Journal For The Study of The Old Testament Supplement 206 Mogens Muller First Bible of The Church A Plea For The Septuagint JSOT Supplement 206

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES
206
Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor John Jarick
COPENHAGEN INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
1
General Editors Thomas L. Thompson Niels Peter Lemche Associate Editors Frederick H. Cryer Mogens Mller Hakan Ulfgard
Sheffield Academic Press
This page intentionally left blank
The First Bible of the Church

A Plea for the Septuagint
Mogens Mller
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 206 Copenhagen International Seminar 1
To Lisbet
Copyright 1996 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19Kingfield Road Sheffield S119AS England
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd Midsomer Norton, Bath
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 1-85075-571-X
CONTENTS
Preface Abbreviations Synopsis of the Content of Biblia Hebraica, Septuagint and Vulgate Chapter 1 7 9 13
INTRODUCTION
1. The Jewish BibleThe Christian Bible 2. The Impact of the Old Testament on the New Testament 3. Is the Bible of the Church Synonymous with Biblia Hebraica and/or the Septuagint? Chapter 2
19
19 20 23
THE JEWISH BIBLE AT THE TIME OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

1. 2. 3. 4. The Formation of the Canon of the Jewish Bible The Hebrew Bible Text The Greek Version of the Jewish Bible The Textual History of the Septuagint
25
25 34 38 41
Chapter 3
JEWISH DEFENCE OF THE GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE LAW

1. 2. 3. 4. Aristeas Aristobulus Philo Josephus
46
46 58 61 64
Chapter 4
THE RECEPTION OF THE SEPTUAGINT LEGEND INTO THE CHURCH UP TO AND INCLUDING AUGUSTINE
1. Graeca Veritas 2. Hebraica Veritas 3. The Sequel
68
68 78 94
6 Chapter 5
HEBRAICA SIVE GRAECA VERTTAS?

1. 2. 3. 4. The Septuagint as a Phenomenon The Septuagint: A Witness to the Handing on of Traditions Translatio et/sive Interpretatio The Septuagint: An Alternative toBiblia Hebraiccf!
98
98 102 107
113
Chapter 6
VETUS TESTAMENTUM IN NOVO RECEPTUM 124
1. The Biblical Theological Impact of the Old Testament 2. The Use of the Bible in the New Testament 3. The 'Christianization' of the Old Testament Chapter 7
124 130 139
CONCLUSION
Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors
142
145 156 161
PREFACE
In connection with the preparations for the new Danish Bible translation (authorized in 1992), my interest in the problems concerning the shape of the Jewish Bible in New Testament times was awakened. The obvious difficulty is of course that most New Testament authors seem to have been unable to quote the Old Testament correctly, insofar as we identify the Old Testament with the Hebrew Bible. However, usually they used the old Greek translation, the Septuagint, which was produced in the third and second centuries BCE. What makes us so certain today that it is the Hebrew text that represents the Old Testament in a Christian context? What caused the displacement of the Septuagint? If it was that the Hebrew text was judged to be the Ur-text, this is no longer so certain as it used to be. Today it is an open question whether the Septuagint should be reinstalled as the Old Testament of the Church. In this book I have summarized, corrected and continued my studies on the role of the Septuagint in Judaism around the beginning of the Christian era and in the early Church. I have also dealt with the significance of the special character of this translation as a witness to an independent tradition, and the problems that concern its place in biblical theology. Because my earlier studies are integrated in this book, I shall, by way of an introduction, refer to them here.1 However, the theme of
1. They are: (1) 'Graeca sive Hebraica veritas? Forsvaret for Septuaginta i Oldkirken' in K.F. Plum and H. Hallback (eds.), Det gamle Testamente og den kristne fortolkning (FEE, 1; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1988), pp. 117-37; English: 'Graeca sive Hebraica veritas? The defence of the Septuagint in the Early Church', SJOT1 (1989), pp. 103-24. (2) 'J0dedommens Bibel pa nytestamentlig tid og den kristne Bibel. Hebraica sive Graeca veritas?', DTT 51 (1988), pp. 220-37; English: 'Hebraica sive Graeca veritas: The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament and the Christian Bible' SJOT 2 (1989), pp. 55-71. (3) Translatio et interpretatio. Om den antikke bibeloversaettelses vsesen', DTT 53 (1990), pp. 260-77. (4) 'Septuaginta som den nytestamentlige menigheds Bibel. Nogle overvejelser',
the first Bible of the Church is not exhausted by a description of the Bible which the Church inherited from Judaism. More crucial is the question of how the New Testament authors read and interpreted this Bible from the standpoint of their faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ. In the last chapter I have tried to sketch a possible answer to this question. As apparent from the many references to works of other scholars,2 an investigation of this nature builds upon results obtained by specialists. It has also meant a lot to me that I have had the opportunity to discuss the problems of this project in my work with my colleagues. I would like to express my gratitude to the Revd Dr Theol. Jesper H0genhaven, my doctoral student Henrik Tronier and, not least, my colleague, Professor, Dr Theol. Niels Hyldahl for his patient perusal of earlier drafts. Their critique and advice have been invaluable to me. The responsibility for the content of the book is of course entirely my own. I also want to thank the secretary of our institute, Mrs Lise Lock, for her careful work on the translation of the Danish manuscript into English, and my new Old Testament colleague, Professor Thomas L. Thompson, for a critical reading of the translation. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my wife for her unwavering and sometimes even critical interest. Lisbet always sides with my readers.
Prasteforeningens Blad 82 (1992), pp. 945-54; English: The Septuagint as the Bible of the New Testament Church. Some Reflections', SJOT1 (1993), pp. 194-207. 2. The many references to Scandinavian contributions have arisen from a wish to inform about this research which is often overlooked due to reasons of language.
ABBREVIATIONS
ABD AGJU
ANF ANRW APAT
Anchor Bible Dictionary Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Ante-Nicene Fathers Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt E. Kautzsch (ed.), Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testament Archivfur Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete R.H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Acta theologica danica Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie Beitrage zur historischen Theologie Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZAW The Cambridge History of the Bible Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Dielheimer Blatter zum Alten Testament E. Hammershaimb et al. (eds.), De gammeltestamentlige Pseudepigrafer Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dansk teologisk tidsskrift Etudes et commentaires Forum for Bibelsk Eksegese Forschung zur Bibel Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Hervormde Teologiese Studies Hebrew Union College Annual Journal of Biblical Literature Jahrbiicherfiir Biblische Theologie Journal of Jewish Studies
APF APOT
ASTI ATANT ATDan BEvT BHT BTZ BZAW CHB ConBOT CRINT DBAT DGTP
DID
DTT EeC FEE FB GRBS HTR HThS HTS HUCA JBL JBTh JJS
10
JSHRZ JSJ
JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup

Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-ro'mischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Judaica: Beitrdge zum Verstdndnis... Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Loeb Classical Library The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen New Testament Studies Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift Orbis biblicus et orientalis J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Oudtestamentische Studien Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Revue biblique Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies Sources chr6tiennes Septuagint and Cognate Studies Sammlung gemeinverstandlicher Vortrage und Schriften Svensk exegetisk arsbok Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Studio Delitzchiana Studia Post-Biblica [H. Strack and] P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch Studia Theologica Symbolae biblicae upsalienses Theologische Biicherei Theologische Existenz Heute The\)logie Theologischer Literaturzeitung Theologische Realenzyklopddie Texte und Untersuchungen Theologische Zeitschrift Verhandelingen der k. nederlanse akademie von wetenschappen. Afd. Letterkunde
JTS Judaica KEK KNT LCL NPNF NTAbh NTS NTT OBO OTP OTS PAAJR KB RGG RSPT SBLSCS
SC
SCS SGV SEA SJLA SJOT StDel StPB Str-B

StTh SymBU TBii TEH Theol TLZ TRE TU TZ VNAW.L
Abbreviations
VT VTSup WO WUNT ZA W ZNW ZTK Vetus Testamentun Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Die Welt des Orients Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche
11
Synopsis of the Content of Biblia Hebraica, Septuagint and Vulgate
Biblia Hebraica The Law (Torah) Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Samuel (= 1 and 2 Sam.) Kings (= 1 and 2 Kgs) Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel The Twelve Prophets (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) Psalms Job Proverbs Ruth Song of Songs Ecclesiastes Lamentations Esther Daniel Ezra (including Nehemiah) Chronicles (= 1 and 2 Chron.)
The Prophets (Nebiim)
The Writings (Ketubim)
14
According to 4 Ezra. 14.45, the Hebrew Bible contains 24 books. The reduction from 39, the normal number of Old Testament books in our Bible tradition, is the result of counting 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, the Twelve Prophets, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and 1 and 2 Chronicles as each one book. Another counting, reaching the number 22, is found in Josephus. He counts Ruth together with the book of Judges, and Lamentations together with the book of Jeremiah. The order of succession of the books under the heading The Writings varies not only in Septuagint manuscripts, but also in Hebrew Bible manuscripts. Septuagint The Septuagint differs from the Biblia Hebraica both in respect to the number of books and their arrangement. Moreover, the order of succession in the second and third section of the Bible is different in different manuscripts and canon lists (as also reflected in modern text editions). Esther is sometimes placed in the first section after 2 Ezra, and the Twelve Prophets before the four major prophets (the Septuagint counts the book of Daniel amongst the prophetic books). The order of succession of the twelve minor prophets also is not always the same in the Biblia Hebraica and the Septuagint.1 The order of succession below follows The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint.2 The Historical Books Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers
1. Cf. e.g. the survey in Albert C. Sundberg, The Old Testament of the Early Church (HThS, 20; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964), pp. 58-59, and the discussion in Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985), ch. 5, The Order of the Canonical Books', pp. 181-234. As will be seen, the Old Testament Apocrypha and some of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha are sometimes included in the Septuagint. 2. (Ed. H.B. Swete; 3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 4th edn, 1909), I. In this edition, the pseudepigraphic Psalms of Solomon, the Greek fragments of Enoch and Odes (of Solomon) figure in an appendix, while the Septuagint edition of Alfred Rahlfs (Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935) places the Odes of Solomon after Psalms, and Psalms of Solomon after Ecclesiasticus.
Synopsis of the Content o/Biblia Hebraica Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Kingdoms (= 1 Sam.) 2 Kingdoms (= 2 Sam.) 3 Kingdoms (= 1 Kgs) 4 Kingdoms (= 2 Kgs) 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles (including the apocryphal Prayer of Manasseh) 1 Esdras (= Vulgate 3 Esdras) 2 Esdras (= Ezra and Nehemiah) The Poetical Books (the Hagiographies)
15
Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Job Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus Esther (including the apocryphal additions) Judith Tobit The Twelve Prophets Isaiah Jeremiah Baruch Lamentations Letter of Jeremiah Ezekiel Daniel (including the apocryphal additions: Susanna, Bel and the Dragon) 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 3 Maccabees (pseudepigraphic) 4 Maccabees (pseudepigraphic)
The Prophetical Books
16
Vulgate The order of succession in the Latin Vulgate is almost the same as in the Septuagint. From this comes the order in our modern language Bibles, which follows the Vulgate in placing the twelve minor prophets after the four major prophets and in the same succession as in the Biblia Hebraica. The Historical Books Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth Samuel (= 1 and 2 Sam.) Kings (= 1 and 2 Kgs) Chronicles (= 1 and 2 Chron.) Ezra (= Ezra and Nehemiah) Tobit Judith Esther
Job Psalms Books of Solomon Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus
The Poetical Books
The Prophetical Books
Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Baruch Ezekiel Daniel The Twelve Prophets
Synopsis of the Content o/Biblia Hebraica 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees
17
In an appendix we find The Prayer of Manasseh, the pseudepigraphical 3 Ezra, the pseudepigraphical 4 Ezra together with Psalm 151, which is included in the Psalms in the Septuagint.
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1. The Jewish BibleThe Christian Bible When we refer to the Christian Bible we invariably think of both the Old and the New Testament. Also, when we refer to the original text of the Old Testament, we assume as a matter of course that this is to be found in the Hebrew Bible, Biblia Hebraica. However, it is a historical fact that, for about a hundred years of its earliest history, the Christian Church shared its Bible with Judaism. Not until the middle of the second century do we find evidence of original Christian writings appearing as Scripture together with Old Testament books.1 In respect to the 'original' text of the Old Testament, already the use made of the Jewish Bible by New Testament authors poses an immediate problem. Apparently they use not only the Hebrew Bible text, but, to an even greater extent, the translation of it into Greek, which had been created in the third and second centuries BCE. These circumstances should be borne in mind when it comes to deciding what the Old Testament really is in a biblical theological context. This is, in fact, one of the most urgent problems to the extent that biblical theology plays a fundamental role in Christian theology at all. The fact remains that because biblical exegesis sees it as its object to reach a purely historical understanding of its texts, historico-critical biblical research has weakened the bond between the Bible and systematic theology. That the books of both the Old and the New Testaments were written or edited under the impression of concrete historical situations, which again influenced their message, must be of consequence. On the
1. See Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel (BHT, 39; Tubingen: Mohr, 1968 [The Formation of the Christian Bible (London: A. & C. Black, 1972)]), esp. ch. 4, 'Die Vorgeschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons' and ch. 5, 'Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments', esp. pp. 123-72 and 173-244.
20
other hand, by tradition as well as by definition, the essence of Christian theology is the interpretation of Scripture. This requires that we take our starting-point from a historically interpreted Bible and act accordingly. A consistent historical interpretation of the Old Testament in a Christian theological context is, however, dependent on a basic understanding of how the New Testament Church received the Jewish Bible. It is not enough to determine that a modern understanding of the Bible must be alien to the use and interpretation of Old Testament passages found in the New Testament. It does not, of course, legitimize that either use or interpretation are ignored, for, under the circumstances, such an investigation will at least give us some idea of how the early church responded to the Bible of Judaism. Neither is it of any use simply to place this response in brackets, if we are to maintain the fundamental importance of the New Testament. Admittedly, we cannot adopt the New Testament's interpretation of the Old Testament. That would be quite unhistorical. But we must come to terms with its premises if we are not to risk that the Old Testament become estranged from the churchthat is, come to express another 'religion' than the Christian.
2. The Impact of the Old Testament on the New Testament Authors
This is a basic and multi-faceted question. Above all, it should be recognized that the New Testament books do not exhibit any reservation about the Old Testament as such. Unquestionably, Scripture is God's words. The words in 2 Pet. 1.21, 'that no prophecy ever came by the human impulse, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God', express very clearly how the New Testament church viewed Scripture. The same is true of 2 Tim. 3.15-16, which states that the sacred writings instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, since 'every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for the reformation of manners and discipline in right living'.2 A number of sayings all presuppose that either God or the Holy Spirit speak through the sacred writings (cf. e.g. Mt. 1.22; Acts 4.25; 28.25; Rom. 1.2; 9.6; 2 Cor. 6.16; Heb. 1.1). Implicitly, the same view is expressed in all those passages where Scripture is personified as the speaker (see e.g. Jn 7.38, 42; Rom. 4.3; 9.17). The Scripture cannot be broken (cf. Jn
2. The translation above is from The New English Bible and is to be preferred to the common rendering 'all Scripture is inspired by God etc.', which does not involve the qualification inherent in the reference to 'the sacred writings' in v. 15.
1. Introduction
21
10.35). Thus the conviction that the Scripture speaks the truth is part of faith in Christ (cf. Jn 2.22), whose destiny was also, conversely, in accordance with the biblical writings (cf. 1 Cor. 15.3-4). It is essential to recognize that there is no direct path from the Old Testament to the New. The frequently quoted words of St Augustine, 'The New Testament is hidden in the Old, the Old Testament is revealed in the New',3 presuppose that the basic continuity is perceptible only when you go from the New Testament to the Old, and not the other way around. Luther had the same idea about the relationship between the two parts of the Bible. He refers to the New Testament as a revelation of the Old, precisely as if somebody held a sealed letter in their hand which they then opened.4 Ernst Haenchen expresses this very distinctly when he says that the Old Testament, comprehended in its original sense, never belonged to the Christian canon.5 The fact that the
3. The saying appears with this wording in Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 2.73 as a comment on Exod. 20.19, where the people request of Moses that he speak to them instead of God, so that they may not die. Augustine's comment runs as follows: Multum et solide significatur ad uetus testamentum timorem potius pertinere sicut ad nouum dilectionem, quamquam et in uetere nouum lateat, et in nouo uetus pateat. Quomodo autem tali populo tribuatur uidere uocem dei, si hoc accipiendum est 'intelligere', cum sibi loqui deum timeant ne moriantur, non satis elucet. For similar formulas, see e.g. De civitate Dei 16.26, cf. 4.3, and Sermo 300.3: Testamentum ... uetum uelatio est noui testamenti, et testamentum nouum reuelatio est ueteris testamenti. 4. See Kirchenpostille 1522 (Weimarer Ausgabe 10.1.1), pp. 181-82: 'Es ist kein Wort im neuen Testament, das nit hinder sich sehe in das alte, darinnen es zuvor vorkundigt ist. Das neue Testament ist nit mehr denn ein Offenbarung des alten, gleich als wenn jemand zum ersten ein beschlossen Brief ha'tte und darnach aufbrach. Also ist das alte Testament ein Testamentbrief Christi, welchen er nach seinem Tod hat aufgetan und lassen durchs Euangelium lesen und iiberall vorkundigen.' Quoted from Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther und das Alte Testament (Tubingen: Mohr, 1948), p. 70. 5. See 'Das alte "Neue Testament" und das neue "Alte Testament"', in E. Haenchen (ed.), Die Bibel und Wir (Tubingen: Mohr, 1968), II, pp. 13-27 [18], where it is said that even today the idea is alien to most evangelical Christians, and indeed, to most evangelical theologians, 'daB das in seinem urspriinglichen Sinn verstandene Alte Testament noch nie zum christlichen Kanon gehort hat'. Philipp Vielhauer, 'Paulus und das Alte Testament', in Luise Abramowski and J.F.G. Goeters (eds.), Studien zur Geschichte der Reformation (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969); reprinted and here quoted from Vielhauer, Oikodome (ed. G. Klein; Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament, TBii, 65; Munchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1979), pp. 196-228 (224), agrees with Haenchen. Brevard S. Childs, who is of quite another opinion,
22
starting-point for understanding the Old Testament writings lies outside these, namely in the faith in Jesus as the Christ and thus as the fulfilment of the biblical promises, has the effect that the Jewish Bible is transformed into the Christian Bible. Only the faith in Jesus as the Christ and thus as the fulfilment of the promises, reveals the content of the promises.6 The study of the reception of the Jewish Bible into the New Testament community in particular and the early church in general is thus invariably tied up with the attempt to understand the Old Testament as part of the canon of the church. Or, to put it differently, a 'Christian' exegesis of the Old Testament is bound to maintain that, when the first Christians and the early church were able to adopt the Jewish Bible without any outward reservation, this was because it was principally read and interpreted in the light of faith in Jesus as the Christ. Although the picture in the early church is not unambiguous, the words 'promise' and 'fulfilment' are not comprehensible as coming to fulfilment by way of reading the promises. Clearly, the decisive factor in the understanding of Scripture is to be found outside of this, namely in faith in Christ. Hans Hiibner's formulation that the Old Testament, in a biblical theological context, is Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum1 is aptly expressed. In
quotes in his 'Die Bedeutung der hebraischen Bibel fur die biblische Theologie', ThZ 48 (1992), pp. 382-90 (383), both Haenchen and Vielhauer, but also, in his index, Barnabas Lindars, 'The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology', NTS 23 (1976-77), pp. 59-66 (66) (in Childs, p. 86 by mistake), and James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1977), p. 94. Among many others Herbert Braun, 'Das Alte Testament im Neuen Testament', ZTK 59 (1962) pp. 16-31, should be mentioned. Braun says here (p. 24) that, in the New Testament, quotations are seen in the light of faith in Christ 'ohne daB der Kontext des alttestamentlichen Zitates und das theologische Koordinatensystem, in welchem das Zitat seinen Sitz hat, Beriicksichtigung findet' (cf. p. 30). 6. Cf. also N. Hyldahl, 'Kampen om skriftforstaelsen i det andet arhundrede', in Hidal et al. (eds.), Judendom och kristendom 2 (Oslo: Oslo University Press, 1986), pp. 65-76 (66), in which, in a description of how Paul understood the scripture, it is said (here translated from the Danish): 'Scripture was like a compass needle: not pointing in any particular direction and only indicating a particular point after Christ had determined the road and the direction. Without Christ, Scripture was a labyrinth, a chaos, which might lead anywhere 7. Cf. the title of Hans Hubner's contribution in JBTh 3 (1988), pp. 147-62: 'Vetus Testamentum und Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum: Die Frage nach dem Kanon des Alien Testaments aus neutestamentlicher Sicht.' See also Biblische
1. Introduction
23
the possession of the early Christians, the Jewish Bible inevitably gained significance other than that in the hands of contemporary Jews. This is indicated by the very name 'Old Testament'. Given the absence of a proper New Testament canon, the Old Testament canon had been considerably added to, even 'implemented' in the early Christian church, thanks to the faith in Christ. 3. Is the Bible of the Church Synonymous with the Biblia Hebraica and/or the Septuagint? Because the Old Testament is relativized in this way, first by being the earliest Bible of the Church and then the earliest part of the Christian canon, the question of what the Old Testament represents in a biblical theological context becomes more than just a question about the original text of the Hebrew Bible. The question of the Old Testament text cannot be separated from the question of what the early church regarded as its Bible. It is unreasonable to say that the 'true' text actually differs from what the early church believed it to be. A historical determination of what early Christians believed to be the biblical text cannot be replaced by the text-critical question of its original appearance, if this can be answered at all. The quotation from Isa. 7.14 in Mt. 1.23 makes this absolutely clear. Matthew says 'virgin' in accordance with the Greek translation, whereas the Hebrew text uses the word 'young woman'. It would be pointless to rebuke the evangelist for using the 'wrong' text. On the contrary, the 'wrong' text gains a significance of its own by being used. We do not solve the problem of the significance of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the so-called Septuagint, by ascertaining that it is a translation and thus a secondary edition in relation to the Biblia Hebraica. In the first place, the Hebrew text which formed the basis of this translation was not identical with the text which later on was accorded a special status as the 'original'. Secondly, the work with the translation may have occasioned an amplification of the traditions transmitted. However this may be, a translation will always reflect the translator's grasp of the text, including the period and the cultural setting that the translator lived in; also, where biblical writings are concerned, the translator's theology.8 With our present knowledge of the origin of both
Theologie des Neuen Testaments. I. Prolegomena (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), pp. 62-70. 8. An object lesson in how changing generations' interpretations and theologies
24
Hebrew and Greek Bible texts, it seems quite reasonable to question the matter-of-fact way in which we normally assume that the Old Testament, as part of the Christian canon, is uniquely analogous to the Masoretic Hebrew text. However, in ancient Judaism, the Greek translation of the Pentateuch enjoyed a status equal to that of the Hebrew Bible text in some circles of Alexandria where Hebrew was not understood; that is, it held the status of an 'original text'. This observation must have a certain effect on the question of the Jewish Bible in early Christianity.
are reflected in Bible translations is given in Bodil Ejrnaes, 'Brudstykker af Salme 8's tolkningshistorie', DTT 56 (1993), pp. 110-30, where official Bible translations' extremely dissimilar renderings of Psalm 8 are analysed in respect of their biblical theological presuppositions.
Chapter 2
THE JEWISH BIBLE AT THE TIME OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
1. The Formation of the Canon of the Jewish Bible With respect to the formation of a Jewish canon, it is necessary to distinguish various stages. For, if canonization determines not only the recognition of a writing's sacred character, but also the final fixation of its wording, it is an anachronism to speak of canonization already in the pre-Christian era. The final formation of the wording of the various books did not take place until the third century CE. However, already in the second and first centuries BCE it is possible to distinguish the firs traces of the development which ultimately led to a definition of which books were sacred. That is, long before actual canonization took place, the basis of it had been laid. For a long time, it has been commonly accepted that the conversion of the Biblia Hebraica into a canon was effected in three stages.1 It has been assumed that the Law gained a canon-like status in c. 400 BCE in connection with Ezra's mission. As to the Prophets, 'the praise of the fathers' (laus patruni) in Sirach 4449 has been taken as evidence that this collection of writings was a complete entity by c. 200 BCE. Another argument for this date for the formation of this group has been that the book of Daniel evidently appeared too late to be inserted into what would seem to be its natural place. Since the final redaction of this writing in its Hebrew-Aramaic edition can be dated to c. 165 BCE, it mus be taken for granted that by then the collection of the Prophets had already been 'closed'. Finally, in c. CE 100, the third part of the Bible: the Writings, was defined, probably in connection with the so-called
1. See e.g. the 'standard work' of Otto Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tubingen: Mohr, 3rd edn, 1964 [ET The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford, 1966)]), pp. 762-73.
26
synod of Jamnia, that is, not until the time of early Christianity.2 As we shall see below, the latter assertion represents a truth that needs modification. Even though early Jewish sources only refer to this collection in rather vague terms, the Writings (ketubim) are especially interesting in this connection. An example of this is the prologue which the grandson of Jesus Sirach wrote as an introduction to his translation of his grandfather's book, probably some time after 116 BCE. 3 This prologue mentions (1-2) what has come 'through the Law, the Prophets and the writers who followed in their steps' (Sice tox> vouoi) KOU tcov npo<pTiTcov mi TCOV ocXXcov TCOV KCCT' cruioix; fiKoXouGriKOTCov), (810) 'the study of the Law, the Prophets and the other writings of our ancestors' (TT\V TO\> vojxo'u KOU TCOV ?tpocpT|tcov KOCI TCOV ocAAcov TCCXTptcov (3ipA,icov cxvcxyvcoow) and finally (24-25) 'the Law, the prophecies and the rest of the writings' (6 vouoq KCCI ai npocpriTeiai Koci TCX XoiTta Pif&icov). The same vague way of speaking is found in what 'may well be the earliest tripartite list' of canon, namely 4QMMT C 10-11 about 'the book of Moses and the books of the Prophets and 2. Thus e.g. Albert C. Sundberg, Jr, The Old Testament of the Early Church, (HThS, 20; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964); idem, The Old Testament of the Early Church (A Study of Canon)', HTR 51 (1958), pp. 205-26, is a 'summary' of his subsequent 'thesis', which (p. 125) maintains that the Jewish canon formation was not closed until the 'Christian' era, hardly as 'an anti-Christian movement', but more likely as 'an anti-apocalyptic development in Judaism'. See also Hans Peter Riiger, 'Das Werden des christlichen Alten Testaments', JBTh 3, (1988), pp. 175-89 (176-77). For an attempt to refute such a late dating of the definition of Scripture, see e.g. Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism (London, SPCK, 1985), pp. 274-433, idem, 'Formation of the Hebrew Bible', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, 11.1; Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988), pp. 39-86 (55-58); and E. Earle Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity (WUNT, 54; Tubingen: Mohr, 1991), pp. 37-41. Cf. now also Martin Hengel, 'Die Septuaginta als "christliche Schriftensammlung", ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanons', in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (WUNT, 72; Tubingen: Mohr, 1994), pp. 182-284 (256-63). 3. King Euergetes, mentioned there (v. 27), is in all probability Ptolemy VII Euergetes Fyskon (170-116 BCE), and according to U. Wilcken (APF, III [1904], p. 321), the dating erci TOV EvepYetoi) paaiXecoi; in the prologue v. 27 seems to presuppose his death. Following Elias Bickermann, 'Zur Datierung des PseudoAristeas', ZNW29 (1930), pp. 280-98 (285).
2. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament
27
(the writings) of David [and the events of] ages past'.4Later on, Philo, in his description of the sect of the therapeuts, De Vita Contemplativa 25,5 says that when members of this sect go into their sacred study, they bring no necessities of life but 'laws and oracles delivered through the mouth of prophets, and psalms and anything else which fosters and perfects knowledge and piety'. It is hardly a question of four categories, since 'psalms and anything else' very likely comprise one group. Philo also mentions that the therapeuts have in their possession 'writings of men of old, the founders of their way of thinking' (Vit. Cont. 29). These writings did not have the same status as the above-mentioned. Philo himself only uses the term 'Scripture' about the later canonical books, never about Old Testament Apocrypha.6 Many things, however, suggest that the formation of the Hebrew Bible is of an earlier date. Even though we do not have explicit proof of such a principal 'closure' in any pre-Christian source, it may reasonably be supposed that in practice it took place before the beginning of the Christian era. Josephus' unreserved mention of the 22 sacred books of Judaism in his Contra Apionem 1.37-41 (i.e. the 5 books of the Law + the 13 books of the Prophets + the other 4 books = 22 books) point in that direction. In connection with a remark on the trustworthiness of the
4. See Qwnran Cave 4, VMiqsat Mcfase ha-Torah by Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell (DID, 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), p. 112. The quotation from 4QMMT is from the translation, p. 59. The authors date 4QMMT to 'probably between 159 152 BCE'. Seep. 121. 5. Formerly this was sometimes considered inauthentic; see e.g. Frants Buhl, Kanon und TextdesAlten Testamentes (Leipzig: Akademisches Buchhandlung, 1891 [ET: Canon and Text of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1892)]), p. 17. This viewpoin has been finally abandoned. See, e.g., already the discussion in Holger Mosbech, Essceismen: Et Bidrag til Senj0dedommens Religionshistorie (Copenhagen: Schultz, 1916), pp. 47-56, which ends by assuming its genuineness. The quotation below i taken from the translation of F.H. Colson in LCL. 6. In this connection Roger Beckwith (Old Testament Canon, pp. 50 n. 27, 384 425 n. 187) points to Claus Frees Hornemann (1751-1830) as a pioneer on this question. In Danish university history, C.F. Hornemann has not won much acclaim. In his Specimen exercitionis criticae in versionem LXX interpretum ex Philone (Gottingen, 1773; with reprinted title-page and equipped with a praefatio, Hafniae, 1774; Specimen II, Hafniae, 1776; the first part published under the title Observationes ad illustrationem doctrinae de canone Veteris testamenti ex Philone, Specimen III, Hafniae, 1778), Hornemann ascertained that Philo nowhere cites writings belonging to the Old Testament Apocrypha as 'Scripture'.
28
history as described in the Jews' sacred books, he says (37-38):7

It therefore naturally, or rather necessarily, follows (seeing that with us it is not open to everybody to write the records, and that there is no discrepancy in what is written; seeing that, on the contrary, the prophets alone had this privilege, obtaining their knowledge of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration which they owed to God [icata tf|v ETUTTVOKXV TT|V owco tofc 9eox>], and committing to writing a clear account of the events of their own time just as they occurred)it follows I say, that we do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time.
It is remarkable how Josephus in his books apparently accepts the order in which the books of the Hebrew Bible appear in the Septuagint; according to this, the Writings alone comprise Psalms, the Song of Songs, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.8 Incidentally, Josephus is the first known advocate of the concept that all writings that had been composed up to and including the time of Artaxerxes, that is, the time of Ezra, were unique compared to all later books, for after that time there had been no precise succession of prophets (8ia TO ufi yeveaGat TTIV TCOV jtpoqxnToiv ceicpipfi SuxSoxriv).9
Also 4 Ezra seems to testify to a rather early delimitation, as apparent in the seventh and final vision (ch. 14) describing Ezra's final 7. The quotations below from Josephus are from the translation of H.St.J. Thackeray in LCL. 8. This is implicitly apparent in Apion 1.39-40, where Prophets is said to comprise 13 books (presumably the book of Joshua, Judges + Ruth, the book of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the book of Esther, the book of Job, the book of Isaiah, the book of Jeremiah + Lamentations, the book of Ezekiel, Minor Prophets and the book of Daniel), while the four books of Writings are said to consist of psalms to God and rules of conduct. In Ant. 5.318-37, the book of Ruth is explicitly inserted after Judges, and in Ant. 10.78, Lamentations is mentioned immediately after the book of Jeremiah. The book of Daniel is mentioned right after the book of Jeremiah + Lamentations (Ant. 10.186-89). In 10.267-68, Daniel is identified as one of the prophets (cf. Mt. 24.15 and 4QFlor. 2, 3). The earliest evidence of the book of Daniel having been incorporated among the Writings is b. Baba Batra 14b. 9. Apion 1.41. Cf. for the question of 'the prophetless time' Ragnar Leivestad, 'Das Dogma von der prophetenlosen Zeit', NTS 19 (1972-73), pp. 288-99, in which later rabbinical material is included; for instance it is said on p. 290: 'Die rabbinische Behauptung, daB die Prophetic zuende ist, hangt mil der Bildung eines Kanons organisch zusammen.'
29
performance.10 It is told (4 Ezra 14.22) how Ezra, after the Law had been burned, asks God to send him his Holy Spirit,11
and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the beginning, the things which were written in your Law, that men may be able to find the path, and that those who wish to live in the last days may live.
Ezra is now ordered by God to isolate himself together with five selected men for forty days:
and I will light in your heart the lamp of understanding, which shall not be put out until what you are about to write is finished. And when you have finished, some things you shall make public, and some you shall deliver in secret to the wise (14.25-26).
God then hands Ezra a miraculous drink,

and when I had drunk it, my heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom increased in my breast, for my spirit retained its memory, and my mouth was opened, and was no longer closed (14.40-41).
The ensuing result was:

