Joachim Jeremias On The Memorial Formula

Linked from The Lord’s Supper In The Church Meeting

Joachim Jeremias on the Memorial Formula

(from The Eucharistic Words of Jesus by Joachim Jeremias)

(b) Palestinian memorial formulae

Quite a different picture is to be seen when we turn to the realm of Palestinian Judaism.

1. In Palestine memorial formulae are very common in religious language.

We find them first in connection with the cult. That part of the cereal offering which was burnt is called already in the Old Testament azkarah, LXX, μνημόσυνον (‘memorial [portion]’, Lev. 2:2, 9, 16 etc.); the frankincense which is put with the shewbread is said to serve leazkarah, LXX, εἰς ἀνάμνησιν (‘as a memorial [portion]’, Lev. 24:7); the blowing of the trumpets by the priests over the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings is to serve lezikkaron liphne elohekem, LXX, ἀνάμνησις ἔναντι τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν (‘for remembrance before your God’, Num. 10:10), i.e. to insure that God remembers mercifully the givers of the sacrifices. God’s merciful remembrance is similarly insured by the stones set in Aaron’s breastplate, which bear the names of the twelve tribes lezikkaron (‘for [continual] remembrance’, Ex. 28:12, 29; 39:7), and by the atonement money which brings the people lezikkaron liphne Yhwh (‘to remembrance before the Lord’, 30:16). The twelve precious stones which Jael will put above the cherubim, erunt in conspectu meo (God’s) in memoria (A: in memoriam) domui (A: domus) Israel.¹ Examples of the use of the construction μνημόσυνον in relation to the cult (bells and precious stones in Aaron’s breastplate, incense, the sound of trumpets) are to be found in Ecclesiasticus (45:9, 11, 16; 50:16) and will be discussed below.²

Related to the temple and synogogue (sic) cult are the donation formulae, which are also concerned with remembrance.³ The oldest is to be found in Zech. 6:14, where it is said that a crown should be deposited in the temple of Jahweh to the merciful remembrance (leḥen … lezikkaron) of certain individuals,⁴ i.e. to ensure God’s merciful remembrance. Numerous later examples have been found in synagogue donors’ inscriptions, which mostly begin with the phrase dkyr lṭb in which the passive is circumlocution of the divine name, therefore: ‘God remember so and so mercifully’.¹ In the donor’s inscription in the synagogue at Jericho this phrase is explicated by the additional sentence: ‘He who knows their names and (the names) of their children and (the names) of the people of their households, shall write them in the Book of Life (together with) the Just.’² E. R. Goodenough has shown that the conclusion to be drawn from this is that the donor’s inscription is eschatologically oriented; the prayer is that God’s remembrance may be realized through the acceptance of the donor in the Book of Life.³

Next, memorial formulae are to be found in the liturgy and in prayers. Among the special prayers (musaph prayers) of the New Year festival are the malkiyyot, zikronot and šopharot. The zikronot⁴ are prayers which enclose biblical passages concerned with ‘remembrance’, exclusively with God’s merciful remembrance of his covenant promises in the past and in the future. The closing prayer of the zikronot ends with the doxology: ‘Praised be thou, O Lord, that rememberest the covenant (zoker habberit).’ Already in the Old Testament it is said that the passover is to be celebrated lezikkaron (Ex. 12:14; Targ. Jer. 1, Onḳ. ldwkrn’). In the blessings for Sabbath, festivals and the new moon God is praised as the one who has given Sabbaths, festivals and new moons lezikkaron (b. Ber. 49a). It is said explicitly of prayers that they are raised εἰς μνημόσυνον (I Enoch 99.3), that they, together with alms, have ascended ‘as a memorial before God’ (Acts 10:4), that they are lzkrwn (1QS 10.5). An especially important example of an ancient prayer for God’s remembrance is the liturgical prayer quoted below, p. 252.

Further, the memorial formula is to be found in ritual language. The pharisaic custom of wearing prayer phylacteries on the head, which can be traced back to pre-Christian times in Palestine,⁵ is dependent upon the (literally interpreted) commandment Ex. 13:9: ‘And it shall be to you … lezikkaron (Targ. Jer. 1, Onḳ. ldwkrn) between your eyes.’

Finally, there are the Jewish tomb inscriptions in which is to be found both in Hebrew⁶ and Greek⁷—with many variations—the formula from Prov. 10:7, ‘the memory of the righteous is a blessing’. This biblical text was differently understood in hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism. In hellenistic Judaism it was interpreted, as the multilingual tomb inscriptions show, as referring to the good memories which the deceased left behind among his contemporaries. In Palestinian Judaism, on the other hand, it was understood as a wish (‘may the memory of the righteous be a blessing’) relating to the merciful remembrance of God. We can see that from, among other things, the formula of blessing to be used of a father who had been dead for more than a year: zkrwnw lbrkh lḥyy hʿwlm hb’, ‘His memory be for a blessing, (namely) for the life of the world to come’.¹ In this context also we find the εἰς-formula: LXX, Ps. 111 (112):6, εἰς μνημόσυνον αἰώνιον ἔσται δίκαιος, ‘the righteous will be for eternal remembrance’; Targ. Ps. 112:6, ldkrn ‘Im yhy zky.

2. For our question it is especially important to notice that the command for repetition εἰς ἀνάμνησιν, which we sought in vain in the hellenistic records of the institution of commemorative meals, is not only to be found in the language usage of Greek-speaking Judaism but is also—when we consider the parallel phrases εἰς μνημόσυνον and in memoriam as well as the Hebrew² and Aramaic³ equivalents—to be found with what may be described as extraordinary frequency in late Judaism as a whole. The review which we have just given shows that the formula is found several times already in the Old Testament and that it is used frequently in the Judaism of New Testament times. We find it in Ecclesiasticus, in the Wisdom of Solomon, in I Enoch, in the Essene literature, in Pseudo-Philo and in the rabbinical literature.

In the LXX we notice immediately a significant fact: whereas εἰς ἀνάμνησιν is used in the Wisdom of Solomon, a book composed in Greek, of men remembering the commandments of God (16:6), in Lev. 24:7 LXX it is used meaning ‘that God may mercifully remember’.⁴ It has the same meaning in the remaining two places in which it is found in the LXX: Ps. 69(70):1f., τῷ Δαυιδ. Εἰς ἀνάμνησιν, εἰς τὸ σῶσαί με κύριον (note the explanatory addition of the infinitive), and similarly Ps. 37 (38):1. The same is true of the parallel εἰς μνημόσυνον. Occasionally it is used in the LXX of human remembering, although almost only in the more profane context of things being written down in a book εἰς μνημόσυνον (so several times in the book of Esther).¹ In religious or cultic contexts, on the other hand, εἰς μνημόσυνον regularly² has God as the subject. Such is the case throughout Ecclesiasticus. We read that Aaron had bells on his garments εἰς μνημόσυνον υἱοῖς λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, ‘that God might remember mercifully the children of his people’ (45:9), the stones on his garment were inscribed εἰς μνημόσυνον (45:11), he offered incense and fragrance εἰς μνημόσυνον (45:16), and the priests sounded the trumpets εἰς μνημόσυνον ἔναντι ὑψίστου (50:16). Further examples of the use of εἰς μνημόσυνον in New Testament times have been found in the fragments of the Greek text of I Enoch.³ Following a series of woes over sinners it says: ‘Then make ready, you righteous, and offer your prayers εἰς μνημόσυνον; place them as a testimony before the angels, that they may bring the sins of the unrighteous before the most high God εἰς μνημόσυνον’ (99.3); again it is the merciful and punishing remembrance of God that is meant by εἰς μνημόσυνον, and μνημόσυνον has the same meaning in the two other places at which it is to be found in these fragments (97.7; 103.4).

