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

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). Further exploration of the possibilities should prove rewarding.

31. Dominique Barthélemy, Review of Kevin O’Connell, The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus [HSM 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).

33. For example, he uses the outline presented in Tov’s essay, and discusses the points one by one:

1. The unity of 1–4 Reigns as a translation (Muraoka suggested that perhaps two translators were at work in the OG materials, but B is skeptical) and as a mixture of text types in most surviving manuscripts (B agrees with Tov that “mechanical” confusion was involved in producing the “archtype” reflected in the majorty of manuscripts, but B is still inclined to see Origen’s influence as significant, and in accord with Origen’s principles);

2.The relationship between the καίγε sections in Reigns and other witnesses of the καίγε-Theodotion revision (B emphasizes his “school” idea, which can account for variations in the witnesses);

3. The characteristic features of the καίγε-Theodotion revision (see above, n. 11);

4. The relationship between the revisions of Aquila, Symmachus and καίγε-Theodotion (B maintains that καίγε was used by the others);

5. The problem of boc₂e₂, the Old Greek, Lucian and proto-Lucian (see below—B emphasizes that it is best to use “Antiochene edition” rather than “Lucianic recension,” for historical as well as textual reasons);

6. The relationship between the Greek and the Hebrew texts in 1–4 Reigns (see B’s separate study);

7. The synoptic problem of the Greek Texts of 1–4 Reigns and 1–2 Paralipomena (agrees with Tov that the Greek translator of Chronicles used the OG translation of Samuel-Kings);

8. The nature of the sixth column [“Theodotion”] of the Hexapla in 1–4 Reigns (see below; B is less sure about the origin of what he called “Palestinian version 2” in Devanciers);

9. “Problems of text and midrash in the third book of Reigns” [see D. W. Gooding, "Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns," in Textus 7 (1969) 1-29] (B agrees with Gooding on the “hybrid” nature of Greek 1 Kings [3 Reigns], and suggests that it may be comparable to Greek 1 Ezra).

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” seventh 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).

35. See above, n. 30, and the various contributions noted in the bibliography at the end of this article, especially  Trebolle Barrera (1982); Zipora Talshir  (1990); Bernard Taylor (1991-92); Frank  Polak (1992);   Robert Gordon (1992).

36. For B’s critique of the terminology, see also above, n. 10. B would distinguish a “recension” from an “edition,” with the former involving “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 second century c.e. 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). These distinctions seem rather strained in this context, although certainly worth further attention.

37. “Origène et le texte de l’Ancien Testament,” in Epektasis, Melanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972) 247–61; also in Études 203–17.

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).