Septuagint Versions, Greek Recensions, and Hebrew Editions. The Text-Critical Evaluation of The Old...

SEPTUAGINT VERSIONS, GREEK RECENSIONS AND HEBREW EDITIONS 251

SEPTUAGINT VERSIONS, GREEK RECENSIONS ANDHEBREW EDITIONS

THE TEXT-CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE OLD LATIN,ARMENIAN AND GEORGIAN VERSIONS IN III-IV REGNORUM

I. INTRODUCTION

This joint paper aims at presenting a project of polyglot-synoptic edi-tion of 1-2 Kings (3-4 Kings) and at the same time to underscore,through some examples, some of the major questions which arise whencarrying out a project of critical edition of 3-4 Kings, especially regard-ing the identification and critical value of pre-Lucianic readings. In thissense, a considerable degree of emphasis will be placed upon the sec-ondary versions of LXX (especially Old Latin, Armenian and Georgian)in the context of their relationship with the Lucianic (and pre-Lucianic)text. In the books of Kings and in some other biblical books, secondaryversions reflect the history of the Greek version and its recensions,which, in turn, is a reflection of the plurality of Hebrew editions in thosevery same books.

At the beginning of textual criticism of the books of Samuel-Kings, agreat amount of value was placed upon the Antioquene text of 1-4Kings. Welhausen’s (1871), Burney’s (1903) and Driver’s (1913) stud-ies demonstrate it. Wellhausen and Driver underscored the contacts be-tween the Old Latin (OL) and the Antioquene Greek1. At that time, it wasalready being proposed that there was an Ur-Lucian text, prior to the 4thcentury recensor2. Burkitt was the first to observe that OL reflects a“Lucianic text before Lucian”3. Vercellone noted the Lucianic characterof the OL fragments collected in the marginal notes of Leon Vulgatecodices4.

1. J. WELLHAUSEN, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis, Göttingen, 1871, pp. 221-224; C.F.BURNEY, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, Oxford, 1903, pp. xxx-xxxi;S.R. DRIVER, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (International TheologicalLibrary), Edinburgh, 21913, pp. lxxvi-lxxx.

2. “We are forced to postulate an Ur-Lucian in currency before the end of the firstcentury A.D.”, H.ST.J. THACKERAY, Josephus, the Man and the Historian, New York,1929, p. 85.

3. F.C. BURKITT, The Book of Rules of Tyconius, Cambridge, 1894, p. cxvii.4. C. VERCELLONE, Variae Lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum. II, Rome, 1864, p.

436. New edition by A. MORENO HERNANDEZ, Las glosas marginales de Vetus Latina enlas biblias vulgatas españolas. 1-2 Reyes, Madrid, 1992.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58251

252 A. PIQUER – P. TORIJANO – J. TREBOLLE BARRERA

Rahlfs’s work, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (1911), marked aturning point by stating that the Lucianic text depends on a pre-Hexaplaric one, of the same kind which is represented in CodexVaticanus. According to Rahlfs, lucianisms in OL do not correspond toprimitive readings but to late revisions, produced from readings ofLucianic Greek, very extended in the West5. B. Fischer thought that itwas possible to prove the opposite by taking three basic pieces of evi-dence. Cyprian’s Latin text shows more points of contact with theLucianic Greek, necessarily prior to the 4th Century Lucian, than withthe putative LXX text. More recent Latin authors correct many lucianismswith LXX readings. Finally, although it is not possible to characterize ac-curately the kind of work undertaken by Lucian, his recension and OL

seem to go back to the same (lost) Greek text type. Consequently, ac-cording to B. Fischer, the presence of lucianisms in the OL text consti-tutes evidence which supports the text’s antiquity6.

In the last decades, the study of biblical manuscripts from Qumranhas yielded new data and has re-oriented, upon new grounds, textualcriticism of both the Greek and Hebrew text of the biblical books, inparticular the historical and prophetical ones. The ‘Minor ProphetsScroll’ from NaÌal Îever allowed the identification of a proto-Theodotionic text in the so-called kaíge sections of 3-4 Kings (3 Kings1,1–2,[10]11 and 3 Kings 22,1–4 Kings 25,30)7. In these sections, CodexVaticanus, which A. Rahlfs basically follows for his edition of LXX, re-produces the text of the proto-Theodotionic recension, whereas theLucianic manuscripts (boc2e2) preserve a text which is very close or sub-stantially identical with the Old Greek (OG)8. Also, Qumran biblicalmanuscripts of the historical and prophetical books attest a text close to

5. A. RAHLFS, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (Septuaginta Studien, 3),Göttingen, 1911, pp. 169 and 290. Similarly, L. DIEU, Retouches lucianiques sur quelquestextes de la vieille version latine (I et II Samuel), in RB 16 (1919) 390-403; G. BARDY,Recherches sur Saint Lucien d’Antioche et son École, Paris, 1936, pp. 176ff.

6. “Grosse Wahrscheinlichkeit hat der Satz für sich: Ein VL-Text ist umso älter undprimitiver, je mehr L-Lesarten er enthält”, B. FISCHER, Lukian-Lesarten in der VetusLatina der vier Königsbücher, in Studia Anselmiana 27-28 (1951) 169-177, esp. 173, 175and 177.

7. D. BARTHÉLEMY, Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du textedes fragments du Dodécaprophéton, trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une étudesur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de notreère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien (SVT, 10), Leiden, Brill, 1963, p, 47; ID., Lesproblèmes textuels de 2 Sam 11,2 – 1 Rois 2,11 reconsidérés à la lumière de certainescritiques des Devanciers d’Aquila, in R.A. KRAFT (ed.), 1972 Proceedings. IOSCSPseudepigrapha (SBL SCS, 2), Missoula, MT, 1972, 16-89; R.A. KRAFT, Reassessing theImpact of Barthélemy’s Devanciers. Forty Years Later, in BIOSCS 37 (2004) 1-28.

8. E. TOV, Lucian and Proto-Lucian: Toward a New Solution of the Problem, in RB79 (1972) 101-113.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58252


the Hebrew behind LXX (4Sama, 4QJerb.d) or a text of an “independenttradition” (4QJosha, 4QJudga, 4QSama). Qumran allows to speak of theexistence of several editions of these books. In the case of Kings, the dif-ferent chronological systems in MT and LXX, together with the differentdivision of books and arrangement of materials, especially in the textcorresponding to the gg section of the Greek text, lead one to think thatthere were two different recensions or editions, that represented by theSeptuagint being on the whole the shorter one (infra).

The Qumran fragments of Kings are scant but they offer interestingdata which attest the antiquity of the Masoretic tradition, but also con-firm the text-critical value of the OG. The considerable variations thatthis offers with respect to the Masoretic text (MT) are not due so much tothe work of the Greek translator, as they reflect a different text from thatof the Masoretic tradition. 4QKgs (4Q54) frg. 7 preserves in 1 Kings8,16 a reading lost by homoioteleuton in MT, but still present in the par-allel text of 2 Chron 6,5b.6a and partly also in the OG of 1 Kings 8,16.6Q4 (6QKgs) agrees in 2 Kings 7,20–8,5 at certain points with LXX, Syrand Vulg, and is generally shorter than MT and the versions at otherpoints. The Greek proto-Lucianic text could reflect a Hebrew originalclose to the textual form of these Qumran fragments9.

Also, recent research on 1QIsaa and 1QIsab has modified the viewsustained since the discovery of Qumran manuscripts in the sense thatthe text of 1QIsaa is a ‘vulgar’ text. In spite of the proximity of 1QIsab toMT, the preserved fragments show over 200 variants. Among them, morethan one hundred are textual variants and the other hundred or somemore are orthographic variants10. Even more meaningful is the tendencyto amplification of the text which leads from 1QIsaa into LXX and MT11.In 1QIsaa 38,1-8, the different hands in the writing of the scroll can re-flect different layers of development in 2 Kings 20,1-1112. A comparisonof the various textual layers in 2 Kings 18–20 // Isa 36–39 shows thatthe proto-Lucianic stratum in Kings proves to be the earliest attainable

9. J.D. SHENKEL, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text ofKings (Harvard Semitic Monographs, 1), Cambridge, MA, 1968, p. 123.

10. Details in E. TOV, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Assen – Maastricht –Minneapolis, MN, 22001, pp. 31-32.

11. E. ULRICH, The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus, inA. LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume. Basel 2001 (SVT, 92), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2002,p. 90; M.G. ABEGG, JR., 1QIsaa and 1QIsab, in E.D. HERBERT – E. TOV (eds.), The Bibleas Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, London, 2002, 221-228; P.W. FLINT, The Book of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in HERBERT – TOV (eds.),The Bible (n. 11), 229-251.

12. E. TOV, Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran, in RQ 16 (1995)581-600.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58253


level, very close to 1QIsaa and the Isaiah OG. MT Isaiah represents a de-veloped form of the text, which is nevertheless superior to that of MT 2Kings13.

Qumran research has contributed to suscitate ongoing editions of bib-lical texts, each of them with its own characteristics: The Hebrew Uni-versity Bible Project, Biblia Hebraica Quinta and Oxford Hebrew Bible.These editions follow either the model of the diplomatic edition whichreproduces with critical notes the best manuscript preserved, or the ec-lectic model which selects the best readings from the different preservedsources. Recently, E. Tov has proposed the convenience of a model ofedition close to that of the Renaissance ‘Polyglots’:

The purpose of a multi-column edition would be to educate the users to-ward an egalitarian approach to the textual witnesses which cannot beachieved with the present tools … The presentation of the text in the paral-lel columns would graphically show the relation between the plus and mi-nus elements. Only by this means can future generations of scholars be ex-pected to approach the textual data in an unbiased way, without MT formingthe basis of their thinking14.

The numerous transpositions, double readings, omissions and addi-tions, all kind of variants and cross-influences between the MT and theLXX in 1-2 Kings, as well as the great amount of materials of the ver-sions and other sources strongly advice to follow the model of a poly-glot-synoptic edition.

II. A POLYGLOT-SYNOPTIC EDITION OF 1-2 KINGS

The first aim of this paper is to present an ongoing project polyglot-synoptic edition of Kings. Lacking here a screen preview as presented atthe Specialists’ Symposium on the Septuagint Translation, now followsa brief description of the edition in 12 parallel columns with the text or-dered left-to-right:

• Georgian version of the LXX, following the readings of Codex Oshkiwhen extant, Codex Mcxeta in the other passages. A further collation ofother Georgian manuscripts can be included in the future.

13. A CATASTINI, Isaia ed Ezechia: Studio di storia della tradizione di II Re 18-20//Isaiah 36-39, Rome, 1989, pp. 251-255.

14. E. TOV, Hebrew Scripture Editions: Philosophy and Praxis, in F. GARCIA

MARTINEZ – A. STEUDEL – E. TIGCHELAAR (eds.), From 4QMMT to Resurrection:Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech (STDJ, 61), Leiden – Boston, MA,2006, 281-312, esp. pp. 309-310.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58254


• Armenian version of the LXX. Given that Zohrab’s edition is clearly defi-cient, a new collation of the oldest mss., already used by Cox and Cowe,is bein produced. They preserve several old readings. Mss. M1500, LL1209, SL935 and SL280 will be treated in this Armenian column.

