Reno Sample 3

7/18/2019 Reno Sample 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reno-sample-3 1/35

HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL

SUBMITTED TO PROF. ANDREW TEETER

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

HDS 1301 THE GREEK BIBLE IN HISTORY AND THEOLOGY



TEXT-FORM OF THE FORMULA CITATIONS IN MATTHEW’S INFANCY NARRATIVE

Introduction “All this took place in order to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.”

This is a resounding phrase in Matthew’s infancy narrative, appearing five times in just two

chapters. The problem with these citations, however, is that most of the citations from Matthew,

indeed the whole NT, do no comport with any text-form of the Old Testament which is known.

Indeed, so it seems, the NT authors often quote words spoken by the Lord incorrectly! The

purpose of this paper is, therefore, to analyze and assess the text-forms evident in Matthew’s

formula citations in his infancy narrative (1:23; 2:6, 15, 18). Bef ore we begin to analyze

Matthew, however, we will discuss three previous assessments and interpretations of the text-

forms in Matthew’s Gospel. Our analysis will follow showing that Matthew consistently cites the

text which he uses accurately. The identity of this text will be, in our final analysis, not the MT,

LXXA or LXXB, Targum, nor a testimonia collection. Instead, we will argue that Matthew has in

the case of 1:23; 2:15, 18, faithfully followed the text-form of a revised LXX.

History of Research



analyses of these three scholars regarding those passages will be carefully considered. By nature,

this will preview many of the issues involved in our own discussion; however, the point here is

to survey the field for major themes, and to deduce the source text in their respective programs.

Krister Stendahl: Turning to the formula quotations in Matthew’s Gospel, Stendahl writes,

“At times the closeness of the formula quotations to the M.T. is striking, but often they show

deviations from all Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic types of text k nown to us, while at the same

time they intermingle influences from these.”4 With this Stendahl begins his analysis of Isa 7:14

as it appears in Matt 1:23. Setting aside the major differences Stendahl notes that little weight

can be given to Matthew’s use of *+,- (LXXA) over ./µ0,12- (LXXB) does not provide ample

evidence of greater proximity to the Masoretic Text (MT) which reads the verbal adjective 343.5

Matthew’s other major deviation from the LXX (and the MT), 52.*6786-9, on the other hand, for

Stendahl, demonstrates a clear Matthean hand in the transmission of Isa 7:14. Stendahl argues,

“This [52.*6786-9] is an intentional change, depending upon the fact that Immanuel was not the

name which the parents gave their child. Instead it is interpreted as one of the messianic titles



explanatory geographic interpretation common in the LXX, while conversely “the reading

?:,µ@6-9 for the LXX’s A-.-B6-9 is a remarkable intentional interpretation of the M.T.’s CDEFGHI

which has been vocalized CDEJKGHI.”9 There is an tacit complication in Stendahl’s explanation: is

Matthew to have, in the same quotation, assimilated a Septuagintalism while also appealing to a

Hebrew ms which is largely ignored otherwise?10 This is explained, for Stendahl, by Matthew’s

sole interpretive goal, to point out the fulfillment in Christ.11 The reason Matthew’s quotation

disagrees with the MT and LXX is, not because of Matthew’s source, but rather due to

Matthew’s interpretive end.

With regard to Matt 2:15 and its quotation of Hos 11:1, Stendahl argues that Matthew’s

text matches exactly with the MT (cf. Aquila) against the LXX. He notes that, “[t]here are no

means for deciding whether Matthew knew a Greek render ing of the prophecy like that of Aquila

or if he formed the quotation directly out of the Hebrew.”12 This seems to be Stendahl’s

preference, though he leaves the tension unresolved. In either case, the Matthean form of Hos

11:1 is “necessary for its function as a messianic proof-text in the context of the gospel.”13



As we have seen above, Stendahl’s main argument for Matthew’s divergence in text-form

is interpretive. In all four cases Stendahl argues that Matthew has in one way or another adapted

his received text to fit his prophetic fulfillment end. With the exception of Isa 7:14, these four

citations do not demonstrate any preference toward the MT or the LXX, although Stendahl

argues on a whole, for the formula citations,

[d]ependence upon the M.T. is greater, but at the same time it is not sufficient to afford an explanation of theMatthaean form of the quotations. The LXX features can scarcely be explained as the result of a translator’sconscious or unconscious dependence upon the LXX, nor can the Hebrew element be understood as arisingfrom the corr ections of the primary LXX text to obtain a greater measure of agreement with the M.T. 16

The absence of a discernible translation tradition leads Stendahl to contend that Matthew’s

interpretation of these quotations is somewhat free, on analogy to the exegesis of the Targums.

For Stendahl, then, Matthew does not demonstrate a clear dependence on any known Greek of

Hebrew text-form because his interpretations are intrinsically “targumizing” procedures; that is,

“Matthew was capable of having, and did have, the authority to create a rendering of his own. 17

Robert Gundry: With respect to the formal quotations in Matthew’s Gospel,

18

Robert

Gundry notes that they have always been noted for their divergence from the LXX. But Gundry



This, for Gundry, means that Matthew is not necessarily blazing a new trail, exegetically; rather,

Matthew is most likely following a Greek text-form akin to the reading found in IQIsa. In this

case, Qumran provides the original Hebrew text, while the MT is the result of an audible

dittography which resulted in its peculiar construction. This in turn led to the proliferation of

multiple different Greek text forms as translators worked from at least two distinct Hebrew texts,

one of which was open to various interpretations.21 In any case, this quotation is taken by Gundry

as by and large a purely-Septuagintal text.

