The Legacy of Barthélemy: 50 Years after Les Devanciers d’Aquila [1 ed.] 9783666540622, 9783525540626

Citation preview

Anneli Aejmelaeus / Tuukka Kauhanen (eds.)

The Legacy of Barthélemy 50 Years after Les Devanciers d’Aquila

De Septuaginta Investigationes Edited by Anneli Aejmelaeus, Kristin De Troyer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Emanuel Tov In Co-operation with Kai Brodersen (Erfurt, Germany), Cécile Dogniez (Paris, France), Peter Gentry (Louisville, USA), Anna Kharanauli (Tbilisi, Georgia), Armin Lange (Vienna, Austria), Alison Salvesen (Oxford, GB), David Andrew Teeter (Cambridge, USA), Julio Trebolle (Madrid, Spain), Florian Wilk (Göttingen, Germany)

Volume 9

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Anneli Aejmelaeus / Tuukka Kauhanen (eds.)

The Legacy of Barthélemy 50 Years after Les Devanciers d’Aquila

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

With 22 tables and 12 graphics

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISSN 2197-0912 ISBN 978-3-666-54062-2 © 2017, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting by NEUNPLUS1 - Verlag + Service GmbH, Berlin

Contents Introduction 7 Adrian Schenker O.P. What Were the Aims of the Palestinian Recensions, and What Did They Achieve? With Some Biographical Notes on Dominique Barthélemy  14 Philippe Hugo The Books of Kingdoms Fifty Years after the Devanciers d’Aquila Development of the Kaige Theory within Barthélemy’s Works, and Some Implications for Present Research 23 Anneli Aejmelaeus Does God Regret? A Theological Problem that Concerned the Kaige Revisers  41 Andrés Piquer Otero The Minuses of the B 509 Manuscript Group in 3–4 Kingdoms  54 Pablo Torijano How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene Textual Tradition?  69 Julio Trebolle Readings of the Old Latin (Beuron 91–95) Reflecting “Additions” of the Antiochene Text in 3–4 Kingdoms  120 Tuukka Kauhanen Lucifer of Cagliari and the Kaige Revision  146 Anneli Aejmelaeus Kaige Readings in a Non-Kaige Section in 1 Samuel  169

6

Contents

Raimund Wirth Dealing with Tenses in the Kaige Section of Samuel................................... 185 Gerard J. Norton O.P. The Legacy of Les Devanciers d’Aquila for the Study of the Greek Psalter .................................................................................................. 198 Bibliography ................................................................................................... 212 Index ................................................................................................................ 225

Introduction In August 1952, a fragmentary scroll containing a significant portion of the Greek text of the Minor Prophets was found at Nahal & Hever, * a wadi in the Judean Desert, ca. 25 km southeast of Hebron. Shortly after the discovery, Dominique Barthélemy (1921–2002) published an article noting points of similarity between the readings of the newly found scroll and a Jewish Greek text cited by the early Christian author Justin Martyr (d. 165 CE). Ten years later Barthélemy published the work that would become the most seminal monograph written in the field of Septuagint studies during the 20th century, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, “the predecessors of Aquila”. In this monograph Barthélemy announced two major discoveries. First, the Greek text of the Nahal & *Hever scroll was an edition, a recension, of the Septuagint translation of the Minor Prophets. The purpose of this recension was to bring the original text of the Septuagint into closer conformity with the Hebrew proto-Masoretic text. Second, this recension was present in (parts of) many other books of the Greek Bible, most notably in Joshua, Judges, and SamuelKings. The translational features of the recension were midway between the original Greek translation and the most developed later Jewish translation, namely, that of Aquila. A most striking feature of the newly discovered recension was the rendering of the Hebrew conjunction ‫ ּגַ ם‬or ‫“ וְ גַ ם‬and also, moreover, but” with καί γε, which results in a strikingly un-Greek combination: in Classical Greek the combination καί … γε normally includes at least one intervening word. This curious Greek expression provided the name for the recension which has ever since been known as the kaige recension or revision. Problems that were discussed right after the publication of Devanciers still puzzle scholars working in this field. The nature of the Lucianic text is very much at the focus of the present scholarship: when does it represent the Old Greek and in which cases are we dealing with stylistic changes by the Lucianic editor or with expansions according to Hexaplaric traditions, including the work of Origen as well as the later Jewish translators? What is the relationship between the kaige revision and Theodotion’s revision of the Septuagint? Did some of the authors of the New Testament know a kaigetype Septuagint text? How extensive was the influence of the kaige group and how can it be recognized?

8

Introduction

In order to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the publication of Les Devanciers d’Aquila by Dominique Barthélemy and to discuss the present state of “kaige studies”, a symposium was held in connection with the SBL International Meeting at the University of St Andrews, Scotland, in July 2013. The present volume The Legacy of Barthélemy: 50 Years after Les Devanciers d’Aquila consists mainly of papers presented at the St Andrews symposium, with a few additional papers that discuss related topics and similarly build on the legacy of Dominique Barthélemy. The editors are especially grateful for contributions by those colleagues who knew Dominique Barthélemy and were able to share some personal impressions of him.1 Barthélemy’s discoveries are presented within the biographical context of this great scholar by Adrian Schenker in “What Were the Aims of the Palestinian Recensions, and What Did They Achieve? With Some Biographical Notes on Dominique Barthélemy”. Schenker clarifies the texthistorical theories concerning the “Palestinian recensions”, including the kaige recension, as well as other less well-known features of Barthélemy’s general concept. The different datings of the Nahal & *Hever scroll are discussed with reference to the emerging proto-Masoretic Hebrew text and the rabbinic exegesis, which created the need to produce a Greek text that corresponded to the Hebrew edition as closely as possible. The same learned circles responsible for the proto-Masoretic recension were probably initiators of the Greek Palestinian recensions. These recensions “were followed by the more complete and more systematic recensions of Aquila and Symmachus, which finally superseded the Old Greek Bible among Greekspeaking Jews”. Barthélemy’s theory of the kaige recension developed somewhat over time. This development is explained by Philippe Hugo in his contribution “The Books of Kingdoms Fifty Years after the Devanciers d’Aquila: Development of the Kaige Theory within Barthélemy’s Works, and Some Implications for Present Research” and is illustrated by a number of examples of the application of the theory in Barthélemy’s text-critical work in the well-known Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (CTAT). Special attention is paid to Barthélemy’s evaluation of the Antiochene text preserved in the manuscript group L (19-82-93-108-127 in Rahlfs’s Verzeichnis; boc2e2 in Brooke-McLean): in the kaige sections of Samuel-Kings, L is supposed to preserve in a considerable number of cases the original reading against Codex Vaticanus (B). Hugo concludes that Barthélemy later on accepted the 1 In addition, the editors would like to thank Timo Tekoniemi for assistance in the finishing of this volume.

Introduction

9

idea that the Antiochene text also contains traces of revisional activity. This underlines the principle that regardless of the underlying text-historical theory, text-critical work has to be done case by case without a priori assumptions concerning the quality of the witnesses. In “Does God Regret? A Theological Problem that Concerned the Kaige Revisers”, Anneli Aejmelaeus demonstrates that Barthélemy was correct in recognizing the exegetical and theological dimension of the early Jewish revision of the Greek text. An example of such a theological issue is the notion of God regretting, a notion attested in multiple passages in the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, in other passages it is explicitly stated that God does not regret, notably in the Torah and 1 Sam 15. This statement provided the motivation for kaige-type corrections that aimed at eliminating the translations of the Hebrew ‫ נחם‬nip‘al by the Greek μεταμέλομαι ‘to regret’ or μετανοέω ‘to change one’s mind’ when the subject is God. These renderings were replaced by the verb παρακαλέομαι ‘to be comforted’, the passive voice for the regular rendering of the ‫ נחם‬pi‘el ‘to comfort’. The analysis allows several far-reaching conclusions: 1. Early Jewish revisional activity is found sporadically outside the kaige sections of Samuel-Kings. 2. The Lucianic/Antiochene text is not totally untouched by the kaige revision. 3. Revisional activity on the Septuagint of the Historical Books is connected with the revision of the Hebrew text, which is again connected with the emerging scriptural status of these books. 4. This revisional activity on both the Hebrew and the Greek texts was exegetically and theologically motivated. In her second contribution “Kaige Readings in a Non-Kaige Section in 1 Samuel”, Aejmelaeus presents examples of early Jewish revisional activity in a book considered to be a non-kaige section.2 The witnesses that most often transmit these readings are the B text and the Hexaplaric text. It is clear that the question is not of Hexaplaric influence in the B text; the changes are lexical variants and omissions, whereas typical Hexaplaric readings are plusses that the B text does not attest. A noteworthy feature is that the kaige readings in 1 Samuel are confined to a rather small group of witnesses. The observations corroborate the old view that Origen’s basic text was very close to the B text. On the basis of the findings, Aejmelaeus suggests that the kaige revision is to be dated well before the fixing of the MT and that editorial activity on both the Hebrew and the Greek text must have coincided during the 1st century BCE, until 70 CE at the latest. That the B text is not as such a kaige text suggests that revised Greek manuscripts were used for comparison when copying new manuscripts, and readings from them were 2 A paper read at the Annual Meeting of the SBL in Atlanta 2015.

10

Introduction

occasionally introduced into the new text. The emergence of the B text is associated by Aejmelaeus with the rise of Christian scriptoria in the second half of the 2nd century CE. Andrés Piquer investigates “The Minuses of the B 509 Manuscript Group in III–IV Regnorum”. Manuscripts B and 509 often join against many or most of the other witnesses in attesting a shorter reading, even against clear kaige readings in Kings. Piquer classifies the instances according to their agreement with the MT: in the kaige section the agreement with the MT is probably due to kaige revision, while in the Old Greek section the situation is more complex. While the possibility of accidental omission has to be considered, it seems that some of the minuses are likely to attest the original shorter text. In such instances other textual traditions have supplemented the text with Hexaplaric readings. The findings of the study demonstrate that grouping the Septuagint witnesses and classifying their typical patterns of variants requires a nuanced and cautious approach. The scholar should resist the temptation of assigning any set values to readings, versions, and groups. A question directly related to the kaige revision is the nature of the Antiochene (Lucianic) text. In some books, e.g., 1 Samuel, the Lucianic reviser introduced a number of Hexaplaric readings into the text. Interestingly, the situation is different in the books of Kings, where the extent of the Hexaplaric reworking in the Antiochene manuscripts is much less significant in both quantity and quality. Building on the observation that manuscript 127 attests a considerably larger number of Hexaplaric readings than the other manuscripts of the L group, Pablo Torijano concludes in “How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene Textual Tradition?” that the Hexaplaric material attested by 127 was not present in the 4th century Antiochene text. Differences between the Hexaplaric additions attested by manuscript group O—in Kings A and 247 (x in Brooke-McLean)—and L call into question the exact nature of the Hexaplaric text used in the Antiochene tradition. Is it Hexaplaric at all? The gradual Hexaplarization witnessed by the Antiochene witnesses is comparable to the process that led from the “predecessors of Aquila” to the later Jewish recensions. Torijano provides a list of 400 cases of Hexaplaric additions attested by either O alone or together with L, or by each textual family in a different form. The next two papers by Julio Trebolle and Tuukka Kauhanen witness two very different perspectives on the use of the Old Latin (OL) witnesses for the Books of Kings. While none of the early Latin witnesses attests a purely Antiochene text, it is well known that their readings often coincide with those of L. How should this agreement be explained? Trebolle holds that such agreements confirm the old age of the Old Latin version. This

Introduction

11

version was originally a single translation which was later revised at different times and locations. The result is a multitude of often diverging Latin witnesses (manuscripts, marginal readings, and quotations by Latin patristic authors). That Antiochene readings are often supported by the Old Latin version, gives, in turn, more weight to the claim that the Antiochene text has preserved the Old Greek reading considerably more often than generally assumed. Kauhanen, by contrast, maintains that the disagreements between the different Latin witnesses show that they attest altogether different translations. Moreover, the quotations by Latin Christian authors do not necessarily witness underlying Old Latin translations but may be ad hoc translations by the author. Regarding the quotations, the special problems relating to their use (such as possible adaptation by the author or corruption by the scribes) often make the agreements between a patristic author and the Antiochene text doubtful. In “Readings of the Old Latin (Beuron 91–95) reflecting ‘Additions’ of the Antiochene Text in III–IV Regnorum” Trebolle approaches the mentioned questions with an analysis of the Old Latin marginal readings in five Spanish Vulgate exemplars (Latin codices 91–95). These marginal readings attest a number of plusses that coincide with the readings of the Antiochene text, especially in the kaige section. After the analysis, Trebolle concludes that these putative additions are not additions at all; they are actually Old Greek readings. This finding gives strength to Barthélemy’s proposal that in the kaige sections the Antiochene text is very close to the Old Greek. According to Trebolle, the assumption that the Antiochene text is a revision of the Old Greek text, advocated especially by Sebastian Brock and Natalio Fernández Marcos, is partly based on a negative assessment of the critical value of the Old Latin version. Trebolle argues that, considering the big picture of the history of the biblical text, it is more conceivable that the agreements between the old layer of the Antiochene text and the Old Latin ultimately witness a Hebrew text different from the proto-Masoretic text. The practical outcome is “that a critical edition of III–IV Regnorum has to follow in the kaige sections a text close to the early layer of the Antiochene text reflected in the OL version”. In “Lucifer of Cagliari and the Kaige Revision”, a different perspective is adopted by Kauhanen in his analysis of the most important Latin witness for Kings, Lucifer of Cagliari (d. 371 CE). Kauhanen examines the relationship between the quotations by Lucifer and the kaige readings in Kings. A patristic author of the mid-fourth century could be expected to attest either the kaige text or the Antiochene text in a relatively pure form. The striking phenomenon in Lucifer’s quotations is that they follow neither; they

12

Introduction

are completely (or almost completely) free from kaige influence and they mostly do not attest the recensional readings of the Antiochene text either. This observation corroborates the traditional view that the Antiochene text is a revised text. Moreover, taking into account occasional free modification and corruption, Lucifer’s quotations can be used as a witness for the Old Greek when locating new kaige readings in Kings. Kauhanen suggests ten such readings with some probability. Much of the research on kaige is focused on lexical features. In “Dealing with Tenses in the Kaige Section of Samuel”, Raimund Wirth broadens the view to the realm of syntactical phenomena, namely that of changing tenses.3 Changing the historical present to the aorist is a well-known kaige feature. Wirth presents statistical data on the differences between the frequencies of the historical present in the B text and the Antiochene text. While in the latter there is also a tendency to change the historical present to a past tense, it has still preserved a greater number of them in the kaige section. In the Books of Samuel a definite change can be observed precisely in verse 2 Sam 10:6; Wirth proposes this verse as the beginning of the kaige section. Occasionally, an original historical present has likely been lost under two different revisions and Wirth suggests that in those cases it should be conjectured in the critical editions. The case with the Greek imperfect is somewhat less complex, but it still requires close attention. The kaige revisers would not accept a Greek imperfect as the translation of a Hebrew imperfect consecutive or a Hebrew perfect (or perfect consecutive). The Antiochene text, on the other hand, not only keeps many of the Old Greek imperfects but even increases their number. Wirth stresses the necessity of combining the knowledge of the translation technique of the Old Greek, of the principles of the kaige recension, and of the principles of the Lucianic recension in order to make sound text-critical decisions in the kaige section of Samuel. The consequences of Barthélemy’s discovery of the kaige recension are by no means restricted to the Historical Books. Gerard Norton’s “The Legacy of Les Devanciers d’Aquila for the Study of the Greek Psalter” offers insights into the discussion following Devanciers d’Aquila, and in particular, the controversy pertaining to the dating of the famous Papyrus Bodmer XXIV (2110 in Rahlfs’s Verzeichnis). The publishers of the papyrus dated it to the late third or possibly the early fourth century CE, while Barthélemy suggested a considerably earlier dating: second century CE, i.e., before Origen’s Hexapla (ca. 240 CE). Since the papyrus is famous for its Hebraizing features, the assessment of this important witness depends 3 A paper read at the Annual Meeting of the SBL in Atlanta 2015.

Introduction

13

decisively on whether it is dated to the pre-Hexaplaric or post-Hexaplaric era. Norton goes through the discussion between Dominique Barthélemy and Albert Pietersma on the dating and the text-historical interpretation of the papyrus, revealing interesting methodological differences between these two scholars. This contribution also offers a personal view on the development of Barthélemy’s scholarship and thinking from a person who knew him very well. The discussion on kaige and its significance in the textual history of the Septuagint continues. This volume certainly does not resolve all the open questions, but hopefully, it helps further the discussion by clarifying some crucial points. In order to fully understand the nature of the kaige group, we need a great deal more research on the textual material, but we also need an understanding of the history of research and an open mind for new perspectives. In all these respects, Dominique Barthélemy certainly gave us an example to follow. Anneli Aejmelaeus & Tuukka Kauhanen

Adrian Schenker O.P.

What Were the Aims of the Palestinian Recensions, and What Did They Achieve? With Some Biographical Notes on Dominique Barthélemy

1. Les Devanciers d’Aquila in its Biographical Context In his Les Devanciers d’Aquila, Dominique Barthélemy made two discoveries of major consequence for Septuagint research. The first of these concerned the text form of the Greek scroll of the Minor Prophets, discovered in August 19521 in a cave of Nahal & *Hever near the Dead Sea—he identified this as belonging to a new edition, a so-called recension, of the original Greek text. The purpose of this recension was to bring the text of the original Septuagint of this biblical book into closer conformity with the Hebrew (proto-Masoretic) text, given that this earlier Greek translation was not always in harmony with it. Second, he also demonstrated that this recension was present in many other books of the Greek Bible. Thus, he was able to fully describe the features of this recension and its intermediate place between the early Greek translation on the one hand, and the most developed Jewish recension, the “translation” of Aquila, on the other, this latter being in reality a “surrecension”, i.e., the recension of a recension. It is well known that Barthélemy had already seen the connecting links between the Old Greek translation, the recension of the Dodecapropheton of Nahal & 2 *Hever, and Aquila’s revision in an article published in 1952. The discovery of this recension also allowed scholars to understand the place of other recensions, such as those of Theodotion, Symmachus, and the Quinta. Especially significant in this context was the fact that the text of the Lucianic or Antiochene witnesses in 1–4 Kingdoms could now partly be identified as being very close to the Old Greek (in the sections 2 Samuel 1 D. Barthélemy, “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de l’Histoire de la Septante”, RB 60 (1953) 18–29, on p. 19; repr. in D. Barthélemy, Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 21; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires et Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 38–50. The article is dated September 1952. 2 Barthélemy, “Redécouverte”, 38–50.

Aims of the Palestinian Recensions

15

11:23–1 Kings 2:11 and 1 Kings 22–2 Kings 25), and partly as reflecting other Palestinian recensions belonging to the same family as the kaige recension.4 Codex Vaticanus, on the other hand, could now be recognized as a witness to the kaige recension in these two same sections, while in the sections 1 Samuel; 2 Sam 1:1–11:1 (or 9:13, according to Shenkel), and 1 Kings 2:12– 21:43, it corresponds to another Palestinian recension. In Barthélemy’s terminology, the term “recension” refers to a new edition of the early Greek Bible made by comparison with a Hebrew text considered as normative for the Bible text. He called these recensions “Palestinian” because they were produced in early rabbinic circles within the land of Israel or Palestine. Barthélemy explained the changing nature of the Greek witnesses in 1–4 Kingdoms by referring to Origen’s Hexapla. In various biblical books and sections thereof, for the Septuagint column, Origen made use of different Greek text forms with which he had first become acquainted in Egypt and later in Palestine. Regarding the sections 1 Samuel, 2 Sam 1:1–11:1 (or 9:13) and 1 Kings 2:12–21:43, he placed both in the fifth column, i.e., the Septuagint column, and in the sixth column, he placed a Palestinian recension, attested to by the text witnesses B on the one hand, and the Antiochene witnesses on the other. In the section 2 Sam 11:2 (or 2 Sam 10:1)–1 Kings 2:11 he added a seventh column where he placed the Old Greek text, attested to by the Antiochene text witnesses in a slightly corrupt state of preservation. As for the final section, 1 Kings 22–2 Kings 25, Origen reserved the fifth column for the kaige recension (B), the sixth for another form of the Palestinian recension, attested to by the Antiochene witnesses, and added a seventh column for the second Palestinian recension.5 From the Hexapla these text forms (i.e., the kaige recension, which is the most typical representative of the Palestinian recensions, two other less systematic Palestinian recensions, and the Old Greek) spread out into the text witnesses of the Greek Bible, 3  According to J.D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 117–20, the section begins at 2 Sam 10:1. Shenkel is followed on this point by P.-M. Bogaert/B. Botte, “Septante et versions grecques”, Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément 12 (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1996) 536–692, on pp. 592–3. 4 Thus the reason becomes clear why Barthélemy was inclined to speak of the group of Palestinian recensions in the plural. He considered the kaige recension as the most developed example of the Palestinian recensions, with two much less systematic recensions in circulation as well, witnessed by B and the Antiochene witnesses in different parts of 1–4 Kingdoms. S. Kreuzer, “Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta. Forschungsgeschichte und eine neue Perspektive”, in S. Kreuzer/M. Sigismund (ed.), Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung (DSI 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 23–56, rightly calls to mind the consequence of such differences among the recensions: the less systematic they are, the closer they come to reflecting the Old Greek. 5 Devanciers, 142–3. Cf. also Bogaert/Botte, “Septante”, 592–601 (overview and synthesis).

16

Adrian Schenker O.P.

thus illustrating the great influence the Hexapla was destined to exert on the transmission of the Greek Bible. Shortly after publication of the 1953 Revue biblique article, Barthélemy fell seriously ill. He found himself obliged to entirely interrupt his research, and, leaving the École biblique in Jerusalem, to go back to France to recover. He spent about two years away from scholarly work. It was a difficult and challenging time. A fruit of this experience was his book Dieu et son image, first published in 1963, the same year as the Devanciers d’Aquila.6 It was translated into many languages, and continues to be reprinted to the present day. It discreetly displays Barthélemy’s personal way of interpreting the Scriptures through a faith perspective.7 In 1957 the Master of the Dominican Order, Father Emanuel Suarez, encouraged Barthélemy to accept the chair of Old Testament in the Faculty of Theology at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. In the winter term of that same year he began lecturing in Old Testament theology and exegesis. His teaching extended over thirty-four years without interruption. He retired in the summer of 1991. Gifted with outstanding rhetorical talents, he was a subtle interpreter of the Bible. Thus he succeeded in charming his many audiences, within and beyond the university. His manner was joyful. Most striking was his creative imagination, which was never at rest. His lecture rooms were crowded to capacity. Moreover, he served the university as Dean of the Theology Faculty. This was in 1966–1967, at a crucial moment when, after Vatican Council II, a reform of theological studies became necessary. He drew up and implemented the new theological curriculum, a responsibility that afforded him the opportunity to reveal his diplomatic skills. Later he was Vice-Rector, with responsibility for the planning and implementation of an important building programme in the university. He took great pleasure in holding together the overall supervision of these plans and minor details such as the dimensions and types of windows etc. The architects found in him a congenial partner when discussing technical problems. Accustomed to working hard and assiduously, he always had an eye for the playful nature of whatever activity he touched upon. Towards the end of his life, Dominique Barthélemy had yet again to accept a total and definitive break from all his research. A cerebral hemorrhage prevented him from completing his monumental Critique textuelle de l’Ancien 6  D. Barthélemy, Dieu et son image: Ébauche d’une théologie biblique (Paris: Cerf, 1963); English translation: God and His Image (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966). 7 After Barthélemy’s death in 2002, on the basis of his teaching notes in the last years of his life, a new book of biblical theology in the same vein was published: D. Barthélemy, Le pauvre choisi comme Seigneur (Paris: Cerf, 2009).

Aims of the Palestinian Recensions

17

Testament. He had published three volumes himself.8 It was his second and final trial that he had to consent to.

2. What was the Scope of the “Palestinian” Recensions? As mentioned above, Barthélemy used to speak of Palestinian recensions in the plural,9 at least for the books of Samuel and Kings. He called them Palestinian10 because they reflect the exegesis of the Jewish rabbinic scholars in that country around the beginning of our era.11 Justin Martyr (died 165), who criticized the Jews for having altered the traditional Greek Bible, was active in Flavia Neapolis (Samaria). The Dodecapropheton scroll was found at the Dead Sea, where it had been brought during the second Jewish war (132–135). Thus it is likely that the recensional initiative originated in Palestine—Eretz Israel. Besides the full-fledged kaige recension,12 there are signs of other recensional efforts preserved in the textual witnesses of the Greek Bible. What does the term “assimilation” to the current Hebrew text (protoMT) include? It is obvious that a more systematic choice of the Greek vocabulary in the interest of the Jewish exegesis of its time belongs to it. Barthélemy brilliantly clarified this aspect of the Palestinian recensional project. However, interventions on other points were equally part of the recensional intention, such as that of having the ends and beginnings of biblical books coincide in the Hebrew and Greek texts (in the Old Greek Bible the end of 2 Kgdms was in 1 Kgs 2:11 from where the kaige recension transported it to the end of 2 Sam 24 in conformity with the protoMT).13 Similarly, the sequence of 1 Kgs 20–21 is in reversed order in the 8  D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 1–3 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982–1992), covering the historical and prophetical books; posthumously appeared, D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 4: Psaumes (Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005); Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 5 : Job, Proverbes, Qohélet, et Cantique des Cantiques (same publishers as CTAT 4 : Fribourg – Göttingen 2015). The introductions of Barthélemy to the three first volumes of CTAT appeared in an English translation: D. Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (Textual Criticism and the Translator 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), representing a large harvest of Barthélemy’s researches in the textual history of the OT. 9 Devanciers, 141–2. 10 Barthélemy, “Chaînon manquant”, 23–6; Devanciers, 3–88. 11 Barthélemy, “Chaînon manquant”, 19, dates the Minor Prophets scroll of Nahal Hever at the end of the 1st c. AD. 12 Thus he often speaks about the group of Palestinian recensions, Devanciers, 139–43 etc. 13 Devanciers, 141.

18

Adrian Schenker O.P.

Old Greek. In the Hexapla, Origen adopted the order of the proto-MT because he paid great attention to the differences of arrangement of sections between the Hebrew and Greek Bible,14 and because he considered the arrangement of the proto-MT as more authentic. For him, the original Bible was the Hebrew text of his time, whereas the Greek Scripture was but a translation. The Palestinian recensions allowed him to identify such matters. Long before the Hexapla, the authors of the Palestinian recensions corrected discrepancies in the sequence of sections. This has been confirmed by the Dodecapropheton scroll of Nahal & *Hever, for there the Twelve Minor Prophets are arranged in the order of the MT.15 This is proof that the recension changed the original sequence of the Old Greek. Beyond differences in semantics and the order of pericopes, Justin Martyr, the first external witness for the existence of the Palestinian recensions, was interested in the first place by differences of content.16 In modern terminology these may be called literary variants, i.e., readings of the proto-MT that differ from the Hebrew base of the Old Greek, and that were substituted in the recensions for the readings of the earlier Greek translation. There are many instances in the section 2 Sam 11:2–1 Kgs 2:11 where literary differences between the Old Greek (here attested to by Antiochene or Lucianic witnesses) and the kaige recension may be observed. A case is signalled by Barthélemy at 2 Sam 11:21 and 12:11 where the Palestinian recension transformed the original name Jerubbaal into Jeroboam.17 A similar correction of a name occurs in 2 Sam 19:25(24) where the recension replaces Memphibaal of the earlier Greek translation, with the name Memphibosthe, a secondary reading that had been introduced into the proto-MT for “theological” reasons.18 A quantitatively more important literary difference is 2 Sam 19:10– 13 where the kaige recension in its B witness adheres more closely to MT than do the Antiochene witnesses.19 This corresponds to a literary difference 14

A. Schenker, “L’apport durable des Hexaples d’Origène. Bilan de la Lettre à Africanus, bilan aujourd’hui”, in M. Loubet/D. Pralon (ed.), Eukarpa: Études sur la Bible et ses exégètes (FS Gilles Dorival; Paris: Cerf, 2011) 385–94. 15 Devanciers, 165. 16 Barthélemy, “Chaînon manquant”, 18, quotes as examples of such divergences in the Dialogue with Tryphon: § 120.4 (Gen 49:10), § 124.2–3 (Ps 82[81]:1–8), § 137.3 (Jer 7:18). 17  D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Vol. 1 (OBO 50/1; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 257. The witnesses of the Palestinian recension are B a2 = 509. 18 Devanciers, 106–7; Barthélemy, Critique 1, 228–9. 19 P. Hugo, “Die antiochenische ‘Mischung’: L zwischen Altem und Neuem in 2Samuel”, in S. Kreuzer/M. Sigismund (ed.), Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung (DSI 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 109–32, on pp. 115–22.

Aims of the Palestinian Recensions

19

between the Old Greek, preserved in the Antiochene witnesses, and the proto-MT, as reflected in B. This shows that, in such cases too, the authors of the Palestinian recensions brought the early Greek translation into greater conformity with the proto-MT. Other examples are easy to find. Thus it seems reasonable to assume that the authors of the Palestinian recensions were well aware of all these kinds of variations. They wished to eliminate all of them through the assimilation of the earlier Greek Bible to the Hebrew base serving as the norm for their comparative work. They did not restrict themselves to the linguistic features (semantic and syntactic) of the correction. They eliminated literary differences as well, as Justin had observed. They corrected whatever seemed to be an unfaithful reproduction in Greek of the true Hebrew text. Barthélemy did not go into the question of conformity on the literary level between the Old Greek and proto-MT in the project of the recensions. He was interested foremost in their linguistic features because these permitted him to discover and to identify the recensions.

3. The Dating of the Palestinian Recensions and its Implication for their Scope Barthélemy dated the Nahal & Hever * scroll of the Greek Dodecapropheton in the first c. AD on paleographic grounds.20 He noted that the scroll was not the original text of the recension, but a copy of it.21 On the other hand, the paleographer of the scroll in vol. VIII of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, P.J. Parsons,22 has very cautiously and tentatively suggested the late 1st c. BC instead. Thus the possibility must at least be reckoned with that the recension was already undertaken in that century. This implies an important consequence. It is possible that the idea and project of a recension had already begun at the time when the proto-MT was in the making. Barthélemy had shown that, as early as in the 1st c. AD, some consonantal readings, which are specific to the MT, appear in the biblical writings discovered in Qumran and in the other sites around the Dead

20 21 22

Barthélemy, “Chaînon manquant”, 19–20 (end 1st c. AD); Devanciers, 168–9 (middle of 1st c. AD). Devanciers, 187–8, 198. P.J. Parsons, “The Scripts and Their Date”, in E. Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll From Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I) (DJD VIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) 19–26, esp. 25–6.

20

Adrian Schenker O.P.

Sea where biblical manuscripts have been found.23 This fact proves that the specific proto-MT must have come into existence at the latest somewhat earlier, around the 1st c. BC. This seems to be roughly the time of the composition of the Palestinian recensions. This proximity in time and place of the recensional project with the appearance of typical MT readings suggests a common context for both phenomena. People who fixed the consonantal Bible text to such a high degree of precision that they maintained the apparently pure formalia of the text without allowing the least freedom of change must also have been eager to have at their disposal a translation of that text, a translation that was free from unacceptable discrepancies between the original text and the Greek rendering—at least in so far as they wished to have a Greek translation. The extreme linguistic conformity of the Hebrew and the Greek in the kaige recension may thus have served not only exegetical interests, but also the possibility of applying the same methods of interpretation in both the Hebrew and Greek Bible. Perhaps it betrays the conviction that every element of the text is meaningful, be it small or great. Therefore a faithful translator is obliged to reproduce the original Hebrew text in such a way that none of its elements be neglected in the rendering. In conclusion, the uncertain dating, opening a possible range of time extending from the 1st c. BC until the middle of the 1st c. AD, suggests proximity in time and place for the creation of the proto-MT and the composition of the Palestinian recensions. Justin Martyr’s witness from the 2nd c. AD need not be an objection to such a date, earlier than that proposed by Barthélemy. For Justin does not at any point insinuate that the translation he criticizes as different from the Old Greek was a new Jewish translation recently created. The essential reason for undertaking a revision of the early Greek Bible in light of the Hebrew text current precisely at that time would have been the new conviction of the fathers of the proto-MT that this text was meaningful in every detail and in all its elements. Therefore a translation could not dispense with the duty of faithfully reproducing it with all its elements. In this respect the Old Greek could no longer be considered as satisfactory.

23

Barthélemy, “Histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament”, in D. Barthélemy, Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 21; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 341–64, esp. 351–4; Barthélemy, Studies, 383–409.

Aims of the Palestinian Recensions

21

4. Did the Palestinian Recensions Paradoxically Contribute to the Rejection of the Old Greek Bible among the Jews of Palestine? The Palestinian recensions were doomed to fail in some books of the Bible, such as 1 Kings, Jeremiah, 1(3) Esdras, perhaps Ezekiel and Exodus 35–40, Job and Proverbs, and even in as recently published a book as Daniel. Indeed, in these books the differences in detail and in arrangement of pericopes are so many in number and so complex in nature that a recension would have had a hard time to heal all the discrepancies. Origen had described this almost impossible task in his letter to Africanus.24 In these books, Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus were more translators than mere correctors of a preceding edition. If a recension implies too large an investment in terms of changes to be introduced on all levels—equivalents between words, syntactical changes, transposition of verses and pericopes, and literary modifications—the idea of a revision of a preexisting text gets lost. A recension becomes instead a complete rewriting rather than the “retouching” of the earlier version. This may have been the reason for the disfavour into which the Old Greek Bible fell with Jews after the 2nd c. AD. At that time the Greekspeaking Jews had Aquila and Symmachus for most books of the Bible in a form that corresponded to the proto-MT. Barthélemy attributed to the Palestinian recensions the following biblical books: in addition to the parts of 1–4 Kingdoms, already mentioned above: Lamentations, Canticles, Ruth, a recension of Judges attested to in some textual witnesses of that book, the version of Daniel attributed to Theodotion, the supplements added to the Old Greek of Job and Jeremiah, the Quinta of Psalms, and the Twelve Minor Prophets of Nahal & *Hever.25 It seems that the Palestinian recensions did not include other books of the Bible in their project. Thus it is obvious that the Old Greek Bible was no longer necessary for Greek-speaking Jews. They had another Greek Bible closer to their contemporary Hebrew Scriptures.

5. Conclusion The scope of the Palestinian recensions was concerned with the conformity of the Greek Bible with the proto-MT. This goal had become necessary with the selection of carefully-written manuscripts by learned scribes in the 24 25

See n. 14 above. Devanciers, 47.

22

Adrian Schenker O.P.

2nd and 1st c. BC, who prepared an accurate edition of the Hebrew Bible. Thus these manuscripts were to furnish the base for the proto-MT in the 1st c. AD. The same learned circles responsible for the proto-Masoretic recension were probably initiators of the project of the Palestinian recensions of the 1st c. BC and AD. For both, the new Hebrew and new Greek editions seem to have been created at the same period, in the same place, and with a similar approach to Scripture. The recensions of the Old Greek Bible tried to eliminate all differences between the proto-MT and OG (vocabulary, syntax, literary differences, sequence of pericopae). The Palestinian recensions, and especially the kaige recension among them, were the first attempts to assimilate the original Greek Bible to the newly created proto-MT. They were followed by the more complete and more systematic recensions of Aquila and Symmachus, which finally superseded the Old Greek Bible among Greekspeaking Jews.

Philippe Hugo

The Books of Kingdoms Fifty Years after the Devanciers d’Aquila. Development of the Kaige Theory within Barthélemy’s Works, and Some Implications for Present Research The discovery of the kaige revision by Dominique Barthélemy is beyond doubt one of the most important turning points in research on the textual history of the Septuagint (LXX). His watershed study of 1963, Les devanciers d’Aquila, became and still is a beacon to which scholars orient their own research on the text and transmission history of the LXX.1 Probably the field in which Barthélemy’s hypothesis has produced the most fruitful results is the textual history of the books of Kingdoms.2

1. The Old Greek, Kaige and the Antiochene Text in Kingdoms By identifying the kaige revision within two sections of the Books of Kingdoms (2 Kgdms 10:1–3 Kgdms 2:11 and 3 Kgdms 22:1–4 Kgdms)3 in the codex Vaticanus (B)—or, as Barthélemy called it, in the Palestinian text (Pal.)—he discovered and explained the origin of some linguistic features of these sections, which Henry St. John Thackeray had first hypothesized as a later layer of translation of Kingdoms.4 In the so-called kaige 1 See some previous assessments of Barthélemy’s influence: R.A. Kraft, “Reassessing the Impact of Barthélemy’s Devanciers, Forty Years Later”, BIOSCS 37 (2004) 1–28; L.J. Greenspoon, “Recensions, Revision, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthélemy and Early Developments in the Greek Traditions”, Textus 15 (1990) 153–67; J.W. Wevers, “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies”, BIOSCS 21 (1988) 23–34. 2 Cf. P. Hugo, “1–2 Reigns”, in J.K. Aitken (ed.), The T&T Clark Handbook to the Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2015) 127–46; T.M. Law, “3–4 Reigns”, in ibid., 147–66. P. Hugo, “Basileion I und II / 1 und 2 Königtümer / Das erste und zweite Buch Samuel”, in S. Kreuzer (ed.), Einleitung in die Septuaginta (Einleitung in die Septuaginta (Handbuch zur Septuaginta 1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2016) 207–31. 3 J.D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (HSM 1; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 117–120, proved that 2 Kgdms 10:1–11:1 also belongs to kaige. 4 H.St.J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translation of the Four Books of Kings”, JTS 8 (1907) 262– 78; H.St.J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: Oxford University Press, 19232), 16–28.

24

Philippe Hugo

sections, Barthélemy proved quite convincingly that the best witness of the Old Greek (OG) is to be found in the five manuscripts of the Antiochene text (L: 19–82–93–108–127; Brooke-McLean: boc2e2). This textual tradition remains untouched by the Origenian recension as well as by the kaige recension, because, as Sebastian Brock also demonstrated,5 it broke off from the main stream of the LXX at an early date, probably not later than the 1st c. CE, and experienced little influence from it. Its ancientness has been confirmed by its agreements with the Qumran fragments of Samuel, esp. 4QSama, with the Vetus Latina, and other daughter versions,6 Josephus, and Chronicles. Barthélemy’s hypothesis was widely adopted and up to now remains the standard theory for the textual history of Kingdoms, although his assessment of L as the best witness of the OG aroused discussion soon after the publication of the Devanciers. According to some scholars—among them one must mention Sebastian Brock, and more recently Natalio Fernández Marcos and Bernard A. Taylor7—if the kaige recension is not challenged, the nature of L as basically OG is denied.8 On the contrary, they emphasize the fact that L contains numerous marks of revision dated from the 4th c. CE: stylistic revisions and Atticistic tendencies, narrative harmonization, smoothing of difficulties, and facilitating interpretations.9 In very recent research, the question of the nature of the Antiochene text is still a crucial point of the scholarly debate. First, the extent of the agreements between L and the ancient witnesses such as 4QSam, Vetus Latina

5  S. Brock, Recensions of the Septuagint Version of I Samuel (Diss. Oxford 1966; Quaderni di Henoch 9; Torino: Silvio Zamorani, 1996), 304. 6 Cf. A. Piquer/P. Torijano/J. Trebolle Barrera, “Septuagint Versions, Greek Recensions and Hebrew Editions. The Text-Critical Evaluation of the Old Latin, Armenian and Georgian Versions in III–IV Regnorum”, in H. Ausloos/J. Cook/F. García Matínez/B. Lemmelijn/M. Vervenne (ed.), Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL 213; Leuven: Peeters, 2008) 251–81. 7  Brock, Recensions; S. Brock, “Lucian redivivus. Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciers d’Aquila”, Studia Evangelica 5 (1968) 176–181; N. Fernández Marcos, “The Antiochene Text of the Greek Bible: A Revised and Edited Text”, in Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings (VTSup 54; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 27–37; B.A. Taylor, The Lucianic Manuscripts of Reigns: Vol. 2: Analysis (HSM 51; Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1993), 127–8. 8 See the insightful comments on Brocks’ review by S. Kreuzer, “ ‘Lukian redivivus’ or Barthélemy and Beyond?”, in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XIV Congress of the IOSCS. Helsinki, 2010 (SBLSCS 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2013) 243–61. 9 Cf. N. Fernández Marcos, “Literary and Editorial Features of the Antiochian Text in Kings”, in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the IOSCS Jerusalem 1986 (SBLSCS 23; Atlanta: SBL, 1987) 287–304.

The Books of Kingdoms Fifty Years after the Devanciers d’Aquila

25

or Josephus was recently challenged or nuanced.10 The textual character of B outside the kaige sections is also challenged, because several Hebraizing elements have been identified.11 Finally, some scholars following Brock emphasize characteristics of revision in L,12 while others tend to consider it as basically OG within as well as outside the kaige sections, thus bringing new arguments for that position.13 In dealing with the complexity of the Greek traditions, I tend to adopt a middle way between the two mentioned poles:14 L is basically OG within the kaige sections, but outside it has to be considered equally with B as a potential witness of the OG. Nevertheless, neither of them reflects the OG in a pure form. The text-critical theory always has to be confronted with the textual data. This confrontation brings to light in my opinion a relatively large layer of corrections, smoothing and stylistic adjustments in L. The unique way to determine the extent of this layer is to compare the readings case by case and avoid generalization. The present paper aims to contribute to this debate, for once, not by bringing some new arguments for or against this or that position, but rather by observing Barthélemy’s work and his own practice of text criticism. In the next section, I will recall and comment on some of his central affirmations in 10  T. Kauhanen, The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel (DSI 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012); R.J. Saley, “Greek Lucianic Doublets and 4QSama”, BIOSCS 40 (2007) 63–73; R.J. Saley, “Proto-Lucian and 4QSama”, BIOSCS 41 (2008) 34–45. Concerning the agreements between L and early Christian literature, see M. Meiser, “Antiochean Readings of I–IV Reigns in Early Church Fathers”, forthcoming; see also “Readings of the Old Latin (Beuron 91–95) Reflecting “Additions” of the Antiochene Text in 3–4 Kingdoms” by Julio Trebolle in this volume. 11 A. Aejmelaeus, “A Kingdom at Stake: Reconstructing the Old Greek—Deconstructing the Textus Receptus”, in A. Voitila/J. Jokiranta (ed.), Scripture in Transition: FS Sollamo (JSJSup 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 353–366; Kreuzer, “ ‘Lukian redivivus’ or Barthélemy”, 259–61. 12 T.M. Law/T. Kauhanen, “Methodological Remarks on the Textual History of Reigns: A Response to Siegfried Kreuzer”, BIOSCS 43 (2010) 73–87; Kauhanen, The ProtoLucianic Problem, 191. 13 S. Kreuzer, “From ‘Old Greek’ to the Recensions: Who and What Caused the Change of the Hebrew Reference Text of the Septuagint?”, in W. Kraus/R.G. Wooden (eds.), Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (SBLSCS 53; Atlanta: SBL, 2006) 225–237; idem, “Towards the Old Greek: New Criteria for the Analysis of the Recensions of the Septuagint (Especially the Antiochene/Lucianic Text and Kaige Recension)”, in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XIII Congress of the IOSCS, Ljubljana, 2007 (SBLSCS 55; Atlanta: SBL, 2008) 239–53; idem, “Translation and Recension: Old Greek, Kaige, and Antiochene Text in Samuel and Reigns”, BIOSCS 42 (2009) 34–51. 14 P. Hugo, “Die antiochenische ‘Mischung’: L zwischen Altem und Neuem in 2 Samuel”, in S. Kreuzer/M. Sigismund (ed.), Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung (DSI 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 109–32.

26

Philippe Hugo

the successive publications on this question because they show a process of clarification of his text-critical theory and a consideration of the complexity of the textual data. In the third part, I would like to examine the textcritical work of Barthélemy and the manner in which he concretely used the Antiochene tradition and confronted its difficulties.

2. Development of Barthélemy’s Theory The preliminary formulation of Barthélemy’s theory was published in 1953 in an article in Revue biblique, “Rediscovery of a Missing link of the History of the Septuagint.”15 In this article, there is no discussion of the Books of Kingdoms or of L, but it contains the core intuition on the kaige recension that Barthélemy developed in his following publications. From a biographical point of view, it is very interesting to note that this groundbreaking discovery was made in only a couple of weeks. Indeed, the article published in 1953 is dated 19th September 1952.16 But the scroll of the Dodecapropheton was found in Nahal Hever in the second half of August 1952. Barthélemy & * needed only about fifteen days to decipher the manuscript, to note large agreement with the quotations of Justin in the Dialogues and to explain this fact as a recensional work of well-read Jews in proto-rabbinic circles, as precursors of Aquila. The topic of the kaige and L in Kingdoms is widely considered in the Devanciers, since he deeply studied the first kaige section. His assessment of the Antiochene tradition is well known: (One can) conclude that Ant. [= L] witnesses here of an old Greek translation made from a Hebrew text older than the unification of consonantal Masoretic text and diverging quite strongly from it, whereas Pal. [= B] is essentially the result of a secondary recension [= καίγε]. (Devanciers, 113) We can firmly conclude that the expression “Lucianic recension” only covers a relatively late dupery, while the words “Lucianic text” cover an older popular tradition, but nothing more. (…) But we must not consider this “Antiochene text” as the result of an autonomous recension 15 16

D. Barthélemy, “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de l’histoire de la LXX”, RB (1953) 18–29. Barthélemy, “Redécouverte”, 29. Cf. A. Schenker, “L’histoire du Livre. Dominique Barthélemy (1921–2003) ou l’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament”, Mémoire dominicaines 20 (2006) 237–44, on p. 239.

The Books of Kingdoms Fifty Years after the Devanciers d’Aquila

27

or (…) as constituting a special “edition”. It is mainly the Old Greek, more or less degenerated and corrupted. (…) In my knowledge, it is never a first-hand recension done directly on the base of Hebrew. (…) The originality and the interest of the “Antiochene text” (…) consist in the large elements of OG that it has kept. (Devanciers, 127) After the critical reviews and evaluations of the Devanciers by Frank Moore Cross,17 Robert Kraft,18 Sebastian Brock,19 and George Howard,20 Barthélemy wrote an important contribution in 1972: “A Reexamination of the Textual Problems” in Samuel-Kings.21 He took the observations of his critics point by point and responded to them. I will focus on the question of the Antiochene text. At first Barthélemy seems to make concessions. If the remarks of Kraft and Brock, together with these precisions, are taken into account, then one must expect to find a much more complex situation in the bg section than I envisaged in DA [Devanciers]. As I have strongly emphasised, the more notable secondary element remains, namely, the hebraising καίγε recension to which the text of B and related MSS was subjected. But to this must probably be added a fairly pronounced “grecising” [sc Graecizing] recension undergone by the text of boc2e2. The elements which these two textual traditions have in common are sufficiently widespread and sufficiently basic to prove that they draw their origins from one and the same translation. There exists, therefore, at the roots of these two traditions, one Old Septuagint. However, we are not assured of finding this Old Septuagint intact in the elements common to Ant. and Pal. For it is possible that, before undergoing the recensions relative to one or other of the two traditions, it had already been subjected to an earlier series of glosses, hebraising revisions or “grecising” retouches. (“Reexamination”, 29)

17  Especially in F.M. Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert”, HTR 57 (1964) 281–99. 18 R. Kraft, “Review of D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila”, Gnomon 37 (1965) 474–83. 19 S. Brock, “Lucian redivivus”, 176–81. 20 G. Howard, “Frank Cross and Recensional Criticism”, VT 21 (1971) 440–50, on pp. 443–9. 21 D. Barthélemy, “A Reexamination of the Textual Problems in 2 Sam 11:2–1 Kings 2:11 in the Light of Certain Criticism of ‘Les Devanciers d’Aquila’ ”, in R.A. Kraft (ed.), 1972 Proceedings: Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha Seminars (SBLSCS 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1972) 16–89.

28

Philippe Hugo

In a Post-scriptum to the same article, Barthélemy wrote some further pages on the “Lucianic recension” (pp. 65–89). In order to define more precisely the nature of the Antiochene text, he begins with a distinction: I propose, therefore, that the words “recension” and “edition” be clearly distinguished (…) How in fact, should a recension of the Septuagint be defined? It may be termed as the intervention of an individual or a school to improve this translation, either by correcting its language, or especially by rendering the inherited Greek text more faithful to a Hebrew text to which one has access, no matter how bizarrely the recension in question may have understood this fidelity. (…) (“Reexamination”, 71–73) He mentions as examples of that kind of “recension” the works of Aquila and Origen: But nothing of the like seems to have taken place in the case of the Antiochian text. It does not seem possible to attribute the influences it underwent to the deliberate intervention of an individual or a particular school. And any desire to make the Greek a more faithful witness to the Hebrew is lost to sight in the midst of literary ambitions stemming more from atticist snobbery than from exegetical science. And instead of the term exegetical science it would be better to speak of an inferiority complex in the presence of the enormous work of Origen. For an inferiority complex would explain the double Antiochian reaction of imitation and opposition: imitation, in so far as the biblical manuscripts were enriched with Hexaplaric readings inserted with varying degrees of success, and embellished with obeli and asterisks which were very often meaningless; and opposition, in so far as this Antiochian biblical edition, placed under the authority of the martyr Lucian, was flourished in the face of Origen’s edition, which was diffused by Eusebius of Caesarea. (“Reexamination”, 75) What Barthélemy precisely denies to the Antiochene text is being a “recension”; that means first to be a correction of the translation in order to make it correspond to a given Hebrew model and second to be a coherent deliberate revision made by a scholarly school. But other modifications within the Antiochene tradition are not excluded at all. Barthélemy continues:

The Books of Kingdoms Fifty Years after the Devanciers d’Aquila

29

If, however, the Antiochian text may not be given the title of “recension”, that of “edition” may be more accurately adopted. What was the Sitz im Leben of this edition? It was the booming biblical market on the advent of peace for the Church under Constantine. (“Reexamination”, 75) Therefore, the Antiochene Recension is a myth, because it betrays no Hebraizing corrections, but only interpolations of Origenian or Hexaplaric readings circulating in Antiochene circles (cf. p. 75). Above all, it is a myth because “from the end of the fourth century, there had sprung up the custom of placing the textual form of the Septuagint in use from Antioch to Constantinople, under the authority of the martyr Lucian” (p. 89).22 To sum up, according to Barthélemy, L bears witness to OG within the sections where the Vaticanus underwent kaige. Outside these sections, I think one can interpret Barthélemy by saying that L has to be considered equally with B as a potential witness of the OG. Yet, at the same time, Barthélemy recognizes that L contains some kind of early revisions, “grecising retouches” (“attistic snobbery”) probably at an early proto-Antiochene period. Then in the 4th c. CE it was stabilized (Barthélemy says “edited” whatever this process means), and probably sprinkled with Origenian and Hexaplaric glosses.23 Now, based on these conclusions, I would like to examine how Barthélemy concretely used L in his text-critical work. How did he deal with Antiochene readings? Did he identify corrections and revisions in L, and how did he explain these phenomena? Such an assessment is possible by considering his major book, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (CTAT).24

22

See also what he says in D. Barthélemy, “Prise de position sur les autres communications du colloque de Los Angeles”, in Etudes d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 21; Fribourg, Göttingen: Editions universitaires, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 255–88, on pp. 271–3. 23 On this topic see Pablo Torijano’s article “How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene Textual Tradition” in this volume. 24  D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Vol. 1 Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (OBO 50/1; Fribourg/Göttingen; Editions universitaires, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982).

30

Philippe Hugo

3. Barthélemy’s text-critical use of L Nearly twenty years after the Devanciers, in 1982, Barthélemy wrote the first report volume of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (HOTTP) containing the Historical Books. This project25 was initiated by the United Bible Societies (esp. by Eugene Nida), and involved an international group of six exegetes26 for ten years (1969–1979) to whom a list of preselected textual difficulties of the Hebrew Bible was submitted. This selection, although it consists of a large number of textual cases, was guided principally by the difficulties of the MT that the selector found in footnotes of some modern translations.27 The cases studied in CTAT give therefore only a partial picture of the readings in Samuel-Kings and of the differences within the Greek tradition. Barthélemy’s way of working is nevertheless very instructive. I will therefore point out how Barthélemy dealt concretely with the Antiochene text and its readings within the kaige sections, although it might be interesting to expand the enquiry to the non-kaige sections. Unsurprisingly, the large majority of the Antiochene readings are judged as attesting OG. However, the more one moves forward into Barthélemy’s study of Samuel-Kings, the more one finds uncertain cases. Sometimes he considers that L attests only possibly OG, writing “l’antiochienne (= *Grec ancien?)”, e.g. 2 Kgs 15:10 (p. 403), 15:16 (p. 404), 17:4 (p. 409), 21:26 (p. 417). Sometimes he does not decide between the so-called Palestinian (Pal.) and Antiochene (Ant.) texts (e.g. 2 Kgs 10:1 (p. 393), 16:18 (p. 407), 25:4 (p. 423), 25:9 (p. 424). Moreover, there are not a few of cases where Barthélemy considers the Antiochene text as revised, corrected, or contaminated by previous Hebraizing recensions (such as the Origenian or Hexaplaric texts, but also other earlier ones). Oddly, in those cases he sometimes refers even to the “Antiochene recension”, “la recension antiochienne”, contradicting himself in the terminology, since he does not recognize any characteristics of a

25

26

27

Cf. A. Schenker/P. Hugo, “Histoire du texte et critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament dans la recherche récente”, in A. Schenker/P. Hugo (ed.), L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque: Histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (Le Monde de la Bible 52; Genève: Labor et Fides) 11–33, on pp. 17–20. Dominique Barthélemy (Fribourg), Alexander A. Huzlst (Utrecht), Norbert Lohfink (Frankfurt/Rom), William D. McHardy (Oxford), H. Peter Rüger (Tübingen) and James A. Sanders (New York/Clermont). Rüger and Sanders were co-editors of the final report with Barthélemy. The selector was John Alexander Thompson and the reference translation were RSV, NEB, the Jerusalem Bible in French and the Revised Luther Bible in German: cf. Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project: Vol. 1 (London: UBS, 1973), v.

The Books of Kingdoms Fifty Years after the Devanciers d’Aquila

31

recension. Let us examine briefly seventeen very clear examples in order to understand Barthélemy’s argumentation. I identified four kinds of changes supposed by Barthélemy in L: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Confusion or corruption Assimilation to other passages Contamination by other text traditions Editorial changes

3.1. Confusions or corruptions Two of these cases can be put in the first category of changes: 2 Sam 19:12(11) (CTAT, 289) MT: ‫אל־ּביתֹו‬ ֵ ֶ ‫אל־הּמלְך‬ ֶ ֶ ַ ֶ ‫ּכל־יׂשראל ָּבא‬ ֵ ָ ְ ִ ָ ‫ּודבר‬ ַ ְ OG has the same phrase in 19:11 Pal. has the same phrase both in v. 11 and v. 12 Ant. has the same phrase both in v. 11 and v. 13 The phrase is placed by all the Greek witnesses at the end of v. 11, which is certainly OG. B (Barthélemy: “Pal.”) / kaige introduces it furthermore in v. 12 by recension on MT, while L (“Ant.”) has it a second time at the end of v. 13.28 Barthélemy considers the presence of the same phrase in L in v. 13 an error: In fact, this is the only place [v. 11] where all the *G mss agreed to put that sentence, while the Palestinian repeats it (revision according to *M) at the end of v. 12 and the Antiochene repeats it at the end of v. 13.29 2 Kgs 23:8 (CTAT, 419) MT: ‫הּׁשערים‬ ִ ָ ְ ַ ‫את־ּבמֹות‬ ָ ֶ Pal.: τὸν οἶκον τῶν πυλῶν Ant.: τὸν οἶκον τῶν ὑψηλῶν OG?: τὰ ὑψηλὰ τῶν σααρείμ = Quinta (E’) 28

29

See the study of this case and some other secondary readings of L of 2 Sam 19 in P. Hugo, “The King’s Return (2 Sam 19,10–16): Contrasting Characterizations of David, Israel and Juda in the Old Editions”, in H. Ausloos/B. Lemmelijn/J. Trebolle Barrera (eds.), After Qumran: Old and New Editions of Biblical Texts: The Historical Books (BETL 246; Leuven: Peeters, 2012) 95–118. I want to thank Robert M. Whiting for the English translations of CTAT.

32

Philippe Hugo

In the case of 2 Kgs 23:8, Barthélemy argues that both B and L are confused. According to Barthélemy, the OG of 4 Kgdms is attested by the Quinta (i.e. Theodotion), which was introduced by Origen in a seventh column.30 In most cases, the Quinta attests the Antiochene text in 4 Kgdms, but in this case, the Quinta (E’) reads τὰ ὑψηλὰ τῶν σααρείμ31: this transliteration is considered as OG. The other witnesses, including L, are judged as confused: The Old *G (= ‘Quinta’) seems to have only the transcription Σααριμ as a place name. (…) Note that in 23:13 all the witnesses of *G translate ‫ ַהָּבמֹות‬by τὸν οἶκον. So there is nothing to be learned from this confusion.

