|
VII.
§ 1. General statement of our author's dependence on the above books -- Our author makes most use of the prophetical books. He constantly uses Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial, and Daniel; also, but in a less degree, Zechariah, Joel, Amos, and Hosea; and in a very minor degree Zephaniah and Habakkuk. Next to the prophetical books he is most indebted to the Psalms, slightly to Proverbs, and still less to Canticles. He possessed the Pentateuch and makes occasional use of all its books, particularly of Exodus. Amongst others, that he and his sources probably drew upon, are Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 2 Kings. The evidence for the above summary of facts will be found below in §§ 3-5. Of the Pseudepigraphia the evidence that our author used the Testament of Levi, 1 Enoch, and the Assumption of Moses, is sufficiently strong; see below, § 7. It is not improbable that he was acquainted with 2 Enoch and the Psalms of Solomon. See below, § 7. But the direct evidence is not so convincing as the indirect. Repeatedly in the commentary that follows it is shown that without a knowledge of the Pseudipigrapha it would be impossible to understand our author. As a few proofs of this fact, see on 46 (the Cherubim), pp. 117-123; 63 ("a great sword"), p. 165; 69 (Martyrs = a sacrifice to God, cf. 144), p. 174 (vol. ii. 6; 69 (the one altar in heaven), p. 172 sqq.; 611 (world to come to an end when the roll of the martyrs is complete), pp. 177-179; (white robes = spiritual bodies), pp. 184-188 and passim. From an examination of the passages given below in § 8, it follows quite decidedly that our autor had the Gospels of Matthew and Luke before him, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Colossians (or else the lost Ep. to the Laodiceans, which presumably was of a kindred character), Ephesians, and possibly {lxvi.} Galatians, 1 Peter, and James. Our author shows no acquaintance with St. Mark. That our author used Matthew is deducible from the following facts. In 17 he has had Matt 2430 before him, where our author's combination of Dan 713 and Zech 1210. 12 occurs already. Our author derives from Matthew the words pa/sai ai` fulai. t) gh/j, which are not in the O.T. or Versions. Next, a reference to 27 shows that it is the Matthaean (or Lucan: cf. 88) form of the command, o` e;cwn ou=j ktl), Matt 1115 139 etc., that our author was familiar with. The dependence of 33, 1615on Matt 2442. 43. 46 is obvious at the first glance. 35 presupposes both Matt 1032 and the parallel passage in Luke 128. Other passages showing dependence on Matthew, though not so conclusively, will be found under 13d 116 64 1115 below. That our author used Luke appears certain, though the evidence is less conclusive, from a comparison of 13 with Luke 1128, 35 with Luke 128, 116 with Luke 425, and 1824 with Luke 1150. Unless we assume our author's acquaintance with the Little Apocalypse (embodied in Luke 21, Matt 24, Mark 13), then he is indebted to Luke for his fourth plague, i.e the pestilence, Luke 2111 (loimoi,).(1) Possibly 138 (t) avrni,ou t) evsfagme,nou avpo. katabolh/j ko,smou) implies an acquaintance with 1 Pet 119-20. Compare 1619 and 1 Pet 513, and 16 and 1 Pet 29. § 2. John translated directly from the O.T. text. He did not quote from any Greek Version, though he was often influenced in his renderings by the LXX and another later Greek Version, a revised form of the o, (i.e. the LXX), which was subsequently revised and incorporated by Theodotion in his version. Our author never definitely makes a quotation, though he continually incorporates phrases and clauses of the O.T. The question naturally arises: Do he and his sources (111-13 12-13 17-18) derivse such phrases and clauses directly from the Hebrew (or Aramaic), or from o, or from the Hebrew combined with o,? (see §§ 3-5). An examination of the passages based on the O.T. makes it clear that our author draws his materials directly from the Hebrew (or Aramaic) text, and apparently never solely from o,,, or any other version.(2) And this is no less true of the sources our {lxvii.} author incorporated and edited. But this fact does not exclude the possibility that our author was acquainted with and at times guided by o, and some other Greek version. The latter clause is added deliberately, "and some other Greek version." That our author was influenced in his renderings of O.T. passaged by o, may be taken as proved after an examination of the list of passages given in § 4. But in the list of passages that follow in § 5, we discover that our author's renderings of the Hebrew are closely related to those which appear in q , (i.e. Theodotion), where q , differes from o,. But since Theodotion lived several decades later than our author, we must assume with Gwynn (Dict: Christ. Biog. iv. 974-978) that side by side with o, (preserved in a corrupt form in the Chisian MS of Daniel) there existed a rival Greek version from pre-Christian times.(3) But Gwynn's hypothesis, although adequate to a certain extent, is inadequate when confronted with fresh facts that have emerged in my study of this question. For from § 5 we learn that in 117b our text agrees not with o, but q , in Is 4812: similarly 37 with q ,of Is 2222 and 39c with q , of Is 6014. Again the quotation 153-4 o` basileu.j t) evqnw/n\ ti,j ouv mh. fobhqh/|: agrees word for word (though differing in case and tense) with q , of Jer 107, whereas o, is here wholly defective. Finally, 16 (510) basilei,an i`erei/j is found in q , of Ex 196 where o, is different. Now one or more of these might be coincedences, but it is highly improbable that all five are. Hence we have good grounds for concluding that there existed either a rival Greek version alongside o, from pre-Christian times or a revised edition of o,, which was revised afresh by Theodotion and circulated henceforth under his name. How many books of the O.T. were so translated afresh cannot be determined. The above evidence would imply that Isaiah and Jeremiah were so translated.(4) Possibly all the prophetic books were rendered {lxviii.} afresh into Greek and this work incorporated and revised by Theodotion in his version. But the matter calls for further investigation. § 3. Passages
based directly on the Hebrew of the O.T. (or the Aramaic in Daniel). These
are hardly ever literal quotations: in any case the words carry with them
a developed and often different meaning.
{lxxviii.} §
4. Passages based on the Hebrew of the O.T. (or the Aramaic in Daniel)
but influenced (in some cases certainly, in others possibly) by o
,.
{lxxx.} §
5. Passages based on the Hebrew of the O.T. (or the Aramaic of Daniel),
but influenced (in some cases certainly, in others probably) by a later
form of o ,, such as is preserved in Theodotion
q
,)
§ 6. Phrases
and clauses in our Author which are echoes of O.T. passages.
§ 7. Passages
dependent on or parallel with passages in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha.
§ 8. Passages
in some cases directly dependent on and in others parallel with earlier
books of the N.T. Our author appears to have used Matthew, Luke, 1 Thessalonians,
1 and 2 Corinthians, Colossians, Ephesians and possibly Galatians, 1 Peter
and James. The possibility of his having had one or more other books of
the N.T. is not excluded.
NOTES
Scanned and edited by Brad Johnson |