renewal (1966–)

Renewal was based in the United Kingdom, published by Fountain Trust and edited by Anglican priest Michael Harper. It launched in 1966 and eventually merged with a UK magazine called Christianity. I have not yet found a complete digital archive, just one issue from 1966.

 

 

 

 

Logos Journal (1971–1981)

Another magazine that existed for a very limited time frame was the Logos Journal (no, not the same as this one or that one). It was published by Dan Malachuk and Logos International Fellowship bimonthly for about a ten- year period (1971-1981). I have not been able to confirm exactly when it started and ended. I was able to find about a dozen digitized issues from 1979-1981 at Oral Roberts. Perhaps more are out there somewhere. Oral Roberts University, in fact, has a nice collection of digitized periodicals related to Pentecostalism.

Full Gospel Business Men’s Voice (1952–)

The Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International was founded in Irvine, CA by Demos Shakarian in 1952 as a coordinating body for Latter Rain Pentecostal groups. They have published a magazine ever since and all the archives are available online.

  • 1953–1961 at Oral Roberts University library
  • 1960–2024 at Full Gospel Business Mens’ Fellowship International

 

 

 

If you want an even fuller listing of charismatic periodicals, check out p. 238 in Age of the Spirit by John Maiden (Oxford, 2023). I’m not sure if anyone is looking for this material, but there is so much out there, just under the surface of the search results on the Internet and I hope that these archives will be useful to you.

What is the Sin of Curiosity?

I have always been curious (pun intended) about sins that take place only in the mind. It is very strange to think that a violation of God’s command could happen within your neurons. In other contexts, I’ve discussed before the interior nature of the sin of coveting and the interior sin of lust and whether it needs a purpose clause or not. Of course, “to covet” and “to lust” are very similar sins that have external objects of desire. What about a more purely intellectual kind of sin where the object of the mind is not external but internal? Can a mind sin by desiring knowledge?

The Short Answer

The short answer is “yes.” Curiosity  about forbidden knowledge–e.g. knowledge of witchcraft or knowledge of what it feels like to commit a horrendous crime–leads the mind astray, and left unchecked can prompt a person to descend into sin. Not all knowledge is innocent. Seeking out forbidden knowledge is a sinful pattern, where the intellect is not being used for its intended purpose (to contemplate God), but rather is indulging in its own self-interested designs.

Wait, But Isn’t Curiosity a Good Thing?

It’s hard to find books that warn about curiosity. Typically, in our apathetic age, teachers, pastors and leaders encourage people to stop scrolling their social feeds and “get curious” about important and interesting topics. This kind of intellectual inquiry is not just harmless; it’s actually essential to our intellectual development. If we are not interested in things that matter, then we won’t bother learning about them and if we don’t learn about them, we will be less than we could have been. So some curiosity is a good thing, it’s true. We want to be intellectually interested in learning about the truth.

Some Definitions

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not spend much time on this, but allows that the Gospels were not written to satisfy human curiosity (CCC 514, 548), warns us against “unhealthy curiosity” about the future (CCC 2115), but it does not say much about the sin of curiosity. Fr. Jordan Aumann’s Spiritual Theology warns of “vain curiosity” and also “Morbid curiosity. This is characteristic of those who eagerly seek out the esoteric aspects of mystical phenomena or have a fascination for the occult or preternatural.” Even Tanqueray doesn’t talk about it much. St. Bernard of Clairvaux says that curiosity is the “first step of pride,” defining it as “when the eyes and the other senses attend to what is not one’s concern.” St. Thomas goes even deeper on this point and teaches that:

For the knowledge of truth, strictly speaking, is good, but it may be evil accidentally, by reason of some result, either because one takes pride in knowing the truth, according to 1 Corinthians 8:1, “Knowledge puffeth up,” or because one uses the knowledge of truth in order to sin.

So here, we see two potentially sinful results of a desire for knowledge: 1) pride, 2) knowledge used to sin (e.g., knowing recipes for poison). Pride, in this way, is a “sin of the neurons”–in that it is an inflated self-regard. The second kind of curiosity though really only becomes sinful when it is used for some further aim.

St. Augustine on “curiositas”

Here is a tidbit on St. Augustine’s teaching on the vice of curiositas:

“Augustine also included curiosity in a triad of sins (along with pride and carnality) which constitute the roots of the soul’s sinful movement from God….Like every expression of lust, curiosity disrupts the soul’s proper mid-rank position between God and lower bodily natures. It thereby prompts the soul to submit itself to the very things it should govern, to love what it should use for the love of God, or to become engrossed in acts proper to itself, to the neglect of universal laws common to all.” (N. Joseph Torchia, “Curiosity,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald [Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], 260.

