Rebutal to “Did the Spirit quote the Septuagint?”

(1) Much has been said about the bilingual or trilingual (or otherwise) competency of the writers. Perry generally accepts that they were all (to a greater or lesser extent) at least bilingual. However, reader perception is of paramount importance in the transmission of Scripture. If the audiences are Greek readers (like those of the Fourth Gospel) then the Gospel would be written in Greek. The readers of the Fourth Gospel had lost their Palestinian roots to such an extent that John had to explain common Semitic terms (such as Rabbi, etc.). Even if it can be determined that some Scripture was originally Aramaic (Semitic) before being reworked, the fact remains that the whole NT was written in Greek. Moreover, the Greek was most probably edited or reworked by an amanuensis or secretary under apostolic supervision.  This makes the issue of the quality of the Greek, or the bi-tri-lingual nature of the writers, a moot point.[1]

(2) It is perhaps informative to explore how apostolic contemporaries (Josephus, the rabbis, etc.) used ‘Scripture’. Philo, as an Alexandrian Jew, ascribed the highest level of divine inspiration to the LXX (the Pentateuch only), and called the translators ‘prophets’ (Life of Moses, II.38-40)! Josephus, like Philo, writes in Greek, but is a Palestinian Jew and not Alexandrian. He uses the LXX at places as well:

Josephus claims to have based his account on the Hebrew text of the sacred writings (Ant. I, 5). This claim appears to hold good for the Hexateuch. In the later books of the bible, however, he has clearly consulted the Septuagint.[2]

Josephus also used Greek translations other than the LXX, most notably the proto-Lucian texts[3] and he also praises the pagan king, who received the Greek translation of the Pentateuch (Ant 1.10-13).

In the rabbinical period (which is later than the first century) we still find rabbinical citations of the OT that depart from Masoretic Text (MT). E. Tov notes,

At the same time, the biblical quotations in the rabbinic literature also differ from time to time from MT, both in direct quotations and in variants underlying the derashah, ‘sermon’.[4]

Further, M. Wilcox, commenting on the apostle (rabbi) Paul, says,

It has long been known that Eph. 4:8 cites Ps. 67(68):19 in a form which diverges from both the MT and the LXX but in that deviation agrees with the targum.[5]

He adds,

In investigating the text form of the OT in the NT we need to keep several principles of method in mind. (1) We have no right to assume that the one NT writer will have always used the same OT textual tradition in his work(s). In the case of Matthew and Luke this is clearly not so…(2) Apparently minor deviations, such as the ‘replacement’ of one word or phrase by another in a text which otherwise looks verbally identical with a known OT textual tradition (e.g., the LXX), also occur (a) between extant Greek OT versions, and (b) between the targumim, and in fact from one targum MS to another…it is characteristic of targum to replace a word or phrase which more or less literally renders the Hebrew by another (or even a longer passage) which gives the traditional interpretation of it…(3) The present ‘deviant’ form of an OT quotation may be a result of an earlier piece of exegesis…[6]

On the textual issue, relative to NT times, all major groups within the Judaism of the day could, and did, use various text types. The early Christians were accordingly no different than their non-Christian counterparts; they reflected the prevailing ‘methodology’ and understandings of first century Judaism with one very important caveat – apostolic textual choices were inspired.

(3) The question whether or not the ‘original’ LXX contained kyrios (Lord) or YHWH (the Tetragram henceforth abbreviated as ‘Tet’) is indeed a complex issue still under assessment and discussion by scholars.[7] Concerning the Septuagint, A. Pietersma has acknowledged that:

…it might possibly still be debated whether perhaps the Palestinian copies with which the NT authors were familiar read some form of the tetragram.[8]

Secondary to that question is whether or not the Tetragrammaton was harmonized in the LXX back to kyrios by Christian scribes or whether or not apostolic writers adopted kyrios from the LXX. It is indeed true that Tov shed new light on the situation with the publication of the Greek manuscripts among the DSS.[9] However, Pietersma’s argument is that the practice of ‘archaization’ of biblical manuscripts (by re-introducing the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters and/or in giving a Greek transliteration) began in the second century BC or so (as a Jewish reaction against forced hellenization efforts under the Seleucids).

