Introduction
A previous EJournal article on this topic questioned the validity of the LXX as an apostolic source[1] and reflected on the ‘uninspired’ nature of the Greek LXX translation in comparison to the ‘inspired’ Hebrew and employed the example of Peter’s first epistle to highlight methodological flaws in determining quotation sources or translation issues. Many of the points raised in the article are valid but we should be careful not to ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater’ and emotive language such as ‘inspired’ or ‘uninspired’ tends to cloud/close the issue; after all, the Apostles were ‘inspired’ and if they chose to employ a certain translation, then who are we to second-guess their intentions?
What Bible did the Apostles have?
We know they didn’t have a Hebrew MT or a Greek LXX! The Hebrew MT (we use the term loosely as it also contains Aramaic) was finalized roughly 900 years after Christ. The LXX or, more accurately, the LXX/OG[2] is a collection of different Greek writings that was also still being ‘standardized’[3] (like the Hebrew Bible) during the apostolic period. That does not mean that sections of the LXX/OG did not exist or that sections of a ‘proto-MT’ did not exist during that period—but rather the ‘standardization’ process was still ongoing. However, certain writings were considered sacred (this is confirmed by Josephus)[4] but ‘standardization’ of the text is not the same as ‘finalization’ and ‘canonization’.[5] E. J. Bickerman observes that,
The Hebrew consonantal text[6] was not frozen until sometime toward 100 CE, but once it was accepted as authoritative, all scrolls deviating from the standard recension were suppressed by the rabbinic authorities. Divergent manuscripts of the Septuagint, however, continued to circulate freely. Around 90 C.E., Josephus, in his paraphrase of pseudo-Aristeas, suggests that his readers ‘amend’ any text of the Septuagint manuscript that they possess if they find any addition or omission there.[7]
However, this suppression of alternative versions was not as thorough as one might imagine since, as E. Tov points out, the Hebrew exemplar that Aquila used for his very literal LXX revision was only “very close to the proto-Masoretic text”.[8] There was therefore an ongoing effort to ‘standardize’ the various texts (Hebrew as well as Greek translations) in the direction of a ‘proto-MT’, but at the end of the first century variations still existed. Moreover, the LXX/OG was often employed by Christians in Jewish-Christian polemics and Tov remarks that the Jews employed the drive to ‘standardize’ the texts as an opportunity to revise any Greek texts that gave Christians a polemical advantage:
Apparently Aquila made a special effort to replace renditions which had become ‘Christian’ terms. Thus the translation of mascah (christos) was replaced with aleimmenos. Partly because of this, his translation was well-liked among Jews, while avoided by Christians.[9]
We might give as an example the LXX version of Jeremiah which is much shorter than the MT version. But here is the rub—shorter Hebrew versions of Jeremiah also existed in the first century.[10] So, the LXX translator probably only had a shorter Hebrew version from which to work. Even in the Hebrew writings of that period there was considerable variation, although it must be said that their resemblance to the final form of the MT (as attested by the DSS) is very close. The Apostles had to make an informed choice which version to select, and this was obviously influenced by their theology. Who could be more suited to the task than an inspired Apostle! The Apostles did not have a “Bible” but a loose collection of sacred writings (Hebrew and Greek) from which they selected their texts and there was still a certain measure of “textual fluidity” during this period.
Kyrios
Some Greek manuscripts contain a space where the ‘name’ should be or a transliterated form of the ‘name’ or simply the Hebrew tetragram. J. Adey argues that the LXX choice of kyrios (‘Lord’) to translate the tetragram has been “attributed with little demur to revisionary work in the LXX in the light of the NT” by scholars such as J. A. Fitzmyer.[11] However, a number of recent studies have appeared since the work done in 1979 by Fitzmyer that challenge this conclusion.
Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox demonstrate that that in the original translation of the Pentateuch[12] the divine name was rendered kyrios, and that its replacement with the tetragram in a few Greek manuscripts reflects an “archaizing tendency”.[13] In view of the fact that a few early Greek manuscripts contain some form or other of the tetragram rather than kyrios, Pietersma comments,
What we have tried to do thus far in our survey is to emphasize that of the four early texts that have been cited in support of an original tetragram, one gives no evidence at all, a second is non-Septuagintal, and a third contains hebraizing revisions (including at least one instance of the tetragram). Only one text, 4QLXXLevb, would seem to have good credentials as a typical exemplar of the LXX.[14]
Even in the few Greek texts where the tetragram is encountered it was probably read aloud as kyrios (Lord) because of the Jewish reluctance to pronounce the divine name. If, as seems likely, kyrios was the original form found in the Septuagint then the direction of influence was from the LXX towards the Christian writings. It would make sense for the Apostles to adopt the most commonly used practices when writing to the Greek speaking Diaspora and if the Diaspora was used to reading and/or pronouncing kyrios instead of the tetragram in their Scriptures, then that is what the Apostles would have employed.
How do we determine if a quote is from the LXX?
Adey rightly points out methodological flaws in determining whether or not the NT is quoting or echoing the LXX. A translator only has a certain number of words to select from; so, if for example I had to translate the phrase, “The car is red” into Dutch, and someone else had to translate the same phrase, the likelihood is that our translation would be exactly the same. This does not mean that one translator is ‘quoting’ the other – the translation choice is limited and therefore the outcome would be (independently) the same. So, did the apostles make their own translation from the Hebrew directly into the Greek (and sometimes hit on exactly the same translation as the LXX/OG)?
The answer to this is probably yes…sometimes…but—not always. There are many instances when the NT ‘quote’ differs from both the Hebrew (proto-MT) and the Greek (LXX/OG). In this case the apostle is either employing his own free translation/paraphrase (to suit his theology) or is translating from, or using a document (a textual variant either Greek or Semitic) that we no longer have.
The whole issue of ‘translation technique’ (TT) comes into question at this point, with matters concerning literal (formal) and dynamic equivalence requiring discussion. A literal translation is one that can be translated directly back to the original language without loss of meaning. However, attempts that were made to translate the Hebrew ‘literally’ into Greek were a failure because things like word order, syntax, figures of speech and idioms could only be replicated at the cost of making the text unintelligible. So, dynamic translations are not necessarily inferior to literal translations, provided they are done with integrity. There are bad literal translations and bad dynamic translations, but there are also good examples of different TT.
T. McLay has established a set of criteria for analyzing citations[15] which should help alleviate methodological flaws:
|
|
| If they are different: | If they are the same: |
| Proceed to step 2 | On the basis of TT determine whether the agreement is distinctive within the Greek text or whether the NT writer could have translated a Semitic text (step 3) |
|
|
| If they are different: | If they are the same: |
| Proceed to step 3 | On the basis of TT determine whether the agreement is distinctive within the Greek texts or whether the NT writer could have translated a Semitic text. |
|
|
|
|
| If they are not: | If they are: |
| Proceed to step 5 | Determine whether the NT citation is based on a Vorlage similar to this text. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the examples employed by McLay is 1 Pet 1:24-25; he lines up the following textual variants:[17]
| NT 1 Pet 1:24-25 | OG Isa. 40:6-7 | 1QIsaa 40:6-7 | MT Isa. 40:6-8 |
|---|---|---|---|
| All flesh is like grass, and all its glory |
All people are grass, and all the glory of humanity. |
All people are grass; their constancy |
All people are grass; their constancy[18] |
| like the flower of grass. |
like the flower of grass. |
is like the flower of the field. |
is like the flower of the field. |
| The grass withers, and the flower falls, |
The grass withers, and the flower falls, |
The grass withers, the flower fades, |
The grass withers, the flower fades, |
| when the breath of the Lord blows upon it; surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades; |
|||
| but the word of the Lord endures forever. |
but the word of our God endures forever. |
but the word of our God will stand forever. |
but the word of our God will stand forever. |
McLay follows the textual comparison with a discussion, but we will only reproduce his introductory remark as our conclusion:
Our first observation is that the reading in 1 Peter has only a few minor variants and is fairly similar to the OG, which is closer to the shorter reading in the Qumran manuscript 1QIsaa than to that in the MT.[19]
Adey proposes that reference to Peter’s and John’s “ignorance” (Acts 4:13) could imply that, unlike the scribes, Peter was uninitiated in use of the LXX/OG. However, this need not be the case, it can mean that he was uninitiated in the art of rabbinic rhetoric—simply speaking, he was not a ‘trained theologian’. As far as his much later writing is concerned, the relevance of Acts is diminished.