So, curiosity is disruptive. It leads the human soul into error, to love itself too much rather than to love what is good for it, namely God.

The Longer Answer: The Purpose of the Human Intellect

Curiosity itself is hard to classify as a sin. It is more of a vice, a tendency toward sin that can lead to sinful seeking out of forbidden knowledge, seeking knowledge for the wrong reason (pride), or seeking knowledge in order to commit sin. It’s interesting that St. Thomas actually struggles with the thought that maybe the original sin of Adam and Eve was curiosity: they desired knowledge of good and evil, a kind of knowledge that they should not have desired, and so disobeyed God (Thomas asserts though that it was out of pride that they sought this forbidden knowledge). But if we reduce things to their basic essentials, we can consider why we human beings were given an intellect in the first place. What’s the ultimate aim of all our minds? Well, God, of course. God is the aim. So anything that is diverting us from that kind of ultimate truth-seeking is leading us astray. If our pursuit of knowledge is leading us away from God instead of toward him then we are succumbing to the sin of curiosity rather than embracing the path to Truth.

It’s still hard for me to think of Curious George as an archetype of evil, but…

For further reading, check out: Paul Griffiths, The Vice of Curiosity: An Essay on Intellectual Appetite (2006).

What About That Dog in Tobit?

For anyone who cares to look, the textual history of Tobit is more than a little confusing. For a long time we only had two Greek texts (ok, and a middle-way third Greek), but then we found significant fragments of Tobit in the Dead Sea Scrolls and now we have three languages of record: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Fortunately, scholars have delved deep into all the material and come up with significant results. (I have covered it a bit before.) Oh yeah, and then there’s that dog—he’s part of the story too!

 

First Things First: A Chart

How many texts of Tobit are there? What are we really looking at?

Greek I Shorter recension
Greek II Longer recension; 1700 lines longer; text in Sinaiticus
Greek III Only Tobit 6:8–13:6; mediates between Greek I and Greek II
Aramaic 4Q196 Tob 1:17, 1:19–2:2, 3:9–15, 6:14–17, 6:19–7:3, 13:6–12, 13:12–14:3
Aramaic 4Q197 Tob 4:21–5:1, 5:12–14, 5:19–6:12, 6:12–19, 6:19–7:10, 8:21–9:4
Aramaic 4Q198 Tob 14:2–6, 14:10
Aramaic 4Q199 Tob 7:12
Hebrew 4Q200 Tob 3:6, 3:10–11, 4:3–9, 10:7–9, 11:10–12, 12:20–13:4, 13:13–14, 13:18–14:2

OK, But Tell Me About the Dog

The dog appears in Tobit twice, at 6:1–2 and 11:4. Here I’m quoting the NRSV-CE of Tobit:

  • So she stopped weeping. The young man went out and the angel went with him; and the dog came out with him and went along with them. So they both journeyed along, and when the first night overtook them they camped by the Tigris river. (Tob 6:1–2 NRSVCE)
  • As they went on together Raphael said to him, “Have the gall ready.” And the dog went along behind them. (Tob 11:4 NRSVCE)

Now, go flip open your Bible. If you have the NABRE, you can find the dog in 6:2, but if you have the RSVCE, there’s no dog there. Why not?

 

Dogs Tell No Tales (About the Text of Tobit)

The dog is the key! Well, not quite, but the dog is a great indicator that our text of Tobit is inherited in multiple forms. Greek I is shorter, so most scholars thought it was better, according to the text-critical principle, lectio brevior potior, “shorter reading is better.” They were wrong. The longer Greek II is more original, as confirmed by those Dead Sea Scroll fragements. As I have explained before when considering the differences between the RSV-2CE and the ESV-CE, Tobit is crucial:

The RSV-2CE of Tobit relies on the 1957 RSV Apocrypha translation, which was based on the shorter Greek text of Tobit (Greek I represented in Vaticanus and Alexandrinus), while all modern translations of Tobit, like the ESV-CE, rely on the longer Greek text (Greek II represented by Sinaiticus). Greek II is about 1700 words longer than Greek I and it serves as the basis for the Nova Vulgata rendition of Tobit in Latin. Greek II is also confirmed as the best text of Tobit by the 1995 publication of long fragments of Tobit from the Dead Sea Scrolls in Hebrew and Aramaic by Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, SJ.

