Introduction
Much of our understanding of the events, persons, and institutions found in the New Testament is to a large degree a function of our understanding of the intertestamental period (fourth-century BC–first-century AD), particularly the literature within Judaism that survived that period reveals to us insights that broaden our understanding of the aforementioned categories in the New Testament; it simply is the right insight to have in hand when engaging any New Testament study. This study will attempt to set forth the major literary works within Judaism which were manifested during the intertestamental period.
The Septuagint
The Septuagint Version, accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and later by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among those countries and peoples, largely Gentiles, the idea and expectation of “Messiah.” The Septuagint (LXX) is a work of translation and recension, which occurred in stages, finding its beginning in the middle of the third-century BC and continuing some four-hundred years into the second-century AD. Along the way it realized different translators and varied translation techniques (Marcos 50). The translation source language was the Hebrew of the Scriptures under translation, and the target language was that of Koine (Koine is post-classical Greek, it is sometimes crudely dubbed “common man’s Greek”). Thus, the language and style of the Septuagint became that of the common people—a characteristic that the New Testament authors would emulate in turn; indeed, many early Christian authors would do so. The Septuagint set a precedent in this regard linguistically.
A writing which belongs to the class of writings called the Pseudepigrapha (discussed below) and which claims to explain the particular history surrounding the translation of the LXX is called the Letter of Aristeas (i.e., a letter written by Aristeas to one Philocrates). Natalie Marcos paraphrases for us parts of the letter:
The king of Egypt, Ptolemy Philadelphus, commissions his librarian Demetrius of Phalerum to collect in Alexandria, by purchase or translation, all the books of the world[1]. Aristeas is present at the interview between the king and the librarian and can prove how the former expresses his wish to include in this great collection a copy of the Jewish Law translated into Greek. With this aim he orders a letter to be written to the high priest of the Jews [one Eleazar] to draw up a team of competent translators (壯 1-21). To win the high priest’s favour, Aristeas suggests that the king concede freedom to 100,000 Jewish slaves, prisoners of war, and in the letter includes a document of manumission (壯22-25). There is an exchange of letters and credentials between Ptolemy and Eleazar with a detailed description of each gift; the texts of the letters are also included in the writing. Ptolemy’s letter to the high priest asks him to send six old men from each tribe (6 x 12= 72), men of exemplary life and versed in the Law. Next, the list of translators is given in which the predominance of Semitic, but Hellenised names is evident (壯47-50). Ptolemy’s delegation describes their impressions of Jerusalem, the temple, the cult, the city and the whole of Judah (壯83-120). Aristeas questions the high priest on some Jewish laws and he explains their deeper meaning (壯128-70). Text, translators and delegation return successfully to Egypt where they are immediately received by the king, contrary to every custom in Greek courts. Ptolemy prepares a seven-day banquet for his Jewish guests. Here the author uses the genre of the symposium to describe the banquet in the royal court; this symposium takes up most of the letter (壯187-292). The king questions them on the scriptures and proposes an enigma (‘hida`) to each of the old men, which they solve brilliantly, to the surprise and joy of the audience. Next come short paragraphs devoted to the actual translation and its results (壯301-16). The worthy guests, who are taken to an island surrounded by silence and provided with everything necessary, complete the translation in seventy-two days as a sign of remarkable coincidence. Every morning they wash their hands in the sea following Jewish usage, as testimony that they had done nothing wrong. At the close, Demetrius gathers together the whole Jewish community and reads the translation aloud and it is greeted with general acclaim, everyone promising to utter a curse– as was the custom– against anyone who removed anything from the text or added anything. (Marcos 37-38; the Jewish historian Josephus relates the Letter of Aristeas nearly word for word (book 12 chapter 2)
The name “Septuagint” was given to the translation in reference to the (incorrect) tradition that the translation was done by said 72 translators. As can be surmised by the letter’s incredulity, it is largely traditional. The accepted origin of the translation centers on the pervasiveness of the Greek language in the Diaspora, and for our purposes, particularly so in Egypt. A. Vander Heeren points out, in the last two centuries BC the population of Jews in Egypt became so great that nearly two-fifths of the entire population was Jewish. Of course Greek was a dominant language there at that time, such that many of those Jews naturally lost functional knowledge of their native Hebrew.
The danger this posed to them was that the Law, itself representing the very platform of Judaism, and written and understood in Hebrew, could soon be forgotten. Consequently, it became customary to interpret in Greek the Law which was read in the synagogues, and it was quite natural that, after a time, some men zealous for the Law should have undertaken to compile a Greek Translation of the Pentateuch. This happened about the middle of the third-century B.C. As to the other Hebrew books — the prophetical and historical — it was natural that the Alexandrian Jews, making use of the translated Pentateuch in their liturgical reunions, should desire to read the remaining books also and hence should gradually have translated all of them into Greek, which had become their maternal language; this would be so much the more likely as their knowledge of Hebrew was diminishing daily. It is not possible to determine accurately the precise time or the occasions on which these different translations were made; but it is certain that the Law, the Prophets, and at least part of the other books, that is, the hagiographies, existed in Greek before the year 130 B.C., as appears from the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, which does not date later than that year. It is difficult also to say where the various translations were made, the data being so scanty. Judging by the Egyptian words and expressions occurring in the version, most of the books must have been translated in Egypt and most likely in Alexandria; Esther however was translated in Jerusalem. (A. Vander Heeren)
So, the Septuagint made the Hebrew scriptures available both to the Jews who no longer spoke their ancestral language as also to the entire Greek-speaking world. Significantly, this translation ultimately became the Bible of the Greek-speaking early Church, and please notice that it is frequently quoted in the New Testament and of course it is quoted by Jesus (e.g., Matthew 1:23<>Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23<> Isaiah 40:3 , Matthew 9:13; 12:7 <>Hosea 6:6 , Matthew 12:21<> Isaiah 42:4, Matthew 13:15 <>Isaiah 6:10, Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:6-8<>Isaiah 29:13, John 12:38<>Isaiah 53:1, John 12:40<> Isaiah 6:10, Acts 2:19<> Joel 2:30, Acts 2:25-26 <>Psalms 16:8 , Acts 7:14<> Genesis 46:27, Deuteronomy 10:22 , Acts 7:27-28 <> Exodus 2:14). Please notice too that through this translation the Greek-speaking world became familiar with the Word of God, and it is to this world that the Gospel would be preached, first by the apostle Paul (to the Jews first, and when they snubbed it, God sent Paul to the Gentiles Acts 13:46—a watershed moment in Salvation History).
Table 1 below compares the contents of the Septuagint with the Hebrew bible; table 2 lists the versions of the Septuagint by their oldest known translation dates, that is, translations into the respective vernaculars shown.
Later Biblical Books
Of greatest interest in this area is the origin and chronology of the Book of Daniel. It has been proposed that the book is a later book, penned by an unknown author around 165 BC (instead of the clear and unassuming biblical attestation to the sixth-century BC). This has serious implications for bible prophecy, it implies that there was no prophecy, but instead a written history—hindsight reporting. As a good deal of Daniel’s prophecies serve as the infrastructure around which the rest of the Bible’s prophecy is built, this is clearly a well thought through devilish blow. Scholarly debates persist over the matter, it is a complicated subject and is outside the scope of this study. Notwithstanding, we reject the later Daniel arguments and find right conclusion in the issue through our Lord’s acknowledgment of Daniel’s prophetic office (Matthew 24:15), and, as a point of fact, we take notice that it is no little thing that when the abomination of the Roman army stood in the Holy Place in AD 70, what happened was a holocaust that left Judah utterly desolate. Moreover, the Dead Sea Scrolls lend credence to the Book of Daniel being a sixth-century BC work by the prophet Daniel not least because at least eight manuscripts of the biblical book of Daniel were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The presence of the book of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls is significant because it provides evidence that the book was in circulation before the time of our Lord Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain fragments of the Book of Daniel that are written in Aramaic—the language that Daniel was originally written in. Stemming from the eleventh-century BC, Aramaic became the linga franca of much of the ancient Near East in the seventh-century BC. So, in the end, Daniel’s prophecies themselves stand as arbiter in the matter, we shall see what happens going forward!
Psalm 137 has similarly been placed among the later biblical books.
O.T. Apocryphal | Deuterocanonical Works
The word apocrypha is cognate with the Greek word APOKRUFA, itself the neuter plural form of APOKRUFOS, which means secret, hidden. The Apocrypha are hidden writings. These works were excluded from the Hebrew Canon by the rabbis of the Council at Jamnia; as a consequence of that exclusion, they were later excluded from the Protestant Canon as well. Concerning the Apocrypha of Jewish origin, George Reid relates:
Ancient literature, especially in the Orient, used methods much more free and elastic than those permitted by our modern and Occidental culture (Reid: 1867-1937). Pseudographic composition was in vogue among the Jews in the two centuries before Christ and for some time later. The attribution of a great name of the distant past to a book by its real author, who thus effaced his own personality, was, in some cases at least, a mere literary fiction which deceived no one except the ignorant. This holds good for the so-called “Wisdom of Solomon“, written in Greek and belonging to the Church’s sacred canon [to be clear, he means the Roman Catholic Church’s “sacred” canon, of which this work and its cousins are a part—it was rejected by the council at Jamnia, and the Reformed Church rejects it]. In other cases, where the assumed name did not stand as a symbol of a type of a certain kind of literature, the intention was not without a degree of at least objective literary dishonesty. ( Reid).
We can see that which is hidden in the apocryphal writings is the true identity of the author who, as George Reid explained, associates his work with the aura of a great biblical or otherwise persona from time past. In the narrower sense, “apocryphal” and “noncanonical” are technically not the same; one does not necessarily imply the other. The apocryphal works can be divided into categories:
1.) Apocalyptical works like II Esdras.
2.) Historical works, the import of which is great for us today, as much of our reconstruction of the intertestamental period comes from such works, especially I Maccabees; historical apocrypha stemming from the intertestamental period are indispensable witnesses to the events, persons, and institutions that were manifested in the years leading up the advent of our Savior’s earthly ministry; at least, they relate that environment.
3.) Homiletic works like the letter of Jeremiah, and the wisdom of Solomon to a degree.
4.) Quasi-historical works like Judith, and Tobit; these have a semblance of historicity, but are more in the form of a story, narrative, or prayer—enfolded with circumstantial drama.
5.) Wisdom works like Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), treatises on living right in this world, and which easily blend with the homily genre.
The deuterocanonical works (Second Canon) are writings that were introduced into the Roman Catholic Canon at the council of Trent in AD 1546, and are based on works included in the Latin Vulgate (which mirrors the Vetus Itala, itself mirroring the Septuagint; the Vulgate was compiled by Jerome in the fourth/fifth centuries AD). Like the Protestant apocryphal works, the deuterocanonical works are not part of the Hebrew Canon established by the Council at Jamnia. With some exceptions, the deuterocanonical works of the Roman Catholic Church mirror those of the Eastern Orthodox Church—please notice: both churches consider the deuterocanonical books to be canonical books of the Old Testament whereas the Reformed Church and the Hebrew Canon do not (table 1 red).
O. T. Pseudepigrapha
The neuter plural Greek word pseudepigrapha, when broken into its components—adjective augment+infinitive stem—can be seen to render so: pseudes (pseudo-false) + epigraphein (to write [upon]). The Pseudepigrapha are false writings. Over against the apocryphal | deuterocanonical works above, the Pseudepigrapha can be expected to have even less credibility (and obviously much less so over against the canonical works).
A check of the various categories comprising the pseudepigraphic works helps to distinguish them from the apocryphal | deuterocanonical works:
1.) Apocalyptical works like the book of 1 Enoch, which is comprised of five books (the Book of Watchers, 1-36; the Book of Similitudes, 37-71; the Astronomical Book, 72-82; the Book of Dream Visions, 83-90; the Epistle of Enoch, 91-108) that were likely written by different authors at different times throughout the intertestamental period and contain many revelation/vision accounts. It is not surprising that this type of literature was well-represented in the Intertestamental period in both apocryphal and especially pseudepigraphic form as that was a period of intense suffering for the Jewish people; through the genre of apocalypse came a way to shift focus away from the suffering and persecution and on to the hope of a better life in the coming righteous kingdom.
2.) Legend works like the Book of Jubilees. In this category, especially, the “false” in false writings is made manifest—the borrowing, hidden nature of the apocryphal | deuterocanonical works is replaced with the nature of ascription.
3.) Homily, Letter, Prayer/Psalm, Wisdom works; the Pseudepigrapha consist of a wide body of literature.
Whereas a hidden writing might borrow from a biblical or otherwise character’s prestige in effort to gain credence (e.g., the “Aristeas” mentioned above probably meant to hint at one mystic poet Aristeas of Marmoras from centuries before), the false writing usually ascribed to some individual a glowing testament of legendary purport. Clearly, the semantic chasm between apocryphal (hidden) and pseudepigraphic (false) is narrow in some places and quite wide in others. Notwithstanding, the Pseudepigrapha are perhaps best classified as “religious journalism.” As suggested, they are largely of Jewish provenance, stemming from the intertestamental period; importantly, they came to be influenced, in no little way, and predominantly transmitted by, Christians, as literature meant for Christians, especially in the centuries after AD 70. They have been studied in various ways with the hope of gleaning from them an understanding of the diversity of Judaism from about 200 BC to the time of our Savior’s Visitation. Similarly, in some studies, there was hope that an understanding of the nature of emergent Christianity might be reached, but unclear delineation between purely Jewish and purely Christian elements in the texts have short-circuited these hopes; at best we can carefully use the documents to get a picture of how Christianity sprang from its Jewish roots. The Christian transmission of the texts has contributed to that unclear delineation, as that transmission entailed redaction, interpolation, and/or further composition (further composition, as for example the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, the Sibylline Oracles). Thematically, in many instances Jewish and Christian ideas overlap, thus precluding a sound delineation of the texts on that basis. The pseudonymous-ness Inherent in the Christian contributions lent itself well to the production of literary “organisms” that grew and developed during their transmission (through medieval times). A further complicating factor, besides delineation, is that the provenance of the Jewish material is uncertain—the texts reflect (Jewish) interpolation and redaction. In the end it is clear that much careful analysis must be conducted before a particular pseudepigraphon can be used as a source for our knowledge of early Judaism, or of Christianity, in the first century. Marinus de Jonge points out that detailed study of these documents from the perspective of their being writings transmitted by Christians for Christians is essential for a better understanding of the documents themselves. He believes that continued study is likely to result in an increasingly differentiated picture of the relations between Jews and Christians belonging to various streams in Christianity in the second and third-centuries AD, and even later, in the period after Constantine (AD 306-324, he gained unequivocal control of the Roman empire in AD 324), when Christianity took up a central position in the Roman Empire (de Jonge 71). See also table 3.
Rabbinic Works
The rabbinic works are largely those comprised by the Pharisees and their descendants. At the heart of these works was the rabbinic passion to explain how one should apply the Law to everyday life. After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the consequent reorganization of Judaism at Jamnia by the rabbis around AD 90, the oral tradition, which had been passed down from generation to generation since Ezra (fifth-century BC), was committed to writing. This work continued into the second and third-centuries AD and ended with the compilation of the Mishnah around AD 220. The Mishnah was comprised of legalistic, regulative material called Halakah, which was intended to give a precise explanation of how the Law should be applied to one’s daily circumstances. It further consisted of Haggadah, which complemented the Halakic material by way of illustration or narration (story, parable, etc.) such that Halakah, the legal side of the Mishnah, found its illustrative complement in Haggadah, the non-legal side of the Mishnah. Essentially, the rabbis would use the two together to make clear any situation requiring direction in keeping the Law. Thus, in the Mishnah they had available to them a ready means to surround and then address many of those situations. As voluminous as the Mishnah was, the Rabbis continued to expand it to the degree that an extension to it, called the Tosefta, appeared after AD 220. The Gemara is the major commentary produced by the rabbis on the Mishnah itself. The Talmud, of which both Babylonian and Palestinian Jews each had their own version, consisted of the Mishnah joined together with the Gemara, that is, the Mishnah together with its commentary. F.R. Schuhlein points out,
The Talmud was a post-biblical substantive formation of Pi’el (“to teach”), and originally signified “doctrine” or “study”. In a special sense, however, it meant the justification and explanation of religious and legal norms or Halakhoth (“conduct”, signifying “the law in accordance with which the conduct of life is to be regulated”). When in the third century the Halakhoth collection of Jehuda I or the recorded Mishnah became the chief object of study, the expression “Talmud” was applied chiefly to the discussions and explanations of the Mishnah. Finally, it became the general designation for the Mishnah itself and the collection of discussions concerned with it. For the latter the designation Gemara, interpreted as “completion” from the Hebrew and Aramaic words meaning “to complete”, subsequently became the accepted term.”(Schuhlein:Talmud).
Finally, two other rabbinic works are of interest here, Targum and Midrash. The Targum was an Aramaic translation, or sometimes paraphrase, of the Hebrew Scriptures used extensively in the synagogue services. After the return from the Exile in the late sixth-century BC until around the first-century BC, Aramaic, a sister language to Hebrew, gradually supplanted Hebrew as the vernacular amongst Jews, it therefore became necessary to provide translations of the Hebrew Scriptures for those attending the synagogue services who were no longer conversant in Hebrew (Greek would not influence the vernacular until after Alexander’s conquests in the late fourth-century BC, notwithstanding, pious Jews disdained Greek culture and therefore the Septuagint [late second-century BC] was not a viable alternative for them). The synagogue services were long and involved expositions of the Hebrew Scriptures in which the Targums, originally oral but eventually written, served as interpretive vehicles; usually they were not literal in nature, rather they were free expositions that sought to expound and interpret the text in the spirit of the liturgical service. Midrashim (plural of Midrash) was a body of explanatory commentaries on the Hebrew Scriptures. These works were both halakic and haggadic, for the express purpose of explaining how both the legal and non-legal parts of the Hebrew Scriptures were to be interpreted relative to the times; the result was a running commentary, itself comprised of Midrash that continually tied relative parts of the Hebrew Scriptures to a relevant temporal interpretation. In short, as time moved along, and the environment changed, the commentaries reinterpreted the meaning of the Scriptures over against that day and time—and this for all the books in the Hebrew Bible, such that this running commentary (emphasis on “running” for sure) became a collection that grew in proportion to the time span which it addressed. Note that the rabbis finished the Mishnah around AD 220 but kept augmenting it to the extent that they produced the Tosefta sometime later; after the Tosefta was completed, the environment naturally continued to change—yet all the literature was largely in place (explained, translated, recorded, esp. relative to the reorganization efforts at Jamnia). It is conceivable that they could have continued to expand the Tosefta, or even started another extension altogether, instead, what they developed with Midrash was a way to “keep up with the times.” (They learned nothing from God’s harangue directed at them in this regard as per Matthew Chapter twenty-three nor were they willing to learn in the first place—catch the defiance here.) Midrashim spans a period from approximately the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and forward. (It seems possible that Ezra, the purported author of 2 Chronicles, made reference to a kind of commentary in that book, itself presumably penned in the sixth-century BC (2Chronicles 13:22, 24:27 note “annals” also translated as “treatise ” = MIDRAS in the Hebrew, cf. NASB). Francis Gigot relates the value of the Midrashim for us today so:
At first sight, one might think that such farrago as the Midrashic literature could be of interest and value only to a Jew as Jew, inasmuch as the Midrashim are thoroughly steeped in the spirit of Judaism, bear distinct witness to the laws, customs, doctrines, aspirations of the Jewish race, and record the noblest ideas, sayings, and teachings of the Jewish sages in early times. The more, however, he examines the contents of these ancient expository works, the more he discovers that they are an invaluable source of information to the Christian apologist, the Biblical student, and the general scholar as well. In this body of ancient literature there is much in the line of ideas, expressions, reasonings, and descriptions, which can be used to illustrate and confirm the inspired records of Christianity and the traditional teachings of the Church, notably concerning the passages of the Old Testament to be regarded as Messianic. The Biblical student will at times notice in the oldest parts of the Midrashim, Scriptural readings anterior to those embodied in the Massoretic text. Again, [Gigot quoting another]:
“when it is borne in mind that the annotators and punctuators of the Hebrew text, and the translators of the [most] ancient versions, were Jews impregnated with the theological opinions of the nation, and prosecuted their Biblical labours in harmony with these opinions, the importance of the Halachic and Hagadic exegesis to the criticism of the Hebrew text, and to a right understanding of the Greek, Chaldee, Syriac, and other versions, can hardly be overrated.” (Ginsburg, in Kitto’s “Cyclop. Of Biblical Liter.”, III, 173).
Lastly the Philologist, the historian, the philosopher, the jurist, and the statesman, will easily find in the Midrashim remarks and discussions which have a direct bearing on their respective branches of study.” (Gigot) See also table 4.
The Synagogue Lectionary
Throughout any given Jewish liturgical calendar year, lections were read at the synagogues, in Aramaic or Hebrew, which were part of a service that corresponded to an observed season within that liturgical calendar. These readings, written in the same languages, help us today to reconstruct the original Hebrew or Aramaic text from which they were copied. Furthermore, the chronology inherent in the readings serve to confirm our understanding of the ancient Jewish liturgical calendar. (See example1, example2)
Sectarian Works
The works left behind by the Qumran Covenanters (presumably the Essenes) will be our focus in this section. In 1947 caves near the ancient village of Qumran, which is on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea (scroll to zoom and triangulate with Jerusalem, Jericho), were found to contain jars filled with ancient scrolls. These scrolls, known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been dated from 300 BC to AD 68, and are thought to be older than any other surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures—by almost one-thousand years (Dead Sea Scrolls Exhibit:Introduction: The World of the Scrolls, cf. Drum:Manuscripts of the Bible, Drum:Massorah). In the Dead Sea collection are represented all the books of the Bible except the book of Esther; further represented are apocryphal | deuterocanonical, and pseudepigraphic works. The strictly sectarian contributions, that is, those from the Essenes proper, represent documents related to communal living, commentaries on the books of the Bible, apocalypses, and liturgies (there is not 100 % agreement that the Essenes alone produced this wealth of literature).
The Dead Sea Scrolls include a range of contemporary documents that serve as a window on a turbulent and critical period in the history of Judaism. In addition to the three groups identified by Josephus (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), Judaism was further divided into numerous religious sects and political parties. With the destruction of the Temple and the commonwealth in 70 C.E., all that came to an end. Only the religion of the Pharisees—Judaism—-survived. Reflected in the Qumran literature is a Judaism in transition: moving from the religion of Israel as described in the Bible to the Judaism of the rabbis as expounded in the Mishnah. […] The Dead Sea Scrolls, which date back to the events described in the New Testament, have added to our understanding of the Jewish background of Christianity. Scholars have pointed to similarities between beliefs and practices outlined in the Qumran literature and those of early Christians. These parallels include comparable rituals of baptism, communal meals, and property. Most interesting is the parallel organizational structures: the sectarians divided themselves into twelve tribes led by twelve chiefs, similar to the structure of the early Church, with twelve apostles who, according to Jesus, would sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Many scholars believe that both the literature of Qumran and the early Christian teachings stem from a common stream within Judaism and do not reflect a direct link between the Qumran community and the early Christians. (Dead Sea Scrolls Exhibit: Two-thousand Years Later: Judaism and Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls) See table 5.
Samaritan Works
Sometime after the dedication of the second temple (515 BC, Ezra 3:10-11, 6:15-16) but before the conquests of Alexander the Great (336 BC) Jews and Samaritans formally split (possibly around 400 BC); consequentially, the Samaritans began to develop their own literature (it is likely that important Samaritan literature existed before the split). The language of the Samaritans until around the first-century BC was Hebrew, by which time it had gradually become supplanted by Aramaic, which then continued as the vernacular until the Arabic domination of the seventh-century AD. We therefore see Samaritan works in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek (during the Hellenistic period), and Arabic (Schuhlein:Samaritan Language and Literature). Of primary importance among their literature is the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is possible that this work dates to (maybe predates) the time of Nehemiah (fifth-century BC) and is therefore an important witness to the Hebrew Bible
Some maintain the opinion that the Samaritans became acquainted with the Pentateuch through the Jews who were left in the country, or through the priest mentioned in IV Kings, xvii, 28. Others, however, hold the view that the Samaritans did not come into possession of the Pentateuch until they were definitely formed into an independent community. This much, however, is certain: that it must have been already adopted by the time of the founding of the temple on Garizim, consequently in the time of Nehemias. It is, therefore, a recension which was in existence before the Septuagint, which fact makes evident its importance for the verification of the text of the Hebrew Bible. (Schuhlein:Samaritan Language and Literature)
Alternative views, however, hold that the Samaritan Pentateuch originated in the time of the Maccabees (it reflects, for example, both Septuagint readings as well as an early version of the text that lay behind the Masoretic text; the origin of the Samaritan temple may date to the time of Alexander the Great). If the alternative holds, then their Pentateuch would have little value in establishing the original text of the Jews’ Pentateuch (Niswonger 62f). Translations of their Pentateuch appeared in Aramaic (the Samaritan Targum), Greek, and Arabic. Their literature, though uniquely Samaritan in content, was nevertheless quite Jewish in form, that is, it mirrored the forms discussed above: Targum, Halakah, Haggadah, Commentary, Psalm, and so on, and was quite Jewish in purpose, that is—to understand the Law and how to apply it to concrete situations in life. Not much of their literature has survived, possibly because of their long-standing hostility with the Jews.
Concluding Comments
We have prayerfully endeavored to put forth in this study, albeit as a selective summary, important Judaic literature that emerged from the intertestamental period, as much of our realization of the events, persons, and institutions found in the New Testament is to a large degree a function of our realization of the events, persons, and institutions of that period. The literature that emerged from Judaism during the intertestamental period helps us to survey the general theological and secular mindset leading up to our Savior’s visit; it further helps us to historically reconstruct that turbulent and formative period; it is a means whereby to avail ourselves of witnesses to the sacred texts; it helps us to reach back and touch our ancient brethren—their victories, failures, faith, struggles, examples, and so forth. In many ways it stands as a testimony to the hard work and dedication of its authors (no computers, internet, let alone ample paper, writing utensils—pretty tough, not to be taken for granted how hard they must have worked at this).
Along the way we discussed the Septuagint. We concluded that the Septuagint was manifested in stages (at minimum c. 250-130 BC), as a consequence of the pervasiveness of the Greek language in the Diaspora, especially in Egypt, where the Jewish population had become quite large, and where therefore was felt a great need to have available to these Jews, who had gradually become illiterate in their native Hebrew, a means to interpret in Greek the reading of the Law in the synagogues. The Letter of Aristeas was discussed and perhaps best shows us the length to which proponents of the Septuagint-translation felt compelled to go to convince pious, Hasidic Jews of the creditworthiness of the translation; the incredulity of the letter is probably best understood in this light. Undoubtedly the proponents of translation met with stiff resistance, as the culture of the Greeks—embodied so well in their language—was considered unholy within Judaism; it would have been inconceivable for pious Jews to have embraced the translation of their sacred writings in what was to them a profane, pagan language. The Book of Daniel and Psalm 137 were discussed in the context of later biblical books, that is, biblical works that some say emerged during the intertestamental period. The Old Testament Apocryphal | Deuterocanonical works (hidden writings | second canon), as well as the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (false writings) were presented; the former were shown to be, in part, a consequence of the Hebraic canonicity decisions made by the Council at Jamnia, while the latter were shown to relate, to a large degree, the hopes and dreams and fears of a people living in a time of great suffering and uncertainty—”religious journalism” was the phrase utilized to depict these works. A large number of rabbinic works were discussed; works presented were: Mishnah (Halakah+Haggadah, c. AD 220), Halakah (regulative), Haggadah (illustrative), Tosefta (extension to Mishnah), Gemara (commentary on the Mishnah), Talmud (Mishnah+Gemara, two versions:Babylonian, Palestinian), Targum (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures used in the synagogue service), and Midrashim (running commentary on how to apply the Law to changing life situations). The Synagogue Lectionary was discussed as a window into the Jewish liturgical calendar and the underlying Hebrew text. The Dead Sea Scrolls (300 BC-AD 68) were discussed as sectarian works which have had great impact on biblical scholarship; their discovery proved to be an invaluable historical resource, not only for the verification of the Hebrew Scriptures, but also as a window into a Judaism in transition—from that of the Bible of primitive Covenant Israel to that of the rabbis. Finally, the Samaritan literature revealed, significantly, a Pentateuch and a Targum that, though different in content, nevertheless had at their heart the common purpose of all the works reviewed in this study, whether Jewish or Samaritan, namely, the passion of the rabbis to explain in their works the Law in the context of concrete life situations—and quite (unilaterally no less) to enjoin the same.
Multifarious, certainly not homogeneous—neither in expression nor understanding—this is the message that the abundant literature of the intertestamental period seems to relate about itself and the Judaism of that period. Yet that cacophony and convolution did not faze the Eternal Word, for despite that great influential noise, there emerged in due time a most cogent and coherent and consecrated collection, altogether which we call the Christian Canon, i.e., the Christian Bible. Beloved reader, it is the work of God the LogoS, don’t you know?!
Praised be your Name great Jehovah God, even Eternal Word. Amen.
Illustrations And Tables
Table 1 The Greek Bible (LXX) vs. The Hebrew Bible.
| GREEK BIBLE (LXX) [c. 130 BC] | HEBREW BIBLE [c. AD 90] |
| Genesis | Genesis |
| Exodus | Exodus |
| Leviticus | Leviticus |
| Numbers | Numbers |
| Deuteronomy | Deuteronomy |
| Joshua | Joshua |
| Judges | Judges |
| Ruth | Ruth |
| I Samuel, II Samuel | Samuel |
| I Kings, II Kings | Kings |
| I chronicles, II Chronicles | Chronicles |
| Ezra | Ezra |
| Nehemiah | Nehemiah |
| Esther | Esther |
| Job | Job |
| Psalms | Psalms |
| Proverbs | Proverbs |
| Esther | Esther |
| Job | Job |
| Psalms | Psalms |
| Proverbs | Proverbs |
| Ecclesiastes | Ecclesiastes |
| Song of Solomon | Song of Solomon |
| Lamentations | Lamentations |
| Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi | Same |
| I Esdras (quasi-historical) p/a
|
X |
| II Esdras (apocalyptical) p/a
|
X |
| I Maccabees (historical) p/a–co/d
|
X |
| II Maccabees (historical–quasi-historical) p/a–co/d
|
X |
| Baruch (historical, quasi historical) p/a–co/d
|
X |
| Daniel, additions (3:24-90 & 13:14; quasi-historical) p/a–co/d
|
X |
| Esther, addition (10:4-10) (quasi-historical) p/a
|
X |
| Judith (quasi-historical) p/a–co/d
|
X |
| Letter of Jeremiah (homily) p/a–co/d
|
X |
| Prayer of Azariah (quasi-historical) p/a
|
X |
| Prayer of Manasseh, The (homily, wisdom) c&p/a–co/d
|
X |
| Psalm 151 (quasi-historical) p/a
|
X |
| Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) (wisdom) p/a–co/d
|
X |
| Tobit (quasi-historical) p/a–co/d
|
X |
| Wisdom of Solomon (homily, wisdom) p/a–co/d
|
Legend: p/a: Protestant/Apocryphal, c o/d: Roman Catholic|Orthodox Christian/Deuterocanonical—
all red not included in the Hebrew Canon by the Council at Jamnia.
Sources: Fenlon, “Old Testament Apocrypha,” Reid: “Canon of the Old Testament”
Table 2 Versions of the Septuagint
| Vernacular | Region | Century AD |
| Latin | Western | Second |
| Coptic | Eastern | Third |
| Ethiopic | Eastern | Fourth |
| Gothic | Western | Fourth |
| Armenian | Eastern | Fifth |
| Georgian | Eastern | Fifth |
| Syro-Palestinian | Eastern | Sixth |
| Syro-Hexapla | Eastern | Seventh |
| Ancient Slavonic | Western | Ninth |
sources: Marcos 361
Table 3 O.T. Pseudepigrapha.
| Work |
| 1 Enoch (apocalyptical) |
| 2 Enoch (apocalyptical, biblical midrash, wisdom) |
| 4 Baruch (apocalyptical, legend)
|
| Adam and Eve, The Life of (apocalyptical, legend)
|
| Ahikar, The Story of (apocalyptical, legend)
|
| Apocalypse of Abraham (apocalyptical, legend)
|
| Apocalypse of Adam, The (apocalyptical, legend)
|
| Apocalypse of Moses (apocalyptical, legend)
|
| Joseph and Aseneth (legend)
|
| Jubilees, The Book of (legend)
|
| Letter of Aristeas, (quasi-historical)
|
| Martyrdom of Isaiah, The (legend)
|
| Pseudo-Phoclides (homily, wisdom)
|
| Revelation of Esdras, The (apocalyptical)
|
| Second Treatise of the Great Seth, The (n/a)
|
| Sibylline Oracles (apocalyptical)
|
| Testament of Abraham, The (apocalyptical, legend)
|
| Testament of Solomon (haggadic legend)
|
| Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (legend) |
Sources: WCO “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha”
Table 4 Rabbinic Works.
| Work | Description |
| The Targum | From the Hebrew “to interpret;”An Aramaic translation, or even paraphrasing, of the Hebrew Scriptures; used in the synagogue services. |
| Midrash | From the Hebrew “commentary, explanation, narration;” a commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures based on exegesis (to the extent that individual Hebrew words were explained, like in a word study), and Haggadah.
|
| Halakah | From the Hebrew “rule, tradition, to walk;” legalistic, regulative material, setting forth how the Law should be applied to one’s daily walk.
|
| Haggadah | From the Hebrew “to narrate/tell;” non-legalistic, illustrative material, often used together with Halakah to set forth how the Law should be applied to one’s life.
|
| The Mishnah | From the Hebrew “repetition, instruction;” a compilation of Jewish oral-tradition, from the time of Ezra (fifth-century BC) until the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) and comprised of a mixture of Halakah and Haggadah. The Mishnah was completed sometime around AD 220.
|
| The Tosefta | An extension to the Mishnah compiled sometime after AD 220.
|
| The Gemara | From the Hebrew “to complete;” the Gemara is the major commentary on the Mishnah.
|
| The Talmud | The joining together of the Mishnah and its commentary, i.e., Mishnah + Gemara= Talmud. Two types: the Palestinian and Babylonian Jews each had their own “version” of the Talmud. The Palestinian version was written between the third and fifth-centuries AD, the Babylonian version was written between the third and sixth-centuries AD. |
Sources: Wikipedia, Melton
Table 5 Literary Categories from Qumran.
| Category | Description |
| Biblical Reproductions | All the books of the Bible are represented except the book of Esther; they hand copied multiple copies. |
| Apocryphal | Deuterocanonical | Pseudepigraphic reproductions (largely the same works discussed above). Generally a curiosity, coming from such a conservative group; again, they hand copied multiple copies. |
| Sectarian | Apocalypses, biblical commentaries, the government of the community, hymns, prayers, and liturgies—all a window into sundry aspects of non-mainstream Judaism. |
Sources: Dead Sea Scrolls Exhibit
Works Cited and References
“A Letter of Invitation.”(A standing invitation to all while it is yet available…)
Jesus, Amen.
< https://development.jesusamen.org/a-letter-of-invitation-2/ >
Wikipedia
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic >
The Book of Daniel.
Peder Borgen, Soren Giversen, eds.
The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism
see: “The Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament and Early Christianity.”
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. 1-56563-261-3.
Library of Congress
< https://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/ >
Drum, Walter, trans. Bryan R. Johnson.
“Manuscripts of the Bible.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
< https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm >
Drum, Walter, trans. Joseph P. Thomas.
“Massorah.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
< https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10035a.htm >
Early Jewish Writings.
< https://earlyjewishwritings.com >
The Book of Daniel
< https://The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Daniel – Evidence for Christianityhe Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Daniel – Evidence for Christianity >
“Hebrew Bible.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
< https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07175a.htm >
“Midrashim.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
< https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10286b.htm >
Google Maps.
King James Bible Online.
< https://kingjamesbibleonline.org >
LaHaye, Tim, Edward Hindson, ed.
Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible .
AMG Publishers, 2000. 0-89957-932-9.
Marcos, N. F., trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson
The Septuagint In Context.
Brill Academic Publishers, inc., 2001. 0-391-04109-6.
“Matthew Chapter Twenty-three Commentary.”
Jesus, Amen.
< https://jesusamen.org/commentarymatt23latest.html >
Trinity Bible College and Theological Seminary.
Newburgh, Indiana.
My Jewish Learning.
< https://myjewishlearning.com >
“New Testament Canon.”
Jesus, Amen.
< https://development.jesusamen.org/new-testament-canon/ >
New Testament History.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992. 0-310-31201-9.
“Old Testament Apocrypha.”
< NNU Wesley Center (whdl.org) >
” Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.”
Wesley Center Online.
< NNU Wesley Center (whdl.org) >
Reid, George. J., trans. Douglas J. Potter.
“Apocrypha.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
< https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm >
Reid, George. J., trans. Ernie Stefanik.
“Canon of the Old Testament.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
< https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm >
Revised Common Lectionary.
<Revised Common Lectionary (vanderbilt.edu) >
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_Pentateuch >
Schuhlein, F. R., trans. W. G. Kofron.
“Samaritan Language and Literature.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
< https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13417a.htm >
Schuhlein, F. R., trans. Scott A. Hibbs, Wendy L. Hoffman.
“Talmud.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
< https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14435b.htm >
Schuhlein, F. R., trans. J. D. Beetham
“Targum.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
< https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14454b.htm >
“The Council at Jamnia.”
Jesus, Amen.
< https://development.jesusamen.org/the-council-at-jamnia/ >
Vander Heeren, A., trans. Nick Austriaco.
“Septuagint Version.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
< https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm >
Notes
[1] The ancient library of Alexandria, to which reference is made here, contained the greatest collection of books in antiquity; it was founded by Ptolemy I (Soter) and expanded by his son Ptolemy II (Philadelphus), as related above. It has been recorded that the main library at Alexandria contained nearly one-half-million books, many of which were copied for use elsewhere in the Near East. This great library was destroyed by fire in 47 BC.