Reassessing the Impact of Barthélemy's Devanciers, 40 years later

The Legacy of Barthélemy's Publication of Devanciers (1963) -- shorter form for IOSCS Bulletin 37 (2005)

Outline of the Article

1. Ancient Greek translations of Hebrew scriptures
2. The Greek Minor Prophets as the Inspiration and the Control Case
3. Patterns of Translation Technique and Efforts at "Revision" -- Samuel-Kings as a Test Case, and Possible Hexaplaric Confusions
4. Samuel-Kings as a Test Case, Translation Technique as a Criterion, and Possible Hexaplaric Confusions
Appended Additional Bibliography:

Studies pertaining to LXX/OG and to ancient Greek versions in general
Studies pertaining specifically to the "καίγε" Group and/or Recension(s)

Responses to the Article

In 1953, scarcely a year after the bedouin had brought these materials to the École biblique et archéologique française in Jordanian Jerusalem, Jean-Dominique Barthélemy (1921-2002) published his preliminary study in French of the Greek Minor Prophets scroll from the then "unknown provenance" somewhere south of Wadi Murabbaat.\1/ This was followed in 1963 by his "Predecessors of Aquila" (Devanciers) tour de force.\2/ That book was widely reviewed,\3/ and in 1972, he contributed to the IOSCS Symposium in Los Angeles  that focused on Samuel-Kings as a testing ground for the study of LXX/OG developments (see further below).\4/ Then in 1978, B provided additional comments on these earlier publications -- and their reception -- when he issued a collection of his "studies on the history of the OT text,"\5/ which also reprinted his 1974 article "Who is Symmachus?"\6/ in which he attempted to advance the investigation of ancient Jewish translations a step further.

\1/"Redécouverte d'un Chaînon Manquant de L'Histoire de la Septante [with a facsimile]" [="Recovery of a Lost Link in the History of the Septuagint"], Revue Biblique 60 (1953): 18-29 [reprinted in B's Études [see n.5 below] 38-50, with added notes on 387].  These Minor Prophets fragments proved to be from Nahal Hever. [Barthelemy normally lists himself as "Dominique," but also appears as "Jean-Dominique" in some publications and listings -- see e.g. Theologische Zeitschrift 16 (1960) 342-353.]

\2/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 grecques de la Bible réalisées au premiére siècle de notre ère sous l'influence du rabbinat palestinien [="Aquila's Predecessors: first full publication of the text of the Minor Prophets fragments found in the Judean desert, preceded by a study of the Greek translations and recensions of the Bible produced in the first century of our era under the influence of the Palestinian Rabbinate"]. Supplements to Vetus testamentum 10. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963  [some sections are reprinted in Études [see n.5 below] 66-90, with added notes on 388-389].

\3/ List of reviews:
\4/ Published as 1972 Proceedings: IOSCS, Pseudepigrapha, edited by Robert A. Kraft (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 2; SBL 1972): Part 1 (pp. 1-126) contains preprints of the four papers presented for the IOSCS Symposium "The Methodology of Textual Criticism in Jewish Greek Scriptures, with Special Attention to the Problems in Samuel-Kings" -- Emanuel Tov, "The State of the Question: Problems and Proposed Solutions" (3-15); Barthélemy, "Les problèmes textuels de 2 Sam 11,2 - 1 Rois 2,11 reconsidérés à la lumière de certaines critiques des 'Devanciers d'Aquila'" ["A Reexamination of the Textual Problems in 2 Sam 11:2 - 1 Kings 2:11 in the Light of Certain Criticisms of Les Devanciers d'Aquila"] (16-89, with an English translation on facing pages to the original French); T. Muraoka, "The Greek Texts of Samuel-Kings: Incomplete Translations or Recensional Activity?" (90-107); and Frank M. Cross jr. "The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts" (108-126). B's French contribution is reprinted in Études [see n.5 below] 218-254, along with his previously unpublished comments on the other symposium papers (255-288), plus added notes on both these contributions 394-395.

\5/Études d’histoire du Texte de l’ancient testament (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 21; Göttingen and Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht and Éditions Universitaires, 1978) [mostly reprints of earlier articles, with some added notes].

\6/"Qui est Symmaque?" CBQ 36 [Patrick W. Skehan Festschrift] (1974) 451-465 [reprinted in Études 307-321, with no additional notes]

Few things in the study of the ancient Greek translations of Jewish scriptural writings have been the same since. Most of the senior scholars active in LXX/OG studies have published something relating directly to B's investigations, as have many of the younger scholars (see the appended bibliography). In our own Bulletin of the IOSCS, on the 25th anniversary of the appearance of Devanciers, John Wevers contributed his article "Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies."\7/ In addition to the 1972 IOSCS Symposium mentioned above,  IOSCS and SBL held  a joint session at the 1988 meetings in Chicago, on the forthcoming edition of the Greek Minor Prophets material, and again in New Orleans in 1996 on “Rassessing the Barthélemy Heritage.” [any links?]

As a graduate student myself in the late 1950s, by transcribing the photograph and analyzing the text that B published with his 1953 article, I learned a little paleography as well as some things about textual relationships and ancient translation techniques. Not many years later, I was invited to do an extensive review of B's "Predecessors" (Devanciers) monograph.\8/ Some twenty years after that, I was privileged to assist Emanuel Tov with aspects of the preparation of the official DJD edition of that extraordinarily influential material.\9/ In what follows, I will draw heavily on my reports at the aforementioned 1988 and 1996 meetings and attempt to assess B's influence now, more than a half century after the iniital preliminary publication by B. And the well is not yet dry.

\7/ Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 21 (1988) 23-34 ["Today there is no reputable Septuagint scholar who has not been influenced by [B.'s Devanciers] (23). (Long digression on the legitimacy of looking for an "original" text behind the variations in Lagardian fashion, vs Kahle.) B has demonstrated that he is dealing with a Jewish text, and that it "is a recension of the old Septuagint" (30). How it reveals its recensional character is explained, and it is emphasized that B collected evidence for a "καίγε group," which only occasionally has the sense of a "καίγε recension." "The impulse to recensional activity had so dominated the original text that it has replaced it; it has become something new, and exists independently of the LXX. All of this development is part of the Palestinian Rabbinical tradition, not just a recension, but a tradition beginning already before our era began and issuing in the barbarisms of Aquila's translation" (34).]

\8/Gnomon 37 (1965), 474-83 [also available on the internet at].

\9/ Emanuel Tov, with the collaboration of R. A. Kraft and a contribution by P. J. Parsons , The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (The Seiyal Collection 1, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 8; Clarendon Press 1990).

The task is formidable, the literature is enormous! Clearly Barthélemy has had a huge impact, both direct and indirect, on the study of the Greek anthology made up of translations of Jewish scriptures  that we have come to call "Septuagint" and/or "Old Greek" (LXX/OG) and on the study of  other early Greek attempts at translation.\10/  While B's own interests and expertise tended to focus on textcritical issues, especially relating to  the Hebrew text behind these translations, he dared to attempt to contextualize the Greek translation/recension activities within their Jewish and Christian worlds and thus has challenged old established judgments and called for a fresh look at the historical situations. We are still trying to make sense out of some of the resulting complexities -- and to correct the outdated information that circulates by means of older publications and especially on even newly created internet sites (see e.g. below, n. ??).

\10/ B reminds us that there is a difference between the “Old Greek” (an ideal abstraction which is actually lost for the entire Greek Bible) and “the oldest available Greek” (represented by extant witnesses) – Études 272-273. In discussing the Antiochian text (see below, especially n. 36) he also distinguishes between a “recension” (involving “the intervention of an individual or of a school to improve the translation, either by correcting its language or especially by conforming the received Greek text more faithfully to the available Hebrew text,” as with καίγε-Theodotion, Aquila, and Origen) and an “edition” (employing “imitation” of available versions and “opposition” to rival versions, as with the Antiochian text) – 1972 Symposium Proceedings 72-75 (Études 246-247). Perhaps understandably, he does not appear to apply such precise distinctions consistently throughout his own work.

