The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae 9780192898098, 0192898094

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 5/8/2021, SPi

The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae GILLES DORIVAL with the assistance of Daniel J. Crowther

1

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Gilles Dorival 2021 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2021 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2021933683 ISBN 978–0–19–289809–8 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898098.001.0001 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

Preface In December 2015, Alison Salvesen, as chairman of the Board of Electors for the Grinfield Lectureship, extended to me a formal invitation to the Grinfield Lectureship for the years 2017 and 2018. She proposed that I addressed the topic of the reception of the Septuagint in Christian tradition in general and in the catenae in particular; and she suggested that I conceive of these lectures as a part of a larger project of research that would lead to a monograph. So, in February and March 2017, I gave three lectures on the following issues: ‘Is the Septuagint the Old Testament of the New Testament?’, ‘Was There a Christianization of the Text of the Septuagint?’, and ‘The Septuagint in the Biblical Catenae’. A further three lectures were supposed to be given in February 2018, but, one week before the first session, my wife became seriously ill and so I could not leave Marseille. Instead, I gave a lecture on the subject ‘Spiritual and Theological Use of the Septuagint Vocabulary by the Church Fathers’ by Skype. The other two lectures: ‘Is the LXX the Old Testament of the Church Fathers?’ and ‘How Do the Catenae Deal with the LXX?’ were then written for publication only. Some months after, I proposed to Alison Salvesen that I was ready to gather the six lectures into a book on ‘The Reception of the LXX: From the New Testament to the Biblical Catenae’. She took the advice of Jan Joosten, then Regius Professor of Hebrew at Christ Church and they suggested that I add some pages on the biblical canon, a topic which I had touched upon several times and I agreed to this suggestion. As a result, the title of the monograph had to be changed, since much of the process of the formation of the canon of the Scriptures took place before the emergence of Christianity. As the LXX is particularly connected with Alexandria; the New Testament and the Church Fathers, with all the Mediterranean Basin; and the catenae, with Constantinople, the new title

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

vi



tries to take into account all this data: The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae. The present book is divided into four parts. Part I is entitled ‘Before Christianity: The Septuagint and the Biblical Canon’ and is made of two chapters: a lengthy one devoted to ‘The Formation of the Jewish Canon’ and a rather short one which examines the topic ‘The Septuagint and the Issue of the Canon’—a subject infrequently treated in the numerous recent books on the canon. Part II is entitled ‘The New Testament and the Scribes (Copyists) of the Septuagint’ and offers two chapters. The first one tries to answer the question: ‘Is the Septuagint the Old Testament of the New Testament?’ The answer is positive, but it is qualified. The following chapter touches on the topic: ‘Was the Text of the Septuagint Christianized?’ Here, the answer is more cautiously positive since that Christianization is quite limited. This chapter deals with papyri and manuscripts which are later than the New Testament time and contemporaneous with the Church Fathers. Part III is entitled ‘The Church Fathers’. Its first chapter asks, ‘Is the Septuagint the Old Testament of the Church Fathers?’ Again, the answer is positive: but that does not mean that the Church Fathers are not aware of the Hebrew Bible. The next chapter, ‘The Vocabulary of the Septuagint and the Church Fathers’, explains that the Septuagint played a much more important role in those fields than is often recognized. The final section, Part IV, is entitled ‘The Biblical Catenae’. As they are relatively unknown, even amongst learned scholars, the first chapter draws ‘An Overview of the Catenae’. The final chapter of this book, ‘The Catenae and the Septuagint’ considers how the catenae witness to the text of the Septuagint. All in all, there are four parts: each of a similar length, each of two chapters. So, there are eight chapters with a conclusion, bibliography, and three indices: an index of biblical quotations, an index of ancient authors and sources; and an index of modern authors. In closing, I would like to thank all those who helped me to improve the present book. First, the listeners to the lectures, whose remarks and questions were very useful, and especially Sebastian Brock, Martin Goodman, Marc Lauxtermann, Anne McCabe, Georgi Parpulov.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



vii

Second, Jan Joosten and Alison Salvesen, who reviewed the lectures before they were given. I also thank Reinhart Ceulemans, whom I consulted on some difficult points about the catenae, and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, who revised my pages and suggested many improvements as well as Susan Frampton (Oxford University Press) for her professionalism and attention in the finalization of the manuscript. Finally, I would like to thank Daniel J. Crowther for helping Alison Salvesen in the editing of this manuscript prior to its presentation to Oxford University Press. Thanks to the internet, we worked together in order to improve the whole book and the English style. I am more grateful to him than I can say.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

Contents List of Figures Abbreviations

xi xiii

I BE F O R E CH R I S T I A N I T Y : T H E S E P T U A G I N T A N D TH E B I B L I C A L C AN O N 1. The Formation of the Jewish Canon 2. The Septuagint and the Issue of the Canon

3 34

I I T H E NE W T E S T A M E N T AN D T HE S C R I B E S (COPYISTS) OF THE SEPTUAGINT 3. Is the Septuagint the Old Testament of the New Testament?

51

4. Was the Text of the Septuagint Christianized?

69

I I I T H E CH U R C H F A T H E R S 5. Is the Septuagint the Old Testament of the Church Fathers? 6. The Vocabulary of the Septuagint and the Church Fathers

95 117

I V THE B IB L IC AL CA TE NAE 7. An Overview of the Catenae

135

8. The Catenae and the Septuagint

155

Conclusions Bibliography Index of Biblical Quotations Index of Ancient Authors and Sources Index of Modern Authors

171 189 207 213 216

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 11/8/2021, SPi

List of Figures 1. UB Basel AN III.13 (Basilensis Univ. Libr. 1), Genesis and Exodus with catena, fol. 40v–41r.

157

2. The horizontal lines of the marginal layout. Illustration reproduced with permission from Gilles Dorival, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes, Leuven, Peeters, 1986, Volume 1, p. 71.

159

3. Layouts in Codex Zacynthius. Illustration reproduced with permission from Gilles Dorival, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes, Leuven, Peeters, 1986, Volume 1, p. 79.

160

4. Codex Paris gr. 139 (Parisinus graecus 139), fol. 9v. With the kind permission of Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

161

5. The ruling lines of the layout of Codex Paris gr. 139 (Parisinus graecus 139). Illustration reproduced with permission from Gilles Dorival, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes, Leuven, Peeters, 1986, Volume 1, p. 72.

162

6. The ruling lines of the layout of Codex Vatican gr. 754 (Vaticanus graecus 754). Illustration reproduced with permission from Gilles Dorival, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes, Leuven, Peeters, 1986, Volume 2, p. 240.

168

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

Abbreviations Greek Old Testament (According to Rahlfs’ order) Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Jes Judg Ruth 1 Reigns 2 Reigns 3 Reigns 4 Reigns 1 Par 2 Par 1 Esd 2 Esd Est Jdt Tob 1 Macc 2 Macc 3 Macc 4 Macc Psa Odes Prov Eccl Song Job Wis Sir

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Jesus (= Joshua MT) Judges Ruth 1 Reigns (= 1 Samuel MT) 2 Reigns (= 2 Samuel MT) 3 Reigns (= 1 Kings MT) 4 Reigns (= 2 Kings MT) 1 Paraleipomena (= 1 Chronicles) 2 Paraleipomena (= 2 Chronicles) 1 Esdras (deuterocanonical book, = 3 Ezra Vulgate) 2 Esdras (= Ezra-Nehemiah MT, = 1 Ezra + 2 Ezra Vulgate) Esther Judith Tobit 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees Psalms Odes Proverbs Ecclesiastes (= Qohelet MT) Song of Songs Job Wisdom of Solomon Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach (= Ecclesiasticus or Ben Sira)

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

xiv  PsSol Oses Amos Mich Joel Abd Ionas Naoum Amb Soph Agg Zach Mal Isa Jer Bar Lam EpJer Ezek Sus Dan Bel

Psalms of Solomon Oses (= Hosea MT) Amos Michaias (= Micah MT) Joel Abdiou (= Obadiah MT) Ionas (= Jonah MT) Naoum (= Nahum MT) Ambakoum (= Habakkuk MT) Sophonias (= Zephaniah MT) Aggaios (= Haggai MT) Zacharias (= Zechariah MT) Malachias (= Malachi MT) Esaias (= Isaiah MT) Jeremias (= Jeremiah MT) Baruch Lamentations Epistle of Jeremias Ezekiel Susanna Daniel Bel and the Dragon

New Testament Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1 Cor 2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1 Thess 2 Thess 1 Tim 2 Tim

Matthew Mark Luke John Acts of the Apostles Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

 Tit Phlm Heb Jam 1 Pet 2 Pet 1 Jn 2 Jn 3 Jn Jude Rev

Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation

xv

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

PART I

BEFORE CHRISTIANITY The Septuagint and the Biblical Canon

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

1 The Formation of the Jewish Canon Since it is impossible to consider the canon of the Old Testament without considering the Septuagint (LXX), it is wise to begin a study of the Septuagint with a review of the major issues pertaining to the formation of the canon of the Jewish Scriptures.¹ By this term, I mean the Biblical corpus, that is the list of the Biblical books understood as being inspired by God and therefore normative, enumerated according to a given order and in a determined number. The following lines will vindicate such a definition.

Words and Concepts If we use the word ‘canon,’ we will be speaking Greek—and a rather late Christian Greek at that. The first occurrences of the word ‘canon’ and associated terms date to the fourth century CE: the noun κανών in Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History VI.25, 3, and the verb κανονίζειν in Athanasius of Alexandria, 39th Festal Letter. So, if we use this vocabulary when speaking about the Jewish Scriptures, are we not projecting a Greek and Christian reality onto the Hebrew and Jewish world?² The Greek word κανών may even have Semitic origins. In Hebrew, the noun qaneh means ‘reed’ or ‘cane.’³ Its Greek equivalent is the word ¹ I have discussed the formation of the Jewish canon in two earlier works: Dorival 2004 and 2014. The present chapter is a translation of my French 2014 paper, without the page about the deuterocanonical books, which is given in chapter 2. The 2014 paper was, in fact, written in 2010. Since that time, important contributions about the canon were written for instance by Gallagher 2012, Gallagher and Meade 2017, Lim 2013, McDonald 2017, Mroczek 2016, Steinberg and Stone 2015, Ulrich 2015. I have made use of those studies in the present chapter. ² Barton 1986 proposed substituting the word ‘Scriptures’ for the word ‘Canon’ in order to avoid the anachronism and this suggestion has often been followed. ³ Clines 2010, vol. viii, pp. 269–70. The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae. Gilles Dorival, Oxford University Press. © Gilles Dorival 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898098.003.0001

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

4

     

κάννα, from which comes (probably) from κανών, ‘straight rod’, ‘rule’. This word has a good many technical meanings, as well as some figurative ones.⁴ Among the Christians, the most attested figurative sense is ‘rule of faith’, in Latin regula fidei, but this meaning has little to do with the canon as a corpus of writings. Here, we must take Alexandria into account. The scholars of the Alexandrian Museum created canons of the lawmakers, painters, carvers, orators, lyrical poets, comic dramatists, tragic playwrights, and so on. Indeed, the canon of the three tragic playwrights could have even been constituted in the fourth century BCE by Heraclides Ponticus. The Alexandrian scholars themselves established the canon of the three iambographs and of the nine lyricists. The canons of the three comic dramatists and of the ten Attic orators are probably later.⁵ Therefore, in the literary realm, a canon is a list of authors seen as representative of a given literary genre. The word refers to the selection process made among the authors who illustrated these genres. The result of the process is an exemplary list. Sometimes, the selection of the authors is accompanied by a further selection among the works of the selected authors. The list of the three tragic playwrights contains only seven tragedies of Aeschylus, seven tragedies of Sophocles and ten by Euripides. In that sense, canon is a synonym of κατάλογος, which is the generic word for a list. This noun (κατάλογος) is used by Origen of the Old Testament books (as quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History VI.25, 1–2). The Jewish canon, if that is what we may call it, differs from the Alexandrian canons, in that it is a list of books, and not a list of authors.⁶ But the significance of that remark must not be exaggerated. Describing the Jewish canon, Josephus gives no title, only authors, Moses for the Torah and the Prophets for thirteen books, four books being anonymous (Against Apion I.37–41). In the tractate Baba Bathra of the Babylonian Talmud (14b–15a), the list of the books is followed by the list of their authors, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Jeremiah, Hezekiah and his assistants, the members of the Great Assembly, Ezra. It is said that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and Job; Joshua, his book and the last eight verses of the Torah which describes Moses’ death; Samuel, ⁴ Chantraine, 2009, pp. 473–74.

⁵ Vardi 2003.

⁶ Lang 1998, p. 51.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

5

Samuel, Judges, and Ruth; David, the Psalms; Jeremiah, his book, Kings and Lamentations; Hezekiah, the books of Isaiah, Proverbs, Song, Ecclesiastes; the members of the Great Assembly, Ezekiel, the Twelve, Daniel, and Esther; Ezra, his book and Chronicles; Nehemiah completed the genealogy of Ezra. As each of those authors, except David, wrote several books, it was inevitable that, in the canonical lists, the books were given instead of the authors. Such comparisons between texts belonging to different cultures may allow us to shed new light on the lack of the word ‘canon’ amongst Greek-speaking Jews (and its equivalent amongst Hebrew-speaking and Aramaic-speaking Jews). First, even if the word ‘canon’ is lacking, the reality of the canon did exist in these ancient Jewish milieus: that is, a list of books understood as being in some sense normative. Greek-speaking Jews probably used the expression ‘testamentary books’ (ἐνδιάθηκοι) for this list.⁷ In the works of the Sages, the biblical books are called hasefarim, ‘the books’, or sifrey ha-qodesh, ‘the books of holiness’, or kitvey ha-qodesh, ‘the writings of holiness’. The canonicity of a given book is here determined by whether (or not) it ‘defiles the hands’ (metamme’ ’et ha-yadayim)—a somewhat obscure expression which probably means that the one who handles the scroll of a sacred text has to be purified before going back to the profane world. Non-canonical books are called sefarim chitsonim, ‘outside books’, in other words outside the list of the inspired books and which are not received inside the tradition of the Sages. Second, we cannot be sure that the word canon did not exist among the Sages. The existence of the acronym Tanak (b.Sanhedrin 101a, b. Qiddushin 49a, b.Mo’ed Qatan 21a) seems to imply they did not have a word for canon. The three consonants T-N-K refer to the Torah, the Nevi’im (Prophets), and the Ketuvim (Writings). It is an artificial creation and it could therefore be supposed that the natural languages of the Sages had no term for canon. But Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus and the treatise b.Baba Bathra compel us to see things differently. In Jerome’s text, the word ordo first refers to the succession of the books among the three categories of biblical books, but then also to each category of books. ⁷ Junod 1984.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

6

     

The same word ordo has the meaning of category of books in Gelasius’ Decretum, Patrologia Latina 67, 537, and in Rufinus, Commentarius in symbolum Apostolorum 36. It may be that Jerome was not the inventor of the word but used it to translate a Hebrew or Aramaic word used by his Jewish informers to describe each part of the Bible. And we know that word thanks to b.Baba Bathra: seder, at least in the case of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. It is true that it is not used in the case of the Torah, but the evidence of Jerome, who uses the word ordo for this category, is an argument in favour of the word seder here too. As the same word designates each of the three subdivisions of the Scriptures, it could have been also used to refer to the Scriptures as a whole. The suggestion is that the Sages called seder what the Church fathers referred to as canon.⁸ Moreover, the word seder has only two corresponding terms in Greek: τάξις, which is Melito’s word, and κανών. All in all, the use of the word ‘canon’ in relation to the Jewish Scriptures seems to be relevant, at least after the Hellenistic period, and perhaps during it. The appropriateness of this term prior to this period is less certain, but specialists of early Middle Eastern literatures use the word ‘canon’ whenever the literary collections are widely recognized as corpora.⁹ It is difficult to do without this term since its use has become well established in many different languages over several centuries. English historians assert that the first modern occurrence of the word ‘canon’ meaning ‘the canon of the Scriptures’ is David Rhunken in 1768.¹⁰ In fact, this word with this meaning is found in French writings of the late seventeenth century: in 1685, in the work of Richard Simon (‘Canon juif ’);¹¹ in 1690, in Furetière’s Dictionnaire (‘Canon est aussi un catalogue de livres sacrés’); and in 1694, in the dictionary of the French Academy (‘on appelle Canon des Ecritures le corps de la Sainte Ecriture, par rapport à tous les livres qui la composent’). Such a meaning, ⁸ The word seder refers also to each of the six orders of the Mishna and the Talmuds. There are also the 154 sedarim of the Palestinian liturgy, that is the 154 sections of the Torah read according to the order of the Pentateuch in the three-year cycle. ⁹ Veldhuis 2003. ¹⁰ Smith 1998, p. 295; Vardi 2003, p. 131; Stern 1998, p. 229. D. Rhunken makes use of the word in the preface to his edition of Rutilius Lupus in his Historia Critica Oratorum Graecorum, p. XCV. ¹¹ Simon 1685, pp. 52–6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

7

however, is absent from the French dictionaries of the early seventeenth century even though the Latin expression libri canonici is well attested since the time of the Council of Trent (1545–1563), for instance by Sixtus of Siena (who coined the word deuterocanonicus), Pietro Bertano, and Girolamo Seripando.¹²

Theories of the Formation of the Biblical Canon From the Renaissance till the end of the nineteenth century, the largely accepted theory was that presented by Elias Levita (1469–1549) in 1538. Relying on b.Baba Bathra 14b–15a (see above), which describes the order of the Prophets and the order of the Writings, he suggested that, at the time of the return from exile, around 450 BCE, Ezra and the members of the Great Assembly (knesset ha-gedolah) established the canon of the Scriptures in three divisions (Torah, Prophets, and Writings). According to Levita, this canon of twenty-four books was accepted by all the Jews living in Judaea-Palestine and in the Diaspora. By contrast, the deuterocanonical books were never recognized as canonical.¹³ In 1715, J. E. Grabe developed the Alexandrian canon hypothesis, which qualifies Levita’s theory. According to him, at the beginning of Christianity, the canon of the Diaspora Jews, particularly in Alexandria, was more extensive than the canon in Jerusalem. It included all the Hebrew and Aramaic books translated into Greek, the additions to the Hebrew books and the additional Greek books. Furthermore, this canon was officially proclaimed by a Sanhedrin.¹⁴ According to subsequent scholars, this canon was only a de facto canon, in other words, a wellidentified collection of books read in Alexandria;¹⁵ possibly divided into four divisions (the Law, the Historical books, the Poetic books, and the Prophets).¹⁶ The first Christians inherited the Alexandrian canon and this explains why the canon of the ancient Church is larger than the Jewish canon.

¹² Dorival 2007. ¹³ Ginsburg 1867, p. 120 et passim. ¹⁴ Grabe 1715. See also Semler 1771. ¹⁵ Torrey 1945. ¹⁶ Ellis 1988; Kaestli 2007, p. 113.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

8

     

A third theory about the canon emerged almost simultaneously towards the end of the nineteenth century in Germany, the Netherlands, and the British Isles.¹⁷ According to this theory, the canon was understood to result from a historical process that related to the tripartition Law, Prophets, and Writings. Reflection on the history of the Samaritans played an important role in the establishing a timescale for the first two stages. This religious group recognizes the canonicity of the Pentateuch, but not the Prophets and the Writings. Nineteenth-century historians proposed that the break between the Samaritans and the Jews happened during the fifth century BCE. If so, then the canonization of the Torah was prior to that time, and the canonization of the Prophets, posterior. According to Ezra-Nehemiah 18 (Nehemiah 8), the priest and scribe Ezra brought the Law before the Assembly and required half a day to read it. Since half a day is time enough for the reading of the Law, but not the Law and the Prophets, the implication is that the Prophets were not yet part of the canon. This event was dated to the fifth century BCE (around 400 or 450). The canonization of the Prophets was thought to have occurred during the third century on two grounds. First, around 180 BCE, in his ‘Praise of the Fathers’ (Sir 44–50), Jesus son of Sirach refers to the visions of Isaiah the Prophet (48:20–22), Jeremiah the Prophet (49:4–7), Ezekiel (49:8–9), and the Twelve Minor Prophets (49:10). Second, in 161 BCE, when Judas Maccabeus was going to fight against Nicanor, he encouraged his soldiers by quoting ‘the Law and the Prophets’ (2 Macc 15:9). In this theory, the canonization of the Writings was connected to the so-called ‘Council of Jamnia’ (this name being a variant of Jabneh, a small city in the coastal plain of Judaea in which the rabbis established themselves after the destruction of the Second Temple). In this place around the years 90–100 CE, the rabbis admitted Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Proverbs into the canon, but excluded Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) and many others as ‘outside’ books (chitsonim). So, in Jabneh, a double closure of the canon would have occurred: the closure of its third part, and the closure of the whole canon according

¹⁷ Grätz 1871; Wildeboer 1889; Buhl 1891; Ryle 1892.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

9

to its tripartite aspect. In the following lines, such a theory will be called the ‘classic’ theory, because it has persisted. This classic three-stage theory radically challenged Levita’s one-stage theory and was preferable to it since, it could be reconciled with the Alexandrian canon theory. There were three further reasons behind the rejection of Levita’s theory. First, various ‘philologia sacra’ researchers observed that several Hebrew books were composed long after Ezra’s time. Some chapters of Daniel (2:4–7:28) and Ezra-Nehemiah (4:8–6:18 and 7:12–26) are written in Aramaic. The events ‘prophesied’ in the final version of Daniel occur towards the end of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ reign (175–164 BCE), as was pointed out in the third century CE by the Neoplatonist Porphyry in his controversy with the Christians. Second, the New Testament quotes—as Scripture—texts which do not belong to the Hebrew Bible. This implies that, at the beginning of the Common Era, in some Jewish groups, the canon was not limited to the twenty-four books.¹⁸ Third, the Talmudic passages quoted by Levita in order to attribute the canonization of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings to the Great Assembly reflected the events of Jabneh, not Ezra, since Ezra-Nehemiah’s narrative was only about the Torah. The fact was that Ezra apparently needed only half a day to read the sacred text, and this suggested that the Biblical corpus was limited to the Torah or even to one book of it. And then, half a century ago, the Alexandrian canon hypothesis was masterfully overturned by A. C. Sundberg.¹⁹ First, he observed that there is no evidence in the ancient data for Alexandria ever being a religious reference centre for Judaism. Instead, the Alexandrian Jews had always looked to Jerusalem as their ‘metropolis.’ According to Philo of Alexandria (Flaccus 46), the Alexandrian Jews remitted the annual tax to the Temple and tried to perform the annual pilgrimages. Second, it is not at all certain that the first Christians inherited their Bible from the Alexandrian Jews. The early Christian Bible was very different from

¹⁸ For instance, Matthew quotes as belonging to the Prophets the verse ‘he will be called a Nazorean’ (Matt 2:22), which is not attested in the Prophetic books or even in the Bible. The quotes of 1 Cor 2:9 introduced by ‘it is written’ and James 4:5 (‘The Scripture says’) are not present in the Bible. Jude 14 asserts that Enoch prophesized and the letter quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 under his name. ¹⁹ Sundberg 1964.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

10       Philo’s Bible, the centre of which was the Law. Philo quotes from the Law around eight thousand times. By contrast, the Prophets (which are so important in the New Testament, particularly Isaiah) are only quoted or alluded to 101 times (twenty-four times in the case of Isaiah). Philo does not quote any verse from 2 Samuel nor from ten of the Twelve Minor Prophets. Philo quotes (or alludes to) the Writings 103 times half of which (fifty times) come from the Psalms (a book so very often quoted in the New Testament). Philo also never quotes from Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Daniel, or Ezra-Nehemiah.²⁰ Third, in the first centuries, the Christians viewed many writings as Scripture that did not belong to the Alexandrian canon. For many early Christian authors, 4 Esdras, the Enoch Pentateuch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Ascension of Moses are all highly quotable as inspired Scripture. The Alexandrian canon hypothesis does not explain their use of these books. Above all these reasons, however, the Alexandrian canon hypothesis was ultimately refuted by two major archaeological finds that are famous today as the Cairo Geniza and the Dead Sea Scrolls. At the end of the nineteenth century, five Hebrew manuscripts giving two-thirds of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) were discovered amongst the many manuscripts of the old-manuscript-storeroom (genizah) of the Ben Ezra Synagogue of Fustat (Old Cairo). For the first time, it was proved that a book hitherto considered as specific to the Alexandrian Bible had a prior existence in Hebrew. This conclusion encountered resistance: some scholars tried to demonstrate that the Hebrew text was translated from the Greek (contrary to the Greek prologue of Ecclesiasticus itself, which explicitly asserts the contrary). But other scholars remembered that both the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud quote verses of Ecclesiasticus as Scripture and so they began to wonder if this book had once belonged to the canon.²¹ Before the twenty-four-book canon, was it possible that a larger canon existed with at least some of the deuterocanonical books included?

²⁰ Those figures come from Biblia Patristica. Supplément 1982. ²¹ On the twelve different quotations of Ecclesiasticus, Leiman 1976. On the canonicity of Ecclesiasticus, Barthélemy 1984, Rüger 1984.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

11

The evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls was even more challenging. Manuscripts of Ecclesiasticus were found in Qumran and above all in Masada. Fragments of other deuterocanonical books are also attested: the Letter of Jeremiah in Greek, Tobit in Hebrew and Aramaic. Other texts referred to as Apocrypha by the Catholics, and Pseudepigrapha by Protestants, are also attested: Enoch (except for the Book of Parables), the Book of Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Nevertheless, the greater proportion of the literature discovered in Qumran is made up of fragments belonging to all the traditional biblical books (except Esther) alongside the specific books of the Qumran community (the Community Rule, the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness, the Hymns). Qumran and the first Christians can be compared and differentiated. On the one hand, they are very similar in that they not only accept all the books of the Hebrew Bible, but also some deuterocanonical books and some works of the Pseudepigrapha. On the other hand, their specific writings show them to be quite distinct: works such as the Community Rule, the War of the Sons, and the Hymns are very different to the New Testament. Because of those discoveries, one may conclude that, in the Judaism prior to Jabneh, a collection of holy books larger than the Jewish canon of the twenty-two/twenty-four books existed. This collection appears to vary from group to group, with a stable of books common to them all. There is no direct connection between Alexandria and the deuterocanonical books. The Christian Old Testament is larger than the Rabbinic Bible because it comes from the larger collection of books that was understood as ‘inspired’ by one or several Jewish groups at the beginning of the Christian Era.

Questions Raised by the Classic Theory Does the classic theory face any objections as decisive as those that stand against Levita’s theory and the Alexandrian canon theory? In practice, the classic theory remains the baseline paradigm and one must always refer to it, even if many of its elements also face serious difficulties.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

12      

The Torah or Law When was the Torah canonized? The Hebrew Bible gives four different possible scenarios: at Moses’ time, or a little after 870, or in the year 622, or around 450/400 BCE. According to Exodus 24:4–7, Moses wrote all God’s words, then he read ‘the book of the covenant’ (sefer ha-berit) to the people who promised to do what God required. The second dating can be inferred from 2 Chron 17:7–9: in the third year of Jehoshaphat, several officers, priests, and Levites travelled around Judaea teaching the people ‘the book of the Law of YHWH’. The third dating refers to 2 Kings (= 4 Reigns in LXX) chs. 22–23: in the eighteenth year of king Josiah (that is, in 622 BCE) the high priest Hilkiah discovers in the Temple ‘the book of the Law’ (sefer ha-torah). He gives it to the scribe Shafan who reads it to the king. When the king realizes that Judah has not followed the words of the book, he rends his garments: he gathers the people in the Temple, and he reads the ‘book of the covenant’ (sefer ha-berit); then he takes the measures that we call the reform of Josiah. The period 450–400 BCE is ascribed to the event related in EzraNehemiah 18 (Nehemiah 8) as mentioned above: Ezra the priest and scribe read the Law before the assembly of the people (in half a day). In fact, all these indications are problematic. In the case of Josiah, since the reform of that king seems to reflect the teaching of Deuteronomy, it is often asserted that it refers to the canonization of that book. But if this is true, what about the first four books of the Torah? Were they already canonized as the order of the books of the Bible and the very noun Deuteronomy (‘second law’) suggests? Or were they canonized later, as the followers of the Deuteronomistic hypothesis assert, arguing that a collection of nine books (an Enneateuch including Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) preceded the arrangement of the Bible in its present state?²² Or was the promulgation of a ‘Pentateuch’ preceded by the promulgation of a ‘Hexateuch’, containing the first five books and Joshua? Scholars supporting this hypothesis note that the last will of Joseph asks for the return of his bones to Judaea (Gen 50:25 and Exod 13:19) and this is only performed in Josh 24:32. They propose that ²² Noth 1942.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

13

the idea of a Pentateuch only prevailed later on, when later Jews wanted to set Moses apart as being superior to the other prophets (Deut 34:10–12); or possibly to ensure a secondary place to the gift of the promised land behind the observance of the Law; or possibly to prioritize the promise of return instead of the return itself (the first realization of which would be related in Joshua whereas its final achievement would only happen in times to come).²³ Now, if we admit that the passage of 2 Kings really refers to Deuteronomy, it must be understood to be promoting this book: Jewish redactors thus connecting Deuteronomy with a prestigious king, who is one of the three kings (the two others are David and Hezekiah) who find favour in the eyes of Jesus son of Sirach (Sir 49:4). In other words, this passage may inform us more about of the ideology of the redactors of 2 Kings than about the history of the canonization of Deuteronomy. The same remark can be made about the texts quoted above from Exodus, 2 Chronicles, and 2 Esdras (EzraNehemiah). In the four cases of the Hebrew Bible then, we may only have later representations of history, not historical events. If we cannot be certain about the historical value of these accounts, on which data can we rely? In the past, the Jewish-Samaritan schism provided a date of significance since the Samaritans recognize the Torah as inspired, but not the Prophets. In the nineteenth century, the break between this group and the Judeans was commonly situated during the fifth century BCE or earlier: therefore, the canonization of the Torah was held to have occurred before this period. But nowadays the schism is thought to have occurred much later: sometime between the end of the Persian period and the Hasmonean period (350–150 BCE). Another possible canonization date has been drawn from the letter of Artaxerxes I (465–424 BCE) which is quoted in 2 Esdras 7:11–28. This letter appears to witness to Persian politics of this era guaranteeing local rights. The implication is that the local laws were written and co-existed under Persian legislation. The final redaction of the Torah is thus understood to occur under the Persian policy of imperial authorization.²⁴ This ²³ Römer 2001. ²⁴ The two fathers of the Persian hypothesis are Blum 1990 and Frei 1984. See also Schmid 2007; Hagedorn 2007 (the Persian presence is responsible for the formation of the Torah, even if Persia never officially entrenched this process); Crüsemann 1989; Assmann 1999, pp. 11–35.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

14       Reichsautorization hypothesis is attractive, but it has raised some reservations. For example, is it right to refer to a process of ‘canonization’ when the Torah is being recognized by an outside entity without a communitybased process? A last clue can be drawn from the Letter of Aristeas. This letter depicts the Torah as being translated into Greek at a time when Demetrius of Phalerum was the librarian of king Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The translation was first read to the Jewish community, then to the king (§§308–12). According to this letter, the first reading of the Greek Torah took place at the end of December 281 and the second one during the first half of 280 BCE.²⁵ In that case, the canonization of the Torah must be situated before this time, perhaps in the fourth century BCE. But the historical value of Letter of Aristeas has often been questioned.²⁶ It seems unlikely that Demetrius and Ptolemy II would have worked together, as both were foes and the latter imprisoned the former. On the other hand, Ptolemy’s involvement in the translation reiterates the Reichsautorization of Artaxerxes I at the time of Ezra. It may even be that both narratives belong to the contemporary mode of writing history among Jewish communities and not to real historical facts. Nevertheless, it is certain that the Septuagint did exist at the end of the third century BCE, since it is quoted by Demetrius the Chronographer who wrote his treatise Concerning the Kings of Judaea around 220–210 BCE. In sum, the canonization of the Torah could be understood to have occurred before or during Ezra’s period; or at the end of the Persian time; or in the first half of the third century. This canonization was preceded by the recognition of other literary corpora: which ones, is a question still debated by scholars: a Tetrateuch? A Hexateuch? Or even an Enneateuch?²⁷ The word canon is sometimes used to designate these corpora. For instance, speaking about the Hexateuch, Thomas Römer hesitates between two ways of describing the situation: the Hexateuch

²⁵ Collins 2000. ²⁶ The Letter’s claims did not survive the criticism of Hody 1685. ²⁷ Tetrateuch generally means the corpus of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. But the word refers to the corpus of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy in Davies 1998, p. 102–5: Pseudo-Hecataeus (c.300 BCE) quoted by Diodorus Siculus (c.30 BCE), Bibliotheca Historica 40, 3, refers to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, but not to Genesis: which raises the issue of the antiquity of that book in Moses’ Canon.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

15

could be a ‘competing project’ vis à vis the Pentateuch, or ‘a first stage of the canonization of the Bible’.²⁸ The first wording is better than the second one. Saying that the canonization was preceded by editorial projects in competition is one thing, suggesting that it was preceded by one or several canonizations is entirely another. The biblical texts themselves do not speak about other forms of canonization prior to a later form of canonization. It was mentioned above that it was not certain whether the ‘book of the Torah of Moses’ which Ezra read before the assembly (Ezra-Neh 18:2) was identical to the Pentateuch; one must (surely) also hesitate to identify the ‘book of the Torah of Elohim’ with the Hexateuch (Ezra-Neh 18:18).²⁹

The Prophets According to 2 Macc 2:13, Nehemiah ‘gathered together the books about the kings and the prophets and the books of David’. The latter ‘books of David’ probably refer to the Psalms (seen here as the writings of a prophet-king). So, is the canonization of the Prophets to be situated in the second half of the fifth century BCE? Since it was not written in the fifth century, the text of 2 Maccabees can only reliably inform us of the opinion of the writer-redactors of Maccabees (second half of the second century BCE). The canonization of the Prophets is often situated sometime in the third century BCE.³⁰ Once again, the Samaritan schism is invoked. The argumentation is as follows: the Samaritans have the same Torah as the Judeans, but they do not have the Prophetic corpus; so, the Prophets must have been canonized by the Judeans after the schism sometime between 350 and 150 BCE. This argumentation, however, is hardly convincing: the Samaritans seem to have initially admitted Joshua and perhaps the Psalms, and then excluded them at a later period.³¹ Nevertheless, the canonization of the Prophets can be taken as prior to

²⁸ Römer 2001. ³¹ Zsengeller 1998.

²⁹ Römer 2007, p. 36.

³⁰ Steck 1991.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

16       161 BCE on other grounds, because, in this year, Judah Maccabeus supports his troops by invoking ‘the Law and the Prophets’.³²

The Writings What is the date of the closure of the Writings and, consequently, of the tripartite canon? Two views are in conflict. The first one situates the emergence of a tripartition to the time of the Maccabees; the second one, to the period of Jabneh. Rabbinic texts report that in Jabneh there was a debate over the status of five books: Song of Songs, Qohelet (Ecclesiastes), Esther, Ezekiel, and Proverbs. These books, so it is argued, would not have been discussed if they did not already belong to an existing canon.³³ For the followers of the second view, however, this debate about these five books only proves that the canon was still under development.³⁴ In other words, the information can be understood in different ways. Therefore, other data must be considered, namely the evidence for the existence of a tripartite canon before Jabneh and the evidence for its existence after the end of the first century CE. Six texts have been taken as evidence for the existence of a tripartite pre-Jabneh canon:³⁵

³² Charlesworth 2008, p. 59, suggests a much later dating: the end of the second Jewish war (130–135 CE), but he does not explain his reasoning. ³³ Leiman 1976; Beckwith 1985; de Pury 2007; Steinberg and Stone 2015, pp. 1–58. An almost identical view is found in Lightstone 2004. Good critical remarks on Leiman and Beckwith in Vanderkam 2002. ³⁴ McDonald 1995, 2007, and 2017; Alexander 2007; Lim 2013. The assertion that, during the Second Temple period, the Scriptures are bipartite is made by Barton 1986. ³⁵ To those six texts one can add Matt 23:34–35 and Luke 11:48–51. Those verses do not speak about the tripartite canon. But they are sometimes quoted in order to assert that, at Jesus’ time, the closure of the canon was a fact. Jesus criticizes the scribes and the Pharisees, who will account for the shed blood of the Prophets, ‘from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah’. By speaking in this way, Jesus deals with the history of Israel since Genesis up to 2 Chron (Par) 24:20–22 (where Zechariah is the son of Jehoiada). Chronicles is the last book of the Writings in the Rabbinic Bible. Bruce 1998, p. 29, concludes that the Writings were complete at Jesus’ time. But, according to MacDonald 2007, pp. 96–100, this assertion is an extrapolation: Jesus refers to the history of Israel, not to a literary corpus. One can add that Chronicles is not always the last book in masoretic codices of the Hebrew Bible and that the observation is anachronistic: codices of the whole Hebrew Bible were not extant until long after the time of the New Testament.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

17

(1) The first text is taken from the second letter quoted at the beginning of 2 Maccabees (164 BCE). This letter speaks about Nehemiah who founded a library where ‘he gathered the books about the kings and the prophets, the books of David and the letters of the kings concerning the offerings. In the same way, Judas gathered all the books which disappeared because of the war, and they are among us’ (2:13–14). R. T. Beckwith relied on this text to assert that Judas Maccabeus was the creator of the tripartite canon.³⁶ In fact, this letter better supports the idea of a quadripartite canon or five-part canon, that is, the Law, the Kings, the Prophets, David’s books, and the royal letters. Moreover, whilst the gathering of a collection inside a library is a necessary stage in the canonization process, it is not the canonization itself. (2) The second text is the prologue of the Greek translation of Ben Sira/Ecclesiasticus. Its author, who is the grandson of the author of the book, Jesus son of Sirach, mentions ‘the many and great things that have been delivered by the Law, the Prophets and the other [books] which follow them’ (lines 1–2); the words ‘the Law and the Prophets and the other books’ are present again in lines 8–10; and ‘the Law and the prophecies and the rest of the books’ in lines 24–25. In lines 8–10, the translator asserts that his grandfather ‘devoted himself to the reading of the Law, the Prophets and the other ancestral books’ and became highly skilled ‘in them’. He was thus inspire to write ‘one of these [texts] pertaining to learning and wisdom’ (lines 11–12). So, the prologue seems to define a third collection of holy books, made of writings of learning and wisdom. However, the translator also reports that he came to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of the king Euergetes. This detail cannot refer to Ptolemy III Euergetes I (246–222 BCE), who reigned less than twenty-eight years. It could refer to Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, who reigned from 170 till 117 BCE. Therefore, the translator came to Egypt in 132 and he made his translation sometime before 117 BCE. Does this mean that a tripartition did exist in the second century at the time when ³⁶ Beckwith 1988.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

18       Ecclesiasticus was written? One should note that this third collection, if it did exist, is not closed, since it can accept new texts. Therefore, the prologue of Ecclesiasticus does not contradict the classic theory according to which the closure of the Writings happened in Jabneh. At first sight, the prologue is uncomfortable for the supporters of a late dating of the gathering together of the Writings. It is difficult to assert that the ‘other books’ were commentaries on the Law and the Prophets, like the pesharim in Qumran which comment on the Prophets.³⁷ It is also difficult to assert that it was forgery made at the time of Jabneh. The prologue proves that, during the second century BCE, this group of scribes were aware that the description ‘the Law and the Prophets’ was not satisfactory for defining the literary genre of some of their books. The scribes set these books apart and gave them the name ‘other books’. But this does not mean that they then became a third part of the canon.³⁸ Instead, the third part of the canon may well have emerged slowly, later, and in stages.³⁹ (3) The third text is a passage of Miqsat Ma‘asey ha-Torah, also called the Halakhic Letter. That text was found in Qumran Cave 4 and was published in 1994. It speaks of ‘the book of Moses, the book or books of the Prophets and of David and [the annals] of generations’ (4QMMT = 4Q397, fragments 14–21, lines 10–11 = C 10–11). These lines have been often quoted in order to prove that, at the beginning of the first century BCE, the tripartite canon did exist in Qumran.⁴⁰ But the text is partly conjectural, its reconstruction is debated, and it offers a quadripartition (not a tripartition).⁴¹ ³⁷ Ulrich 2003b. ³⁸ Same idea in Lange 2008; however, Lange seems to me to go too far, when he asserts that the words ‘the Law and the Prophets’ have no canonical significance in the prologue and in the Qumran scrolls. ³⁹ Gallagher and Meade 2017, pp. 13–17, underline that the prologue to Ecclesiasticus ‘convinces most scholars that some sort of tripartite arrangement dates to at least the second century B.C.E.’, and this seems to be their own view, even if they are cautious. ⁴⁰ Qimron and Strugnell 1994, p. 59; Schiffman 1996; Fabry 1999 (he asserts that 4QMMT is ‘perhaps’ the witness of the Biblical tripartition, but he adds that the precise content of each part remains problematic); van der Kooij 2003. ⁴¹ Many scholars are not convinced by the tripartition: Bernstein 1996; Talmon 2002; Ulrich 2003a, 2003b, 2015; Berthelot 2006 (she accurately demonstrates that the references in 4QMMT

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

19

(4) Philo gives the fourth text. In his treatise On the Contemplative Life §25, he speaks of ‘the laws, the prophets, the hymns and the other [texts]’. If one wishes to see here a witness to the tripartite canon, one must classify the hymns and the other texts in the same category. This goes against the grain of the passage in its literary context. (5) Luke 24:44 is the fifth text. The risen Jesus says to his followers: ‘everything written about me in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled’. To find a reference here to the tripartite canon, one has to consider the word ‘Psalms’ as a synonym for Writings. It is more likely that Luke wanted to separate the Psalms from the Law and the Prophets, because he thinks that they particularly prophesy about Jesus.⁴² (6) The sixth and last text is found in Josephus, Against Apion I.37–41 in which Josephus lists the twenty-two Jewish holy books as the five books of Moses, the thirteen books of the Prophets, and the four books of hymns and precepts. It was suggested that these four books were the embryonic stage of the Writings. Josephus does not enumerate the four books, which have been identified in various manners. It is quite likely that the phrase ‘hymns and the precepts’ could refer to the books of Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. But what is the fourth book? Job was suggested, but this book is neither a collection of hymns nor a collection of precepts.⁴³ One may notice that there are several differences between Josephus’ canon and the rabbinic one: twenty-two books for Josephus, twenty-four for the rabbis; the Prophetic books are thirteen for him, eight for them; the other books are four for him, yet eleven for them. So, it is not surprising that some scholars have concluded that Josephus’ canon was most probably bipartite, not tripartite.⁴⁴ According to this thesis, Josephus says the contrary of what his text seems to assert. But do not aim at the canonical tripartition, but at authoritative texts; for instance, the book of Moses is not the Torah, but Deuteronomy); Lange 2008. ⁴² Hengel 2002, p. 106; Evans 2004 believes that the New Testament is not a witness to the tripartition. ⁴³ Zevit 1998. ⁴⁴ Barr 1983, p. 55. In contrast, Hengel 2002, pp. 99–103.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

20       one can conclude that, like the author of the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, Josephus is aware that ‘the Law and the Prophets’ are not appropriate terms for ‘the hymns and the precepts.’ He gives a special place to the latter because of their literary characterization, but they are not a third canonical category.⁴⁵ In sum, none of our six texts proves an ancient date for the establishment of a tripartite canon. Some of them merely indicate that the words ‘the Law and the Prophets’ were regarded as inappropriate for speaking about books which do not belong to the juridical and prophetic genres.⁴⁶ Nonetheless, these texts do shed light on how the project of gathering books apart from ‘the Law and the Prophets’ emerged and why the catchall name of ‘Writings’ was given to it. Does that mean that the classic theory was correct when it asserted that the closure of the Writings took place in Jabneh during the second century CE? One passage of the Babylonian Talmud (b.Sanhedrin 90b) does point in this direction: in this passage Gamaliel II, for the first time in Jewish history, formulates the words ‘the Law and the Prophets and the Writings’. But several considerations appear to caution against any over-hasty conclusions. First, there was never a synod or a council in Jabneh on the model of the Christian councils. Indeed, there is no evidence for an assembly of rabbis making decisions about ‘canonicity’, only for a difference of opinion about various books held by various rabbis at Jabneh.⁴⁷ Second, except for a text of Jerome which we shall discuss below, the rabbinic tripartition is completely unknown to the Church Fathers. This fact is difficult to explain if the tripartition was established during the second century CE. It is more understandable if it dates to the period where the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity was more complete.⁴⁸ Indeed, in almost all the passages dealing with the Tannaim, the canon is bipartite, and, during all that time, the holiness of some books continues to be debated.⁴⁹ The tripartite canon only appears

⁴⁵ Carr 1996, pp. 50–3; Mason 2004; Kaestli 2007, p. 109. ⁴⁶ Campbell 2000. ⁴⁷ Lewis 1964 and 2004. ⁴⁸ Dorival 2003. ⁴⁹ Carr 1996.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

21

to begin to be recognized in the period of the Amoraim, that is, in the third century CE.⁵⁰ Instead, the emergence of a tripartition seems to be the result of a long process, the stages of which can only be described in part. We are aware that in the middle of the third century CE, the canonicity of Esther continues to be debated. Mar Samuel, who died in 254, was known to hold that ‘Esther does not defile the hands’ (b.Megillah 7a). By the fifth century CE, Jerome was still the only Church Father to know of a tripartite canon of the Sages (in the Prologus Galeatus to his translation of Samuel and Kings). Even then, he describes two different tripartitions (as told above). The most widespread one according to him offers five books of the Law, eight books of the Prophets, and nine books of the Writings; in the eight books of the Prophets, Ruth is one with Judges and Lamentations is one with Jeremiah. But, says Jerome, according to ‘some people’ (nonnulli), Ruth and Lamentations belong to the Hagiographa and they are to be numbered apart. It is easy to calculate that, in this case, the Prophets are always eight, but the Hagiographical books become eleven. So, in this text, Jerome certifies the existence of a first tripartition offering in total twenty-two books, and of a second one with twenty-four books. According to him, the second tripartition is the result of an innovation made in the first one: Ruth and Lamentations are eliminated from the Prophets and classified among the Writings. Jerome does not explain this new classification. Maybe it is the result of development in the synagogue liturgy: numbering Ruth and Lamentations apart from the Prophets could be explained as a result of reading Ruth at the feast of Shavuot (Weeks) and Lamentations on the fast of Tish‘a be’Av. At that time, both books were written on separate scrolls. So, Jerome could be one of the oldest witnesses to the formation of a collection of five megillot. Rabbinic texts roughly contemporary with Jerome record that Esther is connected to the festival of Purim. There are no data for Song of Songs, which came to be read on Pesach (Passover), or for Ecclesiastes (connected to Sukkot, the feast of Tabernacles).

⁵⁰ Alexander 2007, who rightly connects the final closure of the canon with the redaction of the Mishnah.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

22       Since Jerome’s first tripartition is prior to his second tripartition, when should we date these two events? The twenty-two books of the first tripartition evoke the twenty-two books of Josephus. The twenty-four books of the second tripartition evoke the twenty-four books mentioned in a total of nine Talmudic texts, to which one might add b.Baba Bathra 14b–15a (where the figure is not explicit but can be calculated).⁵¹ Some scholars think that the same figure is present in 4 Esdras 14:44–48, which is contemporaneous with Josephus. So, are both tripartitions to be situated at the end of the first century BCE? In fact, Josephus’ tripartition is so different from the Talmudic one that it cannot be used in favour of an ancient dating of the Talmudic order: there are eight Prophets in Jerome, but thirteen in Josephus; the Writings are nine in Jerome, the hymns and the precepts four in Josephus. As for 4 Esdras, the figure twenty-four is not explicitly stated and the text does not mention the tripartition of the canon. 4 Esdras speaks about the ninety-four books written in forty days by the five men and the seventy books devoted to the wise men. Twenty-four is the result of the subtraction between those two figures, but, as seventy is God’s figure and seventy-two the figure of mankind, and as the two figures often alternate in texts, we can speculate whether the figure seventy-two could not also be subtracted from the figure ninety-four. In this case, the result of the subtraction would be twenty-two.⁵² From the above, one may conclude that there were at least three stages in the canonization of the Writings. The first gestation stage began at the beginning of the second century BCE and was not closed until the end of the first century CE. During this time several Jewish authors became aware that some books regarded as inspired did not belong to the canonical category ‘the Law and the Prophets’. At the end of the first century CE, these inspired books were twenty-two for Josephus, and twenty-four (or perhaps twenty-two) in 4 Esdras. Furthermore, we cannot be sure how these lists of twenty-two or twenty-four books relate to Jerome’s later list of twenty-two or twenty-four books. The second

⁵¹ Lang 1998 refers the twenty-four Biblical books to the twenty-four books of Iliad and Odyssey, while asserting that the figure of the Sages is not connected with pagan culture. ⁵² Dorival 1991.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

23

stage is the stage of the first and oldest tripartition: it occurred at the time of the Amoraim in the third century CE and it is still predominant in the Judaism of Jerome’s period. In this stage the twenty-two books are the five books of the Torah, the eight books of the Prophets and the nine books of the Writings. It is possible that this canon is heir to the Pharisaic canon.⁵³ The third stage is the stage of the second tripartition, which became the norm of medieval and modern Judaism: the books are identical to those of the second stage, but their numbering is different. Probably for liturgical reasons, Ruth and Lamentations are now numbered each as one book. Therefore, the total of the holy books is twentyfour and the Writings are now eleven. The dating of this last stage is probably between the years 300 and 350 CE.⁵⁴

The Prophets and the Writings As just stated, Josephus attests that, at the end of the first century, more books were understood to be prophetic than were to be counted as prophetic in the Sages’ Canon: that is, thirteen instead of eight. So, from Josephus until the time of the Sages, some books must have moved from one collection to another. And Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus proves that Ruth and Lamentations first belonged to the Prophets before being classified among the Writings. This information is close to what b. Baba Bathra 14b–15a says when it reports that Samuel wrote ‘his’ book, consisting of Judges and Ruth, whereas Jeremiah is the author of ‘his’ book, which consists of 1–2 Kings and Lamentations. Did other books move from one category to another? According to the evidence as we have it, the five books of the Torah are not involved. Nevertheless, the discovery of Job in a Palaeo-Hebrew script in Qumran may suggest that this book was grouped with the Torah in some Jewish

⁵³ Collins 1995; Lim 2013, pp. 178–85, who is the author of ‘the theory of the majority Canon’, which ‘proposes that the Canon of the majority [the Pharisees] became the Canon of Rabbinic Judaism’. ⁵⁴ Charlesworth 2008, p. 59, suggests another dating for the closure of the Writings: the sixth century CE, because some books are debated at that time. But the discussion is not about their canonicity.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

24       milieu, as only the books of the Torah were copied in that kind of writing. But has this grouping any canonical significance? According to b.Baba Bathra 14b, Moses wrote Job; so it is understandable that a copy of Job might also come to be written in the Palaeo-Hebrew script. Another similar indicator is that according to some traditions, Job is the same as Jobab of Gen 10:29—a verse belonging to the passage where Shem’s descendants are enumerated. In that sense, the book of Job is ‘a complement to the Torah’, even if it does not make a canonical unit with it.⁵⁵ Let us return to the books which moved from the order of the Prophets to the order of the Writings.⁵⁶ The text of 1–2 Chronicles (Paraleipomena) links itself to the Prophets, since the Levites in charge of worship are associated with prophecy (1 Chron 25:1).⁵⁷ Likewise, in Jewish literature the books of Daniel and Psalms are linked to prophets. In Qumran, the florilegium 4Q174 mentions ‘the book of Daniel the prophet’; Matt 24:15 quotes a passage of ‘Daniel the prophet’; indeed, Christian tradition typically considers Daniel to be the fourth great prophet. In 11QPsa (=11Q5), it is written that David uttered 4,050 songs: ‘all these he spoke in the prophecy (bnbwʾh) which has been given to him from before the Most High’ (column XXVII, line 11). Moreover, there are three pesharim of the Psalms (1Q16, 4Q171, 4Q173); and the pesharim seem to be restricted to the prophetic books.⁵⁸ Hellenistic Jewish literature goes in the same direction: in the first century CE, 4 Macc 18:10–19 refers to Daniel (v. 12–13) and to Psalms (v. 15) under the category ‘Law and Prophets.’ Patristic data support an early date for the presence among the Prophets of 1–2 Paraleipomena (Chronicles) and 2 Esdras (EzraNehemiah). 1–2 Paraleipomena immediately follow 1–4 Reigns in most of the lists and manuscripts. The Greek title itself (Paraleipomena, ‘[Events] left aside’) also argues for not separating these two books from 1–4 Reigns. They are followed in many sources by Esdras, which belongs to the same literary genre. According to Melito of Sardis, who is

⁵⁵ According to Barthélemy 1984, p. 14. ⁵⁶ Cavalier 2005. ⁵⁷ Davies 1998, p. 163. ⁵⁸ Flint 1997, p. 201; Trebolle Barrera 1998, p. 201. See also J. Kugel 1990.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

25

depending on Judaeo-Christian informants in Palestine, Esdras is a prophetic book. In fact, if the suggestion of how the collection of the Writings was constituted as told above is agreed, almost all the books belonging nowadays to this collection were earlier considered part of the Law and the Prophets. One may observe that, in 4 Macc 18:16, Solomon and Proverbs are referenced in the context of the Law and the Prophets. It can be hypothesized that the same occurred in the case of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, and even of Ben Sira/Ecclesiasticus. It may be that only the book of Esther was directly introduced into a collection of ‘Writings’ since its canonicity seems to be late.⁵⁹ How can we explain the reclassification of some of the Prophetic books to the Writings? For Ruth and Lamentations, a liturgical reason was given above. Is it possible to generalize such an explanation? The Jewish liturgy of the Shabbat is rather well known from the second century CE. In Babylon a section of the Torah (parashah) was prescribed to be read so that the whole Torah was read in sections (parashot) throughout one year; then, after the blessings upon the Torah, a section of the Prophets, a haftarah, was read; then there was the homily. Note that the Writings do not provide any haftarot to the Shabbat liturgy; on the contrary, nowadays parts of all the books of the order of the Prophets are read (except Nahum, Zephaniah, and Haggai which, since they belong to the Twelve Minor Prophets, count as part of this literary unit). Therefore, one may wonder whether the Writings are the collection of ‘Prophetic books’ which are not used in the Shabbat liturgy. The argument is attractive, but there is an objection: it relies on the idea that the liturgy was prior to the Writings as a collection, not vice versa.⁶⁰ The prologue of Ben Sira/Ecclesiasticus mentioned above suggests a further general argument: books not belonging to the category of Law or to the category of Prophets could have been collected together in the Writings. This argument works in the case of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, 2 Esdras, but it is not relevant for Lamentations, Daniel, and 1–2 Chronicles. ⁵⁹ Davies 2007 argues in favour of the presence of Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Ruth in the canon of the Hasmonean time, which is unaware of the category of the Writings. He may be right, except for Esther. ⁶⁰ Thanks to Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra who discussed with me the relevance of the argument.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

26       If the liturgical explanation is false and the literary explanation limited, it may be better to evoke specific explanations, book by book. For instance, the fact that the book of Daniel was not considered among the Prophets could be explained by its apocalyptic features. Daniel offers the theory of the succession of the kingdoms, as well as visions and numerical data which could have been used by the supporters of the war against Rome to demonstrate that their victory was written in Scripture. The war of the years 130–135 CE exposed Judaism to mortal danger. To ensure its survival the Sages focused on the holy texts: their interpretations and the traditions that might de facto advocate peaceful coexistence with Rome. In such a context, Daniel could have been moved from one order to another: outside the Prophets, Daniel may have been a less dangerous political text.⁶¹

Is the Classic Theory to Be Abandoned? Up to this point, we have followed the argumentation delineated by the classic theory: the canonization as a process beginning with the stage of the Torah and continuing with the stage of the Prophets. Relying on the investigations of Ronald E. Clements and Joseph Blenkinsopp,⁶² Stephen B. Chapman challenges even this paradigm: for him, the oldest canonical element that we can identify is a symbiotic pair consisting of the Torah and the Prophets together.⁶³ The end of Deuteronomy (34:10–12) describes Moses as the prophet par excellence, and the last verses of Malachi (3:22–24) urge obedience to the Torah of Moses and announce the mission of the prophet Elijah before the day of YHWH. So, the Torah and the Prophets are associated with one another and together constitute the same history of Israel and its legal tradition. In this scenario, the canon must be defined in terms of ‘intertext’. Chapman thinks that this association is in line with the Deuteronomic tradition and he suggests that it can be dated to the time just after the Exile (450–400 BCE). In this period, the Law has no supremacy over the Prophets: it is simply the ⁶¹ Similar idea in Sanders 2004, p. 258. ⁶³ Chapman 2000 and 2003.

