Beyond Textual Criticism: The Use of the Septuagint in NT Research
In JNSL Volume 28, Issue 1 Jan 2002
R. Timothy McLay
Beyond Textual Criticism: The Use of the Septuagint in NT Research
In JNSL. Volume 28, Issue 1. Jan 2002
ABSTRACT
Nowadays the DSS seem to have a cast a spell on our attention when it comes to understanding the background of the NT while the study of the Jewish Scriptures that were available in Greek, which we now refer collectively to as the LXX, remain largely abandoned and ignored. How much more can be discovered about the imprint of the Greek Jewish Scriptures on the NT? After examining the external evidence for the existence of a Hebrew canon in the first century and the use of the Jewish Scriptures by the NT writers, the author argues that the Greek Jewish Scriptures were read and interpreted as Scripture in the early church at the time when the books that would later become the NT canon were written. The citations of the Greek Jewish Scriptures in Heb 12:26; Matt 24:30 and I Cor 2:16 are examined in order to illustrate the way in which the theology expressed in the NT was influenced by the Greek Jewish Scriptures.
I. Introduction
Despite the fundamental importance of the Septuagint (LXX) for understanding Judaism and the origin and development of the early church and its Scripture, the study of the LXX continues to remain on the margins of New Testament (NT) research. The evidence for this is available in most every introductory text to the NT. While sections on mystery religions, Greek philosophies, the Essenes, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are plentiful, one looks in vain for a section on the LXX. A search of several NT introductions written since 1985 reveals that none has a section on the LXX. In most cases the LXX only receives a passing reference in one or two sentences! Johnson (1986) does make a number of references to the LXX, but does not offer an adequate treatment. Given the neglect of the potential value of examining the impact of the Jewish Greek Scriptures on the NT, the purpose of this paper is to present a brief case for the necessity for research in the area of the way in which the Greek Jewish Scriptures have affected the NT writings and to offer some examples of how the theology of the NT reflects their influence.
2. The terminology LXX, OG, and the Scriptures
Probably the first problem to deal with is that of terminology. In any discussion of what the NT writers were doing and what books were considered normative for the early church it is crucial to understand the distinction between Scriptures, i.e. those books that enjoy authoritative status for a faith community, and a canon, which is the official list of books that have been given official status as THE inspired Scriptures for a faith community (Ulrich 2002: 41-75). Though we often use the term Septuagint or LXX to refer generally to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and additional books that were composed originally in Greek, the fact is that LXX originally designated the translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek. The collection of all the Greek books that are now often referred to as the LXX did not exist at the time when the NT was being written. The NT writers had their Jewish Scriptures in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Therefore, though we may refer to how an understanding of the LXX writings can inform our understanding of the NT, it is incorrect to refer to the NT writers employing the LXX translation unless it is understood that LXX is being used in the more limited sense to the Greek translation of the Pentateuch. Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, it is more appropriate to refer to the Greek Jewish Scriptures when referring to the body of writings that were available to the NT writers in the Greek language. If we are speaking about the presumed original text of a specific book of the Greek Jewish Scriptures it also common and acceptable to refer to it as the Old Greek (OG).
It should also be understood that the Greek Jewish Scriptures are not totally ignored in NT research. Individual articles and commentaries often exhibit judicious and provocative use of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Unfortunately, it is not easy for non-specialists to access this type of information and there are virtually no resources readily available that provide a framework for understanding how the NT writings have been influenced because of their linguistic relationship with the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Ironically, it could easily be argued that LXX scholars themselves are responsible for the lack of attention in this area. The reason for this is quite simple: most LXX scholars have not published works that examine the influence of the Greek Jewish Scriptures on the NT. For example, the Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies publishes titles of work completed or in progress by LXX scholars, and an examination of bulletins published since 1997 yields a total of two articles by Cook (1997) and Lust (1997) that are related to the NT.
Part of the explanation for the lack of attention given to the relationship between the Greek Jewish Scriptures and the NT is due to the number of scholars whose primary area of interest is the LXX. Until recent years the number has generally been small. However, if attendance at scholarly conferences such as the annual meeting of the IOSCS is any gauge, then scholarly interest in the LXX has increased dramatically in the last ten years. A direct consequence of the comparatively smaller group of scholars whose main field is the LXX in the past has been that research has tended to focus on dealing with the primary sources and text-critical issues. Even the numerous articles and volumes in recent years treating the issue of translation technique, important as they are for understanding the LXX books as Greek Jewish Scriptures, are servants of textual criticism. Another reason for the dearth of research on the influence of the LXX on the NT is the increasing specialization of scholars, which tends to impose fences around research.