During the forty days, ninety-four books were written. And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying: Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people (14.44-46).
The books to be made public must be those which had long been known and acknowledged as sacred books; in this they were separate from all other books. The book of Ruth and Lamentations are evidently counted separately, so that the total number of books becomes 24. Oddly enough, the 'secret' books seem to be valued higher than the 'public' ones, which are, so to say, thrown in all directions. Maybe here, behind 'the unworthy', we are allowed a brief glimpse of the Christian church? However that may be, 4 Ezra legitimizes the apocryphal books by
10. See for this Geert Hallback, The Fall of Zion and the Revelation of the Law: An Interpretation of 4 Ezra', SJOT 6 (1992), pp. 263-92, esp. p. 282. Based on his structuralist analysis Hallback says that all previous matter 'is narratologically to be understood as belonging to the phase of competence in relation to the performance of the seventh vision'. 11. The quotations below from 4 Ezra are taken from the translation of B.M. Metzgerin07P,I(1983).
30
assigning to them the same inspiration as bestowed upon the 'canonical' books. Characteristically, the only institution to take this legitimization seriously in the long run was the church. The early formation of the sacred books may also be discerned in the probably Essene writing Jubilees, where a fragment of a Greek translation, apparently filling a gap in the Ethiopian text (Jub. 2.23), rewrites the restored text into:
As there were twenty-two letters and twenty-two sacred books and twentytwo heads of mankind from Adam to Jacob, so there were made twentytwo kinds of work before the seventh day.12
Jubilees is supposed to have been written in the early years of the 1st century BCE, or maybe even in the second century; if this is true, and if the restored text is original, it is the earliest testimony to the presumed extent of the Jewish Bible, which was affirmed later on.13 The finds of the Qumran scrolls reveal that this society had in their possession copies of almost all those books which later came to constitute the Biblia Hebraica, except foras it was soon noticedthe book of Esther. However, we also do not know with certainty whether the books belonging to the Chronicler's history (1 and 2 Chron. + Ezra and Neh.) or the book of Haggai were part of this collection.14 The absence of the book of Esther may be ascribed to the fact that this book was linked with the Purim feast, which feast did not festival in the Essene calendar. The Qumran finds also confirm that what was considered important at this early point in time was not so much the wording of the text as the tradition which it was to transmit.15 All things considered, there is good reason to handle the so-called synod of Jamnia with great care when it comes to the question of the closure of the Old Testament canon.16 Our sources for the 'decisions' of
12. See R.H. Charles, APOT, H, p. 15, in the note to v. 23. 13. The number 24 (pace Beckwith, Old Testament Canon pp. 235-73) is presumably secondary in relation to the number 22, which seems to be the earliest testified to. Besides (and this is probably no coincidence) it is also the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Cf. Ellis, The Old Testament, p. 33. 14. Cf. Johann Maier, 'Zur Frage des biblischen Kanons im Fruhjudentum im Licht der Qumranfunde', JBTh 3 (1988), pp. 135-46. 15. See Maier, 'Zur Frage', pp. 137-38. 16. Cf. Peter Schafer, 'Die sogenannte Synode von Jabne. Zur Trennung von Juden und Christen im ersten/zweiten Jh. n. Chr.', Judaica 31 (1975), pp. 54-64, 116-24; reprinted in and quoted after idem, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des
31
this synod (first and foremost the Mishna-tractate: Yad. 3.5) only say that it was confirmed that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes 'make the hands unclean', that is, they were inspired. This did not silence all discussion, however.17 Later on, 'the doubt' was sometimes extended to include even the books of Ruth and Esther (b. Meg.lei).1* Evidently, there was no need for a definitive or explicit delimitation until c. CE 100. In the period before this date, we can only point to those writings which had been generally accepted and were considered sacred, that is, inspired in Jewish worship. Presumably it was not a question of a decision 'from above', but represented a recognition of accomplished facts.19 The picture evoked by the sources is multifaceted. Even so, it is possible to distinguish the contours of the final result.20 If, as stated
rabbinischen Judentums (AGJU, 15; Leiden: Brill, 1978), pp. 45-64, esp. 56-62. See finally also GUnter Stemberger, 'Jabne und der Kanon', JBTh 3 (1988), pp. 163-74. 17. It is told about rabbi Akiba (who set great store by the Song of Songs: 'the whole world does not make up for the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel!') that he felt obliged to protect this writing against mundane use, e.g. at banquets. Thus, in b. San. 12.10 and lOla, the following announcement has been preserved: 'R. Aqiba sagt: "Wer das Hohe Lied mit tremulierender Stimme im Gasthaus singt und es wie ein (gewohnliches) Lied behandelt, hat keinen Anteil an der zukiinftigen Welt.'" Quoted after Schafer, 'Die sogenannte Synode', p. 64 n. 54. For the constant problem of how to understand the Song of Songs in any other meaning than the literal, see John Strange, 'H0jsangen i gudstjeneste og forskning', in Plum and Hallback (eds.), Testamente, pp. 71-84. 18. For a detailed examination of the discussion on the four above-mentioned writings and others: e.g. the book of Ezekiel, see Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon, pp. 274-337. Here it is said in conclusion (p. 323): 'The disputes were of limited significance. In most cases they only arose after the recognition of the books as canonical, and they did not seriously interfere with that recognition, which survived the challenge and has continued as before.' 19. See for this Stemberger, 'Jabne und der Kanon', p. 174, where it is said: 'Was in der Synagoge gelesen wird, wird nicht von den Rabbinen bestimmt, sondern kann von ihnen nur zur Kenntnis genommen werden.' Somebody 'from above' must have decided, though, which texts should be incorporated in the temple library as sacred writings. 'Gleichzeitig ist aber wohl mit einem Wachsen des "Kanons" von unten her zu rechnen, die Akzeptanz bestimmter Bucher durch das glaubige Volk als ein entscheidender Faktor zu betrachten.' 20. The complexity of the problem appears from Bernd J0rg Diebner, 'Erwagungen zum ProzeB der Sammlung des dritten Teils der antik-jiidischen (hebraischen) Bibel, der ketubim', DBAT 21 (1985), pp. 139-99. According to Diebner, it was not at all possible to define the writings as a group until the second century CE at the earliest. The prologue to the book of Sirach cannot be cited in
32
above, canonization is defined not only as the recognition of a writing as sacred but also as the final fixing of its wording, it is then hardly possible to speak of a Jewish canon until the third or fourth century CE. Here it seems relevant to consider the technical problems connected with book production in those days.21 Book production depended on copying by hand, which made it almost impossible to avoid variants. On the whole, antiquity had great problems keeping a text uncorrupted. Inspired by the library at Alexandria, an extensive text-critical work on 'the classics' was initiated, with Aristarchus (217-145 BCE) as the great name. Another factor is that, until the appearance of the codex in the first century CE, books were made in the form of scrolls. While a codex, in which pages can be covered with writing on both sides, can hold a great deal of text inside the binding (e.g. of both the Old and the New Testaments), this is not the case for scrolls. Thus the Pentateuch alone took up five scrolls. Physically, the invention of the codex encouraged the formation of a canon, because it had to be decided which books should go inside the binding as well as the order in which they needed to be placed. While the Christian church 'adopted' the codex very early, Judaism adhered to scrolls. As a matter of fact, the first real canon lists are found in Christian authors like Melito of Sardes and Origen (see below), while in Jewish sources such lists do not appear until the Gemara to b. B. Bat. 14b, 15a from the third century. This work mentions eight prophetical books and eleven 'writings', besides the five books of the Law, that is, 24 books in all. This is also the number found in 4 Ezra 14.45. Moreover, if we refrain from speaking of 'canonical' in a technical sense and instead speak of a time-honoured status as sacred writing, then I believe that in practice 'canon' had already been formed in the second century BCE.22
support of an earlier date, he says, since this prologue is a Christian product; see pp. 191-92. 21. Cf. Elias Bickerman, 'Some Notes on the Transmission of the Septuagint', in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (New York, 1950), pp. 149-78; quoted after the revised edition in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (AGJU, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 137-66 (139-42). 22. For such an early date, see e.g. Sid Z. Leiman, 'Inspiration and Canonicity: Reflections on the Formation of the Biblical Canon', in E.P. Sanders with A.I. Baumgarten and A. Mendelsohn (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, II, (London: SCM Press, 1981), pp. 56-63 (with notes pp. 315-18), Beckwith, Old Testament Canon, pp. 369-76; cf. p. 152, and Ellis, Old Testament, pp. 49-50. All three authors accept the idea of a connection between the cessation of prophesying in
33
The status of the book of Daniel as a canonical writing would seem to be an obstacle to so early a formation, but only apparently so; for a book of Daniel may well have existed before it was 'finally' redacted in the form we know it from the Biblia Hebraica.23 Moreover, the Septuagint shows that both this writing and the book of Esther continued to expand.24 The re-establishment of 'the religion' in connection with the consecration of the temple in Jerusalem in 165 BCE may have led to a collection of those books held to be sacred. However, 2 Mace. 2.13-14, which mentions the library founded by Nehemiah as a parallel to what Judas Maccabaeus collected after the war, can hardly be cited in support of what looks like a canonization.25 Another sign that the formation of the Old Testament canon was more or less fixed at the time of the New Testament is found in the New Testament itself. Mt. 23.35 has even been cited as evidence of a canonical sequence, which only appears in the Biblia Hebraica later on. Here the words about all the righteous blood shed on earth 'from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah' quotes examples from the first and the last books of the Biblia Hebraica respectively (provided that one identifies Zechari'ah with the son of Jehoi'ada, whose death is mentioned in 2 Chron. 24.2022).26 In practice the authors of the New Testament also respect the border between 'canonical' and 'non-canonical' books, insofar as only 'canonical' books are referred to as qualified 'Scripture'.27 This selfIsrael and the canon formation. Beckwith even thinks, in particular based on a passage like 2 Mace. 2.14, that this canon formation can be dated to the time of Judas Maccabeus (d. 161). This is too fanciful though.
23. Cf. Ellis, Old Testament, pp. 41-44. 24. See below, Chapter 5. 25. Cf. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, Hirbet Qumran und die Bibliothek vom Toten Meer (StDel, 5; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960), p. 61 n. 124, which rejects the idea that the passage should be understood as canon historically. 26. See for this also Diebner, 'Erwagungen zum Prozess', pp. 168-70. Diebner claims that quotations from the third group, the Writings, do in fact appear in the Gospel of Matthew first, even though they are quoted as if they derived from Prophets. 27. Cf. the list of 'loci citati vel allegati' in Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece (26th edn, 1979, and later reprints), pp. 769-75, which has three quotations from the Apocrypha (Jdt. 11.19 = Mt. 9.36; Sir. 4.1 = Mk 10.19; Sir. 17.26 = 2 Tim. 2.19). None of them, however, are quoted as such. In Sundberg, The Old Testament, pp. 54-55, there is an 'Index to Extra-Canonical Literature in the New Testament', in
34
imposed restriction is the more conspicuous as signs of any reflection on what can be called Holy Writ are totally absent, both in the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. The few allusions to non-canonical Old Testament writings found in the New Testament are more the exception that proves the rule.28 2. The Hebrew Bible Text Until the finds after the Second World War of Hebrew Bible scrolls in Palestine from the centuries around the beginning of the Christian era, it was generally assumed that it might be possible to speak of an original of the Biblia Hebraica. However, the rather extensive finds of scrolls or fragments of such, mostly near Hirbet Qumran, but also, for example, in the Wadi Murabba'at, Nahal Hever and Masada, have changed the picture considerably.29 These finds have certainly often been used in a prejudiced way for the apologetic purpose of 'proving' the great age of the later Masoretic text, since they confirmed the existence of this text form which has been called the proto-Masoretic text. But the same finds have also brought to light Hebrew Bible texts which are not identical with this text edition. Very soon three text families were sorted out. Besides the 'proto-Masoretic', some texts were found to represent the Alexandrian tradition, that is, the Septuagint-tradition and others, the Samaritan Pentateuch.30
which the passages are cited in the succession in which they appear in the New Testament. 28. See e.g. the distinct discussion in Ruger, 'Das Werden', pp. 177-79. 29. A very convenient list of all biblical texts so far found in Qumran is published by Uwe Glessmer in Revue de Qumran 16 (1993), pp. 153-92: 'Liste der biblischen Texte aus Qumran.' 30. See for this, for example, Ernst Wiirthwein's reference book Der Text des Alien Testaments: Eine Einfuhrung in die Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart: Wiirttembergische Bibelanstalt, 4th edn, 1973); here quoted after the English edition The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; London: SCM Press, 1980), p. 16. In connection with lQIsab, which is not substantially different from the later Masoretic text, it is said,'... despite all superficial similarities there is one decisive difference: the Qumran text of the Masoretic type was only one of several types in common use... and there is no indication that it was regarded as more authoritative than the others. We may infer that for Qumran, and evidently for the rest of Judaism as well, there was not a single authoritative text. It was not until the Jewish revival that one of the existing texts, or a recension of one of these texts, gained a position of authority, eventually replacing almost completely the
35
This first impression has become further differentiated by research. It has been acknowledged that, at least until c. CE 70, the Hebrew Bible text was to some extent fluid, that is, there was a plurality of Bible texts.31 The gradual change in the interpretation of the First Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (IQIs3)32 is a good example of this. This complete Isaiah text from the second half of the second century BCE was, due to its linguistic and orthographic characteristics, first treated as a secondary manuscript representative of a vulgar text type as compared to the Masoretic text. But a closer inspection proved that in lQIsa we have evidence of a text which has been just as representative as the one that was later authorized. A standard text of the book of Isaiah did not exist at that early time.33 In this connection, it should be mentioned that the Samaritan Pentateuch has been somewhat rehabilitated. The assessment of the age and text-critical value of this text tradition has varied a lot since it became known in Europe in 1616.34 That it was related to the Septuagint was recognized very early. Of the 6,000 variants registered in comparison with the Masoretic text, 1,900 proved to be in accordance with the Septuagint. This can probably be attributed to their common dependence
other forms of the text which were in use among the Jews before CE 70.' 31. Cf. here, e.g., Bertil Albrektson, 'Recension eller tradition? Nagra synspunkter p& den gammaltestamentliga konsonanttextens standardisering', SEA 40 (1975), pp. 18-35, where it is said by way of an introduction (here translated from the Swedish): 'The oldest phase we reach back to is characterized by multiplicity and a richness of variant readings.' A discussion of the problem is also found in Magne Saeb0, 'From Pluriformity to Uniformity: Some Remarks on the Emergence of the Massoretic Text, with Special Reference to its Theological Significance', ASTI11 (1978), pp. 127-37. See finally the overview in Staffan Olofsson, 'The Text Tradition of the Hebrew Bible', in The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (ConBOT, 30; Lund: Gleerup, 1990), pp. 51-56. 32. Cf. for this Jesper H0genhaven, 'The First Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (IQIsa) and the Massoretic Text. Some Reflections with Special Regard to Isaiah 1-12', 750725(1984), pp. 17-35. 33. Cf. the conclusion in H0genhaven, 'The First Isaiah Scroll', p. 26: 'In short, the "standard text" theory cannot be maintained, and the hypothesis that MT reflects a "standard" text-form, and IQIsa a "popular" type, must be abandoned.' See also p. 30: 'Nothing indicates that IQIsa is a special popularized edition, or that its text has been consequently worked through under the guidance of a certain interpretative viewpoint.' 34. For a comparatively detailed treatment, see Bruce K. Waltke, 'Samaritan Pentateuch', ABD, V (1992), pp. 931-40, which includes the research history.
36
on an earlier source. Hence, although some of the Samaritan Pentateuch variants must be ascribed to a sectarian interpretation of the tradition,35 others must certainly derive from an ancient text tradition which was also known outside Samaritan circles. This opinion has been confirmed by biblical text fragments from Qumran which belong to the same text group.36 According to James A. Sanders the new text finds have made it clear that we must revise our assessment of the text transmission: 'the older the texts or versions the less likely they were copied accurately.'37 It is not a question of a relatively late corruption of an original,38 but of a certain latitude towards the transmission process, which also originated from a different attitude to the texts than later on, when the wording itself was surrounded with sacredness. Only gradually, in step with the canonization process, was attention given to the wording of the texts. As Sanders says, this shift from fluidity to stability of text form was also reflected in the development of a new hermeneutics which made it possible to interpret the stabilized text in the light of constantly changing situations brought about by history.39 This hermeneutics found expression first in Hillel's 7 rules from the end of the first century BCE, then in Ishmael's 13 rules from the end of the first century CE, and finally in the
35. It has been strongly advocated that the reading of 'Garizim' in Deut. 27.5 in the Samaritan Pentateuch text is more original than the 'EbaT of the Masoretic text. Cf. also the discussion in Eduard Nielsen, Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation (Copenhagen: Gad, 1955), pp. 50-51. 36. This explains why Samaritan readings appear in the New Testament, i.e. Acts 7.7, 5,32,37 and maybe Heb. 9.3. 37. See Sanders's article: 'Text and Canon: Old Testament and New', in P. Casetti, O. Keel and A. Schenker (eds.), Melanges Dominique Barthelemy: Etudes bibliques offertes a I'occasion de son 60* anniversaire (OBO, 38; Gottingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1981), pp. 373-94 (379). Sanders refers (p. 377) to 'the recently discovered fact of relative fluidity of text form prior to the end of the first century CE, along with the fact of relative textual stability emerging after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.' 38. Cf. Martin Jan Mulder, 'The Transmission of the Biblical Text', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, p. 103: 'An "Urtext" of the biblical books has never existed ... Textual criticism can therefore never aim at reconstructing an "Urtext". Its highest achievable end is the reconstruction of the biblical text in the form in which it was current during a certain period.' 39. See Sanders, 'Text and Canon', p. 381: The shift from relative fluidity of text form to relative stability was accompanied by the rise of a whole new concept in hermeneutics.'
37
32 rules named after Elieser (of the generation after Bar Kochba), which became known c. CE 200.40 The strong tendency, perceptible very early, towards expounding the sacred writings primarily from the aspect of the Law contributed to the stabilization process which set in already in the 2nd century BCE and reached its zenith in the ninth or tenth century, when the Ben Asher family of Tiberias made a standard text.41 This is the text found in the Aleppo manuscript from the middle of the tenth century and in the copy of it, Codex Leningrad, from the year 1008. It also forms the basis of modern text editions and versions of the Biblia Hebraica. All the Masoretic work connected with the vocalization and accentuation of the text and the marking of the difference between qere ('what is read') and ketib ('what is written') was to serve the same purpose. At the same time, one should be aware that the standardization of the Hebrew Bible text thus achieved cannot be compared to a modern textcritical attempt to reconstruct the original text.42 To claim that standardization served to preserve the original author's wording and intent represents an anachronistic way of thinking.43 On the contrary, it was
40. See for these rules, besides 'the reference book', H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. Markus Bockmuehl; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), pp. 17-34, also B0rge Salomonsen, 'Om rabbinsk hermeneutik', D7T36 (1973), pp. 161-73. 41. Cf. for this, e.g., M.J. Mulder, 'The Transmission', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 114-15. 42. See for this especially Bertil Albrektson, 'Reflections on the Emergence of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible' (VTSup, 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), pp. 49-65, which rejects all attempts to describe the establishment of the Masoretic Bible text as a process to be compared to that of the philologians at Alexandria. The assumption that the consonant text should have been fixed already at a time between CE 70 and 132 (thus, for instance, C.-H. Hunzinger, 'Qumran 6', RGG 5, 3rd edn, (1961), pp. 754-56, here 755; also M. Saeb0, 'From Pluriformity to Uniformity. Some Remarks on the Emergence of the Massoretic Text, with Special Reference to its Theological Significance', ASTI11 (1978), pp. 127-37 (30), cannot be directly proved, but is well inside the limits of probability. The crystallization of one particular text is, according to Albrektson (p. 62), 'to a much greater extent than is usually thought, the result of historical coincidences, of a number of concurrent factors which are not in the main of a textual kind'. Thus the most essential quality of the victorious text may have been that 'it happened to belong to a leading group, was favoured by famous rabbis (many of them were, of course, scribes) or had become authoritative in some similar way' (P- 64). 43. Cf. Albrektson, 'Recension eller tradition?', pp. 33-35.
38
assumed by rabbinical exegesis that the text comprised many layers and as many interpretations. The purpose of a standard form is therefore primarily to be seen as a consequence of the canonization process whose inherent ideal must always be a stable, fixed text. Another significant factor in this connection is that, morphologically, the Hebrew in which the various books of the Biblia Hebraica were transmitted reflects the same linguistic level in all essentials. It is thus impossible, on the basis of language-historical criteria, to say anything about the relative age of the various tradition layers. Even if the Old Testament books or the traditions embodied in them had originated in different periods extending over more than a thousand years, this has left no trace in their language.44 This need not indicate that they were all written down within a short span of years, but it does suggest some kind of linguistic revision. The 'orthography' has not been sacrosanct. 3. The Greek Version of the Jewish Bible With our present knowledge of the formation of the Jewish Bible text, we are better equipped to understand at least some peculiarities in the Greek version of the Jewish Bible. As the majority of the Western Diaspora Jews no longer mastered the Hebrew language, there was a demand for a translation of their sacred writings very early. The best known of these translations (not least owing to its impact on the Christian church) was the translation into Greek, which, for reasons we shall revert to, was called the Septuagint.45 In all probability this transla44. See e.g. Johannes Pedersen, Hebrceisk Grammatik (Copenhagen: Branner og Korch, 1926, 3rd edn 1950), p. 4 ( li) (here translated from the Danish): The Old Testament represents one millenium; nonetheless, it is impossible to detect the history of the language on the basis of its books.' Cf. also Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebrdischen Sprache des Alien Testatnentes, I (repr.; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962 [1922]), pp. 25-26. There are also those who advocate that it should be possible to distinguish between 'earlier' and 'later'; i.e. between a so-called 'classical Biblical Hebrew' and a 'late Biblical Hebrew'. See e.g. Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). For detailed information in respect of this matter I would like to thank Frederick H. Cryer. See also his 'The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Daniel', in K. Jeppesen et al. (eds.), In the Last Days: On Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic (Festschrift Benedikt Otzen; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1994), pp. 185-98. 45. Among the extensive literature on the Septuagint I shall confine myself to
39
tion was made in Egypt, where the Greek-speaking Jewish population was particularly large and influential. The Pentateuch was translated first, which seems to have taken place on an official level in cooperation between the Egyptian king's library and representatives of Judaism.46 The translation of the Pentateuch is further characterized by its conformity to contemporary translation standards. As we shall come back to, this was the only part of the Bible translation that was subjected to legendary embellishments in Judaism, and it is in fact only this translation that rightly bears the name of the Septuagint. The translation of the other groups, Prophets and Writings, were completed at various times following more or less distinct initiatives.47 Some of them may even have been translated more than once. The quality of the various translations fluctuates. Formerly it was generally assumed that there had been a particular Alexandrian canon, that is, a canon which was used only by the Jewish population in Egypt. Apart from the books of the later Biblia Hebraica, this canon should have included those writings which were later collectively called the Old Testament Apocrypha, and which have led a tumultuous life in canon history.48 The hypothesis that these writings, which were later (because of their incorporation in the Septuagint) considered by many Christians to be part of the Old Testament, should also have had canonical status in certain Jewish circles has been refuted by Albert C. Sundberg.49 In this connection it seems relevant to emphasize, as Sundberg does, that Judaism was not divided geographically in its canonical practice.50 This also means that the Greek translation was not
refer to Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968); E.L. Schtirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (ed. G. Vermes et al:, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, rev. edn, 1986), III.l, pp. 474-93; Sebastian P. Brock, 'Bibeliibersetzungen I, 2. Die Ubersetzungen des Alien Testaments ins Griechische', TRE, VI, pp. 163-72; Emanuel Tov, 'Die griechischen Bibeliibersetzungen', ANRW, II, 20.1, pp. 121-89; Melvin K.H. Peters, 'Septuagint', ABD, V, pp. 1093-104, all equipped with extensive indices of literature. 46. Cf. Chapters. 47. See, for instance, Hengel, 'Septuaginta als "christliche Schriftensammlung "', pp. 241-56. 48. See among others Buhl, Kanon und Text, pp. 43-48, and Aage Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament (Copenhagen: Gad, 1948), I, pp. 35-38. 49. This is the main thesis of his The Old Testament of the Early Church. 50. See The Old Testament, p. 102: 'Judaism was not divided geographically in its canonical practice.'
40
reserved for the diaspora Jews, but was also known and used in Palestine.51 One thing, however, is the question of the extent of the Jewish Bible in pre-Christian times, another the question of its wording. For, as it was later to be proved beyond any doubt, what occupied people in the beginning was not so much the number of books, but that the text of this old Greek translation did not comply in every detail with the content of the Hebrew Bible. In the case of some books, for example, the books of Jeremiah, Job and Proverbs, the divergencies are so considerable, even with respect to volume, that it must be assumed that the Hebrew text underlying the translation cannot have been identical with the text we know today.52 The disparities may of course also be due to the translation. The most conspicuous example is Isa. 7.14. When the Christian church from the middle of the second century openly began to argue, on the basis of the wording of the Greek translation, against the wording of the Hebrew text, Judaism dissociated itself from the old Greek translation, probably in connection with the synod of Jamnia. The result was its replacement by new translations (more verbatim than the original) by Aquila and Theodotion from the beginning and middle respectively of the second century CE.53 Aquila, who was a proselyte,54 distinguished himself by rendering the text almost word for word, thus making it almost unintelligible to those who did not master the Hebrew language. But exactly this may have been the point with the enterprise, because it made the Hebrew text indispensable.55 Theodotion, who is described as an Ebionite by Jerome, but who, more likely, was a proselyte as maintained by Irenaeus, wrote in a more elegant literary
51. See, besides Sundberg, The Old Testament, pp. 88-103, also Robert Hanhart, 'Fragen um die Entstehung der LXX',VT 12 (1962), pp. 139-63(162). 'Fur die vorchristl. Zeit ist mit einer allgemeinen Anerkennung des griechischen ATauch in der palastinensischen Judenschaftzu rechnen.' 52. An excellent summary of the most conspicuous divergencies between the Septuagint text and that ofBiblia Hebraica is found in Peters, 'Septuagint', p. 1101. 53. On Aquila and Theodotion, see, for instance, Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, pp. 74-99, and Schiirer, History, ffl.l, pp. 493-504. 54. Aquila has sometimes been identified with Onkelos, who pieced together the Aramaic targum to the Pentateuch. Cf. Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, pp. 7879. 55. See Guiseppe Veltri, 'Der griechische Targum Aquilas: Bin Beitrag zum rabbinischen Ubersetzungsverstandnis', in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 92-115. Cf. below, Chapter 5.
41
style than Aquila, but it is characteristic of him that he used Greek transcriptions of Hebrew words to a great extent. A third person sometimes mentioned in this connection was Symmachus, who gave priority to a fluent Greek rather than a word for word rendering. But Symmachus seems to have been an Ebionite as maintained by Eusebius (Historia ecclesiastica 6.17).56 If so, this suggests that Christians might also find fault with the Septuagint. In Symmachus' case this was mostly a question of language. 4. The Textual History of the Septuagint The manuscript finds from Hirbet Qumran, Wadi Murabba'at and Nahal Hever have also deepened our knowledge of the Septuagint's textual history for among the texts and text fragments discovered were also parts of Septuagint manuscripts.57 Particularly the discovery of fragments of major parts of the Minor Prophets at the Wadi Murabba'at (1952) and Nahal Hever (1962) has been of great value. These finds, today referred to as SHevXIIGr,5* have been as revolutionizing for Septuagint research as the Hebrew Bible texts and text fragments so far unearthed have been for the outlining of the textual history of Biblia Hebraica.59 Soon after the first finds it became clear that these fragments
56. Thus also Jerome (e.g. in De viris illustribus 3.54). See the discussion in Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, pp. 94-99. Jellicoe asks in conclusion whether Symmachus may best be understood 'as pertaining to a version of anonymous authorship presumably in circulation among an Ebionite sect in Cappadocia, not named after him.. .but used generally (as LXX) for the version of the Scriptures used by the sect?' 57. See, e.g., in respect of the Pentateuch fragments, Eugene Ulrich, The Greek Manuscripts of the Pentateuch from Qumran, Including Newly Identified Fragments of Deuteronomy (4QLXXDeut)', in A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta (Festschrift J.W. Wewers; Missassauga: Benben,1984), pp. 71-82, and idem, 'The Septuagint Manuscripts from Qumran: A Reappraisal of their Value', in G.S. Brooke and B. Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings (SBLSCS, 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 49-80. 58. Final edition in Emanuel Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (SHevXIIGr) (DID, 8; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990). 59. Robert Hanhart, 'Jiidische Tradition und christliche Interpretation: Zur Geschichte der Septuagintaforschung in Gottingen', in A.M. Ritter (ed.), Kerygma und Logos (Festschrift Carl Andresen; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), pp. 280-97 (295). Hanhart says that the Septuagint research entered a new era with the uncovering of the scroll of the Minor Prophets at Murabba'at on 27 August,
42
(which can be dated to somewhere between 50 BCE and CE 50) contain amendments which push the Septuagint in the direction of the Protomassoretic Hebrew text. They show that already before the work on the 'new' translations from the second century CE had begun, there had already been attempts to amend the Greek text. The corollary of all this is that at least part of the confusion prevailing in the transmission of the Septuagint text, which was later to bother Origen and others, can be related to various revisions of the original translation. Compared to the knowledge we have acquired through the Qumrah finds that at such an early time no Hebrew text recension could claim to be the Bible text, we may conclude that the Septuagint version has its origin in one out of several Hebrew recensions.60 As pointed out, the Qumran finds include a few fragments of Hebrew Bible texts which are related to the Septuagint, and we must therefore distinguish between, on the one hand, variants which must be treated according to the rules of textual criticism,61 and, on the other hand, variants which represent different stages in the history of the text. On this basis, Elias Bickermann has sketched the development of the Septuagint's textual history in the following way:62 the starting point was an 'ur-Septuagint'. However, insertions and corrections aiming at a
1952. The first official notification of the find was given by Dominique Barthelemy in 'Redecouverte d'un chamon manquant de I'histoire de la Septante', RB 60 (1953), pp. 18-29 (dated Jerusalem, 19 September 1952). 60. See Hanhart, 'Zum gegenwartigen Stand der Septuagintaforschung', in Pietersma and Cox (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 8-10; idem, 'Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta in neutestamentlicher Zeit', ZTK, 81 (1984), pp. 395-416 (400-409). 61. An introduction to the possibilities of determining the Hebrew original of the Septuagint is given by Anneli Aejmelaeus, 'What Can we Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?', ZAW99 (1987), pp. 58-89. Even though it may not be possible to make general rules on the use of the Septuagint as a text witness, 'nevertheless, it is possible to say of all the translators that they showed great reverence for their original and no doubt tried, each in his own way, to do justice to it with their rendering' (p. 63). If nothing else can be proved it must be assumed that the special readings of the Septuagint correspond to the source text of this translation. For a moderate objection to this view, see Martin Rosel, Ubersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung; Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta (BZAW, 223; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), pp. 13-16. The standard work for this question is Emanuel Tov, The TextCritical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 3; Jerusalem: Simor, 1981), but see also his Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Maastricht, Van Gorcum, 1992), esp. pp. 121-54. 62. See 'Some Notes on the Transmission', pp. 150-57.
43
greater conformity with the Hebrew text soon led to several text recensions. This tendency was replaced through a stabilization of the Greek text in the first and second centuries CE, whereby some text recensions were maintained and others were rejected. Later, a de-stabilization set in again, with new text families emerging. This was partly because extant text recensions were dislocated under the influence of the revisions made by Origen in his Hexapla (see below) in the third century and by Lucian in the fourth.63 The recent finds of Septuagint texts have actually settled the current dispute on the making of this translation. Thus Paul de Lagarde maintained the existence of an Ur-text, which, he said, was worthwhile reconstructing.64 Conversely, Paul Kahle claimed that what eventually came to be the Septuagint dated back to a plurality of renderings, none of which could claim priority in the pre-Christian era.65 In this respect Kahle believed it possible to compare the creation of the Septuagint to the growth of the Aramaic targums. This hypothesis can no longer be accepted.66 Besides, new investigations of the translation technique used in the Septuagint has led to the conclusion that the targums are dependent on the Septuagint, not the reverse.67 In other words, already in pre-Christian Judaism we find evidence of a wish to revise the old Greek translation to make it conform to the
63. Lucian is generally identified with a presbyter from Antiochia, who was martyred in 311 or 312. The recension carrying his name does not attempt any approximation to the Hebrew text, but builds on Origen's Hexapla and is distinguished by grammatical and stylistic improvements. See, for further discussion, Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, pp. 157-71. 64. See for the following, e.g., the research reports in Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, pp. 59-73, and Emanuel Tov, 'The Septuagint', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 161-88 (165-68), also for relevant literature references. As to Lagarde's somewhat ambiguous achievement, see also Hanhart, 'Jiidische Tradition und christliche Interpretation', pp. 289-92. 65. See in particular his The Cairo Genizah (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2nd edn, 1959), pp. 209-64. 66. Cf. Hanhart, 'Jiidische Tradition und christliche Interpretation', p. 295: 'Das Postulat einer altesten in sich einheitlichen Textform, die in der Uberlieferung der christlichen Septuagintahandschriften noch erkennbar und annahernd wiederherstellbar ist, ist durch die Dokumentation selbstnicht nur fur den Pentateuch, sondern auch fur die prophetischen Schriftenals richtig erwiesen.' 67. See Robert Hanhart, 'Zum gegenwartigen Stand der Septuagintaforschung', in Pietersma and Cox (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 3-18 (5-8). Cf. Staffan Olofsson, The LXX Version, p. 5, and the literature quoted there.
44
Hebrew Bible text which must at this time have commenced the stabilization process, which then accelerated to reach its conclusion after CE 70. The early testimonies of a revision also provide the solution to the formerly so puzzling question of why there are quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament in a textual form that anticipates the result which later revisionists like Aquila and Theodotion arrived at.68 After all, they did have predecessors,69 and it may now be concluded that their efforts were not solely inspired by the use the Christian church made of the Septuagint. In the beginning the problem was not that Holy Scripture was at all submitted to translation or that divine inspiration was considered to be exclusively reserved for the Hebrew text. Such speculations belong to a later date.70 What was recognized fairly early was the difficulties connected with translating from Hebrew and Greek. This is expressed in the preface to the translation of the book of Sirach (chs. 20-26). The translator thus asks the reader's indulgence
if, in spite of all the devoted work I have put into the translation, some of the expressions appear inadequate. For it is impossible for a translator to find precise equivalents for the original Hebrew in another language. Not 68. See e.g. Alfred Rahlfs, 'Uber Theodotion-Lesarten im NT und AquilaLesarten bei Justin', ZNW 20 (1921), pp. 182-99, who at that time thought that the disagreements must be coincidental, 'da 'ein Aquila vor Aquila' zweifellos nicht existiert hat' (p. 190). Quoted after Hanhart, Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta, p. 403. 69. Cf. the title of Dominique Barthelemy's edition and text-historical interpretation of the Greek translation of Minor Prophets, Les Devanciers d'Aquila (VTSup, 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963). See also Hanhart, 'Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta', pp. 403404. As examples, Hanhart quotes (pp. 404-405) Jn 19.37 (Zech. 12.10) and 1 Cor. 15.54-55 (Isa. 25.8; Hos. 13.14); cf. also 'Das Neue Testament und die griechische Uberlieferung des Judentums', in F. Paschke (ed.), Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (TU, 125; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1981), pp. 293-303 (297-303). 70. A discussion of these problems is the main concern of R. Hanhart, 'Fragen um die Entstehung', pp. 139-63, occasioned by B.H. Strieker, De brief van Aristeas (VNAW.L, 72.4; 1956), in which it is asserted that a translation into Greek of the sacred writings was effected against the will of the entire Jewry. Hanhart rejects this thesis with good reason. The idea that the day when the seventy elders wrote out the Torah for king Ptolemy in Greek letters was just as bad as the day they produced the golden calf, because the Torah could not be adequately translated, first appears in Sefer Tora (1.8), a medieval treatise found in a supplement to the Babylonian Talmud. The perception that the translation was made under duress, which affected the final result, also appears in Johannes Lightfoot (1602-75); see Robert Hanhart, 'Judische Tradition und christliche Interpretation', pp. 284-85.

only with this book, but with the law, the prophets and the rest of the writings, it makes no small difference to read them in the original.
45
One can hardly avoid the impression of a certain reservation as to the finished result. The words seem to suggest that the Law, the Prophets and the other sacred writings only come into their own right when expressed in Hebrew. In other words, the perception that the content of the translations of the biblical writings was not immediately identical with the content of the Hebrew text itself must have been prevalent very early. The only question is whether this was due to linguistic difficulties or to a new translation ideal which was beginning to assert itself.
Chapter 3
JEWISH DEFENCE OF THE GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE LAW

The attempts made to approximate the oldest Greek translation to the Hebrew text by way of recension, which, as we have seen, were evident already in pre-Christian Septuagint texts, are the key to understanding the Septuagint's textual history, and also the defence of the Greek translation of the Law, which set in as early as the second century BCE. The fundamental problem pertaining to the Greek translation of the sacred writings has been whether this would possess the same authority as the Hebrew original, or, if it came to that, whether it would be able to replace it. 1. Aristeas This is a persistent problem in the Pseudepigraphic writing Aristeas's Letter, or, as it is also called, Aristeas,1 since it is really more of a novel
1. A thorough introduction to Aristeas and the history of this Pseudepigraph is found in, e.g., Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, pp. 29-58. See also Karlheinz Miiller, 'Aristeasbrief, TRE, III (1978), pp. 719-25. The Greek text of Aristeas is available in the following editions: Paul Wendland, Aristeae ad Philocratem epistvla cvm ceteris de origine versionis LXX interpretvm testimoniis (Leipzig: Teuber, 1900); in an appendix to Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (rev. Richard Rusden Ottley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), pp. 531-606, where the text has been edited by H.St.J. Thackeray; and in Andre Pelletier, S.J., Lettre d'Aristee a Philocrate (SCS, 89; Paris: Cerf, 1962). Among the more recent translations are those made by Paul Wendland in APAT, II (1900), pp. 131; Herbert Andrews in APOT, II (1913 and later editions), pp. 83-122; Johannes Munck in DGTP, I (1953-63), pp. 380-440; Pelletier in Lettre; N. Meisner, Aristeasbrief (JSHRZ, II. 1; Giitersloh: Gutersloher Verlagen, 1973), pp. 35-85; R.J.H. Shutt in OTP, II (1985), pp. 7-34. The quotations below are from the translation by Shutt.
3. Jewish Defence of the Greek Translation of the Law
47
than a letter.2 Even if it is assumed that this writing was not originally composed to ensure the Greek translation of the Law a canon-like authority, it was nevertheless this motive that made it popular and secured its survival. The disposition of the book and the proportioning of its subject makes the description of the translation work look like a frame story. The novel seems to derive from a Hellenistic Jew in Alexandria, whose intention was to convince himself and his countrymen of the superiority of their religion, also when measured by the standard of Hellenistic civilization.3 It is difficult to date, but, although a late dating has been attempted, it was most likely written between 150 and 100 BCE.4 The book purports to be written by a man called Aristeas who held a high position at the court of the Egyptian king Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BCE). In his writing he approaches the equally distinguishe Philocrates with a description of how he prevailed upon the king to initiate a translation of the Jews' sacred Law and to bestow benefits on this people, in particular by releasing a great number of war prisoners. For, when the chief librarian of the royal library, mistakenly identified with the renowned Demetrius of Phaleron (born c. 350 BCE),5 tells the
2. A recognition of the pseudepigraphic and novel-like character of the writing does of course belong to a later time. According to Hanhart,' Judische Tradition und christliche Interpretation', pp. 284-85, it is first expressed by Juan Luis Vives (1492-1540), later by Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) and Humphrey Hody (1659-1707), among others. 3. Cf. V. Tcherikover, 'The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas', HTR 51 (1958), pp. 59-85, in which the formerly often expressed viewpoint is repudiated, namely that the writing should have been an apology for Judaism, directed at Gentile readers. See now also Reinhard Feldmeier, 'Weise hinter "eisernen Mauern". Tora und judisches Selbstverstandnis zwischen Akkulturation und Absonderung im Aristeasbrief, in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 20-37. Cf. further below. 4. See, besides the detailed examination in Bickerman, 'Zur Datierung', pp. 28098 (293-96), suggesting that it was created some time between 145 and 127 BCE, also the discussion in Schurer, History, III.l, pp. 677-87, where the conclusion is 'some time in the second century BCE' (p. 684). 5. This identification involves two problems. First, our sources prior to Aristeas say nothing about Demetrius having been chief librarian at the newly-founded library at Alexandria. Secondly, it is said about Demetrius that after he had been banished from Athens, he found shelter at Alexandria as adviser to Ptolemy I Soter (323-285 BCE), but when this king died (which happened in 282), he was expatriated. However, the Alexandrian-Jewish philosopher Aristobul, who worked under Ptolemy VI Philometor (181-145 BCE), i.e. prior to the creation of Aristeas, connects Demetrius
48
kingin the presence of the authorthat a copy of the Hebrew Law (10: vojjiva) is a desideratum,ôr\h including in the king's library, the king asks him what prevents him from getting hold of it. And Demetrius answers (11):
Translation is needed. They use letters characteristic of the language of the Jews, just as Egyptians use the formation of their letters in accordance with their own language.
This makes the king issue orders that a letter be sent to the Jewish high priest so that the project may be put into operation. At this moment Aristeas intervenes to link this project to a release of Jewish war prisoners. For words and actions should go hand in hand (15):
The laws have been established for all the Jews, and it is our plan not only to translate, but also to interpret them, but what justification shall we have for this mission, as long as large numbers are in subjection in your kingdom?
This argument makes the king issue an edict on the release of all Jewish prisoners; he also instructs Demetrius to make a memorandum on the copying of the Jewish writings (U0epT|uvevaou tr|H*097v8e tf|v ( oupyouoiov],U(28). The prelude to this memorandum records the king's order that missing books should be collected and those that are damaged were to be suitably repaired (29). Then follows Demetrius' memorandum, in which it is stated (30):
Scrolls of the Law of the Jews, together with a few others are missing, for these are written in Hebrew characters and language. But they have been transcribed somewhat carelessly and not as they should be [<xuA,ecjTepov
to the translation project (see below). Cf. for these problems e.g. Elias Bickerman, The Septuagint as a Translation', PAAJR 28 (1959), pp. 1-39; here quoted after the revised edition in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (AGJU, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 167-200 (168-69). Inter alia, it is said here (p. 168): 'Whether or not the version was made under guidance of Demetrius, the name of a man famous as a law-giver in Athens and as an adviser of the first Ptolemy fitted the story perfectly.' In her treatise, '281 BCE. The Year of the Translation of the Pentateuch into Greek under Ptolemy IT, in Brooke and Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, pp. 403-503, based on the dating of the translation project, also in the Patristic sources, Nina Collins has tried to 'rescue' the information about Demetrius's co-operation. She claims that the initiative for it was taken while Ptolemy I was still alive, i.e. before Demetrius was expatriated. By means of these dates, and many others in between, Nina Collins thus manages to concretize the date of creation of the translation. See also below, n. 34.

8e, KCU ov>x **; tucdpxei, aeaf|H<xvTou], according to the report of the experts, because they have not received royal patronage.
49
The king is therefore to apply to the high priest of Jerusalem and ask him to dispatch qualified translators,
six in number from each tribe, in order that after the examination of the text agreed by the majority, and the achievement of accuracy in the translation, we may produce an outstanding version.
The king accordingly sends a letter to the high priest Eleazar, who replies by way of dispatching seventy-two translators whose names are listed (apparently it is irrelevant for the context that nine and a half tribes had disappeared when the northern realm fell in 722 BCE) together with a copy of the Law. After a long paragraph describing the king's gifts to the high priest and the embassy itselfwhich occasions a lesson in the wisdom of the Jews' purity decrees (51-171)we are told of the translation commission's arrival before the king. Among the presents they bring is a magnificent edition of the Law, 'scrolls on which the Law had been inscribed with the Hebrew letters in gold' (176). After the king questioned each of the seventy-two learned men over seven days and admired their wise answers (182-300), Demetrius brings them, after a further three days, to the island of Pharos to a secluded place, where they carry out the translation,
They set to completing their several tasks, reaching agreement among themselves on each by comparing versions [oi 8e ejteTeXovv EKaoxa av>H(pcova Jtoioutei; npbq eavTouq xaii; <xvupoA,a!<;]. The result of their agreement thus was made into a fair copy by Demetrius (302).
We are then told how they carried out their work 'by reading and explaining every single text' (305).
The outcome was such that in seventy-two days the business of translation was completed, just as if such a result was achieved by some deliberate design (307).
The translation is read aloud in public before the local Jewish population, which has not been mentioned before; the translators receive a great ovation, and Demetrius is asked to have the whole Law copied out and handed to their leaders.
As the books were read, the priests stood up, with the elders from among the translators and from the representatives of the 'community' and with the leaders of the people and said: 'Since this version has been made
50

rightly and reverently, and in every respect accurately {kata iiavv oupoBwuoiov],Uit is good that this should remain exactly so, and that there should be no revision [Staakeun]."
To accentuate the translation's authoritative character, it is said, curses were to be laid on anybody
who should alter the version [diaoKe-odoei] by any addition or change to any part of the written text, or any deletion either. This was a good step taken, to ensure that the words were preserved completely and permanently in perpetuity (311).
In other words, the translation is surrounded by the same safety precautions as the Mosaic Law itself (cf. Deut. 4.2; 12.32).6 Only then is the translation read to the king. His admiration for the Lawgiver's genius gives way to surprise that no historian or poet has yet thought of mentioning such a complete workthis is a thread picked up from Aristeas 31. Demetrius replies (313) that this is,
because the legislation was holy and had come from God, and indeed, some of those who made the attempt were smitten by God and refrained from their design.
Demetrius knows that this was what happened to Theopompus (of Chios, 377-300 BCE, a disciple of Isocrates) 'when he was about to quote in a misleading way some of the previously translated passages [twa TCGV 7upor|puT|vei)|ieva)v] from the Law' (314),7 and to Theodectes (of
6. A description of the features of Aristeas meant to underline the 'authoritative' character of the Greek translation is found in Harry M. Orlinsky, 'The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators', HUCA 46 (1975), pp. 89-114 (9496), where, for instance, it is said that 'the biblical expression for "to canonize" [i.e. "to read aloud to the people"] is precisely the phrase employed in the Letter to indicate that the Septuagint, exactly as the Hebrew Torah, was canonized' (p. 95). 'It was, simply put, no less divinely inspired than the Hebrew original of Moses' (p. 97). Even the name of the otherwise unknown high priest, Eleazar, has been chosen with care (cf. Exod. 6.23; Num. 3.2-23; 20.25-28; Deut. 10.6; Josh. 14.1 [see pp. 101102]). Hanhart, 'Fragen um die Entstehung', p. 155, interprets the absence of a direct divine interference with the translation in continuation of the absence of the prophetical spirit in Israel after the expiration of the time of the 'real' prophets: 'Unter dieser Voraussetzung.. .erscheinen die Aussagen des Aristeasbriefes tiber die Stellung der Judenschaft zur LXX in einem anderen Licht: Sie sind das bestmogliche Zeugnis, die dieser Ubersetzung im Lichte dieses Geschichtbildes Uberhaupt ausgestellt werden konnte' (italicized by Hanhart). 7. 'What had been translated previously' does not necessarily apply to earlier translations. Cf. A.F.J. Klijn, The Letter of Aristeas and the Greek Translation of the
51
Phaselis, 376-335 BCE, another disciple of Isocrates, and a friend of Aristotle), when he thought of using some of the material in one of his dramas. All ends in the king's wishing to keep in touch with the translators on whom he bestows splendid gifts, and Aristeas can now conclude his description to Philocrates. There is reason to believe that Aristeas describes how the first Greek translation of the Mosaic Law was achieved, and that the intention of the novel in this connection is to assure the reader that this translation is, as it should be (being a law text), in complete agreement with the original. The translation thus represents an absolutely authoritative rendering of the Mosaic Law and must remain eternally valid. The specialnarratively rather superfluousemphasis of the fact that the completed work was not to be subjected to any kind of revision mayeven if it is also a traditional 'closure' of inspired textssuggest that it had in fact already been questioned. It is not said so directly, but may well be supposed that the indirect purpose of the assurances was to defend this translation at the cost of others. It has been suggested that this defence was at the cost of older translations,8 as well as that Aristeas itself betrays the existence of such older translations. This supposition is based on Aristeas 30 and 312-16. The first of these passages is part of Demetrius' memorandum to the king. In the translation of Herbert Andrews it runs:
And they have been carelessly interpreted [aeaf||aavTai] and do not represent the original text.
The rendering of the verb aear||iavTai by 'have been interpreted' or
Pentateuch in Egypt', NTS 11 (1964-65), pp. 154-58, in which it is asserted (p. 158): 'The word TCQV rcpoTipuTiveuuevoov does not refer to translations "earlier made" ...but obviously to some passages (TIVOC) which were translated before they were inserted into his [Theopompos's] works.' See also Bickerman, 'The Septuagint as a Translation', pp. 172-73 n. 14: 'Here the expression ta proermeneumena means "previously expounded" and refers to the reading of the Law to the king.' 8. This is the viewpoint expressed in Paul Kahle, 'Die Septuaginta. Prinzipielle Erwagungen', in Johann Fuck (ed.), Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt zwn 60. Geburtstage 2. September 1947 (Niemeyer: Halle & Saale, 1947), pp. 161-80 (166). See also idem, The Cairo Geniza, p. 212. According to Kahle, Aristeas makes propaganda for a new translation, made in Alexandria some time about 100 BCE, since from the beginning it was only a question of various targums.
52
with Johannes Munck 'have been translated',9 is, to all appearances, wrong. A rendering of the verb by 'to write'10 has also been suggested, or, which is probably more correct, by 'to mean'.11 The text undoubtedly refers to manuscripts which have been carelessly copied out, not carelessly translated, which means that Aristeas 30 does not refer to Greek translations, but to Hebrew manuscripts in general, and perhaps in particular to those available in Alexandria.12 The description of the deplorable condition of the available Hebrew texts (cf. the speech in 29 about the damaged books which were to be repaired) explains why it should be necessary to provide a reliable original, while the need for a translation appears from the fact that the books containing the Jews'
9. Johannes Munck is not the only one to advocate this interpretation. It appears in, e.g., Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, pp. 212-14, and Sidney Jellicoe, 'Aristeas, Philo and the Septuagint Vorlage', JTS 12 (1961), pp. 261-71 (267). 10. This seems to have been finally proved by G. Zuntz in 'Aristeas Studies: Aristeas on the Translation of the Torah', JJS 4 (1959), pp. 109-126; reprinted in and here quoted after Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, pp. 208-225 (216-18). Among former advocates of this interpretation may be mentioned L. Mendelsohn (1897) and E.J. Bickerman (1944; cf. also 'The Septuagint as a Translation', p. 191, n. 62). Also Tcherikover, 'The Ideology', p. 75, belongs to this group. Zuntz has found support, e.g., in Pelletier, Lettre d'Aristee, pp. 119-20, and D.W. Gooding, 'Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: A Review of Recent Studies', VT 13 (1963), pp. 357-79 (reprinted in Jellicoe, Studies, pp. 158-80) (360). Gooding does not agree with the inferences made by Zuntz though; see below. The two most recent translations have 'geschrieben' (Meisner in Aristeasbrief, p. 50) and 'transcribed' (Shutt in OTP, p. 14; cf. also note e). 11. Thus George Howard, 'The Letter of Aristeas and Diaspora Judaism', JTS 22 (1971), pp. 337-48 (339-40), suggests that <yr|uttiveiv should be taken to mean 'to signify' or 'to mean'. Howard also suggests that the verb should be understood as the perfect tense, and that the comma after t)7idp%ei, found in the text editions, should be removed. His translation would thus be: '... for they happen to be written in Hebrew characters and in the Hebrew language, but haphazardly, and they have no meaning as they now exist.' 12. It seems artificial that Zuntz interprets the saying as if it applied to the only existing Hebrew Law text, namely that belonging to Eleazar in Jerusalem, and as if this was the text that was made the object of royal care. Also on this point, Zuntz takes it for granted that the story of Aristeas is 'inconsistent in itself ('Aristeas Studies', p. 219) to such a degree that it is the motive of the royal care, which for some Greek classics resulted in a journey to Athens to get hold of the 'authorized' text, that made the author of Aristeas declare that the only existing Law text was carelessly transmitted. This hypothesis has been convincingly refuted by Gooding, 'Aristeas', pp. 364-70.
53
sacred Law were written in Hebrew letters and language. As a matter of fact, the high priest Eleazar, on his own initiative, sends a magnificent edition of the Law, which, coming from Jerusalem as it does, represents the authoritative original. This interpretation is confirmed already in Aristeas 3 by the description of the high priest Eleazar,
whose integrity and reputation [KaJioKayaSa] have won him pre-eminent honour in the eyes of citizens and others alike, and who has gained a very great benefit for his own circle and for (fellow) citizens in other places. Our deputation (waited upon him) with a view to the translation [npbq Tpv epuTjvetav] of the divine Law, due to its being written by them on parchments in Hebrew characters.
If this is compared to Demetrius' argument for the need to have the Jewish legislation translated, namely that the Jews have 'letters characteristic of their language' (1 1), the meaning seems to be that it is not only the fellow citizens of the high priest 'in other places' who do not understand this language, but the problem is also felt 'in his own circles', that is, in Judaea. This is to say that it is the high priest who holds the key to the transmission of the content of the Law. Apparently, it is not only a question of sufficient linguistic expertise,13 as is also testified by the words in Demetrius' memorandum (32) about the letter that was to be sent to the high priest to ask him to 'to dispatch men of the most exemplary lives and mature experience, skilled in matters pertaining to their Law, six in number from each tribe, in order that after the examination of the text agreed to by the majority and the achievement of accuracy in the translation, we may produce an outstanding version [to Kocia rr|v ep|at|veiav 6cKpi{3e<;]'. Immediately before this, Demetrius had argued for an accurate version of this legislation, because it is divine, very philosophical and pure.
Writers therefore and poets and the whole army of historians have been reluctant to refer to the afore-mentioned books, and to the men past (and present) who featured largely in them, because the consideration of them is sacred and hallowed, as Hecataeus of Abdera says (31).
The term 'accurate version' seems to apply to a true interpretation