• Old Latin fragments of diverse procedences.• LXXL text, as established in the Lagarde’s and Fernández Marcos-Busto

Saiz’s editions, with occasional revisions15.• Varia column (LXX-related material), which includes Hexapla fragments

and relevant readings from the Coptic (Sahidic and Bohairic fragments),as well as Ethiopian versions, together with any other possible evidenceof interest, like Church Fathers quotations. If the column becomes clut-tered, footnotes can be used for alternative readings.

• MT, following BHS. Qere readings may appear in brackets.• Targum Jonathan, taking the text of Sperber’s edition. Relevant variants

can be included as notes.• Peshitta text, according to the established text of the Leiden edition. Rel-

evant variants can be included as notes.• Vulgate, as per the Benedictine text. Relevant variants can be included

as notes.• Parallel units in the books of Chronicles, when existing.• Varia column (MT-related material): quotations or paraphrases from

Josephus, variant readings in Medieval Hebrew manuscripts.

Notes are supposed to include materials which do not fit in the col-umns (especially the Varia columns): mostly Coptic and Ethiopian ver-sions, Josephus corresponding passages and Fathers quotations, as wellas alternative readings of OL, Targum (T) and Peshitta (S) variants, etc.A future electronic edition will dispense with the need of notes and inte-grate all the materials in their own windows, of which the visualizationwill be selected according to the user’s needs via a navigation interface.

On methodogical grounds, LXXB has been established as copy-text.Therefore, diverging readings in the columns will be marked in relation-ship to it. This should be understood as a conventional option, of specialutility for the comparison of LXX versions. Nevertheless, it can be felt ascontroversial to mark MT readings as ‘diverging’ from LXXB, even if thatis true from a purely descriptive point of view. Therefore, MT and LXXB

are compared with each other using a specific code (more of this below)which does not establish prevalence, even on descriptive grounds. Onthe other hand, it has been considered of interest to mark textual diver-gence of T, S, V and the rest of the MT-related materials in relationshipto LXXB, as these connections have been traditionally explored in re-search on issues about Vorlage of LXX and Hebrew text-types orredactions.

15. N. FERNANDEZ MARCOS – J.R. BUSTO SAIZ, El texto antioqueno de le Bibliagriega. II. 1-2 Reyes (Textos y estudios «Cardenal Cisneros», 53), Madrid, 1992.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58255


As compared to the copy-text, plusses are marked in red. Minuses byusing either one (>) of three (>>>) blue angle brackets; a text markedwith an obelus in Hexaplaric materials also appears in blue. Variationsof different types are marked in light orange, inversions in the order ofelements in green. Variants between LXX and MT, as copy-texts, aremarked in violet.

The columns are to be synoptic, keeping the text as parallel as possi-ble. To that end, many plusses in a column require blank spaces in theothers. The same happens at times due to changes in word-order.

This column presentation (and the textual indications via color codes)attempts to be fundamentally descriptive, that is, to document severalkinds of differences and coincidences between the texts without taking aparticular stance or making text-critical decisions yet. It tries to offer thematerials which should be taken into account when producing the actualwork of a critical edition as the Gottingen’s one for LXX and the OxfordHebrew Bible’s one for the Hebrew text.

III. TEXT-CRITICAL EVALUATION OF GREEK LUCIANIC OLD LATIN,ARMENIAN AND GEORGIAN AGREEMENTS

For a critical edition of 3-4 Kings it is necessary to reformulate uponnew grounds the conclusions established by A. Rahlfs in his LuciansRezension der Königsbücher. Rahlfs acknowledges the existence ofsome ‘remainder’ of ‘pre-Lucianic material’ (“Vorlucianisches Gut”),that is, of readings which cannot be explained as changes operated uponthe Greek of the majority text. On the contrary, in those cases, B’s read-ing can be explained from L’s. These pre-Lucianic variants can be tracedback to a Hebrew Vorlage different from the text represented by MT andLXXB. The amount of pre-Lucianic variants acknowledged by Rahlfs isrelatively small. Most of them appear in kaíge sections and are oftenperson or place names. Nevertheless, Rahlfs himself indicates that thenumber of such readings could be higher16. That is what we will try toshow here concisely, through a series of examples, using for it materialsfrom the ongoing synoptic edition previously described.

The basic problem lies on telling apart the products of the Lucianicrecension from its pre-Lucianic original. This could be impossible inthose cases in which both levels of text modify the passages to produce amore correct and fluid Greek. The Lucianic text shows traces of diverse

16. RAHLFS, Lucians Rezension (n. 5), p. 291.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58256


revisions and Atticist modifications17. For the identification of pre-Lucianic readings, the testimony of Josephus and the OL is priceless, asthe matches between OL and Josephus with the Hebrew of 4QSama haveshown for 1-2 Kings18. In the Samuel-Kings books, OL follows a Greektext type similar to that which Lucian used for his own recension. TheOL text then constitutes an important criterion for determining the his-tory of the Antioquene text and to detect pre-Lucianic readings pre-served in it19. OL translates a text which at times matches the originalSeptuagint or a stage very close to it, at times even preferable to the at-tested Hebrew text20. Recent studies have acknowledged this text-criticalvalue to the OL text21.

Here, we will try to stress the importance of the Armenian and, moresurprisingly, the Georgian versions, for identifying the pre-Lucianicreadings which represent the oldest stratum of the textual tradition of theSeptuagint.

The actual text of the Armenian version supports in most cases theHexaplaric tradition and usually follows Codex A and c2. This stage ofthe text (Arm 2) would correspond to the revision of a previous transla-tion (Arm 1) made on Greek manuscripts that shared many readings

17. S.P. BROCK, Lucian redivivus: Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciersd’Aquila, in F.L. CROSS (ed.), Studia Evangelica 5 (Texte und Untersuchungen, 103),Berlin, 1968, 176-181, esp. p. 180; ID., The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of ISamuel (Quaderni di Henoch, 9), Turin, 1996, pp. 297-99 and 303-307; D.G. DEBOYS,Recensional Criteria in the Greek Text of II Kings, in JSS 31 (1986) 13-139; N.FERNáNDEZ MARCOS, Aberrant Texts in the Books of Kings, in ID. (ed.), Scribes andTranslators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings (SVT, 54), Leiden, 1994,39-91.

18. Cross and Ulrich identify the proto-Lucianic recension through the survey of theLucianic Samuel readings which agree with the Hebrew text of 4QSama, against MT andLXX, and seem devoid of recensional activity. In the kaíge section gg “the number ofagreements of 4QSama with GB becomes haphazard, and the number of agreements of4QSama with GL sharply increases, very often in agreement with the Old Latin where it isextant, and frequently with readings in Josephus’ Antiquities”. F.M. CROSS – D.W. PARRY

– R.J. SALYE – E. ULRICH, Qumran Cave 4, XII. 1-2 Samuel (Discoveries in the JudeanDesert, 17), Oxford, 2005, p. 25; E. ULRICH, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus,Missoula, MT, 1978, p. 95.

19. E. ULRICH, The Old Latin Translation of the LXX and the Hebrew Scrolls fromQumran, in E. TOV (ed.), The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel. 1980 ProceedingsIOSCS, Vienna, Jerusalem, 1980, 121-165.

20. Obviously, the OL readings, together with the other versions, should undergo aprevious analysis in order to discriminate between true readings from the old version andothers which would belong to recensional levels or later revisions and corruptions. Thus,regarding the OL fragments collected in the marginal notes of Leon Vulgate codices, cf. J.TREBOLLE, Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings in the Books of Judgesand Kings, in G. BRAULIK – W. GROSS – S. MCEVENUE (eds.), Biblische Theologie undgesellschaftlicher Wandel. Für Norbert Lohfink, Fribourg – Basel – Vienna, 1993, 315-329.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58257


with the Lucianic tradition. In addition to that, it has been discussed therole that a possible Syriac Vorlage has played in the Arm 1, althoughthis hypothesis is due to a misinterpretation of Armenian traditions.Therefore, Arm 1 derives from Lucianic manuscripts whereas Arm 2follows Hexaplaric ones. B. Johnson noted the affinities of the Arme-nian version of 1 Samuel with Lucianic manuscripts and OL, Ethiopicand Coptic versions22.

However, the textual basis of the Armenian printed text is clearly in-complete and in many cases secondary as the works of Johnson, Cowe,Cox and Lucca have clearly shown23. The St Lazzaro 1508 manuscript,chosen by the Mekhitarist Zohrab as basis of his edition, is late and suf-fered the so-called Cilician recension24. Therefore, it should be supple-mented by better textual witness as Cowe and Cox did in their works.

21. A. SCHENKER, Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: Die hebräische Vorlageder ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher (OBO, 199),Fribourg – Göttingen, 2004; ID., The Old Latin in 2 Kings 21:2-9: A Contribution to theText History of the Books of Kings, in Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 27(2004) 1-11; ID., Die Textgeschichte der Königsbücher und ihre Konsequenzen für dieTextgeschichte der hebräischen Bibel, Illustriert am Beispiel von 2Kön 23:1-3, in A.LEMAIRE (ed.), Congres Volume. Leiden 2004 (SVT, 109), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2006,65-80. Cf. previous studies of the author, among others J. TREBOLLE BARRERA, Jehú yJoás. Texto y composición literaria de 2 Reyes 9 – 11, Valencia, 1984; ID., From the“Old Latin” through the “Old Greek” to the “Old Hebrew” (2 Kings 10:23-25), inTextus 11 (1984) 17-36; ID., Old Latin, Old Greek and Old Hebrew in the Books of Kings(1 Ki. 18:27 and 2 Ki. 20,11), in Textus 13 (1986) 85-94.

22. “Die natürliche Erklärung für die Uebereinstimmung von Arm mit b+ Aeth Co Laist daher, dass wir hier etwa den Text vor uns haben, nach welchen Arm das erste Mal ausdem Griechischen übersetzt worden ist. Die Tradition berichtet, dass dies nach Textengeschah, die aus Kleinasien stammten. Dieser Griechische Text liegt b+ zugrunde (spätererhielt b+ eine ganze Reihe Sonderlesarten, die es in Arm nicht gibt) und hat offen-sichtlich auch mit der Vorlage zu Aeth Co La in einer gewissen Beziehung gestanden.Auch andere LXX-Texte, wie z und f+, weisen Züge von diesem griechischen Text auf”,B. JOHNSON, Die armenische Bibelübersetzungen als hexaplarischer Zeuge im 1. Samuel-buch (CB OTS, 2), Lund, 1968, p. 96.