In his discussion of Matthew’s citation in 2:6, Gundry argues that this quotation is non-

Septuagintal. Like Stendahl, Gundry suggest that “Mt’s :; <7=>2 is a contemporization of the

antique 3T4EI” on analogy with such types of geographical differences found often in the LXX.22

Gundry admits that the phrase 7L>2µMN U.2AV61W ,X , cannot be certainly ascribed to any known

source, though it does have some similarities with the Targumic tradition. Instead he postulates it

may be an answer to a perceived semitic question or perhaps part of Matthew’s source-text.23

With respect to the composite quotation with 2 Sam 5:2 (or: 1 Chr 11:2), Gundry remarks the



The quotation of Hos 11:1 in Matt 2:15 is, for Gundry, an independent translation of the

MT on Matthew’s part.25 The only other textual note Gundry offers is that “[t]he ever-so-frequent

GI4YC CZ[ facilitated assimilation to the following plurals in the LXX”, while “The reference to

Israel’s infancy occasioned the idea of naming Israel God’s son in the Targum, the OT Peshitta,

and Theodotion.”26

Gundry’s comments on the last formal quotation, Jer 31(38):15 in Matt 2:18, are

complicated by the two great recensions of the LXX, A and B. Gundry argues that the

understanding of 3\4 as a place-name as well as rendering 5.28]µ^N and _>8Pµ^N in apposition

to à9b is evidence of dependence on the MT. To Gundry’s mind, Mt’s translation of cC4d4\T as

e7.=N is more accurate than the LXX, which fails to identify the construct relationship. So also,

Gundry contends, Matthew in minor circumstances agrees with the LXX, A or B, over against

the MT, and in some cases diverges from both in favor of an alternate translation. Nevertheless,

Gundry concludes “Mt appears to have rendered the MT independently.”27

In order to prevent

Matthew from altering the text, on three occasions Gundry contends that Hebrew variants are



Matthew and the MT or LXX is not the work of Matthew’s hand, as Stendahl argued, but rather

is the result of the text-forms that were available to Matthew. Contra Stendahl these are not

interpretive citations by Matthew in order to demonstrate Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecy, but are

divergences produced at the level of text-form variation. Indeed, having surveyed Stendahl’s

work, Gundry writes concerning the “targumizing” tendency, “we must write non sequitur over

his thesis as a whole.”29 Gundry’s own thesis concerning these quotations is “that the Apostle

Matthew was a note-taker during the earthly ministry of Jesus and that his notes provided the

basis for the bulk of his apostolic gospel tradition…. We can understand how all strands of

textual tradition made their way into the whole of the synoptic material, for the looseness and

informality of such notes made it possible for Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek all to appear in

them.”30 While this theory is possible it is subject to a near unending list of complications with

concer n to: authorship, synoptic parallels, trilingualism, etc. Nevertheless, in this manner, the

various text-forms evident in Matthew’s Gospel are due, not to a type of midrash-pesher or

“targumizing,” as Stendahl proposed, but to a trilingual, apostolic, Matthean notebook.



Beginning with the quotation of Isa 7:14, Menken argues that the original Hebrew reads

TI4Qd, which he interprets to be a 2nd person, fem, sg. The various traditions around this verb are

due to “the bad reputation of king Ahaz in the Hebrew Bible [which] could also have incited

scribes to eliminate him as a possible subject of what looked like a salvific naming of a child.”32

So also, the reading in 1QIsaa probably comes from the same circumstance (contra Gundry). The

appearance .W(µ)0,12-, according to Menken, is original, while f*+,- represents assimilation to

either the Hebrew or Matt 1:23.33 The various forms of 52.*a are, for Menken, caused by

Isaianic contextual considerations (52.*6,1,), the bad reputation of Ahaz (52.*6,-), or

assimilation with a variant Hebrew text-form (52.*6786-9 for I4Qd). In any case, 52.*6,-N is the

original, but Matthew’s quotation nevertheless is Septuagintal, only he quoted from a revised

LXX, altered in accord with the reading found in IQIsaa.34

Menken does not treat the use of Micah 5:1 and 2 Sam 5:2 in Matt 2:6 as a genuine,

Matthean formula citation. It must be pre-Matthean for several reasons: 1) the introductory

formula deviates from normal Matthean usage;35 2) it occurs as part of the Magi’s speech; 3) it



functions because of 7L>2µMN.37 Menken maintains, all the divergences are in compliance with

more frequently used translation equivalents than represented in the LXX, but nevertheless, other

deviations have no explanation in either Hebrew of Greek text-forms. The transition to 2 Sam 5:2

by j61-N, however, appears to be a Matthean innovation. He writes, “[t]his word does not come

from either Micah 5,1 or 2 Sam 5,2 and has apparently been added as a connective between the

two OT passages. It is quite possible that Matthew was responsible for it. He makes a relatively

frequent use of this relative pronoun, and in many instances, its use is evidently editorial.”38 This

accompanied by complete agreement with the LXX39 in the fourth line suggests that Matthew

has probably added this material to an independent source in which he found the peculiar quote

from Micah 5:1.40 Therefore Menken concludes, “the quotation that comes from Micah 5,1, there

are no clear LXX elements. It looks like an independent translation of the Hebrew, in which the

biblical text is brought in a slightly free, targumizing way and thereby adjusted to its context.”41

Within this quotation there are several non-Matthean traits which lead Menken to argue that the

Micah 5:1 quotation belonged to traditional material used by Matthew in the infancy narrative.42



secondary reading, instead of the original LXX which agreed with MT, (1^9) 8m@9 µ78.44

Therefore, Matthew quoted from a revised (or perhaps original) LXX source.

With regard to Jer 31(38):15 Menken again appeals to a revised LXX, which, for him,

explains the curious correspondences with both the MT and the LXX. Remarking on Matt’s use

5.28]µ^N 52n _>8Pµ^N e7.=N in place of the LXX’s ]P/978 52n 5.28]µ7k 52n _>8Pµ7k, Menken

notes that _>8Pµ^N as a translation for cC4d4\T is semantically deficient,45 and is syntactically

incorrect as “in Hebrew, cC4d4\T is a genitive to Co[, so that the two words together mean:

‘weeping of bitterness’, ‘bitter weeping’.”46 He notes, contrary to Gundry, the continued

semantic and syntactical parallels between Matthew and the LXX created by the same

vocabulary and the redundant 52n. Along with semantically parallel constructions,47 Menken

argues the reading e2P25.W];92-, while not original to the LXX is closer lexically to cpZ3G than

e2=626]2-. q2P25.W];92- probably arose due to a revision of the LXX, or an independent

translation, or by way of Gen 37:35.48

Based on this, Menken concludes that with the exception

of the abbreviated second line, there is no evidence that Matthew redacted the quotation; instead,



Menken, the correspondence between Matthew’s citations and Hebrew text-forms are mediated

by the revisions of the LXX which were taking place at least since the first century CE. So

Menken concludes, “[t]he textual form of this continuous biblical text is best described as a

revised LXX. There is a clear LXX basis in the fulfillment quotations”.50 Where Matthew

appears to deviate from the LXX Menken proposes three possible explanations: 1) they represent

corrections toward the Hebrew; 2) stylistic improvement of the Greek; 3) examples of ancient

biblical exegesis.51 By his hypothesis, Matthew is primarily a tradent, who meticulously sticks to

his biblical text, in this case, a revised LXX.52 Menken’s proposal has much to offer in the

discussion, though the obvious drawback is the lack of extant “revised” LXX manuscripts.

