In Search of Jewish Greek Scriptures: Exposing the Obvious?
by Robert A. Kraft [31oc07 draft rewrite] [#01]
for Toronto conference on "Editorial Problems" (1-4 November 2007)

Abstract: Jesus and his earliest followers apparently were Semitic speaking Jews living in Roman Palestine, but their messages quickly spread into the Greek speaking worlds in which Jews had been quite active for centuries. The Greek sources left to us by the early Christian authors, compilers, and copyists include Jewish writings and traditions of various sorts, especially those that later became "canonized." Greek speaking Jews tend to disappear from our preserved sources in the second century CE, leaving the impression that the gradually dominating Semitic Judaism of the Rabbis has displaced most other Jewish representatives. This paper will challenge that simplistic assessment by drawing together evidence from and about Jewish scriptures in Greek throughout the Greco-Roman period. 

The surviving examples [#02] of Greco-Roman literature from the period that covers Christian origins (i.e. through the 3nd century ce, for present purposes) were predominantly written on scrolls (not codices) in "continuous writing" (scripta continuo) without much indication of sense units (paragraphs, phrases, punctuation) or inclusion of  pronunciation aids (rough breathings, disambiguation of consecutive vowels) and without any significant use of abbreviations, whether of names or of frequently used words or of numbers. Thus past generations of scholars could claim that certain characteristics of early Christian books pointed to Christian innovation or at least to specifically Christian exploitation of relatively new bookmaking practices. At the most obvious level, the Christian use of the codex [#03] rather than the scroll was heralded, and the employment of special abbreviated forms of certain names and words ("nomina sacra") [#04]. Other less obvious editorial features also received attention, such as page formatting with paragraphs and sense units demarkated by various means [#05] (paragraphoi, ekthesis, horizontal strokes, spacing) and more detailed "inner text" reading aids such as punctuation and diacritics (rough breathing markers, dieresis to separate adjacent vowels, similar markings when certain consecutive consonants occurred) [#06].  Various explanations were offered, sometimes emphasizing Christian self-definition over against other groups (especially Judaism), often pointing to similarities with scribal practices more common in the worlds that produced "documents" of various sorts (laws and edicts, contracts and deeds, petitions, tax records, receipts) and ephemeral communications (personal notes, invitations) or even memory aids (memos, school exercises) [#07]  than in the world of "high literature" and its dissemenation -- thus supporting ideas about the lower social status of early Christians and their scribes.

There has been a spate of recent studies, both in hard copy and online [#08], that provide new information relevant to this discussion of the production of written materials in this early period. At the very technical level, for example, Emanuel Tov has presented a detailed analysis of scribal techniques evident in the Dead Sea Scrolls and associated materials (2004) [#09]. In a survey aimed at a more general audience, Larry Hurtado deals with most of the relevant evidence in his recent book on The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (2006) [#10]. My own online investigations can be most easily accessed through an online index page [#11]. At the methodological level -- how do we know what we claim to know and what have we assumed in order to draw  our conclusions? -- the door through which I want to take you was actually opened by the late Kurt Treu, in his groundbreaking but often overlooked essay [#12] on the significance of Greek for the Jews in the Roman Empire (1973).

My aim is to expose the debt that early Christian scribes owed to their Jewish Greek predecessors [#13]. The main corpus of surviving evidence that can be interrogated consists of fragments of works that came to be considered "scriptural" within Jewish circles and subsequently by Christians as well, and some closely associated materials. The corpus continues to grow as new discoveries are made either in the field or in the accumulated collections of papyri and related materials in our museums and libraries or in private hands.  The interpretations and theories that I'm challenging were developed at a time when this corpus was relatively small and when few certifiably pre-Christian Jewish texts were available. [#14] Now we have about 20 such items, plus some 30 more from the period before Christianity received official recognition and protection under Constantine (early 4th century) [#15].

The easiest place to begin is with those little details that Hurtado calls "readers' aids" -- the use of spacing within the text to mark out sense units, marginal markings for similar purposes, punctuation, rough breating marks, dieresis, and the like -- "scribal devices that reflect a concern to guide and facilitate reading of the texts" (177) [#16]. Although Hurtado wants to argue, in accord with the rest of his book, that "in their time the earliest Christian manuscripts represented the leading edge of such developments in book practices" (179), the appearance of Tov's close study of Jewish scribal practices forces Hurtado to concede that "we can probably assume influence of some scribal features found in Jewish biblical manuscripts upon early Christian copying practices such as the practice of signaling at least major sense units of the texts" (185) [#17]. Since the early Christians certainly obtained their copies of Jewish scriptural books from Jewish sources, probably directly, or at least indirectly through booksellers, it should occasion no surprise that the Christian scribal practices reflect continuity with Jewish practices. And the explanation that these features "facilitate reading of the texts" works equally well for synagogue oriented Judaism as for Christian liturgical contexts.

But having said that much, it is a short step to exploring Christian uses of special abbreviations [#18]. The early Jewish texts clearly deal with divine names, especially the tetragrammaton or "four lettered" designation of deity, in special ways, including abbreviation, both in the Semitic language materials from the Judean desert and in surviving Greek fragments. This phenomenon is known to later Christian authors who continue to have contact with Jewish manuscript sources, including Origen and Jerome [#19]. We may titter a bit when we hear of the PIPI manuscripts, where the square Hebrew representation of the tetragrammaton is rendered as exactly as Greek orthography allows into the similar looking sequence PIPI. But strictly speaking, that is not an abbreviation. The Greek IAW, known not only from a Greek Judean Desert manuscript but from onomastic lists (on the meanings of Hebrew terms) and the world of gems and amulets [#20], is such an abbreviation. And the frequent double or triple archaic Hebrew yod, with a line through or over it, is also such. The failure of our sources thus far to preserve an unambiguously Jewish example of an abbreviation of the Greek term usually used to represent the tetragrammaton, KURIOS ("LORD"), is extremely weak evidence for arguing  that this is a Christian development. All indications suggest that it makes more sense as another carryover from Greek Jewish scribal practice [#21].

