The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (JSOT Supplement Series)

KDpicp is found in a nominal clause, where it is the predicate of 6 ovpavoq. Other cases of mrp1? in nominal clauses are rendered by the genitive, for which see pp. 29-30 above. With regard to the remaining instances, the verb forms that tq> Kvpicp modifies are given below to provide necessary context: dyaUiaoooneecc dXaXd^aTe avTCwtoSaKja) anoScoaoo 900) / ^aare etna epei eXaX-Tioev eveYKaTe E^ayopEVoo) E^dp^aTE e^ojioXayeioee / -o9ai E^oXoyTiaaaeaxTav EvXoyTmEvoi

94(95).! 99(100).! 115.3(116.12) 115.9(116.18) 12(13).6,95(96).! (2x), 95(96).2,97(98).!, 103(104)33,149.1 15(16).2, 139(140).? 90(91).2 17(18).! 28(29). 1 (2x), 28(29).2,95(96).? (2x), 95(96).8 31 (32).5 146(147).? 32(33).2,91(92).2,104(105).!, 105(106).!, 106(107).!, 117(118).!, 29, 135(136).! 106( 107).8,15,21,31 113.23(115.15)

20. At 72(73).28, EV TO) K-upio) corresponds to the MT's HTPP '3TIQ. Whether the parent text was TWQ or mJT'D is not known. More often, miTQ is translated as em TCp Kwpio). This occurs seven times, in modification of JiEJioi6a at 10(11).!; £A,7ci£paver|ao^ai at 103(104)34.

32

The Old Greek Psalter eiipca rjaev iaeoefiaeTai 6jioico9T|aEi:ai Ttoifiaai TtpoaKvvfiacxTe wcoMsvei \moTayn6i \?akaiz I vaXoo conoaev

131(132).5 7.1 88(89).7 88(89).7 118(119). 126 28(29).2,95(96).9 32(33).20 36(37).7 9.12, 26(27).6, 29(30).5,97(98).5 131(132).2.

Over against the Pentateuch translators for whom HUT1? could be rendered by Kvpiq> with or without an article, the Greek Psalter is rigid in its consistent rendering of mm1? by TCQ K-upicp throughout. The accusative Kvpiov occurs 94 times in the Psalter as the equivalent for mm, of which 41 cases are without an article. Of 53 instances of the articulated noun, 22 times mJTTIR is the equivalent.21 The article is the usual rendering of the particle TIN, and hardly needs elucidation. It is clear that the article is intended to render this morpheme separately. That leaves 31 cases which, by Pentateuchal standards, would have been unarticulated. Usually TOV Kvpiov represents a direct modifier of a Hebrew verb. However, in one case (24[25].15) Tipoq TOV Kvpiov is the predicate of a nominal clause with oi 6(j>0aA|ioi UXDD as its subject. The Hebrew clause in full reads mm ^N (TQD) TI7. On several additional occasions, the articulated accusative, either with or without a preposition, represents mrr *?«. At 26(27). 14 (2x) and 36(37).34, mrp *7N mp is rendered by \)7c6u€ivov TOV KiJpiov. At 98(99).6, erceKaXowro TOV Kiiptov translates the Hebrew mrr *7« D'»1p. At 130(131).3, mm ^« *?«"!»' ^W becomes eX-moore laparjA, em TOV lajpiov (compare 129.6 [130.7]). e^Tci^to modified by a prepositional phrase is well attested in the sense of 'relying on', or 'trusting in' (with ev or eiq). One example of a ^ phrase rendered by TOV Ki>piov obtains at 33(34).4, where neyaA/uvaTe TOV KVpiov corresponds to mrr1? frra. At 32(33).8, |Q is disregarded in favor of an accusative modifier in the clause, (f)opr|6T|TG) TOV Kvpiov Ttaaa f) yf\, which translates JHNH ^ mrro INI". Often the root N"l> is modified directly by mrr in the free element of a 21. 15(16).?; 30(31).24; 33(34).2, 5, 10; 102(103).!, 2, 22; 103(104).!, 35; 111(112).!; 116(117).!; 133(134).!, 2; 134(135).!9 (2x), 20 (2x); 145(146).!; 147.1(12); 148.1,7.

WEVERS The Rendering of the Tetragram

33

bound phrase, miT C)NT. For such, the LXX commonly articulates Kvpiov in modification of the participle (jjofjotiiievoc;. This occurs at 24(25). 12, 113.19(115.11), 113.21 (115.13), 117(118).4, 127(128).!, 4, and 134(135).20. There are five cases in which TOV Kvpiov modifies the verb imo^evoo: 26(27).14 (2x), 36(37).9, 34 and 39(40).2. In 102(103).20-22, £\)Xoy£iT£ TOV Kt>piov for mil'' 1D12 occurs three times. At the end of v. 22, the MT reads, mnmK '093 ^"D, and the Greek modifier is, of course, TOV Kupiov. At 67(68).27, ETJ^OYEITE appears again, this time with TOV 0eov as modifier, which is then followed by the apposite structure, TOV KUpiov EK mw&v lapomA,. Twice (at 104[105].3, 4) the root £n.TecD is modified by articulated Kvpiov, and, at 33(34). 11, the compound EK^nToxivTEi; is also thus modified. Twice the verb emKaA,eco is involved: at 13(14).4 it appears in the construction, ot>K ETiEKOtXEaavTo, and at 17(18).7 as erceKaXeaduriv. In both cases, TOV Kt)piov serves as a modifier. There remain four passages in which TOV Kupiov modifies various verbs: rcapco^uvev at 9.25(10.3),rcpocGpcourivat 15(16).8, covei8ioev at 73(74). 18 and ayan&v-czq at 96(97). 10. When one peruses the detailed lists in the above sections, it becomes clear that the translator of the Psalter has not followed the strict pattern established by the translators of the Pentateuch. To be sure, iojpio<; does continue to represent the proper noun, 'Yhwh', and it remains unarticulated in the majority of cases, but this is not a hard and fast rule. After all, only the tetragram itself as the kethib is a proper noun; its qere is not, and the translator has at times apparently been swayed by normal Greek usage. Thus when Kt)pio<; is used to render ^"IK, the articulated form is fully normal. The appearance of articulated Kiiptoi; for the tetragram is more unusual than might appear on the surface. I have checked through the Former Prophets in the edition of Rahlfs,22 though limiting my search to the nominative form. Of the 561 occurrences of Kupioq in that corpus,23 I have found only three cases of 6 leupioq as the equivalent for mi"P. Two of them appear in the B text of Judges, at 13.23 and 16.20, and in both instances the A text lacks the article. In view of the overwhelming evidence of usage, I would consider the A text to be original in these 22. A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Privilegierte Wiirttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). 23. I have used the A text of Judges, but have made comparisons with the B text as well.

34

The Old Greek Psalter

two cases. The other instance occurs in 1 Kgdms 12.16. Thus the articulated nominative 6 Kt>pio<; is rarely used in the Former Prophets to represent the tetragram, in fact, never in Joshua, 2-4 Kingdoms, or the A text of Judges. I have intentionally limited my investigation of the Former Prophets to the nominative, since the distinction between K-upux; and 6 xvptot; is clearly a valid one. For the other cases, various factors may intervene, such as the use of the prepositions *7 and ^K, and of the particle ~nK. The rarity of the articulated nominative in the Former Prophets makes the usage in the Greek Psalter all the more remarkable. The Greek Psalter is, generally speaking, an isolate type of translation, and one would have expected the proper noun miT to be rendered throughout by unarticulated K-upioi;. 3. The Rendering ofrP The way in which the translator of Psalms dealt with the short form of the tetragram IT is also significant for the present investigation. The short form occurs 43 times in the MT of the Psalter. It is treated in two quite different ways by the translator. It occurs 23 times in the imperatival clause rP'ttn. In six cases, the clause is not recognized by the translator; in each of these, IT'l1?^!! ends the Psalm and begins the next one, and the omission by the LXX is simply due to haplography. The other 17 are transliterated as aAArjAoma. Of the remaining 20 occurrences of IT, apart from the one instance in which there is no equivalent in the LXX (117[118].5 [2°]), all are rendered by Kupioq. In four cases—88(89).9, 93(94).12, 113.25(115.17) and 129(130).3— JT is addressed, and the translator has used Kt>pie. Of the 15 in which articulation could play a role, six are without an article. Three are in the nominative (67[68].5, 19, and 93[94].7), and three in the genitive. With regard to the latter, they occur in the following contexts: icov epyoov KDpioi) at 76(77). 12, id epya Kvpioi) at 117(118). 17 and (j>\)A,al icupiou at 121 (122).4. There are three cases of 6 K\>pio<;. At 117(118). 14, it is the subject of a nominal clause, that is, with ia%t><; uou KOI fyivnais uoi) as predicate. At v. 18, 6 Kt>pio<; is the subject of en;ai8e/uaev jie, and at 134(135).4 of e^eA^ato- At 117(118). 19, the articulated dative modifies e£ou,oXoyriaouxxi. The remaining five are in the accusative. Three times TOY Kijpiov modifies the verb aiveco, the equivalent of ^n, at 101(102).19,

WEVERS The Rendering of the Tetragram

35

134(135).3 and 150.6. The articulated noun modifies etiXoyriaouev at 113.26(115.18) and eTieicaXeadutiv at 117(118).5. Thus in nine of the 15 contexts in which there is a potential for articulation, KtJpioq is, in fact, articulated. It would appear, therefore, that the translator of Psalms did not treat IT as a proper noun, but rather as a surrogate for the deity, in the same way that '318 was utilized in reference to God.24 The translator seemingly did not recognize PP as another form of the tetragram. 4. Conclusion The preceding analysis, which has focused primarily on the rendering of the tetragram in the LXX Psalter, is, in the nature of the case, but a provisional one. A fully critical text of the Psalter is the only basis upon which a more definitive statement regarding this feature of the translation can be made. Since 1931, the date of Rahlfs's Psalmi cum Odis, a significant number of papyri have been discovered. This textual material especially must be taken into consideration in any further investigation of this topic.

24. !T occurs twice in the Pentateuch. At Exod. 15.2, the translator omitted it, and at 17.6, he misread it. See the comments ad loc. in my Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBLSCS, 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990).

PAIRS OF SYNONYMS IN THE SEPTUAGINT PSALMS Takamitsu Muraoka Needless to say, one of the most prominent features of Biblical Hebrew poetic diction is known as parallelismus membrorum whereby an idea is repeated within a single verse or two or more contiguous verses by using semantically related words or phrases. Different types and patterns of parallelism have been identified.1 A translation that is sensitive to the literary flavour and quality of the original text, and not merely its plain message, may attempt to do full justice to both form and content of the text to be translated. To illustrate the point, one may look at Jerome's rendering of Ps. 78.49a2 in a version based on the Hebrew:

m2fl Dim TTDS ISR pin nn rb® qui misit in eos iram furoris sui indignationem et comminationem et angustiam.

