Scripture, history, Messiah: Scriptural fulfillment and the fullness of time in Matthew’s Gospel
In Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament / edited by Stanley E. Porter. Grand Rapids, Mich. : William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.
R. Timothy McLay -- Scripture, history, Messiah: Scriptural fulfillment and the fullness of time in Matthew's Gospel In Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament / edited by Stanley E. Porter. Grand Rapids, Mich. William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006.
R. Timothy McLay
St. Stephen’s University
ABSTRACT: This essay investigates the nature of the biblical texts and the concept of Scripture during the period when the NT was written. The terms “Scripture”, “canon”, and “biblical text” are first defined and then the nature of the biblical texts that existed in the first and second century of our common era is explained. The citation of Scripture in Heb 1:6 is examined to illustrate the pluriformity of the biblical text in the time of the early church. It is demonstrated that Odes 2:43 and Heb 1:6 are both related to a longer reading of Deut 32:43 that is preserved in the Old Greek that is not in the MT or 4QDeutq. It is also shown that the OG, 4QDeutq, MT, and Odes 2:43/Heb 1:6 represent four separate and distinct ways that the biblical text was transmitted and that they all were regarded as Scripture. The essay concludes with a discussion of the quest for the Biblical text. The unintentional and intentional errors that inevitably occurred while copying the Scriptures and the fact that there were multiple literary editions for some books were some of the contributing factors that resulted in a multiplicity of texts that were identified with a particular book of Scripture.
How do we know that the New Testament writer was citing the Old Testament (OT)/Hebrew Bible (HB)? What versions were the New Testament (NT) writers using? These are just two of the many questions that are the subject of this conference, but they are the primary questions to be addressed in this paper as we investigate the nature of the biblical texts and the concept of Scripture during the period when the NT was written. Prior to discussing the nature of the biblical texts that existed in the first and second century of our common era, we will begin by defining the terms “Scripture” and “canon”. The citation of Scripture in Heb 1:6 will then be examined to illustrate the pluriformity (or the multiple forms) of the biblical text in the time of the early church and this analysis will be followed by a discussion of the quest for the Biblical text.
Defining Scripture and Canon
What we understand by the terms Scripture and canon are often and easily confused in our contemporary context because what we recognize as Scripture (whatever our denominational affiliation) is included within a recognized canon. Thus, the concept of a canon presupposes the existence of Scripture(s), and that is how these terms should be understood historically. Initially, a faith community deems some particular writings to be Scripture, which basically affirms that those writings are recognized to be authoritative for the faith and practice of the community. In the context of Judaism, the Torah or Law were the first writings that were recognized as having a continuing authority for Judaism and for that reason became recognized as Scripture. The translation of the Torah into Greek c. 250 BCE and the Letter of Ariseteas, which was written to defend the authority of the translation, confirms the initial recognition of these Scriptures in both languages (at least for some communities within Judaism) at an early date. Over time and in various places other writings were also understood to be authoritative for the Jewish community; therefore, they were accorded the status of Scripture. Canon, however, denotes a specific listing and order of books that are understood to be the authoritative books for a particular faith community. Thus, the creation of a canon by definition requires that it is a later historical development and that it imposes limits on what books are recognized as Scripture.
A Canon in the Early Church?
The distinction between Scripture and canon takes on particular significance for any examination of the texts that were used by the writers of the NT at the end of the period of what is commonly known as Second Temple Judaism because the canon for the OT/HB had not yet been formed. Though this issue is deserving of a lengthy treatment, we can only offer the briefest of summaries of some of the most important issues of this discussion here.
It was once commonplace to refer to the establishment of the Jewish canon at the “council of Jamnia” c. 100 CE, but this has proved to be a scholarly fiction and we do not have any firm evidence for the fixing of the Jewish canon. It has also been argued that for all intents and purposes there was a first century Hebrew tripartite (or bipartite) canon equivalent to the present day canon of 24 books based on Josephus or other early lists of books by Melito and Origen. So, for example, Josephus mentions 22 books: the five books of Moses, thirteen by the prophets after Moses and four more (by prophets) comprising hymns and practical advice. Beckwith has suggested that we understand Josephus as follows. The five books of Moses refer to the Pentateuch; the thirteen volumes of the prophets are counted as: Joshua, Judges, Samuel (I and II count as one), Kings (I and II), Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, Ezekiel, the twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Job and Chronicles; and the final four are Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiasticus. However, the view that Josephus’s reference to twenty-two books refers to the present-day Jewish canon (equivalent to the Protestant OT), has been severely criticized. First, Josephus’s reference to twenty-two books is very ambiguous and has been subject to a number of interpretations in order to make his number become equivalent to the present day canon of twenty-four books. Furthermore, Josephus refers to the “prophets after Moses” as having written thirteen books. In other words, Josephus’s terminology reflects his view that all of the Jewish Scriptures were written by prophets. Thus, his reference to thirteen prophets after Moses is not to be identified with thirteen books that are part of the prophetic section of the current canon.
Josephus’s testimony, then, is not a clear reference to the current Hebrew canon at all. In like manner, other early statements about the Scriptures cannot be interpreted to refer to the specific books of our present canon unless we assume the existence of the canon for which we are attempting to provide evidence. For example, Jesus ben Sira refers to "the study of the law" and "the wisdom of all the ancients" (Sir 39:1), 4QMMT refers to "the book of Moses, the books of the prophets, and of David" and Philo speaks of "laws and oracles delivered through the mouths of the prophets, and psalms and anything else" (Comtempl. 25). A reasonable conclusion is that, "the wisdom of all the ancients", “the books of the prophets”, "of David", and "psalms and anything else" are vague references to writings (by prophets) that were deemed to be Scripture, but they do not define a canon. The most that we can say is that there was a canon in the making.
The Scripture(s) in the Early Church
The fuzzy picture of what might have been regarded as the Jewish canon in the second and even the third centuries is reflected 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 may suggest that there were two groupings of Scriptures in the early church, but 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 and by Josephus it would hardly be justified to conclude from this passage that the prophetic books in the Hebrew canon had been determined. Nor would it be justified to interpret “the Psalms” as an all-inclusive reference to the books now included in the Writings. Rather, Luke 24:44 refers to the Psalms as one of those books that were regarded as Scripture.
Thus, in the period when the NT was written there were authoritative writings associated with the Law (of Moses), those written by Prophets and other writings (by prophets) that were regarded as Scripture like the Psalms. This is not to suggest that all of the books that later formed the canon of the Hebrew Bible were not regarded as Scripture during the NT period, but, as Sundberg demonstrated, there was no unanimity regarding what particular books were considered Scripture in the early church.
The Biblical Text(s) in the Early Church
The use of the terminology “Biblical text” can likewise be confusing because we commonly associate the idea of “the text of the Bible” with the complete set of the books of the Bible or the canon, which did not exist during the period when the early church was developing and the NT documents were being written. Yet, scholars also use the term “biblical” as an adjective that defines an area of research. That is, there are biblical texts at Qumran, whose content is defined as relating to those books that are now regarded as part of the canon, as opposed to non-biblical texts. When used as just described, the emphasis in “biblical text” is on the type or category of “text” to which a particular manuscript, scroll or codex belongs. This judgment about the status of a document as being biblical is obviously anachronistic because it assumes the later historical distinction of what books were deemed to be part of the Bible; and, for this reason, we might be better served by curtailing its use. However, reference to “biblical texts” is intended to mean that there are numerous textual witnesses to any particular book that later became canonized and we compare these biblical texts using the methods of textual criticism in order to ascertain what we believe to be the most original text for that book of Scripture. We might refer to the most original text that we can reconstruct as the “Biblical Text”, but, as we shall see, that is not a straightforward process when considering the witnesses to the Scriptures that became the OT/HB. For the time being it is most important to recognize that there would have been no such thing as a biblical text in the context of the early church, though there would have been a variety of written books (texts) and collections of books (like the Torah) that were accorded the status of Scripture.
The fact that there were texts of Scriptures but no sense of a canon during the early church had a significant influence on the transmission and content of the Scriptures. We can grasp the implications of the organic nature of the Scriptures within their communities prior to the common era more easily by examining the impact of the developing canonical consciousness. The creation of a canon of books was accompanied by an increased concern for maintaining the particular form of those books. Historically, the means to enable the believing community to do this more effectively emerged concurrently with the development of the codex. With the codex, all of the books that were considered authoritative could be bound together in one volume. As Robert Kraft suggests:
. . . once it was possible to produce and view (or visualize) “the Bible” under one set of physical covers, the concept of “canon” became concretized in a new way that shapes our thinking to the present day and makes it very difficult for us to recapture the perspectives of earlier times. “The canon” in this sense is the product of fourth-century technological developments.
The process of the fixing of the Biblical Text or “standardization”, culminated centuries later in the majority texts produced by the Masoretes for the HB and the Byzantine text for the NT.
Prior to the concept of the canon, then, the Scriptures were copied and transmitted within and for the believing community primarily on scrolls. Additionally, the Scriptures of the early Christians consisted of original writings and translations in three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. As we have already noted above, the early translation of the Torah into Greek and the defense of its authority provided the basis for the early church to use the Greek Scriptures. Obviously, the use of the Greek texts would have been more practical for the mission efforts of the church in the Hellenistic world and this is evident in the NT where the influence of citations from the Greek is so prevalent, though the equivalent status of the Greek Scriptures with the Hebrew Scriptures later became a source of tension in the discussions between Jews and the Church Fathers. During this time there does not seem to have been a widely held consensus of the specific books or the content of the Scriptures like that which would emerge in later centuries. It is not as though we have explicit testimony to the effect that the Scriptures were regarded as free floating texts that were shaped to differing degrees by a variety of circumstances and concerns within the communities in which they were used, but the nature of the evidence from the extant witnesses to the biblical texts argues that such was often the case. There are a wide variety of textual variants, ranging from single words or morphemes to whole sentences and paragraphs, when you compare the ancient texts for any book of Scripture.
Hebrews 1:6 and the Texts of Scripture
In order to illustrate the pluriformity of the Scriptures as well as discuss some of the reasons why these textual differences developed within the texts that were read, understood, and copied as holy Scripture for the early church and the writers of the NT, I have selected the citation of Scripture in Heb 1:6. The choice is not random. We will begin our examination by citing the texts as they are known to us in the NT, OG, and MT. The English translations that I offer are intentionally more literal and, consequently, not that elegant, but will enable the person with less facility in the biblical languages to follow the argument more easily.
Heb 1:6 NT-kai\ proskunhsa/twsan au)t%= pa/ntej a/)ggeloi qeou=
And let all angels of God worship him
OG Deut 32:43-kai\ proskunhsa/twsan au)t%= pa/ntej ui(oi\ qeou=
And let all sons of God (or all you Gods) worship him.
MT Deut 32:43 --
There is no equivalent in the Hebrew for the reading in the OG.
The first matter to consider is the absence of this passage from the MT and the corresponding suggestion that the passage is related to the passage in OG Deut 32:43. Both of these issues will be addressed throughout the course of this discussion, but looking at the passages in parallel alignment will help us to understand the problem.
MT Deut 32:43 OG Deut 32:43
1 eu)fra/nqhte ou)ranoi/ a(/ma au)t%=
2 kai\ proskunhsa/twsan au)t%=
3 pa/ntej ui(oi\ qeou
4 OMa( {iyOg Unyin:rah eu)fra/nqhte e)/qnh meta\ tou= laou= au)tou=
5 kai\ e)nisxusa/twsan au)t%= pa/ntej a)/ggeloi qeou=
6 {OQiy wyfdfbA(-{ad yiK o(/ti to\ ai(=ma tw=n ui(w=n au)tou= e)kdika=tai
MT Deut 32:43 OG Deut 32:43
1 Praise, O Heavens, together with him.
2 and let all sons of God
3 worship him.
4 Praise, O Nations, his people Praise, O Nations, with his people,
5 and let all angels of God strengthen him,
6 for he vindicates the blood of his servants. for he vindicates the blood of his children
Referring to the Greek text of this portion of Deut 32:43 we see that two clauses begin with the word eu)fra/nqhte Praise in lines 1 and 4, however, there is no equivalent in the MT for lines 1-3 above. Instead, v. 43 in MT begins with the line OMa( {iyOg Unyin:rah Praise, O Nations, his people. If the OG is a faithful translation of a Hebrew text (its Vorlage), then the Hebrew passage that the Greek translator had before him was longer than the one currently preserved in the MT. In addition, the OG has another extra clause in the verse (numbered line 5 above) compared to the MT. Immediately, one is struck by the differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts and how they might be best explained.
