Why should we care about the Original Text?
In Scripture in Translation: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, 2008.
WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT THE ORIGINAL TEXT?
R. Timothy McLay, In Scripture in Translation: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. Brill, 2008.
Two words sprang immediately to mind when I received the invitation to contribute to this festschrift for Professor Sollamo: Translation Technique (TT). As an active participant in Septuagint matters I have admired and learned from Professor Sollamo as well as from many other colleagues who have written in the area. Thus, when I was invited to contribute to a volume honoring Prof. Sollamo I thought of TT and textual criticism. I cannot speak for others but I suspect that it is as true for them as it is for me that reflection on the importance of studies in TT is inevitably linked to the discussion of Septuagint research as a whole, because the study of TT has been at the heart of the discipline. The reason for this is that so much of the research in the Septuagint is based on examining its textual relationship to the Hebrew Bible (HB). Since the majority of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (GJS) were translations from Semitic (mostly Hebrew) texts, the study of TT is essential for understanding the ways that the translators went about rendering their texts into the Greek language. Research into TT helps to establish the critical text of the Original Greek (OG), and, consequently, in the reconstruction of a critical text for the HB. In fact, whether it is the concern to establish critical texts for the OG or it is the use of the Greek texts for textual criticism of the HB, it would be reasonable to say that text-critical concerns dominate the field.
Even though I have been very much a part of the scholarly pursuit to reconstruct the original text, in this article I intend to address more specifically some of the methodological problems of the focus on the use of the GJS for textual criticism of the HB as well as challenge the focus on the reconstruction of the original text for the GJS. The reason why I raise these questions is to highlight the need for other avenues of research in the Septuagint because there is no doubt that the quest for the original text will continue. I voice these concerns with some hesitation, because I risk the danger of being misunderstood. Therefore, I want to make it clear from the outset that my aim is not to criticize the efforts of Septuagint scholars past or present. I have written and, hopefully, will continue to publish works that represent the mainstream of Septuagint scholarship and the focus on textual criticism. However, there are a variety of questions and issues that deserve a hearing and the best place to do so is within the ranks of those who are leaders in the field.
Although there has been an increase in the range of studies on the Greek texts, the focus on the original text should give scholars a reason for pause, because it has limited the potential contribution of scholarship in the field. At the same time, the question is worth asking: why should we care about the original text? I will deal with these subjects in reverse order in the remainder of the paper. That is, I will examine some of issues related to the use of the GJS for the reconstruction of the HB before turning my attention to the quest to reconstruct the OG.
The use of the Septuagint for textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible
Without doubt Septuagint scholarship has been driven in large part by the relationship between the GJS and the HB. The GJS were the earliest translations of the Hebrew Scriptures and, until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek texts were the earliest witnesses to the Hebrew. Therefore, the focus on the relationship between the two is understandable. In recent decades the study of translation technique has been a growth industry of sorts within Septuagint studies to aid in the comparative use of the Greek texts toward the Hebrew. Professor Sollamo, whom we honor, has made two major contributions to the field and she and her colleague Professor Aejmelaeus have continued the tradition of excellent teaching and research by the “Finnish school” established by their mentor, I. Soisalon-Soininen. The study of TT is essential for the task of textual criticism, yet it cannot exist without the assumption of the Hebrew text.
The origins of the GJS and the HB
The fact that the origins of the GJS derives from their relationship to the Hebrew Bible is, therefore, at the heart of the problems encountered by researchers for textual criticism. The Hebrew text is the major source for retroverting the Greek back into what the equivalent Hebrew (or Aramaic) might have been. Apart from the possibility of building a proverbial house of cards the scholar’s reconstruction may admittedly only be equivalent to what was in the translator’s mind rather than what was actually written on the text that was read. Some scholars who are even more skeptical might wonder whether there are not times that a reconstruction only exists in the mind of the scholar rather than the text. However, what is fundamentally more important, is that the derived relationship of the Greek to the Hebrew is often accompanied by the notion that the Greek witnesses are subordinate and inferior to the Hebrew witnesses. How can that possibly be? Apart from the remains of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), the GJS are our earliest witnesses to the Hebrew text. Otherwise, we do not have many witnesses. The primary witnesses to the Hebrew Scriptures in alphabetical order are: the Dead Sea Scrolls, GJS, the Masoretic Text(s) (MT), and the Samaritan Pentateuch. There is little basis that any of them deserves a more prominent position than any other, though that argument would be settled between the DSS and the GJS.
The subordination of the GJS to the HB
I do not think it is even a question that the GJS are regarded by many scholars as subordinate to the Hebrew, even more specifically to the Masoretic text, but in case there is any doubt I will point to some recent examples. For instance, in the introductory essay to Hengel’s volume Hanhart argues that the Palestinian canon was the standard to which the Greek translations were continuously compared and the LXX derived its canonical status solely on the basis of its relationship to the Hebrew text. Another example of the way that the GJS are subordinated to the MT is the explicit statement by Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva in their response to James Barr’s review of their introduction that, “We do believe (along with many other scholars with differing traditions) that, for most books of the Bible, the textual form preserved in the MT is generally more reliable than that found in competing witnesses” (emphasis theirs). The primacy of the Hebrew, and particularly the MT, is a reflection of a confessional bias on the part of the authors. The subordination of the GJS to the MT is embedded particularly within the North American evangelical Protestant tradition, and any scholar who presupposes the priority of the Hebrew witnesses to the Greek implicitly supports the evangelical view of the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Evangelicals, including those within our discipline, may not care for what I am saying, but personal feelings are of no consequence to the academic issue. There is no historical basis for the attempts of any scholar, evangelical or otherwise, to subordinate the GJS to any Hebrew witness. The comparison of the GJS to the Hebrew is not to reconstruct a better MT! An example of the worst case scenario of such a bias combined with little methodological rigor is the recent study on Proverbs by Gerhard Tauberschmidt. This volume exhibits little knowledge of the discipline and demonstrates a consistent bias to explain all the Greek readings as based on the MT, yet it can be read as representative of Septuagint Studies. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon Septuagint scholars that our teaching, research, and publishing should be diligent in rejecting any attempts to make the GJS a handmaid to the MT or the HB.
The use of the GJS as a subordinate tradition to the MT and the confessional use of the GJS to witness to the MT raises another philosophical question that demands our attention: even if there were a reason to treat the GJS as an inferior witness to the MT, why should we care about reconstructing the original Hebrew text? It has struck me lately that the postmodernists within religious studies might find the whole notion of textual criticism as daft. Most certainly one might wonder why one would be concerned to recover the original text. When I have posed this question to non-specialists, the main reaction against this position is that the original text is more authoritative. Is that the same reason for biblical scholars? Surely not. If the original text has no basis for being accorded a superior status other than the fact that is the earliest version or the version from the author, why should that matter? What is the philosophical basis that now drives the quest for the original text of the author? On what basis does the authority of the text derive from the author? Texts were read within communities, and the fact is that there was only one community that ever received what might be defined as the original text. Moreover, we recognize the problem that substantial portions of the community accepted and circulated widely different witnesses to some books (e.g. Job, Jeremiah, Daniel).
Particularly in dealing with textual criticism of sacred texts, it is important to ask the question why should the original have more authority? The Scriptures that each community would have deemed authoritative would have been what constituted Scripture to them, so that excludes the original text as having more authority as well. Although there is a long history of those who have attempted to reconstruct the original form of a text, tradition does not seem to me to be a very good argument to make the task so prominent in the discipline of Septuagint studies. The rise of historical criticism in biblical studies coincides with the rise of humanism since the period of the renaissance. Yet, while the rise of humanism is associated with the rise of secularism, it seems ironic to me that the best argument to restore the original text of the Hebrew is one that is firmly rooted in a confessional (more specifically the verbal plenary) view of the Scriptures. The most logical reason to focus on reconstructing the original text is one that is based on the authority of the author. The verbal plenary view of the inspiration of the Scriptures is grounded in the view of the authority of the author because the Scriptures are believed to represent the mind of God. Again, the fact that believing communities have historically never been dependent upon the original text would seem to argue against that position, but that is irrelevant to the common evangelical, doctrinal position of the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.
I raise the issue of the basis for the reconstruction of the original text because of the preoccupation with the original text for textual criticism, particularly in Septuagint studies as it relates to the HB. It is worth questioning whether or not there is a disproportionate amount of energy spent in research in one area when there are other areas of research in the discipline. I raise these questions in part because it is healthy for critical evaluation, but also to argue for more creativity and to expand the areas of research in the field. Moreover, in addition to the philosophical issues there are methodological problems when it comes to reconstructing the OG as a witness toward the original Hebrew text.
The use of the GJS for textual criticism of the HB
The relationship between the GJS and the HB means that the MT is essential for the reconstruction of the hypothetical Vorlage of the Greek. Therefore, it needs to be emphasized that much of the text-critical work is inevitably an exercise in circular textual criticism. The reality is that we do not have a reliable point of leverage for comparing the GJS, the DSS, and the MT because we just do not have enough witnesses. The circular reasoning does not mean that we should forget the whole process or take a default position that we will just use the GJS to tweak the Hebrew, but it does mean that there are limitations to what one can claim. We do the best we can, but even when one is reasonably certain about the retroversion of the Greek text as a witness to the HB, the retroverted text merely represents one witness to one stage of the Hebrew text. At one extreme, the two Isaiah scrolls, the fragments of Jeremiah, or the Greek witnesses to Daniel scream that there was a pluriformity of witnesses to the Jewish Scriptures, but even in those books where the relationship between the Greek and the Hebrew is quite close (e.g. Chronicles and Ruth) every textual variant is a witness to the fact that the translated texts of the GJS are a snapshot of one particular Semitic source text. The first century Jewish Scriptures are characterized by textual pluriformity in many texts, and usually we do not have enough witnesses to make decisions about even insignificant textual variants. In most cases it is impossible to determine whether the plus or minus of a conjunction in the Greek compared to the MT should be considered as more original. The OG of any individual book or unit or translation merely witnesses to one Hebrew manuscript.
The Greek witnesses were used within the Jewish and Christian traditions as authoritative Scriptures
The question, “Why should we care about the Original Text?” applies as much to the reconstruction of the OG as it does to the HB. As a textual critic I enjoy the challenge of trying to evaluate the evidence and reconstruct the text, but, other than the historical reason, why should so much attention be devoted toward the reconstruction of the original text. I myself have written that the reconstruction of the original text is a priority, but now I ask, why? What self-evident truth about the nature of the texts is the basis for making the quest for the original text more important than other uses of the texts? When the modern era of biblical criticism began the task of reconstructing the original text was encouraged by the discovery of contrasting witnesses and the recognition of the human involvement in the transmission of the Scriptures. But the authority of the original is wedded to a modernist assumption about the authority of the author. It seems clear that Scriptures in the first century were understood to be in some way divine (2 Tim 3:16), but there are two things one must keep in mind: 1) their understanding of “inspired” was not equivalent to the modern view of verbal plenary inspiration; 2) most communities shared a common understanding of the divine nature of the Scriptures even though we know that each community was reading different versions of any individual book of Scripture. I repeat, with regard to sacred texts, it seems to me that the self-evident truth is that the sacred texts received their authority historically from the communities in which they were read and studied as sacred Scripture. The only reason that I can think of to privilege the importance of the original over the use of the individual texts in their communities is a philosophical position based on a modernist assumption about the authority of the author. The only other reason is the traditional one: “that is the way we have always done it!” I do not know about you, but that reason is as empty in a scholarly forum as it is in a church meeting.
I raise these issues not to disparage the task of textual criticism but to question the philosophical assumptions that underpin the one area that dominates the discipline. It seems to me that the field would be enriched by Septuagint scholars and students giving more attention
to the transmission and use of the Septuagint texts. How were they used theologically? How were the GJS read and used by the later Jewish and Christian communities? Thus, the Brill project to write commentaries on the text of an extant codex seems to me to make a whole lot of sense. In fact, one would think that Septuagint scholars would be prime candidates for involvement in such a project. However, I am aware of only a few known Septuagint scholars being involved in the project, and when I was a member of the IOSCS executive I recall more than one colleague who questioned the validity of the project. The fact that few Septuagint scholars are involved in the series is due to more than one factor, but it must say something about the discipline when Septuagint scholars are not even interested in the project.
Conclusion
Given the prominence of textual criticism in the field of Septuagint Studies it is worthwhile to remember the serious methodological issues that undermine its use as a witness to the HB. The fact that the origins of the GJS are based in their derived relationship from the HB means that there is an inevitable circular relationship between the two. The circular relationship affects every stage of textual criticism. Moreover, the preeminence ascribed to the intention of the author as a motivation for textual criticism is insufficient reason to have so much authority in the field as a whole. The focus on the reconstruction of the original text has resulted in a lack of appreciation for the actual texts that are utilized to recreate it. The pursuit of the original text will continue to receive attention and is an important academic endeavor, but I hope that this brief paper will encourage wider areas of research and interest in the Septuagint.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
De Troyer, Kristin. Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible. Society of Biblical Literature Text-Critical Studies 4. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Harvey, Charles D. Finding Morality in the Diaspora? Moral Ambiguity and Transformed Morality in the Books of Esther. BZAW 328. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003.
Hengel, Martin. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its prehistory and the Problem of its Canon. Introduction by Robert Hanhart and translated by Mark E. Biddle. New York: T&T Clark, 2002.
Fox, Michael V. “Review of Gerhard Tauberschmidt, Secondary Parallelism: A Study of Translation Technique in LXX Proverbs,” Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2004).
Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. “Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism: The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint.” Textus 3 (1963): 130–62.
Jobes, K. H. and M. Silva, “Response to James Barr’s Review of Invitation to the Septuagint,” Bulletin of the International Organization
for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 35 (2002): 43–46.
McLay, R. Timothy. “Beyond Textual Criticism: The Use of the Septuagint in NT Research.” JNSL 28 (2002):72–88.
Schenker, A., ed. The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Schutt, R. J. H. “Letter of Aristeas.” Pages 7–34 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City: Doubleday, 1985.
Sollamo, Raija. Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint. AASF, DHL, 19; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979.
________. Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1995.
Tauberschmidt, Gerhard. Secondary Parallelism: A Study of Translation Technique in LXX Proverbs. Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblical 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.
Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem: Simor, 1981.
Ulrich, Eugene. “The Notion and Definition of Canon.” Pages 3–35 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002.