There are distinct traces of Semitic features in 1 Peter:
In 1 Peter this abundance of diverse tradition has been skilfully integrated in a composition consistent in style and coherent in theme. The letter was written in a polished Greek revealing numerous traces of literary refinement. The near-classical employment of the article and exact use of tenses is coupled with a more Semitic appreciation of rhythm and parallelism (2:14, 22-23; 3:18; 4:6, 11; 5:2-3).[20]
But elements of Greek style are quite easily explained by the use of an amanuensis:
Silvanus (the full Roman name for which the similar name Silas served as a short equivalent) appears to have been the amanuensis, or scribe. Most letters were written through the agency of scribes. As a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37), Silas presumably came from a fairly well-to-do Jewish family that provided him a good literary and rhetorical education; Peter may have given him some degree of freedom in wording the letter.[21]
That Peter would have used others (Silas may only have been the letter carrier, as in the letters of Ignatius) is highly likely anyway:
If 1 Peter is, as it appears to be, an encyclical on behalf of the church at Rome to a wide circle of churches on the frontiers of the Roman Empire in five provinces of Asia Minor, then the author would likely have had scribal help with vocabulary and style, and his helpers would likely have remained anonymous.[22]
Secretaries often had commission to improve upon matters of style:
The author could permit the secretary to make minor changes in the form or content of the letter when preparing the final text from the rough dictation copy or from a preliminary draft prepared by the author himself…The implication is that it was part of Tiro’s function to correct slips made by Cicero and to ensure the accuracy of the finished work. In a word, he acted as a modern copy editor, who points out errors and asks if a particular formulation really conveys precisely what the author wanted to say…[23]
So, the ‘ignorance’ or otherwise of Peter with regards to theological debate need not pertain to his later letters, especially when we consider that the remark in Acts 4:13 is intended to reflect the opposite, namely, that the authorities were astounded because these “unlearned and ignorant” men were able to match the best trained ‘theological experts’ in the land. Of course they were—because they had been with Jesus and were ‘taught of God’.
The LXX/OG and Apostolic Theology
A number of distinctive citations demonstrate that the apostles shaped at least some of their theology around the LXX/OG version(s) – this would be only natural as their Diaspora audience read the LXX; space permits us to discuss only a few examples:
(1)
Therefore, when he came into the world, he said: ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me.’ (Heb 10:5)
The phrase “prepared a body” mirrors the LXX/OG reading, however, Adey suggests that this is due to revision and harmonisation of the LXX by Christian scribes[24] and not a case of the NT citing the LXX version. I believe this is unlikely for a number of reasons, namely Jewish readers of the LXX/OG would have regarded this as ‘pious fraud’ and tampering with text(s) that were widely distributed and read by the Diaspora. There is no point quoting a ‘proof-text’ from the OT to further your argument if it is one you made up!
Further, the passage in Ps 40:6 is based on the manumission of a slave as described in Exod 21:4-6 where the ‘ear lobe’ was pierced through with an awl, thus attaching the ‘ear’ (lobe) to the doorframe of the sanctuary – a ceremony indicating that the person had voluntarily become a servant (slave) of God. How then do we account for the change from ‘ear (!z) piercing’ to ‘preparing a body’?
Interestingly, the word gaph (@n) occurs only[25] in Exod 21:3-4. Of the Aramaic Targum version of this passage, I. Drazin says,
The Targum comments that it as an obscure noun. R. Akiba in Mek, Rava in b. Ked 20a, and Ibn Ezra, suggest a group gwp, “body.” If he comes with his body unimpaired, he shall leave unimpaired. The Targums and P explain the word as do R. Eleazar b. Yaakov in b. Ked. 20a and R. Ishmael in Mek. Tgs.[26]
The Targums are late productions (second to fourth century A.D.) of what was transmitted orally (in the first century and long before)[27] as an Aramaic interpretation /paraphrase of the Hebrew. Both NIDOTTE[28] and HALOT give the meaning of gaph as ‘body’.
It seems that ‘body’ came to stand idiomatically for ‘slave’ (so this two letter word for body parallels the two letter word for ear and the ‘ear’ of the slave is idiomatically characterised by synecdoches as a “body”).
We find evidence of slaves idiomatically referred to as a “bodies” in the NT. For example, in Rev 18:13 the Greek word ‘body’ (sw/ma: sōma) is translated as either ‘slave’ (KJV) or ‘body’ (NKJV) and Paul uses the word sw/ma in his writings in the context of slavery (Rom 6:6; 7:24; 8:23; cf. Jude v. 9).
