DOMINIQUE BARTHÉLEMY, O.P.: Les devanciers d'Aquila. Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du "Dodécaprophéton" trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d'une étude sur les traductions et recensions greques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l'influence du rabbinat palestinien. Leiden: E.J. Brill 1963. XIV, 272 S. 2 Taf. 52 hfl. (Suppl. to Vetus Testamentum. 10.)
[[Appeared originally in GNOMON 37(1965) 474-483]]
[[see also my "40 years later" essay]]
Seldom has such a provocative book appeared in this highly technical area of the study of the Greek Jewish scriptures ("Old Testament"). It will require several years [] (if not decades) and a wealth of detailed investigation to provide the kind of thorough critical evaluation that this important contribution warrants. Not only is B.'s presentation technically competent, but it contains a daring frontal attack on many traditions and theories that have long been influential. A rapid glance at his own summary of the endeavor will suffice to indicate how radically B. has attempted to reconstruct certain aspects of the history of Jewish scripture in Greek: "I have set out to establish in this investigation that during the first century of the common era, there had existed in Palestine, under the influence of the Rabbinate, a coherent effort at translation and recension of the scriptures into Greek." By identifying the more typical characteristics of certain products of this undertaking, B. hopes to provide a more reasonable solution to the complex textual problems which exist within certain portions of the so-called "LXX/OG" tradition (see below). Furthermore, in passing, he would like "to destroy certain old myths which already have been severely shaken such as the "Lucianic recension," the date of Theodotion, the alleged content of certain columns in Origen's Hexapla, the distinction between Aquila and the author of the "Septuagint" of Ecclesiastes, the attribution of Aramaic targums to Jonathan ben "Uzziel and to Onqelos, etc...." -- and also "to furnish satisfactory explanations for these myths after the facts which they have disfigured have been reestablished" (pp. IX-X). It is to be hoped that B.'s work, which at almost every point is so meticulously documented and carefully presented that it cannot be dismissed without careful consideration, will infuse new life and direction into this difficult and often neglected area of linguistic and historical studies.
1. As the sub-title indicates, a primary function of this book is to publish the text of a newly discovered Greek MS of the Minor Prophets. Although it is not until Part 3 of B.'s presentation that this new text is described and analyzed in detail (161-272), it has actually served as the catalyst for his work in Parts 1-2. Thus it merits closer attention at this point.
Late in the summer of 1952, the Palestinian authorities purchased some manuscript materials which had been discovered by Bedouin scroll-hunters at an undisclosed location somewhere in the Judean wastelands, apparently to the south of Qumran and Murabbaat. The fact that several of the items explicitly linked themselves with Simeon ben Kosebah (or, bar Kokhba) and the Jewish revolt which he led in 132-135 C.E. suggested that all of these materials had been deposited at about that time in the cave(s) in which the Bedouin found them. Recently, Israeli archaeologists have identified a cave in Nahal Hever [Nah.al H.ever: 8 H.ev XII Gr] as the source of (at least part of) this material, and have confirmed the connection of this cave with the ben Kosebah revolt (see B. Lifschitz, "The Greek Documents from the Cave of Horror," Israel Exploration Journal 12, 1962, 201-207; also the material cited by B., 168\9/).
The 1952 purchases included numerous Greek fragments from a leather scroll of the Minor Prophets. The scroll itself shows evidence of having [] received much use before it came to be deposited in the cave. On paleographical grounds, the writing could be dated as early as the last half of the first century BCE., although a date in the first century of the common era (around 50 CE) has appeared to be more likely. The original scroll seems to have contained at least 60 columns of writing, and possibly as many as 90-95, but useful fragments from only 24 of the columns are now preserved. These fragments cover portions of Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zachariah (possibly also Amos -- see 168\9/). The last preserved columns (Zach 9-8) were written in a hand different from (but apparently contemporary with) the earlier portions, and in a different format.
