Author: William A. Ross

Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte, NC)

LXX Scholar Interview: Dr. Rob Hiebert

Not too long ago I posted an interview with Dr. Karen Jobes of Wheaton College in honor of International Septuagint Day. Obviously since Karen is such a wonderful person, the post was received very well. With the idea of hearing from active scholars in the field of Septuagint in mind, then, I thought I would carry on with other interviews.

One of the first people I thought of was Dr. Rob Hiebert. He is one of the fellows of The John William Wevers Institute for Septuagint Studies, which operates under the auspices of Trinity Western University just outside Vancouver, B.C. I’ve written about it a bit in this post, and some details about its history are in the interview below. Rob and his colleagues at TWU are also conducting a seminar in Septuagint exegesis this coming May that would be well worth the time (I attended one of these seminars in 2013).

The questions below are the same that I posed to Karen, more or less. If you have any particular questions you’d like to see asked of others in the future (or suggestions for particular scholars you’d like to hear from), then leave me a comment below. These are supposed to be helpful to newcomers!

And now, to hear from Dr. Hiebert.

The Interview

1) Can you describe how you first became interested in LXX studies, and your training in the discipline?

My interest in LXX studies began during my undergrad studies at the University of Toronto. At that time, the U of T had the only PhD program in this field, and it was headed up by John Wevers and Albert Pietersma who were leading specialists in that discipline. I began to see that LXX studies afforded the possibility of becoming equipped to do work that involved both the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament and the New Testament, and that was appealing to me.

2) How have you participated in the discipline over the course of your teaching and writing career? 

Teaching in this discipline began for me when I was still a grad student at U of T, as I had the opportunity to teach undergrad courses in which we read both Greek New Testament and LXX texts. Later, when I joined the faculty at what is now called Tyndale University College in Toronto, I taught some Greek New Testament and LXX courses. Finally, after coming to Trinity Western University (TWU), where I now teach, I came to realize that the presence of four LXX specialists (Larry Perkins, Peter Flint, Dirk Büchner, and myself) represented a wealth of expertise that should be exploited. So we founded the Septuagint Institute, which we renamed the John William Wevers Institute for Septuagint Studies after Prof. Wevers’ family made a generous donation in his memory.

The Wevers Institute took the initiative to advocate for the establishment of a specialization in LXX studies in a number of our graduate degree programs at TWU, and so now our Master of Theology and Master of Theological Studies programs do have such a specialization. In addition, the Master of Arts in Biblical Studies program has seen a number of students write theses in the area of LXX studies. The Wevers Institute has sponsored a number of international conferences and serves as a hub for a number of research initiatives.

The Wevers Institute fellows have been awarded research and conference grants, have produced numerous publications, and continue to be active in a variety of research and publication projects. These include collaboration with an international team of scholars to produce A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford University Press, 2007) also known as NETS, and the forthcoming Society of Biblical Literature Commentary on the Septuagint series also know as SBLCS, for which I serve as co-editor. The four of us were responsible for translating the first four books of the Pentateuch for NETS and have been assigned the task of writing the SBLCS commentary volumes for those same books.

My publications include The “Syrohexaplaric” Psalter (Scholars Press, 1989); The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), which I co-edited; and “Translation Is Required”: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect (Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), which I edited; as well as numerous book chapters, articles, and reviews. I am also currently preparing the critical edition of Greek IV Maccabees for the Göttingen Septuaginta series.

I should add that in the past few years TWU has established a collaborative agreement with the Green Scholars Initiative that affords TWU scholars and students the opportunity to work with papyri and manuscripts that are part of the Green collection of antiquities. 

3) How have you integrated LXX studies into your work as a seminary professor?

I teach a number of graduate level LXX courses, and I have hired a number of grad students as research assistants to work with me on my research projects. Funding for these hires has come from the research grants that I have been awarded as well as from a budget line at the seminary that allows for such opportunities. One of my research assistants, who has now graduated, collaborated with me to present papers at conferences in various parts of North America and Europe and to publish articles and book chapters. His thesis project grew out of his work with me on my IV Maccabees project. My current research assistant has similar opportunities and is doing the same type of work.

4) How has the field changed since you’ve been involved?