B's pioneering work has proved especially significant in the following general areas:

1. Ancient Greek translations of Hebrew scriptures

As is clear from the title of Devanciers, B does not consider the relatively consistent, virtually interlinear translational work attributed to  "Aquila" to be a pioneering effort (something new) in the first part of the second century CE that paved the way to later such translations, especially those associated with "Theodotion" and also "Symmachus." Indeed, B admits that in Devanciers, he was not radical enough in identifying a range of "Theodotionic" features already present in the first century CE witnesses, well before the traditional date of Aquila's efforts. B's control case of primary historical evidence was the Minor Prophets materials from Nahal Hever, which he accepted as paleographically datable to the middle of the first century CE and in which he found a relatively consistent translation technique symbolized by the unusual Greek particle καίγε (along with other more or less consistent characteristics\11/), which he then associated with a shadowy figure known from later rabbinic Jewish literature as Jonathan ben Uzziel, and with hermeneutical issues relating to rabbinic disputes attested for the first and early second centuries. Comparison of the features of the καίγε Minor Prophets with what is known of Aquila's translation led B. to argue that Aquila represents a development of such an early καίγε text. Similarly, comparison of the features of the καίγε technique with information from other books of Greek Jewish scriptures, including textual variants and competing translations/editions, led B to argue that καίγε was associated with other "Theodotionic" evidence, although B also recognized some variety within these materials such that it made more sense to think of a "Theodotionic school" of translation rather than simply of an individual "Jonathan/Theodotion."\12/  If we can trust the ancient sources that date "Aquila" to the second quarter of the second century, it seems clear that the καίγε Minor Prophets is earlier, although simply based on the paleographic dating of those Nahal Hever fragments, it would not be difficult to push the original translation (of which the Nahal Hever materials apparently are copies) back at least another generation or two, well before B's first century dating of the  Jonathan/Thedotion καίγε Minor Prophets.\13/

\11/ B's list of the characteristics has been supplemented by others in subsequent studies, although in his response to the 1972 Symposium (above, note 4), he affirmed that the essential features are: (1) Hebrew Gam rendered by Greek καίγε, (2) Hebrew first person pronoun  אנכי  rendered by Greek ἐγὼ εἰμί, (3) Hebrew אישׁ  in the sense of "each" and of "a person" rendered in Greek by ἀνήρ, and (4) Hebrew אין rendered by Greek οὐκ ἐστί without regard to temporal considerations (Études 268-269). For an extensive additional list, see Leonard J. Greenspoon, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua (HSM 28; Chico CA: Scholars 1983)  270-276, and more recently, Tim McLay's comparison of such lists in "Kaige and Septuagint Research," Textus 19 (1998) 127-139.

\12/ B finds evidence for this "Theodotionic" approach in the OG (including variant forms) of Lamentations, Song, Ruth, Judges (B text), Daniel ("Theodotion"), additions to Job attributed to "Theodotion" and anonymous additions to Jeremiah,  and Psalms (both "Theodotion" and "Quinta" in the Hexapla), in addition to the materials discussed below.

\13/ Parsons (above, n.9) acknowledges that the "paleographic evidence ... is shifting sand. Barth[elemy] 1953 dated the script (that is, hand A) towards the end of i A.D Roberts apud Kahle (p.226) opted for 50 B.C. - A.D. 50, and Schubart ibid. for a date around the reign of Agustus; Barth[elemy] 1963 accepted Schubart's date for hand A, found parallels for hand B in dated papyri of i A.D. and assigned the whole manuscript to mid i A.D." (22). After his detailed analysis, Parsons concludes that with reference to hand A, "I can see nothing against ascribing this hand to the later first century B.C., and nothing specifically in favour of dating it later. ... Hand B has at first sight a later look," but that may be deceptive. ... Thus "the hands of our scroll could be of i B.C. (though of course they cannot exclude a later date)"(24-25).  He concludes: "Both hands give the impression of belonging to the late Ptolemaic or early Roman period. Some features favour an earlier rather than a later date; no feature recommends a later rather than an earlier date. I should therefore opt, tentatively ..., for a date in the later i B.C.; the objectively dated parallels show that such a dating is possible, though not of course necessary" (25-26).

Such details aside, B's legacy here is the radical redating and reconception of "Theodotion," no longer simply as a late second century figure who perhaps toned down the literalism of Aquila's translation, but as a much earlier approach to translation that  had a major influence on Aquila. Such an insight was not new -- talk of "proto (or Ur) -Theodotion" had been around for a long time\14/ -- but B's detailed detective work and daring historical hypotheses gave new impetus to the study of these phenomena. The resulting picture, complex and still somwhat confused, was already outlined by Jellicoe in his 1968 update of Swete's classic introductory volume:

With some questionings, the order Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus has been widely accepted as chronological, but it is now evident that some modification must be made in the traditional position. ... The accumulated evidence would be adequately satisfied by the addition to the trilogy of the work of one further translator for whom the name Ur-Theodotion, already in limited currency, may be adopted. It was the work of this unknown translator, whose activity should be placed probably in the earlier part of the first century B.C., thereby antedating Aquila by two centuries, whose work was revised by the traditional Theodotion in the second half of the second century of the Christian era. In what follows these translators, for the sake of clarity, will be referred to respectively as Ur-Theodotion and Theodotion.\15/

\14/ In his relatively lengthy review of B's Devanciers, Jellicoe rightly complains that B either was unaware of earlier studies in areas he addresses, such as "Ur-Theodotion" evidence, or simply decided not to mention any of his modern scholarly predecessors. In his contributions to the 1972 Symposium (above, n.4), B shows much greater acquaintance with and use of such previous scholarship.

\15/ Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Clarendon 1968) 83. For the earlier position, see Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge University Press 1902; reprinted with additional notes by  R. R. Ottley, 1914) 42-49. Swete is aware of the problem of "Theodotionic" readings in sources that predate the late second century, especially with regard to Daniel, and reports on theories about "two pre-Christian versions of Daniel, both passing as 'LXX', one of which is preserved in the Chigi MS [OG Daniel], whilst the other formed the basis of Theodotion's revision. ... But Theodotion's revision of Daniel may have differed so little from the [older] stricter Alexandrian version as to have taken its place without remark [in later LXX/OG MSS]" (48-49). See also Swete 379 on "Urlucian" as reflected in Josephus and 395f on "Theodotionic" readings in the New Testament. As we will see, this "Ur-Lucian" evidence is brought together with "Ur-Theodotion" by B and his successors. (Swete's discussion of "Lucian" on 80-86 does not mention these issues as such.)

More recently, we find the post-B position cautiously presented in recent surveys such as by Jobes and Silva as follows: "most scholars now prefer to speak of Kaige-Theodotion, meaning by that term a well-defined, pre-Christian revision of the Old Greek; it is also thought that this revision became the basis for the work of both Aquila and Symmachus. The work of the historical Theodotion [in late 2nd century] may then be viewed as a later updating of the revision."\16/ Hengel deals with the situation in a more oblique manner: e.g. the translation of Qohelet/Ecclesiastes "may go back to a first-century Pharisaic school of translators, whose tendencies Aquila extended in strengthened form and which had already revised the LXX of the prophets and other documents."\17/ He does not comment directly on "Theodotion" in this context. Further, Salvesen in  the Encyclopedia of the DSS under "Origen": "The existence of a 'school'of revisers of the Septuagint at the turn of the era ... underlies much that goes under the name Theodotion, and influenced Aquila and possibly Symmachus. In recent years Barthelemy's position has been somewhat nuanced by other scholars, but his basic findings on the priority of "Theodotion" ... continue to be accepted."\18/ Tov speaks of the "Kaige-Theodotion" revision(s) as  presumably from "the middle of the first century BCE" and later ascribed "to Theodotion, who apparently lived at the end of the second century CE."\19/  He underlines this in a note: "We now know that the [previously] conjectured proto-Theodotion is none other than kaige-Theodotion tentatively ascribed to the middle of the first century BCE" (145 n.97). Unfortunately, the revised view of these materials that is now "universally accepted" in scholarly circles has not made its desired impact on even some relatively respectable internet sites.\20/ Much educational work remains to be done!

\16/ Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Baker 2000) 42.

\17/ Martin Hengel, with the assistance of Roland Deines, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon (Introduction by Robert Hanhart, translated by Mark E. Biddle; T&T Clark 2002) 89.

\18/ Alison Salvesen, "Origen," Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. James VanderKam and Lawrence Shiffman; 2000) 624.

\19/ Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (second revised edition; Fortress 2001) 145.

\20/Let one example suffice for now: St Pachomius Library. "Other Greek Translations of the Old Testament: Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus:

Around AD 128, Aquila, a pupil of Rabbi Akiba, published an extremely literal (almost unreadable) translation of the Masoretic text in which a particular Hebrew word was always represented by the same Greek word regardless of context. This translation was often used by Christian Biblical scholars like Origen and St. Jerome as an aid in understanding the Hebrew, although it also seems to have been written expressly for use in arguments against Christians, having been comissioned for this purpose by rabbinical leaders. This version is lost except for a few fragments.

Theodotion of Ephesus wrote an extremely important translation which has a very odd history. Theodotion, who evidently was not a Jew but rather a member of the Ebionite Christian heresy (which kept kosher dietary laws), lived in the second century. His translation, however, is seemingly "quoted" in Heb. 11:33 and several times in Revelations [sic!]! This strongly suggests that Theodotion's version was based upon either a lost Greek translation which competed with the LXX or upon a "revised" LXX. Amazingly, Theodotion's version of Daniel is the one officially accepted by the Church and usually printed in modern editions of the LXX; the original LXX version survives in only 3 manuscripts. The oddities connected with Theodotion's version and its use by the Church were remarked upon already by the Fathers, specifically by St. Jerome, who could offer no definitive explanation.

Late in the Second Century, another member of the Ebionite sect, Symmachus, produced a loose Greek translation, almost a paraphrase. Other Greek versions already lost in the early Christian era were rediscovered not in modern times but by the ancients: Origen published a manuscript of Job, Psalms, Song of Songs, and the Minor Prophets which someone had found in a jar near Jericho in the reign of Caracalla, and another Greek version of Psalms and some other books found accidentally in Asia Minor."

In short, Barthelemy's identification of καίγε characteristics and their similarity to what had been identified as "Theodotion" (including the problem of Theodotionic readings prior to the time of the late second century Theodotion) gave impetus to the clearer recognition of  early translational activity along those same lines, and shifted the primary focus to Jewish translational activity in pre-Christian times. Barthelemy's first century CE dating and association with specific early Palestinian rabbinic persons and interests has not gained general acceptance -- at least some of these translational activities seem to be significantly earlier than B thought; whether they are necessarily "Palestinian" (or Pharisaic) is also in need of careful review. But his detailed work has been foundational for such developments and discussions.

Yet much more remains to be done in this new textual and historical atmosphere. The world in which the "καίγε-Theodotion"  translations were produced (and B did well to emphasize the variety within the group) was almost certainly more heterogeneous with respect to scroll production than we usually recognize, when we view it through the later lenses of codex book production. The possibility of one person or related group ("school") producing a consistent translation of an extensive body of literature such as the Pentatuch surely existed, although maintaining the integrety of such efforts in transmitting the small library of individual scrolls that would result would have presented a major challenge (if anyone at that time cared about such textual homogeneity!). To speak of such a complete Greek version of whatever one imagines as the corpus of "holy scriptures" (proto-canon) in such a context is also historically and technologically improbable, or at least challenging. What was the process of creating, collecting, and transmitting? Were there some early efforts at translation, then gradual recognition of the value of translating additional "scripture" scrolls as the earlier translations gained recognition and time went on? Were schools of translators established or commissioned (by whom? under what conditions?) for such endeavors, and were their practices passed along from generation to generation? The translational diversity within the καίγε-Theodotion witnesses, which led B to posit a "school of translators" with similar techniques, may in part be a reflection of these conceptual and  technical difficulties in the production and circulation of scrolls in this early period and right up to the time of Origen's massive attempt at collecting and standardizing. And the earlier we find such translational activities, the more complex the problem of contextualizing them historically and tracing their respective influences. Attention to process as well as product is important in ways that go beyond B's pioneering conjectures, although as we shall see below, he was well aware of many of these issues as well..

B explored Palestinian Jewish traditions for evidences of motivation to make specific translation choices. Starting with traditions about the approaches of Aqiba and Ishmael in the first half of the second century CE, and with a view to the Greek work attributed to Aquila (whom B identifies with Aqiba), B worked back into the mid first century CE and thought he could see a connection between Johnathan ben Uzziel and the καίγε approach (with a nod in the direction of the mysterious "Nahum GamZu"). As noted above, this is probably too late purely on paleographic grounds to explain the καίγε Minor Prophets translation. B's penchant for finding early rabbinic motivation for revisional activity is also evident in his attempt to provide a solution to the Aquila-like variants in the biblical quotations in some manuscripts of Philo.\21/ While B's proposed solutions remain highly problematic, his questions persist to encourage closer attention to the historical circumstances and motivations out of which such translational and recensional activities must or might have arisen.

\21/ "Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba qui censura le 'Commentaire allégorique'? A partir des retouches faites aux citations bibliques, étude sur la tradition textuelle du Commentaire Allégorique de Philon" = pp 45-78 in Philon d'Alexandrie: Lyon 11-15 Septembre 1966, colloques nationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Paris 1967) and Études, pp. 140-173, with additional notes on 390-391. For additional background on this situation, see n. 23 below and the electronic updating of H. E. Ryle’s Philo and Holy Scripture (1895) at  .

This much is clear from B's investigations; the old picture of second century CE Jewish translational efforts -- primarily Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus in that sequence -- is completely upset and exposed as simplistic. Whatever one wishes to label the new Minor Prophets text in relation to other known or suspected translational efforts, it moves us back well before the second century of the common era simply in terms of the actual preserved fragments. How far back we can go from those fragments is unclear. The new material provides us with one, or possibly two (two different hands, two different formats), copies of a translation of the Greek Minor Prophets that necessarily predates the preserved fragments. Predates by how long a period? When was the presumed original (whether an independent translation or a revision of something even older) created? We cannot know. While B's door-opening attempt to describe forces and factors in first century CE proto-rabbinic Judaism that help explain the genesis of this translation technique has not proved persuasive, we need to  look to an even earlier period to understand what was happening. If we accept B's supposition that the new text is evidence for Greek language activities in Palestine, are we now catching glimpses of Maccabean times, or at latest early Herodian?  And if not Palestine, where and when and why?\22/

\22/ In his review of Devanciers (above, n.3), Jellicoe suggests without discussion  that "a strong case can be advanced for Ephesus" as a possible point of origin for "Ur-Theodotion," perhaps keeping in view the appearance of the καίγε-Theodotion text in Justin, who had associations with Ephesus (see the next note), and/or the Asia Minor translation hypothesis of Thackeray regarding Samuel-Kings that is mentioned below (Jellicoe, 180 column 1).

2. The Greek Minor Prophets as the Inspiration and the Control Case

The extant καίγε Greek Minor Prophets materials were discovered in  Palestine, and the second century quotation of this version found in  Justin the martyr's Dialogue with Trypho probably was written down in Asia Minor (Ephesus), although Justin himself was born and bred in Samaria-Palestine.\23/ Otherwise, our earliest extant copy of a Greek translation of the Minor Prophets comes from Egypt in the second half of the 3rd century CE (the Freer Codex, Washingtonensis), and itself has significant variations from later "Old Greek" copies (including explicit "corrections" and apparent influence from Hebrew texts). Whether there is a genealogical relationship between these two Greek versions is still worth discussing, although B's contention that the καίγε "recension" is based on the OG has not been forcefully challenged beyond Kahle's early remarks to which B responded in Devanciers and elsewhere (see below, n.26). To complicate  the picture further, there also was a version of the Minor Prophets attributed to "Theodotion," as can be partly recovered from Hexaplaric evidence, which seems to have nothing to do with B's καίγε-Theodotionic characteristics (the latter are closer to the Hexaplaric "Quinta" evidence for the Minor Prophets!\24/) -- B dismisses this as "late and eclectic," reflecting dependence on Aquila and on the unrevised OG, and falsely identified with "Theodotion" (Devanciers 2.9). (As an added complication, in Habakkuk 3, yet another anonymous translation appears in some witnesses from the 8th century CE onward,\25/ and the presumably earlier OG version of that independent poem appears also in the Greek "Odes" collection.)  While, as we have seen, B identifies Palestine as the location of the καίγε translation efforts, the argument is partly based on his reconstruction of proto-rabbinic interests and involvement in the first century CE (Jonathan ben Uzziel, enroute to Aqiba/Aquila in the second century), a scene that is highly problematic and thus, far from determinative. But B's labors open up such questions to closer examination, and give us reason to explore the possibilities with renewed vigor.

\23/ Justin quotes Micah 4.1-7 in a form almost exactly replicating the remnants of the καίγε scroll (Dialogue 109-110), if we can trust the preserved MSS of Justin, which are very late. Tov comments: "The text of the biblical quotations of Just[in] also reflects a very literal translation (beyond the aforementined citation from Mi[cah]) so that it is quite certain that these quotations reflect R [=καίγε]. (At the same time, the running commentary of Just[in] reflects the LXX [=OG] text rather than a literal rendering of the type of R [=καίγε]. This mixture of text types belongs to the textual transmission of Just[in] and reminds one of that of the writings of Philo.)" (DJD 8, 158). See also P. Katz, "Justin's Old Testament Quotations and the Greek Dodekapropheton Scroll," Studia Patristica 1 (TU 63; 1957) 343-353. The situation with some Philo MSS is that the version of Aquila was substituted as lemma, while the subsequent comments are closer to LXX/OG; see Peter Katz, Philo's Bible: the Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in some Philonic Writings and its Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible (Cambridge: University Press, 1950). David Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 3.3;  Fortress 1993), 24-25, provides a succinct survey of the relevant literature and arguments: "The historian of the Cairo Geniza, Kahle, was convinced that these quotations represented not only Philo's original text, but also reflected his Bible, so that we have evidence here of a Greek Bible that was adapted in order to confirm more to the Hebrew original [Kahle, Cairo Geniza (19592) 247-249]. Katz, in contrast, argued that the aberrent quotations were added later on the basis of the post-Philonic translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion by a Christian from the Antiochean school in the 5th century"; Barthélemy argues for a "Jewish" reviser in the early 3rd century who used the text of Aquila to hebraize Philo's quotations from the scriptures (above, n.25) -- his argument is also summarized in Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature 24-25.

\24/ B's article on "Quinta ou Version selon les Hebreux?" in the Festgabe fur Walther Eichrot (Theologische Zeitschrift 16 [1960] 342-352 = Études, 54-64) reexamines the supposed "Quinta" readings in the second hand of the Barbarini MS 549  (Rahlfs/Gottingen # 86) that are identified with the notation ε' and attributes them to an otherwise unknown ἔκδοσις κατὰ τοὺς Ἑβραίους.

\25/ See, e.g. Edwin M. Good, "Barberini Greek Version of Habakkuk 3," Vetus Testamentum 9 (1959) 11-30;  Natalio Fernández Marcos, "El Texto Barberini de Habacuc III reconsiderado", Sefàrad 36 (1976) 3-36.

The attempt to enlist the newly discovered Minor Prophets translation/recension in the old Lagarde / Kahle debate about the extent to which it is useful to imagine an "original" LXX/OG translation behind the textcritical evidence (Lagarde), or a variety of relatively independent translations (Kahle), whether made by Kahle himself\26/ or by supporters of a Lagardian approach such as Frank Cross and John Wevers,\27/ proves to be more unfortunate than enlightening. That old debate, modeled as it was on "post-canonical" ideas of the development of ancient Jewish "biblical" texts, and to some extent on "post scroll" perceptions of bookmaking techniques and products typical of mega-codex technology as it developed by the fourth century CE, can be seen to be extremely simplistic, partly in the light of the impact of B's investigations. It is now widely acknowledged that no single "rule" or model can do service for all of the phenomena encountered in the study of ancient translational activity on the materials that came to be valued as Jewish scriptures. What may be highly probable for one book or section  -- and the model provided by the Greek Pentateuch has been highly influential in such discussions -- may prove quite inapplicable to another. The data requires discussion piece by piece, and care must be taken not to export the results irresponsibly from one investigation to unravel the specific  problems found elsewhere. The models we use, which are often necessary to jump-start our research, need constantly to be tested and reevaluated -- and discarded when such action seems appropriate.\28/

\26/ Paul Ernst Kahle, "Die Lederrolle mit dem griechischen Text der Kleinen Propheten und das Problem der LXX," Theologische Literaturzeitung 79 (1954) 81-94, and subsequently "Die Lederrolle mit dem griechischen Dodekapropheton," in Die Kairoer Genisa. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hebräischen Bibeltextes und seiner Übersetzungen (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962) 239-241. See also, in English, "The Greek Bible and the Fragments from the Judaean Desert," Studia Evangelica 1 (TU 73; 1959) 613-621, and the second edition of The Cairo Geniza (Oxford 1959) 226-228. For George Howard's contributions to this sort of discussion, see n. 29 below.

\27/ E.g. Frank M. Cross, "The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert," HTR 57 (1964) 281-299 [above, n.3]; John W. Wevers in Theologische Rundschau 33 (1968) 67f , for example, and again in BIOSCS 21(1988) [above, notes 3 and 7].

\28/ Even without the evidence supplied by B this should have been more obvious, and was to most specialists. See for example Jellicoe (1968) 315: "The LXX presents 'translations' rather than 'a translation'. Hence any judgement of its quality must first take account of what might be termed 'translational units' as represented by a single book, part of a book, or more than one book." And in the next paragraph: "Style and method vary considerably, but this is no more than would be expected in a production which extended over some decades [sic! "centuries" would be more appropriate] and which was the work of different hands" (316).
Was there at some place and time a first and unique translation into Greek of the collected Hebrew Minor Prophets, a single Greek "Urtext" that influenced most, if not all, subsequent developments? Is it unlikely that there were no individual translations of any of these “minor prophets” prior to such a collective product? How is it possible to know? There are no ancient traditions of which I am aware that deal with the genesis of these books in Greek, either individually or as a collected set -- the Aristeas legend concerning the Pentateuch does not apply. In searching for such answers, we find ourselves at sea.

What seems to be current "fact" is that the Nahal Hever Greek Jewish Minor Prophets material is the earliest evidence we have of Greek translational activity on that portion of what came to be Jewish scriptures. And it is significantly different from the previously known OG textual tradition that is attested in later manuscripts and came to be accepted in the later Christian Greek biblical codices. If there were no Hebrew text with which to compare these two Greek versions, what would we be able to say about their relationship? The Nahal Hever text would still seem more stilted, as Greek, more internally consistent (i.e. repetitious) and perhaps more limited in its lexical and grammatical phenomena. Would we say that the less stilted OG text was a revision in the interests of readability, a move towards something more closely resembling Pentateuchal Greek style, etc.? Or would arguments for priority of the more idiomatic OG be persuasive? I can imagine forceful voices on both sides. And perhaps some who would deny a lineal relationship in either direction. Hopefully we would create some "control" studies to help us assess the probability of each position.
But we do have a Hebrew text with which to compare, and clearly the Nahal Hever Greek Minor Prophets text is very close, as a translation, to that ("Masoretic") Hebrew text that has come to be “traditional” -- significantly closer than the traditional OG is, although the OG itself is not radically different. We do not know whether there once existed correspondingly divergent Hebrew texts of this material, and if so, when and where? Nor have we expended much effort on creating "control" cases or exploring analagous phenomena that might help us test the different possibilities.\29/  Perhaps it is still too early in the game for us to appreciate the devestating effect that the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls and associated discoveries can have on our untested assumptions. B saw only a part of this situation -- certainly not the part I'm trying to address here, since B assumed that the new text must be a development of the OG without bothering to test other possibilities -- and was led to revolutionary new results by that part which he saw. Perhaps we are now ready to see more? And to worry less about the damaged models associated with Lagarde and Kahle.\30/
\29/ Tov is an exception, insofar as he attempts to provide evidence for the direction of influence, from OG to καίγε. See DJD 8, 103ff: "R [=καίγε] is a revision of the LXX [=OG], rather than an independent translation of the Hebrew." In various publications, George Howard has challenged B's arguments for seeing the καίγε-Theodotion text as a "revision" of an older Greek substratum: in section B of the 1972 Symposium article B provides a detailed response to Howard's article (with it's direct criticism of B's approach) on "Frank Cross and Recensional Criticism," Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971) 440-450; Howard responds to this with "Lucianic Readings in a Greek twelve Prophets Scroll from the Judaean Desert," JQR 62 (1971-72) 51-60, and "Kaige Readings in Josephus," Textus 8 (1973), 45-54,  and "The Quinta of the Minor Prophets: A First Century Septuagint Text?" Biblica 55 (1974) 15-22; B, in turn, addresses those arguments by Howard in a lengthy additional note in Études 392-393! While I am inclined to see B's (and Tov's) evidence as more carefully presented than Howard's, I have not seen a careful analysis of the assumptions involved (e.g. about what Hebrew texts existed when, about what can be expected in more or less bilingual situations when translations are created or revised and transmitted, etc.) in any of this literature.

\30/ In his note on B's attempt to do away with the "Lucianic" label (at least) in Samuel-Kings (above n.3; see further below), Sebastian Brock says some similar things. E.g. "since the tendency of the Palestinian text is to get closer to the Hebrew, while that of the Antiochene is to move away from it, this means that it is often going to be very hard to judge which of the two texts is secondary on any given point. In such cases, other things being equal, the answer can only be provided by studying the general usage of the translation as a whole" (179, see also 181). B addresses this issue in section A of his 1972 Symposium paper, and admits to oversimplifying the situation "by restricting the term 'recension' to indicate revision towards the Hebrew text," to the neglect of other sorts of recensional activity (Études  219; see also above n. 10 and below n. 36). Further exploration of the possibilities should prove rewarding.

3. Patterns of Translation Technique and Efforts at "Revision" -- Samuel-Kings as a Test Case, and Possible Hexaplaric Confusions

B demonstrated that the Nahal Hever Minor Prophets translation exhibited a fairly consistent technique with respect to various linguistic features (see above, n.11), and he attempted to trace these and related features in other early translation literature. In section F of his edition of the Minor Prophets material, Tov presents extensive detail on "Translation Technique, Orthographic Peculiarities and Textual Relations" (99-158), and  elsewhere comments that "as a rule,  [the translation] is rather consistent, so that its vocabulary and system of translation can be identified in other [fragmentary] instances as well" (83). Other authors have proposed additional linguistic criteria in studies of "καίγε-Theodotion" in other sections of Greek Jewish scriptures (see the bibliography).

This awareness of patterns not only served to recreate the general parameters of καίγε-Theodotionic techniques, whether centered in an individual or a "school," but also provided more systematic data for exploring the relationship of the old καίγε version(s) to MSS and variations within the LXX/OG traditions and to the materials collected by Origen in his massive Hexapla. For example, as has already been noted,  Barthelemy and Tov argue that the evidence suggests that in the Minor Prophets, the newly recovered καίγε translation is a revision of an older Greek text that can be reconstructed from the extant LXX/OG MSS and witnesses. They also argue that the Hebrew vorlage behind the καίγε revisions is somewhat closer to what became the Hebrew Masoretic Text than to the LXX/OG (lost) Hebrew Vorlage (Vorlagen?!). The arguments and impressions on which such reconstructions rest are quite subtle, and in the world of the first century BCE that seems to have known variations in Hebrew copies (as attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls), not entirely persuasive. The activity of translation, especially where some level of "literalism" is desired, presents limited possibilities for any word or construction. How one establishes priority in such circumstances is problematic, and often rests as much on assumptions (what Vorlage was older, whether woodenness is more likely to give way to idiomatic or vice versa) as on clear features in the available evidence. Similarly, any ancient impetus to keep the translation close to the current supposed "parent text"  (as with Aquila) or to provide a more idiomatic and/or varied flavor (as with Symmachus) will depend on a variety of factors (e.g. attitude to the texts, availabilty of variant forms), most of them lost to us. Barthelemy's work has opened these doors more widely to contemporary scholarship, even when he did not recognize all of the implications.

This increased awareness of patterned  translation -- of more or less predictable translation technique --  can only benefit the study of the preserved materials (MSS and other witnesses), especially in complex situations such as presented by the Greek witnesses to Samuel-Kings. None of this is particularly new, in principle, but the ability to present in more detail the various features of καίγε-Theodotion serves as a catalyst to more precise analysis of the data. Several relevant studies have been produced, many of them by students of Frank M. Cross, including at least one that B himself reviewed quite favorably in print.\31/ This focus has spilled over into studies of deuterocanonical and parabiblical materials as well, such as  Sirach and Tobit, and deserves to be explored more in such texts as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.\32/

\31/ Dominique Barthélemy, Review of Kevin O'Connell, The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus [Harvard Semitic Monographs 3, 1972], Biblica 55 (1974) 91-93 [reprinted in Études 304-306, with an added cross reference on 395]. For a selection of other relevant works  see the appended additional bibliography.

\32/ E.g. Benjamin G. Wright, No Small Difference: Sirach's Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text. (SBLSCS 26; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), and “The Jewish Scriptures in Greek: The Septuagint in the Context of Ancient Translation Activity,” in Frederick W. Knobloch, ed. Biblical Translation in Context (Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture 10; Bethesda, MD: University of Maryland Press, 2002) 3–18; Richard A. Spencer, "The Book of Tobit in Recent Research," Currents in Biblical Research 7 (1999) 147-180; the frequent use of καίγε in some manuscripts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs deserves closer scrutiny (most notably in Testaments of Levi and Judah).

4. Samuel-Kings as a Test Case, Translation Technique as a Criterion, and Possible Hexaplaric Confusions

Probably the most fruitful area in which B's research has developed and is still developing is the study of the Greek witnesses to Samuel-Kings. This, indeed, was the subject of the aforementioned 1972 IOSCS/SBL Symposium (above, n.4) to which B himself was invited, although as it turned out, he was unable to attend. As noted above, four main papers were pre-published for that occasion: Tov, Barthelemy, Muraoka, Cross. Unfortunately, an official record of the discussions has not, to my knowledge, been preserved although B's prepared response  published subsequently in Études is of some help, since he addresses several of the issues raised.\33/

\33/ For example, he uses the outline presented in Tov's essay, and discusses the points one by one:

A significant part of the argument in Devanciers is devoted to close analysis of portions of Samuel-Kings. The basic issues were already well known to students of Greek Jewish scriptures, and had been laid out most clearly by H. St. J. Thackeray in his 1920 Schweich Lectures,  The Septuagint and Jewish Worship (1921). Discussion is complicated by the fact that the pertinent sections of Samuel-Kings (Greek "1-4 Kingdoms") in the surviving Greek manuscripts do not divide neatly at obvious points, and thus have received from Thackeray what seem, at first glance, to be rather cryptic designations (using Greek letters/numbers for each book of Kingdoms, alpha to gamma) to indicate obvious changes in translational styles and textual affinities. For those unacquainted with this coding, the use of English designations might be worth attempting:

B's main focus was on our 2S+ (Thackeray's βγ), where he found the καίγε translation features in the majority of OG manuscripts, although not in the variant text represented by manuscripts boc2e2 (using the sigla of the Larger Cambridge Septuagint). A similar situation was evidenced in 2K+ (γδ). But in the other sections of Samuel-Kings, the extant Greek manuscripts did not exhibit the καίγε characteristics. Whereas Thackeray had conjectured that this phenomenon of inconsistancy in the main body of Greek manuscripts had been caused by two different sets of translators working on the different sections  at different times and for different reasons (an abridged translation containing 1S, 2S1, and 1K2 from Alexandria, later patched with 2S+ and 2K+ from an Ephesian Jewish translator), B argued that Origen's Hexapla had inadvertently created the situation by mixing manuscripts of the καίγε recension with manuscripts of the older OG to produce what came to dominate the later copies. Origen lived at a time when scrolls and small codices were the norm, and thus such a confused situation can easily be imagined for a collector of available texts. Fortunately, portions of the minority OG text also survived elsewhere in the Hexapla  for 2S+ and 2K+ (and in manuscripts boc2e2), although the καίγε version has been lost for the ramainder of Samuel-Kings.\34/

\34/ B's attempt to explain how this confusion arose is ingenious, but probably unnecessary. He conjectures that before he left Egypt for Palestine, Origen was familiar with a complete Alexandrian Greek (OG) 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 2S+ and 2K+. 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" 5th column of his Hexapla ( or Tetrapla), and relegated "Pal. 2" to the usual "Theodotion" 6th column. But since both Palestinian versions were in basic agreement in 2S+, Origen replaced "Pal. 2" with the Alexandrian "LXX/OG" for that section (but in col. 6). 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" 7th column in which to place his Alexandrian "LXX/OG." More likely, scrolls and/or mini-codices had simply become mixed (with reference to textual characteristics) in the long process of transmission, as Tov also suggests (1972 Symposium paper, 5 and n.6).

Previous research on this material had identified manuscripts boc2e2 as "Lucianic," representing a supposed early 4th century revision of the Greek scriptures attributed to the Antiochian martyr Lucian (died 311). B's understanding of the situation led him to see this supposed "Lucianic" material as the only manuscript remnants of the OG for the sections 2S+ and 2K+. In this connection he denied the accuracy of the "Lucianic" label in Samuel-Kings, and called into question the existence of the "Lucianic recension" in general. This stirred up a hornet's nest of response, as can be seen from Tov's "State of the Question" essay in the 1972 Symposium Proceedings volume.\35/ B's detailed contribution to the Symposium nuanced his position while in general reaffirming its main points -- while the situation is certainly more complex than presented in Davanciers, and boc2e2 do show themselves to be a revised form of the OG in the relevant sections, B explains at some length how "Lucian's recension" was an invention of much later Christian wishful thinking.\36/

\35/ See above, nn. 30 and 33, and the various contributions noted in the bibliography at the end of this article, especially  Trebolle Barrera (1982); Zipora Talshir  (1990); Frank  Polak (1992);   Robert Gordon (1992); Bernard Taylor (1992-93).

\36/ For B's critique of the terminology, see also above, nn. 10 and 30. B would distinguish a "recension" from an "edition," with the former involving purposeful improvement of the receptor language  (e.g. Atticizing) or adjustment to reflect more accurately  available Hebrew readings (harmonization) ["intervention of an individual or a school to improve [the] 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"; Symposium Proceedings 73]. The Antiochene text, on the other hand, operated by imitation (adopting readings from Hexaplaric sources) and opposition (in competition with Origen's text), and thus can be called an "edition" but not a "recension." B also sees three "influences" at work in the long history that led to the Antiochene edition: (1) periodic retouching by Jewish transmitters to bring the text in line with current Hebrew texts, (2) Atticizing updating in later 2nd century CE Syria, presumably as part of the "second sophistic" preoccupation, and (3) insertion of Hexaplaric readings in the third and early fourth centuries (Symposium Proceedings 73).

In his second thoughts about the existence of a "Lucianic recension," B once more illustrated an area of his research that deserves more attention and more emulation, namely, historical contextualization of textual developments. After exploring the history of (vague) references to "Lucian" as someone who did something noteworthy with biblical texts, B argued that there is no solid reason to ascribe a "recension," or even an "edition" (see n. 36) of the Christian scriptures to Lucian, and lots of reasons to think he was honored with that distinction by later admirers to enhance his image. Whether B is correct in this judgment, and whether it really makes much difference beyond the question of labels, B once more opened a door to further exploration. He had already done this with his attempt to identify the work of the καίγε-Theodotion school with first century CE Palestinian proto-rabbinic efforts -- probably  too optimistically. In the related area of the quotations in the Greek manuscripts of Philo, where some witnesses have the expected LXX/OG text form while a few exhibit an Aquila-like text, B has provided evidence that the insertion of the latter may have been the work of a Jewish reviser, operating in the area of Caesarea around the time of Origen (see above, n. 23). B also attempted to understand Origen's procedures in compiling the Hexapla, as part of his solution to the Samuel-Kings textual confusion.\37/ Of course, other explanations for all these situations are also possible, but the mere fact of attempting to find suitable historical contexts for such developments is an advance over being unaware of the possibilities.

\37/ "Origène et le texte de l'Ancien Testament," in Epektasis, Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou (Paris: Beauchesne 1972) 247-261; also in Études 203-217

The larger issue here is, in part, the attempt to trace the history and influence of the versions of scriptural works that can be identified by paying attention to translation technique, especially καίγε-Theodotion and Aquila. B envisioned a closely related collection of καίγε-Theodotion revisions of LXX/OG emerging from a Palestinian "school of translators" in the first century CE. More likely, at least some of these efforts (the Minor Prophets) took place at least two generations earlier, in the first century BCE, in a period in which textual fluidity among Hebrew texts is now well documented, and in which the technology of scroll production at that time makes it difficult to imagine that a consistent text of major portions of what may have  been considered "holy scripture" could easily be transmitted and maintained. Next B gave us a glimpse of these καίγε-Theodotion materials providing a base for the activities of "Aquila" (perhaps also a translational "school"?) in the second quarter of the second century, and around the same time being used by Justin, if the manuscripts of Justin can be trusted (see above, n. 23). Meanwhile, Aquila's popularity led to the work of B's Caesarean rabbinic emender of Philo's texts, and both Aquila and some copies of καίγε-Theodotion texts fell into Origen's willing hands for inclusion in the Hexapla, with some confusion along the way -- not unusual or unexpected in that transitional period from scroll to codex. Aquila survives in Jewish circles beyond the time of Justinian into the 6th century, while the fate of the καίγε-Theodotion translations is less clear.\38/ Indeed, to some extent the work of Origen must have been a major event that contributed both to the memory of these versions and to their complex survival histories and/or disappearance..

\38/ On survival of Jewish Greek after Justinian, see Nicholas De Lange, Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genziah (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum; Mohr Siebeck 1996).


Barthelemy's work, starting with the Minor Prophets scroll(s) but branching out into other areas and adjusting to various comments and criticisms, has provided impetus to a variety of areas in the study of Greek Jewish scriptures and their subsequent developments. He made us all more conscious of the ways in which ancient Greek translators worked, and of the importance for some transmitters of being faithful to the current Hebrew text as they understood it. In trying to answer the "why?" questions,  he forced us to be more aware of historical and even psychological contexts for what we could observe in the texts themselves. He did not hide from textual and historical complexity or defend simple solutions where they seemed unsatisfactory. He sought for adequate language to discuss the often frustrating situations that the materials presented.

As a result, many new insights have been gained (e.g. regarding καίγε-Theodotion evidence in surviving texts), significant advances have been made on old mysteries (e.g. the Greek texts of Samuel-Kings\39/), and new approaches have been developed in certain areas (e.g. using features of translation technique to determine integrety of text, even where the manuscript evidence is confused and confusing, as in Samuel-Kings). Some of the doors that B's work has opened may never be able to be closed (e.g. the early history of Greek translations and recensions), others will probably prove to be convincing (e.g. the dubious connection of historical Lucian with the Antiochene text of the early fourth century). All in all, we owe him a great debt, as a great, late twentieth century catalyst to the study of Jewish Greek scriptures .

\39/See now the edition by Natalio Fernández Marcos and J. R. Busto Saiz, El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega I-III (Madrid: CSIC 1989-1996).

Appended Additional Bibliography:

For LXX/OG bibliography in general, see

Sebastian P. Brock, Charles T. Fritsch, Sidney Jellicoe, A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint [to about 1970] (Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 6; Leiden: Brill, 1973).

Cécile Dogniez, Bibliography of the Septuagint: Bibliographie de la Septante (1970-1993) (VTSup 60; Leiden: Brill, 1995).

Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (BIOSCS) (updated bibliography, survey of ongoing research).

James Adair bibliog (1990-2002)
Twelve Prophets bibliog
Joel Kalvesmaki online links and  bibliog (1949-1998)

Studies pertaining to LXX/OG and to ancient Greek versions in general (see also this site):

Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, Oxford, Clarendon, 1968

Emanuel Tov and Robert Kraft, "Septuagint," IDBS (1976) 807-815.

N. Fernández-Marcos, Introducción a las versiones griegas de la Biblia (Textos y estudios "Cardinal Cisneros" 23; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1979).
The Septuagint in context: introduction to the Greek version of the Bible, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson (Leiden: Brill, 2000) [translation of 2nd revised and enlarged edition].

Emanuel Tov, "Die griechischen Bibelübersetzungen," ANRW 2.20.1 (1987) 121-189. 
________, "The Septuagint," in M.J. Mulder and H. Sysling (eds.), Mikra. Text, Translation,
Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, II/1; Assen - Maastricht: Van Gorcum / Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 161-188.
The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3; Jerusalem: Simor 1981) [second edition in 1997].

Marguerite Harl, et al., La Bible grecque de la Septante. Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Initiations au christianisme ancien; Paris: Cerf, 1988).

B. Botte and P.-M. Bogaert, "Septante et versions grecques," DBS 12, fasc. 68 (1993) 536-693.

M. Cimosa, Guida allo studio della bibbia greca, Roma, Società Biblica Brittanica & Forestièra, 1995.

Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Baker  and Paternoster 2000), especially 158-165 (Samuel-Kings text), 171-173 (Nahal Hever Greek Minor Prophets), 280-287 (Recensions; Lucian, καίγε).

Peter Katz, "Frühe hebraisierende Rezensionen der LXX," ZAW 69 (1957), 77-84

Patrick W. Skehan, "The Earliest LXX and Subsequent Revisions," Jerome Biblical Commentary 2 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 1968) 570-572.

S. Daniel, "Minor Greek Versions,"  Encylopaedia Judaica 4 (1971)  955-956.

Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, "Les rapports du judaisme avec l'histoire de la Septante et de ses révisions."  Tradition orale et tradition écrite, ed  L.  De Queker  (Colloque, Louvain 1975; Bruxelles, 1976) 122-149. [Includes discussions].
Angel Saenz-Badillos, "El hebreo del S.II d. C. a la luz de las transcripciones griegas de Aquila, mmaco y Teodoción."  Sefàrad 35 (1975) 107-130.
Kevin G. O'Connell, "Greek Versions (Minor)." IDBSup (Nashville: Abington, 1976) 377-381.

Staffan Olofsson, The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 30; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell, 1990).
Lester L. Grabbe, "The Translation Technique of the Greek Minor Versions: Translations or Revisions?,"  Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings : Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990), ed G. J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars (Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 505-556.

Claude E. Cox, "The Translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion Found in the Margins of Armenian Manuscripts,"  Armenia and the Bible, ed C. Burchard (Atlanta, GA: 1993) 35-45.

Symposium: "Septuagint Lexicography and Beyond: Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion" (on the occasion of the publication of the revised one volume edition of J. Lust, E. Eynikel & K. Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised Edition Friday October 31, 2003).

Studies pertaining specifically to the "καίγε" Group and/or Recension(s) [chronological order except multiple contributions by the same author are grouped at the first occurrence of that author's name; see also the preceding footnotes for Barthélemy [passim], and as cross-referenced below --  Kahle [nn. 23, 26], Katz [n. 23], Jellicoe [nn. 3, 14, 15, 22, 28], Cross [nn. 3, 4, 27, 29], Wevers [nn. 3, 7, 27],  Tov [nn. 4, 9, 19, 23, 29, 33], Muraoka [n. 4], Brock [nn. 3, 30], O’Connell [n.31], Howard [nn. 3, 26, 29], Fernandez-Marcos [n. 25], Greenspoon [n.11],  Trebolle [n.35], Talshir [n.35], Polak [n.35], Gordon [n.35], Taylor [n.35], McLay [n. 11], De Lange [n. 38]):

Barthélemy [see above, notes 1-6 et passim].

Paul Ernst Kahle (1875-1964), "Die Lederrolle mit dem griechischen Text der Kleinen Propheten und das Problem der LXX." Theologische Literaturzeitung 79 (1954) 81-94 [see also "Die Lederrolle mit dem griechischen Dodekapropheton." In Die Kairoer Genisa. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hebräischen Bibeltextes und seiner Übersetzungen, ed. Paul Ernst Kahle. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962, 239-241 (get ET info?)] [see above, nn. 23, 26].

Peter Katz, "Justin's Old Testament Quotations and the Greek Dodekapropheton Scroll," Studia Patristica 1 (1957) [see above, n. 23].

Baruch Lifschitz, "The Greek Documents from the Cave of Horror," Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962) 201-207 [additional fragments of the Greek Minor Prophets material].

Frank Moore Cross, "The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert," Harvard Theological Review 57 (1964) 281-299 [see above, notes 3, 4,  27, 29; also below 1972 Symposium]

Werner E. Lemke, Synoptic Studies in the Chronicler's History (unpublished Harvard dissertation 1964); see the summary in  HTR 58 (1965) 349-363.

Sebastian P. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of 1 Samuel (unpublished Oxford dissertation 1966) [see also above, nn. 3, 30].

A. Schmitt, Stammt der sogennante "Θ'"-Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion? (MSU 9; Goettingen 1966).

Ralph W. Klein, Studies in the Greek Text of the Chronicler (unpublished Harvard dissertation 1966); see his subsequent article in HTR 60 (1967) 93-105.

M. Smith, "Another Criterion for the kaige Recension," Biblica 48 (1967) 443-445.

James D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recension Developments in the Greek Text of Kings (Harvard Semitic Monographs 1; Harvard University Press 1968).

D. W. Gooding, "Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns," in Textus 7 (1969) 1-29 [see above, n.  33].

J. M. Grindel, “Another characteristic of the καίγε recension,” CBQ 31 (1969), 499-513.

George Howard, "Frank Cross and Recensional Criticism," Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971) 440-450 [see also above, notes 3, 26, 29].
Readings in a Greek Twelve Prophets Scroll from the Judaean Desert
." Jewish Quarterly Review 62 (1971-1972) 51-60.

________, "Kaige Readings in Josephus."  Textus 8 (1973) 45-54.

________,"The Quinta of the Minor Prophets: a First Century Text?" Bib 55 (1974) 15-22.

J. Schopphaus, "Das Verhältnis von LXX- und Theodotion-Text in den apokryphen Zusätzen zum Danielbuch", ZATW 83 (1971) 49-72.

Kevin 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: 1972) [see above, n. 31]

Emanuel Tov, "The State of the Question: Problems and Proposed Solutions," 1972 Proceedings: International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and the SBL Pseudepigrapha Seminar (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 2, Society of Biblical Literature 1972) 3-12  [see above, nn. 4, 9, 19, 23, 29, 33].
________, "Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament.  A Further Characteristic of the καίγε-Th. Revision?,"  Textus 8 (1973) 78-92.
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Augsburg Fortress 1992) [Hebrew original, 1989; second, revised  English edition 2001].
________, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: collected essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999) [collects 38 essays, revised and updated, on various aspects of LXX/OG study, including translation technique].

Takamitsu Muraoka, "The Greek Texts of Samuel-Kings: Incomplete Translations or Recensional Activity?" [originally presented in the 1972 Proceedings: International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and the SBL Pseudepigrapha Seminar (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 2, Society of Biblical Literature 1972) 90-107; subsequently published in Abr-Nahrain 21 (1982-1983) 28-49]  [see also above, nn. 4, 33].

Frank Moore Cross, "The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts," 1972 Proceedings: International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and the SBL Pseudepigrapha Seminar (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 2, Society of Biblical Literature 1972) 108-126 [see also above, nn. 3, 4, 27, 29].

K. Koch, "Die Herkunft der Proto-Theodotion-Übersetzung des Danielsbuches," VT 23 (1973) 362-365.

Sidney Jellicoe, "Some Reflections on the Kaige-Recension."  VT 23 (1973) 15-24 [see also above, nn. 3, 14, 15, 22, 28].

H. J. Venetz, Die Quinta des Psalteriums. Ein Beitrag zur Septuaginta und Hexaplaforschung (Hildesheim, 1974).

L. C. Allen, The Greek Chronicles. The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text. Part I: The Translator's Craft  (SVT 25; Leiden: 1974) 6-17, 137-141.

W. R. Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges: Recensional Developments  (HSM 23; Missoula MT: Scholars, 1980) [publication of his 1973 Harvard Dissertation].
________,  "Kaige and other Recensional Developments in the Greek Text of Judges,"  BIOSCS 13 (1980) 45-57. [MSS Birua/2 and efsz + jm(o)q in Judges, the "Vaticanus family," when "tested against the now quite extensive body of published καίγε characteristics...clearly stands within this recension for the whole of Judges" (45). "In summary,... the B family is a part of the καίγε recension [sic; group]; B's identification is sound. The A family is both earlier (in that it preserves the OG more extensively than B) and later (in the high proportion of Hexaplaric influence it demonstrates). The sixth column is based on an OG Vorlage, but it has undergone systematic revision, not to be classified as καίγε, toward a Hebrew text like the Massoretic Text" (51). Along the way he identifies additional καίγε features in Judges. Valuable detailed notes.]

Natalio Fernández Marcos, "El Texto Barberini de Habacuc III reconsiderado", Sefàrad 36 (1976) 3-36 [see n. 25 above].
________, "Theodoret's Biblical Text in the Octateuch", BIOSCS 11, 1978, p. 27-43 ;
________, " The Lucianic Text in the Books of Kingdoms: From Lagarde to the Textual Pluralisrn," Wevers Festschrift (1984) p. 161-174.
________, and  J. R. Busto Saiz, El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega I-III (Madrid: CSIC 1989-1996).
________, "Some reflections on the Antiochian text of the Septuagint," Studien zur Septuaginta - Robert Hanhart zu Ehren: aus Anlass seines 65 Geburtstages, ed. Detlef Fraenkel, Udo Quast and John W. Wevers (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990).
________, " The Antiochian text in I-II Chronicles,"  Seventh Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989,  ed. Claude Cox (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991)
________, Scribes and translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1994).

Leonard J. Greenspoon, Studies in the Textual Tradition of the Book of Joshua (Harvard Dissertation, 1977), published as Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua (HSM 28; Chico CA: Scholars 1983).  [See pp. 270-276 for a listing of 96 alleged characteristics of the καίγε group; also above n.11]
________, “Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus, and the Old Greek of Joshua,” EretzIsrael 16 (1982: H. M. Orlinsky volume) 82–91 (with summary in Hebrew).
________, "Biblical Translators in Antiquity and in the Modern World: a Comparative Study,"  HUCA 60 (1989) 91-113 [M. L. Margolis // Theodotion].
________, “Recensions, Revision, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthélemy and Early Developments in the Greek Traditions,” Textus 15 (1990) 153–67.
________, "Theodotion's Version,"  ABD 6 (1992) 447-448. [Comments on (1) relation to Origen's 6th column, (2) the first century bce "ur-Theodotion" evidence, (3) Barthélemy's theories (generally ok, but some details problematic), (4) Theodotion as part of the καίγε developments and as a commendable effort in its own right.]
________, “Kaige is the Answer: What is the Question?,” (paper presented at the IOSCS/IOSOT meetings, 1998).
________, “Old Testament Versions, Ancient” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, eds. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 752–755.

José Ramón Busto Saiz, La Traducción de maco en el libro de los Salmos (Madrid, 1978).
________, "El Texto teodotiénico de Daniel y la traducción de maco," Sefàrad 40 (1980) 41-55; see "Der Theodotion-Text von Daniel und die Symmachus-Übersetzung" [English summary in the IOSCS Bulletin 14 (1981) 44-45].
———. "On the Lucianic Manuscripts in 1-2 Kings." Sixth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem, 1986 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 305-310.
________, and  Natalio Fernández Marcos, El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega I-III (Madrid: CSIC 1989-1996).
________, "The Antiochene Text in 2 Samuel 22." Eighth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 131-43. 

D. H. Torp-Pedersen, An Examination of the Sixth Column of Origen's Hexapla for Characteristics of the Kaige Recension in the Book of Deuteronomy (Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981).

David G. Deboys, The Greek Text of 2 Kings (Dissertation, Oxford 1981).

Jean Carmignac, "Les devanciers de S.Je/ro^me. Une traduction latine de la recension καίγε dans le second Livre des Chroniques."  Mélanges D. Barthélemy: études bibliques offertes a l'occasion de son 60e anniversaire, ed. Pierre Cassetti, Othmar Keel, Adrian Schenker (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 38; Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1981) 31-50.

Julio C. Trebolle Barrera, "Textos 'Kaige' en la Vetus Latina de Reyes (2 Re 10, 25-28),"  RB 89 (1982) 198-209 [see also above, n. 35].
 ________, "The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in the Books of Kings." Seventh Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 285-99 .

Lester L. Grabbe, "Aquila's Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis," JJS 33 (1982) 527-536 [disputes the claim that Aquila reflects Rabbinic concerns; see the summary in BIOSCS 14 (1981) 54-55: "These caveats indicate that further adumbration of theories in the area should be curtailed until a full study of all the Minor Versions is made in the light not only of recent insights in rabbinic studies but also of the exegetical techniques in the entire range of early Jewish literature"].

Claude E.. Cox, "Origen's Use of Theodotion in the Elihu Speeches [Job 32 ff]," The Second Century, a Journal of Early Christianity 3 (1983) 89-98.

Olivier Munnich, "La Septante des Psaumes et le groupe καίγε,"  VT 33 (1983) 75-89.
________, "Contribution à l'Étude de la première révision de la Septante" ANRW 2.20.1  (1986) 190-220.

Wevers Festschrift -- De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers, edd. Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox  (Mississauga: Benben Publications, 1984).

H. Engel, Die Susanna-Erzählung: Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar zum Septuaginta-Text und zur Theodotion-Bearbeitung. OBO 61 (Freiburg/Goettingen, 1985) [See the reviews by  Z. Talshir Bib 67 (1986) 580-586 and  A. Hilhorst BO 46 (1990) 442-445.]

David G. Deboys, "Quinta E in 4 Reigns : [= 2 Kgs (LXX)]." Tyndale Bulletin 36 (1985) 163-78.
________, "Recensional Criteria in the Greek Text of II Kings," JSS 31/2 (1986) 135-139.

Zipora Talshir, "Linguistic Development and the Evaluation of Translation Technique in the Septuagint," Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (1986), 301-320 [see also above, n. 35]
________, “The Nature of the Edition of the Books of Kings Reflected in the LXX,” Tarbiz: A Quarterly for Jewish Studies 59 (1990) 249-302.
———. "Is the Alternate Tradition of the Division of the Kingdom (3 Kgdms 12:24a-z) Non-Deuteronomistic." Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 599-621.
________, The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom: 3 Kingdoms 12:24a-z (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 6; Jerusalem: Simor, 1993).

John W. Wevers, "Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies," Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 21 (1988) 23-34. ["Today there is no reputable Septuagint scholar who has not been influenced by [B.'s Devanciers] (23). (Long digression on the legitimacy of looking for an "original" text behind the variations in Lagardian fashion, vs Kahle.) B has demonstrated that he is dealing with a Jewish text, and that it "is a recension of the old Septuagint" (30). How it reveals its recensional character is explained [unconvincingly!], and it is emphasized that B collected evidence for a "καίγε group," which only occasionally has the sense of a "καίγε recension." "The impulse to recensional activity had so dominated the original text that it has replaced it; it has become something new, and exists independently of the LXX. All of this development is part of the Palestinian Rabbinical tradition [sic!], not just a recension, but a tradition beginning already before our era began and issuing in the barbarisms of Aquila's translation" (34); see also above, nn. 3, 7, 27] 
________, "The Interpretative Character and Significance of the LXX," HBOT 1.1 (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1996) 84-107.  ["The list [of alleged καίγε characteristics] has now grown to 96! It must be stressed that not all of these 96 are convincing. E.g. thirty of these are to be found in the Th. text of Ex.; most of them are technical terms connected with the tabernacle account. Their designation as characteristic of the καίγε group begs the question; all that is certain is that they are used in the pluses attributed to Th. in Ex.  The καίγε group is not a single recension, but was rather part of a Palestinian trend towards revising at least parts of OG in  the direction of MT. This tendency became more and more compelling and culminated in the revision of Aquila in the second century CE, a revision in which the demands of the source language far outweigh those of the target language, in fact to such an extent that it could only be understood by a reader equally at home in both languages" (89-90).   "It is obvious that these two sections [2Sm 11.2-1Kg 2.2 and 1Kg 22.1-2Kg], though both of the word for word type of translation, are not recensionally the same" (94)]

Héctor Avalos, "δεῦρο - δεῦτε and the Imperatives of <hb>HLK</hb>.  New Criteria for the 'Kaige' Recension of Reigns,"  EstBib 47 (1989) 165-176.

Emanuel Tov, with the collaboration of R. A. Kraft and a contribution by P. J. Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (The Seiyal Collection 1, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 8; Clarendon Press 1990) [see also above, n. 9, 13].

Emile Puech, "Les fragments non identifiés de 8KhXIIgr et le manuscrit grec des Douze Petits Prophètes," Revue biblique 98 (1991) 583-593.
________,  "Notes en marge de 8KhXIIgr," Revue de Qumran 15 (1992) 583-593.

M. Pazzini, "La trascrizione dell'ebraico nella versione di Teodozione," SBFLA 41(1991) 201-222.

Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano, Editor. Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday [Bibliogs, Pls, Por] (Orbis Biblicus Et Orientalis 109;  Fribourg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag, 1991.

Frank Polak, "Statistics and Textual Filiation: The Case of 4QSam a LXX (With a Note on the Text of the Pentateuch)," in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, eds. G.J. Brooke and B. Lindars (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992) 215-276 [see also above, n. 35].

Robert P. Gordon, "The Problem of Haplography in 1 and 2 Samuel." Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 131-58 [see also above, n. 35].

Bernard A. Taylor, The Lucianic Manuscripts of 1 Reigns (2 vols. Harvard Semitic Monographs 50-51, Scholars Press 1992-1993) [see also above, n. 35].
________,  "The Lucianic text and the MT in 1 Reigns," in Ninth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, ed. Bernard A. Taylor (Atlanta: Scholars Press) 1-9.

Christopher D. Stanley,  "The Significance of Romans 11:3-4 for the Text History of the LXX Book of Kingdoms," Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993) 43-54 ["Argues that Rom 11.3-4 presents the earliest known translation of the book of Kingdoms (Samuel and Kings in the Greek Bible). The so-called "Lucianic" version is a revision of this earlier text, both of which antedate the standard Greek translation preserved in the codices, the so-called Septuagint (LXX)." (c) Religious and Theological Abstracts]

Peter Gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek of Job (SBLSCS 38; Scholars Press 1995) ["There is no καίγε recension as such" 497].
"The place of Theodotion-Job in the textual history of the Septuagint," in Origen's Hexapla and fragments, ed. A. Salvesen  (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1998) 199-230.
________, "The Greek Psalter and the kaige Tradition: Methodological Questions. In The Old Greek Psalter," Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma, ed. Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox and P.J. Gentry (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 332; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 74-97.

Nicholas De Lange, Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genziah (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum; Mohr Siebeck, 1996) [see above, n.38]
"Jewish Greek" and "Greek influence on Hebrew" [both in Greek], in History of the Greek Language: from the beginnings to late antiquity, ed. A.-Ph. Christidis (Thessaloniki, 2001), pp. 473-479, 598-602.

C. Dogniez, "Le Dieu des armées dans le Dodekapropheton: quelques remarques sur une initiative de traduction," Ninth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 19-36.

Timothy Janz, "The Second Book of Ezra and the "Kaige Group"," Ninth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 153-70.

Staffan Olofsson "The Kaige Group and the Septuagint Book of Psalms." Ninth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 189-230.

Tim McLay, "Kaige and Septuagint Research," Textus 19 (1998) 127-139 [a comparison of some  96 so-called καίγε characteristics in the work of Bodine, Greenspoon, O'Connell, Gentry, Shenkel, and his own, showing that these  characteristics are not shared by the texts customarily so designated; see above n.11].

Responses to the Article

John Wevers, by email, Thursday, 29 Sep 2005
Subject: Bulletin article [edited slightly]

Dear Bob,

Yesterday I received my copy of Bull. 37 . 2004, and I have just finished reading your splendid article on Reassessing the Impact of Barthelemy's Devanciers, Forty years later. I haven't read anything recently which I respected more than your article. It really made me want to do a bit of personal reflecting.

Your reassessment agrees very much with my own appreciation of B,'s work. Many years ago we were together -- I think it was the Vienna congress of IOSCS, and we discussed some of his work. I remember stating my dissatisfaction with the notion of boc2e2 being the original text -- in fact, I worked on my dissatisfaction some place where I compared the two basic texts in Sam-Kgs where the OG text was lost, and to my own satisfaction disproved this -- I thought definitively. Actually B. said he himself no longer
held this to be true, but as merely an interesting notion he was trying out. I was, however, generally convinced of B's work, and have said so as you know. He always sent me his larger works, as I did to him of

There are a couple of remarks which I would like to make of my own, that complement yours. I have long agreed with you that the term LXX should only apply to the Pentateuch. It was fortunate for me that I did my major work in the pentateuch and did not have to make any fuss about OG, though I did actually succomb to the general in fact almost universal use of LXX for the rest of the Greek OT -- but I never found it comfortable. And what bothered me principally was the fact the for Pseudo-Aristeas which in my opinion is to
be dated to the last half of the 2nd BC, makes mention only of the Pentateuch --as though the rest of the OT was of no importance. But if the prophetic canon was already extant, and probably used as the Haftoroth in Alexandria, why , oh why is there no mention of it. In fact, the history of the origin of the rest of the OT
is completely in the dark in my opinion.

And as to Lucian. Yes indeed! As you know I don't believe that an L text is identifiable, or even ever existed, in the Pentateuch. What Rahlfs called the lI text for Genesis of mss 75 and 458, is merely the later Byzantiine text. That it was the Byz text is clear from the Byz lectionary texts. I could wish that we could forget
about the Antiochian text as being Lucian.  By the way, I have made a small contribution to so-called L studies
in my last book Studies in the Text Histories of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel (together with Detlef Frankel), in which I examined "The L Text of Ezekiel" in detail. Probably the most important contribution in my opinion is my dealing with the nature of doublets in L. This conclusion could, I believe, also help in understanding the so-called L doublets in Sam-Kgs.

Forgive me for my rambling, but your article stimulated me into thinking textually. I don't do any textual work anymore. My eyes are too poor for such work -- and I'm also too old and doddering, though I am only 86 as yet.

Cordially, John