Why does 1957 matter to us? Up until the early 1960s, scholars maintained preference for Greek I. However, scholarly opinion changed and it became clear from careful study that Greek II was more original. This opinion was confirmed by the 1995 publication by Fitzmyer of the Dead Sea fragments. All contemporary translations are based on Greek II with the help of the fragments.

 

But Where Is the Dog?

The dog appears only once in the shorter Greek I recension—hence, why it shows up only once in the RSV (11:4). But the dog appears two times in the Greek II, so it shows up two times in more contemporary translations (6:2 and 11:4 in NRSV, ESV-CE, NABRE). But does the dog appear in Hebrew or Aramaic? If you carefully comb through all those references in my chart, you’ll notice that 11:4 does not appear in any of the five fragments, but since the Greek texts agree on the dog there, everyone finds the dog at 11:4—the fragments are simply incomplete. But one of the fragments, 4Q197 does include 6:2—so does it have the dog? More on that in a second, but first, the often-overlooked NABRE Textual Notes also include this tidbit:

6:2: The dog . . . with them: so GII; VL: et canis secutus est eos; similarly Vg. GI and P omit.

So that means, Greek II and the Old Latin (VL=Vetus Latina) include the dog at 6:2, but the Vulgate, Greek I and Peshitta (Syriac edition) omit the dog at 6:2.

Well, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer did the hard work of reconstructing the text of Tobit 6:2 from a fragment riddled with holes and gives us this:

[and] the [ange]l (was) with him, and [the dog wen]t [along, and] together [they traveled.] And there followed for them (quoted by Carey Moore, Tobit, Anchor Bible 40A [Doubleday, 1996] p. 210).

Does the dog appear in the Aramaic? So, yes and no. The Aramaic word for dog, kelev, does not appear, but from the spacing of the letters and losses in the fragment, it seems that there is just enough space for it as reconstructed. So the 4Q197 fragment included the dog originally, but the actually word on the page has been lost to the ravages of time.

It might take a lot of scholarly headaches to arrive at a solution, but the story of the dog in Tobit helps us see the value of textual criticism. If it weren’t for the dog, we might not have bothered to notice that there are two different versions of the Greek, that the longer one is better and that the original Aramaic text included two appearances for the dog. So, for dog-lovers everywhere, Tobit is the book for you!

Shoutout to one of my professors, Dr. Edward Cook, for collecting references in literature to Tobit’s Dog: https://ralphriver.blogspot.com/2005/04/tobits-dog.html

Have You Been Reading the Wrong Version of Jeremiah?

Here’s a mind-bending thought about Jeremiah from Michael B. Shepherd: What if the Masoretic Text version of Jeremiah is not in agreement with the canon’s own interpretation of Jeremiah as represented by Ezekiel and Daniel?

Greek, Hebrew and Divine Inspiration

In his new commentary, where he backtranslates from the Greek Septuagint text of Jeremiah to Hebrew, he struggles with the problem of divine inspiration. He says,

“A biblical doctrine of inspiration, not to mention the exigencies of making a translation and commentary, requires a careful text-critical decision about which edition of Jeremiah is God-breathed and superintended by the Spirit” (p. 18).

The version of Jeremiah in our modern Bibles is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text. It’s the gold standard for the Old Testament in general. However, we have always had an alternate Greek version of Jeremiah that comes in a different order, has certain “pluses” and “minuses” versus the Hebrew text and generally reads differently. The Greek text is about one seventh shorter than the Hebrew text, according to computerized analyses.

Hebraica Veritas

Now normally, you’d be thinking: “Why does this matter? The ancient Israelites spoke Hebrew, not Greek, so the Hebrew text must be better.” Often this is the case and goes with St. Jerome’s dictum, Hebraica veritas. But in this case, things get really dicey. While the Dead Sea Scrolls contained a small handful of fragmentary Jeremiah manuscripts, two fragments are of great interest here: 4QJerb (9:22–10:18) and 4QJerd (43:3–9). These two fragments, dated to about 200 BC, agree with the Septuagint version against the Hebrew Masoretic text!

