Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
QUESTIONS
2002 Present and critically examine the evidence that the Old Testament canon was already closed by the time of
Jesus.
Discuss the influence that the Septuagint has had on the thinking, of the Christian church about the content of
the Old Testament canon.
Making reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, write an essay on the state of the Old Testament
text in the period between approximately 250 B.C. and A.D. 100.
Discuss the influence that the Septuagint has had on the thinking, of the Christian church about the content of
the Old Testament canon.
Explain why most English versions of the Old Testament are based on the Masoretic Hebrew text.
2001 How far is it possible to trace the history of the formation of the Hebrew canon? (also 1998)
Explain the origin and character of the Targums and their value for the study of the Old Testament.
'The Masoretic text is not identical with the canonical text, but is only a vehicle for its recovery.' Discuss (also
1998)
How have the Dead Sea Scrolls contributed to textual criticism?
What implications does textual criticism have for the way we view and use Scripture as the word of God?
2000 How would you answer the claim that because the Septuagint was the Bible of the apostles and Church
Fathers, its Apocrypha should be retained in our canon?
OR
Describe and assess the view of the 'canonizing process' set forth by James Sanders.
Describe some of the problems faced in recovering the original text of the Septuagint.
Describe the state of the biblical text in the period represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, and suggest what
grounds there are, in the light of this, for retaining confidence in the Masoretic Text.
1999 Of what relevance is the notion of 'covenant' for explaining, the origin and development of the Old Testament
canon?
Assess the value of the Septuagint for Old Testament study.
Would it be more correct to say that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls revolutionised the study of the Old
Testament text, or merely enabled it to proceed along the same basic lines with greater confidence? (also
1997)
'And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners;
but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine' (The Thirty-Nine Articles, Article VI). Outline and
assess the arguments which may be adduced to support this position on the status of the Apocrypha.
(also 1997)
1998 Explain the origin and character of the Septuagint and its value for the study of the Old Testament.
How have the Dead Sea Scrolls contributed to textual criticism?
1997 Describe and evaluate the work of Roger Beckwith regarding the development and closure of the Hebrew
canon.
Assess the value of the Targums for Old Testament study.
● The transmission of the OT text is something that has been done over an incredibly long period of time
(approx. 1400 B.C. – 400 B.C. if the traditional view of Moses to Malachi is upheld).
● Done by hand copying, even beyond the period of the OT epoch right up until the time of printing in the fifteenth
century.
● Means the oldest OT books have been copied by hand for around 3000 years, and the most recent for about 2000
years.
There are various ways of organising a study of how the OT text has been transmitted. Brotzmann does it in five historical
eras. These are:
i) textual transmission prior to 300 B.C.
ii) textual transmission from 300 B.C. to A.D. 135
iii) textual transmission from A.D. 135 to 1000
iv) textual transmission from A.D. 1000 to 1450
v) textual transmission from A.D. 1450 to the present
Targums
● Targums = Aramaic translations of certain books of parts of the OT.
They tend to be more periphrastic than literal, because they were done at a time when Hebrew fell out of
common use among Jewish people in Palestine.
● Several different Targums are known today,
Targum Onquelos is the official Targum of the Pentateuch.
■ It is a rather literal translation of the Hebrew text, though there is some tendency to paraphrase in parts,
as well as the removal of some anthropomorphisms and a tendency to idealise the patriarchs. This
Targum was probably reduced to writing in Palestine in the second century A.D.
● The value of the Targums for textual criticism is limited, mainly because of their origin as oral paraphrases.
● But have value in understanding Jewish homiletical procedures and trends than as precise instruments of textual
transmission.
● Origen came on the scene, writing the Hexapla. This work had six columns that could be compared to each other.
The organisation was as follows:
The Hebrew of Transliteration of Aquila’s version Symmachus’ Origen’s own Theodotian’s
Origen’s time the Hebrew in version translation version
Greek letters
● Two other individuals should be noted for their contribution to the history of the LXX (Both fourth century).