If this is the case then preparing a ‘body’ is an idiomatic expression for the ceremony where a ‘slave’ is ‘prepared’ (made ready) to serve his master (voluntarily) forever by having his ear (body) attached to the sanctuary of the living God, but “he is free to leave with his body (and ear) unimpaired” if he so wishes.
It is not unfeasible that the route of this interpretive gloss originally came via orally transmitted Aramaic interpretations (cf. Neh 8:8) into the Greek LXX/OG from whence it was cited by the NT writer because the body/slave language was ideally suited to the ‘body’ of Christ (both in and individual and corporate sense) who voluntarily chose to serve God once they had been ‘liberated’ from the slavery of sin (once and for all…no more need for sacrifice).
(2)
Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is translated, ‘God with us’. (Matt 1:23)
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary observes the following;
The LXX renders the word by parthenos which almost always means “virgin.” Yet even with this word there are exceptions: Genesis 34:4 refers to Dinah as a parthenos even though the previous verse makes it clear she is no longer a virgin. This sort of datum prompts C.H. Dodd (“New Testament Translation Problems I,” The Bible Translator 27 [1976]: 301-5, published posthumously) to suggest that parthenos means “young woman” even in Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27. This will not do; the overwhelming majority of the occurrences of parthenos in both biblical and profane Greek require the rendering “virgin”; and the unambiguous context of Matthew 1 (cf. vv. 16, 18, 20, 25) puts Matthew’s intent beyond dispute, as Jean Carmignac (The Meaning of parthenos in Luke 1. 27: A reply to C.H. Dodd, The Bible Translator 28 [1977]: 327-30) was quick to point out. If, unlike the LXX, the later (second century A.D.) Greek renderings of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 prefer neanis (“young woman”) to parthenos (so Aq., Symm., Theod.), we may legitimately suspect a conscious effort by the Jewish translators to avoid the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.[29]
So the LXX/OG was revised, but not by Christians, but by Greek Diaspora Jews who did not like their own Greek Scriptures being used against them!
(3)
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM”. (John 8:58)[30]
The Fourth Gospel was written to Greek speaking Jews,[31] the “other sheep” (John 10:16) symbolised by the ‘Greeks’ who approached Philip asking for an audience with Jesus (John 12:20-21). They had lost touch with the Aramaic language, so much so, that John thought it necessary to explain Aramaic terms and Hebraisms in his Gospel – John 1:38, “Rabbi” (which is to say, when translated, Teacher); John 1:41, “Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ); John 1:42, “Cephas” (which is translated, A Stone); and John 9:7, “Siloam” (which is translated, Sent).
These Greek Diaspora Jews would have regularly read or heard the LXX/OG version of the Pentateuch which had been circulating for centuries and the “I AM” of John 8:58 would resonate with them. The syntax of the phrase is unusual[32] and it is only here (John 8:58) and in John 9:9 and 18:5 that the same syntax occurs, where “I am” is expressed in the absolute form (i.e., without the predicate). The Johannine ‘I AM’ (evgw, eivmi) rendering was influenced by the LXX translation of Exod 3:14 (evgw, eivmi) and although the present tense used by the LXX is not a grammatically correct translation of the Hebrew,[33] the intent would be obvious enough to Greek readers especially as the original Hebrew verb ‘ehyeh is a play on Yahweh. Moreover, for John’s purpose the present ‘I AM’ has the force of propinquity, rather than the ambiguous ‘I WILL BE’. It is no longer necessary to ask who God will be as the final revelation, as Jesus had arrived on the scene! That the Evangelist wishes to equate the ‘I AM’ with Yahweh is not in doubt as the utterance of the expression by Jesus at his arrest (John 18:5-6) causes the contingent of soldiers to fall to the ground. Jesus becomes a manifestation of Yahweh and the healed blind man, a symbol of the faith community who believed that Jesus was the messiah became a manifestation of the works of Yahweh. This is Phanerosis (fanerwqh/|) theology not the theology of incarnation and it is based on an apostolic reading of the OG Pentateuch!
…that the works of God should be made manifest (fanerwqh/|) in him. (John 9:3).
Christ could say; “I have manifested (VEfane,rwsa,) your name (i.e. Yahweh)” (John 17:6).
