bioscs15

8/12/2019 bioscs15

1/33

BULLETIN OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONFOR SEPTUAGINT AND COGNATE STUDIES

No. 15 Fall 1982Minutes of the IOSCS Meeting San FranciscoFinancial ReportNews and NotesRecord of Work Published or in ProgressRedaction Recension and Midrashin the Books of Kings

Julio TrebolleA Short Commentary on Some Verses

of the Old Greek of Isaiah 23rie van der Kooij

Guidelines for Editions of ArmenianBiblical Texts

Michael E Stone and Claude E Cox

347

12

36

51

8/12/2019 bioscs15

2/33

BULLETIN IOSCSPublished Annually Each Fall byThe International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies

OFFICERS AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEPresident

Albert PietersmaDept. of Near Eastern StudiesUniversity of TorontoToronto Ontario M5S 1A1Canada

Vice PresidentRobert HanhartSeptuaginta UnternehmenFriedlanderweg 113400 GottingenWest Germany

SecretaryLeonard GreenspoonDept. of HistoryClemson UniversityClemson South Carolina

29631TreasurerMelvin K. H. Peters

Dept. of Religious StudiesCleveland State UniversityCleveland Ohio 44115Associate EditorClaude Cox

Dept. of Religious StudiesBrandon UniversityBrandon Manitoba R 7 A 6A9Canada

ditor

onorary PresidentHarry M OrlinskyHebrew Union College.

Jewish Institute of ReligionOne W Fourth StreetNew York NY 10012

Immediate Past PresidentJohn Wm WeversDept. of NearEastern StudiesUniversity of TorontoToronto Ontario M5S 1A1Canada

Members atLargeGeorge HowardDept. of Philosophy andReligionUniversity of GeorgiaAthens Georgia 30602

Robert A. KraftDept. of Religious Studie sUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia Pennsylvania

19174Emanuel TovDept. of BibleHebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Eugene UlrichD.ept. of TheologyUniversity of Notre DameNotre Dame Indiana 46556

TI

MINUTES OF THE lOSeS MEETING21 December 1981 9:00 a.m 12:00 m.Hilton Hotel (Shasta Room), San Francisco

ProgrammeAlbert Pietersma presidingPaul E. Dian, University of Toronto

TThe Greek Version of Deut. 21: 1-9 and Its Variants:A Record of Early Exegesis

Melvin K. H. Peters, Cleveland State Universityome Observations on the Coptic Text of Genesis

Leonard Greenspoon, Clemson UniversityTlThe Text-critical Importance of the Joshua Portion of theSamaritan Chronicle Ill

Albert Pietersma, University of Toronto'IDid or Didn't the Septuagint Use Kyrios?

usiness eeting11:50 a m : Called to order by the r e s i d e n t ~ Albert Pietersma1. President's Report

lOSeS will meet with lOSOT in Salamanca, Spain, 1983.Topics for the meeting were suggested.Reported that Bulletin 14 had been published.2. Recommendation of Executive CommitteeH. Orlinsky moved that $250 be given to Scholars Press inregard to the Challenge Grant they had received from

NEH. Motion passed.3. Treasurer's Report (below)

Motion to accept was passed.4. Editorial CommitteeH. Orlinsky reported that four manuscripts were eitheraccepted or in the process of acceptance:

a) John Miles (accepted)

1

8/12/2019 bioscs15

3/33

2 BULLETIN lOSCS

b) John Lee accepted)c) T. Muraoka accepted in principle)d) Unnamed in progress)

Already published: David Burke, The oetry of Baruch5. New Business

H. Orlinsky drew attention to E. Tovls article in the currentBult etin [14] on the recently-found manuscript of Margolis. Reported that it will be published.

12:00 m.: AdjOUPn lent

George Howardfor the Secretary

FINANCIAL REPORTDecember 18. 1981

BALANCE ON HAND, Nov. 8, 1980BuUetin 14, p. 9INCOME

Subscriptions 11/8/80 - 12/18/81Interest on Savings

EXPENSESBuZZetins 13 14

Duplication PrintingPostage Supplies

IncomeExpensesNET GAINBalance on Hand, Nov. 8, 198Net Gain to Dec. 18. 1981BALANCE ON HAND, Dec. 18, 1981

847.0467.00914.04

598.16249.62847.78914,04847.7866.26922.4166.26988.67

922.41

988.67

Melvin K. H. PetersTreasurer. lOSeS

Auditors: Derwood C. Smith, Ph,D.Nina C. Pykare, Ph.D.

3

Department ofReligious Studies,Cleveland StateUniversity

8/12/2019 bioscs15

4/33

N WS AND NOTES

Professor I. Seeligmannt is with a deep sense of sorrow that we report the recent

death of Professor 1. L. Seeligmann of the Hebrew Universityin Jerusalem. He was appointed a member of the Executive Committee of the lOSeS in 1972 and served as a member of its Boardof Advisors from 1973 to 1976. The next issue of this Bulletinwill provide a more detailed tr ibute to this esteemed septuagintalscholar.Computer Assisted Tools

The project for creating computer-generated tools for thestudy of the septuagintal materials, described in BIOSeS 14 (1981)22-40 and centered at the University of Pennsylvania, has re -ceived a major grant from the Research Tools and Reference Worksprogram of the Division of Research Programs of the NationalEndowment for the Humanities. The grant is for a two-yearperiod, from June 1982 through May 1984, and consists of $150,000outright plus up to $50,000 in matching funds T that will becomeavailable as the project is able to raise an equivalent amount fromother sources , for a maximum sponsored budget of $250,000. :Inaddition, the University of Pennsylvania (R. Kraft, project co director) and Hebrew University (E. Tov, project co-director?have committed large amounts of IIcost sharing I funds to theproject, and continued generous support from David Packard andhis IBYCUS System office in install ing and maintaining the computer configuration deserves particular mention.

The primary goals for th is grant period are 1) morphologicalb " g wl"th the machine-readablenalysis of the entire corpus, egmnm4

N WS AND NOTES 5

text of the Rahlfs edition purchased from the Thesaurus LinguaeGraecae Project, but ultimately extending to the relevant textualvar iants as well, (2) encoding of the textual variants from theGottingen and Cambridge editions, and 3) alignment of the par-allel Greek and Hebrew texts of at least the Pentateuch, for comparat ive analysis.

The initial s tages of morphological analysis have been completed, and the resul t ing materials are being verified and corrected. The text-crit ical data have been entered for Ruth andfor par t of Samuel-Kings; the Pentateuch is the next priority.Ultimately, the project hopes to produce as complete a data baseas practical, which will be available at cost to all qualifiedresearchers , and a variety of by-products (concordances,lexical tools, analyses) as appropria te . e are anxious to re-ceive advice and suggest ions, and will continue to develop anetwork of interested volunteers associated with the project andi ts needs as well as to explore ways of raising the necessaryadditional funding to complete the projected data bank.New Manuscript of the Greek Deuteronomy

Six small fragments from Qumran cave 4 which had beenlabeled Tnon-biblical Greek have recently been identified byEugene Ulrich as the remains of a manuscript of Deuteronomy.The manuscript (4QLXXDeut) has been assigned the Rahlfsnumber 819 by Professor R. Hanhart of the SeptuagintaUnternehmen.New ooks y roses Members

Since the last issue of IOSCS went to press, three booksrelating to the Septuagint by IOSCS members have been received.

In a work of major importance, The Tezt Critiaal Use o theSeptuagint in BiblioaZ Researah (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3;Jerusalem: Simor, 1981), Emanuel Tov offers a r ich blend of

8/12/2019 bioscs15

5/33

6 BULLETIN lOSC S

theory and detailed examples concerning I1The Reconstruction ofthe Hebrew Text Underlying the LXX: Possibilities and Impossibilities" (Part 1) and concerning the nature of l iThe Hebrew TextUnderlying the LXX" (Part II) , The book(343pp.; $17) may beordered from S i m ~ r Ltd. P . O. Box 39039 Tel Aviv, Israel 61390.or from Eisenbrauns ($18 [$16.25], se e below).

Bruce M. Metzger, Man:u.scripts of the Greek Bib1.e: An In -troduction to Greek Pa1.aeogr aphy (New York and Oxford: OxfordUniversi ty . 1981) presents a clear and ins truct ive exposition ofmany aspects of Greek palaeography, from the origins of the Greekalphabet and the making of ancient books. to uncial and minusculehandwriting and such special features of biblical manuscripts asnomina saara, colometry. and onomastica. Included are excellentfacsimiles. almost all in actual size, of 13 MSS of the LXX and 32of the NT. ( x + 1 5 0 p p . incl. 45pl . ; $17.95/10. - ) .

James H. Charlesworth. in The ehl Discoveries in St Cath-erine s Monastery: Prelimina:ry Report on the Manusoripts(ASOR Monograph Series 3; Winona Lake, IN: ASOR, 1981) in troduces those MSS with a preliminary report on the discoveries,an account of the rumors and counter-rumors , a brief discussionof the MSS, facsimiles from seven MSS, and newspaper articles onthe discoveries. The monograph (xv 45 pp. , incl. 8 pI . ; $6.00[member price $4.80}) may be ordered from Eisenbrauns, P .O.Box 275, Winona Lake, IN 46590, USA.Honors for a Past President

Harry M. Orlinsky was elected a member of the Society ofScholars of the Johns Hopkins University (its only humanist).He gave the Invitation Lecture and the Banquet Address at theFiftieth Anniversary meeting of the Canadian Society of BiblicalStudies n Ottawa, June 2 ~ 5 and has also been appointed to theHonorary Committee of the International Congress on BiblicalArchaeology (Jerusalem, April 2 ~ 9 . 1984), sponsored by the IsraelAcademy of Sciences and Humanities.

RECORD OF WORKPUBLISHED OR IN PROGRESS

Aberbach . M., and Grossfeld, B. Targum Onkelos to Genesis:Arama1 c Text and ew Translation. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

Aly, Zaki. Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis andDeuteronomy. A photographic ed., with preface, in trod., andnotes by L. Koenen. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen27. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1980.

Beentjes, P . ? : IT esus Sirach en Tenach. Een onderzoek naar eneen classlflcatle van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voorhun functie in Sirach 45: 6-26. Ph.D. disser ta t ion Amste-dam, 1981. ' rBlau, Joshua. On Polyphony in Bihliaal Hehrew. Proceedings ofthe Israel ~ c a d e ~ y of S ~ i e n c e s and Humanities VI, 2 (Jerusalem

1982) (detaIled dISCUSSIon of transliterations in the LXX).Bodine, W.R. 1) The Greek Text o f Judges; Recensional DeveZ-opments. HSM 23. Chico: Scholars, 1980. (2) An analysis ofthe textual affiliations of the Peshi t ta of Judges [in progressl .Burchard, Chris toph. "Ein vorlaufiger griechischer Text vonJoseph und Aseneth, n Dielheimer Blatter zwn AZten Testcunent14 (Okt. 1979) 2-53.Burke . David G. The p t f B he ry 0 aruc. SCS 10. Chico: Scholars.1981.Busto-Saiz, J . R.de Sfmaco, n IIEI texto teodocionico de Daniel y la traduccionSefarad 40 (1980) 41-55.Casetti, P; ; Keel, 0 . ; et Schenker , A., eds. Melanges Dominique

B ~ t h e l ~ y ~ d e s hihliques offertes a l occasion de son60 ann1 versaz.re. Orbis Biblicus et Oriental, 's 38 F b /G ttO . r ourgo mgen, 1981 (many articles on the Septuagint) .

Charlesworth, James H. The New Discoveries in St Cath . ,M t . n n sooos ery: A Px:elunz.nary Report on the Manuscripts. ASORMonograph SerIes 3. Winona Lake, IN: ASOR. 1981.Chaze. M. IlRemarques et notes sur les versions grecque et ladino

7

8/12/2019 bioscs15

6/33

8 BULLETIN roscsdu Penta teuque de Constantinople, 1547,11 pp. 3 3 ~ 3 in Hom-mage a Georges Vajda. Louvain. 1980.

Collins, Johu, and Nickelsburg. George. Ideal Figures in AncientJudaism: Profiles and Pax>adigms 8eS 12. Chico: Scholars ,1982.