23. JOHNSON, Die armenische Bibelübersetzungen (n. 22), passim; S.P. COWE, TheTwo Armenian Versions of Chronicles: Their Origin and Translation Technique, in Re-vue des etudes arméniennes N. S. 22 (1990-91) 53-96; ID., The Armenian Version of Dan-iel (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies, 9), Atlanta, GA, 1992; ID.,The Armenian Version, in N. FERNANDEZ MARCOS – J.R. BUSTO SAIZ, El texto antioquenode la Biblia griega. I. 1-2 Samuel (Textos y estudios «Cardenal Cisneros», 50), Madrid,1989, lxxi-lxxix; C.E. COX, The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy (University ofPennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies, 2), Chico, CA, 1981; ID., Biblical Studies andthe Armenian Bible, 1955-1980, in RB 89 (1982) 99-113; P. LUCCA, La versione armenadi Cronache, Diss. doct., Università Ca Foscari, Venice, 2006.

24. Cf. C.E. COX, Concerning a Cilician Revision of the Armenian Bible, in A.PIETERSMA – C. COX (eds.), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Weverson His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Toronto, 1984; C.E. COX, The Textual Character of theManuscript Printed as Text in Zorahpeans’ Bible, in Revue des etudes arméniennes N.S.18 (1984) 69-83.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58258


Following their steps, we have collated six Armenian manuscripts thatpreserve a much purer form of the text. These manuscripts (Matenadaran1500, Jerusalem 1925, Vienna 55, Lambeth Library 1209, St Lazzaro280 and St Lazzaro 935) have been used by Cowe in his collation of 1-2Samuel and other books because of their high quality. In several cases,these manuscripts preserve Lucianic readings that do no appear inZohrab due to the secondary character of its principal manuscript. Thisis clear in the onomastica that follow the Lucianic readings in the col-lated manuscripts against the Hexaplaric form of Zohrab. Therefore, theinclusion of new manuscripts underlines the importance of the Armenianversion for the criticism of the Greek text since it may, in occasions, pre-serve OG readings that have been lost in the Greek manuscript tradition.

After an initial survey, a considerable number of readings attested inGeorgian manuscripts seem to be relevant for the history of the Greektext of the Septuagint in the studied books, 1-2 Kings. There is no criti-cal edition of the Georgian Bible25. The principal manuscripts whichcontain the text of Kings have been published, totally or partially, in dip-lomatic editions26. At the present stage of our edition, two manuscriptshave been used, Codex Mcxeta and Codex Okhsi. Codex Okhsi (hence-forth O) is an old (ca. 11th century) text which presents a large numberof Lucianic readings and other divergences from LXXB. The Mcxeta textis late and composite. Nevertheless, it has some critical interest as, eventhough it exhibits a tendency towards convergence with the majorityversion (and even intrusion of non-LXX texts, like Vulgate readings)27,some variant readings, at times shared with O, can be relevant for a ty-pological study of the underlying Vorlage.

The study of the history of the Georgian OT is extremely difficult totrace. First, it is necessary to determine whether the translation was

25. Some traditional-liturgical editions exist since the 19th century (Moscow 1743,Tbilisi 1884), but their critical usage is compromised, as they were composed during theRussian dominance period and their text was heavily influenced by the Russian Orthodoxmajority text. The edition of Biblia Mcxetica, published in the 80s as a several-volumediplomatic edition of Codex Mcxeta, is a more useful tool (E. DOCANASVILI [ed.],Mcxeturi xelna©eri, Tbilisi, 1981-1986). Nevertheless, it is a late (16th century) codexwith many external influences (majority Greek text, and even Latin Vulgate). Therefore, aproper critical approach has still to be based in a thorough reading of all the availablemanuscripts.

26. Generally published in Georgia during the 1st half of the 20th century and, brieflysaid, hard to obtain. In this field, the ongoing electronic publishing initiative of some ofthese texts in the Titus Projekt (http://titus.uni-frankfurt/de) has greatly aided our re-search of the Georgian texts of Kings. For a brief survey of the manuscript materials, cf.R.P. BLAKE, Ancient Georgian Versions of the Old Testament, in Harvard TheologicalReview 19 (1926) 271-297.

27. R. P. BLAKE, Ancient Georgian Versions of the Old Testament, in Harvard Theo-logical Review 19 (1926) 271-297.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58259


made from the Armenian or directly from Greek (and, in either case, onemust consider to what extent Greek or Armenian were used for a later orsimultaneous revision of the translated text), then, what Greek text-typeis ultimately behind the translation. This situation is especially problem-atic in the case of books, such as Samuel-Kings, which have experiencedin Greek a kaíge recension. Traditionally, scholarship has seen strongtraces of a Lucianic text behind the Georgian version. Our first analysisof O and M confirms this proposal. It has also revealed some interestingfacts:

1. The Georgian (especially O) presents Lucianic readings where theArmenian does not (as it follows the majority text)28. Cf. e.g. 1 Kings1,19.25; 1,9; 2,35l; 2 Kings 1,16.

2. In some relevant cases, the Georgian text (O alone or in agreementwith M) presents a reading which seems to indicate a Greek readingidentified by textual criticism of the LXX as an OG feature, when thisreading does not appear at all in the Greek tradition (lost due torecensional activity even in the LXXL text). This would mean that theGeorgian attests in those cases a pre-Lucianic (= OG) reading, especiallywhen it shows an agreement with other versions (such as the OL, clearlyindependent from the Armenian-Georgian translation sphere) whichhave been traditionally compared to the Greek text of Samuel-Kings inorder to identify pre-Lucianic features. Cf. e.g. 2 Kings 19,32; 21,12;22,20.

The combination of 1. and 2. means that, even though at this point itis still impossible to construct a clear-cut diachrony of the Armenian andGeorgian versions, the data nevertheless indicate that the Georgiantranslators had a Greek text (mediated by the Armenian or not) which isnot the same than the Lucianic tradition reflected in the mss. boc2e2. Itpresents in fact more cases of old readings which have not been affectedby a recensional process which scoured, in a lesser or larger measure,the whole LXX tradition29. Hopefully, further development of the synop-

28. It is also complex to assess the meaning of this information in the general frame-work of the history of LXX versions, as the Armenian version is also lacking a critical edi-tion and our synoptic and comparative process depends on the aforementioned ongoingcollation of a number of Armenian manuscripts to complete Zohrab’s edition. Moreover,it is always possible that part of the manuscript corpus available to the Georgian transla-tors has gone lost.

29. Some scholars see these readings, at least partly, as a direct influx of Hexaplaricmaterials in the Georgian tradition (again, directly or through the Armenian version). See,in this sense, though always nuanced by the acknowledgement of Lucianic influence, J.N.BIRDSALL, Traces of the Jewish Greek Biblical Versions in Georgian Manuscript Sources,in JSS 17 (1972) 83-92. The knowledge of Hexaplaric readings (via the Syro-Hexapla) inthe LXX traditions in the Caucasus is not to be disputed, but, at the same time, their sys-tematic application as a way of explaining reading variants should be carefully examined

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58260


tic-polyglot edition, and of the accompanying Georgian and Armeniancollations and analyses, will cast more light on these textual phenomenaand on their impact in the detection of readings of the OG.

The relatively frequent cases of agreement between the testimony of-fered by some of the secondary versions (OL, Arm, Aeth, Sahidic andCoptic) on the side of an OG text vs. a recensional one are especiallymeaningful. In 1 Samuel it has been possible to note affinities betweenthe Armenian version and Lucianic manuscripts, as well as the OL,Ethiopic and Coptic30. These affinities are verified in the whole of 1-4Kings.

The most evident cases of L readings which represent OG, with thesupport of some of the secondary versions, are those which stand againstB readings constituting typical features of the kaíge recension. It is wellknown that the rendering of the Hebrew word איש as ∏kastov belongsto the older version preserved in the kaíge sections in LXXL, whereas thetranslation by ânßr is a kaíge recension feature. Rahlfs classifies thecase of 1,49; 22,10 among the ‘corrections of expression’ introduced byLXXL (“Verbesserungen der Ausdrucksweise”)31. The OG reading∏kastov is attested in part of the Armenian tradition, as well as in Geor-gian, in Josephus and even in the Vulgate, unusquisque.

Moreover, the words ‡úein (1 Kings 1,9.19.25), ârxistratjgóv (1Kings 1,19.25) and sálpigz (1 Kings 1,34.39) are features of the oldversion, preserved by the Lucianic text in kaíge sections, whereas theLXXB words, ‡usiáhein, ãrxwn t±v dunámewv and keratínj are fea-tures of the kaíge recension. In 1 Kings 1,19.25 the reading ârxistra-tjgóv is reflected in Georgian and also in Josephus (tòn stratjgón).Also, in 1 Kings 1,34.39 the (pre-)Lucianic reading has a reflection inthe Georgian and OL (tuba), as well as in Armenian and in SahidicCoptic in the form of doublets. The strange rendering of אנכי as êgÉeîmi + finite verb is also a kaíge feature (1 Kings 2,2, om eîmi boc2e2

Thdt). Finally, the OG version usually translates the imperatives of הלך-with forms of poreúw, while the kaíge recension pre (לכו – לכי –לך)fers to translate with deÕro/deÕte, as in 1 Kings 1,53: poreúou LXXL

(with Armenian and Ethiopian)32.

on two fronts: first, the presence in Georgian and/or Armenian of OG features which haveno correlate in the Hexaplaric tradition; second, the dispersion of OG (pre-Lucianic) vari-ant readings throughout versions which have no direct dependence (Armenian-Georgianand Old Latin, Sahidic Coptic and so on), and thus make more feasible the presence of ashared Greek Vorlage than the coincidental intrusion of Hexaplaric materials.

30. JOHNSON, Die armenische Bibelübersetzungen (n. 22), p. 96.31. RAHLFS, Lucians Rezension (n. 5), p. 179.32. H. AVALOS, DEURO/DEUTE The Imperatives of הלך: New Criteria for the

‘Kaigé Recension of Reigns, in Estudios Bíblicos 47 (1989) 165-176.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58261


In all these cases, Rahlfs’s manual edition presents the kaíge readingfrom B. A renewed critical edition should include in the lemma the olderreading, attested in the pre-Lucianic text and its derivates.

1. Person and Place Names

An important chapter of textual variants affects person and placenames. Rahlfs acknowledges that the textual transmission of onomasticsin L is generally more accurate than B’s, which is tantamount to ac-knowledging its pre-Lucianic character33.

At this juncture, we will just show some cases present in 1 Kings 1(kaíge section), the section of text selected by Rahlfs for an exhaustivestudy of Lucianic variants. In 1 Kings 1,8.9.11.13.24.41.42.43.50.51;2,3.21.22.23.24.25(>MT).41.42.43.49.50.51.53 (plus in L), the Lucianictext has transmitted the OG reading Ôrnia, whereas LXXB presents thereading Âdwniav, in agreement with MT אדניה. The old form also ap-pears in the non-kaíge section gg in 1 Kings 2,46h (LXX RahlfsÔrniou) and in 1 Kings 4,5 (Ôrneia BM(mg)Z(uid)oa2c2e2, Ôrniavb OL). In this non- kaíge section, L preserves the old form in 2,17 (aplus in L).19.21.22.23.24(OL Ornias).25(2x). The Hebrew form ארניהappears in the Ketib of 2 Sam 24,28, with the corresponding OG versionÔrna, attested by LXXBL. The OL reading Ornias in 1 Kings 2,24 alsoreflects the OG. It is also meaningful that the old reading is echoed inpart of the Armenian tradition and clearly in the Georgian (Ornia/Orneams. O).