The abbreviation of names and common words [#22], normally by "suspension" (omitting the final letters) rather than by "contraction" (omitting letters between the beginning and ending) is widely used in the surviving "documentary" texts from the Greco-Roman world.  Early Christian abbreviation techniques vary, but there are interesting examples of both procedures, although contraction tends to predominate as time goes on. While I would expect to find similar practices in early Jewish Greek texts, I can offer no hard evidence, although why it should be considered a Christian innovation baffles me.

Which brings us to the larger format question, on the Christian use of the codex. Christians certainly did not invent the codex as a vehicle for their literature, and Christians continued to use scrolls as well [#23]. Our earliest evidence for codex technology used for literature in public distribution comes from the Latin poet Martial in the city of Rome around the year 80 ce (and pertains to Latin literature) [#24]. Our earliest preserved piece of a codex containing specifically Christian material is the Rylands fragment of the John 18 material, usually dated no later than the mid 2nd century [#25]. The earliest Jewish and Christian sources do not discuss or even mention any of the aforementioned developments. Jews do not accuse Christians of introducing new scribal features or formats and Christians do not mention these sorts of things in relation  to Judaism. Probably this is largely due to the paucity of surviving sources, especially for Greek speaking Judaism, and the nature of those sources that have survived. Still, there are a few passages [#26] that do dispute textual and translational differences that had developed (e.g. in Justin and Irenaeus), and we find no hint in those passages that Jewish and Christian copyists handled these transcriptional and format details differently. Book terminology is fairly consistent, with βίβλος and βιβλίον applied to Jewish scriptural works as well as to other writings (e.g. Irenaeus refers frequently to his own "books" as he writes them [#27], presumably scroll by scroll) and surprisingly only occasionally to what became Christian scriptural writings. Justin does introduce a different designation for the writings attributed to Peter and the apostles [#28] -- apomnhmoneumata (ἀπομνημονεύματα) or "memoirs" -- but that is a title already used centuries earlier by Xenophon ("Memorabilia") and by and of other authors, especially for "historical" types of texts [#29]. It would be quite a stretch to think that Justin uses it to indicate a different format such as the codex  (perhaps building on the practice of using small wax on wood notebooks [ὑπομνημονεύματα] or the like).

The earliest passage of which I am aware that might shed some light on the subject comes from around the end of the first century and is itself fraught with editorial problems at both the textual and the interpretational levels [#30]. In Luke 4.17 (but not in the parallel passages in Mark and Matthew), Jesus is described as accessing a passage in the book (βιβλίον) of Isaiah to read from it in a synagogue in Nazareth, after which he "closes" the book (literally, "folds" it up -- πτύξας, Latin vg plicuisset). Modern editors of the Greek text are not in agreement as to which verb for opening the book is the preferred reading -- anoigein (so Aland's Synopsis) or anaptussein (Huck-Lietzmann, UBS\4 category "B" = "the text is almost certain") [#31].  As Roger Bagnall has argued, neither of these words has the primary meaning of "unroll" as we might expect in this context -- and as the old Latin, Jerome, and many modern translators render it -- but the latter usually means "to unfold" (as a letter) while the former is simply "to open" (as a codex notebook) [#32]. To later readers, the Lukan author and/or early copyists convey the image of opening a codex rather than unrolling a scroll. Bagnall suggest that this is possibly "an early reflection of the adoption of the codex as the standard form for Christian scriptures" on the part of the author of Luke and/or some early copyist-editors (to explain the alternative readings) -- or, I dare to add, perhaps even of an early perception that codices of scriptural writings (here Isaiah is in view) were used in some Jewish synagogues!  But this is only a "foot in the door" sort of passage; it is suggestive, but far from conclusive. It is a long trip from the perceptions of an author and copyists in the late first and early second centuries (and the ambiguities of  their language) to firm historical realities.
 
[#33] In the fragments of the 30 Greek Jewish scriptural texts from the mid first to the early 4th century ce mentioned above, two thirds are from codices. The older scholarly approach has been to judge them to be "Christian" productions, lagely due to their codex format. Even then, a couple of them are admitted to possibly be from Jewish copyists (e.g. the Genesis fragments POxy 656 and POxy 1007; so even C.H.Roberts [#34].   Obviously I'm arguing that the old criteria, including the codex format, are misguided or at least undemonstrated. There is no reason to doubt that just as in numerous other areas, Christian scribal habits and the codex format itself were derived from the Jewish manuscripts that delivered these Jewish materials into Christian hands and reflect the training early Christian copyists and scribes received from their predecessors.

So far so good. Clearly there seem to be continuities between the "certifiably Jewish" use of certain "lectional signs" and their presence in early Christian manuscripts, which at one level "exposes the obvious." It is no longer useful to characterize early Christian scribal practices as emerging rather ad hoc among relatively untrained, in a sophisticated literary sense, and impecunious copyists who sort of made things up as they went along.  But there is more to be said. A closer examination of the non Jewish and non Christian Greco-Roman evidence is now possible through online sites [#35] such as the "Catalogue of Paraliterary Papyri" from Leuven. Rather than confirming that the early Jewish and early Christian scribal practices were relatively unusual in relation to the broader Greco-Roman world, study of this wider context suggests that the early Jewish scribes and their early Christian successors may have been following well-worn procedures used in the production of commentarial and related "paraliterary" material from pre-Christian times onward! This additional "obvious" direction calls for further exploration in detail.