By contrast, his rendition according to the LXX reads: misit in eos iram indignationis suae indignationem et iram et tribulationem e^ctTteoteiXev eiq aikovg opyfiv Qv\io\> a\nov, 9i>u.6v KOI opyfjv Kcti 6Xu|av.

The contrast between the two Latin versions is quite striking. In the first, Jerome used as many different Latin synonyms as there are in the Hebrew text, and he applied the same principle to the second version— thus 4 to 4 and 2 to 2. Besides, in the version called juxta LXX, the same 1. See L.A. Schokel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988), pp. 48-94. 2. The chapter numbering of passages quoted from the book of Psalms is that of the Hebrew Bible. The LXX Psalms is quoted from A. Rahlfs's edition, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum. X. Psalmi cum Odis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1967).

MURAOKA Pairs of Synonyms in the Septuagint Psalms

37

Latin nouns were made to correspond to the same Greek nouns. One could not ask for a neater matching.3 It is a well-known, nonetheless striking, fact that the rather limited size of the vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew is remarkably rich in certain semantic domains such as destruction, salvation or rescue, lions, locusts, and human passions of joy and anger. This study attempts to see how the Greek translator of Psalms handled synonyms expressing anger, on the one hand, and nouns denoting 'rock, cliff metaphorically referring to the God of Israel, on the other. 1. Words for Anger 4

Biblical Hebrew uses a fairly large number of words denoting, or understood by LXX translators to denote, the passion of anger felt by a human or a divine being: ^1$, verb ^pK G and tD; DJJT, verb G and N; *]I?T, verb G; HDPI; ]i"in, nn, verb mn G, N, H and tD; &/OID, verb DID G, D, and H; rnritf, "[ray,5 verb "QJ? tD; *]*£, ]1S^p,6 verb *]Sp G, H, and tD; Wh, verb G, H, and tD.7 Counting nouns alone, there are as many as twelve of them. On the other hand, the Greek of the LXX has the following: 0v|i6q, 6uux>o), 0i)ux68r|<;, evSvuiov; urjviq, u,T|vida), UTjvico; opyn, opyi^oum, 6pyiA,o<;; opjirjuxx; rcapopyiauoq, Tiapopyiafia, rcapopyi^co; icapo^'uvco, Tiapo^uauxSc;; raxpcmiKpaiva); XO^OQ. This is an equally lengthy list. If the frame of reference were expanded to include non-LXX Greek, KOTO<; would be added to the list.8 The most significant point pertaining to the LXX Psalter is that, as is evident from the table below, its range of synonyms is utterly modest— 3. That Jerome's literary sensitivity was not a merely mechanical concern is shown by his translation of 1 Sam. 1.8 with a thrice repeated nQl7: PIQ^I 'Dun HE1? "pD1? J?T nnbl ^DKP $h> = curfles et quare non comedis et quam ob rem adfligitur cor tuum. One is naturally curious to see how our jubilaeus, who is commissioned to translate Psalms for the New English Translation of the Septuagint, is going to handle a case such as Ps. 78.49. 4. Including the book of Ben Sira. 5. Most likely to be so emended at Sir. 7.16, where the text reads J1""D#, rendered 6pyf|; see M.H. Segal, D^Dn KTD'p HDO (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2nd edn, 1958), p. 46. 6. Twice at Sir. 30.23 rendered Xt>7rr|. 7. G = qal.; tD = hithpa.; tG = hithpe.; N = niph.; D = pi.; H = hiph. 8. For details, see J.H.H. Schmidt, Synonymiek der griechischen Sprache (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1876-86), III, pp. 551-72.

38

The Old Greek Psalter

essentially two, namely 6vuo<; and 6pyT|. The Hebrew Psalter, however, counting nouns alone, employs as many as seven.

T» T* DJ?1 DtfT

nan

jinn rnn DID DID

o^?n rratf *$& TO* W") Hi'

9-uu6<; opyfj opyiXoq 6pyi£ou,cu opyri opyfjv endyro 9uuo<; ev9\)uiov opyfj 9\>u<j<; opyri 6pyi£oum 9vuo<; 6pyi£ou.ai 7tapo£uva> 9\)u,6<; 6pyf| 9uuo<; Tcapopyi^co opyi^o^iai 6pyf|

9x 22x Ix 4x 4x Ix 4x 2x 6x 2x 3x 3x 4x Ix Ix 2x 2x9 2x Ix Ix 2x10

9. The tD verb "DUnn, which, in all its four occurrences in the Psalter, is generally agreed to denote anger or wrath, was interpreted by our Greek translator differently, namely in the sense of 'to take no notice of, neglect, etc.' Thus 78.59, 62 \mepei8ev; 78.21 dvepaXexo 'suspended delivery'; 89.39 dvepaXoi) TOY xpicrTOV aoi) 'you relieved your anointed temporarily of his duties'. This interpretation is attested at the earliest occurrence of tmepe!8ev at Deut. 3.26. At Ps. 78.59, tniepei8ev is parallel to e^ovSevcoaev (OKD'H). The sense 'to be wroth' given by LSJ for dvapdXXa) (middle) with Ps. 78.21 as its only attestation has been rejected in a recent supplement by P.G.W. Glare (ed.), Greek English Lexicon: Revised Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), without an alternative interpretation being offered. All four occurrences of "iai>nn in Sirach also belong here: 5.7 wreppdAAoum 'to delay'; 7.10 napopdw 'to overlook'; 7.16 xpovi^co 'to be delayed'; 38.9 TtapapA^rco) 'to overlook' (cf. W. Gesenius and F. Buhl, Hebraisches und aramaisches Handworterbuch fiber das Alte Testament [Leipzig: Vogel, 17th edn, 1915], p. 560a, s.v. I "QJJ, hithpa.). On tntepeiSev at Deut. 3.26, see C. Dogniez and M. Harl, La Bible d'Alexandrie. V. Le Deuteronome (Paris: Cerf, 1992), p. 132, and P. Walters, The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and their Emendations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 262-63, though we wonder in which Aramaic dialect a tG or tD ~QI? occurs with a meaning 'to be careless'. 10. MT: rn 30.6; 35.20.

MURAOKA Pairs of Synonyms in the Septuagint Psalms

39

We see that most of the Hebrew nouns occurring with reasonable frequency are rendered by both Gvuoq and opyrj. That the choice between these two nouns does not seem to be governed by any firm policy may be concluded by comparing 6.2 and 78.38, where the Hebrew sequence of *}& followed by HDP! corresponds to the sequence 0a)u6<;...6pYf|. This is reversed at 90.7, though the sequence of the Hebrew nouns remains the same. If there was any difference in meaning between the two Greek nouns,11 that is not apparent at 38.1:

'no'n inarm 'arrom -ja^pa *?* mrr KupiE, U,TI TO> fh)u,(p oov eXey^xl? M£ uiiSe TH opyfj aov nmSeuarn; UE. Nor does one see why the sequence of the Greek words is reversed in translating an identical Hebrew collocation, *]K pit"!: Guuxx; tf|<; opyfiq at 69.25 but 6pyf| 6uux>\> at 78.49 and 85.4. Whatever subtle differences in nuance there might be between all those Hebrew nouns, there was no chance that our translator could do justice to them with merely two equivalents. A highly literary word such as UTJVK;, known to the translators of the Pentateuch, was possibly unknown to him. Or if it was, his translation policy was not that of Jerome.12 2. Words for 'Rock' Psalm 18.3 contains two words that denote hard, solid stony objects, U'pp and "T)2£, which both metaphorically refer to the God of Israel.

•OMB 'w ppi 'ED la non« ms ^« natem vrnscn '•xho mrr Kvpioq otepeotyiti \LO\) KOI KOTa(|)i)YT| \uov>, Kai pTjarng jiou, 6 6eo<; HOD panOoq \LQ\>, Kai eX,7tiw ere' avtov, wepaoTtiaTrnq p,oi) KOI Kepaq ocornpiaq ^io\), dvnXTmnTcap JIOD.

11. A point disputed by scholars. F. Biichsel admits no material difference between the two, in TDNT, III, p. 168. H. Kleinknecht, however, writes: 'opyri, in distinction from 0Dp,o£, is essentially and intentionally orientated to its content, namely revenge or punishment' (TDNT, V, p. 384). For an older view, see R.C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 9th edn, 1880), pp. 130-32: Trench quotes Ammonius in summing up his main thesis: 6uu6<; uev e<m TcpooKaipo^- opyfi 8e noXvxpovioi; uvqaiKOKia. 12. Cf. also T. Muraoka, 'Hosea V in the Septuagint version', Abr Nahrain 24 (1986), pp. 120-38, esp. pp. 130-31.

40

The Old Greek Psalter

The striking thing is that, in both this passage (i>A,a£ for "NS in 22.3. This metaphorical use of "flS is common in the Old Testament, but the LXX never translates it literally. That B does so with rceipa for I^O at 2 Sam. 22.2 is easy to understand since it represents the Kaiye recension. 1^0 is rendered in the Psalter by crcepeoona (18.2; 71.3), dvTtAjjumcop (42.10), and Kpataicoua. On the other hand, "IIS is rendered also by 0eo<; (18.47; 28.1; 31.3; 62.8, 37; 71.3; 73.26; 92.16; 95.1; 144.1), dvtariuittcop (89.27) and |3ori06<; (18.3; 19.15; 78.35; 94.22). This equivalence, "HS = 9eoq, is deeply rooted in the LXX, going back to the earliest instances of this metaphorical language. At Deut. 32.4, ~flsn is translated as 0eo^, and this is also the case at 32.31 even when the reference is to heathen gods: DTIS IDIISD vh o\)K ecrav ox; 6 6eo<; fl|o.o)v oi 0eoi axraSv. C. Dogniez and M. Harl hold that the metaphor was viewed by the translators as 'choquant ou perimee' (offensive or outdated).15 More specifically, the avoidance of literal translation was theologically motivated inasmuch as the translators were wary of having the God of Israel equated with pagan rocks as objects of worship.16 The only concession that they were prepared to make was to use words connoting firmness or solidity: Kpaiaicojia, crcepeoojia, axepeoa). Most LXX translators were capable of rising to the occasion and producing a translation that would match the Hebrew text in style and literary elegance. In the case of the "IIS = 0eo<; equivalence, however, their theological concern seems to have dictated their mode of translation. It was immaterial to them that, by so doing, they were allowing the

13. Quoted from N. Fernandez Marcos and J.R. Busto Saiz, El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega. 1.1-2 Samuel (Madrid: Institute de Filologfa, C.S.I.C., 1989). The text reads: Ktipioq aTepewv u,e EK 6A,i\|/eox; U.OD Km 8iacKp£G>v ue. 6 0eo<; u,ou nXdoTrn; nou, i/ 6 Geoq u,ov (|)\)X,a^ eaiai u,ov, jiETioiGcix; eaofiai en atrap. 15. Dogniez and Harl, Le Deuteronome, p. 322. 16. Cf. also S. Olofsson, God Is my Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990), pp. 39-40, 50.

