Luke’s Use of Pss 68:26 LXX and 108:8 LXX
Some
of the major differences are worth noting: Ps 68:26a LXX (69:25a ET) genēthētō
hē epaulis autōn erēmōmenē (“May their camp be a desolation,” NRSV) becomes
genēthētō hē epaulis autōn erēmos (“Let his farm become deserted”) in
Acts 1:20a. A few witnesses (81.326.2495 pc d* t vgcl.ww syhmg)
read autōn, thereby conforming the Lukan text to the LXX. Then Ps 68:26b
LXX’s kai en tois skēnōmasin autōn mē estō ho katoikōn (“let no one live
in their tents,” 69:25b NRSV) becomes kai mē estō ho katoikōn en autē (“let
there be no one who lives in it”) in Acts 1:20b. The shift from plural to
singular possessive pronouns enables the reader to think of a single referent,
Judas. “Farm” or “homestead” (hē epaulis) suggests property ownership
and is ambiguous enough to imply property acquired through purchase rather than
inheritance. In spite of the grammatical change from “be deserted” (LXX ērēmōmenē)
to “desert” (erēmos) in Acts 1:20a, the core idea of “desert” or “desolation”
remains. The newly altered form also rhymes with heteros (“another”) in
the second citation (v. 20c; from Ps 108:8b LXX [109:8b ET]), thereby connecting
the two situations more tightly.
Changes
in the second half of the Ps 68:26b LXX quote move in the same direction.
Dropping en tois skēnōmasin autōn (“in their tents,” 69:25 NRSV) eliminates
yet another plural possessive pronoun. Adding en autē (“in it”) in the
second line makes hē epaulis (“the farm”) from the previous line the
necessary referent. So altered, the second line reinforces the connection with
Judas’s death: “Let there be no one who lives in it.” This wording reinforces
the extent of desolation.
The
double imperative gives each line added force. In its altered form, ps 68:26
LXX now contains two intertwined prophecies, both requiring fulfillment.
The second
Psalms citation requires less modification to make it fit Judas. Thus Ps 108:8b
LXX’s tēn episkopēn auto laboi heteros (“may another seize his position,”
109:8b NRSV) becomes tēn episkopēn autou labetō heteros (“Let another
take his position”) in Acts 1:20c. Some form of office involving oversight is
suggested by tēn episkopēn autou (“his position”). A successor to such
an office is clearly envisioned by heteros (“another”). Changing from
the optative laboi (“may he take”) to the imperative labetō (“let
him take”) creates yet another prophecy requiring fulfillment as well as a
tighter grammatical connection with the previous citation. (Carol R. Holladay, Acts:
A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2016], 80)
As a
prayer of deliverance, Ps 68 LXX targets enemies from whom the psalmist wishes
to be set free (68:19 [69:18 ET]). Noting their insults (68:20-22 [69:19-21]),
the psalmist asks that divine vengeance will be brought against them (68:23-24
[69:22-23]). In this context, the psalmist prayer, “Let their steading becomes
desolated and let there be no one who
lives
in their coverts” (68:26 NETS [cf. 69:25 ET).
By
what referential logic does Luke move from the psalmist’s vindictive prayer
against his enemies to Judas? Possibly Luke understands Psalms 68 LXX as an
expression responsible for their “shame and dishonor” Jesus experienced. Psalm 68:22
LXX, “And they gave gall as my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to
drink” (NETS [cf. 69:21 ET]), was already embedded deeply in the tradition relating
to Jesus’s death (cf. Mark 15:23; Matt 27:34; Luke 23:36). It might have been
natural to extend the psalm’s application to other events related to Jesus’s
passion. Of Jesus’s enemies had given him “vinegar to drink” to quench his
thirst (Ps 68:22 LXX [69:21]), it would have been relatively easy to apply the
imprecations of Ps 68:23-29 LXX (69:22-28 ET) to Judas, the betrayer. Knowing
that he had died, one could have imagined his being “blotted out of the book of
the living” (68:29 [69:28]) and his “camp” becoming so desolate that no one
would live in it (68:26 [69:25]).
Here,
then, we have a psalm that had already been used by Luke’s predecessors in
shaping the passion narrative. Rather than creating this christological
allusion, Luke has inherited it from the earlier Jesus tradition. His
hermeneutical innovation was in extending its application beyond the crucifixion
itself to include the actions and fate of Judas, whose death fits the pattern
of divine vengeance expressed in Psalm 68 LXX. By aligning himself against
Jesus, Judas had made himself an enemy of God, thereby inviting God’s wrath and
indignation. In this sense, Judas’s death was a “divine necessity.”
The
second Psalms citation (108:8 LXX [109:8 ET]) in Acts 1:20b is also taken from
a prayer of deliverance from accusers and enemies. As before, it could easily
be understood as expressing Jesus’s own sentiments. Surrounded by “wicked and deceitful
mouths” (Ps 109:2 NRSV) and those speaking “against me with a deceitful tongue”
(108:2 NETS), the psalmist feels attacked without cause. Even though he has
loved his enemies, they have accused him even as he prays for them (108:4-5 LXX
[109:4-5])—a motif particularly resonant with Luke’s portrait of Jesus’s death
(Luke 23:34, assuming its textual authenticity). In this context, “Let his days
become few, and may another seize his position” (Ps 108:8 NETS [109:8]) are the
taunts brought against the righteous man by his accusers. Interpreted christologically,
the psalm refers to Jesus as the one whose days are numbered and whose position
would be taken from him.
How,
then, does Ps 108:8b LXX (109:8b ET) become a warrant for finding Judas’s
successor? Perhaps through ironical application: The one responsible for Jesus’s
being brought to trial by false accusation and for “seizing his position”
actually has his own position seized by another. The logic through which Luke applies
Ps 108:8 LXX to the replacement of Judas seems more forced than his use of Ps
68:26 LXX. Since his application of Ps 108:8 LXX is arbitrary, Luke is here
accommodating the OT text for his own interpretive purpose. (Ibid., 82-83)