Analysis of Formula Citations in Matthew’s Infancy Narrative

Definition of Formula Citation: For the sake of this paper, we will be looking at those

quotations in Matthew’s infancy narrative which are introduced by the formula including a verb

of speaking or writing and the phrase >-i 17k eP7`/178. Our scope is limited to the “fulfillment

quotations” of the infancy narrative where four or five of ten or eleven of these quotations

appear 53 The purpose is to develop a working hypothesis concerning the text-form utilized in



Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:2355 Matthew’s quotation here is distinctly Septuagintal in nature. The

use of ? e2P]*97N for 3\Gr3, as opposed to ? 9,s9-N, weighs heavily in this conclusion. The first

reading is f*+,-, which in most LXX mss reads .W(µ)0,12-.56 Similarly, Aquila, Symmachus, and

Theodotion (“the three”) render 68..2µgB9,-, while the parallel in Luke 1:31 reads 68../µ0W.57

There is no doubt that f*+,- is closer to the Hebrew 343; however, it is not clear whether this is

Matthew’s doing or a revisor of the LXXA.58 In either case, the rendering as a future indicative

does not reflect the Hebrew copula,59 so the appeal to the Hebrew behind f*+,- is premature. Had

this been a correction towar d the Hebrew one may also have suspected a reading akin to Luke

2:5, 7t6u U:5=v. The most likely explanation, therefore, is that just as with e2P]*97N here with

f*+,- Matthew follows an LXX. The use of 52.*6786-960 deviates from the LXX (52.*6,-N) and

the MT (TI4Q). The MT’s TI4Q could be interpreted a myriad of ways.61 This ambiguity likely

explains the Greek forms 52.*6,-N (2s)62 and 52.*6,- (3s). Similarly, the Targum provides

C4QT.63

The variant reading found in 1QIsaa

, I4Q also lends itself to several interpretations.64

As a

Qal it would have the equivalent force of an impersonal plural and may explain the form



active verb with an impersonal plural subject, as is common in both Hebrew and Aramaic.67

Given the pluriformity of the both Hebrew and Greek texts, one does not have to postulate that

Matthew altered his source to fit his context. Instead, it is, at least just as plausible that Matthew

maintained the text-form he received. This conclusion may, in fact, be buttressed by two forms

which still remain inexplicable by all know Hebrew text-forms.68

To summarize, the presence of ? e2P]*97N for 3\Gr3 identifies this quotation as distinctly

Septuagintal (cf. “the three”), a conclusion buttressed by the striking parallelism between the two

accounts. The translation U9 :261Pn f*+,- for 343 is not the standard translation found in the LXX;

however, it is unlikely that it is an independent Matthean translation as it maintains the future

tense. The use of 52.*6786-9 over the LXX’s 52.*6,-N most likely evidences the textual

pluriformity at both a Greek (52.*6,-N, -6,-, -6,1,, -6786-9) and Hebrew (TI4Q vs. I4Q) level.

Tentatively, it seems most likely that Matthew’s 52.*6786-9 is not contextualizing, but may,

indeed, be the form found in his source; though, admittedly, this hypothesis is frustrated by Matt

1:21, 1*A,12- >y 8m^9, 52n 52.*6,-N 1^ z97µ2 2L17k <W67k9. In its favor, however, is 1:23b which



forms of the text of Mic 5:1; 3) the peculiarities of the quotation have nothing to do with the

story of the Magi.71 It is readily apparent that, unlike the other quotations, this quotation deviates

drastically from both the LXX and the MT. The first three words, 52n 6| }W].*,µ, show no

difference from the LXX or MT. The insertion of :; <7=>2 has no correspondence with the

LXX72 or the MT. This may be a contemporization of 3T4EI73 or an explanatory geographical

interpretation.74 In either case, it is clearly a secondary replacement of 3T4EI.75 Contra Gundry, it

is not clear from :; <7=>2 that this a Matthean addition as such a locution was commonplace in

the Greek Bible.76 The LXX’s phrase 7X57N77 17k E`P2]2 may be a play on TC[ in cpG~TC[ or may

be reading 3T4EI in apposition to cpG~TC[.78 (L>2µMN is a hapax le gomenon in the NT,79 and

finds no equivalent in any other version of Mic 5:1. It should be noted that the negation reverses

the sense of the first clause; however, Gundry contends that this reading is based on the MT,

TdC3G may have been read TCC3 IG.80 Where the LXX renders the superlative _.-:761^N,

“smallest,” Matthew reads U.2AV61W, “least.”81

The former is only used here to render 4Cr•,

although its lexical range more closely ap pr oximates the Hebrew.82 Matthew and the LXX align



A-.-B6-984 and ?:,µ@6-9 is, as noted above, due to different vocalization of the MT: the former

corresponds to CDEFGHI while the latter interprets CDEJKGHI. The second clause begins with U5 67k85 to

which Matthew adds :OP which corresponds to 7L>2µMN in the previous clause and provides the

grounds for why this is not the case, though it has no attestation in the other text-forms. Luz

notes that ie^ is often used instead of U5 in Matthew,86 lending support to Menken’s thesis that

the appearance here may indicate the retranslation of Mic 5:1 was not done by Matthew.87

Menken counters Gundry’s claim that :OP demonstrates a Matthean vocabulary 88 noting that

Matthew typically inserts :OP between the preposition and its object.89 The dative pronoun µ7- or