To summarize: the formula εἰς ἀνάμνησιν and its variations were not infrequently used in Judaism in Jesus’ time with reference to human remembering, but the occasions are for the most part (a) in texts originally written in Greek such as the Wisdom of Solomon (εἰς ἀνάμνησιν), 4 Macc. 17:8 (εἰς μνείαν) and twice in Philo (εἰς μνήμην),⁴ or (b) translations of such Old Testament texts as speak of human remembrance. By far the more frequent practice of Judaism at the time of Jesus, however, is to use εἰς ἀνάμνησιν and its equivalents of God’s remembrance. The reader who will take the trouble to check the references to Old Testament and Jewish remembrance formulae gathered together on pp. 244–6 from the viewpoint as to whether they are concerned with human or divine remembrance will see at once that for the most part they speak of God’s remembrance.¹

3. Where, however, εἰς ἀνάμνησιν and its equivalents mean ‘that God may remember’, this has a twofold significance. In the first place it means that something is brought before God.² So, for example, when a bequest is deposited in the temple lezikkaron (Zech. 6:14), when of the shewbread it is said that it is laid before the eyes of the Lord εἰς ἀνάμνησιν (LXX, Lev. 24:7), when the priests sound the trumpets at a sacrifice to effect μνημοσύνη (Ecclus 50:16), when the prayers of the righteous and their complaints against the sinners are brought before God εἰς μνημόσυνον (Enoch 99.3, Gr.), when prayers and alms ascend ‘as a memorial before God’ (Acts 10:4)—always it is not simply a matter of God being reminded of a person or thing, but of something being brought before God. This is conceived quite realistically. When in Num. 5:15 it says of the offering brought on the occasion of a complaint of adultery that it is a zkrwn-offering, a θυσἰα μνημοσύνου ἀναμιμνήσκουσα ἁμαρτίαν (LXX), this means that the sin itself is ‘re-called’ before God by means of the offering, is re-presented before him,³ the past thus becoming present before God. ‘Have you come to bring my sin to remembrance (before God?’), cries the widow from Zarepheth to Elijah after the death of her son (1 Kings 17:18). The meaning could be similar when the Epistle to the Hebrews says of the Old Testament Day of Atonement sacrifices, that the blood of bulls and goats only effects ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν (10:3)—it can bring the sins to life before God, but it cannot blot them out.⁴ In all of these places ἀνάμνησις denotes representation before God.

This is, however, only one side of that which is said in the phrase εἰς ἀνάμνησιν when this is used of God. This calling into the presence of God, this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective. It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something: that God may remember—mercifully or punishingly. God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception ‘an effecting and creating event’.¹ When Luke 1:72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise. When God remembers the iniquities of Babylon the Great (Rev. 18:5), this means that he is now releasing the eschatological judgment. When the sinner ‘is not to be remembered’ at the resurrection, this means that he will have no part in it (Ps. Sol. 3:11). And when God no longer remembers sin, when he forgets it (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:12; 10:17), this means that he forgives it.² God’s remembrance is always an action in mercy or judgment.

This is therefore the result of our investigation of the use of the construction εἰς ἀνάμνησιν and its variants in Palestinian linguistic usage: (1) εἰς ἀνάμνησιν is said for the most part in reference to God and (2) it then designates, always and without exception, a presentation before God intended to induce God to act.

(c) Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (‘This do in remembrance of me’)

It is clear that these conclusions are important to an understanding of the command for repetition. We recall, before we turn to the exegesis of this command, that it is given twice by Paul, both after the word over the bread and after the word over the cup (1 Cor. 11:24, 25), by Luke on the other hand only after the word over the bread (22:19). Since Luke (alone) gives the ‘for you’ twice, it is not very likely that he is himself responsible for the omission of the second command for repetition. In giving the command only in connection with the bread word he is more probably reflecting an earlier stage of the tradition.³

We consider first the command τοῦτο ποιεῖτε (‘this do’) and then the purpose given εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (‘in remembrance of me’). Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε is, as can be seen from comparison with Ex. 29:35; Num. 15:11–13; Deut. 25:9; Jdg. 12:3,⁴ an established expression for the repetition of a rite. This usage lives on in the Qumran texts.¹ 1QS 2.19 commands the annual repetition of the covenant renewal with the words kkh yʿśw, and in 1 QSa 2.21 a depiction of the ritual beginning of a meal in the Messianic time is followed by ordaining that this rite be observed, using the phrase wkḥwḳ hzh yʿś(w).² If the command for repetition uses τοῦτο in reference to a rite, then the question is which rite is intended. It cannot refer to the simple recital of the words of interpretation (that is ruled out by ποιεῖτε which contemplates action); nor can it mean the whole meal (that is ruled out by the repetition with the cup and the limiting ‘as often as you drink’, 1 Cor. 11:25); there remains only the possibility that τοῦτο refers to the rite of breaking the bread, i.e. the rite of grace at table. To be exact, it is scarcely possible that the reference is to the normal table prayer—that would need no special instruction—it is rather to the special grace by means of which the table fellowship of the Messianic community was established, which extolled the salvation activity of God and prayed for its consummation,³ a prayer which Jesus himself may have used during his lifetime.⁴ As we saw, 1QSa 2.21 uses an analogous formula to organize a specific form of the beginning of the meal and of the constitution of the table fellowship. Paul also refers the τοῦτο to the rite of grace at table; this can be seen from 1 Cor. 10:16, ‘The cup of blessing which we bless.… The bread which we break’: ‘we bless’ and ‘we break’ refer to the carrying out of the command τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, which he has in a doubled form.⁵ There is, finally, one further argument, and a strong one, in support of this interpretation of the τοῦτο ποιεῖτε as referring to the rite of grace at table. We have seen that very early, presumably even before the writing of I Corinthians, the normal meal and the Eucharist were separated from one another.⁶ That such a separation should have become desirable is understandable when we realize that in the beginning the non-baptized took part in the meal.⁷ But how did it come about that the particular, and somewhat strange, solution to the problem was chosen, of giving an independent existence to the rite of breaking the bread and repeating it together with the rite of blessing the cup at the end of the meal? This question allows of scarcely any other answer than this: even before the separation of the Eucharist from the meal proper the rite of breaking the bread (Luke 22:19) and, as a consequence, the rite of blessing the cup (1 Cor. 11:25) already possessed an importance by themselves. This intrinsic importance of the breaking of the bread, which is also expressed in the use of ‘the breaking of bread’, ‘to break bread’ as technical terms,¹ is probably due to the command for repetition.

The breaking of bread by the disciples (τοῦτο) shall be done (ποιεῖτε) εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (‘in remembrance of me’). The expression is ambiguous. It is clear that ἐμήν² represents an objective genitive.³ The phrase therefore means: ‘that I be remembered’, ‘in rememberance (sic) of me’ (RSV). The only question is: Who should remember Jesus? The usual interpretation, according to which it is the disciples who should remember, is strange. Was Jesus afraid that his disciples would forget him? But this is not the only possible interpretation, indeed it is not even the most obvious. In the New Testament we find a parallel construction εἰς μνημόσυνον at two places: Mark 14:9 (par. Matt. 26:13) and Acts 10:4, ‘as a memorial before God’. Acts 10:4 specifically names God as the subject of the remembering⁴ and similarly Mark 14:9 par., ‘in memory of her’, in all probability relates to the merciful remembrance of God: ‘that God may (mercifully) remember her (at the last judgment)’.⁵ This is in agreement with what we saw above, pp. 246–9, that in the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers. In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me.’

How is this to be understood? Here an old passover prayer is illuminating. On passover evening a prayer (yʿlh wybʾ) is inserted into the third benediction of the grace after the meal, a prayer which asks God to remember the Messiah.¹ The wording of this prayer has been transmitted with unusual accuracy (it is practically the same in all the rites)² and it may go back in essence to the time of Jesus.³ It runs: ‘Our God and God of our fathers, may there arise, and come, and come unto, be seen, accepted, heard, recollected and remembered, the remembrance of us and the recollection of us, and the remembrance of our fathers, and the remembrance of the Messiah, son of David, thy servant (zikron mašiaḥ ben Dawid ‘abdeka), and the remembrance of Jerusalem thy holy city, and the remembrance of all thy people, the house of Israel. May their remembrance come before thee, for rescue, goodness.…’⁴ In this very common prayer, which is also used on other festival days,⁵ God is petitioned at every passover concerning ‘the remembrance of the Messiah’, i.e. concerning the appearance of the Messiah, which means the bringing about of the parousia. We shall see⁶ how very strongly this petition that God may ‘remember’ the Messiah has influenced and even determined the whole passover festival: every passover celebration concluded with the jubilant antiphonal choir which one day would greet the Messiah at his entry into Jerusalem. Consequently the command for repetition may be understood as: ‘This do, that God may remember me’: God remembers the Messiah in that he causes the kingdom to break in by the parousia.

