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

HLK.  New Criteria for the 'Kaige' Recension of Reigns,"  EstBib 47 (1989) 165-176.

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

Norton, Gerard J, and Stephen Pisano, Editor. Tradition of the Text : Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday [Bibliogs, Pls, Por]. xi, 310 p . Orbis Biblicus Et Orientalis, 109. Fribourg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag, 1991.

 
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.

Bernard A. Taylor, The Lucianic Manuscripts of 1 Reigns (2 vols. Harvard Semitic Monographs 50-51, Scholars Press 1991-1992); "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.

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.

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

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.

Peter Gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek of Job (SBLSCS 38, Scholar Press 1995; "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.

John W. Wevers, "The Interpretative Character and Significance of the LXX," HBOT 1.1 (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1996) 84-107.

Nicholas De Lange, Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genziah (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum; Mohr Siebeck, 1996); "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.

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

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

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); Propaedeutic to a Lexicon of the Three. Foundational Issues with Illustrations from Ecclesiastes, P. J. Gentry; Methodological issues preliminary to a Lexicon of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, K. Hauspie.

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 Naal ever.

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”] (VTS 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963 [some sections are reprinted in Études (see n.5 below)]) 66–90, with added notes on 388–389.

3 . List of reviews (see also the appended bibliography below):
F. M. Cross, in “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” HTR 57 (1964) 281–299; see also G. Howard, “Frank Cross and Recensional Criticism,” VT 21 (1971) 440–450, which reviews some of Barthélemy’s detailed work on which Cross based some conclusions.
S. Jellicoe, JAOS 84 (1964) 178–82.
R. A. Kraft, Gnomon 37 (1965) 474–83.
C. M. Martini, Biblica 46 (1965) 365–68 [in Italian].
R. Tourney, Revue Biblique 72 (1965) 117–9 [in French].
J. Daniélou, Recherches de sciences religieuses 53 (1965) [in French].
P. Sacchi, Atene e Roma 10 (1965) 135–40 [in Italian].
M. Delcor, Bibliotheca Orientalis 22 (1965) 301–2 [in French].
G. Vermes, JSS 11 (1966) 261–4 [with some comments on rabbinic theories].
S. P. Brock, “Lucian redivivus: Some reflections on Barthélemy's Les Devanciers d'Aquila,” Sudia Evangelica 5 (1968) = TU 103, 176–81 [deals only with that issue in Samuel-Kings (see below)].
J. W. Wevers in his review article on "Septuaginta Forschungen Seit 1954," Theologische Rundschau 33 (1968) 67f.

4 . Published as 1972 Proceedings: Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha Seminars, edited by Robert A. Kraft (SCS 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 by Kathleen McCarthy 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’ (108–26). 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 (OBO 21; Göttingen: 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) 451–65 [reprinted in Études 307–21, with no additional notes].

7 . BIOSCS 21 (1988) 23–4 [“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 http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/judaism/barthel.htm ].

9 . Emanuel Tov, with the collaboration of R. A. Kraft and a contribution by P. J. Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naal ever (8evXIIgr) (The Seiyal Collection 1, DJD 8; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).

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) 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.

11. B’s list of the characteristics has been supplemented by others in subsequent studies, although in his response to the 1972 Symposium (above, n. 4), he affirmed that the essential features are: (1) Hebrew גם 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, 268–9). 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 acknowledges that the “paleographic evidence . . . is shifting sand. Barth[élemy] 1953 dated the script (that is, hand A) towards the end of i a.d. Roberts apud Kahle (226) opted for 50 b.c.–a.d. 50, and Schubart, ibid. for a date around the reign of Augustus; Barth[élemy] 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).

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 with 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 (Oxford: 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 manuscripts]” (48–49). See also Swete, 379 on “Ur-Lucian” as reflected in Josephus and 395f on “Theodotionic” readings in the New Testament. As we will see, this “Ur-Lucian” evidence is sometimes 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.)

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,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. Vanderkam, eds. (Oxford: University Press, 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. …

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.”

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 (1966) 140–173, with additional notes on 390–391. For additional background on this situation, see 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 .

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).

23. Justin quotes Mic 4:1–7 in a form almost exactly replicating the remnants of the καίγε scroll (Dialogue 109–10), if we can trust the preserved manuscripts 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 manuscripts 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 aberrant 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 fifth century”; Barthélemy argues for a “Jewish” reviser in the early third 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 (CRINT 3.3; Fortress, 1993) 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.

26. Paul Ernst Kahle (1875–1964), “Die Lederrolle mit dem griechischen Text der Kleinen Propheten und das Problem der LXX,” TLZ 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) 239–41. See also, in English, “The Greek Bible and the Fragments from the Judaean Desert,” Studia Evangelica 1 (TU 73; 1959) 613–21, 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) 281–99; John W. Wevers in Theologische Rundschau 33 (1968) 67f , for examples, 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).

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 its direct criticism of B’s approach) on “Frank Cross and Recensional Criticism,” VT 21 (1971) 440–50; 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 392–3! 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.