Lucian’s work is marked by a tendency to conflation (combining two variant readings into a single reading).
Hesychius produced a version that is reflected in part in Codex Vaticanus.
● Recovering the original LXX is complicated, largely because there is no single uncial that exclusively reflects any of
the three editions of the early fourth century A.D. (Origen’s, Lucian’s, and Hesychius’). Despite this, several
comments may be made bout the general usefulness of the LXX in OT textual criticism.
Textual criticism must be done between the LXX versions themselves to establish the original Greek text.
Then it must be determined whether this was an accurate rendering of the Hebrew text.
But the different stages of translation into Greek were done with varying levels of translational ability – sp it's a
very difficult process.
This means that in the end, the LXX has usefulness only slightly better than the Samaritan Pentateuch and the
Targums. It should not be used for a wholesale rejection of the Masoretic text, though on occasion, critics will
favour it as being closer to the original Hebrew than the Masoretic text.
● The Peshitta
translation of the OT in Syriac (an Aramaic dialect).
origins and early history are unknown, but revised in the light of other translations, particularly the LXX.
This means that a Syriac agreement with the LXX over the Masoretic text does not necessarily mean that
there are two separate witnesses. Rather it means one witness repeated in two places.
● The Old Latin
a daughter translation ( a translation made from a translation, in this case the LXX).
probably done some time in the second century A.D..
Means that it allows access to the LXX prior to the versions of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius, and so its
primary value is in helping determine the original LXX translation.
● The Vulgate
fourth century translation by Jerome.
Initially this was done with the Psalms on the basis of the LXX.
Later it was done to the whole OT text on the basis of the available Hebrew text.
At first, hostile reception, but by the seventh century it was accepted on an equal basis with the Old Latin.
By the eighth and ninth centuries, it superseded the Old Latin, and in the sixteenth it was adopted by the
Roman Catholic Church as its official Bible.
3. THE OT CANON: ITS EXTENT AND CLOSURE
Word applies to Biblical books as the list of books that are regarded as Holy Scripture.
Shead gave the following definitions:
Canon: a collection of writings which define or regulate the beliefs and conduct of a particular
community
Canonising: the process by which writings achieve canonical status.
Canonicity: the state of belonging to a canon.
IMPORTANT QUESTION:
What is the precise relationship between canonicity and authority? Is a book in the canon because it is
authoritative, or is it authoritative because it is in the canon?
We must answer that a book is in the canon because it is authoritative. In other words, the process of canonisation was
a process of recognition, not of determination.
1. Take biblical scholars roughly 1000 years earlier than had previously been known through Hebrew manuscripts.
Prior to their discovery, the earliest compete copies of OT books dated from around the tenth century A.D., and the
earliest complete copy of the entire OT from the eleventh.
2. Relationship between these documents and the relatively late Masoretic text. Whilst there are small differences,
the overall agreement is striking. This means, however, that though they are much earlier than the Masoretic texts,
we can have confidence in the fidelity that was used in the transmission of the Masoretic texts.
3. Details of the preservation of OT texts. They not only show that the text was preserved carefully, they also show
that in the last two centuries B.C. and the first century A.D., the texts were preserved in a variety of text types rather
than only one. This has meant, however, that text critics now have a much broader range of data to work with as
they try to work back to what might have been the original text for any passage.
5. THE APOCRYPHA
1. Definitions
● The term ‘apocrypha’ comes from the Greek, meaning the ‘hidden things’.
● Used to refer to the books of the LXX not occuring in the Hebrew canon. (in RC Bibles)
● By ‘Alexandrian Canon’ hypothesis is meant the idea that there was a broader canon of Scripture accepted by
Greek-speaking diaspora Jews than was the case for Palestinian Jews. This hypothesis is very old, arguably with
a form of it going back to Justin Martyt. It has been effectively refuted in the 20th century by Sundberg.
The main question: What's the process in which the books were received by the OT community into its cannon?
8. Some Conclusions
● NT cites interpreted versions of the OT
interpreted both by virtue of being translated into Greek and by virtue of having Vorlagen which have been
annotated during the course of transmission.
The implication of this is that these interpretive factors are not the inerrant Word of God, and need to be
removed if we want to uncover that Word.
■ When did editorial additions cease to be inspired?
■ Presumably at the same time that the spirit of prophet ceased in Israel. Both versions of Jeremiah, then,
are inspired. Such an understanding clearly involves a reworking of the notion of ‘original autograph’.
● OT textual criticism suffers the constant danger of misrepresentation of the whole by its focus on a small part,
(mistakes and variations that characterise the transmitted Bible in its humanness).
● The near perfection of the preservation of the whole should never be forgotten, however, and is sufficient to stand
as one more piece of evidence for the Bible’s divine nature.
● But there are some other issues that there's no time for detail of here.
i. We have not inherited a uniform tradition. How much plurality should we embrace? Could we read the
LXX as Scripture? Yes. Our English Bibles reflect both – the text of one and the order of the other. Could we
read the Qumranic Psalms as Scripture? Probably not.
ii. At the level of canonising, what convinced ancient readers to accept as Scripture rewritten material and other
forms of commentary produced by their contemporaries. Ellis suggests that a recognised inspired status of
the traditioning circles best explains how the community, who are the recipients not the makers of books, could
accept the rewritten material on a par and in continuity with the prophetic Vorlage.
iii. At the level of text and interpretation, we are faced with the difficult decision of judging when interpretation
loses its authority.
● Could argue that in the narrowest of senses, only the original autograph is the very word of God, yet
Christianity is a translation religion, and the rightness of calling a translation the word of God is confirmed
by the apostles who cited the Old Testament from the LXX.
● Further, they felt free to use the text in fairly loose fashion. At one level this gives us great confidence to
say that the Good News Bible is the Word of God, but could imagine a translation so loose it actually
misrepresents the revelation it seeks to convey.
● Is the Word of God to be found in the form of words written in an autograph, or in the propositions to which
those words gave expression?
● One way out is to conceive of the problem in terms of analogy or representation.
The Bible is not God. It is a representation of God, an analogy of him and his character.
A translation is an image of an image, and as long as it reproduces the image faithfully then there is
no problem. But concept of faithfulness relates to the contents not form, (though prob related).
iv. What is it that we are trying to do when we exegesis?
● Why do we exegete the Bible and read other texts?
Expect the biblical text to carry significance at a greater number of levels
This is true at marco and micro level,
■ micro - so that we derive meaning from structure, the choice of a word, the tense used, the
omission of a particle etc.
■ macro level, when we interpret Scripture by Scripture.
v. What of the implications of textual variety for our preaching?
● Answer depends on what sort of variety exists.
If a case where there is a single autograph from which our text seems to have strayed at a particular
point, common sense dictates that we do not press the exegesis at that point.
God has superintended the transmission of the text so that we have all we need for teaching, reproof,
correction, and training in righteousness.
Errors of transmission are important, for they throw into relief the miraculous preservation of the
whole, while helping to prevent a docetic view of Scripture.
In a case where there seems to have been more than one autograph, with both arguably being
equally ancient and authoritative, we have in the first instance a valuable aid to preaching.
■ For the differences in the alternate version of the book help us to identify which elements of
content and arrangement are significant, and why.
■ An example of this is the way we know from the shape of LXX Jeremiah that the placement of
the Babylon oracle in the MT is extremely important in expressing the purpose of the MT as a
whole.
On a theological level, the existence of parallel texts is an illustration of the fact that progressive
revelation can be seen both across and within books of the Old Testament.
Having said this, however, the fact that different autographs circulated as canonical in different
communities remains theologically challenging.
If it is true to say that genuinely canonical texts were not made Scripture but recognised as such, then
perhaps we should see this variety as an example of the ‘sundry times and diverse manners’ in which
God spoke by his prophets in times past.