There is, however, a positive side given the present state of affairs: the field is virtually wide open for research! Some might object to the validity of the preceding statement by pointing to recent studies like those of Silva (1993), Stanley (1992) and Koch (1986). Indeed, there have been significant contributions to the field, but most of these studies have focused on citations in the NT, particularly with respect to whether they presuppose a Semitic or Greek Vorlage. An important exception to this trend is Lim (1997), who investigated the pesher commentaries at Qumran in order to better understand Paul's citation techniques. The concentration on determining the sources of citations has also meant that few have ventured to examine possible allusions in the NT to the Greek Jewish Scriptures, and even fewer have sought to illuminate how presupposing the Greek Jewish Scriptures as the Scriptures of the NT writers may have influenced their theology. It is not that such a venture should somehow be beyond LXX research either. Comments abound on how the theology of the Greek translator is responsible for a particular rendering in the Greek that differs from its Hebrew Vorlage. However, the focus in LXX research on the relationship between the Greek Jewish Scriptures and the HB has resulted in discussing the theological implications of the Greek Jewish Scriptures in only one direction: their backward relationship to the HB and not their forward relationship to the NT.
3. The NT and the Jewish Scriptures
II Tim. 3:16 states, "All Scripture is inspired by God." We would all readily acknowledge that the referent for Scripture here is the authoritative writings of the Jews, but exactly which writings does it mean? Does II Tim 3:16 refer primarily to the Scriptures that were preserved in the HB that later became the basis for the Protestant Old Testament, or does it refer to Greek Jewish Scriptures witnessed to by the LXX preserved by the Eastern Orthodox Church that later became the basis for the Catholic Old Testament via the Latin Vulgate? Can we even provide a definitive answer to the question? The differences that existed between the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, both of which were preserved by the Jewish community, indicates that it is potentially extremely important to decide the referent for II Tim 3:16. Furthermore, can we presume that the notion of what constituted Scripture for the writer of II Tim 3:16 is shared by all of the other writers of the NT? Given the fact that the NT, like the LXX, is written in Greek and that many of the citations of Scripture in the NT agree word for word with how the passage reads in the LXX, it is worth examining the understanding of what constituted the Scriptures during the NT period and the forward relationship of the Greek Jewish Scriptures to the NT.
3.1 A Hebrew Canon in the NT Period?
Some scholars have argued that for all intents and purposes there was a first century Hebrew tripartite canon equivalent to the present day canon of 24 books based on Josephus or the early lists of books by Melito and Origen. Unfortunately for this view, there is no uniformity in these early lists. For example, in his treatise Against Apion 1:38-40, Josephus states:
. . . so among us there are not myriads of discordant and competing volumes, but only twenty-two volumes containing the record of all time, which are rightly trusted. Now of these, five are those of Moses, which comprise both the laws and the tradition from human origins until his passing . . . From Moses' passing until the Artaxerxes who was king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets after Moses wrote up what happened in their times (or, as they saw things) in thirteen volumes. The remaining four (volumes) comprise hymns toward God and advice for living among humanity.
Josephus mentions twenty-two books not twenty-four, and in his detailed examination of this passage Mason has shown that Josephus' testimony cannot be used as evidence to support the view that there was a tripartite or even a bipartite Hebrew canon. Rather Josephus' words are intended to convey that the Judean prophets were the only ones who could write their history and that they have captured the diversity and antiquity of their history in these twenty-two books. In their context Josephus' words are intended to contrast the uniformity and accuracy of the Jewish historical records compared to those by the Greeks that are flawed by the contradictions (see Ag. Ap. I:15-18) in their "myriads of discordant and competing volumes". Writing was a matter of "personal prerogative" for the Greeks, whereas the "prophets alone" could write Judean history. Their record-keeping was shown to be superior in that they captured the diversity and antiquity of their history in these twenty-two books (Mason 2002:239). The actual identification of the thirteen volumes written by the "other prophets" after Moses and the four remaining volumes, however, is uncertain. Without Josephus plainly stating what these books were, our only resort is conjecture, which explains the tendency to identify these volumes with the present-day Hebrew canon. Furthermore, besides the special pleading involved in arranging the Hebrew books to match Josephus' numbers, the inability of this conjecture to stand is revealed when it is tested by Josephus' use of Scripture elsewhere. For example, in his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus' use of the Greek Scriptures such as I Esdras, the additions to Esther, and I Maccabees throws considerable doubt as to what the exact referent for these twenty-two books was.
By the time of Melito and Origen there is less uncertainty about the books that definitely constituted Scripture, but there was still no Hebrew canon. Melito excludes from his list the books of Esther, Lamentations, and Ezra-Nehemiah and includes Esdras. Origen omits Ezra-Nehemiah and includes Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, the additions to Daniel and I and II Esdras. Ellis (1991:11) determines that the omission of Esther from Melito’s list was either by “accident or design.” Though he admits in a footnote that Esther was possibly, if not probably, deliberately omitted from the list, Ellis continues in his argument as though Esther’s omission by one group really does not affect the question of what was actually considered the canon of the HB. Ellis (1991:14-15) then argues that the “Letter” referred to by Origen in his list “Jeremiah-Lamentations-Letter” is a scribal gloss, but the view that Origen’s statement is a gloss introduced by a later scribe based on fourth century usage is nothing more than special pleading without manuscript support. Furthermore, the inclusion of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah in Greek and Latin codices in the fourth century would have been based on some earlier precedent, which Ellis also fails to explain.
Similarly, Beckwith (1985) has argued that the number of books in the HB was fixed during the period of the early church. Like Ellis, Beckwith ignores the differences in the early lists such as the fact that Origen includes the Epistle of Jeremiah because Origen's list contains the books that are now part of the Hebrew canon. However, if the list refers to all the authoritative books then the Epistle of Jeremiah would also belong. Both Ellis and Beckwith also have to explain that I and II Esdras in Origen’s list refer “in all likelihood” to Ezra-Nehemiah in the HB rather than the books of that name in the LXX. In another contradiction, Ellis (1991:16) admits that Origen did defend the LXX additions to Daniel as canonical, but he argues that this “does not represent a different judgment about the books that belong in the canon” [emphasis his] since it is about the content of a book. If this were true, then we would point out that the relationship of the Letter of Jeremiah (or Baruch) to the book of Jeremiah is the same as the additions of Daniel to the book of Daniel. Or is there a difference only because Ellis has decided that to be the case? Moreover, does not Origen’s argument for the additions to Daniel undermine the supposed uniform nature of the canon of the HB for which Ellis is arguing? Finally, we would ask, "If the canon of the HB were all that clear in the second and third century, then why are there differences in books that are included and omitted in these lists, and why is there so much need to explain what the ancients actually must have meant?" The external evidence in these early lists of books does not support the view that there was a canon for the HB in the first or second century.
3.2 NT References to the Jewish Scriptures
The fuzzy picture of what might have been regarded as the Jewish canon in the second and even the third centuries is not made any clearer in the NT. The NT refers to the Jewish Scriptures in a variety of ways, but "the Law and the Prophets" is the common designation. The frequent references to the "Law and the Prophets" in such places as Matt 5:17; 7:12 and Luke 16:16 clearly suggests that there were two groupings of Scriptures in the early church, though that does not mean that the specific form and contents of both of these groupings, particularly the Prophets, had been definitely fixed.
The most inclusive reference to the Jewish Scriptures in the NT is Luke 24:44, which refers to "the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms." Given the elastic use of "Prophets" in the NT (Barton 1986:35-48) and by Josephus it would hardly be justified to conclude from this passage that the number and order of the prophetic books in the Hebrew canon had been determined. Even if it had, we would still lack evidence regarding which books made up the Writings. Wishful thinking fails as a criterion to justify interpreting the Psalms as an all-inclusive reference to the books now included in the Writings. Rather, the additional reference to the Psalms in Luke 24:44 echoes earlier statements that make comments about the Scriptures. For example, Jesus ben Sira refers to "the study of the law" and "the wisdom of all the ancients" (Sir 39:1), while 4QMMT refers to "the book of Moses, the books of the prophets, and of David." In another early reference to the Scriptures Philo speaks of "laws and oracles delivered through the mouths of the prophets, and psalms and anything else" (Comtempl. 25). Clearly, "the wisdom of all the ancients", "of David", and "psalms and anything else" are vague references to writings that were deemed to be Scripture that are similar to the comments expressed by Josephus. Luke 24:44 refers to the Psalms as one of those books that were regarded as Scripture.
Any conclusion concerning which books were regarded as authoritative for the NT writers, then, has to account for the internal evidence from the NT Scriptures. As we have seen above, this usage extended well beyond the books that became recognized in the HB and these differences continued into the following centuries. The NT use of a broad range of writings as authoritative Scriptures that extends beyond the limits of the books that became fixed in the Jewish canon at a later date is in complete accord with the textual situation that existed in the first century. As Ulrich has demonstrated (1999:79-120), there were multiple editions of some Biblical books and some circulated in a variety of versions and revisions. All this is to say that the Jewish Scriptures were in a fair degree of flux during the NT period. However, the forces that would eventually lead to the standardization of the Hebrew text and the fixing of the authoritative books in the Jewish tradition must also have been in place because the Hebrew canon was fixed some time during those early centuries even if we do not know exactly when that was.
The use of the Greek Jewish Scriptures by the NT writers is by itself a lethal argument against the view that there was any type of fixed "canon" of Jewish Scriptures in the first century CE. Even if we were to grant that such a canon existed, it clearly would not have been regarded as the only Scriptural authority by the NT writers. The fact that the Greek Jewish Scriptures were cited in the NT with equal authority to the HB demonstrates that the Greek Jewish Scriptures were deemed to be Scripture for the early church; therefore, they were regarded as normative for life, belief, and practice. The NT use of the Greek Jewish Scriptures reflects the same authority that they received from the Hellenistic Jewish community. The Letter of Aristeas, which was written to defend the authority of the translation of the Pentateuch for the Alexandrian Jewish community, clearly establishes that it was Scripture for the Greek speaking Jews (Sundberg 1954:186-187). Furthermore, the external evidence of our Greek codices, which contain the apocryphal/deutero-canonical writings, is a simple testimony to the ongoing authority that the Greek Jewish Scriptures exercised in the life of the early church.
4. The Theological Significance of the NT Writers' Use of the Greek Jewish Scriptures
If we are correct in arguing that the use of the Greek Jewish Scriptures in the NT proves that they were regarded as having at least equal authority to the HB, then we should expect the theologically probing rejoinder: "So what?" What difference does it make if the NT writers employed the Greek Jewish Scriptures rather than the HB? This is a valid question and deserves a reply. From the outset it can be stated that there are three major lines of argument that may be pursued to prove our thesis: 1) the influence of the vocabulary of the Greek Jewish Scriptures on the NT; 2) the citations of the Greek Jewish Scriptures employed by the NT writers; 3) evidence that the reading of the Greek Jewish Scriptures has had an indirect effect on the theology of the NT writers. That the vocabulary of the NT is influenced by the Greek Jewish Scriptures is readily acknowledged by many scholars, so it need not detain us at this particular time. As to evidence of the indirect influence of the Greek Jewish Scriptures on the NT writers there are occasional remarks scattered in commentaries and monographs, but the subject is given more detailed treatment in my recent work (McLay 2002). Given the limitations of the present paper we will focus on the second of these three lines of argument.
We will examine three citations of the LXX in the NT in order to illustrate the theological influence of the Greek Jewish Scriptures in the early church: first, the citation of Hag 2:7 in Heb 12:6; second, Dan 7:13 in Matt 24:30; and third, Isa 40:13 in I Cor 2:16.
4.1 Heb 12:26
NT- )/Eti a(/pac e)gw\ sei/sw ou) mo/non th\n gh=n a)lla\ kai\ to\n ou)rano/n
yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also heaven
OG Hag 2:7- )/Eti a(/pac e)gw\ sei/sw to\n ou)rano/nkai\ th\n gh=n\
yet once more I will shake heaven and the earth
MT Hag 2:6- jerf)fh-te):w {iyamf<ah-te) $yi(:ram yinA)aw )yih +a(:m taxa) dO(
yet once in a little while and I will shake heaven and the earth
There are no significant variants in any of the quoted texts. Here it is clear that the NT author is dependent upon the OG because of the appearance of a(/pac once. The word a(/pac is seldom employed in the LXX and Hag 2:7 is the only time that it is found in the whole of the twelve minor prophets. The specific citation in Hebrews is introduced to support one of the writer's many comparisons between the old covenant given through Moses and the new that has come with Jesus. In 12:18-21 the writer refers to Ex 19:12-21; 20:18-19 where Moses has to meet God on the mountain on behalf of the Israelites. In contrast, the recipients of Hebrews have "come to the city of the living God, the new Jerusalem" (12:22) and to Jesus who is the mediator of the new covenant (12:24). It would appear that while the writer was referring to the contents of Exodus 19 and 20 that the references to the thundering and lightening on the mountain reminded him of the text of OG Hag 2:7. This would also explain why the writer reverses the order heaven and the earth in Hag 2:7 to the earth and heaven. By referring to the shaking of the earth first the writer links the citation with Exodus in which it is the mountain and earth that shakes. The OG's yet once more provides the basis for the author to reapply the eschatological expectations of the OG text, which were based on the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, to the new spiritual temple and the kingdom that has been inaugurated in Jesus (Stuhlmueller 1988:26-27), which cannot be shaken (12:27-28).
4.2 Matt 24:30
NT- to\n ui(o\n tou= a)nqrw/pou e)rxo/menon e)pi\ tw=n nefelw=n tou= ou)ranou=
the son of man coming upon the clouds of heaven
OG Dan 7:13- e)pi\ tw=n nefelw=n tou= ou)ranou= h)/rxeto w(j ui(o\j a)nqrw/pou
upon the clouds of heaven one came as a son of man
MT Dan 7:13- hfwAh h"tf) $fnE) rab:K )fYam:$ y"nfnA(-{i(
with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man was coming
The same text is cited, though with various differences in the number and order of words and the prepositions employed in Matt 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27. We have cited Matt 24:30 only as a convenience, because it offers the rendering closest to the OG text that has been reconstructed by Ziegler. This could be a theological rendering because the expected Greek equivalent for the Aramaic {i( is meta\ with, which is employed by TH. Thus, it could be argued that the retention of e)pi\ upon in Matthew is based on OG. However, the question of the theological influence of OG Dan 7:13 is really based on a portion of the text that is not even quoted in the NT and the Greek version of 7:13 that may have been employed by Jesus and the NT writers. In order to impart some sense of order to our analysis we will deal first with the textual relationship between OG and MT.
The words of MT that immediately follow the text quoted above are and he approached unto the Ancient of Days hf+:m )fYamOy qyiTa(-da(:w . The text of OG according to Munnich (1999:338) is kai\ e(/wj tou= palaiou= h(merw=n parh=n and he came unto the ancient of days.One might fairly conclude that there is no difference between MT and OG. The problem is that this reconstructed OG text depends on a textual emendation. None of the Greek witnesses actually have e(/wj unto as the rendering for da( unto. Instead, they read kai/ w(j palaio\j h(merw=n parh=n and he came as the Ancient of Days. For this reason, Bruce (1977:22-40) has argued that the text of OG makes an identification between the son of man and the Ancient of Days, i.e. the son of man came upon the clouds and as the Ancient of Days. Jeansonne (1988:96-99) has countered that the OG text should be emended, though Bruce has received support from Lust (1978:62-69) and Stuckenbruck (1995:268-76). However, arguing for a particular reading of the OG need not detain us at this time because, regardless of whether it originated with the OG translator or very soon afterwards, at some point at least some (the only three manuscripts for OG Daniel that we have did!) witnesses to OG Dan 7:13 read and he came as the Ancient of Days. Thus, the textual evidence suggests that during the NT period the text of OG Dan 7:13 could have been read as identifying the Son of Man with the Ancient of Days. It is this reading of Dan 7:13 that supports the theological influence of the Greek Jewish Scriptures on the NT.
As previously mentioned, kai/ w(j palaio\j h(merw=n parh=n and he came as the Ancient of Days is not cited in the NT, but the use of Dan 7 in the NT requires that it be examined as a source and background for allusions to the Son of Man. The identification of the Son of Man with the Ancient of Days, who would have been regarded as divine, may provide helpful background to the witness of the gospels, in which Jesus employs "son of man" as a self-designation. It is well-known that this title is the only one that appears exclusively on the lips of Jesus in the gospels and that Vermes (1973:160-190) has argued that the expression represented a Semitic idiom meaning "man" in a generic sense or a circumlocution for "I." The main problem with Vermes' interpretation is that it does not offer an adequate understanding of the "son of man" sayings as they appear in the gospels and of their use by Jesus in particular. Furthermore, as Yarbro Collins (1990:187-93) argues, "it fails to explain why, if Jesus used a perfectly understandable Aramaic idiom, it was translated into Greek in such an unidiomatic way." Elsewhere, Yarbro Collins (1992:536-68) has shown that it was doubtful that there was a pre-existing tradition that identified a/the "son of man" with a messianic figure. Thus, she argues that Jesus used the phrase exegetically to allude to the figure of Dan 7:13 and that the disciples later identified Jesus with that figure and then interpreted it messianically. In this way the NT sayings reflect a combination of both Jesus' use and that of the disciples (Yarbro Collins 1990:191-93). At this point, however, it becomes difficult to explain why Jesus himself could not have provided the basis for the exegesis. Regardless of who originated the exegesis, the Greek reading of Dan 7:13 would have figured prominently in identifying Jesus as "THE Son of Man" and undergirds the eschatological "son of man" sayings. Further evidence for the theological influence of the LXX tradition of Dan 7:13 that we have outlined is provided in Revelation (Yarbro Collins 1992:536-68). Besides the allusion to 7:13 in Rev 1:7 "Behold he is coming with the clouds," there is the reference to "one like a son of man" in 1:13, and the description of his appearance depends on allusions to the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7: his head and hair were white like wool, white as snow in Rev 1:14 is clearly dependent upon Dan 7:9 his clothing was as white as snow, the hair of his head was white like wool.
Whoever was responsible for the reading in the Greek manuscripts upon the clouds of heaven one came as a son of man and as the Ancient of Days, it facilitated the connection of the "son of man" with the Ancient of Days and, thus, with a divine figure. Though one could argue that these connections might have been made on the basis of the HB, the Greek Jewish Scriptures provide a theological justification for the use of the expression in the NT and its application to Jesus.
4.3 1 Cor 2:16
NT- ti/j ga\r e)/gnw nou=n kuri/ou
For who has known the mind of the Lord?
OG Isa 40:13- ti/j e)/gnw nou=n kuri/ou
Who has known the mind of the Lord?
The readings of Aq pneuma (86) and Sym spiritum (Hi=Jerome) bring the Greek into line with the Hebrew, while TH exhibits a more dynamic rendering as well with boulhn.
MT Isa 40:13- hfwh:y axUr-te) }"Kit-yim
Who has known the spirit of the Lord?
In the case of Paul’s citation of Isa 40:13 it is not the actual reference to Isa 40:13, but the way in which it is applied in the context that is illuminating for our discussion of the influence of the Greek Jewish Scriptures on the theology of the NT. It is clear that Paul has quoted from the OG form of Isaiah rather than MT in his choice of mind (nou=j) as opposed to spirit (pneu=ma). The significance of his use of mind (nou=j) is that it is also found in the next line of the verse, where Paul concludes this portion of his address with, h(mei=j de\ nou=n Xristou= e)/xomen "But we have the mind of Christ." Given the fact that Paul previously speaks of humanity's inability to know the thoughts of God without the spirit of God (vv. 11-12), it might be argued that MT Isa 40:13 would have served Paul's argument better. However, though the use of spirit certainly would have made Paul’s argument different, the choice of mind (nou=j) adds something specific to Paul’s argument, particularly when the apostle concludes that we have the mind of Christ.
The broader context for the citation is Paul’s contrast between those who would rely on human wisdom versus God’s wisdom manifested in the folly of preaching Christ crucified (1:17-25). Paul has already stated that he has received the spirit of God in order to understand what has been given freely by God and, thus, God’s wisdom (2:6-12). So, his use of mind in the quotation provides him with the opportunity to assert something additional about himself in contrast to the one who lacks the spirit (v. 14). While acknowledging that no one can fathom the mind of the Lord, i.e. God, the spiritual person should realize but we have the mind of Christ. Given the context in which Paul is defending his ministry and administering to the Corinthians a good tongue lashing (3:1-Brothers, I could not speak to you as spiritual! 3:3-You are fleshly/worldly!), his generous inclusion of his readers in the declaration we have the mind of Christ is a subtle suggestion that they should be exercising their Christ-given intellect with respect to the matters at hand. While Paul may have his tongue firmly planted in his cheek regarding who in fact does have the mind of Christ, he stakes a claim at least for himself, if not also for his readers.
Upon further investigation we find that mind (nou=j) occurs 24x in the NT, primarily in books associated with Paul. In fact, over half of its occurrences are found in Romans (6x) and I Corinthians (7x). One of the places where nou=j appears is Rom 11:34, and again this is a citation from OG Isa 40:13. There is nothing particularly significant about this citation either, until we read a few verses on: kai\ mh\ susxhmati/zesqe t%= ai)w=ni tou/t%, a)lla\ metamorfou=sqe t$= a)nakainw/sei tou= noo\j No longer be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind! (Rom 12:2). In this case the citation and the injunction to think in a new way are not directly linked, but the close proximity of the quotation and exhortation seems hardly to be coincidental given the prior connection in I Corinthians. Furthermore, this encouragement to his readers to be transformed is in direct contrast to his two earlier uses of mind in Romans 7, which depict the hopeless plight of the one under the law who is noi\ douleu/w no/m% qeou= a slave to God's law in [his] mind (v. 25) and whose members a)ntistrateuo/menon t%= no/m% tou= noo/j mou wage war against the law of [his] mind (v. 23). Thus, there is a similar emphasis on the transformed mind of the believer due to a relationship with Christ that seems associated with or develops out of the quotation of OG Isa 40:13.
In its context Isa 40:13 emphasizes the transcendence of God and humanity's inability to perceive his ways. Paul does not change or deny that sense when he quotes the passage in I Cor 2:16, but he does impart something new in his statement But we do have the mind of Christ. By juxtaposing "But we do have the mind of Christ" to the quotation "For who has known the mind of the Lord?" Paul asserts that having the mind of Christ is at least something that is attainable, even though the ways of God are beyond comprehension. The way that Paul applies having the mind of Christ based on the quotation of OG Isa 40:13 also means that his assertion relies on a connection between Christ and God, because the Lord kuri/oj in Isa 40:13 can only refer to God. The specific linguistic connection is supplied through the appearance of kuri/oj, which is the usual Greek translation for hwhy (Yahweh) in the LXX. In the NT Lord kuri/oj is a title for Jesus, and the confession that "Jesus is Lord" or that he is "our Lord" is particularly significant in the Pauline writings (eg. Rom 1:4, 10:9; I Cor 12:3; II Cor 1:3; Phil 2:11), so Paul's thought seems to develop along the lines of "no one knows the mind of the Lord" (i.e. God) to "but we have the mind of Christ" (i.e. our Lord). Elsewhere in Paul there is no direct development of this line of thought that employs this specific terminology besides Rom 11:34 and 12:2; however, having the mind of Christ should certainly be seen in conjunction with the complex of Pauline statements about the mystical participation of the believer in/with Christ, in the Lord, etc. For example, Ridderbos (1975:57-64) suggests that there is a connection between having the mind of Christ and the believer being in the Lord, but neither he nor more recent works like Dunn (1998) recognize the importance of Paul's quotation of OG Isa 40:13 in relation to his statement in 1 Cor 2:16. Silva (1993:634) is the only person that we are aware of who suggests that Paul’s rendering in 1 Cor 2:16 may provide a clue to the development of Paul’s thought, but he does not elaborate in any way. Regardless of the variety of expressions that Paul enlists to depict this relationship of the believer to Christ, it is the foundation for his ethics. Moreover, the peculiarity of Paul's declaration in 1 Cor 2:16 takes on greater significance as an aid to explaining the origin of this concept when we consider our inability to provide an adequate explanation for the meaning of being in Christ. We do not want to make exaggerated claims about the significance of the citation of OG Isa 40:13 for the development of Paul's thought, but it is tantalizing to suggest that 1 Cor 2:16 offers insight into the formation of the way in which the apostle established the connection between the mystical union of the believer in Christ and the way one is then called to live: h(mei=j nou=n Xristou= e)/xomen we have the mind of Christ.
In I Cor 2:16 the citation of OG Isa 40:13 is the basis for Paul's assertion that believers have the mind of Christ (i.e. the Lord), which in turn elucidates the meaning of the mystical participation of the believer in/with Christ and how one ought to live. If the believer has the mind of Christ, then he or she ought to think and live in a way that Christ would.
The three citations that we have examined each demonstrate how the NT writing is dependent upon the reading of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Though the writer of Hebrews probably could have made the same point without citing the Greek, the fact is that he did. The point of the other two citations is that they illustrate that the NT writers were not simply employing a "cut and paste" approach to their use of the Scriptures. Someone connected the son of man coming as the ancient of days with Jesus. Paul deliberately employed the OG reading of Isa 40:13 and applied it to how believers ought to live.
5. Conclusion
The Greek Jewish Scriptures were read and interpreted as the Scriptures in the early church at the time when the books that would later become the NT canon were written. This is confirmed by the internal evidence of the NT writings. The citations in Heb 12:26; Matt 24:30 and I Cor 2:16 are only three samples of how the theology expressed in the NT was influenced by the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Nowadays the DSS seem to have a cast a spell on our attention when it comes to understanding the background of the NT while the study of the Jewish Scriptures that were available in Greek, which we now refer collectively to as the LXX, remain largely abandoned and ignored. How much more can be discovered about the imprint of the Greek Jewish Scriptures on the NT? The data indicates that there is a great deal more to be learned. The question is, "How would our understanding of the theology of the NT be changed if we read the Greek Jewish Scriptures as the primary source of the NT Scriptures?"
Bibliography
Barton, J 1986. Oracles of God. Oxford: University Press.
Beale, G 1998. John's Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Sheffield: Academic Press.
Beckwith, R 1985. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Bruce, F F 1977. The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel. OTS 20, 22-40.
Cook, J 1997. The Septuagint between Judaism and Christianity. OTE 10, 213-225.
Cross, F M 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard.
Dunn, J D G 1998. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Ehrman, B 1997. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford: University Press.
Ellis, E E 1991. The Old Testament in Early Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr.
Evans, C A 2002. The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers, in McDonald, L & Sanders, J A (eds.) 2002, 375-400.
Emerton, J A 1958. The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery. JTS 9, 225-42.
Freed, E 1996. The New Testament: A Critical Introduction, 2d ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Harris, S 1988. The New Testament. Mountain View: Mayfield.
Jeansonne, S P 1988. The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7-12 (CBQMS 19). Washington: Catholic Biblical Association.
Johnson, L T 1986. The Writings of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Käsemann, E 1980. Commentary on Romans, translated and edited by G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Koch, D A 1986. Die Schrift Als Zeuge Des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen Zur Verwendung und Zum Verständnis Der Schrift Bei Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr.
Lim, T 1997. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Clarendon.
Lust, J 1978. Daniel VII and the Septuagint, ETL 54, 62-69.
Lust, J 1997. Mic 5,1-3 in Qumran and in the New Testament, and Messianism in the Septuagint, in: Tuckett, C M (ed.) 1997. The Scriptures and the Gospels. Leuven: Peeters, 65-88.
Mason, S 2002. Josephus and his Twenty-Two Book Canon, in McDonald, L & Sanders, J A (eds.) 2002, 211-212.
McDonald, L & Porter S 2000. Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson.
McDonald, L & Sanders, J A 2002. The Canon Debate. Peabody: Hendrickson.
McLay, T 2002. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Müller, M 1996. The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 206). Sheffield: Academic Press.
Neusner, J (et al) 1987. Judaisms and Their Messiahs. Cambridge: University Press.
Pageant, R 1995. Engaging the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Ridderbos, H 1975. Paul, trans. by J. R. De Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Silva, M 1993. Old Testament in Paul, in: Hawthorne G F & Martin, R P (eds.) 1990. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove: IVP, 630-42.
Stanley, C 1992. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. Cambridge: University Press.
Stuckenbruck, L T 1995. "One Like a Son of Man As the Ancient of Days" in the Old Greek Recension of Daniel 7,13: Scribal Error or Theological Translation? ZNW 86, 268-76.
Stuhlmueller, C 1988. Rebuilding with Hope: A Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Sundberg, A C 2002. The Septuagint: the Bible of Hellenistic Judaism, in McDonald, L & Sanders, J A (eds.) 2002, 157-213.
Ulrich, E 1999. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (collected essays). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Ulrich, E 2002. The Notion and Definition of Canon, in McDonald, L & Sanders, J A (eds.) 2002, 41-75.
Vermes, G 1973. Jesus the Jew. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Yarbro Collins, A 1990. Daniel 7 and the Historical Jesus, in: Attridge H W et al (eds.) 1990. Of Scribes and Scrolls. Maryland: Lanham, 187-93.
Yarbro Collins, A 1992. "The 'Son of Man" Tradition and the Book of Revelation, in: Charlesworth, J (ed.) 1992. The Messiah. Minneapolis: Fortress, 536-68.
R. Timothy McLay
St. Stephen's University, St. Stephen, NB, Canada, E3L 3E2