MURAOKA Pairs of Synonyms in the Septuagint Psalms

41

beauty of a Hebrew literary figure to become lost to their readers. Note the following additional examples. Ps. 18.47

'W TTTK am '-re* -p-ai mrrTT £ri Kupio;, Kai eijA,OYT|TO<; 6 9eo<; ux>i), KOI v>v|»a>9nTca 6 9eo<; "tfjq ocornptaq |iou. Ps. 18.32

irrfts 'rbiT TCJ 'oi mn' 'ijfrao HI'PK 'D 'D on tig 6e6i; idfiv TOO) Kupiou; KOI tit; 6eo<; JtXfiv TOU 9eo\) fm&v; While the literary figure has been lost, the translation is more effective in bringing home the notion of the uniqueness of Israel's God. Psalm 18.3 contains an unusual concentration of words pertaining to protection and rescue. Of course this is not the only place in the Psalter where such semantically related words cluster. The table below shows us again how our translator went about handling such pairs of synonymous or related words.

w

risij

Kpaiauflua oTEpeto|ia dvaXriuTfceop Pon96?

2x Ix Ix llx Ix Ix Ix Ix 5x 7x 8x Ix Ix 2x Ix Ix 2x Ix 4x

QEOC,

10x17

dvn.XfpJtTcop porj9eia •ujtepacmtojioq •VMiepaojiioiTig avriAr||i\|fi<; potiOoq Kpamia)u,a

Kpataiaxnq •ojcepacmioTriq

rnixo D3!PO

sty TK

KcrccMtnyyTJ avnXTiH7iT(ap avtiXajipdivoiiai POTTOS KdTa(|wyT| dvTlXT)U7IT
17. Some slight differences in frequency figures in comparison with the table in Olofsson, God Is my Rock, p. 155, are due partly to the fact that I have counted only those cases in which the words refer to God as providing protection.

42

The Old Greek Psalter

It is only for iTTOiQ that our translator consistently employs the same equivalent, KaTCKJmyTJ. The remaining Hebrew words are all rendered by three or four equivalents. In a single verse, 9.10, where one Hebrew word occurs twice, he uses two different equivalents.

rrca ronu1? aafoD -jib SJDD mrr 'm KCIV eyEVETo Kupu>£ KaiCMJnxyii tcp JCEVTITI, POT106<; ev ewaipiaiq ev 6M.\|/ei. In two psalms which share eight consecutive verses, 60.7-14 // 108.714, our translator (or possibly a later reviser), varies the equivalent for T1#Q. In 60.9 it is KpaTaico
'two nn« ... nriR 'n"rcaai '»"» ... nrraa rra1? nso "rut? ^ rrn yevoti |ioi ei^ 8eov linEpaowiaTTiv KOI ei^ olxov KciTa<|>i>yTi5 Hou. . .KpaTaitond jiou Kai KataifiuyTi HOD el av. . .«ri> el 6 iMtepacntiorriq Hot).

As in the case of our translator's concern about theological 'correctness' or orthodoxy that is shown in his choice of Qeoc, to render IKS, we note a similar example in this second semantic field. How else could one account for a most remarkable rendition at 84.12?

DTT^N mrr ]JDI tfotf eXeov Kai dXf|9eiav ayaroji Kvpioq 6 Geoq.

The Greek can be retroverted as DTftK mrr an^ nORI non or something of that nature. One doubts, however, that such was the translator's Vorlage. Rather he or a later reviser was anxious not to give any hint that the Israelite religion had anything to do with the abominable sunworship. The range of Greek nouns selected by our translator is theologically biased to a large extent. Some of the corresponding Hebrew words have an obvious military connotation, nothing of which is very evident in the Greek words that have been chosen. In only a few instances does he employ Greek words of military import: oxvpcojia = HJilD (89.41); 7iepu>xt| = tsaQ (108.1 1), = TfcD (31.22; 60.1 1). He appears thus to be more interested in biblical soteriology than in figures of speech used by the Hebrew poet to give expression to it. It is in accordance with this

18. Here the text is about Ephraim, not God.

MURAOKA Pairs of Synonyms in the Septuagint Psalms

43

concern that ]?D is personified as tmEpaamaTife 'one who holds a shield (dorciq) over, protector' and dvtiA/nuTnxop, 'helper', rather than being construed as a word designating a piece of armour, thus |3Q rather than]?!?.19 The Psalms translator does not appear to be aiming at consistent translation equivalence. Rather, he has a pool of related or synonymous words or phrases which he draws upon, particularly where two or more semantically corresponding words or phrases occur in proximity in the Hebrew text. His translation also appears to be coloured by certain doctrinal concerns. These tentative conclusions, based on a relatively small database, could have text-critical implications as well. Before one sets about reconstructing a Hebrew Vorlage of the Greek Psalter, one needs to consider its character as a translation.

19. When God is depicted as a warrior in a battle scene, our translator does use an appropriate Greek word: e.g., H]^1 |3D pTOH fan1? HK Df!1? JioXfiUTjoov tovq jioXeuowtdq U£. emXapoti ontan) Kai 6i)peoi) (35.1b-2a); )3D ntfp 'EXZh "1325 nQtf HQn'PQT Dim eicei auveTpiyev T<X Kpatrj TCQV TO^OOV, OTtXov KOI pou,aiav KOI 7c6A£|xov (76.4).

REPETITION OF POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS IN THE GREEK PSALTER: THE USE AND NON-USE OF POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS IN RENDERINGS OF HEBREW COORDINATE ITEMS WITH POSSESSIVE SUFFIXES Raija Sollamo

There is a great distinction between the use of the possessive element in Hebrew and its use in Greek. In Hebrew, the possessive suffix must be repeated in connection with each noun, even in coordinate items. In Koine Greek, the possessive pronouns are not repeated with coordinate nouns in good literary style.1 In Koine, the genitives of the personal pronouns and of amoc, usually fulfil the function of the possessive pronouns and are therefore called here Greek possessive pronouns, as of course are also the adjective possessive pronouns. In the Septuagint, the language often reflects the syntax of the Hebrew parent text. In my study, Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint, I found that the books of the Greek Pentateuch are divided into two groups as regards repetition and non-repetition.2 Genesis and Exodus form the first group, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy the second. In Genesis, the possessive pronoun is repeated in 24 out of 47 instances with two coordinate items. In Exodus, the repetition occurs in 20 out of 50 instances. The corresponding percentages are 51% and 40%. In the second group (Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), the percentages vacillate between 75% and 86%. If the Greek possessive pronoun appears with only one of the two coordinate items, 1. R. Sollamo, 'The Koine Background for the Repetition and Non-Repetition of the Possessive Pronoun in Co-ordinate Items', in D. Fraenkel, U. Quasi und J.W. Wevers (eds.), Studien zur Septuaginta: Robert Hanhart zu Ehren (MSU, 20; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), pp. 52-63; R. Sollamo, Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint (SBLSCS, 40; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 7-18. 2. Sollamo, Repetition, pp. 81 -94.

SOLLAMO Repetition of Possessive Pronouns

45

it may appear after either the first or the second noun. Both positions are frequently attested in original Koine literature as well. Very seldom does the possessive pronoun precede its nominal head in the Greek Pentateuch, whereas in secular Greek this often happens. In Greek sources, the possessive pronoun is often totally omitted with the two items because the use of the possessive pronoun is unnecessary if the referent is clear enough otherwise, for example, when the definite article is used. Two groups of nouns make a difference in the non-use of the possessive pronoun, namely nouns denoting parts of the body and nouns denoting family members. These nouns tend to appear either totally without the possessive pronoun or without its being repeated with coordinate items. Even in cases where these nouns do not form a chain of coordinate items, they often appear without the possessive pronoun in the Septuagint.3 In Koine, with the exception of translation Greek, the nonuse of the possessive pronoun is the rule in these cases. After the repetition and non-repetition of the Greek possessive pronouns in coordinate items has been studied in the Greek Pentateuch, it is challenging to select another book of the Septuagint for comparison. Therefore, in this essay, the focus of attention will be the Psalter. The Psalter has been one of the main subjects of research for my good friend, Albert Pietersma, to whom this piece is dedicated. I have known Albert since we met at the first international congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS) in Uppsala in 1971. Most recently, our paths crossed in the summer of 1999 when he was one of the keynote speakers at the IOSCS Congress on Translation Technique that was held in conjunction with the European meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Helsinki and Lahti.4 The Psalter is very different from the Pentateuch because it is poetry and because a type of repetition, known as parallelismus membrorum, 3. I. Soisalon-Soininen, 'Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens im griechischen Pentateuch', in A. Aejmelaeus und R. Sollamo (eds.), Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax (AASF, ser. B 237; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987), pp. 86-103. 4. During this congress in Finland, we enjoyed warm weather and sunshine. This was quite the opposite of the heavy rain endured by Mrs Margaret Pietersma, Professor Lars Aejmelaeus and my husband, as they walked in the Harz mountains during an earlier symposium on the Greek Psalter that was held in Gottingen in 1997, a symposium in which Albert and I participated.

46

The Old Greek Psalter

is its stylistic medium. In this kind of parallelism, possessive pronouns are usually repeated as poetic equivalents. The object of my investigation in this essay—possessive pronouns in coordinate items which have the possessive suffix in Hebrew— differs from typical poetic parallel structures. In keeping with my earlier work in the Pentateuch, I will pay attention to the repetition and non-repetition or total omission of possessive pronouns in coordinate items, and the position of possessive pronouns in chains of coordinate items with respect to their nominal heads. The Greek text I use is that of Psalmi cum Odis, published by Alfred Rahlfs,5 since we still await a new critical edition of the Psalter in the Gottingen series. The Hebrew text is that of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, for which the book of Psalms was edited by H. Bardtke.6 The repetition of the possessive pronoun after each of two coordinate items is the most common way of translating coordinate Hebrew nouns with suffixes in the Greek Psalter (71/78 or 91%). Most examples involve only two items (78), but there are 1 1 cases with three or more coordinate nouns, and here the possessive pronoun is repeated after every item. Examples of the most usual types with repeated possessive pronouns in chains of two coordinate items include the following: Ps. 23(22).4

'annr nnn initial IEOO f| pa|)5o<; , crural |ie rcapEictiXeoav Ps. 27(26).10

TOTE TOVI 'raro on 6 Ttarrip HOD tcai f| uritrip HOD eyKaTeXulov fie Ps. 43(42).3

TIQNI Tntm1^ e^anooTEtXov to tymc, «rao icai TT\V dW|9eidv «TOD Ps. 73(72).26

'33Vi nwtf rfo elJEXutev i\ KapSia (iov KOI i\ adp^ HOD

5. Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum graecum. X. Psalmi cum Odis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3rd edn, 1979). 6. Librum Psalmorum, in BHS.