I think the emergence of LXX translation and commentary projects in various languages during the past number of years has opened up many opportunities for study and research. Many younger scholars have also entered into the field of LXX studies in recent years, which bodes well for the future of the discipline.

5) What issues do you focus on in your graduate courses in LXX studies?

I teach courses in “Exploring Septuagint Origins and Texts” and “The Septuagint in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions” as well as various special topics courses that relate to our work on our SBLCS volumes, sometimes in tandem with my Wevers Institute fellows. My colleagues also teach LXX courses. So we focus both on an introduction to the field of LXX studies and on specific textual, translation, and hermeneutical issues. We distinguish carefully between the meaning of the text-as-produced and the text-as-received.

6) For the benefit of graduate students who are potentially interested in LXX studies in doctoral work, what in your opinion are under-worked areas and topics in need of further research?

The production of commentaries on the text-as-produced is one area that will provide probably decades of work for those involved in the SBLCS series. But there will also be many opportunities for those interested in the reception history of the LXX.

8) What current projects in Septuagint are you working on? 

1. The critical edition of Greek IV Maccabees for the Göttingen Septuaginta series.

2. A commentary on Genesis for the SBLCS series.

3. Serving as joint-editor-in-chief of the SBLCS series.

4. A project in collaboration with the Green Scholars Initiative focused on Papyrus Bodmer XXIV, a very important LXX Psalms manuscript that dates to about the fourth century.

9) What is the future of Septuagint studies? 

It is a bright one, with much more work to be done. More academic institutions do, however, need to appreciate the significance of this discipline and to foster its development.

I’m grateful for Rob’s willingness to interact with my questions. Stay tuned for interviews with other LXX scholars in the future!

Review of Peterson, “The Authors of the Deuteronomistic History”

I recently received a review copy of Brian N. Petersons’s The Authors of the Deuteronomistic History: Locating a Tradition in Ancient Israel (Fortress, 2014). My research involves the book of Judges, and so I was eager to read this account of the authorship of the Historical Books, of which Judges is of course a part. I was particularly intrigued by the auspicious word “Ancient” in the title, as it gives a sufficient clue as to just what the book aims to do.

In sum, Peterson undertakes the task of identifying specific persons and their provenances who were responsible for the authorship and later handling and editing of the books of the Deuteronomistic History, or “DtrH” (Deuteronomy – 2 Kings). In his attempt to do so, Peterson suggests that this large section of the Old Testament canon was originally written by Abiathar, high priest of King David from Anathoth, who passed it on to his sons and later Anathothian priests, and was eventually finalized by Jeremiah or Baruch. Abiathar, to Peterson’s mind, had the knowledge, opportunity, and personal motivation to begin compiling the Deuteronomistic History, and to then bequeath it to the later custodians to continue the enterprise. He calls his book a “whodunit?” sort of investigation.

Locating a Tradition in the Academy

Of course, Peterson must deal with the mountain of secondary literature on this topic, the vast majority of which is set against his position. The default position is rooted in the work of a figure no less formidable than Martin Noth. Essentially, Noth was the first to suggest that the Historical Books were written not by anyone contemporaneous to the events themselves, but by a 6th century BCE author who was prompted by the events of the fall of Jerusalem and subsequent exile.

Martin Noth and a cigar

This anonymous author set out to account for those traumatic events using the language and theology of the book of Deuteronomy (hence “Deuteronomistic History”). Not long after Noth put forward this idea, Frank Moore Cross developed it by suggesting that the DtrH was initially part of King Josiah’s legal reforms, only to be later revised by Noth’s initial proposed author. The Deuteronomistic History hypothesis has undergone countless tweaks and re-evaluations in the last fifty years, even as it has become the default critical position in the academy. For his own part, Peterson poses his thesis as in fact not contradictory at every point to Noth’s view, but suggests that the holes in the consensus view commend reconsideration.

Evaluation & Prospects

Personally, I found this work refreshing. It was good to read a book that treats the Old Testament texts as credible within their own purported historical setting, rather than as necessarily late, retrospective efforts at national identity formation, or theological power claims within a dispossessed community. At the very least, I hope the broader academy can accept Peterson’s efforts as an interesting intellectual exercise in that respect, even if his thesis will face staunch opposition (if it is given attention at all). I have since read at least one other review of the book that is nothing more than a “mightier than thou” dismissal of Peterson as “naïve.” This type of dismissing attitude is unfortunately acceptable, or at least expected, in the biblical studies community.

While I am not entirely convinced that Abiathar is the “culprit” for original authorship, it is very plausible, and Peterson’s case is persuasive overall. His proposed time frame for its original composition and later growth certainly provides a suitable interpretive context. Furthermore, Peterson’s argumentation considerably strengthens the warrant for holding to early authorship of the DtrH.

Review of Peterson

Without further delay, here is my full review, which will come out in due time in JETS.

A Brief Note on Epigraphy and Rare Forms

I have mentioned in the past that my research concerns Koine Greek documentary evidence. Among other things (e.g., ostraca, graffiti, mummy cartonnage), this includes primarily papyri and inscriptions from the Ptolemaic period of Egypt. Not infrequently I search papyri.info (see posts here and here) or epigraphy.packhum.org to see what there is to see in terms of a particular word’s usage.

SEG 15:678

Today I was searching for occurrences of the word λάπτω, which occurs in the LXX only in Judges 7. There, in both A and B texts of Rahlfs’s Septuaginta the word occurs in vv. 5 (2x), 6, and 7. It is thus a rare word, at least in terms of its Septuagintal use.

In the process of searching out the various morphological permutations of the word, I found one inscription that looked promising: SEG 15:678 (here). Here is a transcription and the beginnings of my translation:

[—]ντων, λαμβάνειν δὲ τὰ δέρματα κ[αὶ] τὰ ἄλλα γέρεα· ἢν ἓν θ[ύη]ται, λά[ψε]-[ται γλῶσ]σαν, ὀσφὺν δασέαν, ὤρην· ἢν δὲ πλέω θύηται λάψεται ἀπ’ ἐκάστου ὀσφὺ[ν]

[δασ]έ̣αν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ κωλῆν μίαν ἀπὸ πάντων· καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν τῶν

[ἐν]τεμενίων ὅσων ἱερᾶται ὁ ἱέρεως, λάψεται τὰ γέρεα τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ κωλῆν ἀντὶ

[τῆ]ς ὤρης ἢμ μὴ βασιλεὺς λαμβάνηι· ἢν δὲ εὐστὸν θύηι ἡ πόλις λάψεται γλῶσ-

σαν, ὀσφὺν δασέαν, ὤρην· ἢν ξένος ἱεροποιῆι τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι, προϊερᾶσθαι τῶ[ν]

ἀστῶν ὃν ἂν θέληι ὁ ξένος, διδόναι δὲ τῶι ἱερεῖ τὰ γέρεα ἅπερ ἡ πόλις διδοῖ π[άν]-

[τα] χωρὶ[ς] δέρματος· ἢν δὲ τοῖς Ἀπολλωνίοις θύηι̣ ξέ̣ν̣ο̣ς̣ π̣[ροϊερᾶσθαι —]
[a]ll, and to take both the skins and the other perquisites. If one is to be burnt up, he will take the tongue, the hairy loin, [another piece]; and the rest are to be burned, from each a hairy loin and a tongue and one thigh from all. And the priest will administrate over the many other gods in the temeniōn, [and] will receive

Morphology Hallucinations

If you haven’t already checked, λάπτω means “to lap up [with the tongue.” It occurs in the Gideon narrative when he pares down his men by checking who drinks from a brook with his hand, and who laps the water up like a dog (7:5). It’s a surprisingly well established word in classical Greek (e.g. Homer Il. 16.161; Aristophanes Nub. 811; Aristotle Hist. an. 595a7). And I was tempted on the basis of the use of γλῶσσα in the inscription to think that I had found the one instance of it’s use in the Koine inscriptional data. The content was just bizzarre enough to sway me into thinking that “lapping with tongues” was plausible in the context.

But alas, as I translated I realized that what I thought was λάπτω in third singular future middle indicative was in fact λαμβάνω (3rd sg fut ind mid). The forms are identical.

Maybe next time, λάπτω.