13. In his critical attitude to Zuntz's interpretation, Gooding ('Aristeas', esp. pp. 361-62, 376-79), has emphasized that, in Aristeas, 'to write' and 'to translate' are to be understood in the extended sense referred to below.
54
rather than a true translation. The frequently used 'akribi' does not apply only to the text-critical aspect or philology, but the verbs 'to write' and 'to translate' both pertain to the content, that is, they are instrumental in conveying the proper understanding of the divine legislation. In 305 it is even said that when the translators started their work, they 'proceeded to the reading and explication of each point' (eipercovio rcpoc; xfiv dtvocyvcoCTiv KOU TTIV eKocaTOD Siaadcpriaiv). The conclusion may be drawn that Aristeas's author used the verb 'to write' in a way that involved applying one's mind to the true meaning of the text; and that the inaccuracies of the extant Hebrew scrolls must be attributed to an insufficient knowledge of what the written text really implied rather than carelessness.14 Anyway, the words ascribed to Demetrius indicate that the qualifications asked for in the translators was familiarity with the Law just as much as it was their mastery of the language.15 The different
14. In this connection Gooding refers to Zuntz's analysis of the use of the verb 'to write' (ar|umveiv) in a fragment of the Jewish philosopher Aristobul, which has survived in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 13.12.3-8). Zuntz writes about it ('Aristeas Studies', pp. 217-18, and Gooding quotes, 'Aristeas', pp. 361-62): 'In his endeavour to demonstrate that the Greeks got their best thoughts from Moses he has just quoted the prooemium of Aratuswith a thoroughgoing alteration of the original text, putting throughout "God" in the place of "Zeus". In dealing with so wellknown a text Aristobulus deemed best to confess to his interference. This he did assuming the pose of rational criticism. "The poem clearly refers to God, whose power permeates the universe," so he argues, "hence I have written as required, eliminating the poetical (fiction) Zeus": r|v8e tf|v (3i|3A,ov)'.uaykauev, TiaiSetai; oupoyaia Sia uoiov],U0epT|uvevaou tr|v8e tf|v (3iis a technical term (Latin inducere) of Alexandrinian scholars denoting the bracketing of spurious matter. And ariumveiv is here used for the conscientious writing of a text by a criticas in Aristeas.' However, Gooding includes this example in a 'positive' interpretation of Aristeas (p. 377): 'If accuracy in writing out a manuscript meant to Aristeas not merely copying exactly what you saw in the text, but giving what you "knew" to be the accurate "meaning" of what you saw, how much more would "interpretation" be involved, when it came to translating the Hebrew into Greek.' 15. Cf. Gooding, 'Aristeas', p. 378, who concludes that as propaganda it was of little consequence to the Jews of Alexandria that seventy-two elders from Jerusalem were so versed in Greek that they were able to translate from Hebrew to Greek. 'But to have a translation that must be right, and must represent exactly what the Law meant, because it was made by seventy-two experts in interpretation of the Law, straight from Jerusalem and with the confidence of the High Priest, would be a great comfort for Jews who were disturbed by rumours and reports that not all Hebrew MSS agreed.'
55
words used in this novel about the translation project reinforce this assumption.16 The other passage, which has sometimes been interpreted as testifying to the existence of previous translations, 312-16, is not worth much in this respect even if it should refer to such, albeit unsuccessful, attempts.17 In that case it should anyhow be treated as a lapse, an 'unhistorical' manifestation of the apologetic Jewish tradition, which claimed that the great heathens of old must have known the Mosaic Law.18 If Aristeas's description alone is assumed, we may conclude that the target was not more or less earlier translations.19 Rather, it was the more recent revisions of the old translation which attempted to make the Greek wording conform to the Hebrew text.20 Aristeas therefore goes a
16. In Aristeas, the verb oriuaweiv is not at all used in the sense of 'translating' (see, besides 30, also 33, 120, 143, 192, 315); ne0epuiive\>ew (15, 308, 310), H,e9epuT|ve/ueiv (38), epnuvexjew (39) and 7ipoepT)|u.veiaeiv (314) are, however, used in conjunction with the corresponding substantives epuriveioc (3, 11, 32, 120, 301, 308) and epur|VEx><; (310, 318). The substantive netaypoapri in 9 and apparently also 10 probably means copy, whereas in 45,46, 307 it means 'translation', and in 15, 309 the verb u^Taypdcpeiv means 'copy out'. Cf. also dvTvypoctpTl in the sense of 'copy' in 28 and 8iocCT(X(pr|ai<; in the sense of interpretation in 305. 17. Cf. Klijn's interpretation referred to above, n. 7. 18. The unhistorical and self-contradictory aspect of this apologetic perception has been demonstrated by, e.g., Zuntz, 'Aristeas Studies', pp. 222-24. The earliest known tradition of a translation from before Ptolemy is due to the already mentioned Aristobulus; it is found in a fragment which has been handed on in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 13.12.1-2, and in a free rendering by Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1.22.150. See further below. In this connection Clement also quotes the new-Pythagorean philosopher Numenius for having said: 'What is Plato but an Atticspeaking Moses?' Cf. also Philo, De vita Mosis 1.2-3, and Josephus, Apion 2.168, and his paraphrase of Aristeas 312-316 in Ant. 12.111-13. This originally Jewish perception was taken up by some Fathers of the Church (see the following chapter). 19. Sidney Jellicoe, 'The Occasion and Purpose of the Letter of Aristeas: A ReExamination', NTS 12 (1965-66), pp. 144-50 (148-50), thus, by way of an experiment, risks the 'conjecture' that it is a question of a translation made by Onias IV and the circle around him, in connection with the building of the temple at Leontopolis about 154 BCE. Analogous to the Samaritan Pentateuch, this translation may have 'undergone accommodational alteration in justification of the Onias temple' (p. 149). Meisner, Aristeasbrief, p. 43, thinks along the same lines; even so, he dates Aristeas to somewhere between 127 and 118 BCE, i.e. the time of the struggle for power between Ptolemy VIE Fyskon and Cleopatra n. For the question of who founded the temple at Leontopolis, see below. 20. Thus Sebastian P. Brock, 'The Phenomenon of the Septuagint', OTS 17
56
long way to assure that the old translation is in complete agreement with the wording of the 'real' Hebrew original, which, far from being a haphazard, even deficient, copy, had come from the high priest of Jerusalem himself. Neither were the translators just anybody, but they were the most distinguished representatives of the twelve tribes. This guaranteed a rendering in complete agreement with the intention of the original. Thus, Aristeas is best understood as representing Greek-speaking Jews' defence of their edition of the Mosaic Law against a 'reaction' which advocated a de-Hellenization of the Greek translation. Clearly Aristeas does not speak of a 'local' translation, but a translation into Greek meant for all Jews. Quite apart from Aristeas 3, this is evident in 38 where the project in Ptolemy's letter to Eleazar is called 'a favour to all the Jews throughout the world, including future generations'. Anyway, it is tempting to say that the 'original' translation expresses another 'cultural' attitude than that of the 'revisionists' when the seventy-two 'elderly noble gentlemen' (46) are later on (121-22) declared to be
men of the highest merit and of excellent education due to the distinction of their parentage; they had not only mastered the Jewish literature, but had made a serious study of that of the Greeks as well. They were therefore well qualified for the embassy, and brought it to fruition as occasion demanded; they had a tremendous natural facility for the negotiations and questions arising from the Law, with the middle way as their commendable ideal; they forsook any uncouth and uncultured attitude of mind; in the same way they rose above conceit and contempt of other people, and instead engaged in discourse and listening to and answering each and every one as is meet and right.
Indeed, this characterization suggests an implicit judgement of certain

(1972), pp. 11-36 (23). In continuation of a perception of Aristeas 30 as referring to the unreliability of the Pentateuch manuscripts preserved at Alexandria, Brock, unlike Kahle, does not view Aristeas as an attempt to promote a new translation of the Pentateuch, but as a defence of 'the original, third century, translation against those who wished to correct it and bring it into closer line with the Hebrew' (p. 24). Brock locates this critical attitude to the Septuagint in Palestine. Later, in 'Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity', GRBS 20 (1979), pp. 69-87 (72), Brock says that the increasingly critical attitude to the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch should be related to the fact that 'general opinion had clearly come down on the side of considering the Bible as a legal rather than as a literary document', and, as far as law texts were concerned, the translation ideal was from the beginning a greatest possible literalness.
57
circles within Judaism who were everything that these seventytwo'enlightened' men were not;21 thus it also becomes an indirect criticism of a Bible text which was not up to these standards.22 The 'cultural gap' is also apparent in the reply which the enlightened high priest, according to Aristeas, gives to the Egyptian embassy during their visit to Jerusalem when they ask him about the significance of the Jewish legislation about meat and drink (128-71). Here all this legislation is subjected to an allegorical interpretation which reveals its profound meaning (147) and lets it allude to 'righteousness and righteous human relationships'(169). This brings it on line with the prevailing moral philosophy. 'The middle perception [TO jieaov KatcxaTT||j,a] said to be the most commendable'23 must be what is manifest in the wording of this particular translation, which was already belittled in the second century BCE, at least in some circles24 in or (more likely) from Palestine. The above-mentioned finds of Greek Bible manuscripts in Palestine, for example, the book of the Minor Prophets, testify to this. It may reasonably be supposed that this 'reaction' reached Egypt together with the contingent of refugees, who fled from Palestine in connection with the upheaval against the Seleucids.25 It may even be confined to the circle
21. Thus Tcherikover, 'The Ideology', p. 67, who gives his approval to M. Stein, The Author of the Letter of Aristeas as a Defender of Judaism', (Hebrew) Zion 1 (1936), p. 134, in which these unenlightened circles are identified as the Chasidim. The same idea is found in Howard, The Letter of Aristeas', p. 341, which calls the writing 'an apology of Diaspora Judaism in the face of charges brought against it by Palestinian Judaism' (italicized by Howard). Admittedly, the 'wisdom' expressed by the seventy-two in their reply to the king is anything but particularist-Jewish. Only in 288 do we come across a 'Mosaic' commandment, namely the commandment to honour father and mother. 22. Cf. also the pronouncement in the prologue to the translation of Sir. 27-30 where the grandson says that, during his stay in Egypt, he 'found much scope for giving instruction [ox> uiicpa<; TiaiSetai; oupouoiov], and I thought it very necessary to spend some energy and labour on the translation of this book (toti U0epT|uvevaou tr|v8e tf|v (3i|3A,ov)'. As mentioned above, the author does not necessarily think that the standard of education in every respect is higher than his own! 23. This theme from popular philosophy appears in Aristeas also in 223 and 256. 24. Howard, The Letter of Aristeas', pp. 341-44, goes a little further when he asserts that it is a question of a downright attack 'from those who use the Hebrew Bible (the Palestinians) against those who use Greek translations. In the mind of the former, the latter do not actually have the Law as it left the pen of Moses. People who do not have the Law do not keep it!' (p. 343; italicized by Howard) 25. Thus Albert Pietersma, 'Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the
58
around an exiled high priest who had settled at Leontopolis, where he, with the consent of the Egyptian king, founded a Jewish temple on the ruins of a pagan one. It is doubtful whether this high priest should be identified with Onias III, who was forced into exile in 175 BCE after his brother Jason had purchased his position,26 or maybe with his son Onias IV. 2. Aristobulus As it has been made clear, Aristeas was not the earliest source to connect a translation of the Pentateuch to Ptolemy II Philadelphos and Demetrius. Already the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus, who lived in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor (181-145 BCE),27
Original LXX', in Pietersma and Cox (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 85-101 (100). 26. Thus Isaac Leo Seeligmann in The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1948). Seeligmann maintains that in a number of passages the Septuagint's rendering of Isaiah reflects the situation at the time of the Maccabean upheaval, and he points to Heliopolis, in whose district Leontopolis was, as the place where the revisionist endeavours with regard to the text of the Septuagint started. Thus, according to Josephus (Ant. 13.64), the Greek wording of Isa. 19.19 served to legitimize the temple at Leontopolis. According to Seeligmann, this temple may be viewed 'as an intermediary station through which the Palestinian tradition and Biblical interpretation found their way to the Jewish milieu in Alexandria, and, more particularly, to the Alexandrian translation of Isaiah' (p. 86). See also the excursus, pp. 91-94, 'Onias III and the Onias Temple in Heliopolis', where Seeligmann seeks to render it probable that it is the tradition of Onias's escape to Egypt that is to be believed rather than the tradition of his escape to Antioch (for this, see also 2 Mace. 4). This latter tradition is in any case due to a Palestinian opposition to the temple of Leontopolis. There are some indications that Seeligmann is right. Josephus relates both traditions; in War 7, the builder of the temple is thus Onias III, but in An/. 13.6273 he is identified as Onias, the son of Onias. This, in particular, may give rise to the suspicion that it was inconvenient having to accept that the legitimate high priest had built an illegitimate temple, and for that reason he was 'relieved'. The temple at Leontopolis was destroyed in connection with the Jewish war in 70 (see War 7.42021). 27. Previous research sometimes questioned the genuineness of the Aristobulus fragments handed on in e.g. Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea; thus in Wendland, Aristaea ad Philocratem epistvla, p. 124, he is referred to as 'PseudoAristobulus'. Today he has become rehabilitated; cf. e.g. Schiirer, History, III, pp. 579-87, and the principal work: Nikolaus Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulus (TU, 86; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964). Both Clement (Stromateis 5) and Eusebius (Praeparatio 8.9) identify him with the Aristobulus mentioned in 2 Mace. 1.10 as the
59
did this. He even refers to earlier translations. In a fragment which has survived in Eusebius' Praeparatio evangelica 13.12, 1-2, Aristobulus thus says, directed at king Ptolemy, that Plato knew the legislation of the Jews, for28
it had been translated [8it|pn.f|veT}Tcu] by others before Demetrius Phalereus, before the conquests of Alexander and the Persians. The parts concerning the exodus of the Hebrews, our fellow countrymen, out of Egypt, the fame of all the things [eTtupdveia] that happened to them, the conquest of the land, and the detailed account of the entire legislation \_rf\c, '6Kr\q vouoSeoiai; eTie^fiynoii;] (were translated). So it is very clear that the philosopher mentioned above (i.e., Plato) took many things (from it). For he was very learned, as was Pythagoras, who transferred many of our doctrines and integrated them into his own system of beliefs. But the entire translation of all the (books) of the Law [i\ 8e oX,T| ep|o.r|ve{a TCOV 6ia tou vonov jtavTcov] (was made) in the time of the king called Philadelphus, your ancestor. He brought greater zeal (to the task than his predecessors), while Demetrius Phalereus managed the undertaking.29
Significantly Aristobulus refers to this event as a matter of course, thus indicating that he relies on an extant tradition. Whether Aristeas depended on Aristobulus is hard to say. It has been maintained, either that Aristobulus presupposed Aristeas, that they both drew on a common tradition30 independently of each other, or that Aristeas built on Aristobulus. While the first possibility must be excluded for chronological reasons, it is difficult to decide which of the latter possibilities is
teacher of Ptolemy. The same Eusebius, in his history of the Church, quotes a fragment of Anatolius of Constantinople's Easter canon, which includes him among the seventy who translated the sacred and divine writings of the Jews for Ptolemy Philadelphus and his father (Historia ecclesiastica 7.32.16). This is, however, impossible. Eusebius mentions the comprehensive work by Aristobulus, from which the Fathers of the Church quoted, as an interpretation of the legislation (or as an explication) of Moses. The fragments reveal him as a Jew who combined Greek philosophical thinking with Moses and the Law by means of a distinctly allegorical interpretation. 28. The quotation below is from the translation of Adela Yarbro Collins in OTP, 11(1985). 29. Part of this fragment is found in a more free rendering by Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1.22.148, in which the king is at first identified with Ptolemy I (as later in Irenaeus; see the next chapter) or alternatively, under the influence of Aristeas, with Philadelphus. In this connection, however, Clement also mentions a translation of the prophetical writings. 30. So, e.g., Schurer, History, ffl. 1, pp. 474-75.
60
correct. To reach a decision, it will have to be determined how widespread the tradition referred to by Aristobulus was. If Aristobulus was the first to connect Demetrius with the translation project (which would be quite in keeping with his apologetic inclination) then the last-mentioned possibility is more likely, and Aristeas has then gone a little further and made the statesman keeper of the king's library. The essential question in this connection relates to the historical core of the tradition. Aristeas's highly legendary presentation awakened the suspicion of critical scholarship at a very early date. But we must also try to avoid the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water.31 The fact that the translation project was given royal authorization might have been for apologetic purposes.32 It would have been natural for Egyptian Jews to connect it with the ambitious library of Alexandria. On the other hand, given our knowledge of Ptolemy II, we may easily imagine that he himself took the initiative for a translation of the Mosaic Law. He was an impassioned book collector and the presumably ancient books of the Pentateuch may well have aroused his interest; all the more so because they were the only written source for the legislation and early history of a people inhabiting his realm.33 The very character of the translation, moreover, indicates that it was quite professionally made. Furthermore, it is wholly unlikely that the translation of the Pentateuch was made with a view to recitation in the synagogue. A lectio continue, of the entire Pentateuch seems to belong to a later age. Be that as it
31. This was the result reached by the first exegetes, who saw through the fiction of Aristeas, namely Scaliger and Hody in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. See Hanhart, 'Jiidische Tradition und christliche Interpretation', p. 284. 32. As we shall discuss below, Josephus is content, in an apologetic context, only to mention this aspect of the intended message in Aristeas. 33. See for this, esp. Bickerman, 'The Septuagint as a Translation', p. 174, where it is said that Ptolemy 'was interested in books as he was in exotic animals. By hook or by crook he gathered manuscripts.' Bickerman also refers to analogies to the royally initiated translation of the Pentateuch, which render the historicity of this tradition probable. Cf. for a similar view also Leonhard Rost,'Vermutungen tiber den Anlass zur griechischen Ubersetzung der Tora', in Stoebe et al (eds.),WortGebot Glaube, Beitrdge zur Theologie des Alien Testaments (Festschrift Walther Eichrodt; ATANT, 59; Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970), pp. 39-44; D. Barthelemy, 'Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle ete traduite en grec?', in M. Black and W.A. Smalley (eds.), On Language, Culture, and Religion (Festschrift Eugene A. Nida; Approaches to Semiotics, 56; La Haye: Mouton, 1974), pp. 23-41, reprinted in idem, Etudes d'histoire de texte de I'Ancien Testament (OBO, 21; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), pp. 322-40 (329-31).
61
may, it is certain that an 'official' translation would have been certain to find its way into Jewish society very quickly. Aristeas provides ample evidence of the high status it held among the Jews. The purpose of the 'message', which was originally primarily apologetic, has been extended to support the religious authority of the translation. A comparison between Aristeas and the Aristobulus fragments gives us reason to believe that there is a historical core in the tradition of a royally inspired translation of the Pentateuch.34 3. Philo Considering Aristeas, it is true that the Greek translation of the Law is at least indirectlydescribed as having been made in accordance with God's will, and endowed with eternal life and 'canonical' status, but it had not yet been equipped with any supernatural features. Such a feature is, however, added by the next extant witness to the making of this translation: Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE-c. CE 50). In his treatise De vita Mosis 2.26-44, we find a version of this description, which is either an intentional, shortened edition of Aristeas or an independent adaptation of the same legend.35 Anyway, this Hellenistic-Jewish philosopher accentuates the authoritative character of the translation even more. Philo also says that it was Ptolemy II Philadelphus who took the initiative for the translation and dispatched messengers to the high priest and king of Jerusalem, said to be one and the same, asking him 'to choose by merit persons to make a full rendering of the Law' (TO\)<; TOV vojiov 8iepuT|vet)aovTa<;) (31). Mentioning the need for tranquil working conditions, Philo describes the task before them as being (34)36
to make a full version [8iepur|ve\>eiv] of the laws given by the Voice of God, where they could not add or take away or transfer anything, but must
34. There are limits though. And these seem to be transgressed when Nina Collins ('281 BCE. The Year of the Translation') besides being able to date the event precisely, also (pp. 463ff.) thinks it possible to 'verify' the information that it took seventy-two work-days to complete the translation. On the whole, Nina Collins puts great trust in those sources which may confirm her hypotheses. Cf. also n. 5 above. 35. J. Munck among others is in favour of the last viewpoint, 'Aristeas', DGTP, I, p. 390, while Jellicoe favours the first, Septuagint and Modem Study, pp. 38-39. 36. The quotations below are from the translation of F.H. Colson in LCL.
62

keep the original form and shape [if|v e^ apxf)? v5eav xat TOV ttutov am&v 8ia<pt>XdTTOVTa<;].37
To avoid becoming ritually impure in the great city of Alexandria, the translators chose to stay on the isle of Pharos, where they might enjoy peace and tranquility, and where the soul was not to commune with anything but the laws (KCU IO.OVTI tf\ \^\>%r\ rcpoq uovoix; ouaXâai toix; vouotx;). Here, it is said (36)
taking the sacred books [ton; iepaq fhf&iou^], stretched them out towards heaven with the hands that held them, asking of God that they might not fail in their purpose. And He assented [ejtiveviei] to their prayers, to the end that the greater part, or even the whole, of the human race might be profited and led to a better life by continuing to observe such wise and truly admirable ordinances.
In their seclusion on Pharos they are alone with the elements of nature: earth, water, air, heaven, the creation of which was also what they were to reveal (iepo(pavrr|CTeiv) for the laws begin with the creation of the world. The result of their translation is described not merely as the result of a commissioned work during which they conferred with each other, but it is said about the translators (whose number is not stated) that they
became as it were possessed [KaQanep evSouovcbvtei;], and, under inspiration, wrote, not each several scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter [cooTtep vmopoXeox; eicdoTOK; dopdcrcoi; evTixowToq].
Even though, as Philo says, the Greek language is so abundant in expressions, this translation was made to correspond word for word (icupia icopioit; ovouaai) with the Chaldean original (38). And Philo continues (39-40):
For, just as in geometry and logic, so it seems to me, the sense indicated does not admit of variety in the expression [noiKiXiav epur|ve{a<;] which remains unchanged in its original form, so these writers, as it clearly appears, arrived at a wording which corresponded with the matter, and alone, or better than any other, would bring out clearly what was meant. The clearest proof of this is that, if Chaldeans have learned Greek, or Greeks Chaldean, and read both versions, the Chaldean and the translation [epuirveDSeiari], they regard them with awe and reverence as sisters or rather one and the same, both in matter and words, and speak of the 37. Hanhart, 'Fragen um die Entstehung', p. 152, makes it clear that in this case Philo uses platonic conceptions which do not appear in the Christian editions of the Septuagint legend later on.

authors not as translators [epur|vea<;] but as prophets and priests of the mysteries, whose sincerity and singleness of thought has enabled them to go hand in hand with the purest of spirits, the spirit of Moses.
63
Thus, already in Philo, we find the attitude to the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch which, as we shall see, Augustine applied to the entire Septuagint, namely that the translators were prophets and that, consequently, the translation was inspired.38 Finally Philo says (see 41-44) that right down to his generation there had been a yearly celebration on the isle of Pharos in which not only Jews but also others took part in great numbers, gathering from across the water to do honour both to the place where this translation first shone out, and to thank God for this old, yet eternally new benefit. After having described some details from the celebration, Philo concludes by saying that the laws thus appear to be both enviable and precious in the eyes of ordinary people as well as kings, albeit that Jews have for a long time not lived in prosperity, which may well throw its shadows. If there was to be a change for the better, a great influx might be expected, and many would abandon their ancestral customs in favour of the laws of the Jews. For if the laws of this people are accompanied by outward success, they will darken the light of others as the rising sun darkens the stars. In Philo, it is expressly stated that the project was in accordance with God's will, and that the result was inspired. This means that the Greek Bible is not a daughter version, but a 'sister' enjoying equal rights. The emphasis on the translation as the best imaginable will preclude any criticism or demand for revision. The reference to the translators as priests and prophets who were blessed because they were in accordance with the spirit of Moses finally characterizes them as men who have had access to the very spiritual reality which underlies or precedes the written Hebrew Torah in the same way as the laws of geometry exist
38. Cf. Yehoshua Amir, 'Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 421-53 (442-44). Amir points to (p. 443) the introductory words of 26: 'In ancient times the laws were written in the Chaldean tongue, and remained in that form for many years, without any change of language [tr|v SidÊKTOv o\) Utaf3(xA,XovTe<;], so long as they had not revealed their beauty to the rest of mankind.' Amir emphasizes that our logic would expect something like 'remained restricted to that language'. But the word for word meaning of Philo's sentence is that the language of the book was originally Hebrew (or, as Philo likes to say, 'Chaldean'), but 'is Hebrew no longer'.
64
independently of their practical application. This may be comparable to Philo's polemics against the exclusively allegorical exegetes in his De migratione Abrahami, 89-93. Philo is not denying the justification of allegorical interpretation, which was a basic factor in his own exegesis, but he does deny these exegetes' rejection of the commitment to the literal significance, also with respect to the Law. Such a rejection separates the spiritual and temporal worlds in a way that threatens the reality of the latter and thus also the possibility of realization. Philo sees both the Hebrew and the Greek versions of the Mosaic Law as complete expressions of the underlying spiritual reality. 4. Josephus In Josephus' Antiquitates Judaicae 12.11-118 we find a paraphrastic version of Aristeas abbreviated to about two-fifths of the original.39 This work also keeps to a 'human' translation of the Law, but there are some interesting 'corrections'. The description of the high priest (Aristeas 3) is omitted and Demetrius says in his dialogue with the king (14) that40
he had been informed that among the Jews also there were many works on their law [jtapa -coiq 'Iox)8avotq TCOV nap' ai)Toi(; vouivwv 0-oyypdn.naTa],41 which were worthy of study and of a place in the king's library, but, being written in the script and language of this people, they would be no small trouble to have translated into the Greek tongue [eig TTIV 'EXA,T|vvicnv (xetapaXXoueva yXSmav
The carelessness which, according to Aristeas 30, characterized the Hebrew manuscripts in Alexandria, is, according to Josephus, explained by Demetrius in this way (36-37):
39. This abbreviated version is primarily due to e.g. Aristeas 1-8 and 187-300 having been omitted, but apart from that it also consists in abridged paraphrases. Only in Ant. 100 does Josephus mention, in connection with one of his abbreviations, that Aristeas has himself written the book, in which he appears. Josephus's Aristeasreception has been treated in Andre Pelletier, Flavius Joseph adapteur de la Lettre d'Aristee: une reaction atticisante contre la Koine (EeC, 45; Pans: Klincksieck, 1962). 40. The quotations below are from the translation of Ralph Marcus in LCL. 41. See also the indefinite plural form in 15. In 36, 'the books containing the legislation of the Jews' (TO tf\q 'loDScdwv vouo6eoiai; (h|}Xia), is referred to. Elsewhere, the description 'the Law' is generally used.

For being written in Hebrew characters and in the language of that nation they are unintelligible to us [xapaierfjpcnv yap 'Eppaixoii; yeypau|ieva Kai qxavfj eatw -bow aaacpfi]. And it so happens that they have been copied with less care than they needed [o\>n.pepT|Ke 8' ccuta KOU dneXecnepov il e5ei cecrnuxivSai.], because they have not yet been made an object of royal concern.
65
The possibility that there might already exist other translations is neglected.42 The description of the selected translators in Demetrius' memorandum (Aristeas 32) is repeated in Ant. 39 in different words:
to send six elders from each tribe who are most versed in their laws, in order that when we have learned from them the clear and consistent meaning of these [to to>v Pvpxicov ocpe<; Kai avuxpcovov EKuaSovTei;] and obtained an accurate translation [TO KCITCC rnv epur|veiav ctKpipe XapovtEi;], we may have a collection of these books which shall be worthy of their contents and of your design.
Here nothing is said about their having 'led the most exemplary lives'.43 The words about how the translators conferred with each other have been replaced by a remark that they did their utmost to create a translation that was as accurate as possible [ol 8'ox; evi uaXiata (piAmiuxix; Kai aKpipfj rnv epunveiav 7toio\>uevoi] (104). No more than Aristeas does Josephus imply any direct divine intervention; he even omits the remark in Aristeas 307: 'As if such a result was achieved by some deliberate design.' The vocabulary used by Josephus to describe the making of the translation does not differ much from Aristeas.44 After having described how the translation was read aloud to all Jews of the city (Aristeas 308), and having repeated the words that the version had been made so accurately that it must not be revised (UTI HetccKiveiv), Josephus omits the decree that a curse should be laid on anyone who should think of altering the version. Instead he says (109):
42. Cf. the above examination of Aristeas 30 and 312-16. Josephus consistently renders Aristeas 314 in such a way that the verb npoeputivexiew does not appear. 43. In 57, Josephus 'forgets' that there were six elders from each tribe and refers to the seventy. 44. Thus both epuT|ve\>evv (11, 114), ji.e0epT|uve'Uiv (20, 48), epurivem (39, 49, 87, 104 (bis), 106, 107, 108) and epur|vex><; (107, 108), appear together with ueTtxypdpew (20, 48, 56, 107), UETaypa<pf| (55), dvaypa<f>T| (34) and dvtiypcwpov (35 [bis]). New in relation to Aristeas are (ietapaXXeiv (14, 15, 107) in the sense of 'translating' and 5uxoa(peiv (108) in the sense of 'interpreting'.
66

Accordingly, when all had approved of this idea, they ordered that, if anyone saw any further addition made to the text of the Law or anything omitted from it, he should examine it and make it known and correct it; in this they acted wisely, that what had once been judged good might remain for ever.
This formulation is rather ambiguous. Taken apart, it might give the impression of being an exhortation to control the translation in relation to the Hebrew text, but the context on either side of the quotation discourages such an understanding. Apparently Josephus prefers to leave a door ajar for both traditions.45 Josephus also includes the Aristeas novel in his Contra Apionem, 2.45-47. He mentions here, as a great compliment to Judaism, that Ptolemy was so desirous 'to know our laws and to read the books of our sacred scriptures' (toti yvtbvou toix; fiueiepoox; vouoix; KCCI taiq Ttov iepoW ypacpcbv p(pAm<; evroxew) that he sent for Jewish deputies to interpret the law to him (toox; epur|vet>aovTa<; amGt TOV vouov). The provisions for the correct copying of the Law were not entrusted to any ordinary person, but to Demetrius of Phaleron together with Andrew and Aristeas. Such an interest 'in our laws, the creed of our ancestors' (iov>c, vouo-og mi TTIV Jidtpiov fiucov cpiX-oooquav) shows the king's admiration for those who lived according to them. It may be said conclusively that in Aristeas there seems to be an unreleased tension between two interests. On the one hand, there is an accentuation of the integrity of both text and translation, and, on the other, a recognition that the process of rendering or translating a text often involves interpretation. This ambivalence is semantically manifest in the Greek epunveueiv and in the Latin interpretari. In Philo and Josephus the picture becomes one-dimensional. To them, the basic text was unambiguous, and translation meant providing an accurate version of it. Neither questioned that this was an accurate version of the same authority as the Hebrew text. In principle, this meant that they accepted two 'original' texts on an equal footing. In none of these authors, be it Aristeas, Aristobulus, Philo or Josephus, is there any indication that the Greek version is understood as incomplete or secondary. Only in later rabbinical sources do we meet the assertion
45. Sebastian Brock, 'To Revise or Not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Translation', in Brooke and Lindars (eds.) Septuagint, pp. 301-338 (309), thinks that this ambiguity may be intentional. Anyway it seems evident that in places Josephus uses a 'revised' Septuagint text.
67
that the Seventy-two had altered details in their translation out of regard to king Ptolemy.46 This tradition was later taken up by Jerome. The apologetic intention which finds expression in the polemics against any revision of the translation is evident in Aristeas; it may even be the main object of this Pseudepigraph. In Philo, it is accentuated. Not only does he declare that the Greek edition was made according to God's will, but he also says that it was inspired and therefore inviolate. Apparently, 'revisionists' were already a regular threat in the second century BCE, against whom one had to defend oneself. Instead of subsiding, this threat continued to grow until it was effectuated at the synod of Jamnia, and the old Greek Bible translation was denounced. This called forth the defence of the Church for its adoption of the Jewish Bible in the shape of the Septuagint.
46. See for this, besides the references in Str-B, IV. 1 , pp. 439-41, Karlheinz Miiller, 'Die rabbinischen Nachrichten iiber die Anfange der Septuaginta', in J. Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch (Festschrift Joseph Ziegler; FB, 1; Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1972), pp. 73-93. Cf. also Emanuel Tov, The Rabbinic Traditions concerning the 'Alterations' inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX', JSJ 15 (1984), pp. 65-89.
Chapter 4
THE RECEPTION OF THE SEPTUAGINT LEGEND INTO THE CHURCH

UP TO AND INCLUDING AUGUSTINE
1. Graeca Veritas It is of course the Aristeas legend about the seventy-two translators which has given the old Greek translation of the sacred books of Judaism the name of the Septuagint, the number having been rounded down (in scientific literature it is often shortened to the LXX). The name was first used in the second century AD by Christian authors, who referred to it merely as 'the Seventy's' (oi epSourjKovia, septuaginta interpretes). This name has stuck to the old Greek Bible ever since. Its text had certainly not been uniformly handed down, in particular because of the many recensions. Nevertheless, it stands out as a separate entity among all later attempts at a more verbatim version of the Hebrew text. Although the Aristeas legend in Jewish sources only applies to the translation of the Pentateuch, it was but a short step to extend it to comprise Greek translations of all other sacred Jewish books. For Christianity did not allow the Law the same fundamental role that it had in the theological universe of Judaism. The early church looked upon the Scripture primarily as a prophecy, and it was natural for the now predominantly Greek-speaking Church to maintain that the translators on the isle of Pharos had translated the entire Old Testament. This did in fact happen the moment discrepancies between the Greek translation and the Hebrew Bible text were expressis verbis made the subject of discussion, as we see it in Justin the Martyr (d. c. 165).1 Insofar
1. The description of the patristic testimonies are based partly on Sundberg, Old Testament, pp. 171-76 (excursus, The Septuagint in the Church), partly on Hanhart, 'Fragen um die Entstehung', pp. 139-63. Cf. also Heinrich Karpp, '"Prophet" oder "Dolmetscher." Die Geltung der Septuaginta in der Alten Kirche', in Wilhelm Schneemelcher (ed.), Festschrift fur GiintherDehn zum 75. Geburtstag am 18. April
4. The Reception of the Septuagint Legend into the Church
69
as we know, Justin was the first Christian author to embark on the circumstances connected with the making of this translation. On the whole his writings are the earliest evidence we possess of a controversy on the proper wording of the Bible text. This controversy provoked a demand for an authorization of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible in general and for a vindication of the veracity of the Septuagint in particular. This Christian philosopher is thus the first theologian of the Church to issue a doctrine on Holy Scripture.2 In Apologia 31.2-5, which refers to the prophecies of Christ prior to his coming, Justin says that these were preserved by successive Jewish kings in their original Hebrew language. And he continues:
When Ptolemy king of Egypt formed a library, and endeavoured to collect the writings of all men, he heard also of these prophets and sent to Herod, who was at that time king of the Jews,3 requesting that the books of the 7957 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1957), pp. 103-17, Pelletier, Lettre d'Aristee, pp. 78-98; Pierre Benoit, O.P., 'L'inspiration des Septante d'apres les Peres', in J. Guillet et al. (eds.), L'homme devant Dieu (Festschrift H.d. Lubac; Theol(P); Paris: Aubier, 1963), pp. 169-87; and Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, pp. 41-47. Recently, Martin Hengel has published a very thorough investigation of the first part of this history, namely, 'Die Septuaginta als von den Christen beanspruchte Schriftensammlung bei Justin und den Va'tern vor Origenes', in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways AD 70 to 135 (ed. James D.G. Dunn; WUNT, 66; Tubingen: Mohr, 1992), pp. 39-84. As to Justin, see pp. 4167. See also idem, 'Die Septuaginta als "christliche Schriftensammlung", ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanons', in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 182-284 (187-203). In this connection, concerning primarily the question of the authority of the Septuagint, the reception history has only been pursued up to and including Augustine. But there is of course a sequel. According to Schiirer (History, III. 1, p. 685) the most comprehensive list of references is found in C. Oikonomos, Flepi TCOV 'Eprmve'UTcbv TTI<; 7iocA,(xia<; Gemq I-IV (1844-49). A number of the texts quoted are available in a supplement to Wendland, Aristeae ad Philocratem epistvla, pp. 85-166. As to the mentioned Fathers of the Church, see current text editions. Unless otherwise stated, the translations are from ANF and NPNF. 2. Thus Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, p. 106: 'Justin ist der erste rechtglaubige Theologe, der so etwas wie eine "Lehre von der heiligen Schrift" besitzt.' It appears from his writings that this doctrine was developed not only for the sake of dialogue with the Jews, but also because of controversies within the Church. 3. This is a gross anachronism showing that Justin did not know anything about the history of the Jews in post-exilic time, but inferred it from the gospels and Acts.
70
The First Bible of the Church prophets be sent to him. And Herod the king did indeed send them, written, as they were, in the aforesaid Hebrew language. And when their contents were found to be unintelligible to the Egyptians, he again sent and requested that men be commissioned to translate them into the Greek language [<co\>q \itiaâKovviac, amac, ei<; TTJV 'EXX,d8a (pcovriv av9pa>7toi)q]. And when this was done, the books remained with the Egyptians, where they are until now. They are also in the possession of all Jews throughout the world; but they, though they read, do not understand what is said, but count us foes and enemies; and like yourselves, they kill and punish us whenever they have the power...
The context thus 'testifies' to the fact that Jesus Christ was the fulfilment of the promises, and the mention of the translation serves to underline that this had for a long time been available to everybody. Apparently, what Justin has in mind is neither the Pentateuch, nor is it, so far as can be seen, the 'prophetical books' alone (ou p{|3Axn TO>V 7tpo<pT|Teicov), but the entire Old Testament; the expression indicates the point of view from which he reads it. In Dialogue with the Jew Try/on, written about ten years after Apologia, that is, c. AD 160, the ever recurrent problem is about the correct wording of Isa. 7.14, whether it should be read 'virgin' or 'young woman'. The question is first taken up in 43.5-S,4 where it is said that Jewish teachers have the audacity to declare that the text says 'young woman' (which they render by veaviq instead of 7iap0evo<;), and that they interpret (e2;T|yeicy9ou) the prophecy as applying to (the later) king Hezekiah. Justin reverts to this in 66.1-4, and Trypho confirms the Jewish interpretation in 67.1. In 68.7-8 Justin asks Trypho whether he should not disassociate himself from those (Jewish) teachers who dare say that the explanation which your seventy elders that were with Ptolemy the king of the Egyptians gave [rnv e^riyrjoiv, \v eT|yT|CTavTo oi epSouTiKovta5 ouiov Ttpeapviepoi napa rhoXeumco TOW Aiywucov paaiXev Yev6|ievoi], is untrue in certain respects? For some statements in the Scriptures, which appear explicitly to convict them of a foolish and vain Cf. for a discussion of this, Hengel, 'Die Septuaginta', p. 45, where it is very appropriately said about Justin: 'Historische Bildung war nicht seine Starke.' 4. Isa. 7.14 is also mentioned in Apol. 33.1, but here the question of the proper wording is not discussed. 5. This 'formula' for the Septuagint, which concentrates on the translators, also appears, though with insignificant variations, in 71.1; 84.3; 120.4; 124.3; 131.1 an 137.3 (bis).

