The ancient interpreters were in many cases very careful readers who paid close attention to the details of the words. While these interpreters are commonly thought to be innovators who transformed the meaning of the biblical text, they were just as capable of providing remarkable insight into the text’s meaning.
See also How Did They Read the Prophets? Early Jewish and Christian Interpretations (Eerdmans, 2025).
By Michael B. Shepherd
Professor of Biblical Studies
Cedarville University
September 2025
Early Jewish and Christian interpretation of biblical literature has occupied the interest of biblical scholars for quite some time now. Perhaps as much as anyone else over the last several decades, James Kugel has drawn attention to ancient biblical interpretation in both academic and popular publication. According to Kugel, ancient interpreters held four assumptions about the biblical text (Kugel 1997, 17–23). They believed that the Bible was cryptic, relevant, perfect, and divine. The first of these assumptions may not always be in play, but the latter three certainly are, and they are present from the very inception of biblical interpretation among the biblical authors themselves.
Characterization of ancient biblical interpretation in the modern era ranges from entirely dismissive to overly enthusiastic. On the one hand, there are those who think of ancient interpretation as primitive, fanciful exegesis that cannot possibly contribute anything to enlightened modern discussion. On the other hand, there are others who seem to think that ancient interpreters are almost infallible, providing a model to which all modern readers should return without question. There is likely a happy medium to be found here. Ancient interpretation is not unlike any other stage in the history of interpretation in that it has both its problems and its prospects. It would be a mistake to think that all ancient interpretation is the same.
The ancient interpreters were in many cases very careful readers who paid close attention to the details of the words. While these interpreters are commonly thought to be innovators who transformed the meaning of the biblical text, they were just as capable of providing remarkable insight into the text’s meaning. Since the earliest interpretations of biblical texts occur within the Bible itself (e.g., Isa 2:1–5; Mic 4:1–5), such interpretation is already part of the fabric of the making of the Bible (Fishbane 1985). In other words, the Bible is not only a work to be interpreted but also a work that interprets itself. Interpretation within the Bible is not a mechanism that changes the Bible. Rather, it is the very means by which the Bible is generated.
The prophetic literature presents its own unique set of challenges to readers of the Bible. The books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve lack a storyline and do not maintain a consistent chronological sequence of material. This can often give readers the impression that the books are little more than anthologies of prophetic preaching. Indeed, much of twentieth-century scholarship on the prophetic books was devoted to recovering the original oral messages of the prophets and reconstructing their historical context, but the field has now moved beyond this to explore the prophetic literature as literature (Floyd 2015). No longer are the prophetic books seen as mere vehicles by which readers can access the past. They are now read as deliberate compositions that re-present and interpret the words of the prophets in textual form. In many ways this is a return to the way that these books were received in antiquity. Despite the difficulties of these texts, ancient interpreters were able to navigate them and make sense of them as whole compositions.
Already within the texts of the Latter Prophets there are signs of conscious awareness of the textualization of prophecy. The story of Jer 36, for example, describes a process whereby various messages in different forms from a variety of times and places are put together in textual form by the prophet’s scribe. When this scroll is subsequently destroyed in response to its reading, there is not only a rewriting of the scroll but also a substantial addition of similar words (Jer 36:32), which attests to the literary growth of the book. Prophets like Jeremiah are no longer available, but their words are accessible in the books that bear their names (Zech 1:5–6). These books form a distinct corpus within the biblical canon. When Daniel references Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years in Dan 9:2, he speaks of Jeremiah’s book among a plurality of prophetic books (cf. Ezek 38:17). According to Zech 7:12, such a collection of prophetic texts now stands alongside the Torah with equal weight and authority (Chapman 2000, 212–18).
The textualization of prophecy led to a redefinition of prophecy within biblical literature and early postbiblical interpretation. The new prophet is not someone who delivers messages orally but a scribe or scholar who reads and interprets prophetic texts (see Blenkinsopp 1977, 129; Schniedewind 1995, 11; Van der Toorn 2007, 107). This new definition of a prophet is recognized in early Greek and Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible. For instance, the Septuagint (LXX) interprets hazon (prophetic vision) in Prov 29:18 to mean exēgētēs (“interpreter”). Likewise, Targum Jonathan commonly translates navi’ (“prophet”) as safar (“scribe”): e.g., 2 Kgs 17:13; Isa 29:10; Jer 18:18; Ezek 7:26.
The earliest postbiblical interpreters of the prophetic literature were the scribes, translators, and commentators who transmitted, rendered, and explained the texts. In witnesses to the earliest attested period of scribal transmission (ca. 250 BCE until 132–135 CE), it is evident that scribes did not see themselves as mere copyists in the manner of the scribes of a later period (Tov 2022, 351–59). Rather, they saw themselves as partners with the biblical authors, often expanding the biblical text with interpretations that were designed to help readers understand the words. These scribes had a very high view of the biblical text and wanted to ensure a proper reading of it.
