CHRISTIAN TRANSMISSION OF GREEK JEWISH SCRIPTURES: A METHODOLOGICAL PROBE\1) by Robert A. Kraft (University of Pennsylvania) [= pp. 207-226 in PAGANISME, JUDAISME, CHRISTIANISME: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique, Ouvrage publie avec le concours de l'Universite des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg (Paris: E/ditions E. de Boccard, 1978] For some time I have been interested in the question of how to identify and/or distinguish "Jewish" and "Christian" elements in that vast and variegated body of allegedly "Jewish" materials that has been preserved for centuries by Christian transmitters. A variety of ad hoc claims have been made by modern interpreters about what is of "Jewish" origin and what may be a "Christian" interpolation or addition or revision. I am seeking to determine whether careful an comprehensive analysis of such materials may reveal any patterns or produce any insights that will be useful for evaluating such claims and for providing a more secure basis from which to proceed in future discussions. Jewish Greek scriptures provide an excellent body of materials on which to attempt such analysis. The Septuagint (by which I mean only the old Greek Pentateuch translation) and other old Greek translations of various parts of Jewish scripture\2/ are relatively accessible today, by comparison with most other allegedly Jewish writings from the Greco-Roman world. For most scriptural books, critical editions\3/ or at least extensive collections of textual variants\4/ are available. Numerous Greek and versional MSS are preserved from centruries of Christian transmission\5). [Page 208] But with a few exceptions in the "deutero-canonical" (or "apocryphal") materials, the pre-Christian Jewish origin of the various scriptural writings is beyond reasonable doubt, and Semitic texts similar to those from which the ancient Greek translators worked are still available and have been preserved through the ages by non-Christian transmitters. Thus for these writings a number of control elements exist which are not available for most other allegedly Jewish materials transmitted exclusively by Christians. The fact that, from relatively early times, many Christians came to consider these writings as "authoritative scripture" tends to complicate the matter somewhat. We might expect that canonical scriptures would, in general, receive more self- conscious care from copyists than would less revered writings. Indeed, it might even be suspected that as self-consciousness of the sacred status of Jewish scriptures increased among Christians, suspicion about any overtly Christian phraseology in those presumably pre-Christian writings might also increase among some Christian commentators and copyists\6). Ancient writers and readers were not unaware of the fact that textual changes sometimes were introduced into MSS in the process of transmitting them\7). We must be alert to the hypothetical possibility that, just as an Origen or a Jerome attempted to bring the Greek or Latin materials into closer conformity to the then available Hebrew/Aramaic text, so a similar motivation to excise any suspiciously blatant "Christian glosses" might have been in operation in some Christian circles. Perhaps we should not expect to find much evidence of characteristically Christian phraseology in extant copies of Greek Jewish scriptures. Claims that tendentious tampering with Jewish scriptural texts has taken place are not unknown in antiquity. In the second century, Justin and Irenaeus object to an allegedly tendentious Jewish revision of the Greek of Isaiah 7.14 wherein "young woman" ( --so Theodotion Aquila) has replaced the older rendering "virgin" ( specifically against Christians and the alleged changes are not characteristically Christian in flavor. A relatively late tractate, partly supported by both Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, gives two variant reports about translations of Torah into Greek under king Ptolemy and then lists "thirteen" (actually fourteen) passages allegedly "altered" in the Greek by the original translators\11). [Page 210] The listed changes are relatively minor matters, but in at least two passages, the direction of the supposed change runs counter to traditional Christian interests (and the preserved LXX text!) regarding plurality in the Godhead. The Jewish sources complain that Gen. 1.26 "Let us make man..." has been changed to "I will make man...", and Gen.11.7 "Let us go down" to "Let me go down." Both passages, with the accepted Hebrew (and LXX) plural designations, played a positive role in Christian apologetics. Judging from available printed editions, the preserved Greek MSS and the versions derived from the Greek contain very few passages of unmistakably Christian intent -- that is, "Christian glosses or interpolations\12)." There are, to be sure, various peripheral or superficial "Christian" characteristics in some witnesses such as (1) certain introductory or concluding comments about a given text\13), (2) marginalia, decorations, and headings associated with the running text\14), (3) use in the text itself of certain abbreviations of terms and names popular in Christian circles (e.g. Christ, Joshua/Jesus, savior, salvation, crucifixion)\15). A fairly large body of patently Christian blocks of material also has found its way into the collections of "Psalms and Odes" in most preserved MSS --e.g. in Rahlfs' 1931 Gottingen edition. Ode 9 derives from Luke 1.46-55 plus 68-79, Ode 13 is from Luke 2.29-32, and Ode 14 is an explicitly Christian hymn to the triune God\16). It has even been argued that some of the "later Greek versions" of Jewish scripture [Page 211] such as that attributed to Symmachos are Christian productions of a sort -- Ebionite Christian in the case of Symmachos\17/ -- but even here the allegedly "Christian" elements are not particularly strong or obvious!