Deboys, D.G. liThe Greek Text of 2 K:ings. lI M.Litt . thesis, Ox ford, 1981 (director : S. Brock) .Dian, Paul E. HDid Cultic Prost i tut ion Fall in to Oblivion during

the Postexilic Era? Some Evidence from Chronicles and theSeptuagint , C Q 43 (1981) 41-8.Drazin, 1. Targum Onkelos on Deuteronomy. Leiden: Bril l , 1981.Estrn, C. Saint Jerome, de la t raduct ion i n s p i r ~ a la t raduct ionrelativiste, RB 88 (1981) 199-215.Fernandez-Marcos, N. (l)lINueva acepcion de TEPAL en las rVidasde los Profetas , r T Sefarad 40 (1980) 27-40. (2) TlLa edicion

de las 'Quaestiones in Reges e t Paralipomena' de Teodoreto,nSefarad 40 (1980) 235-53. (3) ILa religion judla vis ta porlos autores griegos y latinos. Sefarad 41 (1981) 3-25. (4)liLa Septuaginta y los hallazgos del Desierto de Juda, in Sim-posio Bf hUeo NaoionaZ (Salamanca. 26-29 Septiembre 1982)[ in press] . (5) nThe Lucianic Text in the Books of Kingdoms.From Lagarde to the Textual Pluralism [in press] . (6) Reviewof: J . Trebolle . SaZomon y Jeroboan; Historia de Za recensiony redacaion de 1 Reyes 2 - 12; 14 (Salamanca/Jerusalem: Univers idad Pontificia. 1980) in Sefarad 41 (1981) [ in press] .

Gentry, Pe ter . TiThe Aster isked (Theodotionic?) Materials inJudges. T Ph.D. disser ta t ion, Toronto dir . : J .W. Weyers)[in progress] .

Gaylord, H. E. TiThe Slavonic Version of the Greek Apocalypse o fBaruch. Ph.D. disser ta t ion, Hebrew University dirs . : M.E.Stone. D. Flusser . and M. Altbauer) [in progress] .Grabbe, Lester L. IIAquilals Transla t ion and Rabbinic Exegesis ,n

JJS 33 (1982) [in press] .Grossfeld, B. A Critical. Commentary on Targum Neofiti I toGenesis, with the text critically edited by L. H. Schiffman.

Leiden: Brill, 1981.Hann. Robert . The Manuscript History of the PeaZms of SoZomon.

SCS 13. Chico: Scholars , 1982.

RECORD OF WORK

Harr ington, Daniel J . IJResearch on the Jewish PseudepigraphaDuring the 19705, EQ 42 (1980) 147-59.Heater, Homer. A Septuagint TransZation Technique in the BookOf Job. CBQMS 11. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1982.

9

Hilhorst, A. 1) Semitismes t latinismes dans Ze Pasteur d Her-mas. Graecitas christianorum primaeva 5. Nijmegen, 1976.(2) TIDarius l Pillow (1 Esdras i i i 8). T JTS 33 (1982) 161-3.Jonge, Marinus de. liThe Main Issues in the Study of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. NTS 26 (1979-80) 508-24.Lee, J . A. L. tTEquivocal and Stereotyped Renderings in the LXX.IIRB 87 (1980) 104-17.Lipscomb. W. L. liThe Armenian Adam Books. Ph.D. dissertation.Columbia dirs . : M. E. Stone. J . A. Sanders. and R. A. Kraft)[ in progress] .Lust. Johan. ITEzekiel 36-40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,lTCEQ 43 (1981) 517-33.McCullough. J . C. TlThe Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews,

NTS 26 (1979-80) 363-79.McKay, K.L. TOn the Perfect and Other Aspects in New TestamentGreek, NT 23 (1981) 289-329.Metzger, Bruce M. Man:uscripts of the Greek BibZe: An Introduc-t ion to Greek PaZaeography. New York and Oxford: OxfordUnivers i ty. 1981.Muller, August inus Rudolf. ITEx 17,15 in der Septuaginta . I Bib-Lisake Notizen 12 (1980) 20-3.Nicholls, P . liThe Composition of the Testcunent o f Job. II Ph.D.disser ta t ion, Hebrew University dir . : M. E. Stone) [in progress] .Nickelsburg. George W. E. Jewish Literature Between the BibZeand the Mishnah: A Historical. ar.d Literary Introduation.Philadelphia: For t ress . 1981.Pace. S. A. liThe Old Greek Transla t ion of Daniel 7-12.11 Ph.D.dissertation. University of Notre Dame dir. : E. Ulrich) linprogress] .Passoni de1l'Acqua. A. IlRicerche sulla versione dei LXX e i papiri . egyptus 61 (1981) 171-211.

8/12/2019 bioscs15

7/33

10 BULLETIN roscsPeters , Melvin K. H. l iThe Textual Affiliations of Genesis 1: 1-4:2

According to Papyrus Bodmer 3 11 [in press l .Richard. Ear l . 'IThe Old Testament in Acts: Wilcox1s Semitisms in

Retrospect, lI CEQ 42 (1980) 330-41.Safra i , C. H. liThe Pseudo-Philonic 'De Sampsone. l 1 Ph D. dissertation, Hebrew University dir. : M. E. Stone) [in progress] .S atran. D. The Figure of Daniel in Jewish and C h r ~ s t i a n Exegesis. I Ph.D. disser ta t ion, Hebrew University (dIT.: M. E.Stone) [ in progress] .Schenker , Adrian. Psalmen in der He:JJapla: Erste kPitische undvotZ.stlindige Ausgabe der Hexaptarischen Fragmente auf damRande der Handsohrift Ottobonianus Graeaus 398 zu den Pa24-32. Studi e Test i 295. Citta del Vaticana, 1982.Shut t . R. J . H. ITThe Concept of God in the Works of Flavius Jo sephus. S 31 (1980) 171-89.Siegert Folker . Drei he7.:lenistisah-jUdisahe .Predigten: Ps.P h i i o n ~ l Ube:r> J o n a ~ Dber Simson und Uber diC , Gottesbezeiahn:ung wohltatig ve:r>zehrendes Feuer.'11 1. Ubersetzungaus dem Armenischen und $p:r>achZ-iche E:r>Z-Ciuterunge1'l. WUNT 2 0 ~

Tiibingen, 1980.Silva, M. Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek, IBib 61 (1980) 198-219.Spottorno y Dlaz Caro, Ma. V. (: .) liLa omision de Ez 3 6 . 2 ~ b 3 8y la transposicion de capltulos en el Papiro 967: I Emer1-ta .

981) [in press}. (2) I IE I Papiro 967 de EzequIel como testImonio prehexaplar, I Simposio Bf.blico Nacional (Salamanca,26-29 Septiembre 1982) [in press] .

Stone, M. E. 0 AT'11Ienian Apocrypha Relating to the Patriarchsand Prophets. Jerusalem: Academy of Sciences, 19.82. (2)Epigraphica Armeniaca Hierosolymitana, II and II EpIg. Arm.Hieros. II, Annual o f Armenian Linguist ics 1 980) 51-68.and 2 (1981) 71-83. (3) The Penitenae o f Adam. 2 vols. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 429-30. Louvaln:Peeters. 1981. (4) II A Rare Armenian Coin from Jerusalem. IIsrael Numismatia JOU:r>nal 4 (1980) 77-8. (5) IIReport on .Seth Tradi t ions in the Armenian Adam Books, I pp. 459-71 InThe Rediscove:r>y o f Gnostiaism (Yale Conf:rence 1978), ed.B. Layton. Leiden: Brill, 1981. (6) S C : r > 1 . p t u r e s ~ ~ e a t s ~ andVisions: A ho f i l o f Judaism from Ezra to the ~ e m , . s h Re:vo7..ts.Philadelphia: For t ress , 1980. (7) II Sinai ArmenIan InSCrIptions. B 45 (1982) 27-31.

RECORD OF WORK 11

Talshir , Sipporah. 'Ezra ' haJ;tissony - diyoqan shel t a r gum milluly. Proceedings o f the Eighth Wo:r>la Congress o f Je11JishS t u d i e s ~ Bible. Jerusalem. 1982, pp. 47-52 (Hebrew).

Tischendorf , C. , ed. Bibliorum Codex SinaitiCJUs Pe.,t:r>opolitanus.4 vols. ; repr . of the 1862 ed. Leiden: Bril l , 1969.,Tov, Emanuel. (1) The Text-Critical Use o f the Septuagint inBibZ-ical Research. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3.1 Jerusalem:

Simor, 1981. (2) liThe Lucianic Text of the Candnical and theApocryphal Sections of Esther : A Rewritten Biblical Book.Textus 10 (1982) 1-25. (3) Greek Transla t ions , pp. 774-830in Encyclopedia M i q r a ~ i t 8. Jerusalem, 1982. (4) Lexica land Grammatical Studies on the Language o f the Septuagintand i t s Revisions, rev. and enlarged ed. Jerusalem: Academon, 1982. (5) I A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls, I RUCA [in press] . (6) Criteria for EvaluatingTextual Readings - The Limitations of Textual Rules , HTR[in press] . (7) Editorial work on and introduct ion to the fifthfascicle of M. L. Margolis, The Book o f Joshua in G:r>eek (seeBunetin 14 [1980]17-21).

Trebolle, Julio. (1) lIEI estudio de 4Q Sarna: Implicaciones exegeticas e historicas,t ' Est Bib 39 981) 5-18. (2) liLa carda deSamarIa, Crftica textual, literaria e historica de 2 Re 17,3-6,11SaZmanticensis 28 (1981) 137-52. (3) Textos 'Kaige ' en laVetus Latina de Reyes (2 Re 10,25-28),11 RB [in pressJ .

Ulrich, Eugene. 0 HThe Greek Manuscripts of the Penta teuchfrom Qumran, Including Newly-Identified Fragments of Deuteronomy (4QLXXDeut) 11 [in press] . (2) Preliminary editionof 4QDana ,b ,c [in progress] .

Waard, J . de. IIIHomophon y l in the Septuagint , t Bib 62 (1981)551-61.

Wevers, John Wm. (1) Ed. Numeri. Septuaginta : Vetus Testamentum graecum auctor i ta te Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensiseditum 3/1. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht , 1982.(2) Text History o f the Greek Numbers fin press] . (3) Levit icus and THGL [in press] . (4) liThe Textual Affinities of theCorrector(s) of Bin Numbers,lI pp. 139-53 in Studies inPhilology in Honour o f Ronald James Williams: A Festschrift,ed. G. E. Kadish and G. E. Freeman. Toronto, 1982.

Zippor, Moshe. Review of: Targwn Hashivcim Lattorah [a modernHebrew translation of the LXX by Z. Karl, Jerusalem 1979] inKiryat Sepher 55 (1980) 168-74 (Hebrew).

I

.J

8/12/2019 bioscs15

8/33

Ioses 5 (1982) 12-35

REDACTION. RECENSION. AND MiDRASHIN THE BOOKS OF KINGS'

Julio TrebolleInstituto Espano Biblico y Arqueologico, Jerusalem

Research on the books of Kings has been dominated in theselast decades by the work of M. Noth on the Deuteronomisticredaction 1 His masterpiece opened up new paths and proposednew models of research. After every masterpiece, however . re search sooner or later becomes "scholasticizedlT and confines itselftamely to the lines traced by the master. Furthermore, the impactof a masterpiece tends either to marginalize earlier paths of researchor to close them off ent i re ly. Thus n the work of Noth and hisdisciples very little importance has been given to the contributionsto be drawn from the vers ions (esp. the LXX and the VL) forreoension history and text history of the books of the Bible.In the books of Kings these vers ions offer many important variantreadings with respect to the MT. Noth 1s work in 1943 coincided witha generalized re turn to the MTll movement. 2 At that time theGreek vers ion came to b e considered mostly as a targum or as amidrashio paraphrase of the Hebrew. J. W. Wevers at mid-centuryand more recent ly D. W. Gooding and R. P . Gordon developed thisline of research by s tudying the principles of exegesis ll underlying the Greek vers ion of Kings and the midrashic elements i t

o 3can ams.f the early decades of this century were characterized by both

the use and abuse of conjecturally res tor ing the llprimitive text llUrtext) by choosing among the many variants found in the versions,

2

REDACTION. RECENSION. AND MIDRASH 13

these last decades have seen the analogous abuse of conjecturing,on l i terary grounds, what was the primitive forml Urfarm) , andthis on the basis of the Massoretic text alone. Consequent ly, ifon the one hand the history of the tradition and redaction of Kings(10th-5th century BC) now appears excessively complicated, onthe other hand we are content with a very simple history of thetransmission of the text. In the long span stretching from the 5thcentury BC up to the medieval Massoretes, it is currently assumedtha t there existed but a simple and direct line of textual t rans-

o 0 0 H b 4mISSIon In e rew Noth) j the variants of the vers ions are con-s idered to be merely tendent ious deviations from a uniform Hebrewtext .

The study of the biblical MSS of Qumran. n part icular ofQS a ,b ,c h f il oam , as ac Itated a new unders tanding of the parallel

history and parallel evolution of the Hebrew and Greek texts ofSamuel-Kings. This new knowledge creates the need for an in ter disciplinary dialogue between the pract i t ioners of redact ion his tory(Noth and his school) and those of the study of the transmissionand recension of the text (e . g . W. F. Albr ight , F . M. Cross,D. Barthelemy, etc . ) . 5

In such a dialogue it will be accepted that many of the variantsin the vers ions do not represent isplated phenomena or occasionalacts of negligence on the par t of the t ransla tors and/or copyis ts .Rather, they represent complete pat te rns all their own which correspond to different types of text that once exis ted in the Hebrewt radi t ion. t will also be accepted that the plura l i ty of textualtypes can even reflect dif ferent s tages in the earlier process ofthe redaction and editing of the text.

Our study begins with the textual and l i terary analysis ofselected passages. From these analyses a working method will beextracted which will prove to be bet ter adapted to the textual andl i terary character is t ics of the books of Kings. As a result . we

8/12/2019 bioscs15

9/33

14 JULIO TREBOLLE

will see the need for a re turn to textual criticism and frequent lyto the Urtext as found in the text of the vers ions . Ins tead of beingan arsenal for random corrections to the current Hebrew text . theseversions will serve as evidence for the existence of a non-MassoreticHebrew type of text or a pre-Massoretic recension -form of the text .For its part , textual criticism will be seen to need the li terarycritical method to help i t isolate merely textual phenomena such asglosses . omjssions, and t ransposi t ions .

1. Jeroboam at the Assembly at Shechem:MT 1 Kgs 12: 2 II LXX 11: 431 Kings 12: 2 is one of the most important and most discussed

passages in t he books of Kings. The his tory of the Assembly atShechem depends on the correct interpre ta t ion of this text. Theemajority of authors tend to correct the MT wayyeseb b to way-yasob min, in conformity with Alexandrinus (LXXA) and w i ~the parallel in Chronicles: II Jeroboam re turned from Egypt .

The express ion wayyeseb be appears f requent ly in contextsspeaking of a flight into exile, forming par t of a fixed narra t ives t ructure : 1I when X heard these th ings , he sought to killY; Y was afra id, and he fled from the presence of X and settledin Zll ( . wysm c Jt dbryw wybqs lhmyt )t wyr.) y b r ~ mpny

b be ) The f l ights of Moses, Jephthah, David, Ab-. . wayyesesalom, and Jeremiah are all expressed in this narra t ive pat ternd . esp. Exod 2:14-15; Jer 26:21; cf. also Judg 9:21,11:3;

1 Sam 19:2,23:14-15,27:1-4; 2 Sam 4:1-3,13:37-38). Thisconventional express ion is found in narratives from such diverseepochs as, for example, the story of the f l ight of d r ~ i (14thcentury BC) and the NT f l ight of Joseph in to Egypt . In thesenotices the fleeing protagonis t ends up IIresiding inll or II settlingin a place of exile,

The text in 12:2 reproduces essential elements ( The f led , . ,and set t led in . . , I I ;::: wybrb wysh h of that narra t ive sequence

REDACTION, RECENSION, AND MIDRASH 15

(above) . This proves the value of the reading wayyeseb beagainst the generally proposed correct ion. Furthermore , it ren-de r s impossible the proposed separation of the two verbs byconsigning one to the p arenthet ica l sentence and one to the mainsentence: TlWhen Jeroboam, son of Nebat, learned of this (for hewas still in Egypt , whither he had fled from King Solomon), thenJeroboam re turned from Egypt . The express ion wayyeseb bealso forms par t of the inser ted parenthesis . The correspondingpassage in the Old Greek, located in 11: 43, confirms this conclusion: here the parenthesis includes and closes af ter the expres-sion Hand Jeroboam settled in Egyptll hOs ephygen ek prosopouSalamon kai ekatheto en Aigyptq). Then follows the apodosis ofthe main sentence: IIhe set out and came to his city in the landof Sareira , in the mountains of Ephraimll (kateuthynei kai erche-tai eis ten polin autou eis ten gen Sareira ten en orei Ephraim).

The subject of the apodosis must be the same as the subjectof the protas is , IIJeroboam. T Furthermore , the same verb, wyb.J,is attested in all the forms of the manuscript tradition: in the Qwyb J of 1 Kgs 12:3 and in 17 MSS (Kwyb)w); in LXX 11:43 and inLXX 12:24f; in the Hexaplaric text of LXX A 12: 3 (including theArmenian and Syrohexaplar vers ions) ; and in 2 Chr 10; 3. Thenucleus of the original apodosis, then, is contained in the express ion: IIWhen Jeroboam learned of this . . . , he came to(wyb) yrb m)

This main sentence is found outside i ts prope r context in boththe MT and the Old Greek. In the MT it in ter rupts the sequencebetween verses 1 and 3b d . LXX) II Iv 1] Rehobo-am went toShechem, where all Israel had come to proclaim him king. Iv 3b]They sa id to Rehoboam In the Old Greek it is interpola tedby means of the process of Wiede l oufncihme, between the concludingformulas of Solomonls re ign: I Solomon rested with his ancestor s;he was bur ied in the City of David his fa ther (LXX: When Jeroboam, son of Nebat, learned of this . . . King Solomon rested

8/12/2019 bioscs15

10/33

l

'#0.:-= 'cc ~ - ~ ' ( ' - - ' ~ = :A ,

L X ~

12:24b Kal.. tiv tn'a L P 6 ~ E V O e ;En1 TnV BaOLAELav

24c Kat t ~ n T E L L a A w ~ w v8avanDoa Latn6v"aL E G J o ~ n 6 n

Kat unEopa a U T o ~J [ P O ~ L o u o a K E L ~

~ C a l A c AtvuIT CouKal ~ E T ulnouEwe;; aTIESaVEV LUAWIlWV

24d KU l nKOUOEV I E P o ~ o i w

EV A l.YU1tLlpC ,[ l 1:8vnKEV . . .

24 Kat ei;fjJ"SEv 'IEpoBou/le;; Al.yUTITOU,Kat ~ A 8 E V

E l . ~ yfjv LapELpaTflv EV 5PEl 'EcppCtL/l

2 ~ ~ l E l I T E V6 Aa6e;;

I T P O ~ P o P o a ~ . .

LXXBKaL TOUTO TO n p a y ~ aWe; tnnpaTO X E t p a ~tIT ~ C a l A C .. w 27-39)

11:4 Kat tC:nTnOEV LaAwllwvSaVa1:WOaLCOV I E p o ~ o a ~

Kat UVEOTnKat UTIEOpaEle;; AtyuTI1:ov

1 [ p O ~ L O U O a K E I . ~BaoLAEa ALyuTI1:oUKUt tv A L Y U T I 1 : ~

E W ~ aTIE8aVEV L a A w ~ w v11:43 . . - i:yEvj]6n

nKOUOEV I E P o ~ o a ~U NuB{n.Kat aU1:ou 1:l 5v1:0c;tv AlY{11[1: .p

w ~ E ~ U Y E V EK TIPOOWTIOU

LUAWIlWVKat EKaSn1:0EV A .ytmT((l ,(OTl TESVnKE L O o ~ boc 2 e 2)KaTEu8uvE L(v)Kat EPXETaLEl.e;; TDV rr6Alv aUTouEl.C; TnV yfjv LapElpaTtlV tv 5PEl 'Ecppaq.t.

12: 3 KC( l EAaAnaEV6 Aaac;npoe;; TOV BaoLAEa PoBoall

MT, : nn nn

'1'" n ',il 'WHw 27-39) 17O:J

ilb'7ill tup::P'ln"'bi1'7

OY:J,' nK

nY:J,' tiP"'']n,:J'1n ',:;rb

vl/I'III 7KO',CiO 170

n ',:;rbj "'il')']n07111 mn TY

' il'" ]OY:J,' ynlll:J

~ : J J P1J T1V tl1n1

o , ~ n : J

'J 'Jn n,:J ,IIIK17nnn07111:J1II'1

b , ~ n : J bY:J,'

1n7111'1

11:27a

11:40

12:2

17 1 t;,v 1nY:J,' 1tD'1

7K,III' 7np 7:J1n:J"T'1 12:3

. bY:Jn, 7K

t:lt;J:o'oZootoZlHoZ:zt;JB:Ht;JlX

H>

'

' ':rH0'o'rrto

8/12/2019 bioscs15

11/33

,I

;: \ .i.

18 JULIO TREBOLLE

with his ancestors, and his son Rehoboam succeeded him as,king. USAccording to the arrangement of the text in the MT. Jeroboam

returns from Egypt when he learns that all Israel and Rehoboamhave assembled in Shechem d . v 1); thus the dmC of 12: 2 nowin the MT refers to the assembly. The Old Greek, on the cont ra ry . alone preserves an original element: Jeroboam re turnsfrom Egypt when he learns that Solomon has died; thus. the Cof 12: 2 = the ekousen of LXX 11: 43) originally re fer red to thedeath of Solomon and connected with 11: 40, of which it is thedirect continuation. Accordingly, [JeroboamJ remained in Egyptuntil the death of Solomon . . . ; when Jeroboam learned of [thedeath of Solomon) . . . , he came . . . A similar passage in 1 Kgs11: 21 has a formally similar element: Hadad also re turned fromEgypt upon hear ing of the death of David (sm . ky fmtJ . ). 9

A further confirmation is found in the text of a notice pre-served in the so-called l1supplement ll or IImidrashTl of the OldGreek in 12: 24c(d,f) . This form of the notice represents orclosely approximates the original. I t even contains a formal element of the l i terary genre Tlflight notice" which is absent in MT /LXX 11:40, that is , the ufear f of the persecuted u J y r ~ = kaiephobJthe): [v 24c) Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam; Jeroboamws afraid and fled to Egypt where he found refuge with Shishak,and he se t t led there unti l the death of Solomon. [24d] When Jeroboam learned in Egypt that Solomon had died , [24f) he une to

10 All the essential elements of the l1flight notice l are foundhere assembled in the proper order: 1) the persecution wybqa lhmyt t ); (2) the flight of the persecuted (wybrlJ); 3)the temporary residence in exile of the persecuted pe r son wysb/wyhy b ); (4) the news of the persecutor 's death wyhy ksmky mt); and (5) the return (wyb ) .

Such an argument of l i terary criticism, based on the l i terarygenre of the flight notice l and based on form rather than oncontent , allows us to resolve here a question of textual criticism:

REDACTION. RECENSION. AND MIDRASH

which of the two is the preferred reading, I settled inll or l1re-tu rned from ll ? t equally allows us to discover the limits of thepresent literary unit.

