REVIEWS

The Septuagint Bible. The Oldest Text of the Old Testament in the Translation of Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress o f the United States of America, 1774-1789, as Edited, Revised and Enlarged by C. A. Muses M.A., Ph. D. (Columbia). Second Edition. The Falcon's Wing Press, Indian Hills, Colorado, 1960. XXVI, 1428 pp.

In this periodical, vol. XI (1957), pp. 114/115, I have reviewed the first edition of Dr. Muses's both useful and accurate re-edition of Thomson's English translation of the Septuagint Bible. There are only two things which I have to add about the second edition. The first is that in the Preface to this edition Dr. Muses precises his view about the Letter of Aristeas ("We do not hold the view, as do the Masoretic apologists and some others that Aristeas was merely a Jewish propagandist ... Despite our thorough and enthusiastic concurrence with every principal thesis of Dr. Paul Kahle's rich scholarly work, we rather hold with St.-Thackery in this question of the evaluation of Aristeas' testimony on the straightforward basis of actual available fact"). The second is that the author, basing himself on the second edition (Oxford, 1959) of Kahle's ?nagnum opus "The Cairo Geniza", declares the Sep- tuagint to incorporate an amalgam of strata 1., 2., and 3. distinguished by this author, viz., 1. The Hebrew text before the controversy with the Samaritan Hebrews instigated by Ezra's party after the Babylonian exile, 2. The Ezra (Bne Sadok) texts (Saducee), and 3. The text embodying the Pharisee School's changes (ca. 100 B.C.E.). To this he adds: "The earliest of the Dead Sea scrolls, which are still later than the earliest part (the Pentateuch) of the Septuagint Bible, do the same; while the later Dead Sea scrolls often show stratum 4. (= "The texts embodying the changes induced by the early Christian-Jewish controversies") as prevalent. In no case is the very late Masoretic text even a pretension to a final authority for the Vorlage; but LXX is." It seemed appropriate to draw the attention of Biblical scholars to these statements, the more so, since, with regard to the first point, Dr. Muses observes: " ... we are glad of the present oppor- tunity to correct any tendency to misconstrue our previous remarks on the Letter of Aristeas." For the rest, I can limit myself to observing that a number of typographical and printer's errors have been eliminated, and that REVIEWS 55 a few minor changes have been effected ; a comparison of about eighty pages in both editions did not show any major alteration.

Leiden, Witte Singel 91 J. H. WASZINK

R. Mcl. Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, London, Mowbray, 1960. 160 pp., Pr. 21/-.

Dr Wilson admits that the Gospel of Thomas in its present form is a Gnostic document, but he is not yet convinced that it is to be explained simply and solely. on the basis of Gnostic redaction of material derived from our Gospels. Though found in a Gnostic environment and bearing the traces of it, the possibility is not precluded that an earlier work, perhaps independent of the Synoptics, has been adapted to Gnostic purposes. He therefore scrutinises carefully the relationship of the Sayings to the New Testament and shows that many sayings can be inter- preted either way. But it would seem that the author of ,Thomas' did not know John; therefore the work must be fairly early ; yet the earlier it is dated the more difficult it becomes to maintain that Thomas knew all three Synoptics. Moreover, logion 65, the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, agrees completely with Dodd's reconstruction of the original story; this might show that Thomas presents a more primitive version, and that the Old Testament allusion is a Marcan or pre-Marcan addition. So other Sayings as well may incorporate genuinely primitive elements. On the other hand it is fairly certain that there is a Jewish- Christian element in ,Thomas', quite apart from anything due to the canonical tradition. That this element has some connection with the Clementines would also seem comparatively clear. But beyond such general statements we are on dangerous ground. As far as Tatian's Diatessczron is concerned, there does seem to be a sufficient number of significant variants to justify the claim that there is some connection between Thomas and the Diatessaron. So Thomas may serve to shed light upon the problem of the Western text. But this hypothesis is built on evidence of very varied quality and should be tested, examined and scrutinized (Baarda, in fact, gives still more parallels from the various Diatessarons and the Western Text, but maintains that Thomas depends upon Tatian, see R. Schippers, Het evangelie van Thomas, p. 135 sqq.). So the materials of which the gospel is composed are by no means uniform in character. We may perhaps speak of an element of genuine early tradition, possibly embodying a few authentic sayings; of an element parallel to but perhaps independent of our