\18/ In short, although a rather large number of undeniably Christian copies of various portions of Jewish scriptures exist, there is relatively little evidence in the biblical texts as such of tendentious, unambiguously Christian editing\19). The evidence that is available has been divided into various subgroups for purposes of the present discussion: (1) passages in which the title "Christ/Messiah" appears in a manner that may betray specifically Christian interests, (2) the use of what may seem to be Christian terminology, especially that derived from traditions about the sufferings and crucifixion of Jesus, (3) passages in which it is alleged that the peculiar textual form of certain well-known early Christian quotations from Jewish scripture has been read/copied back into the scriptural MSS themselves through the efforts of overly zealous (or perhaps relatively undisciplined) Christian transmitters. Decisions about the relevance of passages in the first two categories depends mainly on the critic's ability successfully to identify uniquely "Christian" interests; the third category depends less on judgements regarding characteristically Christian theological habits or attitudes than on the critic's evaluation of an extremely complicated text-critical situation. I do not propose to deal with the third category in detail, but only to suggest the context in which profitable discussion can best take place. CHRIST/MESSIAH PASSAGES Schoeps claims that a primary example of how Symmachos' Christian orientation has affected his efforts as a translator may be seen in the fact that he (like Theodotion) renders the Hebrew title mesiah not by eleimmenos, the translation used by Aquila the Jew, [Page 212] but by christos\20). The force of this sort of argument is weakened if one also considers Theodotion to be Jewish, although it could be maintained that Theodotion worked at a time when Christianity had not yet become a serious threat to Judaism\21/ and thus would have no need to avoid using christos, while Symmachos (and Aquila before him) worked at a time when Christianity was such an obvious threat that no Jew would use christos for mesiah\22). Such arguments are difficult to control. We simply do not have sufficient evidence about what Greek-speaking Jews in the 2nd and 3rd centuries might or might not have done in this regard. It is interesting to note that in some Christian MSS there is evidence of what may be a conscious "recensional" tendency towards writing chrestos (worthy one), rather than christos when an "anointed one" is mentioned in Jewish scripture\23). The origins of this phenomenon are not clear. It may well be theologically neutral -- a case of simple itacism that has become frozen in one branch of the MS tradition\24). Or it may be an attempt to differentiate between the Christian Christ and various pre- Christian anointed persons. It might even derive from Jewish practice in copying Greek scriptures, although that seems less likely. An unambiguously Christian variant -- doubtless a scribal slip -- does appear in a single Greek MS at 2 Macc. 1.10, where the text refers to "the group of anointed (christon) priests" who startlingly become "Christian priests" in codex58\25). Perhaps more of this sort of unconscious emendation would be found in the MSS if they were subjected to closer scrutiny. For example, variations caused by confusion between the abbreviations for "Lord" (ks), "God" (ths), and "Christ" (chs) are not infrequent in Greek MSS. It would be probably be inaccurate to attribute the introduction of references to "Christ" to anything consciously tendentious in such passages as: [Page 213] 2 Sam. 23.3 "fear of God" (MS A "...of the Lord"; MSS Bk "...of [the] Christ") 2 Macc. 3.30 "the almighty Lord" (MS 19 "...God"; MS A "...Christ") Sirach 47.11 "the Lord took away his sins" (MS Bc2 with Old Latin support, "Christ..."). A more interesting and certainly a more self-conscious change in an "anointed one" passage is found in the so-called "sexta" version of the Prayer/Ode in Habakkuk 3.13, as reported by Jerome: OG represents MT quite closely --"you went out to save (eis soterian, leyesa) your people, "...to save (tou sosai, leyesa) your anointed ones" The "Barberini" text reads similarly -- "you appeared for the salvation (epi soteria) of your people, to redeem ( rhusasthai) your elect ones" "Sexta" has "you went out to save (tou sosai) your people through Jesus your anointed ( dia Iesoun ton christon sou." For obvious reasons, the "sexta" text has impressed readers as being a blatantly Christian production\26). But despite its "Christian" tone -- and appeal -- the text also makes reasonable sense in a Jewish context as a reference to Joshua the mighty warrior leader for whom the sun and moon stood still (Josh. 10.12f, cf. Hab. 3.11) and who slew the wicked adversaries (Josh 10.22-27, cf. Hab 3.13b). The extant Hebrew text still preserves a double use of the word ysa ("to save") here, which at some point in the development of this difficult passage (if not originally) may have been read in Jewish circles as a play on the name "Joshua" (which means "YHWH saves" or something similar). The same sort of explicit wordplay lies behind Sirach 46.1 ("Jesus/Joshua...who in accord with his name became great with reference to the salvation of his elect ones") as well as behind Matt. 1.21 ("Call his name Jesus/Joshua, for he shall save his people..."). Thus a "Jewish"origin of the "sexta" version of Hab. 3.13 seems entirely possible, assuming that "sexta" was translated under conditions in which [Page 214] Christianity did not yet constitute a threat to Judaism. Conversely, it would be difficult to imagine "sexta" as a Jewish translation at a time when Jews and Christians were in conscious conflict\27). A remaining mystery is why Christian protagonists even after Jerome did not make wide use of this convenient and congenial "proof text"? Apparently fidelity to the accepted old Greek version outweighed polemical value in such a matter? Another messiah/christ passage of interest for the present investigation is Isa. 45.1, which in all preserved Greek biblical MSS reads, "Thus says the Lord... to my anointed, Cyrus (kyro." But Jerome claims to know of many Greek as well as Latin witnesses that have "erred" by reading "Lord" (kyrio) rather than Cyrus here. Indeed Barnabas 12.11 has "Lord" and juxtaposes this "proof text" with Ps. 109/110.1 ("The Lord said to my Lord..."), as do various other later Christian authors (especially in the Latin tradition)\28). Mention should also be made of 1 Sam.24.7 (6) in this connection, where most Greek MSS have David referring to Saul as "my Lord the anointed of the Lord". The origin of the reading may be a simple mistake (kyro/kyrio) or conscious "correction" of the Greek text (with the aforementioned parallels in mind?). There is no reason to insist that it originated as a peculiarly "Christian" change, although Christians certainly capitalized on the text. What is somewhat startling is the absence of such a congenial reading in preserved Greek MSS. Indeed, even in Barnabas 12.11, some of the preserved Greek MSS have kyro not kyrio, although the latter makes better sense in the context; and in ps-Gregory of Nyssa, Testimony16, the "Cyrus" form of the text is quoted