CG is dropped in Matthew unlike all other known text-forms.90 Gundry argues that its omission is

due to the following relative clause which includes µ78.91 This is possible, but it may be more

likely that in Matthew the Messianic interpretation is colored by Jesus identification in 1:23, that

he would come to God’s people.92 With the exception of 4QXIIf ,93 all the text forms agree, “[he]

will come out.” Both the LXX and Matthew render GYd\ a substantival participle well; the LXX

offers PA7912,94 “prince, ruler,”95 and Matthew ?:7=µ,97N, “ruler, leader.”96 It is interesting here



lexically by way of ?:7=µ,97N( 9) and perhaps, via Mic 5:3, by e7-µ29,l . Here Menken and

Gundry agree that j61-N is indicative of Matthean vocabulary.97 If this is the case, it may be the

first indication that Matthew has altered his text. After this point Matthew follows verbatim the

LXX (and MT) of 2 Sam 5:2 (1 Chr 11:2).98

The quotation of Mic 5:1 and 2 Sam 5:2 in Matt 2:6, as seen above, is peculiar for a

number of reasons. To begin with, the formula citation does not correspond with those in 1:23;

2:15, 18. In addition, it occurs in the narrative not as an editorial remark. The quotation,

remarkably does not cohere, except in the latter part from 2 Sam 5:2, with any known text-form

of Mic 5:1, and the changes curiously do not seem to cohere with the principle of suitability. That

is, the differences noted above, while perhaps indicative of Matthew’s hand, do not appear to be

made in favor of demonstrating the continuity of the passage with the infancy context.99 Finally,

the quotation hardly seems ingrained in the Magi story. Under the assumption that Matthew used

sources to create his infancy narrative, it seems plausible that the story of the Magi circulated

separately from this scriptural citation.100 Moreover, if Menken is correct in suggesting that the



per se; rather, it appeared among the sources Matthew utilized when writing the infancy

narrative.103 Therefore, our proposal is that Matthew received the idiosyncratic citation of Mic

5:1 among the sources he used for the infancy narrative.104 By connecting it with the Magi story

Matthew aligned the call to Bethlehem to his narrative. Matthew also added 2 Sam 5:2 to the

quotation by means of j61-N on the connection with ?:7=µ,97N with which he replaced the

LXX’s PA7912.105 This alteration serves Matthew’s narrative purpose of contrasting Herod, the

current ?:7=µ,97N, who mass murders children, with Jesus the messianic ?:7=µ,97N, who will

shepherd the people of Israel.

Hos 11:1 in Matt 2:15106 The divergence of Matthew’s quotation of Hos 11:1 in 2:15

from the LXX has led many commentators to suggest that Matthew provides his own translation

from the Hebrew.107 While it is certainly true that Matt 2:15 resembles more closely the MT than

the LXX, it is a non sequitor that Matthew translated from the Hebrew.108 The major change

revolves around God’s action, U5B.,62 vs. µ,1,5B.,62.109

The former, U5B.,62, perfectly

renders the MT’s CTI4Q, both sim ply meaning “I call.”110 The LXX, on the other hand, uses



Stendahl is right that certainty is not a luxury in knowing the source of Matthew’s quotations,

given the preponderance of translations which maintain 5B.,a over µ,125B.,a, it seems

possible, if not likely, that Matthew was privy to a Greek text with such a translation. If

Menken’s observation that Matthew prefers ie^ over U5 is correct,113 there may be evidence in

Matthew’s quotation of non-Matthean qualities. This would suggest that Matthew used a source.

The phrase 1^9 8m@9 µ78 in Matthew corresponds to the MT’s CZ[G, while the LXX’s 1O 1*592

2L17k may reflect the reading dCZ[G,114 or an assimilation with c3G in Hos 11:2,115 or perhaps

reflects the Targumic reading ‚CZ[ ‚d3G. In any case, the Hexapla116 and the Vulgate ( filium meum)

support Matthew’s reading. Here support is lent to thesis that the LXX was, from the start, under

constant revision, and so several Greek text-forms were in circulation in the first century CE. If

that is the case, it seems at least plausible that Matthew utilized a revised Greek translation.

Therefore, if it is the case that ie’#…:=e178 would have been Matthew’s preferred rendering of

cC4•\\d, as opposed to U+ #…:=e178, it is conceivable that Matthew evidences the use of a LXX

revised in favor of the MT.



LXXB, à9b U9 f†2µ2 ‡57=6]W, taking 3\4[ as a geographical name;118 however, the LXXA (et

al ) take the term as a delineation of height (cd4 i.e. heaven), U9 1ˆ h0W.ˆ.119 Matthew’s text gives

5.28]µ^N 52n _>8Pµ^N e7.=N,120 a string of nominatives in apposition to à9b whereas the LXX

offers ]P/978 52n 5.28]µ7k 52n _>8Pµ7k, a slew of genitive modifiers.121 The Hexapla text

differs significantly from both, µ*.7N 5.28]µ7k 52n e-5P2µµM9.122 Finally, the MT reads, Co[ C3Z

cC4d4\T. Interestingly enough, the MT’s cC4d4\T Co[ is in construct, creating the idea “weeping of

bitterness,” or “bitter weeping.” Thus Matthew’s text, in a way, appears to most closely resemble

the MT with the apposition of 5.28]µ^N and _>8Pµ^N to à9b while at the same time modifying

_>8Pµ^N by e7.=N, though it should be noted that _>8Pµ^N e7.=N is not a precise lexical

equivalent with cC4d4\T Co[. In fact, as Menken notes, 5.28]µ^N is the standard equivalent of Co[

in the LXX.123 Further, _>8Pµ^N, “lamentation,” as a translation of cC4d4\T, “bitterness,” is

inexplicable in both Matthew and the LXX.124 The translation of _>8Pµ^N for cC4d4\T may

evidence an LXX reading in Matthew’s text, though it must be admitted that _>8Pµ^N functions

well as an equivalent for C3Z.125 Gundry’s claim that Matthew rendered the Hebrew somewhat



an attempt to emphasize a perceived hendiadys.127 The difference between 5.2V7862 and

ie75.2-7µ*9W128 semantically is negligible, and both are standard renderings of 3o[\.129 Michael

Knowles suggests that 5.2V7862 is a “simpler and more direct [form] than the LXX compound

ie75.2-7µ*9W(N).”130 The simple form is also the more commonly used locution in the LXX.131

There may equally be either a Hebrew or revised Greek translation behind this Matthean text.