It is in this way that Paul already understood the ἀνάμνησις commandment, and his words have special weight in that they represent the oldest interpretation of the commandment which we possess. After quoting the liturgical formula, 1 Cor. 11:23–25, Paul continues: ‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’ (v. 26). We must first clarify the relationship between v. 26 and the liturgical formula. Both the resumptive ‘as often as’ (ὁσάκις) and above all the ‘for’ (γάρ) show that v. 26 is directly related to the preceding sentence, i.e. to the ἀνάμνησις-commandment. ‘The Lord has commanded the repetition εἰς ἀνάμνησιν and you are indeed fulfilling this command;¹ for at every celebration of the Lord’s supper you proclaim his death.’ The ἀνάμνησις commandment is therefore fulfilled by the proclamation of the death of Jesus at the Lord’s supper. So everything depends upon how the ‘proclamation of the Lord’s death’ is to be understood. That it is a verbal proclamation, and what the probable form of this proclamation was, we saw above, pp. 106ff. The content of the ‘proclamation of the Lord’s death’ has to be deduced from the subordinate clause ‘until he comes’ (ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ).² This clause is not a simple time reference, but ἔλθῃ is a prospective subjunctive which, as appears from the omission of ἄν, has a certain affinity with the final clause³ and may therefore be freely translated ‘until (matters have developed to the point at which) he comes’, ‘until (the goal is reached, that) he comes’. Actually, in the New Testament ἄχρι οὗ with the aorist subjunctive without ἄν regularly introduces a reference to reaching the eschatological goal, Rom. 11:25; 1 Cor. 15:25; Luke 21:24. ‘Until he comes’ apparently alludes to the maranatha of the liturgy⁴ with which the community prays for the eschatological coming of the Lord. This means that the death of the Lord is not proclaimed at every celebration of the meal as a past event but as an eschatological event, as the beginning of the New Covenant.⁵ The proclamation of the death of Jesus is not therefore intended to call to the remembrance of the community the event of the Passion; rather this proclamation expresses the vicarious death of Jesus as the beginning of the salvation time and prays for the coming of the consummation. As often as the death of the Lord is proclaimed at the Lord’s supper, and the maranatha rises upwards, God is reminded of the unfulfilled climax of the work of salvation ‘until (the goal is reached, that) he comes’. Paul has therefore understood the ἀνάμνησις as the eschatological remembrance of God that is to be realized in the parousia.

Paul does not stand alone in this eschatological understanding of the ἀνάμνησις-commandment; it is supported by all the other texts to which we have access. In this connection we must first consider the meal prayers of the Didache. It is significant that the grace after the ordinary meal leads up to a prayer for the eschatological remembrance of God: ‘Remember, Lord, thy Church to deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in thy love; and gather it together from the four winds, (even the Church) that has been sanctified, into thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for her’ (10.5). The community celebrating the meal petitions God that he may ‘remember’ his Church, in that he grants her the consummation and gathers her into the kingdom which he has prepared for her. Still more important is the fact that the prayer calls immediately following, which lead up to the celebration of the Eucharist, are absolutely and completely directed towards the parousia:

‘May the Lord (Coptic) come and this world pass away.
Amen.
Hosanna to the house (Coptic) of David.¹
If any man is holy, let him come; if any man is not, let him repent. Maranatha.
Amen (10.6).’

At every celebration of the Eucharist therefore the community prays for the coming of the Lord, indeed it anticipates the blessed hour by greeting the returning Lord with the jubilant Hosanna, the cry of salvation at the parousia.² With a similar intent, Luke speaks of the ‘gladness’ (ἀγαλλίασις), the eschatological jubilation, which ruled the mealtimes of the earliest community (Acts 2:46).

To summarize my argument: it seems to me certain that the command for repetition may no longer be interpreted on the basis of hellenistic presuppositions, but must be interpreted against a Palestinian background. ‘In remembrance of me’ can then scarcely mean ‘that you may remember me’, but most probably ‘that God may remember me’.¹ This means that the command to repeat the rite is not a summons to the disciples to preserve the memory of Jesus and be vigilant (‘repeat the breaking of bread so that you may not forget me’), but it is an eschatologically oriented instruction: ‘Keep joining yourselves together as the redeemed community by the table rite, that in this way God may be daily implored to bring about the consummation in the parousia.’ By coming together daily for table fellowship in the short period of time before the parousia and by confessing in this way Jesus as their Lord, the disciples represent the initiated salvation work before God and they pray for its consummation.²

If this is correct, then the question of authenticity must be raised anew. In any case a reference to the parousia is much nearer to Jesus than would be a hellenistic foundation formula. But we can say more than this. We shall see in the next section that the liturgical anticipation of the parousia was a regular part of the passover ritual. The anticipation of the antiphonal choir at the parousia, with which the passover celebration ended, is an illustration of the way in which God could be petitioned, in a liturgical rite, to remember the Messiah. What Israel did annually at the passover meal the disciples should do daily. This close relationship between the command for repetition and the passover ritual makes it very probable that the command goes back to Jesus himself, and this is supported by the considerations mentioned above, pp. 250f.

LXX Septuagint

RSV Revised Standard Version

Page 244 Footnotes

¹ Ps.-Philo, Ant. bibl. 26.12 (G. Kisch, Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum [Publications in Mediaeval Studies. The University of Notre Dame 10], Notre Dame, Indiana, 1949, 187).

² See below, p. 247.

³ K. Galling, ‘Königliche und nichtkönigliche Stifter beim Tempel von Jerusalem’, ZDPV 68 (1946–51), 134–42.

⁴ For the text (lḥn) cf. O. Procksch in R. Kittel, Biblica Hebraica³, Stuttgart, 1937, ad loc.; F. Horst in T. H. Robinson—F. Horst, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten², Tübingen, 1954, 236; Galling, op. cit., 138.

Page 245 Footnotes

¹ S. Klein, Jüdisch-palästinisches Corpus Inscriptionum, Vienna-Berlin, 1920, 69f. no. 3 (ʿAin ed-Dōq), 75 no. 4 (Kafr Kenna), 77 no. 5 (Sepphoris), 82 no. 12 (Khirbet Kanef); E. L. Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece, London, 1934, 72 (Beit Djibrin), 73 (ʿAin ed-Dōq), 75, 76 (Naʿaran), cf. 76 (Beit Alpha: μνησθῶσιν). Rabbinical examples in J. Jeremias, ‘Mc 14, 9’, ZNW 44 (1952–3), 106 n. 21, and in E. Bammel, ‘Zum jüdischen Märtyrerkult’, ThLZ 78 (1953), col. 124 n. 50.

² English translation by M. Avi-Yonah in D. C. Baramki-M. Avi-Yonah, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 6 (1936–7), 76 n. 2, quoted by E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (Bollingen Series 37) I, New York, 1952, 261; II, 1952, 129.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Text, e.g., in P. Fiebig, Rosch ha-schana (Neujahr), Giessen, 1914, 53–58.

⁵ Billerbeck IV, 251.

⁶ Klein, op. cit., 39 no. 114; J.-B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum (Sussidi allo studio delle antichità cristiane 1), Vatican City-Rome-Paris, 1936, 446 no. 625, 447f. no. 629, 453f. no. 635, 474f. no. 661. Cf. Ecclus 45:1 (of Moses): zkrw lṭwbh.

⁷ Frey, op. cit., 60 no. 86, 140f. no. 201 (268f. no. 343), 287f. no. 270, cf. 361f. no. 496: simply μνησθῇ.

Page 246 Footnotes

¹ b. Ḳid. 31b.

² lzkrwn, lʾzkrh, lzkr.

³ ldkrn, ldwkrnʾ.

⁴ See above, p. 244.

Page 247 Footnotes

¹ But each time (1:1p; 2:23; 9:32; 10:2) without an equivalent in the Hebrew text.

² LXX, Ps. 111 (112):6, εἰς μνημόσυνον αἰώνιον ἔσται δίκαιος, ‘the righteous will be for eternal remembrance’, is to be judged according to what has been said on Prov. 10:7 above, p. 246.

³ Ed. C. Bonner, The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek (Studies and Documents 8), London, 1937.

⁴ Philo, Quis rer. div. heres sit 170; De vita Mos. 1.186.

Page 248 Footnotes

¹ That additions such as Acts 10:4 (ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ), Ecclus 50:16 (ἔναντι ὑψίστον), I Enoch 99.3 (ἐνώπιον τοῦ ὑψίστου θεοῦ) are found only occasionally is to be explained by the fact that the formulae are firmly established.

² R. Stählin, ‘Herrenmahl und Heilsgeschichte’, Evangelisch-lutherische Kirchenzeitung 2 (1948), 153b.

³ Dix, Liturgy, 161.

⁴ Ibid.

Page 249 Footnotes

¹ O. Michel, μιμνῄσκομαι κτλ., TWNT IV (1942), 678.26f.

² Heb. 10:18: therefore there is no further need from that moment for any sin-offerings. The meaning of the cry of the penitent thief in Luke 23:42 is similar: with the words ‘Jesus, remember me when you come as king’ (ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ [א C  Θ pl Th] σου = bemalkutak, ‘when you become king’, i.e. at the Parousia) he asks that Jesus speak for him at the final judgment.

³ Schürmann, Einsetzungsbericht, 70.

⁴ All of these texts have kakah (LXX, οὕτως) with a jussive form of ʿaśah (LXX, ποιεῖν).

Page 250 Footnotes

¹ This was pointed out to me by my son, Gert Jeremias.

² On this text see above, p. 35.

³ Cf. Did. 9.1–10.5.

⁴ On this possibility see above, p. 109 n.8 and p. 120 n. 3 under 2a.

⁵ Cf. also 1 Cor. 11:26, where the words ‘as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup’ also describe the carrying out of the doubled τοῦτο ποιεῖτε-command (see below, pp. 252f.).

⁶ See above, p. 121.

⁷ See above, p. 133.

Page 251 Footnotes

¹ On these see above, p. 120f.

² The emphatic position of the possessive pronoun before the noun has led many to see a contrast between the remembrance of Jesus and the remembrance of the Passover (e.g. O. Procksch, ‘Passa und Abendmahl’, in H. Sasse, Vom Sakrament des Altars, 23). But it is most questionable whether in Aramaic the pronoun was especially emphasized (by dili).

³ An objective genitive with ἀνάμνησις, μνημόσυνον is the established usage, cf. Mark 14:9; Wisd. 16:6; Ecclus 10:17; 23:26; 38:23; 39:9; 41:1; 44:9; 45:1; 46:11; 49:1, 13; LXX, Esth. 8:12 u; 1 Macc. 3:7, 35; 8:22; 12:53; 2 Macc. 6:31.

⁴ Cf. Num. 10:10, LXX, ἔσται ὑμῖν ἀνάμνησις ἔναντι τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν.

⁵ I have attempted to give the linguistic arguments in support of the eschatological interpretation of Mark 14:9 (‘Amen, I say to you, when [God’s angel] proclaims the [triumphant] message in all the world, then will what she has done be told [before God], so that he may [mercifully] remember her’) in ‘Mc 14, 9’, ZNW 44 (1952–3), 103–7. Cf. also Jeremias, Promise, 22f.

Page 252 Footnotes

¹ The prayer is to be found in all the countless editions of the passover haggadak. In the Schocken Books edition, New York, 1953, it is on pp. 63f.

² Elbogen, Gottesdienst, 125.

³ Elbogen, Gottesdienst, 125: ‘since the days of the first Tannaites’. Elbogen gives the evidence for this on p. 533.

⁴ Quoted from The Passover Haggadah, Schocken Books, New York, 1953, 63.

⁵ S. R. Hirsch, Siddur tephillot Yiśrael. Israels Gebete³, Frankfurt a. M., 1921, 146, 274, 330, 396, 598, 624, 657, 684. Cf. H. Kosmala, ‘Das tut zu meinem Gedächtnis’, Novum Testamentum 4 (1960), 85.

⁶ See below, pp. 256ff.

Page 253 Footnotes

¹ In view of the preceding γάρ, καταγγέλλετε must be taken as indicative; before the γάρ we must therefore again (cf. p. 211 n. 4) supply the thought which is to be supported by it.

² Cf. ‘d bw’ 1QS 9.11, and ʿdʿmwd CD 12.23; 20.1.

³ Blass-Debrunner, §383.2.

⁴ J. Schniewind, ἀγγελία κτλ., TWNT I (1933), 70 n. 25.

⁵ Schlatter, Paulus, 325.

Page 254 Footnotes

¹ ‘The house of David’ is not, as Audet, La Didachè, 422, erroneously supposes, the temple, which is never called ‘the house of David’, but the ruling house. ‘Hosanna to the house of David’ therefore means ‘Hosanna to (the descendant of) the ruling house!’, ‘Hosanna to the Messiah!’

² See below, pp. 258ff. For the history of the hosanna greeting and the change of its significance from a cry for help to an acclamation, see below, p. 260 n. 4.

Page 255 Footnotes

¹ Cf. LXX, Ps. 131 (132):1: μνήσθητι, κύριε, τοῦ Δαυιδ, ‘Lord, remember David’.

² A. D. Müller, Leipzig, remarks on this: ‘The objective theological content of the Lord’s supper celebration and the activity of the community are not mutually exclusive, but rather one demands the other. Precisely because God himself is the acting subject of the service in the vicarious death of the servant of God for the “many”, the world’s people, the community is included in the sacramental accomplishment not only as object but also as subject with full responsibility.’ (Letter dated May 13, 1950.)

Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. Norman Perrin (London; Philadelphia, PA: SCM Press; Trinity Press International, 1966), 244–255.

Εγω ειμι ο ων (Exodus 3:14) And יהוה

See my earlier posts on this subject for the background to this post, as well as for the Scripture texts (Hebrew, Greek and Latin):

• Εγω ειμι ο ων (Exodus 3:14) - Part I
• Εγω ειμι ο ων (Exodus 3:14) - Part II

I raised this question before, and I'm raising it again:

Did the Septuagint's (LXX), and then the Vulgate's, translation of Exodus 3:14, as well as the change from saying God's name (יהוה) to referring to Him by a title ("(the) Lord"), affect the concept of God, distancing Him in the minds of the people and their theologians—a distancing that we may unconsciously still think and experience?

Did the Septuagint's "I Am He Who Is" (more literally "I Am The Being [One]") and the Vulgate's "I Am Who I Am" and "Who Is" move the church away from the covenanting and actively-with-His-people God of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Psalms, and towards an impassible and apophatic "Eternally Existing One," a God who may have more in common with Platonic philosophical concepts than with יהוה, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Father of Jesus Christ?

My speculation about the philosophical impact of the LXX's translation seems to find support in Toorn, K. v. d., Becking, B., & Horst, P. W. v. d. (1999). Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible DDD (2nd extensively rev. ed.) (913–914). Leiden; Boston; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brill; Eerdmans:

The interpretation of the theonym as a finite verb is already found in Exod 3:14. In reply to Moses’ question of what he is to say to the Israelites when they ask him which god sent him, God says: “I AM WHO I AM”, and he adds: “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’”. The explanation here offered is a sophisticated play based on association: the root HWH is understood as a by-form of HYH, ‘to be’ and the prefix of the third person is understood as a secondary objectivation of a first person: yhwh is thus interpreted as ʾhyh, ‘I am’. Since the significance of such a name is elusive, the reconstructed name is itself the subject of a further interpretation in the phrase ʾehyeh ʾăšer ʾehyeh, ‘I am who I am’. Its meaning is debated. Should one understand it as a promise (‘I will certainly be there’) or as an allusion to the incomparability of Yahweh (‘I am who I am’, i.e. without peer)? Even in the revelation of his name, Yahweh does not surrender himself: He cannot be captured by means of either an image or a name. The Greek translation ὁ ὤν (LXX) has philosophical overtones: it is at the basis of a profound speculation on the eternity and immutability of God—both of them ideas originally unconnected with the name Yahweh.

My intuition about the meaning of the Hebrew and how it should probably be translated finds support in VanGemeren, W. (1998). Vol. 4: New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (NIDOTTE) (1295–1296). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House:

2. Exod 3:14 is one of the most puzzling verses in the OT. The name given at Moses’ request, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, consists of the repeated form of the vb. to be (הָיָה [#2118], earlier form הוי) in the first person sing. plus the relative particle (Yahweh itself may be a third person impf. form; the a vowel suggests a hi. form, but that aspect is not attested in the OT or northwest Sem.). The most common translation is that given in the NIV, “I AM WHO I AM.” Some scholars suggest that this response is a refusal to give the divine name, out of a belief that knowing the name gives some control over the one named: in effect, “I am who I am, and it is not your business to know my name.” This, however, is a counsel of despair and stands at odds with God’s regularly giving a name when appearing to Israel’s ancestors (Gen 35:11; Exod 3:6). Moreover, the fact that Yahweh is immediately used in apposition to the God of your fathers in vv. 15–16 suggests a more positive meaning. It is difficult to believe that the 6800 uses of Yahweh in the OT are only testimony to God’s refusal. There is, of course, a lack of final definition in the name Yahweh. But, as with all names, this is simply to recognize the limits of drawing inferences from the name regarding the nature of the one whose name it is.

Other translations include “I will be what (who) I will be”; “I will cause to be what I will cause to be”; “I will be who I am/I am who I will be.” The last-noted may well be the best option, in essence: “I will be God for you.” The force of the name is not simply that God is or that God is present, but that God will be faithfully God for them in the history that is to follow (see vv. 16–17). The use of the same verbal form in 3:12 and 4:12, 15 (cf. 6:7; 29:45) also suggests this. God will be God with and for this people at all times and places; the formula suggests a divine faithfulness to self. Israel need not be concerned about divine arbitrariness or capriciousness. God can be counted on to be who God is. Israel understands its history from this name and this name from its history. This name will shape Israel’s story, but the story will also give greater texture to the name. This means that there are stakes in this for God; God now has to live up to the name given.

Here again, from my earlier posts, is the verse under discussion (Exodus 3:14):

ויאמר אלהים אל משה אהיה אשר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם׃

And God said unto Moses, אהיה אשר אהיה (I will be who/what I will be; I am who/what I am): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, אהיה (I will be; I am) hath sent me unto you.

Greek Septuagint:
και ειπεν ο θεος προς Μωυσην Εγω ειμι ο ων (I am the being [one]/I am he who is)· και ειπεν Ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ Ο ων (the being [one]/he who is) απεσταλκεν με προς υμας.

Latin Vulgate:
dixit Deus ad Mosen ego sum qui sum (I am who (I) am) ait sic dices filiis Israhel qui est (who is) misit me ad vos

To see how the Hebrew Bible uses אֶהְיֶה with reference to יהוה, I've listed and marked in blue all the occurrences of the verb אֶהְיֶה (usually translated "I will be"). Verses are marked with an asterisk (*) when אֶהְיֶה does not refer to God. Where the English "I" translates the pronoun אָנֹכִי or אֲנִי, rather than the verb אֶהְיֶה, I do not indicate it with blue.