but is presented as fulfilled in Christ. Thus in this instance, self-conscious fidelity to a less useful form of the text seems to have all but obliterated the kyrios variant as such in the Greek tradition. Perhaps a few other messiah/christ texts deserve mention, although the case for tendentious Christian tampering does not seem particularly strong in any of them. Reference to "the oil of anointing" (tou christou or tes chriseos) in Lev. 21.10 is conflated in some witnesses to read "the oil of anointing (chriseos or chrisma- [Page 215] tos of the anointed one" (so bw, see M)\29). Ezekiel 16.4 reads, according to many Greek MSS, "...and you were not washed in water." But several witnesses add the phrase "for salvation," which reflects the extant Hebrew lemise i\30), and a few have "of (or for? my anointed (or anointing)" -- tou christou mou. Possibly the latter reading reflects a real or imagined Hebrew variant mesihi for misei. There is little reason to attribute it directly to Christian interests. Finally, Daniel 9.25-26, in its various Greek versions, agrees with the preserved Hebrew in speaking of messiah/christ. The so-called old Greek text, however, seems especially confusing here: ...and after seven and 70 and 62, chrisma (an anointing?) will be removed and shall not be, and a kingdom of gentiles/nations will devastate the city and the holy place with the christos, and its/his completion will come with wrath even until the time of completion. Even if self-consciously Christian motivation produced this text, and that seems doubtful to me, it is interesting to note once again that the text (and indeed, the old Greek translation of which it was a part!) barely survived in the hands of Christian transmitters. "Theodotion's" Greek of Daniel, which stands much closer to the Masoretic Hebrew/Aramaic, is found in almost all extant Greek MSS. Most of the remaining scriptural passages in which Christian ideas about Jesus allegedly played a formative role are found in the Psalms. Christians copied and recopied the Greek collection of Psalms, usually supplemented with the Odes, more than any other portion of Jewish scripture, judging from the number of preserved MSS. Whether the same sort of Christian self- consciousness about the Jewish nature of "OT" scriptures obtained with respect to the Psalms deserves closer attention -- as we have seen, there seems to have been no attempt to disguise the explicitly Christian components in the Odes collection (above, p. 210). Perhaps some Christians saw Psalms (and Odes) as just as much a [Page 216] Christian as a Jewish collection, and thus felt less uneasy about apparently overt Christian phraseology in some Psalms. Indeed, even apart from allegedly Christian additions, both the Hebrew and the Greek form of Psalms contain striking parallels to the Christian traditions about Jesus' suffering and death (e.g. Ps. 21/22, Ps. 68/69). Did this encourage some Christians to include even more such details in their copies of Psalms? An examination of the questionable passages is a first step towards dealing with such possibilities. We have already noted (above, p. 209) that Justin thought Jews had excised the words apo tou xylou from Ps.95/96.10. Numerous preserved MSS and versions (especially "western" and south Egyptian) also support this reading, which Justin viewed as Pre-Christian, prophetic and original\31). It is not, however, found in the extant Hebrew text or in the well attested northern Egyptian Greek text. Its origin remains a mystery. If it is a Christian addition, it predates Justin (and probably Barnabas, as well -- see Barn. 8.5) and thus developed in the first century of Christian existence. Most Christians would probably hear it as a reference to Jesus' victorious crucifixion, and perhaps would even consider the passage an answer to Deut. 21.23, "cursed is anyone who is hanged epi xylou"\32). But xylon also was used even in Christian materials to refer to "the tree of life" (see Rev. 2.7,22.2,etc.), and the possibility also needs to be explored that Justin's text of Ps. 95/96.10 might have been taken to mean that "the Lord reigned from the tree (of life)." Traditions about the "tree of life" and its relationship to other xyla (various rods, the cross of Jesus, etc.) abound in Christian and Jewish materials\33). Until such a possible setting can be examined more fully, the question of the origin of apo tou xylou in Ps. 95/96.10 should perhaps be left open. There may yet even be a place for the phrase in pre- Christian Jewish thought! [Page 217] A closely related allegedly "Christian" variation appears in a few relatively early witnesses\34/ to Ps 50/51.9 and was also known to the Nestorian Timotheus I (ca. 800), who claims it was confirmed by the discovery of Hebrew scrolls in a cave by some of his contemporaries\35). Ps. 50/51.9 is a text used liturgically by Christians:\36) "Cleanse me with hyssop and I shall be clean wash me and I shall be whiter than snow." After the word "hyssop," the aforementioned witnesses add "from (or perhaps, "dipped in") the blood of the tree" (apo tou haimatos tou xylou, and after "wash me" some of them also add "from it" (ex autou. Again, the Christian appeal of the passage is clear, but how this variant originated is not so clear. The link of "blood" and a "tree" or "wood" appears in other passages (e.g. Barnabas 12.1) and may have its immediate background in texts dealing with apocalyptic signs (see 4 Ezra 5.5) or perhaps with martyrological legends like the death of Isaiah (sawn asunder with a wooden saw; sawn while hidden in a hollow tree)\37). Language that sounds suspiciously like the Christian crucifixion traditions also appears in some MSS of the "penitential" Psalm 37/38. In verse 14 (13) the primary witnesses mentioned in n. 1 above have the words "I was suspended/hanged by them" (ekrememen hyp' auton ), while at the end of verse 22(21) the Bohairic Coptic version adds "and they nailed my flesh." Neither of these ideas is foreign to Greek Jewish scriptures -- for example Lam. 5.12 speaks of (Israel's) rulers being "hanged by means of the hand(s)" of the adversaries, and the classic text in Dt. 21.23 curses anyone "hanged on a tree/stake"; Ps. 118/119.120 has "from fear of you they nailed my flesh" (Masoretic Hebrew, "my flesh bristled") and the idea of hands and feet being "digged" ("pierced"?) occurs in Ps. 21/22.17 (although the Greek word there is different, and the extant Hebrew differs significantly) -- but their [Page 218] presence in these texts of Ps.37/38 probably reflects Christian use of the Psalm in describing