opinion, these they venture to assert have not been so written. But other statements, which they fancy they can distort and harmonize with human actions, these, they say, refer not to this Jesus Christ of ours, but to him of whom they are pleased to explain [e^nyEiaOai] them.6
71
This is precisely what they do with Isa. 7.14. Justin reverts to the subject again, in 71.1-2; he refuses to side with the Jewish teachers who deny the veracity of the translation made by the Seventy to the Egyptian king Ptolemy, and instead try to create one themselves. In this connection Justin accuses these Jews of having
altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations (a!o lwv eEvYnoewv) effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified and as dying.
Here Justin mentions Isa. 7.14 again (cf. also 84.1-3). Asked by Trypho which sayings have been deleted, he quotes, in chs. 72-73, four of those passages which he thinks have been omitted from the new Greek translations. There are both well known as well as unknown sayings; as, for instance, the famous prepositional phrase 'from the tree' (aiio ioo Eukou) of Ps. 95.10. The phrase also appears in Apologia 41, but, except for a few late exceptions, not in any Septuagint witnesses. Characteristically, the quotation from the Psalm appears again in 71.4 without this prepositional phrase. None of the four examples are convincing.7 Justin's accusation is only justified insofar as Aquila's re-translation of the Old Testament from the beginning of the second century CE was made on purpose to elucidate the discrepancy between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint and probably also to make it impossible for Christians to use the Jews' sacred books against them. The same may be said about Theodotion's translation from the end of the same century. All this is tangible proof of the increasing dominance of the Hebrew Bible
6. Justin uses e^nyeiaSai both in the sense of 'interpreting' and 'translating'. The verb epur|vex>ew is not used by him and the substantive epur|veia only twice, namely in Dial. 103.5; 124.4. 7. See Hengel, 'Die Septuaginta' , p. 57: They show 'daB seine Vorwurfe keinerlei sachlichen Ruckhalt besitzen'. Hengel assumes (see pp. 65-67), that the special readings derive from collections of testimonies which have been influenced by oral tradition. When Justin declares that he will only use non-controversial passages in his argumentation, this suggests 'eine gewisse Unsicherheit [...] die auch durch das siegessichere Auftreten des christlichen Lehrers in seiner Selbstdarstellung nicht iiberspielt werden kann' (p. 66).
72
text, also among Greek-speaking Jews. Justin, who knows of no miraculous events pertaining to the completion of the Septuagint, persists in maintaining that it was a purely Jewish achievement, made well before the coming of Christ so that it might bear witness to him, first as a prophecy, then as the foundation of the proof from Scripture. It is therefore impossible that the Christians should themselves have created what in the meantime had also become their Bible. Another apologetic writing is the Cohortatio ad Graecos.* It has, mistakenly, been attributed to Justin, but is probably slightly younger. Its author enlarges upon the more fanciful version (ch. 13) of the story about the making of the Septuagint in a way that has only been surpassed by Epiphanius. According to Cohortatio ad Graecos, king Ptolemy was interested in some history books of great age which were written in Hebrew and well conserved. The number of Jewish scribes is stated to be just seventy, and we are told how the king, besides assisting them in every respect, took precautions to prevent the translators from conferring with each other; in this way he could infer from the way they agreed with each other how scrupulous they were. The translations which were unanimous even as to word order amazed the king and convinced him that the Spirit of God (0eia 8i)va|4.i<;) had been at work. The purpose of this addition was of course to emphasize that the Septuagint was divinely inspired and therefore as reliable as the Hebrew Bible, the interpretation of which the Jews had practically monopolized. The author of Cohortatio ad Graecos even professed that he had seen, on the isle of Pharos, remnants of the cells where the Seventy worked. He also refers to other witnesses like Philo and Josephus. The writing now reverts to the assertion that the Old Testament belongs to the Jews, not to the Church, and that Christians do not derive their theology from these writings. The answer is that the teaching contained in the Old Testament is not to be found with the Jews, but with the Christians. The fact that the Jews keep the Scripture in their synagogues, though it does not sustain their own faith, but on the contrary confirms the Christian faith, is an act of Providence in favour of the Church. Thus Christians are acquitted of any charge of fraud. Anybody may go to the synagogue and be assured that the sayings of Scripture are in fact meant for the Christians. In his principal work, Adversus haereses, 3.21, Irenaeus (d. c. 200)
8. This writing appears in Berthold Altaner und Alfred Stuiber, Patrologie (Freiburg: Herder, 7th edn, 1966), p. 68, entitled Cohortatio ad gentiles.
73
continues along the same lines.9 In some reflections preceding his interpretation of Isa. 7.14, he briefly mentions the inspiration of the Septuagint. First he rejects Aquila's and Theodotion's new translations, in which 'the virgin' has been turned into 'a young woman'. This is a gross neglect of the prophetical word from before the Babylonian exile (i.e. before the reign of the Medes and the Persians).
But it was interpreted (interpretation) into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord's advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They, indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of (eternal) life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God (21.1).
Irenaeus then presents his own version of the legend on the making of the Greek translation, embellishing it with the same supernatural features as found in Cohortatio ad Graecos. One innovation is that Ptolemy (whom Irenaeus identifies as Ptolemy I Soter [323-285 BC]), calling him the son of Lagus) secluded the translators from each other for fear that otherwise they would be able to agree on disguising the inherent truth of the writings in their translation (uf)ii aw6e(j.evoi ajioKpt>\|/co0i Tt|v ev Taiq ypa9ai<; 8ia TT\<; epurive{a<; aA,T|0eiav) (21.2). For that reason he let each of them translate all books.
When they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. For all of them read out the common translation in the very same words and the very same names, from beginning to end [TOW Ttdvtwv TO awed Talq avnavi; Xeêoi Kai toiq axnov^ 6v6|iaaiv dvaYOpeuoavTcov an' apxfjq u^XP1 TeXxyoQ], so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God [OTI KOIT' ejtircvoxav tox> 0eoT> eiaiv f|pnr|vejuu.evai oti ypoupai] (21.2).
Irenaeus goes on to say that this was not so wondrous after all. For after the seventy-year-long exile under Nebuchadnezzar all sacred books had been lost. But when the Jews, during the reign of the Persian king Artaxerxes, were allowed to go home, God inspired (evejiveuaev) the
9. The Greek text is, as far as the (most) relevant paragraphs are concerned, rendered in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 5.8, 11-15.
74
priest Ezra of the tribe of Levi to write down (ocvaidâaGai) all that the prophets had spoken and to re-establish the legislation which had been given to the people through Moses. This legend is also found in 4 Ezra 14.37-48 (cf. ch. 2). Finally, Irenaeus says that in this way the writings have been translated very conscientiously and according to God's inspiration. This was how God prepared the way for and preformed (praeparavit et praeformavit)10 our faith in his Son. For our sake, the writings had been preserved uncorrupted in Egypt, where also Jacob's house had multiplied, and where our Lord found refuge when Herod was after his life. Thus, the translation was made long before our Lord descended on earth and the Christians emerged, and it is disrespectful and presumptuous to cause a new translation to be made, only because the old one confirms the Christian faith.
But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted [interpretari] in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation [interpolatio]. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these (heretics), agree with this aforesaid translation [interpretatio]; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical (announcements) just as the interpretation of the elders contains them [quemadmodum Seniorum interpretatio continei]. For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied ... (21.3-4).
The inclusion of the legend about the divinely inspired recreation of the sacred writings in post-exilic time, and, by analogy, the story of the translation of the very same books into Greek, leaves no room for recourse to the Hebrew Bible text. It is worth noticing that Irenaeus describes the completion of the Septuagint as the result of an interpretatio, for, like the Greek verb eput|veii>eiv interpretari can mean both 'translate' and 'interpret'. Though it is not said expressis verbis, Irenaeus' formulations do not eliminate the possibility that there might be some discrepancy between the Hebrew and the Greek texts.
10. Instead of praeformavit, W.W. Harvey, Sancti Irencei libros quinque adversus haereses, n (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857), p. 114, reads reformavit.
75
However, being inspired by God, the translation is beyond any criticism, since it is based on a presumed Ur-text. The intervention of the Spirit ensures the necessary continuity. Added to this, the Greek translation won 'canonical status' because it was the Bible of the apostles and of their disciples. Clement of Alexandria (d. before 215) describes in Stromateis 1.22, 148-49 the initiative taken by king Ptolemy for a translation of the sacred books 'both of the law and of the prophets' (= the entire Old Testament). With this description, Clement betrays his dependence on Irenaeus. After having stated that each of the seventy elders had translated all the prophetical books, and that their translations had proved to be all of one spirit, Clement adds: 'For it was the counsel of God carried out for the benefit of Grecian ears' (0eot yap r\v pox>A,T|[ia n-EiieXetTiiievov eiq 'EA,AriviKa<; OCKOOK;). Clement also refers to the earlier event when Ezra under the Persian king Artaxerxes, 'having become inspired in the exercise of prophecy, restored again the whole of the ancient Scriptures' (minvovc,rcdcaa<;lag rcaXaiaq owOu; dvocveouiievoi;rcpoecpTiTe'oaeypacpdq). No less than God's far-sighted salvation plan was at work in this translation several hundred years before Christ. Also Tertullian (d. c. 220) should be mentioned in this connection. He is the first Christian author to refer directly to Aristeas, as it appears from Apologeticum 18.5-9. He even states the original number of transators, namely seventy-two. Tertullian says about the most learned of the Ptolemies that he
among other remains of the past which either their antiquity or something of peculiar interest made famous, at the suggestion of Demetrius Phalereus, who was renowned above all grammarians of his time, and to whom he had committed the management of these things, applied to the Jews for their writingsI mean the writings peculiar to them and in their tongue, which they alone possessed, for from themselves, as a people dear to God for their fathers' sake, their prophets had ever sprung, and to them they had ever spoken. Now in ancient times the people we call Jews bare the name of Hebrews, and so both their writings and their speech were Hebrew. But that the understanding of their books might not be wanting, this also the Jews supplied to Ptolemy; for they gave him seventy-two interpreters ... The same account is given by Aristaeus.
Despite the reference to Aristeas, Tertullian does not specifically mention a translation of the Law. In rather vague terms he refers to the books which the Jews possessed, indirectly attributing these to the prophets.
76
Tertullian also says that 'to this day in the temple of Serapis, Ptolemy's library is displayed together with the Hebrew originals'. Tertullian also knows the legend of Ezra's re-creation of the sacred books after the exile (cf. De cultu feminarum, 1.3), but he does not draw the analogy to the making of the Greek translation. Instead, he parallels the legend to the re-creation of the book of Enoch after the Flood. Apparently he reckons this book among the writings translated.11 Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339) has a paraphrase of Aristeas in his work Praeparatio evangelica 8.2-15.9 (cf. also 10.38). It is abbreviated to about one fourth of the original. He considers Aristeas an eyewitness, and, like Clement of Alexandria, he touches upon the significance for salvation history of the Greek translation (see 8.1, 5,7).12 In Tractatus super Psalmos (2.3) (from c. 365), Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367) gives two reasons for the authority of the Septuagint. The first is that this translation was made long before the Lord's bodily coming. The second is that these distinguished and enlightened elders from the synagogue, who, besides being learned in the Law, were also, thanks to Moses, perfect in a more secret doctrine (quoque doctrina secretiore perfecti), cannot be set aside as translators, for they were the most reliable and influential experts in teaching. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) also, in his 24 christening catechisms from c. 350 (Catecheses IV, 34), mentions Ptolemy's initiative for a translation of the divine books (= the entire Old Testament). He emphasizes that the Egyptian king showed kindness, and by showering presents on the high priest had managed to persuade him to send six men from each tribe. Had he forced the Jews, they would have corrupted many things during their work. According to Cyril, each of the seventy-two men on Pharos was given his own chamber, and each was charged with the translation of the entire Scripture. When they had finished their job after seventytwo days, Ptolemy compared their results and found that not only did they correspond in wording, but also in mind. Cyril's conclusion was:
For the process was no word-craft, nor contrivance of human devices: but the translation of the Divine Scriptures, spoken by the Holy Ghost, was of the Holy Ghost accomplished.
11. See again, Hengel's investigation, 'Die Septuaginta', pp. 81-82. 12. In Demonstratio evangelica V., Prooem. 35, Eusebius says that the seventy Hebrew men, who together translated in complete agreement, demand a special degree of attention because the Church of Christ has rejoiced in making use of their work.
77
John Chrysostom (d. 407) emphasizes the impact on salvation history of the Septuagint in his Commentary on Genesis 4.4 (from c. 386). He says about Ptolemy's achievement that it was a result of God's household plan that not only those who mastered Hebrew, but all other inhabitants of this world should be able to benefit from the Scriptures. In his Commentary on Matthew 5.2, John Chrysostom, speaking of Isa. 7.14, calls the Septuagint to witness against Jewish criticism of the translation 'a virgin'. He claims that recent Jewish translations have been suspected of being hostile and of having obscured the prophecies. The translation made by the Seventy was completed long before this, and this circumstance, together with the mutual agreement between the translators, is proof of its reliability. The last author to be included in this connection is Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403). In his work, De mensuris et ponderibus, a kind of biblical encyclopaedia, chs. 3-11 represent a very detailed version of the particular Christian edition of the Septuagint legend. We are told that there were seventy-two translators on the isle of Pharos, working two by two, and confined to small huts from dawn to dusk.13 In the evening they were conveyed to the mainland in thirty-six boats to dine with Ptolemy, and at night they slept in thirty-six sleeping cells. Each couple had two servants: one to provide for their food, another to take dictation. To prevent any form of communication, their work-rooms had no windows, but light came through an opening in the roof. Each couple alternated with each other in translating all the canonical books of the Old Testament. Of these there were 27 or 22, according to how the letters of the Hebrew alphabet were counted.14 The translations were read out before the enthroned king and thus controlled both in relation to the Hebrew original and in relation to each other, and they were found to agree on every point.
13. Sidney Jellicoe suggests, Septuagint and Modern Study, p. 45, that the reason for Epiphanius's grouping the seventy-two in pairs is to be found in Lk. 10.1: Jesus appointed seventy-two others and sent them on, two by two ('two' is text-critically uncertain). According to this author the description is again inspired by Aristeas. See his 'St Luke and the "Seventy(two)'", NTS 6 (1959-60), pp. 319-21, and 'St Luke and the Letter of Aristeas', JBL 80 (1961), pp. 149-55. 14. See De mensuris 3. The divergent countings are due to the fact that five of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet have two forms. See also the further description of the number of books and their titles in De mensuris 4. In ch. 8, the author mentions that the translation included seventy-two apocryphal books. Cf. 4 Ezra 14.46, which 'only' counts seventy.
78

This miracle wrought by God proved these men to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit since they (in spite of their having worked separately) were in such agreement [ojuxxpoavriaav]. Where a word had been added, it had been added by all, and where something had been omitted, it was found to have been omitted by all. And whatever they omitted, was found to be superfluous, and whatever they included was indispensable.
These lines indicate that Epiphanius admitted to some discrepancies between the Greek translation and the Hebrew text which were not owing to later corrections; even so, he has no doubts whatsoever as to which wording is the true one. Evidently the Aristeas legend owes its particular shape to the way it has been handed on in the Church according to the specific needs of ecclesiastical theology. Of Jewish sources, only Aristeas and Philo plus Josephus' shortened edition of Aristeas, can be said to be relevant. But these three do not suffice to explain all those features which have been added in the ecclesiastical elaboration process, though they did prompt it. As the perception of the unique character of the Septuagint became more outlined in Christian theology and apologetics, it was not only acknowledged as an inspired translationa kind of variant of the Hebrew Biblebut it came to be regarded more as a revelation. The Hebrew Bible text was devalued or even rejected, either because it was taken to be a forgery, or because it was the Jewish Bible. Since the Septuagint was considered to be inspired, there was no need to vindicate it in relation to the wording of the Hebrew text. The Greek translation was sometimes even seen as an authoritative interpretation. The fact that it was made long before the coming of Christ endowed it with an additional justification in terms of salvation history. According to the long view of God's plan of salvation, a Greek edition of the Scripture was indispensable. To quote Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis 1.22,149):
It was not alien to the inspiration of God, who gave the prophecy, also to produce the translation, and make it as it were Greek prophecy [ou 8f| J;evov EKvrcvoia 6eov> TOV tT|v rcpoq>T|Teiav SeScoKOtoi; Kai Trjv epuriveiav clove! 'EXXT]vtKf|v npo<pr\ieiav evepyeioOai].
2. Hebraica Veritas The Septuagint was not allowed to reign supreme in the Church. Parallel to its adoption and the further embellishment of the originally Jewish legends about the making of this translation, the obsession with the
79
Hebrew canon continued to grow. At first this growth was particularly with regard to volume. As the distance from Judaism rapidly increased, there was some uncertainty over this question. At the same time, it was felt to be quite important. The argument over the Old Testament went through four phases: First, the Christians argued with the Jews about the correct interpretation of their common Bible. Then there was a clash with Marcion and the gnostics over the 'Christian relevance' of the Old Testament. Later, it was disputed whether the Apocrypha should be incorporated into the Bible. This dispute was, of course, rooted in the acceptance of the Septuagint. Finally, the question was raised whether it was the original Hebrew text or the Greek translation that represented the Old Testament of the Church. Only the last-mentioned point will be treated here. The oldest testimony to an ecclesiastical interest in the volume of the Old Testament canon is found in Melito of Sardes (d. before 190 CE). In a letter from c. 170 (recorded by Eusebius: Historia ecclesiastica 4.26, 13-14), Melito gives his fellow Christian, Onesimus, a precise description of the books of the Old Testament, their number and order of succession. This is probably the oldest passage in the known sources that refers to 'the books of the old covenant' (TCC TT\<; rcaAmai; 8ia9t|KT|<; pipX(ct). Melito even travelled to the country where the biblical events took place, and in his letter he presents a list comprising all books of the Hebrew canon with the exception of the book of Esther. Later on Origen (d. c. 252) verifies this list:15
It should be known that there are twenty-two canonical books, according to the Hebrew tradition [Taq evSiafltiKoxx; pifSAxroq, b<; 'Eppaiot Jtapa8i86aaiv]; the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet.
As we shall see, Origen does not look upon this canon as binding for the Church, since he wanted to include the Apocrypha. Athanasius (d. 373) took another view. In his 39th Easter Letter 3-4 he said that the Church ought to adhere to the Hebrew canon with regard to volume and keep those books apart which are called 'apocryphal'. Gregory of Nazianzus (d. c. 380) shared this opinion, as did Amphilochius of Iconia (d. c. 380) and Cyril of Jerusalem. The latter was the only one who restricted the Septuagint legend to comprise the
15. This quotation and a subsequent list, omitting ADoSeKajipocpTitov (by mistake?), has been handed on in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 6.25.1-2. The quotation below is from the translation by H.J. Lawlor in LCL.
80
twenty-two books of the Hebrew canon. In Catecheses (4.35), he says very briefly: 'You are to read the twenty-two books of the Septuagint. Stay away from the Apocrypha.' Epiphanius of Salamis also felt committed to the Hebrew canon. In De mensuris et ponderibus 23, he even argues for the number of twenty-two because of its equivalence to the number of God's acts in the six days of creation, the number of generations from Adam to Jacob, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet and the number of sextarii in a modius (Roman cubit measures) (cf. Jub. 2.23 above). Apparently the Hebrew canon was most influential in trivial matters.16 The matter at issue in the beginning was not the canonical Hebrew text or its special wording, but its number of books. Thus there was no objection to the apocryphal additions to the books of Esther and Daniel, any more than there was to the addition of those writings which might be listed under canonical tides (not only Lamentations, but also the book of Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah had been listed, together with the book of Jeremiah), as we see it in the canon of the synod of Laodicea (c. 360). The same tendency towards an outward acknowledgment of the Jewish canon is apparent in, for instance, Hilary of Poitiers. Not until Origen's extensive studies of the Old Testament text tradition, manifested in his principal work Hexapla, do we find signs of an actual interest in the Hebrew Bible text. As the name of the book indicates, it had six columns with six different texts. The first two columns displayed the Hebrew text, first in Hebrew letters, then transcribed into Greek letters; thereafter followed four different Greek versions (Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint and Theodotion). Rather than harmonizing the Greek translations with the Hebrew text, Origen's immediate intention was to co-ordinate the now embarrassing multiplicity of Septuagint readings,17 and also to clarify their relationship to
16. Thus for instance Sundberg, Old Testament, pp. 145-69. 17. Cf. Origen's sober description of the textual situation pertaining to the Septuagint in his commentary on Matthew (Mt 15.14; my own translation): Evidently the disagreement between the copies has become very marked [noXXfj yeyovev r| TWV dvtiypdcpeov Siacpopa], either because of the carelessness of some writers [duo pafrouiOK; TIVCBV ypaipecov], or because of the audacity of other writers to correct what has been corrupted [arc6 ioKr\\K, TW&V noxftripaq tffe 8iop0<i>ceco<; ifi>v ypa<poulvcov], or because of others again who corrected by either adding or deducing as they saw fit [OCTIO Tfflv ta eairtoli; Soxoima ev tri 8iop9cbaei itpooTiOevtcov r\ oupaipo'uvTcov].
81
the Hebrew textthe latter predominantly for an apologetic purpose. In the fifth column, that of the Septuagint (the so-called Quinta) Origen markedby means of text-critical symbols invented by the Alexandrinian philologist Aristarchus (217-145 BC)those points on which the Septuagint differed from the Hebrew text. Words in the Septuagint which were missing in the Hebrew text were marked with an obelus and a metobelus, whereas words which were missing in the Septuagint, but which he had inserted according to other Greek translations, were framed by an asterisk and a metobolus. In some cases, however, Origen interfered with the text without indicating it. When the Quinta was later copied out for use in the Church, the text symbols would often be neglected, the result being a new text form. In his relationship to the Septuagint, it might seem as if Origen wanted to have his cake and eat it. For, as dedicated as he was to the Septuagint, he was convinced that this translation reflected the original Hebrew text. In a letter written to Julius Africanus in reply to the latter's assertion that puns in Greek found in the first addition to the book of Daniel, that of Susannah, gave it away as an original Greek product which had never been translated from Hebrew, Origen takes the opportunity to deal at length with the divergencies between the Hebrew and the Septuagint texts. His attitude is unambiguous, as the following rhetorial question shows (Epistula adAfricanum 4):
And, forsooth, when we notice such things are we forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery? Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price [1 Cor. VI.20], for whom Christ died [Rom. XIV. 15]; whom, although His Son, God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all that with Him He might freely give us all things [Rom. VIII.32].
This expresses very strongly how far the Church depended on the Old Testament in the form of the Septuagint. Origen quotes Prov. 22.28: 'Do not move the ancient boundary stone which your forefathers set up.' Although Origen devoted so much energy to the task of clarifying the meaning of the different versions and readings, he did give special attention to the Seventy's interpreta (ueta lov IIoowq uakko
82
aokeiv inv epunveiav iwe O'), so as to avoid being accused of trying to introduce fallacies into the existing churches. Origen himself says that the reason for his preoccupation with the study of the Hebrew Bible texts was that he wanted, in his discussions with the Jews, to be able to quote both what was missing in their copies and to use what was found in them, albeit not in the copies belonging to the Church. In that way, the Jews would not be able, as was their custom, to scorn the faithful of Gentile origin for their ignorance of the true reading of the Hebrew canon (cf. Epistula adAfricanum 5).18 The question why the story of Susannah had been suppressed from the Jewish version of the book of Daniel, although part of the tradition, is answered by Origen in the following way: the Jewish scholars keep from the common people what may be seen as accusations against their elders, or their leaders and judges, though some of this matter is found in the Apocrypha. As examples of this, Origen mentions the traditions about the death of Isaiah, reflected in Heb. 11.37, and the story of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, which is confirmed by Jesus in Mt. 23.35. These incidents have been omitted in the Old Testament sacred writings (cf. Epistula adAfricanum 9).19 Nowhere does Origen justify his trust in the Septuagint by asserting that it had been a product of a miraculous intervention. His argument is one of tradition alone. Conversely, he goes on to ascribe tradition to providence. He also expresses his confident belief that the Septuagint echoes the Hebrew text in its original form. It would be wrong to say that Origen pleaded for greater deference to the Hebrew Bible text when it came to the acknowledgement of the Bible of the Church, in casu the Septuagint, but, inadvertently, he managed to make its text transmission even more complicated. His mastery of the Hebrew language may have been scant, to say the least. Apparently he did not know the Hebrew alphabet. Instead he used the second column of the Hexapla with its transcribed Hebrew text. It follows that this transcription was not his own.20 Origen did, however,
18. Cf. for this M.F. Wiles, 'Origen as Biblical Scholar', CHB, I, pp. 454-89 (455-61). 19. In evidence of such replacements, Origen, in continuation of Jesus' words in Mt. 23.30, also quotes Acts 7.52 and 1 Thess. 2.14-15. In the light of these passages, the story about Susannah does not seem to him at all improbable. 20. See P. Beskow, 'Hieronymus och judarna', in Hidal et al. (eds.), Judendom och kristendom, II (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget), pp. 243-53, which on this question
83
lay the foundation which Jerome needed to involve the Hebrew Bible text. This had far-reaching consequences.21 It should be mentioned in passing that the first half of the fourth century saw Church Fathers like Eusebius of Emesa, whose attitude to the Septuagint was not quite so fundamentalistic, who were not inclined to be sceptical towards the Hebrew text.22 a. Jerome Jerome (347/8-420)23 was at first uncritical towards the Septuagint, which he referred to as the translation used by the apostles as vera interpretation In 386, however, Jerome settled at Bethlehem, and from
refers to Dominique Barthelemy, O.P., 'Origene et le texte de 1'Ancien Testament', in F. Fontaine and Ch. Kannengieser (eds.), Epektasis: Melangespatristiqu.es offerts au cardinal Jean Danielou (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972), pp. 247-61 (254-55). 21. An attempt to make Origen appear even more of Jerome's predecessor on this question is found in Paul Wendland, 'Zur altesten Geschichte der Bibel der Kirche', ZNW1 (1900), pp. 267-90 (272ff.). Occasioned by the letter to Julius Africanus, it is said that Origen 'argumentiert doch nicht mit der Autoritat oder gar Inspiration der LXX, sondern mit der Annahme eines hebraischen Originals, ein deutlicher Beweis, dass ihm im Grunde nur der Urtext als autoritativ gilt' (p. 272). Wendland also thinks that with this letter we are at the beginning of a development in Origen towards a greater confidence in the Hebrew text. Later remarks (as for instance in the commentary on Matthew [Mt. 15.14] and De oratione 14.4) 'zeigen ein grosseres Mass des Misstrauens gegen die LXX und einen fortgeschrittenen Standpunkt' (p. 273). 22. Cf. Henning J. Lehmann, 'Den j0diske hellige skrift og j0diske traditioner hos en kristen syrisk forfatter i 4. a"rh.', in Hidal et al. (eds.), Judendom och kristendom, II, pp. 220-28. 23. Among the extensive literature on Jerome only treatises of immediate relevance to this context will be mentioned; namely H.H. Howorth's investigation: The Influence of St Jerome on the Canon of the Western Church, I-IIF, JTS 10 (1909), pp. 481-96; 11 (1910), pp. 321-47; 13 (1911), pp. 1-18; H.F.D. Sparks, 'Jerome as Biblical Scholar', CHB, I, pp. 510-41; J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975), chapter 15, 'From Septuagint to Hebrew Verity', pp. 153-67; P. Beskow, 'Hieronymus'; Pierre Nautin, 'Hieronymus', TRE, XV, pp. 304-15; and, finally, the thorough and inspiring investigation by Christoph Markschies, 'Hieronymus und die "Hebraica Veritas". Ein Beitrag zur Archaologie des protestantischen Schriftverstandnisses?', in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 131-81. 24. See Praefatio in evangelio II, 1515.19. Jerome's different prefaces to the translations of the biblical writings are easily accessible in Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem,\-ll (ed. Robert Weber; Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969).
84
then on his attitude to the Septuagint became gradually more reserved as his sympathy for the Hebrew Bible text grew.25 His knowledge of this had been facilitated by Origen's Hexapla, of which there was a copy at Caesarea. Jerome first set himself to revise conscientiously the Latin Bible translations (or, more correctly, those translations which have been collectively named the Itald). He did this by comparing them to the Hebrew text. His work resulted in new editions of Psalms, the book of Job, Chronicles and the books ascribed to Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs).26 From about 390 he started to presuppose the Hebrew text, or so he said.27 As is apparent from the preface to the work Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim from this period, Jerome realized that this would meet with opposition. He referred to his opponents as 'dirty pigs which grunt and trample on pearls' (cf. Mt. 7.6), and denied that his new translation should be expressing disdain for the Septuagint. Among his reasons for relying directly on the Hebrew text, embracing what from now on he refers to as 'the Hebrew truth' (Hebraica Veritas),2* he claimed that the Seventy in their translation had
The numbers stated refer to volume, page and counting of lines in this edition. The translation of the quotations from Jerome is our own. 25. According to Kelly, Jerome, p. 159 n. 23, Jerome only once says that the Septuagint was inspired by the Holy Ghost. This was in Prologus in libra Paralipomenon (in connection with his revision of the Chronicles according to the Hexapla; see below), and it is characterized as an 'admission' to the two Roman friends to whom the translation was dedicated. But also on later occasions Jerome refers to the Septuagint appreciatively. See, for instance, Epistula ad Pammachium (57.11) from 396 CE. Cf. Markschies, 'Hieronymus', esp. pp. 137-44. 26. Jerome never finished this project, even though he sometimes behaved as if he had thus revised the entire Old Testament. 27. Up until now it has been generally assumed that Jerome actually mastered the Hebrew language. However, P. Nautin, 'Hieronymus', pp. 309-10, has now called this assumption into question: 'Allerdings la'Bt sich beweisen, daB er diese Sprache praktisch kaum kannte. Wenn immer er in seinen Kommentaren oder anderen Werken den transkribierten hebraischen Text zitiertund das tut er oftoder Anmerkungen zur hebraischen Sprache macht, verdankt er die jeweiligen Informationen seinen Quellen (Origenes, Eusebius, vielleicht auch Acacius v. Caesarea); sobald er sich jedoch von den Quellen entfernt, ist alles reine Erfindung.' For an attempt at rehabilition, see Benjamin Kedar, The Latin Translations', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 299-338 (313-18). Markschies also, 'Hieronymus', pp. 135-37, is in no doubt about Jerome's profound knowledge of Hebrew. 28. Markschies, 'Hieronymus', pp. 147-48, says that the first instance of a use of
85
suppressed the Scripture's mysteries (mystica) out of regard for king Ptolemy, in particular the promises of the coming of Christ. This was to avoid giving the king the impression that the Jews, whom he admired because of their monotheism, did in fact worship another god. Another thing was that the gospels and our Lord himself and the apostle Paul all referred to many things which they said derived from the Old Testament, but which was not to be found in the codices of the Church (multa quasi de ueteri testamento proferunt, quae in nostris codicibus non habentur).29 It seems as if Jerome's adoption ofHebraica Veritas must be ascribed to the fact that the Hebrew Bible contained passages of vital importance to the Church, though these were not included in the Septuagint. In other words, he maintains that the Hebrew text is more complete. Or, more correctly, had been more complete. For due to the impossibility of finding the quotation in Jn 7.38 either in the Septuagint or in the Hebrew Bible, Jerome demands that the passage should be translated back to the Hebrew which had been spoken by the Lord and had also been the language in which the disciples presumed to find his examples.30 Jerome here argues on the basis of tradition. This rather idealistic reason is not his only one though. Jerome also says that it would be a great step forward if the controversy with the Jews could be settled on the basis of a mutually accepted text.31 Finally, Jerome was impressed by the fact that while the Greek (and Latin) Bible manuscripts were characterized by a multitude of readings, the opposite was true of the Hebrew Bible, thanks to the endeavours of rabbinical scholars. Jerome was not in a position to know that to some degree he was deceived with regard to its
Hebraica veritas 'im Sinne dessen, was wir wohl "Urtext" nennen wurden', is found in Epistula 49.19 from 393 CE. 29. The same reasons are quoted in Prologus in Pentateucho 1.3, 12-16, and Mt. 2.15, 23; Jn 19.37; 7.38; 1 Cor. 2.9 are given as examples (see also Prologus in libro Paralipomenon 1.546.21-31). Jn 7.38 (see below) and 1 Cor. 2.9 do not, however, quite agree with the Hebrew text (Zech. 12.10; Isa. 64.4). 30. See Prologus in libro Paralipomenon 1.547.30-31 (= Epistula LVII ad Pammachium): ad Hebraeos igitur revertendum est, unde et Dominus loquitur et discipuli exempla praesumunt. Markschies, 'Hieronymus', pp. 160-61 declares this statement no less than revolutionary: 'Es geht nicht mehr nur um die Autoritat der hebraischen Bibel durch ihre neutestamentliche Benutzung, sondern um den sprachlichen und geistlichen Hintergrund Jesu selbst!' 31. See Praefatio in libro losue, Praefatio in libro Psalmorum, Prologus in Isaia propheta; cf. Epistula ad Pammachium (57.1).
86
originality. In his eyes, a recourse to the Hebrew Bible as the basis of his translation would be a welcome solution to the confusion of variants in the Christian Church.32 On this point Jerome claimed to be following Origen's intention in his efforts to compare the various Greek translations and thus clarify their relationship to the Hebrew text.33 However, in Jerome's case, it would seem to be more consistent to go directly to the Hebrew text instead of, like Origen, paying heed to Greek translations that had been made, not by Christians, but by a Jew such as Aquila or such Jewish-Christians as Symmachus and Theodotion34 'who suppress many of the Saviour's mysteries through a forged translation' (qui multa mysteria Salvatoris subdola interpretation celarunt).35 In principle, the vindication of Hebraica Veritas meant that the Hebrew Bible text was acknowledged as authentic, and thus presumed to have been the basis of all translations. Jerome saw the Biblia Hebraica as the basic text as far as the Old Testament was concerned, and thus he contributed, at least for the Latin-speaking part of Christianity, to bring about the final abandonment of the Septuagint, which had very early come to be acknowledged as the Bible of the Gentile, Christian Church. Jerome, who was incidentally a friend of Epiphanius, rejected all the legends pertaining to the old Greek translation. He said that he36
did not know who the first author was who, with his lie, set up the seventy huts in Alexandria, where the translators, separated from each other, wrote the same, when Aristeas...and much later Josephus had said nothing of the kind, but instead that they were assembled in a basilica, where they wrote collating, not prophesying. For it is one thing to be a prophet, another to be a translator; one predicts when the Spirit inspires him, the other translates what he has achieved insight into by learning and hard work with the words [sed in una basilica congregates contulisse scribant, non prophetasse. Aliud est enim vatem, aliud esse interpretem: ibi spiritus ventura praedicit, hie eruditio et verborum copia ea quae intellegit transfert].
Jerome thus denied not only that the Septuagint was in itself divinely inspired, but also that it should have any kind of historical right in this respect. Characteristically, he also asserted that the original Septuagint
32. See again Prologus in libra Paralipomenon and Prologus in libra lob. 33. See Prologus in libra Paralipomenon. 34. This description is, as we have seen above, not correct in regard to Theodotion. 35. See Prologus in libra lob 1.732.42-44. 36. Prologus in Pentateucho 1.3.29-30. Cf. Apologia adversus libros Rufini 2.25.
87
legend only pertained to the translation of the Pentateuch.37 It is worth noticing that what Jerome intended was to translate the Old Testament into a third language, not, like Origen, to try and purify or harmonize the Greek translation. This strongly induced him to turn directly to the Hebrew text and to look upon the Septuagint as a detour.38 The more so as Jerome could also argue that the coming of Christ had brought about a deeper understanding of Scripture, for the Seventy39
translated before the coming of Christ, and because they did not know it, they expressed themselves in dubious sentences, but after His suffering and resurrection, we are not as much writing prophecy as history; you narrate what you have heard otherwise than what you have seen. The better the understanding the better the rendering [Illi interpretati sunt ante adventum Christi et quod nesciebant dubiis protulere sententiis, nos post passionem et resurrectionem eius non tarn prophetiam quam historiam scribimus; aliter enim audita, aliter visa narrantur: quod melius intellegimus, melius etproferimus].
To Jerome the adoption of Hebraica Veritas was synonymous with the adoption of the Hebrew canon, which meant excluding the Apocrypha. In his opinion, the Old Testament consisted of 22 books, oraccording to another way of counting, 24corresponding to the 24 elders gathered round the throne of the lamb (Rev. 4.4-10).40 Books like Judith, Tobit and Maccabees may be read out in church, but they do not belong to the canonical books. Likewise the book of Wisdom and that of Sirach may be read aloud for the edification of the people, but they should not be used to substantiate the authority of the dogmas of the church (non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandani) .41
37. See Prologus to Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim as well as his In Ezechielem 2.5,12. 38. See Prologus in libris Salomonis 2.957.23-25: Et tamen, cum diligentissime legerit, sciat magis nostra intellegi, quae non in tertium vas transfusa coacuerint, sed statim de praelo purissime commendata testae suum saporem servaverint. 39. Prologus in Pentateucho 1.4.35-39. 40. See Prologus in libro regum 1.365.44-51. 41. See Prologus in libris Salomonis. Jerome has indeed translated some of the Deutero-canonical writings. However, on those points where he did not consistently follow the Hebrew canonfor after all he did translate the books of Judith and Tobit, and perhaps also 1 Maccabeeshe says that these books were also Chaldeo sermone
88
It should be remarked that in his giving preference to the Hebraica Veritas, Jerome did not argue with any theory of special inspiration, but solely philologically,42 with the result that he canonized one text tradition.43 But exactly this argument from tradition points in the direction of the Septuagint, the more so as Jerome could assert the right of a free rendering; for what matters is not the words, but the meaning.44 Claiming that the original text should be the starting-point of any translation, Jerome anticipated biblical humanism. But insofar as it had been the uniformity of the Hebrew Bible that convinced Jerome he had been deceived in this, and whereas he maintained that knowledge of this fulfilment leads to a better understanding and consequently a better translation of the prophecy, he cannot truthfully be called the spokesman
(see Prologus Tobiae, 1.676.3. Cf. Howorth, The Influence', JTS 11 (1910), pp. 332-38.) 42. Cf. Markschies, 'Hieronymus', p. 146: 'Man muB sich vergegenwartigen, daB der Schritt von der Graeca Veritas zur Hebraica Veritas wieder durch eine griindliche philologische Arbeit am Alten Testament und nicht durch eine textferne theologische Entscheidung zur Inspirationstheorie ausgelost wird; dem gut ausgebildeten Ubersetzer miBfallt seine Flickschusterei, neue Lappen auf den briichigen alten Rock (der Septuaginta bzw. Vetus Latina) zu nahen.' 43. It is the irony of history that Jerome's translation into Latin, later called the Vulgate, was endowed with the same authoritative significance that the Church had for centuries attempted to bestow on the Septuagint by means of the legend of its creation. For this was what happened, or, more correctly, was established at the Council of Trent, where it was decided at the first meeting, 8 April 1546, that the Latin translation originating from Jerome should be reckoned as the only authentic Bible text. In the meantime (i.e. since the thirteenth century), this text had inherited the name of the Vulgate, originally the name of the old Latin translation(s), whose multiple transmission was one of the reasons for his translation/revision. The council thus 'statuit et declaret, ut haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa Ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus pro authentica habeatur'. Quoted after Henricus Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 9th edn, 1900), p. 179. The irony is augmented by the fact that in the meantime the Apocrypha had become incorporated into the Latin canon. 44. Cf. below, Chapter 5. Markschies, 'Hieronymus', p. 157, speaks with regard to Jerome's maintaining this freedom about 'eine bestiirzende Folge fur seine Konsistenz: Man konnte fragen, ob die Beachtung der freien Wiedergabe alttestamentlicher Texte nicht in einer logischen Spannung zu der anderen, die Evangelisten und Apostel wiirden aus dem hebraischen Text zitieren, steht.' Cf. also p. 158.
89
of scientific truth as opposed to reactionary ecclesiastical traditionalism.45 b. Augustine The person who more than anybody else came to represent 'ecclesiastical traditionalism' contra Jerome was another Latin Father of the Church, and also the greatest, Augustine (354-430). His views on this matter are first expressed in some letters to Jerome.46 In a letter from 395 (Epistula 28.2 (or, according to another reckoning, 56.2)) he mentions Jerome's Latin Bible translation, requesting of him that he denote, by means of critical symbols, the points on which he deviates from the wording of the Septuagint, as he had done in his translation of the book of Job. Incidentally, he is surprised that it should still be possible to find anything in the Hebrew text which the many learned translators (i.e. the Seventy) should have failed to see. He for his part would not dare to pass judgement on those men, who were like one man (quam si unus essef). On the contrary, he says, they should be held in great respect (gravissima auctoritas). Augustine also finds it difficult to understand why more recent translators, who should have been intent on rendering the text quite literally, should still differ from each other and, indeed, have omitted so much which has only now been brought to light. Such passages, he thinks, must be either obscure or easily understood. If obscure, even Jerome may be mistaken in his translation. If easy to understand, it is difficult to imagine how they could have been misconstrued. The following year (396), Augustine involves the Septuagint legend in defence of the authoritative character of the Greek translation. This was
45. This is the fundamental viewpoint in Wendland, 'Zur altesten Geschichte', pp. 279-10. For a very negative judgment on Jerome for his achievement in this matter, see Howorth, The Influence', JTS 10 (1909), p. 496, and 11 (1910), p. 321; for a more balanced view, Markschies, 'Hieronymus', passim. 46. The exchange of letters seems to have suffered from both external and internal difficulties. Augustine's letters apparently only reached Jerome with difficulty. One even fell into wrong hands, so that Jerome believed that Augustine, without informing him, had issued a controversial pamphlet against him. Only after about ten years did Augustine receive a reply. Moreover, the exchange of viewpoints did not bring them any closer to each other. On the contrary, they seemed to increase the distance. Cf. Wendland, 'Zur altesten Geschichte', pp. 282-86; Howorth, The Influence', JTS 11 (1910), pp. 330-32; and Nautin, 'Hieronymus', pp. 307-08. On Augustine's views on the Old Testament in general, see, for instance, Carl Fr. Wisl0ff, 'Augustin og Det gamle Testamente', in Hidal et al. (eds.), Judendom och kristendom, n, pp. 254-72.
90
in the writing De doctrina Christiana, 2.15. Here, Augustine says that no one should try to improve on what so manyseparated from each other in so many cellshad achieved. Not even if they had come to their ultimate result by conferring with each other should it be questioned. Should the Hebrew Bible contain material not found in the Greek version (which Augustine was only able to read in a Latin translation), then the latter should be preferred. For this translation was made with the express divine purpose (divina dispensatio) of making those books generally known which the Jews had tried to withhold from other nations, be it for fear of their religion or out of envy. Notwithstanding this, they were at a very early time (thanks to king Ptolemy's intervention) made known to those Gentiles who would come to faith through our Lord. Hence a translation was made which was deemed congruent with the needs of the Gentiles (quemadmodum congruere Gentibus) by the Holy Spirit, which was at work in these men and which gave them one mouth. Having received no reply from Jerome, Augustine tried again in the year 403 (Epistula 80.3-6). In the meantime he had heard that Jerome had re-translated the book of Job without indicating on which points this new text differed from the Septuagint. Augustine was full of regret. He would have preferred Jerome to build on the Septuagint. For now, Latin-speaking congregations would get a Bible which differed from the one used in Greek-speaking churches. They may even be offended by it on those points where it seemed unfamiliar, and, indeed, they might consider it a forgery. They would hardly think of comparing it with the Hebrew text, and, even if they did, who is to say that the many Latin or Greek text witnesses were of no significance. Supposing Jews, if asked, would declare themselves in disagreement with Jerome, then, there would be only his authority to rely on. And who was to be the arbitrator of such a controversy? Augustine had heard of cases where Jerome's new translation had stirred up unrest. On the other hand, Augustine praises Jerome's translation of the Gospels. But once again, he asked Jerome to explain how the Hebrew text could differ so much from an otherwise so respected Septuagint. Such a respect is well deserved since this had been the text used by the apostles. Altogether, it would be better if Jerome were to make a Latin version of the Greek translation to ensure a uniformity in the Latin text tradition. As it is now, one must hesitate to quote from it or rely on its authority; for it is uncertain whether its wording agrees with the Greek text. Not until c. 405 did Augustine get a reply from Jerome (see Epistula
91
112.19-22). In this reply Jerome said that he had not marked the deviations from the Septuagint in his new translation because he had based his work on the Hebrew text, endeavouring to bring out its true meaning instead of merely rendering it word for word. He is surprised to learn that Augustine does not use the Septuagint in an original edition rather than in Origen's emended or evenbecause of its (text-)critical markscorrupted edition. How can he claim to be devoted to the Septuagint if he insists on including what a Jew (i.e. Aquila) or what blasphemers (i.e. Symmachus and Theodotion) had inserted long after the Lord's sufferings? Augustine ought to purge his Bible of all these additions so as to be able to walk in the footsteps of the ancient. However, by doing so, Augustine would have passed judgement on all church libraries; for it is difficult to find one copy of these that does not include these additions. As to Augustine's argument about the obscure or easily understandable passages, he is contradicting himself, for he has himself written a commentary on Psalms, as so many able men have done before him. Still, Jerome cannot imagine that he considers his own work superfluous. It has never been Jerome's intention to do away with the Septuagint, having himself contributed to communicate it to his Latin-speaking readers.47 His aim has been to make it clear which points the Jews either omitted or forged in their translation (i.e. the Septuagint), so that Christians might know what the Hebrew Bible actually says. If Augustine appreciates his translation of the gospels, why not trust his translation of the Old Testament? Should he have any doubts as to its accuracy, he is welcome to ask the Jews! Judging from Augustine's reply of the same year (see Epistula 82.3435 (or 116.34-35)), he was not convinced. He admits to the usefulness of knowing what it was that the Jews had either suppressed or forged in their translation. But in that case, he would also like to know whether this applied to the Jews who had translated before the coming of the Lord, or after. For, while the latter may be suspected of having suppressed evidence of the truth of the Christian faith, it is not likely that the former should have done so. Augustine also asked for a copy of Jerome's translation of the Septuagint, which he had not known existed.48 As to the relationship between translation and interpretation,
47. This is an exaggeration; cf. above (n. 26). Kelly, Jerome, pp. 158-59, refers to it as Jerome's 'habitual exaggeration'. 48. As apparent from the above, Augustine's ignorance was well-founded, for,
92
Augustine will not deny that in the case of difficult passages there may be several options, but this should not be allowed to interfere with true faith. Augustine does not intend to use Jerome's translation in the churches, as he is unwilling to introduce anything new in relation to the Septuagint. Such might shock those Christians whose hearts and ears were tuned to this translation, and which also the apostles vouched for. Augustine's final attitude in this matter is imparted to us about twenty years later in the eighteenth book of De civitate Dei, chs. 42-43. In ch. 42, he brings a version of the Septuagint legend, according to which each of the seventy-two, who had mastered both Hebrew and Greek, made a translation. The result was a wondrous, even divine agreement, in both vocabulary and word orderin spite of the fact that they had worked separately: 'It was as if there had been only one translator;' 'They were all of one spirit.' Besides confirming the authority of the translation, the working of the Spirit sanctions the faith which was to be communicated to the Gentiles through the Septuagint. In ch. 43, Augustine declares that this translation should have preference over all others; for the Church had received it as it were the only one. Consequently, Augustine's translation into Latin must rely on this. The translation from Hebrew made by Jerome (who also receives some praise: homo doctissimus et omnium trium linguarum peritus) may be ever so accurate and reliable (as, according to the Jews, it was), and the translators of the Septuagint may have failed on many points. Even so, the Church has declared that no one should be allowed to set aside those selected by Eleazar for this task. For even if the Spirit had not supported them, and their concordant results had been achieved by their conferring with each other, no other translator should be preferred to them.49 And because there had been a sign of divinity (signum divinitas), any other conscientious translator should take care to be in accordance with the Septuagint. If it is not the case, we must believe that true prophetical profundity is present in this inspired text (altitudo ibi prophetica esse credenda esf). As Augustine expresses it:50
For the same Spirit that was in the prophets when they delivered those messages was present in person in the seventy men also; and he surely had it in his power [profecto auctoritate divina] to say something else, just as contrary to his allegations, Jerome never finished his project. 49. Cf. already De doctrina Christiana 2.15 as referred to above. 50. The quotations below are from the translation by William Chase Greene in LCL.

