Sefarad, vol. 78:1, enero-junio 2018, págs.

201-210
issn: 0037-0894, doi: 10.3989/sefarad.018.006

Varia

Pablo de Burgos’ Commentary on Maranatha:

Text and Discussion
*
Andrew Messmer
Facultad Internacional de Teología IBSTE (Barcelona)
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5253-4624

Pablo de Burgos (14th-15th C.) introduced a novel interpretation of the expression

maranatha (1 Corinthians 16:22) that broke with centuries of tradition and whose mark
can be felt even today. Nevertheless, his commentary on maranatha is almost completely
unknown and has never been translated. This work presents a translation of Pablo de Bur-
gos’ commentary on maranatha and is followed by a discussion of his commentary and
its influence on subsequent scholarship.

Keywords: Pablo de Burgos; Maranatha; Curse formula.

Los comentarios de Pablo de Burgos sobre maranatha: texto y evaluación.– Pablo

de Burgos (ss. xiv-xv) introdujo una interpretación original de la expresión maranatha
(1 Corintios 16:22) que rompió con siglos de tradición y cuya huella se puede notar hasta
hoy. Sin embargo, sus comentarios sobre maranatha son prácticamente desconocidos y
nunca se han traducido. Este trabajo ofrece una traducción de los comentarios de Pablo de
Burgos sobre maranatha, seguida por una evaluación de dichos comentarios y su influen-
cia en eruditos posteriores.

Palabras clave: Pablo de Burgos; maranatha; fórmula de maldición.

1. Introduction

Until the 15th century, there were only three viable options for trans-
lating the expression maranatha present in 1 Corinthians 16:22. The two
dominant theories where “our/the Lord has come” (dominus [noster]
venit; ὁ κύριος [ἡμῶν] ἦλθε) and “until the Lord comes/at the coming of
the Lord” (donec dominus redeat/in adventum domini), and the minor-
* 
[email protected]
Copyright: © 2018 CSIC. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
202 andrew messmer

ity theory was “I have seen the Lord” (εἶδον τὸν Κύριον). 1 In the 16th
century, however, it was not uncommon for interpreters to understand the
expression as having some relationship to the Hebrew word ‫( חרם‬curse),
thereby implying a translation that had some connection with the word
“curse.” This theory proved convincing to influential 16th-century Re-
formers such as Martin Luther, Henry Bullinger, and John Calvin, and
thus its influence has reached even into modern times. 2
The person responsible for this shift in interpretation is Pablo de Bur-
gos (or, Pablo de Santa María, or Salomon Halevi, c. 1351-1435), a Spa-
nish converso who is perhaps best known for his Additiones to Nicolaus
de Lyra’s (c. 1270-1349) Postillae. Nevertheless, his comments on ma-
ranatha are virtually unknown to modern scholarship. 3 The purpose of
 1 
The translation “our/the Lord has come” was argued for by influential authors such
as Ambrosiaster (PL 17: 276), Jerome (PL 22: 430-431), John Chrysostom (PG 61: 377),
and Theodoret of Cyrus (PG 82: 373) and was followed by authors such as Oecumenius
(PG 118: 904-905), John of Damascus (PG 95: 705), and Theophylact of Ohrid (PG 124:
793). The translation “until the Lord comes/at the coming of the Lord” was introduced by
pseudo-Augustine (PL 33: 1161) and was followed by many influential authors such as
Isiodore of Seville (PL 82: 745), Haymo of Halberstadt (PL 117: 606), Rabanus Maurus
(PL 112: 160), Florus of Lyon (PL 119: 352), Atto of Vercelli (PL 134: 412), Lanfranc
(PL 150: 216), Bruno of Cologne (PL 153: 218), Hervey le Breton (PL 181: 1001-1002),
Peter Lombard (PL 191: 1696). The translation “I have seen the Lord” was introduced by
pseudo-Chrysostom (Ep. ad abbatem) and was followed by a few Greek lexicographers
such as Hesychius and the Suda. A fourth translation was introduced by Thomas Aquinas
who translated maranatha as “may the Lord come/the Lord will come” (dominus veniet;
for Latin text and English translation, cf. John Mortensen and Enrique Alarcón [eds.],
St. Thomas Aquinas: Commentary on the Letters of Saint Paul to the Corinthians
[Lander, WY: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012] p. 396). This
translation, however, was not followed by subsequent authors.
 2 
See, respectively, Joachim Karl Friedrich Knaake (ed.), D. Martin Luthers Werke:
kritische Gesammtausgabe (Weimar: Hof-Buchdruckerei und Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1883-1929) vol. 2, p. 573, and vol. 7, p. 137; Heinrich Bullinger, In priorem D. Pauli
ad Corinthios epistolam (Tiguri [Zurich]: Christophorus Froschouerus, 1534) p. 224;
and Eduard Reuss, Alfred Erichson and Ludovicus Horst (eds.), Ioannis Calvini Opera
Exegetica et Homiletica (Brunsvigae: C. A. Schwetschke et Filium, 1892) vol. 27, pp.
572-573. To the extent that moderns continue to read these well-known 16th-century
authors, their influence remains.
 3 
The only reference I know is from the 19th century (Nathaniel Schmidt, “Μαραναθα,
1 Cor. xvi.22,” Journal of Biblical Literature 13 (1894) pp. 50-60: 51 and 53). The reader
should note that Schmidt’s comments regarding Pablo de Burgos’ thoughts are a bit
misleading.