Jesus' crucifixion. The Greek MSS of Isaiah also contain a variation of relevance for the present discussion. At the end of Isa. 53, MS 86mg and the Sahidic have the following words which Ziegler designates as "additamentum christianum": "they pursued (him) and they persecuted (him); they took him (captive) and the Lord forgave them." While this sort of summary is not unharmonious with the tone of the surrounding material in Isaiah (suffering servant, forgiving Lord;see also Isa.55.7) and might conceivably have found its way into the book apart from specifically Christian interests, it is difficult to resist the intuition that this addition stems from Christian concerns (see e.g. Luke 22.54, 23.34). In either event, the actual Greek wording is not specifically Isaianic, nor does it reflect well documented Christian formulae. The final words of the problem passage also are paralleled in the Greek of Job 42.10, "the Lord... forgave them [Job's "friends"] their sin" (...apheden autois ten hamartian) -- material that is lacking in the preseved Hebrew text. Perhaps this also should be credited to Christian influence, although the suggestion seems much less convincing here where all preserved MSS contain the problematic passage. A few other passages sometimes are mentioned as possible "Christian" additions or alterations, but the reasons are hardly compelling. Rahlfs includes a variant text of Ps. 49/50.6 supported by several southern Egyptian witnesses among "Christian passages," but admits that there is "nothing specifically Christian" about the material\38). At Ps. 151.3, after the words "he is Lord, he hears," the Bohairic version reads uniquely, "all those who call upon him" -- an idea found also in Ps. 144/145.18f. and in Joel 2.32/3.5 (which is cited by NT authors at Acts 2.21 and Rom. 10.12ff; see also 1 Cor. 1.2). While it is not necessary to demand that a Christian originated this conflation, it is not inconceivable that a Christian added the phrase. Finally, the inner Greek confusion of the original iamata("healings") and the secondary himatia ("garments"), which is attested in numerous MSS at Isa. 58.8, may be mentioned as another example of a popular Christian "proof text." But there is no need to posit a Christian origin for this development. [Page 219] INFLUENCE OF ABERRANT QUOTATIONS ON THE MSS Another, more indirect type of Christian influence on Greek Jewish scriptures has also been claimed. The argument goes roughly like this: (1) Christian authors sometimes quoted Jewish scriptural passages in textual forms that differ significantly from the old Greek. (2) Familiarity with and reverence for the Christian form of the quotation developed among Christians (especially with regard to New Testament materials). (3) Thus in transmitting old Greek MSS, Christian copyists sometimes substituted (consciously or unconsciously) the aberrant Christian form of the material, in part or in whole. I do not propose to deal with this sort of argument, or the evidence to which it appeals, at any great length here. It is a very complicated issue, involving technical textcritical considerations as well as impressions about the development of Christian attitudes towards New Testament as compared with Old Testament literature. The question of the development and Christian use of "proof text" collections also is important here, as is illustrated by such passages as Isa. 45.1 (or 58.8) and Ps. 95/96.10 discussed above. Although I have tried to gear the present essay to passages actually or allegedly preserved in Greek MSS and derivative versions, the number of possibly tendentious Christian contributions to Jewish scriptural material would be swelled considerably if early Christian and patristic "proof text" references were also examined systematically (see, e.g. p. 216 n. 3 above). Methodologically, discussion of these problems often reverts to special pleading. It has long been acknowledged that considerable textual variation had developed in the transmission of Jewish Greek scriptures by the time Christianity emerged. Textcritical efforts to group the variants, identify textual and recensional streams, and ultimately recreate the earliest recoverable form of texts have continued apace. On the whole, variant forms of texts that appear in scriptural quotations found in a Philo or a Justin or a Clement are treated with some respect, recorded and classified if possible, as possible contributions to our knowledge of the complex textual situation in their time. But because the NT writings themselves ultimately gained the status of "sacred scripture" among the people who came to be mainly responsible for the transmission of Jewish scriptures in Greek, evidence of textual variation drawn from NT quotations often has come to be [220] treated differently\39). If agreement is found between a NT quotation and some Greek MSS of Jewish scripture in what is judged to be a "variant" form of text, the evidence from the MSS often is explained as the result of conscious or unconscious "harmonization" towards the NT form of the quotation. In its most extreme form this sort of argument precludes the possibility of using the MSS as evidence that a NT quotation attests a variant text form available to the author. Instead, it is suggested either that the NT author created the variants that appear in his quotation, or that the source from which the NT quotations derived its variants did not survive to exert any independent influence on the preserved MSS of Jewish scriptures. The situation with regard to Psalm 13/14.3 provides an excellent example and is neatly summarized by Rahlfs\40). In Rom 3.10-18 Paul cites a series of OT passages as evidence that all humans are under sin. He begins with what is first a rather free, then a literal rendering of Ps. 13.1-3, and continues with other OT passages of similar content (Ps. 5.10, 139.4, 9.28, Isa. 59.7-8, Ps. 35.2), but without giving any new formula of citation. On this basis, ancient Christians have enriched their Psalter and have also inserted into the Psalter after Ps. 13.1-3 everything that Paul added to Ps.13.1-3 (but they did not add it to the basically identical passage in Ps. 52.2-4). This Ps. 13.1-3 passage is present in the northern and southern Egyptian texts and in the western text. It is also preserved by Origen and is only obelized, whence it also is found in the vulgate, which contains a translation of the hexaplaric LXX text in its Psalter. Only Lucian manages to suppress it completely, and thus it is not part of the official text of the Greek church; nevertheless the Syriac translation of the Lucianic text does contain it, presumably because it was very popular. But this sort of analysis simply assumes that Paul created the composite text. If, as I tend to believe, Paul actually derived [Page 221] this block of material from a source available to him, the entire question must be reformulated in a different light. Is it not possible that Paul knew a text of Ps. 13/14 (or of Ps. 52/53) which was already expanded in this manner? Or that he knew a "proof text" type of collection (perhaps introduced by the general summary heading now found in Rom. 3.10-11) that also independently influenced MSS of the Psalms\41)? If we reject such suggestions and follow Rahlfs' analysis, how can we explain why (1) Rom. 3.10-11, the neat and balanced opening rubric, has had no impact on the same Psalm MSS that allegedly adopted Rom. 3.12-28 wholesale? (2)Other composite quotations found in Romans have had so little influence on the Greek scriptural MSS, relatively speaking?\42/ If Paul has influenced virtually all representatives of the three oldest text forms of Psalms in this one instance, does that mean that these three textforms derived from a single textual archetype that was influenced by Paul? If so, that archetype must be of very early date, much earlier than the fourth/fifth century in which the different textforms are relatively widely attested and significantly earlier than the third century from which the oldest preserved example of the "composite" Psalm passage comes (MS 2019) and the time when Origen presumably obelized it in the Hexapla. Indeed, it would seem to be difficult on a strictly textcritical basis to date such a supposed archetype late enough to itself have been influenced directly by Rom. 3, which was written in the mid-first century. Alternatively, one might argue that the Romans passage independently influenced different streams of the textual developments in Psalms -- thus no single, early archetype behind the identified textforms would be necessary. But such a theory would have to account for the relative homogeneity of the preserved witnesses (e.g. the opening words of the Romans quotation have left no trace in any of the Psalm MSS). On the whole, Rahlfs' [Page 222] hypothesis of Pauline influence on Ps. 13/14 seems unconvincing. And if the expanded text in Psalms were not caused by Christian familiarity with Paul, there is no reason to attibute the expanded form to "Christian" influence at all. Neither the material contained in the quotation nor the resulting thrust of the composite quotation is characteristically Christian. Even if it were a pre-Pauline Christian compilation, and I seriously doubt that it could be such for some of the textcritical reasons adduced earlier, we would have no way to ascertain that inductively from the text itself. New Testament literature abounds with quotations from Jewish scriptures (and/or closely related material), many of which deviate in some way form the majority of preserved Greek MSS of Jewish scriptures. Quite possibly the Christian form of a quotation sometimes influenced the later textual tradition in Jewish scriptures, but in most instances it is impossible to establish that as a strong probability. Numerous claims are made, resting on the slimmest of arguments or no arguments at all. Apparently the mere presence of a textual variant in a NT quotation and also in a few MSS of the old Greek for the passage quoted is enough to call forth such a claim. Even an experienced and normally cautious editor such as Joseph Ziegler falls into this trap. In assessing the peculiarities of MS A for his critical Gottingen edition of the Greek Isaiah (1939) Ziegler observes (p. 27): Frequently it also shows influence of NT passages. Thus in 9.2, A reads in agreement with various other MSS kathemenos (from Mt. 4.16) instead of poreuomenos and in 59.8 egnosan (from Rom. 3.17) instead of oidasi (first occurrence). The present tense teleuta in 66.24 instead of teleutsei derives from Mark 9.48 and is only found in A and 456. LIkewise the Christian addition in 40.14 taken from Rom. 11.35 has found entrance into A (as well as in S * and various miniscules). But the picture is neither so simple nor so clear when one examines the data more closely. The quotation in Mt. 4.15-16 contains five significant divergences from most OG texts of Isa. 9.1-2 (not including two major "omissions" and a transposition, none of which are attested by MSS of Isaiah). Three of these five are not found in any MSS of Isaiah (first occurrence of ge/Og chora;kai tois kathemenois/OG hoi katoikountes; autois/Og eph' hymas ). Another is found in a single MS (aneteilen/ OG lampsei ) -- which perhaps has been influenced by the Matthew material. The fourth, which is noted by Ziegler, is attested by a number of OG witnesses in addition to MS A, and clearly predates A. If the Matthew tradition originated these variants, and if Matthew's quotation exerted strong influence on the Greek transmission of Isaiah, why is the influence displayed only in one or two instances out of a [Page 223] possible five (or eight, counting "omissions" and transpositions)? It would seem to me more probable that, in the case of kathemenos, both Matthew and the Greek MSS of Isaiah have been influenced by a pre-Matthean form of the text which already read "sat" rather than "went". The other examples cited by Ziegler are equally complicated. Egnosan in Isa. 59.8 is also clearly older than MS A, and indeed is part of the composite Psalm passage (Rom. 3.10-18) discussed above. If the long form of Psalm 13/14.3 is considered to be pre-Pauline, then this particular reading ages accordingly. But in any event, even in the second occurrence of oidasin in Isa. 59.8 -- material not quoted in the Paul/Psalm passage, the variant egnosan appears in two Greek MSS and egno is attributed to Symmachos! Probably teleuta is an instance of direct or indirect NT influence on Isaiah, although it should be noted that (1)Mark 9.48 is less a conscious quotation than a frozen cultural phrase and doubtless would have had a history of its own prior to and apart from Mark, (2)several significant witnesses to the text of Mark also have the future tense, (3) the phrase also circulated quite early apart from Mark in Christian circles with future tense (e.g. 2Clem. 7.6, 17.5). But the sequence teleuta...sbestesetai in the A text of Isaiah 66.24 is difficult to defend and has probably been caused by familiarity with the abbreviated phrase in the form known from Mark. But why sbennutai does not also appear in A (as in Mark) is difficult to understand. The hymnic passage in Rom. 11.34f. presents problems similar to those noted above with reference to Ps. 13.3/Rom. 3.10-38. The first portion of the Romans material is virtually identical to the first two thirds of the preserved Greek in Isa. 40.13. (Incidentally, Paul uses the first and last thirds of the same passage to form a rhetorical question in 1 Cor. 2.16 He seems to know these phrases intimately, not simply as "quotations".) But Rom. 11.35 is best paralleled in content by the preserved Hebrew of Job 41.2/11 ("who has first given to me, so that I should repay him?") -- in Greek, the passage reads "or who will oppose me and endure," which makes good sense even in the Hebrew context, but is far from the wording found in numerous Greek MSS at the end of Isa. 40.14 -- not near the end of 40.13, where we would expect it if direct influence from Rom. 11.34f. were the explanation. And again, the MSS of Isaiah which support the problematic text represent relatively diverse family groupings and point to an archetype that must go back at the very latest to the 3rd century. If the "extra" material in Isa. 40.14 came from Romans, why is it not joined to [Page 224] Isa. 40.13? Could it be a displaced Greek version of Job 41.2/11, joined to the Isaiah material because of similar content (I imagine the general rubric "who can challenge the Lord?")? Is it possible that Paul knew such a secondary collection of similar materials, to which he passingly alludes (in Rom 11 and in 1 Cor. 2), and which also left its impact on the MS tradition of Isaiah 40? Such a solution seems to deal with the evidence in at least as satisfactory a mannner as the solution Ziegler represents -- indeed, in what is to me a preferable manner. The situation with regard to other NT and early Christian quotations is similar to that in the above samples\43). The Greek MSS of Jewish scripture seldom preserve any consistent pattern where a reverse influence of aberrant NT quotations on their apparent sources is alleged. The evidence seems to be haphazard and sporadic. In many instances, the theory generates as many problems as it claims to solve. The more we learn about the development of various types of Christianity and of Christian self-understanding, the more difficult it is to accept some of the assumptions with which the theory seems to operate -- e.g. that apparent deviations by early Christian authors from what we know or can reconstruct as the earliest recoverable text of Jewish Greek scriptures must have originated from the Christian authors, or that NT writings quickly assumed a relatively wooden position of verbal authority vis-a-vis Jewish scriptures and other Jewish and/or Christian traditions. Indeed, there is much reason to speak of "secondary" scriptural compilations of various sorts emanating from Jewish sources and available to early Christian authors -- "proof-text" collections, biblical-sounding psalms and prayers/hymns, continuously updated prophetic and apocalyptic materials, and the like. In this sort of context, older approaches to this aspect of "Christian" influences on the textual transmission of Greek Jewish scriptures need careful re- evaluation, with equal attention to technical textcritical problems and to the broader issues of how Judaism and Christianity were developing in the relevant periods of history. CONCLUSIONS From the viewpoint of strictly controlled methodology, the results of this probe are extremely tentative. It is easy to criticize the way things have been done, but difficult to propose satisfactory alternatives. In many ways, study of Greek Jewish scriptures is still in its infancy, without adequate tools or enough trained workers to take more than slow, short steps in progressing towards its goals. Knowledge of the Jewish world(s) from which Christianity derived has rapidly increased in the past generation and will continue to do so as more new data is made available and digested. Early Christianity also is being viewed from new perspectives, and our appreciation for variety and diversity within both Judaism and Christianity in the Greco-Roman world has increased greatly. Study of Christianity in the byzantine/medieval world has not made comparable progress and remains an obstacle to the sort of methodologically self- conscious approach that I wish to encourage. Our suppostions about what is or is not possible or probable in pre-Christian and non-Christian Jewish circles need to be carefully re-evaluated and reformulated. Similarly, our appreciation for what motivated Christians to transmit, embellish, reshape and transform various Jewish materials throughout the ages needs to be increased if we are to attempt to draw the shadowy line between what may be called "Jewish" and what is clearly "Christian". For the topic at hand, overtly Christian influences on the transmission of Jewish scriptures, most of the older claims can be dismissed because the assumptions on which they were based are no longer convincing. My impression, which needs considerable further testing, is that the passing of time did not increase the likelihood that Christian copyists would continually insert more and more blatantly Christian material into the texts with which they worked. Indeed, the reverse may have been true, in general -- as time went on, and as Christianity won its battles for social acceptance and legitimation as well as for inner consolidation, the sorts of motivation which at one time might have encouraged the introduction of "Christian intepolations" into transmitted texts whether Jewish or pagan) became less influential. Jewish scriptures could be accepted for what they were, and should be preserved as such. As a rule, tendencies to tamper with the texts would tend to date from relatively early times, from periods of stress with respect to self-identity (especially vis-a-vis Judaism or perceived "heresy"). This also seems true for textual criticism in general, where the earliest period in the transmission of written materials is likely to be the period of greatest variety, before sufficient distance and appreciation has been achieved to produce a more self-consciously deliberate treatment of the material. And as time goes on, the early variations often become domestic- [Page 226] ated into the ongoing streams of transmission, perhaps even by a conscious process of selection (as in "recensional" activity). We all but lose sight of the early varieties -- the "quintas", "sextas" and "septas", even the Theodotions and Aquilas and Symmachoses. I suspect there may have been a fairly active period in which some Christians strengthened their Christian claims by editing copies of Jewish scriptures in as favorable a manner as they dared. But I find it almost impossible to identify (or recreate) concrete evidence of such activity. Much of the more blatant evidence probably no longer exists -- it would have been edited out of the ongoing streams long since. And the evidence which may still exist cannot be isolated with confidence because its strength and appeal lay in its ambiguous nature with respect to Judaism -- it is part of God's prophetic, revelatory mystery and is "Christian" only to those who know how to read it! To others it is simply archaic -- a vestige of an ancient Jewish heritage. But this is precisely how many Christians viewed scriptural materials that are patently, demonstrably Jewish -- the beloved passages from Psalms or Isaiah or Jeremiah! If Isaiah had not survived as scripture, and we suddenly came across passages from Isaiah 53 in our literature, we would be almost compelled to call it "Christian interplation" (etc.,), without further discussion. We would be dead wrong, because we had not appreciated what was possible within the broad framework of what we call ancient Judaism. My conclusion, and intuition, with regard to alleged "Christian" tampering with Jewish scriptures is that a thorough re-examination of the problem is in order, and that a strictly controlled approach will, in the long run, serve us well in the quest for a more satisfactory understanding of our Christian and Jewish heritages. ----- ENDNOTES \1/ This essay is intended as an attempt to approach an old set of problems from new perspectives. I have not been able to research every aspect of the subject with equal diligence, and hop that other students of this material will provide additional information that has come to their attention. \2/ On the complexities of this matter, see most recently the articles on "Septuagint" and on "Greek Versions, Minor" by R. A. Kraft, E. Tov and K. O'Connell in the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplement (Abingdon, 1976). \3/ Most notably in the editions produced by the Gottinger Septuaginta-Unternehmens. \4/ As in the "Larger Cambridge Septuagint" ed. A. E. Brooke and N. McLean. \5/ Many of the versional materials still require much attention before their precise [Page 208] contribution to the study of Jewish Greek scriptures can be assessed satisfactorily. I suspect that the data treated in this essay would be swelled significantly if more information from the versions were readily available. \6/ A seemingly opposite tendency -- to revel in supposedly explicit "prophetic" anticipations of Christian truth -- characterized especially those Christians who collected traditional "scriptural testimonies" of various sorts to support their convictions. But even these collections of "proof texts" seldom include unambiguously Christian citations. An air of mysterious ambiguity is maintained in the "prophetic proofs," which makes it extremely difficult to identify with sufficient precision the origins of the material. \7/ An obvious example is Rev. 22.18-19. \8/ Justin, Dialogue 67.7, 71.3 and 84.1-3; Irenaeus, AH 3.21 (23).1. [Page 209] \9/ Dial. 71-73; see also Eusebius, EH 4.18.8 (summarizing Justin). I intend to deal with this material at greater length in a forthcoming article on the subject. (Later, in Dial. 120, Justin adds that the Jews have excised references to the death of Isaiah as well.) \10/ For example, J. Otto, Iustini... operaGeschichte 1.2 (1893) 850; H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the OT in Greek(Cambridge, 19022=19143) 424 and 479; A. Resch, Agrapha (Leipzig, 19062) 305 and 321f.; A. L. Williams, Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho (SPCK, 1930) 151 n. 3 and 153 n. 1. \11/ The more extensive material appears in the 8/9th century Masseketh Sopherim 1.7-10. The lists of alleged changes also are found in p. Megilla 1.71d and b. Megilla 9a. A convenient collection of these materials in English translation may be found in H. St. J. Thackeray, The Letter of Aristeas (SPCK, 1918) 89-95. [Page 210] \12/ In his pioneering 1893 essay on "Die von den Christen angeeignete und z[um] Th[eile] bearbeitete judische Litteratur" (Geschichte I.2 ), Adolf Harnack recognizes the possibility of such, but does not attempt to list "tendenziosr Uberlieferungscorrecturen" (whether of Jewish or Christian origin) in Jewish scriptural materials transmitted by Christians (see 849 and 864 #1). Swete claims that it is "improbable that the Greek OT was willfully interpolated by Christians, or that, if they attempted this, the existing text has been affected by it to any appreciable extent" (Introduction479). But to my knowledge, the available evidence has not yet been suitable collected to permit satisfactory evaluation of such a claim. \13/ E.g. scribal colophons or notes as at the end of 2 Esdras (=Ezra-Nehemiah) in MSS B and S or the end of Esther in S. \14/ E. g. MS S inserts running headings written in red between blocks of text in Canticles to identify the speakers. At Cant. 1.7 the heading reads "to the bridegroom Christ" (pros ton nymphion chn). Decoration at the top of a page of the University of Pennsylvania Museum's Coptic Psalter includes a stylized red and black abbreviation of the name Jesus Christ. \15/ In addition to the well-known treatments of the "nomina sacra" and related abbreviations by L. Traube (Munchen, 1907) and A.H.R.E. Paap (Brill, 1959), see more recently K. Treu, "Die Bedeutung des Griechischen fur die Juden im romischen Reich," Kairos 15 (1973) 140f. (and n. 68). \16/ The numbering and exact content of the Odes collection differs significantly in the various MSS and versions. See Rahlfs' comparative lists on pp. 79f. of his Gottingen edition. [Page 211] \17/ See especially H.-J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Mohr-Siebeck, 1949) 33- 37. Eusebius (EH 6.17), Jerome (Illustrious Men 54) and other Christian authors support this claim. Jerome (ibid) alos identifies Theodotion as an Ebionite. \18/ See Schoeps, "Symmachusstudien I," Coniectanea Noetestamentica 6 (1942), and below on the use of "Christ/Messiah." \19/ Probably additional relevant data is to be found in the various versional MSS, but at present that material is relatively inaccessible. [Page 212] \20/ Schoeps, Theologie 36. \21/ D. Barthelemy, for example, would date "Theodotion" to the middle of the first century of the common era; see his Devanciers d'Aquila...