The Lucianic text has also transmitted the OG reading Saddouk inkaíge section (2 Sam 15,24.25.27.29.35(2x).36; 17,15; 18,19.22.27;19,12; 20,25; 1 Kings 1,8.26.32.34.38.39.44.45; 2 Kings 15,33, reflectedby the Georgian Sadukh. The B reading Sadwk follows MT Òad3q. In thenon-kaíge section, both B and L preserve the OG form Saddouk in 2Sam 8,17; 1 Kings 4,4. L has Saddouk in 2,35; 2,46h and 4,2.

The Antioquene text preserves the old reading Xorr(e)i, “Kere-thean”, in kaíge section (1 Kings 1,38.44; 2 Kings 11,4.19), in agree-ment with the Ketib כרי of 2 Sam 20,23. It is reflected in OL Chori /Corri (1 Kings 1,38). LXXB Xere‡i follows MT (כרתי), as it should beexpected in kaíge sections.

The LXXL reading ên sella‡ (1 Kings 1,9) cannot be easily ex-plained as derived from MT זחלת; therefore it would also represent a pre-

33. RAHLFS, Lucians Rezension (n. 5), pp. 183-188. P. Walters added further evidencein this direction, P. WALTERS (KATZ), The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions andTheir Emendation, ed. D.W. GOODING, Cambridge, 1973, p. 300.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58262


Lucianic element. The same reading can be found in the Georgian ver-sion. The B reading hwele‡(ei) derives from MT, as usual in kaíge sec-tions.

The form Iwad transmitted by L is also reflected in the Georgian. It isfound in kaíge section in 2 Sam 23,20.22; 1 Kings 1,8.26.32.36.38.44and in non-kaíge section in 2 Sam 8,18; 1 Kings 2,25.29.34.35.46; 4,4.The form Iwiadae corresponds to MT יהוידע.

The reading of the mss. bc2 Gabaa‡oureim/n in 1 Kings 2,8 (kaígesection) is remarkable: LXXB reads here Baa‡oureim, in agreement withMT מבחרים. The Lucianic group Zboc2e2 presents in 2,35l (non-kaíge sec-tion) the reading Gaba‡a, which, as observed by Rahlfs34, cannot be de-rived from the majority reading Xebrwn. This reading Gaba‡a, also at-tested in the Georgian, constitutes therefore a pre-Lucianic element. Itimplies a Hebrew גבעת (גבעתה according to Rahlfs), the place nameGib’ah, homeland of Saul in Benjamin mentioned in 1 Sam 10,26; 11,4and 15,34. The Lucianic reading of 1 Kings 2,8 Gabaa‡oureim/n pre-serves the element Gabaa‡ (גבעת, “Gib’ah in Benjamin”, 1Chron 11,31).

The previous example should be connected with 2 Kings 9,27. In hismanual edition Rahlfs follows the reading Bai‡aggan (Arm Syr-hex., ביתMT), even though he acknowledges that the L reading Bai‡wrwn הגן(bc2e2) (=חרן בית ), reflected in Geor-O.M Bethron, is a pre-Lucianic ele-ment35. Moreover, in 2 Sam 17,18, the L reading Bai‡xorrwn followedby OL Bethcorron (Josephus Bokxorjv), seems to be older than the LXX

majority reading Baoureim (Arm Coptic), assimilated to MT בחורים. Thesame can be said of 2 Sam 16,5 L xorram (OL Corram; Josephusxwranon) vs. the majority reading Baoureim (Arm Coptic), togetherwith 2 Sam 19,17 L xorran vs. LXX Baoureim (MT בחורים in both cases).

Further examples related to onomastics throughout 1-2 Kings wouldbe36:

In 1 Kings 15,27, the L reading Beddamà toÕ Issaxar correspondsto the OG, as acknowledged by Rahlfs, against B Belaan ö üióv ˆAxia(Is(s)axar ANnv Arm, MT יששכר). Geor-O presents a double reading:Baasa son of Akhia in the house of Bedama, who is of Izakhar, whereasGeorg-M follows MT. Nevertheless, in his edition, Rahlfs offers the read-ing Baasa üióv Axia.

In 1 Kings 16,16ff., Rahlfs follows the reading Ambri of L OL

(Josephus Amarinon; MT עמרי; Ambri Zohrab, Amri Arm mss.). The Breading Hambr(e)i implies the confusion between ˆAmbri and Hambri,

34. RAHLFS, Lucians Rezension (n. 5), p. 284.35. Ibid., p. 289.36. Ibid., p. 284.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58263


mentioned before. The Georgian textual tradition has transmitted bothreadings: O Zambri 16-21, Ambri 22ff.; M Zambri 17-18, Ambri 21ff.

In addition, in 1 Kings 18,32.35.38, Rahlfs reproduces the L reading‡aala against B ‡álassa (mare Zohrab and mss.). The Georgian tra-dition is ambiguous, but the usage of two different words for the sameGreek in these three verses (either the standard word for ‘sea’ or a termwhich could refer to a sea or pond) could be reflecting variation in theGreek Vorlage between ‡aala and ‡álassa (O v. 32 sea, vv. 35.38sea / pond; M v. 32 table -crrpt tba > tabla?-, vv. 35.38 sea / pond).

In 2 Kings 4,42, the L reading Bj‡leemmav (OL bethlem) is pre-Lucianic and could be preferable to Bai‡sarisa (Bet’sarisay Zohraband mss.; MT בעל שלשה), followed by Rahlfs in his edition. The Geor-gian reads independently and attests Bethsaida (Georg-O Bethsaida;Georg-M Bethsais).

In 2 Kings 5,12, Rahlfs follows the reading Farfar of the majoritytext (farfara A; Pharphara Arm mss., Aeth; Pharphar C; פרפר MT),even though the L reading Farfad (e2)/farfal (bc2) is pre-Lucianic,as it is reflecting a different Hebrew פרפד . Georg Pharphatha seems tobe following this reading.

In 2 Kings 5,17 the L reading gómov represents OG (onera Zohrab andArm mss.), against gomor in the B text.

In 2 Kings 14,25 the reading Gai‡ofra of boc2e2 is also pre-Lucianicand preferable to the majority text Ge‡ax(x)ofer or to B Ge‡xober,followed by Rahlfs. The Hexaplaric variant Ge‡ ˆAxober (A) matchesmore accurately MT גית החפר. The Aeth reading Ged zachober is perhapsan aural corruption: Getha-chober > Geth za (Ethiopian particle for rela-tive/genitival relationships) chober. The Sahidic Coptic form can alsobe explained as a corruption, by fusion with a Greek preposition:Ekgethober < êk ge‡(x)ober. For some reason, the Georgian has re-duced the form to Geth (lit. the Gethite).

Finally, in 2 Kings 22,1 the reading Ohiou of boc2e2, together withSyr-Hex. and Peshitta (��), corresponds to OG, as acknowledged byRahlfs37, against the majority text Edefl(n)a, reproduced nevertheless inRahlfs’s edition (A Arm Iedida). The Georgian tradition attests bothreadings: O Ozia, M Iedia.

2. Doublets in the L Text

Another section of remarkable variants is that of double readingspresent in the Lucianic text. Rahlfs supposes that doublets in the

37. Ibid., p. 290.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58264


Lucianic text derive from the simple reading in the B text. Nevertheless,it is remarkable that in 49 cases these duplicates appear in a kaíge sec-tion: (ab)1 Kings 1,36; 1,40; 2,3; 2,5; (gd) 22,38; 22,47; 2 Kings;cfr. LXXL; 2,23; 3,4; 3,7 ,אלהים) 1,6 ;(cfr. LXXL ,לכן) 1,4.6 ;1,2.3.6.163,20; 3,21; 3,23; 4,16; 4,34; 4,37; 5,18 (2x); 5,21; 6,30; 7,10; 8,1;10,11; 10,28; 11,4; 11,8; 11,9; 11,10; 11,14; 12,13; 14,10; 14,14;16,18; 17,3; 17,21; 18,17; 20,3; 21,23; 23,6; 23,28; 25,19. Only 9 ap-pear in a no-kaíge section: (gg) 1 Kings 2,26; 7,14; 8,33; 8,66; 10,15;11,17; 15,15; 16,11; 18,21. It is even more revealing that the readingattested by LXXL visibly departs from MT. We will consider only two ex-amples of doublets in the L text.

The first is the reading oûx oÀtwv dià toÕto, against the B readingoûx oÀtwv (2 Kings 1,4.6). In Rahlfs’s opinion, the duplicate was pro-duced by the Lucianic recensor. In 2 Kings 1,16, LXXL presents diàtoÕto (= לכן) instead of oûx oÀtwv (= לא כן), what Rahlfs interprets asa substitution operated by Lucian. In other cases, the recensor, alwaysaccording to Rahlfs, would have preserved the previous reading oûxoÀtwv (1 Kings 22,19; 2 Kings 21,12; 22:20) or would have fully sup-pressed it (2 Kings 19,32). In 2 Kings 20,10, LXXL would have insertedoux outwv instead of the simple oûxí (לא)38. As it happens in othercases, it is revealing that the totality of passages in which the problem-atic versions oûx oÀtwv or dià toÕto are attested appear in the kaígesection gd (1 Kings 22,19; 2 Kings 1,4.6.16; 19,32; 21,12; 22,20).

a) Non-kaíge Section aa:LXXL LXXB (Rahlfs) MT

1 Sam 2,30 dià toÕto dià toÕto לכן1 Sam 3,14 oud’/oûx oÀtwv, ideo OL, et oûd’/oûx oÀtwv לכן

propterea Aeth1 Sam 27,6 dià toÕto dià toÕto לכן1 Sam 28,2 oÀtw oÀtw לכן

b) Kaíge section bg:2 Sam 18,14 L dià toÕto êgÑ ãrzomai, propter

hoc quidem praeteribo ArmB toÕto êgÑ ãrzomai oûx oÀtwv men¬ לא כן

38. Ibid., p. 195. According to L. Prijs, LXX produces in these cases a ‘targumic’ inter-pretation of the ‘al tiqre’ sort, which consists in the division of a word into two elementsand the subsequent translation of both of them, L. PRIJS, Jüdische Tradition in derSeptuaginta, Leiden, 1948, pp. 59-61; ID., Dividing of One Biblical Sentence into Two asan Exegetical Method of Targum and Midrash, in Sixth World Congress of Jewish Stud-ies, Jerusalem, 1973, A-78.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58265


c) Kaíge section gd:1 Kgs 22,17 oûx oÀtwv, > oux b and Lagarde oûx oÀtwv, >

obel. Syr-Hex.1 Kgs 22,19 oûx oÀtwv, > Thdt oûx oÀtwv לכן1 Kgs 22,19 oûx oÀtwv, > 44 71 106 Sahidic oûx oÀtwv, >

Thdt non vero Arm obel. Syr-Hex.2 Kgs 1,4 oûx oÀtwv dià toÕto (לכן), oûx oÀtwv לכן

s’ dià toÕto2 Kgs 1,6 oûx oÀtwv dià toÕto (לכן), oûx oÀtwv לכן

a’ s’ dià toÕto2 Kgs 1,16 dià toÕto oûx oÀtwv לכן2 Kgs 19,32 >, propter hoc Arm, oûx oÀtwv לכן

a’ s’ Syro-hex.2 Kgs 21,12 oûx oÀtwv, propter hoc OL oûx oÀtwv לכן

(Lucifer) Arm2 Kgs 22,20 oûx oÀtwv, propter hoc OL oûx oÀtwv לכן

(Lucifer) Arm

Against Rahlfs’s opinion, dià toÕto is the old version of לכן, againstthe recensional kaíge reading, oûx oÀtwv (לא כן). Evidence of this isthat dià toÕto is the reading for the whole manuscript tradition in thenon-kaíge section aa (1 Sam 2,30; 27,6). In 1 Sam 3,14, the recensionalform oûd’/oûx oÀtwv reappears, but OL (Vindobonensis) offers ideo andthe Ethiopic et propterea, what implies a Greek dia touto. In 1 Sam28,2, the transmitted reading is oÀtw.

