Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] OT Translations

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brian Roberts <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>
  • To: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] OT Translations
  • Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 09:57:15 -0400

Dear Listmembers,

Thank you for your help with my previous questions. I have another, related line of thought to present to you for consideration and comments.

The Book of the Acts of Solomon (as well as other “lost books”) was translated into Greek and kept in the Alexandria Library beginning in the reign of Ptolemy I Philadelphus, during the translation of the LXX. To state unequivocally that this record was preserved requires one of two pieces of evidence:

a Extant physical manuscript or similar haghiographical evidence that fits the biblical description of “the book of the Acts of Solomon”;
b Undeniable evidence of the existence of this text, based on either the comments and/or actions of others in proceeding years.

The only reliable method by which these records could have been preserved was through the canonization of the Hebrew Bible. That process was a two-fold one:
1. Oral traditions were preserved among the Hebrews, describing events from their earliest history , were passed from father to son, from mother to daughter, as a sign of their heritage, for centuries;
2. While the Israelites dutifully maintained records on the activities of their kings, royal families, and religious leaders, there was not much attention given the knowledge they possessed as a people. The Babylonian Captivity changed all that. In 587 BCE, the nobility, priests, and wealthy among Israelite society were shuffled off in multitudes to Babylon for what would be 70 years of slavery.
With the realization that they could lose their identity in Babylonia came a new desire to prevent that loss at all costs. The Israelite scholars were spurred into action. “History was written, poetry was collected, and the words of the great prophets were arranged and preserved” (Tullock 5).
The process of canonization had begun. Of course, it took many years for all of the available books and manuscripts to be collected, and it is obvious that the source material used, including the “Book of the Acts of Solomon” was being preserved during the Exilic Period. After much effort and time, there was finally composed a rudimentary Hebrew Bible.
After the Israelite citizens were allowed to return to their homeland, released by a sympathetic Persian monarch, they took their sacred writings with them. It is actually superfluous to mention the extreme care that they took in preserving these manuscripts. It is a historical fact that many texts survived the Exile, or else there would be no Hebrew Bible today. There are multitudinous references by the biblical redactors to other sources in addition to the “Book of the Acts of Solomon”, eg., “The Book of the Kings of Judah”. The offhand manner in which these sources are cited suggest in the strongest manner that they were still available to be read in some form during the 6th century.

The Septuagint in Alexandria

During the intervening years, from 515 BCE to the late third century BCE, there was obviously some work done at reorganizing the material in the Hebrew Canon, but it wasn’t until 275 BCE that the first attempt was made at translating the scriptures; that task was performed at the library in Alexandria, Egypt. The Alexandria Library was the penultimate learning center on the African continent, indeed in the whole Greek empire. Josephus records a significant event in the process of the library’s expansion which took place around 275 BCE:

The occasion was this: -Demetrius Phalerius, who was library-keeper to the king, was now endeavoring, if it were possible, to gather together all the books that were in the habitable earth, and buying whatsoever was anywhere valuable, or agreeable to the king’s inclination...and when Ptolemy asked him how many ten thousands of books he had collected, he replied, that he had already about twenty times ten thousand; but that, in a little time, he should have fifty times ten thousand. But he said he had been informed that there were many books of laws among the Jews worthy of inquiring after, and worthy of the king’s library... (Book XII, Chapter II, Section 1).

It was this occasion and interest that prompted the Librarian to write a letter to Ptolemy, which expressed his own desire to acquire the Jewish books (Book XII, Chapter II, section 4). After corresponding with other scholars, Demetrius discovered that many of the Jewish writings were written in Hebrew, not Greek, and were considered by the Jews to be “Holy Law”; so, the librarian suggested that the king, Ptolemy, “...mayest write to the high priest of the Jews, to send six of the elders out of every tribe, and those such as are most skillful of the laws, that by their means we may learn the clear and agreeing sense of those books...” (Book XII, Chapter II, section 4).

This series of narratives obviously describes the events which preceded the translation of the LXX. The relevance here is clear: Everything, as far as religious texts, was there in Alexandria - the laws and prophetic writings - all came, en masse and uncontested, from Israel. That is an historical fact, and requires no hypothesizing at all. From these facts, it becomes simple and logical to conclude that the manuscript referred to as “the Book of the Acts of Solomon” in II Kings 11:41 was also conveyed to Egypt. In fact, it is to be expected, as Greek interest in foreign manuscripts, especially the writings from Israel, was not an idle one, as the king himself, Ptolemy Philadelphus, actively supported both this action and the library’s continued expansion. The Hebrew texts remained in Egypt for a period of years, long enough to be copied, translated, and studied by Greek scholars; then, they were returned home, along with the 70 translators. That such a large number of unfiltered, unedited manuscripts were removed to Alexandria shows up clearly in the Alexandrian canon, where we find the dozen-plus extra books not included in the MT. This is good evidence that the MT we have is a later version, prepared after additional canonical considerations were made.

Any input?

Brian Roberts




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page