Among the prophetic books, the most outstanding examples of interpretive expansion would have to be Jeremiah and Ezekiel in the Masoretic Text (MT). In these cases, the expansion has reached the level of the creation of new editions of the books (see Shepherd 2023; Mackie 2015). The Hebrew texts behind the Old Greek (OG) versions of these books are considerably shorter first editions. Many of the expansions in the second editions found in the MT are exegetical in nature. For instance, Jeremiah’s notorious enemy from the north is not explicitly identified in the OG or its Hebrew source, leaving it open to the kind of eschatological interpretation found in Ezek 38:14–17, but the MT identifies this enemy as Babylon in the expansion of Jer 25:9, which creates an interesting conflict with Jer 50:3 and its prophecy about an enemy from the north coming against Babylon. Another example is the version of Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years in Jer 25:11–12. In the OG, this prophecy is not explicitly limited to the period of Babylonian captivity (cf. Dan 9:1–2, 24–27), but the expansions in the MT make this limitation of the prophecy explicit (cf. Jer 29:10). For the book of Ezekiel, one of the most notable expansions occurs in MT Ezek 36:23c–38, which is absent from p967, an important witness to the OG from the third century CE. This rather lengthy expansion is based upon material found elsewhere both inside and outside the book of Ezekiel. It is additionally significant that chapter 37 follows chapters 38 and 39 in p967.
The early translators of the prophetic books were also interpreters, but they did not all introduce their interpretations in the same way. For example, the OG versions of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve reflect what may be broadly characterized as a “literal” approach to translation. Indeed, it has been suggested that the OG versions of these books have all been produced by the same Greek translator or group of translators (Tov 2013, 3). This type of translator tries to bring the reader as close to the form of the Hebrew original as possible. On the other hand, the OG version of the book of Isaiah is relatively “free” (de Sousa 2021). Such a translation brings the Hebrew text to the reader via more idiomatic and interpretive Greek renderings. Thus, in Isa 42:1a, the Hebrew text says, “Look, my servant whom I support, my chosen one with whom I am pleased.” The Greek translator adds to this an interpretation of the identity of the servant: “Jacob is my servant, I will help him; Israel is my chosen one, I have accepted him.” In Isa 56:1, the Hebrew text says, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Keep justice and do righteousness, for near is my salvation to come and my righteousness to be revealed.’” The first use of the term “righteousness” here is something that God requires from the people, but the second use of this term is parallel to “my salvation” and is thus something that God does. The Greek translator brings this out by rendering the second occurrence not as “righteousness” (dikaiosynē) but as “mercy” (eleos), which is a word commonly used in the Greek Bible as an equivalent for Hebrew hesed (“covenant loyalty”). The translator has interpreted God’s righteousness in this context as something that God does in right relationship to his people.
Ancient commentary on the prophetic literature takes many forms, but the closest to modern commentary would have to be the pesher (“interpretation”) commentaries on the prophetic books from among the Qumran scrolls. These commentaries work through the biblical text according to its own form and sequence, alternating between short citation and interpretation. Pride of place among these commentaries belongs to the Habakkuk Pesher from Qumran Cave 1 (1QpHab), which interprets the first two chapters of the book of Habakkuk. One key feature of this commentary is its eschatological interpretation of the book, which may have come from the influence of reading the book within the context of the Twelve (see, e.g., Hos 3:5). Several fragments that combine more than one book of the Twelve have surfaced among the Qumran scrolls (4QXIIabce). The Qumran community also believed that it was the eschatological people of God living in the last days. It is important to keep these two ideas distinct. Acceptance of an eschatological interpretation of the book does not require acceptance of the Qumran community’s application of the book to its own time (Shepherd 2025, 98–106).
It is both educational and enjoyable to read and study ancient interpretation of the prophetic literature. As with other eras of the history of interpretation, such study invites readers to think about the texts in different ways and challenges them to reconsider previously held assumptions about their meaning. Even when a modern interpreter clashes with an ancient one, the modern interpreter is still better for having to process why he or she adopts a particular interpretation and not another. Furthermore, the ancient interpreters are rewarding conversation partners not only for the insight that they might provide but also for the light that they might shed on why the prophetic literature was received the way that it was in subsequent periods.
References
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1977. Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Chapman, Stephen B. 2000. The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation. FAT 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
de Sousa, Rodrigo F. 2021. “Isaiah.” Pages 245–58 in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by Alison G. Salvesen and Timothy Michael Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fishbane, Michael. 1985. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon.
Floyd, Michael H. 2015. “New Form Criticism and Beyond: The Historicity of Prophetic Literature Revisited.” Pages 17–36 in The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd, and Colin M. Toffelmire. ANEM 10. Atlanta: SBL.
Kugel, James L. 1997. The Bible As It Was. Cambridge: Belknap.
Mackie, Timothy P. 2015. Expanding Ezekiel: The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel. FRLANT 257. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Schniedewind, William M. 1995. The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period. JSOTSup 197. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
Shepherd, Michael B. 2023. A Commentary on Jeremiah. KEL. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic.
Shepherd, Michael B. 2025. How Did They Read the Prophets? Early Jewish and Christian Interpretations. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Toorn, Karel van der. 2007. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tov, Emanuel. 2013. “The Septuagint.” Pages 1–6 in vol. 1 of Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Tov, Emanuel. 2022. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 4th ed. Minneapolis: Fortress.