In the kaíge section bg, the case of 2 Sam 18,14 is meaningful. Thistime, the B text has preserved a duplicate, toÕto êgÑ ãrzomai oûxoÀtwv men¬, whereas LXXL offers the old reading dià toÕto êgÑãrzomai. B has lost the preposition diá, preserved in L. The Armenianversion propter hoc quidem praeteribo matches the old version, pre-served by L and B. The reading featured exclusively by B, oûx oÀtwvmen¬, would belong to the recensional kaíge level. The text attested byLXXL implies a Hebrew Vorlage לכן instead of MT לא כן.

The old form dià toÕto, attested by all the manuscript traditions inthe mentioned cases of no-kaíge section aa (1 Sam 2,30; 27,6), wouldbe also, in good logic, the old reading in the kaíge section gd. It hasbeen preserved by the Lucianic text in 1,16 (Georg amis ¯ªs, therefore)and in the two duplicates oûx oÀtwv dià toÕto (2 Kings 1,4.6), wherethe OG reading dià toÕto, reflected in ideo and in the Armenian Vasnaysorik and Georgian amis ¯ªs versions, implies לכן instead of therecensional reading oûx oÀtwv.

The other three cases, apart from the already mentioned 2 Sam 18,14,where MT presents the reading כן לא, appear in what in Greek would be a

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58266


kaíge section: 2 Sam 20,21; 23,5: boc2e2 ºti oûx oÀtwv m; 2 Kings7,9: boc2e2 tì oÀtwv, and 2 Kings 17,9: borc2e2 âdikoúv, OL non recta.

A critical edition of LXX Regnorum should reproduce the older read-ing, dià toÕto (לכן), at least in those cases in which it is attested byLXXL (2 Kings 1,4.6.16) or by OL and Arm or Georg (2 Kings 21,12;22,20), and even in those cases in which attested only by Georg andArm (2 Kings 19,32).

All the mentioned cases, in which the relationship לכן = oûx oÀtwvcan be verified, are passages whose literary genre is that of a propheticoracle, indicated by the expression דבר יהוה or כה אמר יהוה. In threecases (2 Kings 1,16; 21,11-12; 22,19-20), the oracle is structured ac-cording to the literary pattern of cause – condemn (לכן…אשר יען …)39.This would confirm that the Hebrew reading can only be לכן, against apossible לא כן. Moreover, the Greek translation should reflect the conse-quence sense of dià toÕto, against the ‘targumic’ version oûx oÀtwv.

This is not the place to treat the complex relationship between theLXXL (OL, Arm, Georg) and Hexaplaric readings. In the mentioned casesof 2 Kings 1,4 Symmachus, of 2 Kings 1,6 Aquila and Symmachus andof 2 Kings 19,32 Aquila, Symmachus and the Syro-hexaplaric materialspresent the form dià toÕto40. Also in 1 Kings 14,10, the Hexaplaric textreproduces the Aquila reading dià toÕto. Here, it will suffice to say thatit is not possible to suppose Hexaplaric or a’ influences in those cases inwhich both B and L offer dià toÕto in non-kaíge sections, neither, bysimilar reasons, in those cases in kaíge section where L (together withOL, Arm, Georg and Aeth or only OL and Arm or Georg) preserves thereading dià toÕto.

The second doublet is found in 2 Kings 3,4 and 17,3. According toRahlfs, the verb השיב was translated in the OG by the verb êpistréfein.In both cases the L readings with the verb férein would be due to theLucianic recensor, who in the first case (2 Kings 3,4) will duplicate thereadings: kaì ¥n férwn fóron kaì êpistréfwn41. However, the read-ing with the verb férein is pre-L in both cases, as attested by the OL, theArmenian and Georgian versions in 3,4, and by OL and the Armenian in2 Kings 17,3 (B êpéstrecen, L ∂feren, Arm (uid) adferebat.

39. The triple repetition of oûx oÀtwv in 1 Kings 22,17.19 can only be explainedthrough a combination of textual and literary criticism, cf. J. TREBOLLE BARRERA,Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum. Variantes textuales y composición literaria en loslibros de Samuel y Reyes, Madrid, p. 152.

40. “In v. 4 ist für Symmachus, in v. 16 für Aquila und Symmachus dià toÕtoüberliefert, aber diese Übersetzung liegt so nahe, dass aus der Übereinstimmung nicht aufAbhängigkeit geschlossen werden kann”, RAHLFS, Lucians Rezension (n. 5), p. 195 n. 1.

41. RAHLFS, Lucians Rezension (n. 5), p. 195.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58267


3. Deviations of LXXL from LXXB

Another chapter of variants to consider are the numerous deviationsof L with respect to LXXB that, according to Rahlfs, are to be explainedby changes that range from 1. corrections following the MT or translationof transcribed terms, 2. changes following parallel or similar passages,to 3. other changes due to different reasons in each case. We will studyonly two of the examples considered by Rahlfs as corrections of L de-pending on the B text42.

In 2 Kings 23,4 and 25,18, the Lucianic text has the adjectivedeúterov (tòn ïeréa tòn deúteron) against the name deutérwsiv inLXXB. In 2 Kings 23,4, the OL, Armenian and Georgian versions witnessthe adjective deúterov. In 2 Kings 25,18, the OL (Lucifer) and the Ar-menian text as well as a marginal gloss in the Syro-Hexaplaric text alsosupport this same form. The translation closer to Hebrew משנה is that ofthe name against the adjective. By applying De Lagarde’s critical princi-ples, this version closer to MT will correspond to the kaíge recension,present in LXXB, whereas the version with the adjective will correspondto the earlier text. This is confirmed by the translation of the word משנהthrough the whole of I-IV Regnorum: in non-kaíge sections, it is trans-lated by the adjective (1 Sam 8,2 (17,13); 23,17; 2 Sam 3,3) and, inkaíge sections, more specifically in the two examples mentioned (2Kings 23,4 and 25,18), by the substantive.

In 2 Kings 12,10, LXXB presents the reading âmmaheibj / âmmasbjîamibin that transcribes the Hebrew המזבח בימין, whereas the Lucianicmss boc2e2 have to ‡usiastßrion ên dezi¢ç, reading that is reflected inthe Armenian, Georgian and Coptic versions.

4. Transcriptions in B versus Versions in L

The last case is fully related to all the transcriptions present in the Btext, which, according to Rahlfs, the L editor substituted with the corre-sponding translations. However, the whole of these transcriptions isfound in kaíge sections. E. Tov has noted that the transliteration of He-brew Words in the Greek is a further characteristic of the Kaíge-Th Re-vision. Following the work of Field, Tov enumerates the cases of tran-scriptions found in 2 Kings, but without mentioning the Lucianic read-ings, that, interestingly enough, preserve the translations correspondingto the OG text as shown in the following examples43.

42. Ibid., pp. 171-174 and 239-250.43. E. TOV, Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testa-

ment: A Further Characteristic of the kaige-Th Revision?, in Textus 8 (1973) 78-92.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58268


2 Kings MT LXXB LXXL (OL, Arm, Georg)

8,8; מנחה manaa d¬ra (Josephus 8,8; a’ 17,3.4; s’ Arm 20,12) 20,1211,12 נזר neher ägíasma, s’ †gion12,10 מימים âmmaheibj/îameibein ên dezi¢ç14,25 הערבה t±v Âraba t±v pròv ëspéran23,5 כמרים xwmarim ïere⁄v23,7 בתים xettiin stoláv, OL stolas, Arm

and Georg25,4 ערבה t®n Âraba t®n êpì dusmáv25,5 בערבות ên Ârabw‡ katà dusmáv25,12 גבים gabin gewrgoúv, Arm, Georg

and Ethiopic25,13.16 מכנות mexwnw‡ báseiv (s’ and Jer 52,17)25,14 את היעים tàv iamin tàv kreágrav25,17 כתרת xw‡ar êpí‡ema (III Reg. 7,16ff.)25,17 שבכה sabaxa díktuon (III Reg. 7,17.41f.)

Three cases are of especial interest. The first two are:

2 Kings 23,7: בתים MT, xettiin (B), stoláv (L), OL stolas, Arm andGeorg

2 Kings 25,12 גביםMT, gabin (B), gewrgoúv (L), Arm, Georg andEthiopic.

The third one is the transcription of מנחה with manaa. Rahlfs at-tributes the change of manaa into d¬ra to a stylistic variation by theLucianic recensor44. In fact, d¬ra represents the old version. The tran-scription manaa is the product of kaíge recensional activity. To demon-strate it, one just should examine case by case the transcriptions מנחה =manaa and the translations with the word d¬ra.

In non-kaíge sections, the totality of the Greek tradition preserves theold translation d¬ra (1 Sam 10,27; 1 Kings 5,1 (LXX 2,46b); 1 Kings10,25). The case of 1 Kings 8,64 is rather special and therefore meaning-ful: LXXB uses the word ‡usíav, in plural; Hexaplaric manuscripts A x(a’, s’, Syr-hex, Arm) add kaì tò d¬ron; further, against the omissionof B(Z)a2 Aeth, the remaining manuscripts add kaì tò d¬ron.

In kaíge sections, the Lucianic text is the only one which preservesthe ancient version d¬ra. Josephus and Arm confirm in three cases thepre-Lucianic character of this reading:

2 Kings 8,8: d¬ra bgoy(mg)c2e2, Josephus.2 Kings 8,9: LXXB presents the double reading manaa… d¬ra,

whereas Josephus and the Lucianic manuscript c2 read only d¬ra.44. RAHLFS, Lucians Rezension (n. 5), p. 140.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58269


2 Kings 8,11: d¬ra bgoc2e2, besides mss. huz(mg) Syr-hex., OL

munera, without any match in MT/LXXB, which is extremely remarkable.2 Kings 17,3: d¬ra bgorc2e2, OL munera.2 Kings 17,4: d¬ra bgorc2e2, OL munera; a second time in the same

verse dwra rc2, manaa boe2.2 Kings 20,12: d¬ra boc2e2, Arm.

