The Old Testament
Different Editions of the Bible
In the 3rd century BCE, Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt undertook to
translate their Hebrew texts into Greek to meet the needs of an expanding Greek
speaking community. The Greek translation that came down to us differs in
significant ways from the Hebrew Bible, an indication that there may have been
more than one Hebrew version in circulation at that time.
Two differences in particular stand out. One is that the Greek version has 4
main parts instead of 3. The translators 'interpreted' or understood the books
of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings as history rather than prophecy--quite a
change! Another is that the Greek list of sacred books is longer than the Hebrew
one. A quick glance at a Catholic edition of the Bible, which follows the Greek,
then a Protestant one, which follows the Hebrew, will show the differences.
What might we make of such differences? It is heartening to realise that our
forebears seem to have been well aware of differences of 'interpretation' and
were prepared to live with them. Different views were argued but not, it seems,
As prospective interpreters of the OT ourselves, it will be good to keep
their company. It is also surely significant that the Hebrew tradition does not
call any of its books 'history' in the Greek sense, a sense that has had
considerable impact on our own understanding of 'history writing' today.
One can see that the books of Samuel and Kings in particular feature prophets
in prominent roles. Yet, along with Joshua and Judges, these books also tell the
story of Israel's life in the land, the collapse of the monarchy and the
ignominy of exile. Again, we come up against the limitations of our words. Each
term offers something but not everything. It may be wise to keep both 'prophecy'
and 'history' in mind when we come to reflect on the books Joshua, Judges,
<< Prev: Unity and Diversity |
Next: Issues pertaining to the Canon >>
Copyright © Mark O'Brien, OP. Catholic Institute of Sydney