[JGRChJ 2 (20012005) R12-R16]

BOOK REVIEW
Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory
and the Problem of Its Canon (trans. Mark E. Biddle; introduction by
Robert Hanhart; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004 [T. & T. Clark,
2002]). 153 pp.
The New Testament contains numerous direct quotations as well as
verbal allusions from the Old Testament. Interestingly, in many cases
New Testament authors utilize not the Hebrew original but its ancient
Greek translation known as the Septuagint (LXX). Despite intriguing
ancient witness accounts such as the famous second-century BCE pseud-
epigraphon Letter of Aristeas, which arguably provides the basis for
Christians subsequent claim of its authority and divinely inspired nature,
Hengel points out that the LXX remains a difficult subject involving ques-
tions regarding its relations to the Judeo-Christian canons.
What role exactly does the LXX play in the interpretation of Holy
Scripture in the Christian Church? Did the LXX ever attempt to replace
the Hebrew original? This volume is valuable for its inclusion of Robert
Hanharts introduction on the subject, which both arouses readers
interests and orients them with the basic questions surrounding the trans-
lation. Hanhart, a Septuagint scholar, acknowledges the fact that a trans-
lation can never be completely faithful to the original but argues that the
LXX translation went through series of constant revisions in order to en-
sure its accuracy and fidelity to the original Hebrew. His observations in-
clude an analysis of historical documents (notably the Prologue of Jesus
ben Sira, Origens Hexapla, the New Testament, and different recen-
sions of the LXX) regarding canonicity and its relationship to the forma-
tion of the LXX canon in Hellenistic Judaism and the primitive Christian
church (Urgeschichte).
Several problems in the history of the LXX text are raised; some of
these also reflect the history of the transmission of the Hebrew text. For
Review: HENGEL Septuagint as Christian Scripture R13
example, some early LXX manuscripts of Jewish origin transcribed the
name : not in the form kuv rio" encountered in all the L XX
manuscripts of Christian origin, but in some form of Tetragrammaton.
Hanhart argues that this practice occurred as the secondary phase in the
LXX text history because some Jews felt kuvrio" inadequate for render-
ing the theologumenon. He dismisses Baudissins thesis of a rabbinic
replacement of : with :x on the basis of the representation of the
name with kuv rio" in the LXX.
There could be, however, a source of puzzlement in Hanharts
introduction. One could not help but ask, what exactly is the relationship
between the Palestinian canon and the Alexandrian canon? Why was it
the case that only those canonical texts in the Alexandrian communities
were translated into Greek but not those in the Palestinian communities?
Would Jews in Alexandrian communities have access to the Hebrew
original? If so, would that original Hebrew canon in Alexandria conform
exactly to the one in Palestine? Would the Hebrew texts in those two
canons differ significantly? Hengel addresses these questions by pointing
to the LXXs dependence on Palestinian Judaism. Many Jews, such as
Philo, knew little or no Hebrew, and saw the use and translation of Heb-
rew writings in Greek as an effective instrument for the religious prop-
aganda of the motherland among the Diaspora, which intensified after
the attainment of independence through the Maccabean struggle for
freedom. In further observations, he notes the fragments of the LXX
texts discovered at Qumran in the library of the Essenes who were hos-
tile to Greek cultural influences. This might offer some clues to explain
the relationship between the two canons.
Often easily dismissed for its appearance as a mere translation by
biblical scholars in favour of the Masoretic Text, studies of the LXX,
unfortunately, seem largely restricted to philological understanding of the
biblical text. Unsatisfied with the current trend in Septuagintal studies,
Hengel sets out to illustrate the immense scope of the LXX not only in its
philological perspective, but also in its historical and theological points of
view. In this volume originally delivered in a series of papers to the
Ecumenical Working Group of Protestant and Catholic theologians on
the development of the canon and the interconfessional differences perti-
nent to the scope of its Old Testament portion, Hengel gives more
lengthy treatment of the complex problems of the LXX and its canonical
significance both for Judaism and for the Christian church. At first
glance his work might be the Old Testament counterpart of the classic
R14 Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 2
work by Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its
Origin, Development, and Significance (1987).
Hengel notes several causes for the neglect of the LXX in the preface.
First is the lack of handy bilingual HebrewGreek versions on the mar-
ket, which he sees as essential for a close study of the text. Today this
problem can be easily solved by most available Bible programs which
contain biblical texts in electronic format. Second has to do with the lack
of a critical text. Rahlfs edition is unfit for academic purposes because of
its narrow textual basis and limited and outdated apparatus. The good
news is that an excellent critical edition of the LXX, known as the
Gttingen edition, is promised to be complete within the next ten years.
But until then, LXX studies suffer neglect because of a common
misconception of its being limited only to those interested in the inter-
testamental period. Hengel points out that the LXX is more than just a
translation. It provides the theological language for the early Church and
stems from 350 years of turbulent history and represents the most
important self-witness to Greek-speaking Judaism. If one would want to
study Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity, he or she should begin
with the LXX, and not with Philo of Alexandria.
How did the LXX become Holy Scripture in the early Christian
Church? To address this question, Hengel carefully examines the Ur-
geschichte of the canonical literature, paying special attention to ancient
witnesses, both Jewish and Christian, concerning the origin, formation,
and transmission of the LXX. In doing so, Hengel seeks to point out
some misconceptions; for example, questions about the authority and
diverse nature of the text. According to the translation legend in Aris-
teas, the seventy(-two) elders represented from each of the Twelve
Tribes of Israel convened in Alexandria to translate not the whole Heb-
rew Scripture but only the Pentateuch into Greek under Ptolemy II Phil-
adelphus (282246 BCE). Later theologians such as Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria all sought to extend this inspired
work of the Seventy to the rest of the books found in later recensions of
the LXX (indexes of cited theologians and passages are provided at the
end of the book).
As Hengel points out, one fundamental question is whether the LXX
was ever intended to replace the original Hebrew, at least in the sense of
totally doing away with it in synagogues and churches. He traces the evi-
dence found in many of the early recensions (for example, Aquila and
Theodotion) of the need for the LXX translation to constantly check
Review: HENGEL Septuagint as Christian Scripture R15
against the Hebrew original. Thus the word aj fov moion (copy) with
reference to the Greek translation of the Hebrew original in the Prologue
of Jesus ben Sira becomes significant. Also, the church was continually
reminded that the LXX is only a translation that can never exceed the
Hebrew original in dignity, but must, rather, always succeed it. This ex-
plains the motives and intent for Origens Hexapla, in which he includes
two columns for the Hebrew original. Origens Hexapla led to subse-
quent revisions of the text in the attempt to improve the Greek text in
light of the Hebrew text. This practice, which many Latin biblical manu-
scripts had been influenced by, might have produced some of the earliest
critical editions of the biblical texts because of the special efforts and
arrangements (for example, obeloi or asterisks employed to indicate
textual variants).
In the theological scope of the LXX, Hengel is quick to point out the
much-disputed passage in Isaiah concerning the prophecy of the birth of
Jesus (Isa. 7.14). Hengel argues that Justin could adduce scriptural evi-
dence for the virgin birth of the Messiah only by means of the Greek
text since the LXX has parqev no" (virgin) for the Hebrew ::
(young woman). In the second century, the Jewish and Christian ver-
sions of the LXX differed at some crucial points; especially those of chris-
tological significance in fact provided ground for apologists like Justin to
accuse the Jews of falsifying Scripture (the Jews had : x : , young
woman in their Greek text). Three centuries after Justin, Jews made
similar charges against Christians of adducing texts that do not exist in
Hebrew.
I found Hengels presentation clear and easy to follow, although it is a
translation work from his German manuscript. His investigations are
thorough and original, approaching the issues from many different
angles in order to explore the complexity of the topic. His arguments are
well-supported by examples and carefully footnoted, complete with bibli-
ography and reference indices. Many of those come from original
research of primary sources. It might be of interest to those who do not
read Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, that, in most cases, foreign passages and
words are translated into English.
Some of Hengels observations, however, are questionable. Some of
these have to do with his weighting of particular documents for the use
of evidence. For example, on several occasions throughout the book he
makes conclusive remarks addressing issues concerning the origin of the
LXX in both Jewish and Christian contexts by citing the Letter of
R16 Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 2
Aristeas. I am not arguing the historical authenticity of the document. I
am simply raising the question that if Aristeas is to be seriously consid-
ered as a possible fictitious account by a later forger, the information
which it contains regarding the LXX translators and their work will
appear misleading. As a result, Hengel might have to consider revising
his conjectures which rely heavily on the evidence in Aristeas.
One persistent problem Hengel sees is the existing significant
differences between the LXX and the Hebrew text. Like Augustine who
was confronted by the same problem, he is unable to provide an ade-
quate solution. Nor does he come up with substantial conclusive remarks
concerning the apocryphal writings in the LXX and their place in the
Christian canon. It might be interesting if he does but it is out of the
scope of the book. As a New Testament scholar and theologian, he does,
however, challenge readers to rethink the question of Old Testament
canon, thoughtfully pointing out that it is in fact the New Testament that
is the conclusion, the goal and the fulfillment of the Old. From this stand-
point he makes his presentation potentially appealing to a more diverse
audience. While the Christian churches could not agree fully on the ques-
tion of Old Testament canon, Hengel questions whether or not there is
even a need in the church to close the Old Testament canon. With
respect to Apocrypha, the Eastern Orthodox churches, for example, still
recognize it as part of their canon (and some follow closely the LXX
canon rather than the Hebrew canon). I found this last thought that Hen-
gel brings up particularly interesting because it challenges readers to re-
think the significance of the Christian Old Testament canon with all its
complexities relating to the New Testament.
Hengels volume is intended as an introduction to the questions
surrounding the LXX with respect to its significance in the Christian
canon. In many ways, problems are more often raised than answered. In
such a small volume, Hengel has remarkably covered a fascinating but
often overlooked subject in biblical studies. His unique and well-balanced
perspectives deserve close attention from biblical scholars and students
alike.
Liang Kazu Wu
McMaster Divinity College