While it does not change the fact  that early Christians adopted texts from their Jewish predecessors and contemporaries, and that early Jewish and early Christian manuscripts share certain scribal features, it does suggest that there may have been continuity with the techniques used in the copying of other literate manuscripts from that period. [#36] Especially in the production of "commentaries," one might even expect to find most of these features. Of course, we must also ask what types of writing were not affected by these practices, in order to proceed to more responsible conclusions. In any event, the older approaches that ascribed a significant degree of uniqueness to the early Christian scribal practices and book format require careful reevaluation, along with the attendant explanations. [#37]


-- [longer presentation]

For various reasons, not the least of which is the desire to present satisfying explanations of origins (pedigree, genealogy, aetiology) and perhaps to attribute originality and influence to dominant historical movements in our heritage, scholars of earlier generations attributed various new developments in literary practices to a Christian penchant for innovation and/or rapid assimilation of new techniques. Various claims were made, not necessarily for intentional or selfconsciously "theological" reasons, but certainly based on a relatively simplistic understanding of early Christian history. It was observed that Christians made extensive use of the codex earlier than could be documented for the rest of the known Mediterranean world.\1/ Christian manuscripts also exhibited extensive use of abbreviated forms of certain names and frequently  used words, which came to be termed in scholarly shorthand "nomina sacra" (revered or just special terms).\2/  Similarly, unlike their non-Christian literary counterparts, Christian manuscripts often made use of abbreviated numbers, employed spacing between sense units and even between words, and exhibited other transcriptional and editorial practices considered by modern scholars to be less polished/sophisticated (e.g. marginal markings, diacritics and punctuation).\3/

\1/ For a good recent survey of the situation, see Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2006), chapter two, "The Early Christian Preference for the Codex."

\2/ See Hurtado, Artifacts, chapter three ("The nomina sacra are so familiar a feature of Christian manuscripts that papyrologists often take the presence of these forms as sufficient to identify even a fragment of a manuscript as indicating its probable Christian provenance" [96]); also chapter four on the "the staurogram," a special combination of strokes highlighting  the cross in the form of X or of +, similar to marks used at the start of some Greco-Roman documentary texts. "Christogram" is also used for these and similar figures.

\3/ See Hurtado, Artifacts, 177-184 on "Readers' Aids" -- diaeresis, breathing marks, punctuation, paragraphing devices, spacing. Hurtado acknowledges the existence of many of the same devices in earlier Jewish manuscripts.

Various explanations were suggested to account for the use of  such technological and somewhat mechanical scribal traits in Christian literary practices. Although exactly a century ago,  Ludwig Traube, the popularizer of the term "nomina sacra,"\4/ thought that the Christian development of abbreviations reflected earler Jewish treatment of the tetragrammaton, the four lettered name of the deity, many later commentators drew a line between such Jewish phenomena and the Christian developments.\5/ It was proposed that perhaps the less priviliged cultural and educational status of early Christians meant that the production and copying of Christian literature employed less strict literary conventions than were used elsewhere in the Greco-Roman world.\6/ Regarding the quick adaptation of the codex, replacing traditional scroll technology, some scholars thought it might even represent an attempt by Christians to differentiate themselves from Jewish practice, since traditional Jewish use of scrolls that survives even to the present was thought to go back without deviation into antiquity.\7/ In fairness to the history of such scholarship, knowledge of Judaism, and especially of Greek and Latin speaking Judaism at the time when the Jesus movements took hold, was quite limited. Most reconstructions of first century Judaism depended largely on perceptions of what Judaism had become in its later rabbinical, i.e. late antique and medieval forms. Today despite extensive and serious gaps, we know much more, and are in a much better position to reevaluate the older theories, including those pertaining to the production of manuscripts.

\4/ Traube, Nomina Sacra: Versuch einer Geschichte der christlichen Ku"rzung (Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinishen Philologie des Mittelalters 2; Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1907), reviewed by W. M. Lindsay in The Classical Quarterly ??  (1909) 132-136.

\5/ For an overview, see the review by B. R. Rees of  A.H.R.E.Paap, Nomina Sacra in the Greek Papyri of the First Five Centuries A. D.: The Sources and Some Deductions (Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 8; Leiden: Brill, 1959), in The Classical Review ??  (1960) 259-260.  Paap also argues for Jewish influence on the developing Christian practice.  Jose O'Callaghan provided further updates in his "Nomina Sacra" in Papyris Graecis Saeculi III Neotestamentariis (Analecta Biblica 46; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970). For further discussion of the nomina sacra, see C. M. Tuckett,  ‘"Nomina Sacra": Yes and No?’ in J.-M. Auwers and H. J. de Jonge (eds.), The Biblical Canons (BETL 158; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 431–58, with further literature cited. Within the modern debate, the chapter by C. H. Roberts, ‘Nomina Sacra: Origin and Significance,’ ch. 2 of his Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London: Oxford University Press, 1979), pp. 26–48, remains a classic statement of the evidence; for an important recent discussion attempting to buttress and refine Roberts's approach, see L. Hurtado, ‘The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal,’ JBL 117 (1998), pp. 655–73. The standard work on the subject remains that of L. Traube.  The short article by C. M. Tuckett, ‘P52 and Nomina Sacra,’ NTS 47 (2001) 544–548, has produced strong reactions from C. Hill and L. Hurtado: see C. Hill, ‘Did the Scribe of P52 Use the Nomina Sacra? Another Look,’ NTS 48 (2002) 587–92; L. Hurtado, ‘P52 (P. Rylands Gk. 457) and the Nomina Sacra: Method and Probability,’ TynBull 54 (2003) 1–14.
 
\6/ Roberts?

\7/ Treu?

Interestingly, the earliest Jewish and Christian sources do not discuss or even mention such developments. Jews do not accuse Christians of introducing new scribal features and Christians do not mention these sorts of editorial practices in relation  to Judaism. Probably this is largely due to the paucity of surviving sources, especially for Greek speaking Judaism, and the nature of those sources that have survived. Still, there are a few passages that do dispute textual and translational differences that had developed (e.g. in Justin and Irenaeus\8/), and we find no hint in those passages that Jewish and Christian copyists handled these transcriptional details differently. Book terminology is fairly consistent, with βίβλος and βιβλίον applied to Jewish scriptural works as well as to other writings (e.g. Irenaeus refers frequently to his own "books" as he writes them, presumably scroll by scroll) and surprisingly only occasionally to what became Christian scriptural writings.\9/ Justin does introduce a different designation for the writings attributed to Peter and the apostles -- apomnhmoneumata (ἀπομνημονεύματα) or "memoirs"\10/ -- but that is a title already used by Xenophon ("Memorabilia") and by and of other authors, especially for "historical" types of texts. It would be quite a stretch to think that Justin uses it to indicate a different format such as the codex  (perhaps building on the practice of using small wax on wood notebooks [ὑπομνημονεύματα] or the like\11/).

