Commenting
on James’ argument during the Council of Jerusalem, Elena Butova wrote:
James started his answer with an imperative
of request, ακουσατε μου.
This feature reflects a common way to start a speech and could be omitted with no
harm to the idea. Luke, however, keeps the wording in order to call the reader
to attention, because the following exposition by James provides the answer to
all discussion and convinces the council. The
way in which James has chosen to arrange his arguments reflects midrashic
tradition. This type of Torah explanation allowed James to summarize
previous opinions and bring them into accordance with the teaching of Torah. The
midrashic explanation was always employed when the inner meaning of Torah was
needed. Because the Pharisaic party stated that the will of God, according
Torah, demands making Gentile converts into proselytes, the opponents had to
disprove those statements, and supplant them by providing stronger Torah-based
arguments.
James chose to start with Συμεων
εξηγησατο,
introducing a summary of Peter’s arguments. This show that James agreed with
Peter’s opinion and took it as a starting point for his own explanation. (Elena
Butova, The Four Prohibitions of Acts 15
and Their Common Background in Genesis 1-3 [Eugene, Oreg: Wipf and Stock,
2018], 91-92)
Continuing,
we have a discussion of the biblical text James relies upon in his arguments:
. . .James quotes Amos 9:11, according to the
LXX, to the Jewish audience assembled in Jerusalem. He could rather have used
the original Hebrew wording, instead of the reading in the LXX. The difference
is significant. The Hebrew reads “and I will build them as in the days of old,
that they (the Israelites) may inherit (יירשׁוּ) what remains of Edom (את שׁאריּת אדוֹם) and of the
other nations over which my name is named.” The LXX reads יירשׁוּ as ידרשׁוּ (omitting את, and translates it εκζητησωσι, “to seek.” According to Glenny, the Hebrew “they
may possess the remnant of Edom,” appears in the LXX as “that the remnant of
men may seek me” (Glenny explains the contradiction by the translator’s misreading
of the second yod in the word יירשו [“possess”], which lead to the change to dalet and became ידרשו [“seek”]. Glenny, “Septuagint and Apostolic
Hermeneutics,” 6, 7). Moreover, LXX reads מוֹדא as מדא, and takes מדא as the subject of the verb instead of the
object. Thus, “men” becomes the subject of the sentence instead of “Edom” (Lake
and Cadbury, English Translation and
Commentary, 176). As a result, the meaning of the whole phrase shifts from “a
promise that Israel should possess their lands” to a promise of conversion of
the Gentiles (Lake and Cadbury, English
Translation and Commentary).
According to Glenny’s observation the LXX
translation of Amos 9:11 contradicts the other passages in the Minor Prophets
(Hos 9:6; Amos 2:10; Obad 17, 19, 20; Mic 1:15; Hab 1:6; Zech 9:4), where the
Hebrew, yāraš, was translated with
the Greek κληρονεμεω, “to
inherit,” and not “seek.” Glenny accounts for it by the fact that LXX
translators could have been influenced by the wording of Zechariah’s prophecy
(Glenny, “Septuagint and Apostolic Hermeneutics,” 8). Zech 14:2, 9, 16, similar
to Amos 9:12, contain the phrase πατα τα εθνη and καταλειψθωσιν εκ παντων των εθνων. The
wording of Zech 8:22 repents in the following manner, και εθνη πολλα εκζητησαι
το προσωπον κυριου.
Here, the aorist infinitive εκζητησαι means “to exert effort to find out or learn
someth., seek out, search for” (BDAD,
εκζητεω, 1). The
LXX translators most likely adjusted the wording of Amos to the similar text in
Zechariah's prophecy (Glenny, “Septuagint and Apostolic Hermeneutics,” 8). If
one accepts that the LXX was used by Jews living in the diaspora, and that they
had access to the Greek translation of these Hebrew prophecies, it becomes
clear that the reading, “that the rest of men may seek the Lord,” appeared
preferable. (Ibid., 96-97)
Addressing
the question as to why James used the
LXX reading for his Jewish audience, Butova favours the proposal that:
. . . James clearly prefers the wording which
presumes an inheritance achieved by way of conversion of the Gentiles to the
wording which suggests the way of territorial expansion. His view on the
restoration of the fallen tent appears in terms of the growth of the Gospel
message, and not in terms of land possession. In contract to the military tone
of the Exodus narrative, the interpretation of the prophets, declared by James
at the council, reveals a peaceful restoration of the kingdom (ανοικοδομησω and ανορθωσω linked to the “booth of David”),
where all nations are accepted (οπως αν εκζητιησωσιν . . . τον κυριον . . .
παντα τα εθνη). This
contrasts the idea expressed by the Exodus narrative, and likely finds its
meaning in terms of the final restoration of the whole creation. That is why
James prefers the LXX reading to MT, as it helps him to go further back then
the Exodus, and reach the time of creation and the foundation of the world in
its undivided wholistic condition.
Moreover, the purpose of James’ LXX citation
was to link the promised restoration of the kingdom (αοικοδομησω and ανορθωσω) with Jesus’ victory over death.
Glenny states that in v. 17 παντα τα τθνη is
connected by οπως + the aorist
subjunctive εκζητησωσιν
to the previously mentioned “booth of David” (Glenny, “Septuagint and Apostolic
Hermeneutics,” 5-6). From this point he explains the restoration of the “booth
of David” in terms of the resurrection of the Messiah, with the result that
Gentiles may now seek the Lord (Glenny, “Septuagint and Apostolic Hermeneutics,”
6 n. 19, 18). Thus, at the council, James shifted the focus of discussion “from
a proselyte model to an eschatological one” (Longenecker, Acts, 446). (Ibid., 98-99)
