THE WORKS OF PHILO

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! » 

CHAPTER 2: LITERARY PROBLEM

INTRODUCTION

An attempt to establish, define and describe the literary problem with regard to the explicit ριος and  ς citations require a literary backdrop broader than just the  Pauline literature   and even broader than the New Testament corpus itself. It would be imperative for this study to discuss these citations against a much broader literary Jewish-Hellenistic backdrop than what is offered by both the Old and New Testament text.¹ Pre-conceived parameters would however be necessary to ensure specialised focus on the issue at hand. This chapter therefore confines itself to the following restrictions to ensure that the literary problem is determined, evaluated and discussed effectively. Attention will thus be given to the following:
a.) Biblical manuscripts (both Hebrew and Greek) dated between the 3^rd century BCE  and 2^nd century CE;²
b.) testifying to either the terms אדני יהוה אלהים and ριος, ς and δ πο ής;
c.) while cross-checking against a critical text edition, where available, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 5^th edition (Biblia Hebraica Quinta where obtainable), Vetus Testamentum Graecum – Göttingensis editum and Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece Editio XXVII (Editio Critica Maior, where available);
to be of immense importance not just for cross-checking purposes, but also to point out possible scribal and text traditional tendencies and practises. Some remarks should be in order regarding the inclusion of the works of Philo and Josephus. The importance of these authors’ work should not be underestimated, even though the ‘critical’ editions of their work date back to at least the eighth century CE.⁵
The concepts and ideas formed as Hellenistic Jews, who wrote and communicated in Greek, would at least assist one to construct a reasonable first century conceptual frame of reference with regard to the terms    ριος and     ς,⁶ as well as with related terms. The works  of both Philo and Josephus would prove to be a fairly balanced view regarding theological Jewish concepts within Hellenistic thought. Such a balanced view is dependant on the acceptance of the presupposition that Philo represents Hellenized Jewish thoughts and concepts from a philosophical perspective, while Josephus as historian would be representative of Jewish thoughts with a Hellenistic colour. The inclusion of both the works of Philo and Josephus should thus not be regarded as an indication to deviate from a historical-critical, and in particular a text-critical approach of the New Testament documents per se, towards a more conceptual-philosophical methodology – although the latter cannot be completely dismissed.
These and other literary significant voices would prove to be invaluable in addressing the multi-dimensional character of this proposed literary problem. In the first instance, one is confronted with the problem relating to the prohibition in pronouncing the Tetragram,⁷ Approaching such a literary problem thus requires one to attend to all the dimensions involved, through which a more filtered problem would manifest itself, whilst keeping focus on the primary issue at hand;  what could one deduce from the  explicit  ριος  and   ς   citations about the literary representation of the Hebrew deity in the Pauline literature?
Formulating the question differently, what could one infer from the explicit        and citations about P u ’s literary induced concept of the Hebrew deity? The intent and  objective of this chapter would unfold primarily into the following sections:
a.) To determine a possible Vorgeschichte¹⁰ within a literary conceptual context¹¹ of the:

1. 1. Hebrew terms אלהים, יהוה and אדני (transmission or reproduction problem);
   2. Greek terms ριος, ς and related terms such as δ π ης (translation- conceptualisation problem);

b.) To determine, if possible, text traditions and/or scribal trends concerning the term
ριος and ς and its Hebrew counterparts are observable from  the  critical  constructed Greek and Hebrew Old Testament texts (transmission problem);¹²
c.) To clearly describe and define the core literary problem at hand.

Examples

The inconsistencies and so-called discrepancies between the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old Testament (hereafter OT) originated with the complexity surrounding the literary re- representation  or  reproduction  of  the  Hebrew  deity  in  the  Hebrew  text  tradition.  The   e amples to follow will illustrate the supposed ‘transmission problem’. A comparison between the MT and manuscripts found in an around the Judean desert,¹³  show that 11QLev^a (Lev 9:24) read יהוה while the Masoretic text (hereafter MT) text testifies to the term יהוה. Another example is attested in Deut 26:4 with the MT reading יהוה compared to the term יהוה presented in 4QDeutk2. Another two examples from the text critical data as presented by the BHS should suffice.
The dynamics of the issue at hand is accentuated when closer attention is given to relevant text critical data presented by the BHS. Take Gen 18:27 and  Gen 18:31 as an example: The MT reads the term אדני in both cases with a few Hebrew manuscripts reading יהוה. Another example is Exod 3:4; the MT attests to the term יהוה while the Samaritan Pentateuch (SamP) suggests reading אלהים.14 In other cases,15 the Samaritan Pentateuch opposes the MT reading אלהים by suggesting the reading יהוה.

