Shall We Drink from the Source or from the Rivers? A Reply to Rev. Mastin
Shall We Drink from the Source or from the Rivers? A Reply to Rev. Mastin
Fr. Andrew Gerike
Hebraei bibunt fontes, Graeci rivos. Latini paludes (The Hebrews drink from the source, the Greeks from the rivers, the Latins from the swamp) – a proverb oft-quoted by Johann Reuchlin, Christian Hebraist and great-uncle of Philipp Melanchthon
I appreciate the fraternal reply from Rev. Mastin to my critique of his interview with Rev. Braaten. His reply helps make clear what the central contentions are, namely which text is to be authoritative for the Church. I was initially under the impression that we were simply being exhorted to give due consideration to the Greek Old Testament. I am wholeheartedly in favor of such consideration. However, as is clearly implied at the end of his reply, we are supposed to favor the Greek Septuagint over the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. While I am grateful for a clarification of the issue, I am also disappointed that several points I raised in my critique were not mentioned in Rev. Mastin’s reply.
The Stakes of the Issue
This subject is important because we are dealing with the Word of God, what it teaches and says. What we are ultimately discussing here is which text of Holy Scripture we regard as authoritative. While there may indeed be various points where regenerate men of good will and diligent learning differ in whether to make this emendation or that when comparing the various textual traditions at the occasion of an obviously corrupted text, the wholesale setting aside of a textual tradition in favor of another is an entirely different matter.
This was the issue at the heart of the Reformation Era debate over the text of Scripture. Reformation theologians (the blessed Reformer Martin Luther himself chief among them) insisted on the original languages of Scripture, while the Roman sectarians clung to the Vulgate because it was the text given them by the preceding tradition. What was authoritative was the actual Word of God in its original languages, not just what was used the longest, by the most, or what the church deemed authoritative. What is particularly troubling in this current discussion is that one of the main arguments in favor of giving primacy to the LXX seems to be its lengthy usage in the early church (as well as Jews until the “parting of the ways”). Such an argument may be persuasive for those who hearken to the voices that sound from the Tridentine Council, but the ears of Wittenberg’s spiritual sons should be skeptical of such argumentation.
Widespread Use of Greek
Rev. Mastin continues to make much of the widespread use of the Greek Old Testament both in the NT and in early church history, supposing in many and various questions that this indicates some official sanction. I cannot but ask, given that Greek was the lingua franca of the ancient eastern Mediterranean, why we should be so surprised at the high number of Greek translations of the Old Testament that are cited in the NT? As Hellenized as Galilee was, and as cosmopolitan as Jerusalem was (particularly during the pilgrimage festivals as evidenced in Acts 2), of course the main language of discourse and quotation would have been Greek!
As I mentioned in my previous reply, citing LXX scholar Moises Silva, this simply indicates that a familiar translation of the Old Testament was regularly used by our Lord and the apostles. This is no great surprise, and has as little significance over what text is authoritative for the church as does the centuries long prominence of the KJV in the English-speaking world. And yet, as we see especially in St. Paul, the New Testament writers do draw on texts that align with the MT over and against the LXX, or even do their own translations when it suits the argument.[1] Mastin has yet to address the significance of this point for his contention of “Septuagintal superiority.” Why do our Lord, the evangelists, and apostles not use the LXX exclusively? That the LXX is very often suitable in conveying the meaning of the original Hebrew for a Greek audience is not at all problematic for those who value the Hebraica Veritas. That it is not always used in every case is a very real problem for the argument that the LXX is THE authoritative version of the OT.
Please remember what the LXX is…and what it is not
Another point of my first response was to bring clarity to the discussion that though we speak of “the LXX,” it is not a uniform text with the entirety of the OT translated by the same group of men within a brief period of time. It is well known that several books in the Greek translations were periphrastic or even abbreviated, far from conveying the literal sense of the Hebrew original that sat before the translator. Even before the rise of Christianity there is evidence of Jewish efforts at a closer connection between the original Hebrew and the Greek translation. The guide to textual criticism by longtime WELS exegete John Brug has a very helpful section on the history and significance of the LXX, and makes clear that its accuracy and usefulness are not of equal quality and style throughout the various books of the Bible.[2] Brug’s approach is one worth emulating: a measured consideration of the textual evidence on a case-by-case basis.
Passages Compared
In this connection, I would like to speak to the catena of passages listed in Rev. Mastin’s reply, beginning with the final three (Matthew 12:20 – 21 [citing Isaiah 42:4]; Acts 15:17 [citing Amos 9:12]; and Romans 10:20 [citing Isaiah 65:1 – 2]). In none of these examples is there a significant difference in meaning. The closest case of a wide difference in what is being said is Acts 15 compared with Amos 9 in the MT, “remnant of men,” vs. “remnant of Edom,” excepting we ought bear in mind that the Minor Prophets in the LXX tend to be periphrastic, thus the translator renders a specific Gentile people more generally. It could also be explained by the consonantal similarity between the Hebrew for “Edom” and what is translated as “men” (the general Hebrew word for “humanity”). That the evangelist and apostle quote a paraphrastic translation simply indicates this “got the job done,” making the point of the text. Is this not the measure of a good translation, and yet, when we want to know exactly what is said, we go to the original text? This is the very way the great Lutheran dogmatician Johann Gerhard treats the matter after observing the quotation of the LXX by Christ and the apostles.[3] That is to say, this is not some new problem. Lutheran theologians have dealt with this.