3.2. Assimilations to other passages In the second category one finds 6 passages: 2 Sam 16:1 (CTAT, 276) MT: ‫קיץ‬ ִ ַ ‫ּומאה‬ ָ ֵ ‫צּמּוקים‬ ִ ִ ‫ּומאה‬ ָ ֵ OG: καὶ οιφει σταφίδων καὶ ουφει παλαθῶν Pal.: καὶ ἑκατὸν σταφίδες καὶ ἑκατὸν φοίνικες (= MT) Ant.: καὶ οιφει σταφίδων καὶ διακόσιαι παλάθαι (cf. 1 Sam 25:18) Barthélemy argues that both B and L are secondary, because the first is kaige and the second has been assimilated to 1 Sam 25:18: The Palestinian *G with καὶ ἑκατὸν σταφίδες καὶ ἑκατὸν φοίνικες was revised [a été recensé] according to *M. (…) The Antiochene reworked the second part (…) by assimilation to 1 Sam 25:18 (διακόσιαι παλάθας). In 2 Sam 22:13, 43 Barthélemy considers that two readings of L were contaminated by the parallel Psalm 18(17) in Greek:32 2 Sam 22:13 (CTAT, 305) MT: ‫ּגחלי־אׁש‬ ֵ ֵ ֲ ַ ‫ּבערּו‬ ֲ ָ 30  Cf. Devanciers, 128–36, 142–3; Barthélemy, “Prise de position”, 274–5. 31 Cf. F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum vetus testamentum fragmenta, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875), 694. 32 Barthélemy also argues the influence of the Hebrew Psalm 18 on the OG of other readings of this poem.

The Books of Kingdoms Fifty Years after the Devanciers d’Aquila

33

Pal.: ἐξεκαύθησαν ἄνθρακες πυρός = OG Ant.: διῆλθον χάλαζα καὶ ἄνθρακες πυρός (cf. Ps 17,13LXX) Barthélemy’s judgment: However (…), the Palestinian *G and *V strongly support *M, while the textual elements belonging to the Antiochene (διῆλθον χάλαζα καί) are found in the same form in the *G of the Psalm from which they likely originate. 2 Sam 22:43 (CTAT, 308) MT: ‫ְרק ֵעם‬ ָ ‫ִדּקם ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ֲא‬ Pal.: ἐλέπτυνα αὐτούς = (‫ )אדקם‬OG Ant.: λεανῶν αὐτούς Barthélemy’s judgment: The *G of Ps 18:43 (…) has contaminated the Antiochene tradition in parallel to Samuel. 2 Sam 23:8 (CTAT, 311) MT: ‫ַּת ְח ְּכמֹנִ י‬ ִ ְ ַ ֶ 1 Chr 11:11: ‫ּבן־חכמֹוני‬ Pal.: ὁ Χαναναῖος = OG Ant.: υἱὸς Θεκεμανει (cf. υἱός 1 Chr 11:11) In 2 Sam 23:8, L seems to have a double revision, first on the MT with the addition of the Θ corresponding to tāw and then the contamination of the word υἱός from the parallel in Chronicles. Apart from the assimilation to Chronicles, the origin or the source of the recensional tāw is not identified: Note that the ‘tav’ was known to the Antiochene tradition of *G where the transcription υἱὸς Θεκεμανει seems to be revised according to *M with a partial assimilation (adds υἱός) parallel to Chronicles [1 Chr 11:11]. But in Samuel it is the Palestinian *G that, with ὁ Χαναναῖος, seems to be unrevised [non recensé]. 2 Kgs 20:12 (CTAT, 415) MT: ‫חזקּיהּו‬ ָ ִ ְ ִ ‫חלה‬ ָ ָ ‫ׁשמע ִּכי‬ ַ ָ ‫ִּכי‬ ָ ֱ ֶ ַ ‫חלה‬ ָ ָ ‫וּיׁשמע ִּכי‬ ַ ְ ִַ Isa 39:1 MT: ‫וּיחזק‬

34

Philippe Hugo

Pal.: ὅτι ἤκουσεν ὅτι ἠρρώστησεν Εζεκιας = OG Ant.: ἤκουσεν γὰρ ὅτι ἠρρώστησεν Εζεκιας καὶ ἀνέστη (= ‫ וַ ּיֶ ֱחזָ ק‬Isa 39:1) Barthélemy argues that L has a doublet in 2 Kgs 20:12 conflating the text of Kings and its parallel in Isaiah (καὶ ἀνέστη, from ‫)וַ ּיֶ ֱחזָ ק‬. It is quite possible, but Barthélemy links this variant with Syriac and takes it as proof of the secondary character of L. The influence of Syr on L is doubtful. If there is an agreement between these traditions, it shows rather the influence of L on the Peshitta than the contrary. There is another such case below. Barthélemy’s judgment: Towards the end of v. 12, the only textual variant is a conflation of ‫( חזקיהו‬typical of Kings) and ‫ויחזק‬, (typical of Isaiah), a conflation found

both in the Antiochene and *S. This agreement between the two versions suggests that in this case the Antiochene is not the Old *G.

2 Kgs 22:4 (CTAT, 417) MT: ‫את־הּכסף‬ ֶ ֶ ַ ֶ ‫ויּתם‬ ְֵַ Pal.: καὶ σφράγισον τὸ ἀργύριον = OG (‫)וחתם‬ Ant.: καὶ χωνεύσατε τὸ ἀργύριον, cf. v. 9 L attests an assimilation within the same context: The order to count the money in MT is in OG “seal the money”. L has assimilated the order with v. 9 where the money found in the Temple was melted down: The Old *G seems to have read here καὶ σφράγισον (= ‫ )וחתם‬while the Antiochene, with καὶ χωνεύσατε, assimilates (on the level of the Greek) to the report of the carrying out of the royal order given in v. 9 (ἐχώνευσαν = *M ‫הּתיכּו‬ ִ ִ ). Note that *M offers here a 3rd person singular while the Old *G offers an imperative that equates to the one that starts the verse. As for the imperative plural of the Antiochene, it maintains the same assimilation and, as a plural, it equates to the report of v. 9.

3.3. Contaminations by other text traditions Within the third category one also counts six cases: First, similar agreement between L and Syriac as in 2 Kgs 20:12 is found in 2 Sam 21:8 and 2 Kgs 22:13. That is very difficult to assume. Present research

The Books of Kingdoms Fifty Years after the Devanciers d’Aquila

35

on the Peshitta tends, on the contrary, to consider the agreements between Syriac and Greek against MT as secondary readings in the Peshitta coming from the Septuagint tradition.33 2 Sam 21:8 (CTAT, 301–302) MT: ‫ִמ ַיכל‬ OG: Μελχολ (A ya2 hv = A 121–509 55 245) Pal.: Μιχολ Ant.: Μεροβ (‫) ֵמ ַרב‬, comes from Syriac ndb (cf. 1 Sam 18:19) Concerning 2 Sam 21:8, I disagree with Barthélemy. He thinks that the proper name Merab, daughter of Saul, attested by L is influenced by Syriac, which calls the same character Nadab. On the contrary, I would argue, together with Stanley D. Walters,34 that L attests the original reading with Merab, which was corrected by proto-MT into Mikal to avoid mentioning Saul’s daughter in this sordid account of a mother neglecting to bury his sons. But Saul’s younger daughter Mikal is less shocking. Barthélemy’s judgment: The Antiochene has found it easier to give here the name of Merab, in connection with *S (which uses the ‫ נדב‬form it already used in 1 Sam 18:19) and several manuscripts of *V and two mss of *M cited by Rossi. (…) The tendency to correct (is) so natural that it is unlikely that the Antiochene here lets us have the original text. One must also suspect the Antiochene of having been revised according to *S, since Josephus, a good witness of the Old *G of Reigns, read here (Ant VII § 89) Mikal (…). So it seems that the form Μιχολ of ms B is a revision of a Μελχολ (= Mikal) which is the original form of *G here.

33  Cf. M.P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56; Cambridge: University Press, 1999), 68–86; P. van Keulen, “Nature et contexte des différences de la Peshitta des Rois par rapport au TM”, in A. Schenker/P. Hugo (ed.), L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque: L’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le monde de la Bible 52; Genève: Labor et Fides, 2005) 264–85, on pp. 279–81. 34 S.D. Walters, “Childless Michal, Mother of Five”, in M.E. Cohen/D.C. Snell/D.B. Weisberg (ed.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near East Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda: CDL, 1993) 290–6; C. Seppänen, “David and Saul’s Daughters”, in K. De Troyer/T.M. Law/M. Liljeström (ed.), In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus (CBET 72; Leuven: Peeters, 2014) 353–64, on p. 360.

36

Philippe Hugo

2 Kgs 22:13 (CTAT, 418) MT: ‫עלינּו‬ ֵ ָ Pal.: καθ᾽ ἡμῶν = OG Ant.: ἐν αὐτῷ (= ? ‫) ָע ָליו‬ Syr: bh (= ‫) ָע ָליו‬ In this case, Barthélemy identifies in the pronouns the same curious influence of Syriac on L. Furthermore, B seems rather to attest the kaige recension. I wonder if Barthélemy is not victim of his tendency to consider MT as original, and to find a confirmation in the OG: One can add that ‫ ָע ָליו‬has (…) the support of all the best witnesses of *S (‫)בה‬. But this ‫ בה‬of *S is too close to ἐν αὐτῷ of the Antiochene for one to consider this last reading as more primitive than the καθ᾽ ἡμῶν of the other witnesses of *G. 2 Kgs 13:21 (CTAT, 401) MT: ‫וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך ַוּיִ ַּגע‬ Pal.: καὶ ἐπορεύθη Ant.: καὶ ἔφυγον. καὶ ἦλθε = OG (‫ )וַ ּיֵ ֵלכּו‬+ revision in the doublet Another assimilation in L is attested in 2 Kgs 13:21. L contains a doublet with OG (plural) and the revised form (singular) introduced by contamination (whose origin is not identified). Barthélemy corrects the MT here and adopts OG as original: The context suggests placing the atnahh & after ‫וילך‬, reading it in the plural. In fact, the Old *G has read it thus and translated καὶ ἔφυγον which concludes the preceding phrase. A doublet in the singular (καὶ ἦλθε) has entered the Antiochene in the syntactic situation that ‫וילך‬ occupies in *M, the Palestinian offering only καὶ ἐπορεύθη in this same situation. In the three next cases, Barthélemy observes a contamination of L by recensional forms coming from the Origenian tradition. 2 Kgs 19:17 (CTAT, 411) MT: ‫ואת־ארצם‬ ָ ְ ַ ֶ ְ ‫את־הּגֹוים‬ ִ ַ ֶ Pal.: τὰ ἔθνη — = OG Ant.: τὰ ἔθνη καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν

The Books of Kingdoms Fifty Years after the Devanciers d’Aquila

37

Barthélemy’s judgment: The Old *G (which is evidenced here by the B ms) does not translate ‫ואת־ארצם‬. These words are actually added by Origen’s recension as καὶ τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν (as evidenced by the Syrohexaplaric asterisk) and they are given by the Antiochene as καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν (indicated by

an asterisk in the c2 ms [= 127]). 2 Kgs 19:25 (CTAT, 412, remarks in the presentation of the case 2 Kgs 19:23B) MT: ‫קדם‬ ֶ ֶ ‫למימי‬ ֵ ִ ְ ‫עׂשיתי‬ ִ ִ ָ ‫אתּה‬ ָ ֹ ‫למרחֹוק‬ ָ ֵ ְ ‫הלא־ׁשמעּת‬ ָ ְ ַ ָ ֹ ֲ Pal.: — = OG Ant. and O have this phrase with different wording Barthélemy’s judgment: (…) missing in the Old *G are (the) first seven words of 2 Kings 19:25 (which were added under asterisk in different forms by the recension of Origen and by the Antiochene). 2 Kgs 20:11 (CTAT, 415) MT: ‫אחז‬ ָ ָ ‫ּבמעלֹות‬ ֲ ַ ְ ‫ירדה‬ ָ ְ ָ ‫אׁשר‬ ֶ ֲ Pal.: — = OG Ant. (Αχαζ οἷς κατέβη) and O have this phrase with different wording Barthélemy’s judgment: The fact that the translation of these words has been inserted under asterisk in the recension of Origen and in the Antiochene (attested by the Syrohexapla and the c2 ms) indicates that their omission goes back to the Old *G.

3.4. Editorial changes A final category concerns cases where Barthélemy supposes that L is the result of editorial changes as facilitation or smoothing of the narration. 2 Kgs 5:1 (CTAT, 385) MT: ‫חיל‬ ִ ַ ‫ִּגּבֹור‬

38

Philippe Hugo

Pal.: δυνατὸς ἰσχύι Ant.: — Barthélemy’s arguments here seem to agree with those of Sebastian Brock. First, if one can observe, outside the kaige sections, that common readings of B and L in several passages witness the OG, it is probable that when L diverges occasionally within the kaige sections, it attests a (Antiochene) revision. In the present case, δυνατὸς ἰσχύι is the original translation of ‫ִּגּבֹור‬ ‫ ַחיִ ל‬. Therefore, the absence of these words could indicate that L suppressed them. According to Barthélemy, this correction aims to dissipate an apparent contradiction between illness (see context) and strength. According to Brock, this kind of specificity corresponds eventually to a typical feature of the Antiochene revision. Barthélemy’s judgment: The expression ‫ גבור חיל‬is encountered four times in the parts of *G where one can confront the Antiochene tradition (which more or less represents the Old Greek) with the καίγε (recension (attested by the Palestinian *G): [Judg 6:12, 11:1; 2 Kgs 15:20, 24:14]. This latter finding indicates that δυνατὸς ἰσχύι is likely the Old *G correspondence for this section of Reigns. (…) If it were the Palestinian recension that found these two words untranslated by the Old *G in 2 Kgs 5:1 and took it upon itself to translate them, it would probably not have used δυνατὸς ἰσχύι. It is therefore very probable that here the absence of δυνατὸς ἰσχύι in the Antiochene tradition is in fact recensional and not a relic of Old *G. This had in fact: δυνατὸς ἰσχύι, λελεπρωμένος. Also, the Antiochene recension wanted to eliminate what would seem to be a flagrant contradiction between physical strength and sickness. 2 Kgs 12:11(10) (CTAT, 399–400) MT: ‫וּימנּו‬ ְ ִ ַ ‫וּיצרּו‬ ַָֻ Pal.: καὶ ἔσφιγξαν καὶ ἠρίθμησαν = OG Ant.: — καὶ ἠρίθμησαν In the same line as the precedent variant, 2 Kgs 12:11(10) shows the Antiochene trend to make the text easier: The apparent difficulty of the first verb καὶ ἔσφιγξαν led a Greek (Antiochene?) reviser to remove it. Actually, I wonder if the contrary is more likely: that B attests kaige. At times, Barthélemy seems to have a tendency to favour the readings in agreement with MT. Nevertheless, my point here is to show that Barthélemy himself admits some editorial corrections in L:

The Books of Kingdoms Fifty Years after the Devanciers d’Aquila

39

The Antiochene recension omits the first verb because its meaning makes it difficult, as the scholiast of the Greek ms Coislin 8 said of it: ‘I think it is they took’. Indeed the presence of the following verb allows it to be dispensed with. The meaning intended by the *G is ‘to bag’, that is to say, to put into bags that are tied up. 2 Kgs 15:30 (CTAT, 405) MT: ‫ּבן־עזּיה‬ ָ ִ ֻ ֶ ‫ליֹותם‬ ָ ְ ‫עׂשרים‬ ִ ְ ֶ ‫ּבׁשנת‬ ַ ְ ִ Pal.: ἐν ἔτει εἰκοστῷ Ιωαθαμ υἱοῦ Αζαριου = OG Ant.: — Barthélemy finds another smoothing in 2 Kgs 15:30: According to him, the omission by L of the chronological data, “in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah”, is a facilitation of the Antiochene revision: It does not fit in the context of 15:33 that mentions the sixteen years of his reign: (…) the Antiochene does not have this chronological indication in 15:30 (…). Montgomery, however, had reason to conclude that it is precisely because this information seemed to contradict the others that the Antiochene omitted it. The Old *G is probably represented here by the other witnesses that thought to avoid the difficulty by speaking here of a Joatham son of Ahaz or of Ahazya.

4. Conclusion The main result of this small inquiry is that Barthélemy has accepted the idea that the Antiochene text, even if it is mainly the best witness of OG within the kaige sections, also contains some traits or indices of revisional activities. He even occasionally speaks about the “Antiochene recension” and situates therefore some of these activities in the 4th c. CE (in its “booming biblical market”). But he rightly rejects the possibility that this revision attests any Hebraizing recension. The Hebraisms one finds in L were introduced by contamination from the Origenian recension or the Hexaplaric versions. I would like to stress the following point: When he concretely analysed the variants of the Greek compared to the MT (and other witnesses), Barthélemy tested his assumption that L witnesses the OG by a careful examination case by case. And he found notable exceptions. He has even occasionally adopted an argumentation that looks like that of Brock, that the L text attests sporadic narrative or rhetorical adaptations. These analyses show, as Barthélemy

40

Philippe Hugo

himself conceded, that the complexity of the textual material in Kingdoms resists all kinds of generalisations, even with the kaige theory and the textual value of L. Furthermore, I am certain that, if the selection of cases were larger, the number of secondary readings in L would significantly increase. Some of Barthélemy’s conclusions lend themselves of course to discussion. The tendency to consider mainly the MT as the original text in comparison with the LXX possibly influenced Barthélemy’s judgment determining the OG in some instances. On the contrary, in my opinion, the methodological principle of Paul de Lagarde is still correct: that the more a reading disagrees with MT, the more probable it attests the OG. Nevertheless, Barthélemy’s text-critical work shows a much differentiated examination of the whole textual data. The same examination of his judgment about L outside the kaige sections would lead to comparable differentiated results. Therefore, one may ask: Do we encounter two distinct Barthélemys, an earlier one who discovered and defended a new theory enthusiastically, and a later one who was more careful handling the data? No, I rather think that Barthélemy had a quite nuanced assessment of the Antiochene readings, as his affirmations and his text-critical work show. The central task that remains concerning the OG in Kingdoms is therefore to distinguish between the revised and the old layers, as well in B as in L. No purely theoretical approach can discharge the arduous critical work of textual judgment case by case, even fifty years after the Devanciers d’Aquila.

Anneli Aejmelaeus

Does God Regret? A Theological Problem that Concerned the Kaige Revisers We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the first publication of the Nahal & Hever * Minor Prophets scroll by Dominique Barthélemy and particularly his epoch-making discovery of the phenomenon of a revision of the Greek Bible by Jewish scribes and scholars close to the turn of the era. The impact of this revision had been seen before in Samuel-Kings and Judges, but it took the genius of Barthélemy to recognize the connection with the Nahal & Hever * findings and to realize that this was the key to old problems that had not been solved in a satisfactory way.

The Phenomenon and Its Motivation Barthélemy’s list of revised items that are characteristic of Nahal & *Hever and other passages is well known. The name of the phenomenon, which derives from one of the items, καίγε (used to render ‫וגם‬/‫)גם‬, has been criticized (particularly by Wevers),1 but I think it is a very practical name, as it immediately brings to mind the phenomenon concerned. The features listed by Barthélemy (‫ גם‬καίγε, ‫ אנכי‬ἐγὼ εἰμί and ‫ אני‬ἐγώ, ‫ איׁש‬ἀνήρ and not ἕκαστος etc.)2 clearly show that there is a connection between the different texts in which the phenomenon occurs. Later studies (Shenkel, O’Connell, Bodine, Greenspoon)3 have added several more features to the previous ones; such

1 J.W. Wevers, “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies”, BIOSCS 21 (1988) 23–34 (esp. 33–4). 2 Devanciers, 31–80. 3 J.D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (HSM 1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968); K.G. O’Connell, The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus: A Contribution to the Study of the Early History of the Transmission of the Old Testament in Greek (HSM 3; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972); W. Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges: Recensional Developments (HSM 23, Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980); L. Greenspoon, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua (HSM 28, Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). See T. McLay, “Kaige and Septuagint Research”, Textus 19 (1998) 127–39.

42

Anneli Aejmelaeus

lists may however give a somewhat one-sided picture of the phenomenon, as they underline the literalistic approach of the revisers.4 The impression of literalistic translation technique is certainly further enhanced if one goes through the text of the Minor Prophets with the Nahal Hever fragments: & * each and every difference between the Septuagint and the MT seems to have been corrected in the Nahal & *Hever scroll with a consistency not seen elsewhere. This is what was presupposed by Emanuel Tov when he reconstructed the text for the final edition, and obviously, this was the only way to make the reconstruction work. This, however, raises a question that has not been discussed sufficiently in scholarship, a question concerning the motivation behind the revision: Was it primarily philological and translation-technical? Or did it have other, deeper motives? Barthélemy recognized an exegetical motivation in the kaige group and connected it with Palestinian rabbinic schools of the first century CE. This point has not been accepted with the same enthusiasm as the rest of his thesis; in fact, it has been heavily criticized (for instance, by Jellicoe, Tov, and Grabbe).5 With the new dating of the Nahal & *Hever Minor Prophets scroll to the first century BCE, it is of course no longer possible to keep up this part of Barthélemy’s interpretation, at least not in detail. The general idea, however, that there was an exegetical or theological motivation behind the revision of the Greek text seems to me to be correct, and it would be worthwhile to research this a bit more. After all, it is a question of sacred texts that ended up in the canon of the Hebrew Bible. Thinking of the historical books, their scriptural status was only developing during the first century BCE. At the same time, the Hebrew text of these books still seems to have been considerably edited. Any such scribal activity on these texts, Hebrew or Greek—copying, editing, or revising—would have had to do with their emerging scriptural status 4  McLay, “Kaige and Septuagint Research”, 131–4, gives a list of 96 translation features based on the studies of Barthélemy, Shenkel, O’Connell, and Greenspoon (see note 2) as well as Peter Gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job (SCS 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) and Tim McLay, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (SCS 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). According to McLay (“Kaige and Septuagint Research”, 138), the only common feature of the various texts that have been attributed to the kaige group is that they tend to formal equivalence. 5 See Leonard Greenspoon, “Recension, Revisions, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthélemy and Early developments in the Greek Traditions”, Textus 15 (1990) 153–67, which was presented in a plenary session in Barthélemy’s honour at the 1988 SBL meeting; Sidney Jellicoe, “The Septuagint and Modern Study” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), esp. 93; Emanuel Tov, “The State of the Question: Problems and Proposed Solutions”, 1972 Proceedings IOSCS— Pseudepigrapha (ed. Robert A. Kraft; SBLSCS 2; Missoula, 1972), 3–15, esp. 6; Lester Grabbe, “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis”, JJS 33 (1982) 527–36.

Does God Regret?

43

and certainly would have had an exegetical or theological aspect. Editorial measures that were taken on the Hebrew text clearly reveal ideological or theological motivation. Why should this have not been the case with the revision of the Greek text in accordance with that very same Hebrew text? I am afraid that, because of the concentration on the linguistic details of the kaige revision, scholars have forgotten to consider the actual situations in real life that conditioned this kind of scribal and revisional activity. In this paper, I aim to demonstrate by examples from the text that Barthélemy was correct—not in naming certain rabbis of the first century CE—but in recognizing the exegetical and theological dimension of the early, Jewish revisional activity on the Greek text. This I wish to achieve by discussing a theological problem, the problem mentioned in the title of my paper: Does God regret?

The Theological Problem First, a few words of introduction are in order. Does God regret? Indeed, there are several texts in the Hebrew Bible that say: God does regret! This is an important theme in the Book of Jeremiah, more precisely in one of its latest, let us say post-dtr, layers. In Jer 18, vv. 7–10 offer a later explanation to the parable of the potter. According to these verses, God can change his plans concerning a nation either toward the positive or toward the negative. If a nation, against which God has spoken, turns from its evil, God will change his mind about the disaster that he intended to bring on it (v. 8). This works also the other way around: if a nation, to which God had promised to do good, turns to do evil, God will change his mind about the good things that he had promised (v. 10).6 This kind of reasoning was of course important in the aftermath of the great catastrophe. Jer 26 even plays with the thought that Jeremiah’s audience could have avoided the catastrophe (vv. 3 and 13), and presents Hezekiah as a historical example of this possibility (v. 19): Hezekiah feared God, and God regretted. Further examples of this kind are found in Jonah (3:9, 10; 4:2) and in the story of the Golden Calf (Exod 32). The other alternative, God regretting something good, occurs in a few cases: The flood story (Gen 6) is introduced by a statement that the

6 The roots of this thinking are clearly in the dtr doctrine of retribution. The conclusion drawn from it, namely, that a prophecy of doom need not come true if the nation to which this prophecy was spoken repents, also presupposes the law on prophecy in Deut 18 according to which true prophecy can be recognized by the fact that it will come true.

44

Anneli Aejmelaeus

sinfulness of human beings made God regret having created them, and at 1 Sam 15:11 God regrets having made Saul king over Israel. The Hebrew verb used in these connections to mean ‘to regret’, ‘to repent’, ‘to change one’s mind’ is ‫ נחם‬nip‘al. As is well known, ‫ נחם‬pi‘el has the meaning ‘to comfort’, and the nip‘al form also functions as the passive for the pi‘el ‘to be comforted’, for instance, after the death of a close relative (Gen 24:67; 38:12). Then there is also a hitpa‘el form, occurring only 7 times, which is somewhat problematic in its meaning; it can have a meaning very close to nip‘al ‘to be comforted’ (Gen 37:35), but it clearly also means ‘to seek comfort through revenge’ (Gen 27:42; Ps 119:52). Such meanings as ‘to have pity/compassion’, ‘to be grieved’ (Deut 32:36//Ps 135:14) that have been suggested in cases with God as the subject are suspect of being apologetic. At Num 23:19 the hitpa‘el is normally interpreted as ‘to regret’ (= nip‘al). In addition, there is a hippa‘el form (Eze 5:13), obviously a variant to hitpa‘el. As for the nip‘al, there seems to be no question that it has the meaning ‘to regret’, ‘to change one’s mind’. Thus, one can confidently say that the Hebrew Bible does contain several passages with the statement that “God regrets”. There are however also statements to the contrary, saying that “God does not regret” (Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29, Jer 4:28, Ps 110:4). There is an obvious conflict of theologies, and it seems to me that in the course of the history of interpretation, the latter standpoint—“God does not regret”— took the upper hand. In consequence, the interpretation and rendering of the cases that say “God does regret” became a problem.7

A Problem for Translators and Revisers Let us first look at the four cases on two occasions in the Pentateuch: in connection with the Flood Story, God is twice said to have regretted creating human beings (Gen 6:6, 7). Gen 6:6 ‫ּבארץ‬ ֶ ָ ָ ‫את־האדם‬ ָ ָ ָ ֶ ‫ּכי־עׂשה‬ ָ ָ ִ ‫יהוה‬ ָ ְ ‫וּיּנחם‬ ֶ ָ ִ ַ καὶ ἐνεθυμήθη ὁ θεὸς ὅτι ἐποίησεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

Gen 6:7 ‫עׂשיתם‬ ִ ִ ֲ ‫נחמּתי ִּכי‬ ִ ְ ַ ִ ‫ ִּכי‬ὅτι ἐθυμώθην ὅτι ἐποίησα αὐτούς

7 In fact, this problem seems to puzzle people, both Jews and Christians, even today, as one can learn by a search on the Internet.

Does God Regret?

45

After the incident of the Golden Calf, Moses prays to God asking him to change his mind about the disaster with which he threatened the Israelites, and so he does (Ex 32:12, 14). Exod 32:12 ‫לעּמָך‬ ֶ ַ ְ ‫על־הרעה‬ ָ ָ ָ ַ ‫והּנחם‬ ֵ ָ ִ ְ καὶ ἵλεως γενοῦ ἐπὶ τῇ κακίᾳ τοῦ λαοῦ σου ָ ָ ָ ַ ‫יהוה‬ ָ ְ ‫וּיּנחם‬ ֶ ָ ִ ַ καὶ ἱλάσθη κύριος περὶ τῆς κακίας Exod 32:14 ‫על־הרעה‬ The latter context in particular represents the post-dtr theology also found in Jeremiah, “God regretting the evil which he has threatened to bring on people”. In the Flood Story it is the wickedness of the human beings that makes God regret something good, namely, having created human beings and all living creatures. None of these four cases in the Pentateuch are, however, translated in the Septuagint by using the direct equivalent, which would be either μεταμέλομαι or μετανοέω (‘to regret,’ ‘to change one’s mind’). Instead, different roundabout expressions were used, mainly referring to a change of emotions: in Genesis from the positive to the negative, ’to think,’ ‘to reflect on,’ ‘to get angry’; in Exodus from the negative to the positive, ‘to be merciful,’ ‘to feel pity’. Amazingly, there must have been a translation convention, as early as the 3rd century BCE, not to translate literally ‘to regret’ when the subject is God.8 However, this rule was not observed by the later translators outside the Pentateuch.9 For instance, in the Minor Prophets there are eight cases where ‫ נחם‬nip‘al has been rendered by μετανοέω ‘to change one’s mind’ (in all eight cases the subject is God). In the fragmentary Nahal & *Hever scroll, two of these eight cases (Jonah 3:9, 10) happen to be preserved. Jonah 3:9 ‫האֹלהים‬ ִ ֱ ָ ‫ונחם‬ ַ ִ ְ ‫מי־יֹודע ָיׁשּוב‬ ַ ֵ ִ τίς οἶδεν εἰ μετανοήσει ὁ θεός 8HevXIIgr: * τίς [οἶ]δ[εν] ἐπι[σ]τ[ρέψει καὶ] παρ[ακληθήσετα]ι ὁ θεό[ς] Jonah 3:10 ‫על־הרעה‬ ָ ָ ָ ַ ‫האֹלהים‬ ִ ֱ ָ ‫וּיּנחם‬ ֶ ָ ִ ַ καὶ μετενόησεν ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τῇ κακίᾳ 8HevXIIgr: * [καὶ παρ]εκλήθη ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τῇ [κ]ακίᾳ In both cases, we can observe a change by the reviser to παρακαλέομαι (pass. of παρακαλέω), which shows that the reviser shared the sensitivity of the Pentateuch translators but used a different solution. There is no reason to

8 The translator of Exodus clearly knows the meaning ‘to regret’ and uses it with a human subject at Exod 13:17. Genesis, however, does not have a case with a human subject. 9 In Gen 6:6, 7 Aquila presents μεταμέλομαι, and in Num 23:19 Symmachus, μεταμέλομαι.

46

Anneli Aejmelaeus

doubt that the remaining six cases, which are not preserved, were changed accordingly. The translation of ‫ נחם‬nip‘al by παρακαλέομαι combines the two different forms of the verb, pi‘el ‘to comfort’ and nip‘al ‘to be comforted’ and ‘to regret’. In fact, this solution recognizes only one of the meanings of the nip‘al, the passive ‘to be comforted’, and thus solves the problem of God regretting by removing it. It is hardly just a question of finding one rendering for the different forms of the same verb. The meaning of the text is changed in a way that shows concern for the theological problem involved. Moreover, it should be noted that the Greek verb παρακαλέομαι does not have the meaning ‘to regret’, although the Liddell-Scott dictionary offers this meaning.10 How to translate παρακαλέομαι in these cases is not quite simple: should it be “God was comforted” or “appeased”? The difficulty of finding a suitable English translation reflects the artificial nature of the reviser’s solution. I first encountered this problem in my work on the critical text of 1 Samuel. The verb ‫ נחם‬nip‘al occurs in the Books of Samuel in the meaning ‘to regret’ and with God as the subject in 1 Sam 15:11, 29 bis, 35 and 2 Sam 24:16.11 I have discussed these cases before, as I have struggled with them for a long time, but I think they are worth taking up again in the present context.12 To begin with, in 2 Sam 24:16, which is part of the kaige section in the latter part of 2 Samuel, God regrets having sent the plague angel to destroy Israel and stops him at Araunah’s threshing floor. The rendering found in Rahlfs’s text is παρακαλέομαι, as expected. ָ ָ ָ ֶ ‫יהוה‬ ָ ְ ‫וּיּנחם‬ ֶ ָ ִ ַ καὶ παρεκλήθη Κύριος ἐπὶ τῇ κακίᾳ 2 Sam 24:16 ‫אל־הרעה‬ παρεκλήθη] μετεμελήθη L; poenitentiam habuit LaM

H.G. Liddell & R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (rev. by H.S. Jones; with a revised Supplement; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 1311, attributes the meaning ‘relent’ to Judg 21:6, 15 (with a reference to 2 Sam 24:16) and ‘repent’, ‘regret’ to 1 Sam 15:11. Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Dictionary of the Septuagint (Louvain–Paris– Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2009) 527, gives 1 Sam 15:11 as an example of ironical usage of the verb ‘to comfort, console’; the meaning given for the passive by Muraoka is ‘to be touched and affected emotionally’ or ‘to allow oneself to be swayed by a plea to help’ 11  In addition, pi‘el ‘to comfort, to console’ (2 Sam 10:2–3; 12:24) and nip‘al ‘to be comforted’ (2 Sam 13:39) occur a few times in 2 Samuel. 12 A. Aejmelaeus, “Lost in Reconstruction? On Hebrew and Greek Reconstructions in 2 Sam 24”, BIOSCS 40 (2007) 89–106; eadem, “A Kingdom at Stake: Reconstructing the Old Greek—Deconstructing the Textus Receptus” in A. Voitila/J. Jokiranta (ed.), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (JSJS 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 353–66. 10

Does God Regret?

47

However, μεταμέλομαι is witnessed by the Lucianic text (L = 19–82–93–108– 127) and confirmed by Vetus Latina.13 As is often the case, the Lucianic text here represents the Old Greek, which was changed by the kaige revision. Thus, we encounter in 2 Sam 24 the same phenomenon as in the two passages of Jonah in the Nahal & Hever * scroll. A further occurrence of this phenomenon is found in 1 Sam 15.

Kaige Revision in a Non-Kaige Section In the composition of 1 Samuel, ch. 15 anticipates the turn from Saul’s kingship to David’s. It is of late creation, showing in its basic design connections to the Torah, which clearly had already gained an authoritative position. Saul is put to a test: he is expected to wipe out the Amalekites in accordance with Deut 29:15—and he fails. As a consequence, he is rejected. God regrets having made Saul king over Israel. The verb ‫ נחם‬nip‘al is used four times in this chapter (vv. 11, 29 bis, and 35). In vv. 11 and 35, God is said to regret having made Saul king over Israel, which accords with the post-dtr theology of Jer 18. In fact, this late story seems to apply that post-dtr theological reasoning to the fate of an individual instead of a nation in order to explain why Saul, the first king chosen by God and successful in his battles, had been replaced by David. Verse 29, however, shows dependence on the second Balaam oracle in Num 23:19—another link to the Torah—saying the opposite: God does not regret, actually meaning that he is not taking back Saul’s rejection. God does not regret having regretted. In the Septuagint, ‫ נחם‬nip‘al in vv. 11 and 35 was translated by μεταμέλομαι, whereas the rendering in the two cases of v. 29 is μετανοέω. At 1 Sam 15:11, Rahlfs’s edition, however, follows the B text,14 which represents a kaige type correction with παρακαλέομαι—just as in Jonah 3:9, 10 in Nahal & *Hever and in 2 Sam 24:16.

13  LaM refers to the marginal readings found in Spanish Vulgate exemplars (Lat cod 91–95), according to Ciriaca Morano Rodríguez, Las Glosas Marginales de Vetus Latina en las Biblias Vulgatas Españolas: 1–2 Samuel (Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 48; Madrid: CSIC, 1989). 14 The Greek manuscripts of 1 Samuel with their preliminary groupings (those not available for 1 Sam 15 in parentheses): A B (M) V; O = 247–376; L = 19–82–93–108–127; CI = 98–243–379–731; CII = 46–52–236–242–313–328–530; a = 119–527–799; b = 121– 509; d = 44–68–74–106–107–120–122–125–134–370–610; f = 56–246; s = 64–92–130–314– 381–488–489-(762); 29 55 71 158 244 245 318 (342) 460 554 707.

48

Anneli Aejmelaeus

1 Sam 15:11 ‫למלְך‬ ֶ ֶ ְ ‫את־ׁשאּול‬ ָ ֶ ‫ּכי־המלכּתי‬ ִ ְ ַ ְ ִ ִ ‫נחמּתי‬ ִ ְ ַ ִ

μεταμεμέλημαι ὅτι ἔχρισα τὸν Σαοὺλ εἰς βασιλέα μεταμεμέλημαι] μεταμελημαι V 46*-313 55* 71 460; μεμεταμελιμαι 245; μεταμελομαι d 554; παρακεκλημαι A B 247 93mg-108mg 121*(vid) Ra: cf M; παρακεκληκαι με 376 om ὅτι ἔχρισα A | ἔχρισα] εβασιλευσα B O L b 244 460 Ra = M θ´ παρακέκλημαι σ´ μετεμελήθην 243-731(s nom)

One of the most important results of my work on 1 Samuel is that the B text (Vaticanus and its satellite minuscules 121-509 and Aeth) occasionally witnesses revised readings of the kaige type, and 1 Sam 15:11 is an example where this is the case. In the case of παρακαλέομαι the connection to kaige in Nahal & Hever * and 2 Sam 24 is very clear. It is typical that these sporadic early Jewish approximations to the Hebrew text, witnessed by the B text, are often followed by Alexandrinus (= A) and the O group (247-376) that represent the Hexaplaric text. The presence of the Hexaplaric group may seem confusing, but the readings in question are not of Hexaplaric origin. Rather, they belong to the basic text used by Origen, to which the Hexaplaric changes were made. This basic text—or one of the Septuagint manuscripts used by Origen for his basic text—happens to have been very similar to the B text.15 In the case of παρακέκλημαι, the O group is split because of an error in 376. The marginal readings in two mss of the L group (παρακέκλημαι 93mg108mg) probably derive from Theodotion to which this reading is attributed by a Hexaplaric marginal note in manuscript 243. The main text of the L group has μεταμεμέλημαι, and this again was possibly picked up by 509 of the b group, which thus retains the Old Greek reading. The attribution of the revised reading to Theodotion nicely confirms Barthélemy’s characterization of the phenomenon. The Symmachus reading corresponds to the Old Greek μεταμέλομαι (but formulated in the aorist instead of the perfect), and this and other direct equivalents are also elsewhere attributed to Symmachus. On the other hand, there may have been some confusion with the attributions of marginal readings, as both παρακαλέομαι and μεταμέλομαι have been attributed in different books to Aquila. 15

This was already observed by Sebastian P. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of 1 Samuel (Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford 1966; Quaderni di Henoch 9 [with a Foreword by Natalio Fernández Marcos]; Torino: Silvio Zamorani, 1996), esp. 170. The distribution of the readings shared by O and the B text is not as wide as that of actual Hexaplaric readings, which must be due to the latter having originally been marked with asterisks.

Does God Regret?

49

For the sake of comparison, V. 11 contains another correction in the B text from “to anoint” to “to make king”. Thus, in the Old Greek, God regrets having anointed Saul. Both cases witness the same kind of activity to correct Greek wordings according to the Hebrew, but the difference between the two cases is that the first one represents a theological problem connected with the interpretation of the Hebrew text, whereas in the second case there were obviously variant forms of the Hebrew. The verb ‫ מלך‬hip‘il is used in the parallel case in v. 35: 1 Sam 15:35 ‫על־יׂשראל‬ ֵ ָ ְ ִ ַ ‫את־ׁשאּול‬ ָ ֶ ‫ּכי־המליְך‬ ִ ְ ִ ִ ‫נחם‬ ָ ִ ‫ויהוה‬ ָ ַ καὶ Κύριος μετεμελήθη ὅτι ἐβασίλευσεν τὸν Σαοὺλ ἐπὶ Ἰσραήλ The parallel in v. 35 probably caused the change, but the presence of the noun ‫ ֶמ ֶלְך‬in v. 11 hints at ‫ מׁשח‬having been original there.16 It is interesting to note that the Lucianic group represents the Old Greek in the former case, but the revised form in the latter. This means that the Lucianic text, although having an ancient text as its basis, was not totally “untouched” by the kaige revision—as is often claimed. The Lucianic revisers obviously had knowledge of different textual traditions and could use them, if it seemed suitable for their purposes. These early approximations also characteristically differ from Hexaplaric ones, in that they often concern lexical items, the equivalents used for certain Hebrew words, whereas the Hexaplaric recension mainly concentrates on quantitative variants, plusses and minuses in comparison to the Hebrew text, and especially complementation of minuses. Let us now have a look at v. 29, which concludes our discussion of the theme of God regretting, but which also reveals something more about the early approximations. In v. 29 there are two cases of ‫ נחם‬nip‘al, and the Old Greek rendering this time is μετανοέω. No revision of the verb was actually necessary, because it is argued that God will not change his mind. This statement is the exact opposite of the theology developed in the post-dtr layers of Jeremiah. 1 Sam 15:29 ‫להּנחם‬ ֵ ָ ִ ְ ‫אדם הּוא‬ ָ ָ ‫לא‬ ֹ ‫יּנחם ִּכי‬ ֵ ָ ִ ‫ולא‬ ֹ ְ ‫יׁשּקר‬ ֵ ַ ְ ‫לא‬ ֹ καὶ οὐκ ἀποστρέψει (4QSama ‫ )ישוב‬οὐδὲ μετανοήσει, ὅτι οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν τοῦ μετανοῆσαι αὐτός (Ra) 16

Both “to anoint” and “to make king” are witnessed by the Old Latin in v. 11, e.g. quoniam con[st]itui Saul regem La116; quod constituerim Saul in regem Aug Leg. 1.42; quod regem fecerim Saul Tert Marc. 2.24.11; unxisse Saul (post regem tr Luc) in regem Apo 2.19 Aug Leg. 1.42 PsGreg Conc. 7 Luc Reg. 2 Opt Par. 2.23; Saulem unxisse regem in Israel Pel II 5.8.

50

Anneli Aejmelaeus

In parallelism with the first “regret”, the Greek text reveals ἀποστρέφω, which reflects a variant reading also found in the Qumran Samuel scroll. In this case, there is no approximation to the MT (‫ ׁשקר‬pi‘el ‘to deceive’). There are also many other problems in this verse, but I do not wish to discuss all of them here.17 This much is clear: the verse contains a statement about God who is different from human beings, in that he does not change his mind but always stands behind his word. The Greek text offered by Rahlfs in v. 29 is in accordance with the MT— except for one minor item, the word αὐτός at the end of the verse, and the presence of this word betrays the shortening of the text. The original Old Greek, which I restore against Rahlfs, had a longer text: καὶ οὐκ ἀποστρέψει οὐδὲ μετανοήσει, ὅτι οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν τοῦ μετανοῆσαι αὐτὸς ἀπειλήσει καὶ οὐκ ἐμμενεῖ;

He (= God) will not turn nor repent, for he is not as a human being that he should repent. Should he threaten and not keep to it? αὐτός—ἐμμενεῖ] pr αυτος 554: dittogr; αὐτός A B O b −121mg d −44 = Ra; ipse minatur et non permanet Aug CD 17.7; quia ipse iratus est Aeth; ipse minabitur Arm; irascetur Sa; > αὐτός V 245 707; > L 44 LaM = M

Rahlfs again follows the B text, which is accompanied by A and O, and this time also by d −44. The list of witnesses is very similar to the previous cases. The majority of witnesses (including 121mg) have the long text, three witnesses (V 245 707) leaving out just the word αὐτός. Even Aeth and Sa hint that they had the long text in their source, although they did not get it quite right. Augustine clearly has it, witnessing to the Old Latin. The Lucianic text, manuscript 44, and LaM, however, lack the whole sentence, but may 17

Although it is clear that the verse speaks of God, it does not contain an explicit subject. The MT contains the enigmatic ‫ נֵ ַצח יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬that is often interpreted as a divine name: the “Victory of Israel”/ “the Glory of Israel.” Such a divine epithet is otherwise not found. The context, however, demands some kind of reference to God. The Septuagint translates here καὶ διαιρεθήσεται Ἰσραὴλ εἰς δύο “And Israel shall be divided into two”, which is either a mistranslation—or a marginal note meaning that the correct reading would be ‫“ יׁשר אל‬God is upright” and not “Israel”. In his reconstruction of 4QSama, Cross offers a back-translation of the Septuagint [‫]יחצה ישראל לשנים‬, which shows his at times uncritical reliance on the Septuagint; on the other hand, it is by no means certain that 4QSama did not contain the longer text at the end of v. 29, as the remains of these lines are on several small pieces; see Frank Moore Cross, Donald W. Parry, Richard J. Saley, and Eugene Ulrich, Qumran Cave 4: XII 1–2 Samuel (DJD XVII; Oxford: OUP, 2005), 77 and Plate XIIa.

Does God Regret?

51

have in fact omitted just one word, αὐτός, which is awkward at the end of the shorter text. In this case, neither B nor L witnesses the Old Greek.

The Parallel in Numbers But what does the final sentence mean? It does not make much sense unless it is understood as a question: “Should he threaten and not keep it?” A model for the back-translation is found in Num 23:19, the second oracle of Balaam. Num 23:19 ‫ויתנחם‬ ָ ֶ ְ ִ ְ ‫ּובן־אדם‬ ָ ָ ֶ ‫ויכּזב‬ ֵ ַ ִ ‫לא ִאיׁש ֵאל‬ ֹ

‫יקימּנה‬ ָ ֶ ִ ְ ‫ולא‬ ֹ ְ ‫ודּבר‬ ֶ ִ ְ ‫יעׂשה‬ ֶ ֲ ַ ‫ולא‬ ֹ ְ ‫אמר‬ ַ ָ ‫ַההּוא‬

God is not a man, that he should lie; (he is not) a human being, that he should regret. Has he said and will not do? Or has he spoken and will not fulfill it? οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ θεὸς διαρτηθῆναι οὐδὲ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀπειληθῆναι·18 αὐτὸς εἴπας οὐχὶ ποιήσει;, λαλήσει καὶ οὐχὶ ἐμμενεῖ;

God is not like a man, so that he could be interrupted (!), nor like a human being, that he could be terrified by threats (!). Shall he say and not do? Shall he speak and not keep it? The Vorlage of the Septuagint at 1 Sam 15:29 must have had a similar formulation: ‫ההוא אמר ולא יקימנה‬.19

In fact, the second Balaam oracle must have been the model for the Samuel editor who formulated the verse in Hebrew. Many commentators think that

18 19

This is the reading in the editions of Wevers as well as Rahlfs. Cf. however Jdt 8:16 οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ θεὸς ἀπειληθῆναι οὐδʹ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου διαιτηθῆναι. The symmetry of “threaten” and “cajole” may have been original even in Numbers. See note 21 below. The choice of ἀπειλέω ‘threaten’ is extraordinary but occurs in the first part of the very same verse, Num 23:19. It is altogether fairly rare: twice in the Pentateuch (Gen 27:42, Num 23:19, both translating ‫ נחם‬hitpa‘el), twice in the Prophets (Isa 66:14 for ‫זעם‬, Nah 1:4 for ‫)גער‬, 5 times in the Apocrypha ( Jdt 8:16, 3 Macc 4:19, 4 Macc 9:5, Sir 19:17, Sus 1:28), twice in the NT (Acts 4:17, 1 Peter 2:23). Thus, it is difficult to know how to backtranslate ἀπειλέω. The translator of 1 Samuel may have picked it up from Num 23:19, but he did not check the Hebrew-Greek equivalence. Using the Torah mainly in Greek would be consistent with this translator’s defective knowledge of Hebrew.

52

Anneli Aejmelaeus

v. 29 is a later addition or part of such, as it contradicts v. 11 according to which God regretted making Saul king.20 Whether an original part of ch. 15 or a later addition to it, it nevertheless reveals the authoritative status of the Torah and the need to create links to the Torah in order to raise the status of the receiving text, namely, the Books of Samuel.

Theological Concerns of the two Parallel Passages The context of the theological statement in Numbers is very different: Balaam has orders from Balak to curse Israel, but he blesses it because this is what God tells him to do. God does not change his mind about blessing Israel no matter what Balak does to effect such a change.21 In 1 Sam 15 this is applied to God’s rejection of Saul. Saul tries to get out of trouble by explaining and apologizing (vv. 24–25), by grabbing the edge of Samuel’s robe and tearing it (v. 27), but he cannot change God’s decision to reject him. The longer text is certainly original in the Old Greek, but it was shortened by an early reviser in order to make it accord with the MT, which must also have been shortened, perhaps to clarify the text or to relieve the contradiction with v. 11. Unlike the Hexaplaric recension, the early kaige-type revision can be observed to have omitted plusses of the Greek text. This revised, shorter reading was followed by the B text apart from a minor slip, αὐτός not having been erased. This, too, shows how difficult the longer text was to understand correctly. This partially shortened text served as the basis for the Hexaplaric recension and was regarded as the Septuagint. Furthermore, the very same difficulty of the passage may have also caused the shortening in L, this time in the interest of the readability of the text and perhaps with the help of one of the later translators in the Hexapla. “God does not regret” is a significant theological statement shared by the Torah (second Balaam oracle) and 1 Sam 15. This statement must have 20

21

For instance, P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, (AB 8; New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/Auckland: Doubleday, 1980), 268; Graeme Auld, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011) 178–9. The normal translations with “that he should lie” and “… regret” actually do not quite fit the situation. The point is whether God could be made to change his mind: “God is not a man that one could lie to him/flatter him … that one could threaten him (to change his mind).” The latter part of the phrase in the Septuagint clearly represents this interpretation. However, the first verb διαρτηθῆναι is hard to understand. In fact, this must be an error, and the correct form is found (not in any of the mss in Numbers but) in the quotation of this passage in Judith 8:16 where the corresponding verb is διαιτηθῆναι “(that) he could be persuaded.”

Does God Regret?

53

provided the motivation for the kaige-type corrections we have been discussing: if God does not change his mind, then ‫ נחם‬nip‘al should not be understood in the meaning ‘to regret’ and not translated with μεταμέλομαι or μετανοέω, but rather παρακαλέομαι ‘to be comforted’. In Hebrew, this can be understood as an instruction for the reading of ‫ נחם‬nip‘al when the subject is God: God does not “regret like human beings”.

Conclusions I come to my conclusions. The points I hope to have been able to demonstrate are the following: • Early Jewish revisional activity of the type defined by Barthélemy is also found sporadically in the non-kaige sections. The recognition of the discussed readings as revisional would not have been possible without Barthélemy’s pioneering work. The sporadic nature of these kaige-type readings is, however, puzzling. One is tempted to think that the readings in question might be excerpts from a more fully revised text. • The Lucianic text is not totally untouched by the kaige revision; it is based on an ancient text, but the Lucianic revisers knew different textual traditions and could even pick up kaige readings if they seemed suitable to them. The source of these readings may have been a Septuagint manuscript with sporadic early corrections or the Theodotion column in the Hexapla. Hexaplaric marginal readings frequently attribute to Theodotion readings that are identical with kaige-type approximations. • Revisional activity on the Septuagint of the historical books is connected with the revision of the Hebrew text, which is again connected with the emerging scriptural status of these books. Scriptural status means, among other things, that the text in question gains interest as an object of exegesis. • Revisional activity on the Hebrew as well as the Greek text was exegetically and theologically motivated. This, I believe, will become increasingly clearer through detailed study of the text as the work on the critical editions of the historical books proceeds. The rise of rabbinical exegesis certainly plays an important role in this development. The point is that exegesis on the Greek text should lead to the same results as that on the Hebrew text.

Andrés Piquer Otero

The Minuses of the B 509 Manuscript Group in 3–4 Kingdoms1 1. Introduction In the Septuagint text of the historical books of the Bible, the scholar is confronted with something that could be defined as a maze or tangle of evidence. This labyrinthine quality of the data that an analysis of codices, versions, and textual groups or types may yield is evidently caused by the fragmentary and uneven nature of our knowledge of the process of transmission of the text, something that is in turn aggravated by well-known facts of the Greek Bible in general and of the historical books in particular, namely: 1. its being a translation of a Hebrew original more or less distant from (but at any rate not identical to) the Hebrew Bible available to us in its entirety (MT); 2. the historical process of revision/recension of an earlier text in order to bring it closer to the shape of a Hebrew text different from the basis of the translation, an activity which involves an element of treatment of the text as sacred in which literalness became more important as centuries went by;2 3. the uneven and mixed representation of witnesses, due to either the fragmentary status of a given text or version (e.g., the Old Latin) or the mixed

1 The research on which the present pages are based has been carried out with the support of a Research Grant of the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. 2 For this situation and the challenges it presents in relationship to the production of critical editions and recovery of the Hebrew textual history, see A. Piquer Otero, “Hebrew Bible(s) and Greek Witnesses? A First Look at the Makeup of 2 Kings for the Oxford Hebrew Bible”, in M.K.H. Peters, XIV Congress of the IOSCS: Helsinki 2010 (SBLSCS 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2013) 691–704. The richness and complexity of the formation and history of the Septuagint and its ultimate relevance for the study of the development of the Hebrew text is aptly reflected in recent works such as D.M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

The Minuses of the B 509 Manuscript Group in 3–4 Kingdoms

55

nature or type of text within a single manuscript of a biblical book (e.g., the kaige and Old Greek sections in Samuel-Kings of Codex B). All in all, if textual criticism of a, so to speak, standard, “authored” Greek book could be compared to the reconstruction of a mosaic picture effaced by time and with a vast number of cracks and hollows, the biblical (and Septuagint) textual critic would be faced with at least three or four mosaics showing similar motifs, produced and mixed as early forerunners tried to fix and improve the original work with similar but not identical materials, a box of shuffled tesserae holding the same image, but from different times, periods, and styles. Here, I want nevertheless to bring this to the foreground of this paper as I will focus on a particular set of readings that show how mechanical treatment of variants and agreements between manuscripts and derived typological groupings can be not just a challenge but also somehow misleading unless we keep in mind that overarching judgments and conclusions often require some justification and continuous assessment and revision of evidence from different angles of analysis.3 The cases I am going to present involve some of these overarching principles. Though an analysis such as the one I am attempting here does not aim at debunking or refuting them (it is, in fact, built upon them), I hope that some of the complexities and—sadly—limitations of our capacity for reaching an Old Greek text of the Septuagint of Kings will be underscored. It is well known that codex B is a reliable source for the Old Greek text of Samuel-Kings in the so-called Old Greek or non-kaige sections of these books (α = 1 Samuel; ββ = 2 Samuel 1:1–11:1; γγ = 1 Kgs 2:12–21:43). On the other hand, the text represented in B underwent the kaige recension in sections βγ (2 Sam 11:2–1 Kgs 2:11) and γδ (1 Kgs 22:1–2 Kgs) and thus it presents a text-type affected by a revision that brings it closer to a 3 The need for flexibility in assessing variants across textual sections has led to the coining of categories such as ‘kaige-like’ readings (which would take place outside proposed kaige sections of books that underwent that type of recension). See, e.g., A. Aejmelaeus, “A Kingdom at Stake: Reconstructing the Old Greek—Deconstructing the Textus Receptus”, in A. Voitila/J. Jokiranta, (ed.), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (JSJSup 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 352–66; eadem, “How to Reach the Old Greek in 1 Samuel and What to Do with it”, in M. Nissinen, (ed.), Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (VTSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 185–205; A. Piquer Otero, “Who Names the Namers? The Interpretation of Necromantic Terms in Jewish Translations of the Bible”, in A. Piquer Otero/P. Torijano Morales, (ed.), Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera. Florilegium Complutense (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 241–276.

56

Andrés Piquer Otero

philo-proto-Masoretic Hebrew model.4 In these sections, an older (prekaige) text may be attained at times by the study of the Lucianic manuscripts 19-82-93-108-127 and their agreement with the Old Latin and other secondary versions that might reveal a pre-Lucianic textual stratum, potentially earlier than the kaige text.5 This is a basic sketch of the well-known textual hypothesis. But it is also to be taken into consideration that, as a codex, B has a remarkable tendency to haplography,6 and hence its readings should be checked with other witnesses typologically close to it, mainly codex 509 and the Ethiopic version (after taking into account the difficulties inherent in the Ethiopic manuscript tradition).7 Here I will examine agreements of a particular kind, those between B and the extant parts of 509 in 1 Kings (that is, 1 Kgs 1:1–16:28, with a lacuna at 13:17–15:19, i.e., the end of the kaige section βγ and the majority of the Old Greek section γγ) where both manuscripts present a textual omission8 when compared with the majority Greek text (including the Lucianic manuscripts and other sources). The reasons behind these omissions within the landscape of the Septuagint of Kings and its texttypes in relationship to a Hebrew Vorlage (and a recensional model close to proto-MT) will perhaps shed some light on particular readings and may also constitute a relevant case study for the importance of taking overarching principles behind witnesses with a grain of salt.