So, it is possible that the DSS biblical texts reflect this re-Hebraizing and that earlier Greek mss might have had Greek translations of YHWH (e.g., as kyrios or despotes, etc.). The writing of YHWH in ‘archaic’ Hebrew characters, and the fact that in at least some Greek manuscripts the Hebrew YHWH seems to have been written by a scribe different from the one who copied the Greek, suggest that the written ‘sign’ YHWH was a ‘scribal/visual’ artifact, not to be read out, but in fact intended to alert readers to do the opposite (and thus pronounce kyrios instead). It is more likely that Jewish Diaspora scribes (no longer familiar with Hebrew) would change the ‘archaizing’ Hebrew of the Tetragrammaton in the LXX back to kyrios, especially if the common Synagogue practice was to read out the Tetragrammaton as kyrios.  There is no need to posit the mechanism of ‘harmonization’ or innovation by Christian scribes to explain the presence of kyrios in the LXX.  D. B. Capes remarks that,

The consistency in rendering of YHWH as Kyrios in all NT references would be difficult to explain if there were not already either an established tradition to read Kyrios where YHWH appears in a Greek manuscript, or an established body of texts with Kyrios already in the Greek.[10]

(4) Admittedly, the similarity between 1 Peter in the NT and 1QIsa^a is close but other unusual features point to the LXX as probable source, though even McLay acknowledges the complex nature of the relationships between the manuscripts of the MT, LXX and NT. For example, both the OG and 1 Peter use the word do,xa (glory) – the OG has ‘the glory of humanity’ (do,xa avnqrw,pou), 1 Peter has ‘its glory’ (do,xa auvth/j) but 1QIsa^a has ‘their (plural) goodliness’ (wydsx) and the MT has ‘its (wdsx, singular) goodliness’. This is the only passage in the LXX where dsx[11] is rendered with do,xa. .  It seems that Peter is using ‘glory’ from the OG and combining this with the singular suffix from the MT, leading McLay to comment,

Given the fact that there is virtually no textual support for the inclusion of avnqrw,pou in 1 Peter, either the author of 1 Peter had access to both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures or there was a Greek manuscript that had the pronoun auvth/j instead of avnqrw,pou.. [12]

However, despite anomalies, the comparison demonstrates that 1 Peter is closest to the OG, followed by 1QIsa^a with approximation to the MT coming last. Finally, this OT quote was never at the basis of any Christian-Jewish polemics (unlike Isa 7:14), therefore it did not advantage either the Jews or the Christians to harmonize the text(s) as there was no ‘theological hay’ to be made.

(5) The audience (readers) of Hebrews may well be disputed but previously convincing evidence (intertextual and contextual) was presented that demonstrated that the Fourth Gospel and Hebrews targeted the same readers (the church at Ephesus). Their needs were not simply provided for by ‘writing in Greek’ as they required a point of reference and that was, of course, the Septuagint. If I wrote an epistle to Dutch readers, I would write it in Dutch and quote from the Statenvertaling or ‘States’ Bible’ (similar to the KJV), rather than Groot Nieuws Bijbel (Good News Bible), or the Catholic Willibrordvertaling (WV), etc. Of course, there was no such thing as a ‘Bible’ in those days, but rather a collection of sacred writings.

Adey’s challenge (how could a pre-NT Psalms’ text have had ‘body’ in the first place?) seems to me to have been sufficiently answered. No translation except the LXX has the word ‘body’, so we are left with two routes (both hypothetical):

(1) The first occurrence of this unusual idiom is in Heb.10:5 and Christians ‘harmonized’ this in their own (Christian?) version of the LXX in Ps 40:6.  (The LXX has therefore copied ‘body’ from Heb. 10:5).

(2) The LXX use of ‘body’ in Ps 40:6 is the original and Heb 10:5 has quoted the LXX.

Whereas the Hebrew (MT) has ‘body’ in Exod 21:3 the LXX has ‘alone’, the Hebrew has ‘ear’ in Ps 40:6 whereas the Greek LXX has ‘body’.  The LXX/OG is a heterogeneous, intermittent work, compiled by different translators over a long time period. The Pentateuch was translated into Greek some time before the rest of Scripture. It is certainly not implausible that a different translator at a later stage contemporized the text of Ps 40:6 by adapting the targumic idiom current in his day. The translator employs the technique of dynamic equivalence based on the original Hebrew (and Targum) of Exod 21:3 (the LXX translator(s) would have based their choice on all of the sources available to them). The fact that the LXX Pentateuch has ‘alone’ instead of ‘body’ suggests the possibility of a Greek variant that did contain ‘body’ in Exod 21:3 (harmonizing it with the Hebrew) instead of ‘alone’.

Moreover, it appears that the author of Hebrews was familiar with OG/LXX writings as Heb 11:35-37 alludes to inter-testament history found in 2 Macc 7:1, 13-14.[13] Also, the method of Isaiah’s death (sawn in half by Manasseh) is agreed upon by both the Babylonian Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud, and is alluded to in Heb 11:37.[14]  This indicates that the author of Hebrews was comfortable employing diverse materials (including LXX/OG) in his writing. He was not alluding to exoteric, sectarian or obscure traditions, but to writings and traditions that were well known to his readers.

All the similarities between the NT and LXX/OG writings can supposedly be explained away by the mechanism of ‘Christian harmonisation’. One wonders why Christians would deem it necessary to change the LXX/OG when they could point to their own inspired Scriptures (i.e., the NT). Would they not simply argue that the LXX/OG translation was wrong (as we do when we come across a tendentious translation)?  If Heb 10:5 said ‘body’ and the original LXX/OG had something else in Ps 40:6 would they not simply point to the inspiration of their apostles? Why change an established text and be exposed to the charge of revisionism? A far more likely alternative is that Greek readers were familiar with the term ‘body’ as it was already in use in the LXX long before the NT was written. And the LXX translation choice for Ps 40:6 was itself rooted in Jewish tradition.  The fact remains that the Jews eventually turned away from using the LXX/OG and attempted to introduce a new Greek translation (would the Jews not simply have preserved the ‘original’ LXX/OG writings that had not been ‘tampered’ with by the Christians—why then the necessity of resorting to producing yet another Greek translation?). If anything it is the Jews who should be accused of harmonization and revisionism, not Christians.

(6) It is highly unlikely that Jesus debated with the Sanhedrin or the Pharisees in Greek.  However, John is not writing to the Sanhedrin or the Pharisees but to Greek speaking Jews (both Christian converts and non-Christian Jews) at the church at Ephesus. While it is true that scholars such as J. A. T. Robinson argue for the Priority of John (the name of Robinson’s book), that is not the same as stating that it was not written for Greek speaking Diaspora Jews. That is to confuse two separate arguments, namely, Robinson contends for the distinctive authenticity of the Gospel,[15] but he also acknowledges that it was written to Greeks of Asia Minor.[16]  So, the Fourth Gospel was early (before 70) and written by an eyewitness (John) a Palestinian Jew but it was sent to the Diaspora (church at Ephesus) which is why it was written in Greek. John was not simply telling a “story” (or writing a biography) about Jesus but addressing particular problems facing his readers at Ephesus.  So, he selected those incidents from Jesus’ life that would support his exhortations. He obviously translated the speeches from Aramaic to Greek and we might assume employed a free paraphrase (dynamic equivalence) under the guidance of the Spirit to reproduce if not the ipsissima verba (the very words) certainly the ipsissima vox (the very voice)[17] of the Lord.  In so doing it would be natural for him to use the ‘Bible’ that his readers were familiar with, namely, the Greek LXX/OG.

The Septuagint translates the Hebrew phrase ’anî hû’ (KJV, ‘I am he’) as ego eimi in Isa 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4. In each of these instances the phrase ’anî hû’ appears at the end of the clause, and is so rendered (or punctuated) in the LXX (just as it is in John). The phrase ego eimi appears as the translation of a few other phrases in Isaiah as well that are significant to this discussion. It translates the Hebrew ’anōkî ’anōkî hû’ as ego eimi in Isa 43:25 and 51:12. Once (Isa 52:6) ’anî hû’ is translated as ego eimi autos (basically an even more emphasized form).[18] And once (Isa 45:18) we find ego eimi kurios for ’anî Yahweh! This last passage is provocative in that it is in the context of creation, an act ascribed to Jesus by John (John 1:3) and other New Testament writers (Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2-3). Of course, we know that the Genesis creation is not what is being referred to in the NT, but rather the new creation ‘in Christ’.

So, the fact that LXX readers were familiar with the ‘I AM’ circumlocution (not just from Exodus) reinforces the argument that John is alluding to these passages. It might be true that the targumic evidence does not support this translation and it is also certainly true that the LXX does not render the correct Hebrew tense (at least not in Exodus) but the ‘progressive present’ makes the point forcefully that in Jesus the Jews were now dealing with ‘God manifest’[19] and this circumlocution (‘I AM’) is only found in the LXX version with which John’s readers were familiar.

(7) The meaning of the Hebrew word ‘almâh, (translated “virgin” in the ESV) has been extensively debated in scholarship. Some have argued that ‘almâh simply means ‘a young woman of marriageable age’ and should be translated ‘young woman’ because had Isaiah meant ‘virgin’, he would have used the term b^etûlâh . However, J. N. Oswalt demonstrates that the translation is appropriate[20] and J. A. Motyer contends for the specificity of the Hebrew word ‘almâh;

The translation virgin (‘almâ) is widely disputed on the ground that the word means only ‘young woman’ and that the technical word for ‘virgin’ is b^etûlâ. Of the nine occurrences of ‘almâ those in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and the title of Psalm 46 are presumably a musical direction but no longer understood. In Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19 and Song of Solomon 1:3 the context throws no decisive light on the meaning of the word. In Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 the reference is unquestionably to an unmarried girl, and in Song of Solomon 6:8 the ‘^alāmôt contrasted with queens and concubines, are unmarried and virgin. Thus, wherever the context allows a judgment, ‘almâ is not a general term meaning ‘young woman’ but a specific one meaning ‘virgin’. It is worth noting that outside the Bible, ‘so far as may be ascertained, ‘almâ was ‘never used of a married woman’.[21]

So, although the database of texts is small, the LXX does not necessarily favour[22] neanis (‘young woman’) above parthenos (‘virgin’). Witherington observes,

Third, the term ‘almâh is never used in the OT of a married woman, but does refer to a sexually mature woman. There are no texts in the OT where ‘almâh clearly means one who is sexually active, but it is possible that Song of Solomon 6:8 (cf. Prov 30:19) implies this. It would appear then that ‘almâh normally, if not always, implies a virgin, though the term does not focus on that attribute. Fourth, several of the Greek translations of the OT (i.e., Aq, Sym, Theod) translate ‘almâh with neanis; however, the LXX clearly translates it with parthenos. It is probably correct to say that if ‘almâh did not normally have overtones of virginity, it is difficult if not impossible to see why the translators of the LXX used parthenos as the Greek equivalent.[23]

Matthew was not introducing new and untried “translations” of his own – he was proving the fact of the virgin birth from their own Scriptures (the Greek LXX/OG) and this is why the Jews felt the need to introduce an alternative Greek translation.

(8) Unlike Philo we are not arguing for the inspiration of the LXX Pentateuch!  Rather, we are contending for the freedom of the apostles to choose (under the guidance of the Spirit) which text(s) they would use. It seems to me counterproductive and counterintuitive to suggest that Christians went and changed the Septuagint in order to align it with their NT. In places where the messianic status of Jesus was being argued with Greek speaking Diaspora Jews it would be counterproductive to point to a text that had deliberately been changed! In places where the harmonisations were not a question of dispute it is counterintuitive – why make a change if does not fundamentally alter the meaning of the text? It makes sense that the apostles would employ Greek writings that were already familiar to their readers. [3773]

---