⁶² Clements 1975; Blenkinsopp 1977.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

27

beginning of the Biblical corpus. So, for instance, when Ezra-Nehemiah 19:24–31 refers to the entire prophetic period this implies that the reference text is the whole corpus constituted by the Law and the Prophets. According to Chapman, the supremacy of the Law is a Rabbinic (Talmudic) innovation. Chapman’s assertion, however, can be questioned. Since at least the second century BCE, the Alexandrian Jews, the Samaritans, and the Sadducees have adhered to the priority of the Torah, sometimes to the exclusion of all other texts. The Pharisees may also be included in this movement, since their references are to the written Torah and the oral Torah.⁶⁴ There are, however, three other weaknesses in Chapman’s argumentation. First, even if Chapman’s ‘Prophets’ are identical to the current biblical order of the Prophets, the study of Ronald E. Clements limits the Prophetic corpus to the Former Prophets (i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings). The Torah and the Prophets are in fact the Enneateuch, without Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. Therefore, a two-stage canonization is inevitably suggested: no longer the Torah and then the Prophets, but the Torah and the Former Prophets, then the Torah with the Former and Latter Prophets. In this model, the status of the Latter Prophets is uncertain. Second, even if 1–2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah refer to the Prophets, their accounts focus on an already established Torah. When they give biblical quotations (indicated by ‘it is written’) the quotes always derive from the Torah. Third, a considerable number of verses in the Former Prophets support the idea of a first stage of canonization that was limited to the Torah. For example, the book that Hilkiah rediscovered in 2 Kings 22–23 is called ‘the Book of the Torah’ or ‘the Book of the Covenant’, without any mention of Prophets. Likewise, the book read by Ezra in EzraNehemiah 18 (Nehemiah 8) is ‘the Book of the Torah of Moses’ and seems to be identical to ‘the Book of the Torah of Elohim’, which is read every day for a period of seven days. For the Samaritans and the ⁶⁴ Carr 2007 accurately demonstrates that the supremacy of the Torah appeared in some Jewish groups a long time before the Sages. Kratz 2007 stresses the role of the Samaritans in the development of the centrality of the Torah; but the Torah does not play any role in the Judaism attested in Elephantine. The redactor of Ruth does not give a decisive role to the Torah, according to Grätz 2007.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

28       Sadducees (and later maybe the Ebionites as well), the only inspired books are the five books of the Torah. The translation of the Bible into Greek was first limited to the Torah, according to all the ancient sources (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). Of course, these texts are influenced by the ideology of the supremacy of the Torah, but that ideology is attested within the Enneateuch itself. All in all, Chapman’s analysis is innovative, but not substantiated. The work of Chapman has the merit of drawing attention to the meaning of the words ‘the Law and the Prophets’. We automatically understand these words as signifying the Law versus the Prophets, meaning on the one hand, the Law, on the other hand, the Prophets. But some of the data from the Second Temple and Patristic period suggest the sense is closer to ‘all the inspired books of Judaism’.⁶⁵ In Qumran, the words ‘the Torah and the Prophets’ seem to encompass all the Scriptures, at least in 4Q390 and 4Q397.⁶⁶ The same can be said for 2 Macc 15:9 (see above). Likewise, the biblical corpus appears to be the referent of these words at various places in the New Testament: in Matt 5:17 (the Law or the Prophets) and 7:12 (the Law and the Prophets), in Luke 24:27 (Moses and all the Prophets), in John 1:45 (Moses in the Law and the Prophets), and in Acts 28:23 (The law of Moses and the Prophets). A reference to the whole biblical corpus can even be made by a (presumably abbreviated) reference to ‘the Law’: as in John 10:34 (which quotes Psa 82:6) and 1 Cor 14:21 (which refers to Isa 28:11–12).⁶⁷ This system of reference appears to be typical in the first century CE. An example of this outside the New Testament is 4 Macc 18:10–19, where the Law and the Prophets refers to Genesis, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, as well as to Isaiah, Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs, and Daniel.⁶⁸ In fact,

⁶⁵ Barton 1984, p. 15 (‘at the time of the New Testament, ( . . . ) all that was included [in the Biblical corpus] was called “Prophets” ’). van der Kooij 1998, pp. 28–9, situates the canonization during the Maccabean period: in his eyes ‘the Law and the Prophets’ is an abbreviation of the full expression ‘the Law, the Prophets and the Writings’. The same opinion is given by Dempster 2008, p. 115; this scholar situates the tripartition at the Maccabean period. ⁶⁶ Despite the contrary opinion of Lange 2008. ⁶⁷ Barr 1983, p. 55 relies on those NT occurrences to assert that the collection of the Prophets was larger in the first century CE than later among the Sages and that it was not closed. ⁶⁸ Lange 2008.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

29

during the whole period of the Tannaim (10–220 CE), the words ‘the Torah and the Prophets’ typically mean ‘the whole biblical corpus’.⁶⁹ The Patristic literature follows this meaning too. In the enumeration of the books of ‘the Law and the Prophets’, Melito of Sardis uses the word ‘Prophets’ before Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Ezra. One could conclude that all the books listed before the ‘Prophets’ refer to ‘the Law’. But these not only include the five books of the Law, but also Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–4 Reigns, 1–2 Paraleipomena, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Job. It seems therefore that, unless Melito’s text has been poorly transmitted, the words ‘the Law and the Prophets’ refer here to all the books of the canon and do not describe books some of which would come from the Law and some from the Prophets.⁷⁰ So, the classic theory should be revised: instead of a second stage defined by the canonization of the Prophets, there was a second stage characterized by the canonization of the Law and the Prophets. At this stage, all the books not belonging to the Torah were grouped under the noun ‘Prophets’, even if their content was not prophetic.⁷¹ What date best fits this stage? Chapman suggests the return from exile, but the scrolls of Qumran suggest a later dating. Armin Lange has analysed 1,145 quotes and allusions that are found in 142 different Qumran texts. Forty-eight of these texts (with 341 quotes) were found to be prior to the High Priest Jason.⁷² In these texts, the books quoted as normative are not limited to the Law and the Prophets that we know today, but there are also many quotes taken from books which later became the Writings. Most of these quotations, however, are not introduced by a formula such as ‘it is written’. In other words, this authoritative literature has not yet reached the status of Scripture. As for the quotations posterior to Jason, the number of normative texts quoted is even greater and the formula ‘it is written’ is four times more numerous. In other words, much of this normative literature has now the status of Scripture. Other Qumran data go in the same direction: the number of ⁶⁹ Leiman 1976, II C 1. ⁷⁰ The same occurs in Rufinus of Aquileia, Commentarius in symbolum Apostolorum 34–36, at the end of the fourth century. ⁷¹ Barton 1986, and Carr 2005, p. 264. ⁷² Lange 2004.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

30       citations is increasing, the exegetical genre appears, anthologies are attested, the word sefer is given to the Prophetic books. Armin Lange connects this new conception of previous normative literature as Scripture to the event of the year 167 BCE, when the statue of Zeus Olympios was erected in the Temple—the statue called by the pious Jews shiquts shomem, the ‘abomination of desolation’. The desacralized Temple is now replaced by Scripture. Now, the Jews will find YHWH not in the Temple and cultic worship, but in the study of the Scriptures. So, the idea of an expanded canon now appears, and the words ‘the Law and the Prophets’ describe an entity that did not exist prior to 167 BCE. One may speculate as to whether the idea of an expanded canon could have existed prior to the Maccabean period. The words ‘the Law and the Prophets’ are given by the prologue of Ben Sira/Ecclesiasticus. The time of authorship is between 132 and 117 BCE, but the author speaks about the floruit of his grand-father, maybe around 200 BCE. The prologue allows us to think that, at the time of this grandfather, the Law and the Prophets were a canonical reality. Is it possible to be more precise? If canonization allows a religious group to define its identity by preserving its memory, we can conclude that the enactment of the corpus defined by the Law and the Prophets aimed to fight and counter those who threatened this identity. In this, the Samaritans are involved above all: they did not want to include in their canon the prophetic texts which were most hostile towards them. But the supporters of the exclusive supremacy of the Law are also in the frame, the groups who will become the Sadducees and, to a lesser extent, the Pharisees—and also the proponents of Alexandrian Judaism. It is not easy to give a single name and single milieu to the ancient supporters of the Law and the Prophets. However, chapters 44–50 of Ecclesiasticus praise some patriarchs, particularly Moses, some prophets, some kings (David, Josiah, Hezekiah), and Zerubbabel and Nehemiah: such praise truly takes place within a religious ideology which mixes the Law and the Prophets. And the prologue stresses this point. The praise of the Fathers is completed with the celebration of Shimon, son of Onias, the High Priest from around 220 to 195 BCE. Scholars identify this Shimon with Shimon ha-Tsadiq (that is the Righteous or the Just). It is said about him that ‘the height of the double [διπλῆς, feminine word] was founded by him’ (Sir 50:2a: καὶ ὑπ᾿

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

31

αὐτοῦ ἐθεμελιώθη ὕψος διπλῆς). May we even hypothesize that this obscure expression could refer to two elements of the Scriptures: the Law and the Prophets?⁷³

Towards a New Model? In the present state of research, it is premature to suggest that a new model should replace the classic theory with its three stages. Nevertheless, some of the studies above do take us in the direction of a two-stage model: first, the Torah and the Prophets, then the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. But this paradigm is not fully established. The classic theory must be retained as the base theory, and thoroughly re-examined. It has not yet been proven impossible that the canonization of the Torah could date back to Ezra and the Persian period, or that it could not be connected with Artaxerxes I’s politics of imperial authorization. But neither has it been proven impossible to date this canonization to the beginning of the Hellenistic period. As for the second stage, it can be concluded that it is inappropriate to speak about the canonization of the Prophets. This canonization stage must concern an entity that includes both the Torah and the Prophets: they are not two separate orders, but a single corpus at the same level. The third stage involves three orders with a ranking: first, the Torah that, second, the Prophets repeat and reinforce, and which, third, the Writings repeat alongside the Torah. This third stage was in gestation from 200 BCE and, for literary and/or liturgical reasons, was not completed for all the Writings prior to 200 CE or the period of the Amoraim. This last stage itself can be divided into two sub-stages: the first involved a tripartition of twenty-two books; the second involved twenty-four books with Ruth and Lamentations now ⁷³ On Shimon, see Barc 2000, pp. 107–236 and 2015. According to Barc, the ‘height of the double’ refers to the two meanings of the Bible, the apparent sense and the hidden one. Shimon’s Canon had thirty-two books: the four books of the Torah (without Deuteronomy), the eight Former Prophets (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings), the sixteen Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets) and the four other books (Job, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Psalms). The figure thirty-two is identical to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet (twenty-two consonants, five final consonants, five Paleo-Hebrew divine letters) and announces the thirty-two paths of the wisdom of the Jewish mystics.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

32       counted as amongst the Writings. All in all, the Jewish canon of the second stage is a unified canon, whereas the Jewish canon of the Sages is a ranked one. This phenomenon is due to the slow rise of the ideology of the Torah supremacy. The further development of this new model requires a series of studies, to which only quick allusions were made above. The notions of Bible, book, canon, canonization, canonicity, an open canon, the closure of the canon, implicit canon, explicit canon, canon hermeneutics, Scripture, inspiration, holiness, and so on, all remain to be further clarified.⁷⁴ Three kinds of data require consideration. First, the explicit quotations of the Jewish Scriptures introduced by formulae such as ‘it is written’, whether in the Bible itself, in Qumran, in the Jewish writings of the Hellenistic and Roman period, in the New Testament, or in the first Christian centuries. Furthermore, this documentation will have to be completed by the tracking of the allusions—and these will be not easy to manage. Second, data from the Qumran biblical manuscripts and the papyri are specific indicators of the use of the canon in existing communities. The third kind of data is liturgical: which books are quoted in the oldest forms of Jewish and Christian liturgy? The question then must be asked as to whether these three kinds of data are univocal or whether they produce diverging indications. In each case research has been done in each area, but this research lacks synthesis.⁷⁵ Our understanding of the formation of the canon must be functional, that is, it must be situated in a process that allows us to understand it. According to which model is this most true? Are we to understand the emergence of the canon in terms of crisis, as in the case of the New Testament (i.e. a response to the Gnostic and Marcionite crisis)? ⁷⁴ Mroczek 2016 deconstructs the notions of Bible and book and suggests that Jews of the Second Temple Period understood their literature apart from these categories; but maybe she does not take enough into account that Jewish writers lived in the Greek and Mediterranean environment. Stemberger 2004 analyses the six technical expressions that occur at the Sages’ time in the debate about the canon: ‘defile the hands’, ‘said in the holy spirit’, the books that are to be saved from the fire on the Sabbath day, the books which are to put into the Genizah, ‘it is written’, valuable forever. Alexander 2007 revisits the issue of the end of the prophecy at the time of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. On the hermeneutics of the canon, see Ballhorn and Steins 2007. ⁷⁵ Vanderkam 1998 (Biblical quotes in Qumran); Markschies, 2003 (the Bible in Oxyrhynchos); Lange 2004 (Biblical quotes in Qumran); Brooke 2007 (the Qumran Biblical manuscripts); Stökl Ben Ezra 2008 (the papyri).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

     

33

Christoph Markschies has demonstrated that the crisis paradigm for the New Testament is not as helpful as was hoped: he has, therefore argued in favour of a laboratory model.⁷⁶ But our discussion above has made little use of the notions of crisis and laboratory and rather talked in terms of process of identity affirmation and ‘collective memory’.⁷⁷ Finally, the formation of the canon of the Jewish Scriptures is not an isolated phenomenon. It must be understood as a particular case of the library practices that spread through many ancient and medieval civilizations that began to constitute corpora of literary works. Similarities and analogies do connect the Vedas, Homer, the Egyptian sacerdotal canon, the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Bible(s), Confucius, and the Qur’an. Our problem is that the differences are much easier to highlight than the similarities, and the role of research is to emphasize the former and not the latter.⁷⁸

⁷⁶ Markschies 2003. ⁷⁷ Words used for the New Testament by Norelli 2007. ⁷⁸ Jacob 2001; Dorival 2001 (Biblical Canon); Malamoud 2001 (the Vedas); Nagy 2001 (Homer); Cheng 2001 (Confucius); de Prémare 2001 (Qur’an and Hadith). The forty-two books of the Egyptian Sacerdotal Canon are described by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI, IV 35,1–37, 3. On the Hippocratic corpus, see Alexander 2007.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

2 The Septuagint and the Issue of the Canon The English word ‘Bible’ can be related to the Greek βίβλος: a feminine Greek noun which typically is used to refer to a record or an account of something. In Letter of Aristeas 316, this Greek word refers to the Hebrew Torah translated into Greek. The Church Fathers used the same word in the broader sense of the whole Biblical corpus, in other words the Septuagint in the wider meaning.¹ A similar neuter Greek noun, βιβλίον, is typically used to refer to a book or scroll upon which this account is written. Today, when speaking about ‘Bible’, we think of a single large volume book that contains the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible (TaNaK), or, in Christian context, an even thicker volume which includes not only the Old Testament, very close to the TaNaK, but also the twenty-seven texts of the New Testament. It is important to be aware that such a single and large volume did not exist in Antiquity. In the Second Temple period there were most probably no codices, only volumina, that is, scrolls made of leather parchment or papyrus leaves. Those scrolls varied in length, a standard size in Egypt was between 3.20 and 3.60 meters. This was sufficient to contain a work of the length of a book of Plato’s Republic (about fifty pages of modern typeface). More lengthy works required multiple scrolls or a scroll of unusual length. For example, the Great Isaiah Scroll of Qumran (1QIsaa) is 7.34 meters long and offers a text of about one hundred pages of modern typeface. The scroll is, therefore, limited. Although a 27-meters scroll is known, it would not be possible or practical to have a work anything like the length of the whole Hebrew Bible on one scroll.²

¹ Harl, Dorival, and Munnich 1988, p. 81.

² Harl, Dorival, and Munnich 1988, p. 64.

The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae. Gilles Dorival, Oxford University Press. © Gilles Dorival 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898098.003.0002

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

35

By contrast, a codex allows the presentation of very lengthy texts or collections of texts (scripture) within one volume. Quite when codices first came to be popular and respected in late antiquity is a debated issue: certainly by the end of the fourth century CE as both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus date from this period. Codex Sinaiticus extends to 346 folios (that is 692 pages, even with some folios missing) and Codex Vaticanus to 235 folios (470 pages, also with folios missing). These magisterial works combined the Septuagint and the New Testament to create a single volume ‘Bible.’ In the Jewish context, however, scrolls persisted to be the only medium permissible for the reading of Scripture in the liturgy. Jewish biblical codices thus functioned as works of reference that preserved the traditions of the scribes for the correct copying and pronunciation of the Scriptures. The oldest extant such codices date to the tenth century (for example, the Aleppo Codex) and the earliest surviving complete codex to the eleventh (the Leningrad Codex). As reference works to guide and guard the preservation of the Hebrew biblical text, these works have become definitive of it, that is, they have become what is known as the Masoretic Text (of the Hebrew Bible). In comparison with the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint corpus offers various textual variations, additional books, and textual supplements along with a different order of its books. For this data to be intelligibly evaluated, it is necessary to consider the question of how all these variations, additions, and supplements came to be part of the Septuagint. An answer to this question was given as early as the eighteenth century: the existence of a specific collection of Jewish scriptures among the Jews of Alexandria.

The Alleged Alexandrian Canon In 1715, J. E. Grabe presented his Alexandrian canon hypothesis, according to which, at the beginning of Christianity, the canon of the Diaspora Jews, particularly in Alexandria, was more extensive than the canon in Jerusalem. It included the Hebrew books translated into Greek, some additions to the Hebrew books (also translated) as well as some additional Greek books (not extant in Hebrew). According to Grabe, the

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

36       Alexandrian canon was officially proclaimed by a Sanhedrin.³ According to other scholars, it was a de facto canon, in other words a clearly identified collection of books read in Alexandria.⁴ The first Christians inherited the Alexandrian canon and because of this the canon of the ancient Church became more extensive than the Hebrew canon. So, Grabe’s observations upon the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek gave rise to the second of the three great theories about the canon, the Alexandrian canon hypothesis, formulated two centuries after Elias Levita’s theory (1538) and more than a century before the classic theory (end of the nineteenth century). As discussed in chapter 1, this hypothesis was largely invalidated by A. C. Sundberg.⁵ His arguments can be resumed as follows. Firstly, Alexandria never became a religious reference centre for Judaism. Secondly, it is not certain that the first Christians inherited their Bible from the Alexandrian Jews. Thirdly, in the first centuries, the Christians viewed as Scriptures some writings which had never belonged to the Alexandrian canon (for example, 4 Esdras, the Enochic Pentateuch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Ascension of Moses). Fourthly, in the first centuries (BCE and CE), some Jewish circles made use of a larger collection of books than those preserved by the Masoretic Bible. For example, Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira have been discovered in Qumran and Masada and the religious works found at Qumran are not limited to the Masoretic Canon. So, the Christian Old Testament is larger than the rabbinic (i.e. Masoretic) canon of Scripture because it comes from a wider collection of books that were understood to be inspired in one or several Jewish groups at the beginning of the Christian Era. In the present state of our knowledge, it is not possible to identify the group (or the groups) that lie behind the collection of Greek texts that form the Septuagint. This is a disturbing fact—and the task of this chapter is to explain it.

³ Grabe 1715. See also Semler 1771. ⁴ Torrey 1945. ⁵ Sundberg 1964. For more details, see chapter 1, pp. 9–10.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

37

The Paradox of the Deuterocanonical Books The books specific to the Septuagint are called ‘the deuterocanonical books’ by the Roman Catholic Church since the time of the Council of Trent (1545–1563) but ‘the Apocrypha’ in Protestant circles. Roman Catholics make use of the word ‘Apocrypha’ for Second Temple literature such as Enoch, Jubilees, or Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs; but these books are called ‘Pseudepigrapha’ by the Protestants. This study adopts the Roman Catholic terminology on the grounds that the early Church Fathers coined this convention and the category ‘Pseudepigrapha’ is an uncertain classification (some of the deuterocanonical books may well have been written as pseudepigraphy). Three features of the deuterocanonical books are in tension: first, they are not present in the canon of the Jewish Sages; second, they are present in certain lists of books pertaining to the Christian Old Testament; third, they are all originally Jewish, not Christian, writings. Four of them were directly written in Greek (Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees 2:19–end, 3 and 4 Maccabees). The others were translated from Hebrew into Greek (1 Ezra, 1 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit 13, Psalms of Solomon); or from Aramaic (2 Maccabees 1:1–2:18, Tobit 1–12 and 14).⁶ Among the Church Fathers, it sometimes happens that Esther is listed as a deuterocanonical book.⁷ According to the Fathers, the deuterocanonical books are neither a part of the ‘testamentary’ books nor of the ‘apocrypha’—two technical words which go back to Greek-speaking Judaism.⁸ Rufinus of Aquileia calls them ‘ecclesiastical’ (Commentarius in symbolum Apostolorum 36), which is also a technical word, but, since it refers to the Church (ecclesia), cannot be borrowed from Greekspeaking Jews (unless this technical word did exist among them or among the Sages). Origen and others speak about books which are ‘outside (ἔξω)’ the canon.⁹ This terminology has no parallel among Greek-speaking Jews, but it is reminiscent of the ‘outside’ books (chitsonim) of the rabbinic tradition. The Babylonian Talmud tractate ⁶ In some cases, there are discussions of the language of the source text. ⁷ For instance, Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter. ⁸ Junod 1984, pp. 105–51. ⁹ Origen, Commentaries on Psalm 1, text edited and commented on by Gallagher and Meade 2017, pp. 84–7.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

38       b.Sanhedrin 100b explains that, according to an anonymous Tanna, those outside books were the writings of the heretics, and adds immediately after, that according to Rabbi Yosef ben Chiyya (c.320 CE) it is forbidden to read Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus). In other words, Ben Sira was considered by some to belong to the chitsonim in the fourth century CE. It is even possible that the phrase the ‘writings of the heretics’ could have been used with reference to the deuterocanonical books. The Church Fathers stressed the fact that the deuterocanonical books were reserved for reading: they are ‘read’ books (Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter) or ‘only read’ (Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis 41). Could this word be the technical term that we are seeking? It seems that, among the rabbis, there was a category of books called qeru’im or miqra’im, possibly along with the adverb ’ak (only), which was distinguished from the ketuvim or Writings. According to Mar Samuel (b.Megillah 7a), Esther was said to be read, and not to be written.¹⁰ This suggests that there were two categories of books: the first ones were subject only to oral reading; the second ones, to oral reading as well as to study and exposition. In the first Christian centuries, these deuterocanonical books were not the subject of commentaries and homilies, but were recommended for the edification of the catechumens, the young, and the general congregation. Maybe the Fathers are here the heirs of the rabbis. Under this scenario, the deuterocanonical books could be defined as inspired Jewish writings (whether written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) which could be read privately but could not be studied or read publicly. In Jewish circles it is possible that Esther may have belonged to this category before it was classified among the Writings, presumably because of the Purim liturgy.¹¹ So, a category of books which were outside the canon, but were recommended for private reading, may have existed in the Judaism of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The Greek Fathers attest to the fact that the number of the received deuterocanonical books was uncertain: they are two (Wisdom of Solomon and Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach [that is, Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira]) according to Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion I.8, 6, 1–4, and John

¹⁰ See also B. Talmud Megillah 3b and 14a.

¹¹ Dorival 2007, p. 1–10.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

39

Damascene, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith IV.17; five according to Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter and Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis 2 and 41–46 (Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobit); six according to Rufinus of Aquileia, Commentarius in symbolum Apostolorum 36, and Jerome, Prologus Galeatus (Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees); nine according to the list of Oxoniensis Baroccianus 206 (Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, 1–4 Maccabees, Esther, Judith, Tobit); eight or ten according to Pseudo-Nicephorus (1–3 Maccabees,¹² Wisdom, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach/Ecclesiascticus, Psalms and Odes of Solomon, Esther, Judith, Susanna, Tobit); nine, according to PseudoAthanasius, Synopsis 74 (Wisdom, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach/ Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobit, 1–4 Maccabees, ‘Ptolemaica’,¹³ Psalms and Ode of Solomon,¹⁴ Susanna).¹⁵ The same uncertainty is found among the uncial codices which aimed to give a complete Bible: Codex Vaticanus offers five deuterocanonical books (1 Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach/ Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit); Codex Sinaiticus at least six (there are lacunae in the manuscript: Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus); Codex Alexandrinus ten (Tobit, Judith, 1 Esdras, 1–4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, Psalms of Solomon); Codex Basiliano-Vaticanus at least eight (Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1–4 Maccabees). All these codices have Esther. Some of these lists enumerate Esther and Susanna as deuterocanonical: Esther belongs to the rabbinic canon, and Susanna is a supplement to Daniel. It seems that none of these lists derive from a Jewish source.¹⁶

¹² Pseudo-Nicephorus speaks of 3 Maccabees, but it is likely that 1–3 Maccabees are concerned. Hence, eight books in the first case, ten in the second. ¹³ ‘Ptolemaica’ is probably another name for 3 Maccabees. ¹⁴ 1–4 Maccabees are probably counted as one book as also Psalms and Ode of Solomon. ¹⁵ Dorival 2003. ¹⁶ Dorival 2003.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

40      

The Supplements to the Shared Books Besides the deuterocanonical books which are not in the canon of the Sages, the Septuagint provides additional material to five (namely, the books of Daniel, Esther, Jeremiah, Job, and the Psalms). The question arises then as to whether this supplementary material originates from pre-Christian Jewish circles. As for Daniel, three of its supplementary passages were first written in Hebrew: Azariah’s prayer (Dan 3:26–45), the story of the three children (Dan 3:24–25) and the song of the three children (Dan 3:52–90). Two further additions were probably written in Aramaic before their translation into Greek: Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. All these supplements are Jewish narratives and have no connection with Christianity. In the case of Esther, there are seven Greek additions, which were originally written either in Hebrew (Esther 1:1a–1r, 4:17a–17z, 5:1a–1f, 5:2a–2b, 10:3a–3l) or in Greek (Esther 3:13a–13g, 8:12a–12x). To those Greek supplements, one can add one addition known only through the Vetus Latina: the prayer of the Jews (Esther 4:16). All these texts are Jewish in origin. As for Jeremiah, there are two pluses: Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. Baruch 1:1–3:8 was written in Hebrew, and Baruch 3:9 onwards in Greek. It is possible that the Letter of Jeremiah was written originally in Greek. Baruch gives the words of Baruch, Jeremiah’s secretary, during the exile in Babylon. In the Letter, Jeremiah writes to the Jewish prisoners going to Babylon and he warns them against the seduction of paganism. Again, regardless of their linguistic origins, these supplements are Jewish. The Jewish origins of the other additions are less certain. At the end of the final chapter of Job, the Septuagint offers five additional verses (Job 42:17a–17e). These verses assert that Job will be resurrected and that he was once called Jobab (Gen 10:29). They give details of the family of Job/Jobab, the kings of Edom to whom Job belongs, and Job’s friends who were the kings of the neighboring lands (Jobab is named in LXX Gen 36:33–34 as the successor of Balak king of Edom). This mention of the resurrection may suggest a Christian origin, or there may be a connection to the Judaism of the Maccabees (which asserted

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

41

that the good will be resurrected, but not the wicked: see 2 Maccabees 7:9, 11, 14, 23, 29).¹⁷ As for the Psalms, after Psa 13:3ab (MT 14:3ab), many Greek manuscripts add eight lines, which come from Rom 3:11–18, in which v.11 = Psa 13:3b, and the following lines quote Psa 5:10a, 5:10b, 139:4b (MT 140:4b), 9:28a, Isa 58:7a (variants), Isa 59:7c, Isa 59:8a (variants), and Psa 35:2b (MT 36:2b). These supplementary verses are not present in the Lucianic tradition of the Septuagint, nor are they in Codex Alexandrinus. Before these verses, there is an obelus in Jerome’s Gallican Psalter, which means that Origen knew that they were not in the Hebrew. So, even if these verses are present in many of the ancient manuscripts, we can be sure that they were not in the oldest traditions of the Septuagint translation. They are most probably a Christian copyist’s Pauline-inspired infiltration into the (originally Jewish) Old Greek text of Psalms.¹⁸ The case of Psalm 151 is different. This additional psalm is called in the manuscripts either a psalm ‘outside the numbering’ (ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ) or Psalm 151. It is said to be written by David himself (ἰδιόγραφος). It is the narrative of his youth, his anointing by Samuel, his fight against Goliath. This psalm has been found in Qumran, at the end of the Great Psalms Scroll (11Q5/11QPsa). More precisely, Psa 151:1–5 coincides with one psalm of 11Q5, referred to by scholarship as 151A, and vv. 6–7 with a second psalm, referred to as 151B, the end of which has been lost. The Qumran Hebrew text is more developed than the LXX Greek. Today, scholars tend to agree that both the two Hebrew psalms of 11Q5 (151A and 151B) and the Greek Psalm 151 come from the same Hebrew original.¹⁹ So, apart from the verses inserted after Psa 13:3ab, all the supplements of the Septuagint appear to have Jewish origins (if the reference to resurrection in Job 42:17a–17e is taken to be Maccabean rather than Christian). Like the Deuterocanonical books, the supplements to the shared Biblical books are the product of Jewish writers.

¹⁷ For more details, see chapter 4, pp. 72–73. ¹⁸ Chapter 4, pp. 74–75. ¹⁹ For more details, see chapter 4, p. 74. On the Odes, which are a Christian collection made during the fifth century, see the same chapter, pp. 75–77.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

42      

The Number of Biblical Books in Greek Jewish Scripture Among Greek-speaking Jews, only Josephus gives the number of the biblical books: twenty-two (Against Apion, I.37–41), but his reference was to the Hebrew Bible, even if he was writing in Greek. Many of the Greek and Latin Church Fathers also report that the Hebrew Bible has twenty-two books. But the number twenty-four is given by two Latin Fathers (Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome).²⁰ And some later Greek and Latin authors suggest other numbers: twenty-six (Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, probably an error for twenty-seven), twenty-seven (Epiphanius of Salamis, On Weights and Measures 3–4 and 22–23; John Damascene, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith IV.17), thirty-four (lists of Oxoniensis Baroccianus 206 and Parisinus Coislinianus 120), thirty-five (list of Londinensis Add. 17469), forty-four (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine II.8, 13). Further examination of these sources is disappointing as none of them comes from a Jewish source.²¹

The Subdivision of the Greek Jewish Scripture As stated in chapter 1, the rabbinic tripartite division of Scripture is unknown within the Septuagint. Furthermore, the reference in the Septuagint to ‘the Law and the Prophets’ is not bi-partite, for example, according to the words of Judas Maccabeus encouraging his soldiers in 161 BCE by means of ‘the Law and the Prophets’ (2 Macc 15:9). The Law and the Prophets do not refer to two separate corpora, but to the Scriptures as a whole: their diversity renders two words necessary. So the whole is bi-referenced or bi-defined. This grouping is present in Qumran texts and in the New Testament. It does not mean the Law versus the Prophets, but all the inspired books. A four-part subdivision appears to be mentioned in much Jewish literature. 2 Macc 2:13–15 enumerates ‘the books of the kings and the prophets and the books of David’. This text has been often quoted in favour of the tripartite division at the time of the Maccabees; but, if we ²⁰ Dorival 2003.

²¹ Dorival 2003.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

43

add the Law, the Scriptures are here divided into four parts. 4QMMT mentions the book of Moses, the book or books of the Prophets and of David and [the annals] of generations: this text was often read as witnessing the tripartition, but it is again quadripartite.²² In his treatise On the Contemplative Life 25, Philo deals with the laws, the prophets, the hymns, and the other [texts]. That again suggests a quadripartition, not a tripartition. Let us turn to the Church Fathers, hypothesizing that, in their description of the Septuagint corpus, they could be the heirs of the Jews.²³ According to them, there are three kinds of subdivision: bipartition, tripartition, and quadripartition. Let us begin with tripartition, as this is the rabbinic and later Masoretic subdivision. Jerome is the only author who, in the Prologus Galeatus, refers to the rabbinic tripartition of Law, Prophets, and Writings. This division is completely unknown to the other Fathers. Nevertheless, some of them do speak about a tripartite Bible, but these tripartite divisions appear to have nothing to do with the rabbis. For instance, in the Prophetic Extracts I.25, II–III (prooimion), Eusebius of Caesarea reviews the passages of the Old Testament which prophesy Jesus: first the Pentateuch and the Scriptures that follow (the historical books and the Former Prophets); then the poetic books (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job); and last, the books of the Prophets. In continuity with Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem distinguishes between the Law followed by the historical books, the poetic books, and the prophetic books (Catechetical Lectures IV.33–36). The same subdivision is also substantiated by Gregory of Nazianzus, Poems I.12, who enumerates the historical books (among which is the Pentateuch), the poetic books and the books of the prophetic Spirit. However, it seems that none of these tripartite divisions derive from Jewish sources.

²² See chapter 1, pp. 17–18. ²³ Gallagher and Meade 2017 usefully gives and comments upon the biblical canon lists of early Christianity. Since their review does not extend beyond the beginning of the fifth century, the Greek and Latin lists of Pseudo-Athanasius, Pseudo-Chrysostom, John Damascene, Junilius Africanus, Nicephorus are all missing; for these (and others) one must consult Swete 1902, pp. 203–14.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

44       A quadripartition is stated by Epiphanius of Salamis, who, in his treatise On Weights and Measures IV, distinguishes four ‘Pentateuchs’ (groups of five books) in the Bible: the books about the Law (the Pentateuch in the usual sense), the poetic books (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs), the writings or Hagiographa (Joshua, Judges with Ruth, 1–2 Paraleipomena, 1–2 Reigns, 3–4 Reigns) and the prophetic books (the Twelve Minor Prophets as one book; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel). John Damascene, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith IV.17, reiterates Epiphanius’ view. But these descriptions are somewhat forced, as indicated by the fact that both authors add at the end of their lists two isolated books: Esdras and Esther. Other quadripartite divisions exist. For instance, Junilius Africanus, who lived in Constantinople in the middle of the sixth century (but wrote in Latin), draws a distinction between historia, prophetia, proverbia (Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Song of Songs) and simplex doctrina (Ecclesiastes). Junilius Africanus does not aim to deal with the issue of canon. He wants to classify the books from a rhetorical point of view, according to which there are four manners of dictio: history, prophecy, the proverbial manner, and the manner which says things simply. In other words, this quadripartition is externally imposed (and so completely forced and artificial). In fact, it is hard to see any continuity between the Christian quadripartitions and the Jewish ones. Whilst some modern scholars do assert that the Jewish LXX was divided into four parts, the Law, the Historical books, the Poetic books, and the Prophets,²⁴ there is simply no Jewish evidence for the Jewish origins of this division. Some Fathers know of a bipartition in the Scriptures, or rather the fact that they are bi-referenced or bi-defined. Melito of Sardis (quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History IV.26, 12–14) tells that Onesimus invited him to write ‘extracts from the Law and the Prophets’ about the issue of the Saviour. In his enumeration of the books of the Law, Melito of Sardis does not use the word ‘Law’, but the word ‘Prophets’ is given before Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Esdras. One could conclude that all the books listed before the ‘Prophets’ ²⁴ See Ellis 1988; Kaestli 2007, p. 113.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

45

refer to the Law, but these include Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–4 Reigns, 1–2 Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Job. It seems therefore that, unless Melito’s text is badly transmitted, the words ‘the Law and the Prophets’ here refer to all the books of the canon and do not describe books some of which come from the Law and the others, from the Prophets. The testimony of Melito is particularly important, as he writes during the second half of the second century and is informed by some Jews, who probably are Judeo-Christians. These Jews who believed in Jesus are likely to share the same opinion as (some) other Jews of their day. At the end of the fourth century, the words ‘the Law and the Prophets’ are read in Philastrius of Brescia, Diversarum Hereseon Liber 78, and in Rufinus of Aquileia, Commentarius in symbolum Apostolorum 34–36. Unlike Philastrius, Rufinus gives the list of those books: the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges with Ruth, 1–4 Reigns, Paraleipomena, 1–2 Esdras, Esther, then the Prophets, Prophetae, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and in addition, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, the three books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs). Do these last books (from Job to Song of Songs) belong to the Prophets? Does the Law contain, in addition to the Pentateuch, the books from Joshua as far as Esther? One can say of Rufinus the same as was said about Melito: when the word ‘Prophets’ is used alone, it seems to refer to the four Major Prophets and to the Twelve Minor Prophets. When the word ‘Prophets’ is used in ‘the Law and the Prophets’, however, it seems to refer to all the biblical books and not to a precise subdivision. It also seems that Augustine makes use of another subdivision. In his treatise On Christian doctrine II.8, 13, he distinguishes between the books belonging to history, historia, and the Prophets, Prophetae. He asserts that there are two kinds of historical books: the former ones belong to a kind of history ‘that contains a connected narrative of the times and the order of the facts (quae sibimet annexa tempora continent atque ordinem rerum)’. These former ones are the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–4 Reigns, 1–2 Paraleipomena. The latter ones belong to a kind of history which is of ‘a different order’ (ex diverso ordine), in other words, each of them tells independent events, not related to the events told by the others: Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees, 1–2 Esdras.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

46       Augustine adds that 1–2 Maccabees and 1–2 Esdras rather belong to the ‘ordered history’. Then, Augustine says, there are also two kinds of Prophets, the former kind being Psalms, the three books of Solomon, Wisdom, and Wisdom of Sirach. The latter kind consists of Prophets in the true sense (proprie): the Twelve Minor Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. So, the distinction between history and prophecy seems to be only a reiteration of the distinction between ‘the Law and the Prophets’. Augustine replaced ‘Law’ with ‘History’, because, in his eyes, ‘History’ fits better than ‘Law’ as a description of the content of the books from Genesis to 1–2 Paraleipomena and perhaps because, as a Christian, he thinks that the Jewish Law is of no further value. Moreover, Augustine makes a distinction between the Prophets in the true sense and the other Prophets. In this way, he expresses the embarrassment that the nonprophetic content of some of the Prophetic books necessarily causes. It is noteworthy that, at the end of the fourth century CE, the words ‘the Law and the Prophets’ still can refer to all the Scriptures, and not to a subdivision of that corpus. Rufinus and Augustine are in continuity with Melito, who, himself, is in line with 2 Macc 15:9, some Qumran data, various texts of the New Testament, and the Tannaim.²⁵ The persistence of the meaning of these words from the first century BCE up to the fifth century CE is remarkable and is not easy to explain. Finally, one must consider whether the bi-referenced or bi-defined canon was ever used to refer to a hierarchy, as in the tripartite canon (where the Law has the first place, the Prophets the second one, and the Writings the last). In the New Testament, the Law and the Prophets are at the same level since New Testament argumentation relies upon all the Scriptures, without any priority given to the Law. For instance, in the verses about the plucking of grain on the Sabbath (Matt 12:1–8, Mark 2:23–28, Luke 6:1–5), the Pharisees argue on the basis of the Law, whereas Jesus refers to an episode in the life of David (1 Sam/Reigns 21:1–7) in order to justify the behaviour of his disciples. Whilst it seems that Paul sometimes does give priority to quotations from the Law, these cases are more likely to reflect a strategy of polemics than his own ideology. The Epistle to the Hebrews begins its demonstration of the ²⁵ See chapter 1, pp. 28–29.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

47

unique greatness of Jesus with the quotation of several Psalms. 1 Peter 1–2 seems to treat Leviticus and Isaiah on equal terms. By contrast, several Jewish groups of the Hellenistic and Roman period do assert the supremacy of the Torah. For example, whenever citations of the Scriptures are indicated by ‘it is written’ in Ezra and 1–2 Paraleipomena, the Scripture quoted is always from the Torah. In the case of the Samaritans and the Sadducees, the supremacy of the Torah is undeniable, if not total and exclusive. The Pharisees themselves refer to the written Torah and the oral Torah. The Alexandrian Jews likewise gave precedence to the Torah, even if they know the other Biblical books. But other trends did exist: most notably amongst the Jewish-Christian followers of Jesus or the Jewish group from whom the Book of Ruth emerged and in which the Torah evidently did not have so decisive a role.²⁶ In conclusion, one must stress the paradox and the importance of the supplementary texts specific to the Septuagint. The paradox is that they are outside the Jewish Scriptures and belong to the Christian Old Testament despite the fact that all the deuterocanonical books, as well most of the supplements to the shared Biblical books, have Jewish origins and are the product of Jewish writers. The importance of these texts is self-evident. 1 Esdras is the most literal translation into Greek that we know, even if the Hebrew original is lost. Many of these texts provide new insights into Jewish history: in Jeremiah’s time (Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah), the end of the third century in Alexandria (3 Maccabees), during the Hasmonean period (1–2 Maccabees). Judith, Tobit, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon evidence how the Jews imagined and represented their own history during the Babylonian and Assyrian periods. Wisdom of Solomon and Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach are superlative examples of the Jewish wisdom literature present in both Egypt and Judaea. Finally, 4 Maccabees illustrates an ancient Jewish taste for philosophy. In sum, without the deuterocanonical books and the supplementary passages preserved by the Septuagint, we would know much less about ancient Judaism.

²⁶ S. Grätz 2007.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

PART II

T H E NE W T E S T A M E N T A N D THE SCRIBES (COPYISTS) OF THE SEPTUAGINT

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

3 Is the Septuagint the Old Testament of the New Testament? Up until fifty years ago, when translating the quotations of the Old Testament in the Patristic texts, scholars typically reproduced the text of the Old Testament of their usual Bible: Crampon (Bible de Jérusalem) in France; Luther’s Bible in Germany; the King James or the Revised Standard Version in United Kingdom; and so on. The presumption was that the Old Testament of the Church Fathers was the Hebrew Bible, and this was best defined by the medieval Masoretic Text (MT). At that time, it was not widely recognized that the Old Testament of the Church Fathers was the Septuagint, not only in the Greek-speaking areas, but also in the Latin-speaking areas. This was because, in the time of the Church Fathers, the Latin Old Testament was the Vetus Latina, and the Vetus Latina was a translation of the Septuagint completed sometime during the second century CE. The later Vulgate was translated by Jerome from the Hebrew, but this translation was only undertaken in the early fifth century and it did not become the standard reference text of the Western Church until sometime between Cassiodorus (sixth century) and Bede (eighth century). Furthermore, since the Septuagint was translated during the three last centuries BCE, it witnesses to a Hebrew text that has many differences with the Hebrew text of the medieval Masoretic tradition. The number and extent of these differences varies depending on the biblical book. As a result, sometimes quotations from a MT-based translation can be quite different to those from a Septuagint-based one. Nowadays, things have changed. Since there are translations of the Septuagint in many modern languages, the translators of the Church Fathers tend to quote these instead of Old Testament texts with the Hebrew-based translations.

The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae. Gilles Dorival, Oxford University Press. © Gilles Dorival 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898098.003.0003

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

52       The relationship of the Church Fathers to the Septuagint can usefully be compared to Philo’s and Josephus’ relationship to the Septuagint. The translations of the Septuagint were the Scriptures of Philo of Alexandria and it was upon these texts that he commented. As Dominique Barthélemy pointed out fifty years ago,¹ some of his quotations in his Allegorical Commentary were rewritten (or ‘corrected’) according to Aquila’s version by a follower of Rabbi Hoshaya. Aquila’s version was completed at the beginning of the second century CE, around a century after Philo. The issue as it pertains to Josephus is more complicated. Since Josephus freely adapted his sources, they are not always easy to determine. Three sources are possible: the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and the Aramaic Targum, as explained by Zuleika Rodgers.² It seems that Josephus primarily relied upon the Septuagint translation at least in respect to the Historical books and, most probably, in respect to many other books too. So, the Septuagint seems to be (broadly speaking) the reference Bible of the two main Jewish authors who wrote in Greek at the time of the making of the New Testament. And both are representative of the Jewish society of their time. The former was a Hellenized member of the Jewish diaspora; the latter belonged to the Pharisees of JudaeaPalestine. Accordingly, we would expect that the New Testament, which is a collection of twenty-seven Greek texts written (broadly speaking) by first century Jews, to quote the Septuagint by and large. Nowadays, the assertion that the Septuagint was the Bible of the New Testament is widely accepted. In the scholarly milieu, Alexander Sperber was the last to demur. In 1940, he tried to demonstrate the existence of a ‘Bible of the Apostles’, that is a translation of the Old Testament books that differed from that of the Septuagint and was posterior to all subsequent Greek renditions of the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament.³ This hypothesis was not verified and, as far as I know, has been completely abandoned. By contrast, and more recently, Timothy M. Law has drawn historical and theological consequences from the fact that the Septuagint (and not the Hebrew Bible) was the Old Testament Bible for most Christians throughout most of the first millennium of the Church.⁴ The proposition that the Septuagint is the Old Testament of the New ¹ Barthélemy 1967.

² Rodgers 2012.

³ Sperber 1940.

⁴ Law 2013.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

        

53

Testament, however, is not popular among some Christian believers today. Just like the scholars of yesteryear, but for different reasons, they prefer to think of the Bible of the New Testament as the Hebrew Bible. Our assertion that the Septuagint is the Old Testament of the New Testament requires three qualifications. First, there were several forms of the Septuagint. These are referred to as the Old Greek (that is, the Septuagint before the time of the New Testament), Origen’s Septuagint, the Lucianic Septuagint, and so on. Second, there were also a number of Jewish revisions of the Septuagint translation(s) current at the start of the Christian era, for instance, the so-called kaige revision. Third, when New Testament writers quote the Septuagint, they often make use of translations which are different to those of the Old Greek version of the Septuagint. Sometimes, these are quotations from one of the Jewish revisions, as observed by Natalio Fernandez Marcos forty years ago.⁵ Sometimes they are not really quoting directly from the Septuagint, but from one of the collections of quotations, the Testimonia, compiled from it. These were anthologies of biblical quotations that were held to demonstrate that Jesus’s death and resurrection had been announced in the Old Testament, that God had intended to reject the Jews and elect the nations etc. Matthew’s Gospel and Paul’s letters sometimes use these Testimonia. None of these Christian Testimonia collections has survived outside of these quotations, but the popularity and importance of such Scripture collections amongst first century Jews has been proven by the Qumran data, as exemplified by the Florilegium 4Q174 and by 4Q176 (4QTanhumim).

Lists of Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament At the end of the scientific editions of the New Testament there are biblical indexes. In the famous 1881 edition of Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort, there are about 1,200 quotations given according to the order of the books of the New Testament.⁶ In 1966, Kurt Aland and ⁵ Fernandez Marcos 1976, pp. 323–32.

⁶ Westcott and Hort 1881.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

54       collaborators also offered an ‘Index of quotations’, but now given according to the order of the books of the Old Testament: there are around 2,500 quotations of 1,800 different passages.⁷ (In 1975 this index was revised and re-presented as two indices, an ‘Index of Quotations’ and an ‘Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels’, but the total number of entries was the same.)⁸ In all these indexes, the reference text is the Hebrew Bible as if the Bible of the New Testament was the MT. Nevertheless, the Septuagint is not completely ignored. For instance, in Aland’s index, Gen. 46:27 is followed by the indication ‘LXX Ac 7:14’, which means that Acts 7:14 here quotes the Septuagint, according which ‘all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt were seventy-five souls’, and not the MT, which speaks about ‘seventy souls’. There are many other lists of quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament. When one looks at these in reference to the Septuagint, one is always wise to consult the Introduction of Henry B. Swete which was published in Cambridge in 1902.⁹ The lists that he established are valuable on two accounts: first, because they are limited to formal and explicit quotes (and so exclude allusions), and second, because they recognize the textual states of the great uncial codices. According to the ‘Table of the OT passages quoted in the NT’, there are, depending on the way one counts them, 173 (158 Swete; other possible figures: 160, 163, 165, 166, 168, 171) quotations listed according to their OT order: fifty-nine (fifty-one Swete) come from the Pentateuch;¹⁰ forty-eight (forty-six Swete), from the Poetical books;¹¹ sixty-six (sixty-one Swete), from the Prophets.¹² The second Table represents this list in six groupings according to their NT order: (1) The quotations in the Synoptic Gospels: around forty-eight.¹³ (2) The quotations in John: twelve (or thirteen), among which three are also in the Synoptics. (3) The quotations in Acts: twenty-three. ⁷ Aland et al. 1966. ⁸ Aland 1975. ⁹ Swete 1902. ¹⁰ Gen: 17; Exod: 17; Lev: 5; Num: 1; Deut: 19. ¹¹ Psa: 40 (or 42); Prov: 5; Job: 1. ¹² Isa: 38 (or 41); Minor Prophets: 18; Jer: 4; Dan: 1; 1 Samuel: 1; 1 Kings: 1. ¹³ Eighteen are specific to Matt, three to Mark, three to Luke, ten are shared by the three, three by Matt and Mark, four by Matt and Luke, none by Mark and Luke.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

        

55

(4) The quotations in the Catholic Letters: eleven. (5) The quotations in Paul: seventy-eight, among which seventy-one are found in four letters (Romans, 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians). (6) The quotations in the Epistle to the Hebrews: twenty-eight, among which twenty-one are exclusive to this Epistle. Swete finds that the Synoptics offer a text closer to Codex Alexandrinus than to Codex Vaticanus; he also detects convergences with Theodotion. The quotations in Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and Hebrews are consistent with the ‘Septuagint’ as is the case with more than the half of the quotations in Paul. The situation in John is more difficult to interpret: Swete observes some of the quotations to be composite (a mix of Aramaic and Greek?), but he is not able to explain this phenomenon (he was writing before the Testimonia hypothesis was brought to light). Another limitation of his Introduction is that he confines himself to the explicit quotations: Revelation is not present in the Tables, whereas this book is full of allusions to the Septuagint. Before Swete, several other valuable works had examined the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament. For instance, according to Henry Gough, there are 627 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament.¹⁴ According to David MacCalman Turpie, 275 passages of the New Testament quote around 250 Old Testament passages.¹⁵ According to Eduard Böhl, there are around 360 quotations.¹⁶ But the most in-depth work was written by the American Crawford Howell Toy, who asserted that the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament ‘are never made immediately from the Hebrew, but always from the Greek and the Aramaic version’ and that they can be divided into four classes: ‘those which agree with both the Hebrew and the Septuagint; those which agree with the Septuagint against the Hebrew; those which agree with the Hebrew against the Septuagint; and those which agree with neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint’. The quotations of the first and second classes derive from the Septuagint; the quotations of the third and fourth classes derive from the Aramaic Version or are ¹⁴ Gough 1855.

¹⁵ McCalman Turpie 1868.

¹⁶ Böhl 1878.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

56       free translations of the Hebrew. His work has two indexes (I. New Testament Quotations; II. Old Testament passages quoted) and list around 600 quotations.¹⁷ At the time of Swete then, the total number of quotations differed considerably between different scholars. For Swete, there were around 160, whilst for Toy there were around 600. For Wilhelm Dittmar, however, there were around 1,600 quotations,¹⁸ and according to Eugen Hühn, there were more than 4,000!¹⁹ Moving forward to the second half of the twentieth century the situation is not much different: Roger Nicole counts around 300 quotations;²⁰ whilst according to Henry M. Shires, there are 239 acknowledged quotations coming from 185 different Old Testament passages, and 147 unacknowledged ones coming from 147 Old Testament texts; besides 1,167 rewritten texts or paraphrases coming from 944 Old Testament passages (totalling 1,604 quotations from 1,276 Old Testament passages).²¹ Two further reliable modern overviews should be noted. In 1952–1963 (and writing in Dutch), C. Smits analysed the Old Testament quotes in four volumes. Each quotation is examined according to three issues: the text of the quotation; the hypothesis of Testimonia; the exegetical problem.²² More concise is the overview in Craig A. Evans’ guide to ancient texts behind the New Testament. The eighty-seven-page appendix devoted to ‘Quotations, Allusions, Parallels to the New Testament’ is valuable, even if parallels are not quotations.²³ Three synoptic presentations also deserve special mention. In 1961, R. G. Brachter gave a synoptic presentation of the quotations, from Matthew to Revelation in two columns. In the left column is given the English Revised Version of 1881. In the right column the passage of the Old Testament from which the quotation comes, according to the translation of 1881 (which is from the Hebrew). In the cases of composite quotations, all the corresponding passages of the Old Testament are given. When the Septuagint and the MT are different and when the New Testament corresponds to the Septuagint, the translation of the edition of Rahlfs is first given, then the translation of the MT. The system is clear, ¹⁷ Toy 1884. ²¹ Shires 1974.

