Translations are bound to reflect the critical presuppositions of the scholars responsible for them. The RSV/NRSV, as we have stated, engages the critical resources of some of the most eminent Old and New Testament scholars. The student should learn to assess properly the results of their labors.
The use of modern English pronouns in the RSV to refer to Jesus in the Gospels and in a passage like Acts 95 aroused considerable response in a number of Christian communities. According to the chair of the RSV revi- sions committee, it was decided “after two years of debate and experiment”
to abandon archaic forms “except in language addressed to God.“2 This state- ment led to unwarranted charges that the revisers intended to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. The fact of the matter is that the revisers were simply attempt- ing to reflect a critical point of view regarding first-century reaction to Jesus of Nazareth. Inasmuch as the conviction that Jesus was the Son of God
z An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament (New York: The International Council of Religious Education, 1946), 56.
202 Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study
presumably developed, according to the revisers, after the death of Jesus, the archaic forms were used in most of the other New Testament writings where Jesus is addressed directly (see Acts 9:13).
The National Museum at Athens displays the evolution of the human form in Greek sculpture from severe constraint to the rhythmic freedom exhibited in the famous discus thrower. Similarly, committee-type Bible versions go through series of changes-with some dictated by political and cultural awareness. The RSV producers eliminated much archaic form but left a few contours for those who would have felt dismay over too much familiarity in address to the Deity. But no anxiety about allegations of contempt was felt by the NRSV committee. Faced with numerous inconsistencies in the RSV, as well as philological reality, the NRSV translators left not a single “thee,”
“thou,” “thine,” “art, “hast,” or “hadst” for future deletion.3”
Support for an early second century dating of 2 Peter may be found in 2 Peter 1:l (RSWNRSV). The student will note the significant attribution of deity to Jesus Christ, “of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” in contrast to “of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (KJV). The revisers evidently were convinced that the late date of 2 Peter warranted a phrasing that would accurately reflect growing Christian concern for unqualified documentation of the deity of Jesus.
The predominating view that Ephesians is probably a circular or catholic letter finds expression in the omission of the words “in Ephesus” in the RSV.
The NRSV reverts to the reading in the KJV (Eph. 1:l). Which tool would be especially helpful for determining the rationale behind the decision?
To be fair in the process of criticism one must keep in mind the purpose of a translation. If it is to be used in public worship certain constraints and considerations not imposed on translations for private reading apply. At the same time, the very recognition of such constraints and political considera- tions implies that one cannot appeal to committee-type versions as a first line of defense for a philological position on the ground that they are produced by groups of eminent scholars.
To derive greater benefit and to feel forcefully the critical impact written into a Bible version it is important to consider not only isolated passages and translations of individual words but also to grasp the total intellectual framework into which the version fits. When this is sympathetically but criti- cally done, the version will display more than a transfer of ancient meanings to contemporary tongues. It will truly prove an efficient tool for Bible study.
Although, for pedagogical reasons, discussion in this chapter is limited to English Bible versions, it should be obvious that all Bible versions, ancient or modern, can be used to ferret out problems and suggested solutions, which can then undergo further investigation at the hand of other tools. Indeed, the more one uses, the richer will be the dividends.
3 For problems connected with the use of archaic English pronouns, see the RSV renderings in Ps. 110:4; Matt. 16:16; 22:44 (cf. Ps. 11O:l); Heb. 5:6.
C H A P T E R T W E L V E
Idu
aica
T
HE DIVORCE OF CHURCH and synagogue has left its mark on the history of interpretation. Not until the twentieth century was any concerted effort made to reestablish communications. The losses to both sides have been many and great, but fortunately some of them are not irrecoverable.The publication of Ancient Judaism and the New Testament (New York:
Macmillan, 19.59), in which the distinguished Anglican theologian Frederick C. Grant rebukes the Christian church sharply for failure to assess adequately its immense debt to Judaism, was an attempt to mend the breach. In the same spirit we propose to encourage the Christian student and minister to develop a more sympathetic awareness of the vast resources buried in Jewish literature and to explore afresh the interpretive values enshrined in the synagogue.