Therefore, LXXL presents old readings which cannot be explained asderivative from LXXB in more cases than those acknowledged by Rahlfs.The OL, Armenian, Georgian and more rarely the Sahidic Coptic and theEthiopic versions furnish in many cases further evidence for a LXXL text.In some cases, these versions – which at times cannot be derivative fromeach other (e.g. OL and Georgian) – may help to reconstruct a Greek Lreading lost in the Lucianic textual tradition. The conclusions of thisstudy, especially regarding the kaíge sections, go further in the line an-ticipated by M.K.H. Peters:

It is regrettable that the portion of the LXX –the books of Samuel-Kings– onwhich so much energy has been spent is not yet available in a truly criticaledition. Many conclusions which seem valid with the state of the text thatwe now possess, may well be adjusted in the future. It is highly likely thatseveral of the readings attributed to revisers of one kind or another would,on careful scrutiny of all the available evidence (not merely that listed inBrooke, McLean, and Thackeray), be determined to be original LXX45.

Obviously, one cannot be too careful when it comes down to deter-mining the reading which, in an eclectic edition, should be included inthe OG text. But no less care should be put in avoiding the conception ofthe B text as pure OG, for instance, in such eclectic readings as one mayfind in Rahlfs’s edition of 3 Kings 16,30.33: kaì êpoíjsen Axaab tòponjrón… êponjreúsato… êkakopoíjsen, three different and con-tiguous versions of the same Hebrew expression 46ויעש הרע.

IV. VERSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT, GREEK RECENSIONS AND

HEBREW EDITIONS

In a series of biblical books – Joshua, Judges, Samuel-Kings, Jer-emiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, as well as Song of Songs, Job and Esther –,the conclusions outlined above should be placed in the wider context of

45. M.K.H. PETERS, Septuagint, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992) 1093-1104,esp. p. 1098.

46. The OL and Lucianic readings help to disentangle here the different threads whichare enmeshed in this text, cf. TREBOLLE BARRERA, Centena (n. 39), pp. 136-138.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58270


the relationships among the secondary versions of LXX, the Greek trans-lation and its recensions and the different Hebrew editions. In thesebooks, secondary versions are of special critical value as they represent aGreek text which is older than that transmitted by the majority tradition.This has been affected by Hebraizing recensions, kaíge or others, priorto the Hexaplaric one. These books coincide with those which had twoore more Hebrew editions, reflected in MT and in the Vorlage of LXX andwhose existence has been confirmed by the corresponding Qumranmanuscripts. The study of LXX and Qumran presents here its greaterlevel of potential. To them could be added some chapters or sections ofthe books of Exodus and Numbers. Among the deuterocanonical books,Baruch, Judith, Tobit, Maccabees and Wisdom show similar phenom-ena. Now follow, in a brief way and book by book, some of the mostrelevant data in this line.

1. Versions of the Septuagint

In the books listed below, the secondary versions of LXX, OL in par-ticular, contribute to the identification of a textual form older than theGreek version47. The contribution of the versions can be more importantin some books than in others and, within one book, affect some sectionsof text more than others.

In Joshua, the OL reflects the Syrian or Lucianic text transmitted bythe mss. gn-dpt (Thdt). It may sometimes have an important criticalvalue in the reconstruction of the LXX text48.

As for the book of Judges, A.V. Billen underscored the value of OL

(Lugdunensis) when he proved that it is based upon a Greek very closeto the original LXX. Its testimony, together with some versions likeSahidic Coptic, allows the recuperation of the oldest form of LXX49. Wewould like to stress here the importance of an OL passage at the end of16,31: et surrexit post eum Asemada filius Annam et concidit ex alien-

47. Cf. P.-M. BOGAERT, Septante et versions grecques, in Dictionnaire de la Bible.Supplement. XII, Paris, 1993, pp. 536-671; J. TREBOLLE BARRERA, The Jewish Bible andthe Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible, Translated from theSpanish by W.G.E. WATSON, Leiden – Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, pp. 352-253 and 393-403.

48. J. TREBOLLE BARRERA, The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin and AntiocheanGreek Texts in the Books of Judges and Joshua, in F. GARCíA MARTíNEZ – M. VERVENNE

(eds.), Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust(BETL, 192), Louvain, 2005, 401-414.

49. A.V. BILLEN, The Old Latin Version of Judges, in JTS 43 (1942) 140-149, esp.145; ID., The Hexaplaric Element in the LXX Version of Judges, in JTS 43 (1942) 12-19;W.R. BODINE, The Greek Text of Judges: Recensional Developments (Harvard SemiticMonographs, 23), Chico, CA, 1980; TREBOLLE BARRERA, The Text-Critical Value (n. 48).

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58271


igenis DC uiros extra iumenta et saluum fecit Dns Istrahel. OL translatesthe corresponding pre-Lucianic kaì ânéstj metà tòn samcwnsemegar uïóv aînan kaì ∂kocen êk t¬n âllofúlwn ëzakosíouvãndrav ∏ktov t¬n ktjn¬n kaì ∂swsen kaì aûtòv tòn îsrajl(Zdgklnoptvwya?). This passage, better placed in 16,31 than in 3.31 (MT)due to the reference to the Philistines, constitutes an editorial mark as itis indicating one of the endings of the book (infra).

In the books Samuel-Kings, the OL follows a Greek text-type similarto the one used by Lucian for his own recension. The OL text constitutesan important criterion for determining the history of the Antioquene textand for identifying pre-Lucianic readings preserved in it50. OL translatesa text which at times matches the LXX original or stands very close to it,being at times preferable even to the Hebrew we know.

In the book of Jeremiah OL, Coptic and Ethiopic versions often followtext B lacking signs of revisions from MT. The Wirceburgensis codex ofthe OL omits Jer 39,1-2 of the MT and Origen’s Greek text marks themwith an asterisk. This agreement shows that originally these verses didnot appear in the text of the LXX and neither did vv. 4-13. This is anotherexample showing the importance of the OL as witness to the oldestSeptuagint and to a very old form of the Hebrew51.

In the book of Ezekiel, the OL (Wirceburgensis) and Greek manuscript967 are the only witnesses preserved which show that the order of chap-ters 37-39 according to the MT is not original. The oldest text followedthe sequence 38-39-37 and omitted 36,23c-2852. OL and Coptic versionsoften follow 967.

In the book of Daniel, papyrus 967 represents the more original formof the Greek text, showing the order of chapters 1-4; 7-8; 5-6 and 9-12,

50. E. ULRICH, The Old Latin Translation of the LXX and the Hebrew Scrolls fromQumran, in E. TOV (ed.), The Hebrew and Greek Texts (n. 19), 121-165; ID., TheQumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, Missoula, MT, 1978.

51. P.-M. BOGAERT, De Baruch à Jérèmie: Les deux rédactions conservées du livrede Jérémie, in ID. (ed.), Le livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leurtransmission (BETL, 54), Louvain, 1981, 168-173; ID., La libération de Jérémie et lemeurtre de Godolias: le texte court (LXX) et la rédaction longue, in D. FRAENKEL – U.QUAST – J.W. WEVERS (eds.), Studien zur Septuaginta – Robert Hanhart zu Ehren ausAnlaß seines 65. Geburtstages (MSU, 20), Göttingen, 1990, 324-322; ID., La Vetus latinade Jérémie: Texte très court, témoin de la plus ancienne Septante et d’une forme plusancienne de l’hébreu (Jer 39 et 52), in A. SCHENKER (ed.), The Earliest Text of the He-brew Bible (SBL SCS, 52), Atlanta, GA, 2003, 51-82.

52. P.-M. BOGAERT, Le témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition desSeptante: Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le papyrus 967, in Bib 59 (1978) 384-395; ID.,Montagne sainte, jardin d’Éden et sanctuaire (hiéeroslymitain) dans un oracle d’Ézéchielcontre le prince de Tyr (Éz 28,11-19), in H. LIMET – J. RIES (eds.), Le Myth, son langageet son message. Actes du Colloque de Liège et Louvain-la-Neuve de 1981, Louvain la-Neuve, 1983, 131-153; J. LUST, Ezekiel 36-40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript, in CBQ43 (1981) 517-533.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58272


followed by the stories of Bel and the Dragon and Susannah. This ar-rangement is found in the Latin writer Quodvultdeus53. The quotationsof Justin, partly Tertulian, Cyprian and Victorinus of Pettau occupy aposition in between the LXX and Theodotion54.

In Song of Songs, the OL presents the same verse order in chapter 5 asGreek Papyrus R 952 and some Coptic manuscripts (5,12.14b.13.14a.15)55.

In Job, the OL quotations of the Latin Fathers (Cyprian, Priscilian,Lucifer and the Liber de divinis scripturis) as well as Sahidic Coptic, at-test a short text (as compared with MT) very close to the Greek original56.

In the book of Esther, according to J.-C. Haelewyck, “The Greekmodel of the Old Latin (La-GrIII) represents the first Greek translationof the book, and the other two forms, the L text (GrII) and the LXX text(GrI), are later”57.

2. Greek Hebraizing Recensions

Ever since Thackeray’s studies, a series of LXX books have suscitatedprolonged debates on the issue of whether they were translated intoGreek by one or more translators or whether they were the work of asingle translator and later totally or partially revised. The books men-tioned in the previous paragraph experienced a Hebraizing translationor recension, kaíge or some other also connected with Theodotion’stext.

Joshua: Readings attributed to Theodotion represent the kaíge revi-sion, which approaches OG to a Hebrew text almost identical to MT58.

53. A. GEISSEN, Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel, Kap. 5-12 zusammen mitSusanna, Bel et Draco, sowie Esther 1,1a-2.15 nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967(Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, 5), Bonn, 1969.

54. F.C. BURKITT, The Old Latin and the Itala: Texts and Studies, Cambridge, 1896,p. 6; R. BODENMANN, Naissance d’une exégèse. Daniel dans l’Église ancienne des troispremiers siècles, Tübingen, 1986, pp. 10-106.

55. D. DE BRUYNE, Les Anciennes Versions latines du Cantique des Cantiques, in Re-vue Bénédictine 38 (1926) 97-122; F. VATTIONI, Osservazioni ai papiri greci del Canticodei Cantici, in Studia Papyrologica 17 (1978) 89-95.

56. BURKITT, The Old Latin and the Itala (n. 54), pp. 8-9 and 32-34; L. DIEU,Nouveaux fragments préhexaplaires du livre de Job en copte sahidique, in Le Muséon 31(1912) 147-185.

57. J.-C. HAELEWYCK, The Relevance of the Old Latin Version for the Septuagint,With Special Emphasis on the Book of Esther, in JTS NS 57 (2006) 439-473. Before, J.SCHILDENBERGER, Das Buch Esther (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, IV/3),Bonn, 1940-41, pp. 3-22; Esther, ed. R. HANHART (Septuaginta. Vetus TestamentumGraecum Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum, 3.3), Göttingen, 1966,pp. 26 and 96ff.

58. L.J. GREENSPOON, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua (Harvard Semitic Mono-graphs, 28), Chico, CA, 1983.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58273


Judges: D. Barthélemy attributes to the kaíge recension the text at-tested by the groups of mss I r u a2 and B e f s z59. According to W.R.Bodine the sixth column of the Hexapla is a non-kaíge revision of OG

via a text close to MT60.Samuel-Kings: The B text of 1-4 Kings in the sections bb and gd is

part of the kaíge group.Jeremiah: The OG translation was revised from 29,1 onwards (follow-

ing LXX order) on the basis of the Masoretic tradition Hebrew61. TheTheodotionic additions to the LXX of Jeremiah belong to the kaígegroup.

Ezekiel: The first translation went through a revision which affectedchapters 28-39 (vv. 36,23c-38 were missing in the first version)62. Thechange from the first to the second translator takes place, according toL.J. McGregor, between chapters 25 and 2663.

Daniel: The Greek of Daniel represents a form of tradition which isearlier than the Aramaic of Dan 2-7. It goes back to Hebrew and Ara-maic originals of the 4th/3rd centuries BCE64. Almost all manuscripts,nevertheless, transmit the Theodotionic (‡’) text, belonging to the kaígegroup and closer to TM than to LXX65.

Song of Songs: The Greek translation was probably part of the kaígegroup66.

Job: To the shorter text, closer to the Greek original (attested by OL

and the Sahidic Coptic version) were added a series of additions takenfrom Theodotion’s version, prior to Origen’s recension, and aimed atbringing the Greek version closer to MT. These Theodotionic additions tothe LXX of Job come from the kaíge group.

59. BARTHÉLEMY, Les Devanciers (n. 7), pp. 34-35 and 47; W.R. BODINE, The GreekText of Judges: Recensional Developments (Harvard Semitic Monographs, 23), Chico,CA, 1980.

60. W.R. BODINE, Kaige and other Reensional Developments in the Greek Text ofJudges, in BIOSCS 13 (1980) 45-57.

61. E. TOV, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of anEarly Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29-52 and Baruch 1:1-3:8 (Harvard SemiticMonographs, 8), Missoula, MT, 1976, p. 199.

62. TOV, The Septuagint Translation (n. 63), chapter VI.63. L.J. MACGREGOR, The Greek Text of Ezekiel: An Examination of Its Homogeneity

(SBL SCS, 18), Atlanta, GA, 1986.64. A. ALBERTZ, Der Gott des Daniel: Untersuchung zu Daniel 4-6 in der

Septuagintafassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramäischen Danielbuches(Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 131), Stuttgart, 1988.

65. D. BARTHÉLEMY, Notes critiques sur quelques points d’histoire du texte: Étudesd’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO, 21), Fribourg – Göttingen, 1978,pp. 289-303, esp. 299-301.

66. BARTHÉLEMY, Les Devanciers (n. 7), pp. 33-34 and 47.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58274


Esther: The first Greek translation, whose text is attested exclusivelyin OL, was a free version based on a Hebrew text slightly different fromMT. This Greek version was revised with MT, producing the traditionalGreek text67.

3. Hebrew Editions

Books whose Greek version has experienced a Hebraizing version andin which the testimony of the secondary versions contributes to the re-construction of the OG, coincide with books who have experienced a pre-vious process of successive Hebrew editions. These are books whichhave appeared in Qumran in textual forms close to the Hebrew of LXX

(4Sama, 4QJerb.d) or of an independent tradition (4QJosha, 4QJudga,4QSama)68, or books where it is possible to identify a plurality of edi-tions69:

Joshua: 4QJosha and Josephus present an early form of the narrativeof chapter 4, that was subsequently transposed to chapter 8 (MT andLXX)70. The OG represents a stage of the Hebrew text older and betterthan what MT has transmitted71. The edition of MT expanded the shorterone reflected in the LXX72.

Judges: This book has more than one beginning and links up withJoshua in different ways (Josh 24,33ab – Judg 3,12-30; Josh 24,28.31.29-30 – Judg 2,6-9; Josh 21,43-45 – Judg 2,8ff.)73. It also presents

67. J. SCHILDENBERGER, Das Buch Esther (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testament,4.3), Bonn, 1940-41, pp. 243-246 and 259-262.

68. E. TOV, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Jerusalem, 1992, pp. 191, 114-117and 313-349.

69. E. ULRICH, Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections toward a Theory of the Historyof the Biblical Text, in D.W. PARRY – S.D. RICKS (eds.), Current Research and Techno-logical Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the JudeanDesert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995 (STDJ, 20), Leiden – New York, Köln, 1996, 78-105.

70. E. ULRICH – F.M. CROSS, et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua,Judges, Kings (Discoveries in the Judean Desert, 14), Oxford, 1995, p. 146; S. SIPILÄ,The Septuagint Version of Joshua 3-4, in C.E. COX (ed.), VII Congress of the Interna-tional Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Leuven 1989 (SBL SCS, 31),Atlanta, GA, 1991, 63-74.

71. H.M. ORLINSKY, The Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint of the Book of Joshua(SVT, 17), Leiden, 1969, pp. 187-195; A.G. AULD, The End of the Book of Joshua ac-cording to the Septuagint, in Henoch 4 (1982) 17-35.

72. E. TOV, The Growth of the Book of Joshua in Light of the Evidence of theSeptuagint, in Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (1986) 321-339.

73. A. ROFÉ, The End of the Book of Joshua According to the Septuaginta, in Henoch4 (1982) 17-36; E. BLUM, Der kompositionelle Knote am Übergang von Josua zu Rich-ter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag, in M. VERVENNE – J. LUST (eds.), Deuteronomy andDeuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Louvain, 1997,181-212.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58275


some endings, one of them in 16,31 according to L and OL, before theappendixes of chapters 17–21 (supra). 4QJudga shows significant agree-ments with the OG (pre-Lucianic text) and OL and is ignorant of a literarydevelopment in 6,7-10. These and other textual and literary data canonly be explained by supposing a complex editorial process differentlyreflected by MT and LXX74.

Samuel: 4QSama has a section of text missing in the MT and LXX atthe beginning of chapter 11 that parallels the account in Josephus75. Thestory of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17–18) has been transmitted in twoeditions, a short one, known from LXX, and a longer one, preserved inMT76.

Kings: MT and OG represent two different editions with a differentchronological system and a divergent editorial arrangement associated tothe introduction of various ‘miscellaneous’ or ‘parabiblical’ materials.

Jeremiah: LXX and 4QJerb.d transmit a first edition of this book, andMT, together with 4QJera.c, that of a second augmented edition77.

Ezekiel: The long MT edition depends on the short one represented byLXX. The major ‘minuses’ found in 12,26-28; 32,25-26, as well as con-siderable differences between both texts in chapter 7 reflect two differ-ent Hebrew forms78.

74. J. TREBOLLE BARRERA, Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and EditorialHistory of the Book of Judges, in RQ 14 (1989) 229-245; TOV, Textual Criticism (n. 68),1992, pp. 344-345. For a different point of view cf. R.S. HESS, The Dead Sea Scrolls andHigher Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: The Case of 4QJudga, in S.E. PORTER – C.A.EVANS (eds.), The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (Journal for theStudy of the Pseudepigraphy. Supplement Series, 26; Roehampton Institute London Pa-pers, 3), Sheffield, 1997, 122-128; N. FERNáNDEZ MARCOS, The Hebrew and Greek Textsof Judges, in SCHENKER, The Earliest Text (n. 51), 1-16.

75. F.M. CROSS, The Ammonite Oppression of the Tribes of Gad and Reuben: MissingVerses from 1 Samuel 11 Found in 4QSama, in H. TADMOR – M. WEINFELD (eds.), His-tory, Historiography, and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures,Jerusalem, 1983, 148-158.

76. Cf. the discussion between the two positions represented by D. Barthélemy yD.W. Gooding, on one side, and J. Lust and E. Tov, on the other, in D. BARTHÉLEMY –D.W. GOODING – J. LUST – E. TOV, The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and LiteraryCriticism. Papers of a Joint Research Venture (OBO, 73), Fribourg – Göttingen, 1986;S.D. WALTERS, Hannah and Anna: The Greek and Hebrew Texts of 1 Samuel 1, in TheJournal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988) 385-412.

77. E. ULRICH, et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4, X: The Prophets (Discoveries in theJudean Desert, 15), Oxford, 1997, pp. 145-207; E. TOV, Exegetical Notes on the HebrewVorlage of the LXX of Jeremiah 27 (34), in ZAW 91 (1979) 73-93; P.-M. BOGAERT, Lelivre de Jérémie en perspective: Les deux rédactions antiques selon les travaux en cours,in RB 101 (1994) 363-406; A. AEJMELAEUS, Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History:The Function of Jer. XXV 1-14 in the Book of Jeremiah, in VT 52 (2002) 459-482, esp.460-461 and 479-480; A.G. SHEAD, The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 inits Hebrew and Greek Recensions (JSOT SS, 347), London – New York, 2002.

78. E. TOV, Recensional Differences between the MT and LXX of Ezekiel, in ETL 62

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58276


Daniel: MT, together with 1QDana.b, 4QDana-e, 6QDan on the one sideand LXX on the other represent two editions, the former shorter and thelatter characterized saliently by the Greek additions to this book79.

Song of Songs: In the manuscript of Song 4QCanta (a single fragmentwith parts of two columns), the text of 6,11, the beginning of a poeticunit, follows that of 4,7, which is the beginning of yet another poeticunit. Also, 4QCantb (single fragment with only one column) goes from4,3 to 4,8, as well as in the previous column it might go from 3,5 to 3,9(at least there is text missing between 3,2 and 3,10). Tov considers thatit is an abbreviated text80, whereas Ulrich supposes that the missing po-etic units in the two mentioned manuscripts could have been found inother locations in this book, having been constituted by brief loose unitsof which the structure and logical order is hard to define. Or, simply,they could have been unknown to the editor of the textual form attestedby the Qumran manuscripts81. In either case, Song of Songs is part of thegroup of books with double editions.

Job: The Targum of Job (11Q10) ended possibly at 42,12, thus re-flecting an edition that lacked the five final verses of MT.

Esther: Proto-Esthera-f (4Q550) is not directly related to the Esthertexts of the Bible and possibly not even to the character of Esther, but itcontains “models”, “archetypes” or “sources” of the versions preservedin Hebrew, Greek and Latin82.

In other biblical books, one can also perceive a relationship betweenthe testimony yielded by the versions, especially OL, and the existence of

(1986) 90-101; J. LUST, The Use of Textual Witnesses for the Establishment of the Text:The Shorter und the Longer Text of Ezekiel. An Example: Ez 7, in J. LUST (ed.), Ezekieland His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (BETL, 74),Louvain, 1986, 7-20; ID., Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel, in A.SCHENKER (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between theMasoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SBL SCS, 52), At-lanta, GA, 2003, 83-92.