The General ‘Rule of Thumb’ – a Problem of Rendition

To truly grasp the complexity and admire the intricacies of a so-called problem or rendition, a short introduction into the general ‘rule of thumb’ should be in order.¹⁶ First, if one compares the eclectic texts of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 5^th edition (representative of the Masoretic text) and the Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Scientiarum Gottingensis editum (representing an authoritive construction of the translations made of ‘the’ Hebrew text from the 3^rd century BCE onwards) with the manuscripts found in and around the Judean desert, the traces of the complexity surrounding the reproduction of the Tetragram as the personal deity of the Hebrew people, becomes evident. Some peculiar examples of how the Tetragram was reproduced from the 3^rd century BCE onwards are listed in the comparative table below.
Inferred from the fragmentary data, the Hebrew text tradition attests to at least four variant terms used to render the Tetragram from the 3rd century BCE onwards.17 The first, and the most frequent use, is the square Hebrew characters יהוה, the second is four jod Hebrew characters יייי, the third is old Hebrew characters יהוה (also referred to as Paleo-hebrew) and finally four dots.18 The Greek tradition from the same period, on the other hand, reproduces the  Tetragram  using the  following Greek  or other equivalents:  ΙΑΩ,  open  space,  יהוה and 19 Apart from the latter evidence, the comparison between the text critical data provided by the BHS and LXXGött will auxiliarate the complexity in reproducing the Tetragram and other terms used for the Hebrew deity. Some of these text critical variations and  discrepancies would be addressed later in this chapter.
Second, if one compares the eclectic Hebrew (BHS) and Greek (LXXGött) texts with each other, in other words comparing text passages where the Hebrew terms אלהים (translated with ‘God’ in the English language) and יהוה (translated with ‘Lord’ in the English language) and their Greek counterpart’s ς and ριος appear, the problem intensifies. The general  accepted ‘rule of thumb’ among biblical scholars is that the term ς is the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew term אלהים, which would also apply to the term אל; while the equivalent Greek term for יהוה is  ριος.20 The inconsistencies in applying the so-called ‘rule of thumb’ is visible throughout the constructed LXXGött text, not to mention the variations and discrepancies pointed out by the text critical data. As can be e pected, the ‘rule of thumb’ presupposition is not impervious to scrutiny. The following four examples from four distinct Hebrew texts confirm the fact that exceptions do exist and they require explanation.

VORGESCHICHTE AND LITERARY CONTEXT

The Transmission Problem: Hebrew Text Tradition ³²

The evidence to be dealt with here will be, for the most part, limited to the Pentateuch³³, Isaiah and the Psalms.³⁴ These three ‘sources’ are considered to be significant for this study due to the overwhelming frequency of use in the New Testament. Moreover, the Pentateuch or rather the ‘Torah’ would not only be considered as the so-called ‘authoritative scripture’ for the Hebrew tradition, but it would most certainly be regarded as the ‘flagship’ for the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.³⁵
Finally, it is the primary sources Paul referenced to when he cited Old Testament content. Thus, in considering these three literary sources they would give one a fairly good idea of what the most suitable terms were when reproducing the Hebrew deity, and more specific the Tetragram available to Paul, in this particular case. Although countless text fragments containing content resembling the Pentateuch have been found in and around the Judean desert, not many contain the Tetragram. Those that do indeed present the Tetragram, attest to square Hebrew characters with a limited amount of exceptions.³⁶ Selected evidence and the alternatives are listed in the sequence of biblical books.³⁷
a.) Fragment 1-2 of 4QExod-Levf (Exod 8:1a) and f. 2 (Exod 12:27), 7 (Exod 31:16), 8 (Exod 34.10) of 2QExodb,38 as well as 4QExodj PAM 43.012:1, present the יהוה as יהוה;39
b.) 4Q158 f. 4-15 (alluding to Exod 3, 19, 20-21 and 30) testifies, in all cases, to the יהוה using square Hebrew characters; this is also true for 4Q365 f. 2, 6, 11 and 12 (Exod 8- 39) and 4Q174 (Exod 15:17-18);40
c.) The manuscripts 4QLev^g PAM 43.036 (Lev 7:25) and 11QLev^a f. 2 (Lev 9:24 and 10.1)⁴¹ are two other text witnesses which account for the Tetragram using square Hebrew characters. Moreover, none of the ‘non-biblical’ material, in this case 4
d.) In further opposition to the use of יהוה, are 4QLevb f.1:16 (Lev 1:13) and 4QLevd f.
4:4 (Lev 17:4), which implements square Hebrew characters;
e.) Manuscript 4QDeutk2 f. 5:6 (Deut 26.3) is the only text witness referring to Deuteronomy, of which many were found in the caves of Qumran and in the  Nah al     H ever area (see for example 4QDeuta-n, 4QpaleoDeutg and XḤevSeDeut), which represents the Tetragram using יהוה;42
f.) The representation of the Tetragram in the ‘non-biblical’ manuscript 4 364 (fragments 14, 24, 25 and 26), which alludes to Deuteronomy, also implements square Hebrew characters for the Tetragram;
g.) Another exception is found in 4Q174 (col. i:1, 19), another allusion to Deuteronomy, presenting the יהוה using יייי.43
All Hebrew manuscripts associated with the Genesis text reproduce the Tetragram using square Hebrew characters (see for example 4QGen^b f. 1 col. II:3 – Gen 2:16; 4QGen^j f. 2, col. I – Gen 41.25). The latter is also true for the text witnesses assigned to Numbers, which utilised square Hebrew characters as a representation of the Tetragram. The text fragments found, allocated to the Psalm text, ⁴⁴ all represent the Tetragram using square Hebrew characters, except for two instances in 11QPs^a a.) fragment Ei (Ps 118:25-27) and b.) Eii (Ps 104:31) presents the  Tetragram.