The phrase 1O 1*592 2L1;N, 52n 7L5 ‰],.,9 e2P25.W];92- finds a remarkable parallel in LXXA,

Uen 1M9 8mM9 2L1;N 52n 7L5 ‰],.,9 e2P25.W];92-,132 though LXXB reads, 7L5 ‰],.,9133

e2=626]2- Uen 17lN 8m7lN 2L1;N.134 In contrast to both LXXA and LXXB, Matthew reads 1O 1*592

2L1;N against Uen 1M9 8mM9 2L1;N [or: Uen 17lN 8m7lN 2L1;N]. The tr anslation of cCZ[ by 1*592 is

common fare in the LXX.135 This cautions one from proposing that this represents a uniquely

Matthean translation of the Hebrew, both because it does not correspond as closely as the LXX

with the Hebrew, and because Matthew’s translation is a standard equivalent in the LXX itself.

The translation of 3ZI\ by 7L5 ‰],.,9 appears in the LXX(s) and Matthew,136

and is used

elsewhere in the LXX (e.g. Gen 37:35).The use of e2P25.W];92-,137 “to be comforted” for cpZ3G



is semantically closer than the LXXB’s e2=626]2-, “to cease.” It seems plausible that the former

is a revision of the latter either by Matthew or a reviser of the LXX. The MT’s second use of ~Gr

3Z[ is omitted by Matthew, LXXA, and VUL.138 It is possible that the original Hebrew text only

included the phrase once which was later omitted or doubled creating various mss; this is of

course speculative. The final phrase is universally translated j1- 7L5 ,…6V9.139 The only deviation

is the MT which reads, dZZCI, “he is not.” BHS suggests the reading cZCI which, given the

agreement of the versions and the antecedent cCZ[, is the most likely interpretation.

To summarize, Matthew’s text-form deviates from all known text-for ms; however, most

of his text is represented in a Greek translation whether LXXA, LXXB, or the Hexapla. The

divergences away from the Hebrew are enough to suggest, as does David New, that there is no

convincing basis to argue for a Matthean translation of the Hebrew.140 This is particularly the

case with Matthew’s agreement with the LXX concerning 5.28]µ^N 5 2n _>8Pµ^N and the

addition of e7.=N. If it can be maintained that LXXA

and LXXB

represent divergent yet

compatible translations, then it much of Matthew’s text can be said to be Septuagintal.141 The



writes, “the details of the text form seem to have no particular significance for the role Matthew

gives the citation.”144

Therefore, that Matthew utilized a revised LXX text is the most plausible

explanation of the text-form of Jer 31(38):15 in Matt 2:18.145

Summary: With respect to the formal quotation in Matthew’s infancy narrative we have

proposed that, at the ver y least, there is reason to believe that Matthew could have been working

from a revised Greek translation.146 This is supported by the rather scant evidence that Matthew’s

quotations are revised in favor of the Hebrew. In those circumstances where there are clear

reliance on the Hebrew, it is by no means self-evident that these are Matthean developments

either lexically or exegetically. Regarding the specific quotations it can be said that Isa 7:14; Hos

11:1; and Jer 31(38):15 have been found to be Matthean implements; that is, they are formula

citations introduced by Matthew himself. The fourth citation of Mic 5:1 and 2 Sam 5:2 is both

complex in its combination of citations and complex in its source. We have argued that the

narrative, formula citation, and the quotation itself all evidence non-Matthean traits. The

quotation does not seem tightly connected to the narrative; in fact, the narrative can function



of j61-N, and a strict quotation of 2 Sam 5:2 LXX are indicators of Matthean editorial activity.150

From this we concluded that Matthew mostly maintains the text-form of the quotation as he

received it, but adds 2 Sam 5:2 by himself to better align the quotation with his Magi narrative.

The other three quotations analyzed are, by our analysis, demonstrably (revised) Septuagintal.

Matthew’s reproduction of Isa 7:14 LXX, especially e2P]*97N and the use of future indicatives,

militates against the thesis that Matthew used the Hebrew here. The use of 52.*6786-9, we found

may be justified on account of both Hebrew and Greek variant readings.151 Hos 11:1 as it appears

in Matt 2:15 is significantly different from the LXX; however, the text-form of Matthew is just

as easily explained by appeal to Hexaplaric readings as to Hebrew. Indeed, the use of U+ for

Matthew’s preferred ie^ lik ely demonstrates dependence on a source, not a free-translation from

the MT.152 Finally, though Matthew’s text agrees with no other single version of Jer 31(38):15 in

2:18, the plurality of Greek translations adequately explains most of Matthew’s own deviations

from one source to another.

153

Here again there is evidence, which does not serve Matthew’s

context, of Septuagintal influence, as opposed to a fresh Matthean translation of the Hebrew.154



question remains: was Matthew using a testimonia collection or continuous biblical text? Martin

Albl in “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken” has argued on the basis of his formula citations that

Matthew utilized a testimonia collection.155 Albl’s thesis relies on three main arguments: 1) the

clear existence of testimonia in the early church, many of which include some of the citations

used in Matthew (e.g. Isa 7:14); 2) Matthew’s proof-texts often deal with Jesus’ life over against

creedal assertions; 3) Matthew’s formula citations share the standard characteristics of a

testimonia: conflated readings (e.g. 2:6), false attributions (e.g. 27:9), an unknown quotation

(2:23), and parallels with other writers who used testimonia.156 To prove his point Albl argues

that Matt 2:6 differs from all known text-forms of Mic 5:1, and it conflated Mic 5 with 2 Sam 5.