Sefarad, vol. 78:1, enero-junio 2018, págs. 201-210. issn: 0037-0894. doi: 10.3989/sefarad.018.006
 pablo de burgos’ commentary on maranatha: text and discussion 203

this work is to present an English translation of his additio on maranatha,

followed by a discussion of his influence on subsequent scholarship re-
garding the interpretation of maranatha. The translation will also include
Nicolaus de Lyra’s postilla together with Matthias Döring’s (or Toringus;
c. 1390-1469) replica, since they are important for understanding Pablo’s
comments and subsequent reception, as well as the fact that their com-
ments also remain unknown to modern scholarship.

2.  Pablo de Burgos’ Additio, with Nicolaus de Lyra’s Postilla

and Matthias Döring’s Replica

The following Latin text comes from the 1492 Strassburg edition,
in which all three authors’ texts (i.e., postilla, additio, and replica) are
found. 4 The following English text is an original translation. 5
Nicolaus de Lyra’s Postilla Translation
Maranatha. Sic enim debet scribi sunt Maranatha. So it ought to be written,
enim duae dictiones. Et prima valet for there are two words. And the first
in latino dominus noster. Secunda means in Latin, “our Lord.” The sec-
idem est quod venit. Sed propter ig- ond word means, “has come.” But due
norantiam idiomatis et longitudinem to the ignorance of the language and
temporis duae dictiones coniunctae the distance in time, the two words
sunt simul et ultima litera dictionis est have been joined together and the last
submota. Est igitur sensus: Si quis non syllable has been removed. Thus, this
amat dominum Iesum Christum, ne- is its meaning: “if anyone does not
gando eum esse verum Deum caeli et love the Lord Jesus Christ,” by deny-
terrae, sit anathema, et subditur causa, ing that he is the true God of heaven
maranatha, quia dominus noster venit, and earth, “let him be accursed” (1 Cor
scilicet, Iesus Christus venit in mun- 16:22). And the reason is provided,
dum, qui est verus Deus et dominus “Maranatha,” because our Lord has
omnium. Et videtur Apostolus hoc come, namely, Jesus Christ has come
specialiter dicere contra Iudaeos ob- into the world, who is the true God and
stinatos, qui asserunt verum Christum Lord of all. And the Apostle seems
adhuc non venisse. to say this especially against the ob-
stinate Jews, who assert that the true
Christ still has not come.
 4 
Nicolaus De Lyra, Postilla super totam bibliam, facsimile reprint of 1492 Strasbourg
edition, 4 vols. (Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1971) glossing 1 Cor 16:22.
 5 
I would like to thank Dr. Mark Paridaens for his assistance in translating this text.

Sefarad, vol. 78:1, enero-junio 2018, págs. 201-210. issn: 0037-0894. doi: 10.3989/sefarad.018.006
204 andrew messmer

Pablo de Burgos’ Additio Translation

Maranatha non recte exponitur in glos- Maranatha is not correctly explained
sis nostris dicendo quod sunt duae dic- in our glosses, saying that there are
tiones in syro significantes idem quod two words in Aramaic meaning, “our
dominus noster venit, prout in postilla. Lord has come,” as in the Postilla, or,
Vel donec veniat dominus, prout in “until the Lord comes,” as in the gloss-
glossis Tum quia nihil istorum proprie es. First, because neither of them give
significatur per ista verba. Tum quia the correct meaning of these words.
non apparet aliqua ratio quare Aposto- Second, because there is no reason
lus, qui semper hoc nomen Iesus et hoc why the Apostle, who always puts this
nomen Christus ponit sub propria for- name “Jesus” and this name “Christ”
ma latina quibuscumque locis, ubi de in their proper Latin form wherever he
eo tractat, in hoc loco mutaret stilum treats them, would have changed his
suum nomina Christi ponendo in syro. style in this place by setting the names
Tum quia non bene concordat ratio of Christ in Aramaic. Third, because
huius propositionis causalis cum dicit, the causal statement does not make
Si quis non amat Christum sit anath- much sense when he says, “If anyone
ema, quia dominus noster iam venit. does not love Christ let him be accurs-
Non enim tantummodo ex hoc quod ed” (1 Cor 16:22), because our Lord
Christus iam venit sumus obligati ad has come already. For it is not only
dilectionem suam, quia etiam ante ad- because Christ already has come that
ventum suum homines obligabantur ad we are obligated to love him, because
dilectionem Dei, ut in lege testamento. even before his coming men were ob-
Unde ad veram expositionem harum ligated to love God, as in the Old Tes-
dictionum sciendum est, quod Iudei tament. Thus for a true explanation of
tribus modis exercebant censuram seu these terms, one must know that the
sententiam iudicialem contra rebelles Jews were practicing three modes of
seu inobedientes fidei vel legi divinae. judgment or judicial sentence against
persons who rebelled against or diso-
beyed the faith or divine law.
Primo modo per separationem a fi- The first mode is by separation from
delibus, sicut inter nos per sententiam the faithful, as is practiced among us
excommunicationis, et hoc est quod by sentence of excommunication, and
dicitur, Qui non amat Christum sit this is the meaning, “whosoever does
anathema, est, separatus a fidelibus not love Christ, let him be accursed,”
prout in postilla. which is “separated from the faithful,”
as in the Postilla.
Secundo modo per destructionem, The second mode is by destruction
seu perditionem omnium suorum, et or total loss of all his possessions,
hoc vocatur apud eos herem, de quo and this is called by them “herem,”

Sefarad, vol. 78:1, enero-junio 2018, págs. 201-210. issn: 0037-0894. doi: 10.3989/sefarad.018.006
 pablo de burgos’ commentary on maranatha: text and discussion 205

habetur Leviticus ultima in litera et which is found at the end of the book
postilla et ille qui isto secundo modo Leviticus (27:28-29) and the Postilla.
incurrebat praedictam censuram seu And he who incurs this second mode
sententiam vocabatur macharam, quod of censure or sentencing is called
est nomen derivatum ab ipso herem “macharam,” which is the noun de-
praedicto. rived from the same word “herem”
previously mentioned.
Tercio modo per maledictionem so- The third mode is by a solemn curse,
lennem, in qua ille qui hoc incurrebat whereby the one who incurs it is sol-
maledicebatur solennitur tubis canen- emnly cursed while the trumpets are
tibus, sicut inter nos solennitur male- being blown, as among us the person
dicitur excommunicatus, qui in ultima who is excommunicated is solemnly
contumacia persistit, extinctis candelis cursed who persists obstinately to the
et pulsatis campanis, et haec voca- end, after the candles have been extin-
tur inter eos samatha, quod significat guished and the bells have been rung.
mortificationem, qui quidem tres modi And this is called among them “sama-
maledicendi, seu separandi hominem tha,” which means “mortification.”
sunt noti inter eos sub praedictis vo- These are the three modes of cursing
cabulis. or separating a person that are known
among them under the terms previ-
ously mentioned.
Apostolus ergo illos tres modos prae- Therefore the Apostle indicates those
dictos innuit. Primo modo per separa- three previously mentioned modes.
tionem, et de hoc dicit, Sit anathema. The first mode is by separation, and
Secundo modo per destructionem about this he says, “let him be ac-
suorum, et de hoc dicit, Maranatha, cursed.” The second mode is by de-
id est, macharam. Fuit enim hic, h, struction of their possessions, and
quae est litera inspirationis amota, about this he says “maranatha,” that is,
eo quod in lingua nostra rarissime “macharam.” For it was this “h” (that
intervenit et ultima litera, m, mutatur is an aspirated letter) which has been
in, n, per hoc quod scriptores nostri removed, for it rarely occurs in our
ignorant idioma dicta. Tertia impre- language, and the last letter, “m,” was
catur illis ultimam mortificationem changed into “n” because our scribes
quae dicitur samatha, quae est ultima are not familiar with the spoken lan-
mortificatio, ut dictum est, et fuit guage. In the third mode he curses
amota prima syllaba, per imperitiam them with the ultimate mortification,
linguae, ut dictum est. which is called “samatha,” which is
the ultimate mortification, as has been
stated. And the first syllable was re-
moved, by inexperience with the lan-
guage, as has been stated above.

Sefarad, vol. 78:1, enero-junio 2018, págs. 201-210. issn: 0037-0894. doi: 10.3989/sefarad.018.006
206 andrew messmer

Sic ergo Apostolus interpretatur tres Thus the Apostle gives expression
sententias condemnativas, his qui to three sentences of condemnation
Christum non amant, sit anathema on those who do not love Christ: “let
quae est separatio a fidelium caetu, et him be accursed,” which is separation
herem, quod est destructio bonorum from the company of the faithful; and
suorum, et samatha quod est quaedam “herem,” which is destruction of their
ultima et solennis mortificatio in sua possessions; and “samatha,” which is
civilitate seu politia. the ultimate and solemn mortification
in their city or polity.

Matthias Döring’s Replica Translation

In ultimo capitulo Maledictionem eo- In the last chapter the Apostle places
rum qui Christum non amant ponit a curse in a foreign language on those
Apostolus in lingua extranea. Circa who do not love Christ. In this regard,
quam Burgense se opponit, et literae Pablo de Burgos finds fault both with
et omnibus doctoribus, quasi nullus in- the diction and with all scholars, as if
tellexit vere terminum ibi positum vel no one really had understood the term
terminos. Respondeat ibi pro doctore, or terms put there. Whoever so desires,
qui voluerit, idioma est mihi ignotum. let him respond there as a scholar. I do
not know the idiom.

3.  Brief Discussion of Pablo de Burgos’ Comments and their

Influence on Subsequent Scholarship
Before turning to Pablo de Burgos’s text, Nicolaus de Lyra should be
acknowledged in his own right as somewhat of a trailblazer. Although the
translation “dominus noster venit” was a common translation amongst
Patristic scholars, the majority translation throughout the Middle Ages
and in Nicolaus’ time was “donec dominus redeat/in adventum domini.”
His language demonstrates only minimal dependence on Ambrosiaster
and Jerome, 6 and thus he appears to be demonstrating a certain level of
independent thinking and fresh exegesis of the text.
Coming now to Pablo’s text, he is essentially arguing for textual
emendation with regard to maranatha’s original form. 7 Subsequent
 6 
Ambrosiaster: PL 17: 276; Jerome: PL 22: 430-431.
 7 
It should be noted that Pablo was the first to argue for textual emendation in
reconstructing maranatha in its original form. Few have appealed to this strategy since
his time, but it was a truly novel (if not daring) idea in the 15th century. For examples

Sefarad, vol. 78:1, enero-junio 2018, págs. 201-210. issn: 0037-0894. doi: 10.3989/sefarad.018.006
 pablo de burgos’ commentary on maranatha: text and discussion 207

scribes, he claims, were ignorant of the Aramaic language and thus did
not know how to preserve it accurately. His proposed reconstruction
is based on both linguistic and cultural-religious arguments. He ar-
gues that taking into account a justifiably reasonable amount of textual
emendation, one can reconstruct the three Jewish curse formulas. The
first, he says, corresponds to the word “anathema.” He does not provide
the underlying Aramaic word as he does with the other two curses, but
based sources from the following century (see below) it appears that
this curse was referred to as niduri (Hb. ‫)נדוי‬. The second and third
curses are herem (Hb. ‫ )חרם‬or macharam (Hb. ‫)מחרם‬, and samatha
(Hb. ‫)שמתא‬, respectively.
In his bilingual Hebrew-Latin dictionary, Elia Levita (or Elias the
Tishbite, c. 1469-1549) writes in his entry ‫ שמתא‬/ Schamatha:
Tres sunt speties Anathematum, sive excommunicationum. Niduri,
Cherem, & Schamata (There are three types of Anathema or excommuni-
 8
cation: Niduri, Cherem, and Schamata).
According to Elia, the curse ‫ שמתא‬was believed to be an abbreviated
form of the phrase ‫שם מיתה‬, meaning “ibi mors est” (there is death), but
later interpreters understood the expression to be an abbreviated form of
the phrase ‫שמ אתא‬, which literally means “the Name comes” but which
was used as a euphemism for “the LORD comes (i.e., in judgment).”
According to Pablo, the latter two curses, ‫( חרם‬or ‫ )מחרם‬and ‫שמתא‬,
are what the Apostle Paul had originally written, 9 but that due to the
scribes’ ignorance of the language the word ‫ מחרם‬was changed to ‫מרן‬,
and ‫ שמתא‬was changed to ‫תא‬, resulting in the reading ‫מרנתא‬. Thus it is
seen that linguistic and cultural-religious arguments lay behind Pablo’s
reconstruction and interpretation of maranatha.

of others who have appealed to emendation, cf. Carl Siegfried, “Review of E. Kautzsch,
Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen mit einer kritischen Erörterung der aramäischen
Wörter im Neuen Testament,” Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie 28 (1885)
pp. 126-128: 128; William F. Albright and Christopher S. Mann, “Two Texts in 1
Corinthians,” New Testament Studies 16 (1969-1970) pp. 271-276.
 8 
Elia Levita, Tishbi (Isnae: Algauia, 1541) pp. 270-271. It is from this source that the
above reconstructions have been taken.
 9 
Pablo is not clear whether the Apostle had originally written these words with Greek
or Aramaic characters.

Sefarad, vol. 78:1, enero-junio 2018, págs. 201-210. issn: 0037-0894. doi: 10.3989/sefarad.018.006
208 andrew messmer

Turning now to Pablo’s influence on subsequent scholarship, it is help-

ful to distinguish between his specific connection between maranatha
and the Hebrew root ‫חרם‬, and his general connection between maranatha
and the three Jewish curse formulas, especially the last, ‫שמתא‬. As for
the specific connection, it was noted above in passing that 16th-century
Reformers were influenced by this theory. Here the testimony of Martin
Luther and John Calvin are presented to demonstrate that influence.
In his 1519 commentary on Galatians, Martin Luther cites 1 Corinthi-
ans 16:22 and then writes:
quod Burgensis pessimum maledicendi genus apud Hebreos esse di-
cit, ubi nostri maranata ‘dominus venit’ intelligunt, non absque errore,
ut puto (Burgos says that amongst the Hebrews it is the worst kind of
cursing, where they understand maranatha to mean “the Lord has come,”
 10
not without error, as I think).
Later, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians he writes of maranatha:
Bann auff deudsch, Anathema, Griechisch, Maharam, auff Ebreisch
ist ein ding. Moth aber heisset tod. Wil nu S. Paulus sagen, Wer Christum
nicht liebet, der ist verbannet zum tode. Vide Leui. 6 (Ban in German,
Anathema in Greek, and Maharam in Hebrew mean the same thing. But
moth means death. St. Paul means this: whoever does not love Christ, he
 11
is ostracized to death. See Leviticus 6).
Pablo’s influence on Luther is evident.
John Calvin’s comments are not as explicitly dependent on Pablo as
Luther’s, but his (indirect) influence can be seen nonetheless. In his com-
mentary on 1 Corinthians he writes the following of the traditional inter-
pretations of maranatha:
Atqui nemo non videt (opinor) quam frigidum sit ac puerile, apostolum
apud Graecos syriace loqui, quum dicturus esset, Dominum venisse. Qui
transferunt in adventum Domini, tantum divinant: neque etiam multum in
sensu illo est coloris (And everyone, I think, must see how silly and childish
it is that the Apostle spoke to Greeks in Aramaic, when meaning to say, ‘the
Lord has come.’ Those who translate it ‘at the coming of the Lord’ are only
guessing; and besides, there is not much plausibility in that gloss).
Instead of these theories, he writes:
 10 
Knaake, D. Martin, vol. 2, p. 573.
 11 
Knaake, D. Martin, vol. 7, p. 137.

Sefarad, vol. 78:1, enero-junio 2018, págs. 201-210. issn: 0037-0894. doi: 10.3989/sefarad.018.006
 pablo de burgos’ commentary on maranatha: text and discussion 209

Quanto verisimilius est, formulam hanc fuisse Hebraeis familiarem,

quum anathematizare vellent? (Isn’t it much more likely that this expres-
sion was customary of the Jews when they wanted to excommunicate
someone?).
He then cites a host of contemporary Hebrew scholars in support of his
position:
Admonuit autem Bullingerus ex authoritate Theodori Bibliandri,
chaldaica declinatione maharamata idem esse qued hebraicum ‫חרם‬. Et
mihi aliquando vir felicis memoriae Wolfgangus Capito idem confirmavit
(Now Bullinger has affirmed, on the authority of Theodore Bibliander,
that in the Chaldean dialect “maharamata” is the same as the Hebrew
term herem. And on another occasion I was assured of the same thing by
 12
Wolfgang Capito, a man of blessed memory).
Thus, via other scholars, Pablo’s influence can be seen in Calvin’s writings.
Despite its reception in the 16th century, the specific connection be-
tween maranatha and the Hebrew ‫ חרם‬did not last long. The early 17th
century critique raised by Cornelius a Lapide voiced the concerns of
many. Responding to the variation of this theory that maranatha was
made up of ‫ מחרם‬and ‫ מותה‬, Cornelius replies:
Sed hoc tortum est, et longe distat macharam morta a maran ata. Nam
maran ata hic constanter legunt omnes Latini, Graeci et Syrus (But this
is twisted, and “macharam morta” is a long way from “maran ata.” For
 13
“maran ata” is consistently read in all Latin, Greek and Syrian versions).
This critique was seen as valid for the other variation of the theory, and
proponents of the specific connection quickly died out.
However, whereas this specific connection did not last, the gen-
eral connection between maranatha and the three Jewish curse for-
mulas (especially ‫ )שמתא‬did last a bit longer. Apparently what had
happened was that the traditional interpretations of “dominus (noster)
venit” 14 and “donec dominus redeat/in adventum domini” were seen as
able to be harmonized in the Jewish curse ‫“( שמתא‬the Name/LORD

 12 
Reuss, Erichson and Horst, Ioannis Calvini, vol. 27, pp. 572-573.
 13 
Xysto Riario Sfortiae, Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam (Neapoli: I. Nagar
Editorem, 1858) vol. 9, p. 281.
 14 
It must be remembered that “venit” could be taken as a preterite or present, yielding
the translation either as “has come” or “comes.”

Sefarad, vol. 78:1, enero-junio 2018, págs. 201-210. issn: 0037-0894. doi: 10.3989/sefarad.018.006
210 andrew messmer

comes [i.e., in judgment]”), such that many interpreters understood

maranatha to be roughly equivalent to ‫שמתא‬. This was the position
taken by various scholars in the 16th-18th centuries such as Theodore
Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Johannis Buxtorf, and Edward Leigh and
even made its way into more popular literature in the 19th century via
preachers such as Albert Barnes and his commentary on the text. 15

IV. Conclusion

As seen, Pablo de Burgos is the person responsible for introducing a

new interpretation of maranatha which proved convincing to scholars for
centuries. His knowledge of the language and customs of the Jews gave
him great authority among Christians, although today his thesis has been
overturned by better linguistics, better knowledge of the customs of the
Jews of the first century, and better historical methodology. 16

Recibido: 18/01/2018
Aceptado: 08/05/2018

 15 
Theodore Beza, Novum Jesu Christi Domini nostri Testamentum latine jam olim
a veteri interprete, nunc denuo a Theodoro Beza versum (Basileae: Nicholas Barbier &
Thomas Courteau, 1559) pp. 566-567; Cornelius a Lapide, apud Sfortiae, Commentaria,
p. 281; Johannes Buxtorf, Lexicon chaldaicum talmudicum et rabbinicum (Basileae:
Ludovici Regis, 1639) p. 1249; Edward Leigh, Critica Sacra: or, Philologicall and
Theologicall Observations upon All the Greek Words of the New Testament In order
Alphabeticall (2nd ed. London: James Young, 1646) p. 255; Albert Barnes, Notes,
Explanatory and Practical, on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (New York:
Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1859) pp. 355-356.
 16 
One notable exception – although completely unaware of Pablo de Burgos and
his subsequent reception – is the Aramaic scholar Matthew Black, “The Maranatha
Invocation and Jude 14, 15 (1 Enoch 1: 9),” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament,
eds. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1973) pp. 189-196: 196.

Sefarad, vol. 78:1, enero-junio 2018, págs. 201-210. issn: 0037-0894. doi: 10.3989/sefarad.018.006