9

The 11flight notice of the MT /LXX 11: 40 = also LXX 12: 24c)continues and ends with the sentence: When Jeroboam heard . . . ,he came to . " (MT 12:2; LXX 11:43 and 12:24d,f) . The LXXtexts 11: 43 and 12: 24f both ident i fy this place as Sareira . This1flight notice is a par t of the whole narra t ive beginning with the

abort ive revol t of Jeroboam (MT 11:26-28; LXX 12:24b) and following with the account of the Assembly at Shechem (MT 12: 3b-21;LXX 12: 24nf3"p-x). There can be no doubt , then, that Jeroboam11was at the Assembly a t Shechem from its very outset . He is not,however , expressly mentioned as being present . In fact, the onlypeople who intervene in the deliberations are those who are author ized, such as the elders of the people and, in opposition to them,the young f r iends and counselors of Rehoboam's court .

II. The Accession Formula: Text and CompositionI t is not possible to discuss here the text of the so-called

lIsupplementli or uduplicatel in LXX 12:24a-z. Since the time ofMeyer (1906) 12 it was quite simply set aside as being late TTmid-rash. Gooding qualified it as pedant ic in its chronology and asbiased against , and insul t ing to, Jeroboam. The f i rs t verse ofthis ITsupplement" (LXX 12: 24a) appears to be a uduplicate TT ofthe accession formula of Solomon and Rehoboam .

The stereotyped phraseology of the accession formula recursf requent ly throughout the books of Kings. This therefore allowsus another approach to the study of the process of the recensionand composition of the books. Despite the r igidi ty of i ts formulation, the accession formula nevertheless undergoes numerousvariations. As an explanation for this phenomenon Bin-Nun supposes a plurality of formulations in the original source . E. Cortesethinks ra ther of a redactor S l i terary variations upon the primitive

8/12/2019 bioscs15

12/33

20 JULIO TREBOLLE

formula. These authors do not take into account the textual variants of the Old Greek and. in the case of Rehoboam, do not paythe least attention to the text of LXX 12: 24a. 13

The accession formula is as follows: "In the year . . of X. kingof Israel/Judah, there became king Y, son of Z. king of JudahIsrael . . . (Mnt . z. [bn ] mZk YBr Z/yi1LJ

8/12/2019 bioscs15

13/33

i

22 JULIO TREBOLLE

PEu8n EV 650 O[KOD AxaaB Kat ERopEu8n' O x o ~ L a ~ tnt A ~ a n A SaoLAEo L u p t a ~ 8 L ~ T I 6 A E ~ O V

T 6 ~ E auVnWEV Iou u l o ~ N a ~ E a a E L tnt I w p a ~ uLovAxaaB SaoLAEo IapanA. Kat E r r a T a ~ E V aUTOV tv

I E ~ p a n A , Kat aTIE8aVEV. KaL E L 6 ~ E u a E v Iou KatTOV ' O x o ~ t a v BaOLAEO ' Iou6a tnt TO p ~ a , KaLuneSaVEV. Kat aVEStSaaav aUTOV or T I a t 6 E ~aUTO\ tv IEpouaoJ..;nll Kat 80JTTOUOLV Olnov llETCtWV l taTEPWV OUTDD tv nOAEL LiaUEL 6 2 Kgs 10:36+).

The Old Greek d . VL) here preserves the text of Jehu 1scoup d 1etat notice integrally and in i ts proper place, that is ,after the initial formula of Ahaziah and before the beginning ofchap. 11. Also in the MT the initial sentence of the notice(8: 28a) follows the initial formula of Ahaziah (8: 25-27). Nevertheless, the remainder of this notice, taken from the Annals ofJudah, now appears in the MT in pieces scat tered throughout aprophet ic narrative which comes from the Northern Kingdom and17recounts the revol t of Jehu (8:28ai 9:14a.28).

The composition of the books of Kings appears then as aprocess in three stages: 1) At first there was a synchronicscheme of the reigns of Israel and Judah. (2) Within this schemewere integrated notices from the Annals of both kingdoms (e. g . ,II conspiracy notices T). Also in the second stage, narrativesgathered from prophet ic and historical sources were incorporatedinto the framework of the respect ive re igns with which they weresynchronized. (3) Finally. Deuteronomic comments were addeda t various s tages difficult to define precisely for each case. 18

One thing is clear: in order to reconstruct the history of theredaction and composition of the books it is necessary first toreestablish correctly the his tory of the recension of the text.The type of text on which the Old Greek is based occasionallyshows knowledge of a text in which not all of the Deuteronomic


additions had yet been made or in which these had been arrangedaccording to a different compositional plan. 19 Thus , for example.the regnal formula of Rehoboam in LXX 1 Kgs 12: 24a lacks the Dtr.addition found in MT /LXX 14: 21-22 and ignores the anomalousformulation found in 14: 21a. Again. the narratives of the consultation of Ahijah of Shiloh and of the Assembly at Shechem are presented in LXX 12:24g-z in a pre-Dtr. form. Or again, in the LXXthe account of the construct ion of the Jerusalem temple lacks theDtr. addition found in MT 1 Kgs 6: 11-14; this addition is demarcated in the MT by means of Wiederaufnarune where the express ionuSolomon buil t the temple Cl?d completed itIT is repeated 6:9 and 14).

A final example will summarize and confirm the above conclus ions . In the MT of 2 Kgs 13: 10-13, and consequently in the kaigetext of LXX B , the initial and final formulas of J ehoash of Judahfollow immediately one upon the other. No space is left , then, forany narrative material which belongs to the re ign of Jehoash. Theprophet ic narrative of 13: 14-21 and the notice of the verses 22,(23),24-25 are found outs ide the framework of his reign. This iscontrary to the principle of integration of l i terary units whichgoverns the composition of the book. Moreover, a duplication ofthe concluding formula of Jehoash is reproduced in the MT /LXXBat 14:15-16. Finally. the notice in MT and kaige 13:22,24-25,taken from the Annals. appears in te r rupted by the Dtr. insertionof v 23:

OG (LXXL)13:3-7,2313: 10-11

13: 14-2113: 22, 24-2513: 25+

Dtr. commentsaccession formulaepilogue formulaprophet ic narrativenoticeepilogue formula

MT/LXXB13: 3-713:10-1113: 12-1313: 14-2113:22,(23 Dtr.) ,24-25

On the other hand, in the text of the OG LXXL) and Josephusthe concluding formula of Jehoash. here located after 13: 14-25,

8/12/2019 bioscs15

14/33

24 JULIO TREBOLLE

encloses the prophet ic narrative and the historical notice corresponding to his re ign (vv 14-25). Furthermore , this same OG textignores the repetition of the concluding formula as found in theMT of 14: 15-16. t also locates 13: 23 inside the Dtr. commentarycomposed of vv 3-7 and 23. The notice of the victory over theArameans, then, does not undergo the Deuteronomic interrupt ionfound in the MT (13: 23). Moreover. this OG notice preserves anending (cf. 13: 25. now missing in the MT) in which reference ismade to the war in Aphek. All these l i terary units (propheticnarrative. notice, and Dtr. comments) are linked among themselvesby mutual references: all revolve around the "salvation" in thewar at Aphek tsw?L, soter ia ,c f .13 :5 ,17 ,24-25 .

In the above examples we have used an analysis which combines textual (TTlower ) and l i terary (Ilhigherll) criticism, that isrecension history and redaction history We applied this methodto the two text-types of 1- 2 Kings, the proto-Massoretic and tha tunderlying the Old Greek. This kind of analysis allows us to discover an earlier stage of the composition of the books in whichdis t inct l i terary units maintain a greater degree of l i terary unityand integrity, and in which they are not as fragmented and r iddled with interruptions as they are in the proto-Massoretic text .

III . The C onstruct ion of Solomon s Palace:MT 1 Kgs 7:1-12 II LXX 7:38-50

J . W. Wevers, D. W. Gooding, and L. Prijs have stressed thernidrashic and targumic character of the LXX translation in thebooks of Kings. t is now necessary to establish the cr i ter ia whichwill allow us to answer the question: IIVorZage or Targum? I norder to do this we now propose two fur ther examples for discus-sion.

In the MT and in the OG of 2 Kgs 6: 2-7: 51 the differences inorder of the l i terary units are as follows [ the LXX verse numbershave their counterpart in the MT listed in brackets]:

REDACTION. RECENSION. AND MIDRASH

LXXChrono1og- 6: 4-5a[ 6: 37-38a]ical note

MT

Temple 6:6-34[6:2-36] 6:2-36 Temple

TemplePalace

7:1-37[7:13-51]7: 38-50[7: 1-12]

6:37-38a,b Chronological note

7: 1-12 Palace7: 13-51 Temple

25

In the MT the description of the construction of the palace isfound inserted in the middle of the account of the construct ion ofthe temple. The LXX. by contrast , f irst presents the narrative ofthe construct ion and decoration of the temple and only later makesreference to the palace. t appears intentionally to separate thetemple from the palace. Gooding sees in this a separat ion of thereligious from the profane and accordingly rejects this TTreverentllorder . He attr ibutes it to the typical piety and pedant ry of the20translator in questions of chronology.

Methodologically speaking, however, an argument based onthe formal aspects of a given text should take precedence over anargument based on its possible IItendencies. t also comes f i rs tin order as one applies the several critical methods. Tendenzkritikis very much exposed to the fantasies and the biases of each exegete . In the present case the valid formal criteria derive from aprinciple already demonstrated above: when a textual corrupt ionis re la ted to a t ransposi t ion in a given text the corrupt ion isprobably caused by. and is a s ign of, that same t ransposi t ion. Inthis case the t ransposi t ion could have been made under the inf luence of the process of r ing composition or Wiederaufnahme

The proto-Massoretic text has t ransposed the ensemble formedby the two l i terary units 6:37-38a and 7: 1-12a. The evidence for

8/12/2019 bioscs15

15/33

26 JULIO TREBOLLE

these two t ransposi tions is found in the discrepancies which havebeen lef t in the present text. The insertion of this block ofmaterial in a new context has ccmsed the corrupt ion of the formof the MT in the two verses which constitute the points of insert ion and suture: 6: 36 and 7: 12b (LXX 6: 34). The text of theseverses is as follows:

6: 34[ 6: 36[KaL . 0 K o 6 6 ~ n a E vTDv aUADv tDv a u)Lcnnv

T p t ~ a L t x o u ~ aTIEAEKnTWVKat a L L X O ~ K a L L p v a a ~ E v n ~ KEOPOUKUKA08EV (:1 :10)KOL $ K o 6 6 ~ n a E K a L a T I E L a a ~ a

T i i ~ a U A i i ~TaU ULAUU TaU OLKOU ( n ~ ~ n niH7)TOU KaTa np6awnov TaU vuau

MT

6:36):1'1n l , L l l . 1 ~ i l j::tnrr hHn ll '"1ll'l nlll7111

O'I"1tl nn 1:J 111:l1

{7: 37-38a.(b)TRANSPOSITION 7:1-11

7: 49[ 7: 12a] 7:12aT n ~ a U A n ~ T n ~ ~ E y a A n ~ KUKAOLT P E r ~ OTLXOL anEAEKnTWV

:1':10 n711ln 1 ~ n ln ll 0'111:l mIJ70'11

8/12/2019 bioscs15

16/33

28 JULIO TREBOLLE

by the common al lus ion to the I1vestibule of the temple I[om MTJ and 7:3[7:15J to aUam tou oikou).

in 6: 34

IV. The Translation Equivalent lkn = ouah houtos (l > kn):Vorlage or Targum?

S. R. Driver qual if ied as I istrange ll the occasional LXX t rans-lation of the particle Zkn by an (interrogative?) ouch houtos, asthough one were dealing with l kn: 1 Kgs 22: 19; 2 Kgs 1: 4,6,16; 19: 32; 21: 12; 22: 20. 21 All these passages are found in thekaige section yo of the Greek text of 1-2 Kings. According toL. Prijs . the JlLXX I in this case employs a I i targumic l interpretation of the type dl ,tiql'a. which consists in unders tanding a wordby dividing it in o two par ts .

This T strange T vers ion, however, is not the original in theOG. t is a clue which betrays a later recension of the text.Wherever it occurs , the Antiochene text , or a t least some one ofi ts representatives, such as the Vetus Latina or the Armenianvers ion in its intermediate s tage, 22 preserves the old version.

Thus . in 2 Kgs 1: 16 the Antiochene text (bocze2) has diatouto where we f ind the reviser s phrase ouch hout08 in the res tof the MSS of the LXX. In two other cases , 2 Kgs 1:4,6, theLXXL offers a double reading, the rev iser s reading followed bythe .primitive reading: ouch houtos dia touto. In 2 Kgs 19: 32

L h A tthere is an omission in the LXX , but t e rmenlan verSlOn a .tests ppoptep hoe; the in termediate s tage of this version dependsupon the proto-Lucianic text and consequently attests dia t o u t ~in the OG. In two other cases , 2 Kgs 21: 12 and 22:20, the LXXnow presents the reviser s t ransla t ion, but again the Armenianvers ion here joined by Lucifer ppopter hoe) reflects the primitive Greek dia touto. Finally, in LXXL at 1 Kgs 22: 19 the reviser s form reappears, but significantly enough Theodoret ignoresi t .

REDACTION, RECENSION, AND MIDRASH 29In Samuel-Kings the Hebrew particle Zkn appears only five

more times: 1 Sam 2:30; 3:14; 27:6; 28:2; 1 Kgs 14:10. Thefirst four cases correspond to the s e ~ t i o n a, non-kaige, of theGreek text . In 1 Sam 2: 30 and 27: 6 all the MSS offer dia touto,confirming our supposition that this was the original vers ion ofthe LXX. In 3: 14 the reviser s form reappears in the G MSSo u ~ loueh houtos, but the VL (Pa lWrpsestus Vindobonensis) offersideo and the Ethiopic version (Aeth a) has et propterea, whichattests a Greek dia touto. In 1 Sam 28: 2 the t ransmit ted vers ionis houto, which can equally come from ouch houtos or dia touto.The passage in 1 Kgs 14: 10 forms par t of a la rger Hexaplaricaddition (vv 1-20) which was never par t of the OG and here istaken from Aquila. I ts vers ion. dia touto. is in this case thetypical Aquilan vers ion.

In order to obtain a more complete view of the t ransla t ions ofthe particle Zkn. we need to take into account also the r e ~ d e r i n gof the express ion Z kn from which the reviser s vers ion is der ived. In the only case of l, kn in a non-kaige section (1 Sam30: 23) the OG translation for Z t sUJ kn is ou poiesete houtos.All the other cases of the reading ouch houtos = MT 7,, kn) arefound in the kaige sections of the G text . This does not help tomake a comparison between the possible readings of the old ver-sion and those of the proto-Theodotionic or kaige recension foundelsewhere: 2 Sam 20: 21; 23: 5 (h,Qti ouoh houtos boc2e2 VL);2 Kgs 7: 9 t i houtos bocze,); 2 Kgs 17: 9 adikous boc,e, VL .

However, the case of 2 Sam 18: 14 is in i tself very eloquent:

Arm

kn 1]yLhtouto ego arksomai ouch houtos menadia touto ego aPksomaipropter hoc quidem praeteribo

The current text of the LXX offers a double reading. Thefirst element preserves the old vers ion, albeit in a truncated form

8/12/2019 bioscs15

17/33

30 JULIO TREBOLLE

without dia; the same form is attested by the Antiochene textreflected in the Armenian version as well, presupposing theVorlage taken - u ~ e Z . l a h . The second element corresponds to the

3reviser version made according to the proto-MT.Thus , in the books of Samuel-Kings the translation Z kn = ouch

houtos is not that of the Old Greek. t corresponds instead to thela ter hebraizing recension represented by the kaige revision.

CONCLUSION: Method in Identifyingthe Original Text of Kings

The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin variants must be studied andassessed from the perspect ive of the his tory of the biblical text .The correct use of the principles of textual and li terary criticismin restor ing the rtext depends in great measure upon followinga correct theory of the his tory of the biblical text.

The new understanding of the his tory of the text of Samuel-)Kings gained in the l ight of the MSS discovered in Cave 4 at Qumran grounds the possibility of assigning a high value to the readings and the passages of the OG and in the kaige sections) ofthe Antiochene text.

The OG t ransla ted a type of Hebrew text which had alreadybeen used by Chronicles and which has now reappeared in Hebrew.especially in 4QSama b c . Around the turn of the eras the OG wasrevised according to a Hebrew text of the proto-Massoretic type.This kaige revision in the MS tradition replaced the OG text inthe sections 1 Kgs 1- - 2: 11 and 1 Kgs 2 2 - 2 Kgs and may havelef t t races in the non-kaige section in some MSS. In those sections then, the only path capable of leading us back to the primit ive form of the Greek version is that which re traces the preLucianic substra tum of the Antiochene MSS. Consequently, aworking method consisting of a three-stage approach is neededfor the establishment and exegesis of the Hebrew Urtext of Kings:

REDACTION, RECENSION, AND MIDRASH

1) The firs t s tage is that of rediscovering the OG. Thisconsists in re-ascending the path t raced by the successive re visions TTproto-Lucianic, T proto-Theodotionic or kaige. Hexaplaric, and Lucianic) .

31

2) The second stage is that of approaching as nearly aspossible to the Hebrew Vorl-age of the first translation ,and itsrevisions. 24 In the dilemma Vorl-age or Targwn and here wespeak only for the text of Samuel-Kings) the balance weighs infavor of a non-Massoretic Vorl-age which is reproduced with ahigh degree of l i teralness by the OG translation. This primaryversion does not reflect more or less isolated Greek variants froma constant proto-Massoretic text but ra ther an independent typeof Hebrew text which had a different development.

3) The third stage consists in moving still far ther backtoward the Hebrew archetype Urtext). This implies a criticalexcuninatio of the two basic types of text : the one representedby the proto-Massoretic text reflected by the kaige and Hexaplaric recensions. and the other represented by the Hebrew textof Chronicles and by 4QSama b c in Samuel) and ref lected bythe OG. 5

This examinatio must be carr ied out before any argumentation based on possible biases in the content of the text . and i tmust utilize formal cri ter ia such as the fixed s t ructure of l i teraryformulas and genres . the l i terary procedure of transposition andinsertion of one passage into another by . e. g Wiederaufnahmeand the general principles of composition of the books of Kings.

Editors, t ranslators . and critics of the books of Kings havehad frequent recourse to the Lucianic text in the kaige sections.t is all the more significant that this preference for the Lucianic

text as nthe bet ter t ex t in these cases does not stem from a tendency favorable to i t but ra ther overcomes a prejudice widespread since the days of Rahlfs against the Lucianic revision and

8/12/2019 bioscs15

18/33

32 JULIO TREBOLLE

against any possible existence of a "lucian before Lucian. 26 Suchmodern authors, then, must ass ign a high critical value to thetype of text represented by the OG and/or by the pre-Lucianicor Antiochene text . This should not remain a merely occasionalrecognition, confined to those passages where the MT presentsan insuperable corrupt ion or difficulty. The two types of textsmust first be studied separate ly on their own merits. Either orboth of the two t ex t - types may sometimes reflect previous secondary redactional act ivi ty. Consequent ly, the analysis of the re -censional history of these texts constitutes a necessary stepmethodologically prior to the li terary analysis of the chronologically prior history of the composition and redaction of the crit ically-identified Urtext.

NOTES* wish to thank Professor John Strugnel l of Harvard foroffering corrections in the manuscr ipt and F. Normand Bonneauof Worcester, Massachusetts, for t ransla t ing the Spanish originalinto English.Noth, Uberlieferungsgesahichtliche Si:udien I : Die sam-melnden und beal beitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament(Schriften der Konigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft. Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse 18; Halle: Niemeyer, 1943).

2H. S. Nyberg. ITDas textkrit ische Problem des Alten Testa-ments am Hoseabuche demonstr ier t , T r i52 (1934) 241-54. Awork of earlier times, as valuable as it is forgotten, is that of H.Hrozny, Die Aooeichungen des Codex vaticanus Vom hebl aischen .Texte in den Konigshuahern (Leipzig: Drugulin, 1909).

3J . W. Weyers, II Exegetical Principles Underlying, the Septu-agint Text of 1 Kings i i 12 - xxi 43, OTS 8 (950) 300-22; ITPrinciples of Interpretation Guiding the Fourth Translator of theBook of the Kingdoms (3 K. 2 2: 1 - 4 K. 25: 30) ." CEQ 14 (1952)40-56; D. W. Gooding, ITProblems of Text and Midrash n theThird Book of Reigns,l Textus 7 9 6 9 ) 1-29; ReHas of AnaientExegesis, A Study o f the Miscellanies in 5 Reigns 2 (SOTSMS 4;Cambridge: University Press , 1976); R. P. Gordon, liThe SecondSeptuagint Account of Jeroboam: History or Midrash?" VT 25 1975)368-93.

REDACTION. RECENSION. AND MIDRASH 33

\1. Noth, Die Welt des Alten Testaments: EinfUhrung in dieGl enzgebiete der alttestamentliahen Wissensahaft (2d ed.; Berlin:Topelmann, 1953) 286.

5W. F. Albright . "New Light on Early Recensions of the He brew Bible,lI BASOR 140 (1955) 27-33: D. Barthelemy, Les DeVan-aiel S d Aquila (VTSup 10: Leiden: Brill, 1963); F. M. Cross ,ITThe History of the Biblical T.ext in the Light of Discoveries inthe Judaean Desert,lT HTR 57 964) 281-99; liThe Evolution of aTheory of Local Texts, Qumran and the History of the BibliaalText (ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon; Cambridge, MA London:Harvard Univers i ty, 1975) 306-20; E. C. Ulrich, The Qumran TextOf Scurruel and Josephus HSM 19; Missoula: Scholars, 1978) j E.Tov, TlDetermining the Relationship between the Qumran Scrollsand the LXX: Some Methodological Issues, The Hebrew and GreekTexts o f Scurruel (1980 Proceedings IOSCS; Jerusalem: Academon,1980) 45-67.

6J . A. Montgomery, The Books of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh:Clark. 1951) 249, M. Noth. KEnige (BKAT 9/1, NeukirchenVluyn: Neuk irchener Verlag, 1968) 265; A. Jepsen, Die Quellendes Konigsbuches (2d ed. j Halle: Niemeyer, 1956) 2; J . Gray,I and I I Kings: A Commentary (2d ed . , London: SCM. 1970) 301.7Matt 2:3-15, d . S. Smith. The Statue of Idri-mi (London:The British Insti tute of Archeology in Ankara , 1949) 14-5.80 . W. Gooding, liThe Septuagint 's Rival Versions of Jeroboamls Rise to Power. VT 17 (1967) 173-89, d . 178; R. W. Klein,

TlJeroboam's Ri'se to Power," JBL 89 (1970) 217-8.9Cf. also 1 Kgs 21:15: 1Jhy Mmc . ky sql rlbblt 1>Iymt10C. the text of the MSS boc2ez in 11:.43: eK.ousen) hotitethneke Solomon l lJ . Wellhausen, Israelit isahe und JUdische Gesahichte (2d

ed . ; Berlin: Reimer, 1895) 57; R. Kit tel Geschiahte des VolkesIsrael (7th ed . , Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1925) 2.219-20, M Noth.Gesahichte Isl aels (6th ed . ; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht ,1966) 208. For the contrary view, d . J . A. Montgomery, Kings1951) 248, J . Bright. A History o f Israel (2d ed . , London: SCM.1972) 226. For the whole discussion, d . J . Trebolle, Salomon yJeroboan: Historia de la reaension y redaacion de 1 Rey. 2-12; 14(Bibliotheca Salrnanticensis, Dissertationes 3; Salamanca/Jerusalen:Universidad Pontificia/lnstituto Espanol Biblico y Arqueo16gico,1980) 226-31.

12Cf. E. Meyer, "Bericht der Septuaginta i iber Jeroboam, II

8/12/2019 bioscs15

19/33

34 JULIO TREBOLLE

Die Is:raeliten und ihr>e NachbarstGmme (Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen; Halle: Niemeyer, 1906) 363-70.l3 Sh . R. Bin-Nun, II Formulas from Royal Records of Israeland Judah, V 18 (968) 414-32; E. Cortese , liLa schema deu

teronomistico per i re di Giuda e d'Israele," Bib 56 (1975) 37-52;J Debus, Die Sunde Jerobeams: Studien zur Da rstelZung Jerobeams und der Geschichte des Nordreiches in der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (FRLANT 93; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht , 1967) 86; J . Trebolle , Salom6n y Jeroboan,84-109.

14Cf. S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literoature othe Old Testament (5th ed ; Edinburgh: Clark, 1894) 179; J D.Shenkel , Chronology and RecensionaZ Development in the GreekText Of Kings (HSM 1; Cambridge. MA: Harvard University. 1968)58, 73-86.

15Cf. Shenkel , Chronology, 69, 73, 82.160 . Eissfe1dt, The old Testament: An Introduation (Oxford:Blackwell, 1965) 294.17Note the comment of J A. Montgomery (Kings [1951] 434)concerning Lucian 's 1faculty of putting things in their r ight place. 118Cf. A. Jepsen, Die Quell-en.19This is a very promising field of research. For the moment,cf. J Trebolle, Salomon, 168-85.20D . W. Gooding, lIPedantic Timetabling in the 3rd Book ofReigns,lI V 15 (1965) 153-66, d 155-6; contrast Trebolle, Salo

mon 307-20.21 .S. R Driver, Notes on the Hebre il Text o the Books o

ScunueZ (2d ed ; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 44; cf. L. Pri js ,JUdisahe Tradition in del Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948) 59-61.22B . Johnson, Die armenisahe BibeZUbersetaung aZs hexapZanscher Zeuge im 1. SamueZbuah (ConB, OT Series 2; Lund: G1eerup,

1968) 96.23Barthelemy. Lea Devaneiers, 116.240n the whole question of the reconstruction of the Hebrewtext underlying the LXX, see E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use othe Septuagint in BibUaal Resea:r>ah (Jerusalem Biblical Studies

3; Jerusalem: Simor, 1981).


SThe quest ion about the "better textll then concerns theearlier period of the edi tors . ra ther than that of more or lesscareless or innovative later copyis ts . At that earlier stage thelimits between higher and lower criticism become ra ther fluid andboth methods must work side by side. Cf. D. Barthelemy, "Notescritiques s u r quelques points d 'histoire du texte, II Etudes d histoire du texte de Z Anaien Testament (Orbis Biblicus et OrientaUs 21; Fribourg/Gott ingen: Editions Universitaires Fribourg/Vandenhoeck Ruprecht , 1978) 289-303, esp. 296-7; liLa qualitedu texte massoretique de Samuel, The Hebre il and Greek Textsof Samuel, 1-44.

26Rahlfs , Luaians Rezension del KOnigsbUeher (SeptuagintaStudien 3; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht , 1911) 290-5.

8/12/2019 bioscs15

20/33

Ioses 15 (1982) 36-50

A SHORT COMMENTARY ON SOME VERSESOF THE OLD GREEK OF ISAIAH 23

Arie van der KooijUnivers i ty of Utrecht. Holland

As is well known, there are many and sometimes strikingdifferences between the Massoretic text of the book of Isaiah(MT Isa) and the Old Greek of this book (LXX Isa). Severalexplanations for these differences have been given in the lastcentury. Some scholars believed that the Vorlage of the LXX Isawas markedly different from the MT Isa. 1 Others. however ,criticized this view in their opinion most differences were thework of the translator and were due mainly to factors such asfaulty knowledge of the Hebrew language, misreadings, influenceof the Aramaic, attempts to produce good Kaine Greek, and predilection for a free and paraphrasing translation. 2 To these andother supposed factors 1. L. Seeligmann added a new one: amarked tendency toward contemporization by means of fulfillmentinterpretation of the old oracles of the prophet Isaiah. 3

My own research on the LXX Isa has led me to the convictionthat this fea ture of the LXX Isa, as suggested by Seeligmann, isan important key not only for ,explaining differences between theHebrew a'nd the Greek text of Isaiah, 'but also for a bet te r under s tanding of the Greek text itself. Recently I have dealt with sometexts of the LXX Isa as examples of fulfillment-interpretation inDie alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches In this present article

36

COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH 23 37

I will deal with some verses of LXX lsa 23 as another example ofthis kind of interpretation.

Seeligmaun adheres to the view tha t one can discover suchinterpre ta t ions only Hin isolated, free renderings, 5 t is to beasked. however whether one has to look upon free and in te r pretative renderings as lTisolatedl from their Greek context .According to Seeligmann, one should not t ry l i to discover logicalconnexions in any chapter or par t of a chapter in our Septuaginttext. 6 as K. F. Euler did with LXX Isa 53 . 7 Seeligmann s tudiesthe LXX l sa in relation to the Hebrew Vorlage exclusively andconsiders i t unjustified to deal with the LXX lsa as a coherenttext with its own meaning. Euler, on the other hand, aimed att rea t ing LXX Isa 53 in both respects. J . M. Coste did the samewith LXX Isa 25: 1_58 and reached the conclusion that the Greekpassage in those verses, while very arbitrary in relation to theHebrew, turns out to be a meaningful unity on its own. J. C. M.das Neves dealt in the same way with LXX Isa 24. 9

t is in this twofold way that I will deal in this article withsome verses of LXX Isa 23: (a) the Greek text in relation to theHebrew text (primarily in a descr ipt ive way) , and (b) the Greektext on its own. As to Iithe Hebrew text , important readings ofQumran MSS will be mentioned alongside the MT: first , readingsof lQIsaa (contemporary with the LXX Isa . and then readings ofb a c 10lQlsa , 4Qlsa , and 4Qlsa .

23: The Heading) jo> 1 llllO - TO o p ~ Tupou.The rendering apOllO (or apoaL

8/12/2019 bioscs15

21/33

38 ARIE V AN DER KOOIJ

23: 1 W'lttl'ltl h) 1;JH 11 1; /1 - OA.OAU

8/12/2019 bioscs15

22/33


Lady of the seall? i 'JV I '1K - DlrK-ETL. n1\.o La: not tobe re la ted to a hypothetical rn I.;:nf (see above). but moreprobably to be related to In t l :::: lQIsaa , in terpreted asnm harbor l1 (see below).

23:14 17'7'D - OAOAUCtw ~ J n n l J ~ - ITAoLa K a p x n 6 6 v o ~

l ~ l v n 1 1 ~ - OtL aITWAtO to o x 6 p w ~ a u ~ w v .MT-LXX: Tarshish - nCarthage ll : see v 1.t is clear that vv 10 and 14 in Greek are closely connected

with v 1. Verse 14 offers the subject of alIWAE [o: [0 oxupwllaUIlWV lI your stronghold t (namely, the stronghold of the ships ofCarthage . Verse lOb (on v lOa see below) shows close agreementwith v 1:

1

8/12/2019 bioscs15

23/33


that is to say. outside the home harbor. 26 This may be the reason why the t ransla tor did not t ransla te t l ' l jb; Carthage was nota llhouse for the ships of Carthage.23:2-3 lLlj (lb '?l - TLvL OIlOLOL YEy6vuOLV

'It{ I:Jtll l. - oL EVOL1COUV'tEe; tv tfj vnmp1 1 1 ~ ,no - ~ ~ a ~ 6 A O L ~ O L V 1 K n ~

1 1 ~ 7 n D' 'JY - 5 L a r r p w v ~ ~ ~ n v e&AaaaavO'l:Ji O'lb:Jl - tv U6UTL r r o A A ~

nw Y T - a r r E p ~ a ~ ~ a ~ 6 A W vDDK1:JD i lK ) j ) ~ P - we; allnTOU ELO EPOIlEVOU

0)11 inn )nnl - oL IlETUS6AoL TWV E8vwv.MT-LXX: Ib? (MT v lf in) - 'rl,VL: via )b? ; I b ; = lQlsaa ,4Qlsaa. lLlj - OjlOLOL YEy6vuOLV: via nbj I (Obl MT)., no (v 2), inw and inO (v 3): these three words haveall been rendered by IlETUSoAo L (the sg. understood collectively; inw interpreted as inO via phonetic similarityof W/O).27 1 1 1 ' ~ - ~ o L v t K n : d . D ' J 1 ' ~ - ~ O L V l ~Deut 3: 9 (and see below). ,:JOY - 6 L < ~ m E P w V T E C ; : the sg.. a a 28ptcp. understood collectlvely (1 j:JY 1Qlsa and 4Qlsa ) .There is no rendering of 11 K?Ll (for the Qumran readings,see below). O'lb:J1 - EV U6U'tL: MT(-1 +) = lQlsaa ,b a1QIsa J 4Qlsa .parison. the MTno rendering of

we allll ' tou : the LXX offers a comdoes not; MT = lQIsaa , 4QIsaa , There is,1M'; MT = lQIsaa and 4QIsaa ( ' ~ 1 ' ) .

There is no rendering of ) flDi; MT = lQIsaa and 4Qlsaa.The LXX reflects a sense-division in vv 2-3 different fromthat of the MT (with 107 of v 1).The s t ructure of the Greek text is clear: it consists of a long

in terrogat ive sentence L l v l Oll-O LO L YEYOVUO LV orrEPI-lU IlETO-29 .3oAwv, and a clause wIth an answer we; UllnTOU.. . . By the

inhabitants IIOf the isle are meant the people of Tyre . Thus,whereas in v 1 ships of Carthage (in the harbor of Tyre) are ad -

'


dressed, vv 2 and 3 in Greek have the inhabitants of Tyre astheir subject . The text further makes clear which inhabi tants ofTyre the t ransla tor has in view: the IlE'C0[30AOL cDOLVLXnC;.They are the important persons of vv 2-3, as is underlined by thefact that the word IlETU[36J\.oc; occurs three times in these twoverses. Here this Greek word is the rendering for the Hebrew,no, a unique rendering of th is Hebrew word in the LXX Isa (c f .only 47: 15: IlETUSOAn for InO) and in the LXX of the OT. Theusual translation of ino is ~ l l r r o P O C ; , EIl'llOPLU, EIlJt6pLOV, asis the case in the res t of our chapter (see v 8 and vv 17-18) andelsewhere in the res t of the LXX (see. e . g LXX Ezek 27).

The IlETUS6Aoe; is the re ta i ler , the small business man, whosells in small quanti t ies . 30 The word occurs but rarely, so, forins tance, in the ITRevenue LawsTl of King Ptolemy Philadelphus(third century B.C.) .31 Like the ld:mnAoc; (see LXX l sa 1:22) ,the IlE'tuS6AoC; s tands in contrast to the EIlJIOPOC; (see 23: 8),who is the merchant, the t rader , the big business man. I t meansthat the inhabitants of Tyre were not the merchants of Phoenicia,but its retailers.

As a result of the rendering oLvLKn for l i l ) : the Greekof vv 2-3 presupposes that Tyre was regarded as the metropolisof Phoenicia. As we know, this was indeed the case in the Hellenistic period. In this respect as well as for the interpreta t ionof OLVLKn for l i j ) ~ , the legend on Tyrian coins from the t imeof Antiochus IV is very significant: O)j:;,t OK i:;,t? 32

Whereas the Hebrew of vv 2-3 does not contain such a comparison, the Greek of these verses compares the retailers of Phoe-

"" th h h d" 33nlCla WI a arvest gat ere m . Is this the result of a mis-understanding of the Hebrew text? Ziegler remarks in connectionwith the rendering we (al l l lTou): T1Der f ibers . kannte sich inder Konstruktion der hebr . Vorlage nicht aus, und hat frei wezur Verdeutlichung eingeschoben,T1 34 This , in my view, is an

8/12/2019 bioscs15

24/33

44 ARIE VAN DER KOOIJ

underestimation of the t ransla tor on the one hand, and on theother too I lmodern l a criticism of an I 'ancient l t ransla tor , as faras philological principles are concerned. When one reads theGreek of vv 2-3 against the background of the contents of v 1(see above) J then the meaning of these verses becomes quiteclear: the re ta i lers in Tyre have become l ike a harvest gatheredin. because the important t rading center . Carthage, is destroyed;ships with merchants and merchandise no longer come from Carthage to Tyre , so tha t the retailers in Tyre , instead of crossingover the sea, have to stay at home l i a s a harvest gathered in. IIThey are without employment.

In orde r to be able to make his translation of vv 2-3, thet ransla tor evidently dealt I freelyll with the Hebrew text, as infact is often t he case in the LXX Isa . He connected 'l b 7 with11:)1, r ead I b ? as I b ? (via the graphic similarity of II' ), 35and in terpreted I?:Ii via the root iT?:I11 He lef t some minor wordsuntranslated, and added w (see the remarks above) .

There is one more important word, however, which he did nott ransla te : 11Hib According to Ottley, the LXX has lIomittedit,I1 36 but he offers no suggest ion as to the reason for this omission. Ziegler s ta tes : lILXX hat diesen Vers ganz frei wiedergegeben und kam mit Nt) nicht zurecht .

n37Although it is notquite certain which reading stood in the Vorl age of the LXX Isa

(l ::lW>n lQIsa a , lQIsab = MT, [ l ~ 7 n 4QIsaa) , t he suppor t forthe MT of lQlsab which. unlike lQIsaa. is a conservative andaccurate text - type, is in favor of the reading l1K7n. I f then we38may assume tha t th is reading was in the Vorl age of the LXX Isa ,and i f it was unders tood in the sense of IIthey filled you (Tyre),11one can imagine why it was left untransla ted. I t would mean thatthe retail.ers of Phoenicia l filledtT Tyre . This , however. was notthe case. t was not the IlETaI36Aol, but the EIlJlOPOl (li me r-chants . t raders ) . who "filled ll a city l ike Tyre . There is a textin one of Ezekiells prophecies against Tyre . viz. , Ezek 27:25,


which confirms this: . 'IH'7nnl l:Jiyn l"nl'1tll W'lttl'1n n l l ) ~nAota, V aUTote Kapxn56vlOl f ~ n o p o t aov. , Kal EV-EnAna8nc . . ,. Therefore , I think. the t ransla tor could not usethe Hebrew 1 l Ll in his interpre ta t ion of vv 2-3.

Finally , passing over the interes t ing vv 6-8. I re turn to v lOa.23: lOa 1 ~ 1 ~ 1::lY - E P V ~ O U ,flv viiv aou.

MT- LXX: see above.Accord ing to Seelig mann , t he LXX echose here the transforma

tion of Carthage from a commercial sta te in to an agricul tura l sta teaf ter the destruct ion of i ts ships .39 In l ight of the above, however . it is more probable tha t Tyre is meant in this passage: afterthe destruct ion of Carthage there is no longer work for the re ta ilers in Tyre , since ships with merchants and merchandise nolonger come from Carthage (see v lOb); t hus there is nothing lef tfor Tyre bu t tilling i ts land.

The render ing epya(,:ov for '" '1:JY suggests the reading . f:JV,This is also the reading of lQIsaa ; 4QIsaa ("I jl:J 'Y), on the otherhand. agrees with the MT. Because of the fact that the expres sion Y lfl 1:J Y in the sense of IItilI the land ll does not occur inbibl ical Hebrew (one always f inds i T b ~ 1:JV). 40 t he reading ::IVof the MT and of 4Qlsaa must be the older and bet ter reading. tseems more l ikely, therefore , to look at the render ing Epya/:ouas resul t ing from some kind of Jlinterpretationll of . j:J Y (via thegraphic similarity of 1/1 ) 41 t han to assume that the VorZage ofthe LXX contained the reading . I:J'Y.

This interpre ta t ion forms par t of the interpre ta t ion of Isa 23as a whole in the LXX Isa . From the fact that lQlsaa also containsthe reading "I:J'Y, the question arises whether the author of thisMS in terpreted the text of Isa 23: 10 (and of th is chapter as a whole)in a similar way. This question, however, cannot be dealt with inthis article. although, as I have t r ied to point out elsewhere. thereis some evidence of fulfi l lment-interpretation in lQlsaa also. 42

8/12/2019 bioscs15

25/33


IIIThe above may have shown that it is worthwhile to s tudy the

text of the LXX Isa n a twofold way, namely, in relation to theMT Isa (including the evidence of the Qumran MSS of Isaiah) andon i ts own. Much more, of course , can and should be said aboutLXX Isa 23. but our short commentary on some verses of thischapter may suffice as an illustration of the way in which theauthor of the LXX I sa dealt with his Hebrew VorZG {Je and how heconstructed his t ransla t ion. Differences between the Hebrew andthe Greek in the verses of Isa 23 which we discussed need not beexplained as arising from a faulty knowledge of the Hebrew. fromrnisreadings. etc . but are , n my opinion, ra ther to be seen asresul t ing from a well-reasoned interpre ta t ion of Isa 23 by means of

f J h . 43cer ta in techniques also known rom other anCIent eWIs exegesIS.Some additions and omissions likewise are the result of a specificinterpre ta t ion of this chapter. Too often translations like the LXXIsa as well as other books in the LXX are criticized on the basis ofour philological cr i ter ia and from our exegetical view of the Hebrewtext.

The quest ion of the coherence of the Greek text of Isa 23 cannot be dealt with until a full treatment of this chapter has beencarr ied out . Yet the verses we have commented on do show ameaningful coherence. t would not be f rui t ful to t rea t the II freerenderings I in our verses as II isolated ones.

Our short commentary, fur ther may have pointed out tha t LXXIsa 23 is not only a t ransla t ion, but also a specific interpre ta t ionof this old Hebrew oracle against Tyre . The Greek text (of someverses) of LXX Isa 2:5 reflects the author ' s belief that the IIvisionof Tyre" once spoken and wri t ten by the prophet Isaiah was fulfilled in his own time when Carthage was destroyed and Tyre wasconfronted with the consequences of the downfall of her mightydaughter. What is said about Daniel can be said about the authorof LXX Isa 23: evidently he was qualified (and authorized ) to

COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH 2344in terpre t visions (see Dan 1: 17) .

47

Finally, one does not find our exegesis of these verses of LXXIsa 23 in the earliest (Christian) commentaries on the LXX Isa (ofEusebius , Jerome, and others). They connect the contents of thischapter with the siege of Tyre by K:ing Nebuchadnezzar d . Ezek26: 7). One ear ly C hris t ian t radi t ion, however, has interpretedLXX Isa 23, albeit in i ts Old Latin translation, as referring toCarthage, for two Il ca p itula ll (nos. LVIII and LVIIII) from theAfrican branch of the VL read as follows: liS erma Domini superCartaginem (23,1) , II "Quod septuaginta annis esset deser ta Cartago (23.14) et res t i tuere tur . I45

NOTES

lSee A. Scholz, Die Alexandrinische Ubersetzung des BuchesJesaias (Wiirzburg, 1880); E. Liebmann, "Der Text zu Jesaia 24 -27, Z W 22 (1902) 1-56.2See R. R. Ottley, The Book Of Isaiah aacording to the Sep-tuagint I (Cambridge, 1909); J . Fischer , In welaher Schrift Zagdas Buah Isaias der LXX vor? Eine textkPitisahe Studie BZAW

56; Giessen, 1930); J . Ziegler, Untersuahungen zur Septuagintades Buches Isaias ~ U n s t e r 1934).31. L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version o Isaiah: A Dis-cussion o i t s ProbZems (Leiden, 1948).4A . van der Kooij, Die aZten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: EinBeitrag zur Textgesahichte des AZten Testaments (Orbis Biblicuset Orientalis 35; Fribourg Gott ingen, 1981) 34-60.5Septuagint Version, 41.6Ibid .7Euler , Die VerkUndigung Vom Zeidenden Gottesknecht aus Jes.Ziii in der grieahischen BibeZ , BWANT 4/14; Leipzig, 1934).8Coste, "Le texte grec d' lsa le XXV 1-5, RB 61 (1954) 36-66.9Das Neves, A TeoZogia da Traduqao Grega dos Setenta noLivro de Isaias Cap. 24 de Isaias) (Lisboa, 1973). L. Laberge,

on the other hand, n his recent publication on the LXX Isa La

8/12/2019 bioscs15

26/33


Septante d Isaie 28-33: Etude de tradition texttteZle, Ottawa,1978) deals with the Greek text in relation to the Hebrew only.

lOr thank Dr. E. Ulrich very much for sending me photocopiesof 4QIsaa and of 4QIsac as far as their material from chap. 23 isconcerned. 4QIsaa dates from the second half of the first centuryB.C. , and 4QIsac from the middle of the first century A.D.; onthis see P. W. Skehan in DBSup 9, Fasc. 51 Paris. 1978) Sll.

11See my Textzeugen. 44 and 64.12C. LXX Ezek 27:12,25: 38:13: Kapxn66vLOL for ti l w,n.13This is the usual interpretation in the Targumim and in theVulgate of Jerome see also the following note) .14It is not clear which country is meant. On the problem ofthe identification of Tarshish including the views of both ancientand modern writers) , see now G. Bunnens, L expansion phenicienne en Mediterranee: Essai d interpretation fonde sur une analyse des tradit ions l i t teraires Etudes de l lns t i tu t his tor iqueBeIge de Rome, Tome 17; Bruxelles/Rome, 1979) 331-48: lTuneregion occidentale indeterminee, n p . 348.150n the date of the foundation of Carthage according to theavailable l i terary sources about 814 B.C. ) , see H. J . Katzenstein, The istory Of Tyre Jerusalem, 1973) 188f.; G. Bunnens,L e:cpansion p h e n i o i e n n e ~ 317-24.16Schrift , Sf.17Septuagint Version, 90.

l ~ . g . Fischer, Sclwif t , 5.19Ottley , The Book o Isaiah, 2.217.20See Fischer, Schrift , 39; Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 144.See also H. Wildberger, Jesaja BK 10/11,12; Neukirchen, 1978) 857.21Another point in favor of this reading is the fact that MS A

in the LXX l sa is closer than MS B to the original OG of this ver-sion; see Ziegler, LXX Isaias, 21ff.22Cf . Josephus, Ant. I. 128: nChetimos held the island of

Chetima - the modern Cyprus - whence the name Chethi:m givenby the Hebrews to all is lands and to most maritime countries T inthe t ransla t ion of H. St .J . Thackeray in the Loeb edition).

23See my Textzeugen, 68 with other examples from the LXX


lsa) , and see also E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use o the Septuagint in BibZi.cal Research Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3; Jerusa-lem, 1981) 204f. On this technique as one of the types of dt t:iqr@midrash, see now C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and OtherTheological COPrections in the Massoretic_Text o the Old Testament OBO 36; Fribourg/Gott ingen, 1981) 141. In contrast , cf.Wildberger (Jesaja, 857): ITntO wurdevon G nicht verstandenund darum weggelassen.

24See B. H. Warmington, Karthago: Aufst ieg und Untergangeinep antiken Weltstadt Wiesbaden, 1964 2 ) 253.25 The Book o Isaiah, 2.215.26See P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria. Vo1.l: Text Oxford,1972) 185.27See Textzeugen, 68, and Tov, Text-Critical Use 200-3.28For i:J. Y - 6 Lmn:paw, see also Deut 30: 13 MT and LXX).29With Ziegler; contra Ottley, 1.147.30See M. I Finkelstein, TIEll1topo

8/12/2019 bioscs15

27/33


380ne cannot take it for granted, of course , that this andother readings n the Vorl..age of the LXX lsa were also the original ones in the Hebrew text of the book of Isaiah.

39septuagint Version 91.40ContraWildberger, Jesa;ja 857, 876.41See note 35.