SOLLAMO Repetition of Possessive Pronouns

47

Ps. 89(88).25

TOT '-on 'raraKi KOI f) dXii6eid |i KOI TO eXeo^ no\) net' avtou Ps. 122(121).8

ia atrt urn-cm 'jni TI» jro1? evEKa tdav d8eX«)>rav HOD KOI TMV itfcncriov |im> eXaXow 8f| eipTjvnv Tcepi aou Here are examples of repetitions in chains of three or more coordinate items: Ps. 31(30). 10 '3031 TZJSJ T» OJJD3 ntfBto ETapdxOn. £V fruRw 6 6<|)6aX,|i6^ HOD, f| \|n>xf| jiov xoi f| yaoTTip |iov Ps. 144(143).2

'nnn 'D» rrnn 'n'on 131 ^D '•? •>B'?SDI "33iDD 'ntcflai non eXEOi; |ioi> icai KaTa^uyri (iow, «ivnXT|(in;Ta)p (ioi> KOI pixTTn? (tow, wtepaajnarriq (iow, KO! en' afacp TiAjciaa, 6 imotdootov idv Xaov HOD •iwt'eHe. Returning to the Pentateuch, one notes that the translators of Exodus and Leviticus typically do not use possessive pronouns in connection with nouns denoting parts of the body or parts of sacrificial animals. This is also true of individual nouns. I. Soisalon-Soininen has examined these cases and, according to him, the possessive pronoun is not used with (individual) nouns denoting parts of the body in 45.5% of the cases in Genesis, in 40% of the instances in Exodus, and in 57% of the instances in Leviticus, whereas the corresponding figures for Numbers and Deuteronomy are 22% and 19%, respectively.7 In coordinate items denoting parts of the body, repetition occurs only very seldom. For example, in Exodus it happens in 14.5% of cases and in Leviticus, 14%.8 In the Greek Psalter, seven instances with two coordinate items involve nouns denoting parts of the body.9 The possessive pronoun is repeated in all instances and with every coordinate noun, except for

7. Soisalon-Soininen, 'Die Auslassung', pp. 86-103. 8. Sollamo, Repetition, pp. 85-88. 9. The instances are Pss. 19(18).15; 22(21).17; 26(25).2; 73(72).26; 74(73).! 1; 84(83).3; 98(97).!.

48

The Old Greek Psalter

Ps. 22(21). 17, where the posssessive pronoun appears only after the first item, which accords with good Greek style:

''pm T nto £av xeipcti; |MM> KCI noSaq jc65aq B' R' et Aug. enarr. I et Tert. et Cyp.p] + HOD U LaG Ga U A' et Aug. enarr. II et Cyp.p = MT

The textual tradition is not unanimous, but it is certain beyond doubt that the non-repetition of the possessive pronoun, against the MT and contrary to the usual practice of repetition in the Greek Psalter, is the original reading. The nouns denoting parts of the body appear in four out of the 1 1 instances with three or more coordinate items,10 and in all four the possessive pronoun is repeated after each item. Here is a representative example: Ps. 31(30).10 TOT t&fl T JJ DJ»3 iTBJBto

erapaxBn ev 6uuq> 6 6<|>6c&n6q HOD, f\ unjx1! ^O1) Kai fi Ya
Another group of nouns that might have been dealt with in a special way by the translator consists of nouns denoting family members. In the Pentateuch, the possessive pronoun is repeated in connection with these nouns less frequently than with other nouns in the books of Genesis and Deuteronomy." There are four instances in the Greek Psalter with two coordinate nouns denoting family members,12 and among them there is only one example of non-repetition of the possessive pronoun: Ps. 106(105)38

)u» 'ass1? irat "ran arrroni arrmn 'pj 01 "caEn Kai E^EXEOV afyia di6mov, avu,a mrov GTOTv eGwav TOI? y\\nno\.<; Xavaav The reading is almost unanimous, except for a hexaplaric variant: add. 38 ctiraSv GaAug. This instance could be compared with Ps. 106(105).37, where the possessive pronoun is repeated:

10. The instances are Pss. 31(30).10; 44(43).4; 116(114).8; 132(131).4. 11. Sollamo, Repetition, pp. 88-90. 12. The instances are Pss. 27(26). 10; 106(105).37, 38; 122(121).8.

SOLLAMO Repetition of Possessive Pronouns

49

onto1? nrnrimwi oramK iron Kai e0uoav totx; i)loi>£ a-UTcSv Kal Tag Gvyatepai; a-otrav 1015 8ai|iovioi<;

The non-repetition in v. 38 above might also be due to the subsequent relative clause. A relative clause following a coordinate item, mostly the final one, now and then coincides with the omission of the possessive pronoun, particularly in Genesis and Numbers.13 In the Psalter, there are many other contexts in which the omission of a possessive pronoun prior to a relative clause might have been expected (for example, 78[77].4, 11; 105[104].5; 132[131].12), but the possessive pronoun has, in fact, been preserved and repeated. The non-repetition of the possessive pronoun in coordinate items very seldom occurs in the Greek Psalter — that is, in only four cases out of 78 instances with two coordinate items, and never in the 1 1 instances with three or more coordinate items. The four cases of non-repetition are 22(21). 17, 33(32).20, 147.19(8) and 106(105)38. They all exhibit idiomatic Greek. Two of these non-repetitions can be assumed to have their origin in the fact that the coordinate nouns denote parts of the body (22[21].17) or family members (106[105].38). In the latter case, a relative clause follows as well. These two passages have been cited above. In both of them, the possessive pronoun appears after the first item but is not repeated after the second. The two other cases differ in that the possessive pronoun appears only after the second item. Ps. 33(32).20

Kin 13UD1 irtts mrr1? nron •aasi r\ \|n>XTi fpdov xmonevev T(J> icupi
The Greek nouns Por|06<; and 'UJtepaomaTrii; are probably recognized — apparently by chance— as a hendiaduoin construction by the translator. In other cases, an identical or similar expression is translated word-forword and the possessive pronoun is repeated, for example, 28(27). 7; 40(39).18; 115.9, 10, 11 (113.17, 18, 19), cf. 19(18).15; 70(69).3; 119(1 18).114. Ps. 147.19(8)

'wito'1? voatfai rpn apjrt [voi] rcn TJG ditaYyeMxov TOV Xoyov cmwu tcp IaKco(3, 5iKat(6naTa Kai Kpinata aircoi) tcp Iapar|X. 13. Sollamo, Repetition, pp. 90-93.

50

The Old Greek Psalter

In this second example, the translator evidently understood the two nouns, 8iiccu<6uaTa and Kpiuma, as a single concept (hendiaduoiri)1* and as a poetic equivalent to Xoyoq in the parallel stich, clearly a correct interpretation. He avoided— perhaps instinctively—giving the impression that Jacob had been given only one 'word' (Xoyoq), while Israel had received two communications (5iKGtia>umct KG! Kpiuma). The idea that Israel had been given more would be inconsistent with the wider context of the psalm. Therefore, this, example could provide a glimpse into the translator's competence in Greek, something that is not often evident elsewhere. The accusative of a personal pronoun instead of the possessive pronoun is employed on three occasions in the Greek Psalter. One of the two nouns is translated with a substantival participle and the participle is followed by the accusative, which is a more idiomatic construction than that involving the possessive pronoun. The passages, which are reproduced below, can be compared with Deut. 30.7. 15 Ps. 18(17).18

'wtoai w; ^T«D 'frir pwjETai HE e% e'x.Qp&v |ioi> Swcraav KOI EK ttov ntcowtrov |ie Ps. 27(26).2

•ban -freto non '*? 'aw '-a ol OXipovte? |ie KOI oi exOpoi |io» avroi fio6evrioav Kai ejceaav Ps. 3 1(30). 16 'QTID1 'mR-TD 'frsn TlTli? "|T3 ev Tali; %epaiv oo\) ol Kctipoi now pvaai ne EK xeiP°5 e%6pcov nao KOI EK TCOV KataSlfflKOVTCOV fl£.

In addition to the 78 + 1 1 instances discussed so far, three cases remain in which the translator seems to have had a reading in his Vorlage that differed from the one in the MT. In Ps. 42(41). 12 and 43(42).5, the MT has two coordinate items connected with the conjunction 1, whereas the translator apparently read the two items without the conjunction and accordingly understood them as forming a nominal clause.

14. For hendiaduoin expressions in the Pentateuch, see Sollamo, Repetition, pp. 24, 35-36. 15. Sollamo, Repetition, p. 70.

SOLLAMO Repetition of Possessive Pronouns

51

Ps. 42(41).12 vfrKi TB njJitf1 irra -runs on e^o(ioXoyfioo|iai cuYcar f) acotnpia tov npoacano'u JIOD 6 6e6q HOD. 6 Geos B" Sa AugP] pr. KOI 2013(om o) R"(etiam AugP) GaHi L" A" = MT (GaHi Sy sub Si, teste Hi ex Epp' 6').