Two Significant Changes in Jeremiah’s Message

Again, normally you’d think: “Ah, no big deal. It’s probably just minor spelling variations and a few pronouns.” But again, not correct. If these two fragments are definitive, they show that the “proto-Masoretic” Hebrew Vorlage of Septuagint Jeremiah is more ancient than the Hebrew. And remember that the earlier edition of Jeremiah is substantially shorter—one seventh shorter than MT Jeremiah. Beyond that, Shepherd argues, that the “theological message” of the book changes dramatically from the original version to the MT version in two ways:

  1. He says, “In the first edition, the mysterious enemy from the north (Jer. 1:13–15; LXX 25:1–13; et al.) is never identified with a historical enemy. This leaves open the possibility of an eschatological enemy, which is the way Ezekiel reads the prophecy (Ezek. 38:14–17; cf. LXX Num 24:7; Rev 20:8). In the section edition [MT], the enemy from the north is identified with Babylon (e.g. MT Jer. 25:1–13).” (pp. 16-17)
  2. The second difference is more subtle—that the first edition of Jeremiah leaves the interpretation of the prophecy of the seventy years (25:11; 29:10) open-ended, so that it could be about a literal historical fulfillment (as Daniel 9:1–19 understands it) or “symbolic of a complete indefinite period (cf. Gen 4:24; Matt. 18:22)” as in Daniel 9:24–27 (p. 17). But the second edition of Jeremiah 25:11, presented in the MT, “limits the prophecy to a historical fulfillment” because it identifies the enemy as Babylon.

What Shepherd is arguing is profound, though the details are subtle. He is saying that the earlier edition of Jeremiah, the proto-Masoretic Hebrew represented by the Septuagint Greek translation, is the “earlier, shorter edition…the open-ended, potentially eschatological edition read by Ezekiel and Daniel” (p. 17). He is saying that the books of Ezekiel and Daniel show familiarity with the first edition of Jeremiah and interpret it in an eschatological way that is closed off by the Masoretic second edition. If he is right about this, then this is a marvelous example of Scripture interpreting Scripture to correct the tradition. We’ve been reading the wrong version of Jeremiah for centuries!

Comparing MT and LXX Passages in Jeremiah

You can see the difference he’s talking about pretty clearly in Jeremiah 25:9

MT

LXX

…behold, I will send for all the tribes of the north, declares the Lord, and for Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. (Jer 25:9 ESV-CE) …behold, I am sending for and I will take a paternal family from the north, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all nations around it, and I will utterly devastate them and render them into an annihilation and into a hissing and into an everlasting disgrace. (Jer 25:9 NETS (Primary Texts))

The prophecy of the seventy years is likewise quite distinct:

MT

LXX

This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. (Jer 25:11 ESV-CE) And the whole land shall become an annihilation, and they shall be slaves amongst the nations seventy years. (Jer 25:11 NETS (Primary Texts))

Why Write a Commentary on a Text that Does Not Exist?

It’s easy to see why Shepherd felt compelled to write such a seemingly strange commentary—backtranslating the Greek to the Hebrew, then commenting on this theoretical text that does not exist in any manuscript. Why would he do it? He’s recovering the text of Jeremiah that we should be reading, the text that corresponds with the most ancient fragments of the book that we have discovered, the text that is closest to the life of the prophet himself, the text that other biblical prophets were reading and interpreting, the text that stands behind the Greek version that we do have.

Do I think that we’ll see new Bible translations coming out that work from Shepherd’s backtranslation to present the text of Jeremiah? No, the MT is firmly entrenched as the standard biblical text for the Hebrew Bible, but text criticism sure does uncover some thorny problems that take a lot of work to sort out! Shepherd demonstrates the importance of this kind of work, the perennial value of the Septuagint witness and how careful textual study can lead to amazing results.

Saint Paul Seminary

Saint Paul Seminary

Saint Paul Seminary

Big news! I just started a new job as a faculty member at Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity, which is part of the University of Saint Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. I have been appointed Professor of Sacred Scripture and Director of the Institute for Catholic Theological Formation. I am very grateful for the long-time Dean, Dr. Christopher Thompson, and for the Rector, Fr. Joseph Taphorn for putting their trust in me and welcoming me to the Seminary faculty. I am also grateful for the trust placed in me by Archbishop Hebda in granting me an ecclesiastical appointment to teach.

Saint Paul Seminary takes as its slogan, “Joyful Catholic Leaders.” I think that’s a great way to think about the work we are doing–forming men for the priesthood and diaconate, forming lay pastoral leaders, rejoicing in the truth and bringing the message of the Gospel to a world in desperate need of it. It is a joy to be part of yet another faculty contributing to the renewal of the Church in the postmodern world. I am also very appreciative of being part of a wider university community, with many wonderful faculties pursuing the truth in many diverse disciplines. The campus of the University of Saint Thomas is truly alive with intellectual ferment. What an amazing place!