¹⁸ Dittmar 1899–1903. ²² Smits 1952–1963.

¹⁹ Hühn 1900. ²³ Evans 2005.

²⁰ Nicole 1958.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

        

57

but has one drawback: it is not possible to discover the cases where the New Testament agrees with the MT against the Septuagint. In these cases, the underlined words in one column have no corresponding words in the other, whilst the words in italics in the other column have but approximate corresponding words in the other column.²⁴ As a result, this list is rather imprecise, even if it is useful. All in all, there are around 440 quotations. Second, in 1983 G. I. Archer and G. Chirichigo published a new analysis of the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament in two tables. The first Table gives, in its left column, the passages of the New Testament offering a quotation and, in its right column, the reference number of these passages in the second Table. This second Table presents 312 Old Testament texts in four parallel columns: two on the even-numbered pages and two on the odd-numbered. (1) The leftmost column gives the indication of the biblical book, chapter, and verse and the MT text. (2) The following column gives the Septuagint text. (3) The third column gives the NT reference and its Greek text (when the quotation is present in several books of the New Testament, the references are marked a, b, c, and so on). (4) The rightmost column offers a commentary in which the quotations are classified in six classes, from A to F: (A) 267 literal or quasi-literal quotations, coming from the Septuagint translating literally from the Hebrew; there are three subdivisions: A (in italics): the 201 most literal quotations; A- (in italics, with a hyphen): 16 quotations offering a small change about one or two words; Ad (in italics, with a supralinear small d): 50 quotations in which there are small changes in the word order. (B) 50 quasi-literal quotations of the Septuagint in which the Septuagint is slightly different from the MT in three subdivisions: B: 18 cases in which the New Testament and the Septuagint completely agree, or almost completely.

²⁴ Brachter 1961.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

58       Ba: 28 cases in which the Septuagint is closer to the MT than the New Testament. Bd: 4 cases, not defined. (C) 33 quotations in which the New Testament is closer to the MT than to the Septuagint and in which the New Testament could have consulted the Hebrew. (D) 22 quotations in which the New Testament and the Septuagint are in close proximity and in which the Septuagint is slightly different from the Hebrew. (E) 13 free quotations. (F) 32 quotations which perhaps are not quotations.²⁵

The definitions of some of these classes are questionable: B and D appear to be identical in their definitions and Bd is not defined at all. Despite this, the four-column table is useful and treats more than four hundred quotations and allusions (in comparison to the 160 explicit quotations analysed by Swete). Third, in 2000 R. Grant Jones analysed 320 quotations and whilst his work on the Septuagint was not published, it can be read on the internet. As the author says, he is not an expert in either Greek or Hebrew, but his tables are still useful, particularly Table 1 ‘Quotations Overview’, Table 6 ‘New Testament Quotations in Agreement with the Hebrew against the Sense of the Septuagint’ (seven instances), Table 7 ‘New Testament Quotations in Disagreement with both the Hebrew and the Septuagint’ (fourteen instances, among which three are duplicates), and Appendix B ‘Table of Quotations in New Testament Order’.²⁶ At last, thanks to electronic technologies, there is now a useful database. It was made in Germany at Wuppertal by the ‘Institut für Septuaginta und biblische Textforschung’, under the direction of Martin Karrer.²⁷ 449 quotations of 357 verses of the Septuagint are here listed for 389 New Testament passages. The database presents the variants of the Greek manuscripts (namely, the codices Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Bezae Cantabrigiensis; the Antiochian text of the Septuagint and the ²⁵ Archer and Chirichigo 1983.

²⁶ Grant Jones 2000.

²⁷ https://www.isbtf.de.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

        

59

Byzantine text of the New Testament) and papyri, as well as the text of the MT, the Vulgate, and the Peshitta. In sum, the number of the quotations remains problematic: are they 160 (Swete), 250 (Turpie), 320 (Nicole, Grant Jones), 360 (Böhl), 400 (Archer-Chirichigo), 440 (Brachter, the German database), 600 (Gough, Toy), 1,200 (Westcott-Hort), 1,600 (Dittmar, Shires), 1,800 (Aland and collaborators), 4,000 (Hühn)? Such discrepancies are astonishing. The problem arises because editions of the New Testament and several monographs identify ‘quotations’ that are better described as allusions or parallels or (even) common words. The more accurate sources of data are, therefore, the indexes of Grant Jones, Archer-Chirichigo, Brachter, Toy, and the German database. Nevertheless, even these sources vary in the ratio of one to two, which is a major variation. ‘La Bible d’Alexandrie’ is a French series of translations of the Septuagint with twenty volumes published between 1986 and 2019 (in progress). Its annotations mention the differences between the MT and the Greek and try to explain them: either by the existence of a different Hebrew model, or by the intervention of different interpretative traditions, or even, as rarely as possible, by mistranslations. The annotations also systematically indicate which passages are quoted in the New Testament. Finally, one further issue about these quotations must be addressed concerning the texts that are not quoted in the New Testament (and might be expected to have been). It is well known that the Septuagint includes books and passages which are not in the Hebrew Bible. In the Roman Catholic Church, a select group of these supplements have been called ‘deuterocanonical’ since the council of Trent (1545–1553). Among the Protestants, they are generally called ‘the Apocrypha’. They are all Jewish writings,²⁸ and some of them circulated in Hebrew or in Aramaic before being translated into Greek (such as 1 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Baruch 1:3–3:8, or Wisdom of Sirach) whilst others were written in Greek (such as Wisdom of Solomon). It is very likely that some of these books were a part of a wider Hebrew canon in the first centuries CE, particularly the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, several verses of ²⁸ See the discussion in the previous chapter.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

60       which are quoted as Scripture in the Talmud. Some of these books appear to have been viewed as inspired by the Pharisees and the Tannaim, but later lost this recognition, whereas others were considered to be Scripture by other Jewish circles. There is so much uncertainty and so little surviving documentation that it is hard to make any definitive statement. What is clear is that the deuterocanonical literature was well attested among the Fathers from the time of Clement of Rome,²⁹ but, crucially, not in the New Testament. The aforementioned indices do connect some passages of the New Testament to Baruch, 1 Esdras, Judith, 1–4 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Tobit and, above all, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon. It is remarkable, however, that, there are no explicit quotations from these books in the New Testament, only parallels and common words. The deuterocanonical books are, therefore, not a feature of the corpus of authoritative Scripture of the writers of the New Testament.

Texts of Quotations in the New Testament The research of the last two generations has concluded that, as a rule, the quotations of the Bible in the New Testament are in conformity with the Septuagint. Within this general conclusion, two qualifications must be remembered. First, the Septuagint translation existed in many different textual forms.³⁰ The New Testament does not give the Old Greek version of the Septuagint in every case, but a text which has been changed to some degree, or even one of the Jewish revisions of the Septuagint. Except in some passages that we shall see in the Gospel of John, the New Testament does not give any ad hoc translations of the Hebrew text. Second, some New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are enigmatic, as in Matthew 2:23 (see below). Until more is known about these enigmas, it is premature to draw too many conclusions. In the meantime, it is necessary to analyse each quotation in each passage, taking into account the different kinds of quotations (as exemplified by ²⁹ Letter to the Corinthians 27, 2 (Wisdom of Solomon) and 55, 4–5 (Judith). ³⁰ Karrer 2016.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

        

61

R. T. McLay):³¹ that is, literal quotations, quotations from memory, free quotations, truncated quotations, composite quotations, quotations revisited in order to take into account the context, quotations harmonized with parallel passages, and so on. It may be that such a wide range of terminology is regrettable, as Stanley E. Porter has asserted.³² More precision is certainly desirable, but, at the same time, the data may require such an approach: ancient quotations were characterized by variety. There seems to be, therefore, no other choice but to perform a close reading of how each New Testament writer approaches the Old Testament Scriptures based on this kind of model.

Matthew In 1954, Krister Stendahl distinguished the ‘Formula quotations’, which are introduced by words such as ‘in order to fulfill what has been spoken by the Lord/the prophet/the prophets’, from the other quotations. The latter come from the Septuagint, although, in Matt 19:18–19, 21:9, 22:32, and 24:30, the conformity to the Septuagint is not self-evident. By contrast, the Formula quotations of Matt 1:22–23, 2:5–6, 2:15, 2:17–18, 2:23, 4:14–16, 8:17, 12:17–21, 13:55, 21:4–5, and 27:9 offer a composite text, influenced by the Hebrew, the Greek, and even the Aramaic Targums.³³ Stendahl noted that Matt 13:14–15 is exceptional as it has a unique introductory formula attested only in this passage: ‘the prophecy is fulfilled’. Around ten years later, Georg Strecker analysed again the Formula quotations and concluded that they must have come from a specific source—a collection of prophecies.³⁴ Here, one can recognize echoes of the Testimonia hypothesis. In 1967, Robert H. Gundry observed composite Hebrew-Greek quotations in all three of the Synoptic Gospels.³⁵ In 1988, Graham N. Stanton distinguished between two kinds of quotations: those which originate from the Septuagint and come from Mark and those that come from the Q source. In six cases where these quotations offer variants from the Septuagint, it is likely that Matthew ³¹ McLay 2003. ³⁵ Gundry 1967.

³² Porter 1997.

³³ Stendhal 1954.

³⁴ Strecker 1962.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

62       introduced these changes for theological and stylistic reasons. As for the Formula quotations, Stanton did not take over the Testimonia hypothesis, but argued that Matthew is responsible for the text of some of those quotations, and that Matthew was the author of his introductory Formula.³⁶ In 2001, Maarten J. J. Menken considered the Formula quotation in Matt 2:23 (so that what has been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled: ‘he will be called a Nazorean’) in relation to the absence of such a verse in the Prophetic corpus.³⁷ He suggested that, here, Matthew draws a parallel between Jesus and Samson and that the quotation combines Judg 13:5 and 13:7 with Isa 7:14. Whilst these textual connections are speculative, Menken’s overall argument is that the quotes in Matthew depend on a revised version of the Septuagint which is no longer extant. In 2004 Menken developed this idea: Matthew used a version of the Septuagint that had been revised—either for the sake of better Greek or better agreement with the Hebrew (or both). In accordance with this view, Arie van der Kooij and Heinz-Josef Fabry find that the quotations of Matthew generally do differ from the text of the Göttingen Septuagint.³⁸

Mark Howard C. Kee observes fifty-seven quotations and 160 allusions in chapters 11–16 alone.³⁹ Morna D. Hooker is right to add that there is only one explicit quotation in the earlier chapters of Mark (1:2–3). This quotation is said in Mark to come from Isaiah, but it is a composite quotation, and only the end comes from Isaiah.⁴⁰ Elsewhere all Mark’s Scriptures seem to be synonymous with the Septuagint. According to Ulrich Rüsen-Weinhold, who in 2004 studied the Psalms quotations in the New Testament, Mark’s quotations come either from the oldest translation of the Psalms, which dates to around 150 BCE, or from a slightly later text, from around 100 BCE.⁴¹

³⁶ Stanton 1988. ³⁷ Menken 2001. ³⁸ Menken 2004; van der Kooij 2013; Fabry 2013. ⁴⁰ Hooker 1979. ⁴¹ Rüsen-Weinhold 2004.

³⁹ Kee 1975.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

        

63

Luke Since the time of Henry B. Swete, it is generally accepted that Luke quotes the Septuagint.⁴² Nevertheless, some quotations should deserve a deeper investigation: for instance, Luke 4:18–19, which combines Isa 61:1–2 with some of the wording of Isa 58:6.⁴³

John According to Menken, John’s Old Testament is the Septuagint.⁴⁴ Three quotations are identical to the Septuagint (John 10:34, 12:38, and 19:24). Seven derive directly from it (John 1:23, 2:17, 6:31. 45, 7:38, 12:15, 15:25, and 19:36). Two quotations are translations from Hebrew in John 12:40 (except the last three words, which come from the Septuagint) and 13:18. Finally, the quotation in John 19:37 seems to be a Christianized translation of the Hebrew. In these last three instances the Septuagint translation is spurned because it was not useful for the purpose of its quotation in John.⁴⁵

Acts Swete’s report that Acts quoted the Septuagint was generally confirmed by Gert J. Steyn in 1995.⁴⁶ Nevertheless, there are occasional verses in which neither the Septuagint is quoted nor the MT, notably, Acts 3:22–23.

Paul’s Epistles In 1957, E. Earle Ellis stated that Paul’s quotations had a deep affinity with the Septuagint, but this affinity is dependent upon the book of the

⁴² Holtz 1968; Evans and Sanders 1993; Karrer, Schmid, and Sigismund 2008. ⁴³ Sanders 1993. ⁴⁴ Menken 1996 and 1997. ⁴⁵ See also Freed 1965 and Hübner 1997a. ⁴⁶ Steyn 1995.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

64       Septuagint he is quoting. The closest affinities are found in his use of Genesis and Psalms; while Reigns, Job, Jeremiah, and Hosea show the least.⁴⁷ In 1988, D. Moody Smith qualified this analysis in reference to Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, and 1–2 Timothy.⁴⁸ He distinguished five types of quotations: (1) Twenty-one quotations in accord with the Hebrew and the Greek. (2) Sixteen quotations in accord with the Septuagint alone. (3) Four quotations in accord with the Hebrew alone (Rom 11:35, 1 Cor 3:19, 2 Cor 8:15, 2 Tim 2:19a). (4) Thirty-seven quotations in accord neither with the Hebrew nor with the Greek. (5) Twenty-seven quotations in accord with neither the Hebrew nor the Greek, but generally close to the Septuagint. Three broad global conclusions can be drawn from the above. First, Paul’s Bible is typically the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Bible. Second, the number of the instances where Paul agrees only with the Hebrew is overstated. At 2 Tim 2:19a Paul does not really quote the Hebrew and the reason for this is best explained by his knowledge of the Septuagint, as I argued in 1994.⁴⁹ Third, Paul’s Bible reflects differences with the Septuagint in over one-third of his quotations. Dominique Barthélemy has pointed out that the quotation of Isa 25:8 in 1 Cor 15:54 was in conformity with Theodotion’s revision.⁵⁰ Twenty-five years later, Max Wilcox stressed that Psa 67:19 (MT 68:19) quoted in Eph 4:8 was in conformity with the Targum and could therefore be a variant that appeared during the history of the Septuagint text.⁵¹ The passage is close to Justin’s quotation in Dialogue with Trypho 87. Does it too come from Theodotion? (Theodotion’s revision is not known for that Psalm). It seems likely that Paul quoted Theodotion from time to time, as well as the revision which is connected to him, the so-called kaige group. However, one can think of another explanation for these discrepancies: the use of Testimonia. This seems very likely in the case of Rom 15:9–12, ⁴⁷ Ellis 1957. ⁴⁸ Moody Smith 1988. ⁵⁰ Barthélemy 1963. ⁵¹ Wilcox 1988.

⁴⁹ Dorival 1994, p. 347.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

        

65

but in this passage the quotations are all in conformity with the Septuagint.⁵²

Hebrews Swete observed that this Epistle either quoted the Septuagint word for word or with minor variations. Charles Spicq and Kenneth J. Thomas generally concurred but qualified these conclusions (in 1952 and 1964–1965 respectively).⁵³ In 1988, Marguerite Harl demonstrated that Heb 10:37–38 quoted Ambakoum (Habbakuk) 2:3–4 according to the Septuagint text, in order to confirm a messianic interpretation.⁵⁴ R. Timothy McLay’s examination of the quotation of Deut 32:43 in Heb 1:6 found that it was much closer to the Septuagint than to the MT or to the Hebrew of 4QDeutq.⁵⁵ In recent years, Hebrews has been revisited many times (for example, by Susan C. Docherty, Radu Gheorghita, Martin Karrer, Gert J. Steyn, and by Georg A. Walser)⁵⁶ and Swete’s assertion that this letter, generally speaking, quotes the Septuagint has never really been questioned.

Catholic Epistles Swete accepted that these letters quote the Septuagint but with much freedom. Only 2 Pet 2:22, which quotes Prov 26:11, was observed to be closer to the MT than to the Greek. Recently, Patrick Egan and Martin Vahrenhorst revisited 1 Peter and disagreed. Egan thinks that 1 Peter depends on a Greek Vorlage that is not attested among the manuscripts of the Septuagint.⁵⁷ Vahrenhort argues that 1 Peter renders the meaning of the Septuagint, but not the wording: it is better understood as rewriting the Septuagint.⁵⁸

⁵² ⁵³ ⁵⁶ ⁵⁷

On Paul see also Hübner 1997b, Koch 1986, Stanley 1992, Wagner 2002, Wilk 2006. Spicq 1952; Thomas 1964–1965. ⁵⁴ Harl 1988. ⁵⁵ McLay 2007. Docherty 2009; Gheorghita 2003; Karrer 2010; Steyn 2011; Walser 2013. Egan 2012. ⁵⁸ Vahrenhorst 2013.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

66      

Revelation This book alludes to (and therefore rewrites) its reference texts. It is not preoccupied by their quotation. Paul L. Trudinger thinks these allusions rely on Semitic sources.⁵⁹ Gregory K. Beale and Daryl D. Schmidt, however, understand it to rely upon the Septuagint.⁶⁰ Whilst both are possible, a dependence on the Septuagint seems to be likely, at least according to Natalio Fernandez Marcos.⁶¹ Three general conclusions can be drawn from this survey. First, the New Testament can use different forms of the same source quotation. For example, Zach 9:9 (‘Rejoice exceedingly, daughter of Zion; [ . . . ] behold, your king will come for you’) is quoted by Matt 21:5 in the form: ‘Tell the daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming for you’, and by John 12:15 in the form: ‘Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming’ (without the words ‘for you’). In fact, Matthew’s beginning comes from Isa 62:11 (‘Say to the daughter of Zion’) and John is closer to Isa 35:4 and 40:9. These quotations are composite, they could even be derived from the Testimonia. Another example is Psa 117:22 (MT 118:22) which is quoted in Acts 4:11 in a form different from the Septuagint text despite the Septuagint form of this text being quoted at Matt 21:42, Mark 12:10b, Luke 20:17b, and 1 Pet 2:7. Max Wilcox gave four different explanations for this phenomenon, but none of them is totally convincing.⁶² Second, the New Testament testifies that there were textual forms of the Old Greek Septuagint that are, at present, otherwise unattested. Jan de Waard observed this for Deut 18:18–19 in Acts 3:22–23.⁶³ Max Wilcox noted this for Zach 9:9 in Matthew 21:5; for Zach 12:10 in Matt 24:30, John 19:37, Rev 1:3, and in Justin Martyr; and for Psa 21 (22):9 in Matt 27:43.⁶⁴ Johan Lust pointed that Mich 5:3 quoted by Matt 2:6 is independent of both the Septuagint and the MT.⁶⁵ Some of those changes can be explained by the theological context in which the quotations occur. In 2006, Christian Amphoux and Gilles Dorival analysed the

⁵⁹ Trudinger 1966. ⁶⁰ Beale 1986; Schmidt 1991. ⁶¹ Fernandez Marcos 1976, pp. 315–20. ⁶² Wilcox 1988. ⁶⁴ Wilcox 1988. ⁶⁵ Lust 1997.

⁶³ de Waard 1965.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

        

67

quotation of Psa 39:7 (MT 40:7) in Heb 10:5. The text of the Old Greek (‘you dug for me ears’) has here become ‘you adjusted for me a body’. This change, they argued, was due to the new theology of salvation: the sacrifices asked by the Law are thus contrasted with the forgiveness of sins achieved by the sacrifice of Jesus’ body.⁶⁶ Sometimes, however, scholars disagree concerning these explanations. For example, in Rom 11:26–27, the text of Isa 59:20 is presented as ‘the redeemer will come out of/from Zion’, with the preposition ἐκ, whereas the MT has ‘for/to Zion’ (le-) and the Septuagint has ‘because of Zion’ (ἕνεκεν). Three explanations were given: a reference to Psa 13:7 (MT 14:7), ‘Who will give out of/from Zion the salvation of Israel?’, a paleographic confusion between ἐκ and εἰς, and (even) the existence of a causal meaning lying behind the choice of ἐκ.⁶⁷ Third, some NT quotations do not conform to the Septuagint tradition, but with a text aligned to the Hebrew—or Theodotion. For instance, when 1 Cor 15:54 quotes Isa 25:8 (‘Death has been swallowed forever’) it follows neither the Septuagint (‘Death with strength has swallowed’) nor the vocalized MT (‘he will destroy death forever’), nor Aquila, nor Symmachus, but Theodotion (and his reading of the consonantal Hebrew text). Relying upon this case and others, Dominique Barthélemy suggested that Theodotion should be dated from the end of the first century BCE, or the beginning of the Christian era, but not from the end of the second century CE as held by others before him.⁶⁸ In the case of Daniel, for which the later Septuagint has two textual forms—that of the Septuagint and that of Theodotion—the New Testament as a rule quotes Theodotion. It happens that these textual forms are in conformity with the Qumran texts, as pointed out by Jan de Waard, particularly with regards to Acts and Hebrews, but also concerning the quotations of Isaiah within the Synoptics and, less often, in John and Paul.⁶⁹ In these places, the New Testament witnesses to a reading tradition that was shared also by Qumran and Theodotion, but not to the reading tradition recorded by the Tiberian Masoretes.

⁶⁶ Amphoux and Dorival 2006. Close explanation in Jobes and Silva 2000, pp. 195–9. ⁶⁷ Harl 1988. ⁶⁸ Barthélemy 1963. ⁶⁹ de Waard 1965.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

68       In conclusion, contemporary research on the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament can be characterized as a return to the Septuagint. Since the time of Cassiodorus and Bede, the Greek Bible had been largely ignored in Western Europe in favour of Jerome’s Vulgate, since the latter had been translated from the Hebrew, and Hebrew was the original language of the Old Testament. In this way, Hebraica veritas prevailed. This situation persisted up until the twentieth century. Of course, the Septuagint remained the Old Testament Scripture of the Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, as a rule, biblical scholars came from Western countries and their attentions were focused on the Hebrew Bible. Thanks to recent research, this ‘forgetting’ of the Septuagint has been largely reversed.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

4 Was the Text of the Septuagint Christianized? As stated in chapter 3, the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the New Testament and of the Greek and Latin Fathers until (at least) the time of Cassiodorus and (possibly) until the time of Bede. In this statement, the referent ‘Septuagint’ is being used in a broad sense. It refers to a number of different forms of the Septuagint: variously referred to as the Old Greek, Origen’s Septuagint, the Lucianic Septuagint, and others. It also refers to the various Jewish revisions of the text undertaken in the first centuries the Christian Era such as the so-called kaige revision and Theodotion. Within this corpus of Septuagint texts, affected as it was by various textual modifications all along its history, we must also ask if any of the changes to the Septuagint text owed their origins to the New Testament or to the Fathers or to the early Christian scribes. In other words, were Christian items inserted into it? Surprisingly, this issue is rarely considered, and the word ‘Christianization’ is not listed in the subject indexes of the introductions to the Septuagint of Henry B. Swete, Natalio Fernandez Marcos, Marguerite Harl, Gilles Dorival and Olivier Munnich, Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Folker Siegert, or even Jennifer Dines.¹ All these overviews primarily focus upon the issues of Hellenization (in order to assess the extent to which the Hebrew Bible was affected by the process of translation into the Greek language and culture) and only secondarily consider the influence of the emerging Christian world upon later versions of the Septuagint. Although Martin Hengel has considered at some length the christlichen Septuaginta, his

¹ Swete 1902; Fernandez Marcos 1976; Harl, Dorival, and Munnich 1988; Jobes and Silva 2000; Siegert 2003; Dines 2004. The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae. Gilles Dorival, Oxford University Press. © Gilles Dorival 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898098.003.0004

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

70       research more concerns the Christian canon over and against the Christianization of verses inside the Greek Bible.²

Christian Texts inside the Septuagint The first places to look for Christian elements inside the Septuagint are the passages of the Septuagint that are not in the Hebrew Bible. The number of deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha) varies according to the Septuagint manuscripts but it is never more than ten: 1 Esdras, Judith, 1–4 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, and Wisdom. Four of these books belong to the historical genre: 1 Esdras and 1, 2, and 3 Maccabees. 1 Esdras tells the same story as the Hebrew EzraNehemiah, but it offers an additional section of three discourses of Darius’ bodyguards discussing who (or what) is stronger than the king (strength itself or wine or women, or truth). According to Robert Hanhart, 1 Esdras was written in Hebrew before it was translated into Greek in the second century BCE.³ 1 Maccabees was also composed initially in Hebrew and translated into Greek in the second century BCE. It retells the story of the Maccabees from the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes in 164 BCE. till the death of Simon Maccabeus in 134 BCE. 2 Maccabees tells a similar story but begins a little before (under the High Priest Onias III, 185–174 BCE) and ends around thirty years earlier (in 161 BCE, when Judas Maccabaeus defeats Nicanor). Except for its opening section (1:1–2:18), 2 Maccabees was first composed in Greek. The title of 3 Maccabees is misleading as the book recounts events prior to the Maccabees. These take place under the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (222–204), when the Egyptians Jews were in danger of extermination. Judith and Tobit tell two exemplary stories. The former explains how Judith, a young and beautiful widow, beheaded Holofernes, the general of Nabouchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar), who had laid siege to Bethulia. The latter tells the story of Tobit, a pious Jew who lived in Nineveh at the time of Sennacherib, and of his son Tobias, whose bride Sarah had lost ² Hengel 1994.

³ Hanhart 1974.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       ?

71

her first seven husbands. They were all killed by the demon Asmodeus during the wedding night before the marriage could be consummated. Judith was composed in Hebrew and translated into Greek around the same time as 1 Maccabees.⁴ Tobit was composed in Hebrew or Aramaic and also translated into Greek sometime during the second century BCE.⁵ The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach (Ben Sira/Ecclesiasticus) and the Wisdom of Solomon belong to wisdom literature. The former was first written in Hebrew, possibly in Jerusalem, and translated into Greek between 132 and 117 BCE in Egypt.⁶ Whilst Wisdom of Solomon is attributed to Solomon, it was composed in Greek at the end of the first century BCE.⁷ The Psalms of Solomon belong to the psalm genre of literature and were written in Hebrew before they were translated into Greek, probably around the end of the first century BCE.⁸ Finally, 4 Maccabees combines an exemplary story with a philosophical approach. The martyrdom of Eleazar and of seven brothers and of their mother (under Antiochus IV Epiphanes) is recounted here to make the point that pious and devout reason is sovereign over all the emotions. It was written in Greek, possibly in Antioch, during the first century CE.⁹ None of these writings betray any Christian origins. They are all Jewish. The second place to look for possible Christianized elements is in the Greek additions (or supplements) to the five Hebrew books Daniel, Esther, Jeremiah, Job, and Psalms. In the Book of Daniel, three additions were first written in Hebrew: the prayer of Azariah (Daniel 3:26–45), the story of the three children (Daniel 3:24–25, 46–51), and the song of the three children (Daniel 3:52–90). Two further additions were probably written in Aramaic before their translation into Greek. In the first, Susanna tells the story of the chaste Susanna accused by two lustful elders; she is condemned to death, but the young prophet Daniel saves her; the two elders are put to death, and virtue is victorious. The second, Bel and the Dragon, covers three narratives. In the first of these, the idol Bel is supposed to eat and ⁴ ⁶ ⁷ ⁹

Festugière 1976. ⁵ Festugière 1976. Harl, Dorival, and Munnich 1988, pp. 86–9. Harl, Dorival, and Munnich 1988, pp. 85–6. Dupont-Sommer 1939.

⁸ Hann 1982.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

72       drink every day, but Daniel proves that the food that is brought to its temple is eaten and drunk by the priests, who are then put to death. In the second narrative, Daniel slays the dragon which is worshipped in Babylon. The third narrative tells the story of Daniel in the lions’ den. All those pious stories are Jewish and have no link with Christianity. In the Book of Esther, there are seven additions, which were written either in Hebrew (Esther 1:1a–1r; 4:17a–17z; 5:1a–1f; 5:2a–2b; 10:3a–3l) or in Greek (Esther 3:13a–13g; 8:12a–12x). Esther 1:1a–1r relates Mordecai’s dream as well as the plot of the two eunuchs against the king, but Mordecai uncovers the plot. Esther 3:13a–13g tells of the edict against the Jews. Esther 4:17a–17z narrates the prayers of Mordecai and Esther. Esther 5:1a–1f, 2a–2b narrates Esther’s visit to the king. Esther 8:12a–12x tells of the edict in favour of the Jews. Finally, Esther 10:3a–3l gives the interpretation of Mordecai’s dream. None of these additions has a Christian origin, as Claudine Cavalier observed.¹⁰ As for Jeremiah, there are two additions: Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Baruch 1:1–3:8 was written in Hebrew; Baruch 3:9 to the end, in Greek, as well as, probably, the Epistle. Baruch’s narrative takes place in Babylon during the exile and expounds the words of Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe. In the Letter, Jeremiah writes to the Jewish prisoners who are going to Babylon in exile, and he warns them against the seduction of pagan worship. The origin of these two additions is clearly Jewish. At the end of Job, the Septuagint offers five additional verses, 17a to 17e. Here is the translation of the beginning of 42:17, according to the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) with some minor revisions: ¹⁷ And Job died, old and full of days. 17a But it is written that he will rise again with those the Lord raises up (γέγραπται δὲ αὐτὸν πάλιν ἀναστήσεσθαι μεθ’ὧν ὁ κύριος ἀνίστησιν). 17b This one [Job] is interpreted from the Syriac book (οὗτος ἑρμηνεύεται ἐκ τῆς συριακῆς βίβλου), on the one hand as living in the land of Ausitis on the borders

¹⁰ Cavalier 2011, pp. 37–44.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       ?

73

of Idumea and Arabia; but on the other hand, previously his name was Jobab.

The following verses give details about the family of Job/Jobab, about the kings of Edom, to whom Job/Jobab belonged, and about Job/Jobab’s friends, who were kings of various neighbouring countries. Jobab is mentioned in Gen 36:33–34, as the successor of Balak at the head of Edom. During the second century BCE, the Jewish Greek-speaking historian Aristeas gives similar information in his book Concerning the Jews.¹¹ Nevertheless, the beginning of 42:17b is not clear at all: what is the meaning of ἑρμηνεύεται? And what is the Syriac book? Is it a lost apocryphon of Job, as Natalio Fernandez Marcos suggested?¹² Only one thing is sure: 47:17b has no connection with Christianity and belongs to Jewish biblical traditions. But what about 42:17a? Some scholars ascribe this verse a Christian origin: for them, the belief in the resurrection is Christian and the Lord who makes men rise is Jesus Christ.¹³ In that case, 42:17a and 17b are not from the same source. Other scholars hesitate between a Christian origin and a Jewish, since the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead.¹⁴ It can be asserted that 17a is indeed Jewish, because the verse has parallels in 2 Macc 7:9, 11, 14, 23, and 29. The most convincing parallel is 7:14, where the fourth brother speaks about the hope that he will rise again (πάλιν ἀναστήσεσθαι, as in 42:17a). Furthermore, the word ὁ κύριος of 17a is used for God in 2 Macc 7:6 by the brothers when the first brother is dying and in 2 Macc 7:20 about the hopes of the mother (κύριος without the article). A third common element is that the resurrection is reserved to the righteous and does not affect the wicked. Nevertheless, one detail is not clear in 17a: where is it written that Job will rise again? In the Syriac book or in another book, such as 2 Maccabees? Is the book in 17a the same as in 17b? One may hesitate: whilst 42:17a probably does have a Jewish origin, one should not exclude the possibility of a Christian origin.

¹¹ Extract in Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio evangelica IX 25. This Aristeas is not the same as Aristeas the purported author of Letter of Aristeas (Letter to Philocrates). ¹² Fernandez Marcos 1976, pp. 263–4 n. 9. ¹³ Dhorme 1926. ¹⁴ Swete 1902, pp. 256–7.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

74       As for the Psalms, three passages stand out: Psa 13:3c–3j, Psa 151, and the Odes. Let us start with Psalm 151. At the end of the Psalter, there is an additional Psalm, called ‘outside the number’ (ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ) or Psalm 151. This additional Psalm is said to be written by David’s own hand (ἰδιόγραφος). It tells of his youth, his unexpected anointing by Samuel, and his first glorious action, the single combat against Goliath. A Hebrew text of this Psalm was discovered in the Great Psalms Scroll of Qumran (11Q5 = 11QPsa). More precisely, verses 1–5 correspond to this psalm (151A), and verses 6–7 to a second psalm, the end of which is lost, not found in the Septuagint (151B). So the Hebrew text of this Psalm is more developed than the Greek text. Whilst the nature of the connection between the Hebrew Psalter and the Greek Psalter is still discussed, there is a consensus that all the Greek Psalms are translations of Hebrew originals. Furthermore, Psalm 151 is also present in some manuscripts of the Syriac Peshitta. This Syriac translation was made from the Hebrew and it offers five additional Psalms, Psalms 151–155, three of which are present in the Great Psalms Scroll: Psalms 151 (A and B), 154 and 155. In conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming. The additional Psalm (151) of the Septuagint has a Jewish origin.¹⁵ The second reference is Psa 13:3c–3j. After 3ab, ‘All turned away, as well they became useless; | there is no one practicing kindness, there is not even one’, a large part of the Greek textual tradition adds eight lines, which Rahlfs enclosed in square brackets. These come from Romans 3:11–18, where v. 11 = Psa 13:3b; the following lines are quotations of Psa 5:10a; 5:10b; 139:4b; 9:28a; Isa 58:7a (variants); Isa 59:7c: Isa 59:8a (variants); Psa 35:2b. The quotation of Paul is often seen as a good example of the so-called Testimonia. The addition of these verses is given by the Lower-Egypt text (that is, the text of Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, the Bohairic version, P.Lipsensis 39), a large part of the Upper-Egyptian text, the Occidental text, the Syro-Hexaplaric version of Paul of Tella, the Codex Freer 2 (fifth century CE). But they are absent in a large part of the Lucianic tradition and in Codex Alexandrinus. They are preceded by an obelus in Jerome’s Psalterium Gallicanum, which means that Origen knew that they were not in the ¹⁵ Dorival 2012.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       ?

75

Hebrew text. Even if these verses are quoted by numerous ancient manuscripts, it is certain that they were not in the text of the Old Greek, the witnesses of which are here the Lucianic tradition and the Alexandrinus. Rahlfs’ square brackets mean precisely that a given verse is present in many ancient manuscripts but not in the Old Greek. So, at the end of Psa 13:3, there is an infiltration of Paul’s verses. In conclusion, the Old Greek was Christianized and this is witnessed by a large part of the textual tradition of the Septuagint, but not by all of it. Now, the Odes. In Rahlfs’ editio maior published in 1931, the Psalms are followed by the Odes. The same occurs in the Handausgabe of the entire Septuagint published in 1935. The Odes are a kind of supplement to the Psalter and there are explicitly Christian texts among them. There are fourteen Odes. As the order of these writings varies in the manuscripts, Rahlfs placed the nine Odes that the Orthodox churches have added to the Psalter, under the title ‘1) Novem Odae ecclesiae graecae’. They are numbered from 1 to 9 (Α’ to Θ’ in his edition). Then come ‘2) Odae aliae’, numbered from 10 to 14 (Ι’ to ΙΔ’). Nevertheless, the order of Alexandrinus (A), which is the basic manuscript, is a little different: 1

(= A’ Rahlfs = R1) Ode of Moses in Exodus (Exod 15:1–19)

2

(= B’ Rahlfs = R2) Ode of Moses in Deuteronomy (Deut 32:1–43)

3 (= Γ’ Rahlfs = R3) Prayer of Hannah mother of Samuel (1 Sam/1 Reigns 2:1–10) 4 (= E’ Rahlfs = R5) Prayer of Isaiah (Isa 26:9b–20; instead of Isaiah, the Alexandrinus has Hezekiah, which is a mistake) 5

(= F’ Rahlfs = R6) Prayer of Jonah (Jonas 2:3–10)

6 (= Δ’ Rahlfs = R4) Prayer of Ambakoum/Habakkuk (Amb/Hab 3:2–19) 7

(= IA’ Rahlfs = R11) Prayer of Hezekiah (Isa 38:10–20)

8 (= IB’ Rahlfs = R12) Prayer of Manasseh (no corresponding in the Hebrew Bible) 9

(= Z’ Rahlfs = R7) Prayer of Azariah (Dan 3:26–45)

10 (= H’ Rahlfs = R8) Hymn of the three children (Dan 3:52–88 according to Theodotion)

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

76       11 (= Θ’ first part Rahlfs = R9a) Prayer of Maria the mother of God (Luke 1:46–55) 12 (= ΙΓ ’ Rahlfs = R13) Prayer of Simeon (Luke 2:29–32) 13 (= Θ’ last part Rahlfs = R9b) Prayer of Zachariah (Luke 1:68–79) 14 (= ΙΔ’ Rahlfs = R14) Morning Hymn. Codex Alexandrinus does not give the Ode of Isaiah (Isa 5:1–9). It is numbered I’ by Rahlfs and copied from the sixth-century manuscript R (Veronensis Bibl. Capit. 1). Despite the introduction of this text, Rahlfs has fourteen Odes as does Codex Alexandrinus. The reason is that the same number Θ’ is given by Rahlfs to both the Prayer of Mary (the first half of one text) and to the Prayer of Zachariah (the second half). The origin of the Odes has been variously discussed. Are they a liturgical anthology,¹⁶ or, a collection of paradigmatic prayers?¹⁷ Or are they a collection governed by an overriding concept of salvation history, expressed in poetry uttered by significant figures at significant points in the biblical narrative (as Jeremiah Coogan argued in 2015)?¹⁸ Among the Odes, there are three passages of Luke (1:46–55; 1:68–79; 2:29–32) and an ecclesiastical composition (Morning Hymn). The other Odes come from the Old Testament, except the Prayer of Manasseh, which is missing in the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, the Prayer of Manasseh was probably written in a Jewish milieu between the first century BCE and the first century CE to supplement the story of 2 Paraleipomena 33:10–18.¹⁹ It is undeniable that there is Christian infiltration in the Odes. But this infiltration is limited to only three passages of Luke and one ecclesiastical composition. Above all, it is attested only in a few early biblical manuscripts outside of the later manuscripts of the Orthodox Church. Chief amongst its early witnesses are Codex Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus Reginensis gr. 1 [a tenth-century illuminated manuscript], the Veronensis Bibl. Capit. 1 (R) [a sixth-century bilingual (Greek and Latin) Psalter] and the Turicensis C. 84 [a seventh-century luxury Psalter]. Whilst a few other papyri and parchment manuscripts do also have the Odes,²⁰ they are missing from most of the witnesses of the Septuagint, particularly from ¹⁶ Schneider 1949. ¹⁷ Harl 2014. ¹⁸ Coogan 2015 with thanks to Alison Salvesen for this reference. ¹⁹ Harl 2014, pp. 287–94. ²⁰ See the list given by Rahlfs and Fraenkel 2004.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       ?

77

amongst the Lower Egypt witnesses to its text (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and the Bohairic Version), most of the Upper Egypt witnesses (aside from Alexandrinus), the text of Origen and the most part of the Lucianic tradition. Was Alfred Rahlfs correct then to publish the fourteen Odes following the Psalter? In doing so, he overemphasized an interesting, but secondary textual tradition. It is true that the Odes are important in the Orthodox Church. But it is questionable to project the Orthodox liturgy onto the Septuagint itself. Maybe it would have been better to give the Odes in an appendix to the edition. All in all, the Christian texts within the Septuagint are five: perhaps six, if Job 42:17a originated from a Christian circle (see above). The five clear Christian texts are all found in the Psalter. After Psa 13:3ab, there is a lengthy quotation of Paul’s Rom 3:12–18 and at the end of the Psalter, there are four Christian texts (three passages of Luke and one ecclesiastical composition). But the manuscripts are not unanimous in giving these Christian additions. The addition of Psa 13:3c–3j is present in the majority of manuscripts, whereas the other four are given only by few witnesses. Moreover, Psa 13:3c–3j is missing in the Lucianic tradition and in Alexandrinus. There is a paradox here: in the first case (Psa 13:3), the Alexandrinus is a witness of the Old Greek; in the second case (the Odes), Alexandrinus is a witness of the Christian rewriting of the Old Septuagint. Alfred Rahlfs was right when he classified it among the ‘various witnesses’ (sonstige Textzeugen), which are difficult to characterize in the history of the text.

New Testament Verses inside the Septuagint Another question concerns whether there were Christian modifications of particular verses in the Septuagint? Let us recall that, according to the German database ‘Septuagintazitate im NT’, there are 449 quotations of 357 verses of the Septuagint attested in 389 New Testament passages.²¹ This database takes into account the variants of the Greek manuscripts (Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezae, ²¹ https://www.isbtf.de.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

78       the Antiochian text of the Septuagint, the Byzantine text of the New Testament) and papyri, as well as the MT, the Vulgate, the Peshitta. Some of these quotations offer differences from the text of the Septuagint. Were the Septuagint manuscripts affected by these New Testament specific lessons? An example is Exod 9:16: καὶ ἕνεκεν τούτου διετηρήθῃς ἵνα ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν ἰσχύν μου καὶ ὅπως διαγγέλῃ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ ‘and because of this you [Moses] have been preserved so that I might display in you my strength and in order that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth’. This verse is quoted in Rom 9:17: εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρα σε ὅπως ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναμίν μου καὶ ὅπως διαγγέλῃ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ ‘for this very [reason] I raised you up in order that I might display in you my power and in order that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth’. The text up to ἵνα/ὅπως is quite different and there is the variant ἰσχύν/ δύναμίν; but the verses from καὶ ὅπως are identical. Codex Alexandrinus has δύναμιν at Exod 9:16 (not ἰσχύν), as Rom 9:17. The same reading is present in the uncial manuscript Parisinus Coislinianus 1 and in numerous miniscule codices. Even if the other variants of Rom 9:17 are not attested in the Alexandrinus as well as in the other manuscripts, one can assert that the fifth-century copyist had Rom 9:17 in mind when he wrote δύναμιν at Exod 9:16 and that the success of this variant during the Byzantine Middle Ages is probably due to the influence of Rom 9:17. But the most numerous uncial manuscripts and many miniscule codices do not have this connection with Paul’s quotation. In pursuing this further regarding other verses, the paper of Matthias Millard, Kerstin Heider, Christin Klein, and Christiane Veldboer on the references (Verweise) in the various Göttingen editions to the New

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       ?

79

Testament is invaluable.²² It offers three tables: the first one deals with the references to the New Testament in Rahlfs/Hanhart edition of 1935/ 2006. This table lists 27 + 2 passages of the Old Testament given in the left column;²³ the central column offers Rahlfs/Hanhart’s critical apparatus; in the right column is given the critical apparatus of the separate Göttingen volumes (when they exist). The second table lists the references of the separate Göttingen volumes to the New Testament, when they are preceded by ‘=’ or ‘ex’,—but not by ‘cf.’; there are 103 + 48 instances.²⁴ The third table offers the index of the passages of the New Testament, from Matthew to Revelation, and the references to Rahlfs/ Hanhart and the separate Göttingen volumes. From these tables, two conclusions may be drawn. First, the Pentateuch is hardly involved (with five instances at the most). Maybe the text of the Law was seen as too venerable to be rewritten. In contrast, two books are particularly involved: Psalms (twenty-five instances) and Isaiah (forty-six instances). This prominent place corresponds to their importance in the New Testament, in which they are the most quoted books. The second point is that, at the most, the texts of 180 verses of the Septuagint have been affected by the New Testament. In fact, they are less numerous, as the category ‘Christian readings’ sometimes refers to a non-Greek translation from the Septuagint (six instances),²⁵ or by the Syro-Hexaplaric Version of Paul of Tella (one instance).²⁶ In these seven cases, the Christianization does not affect the Septuagint itself, but translations from the Septuagint or a daughter of the Septuagint. Moreover, sometimes, the sign ‘=’ simply means that the Septuagint and the quotations of the New Testament are identical (thirteen instances).²⁷ In these cases, the New Testament cannot have inspired ²² Millard, Heider, Klein, and Velboer 2013. ²³ + 2, because there are three variants in Zach 13:7. ²⁴ There are two variants in Deut 29:18, Psa 105 (106 MT):20, 108 (109 MT):8, Am 9:12, Mich 5:2, Joel 2:28, Amb 1:5, Isa 9:2, 10:23, 29:10, 29:14, 40:6, 40:13, 42:2, 45:23, 52:5, 53:9, 59:20, 65:1. There are three variants in Joel 2:29, 2:30, Zach 12:10, Isa 9:1, 28:16, 40:4, 42:1, 52:7, 52:11, 66:1, Jr 38:32. There are four variants in Zach 13:7. There are six variants in Jer 38:15. ²⁵ Psa 5:10 (Sahidic version), 37:14a (Bohairic Version), 37:21c (Bohairic Version), Mal 3:1 (Ethiopic Version), Isa 42:1 (third variant, Bohairic Version), 42:2 (first variant, Bohairic Version). ²⁶ Psa 109 (110 MT):4b. ²⁷ Isa 8:18, 10:22, 28:16 (third variant), 29:14 (first variant), 40:7, 42:4 (third variant), 45:23 (second variant), 49:6, 52:5 (second variant), 52:11 (first variant), 54:1, 65:2, Jr 38:15 (first variant).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

80       any of the textual variants. There is also an error concerning Psa 108:8 (109:8 MT): Rahlfs’ critical apparatus notes that the Vetus Latina adds at the end of the verse two verses ‘ex’ Acts 1:20; actually, the two verses come from Psa 69:26 (70:26 MT) and these are parallel to Psa 108:8 (109:8 MT). Once these twenty-one cases have been considered, there are only 159 potential Christianized individual verses to consider. On the other hand, perhaps they are more, since the tables list only the passages with ‘=’ or ‘ex’: other variants in the manuscripts of the Septuagint with an unlisted connection with the New Testament could exist. A complete overview of the whole Septuagint would be necessary to be completely sure. Here, it is impractical to analyse all 159 passages in the tables. One may find suggestive remarks about some of them in a paper by Emanuel Tov.²⁸ Here, I will restrict myself to the Psalms, but I will take into account the text of Papyrus Bodmer 24, which was published in 1967 (which means that Rahlfs could not have known its variants).²⁹ The text of this third-century papyrus is not easy to characterize, but it is probably close to the Septuagint in Origen’s time. It has the text of Psa 17:45–118:44 (18:45–119:44 MT). At the outset, Psa 118:139a (119:139a) has to be removed from the list of the Christianized verses: ἐξέτηξέν με ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου, ‘zeal for your house consumed me’. Instead of ἐξέτηξεν, some witnesses of the Occidental text have κατέφαγέν με, ‘devoured me’. According to Rahlfs’ critical apparatus, this reading comes from Psa 68:10 (69:10) and John 2:17. In fact, Psa 68:10a has κατέφαγέν με, whereas John 2:17 offers the future καταφάγεταί με, ‘will devour me’. So, the reference to this New Testament passage is not relevant. The Christianized verses can be classified into three categories, depending on the number of their witnesses. When the Christianized verse is attested by one or two or three manuscripts, one can speak about a very limited Christianization. When several manuscripts give the verses, the Christianization is partial. When all or almost all the manuscripts give the verses, the Christianization is complete or quasi-complete.

²⁸ Tov 2011.

²⁹ Kasser 1967.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       ?

81

First, there are nine examples of a very limited Christianization.³⁰ The verses are aligned with the New Testament text, but only in one or two or three manuscripts. 1. Psa 13:2b (14:2b) and 52:3b (53:3b) τοῦ ἰδεῖν εἰ ἔστιν συνίων ἢ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν, ‘[in order] to see if there was any who had understanding or who sought after God’. In Psa 13:2b (14:2b), instead of συνίων, P.Vindobonensis G 39773 (seventh–eighth century) has ὁ συνίων, as in Rom 3:11. In Psa 52:3b (53:3b), P.Lipsensis 39 (fourth century) and P.Bodmer 24 have the same reading. The first papyrus does not go beyond Psa 34 (35), P.Lipsensis 39 has both verses, the Bodmer papyrus begins at Psa 17:45 (18:45). 2. Psa 68:23b (69:23b) καὶ εἰς ἀνταπόδοσιν καὶ εἰς σκάνδαλον, ‘and a retribution and a stumbling block’. Vaticanus Reginensis gr. 1 has θήραν καὶ εἰς ἀνταπόδοσιν καὶ εἰς σκάνδαλον, ‘a prey and a retribution and a stumbling block’, which is close to Rom 11:9, καὶ εἰς θήραν καὶ εἰς ἀνταπόδοσιν καὶ εἰς σκάνδαλον. 3. Psa 89:4ab (90:4ab) ὅτι χίλια ἔτη ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς σου/ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα ἠ ἐχθὲς ἥτις διῆλθεν, ‘because a thousand years in your eyes [are] | like the day of yesterday that passed’. Instead of ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς σου, the Sahidic Version has παρά σοι, and, at the end of 4a, the same version and some witnesses of the Vetus Latina add ὡς ἡμέρα μία, ‘because a thousand years for you [are] | like one day, [like] the day of yesterday that passed’. That text is close to 2 Pet 3:8, ‘one day for the Lord [is] as a thousand years and a thousand years [are] as one day’. 4. Psa 90:12 (91:12) ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, ‘upon hands they will bear you up’. Codex Vaticanus adds at the beginning καί, ‘and upon hands they will bear you up’, as in Matt 4:6. 5. Psa 94:9b (95:9b): ἐδοκίμασαν καὶ εἴδοσαν τὰ ἔργα μου, ‘they put me to the test and they saw my works’. P.Bodmer 24 has ἐν δοκιμασίᾳ καὶ εἴδοσαν τὰ ἔργα μου, in which ἐν δοκιμασίᾳ is the end of 9a: that ³⁰ Outside the Psalms, there are twenty-four instances of that very limited Christianization: Deut 31:7, Ruth 4:18, 4:21, 4:22, Am 9:11, Mic 5:2 (first variant), Amb 1:5 (first variant), Zach 11:12, 11:13, 12:10 (second variant), Isa 9:2 (second variant), 10:23 (second variant), 21:9, 40:5, 42:2 (second variant), 42:3 (first variant), 42:4 (first variant), 52:7 (second variant), 56:7, 61:2, Jer 38:15 (second variant), 38:15 (third variant), 38:32 (first variant), Ezek 23:28.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

82       is the reading of Heb 3:9. That variant is not present in Rahlfs’ critical apparatus and in the tables of Matthias Millard and his collaborators. 6. Psa 105:20a (106:20a) καὶ ἠλλάξαντο, ‘and they exchanged’. The Vaticanus Regin. gr. 1 has καὶ ἤλλαξαν, ‘and they exchanged’, as Rom 1:23. 7. Psa 108:8b (109:8b) Veronensis Bibl. Capit. 1, which is a witness of the Occidental text, has the imperative λαβέτω instead of the optative λάβοι present in the other manuscripts. This reading comes from Acts 1:20. 8. Psa 131:11b (132:11b) ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς κοιλίας σου θήσομαι ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον σου, ‘of your belly’s fruit I will set on your throne’. Instead of κοιλίας σου, Veronensis Bibl. Capit. 1, which is a witness of the Occidental text, has ὀσφύος σου, ‘your loins’, as in Acts 2:30. In passing, one can observe from the above that P.Bodmer 24 is very close to P.Lipsensis 39. Second, there are twelve cases of partial Christianization. In other words, in twelve cases several witnesses of the Septuagint give a text that is more in conformity with the New Testament quotes than it is with the expected Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. 1. Psa 21:9b (22:9b MT) σωσάτω αὐτὸν ὅτι θέλει αὐτόν, ‘let [the Lord] save him because he wants him’. Instead of ὅτι, the Upper Egypt text (i.e. two papyri of the fourth and seventh century and the Sahidic version), as well as the Bohairic Version and a few Lucianic manuscripts have εἰ, ‘if ’, as in Matt 27:43. There is a lacuna in P. Bodmer 24. 2. Psa 30:6a (31:6a) εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσομαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου, ‘into your hands, I shall entrust my spirit’. Instead of παραθήσομαι, some Lucianic manuscripts and the Vetus Latina, translated into Latin from the Septuagint, have παρατίθημι/commendo, ‘I commit’, as in Luke 23:46. It is difficult to decide what the text of the Old Septuagint had: the present or the future. The present is given by the Vetus Latina, translated from the Old Greek, and the Lucianic tradition, which has the present here, often gives the Old Greek. P. Bodmer 24 has the future, as Rahlfs’ edition.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       ?