Hebrews 1:6’s citation of Deuteronomy 32 is indeed an interesting case that exemplifies the task of textual criticism. Such work is modeled for us in Adolph Harstad’s volume on Deuteronomy in the Concordia Commentary series. Namely, he sets forth the data, points to a few helpful sources, and leaves it to the reader to weigh the evidence. He does not use this as the launchpad for why our Rahlf’s edition of the Septuagint should be more worn out than our BHS. I ask the reader to consider in all seriousness, does this passage exhibit a pharisaic theft of messianic prophecy, or do we have here an occasion of simple scribal omission? If the intent of the Jewish scribes was to erase messianic content from the OT, they did an awfully shabby job of it. For all the warnings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origin over alleged “Jewish tampering,” there is precious little evidence of it. Here I would also like to point out to the readers of this discussion that while Augustine initially reproaches Jerome for going to Hebrew for his Bible translation rather than the Greek, we see a change of heart in the mature Augustine.[4] Mastin has yet to produce a convincing argument that the Jews, who so revere the Torah, would willingly do violence to its text. Even if they did such a thing such as in Deuteronomy 32, we ought consider the sensible argument that Gerhard offers after dealing with the five passages his Roman opponent Robert Bellarmine holds up as proof of corruption in the Hebrew text:
even if one were to concede some variance of reading or the change of some little letter in them, yet the consequence would not follow that the Hebrew text was so corrupt that it could not be considered as authentic and that one could not appeal to it as the source. This is because…There would be more in the conclusion than one could infer from the premises. For what is the logical connection here? Five passages have been corrupted, or rather have variant readings, therefore all of Scripture in the Hebrew codex is corrupt? The following is the only consequence: Therefore in those five places, the Hebrew Scripture is not genuine and whole.[5]
As for the quotation of Psalm 40:6 in Hebrews 10:5, similar to the first three passages mentioned above, there is not an actual contradiction of meaning here, as though the passage in Hebrew is saying one thing and the Greek quote in Hebrews says another. They both address the vicarious satisfaction of Christ by means of His incarnation in a human body, in which He was faithful unto death on a cross.
Regarding the translation of Isaiah 7:14, that a Jew today would refrain from rendering almah as “virgin” is analogous to how they understand Isaiah 53 to speak of the suffering of the people of Israel. There are no textual shenanigans on the part of the Masoretes nor ambiguous vocabulary in the case of either Isaiah 7 or 53. What is at work is a governance of permissible interpretation due to theological pre-conceptions in light of the Jewish rejection of Jesus as Messiah. This theological determination shapes their interpretation of the words. We see something similar with modern Jewish translations (such as that of Robert Alter) moving away from rendering nephesh as “soul,” because of the predetermination that the religion of OT Israel hadn’t evolved to believe in such things as a soul or afterlife yet. This, of course, is absurd, and we ought not so willingly concede the ground to unbelievers when it comes to such translation matters. LXX reflects what the Jewish translators in 3rd century BC Alexandria understood almah to mean, not only because “virgin” is well within the semantic range of almah, but also because they were likely informed by the analogy of faith from Genesis 3:15.
While we are on the subject of comparing renditions of passages between the MT and LXX, with the onus apparently placed upon the MT to explain itself, let us also consider the great damage the LXX rendition of Proverbs 8 (“the Lord created [Gk. ektisen] Me in the beginning of His ways”) inflicted on the church, necessitating the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Interestingly, while the Wisdom Christology exemplified in Proverbs 8 was a significant emphasis in the pre-Nicene church, three decidedly Jewish Greek versions (Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion), rendered Proverbs 8:22 using the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew qana, “possessed.”[6]
Apologia pro Hebraica
I also wish to restate the evidence for the reliability of the Hebrew MT and address Rev. Mastin’s points on this. He admits the presence of (proto-)Masoretic manuscripts in the first century AD. I am unsure then why he asserts at the end that the Hebrew text was compiled “by Jews centuries after Christ.” If we mean the MT as we have it today, in a single complete manuscript form in the Leningrad Codex, that is true. We may also add the partial Aleppo Codex, and several others. However, the witness to the textual base of those centuries later texts is demonstrably ancient, with manuscripts both contemporaneous and antecedent to our Lord’s incarnation. Thus, there is plenty of evidence of what is essentially the MT that is present at the time of our Lord’s humiliation. As my first reply pointed out, we have manuscripts of the similar if not the same Hebrew textual tradition found throughout the Judean desert in 25 locales other than the separatist Qumran community. That seems to indicate a widespread presence as far as manuscript evidence from that time goes.
