Why Not a Theology of the Septuagint? n Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer. Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
In Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer, 2008
Why Not a Theology of the Septuagint?
Why not a theology of the Septuagint? There is no better forum to raise such a question than a conference for Septuagint scholars, and it seems to me that that there is no better time. As indicated by the growing frequency of and increasing attendance at meetings devoted to the Septuagint, and the surge of introductions to the Septuagint in recent years, the field is enjoying increasing popularity. In crass commercial terms, there is some market for the Septuagint right now, so it seems to me that it is a good time for authors to approach editors and publishers to secure a contract. No doubt there is room for differences in approach, but the methodologies of the authors will be important criteria by which their results are judged. In the face of the inevitable differences of opinion about the scope and nature of such an endeavor, my intention is to set forth the fundamental principles by which one might write a theology of the Septuagint. Given that other scholars have recently written on the subject and the approach advocated here will differ markedly in various aspects, this paper will first set forth the three basic points that distinguish it from other perspectives as well as introduce one fundamental presupposition. The remainder of the paper will clarify what it is we mean by theology and, thus, the fundamental principles for writing a theology of the Septuagint.
The three basic points that are expressed in this paper are:
1. A theology of—or more accurately, a theology in—the Septuagint, is not limited to the Old Greek (OG) text.
2. Theology of/in the Septuagint is not limited to the differences one may isolate between the Greek texts and the presumed Semitic source texts.
3. Theology of/in the Septuagint may be examined and described with the same legitimacy and using the same basic principles as a theology of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible or New Testament.
Therefore, the following remarks will be specifically applicable to those engaging in Christian theology.
More importantly, even though it may be seen to be in direct conflict with a presupposition underlying much of the research in Septuagint studies, this essay is based on a fundamental presupposition: theology of/in the Septuagint is not limited to or controlled by the intentions of the translator.
The corollary to this view, and the more fundamental presupposition to which it points, is that theology as a discipline is not constrained by authorial intention. I do not raise this distinction to question or undermine the methods and goals of studies in translation technique; but rather, to raise the question as to whether the focus on the author’s and or translator’s intention has the same role to play in questions of theology. Since this subject is complex, it is necessary to make several qualifications throughout this discussion. First is this: in this writer’s opinion, it is entirely feasible to engage in examining theology in the Septuagint based on the perceived differences between the Greek translated texts and the assumed Semitic source texts as suggested by Rösel . However, such an analysis is too limited in scope and does not engage in more traditional theological dialogue.
Although Rösel does not make this assertion, one of the reasons for confining the analysis of the theology of the Septuagint to the differences between the translations and the source texts given me by scholars is that there would be little else of value to discover. It takes little thought to realize why such an assumption is ludicrous, but apparently it needs to be answered. First, the assertion itself presupposes the Hebrew text as determinative for theology. Other than a confessional bias that marginalizes the Greek texts in the same way that some textual critics give priority to the Hebrew (or more particularly the MT), what is the basis for such a view? The Greek Jewish scriptures were the scriptures read and used by a significant percentage of Jews living at the beginning of the Common Era and they were the scriptures that were adopted and read by the majority of the early church (not to mention the fact that they constitute the canon for the Greek Orthodox Church!). Given the fact that the writers of the New Testament were primarily employing the scriptures in the Greek, the burden of proof for a historical argument is on scholars to argue why the Hebrew scriptures should be used for Christian theology! Second, even if the Hebrew scriptures deserved such fidelity by scholars, the places where the Greek translation are more closely aligned to their Semitic source does not lead to the conclusion that the translators were mere robots mechanically reproducing their source text. Ecclesiastes is one of the most formally equivalent translations of the Greek Jewish scriptures, but James Aitken has demonstrated that the translator employed numerous rhetorical features even as he maintained formal equivalence. These texts were read and used by the vast majority of people in the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition without any reference to the Hebrew. Third, what about the Greek Jewish Scriptures that are not translations? These latter two points receive further elaboration below, but suffice it to say that a/the theology of the Septuagint is not limited to differences between the translations and their sources.
Regardless of our respective positions, one of the issues that needs to be resolved in discussing a theology of the Septuagint is what it is that we mean by theology. In order to this it will also be helpful to distinguish between engaging in theology as an activity or discipline, and what we mean more generally by the term “theology”.
Defining Theology
In its simplist terms, theology is concerned with understanding who God is and the relationship of the Divinity to humanity and creation. Thus, we can acknowledge that everyone has a ‘theology’; that is, each cognate individual has some understanding or belief about who God is and the way God does or does not operate within this world that we experience. For example, in North America it is quite common for people to comment on a tragedy by saying, “It was meant to be.” This explicit statement reflects an implicit theological understanding about the way the divinity operates in the world (God determines it or it may be that the person is fatalistic).
However, the fact that individuals have a theology is not the same as affirming that each person engages in theology (or “explicit theological thinking”). As James Barr has rightly stated, “Religious opinions, expressions, and aspirations however strongly expressed, are not thereby theology. Theology is a reflective activity in which the content of religious expressions is to some extent abstracted, contemplated, subjected to reflection and discussion, and deliberately reformulated.” Thus, to engage in the task of theological reflection presupposes that the texts themselves, whether original compositions or translations, function as distinct documents that are sources for theological reflection. The theological views developed in this paper are based on this presupposition. The contents of the historical documents (including the Scriptures and any related so-called pseudepigraphical literature) are sources for theology rather than primarily theological documents. It is helpful to keep the Wesleyan quadrilateral in mind when thinking about or examining theology, because each person’s theology is a combination of, and is informed by, the person’s scriptures, reason, experiences, and religious tradition. The scriptures, then, along with our reason, experiences, and religious tradition are sources that contribute to the way we interpret the text when we engage in thinking theologically.
Theology and the Creation and Transmission of the Scriptures
Theology, then, is integral to every step in the process of the creation and transmission of the scriptures. Regardless of the language in which a scripture was originally written and no matter the content of the text or whether there are some explicit theological statements in the text, the original composition expresses implicit theological understandings about God. A good example for exploring the role of theology in the creation and transmission of the scriptures is the book of Jonah. The plot of the story revolves around the initial refusal of the prophet to go to Ninevah to prophesy (1:2−3). After his adventure at sea he proceeds to Ninevah (3:3−4), but is upset and sulks after the city repents and God decides not to destroy them (4:2−5). Given the fact that God responds to their repentance by showing mercy and chastises Jonah for his attitude (4:9−11), most scholars understand that one of the main theological purposes of the book is to offer a polemic against a judgmental Jewish community who believed that God’s favor was reserved solely for the people of Israel.
This understanding of the role of texts as sources for theological thinking is important when applied to examining the use and transmission of the texts and versions within the Judeo-Christian tradition, because the texts functioned as authoritative scriptures for the communities that read and copied them. Just as the original Semitic text was composed by a writer with implicit theological understandings about God, the scribes who later read and copied these writings, or produced their own works also had theological views. So, for example, whether we examine a text like Jubilees, which is a rewriting of the Pentateuch, or the pesharim produced by the Dead Sea sect, the texts were used within the Jewish (and later Christian) tradition as sources for ongoing theological expression. The same is true for the Greek Jewish scriptures. Regardless of the translational features we analyze—stereotyped equivalents, transcriptions, alliteration, contextual renderings, etc.—the choices of the translators emerged from a theology that had been informed by their religious and cultural context. Thus, the original translation not only offered a “snapshot” of its Hebrew source in terms of the formal written text, it also did so in terms of the understanding of the text. As noted in the introduction to NETS, “If translating is an act of interpretation, as linguists suggest it is, rather than a simple transfer of meaning, a Greek interpretation of a Hebrew original can be expected to reflect what the translator understood the Hebrew text to mean.” This statement is correct in so far as it goes, but we need to add that this theological process is never limited to an individual. Each scribe who translated, copied, or composed another text did so in a historical context as a member of the Jewish (and later Christian) faith community. For example, when the author of the Habakkuk pesher interprets the scripture, he does so convinced that the words of 2:8 concerned the wicked priest who was the enemy of the teacher of Righteousness ((1QpHab IX, 9-10). The same phenomenon occurs in the early (and in the contemporary) church when the Hebrew scriptures are understood to apply to Christ. What we refer to as “Inter-textuality” is nothing more than the dynamic reading and reinterpretation of the scriptures within the historical context of the Jewish community.
The fact that each individual who contributed to the scriptural tradition did so within the Jewish historical and religious context means that it is no easy task to distinguish between the production and the reception of the texts as argued by Pietersma, at least at the time when a text was created. The theological views of the writer of a text had been largely shaped within their community, and what they composed was intended for a community. However, affirming the importance of the community and its context did not result in homogeneity of thought. For example, 2 Maccabbees 7 affirms the belief in the afterlife whereas Ecclesiasticus 17:27-32 specifically rejects the notion. There was significant theological diversity within the ancient Jewish communities just as there is today within Protestant denominations, or even within a particular church group or synagogue.
Theology and the Translation of the Scriptures into Greek
I assume, because it has not been clearly articulated, that when scholars speak of writing a/the theology of the Septuagint, they mean the attempt to work within the traditional methods of historical criticism to provide a historical description of the beliefs and ideas implied by the texts. Furthermore, in the view of Cook, this analysis should be based on the original translation. Granted, there is an apparent logic to the approach that focuses on analyzing the theology of the original translation, because it focuses on one point in time—the production of the text. The initial translation is viewed as the only firm point of reference to something more objectively knowable compared to its transmission history and reception. However, there are three significant presuppositions to this approach that are open to debate: a) we have reasonable access to the original translations and the sources from which they were made; b) the original translation should be the primary focus of our analysis; and c) we can actually provide an objective historical description of the theology of the text.
It is true that it is possible to more accurately discern why a translator made particular choices when we have reasonable access to the source text for the translation, but the problem for many books (e.g. Job, Jeremiah, Isaiah) is that we do not have anything close to the original translation. Moreover, we really do not have nearly enough textual evidence to determine the degree to which the dominant text forms have been assimilated toward one another. Even if we had better textual evidence, however, the notion that an analysis of theology in the Septuagint should be based on the OG is dubious. No doubt, examining the differences between the OG and the Hebrew is an excellent place to examine theological differences, but why limit an analysis to the OG for a theology of the Septuagint? There are only two possible reasons to place so much emphasis on the original translation.
The first reason is because the original is deemed to have more authority than later copies or revisions. The authority of the original translation may also be linked to the fact that it is based on the Hebrew. But close inspection leaves that notion wanting. It is true that the original translation was based on the Hebrew, but making the OG the sole basis for theological investigation requires that we assume that we have reliable textual reconstructions of the source and translated texts. In addition, apart from a confessional bias that is motivated to give priority to the Semitic (particularly the Masoretic) text, it is an arbitrary decision to focus solely on the supposed intentions of the translator. As we have already noted, the theological views of the translators had been largely shaped within their community, and what they composed was intended for the community; therefore, an author centered approach is naïve when it assumes it is isolating the “intentions” of the translator. The revisions, as well as many corrections that appeared in manuscripts, were also based on Semitic sources. Furthermore, with respect to the individual manuscripts that circulated, we already understand that the historical circumstances of the readers were normally the catalysts for the kinds of differences that we find in the different literary editions and the redactional layers of the texts; therefore, each version or text is important for understanding the theological ideas. Thus, just as the transmission history of the Greek and the later versions is significant for textual criticism, the production and use of these texts reflects the theological concerns of the same communities. The comments below regarding our ability to provide an objective historical description of the theology of the text are also relevant to this issue.
The second reason for limiting the analysis of theology to the original translation is more practical. A focus on the initial composition or production of the text provides a chronological boundary for the investigation, the point when the text was translated. However, the fact that it may be more convenient to limit one’s analysis to a particular point in time does not constitute a reason to exclude an investigation of other texts. The original texts, later editions, translations, revisions, and the copies were theological expressions of and sources for theological reflection within the Judeo-Christian tradition. In that sense, the scriptures in the Jewish tradition were organic by nature.
More importantly, there are obvious questions that undermine such a narrow focus on the original translation as the basis for theological investigation for the Septuagint and bring the task of what it is to do theology into sharp relief. What about the Greek Jewish Scriptures that were original Greek compositions? Do they have no place in a theology of the Septuagint? Or, what about the portions of books that appear to be translations, but for which there are no extant sources? For example, there is no specific reference to the Deity in the Hebrew version of Esther, but the additions in the Greek version include prayers and focus on the way that God specifically intervened in historical events. Thus, the actions of the Divinity are implicit in the Hebrew but explicit in the Greek. Additions C and D provide numerous details about what happened between Esther’s request that the people fast for her (4:16) because she has to go before the king, which is against the law. In the Hebrew version she is welcomed immediately by the king (5:2). In the Greek version, however, addition C first has a prayer by Mordecai asking the Lord to vindicate the people, which is followed by a prayer by Esther. Other differences may be easily cited, but the inclusion of the additions makes a more explicit connection between the activity of the Divinity in human affairs as a result of devotion by the people to prayer and the law. Presumably, this was to encourage and strengthen the Jewish readers in a time when they were threatened. These Greek texts were read and used as theological sources that helped form the beliefs and ideas about God for the Greek Jewish community without any reference to the Hebrew.
Finally, even if we had photocopies of the original autographs we would still have differing theological understandings of the text, unless the discipline of Septuagint Theology were somehow different from NT and OT Theology. The reason why we would have different theological understandings is that there were and still are different readers of the texts. Here we engage in a brief discussion of historical versus hermeneutical theology and the question whether we can actually provide an objective historical description of the theology of the text. If “Theology is a reflective activity in which the content of religious expressions is to some extent abstracted, contemplated, subjected to reflection and discussion, and deliberately reformulated”, and each interpreter brings an implicit theology to the text, then it necessarily follows that different interpreters will find different theological ideas expressed in the same text. Whether it is in the topics that one selects to examine or the implicit ideas that one brings to light, theology is inherently a reader, as opposed to author, centered discipline.
Writing a Theology of the Septuagint
Based on the composition, transmission, and use of the Greek Jewish Scriptures in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the argument of this paper is that a theology of/in the Septuagint may be examined and described with the same legitimacy and using the same basic principles as a theology of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible or New Testament. Just as there are statements and imagery about God in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, there are such statements in the Greek Jewish Scriptures. There are various documents written by different writers in the Hebrew Bible and various documents translated and written by different individuals in the Greek Jewish Scriptures. In fact, as I have argued, a theology of the Septuagint has much greater claim to be written than a theology of the Hebrew Bible, at least a Christian theology, because the Greek Jewish Scriptures were the Scriptures that were primarily read by the early church for the first four centuries of its existence. If the early church was reading its scriptures in Greek, does it not stand to reason that the scriptures they read and heard from Greek manuscripts, which were from various traditions of the Jewish Scriptures, were the primary source for the role that scripture played in whatever theology they formed? The Hebrew Scriptures could not have been the basis of theology for the vast majority in the early church because they had no access to them. The primary, and in most cases the only scriptures that they read, which were their source for understanding ideas about God and the relationship of the divine to humanity and creation, were in Greek. For any scholar to ignore the weight of the historical evidence and try and claim that in some way the early church was primarily dependent on the Hebrew scriptures, rather than the Greek, borders on the ridiculous.
Thus, whether or not there is a difference between the Hebrew and Greek in meaning at points is irrelevant when it comes to the question of understanding the importance of the Greek Jewish scriptures as sources for theology. The Greek scriptures were read and used by the vast majority within the Judeo-Christian tradition as their sources that helped shape their theology. As an example, let us return to the book of Jonah. As previously mentioned, one of the main theological purposes of Jonah is to critique the exclusiveness of the Jewish community. For the most part, the Greek translation of the book reflects what we refer to as formal equivalence, but the act of translation also introduces subtle nuances. Thus, in chapter two when Jonah is swallowed by the sea monster, he is said to pray “from the belly of Hades” in 2:3(2). In this instance, Hades (ᾅδης) is a translation of the Hebrew Sheol (), but the fact that it is a stereotyped equivalent does not make the choice insignificant. Even though ᾅδης was employed almost exclusively for , that does not lead to the conclusion that the translator was a robot who automatically chose the stereotyped equivalent without thinking about the resulting meaning that was implied by the Greek. On the contrary, we cannot know what was in the mind of the translator at all. While Sheol referred to the abode of the dead (Pss 6:5; 87(88):10-12; Job 26:6), in the Hebrew Bible there generally was no sense of consciousness after death. The term Hades had its own associations in Greek mythology with the god of the underworld as well as the realm of the dead, but there was consciousness in Hades. Thus, there is a difference in meaning when one reads the Greek version of Jonah compared to the Hebrew.
The difference between the Hebrew and Greek versions of Jonah is relevant when we consider the impact that the Greek Jewish Scriptures had as sources for theology for the early followers of Jesus. Based on the special material in the gospel of Matthew that makes explicit reference to Jonah, it is clear that the writer is familiar with the book and that it has influenced his thinking in various ways. For example, in 12:40 Matthew includes a citation from the Greek version of Jonah 2:1 that “Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights”, and this citation is part of a larger addition that reinterprets the sign of Jonah as we have it in Luke and applies the sign of Jonah to Jesus as the Son of Man. By declaring “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth”, the writer of Matthew is implying something about the state of being of the son of man for three days. As I have argued elsewhere, Matthew’s statements about the son of man being in the heart of the earth (12:40) and the claim that the church would not be contained by the gates of Hades (16:18) reflect an implicit theology of resurrection. This theology is explicitly worked out in another passage unique to Matthew. In 27:52b-53, after the death of Jesus, Matthew states, “and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many”. Matthew has a theology of resurrection that is linked to his use of the Greek version of the book of Jonah.
The idea of “a theology” normally suggests a structured and comprehensive description, but the reality is that no theology for such a large corpus of books can be comprehensive. It is inevitable that any theology is going to be selective and somewhat arbitrary in its choice of content. So, one might choose to provide a theological overview of the different books of the Septuagint or one could organize it on the basis of themes along the lines suggested by Rösel. Rösel suggests exploring topics like cult and worship vocabulary; messianism; designations for and imagery of God; God and foreign gods; Israel and the nations; humanity and its fate; and the law and ethics. While these subjects are all worthy of attention, I am positive that Rösel would agree that we could expand this list. In addition to examining what, if any, ideas there are about a Messiah in the Greek Jewish Scriptures, a chapter devoted to eschatological concerns could highlight some emerging notions about resurrection and the after-life (e.g. 2 Maccabees; Wis 5:15). Likewise, there are many ideas about spiritual beings such as demons and angels that deserve significant treatment (see Tobit for example). There is plenty of diversity in theological expression in the Greek Jewish Scriptures as well. Thus, in contrast to books like Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees that affirm the belief in life after death and the focus on angels and demons in a book like Tobit, Ecclesiasticus is closer to beliefs found in the Hebrew Scriptures. There are no references to angels and demons, and it specifically rejects the notion of life after death with the comment that “human beings are not immortal” (17:30). These books are all included within the Greek Jewish Scriptures and originated from the same period, but clearly they represent conflicting views within the Jewish community.
Regardless of the way one chooses to organize the contents of such a volume, as Barr noted, a theology is grounded in historical criticism because it is a description of “theology as it existed or was thought or believed within the time, language, and cultures of the Bible itself.” In that sense, we are describing a biblical theology of the Septuagint. Such a theology will no doubt suffer from the bias of the author when the theology in the Greek Jewish Scriptures is described, but that is the case in every theology. One could choose to limit the analysis to the original texts, including both the translations and non-translations, but, as I have argued, that is an arbitrary limitation. The original translations reflect a “snapshot” of the theology of an individual who represented a communal understanding of the text in one particular period in the same way that the manuscripts and later revisions/editions mirrored the theology and became sources for theology for their users.
There is yet another reason why a theology of the Septuagint makes sense for the Christian church. The documents that emerged from the early church in the first couple of centuries can provide leverage for examining whether the theological ideas (that the scholar believes are) expressed in the Greek Jewish scriptures exhibited any influence in those writings. Scholars may assume that the best way to determine the influence of the theology of the Greek Jewish Scriptures on the New Testament writings is on the basis of citations and allusions, but that is not quite accurate. Citations and allusions of the Scriptures are normally done to affirm a particular view of the writer. Therefore, examining the use of citations and allusions may be helpful, but “as it is written in the Scriptures”, is a confirmation of an idea that is already being expressed and a proof text is not the only source for an idea. As we have stressed, the texts as complete texts were the scriptural sources that became a source for theological reflection, along with the ancient readers’ experiences, reason, and tradition.
The aim of this paper has been to provide the foundation for writing a theology of the Septuagint based on the same principles and methodology as Old and New Testament scholars. Not only would such a theology make sense within the wider scholarly guild, it would also be less technical and more accessible to a wider audience. This would be helpful for both the Jewish and Christian faith communities for understanding the ideas about God, humanity, and creation that would have existed just before and at the beginning of the Common Era. One would think that such a theology would be especially welcomed by the Church because the Greek Jewish Scriptures were the scriptures that were read by the authors of the New Testament. Such a theology would provide Septuagint scholars the opportunity to describe the kind of beliefs about God, humanity, and whatever messianic ideas may have existed at that time.