In 1953, B. provided the scholarly world with a preliminary account of this scroll and an exciting probe into its significance for students of the Greek and Hebrew Jewish scriptures ("Redécouverte d'un chaînon manquant de l'histoire de la Septante," Revue Biblique 60, 18-29). He showed that the Greek text contained in the fragments was by no means identical with extant "LXX/OG" MSS of the Minor Prophets, but exhibited definite affinities with such so-called "Later translations" as Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and the mysterious anonymous "Quinta" column of Origen's Hexapla. Nevertheless, argued B., the translation of the Minor Prophets preserved by these fragments does not seem to have originated in basic independence from the "LXX/OG" version, but rather reflects a "recension" of the "LXX/OG" aimed at bringing that older Greek rendering into closer harmony with the (developing) Hebrew text. This recension (which, for convenience sake, B. has now designated "R" -- and so henceforth in this review), in turn, influenced the work of "later translators" such as Aquila. In fact, argued B., the new text agrees so closely with what is known of Origen's "Quinta" column that the two are probably identical! And further, this "R-Quinta" seems to have been the text used by Justin Martyr for at least some of his Minor Prophet quotations (see also this Journal 36, 1964, 572f), as well as the leading influence responsible for the wealth of "Hebraistic" readings in the Coptic versions (especially Achmimic and Sahidic).
At the close of his 1953 article, which provided only samplings from "R" (including one photographic plate -- Hab 1.14-2, 6; 2.13-15), B. made the following promise: "Le travail de l'ancêstre anonyme d'Aquila et d'Origène mérite donc une publication que nous espérons pouvoir aborder sans trop tarder. De cette publication nous pouvons attendre un triple témoignage: premiérement sur l'état du texte de base de la LXX, deuxièmement sur l'état du texte hébreu utilisé par le recenseur [= "R"], troisièmement sur l'exacte originalité de chacun des trois grands recenseurs du second siécle [Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus]" (28-29 "The work of the anonymous ancestor of Aquila and Origen deserves a publication that we hope to be able to provide without much delay. In this publication we will examine three levels of evidence: first the state of the base text of the LXX, secondly the state of the Hebrew text used by the reviser "R", and thirdly the respective originality of each of the three great revisers of the second century"). Now, ten years later, this promise has been fulfilled, for the most part, in the publication under review, although the 1963 plan of attack has been subject to a great deal of modification and refinement in the process.
Despite the amount of space devoted to the newly discovered "R" in the 1963 presentation, and the meticulously detailed analyses provided, this must still be considered as only a preliminary publication. While B. has, for the first time, made available transcriptions of all the significant fragments known to him (170-178) and has provided two additional photographic plates (containing Hab 2.15-20; 3.9-14; Mic 1.2-3; Zach 8.19-9, 4), the "diplomatic edition" of the fragments (with careful attention to the column structure of the original and to the relation of the fragments to each other) has been reserved for the appropriate future volume of the series "Discoveries in the Judean Desert" (ed. by M. Baillet [] et al.). Thus it is not yet possible for interested students to attempt any large-scale reconstruction of the lacunae in the MS with any degree of control (except for the passages reproduced photographically). Similarly, B. has deferred such helpful tools as an index of Greek words in "R" to the forthcoming definitive edition. [See now Emanuel Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIGr), with the Collaboration of R.A. Kraft and a Contribution by P.J. Parsons (The Seiyal Collection I; DJD 8; Oxford: Clarendon 1990)]
The bulk of Part 3 is devoted to an attempt to establish with greater precision the relationship between "R" and other ancient Greek renderings of the Minor Prophets. Here B. adds a great deal of detailed material in support of the thesis which he presented in 1953; not only was the "R-Quinta" recension known to Justin and to the Coptic versions, but it influenced the "Hebraizing" readings in "LXX/OG" Codex Washingtonensis (1st and 2nd hands, but not the 3rd hand). Furthermore, B. argues, Aquila's "translation" of the Minor Prophets actually was a further revision of "R-Quinta" (not of the "LXX/OG" as such) to bring it into even closer agreement with the developing Hebrew text, and Symmachus shows a direct knowledge of "R-Quinta" (but not of Aquila nor of "LXX/OG" as such). Finally, the version of the Minor Prophets that came to be labelled "Theodotion" reflects different techniques from the "Theodotion" texts found elsewhere (e.g. in Job, Daniel), and seems to be "late and eclectic" -- based on "LXX/OG," "R-Quinta," Aquila, and even Symmachus (?), as well as on the Hebrew, but with clear "disdain for literalism."
