identity of the veil in mark15

7/31/2019 Identity of the Veil in Mark15

1/11

LXX SYNTAX A N D T H E IDENTITYO F T H E N T VEIL

by

DANIEL M. GURTNER

St Paul, Minnesota

Abstract

This article argues in the NT (Mt. 27:51a, Mk. 15:38, Lk. 23:45,

Hb . 6:19, 9:3, 10:20) is best identified as the inner veil () before the holy of

holies based on syntactical evidence from their LXX sources.

In 2000, R. E. Gane convincingly argued that if the expression

(Hb. 6:19) is based on the LXX, where

"inner veil" (2) is the only possible meaning (Ex. 26:33; Lv. 16:2,

12, 15), it should also be "inner veil" in Hb. &A9.1

Gane's observa

tion that the term is qualified by the term is

important because it acknowledges a trend, recognized by NT authors,

of the LXX translators with respect to the term . That

is, while the Greek translators of the LXX are often inconsistent in

what Hebrew term they translate as (it can itself refer to

any of three curtains in the tabernacle), we will argue that the pres

ence ofcontextual qualifiers, such as , have afforded the LXX

translators such liberties, because their use of such contextual indica

tors in general and locative genitives2 in particular served to convey

1"Re-opening Katapetasma ('Veil') in Hebrews 6:19," AUSS 38 (2000) 5-8. He wrote

in response to a previous article by George Rice ("Hebrews 6:19: An Analysis of Some

Assumptions Concerning Katapetasma"AUSS 25 [1987] 65-71), who argues that the

term is a metaphorical expression for the entiretyofthe heavenly sanctuary.2

We prefer the term "locative" to describe this genitive rather than "partitive," for

the latter indicates the head noun is a "part" of the noun in the genitive, whereas

"locative" makes no such claim, only indicating its location. Gf. Daniel B. Wallace,GreekGrammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 84-85; Friedrich Blas

A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A GreekGrammar of the New Testament and Oth


2/11

LXX SYNTAX AND THE IDENTITY OF THE NT VEIL 3 4 5

precisely which "" was in view.3

Specifically, when a loca

tive genitive is employed, without exception, the term orclause in the

genitive case identifies a particular location within the tabernacle/tem

ple complex (doorway of the tent ofmeeting, entrance ofthe court

yard, entrance of the tabernacle), explicitly conveying that the

in view is not the "inner veil," which occurs at none of

these locations. This indicates that is the "default" term

for the inner veil in the LXX, and where is used for a

curtain other than the inner veil, the LXX translator indicates so by

the use of a locative genitive. This syntactical feature ofthe LXX was

recognized and employed byNew Testament authors where likewise is used exclusively ofthe inner veil before the holy ofholies,

as it is not otherwise indicated by a locative genitive.

1. Word Choices and Translational Problems

Within the LXX occurs 38 times,4

34 ofwhich have

corresponding Hebrew texts.5

In 28 of the 34 occurrences there is a

corresponding Hebrew word for the Greek use of , thatHebrew word is 3 (82.35% ofthe time).

6While this clearly leans

in favor of corresponding to the Hebrew , it is far

from conclusive. In fact there are three tabernacle curtains called

: 28 times is used for the "inner veil" (2)

Brill, 2003] 171 n. 39). Yet this does not most accurately convey the relationship

between the main noun and its genitive.3

It does not, as Fearghas Fearghail ("Sir 50,5-21: Yom Kippur or the DailyWhole-Offering?," Bib 59 [1978] 309) suggests, "obliterate any distinction that mayhave existed in the Hebrew text."

4 Sir. 50:5; Ex. 26:31, 33 [3x], 34, 35, 37; 27:21; 30:6; 35:12; 37:3, 5, 16; 38:18;39:4, 19; 40:3, 5, 21, 22, 26; Lv. 4:6, 17; 16:2, 12, 15; 21:23; 24:3; 1 Mace. 1:22;4:51; Nu. 3:10, 26; 4:5, 32; 18:7; 2 Chr. 3:14; 1 Kgs. 6:36a.

5 Sir. 50:5; Ex. 26:31, 33 [3x], 34, 35, 37; 27:21; 30:6; 35:12; 37:3 (= MT 36:35),5 (= MT 36:37), 16a (= MT 38:18a); 38:18 (= MT 36:35); 39:4 (= MT 38:27), 19b(= MT 40b); 40:3, 21, 22, 26; Lv. 4:6, 17; 16:2, 12, 15; 21:23; 24:3; Nu. 3:10, 26;4:5, 32; 18:7; 2 Chr. 3:14. This assumes that the LXX translates from something reasonably similar to the Masoretic Text, an assumption challenged on syntactical groundsby Anneli Aejmelaeus, "Septuagintal Translation TechniquesA Solution to the Problemof the Tabernacle Account" in G. J. Brooke and B. Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, Scrolb andCognate Writings (CS 33; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992) 381-402. Cf. Daniel M. Gurtner,


3/11

346 DANIEL M. GURTNER

before the holy of holies, twice for the "screen" ("[OD) in front of the

Holy Place,7 and four times for the "curtain at the entrance to the

courtyard" at the tabernacle.8

Since there are three (and only three)

valid choices for the identity of one cannot try to settle

the issue on the basis of preponderance of lexical evidence alone.

It is unfortunate that most NT scholars seeking to identify which

of the three curtains is in view in the six NT occurrences

of the term (Mt. 27:51a; Mk. 15:38; Lk. 23:45; Hb. 6:19; 9:3; 10:20)

abandon the LXX as a means of identifying which veil is in view

because of inconclusive lexical evidence. For the LXX provides impor

tant syntactical indicators that can help identify which of the threecurtains translated in the LXX which N T authors had

in mind. Specifically, when syntactical contexts use no qualifiers, such

as , always refers to the inner veil (3). This

indicates that when the LXX speaks of "the veil" or just "veil," it

inevitably refers to this "inner" () veil; was the

"default" term for 2.9

The difficulty comes when, as both Gane

and Rice note, there are exceptions to the " = 3" for

mula.

10

Yet we will see that such exceptions are attributed to the fact

7LXX Ex. 26:37; 37:5 (= M T 36:37).

8LXX Ex. 37:16a (= M T 38:18a); 39:19b (= M T 40b); Nu. 3:26b; 4:32.

9Ex. 26:31; 35:12; 40:26; Lv. 21:23. This point is recognized by Craig S. Keener,

A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 686 n. 243.Similarly Eta Linnemann, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1970) 159 Pace . Celada ("El velo del Templo," CB 15 [1958] 111-12),

who insists was nota technical term and therefore insists the exterior veilwas in view for the evangelists.

10Some scholars, notably Walter Grundmann (Das Evangelium nach Matthaus [Berlin:

Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968] 566 n. 9) and Ernst Lohmeyer (Evangelium des Matthaus[Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 41967] 395) presume such a formula holds.That all of these exceptions, save Nu. 3:26b, are found in the troublesome tabernacletexts of the Greek of Exodus should advise us to approach it with caution. For discussion of the problems with the LXX of the tabernacle accounts, cf. David W. Gooding,The Account of the Tabernacle (Cambridge: University Press, 1959) 3-7; A. H. Finn, "TheTabernacle Chapters," JTS 16 (1915) 449-82; Aejmelaeus, "Septuagintal TranslationTechniques," 381-402; Wade, Consistency, 3. For a discussion of the ordering of theconstruction account in Exodus 35-40, cf. Ralph W. Klein, "Back to the Future: TheTabernacle in the Book of Exodus," Interp. 50 (1996) 264-76. Cf. also V. A. Hurowitz,

"The Priesdy Account of Budding the Tabernacle," JAOS 105 (1985) 21-30; RichardE. Averbeck, "Tabe rnacle," D07P, 816. Tabernacle text translator(s) seems to have

l d l h f l k h


4/11

LXX SYNTAX AND THE IDENTITY OF THE NT VEIL 347

that the LXX translators employed stylistic variation11

because they

employed syntactical markers that provided the specificity required to

determine which "curtain" was in mind. We will show further evi

dence of apparent translational inconsistencies with respect to the veil

in the Greek of Exodus, evaluate the potential confusion created by

it, and demonstrate the contextual clarity provided by the LXX trans

lator to positively identify the in view.

While the translator of Leviticus mostly renders 3 with

12 and translates no other term, that of Exodus

is far less consistent. For the 17 occurrences of in the MT of

Exodus,13

only once (LXX Ex. 39:20b [= MT 39:34b]) does the Exodustranslator use a term other than .

14Yet in

Exodus also translates "[OD for the screen at the entrance to the tent

(Ex. 26:37 [= MT 26:36]; 37:5 [36:37]), -JOD for the entrance to the

courtyard (37:16a [= MT 38:18a]; 39:19b [= MT 39:40b]), or 03

-]0DH for the veil before the holy of holies (Ex. 35:12a; 40:21).15

Thus,

though generally is the default term for the inner veil,

there are a few notable exceptions worthy of consideration.

seems that in at least one instance the Vorlage for the LXX in these texts was not iden

tical to the MT. Cf. Gurtner, "'Atonement Slate' or 'Veil'?," 396-8.11

Andre Pelletier says LXX simply replaces with synonyms. ("Le 'Voile'

du Temple de Jrusalem est-il devenu la 'Portire' du Temple d'Olympie," Syria 32[1955] 297). Cf. R. Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 59.

12 There are two exceptions to this trend at Lv. 4:6 and 17, where a variant reading () offered by mss Mmq*ux (v. 6) and bgjns(txt)v(txt)wz(txt) and the OldLatin (Robert's edition; v. 17). Indeed, the majority of occurrences of in

Leviticus (16:2, 12, 15; 21:23; 24:3) offer no alternative readings in any extant manu

script tradition.13

Eighteen, if one counts the variant reading found in Origen's Hebrew text at Ex.

26:34.14

Here Exodus translates "|0 3 with .15

Yet the problem is not generally to be attributed to the Exodus translator but to

that of the second account (Exodus 35-40). Indeed, while the Greek of the first account,

Exodus 25-30, largely resembles the Hebrew and is relatively consistent, neither could

be said, at least to the same degree, of the second account in Exodus 35-41. Recognizedas early as Origen (Epistula ad Africanum 4), this has led scholars to presume the two

accounts are the ork of more than a single translator We tentati el follo the n


5/11


2. Exceptions to the Rule: Contextual and Syntactical Solutions to Word-Choice

Problems

The first significant16 exception to the " = " rule

is found in Ex. 26:37, where we read that Moses is told to "make

gold hooks for the curtain" ("jOQ^,17

18). Clearly the

issue is how the LXX could render "[OD as , when it so

clearly favors for elsewhere. The "curtain" (Ex.

26:37) in question is the curtain "for the entrance ofthe tent ofmeet

ing" (Ex. 26:36), which is rendered "[OD19

and in Ex. 26:36 is trans

lated . Why translate "[OD with in Ex. 26:36but with in Ex. 26:37? Gooding refers to this text among

"examples ofour translator's inaccuracy"20 which "obliterates an intended

distinction" and due to the fact that "the translator was determined

to have variety."21 While Gooding's observation is generally valid with

respect to a one-to-one relationship (on the word level),22

LXX translators

16There is a previous variant in Ex. 26:36, where Origen indicates an unknown

source reading . However, because of its lack of anysubstantial manu

script support beyond that single reference, it will not be addressed here. At anotherplace (Ex. 26:34), appears to translate mSD ("atonement slate"), thoughit is more likely that the LXX translator was working from a different (erroneous)Hebrew Vorlage. Cf. Gurtner "'Atonement Slate' or 'Veil'?," 396-8.

17 There is no alternative reading in anyextant Hebrew tradition.18 Perhaps later scribes recognized an inconsistency, as there are witnesses to

in place of in Codex Ambrosianus (VII) (corrections incursive hands), and a significant number ofcursives. Cf. A. E. Brooke and N. McLean(eds.), The OldTestamentin Greek (1/2; Cambridge: University Press, 1909) 243; John

William Wevers (ed.), Exodus (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum AuctoritateAcademiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, 2/ 1; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1991) 304. The reading is likewise found in some cursives.19 Without exception in the Hebrew tradition.20 Gooding, The Accountof the Tabernacle, 37. Though Gooding acknowledges the tran

lator's desire forvariety as a motive for his "inaccuracy," we prefer to consider themas stylistic variations rather than "inaccuracies." For it seems the translator was cognizant ofthe fact that he was producing a significant piece ofliterature for a Greek-reading audience while recognizing that such variation often leads to confusion. Theinconsistencies Gooding indicates, though, are apparent in variant readings. , a curious word, is rendered by Codex X of Origen's Hexapla, by a marginal reading in Codex VII, and in the marginof Codex 128. Perhaps further to clarify (though actually confusing) the issue, anotherreading has , and bythe cursive corrections to Codex Ambrosianus. Cf. Origen, et al.,Orgenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt: sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Tes


6/11


betray contextual or syntactical elements beyond the mere word-level

of their translation that indicate which "" was intended,

and therefore felt free to choose different terms for the veil.

While the reading at Ex. 26:37 is quickly clarified by

the preceding context to indicate it refers to the curtain "for the

entrance of the tent of meeting" (Ex. 26:36), the apparent tension cre

ated in LXX word choices is relieved in most cases when one recog

nizes the translator's careful use of locative genitives. At Ex. 37:5 (LXX;

= MT 36:37) the presence of locative genitives following

makes it abundantly clear that the in view is the one

located at "the entrance of the tent of meeting" ( ), where the M T reads "]DQ.23 Why translate "JOD with

if is the "default" translation for 3?

Wevers argues that this text "was consciously constructed as a paral

lel to v. 3; in fact, except for designating the veil as

it is an exact copy, in spite of the differences

in MT where instead of v. 5 has "]0D and for DCn it has

Dpi."24 If Wevers is correct, then rather than depending on its Vorlage,

Exodus here copied its own work at v. 3 (= MT 36:35).25 That is,

although Ex. 37:3 (= MT 36:35) does refer to the inner veil, appro

priately designated in the Hebrew using 3, the Hebrew author

made it clear that Ex. 37:5 (= MT 36:37) refers to a different veil.

He did this by using "]0Q rather than , but the Greek translator

seems to have erroneously followed his own translation in 37:3 (= MT

36:35) and thus translated both terms . Yet he does not

leave the reader confused as to which is in view, for his

use of the locative genitive construction (

) clearly indicates that the 3 is not in mind, for the 3 isnot located at "the entrance of the tent of meeting."

At Ex. 37:16a (LXX; = MT 38:18a) we read of the curtain of the

entrance of the courtyard ( ). Again,

23There is no variation of this reading in extant Hebrew traditions. Origen agrees

with the reading, but he notes Aquila has , and Codex X

of the Hexapla reads in the text, with in the margin.

In the Vaticanus tradition is seen in Codex Coislinianus, and x, whereas

again appears in the curs ives/(53) and i (56). Also attested are and !

24John William Wevers Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SCS 30; Adanta: Scholars


7/11


however, we find in the MT "[Du.26

Why the translator chose to use

rather than the favored for this term is unclear.

What is likely the case, however, is that because the term

is specified by the (locative genitive) qualifying phrase

, the translator likely felt that there would be no room for con

fusion between this and the veil, for the latter is not located at

the entrance of the courtyard.

The most problematic text, at least from a text-critical standpoint,

is found in Ex. 40:5, where the author describes "the curtain" which

is placed "at the entrance to the tabernacle;" i.e., not necessarily the

"curtain of the entrance to the tabernacle." Here the isitself the genitive:

. Although the M T reads "]OQ,27 the term

preferred for the hanging at the entrance to the tabernacle (Ex. 35:15;

37:5 [= MT 36:37]; 39:19b [= MT 39:40b]), it is translated

in one other text (Ex. 39:19b [= MT 39:40b]). Perhaps the translator

recognized that when the veil was "placed" somewhere, whether the

-|0D (Ex. 36:37 = LXX 37:5) or the rOTS (Ex. 26:31; 36:35 = LXX

37:3; 2 Chr. 3:14), it was always translated with and theconscientious scribe was simply trying to be consistent. Or he thought

the 3 veil was in view rather than the "|0Q because it was listed

with the ark, or simply chose a word that elsewhere he has used for

either "[OD or .28

A final text where "[OD is translated is Nu. 3:26b in

reference again to the curtain at the entrance to the tabernacle. Yet

26This is affirmed by the Samaritan Pentateuch and Hebrew tradition. We again,

however, find broad disagreement in the Vaticanus tradition of the reading .

is attested by Alexandrinus, Amborianus, and several later uncial codices

and some cursives. (g), and (/) are also attested, while other mss

omit it entirely. Cf. Wevers (ed.), Exodus, 415. In Ex. 39:34b (= LXX 39:20b) the MT

reads " 3 and the Greek of Exodus again provides ,

lumping both "]OD and into a general category of the "remaining curtains." Cf.

Gooding, The Account of the Tabernacle, 97.27

Likewise the Samaritan Pentateuch.2 8

The reading finds similarity only at Ex. 40:21 (

, translating 2) where it is clearly used for the in

ner veil. Origen reads likewise, while Codex 72 of his Hexapla has a marginal note with

. The Syro-Hexaplar in Codex 72 reads rn\ .**\\


8/11


for the same hanging, the Hebrew is previously (Nu. 3:25b) translated

.29 Perhaps this is again accountable simply to stylistic

variation, but nevertheless it is qualified in the Greek by an expres

sion removing anyambiguityas to which "veil" was in view. Forthere,

again, we find following the term the qualification

, a locative genitive which clearly removes "13 from consideration.

3. Greek Expansions of the Hebrew

If it is reasonable to presume the Greek translatorwas working from

texts similar to the MT in these locations. What the translatorwasdoing with his use of the genitives with respect to the veil is easily

recognizable. Twice he has used the genitive to render the Hebrew

bmm (Ex. 27:21; 30:6), once for n inK (Nu. 3:26b), and twice forthe proclitic b (1? EX. 37:5 [= MT 36:37]; &>Ex. 39:19b [= MT

40b]), as one would expect. There are four instances, however, where

the Greek has expanded upon the Hebrew forthe sake ofclarification.

For the Greek uses expanded phrases beginning with a locative geni

tive foreach ofthe following readings:

\ Ex. 37:16a [= M T 38:18a]

pocb -]0D-riR ) Ex. 40:5

VOnsh 3 DQTT Ex. 40:223 '33 mrr'lb Lv. 4:17

Each of these serves to clarify which curtain is in view by means ofan inserted locative genitive not clearly indicated by the Hebrew syntax. This suggests that the LXX translators employed locative genitives to clarify precisely which curtain was in view, particularly withrespect to ambiguous Hebrew readings. This important observationunderscores our thesis that is the favored and "default"term for the "inner veil" (5) and, where translators employed

for a curtain other than that veil, they clearly indicated

the distinction by means oflocative genitives.

29Though the reading at this location is attested at Nu. 3:26b, as oppans in

the Old Latin codex 100 the Greek tradition otherwise only knows Cf


9/11


4. Conclusion

The above discussion shows that scholars cannot presume that variances in word choices employed by LXX translators of veil language

necessarily results in ambiguity regarding which curtain or veil was in

view. Instead, LXX translators have consistently used as

their "default" translation of 3 ("inner veil"). Where

refers to another curtain in the tabernacle, the translator has taken

care to provide contextual indications or, more commonly, syntactical

qualifiers (locative genitives) to indicate precisely which "curtain" was

in view. It is likely that in the six NT uses of , authors

also recognized the term as referring to the inner, veil before the holy

of holies. Where they use , synoptic authors employ a

genitive similar to those employed by the LXX ( ,

Mt. 27:51a; Mk. 15:38; Lk. 23:45).30

The synoptic authors, recogniz

ing its LXX origin and perhaps also its role in exclusively cultic con

texts,31

employed a general locative genitive ( ) not to refer to

a particular location within the temple (as in the LXX, because

does not occur in any extant literature prior to

the NT), but to bring the reader from the narrative location at Golgothato the temple and simply presume the "inner veil" (3) is in mind.

For even though is a cultic term, unlike in the LXX the

synoptic authors employ it in a non-cultic context and may therefore

have sensed the need to use such a genitive to "locate" the ^

rending in the temple (). The term also appears in Hebrews as

("within the veil"; Hb. 6:19),

("the second veil"; Hb. 9:3), and '

("the veil that is his flesh"; Hb. 10:20), wherethe author has contextually and/or syntactically qualified

to indicate the inner veil is in view.32

That the NT authors have

qualified which curtain is in view reflects the translation of the LXX.

Yet that such qualification not only fails to indicate a curtain other

than the inner veil but is best taken to affirm the inner veil is in view

seems to underscore the "default" meaning of . Whether

30Though this construction does not occur in the LXX or anywhere in extant Greek


10/11


NT authors are being simply redundant or perhaps emphatic in their

qualif ications, if they are looking to the LX X for their use of

,33 they most certainly have the inner veil before the holyof holies in mind.

34

33This seems likely for nearly all subsequent uses of the term occur in Jewish or


11/11

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

identity of the veil in mark15

Documents