By analogy to John 7:40-42, Albl contends that the sitz im leben of this proof-text is the need to

prove that Jesus is the Messiah born in Bethlehem. Finally, Albl maintains that the Magi story

does not grow out of Mic 5:1; rather, Matt 2:6 “touches only one detail of the narrative.”157

Therefore, he concludes, it is not likely that Matthew would have “gone through the trouble” of

reading 2 Sam 5:2 together with Mic 5:1; instead the most likely explanation is that Matthew



Luz agrees with Albl’s basic point which he furthers contending that the plural >-O 1M9

eP7`W1M9 was used as opposed to the singular (cf. 1:23; 2:6, 15, 18) because Matthew could not

identify the source of the quotation.159

While Albl’s testimonia hypothesis is interesting, it lacks persuasive power. He assumes,

by our analysis unjustly, that Matthew’s formula quotations deviate frequently and significantly

from the MT and LXX. As we have seen, this assumption suffers from one major flaw: the

evidence available suggests that the LXX was under consistent and frequent revision in the first

century CE.160 In essence, the LXX was not a unified text-form, but was rather pluriform. This

undercuts one of Albl’s main arguments, that the quotations of Matthew vary so often and

drastically from the LXX and MT.161 Another downfall of his analysis is Albl’s failure to account

for ancient exegetical practices which could explain the conflation, or bringing-together, of

quotations. This is seen frequently done at Qumran, which though some texts may resemble

testimonia collection, many do not. This type of biblical-theological exegesis is precisely the

kind that Møgens Müller comes to expect from the NT authors.162 Further he doesn’t account for



the quotation [was] added as proof or illustration of an already existing narrative.”164 It is a non

sequitor to suggest that the formation or adaptation of Matthew’s narrative around a quotation is

evidence of a testimonia collection. It is just as likely the case that Matthew has adapted his

narrative to fit the continuous biblical narrative of Israel165 as it is that Matthew adapted for a

single testimonia citation.

Therefore, it is our conclusion, that based on the evidence above, there is not a strong

enough cause to suggest the existence and use of a testimonia collection in Matthew’s formula

citations. The evidence above suggests that by and large Matthew’s citations can be explained by

the plurality of the Greek Bible in the first century CE. With the exception of Matt 2:6, we have

concluded that Matthew’s formal quotations in the infancy narrative reflect consistent

Septuagintal influence, and that in some cases reveal non-Matthean traits which militate against

the hypothesis that Matthew worked as an evangelist by day and translator or reviser by night.

Space precludes a detailed analysis of the exegetical procedures intrinsic in Matthew’s

quotations; however, we would like to suggest that, contrary to Martin Albl, Matthew’s central



scribal school of the Matthean community. Against Gundry, Matthew’s texts are not primarily

mixed-text or non-Septuagintal in nature. Rather, as with Menken, we have found that the most

likely hypothesis begins with the knowledge of the pluriformity of the LXX in the first century

CE. From this it has been argued that Matthew faithfully witnesses to a revised LXX, with the

exception Matt 2:6, which has in our analysis been found to be a traditional source.



Bibliography

Abegg, Martin Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. New York: HarperOne, 1999.

Aland, Barbara and Kurt Aland, et al, eds. The Greek New Testament. Stuttgart, Germany:

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.

Albl, Martin C. “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early

Christian Testimonia Collections. Boston: Brill, 1999.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature. Ed. Frederick Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Beaton, Richard. Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press, 2002.

Beaton, Richard. “Isaiah in Matthew’s Gospel” in Isaiah in the New Testament. Eds. Steve

Moyise & Maarten J.J. Menken. New York: T & T Clark, 2005

Elliger K. and W. Rudolph. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Editio Quinta Emendata. Stuttgart,

Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977.

Gheorghita, Radu. “The Influence of the Septuagint on the New Testament: Toward a More

Objective Assessment” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality. Vol. 1: Thematic

Studies. Eds. Craig A. Evans & H. Daniel Zacharias. New York: T & T Clark, 2009.



Kennedy, Joel. The Recapitulation of Israel: Use of Israel’s History in Matthew 1:1-4:11.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe. Tübingen: Mohr

Siebeck, 2008.

Knowles, Michael. Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected-Prophet Motif in Matthaean

Redaction. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised and Augmented by

Henry S. Jones. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1889.

Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999.

Lust, Johan, et al. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Revised Edition, (Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 2003.

Luz, Ulrich. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007.

Menken, Maarten J.J. Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. Leuven:

Leuven University Press, 2004.

Menken, Maarten J.J. “The Quotation from Jeremiah 31(38).15 in Matthew 2.18: A Study of

Matthew’s Scriptural Text” in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in

Honour of J.L. North. Ed. Steve Moyise. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.



Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin G. Wright. The New English Translation of the Septuagint. New

York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. Edited by Robert Hanhart. Editio Altera. Stuttgart, Germany:

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.

Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Rev. Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1984.

Stendahl, Krister. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1968.

Stelten, Leo F. Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New

Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Weber, Robert. Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatum Versionem. Editio Quinta. Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.

Wheelock, Frederic M., and Richard A LaFleur. Wheelock’s Latin. 7th Ed. New York: Collins

Reference, 2011.

Zerwick, Maximilian S. J. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Rome: Editrice

Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996.



Text-Form Comparison Isaiah 7:14

Matt 1:23 NT: !"#$ % &'()*+#, -+ .'/0(1 2*345 6'1 0*340'5 789+, 6'1 6':*/#7/5+1 0; <+#µ' '=0#> ?µµ'+#7@: .

Luke 1:31 NT: 6'1 !"#$ /7::AµB@ -+ .'/0(1 6'1 0*3C 78;+ 6'1 6':*/45, 0; <+#µ' '=0#> D@/#>+.

Isa 7:14 LXX: !"#$ % &'()*+#, -+ .'/0(1 2*3452 6'1 0*340'5 789+, 6'1 6':*/45,3 0; <+#µ' '=0#> ?µµ'+#7@: .

Isa 7:14 HEX: EF : !"#$ % +4G+5, (H, I) -+ .'/0(1 (– H) /7::'µJK+45, 6'1 0L60454 789+, 6'1 6':*/45, <+#µ' '=0#> ?µµ'+#7@:MIsa 7:14 VUL: ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium et vocabitis5 nomen eius Emmanuhel.

Isa 7:14 MT: NO PQRS PRT UOVWP XY UZN[P \V\ \RNS\ \Q\6

Isa 7:14 QM: NOPQRS PRT OVWP XY UZN[P \V\ \RNS\ \Q[\7

Isa 7:14 TAR: NO]PQRS \[RT [VWUP VY Z[NUP O[ZSR OUR[NPS O\8

1 *frq. cit.] 6':*/45,: D, pc, bomss; Or Eus.2 *EQ] :@(µ)B40'5: B O’ L -311-46-233-456 C 301 393 403 449 538 Just. Eus. comm. et dem. et ecl. Bas. Chr. Tht. Tert. Cypr. Ir lat (O V Syh 88) 3 *] – /45, BAC ; – /45 O; – /404 Qtxt L sah Tert Cypr Ir lat; – /#7/5+ ^ al .4 *] *345 6'1 04340'5: Ir. apud Eus.5 *] vocabitur c r b vocabis S _ Hi.6 Note: \UOVWP: Qal, Perfect, 3fs, 2ms, 2fs or Qal Active Participle fs.7 Note: OVWP: Qal, Perfect, 3ms or Pual, Perfect, 3ms or Qal Imperative 2ms.8 Note: [VWUP: Peal, Imperfect, 3fs or 2ms.



Text-Form Comparison Micah 5:1!3

Matt 2:6 NT: !"# $%, &'()*+µ, ,- ./01",9 /21"µ34 5)"67$8' +9 5: 8/;4 <,+µ=$>: ./01"? 5! $/@ ,AB 5C+)+0$+8"> <,/0µ+:/4, D$8>4 E/>µ":+; 8F: )"=: µ/G 8F: .$B"H).10

Mic 5:1!3 LXX: (1)!"# $0, &'()++µ11 /9!/412 8/@13 EIB"(", J)>,/$8F414 +9 15 8/@ +9:"> 5: 6>)>K$>: I/G1"? 5! $/@16 µ/> 5C+)+0$+8">17

8/@ +9:"> +L4 MB6/:8" 5: 8N18 I$B"'), !"# "O PC/1/> "28/@ QE' QB6-4 5C <µ+B3: "L3:/4.… (3)!"# $8H$+8">19 !"# RS+8">20 !"# E/>µ":+;

8F E/7µ :>/: "28/@21 5: L$60> !GB7/G,22 …Mic 5:1!3 HEX:23

Mic 5:2!4 VUL: (2)et tu Bethleem Ephrata parvulus es in milibus Iuda ex te mihi egredietur qui sit dominator in Israhel et egressus

eius ab initio a diebus aeternitatis…. (4) Et stabit et pascet in fortitudine Domini Dei sui…

Mic 5:1!3 MT: TUTV WXY TXZU [\XU … ]ÛX V\V\ ][_\ UVàbU\U âZcVY ^cU\ ÙVT^ abV V^ d\\ T[UTV VeâY ÙVT^ ZVXb T`Zea ]f^g`VY TàUMic 5:1!3 QM: 24[]ÛX V\V\ ][_\ UVàbU\U âZcVY ^cU\ ÙVT^ a]bV a^ [?V^ d\\ T[UTV VeâY ÙVT^ ZVXb T`Zea ]f^ `VY ]T[àU]Mic 5:1!3 TAR: ZV\a TV\c[ âZcV ^X hiÛc [VYX VUT\^ afVc\ _UeV V\[_ dj\ T[UTV `VY[ aVeâY Taj\à^ a`VUT (ZXW[) ZVXWb `Zea ]f^g`VY àU VUV ][egh\ aWkUZ eU_`Y iU^cVU ]UeU … a\^X (V\UVl) V\UV\ hV\[_^\ ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

For Further Comparison

II Sam 5:2 LXX: !"# +9E+: !0B>/4 EBF4 $* $% E/>µ":+;4 8F: )"=: µ/G 8F: m$B"') !"# $% P$+> +L4 <,/0µ+:/: 5E# 8F: m$B"').

II Sam 5:2 MT: âZcVg^X [Vkj^ TVT` TàU âZcVgà V\Xgà TXZ` Tà d^ TUTV Z\aVU" Chr 11:2 LXX: !"# +9E+: !0B>/4 n (+=4 $/0 $/> $% E/>µ":+;4 8F: )"=: µ/G 8F: m$B"') !"# $% P$o +L4 <,/0µ+:/: 5E# m$B"').

I Chr 11:2 MT: âZcV V\X ^X [Vkj TVT` TàU âZcVgà V\Xgà TXZ` Tà d^ dVTâ TUTV Z\aVU

9 *] 8'4 m/G1">"4 D pc it sys.c.p; ,' 8p: m/G1">p: ff 1 boms(s).10 Ibn Shaprut’s fourteenth century Evan Bohan includes a Hebrew text for Matthew’s Gospel, which here reads: ZVXb Tà hT T[UTV qZa T`Zea T[UTV ]f^ `VY TàU âZcVY ^cU\ ÙVT^ abV V^ d\\ T[UTV VeâY [George Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. 2nd ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995), 6].11 *] + ,' m/G1" 198 (cf. Matt 2:6)12 *] />!/4 8/G &">()++µ W AchSa13

*] – B†

6814 * Or.I102IX77 Eus.dem.et.ecl.Hi.ep.57,8 Aug.civ.18,30] pr. µ' L (86txt)-49’-407 C -239 26’ LacBoSypArab Th.Tht.Thph.Cypr.Hil.Hi.ep.108,10.15 *] + $G 233; + +: 8/>4 ',+µ/$>: 36-49 (cf. MT, Matt 2:6)16 *] 5C /2 B* C -68-239 26 407 (cf. Nah 1:11)17 *] + ',/Gµ+:/4 r† BoSyp Eus.dem.et.ecl.Cyr p. (cf. Matt 2:6)18 +: 8p Or.Eus.dem.et.ecl.Hi.ep.57,8et108,10] 8/G B†-68 Arm Hil p.Hi. Aug.; apud israel Cypr.; +E> 8/: m$B"') Sa Bas.N; om. +: 233 Cyr f .19 *] +E>$8'$+8"> 53420 *] $8'$/:8"> !"> /S/:8"> W Lac (hab. etiam pascent pro !"# µ$%&#) AchSa21 !"# RS+8"> et 8F E/7µ :>/: "28/@] ÷ Or.22 *] !GB>/4 B A Q L C 23 There are only sparse attestation of the Hexapla here. What little is accounted for has been included in the textual notes.24 Micah 5:3 is absent from 4QXII f , frg. 5.