B. has convincingly established the basic identity of "R" and the Minor Prophets "Quinta," and the close relationship between this "R-Quinta," Justin, and the "Hebraistic" readings in Codex Washingtonensis and the Coptic versions. Thus it now becomes possible to reconstruct much of the "Quinta" Minor Prophets version with a good deal of confidence. A point which, to this reviewer, requires further clarification, however, is B.'s claim (both in 1953 and 1963) that "R-Quinta" is a conscious and deliberate "recension" of the "LXX/OG" Minor Prophets. He may well be correct (and it is not such an important issue as some would make it!), but he has not developed a carefully enough controlled methodology for demonstrating such systematic dependence. The situation is extremely complex, with numerous subtle factors at work. It can be demonstrated, for example, that there was a limited amount of variety in the available Hebrew text of the Minor Prophets in the first century (compare, e.g., the Qumran commentaries with the traditional Masoretic text). It is also clear that the "LXX/OG" text of the Minor Prophets is a relatively literal (by comparison, e.g., to "LXX/OG" Isaiah, or even the Pentateuch) rendering of a Hebrew "Vorlage" which did not differ greatly from the traditional Masoretic text. It can be shown that basically independent Greek translations of basically the same Hebrew "Vorlage" can have a great deal in common (compare, e.g., the renderings of virtually the same Hebrew poem in "LXX/OG" Psalm 17 and in MSS of 2 Samuel 22), which can scarcely be attributed at all points to "dependence" of one upon the other. Furthermore, B. has not discussed with any systematic precision (see 216 n. 3) the possibility of "LXX/OG" influence on the transmission of "R," although this could provide an alternative explanation for certain peculiarities present in "R" and "LXX/OG" but not attributable to any known Hebrew text forms. In order to establish a high probability that "R" is a recension of "LXX/OG," one must show that certain (unconscious) Greek idiomatic features of "LXX/OG," which cannot easily be explained on the basis of variant Hebrew "Vorlagen" or later textual corruption, are present in "R" in violence to its normal interlinear method. For example, the retention of postpositive δέ where the translator's literal technique requires καί could be a weighty piece of evidence. Actually, B.'s 1953 transcription of "R" in Micah 4.5 (=Justin; see also 1963, p. 206) included the words ἡμεῖς δέ (so "LXX/OG") [] where we might have expected καί ἡμεῖς -- but the 1963 transcription (p. 172) indicates the presence of a brief lacuna where δέ should occur. The best examples cited by B. come from Hab 2.6 (διήγησις αὐτοῦ, p.189) and Hab 2.18 (ἐπὶ τὸ πλάσμα αὐτοῦ ἐπ’ αὐτό, p. 192), but in each instance there is strong evidence of early confusion within the Hebrew textual tradition, which could provide sufficient explanation for the alleged reliance of "R" on "LXX/OG"; in the latter case, the influence of "LXX/OG" on the transmission of "R" could also be a factor.
2. It has long been obvious that the so-called "LXX/OG" is not the unified product of a single group of translators who worked together at a single point in history. Rather, it is a collection of Greek translations made at different times (and places?) by translators who used various techniques. Sometimes the MS tradition in a single "LXX/OG" book contains evidence of different attempts at translation. In short, "each book, or at least each group of books, poses its own distinct problem" (p. IX). B.'s detailed examination of one group of books, the Minor Prophets, in the light of the newly found "R," has stimulated him to ask further questions relevant to the more general discussion of the "LXX/OG." When and where did the type of "Hebraizing" endeavor reflected in "R-Quinta" originate? Who was responsible for it? Are there other parts of the Greek Jewish scriptures which employ the same techniques? Can this approach be identified with any specific period in Jewish history?