An identical refrain — except for aomipiov instead of TJ owrnpia — appears in the LXX of 41.6. In this passage, there is a textual variant to note: 6 6e6<; B" 2013' GaHiAug 55] pr. KOI R" UulgL" Su A Ps. 43(42).5

vfTKi ns nans'1 xrnn TUT'D on. e^ojj.oXoyf|Gojiai crimp' aoyrrjpiov wo Ttpoaantoti (ioi> 6 0EO£ fiou. 6 6eo<; B" Sa Aug] pr. Km rel.(etiam Th) = MT(Ga sub £)

In these examples, a number of witnesses, under hexaplaric influence, read the conjunction
rr man n» iayfa ^O1) Ka>v fyivrim.5 (ioi> 6 icupux;

When collecting the material for this essay, I paid attention to idiomatic free renderings that appear in the Greek Psalter and that would also have been excellent translations for the coordinate items with possessive suffixes examined here. Ps. 35(34). 14

Tchnm *? rne-jro ox; TtXrimov, ox; dSeX^ov iniexspov, oikox; einpeatow Ps. 46(45).2

wi norm •&> DTTPR 6 8e6s f)|i£v KOTa*))^ KOI 8wajiii;

16. In Isa. 12.2, the Qumran scroll lQIsa has the same reading that the translator of the Psalter had in his Vorlage.

52

The Old Greek Psalter Ps. 59(58). 17

'b-ra DTD. 01301 ^ urn rrrro cm eyevriGTis dvtiA,r|U,7tTG)p JIOD KOI KaTai)yn ev f|U£p(ji OXixj/eccx; uou

The preceding examples demonstrate that it was within the competence of the translator to refrain from repeating the possessive pronoun and to place it in a number of possible positions. These kinds of idiomatic renderings did not, however, occur to him while he was translating the coordinate nouns with their possessive suffixes; that would have required non-repetition in the Hebrew Vorlage. The possessive pronoun corresponding to the preposition *? and its suffix was placed by the translator accurately in the same position as the Hebrew preposition occupied in its context, in Ps. 46(45).2 before the first of the coordinate items, in 59(58). 17 after the first coordinate item, and in 35(34). 14 after the second coordinate item. Apparently, the translator himself was unaware of the great skill exhibited by these renderings. The use of the possessive pronoun for *? with a suffix in these examples, where *p denotes the possessor, must be attributed to him, but thereafter the idiomatic expression arose almost automatically from his adherence to the Hebrew Vorlage. Conclusions The translation technique followed by the translator of the Greek Psalter has been illuminated in a few general studies on the books of the Septuagint. Soisalon-Soininen, in his investigation of infinitives, classified the Psalter with a group of slavishly rendered books/sections, such as 4 Kingdoms, Judges, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve and Ecclesiastes.17 Based upon a consideration of the renderings of the semiprepositions, the book of Psalms was assigned to the fourth and most slavish category.18 In his grammar, H.St.J. Thackeray divided the books of the Septuagint into different categories 'from the point of view of style'.19 17. I. Soisalon-Soininen, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta (AASF, ser. B 132,1; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1965), pp. 177-90. 18. R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF, Diss. Hum. Litt. 19; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979), pp. 28089. 19. H.St.J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint. I. Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), pp. 9-13.

SOLLAMO Repetition of Possessive Pronouns

53

As I have pointed out elsewhere, his classification is rather confusing.20 The book of Psalms is placed by him in the classification 'indifferent Greek'. For him this category is 'a large one, containing books of various styles'. Whereas Soisalon-Soininen and I describe the character of the translation technique employed by the translator, Thackeray pays more attention to the quality of the Greek used by the translator. This analysis of the repetitions and non-repetitions of possessive pronouns in coordinate items does not alter the total picture with respect to the typical characterization of the Septuagint Psalter. The Psalms translator was very slavish indeed, clearly more so than the most slavish translators of the Pentateuch (Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). The percentage of repetitions is very high, both in cases with two coordinate items (91%) and with three or more items (100%). The highest percentages for the Pentateuch are 86% for Numbers, 76% for Deuteronomy and 75% for Leviticus. The very few and sporadic cases of non-repetition provide occasional glimpses into the competence of the translator of Psalms, a competence which he mostly did not employ to good effect.21 To return to Thackeray and the question of the style and quality of the Greek used, it is safe to conclude that the language of the Greek Psalter is unidiomatic and clumsy. The point of comparison is nontranslation Greek. Possessive pronouns are never repeated in stylistically elegant literary texts. The Greek translation of the Psalter exhibits the almost total opposite of good literary style, as the overwhelming abundance of possessive pronouns attests. This is one clear example of the peculiarly Hebraistic character of the Septuagint Psalter.

20. R. Sollamo, 'Some "Improper" Prepositions, such as ENOPION, ENANTION, ENANTI, etc., in the Septuagint and Early Koine Greek', VT 25 (1975), pp. 773-82 (775). 21. When translating the verbal forms, the translator put slightly more of his competence to use, according to J.H. Sailhamer, The Translation Technique of the Greek Septuagint for the Hebrew Verbs and Participles in Psalms 3-41 (Studies in Biblical Greek, 2; New York: Peter Lang, 1991), pp. 207-10.

CHARACTERIZING CRITERIA FOR THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SEPTUAGINT TRANSLATORS: EXPERIMENTING ON THE GREEK PSALTER* Anneli Aejmelaeus

Albert Pietersma once aptly described the analysis of translation technique in Septuagint research as 'the quest for the Archimedean point'.1 Indeed, as thorough an acquaintance as possible with the characteristic mode of translation of the various translators of the Septuagint is one of the basic requirements of all Septuagintal scholarship.2 'As to the principle, there is no disagreement', Pietersma states.3 Much work has been done in this area over recent years and decades, and this gives us a general idea of the quality of the Septuagint translations and enables us to cite examples of free translators as well as of literal ones, of those adding interpretative elements and of those of conservative predisposition. Ever since Thackeray, it has been customary to classify the translators and place them into groups characterized by approximately equal skill and by a similar attitude towards the original. Every time a new criterion is used to group the translators, the scholar is eager to check whether the grouping is in agreement with earlier ones, and is quite happy if this is the case. Thus, translation technique is in danger of being regarded as something very constant—as if the analysis were in no need of refinement, as if the quest had come to an end. * An oral version of this paper was given as an invited presentation to the Septuagint Section of the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Helsinki, 16 July 1999. 1. 'Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues', VT 35 (1985), pp. 298-311(299). 2. Cf. my 'What We Talk about when We Talk about Translation Technique' (paper read at the X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies [IOSCS], Oslo, 1998). 3. 'Return to Basic Issues', p. 299.

AEJMELAEUS Characterizing Criteria

55

1. The Portrait of a Translator As for the principle, it is generally accepted that the translators were individuals. This acknowledgment is indeed a prerequisite of great importance for all work on and with the Septuagint, and a fact that we must keep on repeating to those not so familiar with the basics of Septuagint studies. But how much individuality is actually allowed for? What I think we should get rid of is a picture of the translators as belonging to different 'school classes'. Those 'in the first grade' have learned to master only a few of the difficulties of the Hebrew language, those 'in a higher class' accordingly show mastery of more difficult details, and those 'about to graduate' have almost no weakness at all, but write fluent Greek. Classifying the translators would then mean assigning them to their respective 'school classes'. What you then expect to find in the products of these translators is and should be in accordance with their respective classes. A first grader normally produces a first grader's results. But in reality, the mode of translation of any given translator is not that constant. The translators show different capabilities in different areas. For the task of describing one particular translator, this means that we must strive to provide as many-sided a documentation of his working habits and abilities as possible. I am now thinking in particular of the translator of the Psalter. He is a rather new acquaintance for me and a rather puzzling one because his competence, for the most part, does not respond to the same tests as does that of the translators of the Pentateuch. This translator is one of those who are normally classified as literal, sometimes even extremely literal. According to a well-known thesis, the translator of the Psalter is understood to be a forerunner of the later xaiye tradition.4 How little justice this characterization really does to the translator of the Psalms has already been pointed out by Albert Pietersma.5 What one needs in order to gain a more reliable and

4. The clearest formulation of this thesis is found in O. Munnich, 'Contribution a 1'etude de la premiere revision de la Septante', in ANRW, II, 20/1, pp. 192-220. See also the review of the discussion by S. Olofsson, 'The Kaige Group and the Septuagint Book of Psalms', in B.A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge, 1995 (SBLSCS, 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 189-230. 5. See his critical review of H.-J. Venetz, Die Quinta des Psalteriums: Bin

56

The Old Greek Psalter

complete picture of this translator, as well as others of his kind, is new and other criteria for the characterization of translation technique. The task referred to, viz. the description of the working habits and abilities of one translator, is no doubt held to be legitimate by most scholars. It is absolutely necessary to do this kind of groundwork if one wishes, for instance, to use the Septuagint for the purpose of doing textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. The same holds true for Septuagintal textual criticism or editorial work. However, this type of study—in spite of the agreement in principle—has not always been practised with the necessary consistency. What has interested some scholars and inspired them to publish special studies on certain parts of the Septuagint is discovering examples of extraordinary renderings and theologically motivated interpretations or changes in wording, not so much the normal mode of handling words and expressions of the source language. How does one paint the portrait of a particular translator? First of all, I think that the full description of a translator should aim at describing both his normal mode of translation and his special achievements—the conventions observed as well as the rare cases showing what he is capable of achieving. Second, hand in hand with the two extremes just mentioned go the two ways of presenting the data. On the one hand, it is necessary to give statistics of phenomena that are frequent in the text. On the other hand, individual examples of singular cases complement the picture. Third, the portrait of a translator always needs the background provided by other translators. A comparison with other translators, as far as it is possible to make, helps one to evaluate the individual translator. Once again, individual features exemplified by rare cases complete the picture. It is also relevant to ask whether the translator under observation somehow reveals his knowledge of books translated earlier, or perhaps seeks help from parallel cases. The material used to exemplify the translation technique in a certain book consists of various linguistic phenomena. Both grammatical and lexical items are useful for this purpose and should be considered. Particularly interesting from the viewpoint of translation technique are cases where the two languages concerned differ from one another in structure or in idiom, and where the translator had to choose between a Hebraistic expression and an idiomatic Greek expression, or otherwise had the need to clarify the meaning of the text for his readers. Since the Beitrag zur Septuaginta- und Hexaplaforschung (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1974), in 'Return to Basic Issues', pp. 307-11.

AEJMELAEUS Characterizing Criteria

57

texts in question have religious content, the issue of theologically motivated translation choices immediately emerges when the 'meaning' of the text, the semantic aspect, is touched upon. The theological motivation behind the whole business of translating the Scriptures and behind certain modes of translation or single equivalents used has quite correctly been emphasized lately, but it is most important in respect to methodology that the theological aspect of the work of the translator not be separated from his mode of working in general.6 In the case of the Psalter, I should like to emphasize this prerequisite in particular, since one of the main concerns of the translator of the Psalter must have been to find formulations that could be used in praise and prayer to God. And this not only in clear theological statements but also when speaking of the human experiences and aspirations of the petitioner and of the hopes and fears of the community. Most of the time, I trust, the translator was conscious of the necessity to formulate usable religious language, rhythmical prose that could be read aloud or recited by the Jewish community. 2. Different Criteria of Translation Technique Translation phenomena are commonly described in terms of literalness and freedom. As is well known, James Barr, in his Typology of Literalism, has focused on literalism, because literalness is easier to deal with.7 Freedom is more difficult to define, other than as departure from literalness. On the other hand, it is precisely freedom that has to be described when we try to describe the work of a translator. Speaking of the Septuagint in general—which must be allowed every once in a while—one would do well to point out which literal methods of translation led to the overall flavour of the language employed in most parts of it. But speaking of one individual translator—as most of the time we should be doing—it does not help much to describe his literalness. When speaking of one individual translator, we wish to demonstrate those features that are characteristic of his work and that help to distinguish him from the others, that is, features of freedom, departure from the literal 6. Cf. F. Austermann, ' "Deshalb werden nicht aufstehen Frevler im Gericht". Zur Ubersetzungsweise und Interpretation im ersten Septuaginta-Psalm' (paper delivered at the X Congress of the IOSCS, Oslo, 1998). 7. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translation (MSU, 15; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979).