if the prophet had said both, because it was the same Spirit that said both. And the Spirit could say that very thing in different ways, so that though the words were not the same, yet, when they should be properly understood, the same meaning should shed its light through them; and he could omit or add something, so as to show in this way too that the work was not accomplished by a man enslaved to a literal rule of thumb, but by the power of God flooding and guiding the intelligence of the translator.
93
There have certainly been those who thought that the Greek Bible manuscripts should be adjusted to the Hebrew texts, but while they have not dared to remove from those what was not found in the Hebrew text, they have inserted what the Hebrew text contained beyond the Greek. They have also indicated what was lacking in the Hebrew text in relation to the Greek. But it has been impossible to mark all those passages where nothing has been either omitted or added, but which are simply differently expressed, be it a question of a difference of meaning not at odds with the original meaning, or perhaps the same meaning expressed differently. And Augustine concludes:
If then, we see, as it behoves us to see, in these Scriptures no words that the Spirit of God did not speak through men, it follows that whatever is in the Hebrew text but not in that of the seventy translators is something that the Spirit of God did not choose to say through the latter, but only through the prophets. Likewise he spoke, as he pleased, some things through Jeremiah, still others through one or another prophet, or the same things but in different forms through the latter prophet as well as the former. Moreover, anything that is found in both places is something that one and the same Spirit chose to say through both kinds of instrument, but in such wise that the one kind led the way in prophesying and the other came after with a prophetic translation of their words \prophetice illos interpretando}. For just as a single Spirit of peace inspired the former when they spoke true and concordant words, so the same single Spirit manifested himself in the latter when without mutual consultation they nevertheless translated the whole as with one mouth.
Augustine does not say that the difference between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint arises from the Jews having changed the Hebrew wording at a later date, or from the translators of the Septuagint having attempted to conceal anything in their translation. Nor does he say that anything has for some reason or other been suppressed. On the contrary, Augustine is willing to acknowledge the Hebrew text, Hebraica Veritas, as the authentic Bible text, but only as a veritas Hebraeis sive Judaeis. For, in line with the legends on the creation of the Septuagint, Augustine stresses that, as he perceives this translation, it is not only of equal value,
94
but an independent testimony of revelation in its own right.51 Thus, de facto, he disposes of the Hebrew Bible text as binding for the Church. The Church has its own Old Testament with respect to both text form and volume,52 inspired by the Spirit of God with special regard to its appearance and mission. To put it differently, the Church has made its choice beforehand, and another option of an inherent retrospective effect is unthinkable. To Augustine history has a meaning which is lost upon Jerome, who thinks it possible to start all over again.53 3. The Sequel As to later history, both Jerome and Augustine came to appear as simul victores et victi, though Jerome's translation seemingly triumphed. Its victory, however, was due to its linguistic qualifications,54 not to its presumed allegiance to the Hebrew text. Moreover, this version was influenced in many details by already available translations, among which had been the Septuagint. Another thing was that in later text transmission a certain assimilation to earlier translations had taken place. Some Septuagint versions even managed to survive independently of the Bible text.55 As to the volume of the canon, the Septuagint tradition was at first uncontested.56
51. Cf. Wendland, 'Zur altesten Geschichte', p. 282, which, ironically, refers to Augustine's 'gliicklicher Besitz zweier Gottesoffenbarungen', that 'la'sst mit Schrecken ahnen, auf welchem Niveau die meisten Verteidiger der kirchlichen Tradition gestanden haben'. 52. From his canon list in De doctrina Christiana 2.8, it appears that Augustine held on to the entire Septuagint as Holy Scripture; i.e. including the Apocrypha. 53. Cf. Howorth, 'The Influence', JTS 10 (1909), p. 482: 'Augustine took the view that the Church from the beginning had had a separate tradition of its own, and that the Bible of Christ and His disciples was not the Bible as the Jews accepted it in the first century, but the Bible as it had been accepted by them when the Septuagint version was made, containing several books not in the current Jewish Bible. With Augustine the real mark of authenticity and canonicity in a book was the fact that it had been accepted by the Church, and decided by the Church to be authoritative.' 54. See Sparks, 'Jerome as Biblical Scholar', p. 521, where it is said about the fate of Jerome's translation that 'it was ultimately a case of the survival of the fittest'. Cf. also the characterization of the translation on p. 525. 55. Hanhart, 'Fragen um die Entstehung', p. 151, says that Anselm's fides quaerens intellectum rests on the Septuagint's 'wrong' translation of Isa. 7.9 with its KOCI eav u/n Ttiaie-uoTiTE, o\>8e \LT\ a\>vr\ie: 'If you do not believe, neither shall you understand.'
95
In an ecumenical context, it is worth noticing that the Vulgate became the Bible of the Western Church only. The Eastern Church adhered to the Septuagint,57 and even today this is the standard text of the Orthodox Church, as far as the Old Testament is concerned. In the Reformation period the picture changed radically in the Western Church. Those people who translated the Old Testament into their respective national languages gradually became more sympathetic to Jerome's perception of the canon. Their attitude blended with the biblical humanists' demand for translations based directly on the original languages.58 This development was connected with the growing interest in Hebrew towards the end of the fifteenthth century, which had started as a preoccupation with Jewish mysticism, and particularly with the kabbalah.59 Soon, however, the idea prevailed that to be able to penetrate into the true and original meaning of Scripture, it was necessary to study the Old Testament in its own language. One of the pioneers in this respect was Johann Reuchlin (1455-1522) who published a Hebrew textbook and translated some of David's penitential psalms directly from the Hebrew (1512). Reuchlin, and others with him, thought that the Hebrew original contained the Old Testament writings in their original shape. Besides, it was the general opinion, that every translation was in principle secondary. Thus, when Luther began to translate the Old Testament (finished 1534), he quite naturally based his translation on the Hebrew text. The Roman Church now became the supporter of the inheritance from the Septuagint. Among other things, it saw to it that
56. Cf. Wendland, 'Zur altesten Geschichte', p. 287: 'So 1st H[ieronymus] aus dem Kampfe zwar als Sieger, aber nicht unversehrt hervorgegangen. Der Bestand der Schriften, die Ubernahme der Apokryphen in alteren Ubersetzungen, die Mischung des hieronymianischen Texts mit alien Texten, das alles legt Zeugnis ab, dass die Vulgata einen Compromiss darstellt zwischen der Hebraica veritas des H[ieronymus] und dem Buchstabenglauben, zwischen dem, was H[ieronymus] gewollt und geleistet hal, und dem Widerstande der kirchlichen Tradition.' As lo Ihe laler history of the reception of the translation, see Howorth, 'The Influence', JTS 13 (1911), pp. 1-18. 57. 'Zur spateren Konsolidierung des christlichen "Septuagintakanons"', see the chapter with this heading in Hengel, 'Die Septuaginta als "christliche Schriftensammlung'", in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.) Septuiginta, pp. 219-35. 58. Cf. Sundberg, Old Testament, pp. 7-24. 59. For further delails, see Martin Schwarz Lausten, Kirke og synagoge, Kirkehistoriske StudierlH. Rcekke nr. 1 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1992), pp. 272-84. Lausten's primary concern is with the impact of the Hebrew studies on Ihe view of the Jews.
96
the first printed editions of it were published.60 The primary concern of the Roman Church was to vindicate the volume of the biblical canon as it was found in the Vulgate. Ever since, the Septuagint has led a cinderella-like existence among the Protestants. Predominantly due to the orthodox dogma of verbal inspiration, the Hebrew text was allowed to dominate completely. Characteristically the first attacks on the Hebrew text in this period came from Roman quarters, namely from the convert Johann Morinus (1591-1659). With the zeal of a renegade he launched a frontal attack against the Protestants' blind glorification of the Hebrew Bible, which, he said, was in fact saturated with forgeries and mistakes. Morinus asserted that the Church had fatally sold its soul to synagogual traditions and fundamental ideas,61 but in this he was attacked on his own premises by his contemporary, Ludwig Cappellus (1585-1658), who was a member of the Reformed Church. Cappellus laid the foundation of a textcritical study of the Bible, partly by denying the originality of the Hebrew vowel symbols and accents, partly by maintaining that the so-called Hebrew Ur-text quite obviously existed in numerous variae lectiones. But God has allowed this multiplex varietas, and the task is therefore by critica sacra to discover the most probable readings.62 This paved the
60. This was first cardinal Ximenes' Complutenserpolyglotte, which was completed in 1517 (Complutum = Alcala i Spanien), although not published until 1522. It was therefore overtaken by Aldus's edition of the Greek Bible, published at Venice in 1518-19. The first normative edition, however, was the so-called Sixtinian edition from 1587, which was completed under the guidance of cardinal Carafa under the protectorate of pope Sixtus the Fifth. This edition was mainly based on Codex Vaticanus. Only at a much later time, in the years 1707-20, was an edition published at Oxford by Grabe. This relied basically on Codex Alexandrinus. 61. In Exercitiones biblicae de hebraei graecique textus sinceritate (1633) Morinus thus declared that the Hebrew Bible text was corrupted and saturated with mistakes to such a degree that it was not fit as an irreproachable source and norm for the study of the Bible. See Hans-Joachim Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alien Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn, 1969), pp. 46-47. Cf. also Dominique Barthelemy, 'L'enchevdtrement de 1'histoire textuelle et de 1'histoire litteraire dans les relations entre le Septante et le Texte Massoretique. Modifications dans la maniere de concevoir les relations existant entre la LXX et le TM, depuis J. Morin jusqu'a E. Tov', in Pietersma and Cox (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 21-40 (24-25). 62. Cappellus first published (1624) an anonymous writing, in which he maintained (although not the first to do so) that the vocalization and accentuation of the Hebrew text was not original. His principal work, Critica sacra, sive de variis quae in
97
way for critical research, though it was not accepted for some time. It may be said that the Septuagint continued to exert a substantial indirect impact on the translation practice of the Protestant Church, in particular because of the traces it left in the New Testament. The conception of the Testaments as one canon led to a 'harmonization', which was abandoned only concurrently with the growing conviction of the antiquity of the Hebrew text.
sacris veteris testament! libris occurunt lectionibus, libri sex, had been completed already in 1634, but was not published until 1650. See Kraus, Geschichte, pp. 47-50, and Barthelemy, 'L'enchevetrement', pp. 22-24, which also sketches the further development.
Chapter 5
HEBRAICA SIVE GRAECA VERTTAS?
1. The Septuagint as a Phenomenon The fate of the Septuagint in Judaism and Christianity is one thing. Another is the pre-Christian translation of the sacred books of Judaism considered as a phenomenon. The Septuagint attracts attention in several respects. It is the first major translation from an Oriental language into Greek and the first written translation of the Bible.1 Moreover, it represents the largest literary source written in Koine Greek. But apart from such external facts, a number of circumstances contribute to its unique position in biblical exegesis. The translation is an important source for the history of the Old Testament in the last two centuries before the birth of Christ, whilst, at the same time, it having major impact on early Christianity. To all appearances, the Septuagint was not the Bible which Jesus and the first disciples knew. However, with the preaching of the gospel outside Palestine the picture soon changed. To Paul and other New Testament authors, it appears to have been the obvious choice. After all, the Greek edition of the Jewish Bible was in the beginning simply the only Bible available to Christians not versed in Hebrew. It left its stamp on the greater part of the Greek vocabulary pertinent to Christian theology. All of this accentuates the degree to which the Septuagint, considered as a phenomenon, can tell us about the status of the biblical text and about the perception of biblical tradition in ancient Judaism. The ancient Jewish legends about the making of this translation of the Pentateuch and its reception in the Early Church (where eventually it came to incorporate the Greek translations of all biblical writings) are manifestations of the realization that the contents of the Hebrew and the
1. With respect to these various 'facts' pertinent to the Septuagint, see most recently Emanuel Tov, The Septuagint', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 161-88.
5. Hebraica sive Graeca Veritas?
99
Greek Bible texts did not, at that time, accord. The question is whether we do justice to the Septuagint by considering the Greek edition of the Jewish Bible as merely a translation; i.e., in another perspective: as a more or less reliable text witness of an 'original' Bible. Instead of considering the importance of the Septuagint as exhausted in its capacity as a source for the underlying Hebrew Ur-text, we might also consider it as a witness to the process of transmitting tradition. Anyway, in modern Bible translations it has been customary to treat Old Testament books as almost integral writings to be considered from the viewpoints of their various original authors. And this has been the case in spite of the fact that Old Testament research has, to a very great extent, realized that most Old Testament books were the result of a more or less prolonged process of shifting traditions, whereby these traditions were continuously re-edited to make them fit in with their purpose: namely, to propagate the 'message': the determinant factor in their continued transmission at any given time.2 The transmission and composition process was, at least in the case of some Old Testament books, still fluid when the books were first translated into Greek. Just how radical such redactions might be within the same tradition is proven by the Book of Isaiah where it is possible to distinguish three tradition layers; for neither the so-called Deutero-Isaiah nor the so-called Trito-Isaiah were content to add to the already existing Isaiah traditions, but they also interfered with it.3 A different elaboration of the same traditions is manifest in the legislation of Deuteronomy and ExodusLeviticus-Numbers respectively. Everything considered, it is possible to establish that in the shape we know it, the Pentateuch is the result of a
2. This more or less complicated editing process is not only an obvious presupposition, but it plays a fundamental role in the exegetical exposition of the most recent Old Testament treatises in Danish, namely Kirsten Nielsen, For et tree er der hab (Bibel og historic, 8; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1985); ET There Is Hope for a Tree (JSOTSup, 65; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); Knud Jeppesen, Grceder ikke saa saare: Studier iMikabogens sigte (Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 1987) and Jesper H0genhaven, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja: Eine Untersuchung zur biblischen Theologie (ATDan, 24; Leiden: Brill, 1988). 3. In an article called 'Jesajas kaldelsesberetning set i lyset af de senere ars profetforskning', in Bent Rosendal (ed.), Studier i Jesajabogen (Bibel og historic, 12; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1989), pp. 9-29, Kirsten Nielsen seeks to demonstrate how the same word in Isa. 6.5 must be translated differently depending on whether it is the original saying or the subsequent redactor's interpretation of it.
100
rather late compromise between various factions in ancient Judaism.4 Apart from the so-called proto-Masoretic edition, we know of other text traditions, such as the Samaritan, the Pentateuch fragments from Qumran, as well as the edition(s) which were the foundation of the Septuagint. Even so, it was not considered to be inviolable, as amply proved by the Temple Scroll from Qumran and Jubilees, which quite openly aspires to become law in the same sense as the traditional Pentateuch, but still do not hesitate to make adjustments to the commandments of the Mosaic Law.5 Another obvious example of how later generations redacted extant traditions is the elaboration in Chronicles of the history which had already been described in the Deuteronomistic chronicle (= Deut, Josh., Judg., 1-2 Sam. and 1-2 Kgs). The new chronicle, however, did not succeed in superseding its predecessor.6 The two historical accounts probably originated in and were intended for different circles. Among the Old Testament Apocrypha we have a parallel in 1 and 2 Maccabees, which do not relate to each other as the beginning and end of a story, but to some extent are different versions of the same story. Finally, there is the transmission process in the New Testament perceptible in the four canonical Gospels. This way of handling historical events is reminiscent of recent events in the Soviet Union, where a political transfer of power occasioned ongoing revisions of established history. On this point it may be reasonable to relate to the group of modern exegetes who, in continuation of their traditio-critical analyses, incline more and more towards a redactional-critical attitude to this body of writings. So far, research has shown a preference for the reconstruction
4. Cf. Maier, 'Zur Frage des biblischen Kanons im Fruhjudentum', p. 140: 'Die kanonisch gewordene Pentateuchfassung reprasentiert eben moglicherweise nur den zu einer bestimmten Zeit erreichten weitgehend gemeinsamen Nenner innerhalb der friihjudischen Parteienlandschaft.' 5. For an introduction to the Temple Scroll, the longest of the Dead Sea Scrolls and not accessible until 1967, see Hans Aage Mink, 'Presentation af et nyt Qumranskrift: Tempelrullen', D7T42 (1979), pp. 81-112. Cf. also Maier, 'Zur Frage des biblischen Kanons im Fruhjudentum', p. 141: 'Ohne Zweifel will die Tempelrolle Tora sein.' 6. It is tempting to accept Michael D. Goulder's explanation in The Evangelists' Calendar (London; SPCK, 1978), p. 129, of the failure of the chronicler: 'His work has two patent faults, one of omission, one of commission. He is, on the positive side, too didactic; he is boring; no one wants to plough through his beautiful tables of names, or his inevitable sermons. On the negative side, his midrash lacks the freshness and the genius of D' (D = the Deuteronomist).
101
of the history which the various Old Testament books or bodies of writings pretend to be either describing or originating from. But lately attention has focussed increasingly on the ultimate purpose of handing on or redacting these traditions. This is a consequence of the recognition that these presumably historical traditions did not really survive because of a historical interest as we understand it. The purpose of their being written and transmitted was primarily to legitimize actual circumstances and institutions by anchoring them to that pre-history which endowed them with the character of being unmistakable tokens of God having chosen the Israelite-Jewish people. As an example of how the past might be contorted to make it fit in with the ideological needs of a later age, I would like to mention how my colleague Niels Peter Lemche considers the role of the Old Testament Canaanites in biblical history. Based on an evaluation of the traditions pertaining to the Canaanites,7 Lemche puts forward the hypothesis that the biblical description of thesefar from describing the people whom the Israelites had found and eventually conquered when they invaded the country in some distant pastactually applied to elements of the Palestinian population of the post-exilic period. These people were denounced by official Judaism as antagonists. Put in another way, we have here a new 'religion' which established its own universe by inventing a prehistory to which it antedated its own religious institutions and views, at the same time as it described its relations to an 'inner' enemy as if it were a long-standing life and death struggle. In reality, however, post-exilic Judaism thus dissociated itself from its own 'heathen' past: those 'people of another faith'.8 It is thus not only possible but also obvious to understand the origin of the Old Testament books from the history which began in the Persian age, when a temple state of predominantly religious observance was set up, centred around Jerusalem.9 This is of decisive importance for the
7. Niels Peter Lemche, The Canaanites and their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites (JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). 8. For a more stock-taking and principal review, see also Niels Peter Lemche, 'The Development of the Israelite Religion in the Light of Recent Studies on the Early History of Israel' (VTSup, 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), pp. 97-115. Cf. for a more recent examination, idem, 'Det gamle Testamente som en hellenistisk bog', DTT55 (1992), pp. 81-101; ET The Old TestamentA Hellenistic Book?', SJOT1 (1993), pp. 163-93, and Eduard Nielsen's very critical comment, 'En hellenistisk bog?', DTT 55 (1992), pp. 161-74. 9. See now Thomas L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People. From
102
understanding of the transmission process at that time. It is not so much a question of a more or less thorough redaction of existing and, on the whole, fixed traditions, as it is a question of a gigantic creative process incorporating traditions rooted in the pre-exilic period, not least prophetical matter. The discerning insight of Julius Wellhausen should be borne in mind, namely that the prophets were not reformers anxious to lead the people back to an original Mosaic religion. On the contrary, they were 'founders of a new religion' intent on abolishing the religious practice then in force. The Law is not the starting-point but the result of Israel's spiritual development.10 2. The Septuagint: A Witness to the Handing on of Traditions All this was bound to influence the attitude to the translation of the holy books of Judaism into Greek, undertaken in the third and second centuries BCE. The date of origin of the Law and Prophets and the Writings in their present shape and with their present religious concepts is to be found in the post-exilic period. They seem to have been created over a relatively short period, and the time when this 'original', as it is rather misleadingly called, came into existence thus approaches the time when the Greek translation was made. In the case of some Old Testament books they must even have overlapped each other. At any rate it seems as if we shall have to abandon the idea that the Hebrew Bible already in the fourth, third and second centuries BCE was a fixed entity from which the Greek translation can be evaluated. On the contrary, the Greek translation may reasonably be seen as evidence of a process reflecting changing traditions which only gradually came to a standstill once a particular Hebrew text became normative. In this way the question of canon becomes more than a problem of the numerical volume of the holy writings. Even though, as already touched upon, to speak of a fixed canonical text already in pre-Christian days would represent an anachronism, in practice it does seem to have been delimited at an early date. Apparently the Old Testament Apocrypha
the Written and Archaeological Sources (Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1994), esp. pp. 415-23. 10. 'Das Gesetz 1st das Produkt der geistigen Entwicklung Israels, nicht ihr Ausgangspunkt.' See Wellhausen, Israelitische und Jiidische Geschichte (Berlin: Reimer, 7th edn, 1914), p. 15. Cf., in general, chapter 9, 'Die prophetische Reformation', pp. 122-32.
103
never enjoyed the status awarded to the books incorporated in the Old Testament today.11 However, for some writings, the process of handing on traditions probably continued throughout the period when also the Greek translation was made. The 'principal evidence' is the book of Daniel. Its final redaction seems reasonably fixed, namely c. 165 BCE. At the same time the book quit evidently contains subject matter which predates this time. It would seem that when this unquestionably pseudepigraphal writing achieved canonical importance rather easily, it was because people were familiar with the Daniel traditions, which, they believed, were from the time of the exile. The book of Daniel was therefore not viewed as something new. The process of enlarging on traditions, which was brought to a temporary stop about 165 BCE, continued, as we know, in the Greek tradition not only in the shape of the five 'additions', which were, from the beginning, written in Greek,12 but also in the Greek versions of the Hebrew-Aramaic parts found in both the Septuagint and in Theodotion. Incidentally Theodotion's translation displaced the Septuagint in practically all Septuagint manuscripts.13 Also the book of Esther appears in the Septuagint in an enlarged edition, that is, with 'additions,' the purpose of which was to enhance the religious value of this writing. The knowledge we possess as to the formation of the book of Daniel should be borne in mind when it comes to the question of the relationship between the Hebrew and the Greek editions of particularly the books of Jeremiah, Job and Proverbs. As already mentioned, the gap between the two text recensions in these books is so great that it must be assumed that the Hebrew text underlying the Greek translation was
11. Cf. Martin Hengel, 'Die Septuaginta als "christliche Schriftensammlung'", in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 270-84. 12. Cf. for this Jesper H0genhaven, 'Den graeske Daniel', in Engberg-Pederson and Lemche (eds.), Tradition og Nybrud (FEE, 2; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1990), pp. 141-51. 13. Cf. Eissfeldt's characterization (Einleitung, p. 956): The translation of the book of Daniel is 'fast mehr eine Umschreibung als eine Ubersetzung'. See also Robert Hanhart, 'Die Uebersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta als Interpretation (Daniel 11,29 und die Aegyptensziige des Antiochus Epiphanes)', in Casetti, Keel and Schenker (eds.), Melanges, pp. 135-57. Here Hanhart demonstrates how Theodotion in his rendering re-establishes the meaning of the Hebrew text, in that there were three campaigns. He also puts the apocalyptic veil back into its place where the Septuagint had removed it by adding names and translating in a way that made it uncertain whether there were two or three campaigns.
104
not identical with the text we know today. We are thus faced with evidence that the Hebrew text must have been 'fluid' throughout the third and second century BCE, which reflects a dynamic shift of traditions in the existing 'books'. It is a question of two processes running partly parallel, and it is no longer possible automatically to give priority to the current Hebrew text. This also sheds light on those passages where historical-critical research has felt obliged to establish that the Greek text seems more original than the Hebrew text we know. A classical example in this connection is Deut. 32.8-9. Here modern translations, normally founded on the Hebrew text, simply accept the more universalistic reading of the Septuagint which says that the Most High 'fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the angels of God' where Biblia Hebraica more particularistically has 'fixed the bounds of the tribes according to the number of Israel's sons'.14 The process of handing on traditions in ancient Judaism cannot be measured by later ideas that translation was essentially a process of conservation. As a matter of fact it had a very creative character, in that the teaching of a new message might result both in regular additions and in more or less radical amendments of the tradition.15 It is characteristic of ancient Judaism that independent commentaries do not appear until the Qumran manuscripts, in which the text appears authoritative. This also applies to the allegorical interpretations of the Mosaic Law in the shape of the Septuagint, which we find in the second century BCE in Aristobulus and Aristeas respectively. Philo's allegorical commentaries to major parts of the Pentateuch are later, and their 'level' deviates substantially from that of Aristobulus and Aristeas. With due respect to all divergencies, especially the difference between the restrictive treatment of the Halachian material and the more liberal treatment of the
14. Thus, for instance, the authorized Danish translations from 1931 and 1992. An exception in this case is the Norwegian translation from 1978. 15. A thorough review of the 'dynamic' handling of the Bible text in preMasoretic time is found in Jan Mulder, The Transmission of the Biblical Text', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 87-135 (88-104). It says here (p. 89): 'After all, one of the characteristic elements of traditio in Israel has on the whole been the need, felt from one generation to another, to give fresh relevance to the old traditions for one's own generation.' Examples of this are found in, e.g., Martin Rosel, Ubersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta (BZAW, 223; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994); Joachim Schaper, 'Der Septuaginta-Psalter als Dokument judischer Eschatologie, in Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum', in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 38-61.
105
Haggadic, the Qumran commentaries, Philo, the author of Aristeas, and Aristobulus, are agreed that the real significance of the writings has not been exhausted merely by a literal understanding. Apart from that, the oldest 'commentaries' characteristically were orally transmitted, namely that of the Pharisees, who systematically endeavoured to convey the legislation in the shape of the 'traditions of the fathers'. This legislation was not committed to writing until c. 200 by Jehuda Ha-Nasi in the 63 tractates which make up the Mishnah. But it is worth noticing that in principle this orally transmitted legislation was referred to Moses himself. As it is said in the Mishnah tractate Aboth l.l:16
Moses received the Law from Sinai and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogue.
The law in question is evidently partly the written law, partly the orally transmitted 'traditions of the fathers',17 (cf. in the New Testament Gal. 1.14, Mk 7.5 and Mt. 15.6). The more or less interpretative versions of biblical history or fragments of these found in the Pseudepigraphical literature and in Josephus testify to that phase in the history of traditions which may be called the dynamic phase. Significantly though, this dynamic treatment of the
16. The quotation below is taken from The Mishnah (trans. Herbert Danby; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9th edn, 1967). 17. With respect to the authority of the oral law-tradition, see Rimon Kaher, 'The Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literature', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 547-94 (550-52). Cf. also Sifre Numeri Naso 14.10 to Num. 7.72, where we find an explanation of the existence of two laws (the quotation below is from the translation by Judah J. Slotki in Midrash Rabbah.Vl.Numbers II [ed. Rabbi Dr H. Freedman and Maurice Simon; London and Bournemouth: Soncino Press, 1951], p. 613):
... the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Israel two Laws, the Written and the Oral. He gave them the Written Law which contains six hundred and thirteen commandments, in order to fill them with religious duties and make them meritorious; as it says, The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness' sake, to make the Torah great and glorious (Isa. XLII, 21). He gave them an Oral Law that they might thereby be distinguished above the nations. For the reason why it was not given in writing is that the Ishmaelites might not falsify it, as they did the Written Law, and say that they are Israel. In reference to this it is that Scripture says, If I should write for him My numerous laws they would be accounted as a stranger (Hos. VIII, 12). The Holy One, blessed be he, said: 'If I should write for Israel My numerous laws, namely the Mishnah, which is greater than the Scripture, they would be accounted as a stranger.'
Cf. for further references KNT, I (1926), pp. 291-92; IV, 1 (1928), pp. 439-41.
106
traditions is more or less confined to Haggadic literature. In his treatise Retelling the Old Testament Philip S. Alexander presents four 'case studies' of what has been called 'rewritten Bible',19 namely Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and Josephus's Antiquitates Judaicae. Of these works the retelling of the biblical story in the first eleven books of Antiquitates is the most voluminous of its kind. The genre itself differs from other Pseudepigrapha which are centrifugal in character. They tend to spin a yarn based on one particular episode or passage in the Bible. 'Rewritten Bible', on the other hand, is centripetal. It always reverts to the biblical historical events, even though it may also expand on the written text and involve apocryphal traditions and features.20 A modern example of 'rewritten Bible' is Thomas Mann's monumental work Joseph und seine Bruder (1933-43). In the preface to Antiquitates 1.9-13, Josephus describes what he intends with this version of ancient biblical history, which he is going to submit to the entire Greek-speaking world.21 Before he went ahead with the project, he considered 'whether our ancestors, on the one hand, were willing to communicate such things and whether any of the Greeks, on the other, had been curious to learn our history' (1.9). These questions were answered affirmatively by the description (in Aristeas) of how king Ptolemy initiated a Greek translation of the Law. The Greek word used
18. Published in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 99-121. 19. The expression 'rewritten Bible' was coined by Geza Vermes; see his Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (StPB, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961), n, pp. 67-126 (95). Cf. also Deborah Dimant, 'Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 379-419 (402-406), which includes 1 Enoch 6-11, and George W.E. Nickelsburg, 'The Bible Rewritten and Expanded', in M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, II.2; Assen: Van Gorcuml984), pp. 89-156, which treats even more texts in this connection. 20. Another way of using the tradition distinguishes a writing like the Temple Scroll from Qumran. Its antological character justifies the name of 'rewritten Tora'; see Michael Fishbane, 'Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra in Qumran', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 339-77 (353-54). 21. For a further description of Josephus's 'method', see, besides Philip S. Alexander's review of chosen sections, 'Retelling', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 111-16, also Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works, and their Importance (JSPSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp. 92-98, and Louis H. Feldman, 'Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 455-518 (466-70).
5. Hebraicasive Graeca Veritas?
107
to describe the translators' work is e^T|yrjoi<;. In other words, Josephus looks upon his story as some kind of a parallel to the Septuagintaas a matter of fact he does not confine himself to render the Law, but also incorporates Prophets and the Writingsbut he does not say how the latter have become translated. In 1.5 he assures his readers that his work 'will embrace our entire ancient history (apxaioA-oyiccv) and political institutions, translated from the Hebrew records (eic TCGV 'EppcxiKcov lieGTjpuTjveuuivriv ypajiuxxTCGv)' ;22 and in 1.17 he declares that precise details of Scripture will be set forth (orjuavei), each in its place, for he intends to perform his task in such a way that nothing shall be added nor anything omitted (o\)8ev 7tpoo9ei<; ou8' ecu rccxpaAarccbv).23 In spite of his assertion Josephus did both, but even so, he can hardly be accused of consciously dodging the truth. Even non-Jewish readers might look over his shoulder. The conclusion must therefore be that in this connection Josephus simply put another meaning to the word 'translate' than we do.24 3. Translatio et/sive Interpretatio This brings us to the question of the Septuagint's specific character considered as a translation. It cannot be satisfactory simply to ascertain that, as a more or less accurate rendering, it is most of all a rather mediocre text witness to the Hebrew original. More than anything the Septuagint testifies to the fact that at that time translation meant something more than simply finding Greek equivalents for the Hebrew words. Admittedly, it is a commonplace that any translation is also an interpretation. But there are of course degrees of difference ranging from the literal to the paraphrastic and to the deliberately interpretative
22. Cf. 10.218, in which Josephus declares that he has done nothing but translate the Hebrew books into Greek (uetaypaEeiv tabv EBapaiwe BiBkove. . . Eic inv "Ekkaqa ykwrrav); see also Apion 1.54. 23. Similar assertions are found in Ant. 4.196; 10.218; cf. 2.347; 9.208.214 as also 10.261 and Apion 1.1. 24. Cf. Feldman, 'Use, Authority and Exegesis', p. 468: 'When we examine the words which Josephus uses for "translate", we shall find that they are all ambiguous and seem to include paraphrasing and amplifying.' See also Bilde, Flavius Josephus, p. 96: 'It appears that at the time, a translation was more a question of rendering the essential contents of a text as it was understood by the translator rather than literally transposing it from one language to another.'
108
translation, which makes it so important to understand the translation ideals prevailing in antiquity. It should be noted that several of the verbs used in this connection, both in Greek and Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic, are ambivalent and also denote 'to interpret' (epurive\>eiv, interpretari, targem, passeq). In his treatise Translating the Old Testament,25 S.P. Brock analyses the set of ideals which successive generations set themselves. He asserts that the literal translation, which, as far as the Greek Bible translation was concerned, culminated with Aquila, aimed at the verbum e verbo which was to set the pattern for practically all translations right to the end of the Middle Ages. This was, however, diametrically opposed to the principles advocated in particular by Cicero and Horace, which Jerome referred to in his letter to Pammachius (Epistula 57.5). Thus Jerome gives his approval to Cicero's words from De optima genere oratorum 5.13-14 and 7.23:26
I translated [converti] the most famous orations of the two most eloquent Attic orators, Aeschines and Demosthenes, orations which they delivered against each other. And I did not translate them as an interpreter, but as an orator [nee converti ut interpres, sed ut orator], keeping the same ideas and the forms, or as one might say, the 'figures' of thought, but in language which conforms to our usage. And in so doing, I did not hold it necessary to render word for word [non verbum pro verbo], but I preserved the general style and force of the language [genus omnium verborum vimque]. For I did not think I ought to count them out to the reader like coins, but to pay them by weight, as it were [tamquam appendere]...lflshal\ succeed in rendering their speeches, as I hope, by 25. Published in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 87-98. For a more detailed investigation, see also S.P. Brock's works: 'Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity', GRBS 20 (1979), pp. 69-79, and 'To Revise or Not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Translation', in Brooke and Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, pp. 301-38. 26. The quotation below is from the translation by H.F. Hubbell in LCL. Brock, To Revise or Not to Revise', p. 311, certainly claims that Jerome makes an exception in the case of the sacred writings. As Jerome himself puts it (Epist. 57 [ad Pammachium 5]) et uerborum ordo mysterium est. However, he has not adhered entirely to this rule in practice, but has partly withdrawn it (see Epist. 106 [ad Sunniam 3.54, 55]). The remark stands rather isolated in Epistl. 57, where Jerome uses much space on proving that it was not only the profane writers and ecclesiastical authors who translated freely, but also the Seventy, the writers of the Gospels and the apostles when handling Holy Scripture (see 57.7-11). Jerome twice declares that what matters is the meaning, not the words.