\8/ Justin, Dialogue 67.7 [??], 71.3 and 84.1-3; Irenaeus, AH 3.21 (23).1. For a discussion of these and other claims about translational differences between "Jewish" and "Christian" scriptures, see my  "Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures: a Methodological Probe." = pp. 207-226 in Paganisme, Judaisme, Christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le Monde Antique (Melanges M. Simon), ed. A. Benoit et al. Paris: De Boccard, 1978.

\9/ E.g. in Dial 62.4, Justin speaks of the βιβλίον of Joshua and  in 75.1 he mentions material from the βιβλίον of Exodus (elsewhere Genesis and Exodus are also βίβλοι). Irenaeus almost certainly wrote his five "books" against heresy as scrolls (see POxy 405 = AH 3.9.2ff, from around the year 200 CE!). 2 Clem 14 refers to "the books and the apostles" = ?? Clement of Alexandria refers to "the gospel" (usually not further defined) and "epistles" (often by name) and Luke's "acts of the apostles,"  and "the apocalypse," but not to any of these as "books." This deserves further study.

\10/ The apostles in the memoirs generated by them, which are called 'gospels,' thus transmitted to obey them (οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια, οὕτως παρέδωκαν ἐντετάλθαι αὐτοῖς -- Apol 66.3, see also Dial 100-107 frequently). Several authors list it as a type or title of a βιβλίον, along with Προτρεπτικοί, Διάλογοι, Ὑπομνήματα, Χρείαι, Ἐπιστολαί.

\11/ notebooks


The earliest passage of which I am aware that might shed some light on the subject comes from around the end of the first century and is itself fraught with editorial problems at both the textual and the interpretational levels. In Luke 4.17 (but not in the parallel passages in Mark and Matthew), Jesus is described as accessing a passage in the book (βιβλίον) of Isaiah to read from it in a synagogue in Nazareth, after which he "closes" the book (literally, "folds" it up -- πτύξας, Latin vg plicuisset). Modern editors of the Greek text are not in agreement as to which verb for opening the book is the preferred reading -- anoigein (so Aland's Synopsis) or anaptussein (Huck-Lietzmann, UBS\4 category "B" = "the text is almost certain").\12/  As Roger Bagnall has argued, neither of these words has the primary meaning of "unroll" as we might expect in this context -- and as the old Latin, Jerome, and many modern translators render it -- but the latter usually means "to unfold" (as a letter) while the former is simply "to open" (as a codex notebook). To later readers, the Lukan author and/or early copyists convey the image of opening a codex rather than unrolling a scroll. Bagnall suggest that this is possibly "an early reflection of the adoption of the codex as the standard form for Christian scriptures" on the part of the author of Luke and/or some early copyist-editors (to explain the alternative readings)\13/ -- or, I dare to add, perhaps even of an early perception that codices of scriptural writings (here Isaiah is in view) were used in some Jewish synagogues!  But this is only a "foot in the door" sort of passage; it is suggestive, but far from conclusive. It is a long trip from the perceptions of an author and copyists in the late first and early second centuries (and the ambiguities of  their language) to firm historical realities.

\12/ UBS\4 reads ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλίον with S D (D* ἀπτύξας τ. β.) Δ Θ Ψ 0233 f\1/ f\13/ 28 157 180 205 565 597 700 1006 1010 1071 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz [E F G H] Lect it\a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff\2/, l, q, r\1// vg [revolvit] slav Origen\lat/ Eusebius\1/2/ Severian; Augustine. The reading ἀνοίξας τὸ βιβλίον is found in A B L W Ξ 33 579 892 1241 l 547 cop\sa,bo/ arm eth (geo) Eusebius\1/2/; Caesarius.

\13/ "Jesus Reads a Book," Journal of Theological Studies 51 (2000), 577-588 (quote is from 588). Bagnall does not discuss the fact that the Latin translators, presumably already in the second century (and later including Jerome), clearly understood the verb to mean "unrolled" (revolvit). Even if that was how ἀναπτύξας was read from the start, we still have the early appearance of ἀνοίξας to explain. It could be argued either that "opened" was in fact the older reading and historically alert copyists changed it to "unrolled," or "unrolled" was the older and copyists familiar with codex technology -- and perhaps preferring to depict Jesus as using the codex which was becoming increasingly popular in Christian usage -- changed it to "opened."

We now know of many fragments of Jewish scriptural texts in Greek dating earlier than the mid-4th century ce, when mega-codices such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus burst onto the scene, perhaps even with sponsorship from Roman Christian emperors such as Constantine. The earliest of these fragments are from scrolls,\14/ as would be expected since our earliest knowledge of codex technology used for literature in public distribution comes from around the year 80 ce from the Latin poet Martial in Rome (and pertains to Latin literature).\15/ Here is a roughly chronological list of the evidence for 30 Greek Jewish scriptural texts that are of undetermined origin for the period from the mid first century ce to the reign of Constantine (early 4th century) and a bit beyond -- of course paleographic datings are only approximate, but they are usually all we have for dating such items (the numbers assigned are arbitrary, and merely for convenience):

\14/ The earliest fragments of Jewish Greek scriptural and related works, almost all of which are dated paleographically to pre Christian times, are:
\15/ Martial text

Of these perhaps 10 are not codices -- i.e. are not written with the same continuous text on both sides (amulets with selected scriptural texts are difficult to distinguish from rolls of that text). We also have a few other fragments of what may be Greek Jewish texts from the period, the most notable of which is a codex of some Philonic writings usually dated to the 3rd century.\16/
\16/ The Philo codex -- Hurtado 167 n 44


While it is not impossible that all these materials represent items copied and used in Christian circles, this seems highly unlikely. And if we forget the old unfortunate rule that assumes that if it is from a codex, it must be Christian, we can explore the possibility that some codices of Jewish provenance are represented in the list. Similarly, since Christians did not stop using scrolls during this period, some of the scriptural scrolls noted above could be of Christian origin. It is also possible that booksellers and their copyists, with neither Jewish nor Christian affiliation, were responsible for some items. Martial, after all, refers to Latin booksellers in Rome who were using codex technology in the late first century. Whether some early Christians depended on the commercial market to acquire their copies of Jewish scriptures in Greek cannot be determined.  At this point, there is no way to tell whether Christian copyists innovated, or simply imitated the formats that they encountered in  the Jewish texts they received.\17/ Of course the use of the codex format might also be a parallel and independent development reflecting what was happening less rapidly in the Greco-Roman world at large\18/ rather than an influence from Jewish Greek (or Jewish Latin) practice on Christian usage. Thus we need to explore what other evidence might be useful in making such determinations.

