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 Müller Hakan Ulfgard

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

The First Bible of the Church A Plea for the Septuagint

Mogens Müller

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

7 9 13

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION 1. The Jewish Bible—The 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?

19 19 20 23

Chapter 2

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

The First Bible of the Church

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

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

124

124 130 139

Chapter 7

CONCLUSION

142

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

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',

8

The First Bible of the Church

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

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

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

10 JSHRZ JSJ JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup

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

The First Bible of the Church 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

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

This page intentionally left blank

Synopsis of the Content of Biblia Hebraica, Septuagint and Vulgate

Biblia Hebraica The Law (Torah)

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy

The Prophets (Nebiim)

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)

The Writings (Ketubim)

Psalms Job Proverbs Ruth Song of Songs Ecclesiastes Lamentations Esther Daniel Ezra (including Nehemiah) Chronicles (= 1 and 2 Chron.)

14

The First Bible of the Church

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

15

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)

Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Job Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus Esther (including the apocryphal additions) Judith Tobit

The Prophetical Books

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)

16

The First Bible of the Church

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

The Poetical Books

Job Psalms Books of Solomon Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus

The Prophetical Books

Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Baruch Ezekiel Daniel The Twelve Prophets

Synopsis of the Content o/Biblia Hebraica

17

1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 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.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION 1. The Jewish Bible—The 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

The First Bible of the Church

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 church—that 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

The First Bible of the Church

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

The First Bible of the Church

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 44—49 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

The First Bible of the Church

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 npon.pepT|Ke 8' ccuta KOU dneXecnepov il e5ei cecrnuxivSai.], because they have not yet been made an object of royal concern.

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 oc«pe7toi)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 7tpoA,T|[ia n-EiieXetTiiievov eiq 'EA,AriviKa8e \LT\ a\>vr\ie: 'If you do not believe, neither shall you understand.'

4. The Reception of the Septuagint Legend into the Church

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 Bible of the Church

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

4. The Reception of the Septuagint Legend into the Church

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

The First Bible of the Church

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).

5. Hebraica sive Graeca Veritas?

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 these—far from describing the people whom the Israelites had found and eventually conquered when they invaded the country in some distant past—actually 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 Testament—A 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

The First Bible of the Church

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.

5. Hebraica sive Graeca Veritas?

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

The First Bible of the Church

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.

5. Hebraica sive Graeca Veritas?

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

The First Bible of the Church

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