retaining all their virtues, that is, the thoughts, the figures of thought and the order of topics, and following the language only so far as it does not depart from our idiomif all the words are not literal translations of the Greek, we have at least tried to keep them within the same class or type ...
109
In this connection Jerome also states that Horace (Ars poetica, Epist. 2.3.13-34) advises the experienced translator thus:
Taking care to render word for word does not make you a faithful translator [nee uerbumpro uerbo curabis reddere fidus interpres].
By contrast, that is, as an example of a fidus interpres, Brock quotes a statement by John Scotus, taken from the preface to the latter's translation of works attributed to Dionysius the Aereopagite:
Should anybody consider the translation opaque or obscure, he should realize that I am but the translator [interpres] of this work, not its expositor.
The difference is that, while the interpretive expositor aims to bring the source text to his reader, the literalist translator seeks to bring the reader to the source text.27 In respect to translation theories, the translators of the Septuagint started from scratch. The problems pertaining to the discrepancies between the Hebrew text and the Greek rendering, which later Jewish translators tried to solve by revising the latter, was circumvented by the first translator by endowing the Septuagint text of the Pentateuch with the same authority possessed by the Hebrew text. As discussed in a preceding chapter, this was the main concern of both Aristeas and Philo. Though this appears to have been done quite subconsciously, the creators of the Septuagint came close to the translation ideals recommended by Cicero and, following him, Jerome. But this is not the whole truth, for the fact remains that if translators are allowed to act also as interpreters, that is, as both interpretes and expositores, this paves the way for a dynamic understanding of the traditions. Considered as a translation, the Septuagint reflects not only what was
27. See Brock, 'Translating the Old Testament', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 87-98, here p. 91: 'The interpretative expositor aims to bring the source text to his readers, whereas the literalist interpres seeks to bring the reader to the source text. The interpres deliberately renounces taking on the added interpretative role of the expositor (even though... literalist translation inevitably involves a certain level of interpretation).' Cf. also the schematic list of discrepancies between expositor and interpres in Brock, 'To Revise or Not to Revise', pp. 312-13.
110
later formulated as a translation ideal by, for example, Cicero. It is not a question of linguistic adaptation only. For, while it was formerly customary to ridicule the Greek of the Septuagint, this has changed with our improved knowledge of the vernacular Greek spoken at the time.28 In continuation of Philo's characterization of the translators as prophets, it seems more reasonable to see the Septuagint as a new edition of Judaism's holy books, which neither seeks to bring its reader to the source text, nor to bring the source text to the reader; but which aims at expressing how Hellenistic Jewry understood the Scripture. This perception of the special character of the Septuagint also reveals the translation technique and exegesis inherent in the translation. In this connection, I would like to refer to Emanuel Tov's overview of, on the one hand, the sources available to the translators of biblical Hebrew, and, on the other, their techniques and various kinds of exegesis.29 As source material Tov names exegetical traditions, contexts, etymology, postbiblical Hebrew, Aramaic andas far as Prophets and Writings are concernedthe translation of the Pentateuch, which of course set a pattern.30 Tov sums up this enumeration with a remark that this extensive source material has not prevented that a far greater number of renderings than hitherto has been assumed must be characterized as mere guesswork.31 As to the translation techniques, the Septuagint contains examples of both verbatim and free, sometimes even paraphrastic, renderings. In cases where the translation has been determined by exegetical viewpoints, it may be either 'linguistic' or 'contextual'. Linguistic exegesis is concerned with the grammatical identification of various words, whereas contextual exegesis reflects the hermeneutical method peculiar to the Midrash exegesis. Tov places the various types of exegesis found in the Septuagint in three categories, namely theological exegesis, exegesis of the Midrash type and actualities. Because the Septuagint was completed at a time when the Hebrew text was not yet stable in all details, and topical allusions were
28. See, e.g., Bickerman, 'The Septuagint as a Translation', pp. 175-77. 29. See 'The Septuagint', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 161-88 (170-71). Cf. also 'Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?', in Pietersma and Cox (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 53-70, and Olofsson's examination in The LXX Version, pp. 1-42. Cf. also Bickerman, 'The Septuagint as a Translation\passim. 30. See for this also Tov, The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books', in Casetti, Keel and Schenker (eds.), Melanges, pp. 577-92. 31. See The Septuagint, pp. 170-71.
Ill
customary, certain passages of this translation may very likely be described as being, to a certain degree, targumlike. Very soon, however, it gained another status than the Aramaic targums, which were normally used in connection with the recitation of the Hebrew text. In the case of the Pentateuch, only one verse was read at a time; in the case of Prophets three verses.32 This liturgical practice, which cannot be verified until the first century CE,33 allowed especially the Aramaic targums to represent not just translations, but also interpretations.34 To preclude these readings from obtaining a status that might threaten the original Hebrew text, it was prohibited to use written targums in the synagogue (see bT Megilla 32a; jT Megilla 4.1). In the transmitted targums the opening words from the Hebrew original figure at the beginning of every verse. In reality these targums represent a special kind of commentaries to the Hebrew text. Such a commentary might comprise two separate elements. The first was a so-called working translation which served to clarify the content of the text, the other resembled a modern commentary in that it revealed the significance of the text and, like all proper commentaries, picked out specific passages in need of further explanation. Such supplementary commentaries later developed into an independent genre. In his treatise 'Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis',35 Geza Vermes even asserts that the repeated call for meditation, recital
32. The following description of the character of the targums is taken from Brock, 'Translating the Old Testament', pp. 92-93. For a more detailed description of the recitation of the Bible text in the synagogue, see Charles Perrot, 'The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 136-59, esp. pp. 143-44. 33. See e.g. Bickerman, 'The Septuagint as a Translation', pp. 171-72, but also, for a comprehensive discussion, Goulder, The Evangelists' Calendar, pp. 19-72. 34. See Guiseppe Veltri, 'Der griechische Targum Aquilas', in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 92-115. Veltri defines Aquila's translation as a targum, because it leaves the control as to bringing about the actual meaning of the Hebrew text to the interpreter, where the Septuagintin the eyes of the rabbis replaces the Hebrew text (pp. 108-13). This freedom for the targumists is also seen by Veltri as the real reason for Justinian's ban on the 8einepioai<;, which made it possible for the rabbis through their rendering of the Scripture to deliver their teaching; cf. Veltri, 'Die Novelle 146 Ttepl 'Eppouoov', also in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 116-30 (125-27). For a description of the character of the various targums, see e.g. Philip S. Alexander, 'Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scripture', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 217-53, and Bj0rn Olav Kvam, 'Targumlitteraturen, dens opprinnelse, milj0 og egenart', Chaos 19 (1993), pp. 33-47. 35. Published in CHB, I, pp. 199-231 (199).
112
and re-appraisal of the Law, which we find throughout the Old Testament, has contributed to the Midrashic process which led to the formation of later law decrees, first in the Deuteronomistic and priestly redactions, later in Chronicles and the book of Daniel and also in an apocryphal work like the book of Sirach. 'Post-biblical midrash is to be distinguished from the biblical only by an external factor, canonization.' Without being able to ascertain how it came about, Vermes nevertheless suggests that towards the end of the third century BCE, the religious leaders of Palestine put an end to the growth of sacred writings and in practice established a canon. Apart from the book of Daniel, their enterprise was successful and 'from then on the nation's religious and moral guidance was entrusted not to writers but to interpreters'.36 However, the Septuagint canon and the integration of commentaries and Scripture in, for instance, the Palestinian targums, certain Pseudepigrapha and Josephus' Antiquitates are evidence that the former inclination towards expressing new insight by means of new writings was not altogether eliminated. Vermes also concludes that the old Bible translations in themselves are part of the exegetical literature.37 One reason why the Septuagint attracts so much interest as evidence of the dynamic process of handing on traditions which characterized the Hebrew Bible in the last centuries BCE is of course that it also illuminates the use of the Old Testament in the New. The forces active in the achievement of the Septuagint can also be discerned in the use made of the Old Testament by the New Testament. At that time, the Bible text was not stable, but, as it appears from numerous passages in the New Testament writings, the translation was largely dominated by an understanding of Scripture which was founded in the conviction of being part of the events alluded to. On the other hand, the 'reactionary trends' which went in the direction of adjusting the translations to the Hebrew text demonstrate that arbitrariness was not always tolerated. An example of this is the Greek Minor Prophets scroll from Nahal Hever.
36. See 'Bible and Midrash', p. 199. 37. See 'Bible and Midrash', p. 203. It says here: 'A considerable amount of interpretative material found its way into the Septuagint, the Palestinian Targums, and occasionally the Peshitta, only to be more or less thoroughly eliminated in the subsequent revisions or translations of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and Onkelos.' Cf. also Georg Bertram, 'Das Problem der Umschrift und die religionsgeschichtliche Erforschung der Septuaginta' (BZAW, 66; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1936), pp. 97-109, here p. 109: 'Die Septuaginta gehort mehr in die Geschichte der Auslegung des Alten Testaments als in die des alttestamentlichen Textes.'
5. Hebraicasive Graeca Veritas? 4. The Septuagint: An Alternative to Biblia Hebraica?
113
As we have seen, the number of books reckoned as sacred had in practice already been delimited at a relatively early time in Judaism. Although it seems evident today that Ezra is a fiction, there is no reason to doubt that Josephus is representative when he stops at Ezra in his list of sacred books (see above, Chapter 2). A similar interest in the stabilization of the wording of the individual sacred books was, at least at the beginning, less explicit. Few, if any, Old Testament books have been written without stop and handed on unaltered. As a matter of fact, many of them were not yet stabilized when the Greek translation was completed. As mentioned, one problem pertinent to a possible 'canon'formation already in the last centuries BCE is that it conveys the idea of a stability not yet existing. In the beginning it was not the actual wording of the texts but their story that was surrounded by holiness.38 The process of handing on traditions has more or less been an interpretative process. In this context, the kind of literature which may be placed under the heading 'rewritten Bible' is symptomatic. On the other hand the text finds made after the Second World War reveal that the many more or less substantial discrepancies found in the Septuagint in relation to the later Masoretic text are not necessarily owing to the translators' lack of conscientiousness. As mentioned earlier, they may in fact signify that the Hebrew text underlying the translation was different. Only from the second and first centuries BCE was the Hebrew Bible stabilized to such a degree that we may begin to talk of a normative text. This is indirectly confirmed by those fragments of the Greek Bible manuscripts, in particular the Book of Minor Prophets (SHevXIIGr), which contain emendations suggestive of an approximation of the Greek text to the Hebrew (see Chapter 2). As implied by Aristeas, Philo and Josephus, the Septuagint was, at this early time, subjected to text revisions that de facto aimed at eliminating it as an independent tradition. In some circles at this time the authority of the
38. Johann Maier, 'Zur Frage des biblischen Kanons im Friihjudentum', p. 137, warns against backdating the predominantly Christian canon-concept which belonged to later generations. Not till much later was the canon concept endowed with the content which we take for granted. 'Bis dahin dominierte nicht der Text als vielmehr der im Text iiberlieferte Inhalt, was den relativen freien Umgang mil biblischen Texten ermoglichte.' Cf. also James Barr, Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments (London: SCM Press, 1966), pp. 128-29.
114
Greek Bible text even depended on its conformity with the wording of one specific Hebrew text. However, the very existence of these Septuagint manuscripts indicates that the Greek textual form still discernible in the Christian Septuagint transmission may well be older than the Masoretic text. It also allows us to suppose (cf. Chapter 2) that some of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament which cannot be explained as originating from either the Masoretic text or the Septuagint may derive from a Greek translation depending on a Hebrew text which was not identical with the Masoretic text. The fact that the Hebrew text transmission was still fluid when the Greek translation was completed has a great impact on deciding the nature of the relationship between the various editions of the Jewish Bible. For instance, it cannot now be said that a Greek translation is secondary in relation to the Hebrew Ur-text, for thanks to its indubitable age it may even in some places be used as a valuable text witness in textual critical reconstructions of the original Hebrew text. The Septuagint is more than an uneven, awkward, often paraphrastic or interpretative Greek translation of the Hebrew text. It is primarily the translation of the sacred books which the Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, not versed in Hebrew, relied on. At that, it may even reflect another Hebrew text than the Masoretic. This paves the way for the realization that it is not sufficient to consider the redactional layers of the various books before their final redaction. The process leading to the formation of a canonical body of writings is just as significant, considering that every single writing gains significance from its particular context. Whether the books are part of the Hebrew Bible or, as it happens, of the Septuagint, conveys a different understanding. It is remarkable that even in cases where Hebraica Veritas has been preferred in a Christian context as the basis for translation, the sequence of the writings adhered to in the Hebrew Bible has been disregarded.39 On this point the Septuagint has prevailed. However, it is of no use isolating individual writings in this connection. The preaching in Dan. 12.1-3 of the awakening of the dead, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt, has not been understood as expressing a late phase in the development of the Israelite39. In Jewish tradition it was not unequivocally fixed either, as proved by the circumstance pointed out by Sanders, Text and Canon', p. 389, that in Codex Aleppensis and Codex Leningrad Chronicles is placed first in Writings, not last, as in Biblia Hebraica.
115
Jewish religion once the book of Daniel won canonical status. Rather it has been viewed as an integral element of the theology of the whole canon, that is, in principle it is omnipresent. When the sacred books were canonized, every apparent discrepancy was abolished by 'commentation', if not by other means. Thus Josephus in Contra Apionem 1.38 (cf. ch. 2) is able to point out both that the number of the Jews' sacred books is limited, and that they do not contradict each other. As Magne Saeb0 puts it: in the process of canonization, the relationship between traditum and traditio changes. What started as traditio now becomes traditum, thus engendering a new traditio, which is tied in with this norm as its established starting-point.40 This is a most important insight gained through the Septuagint. For to understand how the Jews comprehended their Bible before the Christian Church broke away from Judaism and thus provoked a crisis, we cannot, as it happened in the second century CE, isolate the testimony of the Septuagint from the text of the Biblia Hebraica. As we have already seen, the efforts to bring the Greek translation close to the Hebrew wording was not instigated by the use the Christian Church made of the Septuagint. But undoubtedly this use accelerated a more radical perception of the Biblia Hebraica as the Ur-text, and thus also of the 'relative' value of any translation. The process of shifting traditions, which the Septuagint is evidence of, and which was an altogether Jewish process,41 was thus repudiated. Historically, however, the Septuagint should be endowed with special significance considered as a translation, because, to some circles of Greek-speaking Jewry, it replaced the Biblia Hebraica, and thus became their Bible.42 Because it was accepted as conclusive evidence of the
40. See his 'Vom "Zusammen-Denken" zum Kanon. Aspekte der traditionsgeschichtlichen Endstadium des Alten Testaments', JBTh 3 (1988), pp. 115-33. 41. Orlinsky, 'The Septuagint as Holy Writ', p. 103, even says about the Septuagint: 'It became the Bible of the Diaspora Jewry to such an extent that when Christianity began to develop within its midst and then grew in numbers and influence outside and in opposition to it, it was natural for Christians to regard the Greek Bible as Judeans and other Jews regarded and used the Hebrew original. Had Christianity developed such that it continued to remain within the Jewish fold, the Septuagint would have continued as the Bible for those Jewries in the Diaspora...for whom Greek was the mother tongue.' Cf. also idem, The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text', in W.D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 534-62. 42. Cf. for the following Robert Hanhart, 'Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta-
116
biblical revelations, it was used by the authors of the New Testament writings, and, accordingly, came to have a decisive impact on the theology of the New Testament. In a historical perspective, it became, to an even greater extent than the Biblia Hebraica, the Old Testament of the New Testament. This circumstance is fundamental insofar as this translation as a witness of the handing on of traditions represents a reappraisal of the basic content of the Old Testament. According to Robert Hanhart it even expresses a more profound appreciation of the Old Testament's testimony of revelation.43 The hope for perfection and fulfilment which is the essence of faith in post-exilic Israel only finds expression in Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah, and not until the book of Daniel is it fully developed. According to Hanhart, this very hope represents 'the peculiarity of the Greek translation of the Old Testament in the shape of the LXX, in which it was finally made comprehensible'.44 Here the Old Testament tradition reaches 'the last stage of maturation'.45 To isolate the Septuagint in a
Forschung fur die Theologie', TEH 140 (1967), pp. 38-64 (reprinted in Jellicoe (ed.), Septuagint and Modern Study [1974], pp. 583-609). See now also idem, 'Textgeschichtliche Probleme der LXX von ihrer Entstehung bis Origenes', in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 1-19. 43. See Hanhart, 'Die Bedeutung', p. 43, where it is said, 'daB dem Ubersetzungswerk die Dimension einer neuen, bis dahin nicht gekannten Tiefe der Einsicht in das zu eigen wird, was das Wesen des alttestamentlichen Zeugnisses ausmacht, einer Dimension, die dann auch in der Ubernahme des griechischen AT durch die ersten neutestamentlichen Zeugen, obwohl theologiegeschichtlich auch hier der LXX lediglich die Bedeutung eines Abbildes des urspriinglichen alttestamentlichen Zeugnisses zukommt, nicht verloren geht oder wieder verdrangt wird, sondern zum mitbestimmenden Element in der Formulierung der neutestamentlichen Zeugnisaussage wird.' 44. '... das eigentiimliche Wesen der griechischen Ubersetzung des AT in der Gestalt der LXX, in der sie erst ihre endgiiltige begriffliche Pragung erha'lt.' See 'Die Bedeutung', p. 45. In conclusion it is said (p. 45), 'Das griechische AT in der Gestalt der LXX ist die Schau des alttestamentlichen Glaubenszeugnisses im Lichte der kommenden Erlb'sung.' Cf. the examples on pp. 45-46. 45. '...ein Stadium der letzten Reife.' See 'Die Bedeutung', p. 64. Cf. also Georg Bertram, who says that in certain respects the Septuagint holds a praeparatio evangelica. See 'Praeparatio evangelica in der Septuaginta', VT7 (1967), pp. 225-49, esp. pp. 231-49. Cf. also idem, 'Vom Wesen der Septuaginta-Frommigkeit', WO 2 (1954-59), pp. 274-84, 'Septuaginta-Frommigkeit', RGG III.5 (1961), cols. 1707709, and 'Das Problem der Umschrift', e.g. p. 98, where it is said: 'In dieser Ubersetzung kommt eine neue Stufe der religiosen Erkenntnis zum Ausdruck, die z.T. wesentlich verschieden ist von den mannigfaltigen Entwicklungsstufen der
117
biblical theological context pertaining to the question of what the Old Testament meant to the New Testament authors is to omit the most essential link. It is fundamentally important to be able to ascertain that the Old Testament testimony of revelation has preserved its integrity in the Greek translation. The Greek formal demands have been disregarded in places where they would have disturbed the essence and content of the original testimony.46 In other words, the translation did not bow to the Greek spirit.47 The intention of the translation may, according to R. Hanhart,be summarized under 'the headings': conservation, actualization and interpretation.48 It is of the utmost importance to establish that the Septuagint has retained its Jewish basis in spite of the circumstances where interpretation has had to walk a tightrope between an acceptable Hellenization and an unacceptable assimilation to Hellenism, and that distance in time and another milieu promoted a certain degree of independence. The Septuagint cannot be bypassed if we want to conjure the Judaism from which Christianity grew.49
alttestamentlichen Religion, wie sie in den verschiedenen Biichern des hebraischen AT sich darstellen.' 46. See Hanhart, 'Die Bedeutung', p. 50: 'Die von der Ubertragung her geforderte neue Form bleibt an dem Punkte unberucksichtigt, wo sie Wesen und Inhalt des urspriinglichen Zeugnisses beeintrachtigte.' Cf. on the whole pp. 49-51 and 'Fragen um die Entstehung', p. 158: 'Die LXX stromt in einem fur eine Ubersetzung in die Sprache des Hellenismus denkbar hohen Mass den Geist des AT aus und in einem denkbar geringen Mass den hellenistischen Geist der untergehenden Antike.' 47. Cf. Hanhart, 'Die Bedeutung', p. 52: 'Diese Wesensbestimmung der LXX, als einer in Wesen, Inhalt und Form gegenuber der zeitgenossischen Glaubensaussage des hellenistischen Geistes vollig heterogenen, weil das Offenbarungswort Israels gegen den Widerstand der hellenistischen Glaubens- und Denkmoglichkeiten, aber in SprachgefaB des griechisch-hellenistischen Wortes, vertretenden und bewahrenden Aussage, ist das, was ich die oft nicht geniigend beriicksichtigte Bedeutung der LXX fur die Theologiewir diirfen in dieser Hinsicht sagen des Christentums und des Judentumsnennen mochte...' 48. See esp. 'Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta fur die Definition des "hellenistischen Judentums'" in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (VTSup, 40; Leiden: Brill, 1986), pp. 67-80 (71-78). 49. Cf. 'Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta-Forschung fur die Theologie', p. 52: 'Ihre Bedeutung fur das neutestamentliche Zeugnis liegt zuerst darin, daB das AT den neutestamentlichen Zeugen in dieser eben bewuBt und gewollt nach dem alttestamentlichen Offenbarungswort in der Ursprache ausgerichteten, es durch die
118
An example of how complex it can be to measure the degree of Hellenization in the Septuagint is the testimony of the source material in respect of the use of Kvpioq as the name of God in the Greek translation of the Old Testament.50 Origen and Jerome are adamant that the best Septuagint manuscripts do not render the Hebrew jhwh by kupioc, but use the tetragrammaton in some form or other.51 More recently it has been disputed whether this really goes back to the original Septuagint text. However, whilst Kt)pioq has not been found in any Jewish Septuagint manuscript as a translation of Jahweh, by contrast the tetragrammaton, in some form or other, has been interpreted as if it was the early Christians who first substituted Kupux; for the tetragrammaton, because they did not understand Hebrew.52 According to other Jewish writings from this period, however, Greek-speaking Jews did in fact use Kvpioq for Jahweh. When sayings about Jahweh Kupioc; could be transferred to io>pio<; Jesus, it was because the Septuagint had originally rendered Jahweh by the word Kupiog.53 Albert Pietersma has been able to establish that the occurrence of some kind of a tetragrammaton in Jewish Septuagint manuscripts was not original; more likely it was a result of the already mentioned 'revisionist' recensions. In all probability, the original Septuagint text used Kt>pio<; for Jahweh, thus providing a significant prerequisite for a certain 'denationalization' of Israel's God.54 All this leads to at least two tentative conclusions. The first is that what we today call the Hebrew Ur-text, that is, the Masoretic Bible text,
hellenistische Geisteswelt hindurchbewahrenden, es gegen den Strom ihres eigenen Weges vertretenden griechischen Gestalt vorgegeben war, und dafi das AT in dieser Gestalt durch seine Aufnahme in das neutestamentliche Zeugnis wohl einer restlos anderen Interpretation, aber einer Interpretation, die in dieser Hinsicht mit dem Anliegen des ausgehenden Judentums einig ging, geoffnet worden ist.' 50. Cf. Hanhart, 'Die Bedeutung', pp. 57-60, but esp. Albeit Pietersma, 'Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX', in Pietersma and Cox (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 85-101. 51. See Origen, In Psalmwn II and Jerome, Prologus in libra regum 1.364.9-10. 52. Thus, e.g., Kahle, The Cairo Genizah, p. 222. 53. Cf. Hanhart, 'Die Bedeutung', p. 61: 'Was sie [the Christians] vom Judentum nicht ubernahmen, das war nicht der Kyrios-Name als Bezeichnung fur Jahwe, sondern seine in religioser Furcht begriindete rein chiffrehafte Ersetzung durch das Tetragramm.' 54. See Htibner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, p. 58: 'De facto ... wurde durch den Tatbestand, daB in den LXX-Lesungen des synagogalen Gottesdienstes der Gott Israels als der Kyrios genannt wurde, die Heilige Schrift Israels fur heidnische Ohren gewissermaBen "entnationalisiert".'
119
was not the solid basis of Old Testament text transmission. On the contrary, it was a coping stone put into position rather late. Along with Hans Hiibner, we may ask why this stage in the stabilization of the Hebrew Bible text, which is practically identical with the somewhat younger Masoretic text, and can be characterized by the views it expresses as a 'spiritual product of Jerusalem's exilic or post-exilic fixation on the southern kingdom',55 should be more relevant than the Septuagint. In this way a certain redaction belonging to a comparatively random period has been monopolized and made absolute.56 The other conclusion is that it is not possible, if only for historical reasons, to maintain that the Septuagint is merely a translation and thus a secondary witness in relation to the Jewish Bible. As emphasized by Robert Hanhart in particular, the Septuagint is in many respects a theologically outstanding version of the Old Testament, amplifying the religious traditions of Judaism. To put it in another way: the text traditions of the Septuagint are indispensable for the definition of the Jewish Bible in the centuries around the birth of Jesus.57 What might be terme 'the /r-te;tf-criterion', because the Septuagint is but a translation, is rather dubious in this connection. In the first place the Ur-text was at that early time still fluid to some extent. Secondly, the Septuagint may very well reflect a Hebrew Ur-text which had not been emended in line with a gradually emerging textual 'norm'. In a biblical theological context where the Bible includes both the Old and the New Testaments, it should therefore be out of the question to
55. '...als geistiges Produkt der exilisch-nachexilischen Sud-perspektive Jerusalems.' See Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, p. 58. 56. Cf. Hiibner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, p. 59: "Das historisch punktuelle wird zum Allumgreifende deklariert.' Italicized by Hiibner. 57. Cf. again Hiibner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, this time p. 61: 'Die veritas Hebraica (Hieronymus) hat in dieser Hinsicht sicherlich keinen Vorsprung vor der veritas GraecaV See also Hanhart, 'Die Bedeutung', p. 56; like P. Katz, 'Septuagintal Studies in the Mid-Century: Their Links with the Past and their Present Tendencies', in W.D. Davies and D. Daube (eds.), The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (Festschrift Charles Harold Dodd; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954, 2nd edn, 1964), pp. 198-200, Hanhart refers to Julius Wellhausen, Der Text der Biicher Samuelis (Gottingen, 1871) for his farsighted theory that both the pre-Christian Hebrew Ur-text and the Greek translation 'unter wesensgleichen theologie- und geistesgeschichtlichen Einfliissen gestanden batten'. It should be noted that Wellhausen only speaks of the books of Samuel, but his theory applies to more than these.
120
exclusively recognize Hebraica Veritas a priori at the cost of Graeca Veritas. For, until the process began which insisted on monopolizing Hebraica Veritas as the only authentic Bible text in respect of the Old Testament, the Jewish Bible was in fact both the Hebrew and the Greek text.59" Added to this, the biblical theological context makes it abundantly clear that the textual form of the Septuagint was the most popular in the New Testament.59 Where the shape of the Jewish Bible is concerned, a one-sided preference for the Hebrew-Aramaic text as the original par excellence in those decades when the New Testament books were written should be precluded. For this would be to ignore our present historical knowledge with respect to how and on which premises this text won status as the only Bible text of Judaism.60 In a biblical
58. This viewpoint is urged by Alfred Jepsen, 'Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments', TLZ 74 (1949), cols. 65-74, which (col. 71) says about the various textual forms that they 'entstammten der einen Gemeinde und waren Ausdruck ihres Glaubens; alle haben sie ihre Geschichte durchlebt, bis der masoretische Text sich durchsetzte und auch auf die Ubersetzungen mehr und mehr EinfluB gewann.' 59. In practice it is what Pierre Benoit accentuates by his question, 'La Septante est-elle inspiree?', in Nikolaus Adler (ed.), Vom Wort des Lebens (Festschrift Max Meinertz, NTAbh, 1; Munster: Aschendorff, 1951), pp. 41-49. Benoit thus presents a number of quotations from the New Testament, obviously drawn from the Septuagint. The New Testament authors regarded this translation as just as inspired as Biblia Hebraica. Use justifies the book! A.-M. Dubarle, O.P., 'Note conjointe sur 1'inspiration de la Septante', RSPT 49 (1965), pp. 221-29, expresses a more 'relativistic' attitude by saying (p. 228): 'L'Ecriture ne nous parvient jamais a 1'etat pur' and by referring to the church as the keeper of tradition. On the whole, 'inspiration' is an inconvenient concept in this connection. 60. The most recent example of such a monopolization 'in spite of everything', and with a deliberate distance to Hans HUbner's reference to Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum, is Brevard S. Childs, 'Die Bedeutung der hebraischen Bibel fur die biblische Theologie', 7Z48 (1992), pp. 382-90 (385). The explanation' follows p. 387, where it is said: 'Wenn einer das Alte Testament einfach als Quelle der Religion des alten Israels betrachtet, werden diese Texte ganz anders analysiert als von einem, der das Alte Testament als Zeugnis einer gottlichen Realitat ansieht, die eintrat in das Leben des historischen Israel, und von der die christliche Kirche bekennt, sie sei dieselbe Realitat wie die in Jesus Christus offenbarte.' However, Childs confuses two aspects which should be kept apart, namely the Jewish Bible at the time of the New Testament and the content of this Bible according to Christian interpretation. Michael Heymel, 'Warum gehort die Hebraische Bibel in den christlichen Kanon?', BTZ1 (1990), pp. 2-20, has no relevance in our context despite the title, as 'the Hebrew Bible' has only been used to dominate the Old Testament as such. Only once (p. 6) is
121
theological context the Septuagint does in fact convey, more convincingly than Biblia Hebraica, what the New Testament authors understood as their Holy Writ. The urgent question, still unanswered, is therefore whether Graeca Veritas is in fact, in a historical perspective, the true Bible of the Church, and therefore also the obvious basis for all translations of the Old Testament as part of the Christian Bible. As touched upon in connection with the question of the extent of the Jewish canon (Chapter 2), the Septuagint's part in the Christian reception of the Old Testament did not imply the inclusion of the Old Testament Apocrypha in line with the books contained in the Biblia Hebraica. These Apocrypha, the majority of which are original Greek writings, are of course, together with a number of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, first-hand sources of the Hellenistic Judaism which created the Greek translation of the canonical books. In these noncanonical books it is possible to follow the theological development which influenced the translation of the 'canonical' writings, but which had freer reign in the translation process than in the transmission of the Hebrew text. In the history of the canon, the Apocrypha have led a tumultuous life. In defiance of Jerome's wishes they were incorporated in the Bible, and, when Luther translated the Old Testament, he also incorporated the Apocrypha, albeit as an appendix and under the heading: 'Apocrypha; das sin Biicher; so der heiligen Schrifft nicht gleich gehalten und doch niitzlich und gut zu lesen sind.' Thus they appeared in all Danish Bibles until the nineteenth, century, when the opposition to these writings from Scotch Puritans became so outspoken that it made the British and Foreign Bible Society declare that they would neither print Bibles incorporating the Apocrypha nor support any society that did so. This meant that the Danish Bible Society, which was financially dependent on the British society, has ever since issued Bibles both with and without these Apocrypha. In principle, only canonization can give traditions their final form.61 But when the Jews canonized their Bible and the Christians their Old Testament, they did not do it at the same time; neither did they perceive it in the same way. In the process of canonization a group of writings is given another meaning than that attached to the separate writings of this
it mentioned that the Church inherited this Bible in the shape of the Septuagint, but this is not pursued any further. 61. Cf. Barthelemy, 'L'enchevetrement de 1'histoire textuelle', pp. 35-38.
122
group in their original historical context. For, when canonized, a group of writings is fixed in the meaning that presupposed its reception. And it makes a great difference whether the Scripture, as it happened in the Christian Church, is canonized in the perspective of transitoriness, that is, as a promise of what has now been fulfilled, or, as in Judaism, it is canonized under the perspective of 'the Law'. The process of canonization thus transforms the writings, which are elevated into an eternal and unchangeable norm.62 In conclusion, it may be said that the conviction shared by Jerome and the biblical humanists that the Hebrew-Aramaic textual form contained 'the original text' of both the Jewish Bible and the Old Testament of the Christian Church ignores the fact that the Septuagint is far more than a verbum pro verbo translation and consequently should not be treated like one. As witness of the handing on of traditions, this version is entitled to another status. Even though it may not be possible to say with Augustine that the creators of the Septuagint were in fact prophets, his viewpoint holds the element of truth that it was a fatal mistake to put it aside in favour of the Hebrew-Aramaic text. The role the Septuagint played, mainly in the New Testament, but certainly also in the early Church, should have precluded this. In a biblical theological context we must insist that the Septuagint is at least part of a canon. For, in a Christian theological context, it is historically incorrect to put the Septuagint in brackets when it comes to the question of the Old
62. Cf. Franz Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons (repr.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft [Libelli Band 154], 1965 [1880]), p. 1: 'Es liegt im Wesen aller Kanonisation ihre Objecte unkenntlich zu machen, und so kann man denn auch von alien Schriften unseres neuen Testamentes sagen, dass sie im Augenblick ihrer Kanonisirung aufgehort haben verstanden zu werden. Sie sind in die hohere Sphare einer ewigen Norm fur die Kirche versetzt worden, nicht ohne dass sich iiber ihre Entstehung, ihre urspriinglichen Beziehungen und ihren urspriinglichen Sinn ein dichter Schleier gebreitet hatte.' Even though this is stated about the New Testament, it is as relevant for the Old Testament. The quotation has been taken from Philipp Vielhauer, 'Paulus und das Alte Testament', in Luise Abramowski and J.F.G. Goeters (eds.), Studien zur Geschichte der Reformation (Festschrift Ernst Bizer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1969), pp. 33-62; here quoted after the reprint in Vielhauer, Oikodome: Aufsdtze zum Neuen Testament (ed. Giinter Klein; TBii, 65; Munchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1979), pp. 196-228 (224).
123
Testament of the Church.63 The history of the reception has a significance of its own.64
63. It is therefore quite unsatisfactory when H. Karpp, '"Prophet" oder "Dolmetscher"', maintains (p. 117): 'Septuaginta [ist] kein zweiter Kanon und keine kanonisierte Textform, wohl aber ein einzigartiger Zeuge fiir die Auslegung des alttestamentlichen Gotteswortes, die der ersten Christenheit besonders hilfreich war, die Christusoffenbarung zu verstehen. Aber zum Wirken der Vorsehung gehort auch, daB in spaterer Zeit der Urtext neu entdeckt wurde. Gerade in dieser Geschichte erweist sich die Septuaginta als Werk von Dolmetschern, nicht von Propheten im eigentlichen Sinne.' It needs faith in a relative historical-critical assertion of an Urtext to be able to see the working of Providence here! 64. Cf. Hartmut Gese, 'Erwagungen zur Einheit der biblischen Theologie', ZTK 61 (1970), pp. 417-36; reprinted in and here quoted after idem, Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beitrdge zur biblischen Theologie (BEvT, 64; Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974), pp. 11-30, here pp. 16-17: 'Ein christlicher Theologe darf den masoretischen Kanon niemals gutheiBen; denn der Kontinuitat zum Neuen Testament wird hier in bedeutendem MaBe Abbruch getan. Mir scheint unter den Einwirkungen des Humanismus auf die Reformation die eine verhangnisvolle gewesen zu sein, daB man die pharisaische Kanonreduktion und die masoretische Texttradition, auf die man als "humanistische" Quelle zuriickgriff, miteinander verwechselte und Apokryphen aussonderte.' As regards to this Hengel follows Gese to such a degree that he concludes his treatise 'Die Septuaginta als "christliche Schriftensammlung"' (pp. 283-84) with a quotation from Gese's article which also contains the words above.
Chapter 6
VETUS TESTAMENTUM IN Novo RECEPTUM

1. The Biblical Theological Impact of the Old Testament On the whole, historico-critical Old Testament research has focused its attention on the historical core of the traditions contained in the various Old Testament books and the endeavour to reconstruct the IsraeliteJewish people's history and religion has led to a preoccupation with the underlying traditions. In continuation of this, Old Testament exegesis has concentrated on the content and significance of the separate books in their original historical context, thus isolating the Old Testament in relation to the New. From a purely historical viewpoint it is certainly quite possible to classify the relationship between the Old and the New Testament in simply religio-historical categories. But this raises some problems with the Old Testament as part of the Bible canon of the Christian Church which no theologian can afford to disregard. It is a study in itself to delineate that aspect of Old Testament research which, after the title of a pamphlet by Hermann Gunkel, might be called Was bleibt vom Alien Testament!1 It did not improve matters that the insight
1. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1916. A preliminary list of important contributions to the discussion might include, Gustav Dalman, Das Alte Testament. Ein Wort Gottes (Leipzig: Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1896); Emil Kautzsch, Das bleibende Bedeutung des Alien Testaments (SGV, 25; 2nd edn; Tubingen: Mohr, 1903); Sigmund Mowinckel, Hvad har vi som kristne i Del gamle Testamente (Kristiania: Norlis Forlag, 1922); idem, Del gamle testament som Guds ord (Oslo: Gyldendal, 1938 [ET The Old Testament as Word of God (New York, 1959; London, I960)]); Johannes Pedersen, 'Opfattelsen af det gamle testamente', NTT 32 (1931), pp. 137-62 (German: 'Die Auffassung vom Alten Testament', ZAW49 [1931], pp. 161-81); Aage Bentzen, 'The Old Testament and the New Covenant', HTS1 (1950), pp. 1-15 (an elaborated edition in Danish is 'Det gamle Testamente og Den nye Pagt', in Baun et al. [eds.], Bibelsyn: En indf0relse i aktuelle bibelproblemer [Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag, Arnold Busck, 1951], pp. 192-209). Also to be
6. Vetus Testamentum in Novo Receptum
125
into the traditional character of the Old Testament books very often diverted attention from the final redaction of the various books and, instead, focused on more or less hypothetical reconstructions of inherent traditional elements. It might be worthwhile contemplating an extension of the canon concept to make it apply not just to the number of books pertinent to the old and the new covenants, but to their final redaction. For, in both Old and New Testament exegesis and theology, the basis is indeed often hypothetical text reconstructions. In a biblical theological context where the problem is to understand how the New Testament authors used their Bible, it is of course the Old Testament text in its entirety that counts. As discussed in the previous chapter, this Bible text was not understood diachronically, but synchronically. Any idea of a development in the conceptual biblical universe was ruled out. What we perceive as the final stages of the Israelite-Jewish religion, as expressed in the Old Testament, was perceptible to Jesus, the first disciples and the New Testament authors throughout the Scripture. In view of this, it seems quite natural for Jesus, in his controversy with the Sadducees (Mk 12.18-27; Mt. 22.23-33; Lk. 20.27-38) to read the description of the raising of the dead of Dan. 12.1-3 into Exod. 3.6. To the New Testament authors, the continuity between the Old Testament and their use of it is based on the idea that the spirit who created Scripture is also at work in its interpretation. In a theological perspective, it is impossible to isolate the Old Testament because of the position it holds in the New. But, on the other hand, its very position and significance results in its being, in a theological context, part of the Bible of the Church solely because of the interpretatio Christiana in which it was received. Thus, a historical understanding of the Bible and its creation entails that the Testaments are recognized as parts of the Bible, each in their own way. Until the age of Enlightenment, the two parts were generally viewed as being on the same level. But the Enlightenment, with its germinating historical-critical biblical research, soon relegated the Old Testament to isolation, based on the conviction that it did not express
named is, Rudolf Bultmann, 'Die Bedeutung des Alten Testaments fur den christlichen Glauben', in idem, Glauben und Verstehen, I (Tubingen: Mohr, 2nd edn, 1954), pp. 313-36. Cf. also, Claus Westermann (ed.), Probleme alttestamentlicher Hermeneutik. Aufsdtze zum Verstehen des Alten Testaments (TBii, 11; Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag; 1963).
126
Christianity, but rather an Israelite-Jewish religion. As of course it does per se. The Old Testament should therefore be studied for its own sake and on its own premises. In this context, an Old Testament theology must involve itself in the Israelite-Jewish religion as expressed in the various authorships and traditions of the Old Testament. The problem first arises when the attempt is made to create an Old Testament theology within the framework of biblical theology and thereby seek to establish a continuity, based on the Old Testament.2 In a biblical theological context, the Old Testament is incontestably the Scripture which the early Christians and New Testament authors acknowledged as their only Bible. They possessed it, and they could possess it solely due to an interpretatio Christiana. In a theological context, this fact cannot be disregarded. Only when the four Gospels, Paul's letters, Hebrews and the Catholic letters, Acts and the Revelation of John were canonized in line with the Old Testament did it become possible to allow the Jewish Bible an independent status. It might even, as Marcion did, be relinquished as a revelation of the Father of Jesus Christ. Such an individualization of the Old Testament revelation in relation to the revelation in Jesus Christ is, however, illegitimate in a Christian theological context. The reasoning for this is, on the one hand, that the Jewish Bible has gained new significance through the coming of Jesus, and, on the other hand, that its significance has been brought about by this event and is not immediately apparent from the text alone. On the whole, the presupposition that there should be a direct path leading from the Old Testament to the New is an inherent obstacle to a biblical theological determination of their mutual relationship (cf. Chapter 1 above). The implication is either that whatever is said in the New Testament may in fact be read in the Old (cf. the Letter to Barnabas}, or that the Old Testament loses its independent significance when it is treated as merely a shadow or pattern of the substance visualized or materialized in the New Testament (see Col. 2.17; Heb. 8.5; 10.1 or, fully expanded, Melito of Sardes, On Easter 35-45). All biblical-theological attempts to establish some kind of a 'standard reading' of the Old and the New Testament should be handled with the greatest care, since these aim at proving that the Old Testament text did
2. Cf. for this complex of problems Jesper H0genhaven, Problems and Prospects of Old Testament Theology (The Biblical Seminar, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).
111
in fact originally possess the significance attached to it by the New Testament authors.3 The same care should be exercised with respect to all attempts to establish a method that will permit a 'standard' exegesis according to hermeneutical models that are, if not identical with, at any rate corresponding to those used in the New Testament.4 Any attempt to revive, if not allegory, then at least typology as a scientific method must be met with a caveatl Quite simply, because we no longer find ourselves in the same hermeneutical tradition. To ignore this fact involves scientific isolation.5 To avoid the risk of isolation, one must view the New Testament authors as theologians whose theological universe was determined by two poles, namely, on the one hand, God's words as they were handed on in the holy writings, and, on the other hand, the faith in and confession to Jesus Christ who has fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. For, if it is taken in earnest that there are two poles in this universe, and that the 'truth' of the Old Testament in a New Testament context can only be activated if the other pole is also active, then the only possible way of comprehending the Jewish Bible is in connection with faith in and confession to Jesus as the Christ. Only with him has the veil been removed which coveredand without him still coversthe holy scriptures. This is expressed in 2 Cor. 3.12-17, where Paul says that he puts on a bold front, not like
Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendour. But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when [it] turns to the Lord 3. A 'manual of discipline' is James Barr, Old and New, in particular chapter 4, Typology and Allegory' (pp. 103-48). 4. See Barr, Old and New, p. 143, which in general warns against reading too much method into the New Testament authors' Bible use, for the fact is 'that assessments of the use of the Old Testament in the New cannot really work with strictures on methods.. .To speak very crudely, the operation was concerned less with methods than with results. It was the results that were open, and it was in the results that the New Testament was both most creative and most of all an authority to itself.' 5. Cf. Barr, Old and New, p. 132, saying that 'an attempt to rehabilitate typology, which carries with it also a very explicit and conscious repudiation of allegory, may be like a bridge which reaches neither side of the river.' A collection of examples is available in Carl-Martin Edsman, 'Gammal och ny typologisk tolkning av G.T.', SEA 12 (1947), pp. 85-109.
128

the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Paul says here that the splendour that brightened 'Moses', that is, the old covenant, had faded, which Moses tried to hide. But with the coming of Christ it was revealed. Though not referred to as a scriptural expression, the context indicates that the words from Exod. 34.34 inserted in v. 16, should be interpreted as a reasoning taken from the Scriptures. The rendering of the Septuagint flviKa S'av eianopeueTO McouafJQ evavtt KUp{oi> Xaêiv amfi), Tcepiflpeuo TO KaXuu|ia eox; tou eKJiopet>ea0ai differs from the Hebrew text in that it changes an active verb ('he took') into a passive (TtepvrjpeiTo: 'was removed'). In relation to this, Paul introduces several other alterations. Thus the first verb has been changed into eTCiatpevi/p. (maybe influenced by Exod. 34.32), the words Monxriit; evavu Kupioi) XaA,eiv <x\>Tq> have been replaced by npoc, Kijptov, and the subject is no longer Moses but, to all appearances, Israel. The passive form of the second verb has been maintained, but, in continuation of the conjunctive in the previous sentence, the imperfect tense has been altered to the present tense in a futuric sense, which supports the understanding of the subject as Israel (therefore the alteration in the translation above form 'a man' to 'it'). According to the context, the Lord', whom Israel will turn to, is Christ.6 The passage shows how the wording of the Septuagint in the New Testament is involved in the theological discussion at the same time as it is subjected to alterations. According to Paul, it is not a question of some kind of interpretative technique or hermeneutics which might extract from the Scriptures their true meaning, but of a light emanating from Christ. What matters is not just what the text says but how it is read (cf. Acts 8.30-36). Conversely, it should be recognized that Christ can only be explained in the light of the writings of the old covenant.7 'Moses' cannot just be ignored. It seems reasonable to join Hans Hiibner in his assertion that the Old Testament in a biblical-theological context is Vetus Testamentum in Novo
6. Cf. in particular the thorough analysis in Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief(KEK, 6; Gottingen, Vandenhoech & Ruprecht, 1924) pp. 123-24, and Otfried Hofius, 'Gesetz und Evangelium nach 2. Korinther 3', in idem, Paulusstudien (WUNT, 51; Tubingen: Mohr, 1989), pp. 75-120 (118-20). 7. Barr, Old and New, p. 158, expresses this very gracefully when he refers to 'the Old Testament as forming the mental matrix for the incarnation, somewhat parallel to the way in which the body of Mary forms the physical matrix.' Cf. p. 141.
129
receptum* In this way the wording of the Old Testament, in the shape it has in the New Testament, gains independent significance, and the Septuagint can be viewed as a true expression of the Bible which is called to witness. Moreover, the Septuagint has largely replaced Biblia Hebraica in the New Testament. For the New Testament authors this translation had tremendous impact. It influenced their perception of the wording of the Bible text decisively, and, to a varying degree, left its stamp on their language.9 The interpretative process, visible in the Septuagint, continues to a certain degree in the New Testament, either implicitly expressed in use or explicitly manifested in an ad hoc alteration of the wording of certain quotations. The new context finally determines the meaning.10 As already mentioned, the assertion that the Biblia Hebraica is the authoritative Bible text also in the Christian Church rests on untenable premisesone of these being a special view of the Bible. For, also in a theological context, this assertion rests on the assumption that such a thing as a 'Hebrew original' actually existed. If this was the case, the Septuagint would of course have to be characterized as an ad hoc solution to a translation problem: a solution which would later on be
8. See Hans Hiibner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. I. Prolegomena (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), pp. 62-70. Cf. my own summary article 'Om brugen af Det gamle Testamente i Det nye Testamente', Prcesteforeningens Blad, 81 (1991), pp. 793-99. 9. Cf. H.B. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, pp. 381-405 (Quotations from the LXX in the New Testament) and pp. 452-61 (on the question to which extent the glossary of the New Testament has been influenced by the LXX). Inter alia, it is said (p. 404): 'It is not too much to say that in its literary form and expression the New Testament would have been a widely different book had it been written by authors who knew the Old Testament only in its original, or who knew it in a Greek version other than that of the LXX.' This is also conspicuous by the proportions which the treatment of the attestation of various New Testament words have assumed in the Septuagint in Theologisches Worterbuch mm Neuen Testament, vols. I-IX (1933-73), ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. 10. Cf. H. Hiibner, Biblische Theologie, p. 66: 'Aber auch die LXX bleibt im Neuen Testament nicht, was sie zuvor war. Auch sie geht durch einen theologischen UmschmelzungsprozeB hindurch. Auch die Septuaginta ist weder quantitativ noch theologisch qualitativ identisch mit der Septuaginta in Novo Testamento recepta.' See also p. 67, where it is said that 'mit dem Vorgang der Rezeption durch den neutestamentlichen Autor [ist] eine neue theologische Grbfie geworden... Durch den ProzeB der Rezeption hat also das Alte Testament eine neue theologische Qualitat erhalten.'
130
problematic in passages where the Hebrew and the Greek texts disagreed. The New Testament authors probably never imagined that there might be any substantial difference between the Hebrew original and the Greek translation. But this does not legitimize the generally accepted translation practice of substituting the wording of the Septuagint for the Hebrew Bible text where a New Testament quotation would otherwise become displaced; besides Isa. 7.14, Hab. 2.4 may be quoted. An emergency solution of this kind merely serves to emphasize the problem rather than solve it. Maybe, bearing the formulation in mind that the Old Testament, in a Christian theological context, is Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum, we must radically concede that in this case the Old Testament scriptural passage is what it has been made into. That is, its significance in its New Testament context is primarily determined by this. The decisive facts are first that the Scriptures are quoted, and secondly that the other pole in the New Testament theological universe is activated. Only by inserting the scriptural passage in the magnetic field thus generated is its true meaning exposed. However, this does not mean that the wording of the Old Testament scriptural passage is merely of cursory significance. For only in a concrete shape has it been the generator, as amply proved by the example of Isa. 7.14. 2. The Use of the Bible in the New Testament The problems pertinent to the use of the Old Testament in the New comprise numerous questions most of which can be answered separately. For example, the textual form in which the Old Testament quotations or allusions appear may be questioned; how the content of the individual scriptural passage is interpreted; whether it has been disconnected from its context or whether the context has been respected, perhaps even considered (cf. the discussion on how Jesus' words on the cross in Mk 15.34 are to be understood in an evangelical context); finally, which hermeneutical presuppositions are at the root of the various authors' use of the Scriptures? It is impossible to treat all these questions in detail. To do justice to them would require major monographs.11 However, in relation to the
11. Among the comprehensive literature, a number of overviews will suffice, as for instance C.K. Barrett, 'The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New', in CHB, I (1970), pp. 377-411; D. Moody Smith, Jr, The Use of the Old Testament in the
131
first Bible of the Church the principal question must be how the early Christians managed to unite the new with the old. How the continuity between the two parts of the Bible should be viewed has been discussed: that is, that the path leads from the New Testament to the Old. What remains is a profound analysis of the way in which the New Testament authors understood their Bible in practice in the light of their faith in Christ, and how they used it in their preaching. The idea that the Scripture might contain several interpretation layers or even express another meaning than the literal meaning was not alien to contemporary Judaism. The idea is not only fundamental to the commentaries found among the Qumran manuscripts, but also forms the basis of Aristobulus' and Philo's allegorical exegesis. Thus Philo, by means of his ontologically founded allegorical method, is able to deduce a more profound spiritual meaning from the Haggadic material at the cost of its literal meaning, while this is always maintained in Halachic material. The Qumran commentaries are based on their own history and historical setting, thereby monopolizing a sectarian interpretation.12 This
New', in James M. Efird (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972), pp. 3-65, who seeks to carry on from R.V.G. Tasker, The Old Testament in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1946); Hans Hiibner, 'New Testament, OT Quotations in the', in ABD, IV (1992), pp. 1096-104. Another useful reference is the last part of 'The Old Testament in the New Testament', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 191-336, where Max Wilcox treats 'Text Form'; Graham Stanton, 'Matthew'; Morna D. Hooker, 'Mark'; C.K. Barrett, 'Luke/Acts'; D.A. Carson, 'John and the Johannine Epistles'; D. Moody Smith, 'The Pauline Literature'; A.T. Hanson, 'Hebrews'; Richard Bauckham, 'James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude', and C.K. Beale, 'Revelation'. Cf. also Hengel, 'Die Septuaginta als "christliche Schriftensammlung'", in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 263-70. For the more methodical aspect, i.e. the hermeneutics of the New Testament authors, see, e.g., E. Earle Ellis, 'Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 691-725; reprinted in idem, The Old Testament in Early Christianity (WUNT, 54; Tubingen: Mohr, 1991) as chapter 3. For briefer surveys, see Johannes Lindblom, 'Gamla testamentet i urkristendommen. Tillika ett bidrag till bibeltolkningens historia', SEA 6 (1941), pp. 23-42; Evald Lovestam, Urkyrkans skriftforstaelse, in Hidal et al. (eds.), Judendom och kristendom, I, pp. 259-67. 12. See, for instance, Geza Vermes, 'The Qumran Interpretation of Scripture in its Historical Setting', originally in Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 6 (1969), pp. 85-97, later reprinted in Geza Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies
132
has very much in common with the New Testament use of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are only 'Scripture' when truly and suitably interpreted.13 At the same time, however, the Qumran society persists in viewing the Law perspective as the dominant element of Scripture, andjust as important in this contextthey never claim that the time of the Messiah has come, even though they identify events in their own history with events predicted in the Scripture.14 The Qumran society is thus still rooted in the old covenant, even though, in continuation of Jer. 31.31-34, it refers to itself as the community of the new covenant.15 Despite such essential disparities, the relationship between the way the Qumran society used Scripture and the way the New Testament authors used it is closer than between the latter and Philo. On one point, however, the New Testament interpretation of the Scriptures differs radically from the Qumran manuscripts: faith in Jesus as the Christ and the fulfilment of the promises made it possible to understand the wording of the Old Testament 'historically', because it dealt with a past which, considered as revelation, was but transitory. Even though the New Testament to a great extent embodies hopes for the future, this future has been decisively anticipated in the events pertaining to the life of Jesus, his death and resurrection. The relatively late concept of the double parousia, implicitly present in the Gospel of Matthew and in the
(SJLA, 8; Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 37-49; Michael Fishbane, 'Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra in Qumran', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 339-77. Cf. also Clemens Thoma, 'Literatur und Religion II. Judentum', in TRE, XXI, pp. 240-61 (245-46). 13. Cf. Fishbane, 'Use, Authority and Interpretation', p. 351: '...the pertinent truth is for the sectarians, and is a reworked and Interpreted truth.' See also pp. 37677: '...there is no Mikra without its interpretation; indeed, there is only the Mikra through its legitimate and proper interpretation... Fatefully, the sectarians believed that outside their authoritative use and interpretation of Mikra there was no salvation.' 14. For comparisons of the use of Scripture in Qumran and the New Testament respectively, see, e.g., Frederick F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), esp. chapter 7, 'Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts and the New Testament'; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 'The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament', NTS 1 (1960-61), pp. 297-333. 15. Cf. Friedrich Lang, 'Gesetz und Bund bei Paulus', in Rechfertigung. (Festschrift Ernst Kasemann; ed. Johannes Friedrich and Wolfgang Pohlmann; Tubingen: Mohr, 1976), pp. 305-20, here p. 312: 'Der neue Bund von Qumran ist in Wirklichkeit der vom Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit richtig ausgelegte und vollstandig befolgtealteBund.'
133
writings of Luke, is characteristic: it 'explains' why Jesus' first parousia, albeit he was the Messiah, occurred in lowliness.16 Here the Church exists in the magnetic field between the two poles 'already' and 'not yet'. This element is also inherent in the fulfilment words of the New Testament. In this connection it is decisive that the meaning of the verb IIknpouv and the verbal noun TiXripcojia are correctly construed. For, if construction is determined by the use later generations made of the proofs of Holy Writ, it becomes deceptive. When the New Testament authors resorted to the Scriptures, they did not in particular put stress on 'the proofs' which seem to appear in passages where fulfilment can be proved to be in accordance with the promises. It may be asserted with some justice that such a lack of outward agreement was a fundamental problem to the early Christian Scripture theologians. Instead, fulfilment, as expressed in the words TiXrjpovv and 7iA,T|pco|ia, should be understood as a kind of completion, fulfilment of what was missing, or implementation. Only with 'the fulfilment' is the true meaning of Scripture exposed.17 Under the circumstances, this is the most obvious way of interpreting the great number of 'fulfilment' quotations in Matthew which use the verb nAjipovv (1.22; 2.15, 17, 23; 4.14; 8.17; 12.17; 13.35; 21.4; 26.54, 56; 27.9), and it is not contradicted by its application elsewhere in this Gospel (3.15; 5.17; 13.48; 23.32). In the Gospel of Mark, TiAripoaw appears once in connection with the Scriptures (14.49; cf. also the text critically doubtful 15.28). The Gospel of Luke uses it twice (4.21; 24.44; see also Acts 1.6; 3.18; 13.27). In the Gospel of John, it is found in six passages, all of them in its second part (15.25; 17.12; 19.24, 36; cf. 18.9, 32 about the fulfilment of Jesus' own words). In this connection, Paul's use of the verb to denote the fulfilment of the require16. Cf. Graham Stanton, 'Matthew's Christology and the Parting of the Ways', in Dunn (ed.), Jews and Christians, (WUNT, 66; Tubingen: Mohr, 1992), pp. 99-116 (112-14), where it is demonstrated that this concept, which is elaborated in Justin (Dial. esp. 14.8; 40.4; 52.1 [where Gen. 49.8-12 is interpreted as a prophecy of it]; 110.1-5; 121.3), is already inherent in the Gospel of Matthew. As to the Lukan writings, see Bent Noack, Guds rige i os eller iblandt os. Jesusordet i Lukas 17.21 (Copenhagen: Gad, 1967 [= idem, Das Gottesreich bei Lukas: Eine Studie zu Luk. 17, 20-24 (SymBU, 10; 1948), pp. 47-50]). 17. Henrik Ljungman, Das Gesetz erfiillen: Mt. 5, 17ff. und 3, 15 untersucht (Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, 1.50.6; Lund: Gleerup, 1954) is still of fundamental importance, though see also C.F.D. Moule, 'Fulfilment-words in the New Testament: Use and Abuse', NTS 14 (1967-68), pp. 293-320; reprinted in idem, Essays in New Testament Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 3-36.
134
ment of the Law (Rom. 8.4; 13.8; Gal. 5.14) and the saying in Rom. 13.10: rcXripGoua ... vofiou i] ajanr\ is important. For the sake of completeness, Jas 2.23 should be included. Also Jn 19.28 belongs to this enumeration, though the verb used there is xeêiv as in Rom. 10.4: Christ is the end of the Law (retax; ... vojiov Xpiaioq; that is, the end of the dominance of the Law). The idea of 'fulfilment' is also expressed in passages which compare what has come with Christ with 'the old', not necessarily as a contrast, but primarily as an 'implementation', initiating a new situation. The passages contrasting the two periods in salvation history are Mt. 11.13: 'For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John,' and its 'parallel' in Lk. 16.16: 'The law and the prophets were until John. Since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached.' Very likely the ultimate purpose of the pericope of the transfiguration on the mountain (Mk 9.210; Mt. 17.1-9; Lk. 9.28-36) is to describe Jesus as the culmination of the Law and the Prophets. If so, it is not just Moses and Elijah that testify to Jesus, but first and foremost it is Jesus who 'explains' Moses and Elijah, the latter representing the prophets.18 From now on, according to God's voice, the Son should be listened to. As to the incompatibility of new and old, we have the saying about the impossibility of sewing a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak, and of putting new wine into old wineskins (Mk 2.21-22; Mt. 9.16-17: Lk. 5.36-39. The saying in Lk. 5.39 that no one, after drinking old wine, will want to have new wine, should be understood as references to Israel's repudiation of salvation). Already in the prologue to the Gospel of John (1.17), the qualitatively new programme is expressed: 'For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.' Philip's words to Nathanael in v. 45 leave no one in doubt about the relationship between promise and fulfilment: 'We have found him about whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph' (cf. also Jn 6.32; 9.28f. and 5.45f.). The contrast is also evident in the preface to Hebrews (1.1-2), where the prophets represent what is transitory and the Son what is everlasting. In the Lukan writings, this distinction is marked by the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.16-21 with the quotation from Joel 3.1-5; cf. also Lk. 24.49). That Scripture reached its final goal in Jesus appears from those passages which say that they bear witness to Christ (see e.g. Jn 5.39. 46-47) and the Christian congregations (Rom. 5.4; see
18. The remarkable way of putting Elijah before Moses in Mk 9.4 has its 'parallel' in Mt. 11.13, which mentions the Prophets before the Law.
135
also Rom. 4.23; 1 Cor. 9.9 [1 Tim. 5.18]; 10.11; and also 1 Pet. 1.12 and Heb. 11.13). From a number of New Testament sayings it appears that on one hand, the Old Testament per se represents a limited epoch in salvation history. On the other hand, it remains the Holy Writ of the Christian community. These sayings maintain the unimpaired validity and authority of Holy Scripture, albeit according to an interpretatio Christiana. Towards the end of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is depicted as the one who has opened his disciples' minds to understand the Scriptures (see 24.45, though also 24.27, where it is said that when Jesus met the disciples walking to Emmaus, he 'began with Moses and all the prophets and interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself [dp^djievoq ocrco Mcoiiaecoc; KCCI OCTIO TTOCVTCOV TOW TtpocprjTCGv SiepuriveDcev ccuxoit; ev maom; xai<; ypacpaiq TOC rcep! eccmoft]. Cf. 24.32). Put in another way, the actual significance of the Old Testament has been exhausted simultaneously with its being fixed in those events which were described by the New Testament authors. Two New Testament authors, namely the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and Luke-Acts respectively, describe this by means of a concept of salvation history. According to this, the nation of Israel, after a respite lasting from the resurrection to the destruction of Jerusalem, was disconnected from the history of salvation because of its callousness.19 This concept should be viewed as the result of a theological elaboration of the events in the year 70, which also affected the Christian congregations deeply. Already these two authorships express the idea, later to become almost a dogma, that the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple represented the completion of God's punishment of the Jewish people, because they had repudiated Jesus.20
19. Cf., for this, my 'Frelseshistorie i Matthasusevangeliet. Et eksempel pa bibelsk teologi', DTT 56 (1993), pp. 131-52 (ET: Salvation History in the Gospel of Matthew, in Sigfred Pedersen [ed.], New Directions in Biblical Theology: Papers of theAarhus Conference, 16-19 September 1992 [NovTSup, 76; Leiden: Brill, 1994], pp. 58-76), and 'Historic som teologi. Om afviklingen af Moseloven i Lukasskrifterne', in Mogens Miiller and John Strange (eds.), Det gamle Testamente i j0dedommen og kristendommen (FEE, 4; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Forlag, 1993), pp. 123-50. 20. The 'impartial' Josephus soon became a principal witness. His description in the fifth book of War of the horrors in connection with the siege of Jerusalem and its subsequent fall eventually came to play an important role in this connection. Cf. thus the use of it in Eusebius's Historia ecclesiastica II, 5.6; VI, 3.8; V, 3-7; VI, 1-28 and
136
On the one hand, the Bible of Judaism and the Bible of the Christian community represent the same book in respect of content. On the other hand, what the two parties readwhat they must readinto this book is widely different. Where Judaism in its various versions sees the perspective of the Law as the constituent factor, Christian interpretation concentrates on 'the fulfilment aspect', that is, the opening towards a decisive new achievement either in or beyond history. The emphasis on Scripture as a prophecy accentuates this 'fulfilment aspect'. In this connection it should be underlined that scriptural interpretation is nowhere either spontaneous or unintegrated. On the contrary, it materializes in a world where Scripture was already widely used and on the point of attaining canonical status. In this situation, Scripture was interpreted in every way on the basis of tradition. This tradition was so fundamental as to make one ask, along with the Jewish theologian Jacob Neusner, whether Judaism and Christianity are so far based on the same presuppositions that it is at all reasonable to argue from Scripture alone in a dialogue between the two. Already at an early time their common basis was formulated and communicated in coordinate systems so incongruous as would seem to preclude any further dialogue.21 The question is now whether this is coincidental in one or maybe both cases, and whether both parties can plead continuity with the speech of Scripture? In this connection, it may be useful to consider Judaism and Christianity respectively as interpretative units. Both the Jewish Synagogue and the Christian Church were constituted on the basis of an explicit interpretation of the Jewish Bible. It should be borne in mind that, apart from being the Law, the Jewish Bible contains the promise of a new covenant, according to which conditions of salvation will be
VII, 1-7. Via Eusebius, it attained something like canonical status to such a degree that at a certain period his description even appeared together with Johann Bugenhagen's harmony over the Passion in Danish hymn books. See for this, Lausten, Kirke og synagoge, pp. 312-13. 21. See Jacob Neusner, Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition (London: SCM Press, 1991), e.g. p. 5: 'Christianity and Judaism each took over an inherited symbolic structure of Israel's religion. Each, in fact, did work with the same categories as the other. But in the hands of each, the available and encompassing classification system found wholly new meaning. The upshot was two religions out of one, each speaking within precisely the same categories but so radically redefining the substance of these categories that conversation with the other became impossible.' Cf. p. 25: 'The system comes before the texts and defines the canon. The exegesis of the canon then forms the ongoing social action that sustains the whole.'
6. Vetus Testamentwn in Novo Receptum
137
radically changed in relation to the covenant then valid. By and large, the Jewish Bible is permeated by a duplicity or openness which the New Testament or Early Church interpretation both accentuates and exploits. Opposite the concept of Israel as God's chosen people is the concept of the holy remnant. To put it in other words, it is not enough to have Abraham for your ancestor, if you do not behave like a child of Abraham. Opposite the commandments of the Mosaic Law for an elaborate sacrificial institution is the prophetical requirement: I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice (Hos. 6.6). This requirement relativizes the entire sacrificial institution by subjecting it to ethics. Opposite the idea of the temple as God's habitation is the saying that God does not dwell in manmade houses, and the knowledge that the temple is not inviolate, but may be abandoned by God. Throughout the Old Testament, the description of the chosen people in general and the prophetical preaching in particular emphasizes the disobedience, obstinacy and callousness of this people to such an extent that God becomes the sole agent in the covenant relationship. As to the entire complex of Mosaic legislation, there is a peculiar relativity in the fact that the history of election is older than the legislation by many centuries, which means that, given the occasion, this legislation may very soon be reduced to a parenthesis. On the whole, it is characteristic of the Old Testament that this collection of writings does not evoke the picture of a stable religion, where everything has always been and will forever remain the same. By contrast, it speaks of innovations forever changing the prevailing situation. An example of this is the centralization of the cult in Josiah's reform.22 Simultaneously, Judaism was already in pre-Christian time a religion of two principal elements: the temple and Scripture, even though these two were not necessarily competing. However, the increasing influence of Scripture at the time of the second temple enabled it to sustain itself and, if occasion should arise, if not replace, at least contrive to make it evident that a temple in principle would suffice. Several of these themes play a role in internal Jewish controversies, as for instance the Qurnran society's polemic against the rest of the Jewish society. However, in the New Testament writings, which all date from a time when the Church was no longer an entirely Jewish movement and
22. Cf. Barr, Old and New, p. 26: 'A kind of situation may have its place, and then become obsolete; not simply or necessarily because people have grown out of primitivity, as the older view of "progressive revelation" suggested, but because a stage is now fulfilled and its very fulfilment leads on to another and different one.'
138
the Jewish repudiation, generally speaking, was an inescapable reality, the inherent possibility of a 'relativization' of Judaism as a religion was awakened. When the Jewish people rejected salvation in Christ, this was interpreted in the light of the Old Testament perception of callousness. In Paul, it is incorporated in speculations of salvation history anticipating the conversion of all Israel to follow upon the Gentiles' reception of the gospel. But after the year 70, Judaism as a religious community was doomed to be, from the perspective of Christians, the rejected people, and this theme was played out with all degrees of atrocities in subsequent centuries. The perception which has had the greatest impact on the New Testament reception of the Old Testament was the perception of a new covenant in the last days, as expressed in particular in Jer. 31.31-34; 32.40, and Ezek. 11.19; 36.26. For this covenant in which God will give those with whom he concludes his covenant one heart, and will put a new spirit within them so that they may walk in his statutes and keep his ordinances, this covenant claims to be creating the prerequisites of a new 'chosen people'.23 This paves the way for the universalism which releases Judaism from being the religion of a specific nation to enable it to embrace anybody who turns to the Lord. Discontinuity and continuity thus become two aspects of the same thing, for in discontinuity continuity is maintained in God's salvation history. This is the new covenant which Paul and the other New Testament authors proclaim had been concluded with the death of Jesus. Apparently, Paul is the first to draw the far-reaching universalistic consequences of this faith. When the possibility of salvation is no longer dependent on the affiliation to the people of the twelve tribes, but on the reception of the spirit of the Lord, then Gentile and Jew become equal. But where this faith reigns supreme a new interpretive unit emerges. Where the interpretive unit of the Synagogue had maintained that, if a non-Jew wanted salvation, he had first to become a Jew, the Christian unit abandoned this restriction. Now God's kingdom was open to anybody who, after having received the spirit of the Lord, produced the fruits of this kingdom (cf. Mt. 21.43). Not surprisingly the spiritual leaders of Judaism, thrown into deep depression after the events of the year 70 as they were, felt no need for experimenting with their identity in a way that would predictably end in dissolution. For the way in which
23. Cf. for the concept of the new covenant my own, 'Anden og Loven. Pagtsteologi i Romerbrevet', DTT52 (1989), pp. 251-67.
139
the Christian interpretive unit drastically relativized all that which in Scripture established Jewish identity was indeed fatal for Jewish independence. So, while the Jewish interpretive unit came to assert that the Messiah had not yet arrived, the Christian interpretive unit was constituted on the belief that the Messiah had indeed arrived.24 If the Old Testament is to be reckoned a legitimate part of the Christian Bible, it is crucial that Christian theology should maintain this perspective and elaborate it further when interpreting the Bible. For only by maintaining it in its proper perspective is it possible to forestall the Old Testament gaining an illegitimate and independent significance or becoming an alien element, rather than constituting the one pole of the Christian interpretative universe. The required continuity between the Old Testament per se and the Old Testament in the New is established by means of the reception which activates those perceptions of the Old Testament that define it as the scriptures of the old covenant. To perceive the Old Testament as Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum is the only possible way of distinguishing between what is still of significance, albeit on the premises of the new covenant, and what has lost its significance.25 3. The 'Christianization' of the Old Testament It became apparent how difficult it was to defend an understanding of the Old Testament, based both on its position in salvation history that recognized it as a revelation possessing divine authority (but also as a body conveying 'imperfection'), the moment the period of fulfilment replaced the period of promises.26 Soon the very perspective under
24. Cf. Hanhart, 'Septuaginta in neutestamentlicher Zeit', p. 413: 'Das einzige, was die Judenschaft dieser Zeit von Anfang an und endgiiltig von denen schied, die sich zur urchristlichen Gemeinde bekannten, ist der Glaube an die Erfullung der alttestamentlichen VerheiBung im neutestamentlichen Geschehen in Christus.' 25. I have tried to present an example of this reception in 'The Gospel of St Matthew and the Mosaic LawA Chapter of a Biblical Theology', StTh 46 (1992), pp. 109-20. 26. See for the question of the reception of the Old Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, the first gnostics and Justin, esp. von Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibl, chapter 3, 'Die Krise des alttestamentlichen Kanons im zweiten Jahrhundert', pp. 76-122 and idem, 'Das Alte Testament als Bibel der Kirche vom Ausgang des Urchristentums bis zur Entstehung des Neuen Testaments', in idem, Aus der Friihzeit des Christentums: Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des ersten und
140
which Scripture was read changed. The need for legitimizing faith in Christ as in accordance to Scripture was replaced by the need for justifying the continued significance of Scripture in a Church which, as time went on, acquired its own sacred writings.27 Besides, the polemic attitude to Judaism became ever more outspoken. It became a task for theologians to support the Old Testament without relapsing into Judaism28 and without making any concessions to contemporary Judaism. The probably oldest testimony of how problematic Scripture might seem to be is found in Ignatius in his letter to the congregation at Phil. 8.2. Ignatius says:29
For I heard some men saying, 'if I find it not in the charters in the Gospel I do not believe', and when I said to them that it is in the Scripture, they answered me, 'that is exactly the question'. But to me the charters are Jesus Christ, the inviolable charter is his cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is through him ...
Confronted with people who tended to let 'the documents', that is, the Old Testament, carry their own weight in relation to the faith in Christ, Ignatius maintains the prior claim of this faith (which was not a new body of writings). The front line had been demarcated. Instead of biding time, new interpretative models were applied to bring about a methodical 'Christian' interpretation of the Old Testament. The most extreme interzweiten Jahrhunderts (Tubingen: Mohr, 1967), pp. 152-96, and also, for instance, Ludwig Diestel, Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der christlichen Kirche (Jena: Mauke's Verlag, 1869), pp. 6ff.; Lindblom, 'Gamla testamentet i urkristendommen'; Hyldahl, 'Kampen om skriftforstaelsen'; Mogens Miiller, Gnostikerne og Bibelen: Ptolemceus og hans brev til Flora (Tekst og Tolkning, 9; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1991). 27. See von Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, p. 90: 'Die Front hatte sich gegeniiber Paulus gleichsam umgedreht: jetzt ging es nicht mehr darum, den Christusglauben von der alten Schrift auszuweisen und mit den prophetischverstandenen Texten zu sichern, sondern man stellte nun umgekehrt vom neugewonnenen, christlichen Ausgangspunkt aus die Frage, wieso das alte Gesetz wahreGottesoffenbarung iiberhaupt gewesen sei, und unter welchen Voraussetzungen seine problematischen Bestimmungen jemals einen ertraglichen Sinn gehabt haben sollte.' 28. Cf. for this William Horbury, 'Jewish-Christian Relations in Barnabas and Justin Martyr', in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), Jews and Christians (WUNT, 66; Tubingen: Mohr, 1992), pp. 315-45 (323-25). 29. The quotation below is from the translation by Kirsopp Lake in LCL.
141
pretations are those supplied by the author of the Letter of Barnabas and by Marcion. According to the Letter of Barnabas,30 which was not viewed as a peripheral writing in the Early Church, but, on the contrary, was highly estimated among the leading people, the entire Old Testament religion represented one big misunderstanding, originating from a wicked angel. This made the Jews understand their ceremonial laws quite literally. But the covenant they refer to was never concluded. However, according to this letter, the Old Testament becomes like the New Testament if properly interpreted according to true knowledge. The same complete lack of salvation historical perspective also confronts us in the gnostic Marcion. Marcion does not deprive the Old Testament of its revelatory value either, but he applies it rather to another god than the Father of Jesus Christ, namely the wicked, though righteous Demiurge. Christianity, according to him, has no prehistory. It begins in the 15th year of the emperor Tiberius' reign. Marcion thus consistently exchanged the Jewish Bible for his own scriptural canon; namely the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline letters (without the Pastoral letters), though in a garbled form. Theologians of the Church rejected Marcion's attempts at a solution. But the defence of the Old Testament was at a cost. It necessitated a proper doctrine of Scripture, of which, as we have already seen, Justin's authorship is the earliest witness. Whereas a limited selection of particularly important passages used to be sufficient to illustrate faith in Christ and its consequences, theologians now felt committed to defend the entire Scripture. The Old Testament was no longer solely Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum. Rather, the first Bible of the Church was supplemented by a new part whereby it became the Christian Bible, consisting of Vetus Testamentum et Novum Testamentum.
30. For the Letter of Barnabas, see most recently Horbury, 'Jewish-Christian Relations', esp. pp. 321-23.
Chapter 7
CONCLUSION
We have reached the end of our road. The subject of the examination was the first Bible of the Church. This subject will always have a central position in a biblical-theological context, because the Jewish Bible, at least until the middle of the second century, was the only Bible of the Christian Church. This is too easily overlooked because the collection of writings called the New Testament has played such a prominent role in the Christian Bible. Hence, it cannot be emphasized too often that the New Testament writings are the result of a biblical theology whose Scripture had been the Old Testament but whose theological universe was determined by faith in Jesus Christ, as the person who had at once revealed the true meaning of Scripture and at the same time had initiated a new chapter of salvation history. This signified that the Old Testament was imperfect in itself. However, while its truth was only revealed when it entered into a complementary relationship to the faith in Christ, it is true that the Jewish Bible became another book in the possession of the Church, whose very foundation was the new covenant, concluded with Jesus' death on the cross. Everything considered, the issue of the first Bible of the Church is in fact two questions rather than one. The first is the question of the appearance of the Bible, which the Christian Church inherited. The second is the question of the significance attached to the scriptures of Judaism in the New Testament universe. In view of the fact that the decisive starting-point for interpretation was outside the Scripture and reckoned to be a complementary agent in respect of its significance, it follows that, in a Christian theological context, the Old Testament is, to cite Hans Hiibner again, Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum. This means that the shape in which the Jewish Bible was received carries its own weight, and cannot, just like that, be relativized by a tradition-historical consideration.
7. Conclusion
143
The fact that the Jewish Bible at the time of the New Testament was not only Biblia Hebraica, but also the Septuagint accentuates this. In the period before the year 70, the content of the Old Testament writings was still, to some degree, in the melting pot. The particular presentation of Bible tradition in the Septuagint may be assumed to express a special development, a kind of maturing. Considering that the Septuagint is also a witness to the transmission of traditions, it follows that this translation cannot just be ignored with regard to the question of the Jewish Bible at the time of New Testament. In this connection it is theologically unrealistic, seen from a tradition-historical viewpoint, to replace the Greek Bible version by a Biblia Hebraica, which may indeed sometimes be proved to represent an earlier stage in tradition-history, but which may, in principle, be just as haphazard, considered as a capstone. Even though the legend whereby some circles within Judaism endeavoured to legitimize the Greek edition of the Mosaic Law is historically problematic, it does express a legitimate concern. For that reason, it cannot be theologically irrelevant to the Church, which, at a very early time and due to the reception of the Septuagint in New Testament writings, supported the Greek translation of the Old Testament books as a true expression of its Bible. What we perceive as a decisive distinction between the original and the translated texts is only important in a context where the issue in question is to reveal the original intention of the original authors. But this does not seem to make sense in respect of those texts which, in their present shape, are products of a more or less protracted editing process. Thus Jerome's reversion to Hebraica Veritas rests on an untenable premise. For, as it has been discussed, it is unrealistic to refer to a Hebrew Ur-text as if one particular text might be sorted out as the original on which to found all further text transmission. The uniform Hebrew Bible text which gradually came to be acknowledged in rabbinical Jewry was not created on anything remotely like text-critical principles. When the Churches of the Reformation advocated translations from the original text into national languages, this was based, as far as the Old Testament was concerned, on the same untenable premises. It was supposed that the Hebrew text contained the original text of the various writings. The question now is where this realization is going to take us. How are we to combine it with our insight into the distinctive character of the Septuagint as a witness to the handing on of traditions, and how are we to substantiate the New Testament authors'
144
predominant use of this Greek version of the Jewish Bible? The modern Bible translator is placed in an insoluble dilemma if he has to make allowances for both the Hebrew text tradition and the Septuagint. It is a question of choosing between two alternatives. In my opinion our (newly-)gained insight into the creation of the Biblia Hebraica text and the peculiar character of the Septuagint, together with the story of how this old Greek translation was received into the New Testament and the early Church, must lead to our questioning the matter of fact way in which we have, by tradition, understood Biblia Hebraica as the original text of the Old Testament as part of the Bible of the Church. For the New Testament authors, the original text, that is, the text they drew on, was primarily the Septuagint. To make up the first part of the Bible which has the New Testament as the other part, the Old Testament in the shape it has in the Septuagint would therefore seem the obvious choice. The question of the first Bible of the Church is, however, as already mentioned, also the question of the significance attached to the sacred writings of Judaism in the theological universe of the New Testament. For in biblical theology, as it is expanded in the New Testament authorships, the association to the Old Testament is established according to the basic conviction of living in a time of fulfilment. What is preached in the Old Testament as being in the future, as seen through the eyes of the New Testament authors, has already happened. Therefore, what was perceived as the central issue of Scripture has shifted considerably. Substance pertaining to the old covenant has been reduced to being a salvation-historical digression. What was a collection of scriptures centred on the Law, in New Testament biblical theology becomes a promise of what has already become reality in the New Testament congregations; that is, it is considered under a prophetical perspective. To put it differently, time has become a decisive factor in interpretation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aejmelaeus, A., 'What Can we Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?', ZAW 99 (1987), pp. 58-89 (reprinted in idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators [Kampen: Kok, 1993], pp. 77-115). Albrektson, B., 'Recension eller tradition? Nagra synspunkter pa den gammaltestamentliga konsonanttextens standardisering', SEA 40 (1975), pp. 18-35. 'Reflections on the Emergence of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume (VTSup, 29; Leiden: Brill, 1977), pp. 49-65. Alexander, P.S., 'Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scripture', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 217-53. 'Retelling the Old Testament', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 99-121. Altaner, B., and A. Stuiber, Patrologie (Freiburg: Herder, 7th edn, 1966). Amir, Y., 'Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 421-53. Andrews, H., "The Letter of Aristeas', in APOT, II, pp. 83-122. Barr, J., Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments (London: SCM Press, 1966). Barrett, C.K., 'Luke/Acts', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 231-44. 'The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New', in CHB, I, pp. 377-411. Barthe'lemy, D., 'Red6couverte d'un chainon manquant de 1'histoire de la Septante', RB 60 (1953), pp. 18-29. Les Devanciers d'Aquila: Premiere publication integrate du texte des fragments du Dodecapropheton (VTSup, 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963). 'Origene et le texte de 1'Ancien Testament', in J. Guillet et al. (eds.), Epekstasis: Melanges patristique off ens au cardinal Jean Danielou (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972), pp. 247-61. Reprinted in idem, Etudes d'histoire du texte de 1'Ancien Testament (OBO, 21; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), pp. 203-217. 'Porquoi la Torah a-t-elle 6t6 traduite en grec?', in J. Fontaine and C. Kannengieser (eds.), On Language, Culture, and Religion: Essays in Honor of Eugene A. Nida (Approaches to Semiotics, 56; La Haye: Mouton, 1974), pp. 23-41. Reprinted in idem, Etudes d'histoire du texte de 1'Ancien Testament (OBO, 21; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), pp. 322-40. 'L'enchevetrement de 1'histoire textuelle et le 1'histoire Iitt6raire dans les relations entre la Septante et le Texte Massor6tique', in Pietersma and Cox (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 19-40. Bauckham, R., 'James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 303- 17. Bauer, H. and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebrdischen Sprache des Alten Testaments, I (repr.; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962 [1922]).
146
Beale, C.K., 'Revelation', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 318-36. Beckwith, R., The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985). 'Formation of the Hebrew Bible', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 39-86. Benoit, P.P., 'La Septante est elle inspire^?', in N. Adler (ed.), Vom Wort des Lebens (Festschrift Max Meinertz; [NTAbh, 1; Minister: Ascherdorff, 1951]), pp. 41-49. 'L'inspiration des Septante d'aprds les Peres', in Guillet et al. (eds.), L'homme devant Dieu (Festschrift H. de Lubac; Theol(P), 56; Paris: Aubter, 1963), pp. 169-87. Bentzen, A., Introduction to the Old Testament (Copenhagen: Gad, 5th edn, 1959). 'The Old Testament and the New Covenant' (HTS, 7; 1950), pp. 1-15. 'Det gamle Testamente og Den nye', in Baun et al. (eds.), Pagt. Bibelsyn. En indf0relse i aktuelle bibelproblemer (Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag/Arnold Busck, 1951), pp. 192-209. Bertram, G., 'Das Problem der Umschrift und die religionsgeschichtliche Erforschung der Septuaginta' (BZAW, 66; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1936), pp. 97-109. 'Vom Wesen der Septuaginta-Frommigkeit', WO 2 (1954-59), pp. 274-84. 'Septuaginta-Frommigkeit', RGG, V, cols. 1707-1709. 'Praeparatio evangelica in der Septuaginta', VT7 (1967), pp. 225-49. Beskow, P., 'Hieronymus och judarna', in Hidal et al. (eds.), Judendom, II, pp. 242-53. Bickerman, E.J., 'Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas', ZNW 29 (1930), pp. 280-98. In revised form reprinted in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (AGJU, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1976), I, pp. 109-36. 'Some Notes on the Transmission of the Septuagint', in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (New York, 1950), pp. 149-78. In revised form reprinted in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (AGJU, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1976), I, pp. 137-66. 'The Septuagint as a Translation', PAAJR 28 (1959), pp. 1-39. In revised form reprinted in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (AGJU, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 167-200. Bilde, P., Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works and their Importance (JSPSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988). Bornkamm, H., Luther und das Alte Testament (Tubingen: Mohr, 1948). Braun, H., 'Das Alte Testament im Neuen Testament', ZTK 59 (1962), pp. 16-31. Brock, S.P.:, 'The Phenomenon of the Septuagint', OTS 17 (1972), pp. 11-36. 'Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity', GRBS 20 (1979), pp. 69-87. 'Bibeliibersetzungen I, 2, Die Ubersetzungen des Alten Testaments ins Griechische', TRE, VI, pp. 163-72. 'Translating the Old Testament', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 87-98. To Revise or Not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Translation', Brooke and Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, pp. 301-38. Brooke, G.S., and B. Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings (SBLSCS, 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). Bruce, F.F., Biblical Exegesis in Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959). Buhl, F., Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments (Leipzig: Akademisches Buchhandlung, 1891). Bultmann, R., 'Die Bedeutung des Alten Testaments fur den christlichen Glaubens', in idem, Glauben und Verstehen, I (Tubingen: Mohr, 2nd edn, 1954).
Bibliography
147
Campenhausen, H.F. von, 'Das Alte Testament als Bibel der Kirche vom Ausgang des Urchristentums bis zur Entstehung des Neuen Testaments', in idem, Aus der Friihzeit des Christentums, Studien zur Kirchengeschichte des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts (Tubingen: Mohr, 1967), pp. 152-96. Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel (BHT, 39; Tubingen: Mohr, 1968). Carson, D.A., 'John and the Johannine Epistles', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 245-64. Carson, D.A., and H.G.M Williamson (eds.), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Casetti, P., O. Keel, and A. Schenker (eds.), Melanges Dominique Barthelemy: Etudes bibliques offertes a ['occasion de son 6(f anniversaire (OBO, 38; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). Charles, R.H., 'The Book of Jubilees', APOT, II, pp. 1-82. Childs, B.S., 'Die Bedeutung der hebraischen Bibel fur die biblische Theologie', 7Z48 (1992), pp. 382-90. Collins, A. Yarbro, 'Aristobulus', OTP, II, pp. 831-42. Collins, N., '281 BCE: The Year of the Translation of the Pentateuch into Greek under Ptolemy IF, in Brooke and Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, pp. 403-503. Cryer, F.H., 'The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew of Daniel', in Jeppesen et al. (eds.), In the Last Days: On Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and its Period (Festschrift Benedikt Otzen; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1994), pp. 185-98. Dalman, G., Das Alte Testament; Ein Wort Gottes. Ein Vortrag (Leipzig: Heinrichs'sche Buchhandel, 1896). Denzinger, H., Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 9th edn, 1900). Diebner, B.J., 'Erwagungen zum ProzeB der Sammlung des dritten Teils der antikjiidischen (hebraischen) Bibel, der ketubim', DBAT 21 (1985), pp. 139-99. Diestel, L., Geschichte des Alten Testaments in der christlichen Kirche (Jena: Mauke's Verlag, 1869). Dimant, D., 'Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 379-419. Dubarle, A.-M., O.P., 'Note conjointe sur 1'inspiration de la Septante', RSPT 49 (1965), pp. 221-29 (= Jellicoe [ed.], Studies, pp. 572-79). Dunn, J.D.G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1977). Edsman, C.-M., 'Gammal och ny typologisk tolkning av G.T', SEA 12 (1947), pp. 85109. Eissfeldt, O., Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tubingen: Mohr, 3rd edn, 1964). Ejrnaes, B., 'Brudstykker af Salme 8's tolkningshistorie', DTT 56 (1993), pp. 110-30. Ellis, E.E., 'The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 653-90. 'Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 691-725. The Old Testament in Early Christianity (WUNT, 54; Tubingen: Mohr, 1991). Feldman, L.H., 'Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 455-518.
148
Feldmeier, R., 'Weise hinter "eisernen Mauern". Tora und jiidisches Selbstverstandnis zwischen Akkulturation und Absonderung im Aristeasbrief, in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 20-37 Fishbone, M., 'Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra in Qumran', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 339-77. Fitzmyer, J.A., 'The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament', NTS 1 (1960-61), pp. 297-333. Gese, H., 'Erwagungen zur Einheit der biblischen Theologie', ZTK 67 (1970), pp. 41736. Reprinted in idem, Vom Sinai zum Zion. Alttestamentliche Beitrdge zur biblischen Theologie (BEvT 64; Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974), pp. 11-30. Glessmer, U., 'Liste der biblischen Texte in Qumran', Revue de Qumram 16 (1993), pp. 153-92. Gooding, D.W., 'Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: A Review of Recent Studies', VT 13 (1963), pp. 357-79 (= Jellicoe (ed.), Studies, pp. 158-80). Goulder, M.D., The Evangelists' Calendar (London: SPCK, 1978). Gunkel, H., Was bleibt vom Alten Testament? (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1916). Haenchen, E., 'Das alte "Neue Testament" und das neue "Alte Testament'", in idem (ed.), Die Bibel und Wir, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, II (Tubingen: Mohr, 1968), pp. 13-27. Hallback, G., 'The Fall of Zion and the Revelation of the Law: An Interpretation of 4 Ezra', SJOT 6 (1992), pp. 263-92. Hanhart, R., 'Fragen urn die Entstehung der LXX', VT 12 (1962), pp. 139-63. 'Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta-Forschung fur die Theologie', TEH 140 (1967), pp. 38-64 (= Jellicoe (ed.), Studies, pp. 583-607). 'Jiidische Tradition und christliche Interpretation. Zur Geschichte der Septuagintaforschung in Gottingen', in A.M. Ritter (ed.), Kerygma und Logos (Festschrift Carl Andresen; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), pp. 280-97. 'Die Uebersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta als Interpretation (Daniel 11, 29 und die Aegyptenziige des Antiochus Epiphanes)', in Casetti, Keel and Schenker (eds.), Melanges, pp. 135-57. 'Das Neue Testament und die griechische Uberlieferung des Judentums', in F. Paschke (ed.), Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (TU, 125; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1981), pp. 293-303. 'Zum gegenwartigen Stand der Septuagintaforschung', in Pietersma and Cox (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 3-18. 'Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta in neutestamentlicher Zeit', ZTK 81 (1984), pp. 395416. 'Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta fur die Definition des "hellenistische Judentums'", in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (VTSup, 40; Leiden: Brill, 1988), pp. 67-80. "The Translation of the Septuagint in the Light of Earlier Tradition and Subsequent Influences', in Brooke and Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, pp. 339-79. 'Textgeschichtliche Probleme der LXX von ihrer Entstehung bis Origenes', Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 1-19. Hanson, A.T., 'Hebrews', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 292-302. Hengel, M., 'Die Septuaginta als von den Christen beanspruchte Schriftensammlung bei Justin und den Va'tern vor Origenes', in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), Jews and Christians:
Bibliography
149
The Parting of the Ways AD 70 to 135 (WUNT, 66; Tubingen: Mohr, 1992), pp. 39-84. 'Die Septuaginta als "christliche Schriftsammlung"', in W. Pannenberg and T. Schneider (eds.), Verbindliche Zeugnis. I. KanonSchriftTradition (Freiburg/Gottingen: Universitatsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), pp. 34127, in a revised form contained in: 'Die Septuaginta als "christliche Schriftensammlung", ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanons', in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, pp. 182-284. Hengel, M., and A.M. Schwemer (eds.), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (WUNT, 72; Tubingen: Mohr, 1994). Heymel, M., 'Warum gehort die Hebraische Bibel in den christlichen Kanon?', BTZ 1 (1990), pp. 2-20. Hidal, S. et al. (eds.), Judendom och kristendom under de forsta drhundradena (Nordiskt patristikerprojekt, 1982-85; 2 vols.;Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1986). Hofius, O., 'Gesetz und Evangelium nach 2. Korinther 3', in idem, Paulusstudien, (WUNT, 51; Tubingen: Mohr, 1989), pp. 75-120. H0genhaven, J., 'The First Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (lQIsa) and the Massoretic Test. Some Reflections with Special Regard to Isaiah 1-12', JSOT, 28 (1984), pp. 1735. Problems and Prospects of Old Testament Theology (Biblical Seminar, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). Gott und Volk bei Jesaja. Eine Untersuchung zur biblischen Theologie (ATDan, 24; Leiden: Brill, 1988). 'Den graeske Daniel' (FBE, 2; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1990), pp. 14151. Hooker, M.D., 'Mark', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 220-30. Horbury, W., 'Jewish-Christian Relations in Barnabas and Justin Martyr', in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), Jews and Christians. The Parting of the Ways AD 70 to 135 (WUNT, 66; Tubingen: Mohr, 1992), pp. 315-45. Hornemann, C.F., Specimen exercitionis criticae in versionem LXX interpretum ex Philone (Gottingen, 1773, with reprinted title-page and equipped with a praefatio, Hafniae, 1774); Specimen II (Hafniae, 1776) (The first part published as Observationes ad illustrationem doctrince de canone Veteris Testamenti ex Philone [Hafniae, 1775]); Specimen III (Hafniae, 1778). Howard, G., 'The Letter of Aristeas and Diaspora Judaism', JTS 22 (1971), pp. 337-48. Howorth, H.H., 'The Influence of St Jerome on the Canon of the Western Church. IIII', JTS 10 (1908-1909), pp. 481-96; 11 (1909-10), pp. 321-47; 13 (1911-12), pp. 1-18. Hunzinger, C.-H., 'Qumran 6', RGG, V, pp. 754-56. Hiibner, H., 'Vetus Testamentum und Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum', JBTh, 3 (1988), pp. 147-62. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. I. Prolegomena (Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990). 'New Testament, OT Quotations in the', ABD, IV, pp. 1096-104. Hyldahl, N., 'Kampen om skriftforstaelsen i det andet arhundrede', in Hidal et al. (eds.), Judendom II, pp. 65-76.
150
Jellicoe, S., "The Occasion and Purpose of the Letter of Aristeas: A Re-Examination', NTS 12 (1965-66), pp. 144-50. 'St Luke and the "Seventy(two)"', NTS 6 (1959-60), pp. 319-21. 'St Luke and the Letter of Aristeas', JBL 80 (1961), pp. 149-55. 'Aristeas, Philo and the Septuagint Vorlage', JTS 12 (1961), pp. 261-71. The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). Jellicoe, S. (ed.), Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (New York: Ktav, 1974). Jeppesen, K., Grceder ikke saa saare: Studier i Mikabogens sigte (Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 1987). Jepsen, A., 'Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments', TLZ 74 (1949), pp. 65-74. Kaher, R., 'The Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literature', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 547-94. Kahle, P., 'Die Septuaginta. Prinzipielle Erwagungen', in J. Fuck (ed.), Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt turn 60. Geburtstage 2. September, 1947 (Halle: Niemeyer, 1947), pp. 161-80. The Cairo Genizah (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2nd edn, 1959). Karpp, H., '"Prophet" oder "Dolmetscher"? Die Geltung der Septuaginta in der Alten Kirche', in W. Schneemelcher (ed.), Festschrift fur Giinther Dehn zum 75. Geburtstag am 18. April, 1957 (Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins; Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1957), pp. 103-17. Katz, P., 'Septuagintal Studies in the Mid-Century. Their Links with the Past and their Present Tendencies', in W.D. Davies and D. Daube (eds.), The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (Festschrift Charles Harold Dobb; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1964 [1954]). Kautzsch, E., Die bleibende Bedeutung des Alten Testaments (SGV, 25; 2nd edn, 1903). Kedar, B., "The Latin Translations', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra , pp. 299-338. Kelly, J.N.D., Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975). Klijn, A.F.J., The Letter of Aristeas and the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch in Egypt', NTS 11 (1964-65), pp. 154-58. Kraus, H.-J., Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn, 1969). Kvam, B.O., 'Targumlitteraturen, dens opprinnelse, milj0 og egenart', Chaos, 19 (1993), pp. 33-47. Lang, F., 'Gesetz und Bund bei Paulus', in J. Friedrich and W. Pohlmann (eds.), Rechtfertigung (Festscrift Ernst Kasemann; Tubingen: Mohr, 1976), pp. 305-320. Lausten, M.S., Kirke og synagoge. Holdninger i den danske kirke til j0dedom og j0der i middelalderen, reformationstiden og den lutherske ortodoksi (ca. 1100-ca. 1700), Kirkehistoriske Studier. III. Raekke nr. 1 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1992). Lehmann, H.J., 'Den j0diske hellige skrift og j0diske traditioner hos en kristen syrisk forfatter i 4. arh', in Hidal et al. (eds.), Judendom, II, pp. 220-28. Leiman, S.Z., 'Inspiration and Canonicity: Reflections on the Formation of the Biblical Canon', in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (London: SCM Press, 1981), II, pp. 56-63 (and nn. pp. 315-18). Leivestad, R., 'Das Dogma von der prophetenlosen Zeit', NTS 19 (1972-73), pp. 28899.
Bibliography
151
Lemche, N.P., The Canaanites and their Land. The Tradition of the Canaanite (JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). 'The Development of the Israelite Religion in the Light of Recent Studies on the Early History of Israel' (VTSup, 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), pp. 97-115. 'Det gamle Testamente som en hellenistisk bog', DTT 55 (1992), pp. 81-101. ET: The Old TestamentA Hellenistic Book', SJOT1 (1993), pp. 163-93. Lindars, B., "The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of the New Testament Theology', NTS 23 (1976-77), pp. 59-66. Lindblom, J., 'Gamla testamentet i urkristendomen. Tillika ett bidrag till bibeltolkningens historia', SEA 6 (1941), pp. 23-42. Ljungman, H., Das Gesetz erfUllen: Mt. 5,17ff. und 3,15 untersucht (Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, 1.50.6; Lund: Gleerup). Lovestam, E., 'Urkyrkans skriftforstaelse', in Hidal et al. (eds.), Judendom, I, pp. 25967. Reprinted in idem, 'Axplock. Nytestamentliga studied, Religio 26 (1987), pp. 17-25. Maier, J., 'Zur Frage des biblischen Kanons im Friihjudentum im Licht der Qumranfunde', JBTh 3 (1988), pp. 135-46. Markschies, C, 'Hieronymus und die "Hebraica Veritas"ein Beitrag zur Archaologie des protestantischen Schriftverstandnisses?', in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 131-81. Meisner, N., Aristeasbrief, (JSHRZ, II. 1; Giitersloh: Gutersloher Verlaghaus, 1973), pp. 35-85. Metzger, B.M., 'The Fourth Book of Ezra', OTP, I, pp. 517-59. Mink, H.A., 'Presentation af et nyt Qumran-skrift: Tempelrullen', DTT 42 (1979), pp. 81-112. Mosbech, H., Essceismen: Et Bidrag til Senj0dedommens Religionshistorie (Copenhagen: Schultz, 1916). Moule, C.F.D., 'Fulfilment-words in the New Testament: Use and Abuse', NTS 14 (1967-68), pp. 293-320; reprinted in idem, Essay sin New Testament Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 3-36. Mowinckel, S., Hvad har vi som kristne i Det gamle Testamente (Kristiania: Olaf Norlis Forlag, 1922). Det gamle testament som Guds ord (Oslo: Gyldendal, 1938; ET: The Old Testament as Word of God (New York, 1959; Oxford, 1960). Mulder, M.J., 'The Transmission of the Biblical Text', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 87135. Mulder, M.J. (ed.), Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Compendium Rerum ludaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, II. 1; Maastricht: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). Munck, J., 'Aristeas', in E. Hammerschaib et al. (eds), DGTP I (1953-63), pp. 381440. Miiller, K., 'Die rabbinischen Nachrichten iiber die Anfange der Septuaginta', in J. Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Beitrdge zur Septuaginta (Festschrift Joseph Ziegler, FB.-l; 1972), pp. 73-93. 'Aristeasbrief', TRE 3 (1978), pp. 719-25. Miiller, M., 'Graeca sive Hebraica veritas? Forsvaret for Septuaginta i Oldkirken' (FBE, 1; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1988), pp. 117-37. ET; 'Graeca sive
152
Hebraica veritas? The defence of the Septuagint in the Early Church', SJOT 1 (1989), pp. 103-24. 'J0dedommens Bibel pa nytestamentlig tid og den kristne Bibel. Hebraica sive Graeca veritas?', DTT 51 (1988), pp. 220-37. ET; 'Hebraica sive Graeca veritas. The Jewish Bible at the time of the New Testament and the Christian Bible', SJOT 2 (1989), pp. 55-71. 'Anden og Loven. Pagtsteologi i Romerbrevet', DTT 52 (1989), pp. 251-67. 'Translatio et interpretatio. Om den antikke bibeloversaettelses vaesen', DTT 53 (1990), pp. 260-77. Gnostikerne og Bibelen: Ptolemceus og hans brev til Flora (Tekst og Tolkning, 9; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1991). 'Om brugen af Det gamle Testamente i Det nye Testamente', Prcesteforeningens Blad 81 (1991), pp. 793-99. 'Septuaginta som den nytestamentlige menigheds Bibel. Nogle overvejelser', Prcesteforeningens Blad 82 (1992), pp. 945-54; ET: 'The Septuagint as the Bible of the New Testament Church. Some Reflections', SJOT 1 (1993), pp. 194-207. 'The Gospel of St Matthew and the Mosaic LawA Chapter of a Biblical Theology', StTh 46 (1992), pp. 109-20. 'Frelseshistorie i Matthaeusevangeliet. Et eksempel pa bibelsk teologi', DTT 56 (1993), pp. 131-52; ET: Salvation History in the Gospel of Matthew, in S. Pedersen (ed.), New Directions in Biblical Theology: Papers of the Aarhus Conference 16-19 September, 1992 (NovTSup; Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 58-76. 'Historic som teologi. Om afviklingen af Moseloven i Lukas-skrifterne', in M Miiller and J. Strange (eds.), Det gamle Testamente: j0dedommen og Kristendommen (FEE, 4; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1993), pp. 123-50. Nautin, P., 'Hieronymus', TRE, XV, pp. 304-15. Neusner, J., Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition (London: SCM Press, 1991). Nickelsburg, G.W.E., "The Bible Rewritten and Expanded', in M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, 11.2, 1984), pp. 89-156. Nielsen, E., Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation (Copenhagen: Gad, 1955). 'En hellenistisk bog?', DTT 55 (1992), pp. 161-74. Nielsen, K., For et tree er der hdb; (Bibel og historic, 8; Copenhagen: Gads Forlag, 1985); ET: There Is Hope for a Tree (JSOTSup, 65; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). 'Jesajas kaldelsesberetning set i lyset af de senere ars profetforskning', in B. Rosendal (ed.), Studier i Jesajabogen (Bibel og historic, 12; Copenhagen: Gads Forlag, 1989), pp. 9-29. Noack, B., Das Gottesreich bei Lukas: Eine Studie zu Lk. 17, 20-24 (SymBU, 10; 1948). Guds rige i os eller iblandt os: Jesusordet i Lukas 17, 21 (Copenhagen: Gad, 1967). Olofsson, S., The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (ConBOT, 30; Lund: Gleerup, 1990). Orlinsky, H.M., 'The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators', HUCA 46 (1975), pp. 89-114. 'The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text', in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), II, pp. 534-62.
Bibliography
153
Overbeck, F., Zur Geschichte des Kanons (repr.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft [Libelli 154], 1965 [1880]). Pedersen, J., Hebraisk Grammatik (Copenhagen: Branner og Korch, 3rd edn, 1950 [1926]). 'Opfattelsen af det gamle testamente', NTT 32 (1931), pp. 138-62; German: 'Die Auffassung vom Alten Testament', ZAW 49 (1931), pp. 161-81. Pelletier, A., S.J., 'Lettre d'Aristee a Philocrate', SC 89 (1962). Flavius Joseph adapteur de la Lettre d'Aristee: une reaction atticisante contre la Koine (EeC, 45; 1962). Perrot, C., 'The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 136-59. Peters, M.K.H., 'Septuagint', ABD, V, pp. 1093-104. Pietersma, A., 'Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint', in Pietersma and Cox (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 85-101. Pietersma, A., and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wewers on his Sixty-fifth Birthday (Mississauga: Benben Publications, 1984). Polzin, R., Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). Qimron, E. and J. Strugnell, Miqsat Mac"se ha-Torah. Qumran Cave 4, V (DID, 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). Rahlfs, A., 'liber Theodotion-Lesarten im NT und Aquila-Lesarten bei Justin', ZNW 20 (1921), pp. 182-99. Rengstorf, K.H., Hirbet Qumran und die Bibliothek vom Toten Meer, StDel 5 (1960). Rost, L., 'Vermutungen iiber den AnlaB zur griechischen Ubersetzung der Tora', in H.J. Stoebe, J.J. Stamm and E. Jenni (eds.), WortGebotGlaube. Beitrdge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (Festschrift Walther Eichrodt; ATANT, 59; Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1970), pp. 39-44. Rosel, M., Obersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta (BZAW, 223; Berlin: Topelmann, 1994). Riiger, H.P., 'Das Werden des christlichen Alten Testaments', JBTh 3 (1988), pp. 17589. Saeb0, M., 'From Pluriformity to Uniformity. Some Remarks on the Emergence of the Massoretic Text, with Special Reference to its Theological Significance', ASTI 11 (1978), pp. 127-37. 'Vom "Zusammendenken" zum Kanon. Aspekte der traditionsgeschichtlichen Endstadien des Alten Testaments', JBTh 3 (1988), pp. 115-33. Salomonsen, B., 'Om rabbinsk hermeneutik', DTT 36 (1973), pp. 161-73. Sanders, J.A., 'Text and Canon: Old Testament and New', in Casetti, Keel and Schenker (eds.), Melanges, pp. 373-94. Schafer, P., 'Die sogenannte Synode von Jabne: Zur Trennung von Juden und Christen im ersten/zweiten Jh. n. Chr.', Judaica 31 (1975), pp. 54-64, 116-24. Reprinted in idem, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums, (AGJU, 15; Leiden: Brill, 1978), pp. 45-64. Schaper, J., 'Der Septuaginta-Psalter als Dokument jiidischer Eschatologie', in Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 38-61. Schiirer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC-AD 135) (ed. G. Vermes et a/.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-1987).
154
Seeligmann, I.L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1948). Shutt, R.J.H., 'Letter of Aristeas', OTP, II, pp. 7-34. Smith, D. M., 'The Use of the Old Testament in the New', in J.M. Efird (ed.), The Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972), pp. 3-65. "The Pauline Literature', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 265-91. Sparks, H.F.D., 'Jerome as Biblical Scholar', CHB, I, pp. 510-41. Stanton, G., 'Matthew', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 205-19. 'Matthew's Christology and the Parting of the Ways', Jews and Christians (WUNT, 66; Tubingen: Mohr, 1992), pp. 99-116. Stein, M., "The author of the Letter of Aristeas as a Defender of Judaism' (Hebrew), Zion 1 (1936). Stemberger, G., 'Jabne und der Kanon', JBTh 3 (1988), pp. 163-74. Strack, H.L. and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. M. Bockmuehl; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991). Strange, J., 'H0jsangen i gudstjeneste og forskning', in Miiller and Strange (eds.) Det gamle Testamente, pp. 71-84. Strieker, B.H., De brief van Aristeas (VNAW.L 72.4; 1956). Sundberg, A.C., Jr, 'The Old Testament of the Early Church (A Study of Canon)', HTR 51 (1958), pp. 205-26. The Old Testament of the Early Church, (HThS 20; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964). Swete, H.B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (rev. R. Rusden Ottley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914). Tasker, R.V.G., The Old Testament in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1946). Tcherikover, V., 'The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas', HTR 51 (1958), pp. 59-85 (= Jellicoe (ed.), Studies, pp. 181-207). Thackeray, H.St.J., 'Appendix. The Letter of Aristeas', in H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (rev. R. Rusden Ottley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), pp. 531-606. Thoma, C., 'Literatur und Religion II, Judentum', TRE, XXI, pp. 240-61. Thompson, T.L., Early History of the Israelite People: From Written and Archaeological Sources (Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East, 4; Leiden: Brill, 2nd edn, 1994). Tov, E., 'The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books', in Casetti, Keel and Schenker (eds.), Melanges, pp. 577-92. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, Jerusalem: Biblical Studies 3 (1981). 'Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?', in Pietersma and Cox (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 53-70. 'The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the 'Alterations' Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX', JSJ 15 (1984), pp. 65-89. 'Die griechischen Bibeliibersetzungen', ANRW, 11.20.1 (1987), pp. 121-89. 'The Septuagint', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 161-88. The Greek Minor Prophet Scroll from Nahal Hever (SHevXIIGr) (DJD, 8; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990)
Bibliography 155
155
'The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX', Brooke and Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, pp. 11-47. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992). Ulrich, E.G., 'The Greek Manuscripts of the Pentateuch from Qumran, Including Newly-Identified Fragments of Deuteronomy (4QLXXDeut)', in Pietersma and Cox (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 71-82. 'The Septuagint Manuscripts from Qumran: A Reappraisal of Their Value', Brooke and Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, pp. 49-80. Veltri, G., 'Der griechische Targum Aquilas. Bin Beitrag zum rabbinischen Ubersetzungsverstandnis', Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 92-115. 'Die Novelle 146 'Eppaicov Das Verbot des Targumvortrags in Justinians Politik', Hengel and Schwemer (eds.), Septuaginta, pp. 116-30. Verities, G., Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, Haggadic Studies (StPB, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961). 'The Qumran Interpretation of Scripture in its Historical Setting', Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society, 6 (1969), pp. 85-97. Reprinted in idem, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (SJLA, 8; Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 37-49. 'Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis', CHB, I, pp. 199-231. Vielhauer, P., 'Paulus und das Alte Testament', in L. Abramowski and J.F.G. Goeters (eds.), Studien zur Geschichte der Reformation (Festschrift Ernst Bizer; Neukirchen, 1969), pp. 33-62. Walter, N., Der Thoraausleger Aristobulus (TU, 86; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964). Fragmente judisch-hellenistischer Exegeten: Aristobulos, Demetrios, Aristeas, (JSHRZ, 3.2; Gutersloh: Giitersloher Verlaghaus, 1975), pp. 257-96. Waltke, B.K., 'Samaritan Pentateuch', ABD, V (1992), pp. 931-40. Wellhausen, J., Der Text der Biicher Samuelis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871). Israelitische und Jiidische Geschichte (Berlin: Reimer, 7th rev. edn, 1914). Wendland, P., Aristeae ad Philoctratem epistvla cvm ceteris de origine versionis LXX interpretvm testimoniis (Leipzig: Teubner, 1900). 'Der Aristeasbrief, APOT, II, pp. 1-31. 'Zur altesten Geschichte der Bibel in der Kirche', ZNW 1 (1900), pp. 267-90. Westermann, C. (ed.), Probleme alttestamentlicher Hermeneutik: Aufsatze zum Verstehen des Alien Testaments (TBii, 11; Miinchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1963). Wilcox, M., 'Text Form', in Carson and Williamson (eds.), It is Written, pp. 193-204. Wiles, M.F., 'Origen as Biblical Scholar', CHB, I, pp. 454-89. Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief (KEK, 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th edn, 1924). Wisl0ff, C.Fr., 'Augustin og Det gamle Testamente', in Hidal et al. (eds.), Judendom, II, pp. 254-72. Wiirthwein, E., Der Text des Alten Testaments: Eine Einfiihrung in die Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart: Wiirttembergische Bibelanstalt, 4th edn, 1973); ET: The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Old Testament [trans. E.F. Rhodes; London: SCM Press, 1980]). Zuntz, G., 'Aristeas Studies II: Aristeas on the Translation of the Torah', JJS 4 (1959), pp. 109-126 (= Jellicoe (ed.), Studies, pp. 208-25).
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis 49.8-12 Exodus 3.6 6.23 20.19 34.32 34.34 Numbers 3.2-23 7.72 20.25-28 Deuteronomy 4.2 10.6 12.32 27.5 32.8-9 Joshua 14.1 2 Chronicles 24.20-22
133
Psalms 95.10 Proverbs 22.28 Isaiah 7.14
71
8.12 13.14
Joel 3.1-5 Habakkuk 2.4 Zechariah 12.10 Judith 11.19 Ecclesiasticus 1.27 4.1 17.26 20-26 27-30 44-49 2 Maccabees 2.13-14 2.14 4 1.10
105 44
125 50 21 128 128
81
134
50 105 50
19.19 25.8 42.21 64.4