Text-Form Comparison Hosea 11:1

Matt 2:15 NT: !" #$%&'()* !+,-./0 (12 *342 µ)*.

Hos 11:1 LXX: +05 !" #$%&'()* µ.(.+,-./025 (6 (7+20 08()9.26

Hos 11:1 HEX:

!ebrew Text: :;<= :>?@A B:@CDDE Transliteration: )*µ.µµF/G0Fµ +0G0HF -0I02F

Aquila: +05 J'1 #$%&'()* !+,-./0 (12 *342 µ)*.

Symmachus: !" #$%&'()* +7+-K(0F *34L µ)*.

Theodotion: !" #$%&'()* !+,-./0 08(12 *342 µ)*.

"# "´: +05 !" #$%&'()* µ.(.+,-./0 (6 (7+20 08()9.

Hos 11:1 VUL: et ex Aegyto vocavi filium meum

Hos 11:1 MT: :;<= :>?@A B:@CDDE

Hos 11:1 QM:27

Hos 11:1 TAR: M:;< MEN= :>:@A B:@CDDE

25 *] !+,-./0 233 (cf. Hos 11:2)26 (6 (7+20 08()9] filium meum Co AethArm p = MT et Matt 2:15; om. (6 538; om. 08()9 Las.27 This verse is absent from 4QXIIg.



Text-Form Comparison Jeremiah 31(38):15

Matt 2:18 NT: !"#$ %# &'µ( )*+,-./, 28 *0'1.µ23 *'4 5617µ23 8+0,39 &':$0 *0';+1-' <( <=*#' '><?3, *'4 +>* @.A0A#

8'7'*0/.?#'B, C* AD-;#.29

Jer 38:15 LXXB: !"#$ %# EF'µ'30 )*+,-./, .7G#+1 *'4 *0'1.µ+H *'4 5617µ+H931 F':/0 I8+*0'B+µ=#/32 +>* 33 @.A0A#

8',-'-.'B34 %84 <+J3 1K+J3 '><?3,35 C* AD-;#.36

Jer 38:15 HEX:37

Jer 31:15 VUL: vox in excelso audita est lamentationis fletus et luctus38 Rachel plorantis filios suos et nolentis

consolari super eis quia non sunt.

Jer 31:15 MT:39 LMMNO NP QNMRSTU VWMQT QMOX QNMRSTU QPRX TWY VNYLYXZ NPR NQM UX[M QXYR TL\

Jer 31:15 QM:40

Jer 31:15 TAR: ONTO TWY OZXYX ONTL]\SRY ^_OY`LRM QNZN WT[ _P ONRM QNXYN YWR ^NWMOZXL âR_ TOY[N ZNR UXZ[O OXTU VLYR (T\) OT\

LTb NYO OQMR TU OXWMZOT ORYcX OQMR TU (ONPRX) ONPR VT[LYN (YYXX) YYXR (^PRL) ^PR_L

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

For Further Comparison

Jer 38:15 LXXA: !"#$ %# <d ef/0d )*+,-./, .7G#+1 *'4 *0'1.µ+H *'4 5617µ+H9 F':/0 I8+*0'B+µ=#/3 %84 <g# 1Kg# '><?3 *'4 +>*

@.A0A# 8'7'*0/.?#'B, C* AD-;#.

28 *] .7/#+3 *'B C D L W 0233 f 13 33 Byz sys.c.h.29 hIbn Shaprut reads: LPL QNMR TU QPRX TWY VNYLYXZ NPR NQM UX[M QXYR TL\ (Howard, Hebrew Gospel, 8).30 *] A# </ 1f/0/ Otxt A-410 Bo Aeth Arab Or.XII29 (cf. Aquila)31 * B 130 O A 410 C -49*Arab] O. .7G#+1 *'4 *0'1.µ+H *'4 5617µ+H; i. j. µ=0+3 *0'1.µ+H *'4 8B*7'µµg#; .7G#+3 *'4 *0'1.µ+3 *'4 5617µ+3 (om. *'4 5617µ+3 O Bo) cf. Matt 2:18; – 311; + 8+013 239 (cf. Matt 2:2:18).32 *] – #/3 O A Q V-46-86-544 c Arab Hi. Cyr. V 260a; *0'B+µA#/ 207; A8B*0'B+µA#/ 26; *0'B+1-' 613 (cf. Matt 2:18) | '8+*0'B+µA#/ B O A 410] + A8B ('8+ 239)

<"# 1B"# '1</3 i-410 C -239 = MT; + <' <A*#' '1</3 534 613 (cf. Matt 2:18); + A8B (–311) <+B3 1B+B3 (<+13 1B+13 V 62-449 538 Tht p.) '1</3 rel. (Cyr.) = MT33 * B Syh 26 86 534 544] pr. *'B rel. = Matt 2:18.34 *] 8'7'*0/.?#'B k i-410 l-233 36-311-l C -239-613 Bo Arab Cyr. Tht. = Matt 2:18. 35 *] m. Vacat. mK n. %84 <+J3 1K+J3 '><?3.36 8',-'-.'B %84 <+J3 1K+J3 '><?3 C* AD-;#] m. 8',-'-.'B %84 <+J3 1K+J3 '><?3, C* AD-;#; A. 8'7'*0/.?#'B %84 <+J3 1K+J 3 '><?3, C* AD-;#.37 There are only sparse attestation of the Hexapla here. What little is accounted for has been included in the textual notes.38 *] luctus et fletus c.39 BHS: VMNO? cf. Vrs.40 Jer 31:15-18 are missing from 4QJer c. Reconstructed: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and bitter weeping, Rachel, weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted for her children––because they are no more” [Martin Abegg Jr., et al. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the FirstTime into English. (New York: HarperOne, 1999), 400.].

Documents

Reno Sample 3