Conclusion
When citing Scripture, the NT writers employed translations from different Semitic versions including ‘proto-MT’. However, the NT writers (as well as the NT readers of the Diaspora) most certainly also employed the LXX/OG. The LXX/OG contains assorted material (as do the Semitic versions) of varying quality. Some of the material is apocryphal, midrashic, apocalyptic and/or eschatological and only useful from the viewpoint of socio-historical analysis. Other material is what we would call ‘scriptural’ and it is from this material that the Apostles selected texts. We are not arguing here for the ‘inspiration’ of the LXX/OG but simply stating that it was the prerogative of ‘inspired Apostles’ to select texts from version(s) that were well known and widely distributed among the Greek speaking Diaspora. [5111]
[1] J. W. Adey, “Inspired Text and Uninspired Pretext?” in the Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation 6/4 (2012): 32-41.
[2] OG (Old Greek) refers to what is believed to be the oldest recoverable form of the Greek text of a particular book, and LXX (Septuagint) designates more generally the whole group of Jewish Greek Scriptures as they are commonly known. For details, see the “Critical Editions of Septuagint/Old Greek Texts” webpage by The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS) online at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/editions.html [Cited Oct 2012].
[3] By standardization, we mean the selection of one text form, from among many variant forms, to represent the authoritative text. There was no standard text of the Hebrew Bible before the second century AD –this is known because of the textual evidence of the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the DSS, however, we should be careful to note that some texts probably only circulated in sectarian communities and therefore do not represent general usage. According to L. Schiffman, 60% can be classed as being of proto-Masoretic type, and a further 20% Qumran style with bases in proto-Masoretic texts, compared to 5% proto-Samaritan type, 5% Septuagintal type, and 10% non-aligned—L. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007).
[4] See Josephus, Against Apion 1:37-40: Exactly what these writings included is much debated as Josephus mentions 22 books (as opposed to the normal 24). R. Beckwith attempts to make them fit the standard list but S. Mason demonstrates that the argument for a tripartite (Law, Prophets, Writings) or even a bipartite Hebrew canon cannot be made on the basis of Josephus’ comment. Moreover, Josephus himself made extensive use of the Greek Scriptures of 1 Esdras, the additions to Esther and 1 Maccabees. R. Beckwith, “Formation of the Hebrew Bible” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (eds. M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1998), 39-86 (50-51) and S. Mason, “Josephus and His Twenty-Two Book Canon” in The Canon Debate: On the Origins and Formation of the Bible (eds. L. M. McDonald and J.A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 110-127 (114). Mason does argue that whatever collection Josephus had in mind that collection was complete.
[5] Canon is the official list of books that have been selected by a faith community and given authoritative status because they are acknowledged as inspired.
[6] The final MT differs from the consonantal text in that it contains the addition of diacritic markings, vowel points, pronunciation marks and stress accents in the text. Of course, a word with only consonants can take on a completely different meaning if the wrong vowel points are added.
[7] E. J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Harvard University Press, 1988), 106.
[8] E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor, 1997), 151.
[9] E. Tov, “The Septuagint” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (eds. M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1998), 161-188 (184).
[10] Jeremiah in the OG lacks about one seventh of the content of Jeremiah in the MT. However, for the book of Jeremiah there is now manuscript evidence from the DSS that supports the fact that there was a shorter Hebrew text of Jeremiah. See J.G. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, (HSM 6; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973). J. Fitzmyer noted the following regarding the findings at Qumran Cave Four in particular: “Such ancient recensional forms of Old Testament books bear witness to an unsuspected textual diversity that once existed; these texts merit far greater study and attention than they have been accorded till now. Thus, the differences in the Septuagint are no longer considered the result of a poor or tendentious attempt to translate the Hebrew into the Greek; rather they testify to a different pre-Christian form of the Hebrew text”. J. Fitzmyer, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: After Forty Years” America (Oct 31st, 1987), 302. However, this must be weighed against the fact that some of the fragments that conform to the Masoretic text were also found in Cave 4; see E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross, et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4, VII, Genesis to Numbers (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 12; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).
[11] Adey, “Inspired Text and Uninspired Pretext?”, 34; see there for references.
[12] The Pentateuch was the first to be translated into Greek in the Egyptian city of Alexandria possibly around the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus (and therefore from the middle of the third century BCE) but it most certainly existed before 130 BCE.