If there were not two additions, most scholars would probably readily agree that the initial one is most likely an error in the transmission of the (proto) MT. Due to an error when he read the text (parablepsis), the scribe for the MT passed from a first occurrence of Unyin:rah Praise (rendered by eu)fra/nqhte) in line 1 to the second occurrence of Praise in line 4 and in the process omitted two whole clauses (our lines 1 to 3), which are preserved in the OG. However, the nature of the addition as well as the presence of the second clause in line 5 may suggest to some that the longer reading in the OG is the result of a double translation or explanatory addition to what was originally only one clause like we have in the MT. It seems to me that this kind of argument is probably rooted in an uncritical assumption that the Hebrew text is inherently more trustworthy than a translation or just plain bias towards the MT. These comments are not intended to denigrate the MT, because it is an important witness to the biblical text. At the same time, the MT is not equivalent to the OT or HB, which has often been assumed in the past. The allegiance that has been shown toward the MT by scholars despite the evidence of the other witnesses is similar in many ways to those who regard the King James version as the only trustworthy English translation. Most assuredly, it is always possible that the Greek translator made additions as he translated a text like the MT, but the question is whether that is likely and what is the best explanation for the available evidence? After all, if the two clauses that are represented in the OG were based on a Hebrew Vorlage, the OG would witness to two parallel clauses advocating praise to God and parallelism is a characteristic of Hebrew. Purely, from the content and style of the texts, then, there is no good reason to prefer the MT over the OG. Assuming that we can determine an original text in this instance, what reading should we prefer?
It becomes all the more unlikely that the Greek translator arbitrarily added material to his translation when we consider that there are not similar examples of the translator adding clauses elsewhere in the book. Furthermore, the presence of the second addition (line 5) and the similarities of vocabulary in the OG between our lines 1-3 and 4-5, suggests that it is more likely that something has been omitted in the Hebrew text. Though it would be difficult to solve the differences between the MT and OG in this particular verse to everyone's satisfaction, the similarity between pa/ntej ui(oi\ qeou=all sons of God or all you Gods and pa/ntej a)/ggeloi qeou=all angels of God in the OG may offer further evidence that the MT has omitted elements through a series of textual errors rather than indicating that the OG reflects a double translation. It should also be noted that following the portion of the passage in Deut. 32:43 that we have cited above, there is another clause in the OG that is not represented in the MT, though it is represented in one witness from Qumran, 4QDeutq.
Discerning what might have been the original text of Deuteronomy 32:43 is not aided a great deal by the manuscripts of the book that have been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, one might argue that the reconstruction of Deut. 32:43 only becomes more confusing. Though there are thirty-three scrolls of Deuteronomy, of which thirty were found in the eleven caves at Qumran, only 4QDeutq preserves Deut. 32:43. The reading of 4QDeutq for 32:43 is as follows :
1 wm( {ym# wnynrh Praise, O Heavens, his people
2 {yhl) lk wl wwxt#hw and worship him every god
3 {Wqy wynb {d yk for he vindicates the blood of his children.
4 wyrcl by#y {qnw He will bring vengeance to his enemies
5 {l#y wy)n#mlw and he will repay his enemies
6 wm( tmd) rpkyw and cleanse the land of his people.
The passage in 4QDeutq is interesting because of the way that it is both similar to and different from the readings of the same verse that is preserved in the OG and MT. First, we note that like the MT it only has one clause that invokes praise to God. Second, despite the fact that there is only one clause that invokes praise, the admonition {yhl) lk wl wwxt#hw and worship him every god (or all gods/divine beings) is almost identical to OG's kai\ proskunhsa/twsan au)t%= pa/ntej ui(oi\ qeou= and let all sons of god worship him. The difference is that if we retrovert the reading of the OG back into Hebrew we would get {yhl) ynb lk wl wwxt#hw, i.e. the OG has ui(oi\ sons, which reflects the fact that OG read the typical Semitic idiom ynb {yhl) sons of god in its Vorlage. Third, the inclusion of wm( his people in our line one of 4QDeutq reflects the second invocation to praise in the OG where it is the nations who are to offer praise to God's people. Thus, the clause with its exhortation for the angels to strengthen him in the OG is not otherwise represented in the Qumran fragment. So, while 4QDeutq is similar to OG because it has and worship him every god (or all gods/divine beings), the occurrence of wm( his people is found in both the OG and the MT, but in different places. Fourth, the OG agrees with 4QDeutq (wynb his children) in its reading of ui(w=n au)tou his children against his servants in the MT. Fifth, though we did not include the whole of Deut 32:43 in our translation of the OG and MT, the clause {l#y wy)n#mlw and he will repay his enemies (line 5 above) is another omission in the MT that is represented in the OG.
The portion of Deut. 32:43 in 4QDeutq, the OG, and the MT can be compared more easily by aligning the texts.
4QDeutq MT OG
1 wm( {ym# wnynrh eu)fra/nqhte ou)ranoi/ a(/ma au)t%=
2 wl wwxt#hw kai\ proskunhsa/twsan au)t%=
3 {yhl) lk pa/ntej ui(oi\ qeou
4 OMa( {iyOg Unyin:rah eu)fra/nqhte e)/qnh meta\ tou= laou= au)tou
5 kai\ e)nisxusa/twsan au)t%=
pa/ntej a)/ggeloi qeou
6 {Wqy wynb {d yk {OQiy wyfdfbA(-{ad yiK o(/ti to\ ai(=ma tw=n ui(w=n au)tou= e)kdika=tai
4QDeutq MT OG
1 Praise, O Heavens, his people Praise, O Heavens, together with him
2 and worship him and let all sons of God
3 every god. worship him.
4 Praise, O Nations, his people Praise, O Nations, with his people
5 and let all angels of God strengthen him!
6 for he vindicates the blood of his children. for he vindicates the blood of his servants. for he vindicates
the blood of his
children.
The comparison of these three textual witnesses in this tiny portion of Scripture in Deut. 32:43 reveals that there is no clear way to characterize agreements between any two of the texts that excludes the third. Rather, both 4QDeutq and the MT exhibit an independent relationship to the OG. 4QDeutq agrees with OG in preserving the opening invocation, but the omissions of eu)fra/nqhte e)/qnh Praise, O Nations, which is preserved in the MT, and kai\ e)nisxusa/twsan au)t%= pa/ntej a)/ggeloi qeou= and let all angels of God strengthen him, means that the second invocation to praise in the OG, which is preserved in the MT, has most likely been omitted during the course of the transmission of 4QDeutq from a text that was originally longer like that preserved in the OG. This conclusion is confirmed by the presence of wm( his people in 4QDeutq in line 1, because it is preserved in the OG and MT as part of the second invocation in line 4. At the same time, the agreement between 4QDeutq and the OG in lines 1-3 confirms that this section was omitted from the MT during the course of its transmission. Therefore, both the MT and 4QDeutq witness to variant readings that have been shortened from an originally longer text of this verse, which is similar to the way it is witnessed to in the OG, but the changes that occurred during the stages when the texts were copied by scribes are independent from one another.
Given the analysis of the text of Deut. 32:43 based on the textual witnesses that we have provided above, it is interesting to compare our results with some modern English translations.
NIV NRSV TEV
Rejoice, O nations, Praise, O heavens, Nations, you must praise
with his people his people the Lord’s people
worship him, all you gods!
for he will avenge the blood for he will avenge the blood he punishes all who will kill
of his servants of his children them
There are two observations that we can make based on the English versions. First, all of them have only one invocation to praise God. The same result was found when several other translations were checked, and the tendency for all of them, excluding the NRSV, is to follow the MT. Second, the NRSV follows 4QDeutq. In other words, none of the versions follow the reading of the OG in any significant way, though the Greek does get an honorable mention of sorts. For example, a footnote in the NIV informs the reader that the Septuagint adds and let all the angels worship him. The NRSV actually has several footnotes, though the reader would never be able to piece together the differences between the texts and one is misleading. The NRSV correctly notes that the MT lacks worship him, all you gods! and that a manuscript from Qumran (4QDeutq) and the Greek (they do not specify what Greek text) have children rather than servants as in the MT. However, it also suggests that the manuscript from Qumran and the Greek read heavens against nations in the MT. This is misleading because the OG does not use heavens in collocation with the phrase with his people. These are parts of two separate clauses in the OG. This brief foray into the modern translations is the type of evidence that confirms our earlier suggestion that there is a bias against the OG because it is a translation, especially when our analysis has shown that the longer version in the OG preserves the most original text that we can reconstruct.
Other Explanations for the Citation in Heb 1:6
Thus far our analysis of the witnesses to Deuteronomy has demonstrated the pluriformity of the biblical text, at least as we have it in Deut 32:43. The shorter readings preserved in the MT and 4QDeutq appear to be related to the longer text in the OG, but their shorter readings are independent from each other. At the same time, we note that the text of Heb 1:6, which was the starting point of our investigation, does not clearly support the longer OG text in Deut 32:43 either. In OG 32:43 we read kai\ e)nisxusa/twsan au)t%= pa/ntej a)/ggeloi qeou= and let all angels of God strengthen him while Heb 1:6 has the verb proskunhsa/twsan worship, which appears in the first clause of OG Deut 32:43. How do we explain the use of the different verb on the part of the writer of Hebrews? The fact that Heb 1:6 has kai\ proskunhsa/twsan au)t%= pa/ntej a/)ggeloi qeou=and let all angels of God worship him rather than and let all angels of God strengthen him might mean that a/)ggeloiangels was present in some Greek manuscript of Deuteronomy that the writer of Hebrews used; or there was a Hebrew manuscript with the word {yk)lm angels; or did the author of Hebrews know of a text of Deut 32:43 which was similar to the reading that it is preserved in the OG and just creatively combined parts of the separate clauses together to make his point; or is the citation a result of some other process?
Prior to the discovery of the DSS, a different line of approach was to suggest that the quotation actually represents a conflation of a couple of different passages. We have already seen that the combination of passages does happen in the NT writings elsewhere. It is possible that this happened in Heb 1:6 because the text of LXX Psa 96(97):7 reads proskunhsa/te au)t%= pa/ntej oi( a/)ggeloi au)tou= Worship him all his angels. Therefore, it could be argued that the Scripture cited by the writer of Hebrews is a combination of Psa 96:7 and Deut 32:43 from the Greek. The attraction of this suggestion is that it does combine an imperative form of the verb worship (though in the third person rather than the second) with angels.
Though LXX Psa 96(97):7 may have played a role in shaping Heb 1:6, it seems unnecessary to posit its use when all of the elements for the quotation are present in OG Deut 32:43. Why should we presume the combination of two separate texts when we only require the use of one? Beginning in v. 4 of chapter one the writer of Hebrews contrasts the Son, meaning Christ, and the angels, by emphasizing the superiority of the Son through a series of citations from Scripture. The quotation from Deut 32:43 underscores the subordinate position of the angels in comparison to the Son because the angels worship him. Given the theological purposes of the writer in the context it would be reasonable to conclude that the author was aware of a manuscript of Deut 32:43 similar or identical to the longer form of the OG and combined the two similar clauses to produce the one that we have in Heb 1:6. In fact, the parallelism of the two phrases all gods or all sons of God and all angels of God invites the substitution, particularly since there is support among the Greek translators for making an identification of angels with the sons of God (see MT Job 1:6; 2:1; Psa 8:6(5)).
Finally, the other possible answer to the question of the source for the citation in Heb 1:6 is that it represents a direct quotation from a different Vorlage similar to OG Deut 32:43.
To this point the evidence that we have discussed would at best indicate that an alternative Vorlage is only another possible explanation for the citation. Nonetheless, it is important that we acknowledge the possibility as a matter of principle. The fact is that there is conclusive evidence that Heb 1:6 is, indeed, a citation of an alternative source, but there are other cases in the NT where we do not have such evidence. The principle to be learned is that the fact that a citation in the New Testament does not agree with one of our known witnesses to the text of the OT/HB does not necessarily mean that the biblical text did not exist. In other words, the NT citations should be evaluated as witnesses to alternative biblical texts where their readings differ from the known witnesses. The evidence from the DSS confirms this methodological principle because of the instances where a citation in the NT can be shown to be based on a text like that preserved at Qumran. For example, the citation in I Pet 1:24-25, which is shorter than the text found in the MT Isa 40:6-8, parallels the text of Isa 40:6-7 in the OG and IQIsaa. Such examples are to be expected given the diversity of the biblical texts during the period of the early church. In the case of the citation in Heb 1:6, which has already proven to be an excellent illustration of the diversity within the biblical texts, there is additional evidence in Odes 2:43 that confirms the citation is based on a biblical text like OG 32:43. The text of Odes 2:43 agrees almost verbatim with Heb 1:6: kai\ proskunhsa/twsan au)t%= pa/ntej (oi() a)/ggeloi qeou= and let all (the) angels of God worship him.
Odes 2:43 OG Deut 32:43
eu)fra/nqhte ou)ranoi/ a(/ma au)t%= eu)fra/nqhte ou)ranoi/ a(/ma au)t%=
kai\ proskunhsa/twsan au)t%= kai\ proskunhsa/twsan au)t%=
pa/ntej oi( a)/ggeloi qeou= pa/ntej ui(oi\ qeou=
eu)fra/nqhte e)/qnh meta\ tou= laou= au)tou= eu)fra/nqhte e)/qnh meta\ tou= laou= au)tou=
kai\ e)nisxusa/twsan au)t%= kai\ e)nisxusa/twsan au)t%=
pa/ntej ui(oi\ qeou= pa/ntej a)/ggeloi qeou=
o(/ti to\ ai(=ma tw=n ui(w=n au)tou= o(/ti to\ ai(=ma tw=n ui(w=n au)tou=
e)kdika=tai e)kdika=tai
Odes 2:43 OG Deut 32:43
Praise, O Heavens, together with him. Praise, O Heavens, together with him.
and let all the angels of God and let all sons of God
worship him. worship him.
Praise, O Nations, with his people, Praise, O Nations, with his people,
and let all sons of God and let all the angels of God
strengthen him. strengthen him.
for he vindicates the blood of his children. for he vindicates the blood of his children.
The major difference between Odes 2:43 and OG Deut 32:43 is that the clauses in which angels a)/ggeloi (plus the definite article the oi() and sons ui(oi\ appear are reversed. However, there are two clauses invoking praise just like the OG. Moreover, in addition to the agreement with the OG of Deut 32:43, the change in the clauses where angels and sons appear means that Odes 2:43 has an almost exact parallel to Heb 1:6: and let all (the) angels of God worship him kai\ proskunhsa/twsan au)t%= pa/ntej a)/ggeloi qeou=. Though the Odes are a later Christian work, the parallel between Odes 2:43 and OG Deut 32:43 indicates that the Odes are dependent on a source similar to the OG version. At the same time, the distinctive agreement between Odes 2:43 and Heb 1:6 in that they both read and let all (the) angels of God worship him means that their readings are directly related. Either Heb 1:6 is dependent upon the same tradition of OG Deut 32:43 as the Odes, i.e. they are independent witnesses to a slightly different text, or Odes 2:43 borrowed from Heb 1:6.
Based on the evidence that we have it is impossible to determine the exact nature of the relationship between Heb 1:6 and Odes 2:43; however, their testimony to the Biblical text and the Scriptures is vital to our discussion. In the first place, like the MT and 4QDeutq, they both provide further evidence to confirm that there was an earlier longer text of Deut 32:43 with two clauses invoking praise to God, which should be reflected in a modern translation of Deuteronomy. This is not surprising given the fact that the majority of NT citations exhibit dependence on sources that are known in our Greek witnesses rather than in Hebrew. Second, regardless of which reading was earlier or more original, all of the texts were respected and read as sacred Scripture. The understanding of what was regarded as Scripture at that time was quite broad and was definitely not confined to a definite fixed form. Otherwise, the different texts would not have been copied and preserved. Third, NT citations should be evaluated for the evidence that they provide for the texts of the Scriptures. Fourth, since Heb 1:6 is not dependent upon Odes 2:43, then together they witness to a slightly different text of Deut 32:43 than we have in the OG. The results of this analysis and the comparison of the biblical texts that were present in the first century indicates that there was a broader notion of what books were regarded as Scripture in the early church. For example, the Greek codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, which originate from the fourth and fifth centuries include a number of books like Judith, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon and others that eventually were excluded from the Hebrew canon.
To conclude our discussion of this complex passage, the net result is that the passages in Odes 2:43 and Heb 1:6 are both related to the longer reading preserved in the OG that is not in the MT or 4QDeutq. Thus, if we were to presume that the OG is in some way the "original" text, or at least that it represents the earliest witness to the original text that we presently have, then we can observe that the OG, 4QDeutq, MT, and Odes 2:43/Heb 1:6 represent four separate and distinct ways that the biblical text was transmitted and that they all were regarded as Scripture.
The Quest for the Biblical Text
Our examination of Heb 1:6 illustrates the point that an essential characteristic of the Scriptures of the early church was pluriformity. Not only did many books that were regarded as Scripture exist in two different languages, but the process of copying these Scriptures resulted in corruptions to the texts so that significant differences were introduced and developed within the textual tradition of a particular book. The corruption that we encountered in the texts of Deut 32:43 is an example of unintentional errors that happened under the primitive writing conditions of ancient times long before the printing press, let alone a palm pilot. However, similar levels of corruption also entered into the texts when well-intentioned scribes introduced slight changes (intentional errors) to fix what they believed to be an error in the text, whether it was grammatical or theological in nature.
In order to make our discussion of the Scriptures and biblical texts in the early church more complete we will briefly consider the two other major reasons why the texts exhibited significant differences when read by first century Christians: multiple literary editions and revisions. According to E. Ulrich, multiple literary editions may be defined as, “a literary unit . . . . appearing in two or more parallel forms . . . which one author, major redactor, or major editor completed and which a subsequent redactor or editor intentionally changed to a sufficient extent that the resultant form should be called a revised edition of that text.” For example, most readers are aware of the significant differences in content between the versions of books such as Jeremiah, Job, Exodus, Samuel, Joshua, Daniel, and Proverbs in the LXX as compared to the MT. There is good evidence that most of these differences in content in the Greek versions of these books is based in an alternative Hebrew Vorlage from which the book was translated, but in some cases we have definite textual evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
How did such variant literary editions of some of the Scriptures come to be created and circulate among the Jews and then the Christians? Based on the differences between the MT, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX and some of the findings from the Dead Sea Scrolls Frank Cross proposed a theory of local texts, which suggested that the Scriptures developed independently among the communities in Jerusalem, Babylonia, and Egypt. The value of this theory was that it recognized the major centers of Judaism and that the transmission of the Scriptures was an organic process within those communities. For example, the Samaritan Pentateuch reads that the Israelites are to set up the stones on Mount Gerizim in Deut 27:4 rather than on Mount Ebal as it has in the MT, because it reflects their center for worship. However, multiple literary editions did not depend on separate development in those centers. The differences of content between the Hebrew (and Aramaic for Daniel) and Greek versions of books like Jeremiah and Daniel seem to be rooted in originally separate semitic literary editions of those books and it just happens that one of those editions was preserved in the Greek. The shorter Greek version of Jeremiah was based on an earlier Vorlage than that witnessed to by the MT, whereas it is possible that the OG and MT versions of Daniel both represent secondary redactions of an alternative text.
The organic development within the book of Daniel reflects the type of inner-scriptural exegesis that was part of the Jewish tradition. For example, on a large scale Deuteronomy is a reinterpretation of the law and Chronicles represents a retelling of the history of Israel, but the changes in Daniel are more similar to what might be associated with the early origins and development of the Pentateuch. That is, there was an internal process of revision and reinterpretation that was inherent in the preservation and transmission of the Scriptures. Thus, in some ways it is difficult to distinguish between a variant literary edition and the process of revising texts that was a natural part of the reinterpretation and reapplication of the Scriptures within Judaism. Revision and reinterpretation tends to be more evident in the Greek translations of what were regarded as the Scriptures because by virtue of being translations they were later than the originals. Although most of the recensional activity by Origen and the more shadowy figures known as Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus, and Lucien was later than the first century, their activity is not only a witness to the continuing organic development of the Scriptures, but also contributed to it.
Adding the unintentional and intentional errors that inevitably occurred while copying the Scriptures to the multiple literary editions that were available for some books and the revision and reinterpretation that happened, sometimes in two languages, within the books, resulted in a multiplicity of texts that were identified with a particular book of Scripture. This pluriformity of the texts makes the task of textual criticism very different for the OT/HB than in the NT. With the exception of the western text of Acts, which may be described as a variant literary edition, NT textual criticism can use the available texts to reconstruct what is close to an original text or what we might call the Biblical text. Presently, textual criticism can proceed in that manner for some books of the OT where the witnesses are closely related, but for others it is not possible to evaluate the witnesses on the basis that one can reconstruct the original text of those books. For books like Daniel, Jeremiah, and Samuel it may be possible to reconstruct two or more versions of the text that reflect something similar their variant literary editions, but where their texts depart in their literary editions it is not possible to compare and evaluate variant readings against one another since they are not related to the same source text. In one sense, it is questionable whether one can even refer to an original text of these books. On what basis and what criteria can one define the original text?
Conclusion
The corollary to the fact that there was no canon of Scripture for the NT writers was that there was no Biblical text either. The citation of Scripture in Heb 1:6 provides an excellent illustration of the pluriformity of the Scriptures that were available to the NT writers and some of the differences that developed within the texts in the course of their transmission. Recognizing the types of variant readings that could occur in the normal activity of copying a text through unintentional or intentional errors introduced by scribes, coupled with the creative process of reinterpretation and revision that included the production of multiple literary editions, at least for some books, explains the pluriformity. In brief, we might say that the organic way in which the Scriptures were written, translated, reinterpreted and copied within Judaism and its major centers meant that the texts of the Scriptures for the writers of the NT were characterized by pluriformity. This pluriformity presents challenges for textual criticism and the quest to establish the Biblical Text, and entails for us, like the early church, that we struggle with the ambiguity and tension of heeding and applying the Scriptures.
