ST. CATHARINES CONCORDIA - Brock University

Koger J. Humann: SCRIPTURE WITHIN SCRIPTURE 47
conclusion that "there is in John's citations tangible evidence I'or the use of one and
only one textual tradition, thc OG:" (p. 151; emphasis mine). Although it is an
attractive hypothesis and cogently argued, it appears lo be an over-state men^ on the
basis of Scbuchard's own evaluation of the various citations, for in the case of 7 of
the 13 citations thc cvidcnce of an OG tcxtual basis is at best 'tentative.'
In a number of instances he indicates the inconclusive nature OS the evidence with
statements such as: "This investigation: however, has failed to establish whether the
influence of a spccific tcxt~lal tradition is evident in this citation" (p. 32; re: John 2: 17).
"What little evidence there is ...p oints tentatively in the direction of the OG" (p. 57; rc
John 645. See a practically identical statemcnt on p. 84 rc: John 12:15). "It is not
possible to ascertain precisely the Old Testament referent of John 15:25." (p. 123).
In three instances Schuchard concedes initially that the evidence points more to a
Hebrcw Voilage. He states that a "Hcbrew Vodage explains much of the constn~ction
of John's citation" in 12:40 (p. 96). He is inclined to an OG basis, however, because
he sees John substituting two expressions from analogous Isaiah (OG) passages for
4
term in the Is. 6:10 citation. Again, Schuchard uses a possible, but highly tenuous,
reference to 2 Sam. 20:21 to try and bring the citation in John 13: 1 X into the OG orbit.
This is after he has noted that "several fcaturcs of John's citation go against the OG
and appear to indicate that John translates a Hebrew Vor.luge" (p. 108).
The least successful attempt to establish an OG textual basis is for the citation at
John 19:37. Schuchard admits that scholars "are generally unanimous in theii- judgment
that John does not recall Zech. 12:10 OG" (p. 143). Still he points to what he
sees as ".lohn's consistent use of the OG" elsewhere in the Gospcl to suggest that "here
too John recalls a Greek version of Zech. 12: 10 rather than a Hebrew one" (p. 149).
What might that version be (since no existing version wi I1 suffice)? He is left to suggest
a "corrected version" to which John had acccss (or pcrhaps John recalled a "marginal
reading" from the OG): or "a tradition shared with Theodotion" (p. 149).
AN ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION
Even if one is unable to share Schuchard's conclus~on with iespect to a smgle OG
textual bas~s Tor John's Old Teitament citations, he nonetheless seems to have notcd
most of the factors which might lcad to a morc satisfactory resolution of the questlon.
The OG is the Old Testament of Jolul's comnlunity. One might
naturally expect thal he would draw on this for his citations
(p. 154).
Although he wrote in Greek, Jolm thought in Aramaic and he knew
the Aramaic and Hebrew Scriptures of' the Jews (pp. 153-4).
John may, on occasion, appropriate citation procedures current in
4 Hc suggcsts that John has taken TCTL+LL)HLY , which ~ OCS not occur in IS. 6:10 OG, from IS. 42:lS-20 OG;
hc has gonc to 1s. 44: 18 OG ~OI.;~~'PWC\V which hc rcads ~nstead of the c r u ~ i j ~ of \ Is, ~ 6:lO OG.