4 This analysis was matured in the seminal study by the scholar whose memory and contributions to Biblical scholarship were celebrated in the SBL International Meeting panel at St. Andrews 2013 where the oral version of this paper was originally given: see Barthélemy, Devanciers. 5 For a summary, especially in connection with the secondary versions, see A. Piquer Otero/P. Torijano Morales/J. Trebolle Barrera, “Septuagint Versions, Greek Recensions and Hebrew Editions: The Text-Critical Evaluation of the Old Latin, Armenian and Georgian Versions in III–IV Regnorum”, in H. Ausloos et al. (ed.), Translating a Translation: The LXX and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL 213; Leuven: Peeters, 2008) 251–81. 6  B. Johnson, Die hexaplarische Rezension des 1. Samuelbuches der Septuaginta (Studia Theologica Lundensia 22; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1963), 42: “Die Sonderlesarten von B bestehen grossenteils aus offensichtlichen Textfehlern.” 7 See the seminal article of H.S. Gehman, “The Old Ethiopic Version of 1. Kings and Its Affinities”, JBL 50 (1931) 81–114. For a recent assessment of the textual typology of the Ethiopic Bible, see M.A. Knibb, Translating the Bible: The Ethiopic Versions of the Old Testament (New York: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 2000). 8 The terms “omission” and “minus” are used throughout this paper as mere formal descriptors when comparing the reading of a given manuscript or manuscript group to the Greek majority text, which is considered therefore a copy-text, and do not imply any a priori judgments on the nature of text-historical causes that led to the shorter text.

57

The Minuses of the B 509 Manuscript Group in 3–4 Kingdoms

2. Types of Omission per Section In order to propose explanations for the different omissions in the text, I will compare the shorter reading of B + 509 (and in some cases the Ethiopic and other sources) to the Hebrew MT, Rahlfs’s edition of the Septuagint, and the majority Greek, indicating, when necessary, the particularities of the Lucianic group.

2.1. Kaige Section βγ 2.1.1. Omissions in Agreement with MT B + 509

1:17 1:47

κύριέ

Rahlfs

Majority reading

L (when different) κύριέ βασιλεῦ

κύριέ μου

κύριέ μου

βασιλεῦ

βασιλεῦ

Σαλωμων

Σαλωμων τοῦ

Σαλωμων τοῦ

τοῦ υἱοῦ σου

(AethC)

υἱοῦ σου

υἱοῦ σου

Σολομωντος

MT

‫ֲאד ֹ ִני‬ ‫מה‬ ֹ ‫ְׁשֹל‬

These two cases seem to follow the MT, as could be expected. Even if the variants are minor and are connected with formulaic language (choosing between shorter and longer variants of forms of address), B and 509 agree in showing a text closer to a proto-MT Hebrew model, in this case a shorter text. Such a situation would be expected of a kaige section and characterizes codices of the B group (including, in the second case, part of the Ethiopic tradition) as witnesses of recensional activity on the Old Greek.9 Rahlfs’s choice was, coherently, to propose the longer texts as the Old Septuagint, siding with the majority Greek readings.

9 Cf. A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (Septuaginta Studien 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 168, 174.

58

Andrés Piquer Otero

2.1.2. Minuses in Disagreement with MT

1:17

B + 509

Rahlfs

Majority reading

τῷ θεῷ σου

κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ

κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ

σου

σου

1:35

L (when different)

MT

ָ ‫ְי‬ ‫הוה ֱאֹל ֶהיָך‬

καὶ

‫ַו ֲע ִלי ֶתם‬

ἀναβήσεσθε ὀπἰσω αὐτοῦ

‫אח ָריו‬ ֲ ַ

καὶ

‫ּו ָבא‬

εἰσελεύσεται καὶ

καὶ

καὶ

καθήσεται

καθήσεται

καθήσεται

κύριος ὁ θεός

κύριος

‫ְ ָוי ַׁשב‬

(Sah) 1:36

ὁ θεός

(Sah Aeth Lat) 1:49

ὁ θεός

ὁ θεός

‫יְ ה ָוה‬ ‫ֱאֹל ֵהי‬

καὶ

καὶ

καὶ

καὶ

ἐξανέστησαν

ἐξέστησαν

ἐξέστησαν

ἐξανέστησαν

(Aeth)

καὶ

καὶ

καὶ

ἐξανέστησαν

ἐξανέστησαν

ἀνεπήδησαν

‫ַו ֶּי ֶח ְרדּו‬ ‫ַ ָוּי ֻקמו‬

(Josephus Syr)

Nevertheless, this second set of cases in the same chapter indicates that reality could be more complex. What we find here are three readings in which the majority Greek text is closer to a MT-like Hebrew, whereas B+509, by themselves or with the support of secondary versions (and, in 1:36, of the Lucianic group), read a shorter text. This is particularly significant in the case of 1:35, which is marked in several sources with an asterisk. Rahlfs’s proposed text implies that B + 509 + Sah preserves a Greek text without the Hexaplaric addition καὶ ἀναβήσεσθε ὀπἰσω αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰσελεύσεται, which has made its way into the majority of Greek witnesses (including the Lucianic text).10 On the other hand, the other two cases could have been treated 10  See J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 85, who considers explanations of an intrusion from v. 45 as dubious. Cf. B. Stade/F. Schwally, The Books of Kings: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text (The Sacred Books of the Old Testament 9; A Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text Printed in Colors, with Notes 9 (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1904), 62.

The Minuses of the B 509 Manuscript Group in 3–4 Kingdoms

59

similarly: the omission of κύριος in both cases cannot be viewed as accidental, as it is fairly consistent in the two main codices and supported, in the second case, by both important secondary versions and the Lucianic text. The equation B + 509 + L + Lat Sah Aeth of 1:36 in particular is very telling, as it fulfills the principle of checking Lucianic readings with secondary versions that may allow us to define a pre-Lucianic layer of text, which, in this case, is in agreement with B + 509 versus the majority of the Greek tradition (and, in this case, Rahlfs’s edition choice). Also, it is the kind of case which should give us pause and make us suspect that in other cases where L has assimilated readings of a prospective Hexaplaric (philo-MT, at any rate) nature, an older layer of text could be recovered with the assistance of B + 509 and secondary versions as well. As seen here, this might be true even in kaige sections. Rahlfs’s difference of choices here seems to have been caused by the presence of a Hexaplaric mark in the evidence of 1:35. As a running principle for this paper, I think that we should accept the possibility that many readings which could be classified as “Hexaplaric” or, at the very least, philo-MT, are going to appear in the Greek majority text without any kind of markers; therefore, a good study of recurring features requires contextualizing them in the larger framework of the recurrence of variant types in the codices and groups. Therefore, the same reconstruction of a shorter text which appears in Rahlfs’s edition of 1:35 could have been applied for 1:17 and 1:36, via the agreement between B + 509 and secondary versions (plus L in v. 36.) I have left for last in this section, nevertheless, a case that shows the complexities of this approach: in 1:49 the short reading in B + 509 + Aeth seems to be caused, in all likelihood, by intra-Greek parablepsis. I do not find the evidence of the omission especially conclusive for determining the Old Greek reconstruction of the passage; even though the majority text has two more similar (almost identical) verbs in sequence, which would be consistent with an omission through complete parablepsis, the sequence in L + Josephus could also easily lead to quasi-homoiarchon (or homoioteleuton) as well, resulting in the B text. The discussion of the lexical variant goes beyond the scope of this paper.11 What I find remarkable is that B + 509 seem consistent in sticking to omissions in this section, that is, they partake in the loss of one verb, which should very probably be traced back to a common single source, but there is no inclusion of additional text, even to bring the passage closer to a proto-MT form, which should be the running spirit of kaige or similar recensional activity. This information will become remarkable when assessing variants in the next section of 1 Kings.

11

On the presence of a doublet in M (and GL), see Stade/Schwally, Kings, 64.

60

Andrés Piquer Otero

2.2. Old Greek Section γγ In the Old Greek section γγ one would expect to find consistent agreement between prospective sources for a pre-Hexaplaric stratum of Kings, that is, the coincidence of readings between B + 509, the so-called non-Hexaplaric readings of L, and secondary versions such as the Ethiopic and, saliently, the Old Latin. I will present here how, nevertheless, disagreement between omissions is meaningful on different levels. 2.2.1. Minuses in Agreement with MT

11:27

B + 509

Rahlfs

Majority reading

L (when different)

MT

ἐπὶ βασιλέα

ἐπὶ βασιλέα

ἐπὶ βασιλέα

ἐπὶ τὸν βασιλέα

‫ַּב ֶּמ ֶלְך‬

Σαλωμων

Σαλωμων.

‫מה‬ ֹ ‫ְׁשֹל‬

(A N Syr)

Σαλωμων.

Σολομώντα.

καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς

καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς

Σαλωμων …

Σολομών

(Aeth) 12:20

ἀνέκαμψεν

ἀνέκαμψεν

ἀνέκαμψεν

ἀνέκαμψεν

‫ָׁשב‬

Ιεροβοαμ

Ιεροβοαμ

Ιεροβοαμ

Ιεροβοαμ

(A N Arm Syr)

‫יָ ָר ְב ָעם‬

ἐξ Αἰγύπτου

ἐξ Αἰγύπτου

ἐξ Αἰγύπτου

(Aeth Lucifer12)

In an Old Greek section, as expected, the number of agreements of shorter readings between B + 509 and MT is smaller; nevertheless it seems quite revealing as it shows the same tendency seen in the previous section: B + 509 agree with MT in cases which present a shorter text. In the cases above, this is shared with other uncial manuscripts (A and N) and it takes place regardless of the nature of the longer reading in the Greek majority text: in 12:20 the agreement of L with Lucifer and Aeth seems to indicate an Old Greek reading, preserved in the majority of codices,13 whereas B + 509 attest a shorter text, closer to proto-MT. The case of 11:27 is more ambiguous. One could simply interpret the majority Greek reading as a dittography of the 12 Reg. Apost. 3. 13  Stade/Schwally, Kings, 129, does not take into account the agreement between GL and Lucifer and considers the element superfluous.

The Minuses of the B 509 Manuscript Group in 3–4 Kingdoms

61

name Solomon, with one closing the first clause and the other opening the second, which otherwise would be lacking a subject if one were to interpret the group “the king / Solomon” as a phrase, as is the case in the Lucianic text where Solomon’s name is systematically inflected. B + 509 agree with the Hebrew reading tradition attested in the accentuation of the paragraph, with an atnah on ‫ ֶמ ֶלְך‬. Thus, there is no dittography of the nominal phrase, but rather a variant form of text with full phrases at the end of a sentence and at the beginning of the following one. It would be easy to just dismiss the majority Greek reading here as an expansive stylistic-facilitating development of the Septuagint tradition (the choice taken in Rahlfs’s edition).14 However, before accepting that conclusion, two ideas should be brought to mind: this point of text marks a juncture between literary units (“And this is the reason why he lifted hand against King Solomon. And King Solomon built the citadel…), moving the narrative to the antecedents of Jeroboam’s rebellion (and with the first clause of 11:27 being a “bridging reference” of sorts whose placement seems to be uncertain, as, in MT, is a quasi-literal repetition from the end of verse 26: “and he raised his hand against the king”). It would not be surprising, therefore, that this narrative unit had its own entity and that its insertion within the text of Kings produced changes at the level of the Hebrew. This could be also hinted at by the Vulgate, which presents a minor but remarkable variant: et haec causa rebellionis adversus eum, quia Salomon.… Jerome’s usage of the pronoun eum instead of the expected regem could be stylistic (and influenced by the presence of an identical clause, as mentioned, at the end of v. 26, which he proceeds to gloss), but it does mark a difference in clause division. All in all, the section seems to be textually problematic and what appears to be a Greek development could be reflecting a variant Hebrew Vorlage with longer phrases in each clause, something even more likely if the first half of v. 27 had been an editorial development of the text, which would have, in turn, distorted the original subject of the second half of the verse. This would mean that the longer reading in the Greek tradition may indicate not a mere facilitation of the reading, but the result of editorial activity in the composition of the passage. In any case, it is important to note how, in the case of a shorter text, B + 509 acts here (in an OG section) as a probable witness of a philo-MT version.15

14  Cf. Stade/Schwally, Kings 125, which considers GL as a facilitating reading, a tendency also visible in the Peshitta. 15 This is line with Aejmelaeus’s findings in 1 Samuel; see her article “Kaige Readings in a Non-kaige Section in 1 Samuel” in this volume.

62

Andrés Piquer Otero

2.2.2. Omissions in Disagreement with MT Finally, the largest number of variants related to omissions in B + 509 shows a text divergent from MT and from those manuscripts and versions that show readings in general closer to MT. Some of these readings in the extant Greek sources are characterized as Hexaplaric with the presence of an asterisk. I will not develop each and every reading, but just try to present some meaningful examples for reflection. Such is the case, for instance, of:

2:34

Rahlfs

Majority reading

καὶ

καὶ

※ καὶ ἀνἐβη

‫וַ ּיַ ַעל‬

ἀπήντησεν

ἀπήντησεν

Βαναιου υἱὸς

‫ְּב ָנ ָיהּו‬

Βαναιου

Βαναιου

Ιωδαε καὶ

υἱὸς Ιωδαε

υἱὸς Ιωδαε

ἀπήντησεν

(318 460) 2:36

L (when different)

B + 509

καὶ ἐκάλεσεν

ָ ‫ֶּבן ְי‬ ‫הֹוי ָדע‬ ‫וַ ּיִ ְפ ַּגע‬

αὐτῷ καὶ ἐκάλεσεν

(Aeth)

MT

‫ּבֹו‬

καὶ

‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַלח ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬

ἀπόστειλας

‫ַו ִּי ְק ָרא‬

καὶ ἐκάλεσεν

2:42

ἀποθανῇ

ἀποθανῇ

(56 245 121)

ἀποθανῇ

‫ָּתמּות‬

※ καὶ εἶπας

ֶ ֹ ‫ַוּת‬ ‫אמר ֵא ַלי‬

μοι ἀγαθὸν

‫טֹוב ַה ָּד ָבר‬

τὸ ῥῆμα ὅ

‫ָׁש ָמ ְע ִּתי‬

ἤκουσα

2:46

καὶ ἀνεῖλεν

καὶ ἀνεῖλεν

καὶ ἀνεῖλεν

καὶ ἀνεῖλεν

(Aeth)

αὐτόν

αὐτόν

αὐτόν

καὶ ἀπέθανεν

καὶ ἀπέθανεν

καὶ ἀπέθανεν

τῷ κυρίῳου

τῷ ὀνόματι

τῷ ὀνόματι

(Aeth)

κυρίου

κυρίου

λάβετε

λάβετέ μοι

λάβετέ μοι

καὶ Σαδουχ

※ καὶ

‫וַ ּיִ ְפ ַּגע־‬ ‫ּבֹו‬ ‫מת‬ ֹ ָ‫וַ ּי‬

ὁ Σεμεει

3:2 3:24

(Aeth) 4:4

καὶ Σαδουχ

(245 Aeth)

‫ְל ֵׁשם‬ ‫יְ ה ָוה‬ ‫ְקחּו ִלי‬ ‫ּו ְב ָנ ָיהּו‬

βαναιας υἱὸς

ָ ‫ֶבן־ ְי‬ ‫הֹוי ָדע‬

ιωδαε

ַ ‫ַע‬ ‫ל־ה ָּצ ָבא‬

ἐπὶ τῆς στρατίας καὶ σαδδουκ

(LaM)

‫ְו ָצדֹוק‬

63

The Minuses of the B 509 Manuscript Group in 3–4 Kingdoms

4:17

B + 509

Rahlfs

Majority reading

L (when different)

υἱὸς Ηλα

Σαμαα

Ιωσαφατ

Σαμαα

(Aeth)

υἱὸς Ηλα

υἱὸς

υἱὸς Ηλα

Φουασουδ ἐν Ισσαχαρ Σεμεει

MT ָ ‫ְי‬ ‫הֹוׁש ָפט‬ ‫רּוח‬ ַ ‫ן־ּפ‬ ָ ‫ֶּב‬ ‫ּבי ָׂשש ָכר‬ ְִ

‫ ִׁש ְמ ִעי‬18

‫ן־א ָלא‬ ֵ ‫ֶב‬

υἱὸς Ηλα

4:26

καὶ

καὶ

καὶ

ἐπληθύνθη

ἐπληθύνθη

ἐπληθύνθη ※

(55)

‫וּת ֶרב‬ ֵ ַ ‫ָח ְכ ַמת‬

σοφίᾳ

This list from chapters 2–4 is already quite significant and shows, when comparing the textual evidence to Rahlfs’s editorial decisions, the problems that our sources give rise to: it seems that the short text (attested by B + 509 with other agreements) is to be preferred when the longer Greek text is characterized as Hexaplaric. When such is not the case, a longer text (closer to MT) is proposed as the older Septuagint reading. This is remarkable, for instance, in 3:2, where B + 509 + Aeth is preserving a reading that does not include an anti-anthropomorphic euphemism, οὐκ ᾠκοδομήθη οἶκος τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου, that is shared with MT by the rest of the Greek tradition.16 Τhe global picture shows that one should not assume: 1) that unmarked (via asterisk and such) readings do not in fact present a recensional philo-MT activity in the text; and 2) that so-called “Hexaplaric” (or in their particular sections, kaige) readings are a coherent whole instead of a far more complicated and mixed bag of evidence. Verse 4:4 is remarkable in this sense, as the same textual item is marked by an asterisk and then attested in the Old Latin version. In 5:17 we have a case with a Hexaplaric sign in the Greek tradition which is also preserved in the Old Latin, Ethiopic, and Lucianic manuscripts against B + 509.

16

Nevertheless, the construction with ‫ ׁשם‬does have other parallels (cf. 2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 5:17, 19; 8:17, 20, 44, 48.) Cf. C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew text of the books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), 28.

64

5:17

Andrés Piquer Otero

B + 509

Rahlfs

Majority reading

L (when different)

τοῦ δοῦναι

τοῦ δοῦναι

τοῦ δοῦναι

τοῦ δοῦναι

αὐτοὺς

κύριον

※ κύριον

αὐτοὺς

αὐτοὺς

αὐτοὺς

κύριον

MT ‫ֵּתת‬ ֹ ‫הוה‬ ָ ‫ְי‬ ‫א ָתם‬

(Aeth LaM)

This reading seems to include, again, an ideological variation between David putting his enemies under his feet and God putting them there for him. More than thinking of a haplographic, “poorer”, text in B + 509, one should consider the possibility of a different Vorlage which, in cases such as this, could indicate an earlier reading.17 This is not to say that an earlier text, either in the Septuagint or in its Vorlage, is always a text of a better quality. This becomes very clear in the section of 1 Kings that, for translators old and new, has become a living nightmare, that is, chapters 6–7 with the description of the construction of the Temple and its furnishings. Problems tend to appear in this section because of the lack of clear visuals and ready references to the different structures and objects depicted. I will select a few readings in B + 509 whose omissions can be readily explained as caused by parablepsis, but that are still of interest when contextualized in the history of the text as a whole. I have underlined parts of the text that are susceptible to producing different types of parablepsis:

6:24

B + 509

Rahlfs

Majority reading

A

καὶ πέντε πήχεων

καὶ πέντε

καὶ πέντε

καὶ πέντε

‫וְ ָחֵמׁש‬

πήχεων

πήχεων

πήχεων

‫ַאּמֹות‬

πτερύγιον

πτερύγιον

πτερύγιον

τοῦ χερουβ

τοῦ χερουβ

αὐτοῦ

‫ַה ְּכרּוב‬

τοῦ ἑνός

τοῦ ἑνός

τὸ ἕν

‫ָהֶא ָחת‬

καὶ πέντε

καὶ πέντε

καὶ πέντε

‫וְ ָחֵמׁש‬

πήχεων

πήχεων

πήχεων

‫ַאּמֹות‬

πτερύγιον

πτερύγιον αὐτοῦ

πτερύγιον

πτερύγιον

αὐτοῦ τὸ

τὸ δεύτερον

αὐτοῦ τὸ

αὐτοῦ τὸ

17  See Stade/Schwally, Kings, 81.

MT

‫ְּכנַ ף‬

‫ְּכ ַנף ַה ְּכרּוב‬ ‫ַה ֵּׁש ִנית‬

65

The Minuses of the B 509 Manuscript Group in 3–4 Kingdoms

6:31–33

B + 509

Rahlfs

Majority reading

A

δεύτερον δὲ

ἐν πήχει

δεύτερον

δεύτερον

ἐν πήχει

δέκα

ἐν πήχει

ἐν πήχει

δέκα

ἀπὸ μέρους

δέκα

δέκα

ἀπὸ μέρους

πτερυγίου

ἀπὸ μέρους

ἀπὸ μέρους

πτερυγίου

αὐτοῦ εἰς μέρος

πτερυγίου

πτερυγίου

αὐτοῦ

πτερυγίου αὐτοῦ

αὐτοῦ

αὐτοῦ

εἰς μέρος

εἰς μέρος

πτερυγίου

πτερυγίου

αὐτοῦ

αὐτοῦ

MT ‫ֶע ֶׂשר‬ ‫ַאּמֹות‬ ‫ִמ ְקצֹות‬ ‫ְּכ ָנ ָפיו‬ ‫ד־קצֹות‬ ְ ‫ְו ַע‬ ‫ְּכנָ ָפיו‬

ἐποίησεν

ἐποίησεν

θύρας

θύρας

‫ַּד ְלתֹות‬

ξύλων

‫ֲע ֵצי־‬

ἀρκευθίνων

‫ָה ַא ִיל‬

‫ָע ָׂשה‬

‫ָׁש ֶמן‬ καὶ φλιὰς πενταπλᾶς (32) καὶ δύο

‫ְמזּוזֹות‬ ‫ֲח ִמ ִׁשית׃‬ (32) ‫ּוׁש ֵּתי‬ ְ

θύρας

‫ַּד ְלתֹות‬

ξύλων

‫ֲע ֵצי־‬

πευκίνων

‫ֶׁש ֶמן‬

καὶ ἐγκολαπτὰ

‫וְ ָקַלע‬

ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐγκεκολαμμένα

‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ִמ ְק ְלעֹות‬

χερουβιν

‫ְּכרּו ִבים‬

καὶ φοίνικας

‫מרֹות‬ ֹ ‫ְו ִת‬

καὶ πέταλα

‫טּורי‬ ֵ ‫ּו ְפ‬

διαπεπετασμένα

‫ִצ ִּצים‬

καὶ περιέσχεν

‫וְ ִצ ָּפה‬

χρυσίῳ

‫זָ ָהב‬

καὶ κατέβαινεν

‫וַ ָּי ֶרד‬

ἐπὶ τὰ χερουβιν καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς φοίνικας τὸ χρυσίον (33) καὶ οὕτως

‫ַעל־‬ ‫ַה ְּכרּו ִבים‬ ‫וְ ַעל־‬ ‫מרֹות‬ ֹ ‫ַה ִּת‬ ‫ֶאת־ ַה ָּז ָהב׃‬ (33) ‫וְ ֵכן‬

66

Andrés Piquer Otero

B + 509

Rahlfs ἐποίησεν

ξύλων

Majority reading

A

MT ‫ָע ָׂשה‬

τῷ πυλῶνι

‫ְל ֶפ ַתח‬

τοῦ ναοῦ

‫ַה ֵהי ָכל‬

φλιαὶ

‫ְמזּוזֹות‬

ξύλων

‫ֲע ֵצי־‬

ἀρκευθίνων

ἀρκευθίνων

‫ָׁש ֶמן‬

στοαὶ

στοαὶ

‫ֵמ ֵאת‬

τετραπλῶς

τετραπλῶς

‫ְר ִב ִעית‬

In 6:24, the shorter reading of B + 509 can be quickly explained away as parablepsis or “visual leap” which could have taken place either at some point of transmission of the Greek text or in the process of translation. From the point of view of the Hebrew, the editor is quick to replace the text with the majority reading which is still inaccurate (a confusion between the first and second cherubim and the first and second wings of each cherubim which the A text tries to fix) when compared to MT but which fills the gaps of a haplographic Greek text (a feature not only of codex B this time, but of the group represented by the agreement between B and 509). This would be a fairly simple and easily dealt with case were it not for the fact that both omissions are marked by Hexaplaric asterisks in the Syrohexapla and in codex 127. That would mean that the accidental omission was seen by the Hexaplaric tradition as the Septuagint text. Without tilting the balance to one side or another, this concurrence of information should make us think before choosing a better (coherent and less mutilated) text over one that was probably quite old and taken as a model by Hexaplaric scribes. The second case of v. 24 in particular should be carefully considered, as the longer text could be explanatory at the level of the Hebrew, which exhibits problematic plural forms18 here, and a shorter Vorlage for OG could not be totally discarded. Finally, the case in 6:31–33 shows again a clear parablepsis that affects a long section of text.19 In this case there are no Hexaplaric marks in the preserved manuscript tradition and a long reading from LaM renders the 18  Cf. Montgomery, Kings, 157, for the problematic nature of ‫כנפיו‬. 19 Commentators have nevertheless remarked on the secondary nature of v. 32, again a fact that remains difficult to reconcile with the presence of the reading in the Old Latin and hence, probably, in an old Septuagint text when compared to the brief B + 509 reading. See Montgomery, Kings, 157–8.

The Minuses of the B 509 Manuscript Group in 3–4 Kingdoms

67

missing text as: iuniperi et limina quinquiplicia et duas ualuas ex lignis pineis et sculptilia in eis sculpta super cherubim et palmas et expansa spathalia et descendentia super cherubim. The evidence of B + 509 + Aeth has to be pondered against the presence of this reading in the Old Latin, something not as straightforward as it might seem, as in other cases, like 4:4 above, a long reading may include both an Old Latin reading and a Hexaplaric asterisk.20

3. Conclusions The ongoing research on this particular set of features is leading to a nuanced and cautious approach to the consideration of “set” values attached to readings, versions, and groups. The shorter readings of B + 509 show important tendencies that, at the very least, should stimulate some critical thinking in considering typologies in the textual history of the Septuagint. I will summarize the main possibilities and elements of reflection: 1. The group of B + 509 in many instances tends to present a shorter text. This is true even when a longer text would constitute a kaige reading in kaige sections of Kings, in agreement with proto-M Hebrew, but also at times in Old Greek sections, against the totality or a large percentage of other witnesses, either in order to give a reading shorter than proto-M or to diverge from the majority Greek in agreement with proto-M. 2. This indicates that the B + 509 group operated in a peculiar way that tended to produce a shorter Greek text, not including additions from proto-M that do appear in Hexaplaric materials but that also showed a tendency to avoid a longer form of the Greek, in agreement with proto-M Hebrew, even in Old Greek sections where B would be supposed to be evidence for the Old Greek. 3. The situation indicates that B + 509 constitutes a complex group that, in the particular case of shorter reading, does not fit within the traditional frame of kaige vs. Old Greek sections of Kings. The tendency towards a shorter textual form has to be contextualized within the general history of the Septuagint and assessed by a proper balance between possible accidents and scribal phenomena and the presence of diverse Old Greek texts or materials to produce kaige (or rather “kaige-like”) revisions thereof. 20

This, in turn, leads to the problem of critically assessing the evidence of the Old Latin, which may include some mixed materials. See A. Moreno Hernández, Las glosas marginales de Vetus Latina en las biblias vulgatas españolas: 1–2 Reyes (Textos y Estudios «Cardenal Cisneros» 49; Madrid: Instituto de filología del CSIC: Madrid, 1992), 191–4.

68

Andrés Piquer Otero

4. This is particularly important, in turn, for the analysis of Hexaplaric readings. As seen above, modern editors like Rahlfs have treated similar manuscript evidence in different ways due to the presence or absence of a Hexaplaric sign in the sources. It is possible that readings that have been included in the Septuagint main text in Rahlfs’s manual edition were actually of a Hexaplaric nature, but not marked with such a sign. In several cases, a survey of shorter readings in B + 509 is useful at least for alerting the editor to such a possibility. 5. In turn, the problem of a shorter text due to haplography has to be appraised carefully. At times, the short reading is very widespread, so there is a chance that haplography would have to be considered as part of the Old Greek. Otherwise, one has to consider whether the assessment of a haplographic reading has to be the Old Greek, and the expansion that fills in the gap as Hexaplaric due to the presence of a sign. Many times these “Hexaplaric” readings do present variants when compared to MT and, more importantly, one should also take into account that the scribes who included a Hexaplaric asterisk could be operating mechanically with the comparison between a longer and a shorter text, even if that shorter text had come into that state by scribal accident and did not, therefore, represent the reality of the Old Greek. All in all, it seems that, far from becoming a mathematical and mechanical grouping, variants traditionally assigned to different recensions do not indicate a unified process, but a line of activity or tendency where variety may exist. We should reconsider previous classifications of the tesserae of the mosaic and start again by trying to make them match.

Pablo Torijano

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene Textual Tradition? Taking as a basis the study of the Lucianic text of Prophets, 1–3 Maccabees, and 1 Ezra it has been established that the first characteristic of the Lucianic recension is the tendency “to fill the gaps in the LXX in respect of the Hebrew text on the basis of additions taken from ‘the three’, particularly from Symmachus”; “the first recensional principle consists in correcting the text according to the corresponding Hebrew-Aramaic Vorlage; hence, Lucian supported most of the material from Origen’s recension and therefore is late. As a second principle of the recension, subordinate to the first, especially noteworthy is the tendency to make the text uniform and to explain it.”1 These statements refer to the whole Lucianic recension, but these characteristics appear to varying degrees in each book. According to Sebastian Brock, the Lucianic text of 1 Kingdoms contains “the greatest amount of hexaplaric material”; “the insertion of hexaplaric matter and the Atticising improvements both belong either to the late 3rd or early 4th century, and so to Lucian’s lifetime”.2 This judgment would be, in principle, applicable to 1–4 Kingdoms. The aim of this paper is to check to what extent the Antiochene (L) text of 3–4 Kingdoms (mss 19-82-93-108-127 and 700 in 4 Kgdms) incorporates Hexaplaric readings: either “most” or “the greatest amount of hexaplaric material” or rather a number of readings that do not reach 50% and, most importantly, do not include the longest and most significant readings. For a more complete and balanced view of the question it would be necessary to include the cases in which the Antiochene tradition omits the Hexaplaric readings marked with an obelos, that is, those readings in which the LXX has a longer text than the MT. According to Brock, “L mss omit the highest 1 N. Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 230–1; R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des 1. Esrabuches (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 20–28. 2 S.P. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of I Samuel (Turin: Silvio Zamorani, 1996), 171, and 314; idem, “Lucian redivivus: some Reflections on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciers d´Aquila”, Studia Evangelica 5 (1968) 176–81.

70

Pablo Torijano

number of obelized readings.”3 This fact already suggests that L may not have incorporated as many Hexaplaric additions in 1–4 Kingdoms as it is generally thought. In his study about the Lucianic recension in 3–4 Kingdoms, Alfred Rahlfs considers that “the adoption of Hexaplaric readings in the L text would be as such fairly likely, because the Lucianic text of the Psalms included verbatim the Hexaplaric additions marked with asterisks.” However, according to Rahlfs himself, “the Lucianic text of Reges behaves much more freely in relation to the Hexaplaric text.”4 Rahlfs carries out a detailed study of every Lucianic variant in 3 Kgdms 1. This chapter has five additions marked with asterisk: 1:2 ※ αυτω; 1:2 ※ ενωπιον; 1:9 ※ τους υιους του βασιλεως σ´ θ´; 1:40 ※ ο λαος, and 1:43 ※ τω Αδωνια α´ σ´ θ´. Only in one case does the L reading agree exactly with the Hexaplaric text: 1:9 αυτου] + τους υιους του βασιλεως A M 247 121 19-82-93-108-127 158 Arm Aeth SyrH (sub ※ σ´ θ´). In the other four cases, L has a variant: 1:2 1:2

1:40

1:43

※ αυτω. L adds αυτω after MT ‫ עבדיו‬and not before as in the Hexaplaric addition: ειπον] + ※ ei SyrH (αυτω); ειπον οι παιδες αυτω 19´-82-127.5 παραστησεται τω βασιλει] stabit regi ※ θ´ coram eo ※ SyrH (+ ενωπιον αυτου)τω βασιλει 2º] pr ενωπιον A; ενωπιον του βασιλεως 247; εναντι του βασιλεως L. L reads εναντι instead of ενωπιον. και 2º] + ※ et populus ※ SyrH (+ ο λαος); πας ο λαος L. L adds πας that corresponds to the previous clause: B και ανεβη πας ο λαος (MT ‫ )כל העם‬οπισω αυτου και εχορευον (MT ‫והעם מחללים‬, BHS: OG > ‫העם‬, dl?); L και ανεβη πας ο λαος οπισω αυτου και πας ο λαος εχορευον. και ειπεν] + τω Αδωνια A CII d −44 381 245-554 Arm SyrH (sub ※ α´ σ´ θ´); + τω Oρνια L

On the other hand, L has not incorporated two asterized additions: 1:17 1:47

η δε ειπεν] + ※ ei ※ SyrH (αυτω); και ειπε Βηρσαβεε L ο θεος] Deus ※ tuus ※ SyrH (+ σου); κυριος L Thdt

3  Brock, Recensions, 298. 4 “Herübernahme von Lesarten aus dem hexaplarischen LXX-Texte wäre an sich recht wahrscheinlich, da L im Psalter die sub ast. stehenden Zusätze wörtlich übernommen hat (Sept.Stud. II § 622). Aber beim Königsbuche steht L dem hexaplarischen LXX-Text mindestens viel freier gegenüber.” A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (Septuaginta-Studien 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 172–3; idem, Der Text des SeptuagintaPsalters (Septuaginta-Studien 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907), 231. 5  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 163.

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene 

71

In the same way, special attention should be given to the cases of L variants (other than additions) that agree fully or partially with readings of α´ σ´ θ´ SyrH (MT). In 3 Kgdms 1 the following cases are found: 1:2 1:3 1:8 1:35 1:36

και κοιμηθησεται μετ αυτου] και κατακεισεται εν τω κολπω αυτου L; εν τω κολπω σου εβρ. θ´ SyrH (‫)ושכבה בחיקך‬ εκ παντος οριου Ισραηλ] εν παντι α´ σ´ θ´ SyrH; εν παντι Ισραηλ (‫)בכל גבול ישראל‬ οπισω Αδωνιου] μετα Oρνια L SyrH (MT ‫)עם אדניהו‬ και εγω ενετειλαμην] και αυτω α´ σ´ θ´ SyrH; και αυτω εντελουμαι L (‫)ואתו צויתי‬ γενοιτο ουτως πιστωσαι (κυριος) ο θεος του κυριου μου του βασιλεως] αμην ουτως ερει κυριος ο θεος του κυριου μου του βασιλεως α´ σ´ SyrH; γενοιτο ουτως πιστωσαι ο θεος τους λογους του κυριου μου του βασιλεως ουτως ειπε κυριος ο θεος σου κυριε μου βασιλευ L (‫אמן כן יאמר יהוה אלהי‬ ‫)אדני המלך‬

The diversity of variants and their different attestation indicate that the problem of the Hexaplaric presence in L is very complex. It cannot be tackled without taking into account details that are not possible to address within the boundaries of this work. The present study is limited to cases of Hexaplaric additions present in the Antiochene textual tradition. Origen’s text is attested in the Greek manuscripts A 247 121 and the Syrohexaplaric and Armenian versions. Most of these additions are marked with an asterisk in either the Armenian or the SyrH as well as in the Lucianic manuscript 127. The Syro-Hexapla has also been taken into account in those cases in which it is the only source for a Hexaplaric addition. It has to be noted that the Armenian version represents a fairly good witness of the Hexaplaric text. This version was based on a Greek text close to the old stratum of the Antiochene text, but it was later revised following the lines of the Hexaplaric recension.6 The cases under study are classified into three groups.7 The first group (“Additions of O”) includes additions that appear only in the Hexaplaric witnesses as described above; when only the Armenian and the SyrH preserve the addition it is marked so. In the same way, if one of the Greek witnesses lacks the reading it is indicated as in the Göttingen edition. Finally, 6  B.o Johnson, Die armenische Bibelübersetzung als hexaplarischer Zeuge im 1. Samuelbuch (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1968). 7 See the Appendix.

72

Pablo Torijano

the asterisks are indicated according to the SyrH text. In the second group (“Additions both in O and L”), the agreements between the Hexaplaric witnesses and the Antiochene manuscript tradition have been listed. The letter O indicates the Hexaplaric recension, whereas the letter L refers to the Lucianic mss (19-82-93-108-127 and 700 in 4 Kingdoms).8 The partial attestation of the Hexaplaric tradition is indicated either by the number of the manuscript or the name of the version. Finally, in the third group (“Additions O ≠ L”), I have listed the cases in which both the Antiochene and the Hexaplaric witnesses share textual additions but with a different wording. The number of instances in which our witnesses incorporate additional material to the Greek text of Kingdoms comes to a total of 399 instances. Their distribution according to the above classification is as follows: 1.

2. 3.

In 196 cases only the O group contains the Hexaplaric additions (49%). The majority of them occur with an asterisk either in the SyrH or the Armenian versions. In 134 cases, the additions are shared by both O and L (33.5%). In 69 cases, again both the Hexaplaric textual tradition and the Antiochene manuscripts contain the additions but their actual wording is different (17.3%).

From a quantitative point of view, it is clear that the Antiochene textual tradition preserves an important number of Hexaplaric additions. The total of instances in which O and L include the additions amounts to 50.9%. According to the traditional view about the presence of Hexaplaric material within the Antiochene textual tradition, a higher proportion of additions shared by both O and L would be expected. However, if a closer assessment of the textual evidence is taken, a rather different view appears. Let us consider first the additions of the second group. They correspond to agreements shared by O and L that have the same text, but it is necessary to note that: 1.

In 28 instances (3 Kgdms 3:3, 3:20, 4:2, 4:5, 7:12, 8:4, 8:11, 10:25, 11:38, 11:40, 12:7, 13:6, 13:32, 16:6, 17:14, 18:12, 18:21, 18:36, 18:46, 19:4, 19:8, 19:20, 20:4, 21:2, 21:4, 21:9; 4 Kgdms 1:16, 15:20) only ms 127

8 For an edition of the Lucianic text, see N. Fernández/J.R. Busto Marcos, El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega II: 1–2 Reyes (Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC, 1992). This edition has been checked against the Collation Books of the Septuaginta-Unternehmen for III–IV Reges.

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene 

2.

73

has the additions. Except for five cases (3 Kgdms 8:11, 11:38, 13:32, 20:4; 4 Kgdms 1:16), they are quite short readings. Most of them appear marked with asterisks.9 In 5 cases (3 Kgdms 6:1 [L-82], 1:2 [19-82-127], 6:23, 19:20 [19-127]; 4 Kgdms 8:6 [19-93]) again only part of the Antiochene tradition incorporates the additions. According to Rahlfs, the Lucianic tradition was better transmitted in 82-93 than in 19-108. The fact that only 127 preserves most of the Hexaplaric additions suggests that it is an inner characteristic of that manuscript. As it seems, ms 127 was supplemented during its textual transmission by Hexaplaric material that was not present in the main Antiochene textual tradition.10

This means that in 25% of the cases only a part of the Lucianic tradition attests the Hexaplaric additions.11 The special condition of ms 127 is also highlighted when considering the third group of instances in which the actual wording of the additions is not the same in O and L (O ≠ L). Of a total of 69 cases, ten of them (3 Kgdms 8:65, 12:30 17:22, 18:5; 4 Kgdms 1:17, 3:19, 5:8, 13:17, 15:10, 16:11) show differences within the Antiochene mss and/or between O and L. Thus, the textual addition in 3 Kgdms 8:65 has three different forms, only ms 127 and 19´ agreeing with the uncial A, Arm and SyrH. In 3 Kgdms 12:30, the wording of the addition differs greatly in L and O. In 3 Kgdms 17:22, each textual tradition has the addition in a different location of the verse; ms 127 has a longer addition than the rest of the Antiochene manuscripts, but it is shorter than the one present in the Hexaplaric witnesses. In 4 Kgdms 15:10, ms 127 has the same wording as O, but the rest of L differs from O. Finally, some of the largest additions shared by both the O and L traditions are to be found only in ms 127 (3 Kgdms 11:38, 13:26, 13:32). This group of partial agreements between L and O is more difficult to assess from a strictly quantitative point of view. In most cases the variation of both traditions is minimal, but in 19 cases the differences between L and O 9

On the addition to 3 Kgdms 13:32 see N. Fernández Marcos, “En torno al texto hexaplar de 1 Re 14,1–10”, Sefarad 46 (1986) 177–90. 10  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 51–80. See also J.R. Busto Saiz, “On the Lucianic Manuscripts in 1–2 Kings”, in C. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the IOSCS: Jerusalem 1986 (SBLSCS 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 305–310. 11 The additions that are found only in 127 appear rightly relegated to the apparatus in El texto antioqueno as in, e.g., 3 Kgdms 7:12; 8:4, 11, 26, 65; 10:22, 25; 15:4. However, on other occasions the edition includes the Hexaplaric reading in the main text as in 3 Kgdms 11:38, although noting that mss 82 and 93 omit the addition; one may wonder if it should be placed in the apparatus rather than in the main text.

74

Pablo Torijano

are significant (3 Kgdms 3:8, 4:16, 8:28, 8:65, 10:15, 11:34, 12:30, 15:28, 16:8, 16:15, 17:22, 20:27; 4 Kgdms 1:17, 10:27, 13:17, 15:10, 15:19, 16:11, 17:14). That means that the origin of the additions in the Antiochene tradition is far from clear. A good example of this situation is 4 Kgdms 17:14: 17:14 fin] + ※ οι ουκ επιστευσαν κυριω [τω] θεω αυτων (15) και απερριψαν τους ακριβασμους αυτου [αυτων A Arm] και την συνθηκεν [διαθηκην/ συνθηκεν A] αυτου ην εκοψεν συν πατρασιν αυτων O; + οι ουκ επιστευσαν κυριω [τω] θεω αυτων (15) και απωσαντο την διαθηκην αυτου και τα δικαιωματα α διεθετο τοις πατρασιν αυτων L; et derelinquerunt legem eius et mandata eius quas disposuit patribus eorum La115 The wording of the additions is identical in the first half. However, in the second half the Antiochene addition differs notably. These differences could be due to the Antiochene tendency to smooth out the grammar of the text.12 However, here the Antiochene text seems to be more Hexaplaric-like than the Hexaplaric text itself. Besides, the fact that the Old Latin version has the same addition in almost the same wording as the Antiochene makes it likely that its source was not the Hexaplaric recension as it has reached us.13 On the other hand, in this third group there are several cases of divergence within the Antiochene tradition as well. Let us look at the case of 3 Kgdms 17:22: 17:22

και ανεβοησεν το παιδαριον] + και ηκουσεν κυριος εν φωνη ηλια και επεστραφη η ψυχη του παιδαριου προς εγκατον αυτου και εζησεν και ελαβεν ηλιου O; pr ※ και ηκουσεν κυριος εν φωνη ηλια και επεστραφη η ψυχη του παιδαριου εις αυτον και εζησεν 127; pr και επεστραφη η ψυχη του παιδαριου 82–93–108

Here ms 127 has the full Hexaplaric addition as it appears in the O group, whereas mss 82–93–108 show only part of it, and ms 19 does not contain it at all. Again, ms 127 is more “Hexaplaric” than the rest of the Antiochene tradition. 12

See N. Fernández Marcos, “Literary and Editorial Features of the Antiochian Text in Kings”, in C. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the IOSCS: Jerusalem 1986 (SBLSCS 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 287–304, on pp. 292–8; íidem, Septuagint in Context, 230–2; see also Brock, Recensions, 298. 13  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 245; J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 478: “text of LXX shortened by parablepsis with ‫אבותם‬, v. 15; GL GH variously supply the loss”.

75

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene 

Ms 127 represents a truly exceptional text in 4 Kgdms 15:10: it contains three readings, each corresponding to a different level in the history of the text of the LXX: N rel

54 158

L −127

B

127

O SyrH

MT

SyrH (mg) Σελλουμ

Σελλουμ

Σελλημ

Σελλουμ

Σελλουμ

Σελλουμ

υἱὸς Αβεις

υἱὸς Ιαβεις

υἱὸς Ιαβεις

υἱὸς Ιαβεις

υἱὸς Αβεις

υἱὸς Αβεις

Κεβλααμ

Κεβλααμ

κ. Κεβδααμ

Κεβδααμ

‫שלם‬ ‫בן יבש‬

κ. Σελλημ ὁ πατήρ αὐτοῦ κ. ἐπάταξαν

κ. ἐπάταξαν κ. ἐπάταξεν κ. ἐπάταξαν κ. ἐπάταξαν κ. ἐπάταξαν

αὐτὸν

αὐτόν

αὐτὸν

158 + ἐν

ἐν Ιεβλααμ Κεβλααμ

αὐτὸν

Ιεβλ. κ. ἐθανάτωσ. κ. αὐτόν

ἐθανάτωσ. αὐτόν

‫ויכהו‬

αὐτὸν

αὐτὸν

κατέναντι

κατέναντι

Mss

τοῦ λαοῦ

τοῦ λαοῦ

‫קבלעם‬

κ. ἐθανάτ.

κ. ἐθανάτ.

κ. ἐθανάτ.

κ. ἐθανάτ.

αὐτόν

αὐτόν

αὐτὸν

αὐτόν

ἐν Ιεβλααμ

L ‫קבל‬ ‫עם‬ ‫ַויְ ִמי ֵתהּו‬

The Hexaplaric reading κατέναντι τοῦ λαοῦ is found at the location corresponding to O and MT (Leningradensis: ‫)קבל עם‬. The kaige reading Κεβλααμ (B) is at the same location. The Hexaplaric text (O 127) inserts Κεβλααμ after Σελλουμ υἱὸς Αβεις. In a further step, the form Κεβδααμ, which derives from the previous Κεβλααμ, has been interpreted as a personal name, as shown by the reading of 54 158 SyrH (mg) Κεβδααμ καὶ Σελλημ ὁ πατήρ αὐτοῦ. The OG text is represented by the pre-Lucianic ἐν Ιεβλααμ that corresponds to the well-known Hebrew toponym ‫יבלעם‬/‫ב‬. The Antiochene text has this reading in its correct location (καὶ ἐπάταξαν αὐτὸν ἐν Ιεβλααμ). Ms 127 preserves this OG reading, but placed after καὶ ἐθανάτωσαν αὐτόν. The main witnesses of the Antiochene text do not incorporate the Hexaplaric addition κατεναντι του λαου, present also in the Aramaic, SyroHexapla, and the Vulgate (coram) reflecting the MT reading.14

14

On this verse, see P.A. Torijano, “Different Distribution of Agreements between LXXL and Medieval Hebrew Variants in Kaige and No-kaige Sections of III–IV Regnorum”, in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki, 2010 (SBLSCS 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2013) 175–92, on pp. 181–4.

76

Pablo Torijano

Things get more complicated, if we take into account the distribution of our instances in the different sections of III–IV Kingdoms: 1. 2. 3.

In the section βγ (3 Kgdms 1:1–2:11) we find one case in O, eight in O + L and one in O ≠ L. In the section γγ (3 Kgdms 2:12–21:43) we have 147 additions attested by O, 78 witnessed by O + L, and 33 in O ≠ L. In the section γδ (3 Kgdms 22–4 Kgdms) O totals 41 additions, O + L 59, and O ≠ L 32. Kaige

O (not L) O+L O≠L Total

42 67 33 142

29.6 % 47.2 % 23.2 %

Non-Kaige

147 78 33 258

57.0 % 30.2 % 12.8 %

Total

189 145 66 400

As it would be expected, the larger and most important Hexaplaric additions are to be found in the section γγ (OG). However, despite the 78 agreements between O and L, the Antiochene tradition does not incorporate any of the larger Hexaplaric additions in this section. When it does so, as in 3 Kgdms 8:11, 11:38, and 13:32, the additions are attested either only by ms 127 and occasionally by ms 158, which tends to preserve Lucianic readings, or by 19–108 in 13:26. In other instances they show a different textual form with respect to the O text as in 3 Kgdms 17:22. On the other hand, in the section γδ (kaige), the quantity of additions decreases. However, in this section the Antiochene manuscripts do include some of the large additions, but always in a form slightly different from the one attested by the O group of witnesses as in 4 Kgdms 1:17, 10:27, 15:10, and 17:14. Qualitative considerations of the Hexaplaric material present in L are more significant than the previous quantitative analysis. Most of these additions are quite short elements, such as those listed at the beginning: 3 Kgdms 1:2 αυτω, 1:2 ενωπιον, 1:40 ο λαος, 1:43 τω Αδωνια, 2:4 περι εμου, 2:14 και ειπεν, 2:22 την σουναμιτιν, 5:4 εν παντι, etc. These elements commonly become part of every text during the process of copying. The most significant fact to be taken into account is that the largest Hexaplaric readings, those reaching one or more verses, failed to enter the Antiochene textual tradition. These are the most outstanding cases in the section γγ:

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene 

MT O (> L) 3:1

77

της δε βασιλειας εδρασθεισης … και το τειχος ιερουσαλημ κυκλω 4:20; 5:1 και ιουδα και ισραηλ πολλοι … πασας ημερας ζωης αυτου 5:4 απο θαψα και εως γαζης εν πασιν βασιλευσιν περαν του ποταμου 5:31, 32a και ενετειλατο ο βασιλευς … και εβαλαν αυτους 6:11–14 και εγενετο λογος κυριου προς σαλωμων λεγων … και συνετελεσεν αυτον 6:18 ο οικος ουτος ο ναος ο εσωτατος και δια κεδρου … ουκ εφαινετο λιθος 6:21 κεδρου και περιεπιλησεν σαλωμων … και παρηγαγεν εν καθηλωμασιν χρυσιου 6:22 και ολον το εσω του δαβειρ επεταλωσεν χρυσιω 6:24 το πτερυγιον αυτου το εν και πεντε πηχεων 7:11 δυο στυχοι των υποστηριγματων κεχυμενοι εν τη χυσει αυτης εστωτες 7:22 και επι των κεφαλων των στυλων εργον κρινου και ετελειωθη το εργον των στυλων 7:30–32 αι ωμιαι κεχυμεναι απο περαν … και διαπηγα αυτων τετραγωνα των διαπηγων 7:38 και συνετελεσεν ολον τον οικον αυτου 7:47–48 παντα τα σκευη απο του πληθους σφοδρα . . . και εποιησεν σαλωμων παντα 8:1 συν πασας κεφαλας των ραβδων επηρμενους … προς τον βασιλεα σαλωμων 8:2 και εξεκκλησιασθησαν προς τον βασιλεα σαλωμων πας ανηρ ισραηλ 8:2/3 εν τη εορτη αυτος ο μην εβδομος και ηλθον παντες οι πρεσβυτεροι ισραηλ 8:4 και ανεβιβασαν την κιβωτον κυριου 8:5 ο βασιλευς σαλωμων και πασα συναγωγη ισραηλ οι συντεταγμενοι επ αυτον συν αυτω 8:5 α ου ψηφισθησεται αναριθμητα απο πληθους 8:8 και εγενοντο εκει εως της ημερας ταυτης 8:41/42 και ελθη απο γης μακροθεν … και βραχιονα σου τον εκτεταμενον 8:49 την προσευχην αυτων και την δεησιν αυτων και ποιησεις κρισιν αυτων 11:2 και ησαν αυτω γυναικες αρχουσαι … και εξεκλιναν γυναικες αυτου την καρδιαν αυτου 11:5–6 και επορευθη σαλωμων οπισω της ασταρτης … ως δαυιδ ο πατηρ αυτου 11:5 εν τω ορει ο επι προσωπον ιερουσαλημ 11:23–25 και ηγειρεν κυριος σαταν τω σαλωμων . . . αντικειμενος τω ισραηλ πασας τας ημερας σαλωμων 12:2–3 και εγενετο ως ηκουσεν ιεροβοαμ … και ηλθεν ιεροβοαμ και πασα η εκκλησια ισραηλ

78

Pablo Torijano

13:29/30 του προφητου του πρεσβυτερου … και ανεπαυσεν το νεκριμαιον αυτου 15:32 και πολεμος ην μεταξυ ασα και μεταξυ βαασα βασιλεως ισραηλ πασας τας ημερας αυτων

16:11/12 ουχ υπελιπεν αυτω ουρουντα προς τοιχον … και εξετριψεν ζαμβρι ολον 16:29

τον οικον βαασα εν ετει τριακοστω και ογδοω του ασα βασιλεως ιουδα βασιλευσας δε αχααβ υιος ζαμβρι επι ισραηλ

1. Conclusions 1. The extent of the post-Hexaplaric reworking in the Antiochene manuscripts has to be reassessed. It is much less significant in amount, but, what is more important, also in quality than previously thought.15 The conclusions extracted from other biblical books should not be applied to Kingdoms without further analysis and careful consideration of the textual data. 2. The Hexaplaric reworking of the Antiochene textual tradition affects ms 127 considerably more than the main Lucianic witnesses. Ms 127 was supplemented with Hexaplaric material that was not present in the 4th century Antiochene text. 3. The fact that there are important differences between the textual forms of the additions in O and L poses the question of what was the exact nature of the Hexaplaric text against which the Antiochene tradition was revised. We may even wonder if it truly went back to the Hexaplaric recension or represented some kind of parallel approximation. 4. The introduction of Hexaplaric elements into the Antiochene textual tradition seems to have been gradual and not so much the work of a recensor, Lucian, operating at a certain moment in the history of the Antiochene text. Between ms 82, the least Hexaplaric,16 and ms 127, the most Hexaplaric, a progressive increase in the Hexaplaric influence seems to have occurred. The gradual Hexaplarization of the LXX text is comparable to the process 15

On this point, Brock’s (Recensions, 150–1; see also 124, 127–8) influence has been important: “It is apparent from earlier sections in this chapter (see especially pp. 124, 127–8) that the L group is one of the best witnesses to the fifth column, fuller in fact, if more erratic, than either of the two specifically hexaplaric groups O and D. But at the same time the fifth column is not the only source of approximations in L—several derive from other columns of the Hexapla, in particular σ´, whereas others are of unknown, and perhaps pre-hexaplaric, origin. To decide between these three possible sources will often not be feasible.” 16  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 79–80 and 219.

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene 

79

that led from the first steps by the Devanciers d’Aquila in revising the text of the LXX to the more developed recensional work accomplished by Aquila.17 We should possibly not talk so much about a kaige recension carried out at a more or less vague date around the turn of the era and a deep recension later accomplished by Aquila but rather about a continuous process of revision of the LXX to align its text with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew.18 This process was to continue until Origen’s Hexaplaric recension, whose text only gradually entered the manuscript tradition. The Antiochene textual tradition incorporated mainly short readings, but failed to enter longer texts such as those of the list above and especially those corresponding to transpositions of the LXX with regard to the MT as LXX 7:1–37 (MT 7:13–51) / 38–49 (MT 1–12), a Hexaplaric transposition that did not enter into the L text.

2. Appendix In the following table the 400 cases we have studied in the paper have been divided into three categories. The first column (“Additions O”) includes only the material that appears in the O group. The second column (“Additions O L”) has the cases in which both the O and L traditions have the extra material in the same wording. The third column show the cases in which O and L have the additions but in a different form.

17

18

J. Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (Leiden: Brill / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 316: “This recension [kaige] began the process of revision of the LXX, which in the Jewish world culminated in the literalist version by Aquila.” T.M. Law, “Kaige, Aquila, and Jewish Revision”, in T.M. Law/A. Salvesen (ed.), Greek Scripture and the Rabbis (Leuven: Peeters, 2012) 39–64, esp. pp. 51 and 64: “Aquila was a translator-reviser working within a well-established process. It might be more prudent to play down his uniqueness [. . .]. It is possible, then, that Aquila—or, “Aquilas”—might have had the same history as καίγε, both of the texts being the result of a process rather than a static production.” See also idem, “Do ‘The Three’ Reveal Anything about the Textual History of the Books of Kings? The Hebrew Text behind the Later Greek Jewish Versions in 1 Kings”, in H. Ausloos et al. (ed.), After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts (Leuven: Peeters, 2012) 245–63.

80

Pablo Torijano

2.1. Kaige Section 1 KGS

Additions O

1:2

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

ειπον] + ει—SyrΗ αυτω; but αυτου 1º] αυτω 247; + αυτω 19 82 127 τω βασιλει 2º] pr ενωπιον A; εναντι του βασιλεως L; ενωπιον του βασιλεως 247 αυτου] + τους υιος του βασιλεως O 121 (sub * σ θ) L Aeth Βασιλει 1º] + λεγοντων O (et dicunt Arm SyrH); λεγοντες L και 1º B 509] pr και

1:2

1:9

1:23

1:35

αναβησεσθε οπισω αυτου και εισελευσεται O (sub *)

L rel (* V 127 θ’ Syr) και ειπεν] + τω αδωνια O

1:43

(SyrH sub * γ’); + τω ορνια L 1:45

προφητης B L] + εις βασιλεα O rell

2:3

κριματα] + * και τα μαρτυρια αυτου O

(sub * σ θ); L (different order) 2:4

ελαλησεν] + περι εμου

OL 2:5

πολεμου B] + εν ειρηνη και εδωκεν αιμα αθωον O L (sub * 127) 121 Lat

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene 

2.2. Non-kaige Section 1 KGS

Additions O

Additions O L

2:14

λογος] pr και ειπεν O

2:22

Αβισαγ] + την σουμανιτιν

2:34

OL και 1º B 509] pr και

(sub *α´) L

ανεβη βανααιας υιος Ιωδαε

OL 2:42

αποθανη B 121–509] + και ειπας μοι αγαθον το ρημα ο ηκουσα O (sub *)

L rell 2:46

+ της δε βασιλειας εδρασθεισης εν χειρι σαλωμων επιγαμιαν εποιησατο σαλωμων προς φαραω βασιλεα αιγυπτου και ελαβεν την θυγατερα φαραω και εισηγαγην αυτην εις την πολιν δαυιδ εως ου συνετελεσεν οικοδομων τον οικον εαυτου και τον οικον κυριου και το τειχος ιερουσαλημ κυκλω O

* (MT 2,46b-3,1) 3:3

εθυεν] pr * αυτος A 127

Arm SyrH; + αυτος ο βασιλευς 247

3:4

3:4 3:6

επορευθη] + ο βασιλευς A Arm SyrH (sub * α᾽ σ᾽) θυσιαστηριον] + εκεινο O (sub * α᾽σ᾽) επι] pr καθημενον O (sub * α᾽σ᾽ θ’)

Additions O ≠ L

81

82 1 KGS

Pablo Torijano Additions O

Additions O L

3:8

Additions O ≠ L αριθμηθησεται] + * και ου ψηφισθησεται απο πληθους O; + απο πληθους και ου διηγηθησεται L Thdt

3:10 3:11 3:13

3:18

ηρεσεν] + ο λογος

O L (sub * σ᾽) ητησω] + * σεαυτω O βασιλευσιν] + *πασας τας ημερας σου O Lat (sub * σ᾽) ημων 2º] + * εν τω οικω O

3:20

μου 2º] + * και η δουλη σου υπνου O 127

3:22

τεθνηκως] + και αυτη ειπεν ουχι ο υιος σου ο τεθνηκως και ο υιος μου ο ζων L 158 ουχι] + αλλ η ο υιος σου εστιν ο νεκρος, υιος δε εμος ο ζων η δε αλλη και αυτη ελεγεν ουχι O

(sub *) 3:23

αλλα—τεθνηκως 2º] αλλ η ο υιος σου ο τεθνηκως και ο υιος μου ο ζων O

3:24

λαβετε B 509 Aeth] + μοι O L rell Lat

3:26

παιδιον] + * το ζων

3:27

O 158 δοτε 1º] + αυτη O (sub * α᾽ σ᾽)

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

Additions O

4:2

Additions O L

83

Additions O ≠ L

Σαδωκ B 509 L–127*

(σαδδουκ) Aeth] + ο ιερευς O 127 (ο ιερευς

sub * 127; * α´ σ´ θ´ SyrH) και 1º B 509 460 Aeth] + και βαναιας υιος Ιωδαε επι της στρατιας O (sub *) L rell ναθαν 2º] + ο ιερευς O (sub *) Z 127

4:4

4:5 4:13

γαλααδ] + * αυτω ο αυωθ ιαρειρ υιου μανασση εν γαλααδ O

4:16

εν τη μααλα B 509] εν τη γαλααδ L; εν ασηρ και εν βααλωθ rell (in O sub *; εν τη μααλαθ Rahlfs)

4:19

Ιωσαφατ—ισσαχαρ

B L] και ιουδα και ισραηλ πολλοι ως η αμμος η επι της θαλασσης εις πληθος εσθοντες και πινοντες και ευφραινομενοι

(5,1) και σαλωμων ην εξουσιαζων εν πασιν τοις βασιλειοις απο του ποταμου γης αλλοφυλων και εως οριου αιγυπτου προσεγγιζοντες δωρα

84 1 KGS

Pablo Torijano Additions O

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

και δουλευοντες τω σαλωμων πασας ημερας ζωης αυτου O

(sub * α᾽σ᾽) 4:24 5:1 5:3

περαν] pr εν παντι (+ιηλ 93) O L

(= MT 7.8) ante 9 tr. O εκλεκτων ] * εκλεκτα εκλεκτων O

5:4

περαν] pr εν παντι (ιηλ

93) O L 5:4

ποταμου] + * απο θαψα και εως γαζης εν πασιν βασιλευσιν

5:4

5:4 5:9

περαν του ποταμου O In medio 4 and 9 O praebet MT 5–8 = LXX 2 46g.i 5:1 ην αυτω/ειρηνη] tr. O φρονησιν—σοφιαν (cf. 2 :35ª)] tr. O

5:10

επληθυνθη B 509] + η σοφια O

(sub *) L cf 2:35b 5:11

Mαλ B] + * και ην ονομαστος εν πασιν τοις εθνεσιν κυκλω O; + και εγενετο το ονομα αυτου εν πασι τοις εθνεσι κυκλω L 158

5:20 5:22

μου] + * εστωσαν O απεστειλεν] + χειραμ

*O L 5:23

εγω B OL] pr *και

OL

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

Additions O

5:24

Additions O L

85

Additions O ≠ L

κεδρους B 509] + *και πευκας O L

5:27

βασιλευς] + *σαλωμων

OL 5:30

επισταται ]+ *του λαου

OL 5:32

ετη] + * του οικοδομησαι τον οικον

247 Arm SyrH; εις την οικοδομην του οικου

L 6:1

ισραηλ B 509 460] + και ωκοδομει τον οικον τω κυριω O (non *) L–82

6:1a–b

και ενετειλατο ο βασιλευς και αιρουσιν λιθους μεγαλους τιμιους εις τον θεμελιον τον οικου και λιθους απελεκητους και επελεκησαν οι υιοι Σαλωμων και οι υιοι Χιραμ και εβαλαν αυτους post 5:30 tr O (+οι βιβλοι O) = MT 5:31.32a

6:3

6:5

του ναου ] pr του οικου 247; + * του οικου A SyrH; + κυριου L κυκλοθεν] + * συν τοιχοις του οικου κυκλοθεν A Arm

SyrH 6:6

εξ B 509 460] + πηχεων εν πηχει το πλατος αυτης L; πηχεων το πλατος O

(sub *)

86

Pablo Torijano

1 KGS

Additions O

6:9

κεδροις ] pr *

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

φατνωμασιν και διαταξεσιν O

6:10

κεδρινοις B Z L

Aeth] + (11) και εγενετο λογος κυριου προς σαλωμων λεγων

(12) ο οικος ουτος ον συ οικοδομεις εαν οδευης τοις προσταγμασιν μου και τα κριματα μου ποιης και φυλασσης πασας τας εντολας μου αναστρεφεσθαι εν αυταις στησω τον λογον μου συν σοι ον ελαλησα προς δαυιδ τον πατερα σου (13) και κατασκηνωσω εν μεσω υιων ισραηλ και ουκ εγκαταλειψω τον λαον μου ισραηλ

(14) και ωκοδομησεν σαλωμων τον οικον και συνετελεσεν αυτον

O rell (MT 11–14) 6:15

oικου 1º] + * εσωθεν O

6:16

εποιησεν B L] +αυτου

rell 6:17

ο ναος] pr * ο οικος αυτος O; pr αυτος L

6:17

κατα προσωπον] pr

* εσωτατος (18) και δια κεδρου προς τον

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

Additions O

Additions O L

οικον εσω πλοκην επαναστασεις και πεταλα και αναγλυφα παντα κεδρινα ουκ εφαινετο λιθος O

6:19

δουναι] pr * ητοιμασεν O

6:20

εικοσι] pr * και εις προσωπον του δαβειρ O

6:20

θυσιαστηριου] + * κεδρου (21) και περιεπιλησεν σαλωμων τον οικον ενδοθεν χρυσιω αποκλειστω και παρηγαγεν εν καθηλωμασιν χρυσιου O

6:22

οικου] + * και ολον το εσω του δαβειρ επεταλωσεν χρυσιω O

6:23

χερουβιν B] + ξυλον κυπαρισσινων O (sub *)

19’-127 6:24

πτερυγιoν 1º— πηχεων 2º] > B;

* το πτερυγιον αυτου το εν και πεντε πηχεων O

6:24

εις μερος πτερυγιου αυτου B 509 158] και εως μερους πτερυγιου αυτου O (sub *) L

6:25

ουτως] pr * και δεκα εν πηχει Α SyrH

6:25

αμφοτεροις] + * τοις χερουβειν O

Additions O ≠ L

87

88

Pablo Torijano

1 KGS

Additions O

6:27 6:27

και 1º] + * εθηκεν O

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

πτερυξ μια] η πτερυξ * του ενος O; η πτεφυξ μια του χερουβ L

6:27

πτερυξ 2º] + του χερουβ του δευτερου O (sub

*) L 6:29

φοινικες] + * και περιγλυφα εγκυπτοντα

O 7:9

τω παχει] pr επ αμφοτερων των στυλων L; και των ροων διακοσιοι στιχοι κυκλω επι της κεφαλιδος της δευτερας O

7:10

(MT 23) pr και επι των κεφαλων των στυλων εργον κρινου και ετελειωθη το εργον των στυλων

7:11

O = MT 22 θαλασσαν] + δυο στυχοι των υποστηριγματων κεχυμενοι εν τη χυσει αυτης εστωτες O

7:12

κρινου] + δισχιλιους χοεις χωρουντα O 127 (sub

*) 158 7:17

λουτηρων] + * αι ωμιαι κεχυμεναι απο περαν ανδρος προσκειμεναι

(MT 31) και στομα αυτο εσοθεν της κεφαλιδος και ανωθεν

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

Additions O

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

εν πηχει και στομα αυτου στρογγυλον· ποιημα ουτως πηχεος και ημισους του πηχεος· και γε επι στοματους αυτου διατορευματα και διαπηγα αυτων τετραγωνα, ου στρογγυλα·

(MT 32a) και τεσσαρες ρευματα και διαπηγα αυτων τετραγωνα των διαπηγων A-247

Arm 7:18 7:19

7:21 7:23 7:24

ημισους] + του πηχεος

A-247 Arm Aeth νωτοι αυτων] pr και οι (> Α) αυχενες αυτων Α Αrm μεγεθος] + εξ αυτης O μετρον εν ] + τερμα εν O μετρησει] pr τεσσαρων πηχων ο χυτροκαυλος ο εις 247

121 Arm 7:28

MT 42 τα στρεπτα] τα οντα τα στρ. της μεχωνωθ B O; + της μεχωνωθ τα οντα L

89

90

Pablo Torijano

1 KGS

Additions O

7:34

Σαλομων] + (MT

47) παντα τα σκευη απο του πληθους σφοδρα σφοδρα ουκθ ην σταθμος του χαλκου

(48) και εποιησεν σαλωμων παντα

7:38

A-247 Arm (= MT 7:1) ετεσιν] + * και συνετελεσεν ολον τον οικον αυτου

A Arm SyrH (MT 7:38b) 7:39

και τριακοντα πηχων υψος αυτου - αυτου

7:43

7:44

ult.] > B L (in O sub *) (MT 6) στυλον] + * εποιησεν A Arm SyrH (MT 7) κριτηριου] + * εποιησεν και ωροφωσεν εν κεδρω απο του εδαφους εως του εδαφους O

7:46

7:46 8:1

(MT 7b) (MT 9) τιμιων] + * μετρον (> 247) απελεκητων O (MT 7:9) εσωθεν] + * και εξωθεν O ισραηλ] + συν πασας κεφαλας των ραβδων επηρμενους των πατερων των υιων ισραηλ προς τον βασιλεα σαλωμων O

158 Arm Boh

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

Additions O

8:2

εν μενι] pr και

Additions O L

εξεκκλησιασθησαν προς τον βασιλεα σαλωμων πας ανηρ ισραηλ A 247 Arm

8:2

αθανιν] + εν τη εορτη αυτος ο μην εβδομος

(3) και ηλθον παντες οι πρεσβυτεροι ισραηλ

A Arm 8:4

και 1º] pr και ανεβηβασαν αυτην

247; pr και ανεβιβασαν την κιβωτον κυριου A

Arm 8:4

Μαρτυριου 2º] + και ανεβιβασαν αυτα οι ιερεις και οι λευιται A-247 127

(sub *) 158 Arm (pr *) 8:5

ο βασιλευς— ισραηλ] ο βασιλευς σαλωμων και πασα συναγωγη ισραηλ οι συντεταγμενοι επ αυτον συν αυτω

8:5

A-247 Arm αναριθμητα] α ου ψηφισθησεται αναριθμητα απο

(>247) πληθους (>247) A-247 Arm 8:6

κιβωτον] + διαθηκης κυριου A-247 19-93 Thdt Arm

8:8

εξω] + και εγενοντο εκει εως της ημερας ταυτης A-247 Arm

Additions O ≠ L

91

92 1 KGS

Pablo Torijano Additions O

8:10

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

οικον] pr κυριου 247; + κυριου A Z L

post 11 (12) τοτε ειπεν

8:11

σαλωμων κυριος ειπεν του σκηνωσαι εν γνοφω

(13) οικοδομων ωκοδομησα οικον κατοικητηριου σοι εδρασμα τη καθεδρα σου αιωνας A-247 127 (sub *) 158 Arm Boh

8:24

μου] + οσα ελαλησας αυτω A Arm

8:26

τω δαυιδ] ο ελαλησας τω δουλω σου δαυιδ A-247 Arm; ο ελαλησας 127 (sub *) 158

8:28

επι] + προσευχην δουλου σου και

A-247 Arm 8:28

τερψεως] + και της προσευχης A; δεησεως και της προσευχης L

247 Arm 8:33

επιστρεψουσιν et δεηθησονται] + προς σε A-247 Arm

8:36

γην] + σου A-247 Arm

L 8:37

γενηται 1] + εν τη γη

8:38

ανθρωπω] + παντος

A-247 Arm λαου σου (> 247) ισραηλ A-247 Arm

8:39 8:41

τας οδους] pr πασας O L σου] + ισραηλ O L

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

Additions O

8:41

ουτος] + (41b) και

Additions O L

93

Additions O ≠ L

ελθη απο γης μακροθεν ενεκα ονοματος σου

(42) οτι ακουσουσιν το ονομα σου το μεγα και την χειρα σου την ισχυουσαν και βραχιονα σου τον εκτεταμενον A-247

Arm 8:49

καιτοκητηριο σου] + την προσευχην αυτων και την δεησιν αυτων και ποιησεις κρισιν αυτων A-247 Arm

8:58

αυτου 3º] + και τα κριματα αυτου A-247

Arm 8:62

ισραηλ]+ * μετ αυτου

8:63

Χιλιαδας και

O προβατων εκατον εικοσι χιλιαδας] > B

509 8:65

επτα ημερας] + και επτα νυκτας 247; και τεσσαρες και δεκα ημερας 93 Thdt; και επτα ημερας τεσσαρας και δεκα ημερας A

8:66

19’-127 Arm SyrH (sub *) αυτον] τον βασιλεα O rell; και ευλογησαν και αυτοι τον βασιλεα L

94

Pablo Torijano

1 KGS

Additions O

8:66

τοις] pr * πασιν O (sub * in SyrH)

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

ωφθη 2º] + αυτω in O

9:2

(sub *) L 9:9

9:9a

Την 1º] pr * συμπασαν A-247 (pro συ πασαν, cf. I 2:22); pr πασαν 82-93-127 SyrH; πασαν 19’ εν ταις ημεραις εκειναις] pr και εγενετο O (cfr

MT 10) 9:11

ο βασιλευς] + σαλωμων

O (sub *) L 9:14 10:9 10:11

+ MT 15–25 αγαθα] pr σοφιαν και O (sub * SyrH) ηνεγκεν] + εκ σουφειρ O −247 εμπορων] + των

10:15

ρωποπωλων O (sub

* SyrH); + των εμπορευομενων L

10:16

σαλομων] pr ο βασιλευς

OL 10:17

αυτα] + ο βασιλευς

O −247 10:19

και χειρες] + επι του θρονου A

10:21

του ποτου σαλομων χρυσα Ra] τα υπο του σαλομων γεγονοτα χρυσα B L; του ποτου βασιλεως σαλομων χρυσα γεγονοτα O

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

Additions O

10:21

Fin.] + * εις οτιουν O −247 λιθων—fin.] οδοντων

10:22

Additions O L

ελεφαντινων και πιθηκων και ταωνων

SyrH; > A-247 Arm 10:25

σκευη] + * αργυρα και σκευη O 127 (sub *)

10:26

Και 1º] pr * και συνελεξεν σαλωμων αρματα και ιππεις

(ιππους A) O 10:29

11:1 11:2

πεντενκοντα] pr * εκατον και Arm SyrH (εκατον sub *) αλλοτριας] + *πολλας O Αγαπησαι B L] + * και εξεκλιναν γυναικες αυτου την καρδιαν αυτου O

(= MT 3b) 11:5

μοωαβ] + * εν τω ορει ο επι προσωπον ιερουσαλημ O

11:18

αυτων] + * απο φαραν

O 11:18

αυτω 2º] + * και γην εδωκεν αυτω O L

11:20

γανηβαθ 2º] +* εν οικω φαραω O

11:22

fin.] + (23) και ηγειρεν κυριος σαταν τω σαλωμων τω ραζων υιον ελιαδαε

Additions O ≠ L

95

96 1 KGS

Pablo Torijano Additions O

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

τον βαραμεεθ αδαδεζερ βασιλεα σουβα κυριον αυτου (24) και συνηθροισθησαν επ αυτον ανδρες και ην αρχων συστρεμματος

*εν τω αποκτενειν δαυιδ αυτους και επορευθησαν εις δαμασκον και εκαθισαν εν αυτη και εβασιλευσεν εν δαμασκω (25) και εγενετο αντικειμενος τω ισραηλ πασας τας ημερας σαλωμων.…

O cf 14 11:26

υιος γυναικος γηρας] * και ονομα της μητρος αυτου σαρουα γυνη χηρα O

11:26 11:33

fin.] +* και υψωσεν χειρα εν τω βασιλει O εμου] +* και διακριβειας μου και κρισεις μου O–247

11:34

fin.] +* ος εφυλαχεν εντολας μου και ακριβειας μου O; + ος εφυλαξεν τας εντολας μου και τα διακαιωοματα μου L

11:38

fin.] +* και δωσω σοι τον ισραηλ (39) και κακουχησω το σπερμα δαυιδ δια ταυτην πλην ου πασας τας ημερας O 127

(sub *)

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

Additions O

11:40

Additions O L ανεστη] +*ιεροβοαμ

O–247 127 11:42

ιερουσαλημ] +* επι παντα ισραηλ O L Lat

12:1

fin.] + (2) και εγενετο ως ηκουσεν ιεροβοαμ υιος ναβατ και αυτου ετι οντος εν αιγυπτω ως εφυγεν εκ προσωπου του βασιλεως σαλωμων και επεστρεψεν ιεροβοαμ εξ αιγυπτου (3) και απεστειλαν και εκαλεσαν αυτον και ηλθεν ιεροβοαμ και πασα η εκκλησια ισραηλ

(+ και κατευθυνει και ερχεται εις την γην σαριρα την εν ορει εφραιμ 247) O Arm

(cfr SyrH) 12:6

βασιλευς] +* ροβοαμ

O −247 12:7

αυτοις 1º] +* και ειξεις αυτοις O 127 (sub *)

12:15

ελαλησεν] + κυριος

A-247 SryH; idem post στηση add . L 12:16

βασιλει] +* λογον A-247 SyrH

Additions O ≠ L

97

98 1 KGS

Pablo Torijano Additions O

Additions O L

12:16

Additions O ≠ L

fin.] + * (17) και υιων ισραηλ των καθημενων εν πολεσιν ιουδα και εβασιλευσεν επ αυτων ροβοαμ A Arm SyrH; + και οι υιοι ιουδα και οι υιοι ιηλ οι κατοικουντες εν ταις πολεσιν ιουδα εβασιλευσαν εφ εαυτοις τον ροβοαμ L

12:18

βασιλευς 1º] + * ροβοαμ

OL 12:18

αναβηναι] + * επι το αρμα

OL 12:27

λαου] + * τουτου O −A

12:27

fin.] + * και επιστραφησονται προς ροβοαμ βασιλεα ιουδα

O 12:30

fin.] + και προ προσωπου της αλλης εις βαιθηλ και ειασαν του οικον κυριου 158 Lat; και προ προσωπου της αλλης εις βαιθηλ L; + και ειασαν του οικον κυριου rel SyrH.

12:33

εποιησεν 1º] + * εν βαιθηλ O −247

13:6

σου] + * και προσευξαι περι εμου O 127 (sub *)

13:15

εμου] + * εις την οικιαν O

13:16

σου] + * ουδε ελθειν μετα σου O −A

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

Additions O

13:19

αυτον] + * συν εαυτω

Additions O L

O 13:23

ονον] + * τω προφητη

O −A 13:26

fin.] + * και εδωκεν αυτον ο κυριος τω λεοντι και συνετρυψεν αυτον και εθανατωσεν αυτον κατα το ρημα κυριου ο ελαλησεν αυτω (27) και ελαλησεν προς τους υιους αυτου τω λεγειν επισαξατε μοι την ονον και επεσαξαν O −247

19’ 13:29

εις την πολιν] pr * και ηλθεν O −247

13:29

εις την πολιν]

+ (29bβ) * του προφητου του πρεσβυτερου του κοψασθαι και του θαψαι αυτον (30a) και ανεπαυσεν το νεκριμαιον αυτου

13:32

O −247 τους 1º] pr * παντας SyrH

13:32 14:23

+ MT 14:1–20 sub * O 127 οικοδομ.] + * και αυτοι A Arm

14:26

fin. B* V] + * οσα εποιησεν σαλωμων Bc OL

Additions O ≠ L

99

100

Pablo Torijano

1 KGS

Additions O

14:31

δαυιδ] + * και

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

ονομα (+ της A) μητρος αυτου νααμα η αμμανιτις O −247;

cf 21 15:2

εβασιλευσεν] + * εν / επι ιερουσαλεμ rel

15:4

καταλειμμα] + * εν ισραηλ A-247; εν ιερουσαληεμ Arm

SyrH 127 τεκνα] pr * τα O L

15:4 15:5

End] + * εκτος εν ρηματι ουριου του χετταιου L; + (6) εκτος εν ρηματι ουριου του χετταιου και πολεμος ην μεταξυ ροβοαμ και μεταξυ ιεροβοαμ πασας τας ημερας της ζωης αυτου

O −247 (cf. 14:30) 15:16 15:18

fin.] + αυτων O −247 το 1º] pr συμπαν O −247

15:18

οικου] + * κυ και εν τοις

15:23

εποιησεν B] + * και τας

θησαυροις του οικου O L

15:24 15:24 15:27

(> L) πολεις ας ωκοδομησεν O L ασα] + * μετα των πατερων αυτου O −247L δαυιδ] + * πατρος αυτου A Arm αυτον 2] + * βαασα O −247

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

Additions O

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

fin.] + * αντ αυτου O; + βαασα επι τον Ισραηλ L

15:28

15:30

101

ως] * ος ημαρτεν και* ος O −247

15:31

fin.] + * (32) και πολεμος ην μεταξυ ασα και μεταξυ βαασα βασιλεως ισραηλ πασας τας ημερας αυτων O −247; cf 16:6

16:6

τω εικοστω ετει B A

L −127] τω εικοστω εννατω ετει 127; ετει εiικοστω Arm Lat SyrH; ετει εικοστω και ογδοω 247; cf MT 8 16:7

ανανι] + * του προφητου O

16:8

και] pr εν ετει εικοστω και εκτω επι του ασα βασιλεως ιουδα O −247;

pr εν τω ασα βασιλει ιουδα L

16:9

Ζαμβρι B L] pr παις αυτου O −247

16:10

αυτου 2º] + * εν ετει εικοστω και εβδομω του ασα βασιλεως ιουδα O

16:11

fin.] + * ουχ υπελιπεν αυτω ουρουντα προς τοιχον και αγχισεις αυτου και εταιρον αυτου (12) και εξετριψεν ζαμβρι ολον τον οικον βαασα

O −247

102 1 KGS

Pablo Torijano Additions O

16:15

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L και 1º] pr * εν ετει εικοστω και εβδομω του οσα βασιλεως ιουδα O −247;

pr εν τω εικοστω και δευτερω ετει ασα βασιλεως ιουδα L

16:19

αυτου 2º] + * αις εποιησεν O 121

16:22

και ηττηθη B] > B L; pr και υπερισχυσεν ο λαος ο ακολουθηεσας τως ζαμβρι O rel

16:23

προτω] + * ετει Arm

16:27

αυτου] ην εποιησην

16:29

O 121 ισραηλ] + * εν ετει

SyrH

τριακοστω και ογδοω του ασα βασιλεως ιουδα βασιλευσας δε αχααβ υιος ζαμβρι επι ισραηλ O −247

16:30

αχααβ] + υιος ζαμβρι

O 16:33

την ψυχην αυτου] pr τον κυριον θεον του ιηλ και

O; pr τον ποιησαι L 17:5

και 1º] pr * και επορευθη O −247

17:5

και 2º] pr * και επορευθη Arm SyrH

17:6

αρτους] + * και κρεας

17:6

κρεα B L] αρτον και

A Arm κρεας O

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

17:9

Additions O

Additions O L

103

Additions O ≠ L

σιδωνιας] + και καθηση εκει A

17:14

κυριος] + * ο θεος ισραηλ O −247 επι] + προσωπου O −247

17:14

127 17:15

εποιησεν] + * κατα το

17:16

ρημα ηλιου A 127 Arm SyrH init.] pr * και απο της ημερας ταυτης A 127 Arm SyrH

17:17

ταυτα] pr * τα ρηματα O −247 ουτως] + και ηκουσεν

17:22

κυριος εν φωνη ηλια και επεστραφη η ψυχη του παιδαριου εις αυτον και εζησεν 127 (sub

*); + και επεστραφη η ψυχη του παιδαριου

82–93–108; ανεβοησεν] + και

17:22

ηκουσεν κυριος εν φωνη ηλια και επεστραφη η ψυχη του παιδαριου προς εγκατον αυτου και εζησεν και ελαβεν ηλιου

O 121 17:24

εγνωκα] pr * τουτο

Arm SyrH πηγας] pr τας Α L; pr

18:5

παντας Arm SyrH

18:12

αχααβ] + * και ουχ ευρησει σε O–247 127

18:13

πεντηκοντα] + * πεντεκοντα (> Α) ανδρας O −247

104 1 KGS

Pablo Torijano Additions O

Additions O L εθρηψα] + * αυτους O

18:13

−247

18:19

L

προφητας 1º] + * του βααλ τετρακοσιους και πεντηκοντα και τους προφητας O −247

18:21

παντας] παντα * το λαον

OL 18:21

ο λαος] + αυτω A 127

Arm 18:23

αλλον] + και δωσω επι τα ξυλα O −247 127

18:26

μοσχον] + * ον εδωκεν αυτοις O −247

18:28

κατετεμνοντο] + κατα τον εθισμον αυτων O L

18:29

θυσιαν B 82–93] + και ουκ ην φωνη και ουκ ην ακροασις SyrH (cf 26); + και ουκ ην φωνη A-247 127 rel Arm θυσιαστηριον] + κυριου L και 1º] pr * και εγενετο

18:32 18:36

κατα αναβασιν του δωρου

O −247 127 18:39

και 1º—λαος] * και ειδεν πας ο λαος και επεσον O 121

18:39

18:43 18:46

κυριος—fin.] κυριος

* αυτος * εστιν ο θεος * κυριος * αυτος * εστιν * ο θεος Arm SyrH και 3º B L] pr * και ανεβη rel επι B] pr εγενετο O rel

Additions O ≠ L

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

Additions O

18:46

Additions O L εως] + * του ελθειν εις

O −247 (om εως A) 127 19:1

τους] pr παντας

O −247 19:2

ιεζαβελ 1º] +* αγγελον O 121

19:4

νυν] + * κυριε O −247

19:8

ορους] + * του θεου

127 O −247 127 ιδου] pr και O −247 L λεπτης] + εκει κυριος SyrH; + κακει A-247 19–127 121 Arm

19:11 19:12

19:15

δαμασκου] + * και ηξεις B O −247

19:20

μοι] * την μητερα μου

O–Α 19–127 (sub *) και B] + * εγενετο μετα τα ρηματα ταυτα και rel σοι 1º] +* αντ αυτου SyrH L και 1º—τεταραγμενον B L −19] και ηλθεν αχααβ

20:1 20:2 20:4

προς οικον αυτου συγκεχυμενος και εκλελυμενος επι τω λογω ω ελαλησεν προς αυτον ναβουθαι ο ιεζραηλιτης

(cf 1) και ειπεν ου δωσω σοι την κληρονομιαν πατερων μου O 127 rel

20:5

και 2º] pr και εισηλθεν προς αυτον A

20:8

τους 2º]+* προς O L

Additions O ≠ L

105

106

Pablo Torijano

1 KGS

Additions O

20:8

ελευθερους] + * οι

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

εν τη πολει αυτου A

20:13

SyrH αυτου 2º B L] + ανδρες της αποστασιας του ναβουθαι κατεναντι του λαου

(in Sy sub *, see 10) O rel λιθοις] pr εν Α L

20:13 20:15

ιεζαβηλ] + * οτι λελιθοβοληται ναβουθαι και απεθανεν O −247;

+ λεγοντων κεχωσται ναβουθαι και τεθνηκεν

L 121 (sub * 127) ειπεν] * ιεζαβελ O −247L

20:15 20:25

ματαιως] ουκ ην ως L; + επραθη A ιεζραηλιτην] + και επορευθη B; + και επορευθη * κεκλιμενος O; + και τον υιον αυτου L

20:27

20:29

Κακιαν 2º]+ επι τον οικον αυτου O

21:1

υιος αδερ] + βασιλευς συριας L (127 sub *); υιος αδερ βασιλευς συριας συνηθροισεν O

rel 21:2

απεστειλεν] + * αγγελους

O 19’-127 (127 sub *) σου 4º] + * τα καλα O

21:3

−247;

21:4

κυριε] + μου O 127

(sub *)

+ τα καλλιστα L

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene  1 KGS

Additions O

21:5 21:5

ειπον] + προς αυτον A

Additions O L

107

Additions O ≠ L

σου 3º]+ και τα τεκνα σου O −247

21:7

πρεσβυτερους] + * της γης O; + ισραηλ L

21:9

υμων] + * τω βασιλει

O 127 (sub *) 21:13

τω βασιλει ισραηλ B

L] τω αχααβ βασιλει ισραηλ O rel 21:15

τα παιδαρια των αρχοντων Ra] τους αρχοντας τα παιδαρια

B; τους αρχοντας και τα παιδαρια των αρχοντων

L; τους παιδας των αρχοντων O rel 21:22

ειπεν] + * αυτω O −247

θεος 2º] pr ο L; pr

21:23

κυριος ο A

21:27

επεσκεπησαν] + *και διοικηθησαν O −247

21:27

παρενεβαλεν] παρενεβαλον * οι υιοι

21:28 21:31 21:43

O −247 θεος 1º] pr ο A Ισραηλ 1º] pr * οικου O Ισραηλ] + * προς οικον αυτου O

108

Pablo Torijano

2.3. Kaige Section 1 KGS

Additions O

22:4

Ιοσαφατ 2º] + προς

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

βασιλεα Ισραηλ O −247

22:7

κυριου] + ουκετι O −247

22:15

ειπεν 2º] + * προς αυτον A SyrH; + αυτω

L 22:15

Ευδωσει] + και δωσει

A Arm SyrH ου] pr οτι O −247 L

22:18

(>MT) 22:24

πνευμα κυριου] * τουτο παρηλθεν πνευμα κυριου

* παρ εμου A SyrH; + απεστη απ εμου L Arm 22:28

εμοι] + και ειπεν ακουσατε λαοι παντες

O −247 158 22:36

Στρατοκηρυξ] + εν τη παρεμβολη O −247

22:38

38 αιμα] + αυτου O −247

22:46

εποι.] + * και οσα επολεμησεν O

22:46

+ MT 47–50 O −247 *

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene 

2 KGS Additions O 1:12

Πυρ 2º] + * θεου

1:13

Arm SyrH ηλθεν] pr αναβας A 247 121 Arm

1:16

Additions O L

109

Additions O ≠ L

ακκαρων] + * παρα το μη ειναι θεον εν ισραηλ του εκζητησαι εν ρηματι αυτου

O 127 (sub*) 1:17

ηλειου] + (17b) και εβασιλευσεν ιωραμ ο αδελφος οχοζιου αντ αυτου οτι ουκ ην αυτω υιος 127 (sub *); + * (17b) και εβασιλευσεν ιωραμ αδελφος αυτου αντ αυτου εν ετει δευτερω ιωραμ υιω ιωσαφατ βασιλει ιουδα οτι ουκ ην αυτω υιος A-124

121 rel (linked to a transposition) 2:18

ελισσαιε] + * προς αυτους

O; αυτοις L αναβαινε 2º] + * φαλακρε 247 121 L Arm Lat SyrH

2:23

2:24

κυριου] + ειπεν τεκνα παραβασεως και αργιας A

3:13

σου B Aeth] + * και προς τους προφητας της μητρος σου rel

3:19

οχυραν] + * και πασαν πολιν εκλεκτην O; + εν τη μωαβ L-82

110

Pablo Torijano

2 KGS Additions O

Additions O L

3:25

λιθον] + * αυτου Arm SyrH L

4:2

Additions O ≠ L

ειπεν 1º] + * προς αυτην O; + αυτη L

4:4

τα] pr * παντα O −247

fin.] + αρτον O-A L init.] pr * και ειπεν καλεσον αυτην O L αυτον] + * και εισηνεγκεν αυτον Sy L ερεις] + * αυτη SyrH L

4:8 4:15 4:20 4:26 4:36

εκαλεσεν] + *αυτην O;

+ αυτην ο γιεζι L −82 και 4º] pr * et uenit SyrH; pr (sic) ελθων A; pr και εισηλθε L

4:39

4:42

πρωτογενηματων εικοσι αρτους] pr *αρτους O; αρτους πρωτογ. εικοσι L

4:42

παλαθας] +

4:44

*βακελ(λ)εθ O και 1º] pr *και εδωκεν εις προσωπον αυτων O

5:1

δυναμεως] + * βασιλεως

O-A L 5:8

ελισσαιε] + *(o) ανθρωπος του θεου

A-247 127; ο ανθρωπος του θεου

L −127 Arm SyrH 5:13

μεγαν] pr * (και ειπαν) πατερ A-247; pr πατερ ει

L Arm SyrH

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene 

2 KGS Additions O

Additions O L

111

Additions O ≠ L εστη] + * εις προσωπον

5:15

αυτου O; + ενωπιον αυτου L Arm

5:17

και θυσιασμα B] > V

mu.; και θυσιαν A (in SyrH sub *); και θυσιας 247 Arm; η θυσιαν L αυτου 2º] + και ειπεν (+ ει SyrH) ειρηνη O-A L

5:21 5:23

λαβε] pr *ουκουν A 247 127 SyrH; pr επιεκεως L −127 cf 6:3

5:23

και ελαβεν B] + δυο ταλαντα αργυριου V mu.;

*και εβιασατο αυτον και εδησεν (L εδωκεν αυτω) διταλαντον αργυριου

247 L Arm SyrH; δυο αλλασσομενας στολας και ειπεν ναιμαν ουκουν λαβε διταλαντον αργυριου και εβιασαντο αυτον και εδησεν διταλαντον αργυριου A fin.] + * και επορευθησαν O; + και απηλθον L αρματος] + * αυτου SyrH L και 2º] * ο δε O

5:24 5:26 6:3 6:5

6:10

εβοησεν] + * και ειπεν O; + ο ανηρ και ειπεν L ελισσαιε] + * και διεστειλατο αυτω O

6:21

ισραηλ] + * προς ελισαιε

OL

112

Pablo Torijano

2 KGS Additions O

Additions O L

6:31

ελισ.] + * υιου σαφατ

7:10 7:17

Additions O ≠ L

OL ονος] + δεδεμενος O L εν τη πυλη] επι της πυλης O plu; > L

7:20 8:10

εγενετο] + * αυτω O ειπεν] + * προς αυτον

O 8:13

ρημα] + * το μεγα SyrH

8:19

ειπεν] + * αυτω A SyrH

L L 8:21

8:25

αυτου ανασταντος] + * νυκτος O; ως ανεστη νυκτος L

fin.] + * βασιλεως ιουδα O ητων] + *ην O L

8:26 8:27

Αχααβ 2º] + * γαμβρος γαρ οικου αχααβ εστιν

A-247 SyrH; + οτι γαμβρος οικου αχααβ εστιν

L Arm 8:29

αυτον 1º] + *οι συριοι

OL 8:29

ιωρααμ 2º] +* βασιλευς ιουδα O L

9:28

αυτου 2º] + * μετα

9:32

δυο] + * η τρεις

10:4

σφοδρα] + *σφοδρα

10:12

O −247 και 2º] pr *και ηλθεν O −247

των πατερων αυτου O

SyrH Lat; τρεις A

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene 

2 KGS Additions O

Additions O L

10:14

ζωντας] + και

113

Additions O ≠ L

συνελαβοντο αυτους ζωντας O (sub *); + και συνελαβον αυτους L

(sub * 127) 10:23 10:27

εστιν] + *ωδε O και 2º] pr και καθειλον τον οικον του βααλ O

(sub *); pr και καθειλο τον οικον αυτου και ελαβην ιου την στηλην του βααλ και συνεστριξεν αυτην και ερριψεν εξ αριστερων του βααλειμ L

11:1

και 2º] pr * και ανεστη

11:3 11:4

Εν οικω] + *κυριου O

SyrH L ωρκωσεν B] +αυτους ενωπιον κυριου L; + * αυτους εν τη διαθηκη κυριου A SyrH

11:9

Σαββατον B] + μετα των εκπορευομενον το σαββατων O sub *; + μετα των εισπορευομενων και εκπορευομενων το σαββατον L

12:5

συντιμησεως 1º— συντιμησεως 2º] * παρερχομενον ψηφω ψυχων * συντιμησεως ανηρ A-247

114

Pablo Torijano

2 KGS Additions O

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L τον γααλλα] *

12:21

τον καταβαινοντα σελλα 247 121; τον καταμενοντα γαλααδ

A; τω εν τε καταβασει αλλαν L 13:1

ιου *(cf 9:2)] + * επι ισραηλ O L

13:6

ιεροβοαμ] + υιου ναβατ O

13:13

εν] pr * εταφη ιωας

A Arm; pr εταφη 247 121 βασιλει] + * ισραηλ O L

13:16 13:17

Ηνοιξεν B] * + και ειπεν Ελισσαιε ροιζησον και εροιζησεν O −247;

+ και ειπεν Ελισαιε τοξευσον και ετοξευσεν

L −127 13:22

αζαηλ] +* βασιλευς συριας O L τον] pr * τον βασιλεα O

14:5 14:11

ο βασιλευς B] pr * ιωας

rel (A L om ο) 14:13

Αμεσσιαν B] + βασιλεα ιουδα] A

SyrH 14:23

ιωας 2º] +* βασιλεως ισραηλ O L

15:10

και Κεβδααμ και επαταξαν αυτον B] και επαταξεν αυτον εν Ιεβλααμ L −127; και Κεβλααμ και επαταξαν αυτον κατεναντι του λαου A; και επαταξαν αυτον κατεναντι του λαου 127

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene 

2 KGS Additions O

Additions O L

15:12

ο] pr * ουτος L Arm

15:14

αυτον ] + * και

115

Additions O ≠ L

SyrH εβασιλευσεν αντ αυτου

OL 15:19

μετα αυτου] + * του ενισχυσαι το βασιλειον εν χειρι αυτον O; + του κραταιωσαι την βασιλειαν αυτου εν χειρι αυτου L 158

15:20

σικλους] +* αργυριον O 127 βασιλει] +* ασσυριων OL

16:8 16:9

αυτην 2º] +* κυρηνηνδε

O −247 16:11

εκ δαμασκου ] pr ουτως εποιησεν ουριας ο ιερευς εως του ελθειν τον βασιλεα L −127; + * ουτως εποιησεν ουριας ο ιερευς εως ερχεσθαι τον βασιελα αχαζ απορ δαμασκου

16:12

(12) O 127 sub * 127) και 1º] pr * και ηλθεν ο βασιλευς απο δαμασκου

A 247 121 SyrH; pr και ηλθεν ο βασιλευς αχαζ εκ δαμασκου L

(127*)

116

Pablo Torijano

2 KGS Additions O

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L θυσιαστηριον] + και

16:12

προσηλθεν ο βασιελευς επι το θυσιαστηριον

O; + και προσηλθεν προς τον θυσιαστηριον ο βασιλευς L

16:15 16:20

λαου] +* της γης O 121 εταφη] +* μετα των πατερων αυτου O −247

17:13

αυτοις] αυτους προς υμας A; προς υμας 247

Arm; προς αυτους L; + προς υμας 121

17:14

fin.] +* οι ουκ επιστευσαν κυριω θεω αυτων (15) και απερριψαν τους ακριβασμους αυτου και την συνθηκεν αυτου ην εκοψεν συν πατρασιν αυτων O; + οι ουκ επιστευσαν κυριοω θεω αυτων (15) και απωσαντο την διαθηκην αυτου και τα δικαιωματα α διεθετο τοις πατρασιν αυτων L

17:15

αυτοις 2º] pr * κυριος

A-247 121 L; + κυριος Arm SyrH 17:25

αυτων] +* εκει O

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene 

2 KGS Additions O

Additions O L

117

Additions O ≠ L εκειθεν] pr * εκει

17:27

ενα των ιερεων ων απωκισα εκ σαμαρειας

L; ibe unum ex sacerdotibus deportatis inde Arm SyrH 17:29

κατωκουν ] pr * αυτοι O

18:18

του] pr *του βασιλεως

O −247 L End] + εμε O; post

19:6

εβλασφ. + εις εμε L

1=9:10

μη 1º B] pr * ταδε ερειτε προς εζεκιαν βασιλεα

19:13

ιουδα τω λεγειν O L (om τω λεγ. L) που 2º B] *βασιλευς της πολεως O L (sub * 127)

19:15

και 1º] pr * και προσηυξατο εζεκιας εις προσωπον κυριου O; και προσηυξατο εζεκιας προς κυριον λεγων L

19:17

19:25

End] + και (+πασαν L) την γην αυτων O L (sub 127) επλασα] pr * μη ουκ ηκουσας απο μακροθεν αυτην εποιησα εις απο ημερων αρχηθεν O; pr ουκ ηκουσας οτι μακροθεν εγω εποιησα αυτην, εξ ημερων αρχης L

118

Pablo Torijano

2 KGS Additions O 19:34

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

ταυτης] +* του σωσαι αυτην O

20:7

συκων] + και ελημφθη

O 121 20:11

αναβαθμοις] + * οις κατεβη εν αναβαθμοις αχαζ A 121 SyrH; + αχαζ οις κατεβη L

20:15

ειπεν 2º] + * εζεκιας

OL 20:19

κυριου ον ελαλησεν

B] ον ελαλησε κυριος γενεσθω ειρηνη και δικαιοσυνη εν ταις ημεραις μου L; + * και ειπεν μη ουκ εαν ειρηνη και αληθεια εν ημεραις μου O

21:8

φυλαξουσιν] + * του

21:8

ενετειλαμην] + *

ποιησαι O 121 αυτοις O

23:10 23:19

διαγειν] pr * μη O −Α L ιωσιας] + βασιλευς ισραηλ O 121 πασχα] + τουτο O L 121

23:23 23:33

βασιλευειν] + αυτον A L

Arm 24:2 24:14 24:18

αυτω] pr κυριος O την] pr πασαν O 121 ιερεμιου] + * απο λομνα (λοβνα) O; + εκ λοβεννα L

How Much Hexaplaric Material Entered into the Antiochene 

2 KGS Additions O 25:1

25:9

δεκατω] + * εν δεκατη του μηνος 247 121 Arm SyrH fin.] + * εν πυρι (10) και το τειχος ιερουσαλημ κυκλω κατελυσαν πασαν ευπορια χαλδαιων O

Additions O L

Additions O ≠ L

119

Julio Trebolle

Readings of the Old Latin (Beuron 91–95) Reflecting “Additions” of the Antiochene Text in 3–4 Kingdoms Dominique Barthélemy made two great contributions to the study of the books of Samuel-Kings and of other books of the Bible as well. His study of the Minor Prophets scroll from Nahal & Hever * made known the existence of the so-called kaige recension performed in Palestine at the beginning of the 1st century BCE or perhaps earlier. This recension represented the first attempt to bring the Old Greek text (OG) in line with the form of the Hebrew text that was in use by that time in Rabbinic circles, an early form of the Hebrew Masoretic tradition. The text of this recension is found in two sections of LXX Kings: 3 Kgdms 1:1–2:11 (βγ) and 3 Kgdms 22:1–4 Kgdms 25:30 (γδ). In these sections the Lucianic (L) text attested by the manuscripts boc2e2 (19-82-93-108-127) is the only one that preserves a text that, according to D. Barthélemy, is very close or “substantially identical” to that of the Old Greek. This is his second contribution to the study of the books of Samuel-Kings.1 The merit of LXXL resides in the fact that, behind the Hexaplaric and Lucianic elements, there lurks a text that corresponds to a level of textual tradition previous to the kaige recension. The Antiochene Greek becomes, therefore, the only way of approach to the Old Greek text in these two sections.2 In the non-kaige section (3 Kgdms 2:12–21:43) it also constitutes a witness of the OG together with the B text, and sometimes it is to be preferred to this majority text. The study of the biblical Qumran manuscripts,

I thank Andrés Piquer Otero for the translation into English of the Spanish original. This paper has been produced in the framework of the public Research Project “Nueva Edición Políglota de Textos Bíblicos”, funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. 1 Barthélemy, Devanciers; idem, “Les problèmes textuels de 2 Sam 11,2–1 Rois 2,11 reconsidérés à la lumière de certaines critiques des Devanciers d’Aquila”, in R.A. Craft (ed.), 1972 Proceedings IOSCS Pseudepigrapha, Los Angeles 4 Sept. 1972 (SBLSCS 2; Missoula, Mont., 1972) 16–89; T. McLay, “Kaige and Septuagint Research”, Textus 19 (1998) 127–39; R. Kraft, “Reassessing the Impact of Barthélemy’s Devanciers, Forty Years Later”, BIOSCS 37 (2004) 1–28. 2 Fernández, N./Busto, J.R., El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega, II 1–2 Reyes (Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC, 1992).

Readings of the Old Latin

121

particularly of 4QSama, has provided a further clarification of the nature of the Lucianic text, although many problems are still unresolved.3 While the value of the Antiochene text for reconstructing the OG is today generally acknowledged, the idea prevails among many scholars that the Antiochene text shows a certain freedom in handling the text. This freedom gives rise to a series of doublets as well as to the interpolation of elements that were not part of OG: proper names instead of the corresponding pronoun, possessive pronouns, articles, conjunctions, making subjects or objects explicit, etc.4 As is frequently repeated, the problem consists in distinguishing the pre-Lucianic readings from those that correspond to the 4th Century Antiochene text attested mainly by Theodoret of Cyr. It is also well known that the original text of the Old Latin version (OL) reflects a Greek pre-Lucianic text. However, the witness of the OL has not been thoroughly taken into account, due mainly to the fragmentary state of the preserved evidence and to its being a secondary translation.5 The research on the textual history of Kings faces several successive tasks: 1.

discarding all the internal OL variants produced during the textual transmission of this version (copy errors, omissions and additions, linguistic or stylistic revisions, influences of a kaige Greek text (LXXB) and the Vulgate tradition in the pre-Jerome text, etc.6);

3 Cf. recently S. Kreuzer, “Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta. Forschungsgeschichte und eine neue Perspektive”, in S. Kreuzer/M. Sigismund (ed.), Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung (DSI 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 23–56; N. Fernández, “The Antiochene Edition in the Text History of the Greek Bible”, ibid., 57–73; V. Spottorno, “The status of the Antiochene Text in the first century A.D.—Josephus and New Testament”, ibid., 74–83; P. Hugo, “Die antiochenische Mischung: L zwischen Altem und Neuem in 2Sam”, ibid., 109–32; T. Kauhanen, The ProtoLucianic Problem in 1 Samuel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). 4  N. Fernández, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 230. 5 E. Ulrich, “Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translation of the Septuagint”, in N. Fernández (ed.), La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC, 1985) 67–81; N. Fernández, “Translation, Corruption and Interpretation: The Genesis of the Old Latin Variants”, in idem, Scribes & Translators: Septuaginta & Old Latin in the Books of Kings (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 53–70. 6 J. Trebolle, “Textos ‘Kaige’ en la Vetus Latina de Reyes (2 Re 10,25–28)”, RB 89 (1982) 198–209; A. Schenker, “Der Platz del altlateinischen Randlesarten des Kodex von León und der Valvanera-Bibel in der biblischen Textgeschichte (1–4Kgt)”, in S. Kreuzer/M. Sigismund (ed.), Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung (DSI 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 199–210.

122 2.

Julio Trebolle

differentiating in the OL textual tradition readings of Hexaplaric or Lucianic provenance;7

LXX Hebrew Vorlage

Proto-MT

Old Greek pre-Lucianic text LXX kaige (B) αʹ σʹ θʹ

OL original version

MT

Hexaplaric text (A) Lucianic text (L) OL textual tradition

3. 4.

5.

differentiating OL readings that reflect a pre-Lucianic or OG text from others that reproduce a kaige-like text; differentiating the pre-Lucianic readings that allow for an approximation to the OG text from those that correspond to the 4th-century Lucianic or Antiochene text;8 and differentiating OG readings that may reflect the peculiarities of the translator or of the Jewish exegesis of the times from those readings that go all the way back to a Hebrew Vorlage different from the MT.9

The witness of the OL has not been taken into account due also to an inappropriate methodological approach that is reflected by the use of the terms “additions” and “omissions” when speaking of the OL and of its Vorlage, the Greek Antiochene text.

7 S.P. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of I Samuel (Torino: Silvio Zamorani Editore, 1996), 217; Kauhanen, Proto-Lucianic Problem, 141–2. 8 “All in all, the so-called proto-Lucianic text is to my mind the most difficult problem in modern Septuagint work” (J.W. Wevers, “Proto-Septuagint Studies”, in T.S. McCullough (ed.), The Seed of Wisdom: Festschrift T.J. Meek [Toronto: University Press, 1964] 58–77, on p. 69). 9 F.H. Polak, “The Septuagint Account of Solomon’s Reign: Revision and Ancient Recension”, in B.A. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the IOSCS, Oslo 1998 (Atlanta: SBL, 2001) 139–64; Z. Talshir, “1 Kings and 3 Kingdoms—Origin and Revision. Case Study: The Sins of Solomon (1 Kgs 11)”, Textus 21 (2002) 71–106.

Readings of the Old Latin

123

This paper intends to examine those OL marginal readings transmitted in Spanish Vulgates (manuscripts 91–95 in the Beuron Verzeichnis)10 that reflect Greek Antiochene readings qualified as “additions”, given the fact that these readings are not found in the majority text (the B text).11 The edition of the marginal notes of Kings by A. Moreno Hernández clearly improves the previous work of C. Vercellone quoted in the Cambridge edition.12 The most extensive and significant of these readings belong to a kaige section (βγ 3 Kgdms 1:1–2:11 and γδ 3 Kgdms 22:1–4 Kgdms 25:30): 49 instances as against 17 in the non-kaige γγ section (3 Kgdms 2:11–3 Kgdms 2:11–21:29). The editor, Antonio Moreno, classifies these readings according to the following categories: 1. Inserted sentences Kaige section

1 Kgs 1:40

organizantes in organis et iucundabantur in iucunditate magna = L ηὔλουν ἐν αὐλοῖς καὶ

1 Kgs 22:32

et Dominus salvavit illum = L καὶ Κύριος ἔσωσεν

2 Kgs 2:14

et transiit per siccum in eremo = L καὶ διῆλθε διὰ

2 Kgs 4:35 2 Kgs 8:1

et inspiravit in eum = L καὶ ἐνέπνευσεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν et erit in terra tribus annis = L καὶ παρέσται ἐπὶ

2 Kgs 9:37

et non est qui dicat: Vae mihi! = L καὶ οὐκ ἔσται

ἔχαιρον χαρᾷ μεγάλῃ αὐτόν ξηρᾶς

τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη ὁ λέγων Oἴμμοι

10  R. Gryson, Altlateinische Handschriften/Manuscrits vieux latins: Répertoire descriptif, Première partie: Mss 1–275 (d’après un manuscrit inachevé de Hermann Josef Frede †) (Freiburg: Herder, 1999). 11 The five witnesses are Spanish Vulgate Bibles that have OL readings in marginal notes: L91 or Codex Gothicus, copied in 960; L92 or Codex Legionensis 2, copied in 1162; L93= Codex Vaticanus 4859, a very faulty copy of L91 made in 1587; L94 a Vulgate incunable of 1478 (Biblioteca del Escorial 54.V.35); it includes some glossae taken from the now lost Bible of Valvanera (10th century). 12  A. Moreno, Las glosas marginales de Vetus Latina en las Biblias Vulgatas Españolas: 1–2 Reyes (Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC, 1992) 167–73; C. Vercellone, Variae Lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum II (Romae, 1864).

124

Julio Trebolle

2 Kgs 17:4

et erat annus Gotholiae cum regnare coepiset Hieu filius Namessi … cum patribus eius = L ἐν ἔτει (δευτέρω) τῆς Γοθολίας βασιλεύει Κύριος τὸν Ιου υἱὸν Ναμεσσει … μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ et erat Osee ferens munera = L καὶ ἦν ‘Ωσῆε

2 Kgs 18:34

ubi sunt dii terrae Samariae = L καὶ ποῦ εἰσὶν οἱ

2 Kgs 10:36–42

φέρων δῶρα θεοὶ τῆς χώρας Σαμαρείας;

Nonkaige

1 Kgs 12:30

et ante faciem secundae usque ad Bethel = L καὶ πρὸ προσώπου τῆς ἄλλης εἰς Βαιθήλ

2. Inserted names Kaige section

2 Kgs 10:17 2 Kgs 10:29

Domini Dei Israel = L Κυρίου θεοῦ ’Ισραήλ sequens = L ἐπορεύετο

Nonkaige

1 Kgs 10:28 1 Kgs 12:15 1 Kgs 14:2 1 Kgs 21:10

et ex Damasco = L καὶ ἐχ Δαμασκου Dominus = L Κύριος Anon = L Ανω Nabuthae = L Ναβουθαι

3. Explicitation of pronouns Kaige section

1 Kgs 22:34 2 Kgs 2:8 2 Kgs 3:10 2 Kgs 5:14 2 Kgs 8:10 2 Kgs 9:32

suam = L αὐτοῦ illum = L αὐτήν hos = L τούτους ad eum = L ἐπ’ αὐτόν et ipse = L καὶ αὐτός eius = L αὐτῆς

Nonkaige

1 Kgs 18:21 1 Kgs 20:33 1 Kgs 20:39

uestris = L ὑμῶν eius 2º = L αὐτοῦ mihi 2º = L μοι

Readings of the Old Latin

125

4. Inserted conjunctions Kaige section

1 Kgs 22:17 2 Kgs 4:29

si (Al.) = L εἰ quoniam 2º = L ὅτι 2º

Nonkaige

1 Kgs 5:4 1 Kgs 8:53

et = L καὶ et = L καὶ

5. Pronominal sentences converted to sentences with the verb sum Nonkaige section

1 Kgs 12:10 1 Kgs 19:2

est = L ἐστί sum = L εἰμι

6. Inserted adverbial constructions Kaige section

1 Kgs 1:52 1 Kgs 2:1 1 Kgs 2:5 1 Kgs 2:5 2 Kgs 3:20 2 Kgs 7:5 2 Kgs 7:7 2 Kgs 7:9 2 Kgs 10:24 2 Kgs 18:17

Nonkaige

a capite eius = L ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ in conspectu mortis suae = ἕμπροσθεν τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ in pace = L ἐν εἰρήνῃ in vita mea = L ἐν τῇ ζωῇ μου de via eremi Sur ex Edom = L ἐξ ὁδοῦ τῆς ἐρήμου Σουδ ἐξ Εδωμ lucente = L ἤδη διαυγάζοντος albescente caelo = L ἤδη διαφώσκοντος hodie = L σήμερον in absconso = L ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ in ascensu = L ἐν τῇ ἀναβάσει de mari = L ἀπὸ θάλασσης

1 Kgs 18:44

Moreno does not classify the remaining cases, which also belong for the most part to a kaige section.