[13] Albert Pietersma, “Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint” in De Septuaginta (eds. Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox; Mississauga, ON: Benben, 1984), 85-101 (99). See also John William Wevers, “The Rendering of the Tetragram in the Psalter and Pentateuch: A comparative Study,” in The Old Greek Psalter and Pentateuch: Studies in Honor of Albert Pietersma (eds. Robert J. V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox, and Peter J. Gentry; JSOTSup 332; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 21-35.
[14] Pietersma, “Kyrios or Tetragram”, 92.
[15] R. T. McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 133-134.
[16] A vorlage (from the German for prototype or template) refers to a prior version or manifestation of a text under consideration. It may refer to such a version of a text itself, a particular manuscript of the text, or a more complex manifestation of the text (e.g., a group of copies, or a group of excerpts). Thus, the original-language version of a text which a translator then works into a translation is called the vorlage of that translation.
[17] Ibid, p. 115: for the Greek and Hebrew (not reproduced here) see p. 114.
[18] [fn. 29 McLay p. 115]: “The Hebrew noun is dsx, which is normally glossed as “goodness,” “loving kindness,” or “steadfast love.” The latter refers particularly to God’s kindness toward humanity. Also, the MT has the singular suffix while1QIsaa has the plural”. [Ed AP: It is odd that McLay chooses ‘their’ in his English when his footnote admits the singular suffix which picks up ‘grass’ as in translations like KJV, NASB and RSV.]
[19] [fn. 30 McLay p.115]: There are corrections by a second hand in 1QIsaa to bring the text into conformity with what we read in the MT, but the original scribe had the shorter reading. The text of this passage in 1QIsaa is described more completely in T. H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 144-46.
[20] J. H. Elliot, “Peter, First Epistle Of” ABD 5:272.
[21] C. S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, comments on 1 Pet 5:12, (Leicester: IVP, 1993).
[22] J. R. Michaels, “1 Peter” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Development (eds., R. Martin and P. Davids; Leicester: IVP, 1997), 914-923 (916).
[23] Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1995), 13-14.
[24] J. Adey, “Is Hebrews 10:5’s ‘body’ language from the Septuagint?” CeJBI 1/4 (2007): 73-95.
[25] [DL]: However, a close cognate or perhaps variant (later spelling?) occurs twice in 1 Chron 10:12 referring to the bodies of Saul and his sons slain in battle on Mt. Gilboa.
[26] I. Drazin, ed., Targum Onkelos to Exodus: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis (Jersey City, NY: Ktav Publishing House, 1990), fn. 5, p. 208.
[27] See: M. B. Shepherd, “Targums, the New Testament, and Biblical Theology of the Messiah” JETS 51/1 (2008): 45–58.
[28] R. B. Chisholm, “body (only in Exod 21:3-4, in the idiom “come/go in one’s body,” i.e. alone)” NIDOTTE, 1727; (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (6 vols; ed. W. A. VanGemeren; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997).
[29] D. A. Carson, Matthew: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary on the New Testament (13 vols; ed., F. E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 8:80.
[30] Jesus spoke Aramaic but may have conversed in Greek with the Jewish authorities. If that were not the case we can be sure that where John does not relate the ipsissima verba (the very words) of Jesus he most certainly captured the ipsissima vox (the very voice) of Jesus.
[31] Elsewhere I have made the case that the 4G was written to Jews and Jewish-Christians at Ephesus.
[32] We would expect “I am before Abraham” not “Before Abraham…‘I AM’”.
[33] A. Perry examines the Hebrew grammar of Exod 3:14 and concludes that it is correctly rendered as “I will be who I will be”. He rejects the existential reading (I AM that I AM: Heb., ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh) and concludes that the context of the saying is God manifestation; in other words, God will be [Moses]. The focus is on the authority of agency granted to the reluctant Moses. God would reveal himself through Moses, who would be as God to Aaron (Exod 4:16), and as God to Pharaoh (Exod 7:1). A. Perry, “The translation of Exodus 3:14a” in Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation Annual 2009 (eds., A. Perry, P. Wyns, T. Gaston, J. Adey; Sunderland: Willow Publications, 2009), 210-233.
Analysis of the eschatology in 1 Thess 4:13-5:11 and 2 Thess 1:5-2:12