The loss of Jewish political independence in 586 B.C. imposed on Judaism a struggle for national survival. When apocalyptic hopes were dashed and revolutionary uprisings failed to usher in a new golden age, the only rallying points left were the laws and ordinances that made Judaism a stronghold of distinctive cultural phenomena. The history of Israel in the lands of its disper- sion is the history of a nation painfully growing up as “the people of the Book,’
bound to the Torah. That history has left its indelible impression on the New Testament writings. One cannot read a page without moving, or reeling, in the realm of Jewish ideas and thought patterns. To understand the New Testa- ment, one must be familiar with the growth of Judaism and with the develop- ment of the postcanonical literature in which Israel’s longings found expression.
Our earliest formal history comes from the pen of Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37/38-ca. loo), the author of four major volumes: an autobiography, a history of the Jews from earliest times to the war with Rome (Antiquities), a history of the Jewish War, and a book of apologetics (Against Apion).
Benedict Niese’s Flavii Joseph opera, Editio Maior, 6 ~01s. and index vol.
(Berlin, 1885-95), with a full critical apparatus, is a highly valued edition of the Greek text, but his Editio Minor, 6 ~01s. (Berlin, 1888-95), is given high marks by Karl H. Rengstorf (see below). In the absence of Niese’s
203
204 Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study Judaica 205 editions students will find very serviceable a newer German edition, with
translation, an introduction, and notes, ed. 0. Michel and 0 Bauernfeind, Flavius Josephus: De bello judaico/Der jiidische Krieg, 3 ~01s. (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1959-69). With the Greek the Loeb Classical Library offers an English translation begun by Henry St. John Thackeray (d. 1930), continued by Ralph Marcus (d. 1956) from the fifth volume and by Allen Wikgren in the eighth, and completed by Louis H.
Feldman, 9 vols., with general index in the last (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926-65)! The history of philological work on Josephus is in part a tale of unfulfilled dreams, with mountains of paper left for a few specialists to sift. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf tells the arresting story in a work that a young visitor to a certain lexicographer’s study termed “humongous,’
with price to match: A Complete Concordance to Flavius Joseph, 4 ~01s.
(Leiden: Brill, 1973-83). A separate volume by A. Schalit, Namenwijrterbuch zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1968), registers the proper names. Dedicated to exploration of philological terrain, Thackeray and Marcus began A Lexicon to Josephus (Paris, 1930-), but the project outlived them, as well as H. R.
Moehring of Brown University, to whom the baton had been passed.
Heavily dependent on Josephus is Emil Schurer’s classic introduction to the history of the Jewish people, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im ZeitalterJesu Christi, 3d and 4th ed., 3 ~01s. and index vol. (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1901-11). The second German edition was translated into English (1885-91), but new discoveries, among them the Qumran manuscripts and the Bar Kokhba documents, solicited refinement of older perspectives and stimulated the publication of what H. H. Rowley conceived of as a “new Schiirer.” Encouraged by Matthew Black, the revision was carried out by GCza Vermb and Fergus Millar under the title The History of the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), 3 ~01s. (Edinburgh, T. & T.
Clark, 1973-87). The third volume was issued in two parts, the second of which also contains an index of names and subjects. When reading this work, as well as many others that compare basic theological perceptions in Chris- tianity and Judaism, it is necessary to be aware of tendencies to make disparage- ment of the latter a platform for aggrandizement of the former. Given such caution, and taking account of the fact that one is not privileged to adopt opinions wholesale without taking account of the primary sources (especially tannaitic documents of the type cited below), one may profitably use the vast t Ralph Marcus carefully outlines recent progress in our knowledge of Josephus and suggests reasons for the importance of Josephus for current and future biblical scholarship in a fine sum- mary sketch, to which a helpful bibliography has been appended, “Josephus, Flavius,” Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: An Extension of The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclo- pedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. Lefferts A. Loetscher (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955), 1:614. See also the bibliographies by Heinz Schreckenberg, Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1968), supplementary volume (1979); and Louis H. Feldman, Josephus: A Supplementary Bibliography (New York: Garland, 1986).
amount of information contained in these volumes. This same stricture applies, in general, to all scholarly productions, even to those that endeavor to right the wrongs of their predecessors, for objectivity is like the Holy Grail, and who is totally worthy?2
Max Leopold Margolis and Alexander Marx, A History of the]ewish People (Philadelph’ . Jla. ewish Publication Society of America, 1927), is a more exten- sive, albeit far less detailed, survey, covering the period from Abraham ca.
2,000 B.C. to the opening of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on April 6, 1925. The book has an extensive bibliography and helpful chronological tables.
In his Early Israel in Recent History Writing: A Study in Method, Studies in Biblical Theology 19 (London: SCM Press; Chicago: Alec R. Allenson, 1956), 17 n. 1, John Bright expressed the hope that his teacher William Fox- well Albright would go on to write a comprehensive and up-to-date replace- ment for earlier, now antiquated works. Bright spoke for himself and without embarrassment to his master in A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959), in which he emphasized both the religious and the political factors shaping Israel. In his 3d rev. ed. (London, 1981) he took some account of developments in Pentateuchal criticism and considered new data relative to Israel’s origins and “conquest accounts.” For a different viewpoint, echoing Wellhausen, see Giovanni Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, trans. John Bowden (New York: Crossroad, 1988). The histories of Israel currently being written are many, and the two books just mentioned to some extent represent polarities in the discussion. Given the problems of chronology exhibited in the biblical records, it is not likely that an acceptable history of Israel designed for the general reader will soon be written, but the first major work in English since Bright’s effort, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, by J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), moves in that direction. As archaeological contributions become more generally recog- nized by scholars of the text there will be more dialogue between diggers and readers, and new data will most certainly emerge to give more light to all who seek answers when so much is murky.
Many primary source materials for the history of the Jews in Egypt are now published in attractive format in the systematic collection Corpus papyrorum Judaicarum (CP] or CP]ud), ed. Victor A. Tcherikover with Alexander Fuks
z William 0. E. Oesterley and Theodore H. Robinson, A History of Israel, 2 ~01s. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1932); Robert Henry Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times: With an Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Harper, 1949), pt. 1; and Wilhelm Bousset, Die Religion des judentums im spiithellenistischen Zeitalter, 3d ed. rev. Hugo Gressmann, HNT 21 (Xibingen:
J. C. B. Mohr [Siebeck], 1926), remain helpful adjuncts to Schiirer’s work. On distortions foisted on their successors by scholars such as F. Weber, E. Schiirer, P. Volz, and others, see E. Parish Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, passim. On G. F. Moore’s “scathing criticism” of Schiirer, see Richard Bavier, “Judaism in New Testament Times,” in The Study of Judaism: Bibliographical Essays (New York, 1972), 12. This bibliographical work by various contributors takes account of secondary literature relating to Judaism from New Testament times to the modern period.
206 Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study
Judaica 207
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957-64). The first volume adds a very detailed sketch of “the historical development of the Jewish people in Egypt during the Hellenistic-Roman-Byzantine age” (“Prolegomena,” 1-111;
quoted from p. 1) to papyri related to Jews and Jewish affairs during the Ptolemaic period. The second volume includes relevant papyri of the early Roman period; the third presents documents of the late Roman and Byzan- tine period, but without the anticipated papyri magici. Helpful references to learned discussions supplement the commentary accompanying each docu- ment. A corresponding type of publication for epigraphs was compiled by Jean-Baptiste Frey, Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum (CII), 2 ~01s. (Rome:
Institute of Christian Archaeology, 1936, 1952).
George Foot Moore3 relies heavily on Schurer in his documentation of Pharisaic Judaism, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 3 ~01s.
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927-30), acknowledged as one of the finest works on Jewish religion. Moore lays stress on tannaitic materials as sources for the study of “normative Judaism” (a disputed term), an approach followed also by Robert Travers Herford, a Christian scholar noted for his knowledge of rabbinics, who insisted in hisJudaism in the New Testa- ment Period (London: Lindsey Press, 1928) that 90 percent of Jesus’ teachings were of Pharisaic origin. See also his Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (London: Williams & Norgate, 1903; reprint, Clifton, N.J.: Reference Book Publishers, 1965).
Joseph Bonsirven in LeJudaisme Palestinien au temps de]esus Christ (Paris:
G. Beauchesne, 1934-1935) contends that Diaspora Judaism, with the excep- tion perhaps of Philo, made little impression on either Christianity or Judaism.
William Farmer’s Maccabees, Zealots and]osephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956) is an instructive study suggesting a probable connection between the nationalists of Josephus’s day and the Maccabees.
The Pharisees are the object of Louis Finkelstein’s specialized treatment in The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, 2 vols., 2d ed.
rev. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1940), but his con- fidence in being able to deduce the structure of pre-A.D. 70 Pharisaism from tannaitic materials requires assessment under careful scrutiny of those sources.