Jeremiah 31.31-34 32.40 Ezekiel 11.19 36.26 Daniel 12.1-3 Hosea 6.6
23, 40, 70, 71, 73, 77, 130 58 44 105 85
130
44, 85
33
50 50 50 36 104
132, 138 138
138 138
26 33 33 44 57 25
50
114, 125
33
137
33 33 58 58
NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew 1.22 1.23
20, 133 23
2.15 2.17 2.23
85, 133 133 85, 133
3.15 4.14 5.17
133 133 133
Index of References
7.6 8.17 9.16-17 9.36 11.13 12.17 13.35 13.48 15.6 15.14 15.34 17.1-9 21.14 21.43 22.23-33 23.30 23.32 23.35 24.15 26.54 26.56 27.9 84 133 134 33 134 133 133 133 105 80, 83 130 134 133 138 125 82 133 33,82 28 133 133 133
157
1 Corinthians 2.9 6.20 9.9 10.11 15.3-4 15.54-55
85 81 135 135 21 44
John 1.17 1.45 2.22 5.39 5.45 5.46-47 6.32 7.38 9.28 10.35 15.25 17.12 18.9 18.32 19.24 19.28 19.36 19.37 Acts 1.6 2.16-21 3.18 4.25 7.5 7.7 7.32 7.37 7.52 8.30-36 13.27 28.25 Romans 1.2 4.3 4.23 5.4 8.4 8.32 9.6 9.17 10.4 13.8 13.10 14.15
134 134 21 134 134 134 134 20, 85 134 21 133 133 133 133 133 134 133 44,85
2 Corinthians 127 3.12-17 128 3.16 20 6.16 Galatians 1.14 5.14 Colossians 2.17
105 134
126
/ Thessalonians 82 2.14-15
133 134 133 20 36 36 36 36 82 128 133 20
Mark 2.21-22 7.5 9.2-10 9.4 10.19 12.18-27 14.49 15.28 Luke 4.21 5.36-39 5.39 9.28-36 10.1 16.16 20.27-38 24.27 24.32 24.44 24.45 24.49
1 Timothy 5.18 2 Timothy 2.19 3.15-16 Hebrews 1.1-2 1.1 8.5 9.3 10.1 11.13 1 1.37 James 2.23 1 Peter 1.12 2 Peter 1.21 Revelation 4.4-10
135
134 105 134 134 33 125 133 133
33 20 134 20 126 36 126 135 82
133 134 134 134 77 134 125 135 135 133 135 134
20 20 135 134 134 81 20 20 134 134 134 81
134
135
20
87
158
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
4 Ezra 14 14.22 14.25-26 14.37-48 14.40-41 14.44-46 14.45 14.46 Arist. Exeg. 1-8 3 9 10 11 15 31 28 29 30
32 33 38 45 46 51-171 120 121-22 128-71 143 147 169 176 182-300 187-300 192 223 256 301 302 305 307
28 29 29 74 29 29 14, 32 77
308 309 310 311 312-16 313 314 315
55, 65 55 55 50 51, 55, 65 50 50,65 55
Philo Migr. Abr.
89-93
Vit. Cont. 25 29
64
27 27
Jub. 2.23
64 53, 55, 64 55 48, 55 48, 53, 55 48, 55 50,53 48, 55 48, 52 48, 51, 55, 56,65 53, 55, 65 55 55 55 55, 56 49 55 56 57 55 57 57 49 49 64 55 57 57 55 49 49, 54, 55 49, 55, 65
30, 80
Qumran 4QFlor 2 3 4QMMT C 10-11 Mishnah Ab. 1.1
28 28
Vit. Mas. 1.2-3 2.26-44 2.26 2.31 2.34 2.36 2.38 2.39-40 2.41-44
Josephus Ant. 1.5 1.9-13 1.9 1.17 2.45-47 2.347 4.196 5.318-37 9.208.214 10.78 10.186-89 10.218 10.261 10.267-68 11 12.11-118 12.14 12.15 12.36-37 12.36 12.111-13 13.62-73 13.64
55 61 63 61 61 62 62 62 63
26
105
Yad. 3.5
Talmuds b. B. Bat. 14b
b. Meg. 32a 7a
31
28
111 31
b. Sank. 12.10
31
Gem. b. B. Bat. 14b 32 15a 32

;'. Meg. 4.1
111
107 106 106 107 66 107 107 28 107 28 28 107 107 28 65 64 64 64 64 64 55 58 58
Index of References
14 15 20 34 35 39 48 49 55 56 57 87 100 104 106 107 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 64 65 65 65
108 109 114
Apion 1.1 1.37-41 1.37-38 1.38 1.39-40 1.41 1.54 2.45-47 2.168
159
War
65 65 65
1 7.420-21
58 58
107 27 28 114 28 28 107 66 55
Jewish Authors Sefer Tora 1.8 44 Sifre Numeri Naso 105 14.10 105 Writings 1-2 8-10 26 24-25
26
26
26
CHRISTIAN AUTHORS
Athanasius Easter Letter 39.3-4 79 John Chrysostom Commentary on Genesis 4.4 77 Commentary on Matthew 77 5.2 Clement of Alexandria Stromateis 1.22 75,78 1.22.148 59 1.22.150 55 1.148-49 75 1.149 78 Cyril of Jerusalem Catecheses 4.34 76 Epiphanius of Salamis De mensuris et ponderibus 3-11 77 3 77 4 77
23
80
13.12.1-2
55
Eusebius Demonstratio evangelica 5.35 76 Historia ecclesiastica 2.5.6 135 4.13-14 79 79 4.26 5.3-7 135 73 5.8 5.11-15 73 6.1-28 135 41 6.17 6.25.1-2 79 6.3.8 135 7.1-7 136 7.32.16 59 Praeparatio evangelica
Hilary of Poitiers Tractatus super Psalmos 2.3 76 Horace Espist. 2.3.13-34 Ignatius Phil. 8.2
109
140
Iraneus Adversus haereses 72 3.21 21.1 73 21.2 73 74 21.3-4 Jerome Apologia adversus libros Rufini 2.25 86 De viris illustribus 3.54 41
8.1
8.2-15.9
8.5 8.7 10.38

13.1-2
13.12
76 76 76 76 76 59 59
160
Epistula 106 ad Sunniam 3.54 108 3.55 108 Epistula ad Pammachium 49.19 85 57.1 85 57.5 108 57.7-11 108 57.11 84 In Ezechielem 2.5 87 2.12 87 Praefatio in evangelio 2.1515.19 83 Prologus Tobiae 1.676.3 88 Prologus in Pentateucho 1.3 85 1.3.29-30 86 1.4.35-39 87 1.12-16 85 Prologus in libris Salomonis 2.957.23-25 87 Prologus in libra lob 1.732.42-44 86 Prologus in libra Paralipomenon 1.546.21-31 85 1.547.30-31 85 Prologus in libro regum 1.364.9-10 118 1.365.44-51 87 Justin Apologia 31.2-5 41

Cohortatio ad Graecos 13 72 Dialogue with the Jew Tryfon 14.8 133 133 40.4 43.5-8 70 133 52.1 70 66.1-4 67.1 70 68.7-8 70 71.1 70 71.4 71 72-73 71 71 84.1-3 84.3 70 71 103.5 133 110.1-5 120.4 70 133 121.3 124.3 70 124.4 71 131.1 70 70 137.3 Melito of Sardes On Easter 35-45 126 Origen De oratione 14.4
2.15
90, 92
Epistula 28.2 56.2 80.3-6 82.34-35 112.19-22 116.34-35
89 89 90 91 91 91
Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 2.73 21 Sermo 300.3 Tertullian Apol. 18.5-9
21
75
De cultu feminarum 1.3 76 Classical Cicero De Optimo genere oratorum 5.13-14 108 7.23 108
83
Epistula ad Africanum 4 81 5 82 9 82 St Augustine De civitate Dei 4.3 21 42-43 92 42 92 43 92 De doctrina Christiana 2.8 94
69 71
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Aejmelaeus, A. 42 Albreckston, B. 35, 37 Alexander, P.S. 106, 111 Altaner, B. 72 Amir, Y. 63 Andrews, H. 46 Barr, J. 113, 127, 128, 137 Barrett, C.K. 130, 131 Barthe"lemy, D. 42, 44, 60, 83, 96, 97, 121 Bauckham, R. 131 Bauer, H. 38 Beale, C.K. 131 Beckwith, R. 14, 26, 27, 30-33 Benoit, P.P. 69, 120 Bentzen, A. 39, 124 Bertram, G. 112, 116 Beskow, P. 82, 83 Bickermann, E.J. 26, 32, 47, 48, 51, 52, 60, 110, 111 Bilde, P. 107 Bornkamm, H. 21 Braun, H. 22 Brock, S.P. 39, 55, 56, 66, 108, 109, 111 Brooke, G.S. 41, 48, 66, 108 Bruce, F.F. 132 Buhl, F. 27, 39 Bultmann, R. 125 Campenhausen, H.F. von 19, 69, 139 Carson, D.A. 106, 108, 131 Casetti,P. 36, 103,110 Charles, R.H. 30 Childs, B.S. 21, 22, 120 Collins, A.Y. 59 Collins, N. 48, 61 Cox, C. 41-43,58,96, 110, 118 Cryer, F.H. 38 Dalman, G. 124 Denzinger, H. 88 Diebner, BJ. 31, 33 Diestel, L. 140 Dimant, D. 106 Dubarle, A.-M. 120 Dunn, J.D.G. 69, 133, 140 Edsman, C.-M. 127 Eissfeld, O. 25, 103 Ejrnaes, B. 24 Ellis, E.E. 26, 30, 32, 33, 131 Feldman, L.H. 106, 107 Feldmeier, R. 47 Fishbane, M. 106, 132 Fitzmyer, J.A. 132 Gese, H. 123 Glessmer, U. 34 Gooding, D.W. 52, 54 Goulder, M.D. 100, 111 Gunkel, H. 124 Haenchen, E. 21, 22 Hallback, G. 29 Hanhart, R. 40-44, 47, 50, 60, 62, 68, 94, 103, 115-19, 139 Hanson, A.T. 131 Harvey, W.W. 74 Hengel, M. 26, 39, 47, 69-71, 76, 83, 95, 103, 104, 111, 116, 123, 131 Heymel, M. 120
162

Mosbech, H. 27 Moule, C.F.D. 133 Mowinckel, S. 124 Mulder, M.J. 26, 36, 37, 43, 63, 84, 98, 104-106, 110, 111, 131, 132 Miiller, K. 46, 67 Miiller, M. 135 Munck, J. 46, 52, 61 Nautin, P. 83, 84, 89 Neusner, J. 136 Nicklesburg, G.W.E. 106 Nielsen, E. 36, 101 Nielsen, K. 99 Noack, B. 133 Oikonomos, C. 69 Olofsson, S. 35, 110 Orlinsky, H.M. 50, 115 Overbeck, F. 122 Pedersen, J. 38, 124, 135 Pelletier, A. 46, 52, 64, 69 Perrot, C. I l l Peters, M.K.H. 39, 40 Pietersma, A. 41-43, 57, 58, 96, 110, 118 Polzin, R. 38 Qimron, E. 27 Rahlfs.A. 14,44 Rengstorf, K.H. 33 Rosel, M. 42, 104 Rost, L. 60 Riiger, H.P. 26, 34 Saeb0, M. 35,37, 115 Sanders, J.A. 36, 114 Schafer, P. 30 Schaper, J. 104 Schenker, A. 36, 103, 110 Schiirer, E.L. 39, 40, 47, 58, 59, 69 Schwemer, A.M. 26, 47, 69, 83, 95, 104, 111, 116 Seeligmann, I.L. 58 Shutt, R.J.H. 46, 52 Smith, D.M. 130, 131
Hidal, S. 82, 83, 89 Hofius, O. 128 H0genhaven, J. 35, 99, 103, 126 Hooker, M.D. 131 Horbury, W. 140, 141 Hornemann, C.F. 27 Howard, G. 52, 57 Howorth, H.H. 83, 88, 89, 94, 95 Hubner, H. 22, 118-20, 129, 131 Hunzinger, C.-H. 37 Hyldahl, N. 22, 140 Jellicoe, S. 39-41, 43, 46, 52, 55, 61, 69,77, 116 Jeppesen, K. 38, 99 Jepsen, A. 120 Kaher, R. 105 Kahle, P. 43,51,52,56, 118 Karpp, H. 68, 123 Katz,P. 119 Kautzsch, E. 124 Kedar, B. 84 Keel, O. 36, 103, 110 Kelly, J.N.D. 83, 84, 91 Klijn, A.FJ. 50, 55 Kraus, HJ. 96, 97 Kvam, B.O. I l l Lagarde, P. de 43 Lang, F. 132 Lausten, M.S. 95, 136 Leander, P. 38 Lehmann, h.j. 83 Leiman, S.Z. 32 Leiverstadt, R. 28 Lemche, N.P. 101 Lindars, B. 22, 41, 48, 66, 108 Lindblom, J. 131, 140 Ljungman, H. 133 Lovestam, E. 131 Maier, J. 30, 100, 113 Mann, T. 106 Markschies, C. 83-85, 88, 89 Meisner, N. 46, 52, 55 Metzger, B.M. 29 Mink, H.A. 100
Index of Authors
Sparks, H.F.D. 83, 94 Stanton, G. 131, 133 Stein, M. 57 Stemberger, G. 31, 37 Strack, H.L. 37 Strange, J. 31, 135 Strieker, B.H. 44 Strugnell, J. 27 Stuiber, A. 72 Sundberg, A.C. 14, 26, 33, 40, 68, 80 Swete, H.B. 14, 46, 129 Tasker, R.V.G. 131 Tcherikover, V. 47, 52, 57 Thackeray, H.S.J. 28. 46 Thoma, C. 132 Thompson, T.L. 101 Tov, E. 39,41-43,67, 110 Ulrich, E.G. 41 Veltri, G. 40, 111 Vermes, G. 106, 112, 131 Vielhauer, P. 21, 22, 122
163
Walter, N. 58 Waltke, B.K. 35 Wellhausen, J. 102, 119 Wendland, P. 46, 58, 69, 83, 89, 94, 95 Westermann, C. 125 Wilcken, U. 26 Wilcox, M. 131 Wiles, M.F. 82 Williamson, H.G.M. 106, 108, 131 Windisch, H. 128 Wisl0ff, C.Fr. 89 Wiirthwein, E. 34 Zuntz, G. 52-55
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

65 K. Nielsen, There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah 66 J. Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology 67 L. Eslinger & G. Taylor (eds.), Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie 68 L.R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges 69 P.R. House, Zephaniah, A Prophetic Drama 70 S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible 71 M.V. Fox, Qohelet and his Contradictions 72 D.N. Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6 73 J.W. Flanagan, David's Social Drama: A Hologram of Israel's Early Iron Age 74 W. van der Meer & J.C. de Moor (eds.), The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry 75 R.C. Bailey, David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12 76 M.Z. Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor 77 J.R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites 78 E.F. Davies, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel's Prophecy 79 P.M. Arnold, S.J., Gibeah: The Search for a Biblical City 80 G.H. Jones, The Nathan Narratives 81 M. Bal (ed.), Anti-Covenant: Counter-Reading Women's Lives in the Hebrew Bible 82 D. Patrick & A. Scult, Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation 83 D.T. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation 84 L. Eslinger, Into the Hands of the Living God 85 A.J. Hauser & R. Gregory, From Carmel to Horeb: Elijah in Crisis 86 A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (trans. W.G.E. Watson) 87 D.J.A. Clines, S.E. Fowl & S.E. Porter (eds.), The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield 88 R.K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis 89 R. Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J.J. Scullion) 90 M.F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel 91 F.H. Gorman Jr, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121
Y.T. Radday & A. Brenner (eds.), On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible W.T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative D.J.A. Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament R.D. Moore, God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories L.A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis P.R. House, The Unity of the Twelve K.L. Younger Jr, Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing R.N. Whybray, Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs P.R. Davies & R.T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History P.R. Ackroyd, The Chronicler in his Age M. Goulder, The Prayers of David (Psalms 51-72): Studies in the Psalter, II E.G. Wood, The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine: The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages P.R. Raabe, Psalm Structures: A Study of Psalms with Refrains P. Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible (trans. MJ. Smith) P.P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World C. van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law P.M. McNutt, The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism and Tradition in Ancient Society D. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A SocioArchaeological Approach N.P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites J.G. Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: The Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel L.G. Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job R. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law D. Cohn-Sherbok (ed.), A Traditional Quest: Essays in Honour of Louis Jacobs V. Hurowitz, / Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings D.M. Gunn (ed.), Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars, 1906-1923 (trans. D.E. Orton) P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies: I. Persian Period R.J. Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (trans. I.E. Crowley) D.J.A. Clines & T.C. Eskenazi (eds.), Telling Queen Michal's Story: An Experiment in Comparative Interpretation R.H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cult and Society in First Temple Judah D.V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah
122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146
147 148 149
150 151
L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead B. Halpern & D.W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel G.A. Anderson & S.M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel J.W. Rogerson, W.M.L. de Wette, Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual Biography D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past T.P. McCreesh, Biblical Sound and Sense: Poetic Sound Patterns in Proverbs 10-29 Z. Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic M. Butterworth, Structure and the Book ofZechariah L. Holden, Forms of Deformity M.D. Carroll R., Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin American Perspective R. Syren, The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives G. Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua G.F. Davies, Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2 P. Morris & D. Sawyer (eds.), A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden H.G. Reventlow & Y. Hoffman (eds.), Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their Influence R.P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson J.W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative W. Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law G.C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East F.H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation D.J.A. Clines & J.C. Exum (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible P.R. Davies & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Language, Imagery and Structure in the Prophetic Writings C.S. Shaw, The Speeches ofMicah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis G.W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (ed. D. Edelman, with a contribution by G.O. Rollefson) T.W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East P.R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' E. Ulrich, J.W. Wright, R.P. Carroll & P.R. Davies (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp J.E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 J.P. Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community
152 A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162
George Wishart Anderson D.K. Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for Psalm 18 M. Brettler & M. Fishbane (eds.), Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday J. A. Fager, Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee: Uncovering Hebrew Ethics through the Sociology of Knowledge J.W. Kleinig, The Lord's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles G.R. Clark, The WordHesed in the Hebrew Bible M. Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers J.C. McCann, The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History G.W. Coats, The Moses Tradition H.A. McKay & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophet's Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday J.C. Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives L. Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 E. Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Israel: From Joshua to the Mishnah D.R.G. Beattie & M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context R.F. Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School R.N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs B. Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story W.G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse H.G. Reventlow, Y. Hoffman & B. Uffenheimer (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature V. Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology M.P. Graham, W.P. Brown & J.K. Kuan (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes J.M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant': A Literary Approach T.C. Eskenazi & K.H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies: 2. Temple and Community in the Persian Period G. Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls D.A. Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew M.R. Hauge, Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and Function in the I-Psalms J.G. McConville & J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy
163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179
180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205
R. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets B.M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development S.L. McKenzie & M.P. Graham (eds.), The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth J. Day (ed.), Lectures on the Religion of The Semites (Second and Third Series) by William Robertson Smith J.C. Reeves & J. Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honour of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday S.D. Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew Mythology L. Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther C. V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity R.H. O'Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of Isaiah W. Johnstone (ed.), William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment S.W. Holloway & L.K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom M. Saeb0, On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament H.G. Reventlow & W. Farmer (eds.), Biblical Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914 B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration E.K. Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel's History in the Book of Hosea J. Davies, G. Harvey & W.G.E. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer J.S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible W.M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period T.J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison J.H. Eaton, Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the Commentators M.D. Carroll R., D.J.A. Clines & P.R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson J.W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles of F.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith N. Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible J.M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs P.R. Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway? D.J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible

Journal For The Study of The Old Testament Supplement 206 Mogens Muller First Bible of The Church A Plea For The Septuagint JSOT Supplement 206

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal For The Study of The Old Testament Supplement 206 Mogens Muller First Bible of The Church A Plea For The Septuagint JSOT Supplement 206

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

COPENHAGEN INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

The First Bible of the Church

THE JEWISH BIBLE AT THE TIME OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

JEWISH DEFENCE OF THE GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE LAW

The First Bible of the Church

HEBRAICA SIVE GRAECA VERTTAS?

124 130 139

The First Bible of the Church

The First Bible of the Church

SCS SGV SEA SJLA SJOT StDel StPB Str-B

This page intentionally left blank

Synopsis of the Content of Biblia Hebraica, Septuagint and Vulgate

The Prophets (Nebiim)

The Writings (Ketubim)

The First Bible of the Church

The Prophetical Books

The First Bible of the Church

The Poetical Books

The Prophetical Books

Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Baruch Ezekiel Daniel The Twelve Prophets

Synopsis of the Content o/Biblia Hebraica 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees

This page intentionally left blank

The First Bible of the Church

The First Bible of the Church

The First Bible of the Church

THE JEWISH BIBLE AT THE TIME OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The First Bible of the Church

2. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament

The First Bible of the Church

history as described in the Jews' sacred books, he says (37-38):7

2. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament

God then hands Ezra a miraculous drink,

The ensuing result was:

The First Bible of the Church

2. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament

The First Bible of the Church

2. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament

The First Bible of the Church

2. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament

The First Bible of the Church

2. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament

The First Bible of the Church

2. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament

The First Bible of the Church

2. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament

The First Bible of the Church

2. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament

The First Bible of the Church

2. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament

JEWISH DEFENCE OF THE GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE LAW

3. Jewish Defence of the Greek Translation of the Law

The First Bible of the Church

3. Jewish Defence of the Greek Translation of the Law

The First Bible of the Church

3. Jewish Defence of the Greek Translation of the Law

The rendering of the verb aear||iavTai by 'have been interpreted' or

The First Bible of the Church

3. Jewish Defence of the Greek Translation of the Law

The term 'accurate version' seems to apply to a true interpretation

The First Bible of the Church