\17/ On the consciousness that Jewish texts could be considered more trustworthy in certain debates, note how Ps-Justin, Hortatory Address 13, calls for people to test Christian claims by examining the Jewish scriptural books as they are found in the synagogue: "for lest, by producing them out of the Church, we should give occasion to those who wish to slander us to charge us with fraud, we demand that they be produced from the synagogue of the Jews, that from the very books still preserved among them it might clearly and evidently appear, that the laws which were written by holy men for instruction pertain to us."

\18/ Roberts, Hurtado, etc.

While it is true that certifiably Christian manuscripts in the period abound with "nomina sacra,"\19/ the use of basic special abbreviations for "God" and "Lord" should not prejudice us against the possibility that Jewish scribes also employed such practices, especially since similar special treatment of divine names can clearly be documented in pre and non Christian Jewish texts, even apart from  the Dead Sea Scrolls.\20/ Thus we need to be open to the possibility that a text of a Jewish scriptural work that uses abbreviations for deity (QS, KS) might be of Jewish origin.\21/ Even the abbreviated name of Joshua/Jesus (IHS) in an early codex of the book of Joshua (see the Schoyen codex) should not be judged "Christian" simply on that basis. Greek and Latin scribes were familiar with abbreviation techniques, which are not infrequent in documentary texts\22/ as well as in inscriptions\23/ and on coins.\24/ Of course it is still possible that the editorial practice of using such abbreviations for Greek names and words (as opposed to special Semitic language treatments of the tetragrammaton even in Greek manuscripts, for example\25/) was imitated by Jewish copyists familiar with emerging Christian practice, but I'm inclined to think that the opposite is more likely -- Christian copyists, who got their texts (directly or indirectly) from Jewish sources in the first place, simply adopted and expanded the practice of abbreviating special and/or frequent terms. The argument for independent parallel development in accord with what was going on in the wider Greco-Roman literary world is more difficult to make here, since such practices do not seem to be present in the "pagan" literary works from the period.

\19/ One of the earliest examples of Christian abbreviation is the "Egerton 2" fragment of Jesus traditions, usually dated to about the year 200. It has been discussed and imaged in detail on Wieland Willkur's web site, and includes abbreviated forms of Mo(ses), Is(aia)h, and other terms as well as the usual G(o)d , L(or)d, and the less usual Je(sus) [see e.g. POxy 2070]. It also uses some punctuation and other diacritical marks as well as sense division spacing, but not full word division. Another early example is the aforementioned scroll of Irenaeus (POxy 405). Exceptions to the use of special abbreviations in Christian usage are rare, but  include POxy 407 (a 3/4th century Christian prayer text in which Θεός, Ἰησοῦς, and Χριστός are written in full), Gospel of Mary in POxy 3525 (which may have a κύριε written in full), a second-century fragment of Hermas (which has a Θεός written in full), and the NT MS p72 (which has four occurrences of κύριος written in full in the text of 1 Peter and 2 Peter). On the use of nomina sacra as an indicator of Christian origin, see Roberts (1977) 82f: "the nomina sacra for kurios anqrwpos, and ouranos shows conclusively that it is Christian, not Jewish. ... and the KE in l. 5 characterizes it as Christian.

\20/ See my

\21/ See my

\22/ Abbrevs in doc

\23/ Abbrevs in inscr

\24/ Abbrevs on coins

\25/ Semitic tetragramm

Regarding other editorial practices such as the use of spacing to separate sense units and even words, and the related employment of marginal markings, it is possible to draw clearer connections between Jewish and Christian texts. While spacing is not entirely absent from Greco-Roman literary texts of the period,\26/ it is found to some extent in almost all surviving examples of Jewish Greek scrolls.\27/ As with abbreviation, spacing is not infrequent in Greco-Roman documentary and inscriptional texts from the period -- the latter sometimes even insert midpoint dots to separate words -- so the argument for parallel independent development must also be considered.\28/  But the fact that Semitic language Jewish texts of the period regularly use word division (as in Hebrew and Aramaic DSS texts) needs to be noted, along with the presence in at least one early Jewish Greek scriptural scroll of clear word division. A column of the Greek Minor Prophets from Nahal Hever, dated paleographically to around the beginning of the common era and containing a previously unknown Greek translation (dubbed "kaige" for its consistent use of that equivalent for Hebrew WeGam) that seems to have been known to the Christian author Justin in the mid second century\29/ is a clear witness to full word division, among other interesting features:
\26/ check Hurtado

\27/ see my and Tov

\28/ Some examples of documentary use of spacing: POxy 744 (Toronto APIS 17, the year 1 )

\29/ Justin's use of kaige

Consistent word division does not occur in clearly Christian texts of the early period either, but can perhaps already be sensed to a lesser degree in the second century Rylands codex fragment of the John 18 material and in the Egerton text (n. xx above). Later Christian literary texts tend to revert to the "continuous writing" (minimal or no spacing) of their Greco-Roman contemporaries.\30/  Thus the problem is to explain the appearance of such features in the literary texts of emerging Christianity, when Greco-Roman literary texts in general in the same period do not usually attest these scribal practices.  On the analogy of Jewish special treatment of divine names, and of the Jewish use of spacing -- even of word division -- in Greek materials prior to the development of such Christian practices, I would suggest that in general, early Christian scribal practices were also simply continuations and further developments of what was already found in the inherited Jewish manuscripts. Why the Jewish scribes employed this feature is a prior question that will not be explored in depth here. Obvious possibilities include the influence of earlier Semitic scribal practices (e.g. word division) and/or influence from Greek documentary scribal practices.\31/