83

3. Psa 39:7c (40:7c) ὁλοκαύτωμα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ἤιτησας, ‘a burnt offering and one for sin you did not request’. Heb 10:6 has ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ηὐδόκησας, ‘burnt offerings and one for sin you did not appreciate’. The same text is attested in P.Bodmer 24, P.Lipsensis 39, and the Bohairic Version. Nevertheless, the singular ὁλοκαύτωμα is present in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Washingtonensis Ms. 1 (sixth/seventh centuries) and the Psalterium Gallicanum, as well as in the MT. But the Bohairic Version, P. Bodmer 24, P.Lipsensis 39, the Alexandrinus, the Occidental text, and the Lucianic tradition have the plural ὁλοκαυτώματα. Furthermore, instead of ἤιτησας/ηὐδόκησας, two other verbal forms are found: ἐζήτησας (Sinaiticus, Occidental text, Lucianic tradition, Alexandrinus) and ἠθέλησας (Vaticanus Reginensis gr. 1). So there is no homogeneity among the witnesses, except P.Bodmer 24, P. Lipsensis 39, and the Bohairic version. But the influence of Hebrews on those and, partially, on other manuscripts is indisputable. Here, P.Bodmer 24 is again identical to P.Lipsensis 39. 4. Psa 67:19ab (68:19ab) ἀνέβης εἰς ὕψος ἠιχμαλώτευσας αἰχμαλωσίαν/ἔλαβες δόματα ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, ‘You went up on high, you led captivity captive, | you took gifts in man’. The quotation of Eph 4:8 has ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ἠιχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν/ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ‘Going up on high, he [the Lord] led captivity captive, | he gave gifts to the men’. The participle ἀναβὰς is present in the Vaticanus, the codex Freer 2 (fifth century) and one eighth-century papyrus. The third person ἠιχμαλώτευσεν is read in Sinaiticus, the Bohairic Version, the Sahidic Version, and the Vetus Latina. Instead of the second person ἔλαβες, P.Bodmer 24, Codex Freer 2, and one manuscript of the Vetus Latina have the third person, ἔλαβεν. The verb ἔδωκεν is found in the Bohairic and Sahidic Versions and in one manuscript of the Vetus Latina. The plural (τοῖς) ἀνθρώποις is present in Sinaiticus, the Bohairic Version, the Sahidic Version, the Occidental text, some Latin Fathers, the Lucianic tradition, and some other manuscripts. So, it seems that there is no homogeneity among the manuscripts. Furthermore, instead of ἀνέβης (Occidental text, some Latin fathers, the Lucianic tradition, and the MT), Sinaiticus, the Bohairic Version, the Sahidic Version, as well as one manuscript

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

84      

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

of the Vetus Latina, have the third person ἀνέβη, ‘he [the Lord] went up’. This suggests that Sinaiticus, the Bohairic Version, the Sahidic Version, and a part of the Vetus Latina go together against the other manuscripts and that their copyists had in mind Paul’s text when they wrote that verse. But the case is complex and opened to discussion. Psa 68:10a (69:10a) ὅτι ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου κατέφαγέν με, ‘because the zeal for your house devoured me’. Instead of κατέφαγέν, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have καταφάγεταί, ‘will devour’, as in John 2:17. But P.Bodmer 24 has Rahlfs’ text. Psa 94:9b (95:9b) ἐδοκίμασαν καὶ εἴδοσαν τὰ ἔργα μου, ‘they put me to the proof and they saw my works’. Instead of εἴδοσαν, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, two other manuscripts and a large portion of the Lucianic tradition have εἶδον, as Heb 3:9. But is this a real variant or simply a morphological variation? Psa 94:9b–10a (95:9b–10a) καὶ εἴδοσαν τὰ ἔργα μου/τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη προσώχθισα τῆι γενεᾶι ἐκείνῃ, ‘and they saw my works | during forty years I loathed that generation’. The quotation of Heb 3:9 has καὶ εἶδον τὰ ἔργα μου τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη/διὸ προσώχθισα τῆι γενεᾶι ἐκείνῃ, ‘and they saw my works during forty years | so, I loathed that generation’. In a portion of the Lucianic tradition and in the Bohairic Version, the beginning of 10a is one with the end of 9b, and διὸ (or καὶ) is present in the Bohairic Version, some Greek manuscripts and some Antiochene fathers, depending from the Lucianic tradition. The text of P.Bodmer 24 is not clear. Psa 94:10c (95:10c) καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὰς ὁδούς μου, ‘and, as for them, they did not know my ways’. Instead of καὶ αὐτοὶ, Heb 3:10 has αὐτοὶ δὲ. This reading is attested in Sinaiticus, the Bohairic Version, the Lucianic tradition, Alexandrinus, and the Psalterium Gallicum. There is a lacuna in P.Bodmer 24. Psa 101:27c (102:27c) καὶ ὡσεὶ περιβόλαιον ἀλλάξεις αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀλλαγήσονται, ‘And like clothing you will change them and they will be changed.’ Heb 1:12a has καὶ ὡσεὶ περιβόλαιον ἑλίξεις αὐτοὺς, ‘And like clothing you will roll them up.’ The verb ‘roll up’ is present in Vaticanus, a part of the Occidental text, the Lucianic tradition, Alexandrinus; but Sinaiticus, the Vetus Latina,

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       ?

85

Psalterium Gallicum, Tertullian, and P.Bodmer 24 have ἀλλάξεις. As Alfred Rahlfs’ critical apparatus has ‘cf. Hebr.’, this instance is not listed in Matthias Millard’s paper. 10. Psa 103:4b (104:4b) καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πῦρ φλέγον, ‘and [the Lord who makes] flaming fire his ministers’. Heb 1:7 has καὶ τοῦς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα, ‘and [the Lord who makes] flame of fire his ministers’. This is the reading of the Coptic Versions and of some Lucianic manuscripts, as well as of P.Bodmer 24. 11. Psa 105:20a (106:20a) καὶ ἠλλάξαντο τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν, ‘and they exchanged their glory’. Rom 1:23 has καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ, ‘and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God’—a reading which implies αὐτοῦ instead of αὐτῶν. Alexandrinus, Veronensis Bibl. Capit. 1 (sixth century), the Lucianic tradition have αὐτοῦ (or τοῦ θεοῦ in some Lucianic manuscripts). P.Bodmer 24 has the plural. 12. Psa 106:29a (107:29a) καὶ ἐπέταξεν τῇ καταιγίδι καὶ ἔστη εἰς αὔραν, ‘and he punished through the tempest and it subsided to a breeze’. Instead of ἐπέταξεν, the Veronensis Bibl. Capit. 1 and a portion of the Lucianic tradition have ἐπετίμησεν, ‘he punished’, as in Matt 8:26, Mark 4:39, Luke 8:24—passages that do not quote Psa 106:29a (107:29a), but simply refer to it. P.Bodmer 24 has Rahlfs’ text. Third, and finally, there are two instances of complete or quasicomplete Christianization: one in Isaiah, another in the Psalms. 1. Isa 42:4 καὶ τῶι νόμῳ αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν, ‘and nations will hope in his law’. Matt 12:21 has καὶ τῶι ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν, ‘and nations will hope in his name’. All the manuscripts and all the versions have the same text as Matthew: νόμῳ is a correction made by Joseph Ziegler. The Göttingen editor thought that the Old Septuagint had the word ‘law’, as the MT, and that the word ‘name’ was a Christian correction that established itself throughout the textual tradition. Nowadays, Ziegler’s correction is seen as quite rash. 2. Psa 39:7b (40:7b MT) θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας, ὠτία δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, ‘sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you fitted ears to me’. Instead of ὠτία, all the Greek manuscripts of the

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

86       Septuagint give σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, ‘but you fitted a body to me’, as Heb 10:5. Nevertheless, a witness of the Vetus Latina and Jerome’s Psalterium Gallicanum offer ‘ears’, and the lesson ωσναιμ, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word meaning ‘ears’, was known by Paul of Tella. Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the Quinta have ὠτία (ears). Because of the witness of the Vetus Latina, which is translated from the Greek, it is likely that the Old Greek could have offered ‘ears’, and not ‘body’. Nevertheless, the Old Greek word for ear/ears was not ὠτίον/ ὠτία, but οὖς/ὦτα, as, in the Psalms, the Hebrew ’ozen is nearly always translated by οὖς/ὦτα (twenty-one out of twenty-two instances). The only exception is Psa 17:45a (18:45a) where ὠτίον/ὠτία is the most attested reading, but even here the best witness of the Upper-Egyptian text has οὖς/ὦτα. Even if all the Greek manuscripts have ‘body’, the Greek fathers know the two textual forms and comment on both, without being embarrassed by this textual plurality. Since 2000, Psa 39:7b has been studied at least seven times.³¹ The issue is whether the author of Hebrews is responsible for the change of ‘ears’ into ‘body’ or whether this change is prior to him. Karen Jobes and Mosés Silva support the first view; Gert Steyn and Georg Walser, the second. Martin Karrer goes beyond both, as he asserts that, since the first century BCE (and perhaps before) the Septuagint had ‘body’, which is a metonymy of ‘ears’. Christian Amphoux and Gilles Dorival argue that Heb 10:5 modernizes the Greek text to embrace a new theology of salvation. This theology, inspired by Paul, establishes an opposition between the sacrifices asked by the Law and the redemption of sin through the sacrifice of Jesus’ body. But this does not decide whether the word ‘body’ was an innovation of the author of Hebrews or whether it came from a prior Jewish or Christian document. On this Christian Amphoux and Gilles Dorival are hesitant, as is Mario Cimosa. If the redactor of Hebrews is responsible for ‘body’, then all the Greek manuscripts have been Christianized. But, if the word ‘body’ is in the text of the Old Greek, ³¹ Jobes and Silva 2000; Grelot 2001; Amphoux and Dorival 2006; Cimosa 2010, pp. 437–9; Karrer 2010; Steyn 2011, pp. 282–97; Walser 2013, pp. 90–140.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       ?

87

there is no Christianization at all. On the basis of current knowledge, it is impossible to prove conclusively that ‘body’ was or was not prior to Hebrews; furthermore, the Vetus Latina provides an argument in favour of ‘ears’ in some versions of the Old Greek. Therefore, for the moment, one can speak about a possible Christianized verse, knowing that this opinion may be revisited in the future.

Christian Additions in the Verses of the Septuagint In their paper, Matthias Millard and his co-redactors do not address the indication ‘additamentum christianum’, which is present in Rahlfs’ critical apparatus at Psa 37:14a, 50:9a, 65:1a, and 95:10a (MT Psa 38:14a, 51:9a, 66:1a, 96:10a). Rahlfs analyses these Psalms in his Prolegomena §4, 4, where he also quotes two more verses: Psa 37:21c and 49:6 (38:21c and 49:6a). In these six instances, the Christianization is similar to the introduction of Christian texts to the Septuagint that we discussed in the first part of this chapter. The difference consists in a question of size: Christian ‘texts’ introduced to the Septuagint are extended: at least a verse or a group of verses, as in the case of Job 42:17a or the Odes. Christian ‘additions’ are limited to a few words, at most half a verse. Of the six potential Christian ‘additions’, two have to be removed. The text of Psa 37:21c (38:21c MT) is: καὶ ἀπέρριψάν με τὸν ἀγαπητὸν ὡσεὶ νεκρὸν ἐβδελυγμένον, ‘and they rejected me, the beloved one, like a disgusting corpse’. This verse is not in the MT. It is not present in all the Septuagint manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, one manuscript of the Vetus Latina, Psalterium Gallicanum, Lucianic tradition, Alexandrinus). But it is given by P.Lipsiensis 39, P.Bodmer 24, Freer 2, a portion of the Occidental text, the Coptic versions, Augustine, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodorus of Mopsuestia. It is highly likely that it was present in the Old Septuagint. There is no reason to see this verse as a Christian addition: the ‘beloved one’ is not Jesus Christ, but David, who himself says that God loves him (2 Reigns 9:18). Nevertheless, some riddles remain. Was the verse in the Septuagint Vorlage? Why is it not present in the MT Vorlage? Was it removed by the rabbis because the title ‘beloved one’ was used by the Christians? But such an explanation is not quite substantiated.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

88       The text of Psa 65:1a (66:1a) has to be removed: εἰς τὸ τέλος ὠιδὴ ψαλμοῦ ἀναστάσεως, literally ‘for the end, an ode of psalm of resurrection/rising up’. Rahlfs prints ἀναστάσεως in square brackets. His critical apparatus indicates that this word is preceded by an obelus in Psalterium Gallicanum and is missing in the Sinaiticus and in Origen’s Septuagint according to Theodoret. For Rahlfs, the word is a Christian addition indicating that Psa 65 (66) was sung since the second or the first century on Easter Sunday. According to Rahlfs on that day, four part-verses of Psa 65 were sung (1b, 2a, 3a, 4a) and the word ‘resurrection’ is a Christian supplement. But Rahlfs’ analysis is unlikely. First, the Greek Fathers do not agree on this point. Didymus, the Pseudo-Athanasius, and Hesychius connect the Psalm with Jesus’ resurrection, but Eusebius of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa do not. Second, as Rahlfs himself stated, there is no other Christianization of the titles of the Psalms. Third, in the Septuagint, the word ἀνάστασις does not evoke the idea of resurrection, except in 2 Macc 7:14 and 12:43–44, where the resurrection of the righteous is mentioned. In Lam 3:63 and Dan 11:20, the topic is the aggressive uprising of the foes of the person praying or of a king. Above all, in Sophonias (Zephaniah) 3:8, the day of God’s rising up is mentioned, that is to say the day when God will rise again in order to punish the nations and to convert Israel and the peoples. In the Psalms, it is possible that the verb ἀνιστάναι has the meaning of ‘resurrect’ in Psa 1:5 and 87:11 (88:11), but elsewhere it means that the person praying, that is, Israel and the unrighteous men will rise and that God himself will rise up in favour of the person praying. This is the more likely meaning of the title of Psa 65 (66), which describes how God manifested himself in the history of Israel and in the life of the person praying. This interpretation is attested in Midrash Tehillim, where Psa 65 (66) is understood as referring to God rising up. So, the Septuagint title expresses an old interpretation of Psa 65 (66), according to which, in this Psalm, God, after a time of apparent non-intervention, manifests himself again in favour of his loved ones.³² This example is one of three in which Rahlfs over-Christianized his presentation of the text of the Septuagint, the

³² Dorival 2011, pp. 380–1.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       ?

89

other two discussed above being Psa 108:8 and 118:139a (109:8 and 119:139a). There remain then five instances of Christian ‘additions’ to consider: 1. Psa 37:14a (38:14a) ἐγὼ δὲ ὡσεὶ κῶφος οὐκ ἤκουον, ‘but as for me, I, like the deaf, did not hear’. P.Lipsensis 39 and P.Bodmer 24 have ἐγὼ δὲ ἐκρεμάμην ὑπ’αὐτῶν καὶ ὡσεὶ κῶφος οὐκ ἤκουον, ‘but as for me, I was hung by them and, like the deaf, did not hear’. This textual form witnesses to a Christian rewriting, which connects the verse with the Passion of Jesus. 2. Psa 37:21c (38:21c) in the Bohairic version: after ‘and they rejected me, the beloved one, like a disgusting corpse’, there is an addition relying on a Greek text καὶ καθήλωσαν τὴν σάρκα μου, ‘and they nailed my flesh’. There is again a connection with Jesus’ Passion, relying on a Christianization of Psa 118:120a (119:120a) ‘Nail my flesh from fear of you.’ 3. Psa 49:6a (50:6a) καὶ ἀναγγελοῦσιν οἱ οὐρανοὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, ‘and the heavens will declare his righteousness’. To that verse, P.Bodmer 24, P.Lipsensis 39, and two other papyri, which date from a little later, add καἰ ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐραυνήσει ὁ θεὸς τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ μετὰ λύχνου, ‘in the last days God will search Jerusalem with a lamp’. One may recognize here a passage close to Soph (Zeph) 1:12a καἰ ἔσται ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῆι ἡμέρᾳ ἐξερευνήσω τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ μετὰ λύχνου, ‘and it shall be on that day, I will search Jerusalem with a lamp’, but the two texts are not identical. There is no reason why this addition should originate from a Jewish circle, but no reason why not either. In Christian interpretation, the lamp is either John the Baptist (following John 5:35) or Christ himself. So, the Septuagint verse was christianized. The paradox is, here, that the Christianization ensues from the addition of a Jewish verse. This way of proceeding evokes the literary form of the socalled Testimonia. 4. Psa 50:9a (51:9a) ῥαντιεῖς με ὑσσώπῳ καὶ καθαρισθήσομαι, ‘you will sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be cleansed’. P.Lipsensis 39, P. Bodmer 24, and a manuscript in London offer ῥαντιεῖς με ὑσσώπῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ξύλου καὶ καθαρισθήσομαι, ‘you will sprinkle

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

90       me with hyssop out of the blood of the tree and I shall be cleansed’, which evokes again the Passion of Jesus. 5. Psa 95:10a (96:10a) εἴπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν’, ‘say among the nations: “the Lord became king”’. The Coptic Versions, Londinensis Or. 5465 (twelfth century), the Occidental text, as well as Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others, offer εἴπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ‘ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν ἀπὸ (τοῦ) ξύλου’, ‘say among the nations: “the Lord became king from (the) wood”’. They establish a connection between the Lord of the Psalm and the wood of Jesus’ cross. This Christianized verse is often described as a good example of a testimonium. In summary, there are three ways of Christianizing the Old Greek. The first one is based on the introduction of Christian texts into the Septuagint. But none of the deuterocanonical books has a Christian origin. The same is true in the case of the supplements to Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah. It is possible that Job 42:17a has a Christian origin, but a Jewish background is much more likely. The only place that this kind of Christianization is likely to have happened is the Psalter: Psa 13:3c–3j (taken from Paul), three of the Odes (originating from the Gospel of Luke), and a fourth Ode (an ecclesiastical writing). The addition of Psa 13:3c–3j is given by the majority of the old manuscripts, whereas the Christianization in the Odes is marginal and secondary in the history of the text of the Septuagint. The second path of Christianization consists in the retroversion of the form of New Testament quotations back into the Old Greek text. There are, at most, 159 listed possible such Christianized verses in the whole of the Bible of which twenty-five are listed for Psalms. Of these twenty-five, Psa 108:8 (109:8) and 118:139a (119:139a) were listed in error. Of the remaining twenty-three, there are nine examples of a very limited Christianization, attested only in one or two or three manuscripts. There are twelve instances of a partial Christianization, given by several Greek manuscripts. There is, in fact, only one example of complete Christianization: Psa 39:7b (40:7b). But even here scholars disagree about it, even if Christianization is more likely here than nonChristianization.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       ?

91

The third and last path of Christianization consists in the addition of a few words of New Testament (or Christian origin) into the verses of the Old Greek text. There are five examples of this kind, but at least one is not valid: the addition of the word ἀνάστασις in the title verse of Psa 65 (66). We must conclude then that whilst the Christianization of the Jewish Greek Bible is a fact, it must not be overestimated. The corollary of this assertion is that the Septuagint text, even in its most Christian transmission, remains remarkably close to its Jewish origin—something often overlooked in Jewish studies.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

PART III

T H E CH U R C H FA T H E R S

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

5 Is the Septuagint the Old Testament of the Church Fathers? In chapter 3, I pointed out that, as a rule, the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the New Testament, even if that assertion must be qualified in two ways. First, various textual forms of the Septuagint existed, as Martin Karrer recalled:¹ the Old Greek, the Septuagint revised/aligned with the Hebrew text before the time of the New Testament, Origen’s Septuagint, Lucian’s Septuagint, not to speak of Hesychius’ recension, about which we know almost nothing. Furthermore, there were Jewish revisions at the beginning of the Christian era, such as the kaige revision and Theodotion. As a rule, the writers of the New Testament quoted the Old Greek, but sometimes they quoted the Jewish revisions, as Natalio Fernandez Marcos has noted.² Second, it happens that the writers of the New Testament, particularly Matthew and Paul, do not quote the Septuagint directly, but make use of collections of quotations, the socalled Testimonia. The Testimonia were a type of anthology of the Old Testament passages apparently foretelling Jesus’ death and resurrection and announcing that God had rejected the Jews and chosen the nations. The present chapter takes up the same issue, but here regarding the Church Fathers. The question of this chapter is then: was the Septuagint the Old Testament of the Church Fathers? To answer this question intelligibly, a main distinction must be drawn between the Syriac area and the other parts of the Mediterranean Basin. In the Syriac area, the Old Testament was the so-called Peshitta, translated from Hebrew. But other Syriac translations were produced, among them the Syro-Hexaplar, which was translated from the Septuagint. So, we might expect that Syriac authors mainly quoted the Peshitta, and only secondarily the ¹ Karrer 2016.

² Fernandez Marcos 1976, pp. 323–32.

The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae. Gilles Dorival, Oxford University Press. © Gilles Dorival 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898098.003.0005

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

96       Syro-Hexaplar. In contrast to the Syriac area, other parts of the Mediterranean Basin made use of the Septuagint or of one of its translations (for example, the so-called Vetus Latina). We would expect that, in these cases, the Fathers quoted the Septuagint or one of its many revisions. Does that mean that they ignored the Hebrew entirely? We shall find that whilst they made little use of the Hebrew text, they often quoted the Jewish revisions, which were understood to be representative of the Hebrew text. So, the Hebrew text prevails in the Syriac area, but the Septuagint is not absent; and the Septuagint prevails elsewhere, but the Hebrew is not absent.

Syriac Area The most important recent publication on this topic is a collection of papers published in 2008 and edited by Françoise Briquel Chatonnet and Philippe Le Moigne.³ I shall refer extensively to its thirteen papers in what follows.⁴ Modern scholars sometimes call the Peshitta Vetus Syra, ‘Ancient Syriac’. The Syriac writers named the Syriac translation of the Old and New Testaments ‘our version’ or ‘the Ancient Syriac version’. The title ‘Peshitta’ does not seem to antedate the ninth century: the ‘simple’ or the ‘common’ version is contrasted with the ‘Greek’, that is to say the SyroHexaplar, which was reserved for the learned people. Some modern scholars make a distinction between the Ancient Syriac version, the Vetus Syra, and the Peshitta, the latter being considered as a revision of the former. The dates of the first Syriac translations of the texts of the Hebrew Bible are not known with certainty. As a rule, the end of the second century CE is accepted as terminus ante quem. A number of questions are associated with these dates. Are their backgrounds Jewish or Christian? Were they translated by Christianized Jews? Was the place ³ Briquel Chatonnet and Le Moigne 2008. ⁴ Brock 2008; Dorival 2008a; Griffith 2008; Haelewyck 2008; Joosten 2008; Koster 2008; Law 2008; Munnich 2008; Outtier 2008; Salvesen 2008; Schenker 2008; Ter Haar Romeny 2008; van Peursen 2008.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

        

97

of origin Edessa or Adiabene? What are the links between the Peshitta and the Palestinian Targums? It seems that none of these issues is determined. Moreover, it is possible that the translation was Jewish in the case of some books, but Christian in the case of others. Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, for example, was certainly translated in a Christian milieu. So how are the Hebrew text and the Peshitta connected? The issue is complex. A first paradigm proposed six steps in a process of the translation that began in the second century CE and only really ended in the twelfth. (1) The initial stage was the translation of the Hebrew text itself. (2) Then, a revision was made to improve the accuracy of the Syriac. (3) Afterwards, there was a return to a more literal rendition of the Hebrew text. (4) Subsequently, there was another revision to improve the Syriac expression. (5) Then there was a partition between the Eastern text and the Western text, with the latter characterized as restoring the sixthcentury text. (6) Finally, the two text-types were reunited to form one textus receptus. This paradigm was constructed on the evidence of only a few ancient manuscripts and it does not work well for the text of the Minor Prophets. In fact, much of the variety of the textual forms seems to date back to antiquity; so, the existence of an alternation between various stages characterized by proximity to the Hebrew text and various stages trying to improve the accuracy of the Syriac is questionable. Ultimately, important questions remain undecided: what is the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Peshitta, a text identical (or quasi-identical) to the Masoretic Text (MT) or only close to it? How does this text relate to the Vorlage of the Septuagint? Are the differences between the MT and the Peshitta due to the Hebrew Vorlage of the latter, or to the impact of the Septuagint, or to the impact of the Targums, or to the translation techniques, or to an internal process, or to a mixture of those items? In the case of Kings, for example, the Peshitta seems to depend on a Hebrew text identical to the MT in which pluses coming from the Septuagint have been inserted. Another issue is to decide the textual form of the Septuagint with which the Peshitta provides most affinities. In the case of Kings, this textual form is the Antiochene one, which is not surprising from a historical point of view.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

98       As previously stated, the Peshitta was translated from Hebrew. Nevertheless, in comparison with the Hebrew canon, the Peshitta offers supplementary books. Since Aphrahat quoted a great number of these books and as Ephrem knew all of them too, one can conclude that those supplements were an integral part of the Peshitta in the fourth century and maybe earlier. These supplements were translated from the Septuagint (or from a Greek text related to the Septuagint). The only exception seems to be Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach (also known as Ben Sira and Ecclesiasticus). It appears to have been translated from a Jewish Targum (that is, Aramaic), not from Hebrew. Moreover, it is possible that some of these supplementary books were borrowed from the SyroHexaplar, a point to which we will return (the first chapters of Tobit, at least, seem to have this origin). Twelve supplementary texts appear to have been translated from the LXX: the additions to Esther; the additions to Jeremiah (that is, Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah); the additions to Daniel (that is, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon); 1 Esdras (= 3 Esdras in the Vulgate); Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, perhaps the last chapters of Tobit, 1–4 Maccabees, and Psalms of Solomon. Three more texts outside of the LXX were also translated from Greek: 5 Maccabees (= Josephus, The Jewish War VI), Apocalypse of Baruch, 4 Esdras (the original text of which was written in Hebrew or in Aramaic). Therefore, we can be certain that some parts of the Peshitta have a Greek origin. The chief impact of the Septuagint on the Syriac Old Testament seems to have come through the Syro-Hexaplar. Simply stated, the SyroHexaplar is the translation of the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla into Syriac, even if things are probably more complicated. In this column, Origen placed what he understood to be the received text of Septuagint. It was carried by the Jacobite bishop Paul of Tella, when he took refuge in Alexandria at the time of the Persian invasion of Mesopotamia. The precise form of the text that was carried (the whole Hexapla? a partial manuscript? etc.) is not known, but it is known that the translation from Origen’s recension of the Septuagint into Syriac was finalized in 616/617. It was a literal translation and it included Origen’s obeli and asterisks. The former indicated the pluses of the Septuagint in comparison with the Hebrew, and the latter, the minuses. As a general rule, they are given in the correct places. In its margins, the Syro-Hexaplar offered in Syriac, but

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

        

99

also in Greek, some of the readings of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion that are found in the columns three, four, and six in Origen’s Hexapla. This scholarly work is known through around twenty manuscripts, each of which provides only a part of the Bible. The most famous of these witnesses is kept in the Ambrosian Library in Milan: the ninth-century Codex Ambrosianus C 313 inf. This codex has the second half of a complete Old Testament, from Psalms through to Daniel. The Syro-Hexaplar is a valuable tool for the reconstruction of Origen’s recension of the Septuagint, which is poorly transmitted in the Greek manuscripts. It is also a valuable tool for the reconstruction of the Jewish revisions of the Septuagint (that is, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion). One or two centuries before the Syro-Hexaplar, Isaiah was translated from the Lucianic recension of the Septuagint. This is referred to as the ‘Syro-Lucianic’ version, fragments of which are preserved in the seventhcentury manuscript Add. 17,106 in the British Library. This translation of Isaiah may belong to the Philoxenian version of the Old Testament. Under the authority of Philoxenus of Mabbug, the chorepiscopus Polycarp translated the New Testament from the Greek at the beginning of the sixth century. At the beginning of the seventh century, this version was revised by Thomas of Harqel. According to Moses of Aghel, Polycarp also translated the Psalms which could mean that he translated the whole Old Testament. It is not known if the version of Isaiah present in BL MS Add. 17,106 is the translation of Polycarp or if it is a witness to the Syro-Lucianic translation. Whichever the case, BL MS Add. 17,106 proves that the impact of the Septuagint on the Syriac Bible was not limited to the Syro-Hexaplar, even if the Syro-Hexaplar was its most important influence. The situation is complex. At least one translator has combined the translations from the Hebrew and the Greek biblical source texts. The eighth-century translation of Jacob of Edessa is a revision of the Syriac Old Testament that combines the Peshitta and the Lucianic Greek text, as well as, to a lesser degree, the Syro-Hexaplar. This translation is known only through a few fragmentary manuscripts that give parts of Pentateuch, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, as well as a short passage of Wisdom of Solomon.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

100       Another way to examine the evidence is to consider which translations were used by Syriac authors in their commentaries. This is not always easy to determine, because the quotes are often from memory. In the case of the Greek Fathers translated into Syriac, it is often not clear whether the text quoted represents the Peshitta, the Syro-Hexaplar, or an ad hoc translation. As expected, the Syriac authors who lived before the time of the Syro-Hexaplar, such as Bardaisan, Aphrahat, Ephrem, or John of Apamea, exclusively made use of the earlier Peshitta. As a rule, the quotations of the Old Testament in the Syriac New Testament also come from the Peshitta. Nevertheless, Ephrem sometimes gives biblical citations that are closer to Targum Onqelos. Things change with the success of the Syro-Hexaplar in the seventh century. For instance, in the ninth century, Isho‘dad of Merv comments on the Peshitta, but he also provides his own Syriac translations of the ‘Greek’ (presumably the Septuagint), the Hebrew, and, less often, the Jewish revisions of the Septuagint. In other words, in order to highlight the meaning of any one biblical passage, he does not stick to one textual form. In the twelfth century, Dionysius Bar-Salibi mainly made use of the Peshitta, but also the Syro-Hexaplar. One century later, Bar Hebraeus quoted both translations; he called the Syro-Hexaplar the ‘Greek’ and he explained that it was superior to the Peshitta. So, we can conclude that, in the Syriac area, thanks to the Peshitta, the Hebrew text prevailed, but, thanks to the deuterocanonical books, the Syro-Hexaplar, and the influence of the Lucianic recension of the Septuagint, the Septuagint is not absent.

Greek and Latin Fathers Whilst in the Syriac area the Old Testament of the Peshitta was translated from Hebrew, elsewhere, the translations of the Old Testament were made from the Septuagint. Examples in the West include the socalled Vetus Latina, Ulfila’s Gothic version, Cyril and Methodius’ Slavonic translation. Examples in the East include the Coptic versions, the Ge’ez translation, the Old Armenian version, the Syro-Palestinian translation, the first Arabic version (if it existed), and the Georgian

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

        

101

Version. The following lines will focus on the Greek and Latin Fathers, but the conclusions could be generalized to the Church Fathers of any of these traditions. The Greek Fathers quoted the Septuagint according to one of its textual forms or according to its Jewish revisions. In the first introduction ever written on the Septuagint, Henry B. Swete examined the ‘quotations from the LXX in Early Christian Writings’.⁵ He first dealt with the Epistle to the Corinthians of Clement of Rome: as a rule, the author quotes the Septuagint, but it happens that he makes occasional use of the Hebrew text or, at least, of a textual form having affinities with the second-century Jewish versions (Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion). Some quotes conflate different Bible verses; Swete called these ‘composite’ quotations. The analysis of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians finds that the author follows Clement in the form of his quotations. One passage coming from Ezekiel ‘is cited very freely or rather summarized’. As for the author of the Shepherd of Hermas, he has no quotes from the Septuagint, but, in the case of the Book of Daniel, ‘he knew a version which was akin to Theodotion’. As a rule, the Letter of Pseudo-Barnabas quotes the Septuagint; his quotations are ‘exact or nearly exact’ (26 instances), ‘exact, partly free’ (5 instances), ‘free’ (16 instances), ‘free with fusion’ (7 instances), ‘free summary’ (3 instances), ‘very loose citation’ (12 instances). The Letter of PseudoBarnabas is more precise in the case of Psalms and Isaiah; elsewhere, he quotes from memory. Occasionally, his text seems to have been revised in accord with the Hebrew: for example, Genesis 2:2 has ‘on the seventh day’, as the MT, and not ‘on the sixth day’, as the Septuagint. Swete notes that Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna rarely appeal to the Old Testament; nevertheless, when he does appeal to the Old Testament, Ignatius is close to the Septuagint. (Polycarp is not characterized by Swete). As for Irenaeus, who copiously quotes the Old Testament, ‘his citations are, with few exceptions, either exact extracts [of the LXX], or but slightly abridged and adapted’. In Irenaeus ‘we have an important witness to the LXX text of the second century’. By contrast, his quotations from the Book of ⁵ Swete 1902, pp. 406–32.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

102       Daniel normally follow Theodotion. Like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr abundantly quotes the Old Testament. Because he lived in many places (Nablus, Ephesus, Rome), his biblical text is expected to be ‘eclectic’, and, according to Swete, this is the case. He remarks that Justin’s quotations of the Minor Prophets evoke Symmachus and he thinks that both Justin and Symmachus depend on an older Greek translation. In respect to the Book of Daniel, Justin sometimes quotes from Theodotion, but more often the Septuagint. Swete notes that Justin criticized divergent Septuagint readings. Justin’s Greek text, however, contained some remarkable interpolations such as Psa 95 (96 MT): ‘The Lord hath reigned from the wood.’ Justin is certain these quotations are genuine, but they are most likely to be of Christian origin (as discussed in the previous chapter). Hippolytus quotes numerous verses, according to the Septuagint text. The same occurs in the case of Clement of Alexandria; his quotes are often free and truncated. Since the patristic evidence is extensive, Swete ends his overview by saying that he has omitted many important authors such as Aristides, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Epistle to Diognetus, Origen (especially important), the Latin Fathers, and fifty-two Greek authors who lived between the third century (for example, Gregory of Neocaesarea) and the tenth century (for example, Photius). As suggested by Swete himself, his overview is only a starting point, but it is a good one. Swete wrote before the Testimonia hypothesis had been developed: according to which the Fathers often quoted the Septuagint, not directly, but by means of the Testimonia. This hypothesis was first formulated by James Rendel Harris around fifteen years after Swete.⁶ As a result, Swete’s proposal that Clement of Rome may have made use of the Hebrew text is not upheld today. Some of Swete’s statements about Justin Martyr also have not stood the test of time because they were written before the discovery of the fragments of the kaige group (an early revision of the Old Greek found in the Judean desert). Moreover, Swete was not aware of other issues such as whether the works ascribed to Hippolytus were the product of Hippolytus or another author or even two (or three) different authors. Much progress ⁶ Rendel Harris 1916–1920.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

        

103

has been made since Swete’s time. As it is not possible to examine each Father in this chapter, I shall point out the major trends of scholarly research, saying, as Swete did, that a systematic study remains to be written. This overview has been particularly facilitated by the seven volumes of Biblia Patristica published between 1975 and 2000 and by the database and associated website maintained by the ‘Institut des Sources chrétiennes’ (Lyon). Clement of Rome. As a rule, he quotes the Septuagint, even if not very literally: it seems that he quotes from memory or adapts the quotes to the context. Sometimes, it is clear that he makes use of the Testimonia, as demonstrated by Annie Jaubert.⁷ Sometimes it is hard to know if there are any specific sources behind his variations.⁸ Pseudo-Barnabas makes extensive use of the Testimonia.⁹ Justin Martyr. He quotes not only the Septuagint, but also the kaige recension and the Testimonia.¹⁰ In the case of the Minor Prophets, some of his quotes follow the kaige recension. In the case of the Psalms, his textual form is closer to P.Bodmer 24 (a third-century witness published in 1967, a generation after Rahlfs’ 1931 edition of the Septuagint). The new data from this witness impacts some of the critical apparatus of Rahlfs’ edition. For instance, in Dialogue with Trypho 55, Psa 95:5 (96:5 MT) is quoted as ‘the gods of the heathen are idols of devils (εἴδωλα δαιμονίων)’ but Rahlfs’ LXX manuscripts have ‘devils (δαιμόνια)’. In his critical apparatus, Rahlfs indicates that Tertullian and Cyprian have the same text as the manuscripts, whereas the Sahidic version, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus offer εἴδωλα δαιμονίων, and Clement of Alexandria gives δαιμόνων εἴδωλα. Rahlfs suggests that the word ‘idols’ come from 1 Paraleipomena 16:26 (1 Chr 16:26). In fact, εἴδωλα δαιμονίων is the text of P.Bodmer 24. It is possible therefore that Justin had at his disposal a complete translation of the Greek revision of the kaige group which was close to the text ascribed to Theodotion. In regard to the Pentateuch, Justin’s text is not very different from the Septuagint, which, in turn, is close to the Hebrew of the MT. In the case of the other biblical books,

⁷ Jaubert 1971. ⁸ Hagner 1973. ¹⁰ Barthélemy 1994, pp. 369–77.

⁹ Prigent 1961.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

104       Justin’s principal source was Septuagint, particularly in the case of Isaiah, alongside several collections of Testimonia.¹¹ Athenagoras of Athens (second half of the second century) quotes only eleven passages: all from the Septuagint, sometimes from memory.¹² Irenaeus of Lyon (end of the second century). The Greek text of his works is lost, except some fragments, but their content is known to us through their Armenian and Latin translations. Irenaeus’ Old Testament is the Septuagint and the text is not revised by reference to the Hebrew. He makes use of the Testimonia as evidenced by the wording of the quotations also found in the Letter of Barnabas and his use of the Septuagint according to the textual form that it has in the New Testament. He is perhaps a witness to a pre-Masoretic text of Daniel.¹³ Clement of Alexandria usually quotes the Septuagint, but sometimes makes use of the Testimonia.¹⁴ Origen quotes the Septuagint according to the textual form of his time. As for the Psalms, this is sometimes close to P.Bodmer 24.¹⁵ His Hexapla inadvertently contributed to the revision of the Septuagint because its fifth column presented the Septuagint text with obeli and asterisks. The obeli here indicated the Greek pluses in comparison with the Hebrew, and the asterisks the minuses with the text of Theodotion’s version inserted from the sixth column. Furthermore, the word order of his Septuagint text was brought into compliance with the Hebrew and the transcription of the proper nouns also re-aligned to the Hebrew. As Olivier Munnich has observed,¹⁶ the fifth column text of the Hexapla was often copied by others without the critical signs and with these other changes. As a result, the Septuagint text of the third century onwards became mixed up with the previous Jewish revisions. With time, readings coming from this eclectic text thus contaminated almost all the subsequent manuscripts of the Septuagint, but unequally and in a way that differs from one biblical book to another. For instance, in the case of Isaiah, the Vaticanus offers Origen’s eclectic recension, but, elsewhere, it

¹¹ Pouderon 2017; Skarsaune 1987. ¹² Pouderon 1992, pp. 341–3. ¹³ Munnich 2017. ¹⁴ Méhat 1971. ¹⁵ Barthélemy 1972a. ¹⁶ Munnich 1995.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

        

105

witnesses to the Old Greek text. Only the oldest papyri and a limited number of uncial codices show no signs of this contamination. Eusebius of Caesarea. In his commentaries, he does not quote Origen’s fifth column, but the Septuagint of his time. In that respect, he is a precious witness of the pre-Hexaplaric Septuagint before its contamination. His quotations of the Psalter are, however, identical to Origen’s Psalter.¹⁷ Didymus the Blind. As for the Psalter, his text is different from that of Origen and Eusebius and often closer to the readings of Codex Sinaiticus.¹⁸ In the case of Zacharias (Zechariah), Didymus’ text offers variants similar to all the great uncial manuscripts: in these, he is closer to Codex Marchalianus than to Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus.¹⁹ Codex Marchalianus undoubtedly has an Egyptian origin. Didymus’ biblical text is not so easy to characterize, but an Egyptian origin seems likely. Eustathius of Antioch, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Theodoret. According to ancient data, Lucian of Antioch was said to have established a recension of the Septuagint in the early fourth century. P. A. de Lagarde tried to reconstruct this text for one half of the Old Testament (1883), but the manuscripts that he used were not Lucianic in the case of the Pentateuch.²⁰ Rahlfs and the collaborators of the Septuaginta-Unternehmen in Göttingen revised his work with Lucianic Pentateuch manuscripts along with the Lucianic quotations of John Chrysostom and Theodoret.²¹ The subsequent realization of the Old Greek text behind the Lucianic text (according to D. Barthélemy), or one of its oldest recensions (according to F. M. Cross and N. Fernandez Marcos) revolutionized the study of the text of the Septuagint.²² In 1895, A. Mez noticed that Josephus’ Bible conformed to the Lucianic recension, not to Codex Vaticanus.²³ Thirty years later, H. St John Thackeray established that Josephus’ text uniformly offered the Lucianic form from 1 Samuel to 1 Maccabees.²⁴ But how was it possible that an author writing at the end of the first century CE could quote a textual form constituted two hundred years after his death? In D. Barthélemy’s opinion, the ¹⁷ ¹⁹ ²² ²³

Harl 1972, pp. 115–16. ¹⁸ Harl 1972, pp. 117–18. Doutreleau 1962, pp. 45–7. ²⁰ de Lagarde 1883. ²¹ Rahlfs 1911. Barthélemy 1972b; Cross and Talmon 1975; Fernandez Marcos 1984, pp. 213–21. Mez 1895. ²⁴ St. John Thackeray 1929, p. 85.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

106       Lucianic recension never existed, but the authors connected with Antioch (and so Lucian) had presented a text which was either the Old Greek or Origen’s recension. According to E. Tov, there was a proto-Lucianic text close to the Old Greek and Lucian made a revision of this textual form.²⁵ According to F. M. Cross, the proto-Lucianic text is a recension of the Old Greek and Lucian himself made a revision of this. Much remains to be done. In particular, our knowledge of the biblical text of the authors connected with Antioch requires further attention, following the example of the Spanish scholars concerning Theodoret.²⁶ Only then will the comparison between the Antiochene text and the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint produce convincing results. The Antiochene biblical text is attested by Eustathius of Antioch (fourth century),²⁷ Diodore of Tarsus (second half of the fourth century),²⁸ Theodore of Mopsuestia (late fourth/ early fifth century),²⁹ John Chrysostom, and Theodoret,³⁰ as well as others. Now, let us turn to the Latin Fathers. They quoted the Vetus Latina the Old Testament portion of which was translated from the Septuagint around 150 CE. In fact, there are several textual forms of the Vetus Latina. The oldest one was present in Africa and is quoted by Cyprian, Priscillian, and Tyconius. The Vetus Latina (also known as Vetus Itala or Itala) is known to have existed as early as 250 CE in Rome probably as a revision of the African text. During the fourth century, it was perhaps revised again according to the Greek Lucianic text. Some authors wanted to keep this form, others corrected it with reference to the Septuagint. As a result, there is a great variety of textual forms of the Vetus Latina.³¹ Tertullian (c.155–220). His text is difficult to characterize. He apparently had no official Latin translation. He translated the Septuagint himself and the translations he gives fluctuate in form.³² Cyprian (c.200–258). Unlike Tertullian, he quoted from one fixed Latin translation. The Testimonia ad Quirinum allow us to reconstruct an important portion of the Latin translation at his disposal, which seems to reflect an official Latin Bible made after Tertullian.³³ ²⁵ ²⁶ ²⁷ ³¹ ³³

Tov 1972. Fernandez Marcos and Saenz-Badillos 1979; Fernandez Marcos and Busto Saiz 1989–1996. Spanneut 1961. ²⁸ Olivier 1980. ²⁹ Vaccari 1942. ³⁰ Guinot 1995. Canellis 2017, pp. 70–6. ³² Gribomont 1985a; Saxer 1985. Gribomont 1985a; Saxer 1985.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

        

107

Commodian (around 250?). In his Carmen apologeticum, he quotes almost all the texts of the Testimonia that Cyprian also uses. It is not known whether Cyprian is dependent on Commodian or vice versa or if both are dependent on a common source.³⁴ Novatian (c.200–258). He quoted the translation used in the Church of Rome, which, in turn, is different from Cyprian’s text.³⁵ Tyconius (second half of the fourth century). His biblical text belongs to the African Vetus Latina and is close to Cyprian. It is possible that the African Vetus Latina was revised according to a Greek Lucianic text or that it was revised according to the Hebrew.³⁶ Ambrose (c.340–397). He sometimes quoted the Latin translation used by the Church of Milan, at other times he revised that translation on the basis of the Septuagint. He also made use of Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus.³⁷ Augustine (354–430). His Old Testament is the Septuagint. Nevertheless, in some late writings, he is influenced by Jerome’s works and translations.³⁸ For example, in De doctrina christiana Book IV, Chapter VII, 13–21 (which comments on Amos 6:1–6), Augustine refers to Jerome’s claim that the Hebrew text is easier to understand than the more figurative LXX translation.³⁹ Jerome (347–420). Jerome used the term Latina Vulgata for the Vetus Latina text. His own translation from the Hebrew was made between 390 and 405. In his writings prior to that translation, he quoted the Vetus Latina. At the end of his life, he made use of his new translation. After Jerome. Amongst the first to adopt Jerome’s translation were those who moved in the Pelagian circles. At the same time, John Cassian and Eucherius of Lyon sometimes quoted it, but less frequently than the Vetus Latina. During the sixth century, Jerome’s Bible spread over Ireland and Campania and was adopted by Benedict of Nursia, Cassiodorus, and Eugippius. Cassiodorus played an important role, as he was the first to edit a complete Latin Bible translation in one volume, to which he gave the transliterated Greek noun Pandectes, literally ‘[book] which receives all’, that is, an ‘encyclopedia’.⁴⁰ At the end of

³⁴ Saxer 1985. ³⁵ Saxer 1985. ³⁶ Vercruysse 2004, pp. 82–5. ³⁷ Nauroy 1985. ³⁸ La Bonnardière 1986. ³⁹ Moreau 1986. ⁴⁰ Gribomont 1985b.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

108       the sixth century, the translation came to be adopted in Rome. Then, from Rome, it reached as far as Spain and England in the seventh century to become the Bible of all the Latin Church at the beginning of the Carolingian times (ninth century).⁴¹ But, the use of the term ‘Vulgate’ to designate this translation was not prior to the thirteenth century and seems then to be due to the influence of the works of Roger Bacon.

The Authority of the Septuagint and the Greek Fathers The Septuagint is the Old Testament of the Church Fathers, except in the Syriac area. In the Latin-speaking world, the Vetus Latina was the Old Testament of all the Church Fathers up till Augustine, and the Vetus Latina was translated from the Septuagint. From the fifth century onwards, the Vetus Latina was gradually superseded by Jerome’s version that had been translated from Hebrew. The only exception is the Psalter. Numerous Western churches kept their traditional text, i.e. the text that depended on the Septuagint. As a result, Jerome’s translation of the Psalter never prevailed in liturgy. By contrast, the revision that Jerome made according to Origen’s Psalter was adopted by the Gallic churches: hence the name, Psalterium Gallicanum. The idea that the Septuagint offers an unexpurgated biblical text— unchanged by the Jews after Jesus—is asserted throughout the patristic ages. Around 150–155 CE, Justin accuses his Jewish interlocutors of having deleted some of the verses of the Septuagint which clearly announce Jesus as the Messiah. For instance, in the Dialogue with Trypho 73, he quotes Psa 95:10 (96:10 MT) as reading ‘Say among the heathen: the Lord has reigned from the wood’ and he accuses the Jews of having eliminated the words ‘from the wood’. For him, the Jews have manipulated the Bible. He does not raise the opposite hypothesis, according to which Christians could have interpolated additions into the Jewish Scriptures. So, in his view, the Septuagint is the authoritative text. To be fair to Justin, one can observe that the words ‘from the wood’ were widely attested among the Fathers (Pseudo-Barnabas, Tertullian) ⁴¹ Gribomont 1985b.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

        

109

and in the manuscript tradition (but not in P.Bodmer 24), as well as in the Bohairic and Sahidic versions. Some years after Justin, Irenaeus reiterated the same idea. Consequently, both deny any value to the Jewish versions (Justin, Dialogue 71; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 21, 1–4). During the first half of the third century, Origen repeats Justin’s accusation that the Jews modified the biblical text: in his Letter to Africanus 14, he asserts that ‘the sages, the chiefs and the elders of the people removed [the passages] which included an accusation against them from the people’. Among these passages, there was for instance the story of Susanna, which introduces two lecherous elders. At the end of the fourth century, Epiphanius of Salamis, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom also repeat the idea that the Jews corrupted the biblical text and that the Septuagint is the only uncorrupted text. Epiphanus, in his treatise On weights and measures 2–3. 6, asserts that the minuses of the Septuagint, marked in Origen’s Hexapla by the asterisks, are in fact superfluous and the pluses indicated by the obeli are only there for clarity of expression. In his view, the Septuagint is identical to the original Hebrew text; and the Jewish revisions are to be rejected.⁴² In his treatise On the Psalms headings II, VIII, Gregory of Nyssa explains that the Jews pass over in silence all the Septuagint headings that signify ‘the mystery of the piety’ (1 Tim 3:16). In his Homilies on Matthew 5, 2, John Chrysostom rejects the Jewish revisions of Isa 7:14, that substitute the word νεᾶνις, ‘maiden’, for the Septuagint term παρθένος, ‘virgin’, and therefore deny Mary’s virginity. Finally, during the first half of the fifth century, Theodoret asserts that the Septuagint was inspired by God to the same degree as the Hebrew text. He never disclaims any letter of the Greek Bible. Indeed, he thinks that the headings of the Psalms themselves are inspired. Likewise, the LXX pluses also are inspired.⁴³ So, for all these authors, there is no reason to refer to the Hebrew text, as it was changed by the Jews, whereas the Septuagint represents the unchanged Hebrew text. Furthermore, the Jewish revisions to the Septuagint are not to be readily received because they may also reflect the changes introduced by the Jews.

⁴² Gallagher 2013.

⁴³ Guinot 1995.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

110       Nevertheless, a more balanced opinion regarding the Hebrew text is also attested during the Patristic period and it is present even in the writings of the above-mentioned authors. Edmon Gallagher has drawn attention to the role of the positive Hebrew reference in patristic thought, notably for the definition of the canon.⁴⁴ The first author to consider in this regard is Origen. First, in his Hexapla, the prime reference text is the Hebrew one: the Hebrew lettering thus occupied the first column, and a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew vocalization occupied the second column. The Jewish revisions of Aquila and Symmachus were given in the following columns. The text of the Septuagint occurs only in the fifth place and this is directly before Theodotion. Second, Origen agrees to focus on the Hebrew text when disputing with Jews: the debate concerns the verses that they are using, even if they are missing in the Septuagint (Letter to Africanus 9). When addressing internal Christian debates, Origen argues that the (later so-called) deuterocanonical books, which are missing in Hebrew, cannot be used in theological debates.⁴⁵ Third, Origen emphasizes the pitiful textual state of the Septuagint manuscripts and he corrects them using the Jewish revisions of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus. However, even if he is convinced of the incorrect nature of a specific Septuagint passage, he does not comment only on the corrected biblical text, but also the uncorrected one. For instance, in the case of Jeremiah 15:10, Origen knew of two different readings (Homilies on Jeremiah 15, 5). The oldest manuscripts give: ‘I was not helpful (οὐκ ὠφέλησα) and nobody was helpful to me.’ But the more correct witnesses in his opinion accord with the Hebrew text and have: ‘I had no debt (οὐκ ὠφείλησα) and nobody had debts towards me.’ According to Origen, the first text resulted from a copying error (γραφικὸν ἁμάρτημα). The modern reader can identify this as the error of iotacism, as the diphthong ει was pronounced /i/, like the vowel η. One might expect that Origen would eliminate the wrong text and advocate for the text in accordance with the Hebrew. But this does not happen. Instead, Origen explains that, when Jeremiah says: ‘I was not ⁴⁴ Gallagher 2012.

⁴⁵ Dorival 1999.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

        

111

helpful and nobody was helpful to me’, he speaks like a doctor who is helpful to his patients; and, when he says: ‘I had no debt and nobody had debts towards me’, he speaks as a person who had fulfilled all his duties (Homilies on Jeremiah 14, 3–4). Why did Origen not advocate going back to the ‘hebraica veritas’ as his addressee Africanus suggested to him to do? Whilst in his view, the Hebrew text is the criterion for evaluation, Origen refuses to align the Church’s Bible to the Hebrew Bible quoting ‘You will not move the eternal landmarks that your predecessors set’ (Letter to Africanus 8). This quotation is a composite of Pro 22:28, Pro 23:10, and Deut 19:14: and, in Origen’s view, this composite quotation justifies the churches’ preservation of every text of the Greek Bible of Ancient Christianity. So, in the case of Jeremiah 15:10, Origen feels obliged to comment on both the wrong reading, because it was in use in the churches, and the correct one, because it is correct. Fourth, Origen is sometimes aware of the significance of the Hebrew identity of the text of the Old Testament. In the case of Psa 118 (119 MT), he knows that there are twenty-two stanzas of eight verses, each of them being indicated by a Hebrew letter, from aleph to taw. But he does not comment on the meaning of each letter.⁴⁶ Fifth (and finally), occasionally Origen does not comment on the Septuagint text, but the text of one of the Jewish versions. For instance, when he explains Ezek 9:3–4, he does not comment on the LXX (‘give a sign on the foreheads’), but Aquila’s and Theodotion’s version (‘sign of taw on the foreheads’), which is in accordance with Hebrew (On Ezekiel PG 13, 800D–801A). In his view, the taw is the sign of perfection (taw is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet) or the sign of the Law (the term Torah begins with the letter taw) or the sign of the cross (the Greek letter tau looks like a cross).Eusebius of Caesarea (fourth century), is in line with Origen. Like him, he knows that the twenty-two stanzas of Psa 118 (119 MT) are indicated by the twenty-two Hebrew letters.⁴⁷ Another example concerns the heading of Psa 9 which in the Septuagint is enigmatic: ‘For the end. Concerning the hidden things of the son.’ What is the end? What are the hidden things? Who is the son? If that son is Jesus, how can the psalmist speak about hidden things? This ⁴⁶ Harl 1972, pp. 106–9.