(Brill, 1963) and my review of this work in Gnomon 37 (1965), especially 480. \22/ Symmachos is usually dated to the closing decades of the second century. His work is known to Origen in the early third century (see Swete, Introduction49f.). \23/ Especially in 1-2 Samuel, where MSS acxc2e2 are consistently involved. \24/ Does a similar itastic tendency appear in NT MSS for the title/name christos? A control factor could be sought there. \25/ Perhaps a somewhat related phenomenon is the repeated reference to "the race of Christians" in the Greek Apocalypse of Esdras (ed. Tischendorf, Leipzig 1866), where an older form of the text almost certainly had "the race of mankind/humanity." The abbreviation anon (anthropon) has become christianon (perhaps also abbreviated to chranon or something similar). [Page 213] \26/ E. g. Swete, Introduction56 : "the Christian origin of sexta betrays itself at Hab. 3.13," despite Jerome's claim that "sexta" is the work of a Jewish translator. Swete adds (56 n. 2) that "no doubt the primary reference [in sexta's Hab. 3.13] is to Joshua..., but the purport of the gloss is unmistakable." [Page 214] \27/ For a convenient summary of early Christian traditions about the discovery of "sexta" in an earthenware jar see Swete, Introduction54f. In addition to the materials noted there, mention should also be made of the claim found near the start of the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (ed. Coneygeare, 1898) that two unidentified translations (presumably "quinta" and "sexta") were discovered in storage jars at Jericho Nicopolis (=Emmaus!) during Vespasian's conquest of Jersualem. \28/ For a listing of the patristic references, see my "Barnabas' Isaiah Text and the 'Testimony Book' Hypothesis," JBL 79 (1960) 342. [Page 215] \29/ See also Lev. 21.12. The LXX translator(s) seem to use christos in the sense of "anointing" rather than necessarily "anointed one" in several pentateuchal passages. Whether later Christian readers and copyists would still be able to understand the text in the way it was intended is difficult to determine. \30/ Probably Origen's Hexaplar text is responsible for the longer Greek text -- eis soterian is also a reading attributed to Aquila and Theodotion. [Page 216] \31/ Other Christian witnesses that attest Justin's form of Ps. 95/96.10 include Barnabas, Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo and Gregory Maximus. \32/ Cited, e.g. by Paul in Gal. 3.13, Justin in Dial 96, and Tertullian in Against the Jews10 (in close proximity to the problematic form of Ps. 95/96.10). \33/ See J. Danielou, "La Vie suspendue au bois (Deut. 28.66), " in Etudes d'exegise judeo-chretienne (Les Testimonia) (Paris : Beauchesne, 1966), 61f. Danielou also shows that Tertullian (Against the Jews 11.9, cf. 13.11) and various later fathers include the words "on the tree/wood" in quoting Deut. 28.66. No biblical MSS support this reading, which may have arisen in "proof-text" literature by conflation with Deut. 21.23 (kremamenos, see Deut. 28.66 kremamene), but this material is clearly of interest for discussing the similar phrase in Ps. 95/96.10 and the larger question of Christianized biblical quotations. [Page 217] \34/ The 4th century Greek papyrus 2013 with its 12th century ally MS 1093 (excerpts) and the Sahidic Coptic version; also in the 4th century Achmimic version (but not Latin, Syriac, or the Greek text) of 1 Clement 18.7. \35/ See O. Braun, "Ein Brief des Katholikos Timotheos I uber biblische Studien des 9 Jahrhurderts," Oriens Christianus 1 (1901) 306f. \36/ See R. A. Kraft and A. Tripolitis, "Some Uncatalogued Papyri of Theological and other Interest...", Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 51 (1968) 144 n. 1. \37/ The "wooden saw" tradition appears in various Christian sources and Martyrdom/Ascension of Isaiah 5. The "hollow tree" version is found in rabbinic sources. See L. Ginsburg, Legends of the Jews 4 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1913) 279 and the notes thereto. [Page 218] \38/ Rahlfs' Gottingen ed. of Psalms (1931) 32. The "addition" echoes Zeph 1.12 and reads: "and in athe last days God will search Jersualem with a lamp." [Page 220] \39/ See, e.g. the summary of scholarly opinions given by K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and its use of the OT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 19682 = reprint of 1954 original with a new introduction by the author) 169 (esp. n. 5)-174. A notable exception to his approach is H.B. Swete, whose passing comments in Introduction395 deserve special mention in the present discussion: "The witness of the NT almost invariably goes with codd. SAF and Lucian against the Vatican MS [B], and...its agreement with cod. A. is especially close. [Footnote to W. Staerk,Zeitschrift fur Wissenschafliche Theologie 36, p. 97f.] It may of course be argued that the text of these authorities has been influenced by the NT [footnote reference to Zahn, Einleitung 2, p. 314ff.]; but the fact that a similar tendency is noticeable in Josephus, and to a less extent in Philo, goes far to discount this objection." It is true that Swete did not have access to the textcritical materials now available, which have helped put the old discussion about the relative value of the "great Uncials" into better perspective, but his general impressions still deserve attention and should not summarily be ignored on that account. \40/ Psalmi cum Odis (=vol. 10 of Gottingen Septuagint; 1931), 33-34. [Page 221] \41/ Swete, Introduction 252 is remarkably restrained and balanced on this issue, compared to Rahlfs: "whether it [the long form] was brought into the text...from the Epistle, or was already in the Greek Psalm as known to St. Paul, cannot perhaps now be ascertained. But it doubtless had its origin in the Rabbinical practice of stringing together passages excerpted from various [scriptural] books...and it may have existed under this form in a collection of testimonia used by the Apostle." \42/ MS 55 at Ps. 68/69.23-24 (22-23) shows a closer relationship to Rom. 11.9-10 (which possibly conflates a phrase from Ps. 34/35.8 into the quotation) than do the other Psalm MSS. in Rom. 11.26-27 material is juxtaposed without interruption from Isa. 59.20f and 27.9, with no apparent impact on MSS of Isaiah. In Rom. 9.25f. a strange form of something like Hos. 2.23 is directly prefixed to material from Hos. 1.10, with the entire block introduced as from "Hosea," but the MSS of HOsea seem to be virtually unaffected. See also below on Rom. 11.34f. [Page 224] \43/ I will make no attempt to identify the relevant publications here. Discussion of aspects of the general problem may be found in Stendahl, School, especially III-IV and 169-182.