\30/ continuous writing

\31/ On "professionalism" of Jewish Greek hands

Other editorial features such as diacritics and punctuation are more difficult to assess. Some early Greek literary scrolls occasionally employ a sign for rough breathings or use the dieresis/trema (although whether these come from the original copyist or are later insertions may be a problem), as do many Christian texts.\32/  Early Jewish evidence is lacking.  Punctuation as such is also lacking in the available early Jewish materials, and is quite infrequent in Greco-Roman literary texts in general.\33/ The earliest occurrence of abbreviated numbers within the text (not numbering pages) of which I am aware is in the Yale Genesis codex fragment from the latter 2nd century, of undetermined origin.\34/ Page numbers begin to appear on Christian codex pages as early as the 3rd century POxy  (Matthew 1; p\106, p\66). There is no evidence that  columns were numbered in scrolls.\35/

\32/ Hurtado? P\52 G.Jn (with internet addresses for images, 179; list on 182); pagan stuff?

\33/ Hurtado on Xn use 182

\34/ Hurtado?

\35/ Turner? Hurtado?

My title asks, somewhat rhetorically, whether all these investigations are simply "exposing the obvious?" I'm inclined to think so. Just as in so many other ways early Christianity adopted and adapted ideas and practices from its Jewish parent, so with regard to these literary conventions. The virtual disappearance of certifiably Jewish literature in Greek after Philo and Josephus makes the task more difficult, but it seems to me that enough vestiges remain in the scriptural and related manuscript fragments to challenge the old assumptions about Christian uniqueness in such features as special abbreviations and even the use of the codex. Here also, even Greek Christianity quiety reveals its Jewish roots.


[end of short version]

--
Origen in the first half of the 3rd century and Jerome a century and a half later advocated adjusting the Jewish scriptures in use in Christian circles to agree more closely with the Hebrew scriptures in use in Jewish circles. Origen attempted this through his massive Hexapla project, Jerome through his new Latin translation that came to be called the Vulgate. They both were aware of textual variations in the available Greek manuscripts, but tended to trust the Jewish Hebrew scriptural texts (and informants) that they consulted. Jerome met with significant resistance among his Christian contemporaries from various directions (e.g. Augustine, Rufinus), and ultimately produced two versions of the Psalms, one updating the older Latin that was based on the Greek, the other "iuxta Hebraeos," translating the Hebrew Psalter as he knew it. Origen seems to have had a better reception, judging from the effect his Hexaplaric materials had on later copies of what became the Christian "Old Testament" -- or at least we have less evidence of objections that might have been voiced to his working with the Hebrew materials and his suggestions for editing the traditional Greek scriptural texts.
 
Both of these scriptural editors operated in the eastern Mediterranean, close to Semitic Jewish sources -- Origen in Caesarea on the Palestinian coast, with a background in Alexandria, and Jerome in Bethlehem and its Palestinian environs. Origen's native language was Greek, Jerome's Latin. Both seem to have learned as adults whatever they knew of Hebrew and Aramaic, and both also consulted informants about the Semitic terms and constructions when necessary. Jerome also learned Greek as part of his studies, and in fact attempted to translate some works of Origen during the learning process.

Slightly earlier than Jerome, in the last half of the 4th century, we also encounter the Greek writings of Epiphanius who became bishop of Salamis, on Cyprus, after many years leading a monastery in his presumed homeland of Palestine (Eleutherios). Epiphanius may have been born Jewish, perhaps even in a Semitic speaking context, but in any event in his writings he shows considerable acquaintance with Semitic Jewish language, traditions and even personalities -- his depictions of "Count Joseph" as an early 4th century Hebrew convert to Christianity who even "liberates" some Hebrew documents from the Jerusalem archives are quite detailed, if not always entirely convincing. And the explanation of Semitic terms in Epiphanius' "Weights and Measures" probably depends on earlier onomastic traditions (explanations of Hebrew terms and names) but nevertheless show a strong awareness of the Semitic backgrounds of much material that has become relevant for Christians.

Although they may be the most obvious and best documented, these were not the first or only figures in early Christianity to have close contacts with Jewish textual developments and Jewish scholars. In the generation before Origen, we hear of  Hegesippus, reputedly a "convert" from Judaism from the Syro-Palestinian area and probably familiar with Hebrew and/or Aramaic. Unfortunately, our knowledge of his life and work is almost entirely second-hand, through references in Eusebius and elsewhere. Similarly, around the same time near the end of the second century we hear of Melito of Sardis traveling to Palestine to confirm information about Hebrew (and Aramaic?) scriptures, and making extensive excerpts for his Greek readers. Earlier still, in the middle of the second century, we encounter the Greek Palestinian  Justin, who became a Christian martyr, with his report -- whether actual or imagined -- of an extended encounter in Ephesus with the Jew Trypho, although Trypho appears to be a Greek speaking Jew for Justin's purposes. Nevertheless, Justin shows at least a passing awareness of Semitic Judaism and its scriptures along the way. He accuses the Jews of editorial tampering with some scriptural passages, and of misinterpreting others through variant tranalstions into Greek.\n/

Prior to Justin, we find only hints of contacts between individual identified Christians and Jews, especially Semitic speaking Jews. There are the reports about Aristo of Pella and his Christian proto-Dialogue in Greek between the Hebrew Jewish Christian convert Jason and the Alexandrian (Greek?) Jew Papiscus. Probably materials from this literary production show up in the later tradition of Christian dialogues with Jews, but all such reconstructions are entirely hypothetical at this stage. Aristo's alleged home in Pella, to which early Christians are said to have  fled from the difficulties caused by the Jewish war with Rome in 66-73 ce, is on the trans-Jordanian fringe of Palestine, and thus a fitting setting for such dialogic activities or imaginations.  There are other hints and vague reports about followers of Jesus who maintained some connections and identity with "Jews" in these early generations, although exact details are sadly lacking. Paul, of course, is both Jewish and an advocate for Jesus as Messiah, as are the earliest generation of Jesus' follower companions, but exactly what this meant in terms of continuities and transitions relative to the transmission of Jewish texts and traditions is again, largely a matter of hypotheses. The author of Acts presents a Paul who is at least bilingual, in Greek but also in the semitic dialect of his Jerusalem Jewish audience (Acts ///). Whether this is historically accurate or not, at least it shows some awareness of the early period in which this possibility might be expected. Interestingly, the exact "tongue" employed by Peter or Stephen in the Acts narrative is not specified.

