The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

NORTON Jews, Greeks and the Hexapla of Origen 417
preference. 30 This of course may be linked with Origen's defective
knowledge of Hebrew. The Fathers of the Church were not in the least
discountenanced by this plurality, but drew on all the columns for
their exegesis. If the quantitative comparison was crucial in the creation
of the Hexapla, then in its use the qualitative elements which
provided greater opportunities for exegesis were more valued. The
debate with the Jewish community gradually tapered off, with a few
exceptions, and for Christians comparison with a Jewish Hebrew text
was of less interest. Even after Jerome, priority accorded the Hebrew
text soon became more notional than real, given the lack of Hebrew
learning among the Fathers. In qualitative issues, then, on grounds
other than value judgments based on church usage, one or other of the
readings in the Hexapla may be preferred as being clearer, or more
suitable for the exegesis at hand.
In general, in searching through the Fathers of the Church we find
that they were very conscious of the fact that they were working with
words which inadequately represented a reality. Although the fact that
they were working with a translation contributed to their willingness
to pass from one Greek word to another once assured that there was
an equivalent in the Hebrew text, we do not find that they place a
higher value judgment on Greek words which were perceived to be
closer to the Hebrew. The rule of the analogy of faith guided their
exegesis, not a concern to express what was in the Hebrew text. If the
Fathers had had access to the Hebrew text it is possible that they would
not have been any happier with the 'words'. Their mistrust was a
fundamental one of word and spirit. 31
It is probably in this regard that the criticism of the Fathers of the
Church with regard to the literalist translations and exegesis of their
Jewish contemporaries should be judged. De Lange is correct when he
points to a real dependence of Origen and his successors on Jewish
exegesis in spite of their deprecation of its literalist tendency. De
Lange rightly distinguishes the modern use of the term 'literal' and
ancient usage of the term. 32
There is a distinction to be made here which might temper some of
30. B. Neuschafer, Origenes als Philologue (Schweizerische Beitrage zur
Altertumswissenschaft 18,1-2; Basle, 1987), esp pp. 118-19.
31. So M. Harl, 'La Septante et la plurality textuelle de 1'Ecriture: le temoignage
des peres grecs,' in M. Harl, La Langue de Japhet (Paris: Cerf, 1992), pp. 253-66.
32. De Lange, Origen and the Jews, pp. 104-109.