CHAPTER VIII HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE THE Jews in Egypt during the Persian supremacy doubtless used the Egyptian dialect of the Aramaic, which has been preserved to us in certain inscriptions. But soon after the Greek conquest of Egypt, they changed their language to an Egyptian dialect of the Greek. The Jews flourished in Egypt, especially in the new city of Alexandria, and became rich and powerful so that they built many fine synagogues. They soon felt the need in their worship of a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the tongue of the people. This began, as in Palestine, by oral translations in the synagogue, but it was not long before it became more important than in Palestine to commit these translations to writing. Accordingly a Greek translation of the Law was first made, then of the Prophets and the Psalms. The other Writings were not used in the synagogue, and therefore they were only translated for private reading at a later date. The legend that the Greek Old Testament was translated all at once by seventy select men, who used a manuscript sent to them from Jerusalem, has no historic basis.1 I. THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT The Greek translation of the Pentateuch was probably made early in the third century B.C., the Prophets and the most of the Writings were translated before the middle of the second century, but the whole of them and the Apocrypha not until the first century.2 It is quite possible that the Pentateuch 1 See pp. 124 seq. 2 Grätz (Gesch. Juden., III. pp. 428 seq.) holds that the translation was not made under Ptolemæus Philadelphus at the beginning of the third century B.C., but under Ptolemæus Philometer, middle of the second century B.C., and that was translated by Palestinian Jews under royal sanction1 according to the tradition; but the translators of the Prophets and the Writings must have been Egyptian Jews. The books of Samuel and Jeremiah differ in the Greek so very greatly from the Hebrew traditional text that we must conclude that they were translated from manuscripts which were at an early date independent of Palestinian manuscripts; especially as they are free from a considerable number of Midrashim, which must have made their way into the Hebrew text after the Egyptian manuscripts were written, and at a time when scribes felt at liberty to make such considerable additions to the text. Baumgartner has shown that the book of Proverbs was translated from a Hebrew text, written in the Egyptian Aramaic character, and that it shows traces also of having been written in older Aramaic characters after it had been transliterated from the ancient Hebrew characters.2 Hollenberg makes the same statement for the book of Joshua 3 and Vollers for the twelve minor prophets. Workman makes a similar statement as to Jeremiah, but does not give sufficient evidence. of it.5 The book of Sirach was translated into Greek about 130 B.C., and added to the sacred books of the Egyptian Canon ; and others of the apocryphal books and writings were added, the Jewish peripatetic Aristobulus played the chief part in its accomplishment; but most scholars agree with Wellhausen that the translation of the Pentateuch was made under Ptolemæus Philadelphus. That is all the letter of Aristeas really refers to. It was quite natural that later tradition should extend it to the whole Old Testament. Besides, the Prologue of the Greek Ecclesiasticus knows, about 130 B.C., of a Greek translation of the Law, the Prophets, and other books. 1 Buhl (1.c., s. 124) calls attention to the fact that the three accounts of the translation of the Law in the letter of Aristeas, the addition to Esther, and the book of Sirach, all agree in representing the translators as being Palestinian, and remarks that the Palestinian Jews really, in most cases, understood Greek better than the Egyptian Jews understood Hebrew, and that the translators would naturally be Palestinian Jews who had recently migrated to Egypt. Freudenthal (Hellenistische Studien, 1875, s. 185) has shown that Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Job, and probably Joshua, had been translated by the middle of the second century. Strack (1.c., s. 192) agrees to it. 2 Étude critique sur l'état du texte du livre des Proverbes, 1890, pp. 247 seq. 3 Der Charakter d. Alexand. Uebersetzung d. Buches Josua, 1876, s. 12. 4 Z. A. T. W., 1883, s. 231. 5 The Text of Jeremiah, 1889, pp. 233 seq. until by the close of the first century B.C. the entire Greek Old Testament had been completed in the Greek language. This was the Bible of the early Christians, not only in Alexandria, but all over the Roman world. The writers of the epistles of the New Testament quote from it, and they are followed by all the sub-apostolic Fathers and Christian writers of the earlier Christian centuries. II. THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT In the second Christian century the Greek New Testament was added to the Old Testament. The most of the New Testament was originally written in Greek for Greek readers. The Logia of Matthew was written in Hebrew, in order that it might be added to the Holy Scripture for Jewish Christians. The earlier apocalypses of the book of Revelation were also written in Hebrew. The Epistle of James was probably written in Hebrew also, as well as the Canticles of the early chapters of Luke.2 But these were all translated into Greek, larger Greek writings, and their Hebrew originals perished. Accordingly the New Testament became in fact a Greek New Testament. or taken up into All of the writings of the Canon of the New Testament were in circulation early in the second century; but they were not collected into a Canon before the latter part of the second century. They were in private manuscripts, and for the most part at least written on papyrus.3 "No autograph of any book of the New Testament is known or believed to be still in existence. The originals must have been early lost, for they are mentioned by no ecclesiastical writer, although there were many motives for appealing to them, had they been forthcoming, in the second and third centuries." "We know little about the external features of the MSS. of the ages of persecution: but what little we do know suggests that they were usually small, containing only single books or groups of books, and not seldom, there is reason to suspect, of comparatively coarse material." 1 See Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, p. 301. 2 See Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, p. 42. 3 See pp. 133 seq. 4 Westcott and Hort, New Testament in Greek, Introduction, pp. 4, 9-10. The separate writings were often copied before they were gathered into the groups which constitute the present Canon, and scattered widely over the world. But in the times of persecution large numbers of them were destroyed, especially during the persecution of Diocletian. The roll of papyrus was the book of the early Christians. For public reading in the churches, rolls of skin were probably used among the Christians, as among the Jews, whenever the community was able to bear the expense. But the entire library of Origen and Pamphilus at Cæsarea consisted of papyrus rolls.1 The sacred books of the Old and New Testaments constituted quite a library of these rolls; the rolls ordinarily contained only a single writing. Even the Gospels appear in several different orders on the monuments of the fourth and fifth centuries, showing that each was usually on a separate roll. No monumental evidence of the existence of a codex of parchment appears before the close of the third century; no literary evidence before the middle of the third century. These codices were at first very expensive, and so the papyrus rolls continued in private use deep into the fifth century.2 III. OTHER GREEK VERSIONS The use of the Greek version of the Old Testament by the Christians and its many differences from the Hebrew official text as established by the Sopherim of the school of Rabbi Akiba, excited the hostility of the Jewish scribes, and every effort was made to discredit it. In the first half of the second century A.D. a Greek version was made by Aquila, a pupil of Rabbi Akiba, on the basis of the official Hebrew text. It is extremely literal and endeavours conscientiously to follow the official text.4 1 Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, 1882, s. 109. 2 Schultze, Rolle und Codex, in Greifswalder Studien, 1895, s. 150 seq. 8 Megilla, I. 9; Qidduschin, I. 1. 4 The sign of the definite accusative П is translated by σúv, the local by dé, A by T Xéve. These are striking examples of an extreme literalism which goes so far as to impair the real meaning of the passage. This Aquila is mentioned by Irenæus, Adv. Hæres, III. 24; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V. 8, 10; Jerome The greater part of this version has been lost, only fragments having been preserved. At the same time the influence of Aquila may be seen in the revision of the Septuagint text of Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes, into which elements from Aquila have been taken up. Another Greek version was made about the same time by Theodotion. He revised the Septuagint to make it conform to the official text.2 His translation has only been preserved in fragments, apart from the book of Daniel, which supplanted the Septuagint Version of Daniel in the usage of the Church, and other elements which have been taken up into the Greek Bibles. Symmachus undertook about the same time3 to make a better Greek version of the Old Testament from a Christian point of view and in more elegant Greek. There are fragments of three other independent Greek versions of the old Testament which have been preserved, known as Quinta, Sexta, and Septima, of unknown origin. These are chiefly of the poetical books. All these make it evident that there was a wide-spread dissatisfaction with the Septuagint at the close of the second and the beginning of the third century, not only on the part of the Jews but also of the Christians. It is probable that the zealous polemic of the Jewish scribes on the basis of the official Hebrew text brought about this serious situation. IV. THE OFFICIAL TEXTS OF THE GREEK BIBLE Origen during his abode at Cæsarea (232-254 A.D.) made a gigantic effort to remove this dissatisfaction and establish a on Is. 814, Epist. 57 ad Pammachium, c. 11; Origen, ad Afric (I. 14, Delarue). Cf. Schürer, Gesch. d. Jud., II. 311. Cornill (Ezek., s. 64, 104) mentions Codex 62 of Holmes, which shows the influence of Aquila. The Septuagint of Koheleth and the Song of Songs also show his influence, not only in the Greek, but also in the Syriac translation. See Buhl, l.c., s. 155. 1 Cornill, Ezekiel, s. 104 seq.; Dillmann, Ueber d. Griech. Uebersetzung der Koheleth, in Sitzungsberichte d. König. Preus. Akad. d. Wiss., 1892. 2 Theodotion is mentioned by Irenæus (Adv. Hær.) as a proselyte of Ephesus. Jerome calls him an Ebionite (Comm., Hab. 311-18. Cf. Præf. Comm. in Dan.). 8 He is usually assigned to the beginning of the third century. But Epiphanius puts him in the time of Marcus Aurelius. Mercati has recently come to the same conclusion (see Strack, l.c., s. 201). 4 Eusebius (H. E., VI. 17) and Jerome (l.c.) both call him an Ebionite. 5 Eusebius, l.c., VI. 16. |