⁴⁷ Harl 1972, pp. 109–10.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

112       heading is perfectly clear in Symmachus’ translation: ‘Song of victory. Concerning the death of the son.’ Psa 9 is thus a prophecy of the passion and the triumphal resurrection of Jesus (Eclogae propheticae II 5). In his Commentaries on the Psalms, Eusebius often quotes the versions saying, particularly in the case of Symmachus, that they express things more clearly (σαφέστερον) than the Septuagint. According to Dominique Barthélemy, Eusebius developed the idea that divine truth was gradually revealed.⁴⁸ But Sébastien Morlet does not agree with Barthélemy’s view, which Eusebius nowhere explicitly formulates: if the versions are clearer than the Septuagint, this may be a simple fact without any deeper meaning.⁴⁹ In his 39th Festal Letter, written in 367 CE, Athanasius of Alexandria reasserts Origen’s opinion about the deuterocanonical books: they are ‘read’, which means that they are devoted to the spiritual edification of the Christians, but must not be used in the theological argumentation. In this sense, Athanasius prioritizes the Septuagint books that are in the Hebrew canon and this view was maintained in the Christian Church after Athanasius. At about the same time as Athanasius, Diodorus of Tarsus is rather free concerning the precise inspiration of the Septuagint text and he was followed by his pupil Theodore of Mopsuestia. Both criticized the Greek headings of the Psalms. In his Commentaries on the Psalms, Diodorus made frequent use of the Hebrew Bible.⁵⁰ For instance, he stated that the word ‘abyss’ is feminine in Greek, but masculine in Hebrew (Commentaries on Psa 103:6/104:6 MT). In Psa 3:4, ‘But, you, Lord, are my helper, my glory and the one who lifts up my head’ he explains that ‘head’ means ἀρχή, because, in Hebrew, there is only one word for ‘head’ and ἀρχή. He also quotes the versions, and approves Symmachus for his translations which seem to him to usually be better than the Septuagint (Commentaries on Psa 41:5a, 43:9a, and 24). At the end of the fourth century, in his Homilies on the Psalms, John Chrysostom often quotes the other translators, but without giving their names.⁵¹ He does not explain why he makes use of these Jewish versions. ⁴⁸ Barthélemy 1971. ⁵¹ Mercati 1952.

⁴⁹ Morlet 2009, pp. 518–52.

⁵⁰ Olivier 1980.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

        

113

It seems unlikely that he wanted to impress his audience with his erudition.⁵² Maybe he simply understood that the Septuagint and the versions are congruent and so, when explaining the Greek Bible, he should also elucidate the Hebrew Bible. Writing in the first half of the fifth century, Theodoret quotes from the Lucianic revision of the Septuagint text. In his view, it was inspired by God in the same way as the Hebrew text. Nevertheless, as Origen before him, he recognizes that there are some mistakes in the text of the Septuagint due to the carelessness of the scribes who have copied the text. Occasionally he makes use of the Hebrew text to explain a word, or to justify a translation, or to suppress a word present only in some witnesses. He also makes use of the Peshitta and the Syriac language. Finally, he quotes the second-century Jewish versions (that is, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion), but not to correct the Greek text, but to highlight its meaning. These versions allow the reader to understand the sense of a Hebrew word preserved in the Septuagint, to give the precise meaning of an obscure word, to suppress an ambiguity, or to understand an idiomatic term. Symmachus is thus often said to be clearer than the Septuagint.⁵³ Among the Fathers who considered the witness of the Hebrew text, the idea that the Septuagint had become corrupt during its transmission is particularly important. This idea allows the Fathers to hold that the Old Septuagint was once identical to an uncorrupted Hebrew text. Therefore, in order to restore the uncorrupted Old Septuagint, the Jewish versions translated from the Hebrew must be consulted. A striking feature in patristic exegesis from Origen’s time onwards is that the Church Fathers seem to have had no problem coping with a plurality of the biblical texts, that is, a Hebrew text, the Septuagint and its different recensions, and three different Jewish versions. So, the domination of the Septuagint in patristic exegesis is only relative. Consider, for example, the patristic exegesis of Psa 39:7 (40:7 MT). The psalmist is addressing God whom he praises for the deeds that he has accomplished. A literal translation of the Hebrew of this verse might read: ‘Sacrifice and offering, you did not desire; | ears (’oznayim), you dug (Hebrew root ⁵² Hill 1998, vol. 1, pp. 5–8.

⁵³ Guinot 1995.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

114       k-r-h) for me; | whole offering and sin [offering], | you did not ask’. Whilst 7a and 7c–7d are easy to understand, the sense of 7b is obscure. The verb ‘to dig’ is seen as strange by some modern commentators and translators. Some weaken the meaning of the verb to read, ‘you open my ears.’ Others suggest various emendations. In the Septuagint, only the sense 7b differs from the Hebrew: ‘a body (σῶμα), you adapted (κατηρτίσω) to me.’ The noun σῶμα is present in all the Greek manuscripts. And yet it is not the text published by Alfred Rahlfs: he rejects σῶμα in the critical apparatus and prints the word ὠτία, ‘ears’. This emendation is made based on the Latin aures, which is present in the G manuscript of the Vetus Latina as well as in the Gallican Psalter. Rahlfs’ apparatus indicates that this text is congruent with the MT and the Jewish versions, as well as with the Syro-Hexaplar. In the following lines of his apparatus, Rahlfs suggests that the word σῶμα comes from Heb 10:5, in which Jesus ‘coming into the world, says: “Sacrifice and offering, you did not desire, | but you adapted a body to me; holocausts and (sacrifices for) sin, you did not approve”.’ Modern scholars explain that since the Pauline corpus in the broadest sense is characterized by a soteriology which contrasts the sacrifices asked by the Law with the redemption from sin through the body of Jesus, the author of Hebrews changed the text of Psalm 39:7 for theological reasons; and this novel reading was later inserted into the LXX Psalms. In other words, there are two textual forms of the Septuagint: the oldest one is characterized by the word ὠτία, ‘ears’; and the latest one is an example of the Christianization of the Jewish Bible.⁵⁴ But things are more complex than stated by Rahlfs, who says nothing about the patristic quotations. According to these, ὠτία is attested: in the second century, by Irenaeus; in the fourth century, by Eusebius, Diodorus, Didymus; and in the fifth century, by Theodore of Mopsuestia. However, σῶμα is also given (and a little more often): by Origen in the third century; by Eusebius and Didymus in the fourth century; and by Hesychius, Pseudo-Athanasius, and Theodoret in the fifth century. Rahlfs’ opposition between the Old Greek and the Christianized Septuagint is excessive: the Old Greek tradition persisted during the Christian period. Nevertheless, as noted in the previous ⁵⁴ See chapter 4, pp. 66–67.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

        

115

chapter, the more significant information that the Fathers give is that the Old Septuagint did not have ὠτία, the plural of ὠτίον, but ὦτα, plural of οὖς. It is the word quoted by Eusebius and Diodorus, whose witnesses are prior to Didymus and Theodore, who both have ὠτία. In the Septuagint, the Hebrew ’ozen/’oznayim is always translated by οὖς / ὦτα, except in one dubious case. The word ὠτίον is, therefore, a novelty introduced by Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus, and the other Jewish versions. Moreover, the Fathers comment on both the textual forms. Eusebius discusses the word ‘ears’ in his Commentaries on the Psalms 39:7; the word ‘body’ in the Demonstratio evangelica I 10, 27. In the Tura Commentaries on the Psalms, Didymus comments first on ‘body’, in which he sees Jesus’ body offered for all people; then, he states that, ‘among others’ (which can be either some commentators or some Septuagint manuscripts) there is the word ‘ears’, in which he sees mankind’s capacity to listen (and obey) as well as Jesus’ capacity to listen (and obey). So, the Church Fathers accepted this textual plurality as a fact, a piece of data; the role of the commentators is to agree this plurality, that is, to comment on the different textual forms that they are aware exist. As a rule, such textual plurality does not bother the ancient commentators: they rather see it as a richness. Therefore, they also feel free in front of the reference text and do not hesitate to quote it from memory or approximately. The Septuagint has primacy, by far, but the Hebrew text, and the Jewish versions, all play a role. In this chapter we addressed the question: ‘Was the Septuagint the Old Testament of the Church Fathers?’ In the first place, we have observed that it was not in the Syriac area, where the Old Testament was the Peshitta translated from the Hebrew. But this observation must be qualified because the Peshitta includes the biblical books absent from the Hebrew canon that are present in the Septuagint. More than this, through the centuries, the Peshitta was influenced by the Septuagint. Furthermore, the influence of the SyroHexaplar should not be under-estimated. In the second place, we have observed that in all the other regions of the Mediterranean basin, the Old Testament of the Church Fathers was the Septuagint: either in its Greek textual form or in the different language versions that were translated from its Greek text. The only

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

116       exception is Jerome’s translation, but this did not come to replace the Septuagint-based Vetus Latina before the sixth century. Although all of the Church Fathers knew that the Septuagint was a translation, the Church Fathers of the first two centuries (such as Justin, Irenaeus) dispensed with the Hebrew reference. In this period, the Septuagint dominated in an absolute way as the authoritative text of the Old Testament for the Church. From Origen’s time onwards, the Church Fathers recognized that the Septuagint had become corrupt during its transmission. In their view, the Old Septuagint could be restored by reference to the Hebrew text or to the Jewish versions. These sources are often said to be clearer than the Septuagint and so are often used in exegesis. Such textual plurality, however, was not perceived as a problem, it was instead part and parcel of the richness of the Scriptures.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

6 The Vocabulary of the Septuagint and the Church Fathers A religion can be characterized by its specific beliefs and practices; and in many cases by its reference texts. Judaism refers to the Tanak and the Mishna. The acronym Tanak is attested since the Talmudic period and denotes the literary corpus of the torah (Law), the nevi’im (Prophets) and the ketuvim (Writings). The Mishna (repetition) refers to the oral teaching of the rabbis of the first two centuries CE that was orally memorized and repeated. Upon this core the Talmud (teaching) is founded. The analogous founding texts of Islam appear to be the Qur’an and the Hadith. In the case of Christianity, the analogy is not so close, but there are two key texts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament in its various guises includes all the books of the Tanak together with (depending on the Christian denomination) some supplementary passages and books, such as Baruch, Susanna, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach (= Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, 1–4 Maccabees.¹ The New Testament is homogeneous across almost all major denominations and is made up of a corpus of twenty-seven texts: the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the fourteen letters of the Pauline corpus, the seven Catholic letters and Revelation. It seems reasonable to begin with the titles of these two collections and ask, ‘Where does the word “Testament” originate from?’ The institution of Lord’s Supper comes immediately to mind: in Matt 26:28 and Mark 14:24, Jesus speaks about ‘the blood of the

¹ See chapter 2, pp. 37–41.

The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae. Gilles Dorival, Oxford University Press. © Gilles Dorival 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898098.003.0006

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

118       Testament/Covenant (τῆς διαθήκης)’; in Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25, he says: ‘this cup is the new Testament/Covenant (ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη) in my blood’. It must be recognized, however, that in these texts the Gospels and Paul are using a word that is also used in the Septuagint. In the Septuagint, διαθήκη translates the Hebrew berit (covenant, alliance) and there are more than 350 occurrences of this Greek noun in the Septuagint. The word often refers to the covenants between God and a Patriarch or a Prophet or Israel. In Classical Greek, διαθήκη is used to mean ‘disposition, testamentary disposition, testament’, and less often ‘arrangement between two parties, convention, agreement, covenant’. In the Vetus Latina, the earliest translation of the Septuagint into Latin (second century CE), διαθήκη is almost always translated by testamentum, which means in Classic Latin ‘attestation by witness, testament, covenant’. In the example of Genesis, this is the case in Gen 6:18; 9:9, 12, 13, 15, 16; 15:18; 17:2, 4, 7 bis, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 21; 21:27; 31:44 with the only exception being Gen 26:28, where the word pactum, ‘covenant, pact’, is used to speak about the covenant between Isaac and Abimelech. At the end of the fourth century, in the so-called Vulgate, Jerome replaced the Latin testamentum by foedus, ‘treaty, covenant’, or by pactum, ‘covenant, pact’. Despite Jerome’s translation, the two Christian collections were never named Vetus/Novum Foedus or Pactum. The traditional terms Vetus/Novum Testamentum were kept. So, whenever we use the word ‘Testament’, we are indebted towards the Vetus Latina and, beyond it, to the Septuagint that inspired this Latin translation. By contrast, whenever we use the term ‘Old and New Covenant’, we give to the Greek διαθήκη the meaning of the Hebrew berit and we unwittingly hebraize the Christian reference texts. One more remark: in using διαθήκη, the New Testament is taking up the vocabulary of the Septuagint. This reminds us when we analyse the use of the Septuagint terminology by the Church Fathers, to consider how the vocabulary of the Septuagint has been passed to them through the New Testament. The example of testamentum suggests that the Septuagint could have played a central role in the building of the Christian identity during the first centuries: an interesting hypothesis which is worthy of further examination.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

119

The Analysis of H. B. Swete Revisited In matters related to the Septuagint, one always benefits from starting with the first general introduction ever devoted to it. In this reference book, Swete also wrote a chapter on the ‘influence of the LXX on Christian Literature’ in which some paragraphs address our subject matter.² In these, he asserts that ‘the Greek liturgies, especially perhaps in the oldest parts, are steeped in the language of the Greek Old Testament’ (p. 471). First, they quote the Psalms without changing their text (or if so, very slightly): Psa 1:12 (in fact, 50:12) and 1:14 (in fact, 50:14) in the liturgy of Saint Clement; Psa 27:9 (28:9 MT) and 34:2 (35:2 MT) in the liturgy of Saint James; Psa 43:3 (44:3 MT) and 78:8 (79:8 MT) in the liturgy of Saint Mark. Second, liturgical addresses to God and to Christ are typically drawn from the Septuagint. For instance, the liturgy of Saint Clement has: Κύριε παντοκράτωρ, ὕψιστε, ἐν ὑψηλοῖς κατοικῶν, ἅγιε έν ἁγίοις ἀναπαυόμενος, ἅναρχε, μόναρχε, ‘Lord Almighty, Most High God, who dwells in the heights, Saint who rests among the Saints, the one without beginning, the one who reigns alone’, which is a mix of Isa 57:15 and 3 Macc 2:2, with the exception of ἅναρχε (not reported by Swete). Third, there are ‘passing allusions to the LXX, sometimes difficult to explain without its aid’ in the liturgies of Saint Clement, Saint James, Saint Mark, Saint Basil, Sarapion. Fourth, ‘much of the technical phraseology of the Liturgies is from the LXX’: Swete quotes the following terms: τὰ ἅγια (Lev 22:2), ἀναφορά (Num 4:19), δῶρα (Gen 4:4), θυσία (Gen 4:3), λειτουργία (Exod 39:18), θυσία αἰνέσεως (Lev 7:3 [in fact 7:12], Psa 49:14, 23 (50:14, 23 MT), πρόθεσις (Exod 39:18), προκείμενα (Lev 24:7), προσφορά (3 Reigns/1 Kgs 7:34), τελειοῦν (Exod 29:9). He adds that ‘the same is true with regard to some of the oldest Eucharistic formulae, e.g. the Preface and Sanctus which are based on Isa 6:2–3’. In the next paragraph (p. 473), Swete asserts that ‘the Greek terminology of Christian Doctrine is largely indebted to the Alexandrian translators.’ Nevertheless, he rightly adds that ‘most of the technical language of theology has passed through the New Testament’ and he indicates also ‘the influence of Greek philosophy and of Gnostic speculation’. And he ² Swete 1902, pp. 462–77.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

120       quotes the following nouns and verbs: ἅιδης, ἀνάστασις, εἰκών, ἐκκλησία, ἐφόδιον, θυσία, θυσιαστήριον, Κύριος, λόγος, μονογενής, ξύλον, οὐσία, παντοκράτωρ, παντοδύναμος, παράδεισος, πνεῦμα ἅγιον, πίστις, προσφορά, σάρξ, σοφία, ὑπόστασις, φύσις, φῶς, χάρις. Immediately after this list, Swete indicates that ‘indirectly, but not less extensively, the earliest Latin theology drew a store of theological language from the LXX’, via the Vetus Latina: aeternalis, altare, benedictio, congregatio, converti, daemonium, eleemosyna, exomologesis, glorificare, hostia, iustitia, misericordia, oblatio, propitiatio, sacerdos, sacrificium, salvare, testamentum, unicus, viaticum. Whilst this analysis is a good starting point, it must be critically received. For example, the Preface of the mass has no clear link with Isaiah, unlike the Sanctus, which adapts Isa 6:3: ‘Holy, holy, holy [is the] Lord sabaoth: the whole earth is full of his glory.’ Furthermore, in the case of the lists of liturgical and theological words, it is well established that they are subjective and difficult to define. Thanks to Lampe’s Lexicon,³ some of the liturgical words of Swete’s list can be removed: τὰ ἅγια, because no real Liturgical meaning is attested; προκείμενα, because the liturgical meaning (the proper antiphon preceding the reading of the epistle) is too far from the showbread of Leviticus; τελειοῦν, which has no liturgical meaning, but the fact is that τελείωσις has sacramental meanings in the realms of Baptism and Eucharistic. The other words are to be kept: ἀναφορά, which is the Greek word for the Eucharistic offering and for the anaphora of the canon; δῶρα, which is one of the nouns referring to the Eucharistic oblation; θυσία, which is the word par excellence to designate the Eucharist (nearly two columns of examples in Lampe!); λειτουργία, which is often used for the Eucharistic liturgy; θυσία αἰνέσεως, which has the same meaning; πρόθεσις, which can designate the Eucharist itself or, in the term ‘bread of proposition, showbread’, the Eucharistic bread; προσφορά, which means either the Eucharist or the Eucharistic bread. As for the lists of the Greek and Latin theological words, ἐφόδιον, ‘provisions for a journey’, has no theological meaning; on the contrary, it sometimes indicates the sacraments, in particular Baptism and Eucharistic, and therefore could be added to ³ Lampe 1961.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

121

the list of liturgical words. The same can be told about the Latin viaticum, which translates ἐφόδιον. The noun οὐσία is not used with any philosophic sense in the Septuagint, but simply signifies ‘property’; on the contrary, ὑπόστασις, which often has concrete meanings (‘foundation’, ‘property’, ‘troop’), has to be kept, since it sometimes is used to mean ‘substance’ or ‘existence’, in Psa 38:6 (39:6 MT), 88:48 (89:48), 138:15 (139:15). At first sight, θυσιαστήριον and altare belong to the liturgical vocabulary, and not to the theological one as Swete claims, but the two words do refer to Jesus and his salvation and in this way have a theological use. But above all, Swete’s lists should not be read as exhaustive: there are many omissions. For instance, among the liturgical vocabulary, the obvious entry εὐχαριστία (Eucharist) is omitted. The Septuagint uses this word in Esther 8:12d, Wis 16:28, Ecclesiasticus 37:11, and 2 Macc 2:27. Of course, in these Jewish passages, it does not bear the Christian meaning of ‘Eucharist’, but of ‘thanksgiving’. The same occurs in the New Testament. The Christian meaning appears during the second half of the second century, but it relies on Matt 26:27, where Jesus ‘took the cup and giving thanks (εὐχαριστήσας) gave it to them, saying: “drink of it”’. As for the theological words, many are missing from the list of Swete. Focusing only on the story of creation (Gen 1:1– 2:6), the following words should be added: ἀόρατος/invisibilis, ἀρχή/ principium, ζωή/vita, κόσμος/ornatus, ὁμοίωσις/similitudo, ποιεῖν/creare, πλάσσειν/fingere, σκότος/tenebrae, ψυχή/anima.

The Septuagint in the Spiritual Life of the Ancient Christians Swete’s chapter deserves, above all, to be supplemented by additional insights. The following five examples illustrate the extent of the role of the Septuagint in the Church Fathers’ teaching about the Christian spiritual life. First, the Greek text of Gen 14:13 provides a foundational definition for this religious spirituality, speaking as it does about ‘Abraham the emigrant (περάτης)’. The MT has: ‘Abraham the Hebrew’. As the word ‘Hebrew’ can be related to the root ‘-b-r, ‘to pass over or through’, the

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

122       Greek περάτης is a possible translation choice. But the ancient readers of the Septuagint who did not know the Hebrew language are not aware of the choices in translation. As a result of this translation choice, when Philo comments on the Greek word, he finds in Abraham a model of spiritual migration: God’s chosen man has to migrate, to pass, from the sensate world to the divine one (De migratione 20). The Fathers followed Philo on this point and understood the Christian spiritual life as a migration. Second in Gen 4:1–7, God accepts Abel’s sacrifice, but rejects the sacrifice of Cain (v. 4–5). Cain is sorrowful (v. 6). But God says to him in Hebrew something like: ‘If you do well, will there not be a lifting up? But if you do not do well, at the door sin [is] lying down.’ Modern commentators often report this verse to be either obscure or corrupted (or both). It is not clear what is ‘lifting up’, nor why the word for sin, hatt’at, a feminine noun, is followed by robets, ‘one lying down’ (such as : a beast), a masculine singular participle. The LXX gives: ‘If you brought rightly, but not rightly divided, did you not sin (ἥμαρτες)? Be still (ἡσύχασον)’. Instead of the double hypothesis in Hebrew, there is only one duplicated hypothesis in Greek. Philo, Didymus, and others explain that Cain’s fault consists in an error concerning God’s share and man’s share. After this sin, Cain must be still; or not worry, or stop sinning, or repent. So, sin must be replaced by repentance and spiritual stillness (ἡσυχία). So, in the Apostolic Constitutions II 16, 4, written at the end of the fourth century, the words ‘you sinned? Be still’ (ἥμαρτες ἡσύχασον) become a spiritual maxim. Third, the LXX Pentateuch is the source of another spiritual maxim: πρόσεχε σεαυτῶι, ‘take heed of thyself.’ There are fourteen instances of this formula: Gen 24:6; Exod 10:28, 23:21, 34:12; Deut 4:9, 4:23, 6:12, 8:11, 11:16, 12:13, 12:19, 12:30, 15:9, and 24:8. Outside the Law, there are only two other instances: Tobit 4:12 and 4:14. The Greek term is a literal translation of the Hebrew nifal imperative hishshamer leka, which is a mere cautionary remark, a caveat, ‘be careful.’ But the Greek readers took this formula to be a moral prescription. Philo connects it to the Delphic maxim γνῶθι σεαυτόν (know yourself: De somniis I 58–60 on Gen 24:6). In a fragment on Deuteronomy, Origen quotes the Pentateuch formula to prove that the heathen philosophers were inspired by biblical texts; but

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

123

had changed them. Henceforth, the term is quoted as a moral prescription, isolated from any context. Basil of Caesarea comments on it in one of his homilies (PG 31, 197–217). Gregory of Nyssa connect the maxim with Song 1:8 to assert that a good spouse must be able to discern right from wrong (Commentaries on Song of Songs II, GNO VI, p. 67,1, 17–18). Fourth, in Psa 45:11 (46:11), the Hebrew text has: ‘Leave off [root r-p-h in the hifil form] and know that I am God.’ The Septuagint offers: ‘Be at leisure (skholasate) and know that I am God.’ The Hebrew word r-p-h is not easy to understand. The Greek Fathers, however, were influenced by the classical word σχολή and so developed the topic of leisure time devoted to God.⁴ Fifth, the MT of Isa 28:9–11 offers a series of syllables, sometimes translated as following: ‘precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little’; the modern commentators disagree about the meaning: is it a mockery of the prophet himself, whose sayings are only stutters? Or is it an elementary teaching of a master instructing young children? The Septuagint has: ‘Accept affliction upon affliction, hope upon hope, yet a little, yet a little.’ Origen quoted this verse at the beginning of his Exhortation to Martyrdom. Origen and Eusebius both explain that this verse illustrates the spirituality of martyrdom according to the scheme hardship (‘affliction’), agreement (‘accept’), hope (‘hope’). So, as a rule, the Septuagint played a fundamental role in the formation of everyday spiritual Christian life. Key biblical verses came to be written on stone Christian inscriptions, engraved on church or private house doors, on tombs, on jewels. As established by Denis Feissel, almost all these quotations rely on the text of the Septuagint or its translation for their spiritual import. Most of them come from the Psalms, many from Isaiah.⁵ Psa 90 (91 MT) has a most prominent place and is quoted in full on one grave. This role can be explained by the prophylactic dimension of its text for the present life as well for the future one. Christian amulets feature biblical quotations, especially verses from Psa 90 (91), as observed by R. W. Daniel.⁶ The Christian Papyrus n 129 quotes Psa 28:3 (29:3) ‘Voice of the Lord upon the waters! | The God of glory has thundered; | Lord upon many waters!’ From a Christian point of view, ⁴ Harl 1984, p. 239.

⁵ Feissel 1984. See also Felle 2006.

⁶ Daniel 1983.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

124       this verse evokes the Father (God) and the Son (Lord) as well as the baptism (Voice of the Lord upon the waters).⁷

The Septuagint in the Christian Hermeneutics If we had wanted to follow Swete’s paragraphs, we would examine next the Christian theological words inspired by the Septuagint. Since Christian theology is, above all else, a commentary on the Scriptures, it is more insightful to address the relationship between the Septuagint and Christian hermeneutics first. We think spontaneously that the foundations of patristic hermeneutics come from the Greek tradition of allegory and commentary, rather than the Septuagint. There is much truth in this, of course, but it must be qualified. First, patristic interpretation was focused upon the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew Bible, even if the Fathers (after Origen) made use of Hebrew references and the Jewish revisions.⁸ The Old Testament of the Fathers includes all the books of the Hebrew Bible, but it also had some supplementary passages and books whose status was not the same. These texts were considered suitable for edification but could not be used in theological debate or in liturgy. Despite this, the Septuagint corpus was divided into only two categories of books: Law and Prophets, and this division does not relate to their status. This was different to the Rabbinic division of the corpus, which had a hierarchical structure: they gave the first place to the Law, then to the Prophets, and last to the Writings. The Rabbinic tripartition is completely unknown among the Church Fathers, with the sole exception of Jerome’s Galeatus prologue (but one may notice that, in this text, Jerome claims to describe the Hebrew canon, and not the Christian one). According to the rabbis, a valid argumentation must be based on Law verses, which can be confirmed by Prophets quotations and lastly informed by the Writings. This hermeneutic is not evident in the New Testament even though it is a Jewish text: the Law and the Prophets are at equal level. This can be seen in Matt 12:1–8, Mark 2:23–28, and Luke 6:1–5, which is the narrative of the plucking of ⁷ According to van Haelst’s numbering.

⁸ See chapter 5, pp. 110–13.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

125

grain on the Sabbath. The Pharisees refer to the Law, whereas Jesus makes use of the Prophets (1 Reigns/1 Sam 21:1–7 about David) to justify the behaviour of his followers. Several texts of the New Testament may prioritize the Law: Matt 22:31–32, for example, has Jesus proving the resurrection from Exodus 3; but any sense of the priority of the Books of the Law is entirely absent from many books of the New Testament, such as Hebrews and James.⁹ Second, the Fathers’ titles for the biblical books are the Greek ones, they come from the Septuagint, even for the Books of the Law: ‘Genesis’, ‘Exodus’, ‘Leviticus’, ‘Numbers’, and ‘Deuteronomy’. In the Hebrew Bible, the titles of these books are made of one or several words derived from the first verse of each of the five books: bere’shit, ‘in beginning’; shemot, ‘names’; wayyiqra’, ‘and he called’; bemidbar, ‘in wilderness’; and devarim, ‘words’. The Greek titles, however, were used by the Greekspeaking Jewish translators. The Rabbinic Sages, who normally make use of the Hebrew titles, also knew of other titles similar to those used in the Septuagint: Genesis is called sefer yetsirat ha‘olam, ‘book of the creation of the world’; Exodus, sefer yetsi’at Mitsrayim, ‘book of the exit from Egypt’; Leviticus, sefer torat kohanim, ‘book of the law of the priests’; Numbers, homesh ha-piqqudim, ‘fifth of the censuses’ (in which ‘fifth’ is : synonymous with ‘book’, since there are five books of the Law); Deuteronomy, sefer mishneh torah, ‘book of the second law’.¹⁰ As for the books which follow the Law, the Hebrew and Greek titles are often very close, but not always so. The Septuagint calls 1–4 Reigns what the MT denominates as two books (Samuel and Kings) and the LXX title Παραλειπόμενα (‘[Matters] omitted’) is entitled dibrey ha-yamim, ‘Words [or events] of the days’ in the MT. The title ‘Chronicles’ comes from the Latin tradition following Jerome’s Galeatus prologue, which precedes his translation of Samuel and Kings. Modern English translations of the Bible borrow the titles of the Pentateuch from the Septuagint; the titles ‘Samuel’ and ‘Kings’, from the Hebrew Bible; and ‘Chronicles’, from Jerome. This mix is indicative of how the Septuagint has had a lasting impact, not only on the Greek and Latin Fathers, but also on medieval and modern Christianity. ⁹ Dorival 2012.

¹⁰ Harl, Dorival, and Munnich 1988, pp. 65–6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

126       Regarding the allegorical method, all the Fathers make use of it, including the Antiochenes, who call it ‘theory (θεωρία)’ or ‘epitheory (ἐπιθεωρία)’. The allegorical method probably originates with the Greek philosophers, who wished to preserve Homer’s poems from the charges of immorality and impiety and who developed the idea that, behind the literal and often outrageous meaning of these poems, there is a deeper sense or higher value. Allegory is also a Jewish method, implemented in Qumran pesharim and Philo. Paul takes it up, especially in Gal 4:24, where he comments on Abraham’s two sons (one the son of Sarah, the other the son of Hagar). He asserts that ‘those things are allegorically said (ἀλληγορούμενα)’: Hagar is the covenant of Sinai, whereas Sarah is the free and above Jerusalem. So, Old Testament characters are types (τύποι) or figures (figurae) of past, present, and future realities. Rom 5:14 uses the word ‘type’ in the case of Adam, ‘type of the one who is to come’. Nevertheless, the Hebrew and Greek Bibles themselves have Scriptural supports in favour of allegory: Psa 77:2 (78:2) speaks about ‘parables (παραβολαί)’ and ‘problems (προβλήματα)’; Prov 1:6, about a ‘parable (παραβολή)’, an ‘obscure saying (σκοτεινὸν λόγον)’ and ‘riddles (αἰνίγματα)’; Tobit 12:7, which is not in the Hebrew Bible, about ‘mystery (μυστήριον)’. So, a certain mystery or lack of clarity (ἀσάφεια) characterizes the LXX translation. Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, and others connect this with the pedagogy of God: divine mysteries must not be revealed to those who are not prepared to receive them. Nonetheless, biblical obscurity is sometimes connected with the biblical style and with the difficulties generated by the task of translation from Hebrew into Greek. Clement of Alexandria speaks about the ‘ethnic’ feature specific to the Hebrew language and underlines the peculiarities of the ‘prophetic’ biblical style (Stromata VI 129–130). Origen accepts the pagan criticism that the Bible is characterized by rhetorical poverty (εὐτέλεια), but, according to him, this poverty can be compared to the poverty of Jesus, who thus reveals his glory only to those who are able to understand it (Philokalia 15). It was the Antiochene Fathers, more than any of the others, who understood that much of the obscurity of the Septuagint was related to its linguistic features. Therefore, the Septuagint needs a tenacious work of clarification to establish its historico-literal meaning [which is never

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

127

‘plain’ (obvious), in contrast to the assertion of many modern fundamentalists and literalists] as well as its deeper meaning(s). The text of the Septuagint, therefore, requires ‘decrypting (ἐπίκρυψις)’ (Clement, Stromata V passim, VI, XV, 129; Origen, On First Principles IV 1–3) through the allegorical method of the Alexandrian tradition, or the (hermeneutical) ‘theory’ of the Antiochene Fathers. Such a work of clarification is not a specific feature of the Church Fathers: the same work is undertaken by the Rabbinic Sages, who also distinguish between the apparent meaning and the deeper one(s). The methods, then, are common, but the hermeneutical terminology of the Fathers is specific, and it comes from the Septuagint and the New Testament. Even if the following development was not focused solely on LXX vocabulary, it would be unfortunate not to record the extent to which some of the literary genres of the Church Fathers are inseparable from the Greek Bible. By contrast, in 1961, when Werner Jäger dealt with the issue of the Christian genres, he did not refer to the Septuagint at all. For Werner Jäger, all the patristic genres originate from the Greek classical tradition.¹¹ His observations are pertinent in most cases, but they are not always complete. For instance, he connects the Christian Acts of the Martyrs with the Acts of the Pagan Martyrs, but this link is rendered relatively irrelevant if, as is quite likely, the former is earlier than the latter. In this case, 2 Macc 7 (in the Septuagint) is a more likely candidate to be the founding text of this genre: it retells how a mother and her seven sons preferred to die rather than to violate the Law and so to deny their faith. Likewise, whilst the Christian apocalyptic literature is mainly influenced by John’s Revelation, this book itself belongs to the same genre as Daniel. Similarly, the patristic letters (Clement of Rome, Pseudo-Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, etc.) do predominantly depend on the New Testament letters, especially Paul, but Paul may also, in turn, have been influenced by Jeremiah’s letter, which is specific to the Septuagint. The hagiographic genre is specific to patristic times, but the supplement to Daniel called ‘Bel and the Dragon’ comes close to some of the ‘Lives’ of some of the saints with its killing of a dragon and the miracle of the den of lions. Whilst numerous other literary genres do not ¹¹ Jäger 1961.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

128       seem to be much influenced by the Septuagint, such as the literature against the heresies, it is interesting to note indirect connections. In the case of the anti-heresy literature, in Panarion, written in 377 or 378 CE, Epiphanius describes various heresies and systematically connects them with texts of the Septuagint: there are eighty heresies, as there are eighty concubines in the Song of Songs; the Church is one, as the spouse of the same biblical book; the heresies are thus identified with the snake of Gen 3:1–19 and the snakes of Matt 23:33.¹²

The Septuagint in the Christian Doctrine We may now turn to examine the use of the theological vocabulary of the Septuagint by the Church Fathers. As noted by Swete, patristic terminology is typically taken from the Greek Bible (Septuagint and New Testament). In the case where the Christian theology makes use of a word not found in the Septuagint or in the New Testament, there is a problem to be addressed (in the Fathers’ view). For example, in his treatise On the First Principles, Origen often uses the adjective ‘incorporeal (ἀσώματος)’ to speak about God’s essence. But, as this word is not present in the Scriptures, he must justify his use of it (Preface 8). He thus finds a near equivalent in the Scriptures: the adjective ‘invisible (ἀόρατος)’, which is read in Colossians 1:15 (Jesus is ‘the image of the invisible God’) and implied in John 1:18 (‘No one has ever seen God, θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακέ πωποτε’), as stated in I 1, 8; IV 3, 15; IV 4, 10. One might object that ‘invisible’, which is attested in the Septuagint for the earth (Genesis 1:2), is never used for God, but, in Origen’s view, the Scriptures are an indivisible whole: if the word is attested in the New Testament, the word must be virtually present in the Old. Three generations after Origen, at the time of the council of Nicaea, a similar concern arose regarding the use of the adjective ‘consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος)’ in Christology, that is, because the word itself is not present in the Bible. It is possible that the word would never have been agreed by the Council Fathers without the intervention of the Emperor Constantine. ¹² Dorival 2008.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

129

The doctrine of the Trinity asserts one God in three persons and the word, ‘person’, comes from the Septuagint. The Latin word is persona, and the Greek one, πρόσωπον. This noun was first used in Christian exegesis to refer to the different characters who are speaking in the biblical books, especially in the Song of Songs and in the Psalms. For instance, David utters a given verse on behalf of the ancient people, another one on behalf of the new people, others on behalf of the Father or of Jesus or of the Church or of the holy man, etc. In other words, David plays many roles. In patristic literature, the Greek term for ‘on behalf of ’ is ἐκ προσώπου + genitive, literally ‘from the character of ’. In Classical Greek, πρόσωπον means ‘face’ and, among other things, ‘theatrical mask’; and in koine Greek there is the sense of ‘character’ or ‘person’. So, in Christian exegesis, πρόσωπον designates any biblical character who plays a role and utters sayings as in a theatre play. The word πρόσωπον thus passed from patristic prosopological exegesis into patristic theology, as argued by Marie-Josèphe Rondeau: in patristic theology it designates a ‘person’ and a ‘person of the Trinity’.¹³ Some passages of the Greek translation of Genesis gave rise to theological interpretations which are not possible on the grounds of the Hebrew text. In the above section on Christian spirituality, we examined Gen 4:7 (the theme of stillness after the sin), 14:13 (the spiritual life as a migration), and 24:6 (the biblical command to guard oneself as [Greek] self-knowledge). In terms of Christian theology, the LXX translation of Gen 1:2 has had a similar impact. In the Septuagint the translation reads ‘the earth was invisible and unorganized’, whereas the Hebrew offers the famous and difficult tohu wa-bohu. The Greek translation then came to be quoted in support of the pre-existence of matter with Wis 11:17 (in which God creates the world ‘from a formless matter’, ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης) and with Hermogenes (quoted by Tertullian). But, as a rule, the Fathers understand Gen 1:2 as supporting the creation of matter (Theophilus of Antioch II, 10 and Origen, On the First Principles IV 4, 6–8).¹⁴ Another interesting passage is Gen 14:14 in which there are 318 slaves of Abraham in Hebrew and 318 in Greek; but 318 is written ΤΙΗ in Greek. For Letter of Barnabas 9, 7–8 and Clement of Alexandria, ¹³ Rondeau 1985.

¹⁴ May 1978.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

130       Stromata VI 85, the letter Τ refers to the Cross because of its shape and ΙΗ are the two letters that begin the name of Jesus, Ιησοῦς in Greek. So, Genesis 14:14 (in Greek) prophesies Jesus and his death on the Cross. Such an exegesis is impossible on the grounds of the Hebrew text. Later, the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea also numbered 318, perhaps because of this verse and its Christological interpretation. Some differences between the Hebrew and the Greek, against expectations, did not give rise to any significant Christian interpretations. For instance, in Gen 2:2, the Septuagint has: ‘And God finished on the sixth day his work’, whereas the Hebrew speaks about ‘the seventh day’. In fact, the Sages and the Fathers understand this verse in the same way to refer to the creation lasting six days. Another example is Gen 31:13: the Septuagint has ‘I am the God who was seen by you in the place of God’; the Hebrew has ‘I am the God of Beit-El’. The Fathers did not comment on the additional ‘who was seen by you’, at least in the texts that we know. The other books of the Septuagint also offer many verses which are different in Hebrew and Greek. Many of these were interpreted in similarly Greek-specific ways by the Fathers and many of these were analysed by Marguerite Harl in 1988.¹⁵ For example, the Greek of Exod 17:16 provided an opportunity for patristic theologians to develop an important aspect of their Logos’ doctrine. The Hebrew text can be translated as following: ‘and he [i.e. Moses] said: “for a hand [is] against the throne of Yah (kes yah), war for YHWH with Amalek from generation to generation”’. The Hebrew kes is a hapax and is often said to be identical to kisse’ (throne). But various emendations have been suggested. The Septuagint does not have the introductory ‘and he said’ and reads: ‘For, with a hidden (κρυφαία) hand, the Lord makes war against Amalek from generation to generation.’ Instead of kes yah, it seems that the translators read kesuyah, from the root k-s-h, ‘to hide’. The ‘hidden hand’ is specific to the Septuagint. Justin identifies it with God’s Son (Dialogue with Trypho 19, 8). For him, the Son is hidden in the Old Testament and the theological task is one of recovery. For the Fathers, the Son received various names in the Old Testament, in ¹⁵ Harl, Dorival, and Munnich 1988, pp. 289–311.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

       

131

particular ‘beginning (ἀρχή)’ in Genesis 1:1, ‘Logos’ in Psa 32:6 (33:6), ‘Wisdom (σοφία)’ in Prov 8:22, all identical to the Logos of John’s Prologue (Origen, On the First Principles I 2, 1–3 and IV 4, 3). The son is hidden in the Old Testament, but, thanks to their hermeneutical method, patristic theologians were able to uncover the passages in which he is secretly mentioned. In conclusion, the Septuagint had a specific role in the development of Christian spirituality and patristic thought. The above discussion has emphasized the biblical passages that in Greek present possibilities for interpretation that are not present in Hebrew. In these places, the Fathers could develop new interpretations, even if some of them repeated the ideas of Philo and the Greek-speaking Jews. In the majority of its verses, however, the meaning of the Septuagint is identical to the Hebrew. This is particularly the case in the Pentateuch; and in the Psalms. Here also the Fathers could find space for a specific exegesis through their focus on Christ, the Church, and the Christian realities. A good example is Psa 118:164 (119:164, ‘seven times in a day, I praised you because of the judgements of your righteousness’). The sense is the same in Hebrew and Greek, but in the Christian tradition, this verse became the Scriptural justification of the monastic Liturgy of the Hours.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

PART IV

T H E BI B L I C A L CA T E N A E

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

7 An Overview of the Catenae As concluded in chapters 3 and 5, the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the writers of the New Testament, and, thanks to various translations of the Septuagint into Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, Latin, it was also the Old Testament of the Church Fathers. Indeed, the Septuagint was the authoritative Old Testament text for most of the ecclesiastical authors of the first millenium. There are two main exceptions to this. First, the Syriac authors, whose Bible was the Peshitta and whose Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew. Second, the Latin authors who wrote after the time of Cassiodorus and Bede since for them Jerome’s Vulgata had superseded the Septuagint. Nevertheless, in Syriac-speaking countries, the Syro-Hexaplaric Version, which was translated from Origen’s Septuagint by Paul of Tella at the beginning of the seventh century, came to be widely used by commentators of this geo-cultural region. So, it can be said that, in the Christian tradition of the first centuries, the interpretation (ἑρμηνεία) of the Old Testament was predominantly based upon the Septuagint. This assertion does not mean that the Fathers were not aware of the Hebrew Bible. They had information about it and they frequently mentioned this information in their writings. During the first five centuries, this Christian hermeneia took various forms: above all, commentaries, which explained a given biblical book chapters after chapters and verses after verses; homilies, which enlightened for a Christian audience the passages of the Scriptures read during the liturgy; and scholia, which were short or developed explanations of chosen verses, without the systematic feature of the commentaries. At that time, other forms of exegesis were also in use, such as Quaestiones, letters, theological treatises.¹ But, at the beginning of the sixth century, ¹ Dorival 2008b, pp. 155–65. The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae. Gilles Dorival, Oxford University Press. © Gilles Dorival 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898098.003.0007

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

136       a literary innovation emerged from Judaea/Palestine: biblical catenae. The catenae consist of commentaries, homilies, scholia of the past centuries, but also of any other literary form in which Scripture verses are explained. The catenae offer three main features: first, ecclesiastical writings are quoted in the form of extracts, sometimes literal, sometimes rewritten; second, each extract is normally preceded by the name of its author in the genitive case (but sometimes the names, the so-called lemmas, are missing or are replaced by an indication such as ἄλλος, ‘another [author says]’, ἄλλως, ‘otherwise’); third, with time, the catenae were formed not only from commentaries, homilies, scholia, and other patristic writings, but also from pre-existing catenae mixed with these sources. The primary catenae quote directly the patristic authors; the secondary catenae make use of one or more previous catenae which also quote patristic authors. The catenae innovation endured as a phenomenon until the end of the Byzantium Empire (1453). It is known from several hundred manuscripts, most of which have not (yet) been published. Since the catenae were a most important literary form of exegesis in the Eastern and Western Church for a period of almost a millennium, it is important to consider the relationship between the catenae and the Septuagint. Before considering this question, it will be useful to overview the catenae. For whilst these catenae were once of great importance to the Church, they are not well known today, even amongst learned scholars. The rest of this chapter, therefore, is devoted to this overview. The relationship between the Septuagint and the catenae will then be examined in the next chapter.

The Example of the Catena on Genesis The best way to understand the catenae is to begin with an example. A catena on Genesis was published in a masterly way by Françoise Petit in four volumes around twenty-five years ago.² This catena is formed of 2,270 different extracts or fragments from recognized source texts (hereafter, fragments). The compiler of this catena is anonymous. Thirty-six ² Petit 1991–1996.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

    

137

different authors are quoted. This number is more than is found in the primary catenae on Psalms. There are, for example, only twenty different authors in the case of the first Palestinian catena on the Psalms (first half of the sixth century). There are twenty-nine in Nicetas’ Catena on the Psalms (written in Constantinople around 1100).³ The compiler of this catena on Genesis did not limit himself to Christian writers: he included quotations from Philo of Alexandria (fifty-six fragments), Josephus (seven fragments), a Judaeo-hellenistic collection of etymologies of Hebrew words (fifty-seven fragments) and the Book of Jubilees (nine fragments). However, the majority of the extracts belong to the patristic period: • From the second century, Irenaeus of Lyon (four fragments), Melito of Sardis (three fragments), Theophilus of Antioch (four fragments). • From the third century, Clement of Alexandria (one fragment), Hippolytus of Rome (forty-eight fragments), Origen (around two hundred fragments coming from the Commentaries on Genesis, Homilies on Genesis, and Scholia on Genesis, and some 140 extracts of the Hexapla coming from Origen himself or from readers of that work). • From the fourth century, Acacius of Caesarea (eleven fragments), Amphilochius of Iconium (one fragment), Apolinarius of Laodicea (twelve fragments),⁴ Athanasius of Alexandria (six fragments), Basil of Caesarea (sixty-two fragments), Didymus of Alexandria (sixtynine fragments), Diodorus of Tarsus (six fragments), Ephrem (fourteen fragments), Epiphanius of Salamis (twelve fragments), Eusebius of Caesarea (twenty-five fragments), Eusebius of Emesa (ninety-four fragments), Eustathius of Antioch (five fragments), Gregory of Nazianzus (five fragments), Gregory of Nyssa (sixteen fragments), John Chrysostom (108 fragments, ten of them coming from Pseudo-John Chrysostom), Methodius of Olympus (six fragments), Peter of Alexandria (one fragment), Serapion of Thmuis ³ Dorival 1986, pp. 212–16 and 1995, pp. 554–9. ⁴ Apolinarius, with one—l—(not Apollinarius) in order to respect the Greek orthography.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

138       (thirteen fragments, two of which are from Origen and ten from Severianus of Gabala), Severianus of Gabala (fifty-six fragments, exclusive of the ten fragments attributed to Serapion), Theodore of Mopsuestia (sixty-three fragments), Theophilus of Alexandria (two fragments). • From the fifth century, Basil of Seleucia (one fragment), Cyril of Alexandria (235 fragments), Succensus of Diocaesarea (four fragments). • From the sixth century, Severus of Antioch (sixty fragments). • 730 fragments are not identified: that is approximately one third of the total quotations. From the above list it can be seen that the two main authors are Origen (340 fragments) and Cyril of Alexandria (235 fragments). Only one other author is quoted more than one hundred times: John Chrysostom. Nine other authors are present rather frequently: Basil of Caesarea (sixty-two fragments), Didymus (sixty-nine fragments), Eusebius of Emesa (ninetyfour fragments), Hippolytus of Rome (forty-eight fragments), Philo (fiftysix fragments), Severus of Antioch (sixty fragments), Severianus of Gabala (fifty-six fragments), and Theodore of Mopsuestia (sixty-three fragments). There is also a significant anonymous etymological collection of fifty-seven fragments. The twenty-four other named authors are quoted less than twenty-five times each. From that list of writers, we could conclude that the anonymous compiler of this catena wanted to overturn the allegorico-spiritual exegesis of Philo and the Alexandrian Fathers by means of the historico-literal exegesis of the Antiochene authors. Such a conclusion would be over-hasty since authors such as Philo, Origen, Cyril are favoured in comparison with the Antiochene Fathers. Moreover, the compiler of this catena had an interest in textual issues, as reflected in the etymological collection and the many extracts from the Hexapla. In that sense, this catena on Genesis is a compilation written in the spirit of Origen. It could not have been compiled before 540 CE, since it quotes Severus of Antioch, who died in 538. This also means that it could not be written by the so-called father of the catenae, Procopius of Gaza since he died around 530. This in turn raises the question of how this catena might be linked with Procopius, if it can be at all.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

    

139

In order to begin to answer this question, we must consult two other contemporary compilations on Genesis. The first one is the Collectio Coisliniana given by the Parisinus Coislinianus 113 which was published by Françoise Petit.⁵ It is not a catena, since its frame is not the biblical text, but the Quaestiones on Genesis of Theodoret of Cyrus, who, as he himself stated, stuck to the difficulties of the sacred text, ‘without giving a complete commentary’. The compiler of this work situates the 102 explanations of Theodoret in relation to the comments of his predecessors and contemporaries, in particular Diodorus of Tarsus and Gennadius of Constantinople. The quoted authors are: • From the third century, Origen (four fragments). • From the fourth century, Acacius of Caesarea (thirteen fragments), Basil of Caesarea (eleven fragments), Diodorus of Tarsus (sixty-eight or seventy-two fragments), Eusebius of Caesarea (one fragment), Eustathius of Antioch (two fragments), Gregory of Nazianzus (one fragment), Gregory of Nyssa (one fragment), John Chrysostom (nine fragments), Severianus of Gabala (ten fragments), Theodorus of Mopsuestia (nine fragments). • From the fifth century, Cyril of Alexandria (two fragments), Isidore of Pelusium (eleven fragments), Gennadius of Constantinople (fifty or fifty-two fragments). • There are also twelve fragments coming from the Hexapla and eleven non-identified extracts. All in all, the Collectio offers 308 fragments. More than one third of them are from Theodoret and a further 150 are by Antiochene authors. The spirit of the Collectio is, therefore, Antiochene. In this sense, it must be opposed to the catena on Genesis which has no text from Theodoret. A similar observation can be made for Procopius of Gaza’s Epitome of Genesis, the text of which was published in full for the first time in 2015 by Karin Metzler and then in German translation in 2016.⁶ In contrast with the catenae genre, an epitome has no lemmas before its extracts: for the reader, an epitome looks like a commentary; the difference being that ⁵ Petit 1986.

⁶ Metzler 2015 and 2016.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

140       commentaries are written by a single author, whereas epitomes quote fragments of various provenances presented as a single anonymous text. Françoise Petit has systematically compared the catena of Genesis with the Procopius’ Epitome and found that, despite their differences, there are clear parallels. All the authors quoted in the catena of Genesis are found in Procopius, except the ten extracts coming from Basil of Seleucia, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Peter of Alexandria, the sixty fragments of Severus of Antioch, the eighty-seven fragments of the etymological collection and the nine extracts of the Book of Jubilees. The lack of items from the etymological collection suggest that Procopius had less interest in these biblical issues than the compiler of the catena of Genesis. Nevertheless, there are numerous readings coming from the Hexapla in the Epitome, among which some are lacking in the catena. However, a most interesting piece of information coming from the comparison between the catena and the Epitome is that Procopius does not quote Severus of Antioch. This suggests that Severus’ fragments could have been added to an earlier catena. So, it is quite likely that the catena on Genesis was first compiled in Judaea/Palestine and that it was reworked by an admirer of Severus. Was this admirer a Monophysite? (Or a Miaphysite)? Or simply an admirer of the great commentators (regardless of their orthodoxy)? We shall examine this issue below. As for the etymologies, were they also absent from the original compilation? In the current state of lack of data, it is not possible to decide, and it is the same concerning the presence or the absence of the Book of Jubilees. In the prologue of his Epitome, Procopius states that he made his compilation from a previous catena. This cannot be the catena on Genesis published by Françoise Petit, but it could be a common source since the Epitome of Procopius and the later catena on Genesis share many fragments in common. It is likely, therefore, that the catena on Genesis is a later reworking of Procopius’ source, with some omissions and some supplements. It is even possible that the subsequent catena on Genesis could have been compiled by a pupil of Procopius. Since neither Françoise Petit nor Karin Metzler adjudicate on this issue, we must be cautious.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

    

141

A Survey of Research on the Catenae During the Renaissance, a number of Latin translations of the Greek catenae were published: • In 1546, in Florence, Francescus Zephyrus (Zeffi) edited a catena on the Pentateuch. • In 1546–1550, in Paris, Aloisius Lippomanus (Lippomano), a catena on Genesis and Exodus. • In 1553, in Venice, Christophorus Serrarigus, a catena on Matthew. • In 1569, in Venice, Daniele Barbaro, a catena on Psalms 1–50. • In 1585, in Lyon, Paulus Comitolus, Nicetas’ catena on Job, the author of which, in his eyes, was Olympiodorus. • In 1589, in Rome, Antonius Agellius (Ajello), a catena on Lamentations. • In 1614, in Antwerp, Theodorus Peltanus, a catena on Proverbs. It must be noted that some of the catenae that these translations are supposed to give were not found as one manuscript among the collections of Greek manuscripts: for example, both Lippomano’s and Barbaro’s translations are themselves compilations made from various sources. In other words, these translators did more than translate a single Greek manuscript of a catena. Instead, they have undertaken philological projects that form new compilations according to the model of the Greek catenae themselves.⁷ The period of editing the Greek catenae began in the second half of the sixteenth century. A dozen of them were published before the end of the eighteenth century: • In 1565, in Padua, Antonio Carafa published a catena on Odes. • In 1617, in Leiden, Iohannes Meursius printed the so-called Eusebius and Polychronius catenae on the Song of Songs.