Verse	BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia)	NASB 1995 (New American Standard Bible 1995 Update)
Genesis 26:3	גּוּר בָּאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וְאֶהְיֶה עִמְּךָ וַאֲבָרְכֶךָּ כִּי־לְךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת־כָּל־הָאֲרָצֹת הָאֵל וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת־הַשְּׁבֻעָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִיךָ׃	“Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
Genesis 31:3	וַיֹּאמֶר יהוה אֶל־יַעֲקֹב שׁוּב אֶל־אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתֶּךָ וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ׃	Then the LORD said to Jacob, “Return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives, and I will be with you.”
Exodus 3:12	וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי־אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ וְזֶה־לְּךָ הָאוֹת כִּי אָנֹכִי שְׁלַחְתִּיךָ בְּהוֹצִיאֲךָ אֶת־הָעָם מִמִּצְרַיִם תַּעַבְדוּן אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים עַל הָהָר הַזֶּה׃	And He said, “Certainly I will be with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain.”
Exodus 3:14	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם׃	God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
Exodus 4:12	וְעַתָּה לֵךְ וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה עִם־פִּיךָ וְהוֹרֵיתִיךָ אֲשֶׁר תְּדַבֵּר׃	“Now then go, and I, even I, will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say.”
Exodus 4:15	וְדִבַּרְתָּ אֵלָיו וְשַׂמְתָּ אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים בְּפִיו וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה עִם־פִּיךָ וְעִם־פִּיהוּ וְהוֹרֵיתִי אֶתְכֶם אֵת אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּן׃	“You are to speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I, even I, will be with your mouth and his mouth, and I will teach you what you are to do.
Deuteronomy 31:23	וַיְצַו אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן וַיֹּאמֶר חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ כִּי אַתָּה תָּבִיא אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לָהֶם וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ׃	Then He commissioned Joshua the son of Nun, and said, “Be strong and courageous, for you shall bring the sons of Israel into the land which I swore to them, and I will be with you.”
Joshua 1:5	לֹא־יִתְיַצֵּב אִישׁ לְפָנֶיךָ כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר הָיִיתִי עִם־מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ לֹא אַרְפְּךָ וְלֹא אֶעֶזְבֶךָּ׃	“No man will be able to stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I have been with Moses, I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you.
Joshua 3:7	וַיֹּאמֶר יהוה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אָחֵל גַּדֶּלְךָ בְּעֵינֵי כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יֵדְעוּן כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר הָיִיתִי עִם־מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ׃	Now the LORD said to Joshua, “This day I will begin to exalt you in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that just as I have been with Moses, I will be with you.
Judges 6:16	וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו יהוה כִּי אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ וְהִכִּיתָ אֶת־מִדְיָן כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד׃	But the LORD said to him, “Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man.”
* Judges 11:9	וַיֹּאמֶר יִפְתָּח אֶל־זִקְנֵי גִלְעָד אִם־מְשִׁיבִים אַתֶּם אוֹתִי לְהִלָּחֵם בִּבְנֵי עַמּוֹן וְנָתַן יהוה אוֹתָם לְפָנָי אָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם לְרֹאשׁ׃	So Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “If you take me back to fight against the sons of Ammon and the LORD gives them up to me, will I become your head?”
* Ruth 2:13	וַתֹּאמֶר אֶמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ אֲדֹנִי כִּי נִחַמְתָּנִי וְכִי דִבַּרְתָּ עַל־לֵב שִׁפְחָתֶךָ וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אֶהְיֶה כְּאַחַת שִׁפְחֹתֶיךָ׃	Then she said, “I have found favor in your sight, my lord, for you have comforted me and indeed have spoken kindly to your maidservant, though I am not like one of your maidservants.”
* 1 Samuel 18:18	וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל־שָׁאוּל מִי אָנֹכִי וּמִי חַיַּי מִשְׁפַּחַת אָבִי בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי־אֶהְיֶה חָתָן לַמֶּלֶךְ׃	But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my life or my father’s family in Israel, that I should be the king’s son-in-law?”
* 1 Samuel 23:17	וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אַל־תִּירָא כִּי לֹא תִמְצָאֲךָ יַד שָׁאוּל אָבִי וְאַתָּה תִּמְלֹךְ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה־לְּךָ לְמִשְׁנֶה וְגַם־שָׁאוּל אָבִי יֹדֵעַ כֵּן׃	Thus he said to him, “Do not be afraid, because the hand of Saul my father will not find you, and you will be king over Israel and I will be next to you; and Saul my father knows that also.”
2 Samuel 7:14	אֲנִי אֶהְיֶה־לּוֹ לְאָב וְהוּא יִהְיֶה־לִּי לְבֵן אֲשֶׁר בְּהַעֲוֹתוֹ וְהֹכַחְתִּיו בְּשֵׁבֶט אֲנָשִׁים וּבְנִגְעֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם׃	“I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men,
* 2 Samuel 15:34	וְאִם־הָעִיר תָּשׁוּב וְאָמַרְתָּ לְאַבְשָׁלוֹם עַבְדְּךָ אֲנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶהְיֶה עֶבֶד אָבִיךָ וַאֲנִי מֵאָז וְעַתָּה וַאֲנִי עַבְדֶּךָ וְהֵפַרְתָּה לִי אֵת עֲצַת אֲחִיתֹפֶל׃	“But if you return to the city, and say to Absalom, ‘I will be your servant, O king; as I have been your father’s servant in time past, so I will now be your servant,’ then you can thwart the counsel of Ahithophel for me.
* 2 Samuel 16:18	וַיֹּאמֶר חוּשַׁי אֶל־אַבְשָׁלֹם לֹא כִּי אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר יהוה וְהָעָם הַזֶּה וְכָל־אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא אֶהְיֶה וְאִתּוֹ אֵשֵׁב׃	Then Hushai said to Absalom, “No! For whom the LORD, this people, and all the men of Israel have chosen, his I will be, and with him I will remain.
* 2 Samuel 16:19	וְהַשֵּׁנִית לְמִי אֲנִי אֶעֱבֹד הֲלוֹא לִפְנֵי בְנוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָבַדְתִּי לִפְנֵי אָבִיךָ כֵּן אֶהְיֶה לְפָנֶיךָ׃	“Besides, whom should I serve? Should I not serve in the presence of his son? As I have served in your father’s presence, so I will be in your presence.”
1 Chronicles 17:13	אֲנִי אֶהְיֶה־לּוֹ לְאָב וְהוּא יִהְיֶה־לִּי לְבֵן וְחַסְדִּי לֹא־אָסִיר מֵעִמּוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר הֲסִירוֹתִי מֵאֲשֶׁר הָיָה לְפָנֶיךָ׃	“I will be his father and he shall be My son; and I will not take My lovingkindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you.
1 Chronicles 28:6	וַיֹּאמֶר לִי שְׁלֹמֹה בִנְךָ הוּא־יִבְנֶה בֵיתִי וַחֲצֵרוֹתָי כִּי־בָחַרְתִּי בוֹ לִי לְבֵן וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה־לּוֹ לְאָב׃	“He said to me, ‘Your son Solomon is the one who shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be a son to Me, and I will be a father to him.
* Job 3:16	אוֹ כְנֵפֶל טָמוּן לֹא אֶהְיֶה כְּעֹלְלִים לֹא־רָאוּ אוֹר׃	“Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, As infants that never saw light.
* Job 10:19	כַּאֲשֶׁר לֹא־הָיִיתִי אֶהְיֶה מִבֶּטֶן לַקֶּבֶר אוּבָל׃	‘I should have been as though I had not been, Carried from womb to tomb.’
* Job 12:4	שְׂחֹק לְרֵעֵהוּ אֶהְיֶה קֹרֵא לֶאֱלוֹהַּ וַיַּעֲנֵהוּ שְׂחוֹק צַדִּיק תָּמִים׃	“I am a joke to my friends, The one who called on God and He answered him; The just and blameless man is a joke.
* Job 17:6	וְהִצִּגַנִי לִמְשֹׁל עַמִּים וְתֹפֶת לְפָנִים אֶהְיֶה׃	“But He has made me a byword of the people, And I am one at whom men spit.
Psalm 50:21	אֵלֶּה עָשִׂיתָ וְהֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי דִּמִּיתָ הֱיוֹת־אֶהְיֶה כָמוֹךָ אוֹכִיחֲךָ וְאֶעֶרְכָה לְעֵינֶיךָ׃	“These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes.
* Song of Solomon 1:7	הַגִּידָה לִּי שֶׁאָהֲבָה נַפְשִׁי אֵיכָה תִרְעֶה אֵיכָה תַּרְבִּיץ בַּצָּהֳרָיִם שַׁלָּמָה אֶהְיֶה כְּעֹטְיָה עַל עֶדְרֵי חֲבֵרֶיךָ׃	“Tell me, O you whom my soul loves, Where do you pasture your flock, Where do you make it lie down at noon? For why should I be like one who veils herself Beside the flocks of your companions?”
* Isaiah 3:7	יִשָּׂא בַיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר לֹא־אֶהְיֶה חֹבֵשׁ וּבְבֵיתִי אֵין לֶחֶם וְאֵין שִׂמְלָה לֹא תְשִׂימֻנִי קְצִין עָם׃	He will protest on that day, saying, “I will not be your healer, For in my house there is neither bread nor cloak; You should not appoint me ruler of the people.”
* Isaiah 47:7	וַתֹּאמְרִי לְעוֹלָם אֶהְיֶה גְבָרֶת עַד לֹא־שַׂמְתְּ אֵלֶּה עַל־לִבֵּךְ לֹא זָכַרְתְּ אַחֲרִיתָהּ׃	“Yet you said, ‘I will be a queen forever.’ These things you did not consider Nor remember the outcome of them.
Jeremiah 11:4	אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אֶת־אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם בְּיוֹם הוֹצִיאִי־אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ־מִצְרַיִם מִכּוּר הַבַּרְזֶל לֵאמֹר שִׁמְעוּ בְקוֹלִי וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אוֹתָם כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־אֲצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם וִהְיִיתֶם לִי לְעָם וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים׃	which I commanded your forefathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, ‘Listen to My voice, and do according to all which I command you; so you shall be My people, and I will be your God,’
Jeremiah 24:7	וְנָתַתִּי לָהֶם לֵב לָדַעַת אֹתִי כִּי אֲנִי יהוה וְהָיוּ־לִי לְעָם וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים כִּי־יָשֻׁבוּ אֵלַי בְּכָל־לִבָּם׃	‘I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.
Jeremiah 30:22	וִהְיִיתֶם לִי לְעָם וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים׃	‘You shall be My people, And I will be your God.’ ”
Jeremiah 31:1	בָּעֵת הַהִיא נְאֻם־יהוה אֶהְיֶה לֵאלֹהִים לְכֹל מִשְׁפְּחוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֵמָּה יִהְיוּ־לִי לְעָם׃	“At that time,” declares the LORD, “I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people.”
Jeremiah 32:38	וְהָיוּ לִי לְעָם וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים׃	“They shall be My people, and I will be their God;
Ezekiel 11:20	לְמַעַן בְּחֻקֹּתַי יֵלֵכוּ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַי יִשְׁמְרוּ וְעָשׂוּ אֹתָם וְהָיוּ־לִי לְעָם וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים׃	that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.
Ezekiel 14:11	לְמַעַן לֹא־יִתְעוּ עוֹד בֵּית־יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַחֲרַי וְלֹא־יִטַּמְּאוּ עוֹד בְּכָל־פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם וְהָיוּ לִי לְעָם וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יהוה׃	in order that the house of Israel may no longer stray from Me and no longer defile themselves with all their transgressions. Thus they will be My people, and I shall be their God,” ’ declares the Lord GOD.”
Ezekiel 34:24	וַאֲנִי יהוה אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים וְעַבְדִּי דָוִד נָשִׂיא בְתוֹכָם אֲנִי יהוה דִּבַּרְתִּי׃	“And I, the LORD, will be their God, and My servant David will be prince among them; I the LORD have spoken.
Ezekiel 36:28	וִישַׁבְתֶּם בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לַאֲבֹתֵיכֶם וִהְיִיתֶם לִי לְעָם וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים׃	“You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.
Ezekiel 37:23	וְלֹא יִטַּמְּאוּ עוֹד בְּגִלּוּלֵיהֶם וּבְשִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם וּבְכֹל פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם וְהוֹשַׁעְתִּי אֹתָם מִכֹּל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ בָהֶם וְטִהַרְתִּי אוֹתָם וְהָיוּ־לִי לְעָם וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים׃	“They will no longer defile themselves with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they will be My people, and I will be their God.
Hosea 1:9	וַיֹּאמֶר קְרָא שְׁמוֹ לֹא עַמִּי כִּי אַתֶּם לֹא עַמִּי וְאָנֹכִי לֹא־אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם׃	And the LORD said, “Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people and I am not your God.”
Hosea 14:6	אֶהְיֶה כַטַּל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יִפְרַח כַּשּׁוֹשַׁנָּה וְיַךְ שָׁרָשָׁיו כַּלְּבָנוֹן׃	NASB Hosea 14:5 I will be like the dew to Israel; He will blossom like the lily, And he will take root like the cedars of Lebanon.
Zechariah 2:9	וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה־לָּהּ נְאֻם־יהוה חוֹמַת אֵשׁ סָבִיב וּלְכָבוֹד אֶהְיֶה בְתוֹכָהּ׃	NASB Zechariah 2:5 ‘For I,’ declares the LORD, ‘will be a wall of fire around her, and I will be the glory in her midst.’ ”
Zechariah 8:8	וְהֵבֵאתִי אֹתָם וְשָׁכְנוּ בְּתוֹךְ יְרוּשָׁלָםִ וְהָיוּ־לִי לְעָם וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים בֶּאֱמֶת וּבִצְדָקָה׃	and I will bring them back and they will live in the midst of Jerusalem; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God in truth and righteousness.’

Εγω ειμι ο ων (Exodus 3:14) - Part II

ויאמר אלהים אל משה אהיה אשר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם׃

And God said unto Moses, אהיה אשר אהיה (I will be who/what I will be; I am who/what I am): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, אהיה (I will be; I am) hath sent me unto you.

Greek Septuagint:
και ειπεν ο θεος προς Μωυσην Εγω ειμι ο ων (I am the being [one]/I am he who is)· και ειπεν Ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ Ο ων (the being [one]/he who is) απεσταλκεν με προς υμας.

Latin Vulgate:
dixit Deus ad Mosen ego sum qui sum (I am who (I) am) ait sic dices filiis Israhel qui est (who is) misit me ad vos

(To understand the background of the questions I pose here, please first read my previous post on this passage of Scripture.)

From The Christian Tradition, 1 The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), by Jaroslav Pelikan:

Although the axiom of the impassibility of God did not require conventional biblical proof, one passage from the Old Testament served as the proof text for Christian discussions of ontology: "I am who I am" - the word from the burning bush. To Clement of Alexandria it means that "God is one, and beyond the one and above the monad itself"; to Origen, that "all things, whatever they are, participate in him who truly is"; to Hilary it was "an indication concerning God so exact that it expressed in the terms best adapted to human understanding an unattainable insight into the mystery of the divine nature"; to Gregory of Nazianzus it proved that "he who is" was the most appropriate designation for God; to Theodore of Mopsuestia it was the mark of distinction between the Creator and all his creatures; to Philoxenus of Mabbug it was the divine way of "expelling the tradition of polytheism"; to Augustine it proved that "essence" could be used of God with strict propriety, while "substance" could not. From these and other sources, such as On Divine Names of Dionysius the Areopagite, the ontological understanding of the passage passed into authoritative summaries of Christian doctrine, namely, the Orthodox Faith of John of Damascus in the East and the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas in the West. It is no exaggeration, therefore, to speak of "a metaphysics of Exodus," with which a church father such as Clement of Alexandria sought to harmonize his Christian Platonism. - p. 54

Origen may also have been the first church father to study Hebrew, "in opposition to the spirit of his time and of his people," as Jerome says; according to Eusebius, he "learned it thoroughly," but there is reason to doubt the accuracy of this report. Jerome, however, was rightly celebrated as "a trilingual man" for his competence in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and Augustine clearly admired, perhaps even envied, his ability to "interpret the divine Scriptures in both languages." The testimony about the knowledge of Hebrew by other church fathers - for example, Didymus the Blind or Theodore of Mopsuestia - is less conclusive. But it seems safe to propose the generalization that, except for converts from Judaism, it was not until the biblical humanists and the Reformers of the sixteenth century that a knowledge of Hebrew became standard equipment for Christian expositors of the Old Testament. Most of Christian doctrine developed in a church uninformed by any knowledge of the original text of the Hebrew Bible. - p. 21

---

1. To what extent did the translation of ehyeh asher ehyeh (אהיה אשר אהיה) as Egô eimi ho ôn (Εγω ειμι ο ων) and ego sum qui sum, as well as the translation of the second ehyeh (אהיה) as ho ôn (Ο ων) and qui est, influence subsequent developments in theology about the nature of God - e.g., being, simplicity, essence, energies, the Trinity, etc.?
2. To what extent did such developments possibly diverge from the revelation of God as expressed by the Hebrew text and as given in the Hebrew Bible?

Εγω ειμι ο ων (Exodus 3:14) - Part I

ויאמר אלהים אל משה אהיה אשר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם׃

And God said unto Moses, אהיה אשר אהיה (I will be who/what I will be; I am who/what I am): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, אהיה (I will be; I am) hath sent me unto you.

Greek Septuagint:
και ειπεν ο θεος προς Μωυσην Εγω ειμι ο ων (I am the being [one]/I am he who is)· και ειπεν Ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ Ο ων (the being [one]/he who is) απεσταλκεν με προς υμας.

Latin Vulgate:
dixit Deus ad Mosen ego sum qui sum (I am who (I) am) ait sic dices filiis Israhel qui est (who is) misit me ad vos

Noting what seemed to me to be a difference in meaning between the Hebrew ehyeh asher ehyeh (אהיה אשר אהיה) and the Greek Egô eimi ho ôn (Εγω ειμι ο ων) for God's name in Exodus 3:14, I posed a question to the B-Greek list (for this post I have slightly revised my comments and edited the responses):

Are there any thoughts about whether the Septuagint rendering of God's name as Egô eimi ho ôn in Exodus 3:14 accurately translates the Hebrew ehyeh asher ehyeh? I.e., is something lost or changed, and/or is something added? (And perhaps gained - i.e., just because a Greek rendering may add a nuance or clarification that the Hebrew doesn't or can't express doesn't automatically mean that the translation into Greek has wrongly added something to the text.)

Some of my thoughts:

• If the Hebrew ehyeh asher ehyeh means "I am who/that I am," then the Greek (Egô) eimi hos/ho (egô) eimi might be more accurate - but there would be the problem of deciding whether to use the masculine hos ("who") or the neuter ho ("that"/"which"); the Hebrew asher (who/which/that) is not gender-specific, and Hebrew has no neuter gender, only masculine and feminine genders. For the Greek translator to have to pick either hos or ho means having to make a translation and meaning choice that is not necessary in the Hebrew. Is the LXX reading perhaps because there is no literal Greek equivalent to the Hebrew that can maintain this ambiguity re: whether the name is referring to God's Who-ness versus His What-ness? (The choice of the masculine ho ôn instead of the neuter to on (το ον) suggests that the LXX translator favored God being "He Who Is" ("The Being One") over "That Which Is.")
  
• If ehyeh asher ehyeh means "I will be who/what I will be" - which may be supported by the nearby uses of ehyeh in "I will be with you" in Exodus 3:12 and 4:12,15 ("I will be with your mouth") - then the Greek (Egô) esomai hos/ho (egô) esomai may be more "accurate." Interestingly, the LXX only uses esomai in 3:12; it says "I will open your mouth" in 4:12,15. However, ho ôn is repeated in 3:14 as God's name.

Did rabbinical or Greek philosophical traditions influence the LXX rendering of Exodus 3:14? Because of the identification of Jesus with ho ôn in this passage, as well as the use of this phrase in the halo of icons of Christ, the LXX rendering has had a significant impact on church history, theology and worship.

One respondent wrote:

No, it really isn't totally accurate. The Hebrew has the imperfect (prefix form) of the existential verb twice and would more accurately be translated "I will be who/what I will be." I think I'll leave the Greek to your own efforts. It would almost seem that the LXX was translated under some Platonic influence.

and I replied:

Richard Elliott Friedman chooses "I am who I am" and Robert Alter chooses "I will be who I will be." Both discuss the other's choice, and Alter also discusses using "what" instead of "who." Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (The Living Torah) goes with "I will be who I will be," and in his notes refers to Rambam's Moreh Nevukhim 1:63 (1200 A.D.) when he says that the name "denotes that God has absolute existence" (and also refers the reader to the Septuagint), and that He is outside the realm of time (Rabbi Ovadia ben Yaakov Sforna, 1567 A.D.). Thus, it appears that the Hebrew imperfect need not be translated with the future, according to these Jewish/Hebrew scholars, and the concept of ho ôn may not be Platonic (or maybe Rambam was a Platonist?).

Another responded:

I don't think that your question can be dealt with in purely linguistic terms. Even if I point to Parmenides' discussion of the verb eimi with its insistence that this verb be understood solely in the existential sense, not in the usage as copula, how will that help? Or to Plato's discussion, in the dialogue, Sophistês, of whether to on (and Plato there doesn't use ho ôn but to on-- usually conveyed as "Being") can be devoid of life, how would that help in terms of language usage itself?

I might suggest that you read a classic little work of Thorleif Boman entitled Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek--it was originally published back in the '50s of the last century and I was surprised just now to find that it is still in print and in a paperback edition (Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/3dlvxr). It was back in the '50s while I was beginning graduate work that I read it. It is an interesting read (as I recall) but it has been both highly praised and damned and pronounced "dated." It has a chapter comparing the Hebrew verb hayah with the Greek verb eimi.

For my part, I haven't ever seen a discussion of the question here raised that did anything more than a superficial probe of how the Greek translation expresses the Hebrew original of the Masoretic Text. I tend to doubt whether the question can be resolved by any approach that could be called in any way "scientific."

One respondent raised the text question:

It seems reasonable that the LXX reflects a different underlying text which would've included the Tetragrammaton in the ho ôn position, the Hebrew being perhaps simply ehyeh YHWH ("I am YHWH"), which was simply literally translated egô eimi ho ôn. ho ôn is certainly a passable translation of YHWH - "He Is" - and is likewise understood thus in patristic texts and iconography.

And this reply came:

While it is not impossible that the LXX had a Vorlage different from Masoretic Text, I see no good reason to think so. Instead, a number of facts suggest that the translator had the same text (as MT) in Ex 3:14, but that he interpreted/exegeted his source text:

1. The expected reading, esomai hos esomai, would have been quite grammatical.
2. ehyeh asher ehyeh produces two unique Hebrew-Greek equivalences:
   • ehyeh = egô eimi, and
   • ehyeh = ôn
3. the third occurrence of ehyeh in 3:14 is brought into line.
   

Therefore, what we have, it would seem, is a deliberate move away from the source text, i.e., a piece of exegesis. Why he exegeted the way he did is not certain, but a reasonable guess is that he intended to personify the Greek philosophical phrase to on ("being").

Is the Septuagint Inspired?

Image courtesy of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. Gregory-Aland 676: Minuscule. 13th Century. A Gospels, Acts, and Epistles manuscript. 344 leaves of parchment. Single column, 28 lines per column. Muenster. 2 Timothy 3:16 begins with the first word in the first line on the page (click to enlarge).

2 Timothy 3:16 states that "all Scripture is inspired by God" (θεοπνευστος, lit. "God-breathed"):

πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν, προς ελεγμον, προς επανορθωσιν, προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη,
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (NASB)

Most agree that by "Scripture," Paul (or the author of 2 Timothy, if one questions Pauline authorship) means the Old Testament Scriptures (though the statement that "all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable," etc., is applied by Christians to the New Testament, including 2 Timothy, as well). E.g.:

First, to what did Paul refer by his use of "Scripture"? The term "Scripture" (graphē) is usually a reference to the Old Testament (just as is "holy Scriptures" in the preceding verse).⁴⁸ Paul’s reference to the "holy Scriptures" in 3:15 is clearly a statement about the Old Testament. He continued to refer to the Old Testament in 3:16.
⁴⁸ Peter used the term γραφάς in reference to the writings of Paul in 2 Pet 3:16. The evidence seems to suggest that he was putting Paul’s writing on the level of OT Scripture although not all evangelicals follow this interpretation. For a discussion of the issue, see M. Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 147–49.

Lea, T. D., & Griffin, H. P. (2001, c1992). Vol. 34: 1, 2 Timothy, Titus The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

And for the author of 2 Timothy, as well as for his readers, the Old Testament Scriptures would most likely have been the Septuagint (LXX) - i.e., the Greek translation begun in the mid-third century B.C. As Lee Martin McDonald, Professor of New Testament Studies and President of Acadia Divinity College, Nova Scotia, Canada, writes:

"The importance of the LXX from a canonical perspective is not only that it was the Bible of the early Christian church and cited more than 90 percent of the time by the NT writers when quoting the OT, but that it also differs considerably from the Hebrew text in several important passages...."

McDonald, Lee Martin (2007). The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (p. 123). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

This raises a couple questions:

• When the Masoretic (Hebrew) and LXX (Greek) Old Testament texts differ (see, e.g., my previous post on Hebrews 10:5), why do most Christians almost uniformly prefer the Hebrew readings in their Bibles and translations instead of the text used by the early Christians and the authors of the New Testament?
• Why do the authors of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, contra the New Testament authors' use and view of the LXX, apply the term "inspiration" only to the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament?

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
II. Articles of Affirmation and Denial

Article X.
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

III. Exposition

E. Transmission and Translation

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text* appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

* Note: "Greek text" in "Hebrew and Greek text" is a reference to the New Testament text, not to the LXX text.

Also, since it appears that the LXX in the first century included the so-called "Apocryphal" books, why do most Protestants exclude these "God-breathed" writings from their collection and canon and definition of "Scripture" when it is quite likely that the author of 2 Timothy did not?

I suppose one could argue that even if the author of 2 Timothy was errant in his assumptions and beliefs about the LXX and the Apocrypha, he was inerrant in writing that "all Scripture is inspired by God," etc. Such an argument, however, raises the issue of authorial intent and seems to be at variance with the historical-grammatical method ("The aim of the historical-grammatical method is to discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood." - from the Wikipedia link), and hence in conflict with Article XVIII. of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which states:

"We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture."

Is 2 Timothy 3:16 God-breathed and inerrant and infallible in what it says and means and asserts? If so (or even if not so), what are the implications of this verse for the LXX and the Apocrypha?


Image courtesy of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. Gregory-Aland 676: Minuscule. 13th Century. A Gospels, Acts, and Epistles manuscript. 344 leaves of parchment. Single column, 28 lines per column. Muenster. 2 Timothy 2:19 begins in the middle of the 6th line from the top (click to enlarge).
Per the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (Edition 27), the author of 2 Timothy uses direct quotations from the Old Testament as follows (all in 2:19): Numbers 16:5, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus - i.e., the Apocrypha) 17:26, and Isaiah 26:13.

The text of 2 Timothy 2:19 reads:

ο μεντοι στερεος θεμελιος του θεου εστηκεν, εχων την σφραγιδα ταυτην: εγνω κυριος τους οντας αυτου, και, αποστητω απο αδικιας πας ο ονομαζων το ονομα κυριου.
Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness." (NIV)

The LXX passages are:

Numbers 16:5: και ελαλησεν προς Κορε και προς πασαν αυτου την συναγωγην λεγων Επεσκεπται και εγνω ο θεος τους οντας αυτου και τους αγιους και προσηγαγετο προς εαυτον, και ους εξελεξατο εαυτω, προσηγαγετο προς εαυτον.
And he spoke to Korah and all his assembly, saying, God has visited and known those that are his and who are holy, and has brought them to himself; and whom he has chosen for himself, he has brought to himself.

Sirach 17:26: επαναγε επι υψιστον και αποστρεφε απο αδικιας και σφοδρα μισησον βδελυγμα.
Turn again to the most High, and turn away from iniquity, and hate thou abomination vehemently.

Isaiah 26:13: κυριε ο θεος ημων, κτησαι ημας· κυριε, εκτος σου αλλον ουκ οιδαμεν, το ονομα σου ονομαζομεν.
O Lord our God, take possession of us: O Lord, we know not any other beside thee: we name thy name.

---

I realize that this is a complex and complicated subect. E.g., an essay in The Canon Debate (Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, Editors) by a Jesuit/Catholic scholar (i.e., a person whose Church has canonized the Deuterocanonicals) examines and questions the evidence or assertion that the Gospels and Epistles quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Hebrews 10:5: An Interesting Case for Hermeneutics, Canonicity and Inerrancy

(At some point I'll lay out or develop my thoughts about the following. Or maybe they'll just appear in the comments in response to what others may say.)

Hebrews 10:5 reads:

διο εισερχομενος εις τον κοσμον λεγει, θυσιαν και προσφοραν ουκ ηθελησας, σωμα δε κατηρτισω μοι

"Therefore when he comes into the world he says: 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me.'"

1. What does it mean for the "historical-grammatical method" (or "hermeneutic") that the author of Hebrews makes Jesus the speaker of these words?
2. What does it mean for Evangelical Protestant beliefs about canonicity and inerrancy that the author of Hebrews used and quoted the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Psalm 39:7?*
   
   * Psalm 40:6 according to the Hebrew/Masoretic Text numbering. SEPTUAGINTA (Rahlfs) agrees with the Masoretic Text in adopting ωτια ("ears") [Ga (Psalterium Gallicanum)] here, rather than σωμα ("body") [B (Vaticanus), S (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus)].

Feel free to comment!