How many of Jesus' initial followers might have been fluent, or at least conversant, in Greek we do not know, just as we do not know whether Jesus himself could speak and/or understand Greek. That Jesus primarily spoke a Semitic dialect, probably Palestinian Aramaic, is surmised from linguistic evidence preserved in the traditions about him (such things as "talitha cumi," "amen," and especially the words from the cross, "eloi eloi lama sabachthani") and is assumed from the social context in which he is traditionally placed (early first century unsophisticated Palestinian-Galilean Judaism). The one episode in which he is depicted as reading from the scriptural book of Isaiah (Luke ...) is not specific about the language that he reads -- Greek is certainly possible, especially in a Galilean synagogue, although it is usually assumed that it would have been Hebrew (or perhaps an Aramaic targum). Nor is the old tradition explicit about the language employed when it depicts Jesus writing something in the sand when the woman caught in an adulterous act is brought before him for judgment (John 8.1-11). Given the audience for which that writing is intended to be significant in that story -- Jerusalem Jewish leaders as well as the surrounding "crowd" -- it is reasonable to assume Hebrew or Aramaic. But for the most part, such details about language do not seem to have been overly important to our early Christian sources and/or transmitters. Perhaps it is assumed that the readers will know the historical situations, but more likely, it is not deemed sufficiently significant for precise explication. Multilingualism was a way of life for much of the eastern Mediterranean world, and the routes taken in the developement of early Christianity were no exception. A few Semitic terms survive in the Greek Christian traditions, such as Paul's "maranatha" or the wide useage of "amen."

We also find hints now and then for some sort of continued awareness of Semitic terms and formulas, especially in "liturgical" and/or "magical" contexts. Some of the "gnostic" sources, and especially the Acts of Philip illustrate the phenomenon.\n/  Indeed, the group identified as gnostic "Naasenes" ("serpenters," with their Greek counterpart in the "Ophites") maintain a Semitic connection in their name, at least. And according to Origen, this would also be true of the "Ebionites" (which he explains as derived from the Hebrew for "poor") although Tertullian thinks the name is in recognition of their founding father, named Ebion. Jerome tells of "Nazoreans" as a branch of Semitic Christianity in his time, using a term that is still current in modern Hebrew to designate "Christians."

This is all prelude. It has little to do directly with the appropriation and development of Jewish scriptures in Greek among Christians in the earliest generations, yet it sets the context in which that discussion needs to take place. It is a world of diversity, not only with reference to languages and religio-cultural commitments but even to relevant technological developments such as the transition from scroll to codex. Most of the selfconsciously "Christian" literature that has been preserved is in Greek, with Latin also coming into the picture gradually in the last half of the second century. Nothing has been preserved in a Semitic dialect until we encounter the Syriac (eastern Aramaic) letter from Joshua/Jesus to Abgar as translated into Greek in Eusebius' early 4th century History, although claims of an earlier Hebrew Gospel of Matthew abound (Papias, et al.). The Jewish scriptures cited by early Christian writers generally reflect what we know from later LXX/OG manuscripts, although some interesting exceptions also occur such as in the "fulfilment" quotations in our Greek Gospel of Matthew.\n/

As seems increasingly clear from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Jewish literature from pre-Christian times, even the identification of what counted as authoritative "scripture" in Judaism was somewhat in flux when "Christianity" becomes a recognized religious option by the start of the 2nd century (e.g. Nero, Pliny). The concept of "scripture" certainly existed, but the exact content of any imagined or actual scriptural anthology was somewhat fuzzy. Even when scriptural scrolls were designated by name, it was not entirely clear whether all versions bearing that name were scriptural, or whether selectivity was necessary at that level (viz. Jeremiah, Psalms, "the Law," perhaps even Genesis, with its parallel accounts in Jubilees as well as elsewhere). The editorial work that produced the "proto-Masoretic" text of the early second century presumably was intended at least in part to address such problems, as well as the emergence of more or less detailed lists of scriptural books from Josephus and the Jamnia academy. Similarly, on the emerging Christian side, such authors as Melito and Origen also produced lists, reflecting what they found to be the situation among the contemporary Jewish authorities they consulted. Note that in his area of Asia Minor, in the latter part of the 2nd century, Melito apparently did not find convincing answers to what constituted "scripture," so he made a trip to Palestine to find out more surely.

The Christian tradition known to Melito and Origen had already adopted what came to be called the "old testament" in Greek dress, or perhaps better, dresses. For them, "old testament" could only be a list of scrolls or mini-codices, perhaps kept in a cabinet or on shelves or in a scroll box (capsa).  Origen seems to have had access to a relatively extensive library, and contributed to the continuation of such a resource. Melito, it seems, may have been less fortunate, or at least his correspondent Onesimus did not have such access, so Melito researched the subject (what works qualified as "scripture") and set about making six "books" (scrolls or mini-codices) of relevant excerpts. Origen and his staff must have labored for years producing the numerous "books" necessary to hold his "Hexapla," especially if we assume that it covered the entire range of scriptural books he elsewhere listed (including their Hebrew names). By the time that technological advances in codex conceptualization and manufacture made it posssible to put all these Jewish scriptures between one set of covers, in the first part of the 4th century, an extreme mixture of Greek texts and versions resulted. Along with the more or less homogeneous Greek of the ancient "Septuagint" Pentateuch were a variety of other types of translation, from the rather literal Psalter to the quite adaptive Proverbs, and many shades inbetween, reflecting different origins, translation philosophies, and transmission histories. The book of Daniel was even widely available both in its "old Greek" translation and in the presumably newer translation, closer to the current Hebrew-Aramaic wording, attributed to Theodotion, which ultimately secured its place in the anthology. Greek manuscripts of books that required more than one scroll or mini-codex such as Samuel-Kings (called four books of "Kingdoms" in many Greek manuscripts) sometimes showed "seams" where one identifiable recension ended (presumably because its scroll or mini-codex ended) and another began (because an entity containing a different text-type was copied). Origen's Hexaplaric solution to the diversity he already found in the preserved Greek books of his day only helped to confuse matters further, since it introduced more systematically into the copying and editing procedures several other Greek translations, making their readings more widely available..