⁷ Dorival 2010, p. 124.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

142       • In 1623, in Lyon, Michele Ghisleri, the future Pope Pius V, published a catena on Jeremiah, Baruch, and Lamentations sometimes attributed to John Droungarios. • In 1630, in Antwerp, Balthasar Cordier published a catena on John. • In 1637, Nicetas’ catena on Job was edited in London by Patricius Junius (Young), chaplain of All Souls College in Oxford and librarian to King James VI and I and to King Charles I. • In 1643–1646, some catenae on Psalms were edited in Antwerp by Balthasar Cordier. In 1647 and 1648, in Toulouse, two catenae on Matthew were published by Balthasar Cordier and Pierre Poussines (Possinus). • In 1672, in Rome, a catena on Mark was published by Pierre Poussines. • The catena on the Octateuch and Kingdoms (Genesis–Ruth plus the books of Samuel and Kings) is more recent: published in 1772–1773, in Leipzig, by the Hieromonk Nikephoros Theotokis, a scholar honoured in Greece as one of the teachers of the nation.⁸ During this period, the biblical catenae were seen as a gold mine for the discovery and publication of new fragments of the writings of the patristic authors. For example, Charles and Charles-Vincent Delarue used the catenae extensively for their reconstruction of Origen’s works (1733–1759). During the first half of the nineteenth century, in Milan and Rome, Angelo Mai referred to many catenae in his editorial works and, a generation later, Jean-Baptiste Pitra did the same. In contrast, nineteenth-century publications of catenae are few in number. The enormous Oxford edition of New Testament Catenae by John Anthony Cramer in eight volumes (1838–1844) should not create a false illusion; one can quote only five other editions: the catena prima abbreviata on Matthew was published by Angelo Mai in 1834 and, in 1837, the same philologist gave the catena prima abbreviata on John and, partially, Nicetas’ Catena on Luke; in 1860, in Pest (now Budapest), Samuel Markfi published the catena prima aucta on Matthew; in 1887, in

⁸ Dorival 2010, p. 123.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

    

143

Athens, Nicolas Kalogeras published the Pseudo-Andreas Catena on the Catholic Epistles, already edited by John Anthony Cramer. The first real philological studies on the catenae date back to the end of the nineteenth century. The seminal work is Hans Lietzmann’s Catenen, published in 1897. In this volume, Leitzmann recommends that scholars do not compile and publish the fragments from each author, but the collections themselves in full. This excellent advice was not followed until the last third of the twentieth century when: Marguerite Harl published the Palestinian catena on Psalm 118 (1972); Christos Th. Krikonis published Nicetas’ catena on Luke (1973); Adrian Schenker, two collections of the Hexapla present in two catenae on the Psalms (1975 and 1982); Sandro Leanza and Antonio Labate, four catenae on Ecclesiastes (1978, 1979, 1983, and 1992); S. Lucà, the so-called Three-Father catena on Ecclesiastes (1983); Françoise Petit, a catena on Genesis (1992–1996) and a catena on Exodus (1999–2001); U. and D. Hagedorn, the catena Γ on Job (1994–2004); Carmelo Curti, the Palestinian catena on the Psalms 119–133 (120–134 MT, 2003); and Jean-Marie Auwers, Procopius’ catena on the Song of Songs (2011). Hans Lietzmann himself did not publish any editions of catenae, but, in association with Georg Karo, he did publish a catalogue of the manuscripts of the Greek catenae (1902). In this catalogue, which follows the order of the books of the Scriptures, the manuscripts were described and classified by types; for instance, there are twenty-seven types of catenae on Psalms, which is by far the most complicated case. In 1914, Rahlfs established a more complete catalogue of the manuscripts of the biblical catenae. More than editions of catenae, philological instrumenta studiorum were considered the priority at this time, as shown, in 1926, by Karl Staab’s study of the catenae on Paul; in 1928, by Robert Devreesse’s famous paper on the catenae (in general); in 1941, by Joseph Reuss’ book on the catenae on Matthew, Mark, and John; and in 1956, by the presentation of the oldest catenae on the Psalms by Marcel Richard. From the patrologists’ point of view, it was more rewarding to publish patristic fragments than the often anonymous and somewhat confused catenae. The compilations can thus be used to reconstruct commentaries, homilies, scholia, and other writings which would otherwise be unknown. For instance, in the case of the Psalms, if we did not have

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

144       the catenae, we would not know the commentaries of Apolinarius, Asterius, Didymus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hesychius (partly), Theodore of Mopsuestia; the homilies of Asterius, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom; the scholia of Athanasius, who, in my opinion, is a PseudoAthanasius,⁹ Evagrius, and Origen. So in 1939, Robert Devreesse published the collected fragments of Theodore of Mopsuestia. In 1958, Marcel Richard edited the fragments of what he called the Commentary on Psalms of Asterius the Sophist (in fact, some published fragments seem to come from homilies. Furthermore, the authorship of Asterius the Sophist, whose floruit was at the beginning of the fourth century, was challenged: indeed, the author of the commentary could be another Asterius living during the fifth century).¹⁰ In 1975–1978, the fragments of Apolinarius and Didymus were published by Ekkehard Mühlenberg, who also gave a complete and useful catalogue of the Palestinian catena and a catalogue of the fragments of the other catenae on Psalms 37 (38 MT), 87 (88 MT), and 5. Collections of the following are yet to be published: (Pseudo-)Athanasius, Cyril, Eusebius, Hesychius, John Chrysostom, Evagrius, Origen, but the work is in progress for (Pseudo-) Athanasius (by Giovanni Maria Vian in Rome), Eusebius, and Origen (by Cordula Bandt and Franz Xaver Risch in Berlin). In this typically philological analysis, the historical dimension was not completely absent. In 1899, Michael Faulhaber tried to situate chronologically the different catenae on the Prophets¹¹. In 1909, one year before he was appointed Bishop of Speyer and eight years before he became Archbishop of Munich, the same scholar asserted that the catena on the Song of Songs which alternates Gregory of Nyssa and Nilus of Ancyra goes back to the fifth century, as well the catenae on Psalms and on the Twelve Prophets which quotes Hesychius and Theodoret. According to him, these catenae were prior to Procopius. In my own works on the catenae on Psalms (1986–1995 and 2018), I tried to emphasize this historical approach, pointing out that the catenae are not isolated documents, but are linked together and have a history and a geography. I distinguished two stages, the first associated with Palestine around the beginning of the sixth century; the second associated with ⁹ Dorival 1980.

¹⁰ Kinzig 1988 and 1990.

¹¹ Faulhaber 1899.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

    

145

Constantinople from the middle of the seventh century till the end of Byzantium in the fifteenth. My aim was to situate the catenae in time and space, but this was not easy, even in the cases of Procopius and Nicetas of Heraclea: we know the places, but not the precise dates. When one reads Maurice Geerard’s admirable Clavis Patrum Graecorum, it is striking that the authors are examined, not in alphabetical order, but according to their position in time. But the same does not occur in the case of the catenae, which are examined biblical book by biblical book and type by type.¹² In my opinion, the task facing scholars today is to remedy this situation and to introduce more history and geography into the existing predominantly philological approach to the catenae.¹³

Debates Concerning the Catenae The first debate concerns the emergence of the catenae: why and how? The word catenae is borrowed from Latin Christianity: Thomas Aquinas wrote his Expositio (or Glossa) continua super Evangelia during the years 1263–1264. The title was changed into Catena Aurea some decades after and appeared in 1321 in the will of Cardinal Nicolas Caignet de Fréauville. Since the fifteenth century, Catena Aurea has been its usual title: its text was formed of extracts from Greek and Latin Fathers. The English language has kept the Latin word unchanged, ‘catena’; German has ‘Katenen’, Italian has ‘catene’; French has translated it, ‘chaînes’, as has Modern Greek, ‘σειρά’. The ancient Greek terminology was quite different. At the beginning of the sixth century, the title of Procopius’ Epitome was Exegetical Extracts (ἐξηγητικαὶ ἐκλογαί). Around 540, the title of the first Palestinian catena was Collection of Exegetical Extracts (συναγωγὴ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν ἐκλογῶν). During the twelfth century, the most used title was still Collection of Exegesis (συναγωγὴ ἐξηγήσεων). The terminology refers to the genre of ‘extracts’ (ἐκλογαί), a well-known genre of Late Antiquity. These collections of quotations were a kind of handbook that followed a thematic order and were made from extracts borrowed from the great writers of the past. Authors’ names were ¹² Geerard 1974–1983 and Geerard and Noret 1988.

¹³ Dorival 2016.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

146       indicated in the genitive before their own texts. The best known ἐκλογαί is Stobaeus’ one, which seems to have dealt with physics, dialectics, ethics, politics, economics, and maxims of practical wisdom.¹⁴ Among Christians, one can refer to the Philokalia of Origen written by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus. Another famous form of ἐκλογαί was the florilegia, which were twofold. The dogmatic florilegia probably appeared during Christological controversies in the fifth century. In 1954, Robert Devreesse proposed a distinction of five types of dogmatic florilegia between the fifth and the fourteenth century (the time of Gregory Palamas).¹⁵ Quoting extracts from the Fathers, whose names are given in the genitive, these compilations aimed to establish that all the Fathers’ teaching on a given theological point was identical and continuous: such a paradosis was seen as a clear proof of the truth. Less numerous are the ascetical or ethical florilegia, but it seems that their emergence is somewhat later than the first catenae. Catenae and florilegia share common features: they consist of patristic extracts; authors’ names are in the genitive; and the authors of these compilations are often anonymous. But catenae are not ἐκλογαί in the manner of Stobaeus, Philokalia or florilegia. In the ἐκλογαί, the organization is thematic or, more rarely, alphabetic, whereas catenae follow the order of the biblical books and verses. The ἐκλογαί belong to philosophy or theology; the catenae, to interpretation or hermeneia. So, the convergence of the catenae with the ἐκλογαί and florilegia is enlightening, but not completely convincing. Another convergence is between catenae and Homeric scholia.¹⁶ According to Mathilde Aussedat, catenae ‘transposed into the Christian sphere a literary genre which appeared during the Hellenistic period in the case of Classical texts’. She focused on the Venetus Marcianus 454, the so-called Venetus A of Homer, from the middle of the tenth century. Its layout is very similar to catenae from the same period: the text of the Iliad is written in the center of the page, which highlights that it is the reference text, whereas the scholia are in the outside margins; but, as it happens in catenae, there are also scholia in the inside margin and between Homeric verses. As in catenae, Homeric scholia are borrowed from various commentaries that date ¹⁴ Goulet 2000.

¹⁵ Devreesse 1954, pp. 181–9.

¹⁶ Aussedat 2006.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

    

147

back to the Hellenistic period (as a rule, scholia minora) or to the early Roman period (scholia majora, borrowed from the commentaries of Didymus, Aristonicos, Nicanor, and Herodian, as well as from Porphyry). Nevertheless, there are differences. First, there are no authors’ lemmas before Homeric scholia, instead the origins of the writings from which the extracts are borrowed are given at the end of each Homeric book. Second, the internal reference marks are not Greek letters or drawing symbols, but some words of the Homeric text itself. Third, Homeric scholia consist of grammatical and poetic remarks, whereas catenae stress the meaning of the Bible. All in all, the comparisons between catenae and Homeric scholia are of limited value. Nevertheless, since the issues concerning the emergence of the catenae need to be clarified, there is some value, and there is still much work to be done. The second issue concerns Procopius of Gaza’s catenae and epitomes. Procopius of Gaza is often called the father of the catenae, their πρῶτος εὑρετής. He lived between 470 and 530, but these dates are only approximate. His literary production as a sophist and a biblical commentator was enormous. The remaining part of his sophistic writings consists in ten discourses and in various fragments, which were published some years ago.¹⁷ Procopius’ biblical production is partly problematic. The Monacensis gr. 358 and the Athous Koutloum. 10 offer a compilation on the Octateuch and Kingdoms, called Epitome of Extracts, έκλογῶν έπιτομή; it does not comment on Ruth onwards. At its beginning, Procopius explains that he abbreviated a previous work, which was a catena made by himself from patristic commentaries and homilies. Its title was probably Εἰς τὴν ὀκτάτευχον ἐξηγητικαὶ ἐκλογαί, ‘Exegetical Extracts on the Octateuch’. The Epitome of Extracts does not present authors’ lemmas and the reader feels that he is reading a unique text written by the same author. The catena is lost and the Epitome of Extracts was only partially published until Karin Metzler published a complete edition in 2015. From folio 448, the Monacensis offers Procopius’ scholia on Paraleipomena (Chronicles), which are unedited. Another epitome, on Isaiah, looks like Epitome of Extracts as it is without authors’ lemmas. ¹⁷ Amato et al. 2014.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

148       In contrast, three epitomes on Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and Song of Songs offer many lemmas. Therefore, the question must be asked if all these writings are epitomes. Or have we to distinguish between the Octateuch and Isaiah, which are unquestionably epitomes without lemmas, and Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and Song of Songs, which could be catenae because of the presence of the lemmas? The question becomes more complicated when one notices that, in the epitome on the Song of Songs, there is the lemma Προκοπίου, as if Procopius has quoted himself. This surprising feature has not been explained in a satisfactory manner: it has been suggested that Procopius could have been the author of the two Epitomes without lemmas, but not of the three Epitomes with lemmas.¹⁸ If this suggestion is correct, the authors quoted in these three epitomes indicate that it was probably compiled in the same era or soon after the time of Procopius. The third issue concerns whether Procopius of Gaza really was the father of the catenae, their πρῶτος εὑρετής, as so often asserted. The answer to this question turns on whether there were any catenae before Procopius. Three points must be considered. First, could the lost catena on the Octateuch and Kingdoms, which is the source of Procopius’ epitome on the Octateuch and Kingdoms, be from a compiler prior to Procopius? In 1979, Pierre Nautin argued that the compiler of that catena was Procopius himself and that there was no more ancient catena for these biblical books. But this opinion was not taken up by Françoise Petit and Karin Metzler. According to them, Procopius is not the compiler of the catena of Genesis, even if, as Karin Metzler has said, he could have participated in the compilation without coordinating it. Recently, Reinhart Ceulemans agreed with this scenario.¹⁹ But, as the catena is lost, it is very difficult to prove the matter one way or another. Second, what is the evidence for the existence of any catenae prior to Procopius’ compilations? In the 1900s, Michael Faulhaber (and others) proposed the differentiation of two kinds of catenae: the multiple-author catenae and the two- or three-author catenae.²⁰ In Faulhaber’s opinion, the two-author catenae were four: on the Twelve Prophets, the catena which quotes Hesychius and Theodoret of Cyrus; on Jeremiah, the ¹⁸ Nautin and Guéraud 1979.

¹⁹ Ceulemans 2017.

²⁰ Faulhaber 1909.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

    

149

catena which quotes Theodoret and Pseudo-John Chrysostom; on the Song of Songs, the catena that quotes Gregory of Nyssa and Nilus of Ancyra; on Psalms, the catena which quotes Hesychius and Theodoret. To these catenae, Robert Devreesse added, on Psalms, the catena that quotes Athanasius and Hesychius; but there are also, on Psalms, a catena which quotes Origen and Theodoret (Vindobonensis th. gr. 8), a catena that quotes Hesychius and Theodoret (Canonicianus gr. 62 and Scorialensis Ψ I 2) and a catena that quotes Euthymius Zigabenus (or Zigadenus) and Theodoret (Vallicellianus D. 35). According to Michael Faulhaber, examples of the three-author catenae include the two catenae trium Patrum: on the Song of Songs, which quotes Gregory of Nyssa, Nilus of Ancyra, and Maximus the Confessor; and on Ecclesiastes, which quotes Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Gregory of Nazianzus, and Maximus. A further example was the catena on Susanna that quotes (Pseudo-?) Ammonius of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and John Chrysostom. Robert Devreesse added a catena on Psalms which quotes Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.²¹ In fact, this catena quotes four authors: Athanasius, Basil, John Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.²² As for the two catenae trium Patrum, they are late, since they quote Maximus, who died in 662, and they were written by the same compiler. So, there is only one example of an early three-author catena: and this could be either an enrichment of the two-author catenae or a simplification of the multiple-author catenae. The value of these insights turns on the age of these two-author catenae. Michael Faulhaber situated them during the fifth century, Günther Zuntz during the eighth century.²³ But the catena which quotes Euthymius Zigabenus and Theodoret is not prior to the end of the eleventh century and the beginning of the twelfth century. Is this an argument in favour of a late date for the two-author catenae? In fact, these offer, in one codex, a text which normally occupies two manuscripts. They allow the comparison of two ancient commentaries (for instance, Gregory of Nyssa and Nilus of Ancyra) or an ancient commentary and a recent one (Theodoret and Euthymius). The Byzantine humanism of the ninth and ²¹ Devreesse 1939, pp. XIII–XV. ²³ Zuntz 1938–1939.

²² Dorival 1992, pp. 262–3.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

150       tenth centuries had three features: a return to the classical Greek philosophy, a return to artistic models of Late Antiquity and a return to the Fathers. This humanist trend lasted until the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It is possible, therefore, that the two-author catenae were written at this time. As for the multiple-author catenae, are some of them older than Procopius? Faulhaber estimated that Procopius’ Epitome on the Song of Songs was dependent on an Ur-katene (an original ‘source’ catena) which was also the source of the so-called catena of Eusebius.²⁴ Faulhaber dates this Ur-katene to the first part of the fifth century. In my opinion, Procopius was the author of the Urkatene and of the Ur-Epitome as well. The same phenomenon is attested in the case of the Proverbs. But I must confess that, in his edition of the Epitome of Procopius of Gaza on the Song of Songs, Jean-Marie Auwers mentioned my opinion without explicitly approving it.²⁵ The issue remains open. Third, in the case of the biblical books that Procopius did not treat, are there catenae prior to Procopius or, perhaps, contemporaneous with him? The catena on the Twelve Prophets in the Taurinensis B. N. B I 2 has at the end of Malachi an underwriting with the date of 535; but this underwriting is just after the biblical text, and not after the text of the catena and so probably comes from a manuscript that offered the biblical text without the catena. It is also possible that there were, at the beginning of the sixth century, catenae on the New Testament. This opinion was examined by Joseph Sickenberger for Luke and by Joseph Reuss for Matthew and John, but they were not in favour.²⁶ The principle author quoted in these catenae is John Chrysostom, and not a Palestinian author such as Origen or Eusebius, and, in my view, John Chrysostom was typical of the Constantinopolitan period of the catenae. An important piece of evidence in favour of a sixth-century date is Codex Zacynthius. The older stratum of this palimpsest, written in uncial letters, offers fragments of Luke 1:1–11:33 and, on the external margins, a catena quoting Origen, Eusebius, Titus of Bostra, Basil, Isidore of Pelusium, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Victor of Antioch, and John Chrysostom. Codex Zacynthius is therefore posterior to 538, the year of ²⁴ Faulhaber 1902.

²⁵ Auwers 2011a.

²⁶ Sickenberger 1901; Reuss 1941.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

    

151

Severus’ death. On the basis of its paleographical features, David C. Parker has suggested that it was written during the seventh century.²⁷ The earliest New Testament catenae date from this period and probably postdate the Old Testament catenae. In this reconstruction, the compilers of the catenae began their project with the Old Testament, as it was considered to be obscure and foundational to the New Testament, whereas the New Testament was considered to be clear and explicative of the Old Testament. Regarding Procopius, a last question must be examined: is the Palestinian catena on the Psalms prior or posterior to him? It is certain that he is not the author of this catena, as the earliest sources do not attribute to Procopius any work on Psalms. Furthermore, all the authors quoted by the Palestinian catena are prior to 460, except one fragment attributed to Severus of Antioch (on Psalm 50:7); this fragment is taken from Against Julian’s Additions, which was written between 520 and 527. Therefore, the Palestinian catena cannot be prior to 530, the approximate date of Procopius’ death, and probably not prior to 538, the year of Severus’ death, as it is likely that an author would not be introduced into a catena before his death. Nonetheless, according to Marcel Richard, Severus’ fragment and the fragments of Gregory of Nazianzus on Psa 2, 21 and 48 were added to the primitive Palestinian catena.²⁸ Against this argument, it should be noted that there is no Greek manuscript without the abovementioned fragments. Moreover, the fragments of Gregory on Psalm 21 and of Severus on Psalm 50 can be read in the rewritten form of the catena (Parisinus gr. 139): this means that it is highly likely that these fragments were in the primitive Palestinian catena.²⁹ All in all, there is no compelling reason to question the assertion that Procopius was the father of the catenae if one accepts that the two-author catenae date to sometime between the ninth and twelfth centuries; and that the New Testament catenae are posterior to the Old Testament catenae. Another issue concerns the identity of the compilers of the catenae. Only a few names are known: the most famous are Procopius of Gaza in Palestine and Nicetas of Heraclea in Constantinople. Other names ²⁷ Parker and Birdsall 2004.

²⁸ Richard 1956.

²⁹ Dorival 1986, pp. 111–12.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

152       have been proposed. The first is Photius: the Coislinianus 12 quotes Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Robert Devreesse suggested (in 1928, but not in his later works), that the compiler of this catena was the Patriarch Photius as it has recourse to Photius’ corpus of John Chrysostom’s homilies on Psalms. Also there are three marginal notes written by Photius. However, it seems more likely that the compiler of this catena used the works of Photius not vice versa.³⁰ Another name mentioned is Peter of Laodicea. But he was a commentator, who wrote commentaries (on the Psalms and other biblical books) based upon his knowledge of the patristic authors and the catenae. His works date to the tenth century and he systematically eliminated the authors’ lemmas. Some others names are attested: in the case of the Twelve Prophets, Philotheos; in the case of Isaiah, Nicholas IV Mouzalon (c.1070–1152); in the case of the Song of Songs, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, Polychronios. Since the lemma ‘Polychronios’ is present before some fragments of the catena on Proverbs, if he was the compiler of this catena, he would be quoting himself. It is simpler to conclude that Polychronios is not the compiler of this catena. Other names must also be suppressed: Eusebius, for example, cannot be the compiler of a catena on the Song of Songs. It is also questionable that John Droungarios is the compiler of catenae on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. His name is given in the prologue of the catena on Isaiah, but only on Isaiah and only in one manuscript, the Parisinus gr. 159, but this manuscript is a direct descendant of the Chisianus R VIII 54 and the Vaticanus gr. 1153; these ancestors do not offer the name ‘John Droungarios’. So this authorship is questionable.³¹ Some catenae on the New Testament are attributed to other compilers, such as Oecumenius, Olympiodorus, Andreas, but nothing is known about them. However, thanks to Bernard Flusin, one name can be mentioned: John Mesarites, who wrote a Psalter in 1203 for the emperor Alexios IV Angelos. This Psalter probably offered a catena or a commentary on the margins of the manuscript. Even in this case, however, we do not know whether John was the compiler of the catena or only a copyist.³² Moreover, the Psalter was destroyed by the Crusaders. Since ³⁰ Dorival 1992, pp. 256–7.

³¹ Aussedat 2006.

³² Flusin 2006.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

    

153

the identity of the compilers of the catenae is shrouded with uncertainty, it is best to refer to a specific catena by reference to a manuscript or a descriptive epithet. For example, the ‘catena of the Coislinianus 12’; or the ‘Chrysostomico-Theodoretian catena’ (since its main sources are John Chrysostom and Theodoret).³³ In some cases a geographical epithet can be used, as in the case of the Palestinian catena. The last issue concerns Monophysite (or Miaphysite) catenae. In 1956, Marcel Richard suggested that one of the sources of Parisinus gr. 139 was a catena on Psalms offering fragments of Athanasius, Basil, Cyril, Hesychius, John Chrysostom, and Severus of Antioch; but, Severus did not comment on the Psalms. Richard argued that ‘only a zealous Monophysite could pick up in his works all the allusions to the Psalms’; therefore, the catenae had a Monophysite origin and were written in Egypt between Severus’ death (538) and the final defeat of the Monophysites (639).³⁴ In 1986, I proposed to call this catena the second Palestinian catena; it is not identical to Richard’s catena, as it offered the so-called Monophysite fragments as well as fragments coming from the first Palestinian catena and fragments from Theodoret. Moreover, I was sceptical about the Monophysite origin of this catena, because Severus’ fragments are few, unlike those of Hesychius. Furthermore, Hesychius is a Palestinian, which supports a Palestinian origin. In fact, the only argument in favour of the Monophysite origin is that Severus’ lemmas sometimes offer the epithet ‘saint’. But this epithet could have been added by a later scribe. The issue was re-examined by Laurence Vianès in 1997 and by Mathilde Sütterlin-Aussedat in 2006 in their doctoral theses. The former edited and translated Pseudo-John Droungarios’ catena on Ezekiel (chapters 36–48); the latter, the catena of the same author on Jeremiah (chapters 1–4).³⁵ Laurence Vianès does not hesitate to describe as Monophysite the catena on Ezekiel since Severus is called ‘saint’ in it. She suggested that the catena was written either in one of the Enaton monasteries, near Alexandria, between 574 and 639, or in Constantinople, in the vicinity of Theodora, between 538 and 565. If she is right, the beginning of the second stage of catenae, which I situated in Constantinople and its dependencies during the years ³³ Dorival 1992, pp. 5–231.

³⁴ Richard 1956.

³⁵ Vianès 1996; Aussedat 2006.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/5/2021, SPi

154       650–700, could be a little earlier than I have said. On this basis, other catenae could also be Monophysite, for instance Pseudo-Andrew’s catena on Acts which also offer the lemma ‘saint Severus’. But not the catenae on the Octateuch and Kingdoms, because the lemma is ‘Severus archbishop of Antioch’. As for Mathilde Aussedat, she noted that the catena on Jeremiah gave the epithet ‘saint’ to John Chrysostom, Theophilus of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, and Severus. From a Monophysite point of view, Cyril and Severus are saints. Perhaps also Theophilus, as he was Cyril’s uncle. But ‘Saint John Chrysostom’ is surprising. The Monophysite hypothesis does not allow the explanation of all the features of the catena on Jeremiah. So the question remains open. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that much remains to be done in the field of biblical catenae. Despite recent progress, many catenae still await publication. For instance, Nicetas’ catena on the Psalms is a monumental work of Byzantine scholarship which deserves to be available to modern readers. At the time of writing, only Psa 1 and Psa 150 are published.³⁶ In this regard, the work of philologists is warmly welcomed. But it is also important to combine the historical approach with the philogical in order that each catena is located in a time and a space as far as can be possible. A huge task, which probably requires international cooperation.

³⁶ Dorival 1992, pp. 528–33, 549–51.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

8 The Catenae and the Septuagint At the beginning of the sixth century, a literary innovation took place in Judaea/Palestine: the biblical catenae. The biblical catenae are compilations of excerpts from commentaries, homilies, scholia, and other literary forms in which particular Scripture verses are explained. Catenae have three main features: first, the ecclesiastical writings are quoted in the form of extracts (sometimes precisely, sometimes less so); second, each extract is preceded by the name of its author in the genitive case (sometimes these lemmas are missing or are replaced by an indication such as ἄλλος, ‘another [author says]’, ἄλλως, ‘otherwise’); third, with time, the catenae came to include not only excerpts from commentaries, homilies, scholia, and other patristic writings, but also excerpts from pre-existing catenae. The catenae innovation lasted till the end of Byzantium and they became the most important literary form of exegesis during these ten centuries. Several hundred manuscripts of catenae are known to scholarship today, but most of these have not (yet) been published.

The Specific Layouts of the Septuagint in the Catenae As I showed in the first volume of a study on the catenae on the Psalms, the catenae presented the text of the Scripture, that is, the text of the Septuagint, by means of three different layouts.¹ During the time of Procopius (sixth century), the catenae arranged the sacred text in the same way as the Christian commentaries before them. This arrangement can be found in the commentaries of Origen and Didymus that were discovered in the quarry of Tura (near Cairo) in 1941 (the Tura papyri). ¹ Dorival 1986, pp. 33–96. The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae. Gilles Dorival, Oxford University Press. © Gilles Dorival 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898098.003.0008

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

156       In these codices, the Septuagint is quoted verse by verse and occupies the first position: the commentary then comes below it in one column of text that extends across the whole page. (This layout will be referred to in this chapter as a ‘full-page disposition’). It seems likely that this Christian layout replicates the layout of pagan commentaries, but we must be cautious because this pagan layout itself is not very well known. We have no extent manuscripts of the oldest catenae, which were written during the sixth century, but many of the earliest manuscripts have this full-page disposition. This layout is found in the extant copies of Procopius’ catena on the Song of Songs, the catena on Genesis, and the first Palestinian catena on the Psalms, and there is no reason to think that these manuscripts did not reproduce the layout of the (sixth-century) manuscripts from which they were copied. The Syriac catenae of the eighth and ninth centuries, which are made on the Greek pattern of previous centuries, also have a full-page disposition.² It should be noted, however, that the layout of the oldest witnesses of the Palestinian catena (end of the ninth century, beginning of the tenth century) does not have a full-page disposition. The catena is instead presented on each folio in two parallel columns, each column giving first the biblical verses and then, second, the patristic fragments. Whilst a number of later manuscripts (end of the twelfth century and thirteenth century) do have a full-page disposition, it seems unlikely that the twocolumn was the original form. First, the two-column layout occurs relatively infrequently. In the case of the Psalms, there are less than ten examples, although these do include the oldest manuscripts of the first Palestinian catena and the folios 157–266v of the Vaticanus graecus 2057. In the case of the catena on Genesis, two manuscripts of the tenth century (Mosquensis Hist.Mus. Vladimir 28 and Basilensis Univ. Libr. 1) have a full-page layout (see figure 1), whereas one manuscript of the thirteenth century (Leninopolitanus Publ. Libr. gr. 124) is written on two columns.³ And another manuscript of the tenth century has a marginal layout—a presentation to which we will soon turn. Second, according to E. G. Turner, the two-column layout is a variant of the full-page layout. This variation was a sign of a work of high ‘calligraphic’ quality.⁴ The ² Zuntz 1938–1939.

³ Petit 1992, pp. XXVI–XXXII.

⁴ Turner 1977.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

    

157

Figure 1 UB Basel AN III.13 (Basilensis Univ. Libr. 1), Genesis and Exodus with catena, fol. 40v–41r.

work of Turner addresses the history of the book up to the seventh century. The scarcity of the two-column layout in this period supports the priority of the full-page disposition and his argument can be generalized to the later period of the Byzantine book. The copyist who makes use of a two-column layout is undertaking a specialist task and so aware of the high value of his copy. The full-page layout is the one expected for normal value books; such a disposition has no special meaning. By contrast, a two-column layout communicates a specific purpose. The biblical uncial codices, therefore, offer two columns (Codex Alexandrinus) or three columns in Codex Vaticanus (except for the Poetic books, where there are two columns); and four columns in Codex Sinaiticus (but two columns for Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Job). Sometime during the second half of the seventh century the full-page model began to be replaced by what might be called a marginal layout. The reference unit is not the single folio, but the whole of the surface constituted by two following folios facing one other: first a given even folio, second the corresponding odd folio. The biblical text is written in

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

158       the centre of each of these folios (see figures 4 and 5); and the fragments of the catenae are written around it: in the space above and underneath the Scripture text, on the left-hand side of the even folios and on the right-side of the odd folios. As the biblical text of a given even folio comes before the biblical text of the following odd folio, the fragments written on the even folio (above, on the side, underneath) must be read before the fragments written on the odd folio (above, on the side, underneath). The idea that I defended in my study, but, I must confess, was not agreed by all scholars, was that the marginal layout developed out of a two-column layout. Here, the term ‘two-column layout’ has not the same meaning as above, where it meant that the catena was written on two columns on each folio. Now the biblical text is on the first and left column, and the catena, on the second and right column. Whilst the former layout (according to Turner) is only a calligraphic variant of the full-page disposition (a two-column-variant layout), the latter is a proper two-column layout. The number of proper two-column-layout catenae is also not very high: less than ten in the case of the Psalms, such as the Oxoniensis Trin. Coll. 78, the Parisinus gr. 164, and the Vaticanus gr. 752. In these three, the main source of quoted catenae comes from scholia. In texts of scholia the biblical verses were written on the left column, and the scholia, on the right column. Hesychius of Jerusalem witnesses to such a layout in the prologue of his Scholia on the Minor Prophets: ‘this [given] explanation, I put on the side of the verses, and so the one who meditates understands when reading’ (PG 93, 1341 A). A few manuscripts of subsequently copied scholia preserve this proper two-column layout, such as the Coislinianus 360 and the Vaticanus Barberinianus gr. 455. The two-column layout proper and the marginal layout share common features pertaining to their system of ruling: a variable number of vertical lines is drawn, typically between four and eleven; those lines provide the framework in which biblical verses and catenae are written. Typically, the biblical text is written distinctively (for example, with larger letters) and the catena with smaller letters and less space between the words. The marginal layout differs from the two-column one in the ruling of its horizontal lines. First, in the inner section, but not at the top nor at the bottom, some broadly spaced horizontal lines are drawn for

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 11/8/2021, SPi

    

159

S

M

exemple théorique

I

Figure 2 The horizontal lines of the marginal layout. Illustration reproduced with permission from Gilles Dorival, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes, Leuven, Peeters, 1986, Volume 1, p. 71.

the Scripture verses. These are specific to the inner section (first column) for the biblical text and are not present in the marginal column (second column) used by the catenae. Second, other narrower-spaced horizontal lines are drawn: on the top and the bottom of the page. Above and below the Scripture verses, they cross both columns; but next to the Scripture verses, they cross only the second column. The catenae are written on these lines (see figure 2). This marginal layout allows each page to carry more text of the catena. Codex Zacynthius provides the earliest extant example of this layout.⁵ The older stratum of this palimpsest, written in uncial letters, offers fragments of Luke 1:1–11:33. On the external margins there is a catena quoting Origen, Eusebius, Titus of Bostra, Basil, Isidore of Pelusium, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Victor of Antioch, and John Chrysostom. There are three layouts in this codex (see figure 3): the first one is what we have called the marginal layout; the third one is the twocolumn layout proper; the second one can be described as ‘experimental’ or semi-marginal. Codex Zacynthius is often dated to the sixth century, but the seventh century is a more probable date.⁶ This evidence suggests that the beginnings of the marginal layout date back to the seventh century, but there are very few extant manuscripts of the seventh century. In two manuscripts of the eighth century (the uncial manuscripts Patmensis St Ioh. 171 and Vaticanus gr. 749 which both give the catena ⁵ Chapter 7, pp. 150–51.

⁶ Parker and Birdsall 2004.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 11/8/2021, SPi

160      

(1)

(2)

(3)

Figure 3 Layouts in Codex Zacynthius. Illustration reproduced with permission from Gilles Dorival, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes, Leuven, Peeters, 1986, Volume 1, p. 79.

on Job) the marginal and the semi-marginal layouts of the Codex Zacynthius are present. Likewise, in the case of the two-author catena that I have called ‘chrysostomico-théodorétienne’ which date back to the eighth century, the most widespread of its multiple layouts is the marginal layout. We can, therefore, be confident that the marginal layout was extant in the eighth century. Witnesses are numerous in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries: at least thirty in the case of the Psalms. An example of one is Parisinus gr. 139 (see figure 4). Nevertheless, the older full-page layout persisted: an example of the full-page disposition is found in the tenth century Vaticanus gr. 744. From the twelfth century to the end of Byzantium in the fifteenth, there was a return to the full-page layout in which the sacred text occupies the first position, and the patristic fragments come after. Almost all the witnesses of the catena of Nicetas on the Psalms (c.1100), which are around thirty in number, offer this full-page layout, but again the situation is not homogenous: Cryptoferratensis A γ II (beginning of the thirteenth century) has the marginal layout. So, there are three stages, but only two layouts (since the third stage is identical to the first). Both layouts highlight the Scripture (LXX) text, by the means of a specific position, either in the first place on the page (the full-page layout) or in the inner margin (the marginal layout). In the marginal layout, more catenae material can be included per folio so there are more Scripture verses on each page (one, two, three, or even more). The full-page layout typically offers only half-verses or perhaps one or a maximum of two verses.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

    

161

Figure 4 Codex Paris gr. 139 (Parisinus graecus 139), fol. 9v. With the kind permission of Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 5/8/2021, SPi

162      

>

The point is that in all these systems the placement of text and system of writing emphasized the biblical text. Furthermore, the lettering of the biblical text is often not identical to the lettering of the patristic extracts. Several arrangements are found. First, the biblical text can be written with uppercase letters, whereas the catena uses lowercase, for instance in the Basilensis Univ. Libr. 1 (see figure 1) and the Mosquensis Hist. Mus. Vladimir 28. Second, when the writing of the letters is the same, the letters of the biblical text can be of a larger size, as in the Parisinus graecus 139 (see figure 4). Third, red ink can be used for the biblical text, 28 >

Echelle 1/2 Paris.gr.139 355 x 260 10e siècle s = 82

>

C H A ˆI N E

>

28

70 lignes au total

m = 106

>

10 lignes versets

>

25

C H A ˆI N E

>

i = 99

>

40 7/8

70

7/8

28

80

Figure 5 The ruling lines of the layout of Codex Paris gr. 139 (Parisinus graecus 139). Illustration reproduced with permission from Gilles Dorival, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes, Leuven, Peeters, 1986, Volume 1, p. 72.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

    

163

whereas the patristic extracts are written with brown or black ink. Finally, in the full-page layout, sometimes the verses have quotation marks in the left margin of the folios: a sort of French double angle quote-mark before each verse (») and a sort of French single quote before each biblical quotation inside the patristic extracts (>). All those methods of writing highlight the biblical text as the reference text, with the patristic extracts subordinate to it.

The Text of the Septuagint in the Catenae The catenae provide access to various textual forms of the Septuagint. In the quotations of the Septuagint, which occur either before the patristic fragments or in the inner margin of the folios, it seems that the compilers gave the text of the Septuagint in use in their monasteries or churches at the time of the compilation. Significantly, in the extracts of the patristic authors, the quotations of the Scriptures are not aligned with this reference text. As a rule, the compilers did not seek to change the Scripture text of the quoted authors. Of course, there are some cases of homogenization, but this is surprisingly rare. The example of the Palestinian catena can be used to illustrate this. The catena on the 176 verses of Psalm 118 (119 MT) was published in 1972 by Marguerite Harl.⁷ Two manuscripts give this catena: the Mediolanensis Ambrosianus F 126 sup. (thirteenth century) and the Patmensis St Ioh. Monast. 215 (end of the twelfth century or beginning of the thirteenth century). There are twenty-four differences between the biblical texts of the two manuscripts, but they are all minor. In most of these cases, the biblical text is the same: they offer seven variants that Rahlfs’ edition does not recognize (at vv. 45, 61, 108, 119, 124, 127, 171). Some, perhaps all, of these are the result of a degeneracy resulting from the copying process, for instance ἐπορεύθην instead of ἐπορευόμην (v. 45). The biblical text seems to be close to Origen’s: there are only thirteen variants from his Septuagint text and only two of them are significant: νόμος instead of Origen’s λόγος (v. 105); and ἐν ταῖς χερσί σου instead of ἐν ταῖς χερσί μου (v. 109). It is ⁷ Harl 1972.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

164       well known that Origen read several copies of the Septuagint (the socalled ἀντίγραφα, that he indicates in vv. 1–2, 28, and 36). In two places Origen comments on Septuagint variants that are found in these two manuscripts (vv. 142, 165). There are no differences in the catena between the biblical text quoted in the Origen fragments and that quoted by Eusebius in his fragments. This is not surprising as both were working in Caesarea Maritima. In the catena, whilst there are less than twenty fragments of Theodoret, these fragments offer a variant biblical text in four verses (vv. 81, 109, 123, 160), all four of which seem to be Lucianic. The most remarkable biblical text is that of Didymus, which differs from the biblical text of Origen and Eusebius in around twelve verses. Didymus’ text here is close to Codex Sinaiticus (vv. 20, 26, 41, 43, 65, 105, 107, 142, 151, 172 bis). According to Harl, this catena informs us of three biblical texts: first, Origen’s and Eusebius’ text, which is that of the Palestinian Psalter; second, Didymus’ text, which is the text of Lower Egypt; third, the later text of the Septuagint manuscripts, which can be described as having suffered some slight degeneracy. Forty years after Harl, Jean-Marie Auwers analysed the biblical text of the Song of Songs in the catenae.⁸ The translation of Song of Songs into Greek is late: perhaps not before the first century CE; and it is typically very literal, even though it is not word for word (it adds some words to the MT). There are very few differences between the Septuagint text of Rahlfs/Hanhart’s edition and Procopius’ Scripture (LXX) text, and that is not surprising since the textual tradition of the Song of Songs is very homogeneous. Interestingly, in Song 1:1–6:9, after which Gregory of Nyssa’s homilies on the Song of Songs stop, whenever Procopius is different from the Septuagint, Gregory has the same text as Procopius. This suggests that the compiler harmonized Procopius with Gregory. Against this, however, there are some cases where the Septuagint and Procopius are the same against Gregory. Throughout Song of Songs Procopius is sometimes close to the manuscript 106 and from Song 6:10 to the end, Procopius is close to the manuscripts 252 and 296. In Procopius, there are some harmonizations and, in Song 8:2c, a revision of ⁸ Auwers 2011b, pp. 15–23, 218, 233–44.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

    

165

the Septuagint text according to the Hebrew text. In the catena Barberiniana, in the quoted Scripture text of Song 7:14c, there is the addition of six words, which come from Symmachus and are present in the Syro-Hexapla. As far as I am aware, there are no studies of the biblical text of the catenae as thorough as those of Marguerite Harl and Jean-Marie Auwers. One cannot expect that all the biblical books will give similar information. The biblical text of the Pentateuch is relatively unified, and so the variants in the catenae are expected to be few. For other books where there is more variation, the catenae should be expected to be a rich source of information. Much work remains to be done. The same is true regarding the catenae of the New Testament.

Other Biblical Glosses and Texts in the Catenae The compilers of the catenae have a great interest in biblical glosses and Jewish revisions. For instance, the catena on Genesis quotes fifty-seven fragments borrowed from a Judaeo-Hellenistic collection of the etymologies of Hebrew words.⁹ The same interest in etymology occurs in Procopius’ catena, where more than fifteen Hebrew proper names are explained.¹⁰ As for the catenae on the Psalms, it makes a frequent use of the so-called Alphabetical Lexicon, which was probably written at the end of the Patristic period.¹¹ Its title was τὸ λεξικὸν κατ’ἀλφάβητον according to the Mosquensis gr. 414. A more usual title is Λέξεις (hereafter, Lexeis) of the 150 Psalms. There are several manuscripts of this lexicon, one of which was published in 1749 by Joseph Pasini in his catalogue of the manuscripts of the Royal (now National) Library in Turin (ms. Taurinensis C II 19). Other lexical manuscripts (lexeis) can be listed: the Coisliniani 345 (tenth century), 347 (ninth to tenth centuries), 394 (tenth to eleventh centuries), the Scorialensis Ψ IV 19 (written by Andreas Darmarios), and the Leidensis Vossianus gr. Q 63. These manuscripts give alphabetical lists of words on each book of the Old and New

⁹ Chapter 7, pp. 137.

¹⁰ Auwers 2011a.

¹¹ Dorival 2018, pp. 389–90.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

166       Testaments. The manuscripts of these lexeis vary in the number of words referenced. But it seems that all these lexeis come from the same single lexical source, which was supplemented through the ages. Not all the catenae quote the lexeis: for instance, the Palestinian catenae do not. But there are lexeis in the catenae which I call ‘chaînes-scholies’, that is, catenae made according to the pattern of the Christian scholia. Such chaînes-scholies are found in Parisinus gr. 165, Vatopedini 1226 et 1241, Reginensis gr. 40, Coislinianus 187, Oxoniensis Auct.D.4.1, Taurinensis Β VII 30, Atheniensis B. N. 8 et Oxoniensis Trin. Coll. 78, Parisinus gr. 169, Parisinus gr. 164. There are no or very limited lexeis in the primary and secondary Constantinopolitan catenae. The presence of the lexeis in the Vaticanus gr. 754 is significant since this dates the use of the lexeis to the early eighth century, or even a little before. It is time for a new publication of Lexeis of the 150 Psalms, the first edition is dated, not easily accessible and relies only on one manuscript. Like the patristic authors who sometimes quote from the Hexapla, some of the compilers of the catenae had a great interest in the different biblical versions (such as Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the Quinta, the Sexta). The catena on Genesis quotes some 140 passages of the Hexapla either from Origen himself or from readers of Origen. Procopius’ catena on the Song of Songs quotes twenty-eight variant readings from the Hexapla in his fragments of Origen (sixteen instances), Apolinaris of Laodicea (four instances), Nilus of Sinai (one example), an unknown author who may in some cases be Origen (seven instances).¹² As for the catenae on the Psalms, in a paper published in 1974, I analysed the readings of the Hexapla in the case of Psalm 118 (119 MT).¹³ There are many unpublished variant readings affecting twenty-five of the 176 verses of the Psalm: in total, around forty of these were previously unknown. The 176 verses of Psa 118 (119) represent approximately one fourteenth (7 per cent) of the whole Psalter. That means that a full survey of the catenae would be likely to uncover around five hundred previously unknown readings. So, the catenae are of the utmost importance for the reconstruction of the Hexapla.

¹² Auwers 2011a and b.

¹³ Dorival 1974.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

    

167

Before formulating further conclusions on the importance of the catenae, we would do well to consider the tenth-century manuscript Vaticanus gr. 754 on the Psalms since this catena has glosses as well as readings taken from the Hexapla. Each folio of this manuscript is 350mm in height and 255mm in width. There are 395 folios, but seven folios are missing. The catena quotes four fundamental sources: Pseudo-Athanasius, Evagrius, and Theodoret as well as lessons from the Hexapla. There are also many lexeis and other authors who are quoted secondarily. From Psalm 101 (102), the rewritten first Palestinian catena is used. As for the ruling of lines (see figure 6), there are eight vertical lines and three columns: the first column, on the left, is the narrowest and is delineated by the first two vertical lines; the second column is the largest one and is bounded by two double vertical lines; the third column is of an intermediate size, like the first column, it is delineated by two vertical lines. There are three groups of horizontal lines: on the top and on the bottom, eight and fourteen lines respectively drawn from the edge of each folio to the last vertical line; in the middle of the folio there are fifteen lines spaced a little more broadly apart also stopping at the penultimate vertical line. Between the upper lines and the middle lines there is an empty line and between the lower lines and the middle lines, another empty line slightly broader than the first one. The biblical verses are written in the middle section on the fifteen horizontal lines of the second column, the initial letters being given in the double vertical left line, and the ultimate ones, in the double vertical right line or in the space between this double line and the penultimate line. The fragments are written first on the eight upper horizontal lines, then in the right column (where there are no horizontal lines), and finally on the fourteen lower horizontal lines. Therefore, Vaticanus gr. 754 offers the traditional marginal layout: the biblical verses are written in the centre; the fragments, on the top, the outer side, and the bottom. The unique feature of Vaticanus gr. 754 is found in its first left column: on these fifteen horizontal lines, glosses are written. So, we have an additional column, which, as a rule, is not found in the marginal catenae. The layout relates to the two-column layout, with the exception that there is an additional left-hand column devoted to the glosses, whereas in the two-column layout, the biblical verses would be on the left-most

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

168      

>

Echelle 1/2

>>

40 8 lignes

>>

40

>>

18

110

>>

15 lignes

>>

22 71

>>

14 lignes

>

50 31

6 6

77

7 21

45

Figure 6 The ruling lines of the layout of Codex Vatican gr. 754 (Vaticanus graecus 754). Illustration reproduced with permission from Gilles Dorival, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes, Leuven, Peeters, 1986, Volume 2, p. 240.

column and the fragments, on the right one. The biblical text is thus surrounded by additional material. On many folios, the glosses extend upwards and downwards and, when this occurs, the marginal catena is only written in the second and the third columns. Furthermore, in the space which is on the left of the first vertical line, reference marks, initial letters of glosses, and authors’ lemmas are

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

    

169

written. The space between the first two columns (that is, between the second vertical line and the third vertical line), also has reference marks; the space situated on the right of the last vertical line has lemmas and sometimes some letters of the glosses. Vaticanus gr. 754 leads us to ask why a tenth-century manuscript should want to employ such a mix of the marginal layout and the twocolumn layout. The most obvious hypothesis is that the copyist had at his disposal two different sources and he wished to give them both, but without merging them. If this were the case, the left column should give the glosses coming from the first source, whereas the fragments from the second source should be written according to the marginal layout. And, in the main, this is what we find. The readings from the Hexapla alongside many lexical glosses are mostly given in the first left column, but occasionally also in the space devoted to the marginal layout. Likewise, the fragments of Pseudo-Athanasius, Evagrius, Theodoret, and others are usually written according to the marginal layout, but occasionally appear in the left column. On the whole, the counterexamples are so few that the hypothesis can be upheld. Moreover, the glosses and the readings are written in capital letters, whereas the biblical verses are in lowercase letters of greater size than the fragments (also lowercase but of smaller size). Glosses and readings are thus clearly distinguished. Vaticanus gr. 754, or rather its model, thus exemplifies the great interest of the catenae in biblical glosses and Jewish revisions, since in this manuscript a specific ruling was developed to distinguish them. To sum up, the catenae highlighted the text of the Septuagint by means of two main layouts—the full-page layout and the marginal layout—and within these layout systems, also by distinct lettering or ways of writing. Whilst the highlighted text is typically the expected text of the Septuagint of the era, the catenae provide access to many variant texts of the Septuagint. In the case of the Psalms, the catenae witness to three forms of the text of the Septuagint: the Lower Egyptian text, the Palestinian text, and the Byzantine text. Much work has yet to be done to uncover variant texts of the Septuagint through the catenae. Their compilers also had a great interest in lexical glosses and Jewish revisions. Indeed, a new edition of the Alphabetical Lexicon would be highly desirable, the only edition represents only one manuscript and was

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

170       published nearly three centuries ago. The catenae thus provide us with access to many readings that were once recorded in Hexapla. This reminds us of the importance of a new critical edition of Origen’s Hexapla. It is undertaken by scholars of the Hexapla Institute, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the Universities of Amsterdam and Oxford. The first book was published in 2019.¹⁴

¹⁴ Meade 2019.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

Conclusions The title of Part I was ‘Before Christianity: The Septuagint and the Biblical Canon’. Chapter 1 (‘The Formation of the Jewish Canon’) established the meaning of the word canon: a list of biblical books understood as being inspired by God, and therefore normative, enumerated according to a given order (seder in Hebrew, taxis in Greek) and in a determined number (arithmos in Greek). The chapter began with Levita’s theory (1538), according to which Esdras/Ezra and the members of the Great Assembly established the biblical canon of twenty-four books in three divisions (Law, Prophets, and Writings) at the time of the return from exile, around 450 BCE. This theory was qualified by Grabe (1715), who thought that the Alexandrian Jews had a broader canon which the Christians inherited. Since the end of the nineteenth century, the ‘classic three-stage theory’ has dominated the discussion. According to this model, the canon results from a historical process represented in the tripartition of Law, Prophets, and Writings. In the first stage, the Law was canonized between 450 and 400 BCE, and Esdras/Ezra played a role in this. In the second stage, the Prophets must have been canonized sometime during the third century: because, around 190 BCE, in Sir 44–50, Jesus son of Sirach refers to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets as inspired books; and because, in 161 BCE, Judas Maccabeus encouraged his soldiers by quoting ‘the Law and the Prophets’ (2 Macc 15:9). The third and last stage was connected to the so-called ‘Council of Jabneh’. In this small Judean city, around the years 90–100 CE, the rabbis admitted Song of Songs, Qohelet/Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Proverbs into the canon, but excluded Ecclesiasticus and many others as ‘outside’ books (chitsonim). According to this theory, a double closure of the canon occurred in Jabneh: the closure of its third part, and the closure of the whole canon according to its tripartite aspect. Within this theory, the dates of the first and the third stages are often debated by The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae. Gilles Dorival, Oxford University Press. © Gilles Dorival 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898098.003.0009

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

172       scholars. Either the canonization of the Law dates back to Esdras/Ezra and the Persian period (and so can be connected with Artaxerxes I’s politics of imperial authorization); or it was later: at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. Meanwhile, for the Writings, many scholars have proposed the Hasmonean period, and not the end of the first century CE. My own conclusions are as follows: (1) In the second stage, it is inappropriate to speak about a canonization of the Prophets. This canonization included both the Torah and the Prophets: they are not two separate orders, but a single corpus at the same level. (2) In the light of Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus, the third stage can be divided into two sub-stages: the first one involved a tripartition of twenty-two books; the second one, twenty-four books with Ruth and Lamentations counted amongst the Writings (not the Prophets). This third stage began around 200 BCE and, for literary and/or liturgical reasons, was not completed for all the Writings prior to 200 CE and the period of the Amoraim. (3) One must distinguish two Jewish canons. The first one is defined by Law and Prophets and can be dated back to the third century BCE. The second one involves three orders with a ranking: first, the Torah that, second, the Prophets repeat and reinforce, and which, third, the Writings repeat. The first Jewish canon was thus a unified canon, whilst the second Jewish canon (of the Sages) is a ranked one. This ranking phenomenon emerged as a result of the rise of the ideology of the Torah supremacy. These three conclusions take us in the direction of a two-stage model: first, the Torah and the Prophets; second, the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. In this scenario, a stage of canonization involving only the Law may never have occurred. However, this paradigm is not fully established; so, for the moment, the classic theory must be retained as the base model. In order to establish better the new model and its two stages, three kinds of data require consideration. First, the explicit quotations of the Jewish Scriptures introduced by formulae such as ‘it is written’, in

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



173

the Bible itself, in the writings of Qumran, in the Jewish writings of the Hellenistic and Roman period, in the New Testament, and in the first Christian centuries. Second, the Qumran biblical manuscripts and the papyri from elsewhere provide data concerning the use of the canon in first-century-CE communities. Third, the books that are quoted in the oldest forms of Jewish and Christian liturgy. This enquiry poses a number of methodological questions. Are we to understand the emergence of the canon as a response to a crisis, as has been done in the case of the New Testament (as a response to the Gnostic and Marcionite crisis)? Or in terms of a kind of laboratory model? Or in terms of process of identity affirmation and collective memory? These questions remain open. It will also be important to develop a more integrated understanding of the formation of the canon as a particular case of the development of literary practices in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Similarities and analogies connect issues of canon in regard to the Vedas, Homer, the Egyptian sacerdotal canon, the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Bible(s), Confucius, and the Qur’an. Chapter 2 (‘The Septuagint and the Issue of the Canon’) considered the status of books in Antiquity: the words biblos and biblion, the scrolls or volumina, the books or codices, the Bibles in one volume among the Christians (fourth/fifth century) and the Jews (tenth/eleventh century). The Alexandrian canon hypothesis was then reconsidered (according to which, at the time of the beginning of Christianity, the canon of the Diaspora Jews, particularly in Alexandria, was more extensive than the canon in Jerusalem). This hypothesis was found to be inadequate since other wider collections of ‘inspired books’ were present in Qumran and elsewhere, even if these Jewish groups remain poorly known. The chapter also analysed the deuterocanonical books: all of which have a Jewish origin but are outside the Masoretic Bible. The comparison between rabbinic and patristic data suggest that, sometime before the Christian era, there existed in Judaism a category of books which were recommended for private reading but could not be read publicly. These became the deuterocanonical books of Christianity. There are also Septuagint supplements to the shared books: five in Daniel, eight in Esther, two in Jeremiah (Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah), one in Job (42:17a–e), 2 in Psalms (Psa 13:3c–j; Psa 151). Psalm 13:3c–j comes from Paul (Rom 3:11–18);

