Page:EB1911 - Volume 26.djvu/700

 again we have two recensions S1 and S2, but the one may be on the whole reasonably described as an abbreviation of the other.

The relations of the above authorities are too complicated to be treated of here in detail, but they are represented on the subjoined diagram.



Original Language.—Apart from Grabe, till within the last fifteen years no notable scholar has advocated a Hebrew original. Nitzsch, Dillmann, Ritschl and Sinker are convinced that the book was not a translation but was written originally in Greek. To Kohler and Gaster belongs the honour of re-opening the question of the Hebrew original of the Testaments. Only the latter, however, offered any linguistic evidence. In his article on the question he sought to establish a Hebrew original of all the Testaments and to prove that the Hebrew text of Naphtali which he had discovered was the original testament, and that the Greek Naphtali was a late and corrupt reproduction of it with extensive additions from other sources. But he failed in establishing either thesis. The subject was next taken in hand by R. H. Charles, who in a preliminary form in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (i. 241, 1899), and later, with considerable fullness. in his edition of the Greek text of the Testaments (1908), brought to light a number of facts that put the question of a Hebrew original beyond the range of doubt. We will now place a few of the grounds before the reader.

(a) Hebrew constructions and expressions are to be found in every ''page. Though the vocabulary is Greek the idiom is frequently Hebraic'' and foreign to the genius of the Greek language. Thus in T. Reub. vi. 11,  =. In T. Jud. xx. 4,  —an utterly unmeaning phrase—becomes intelligible on retroversion–, “on his very heart.” In T. Benj. x. II  ’ =“ye shall dwell securely with me”; for here  ’, as several times in the Septuagint, is a wrong rendering of.

(b) Dittographic renderings in the Greek of the same Hebrew expression; also dittograghic expressions in the Greek implying dittographs in the Hebrew. See Introduction to R. H. Charles's Text, § 11.

(c) Paronomasiae which are lost in the Greek can be restored by retranslation into Hebrew. There are over a dozen of such instances.

(d) Many passages which are obscure or wholly unintelligible in the Greek become clear an retranslation into Hebrew. Of the large body of such passages (see op. cit. § 12) we will give only one. In T. Jud. ix. 3, we have the following impossible sentence, where Esau is referred to: . Here a fragment of the Hebrew original, which has happily been reserved, reads, “wounded,” where the Greek has  =, which is manifestly a corruption of the former.

In all the above cases there is no divergence among the MSS. and Versions. Yet the restorations are so many and so obvious that our contention might be taken for proven. But there is stronger evidence still, and this is to be found where the MSS. and Versions attest different texts, standing generally in opposition to, A (=Armenian Version), and S (=Slavonic Version). By means of this evidence we are able to prove not only that our book is from a Hebrew original, but that also the Hebrew existed in two recensions, Hundefined and Hundefined, which are the parents respectively of and (see diagram above).

and are not, strictly speaking, Greek recensions; for their chief variations go back to diverse forms of text already existing in the Hebrew Hundefined and Hundefined. For the considerable body of evidence supporting this conclusion see the Introduction to R. H. Charles’s Text, § 12. A couple of the many passages in which the variations in and  are due to variations in Hundefined and Hundefined will now be given. In T. Benj. xiii. 2 reads  and  A S1. . . . Here and  may be taken as renderings of the same Hebrew word, but  =, an undoubted corruption of  = “at a good old age.” The same corruption invaded both Hebrew recensions in T. Zeb. x. 6; T. Dan. vii. 1; T. Ash. viii. 1; T. Jos. xx. 4, whereas in T. Iss. vii. 9 both recensions were right. In the late Hebrew text of Naph. i. 1 the correct Hebrew phrase is found. Again in T. Ash. vi. 6 reads  and  A S1 . Here  =, a corruption of =<span title="eisphérei">. It is the soul of the righteous that is here spoken of, and rightly says that the angel of peace. “leads him into eternal life.” The rightness of Hundefined is confirmed by T. Benj. vi. 1, which reads <span title="ho gàr ángelos tē̂s eirḗnēs hodēeî tḕn psychḕn autoû">.

Hundefined and Hundefined, however, differed mainly from each other in words and phrases, as we infer from and. In some passages, however, the divergence is on a larger scale, as in T. Lev. ii. 7–iii. Notwithstanding these divergences, however, the great similarities between and oblige us to assume that the translator of Hundefined used the Greek version of Hundefined, or vice versa. That the former is the more likely we shall see presently. To the above we have a good parallel in the Book of Daniel; for the variations of its two chief Greek Versions—that of the Septuagint and of Theodotion—go back to variations in the Semitic.

Date of the Original Hebrew.—“The date of the groundwork of the Testaments is not difficult to determine. Thus Reuben (T. Reub. vi. 10–11) admonishes his sons: <span title="Pròs tòn Leuì engísate en tapeinṓsei kardías hymō̂n hína géxēsthe eulogían ek toû stómatos autoû. . . hóti en autō̂i exeléxato Kýrios basileúein enṓpion pantòs toû laoû">. Here a high-priest who is also a king is referred to. Such a combination of offices naturally makes us think of the Maccabean priest-kings of the 2nd century The possibility of doubting this reference is excluded by the words that immediately follow:—<span title="kaì proskýnēsate tò spérma autòn hóti hypèr hymō̂v apothaneîtai en polémois horatoîs kaì aorátois kaì en hymîn héstai basileùs aiṓnios">. A similar statement is made in T. Sim. v. 5. Thus the high-priest is not only a high-priest and civil ruler, but also a warrior. That the Maccabean high-priests are here designed cannot be reasonably doubted. But the identification becomes undeniable, as further characteristics of this priestly dynasty come to light. It was to be a new priesthood and to be called by a new name (T. Lev. viii. 14 <span title="hierateían néan . . . ónoma kainón"> ). Now the Maccabean high-priests were the first to assume the title ‘priests of the Most High God’—the title anciently borne by Melchizedek. But the praises accorded in this book could not apply to all the Maccabean priest-kings of the nation. As it was written by a Pharisee, it could not have been composed after the breach arose between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees towards the close of the 2nd century Thus the period of composition lies between 153, when jonathan the Maccabee assumed the high-priesthood, and the year of the breach of John Hyrcanus with the Pharisees; some time, therefore, between 153 and 107. But the date can be determined between closer limits. To one member of the Maccabean dynasty are the prophetic gifts assigned in our text (T. Lev. viii. 15) in conjunction with the functions of kingship and priesthood. Now, in all Jewish history the triple offices were ascribed to only one individual, John Hyrcanus. Hence we conclude that the Testaments were written between 137 and 107.” But the limits of the date of composition be fixed still more definitely. For the text refers most probably to the destruction of Samaria, T. Lev. vi. 11. In that case the Testaments were written between 109 and 107

Date of the Greek Version.—The Version seems to have been translated first, indeed before 50; for it is twice quoted by St Paul. The first passage is in Rom. i. 32 <span title="ou mónon autà poioûsin allà kaì syneudokoûsin toîs prássousin"> which is taken almost verbally from T. Ash. vi. 2, <span title="hóti hoi diprósōpoi dissō̂s †kolásontai"> (rd. <span title=hamratánousi> ) <span title="hóti kaì prássousi tò kàkon kaì syneudokoûsi toîs prássousin">. Since bg, A omit the words <span title="hóti . . . prássousin">, we conclude that, though it is now found in , adef, S1, it was originally wanting in and probably also in Hundefined. For as we have already seen (see diagram above) aef were early influenced by, and d is conflate in character. Hence in reality the passage was preserved only by originally.

The second passage is the well-known one in 1 Thess. ii. 16, <span title="éphthasen dè ep’ autoùs hē orgḕ"> (+<span title="toû theoû"> it, Vulg. go) <span title="eis télos"> , which is borrowed from T. Lev. vi. II, <span title="éphthasen dè"> (+’ ) <span title="autoùs hē orgḗ toû theoû eis télos">.

Here reads  for <span title="toû theoû">. The <span title="epì"> is omitted by through a simple scribal error.

On the ground of the above quotations we assume, therefore, that was used by St Paul, and that H was therefore translated into Greek at latest before 50.