79. E. ULRICH, Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran. Part 1: A Preliminary Edition of4QDana), in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 267 (1987) 17-37;ID., Part 2: Preliminary Editions of 4QDanb and 4QDanc, in Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research 274 (1989) 3-26.

80. E. TOV, Three Manuscripts (Abbreviated Texts?) of Canticles from Qumran Cave4, in Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995) 88-111.

81. “If the first scenario obtained, these MSS would be analogous to the rearrangedBook of Jeremiah; if the second obtained, they would be analogous to the longer vs.shorter forms of the Book of Daniel”, E. ULRICH, The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures atthe Time of Hillel and Jesus, in LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume (n. 11), 85-108, esp. p.105.

82. J.T. MILIK, Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumrân,in É. PUECH – F. GARCíA MARTíNEZ (eds.), Mémorial Jean Starcky: textes et étudesqumraniens (Revue de Qumran), Paris, 1992, 321-406.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58277


different Greek and Hebrew textual forms. Thus, in Exodus, OL

(Monacensis) knew a different version of chapters 36-40, where LXX

lacks some sections of MT, and in a few places also adds details. Themain difference concerns the ornaments of the priesthood, which in theLXX precede the other items83. LXX, MT, 4QpaleoExodm and the Samari-tan Pentateuch respectively attest four succesive stages in the edition ofthis book or section84.

The OL has perhaps even more value in the deuterocanonical bookswhere an intensive recensional and editorial work can also be observed.The OL of the book of Baruch transmits four textual forms, two of themdependent on the older Greek85. The book Judith has been transmitted inthree forms: that of LXX, the ‘Lucianic’ text, and that of ms. 58, fol-lowed by OL. The closer the variants are to the text of ms. 58, the higherthe guarantee of originality is. In this lies the critical value of OL: “Sipar hasard nous n’avions pas pour Tobie et Judith S et 58, noustrouverions donc les Latins contre l’unanimité des Grecs”86. In the bookof Tobit, the OL – although not free of corruptions and contaminations –contributes to the reconstruction of the text of the Sinaitic recension(GII), the oldest of the three types of Greek texts87. In 1 Maccabees, the

83. P.-M. BOGAERT, L’importance de la Septante et du “Monacensis” de la Vetuslatina pour l’exégèse du livre de l’Exode (Chap. 35-40), in M. VERVENNE (ed.), Studies inthe Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation (BETL, 126), Louvain, 1996,399-428; A. AEJMELAEUS, Septuagintal Translation Techniques: A Solution to the Prob-lem of the Tabernacle Account, in G.J. BROOKE – B. LINDARS (eds.), Septuagint, Scrollsand Cognate Writings (Manchester 1990) (SBL SCS, 33), Atlanta, GA, 1992, 381-402;E. TOV, The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Revised and En-larged Second Edition (Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 8), Jerusalem, 1997, p. 256.

84. Edition of 4QpaleoExodm by J.E. Sanderson in P.W. SKEHAN – E. ULRICH – J.E.SANDERSON, Qumran Cave 4. IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (Dis-coveries in the Judean Desert, 9), Oxford, 1992, 53-130; J.E. SANDERSON, An Exodus Scrollfrom Qumran: 4QpaleExodm and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS, 30), Atlanta, GA, 1986.

85. Among some of the articles on the subject by P.-M. BOGAERT, cf. Le livredeutérocanonique de Baruch dans la liturgie romaine, in Mélanges liturgiques offerts auR.P. Dom Bernard Botte de l’abbaye de Mont César, à l’occasion du cinquièmeanniversaire de son ordination, Louvain, 1972, 31-48.

86. D. DE BRUYNE, Le texte grec du deuxième Livre de Machabées, in RB 39 (1930)518. Also, A. MILLER, Das Buch Judith (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testament, 4.3),Bonn, 1940, p. 19. Contra, cf. Judith, ed. R. HANHART (Septuaginta. Vetus TestamentumGraecum Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum, 8.4), Göttingen, 1979,pp. 18f. and 25; ID., Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Judith (MSU, 14), Göttingen,1979, pp. 11ff.

87. J.R. BUSTO SAIZ, Algunas aportaciones de la Vetus Latina para una nueva edicióncrítica del libro de Tobit, in Sefarad 38 (1978) 53-69, esp. 69. Also, A. MILLER, DasBuch Tobias (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testament, 4.3), Bonn, 1940, pp. 16ff.; J.-M.AUWERS, La Tradition vieille latine du livre de Tobie: Un état de la question, in G.Z.XERAVITS – J. ZSENGELLÉR (eds.), The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology (SJSJ,98), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2005, 1-21.

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58278


OL text often departs from the known Greek manuscript tradition. Inmany cases, it is attesting a lost Greek text, superior to the one weknow88. In the same way, in 2 Maccabees, the OL and the Armenian ver-sion bear joint witness to a contemporarily lost short form of Greektext89. The Latin translator of the book of Wisdom, African and prior toCyprian, did not prove fit for the task. Therefore, his translation is not agood reflection of the Greek. Nevertheless, D. De Bruyne attemptsretroversions into the Greek of Latin variants which, according to J.Ziegler, represent the traditional Greek text or do not constitute veritablevariants90. Most part of the OL additions in this book go back to the firstGreek translation91.

V. CONCLUSION

As some final conclusions we will present the following ideas:

1. There are more cases in which L presents an old reading whichcannot be explained as derivative from B than those acknowledged byRahlfs.

88. D. DE BRUYNE, Le texte grec du deuxième Livre de Machabées, in RB 39 (1930)503; ID., Le text grec des deux premiers livres des Machabées, in RB 31 (1922) 53; D. DE

BRUYNE – B. SODAR, Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabées, Maredsous, 1932.More skeptical on the value of OL is Maccabaeorum liber I, ed. W. Kappler (Septuaginta.Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum,9.1), Göttingen, 1936.

89. H. BEVENOT, The Armenian Text of Maccabees, in Journal for the Palestine Ori-ental Society 14 (1934) 268-280, esp. 279. According to Hanhart, “In wenigen Fällenmuss die lateinische (und armenische) Ueberstzung mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit alsder alleinige Zeuge des ursprünglichen Textes gewertet werden”, Maccabaeorum liber II,ed. R. HANHART (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate AcademiaeLitterarum Gottingensis editum, 9.2), Göttingen, 1959, pp. 26 and 37; ID., Zum Text des2. und 3. Makkabäerbuches (MSU, 7), Göttingen, 1961, p. 56. P. Katz favours DeBruyne’s opinion, P. KATZ, The Text of 2 Maccabees reconsidered, in ZNW 51 (1960) 10-30; similarly, G.D. KILPATRICK, I-III Maccabees, in S. JELLICOE (ed.), Studies in theSeptuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (Library of Biblical Studies), NewYork, 1974, 418-433; J. STARCKY in his recension of R. HANHART, Maccabaeorum liberII, published in RB 66 (1959) 424-430; C.H. HABICHT, Historische und legendarischeErzählungen. 2 Makkabäerbuch (JSHRZ, 1.3), Gütersloh, 1976, p. 192.

90. D. DE BRUYNE, Étude sur le texte latin de la Sagesse, in Revue Bénédictine 41(1929) 101-133, esp. p. 128; J. ZIEGLER, Zur griechischen Vorlage der Vetus Latina inder Sapientia Salomonis, in ID. (ed.), Sylloge: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta(MSU, 10), Göttingen, 1971, 548-563, esp. pp. 549f. and 557 [= ID., Zur griechischenVorlage der Vetus Latina in der Sapientia Salomonis, in H. GROSS – F. MUSSNER (eds.),Lex tua veritas: Festschrift für Hubert Junker zur Vollendung des SiebzigstenLebensjahres am 8. August 1961, Trier, 1961, 275-291].

91. ZIEGLER, Zur griechischen Vorlage (n. 90).

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58279


2. In many of these cases, the secondary versions (OL, Armenian,Georgian and more rarely Sahidic Coptic and Ethiopic) furnish furtherevidence for an L text.

3. At times, the Greek L text has lost the old reading, but it has beenpreserved it in some of the secondary versions, which in some instancescannot be derivative from each other (e.g. OL and Georgian). A clear ex-ample of this situation can be found in 2 Kings 21,12; 22,20.

4. This would indicate that the Antioquene/Syrian textual tradition ofLXX is vaster than what the preserved Greek manuscripts would suggest.

5. The history of the secondary versions is made of an original version(Old Latin and other similar old versions) that was followed by succes-sive revisions or recensions. This process reflects a similar history of theGreek text(s), made also of an original version (Old Greek) that was fol-lowed by an occasional revision (kaíge or others) and a systematicHexaplaric recension based on the previous work of Theodotion andAquila. Similarly, the history of the Greek text reflects the history of theHebrew text that developed from an Old Hebrew text(s) to a revised andauthorized form transmitted in the MT.

6. In a series of books, basically Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jer-emiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel – among the former and later Prophets –, aswell as Song of Songs, Job and Esther, the testimony of the secondaryversions of LXX must be put in relationship with the Greek translationand its recensions and, ultimately, with the different Hebrew editions ofthese same books. Secondary versions represent a Greek text which isolder than what the majority tradition has transmitted as it was affectedby Hebraizing recensions, kaíge or others, before the Hexaplaric revi-sion. In these books, the Vorlage of LXX and MT are reflecting two differ-ent Hebrew editions, the existence of which has been confirmed by thecorresponding Qumran manuscripts. The study of the history of the bib-lical manuscripts of Qumran acquires here its highest degree of poten-tial.

7. A synoptic-polyglot edition would open our perception to the ex-traordinary plurality in the transmission history of the LXX and its sec-ondary versions. Up-to-date textual criticism should search for the oldesttextual stage without neglecting the study of the different intermediateand even late phases.

8. A final conclusion relates to the specific topic of the Symposium onthe Septuagint Translation in which this paper has been presented. Amodern translation project of the LXX would be considerably enriched bythe study of the ancient translations, their multiple textual bases, theirtranslation techniques and the interpretative traditions which they incor-

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58280


porate. During the first Christian centuries, the Bible was not only theBible of the Fathers, known through their quotations and commentaries.The most widespread Christian Bible, beyond the limits of the Greek-speaking world, has been composed by the Bibles in the different lan-guages of the peoples incorporated into the Christian oikoumene.

Universidad Complutense Andres PIQUER

Facultad de Filología Pablo TORIJANO

Departamento de Hebreo y Arameo Julio TREBOLLE BARRERA

Ciudad Universitaria28040 – MadridSpain

0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58281


0580-07_Ausloos_17_Piquer 11-08-2007, 10:58282

Septuagint Versions, Greek Recensions, and Hebrew Editions. The Text-Critical Evaluation of The Old...

Documents

Transcript of Septuagint Versions, Greek Recensions, and Hebrew Editions. The Text-Critical Evaluation of The Old...