As many of my readers know, I have been teaching for many years on the faculty of the Augustine Institute. It’s been a great run and I will miss my friends there immensely. I wish them the very best in their work!

It’s true that Minnesota might be a little chillier than Colorado, but everyone seems to like it here and I believe that in time I will blend right in. So, look forward to new reports from the new “mission field” of the North Star State. Who knows what’s in store!

Video: Finding God in the Age of Distraction

Recently, I was invited to give a parish mission at Christ, Prince of Peace Catholic Church in Manchester, Missouri–affectionately known as “CPOP”. They streamed the talks to YouTube for your viewing pleasure.

The first one is Finding God in the Age of Distraction, where I take on the problem we are all confronting–how to live a spiritual life with a smartphone in your pocket. It’s not easy! I present some of the statistics that you’ve probably heard about how much we use our phones and then dive into some strategies for overcoming the problem and reconnecting with God:

The second talk you might have heard before, as it is based on my book Suffering: What Every Catholic Should Know: 

Thanks to Fr. Christopher Dunlop, Fr. Gerson Penna and Fernanda Thurmond for inviting me!

Interview with Bryan from Across the Canon

Bryan, host of the new “Across the Canon” program on YouTube, and I talked about Pope Francis’ biblical initiatives, the Wisdom of Solomon and how biblical wisdom literature applies to Christian life. I hope you enjoy this conversation!

It’s available on video:

And you can find an audio version here:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-11-pope-francis-wisdom-literature-and-the/id1810192752?i=1000705544349

“The Witchery of Paltry Things”

Sometimes Bible translators go too far. They get a little too creative and they end up making strange sounding phrases in the target language. I have to believe that that is what happened with this weird phrase in the Book of Wisdom that the NABRE renders as “the witchery of paltry things” (Wisdom 4:12). What the heck is that?

Survey of Translations

Before we go back to the Greek, let’s survey some other translations of the phrase:

  • “the fascination of wickedness” (RSV, ESV, NRSV)
  • “the witchery of evil” (Winston AB)
  • “the bewitching of vanity” (Douay-Rheims)
  • “the fascination of evil” (New Jerusalem)
  • “the bewitching of naughtiness” (KJV, Brenton)
  • “the witchery of paltry things” (NABRE)
  • “la fascination de la frivolité”

Take a Look at the Greek

The Book of Wisdom was written in Greek, so that’s where we should start.

  • βασκανία γὰρ φαυλότητος

So what do these words mean? “Baskania” means something like “envy” (BDAG) or “malign influence, witchcraft, evil eye, envy” (Lust). It’s a weird word from a different cultural context. Looking at the whole verse in context might help us understand what the author is trying to convey:

He was caught up lest evil change his understanding or guile deceive his soul. For the fascination of wickedness obscures what is good, and roving desire perverts the innocent mind. (Wis 4:11-12 RSV)

The author is talking about Enoch, who was so righteous that he was zapped up to the heavenly realm (Gen 5:21-24). So “baskania” is about temptation, particularly about the power of worthless evil things to cloud moral judgment and seduce a person to sin. “Gar” is simply “for.” But “phaulotetos” is harder to explain. It means “meanness, paltriness, pettiness, badness” or even “plainness, simplicity” (abridged LSJ). Another lexicon has “meanness, worthlessness, frivolity” (Lust). 

Trying to Make a Better Translation

We have to admit that the idea is pretty obscure: the author is trying to describe the psychological side of temptation using an almost magical “law-of-attraction” kind of concept, where an evil/worthless thing bewilders the mind. The second concept to me feels extremely Greek and not very English–that is, that evil things, temptations are “worthless” or “paltry” or “mean (as in common).” Perhaps our forebears thought this way, but I don’t think our contemporaries do, so it makes translating hard. That is, while we might look on sin as bad or evil, we don’t usually think of it as petty or trivial (except, perhaps, when folks refer to things like “foibles” or “peccadilloes”). The other thing that is weird is that “phaulotetos” is singular in context, so probably we should not translate with a plural idea (like “paltry things”). Here are a couple of my suggestions to improve this phrase in English translation:

  • “the allure of triviality”
  • “the seduction of mediocrity”
  • “the enchantment of insignificance”
  • “the entrapment of irrelevance”

I have to admit that it is hard to come up with an intelligible English equivalent for this uncommon phrase, but I do feel that we could do better than “the witchery of paltry things”.