This finally brings us directly to the issue of "editorial problems," both in the larger sense of creating standard anthologies (the Old Testament as a whole, or significant subdivisions) from a variety of eligible materials (the scrolls and mini-codices, and the lists), and in the detailed sense of textual variations and competing translations within the collected units. Hopefully it will have become obvious by now that any quest for "the original" version of Greek Jewish scriptures is futile. There never was such an original anthology, but translations of various books (scrolls) and sometimes groups of books (e.g. Pentateuch, Samuel-Kings, Minor Prophets) were produced at various times and places in pre- and/or non-Christian Judaism, and later took various forms such as what has come to be called anachronistically "the Septuagint" ("LXX") or what we know as "the Masoretic Text" ("MT") in Hebrew and Aramaic. Much editing took place along the way, as reflected in the surviving manuscripts, excerpts and reuses, and quotations. Now with the advent of computer technology, we are even in a position to understand more fully how these editorial processes proceeded, and how we can use that evidence profitably in historical reconstructions.

Examples: Gen 6.1-4, Hab 3, Justin's accusations, prologue to Esther, chronologies of the patriarchs.

The codex issue. The involvement of "Christianity" in the developing popularity of codex technology is impossible to deny. Christians circulated their literature in that format at a much higher rate than did their "pagan" contemporaries prior to the emergence of Christianity as a political force in the 4th century. Why this is true is much debated. One suggestion, among many, is  that Christians consciously fostered codex use in distinction from scroll use in rival Jewish circles. This old theory was built on a simplistic and anachronistic understanding of Jewish practices (viewing later Rabbinic Judaism as a sort of timeless norm), and deserves to be abandoned, or at least revised, in the light of more recent research. Codex technology was already in use in the secular Roman marketplace before the end of the first century ce (Martial), and there is no reason to think that Jews as well as Christians and others would have recognized its advantages over the scroll for certain purposes. Thus the popular "rule of thumb" among some students of ancient manuscripts that if a fragment came from a codex, it must be "Christian" in origin deserves very close scrutiny and should not be used when other corroborative evidence is lacking. It would be similarly unhelpful to argue that every codex scrap or reference from the pre-Constantinian period must reflect Christian usage, whether "Christian" or other literature is involved. Christians obtained the texts that became their OT from Jews (or brought them along from their Jewish past, in the earliest generations), and we have no way of knowing the exact format of those texts (certainly scrolls in the earliest period, but possibly also codices as time went on). Similarly, we have no way of knowing whether a codex fragment of a Jewish scriptural book had been produced by Jewish or Christian hands -- or for that matter, by a bookseller who associated with neither tradition.

What difference does that discussion of technology (scroll, codex) have for questions of "editing"?  An obvious area of some interest (and much debate) is the use of "nomina sacra" and related shorthand evidence in the manuscripts. It is clear that Christian transcribers in Greek, and also Latin, developed a practice of abbreviating terms for the deity (especially God and Lord) and for associated names or words (Jesus, Christ, son, father, spirit, etc.). This became fairly standard editorial practice by the 4th century. It is not so clear that especially with reference to the terms for the deity, this had not also been a Greek Jewish practice, similar to the treatment of the tetragrammaton in Semitic texts. Here the combination of codex and abbreviated divine name has served for generations to label a fragment as "Christian" -- based partly on the editorial practice, partly on the preserved format. It seems to me that both judgments are flawed, and that we may be faced simply with another area in which Christians learned from or imitated their Jewish predecessors and/or contemporaries in the natural process of continuation and adaptation.

 


--
Kloppenborg, Toronto Conference on "Editorial Problems" (1-4 Nov 2007)
see emails 12 and 25 Oct 2006
website website: www.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen

--
> Kristen de Troyer (Claremont Graduate University)
From Reconstructing the Old Greek Biblical text to Reconstructing the History of the Hebrew Biblical Text: The Contribution of the Schoyen Joshua and Leviticus Papyri
 
> Eugene Ulrich (University of Notre Dame)
Insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls for Future Editions of the Hebrew Bible
 
> Sarianna Metso (University of Toronto):
Editing Leviticus
 
> Hindy Najman (University of Toronto):
Authority and Tradition: Archetypes of Tradition

> Michael Holmes, Bethel College/International Greek New Testament Project
What Text is being Edited?

> Holger Strutwolf, (Institut f|r neutestamentliche Textforschung, M|nster)
The Muenster Critical Edition of the New Testament

> Peter Head (University of Cambridge)
The Significance of New Testament Papyri for a Critical Edition of the New Testament
 
> Klaus Wachtel (Institut f|r neutestamentliche Textforschung, M|nster)
The Coherence Based Genealogical Method: a new way to reconstruct the text of the Greek New Testament

> John van Seters (Religion and Culture, Wilfrid Laurier University)
The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the "Editor" in Biblical Criticism

> David Trobisch (Bangor Theological Seminary)
The First Edition of the New Testament
 
> J.S. Kloppenborg
> Professor of Religion
> Department & Centre for the Study of Religion
> University of Toronto
>  john.kloppenborg@utoronto.ca

> Smail: Trinity College
> 6 Hoskin Avenue
> TORONTO ON M5S 1H8
> Canada
>
> Tel: 001 416 978 64 93
> Fax 001 416 978 49 49
> 
> website: www.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen