The Legacy of Barthélemy's Publication of Devanciers (1963) -- shorter form
for IOSCS Bulletin 37 (2005)
Outline of the Article
1. Ancient Greek
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:
Responses to the Article
In 1953, scarcely a year after the bedouin had brought these
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
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
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.
(The Seiyal Collection 1, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
8;Clarendon Press 1990).
The task is formidable, the literature is
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
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
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
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
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
"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
the 1972 Symposium (above,
n.4), B shows much greater acquaintance with and use of such previous
\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
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.
suffice for now: St Pachomius Library. "Other
Greek Translations of the Old Testament:
Around AD 128,
Theodotion of Ephesus
wrote an extremely
important translation which has a very odd history. Theodotion, who
was not a Jew but rather a member of the Ebionite Christian heresy
kosher dietary laws), lived in the second century. His translation,
seemingly "quoted" in Heb. 11:33 and several times in Revelations
This strongly suggests that Theodotion's version was based upon either
Greek translation which competed with the LXX or upon a "revised"
LXX. Amazingly, Theodotion's version of Daniel is the one officially
by the Church and usually printed in modern editions of the LXX; the
LXX version survives in only 3 manuscripts. The oddities connected with
Theodotion's version and its use by the Church were remarked upon
the Fathers, specifically by
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
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 http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/courses/999/RYLE1.htm .
This much is clear from B's investigations; the old picture of
century CE Jewish translational efforts -- primarily
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
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"
for the Minor Prophets!\24/) -- B dismisses this as "late and
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
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/ B's article on
"Quinta ou Version
selon les Hebreux?" in the Festgabe fur Walther Eichrot (Theologische Zeitschrift 16 
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/
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.
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/
of Translation Technique and Efforts at "Revision" -- Samuel-Kings as a Test Case, and Possible
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/
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
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.
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
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
"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
biblical texts, B argued that there is no solid reason to ascribe a
"recension," or even an "edition" (see n. 36) of the Christian
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
\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.
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
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).
Sebastian P. Brock,
Sidney Jellicoe, A Classified
the Septuagint [to about 1970] (Arbeiten zur Literatur und
hellenistischen Judentums 6;
Cécile Dogniez, Bibliography of the Septuagint:
Bibliographie de la
Septante (1970-1993) (VTSup 60;
International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (BIOSCS) (updated
survey of ongoing research).
Emanuel Tov and Robert Kraft, "Septuagint," IDBS (1976) 807-815.
Fernández-Marcos, Introducción a
las versiones griegas de la Biblia
(Textos y estudios "Cardinal Cisneros" 23;
________, 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
________, "The Septuagint," in M.J. Mulder and H. Sysling (eds.), Mikra. Text, Translation,
________, 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).
Lexicography and Beyond: Symmachus, Aquila,
and Theodotion" (on the occasion of the publication of the
one volume edition of J. Lust, E. Eynikel & K. Hauspie,
Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised Edition
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].
"The Greek Documents
from the Cave of Horror,"
Israel Exploration Journal 12
(1962) 201-207 [additional fragments of the Greek Minor Prophets
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]
Sebastian P. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuagint Version
of 1 Samuel (unpublished Oxford dissertation 1966) [see also
above, nn. 3, 30].
Stammt der sogennante
"Θ'"-Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion?
Ralph W. Klein,
Studies in the Greek Text of the
(unpublished Harvard dissertation 1966); see his subsequent article in
HTR 60 (1967) 93-105.
"Another Criterion for the kaige Recension," Biblica 48
James D. Shenkel,
Chronology and Recension Developments
Text of Kings (Harvard Semitic Monographs 1; Harvard University
W. Gooding, "Problems
of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns," in Textus
(1969) 1-29 [see above, n. 33].
J. M. Grindel,
“Another characteristic of the καίγε
recension,” CBQ 31 (1969), 499-513.
Howard, "Frank Cross and
Recensional Criticism," Vetus
Testamentum 21 (1971) 440-450
[see also above, notes 3, 26, 29].
________, "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]
State of the Question: Problems
and Proposed Solutions," 1972 Proceedings: International
Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and the SBL
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
Translations or Recensional Activity?" [originally presented in the 1972
Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and the SBL
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)
"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
Massoretic Text. Part I: The Translator's Craft
W. R. Bodine, The
Text of Judges: Recensional Developments
(HSM 23; Missoula MT: Scholars, 1980) [publication of his 1973
________, "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.]
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)
________, "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
José Ramón Busto
Saiz, La Traducción de Símaco
en el libro de
los Salmos (Madrid, 1978).
________, "El Texto teodotiénico de Daniel y la traducción de Símaco," 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
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 .
L. Grabbe, "
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.
"La Septante des Psaumes et le groupe καίγε," VT 33 (1983)
________, "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
________, "Recensional Criteria in the Greek Text of II Kings," JSS 31/2 (1986) 135-139.
"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,
Studies," Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint
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
________, "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
Héctor Avalos, "δεῦρο - δεῦτε and the Imperatives of <hb>HLK</hb>. New Criteria for the 'Kaige' Recension of Reigns," EstBib 47 (1989) 165-176.
with the collaboration of R. A. Kraft
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.
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;
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]
________, "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.
"Le Dieu des armées dans
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.
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.
McLay, "Kaige and Septuagint
Research," Textus 19 (1998)
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]
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.
John Wevers, by
email, Thursday, 29 Sep 2005