Opsomming/Summary
Dedication and Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Preface
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 INTRODUCTION 
1.2 FIELD OF RESEARCH
1.2.1 Identified Citations
1.2.2 Target and Source Contexts
1.3 PROBLEM FORMULATION
1.4 A HISTORY OF RESEARCH
1.4.1 Old Testament Citations in the Pauline Literature
1.4.2 Research Done on the Origin of ΚΥΡΙΟΣ
1.5 THE THEORY
1.6 METHOD OF RESEARCHOBJECTIVES
Chapter 2: Literary ProblemINTRODUCTION
2.1.1 Examples
2.1.2 The General “Rule of Thumb” – A Problem of Rendition
2.2 VORGESCHICHTE AND LITERARY CONTEXT
2.2.1 The Transmission Problem: Hebrew Text Tradition
2.2.2 The Translation Problem: Greek Text Tradition (OG)
2.2.3 Theological Explicit Renditions of the Hebrew Esther
2.2.4 Preliminary Conclusions
2.3 THE TRANSMISSION PROBLEM – NT TEXT TRADITIONS
2.3.1 Introduction
2.3.2 The Terms ριος and ς – Reflecting upon the Text Critical Variations
2.3.2.1 Synoptic Gospels
2.3.2.2 Acts of the Apostles
2.3.2.3 Johannine Gospel
2.3.2.4 Pastoral Letters
2.3.2.4.1 1 and 2 Timothy
2.3.2.5 General Letters
2.3.2.5.1 James
2.3.2.5.2 1 and 2 Peter
2.3.2.5.3 Jude
2.3.2.5.4 Johannine Epistles
2.3.2.5.5 Hebrews
2.3.2.5.6 Revelation
2.3.3 The Terms ριος and ς – Reflecting on the Text Critical Variations and Concepts (Deutero-Pauline)
2.3.3.1 Colossians
2.3.3.2 Ephesians
2.3.3.3 2 Thessalonians
2.4 THE TERMS ΚΥΡΙΟΣ AND ΘΕΟΣ IN THE PAULINE LETTERS (NON-CITATIONS)
2.4.1 1 Thessalonians
2.4.2 Galatians
2.4.3 Philippians and Philemon
2.5 THE WORKS OF PHILO
2.5.1 Introduction
2.5.2 Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit
2.5.3 Legum Allegoria
2.5.4 De Sobrietate
2.5.5 De Mutatione Nominum
2.5.6 Summary
2.6 THE WORKS OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
2.6.1 Introduction
2.6.2 Antiquitates Judaicae
2.6.3 De Belle Judaico
2.6.4 Contra Apionem
2.6.5 Summary
Chapter 3: Explicit ΚΥΡΙΟΣ and ΘΕΟΣ Citations in the Literary Conceptual Context of Romans
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1 Relating Romans to the Literary Problem
3.2 ESTABLISHING THE EXPLICIT CITATIONS
3.2.1 Citations with Introductory Formulae
3.3 EXPLICIT CITATIONS WITHOUT INTRODUCTORY FORMULAE
3.3.1 Romans 11:34 and 1 Corinthians 2:16
3.3.2 1 Corinthians 10:26
3.3.3 2 Corinthians 3:16
3.4 ESTABLISHING THE ΚΥΡΙΟΣ AND ΘΕΟΣ TEXT IN ROMANS
3.4.1 Romans 1
3.4.2 Romans 2
3.4.2.1 Romans 2:24
3.4.3 Romans 3
3.4.3.1 Romans 3:11 and Romans 3:18
3.4.4 Romans 4