In Part 1 (1-88) of his investigation, B. shows that a fairly consistent translation technique, reflecting early Rabbinic rules of interpretation, appears in several portions of the Greek Jewish scriptures in addition to the "R-Quinta" Minor Prophets. This is not the highly developed, almost inflexible technique of Aquila, which has long been traceable to the Rabbinic hermeneutic associated with the name of Rabbi Aqiba [or, Akiba] in the first third of the second century of our era. Rather, it represents the less-stringent methodology (traditionally attributed to Hillel, who lived a century earlier) which served as the basis for the Aqiba-Aquila approach and which was preserved with very little change by Aqiba's contemporary Rabbi Ishmael.
A key point of difference between these two hermeneutical schools lies in their treatment of Hebrew particles of inclusion. Whereas both Aqiba and Ishmael gave strict attention to the inclusive Hebrew particle <hb>gam</> ("also"), only Aqiba and his school required that the Hebrew <hb>et</>, which can mean "with" but more usually functions as the sign of the accusative case relationship, be given the inclusive force ("with") in almost every case. Aquila's Greek technique of representing the <hb>et</> either by the adverbial σύν or by providing a definite article where the Hebrew had none, therefore, attests his close relationship to Aqiba's hermeneutic. The other "Hebraizing Greek versions like "R-Quinta" ignore this <hb>et</> = σύν device, but are careful (as is Aquila) to distinguish the particle <hb>gam</> ("also") from the simple conjunctive "and" by rendering the former by καίγε and the latter by καί. A closer examination of the Jewish scriptures portions which employ this <hb>gam</> = καίγε technique, but do not use <hb>et</> = σύν, enables B. to uncover several other characteristic devices and thus to isolate what [] he calls the "καίγε group" of Greek translations. Similarly, a closer analysis of Aquila's work (which, according to B., includes "LXX/OG" Ecclesiastes) reveals the extent to which he has moved beyond the "καίγε group" in applying the rules developed by Aqiba. Aquila is depicted as the "perfecter" of the previous techniques.
B.'s καίγε group is composed of the following members (p. 47): the normal "LXX/OG" text of Lamentations, and probably also of Canticles, Ruth, and Nehemiah (see p. 53); the majority of "LXX/OG" MSS in 2 Sam 11.2 - 1 Kings 2, 11 and 1 Kings 22 - 2 Kings 25; the version of Judges contained especially in MSS irua2 and Befsz; the "Theodotion" text of Daniel and Job (additions); the anonymous additions to "LXX/OG" Jeremiah; the readings attributed to "Theodotion" in general (but not in the Minor Prophets) and to "Quinta" in Psalms; and the new "R-Quinta" version of the Minor Prophets. Additional characteristics of this group include: (1) the Hebrew <hb>'ish</> (literally "man") is represented by ἀνήρ even when it is used in the idiomatic distributive sense ( = ἕκαστος in "LXX/OG"); (2) the compound Hebrew preposition <hb>mey'al</> ("from over," etc.) is rendered by ἐπ(απ-)άνωθεν rather than "LXX/OG" ἀπό or ἐπάνω; (3) the Hebrew <hb>shofar</> ("trumpet, horn") is translated by the adjectival substantive κερατίνη, not by the usual "LXX/OG" σάλπιγξ; (4) the longer, alternative Hebrew form of the independent first person singular pronoun, <hb>'anoki</>, consistently becomes ἐγώ εἰμι (not simply ἐγώ, which is used for the shorter Hebrew pronoun!), etc.
Points at which Aquila is said to have "perfected" the techniques of the καίγε group include the following: (1) where the Hebrew <hb>wegam</> ("and also") occurs, Aquila rather mechanically renders it καὶ καίγε (although this is not true in "LXX/OG" Ecclesiastes, which B. attributes to Aquila); (2) the divine title <hb>YHWH zeva'ot</> ("YHWH of Hosts") is normally found as κύριος παντοκράτωρ in "LXX/OG" (in Isaiah, κύριος σαβαώθ), as κύριος or YHWH (in Hebrew letters) τῶν δυνάμεων in the καίγε group (and in some "LXX/OG" texts; e.g. Psalms), but as <hb>YHWH</> στρατειῶν in Aquila; (3) the idiom <hb>le'olam</> ("forever") becomes the exact quantitative equivalent εἰς αἰῶνα for Aquila rather than the more idiomatic and more traditional εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα; etc. It is unfortunate that J. Reider's long awaited Greek-Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek Index to Aquila was not yet available for B.'s use (it has been announced as vol. 12 in this same series of Supplements to Vetus Testamentum). It should prove to be an indispensable tool for matters such as this -- e.g. it will provide the information necessary for evaluating B.'s claim that the supposed "LXX/OG" text of Ecclesiastes is really the work of Aquila himself (32-33). On this latter question, meanwhile, it would be well to keep in mind Reider's conclusions, arrived at after long hours of detailed study of Aquila's technique: "As for Ecclesiastes, the safest way to account for σύν and similar mannerisms reminiscent of [Aquila] is to say that we are dealing with a translator who, though not [Aquila] himself, belonged to the same school" (Prolegomena to a Greek-Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek Index to Aquila, 1916, 16f n. 33).
This comment of Reider relates to a wider issue in which B. may be over-daring in his presentation. B. implies that the καίγε group represents the work of a sort of school of translators (see, e.g., "LXX/OG" Nehemiah which has καίγε characteristics but does not consistently use καίγε itself! p. 53) who follow Hillelite principles in the form in which they later came to be advocated by the Rabbi Ishmael. Yet B. never seriously considers the possibility of the existence of a similar school of translators who come to be represented by tradition in the figure of Aquila (or by Aqiba, on the Hebrew side of things). Furthermore, the fact that Aqiba and Ishmael were contemporaries and represented competing schools of interpretation raises serious questions about the advisability of lumping all members of the καίγε group together as chronologically prior to Aquila, as B. seems to suggest. What is to prevent some of the καίγε group from continuing their work after Aquila (and his school) had applied the "more consistent" approach of Aqiba -- or at least at the same time as Aquila? Did the hermeneutic of Ishmael die when Aqiba came on the scene? Apparently not, if we can trust the Rabbinic sources. Neither can the καίγε group as a whole be so confidently and schematically dated before [] Aquila, although probably the Aquila school must be seen as commencing its work after the earlier representatives of the καίγε group (e.g., "R-Quinta" of the Minor Prophets) have begun their labors. Finally, B.'s reasons for locating the work of the καίγε group in Palestine itself must, for the present, remain somewhat problematic and arbitrary. We simply do not have enough knowledge about Judaism, and particularly non-Palestinian and non-Alexandrian Judaism in the first century of our era, to substantiate such claims with full confidence. (What was happening in hellenistic Jewish Antioch? Asia? etc. Was there a hellenistic Babylonian Jewry?)
3. The remaining portion of B.'s investigation (Part 2, 89-160) is both the most technical and the most problematic section of the book. In it, B. has selected for detailed textual analysis a few of the "most characteristic members" of the καίγε group -- 2 Sam 11.2 - 1 Kings 2.11; "Theodotion"; Ruth; Canticles; and Lamentations. Among his more general conclusions in this section is the claim that, contrary to tradition, "Theodotion" must be pictured as a predecessor of Aquila, and is probably to be identified with the first century student of Hillel named Jonathan ben `Uzziel. Furthermore, he argues, the Jewish tradition about Aramaic targums by a certain "Jonathan" and "Onqelos" probably stems from a misinterpretation of traditions about the Greek translational activity of Jonathan = Theodotion and Onqelos = Aquila (148 ff).
Although B. has presented various pieces of evidence in support of this novel reconstruction, it cannot be said that the cumulative effect is compelling. There simply is not enough evidence to turn this intriguing possibility into a historical probability. It is true that a Rabbinic tradition exists which credits Jonathan ben `Uzziel with a translation of the prophets and of some of the "writings," and that the extant Aramaic targum which has come to be linked to the name Jonathan is not, in its present form, a product of first century Palestine, but this is not reason enough for identifying the early Jonathan with "Theodotion." Even if the basic similarity of the names Jonathan and Theodotion is acknowledged (they both mean something like "the divinity gives"), there were other early Jonathans who also are possible candidates for the translator's role -- e.g. the famous pupil of Rabbi Ishmael. The Onqelos = Aquila identification is less novel, but older theories of this sort have not gained wide acceptance. Nevertheless, this onomastic juggling is really rather incidental to B.'s main argument, and whatever names are used it is now clear that the καίγε technique which appears in most of the "Theodotion" sections of the Greek Jewish scriptures is older than the date traditionally assigned to "Theodotion." Whether one prefers to identify "Theodotion" with the founder (or an early leader) of the καίγε school, as B. does, or with a later member of the group (the traditional date would require this), is relatively unimportant. In the former case one must speak of "Theodotion" and "Pseudo-Theodotion" (e.g. in the Minor Prophets -- see above), while in the latter case, of "Proto-Theodotion" and "Theodotion."