Most significant is the evidence from the discoveries near Qumran. As far as Qumran and its reflection of the wider usage of certain texts at that time, there are scholars who can speak to such matters far more authoritatively than I, such as our Synod’s own Dr. Nathan Jastram. That being said, if such a separatist community like Qumran had various textual traditions of Hebrew (as well as other) manuscripts, why would we think that more “mainstream” collections would not? Assume with me that an Amish home near Lancaster has an old Pennsylvania Dutch Bible, an NIV, and an ESV. Would we expect a nearby LCMS parsonage to have but one English Bible?
That there are extra canonical and even “strange” books found at Qumran doesn’t really do much to undermine the authority and relevance of the biblical texts found there any more than the archaeologist who finds my perfectly preserved library centuries from now will find a Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, Calvin’s Institutes, the Synodical Handbook, as well as my own congregation’s Constitution and Bylaws, in addition to a vast collection of confessional, orthodox Lutheran writings. On the topic of extra writings, I am curious, what we are to make of the presence of the Apocryphal Books in the LXX and their frequent citation in the church fathers?
This finally brings me to mention a wider debate in OT textual criticism that I am hesitant to attempt to summarize in great detail (for that see Emmanuel Tov’s work). Suffice it to say that at the time of our Lord’s local presence upon the earth, there appear to have been several textual traditions of the OT about. These include Hebrew (of varying affiliations to today’s MT [the vast majority], the various Greek versions, or more independent), Aramaic Targums, and the Samaritan Pentateuch. How these all relate to one another is an ongoing topic of study and discussion. What this wider scholarly study shows for the purposes of this ongoing dialogue is that the issue is far more complicated than good Jews and early Christians with their Greek OT and the Hebrew texts that lined up with the Greek on one side and the unbelieving Jews with their proto-MT Hebrew text on the other. To make such an assertion is entirely baseless. No Old Testament text critical scholar or book I have read comes remotely close to making such a claim.
But let us now look closer to the household of God. Beginning with the Reformation of the Church came the forceful cry “Ad fontes!” With this, the nascent renewal of Greek and Hebrew came to the forefront of the church’s study. Even as Luther championed the giving of God’s Word in the language of the people, going back to the valiant effort of Greek-speaking Jews to render God’s Word in the vernacular, and Jerome’s similar desire for the Latinate West, he did so by going back to the very languages by which that Word was given. Resting content with what the church had handed on was not sufficient. It was not sufficient for confessing God’s own saving doctrine, nor for rendering His entire Word for all men to read.
Conclusion
To close, I offer Steinmann’s observation on the perennial significance of the biblical languages and the stakes of any translation:
the church faced a grave threat to its very existence in the Arian heresy, but that heresy was able to germinate and flourish because the church had abandoned its knowledge of the original Hebrew and Aramaic languages of the OT. Had the fathers maintained a working knowledge of Hebrew, they could have expounded the true meaning of the original Hebrew text of Proverbs 8, and the error of Arius might never have occurred—or if it still had, it would have been much more easily refuted. Thus also in our day it is important that pastors and leaders in the church maintain fluency in the original languages of Scripture. Even the best, most well-intentioned translation may contain ambiguous or misleading wording that can lead to false doctrine, apostasy, and loss of salvation. Study of the ipsissima verba, the “very words” that God inspired in the original languages, is also the best way to inculcate knowledge of the Scriptures and the doctrine they teach.[7]
[1] See Silva’s very helpful chart, “Old Testament Citations in Paul,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 631.
[2] John F. Brug, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament (Mequon, WI: Chesed VeEmet Publishing, 2014), 60 – 65.
[3] Johann Gerhard, On the Nature of Theology and On Scripture, vol. Exegesis 1 in Theological Commonplaces, trans. Richard J. Dinda (St. Louis: Concordia, 2006), §331.
[4] “Augustine’s mature thought on this issue is reflected in his City of God (written between 413 and 426). He clearly accepts by this point that Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew is a good one: he is ‘a man most learned, and skilled in all three languages [Hebrew, Greek, and Latin],’ and ‘the Jews acknowledge [his translation] to be faithful.’ Augustine further acknowledges that the idea that the Jews have plotted to corrupt the Hebrew text is foolish, and now also admits the significant differences between the original LXX and the Hebrew. This same admission is found in book 4 of On Christian Doctrine (composed in the same time period), where Augustine states that in writing about “the eloquence of the [OT] prophets’ he will not ‘follow the Septuagint translators, who…seem to have altered some passages with the view of directing the reader’s attention more particularly to the investigation of the spiritual sense….I shall [instead] follow the translation made from the Hebrew into Latin by the presbyter Jerome, a man thoroughly acquainted with both tongues.’” Iain Provan, The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017), 246.
[5] Gerhard, On Scripture, §333.
[6] Here again I will refer the reader to Steinmann’s excellent treatment of this: Andrew Steinmann, Proverbs (St. Louis: Concordia, 2009), 219–29.
[7] Steinmann, Proverbs, 229.
Here are links to the other blog posts concerning this topic: