Issues in the critical study of the Old Testament

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I've read the above post with interest (note: the 'above post' refers to post #25 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=68718&postcount=25) in the Can God Lie? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5255) thread; the present post and subsequent have been moved here as the new thread of discussion emerged). I only want to comment on one area, which is the question of authorship of Genesis. I take a deep breath in advance as I do so, as it will mean flipping through the scriptures quite extensively as I type:

Mosaic authorship as ascribed within the Old Testament

Within the culture and textual witnesses of the Old Testament itself, there is a clear conviction that the five books of the Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) are the works of Moses. There is testimony to this even within these Pentateuchal books themselves: Exodus 24.4 and 24.7 make reference to Moses 'writing down the words of the Lord'; Exodus 34.27 records God commanding him to write down the words; and the so-called 'Deuteronomic Code' (comprising most of Deuteronomy from chapter 6 onward) records the acts of 'Moses writing down the Law and giving it to the priests' (cf. Deuteronomy 31.9). A summary of his act comes in the famous instruction regarding the written documents:

"And it came about, when Moses finished writing the words of this law in a book until they were complete, that Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, 'Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord'" (Deuteronomy 31.24.-26).
Similar internal accounts record Moses writing down the events of the Exodus and entry into the promised land (cf. Exodus 17.14; Numbers 33.2); and as to the legal prescriptions of the Law themselves, the litany of passages ascribing Mosaic authorship to the texts is extensive (a completely random and miniscule sampling would include, e.g.: Exodus 12.1-28; Leviticus 1-7; Numbers 1-2, 8.5-22; Deuteronomy 5-33; and on and on).

Outside the Pentateuch, the other books of the Old Testament routinely ascribe Mosaic authorship to it. Joshua is very clear, calling it 'the Law of Moses, which he has written' (Joshua 8.32); and in several other places (1.7, 8.34; 23.6) refers directly to the written 'Law of Moses'. This is echoed throughout the library. Again, just a small sampling would include: 1 Kings 2.3; 2 Kings 14.6; 1 Chronicles 22.13; 2 Chronicles 23.18; Ezra 3.2; Daniel 9.13; Malachi 4.4 -- to name just a random few (I have used the book names of the Hebrew in the above, so that the automatic scripture-linking system will point to them properly; use of the Septuagintal names for these books at present doesn't work correctly with the hyperlinks).

Mosaic authorship as ascribed within the New Testament

This rather overwhelming testimony of the Old Testament scriptures themselves, is echoed fairly clearly in the New Testament writings. Both Luke's Gospel (Luke 24.27) and his testimony in Acts (Acts 15.21), indicate Moses as the author of the books of the Law; and this is indicated by frequent comments elsewhere in the New Testament books (e.g. John 1.45; John 5.46-47; Romans 10.5; 1 Corinthians 9.9; 2 Corinthians 3.15-16; etc.). In several of these passages (and others), it is Jesus himself who identifies the Law's Mosaic heritage.

Jewish proclamations of Mosaic authorship

This accords, too, with the testimony of both Jews and Christians at the time. Flavius Josephus (a Jewish historian of the first century AD), in his Josephus against Apion 11.8, wrote:

"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have) but only twenty-two books, which are justly believed to be divine; and of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death."
As to classical Jewish interpretations, both the c. 200 BC Talmud (at Baba Bathra 146) and the c. 100 BC Mishnah (at Pirqe Aboth 1.1) ascribe the Pentateuch to Moses.

Mosaic authorship among the Church fathers

Amongst the fathers of the Church, we've rather explicit testimony. Writing from the court of Justinian I (early sixth century AD), a court official by the name of Junilius wrote, in his Concerning the writers of divine books:

"Disciple: How do you know who are the writers of the divine books?

"Master: In three ways. Either from the titles and prefaces [...] or from the titles alone [...] or from the tradition of the ancients, as Moses is believed to have written the first 5 books of the history; although the title does not say so, nor does he himself write, 'the Lord spoke unto me,' but as of another, 'the Lord spoke unto Moses.'"
Similarly, from a near-contemporary, Leontius of Byzantium:

"As for these five books, all bear witness that they are (the work) of Moses."
Similar proclamations of Mosaic authorship to the Law (inclusive of the Law as recorded in Genesis) come in Melito of Sardis, Origen of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary of Poitiers, Augustine, and a host of other writers in the early Church.

Moses as author

The above should, I hope, give some concrete definition to the longstanding belief, not just of Christianity but to many readers, of Mosaic authorship to the Pentateuch. As to his personal 'qualifications', there is certainly no reason why Moses could not have written such books: he was a particularly learned man, having been raised and educated in the Egyptian court and become 'learned in all the ways of the Egyptians' (Acts 7.22). Not only would such revelation as he received directly from God been easily transcribable for him (i.e. he would have known how to write), but he also would have had access to libraries and records that allowed him to 'flesh out' the narrative stories of the people and their past. Such a combination of experienced revelation and 'historical study' would make Moses an early forebear of precisely the pattern of scriptural composition we see in the New Testament. At the front of his Gospel, St Luke writes:

"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed." (Luke 1.1-4)
St Luke spent considerable time and energy speaking to others, asking questions of events, conversing with those involved (particularly the Mother of God) in order to inform the overall content of his Gospel -- fleshing out that vision which was 'perfect' from the very first, since it was the divine vision of the self-revealing Christ.

The same seems almost certain of Moses. He had remarkable resources to hand for such 'conversations', both in terms of written documents and personal interactions with the people he was newly discovering as his own. He also had time -- lots of time, both in the Egyptian court and in the wilderness with God's people, to form his works and have them committed to writing.

Does this mean that Moses physically wrote -- pen-to-paper -- the five books of the Pentateuch? Of course not. It was common practice in the ancient world to dictate to others (see, for example, the works of St Paul) - though the textual support seems to indicate that Moses did write at least some things himself. But it seems entirely reasonable to see Moses' 'writing' as the collaborative work of himself and scribes -- this accords exactly with patristic understandings of how texts originate and come down through history (the fathers are often quite keen to point out potential textual problems that can be explained by scribal errors), etc.

Nor does it mean that the books of the Pentateuch, as we have them now, were originally written in precisely the fashion they exist today. People did not write books in the ancient world the way they do now: sitting in front of a word-processor and moving from beginning to end, introduction to conclusion. Texts were written as a far more organic process, over many years, with portions being added at different times. Occasionally (indeed, rather more than occasionally), expansions on things already written would be added later -- not the way we can do it now, by scrolling up the page and inserting changes / additional content in locum, since one cannot 'insert' into a scroll, much less a stone or clay tablet; so one added later. In time, as the texts were carried forwarded, 'traditioned' (handed on) and re-copied, these would be inserted into their sensible places in the overall document. This is the type of textual 'redaction' that is eminently natural, and which poses little in the way of authorship problems. Books changed in the ancient world: they were traditions of marked fluidity. Divine books were no different - and there was nothing of the strange contemporary sense that any change to the letters / text / order / shape of a document challenged either its authorship or divine stature.

Some summary thoughts

Given all this (and despite the length of what I've just typed, this is only a basic, fundamental introduction to the issues), it seems utterly clear that the traditional ascription of the Pentateuch to Moses suffers no intrinsic problems (that is, no elements that would require someone to say, 'Aha, on that account, it simply cannot be so'). Those problems that are most often identified tend to be posed by two categories of readers: either Christian readers with a certain conception of sola scriptura that debases text from an aspect of living tradition to an authority all on its own (and for whom there then arise problems that must be 'explained away', particularly in Genesis vis-a-vis the appearance in the text of different versions of creation, the flood, etc.; these problems do not really occur for such readers, but rather for others, who cannot / will not support such an approach to sacred writ); or, on the other hand, readers (Christian or otherwise) who attempt to see the text wholly apart from any sense of divine context or tradition, and analyse it solely on (quite problematic) models of style, form, vocabulary, etc. The 'documentary hypothesis' yielded some interesting points; but in the end has rather lost a great deal of its credibility even in academic circles, for fairly well failing to accommodate even the slightest degree of alternative readings.

Certainly from a patristic standpoint, it seems clear that the Law is the Law of Moses, of which he is the human author - and this seems to me eminently supportable by even the most demanding scholarly 'analysis'. This does not mean that the text as we have it today is word-for-word, shape-for-shape, that which Moses put to paper 'from his own pen'. That is not how texts work, particularly ancient texts, and particularly divine texts. And similarly, it must not be used to dumb down real discussions over content: such as the interesting divergences in the narrative of creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, or in the accounting of the deluge, or in the creation and nature of man, etc.

Just a few thoughts (however lengthy!).

INXC, dcn Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr Dn Matthew wrote:



Nor does it mean that the books of the Pentateuch, as we have them now, were originally written in precisely the fashion they exist today. People did not write books in the ancient world the way they do now: sitting in front of a word-processor and moving from beginning to end, introduction to conclusion. Texts were written as a far more organic process, over many years, with portions being added at different times. Occasionally (indeed, rather more than occasionally), expansions on things already written would be added later -- not the way we can do it now, by scrolling up the page and inserting changes / additional content in locum, since one cannot 'insert' into a scroll, much less a stone or clay tablet; so one added later. In time, as the texts were carried forwarded, 'traditioned' (handed on) and re-copied, these would be inserted into their sensible places in the overall document. This is the type of textual 'redaction' that is eminently natural, and which poses little in the way of authorship problems. Books changed in the ancient world: they were traditions of marked fluidity. Divine books were no different - and there was nothing of the strange contemporary sense that any change to the letters / text / order / shape of a document challenged either its authorship or divine stature.

Given all this, it seems utterly clear that the traditional ascription of the Pentateuch to Moses suffers no intrinsic problems (that is, no elements that would require someone to say, 'Aha, on that account, it simply cannot be so'). Those problems that are most often identified tend to be posed by two categories of readers: either Christian readers with a certain conception of sola scriptura that debases text from an aspect of living tradition to an authority all on its own (and for whom there then arise problems that must be 'explained away', particularly in Genesis vis-a-vis the appearance in the text of different versions of creation, the flood, etc.; these problems do not really occur for such readers, but rather for others, who cannot / will not support such an approach to sacred writ); or, on the other hand, readers (Christian or otherwise) who attempt to see the text wholly apart from any sense of divine context or tradition, and analyse it solely on (quite problematic) models of style, form, vocabulary, etc. The 'documentary hypothesis' yielded some interesting points; but in the end has rather lost a great deal of its credibility even in academic circles, for fairly well failing to accommodate even the slightest degree of alternative readings.

This subject interests me very much. Although I am very far from having a technical understanding of how Scripture has been passed on through the Church, the point of how this illuminates what Tradition is I think is crucial. In a word in as much as we grapple and come to terms with such an issue we come to terms with the Church as the living ecclesiological Body of Christ.

What I wanted to add then from my ongoing reading of the NETS translation of the LXX is how the latter so frequently expands on the text as it was found in the original Hebrew. In some cases this expansion is a basic interpretation of the foundational text. But interestingly in many cases it also translates in such a way that adds meaning to the original. The point here I think in terms of the Church is that Tradition seeks to convey the underlying divine meaning of the text rather than only trying to literally translate what the original said. Here then is an understanding, not of 'being creative' in its modern sense, but of the Scripture itself as embodying the living Word of the Church which the Church itself speaks forth. The latter then denotes a living relationship to that Scripture.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Father Raphael,

I read your above with great interest. I was particularly drawn to your closing comment, which spoke of the Church's relationship to its divine writings as involving 'an understanding, not of 'being creative' in its modern sense, but of the Scripture itself as embodying the living Word of the Church which the Church itself speaks forth. The latter then denotes a living relationship to that Scripture.'

The phrasing of a 'living relationship' I find particularly helpful. Perhaps one of the most fundamental distinctions between scriptural 'study' in Orthodoxy (and I don't put 'study' in inverted commas to disparage it, but to draw emphasis to the fact that it means something different in this context than it is often taken to mean), in comparison with such study in other circles, is the conception in Orthodoxy of documentary testimony (i.e. written works) being part of what you have called a 'living relationship'. This goes beyond simply saying that the texts of scripture are not the be-all-end-all of divine revelation (Orthodoxy's refusal to accept any notion of sola scriptura is well known), and dives more fully into the realm of just what a text is, in terms of its relationship to the overall experience of Christian life. This in turn informs how we study our own texts - how we read them, ponder their origins, note their meaning, and find their appropriation in our own ascetical lives.

The book of Genesis is a marvellous 'case study' of how things can go wrong, and how readings can be (dramatically) influenced by areas we would hardly think might do so. The 19th and 20th centuries saw in a dramatic period of Old Testament criticism in academia, which in its final analysis today is remarkable for just how much it's influenced even the people who expended great energy disagreeing with it.


Perhaps some might find it interesting to trace out a potted history as an example of what I mean. The following will speak in very generalised terms, of necessity for the example (though we might talk in more detail about certain points if people are interested):

Traditionally, Genesis was understood to have been 'written by Moses' by almost all traditions that engaged with the book.
19th-century scholars, pioneered by such figures as Julius Wellhausen, began to look at the text critically, and saw in it an 'advanced' religious document - i.e., it represents a highly developed religious culture, symbolism, practice, etc.
Based on the humanist, evolutionary principles by which the majority of such scholars were influenced, it was understood as almost a 'keystone' for understanding cultures that an advanced testimony must come after primitive testimonies; therefore the contents of a book like Genesis must speak to a much later age. Similarly, evolutionary humanism of the period ascribed little value to 'supernatural' explanations; thus most texts and explanations that relied on it were written of as primitive mythology that could not be taken seriously in actual study.
Such observations, combined with careful form- and style-criticism in the hands of Herman Gunkel and others, were then put into place to form what became known as the 'documentary hypothesis'; namely, that Genesis (together with the whole of the Pentateuch) was the work of many authors, over a long period of history, each of whom wrote more primitive documents and reflected on earlier materials, all to be assembled at a later stage into the final form of the text now in-hand.
This 'documentary hypothesis', which in its most famous form proffered five principal sources for Genesis (J = Jahwist; E = Elohist; D = Deuteronomistic; P = Priestly; and 'R' = a later redactor or group of redactors) took almost complete control of academic biblical scholarship in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Reacting to what they understood as humanist denials of the divine authority of the ancient texts, Jewish and (primarily) Christian groups reacted harshly against this movement. Some of the strongest reactions came from American Christians, where biblical fundamentalism had long been in a majority, and which latched on to these modes of analysis as essentially antithetical to a view of 'divine inspiration' which gave the Old Testament texts the authority required by a fundamental belief in sola scriptura - that the scriptures alone are the source of all divine authority.
The most extreme form of response was to deny any and all development or change to the Old Testament texts, insisting that they were penned by Moses as they now exist, under direct inspiration from God. The kinds of 'problems' identifed by source- form- and documentary-hypothesis scholars -- such as the radical shifts in vocabulary within chapters of the text; multiple accounts of various elements; apparently contradictory details; etc. -- could be explained by other means (producing some rather remarkable attempts at 'harmonising' details in Genesis).
The above is an extremely simplified outline of portions of the history of Old Testament scholarship over the past 120 years. What seems most remarkable is that in all of the above -- i.e. both in the rise of the documentary hypothesis and in the retaliation against it by certain Christian groups -- there is a marked lapse of any sense of text as living revelation. Form-critical scholarship sees the texts as dynamic, as changing; but wholly within the context of the evolution of cultures and societies - quite apart from any sense of divine revelation or relationship. Standard Christian responses respond by insisting on the notion of divine revelation, but do so by transforming the text into wrote letters, stagnant words, removing any real notion of living revelation.

Orthodoxy has been profoundly bad at responding to these movements - not because it can't, but because it has very few Old Testament scholars who speak into the broader academic milieu in response to its essential takeover by these other viewpoints. This has proved very harmful. When the Church does not have voices speaking into the mix of others, then those who are interested in reading and hearing and listening, hear those other voices. This has produced the oddly common phenomenon of Orthodox people loudly rejecting sola scriptura on the one hand, yet essentially using it to explain Genesis - since it seems that the only 'alternative' is the form-scholarship against which it reacts. But Orthodoxy knows scriptures in another way, a way of relationship and living revalation -- the way you suggest, and a way very clear if one spends time in a monastery, living with the scriptures; or in engaged participation in the parish's liturgical life, singing and hymning and praying the scriptures.

But many Orthodox people read books, particularly about the Old Testament, and particularly about Genesis. We need Orthodox people with clear voices to rise up and proclaim this way to the world - faithful who will study the Old Testament in a way enabling them to proclaim the Church's knowledge and vision of it into the academic milieu that does influence Orthodox people.

Ony of my greatest prayers is that in my lifetime I might see the advent of Orthodox writers on the Old Testament who can and will take up this charge.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr Dn Matthew,

You wrote:


Orthodoxy has been profoundly bad at responding to these movements - not because it can't, but because it has very few Old Testament scholars who speak into the broader academic milieu in response to its essential takeover by these other viewpoints. This has proved very harmful. When the Church does not have voices speaking into the mix of others, then those who are interested in reading and hearing and listening, hear those other voices.

This has been because until recently there have been very few Orthodox scholars who have not been profoundly influenced by either critical theory or else sola scriptura. Thus when I attended Orthodox seminary in the 1980s the only texts used for teaching Scripture, followed critical theory. Although never clearly explained the likely explanation was that the only alternative would have been texts relying on sola scriptura which especially at that time were even more objectionable (but more due to cultural reasons than hermeneutical ones). Strangely though this way of looking at the Scriptures bore no relationship to the actual liturgical life of the community we were part of. In the class one thing was learned; but this was promptly set aside and ignored once on the kliros. There a much more Patristic approach was adopted due to the content of the hymnography (which is one of the chief ways we learn Scriptural vision in the Church) but then this was in the world of praxis which was separate to an incredible extent from what one learned in the classroom.

Thankfully in recent times however this situation has begun to greatly change for the better with class room and praxis much more tied together. This in turn has led to new or Patristic texts being used which is quite a change from what used to be.



This has produced the oddly common phenomenon of Orthodox people loudly rejecting sola scriptura on the one hand, yet essentially using it to explain Genesis - since it seems that the only 'alternative' is the form-scholarship against which it reacts. But Orthodoxy knows scriptures in another way, a way of relationship and living revalation -- the way you suggest, and a way very clear if one spends time in a monastery, living with the scriptures; or in engaged participation in the parish's liturgical life, singing and hymning and praying the scriptures.

I have to say that I agree with this assessment of our situation and also what is needed at present.

For example the defence of the LXX is very often that its authenticity rests on the fact that it is a more accurate translation of the ancient Hebrew text. I would say however that this argument in itself is based on sola scriptura. In certain passages it could be that the LXX represents the original Hebrew to a degree that other available translations do not. However from close study it can be quite clearly seen that in several crucial passages the actual difference between the LXX and the Hebrew is interpretational amplification & thus change from the original text.

Here several very interesting examples could be shown. But here are just a couple from Exodus as demonstrated by the NETS translation.


(Ex 3:6) NRSV: And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.
LXX: And Moses turned his face away, for he was afraid to look down before God.


Here the emphasis of the translator is on how God cannot be directly seen and he incorporates this into his translation. This can be seen even more strongly in the below.


(Ex 24: 9-11) NRSV: and they saw the God of Israel...also they beheld God.
LXX: And they saw the place, there where the God of Israel stood...and they appeared in the place of God.

This actually leads the translator to add the below phrase once the Hebrews appear before God which is not found in the Hebrew version:


(Ex 24: 11) And not even one of the chosen of Israel perished.

Many more examples could be shown but the point here I think is that the translator evidently is working on theological principles which strongly influence his translation from the original.

If this is so then the hermeneutical principle at work within the Church is primarily one of understanding the text not necessarily from a certain point in time (ie the original text word for word) but rather as to the meaning that the text points to seen iconographically as it were. Thus the original author could have intended some specific meaning. But the Scriptural text itself seen as speaking from within the Church points to a meaning beyond this. These two (ie the original intent of the author & the amplified interpretation from within the Church) do not contradict each other but rather the latter shows the deeper meaning to be found from the former. This I think also alerts us that the original author (in this case let's say Moses and the Pentateuch) did not mean his authorship to at all be taken in a restrictive sola sciptura sense. Rather he too was communicating an indicative truth to be further developed within the Church.

One last question I wonder about is whether these same principles were also adopted for Patristic translation or whether there were similarities and differences from the method used for Scripture.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I've created this new thread, to house a discussion that has emerged as a tangent within another (that being: Can God Lie? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5255)). I've moved the above posts from that thread to this; but for any side-content indicated in these posts, you may wish to refer back to the other thread.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

In the above, Father Raphael wrote, regarding the lack of OT scholarship in Orthodoxy:



This has been because until recently there have been very few Orthodox scholars who have not been profoundly influenced by either critical theory or else sola scriptura. Thus when I attended Orthodox seminary in the 1980s the only texts used for teaching Scripture, followed critical theory.

Indeed, this has been very much the case in almost all circles. Even today, when rejection of the classical documentary hypothesis is far more widespread, there is a real lack of 'anything else' to teach, since almost all in a teaching position have come up through this period of documentary and form criticism.

This is where Orthodoxy must come to speak from its strong position of liturgical praxis, which is what gives shape and contour to its vision of scripture. The fact of the matter is that it has never not known its response to the problems of 20th-century critical method; but it has suffered from a deficiency in how to articulate this into the world, even its own world of seminaries and instruction -- leading to the strange dichotomy between classroom and kliros that you mention elsewhere in your post.

Later in your post, you talk more specifically about scripture, and the relationship of the Septuagint to the Hebrew versions. You write:


For example the defence of the LXX is very often that its authenticity rests on the fact that it is a more accurate translation of the ancient Hebrew text. I would say however that this argument in itself is based on sola scriptura. In certain passages it could be that the LXX represents the original Hebrew to a degree that other available translations do not. However from close study it can be quite clearly seen that in several crucial passages the actual difference between the LXX and the Hebrew is interpretational amplification & thus change from the original text.

This is a wonderful point, and well worth pondering further. A couple of things come to mind.

Firstly, there are certainly some instances in which the LXX is likely, indeed, to be a more authentic rendering of the original Hebrew documents than the Hebrew versions now possessed, since in many cases the Hebrew versions we have today are significantly later than the LXX, dating from the work of the Masoretic scribes (who had reference to the LXX as a sourcebook to clarify and fill in gaps in missing Hebrew content). Finds at Qumran and elsewhere, which give us rare glimpses of Hebrew versions of the scriptures that pre-date the Masoretes, in many places show far greater parity with the LXX than with the Masoretic version (most people are unaware how 'young' the existing Hebrew version of the OT really is; the Qumran finds are some of the only pre- or early-Christian editions of the OT in Hebrew we possess).

Secondly, there are some places where it is hard to know whether the LXX represents interpretational amplification, or the Masoretic Hebrew represents such amplification (or de-amplification). There have certainly been suggestions all throughout history that the anti-Christian bent of the Masoretic project informed an 'amplification' of interpretation in the Hebrew composition, just as surely where would have been in the LXX with regard to the older Hebrew.

But thirdly, and this is really the point you were making, and which I think is most important: the Orthodox Church does not ground its approach to the LXX as the authoritative version of the scriptures because it is 'more accurate' to the original documents, or because it is 'older' or 'clearer'. Such arguments for authority are based on a kind of textual fundamentalism that is influenced both by aspects sola scriptura (i.e. that the form of the written word is critical for its divine authority); as well as certain aspects of critical method (i.e. that older is 'more original'; and in this case, that more original is more authoritative). Rather, the LXX is understood to be the translation of the scriptures inspired by God, to give accurate rendition of his divine self-revelation to his creatures. It is clearly not the original, and in many ways is an amplification of the original.

Speaking of the translation, St Irenaeus writes:

"The Scriptures, then, have been translated with such fidelity by God’s grace, and from these God has prepared and pre-fashioned our faith in His Son. For He has preserved the Scriptures unadulterated for us in Egypt—the place where the house of Jacob flourished after escaping the famine in Chanaan, where also our Lord was saved when He fled from Herod’s persecution. Moreover, this translation of these Scriptures [was made] before our Lord descended [to earth], and before the Christians appeared. In point of fact, the Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy, under whom the Scriptures were translated, lived much earlier. In view of this, truly impudent and bold do those show themselves who wish at present to make other translations when they are refuted by us from the Scriptures themselves and are obliged to believe in the coming of God’s Son. But our faith is firm and not fictitious, and alone true. This can be proved clearly from these Scriptures, which were translated in the manner we described." (Ref. 3.21.3)
St Irenaeus writes this in the midst of a period when new 'versions' of the creation texts were being widely composed and circulated. His point is that the authentic scriptures continue authentically to proclaim 'unadulterated' the truth of God's revelation; but more specifically, that they do so in translation under God's grace and guidance, so that points can be amplified (St Irenaeus' specific focus in this chapter is the fact that the LXX amplifies Isaiah 7.13, since the elders who translated it by God's grace clarified the Hebrew 'young maiden' as meaning 'virgin').

The authority rests in the authentic articulation of the self-revealing God's true revelation, not in the text that delivers it. The very fact that the Church uses the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew, is a case-in-point of its whole conception of the written word, of scripture, of text and authority. The fact that it exists and is used as authoritative, itself disallows the possibility of sola scriptura in its rigid form; and similarly, it challenges the assumptions of documentary theory as to both authenticity and authority.

You write:


If this is so then the hermeneutical principle at work within the Church is primarily one of understanding the text not necessarily from a certain point in time (ie the original text word for word) but rather as to the meaning that the text points to seen iconographically as it were. Thus the original author could have intended some specific meaning. But the Scriptural text itself seen as speaking from within the Church points to a meaning beyond this.

This is a marvellous summary. Text is icon: this is a fundamental scriptural vision in Orthodoxy. I've often bemoaned the habit of English-speakers to refer to 'writing' an icon (rather than 'painting'), done simply because the Greek word is grapho and there is a connection to the written articulation of the truth. Perhaps it would be better if we started thinking instead (I make no argument for actually saying!) of written texts as being painted, rather than written: for they share in the visual images' iconic exposure of Truth. At the recent feast of the Nativity of the Mother of God, we 'held up' icons of her birth and person, drawn from the Old Testament, which have their full meaning only in this iconic act.

Finally, you write:


One last question I wonder about is whether these same principles were also adopted for Patristic translation or whether there were similarities and differences from the method used for Scripture.

It will be interesting in due course to call on specific examples from the fathers, but I think initially it suffices to say that the approach is largely the same. Fathers call on other fathers, and their writings, for their iconic articulation of divine truth: look, for example, at the way certain figures of the conciliar periods of the fourth and fifth centuries are incorporated into the liturgical texts of the menaia.

INXC, Deacon Matthew

[Herman Blaydoe]

There is much mentioned here that is worthy of a short-course at the very least, or perhaps someone needs to sit down and get this published. I know I'd buy a copy! This sheds much needed light on a very misunderstood subject!

[Owen Jones]

When I discovered Orthodoxy it was through patristic texts I found in a seminary library. Specifically, St. Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses. My first thought was -- this is a different religion. Second, I was attracted because it was clear that St. Gregory understood symbolism. And this seemed to me to be a way out of the impasse between Biblical fundamentalism and liberalism. This symbolic understanding and representation was meaningful to me across the board, because, "What is man that thou art mindful of Him?" Man, according to the literalist/objectivist school is a thing unto himself, who, in a religious context, comes into contact with God and into a relationship with God. In the liberal/nihilist school, man is no thing at all. A construct. Whatever we want him to be.

But it strikes me that in Orthodoxy man is a symbol of who and what God is. He does not have some separate existence of his own. Some separate identity of his own that he works out to his benefit, either historically or culturally or psychologically or ideologically or religiously or through an exercise in his will or intellect or emotion. He is, as Eric Voegelin said, an eschatalogical index. Meaning that man is a pointer to God.

Which leads me to a suggestion. Eric Voegelin in an odd sort of way is the primary Christian apologist of the 20th Century. This is very odd because he was not himself a Christian, certainly not in any doctrinal sense per se, and yet he seriously engaged in Christian texts and Christian questions in a way that contemporary Christians scholars fail to do. And he takes the text seriously as revelatory in nature, he takes seriously the participatory nature of the event between God, text and reader, and while he did not reject some critical method scholarship (I think he may have changed later on on this subject had he gone back and addressed it in his later writings) he was insistent that one could not engage the text from a standpoint of criticism.

I would encourage people to read Israel and Revelation by Eric Voegelin, especially the intro. It should be available in any major public or university library. It's method is not to inform but to evoke, which is the essence of any text that attempts to engage in reality.

Biblical, textual criticism and understanding must be a derivative science or endeavor. It is derivative of the question, "what is man, that thou art mindful of Him." All of it comes back to anthropology, a philosophical/theological anthropology. Until we approach that question from the right angle, we don't know anything about texts. Then we can begin to talk about "what is revelation?" When we talk about revelation, what do we mean? Voegelin was quite penetrating on this subject, and he was trying to correct centuries of very bad theology and very bad philosophical reasoning on the subject. He was insistent that revelation is not eternal verities being showered down upon us from above. Revelation is not facts or information. Revelation is not definable neatly, but is a complex reality embracing God's presence, man's receptivity and openness, language and reflective distance from the event or text. It is both an event and a process that takes place in an identifiable realm which he called the in-between, which is a concept he borrowed from Plato as touched on briefly in the Symposium, but which I have also noted (I doubt Voegelin was aware of this), is a concept that runs through the Philokalia repeatedly, and is translated as the intermediate. This idea of realm -- of participating in this in-between realm -- is key I think to understanding revelation and particularly the revelation that occurs with engagement in a text. It also illuminates our liturgical experience which is entirely predicated on the idea/experience that the liturgy is not something that we simply do, or that takes place "here" or "there" at this or that appointed time but rather a participation in the heavenly chorus. With Voegelin, as with our Patristic approach to everything, everything leads to everything else. There is no such thing as a discreet subject or object. This is why Patristic sermons and treatises are so wide ranging, touching on so many different elements even though they may be addressing a short passage of Scripture.