Most of the space in Part 2, however, is devoted to an attempt to disentangle one of the most complex problems in the complicated area of Greek Jewish scriptures research -- the textual situation in preserved MSS of the books of Samuel-Kings. It is here that the potential value of B.'s investigations for future research is best seen in action.
B.'s approach to Samuel-Kings cannot be understood without first referring to a series of articles by H. St. J. Thackeray on the same problem at the beginning of the 20th century. Thackeray argued that the presence of certain stylistic incongruities in the Greek form of Samuel-Kings (also Jeremiah and Ezekiel) suggested that for some reason, different sections of these books had been translated by different persons who had used somewhat different techniques. (A reworked form of these studies appeared in [] 1921 as The Septuagint and Jewish Worship.) For Thackeray (op. cit., 16-28), the present Greek form of Samuel-Kings (that is, the form found in codex Vaticanus and most other MSS) is made up of five subsections: three older portions comprising a "partial rendering" made in Alexandria (1 Sam; 2 Sam 1.1-11.1; 1 Kings 2.12-21.43), and two "late" sections "characterized by certain mannerisms of the Asiatic school" and probably the work of "a single translator" (2 Sam 11.2 - 1 Kings 2.11; 1 Kings 22-2 Kings 25). Thackeray did not feel that the latter sections were the work of Theodotion himself, but of an anonymous Asian figure who "appears to have been a pioneer of the literal school and a predecessor of Aquila"(!). In Thackeray's view, there never had been an Alexandrian translation of the two Asian sections.
Whereas Thackeray wrote in an era when codex Vaticanus seems to have been the accepted norm for textual studies of the Greek scriptures, B. pursues the discussion in terms of the larger textual situation among Greek MSS of Samuel-Kings. Initially, B. focuses attention on that portion of Samuel-Kings in which the different text-types are most consistently represented, 2 Sam 11.2-1 Kings 2.11. Thackeray had found here only an "Asian" supplement (in most MSS) and the supposedly later "Lucianic" recension (in MSS boc2e2). A detailed comparison of these text types, however, suggests to B. that the latter (boc2e2) actually represents the "ancient Greek translation" ("LXX/OG") of this section (which, in a slightly corrupt form, later came to circulate among the church Fathers of Antioch and was dubbed "Lucianic"), while the majority text (especially MSS Ba2, Acx) contains a "καίγε recension" of the older version. Support for this hypothesis is drawn from the fact that Josephus, in the first century, and the Old Latin version(s) of "LXX/OG," from the second century, tend to agree more closely with MSS boc2e2 than with the majority text here. But what is especially perplexing is the extremely close relationship between the text of boc2e2 and the readings attributed to "Theodotion" in this section. Previous attempts at solving this problem have resorted to slogans such as "Proto-Lucianic" or "Proto-Theodotion" texts, since Josephus and the Old Latin predate Theodotion and Lucian!
B.'s proposed solution, however, is startlingly different in that it abandons the traditional labels such as "Theodotion" and "Lucian," and begins with the indisputable fact that the translation technique presupposed by the majority of MSS here is that of the "καίγε group," while there is no strong evidence to suggest that the boc2e2 type of text is a development from the καίγε text -- indeed, the opposite seems more likely! How, then, asks B., could it happen that (1) in 1 Sam - 2 Sam 11.1 and 1 Kings 2.12-21(20).43, most Greek MSS preserve a non-καίγε (thus "LXX/OG") type of text, while in the remaining sections of Samuel-Kings they have a καίγε text; (2) MSS boc2e2 alone are relatively consistent in maintaining a non-καίγε text throughout Samuel-Kings; (3) the alleged "Theodotionic" readings in Samuel-Kings do not follow the καίγε technique in 2 Sam 11.2 - 1 Kings 2.11, although elsewhere they tend to belong to the "καίγε-group"? Since it is mainly from Hexaplaric MSS that information about the "later versions" (including Theodotion) was derived, and since Origen's "LXX/OG" column exerted widespread influence on later MSS of the Greek Jewish scriptures, the clue to this confused situation must lie in the manner in which Origen arranged his Hexapla for Samuel-Kings, and the manner in which later copyists interpreted the arrangement!
According to B., the following reconstruction of Origen's procedure provides the most adequate solution for the above situation. Before he left Egypt for Palestine, Origen was familiar with a complete Alexandrian Greek translation of Samuel-Kings -- roughly what now is preserved in MSS boc2e2. In Palestine, Origen came across two additional, closely related Greek versions. The first ("Pal. 1") was a hybrid -- a composite of the older Alexandrian version plus "καίγε" recensions of the sections 2 Sam 11.2 ff and 1 Kings 22ff. The second ("Pal. 2") was a complete "καίγε" edition of the whole of Samuel-Kings. Thus Origen placed "Pal. 1" in the [] normal "LXX/OG" column of his Hexapla (Tetrapla), and relegated "Pal. 2" to the usual "Theodotion" column. But since both Palestinian versions were in basic agreement in 2 Sam 11.2 - 1 Kings 2, 11, Origen replaced "Pal. 2" with the Alexandrian "LXX/OG" for that section. Something similar seems to have occurred at 1 Kings 22, but in 2 Kings there was enough difference between the two Palestinian versions that Origen added a "Quinta" column in which to place his Alexandrian "LXX/OG." B.'s reconstruction may be schematically presented as follows:
Samuel-Kings Origen's Hexapla
sub-section [=Thackeray] col. 5, normal "LXX" col.6 col.7
Samuel-Kings Origen's Hexapla
sub-section [=Thackeray] col. 5, normal "LXX" col.6 col.7
1 Samuel [=α, Alex.] Pal.1 (="LXX") Pal.2 ---
2 Sam 1.1-11.1 [=ββ, Alex.] Pal.1 (="LXX") Pal.2 ---
2 Sam 11.2 ff [=βγ ,Asian] Pal.1 (=Pal.2) "LXX"(=boc2e2)
1 Kings 2.12ff [=γγ ,Alex.] Pal.1 (="LXX") Pal.2 ---
1 Kings 22 [=γδ , Asian] Pal.1 "LXX"(=boc2e2)---(?)
2 Kings } [=γδ , Asian] Pal.1 Pal. 2 "LXX" (=boc2e2)
It cannot be doubted that B.'s stylistic analysis of Samuel-Kings is a step in the right direction and has opened up new vistas for attacking that problem. It would be senseless to object that B.'s hypothesis is too complex; on the contrary, there is strong reason to suspect that it is too simple! For example, the identification of MSS boc2e2 with the "ancient Alexandrian version" is highly questionable in view of the fact that even in the non-καίγε sections which are preserved by most Greek MSS (e.g. 1 Sam), there is a characteristic difference between the majority text ("LXX/OG") and MSS boc2e2 -- and B. himself accepts the majority text as basically "LXX/OG" in these sections. To put it another way, at least two non-καίγε (which may also mean pre-καίγε Greek forms of Samuel-Kings seem to be attested in extant MSS. B. argues that two καίγε recensions are also present. Unfortunately, it does not seem that any consistent witnesses to the "LXX/OG" (i.e. non-boc2e2 and non-καίγε) text for 2 Sam 11.2ff and 1 Kings 22ff have survived.
Novel though this awareness of a multiplicity of early Greek "recensions" (if that term is appropriate here) may seem, it should not be considered surprising or unusual in view of our new awareness of variety of Hebrew text types available in the same period of Jewish history. In a recent article entitled "The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert" (Harvard Theological Review 57, 1964, 281-299; including an appreciation of as well as some criticism of B.'s work), F. M. Cross, Jr., has given a preview of the new Hebrew evidence which has yet to be fully published but which adds considerable support to the general picture drawn by B. of Palestinian "recensional" activity. For the books of Samuel-Kings, for example, Cross speaks of three Hebrew text types in circulation prior to the triumph of Rabbinic Judaism (2nd century C.E.) which are roughly paralleled by known Greek text types: (1) an old Egyptian text which is best known from the Greek "LXX/OG" witnesses; (2) a non-Masoretic Palestinian text which is now known in Hebrew from Qumran and is reflected in Greek in MSS boc2e2 (Cross prefers to call it "Proto-Lucianic"); and (3) a "Proto-Masoretic" text known mainly through the work of the Greek καίγε revisers.
There is one further important factor that undoubtedly contributed to the complex textual situation in Samuel-Kings and thus should be mentioned in support of the observation that B.'s solution may be too simple. Prior to the development of the large-scale codex in the early centuries of our era (especially 3rd-4th), it must have been an extremely difficult matter to retain a consistent text type throughout a work like Samuel-Kings, which would require several scrolls for its transcription. We do not know exactly what kind of MSS Origen consulted in his text-critical labors, but it is safe to assume that he had access both to scrolls and at least to small-scale codices. Origen would have had little control over the integrity of the text that came into his hands, especially if it [] arrived in the form of a codex in which sections of originally different textual nature had been juxtaposed through the transcription of older and shorter scrolls. That is to say, it is just as reasonable to believe that B.'s "Pal. 1" recension originally extended to the whole of Samuel-Kings but subsequently lost its integrity as it became mixed with "LXX/OG" sections in the process of copying MSS (and that a similar situation obtained with reference to the [non-boc2e2] "LXX/OG"), as it is to suppose that "Pal. 1" (or the non-boc2e2 "LXX/OG") originally was only a partial edition. As B.'s investigation shows, the only way in which this kind of situation can be clarified is through painstakingly detailed analysis of the extant MSS and other witnesses. The laborers are few.
The wealth of material covered by B.'s study and the stimulating conclusions drawn therein invariably give rise to many other questions of detail. But to air them would perhaps throw out of perspective the real, foundational service rendered by B. for future study of both the Greek and the Hebrew Jewish scriptures. What we now need are the tools to carry out this type of stylistic investigation with the necessary precision. Especially valuable would be a Hebrew-Greek concordance which pays attention to textual variants and to the "later versions" and thus enables one to ascertain how the original LXX/OG (that is, the old Alexandrian Pentateuch) translators differed from subsequent endeavors (and differed among themselves) in dealing with certain constructions, terms, etc. By this route, it may also become possible to sort out some of the complex problems of the origin and circulation of other, originally Semitic, literature in Greek translation, although it is much too early yet to evaluate this hope. (Note, e.g. that certain portions of the Greek Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs abound in the use of καίγε...) Similarly, by establishing some kind of controls in this area of translation Greek, it may be possible to shed new light on some of the problems of early Christian literature which stems from a hellenistic Jewish or Semitic background.
One thing is certain: the traditional labels such as "LXX/OG," "Theodotion," "Lucianic," etc., cannot be allowed to blind us to the infinitely complex history of the Greek Jewish scriptures. To give but one final example, when Justin Martyr identified as "LXX/OG" certain readings which no longer appear in our "LXX/OG" MSS, he bore witness to the confusion that must have existed in the period in which he lived. Who had given "official" pedigrees to the Greek translations known to Justin in the mid-2nd century? If the text of a certain MS had already become mixed, or if it began with one text type and ended with another because it was copied from two smaller rolls of differing text types, who was conscious of the difference? Where is the set "norm" for measuring "private" texts? If B. is even partly correct (and he surely is), this sort of problem was equally acute for Origen, and it cannot be ignored by modern students who wish to make use of "the Greek Old Testament" in their study of late-Judaism and early Christianity.
Our sincere thanks is due to the author and to the publisher alike for this epoch-making and carefully presented (both in argument and in printing -- typographical errors are surprisingly few) work.
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Robert A. Kraft