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

174       but all the other texts, even Job 42:17a–e, are the product of Jewish writers. The data about the number of books was also analysed: twenty-two or twenty-four in Jewish sources; the Fathers are aware of both numbers; nevertheless, they also speak about twenty-six, twentyseven, thirty-four, thirty-five books; but these figures have no Jewish origin. As for the subdivision of the Bible, there is a quadripartition in 2 Macc 2:13–15, 4QMMT, and Philo; the Fathers hesitate between a bipartition (historia versus prophetae according to Augustine), a tripartition (Law and historical books, poetic books, prophetic books), and a quadripartition (for instance, 4 Pentateuchs according to Epiphanius), but none of these divisions come from Jewish sources. The chapter ended with a paradox: the books specific to the Septuagint are all Jewish and most important for a better knowledge of ancient Judaism but have only been well preserved by means of the Christian canon. * * * Part II was entitled ‘The New Testament and the Scribes (Copyists) of the Septuagint’. Chapter 3 asked: ‘Is the Septuagint the Old Testament of the New Testament?’ As the Septuagint is the Bible of Philo and, to a large extent, of Josephus, it is not surprising that the answer is ‘Yes’, but it must be qualified. The New Testament writers made use of a variety of Jewish translations, including the so-called kaige revision. And sometimes they indirectly quote the Septuagint, making use of the Testimonia, which are kind of anthologies of biblical quotations aimed to prove that Jesus’s death and resurrection had been announced in the Old Testament, that God had intended to reject the Jews and elect the nations, and so on. Surprisingly, the number of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament remains problematic: they are at minimum 160, at most 4,000. The problem arises because there is confusion between quotations, allusions, parallels, and common words. Even in the best indices, there is significant variation (between 320 and 600). Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul’s Epistles, Hebrews, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation were reviewed, characterized, and three general conclusions were drawn. First, different writers in the New Testament use different forms of the same

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



175

Old Testament quotation. Second, whilst some of New Testament variants derive from known textual forms in the Septuagint manuscripts, some are unknown. Third, some quotations are aligned to the Hebrew text or to Theodotion. Chapter 4 dealt with a difficult problem: ‘Was the Text of the Septuagint Christianized?’ The first path of Christianization to be addressed concerned the insertion of Christian texts into the Septuagint. All of the deuterocanonical books and all of the supplements to Daniel, Esther, Jeremiah have Jewish origin. In fact, there are only five Christian texts that have been inserted into the Septuagint—and at most six if Job 42:17a originated from a Christian circle (which is less likely than from a Jewish milieu). The five texts are found in the Psalter. After Psa 13:3ab, Psa 13:3c–j gives a lengthy quotation of Paul’s Rom 3:12–18. In the Odes, there are four Christian texts: three passages of Luke and one ecclesiastical composition. But not all the manuscripts have these Christian additions. The addition of Psa 13:3c–j is present in the majority of manuscripts, whereas the other four are given only by few witnesses. Moreover, Psa 13:3c–j is missing in the Lucianic tradition and in Codex Alexandrinus. The second path of Christianization to be addressed concerned the introduction of New Testament verses into the Old Greek text. There are, at most, 159 possible Christianized verses listed for the whole of the Septuagint of which twenty-five occur in Psalms. Of these twenty-five, nine have very limited Christianization: the verses that align with the New Testament text occur only in one, two, or three manuscripts. There are twelve cases of partial Christianization attested in more than three manuscripts and there is only one example of a complete Christianization: Psa 39:7b (40:7b MT), but even this is debated among scholars. The third and last path of Christianization to be addressed concerned the addition of a few words (less than half a verse), into the verses of the Old Greek text. There are just six potential Christian additions of this kind. Of these, Psa 65:1a has to be removed: εἰς τὸ τέλος ὠιδὴ ψαλμοῦ ἀναστάσεως, literally ‘for the end, an ode of psalm of resurrection’ as the word ἀναστάσεως does not mean ‘resurrection’, but ‘rising up’. The Septuagint title expresses an old Jewish interpretation of Psa 65 (66), according to which God, after a time of apparent non-intervention, manifests himself again in favour of his loved ones. Five cases remain,

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

176       Psa 37:14a; 37:21c (i.e. the addition in the Bohairic version of ‘and they nailed my flesh’);¹ 49:6a; 50:9a, and 95:10a. The latter is the most famous example: instead of εἴπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν, ‘say among the nations: “the Lord became king”’, the Coptic versions, Londinensis Or. 5465 (twelfth century), the Occidental text, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others, offer εἴπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν ἀπὸ (τοῦ) ξύλου, ‘say among the nations: “the Lord became king from (the) wood”’. So, a connection is established between the Lord of the Psalm and the wood of Jesus’ cross. The conclusion of chapter 4 is that the Septuagint text is very little Christianized: the translation remains remarkably close to its Jewish origin. * * * The title of Part III was ‘The Church Fathers’. Chapter 5 asked the question: ‘Is the Septuagint the Old Testament of the Church Fathers?’—and found the answer to be both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. A distinction must be drawn between the Syriac area and the other parts of the Mediterranean Basin. In the Syriac area, the Old Testament was the so-called Peshitta, translated from Hebrew, but it included the deuterocanonical books, translated from the Greek. Over the centuries the Peshitta came to be influenced by the Septuagint as other Syriac translations were produced, among them the Syro-Hexaplar, which was translated from the Septuagint at the beginning of the seventh century. The Syriac authors who lived before the time of the Syro-Hexaplar, such as Bardaisan, Aphrahat, Ephrem, or John of Apamea, exclusively made use of the earlier Peshitta. As a rule, the quotations of the Old Testament in the Syriac New Testament also came from the Peshitta. Nevertheless, Ephrem sometimes gave biblical citations that are closer to Targum Onqelos. Later things changed with the introduction of the Syro-Hexaplar. For instance, in the ninth century, when Isho‘dad of Merv commented on the Peshitta, he also provided his own Syriac translations of the ‘Greek’ (the Septuagint), the Hebrew and, less often, ¹ The variant of 37:21c (‘and they rejected me, the beloved one, like a disgusting corpse’) was dismissed as a candidate of possible Christianization.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



177

the Jewish revisions of the Septuagint. In the twelfth century, Dionysius Bar-Salibi mainly made use of the Peshitta, but also the Syro-Hexaplar. One century later, Bar Hebraeus quoted both translations; he called the Syro-Hexaplar the ‘Greek’ and he explained that it was superior to the Peshitta. In contrast to the Syriac area, other parts of the Mediterranean Basin made use of the Septuagint or of one of its translations: in the West, the so-called Vetus Latina, Ulfila’s Gothic version, Cyril and Methodius’ Slavonic translation; in the East, the Coptic versions, the Ge’ez translation, the Old Armenian version, the Syro-Palestinian translation, the first Arabic version (if it did exist), and the Georgian Version. The Greek Fathers quoted the Septuagint according to one of its textual forms (Old Septuagint, Origen’s Septuagint, Lucianic Septuagint, etc.) or via the so-called Testimonia or according to the Jewish revisions. In the Latin-speaking world, the Vetus Latina was the Old Testament of all the Church Fathers up to Augustine. From the fifth century onwards, the Vetus Latina was gradually superseded by Jerome’s version that had been translated from Hebrew; the only exception being the Psalter. All the Church Fathers knew that their Bible was a translation. The Church Fathers of the first two centuries (such as Justin, Irenaeus) largely dispensed with the Hebrew as a reference text. For them, the Septuagint offered the right biblical text, and the Jews had changed the text of their Bible in order to remove the clear references to Jesus. In this period, the Septuagint dominated in an absolute way as the authoritative text of the Old Testament for the Church. Consequently, Justin and Irenaeus denied any value to the Jewish versions. The idea that the Jews had modified the biblical text and that the Septuagint is the only uncorrupted text persisted into the following centuries (so Origen, Epiphanius of Salamis, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Theodoret). For all these authors, there is no reason to refer to the Hebrew text, as it was changed by the Jews, whereas the Septuagint represents the unchanged Hebrew text. The Jewish revisions to the Septuagint are likewise not readily received. A closer look at the writings of some of these same writers, however, reveals a more nuanced opinion. In Origen’s Hexapla, for example, the prime reference text is the Hebrew one and Origen agreed to focus on the Hebrew text when disputing with Jews. Origen also complained of

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

178       the pitiful textual state of the Septuagint manuscripts and he corrected them using the Jewish revisions of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus. When Origen was convinced of the incorrect nature of a specific Septuagint passage, he usually commented upon the corrected biblical text and the uncorrected one. Only occasionally did he not comment on the Septuagint text, but the text of one of the Jewish versions, for example in respect to Ezekiel 9:3–4. A century after Origen, in his Commentaries on the Psalms, Eusebius often quoted the versions saying, particularly in the case of Symmachus, that they express things more clearly (σαφέστερον) than the Septuagint. In his Commentaries on the Psalms, Diodorus also made frequent use of the Hebrew Bible and approved Symmachus for his translations which seemed to him to be usually better than the Septuagint. As Origen before him, Theodoret recognized that there are some mistakes in the text of the inspired Septuagint due to the carelessness of the scribes who had copied the text. Occasionally he made use of the Hebrew text to explain a word, or to justify a translation, or to suppress a word present only in a few witnesses. Finally, he quoted the second-century Jewish versions (that is, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion) but again not to correct the Greek text, but to highlight its meaning. Among the Fathers who considered the value of the witness of the Hebrew text, the idea that the Septuagint had become corrupt during its transmission was important. This idea allowed the Fathers to hold that the Old Greek was a translation of the uncorrupted Hebrew text. Therefore, in order to restore the uncorrupted Old Greek, the Jewish versions translated from the Hebrew must be consulted. Another striking feature must be highlighted. Textual plurality does not bother the Fathers: instead, they saw it as a richness and commented on the various textual forms. In sum, whilst the domination of the Septuagint in patristic times is a fact, it requires qualification. Chapter 6 considered the role of the Septuagint in the building of Christian identity during the first Christian centuries (‘The Vocabulary of the Septuagint and the Church Fathers’). The key reference word διαθήκη, ‘testament’ or ‘covenant’, in Latin testamentum, for example, comes from the Septuagint, via the New Testament. In 1902, Swete

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



179

reported that ‘the Greek liturgies are steeped in the language of the Greek Old Testament’ and there are ‘passing allusions to the LXX’ in the liturgies of Saint Clement, Saint James, Saint Mark, Saint Basil, and Sarapion. The Greek terminology of Christian doctrine is largely indebted to the Alexandrian translators: most of the technical language of theology came from the Septuagint passed through the New Testament. The earliest Latin theology thus drew a store of theological language from the Septuagint, via the Vetus Latina: Swete’s analysis must be supplemented. The important patristic concept of the Christian life as a migration comes from the Septuagint. The Septuagint of Gen 14:13 calls Abraham ‘the emigrant (περάτης)’ where the MT has: ‘Abraham the Hebrew’. The spiritual maxim ‘you sinned? Be still’ (ἥμαρτες ἡσύχασον) comes from the Septuagint of Gen 4:7 (the Hebrew is completely different). Another spiritual maxim is: πρόσεχε σεαυτῶι, ‘take heed of thyself ’ (fourteen instances of this formula in the Pentateuch and two in Tobit). The Greek expression is a literal translation of the Hebrew nifal imperative hishshamer leka, but in Hebrew it is a mere cautionary remark, ‘be careful’. The Greek thus transformed a warning into a moral prescription. The Septuagint of Psa 45:11 (46:11) provides a definition of leisure time devoted to God, here the Hebrew is not easy to understand. Isa 28:9–11 provides a spirituality of martyrdom with ‘Accept affliction upon affliction, hope upon hope, yet a little, yet a little’, according to the scheme of hardship (‘affliction’), agreement (‘accept’), hope (‘hope’). The Hebrew is different, and the modern commentators do not speak about martyrdom in reference to it. A further contribution of the Septuagint relates to patristic hermeneutics and the Greek tradition of allegory and commentary. The Septuagint played its own role in this with its bipartition of Law and Prophets (over and against the rabbinic supremacy of the Law). Second, the Fathers’ titles for the biblical books are the Greek ones. Third, even if knowledge of the allegorical method comes from the Greek philosophers (and Philo), support was found for it in the verses of the Greek Bible. Psa 77:2 (78:2), for example, speaks about ‘parables (παραβολαί)’ and ‘problems (προβλήματα)’. It also must be recognized that even if many of the literary genres of the Church Fathers come from the Greek classical tradition, some of them are inseparable from the Septuagint, for instance

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

180       the Christian Acts of Martyrs: 2 Macc 7 being the founding text of this genre. Finally, it must be recognized that the theological vocabulary of the Christians was founded upon the Greek Bible (Septuagint and New Testament). In the cases in which Christian theologians make use of a word not found in the Septuagint or in the New Testament, there is a problem. For example, in his treatise On the First Principles, Origen often uses the adjective ‘incorporeal (ἀσώματος)’ to speak about God’s essence. But, as this word is not present in the Scriptures, he must justify his use of it (Preface 8). He finds a near equivalent in the Scriptures: the adjective ‘invisible (ἀόρατος)’, which is read in Col 1:15 and John 1:18. As for the doctrine of the Trinity, the word ‘person’ comes from the Septuagint, πρόσωπον in Greek, persona in Latin. Furthermore, some Greek translations of Genesis gave rise to theological interpretations which are not possible on the grounds of the Hebrew text. In Gen 1:2, the Septuagint reads ‘the earth was invisible and unorganized’ and this came to be quoted both in support of the pre-existence of matter and in supporting the creation of matter ex nihilo. Other examples include Gen 14:14 (the 318 slaves of Abraham) and Exod 17:16 (the ‘hidden hand’ with which the Lord makes war against Amalek). In the latter, the Hebrew has a difficult hapax legomenon. This ‘hidden hand’ played a role in the Christian doctrine of the Logos, which is hidden in the Old Testament. * * * Part IV was entitled ‘The Biblical Catenae’. Chapter 7 gave ‘An Overview of the Catenae’, because they are not well known, even amongst learned scholars. Catenae appeared in Judaea/ Palestine at the beginning of the sixth century. They consist of commentaries, homilies, scholia of the past centuries, and any other literary form in which Scripture verses are explained. The catenae offer three main features. First, ecclesiastical writings are quoted in the form of extracts, sometimes verbatim, sometimes rewritten, according to the order of the verses of each Biblical book. Second, each extract is normally preceded by the name of its author in the genitive case. Third, with time, the catenae were formed not only from commentaries, homilies, scholia, and other patristic writings, but also from pre-existing catenae mixed with these

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



181

sources: the primary catenae quote directly the patristic authors; the secondary catenae make use of one or more previous catenae. After the sixth century, catenae became the most important media for the transmission of biblical commentary until the end of the Byzantium Empire (1453). The catena on Genesis is formed of 2,270 different fragments. Its compiler is anonymous. Thirty-six different authors are quoted. Among them, Jewish writers (such Philo and Josephus) and a JudaeoHellenistic collection of etymologies of Hebrew words. The majority of the extracts, however, belong to the patristic period and the two most frequently quoted authors are Origen (340 fragments) and Cyril of Alexandria (235 fragments). This catena could not have been compiled before 540 CE, since it quotes Severus of Antioch, who died in 538. This also means that it could not be written by the so-called father of the catenae, Procopius of Gaza since he died around 530. There are two other contemporary compilations on Genesis. The Collectio Coisliniana given by the Parisinus Coislinianus 113 is not a catena, since its frame is not the biblical text but the Questions on Genesis of Theodoret of Cyrus. The Collectio offers 308 fragments. More than one third of them are from Theodoret and a further 150 are by Antiochene authors. The spirit of the Collectio is, therefore, Antiochene. In this sense, it must be opposed to the catena on Genesis which has no text from Theodoret. Procopius of Gaza’s Epitome of Genesis is an epitome, not a catena, as it has no lemmas before its extracts. A comparison between the catena of Genesis with the Procopius’ Epitome produces differences and parallels. Almost all the authors quoted in the catena of Genesis are found in Procopius and, interestingly, Procopius does not quote Severus of Antioch. All of this suggests that Severus’ fragments could have been added to an earlier catena. If so, it is quite likely that the catena on Genesis was first compiled in Judaea/Palestine and that it was reworked by an admirer of Severus. Indeed, in the prologue of his Epitome, Procopius states that he made his compilation from a previous catena. This cannot be the catena on Genesis, but it could be a common source since the Epitome of Procopius and the later catena on Genesis share many fragments in common.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

182       Having clearly defined the concept of the catenae, the history of research on the catenae was reviewed. During the Renaissance, seven Latin translations of the Greek catenae were published. A period of editing the Greek catenae then began in the second half of the sixteenth century and a dozen of them were published before the end of the eighteenth century. In contrast, nineteenth-century publications of catenae number only six. The first real philological studies on the catenae have their origins in the end of the nineteenth century. The seminal work is Hans Lietzmann’s Catenen, published in 1897. Lietzmann recommended that scholars did not compile and publish the fragments from each author, but the collections themselves in full. This excellent advice was not followed until the last third of the twentieth century when fourteen catenae were published between 1972 (M. Harl) and 2011 (J.-M. Auwers). Hans Lietzmann himself did not publish any editions of catenae, but, in association with Georg Karo, he did publish a catalogue of the manuscripts of the Greek catenae (1902). Fragments of patristic authors thus came to be published thanks to research conducted into the catenae: for instance, in the case of the Psalms, the commentaries of Apolinarius, Asterius, Didymus, Theodore of Mopsuestia with the fragments of Eusebius and Origen currently under preparation in Berlin. This research was mainly philological, but the historical dimension was not completely forgotten in the case of the Prophets and of the Song of Songs (M. Faulhaber in 1899 and 1909). As for the Psalms, I proposed that two historical stages should be distinguished. The first associated with Palestine began around the sixth century; the second associated with Constantinople began around the middle of the seventh century and continued up to the end of Byzantium in the fifteenth. Questions about the catenae have mainly concerned why and how they first emerged and the extent to which the catenae be compared with pagan and Christian ἐκλογαί (extracts), with the so-called florilegia, and with the homeric scholia. A further historical issue has concerned Procopius of Gaza. Procopius has been called the father of the catenae, their πρῶτος εὑρετής. He lived between 470 and 530 and has been credited as being the writer behind both the first catenae (Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Song of Songs: which have lemmas) and the first epitomes (Octateuch, Isaiah: without lemmas).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



183

According to M. Faulhaber, the two-author catenae, which are around ten, can be dated back to a period before Procopius in the fifth century. In my opinion, the form of two-author catenae is better connected with the Byzantine humanism of the ninth and tenth centuries. As for the multiple-author catenae, it is not certain if any of them do predate Procopius. The oldest catenae on the New Testament form an important part of this research. Again, in my opinion, the compilers of the catenae began their project with the Old Testament, as the Old Testament was considered to be obscure and foundational to the New Testament, whereas the New Testament was considered to be clear and explicative of the Old Testament. Perhaps the most significant piece of evidence concerns the Palestinian catena on the Psalms. All the authors quoted by the Palestinian catena are prior to 460, except one fragment attributed to Severus of Antioch (on Psa 50:7). If this fragment was part of the original catena, then the Palestinian catena are probably not prior to 538 (the year of Severus’ death) and so not prior to 530 (the year of Procopius’ death). Since the fragment can be read in the rewritten form of the catena (Parisinus gr. 139), it is highly likely that this fragment was in the primitive Palestinian catena. Above all, it must be admitted that the identity of the compilers of the catenae is shrouded in mystery. Only a few names are known: chiefly, Procopius of Gaza in Palestine and Nicetas of Heraclea in Constantinople. Other names have been proposed: the patriarch Photius, Peter of Laodicea, John Drougarios, but without any persuasive arguments. A final issue concerns Monophysite (or Miaphysite) catenae. In 1956, Marcel Richard suggested that one of the sources of Parisinus gr. 139 was a catena on Psalms offering fragments of Athanasius, Basil, Cyril, Hesychius, John Chrysostom, and Severus of Antioch; but Severus did not really comment on the Psalms. Richard argued that ‘only a zealous Monophysite could pick up in his works all the allusions to the Psalms’. This suggested that the catenae had a Monophysite origin and were written in Egypt between Severus’ death (538) and the final defeat of the Monophysites (639). The issue has been re-examined by Laurence Vianès (1996) and by Mathilde Aussedat (2006). The former described the catena on Ezekiel as Monophysite since Severus is called ‘saint’ in it. She

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

184       suggested that the catena was written either in one of the Enaton monasteries, near Alexandria, between 574 and 639, or in Constantinople, in the vicinity of Theodora, between 538 and 565. As for Mathilde Aussedat, she noted that the catena on Jeremiah gave the epithet ‘saint’ to John Chrysostom, Theophilus of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, and Severus. From a Monophysite point of view, Cyril, Severus, and perhaps Cyril are saints, but ‘Saint John Chrysostom’ is surprising. So, much remains to be done in the field of biblical catenae. Despite recent progress, many catenae still await publication. For instance, Nicetas’ catena on the Psalms is a monumental work of Byzantine scholarship—it deserves to be available to modern readers. Chapter 8 was entitled ‘The Catenae and the Septuagint’. The chapter began by analysing the layouts of the Septuagint in the catenae. During the time of Procopius (sixth century), the catenae arranged the sacred text in the same way as the Christian commentaries before them: the Septuagint is quoted verse by verse and occupies the first position; the commentary then comes below it. This layout can be called a full-page disposition. A variant of the full-page disposition consists in the twocolumn-variant layout, each column quoting the Biblical text and then the fragments. This variation was a sign of a work of high ‘calligraphic’ quality, such as in the uncial manuscripts of the Bible which offer two columns (Codex Alexandrinus), or three columns (Codex Vaticanus), or even four columns (Codex Sinaiticus). Sometime during the second half of the seventh century the full-page model began to be replaced by a marginal layout. The reference unit is not the sequence of the folios, but the whole surface constituted by two following folios facing one other: first a given even folio, second the corresponding odd folio. The biblical text is written in the centre of each of these two folios; and the fragments of the catenae are written around it, in the upper margin, the lateral margin, and the lower margin. In my opinion, the marginal layout developed out of the two-column layout. But here, the term ‘two-column layout’ means a column with the biblical text and a column with the fragments. This proper two-column layout comes from the scholia, in which the biblical verses were written on the left column, and the scholia, on the right column. Hesychius of

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



185

Jerusalem witnesses to such a layout in the prologue of his Scholia on the Minor Prophets: ‘this [given] explanation, I put on the side of the verses, and so the one who meditates understands when reading’ (PG 93, 1341 A). A few manuscripts of subsequently copied scholia preserve this two-column layout, such as the Coislinianus 360 and the Vaticanus Barberinianus gr. 455. The evidence of Codex Zacynthius suggests that the beginnings of the marginal layout date back to the seventh century, but there are very few extant manuscripts of the seventh century. In two manuscripts of the eighth century (the uncial manuscripts Patmensis St Ioh. 171 and Vaticanus gr. 749 which both give the catena on Job) the marginal layout of the Codex Zacynthius are present. Witnesses of this kind of layout are numerous in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries: at least thirty in the case of the Psalms. Nevertheless, the older full-page layout persisted, for instance in the tenth century Vaticanus gr. 744. From the twelfth century to the end of Byzantium in the fifteenth, there was a return to the full-page layout in which the sacred text occupies the first position, and the patristic fragments come after. Almost all the witnesses of the Catena of Nicetas on the Psalms (c.1100), which are around thirty in number, offer this full-page layout. So, there are three stages, but only two layouts (since the third stage is identical to the first). Both layouts highlight the Scripture (LXX) text, by the means of a specific position. Besides the layout, the writing system emphasized the biblical text. Several arrangements are found, for instance the biblical text can be written with uppercase letters, whereas the catena uses lowercase. A most important aspect of these catenae is the form of the text of the Septuagint that is given in the catenae. In the areas devoted to the Septuagint, it seems that the compilers gave the text of the Septuagint that was in use in their monasteries or churches at the time of the compilation. But, in the extracts of the patristic authors, the quotations of the Scriptures are not aligned with this reference text. The Palestinian catena on Psa 118, for example, informs us of three biblical texts: first, Origen’s and Eusebius’ text, which is that of the Palestinian Psalter; second, Didymus’ text, which is the text of Lower Egypt; third, the later text of the Septuagint manuscripts, which can be described as having

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

186       suffered some slight degeneracy. All in all, there are very few studies of the biblical text of the catenae: one can add only the study of Auwers in the case of the catena on the Song of Songs. Much work remains to be done. The compilers of the catenae display much interest in the biblical glosses. For instance, the catena on Genesis quotes fifty-seven fragments borrowed from a Judaeo-Hellenistic collection of the etymologies of Hebrew words. The catena on the Psalms is another example: it makes frequent use of the so-called Alphabetical Lexicon, which was probably written at the end of the Patristic period. It is time for a new publication of Lexeis of the 150 Psalms, the first edition of Joseph Pasini is now dated (1749): it is not easily accessible, and it relies only on one manuscript. Some of the compilers of the catenae also display much interest in the different biblical versions or revisions of the Septuagint (such as Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the Quinta, the Sexta). The catena on Genesis quotes some 140 passages of the Hexapla either from Origen himself or from readers of Origen. As for the catena on Psa 118, I published in 1974 some forty previously unknown readings, which suggest that in the catena for all the Psalms, there might be around five hundred previously unknown readings awaiting discovery. So, the catenae are of the utmost importance for the reconstruction of the Hexapla. Chapter 8 thus ended with the example of the tenth-century manuscript Vaticanus gr. 754 on the Psalms, since this catena has a marginal layout with an additional column that gives glosses and Hexaplaric readings. * * * This book has considered the use of the Jewish Septuagint by Jews up to the beginnings of the Christian era and the use of the Septuagint by Christians after this period. It would not be complete without acknowledging the survival of the Septuagint amongst Byzantine Jews: a topic rarely mentioned until Nicholas de Lange published a seminal book on the subject.² In the mid-sixth century, according to Justinian’s Novel 146, the Jewish communities were split by a conflict between adherents of ² de Lange 2015.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



187

the Septuagint and those of Aquila, that is between the ‘Hellenist’ and ‘rabbinic’ factions. It seems that Aquila’s literal translation was used as a kind of ‘targum’ by the Hebraists in the Greek-speaking communities. Does that mean that the Septuagint was then abandoned? Even if its place did decline, the Septuagint did continue to have some influence among Jews throughout the Middle Ages, as one can see in the several manuscripts that de Lange has analysed. Since Greek was the mother tongue of the Byzantine Jews, they continued to make Greek translations of the Bible and these translations were used in Jewish communities: in the synagogues as well in the classrooms. As a rule, these translations were not written, but transmitted orally, except in some very few manuscripts. So, the Septuagint never did entirely disappear from Jewish life after all. Even if it became less and less present, it always remained a point of reference.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

Bibliography Aland A., Black M., Martini C. M., Metzger B. M., and Wikgren A. 1966, 1973³, 1993⁴, The New Testament, Stuttgart. Alexander L. 2007, ‘Canon and Exegesis in the Medical Schools of Antiquity’, in Alexander P. S. and Kaestli J.-D. (eds), The Canon of Scripture in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Le canon des Ecritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne, Lausanne, pp. 115–53. Alexander P. S. 2007, ‘The Formation of the Biblical Canon in Rabbinic Judaism’, in Alexander P. S. and Kaestli J. D. (eds), The Scripture in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Le canon des Ecritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne, Lausanne, pp. 99–113. Allenbach J. et al. 1982, Biblia Patristica. Supplément. Philon d’Alexandrie, Paris. Amato E. et al. 2014, Procope de Gaza. Discours et fragments, Paris. Amphoux C. and Dorival G. 2006, ‘ “Des oreilles, tu m’as creusées” ou “un corps, tu m’as façonné”? A propos de Ps 39 (40 TM), 7’, in Brillet-Dubois F. and Parmentier E. (eds), Φιλολογία. Mélanges M. Casevitz, Lyon, pp. 315–27. Archer G. L. and Chirichigo G. 1983, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, Eugene (OR). Assmann J. 1999, Fünf Studien auf dem Wege zum Kanon. Tradition und Schriftkultur im frühen Judentum und seiner Umwelt, Münster, pp. 11–35. Aussedat M. 2006, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur le livre de Jérémie (chap. 1–4). Présentation, texte critique, traduction française, commentaire (Typewritten PhD), Paris. Auwers J.-M. 2011a, Procopii Gazaei, Epitome in Canticum canticorum, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 67, Turnhout. Auwers J.-M. 2011b, L’interprétation du Cantique des cantiques à travers les chaînes exégétiques grecques, Turnhout. Ballhorn E. and Steins G. (eds) 2007, Der Bibelkanon in Methodenreflexionem und Beispielexegesen, Stuttgart. Barc B. 2000, Les Arpenteurs du temps. Essai sur l’histoire religieuse de la Judée à l’époque hellénistique, Lausanne, pp. 107–236. Barc B. 2015, Siméon le Juste: l’auteur oublié de la Bible hébraïque, Turnhout. Barr J. 1983, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism, Philadelphia/Westminster. Barthélemy D. 1963, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, Leiden. Barthélemy D. 1967, ‘Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba qui censura le “Commentaire Allégorique” ’, in Philon d’Alexandrie, Paris, pp. 45–78. Barthélemy D. 1971, ‘Eusèbe, la Septante et “les autres” ’, in La Bible et les Pères. Colloque de Strasbourg (1–3 octobre 1969), Paris, pp. 51–65 (= Etudes d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, Göttingen, 1978, pp. 179–93).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

190  Barthélemy D. 1972a, ‘Le Papyrus Bodmer XXIV jugé par Origène’, in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch. Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler, vol. 1, Würzburg, pp. 11–19 (= Etudes d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, Göttingen, 1978, pp. 194–202). Barthélemy D. 1972b, ‘Les problèmes textuels de 2 Sam. 11, 2 - 1 Rois reconsidérés à la lumière de certaines critiques des Devanciers d’Aquila’, in 1972 Proceedings IOSCS Pseudepigrapha, Atlanta (GA), pp. 16–88 (= Etudes d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, Göttingen, 1978, pp. 218–54). Barthélemy D. 1984, ‘L’état de la Bible juive depuis le début de notre ère jusqu’à deuxième révolte contre Rome (131–135)’, in Kaestli J.-D. and Wermelinger O. (eds), Le canon de l’Ancien Testament. Sa formation et son histoire, Geneva, pp. 9–45. Barthélemy D. 1994, ‘Appendice 1. Justin et le texte de la Bible’, in Justin Martyr. Œuvres complètes, Paris. Barton J. 1984, ‘ “The Law and the Prophets”: Who are the Prophets?’, Old Testament Studies 23, pp. 1–18. Barton J. 1986, Oracles of God: Perceptions on Ancient Prophecy in Israel and after the Exile, London. Beale G. K. 1986, ‘A Reconsideration of the Text of Daniel in the Apocalypse’, Biblica 67, pp. 539–43. Beckwith R. T. 1985, The Old Testament of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism, London. Beckwith R. T. 1988, ‘Formation of the Hebrew Bible’, in Mulder A. J. (ed.), Mikra, Assen/Maastricht/Philadelphia, pp. 39–86. Bernstein M. J. 1996, ‘The Employment and Interpretation of Scripture in 4QMMT: Preliminary Observations’, in Kampen J. and Bernstein M. J. (eds), Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History, Atlanta (GA), pp. 29–51. Berthelot K. 2006, ‘4QMMT et la question du canon de la Bible hébraïque’, in Garcia Martinez F., Steudeland A., and Tigchelaar E. (eds), From 4QMMT to Resurrection. Mékanges qumraniens en hommage à Emile Puech, Leiden/Boston, pp. 1–14. Biblia Patristica 1975–2000, Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique, 7 vols, Paris. Biblindex, Index en ligne des citations biblique dans la littérature patristique. Index of Biblical Quotations in Early Christian Literature, www. biblindex.mom.fr. Blenkinsopp J. 1977, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins, Notre Dame (IN). Blum E. 1990, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, Berlin/New York. Böhl E. 1878, Die alttestamentliche Zitate im Neuen Testament, Vienna. Brachter R. G. 1961, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, New York, 1987⁴. Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds) 2008, L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris. Brock S. 2008, ‘Les versions syriaques de l’Ancien Testament. Quelques approches récentes’, in Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds), L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 21–32.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



191

Brooke G. J. 2007, ‘Canon in the Light of the Qumran Scrolls’, in Alexander P. S. and Kaestli J.-D. (eds), The Canon of Scripture in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Le canon des Ecritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne, Lausanne, pp. 81–98. Bruce F. F. 1998, The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove (IL). Buhl F. 1891, Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments, Leipzig. Campbell J. 2000, ‘4QMMT and the Tripartite Canon’, Journal of Jewish Studies 51, pp. 181–90. Canellis A. 2017, Jérôme. Préfaces aux livres de la Bible, Paris, Sources chrétiennes 592. Carr D. M. 1996, ‘Canonization in the Context of Community: An Outline of the Formation of the Tanakh and the Christian Bible’, in Weis R. D. and Carr D. M. (eds), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of J. A. Sanders, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Sheffield, pp. 22–64. Carr D. M. 2005, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature, New York. Carr D. M. 2007, ‘The Rise of Torah’, in Knoppers G. N. and Levinson B. M. (eds), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake (IN), pp. 39–56. Carson D. A. and Williamson H. G. M. (eds) 1988, It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge [papers 11 to 19 deal with the Old Testament in the New Testament]. Caulley T. S. and Lichtenberger H. (eds) 2011, Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum—The Septuagint and Christian Origins, Tübingen, pp. 203–390 [9 papers about the Septuagint in the New Testament]. Cavalier C. 2005, ‘La Bible, un corpus en mouvement’, in Dorival G. (ed.), Qu’est-ce qu’un corpus littéraire? Recherches sur le corpus biblique et les corpus patristiques, Leuven/Paris, pp. 33–52. Cavalier C. 2011, Esther, La Bible d’Alexandrie 12, Paris. Ceulemans R. 2017, ‘The Transmission, Sources and Reception of Procopius’ Exegesis on Genesis: Observations in the Wake of the New Edition’, Vigiliae Christianae 71, pp. 205–24. Chantraine P. 2009², Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots, Paris. Chapman S. B. 2000, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in the Old Testament canon Formation, Tübingen. Chapman S. B. 2003, ‘How the Biblical Canon Began: Working Models and Open Questions’ in Finkelberg M. and Stroumsa G. G. (eds), Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World, Leiden/Boston, pp. 29–51. Charlesworth J. H. 2008, ‘Writings Ostensibly outside the Canon’, in Evans C. A. and Tov E. (eds), Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 57–85. Cheng A. 2001, ‘Le corpus canonique confucéen’, in Giard L. and Jacob C. (eds), Des Alexandries I. Du livre au texte, Paris, pp. 163–78.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

192  Cimosa M. 2010, ‘The Greek Psalms in the New Testament’, in Zenger E. (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms, Leuven/Paris/Walpole (MA), pp. 425–41. Clements R. E. 1975, Prophecy and Tradition, Atlanta (GA). Clines D. J. A. 1853, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. VIII: Sin-Taw, Sheffield, pp. 268–270. Collins J. 1995, ‘Before the Canon: Scriptures in Second Temple Judaism’, in Mays J. L., Petersen D. L., and Richards K. H. (eds), Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker, Nashville (TN), pp. 225–41. Collins N. 2000, The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek, Leiden. Coogan J. 2015, The Origins of the Septuagint Odes, MPhil Dissertation, Oxford. Cross F. M. and Talmon S. 1975, Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, Cambridge (MA)/London. Crostini B. and Peers G. 2016, A Book of Psalms from Eleventh-century Byzantium, the Complex of Texts and Images in Vat. gr. 752, Vatican. Crüsemann F. 1989, ‘Le Pentateuque, une Tora. Prolégomènes à l’interprétation de sa forme finale’, in De Pury A. (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question. Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes, Geneva, pp. 339–60. Curti C. 2003, La catena palestinese sui psalmi graduali. Introduzione, edizione critica, traduzione, note di commento e indici, Catane. Daniel R. W. 1983, ‘A Christian Amulet on Papyrus’, Vigiliae christianae 4, pp. 400–4. Davies P. R. 1998, Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (Library of Ancient Israel), Louisville (KY). Davies P. R. 2007, ‘How to Get into the Canon and Stay There or the Philosophy of an Acquisitive Society’, in Alexander P. S. and Kaestli J.-D. (eds), The Canon of Scripture in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Le canon des Ecritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne, Lausanne, pp. 11–25. de Lagarde P. A. 1883, Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars prior Graece, Göttingen. de Lange N. 2015, Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Greek Bible Translations in Byzantine Judaism, Tübingen. de Prémare A. L. 2001, ‘Coran et Hadîth’, in Giard L. and Jacob C. (eds), Des Alexandries I. Du livre au texte, Paris, pp. 179–96. de Pury A. 2007, ‘The Ketubim, a Canon within the Biblical Canon’, in Alexander P. S. and Kaestli J.-D. (eds), The Canon of Scripture in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Le canon des Ecritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne, Lausanne, pp. 41–56. de Waard J. 1965, A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scroll and in the New Testament, Leiden. Dempster S. G. 2008, ‘Torah, Torah, Torah: The Emergence of the Tripartite Canon’, in Evans C. A. and Tov E. (eds), Exploring the Origins of the Bible Canon: Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 87–127.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



193

Devreesse R. 1928, ‘Chaînes exégétiques grecques’, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément I, Paris, c. 1084–233. Devreesse R. 1939, Le Commentaire de Théodore de Mopsueste sur les psaumes, Studi e Testi 93, Vatican. Devreesse R. 1954, Introduction à l’étude des manuscrits grecs, Paris. Dhorme P. 1926, Le livre de Job, Paris. Dines J. N. 2004, The Septuagint, London/New York. Dittmar W. 1899–1903, Vetus Testamentum in Novo. Die alttestatamentliche Parallelen des Neuen Testaments in Wortlaut der Urtext und der Septuaginta, 2 vols, Göttingen. Docherty S. C. 2009, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews, Tübingen. Dorival G. 1974, ‘L’apport des chaînes exégétiques grecques à une réédition des Hexaples d’Origène’, Revue d’Histoire des Textes 4, pp. 39–74. Dorival G. 1980, ‘Athanase ou Pseudo-Athanase?’, Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 16, pp. 80–9. Dorival G. 1986, see below Dorival G. 1986–2018. Dorival G. 1991, ‘La Bible des Septante: 70 ou 72 traducteurs’, in Norton G. J. and Pisano S. (eds), Traditions of the Text: Studies offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday, Fribourg, pp. 45–62. Dorival G. 1992, see below Dorival G. 1986–2018. Dorival G. 1994, Les Nombres, La Bible d’Alexandrie 4, Paris. Dorival G. 1995, see below Dorival G. 1986–2018. Dorival G. 2001, ‘La formation du canon de la Bible. Entre Jérusalem et Alexandrie’, in Giard L. and Jacob C. (eds), Des Alexandries I. Du livre au texte, Paris, pp. 115–34. Dorival G. 2003, ‘L’apport des Pères de l’Eglise à la question de la clôture du canon de l’Ancien Testament’, in Auwers J.-M. and de Jonge H. J. (eds), The Biblical Canons, Leuven, pp. 81–110. Dorival G. 2004, ‘La formation du canon biblique de l’Ancien Testament. Position actuelle et problèmes’, in Norelli E. (ed.), Recueils normatifs et canons dans l’Antiquité. Perspectives nouvelles sur la formation des canons juif et chrétien dans leur contexte culturel, Lausanne, pp. 83–112. Dorival G. 2007, ‘Has the Category of “Deuterocanical Books” a Jewish Origin?’, in Xeravits G. G. and Zsengeller J. (eds), The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology, Leiden/Boston, pp. 1–10. Dorival G. 2008a, ‘Bibles syriaques, Bibles hébraïques et Bibles grecques’, in Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds) 2008, L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 9–20. Dorival G. 2008b, ‘Les formes et les modèles littéraires’, in Pouderon B. and Norelli E. (eds), Histoire de la Littérature Grecque Chrétienne, Paris, pp. 155–65. Dorival G. 2010, ‘L’intérêt pour les chaînes exégétiques grecques dans l’Europe de la Renaissance’, in Picquet T., Faggion L., and Gandoulphe P. (eds), L’humanisme italien de la Renaissance et l’Europe, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 121–6. Dorival G. 2011, ‘Les Sages ont-ils retouché certains titres des Psaumes?’, Vetus Testamentum 61, pp. 374–87. Dorival G. 2012, ‘Le psaume hors numérotation (ou psaume 151)’, in Bonney G. and Vicent R. (eds), Sophia-Paideia. Sapienza e educazione (Sir 1:27). Miscellanea di studi offerti in onore del prof. Don Mario Cimosa, Rome, pp. 181–95.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

194  Dorival G. 2014, ‘La formation du canon des Ecritures juives. Histoire de la recherche et perspectives nouvelles’, in Gounelle R. and Joosten J. (eds), La Bible juive dans l’Antiquité, Lausanne, pp. 9–40. Dorival G. 2016, ‘Biblical Catenae: Between Philology and History’, in Houghton H. A. G. (ed.), Commentaries, Catenae, and the Biblical Tradition, Piscataway (NJ), pp. 68–81. Dorival G. 1986–2018, Les chaînes exégétiques sur les psaumes. Contribution à l’étude d’une forme littéraire, vol. 1, Leuven, 1986, vol. 2, Leuven, 1989, vol. 3, Leuven, 1992, vol. 4, Leuven 1995, vol. 5, Leuven, 2018. Doutreleau L. 1962, Didyme l’Aveugle, Sur Zacharie, vol. 1, Paris, Sources chrétiennes 83. Dupont-Sommer A. 1939, Le Quatrième Livre des Macchabées. Introduction, traduction et notes, Paris. Egan P. 2012, ‘Did Peter Change Scripture? The Manuscript Tradition of Greek Psalm 33–34 and 1 Peter 10–12’, in Kreuzer S., Meiser M., and Sigismund M. (eds), Die Septuaginta—Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte, Tübingen, pp. 505–28. Ellis E. E. 1957, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, Edinburgh. Ellis E. E. 1988, ‘The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church’, in Mulder A. J. (ed.), Mikra, Assen/Maastricht/Philadelphia, pp. 653–90. Evans C. A. 2004, ‘The Scripture of Jesus and His Earliest Followers’, in McDonald L. M. and Sanders J. A. (eds), The Canon Debate, Peabody (MA), pp. 185–95. Evans C. A. 2005, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature, Peabody (MA), pp. 342–409. Evans C. A. and Sanders J. A. 1993, Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts, Minneapolis (MN). Fabry H. J. 1999, ‘Die Qumrantexte und das biblische Kanonproblem’, in Beyerle S., Mayer G., and Strauss H. (eds), Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament—Gestalt und Wirkung, Neukirchen/Vluyn, pp. 251–71. Fabry H. J. 2013, ‘Beobachtungen zum Reflexionzitat Mt 4,15–16 (Jes 8,23–9,2)’, in de Vries J. and Karrer M. (eds), Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity/Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum, Atlanta (GA), pp. 219–36. Faulhaber M. 1899, Die propheten-Catenen nach römischen Handschriften, Freiburg im Breisgau. Faulhaber M. 1902, Hohelied-, Proverbien- und Prediger-Catenen, Vienna. Faulhaber M. 1909, ‘Katenen und Katenenforschung’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 18, pp. 383–95. Feissel D. 1984, ‘La Bible dans les inscriptions grecques’, in Mondésert C. (ed.), Le Monde ancien et la Bible, Paris, pp. 223–31. Felle A. E. 2006, Biblia epigraphica. La sacra scrittura nelle documentazione epigrafica dell’orbis christianus antiquus, Bari. Fernandez Marcos M. 1979, Introduccion a las versiones griegas de la Biblia, Madrid (= The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible, translated by Watson W. G. E., Leiden/Boston/London, 2000). Fernandez Marcos N. 1984, ‘The Lucianic Text in the Book of Kingdoms: from Lagarde to the Textual Pluralism’, in Pietersma A. and Cox C. (eds), De Septuaginta. Studies in Honour of John William Wevers, Mississauga, pp. 101–74.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



195

Fernandez Marcos N. and Busto Saiz J. R. 1989–1996, El texto antoquieno de la Biblia grega, I, 1–2 Samuel, Madrid, 1989, II, 1–2 Reyes, Madrid, 1992, III, 1–2 Cronicas, Madrid, 1996. Fernandez Marcos N. and Saenz-Badillos A. 1979, Theodoret Cyrensis Quaestiones in Octateuchum. Editio Critica, Madrid. Festugière A.-J. 1976, Les romans juifs: Tobit, Judith, Esther, Jonas, Apt. Flint P. W. 1997, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, Leiden/ New York/Cologne. Flusin B. 2006, ‘Un lettré byzantin au XIIe siècle: Jean Mésaritès’, in Mondrain B. (ed.), Lire et écrire à Byzance, Paris, pp. 67–83. Freed E. D. 1965, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John, Leiden. Frei P. 1984, ‘Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich’, in Frei P. and Koch K. (eds), Reichidee und Reichorganisation im Perserreich, Fribourg/ Göttingen, pp. 7–43. Gallagher E. 2012, Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory: Canon, Language, Text, Leiden. Gallagher E. L. 2013, ‘The Septuagint’s Fidelity to its Vorlage in Greek Patristic Thoughts’, in Peters M. K. H. (ed.), XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki, 2010, Atlanta (GA), pp. 663–76. Gallagher E. and Meade J. D. 2017, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis, Oxford. Geerard M. 1974–1983, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 5 vols, Turnhout. Geerard M. and Noret J. 1998, Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Supplementum, Turnhout. Gheorghita R. 2003, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, Tübingen. Ginsburg C. D. 1867, The Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita ( . . . ) in Hebrew with an English Translation, London. Gough H. 1855, New Testament Quotations Collected with the Scriptures of the Old Testament in the Original Hebrew and the Version of the LXX; and with the other Writings, Apocrypha, Talmud, and Classical, cited or alleged, London. Goulet R. 2000, ‘Jean Stobée’, in Goulet R. (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, III, Paris, pp. 1012–17. Grabe J. E. 1715, The History of the Seventy-two Interpreters, London. Grant Jones R. 2000, Notes in the Septuagint, https://www.aeropage.net/PDF/ LXXNotesFeb06.pdf. Grätz H. 1871, ‘Der alttestamentliche Kanon und sein Abschluss’, in Kohelet oder der salomonische Prediger, übersetz und kritisch erläutet, Leipzig, pp. 147–73. Grätz S. 2007, ‘The Second Temple and the Legal Status of the Torah: Two Hermeneutics of the Torah in the Books of Ruth and Ezra’, in Weis R. D. and Carr D. M. (eds), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of J. A. Sanders, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Sheffield, pp. 273–87. Grelot P. 2001, ‘Le texte du Psaume 39,7 dans la Septante’, Revue biblique 108, pp. 210–13. Gribomont J. 1985a, ‘Les plus anciennes traductions latines’, in Fontaine J. and Pietri C. (eds), Le monde latin antique et la Bible, Paris, pp. 43–65. Gribomont J. 1985b, ‘Cassiodore et la transmission de l’héritage biblique antique’, in Fontaine J. and Pietri C. (eds), Le monde latin antique et la Bible, Paris, pp. 143–52.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

196  Griffith S. 2008, ‘Les premières versions arabes de la Bible: les liens avec la Bible en syriaque’, in Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds), L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 221–45. Guinot J. N. 1995, ‘Théodoret de Cyr: une lecture critique de la Septante’, in Dorival G. and Munnich O. (eds), ‘Selon les Septante’. Hommage à Marguerite Harl, Paris, pp. 393–407. Gundry R. H. 1967, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, Leiden. Haelewyck J.-C. 2008, ‘Le canon de l’Ancien Testament dans la tradition syriaque (manuscrits bibliques, listes canoniques, auteurs)’, in Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds), L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 141–71. Hagedorn A. C. 2007, ‘Local Law in an Imperial Context: The Role of Torah in the (Imagined) Persian Period’, in Knoppers G. N. and Levinson B. M. (eds), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake (IN), pp. 57–76. Hagedorn D. and Hagedorn U. 1994–2004, Die älteren griechischen Katenen zum Buch Hiob, Patristiche Texte Studien 40, 48, 53, 59, Berlin. Hagner D. A. 1973, The Use of the Old and New Testament in Clement of Rome, Leiden. Hanhart R. 1974, Esdrae liber I, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottigensis editum, vol. 8 Band, 1, Göttingen. Hann R. R. 1982, The Manuscript History of the Psalms of Solomon, Chico (CA). Harl M. 1984, ‘Les modèles d’un temps chrétien idéal dans quelques récits de vie des Pères cappadociens’, in Le temps chrétien de la fin de l’Antiquité au Moyen Age, Paris, pp. 220–41. Harl M. with the collaboration of Dorival G. 1972, La chaîne palestinienne sur le psaume 118 (Origène, Eusèbe, Didyme, Apollinaire, Athanase, Théodoret), Sources chrétiennes 189/190, Paris. Harl M. with the collaboration of Meynadier B. and Pietrobelli A. 2014, Voix de louange. Les Cantiques bibliques dans la liturgie chrétienne, Paris. Harl M., Dorival G., and Munnich O. 1988, La Bible grecque des Septante. Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien, Paris, 1994². Hengel M. and Deines R. 1994, ‘Die Septuaginta als “christliche Schriftensammlung”, ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanons’, in Hengel M. and Schwemer A. M. (eds), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, Tübingen, pp. 182–284. Hengel M. 2002, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon, Edinburgh/New York. Hill R. C. 1998, St John Chrysostom: Commentary in the Psalms, Brookline (MA), vol. 1, pp. 5–8. Hody H. 1685, Contra historiam LXX Interpretum Aristeae nomine inscriptam dissertatio, Oxford. Holtz T. 1968, Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas, Berlin. Hooker M. D. 1979, Studying the New Testament, Minneapolis (MN). Hübner H. 1997a, Vetus Testamentum in Novo, vol. 1.2, Evangelium Johannis, Göttingen (updated revision of W. Dittmar).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



197

Hübner H. 1997b, Vetus Testamentum in Novo, vol. 2, Corpus Paulinum, Göttingen. Hühn E. 1900, Die alttestamentliche Citate und Reminiscenzen in Neuen Testament, Tübingen. Jacob C. 2001, ‘Fonder’, in Giard L. and Jacob C. (eds), Des Alexandries I. Du livre au texte, Paris, pp. 103–14. Jäger W. 1961, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, London/Oxford/New York. Jaubert A. 1971, Clément de Rome, Epître aux Corinthiens, Sources chrétiennes 167, Paris. Jobes K. and Silva H.-M. 2000, ‘Septuagint and New Testament’, in Invitation to the Septuagint, Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 183–205. Joosten J. 2008, ‘La Peshitta de l’Ancien Testament et les Targums’, in Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds), L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 91–100. Junod E. 1984, ‘La formation et la composition de l’Ancien Testament dans l’église grecque des quatre premiers siècles’, in Kaestli J.-D. and Wermelinger O. (eds), Le canon de l’Ancien Testament. Sa formation et son histoire, Geneva, pp. 105–51. Kaestli J. D. 2007, ‘La formation et la structure du canon biblique: que peut apporter l’étude de la Septante’, in Alexander P. S. and Kaestli J.-D. (eds), The Canon of Scripture in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Le canon des Ecritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne, Lausanne, pp. 99–113. Karo G. and Lietzmann I. 1902, ‘Catenarum graecarum Catalogus’, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttigen philologisch-historische Klasse, pp. 1–66, 299–350, 559–620. Karrer M. 2010, ‘LXX Psalm 39:7–10 in Hebrews 10:5–7’, in Human D. J. and Steyn G. (eds), Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception, New York, pp. 126–46. Karrer M. 2016, ‘Der Septuaginta-Text im frühen Christentum’, in Kreuzer S. (ed.), Einteitung in die Septuaginta, Handbuch zur Septuaginta/Handbook of the Septuagint, vol. 1, Gütersloh, pp. 663–77. Karrer M., Schmid U., and Sigismund M. 2008, ‘Das lukanischen Doppelwerk als Zeuge für den LXX-Text des Jesaja-Buches’, in Ausloos H. et al. (eds), Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino Garcia Martinez, Leuven, pp. 253–274. Kasser R. 1967, Papyrus Bodmer XXIV. Psaumes XVII-CXVIII, Cologny, Geneva. Kee H. C. 1975, ‘The Function of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark 11–16’, in Ellis E. E. and Grässer E. (eds), Jesus und Paulus, Göttingen, pp. 165–88. Kinzig W. 1988, Asterius Amasenus, Asterius Sophista oder Asterius Ignotus? Studien zur Autorschaft der Psalmenhomilien ed. Marcel Richard, Heidelberg. Kinzig W. 1990, In Search of Asterius. Studies on the Authorship of the Homilies on the Psalms, Göttingen. Koch D.-A. 1986, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangelium: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis des Schrift bei Paulus, Tübingen. Koster M. 2008, ‘Le décalogue dans la Peshitta. A la recherche de “la” Peshitta’, in Briquel Chatonner F. and Le Moigne P. (eds), L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 33–60.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

198  Kratz P. 2007, ‘Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran’, in Weis R. D. and Carr D. M. (eds), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of J. A. Sanders, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Sheffield, pp. 77–103. Krikonis Kh. 1973, Συναγωγη πατερων εις το κατα Λουκαν ευαγγελιον υπο Νικητα Ηρακλειας (κατα τον κωδικα Ιβηρων 371), Thessaloniki. Kugel J. 1990, ‘David the Prophet’, in Poetry and Prophecy, Ithaca (NY), pp. 45–55. La Bonnardière A.-M. 1986, ‘Augustin a-t-il utilisé la “Vulgate” de Jérôme?’, in La Bonnardière A.-M. (ed.), Saint Augustin et la Bible, Paris, pp. 303–12. Labate A. 1979, ‘La catena sull’Ecclesiaste del cod. Barb. Gr. 388’, Augustinianum 19, pp. 333–339. Labate A. 1992, Catena Hauniensis in Ecclesiasten in qua saepe exegesis servatur Dionyssi Alexandrini nunc primum edita, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 24, Turnhout/Leuven. Lampe G. W. H. 1961, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford. Lang B. 1998, ‘The “Writings”: A Hellenistic Literary Canon in the Hebrew Bible’, in van der Kooij A., and van der Toorn K. (eds), Canonization and Decanonization, Leiden/Boston/Cologne, pp. 41–65. Lange A. 2004, ‘From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library’, in Helmer C. and Landmeser C. (eds), One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives, Oxford, pp. 51–107. Lange A. 2008, ‘ “The Law, the Prophets and the Other Books of the Fathers” (Sir, prologue). Canonical Lists in Ben Sira and Elsewhere?’, in Xeravits G. G. and Zsengeller J. (eds), Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, Leiden/Boston, pp. 55–80. Law T. M. 2008, ‘La version syro-hexaplaire et la transmission textuelle de la Bible hébraïque’, in Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds), L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 101–20. Law T. M. 2013, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible, Oxford. Leanza S. 1978, Procopii Gazaei Catena in Ecclesiasten necnon Pseudochrysostomi Commentarius in eundem Ecclesiasten, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 4, Turnhout/Leuven. Leanza S. 1983, Un nuovo testimone della catena sull’Ecclesiaste di Procopio di Gaza: il Cod. Vindo. Theol. Gr. 147, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 4 Supplementum, Turnhout/Leuven. Leiman S. E. 1976, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence, Hamden (CT). Levita E. 1538, see Ginsburg C. D. Lewis J. P. 1964, ‘What Do We Mean by Jabneh?’, Journal of Bible and Religion 32, pp. 125–32. Lewis J. P. 2004, ‘Jamnia Revisited’, in McDonald L. M. and Sanders J. A. (eds), The Canon Debate, Peabody (MA), pp. 146–62. Lietzmann H. 1897, Catenen. Mitteilungen uber ihre Geschichte und handschriftliche Ueberlieferung, mit einem Beitrag von H. Usener, Freiburg im Breisgau.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



199

Lightstone J. N. 2004, ‘The Rabbis’ Bible: The Canon of the Hebrew Bible and the Early Rabbinic Guild’, in McDonald L. M. and Sanders J. A. (eds), The Canon Debate, Peabody (MA), pp. 163–84. Lim T. 2013, The Formation of the Jewish Canon, New Haven/London. Lucà S. 1983, Anonymus in Ecclesiasten Commentarius qui dicitur Catena Trium Patrum, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 11, Turnhout/Leuven. Lust J. 1997, ‘Mic 5, 1–3 in Qumran and in the New Testament, and Messianism in the Septuagint’, in Tuckett C. M. (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven, pp. 65–88. Malamoud C. 2001, ‘Le corpus védique’, in Giard L. and Jacob C. (eds), Des Alexandries I. Du livre au texte, Paris pp. 135–48. Markschies C. 2003, ‘The Canon of the New Testament in Antiquity: Some New Horizons for Future Research’, in Finkelberg M. and Stroumsa G. G. (eds), Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World, Leiden/ Boston, pp. 175–94. Mason S. 2004, ‘Josephus and his Twenty-two Book Canon’, in McDonald L. M. and Sanders J. A. (eds), The Canon Debate, Peabody (MA), pp. 110–27. May G. 1978, Schöpfung aus dem Nichts. Die Entstehung der Lehre von der creatio ex nihilo, Berlin (English translation 1994, Creation ex nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought, Edinburgh). McCalman Turpie D. 1868, The Old Testament in the New: A Contribution to Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, London/Edinburgh. McDonald L. M. 1995, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, Peabody (MA). McDonald L. M. 2007, The Formation of the Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, Peabody (MA). McDonald L. M. 2017, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, Volume 1: The Old Testament: Its Authority and Canonicity, London/New York. McLay R. T. 2003, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research, Grand Rapids (MI). McLay R. T. 2007, ‘The Use of the Septuagint in the New Testament’, in McDonald L. M. (ed.), The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, Peabody (MA), pp. 224–40. Meade J. 2019, A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Job 22–42, Leuven. Mehat A. 1971, ‘L’hypothèse des “Testimonia” à l’épreuve des Stromates. Remarques sur les citations de l’Ancien Testament chez Clément d’Alexandrie’, in Benoit A. and Prigent P. (eds), La Bible et les Pères, Strasbourg, pp. 229–42. Menken M. J. J. 1996, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form, Kampen. Menken M. J. J. 1997, ‘The Use of the Septuagint in Three Quotations in John 10,34; 12,38; 19,24’, in Tuckett C. M. (ed.), The Scripture in the Gospels, Leuven, pp. 367–93. Menken M. J. J. 2001, ‘The Sources of Old Testament Quotations in Matthew 2:23’, Journal of Biblical Literature 120, pp. 451–68.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

200  Menken M. J. J. 2004, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, Leuven. Menken M. J. J. and Moyise S. (eds) 2004, Isaiah in the New Testament, London/ New York. Menken M. J. J. and Moyise S. (eds) 2005, The Minor Prophets in the New Testament, London/New York. Menken M. J. J. and Moyise S. (eds) 2005, The Psalms in the New Testament, London/ New York. Menken M. J. J. and Moyise S. (eds) 2007, Deuteronomy in the New Testament, London/New York. Mercati G. 1952, Alla ricerca dei nomi degli ‘altri’ traduttori nelle omilie sui Salmi di S. Giovanni Crisostomo e variazoni su alcune catene del Salterio, Studi e Testi 158, Vatican. Metzler K. 2015, Prokop von Gaza, Eclogarum in Libros historicos Veteris Testamenti Epitome, Part 1: Der Genesiskommentar, Die griechischen chistlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Neue Folge 22, Berlin/Munich/Boston. Metzler K. 2016, Prokop von Gaza, Der Genesiskommentar übersetz und mit Anmerkungen, Die griechischen chistlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Neue Folge 23, Berlin/Munich/Boston. Mez A. 1895, Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht für Buch V–VII der Archäologie, Basel. Millard M., Heider K., Klein C., and Veldboer C. 2013, ‘Verweise in der Handausgabe von Rahlfs/Hanhart und der Göttinger Ausgabe der Septuaginta auf das Neue Testament’, in de Vries J. and Karrer M. (eds), Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity. Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum, Atlanta (GA), pp. 153–68. Moreau M. 1986, ‘Sur un commentaire d’Amos. De doctrina christiana IV, VII, 13–21 sur Amos VI, 1–6’, in La Bonnadière A.-M. (ed.), Saint Augustin et la Bible, Paris, pp. 313–22. Morlet S. 2009, La Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée. Etude sur l’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, Paris. Mroczek E. 2016, The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity, Oxford. Mühlenberg E. 1975–1978, Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenuberlieferung, vol. 1: Patristiche Texte Studien 15, Berlin/New York, 1975; vol. 2: Patristiche Texte Studien 16, Berlin/New York, 1977; vol. 3: Untersuchungen zu den Psalmenkatenen, Patristiche Texte Studien 19, Berlin/New York, 1978. Munnich O. 1995, ‘Les Hexaples d’Origène à la lumière de la tradition manuscrite de la Bible grecque’, in Dorival G. and Le Boulluec A. (eds), Origeniana sexta. Origène et la Bible. Origen and the Bible, Leuven, pp. 167–85. Munnich O. 2008, ‘La Peshitta d’Esther: ses relations avec le texte massorétique et la Septante’, in Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds), L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 75–90. Munnich O. 2017, ‘Le texte scripturaire d’Irénée, témoin d’un état ancien de la Bible grecque et de reformulations néotestamentaires’, in Bastit A. and Verheyden J. (eds), Irénée de Lyon et les débuts de la Bible chrétienne. Actes de la journée du 1. VII. 2014 à Lyon, Paris, pp. 63–82.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



201

Nagy G. 2001, ‘Homère comme modèle classique pour la bibliothèque antique: les métaphores du corpus et du cosmos’, in Giard L. and Jacob C. (eds), Des Alexandries I. Du livre au texte, Paris, pp. 149–61. Nauroy G. 1985, ‘L’Ecriture dans la pastorale d’Ambroise de Milan’, in Fontaine J. and Pietri C. (eds), Le monde latin antique et la Bible, Paris, pp. 371–408. Nautin P. and Guéraud O. 1979, Origène, Sur la Pâque, Paris. Nicole R. 1958, ‘New Testament Use of the Old Testament’, in Henry C. F. H. (ed.), Revelation and the Bible, Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 137–8. Norelli E. 2007, ‘La notion de “mémoire” nous aide-t-elle à mieux comprendre la formation du canon du Nouveau Testament?’, in Alexander P. S. and Kaestli J.-D. (eds), The Canon of Scripture in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Le canon des Ecritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne, Lausanne, pp. 169–206. Noth M. 1942, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Halle. Olivier J.-M. 1980, Diodori Tarsensis Commentarii in Psalmos I Commentarii in Psalmos I-L, Leuven/Turnhout, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 6, pp. XCIV–C. Outtier B. 2008, ‘L’Ancien Testament a-t-il été traduit en arménien et géorgien du syriaque’, in Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds), L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 215–20. Parker D. C. and Birdsall J. N. 2004, ‘The Date of Codex Zacynthius: A New Proposal’, The Journal of Theological Studies 55, pp. 117–31. Pasini J. 1749, Codices manuscripti Bibliothecae Regii Taurinensis Athenaei. Per linguas digesti, et binas in partes distributi, in quarum prima hebraei, et graeci, in altera latini, italici et gallici . . . , t. I, Turin, pp. 190–3. Petit F. 1986, Catenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum. II Collectio Coisliniana, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 15, Turnhout/Leuven. Petit F. 1991–1996, La chaîne sur la Genèse. Edition intégrale, I. Chapitres 1 à 3, Leuven, 1991, II. Chapitre 4 à 11, Leuven, 1993, III. Chapitres 12 à 28, Leuven, 1995, IV. Chapitres 29 à 50, Leuven, 1996. Petit F. 1999–2001, La chaîne sur l’Exode. Edition intégrale, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 9–11, 3 vols, Leuven/Paris/Sterling. Pietersma A. and Wright B. G. (eds) 2007, A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title, New York/Oxford. Porter S. E. 1997, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology’, in Evans C. A. and Sanders J. A. (eds), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, Sheffield, pp. 79–86. Pouderon B. 1992, ‘Appendice VII. Les citations scripturaires et leurs sources’, in Athénagore, Supplique au sujet des chrétiens et De la résurrection des morts, Paris, Sources chrétiennes 379, pp. 341–3. Pouderon B. 2017, ‘Quelques hypothèses sur l’origine des citations d’Isaïe et des Psaumes chez Justin: lecture directe ou emprunts à des florilèges?’, in Barone F., Mace C., and Ubierna P. A. (eds), Philologie, herméneutique et histoire des textes

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

202  entre Orient et Occident. Mélanges en hommage à Sever J. Voicu, Turnhout, pp. 467–88. Prigent P. 1961, Les testimonia dans le christianisme primitif. L’Epître de Barnabé I— XVI et ses sources, Paris. Qimron E. and Strugnell J. 1994, Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah, Discoveries in the Judean Desert 10, Oxford. Rahlfs A., 1907, Septuaginta-Studien, 2. Heft Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters, Göttingen. Rahlfs A. 1911, ‘Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher’, Septuaginta-Studien III, Göttingen, pp. 351–658. Rahlfs A. 1914, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, Berlin. Rahlfs A. 1931, Psalmi cum Odis, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottigensis editum, vol. 10, Göttingen, 1973³. Rahlfs A. 1935, Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, 2 vols, Stuttgart, revised and corrected edition by Hanhart R., Stuttgart, 2006 [around a thousand minor corrections]. Rahlfs A. and Fraenkel D. 2004, Supplementum. Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, vol. 1: 1 Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert, Göttingen. Rendel Harris J. and Burch V. 1916–1920, Testimonies, 2 vols, Cambridge. Reuss J. 1941, ‘Matthäus-, Markus- und Iohannes-Katenen nach den handschriftlichen Quellen untersucht’, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen XVIII, 4–5, pp. 8–117. Rhunken 1768, Historia Critica Oratorum Graecorum, Leiden. Richard M. 1956, ‘Les premières chaînes sur le psautier’, Bulletin d’information de l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes 5, pp. 87–98. Richard M. 1958, Asterii Sophistae Commentariorum in Psalmos quae supersunt, accedunt aliquot homiliae anonymae, Oslo. Rodgers Z. 2012, ‘Josephus’s Biblical Interpretation’, in Henze M. (ed.), A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, Grand Rapids (MI)/ Cambridge, pp. 436–66. Römer T. 2001, ‘La fin de l’historiographie deutéronomiste et le retour de l’Hexateuque’, Theologische Zeitschrift 57, pp. 269–80. Römer T. 2007, ‘La mort de Moïse (Deut 34) et la naissance de la première partie du canon biblique’, in Alexander P. S. and Kaestli J.-D. (eds), The Canon of Scripture in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Le canon des Ecritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne, Lausanne, pp. 27–39. Rondeau M.-J. 1985, Les Commentaires patristiques du Psautier (IIIe–Ve siècles), vol. 2: Exégèse prosopologique et théologie, Rome. Rüger P. 1984, ‘Le Siracide: un livre à la frontière du canon’, in Kaestli J.-D. and Wermelinger O. (eds), Le canon de l’Ancien Testament. Sa formation et son histoire, Geneva, pp. 47–69. Rüsen-Weinhold U. 2004, Der Septuagintapsalter im Neuen Testament. Ein textgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Neukirchen/Vluyn.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



203

Ryle H. E. 1892, The Canon of the Old Testament: An Essay on the Gradual Growth and Formation of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture, London. Salvesen A. 2008, ‘La version de Jacques d’Edesse’, in Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds), L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 121–39. Sanders J. A. 1993, ‘From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4’, in Evans C. A. and Sanders J. A. (eds), Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts, Minneapolis (MN). Sanders J. A. 2004, ‘The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process’, in McDonald L. M. and Sanders J. A. (eds), The Canon Debate, Peabody (MA), pp. 252–63. Saxer V. 1985, ‘La Bible chez les Pères latins du IIIe siècle’, in Fontaine J. and Pietri C. (eds), Le monde latin antique et la Bible, Paris, pp. 339–69. Schenker A. 1975, Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchstüke. Die hexaplarischen Psalmenfragmente der Handschriften Vaticanus graecus 752 und Canonicianus graecus 62, Fribourg/Göttingen. Schenker A. 1982, Psalmen in den Hexapla. Erste kritische und vollständige Ausgabe der hexaplarische Fragmente auf dem Rande der Handschrift Ottobonianus graecus 398 zu den Ps. 24–52, Studi e Testi 295, Vatican. Schenker A. 2008, ‘Le tournant dans l’histoire du texte de la Peshitta. Des livres des Rois au VIIIe siècle: une nouvelle édition?’, in Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds), L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 61–73. Schiffman L. 1996, ‘The Place of 4QMMT in the Corpus of Qumran Manuscripts’, in Kampen J. and Bernstein M. J. (eds), Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History, Atlanta (GA), pp. 81–98. Schmid K. 2007, ‘The Persian Imperial Authorization as a Historical Problem and as a Biblical Construct: A Plea for Distinctions in the Current Debate’, in Knoppers G. N. and Levinson B. M. (eds), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake (IN), pp. 23–38. Schmidt D. 1991, ‘Semitisms and Septuagintalisms in the Book of Revelation’, New Testament Studies 37, pp. 592–603. Schneider H. 1949, ‘Die biblischen Oden seit dem sechtsten Jahrhundert’, Biblica 30, pp. 28–65, 239–72, 433–52. Semler J. S. 1771, Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons I, Halle. Shires H. M. 1974, Finding the Old Testament in the New, Philadelphia (PA). Sickenberger J. 1901, Titus von Bostra. Studien zu dessen Lukashomelien, Texte und Untersuchungen, Neue Folge VI,1, Leipzig. Siegert F. 2003, Zwischen hebräischer Bible und Alten Testament. Eine Einführung in die Septuaginta, 2 vols, Münster/Hamburg/Berlin/London. Simon R. 1685, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, Rotterdam. Skarsaune O. 1987, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-text Tradition: Text-type, Provenance, Theological Profile, Leiden. Smith D. M. 1988, ‘The Pauline Literature’, in Carson D. A. and Williamson H. G. M. (eds), It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, Cambridge, pp. 265–91. Smith J. Z. 1998, ‘Canon Catalogues and Classics’, in van der Kooij A. and van der Toorn K. (eds), Canonization and Decanonization, Leiden/Boston/Cologne, pp. 295–311.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

204  Smits C. 1952–1963, Oud-testamentische citaten in het Nieuwe Testament. vol. 1: Synoptische Evangeliën, Malmberg, 1952; vol. 2: Handelingen van de Apostolen, Evangelie van Johannes, Apocalyps en Kathlolieke brieven, Malmberg, 1955; vol. 3: De Brieven van Paulus, Malmberg, 1957; vol. 4: De Brief aan de Hebreeën, Het Oude Testament in het Nieuwe, Algemene beschouwingen, Malmberg, 1963. Spanneut M. 1961, ‘La Bible d’Eustathe d’Antioche—contribution à l’histoire de la “version lucianique” ’, in Cross L. (ed.), Studia Patristica 4, Texte und Untersuchungen 79, Berlin, pp. 171–90. Sperber A. 1940, ‘New Testament and Septuagint’, Journal of Biblical Literature 59, pp. 193–213. Spicq C. 1952, Epître aux Hébreux, Paris, I, pp. 330–58. St. John Thackeray H. 1929, Josephus, the Man and the Historian, New York. Staab K. 1926, Die Pauluskatenen nach den handschriftliche Quellen untersucht, Rome. Stanley C. D. 1992, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, Cambridge. Stanton G. 1988 ‘Matthew’, in Carson D. A. and Williamson H. G. M. (eds), It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, Cambridge, pp. 205–19. Steck O. H. 1991, Die Abschluss der Prophetie im Alten Testament. Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons, Neukirche/Vluyn. Steinberg J. and Stone T. J. 2015, The Shape of the Writings, Winona Lake (IN). Stemberger G. 2004, ‘La formation et la conception du canon dans la pensée rabbinique’, in Norelli E. (ed.), Recueils normatifs et canons dans l’Antiquité. Perspectives nouvelles sur la formation des canons juif et chrétien dans leur contexte culturel, Lausanne, pp. 113–31. Stendahl K. 1954, The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament, Lund/ Copenhagen. Stern D. 1998, ‘On Canonization in Rabbinic Judaism’, in van der Kooij A. and van der Toorn K. (eds), Canonization and Decanonization, Leiden/Boston/Cologne, pp. 227–52. Steyn G. J. 1995, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, Kampen. Steyn G. J. 2011, A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews, Göttingen. Stökl Ben Ezra D. 2008, ‘Canonization—a Non-Linear Process? Observing the Process of Canonization through the Christian (and Jewish) Papyri from Egypt’, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 12, pp. 193–214. Strecker G. 1962, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, Göttingen. Sundberg A. C. 1964, The Old Testament in the Early Church, Cambridge (MA)/ London. Swete H. B. 1902, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge, reprint New York, 1968. Talmon S. 2002, ‘The Crystallization of the “Canon of Hebrew Scriptures” in the Light of Biblical Scrolls from Qumran’, in Herbert E. D. and Tov E. (eds), The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, London, pp. 5–20.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi



205

Ter Haar Romeny B. 2008, ‘La réception des versions syriaques de la Bible: l’apport des citations patristiques’, in Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds), L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 173–91. Thomas K. J. 1964–1965, ‘The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews’, New Testament Studies 11, pp. 303–25. Torrey C. C. 1945, The Apocryphal Literature, New Haven (CT). Tov E. 1972, ‘Lucian and Proto-Lucian: Towards a New Solution of the Problem’, Revue biblique 79, pp. 101–13. Tov E. 2011, ‘The Septuagint between Judaism and Christianity’, in Caulley T. S. and Lichtenberger H. (eds), Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum. The Septuagint and Christian Origins, Tübingen, pp. 3–25. Toy C. H. 1884, Quotations in the New Testament, Boston (MA). Trebolle Barrera J. 1998, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible, Leiden/New York/ Cologne. Trudinger P. L. 1966, ‘Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation’, Journal of Theological Studies 17, pp. 82–8. Tuckett C. M. (ed.) 1997, The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven. Turner E. G. 1977, The Typology of the Early Codex, Philadelphia (PA). Ulrich E. 2003a, ‘The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT’, Classical Biblical Quarterly 65, pp. 202–14. Ulrich E. 2003b, ‘Qumran and the Canon of the Old Testament’, in Auwers J.-M. and de Jonge A. J. (eds), The Biblical Canons, Leuven, pp. 57–80. Ulrich E. 2015, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible, Leiden/Boston, particularly p. 265–308 (‘The Road Towards Canon’), 309–16 (‘Conclusion’). Vaccari A. 1942, ‘Testo dei Salmi nel commento di Teodoro Mopsuesteno’, Biblica 23, pp. 1–17. Vahrenhorst M. 2013, ‘Die Text der Septuaginta in der Zitaten des 1. Petrusbriefs’, in de Vries J. and Karrer M. (eds), Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity. Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum, Atlanta (GA), pp. 259–76. van der Kooij A. 1998, ‘The Canonization of Ancient Books Kept in the Temple of Jerusalem’, in van der Kooij A. and van der Toorn K. (eds), Canonization and Decanonization, Leiden/Boston/Cologne, pp. 18–40. van der Kooij A. 2003, ‘Canonization of Ancient Hebrew Books and Hasmonean Politics’, in Auwers J.-M. and de Jonge H. J. (eds), The Biblical Canons, Leuven, pp. 27–38. van der Kooij A. 2013, ‘The Septuagint, the Recension of Theodotion, and Beyond: Comments on the Quotations of Isaiah 42 in Matthew 12’, in de Vries J. and Karrer M. (eds), Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity/ Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum, Atlanta (GA), pp. 201–18. van Haelst J. 1976, Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens, Paris. van Peursen W. 2008, ‘La diffusion des manuscrits bibliques conservés: typologie, organisation, nombre et époques de copie’, in Briquel Chatonnet F. and Le Moigne P. (eds), L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, Paris, pp. 193–214.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

206  VanderKam J. C. 1998, ‘Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, Dead Sea Discoveries 5, pp. 382–402. VanderKam J. C. 2002, ‘Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period’, in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature, Leiden, pp. 4–11. Vardi A. D. 2003, ‘Canons of Literary Texts at Rome’, in M. Finkelberg and Stroumsa G. G. (eds), Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World, Leiden/Boston, pp. 131–52. Veldhuis N. 2003, ‘Mesopotamian Canons’, in Finkelberg M. and Stroumsa G. G. (eds), Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World, Leiden/Boston, pp. 9–28. Vercruysse J.-M. 2004, Tyconius. Le livre des règles, Paris, Sources chrétiennes 488. Vianès L. 1996, La chaîne monophysite sur Ezéchiel 36–48 (Typewritten PhD), Paris. Vollandt R. 2015, Arabic Versions of the Pentateuch: A Comparative Study of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Sources, Leiden/Boston, pp. 40–89 (Chapter 2 The Rise of Arabic Translations, specially pp. 46–8). Wagner J. R. 2002, Heralds of the Good News: Paul and Isaiah in Concert in the Letter to the Romans, Leiden. Walser G. A. 2013, Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews. Studies in their Textual and Contextual Background, Tübingen. Westcott B. F. and Hort F. J. A. 1881, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Cambridge. Wilcox M. 1988, ‘Text Form’, in Carson D. A. and Williamson H. G. M. (eds), It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, Cambridge, pp. 193–204. Wildeboer G. 1889, Het Ontstaan van den Kanon des Ouden Verbonds, Groningen (German translation in 1891, English one in 1895, and French one in 1901). Wilk F. 2006, ‘The Letters of Paul as Witnesses to and for the Septuagint Text’, in Kraus W. and Wooden R. G. (eds), Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, Leiden, pp. 253–71. Zevit Z. 1998, ‘The Second-third-century Canonization in the Hebrew Bible and its Influence on Christian Canonizing’, in van der Kooij A. and van der Toorn K. (eds), Canonization and Decanonization, Leiden/Boston/Cologne, pp. 133–60. Ziegler J. 1930, Isaias, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, vol. XIV, Göttingen, 1967². Zsengeller J. 1998, ‘Canon and the Samaritans’, in van der Kooij A. and van der Toorn K. (eds), Canonization and Decanonization, Leiden/Boston/Cologne, pp. 161–71. Zuntz G. 1938–1939, ‘Die Aristophanes-Scholien des Papyri’, Byzantion, 13, pp. 631–90; 14, pp. 545–614.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 20/5/2021, SPi

Index of Biblical Quotations Old Testament Genesis 14, 28, 46, 54, 64, 118, 125, 136–40, 141–3, 148, 156–7, 165–6, 182, 186 1:1 131 1:1–2:6 121 1:2 128, 180 2:2 101, 130 3:1–19 128 4:1–7 122 4:3 119 4:4 119 4:7 129, 179 4:13 179 6:18 118 9:9. 12. 13. 15. 16 118 10:29 24, 40 14:13 121 14:14 130, 180 15:18 118 17:2. 4. 7. 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. 19. 21 118 21:27 118 24:6 122 26:28 118 31:13 130 31:44 118 36:33–34 40, 73 46:27 54 50:25 12 Exodus 13, 14, 125, 141, 143 3 125 9:16 78 10:28 122 13:19 12 15:1–19 75 17:16 130, 180 23:21 122

24:4–7 12 34:12 122 39:18 113 Leviticus 14, 47, 54, 120, 125 7:12 119 22:2 119 23:7 119 Numbers 14, 28, 54, 125 4:19 119 Deuteronomy 12, 13, 14, 19, 28, 31, 54, 122, 125 4:9. 23 122 6:12 122 8:11 122 11:16 122 12:13. 19. 30 122 15:9 122 18:18–19 17 19:14 112 24:8 122 29:18 79 31:7 81 32:1–43 75 32:43 65 34:10–12 13, 26 Jesus (= Joshua MT) 4, 12, 13, 15, 27, 31, 44, 45 Judges 5, 12, 21, 23, 27, 29, 31, 44, 45 13:5. 7 62 Ruth 5, 10, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 44, 45, 47, 142, 147, 172 4:18 81 4:21 81 4:22 81 1–4 Reigns (= 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings MT) 24, 29, 45, 64, 125 1–2 Reigns (= 1–2 Samuel MT) 44

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 20/5/2021, SPi

208     3–4 Reigns (= 1–2 Kings MT) 44 1 Reigns (= 1 Samuel MT) 2:1–10 75 21:1–7 46, 125 2 Reigns (= 2 Samuel MT) 9:18 87 3 Reigns (= 1 Kings MT) 7:34 119 4 Reigns (= 2 Kings MT) 22-23 12 1–2 Paraleipomena (= 1–2 Chronicles) 24, 25, 27, 29, 44–7, 125, 147 1 Paraleipomena (= 1 Chronicles) 16:26 103 25:1 24 2 Paraleipomena (= 2 Chronicles) 17:7–9 12 33:10–18 76 1–2 Esdras 29, 45, 46 1 Esdras (= 3 Ezra Vulgate) 37, 39, 47, 59, 60, 70, 98 2 Esdras (= Ezra-Nehemiah MT) 13, 24, 47, 70 4:8–6:18 9 7:11–28 13 7:12–26 9 18:2 15 18:18 15 19:24–31 28 Esther 11, 16, 21, 25, 37–9, 44–5, 71–2, 90, 171, 173, 175 1:1a-1r 40, 72 3:13a-13g 40, 72 4:16 40 4:17a-17z 40, 72 5:1a-1f 40, 72 5:2a-2b 40, 72 8:12a-12x 40, 72 8:12d 121 10:3a-3l 40, 72 Judith 37, 39, 45, 47, 59, 60, 70–1, 98, 117 Tobit 11, 37, 39, 45, 47, 59, 60, 70–1, 98, 117, 179 1:12 37 4:12. 14 122

12:7 126 13 37 14 37 1–4 Maccabees 39, 60, 70, 98, 117 1–3 Maccabees 39 1–2 Maccabees 39, 45–7 1 Maccabees 37, 39, 59, 70–1, 105 2 Maccabees 70, 73 1:1–2:18 37, 70 2:13 15 2:13–14 17 2:13–15 42, 174 2:19–32 37 2:27 121 7 127, 180 7:6 73 7:9. 11. 14. 23. 29 41, 73 7:14 88 7:20 73 12:43–44 88 15:9 8, 42, 46, 171 3 Maccabees 37, 39, 70 2:2 119 4 Maccabees 37, 47, 71 18:10–19 23, 28 18:16 25 Psalms (according to the Septuagint) 5, 10, 15, 19, 25, 28–9, 39, 40–1, 43–6, 62, 64, 71, 74–5, 79, 81, 85–8, 90, 99, 101, 103–4, 109, 112, 114, 119, 123, 129, 131, 137, 141, 143–4, 149, 151–2, 155–6, 158, 160, 165–7, 169, 173, 175, 178, 182–6 1 154 1:5 88 2 151 3:4 112 5:10 41, 74, 79 9:28 41, 74 13, 2b 81 13:3 41, 74, 77, 90, 173, 175 13:7 67 17:45a 81, 86 21 151 21:9 82

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 20/5/2021, SPi

    27:9 119 28:3 123 30:6c 82 32:6 131 34:2 119 35:2b 41, 74 37:14a 79, 87, 89 37:21c 79, 87, 89 38:6 121 39:7 83, 85, 90 43:3 119 45:11 123, 179 48 151 49:6 89 49:14. 23 119 50:9a 87, 89 52:3b 81 65:1a 87 67:19 83 68:10 80, 84 68:23b 81 69:26 80 77:2 126, 179 78:8 119 82:6 28 87:11 88 88:48 121 89:4ab 81 90:12 81 94:9b 81 94:9b-10a 84 94:10c 84 95:10a 87, 90 101:27c 84 103:4b 85 103:6 112 105:20 79, 82, 85 106:29a 85 108:8 79, 80, 82, 86, 89, 90 109:4b 79 117:22 66 118 111, 166, 185–6 118:120a 89 118:139a 80, 89, 90 118:164 131

209

131:11b 82 138:15 121 139:4b 41, 74 150 154 151 41, 74, 173 Odes 41, 74, 75–7, 87, 141, 175 Proverbs 43–5, 148, 150, 152, 157, 171, 182 1:6 126 8:22 131 28:11 64 Ecclesiastes (= Qohelet MT) 5, 8, 16, 19, 21, 25, 43–5, 143, 148–9, 152, 157, 171, 182 Song of Songs 16, 25, 29, 31, 43–5, 128–9, 141, 143–4, 148–9, 152, 157, 164–6, 171, 182, 186 1:1–6:9 164 1:8 123 6:10–12 164 7:14c 165 8:2c 164 Job 4, 23–5, 29, 31, 40, 43–5, 54, 64, 71, 141, 143, 157, 160 42:17 40–1, 72–3, 77, 87, 90, 173, 175, 185 Wisdom of Solomon 37–9, 44, 46–7, 59, 60, 70–1, 98–9, 117, 157 11:17 129 16:28 121 Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach (= Ecclesiasticus or Ben Sira) 38–9, 46–7, 59, 60, 70–1, 97–8, 117, 157 Prolog 17–8 37:11 121 44–50 171 48:20–22 8 49:4–7 8 49:8–9 8 49:10 8 50:2a 30 Psalms of Solomon 37, 39, 60, 70 Twelve Minor Prophets 8, 10, 25, 27, 29, 44–6, 171 Oses (= Hosea MT) 64

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 20/5/2021, SPi

210     Amos 6:1–6 107 9:12 79 Michaias (= Micah MT) 5:2 81 Joel 2:28 79 2:29 79 2:30 79 Ionas (= Johah MT) 2:3–10 75 Ambakoum (= Habakkuk MT) 1:5 79 2:3–4 65 3:2–19 75 Sophonias (= Zephaniah MT) 1:12a 89 3:8 88 Aggaios (= Haggai MT) 31 Zacharias (= Zechariah MT) 31, 105 9:9 66 11:12 81 11:13 81 12:10 66, 79, 81 13:7 79 Malachias (= Malachi MT) 31 3:1 79 3:22–24 26 Esaias (= Isaiah MT) 28–9, 31, 34, 44–7, 62, 67, 79, 99, 101, 104, 123, 147–8, 152, 171 5:1–9 76 6:2–3 119 6:3 120 7:14 62, 109 8:18 79 9:1 79 9:2 79, 81 10:22 79 10:23 79, 81 21:9 81 25:8 64, 67 26:9b-20 75 28:9–11 123, 179 28:11–12 28

28:16 79 29:10 79 29:14 79 35:4 66 38:10–20 75 40:4 79 40:5 81 40:6 79 40:7 79 40:9 66 40:13 79 42:1 79 42:2 79, 81 42:3 81 42:4 79, 81, 85 45:23 79 48:20–22 8 49:6 79 52:5 79 52:7 79, 81 52:11 79 56:7 81 57:15 119 58:6 63 58:7a 41, 74 59:7c 41, 74 59:8a 41, 74 59:20 67, 79 66:1 79 61:1–2 63 61:2 81 62:11 66 65:1 79 Jeremias (= Jeremiah MT) 4, 5, 8, 11, 23, 27, 29, 31, 40, 44–7, 64, 72, 98, 142, 148, 152–4, 171, 173, 175, 184 15:10 110–1 38:15 79 38:32 81 Baruch 40, 47, 59, 60, 72, 98, 117, 142, 173 1:1–3:8 40, 72 3:9–5:9 40, 72 Lamentations 10, 21, 23, 25, 31, 141–2, 172

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 20/5/2021, SPi

    Epistle of Jeremias 11, 40, 47, 72, 98, 173 Ezekiel 5, 8, 16, 27–9, 41, 44–6, 99, 101, 152–3, 171, 183 9:3–4 111, 178 23:28 81 Susanna 39, 40, 47, 71, 98, 109, 117, 149 Daniel 5, 9, 10, 24–6, 28–9, 39, 40, 44–6, 67, 71–2, 90, 98–9, 101–2, 104, 127, 152, 173, 175 2:4–7:28 9 3:24–25. 46–51 71 3:26–45 71, 75 3:52–90 71, 75 11:20 88 Bel and the dragon 40, 47, 71, 98, 127 New Testament Four Gospels 54, 61, 117–8 Matthew 53–4, 56, 61–2, 79, 95, 131, 142–3, 174 1:22–23 61 2:5–6 61 2:6 66 2:15 61 2:22 9 2:23 60–2 4:6 81 4:14–16 61 5:17 28 7:12 28 8:17 61 8:26 85 12:1–8 124 12:17–21 61 12:21 85 13:14–15 61 13:55 61 19:18–19 61 21:4–5 61 21:5 66 21:9 61 21:42 66 22:31–32 125

211

22:32 61 23:34–35 16 24:15 24 24:30 61 26:27 121 26:28 117–8 27:9 61 27:43 66, 82 Mark 54, 61, 142–3, 174 1:2–3 62 2:23–28 46, 126 4:39 85 11-16 62 12:10b 66 14:24 117 Luke 19, 54, 63, 76–7, 90, 142–3, 150, 174–5 1:1–11:33 150, 159 1:46–55 76 1:68–79 76 2:29–32 76 4:18–19 63 6:1–5 46, 124 8:24 85 11:48–51 16 20:17b 66 22:20 118 23:46 82 24:27 28 24:44 19 John 54–5, 67, 131, 142–3, 150, 174 1:18 128, 180 1:23 63 1:45 28 2:17 63, 80, 84 5:35 89 6:31 45, 63 7:38 63 10:34 28, 63 12:15 63, 66 12:38 63 13:18 63 15:25 63 19:24 63 19:37 63, 66

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 20/5/2021, SPi

212     Acts 55, 67, 117, 154, 174 1:20 80, 82 2:30 82 3:22–23 63, 66 4:11 66 7:14 54 28:23 28 Epistles of Paul 46, 53, 55, 63–5, 67, 74–5, 78, 84, 86, 95, 114, 117–8, 126–7, 143 Romans 55, 64 1:23 82 3:11–18 74, 173, 175 5:14 126 9:17 78 11:9 81 11:26–27 67 11:35 64 15:9–12 64–5 1 Corinthians 55, 64 2:9 9 3:19 64 11:25 118 14:21 28 15:54 64, 67 2 Corinthians 55, 64 8:15 64 Galatians 55, 64 4:24 126 Ephesians 64

4:8 64 Colossians 1:15 128 1 Timothy 64 3:16 109 2 Timothy 64 2:19a 64 Hebrews 46, 55, 65, 67, 83, 86, 114, 125, 174 1:6 65 1:7 85 1:12a 84 3:9 82, 84 3:10 84 10:5 114 10:6 83 10:37–38 65 Catholic Epistles 55, 65, 117, 143, 174 James 4:5 9 1 Peter 65 2 Peter 2:22 65 3:8 81 Jude 14 9 Revelation 55–6, 66, 79, 117, 127, 174 1:3 66

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

Index of Ancient Authors and Sources Acacius of Caesarea 137, 139 Aeschylus 4 Ambrose of Milan 107 Ammonius of Alexandria 149 Amphilochius of Iconium 137 Pseudo-Andreas 143, 152 Anonymous, Catena on Genesis 136–9, 140–1, 143, 156, 165–6, 181, 186 Anonymous, Dialogus of Timothy and Aquila 42 Anonymous, Epistle to Diognetus 152 Anonymous, Florilegia 146, 182 Anonymous, Judaeo-hellenistic collection of etymologies 137, 181 Anonymous, Lexeis 165–7, 186 Anonymous, Testimonia 53, 55–6, 61–2, 64, 66, 74, 89, 95, 102–4, 106–7, 174, 177 Aphrahat 98, 100, 176 Apolinarius of Laodicea 137, 144, 182 Aquila 42, 52, 67, 86, 99, 101, 107, 110, 113, 115, 166, 186–7 Aristeas 14, 34 Aristeas the historian 73 Aristides 102 Aristonicos 147 Asterius (the sophist?) 144, 182 Athanasius of Alexandria 3, 37, 112, 137, 149, 152–3, 167, 183 Pseudo-Athanasius 38–9, 43, 88, 114, 144, 169 Athenagoras of Athens 102, 104 Attic orators 4 Augustine of Hippo 42, 45–6, 87, 107–8, 174, 177 Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 14b–15a 4–7, 22–4 Megilllah 3b 38

Megillah 7a 21, 38 Megillah 14a 38 Mo’ed Qatan 21a 5 Qiddushin 49a 5 Sanhedrin 90b 20

100b 38 101a 5 Bacon R. 108 Bardaisan 100, 176 Bar Hebraeus 100, 177 (Pseudo-) Barnabas 90, 101, 103–4, 108, 176 Basil of Caesarea 123, 137–9, 146, 149, 152 Basil of Seleucia 138, 140 Bede 51, 68–9, 135 Benedict of Nursia 107 Caignet de Fréauville N. 145 Cassiodorus 51, 68–9, 107, 135 Clement of Alexandria 102–4, 126, 129, 137, 140 Clement of Rome 60, 101–3, 127 Commodian 107 Confucius 33, 173 Cyprian of Carthage 103, 106–7 Cyril and Methodius 100, 177 Cyril of Alexandria 138–9, 144, 150, 154, 159, 181, 184 Cyril of Jerusalem 43 Demetrius the chronographer 14 Demetrius of Phalerum 14 Didymus of Alexandria 88, 105, 114–5, 137–8, 144, 155, 164, 185 Didymus Chalcenterus 146 Diodorus Siculus 14 Diodorus of Tarsus 87, 105, 112, 137, 139, 178 Dionysius Bar-Salibi 100, 177

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

214       Egyptian sacerdotal canon 32, 173 Ephrem the Syrian 98, 100, 137, 176 Epiphanius of Salamis 38, 42, 44, 109, 128, 137, 174, 177 Eucherius of Lyon 107 Eugippius 107 Euripides 4 Eusebius of Caesarea 3–4, 43–4, 73, 88, 111, 114–5, 123, 126, 137, 139, 141, 144, 150, 152, 159, 164, 178 Eusebius of Emesa 137 Eustathius of Antioch 105–6, 137, 139 Euthymius Zigabenus 149 Evagrius Ponticus 144, 167, 169

John of Apamea 100, 176 John Cassian 107 John Chrysostom 105–6, 109, 112, 126, 137–9, 144, 149, 150, 152–4, 159, 177, 183–4 Pseudo-John Chrysostom 43, 137, 149 John Damascene 38–9, 42–3 John Droungarios 142, 152–3 John Mesarites 152 Josephus 4, 19, 20, 22–3, 42, 52, 98, 105, 181 Junilius Africanus 43–4 Justin Martyr 64, 66, 90, 102–4, 108–9, 116, 126, 130, 176–7 Justinian’s Novel 146 186

Gelasius 6 Gennadius of Constantinople 139 Gregory Nazianzus 43, 137, 140, 146, 148, 151 Gregory of Neocaesarea 102 Gregory of Nyssa 88, 109, 123, 137, 144, 148–9, 164, 167 Gregory Palamas 146

List of Londinensis Additional 17469 42 List of Oxoniensis Baroccianus 206 39, 42 List of Parisinus Coislinianus 120 42 Lucian of Antioch 41, 53, 69, 74–5, 77, 82–5, 87, 95, 99, 100, 105–7, 113, 164, 175, 177

Heraclides Ponticus 4 Hermas 101 Herodian 147 Hesychius of Egypt 95 Hesychius of Jerusalem 88, 114, 144, 148–9, 153, 158, 183–5 Hilary of Poitiers 42 Hippolytus of Rome 102, 137–8, 149 Homer 33, 126, 146–7, 173 rabbi Hoshaya 52 Ignatius of Antioch 101, 127 Irenaeus of Lyon 101–2, 104, 109, 114, 116, 177 Isho‘dad of Merv 100, 176 Isidore of Pelusium 139, 150, 159 Jacob of Edessa 99 Jerome of Stridon 5–6, 20–3, 39, 41–3, 51, 68, 107–8, 116, 118, 124, 135, 172, 177

Maximus the Confessor 149 Melito of Sardis 6, 24, 29, 44–6, 137 Methodius of Olympus 137 Midrash Tehillim 88 Moses of Aghel 99 Nicanor 147 Pseudo-Nicephorus 39 Nicetas of Heraclea 137, 141–3, 145, 151, 154, 183–5 Nicholas IV Mouzalon 152 Nilus of Ancyre (or of Sinai) 144, 149, 166 Novatian 107 Oecumenius 152 Olympiodorus 141, 152 Onqelos 100, 176 Origen of Alexandria 4, 37, 41, 69, 74, 77, 88, 95, 98–9, 102, 105–6, 108–9, 110–4, 123–4, 127–9, 131, 135, 137–9, 142, 144, 146, 155, 159, 163–4, 166, 170, 177–8, 180–2, 186

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

      Paul of Tella 74, 79, 86, 98, 135 Peshitta 59, 74, 78, 95–9, 100, 113, 115, 135, 176–7 Peter of Laodicea 152, 183 Philastrius of Brescia 45 Philo of Alexandria 9–10, 19, 43, 52, 122, 126, 131, 137–8, 174, 179, 181 Philoxenus of Mabbug 99 Philotheos 152 Photius 102, 152, 183 Plato 35 Polycarp chorepiscopus 99 Polycarp of Smyrna 101, 127 Polychronios 152 Porphyry of Tyre 9, 147 Priscillian 106 Procopius of Gaza 138–9, 140, 143–5, 147–8, 151, 155–6, 164–6, 181–4 Psalterium Gallicanum 74, 83, 85–8, 108 Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Baruch 10, 36, 98 Ascension of Moses 10, 36 Book of Parables 11 Book of Jubilees 11, 37, 137, 140 Enoch 9, 10–1, 36–7 4 Esdras 10, 22, 36, 98 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 11, 37

Quinta 86, 166, 184 Qumran Community Rule 11 Hymns 11 Miqsat ma‘asey ha-Torah (= Halakhic Letter or 4QMMT or 4Q397) 18, 43, 174 Pesharim 18, 126 Pesharim of the Psalms (1Q16; 4Q171; 4Q173) 24 War of the sons of light against the sons of darkness 11 4QDeutq 45 1QIsaa 34 4Q174 53 4Q176 (= 4Q Tanhumin) 53

215

4Q390 28 11Q5 (=11QPsa) 24, 41, 174

Qur’an 33, 117, 173 Rufinus of Aquileia 6, 29, 37, 39, 45–6 Mar Samuel 21, 38 Serapion of Thmuis 137–8 Severianus of Gabala 138–9 Severus of Antioch 138, 140, 150–1, 153–4, 159, 181, 183–4 Sexta 166, 186 Sophocles 4 Stobaeus 146 Succensus of Diocaesarea 138 Symmachus 67, 86, 99, 102, 110, 112–3, 115, 178 Syro-Hexaplar 74, 79, 95–6, 99, 100, 114–5, 135, 176–7 Tatian 102 Theodoret of Cyrus 88, 105–6, 109, 113–4, 139, 144, 148–9, 153, 160, 164, 167, 177–8, 181 Theodore of Mopsuestia 106, 112, 114, 128, 144, 149, 152, 182 Theodotion 55, 64, 67, 75, 86, 95, 99, 101–4, 107, 110, 113, 115, 166, 175, 178, 186 Theophilus of Alexandria 138, 154, 184 Theophilus of Antioch 102, 129, 137 Thomas Aquinas 145 Thomas of Harqel 99 Titus of Bostra 150, 159 Tyconius 106–7 Ulfila 100, 177 Vedas 33, 173 Vetus Latina 40, 51, 80, 82–4, 86–7, 96, 100, 106–8, 114, 116, 118, 120, 177, 179 Victor of Antioch 150, 159 Vulgate 51, 59, 68, 78, 98, 108 Rabba Yosef ben Chiyya 38

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

Index of Modern Authors Ajello A. 141 Aland K. 53–4, 59 Alexander L. 33 Alexander P. S. 16, 21, 32 Amato E. 147 Amphoux C. 66–7, 86 Archer G. L 57–9 Assmann J. 13 Aussedat M. 146, 152, 153–4, 183–4 Auwers J.-M. 143, 150, 164–5, 186 Ballhorn E. 32 Barbaro D. 141 Barc B. 31 Barr J. 19, 28 Barthélemy D. 10, 24, 52, 64, 67, 105, 112 Barton J. 3, 16, 29 Beale G. K. 66 Beckwith R. T. 16–7 Bernstein M. J. 18 Bertano P. 7 Berthelot K. 18 Birdsall J. N. 151 Blenkinsopp J. 26 Blum E. 13 Böhl E. 55, 59 Brachter R. G. 56 Briquel-Chatonnet F. 96 Brock S. VI, 96 Brooke G. J. 32 Bruce F. F. 16 Buhl F. 8 Campbell J. 20 Canellis A. 106 Carafa A. 141

Carr D. M. 20, 27, 29 Cavalier C. 24, 72 Ceulemans R. VII, 148 Chantraine P. 4 Chapman S. B. 26–9 Charlesworth J. H. 16, 23 Cheng A. 33 Chirichigo G. 57–9 Cimosa M. 86 Clements R. E. 26–7 Comitolus P. 141 Coogan J. 76 Collins J. 23 Collins N. 14 Cordier B. 142 Cramer J. A. 142–3 Crampon A. 51 Cross F. M. 105–6 Crowther D. VII Crüsemann F. 13 Curti C. 143 Daniel R. W. 123 Davies P. R. 14, 24–5 Delarue C. and C.-V. 142 Dempster S. G. 28 Devreesse R. 143–4, 146, 149, 152 Dhorme P. 73 Dines J. N. 70 Dittmar W. 56, 59 Docherty S. C. 65 Dorival G. 3, 7, 20, 22, 35, 38–9, 51, 64, 66, 69, 71, 74, 86, 88, 96, 110, 125, 128, 130, 135, 137, 142, 144–5, 149, 151–5, 165–6 Doutreleau L. 105 Dupont-Sommer A. 71

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

    Ellis E. E. 7, 63–4 Evans C. A. 19, 56, 63 Fabry H. J. 18, 62 Faulhaber M. 144, 148–9, 150, 182–3 Feissel D. 123 Felle A. E. 123 Fernandez Marcos M. 53, 66, 69, 73, 95, 105 Festugière A.-J. 71 Flint P. W. 24 Flusin B. 152 Fraenkel D. 76 Frampton S. VII Freed E. D. 63 Frei P. 13 Furetière A. 6 Gallagher E. 3, 18, 27, 43, 109, 110 Geerard M. 145 Gheorghita R. 65 Ghisleri M. 142 Ginsburg C. D. 7 Goodman M. VI Gough H. 55, 59 Goulet R. 146 Grabe J. E. 7, 35–6, 171 Grätz H. 8 Grätz S. 27, 47 Grant Jones R. 58 Grelot P. 86 Gribomont J. 106–8 Griffith S. 96 Guéraud O. 148 Guinot J. N. 106, 109, 113 Gundry R. H. 61 Haelewyck J.-C. 96 Hagedorn A. C. 13 Hagedorn D. 143 Hagedorn U. 143 Hagner D. A. 103 Hanhart R. 70, 79, 164 Hann R. R. 71 Harl M. 34, 65, 67, 69, 71, 76, 105, 111, 123, 125, 130, 143, 163–5, 182

Heider K. 78–9 Hengel M. 19, 69, 70 Hill R. C. 113 Hody H. 14 Holtz T. 63 Hooker M. D. 62 Hort F. J. A. 53, 59 Hübner H. 63, 65 Hühn E. 56, 59 Jacob C. 33 Jäger W. 127 King James 142 Jaubert A. 103 Jobes K. 67, 69, 86 Joosten J. V, VII, 96 Junod E. 5, 37 Kaestli J. D. 7, 20, 44 Kalogeras N. 143 Karo G. 143, 182 Karrer M. 58, 60, 65, 86, 96 Kasser R. 80 Kee H. C. 62 Kinzig W. 144 Klein C. 78–9 Koch D.-A. 65 Koster M. 96 Kratz P. 27 Krikonis Kh. 143 Kugel J. 24 Labate A. 143 La Bonnardière A.-M. 107 de Lagarde P. A. 105 Lampe G. W. H. 120 Lang B. 4 Lange A. 18–9, 22, 28–9, 30, 32 De Lange N. 186–7 Lauxtermann M. VI Law T. M. 52 Leanza S. 143 Leiman S. E. 10, 16, 29 Le Moigne P. 96 Levita E. 7, 9, 11, 36, 171

217

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

218     Lewis J. P. 20 Lietzmann I. 143, 182 Lightstone J. N. 16 Lim T. 3, 16, 23 Lippomano A. 141 Lucà S. 143 Lust J. 66 Luther M. 51 McCabe A. VI McCalman Turpie D. 55, 59 McDonald L. M. 3, 16 McLay R. T. 61, 65 Mai A. 142 Malamoud C. 33 Markfi S. 142 Markschies C. 33 Mason S. 20 May G. 129 Meade J. D. 3, 18, 37, 43, 170 Méhat A. 104 Menken M. J. J. 62–3 Mercati G. 112 Metzler K. 139, 140, 147–8 Meursius J. 141 Mez A. 105 Millard M. 78–9, 82, 85, 87 Moreau M. 107 Morlet S. 112 Mroczek E. 3, 32 Mühlenberg E. 144 Munnich O. 34, 69, 71, 96, 104, 125, 130 Nagy G. 33 Nauroy G. 107 Nautin P. 148 Nicole R. 56, 59 Nikephoros Theotokis 142 Norelli E. 33 Noret J. 145 Noth M. 12 Olivier J.-M. 106, 112 Outtier B. 96

Parker D. C. 151, 159 Parpulov G. VI Pasini J. 165, 186 Peltanus T. A. 141 Petit F. 136, 139, 140, 143, 148, 156 Pitra J.-B. 142 Porter S. E. 61 Pouderon B. 104 Poussines P. 142 De Prémare A. L. 33 Prigent P. 103 De Pury A. 16 Qimron E. 18 Rahlfs A. XIII, 56, 74–7, 79, 82, 84–5, 87–8, 103, 105, 114, 143, 163–4 Rendel Harris J. 102 Reuss J. 143, 150 Rhunken D. 6 Richard M. 143–4, 151, 153, 183 Rodgers Z. 52 Römer T. 13–5 Rondeau M.-J. 129 Rüger P. 10 Rüsen-Weinhold U. 62 Ryle. E. 8 St. John Thackeray H. 105 Salvesen A. V, VII, 76, 96 Sanders J. A. 26, 63 Saxer V. 106–7 Schenker A. 96, 143 Schiffman L. 18 Schmid K. 13 Schmid U. 63 Schmidt D. 66 Schneider H. 76 Semler J. S. 7 Seripando G. 7 Serrarigus C. 141 Shires H. M. 56, 59 Sickenberger J. 150 Siegert F. 69 Sigismund M. 63

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 21/5/2021, SPi

    Silva H.-M. 67, 69, 86 Simon R. 6 Sixtus of Siena 7 Skarsaune O. 104 Smith D. M. 64 Smith J. Z. 6 Smits C. 56 Spanneut M. 106 Sperber A. 52 Spicq C. 65 Staab K. 143 Stanley C. D. 65 Stanton G. 61 Steck O. H. 15 Stendahl K. 61 Steyn G. J. 63, 86 Strecker G. 61 Steinberg J. 3, 16 Steins G. 32 Stemberger G. 32 Stern D. 6 Stökl Ben Ezra D. VII, 25, 32 Stone T. J. 3, 16 Strugnell J. 18 Sundberg A. C. 9, 36 Swete H. B. 43, 54–6, 58–9, 63, 65, 70, 101–3, 119, 120–1, 124, 128, 179

Toy C. H. 55–6, 59 Trebolle Barrera J. 24 Trudinger P. L. 66 Turner E. G. 156–8

Talmon S. 18, 105 Ter Haar Romeny B. 96 Thomas K. J. 65 Torrey C. C. 7, 36 Tov E. 80, 106

Zeffi F. 141 Zevit Z. 19 Ziegler J. 85 Zsengeller J. 15 Zuntz G. 149, 156

Ulrich E. 3, 18 Vaccari A. 106 Vahrenhorst M. 65 Vanderkam J. C. 16, 32 Van der Kooij A. 18, 28, 62 Van Haelst J. 124 Van Peursen W. 96 Vardi A. D. 4, 6 Veldboer C. 78 Veldhuis N. 6 Vercruysse J.-M. 107 Vianès L. 153, 183 De Waard J. 66–7 Wagner J. R. 65 Walser G. A. 65, 86 Westcott B. F. 53, 59 Wilcox M. 64, 66 Wildeboer G. 8 Wilk F. 65 Young P. 142

219