Exploring the Origins of the Bible (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology)

Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective

Evans, Craig A., Tov, Emanuel, Evans, Craig A., McDonald, Lee

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781585588145
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

How did the Bible we have come to be? What do biblical scholars mean when they talk about canon, the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, or the Masoretic Text? All this biblical study is interesting, but does it really matter? Leading international scholars explain that it does. This thought-provoking and cutting-edge collection will help you go deeper in your understanding of the biblical writings, how those writings became canonical Scripture, and why canon matters. Beginning with an explanation of the different versions of the Hebrew Bible, scholars in different areas of expertise explore the complexities and issues related to the Old and New Testament canons, why different Jewish and Christian communities have different collections, and the importance of canon to theology.

1
The Septuagint as a Source
for the Literary Analysis
of Hebrew Scripture

EMANUEL TOV

In several Scripture books, the Masoretic Text displays a substantial number of major differences when compared with the LXX and, to a lesser degree, when compared with several Qumran scrolls and the Samaritan Pentateuch. The other ancient versions were translated from Hebrew texts close to the MT.

The present analysis is limited to variations bearing on literary analysis, usually found in groups of variants. A difference involving one or two words, and sometimes an isolated case of a single verse, is considered a small difference, while a discrepancy involving a whole section or chapter indicates a substantial difference, often relevant to literary criticism. However, a group of seemingly unrelated small differences might also display a common pattern, pointing to a more extensive phenomenon. This pertains to many small theological changes in the MT of Samuel, short renderings in the LXX translation of Ezekiel, and so forth.

Who created these various types of differences between ancient texts? In very broad terms, authors and editors who were involved in the composition of the texts inserted changes that we characterize today as large differences often bearing on literary criticism. At a later stage, scribes who copied the completed compositions inserted smaller changes and made mistakes while copying. However, the distinction between these two levels is unclear at both ends, since early copyists considered themselves petty collaborators in the creation process of Scripture, while authors and editors were also copyists.

While readings found in ancient Hebrew manuscripts provide stable evidence, there are many problems on the slippery road of evaluating the ancient versions, especially the LXX. One of these is that what appears to one scholar to be a safely reconstructed Hebrew variant text is for another a translator’s tendentious rendering. Literary analysis of the Hebrew Bible is only interested in evidence of the first type, since it sheds light on the background of the different Hebrew texts that were once circulating. The translator’s tendentious changes are also interesting, but at a different level, that of scriptural exegesis. Since a specific rendering either represents a greatly deviating Hebrew text or displays the translator’s exegesis, one wonders how to differentiate between the two. For almost every variation in the LXX, one finds opposite views expressed, and there are few objective criteria for evaluating these variations. Probably the best criteria relate to external Hebrew evidence supporting the LXX, the argument from translation technique suggesting either a free or a literal approach, and the existence of Hebraisms supporting an underlying Hebrew text.

We now turn to the first proof text, the LXX of Job. The translation of Job is much shorter than its counterpart in the MT as well as in the Peshitta (S), Targum (T), and Vulgate (V). Is it possible that the translator deleted what amounts to one-sixth of the total verses in the book?1 In the absence of external evidence such as Qumran manuscripts, we have to assess the translator’s approach from an analysis of his techniques. If a translator represented his underlying Hebrew text rather faithfully in small details, we would not expect him to insert major changes in the text. In other words, when we find major deviations from the MT in a faithful translation, they probably reflect a different Hebrew text. On the other hand, if a translator was not faithful to his parent text in small details, even paraphrasing it occasionally, he could have inserted major changes in the translation. Translators were not consistent, but we would not expect two diametrically opposed approaches in a single translation unit.

This brings us back to the Greek text of Job. In the sample chapter chosen for this purpose (chap. 34), we find a word-for-word rendering of the MT in a very few cases.2 There are several unusual equivalents and small changes,3 as well as instances of rewriting on a small scale.4 Having established the translator’s free style in small elements, it is easy to accept the assumption that he also rephrased complete verses,5 sometimes in a major way.6 He added some elements,7 but more frequently shortened the text. Usually, we can only guess at the reason for the abbreviation.8 The main argument for assuming that the translator abbreviated and did not find an already shorter Hebrew text9 is his free translation style.10 A major factor in the translator’s abbreviation of his Hebrew Vorlage may well be the latter’s verbosity and repetitiveness.11 The translator’s shortening thus bears on the history of exegesis and not on our understanding of the Hebrew composition.

After this negative example, we now turn to positive ones in which the LXX yields important data for literary analysis supported by a literal translation technique or external Hebrew evidence. Examples are given of evidence from the LXX when its reconstructed parent text either predated (sections A, B, D) or postdated (section C) the editorial stage presented in the MT. In section E the sequence cannot be determined easily. The translated text presented in sections A, B, D, E is that of the MT.12 In section C the analysis is based on a translation of the LXX.13

A. The Two Editions of Jeremiah

The three main versions of Jeremiah that have survived from antiquity are the MT (followed quite closely by S, T, V), LXX, and 4QJer^b,d . The LXX version differs from the MT in two central matters: the order of the chapters and verses14 and the length of the text. The translator rendered in a relatively literal fashion a Hebrew text similar to that contained in the two Qumran scrolls. The existence of literary differences between the MT on the one hand and the LXX and 4QJerb,d on the other thus almost becomes a fact, while their interpretation is subjective. The literal translation technique of LXX-Jeremiah and its near-identity with 4QJerb,d facilitate the use of the data in the LXX. The LXX is shorter than the MT by one-sixth. It lacks words, phrases, sentences, and entire sections of the MT. The shortness of this text was considered enigmatic throughout the scholarly inquiry of the Greek text, but is now supported by the Hebrew 4QJer^b,d .

The differences between the two text forms, which are not characteristic of scribal intervention, were created at an early stage when the book of Jeremiah was still being composed. The text forms reflect different editions; the LXX and the two scrolls probably contain the earlier, short edition I, while the MT presents an expanded, late edition.

Edition II, created during one stage of the book’s literary growth, contains many additional sections to edition I, the largest of which are 33:14–26 and 39:4–13. The date of the textual witnesses of edition I does not bear on its own date, because presumably it was composed long before the time of the LXX translation and was not discarded when edition II was created. Edition I was still known in the second century BCE in Egypt, when it served as the base for the LXX translation, and was present (along with manuscripts close to ed. II) at Qumran in the first half of the second century BCE.

Most of the additions in edition II reflect editorial expansions of ideas and details in the context, stylistic changes, and theological and other concerns of that revision. It is remarkable how well the editor of edition II managed to insert the new elements (sometimes whole sentences) into the earlier text without introducing significant changes in that text. These expansions are exemplified by an analysis of chapters 10, 43, and 27.15

Jeremiah 10:1–11

The prophecy in edition II (MT) contains both mockery of the idols and praise of the Lord. The disdain of the idols refers to their inability to walk, speak, and move around, as well as the fact they are man-made. The mockery is included in verses 2–5, 8–9, 11, while the remaining verses 6–7 and 10 praise the Lord. The verses containing this praise are lacking in the LXX and 4QJerb, dating to the first half of the second century BCE.

It is often assumed that the short edition I (the LXX and 4QJerb) reflects the original text of this chapter, and that edition II (MT) reflects a later tradition in which the praise of the Lord has been added in order to stress the futility of the idols. The addition of these verses in edition II16 went together with the splitting up of verse 5 into two parts.

When comparing the two traditions, we must consider: Is it more logical that the praise of the Lord was added in edition II, or that these elements were deleted by edition I? In the development of Scripture, elements were usually added, not deleted.17 Moreover, it is intrinsically more plausible that verses of praise were added than omitted.18

Verses lacking in the LXX and 4QJer^b are printed in bold in parentheses (slight differences are indicated by italics):19

1. Hear the word which the LORD has spoken to you, O House of Israel!

2. Thus said the LORD: Do not learn to go the way of the nations, and do not be dismayed by portents in the sky; let the nations be dismayed by them!

3. For the laws of the nations are delusions; for it is the work of a craftsman’s hands. He cuts down a tree in the forest with an ax,

4. He adorns it with silver and gold, He fastens it with nails and hammer, so that it does not totter.

5a. They are like a scarecrow in a cucumber patch, (5b) they cannot speak. They have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Be not afraid of them, for they can do no harm; nor is it in them to do any good.

6. (O LORD, there is none like You! You are great and Your name is great in power.

7. Who would not revere You, O King of the nations? For that is Your due, since among all the wise of the nations and among all their royalty there is none like You.

8. But they are both dull and foolish; their doctrine is but delusion;it is a piece of wood,)

9. Silver beaten flat, that is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of a craftsman and the goldsmith’s hands; their clothing is blue and purple, all of them are the work of skilled men.

10. (But the LORD is truly God: He is a living God, the ever lasting King. At His wrath, the earth quakes, and nations cannot endure His rage.)

11. Thus shall you say to them: Let the gods, who did not make heaven and earth, perish from the earth and from under these heavens.

Jeremiah 43 (LXX 40):4–6

The major difference between the sources in chapter 43 pertains to the forms of names. Some names have two components such as “Jeremiah the prophet” as opposed to just “Jeremiah” or “the prophet,” while others have three, such as “Gedaliah son of Ahikam, son of Shaphan,” as opposed to just “Gedaliah” or “Gedaliah son of Ahikam.” The long names are found in edition II, and the short ones in the LXX and 4QJer^d (ed. I).20 Hundreds of similar personal names appear elsewhere in edition I in their short form, while in edition II they appear in full. Edition II typically fills in personal names, mainly in the prose sections, including the name of the father, sometimes also the grandfather, a title (king or prophet), and so on. The data must be analyzed not only for the book as a whole but also for individual units. Often edition I mentions the full name or title of the person when introduced in a given unit, but in all or most subsequent references uses a shortened form. In this manner, edition I follows the practice of biblical narrative. Edition II fills in the details of the complete formula in many (sometimes in most or all) occurrences of the name.21

⁴ So Johanan (son of Kareah) and all the army officers and the rest of the people did not obey the LORD’S command to remain in the land of Judah. ⁵ Instead, Johanan (son of Kareah ) and all the army officers took the entire remnant of Judah—those who had returned from all the countries to which they had been scattered and had sojourned in the land of Judah, ⁶ men, women...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• List of Contributors
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1: The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture
• 2: Writings Ostensibly outside the Canon
• 3: Torah, Torah, Torah: The Emergence of the Tripartite Canon
• 4: The Role of “the Septuagint” in the Formation of the Biblical Canons
• 5: The Apocryphal Jesus: Assessing the Possibilities and Problems
• 6: Paul and the Process of Canonization
• 7: Wherein Lies Authority? A Discussion of Books, Texts, and Translations
• 8: Canon and Theology: What Is at Stake?