From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 452-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devorah Dimant

Abstract The article shows that the two narrative fragments of the Qumran second century B.C.E. Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q385a 18 and 4Q389 1) elaborate traditions of the prophet Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch. The juxtaposition of the two types of traditions in a single work attests to its early date. Such an early period, and perhaps even earlier one, is also reflected by the Hebrew Vorlage of the book of Jeremiah. Like the Greek translation this Hebrew Vorlage probably juxtaposed as appendix the book of Baruch 1:1–3:8 to the book of Jeremiah.

1966 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-206
Author(s):  
B. C. Dietrich

A brief glance into almost any modern history of Latin literature will show that the age of Silver Latin came to an end with Suetonius, whose death marked the beginning of two centuries during which Roman letters trickled away to nothing in a wind-swept desert. A sad fate for a great literature at such an early date, for Suetonius still belonged to the first quarter of the second century a.d. Fortunately we may beg to differ from our historians: there was yet life in the old body even after Suetonius.


2021 ◽  
pp. 113-128
Author(s):  
Alexander Rofé

From the time of the Church Fathers, it has been recognized that the Greek translation (LXX) of the book of Jeremiah is shorter than the received Hebrew text (MT). Modern assessments of this textual situation have viewed the LXX as between one-eighth and one-sixth shorter than the corresponding Masoretic text of the book of Jeremiah. Since manuscripts have been found at Qumran that seem to confirm the antiquity of the shorter LXX recension, many explanations for this editorial discrepancy have focused on the phenomenon of editorial expansion within the Masoretic tradition. This chapter presents a range of counter-evidence demonstrating that the LXX has been subjected to a sustained process of editorial concision.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 175-185
Author(s):  
Noah Hacham

According to the Letter of Aristeas, the ancient treatise on the creation of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch, the high priest Eleazar chose seventy-two elders and dispatched them to Egypt where they translated the Torah into Greek. Scholars discerned the meaning of this number, indicating the affinity to the seventy elders who joined Moses and Aaron in the Sinai covenant (Exod. 24) and the fact that this number represents all the tribes of Israel equally, thus sanctifying the Greek translation in a similar way to the Torah. Particular attention was paid to Epiphanius, the fourth century church father, who explicitly states that the seventy-two elders provide equal representation to all the constituent tribes of Israel. Rabbinic literature, however, has been entirely absent from this discourse. In this article I point to Sifre on Numbers, a second century midrash, that notes that seventy-two elders experienced the Divine revelation (Numbers 11): seventy in the Tabernacle and Eldad and Medad in the camp. I suggest that based on a similar ancient interpretation of Numbers 11, the Letter of Aristeas chose the number seventy-two in order to bestow the aura, authority and sanctity of the seventy-two elders of Number 11 on the Greek translation. This example also highlights Rabbinic literature as an integral element of the cultural context of Jewish-Hellenistic literature.


1974 ◽  
Vol 64 ◽  
pp. 195-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Hassall ◽  
Michael Crawford ◽  
Joyce Reynolds

A new inscription discovered by some workmen at Cnidos during excavations conducted by Professor Iris Love preserves considerable portions of a Roman law in a Greek translation, in date and content closely related to (perhaps identical with) the text found at Delphi, commonly known as the ‘Piracy Law’. We give below the Cnidos text and a revision of the Delphi text which is necessitated by the new information, together with a brief commentary designed to bring out what seem to us to be the major implications for Roman historians. The original transcription of the Cnidos text was made by Hassall, but all three authors have checked and improved the readings, both from photographs taken by him and by Professor Love, and from the stones; the revision of the Delphi text, begun by Hassall, is in the event largely the work of Crawford. Archaeological information is contributed by Hassall; to the commentary we have all three made our contributions. The final integration of these and of our concluding remarks is due to Crawford.


Author(s):  
Benjamin G. Wright

The Wisdom of Ben Sira is the paradigmatic Wisdom text from the Second Temple period. Its author was a scribe/sage who lived in Jerusalem during the early part of the second century bce. It has a complicated history of transmission, originally written in Hebrew, but the Greek translation is its primary language of transmission. The book provides evidence for one elite Jew’s understanding of how to please God while living under the political domination of foreign powers. Ben Sira’s instruction has the goal of equipping his students to fear the Lord, fulfill the commandments, and acquire wisdom in order to achieve success in such an uncertain world.


2021 ◽  
pp. 310-327
Author(s):  
Georg Fischer

The book of Jeremiah testifies to disputes about theologies on various levels. Comparison of the Hebrew text and the version of the Septuagint shows large differences regarding the manner in which they speak of God. These differences suggest that the Greek translation tried to evade unusual, challenging, or provocative aspects attributed to God by mitigating or omitting them. The opposition between YHWH, with Jeremiah on his side, and the people together with their leaders shapes the main conflict within the book. The latter wish a “comfortable” relationship without liability, whereas God and his prophet require an exclusive liaison and determination. In some passages, Jeremiah has views which differ from those of YHWH. These texts illustrate that even a prophet has to “learn,” to open himself to God’s broader horizons and distinct plans. (d) Some features of the theological message of the book of Jeremiah are unique and set it apart from all other scrolls of the Bible. Jeremiah thus conveys a particular, independent view of YHWH, which sometimes stands in contrast to Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and other writings, although sharing the same belief in the one and only God. (e) The theological struggles within the book of Jeremiah find a continuation in the conflict of contemporary interpretations. Instead of explaining the various positions with diachronic considerations, it seems sounder to understand the rich variety of theologies therein as due to the different characters, altered situations and circumstances, and to the development of the individuals within the course of history.


Author(s):  
Leslie S. Kawamura

Madhyamaka (‘the Middle Doctrine’) Buddhism was one of two Mahāyāna Buddhist schools, the other being Yogācāra, that developed in India between the first and fourth centuries ad. The Mādhyamikas derived the name of their school from the Middle Path (madhyamapratipad) doctrine expounded by the historical Siddhārtha, prince of the Śākya clan, when he gained the status of a buddha, enlightenment. The Madhyamaka, developed by the second-century philosopher Nāgārjuna on the basis of a class of sūtras known as the Prajñāpāramitā (‘Perfection of Wisdom’), can be seen in his foundational Mūlamadhyamakakārikā(Fundamental Central Way Verses). Therein he expounds the central Buddhist doctrines of the Middle Path in terms of interdependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), conventional language (prajñapti), no-self nature (niḥsvabhāva) and voidness (śūnyatā). He grants that the dharma taught by the enlightened ones is dependent upon two realities (dve satye samupāśritya) – the conventional reality of the world (lokasaṃvṛtisatyam) and reality as the ultimate (satyam paramārthataḥ). Although voidness is central to Madhyamaka, we are warned against converting śūnyatā into yet another ‘ism’. Historically, Madhyamaka in India comprises three periods – the early period (second to fifth century), represented by the activities of Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva and Rāhulabhadra; the middle period (fifth to seventh century) exemplified by Buddhapālita and Bhāvaviveka (founders respectively of the *Prāsaṅgika and *Svātantrika schools of Madhyamaka), and Candrakīrti; and the later period (eighth to eleventh century), which includes Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla, who fused the ideas found in the Madhyamaka and Yogācāra systems. Many of the Indian Madhyamaka scholars of the later period contributed to Madhyamaka developments in Tibet.


2021 ◽  
pp. 92-113
Author(s):  
Hermann-Josef Stipp

The book of Jeremiah has been handed down from antiquity in two separate editions that differ markedly from each other: MT and the Alexandrian version (JerAlT), which is represented by the original Greek translation (JerG*) and certain Qumran fragments. The Alexandrian edition is about one-seventh shorter than its Masoretic counterpart, and it deviates from JerMT both in its macro-structure and in some traits of its microstructure. A growing and well-founded consensus holds that the two editions derive from a common ancestor, with JerAlT still closely resembling this predecessor, whereas JerMT has been enlarged and restructured. This chapter characterizes the translation technique of JerG* and the value of that source as an access to its Hebrew Vorlage. Further, the essay discusses the most important reasons for the text-historical priority of the Alexandrian edition and the secondary nature of the Masoretic Sondergut (the material specific to the Masoretic edition), with the strongest probative force accorded to the pre-Masoretic idiolect, an extended set of linguistic properties distinguishing the Sondergut from the remainder of the book and, to a major part, from the entire rest of the Hebrew Bible. Finally, the chapter summarizes the particular features of the Sondergut, it reflects on the intention guiding the scribes who created this corpus, and concludes with an estimate of its date of origin.


2016 ◽  
Vol 110 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-45
Author(s):  
Anthony Giambrone

Aquila of Sinope, the legendary second-century translator and convert to Judaism, appears in both Jewish and Christian tradition. Recent literature on his famous Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures is surprisingly limited, however. Dominique Barthélemy's landmark monograph on the Minor Prophets’ scroll gives some significant introductory attention to Aquila and the influence of Rabbi Akiva upon him, but the study's influential (if traditional) conclusions cannot be considered final. Lester Grabbe, in particular, has critiqued Barthélemy's portrayal of Aquila as a zealous follower (“un chaud partisan”) of Akiva and of his characteristic manner of exegesis (especially the inclusive sense he gave the accusative particle’ēt). If there are real reasons informing this conventional depiction of Aquila, for Grabbe, “no isolated theory linking a particular translation with a particular figure of Jewish literature can truly claim serious attention,” without considerably more information about how the whole spectrum of Greek recensional activity interacted with all the diverse forms of ancient Jewish interpretation. Grabbe offers an important critique. At the same time, he requires a considerable advance in our knowledge. Indeed, given many irremediable uncertainties touching the precise information Grabbe would demand, it is not clear how far conclusions in this area can ever be entirely distanced from conjectures.


1932 ◽  
Vol 26 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 195-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. P. Winnington-Ingram

Ancient Greek music was purely or predominantly melodic; and in such music subtleties of intonation count for much. If our sources of information about the intervals used in Greek music are not always easy to interpret, they are at any rate fairly voluminous. On the one hand we have Aristoxenus, by whom musical intervals were regarded spatially and combined and subdivided by the processes of addition and subtraction; for him the octave consisted of six tones, and the tone was exactly divisible into fractions such as the half and quarter, so that the fourth was equal to two tones and a half, the fifth to three tones and a half, and so on. On the other hand we have preserved for us in Ptolemy's Harmonics the computations of a number of mathematicians, who realized correctly that intervals could only be expressed as ratios (e.g. of string-lengths), that the octave was less than the sum of six whole tones and that this tone could not be divided into equal parts. These authorities are Archytas, the Pythagorean of the early fourth century, Eratosthenes (third century), Didymus (first century) and Ptolemy himself (second century A.D.). To these we must add the scale of Plato's Timaeus (35B) and, closely related to it, the computations of the pseudo-Philolaus (ap. Boethium, Mus. Ill, 8) and of Boethius himself (IV, 6). Aristoxenus is less easy to understand than the mathematicians because of the unscientific nature of his postulates. His importance, however, is very great, not only from his comparatively early date but because he claims to champion the direct musical consciousness against the scientific approach of some of his predecessors and contemporaries.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document