~ e e TeJ tzeugen, 83-94.43See further Tectzeugen 66-9.44 h th i s see Teretzeugen, 64. Cf. also the peeher-technique,

known from the commentaries of the Qumran community.45See Bibtifl. Sacra iucta Latinan Vulgatcm Versionem 13: Isai s Romae, 1969) 17. See also the remarks on these TTcapitulaon p . 9: Tlad persecutiones Constantini vel filiorum eius adversusDonatistas fortasse referendum.

Ioses 15 1982) 51-9

GUIDELINES FOR EDITIONS OFARMENIAN BIBLICAL TEXTS

Michael E. Stone and Clapde E. CoxHebrew University and Brandon University

Considerable experience has been gained over the past decadein the preparing of critical editions of Armenian biblical texts andassociated documents. 1 Editions of a number of texts have ap -peared ,2 and the preparat ion of others is underway.3 This makesthe stand,ardization of procedures very desirable, so tha t futureeditions form a coherent corpus of critically edited biblical texts .Type of Edition

Most of the editions published so far have been diplomatic,minor edi t ions . They were based on a carefully selected group ofmanuscr ipts , des igned both to present the most valuable text typeand also to represent the range of developments of the Armeniantextual t radi t ion. The base text for the edition should be the bestisolable text form. The procedures for the selection were set forthby M. E. Stone in a series of articles in the 1970s and first appliedin the selection of a base manuscr ipt for an edition of Isaiah, andthen of the manuscripts to be used in an edition of the Testamentsof the Twelve Patriarchs. The first published edition based onthis procedure was that of the Testament of Joseph. The proce-dures establ ished by Stone were ref ined and improved by Cox inthe preliminary work for his edition of Deuteronomy and this re -fined method was applied in that edition. 5 This method of prepara t ion has been found suitable in the present state of scholarship,since the number of manuscr ipts is usually very high, and the

51

8/12/2019 bioscs15

28/33

52 M. E. STONE AND C. E. COX

understanding of the version not sufficiently advanced for thepreparat ion of full crit ical editions. 6 Moreover, the presentdeplorable situation of editions of the Armenian Bible makes itdesirable, at the present . to have reliable editiones minores ofas many books as possible. The methodology developed by Stoneand Cox is much more economical of time than the preparation offull critical editions.

This is , of course , only to be regarded as an interim step;once we have advanced our knowledge of the manuscript traditions,of the character of the version, and of other aspects of th is s tudy,the way should be open for a decision whether to proceed to fullcritical editions.Format

The format that has been used in the editions mentioned sofar is a modified form of tha t used for the Gottingen LXX. t isstrongly urged by the wri ters that scholars undertaking sucheditions in the fu ture use the same techniques for presentation ofthe text and apparatus . Sample pages are given below of heArmenian Version o f IV Ezra and The Armenian Translation ofDeuteronomy. t is also to be our practice in the future to usethe expanded l is t of sigla here published, so tha t all editions subsequent to Coxs Deuteronomy will refer to the same manuscript bythe same number. t is s trongly urged tha t as new manuscriptsare known or util ized, they be added to th is l is t in consultationwith the w ri ters , who, in conjunction with the Matenadaran inYerevan, will publish up-dat ings of it from time to time. The Bul-l tin Of the IOS S and the Revue des Etudes Armeniennes havekindly agreed to serve as organs of publication for th is material.Range of Witnesses

On the basis of s tudies carr ied out so far , i t seems very de sirable to expand the range of witnesses which are consulted inthe selection of text forms for inclusion in editions. This range

GUIDELINES FOR EDITIONS OF ARMENIAN 53

of witnesses should include: a) manuscripts; b) lectionariesand other liturgical books; c) citations, part icular ly patristic; and

d) other witnesses, such as commentaries, inscr ipt ions, e tc . 7Publication and Consultation

So far. the editions have been published from camera-readycopy n the University o f Pennsylvania Annenian Texts and StudiesThis has had the resul t of keeping the cost of the books withinreasonable bounds. t is suggested that scholars involved in thepreparat ion of editions of Armenian translations of biblical booksand cognate works be in regular contact and consultation. Thiswill permit the pooling of resources and economy of s tudy. Thatis a matter particularly relevant for any planned editions to beprepared on computer. The use of mutually agreed norms in thisarea will be highly beneficial. 8

Central List of Numbers for Designat ing rmenian BiblesThe following list offers a numb er for each Armenian Bible.

t is taken from The Armenian Translation Of Deuteronomy pp.16-31, which, in turn is based on a list published in Yerevan byA. Zeytunianin 1977.

Reproduced here are only the central number, the location, andthe l ibrary number of each manuscript if the shelf and cataloguenumber differ, the catalogue number is given in parentheses) .9 Forfur ther details see The Armenian Translation o f Deuteronomy.

Venice, 13 Jerusalem, 2 Yerevan,San Lazzaro Armenian Patri- Matenadaran1311 20) archate 1925 179

8 Yerevan, 4 Yerevan, 22 Yerevan,Matenadaran Matenadaran Matenadaran178 345 1809 Venice, 7 Jerusalem, 26 Yerevan,San Lazzaro Armenian Patri- Matenadaran1312 17) archate 353 177

8/12/2019 bioscs15

29/33

54 M. E. STONE AND C. E. COX GUIDELINES FOR EDITIONS OF ARMENIAN 5528 Yerevan, 65 Venice, 96 Yerevan, 130 Yerevan, 148 Jerusalem', 170 New Ju l f a AllMatenadaran San Lazzaro Matenadaran Matenadaran Armenian Patri- Saviour ' 5 Yank1500 935(8) 207 2628 archate 1928 15 (1)33 Venice, 67 New Ju l fa All 102 Jerusalem, 131 Venice, 149 Yerevan, 171 Yerevan,San Lazzaro Saviour s Yank Armenian Patri- San Lazzaro Matenadaran Matenadaran841(5) 336(23) archate 297 1507 (13) 4905 19138 Venice, 69 Yerevan, 108 Yerevan, 132 Jerusalem, 151 Yerevan, 173 Yerevan,San Lazzaro Matenadaran Matenadaran Armenian Pa t r i - Matenadaran Matenadaran1006(6) 352 2585 archate 1127 189 20240 Leningrad, 70 Vienna, Mechi- 112 Jerusalem, 135 Venice, San 153 Jerusalem, 174 Yerevan,

Hermitage t a r i s t Library Annenian Patri- Lazzaro Kurtian Armenian Patri- MatenadaranVP-1011 55 14) archate 3043 Collect ion 37 archate 1927 20342 Vienna, Mechi- 72 Yerevan, 113 Vienna, Osterr. 136 Yerevan, 156 Yerevan, 176 Yerevan,ta r i s t Library Matenadaran Nationalbibltk. Matenadaran Matenadaran Matenadaran71 (29) 4113 Cod. Arm. 11 187 200 628144 Yerevan, 73 Yerevan, 114 Yerevan, 138 Jerusalem, 157 Yerevan, 178 Yerevan,Matenadaran Matenadaran Matenadaran Armenian Patri- Matenadaran Matenadaran182 346 4114 archate 1932 348 270650 Yerevan, 74 Yerevan, 115 Yerevan, 139 Yerevan, 158 Yerevan, 182 Yerevan,Matenadaran Matenadaran Matenadaran Matenadaran Matenadaran Matenadaran6230 184 186 2669 7623 34955 Yerevan, 81 Yerevan, 116 Jerusalem, 141 Venice, 159 Venice, 188 Yerevan,Matenadaran Matenadaran Armenian Patri- San Lazzaro San Lazzaro Matenadaran353 354 archate 2558 1634 (2) 229(4) 35056 Yerevan, 83 Yerevan, 118 Yerevan, 142 Yerevan, 160 Jerusalem, 193 Yerevan,Matenadaran Matenadaran Matenadaran Matenadaran Armenian Patri- Matenadaran206 2705 351 188 archate 542 20457 Venice, 85 Yerevan, 121 Jerusalem, 143 Jerusalem, 161 Venice, 194 Yerevan,San Lazzaro Matenadaran Armenian Patri- Armenian Patri- San Lazzaro Matenadaran1508 1) 6569 archate 428 archate 1934 1182 7) 20559 Leningrad, 93 Venice, 122 Jerusalem, 144 Jerusalem, 162 Yerevan, 199 Yerevan,Oriental Insti- San Lazzaro Armenian Patri- Armenian Patri- Matenadaran Matenadarantute Bl 1270 9) archate 2560 archate 1933 347 265861 Venice, 94 Bzonunar, 123 Rome 146 Yerevan, 164 Yerevan, 200 Yerevan,San Lazzaro Convent of Our Vatican Matenadaran Matenadaran Matenadaran1007 12) Lady 310 1) Armeno 1 2587 190 273263 Yerevan, 95 Venice, 129 Bzonunar, 147 Venice, 165 Yerevan, 202 Yerevan,Matenadaran San Lazzaro Convent of Our San Lazzaro Matenadaran Matenadaran2627 280 (10) Lady 26(2) 623(3) 201 3705

8/12/2019 bioscs15

30/33

56 M. E. STONE AND C. E. COX

213 Jerusalem, 220 New Jul fa , All 231 Dublin,Armenian Patri- Saviour s Yank Chester Beattyarchate 501 17(3) Library 553216 Jerusalem, 223 Oxford, 232 Jerusalem,Armenian Patri- Bodleian Library Armenian Patri-archate 1929 Arm d. 14 archate 3438217 Jerusalem, 224 London, 233 London. Brit ishArmenian Patri- Brit ish Museum and Foreignarchate 2557 Oriental 8833 Bible Socie ty218 Jerusalem, 229 London, ambeth 234 Leningrad.Armenian Patri- Palace, codex Oriental Ins t i -archate 2561 Vet. Test . 1219 tute C29219 New Jul fa , All 230 Dublin, 235 Jerusalem,Saviour s Yank Chester Beatty Armenian Patri-16 (2) Library 552 archate 2559

NOTES1For a survey of the present status of s tudies see C. Cox,

II Biblical Studies and the Armenian Bible: 1955-1980, n RevueBiblique 89 1982) 99-113 and IIA Report on the Critical Edition ofthe Armenian Bible, Revue des Etudes Armeniennes (forthcoming).2Editions published over the past decade or so are the following: M. E. Stone, The T fstcunent o Levi (Jerusalem: St. James

Press , 1969); The Armenian Version o the Testcunent Of Joseph(Texts and Transla t ions 6, Pseudepigrapha Ser ies 5: Missoula, MI :Scholars, 1975); The Armenian Version o IV Ezra (University ofPennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 1; Chico, CA: Scholars,1980); C. Cox, The Armenian Translation o Deuteronomy (Univers i ty of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 2; Chico: Schcla:rs,1981) .

3These include Genesis (A. Zeytunian) and 1 Maccabees (H.Amalyan); Testaments of the XII Patriarchs M. E. Stone); Job(C. Cox); Isaiah (S. Ajamian: see Ajamian, Deux projets concernant la Bible Armenienne, in Armenian and Biblical Studiesed. M. E. Stone [Sion Supplement I: Jerusalem: St. James Press,1976], pp. 8-12); Daniel and Dodecapropheton (S. P . Cowe).

4M. E. Stone, I Methodological Issues n the Study of the Textof the Apocrypha and Pseud epigrapha, Proceedings o the FifthWorld Congress o Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1971) 211-7; liTheArmenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patr iarchs:Selection of Manuscr ipts . Sian 49 (1975) 207-11; liThe Jerusalem

GUIDELINES FOR EDITIONS OF ARMENIAN 57

Manuscripts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patr iarchs: Samples.of Text, Sian 44 (1970) 456-65; uNew Evidence for the Armenlan Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, I RB 88(1977) 94-107; The ~ e n i a n Version o the Testament o Joseph(Texts and Transla t ions 6, Pseudepigrapha Series 5; Missoula:Scholars, 1975).

5The ~ e n i a n Translation o Deuteronomy, d n . 2.6M. E. Stone, The Armenian Version o IV Ezra is an except ion. t is a critical edition, based on all but one of the knownmanuscripts of the work. t survives, however, n only 23 copies,

of which 22 were utilized. This edition

bioscs15

Documents