Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I recently posted a question here regarding a passage in Romans citing a verse in Habakkuk. My understanding is that in this and (all?) other references to Hebrew scripture Paul cites the LXX (although he changes it, here and elsewhere) rather than translating the Hebrew himself. He was clearly fluent in Aramaic (Acts 22) and I presume read Hebrew. Can we assume that he had in mind the Hebrew scripture, (and that this was similar enough to the Masoretic text we have) so that the Hebrew text is a useful source for us to understand Paul's intended meaning?

share|improve this question
    
Galatians 3:16 would suggest that he did not think in Hebrew. –  david brainerd Apr 24 at 3:12
    
Thanks for bringing that text in; I wasn't familiar with this issue. But as pointed out in one of the comments on your question (hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8835/…), the "singular in form but plural (or singular-collective) in meaning" in the Hebrew of Gen 13:15 seems to me similar in the LXX due to the context (although based on his comment maybe Daи disagrees?), so I'm not sure that indicates he was thinking of or neglecting either one particularly –  Susan Apr 24 at 5:41

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

We can be sure that Paul also spoke Hebrew fluently. First up, Mishnaic Hebrew was a living language in first century Judea and well-known even among the common people. Along with that, even though modern translations use "Aramaic" when referring to the language spoken in Judea (such as there in Acts 22:2 and 21:40), the Greek reads, "...in the Hebrew language" (tae Hebraidi dialectow). There was a Greek word for Aramaic (Suristi), it was known and used by Jews (Josephus Antiquities 10:8 and many other places, Letter of Aristeas 11, and the Epilogue to Job in the Septuagint), but is never used in the New Testament. Since the ancients were capable of distinguishing the two languages (and often did), that they use the word Hebrew in Acts strongly suggests they really mean Hebrew and not Aramaic.

The event you reference in Acts shows us also that the language is Hebrew by the crowd's reaction. They became very quiet. Israelites were raised with a reverence for the Hebrew language. It was called "the tongue of Torah," "the tongue of angels," "the tongue of Heaven," and, most importantly, "the holy tongue" (Sifre to Deuteronomy 333; BT Shabbat 115a; Bava Batra 82a; Hagigah 16a, etc.; Bereshit Rabba 18:4; Kohelet Rabba 7:8, etc.).

That Paul, a Pharisee trained by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), would not know Hebrew is unthinkable. Gamaliel was the Nasi of the Pharisees and Av bet Din of the Sanhedrin (BT Shabbat 15a). That means he was head of the Pharisees and co-chair of the Sanhedrin (with the High Priest being the other co-chair). Gamaliel was the first of only seven rabbis to be given the honorific Rabban (our teacher, meaning that he was recognized as the greatest teacher of his generation).

It is this association with Gamaliel that leads to Paul's love of the Septuagint. Like his grandfather Hillel (Soferim 16:9), Gamaliel loved the Septuagint. Gamaliel even said that Greek was the only language into which the Torah could be perfectly translated (Sotah 49b; cf. Berachot Rabbah 36:8; Devarim Rabbah 1:1; Megillah 1:8). Paul is like Gamaliel not only in his use of Greek but in how he uses it. Paul employs the same techniques of interpretation that can be seen in Hillel and Gamaliel1.

Since Gamaliel had taught Paul that the Septuagint was a good translation, and Paul's letters were written to people who spoke Greek as their primary tongue, using the Septuagint instead of translating the Hebrew himself makes perfect sense. He expects at least some of them will check it out. Therefore, he needs to use a version that they will have access to.

Even though he wrote in Greek, Paul uses Hebrew idioms. For example in Philippians 3:21, Paul uses the Hebrew Genitive, that is using an abstract noun in place of an adjective of quality. There, Paul compares "our lowly body" (literally "the body of our lowliness") to "his glorious body" (literally "the body of his glory"). Paul also uses the Hebrew idiom "son" followed by a genitive in such places as 1 Thessalonians 5:5 "people who belong to the light" (literally "sons of light"), and Colossians 1:13 "his dear son" (literally "the son of his love").

So, yes, we can conclude that Paul had in mind the Hebrew Scriptures. Assuming that it is close enough to the Masoretic for our purposes is a safe assumption (for the most part. Naturally, there are differences but textual criticism is another topic.).


1 Jeremias, J., "Paulus als Hillelit," in Neotestamentica et Semitica (E.E. Ellis and M. Wilcox, eds). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969, pp. 88-94). See also Waverly Nunnally's article "Gamaliel" in Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 481-482.

share|improve this answer
    
sorry for the nitpicky edit, I figured you wouldn't mind. Awesome answer! –  Daи Apr 24 at 13:57
    
@Daи, not a problem at all. I just had to be careful because I was adding a paragraph on Hebrew idioms when I got the message that it had been edited. I probably would have completely missed the edit you made. –  Frank Luke Apr 24 at 14:06
    
whoops! Glad it worked out. –  Daи Apr 24 at 14:07
    
Thanks, this is very helpful! But even Luke (who, I assume, was not thinking in Hebrew, but feel free to correct me) uses the attributive ("Hebrew") genitive (16:9, 18:6, Acts 9:15 - this last one works in English! "vessel of choice"), so it seems like it was just part of their Greek. I had learned it as attributive and didn't even realize the Hebrew derivation until I read this. The "sons of..." construction may be more specifically a Hebrew idiom. –  Susan Apr 25 at 2:48
1  
A fascinating read on these and other Hebraisms of the NT authors: bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html (There is one reference here to Acts 20 (within a "we" section) using asyndeton - I didn't know this was a Hebraism either, but if so I guess we have to allow that Luke was so steeped in the rhetoric of his Jewish friends that he adopted some of the style as his own. The attributive genitive is more of a syntax issue, though, and I'll trust your suggestion that it's specifically Hebrew enough to be absent from this part. I'll be looking, though!) –  Susan Apr 25 at 6:14

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.