126

Julio Trebolle OL

LXXL

Kaige section 1 Kgs 1:36 1 Kgs 22:10 1 Kgs 22:52 2 Kgs 2:23 2 Kgs 3:9 2 Kgs 4:23 2 Kgs 4:28 2 Kgs 4:28 2 Kgs 4:29 2 Kgs 5:20 2 Kgs 5:24 2 Kgs 6:8 2 Kgs 8:11 2 Kgs 9:17 2 Kgs 10:29 2 Kgs 14:8 2 Kgs 16:18 2 Kgs 17:2 2 Kgs 19:7 2 Kgs 24:8

verbo ad viam portae Samariae anno vicesimo quarto lapidabant Ioram … Ochozias vir eius mulier tu fecisti quoniam 2º hominis Dei puerorum phelmunim munera populi peccati et sabbatorum prae omnes qui fuerunt malignam Iechonias filius Ioachim

τοὺς λόγους

Non-kaige section 1 Kgs 7:6 1 Kgs 10:26 1 Kgs 11:29 1 Kgs 20:3

cubitorum fetantium singulares dilecti

ἐν ὁδῷ πύλης Σαμαρείας ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ τῷ τετάρτῳ καὶ εἰκοστῷ ἐλίθαζον Ιωοραμ … Oχοζειαν ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς ἡ γυνή σὺ πεποίηκας ὅτι 2º τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν παιδαρίων φελμουνει δῶρα τοῦ ὄχλου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τῶν σαββάτων πὰρα πάντας τοὺς γενομένους πονηράν Ιωαχιν

πήχεων τοῦ τίκτειν μόνοι τὰ κάλλιστα

The classification by Moreno tends to explain the “additions” of OL and L to the majority text (LXXB) as phenomena that occurred during the textual transmission of the Septuagint.13 The scope of this paper is to show that 13  Moreno, Las glosas marginales de Vetus Latina, 167: “La tendencia a la interpolación de elementos que no ha recogido el resto de LXX es uno de los principios básicos de la edición antioquena” [“Tendency to interpolation of elements that have not been picked up by the remainder of the LXX tradition is one of the base tenets of the Antiochean edition”]. The author quotes B. Fischer, “Lukian-Lesarten in der Vetus Latina der vier

Readings of the Old Latin

127

these agreements OL = L are not additions to the B text, but pre-Lucianic readings that represent or are very near to the OG text. The corresponding readings of the majority text (B), generally originating in the kaige recension, were introduced into the Greek textual tradition, often eliminating the OG readings. Some of these kaige readings entered into the Antiochene text, producing in this way the doublets or conflated readings considered typical of the Lucianic text of the 4th century. This explains why most cases appear in the kaige sections. In order to qualify the Antiochene readings reflected in the OL we should avoid taking as a point of comparison the majority text (B), as if it represented the OG text, which is not true in the case of the kaige sections and might not even be true for the non-kaige section either. The added elements in the Antiochene text are those coming from the kaige recension. A critical edition should, as a point of principle, eliminate duplicate readings, discarding the reading which was added to the original one. The most interesting cases are not only those of inserted sentences, but also those of inserted adverbial constructions, which the editor A. Moreno leaves for the end as he considers that they are a lesser entity, lesser even than the preceding ones: inserted names, inserted conjunctions and pronominal sentences converted to sentences with the verb sum. Therefore we shall discuss here cases of inserted sentences and of inserted adverbial constructions, nineteen in the kaige sections and two in the non-kaige section. 1.

1 Kgs 1:40 OL organizantes in organis et iucundabantur in iucunditate magna = L ηὔλουν ἐν αὐλοῖς καὶ ἔχαιρον χαρᾷ μεγάλῃ (> B).

Two juxtaposed readings form the doublet of L: καὶ [. . .] ἐχόρευον ἐν χοροῖς καὶ εὐφραινόμενοι εὐφροσύνῃ μεγάλῃ ηὔλουν ἐν αὐλοῖς καὶ ἔχαιρον χαρᾷ μεγάλῃ. The first reading of the L doublet corresponds to the B kaige text καὶ ἐχόρευον ἐν χοροῖς καὶ εὐφραινόμενοι εὐφροσύνην μεγάλην, “dancing in choruses and rejoicing with great joy” (NETS). It translates a pil`el form of the verb ‫)מחללים( חול‬, “dancing in the round”. The second reading is reflected by the OL organizantes in organis (Vulgate canentium tibiis) et iucundabantur in iucunditate magna. It belongs to the pre-Lucianic / OG text and corresponds to the pi‘el form of ‫ חלל‬III, a denominative of ‫חליל‬, “flute”.14

14

Königsbücher”, in Studia Anselmiana 27–28 (1951) 169–77, esp. pp. 175–6, and B.M. Metzger, “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible”, in Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (NTTS 4; Leiden: Brill, 1963) 1–41, esp. pp. 24–6. M.J. Mulder, 1 Kings: Volume 1: 1 Kings 1–11 (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 73.

128

Julio Trebolle

OG pre-L: ηὔλουν ἐν αὐλοῖς καὶ ἔχαιρον χαρᾷ μεγάλῃ MT: ‫מחללים בחללים ושמחים שמחה גדולה‬ B kaige: ἐχόρευον ἐν χοροῖς καὶ εὐφραινόμενοι εὐφροσύνην μεγάλην OL:organizantes in organis et iucundabantur in iucunditate magna L: ἐχόρευον ἐν χοροῖς καὶ εὐφραινόμενοι εὐφροσύνῃν μεγάλῃν ηὔλουν ἐν αὐλοῖς καὶ ἔχαιρον χαρᾷ μεγάλῃ 2.

1 Kgs 1:52: OL a capite eius = L ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ

This “addition” of L followed by the OL is also found in the Targum and the Peshitta.15 In many cases the coincidences between Mss and L are shared as well by the secondary versions of the Septuagint, mainly, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Coptic, Georgian and Old Latin, which could confirm the preLucianic character and, finally, the OG origin of the variants of L.16 3.

1 Kgs 2:1: OL in conspectu mortis suae = L ἕμπροσθεν τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ (> B).

This presumed addition in L and OL is part of an OG reading that implies a Hebrew text alternative to the MT. The B reading καὶ ἤγγισαν αἱ ἡμέραι Δαυιδ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτόν corresponds to the kaige text that reproduces the MT. It was not part of the OG. The L reading can easily be translated into Hebrew as Rahlfs did: καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ ταῦτα, καὶ ἀπἐθανε Δαυἰδ καὶ ἐκοιμήθη μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ, καἰ ἐνετείλατο τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Σολομῶντι ἕμπροσθεν τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ λέγων = ‫ויהי אחרי הדברים האלה \ אחרי כן וימת דוד וישכב עם אבתיו ויצו את שלמה‬ ‫בנו לפני מותו‬.17 The sentence καἰ ἐνετείλατο τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Σολομῶντι ἕμπροσθεν τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ λέγων is attested by OL et praecepit David Salomoni filio “Add with LXXLuc ‘from his head’, as though the ‘Vorlage’ read ‫ משערת ראשו‬as in 1 Sam. 14:45. But even then no textual modification is needed” (Mulder, 1 Kings, 81). 16 Trebolle, J./Torijano, P., “Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate, Aramaic and Syriac Versions of 1–2 Kings vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text and the Greek Version”, in E. Martín-Contreras/L. Miralles-Maciá (ed.), The Text of the Hebrew Bible From the Rabbis to the Masoretes (Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). 17  A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (Septuaginta-Studien 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 283.

15

Readings of the Old Latin

129

suo in conspectu mortis suae dicens. According to Rahlfs it is not likely that Lucian built his text on the basis of the MT or the majority text of the LXX. Rahlfs was forced to classify this passage in the group of divergences of the Lucianic text which cannot be explained as alterations of the majority text or are to be considered pre-Lucianic “either because the LXX reading is explained by it or because it derives from a presumably old Hebrew basis different from MT.”18 This is, therefore, a pre-Lucianic or OG reading. The verb ἐνετείλατο is the usual OG version of ‫צוה‬, against the BA reading ἀπεκρίνατο (= ‫( )ענה‬cf. Rahlfs ἐνετείλατο).19 4.

1 Kgs 2:5: OL in pace = L ἐν εἰρήνῃ (> B) and OL in vita mea = L ἐν τῇ ζωῇ μου

These presumed additions have to be treated together and not as isolated cases. A doublet in the Hebrew tradition transmitted both by the MT and the LXX Vorlage has provoked variants in both texts, making it almost impossible to reconstruct the OG as well as the process by which the MT and the LXX Vorlage were formed. The reading corresponding to the MT, ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ ἔδωκεν αἷμα ἀθῷον (absent from B, sub *), is present in the late Lucianic text: καὶ ἐξεδίκησεν αἷμα πολέμου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ ἔδωκεν αἷμα ἀθῷον ἐν τῇ ζωῇ μου20 καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ ζώνῃ τῆς ὀσφύος μου καὶ ἐν τῷ ὑποδήματί μου τῷ ἐν τῷ ποδί μου, reflected in the OL et vindicavit sanguinem belli in pace et dedit

sanguinem innocentium in vita mea et in zona mea quae erat circa lumbos meos et in calciamento meo quod erat in pede meo. These elements enable us to reconstruct two different Greek and Hebrew readings: καὶ ἐξεδίκησεν αἷμα πολέμου ἐν τῇ ζωῇ μου (‫ )ויקם דמי מלחמה בחיי‬and καὶ ἔδωκεν αἷμα ἀθῷον ἐπὶ τῇ ζώνῃ τῆς ὀσφύος μου καὶ ἐν τῷ ὑποδήματί μου τῷ ἐν τῷ ποδί μου (‫ויתן דם נקי בחגרה‬ ‫)אשר במתני ובנעלי אשר ברגלי‬. All in all the readings in pace = L ἐν εἰρήνῃ and in vita mea = L ἐν τῇ ζωῇ μου are part of a complex history of the text in this

18

“ … wir werden zu dem Schlusse geführt, dass schon Lucians Vorlage von den uns bekannten LXX-Texten abwich. Auch gibt es Stellen, wo die L-Lesart aus anderen Gründen für vorlucianisch zu halten ist, entweder weil sich aus ihr die 𝔊-Lesart erklärt, oder weil sie auf eine von 𝔐𝔊 abweichende, also wahrscheinlich alte hebräische Grundlage zurückgeht” (Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, 283). 19 For more details, see Trebolle, J./Torijano, P., “From the Greek Recensions to the Hebrew Editions: A Sample from 1 Kgs 2:1–10”, in R. Müller/J. Pakkala/B. Romeny (ed.), Insights into Editing (CEBT; Peeters: Leuven, forthcoming); J. Joosten, “Competing Recensions of the Books of Kings and Competing Theories of its Textual History”, ibid., forthcoming. 20  The word ζωῇ is also attested by the mss 52 92 106 107 314 489 and by the Ethiopic and Armenian versions. This gives the L reading enough antiquity and weight to be considered near to the OG.

130

Julio Trebolle

passage. These readings do not constitute additions of the Lucianic text, but belong to the OG reflected in the OL. 5.

1 Kgs 22:32: OL et Dominus salvavit illum = L καὶ Κύριος ἔσωσεν αὐτόν (> B).

This plus of L and the OL is often considered an “addition” to the majority text. But the parallel passage of 2 Chron 18:31 offers the corresponding Hebrew ‫ויהוה עזרו‬, “and the Lord helped him”. Chronicles transmits here a Hebrew text of Kings akin to the OG Vorlage reflected by the pre-Lucianic text and the OL. Rahlfs considers that L has taken καὶ Κύριος ἔσωσεν αὐτόν from the parallel passage of Paralipomena,21 but this explanation does not fit with our knowledge of the textual history of Kings in Greek and Hebrew. The L and OL reading is not an addition of the Antiochene text or of the OG but an element of the LXX Vorlage.22 6.

2 Kgs 2:14: OL et transiit per siccum in eremo = L καὶ διῆλθε διὰ ξηρᾶς

The OL reading per siccum in eremo is a conflate reading. The L addition διὰ ξηρᾶς (> B) can be found in L in v. 8: ἐν ἐρήμῳ B] διὰ ξηρᾶς L Arm (MT ‫)בחרבה‬. This passage presents other variants that imply again the relationship between the pre-Lucianic (OG) and kaige texts. Rahlfs discusses this passage extensively, trying to explain the L variants as changes [by L] that can be explained from the B text (“Sonstige erklärliche Änderungen”).23 The kaige text has influenced the Antiochene tradition creating a typical double reading: αφφω καὶ οὕτως according to El Texto Antioqueno. Nevertheless, it is still possible to recognize a pre-Lucianic and OG text. The kaige reading ἀφφώ reproduces MT ‫אף הוא‬.24 This reading entered the Lucianic manuscripts 108 and 127, but it is omitted in 82 and appears as ἀμφώ in 19 and 93. The reading

21  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, 252. 22 R.W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1974), 50. 23  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, 268. 24  Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (vol. 1; Fribourg/Suisse: Éditions universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 379, offers an interesting discussion on the MT reading ‫ אף הוא‬and its reflection in the versions, as well as on the history of interpretation of this Masoretic reading. Nevertheless he considers that ἀφφώ represents the OG reading (“G*”), without taking into account the readings of the Lucianic manuscripts. According to J. Gray, I and II Kings: A Commentary (2nd ed.; London: SCM Press, 1970), 473, n. h, “GBA transliterates aphpho, 9 which may suggest the reading ‘epo’ : 9 (‘Where?’)”.

131

Readings of the Old Latin

καὶ οὕτος, attested by 93 and 127 (σ′ αὐτός), preserves the pre-Lucianic and

OG text. El Texto Antioqueno includes the sentence καὶ οὕτως ἐπάταξε τὰ ὕδατα καὶ διῃρέθη, which is omitted in 82 and marked with asterisk in 93. This sentence, omitted in Lagarde’s edition, is not part of the pre-Lucianic and OG text.25 The testimony of manuscript 82 should be followed as the best representative, together with 93, of the Antiochene textual tradition.26 Vorlage OG ‫ויכה‬ ‫את המים‬ ‫ולא יחצו‬ ‫ויאמר‬

OG

L

B (Rahlfs)

καὶ ἐπάταξεν

καὶ ἐπάταξεν

καὶ ἐπάταξεν

τὰ ὕδατα

τὰ ὕδατα

τὸ ὕδωρ

καὶ οὐ διῃρέθη

καὶ οὐ διῃρέθη

καὶ οὐ διέστη

καὶ εἶπεν

καὶ εἶπεν

καὶ εἶπεν

Ελισσαιε

Ελισσαιε

‫ איה‬Ποῦ δὴ εστιν ‫ אלהי‬ὁ θεὸς ‫ אליהו‬Ηλιου ‫ והוא‬καὶ οὕτος

Ποῦ δὴ ἐστὶν

ποῦ

(+ κυριε A) ὁ θεὸς

ὁ θεὸς

Ηλιου

Ηλιου

ἀφφώ καὶ οὕτος

αφφω;

MT ‫ויכה‬ ‫את המים‬ ‫ויאמר‬ ‫איה‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫אלהי‬ ‫אליהו‬ ‫אף הוא‬

ἐπάταξε τὰ ὕδατα καὶ διῃρέθη

[sub * 93 127] ‫ הכה‬ἐπάταξεν ‫ את המים‬τὰ ὕδατα

και ἐπάταξεν τὰ ὕδατα

ἐκ δευτέρου

ἐκ δευτέρου

‫ ויחצו‬καὶ διῃρέθη

καὶ διῃρέθη

τὰ ὕδατα

καὶ ἐπάταξεν

Eλισσαιε τὰ ὕδατα καὶ διερράγησαν

25 26

‫את המים‬ ‫ויחצו‬

τὰ ὕδατα ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα

‫ ויעבר‬καὶ διῆλθε ‫ אלישע‬διὰ ξηρᾶς

‫ויכה‬

καὶ διῆλθε

καὶ διέβη

διὰ ξηρᾶς

Ελισαιε

‫הנה והנה‬ ‫ויעבר‬ ‫אלישע‬

P. de Lagarde, Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum Pars Prior Graece (Göttingen, 1883). “Die Gruppe 82 93 ist der Gruppe 19 108 sowohl nach der inneren Wahrscheinlichkeit ihrer Lesarten, wie nach der äusseren Bezeugung durch den Palimpsest, Theodoret, Leg, Lucifer und die Lektionare weit überlegen. Daher dürfen wir ihr in zweifelhaften Fällen den Vorzug geben, obwohl die Gruppe 19 108 zuweilen das Richtige bewahrt hat” (Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, 79–80).

132

Julio Trebolle

If we should consider that the Antiochene (OG) text takes from v. 8 the expression διὰ ξηρᾶς, it could also be said that the MT takes from the same verse the expression ‫הנה והנה‬, reflected in the kaige text ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα. It is probably more appropriate to assume that MT and LXX represent here two different textual traditions without needing to judge, even if possible, whether one text is preferable to the other. 7.

2 Kgs 3:20: OL de via eremi Sur ex Edom = L ἐξ ὁδοῦ τῆς ἐρήμου Σουδ ἐξ Εδωμ (> B)

Rahlfs considers the L reading as an addition (Überschuss).27 OL and L offer here a conflated reading, made of OG ἐξ ὁδοῦ τῆς ἐρήμου Σουδ (cf. 3:8 B ὁδὸν ἔρημον Εδωμ / ὁδὸν ἐρήμου ’Εδώμ, MT ‫ )דרך מדבר אדום‬and the kaige reading ἐξ ὁδοῦ Εδωμ that follows MT ‫מדרך אדום‬. 8.

2 Kgs 7:5: OL lucente = L ἤδη διαυγάζοντος (> B) and 7:7 albescente caelo = L ἤδη διαφώσκοντος

This is yet another case where the analysis of variants requires taking into account a wide context for a correct assessment. The Antiochene text presents once more a typical doublet, ἐν τῷ σκότει—ἤδη διαυγάζοντος, “at twilight, at dawn”: καὶ ἀνέστησαν ἐν τῷ σκότει, ἤδη διαυγάζοντος, εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν παρεμβολὴν Συρίας (“So they arose at twilight, at dawn, to go to the Aramean camp”). The first reading ἐν τῷ σκότει corresponds to the kaige text: καὶ ἀνέστησαν ἐν τῷ σκότει εἰσελθεῖν εἰς … (NETS “and they arose in the darkness, to enter into …, MT ‫)ויקמו בנשף לבוא אל מחנה ארם‬. The second reading ἤδη διαυγάζοντος (“as the day dawned”) preserves the pre-Lucianic and OG text, as proved by the presence of this reading in the OL lucente: Et surrexerunt lucente, et intraverunt in castra Syriae. Rahlfs classifies this case between those that are to be explained as changes from the LXX text (“welche sich als Abänderungen des LXX-Textes erklären lassen”), and more specifically between those that derive from an incorrect comprehension of the text (“die von falscher Auffassung des Textes ausgegangen sind”). Rahlfs explains this incorrect understanding of the text

27

“Woher L’s Überschuss stammt, ist nicht sicher zu sagen; vielleicht hängt er irgendwie mit v. 8 ‫ דרך מדבר אדום‬zusammen” (Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 195).

Readings of the Old Latin

133

OG pre-L: καὶ ἀνέστησαν ἤδη διαυγάζοντος εἰσελθεῖν εἰς ... MT: ‫ויקומו בנשף לבוא ול מחנה ארם‬ B kaige: καὶ ἀνέστησαν ἐν τῷ σκότει εἰσελθεῖν εἰς ... OL: Et surrexerunt lucente et intraverunt ... L: καὶ ἀνέστησαν ἐν τῷ σκότει, ἤδη διαυγάζοντος, εἰσελθεῖν εἰς ... on the basis of v. 12, in which according to the MT and LXXB it is said “The king got up in the night”; therefore the previous v. 5 refers to “at twilight”. The Lucianic text (LXXL) understood “at dawn”, so it added in v. 5 ἤδη διαυγάζοντος and also in v. 7 ἤδη διαφώσκοντος, taking out in v. 12 the word νυκτός, “in the night” (B, MT ‫)לילה‬.28 Rahlfs does not take into account the OL witness, especially the readings lucente (v. 5) and albescente caelo (v. 7). However, these readings are key for the reconstruction of the pre-Lucianic and OG text and for understanding the origin of the MT (“at twilight”) and LXX (“at dawn”) variants. The OG ἤδη διαυγάζοντος / διαφώσκοντος—OL lucente / albescente caelo is an alternative reading to B ἐν τῷ σκότει = MT ‫בנשף‬. The story about the lifting of the siege of Samaria was transmitted in two textual forms. According to the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX the four men went to the camp of the Assyrians “at dawn”, and before “the morning light” (v. 9) they came to the city and informed the gatekeepers; the king then summoned his servants to plan a strategy. Following the MT the four lepers went to the Aramean camp “at twilight” and came to the city to inform the gatekeepers; the king got up in the night and summoned his men.

28  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 259, 275, 282.

134 5 Et surrexerunt lucente, et intraverunt in castra Syriae ............................. 7 Et surrexerunt

albescente caelo ............................. 9 … et spectabimus usque ad lucem mane ............................. 12

Julio Trebolle καὶ ἀνέστησαν

καὶ ἀνέστησαν

ἐν τῷ σκότει

ἐν τῷ σκότει

‫ויקומו‬ ‫בנשף‬

ἤδη διαυγάζοντος εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν

εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν

παρεμβολὴν Συρίας

παρεμβολὴν Συρίας

............................. 7 καὶ ἀνέστησαν

............................. 7 καὶ ἀνέστησαν

καὶ ἀπέδρασαν

καὶ ἀπέδρασαν

ἐν τῷ σκότει

ἐν τῷ σκότει

‫לבוא‬ ‫אל מחנה ארם‬ ............... ‫ויקומו‬ ‫וינוסו‬ ‫בנשף‬

ἤδη διαφώσκοντος

............................. 9 καὶ μενοῦμεν

............................. 9 καὶ μένομεν

ἕως φωτὸς

ἕως φωτὸς

τοῦ πρωὶ

τοῦ πρωὶ

............................. 12 καὶ ἀνέστη

.............................

ὁ βασιλεὺς

ὁ βασιλεὺς

>

νυκτὸς

καὶ ἀνέστη

...............

............... ‫ויקם‬ ‫המלך‬ ‫לילה‬

The double reading ἐν τῷ σκότει ἤδη διαυγάζοντος (v. 5) also has to be put in relationship with a linking repetition (Wiederaufnahme) that frames a secondary insertion into the text. The expression in v. 5b, “and they reached the limit of the camp of the Arameans” (‫ )ויבאו עד קצה מחנה ארם‬appears repeated in 8a, “and those lepers reached the limit of the camp” (‫)המחנה … ויבאו‬. To it one may add the fact that the expression in 5a “(and they rose at dawn) to enter the Aramean camp (‫”)אל … לבוא‬, also has equivalents in v. 8a, “and they entered (a tent …)” (‫)אל … ויבאו‬. These repetitions frame a text whose secondary character is acknowledged by Würthwein, according to whom vv. 6–7 are an addition that “führt die kopflose Flucht der Aramäer auf das direkte Eingreifen Jahwes zurück”.29 Verse 6 includes the intervention of Hittite kings and Egyptian pharaohs, which clearly goes beyond the literary and historical horizon of this narrative. De Vries notes only this v. 6.30 The repetitions mentioned above indicate accurately where the points of insertion 29  E. Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige: 1. Kön. 17–2 Kön. 25 (ATD 11/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 315. 30 S.J. De Vries, “Temporal Terms as Structural Elements in the Holy-War Tradition”, VT 25 (1975) 80–105.

Readings of the Old Latin

135

of this historico-theological digression are and what technique was used for its incorporation into the text (Wiederaufnahme).31 9.

2 Kgs 7:9: OL hodie = L σήμερον (> B)

OL Non ita faciamus hodie, hic dies bonorum nuntiorum est attests the kaige reading οὐχ οὕτως and the pre-Lucianic and OG reading σήμερον. The B kaige text follows MT: “Not in this manner we are acting! This day is a day of good news (NETS)”, οὐχ οὕτως ἡμεῖς ποιοῦμεν ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη ἡμέρα εὐαγγελίας ἐστίν (= MT ‫)לא כן אנחנו עשים היום הזה וים בשרה הוא‬. The L reading, “In what a way we acted today! And today is a day of good news!” τί [οὕτως] ἡμεῖς ποιοῦμεν σήμερον, καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη ἡμέρα εὐαγγελισμοῦ ἐστίν allows us to recognize two variant Hebrew forms of this sentence.32 The OG Vorlage (‫היום‬ ‫ )והיום הזה‬is attested by two Hebrew medieval manuscripts (‫ והיום‬BHS). The interrogative τί represents the Hebrew ‫מה‬. LXX Vorlage: ‫מה אנחהו עשים היום והיום הזה יום בשרה הוא‬ OG pre-L: τί ἡμεῖς ποιοῦμεν σήμερον, καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη ἡμέρα εὐαγγελισμοῦ ἐστίν

MT: ‫לא כן אנחנו עשים היום הזה וים בשרה הוא‬ B kaige: οὐχ οὕτως ἡμεῖς ποιοῦμεν ̇ ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη ἡμέρα εὐαγγελίας ἐστίν

OL Non ita faciamus hodie, hic dies bonorum nuntiorum est L: τί οὕτως ἡμεῖς ποιοῦμεν σήμερον, καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη ἡμέρα εὐαγγελισμοῦ ἐστίν

31  J. Trebolle, Centena in Libros Samuelis et Regum: Variantes Textuales y Composición Literaria en los Libros de Samuel y Reyes (Textos y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros 47; Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC, 1989), 172–3. 32  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, 207: “τί οὕτως Emendation der sinnlosen Überzetzung G’s.”

136 10.

Julio Trebolle

2 Kgs 8:1: OL et erit in terra tribus annis = L καὶ παρέσται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη (> B).

The story about the restoration of property to the Shunammite woman begins in 2 Kgs 8:1: “Now Elisha had said to the woman …: ‘Get up and go with your household, and settle wherever you can; for the Lord has called for a famine, and it will come on the land for seven years’ ” (NRSV). The Antiochene text offers a typical duplicate: καὶ παρέσται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη καί γε ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη, “ ‘and it will come on the land for seven years’. And it came on the land for seven years”. The first reading καὶ παρέσται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη corresponds to the pre-Lucianic and OG text, as attested by the OL et erit in terra tribus annis. The second reading καί γε ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη originated in the kaige recension as shown by the characteristic version καί γε (= ‫)וגם‬, as well as by the change of the historic present παρέσται to the aorist καί γε ἦλθεν. OG pre-L: καὶ παρέσται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη MT: ‫וגם בא אל הארץ שבע שנים‬ B kaige: καί γε ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη OL: et erit in terra tribus annis L: καὶ παρέσται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη καί γε ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη Rahlfs included this duplicate among the cases in which, according to his opinion, the Antiochene text depends on the majority B text.33 In his time Rahlfs could know neither that the majority text belongs to the kaige recension nor that the Antiochene text, as stated by Barthélemy, is “a more or less corrupted form” of the OG, up to the point that Barthlélemy rejects the use of the term “Lucianic”.34

33

34

Rahlfs assumes that B is the original text, from which L depends “mit anderer Auffassung von ‫( בא‬als Partizipium?). 19 108 haben nur diese L-Übersetzung, aber die Fortsetzung και γε—ετη kann wegen des starken Homoioteleutons leicht ausgefallen sein” (Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, 197). The absence of the reading και γε—ετη in mss 19 108 is, on the other hand, yet more evidence that the OG lacked this addition introduced into the Greek tradition by the kaige recension. Devanciers, 127.

Readings of the Old Latin

137

The OL reading et erit is in the future tense; the OG παρέσται in the historic present, and the kaige καί γε ἦλθεν in the aorist. The three versions translate the same Hebrew ‫וגם בא‬. The past καί γε ἦλθεν refers to a famine that has already begun. The reading παρέσται speaks of a continuous situation of famine in the present and the OL et erit is announcing a menace in the future. This translation with the future tense is that of the NRS Version of the MT: “for the Lord has called for a famine, and it will come on the land for seven years”. In this way the OL reading helps interpret the meaning of the OG sentence. Some data allow us to go a step further, from textual to literary criticism, and to affirm that the terms ‫ וגם בא‬are a short interpolation in a previous Hebrew text. The insertion consists only of the term ‫בא‬, introduced by means of the particle ‫וגם‬, frequent in the interpolation of glosses. On other side, the repetition of ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν in the kaige text (… ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν καί γε ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν)35 as well as three times in the Antiochene text (… ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ παρέσται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη καί γε ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν), functions as a Wiederaufnahme (‫)אל הארץ ]וגם בא[ אל הארץ‬, which encloses the insertion of the terms ‫וגם בא‬. The Hebrew text previous to the interpolation was the following: ‫כי קרא‬ ‫“ יהוה לרעב אל הארץ שבע שנים‬for the Lord has called for a famine upon the land for seven years”. The words ‫ וגם בא‬break the continuity of the clause “the Lord has called for a famine upon the land for seven years”: ‫כי קרא יהוה לרעב אל הארץ שבע שנים‬

LXX: ‫כי קרא יהוה לרעב אל הארץ וגם בא אל הארץ שבע שנים‬ MT: ‫כי קרא יהוה לרעב וגם בא אל הארץ שבע שנים‬ The New Translation of the Jewish Publication Society (“according to the Traditional Hebrew Text”) translates “for the Lord has decreed a seven-year famine upon the land, and it has already begun.” This version moves ‫וגם בא‬ to the end of the clause, so that these terms do not break the main sentence text as happens in the MT.36 In this way, it differentiates clearly the prediction “the Lord has decreed a seven-year famine upon the land” and the fulfillment “and it has already begun”. However, this expression of fulfillment 35 36

ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν 1º ÷ SyrH. Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia/New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1988), 577.

138

Julio Trebolle

seems to have been added. Fulfillment additions are frequent in the common text of the MT and LXX as well as in the MT or in the LXX. 11.

2 Kgs 9:37: OL et non est qui dicat: Vae mihi! = L καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λέγων Oἴμμοι (> B)

The Antiochene text presents a new case of conflated reading: ὥστε μὴ εἰπεῖν Αὕτη Ιεζαβελ καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λέγων Oἴμμοι (“so that no one can say, ‘This is Jezebel’, and there will not be anyone saying, ‘Woe is me!’ ”). The first reading ὥστε μὴ εἰπεῖν Αὕτη Ιεζαβελ is taken from the kaige text, which follows MT ‫אשר לא יאמרו זאת איזבל‬. It is noteworthy that the Antiochene reading follows the MT more faithfully than the kaige B text. The majority text has no counterpart to the Hebrew ‫( זאת‬B αὐτούς) as is the case in the L text: Αὕτη (Ιεζαβελ) = (‫זאת )איזבל‬. The second part of the doublet preserves the preLucianic or OG reading καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λέγων Oἴμμοι (‫ אהא‬or ‫)אוי נא לי‬. The OL reading et non est qui dicat: Vae mihi! translates the pre-Lucianic and OG καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λέγων Oἴμμοι. OG pre-L: καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λέγων Οἴμμοι MT: ‫אשר לא יאמרו זאת איזבל‬ kaige: ὥστε μὴ εἰπεῖν αὐτούς Ιεζαβελ OL: et non est qui dicat: Vae mihi! L: ὥστε μὴ εἰπεῖν Αὕτη Ιεζαβελ καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λέγων Οἴμμοι 12.

2 Kgs 10:24: OL in absconso = L ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ (> B)

OL and L seem to “add” in absconso = L ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, but in fact this is the OG reading while the B kaige text “adds” ἔξω following MT ‫בחוץ‬. These are two alternative readings, “outside” (ἔξω, ‫ )בחוץ‬/ “in a hidden place” (in absconso, ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ), belonging to two different textual forms: OL tria millia virorum in absconso L (OG) καὶ ’Ιοὺ ἔταξεν ἑαυτῷ τρισχιλίους ἄνδρας ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ B (kaige) καὶ Ιου ἔταξεν ἑαυτῷ ἔξω ὀγδοήκοντα ἄνδρας (= MT ‫)בחוץ‬

Readings of the Old Latin

13.

139

2 Kgs 10:36–42: OL Et erat annus Gotholiae cum regnare coepisset Hieu filius Namessi … cum patribus eius = L ἐν ἔτει (δευτέρω) τῆς Γοθολίας βασιλεύει Κύριος τὸν Ιου υἱὸν Ναμεσσει … μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ

This OL and L reading is part of a wide “addition” (2 Kgs 10:36–42 in El Texto Antioqueno and 2 Kgs 10:36+ in Brooke-McLean), which again would be part of the OG text and not an addition of the Antiochene text. The formulae for the beginning of Ahaziah of Judah’s reign appear in the MT at 8:25–27. In the proto-Lucianic text attested by OL they are found after 10:36+, before Athaliah’s regency, something that also happens in 2 Chr 22:1–4. The formulae begin with the synchronic reference to Athaliah and Jehu’s reigns, which start in the same year. After Ahaziah’s formulae is included the notice on Jehu’s coup, which faithfully follows the narrative pattern of other notices of the same genre. In the MT only fragments of this notice survive in 8:26–28* and 9:28–29*. The prophetic narrative on Jehu’s revolt of 8:28–9:26 displaced the short notice preserved in the Greek text.37 14.

2 Kgs 17:4 OL et erat Osee ferens munera = L καὶ ἦν ‘Ωσῆε φέρων δῶρα (B >)

This is not an addition of L and OL to the majority B text (= MT), but an alternative form of the narrative. MT ‫וישב לו מנחה‬, “(Hoshea) paid him (Shalmaneser) tribute”, is translated in B (kaige) as καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν αὐτῷ μαναα, but L together with OL preserves the OG reading καὶ ἦν ‘Ωσῆε φέρων δῶρα = OL et erat Osee ferens munera. The transcription μαναα, as other transcriptions in Samuel-Kings, is a feature of the kaige recension.38 The OG did not transcribe, but translated into Greek those Hebrew technical words which the kaige recension considered necessary to transcribe. In the non-kaige section the OG translated ‫ מנחה‬as δῶρον/δῶρα (1 Sam 10:27; 1 Kgs 5:1 // 2:46b; 10:25). In the kaige section the 37

38

For more details, see J. Trebolle, “Textual Criticism and the Literary Structure and Composition of 1–2 Kings / 3–4 Reigns. The Different Sequence of Literary Units in MT and LXX”, in S. Kreuzer/M. Meiser/M. Sigismund (ed.), Die Septuaginta—Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte: 3. International Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX, D), Wuppertal 22.–25. Juli 2010 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 55–78. E. Tov, “Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament. A Further Characteristic of the Kaige-Th. Revision?”, in E. Tov, The Greek and the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999) 501–12.

140

Julio Trebolle

OG pre-L: καὶ ἦν ‘Ωσῆε φέρων δῶρα τῷ βασιλεῖ Ἀσσυρίων ἐνιαυτὸν κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν MT: ‫ולא העלה מנחה למלך אשור כשנה בשנה‬ B kaige: καὶ οὐκ ἤνεγκεν μαναα τῷ βασιλεῖ Ἀσσυρίων ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ ἐκείνῳ

OL et erat Osee ferens munera regi Assyriorum ab anno in annum L: καὶ ἦν ‘Ωσῆε φέρων δῶρα τῷ βασιλεῖ Ἀσσυρίων ἐνιαυτὸν κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ ἐκεινῳ οὐκ ἤνεγκεν αὐτῷ δῶρα recensional text (LXXB) replaces the term of the LXX version δῶρα with the transcription μαανα/μαναα. Nevertheless, the Lucianic text, the OL and Armenian versions, together with the text of Josephus, preserve the old reading δῶρον/δῶρα. Thus Rahlfs’s opinion about the secondary character of δῶρα has to be reconsidered.39 15.

2 Kgs 18:17 OL in ascensu = L ἐν τῇ ἀναβάσει

This “addition” of OL and L is part of a context where several repetitions in the MT and LXX accumulate, as is also the case in the parallels of Isa 7:3 and 36:2. Under the Antiochene reading it is possible to propose the Hebrew (‫במעל)ת‬. Nevertheless, the word ἀνάβασις twice translates the Hebrew ‫מסלה‬ in Chronicles (1 Chron 26:18; 2 Chron 9:11, cf. 1 Chron 26:18), attested by another reading of the OL, in masellat (‫)במסלת‬. The double translation of the Hebrew ‫ במסלת‬as ἐν τῇ ἀναβάσει (in ascensu) and ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ constitutes a double reading present in different forms in MT and LXX Kings and in the Isaiah parallels: “and stood by the conduit of the upper pool”—‫ויעמדו נתעלת הברכה‬

‫העליונה‬

“and stood on the ascent/highway to the Fuller’s Field”—‫ויעמדו במסלת‬ ‫שדה כובס‬.40

39 40

“Noch deutlicher zeigt sich das Streben nach Abwechselung bei L … wenn er in II 8,8f. 17,3f. je einmal μαναα neben δωρα beibehält” (Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, 182, cf. also 108, 248). For a more detailed discussion see Trebolle, Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum, 193–6.

Readings of the Old Latin

16.

141

2 Kgs 18:34: OL ubi sunt dii terrae Samariae = L καὶ ποῦ εἰσὶν οἱ θεοὶ τῆς χώρας Σαμαρείας;

The OL ubi sunt dii terrae Samariae et Artham adds a reference to Artham that has no correspondence in the Greek. On the other hand, OL and L have the plural dii = οἱ θεοί, which can represent an element older than the singular ὁ θεός. OL and L preserve here an OG reading, καὶ ποῦ εἰσὶν οἱ θεοὶ τῆς χώρας Σαμαρείας; against the B text καὶ ὅτι ἐξείλαντο Σαμάρειαν ἐκ χειρός μου (MT ‫כי‬ ‫)הצילו את שמרון מידי‬. This OG question, “Where are the gods of the Samaria region?”, continues the two previous ones. The three of them begin with the same expression typical of the literary topos Ubi sunt?: ποῦ εἰσὶν οἱ θεοὶ Αἰμὰθ καὶ ’Αρφάδ; καὶ ποῦ εἰσὶν οἱ θεοὶ Σεπφαρείμ; καὶ ποῦ εἰσὶν οἱ θεοὶ τῆς χώρας Σαμαρείας; (≠ Β ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς Αιμαθ καὶ Αρφαδ ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς Σεπφαρουαιν καὶ ὅτι ἐξείλαντο Σαμάρειαν ἐκ χειρός μου).41 This set of questions is lacking in 2 Chron 32:13.

17.

1 Kgs 18:44: OL de mari = L ἀπὸ θάλασσης

Among the cases of a presumed addition of OL and L in the non-kaige section, here I will mention only this one from 1 Kgs 18:44: OL de mari = L ἀπὸ θάλασσης. The OL reading adducens aquam de mari = L ἀνάγουσα ὕδωρ ἀπὸ θάλασσης, is also attested in the whole Greek tradition and the Ethiopic version, with the exception of manuscripts BANv and the Armenian and Syrohexaplar texts. It is a conflated reading, the result of a different vocalization and consonant grouping: ‫)מ(עלה מים‬, “bringing water (mayim)”, and ‫עלה מים‬, “rising out of the sea (miyyam)”. BHS indicates ἀνάγουσα ὕδωρ as the OG reading, a reflection of the Hebrew ‫מעלה מים‬. It is indeed possible to think of ἀνάγουσα ὕδωρ as reflecting a Hebrew ‫מעלה מים‬, close to but different from the MT, whereas the oldest attested LXX reading is ἀνάγουσα ἀπὸ θάλασσης, even if it is reproducing MT ‫עלה מים‬. Readings not classified in any of the previous sections do not involve “additions” of OL = L either, but preserve OG readings. I will briefly treat just three cases: 1 Kgs 22:10, and 2 Kgs 2:23, and 17:2.

41

In his edition Rahlfs follows the reading καὶ ὅτι attested only by the Codex Vaticanus, against καὶ ποῦ (L).

142 18.

Julio Trebolle

1 Kgs 22:10: OL ad viam portae = L ἐν ὁδῷ πύλης

In 1 Kgs 22:10 the reading of the OL, ad viam portae = L ἐν ὁδῷ πύλης, “in the way of the entrance (to Samaria)”, preserves the OG reading that corresponds to the usual Hebrew expression 1) ‫ דרך שער‬Sam 17:52; 2 Sam 15:2; 2 Kgs 11:19, 25:4). The B (kaige) reading ἐν ταῖς πύλαις does not reproduce exactly ‫פתח שער‬, but seems to be representing the Hebrew ‫בשערי‬. 19.

2 Kgs 2:23 OL et lapidabant illum = L καὶ ἐλίθαζον αὐτόν

The OL and L “addition” is part of a double reading in the Lucianic text: καὶ ἐλίθαζον αὐτόν καὶ κατέπαιζον αὐτοῦ, “and they threw stones at him and mocked him”. The first, καὶ ἐλίθαζον αὐτόν, is the OG reading; the second, καὶ κατέπαιζον αὐτοῦ, is the kaige reading, which agrees with MT ‫ויתקלסו בו‬. Each reading reflects a different group of consonants: λιθάζω = ‫ סקל‬pi‘el (2 Sam 16:6, 13) in the OG reading and καταπαίζω ‫ = קלס‬hitpa‘el (2 Sam 2:23) in the MT. The two Greek readings are therefore two alternative readings. OL

L

B

MT

et lapidabant illum, >

καὶ ἐλίθαζον αὐτόν

>


125 Luc Reg. 8 ‫ וְ גַ ם‬καί γε] et quemadmodum Luc Reg. 8 ‫ וְ גַ ם‬καί γε] καί A; et Luc Parc. 7 ‫ וְ גַ ם‬καί γε 1º] et Luc Parc. 7 ‫ ּגַ ם‬καί γε 2º] > 236-242-530 107-610 (homoiot.); et Luc

Parc. 7

11 12

13

14

Devanciers, 31–47; GM #1. E.g., 2 Sam 11:12, 17; 13:36, 18:2; 2 Kgs 17:19 et La115. Only occasionally might there be the question of an attempt to reflect γε: 2 Sam 17:12 οὐχ ὑπολειψόμεθα ἐν αὐτῷ … καί γε ἕνα non relinquemus eum ne quemquam La115; 2 Sam 17:16 μή … καί γε διαβαίνων noli(te) … sed transiens La115 LaM; 1 Kgs 22:22 καί γε et quidem Rufinus, Orig. Princ. 3.2.1, Orig. Comm. Rom. 7.1 . There are thirteen instances of καί γε in the B text of Judges. The counterparts for them in La100 are as follows: et 2:10 (2x), 21; 3:31, 6:39 (et for δὲ καί γε) 8:31, 9:19, 49b;–1:22, 19:19; differently 2:17. In two instances there may be a slight attempt to emphasize the expression by the Latin translator: ἐπεισήνεγκεν καί γε τὴν λαβήν demersit eum usque ad manubrium 3:22; καί γε ἀνήρ et ipsi unusquisque 9:49a. The readings from 1–2 Kings are collated from the preliminary apparatus of the forthcoming Göttingen edition with the kind permission of the editors, Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano.

Lucifer of Cagliari and the Kaige Revision

151

As could be expected, there is not a clear Latin counterpart for καί γε in any of the instances. In 2 Kgs 21:11 the expression is omitted by Lucifer, but in 2 Kgs 22:19 and 23:15 (twice) Brooke-McLean cites Lucifer as attesting the minus of γε. In light of the considerations above, however, it seems more likely that Lucifer was satisfied with the simple et regardless of the Greek reading. Even in 21:16 it is improbable that Lucifer’s et quemadmodum attested καί γε: In Lucifer’s biblical quotations quemadmodum is elsewhere found as a counterpart for ὡς (εἴ), καθώς, καθάπερ, πῶς, and ὃν τρόπον.15 The situation is further complicated by the fact that Lucifer cites the verses 2 Kgs 21:16 and 17 in a reversed order. To begin v. 16 with the words et quemadmodum may be connected with the transposition; Lucifer probably felt that something stronger than a simple et is needed: “[17] And the rest of the histories of Manasses and all that he did, how he made Israel [sic!] sin, are these things not written in (the) book of Histories of the days of the Kings of Iuda, [16] and how (et quemadmodum) he shed very much innocent blood …”16 (trans. mine) All in all, there is no conclusive evidence that Lucifer attested the reading καί γε in any of these instances, but the opposite cannot be demonstrated either. Earlier I expressed a presupposition that Lucifer’s biblical text “has been contaminated with occasional readings derived from … the kaige text.”17 In such a reading Lucifer should agree with B against L in a reading that is more in accordance with the Hebrew and in which L does not produce an obviously recensional reading. In the course of my analyses I have found only two readings that fulfil these criteria. However, L does not attest a lexical variant in either case but there is a quantitative difference. The typical kaige readings are lexical variants, but the kaige revisers probably brought about quantitative differences too. 1 Kgs 22:5

15

16

17

‫ ַכּיֹום‬σήμερον Luc Reg. 8] > L−19´

ὡς εἴ: Exod 33:11 / Conv. 1; ὡς: 1 Sam 15:2 / Reg. 2, 1 Kgs 15:34 / Reg. 6; καθώς: 1 Kgs 13:6 / Reg. 5 & Conv. 3, 1 Kgs 19:2 / Athan. 1.18, 2 Kgs 21:13 / Reg. 8; καθάπερ: Heb 4:2 / Conv. 10; πῶς: Acts 20:18 / Parc. 29; ὃν τρόπον: Deut 1:21 / Athan. 1.4, Sus (θ´) 1:61 /

Athan. 2:10, 2 Tim 3:8 / Mor. 10. Et cetera uerborum Manasse et omnia quae fecit, quemadmodum peccare fecit Israel, nonne haec scripta sunt in libro uerborum dierum regum Iuda, et quemadmodum sanguinem innocentium fudit multum ualde, usque dum inpleret Hierusalem super os, extra peccatum, quae peccare fecit Iuda, ut faceret quod malignum est in conspectu domini dei? Luc Reg. 8 (154,92–97). On the literary-critical problems involved in the passage, see J. Trebolle, Centena in Libros Samuelis et Regum: Variantes Textuales y Composición Literaria en los Libros de Samuel y Reyes (Textos y Estudios «Cardenal Cisneros»; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigationes Científicas, 1989), 201–3. Kauhanen, “Lucifer”, 422.

152

Tuukka Kauhanen

The B reading σήμερον ‘today’ for the Hebrew ‫‘ ַכּיֹום‬now’ is attested by every witness with the exception of the older branch of the Antiochene text (L−19´ = 82-93-127). Lucifer clearly attests the B reading: Interrogate nunc hodie dominum “Now ask the Lord today”. In Samuel-Kings the expression ‫ַכּיֹום‬ is rendered with the words ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα (1 Sam 22:8, 13; 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:24, 61) or ὡς σήμερον (1 Sam 9:27). While the simple σήμερον lacks a formal correspondence for the preposition ke in ‫ ַכּיֹום‬, it nevertheless is an appropriate rendering. Even though there are no obvious palaeographical reasons for an accidental omission of σήμερον in the archetype of 82-93-127, it should be considered whether that would be the best explanation for the minus. Thus it is best not to accept the reading σήμερον as a clear kaige reading. ָ ְ ‫ וְ ִל‬καὶ εἰς κατάραν Luc Parc. 7 (et in maledictionem)] > L−82 2 Kgs 22:19 ‫קל ָלה‬ 460

The word ‫קל ָלה‬ ָ ְ ‘curse’ is found three times in Samuel-Kings, each time rendered with the Greek word κατάρα (Muraoka:18 ‘pronouncement of curse’) (2 Sam 16:12, 1 Kgs 2:8, 2 Kgs 22:19). All the instances are in the kaige sections, but the Antiochene text does not attest another word in any of them. Thus there is no lexical variant at all. Again, the best explanation is that an accidental omission has taken place in the Antiochene tradition. Accordingly, my earlier statement may have been too open; at least in the kaige sections, it cannot be demonstrated that Lucifer’s text had been contaminated even “with occasional readings derived from the kaige text”— although that is possible regarding the five instances of καί γε above. If no contamination from the kaige text has taken place in the kaige sections, one can hardly expect to find such instances in the non-kaige sections either.

4. Kaige Readings Not Attested by Lucifer That there are no kaige readings attested by Lucifer is tested by a Gegenprobe: What reading does Lucifer attest in those cases in which we have a clear kaige reading in B? I have found sixteen cases (incl. ten parallel cases) in which the B text certainly or probably produces a kaige reading which Lucifer does not support.

18  T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009).

Lucifer of Cagliari and the Kaige Revision

153

1 Kgs 22:18 ‫ ִּכי ִאם‬διότι ἀλλ᾽ ἤ] ὅτι ἀλλ᾽ ἤ 530* 245 707; om διότι L 52 328 (107´) 381 372 460 Luc Reg. 8 (non bona sed magis mala) According to Trebolle, the Old Greek translators of Samuel-Kings favoured the rendering ἀλλ᾽ ἤ for the adversative ‫( ִּכי ִאם‬e.g., 1 Sam 8:19; 1 Kgs 8:19, 17:12) and the kaige revisers added ὅτι or διότι to reflect the Hebrew ‫ ִּכי‬.19 Lucifer likely attests the L reading, but in instances like these he may, of course, use a suitable adversative expression regardless of the underlying Greek. 2 Kgs 10:30 ‫ יַ ַען ֲא ֶׁשר‬ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὅσα 1º] om ὅσα 247 L 700 121 488 318 460; ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὅτι 246; eapropter quod Luc Parc. 5 Cf. below: ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר‬ὅσα 2º] τά L 460 700; > Luc Parc. 5 (secundum cor meum) 2 Kgs 21:15 ‫ יַ ַען ֲא ֶׁשר‬ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὅσα] om ὅσα A L 328 71 460; ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὅτι 64–381 372; quoniam Luc Reg. 8 Bodine gives ‫יען אׁשר‬- ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὅσα as a possible kaige feature in Judges;20 it is not found in Joshua.21 Lucifer probably sides with L in not attesting ὅσα (plural of ὅσος ‘as much as, as long as’) both in 2 Kgs 10:30 and 21:15, although his rendering for ἀνθ᾽ ὧν “because” varies: eapropter quod “for the reason that” (a very rare expression) and quoniam ‘since’. 2 Kgs 21:3 2 Kgs 21:5

‫ ְצ ָבא‬δυνάμει] στρατιᾷ L 328 460 Luc Reg. 8 (militiam) ‫ ְצ ָבא‬δυνάμει] στρατιᾷ L 460; > Luc Reg. 8 (Lucifer shortens

the text)

2 Kgs 23:4 2 Kgs 23:5

‫ ְצ ָבא‬δυνάμει] στρατιᾷ L 460 Luc Parc. 7 (militiae) ‫ ְצ ָבא‬δυνάμει] στρατιᾷ L 460 Luc Parc. 7 (militiae)

The rendering δύναμις ‘power’ for the Hebrew word ‫‘ ָצ ָבא‬host (of heaven)’ is a clear kaige feature, noted already by Barthélemy.22 Lucifer’s word militia attests the Greek word στρατιά ‘army’ which is the original reading: in the non-kaige sections both words appear as a rendering for ‫ ָצ ָבא‬in the B text, 19

J. Trebolle, “From the ‘Old Latin’ through the ‘Old Greek’ to the ‘Old Hebrew’ (2 Kings 10:25–28)”, Textus 11 (1984) 17–36, on pp. 25–6. 20  Bodine, Greek Text, 18–19; GM #74. 21  Greenspoon, Textual, 313. 22 Devanciers, 82. See also Trebolle, Centena, 200; idem, “Agreements between LXXBL, Medieval Hebrew Readings, and Variants of the Aramaic, Syriac and Vulgate Versions in Kaige and Non-kaige Sections of 3–4 Reigns”, in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki, 2010 (SBLSCS 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2013) 193–205, on p. 196; Kauhanen, “Lucifer”, 428, n. 40.

154

Tuukka Kauhanen

but in the kaige sections δύναμις prevails (1623 against one rendering with στρατιά).24 2 Kgs 21:6

‫ אֹוב‬θελητήν] στήλην 46-52*-236-242-313-328-530 92-314-488c489 462 707S; ἐγγαστριμύθους L 460 Luc Reg. 8 (pythones)

The rendering θελητής ‘one who wills’ for the Hebrew ‫ אֹוב‬is a kaige feature noted by Klein and Muraoka: the kaige reviser supposed that the Hebrew noun is related to the root ‫‘ אבה‬be willing’.25 The reading στήλην “a stele” (cf. 2 Kgs 10:26 “the stele of Baal”) in some manuscripts is a corruption from the kaige reading. The original rendering ἐγγαστρίμυθος ‘ventriloquist’ is confirmed by the usage in the parallel passage 2 Chr 33:6 as well as in the non-kaige section (1 Sam 28:3, 7, 8, 9). Moreover, the same phenomenon can be found in 2 Kgs 23:24 where the Chronicles parallel (2 Chr 35:19a), again, attests the word ἐγγαστρίμυθος. Lucifer’s reading pythones (from the Greek πυθών, participle of πυνθάνομαι ‘to learn’) clearly does not attest the B reading since it has nothing to do with the verb θέλω, but it is not the obvious Latin rendering for the word ἐγγαστρίμυθος either. In Ancient mythology Python was the serpent Apollo slayed near Delphi (Homeric Hymns 3.370–4). It seems that the loan-word python for someone who consults the spirits of the dead was adopted by Latin patristic authors or Old Latin translators: it is frequent in the Vulgate (e.g., Lev 20:27, Isa 8:19, Acts 16:16) and Origen explains it in one of his homilies on Numbers (Rufinus, Origenis in Numeros homiliae 16.7).26 2 Kgs 21:8 ‫ ַע ְבִּדי‬δοῦλος (μου)] παῖς L 460* Luc Reg. 8 (puer) 2 Kgs 21:10 ‫ ֲע ָב ָדיו‬δούλων (αὐτοῦ)] παίδων L 460 Luc Reg. 8 (puerorum)

23 24 25

26

Or 19 counting 2 Sam 10 in kaige. Aquila uses both: J. Reider/N. Turner, An Index to Aquila (VTSup 12; Leiden: Brill, 1966), 61, 223. Klein, “New Evidence”, 100; Muraoka, “Greek Texts”, 34: “Obviously relating the Hebrew word with the root ‫אבה‬.” Cf. GM #35: “‫( = לא אבה‬ε)θελω”. See also A. Piquer, “Who Names the Namers? The Interpretation of Necromantic Terms in Jewish Translations of the Bible”, in A. Piquer/P. Torijano (ed.), Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutense (JSJSup 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 241–76, on p. 256–8. “Nam Pythonibus dracones alii que serpentes ministrare perhibentur; auguribus et his, qui ex incidentibus divinandi captare putantur auspicia, aut lupi ferunt omina aut vulpes aut accipitres aut corvi aut aquilae aut alia huiusmodi, quae in lege Moyses his credo de causis notavit immunda.”

Lucifer of Cagliari and the Kaige Revision

155

Lucifer clearly confirms the readings of the L text by the word puer ‘boy, young man, servant’.27 According to O’Connell, the rendering δοῦλος ‘servant’ (B) for the Hebrew ‫ עבד‬is a kaige feature.28 Indeed, it fulfils the “basic meaning” criterion, but there is no significant difference in the usage of these Greek words as renderings for the Hebrew word ‫ עבד‬between the kaige and non-kaige sections: the ratio δοῦλος:παῖς is roughly 2 to 1 in both the kaige and non-kaige sections. Curiously enough, there is a difference between Samuel and Kings, the ratio δοῦλος:παῖς being roughly 5 to 3 in Samuel but 5 to 2 in Kings. Probably the best argument for δοῦλος being a kaige reading is that Aquila rendered ‫ עבד‬constantly with that word.29 Klein defines ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς as the kaige rendering for ‫ ְּב ֵעינֵ י‬. Klein refers to 2 Kgs 23:32 where the L reading ἐνώπιον is confirmed by the same reading in the parallel passage 2 Chron 36:2b.30 Shenkel, apparently independently from Klein, notes the same kaige feature and provides a lengthy analysis on the topic.31 In those passages in Kings where we have a quotation by Lucifer, this difference between B and L is found altogether four times. 2 Kgs 21:2

‫ ְּב ֵעינֵ י‬ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ἐνώπιον L 125 71 460; ante conspectum Luc

Reg. 8 2 Kgs 21:6 2 Kgs 21:9 2 Kgs 22:2

‫ ְּב ֵעינֵ י‬ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ἐνώπιον L 460; in oculis (animae suae) Luc

Reg. 8 —ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ἐνώπιον L 44 460; > Luc Reg. 8 ‫ ְּב ֵעינֵ י‬ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ἐνώπιον L 242-530 460; ante conspectum Luc Parc. 7

In addition, there is one32 case of Lucifer attesting the reading ἐνώπιον with other witnesses than L: 27

In all of Lucifer’s biblical quotations there is a thoroughgoing consistency in rendering δοῦλος with servus (12 times, e.g., 1 Kgs 11:32, 34, 36, 38 / Reg. 4) and παῖς with puer (Josh 1:7 / Athan. 1.9; 7:7 / Parc. 3; 1 Sam 22:17 / Athan. 1.13; Acts 4:25 / Parc. 16), filius (1 Sam 19:1 / Athan. 1.13; Acts 4:27, 30 / Parc. 16), or infans (Matt 2:16 / Athan. 2.3). 28  O’Connell, Theodotionic Revision, 289; GM #61. Greenspoon, Textual, 272. 29  Reider/Turner, Index, 61, 182. Another, much weaker, argument is that in 2 Kgs 24:2 we find the rendering δοῦλος in all the witnesses, but the parallel passage in 2 Chr 36:5 attests the word παῖς, as noted by Klein, “New Evidence”, 103. 30 Klein, “New Evidence”, 100; GM #26. 31  Shenkel, Chronology, 13–17. 32 In Diercks’ edition Lucifer is said to quote 1 Kgs 22:43: ‫ ְּב ֵעינֵ י‬ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ἐνώπιον A CI 244 245; ἔναντι 460; in conspectu Luc Reg. 6; > L (L does not contain 1 Kings 22:41–51). Both the context and wording of Lucifer’s quotation in Reg. 6 suggest, however, that it is not a quotation of 22:43–44 but, rather, the parallel passage 16:28b where all the Greek witnesses attest ἐνώπιον. I want to thank Timo Tekoniemi for bringing this to my attention.

156

Tuukka Kauhanen

2 Kgs 21:16 ‫ ְּב ֵעינֵ י‬ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ἐνώπιον CI 242-530 71 244; in conspectu Luc Reg. 8 Lucifer’s readings in 2 Kgs 21:2 and 22:2 (ante conspectum domini) seem to side with the reading ἐνώπιον in L, but in 21:6 his text reads in oculis animae suae “in the eyes of his own soul” against “in the eyes of / before the Lord” of the Greek witnesses. Since Lucifer alters the expression otherwise too, the apparent agreement with B against L could be explained as his own modification. Such modification is certainly the reason for omitting the notion altogether in 21:9. The agreement with CI and a few other Greek witnesses against B in 2 Kgs 21:16 1 Kgs 22:43 seems to be genuine. In the light of that case it is probably best to accept Lucifer as a genuine witness to ἐνώπιον in 2 Kgs 21:16 as well. Counting in Lucifer’s support, it should be considered whether ἐνώπιον was the original reading in both of those cases. It must, of course, be recognized that in an individual case in conspectu or ante conspectum might be Lucifer’s preferred expression, which he might use regardless of what he read in his Greek text. However, on the whole Lucifer renders the Greek expressions ἐνώπιον and ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς (or the like) rather faithfully. The renderings of ἐνώπιον with the word conspectus are too numerous to be given here, but the seven faithful renderings of an expression with the word ὀφθαλμός found in Lucifer’s biblical quotations are enough to demonstrate the issue: 1 Sam 24:533 ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ἐνώπιον τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν 460; ante oculos Luc Athan. 1.14 1 Sam 26:21 ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ante oculos Luc Athan. 1.15 1 Sam 26:24 ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ante oculos Luc Athan. 1.15 Ps 26[25]:3 κατέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν] ante oculos Luc Conv. 5 Ps 36[35]:2 ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν] ante oculos Luc Athan. 1.23 Isa 1:16 ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν] ante oculos Luc Athan. 1.39 Wis 3:2 ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] oculis Luc Athan. 1.32 To conclude, regarding this phenomenon Lucifer appears to be free from kaige influence. His testimony suggests that even L might attest a kaige reading in 2 Kgs 21:16.

33

The readings from 1 Samuel are collated from the preliminary apparatus of the forthcoming Göttingen edition with the kind permission of the editor, Anneli Aejmelaeus.

Lucifer of Cagliari and the Kaige Revision

157

2 Kgs 22:20 ‫מביא‬ ִ ֵ ‫אני‬ ִ ֲ ἐγώ εἰμι ἐπάγω (ἐπάγων B 247 CI 328 121 56-246 488 527 244)] om ἐγώ εἰμι 107´; ἐγὼ ἐπάγω L CII−328 92-314-489-762 55c 71 318 342 460 554 707S Luc Parc. 7 (ego induco) Since ‫ָאנ ִֹכי‬-ἐγώ εἰμι is a kaige feature,34 L together with Lucifer and several other witnesses might attest the Old Greek reading here, although the Hebrew counterpart for ἐγώ εἰμι is ‫ֲאנִ י‬, not ‫ָאנ ִֹכי‬. ‫ ְּכ ָמ ִרים‬χωμαριμ] pr ἱερεῖς 246; κακοτέρους 106sup lin (vid); χωτους ἱερεῖς μαρειμ 158; ἱερεῖς L 799mg 56mg 460 Luc Parc. 7 (sacerdotes) Cf. below ‫מּזלֹות‬ ָ ַ μαζουρωθ] > Luc Parc. 7

2 Kgs 23:5

Barthélemy already suggested that the transliteration χωμαρ(ε)ιμ for the plural of the rare word ‫ּכמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‘(idol-)priest’ (2 Kgs 23:5, Hos 10:5, Zeph 1:4) is a kaige feature.35 Tov notes that the transliteration is found in the Nahal # Hever * Minor Prophets scroll (8HevXIIgr) * too, and the Syrohexapla gives the transliteration as a reading from Theodotion: Zeph 1:4

‫עם־הּכהנים‬ ִ ֲ ֹ ַ ִ ‫הּכמרים‬ ִ ָ ְ ַ ‫את־ׁשם‬ ֵ ֶ καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν ἱερέων] τὸ ὄνομα τῶ[ν χωμα]ρειμ 8HevXIIgr; * θ´ των χωμαριμ Syh

In Hos 10:5 the Septuagint translator took the word ‫ּוכמריו‬ ָ ָ ְ “his idol-priests” for a verbal form of the root ‫‘ מרה‬to be rebellious’: καὶ καθὼς παρεπίκραναν. Since the Hebrew word itself is extremely rare, it is impossible to define any tendency here. Even if the Hebrew word as such was unfamiliar to the translator, the context in 2 Kgs 23:5 requires the word ‘priest’; thus ἱερεῖς probably comes from the translator. A few lines below, the even more rare word ‫( ַמּזָ ל‬only here) is left untranslated in all the witnesses. There the context is of less help: “those who made incense offerings to Baal and to the sun and to the moon and to the mazouroth and to all the host of heaven” (NETS), but probably something celestial is meant.36 Tov reminds us that “transliterations do not necessarily point to kaige”37 and Brock has demonstrated 34 35 36

37

Devanciers, 69–78; O’Connell, Theodotionic Revision, 281; GM #9. Devanciers, 86. There are glosses in a few manuscripts for the word μαζουρωθ: ζῳδίοις “small figures” or “Zodiacs”, i.e., the twelfth parts of the ecliptic 98sup lin-379mg; ζῳδίοις ἄστροις “stars of the Zodiac” 799mg; τα δοδεκα ζουδηα του ουνου ̅ ̅ ̅ [sic] “the twelve Zodiacs of the heaven” 106sup lin. E. Tov, “Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament: A Further Characteristic of the kaige-Th. Revision?”, Textus 8 (1973) 78–92, on p. 85, n. 31.

158

Tuukka Kauhanen

that changing transliterations to translations is one of the tendencies of the Lucianic reviser in 1 Samuel.38 However, because of the attestation of the transliteration for ‫ּכמר‬ ֶ ֹ in Zeph 1:4 by 8HevXIIgr * and Theodotion, it is best to join Barthélemy in accepting it as a kaige feature.

5. Possible New Kaige Readings Found with the Aid of Lucifer The case appears to be closed: we can declare that Lucifer’s biblical text is almost completely free from kaige influence. The study should not, however, stop here. Rather, we can now use Lucifer’s quotations to find new kaige features. In the kaige sections there are altogether fifteen instances in which Lucifer appears to support the rendering found only or mainly in L against the B text. In many of these instances B might well attest kaige readings, some of which have not been noted earlier. 1 Kgs 22:8

‫ טֹוב‬καλά] ἀγαθά L; bona Luc Reg. 8 Cf. 1 Kgs 22:18 καλά] bona

Luc

According to Bodine, the standard kaige rendering for the Hebrew root ‫טוב‬ is ἀγαθός,39 not καλός, as found here in the B text as well as in every Greek witness in 1 Kgs 22:18. In any case, Lucifer’s bona may reflect either Greek word40—thus the case remains uncertain. 2 Kgs 2:11

‫ ּיַ ְפ ִרדּו‬διέστειλαν] διεχώρισεν L 700 372; separavit Luc Athan.

1.20

The verb ‫( פרד‬hip‘il ‘separate’) is found only twice in Samuel-Kings, the other instance in nip‘al in 2 Sam 1:23 (non-kaige) where it is rendered with διαχωρίζω (no significant variants). The verb διαστέλλω ‘set apart’, on the other hand, is found twice outside the present case, both instances in the non-kaige sections. In those, διαστέλλω renders verbs other than ‫פרד‬ S.P. Brock, Recensions of the Septuaginta Version of 1 Samuel (Quaderni di Henoch 9; Turin: Silvio Zamorani, 1996), 253. 39  Bodine, Greek Text, 48–52; GM #78. 40 The extant Latin witnesses do not make a distinction between ἀγαθός and καλός in Samuel-Kings: 1 Sam 25:3 ἀγαθή … καλή bono … bona LaM, 1 Kgs 18:24 καλόν bonum La115. Words other than bonus may be used in the context of a good-looking woman: 2 Sam 11:2 καλὴ τῷ εἴδει speciosa La115, 2 Sam 13:1 decora facie Rufinus, Orig. Comm. Cant. prol.; 2 Sam 14:27 καλή bona specie LaM. In Judges the word καλός is not found, which makes comparison with La100 impossible. 38

Lucifer of Cagliari and the Kaige Revision

159

(1 Sam 3:1 ‫ פרץ‬nip‘al ‘be separated’, 1 Kgs 8:53 ‫ בדל‬hip‘il ‘separate’). Lucifer probably attests the verb διαχωρίζω: while the available evidence is rather slim, Lucifer always renders διαστέλλω with distinguo in his biblical quotations (2 Chron 19:10 / Athan. 1.21; Ezek 3:18–21 [six times] / Parc. 10), whereas he uses separo as a rendering for ἀφορίζω (Matt 13:49 / Athan. 2.17; 2 Cor 6:17 / Conv. 13), διαχωρίζω (Sus 51 / Athan. 2.10), and χωρίζω (Rom 8:35 / Mor. 6). The evidence is far from conclusive, but counting in Lucifer’s probable attestation to διαχωρίζω we may cautiously suggest that διαστέλλω for ‫ פרד‬is a kaige feature.41 2 Kgs 6:32

‫יתם‬ ֶ ‫( ַה ְר ִא‬εἰ) οἴδατε (ᾔδειτε Btxt 56 707)] ἑωράκατε L 246 342 460 Luc Parc. 4; ᾔδειτε ἑωράκατε 71; + ἑωράκατε 158

The Hebrew counterpart for the verb οἶδα in the B text can hardly be ‫ראה‬, but, rather, ‫ידע‬. If there is a Hebraizing revision in either direction here, it is towards different Hebrew words. Thus we cannot find a new kaige feature here. Lucifer appears to support the L reading but, to be sure, his quotation is very short: “… si minime legisses dixisse Helisaeum ad eos qui se cum fuissent: Si uidistis quoniam filius homicidae illius misit ad auferendum caput meum, merito ut reum me iniuriarum peteres.” Lucifer may make small adaptations in short quotations. 2 Kgs 21:8 ‫ יִ ְׁש ְמרּו‬φυλάξουσιν] ἀκούσωσι L 460 Luc Reg. 8 (audierint) Cf. below ἐνετειλάμην] + αὐτοῖς καὶ φυλάξωνται (πάντα τὸν νόμον) L As in the previous case (2 Kgs 6:32), the two Greek renderings are renderings of different Hebrew words, ‫ ׁשמר‬and ‫ׁשמע‬. It seems likely that the original Hebrew reading was ‫“ ישמעו‬they (will) listen” and the L reading—supported by Lucifer—attests it. In the proto-Masoretic text the reading has been changed to ‫“ ישמרו‬they (will) observe” either by corruption or intentionally. We cannot establish a new kaige feature here: since ‫ׁשמר‬- φυλάσσω is what can be expected from the translator too, it cannot be defined as a kaige rendering specifically. We have, however, found a kaige reading—i.e., a specific reading that comes from the kaige reviser—since it was probably the kaige reviser who changed the Old Greek reading to φυλάξουσιν in B in accordance with the proto-Masoretic reading.42

41 42

Aquila is of no help here: he prefers διορίζω for ‫פרד‬. Reider/Turner, Index, 59. Kauhanen, “Lucifer”, 430–1.

160

Tuukka Kauhanen

2 Kgs 21:12 ‫( )ִהנְ נִ י( ֵמ ִביא‬ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ) φέρω] ἐπάγω L 460; adduco Luc Reg. 8 Bodine defines φέρω for the ‫ בוא‬hip‘il ‘to bring’ a kaige feature in Judges.43 In Samuel-Kings the rendering φέρω is equally usual in the non-kaige sections (13 of 47 total renderings = 28%) as in the kaige sections (7 of 25 = 28%). The rendering ἐπάγω, on the other hand, is rare in both sections (non-kaige: 4 = 9%, kaige: 3 = 12%). If there is a difference between the sections, it is in the use of ἄγω (non-kaige: 3 = 6%, kaige: 7 = 28%) and εἰσάγω (non-kaige: 13 = 28%, kaige: 1 = 4%). Aquila uses both ἐπάγω and φέρω for ‫ בוא‬hip‘il.44 Thus the evidence for φέρω being a kaige rendering is inconclusive. Lucifer, nevertheless, likely attests ἐπάγω with adduco. Counting in his support for ἐπάγω, it may be cautiously suggested that φέρω is a kaige reading. 2 Kgs 21:13 ‫ ַה ַּצ ַּל ַחת ָמ ָחה‬ὁ ἀλάβαστρος ἀπαλειφόμενος] τὸ πύξιον L 460; buxum Luc Reg. 8 The Hebrew word ‫ ַצ ַּל ַחת‬is somewhat rare, found only three times elsewhere: 2 Chron 35:13 Prov 19:24 Prov 26:15

‫ּובּצלחֹות‬ ָ ֵ ַ καὶ εὐοδώθη (εὐοδόω, here probably ‘to be successful’, for ‫‘ ָצ ֵל ַח‬prosper’) ‫ ַּב ַּצ ָּל ַחת‬εἰς τὸν κόλπον αὐτοῦ] μασχάλη Aquila45 ‫ ַּב ַּצ ָּל ַחת‬ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ αὐτοῦ] μάλη α´σ´θ´46

In 2 Kgs 21:13 Lucifer obviously supports the L reading πύξιον ‘tablet of box-wood’ with the etymologically related buxum ‘the wood of the box tree’. Again, it may be that πύξιον reflects another Hebrew word: it is found as a rendering for ‫לּוח‬ ַ ‘tablet’ three times (Exod 24:12, Isa 30:8, Hab 2:2). Exactly the same witnesses that read πύξιον (L 460, Lucifer) attest a minus of the word ἀπαλειφόμενος “when it is wiped” (NETS; MT: ‫) ָמ ָחה‬.47 The evidence is all but conclusive, but considering that B and the majority agree with the MT and that the L reading may attest a reading of the Vorlage different from the MT, it may be considered whether τὸ πύξιον was the original reading. 43  Bodine, Greek Text, 69–70; GM #84. 44  Reider/Turner, Index, 88, 249. 45  Reider/Turner, Index, 152. 46  Reider/Turner, Index, 151. 47 The very same witnesses read the verb ἐξαλείφω earlier in the verse: ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ּומ ִח‬ ָ καὶ ἀπαλείψω] ἐξαλείψω L 460; deleam Luc; ‫ יִ ְמ ֶחה‬ἀπαλείφεται] ἐπαλείφεται 46-236-313; ἐξαλείφεται L 460; deletur Luc; cf. 2 Kgs 14:27 ‫למחֹות‬ ְ ִ ἐξαλεῖψαι] διαφθεῖραι L 700 460. Apart from the four instances (thrice in 21:13 and once in 14:27) the verb ‫ מחה‬is not found in SamuelKings—thus it is hard to find a difference between possible kaige and Old Greek renderings. Lucifer’s deleo ‘to erase, to destroy’ may reflect either Greek verb.

Lucifer of Cagliari and the Kaige Revision

161

2 Kgs 21:16 ‫ ְל ַבד‬πλήν] ἔκτος L 460 Luc Reg. 8 (extra) Cf. 1 Kgs 5:30(16) ‫ ְל ַבד‬χωρίς] ἔκτος L−82 Renderings for ‫‘ ְל ַבד‬alone, besides’ are not listed in the known kaige features, nor in the Aquila index. However, πλήν is listed as the kaige rendering and ἔκτος as Aquila’s preferred rendering for ‫רק‬.48 In addition to the present case, the word ‫ ְל ַבד‬in the sense ‘besides’ is found four times in Samuel-Kings, each instance in the non-kaige section of Kings. It is rendered with ἔκτος in 1 Kgs 5:3 (4:23 in Brooke-McLean) and 10:13 and with χωρίς in 1 Kgs 5:30 (5:16) and 10:15. In light of the preference for ἔκτος in the Antiochene text in 1 Kgs 5:30, it is possible that it is a recensional reading. However, the translation-technical evidence—although very slim—together with Lucifer’s clear support for ἔκτος in 2 Kgs 21:16 allows me to cautiously suggest that πλήν for ‫‘ ְל ַבד‬besides’ is a kaige rendering. That some Hebraizing correction has happened here is further suggested by the fact that A, B, the catena group CI, and 244* reproduce the following Hebrew preposition min (‫מחּטאתֹו‬ ָ ַ ֵ ) with ἀπό while the majority of the witnesses do not. 2 Kgs 22:2

ἤ Luc Parc. 7 (aut)] καί B 56–246; οὐδέ 247 121 64-381-488 119799 318 372

The conjunction καί is the standard rendering for the Hebrew all-purpose particle we-. Untypically, καί is not found in the majority but only in B supported by one pair of manuscripts. To replace an original καί with ἤ would fit with the tendencies of the Lucianic reviser, but such a recensional reading could hardly have been spread to the overwhelming majority of the witnesses. Rather, Lucifer’s support for the reading ἤ makes it the preferred reading—that was Rahlfs’s choice too. While καί being a kaige reading cannot be ruled out, it may be an inner-B phenomenon as well. 2 Kgs 22:19

ְ ִ εἶναι] γένεσθαι L−82 460 Luc Parc. 7 (fieri) ‫להיֹות‬

Both εἰμί and γίνομαι are equally proper renderings for the Hebrew ‫‘ היה‬to be’; the better equivalent depends on the context.49 There is no significant difference in the distribution of these renderings between the kaige and nonkaige sections; the greatest difference can be found in the section 1 Kgs 22– 2 Kgs (53% γίνομαι, 43% εἰμί) and such a difference is easy to attribute to the needs of the context. The context in 2 Kgs 22:19 appears to point forward in 48  GM #2: ‫ רק‬πλήν; Reider/Turner, Index, 311. 49 Even Aquila uses both: Reider/Turner, Index, 274.

162

Tuukka Kauhanen

time (“that they should become a desolation and a curse” [NETS]) and thus the use of the verb γίνομαι might be a stylistic improvement by the Lucianic reviser. On the other hand, Lucifer likely attests the L reading with the passive infinitive fieri, although Lucifer’s own modification cannot be ruled out. If Lucifer is accepted as a genuine witness for the reading γένεσθαι it is best to accept that as the Old Greek reading, but to me the other option seems equally probable. Thus the case is best dismissed. 2 Kgs 23:3

‫ּקתיו‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ֻח‬δικαιώματα (αὐτοῦ)] προστάγματα L 460 Luc Parc. 7

(praecepta)

The renderings for the nomistic terms ‫ חֹק‬or ‫ ִמ ְצוָ ה‬, ‫ ֻח ָּקה‬, and ‫ ִמ ְׁש ָּפט‬vary somewhat. The clearest difference between the sections can be found in the renderings of ‫חּקה‬/‫ֹק‬ ָ ֻ ‫ח‬: δικαίωμα zero non-kaige, seven kaige; πρόσταγμα seven non-kaige, zero kaige. Both Greek words, together with ἐντολή, are found as renderings for ‫ ִמ ְצוָ ה‬as well (δικαίωμα once in kaige, πρόσταγμα twice in non-kaige). When δικαίωμα is found in the non-kaige sections, it is used as the standard rendering for ‫( ִמ ְׁש ָּפט‬eleven times). While the numbers are small, the distinction is clear: ‫חּקה‬/‫ֹק‬ ָ ֻ ‫ח‬- πρόσταγμα and ‫מ ְׁש ָּפט‬ִ δικαίωμα are Old Greek, ָ ֻ ‫ח‬- δικαίωμα is kaige.50 While Lucifer might use stock translations for ‫חּקה‬/‫ֹק‬ nearly synonymous nomistic terms, his usual rendering for δικαίωμα is justificatio (Deut 6:17 / Athan. 1.6, 17:19 / Athan. 1.7; 2 Chr 19:10 / Athan. 1.21, 1 Macc 2:21 / Parc. 12, 2:40 / Parc. 14). Thus it should be accepted that Lucifer’s praecepta attests the L reading προστάγματα, which is the Old Greek reading. 2 Kgs 23:4

ְ ַ σαδημωθ (σαλημώθ B)] φάραγγι 98c-379mg; τῷ ἐμπυρισμῷ ‫ׁשדמֹות‬ τοῦ χειμάρρου L 460 Luc Parc. 7 (incendio rivi)

Tov suggests that transliteration of unknown Hebrew words is a kaige feature while reminding us that not all transliterations come from the kaige revisers.51 In addition to 2 Kgs 23:4, the word ‫ֵדמה‬ ָ ‫‘ ְׁש‬field, terrace’ is found only in Deut 32:32; Isa 16:8, 37:27; Jer 31:40; and Hab 3:17 with various translations in the Septuagint. In 2 Kgs 23:4 the question is of Wadi Kidron, a fact the translator certainly understood (see v. 6: ἐξήνεγκεν τὸ ἄλσος … εἰς τὸν χειμάρρουν Κεδρων καὶ κατέκαυσεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ χειμάρρῳ Κεδρων). The words τοῦ χειμάρρου in the L reading are probably best explained as conformation 50 51

The Aquila index reports altogether six different renderings for ‫חֹק‬, including both δικαίωμα and πρόσταγμα. For ‫ ִמ ְׁש ָּפט‬Aquila uses κρίμα, κρίσις, and δικαίωσις. Reider/ Turner, Index, 279, 317. Tov, “Transliterations”, 85 and n. 31. GM #94.

Lucifer of Cagliari and the Kaige Revision

163

with v. 6 by the Lucianic reviser, but the rendering τῷ ἐμπυρισμῷ might be the original reading: the word ἐμπυρισμός ‘burning’ is found once as a rendering for ‫‘ ְׂש ֵר ָפה‬burning’ (Lev 10:6), a word easily confused with ‫ֵדמה‬ ָ ‫ ְׁש‬because of the graphical similarity (dalet-rêš, mêm-pê). Lucifer’s support for the L : reading (incendium ‘burning’) corroborates this claim. Accordingly, as in several cases above, the question is of renderings for two different Hebrew words. Nevertheless, the transliteration σαδημωθ may well come from the kaige reviser. 2 Kgs 23:5 ‫ נָ ְתנּו‬ἔδωκαν] κατέστησαν L 460 Luc Parc. 7 (constituerant) 2 Kgs 23:11 ‫ נָ ְתנּו‬ἔδωκαν] ἀνέθηκαν L 460; posuerant Luc Parc. 7

The Greek verb δίδωμι is the natural basic rendering for the Hebrew ‫‘ נתן‬to give’. The only significant competitor to δίδωμι in Samuel-Kings is its compound παραδίδωμι (22 times). Other renderings are isolated instances and do not feature καθίστημι (L in 2 Kgs 23:5) or ἀνατίθημι (L in v. 11; never in the whole Septuagint). While there is a slight difference between the non-kaige and kaige sections (non-kaige: δίδωμι 87% of all renderings of ‫נתן‬, παραδίδωμι 10%; kaige: δίδωμι 92%, παραδίδωμι 5%), the big picture is of little help here. The verb δίδωμι is the preferred rendering even in the quite rare contexts where ‫ נתן‬means ‘to dedicate, install, ordain’ as in 2 Kgs 23:5 and 11. The usage is quite rare but I managed to locate four other contexts (variants for δίδωμι, if any, are in parentheses): 1 Kgs 1:48 1 Kgs 2:35

1 Kgs 10:9 1 Kgs 14:7

‫על־ּכסאי‬ ִ ְ ִ ַ ‫יׁשב‬ ֵ ֹ ‫נתן ַהּיֹום‬ ַ ָ ‫אׁשר‬ ֶ ֲ ὃς ἔδωκεν (ἐποίησεν 245) σήμερον ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματός μου καθήμενον ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου μου ‫על־הּצבא‬ ָ ָ ַ ַ ‫ּתחּתיו‬ ָ ְ ַ ‫בן־יהֹוידע‬ ָ ָ ְ ֶ ‫את־ּבניהּו‬ ָ ָ ְ ֶ ‫הּמלְך‬ ֶ ֶ ַ ‫וּיּתן‬ ֵ ִ ַ καὶ ἔδωκεν (κατέστησεν 247) ὁ βασιλεὺς τὸν Βαναιου υἱὸν Ιωδαε ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν στρατηγίαν ‫על־ּכּסא‬ ֵ ִ ַ ‫לתּתָך‬ ְ ִ ְ δοῦναί σε ἐπὶ θρόνου ‫עּמי‬ ִ ַ ‫נגיד ַעל‬ ִ ָ ‫—ואּתנָך‬ ְ ֶ ֶ ָ B (καὶ ἔδωκά σε ἡγούμενον ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν μου A

247 127 CI−328 121 d s−64´ 554 = 16:2)

In addition, there are two instances in 1 Samuel that are unclear since in these ‫ נתן‬may mean ‘to give’ as well as ‘consecrate’ or ‘install’: 1:11 δώσω αὐτὸν ἐνώπιόν σου δοτόν, 12:13 δέδωκεν κύριος ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς βασιλέα. There are no variants for δίδωμι in either instance. As for the rendering ‫נתן‬-καθίστημι (L in 2 Kgs 23:5), it must be noted that it is found nine times elsewhere in the Septuagint (Gen 41:41, 43; Deut 1:15, 16:18, 17:15, 28:13; Josh 9:27; 1 Chron 12:19; 2 Chron 17:2). The context is always that of installing or ordaining.

164

Tuukka Kauhanen

The least that can be said is that the translator of Kings might have chosen to depart from the rendering δίδωμι in 2 Kgs 23:5 and 11 and if the kaige reviser had changed those renderings, he certainly would have chosen δίδωμι without any prefixes regardless of the connotations. Since Lucifer’s support must be counted in favour of the both L readings, I cautiously suggest that rendering ‫ נתן‬constantly with δίδωμι is a kaige feature. Of course, that is what the translators do most of the time too. 2 Kgs 23:13 ‫ ִׁש ֻּקץ‬προσοχθίσματι 1º] βδελύγματι L; simulacro Luc Parc. 7 Cf. below: ‫ּתֹועבת‬ ַ ֲ … ‫ ִׁש ֻּקץ‬προσοχθίσματι 2º … βδελύγματι] idolo … simulacro Luc Parc. 7 The expressions for ‘abomination’ are rather rare in Samuel-Kings. Outside the present case the Hebrew word ‫ ִׁשּקּוץ‬is found three times, rendered with εἴδωλον (Muraoka: ‘manually crafted object of worship’) in the non-kaige section (1 Kgs 11:5, 7; no variants) and with προσόχθισμα (Muraoka: ‘object of intense dislike’) in 2 Kgs 23:24 (kaige-section; no significant variants). This observation makes it seem that προσόχθισμα is indeed a kaige rendering. However, the putative Old Greek rendering of the L text is not εἴδωλον, as one would expect, but βδέλυγμα (Muraoka: ‘what is abominable, loathsome’). While this word is never found as a rendering for ‫ ִׁשּקּוץ‬in SamuelKings, it is the most usual rendering in other parts of the Septuagint (e.g., Jer 4:1, 7:30, 13:27, 16:18; Ezek 5:11, 11:18, 21; 20:7, 8, 30). There is no reason why the translator of 2 Kings could not have used it as well. On the other hand, βδέλυγμα is the preferred rendering in Samuel-Kings for ‫ּתֹועבה‬ ָ ֵ , a word more or less synonymous with ‫ ִׁשּקּוץ‬appearing later in the same context in 2 Kgs 23:13 (no Greek variants). It is found four times elsewhere in SamuelKings, always rendered with βδέλυγμα (1 Kgs 14:24; 2 Kgs 16:3, 21:2 and 11; no significant variants).52 Lucifer in all likelihood attests the L reading in 2 Kgs 23:13 since later in the same verse he represents προσόχθισμα with idolum ‘image, idol’ (elsewhere religio: 1 Kgs 11:33 / Reg. 4, 16:32 / Reg. 6) and βδέλυγμα with simulacrum ‘figure’. The latter rendering is found once elsewhere (2 Kgs 21:11 / Reg. 8), although otherwise Lucifer renders βδέλυγμα with abominatio (Deut 25:16 / Athan. 1.8, 32:16 / Parc. 23; 2 Kgs 21:2 / Reg. 8; 1 Macc 1:57[54 LXX] / Parc. 12; Prov 11:1 / Athan. 1.26, 29:27 / Athan. 52

The same rendering is the most frequent one in other parts of the Septuagint too (esp. Deut, Prov, Ezek). Aquila uses both βδέλυγμα and προσόχθισμα for ‫ ִׁשּקּוץ‬but only βδέλυγμα for ‫ּתֹועבה‬. ָ ֵ Reider/Turner, Index, 317–18., 318.

Lucifer of Cagliari and the Kaige Revision

165

1.30), exterminatio (Jer 2:7 / Conv. 8), or idolum (1 Kgs 11:33 / Reg. 4). The evidence is far from conclusive, but the usage ‫ׁשּקּוץ‬-βδέλυγμα ִ elsewhere in the Septuagint and Lucifer’s quite likely support for the L reading lead to the cautious suggestion that ‫ׁשּקּוץ‬-προσόχθισμα is a kaige rendering. ִ ‫( ָּב ָהר‬ἐν) τῇ πόλει] τῷ ὄρει L 460 Luc Parc. 7 ָ ְ ‫ּבהרי‬ ֵ ָ ְ ἐν πόλεσιν ‫ ַהר־יְ ָע ִרים‬πόλιν Ιαριμ; 2 Chron 21:11 ‫יהּודה‬ Ιουδα53 Cf. 1 Kgs 16:24 ‫העיר‬ ִ ָ ‫את־ׁשם‬ ֵ ֶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ὄρους54

2 Kgs 23:16 Cf. Josh 15:10

The B reading—whatever its origin—must reflect the Hebrew word ‫ִעיר‬ ‘town’ rather than ‫‘ ַהר‬mountain’. The variation between these two Hebrew words originates in the confusion of the gutturals hê and ‘ayin. Since both words are frequent in the Hebrew Bible (‫ ִעיר‬more than 1,000 times, ‫ ַהר‬more than 500) it can be expected that some confusion between them has taken place—this can also be seen in the three other verses cited above. Accordingly, the Greek readings are renderings of two different Hebrew words. There is probably no way to tell which Hebrew or Greek reading is the original one.

6. Quantitative or Syntactical Differences between B and Lucifer There are a number of quantitative or syntactical differences between B and L in which Lucifer sides with L (or a part of it) or his attestation is uncertain. It is inconclusive whether any of these differences were due to activity by the kaige revisers. However, it is possible that in some of these readings Lucifer attests the Old Greek reading with L. In order to provide the reader with all the possibly relevant evidence, these readings are listed here in a concise manner. 1 Kgs 22:27 ‫והאכילהּו‬ ֻ ִ ֲ ַ ְ ἐσθίειν αὐτόν] om αὐτόν 530 44 74 460; ἐσθιέτω A L 381 342 Luc Reg. 8 (manducet) 1 Kgs 22:27 καὶ ὕδωρ θλίψεως] > 19 246 Luc Reg. 8 (very short quotation) 2 Kgs 2:11 ‫ודּבר‬ ֵ ַ ְ ‫ ָהלֹוְך‬ἐπορεύοντο καὶ ἐλάλουν] καὶ λαλούντων L-700 372 460 Luc Athan. 1.20; om ἐπορεύοντο 245 2 Kgs 21:11 ‫אׁשר‬ ֶ ֲ ‫מּכל‬ ֹ ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν] κατὰ πάντα ὅσα L 460 Luc Reg. 8 53 54

Brooke-McLean reports no variants featuring ὄρος for either case. No significant variants.

166

Tuukka Kauhanen

2 Kgs 22:11 ‫ וַ ּיִ ְק ַרע‬καὶ διέρρηξεν] om καί 247 L 242 121 44-68-107-122-125610 246 381-488 527 71 342 460 Luc Parc. 7 2 Kgs 22:13 ‫ ַהּנִ ְמ ָצא ַהּזֶ ה‬τοῦ εὑρεθέντος / τούτου] tr L 460 Luc Parc. 7 2 Kgs 22:18 ‫ ַה ְּד ָב ִרים‬οἱ λόγοι] + μου L−82 460 Luc Parc. 7 2 Kgs 22:20 τοῦτον A B = MT] + καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας αὐτόν L rel Luc Parc. 7 = 2 Chr 34:28 2 Kgs 23:3 διαθήκην = MT] + τὴν εὑρεθεῖσαν ἐν οἴκῳ κυρίου L Luc Parc. 7 Cf. v. 2 τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς διαθήκης τοῦ εὑρεθέντος ἐν οἴκῳ κυρίου (no variants) 2 Kgs 23:3 ‫על־הּספר‬ ֶ ֵ ַ ַ ἐπὶ τὸ βιβλίον] ἐν (ἐπί 527) τῷ βιβλίῳ L 46-52-236-242530 246 527 318 460 707S Luc Parc. 7 (L = Old Greek?) 2 Kgs 23:4 ‫ ַה ִּמ ְׁשנֶ ה‬τῆς δευτερώσεως] τοῖς δευτερεύουσι L 460 Luc Parc. 7 2 Kgs 23:10 —ἄνδρα 2º] > L 460 Luc Parc. 7 = MT 2 Kgs 23:11 fin] + ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ Ὤν (Cf. Hos 5:8, 12:5) ὅν ᾠκοδόμησαν βασιλεῖς Ἰσραὴλ ὑψηλὸν τῷ Βάαλ καὶ πασῇ τῇ στρατιᾷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ L 328 460 Luc Parc. 7 (L = Old Greek?)

7. Conclusion Lucifer quotes five instances where the rendering καί γε for ‫וְ גַ ם‬/‫גַ ם‬, the most well-known kaige feature, occurs (listed concisely; for full evidence and analyses, see above): 2 Kgs 21:11 2 Kgs 21:16 2 Kgs 22:19 2 Kgs 23:15 2 Kgs 23:15

‫ גַ ם‬καί γε] > 125 Luc ‫ וְ גַ ם‬καί γε] et quemadmodum Luc ‫ וְ גַ ם‬καί γε] καί A; et Luc ‫ וְ גַ ם‬καί γε 1º] et Luc ‫ ּגַ ם‬καί γε 2º] et Luc

Since Lucifer could not produce a good counterpart for γε, there is no conclusive evidence that Lucifer attested the reading καί γε in any of these instances. However, the opposite cannot be demonstrated either. In addition, there are altogether sixteen probable kaige readings in the kaige sections of Kings in which we have a quotation by Lucifer (listed concisely in verse order; for full evidence and analyses, see above): 2 Kgs 10:30 ‫אׁשר‬ ֶ ֲ ‫יען‬ ַ ַ ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὅσα 1º] om ὅσα L; eapropter quod Luc 2 Kgs 21:2 ‫ ְּב ֵעינֵ י‬ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ἐνώπιον L; ante conspectum Luc

Lucifer of Cagliari and the Kaige Revision

2 Kgs 21:3 2 Kgs 21:5 2 Kgs 21:6 2 Kgs 21:8 2 Kgs 21:9 2 Kgs 21:10 2 Kgs 21:15 2 Kgs 21:16 2 Kgs 22:2 2 Kgs 22:20 2 Kgs 23:4 2 Kgs 23:5 2 Kgs 23:5

167

‫ ְצ ָבא‬δυνάμει] στρατιᾷ L Luc ‫ ְצ ָבא‬δυνάμει] στρατιᾷ L; > Luc ‫ אֹוב‬θελητήν] ἐγγαστριμύθους L Luc ‫ ַע ְבִּדי‬δοῦλος (μου)] παῖς L Luc —ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ἐνώπιον L; > Luc ‫ ֲע ָב ָדיו‬δούλων (αὐτοῦ)] παίδων L Luc ‫אׁשר‬ ֶ ֲ ‫יען‬ ַ ַ ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὅσα] om ὅσα A L; quoniam Luc ‫ ְּב ֵעינֵ י‬ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ἐνώπιον CI 242–530 71 244 Luc (uncertain) ‫ ְּב ֵעינֵ י‬ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς] ἐνώπιον L; ante conspectum Luc ‫מביא‬ ִ ֵ ‫אני‬ ִ ֲ ἐγώ εἰμι ἐπάγω (ἐπάγων B)] om εἰμι L Luc (uncertain) ‫ ְצ ָבא‬δυνάμει] στρατιᾷ L Luc ‫ ְצ ָבא‬δυνάμει] στρατιᾷ L Luc ‫ ְּכ ָמ ִרים‬χωμαριμ] ἱερεῖς L Luc

Lucifer attests the Old Greek reading preserved in L and, occasionally, some other Greek witnesses in each of these instances (except 2 Kgs 21:5, 9 where Lucifer has an omission). Thus we can safely establish that Lucifer’s biblical text is free from kaige influence. Relying on this conclusion, Lucifer’s quotations can be used as a witness for the Old Greek when locating new kaige readings in Kings, the following ten with some probability (for full evidence and analyses, see above): 2 Kgs 2:11 2 Kgs 21:8

‫ ּיַ ְפ ִרדּו‬διέστειλαν (-εν B)] διεχώρισεν L; separavit Luc ‫ יִ ְׁש ְמרּו‬φυλάξουσιν] ἀκούσωσι L Luc (diff. Heb. verbs, but L =

OG) 2 Kgs 21:12 2 Kgs 21:13 2 Kgs 21:16 2 Kgs 23:3 2 Kgs 23:4 2 Kgs 23:5 2 Kgs 23:11 2 Kgs 23:13

‫( )ִהנְ נִ י( ֵמ ִביא‬ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ) φέρω] ἐπάγω L; adduco Luc ‫ ַה ַּצ ַּל ַחת‬ὁ ἀλάβαστρος] τὸ πύξιον L Luc (prob. diff. Heb. words) ‫ ְל ַבד‬πλήν] ἔκτος L Luc ‫ּקתיו‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ֻח‬δικαιώματα (αὐτοῦ)] προστάγματα L Luc ‫ׁשדמֹות‬ ְ ַ σαδημωθ] τῷ ἐμπυρισμῷ τοῦ χειμάρρου L Luc (partly OG) ‫ נָ ְתנּו‬ἔδωκαν] κατέστησαν L Luc ‫ נָ ְתנּו‬ἔδωκαν] ἀνέθηκαν L; posuerant Luc (very uncertain) ‫ ִׁש ֻּקץ‬προσοχθίσματι] βδελύγματι L; simulacro Luc

In addition, there are another five lexical agreements between Lucifer and L in which it is improbable that the B reading was a kaige reading: 1 Kgs 22:8 2 Kgs 6:32

‫ טֹוב‬καλά] ἀγαθά L; bona Luc (uncertain) ‫יתם‬ ֶ ‫( ַה ְר ִא‬εἰ) οἴδατε (ᾔδειτε B)] ἑωράκατε L Luc (diff. Heb. verbs)

168

Tuukka Kauhanen

2 Kgs 22:2 ἤ L Luc] καί B (L = Old Greek?) 2 Kgs 22:19 ‫להיֹות‬ ְ ִ εἶναι] γένεσθαι L; fieri Luc (uncertain) 2 Kgs 23:16 ‫( ָּב ָהר‬ἐν) τῇ πόλει] τῷ ὄρει L Luc (diff. Heb. words) It is my hope that the new possible kaige features found with the help of Lucifer may contribute to our understanding of this important text-historical phenomenon. In addition, I hope that my considerations may help the editors of the critical text of the Septuagint of Kings.55

55

In addition to letting me consult their preliminary critical apparatus, I want to thank Julio Trebolle, Pablo Torijano, and Andrés Piquer for the discussions we had on these matters during my stay as a visiting scholar at the Complutense University of Madrid in 2014–2015.

Anneli Aejmelaeus

Kaige Readings in a Non-Kaige Section in 1 Samuel Speaking of kaige, we must, first of all, acknowledge that the identification of the phenomenon in question in the Nahal # Hever ( Minor Prophets scroll by Dominique Barthélemy was one of the most influential single scholarly achievements in Septuagint studies during the latter part of the 20th century. The discovery of the scroll was of course essential for this achievement, but Barthélemy did not just publish the text of the scroll as such.1 He was able to connect the newly discovered piece of evidence with examples of the same phenomenon in Judges and Samuel-Kings and to corroborate this by a list of features that the different texts have in common. What is most revolutionary about Barthélemy’s identification of kaige is the new understanding that in the textual history of the Septuagint there was an early phase of Jewish revisional activity preceding the two previously known Christian recensions, the Hexaplaric and the Lucianic recension. This knowledge has opened up new perspectives for the textual criticism of the Septuagint. As soon as there was proof of this kind of activity, however, one would have expected more examples of it to emerge. Why should this revisional activity have limited itself to just a few biblical books or some sections of them? On the contrary, one ought to be prepared to find examples of it in all the translated books of the Septuagint, at least in those books that were to be included in the authoritative collection of the Hebrew Bible. In this paper, I shall give examples from the text of 1 Samuel that show the influence of early Jewish revisional activity in a biblical book that has been considered to be a non-kaige section within Samuel-Kings and thus untouched by this kind of activity. I have been discussing examples of this kind in different contexts during the last decade, and cannot avoid repeating some of the most convincing examples. Most of my examples involve a change of the critical text in comparison to Rahlfs’s edition, and I will give

The research presented in this article was carried out in connection with the Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence Changes in Sacred Texts and Traditions. 1 Devanciers.

170

Anneli Aejmelaeus

my examples in the form that they will have in the forthcoming critical edition of the Göttingen series.2

Lexical variants The first group of examples consists of lexical variants. The first example is the one that first drew my attention to this phenomenon. (1) 1 Sam 2:143 … ‫בּכּיֹור‬ ִ ַ ‫והּכה‬ ָ ִ ְ 14 ‫ּבידֹו׃‬ ָ ְ ‫ׁשֹלׁש־הּׁשּנים‬ ִַ ִ ַ ְ ‫והּמזלג‬ ֵ ְ ַ ַ ְ … ‫נער‬ ַ ַ ‫ּובא‬ ָ καὶ ἤρχετο τὸ παιδάριον … καὶ κρεάγρα τριόδους ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, καθήκεν αὐτὴν εἰς τὸν λέβητα τὸν μέγαν …

14καὶ

om καὶ καθήκεν αὐτὴν 98*  καὶ καθήκεν Ge] pr καὶ ἐπάταξεν 509; κεκράτηκεν d -68´; καὶ καθῆκαν 158; καὶ καθίει L; καὶ ἐπάταξεν Α Β f Ra: cf M; καὶ ἐπάταξαν 121 68´; και ἐπάτασσεν Ο = M; et iecit Aeth; et mittebat La115  This is part of the description of the misconduct of the sons of Eli, something that occurred repeatedly in connection with sacrificial meals, and for this reason the verbal forms are mainly those used for iterative past action (in Hebrew the perfect consecutive and imperfect; in Greek the imperfect). To begin with, it puzzled me that there was an aorist among the imperfects, in Rahlfs’s text ἐπάταξεν, whereas the variants included both imperfect and aorist forms of two different verbs, πατάσσω and καθίημι, as well as one spelling error connected with the latter. It turned out, however, that the problem was not with the verbal form but with the verb itself, the lexical choice, one of the alternatives being the standard equivalent of the Hebrew verb (‫ נכה‬hif.) and the other one a most fitting contextual rendering. 2 The Greek manuscripts available for 1 Samuel are the following (fragmentary manuscripts and those only partially preserved in parentheses) A B M V (842) (845) (846) (867); O = 247376; L = 19-82-93-108-127; CI = 98-(243)-379-731; CII = 46-52-236-242-313-328-530; a = 119-527-799; b = 121-509; d = 44-68-74-106-107-120-122-125-134-(370)-610; f = 56-246; s = 64-92-130-314-381-488-489-(762); 29 55 71 158 244 245 318 (342) 460 554 707. As for the group sigla, O stands for the Hexaplaric, L for the Lucianic, C for Catena mss. My examples follow the style of the apparatus in the Septuagint editions of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences. 3 See my article “The Septuagint of 1 Samuel”, in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translator: Collected Essays (Revised and Expanded Edition; CBET 50; Leuven: Peeters, 2007) 123-41, esp. 138. I also discussed this example in “The Quality of Vaticanus”, a paper given at the Annual Meeting of the SBL, Boston 2008.

Kaige Readings in a Non-Kaige Section in 1 Samuel

171

When comparing the different variants with each other, one should always try to find out what happened to the text, in which direction was it changed. Among the alternatives in the present case, the change of the verb and of the tense are clearly intentional, the alternation of singular and plural and the spelling error κεκρατηκεν were most probably unintentional. If πατάσσω were the original, then καθίημι would have meant a change to a contextually more fitting expression. Changes that improve the style or comprehensibility of the text are mostly known from the Lucianic recension. In our case, it seems practically impossible that the Lucianic recension would have been the origin of the verb καθίημι: how could it have spread to the majority of the witnesses and how could the change from the imperfect (in L) to the aorist (in the majority) in the middle of a chain of imperfects be explained in that case? By contrast, supposing that καθίημι is original, the change to πατάσσω can be readily explained as an approximation to the Hebrew text, precisely & (Hever Minor Prophets scroll. the kind of change found in the Nahal My decision for the critical text is thus καθίημι, and more precisely the aorist form καθήκεν. Further arguments for the critical text can be presented from the translation style of the translator of 1 Samuel. This translator has a special sensitivity for verbal forms, using the imperfect in cases of the past iterative, but interrupting long chains of imperfects by the aorist in order to express abrupt movement or perhaps just for lively expression. The same kind of alternation happens between the historical present and the aorist.4 This translator is also able to alternate the equivalents used for frequently occurring words. In the case of ‫ נכה‬hif. the most common rendering is naturally πατάσσω, but there are—in addition to καθίημι—several alternative renderings (πλήσσω 4:2; 5:12; τύπτω 11:11; 17:36; 27:9; 31:2; παίω 13:4; ἐκζέω 5:6; θανατόω 17:35; 20:33; ἀποκτείνω 17:46). Let us now have a look at the manuscript evidence. The verb πατάσσω, which more closely accords with the Hebrew text, appears in the aorist ἐπάταξεν in A B and the f group (= 56-246), with a plural variant in 121 68-122; the same reading is found in a plus in 509. It should be noted that 121 and 509 (form a group marked by b and) are members of the B text, close to Vaticanus, so that there is a clear dependence between these witnesses.5 The same verb in the imperfect, obviously an adjustment of the verbal 4 See R. Wirth, Die Septuaginta-Übersetzung der Samuelbücher: Untersucht unter Einbeziehung ihrer Rezensionen (DSI 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016). See also idem, “Das Praesens Historicum in den griechischen Samuelbüchern”, in K. De Troyer/ T.M. Law/M. Liljeström (ed.), In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Texts in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus (CBET 72; Leuven: Peeters, 2014) 117–32. 5 By the B text I mean Vaticanus and the witnesses closely affiliated with it (b = 121-509; Aeth).

172

Anneli Aejmelaeus

form to the context, is found in the manuscript group O (= 247-376). This group, together with A, was recognized by Rahlfs to be Hexaplaric. In this case, Rahlfs did not however see any Hexaplaric influence but considered ἐπάταξεν to be part of the original translation. From my viewpoint, any form of πατάσσω is here secondary, but neither do I consider it to be Hexaplaric. Why not? After all, the Hexaplaric recension is known for its approximations to the Hebrew text. It is not known, however, for approximations of this kind. Origen’s main interest was in the plusses and minuses between the Greek and the Hebrew texts and not in translation equivalents. How does it happen then that the B text and the Hexaplaric witnesses agree in a secondary reading against the great majority of witnesses—as they do, in fact, in most of the examples that I will present? The only possible solution is that Origen knew and used a text that was very close to the B text.6 Origen seems to have known different manuscripts, and if he compared them, of course he would have preferred readings that were closer to the Hebrew text, in this way believing to find the genuine Septuagint. Readings which Origen picked up this way for his 5th column were per definitionem pre-Hexaplaric, and he naturally did not mark them in any way. As for the alternative forms of the original verb καθίημι, the aorist gets the strongest support both from the manuscripts and from the translation style of 1 Samuel. The imperfect, in this case also an adjustment to the chain of imperfects in the context, only occurs in the Lucianic group, and can be explained as a stylistic improvement. Thus the critical text in 1 Sam 2:14 is καθήκεν, and the different forms of πατάσσω originated from pre-Hexaplaric revision of the kaige type. ֵ ְ ִ ‫וּיׂשם‬ ֶ ָ ַ ‫והעליה‬ ָ ֶ ָ ֶ ְ ‫את־הּׁשֹוק‬ ַ ֶ ‫הּטּבח‬ ָ ַ ַ ‫וּירם‬ ֶָ ַ (2) 1 Sam 9:24 ‫לפני ָׁשאּול‬ καὶ ἦρεν ὁ μάγειρος τὴν κωλέαν καὶ παρέθηκεν αὐτὴν ἐνώπιον Σαούλ ἦρεν] pr ηψησεν καὶ V; ηψησεν (εψ. 376 44) A B O b d 554* 707 Sa; ὕψωσεν Gra Ra; ηγειρεν 246; attulit Aeth; tulit La115  κωλέαν] + (※ 127 731mg) και το επ αυτης A O L 731mg d f 318 554 Sa(vid) 

6 That Vaticanus represents the text known to Origen was maintained by Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd edition; Cambridge: University Press, 1914), 487. Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien I–III (2. Auflage; Vermehrt um einen unveröffentlichten Aufsatz und eine Bibliographie mit einem Nachruf von Walter Bauer; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 101, suggests that B was “cum grano salis die Vorlage des Origenes.”

Kaige Readings in a Non-Kaige Section in 1 Samuel

173

This example is from another sacrificial meal, one with Samuel and Saul as the main actors. The case is famous for the emendation of Grabe, which Rahlfs follows in his text: “the cook raised high (= ὕψωσεν) the leg,” instead of “boiled (= ηψησεν),” which is found in a number of manuscripts. It is obvious that the emendation is correct: ηψησεν is a corrupted form of ὕψωσεν, an itacistic confusion of spelling, inspired by the context of cooking a sacrificial meal. This wording (ὕψωσεν), however, is not the original translation but an early approximation to the Hebrew text. The revised reading—although in a corrupted form—is again found in A B O b, this time accompanied by d 554* 707 and the Coptic (Sahidic) daughter version. The translator used the verb αἴρω, which in this context means ‘to pick up’ without any special emphasis of ‘elevation’. In numerous other cases the translator employed αἴρω for ‫נשא‬, but in the few cases of ‫ רום‬hif. he did not show any pattern, using ἐγείρω once (2:8) and ὑψόω once (2:10). For later literalistic translators and revisers, ὑψόω was, however, precisely the equivalent reserved for ‫רום‬ hif. and αἴρω was used for ‫ נשא‬only.7 The change to ὑψόω may also have been partly motivated by the ritual understanding that the sacrificial meat was to be “raised high” or “elevated”. For comparison, there is a genuinely Hexaplaric variant in the same sentence: the addition of “and what was on it,” present in the MT (‫ )וְ ֶה ָע ֜ ֶל ָיה‬but lacking in the Septuagint. In this case, even an asterisk is transmitted in two manuscripts. The manuscript witness differs from the previous case in that the B text does not transmit the Hexaplaric reading. On the other hand, the closeness of the Hexaplaric reading might explain how the d group and 554 happened to receive the previous variant: the scribe whose attention was drawn to the asterisked addition happened to notice the variant verb in the same connection and picked it up. It is however obvious that these two readings came into the textual transmission at different times, in different phases of the textual history of 1 Samuel. Thus the critical text in 1 Sam 9:24 is ἦρεν, and ὕψωσεν was an early, kaigetype correction that was corrupted to ηψησεν. ִ ָ ‫אחרי‬ ֵ ֲ ַ ‫מּלכת‬ ֶ ֶ ִ ‫אׁשר־ּפּגרּו‬ ְ ִ ֶ ֲ ‫האנׁשים‬ ִ ָ ֲ ָ ‫אל־מאתים‬ ִ ַ ָ ֶ ‫דוד‬ ִ ָ ‫וּיבא‬ ֹ ַָ (3) 1 Sam 30:21 ‫דוד‬ καὶ παραγίνεται Δαυιδ πρὸς τοὺς διακοσίους ἄνδρας τοὺς ὑπολειφθέντας τοῦ πορευθῆναι ὀπίσω Δαυίδ 7 According to Joseph Reider, An Index to Aquila (Completed and revised by Nigel Turner; VTSup XII; Leiden: Brill, 1966): ὑψόω was frequently used for ‫ רום‬hif. (248), and αἴρω for ‫נשא‬ 8–7)), in marginal readings attributed to Aquila, Symmachus, and/or Theodotion.

174

Anneli Aejmelaeus

ὑπολειφθέντας] απολειφθεντας L-93; εκλυθεντας A B O b Sa Ra = M  πορευθῆναι] πορευεσθαι A B a b 64´ 342 460 Ra

In some cases, the correction according to the MT is motivated by an erroneous translation in the Septuagint. When chasing after the Amalekites, David had divided his troops and left 200 men behind. Now he comes back to them. The Hebrew text refers to these men as those “who were too exhausted to go after David,” whereas the Greek text says “who were left behind to go after David,” giving the impression that they were to follow David later. The Hebrew verb used here, ‫ פגר‬pi. ‘to be exhausted,’ is a rare word, occurring only here and earlier in v. 10 of the same chapter. The translator obviously did not know the word and made a different contextual guess in both cases. 1 Sam 30:10 ‫הּבׂשֹור‬ ְ ַ ‫את־נחל‬ ַ ַ ֶ ‫מעבר‬ ֹ ֲ ֵ ‫ּפּגרּו‬ ְ ִ ‫אׁשר‬ ֶ ֲ οἵτινες ἐκάθισαν πέραν τοῦ χειμάρρου τοῦ Βοσόρ.

Instead of “too weary to cross the brook,” the Greek text (v. 10) says, “remained on the other side of the brook.” For v. 10, no correction has been transmitted, but in v. 21 we find ἐκλυθέντας (from ἐκλύω pass. ‘to become weary’) in a group of manuscripts already familiar to us: A and B and the groups O and b as well as the Coptic version. It seems that this change caused another change in the following infinitive, at least in A B b: the verb ‘to become weary’ seems to function better with the present infinitive πορευεσθαι, but not all manuscripts follow the same pattern, which shows the eclectic nature of most of the manuscripts. Rahlfs’s edition follows the revised text in the participle as well as in the infinitive. The critical text is ὑπολειφθέντας and ἐκλυθέντας reflects early kaige-type approximation to the Hebrew text. The next example is one that I have discussed in many connections. I need to present it again, because it is important in showing the connection of the revisional activity under discussion to the known exemplars of the kaige group. (4) 1 Sam 15:118 ‫למלְך‬ ֶ ֶ ְ ‫את־ׁשאּול‬ ָ ֶ ‫ּכי־המלכּתי‬ ִ ְ ַ ְ ִ ִ ‫נחמּתי‬ ִ ְ ַ ִ μεταμεμέλημαι ὅτι ἔχρισα τὸν Σαοὺλ εἰς βασιλέα 8 For a more thorough discussion of the case, see “Does God Regret? A Theological Problem that Concerned the Kaige Revisers”, in this volume. See also my articles: “A Kingdom at Stake: Reconstructing the Old Greek—Deconstructing the Textus Receptus”, in A. Voitila/ J. Jokiranta (ed.), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea

Kaige Readings in a Non-Kaige Section in 1 Samuel

175

μεταμεμέλημαι Aeth Sa] παρακέκλημαι A B 247 93mg-108mg 121*(vid) Ra: cf M; παρακεκληκαι με 376; paenitet me La116 

om ὅτι ἔχρισα A  ἔχρισα Sa] εβασιλευσα B O L b 244 460 Aeth Ra = M  θ´ παρακέκλημαι σ´ μετεμελήθην 243-731(s nom)

This is the message that Samuel receives concerning Saul: God has rejected Saul and regrets having made him king of Israel. There are two different kinds of approximations in this example. In the first one, the Hebrew verb ‫נחם‬, which obviously represents niph. in this context, meaning ‘to regret,’ has been changed to παρακαλέομαι which corresponds to the meaning of the Hebrew verb in pi. ‘to comfort,’ and more precisely, to its passive in niph. ‘to be comforted.’ The change was motivated by the desire to use the same Greek word for different forms of the Hebrew verb, but even more importantly by the theological consideration that God does not regret or change his mind. The correction resulted in a text that is hardly comprehensible—at least to a reader who was not able to back-translate the word into Hebrew— but the theological goal was certainly achieved: the text does not say that God would regret. The same change can be found in the Nahal & *Hever Minor Prophets scroll in Jonah 3:9 and 10 (μετανοέω > παρακαλέομαι)—the only two cases that have been preserved of the eight cases of this kind in the Minor Prophets. Another example of the same change is found in 2 Sam 24:16, that is, in one of the kaige-sections. Thus, the replacement of μεταμέλομαι (or μετανοέω) ‘to regret’ by παρακαλέομαι ‘to be comforted’—especially with a divine subject—links the sporadic approximations in 1 Samuel with the previously known exemplars of the kaige group. Considering the manuscript witness, we find again basically the same manuscripts representing the kaige-type reading: A B and the O group, 376 having a spelling error but representing the same reading; this time the b group supports the critical text (121 having been corrected back to the original, more meaningful reading; the approximation is also found as a marginal reading in two Lucianic witnesses; and in a further marginal reading of 243, παρακέκλημαι is attributed to Theodotion, which further corroborates

Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (JSJSup 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 353–66; “How to Reach the Old Greek in 1 Samuel and What to Do with It”, in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (ed. M. Nissinen; VTSup 148; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012) 185–205.

176

Anneli Aejmelaeus

its origin in those Jewish circles that were responsible for bringing the Septuagint in closer accordance with the Hebrew text.9 In the second case, the Greek represents a different verb ‘to anoint’ compared to the MT ‘to appoint to be king.’ The critical text is ἔχρισα, and the approximation is found in the B text (= B b Aeth), whereas A has an omission; this time the minuscules 244 and 460 and also the L group follow. This shows that the Lucianic reviser was also aware of these kaige-type readings. Most of the time the Hebraizing style did not appeal to the Lucianic reviser who was striving towards a more readable text, but in this case ἐβασίλευσα might have been more easily understandable than ἔχρισα if anointing kings was not familiar to the audience.10

Omissions The following group of examples will show omission of phrases or even sentences that are not present in the MT. In the first example, the revision consists in the omission of “and his sons”. (5) 1 Sam 16:3 ‫ּבּזבח‬ ַ ָ ַ ‫ליׁשי‬ ַ ִ ְ ‫וקראת‬ ָ ָ ְָ καὶ καλέσεις τὸν Ἰεσσαὶ καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν θυσίαν καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ SaB] κ. τον υιον α. 242´; > A B b SaM Ra = M 

In this case, Samuel arrives in Bethlehem with the purpose to anoint another king to replace Saul. This future king is to be found among Jesse’s sons, so that it is totally logical that Samuel invites Jesse with his sons to a sacrificial meal. This detail of the story is no doubt part of the original Septuagint, perhaps also present in the early Hebrew text, but somehow the sons are missing from the MT. So they were removed in A and B and the b group as well as in a Coptic witness (SaM).

9 10

According to Reider, An Index to Aquila, 183, παρακαλέομαι for ‫ נחם‬niph. is found in numerous other marginal readings (e.g. Isa 57:6; Jer 4.28; 15:6; 20:16; Am 7:3; Ioel 2:13) attributed to Aquila, Symmachus, and/or Theodotion. The text-critical decisions in the examples dealt with so far are well in accordance with Paul de Lagarde’s 2nd principle: “Where the critic has to make a choice between two readings, he will do well to prefer (a) a free translation to one which is slavishly exact, and (b) a translation based upon another Hebrew text to one which represents the MT.” The translation is by Swete, Introduction, 484–5.

Kaige Readings in a Non-Kaige Section in 1 Samuel

177

Origen was interested in plusses and minuses of the Greek text in comparison with the Hebrew. He did not, however, intend to remove anything from the traditional Septuagint text. In this case, the Hexaplaric witnesses do not agree with the omission. From the point of view of the early Jewish revision, the situation looked different. For the revisers of the kaige group, the Hebrew text was the highest authority. If some part of the old Septuagint text had no correspondence in the Hebrew text, this part had no value and was doomed to be omitted. The causes for these differences can be different: sometimes the translator may have added something—the translator of 1 Samuel was literal to such a degree that he hardly added anything more significant—but more often the Vorlage of the translation was different from the later standard text. The model for the early Jewish revision, however, seems to have been very close to the MT. The critical text thus includes the phrase “and his sons”. (6) 1 Sam 15:2911 ‫להּנחם‬ ֵ ָ ִ ְ ‫אדם הּוא‬ ָ ָ ‫לא‬ ֹ ‫ִּכי‬ ὅτι οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν τοῦ μετανοῆσαι· αὐτὸς ἀπειλήσει καὶ οὐκ ἐμμενεῖ; αὐτός—ἐμμενεῖ] pr αυτος 554: dittogr; αὐτός A B O b -121mg d -44 Ra; ipse

minatur et non permanet Aug CD 17,7; quia ipse iratus est Aeth; irascetur Sa; om αὐτός V 245 707; > L 44 Ge LaM Tht I Reg 33(vid) = M  Returning to the theme of regretting, this example reveals a categorical statement that God does not regret or change his mind like human beings do. A theological statement like this must have been the motivation behind the change from μεταμέλομαι ‘to regret’ to παρακαλέομαι ‘to be comforted’ in v. 11 and elsewhere. Here the statement is in the negative, and the verb μετανοέω poses no problem. The problem is with the following sentence, beginning with αὐτός. In fact, in Rahlfs’s edition, the verse ends with the word αὐτός. As usual, Rahlfs follows Vaticanus in this reading, which is here accompanied by A and O, b (except that 121mg gives the longer text) and the d group (with one exception). This group of manuscripts (familiar from the previous examples) makes a partial omission, leaving the pronoun αὐτός in its place— as proof of the omission. The Lucianic text (with 44 from d) leaves out the 11

For a more thorough discussion, see my “A Kingdom at Stake”, 362–4. See also “Does God Regret?” in this volume.

178

Anneli Aejmelaeus

whole sentence with αὐτός. It is possible that the Lucianic reviser made the omission out of a consideration that the text is not comprehensible to those listening to the reading. No doubt, the longer text is original in the Septuagint—and thus part of the critical text. It is present in the majority of the Greek witnesses and supported by daughter versions (Aeth, Sa, La through Aug CD). For some reason, it is not represented in the MT, although it must have been in the Vorlage of the Septuagint. The formulation is somewhat puzzling. No one would add a sentence like this, but omitting it is understandable. Essential for its interpretation is that it is a question, which underlines the unchangeableness of God’s decision, in this case the decision to reject Saul: “Should he threaten and not keep it?”12 The fact that αὐτός was left in its place in the group of manuscripts that witness the kaige-type corrections shows indisputably that the longer text is primary. Comparing the longer Greek text with the shorter Hebrew text, it was perhaps not so easy to see which words should be omitted. Whether the error originated with the kaige-reviser or with a scribe who decided to adopt the shorter reading while copying the text is impossible to know. Another whole sentence is omitted in the following example from the story of Hannah. (7) 1 Sam 1:13 ‫יּׁשמע‬ ַ ֵ ָ ִ ‫לא‬ ֹ ‫וקֹולּה‬ ָ ְ καὶ φωνὴ αὐτῆς οὐκ ἠκούετο· καὶ εἰσήκουσεν αὐτῆς Κύριος καὶ 2˚—Κύριος] > A Β Ο b f 55 245 707txt Aeth Sa Compl Ra = M 

Vorlage: ‫וישמע אליה יהוה‬ ִ ֱ ‫אליה‬ ָ ֶ ֵ ‫וּיׁשמע‬ ַ ְ ִ ַ καὶ ἐπήκουσεν αὐτῆς ὁ θεὸς Cf. Gen 30:22 ‫אֹלהים‬

Hannah was praying silently at the sanctuary in Shilo. “Her voice was not heard, but”—according to the Greek text—“the Lord heard her.” This sentence was obviously influenced by the story of Rachel, who was also suffering from childlessness. The borrowing must however have happened in Hebrew, because the formulation in Greek is different from Gen 30:22. The longer text must have been present in the Vorlage—perhaps representing 12

If not understood as a question, it must be connected with the human being: “He threatens and does not keep.”

Kaige Readings in a Non-Kaige Section in 1 Samuel

179

the original wording of the Hebrew text. It is lacking in the MT, possibly removed by an editor who made several such omissions, obviously with the aim to diminish the role of Hannah in the birth-story of Samuel. Comparison with the shorter Hebrew text led to the omission of the sentence from the Greek text in those manuscripts that witness the kaige-type corrections. The longer text no doubt belongs to the critical text.

Changes in minor details of the text In addition, there are numerous changes or omissions concerning minor details of the Greek text that do not correspond to the Hebrew text. I am not going through these examples in greater detail, but will show just a few of them in order to make it clear that this is not a question of a few coincidental cases that could be interpreted differently. The manuscripts that join the central group (A B O b) in these cases show the eclectic nature of many of the manuscripts: the copyists seem to have combined readings from different model manuscripts. In some cases, the agreement may also be coincidental: certain changes could have happened independently in different sources. Omissions: (8) 1 Sam 29:5 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν Δαυίδ, ἐστιν Aeth(vid)] > Α Β Ο (-376) a b 68´ 244 Ra: cf M 

The Hebrew text has a nominal clause without the copula ‘to be,’ which was first provided by the translator and then omitted by the reviser. (9) 1 Sam 25:36 καὶ οὐκ ἀπήγγειλεν Ἀβιγαῒλ τῷ Ναβὰλ ῥῆμα μικρὸν ἢ μέγα Ἀβιγαῒλ τῷ Ναβάλ] αὐτῷ A B O b 125 Aeth Ra = M; τω ανδρι αυτης 44-107-610; Abicia ei Sa 

In Hebrew, repetition of the names is not necessary, because the gender is visible both in the verb and the pronoun. The translator probably added the names for clarity, although the 3rd person sg. masc. pronoun would have made the situation clear enough. Substituting the pronoun for the names is a correction according to the Hebrew text.

180

Anneli Aejmelaeus

(10) 1 Sam 28:11 καὶ εἶπεν ἡ γυνὴ τῷ Σαούλ τῷ Σαούλ > A B O b 44-125 Or Eng 4 Ra = M 

In a conversation, it is not necessary to mention both parties every time the speaker changes. Either the translator added the name of Saul or it was found in the Vorlage, but it was removed—and not changed to a pronoun—as a correction according to the Hebrew text. (11) 1 Sam 7:6 καὶ συνήχθη ὁ λαός εἰς Μασσηφάθ συνήχθη ὁ λαός] συνήχθησαν A B O b f Aeth Ra = M 

Whether the translator added the subject “people” or found it in his Vorlage is hard to say, but the text was clearly changed by the reviser to accord more closely to the Hebrew text. Change of word-order: (12) 1 Sam 30:13 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Δαυίδ Πόθεν εἶ καὶ τίνος εἶ σύ Πόθεν εἶ] et τίνος εἶ σύ tr Α Β Ο a b 64´ 460 Sa Ra = M 

The translator decided to reverse the order of the two questions, and the result is fluent and logical. The change back to the Hebrew word-order can only be explained as work of the reviser. Change of verbal form: (13) 1 Sam 30:23 καὶ παρέδωκεν Κύριος τὸν γεδδοὺρ τὸν ἐπελθόντα ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς εἰς χεῖρας ἡμῶν. ἐπελθόντα] ἐπερχόμενον A B O b 68´ 64´ 460: cf M; απελθοντα V 762; επελθον (-θων 19-82) L 554mg; επελθονται 134*(vid) 

The Hebrew participle in ‫הּבא‬ ָ ַ ‫הּגדּוד‬ ְ ַ was translated correctly in the aorist, but the reviser changed it, obviously thinking that the present participle is what it requires.

Kaige Readings in a Non-Kaige Section in 1 Samuel

181

Change of translation equivalent: (14) 1 Sam 16:18 καὶ ἀπεκρίθη εἷς τῶν παίδων αὐτοῦ … καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ συνετός, καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος πολεμιστής παίδων] παιδαρίων A B O b d 554 Ra = M  ὁ ἄνθρωπος (αν̅ος̅ ) V L a f 29 55 71 158 245 318 707] ὁ ἀνήρ A B 121 d–106 107´ SaM Ra = M; > ὁ 71* 158; > rel

In the first instance, the translation of the Hebrew ‫ נַ ַער‬by ‘servant’ in reference to Saul’s courtiers was changed to the standard equivalent ‘youth.’ In the second, having rendered ‫ ִּגּבֹור‬by ἀνήρ, the translator used the normal ἄνθρωπος for ‫( ִאיׁש‬e.g. 1 Sam 1:1, 9:6; 25:2, 3). This was changed by the reviser to the standard equivalent ἀνήρ typical of the kaige group. Both corrections aim at standard translation, against the variation created by the translator.The consequent repetition must have been the cause for the omission in a number of manuscripts. (15) 1 Sam 28:25 καὶ προσήνεγκεν ἐνώπιον Σαούλ προσήνεγκεν Tht Reg I 592] ηνεγκεν 318; προσήγαγεν A B O CII-242 b s 244 460 Ra: cf M; + αζυμα 509 

The verb used by the translator for the Hebrew ‫ נגׁש‬hif. is προσφέρω, which was widely used for sacrificial offering (mainly rendering ‫ קרב‬hif.) but in the Books of Samuel for offering food to some-one only (cf. 2 Sam 17:29; 13:11 L). The change to προσάγω, the normal rendering of ‫( נגׁש‬qal/hif.), may have had a theological motivation. Omission of the article: (16) 1 Sam 2:28 ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριόν μου … τὰ πάντα τοῦ πυρὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ

om τό B O 244 460 Ra = M  om τῶν A B O b 68´-125 f Ra = M  The omission of the article in cases where a following genitive makes the article impossible in Hebrew seem to be especially numerous.

182

Anneli Aejmelaeus

Conclusions The above examples—and there will be a great many more when the critical edition of 1 Samuel in the Göttingen series is finished—exemplify the phenomenon of early Jewish revisional activity and its infiltration into the manuscripts of the Septuagint, even in 1 Samuel, which is in the reputation of being free from such influence. The witnesses that most often transmit these readings are A B O b, that is, the B text and the Hexaplaric text. It is however clear that this is not a question of Hexaplaric influence, above all because the changes made, lexical variants and omissions, are not of the type typical of the Hexaplaric recension. A further corroboration of the non-Hexaplaric nature of the changes discussed can be seen in the fact that the B text does not witness Hexaplaric plusses.13 It is also interesting that the readings in question are never distributed more widely in those witnesses that regularly transmit readings of the Hexaplaric recension. Rahlfs observed the same phenomenon—A and O joining the B text in readings that accord with the Hebrew text—in his study of the text of Kings, and he was puzzled by it. He did not consider readings of this type to be Hexaplaric, but he did not have a proper solution for the problem—how 14 It was already & * could he have had before the discovery of Nahal Hever! suggested by Rahlfs, and again by Sebastian Brock, that Origen’s basic text was very close to the B text, which seems to me to be correct, although the matter may be a bit more complicated.15 The readings in question most probably came to Origen’s attention through the various manuscripts he compared when compiling his Hexapla. If there were variants between the manuscripts—and naturally there were—he would of course have chosen in each case the reading that is closest to the Hebrew text, because that was his criterion for the original Septuagint.

13

See also my article “David’s Return to Ziklag: A Problem of Textual History in 1 Sam 30:1”, in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leiden 2004 (ed. M. Peters; Septuagint and Cognate Studies 54; Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2006) 95–104; in 1 Sam 30:1 the Hexaplaric text and the B text have different corrections to the original translation. 14 See also my article “What Rahlfs Could not Know: 1 Sam 14,4–5 in the Old Greek”, in H. Ausloos/B. Lemmelijn/J. Trebolle (ed.), After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts—The Historical Books (BETL 246; Leuven—Paris—Dudley, MA: Peeters 2012) 81–93. 15  Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien I–III, 101–103; Sebastian P. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of 1 Samuel (Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford 1966; Quaderni di Henoch 9 [with a Foreword by Natalio Fernández Marcos]; Torino: Silvio Zamorani, 1996), esp. 170.

Kaige Readings in a Non-Kaige Section in 1 Samuel

183

The fact that the main witnesses (A B O b) supporting the approximations in question were accompanied by a varying number of minuscules reveals the eclectic nature of most manuscripts.16 In a few cases—especially in the minor details—one also has to reckon with the possibility that the same change may have happened independently. The main question for me in all textual research is: What happened? Where and when and how did the readings in question infiltrate into the traditional Septuagint text of 1 Samuel? Let us consider a few observations: • It is worth noting that the long homoioteleuton errors of the MT (cf. 1 Sam 1:24, 14:41–42) did not cause corresponding omissions in the Greek text by the early revisers.17 This makes it plausible that these corruptions—among other late changes—had not yet taken place in the Hebrew text that was used for the kaige revision of the Greek text. This means that the kaige revision is to be dated well before the fixing of the MT. The final phase in the transmission history of the Hebrew text before its fixing was unfortunately one of corruption. • Of the late editorial changes that can be observed in the MT some—but not nearly all18—are reflected by the early kaige-type revision of the Greek text: for instance, the omission 1 Sam 15:29 (see above) caused an omission by the reviser of the Greek text, whereas the two omitted clauses in 1 Sam 1:9, 14 were not omitted by the kaige reviser.19 There are at least two possible explanations: either the reviser was not consistent or the revision of the Hebrew text was not yet complete. Neither is there any certainty that all the details of the Greek revised text have been transmitted to us. Nevertheless, it seems probable that the kaige-type revision of the Greek text was going on simultaneously with the latest editorial phase of the proto-MT. 16

17 18

19

N.B. Paul de Lagarde’s 1st principle: “Since the manuscripts of the LXX are all directly or indirectly the result of an eclectic process, any attempt to restore the original text must proceed on eclectic principles; and the critic must chiefly depend upon (a) his acquaintance with the style of the several translators and (b) his faculty of referring readings to a Semitic original or, when they are not of Semitic origin, recognizing them as corruptions of the Greek archetype.” The translation is by Swete, Introduction, 484–5. There are partial omissions in a few manuscripts, but they are clearly of later origin. For examples, see my article “Corruption or Correction? Textual Development in the MT of 1 Samuel 1”, in P.A. Torijano & A. Piquer Otero (ed.), Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera—Florilegium Complutense (JSJSup 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 1–17. 1 Sam 1:9 καὶ κατέστη ἐνώπιον Κυρίου and 14 καὶ πορεύου ἐκ προσώπου Κυρίου. See also in the kaige section: 2 Sam 24:15 καὶ ἡμέραι θερισμοῦ πυρῶν and καὶ ἤρξατο ἡ θραῦσις ἐν τῷ λαῷ, which have no correspondence in the MT, but are present in all the Greek witnesses.

184

Anneli Aejmelaeus

• The period of scribal, editorial activity on both the Hebrew and the Greek texts of the Books of Samuel must have fallen into the period when both Hebrew and Greek learning was strong in Palestine, presumably 1st century BCE, in any case before 70 CE. • The kaige-type revision must have produced Greek manuscripts that were in closer accordance with the proto-MT text than the traditional Septuagint, but these manuscripts are not to be understood as the sole Vorlage of the B text. Rather, it seems more plausible that the revised Greek manuscripts were used for comparison when new manuscripts were being copied. In fact, the influence of revisional activity can be observed sporadically in most of the pre-Hexaplaric Septuagint manuscripts. Especially doublets,20 showing the earliest revisional influence have in certain cases spread into the entire manuscript evidence. • The place of origin for the kaige revision was most plausibly Palestine, whereas the B text that preserves readings of the kaige type more probably originated in Egypt.21 I also think that the shift in the production of Septuagint manuscripts from Jewish scribes and scholars to Christian scriptoria coincided with the emergence of the B text. In order to have been used by Origen, the B text must have had its origin in the second half of the 2nd century CE. • The B text shows a general tendency towards shorter readings, which can be observed also in cases that do not correspond to the Hebrew text. This feature cannot be connected with the kaige recension. The editorial principles behind the B text are thus not primarily to be connected with the authority of the Hebrew text but with the desire to purify the text from errors and later additions by comparing different manuscripts—among them one of the kaige type—under the assumption that the longer text is always the result of later addition.

20 21

For a discussion of, for instance, 1 Sam 15:3, see my article “A Kingdom at Stake.” See Alfred Rahlfs, “Alter und Heimat der vatikanischen Bibelhandschrift” (Nachrichten der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen; Philologischhistorische Klasse, Heft 1, 1899) 72–79. On the basis of the close correspondence in the number and order of the books of the Septuagint between Vaticanus and the canon list of the 39th Easter letter of Athanasius (367 CE), Rahlfs suggests that Vaticanus is to be dated to the final third of the 4th century CE and located in Egypt. He also considers that Vaticanus possibly represents the recension of Hesychius mentioned by Jerome (p. 78).

Raimund Wirth

Dealing with Tenses in the Kaige Section of Samuel 1. Introduction Since the ground-breaking identification of the kaige recension by Dominique Barthélemy (Les devanciers d’Aquila, 1963) a great deal of research has been done on this subject. Based on the catalogue of kaige features given by Barthélemy, many further characteristics of the kaige recension have been discussed. Tim McLay surveyed an interim result of the research in 19981 and noted as many as 96 phenomena that have been considered in the literature since 1963.2 As much as 99% (95 of 96) of these presumed kaige features are lexical, such as the eponymous representation of ‫ גם‬or ‫ וגם‬by καί γε. The only syntactical phenomenon mentioned by McLay is the absence of a historical present (HP) in the kaige section—a feature noted by Henry St. John Thackeray and reinterpreted by Barthélemy as a result of the editorial activity of kaige.3 As well known among Septuagint scholars, the strong emphasis on the lexical aspects of kaige is in fact representative of the research. However, it is not adequate. At least for the kaige recension of the books of Samuel, which I have done work on,4 it can definitely be said there are both patterns of lexical and patterns of syntactical changes. The latter applies especially to verbal syntax. In this article I will illustrate two syntactical phenomena of the kaige section of Samuel (2 Sam 10:6–24:25): changes in the HP and changes in the

1 T. McLay, “Kaige and Septuagint Research”, Textus 19 (1988) 127–39. 2 McLay, “Kaige”, 131–3. McLay stresses that most of the features are not common to all kaige versions (ibid., 135–8). There are notable differences between the “kaige” of the various LXX books. “[T]here are no grounds upon which to postulate the existence of a mono­ lithic kaige recension.” (ibid., 138; emphasis mine). Nevertheless, the kaige versions under discussion are representatives of “a common approach to translation, i.e. they exhibit formal equivalence to their Vorlage” (ibid.). 3 H.St.J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings”, JThS 8 (1907) 262– 78, on pp. 273–4; Devanciers, 63–5. 4  R. Wirth, Die Septuaginta der Samuelbücher. Untersucht unter Einbeziehung ihrer Rezen­ sionen (DSI 7; Göttingen/Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016).

186

Raimund Wirth

imperfect tense. In doing so, I not only look at the principles of the kaige recension but also of the Lucianic. It is sometimes an overlooked fact that you need detailed information about both recensions for sound analysis in the kaige section. I will also propose a new incipit of the kaige section. By analysing 2 Sam 10 verse by verse and identifying the traits that are relevant to distinguish between patterns of the Old Greek and the kaige revision, 2 Sam 10:6 can be determined likely to be the beginning of the kaige section.

2. The Historical Present in the Kaige Section of Samuel Henry St. John Thackeray was the first scholar to describe the difference concerning the frequency of the HP in the diverse parts of the books of Reigns.5 As is well known, Thackeray attributed the distinguishing features of sections α (1 Sam 1:1–31:13), ββ (2 Sam 1:1–10:5), βγ (2 Sam 10:6–1 Kings 2:11),6 γγ (1 Kings 2:12–21:43 LXX) and γδ (1 Kings 22:1–2 Kings 25:30) to an interchange of translators. Barthélemy then revealed the more literal style in βγ and γδ as the result of the kaige recension which brought the Greek translation closer to the wording of the Hebrew proto-Masoretic text. In the case of the HP the kaige revisers want the Hebrew imperfect consecutive to be consistently represented by the aorist.7 Instead of the kaige-revised B text, the amount of the HP does not considerably decrease in the Lucianic manuscripts (L)8 after the intersection between ββ and βγ. This observation is to be interpreted that L preserves the original HP of the translator, as Barthélemy pointed out.9 What Barthélemy did not focus on is the fact that it is not only the kaige reviser who changes the HPs to other forms, but the Lucianic reviser does it as well. The following graph indicates how many fewer or how many more HPs there are in L compared to the number of HPs in the B text, given chapter by chapter. It comes as no surprise that L has notably more HPs in the kaige section (on the right). But there are noteworthy differences in the non-kaige section 5 See note 3 above. There are 177 HPs in the non-kaige section of the B text (141 in the L group) and nine in the kaige section (43 in the L group). For a list of all HPs in the books of Samuel, see Wirth, Septuaginta, 250–6. 6 Barthélemy postulates 2 Sam 11:2 as the beginning of the kaige section, as he takes over the subdivision of Thackeray without question (see Devanciers, 36). 7 Devanciers, 65. 8 Mss. nos. 19, 82, 93, 108, and 127 (Rahlfs numbers), also known as boc2e2 (Cambridge Edition). Following Rahlfs’ Handausgabe, I use the siglum L for this Ms. group. 9 Devanciers, 63–5.

Dealing with Tenses in the Kaige Section of Samuel

graph 1

187

Differences in the number of HPs in L in comparison to B

too. L has slightly fewer cases of the HP than B. As I will show in more detail, not only does the kaige recension reduce the translator’s frequency of the HP but the Lucianic does as well. The HP “was attacked from both sides”, as Anneli Aejmelaeus puts it.10 Two examples will show why and how the Lucianic revisers change a verb from the HP to another tense. 1 Sam 6:14 ‫העלו ע ָֹלה‬ ֱ ֶ ‫ואת־הּפרֹות‬ ָ ַ ֶ ְ ‫העגלה‬ ָ ָ ֲ ָ ‫את־עצי‬ ֵ ֲ ֶ ‫ויבּקעו‬ ְ ַ ְ ַ ‫ּגדֹולה‬ ָ ְ ‫אבן‬ ֶ ֶ ‫וׁשם‬ ָ ְ ‫וּתעמֹד ָׁשם‬ ֲ ַ ַ

‫ליהוה‬ ָ ַ

καὶ ἔστησαν ἐκεῖ παρ᾽ αὐτῇ λίθον μέγαν ∙ καὶ σχίζουσιν τὰ ξύλα τῆς ἁμάξης, καὶ τὰς βόας ἀνήνεγκαν εἰς ὁλοκαύτωσιν τῷ Κυρίῳ. (B text) καὶ ἔστη ἐκεῖ παρὰ λίθον μέγαν ∙ καὶ ἔσχισαν τὰ ξύλα τῆς ἁμάξης, καὶ τὰς βόας ἀνήνεγκαν ὁλοκαύτωσιν τῷ Κυρίῳ. (Lucianic text)

The verse tells about an offering made with the wood of the wagon of the ark. The translator uses a HP for the splitting of the wagon to get wood for the burnt offering: καὶ σχίζουσιν. But surprisingly11 he does not use a HP for the offering itself: ἀνήνεγκαν is in the aorist. This is definitely not good style because if the HP is used it should be used not for the preparations, but for the main action, i.e. the offering itself. The HP is a tense to highlight what is important.12 10 11 12

See A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays (CBET 50; Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA: Peeters, 22007), 136. It is not due to the different verbal forms in the Vorlage because the translator chooses the tenses widely independently from the tenses of the Hebrew (Wirth, Septuaginta, 215). “The primary function of the HP is to lift out from their context those narrative assertions that are essential. … By adding an ‘extra level’ to the Aorist and Imperfect indicatives, the HP allows an author to organize his narrative in such a way that the audience will be able to discriminate between what is of primary and what is of secondary importance.” C.M.J.

188

Raimund Wirth

The Lucianic revisers correct this stylistic problem by changing σχίζουσιν to the aorist ἔσχισαν. Both the preparation and the offering itself are in the aorist now. This alteration of tense fits well into a major pattern that Sebastian Brock identified for the work of the Lucianic recension: it improves style.13 To make things not too easy one should note that L has fewer HPs than B in total. But in some cases the Lucianic revisers also add new HPs, for example, in a quite similar offering scene with a similarly inconsistent use of the HP by the translator: 1 Sam 7:6 ‫יהוה‬ ָ ְ ‫לפני‬ ֵ ְ ִ ‫וּיׁשּפכו‬ ְ ְ ִ ַ ‫וּיׁשאבו־מים‬ ִַ ֲ ְ ִ ַ ‫הּמצּפתה‬ ָ ָ ְ ִ ַ ‫ּיּקבצו‬ ְ ִָ καὶ συνήχθησαν εἰς Μασσηφάθ, καὶ ὑδρεύονται ὕδωρ καὶ ἐξέχεαν ἐνώπιον Κυρίου ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.14 (B text) καὶ συνήχθη ὁ λαὸς εἰς Μασσηφά καὶ ὑδρεύονται ὕδωρ καὶ ἐκχέουσιν ἐνώπιον Κυρίου ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. (Lucianic text)

The people gather in Mizpa to make a water offering. They draw water in order to pour it out before the Lord as a sacrifice. Again, it is not apt that the translator uses the HP to describe the preparation (καὶ ὑδρεύονται), but not the offering itself (aorist καὶ ἐξέχεαν). In this case, the Lucianic revisers do not change the verb of preparation to the aorist but they change the verb of the main action, καὶ ἐξέχεαν, to the HP καὶ ἐκχέουσιν, and fix the problem that way. The Lucianic recension both removes and adds occurrences of the HP.15 The graph below demonstrates the situation in the non-kaige section chapter by chapter. The bars pointing down show the number of verbs that have been changed from a HP to another tense for stylistic reasons. The bars pointing up show the number of verbs changed from another tense to the HP, also for stylistic reasons. If we sum up the minuses of the HPs in the non-kaige section, the Lucianic recension changes a HP to another tense as often as 43 times. This is a fact of

13

Sicking/P. Stork, “The Grammar of the So-Called HP”, in E.J. Bakker (ed.), Grammar as Interpretation. Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts (Mnemosyne Suppl. 171; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 131–68, on pp. 165–6. See S. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of I Samuel (Quaderni di Henoch 9; Turin: Silvio Zamorani, 1996), 298.

14  Probably the Vorlage had the object ‫ בארץ‬which was left out by parablepsis (‫לפני יהוה בארץ‬ 15

…‫)ויצומו‬. Especially the verb λέγω is often changed to the HP by the revisers (for details see Wirth, Septuaginta, 203-5).

Dealing with Tenses in the Kaige Section of Samuel

Graph 2

189

Addition (dark grey) and removal (light grey) of HPs in L in comparison to cases in B

major impact on textual criticism in the kaige section. If the Lucianic recension changes the HP to another tense so often you have to assume these changes occur in the kaige section too. But unfortunately we cannot find these cases in the manuscript evidence because in the kaige section we cannot make a comparison with the B text since the HP has been eliminated by kaige nearly completely. Nevertheless, it would be a methodological fault if we were to assume that all the original HPs of the kaige section could be restored with the help of the L readings. This is not possible because the Lucianic recension, too, diminishes the HP. 2 Sam 10:816 καὶ ἐξῆλθαν οἱ

1 Chron 19:7 καὶ ἐξῆλθον οἱ υἱοὶ

υἱοὶ Ἀμμὼν καὶ παρετάξαντο [παρετάξαντο L] πόλεμον.

Ἀμμὼν καὶ παρατάσσονται εἰς πόλεμον.

2 Sam 10:17 καὶ παρετάξατο [καὶ παρατάσσεται L] Συρία ἀπέναντι Δαυὶδ17 καὶ ἐπολέμησαν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ.

1 Chron 19:17 καὶ παρατάσσεται Σύρος ἐξ ἐναντίας Δαυὶδ καὶ ἐπολέμησαν αὐτόν.

16 17

Second Sam 10:8 belongs to the kaige section. See J.D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (HSM 1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 117–20; Wirth, Septuaginta, 198–200. Συρία ἀπέναντι Δαυίδ] Δαυίδ ἀπέναντι Συριάς Btxt 121-509 342. On the ms. grouping see A. Aejmelaeus, “How to Reach the Old Greek in 1 Samuel and What to Do With It”, in M. Nissinen (ed.), Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (VTS 148; Leiden/Boston: Peeters 2012) 184–205, on p. 194 (note 19)

190

Raimund Wirth

The battle against the Ammonites and the Arameans is related in both 2 Samuel 10 and 1 Chronicles 19. The Greek Chronicles are obviously dependent on the Greek Samuel for this story.18 In 2 Sam 10:17 there is an original HP that has survived in the L group: καὶ παρετάξατο was καὶ παρατάσσεται in Old Greek. Chronicles confirms this HP. As I have observed from the research of Roger Good,19 the translator of Chronicles never uses a HP independently from Samuel, so this HP must reflect a HP of Old Greek Samuel. The situation is different in 2 Sam 10:8 where L, too, has the aorist καὶ παρετάξατο. Although there is no manuscript to witness a HP, it is probable that this aorist is a correction in both kaige and the Lucianic text and that the translator used a HP in this case too.20 The HP in Chronicles reveals that καὶ παρατάσσονται is one of the cases where the HP has been “attacked from both sides”.21 The kaige revisers change it because they want the imperfect consecutive ‫( וַ ּיַ ַע ְרכו‬2 Sam 10:8 MT) to be represented by an aorist,22 and the Lucianic revisers change it for stylistic reasons. In contrast to 2 Sam 10:17, there is no other HP in 2 Sam 10:8 and the revisers do not want the prepara­ tion for the battle being highlighted by the HP.23 This case underlines that it is impossible to reconstruct every original HP of Old Greek with the help of the Lucianic recension.24 Unfortunately, this kind of support from the Greek Chronicles is exceptional. I therefore plead for a discussion of the possibility or even the necessity of conjecture to reconstruct original HPs that are lost completely in the manuscripts.25

3. The imperfect in the kaige section of Samuel The impact of the kaige recension on the imperfect has not been discussed as much as its impact on the HP. Observations on the imperfect have been

18  “[T]he conclusion is inescapable that P [Greek Chronicles] in chapters [1 Chron] 17–18 is based upon R [Greek Samuel], with a large part of P being simply copied from R verbatim.” J.D. Shenkel, “A Comparative Study of the Synoptic Parallels in I Paraleipomena and I–II Reigns”, HThR 62 (1969) 63–85, on p. 65. See also pp. 69–70. 19  R. Good, The Septuagint’s Translation of the Hebrew Verbal System in Chronicles (VTS 136, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009), 233; 248. See also Shenkel, “Comparative Study”, 83–4. 20 For details on how the translator uses the HP, see Wirth, Septuaginta, 188–99. 21 See note 10 above. 22 Devanciers, 65. 23 See also the analysis on 1 Sam 6:14 above. 24 For more details see R. Wirth, “Das praesens historicum in den griechischen Samuelbüchern”, in K. De Troyer et al. (ed.), In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes (FS A. Aejmelaeus; CBET 72; Leuven: Peeters, 2014) 117–32, on pp. 126–9. 25 See the discussion in Wirth, Septuaginta, 212–4.

Dealing with Tenses in the Kaige Section of Samuel

graph 3

191

Differences in the number of Greek imperfects in L in comparison to B

made by Anssi Voitila in a congress volume of Septuaginta Deutsch.26 Since Voitila opts for “a pragmatic point of view”,27 he does not cope with the recensional principles behind the differences between the manuscript families. Unlike a descriptive approach, my aim is to outline how and why the kaige and Lucianic recensions deal with this tense. As a start, the graph above gives an overview by showing (chapter by chapter) how many more or fewer imperfects there are in the Lucianic text compared to the B text.28 In the non-kaige section, the ratio of the imperfect tense is nearly equal or slightly higher in L than in B. In the kaige section it is much higher in L. The reason for the latter is that the kaige revisers often change the imperfect to an aorist. Although this happens many times, the reduction of the imperfect is not as consistent as in the case of the HP. There are still several imperfects left in the kaige section (up to 13 in chapter 15). To find an answer why, one has to compare the recensional principles of kaige regarding the HP and regarding the imperfect. One basic principle of kaige was very clearly shown by Barthélemy: the revisers want the imperfect consecutive (and—it is to be added—the perfect) to be represented by the aorist. The Hebrew verbs which the translator uses HP for are almost always verbs in the imperfect consecutive (perfect in 2 Sam 19:18). Thus the kaige recension leads to the complete elimination of

26

A. Voitila, “The Use of Tenses in the L- and B-Texts in the Kaige-Section of 2 Reigns”, in S. Kreuzer et al. (ed.), Die Septuaginta. Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 213–37. 27 Voitila, “Tenses”, 213. 28  The verb εἰμί is left out because it cannot be changed to an aorist. In total there are 162 imperfects in the non-kaige section of the B text (187 in the L group) and 34 in the kaige section (94 in the L group). For a list of all imperfects in the kaige section, see Wirth, Septuaginta, 246–9.

192

Raimund Wirth

the HP. Only in rare cases under difficult textual circumstances, do the revisers leave a small number of HPs untouched.29 Now, however, there is a major difference concerning the imperfect. There are several Hebrew tenses that the translator uses the Greek imperfect for, namely: the Hebrew imperfect (and its continuation with the perfect consecutive), the imperfect consecutive, the participle, and the perfect. The principle of kaige with the imperfect is the same as with the HP: the revisers would not accept a Greek imperfect as the translation of a Hebrew imperfect consecutive or a Hebrew perfect (or perfect consecutive). But they would accept the Hebrew participle and the Hebrew imperfect being represented by a Greek imperfect. In other words: the kaige revisers normally do not change the imperfect in cases where the corresponding Hebrew in their proto-Masoretic text is the imperfect or a participle. 2 Sam 17:20 ִ‫ירוׁשלם‬ ָ ָ ְ ‫וּיׁשבו‬ ֻ ָ ַ ‫מצאו‬ ָ ָ ‫ולא‬ ֹ ְ ‫ַו ַיְב ְקׁשו‬ καὶ ἐζήτησαν καὶ οὐχ εὗραν, καὶ ἀνέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ. (B text, kaige) καὶ ἐζήτουν καὶ οὐχ εὕρισκον αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἀναστρέφουσιν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ.

(L, Old Greek) In this verse, there is an imperfect consecutive and (because of the negation) a perfect: ‫מצאו‬ ָ ָ ‫ולא‬ ֹ ְ ‫ויבקׁשו‬ ְ ַ ְ ַ . Both forms are translated with the Greek imperfect by the translator. The Lucianic manuscripts have preserved the Old Greek: καὶ ἐζήτουν καὶ οὐχ εὕρισκον [αὐτούς]. The kaige revisers change the original imperfect to the aorist according to their principle that the Hebrew imperfect consecutive and the Hebrew perfect should be represented by the aorist: καὶ ἐζήτησαν καὶ οὐχ εὗραν. ָ ָ ְ ‫יבא‬ ֹ ָ ‫ואבׁשֹלם‬ ָ ְ ַ ְ ‫העיר‬ ִ ָ ‫דוד‬ ִ ָ ‫רעה‬ ֶ ֵ ‫חוׁשי‬ ַ ‫וּיבא‬ ֹ ַָ 2 Sam 15:37 ִ‫ירוׁשלם‬ καὶ εἰσῆλθεν Χουσὶ ὁ ἑταῖρος Δαυὶδ εἰς τὴν πόλιν, καὶ Ἀβεσσαλὼμ εἰσεπορεύετο εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ. (B-Text, kaige) καὶ εἰσπορεύεται Χουσεὶ ὁ Ἀρχὶ ἑταῖρος Δαυὶδ εἰς τὴν πόλιν, καὶ Ἀβεσσαλὼμ ἄρτι εἰσεπορεύετο εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ. (L)

29  See Devanciers, 64–5.

Dealing with Tenses in the Kaige Section of Samuel

193

In this verse we have the Hebrew imperfect ‫יָבֹא‬. The translator used the Greek imperfect as witnessed by both L and B. The latter means that the kaige revisers did not change the imperfect because they accepted it as a good equivalent for the Hebrew imperfect. If we focus on the Lucianic text, we will see that the Lucianic revisers not only keep many of the Old Greek imperfects unchanged as in the two examples above, but they even increase their number by about 9 % (plus 25 cases in the non-kaige section).30 One may wonder why they increase the imperfect but decrease the HP. In my opinion this is to be consistently explained by their principle of stylistic improvement. The translator uses the HP much more than is common in Greek historiography (which is the best analogy for stylistic assessment).31 The high frequency of HPs makes his translation sound somewhat artificial, and the Lucianic revisers reduce this eccentricity. The imperfect, however, is used too seldom by the translator in comparison with Greek literature.32 Hence the Lucianic revisers increase the frequency of the imperfect. Textual criticism needs to be aware of the consequences of these different editorial principles when restoring the original translation in the kaige section. Since the HP is reduced both by the kaige and Lucianic recension, many original HPs cannot be found in L and thus cannot be restored based on manuscript evidence.33 In a critical text of the Old Greek, as in the major Göttingen edition,34 the translator’s frequency of HPs can only be achieved with the help of conjecture. In contrast to this, L preserves almost all of the imperfects of the translator and even adds new ones. Therefore, while the task of restoring the original imperfects is easier than restoring the original HPs in the kaige section, on the other hand textual criticism must not uncritically rate every imperfect See graph 3 above. In the non-kaige section, the Lucianic revisers keep 152 of the 160 imperfects of Old Greek and add 23 new imperfects. Thus the number of imperfects increases from 160 to 175 (plus 9 %). It was checked that the difference is not due to approximations of the B text to the proto-Masoretic text (see Aejmelaeus, “How to Reach”, 193–203); the correction of this type in 1 Sam 27:9 was left out of the statistics (ἀνέστρεψαν B / Rahlfs; with spelling difference also in A O 509). Not sorted out were three imperfects in plusses of L (1 Sam 2:22; 5:6; 7:4). 31  See Wirth, Septuaginta, 188–99. 32 T.V. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch. Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), on p. 211. 33 Contrary to the general tendency to reduce the HP, the Lucianic revisers add new HPs, too. This is particular the case with the verb λέγω, where the Lucianic recension is inclined to increase the HP: the frequency of λέγει/λέγουσιν rises by 50 per cent. See Wirth, Septuaginta, 203–5. 34 The Samuel volumes are in preparation. Editors are Anneli Aejmelaeus (1 Samuel) and Tuukka Kauhanen (2 Samuel). 30

194

Raimund Wirth

of the Lucianic manuscripts as the Old Greek because a number of imperfects in the L group only go back to the Lucianic revisers. These observations underline that, besides familiarity with the translation technique of the Old Greek, two things are needed for sound textual criticism: knowledge of the recensional principles of the kaige recension and knowledge of the recensional principles of the Lucianic recension. The latter has to be collected from the non-kaige section and based on this information as well as knowledge of the translation technique of the original translator, whereas the principles of the kaige revision can be surveyed in the kaige section.

4. Where Does the Kaige Section Begin? Especially the changes of the HP lead to the conclusion that the kaige section of Samuel does not begin in 2 Samuel 11, as Barthélemy assumes by taking over Thackeray’s famous division without question,35 but in chapter 10. James Donald Shenkel was the first scholar to propose this correction. Soon after the publication of Devanciers he convincingly showed that kaige starts in 2 Sam 10 (and suspected v. 1 as the cut).36 Although many years of research have followed, scholarship still has not reached a consensus about the beginning of kaige.37 I think there are good arguments for 2 Sam 10:6 as the incipit of the kaige section, that is, βγ. The chart shows 2 Sam 10 verse by verse. Characteristics of the nonkaige section are marked in dark grey, characteristics of the kaige recension in light grey.

Graph 4

non­kaige (dark grey) and kaige patterns (light grey) in 2 Sam 10

35 Devanciers, 36. 36  Shenkel, Chronology, 117–20. 37 E.g., Kristin De Troyer, “Der lukianische Text. Mit einer Diskussion des A-Textes des Estherbuches”, in S. Kreuzer/J.P. Lesch (ed.), Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, vol. 2 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2004) 229–46, on p. 236, mentions 2 Sam 10:1 as the beginning of kaige, whereas Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible (Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2000), 145, mentions 2 Sam 11:2.

Dealing with Tenses in the Kaige Section of Samuel

195

A.

Characteristics typical of the non-kaige section

1.

ֶ ֵ ְ in verse 3 is the wording of the The translation ἐνώπιόν σου for ‫ּבעיניָך‬ translator38 and typical of the non-kaige section. The kaige revisers consistently change this to ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς σου.39 The translation εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτῶν for ‫אתם‬ ָ ‫ ִל ְק ָר‬in v. 5 is the wording of the translator.40 The kaige revisers consistently41 change it to εἰς ἀπαντήν when their proto-Masoretic text has ‫( ִל ְק ַראת‬with suffixes).

2.

The non-kaige reading εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτῶν (v. 5) has generally been hidden from scholarship because Alfred Rahlfs’ Handausgabe reads εἰς ἀπαντὴν αὐτῶν on the basis of Codex Vaticanus. But εἰς ἀπαντὴν αὐτῶν is one of the sporadic kaige corrections that have been detected by Aejmelaeus.42 They can be found mainly in the non-kaige section, typically in Codex Vaticanus and a handful of specific manuscripts (in this case B 55 460). In 2 Sam 10:5, the great majority of manuscripts have the non-kaige reading ἐνώπιόν σου. The manuscript evidence in this verse is characteristic of the non-kaige section.43

38  See Shenkel, Chronology, 117. The translator uses ἐνώπιον and ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς. The kaige revisers standardize to the literal ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς. 39 The different readings οἱ παῖδες Δαυίδ (B) / οἱ δοῦλοι Δαυίδ (L) for ‫ ַע ְב ֵדי ָדוִ ד‬in 2 Sam 10:2 (similar and dependent in 10:3–4) are not specific to kaige; παῖς is rather typical of the translator in such contexts, and there is a similar change in L in 1 Sam 21:8 (παιδαρίων > δούλων). Furthermore, there is no recensional pattern according to which kaige would standardize the equivalence for ‫ ֶע ֶבד‬by applying δοῦλος (see 2 Sam 11:24; 12:19, 21; 13:24, 31, 36; 14:30; etc.). Hence, in my judgement the direction of change is from οἱ παῖδες (Old Greek) to οἱ δοῦλοι. It is assimilation to ἐν χειρὶ τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ (2 Sam 10:2) by the Lucianic revisers. 40  See Devanciers, 78–80. 41 In 2 Sam 19:26 Rahlfs’ Handausgabe reads εἰς ἀπάντησιν on the basis of codex B. The following manuscripts have the kaige reading εἰς ἀπαντήν: M 98-243-379-731; 119-527799 56 64-489 29 158 342 707. For the grouping, see Aejmelaeus, “How to Reach”, 194 (note 19). 42 See Aejmelaeus, “How to Reach”, 193–203, and her article “Kaige Readings in a NonKaige Section in 1 Samuel” in the present volume. 43 Nevertheless, some instances of this type of manuscript evidence have also survived in the kaige section (e.g., 2 Sam 13:30 λέγων A B 509; 2 Sam 13:33 ὅτι > A B 509 64-381 244 460; 2 Sam 15:18 πορευομένοι B O 509; 2 Sam 20:22 ἀφεῖλεν A B 247 55 and ἔβαλεν A B 509 55); thus 2 Sam 10:5 theoretically could belong to the kaige section too. But dividing in verse 5 would not make very much sense because the characteristics specific to the kaige section begin with the elimination of the HP in 2 Sam 10:6.

196

Raimund Wirth

B.

Characteristics typical of the kaige section

3.

The elimination of the HPs in verses 6, 14 and 17 is typical of the kaige recension.44 The HPs of the translator are preserved in the L group. Also typical of kaige is the change from ὁ ἀρχιστράτηγος (preserved in L) to ἄρχων τῆς δυνάμεως in verses 16 and 18.45 Another kaige feature is the alteration of ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ (preserved in Mmg L 554mg) to ἐν ἀγρῷ in verse 8.46 Finally, there is the kaige-typical change of verbal tenses from perfect (preserved in L) to the aorist in verses 14 and 19.47

4. 5. 6.

All in all, there can be no doubt that the kaige section begins in 2 Samuel 10. Differing from Shenkel, I propose the kaige section starts in v. 6. The text-critical evidence is quite clear. Verses 3 and 5 have readings that would be different if the verses belonged to the kaige section. Verse 6, however, has the kaige-typical change of the HP and the patterns of the kaige recension are present in the non-Lucianic manuscripts from this verse on. The challenging question of why the kaige section begins in chapter 10 is the same for a beginning in 2 Sam 10:1 or 2 Sam 10:6. There is no compelling answer to why the text-type changes at this point of the story. All we can say is that it must have to do with the copying process of the scrolls.48

7. Summary Over fifty years after Barthélemy’s discovery of the kaige recension, research on this subject still drives the scholarship. Not all characteristics of the kaige recension have been revealed yet. This especially applies to the field of verbal syntax which has come into focus only over the past years.

44  See Devanciers, 63–5. Barthélemy does not notice the elimination of the HPs in chapter 10 because he takes over the division of Thackeray. 45  See Shenkel, Chronology, 114. 46  See Shenkel, Chronology, 119. 47 See Wirth, “Praesens historicum”, 125 (note 36). The difference ἀπέσταλκε(ν) L / ἀπέστειλεν B in 2 Sam 10:3 is not specific to kaige but a Lucianic pattern (cf. 1 Sam 15:1; 25:14, 40). 48 See E. Tov, “The Methodology of Textual Criticism in Jewish Greek Scriptures, with Special Attention to the Problems in Samuel-Kings—The State of the Question”, in idem, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTS 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 489–99, on p. 491–2.

Dealing with Tenses in the Kaige Section of Samuel

197

The continuing need for research underlines the utmost significance of Barthélemy’s observations. Lexical and syntactical observations in 2 Samuel 10 prove that this chapter belongs to the kaige section (Shenkel). In addition, detailed analysis can show that the line between non-kaige and kaige goes between 2 Sam 10:5 (typical non-kaige features up to this point) and 10:6 (typical kaige features from there on). In regard to the methodology, it is to be stressed that any sound analysis in the field of kaige needs to build equally upon the threefold knowledge of the translation technique of the Old Greek, of the principles of the kaige recension, and of the principles of the Lucianic recension. There are still many facets to be illuminated, especially concerning the syntactical changes of the two recensions. Thanks to Barthélemy, the ever more inspiring initiator of modern research on kaige, the work has begun and can continue.

Gerard J. Norton O.P.

The Legacy of Les Devanciers d’Aquila for the Study of the Greek Psalter The discussion between Dominique Barthélemy [henceforth DB] and Al Pietersma [henceforth AP] on the subject of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV seems a simple matter at first sight. The 1967 publishers of the manuscript of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV, Michel Testuz and Rodolphe Kasser,1 suggested that the papyrus dated from the late third century AD or possibly the early fourth century AD. DB judged it to belong rather to the second century. He found support in a personal written opinion given by C.H. Roberts, who on palaeographical grounds considered the papyrus to date from the second half of the second century AD.2 The fulcrum on which the interpretations balance is the Hexapla of Origen, conventionally dated to AD 240. Whether the date attributed to P. Bodmer XXIV is pre-Hexaplaric or post-Hexaplaric is of enormous significance for the interpretation of the papyrus, and beyond that for the history of the Old Greek text of the Psalter, and ultimately, of many other parts of the Greek Old Testament.

1. 1953–1963: Les Devanciers d’Aquila Let us situate ourselves in the history of scholarship in 1967 when Papyrus Bodmer XXIV was published. Only four years previously, in 1963, DB had published his Les Devanciers d’Aquila. We are familiar with the fact that in that earlier work he argued, on the basis of particular recurring phenomena of translation in texts that had already been published at that date, that there had been a coherent project of translation and revision of the Greek Bible under the influence of the Palestinian rabbinate. He preferred to use the term 1 M. Testuz M./R. Kasser, R., Papyrus Bodmer XXIV (Bibliotheca Bodmeriana; Cologne/ Genève, 1967). 2 D. Barthélemy, “Le Psautier grec et le Papyrus Bodmer XXIV”, Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 3rd series 19 (1969) 106–10. This is not to be considered an abstract discussion between palaeographers. In fact, AP insisted that the matter is not palaeographical at all, but textual. From the outset DB and AP stand on different ground.

The Legacy of Les Devanciers d’Aquila for the Study of the Greek

199

“kaige group”, to allow for the diversity of approaches within it. Jennifer M. Dines says “ ‘kaige’ is, rather, a kind of shorthand for a particular trend with wide, but loose, ramifications.”3 This is how DB defined the kaige group: “il s’agit d’une vaste effort de reprise en main de la Bible grecque qui s’est opéré au premier siècle de notre ère sous l’égide du rabbinate palestinien.” In indicating the defining characteristics of this group, he simply wanted to draw attention to the relationships, and so to show the existence of a school, to which the name of Theodotion remained attached.4 Yet his anchoring of it in the Palestine of the first century was unsure because of the difficulty in dating the manuscript on palaeographic grounds. There were just too few contemporary Greek manuscripts from the region. Everything was falling into place in DB’s broad vision. Such vision became characteristic of the man and the academic stance he took on various matters. It can happen that the discovery of apparently repeating patterns can be a warning sign about the objectivity of the results rather than confirmation of a discovery. But even if we find repeating patterns in DB’s work and the conclusions he comes to, it is not clear that these are necessarily a weak point in his work. Their strength is in the caution and precision with which he advances them. With hindsight it has of course been pointed out that our knowledge of the Palestinian rabbinate is less solid than DB thought at the time, and that the link he proposed is far less certain than it first appeared. Lester Grabbe,5 Olivier Munnich,6 Tim Mc Lay,7 Peter Gentry8 and many others tackled the question from different points of view. Yet at the time DB’s work was a dazzling tour de force even if the link with the work of the rabbinate in first century Palestine was later so hotly contested. It changed the course of the study of the Old Greek version of the Bible and its subsequent revisions. It was particularly forceful among scholars who had been formed in Christian contexts, with little introduction to the history of Judaism after the Temple. If the section of Les Devanciers d’Aquila dealing with the work of particular 3 J.M. Dines, The Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 83. 4 Devanciers, 267; Ssee also D. Barthélemy, “Prise de position sur les autres communications du Colloque de Los Angeles” in D. Barthélemy, Etudes d’Histoire du Texte de L’Ancien Testament (OBO 21; Friburg: Universitätsverlag, 1978) 255–88, on p. 266. 5 L. Grabbe, “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis”, JSS 33 (1982) 527–36. 6 O. Munnich, “La Septante des Psaumes et le groupe kaige”, VT 33 (1983) 75–89. 7 T. McLay, “Kaige and Septuagint Research”, Textus 19 (1998) 127–39. 8 P. Gentry, “The Greek Psalter and the kaige Tradition: Methodological Questions”, in R.J.V. Hiebert/C.E. Cox/ P.J. Gentry (ed.), The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (JSOTSupS 332; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 74–97.

200

Gerard J. Norton O.P.

rabbinic leaders were to be omitted, DB’s thesis concerning the history of transmission of the Old Greek text and the apparent fact of its revision to bring it closer to an emerging proto-Masoretic text would still need to be dealt with. DB himself softened his assertions in this area, noting after the IOSCS meeting in Los Angeles in September 1972 that “Si j’ai essayé de trouver dans l’exégèse rabbinique ancienne des parallèles à telle ou telle autre des options caractéristiques du groupe kaige, je ne prétendait pas que ces exégèses étaient la cause de ces options, mais je voulais seulement évoquer une ambiance culturelle analogue.”9 Les Devanciers d’Aquila focussed initially on the section βγ of Kingdoms as the prime example of the text on which he builds his theory, and then on the Greek scroll of the Minor Prophets whose witness he then fits into his grander theory. This Devanciers d’Aquila volume was Première Publication Intégrale du Texte des Fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvé dans le désert de Juda, précédé d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la bible réalisé au premier siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinate palestinien. The full official edition/publication of that Greek Dodekapropheton scroll was by Emanuel Tov nearly thirty years later, with the collaboration of R.A. Kraft and a contribution by P.J. Parsons as volume VIII of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series.10 This volume was particularly remarkable for its innovative computer-based studies of the translation technique and language. These were part of Emanuel Tov’s larger projects at the Hebrew University at the time. Although he was very enthusiastic about modern computer technology and an avid reader of Scientific American, DB’s approach to his manuscripts, although methodical, belonged more to the world of broad theories, than of computer databases. He first identified the kaige group and the Palestinian circles in which he believed it had originated, and then introduced the Greek fragments of the Minor Prophets, now known as 8HevXIIgr, as a member * of that group. There is something of the magician producing a rabbit out of the hat in this. One way or another, it is true that the framework had been set up in 1963 for DB’s interpretation in 1967 of the Hebraizing elements of R2010 (Bodmer XXIV) as being somehow related to the kaige group, influenced

9

D. Barthélemy, “Prise de position sur les autres communications du Colloque de Los Angeles”, in Etudes 255–88, on p. 268. 10  E. Tov/R.A. Kraft/P.J. Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal ) Hever * (8HevXIIgr) * (DJD VIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).

The Legacy of Les Devanciers d’Aquila for the Study of the Greek

201

by the text of Aquila or his precursors (“les devanciers”).11 If DB and C.H. Roberts were right about the dating of Bodmer XXIV, this subsequent discovery confirmed DB’s 1963 theory. If DB was wrong about Bodmer XXIV, and it was indeed subsequent to Origen and influenced by his work, the theory of development of the text in Les Devanciers d’Aquila did not thereby become false, but simply more isolated. In truth, the framework had been set up ten years previous to the publication of Les Devanciers d’Aquila, when DB had published a brief article on the significance of the Greek Minor Prophets scroll which had been discovered in August 1952.12 The underlying question at this stage was whether the differing texts of the Old Greek indicate fragments of different translations, or whether they are in fact to be seen as early and revised forms of the same translation.13 In this 1953 article, the 31-year old DB noted the points of similarity of readings in the Nahal & *Hever / Wadi Murabba‘at Greek scroll of the Minor Prophets with a Greek text cited by Justin in his argument with Trypho the Jew where he complains that the rabbinate of Palestine are citing a text that is not that of the ancients of Alexandria (Justin, Dial. 68). This 1953 article presented in a nutshell the theory that was to be developed in the 1963 Les Devanciers D’Aquila. The concluding remarks also present an understanding of methodology that was to become relevant for DB’s response to the finding of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV: De cette publication nous pouvons attendre un triple témoignage: premièrement sur l’état du texte de base de la LXX, deuxièmement sur l’état du texte hébreu utilise par le recenseur, troisièmement sur l’exacte originalité de chacun des trois grands recenseurs du Second siècle. Ce témoignage se trouvera encore élargi si on accepte la quadruple identification que nous proposons aujourd’hui: premièrement avec le texte cité par Justin, deuxièmement avec la base commune d’Aquila, Symmaque et Théodotion, troisièmement avec la source des hébraïsmes des versions coptes, et quatrièmement avec la Quinta d’Origène.14 In Les Devanciers d’Aquila, DB noted that for other books, in addition to the Minor Prophets, Origen conserved forms of revisions belonging to the kaige 11 12 13 14

D. Barthélemy, “Origène et le texte de l’ancien Testament”, in Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972), 247–61, on p. 252. D. Barthélemy, “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de l’histoire de la septante”, RB 60 (1953) 18–29. Devanciers, ix. Barthélemy, “Redécouverte”, 28–9.

202

Gerard J. Norton O.P.

group in the Hexapla. He drew particular attention to the Psalter columns of Theodotion and Quinta.15 This indicated to him that these recensions made previous to Aquila’s work were not entirely supplanted by Aquila. Les Devanciers d’Aquila was a work of great detail. DB occasionally recalled that he had to go to stay near the printing house in order to ensure that the proofreading of his work was carried out to the standard he required. Les Devanciers d’Aquila was his first major publication, and he was already 42 years of age. He began his work on the scrolls while in Jerusalem where he was registered as a student in 1950–1951, and stayed as a member of the research team on the new manuscripts as they emerged. Stories still circulate of those first scholars working unhealthily long hours in poor light and badly ventilated rooms. He suffered some sort of health difficulty that resulted in his move to a sanatorium in Switzerland. After this period, he began his work at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, where he was professor from 1957 to 1992. Once Les Devanciers d’Aquila was completed, he immediately wrote the popular Dieu et son Image.16 He described this as a necessary relaxation after the tedium of Les Devanciers d’Aquila. After this he wrote few single-authored works, with some notable exceptions including the peculiar Diffuser au lieu d’Interdire published in Fribourg in 1993.17 He liked the fellowship of working in a group and committee. Even though the great CTAT (Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament) volumes that arose from the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (1970–1980) of the United Bible Societies would never have been published without him, and they contain introductions that are themselves equivalent to weighty single-author monographs, it is also true he never strove for the kind of personal recognition that would please a university research assessment exercise today. He enjoyed his common work with David Gooding, Emanuel Tov, Johan Lust,18 and was whimsically curious about his appointment to give the Grinfield lectures in Oxford. Although he was hospitable, and I myself was a grateful recipient of that graciousness, he could rarely be encouraged to leave his monumental study and library to meet scholars at conferences. Nor had he much time to give 15 Devanciers, 143. 16  D. Barthélemy, Dieu et son Image (Paris: Cerf, 1964). Translated as God and his Image (London: Chapman 1966). 17  D. Barthélemy, Diffuser au lieu d’interdire, le chanoine Joseph Schorderet (1840–1893) (Fribourg: Editions universitaires, 1993). The volume contains 664 pages! 18 D. Barthélemy, D./D.W. Gooding, D.W./J. Lust, J./E. Tov, E., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Venture (OBO 73; Fribourg: Editions universitaires, 1973).

The Legacy of Les Devanciers d’Aquila for the Study of the Greek

203

those who visited Fribourg simply to worship at the shrine. He was a diligent mentor for his doctoral students and followed with interest all aspects of their lives. He claimed no copyright on his ideas, and one always came away from a session energized. However, one had to be careful in adopting new projects uncritically, as at the following day’s academic discussion, Dominique might have no hesitation in reducing to nothing the idea of the previous day. In dealing with the legacy of Les Devanciers d’Aquila, he may have been impatient with those who did not accept it on what he considered its own terms: a proposition or working hypothesis whose simplicity seemed to account for much of the evidence, but which did not depend on any one element for its core truth. Although he was apparently a man of physical impassivity, he had a mind that continually moved among the edges of possible interpretation and reinterpretation of material. As John Wevers pointed out in a letter to Robert A. Kraft following the publication of BIOSCS in 2004 he (Wevers) was sceptical of the “notion of boc2e2 being the original [Greek] text” in SamuelKings, and raised the matter with DB. “Actually B. said he himself no longer held this to be true, but as merely an interesting notion he was trying out.” Wevers says he was generally convinced of B.’s work, and had said so. They used to exchange their larger published works.19 As one might expect with such a ground-breaking work as Les Devanciers d’Aquila, other people took up the ideas, and convinced by the arguments of DB, produced work expanding the number of characteristics to be used in identifying texts as kaige. We have noted above that that these features amounted to 69 at one stage, even though DB himself, even in 1972 affirmed a very limited list of characteristic features of the kaige-Theodotion revision.20 Sometimes, however, they lacked the methodological caution of DB. It is fair to say that some of this enthusiastic reception of DB’s work was so poorly received that it brought some discredit on the work of DB on which it was founded. He was very careful in how he articulated his ideas, and could be irritated when they were over-enthusiastically adopted in a way that distorted their finesse.

19 20

J.W. Wevers, “The Legacy of Barthélemy’s Publication of Devanciers (1963): shorter form for IOSCS Bulletin 37 (2005)” [http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/judaism/ barthel04.html]. Accessed 3 June 2014. D. Barthélemy, “Prise de position”, 267–79.

204

Gerard J. Norton O.P.

2. 1967: Bodmer XXIV—A Second Century Witness? Now we return to the publication of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV and the discussion of DB with AP. The initial excitement relating to Papyrus Bodmer XXIV was a consequence of its size and textual grouping. As described by AP, it contained Ps 17:45–118:44 in a text form whose existence was only known from the Sahidic, with Papyrus 2013 of the 4th century containing Ps 30:5–55:14 and Papyrus U from the 7th Century comprising Ps 10:2–34:6. This group had been recognized by Rahlfs as the Upper-Egyptian text. All these witnesses, of course, have their lacunae, but in many places they are augmented by minor manuscript discoveries. With the discovery of Bodmer XXIV, the grouping previously classed as an indirect witness to the Greek Psalter, became a direct witness for two thirds of the Psalter. The papyrus was given the Rahlfs number Ra 2110.21 In his 1969 review of the publication of Bodmer XXIV, DB dated the manuscript to the 2nd century and set out a programme for Greek Psalter studies in two parts. The first consists in the reconstitution of the Greek base of the Upper Egyptian text, of which Ra 2110 was now the primary representative. This task was begun by AP in the Hanhart Festschrift of 1990.22 This would involve the assembly and study of the remnants of the Sahidic version. The second task is the reconstitution of the Hexaplaric recension “the popular Constantinopolitan text which from the fourth century onwards eclipsed all others.” For this, the key elements would be the MS Coislin 44 and the edition of the Gallican Psalter of 1953.23 These would enable the identification and removal of the Hexaplaric contaminations found in the great uncials. This would reveal a form of the Greek text that was the ancestor of the Sahidic, and would have certain typical contacts with the Vetus Latina. Hebraizing elements were soon recognized as a striking feature of Ra 2110. As such, their existence was not contested. The significance of this feature, however, was controversial. For DB and those who agreed with him, the papyrus Ra 2110 showed pre-Origenian Hebraizing tendencies. For DB, these were to be linked with the movement he described as kaige. We can see how everything seemed to be fitting together again into his big picture. Would he have advanced this programme of work if he had not previously advanced a similar programme 21 22 23

A. Pietersma, “Origen’s Corrections and the text of Bodmer XXIV”, JNWSL 19 (1993) 133–42, on p. 133. A. Pietersma, “Ra 2110 (Bodmer XXIV) and the text of the Greek Psalter”, in Studien zur Septuaginta—Robert Hanhart zu Ehren (MSU 20; Göttingen, 1990) 262–86. D. Barthélemy, “Le Psautier grec”, 108–9.

The Legacy of Les Devanciers d’Aquila for the Study of the Greek

205

within a year of the discovery of the Greek text of the Minor Prophets from Wadi Murabba‘at / Nahal & Hever, * as we have noted above? Along the way, we may legitimately wonder, “What exactly is a Hebraizing correction?” Is it simply where BHS and Ra 2110 agree in a point of difference from Rahlfs’s edition? AP rightly rejects such a simplistic definition.24 He asked the question of whether these aspects of Ra 2110 were better interpreted as remains the original Septuagint rather than as the result of a subsequent pre-Origenian revision. In fact his Festschrift article for DB in 1991 concluded saying “2110 deserves to be regarded, until the contrary be proven, as the text of OG.”25 We seem to have a standoff between two irreconcilable views. While DB’s view is reasonable, it is not at all unreasonable to suppose with AP that the original translation of the Psalter into Greek would have had traces of the Hebrew Vorlage. In a situation of fluidity, these Hebraisms could have been removed subsequently by copyists, so that when found in a manuscript tradition, they look like a Hebraizing correction in relation to the current text, but are in fact original. If both are true, how can we distinguish one from the other? Even while these differences were being worked, the consequences for the next generation of scholars could be grave. As an example, we find Caloz’s work on the Origenian Psalter,26 completed with DB as supervisor in Fribourg. Caloz accepts DB’s dating of Ra 2110 seemingly without question. In his work many instances are identified as Hebraizing corrections, whereas AP sees them as “pure and simple original LXX”.27 The impact of Les Devanciers d’Aquila was clearly seen also in the work of H. Venetz, also of Fribourg. He studied the Quinta of Psalms (= kaige of Psalms), a text of the kaige group seemingly related to 2 Chronicles and Thackeray’s Beta section of Ezekiel (ch. 28–39). Venetz reviews significant vocabulary items shared between the Greek Psalter and the kaige tradition, and concludes that we should look to Palestine for the place of origin of the Old Greek Psalter. DB believed this too.28 But AP challenges this, noting A. Pietersma, “The edited Text of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV”, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 17 (1980) 67–79, on p. 68. 25 A. Pietersma, “Articulation in the Greek Psalms: the Evidence of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV”, in G.J. Norton/S. Pisano (ed.), Tradition of the Text: Studies offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday (OBO 109; Friburg: Universitätsverlag, 1991) 184–202. 26  M. Caloz, Etude sur la LXX origénienne du Psautier (OBO 19; Friburg: Universitätsverlag, 1978). 27 A. Pietersma, “Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues”, VT 35 (1985) 296–311, on p. 302. 28  H.-J. Venetz, Das Quinta des Psalteriums: Ein Beitrag zur Septuaginta und Hexaplaforschung (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1974); Barthélemy, “Prise de position”, 269.

24

206

Gerard J. Norton O.P.

that it “might not be difficult to demonstrate that the Greek Psalter had more influence on the kaige tradition than any other single LXX book.” He considers that the logic of Venetz could be applied to most of the Old Greek, and an argument made on the grounds used by Venetz for all of the Old Greek to be of Palestinian origin.29 DB believed that the case of the Greek Psalter really did differ from that of other books. He returned to the question of the history of the Psalter again in 1972, both in his interventions at the IOSCS in Los Angeles and in the subsequent material, at first unpublished and then later included in his collected Etudes. Note his statement “I recognise that there existed for some books, as for instance the Psalms, several recensional levels that belonged to the group kaige.”30 This would have been particularly the case for the Old Greek Psalter, because it was used in liturgical contexts by Greek pilgrims to Jerusalem. DB did eventually state that he believed that the Greek Psalter was of Palestinian origin, and drew attention to the work of H. Venetz, just mentioned.31 DB noted that he did not confirm such a close relationship between Aquila and the Quinta of the Psalms as did Venetz. Instead he holds that the Psalter, as the book of canticles of pilgrims to Jerusalem, would have had at least two kaige revisions, and there is nothing to convince him or us that the Greek textual base for Aquila’s work has survived sufficiently intact for us to be able to identify it. In this, DB says, the Psalter differs from other books whose liturgical usage was less, and to which the revisers would have consecrated less zeal as a result. Arie van der Kooij wrote in support of Venetz’s arguments that the Psalter was translated in Palestine.32 AP countered that the balance of probability was in favour of an Egyptian origin.33

3. Can It Be Shown that Origen’s Text Is Dependent on the Text of Bodmer XXIV in Any Significant Way? And so, while considering Origen’s role in relation to the transmission of the Septuagint, DB formulated his methodology in 1972: “we must begin 29 30 31 32 33

Pietersma, “Septuagint Research”, 309. Barthélemy, “Prise de position”, in Etudes on p.266. The reference is to Devanciers, 143. Barthélemy, “Prise de position”, 269. A. van der Kooij, “On the place of origin of the Old Greek Psalter”, VT 33 (1983) 67–74. A. Pietersma, “The Place of Origin of the Old Greek Psalter”, in M.M. Daviau/ J.W. Wevers/M. Weigl (ed.), The World of the Aramaeans I: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion (Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 252–74.

The Legacy of Les Devanciers d’Aquila for the Study of the Greek

207

by purifying the Septuagintal text of all Hexaplaric contamination if we are to be well placed to reconstitute the original history.”34 In this learned Festschrift article, DB speaks primarily of the intention and execution of the work of Origen in compiling the Hexapla. He isolates two axioms which influenced Origen’s work, but which would not be acceptable to today’s textual critics: 1) that the variations in the Greek texts are due to the negligence of the Greek scribes and that the Hebrew text used by the first Greek translators continued without change to be the base for Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus; 2) that the only purpose of the ancient translators, as of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion was to translate the text literally into Greek. Also in this same article, almost in passing, DB mentions the Papyrus Bodmer XXIV, together with the Papyrus 967 of Ezekiel and the codex Washingtonensis of the Dodekapropheton as witnesses to the existence of unsystematic pre-Origenian “retouches” to make the Greek text that was originally translated from a text other than that in circulation at the time of the copyist conform to that later Hebrew text. Origen, in DB’s opinion, had no idea that such developments had happened, nor indeed that some of the Greek texts in circulation in the Church had been contaminated by the work of Aquila or his precursors.35 As a result of these two axioms, DB finds it reasonable to accept that Origen chose as his reading the most recently edited variant, thus losing the older or difficult or strange reading(s) that would have brought on the intervention of the revisers. It is clear that DB’s paradigm of the history of the Old Greek text and its revisions, established on the basis of Les Devanciers d’Aquila is fixed, and the place in that paradigm for Bodmer XXIV is as an example of a survival of the pre-Origenian phase of unsystematic revisions to bring the Greek text in line with a text that differed from that from which the Old Greek was translated. For those—chief among them perhaps AP—who accepted the later date for Ra 2110 proposed by its editors, the question of the relationship of Origen’s Hexapla with Bodmer XXIV is more complicated. From a methodological point of view, AP insisted that the question is not primarily that of palaeography or of dating, but of the relationship between the texts.36 In 1993, AP addressed that precise question of whether it could be demonstrated that Origen was dependent on the text of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV, something that would of course prove the earlier dating suggested by DB 34 35 36

D. Barthélemy, “Origène et le Texte de l’Ancien Testament”, in Etudes 247–61. Barthélemy, “Origène”, 208. Pietersma, “Origen’s Corrections”, 134.

208

Gerard J. Norton O.P.

and Roberts, who as we have seen above considered the papyrus to date from the second half of the second century AD. Perhaps they should have been more of a mind with P.J. Parsons, a colleague of Tov, who acknowledges that the “palaeographic evidence … is shifting sand”.37 Palaeography has no place in this argument. AP does this on the basis of his study of the alignment of Ra 2110 with other texts in instances where the Aristarchian asterisk and obelus are preserved in the Gallican Psalter as edited in 1953.38 He distinguished (a) the cases where the evidence of Ra 2110 is neutral (i.e., where Ra 2110 stands with all or virtually all of the witnesses against Origen’s reconstituted text), as well as (b) the cases where he considers Ra 2110 positive (where the manuscript evidence is divided and Origen’s sign supposes a text equal to that of Ra 2110, and (c) negative (where Origen cannot have been familiar with the text of Ra 2110.39 AP concluded from a consideration of each of these categories of evidence that Origen was not dependent on the text of Ra 2110 in any significant way. As ever, AP is methodical, and seems on first reading to move the argument forward decisively. Nonetheless, revisiting now that article of 1993, I wonder if it would be more correct to say that AP’s work indicates that it has not been proven that Origen was dependent on the text of Ra 2110 in any significant way? He does not seem to disprove the possibility that Origen was dependent, simply to show that it has not been proven.40 Against this, we have a more narrow study by DB, who argued in 197241 that there are two instances that suggest that Origen showed a specific knowledge of the text type found in Ra 2110. The first case relates to Origen’s commentary on the Gospel of John (Comm. Jo. 20.20). Origen discusses different readings at Ps 18:10b–11a, and rejects the reading that is witnessed in Ra 2110 (with partial support in Bohairic, Sahidic, and 2035) in favour of that later retained by Rahlfs in his edition. Did Origen then perhaps know (members of) the text group to which Ra 2110 belonged? Was he influenced by it? AP rejected the force of DB’s argument, and considered that the 2110

37 38 39 40 41

E. Tov et al., The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll, 22. Liber Psalmorum ex recensione Sancti Heronymi. Biblia Sacra juxta latinam vulgatam versionem … cura et studio monachorum Abbatiae Pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in Urbe O.S.B. edita (vol. 10; Rome, 1953). Pietersma, “Origen’s Corrections”, 137. The court verdict “not proven” is of course of impeccable Scottish origin, and comes to mind in the venue of this conference, St. Andrews. D. Barthélemy, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XXIV jugé par Origène” in D. Barthélemy, Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 21; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires/ Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978)in Etudes, 194–202.

The Legacy of Les Devanciers d’Aquila for the Study of the Greek

209

reading must be original Old Greek.42 The second case noted by DB stems from a scholion in the Palestinian Catena that DB believes is to be attributed to Origen. It indicates that Origen was aware of the division of Ps 113 into two parts: vv. 1–11 and vv. 12–26, a division that we find in Ra 2110 and also in Sahidic. What further considerations can help us resolve this seemingly intractable difference of opinion between two modern scholars, which has such consequences for our understanding of the history of the text of the Old Greek and its revisions?

4. A Question of Methodology The discussion as it developed, became concentrated on the methodology and the suppositions that best underlie a quest for a critical edition of the Old Greek of the Psalter. DB was more interested in the history of the transmission of the Old Greek translation than in the identification of that text and suggested that we could arrive at the Old Greek only when we had first identified the process of transmission. AP was stalwart that we should and must identify the Old Greek first before we can follow the adventures in its transmission. Standing back slightly, it could also be said that DB is taking an approach that starts more clearly with the evidence we have, while the Old Greek text advocated by AP is still unattainable, and largely unverifiable. In other words, DB is distinguishing between the “oldest attested Greek” and “the Old Greek” texts. He used the same distinction in his study of the development of the Hebrew text for the CTAT project. He comments that “des nuages de mystère s’interposeront toujours”.43 The quest for the Old Greek had been a long-term priority of AP. “The primary focus in LXX text-criticism must always remain on the reconstruction of the original text.”44 AP also suggested that in the post-1947 (Dead Sea Scrolls) era of textual criticism there were questions as to whether the primacy of that focus was being maintained with sufficient rigour. Having reviewed recent study of the kaige tradition (sic!) he concluded that “increasingly much kaige research, like LXX research in general, is suffering on account of a failure to reconstruct, as a first and vital step, systematically and methodically the OG.”45 He gives as an example the discussion of kaige in the Book 42 43 44 45

Pietersma, “Articulation”, 185. Barthélemy, “Prise de position”, 273. Pietersma, “Septuagint Research”, 297. Pietersma, “Septuagint Research”, 306.

210

Gerard J. Norton O.P.

of Judges, and the observation that “the extent to which kaige and OG are the same or different is entirely unclear, and this state of affairs is obviously not limited to the book of Judges.”46 This question of the priority of research for the Old Greek, and the need to deal with the apparent reversal of that priority by the students of DB and the works on the discoveries since 1947, not least that of Les Devanciers D’Aquila in 1963, was problematic for AP. AP concludes: “The discoveries in the Judaean Desert in general and Barthélemy’s book on the Minor Prophets Scroll in particular have given renewed momentum to research on the text-historical aspect of the LXX, not infrequently eclipsing what must always remain the first priority of LXX research, viz. the systematic and methodological uncovering of the Old Greek text. Only that can produce and safeguard a proper perspective on the LXX and its history.”47 However, if AP is to be considered the stronger in his methodological programme, DB is also to be respected for his pragmatic use of the material to hand. Neither scholar in the end produced a text that could pretend to be an Old Greek text of the Psalter. In his four volumes of CTAT, DB gave us some strong indicators of how the surviving material could be evaluated. After this controversy in the 1980s, DB could be said to have retired from the arena, devoting himself more and more to the history of the Hebrew text and its interpretation particularly in the context of the CTAT volumes. His bibliography includes a number of learned articles on the Karaites, and on the Judaeo-Arabic traditions preserved by Saadia Ga’on, Judah HaLevi and others. He published in Festschriften rather than refereed journals. Happily, many of these publications were gathered into one volume in the OBO series.48 It is sad that his CTAT volume on the Psalms49 had to be published posthumously for he would surely have used the occasion provided by the introduction to express his mature thoughts on the history of the text and its most ancient translations. As it stands, the volume does not give us DB’s more mature assessment of the value of Ra 2110, to which surprisingly little, if any, reference is made in the text. It does not appear in the bibliography at all. Although the final editing of the volume was carried out principally by Stephen Ryan O.P. and Adrian Schenker O.P., with great fidelity, it lacks the final layer that Dominique would surely have added in his best days. 46 Pietersma, “Septuagint Research”, 306. 47 Pietersma, “Septuagint Research”, 311. 48  Barthélemy, Etudes. 49  D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 4: Psaumes (OBO 50/4; Friburg: Universitätsverlag, 2005).

The Legacy of Les Devanciers d’Aquila for the Study of the Greek

211

On the other side of the Atlantic, AP refined his methodology, and applied it with clear logic in articles that will survive both scholars.50 Nonetheless, the programmes they each saw so clearly to be necessary have not yet been fully carried out.

5. An Epilogue: We have noted that the Hexapla of Origen is at the centre of this discussion, about whom DB wrote in 1972 “Jamais non plus personne n’exerça sur l’histoire de son texte une influence aussi décisive, ni aussi catastrophique.”51 DB attributes this, neither to any lack of scrupulous honesty, nor to any lack of sense of the tradition on the part of Origen himself, but to Origen’s disciples after his death, who had neither of these qualities. Because of the rich heritage they received, they soon acquired the reputation of scholars while misusing the rich heritage that Origen had left. At the end of that same article he calls Origen’s disciples “plutôt des pillards que des continuateurs”. It is hard to avoid the impression that at times Dominique felt that his own work was being badly served by the very people who claimed to follow it. And just as he so seldom took the initiative in confrontation, his words hang in the air as a challenge for those who read and interpret Dominique’s own work of honest scrupulosity and respect for the tradition.

50  Pietersma, “Articulation”. 51 Barthélemy, “Origène”, 203.

Bibliography Abbreviations ATD BETL BIOSCS

Das Alte Testament Deutsch Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Bulletin of the IOSCS (Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies) CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DSI De Septuaginta Investigationes HTR Harvard Theological Review HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs IOSCS International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JNWSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSS Journal for Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies NTTS New Testament Tools and Studies OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis RB Revue biblique SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies TECC Textos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros UBS United Bible Societies VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Bibliography

213

Aejmelaeus, A., “A Kingdom at Stake: Reconstructing the Old Greek— Deconstructing the Textus Receptus”, in A. Voitila/J. Jokiranta (ed.), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (JSJSup 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 353–66. — “Corruption or Correction? Textual Development in the MT of 1 Samuel 1”, in P. Torijano/A. Piquer (ed.), Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera—Florilegium Complutense (JSJSup 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 1–17. — “David’s Return to Ziklag: A Problem of Textual History in 1 Sam 30:1”, in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leiden 2004 (SBLSCS 54, 2006), 95–104. — “How to Reach the Old Greek in 1 Samuel and What to Do with it”, in M. Nissinen (ed.), Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (VTSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 185–205. — On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays (CBET 50; Leuven: Peeters, 2007). — “The Septuagint of 1 Samuel”, in A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translator: Collected Essays (Revised and Expanded Edition; CBET 50; Leuven: Peeters, 2007) 123–41. — “What Rahlfs Could not Know: 1 Sam 14,4–5 in the Old Greek”, in H. Ausloos et al. (ed.), After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts—The Historical Books (BETL 246; Leuven—Paris— Dudley, MA: Peeters 2012) 81–93. Barthélemy, D., “A Reexamination of the Textual Problems in 2 Sam 11:2–1 Kings 2:11 in the Light of Certain Criticism of ‘Les Devanciers d’Aquila’ ”, in R.A. Kraft (ed.), 1972 Proceedings: Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha Seminars (SBLSCS 2; Atlanta: SBL, 1972) 16–89. — Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 1–3 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982–1992). — Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Vol. 1 Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (OBO 50/1; Fribourg, Göttingen; Editions universitaires, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). — Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 4: Psaumes (Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005). — Dieu et son image: Ébauche d’une théologie biblique (Paris: Cerf, 1963); English translation: God and His Image (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966).

214

Bibliography

— Diffuser au lieu d’interdire, le chanoine Joseph Schorderet (1840–1893) (Fribourg: Editions universitaires, 1993). — Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 21; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978). — “Histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament”, in D. Barthélemy, Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 21; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 341–64. — “Le Papyrus Bodmer XXIV jugé par Origène” in D. Barthélemy, Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 21; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 194–202. — “Le Psautier grec et le Papyrus Bodmer XXIV”, Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 3rd series 19 (1969) 106–10. — Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963). — “Les problèmes textuels de 2 Sam 11,2–1 Rois 2,11 reconsidérés à la lumière de certaines critiques des Devanciers d’Aquila”, in R.A. Craft (ed.), 1972 Proceedings IOSCS Pseudepigrapha, Los Angeles 4 Sept. 1972 (SBLSCS 2; Missoula, 1972) 16–89. — “Origène et le texte de l’ancien Testament”, in Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972) 247–61. — “Prise de position sur les autres communications du colloque de Los Angeles”, in D. Barthélemy, Etudes d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 21; Fribourg, Göttingen: Editions universitaires, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 255–88. — “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de l’histoire de la LXX”, RB (1953) 18–29. — Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (Textual Criticism and the Translator 3; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012). Barthélemy, D./Hulst A.R./Lohfink, N./McHardy, W.D./Rüger, H.P./ Sanders, J.A., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. Vol. 1 (London: UBS, 1973). Barthélemy D./Gooding, D.W./Lust, J./Tov, E., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism: Papers of a Joint Venture (OBO 73; Fribourg: Editions universitaires, 1973). Bodine, W.R., The Greek Text of Judges: Recensional Developments (HSM 23; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980). Bogaert, P.-M., “De la vetus latina à l’hébreu pré-massorétique en passant par la plus ancienne Septante: le livre de Jérémie, exemple privilégié”, Revue théologique de Louvain 44 (2013) 216–43.

Bibliography

215

Bogaert, P.-M./Botte, B., “Septante et versions grecques”, Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément 12 (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1996) 536–692. Brock, S., “Lucian redivivus. Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciers d’Aquila”, Studia Evangelica 5 (1968) 176–181. — Recensions of the Septuagint Version of I Samuel (Diss. Oxford 1966; Quaderni di Henoch 9; Torino: Silvio Zamorani, 1996). Burney, C.F., Notes on the Hebrew text of the books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903). Busto, J.R., “On the Lucianic Manuscripts in 1–2 Kings”, in C. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the IOSCS: Jerusalem 1986 (SBLSCS 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 305–10. Caloz, M., Etude sur la LXX origénienne du Psautier (OBO 19; Friburg: Universitätsverlag, 1978). Carr, D.M., The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Cross, F.M., “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert”, HTR 57 (1964) 281–99. De Troyer, Kristin, “Der lukianische Text. Mit einer Diskussion des A-Textes des Estherbuches”, in Siegfried Kreuzer/Jürgen Peter Lesch (ed.), Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, vol. 2 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2004) 229–46. De Vries, S.J., “Temporal Terms as Structural Elements in the Holy-War Tradition”, VT 25 (1975) 80–105. Diercks, G.F., Luciferi Calaritani opera quae supersunt (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 8; Turnhout: Brepols, 1978). Dines, J.M., The Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2004). Dogniez, C., Bibliography of the Septuagint—Bibliographie de la Septante 1970–1993 (VTSup 60; Leiden: Brill, 1995). Evans, Trevor V., Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch. Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Fernández Marcos, N., “Der antiochenische Text der griechischen Bibel in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern”, in S. Kreuzer/J.P. Lesh (ed.), Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta—Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004) 177–213. — “El Protoluciánico, ¿revisión griega de los judíos de Alejandría?”, Biblica 64 (1983) 423–7. — “En torno al texto hexaplar de 1 Re 14,1–10”, Sefarad 46 (1986) 177–90. — “La Vetus Latina de Reyes. ¿Vorlage distinta o actividad creadora?”, in R. Grayson (ed.), Philologia sacra: Biblische und patristische Studien für Hermann J. Frede und Walter Thiele zu ihrem siebzigsten Geburtstag: Band I: Altes und Neuen Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 1993) 64–73.

216

Bibliography

— “Literary and Editorial Features of the Antiochian Text in Kings”, in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the IOSCS Jerusalem 1986 (SBLSCS 23; Atlanta: SBL, 1987) 287–304. — Scribes & Translators: Septuaginta & Old Latin in the Books of Kings (Leiden: Brill, 1994). — “The Antiochene Edition in the Text History of the Greek Bible”, in S. Kreuzer/M. Sigismund (ed.), Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung (DSI 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 57–73. — “The Antiochene Text of the Greek Bible: A Revised and Edited Text”, in Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings (VTSup 54; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 27–37. — “The Lucianic Text in the Books of Kingdoms: From Lagarde to the Textual Pluralism”, in A. Pietersma/C. Cox (ed.), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Sixty-fifth Birthday (Mississauga: Benben Publications, 1984) 161–74. — The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2000). — “Translation, Corruption and Interpretation: The Genesis of the Old Latin Variants”, in Scribes & Translators: Septuaginta & Old Latin in the Books of Kings (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 53–70. Fernández, N./Busto, J.R., El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega II: 1–2 Reyes (TECC 53; Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC, 1992). Field, F., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum vetus testamentum fragmenta: Vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875). Fischer, B., “Lukian-Lesarten in der Vetus Latina der vier Königsbücher”, Studia Anselmiana 27–28 (1951) 169–77. Gehman, H.S., “The Old Ethiopic Version of 1. Kings and Its Affinities”, JBL 50 (1931) 81–114. Gentry, P., “The Greek Psalter and the kaige Tradition: Methodological Questions”, in R.J.V. Hiebert/C.E. Cox/P.J. Gentry (ed.), The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (JSOTSup 332; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 74–97. Good, Roger, The Septuagint’s Translation of the Hebrew Verbal System in Chronicles (VTSup 136, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009). Grabbe, L., “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis”, JSS 33 (1982) 527–36. Gray, J., I and II Kings: A Commentary (2nd ed.; London: SCM Press, 1970).

Bibliography

217

Greenspoon, L.J., “Recensions, Revision, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthélemy and Early Developments in the Greek Traditions”, Textus 15 (1990) 153–67. — Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua (HSM 28; Chico: Scholars’ Press, 1983). — “The Kaige Recension: The Life, Death, and Postmortem Existence of a Modern—and Ancient—Phenomenon”, in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Leiden, 2004 (SBLSCS 54; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 5–16. Gryson, R., Altlateinische Handschriften/Manuscrits vieux latins: Répertoire descriptif, Première partie: Mss 1–275 (d’après un manuscrit inachevé de Hermann Josef Frede †) (Freiburg: Herder, 1999). Hanhart, R., Text und Textgeschichte des 1. Esrabuches (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974). Howard, G., “Frank Cross and Recensional Criticism”, VT 21 (1971) 440–50. Hugo, P., “1–2 Reigns”, in J.K. Aitken (ed.), The T&T Clark Handbook to the Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2015) 127–46. — “Basileion I und II / 1 und 2 Königtümer / Das erste und zweite Buch Samuel”, in S. Kreuzer, Einleitung in die Septuaginta (Handbuch zur Septuaginta 1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2016) 207–31. — “Die antiochenische ‘Mischung’: L zwischen Altem und Neuem in 2Samuel”, in S. Kreuzer/M. Sigismund (ed.), Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung (DSI 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 109–32. — Les deux visages d’Éli: text massorétique et Septante dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 17–18 (Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). — “The King’s Return (2 Sam 19,10–16). Contrasting Characterizations of David, Israel and Juda in the Old Editions”, in H. Ausloos/B. Lemmelijn/ J. Trebolle (ed.), After Qumran: Old and New Editions of Biblical Texts: The Historical Books (BETL 246; Leuven: Peeters, 2012) 95–118. Johnson, B., Die armenische Bibelübersetzung als hexaplarischer Zeuge im 1. Samuelbuch (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1968). — Die hexaplarische Rezension des 1. Samuelbuches der Septuaginta (Studia Theologica Lundensia 22; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1963). Joosten, J., “Competing Recensions of the Books of Kings and Competing Theories of its Textual History”, in R. Müller/J. Pakkala (ed.), Insights into Editing (CBET; Peeters: Leuven, forthcoming). Kauhanen, T., “Lucifer of Cagliari and Literary Criticism in Kings”, ZAW 125:3 (2013) 418–32.

218

Bibliography

— The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel (DSI 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). Keulen, P. van, “Nature et contexte des différences de la Peshitta des Rois par rapport au TM”, in A. Schenker/P. Hugo (ed.), L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque. L’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le monde de la Bible 52; Genève: Labor et Fides, 2005) 264–85. Klein, R.W., “New Evidence for an Old Recension of Reigns”, HTR 60 (1967) 93–105. — Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1974). Knibb, M.A., Translating the Bible: The Ethiopic Versions of the Old Testament (New York: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 2000). Kooij, A. van der, “On the place of origin of the Old Greek Psalter”, VT 33 (1983) 67–74. Kraft, R.A., “Review of D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila”, Gnomon 37 (1965) 474–83. — “Reassessing the Impact of Barthélemy’s Devanciers, Forty Years Later”, BIOSCS 37 (2004) 1–28. Kreuzer, S. “Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta: Forschungsgeschichte und eine neue Perspektive”, in S. Kreuzer/M. Sigismund (ed.), Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung (DSI 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 23–56. — “From ‘Old Greek’ to the Recensions: Who and What Caused the Change of the Hebrew Reference Text of the Septuagint?”, in W. Kraus/ R.G. Wooden (ed.), Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (SBLSCS 53; Atlanta: SBL, 2006) 225–37. — “ ‘Lukian redivivus’ or Barthélemy and Beyond?”, in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XIV Congress of the IOSCS. Helsinki, 2010 (SBLSCS 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2013) 243–61. — “Towards the Old Greek: New Criteria for the Analysis of the Recensions of the Septuagint (Especially the Antiochene/Lucianic Text and Kaige Recension)”, in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XIII Congress of the IOSCS, Ljubljana, 2007 (SBLSCS 55; Atlanta: SBL, 2008) 239–53. — “Translation and Recension: Old Greek, Kaige, and Antiochene Text in Samuel and Reigns”, BIOSCS 42 (2009) 34–51. Lagarde, P. de, Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum Pars Prior Graece (Göttingen, 1883).

Bibliography

219

Law, T.M., “3–4 Reigns”, in J.K. Aitken (ed.), The T&T Clark Handbook to the Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2015) 147–66. — “Do ‘The Three’ Reveal Anything about the Textual History of the Books of Kings? The Hebrew Text behind the Later Greek Jewish Versions in 1 Kings”, in H. Ausloos/B. Lemmelijn/J. Trebolle (ed.), After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts (Leuven: Peeters, 2012) 245–63. — “Kaige, Aquila, and Jewish Revision”, in T.M. Law/A. Salvesen (ed.), Greek Scripture and the Rabbis (Leuven: Peeters, 2012) 39–64. Law, T.M./Kauhanen, T., “Methodological Remarks on the Textual History of Reigns: A Response to Siegfried Kreuzer”, BIOSCS 43 (2010) 73–87. Liber Psalmorum ex recensione Sancti Heronymi. Biblia Sacra juxta latinam vulgatam versionem … cura et studio monachorum Abbatiae Pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in Urbe O.S.B. edita (vol. 10; Rome, 1953). McLay, T., “Kaige and Septuagint Research”, Textus 19 (1998) 127–39. Meiser, M., “Antiochean Readings of I–IV Reigns in Early Church Fathers”, forthcoming. Metzger, B.M., “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible”, in Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (NTTS 4; Leiden: Brill, 1963) 1–41. Montgomery, J.A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951). Moreno, A., Las glosas marginales de Vetus Latina en las biblias vulgatas españolas: 1–2 Reyes (TECC 49; Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC, 1992). Mulder, M.J., 1 Kings: Volume 1: 1 Kings 1–11 (Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Munnich, O., “La Septante des Psaumes et le groupe kaige”, VT 33 (1983) 75–89. Muraoka, T., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009). — “Greek Texts of Samuel-Kings: Incomplete Translations or Recensional Activity?”, Abr-Nahrain 21 (1983) 29–49. O’Connell, K.G., The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus (HSM 3; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972). Olofsson, S., “The Kaige Group and the Septuagint Book of Psalms”, in B.A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge, 1995 (SBLSCS 45; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997) 189–230. Parsons, P.J., “The Scripts and Their Date”, in E. Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll From Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I) (DJD VIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) 19–26.

220

Bibliography

Pietersma, A., “Articulation in the Greek Psalms: the Evidence of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV”, in G.J. Norton/S. Pisano (ed.), Tradition of the Text: Studies offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday (OBO 109; Friburg: Universitätsverlag, 1991) 184–202. — “Origen’s Corrections and the text of Bodmer XXIV”, JNWSL 19 (1993) 133. — “Ra 2110 (Bodmer XXIV) and the text of the Greek Psalter”, in Studien zur Septuaginta—Robert Hanhart zu Ehren (MSU 20; Göttingen, 1990) 262–86. — “Review of N. Fernández, Scribes & Translators”, JAOS 116 (1996) 553–5. — “Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues”, VT 35 (1985) 296–311. — “The edited Text of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV”, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 17 (1980) 67–79. — “The Place of Origin of the Old Greek Psalter”, in M.M. Daviau/J.W. Wevers/M. Weigl (ed.), The World of the Aramaeans I: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion (Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 252–74. Piquer, A., “Hebrew Bible(s) and Greek Witnesses? A First Look at the Makeup of 2 Kings for the Oxford Hebrew Bible”, in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki 2010 (SBLSCS 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2013) 691–704. — “Who Names the Namers? The Interpretation of Necromantic Terms in Jewish Translations of the Bible”, in A. Piquer/P. Torijano (ed.), Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutense (JSJSup 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 241–76. Piquer, A./Torijano, P./Trebolle, J., “Septuagint Versions, Greek Recensions and Hebrew Editions. The Text-Critical Evaluation of the Old Latin, Armenian and Georgian Versions in III–IV Regnorum”, in H. Ausloos/ J. Cook/F. García/B. Lemmelijn/M. Vervenne (ed.), Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL 213; Leuven: Peeters, 2008) 251–81. Polak, F.H., “The Septuagint Account of Solomon’s Reign: Revision and Ancient Recension”, in B.A. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the IOSCS, Oslo 1998 (Atlanta: SBL, 2001) 139–64. Rahlfs, A., “Alter und Heimat der vatikanischen Bibelhandschrift”, in Nachrichten der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen; Philologischhistorische Klasse, Heft 1 (1899) 72–79. — Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters (Septuaginta-Studien 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907).

Bibliography

221

— Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (Septuaginta-Studien 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911, 21965). — Septuaginta-Studien I–III (2. Auflage; Vermehrt um einen unveröffentlichten Aufsatz und eine Bibliographie mit einem Nachruf von Walter Bauer; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965). Rahlfs, A./Hanhart, R., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (2nd edn; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006). Reider, J./Turner, N., An Index to Aquila (VTSup 12; Leiden: Brill, 1966). Saley, R.J., “Greek Lucianic Doublets and 4QSama”, BIOSCS 40 (2007) 63–73. — “Proto-Lucian and 4QSama”, BIOSCS 41 (2008) 34–45. Schenker, A., Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher (Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). — “Der Platz del altlateinischen Randlesarten des Kodex von León und der Valvanera-Bibel in der biblischen Textgeschichte (1–4Kgt)”, in S. Kreuzer/M. Sigismund (ed.), Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung (DSI 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 199–210. — “L’apport durable des Hexaples d’Origène. Bilan de la Lettre à Africanus, bilan aujourd’hui”, in M. Loubet/D. Pralon (ed.), Eukarpa: Études sur la Bible et ses exégètes: Réunies par Mireille Loubet et Didier Pralon en hommage à Gilles Dorival (Paris: Cerf, 2011) 385–94. — “L’histoire du Livre. Dominique Barthélemy (1921–2003) ou l’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament”, Mémoire dominicaines 20 (2006) 237–44. Schenker, A./Hugo, P., “Histoire du texte et critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament dans la recherche récente”, in A. Schenker/P. Hugo (ed.), L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque. Histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (Le Monde de la Bible 52; Genève: Labor et Fides) 11–33. Seppänen, C., “David and Saul’s Daughters”, in K. De Troyer/T.M. Law/ M. Liljeström (ed.), In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes. Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus (CBET 72; Leuven: Peeters, 2014) 353–64. Shenkel, J.D., “A Comparative Study of the Synoptic Parallels in I Paralipomena and I–II Reigns”, HTR 62 (1969) 63–85. — Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (HSM 1; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968). Sicking, Christiaan M.J./Stork, Peter, “The Grammar of the So-Called HP”, in Egbert J. Bakker (ed.), Grammar as Interpretation. Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts (Mnemosyne Suppl. 171; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 131–68.

222

Bibliography

Spottorno, V., “The status of the Antiochene Text in the first century A.D.—Josephus and New Testament”, in S. Kreuzer/M. Sigismund (ed.), Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung (DSI 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 74–83. Stade, B./Schwally, F., The Books of Kings: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text (The Sacred Books of the Old Testament 9; Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1904). Swete, Henry Barclay, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd edition; Cambridge: University Press, 1914). Talshir, Z., “1 Kings and 3 Kingdoms—Origin and Revision. Case Study: The Sins of Solomon (1 Kgs 11)”, Textus 21 (2002) 71–106. Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia/New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1988) Taylor, B.A., The Lucianic Manuscripts of Reigns. Vol. 2, Analysis (HSM 51; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). Testuz, M./Kasser, R., Papyrus Bodmer XXIV (Bibliotheca Bodmeriana; Cologne/Genève, 1967). Thackeray, H.St.J., “The Greek Translation of the Four Books of Kings”, JTS 8 (1907) 262–78. — The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: Oxford University Press, 19232). Torijano, P.A., “Different Distribution of Agreements between LXXL and Medieval Hebrew Variants in Kaige and No-kaige Sections of III– IV Regnorum”, in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki, 2010 (SBLSCS 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2013) 175–92. Tov, E., “Lucian and Proto-Lucian: Toward a new solution of the problem”, RB 79 (1972) 101–13. — “The Methodology of Textual Criticism in Jewish Greek Scriptures, with Special Attention to the Problems in Samuel-Kings—The State of the Question”, in idem, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 489–99. — “Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament: A Further Characteristic of the kaige-Th. Revision?”, Textus 8 (1973) 78–92. Repr. in E. Tov, The Greek and the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999) 501–12. Tov, E./Kraft, R.A./Parsons, P.J., The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal & *Hever (8HevXIIgr) * (DJD VIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).

Bibliography

223

Trebolle, J., “Agreements between LXXBL, Medieval Hebrew Readings, and Variants of the Aramaic, Syriac and Vulgate Versions in Kaige and Non-kaige Sections of 3–4 Reigns”, in M.K.H. Peters (ed.), XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki, 2010 (SBLSCS 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2013) 193–205. — Centena in Libros Samuelis et Regum: Variantes Textuales y Composición Literaria en los Libros de Samuel y Reyes (Textos y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros 47; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigationes Científicas, 1989). — “From the ‘Old Latin’ through the ‘Old Greek’ to the ‘Old Hebrew’ (2 Kings 10:25–28)”, Textus 11 (1984) 17–36. — “Textos ‘Kaige’ en la Vetus Latina de Reyes (2 Re 10,25–28)”, RB 89 (1982) 198–209. — The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (Leiden: Brill/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Trebolle, J./Torijano, P., “Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate, Aramaic and Syriac Versions of 1–2 Kings vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text and the Greek Version”, in E. Martín-Contreras/ L. Miralles-Maciá (ed.), The Text of the Hebrew Bible From the Rabbis to the Masoretes (Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). — “From the Greek Recensions to the Hebrew Editions: A Sample from 1 Kgs 2:1–10”, in R. Müller/J. Pakkala (ed.), Insights into Editing (CBET; Peeters: Leuven, forthcoming). Ulrich, E., “Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translation of the Septuagint”, in N. Fernández (ed.), La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC, 1985) 67–81. Venetz, H.-J., Das Quinta des Psalteriums: Ein Beitrag zur Septuaginta und Hexaplaforschung (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1974). Vercellone, C., Variae Lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum II (Romae, 1864). Voitila, A.i, “The Use of Tenses in the L- and B-Texts in the Kaige-Section of 2 Reigns”, in Siegfried Kreuzer/Martin Meiser/Marcus Sigismund (ed.), Die Septuaginta. Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 213–37. Walters, S.D., “Childless Michal, Mother of Five”, in M.E. Cohen/D.C. Snell/ D.B. Weisberg (ed.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near East Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda: CDL, 1993) 290–6.

224

Bibliography

Weitzman, M.P., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56; Cambridge: University Press, 1999). Wevers, J.W., “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies”, BIOSCS 21 (1988) 23–34. — “Proto-Septuagint Studies”, in T.S. McCullough (ed.), The Seed of Wisdom: Festschrift T.J. Meek (Toronto: University Press, 1964) 58–77. — “The Legacy of Barthélemy’s Publication of Devanciers (1963): shorter form for IOSCS Bulletin 37 (2005)” [http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/judaism/barthel04.html]. Wirth, Raimund, “Das Praesens Historicum in den griechischen Samuelbüchern”, in K. De Troyer et al. (ed.), In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Texts in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus (CBET 72; Leuven: Peeters, 2014) 117–132. — Die Septuaginta-Übersetzung der Samuelbücher: Untersucht unter Einbeziehung ihrer Rezensionen (DSI 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016). Würthwein, E., Die Bücher der Könige: 1. Kön. 17–2 Kön. 25 (ATD 11/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).

Index of Biblical Passages and Other Ancient Sources The index does not include biblical references that appear only in lists; see esp. pp. 80–119. 1–2 Kings = 3–4 Kingdoms. Genesis 6 43 6:6, 7 44, 45 24:67 44 27:42 44, 51 30:22 178 37:35 44 38:12 44 41:41, 43 163 49:10 18 Exodus 13:17 45 24:12 160 32 43 32:12, 14 45 35–40 21 Leviticus 10:6 163 20:27 154 Numbers 23:19

44, 45, 47, 51

Deuteronomy 1:15 163 6:17 162 16:18 163 17:15 163 17:19 162 18 43

28:13 163 29:15 47 32:32 162 32:36 44 Joshua 9:27 163 15:10 165 Judges 6:12 38 11:1 38 21:6, 15 46 1 Samuel 1:9, 14 183 1:11 163 1:13 178 1:24 183 2:14 170, 172 2:22 193 2:28 181 3:1 159 5:6 193 6:14 187 7:4 193 7:6 180, 188 8:19 153 9:24 172, 173 9:27 152 10:27 139 11:38 73

226

Index of Biblical Passages and Other Ancient Sources

1 Samuel (cont.) 12:13 163 14:41–42 183 14:45 128 15 47, 52 15:3 184 15:11 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 174 15:24–25, 27 52 15:29 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 177, 183 15:35 46, 47, 49 16:3 176 16:18 181 17:52 142 18:19 35 21:8 195 22:8, 13 152 24:5 156 25:18 32 25:36 179 26:21, 24 156 28:3, 7–9 154 28:11 180 28:25 181 29:5 179 30:10 174 30:13 180 30:21 173, 174 30:23 180 2 Samuel 1:1–11:1 15, 55 1:23 158 2:23 142 7:13 63 9:13 15 10, 11 194 10:2–3 46 10:2, 3, 5 195 10:6 186, 196 10:8 189, 196 10:14, 16, 18, 19 196

10:17 189, 190, 196 11:2 186 11:21 18 12:11 18 12:24 46 13:39 46 15:2 142 15:37 192 16:1 32 16:6, 13 142 16:12 152 17:20 192 19:10–13 18 19:11–13 31 19:25[24] 18 19:26 195 21:8 34, 35 22:43 32, 33 23:8 33 23:13 32 24 17, 48 24:15 183 24:16 46, 47, 175 2 Sam 10:1– 1 Kgs 2:11 23, 147 2 Sam 11:2– 1 Kgs 2:11 11, 15, 18, 55, 147 1 Kings 1:1–16:28 56 1:1–2:10/11 76, 123, 144 1:2 70, 71, 76 1:3, 8 71 1:17 57, 59, 70 1:35, 36 58, 59, 71 1:40 70, 76, 127 1:43 70, 76 1:47 57, 70 1:48 163 1:49 58, 59 1:52 128 2:1 128 2:4 76

Index of Biblical Passages and Other Ancient Sources 1 Kings (cont.) 2:5 129 2:8 152 2:11 17, 76, 120, 123, 144, 158 2:11–21:29 123 2:12–21:43 15, 55, 76, 120 2:14, 22 76 2:34 62 2:35 163 2:36, 42, 46 62 2:46b 139 3:2 62, 63 3:6 152 3:24 62 4:4 62, 63, 67 4:17 63 4:23 161 4:26 63 5:1 139 5:3, 30 161 5:4 76 5:16 161 5:17, 19 63 6–7 64 6:24 64, 66 6:31–33 65, 67 8:11 76 8:17 63 8:19 153 8:20 63 8:24 152 8:44, 48 63 8:53 159 8:61 152 8:65 73 10:9 163 10:13, 15 161 10:25 139 11:5, 7 164 11:26 61 11:27 60, 61 11:38 76

12:20 60 12:30 73 13:17–15:19 56 13:32 73, 76 14:7 163 14:24 164 16:24 165 16:28a–h 144 16:28b 155 17:12 153 17:22 73, 74, 76 18:44 141 20–21 17 22:5 151 22:8 158, 167 22:10 142 22:18 153, 158 22:27 165 22:32 130 22:40–51 144 22:41–51 155 22:43 155, 156 1 Kgs 22 – 2 Kgs 25 15, 23, 76, 123, 144, 147, 161 2 Kings 1:17 76 2:8 130 2:11 165, 167 2:14 130 2:23 142 3:8, 20 132 5:1 37, 38 6:32 159, 167 7:5 132–134 7:6–7 134 7:7 132, 133 7:8a 134 7:9 133, 135 7:12 133 8:1 136 8:25–27 139

227

228

Index of Biblical Passages and Other Ancient Sources

2 Kings (cont.) 8:26–28* 139 8:28–9:26 139 9–17 144 9:28–29* 139 9:37 138 10:1 30 10:24 138 10:26 154 10:27 76 10:30 153, 166 10:36–42 139 11:19 142 12:11[10] 38 13:21 36 14:27 160 15:10 30, 73, 75, 76 15:16 30 15:20 38 15:30, 33 39 16:3 164 16:18 30 17:2 142 17:4 30, 139 17:14 74, 76 18:17 140 18:34 141 19:17 36 19:23, 25 37 20:11 37 20:12 33, 34 21:2–7 149 21:2 155, 164, 166 21:3, 5 153, 167 21:6 154, 155, 167 21:7 149 21:8 154, 159, 167 21:9 155, 167 21:10 154, 167 21:11 150, 164–166 21:12, 13 160, 167 21:15 153, 167 21:16 150, 156, 161, 166, 167

21:17 151 21:26 30 22:2 155, 161, 167, 168 22:4, 9 34 22:11 166 22:13 34, 36, 166 22:18 166 22:19 150, 152, 161, 166, 168 22:20 157, 166, 167 23:2 166 23:3 162, 166, 167 23:4 153, 162, 166, 167 23:5 153, 157, 163, 164, 167 23:6 162 23:8 31 23:10 166 23:11 163, 164, 166, 167 23:13 32, 164, 167 23:15 150, 166 23:16 165, 168 23:24 154, 164 23:32 155 24:2 155 24:14 38 25:4 30, 142 25:9 30 1 Chronicles 11:11 33 12:19 163 19:7, 17 189 26:18 140 2 Chronicles 9:11 140 17:2 163 18:31 130 19:10 159, 162 21:11 165 22:1–4 139 32:13 141

Index of Biblical Passages and Other Ancient Sources 2 Chronicles (cont.) 33:6 154 34:28 166 35:13 160 35:19a 154 36:2b, 5 155 Psalms 10:2–34:6 204 17:45–118:44 204 18[17] 32 18:10b–11a 208 18:43 33 26[25]:3 156 30:5–55:14 204 36[35]:3 156 82[81]:1–8 18 110:4 44 113:1–11, 209 12–26 119:52 44 135:14 44 Proverbs 19:24 160 26:15 160 Isaiah 1:16 156 7:3 140 8:19 154 16:8 162 30:8 160 36:2 140 37:27 162 39:1 33 66:14 51 Jeremiah 4:1 164 4:28 44 7:18 18 7:30 164 13:27 164

16:18 164 18 47 18:7–10 43 26:3, 13, 19 43 31:40 162 Ezekiel 3:18–21 159 5:11 164 5:13 44 11:18, 21 164 20:7, 8, 30 164 28–39 205 Hosea 10:5 157 Jonah 3:9 43, 45, 47, 175 3:10 43, 45, 175 4:2 43 Nahum 1:4 51 Habakkuk 2:2 160 3:17 162 Zephaniah 1:4 157 Susanna 28 51 51 159 Judith 8:16 51, 52 1 Maccabees 2:21, 40 162 3 Maccabees 4:19 51

229

230

Index of Biblical Passages and Other Ancient Sources

4 Maccabees 9:5 51 Sirach 19:17 51 Wisdom of Salomon 3:2 156 Matthew 13:49 159 Acts 4:17 51 16:16 154 Romans 8:35 159 2 Corinthians 6:17 159 1 Peter 2:23 51 Nahal Hever Minor Prophets scroll ˙ ˙ (8HevXIIgr) ˙ 14, 17–19, 21, 26, 41, 42, 45, 120, 147, 157, 158, 169, 171, 200, 201, 210 Homeric Hymns 3.370–4 154

Justin Martyr Dial. §120.4 18 Dial. §124.2–3 18 Dial. §137.3 18 Lucifer of Cagliari Athan. 1.6, 7 162 Athan. 1.14, 15 156 Athan. 1.20 158, 165 Athan. 1.21 159, 162 Athan. 1.23, 32, 39 156 Athan. 2.10, 17 159 Conv. 5 156 Conv. 13 159 Mor. 6 159 Parc. 4 159 Parc. 5 153 Parc. 7 150, 153, 155, 157, 161–166 Parc. 10 159 Parc. 12, 14 162 Reg. 3 60 Reg. 6 155 Reg. 8 149–151, 153–155, 159–161, 165 Origen Comm. Jo. 20.20 208 Rufinus Orig. Hom. Num. 16.7 154