3.4.4.1 Romans 4:3
3.4.4.2 Romans 4:8
3.4.5 Romans 5
3.4.6 Romans 6
3.4.7 Romans 7
3.4.8 Romans 8
3.4.9 Romans 9
3.4.9.1 Romans 9:26
3.4.9.2 Romans 9:28
3.4.9.3 Romans 9:29
3.4.10 Romans 10
3.4.10.1 Romans 10:13
3.4.10.2 Romans 10:16
3.4.11 Romans 11
3.4.11.1 Romans 11:3
3.4.11.2 Romans 11:8
3.4.11.3 Romans 11:34
3.4.12 Romans 12
3.4.12.1 Romans 12:1
3.4.13 Romans 13
3.4.14 Romans 14
3.4.14.1 Romans 14:11
3.4.15 Romans 15
3.4.15.1 Romans 15:9
3.4.15.2 Romans 15:11
3.4.16 Romans 16
3.5 SUMMARY
3.5.1 Proposed Solution: Theological Conceptual Problems
3.5.2 Proposed Solution: Translation and Greek Transmission Problems
Chapter 4: Explicit ΚΥΡΙΟΣ and ΘΕΟΣ Citations in the Literary Conceptual Context of First and Second Corinthians
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 ESTABLISHING THE ΚΥΡΙΟΣ AND ΘΕΟΣ TEXT
IN 1 AND 2 CORINTHIANS
4.2.1 1 Corinthians 1
4.2.1.1 1 Corinthians 1:31
4.2.2 1 Corinthians 2
4.2.2.1 1 Corinthians 2:9
4.2.2.2 1 Corinthians 2:16
4.2.3 1 Corinthians 3
4.2.3.1 1 Corinthians 3:20
4.2.4 1 Corinthians 4
4.2.5 1 Corinthians 5
4.2.6 1 Corinthians 6
4.2.7 1 Corinthians 7
4.2.8 1 Corinthians 8
4.2.9 1 Corinthians 9
4.2.10 1 Corinthians 10
4.2.10.1 1 Corinthians 10:26
4.2.11 1 Corinthians 11
4.2.12 1 Corinthians 12
4.2.13 1 Corinthians 13
4.2.14 1 Corinthians 14
4.2.14.1 1 Corinthians 14:21
4.2.15 1 Corinthians 15
4.2.16 1 Corinthians 16
4.2.17 2 Corinthians 1 and 2
4.2.18 2 Corinthians 3
4.2.18.1 2 Corinthians 3:16
4.2.19 2 Corinthians 4
4.2.20 2 Corinthians 5 – 9
4.2.21 2 Corinthians 10
4.2.21.1 2 Corinthians 10:17
4.3 SUMMARY
4.3.1 Proposed Solution: Theological Conceptual Problems
4.3.2 Proposed solution: A Translation, Transmission and
Theological Conceptual Problem
Chapter 5: Conclusion – Observations on Paul’s Concept of a Hebrew Deity
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 EVALUATING THE JEWISH-HELLENISTIC BACKDROP
5.3 PAUL’S ΚΥΡΙΟΣ AND ΘΕΟΣ CONCEPTS
5.3.1 Summary: Paul’s ΚΥΡΙΟΣ and ΘΕΟΣ Concepts – Non-Citations
5.3.2 Greek Equivalents Attested in the Explicit Citation – Unique ΚΥΡΙΟΣ and ΘΕΟΣ Concept?
5.3.3 The ΚΥΡΙΟΣ and ΘΕΟΣ Concepts in the Romans Epistle
5.3.4 The ΚΥΡΙΟΣ and ΘΕΟΣ Concepts in the 1st Corinthian Letter
5.3.5 The ΚΥΡΙΟΣ and ΘΕΟΣ Concepts in the 2nd Corinthian Letter
5.4 PAUL’S CONCEPT OF A HEBREW DEITY
5.5 PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
ADDENDUM A
ADDENDUM B
ADDENDUM C
BIBLIOGRAPHY

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT