again we have two recensions S1 and S2, but the one may be on the whole reasonably described as an abbreviation of the other.
The relations of the above authorities are too complicated to be treated of here in detail, but they are represented on the subjoined diagram.
Original Language.—Apart from Grabe, till within the last fifteen years no notable scholar has advocated a Hebrew original. Nitzsch, Dillmann, Ritschl and Sinker are convinced that the book was not a translation but was written originally in Greek. To Kohler and Gaster belongs the honour of re-opening the question of the Hebrew original of the Testaments. Only the latter, however, offered any linguistic evidence. In his article[1] on the question he sought to establish a Hebrew original of all the Testaments and to prove that the Hebrew text of Naphtali which he had discovered was the original testament, and that the Greek Naphtali was a late and corrupt reproduction of it with extensive additions from other sources. But he failed in establishing either thesis. The subject was next taken in hand by R. H. Charles, who in a preliminary form in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (i. 241, 1899), and later, with considerable fullness. in his edition of the Greek text of the Testaments (1908), brought to light a number of facts that put the question of a Hebrew original beyond the range of doubt. We will now place a few of the grounds before the reader.
(a) Hebrew constructions and expressions are to be found in every page. Though the vocabulary is Greek the idiom is frequently Hebraic and foreign to the genius of the Greek language. Thus in T. Reub. vi. 11, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐξελέξατο = בו בתך. In T. Jud. xx. 4, ἐν στήθει ὀστέων αὐτοῦ—an utterly unmeaning phrase—becomes intelligible on retroversion–בלב ץעמר, “on his very heart.” In T. Benj. x. II κατοικήσετε ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ἐν ἐμοί=“ye shall dwell securely with me”; for here ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι, as several times in the Septuagint, is a wrong rendering of לבםח.
(b) Dittographic renderings in the Greek of the same Hebrew expression; also dittograghic expressions in the Greek implying dittographs in the Hebrew. See Introduction to R. H. Charles's Text, § 11.
(c) Paronomasiae which are lost in the Greek can be restored by retranslation into Hebrew. There are over a dozen of such instances.
(d) Many passages which are obscure or wholly unintelligible in the Greek become clear an retranslation into Hebrew. Of the large body of such passages (see op. cit. § 12) we will give only one. In T. Jud. ix. 3, we have the following impossible sentence, where Esau is referred to: ἤρθη νεκρὸς ἐν ὄρει Σιείρ, καὶ πορευόμενος ἐν Ἀνονίραμ ἀπέθανεν. Here a fragment of the Hebrew original, which has happily been reserved, reads נחלח, “wounded,” where the Greek has νεκρός=נבלח, which is manifestly a corruption of the former.
In all the above cases there is no divergence among the MSS. and Versions. Yet the restorations are so many and so obvious that our contention might be taken for proven. But there is stronger evidence still, and this is to be found where the MSS. and Versions attest different texts, α standing generally in opposition to β, A (=Armenian Version), and S (=Slavonic Version). By means of this evidence we are able to prove not only that our book is from a Hebrew original, but that also the Hebrew existed in two recensions, Hα and Hβ, which are the parents respectively of α and β (see diagram above).
α and β are not, strictly speaking, Greek recensions; for their chief variations go back to diverse forms of text already existing in the Hebrew Hα and Hβ. For the considerable body of evidence supporting this conclusion see the Introduction to R. H. Charles’s Text, § 12. A couple of the many passages in which the variations in α and β are due to variations in Hα and Hβ will now be given. In T. Benj. xiii. 2 α reads ἐκοιμήθη ὕπνῳ καλῷ and β A S1 ἀπέθανε . . . ἐν γήρει καλῷ. Here ἐκοιμήθη and ἀπέθανε may be taken as renderings of the same Hebrew word, but ὕπνῳ καλῷ =בש׳נה טזבד, an undoubted corruption of בש׳נה טךבה = “at a good old age.” The same corruption invaded both Hebrew recensions in T. Zeb. x. 6; T. Dan. vii. 1; T. Ash. viii. 1; T. Jos. xx. 4, whereas in T. Iss. vii. 9 both recensions were right. In the late Hebrew text of Naph. i. 1 the correct Hebrew phrase is found. Again in T. Ash. vi. 6 α reads εἰσφέρει αὐτὸν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον and β A S1 παραμυθεῖται αὐτὸν ἐν ζωῇ. Here παραμυθεῖται=׳נהם, a corruption of ׳נהה=εἰσφέρει. It is the soul of the righteous that is here spoken of, and α rightly says that the angel of peace. “leads him into eternal life.” The rightness of Hα is confirmed by T. Benj. vi. 1, which reads ὁ γὰρ ἄγγελος τῆς εἰρήνης ὁδηεῖ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ.
Hα and Hβ, however, differed mainly from each other in words and phrases, as we infer from α and β. In some passages, however, the divergence is on a larger scale, as in T. Lev. ii. 7–iii. Notwithstanding these divergences, however, the great similarities between α and β oblige us to assume that the translator of Hβ used the Greek version of Hα, or vice versa. That the former is the more likely we shall see presently. To the above we have a good parallel in the Book of Daniel; for the variations of its two chief Greek Versions—that of the Septuagint and of Theodotion—go back to variations in the Semitic.
Date of the Original Hebrew.—“The date of the groundwork of the Testaments is not difficult to determine. Thus Reuben (T. Reub. vi. 10–11) admonishes his sons: Πρὸς τὸν Λευὶ ἐγγίσατε ἐν ταπεινώσει καρδίας ὑμῶν ἵνα γέξησθε εὐλογίαν ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ . . . ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐξελέξατο Κύριος βασιλεύειν ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ. Here a high-priest who is also a king is referred to. Such a combination of offices naturally makes us think of the Maccabean priest-kings of the 2nd century B.C. The possibility of doubting this reference is excluded by the words that immediately follow:—καὶ προσκύνησατε τὸ σπέρμα αὐτὸν ὅτι ὑπὲρ ὑμῶv ἀποθανεῖται ἐν πολέμοις ὁρατοῖς καὶ ἀοράτοις καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἕσται βασιλεὺς αἰώνιος. A similar statement is made in T. Sim. v. 5. Thus the high-priest is not only a high-priest and civil ruler, but also a warrior. That the Maccabean high-priests are here designed cannot be reasonably doubted. But the identification becomes undeniable, as further characteristics of this priestly dynasty come to light. It was to be a new priesthood and to be called by a new name (T. Lev. viii. 14 ἱερατείαν νέαν . . . ὄνομα καινόν). Now the Maccabean high-priests were the first to assume the title ‘priests of the Most High God’—the title anciently borne by Melchizedek. But the praises accorded in this book could not apply to all the Maccabean priest-kings of the nation. As it was written by a Pharisee, it could not have been composed after the breach arose between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees towards the close of the 2nd century B.C. Thus the period of composition lies between 153, when jonathan the Maccabee assumed the high-priesthood, and the year of the breach of John Hyrcanus with the Pharisees; some time, therefore, between 153 and 107. But the date can be determined between closer limits. To one member of the Maccabean dynasty are the prophetic gifts assigned in our text (T. Lev. viii. 15) in conjunction with the functions of kingship and priesthood. Now, in all Jewish history the triple offices were ascribed to only one individual, John Hyrcanus. Hence we conclude that the Testaments were written between 137 and 107.” But the limits of the date of composition be fixed still more definitely. For the text refers most probably to the destruction of Samaria, T. Lev. vi. 11. In that case the Testaments were written between 109 and 107 B.C.
Date of the Greek Version.—The α Version seems to have been translated first, indeed before A.D. 50; for it is twice quoted by St Paul. The first passage is in Rom. i. 32 οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν which is taken almost verbally from T. Ash. vi. 2, ὅτι οἱ διπρόσωποι δισσῶς †κολάσονται (rd. ἁμρατάνουσι) ὅτι καὶ πράσσουσι τὸ κὰκον καὶ συνευδοκοῦσι τοῖς πράσσουσιν. Since bg, A omit the words ὅτι . . . πράσσουσιν, we conclude that, though it is now found in α, adef, S1, it was originally wanting in β and probably also in Hβ. For as we have already seen (see diagram above) aef were early influenced by α, and d is conflate in character. Hence in reality the passage was preserved only by α originally.
The second passage is the well-known one in 1 Thess. ii. 16, ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ (+τοῦ θεοῦ defg it, Vulg. go) εἰς τέλος, which is borrowed from T. Lev. vi. II, ἔφθασεν δὲ (+ἐπ’ β) αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργή τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς τέλος.
Here β reads Κυρον for τοῦ θεοῦ. The ἐπὶ is omitted by α through a simple scribal error.
On the ground of the above quotations we assume, therefore, that α was used by St Paul, and that Hα was therefore translated into Greek at latest before A.D. 50.
- ↑ “The Hebrew Text of one of the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs” (Proceedings of the Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology, December 1893, January 1894).