58

The Old Greek Psalter

method. It would be interesting to know—and also useful for the various applications of the data of translation technique—just how much freedom and what kind of freedom a translator could allow himself. In seeking and characterizing criteria for the characterization of the Septuagint translators, it is very helpful to use Barr's differentiation of the various aspects of literalness or freedom as a point of departure. Each linguistic phenomenon studied should be analysed in order to discover which aspects of translation play a part in its treatment. A further principal distinction, I consider most important, is the one between the quantitative and qualitative aspects. Under the rubric of quantitative aspects I would include features such as (1) the word-for-word or element-for-element approach or the departure from it (i.e., adding or omitting elements), (2) word order—either retention of the word order of the original or a variation of it, and (3) segmentation—either narrow or wide—that is, the size of the portion of text that was usually, or could possibly be, taken into account by the translator.8 By qualitative aspects I refer to (1) the choice of equivalents, (2) the consistency of these choices, (3) the adequacy of lexical equivalents, (4) the adequacy of the grammatical forms chosen, and (5) the level of interpretation.9 The quantitative aspects have more to do with the structure of the text, the qualitative aspects with its meaning. When characterizing criteria, I should like to see here two poles—the quantitative and the qualitative— between which all the various criteria can be placed. Very few such criteria are solely either quantitative or qualitative in nature; most of them reveal features of both, but in varying degrees. For instance, there are several effective criteria of translation technique in the area of clause connections. In this area, the two languages concerned differ greatly. Consequently, consideration of Greek idiom produces variation and the use of several different conjunctions for the few existing Hebrew ones. For the most part, it is a question of the quantitative aspect of translation, since a change of conjunctions presupposes particularly wide segmentation. For the adjustment of conjunctions, the translator had to check at least one—possibly two— whole clauses. The semantic aspect is not lacking, but plays an inferior role. One excellent criterion of translation technique in this regard is the variation between oxi and yap as renderings of the loosely causal 'D (a 8. 9.

Cf. Barr, Typology, pp. 18-29. Cf. Barr, Typology, pp. 29-44,48-49.

AEJMELAEUS Characterizing Criteria

59

feature that I never weary of mentioning).10 Nevertheless, even this criterion has its limits. By this criterion we are able to distinguish the very best groups of translations: (1) Esther o', Exodus, Job and Proverbs (in which ydp is nearly always correctly used), and (2) Isaiah, Genesis, Joshua and Daniel o' (in which yap is employed a considerable number of times, although cm appears too).11 As for a translation like the Septuagint Psalter, this criterion has nothing to say. Of the 360 cases of causal *D in the Psalter, only seven have been rendered by yap (i.e. 1.9%) whereas the figures for the Pentateuchal books are between 26% and 85%.12 To mention another well-known criterion, the use of the participium coniunctum as a rendering of co-ordinate clauses was first introduced by Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen.13 This criterion, too, presupposes relatively wide segmentation, and it has to do primarily with the structure of the text rather than with its meaning. This criterion brings out the good quality of the translations I have just mentioned, plus a few others: the remaining books of the Pentateuch and 1-2 Samuel, all of which are narrative texts. However, the four cases of participium coniunctum in the Psalter—four in such a large biblical book—are statistically fully negligible. Another similar case is the rendering of the Hebrew 3 + infinitive construct. In the highest quality group, the translators show a preference for renderings with a temporal clause or a participial construction over against ev tcp + the infinitive. As for the Psalter, there are merely seven cases of the freer alternatives against 52 of ev TCp + the infinitive.14 The poor translator does not seem to qualify at all according to these criteria. But there must be other criteria to make it possible to distinguish between the translators outside the 'top ten' group. In order to be able 10. See my 'OTI causale in Septuagintal Greek', in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993), pp. 17-36. 11. 'DTI causale', p. 28. 12. Genesis 55%, Exodus 85%, Leviticus 35%, Numbers 27%, Deuteronomy 26% — total 244/528, i.e., 46% ('OTI causale', p. 26). 13. I. Soisalon-Soininen, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta (AASF, B 132; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1965), pp. 177-78. See also my Parataxis in the Septuagint (AASF, B Diss. 31; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982), pp. 89-108. 14. Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, pp. 188-90.

60

The Old Greek Psalter

to achieve this, it is necessary to look for criteria that more clearly have to do with the qualitative aspect of translation, that is, with the choice of equivalents, with treatment of idioms and metaphors, with the activity of the translator on the level of words—the smallest units that convey meaning and make up the semantic content of the text. The division between quantitative and qualitative aspects which I aim at is not identical to the division between grammatical and lexical aspects. Several grammatical and syntactical features belong in the category of qualitative aspects. For instance, the use of the subjunctive or optative is very strongly connected to the semantic aspect of the form, giving expression to a wish or thought that is unreal or not yet real. When treating one word, the verb, a translator had to choose not only the lexical item but also the verbal form—out of a number of forms with distinctions unknown in Hebrew—and these two, the lexical unit and the form, combined to make up a meaningful verbal expression. In saying this, I stress that my focus is on the practice of translation. If one were to focus on the systematic description of the Greek language, one would naturally have to speak of different sentence structures. Among the grammatical and, in particular, syntactical items, there are some that typically presuppose the mastering of large contexts and structures—exemplifying the quantitative aspect—whereas others seem to function within a more narrow space and with a primary emphasis on the semantic aspect of the words used—which would mean location nearer to the qualitative pole. Among the latter, I would tentatively include prepositions. In this connection, I should like to experiment with the renderings of a particular Hebrew preposition, viz. ]Q, and to examine the way the translator of the Psalter handled this item. Did he have standard equivalents which he employed without consideration of the semantic aspect, or was he after all led by the semantic effect of the words he wrote? Methodologically speaking, what interests me is whether items such as prepositions can be used as criteria for evaluating translation technique in the case of translators who do not distinguish themselves on the basis of quantitative aspects. 3. Experimenting with a Preposition I proceed to my experiment with the renderings of the Hebrew preposition ]D. The preposition ]Q has several different functions for which different renderings must be used in Greek. This makes it interesting for

AEJMELAEUS Characterizing Criteria

61

my test. For the usual semantic values 'from', 'away from', 'out of, the Greek language has two main alternatives to offer: GOTO and EK, which at first sight are not easy to distinguish (cf. von and aus in German) for speakers of languages in which this sort of differentiation is not made. My impression is that in the vast majority of cases the translator of the Psalter correctly distinguished between the functions of the two prepositions.15 Which one of the two was chosen depended mainly on the verb of the clause—whether it was a verb connoting departure or distance, redemption or protection, separation or turning away, and so on—but also on the main word of the preposition, so that both prepositions sometimes occur in parallel stichs, as in the following examples. Ps. 52(51).?

D"n pKD -pzhtfi ^n«Q -|ncn -jnrr mtf? "par ^TH 8ia TOVTO 6 Geoq KCt6eXev oe ei<; Tetax;' EKTiXm ae Kal ueTavatJTEiiaai oe drco cncTivofyiaToq Kai TO pi£a>u,dCTOVEK y% CCOVTODV. Ps. 107(106).3

D'QT ]Tsnsn znDoai mmo map rrariRm EK TtSv xtopwv (ruvfr/ctyEv a-uto-ix; ctTto dvaToXwv Kai SUCTUXBV Kai Poppa KOI 6aXda
"•mo ^rrn* n»QT]o 'rim« rnoo izfen n^^n 'D

6ti E^eiXaTO rnv \|A)XT|v p.o\) EK (ano LPau) 9avdTO\), TO\)<; 6<|>0aA|iot)<; \io\) 6mb SaKp-ucov KOI wu<; 7c68a<; nou anb (e^ 55: ex 55.14) oXiaOrniatoi;. Ps. 143(142).?

S

3QQ I^D nnon-^H

|ifj an;oatp£\|/Ti<; TO Tipoaawcov ao-u an;' EIIOV Ps. 34(33). 14 HQ^Q -QTD "['nStDl JTID ~I31EJ^ 1S3 Tiatioov rnv y^wocrdv aou OTCO KOKOV Kai X£iA,Ti OOD TO\) ^f\ XaA,f|oai 86Xov. (N.B. the idiomatic rendering without a preposition in connection with the infinitive16) 15. On the use of dico and EK in Ptolemaic texts, see E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemderzeit. II.2. Satzlehre (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1934), pp. 375-90. 16. See also Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, pp. 102-104. Similar cases occur elsewhere in the Septuagint as well as in Ptolemaic texts, both with and without the negation.

62

The Old Greek Psalter Ps. 104(103).13

pun solan ftowa nso rm^o crin npco Tcotl^oov opn. EK teov wtEpaxDV ourou, onto (EK R) Kaprcoi) xaiv Epycov aou xopTaa0T|a£i:ai f| 7% (GOTO having in this case partitive force; cf. n. 17 below)

I do not wish to go into detail on the other functions of ]Q, such as the partitive or the causal functions. In such contexts, the Greek language is largely able to employ the prepositions cwco and eic.17 A small group of seven cases perhaps worth mentioning involves contexts in which the meaning is 'to beg of a person', 'to receive from a person'. In these instances, the rendering is always Teapot with the genitive (six times) or the accusative (once). For example: Ps. 2.8 nriNT '300 'TRtf airnoai nap' EU,O{>, KOI SOKTCO Ps. 21(20).5 "(00 ^Ktf D"n £caf|v xiTrjoaTO OE Ps. 62(61).2 TUnef* 1300 nap' crotou yap TO acornpiov p,ou

In most of the cases with different nuances of 'from', the translator seems to have proceeded according to normal Greek usage. Of the two main alternatives, dxco was used slightly more often than eic (according

17. In the Greek Psalter, EK seems to be favoured over cwco in the partitive function, whereas the ratio is the other way round in the Greek Pentateuch (I. Soisalon-Soininen, 'Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ]Q im griechischen Pentateuch', in Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax [AASF, B 237; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987], pp. 154-71) and in the Ptolemaic papyri (Mayser, Grammatik, II.2, p. 376). The partitive EK seems to have become more common in later times, for which the New Testament gives an example (see F. Blass, A. Debrunner and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th fully revised and expanded edn, 1976], p. 135). In causal cases, GOTO clearly prevails over EK in the Greek Psalter, approaching the function of an agent in connection with the passive voice. In the Ptolemaic papyri, EK seems to be the more common of the two in the causal function (Mayser, Grammatik, II.2, pp. 378-79, 388-89).

AEJMELAEUS Characterizing Criteria

63

to my calculations 164 and 15018), but because of the different nuances it is hardly helpful to present these results in statistical form. That owed was used fairly often may, however, speak in favour of a relatively early date for the translation of the Psalter, since EK is supposed to have become more frequent in later Koine.19 Far more interesting, however, as criteria for the analysis of translation technique are cases of ]D where the two basic alternatives should by no means have been used. 4. Renderings of the Comparative JQ A most interesting group of cases in this respect involves those in which |Q is used to express comparison (in all, 33 cases in the Psalter). As is well known, the Hebrew language does not employ comparative or superlative forms of adjectives or adverbs, but instead expresses comparison by means of the preposition ]Q. The renderings of these cases include the following different types. a. In the Greek Psalter, comparative forms are used five times (three times with imep, once with the genitive; once jioAAov fj appears): Ps. 35(34). 10 13QQ pTHQ »30 ^JSQ pwjievoq JCTCOXOV EK X^tpoq atepewrepoov (-pot) 2110 La = MT) avco-G Ps. 37(36). 16

trai tr»Bh poriD pHtf? ora-mo xpelaaov oXiyov TOO 8iKaiep {weep TiAoihov duapicoXxov 7ioA/uv Ps. 63(62).4 D"rtD *]-IOn 3TBPD 6ti Kpeiaaov TO EXeoq oou wtep £ood<;

18. These numbers were calculated on the basis of A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum. X. Psalmi cum Odis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1967). The consideration of a few readings from the apparatus would change the figures slightly in favour of euro. 19. See Mayser, Grammatik, 11.2, pp. 375-76, 382. I. Soisalon-Soininen (Die Textformen der Septuaginta-UbersetzungdesRichterbuches [AASF, B72; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1951], p. 45) finds a clear difference between the two textual forms of Judges, in that EK prevails in A (2/3), cwco in B (2/3). SoisalonSoininen draws the conclusion that, at least in this respect, B is more original.

64

The Old Greek Psalter Ps. 84(83). 11

tf7«a 7-rara Di'-mtD '3 jKtfT'?rma inn 'rfTR nun epinon 'mra

6ti KpeiotKov f\jiepa uia ev Taiq atActii; ooi> •imep %iKia.8ag eljeXeljduiiv 7tapappi7iTeic6ai ev i4> oiicq)TOV6eou uaXAov (•+• Ga) fj oiicelv EV
One's first impression may be that a total of five cases out of 33 is nothing to brag about. However, it was very difficult for most of the Septuagint translators to recognize the need for a comparative or superlative form in cases where the Hebrew employed the preposition p. Even the translators of the Pentateuch did not always succeed very well in rendering this construction:20 Genesis is the book which has the most occurrences of comparative and superlative forms (eight out of a total of 18); Exodus, which otherwise belongs to the 'top ten', happens to have just one case of the comparative (out of eight); Leviticus exhibits four cases of comparative forms (out of 13); Numbers shows three (out of eight); Deuteronomy has four (out of 17). Of the other books, it may be interesting to mention Judges which, in all four cases of an adjective with the preposition p, amazingly succeeds in producing the comparative form.21 Another book known for its literal mode of translation — although less literal than Judges — is 1 Samuel, which succeeds in only one of seven cases. Already these samples show that we are dealing with a phenomenon that does not conform to the usual classifications of the Septuagint translators: Genesis is on a par with Judges, and Exodus with 1 Samuel and the Psalter. b. The positive form of the adjective appears four times with a preposition expressing comparison (wtep + accusative [2], nctpti + accusative [2]), twice with r\ in connection with the infinitive: Ps. 45(44)3

DT« mn n'S'a1 eopoioi; KdXXei rcapct toig moi)i; TO>V avOpanwov

20. Here I rely on the information given by I. Soisalon-Soininen, 'Renderings of Hebrew Comparative Expressions with ]D in the Greek Pentateuch', in A. Aejmelaeus and R. Sollamo (eds.), Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax (AASF, B 237; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987), pp. 141-53. 21. Soisalon-Soininen, Die Textformen, pp. 45, 56-57; 'Comparative Expressions', p. 142.

AEJMELAEUS Characterizing Criteria

65

Ps. 119(1 18).72

*pDi 3nt 'S'WD 7Enmn ^-mo dvaSov not 6 vou,o<; -ecru OTOHOTOI; aou weep xi-^id5e<; /pucriou KOI dpyupioi). Ps. 119(118).103

's1? tftna -]rnnK on1? •crtnmn ax; YXwea Tq> XdpnyYv M.OD TCI Xoyvd ODD, •vwcep (xeXi KHI Kiipiov tcp OTOjiati p.o\). Ps. 135(134).5 arhvf^oQ iwwi mn' "pnr'D OTI neyai; Kiipvo<; KOI 6 K-upiog fprov napa jidvTai; touq Oeo^ Ps. 118(117).8-9

DIKD nena mn'3 niorf? aio D'3H33 ncona mrrs mon1? mcs dyaeov neTtoiOevai em Kupiov fj TtejtoiOevai en avGpcojiov dya96v eAjcv^eiv eiA Kijpiov r\ etaci^eiv en' apxovtai;. (N.B. ]B + infinitive construct)

A further two cases in which the translator did not recognize the comparative nature of ]D may be mentioned. But these cases are even today most difficult for us to interpret:

Ps. 4.8

•n-i...mn ru>a '3^3 nnoto nnra e8coKa<; exx|)pocr6vTiv eiq tf^v KapSiav jiauOTIO Kaipou ciTo-u...e7tA/n6/6v9r|aav. (a temporal interpretation of onto is probably the most natural here) Ps. 62(61). 10 BT» '33 3D m«"'33 "PSH •]«

TTT bsnn non rrfrs1? n'jmas nX.f|v (idtaioi ol v)ioi twv dvBpcojccov, \l/ei)Sei<; oi moi TMV dvQpawtcov ev C^oi";TOWdSiKfjoai (!), awoi EK HOTaioxTiTOi; em TO cruro. (EK seems to form a circumlocution for an adjective22) The type of expression in the above cases — the positive of an adjective with a preposition expressing comparison — is actually quite usual in the

22. Cf. Mayser, Grammatik, 112, p. 390.

66

The Old Greek Psalter

Septuagint. This is the rule, for instance, in Ecclesiastes which frequently uses expressions of the type dyaGoi; iwcep: Eccl. 9.4

nan rrnRrrp me «in TT aW? 6 KVCOV 6 £<5v, ai)TO<; dya66q \rnep TOY A^ovta TOY veicpov23

In the Pentateuch, all five books have cases of the positive of an adjective with napd + accusative, tmep + accusative, or r\ or udAAov TJ. In Leviticus, there are even cases of the positive of an adjective with the preposition drco in situations where one would expect to find the comparative (Lev. 13.3 "TUTDpDJ)—xaTceivfi drco TOO) Sepuaioq; cf. 13.20 TUtfTp ^SC?—TcwceivoTepa TOU 5epuato<;24); this means that the translator was, to say the least, unsure about the correct analysis of the case. All in all, the translator of the Psalter did not do a worse job than the translators of the Pentateuch. He did recognize these cases and, accordingly, used a preposition other than drco or eK. If he missed the point in a few cases that are difficult for us, too, we should not criticize him too severely. The very common use of the positive form in expressions of comparison is most probably connected with the existence of parallel phenomena in contemporaneous Koine.25 c. Comparison also occurs in connection with verbs that express a quality, on eight occasions with a preposition (imep + accusative [7], Tcapd + accusative [1]): Ps. 8.6 opyfiv Qv\io\> a\nov, 9i>u.6v KOI opyfjv Kcti f|tam
opyfiv Qv\io\> a\nov, 9i>u.6v KOI opyfjv Kcti on, ecrcepe(D6T|aav weep (ETC R) ejiE Ps. 40(39). 13

opyfiv Qv\io\> a\nov, 9i>u.6v KOI opyfjv Kcti E7tXTi6\)v6Tiaav weep me, tpi%a<; rfj<; Ke$dkr\c, JIOD

23. Ecclesiastes attests the comparative only once, in 7.26. 24. See Soisalon-Soininen, 'Comparative Expressions', p. 148. 25. Mayser, Grammatik, II. 1, pp. 46-53; II.2, p. 490 (an example with reapd); see also Blass, Debrunner and Rehkopf, Grammatik, p. 196.

AEJMELAEUS Characterizing Criteria

67

Ps. 69(68).5

izfm rrnafon im e7dTi9w9n,aav xmep id<; tpiyjnq tfji; Ke<j>aW\<; fioa> Ps. 55(54).22

intfn von IDT TpcaXwBticiav oi Xoyot autoi) tmep eXaiov Ps. 69(68)32

TBta mrr1? SOTTI KOV dpEOEi Tip 0e4> wiep ^ooxov veov Ps. 139(138).18

ya"p "7inn KOI tmep a(4iov jtA.tiO'uv&noovTai Ps. 142(141).? '300 ISDH "O oxi eKparawoftnoav imep ene

These kinds of expressions are common in Hebrew and consequently also in the Septuagint. They are to be seen as parallel to the cases in the previous group. The translator showed by his choice of the preposition ({weep or jtapd) that he recognized the character of these cases. d. In another group of eight cases, 'compared to', 'more than' is expressed by a preposition (wtep + accusative [7], napa + accusative [1]): Ps. 45(44).8

jnarra pa* ]ao jrfa* cm1?* -[TOD Expurev oe b 6e6i; 6 BEOS oou eXaiov otyaXAiddeax; napa TOW; netoxoix; oow.

Ps. 52(5 1).5

pns nano ipo mcDD in rnn« riYatnoai; Kaviav imep aYctSaxnivtiv, dSiKiav ujcep to XaXi^oai. 8tKaioer6vTiv. (N.B. ]D + infinitive construct; other cases of dyatetv with the preposition iwtep are found at Ps. 87[86].2 and 1 19[1 18J.127) Ps. 119(118).98

"jnisia '3DDnn 'an«3 •unep Touq exOpoi*; uou ea6(|)iadg u£ xfiv evroXfiv aov (!) Ps. 119(118).100 |313T»< D'3ptD tmep Kpeafhnepovq mrvfiKa (see also v. 99)

68

The Old Greek Psalter

The difference in comparison to the previous group is that the verb does not actually express quality. A way to improve the expression would have been to use uxxMxw fi (e.g. Gen. 29.30 bnTntTDJ intOl nt^Q— TiYowcriaev Se 'Pa/fiA, uaAlov f| Aeiav) which, however, is not very common. e. The special function of ]D expressing the notion 'too' ('too much', 'too heavy') was a very difficult one for the Septuagint translators. In two cases, our translator succeeded in somehow expressing this idea: Ps. 65(64).4

13'Mtia 'aa mi Xoyov dvoniaiv •unepeSwdjioxiav (imepriS. 21 10 B' T 1219') f||iaq Ps. 131(130).!

'3DD rotfjani rvrPtQ 'robmto ouSe ejtopeijftriv ev neydAxni; ou8e ev Gaunacrioiq unep e|ie.

As a matter of fact, there is no exact Greek correspondence to an expression of this kind in which two entities that are actually incommensurable are compared with each other: 'things bigger and more wonderful than me' = '...than I can comprehend' = 'things too big and too wonderful for me'. The translator of the Psalms did well in recognizing these cases and in finding usable Greek expressions. The extreme difficulty of the notion 'too' is exemplified by the following examples in which the translator missed the point. This was at least partly due to the problem of finding suitable expressions on the Greek side: Ps. 38(37).5 '3DD TOD"1 133 R&DD woel <|)op-tiov papi) epapwGrioav in' e^e Ps. 61(60).3

'3nn MOO arr-vca ev itetpg ;i}\|/aKTc<<; ji£, cbSTiyriod^ HE

In this case, either the Hebrew Vorlage was different, or the wording did not make any sense to the translator, who resorted to the model provided by Ps. 27(26).5. The cases in Psalm 139(138) are most difficult to analyse in Greek:

AEJMELAEUS Characterizing Criteria

69

Ps. 139(138).6

'3QD run mbs eQau\iaGi(bdr\ fj yvdool*; cot) e£ e^ioti (possibly meant as the agent) Ps. 139(138).12

"pa -pefrrN1? icn-D3

OTI OKOTOI; oi) cfKOTidBTjOETai GOTO aov (perhaps also here some kind of agent, 'on your part')

To judge by the way in which the translators handled these problematic cases of |Q in the sense of 'too', it seems that not all of them were conscious of this function of the preposition. All the more difficult it was for them if they had no equivalent Greek expression at their disposal. 26 It is true that the limits set on our thinking by our mother tongue are sometimes difficult to overcome. In the Pentateuch, it is the translator of Genesis who found the best solutions to instances of 'too', mostly by means of free renderings (four cases), for example, Gen. 18.14: "HI mrPQ K^a'n—ur] dSuvaiei rcapd tou 0eoi) pfjuxx. Of the two cases in Exodus, one is a free rendering, that is, Exod. 12.4: n&Q rrnia nQn tDUQ'nDNI—edv 8e 6A,vyocrroi cooiv oi ev TTJ OIKIO wate jif| iKavotiq el vat ei<; Tcpopaiov. The other one fails to express the notion 'too' but gives an appropriate Greek expression (the positive form with the dative). Leviticus (one case), Numbers (two cases) and Deuteronomy (four cases) seem to exhibit no greater wisdom. The dative construction appears once each in Leviticus and Numbers, for example, Lev. 27.8: ~p"ltfQ Kin ~[D~D81—eav 8e TQTCEIVOC; fj if] Tiuij. A comparative form with the dative occurs in Num. 11.14: ''SQQ ~QD— fkxp\)Tep6v uoi ecmv TO pfjuxx toiho. The translator of Deuteronomy was the most helpless of all with his three cases of coto, for example, Deut. 17.8: CDDCDD1? ""Ql "]QQ N^ET "O—edv 8e d8t>vaTT|crrj dtico oo\) pf|(a,a ev Kpiaei. By no means is cwto to be understood as comparative. Consequently, the translator of the Psalter is in good company; we can hardly expect more of him than of his Pentateuchal colleagues. In any case, he did succeed in finding an expression for the notion 'too', although only on occasion and on the basis of his understanding of the context. I think the result of the experiment is clear enough. Different criteria reveal different characteristics of the translators and show different aspects of their abilities. A translator who did not distinguish himself in 26. Cf. Soisalon-Soininen, 'Comparative Expressions', p. 141.

70

The Old Greek Psalter

the area of quantitative aspects of translation may well have competed successfully with his best colleagues in the area of qualitative aspects. In this respect, there is surely more to be discovered through the study of the renderings of the various prepositions, an area that, for the most part, remains to be explored. 5. A Few Characteristics of the Greek Psalter Within the scope of this paper, it is only possible to sketch a few contours for the portrait of the translator of the Greek Psalter. Nevertheless, I should like to mention a further linguistic area, namely the area of vocabulary, which exemplifies the qualitative aspect of translation and will thus, in due course, help to complete the picture. In lexical choices, the translator of the Psalter was by no means literal. Naturally, he had his share of standard equivalents, but he was far from simply adopting the concordance principle. Reading his work, one frequently makes the observation that, on the one hand, a certain Greek lexical item is used to render several Hebrew words that are synonyms or are related in meaning (e.g. Ps. 40[39].13 and 69[68].5 above), and, on the other hand, that a certain Hebrew lexical item is rendered by different Greek equivalents (e.g. Ps. 18[17].18 and 142[141].7 above). For instance, a random example is D12J qal and hiphil, for which a literal translator could, in principle, use in each and every case crcpe^cD or ETCiaipe^eo in their various forms, in transitive and intransitive functions. The translator of the Psalter, however, differentiated between different cases of 312?: 1. distinguishing between emaTpe<|)a) (38 cases) and d7coui28(27).4;51(50).14;79(78).12;94(93).2,23 dvTCOTo8i8o>ui 18(17).21,25; 116.12(115.3) COTOKaSiCTTnui 35(34). 17 djiOTiwuui 69(68).5 rcpoa<|>epa> 72(71). 10

AEJMELAEUS Characterizing Criteria

71

ejupdtXXffl (rf|v xeipa) 81(80).15 po. = oiK-dpo) 60(59).3 Here are some examples: Ps. 59(58).7 (cf. v. 15)

•pu mo'i :fo3 ran' 3-urt> nitf' EjiiOTpEYOwnv eiq eoitepav KOI Xi|a,(6^ot)aiv ax; KVODV KCU KDKXroooucnv TtoXvv. Ps. 22(21).28

pN-'osK-'PD mrr-bK ntf'i ror HvnoOifaovrai KOI eniCTTpa^CTovtai npoq Ktiptov Trdvra TO jtepata tn<;

TH5 Ps. 54(53).?

niti1? win mei'

aicoatpEvei ta KQKCI 1015 exBpoi; (IOD Ps. 18(17).21

'•? 2'e)' 'T inD 'pn^D mrr •'±>w KOI dvTajtoScoaei ^01 Kvpioq KOTCI TT)V SIKHIOOTJVTIV (iou KOI KOTO Tfyv Ka6apioTnTa t&v xevpcov jtou avxaitoScoaei (avc > S U R) M.OV

Ps. 132(131).! 1

n3DD mtir-R^ not* in1? mn'-rate dafioaev Kvpioq Tip Aam5 ciXT|6Eiav Kai ov (if) d9ETTiaei avrr|v Ps. 85(84).9

nboD1? mB^TW TTon-V«i iDi}-b« mbtz? -QT 'D OTI XaX,r|OEi Evpnviiv Bid TOY Xaov auTOi) real ejci vovq oaioi*; auroii KOV ETO. Toi)^ E7iicrtpeovTa(; npbc, awov Kap6iav. (!)

Note that, in the Psalter, dnooTpeijxD also serves 13 times as an equivalent for ~IHD hiphil in the idiom 'hide one's face' (see Ps. 143[142].7 above). For this variation in the choice of equivalents, there are, of course, different reasons. First, the resources of the two languages are different indeed, and the Greek language in particular offers vast possibilities to use more specific expressions for the often very simple Hebrew idiom. Second, one should also consider the poetic nature of the Psalter. The main feature of Hebrew poetry is parallelism. The parallel lines often

72

The Old Greek Psalter

contain synonymous expressions, a fact that makes the task of the translator only more demanding. One often notices that the translator of Psalms alternated synonymous or near-synonymous equivalents in order to fit the words into the line better (cf. Ps. 118[117].8-9 above). Sometimes one Greek word is repeated for the Hebrew parallel expressions, but repetition can function as a poetic device as well (cf. Ps. 18[17].21 above). It is important that lexical studies on the Greek Psalter properly take into account the poetic structure of the text; for each case of an equivalent used, it is necessary to check a larger context, including the parallel lines. The poetic structure of the text and its function as religious poetry— prayer and praise—must be taken into account when characterizing the work of the translator. In passing, I would like to mention the translation of divine epithets.27 As is well known, the Greek Psalter never uses epithets such as 'rock' or 'stronghold' for the God of Israel, but interprets these metaphors as 'helper', 'help', 'protector' and the like, or gives the referent 'God' instead. I do not believe that the translation of the divine epithets is a fully isolated phenomenon in the Psalter, or that it somehow contradicts the general mode of translation in this biblical book. It is merely the tip of the iceberg, the rest of which is not so easy to discover. I think that the avoidance of concrete epithets for God indicates that the translator was very conscious of his duty to create a Greek book of Psalms which could be used by his religious community in prayer and praise to God—nothing less. It is only natural that the translator had a religious or theological motivation for several of his choices. The prevailing opinion about the Greek Psalter may be that it contains dreadfully poor poetry. Of course, this is true if we compare it to classical Greek poetry. But if one considers the constraints within which the translator worked, one cannot avoid the impression that he did rather well after all. The translator did not show his best side in the quantitative respect, which I think is fully understandable. The structure of sentences was not the foremost interest of the translator, who was coping with problems caused by the parallelism and the religious content of the text. In Hebrew poetry, the sentence structure is formally rather simple: short independent clauses follow one another, and the text consists mainly of small units of thought. The logic of the 27. See S. Olofsson, God is My Rock (ConBOT, 31; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990).

AEJMELAEUS Characterizing Criteria

73

discourse is, for the most part, not made explicit through complex syntactical devices, but it is to be discovered through the content. The translator of the Psalter could not and would not change this overall scheme of the text, and that is why he rates as a poor translator, as far as the quantitative aspect of his work is concerned. However, he concentrated his efforts on the qualitative aspect. It is in this respect that I think there is a lot more to be discovered about this translator. As a result of observations in this area, I anticipate that it will be possible to make clearer distinctions between those translators who do not qualify in the quantitative respect, and between original translations and recensional activities, for which literalism in every possible respect was a strict rule and a conscious goal. That was not the case for the translator of the Greek Psalter.

THE GREEK PSALTER AND THE Kcdye TRADITION: METHODOLOGICAL QUESTIONS Peter J. Gentry

It is a privilege to join fellow-students of Albert Pietersma, along with colleagues, friends and scholars from around the world, to honour him with a contribution to this volume on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday.1 My doctoral dissertation, published six years ago, included a preliminary probe analysing the relationship between the Greek Psalter, the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever, the remains of Theodotion's Greek translation of Job, and Aquila.2 At about the same time, Staffan Oloffson presented a major paper on the relation of the Greek Psalter to the Kaiye group of texts at a meeting of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS) in Cambridge, England, which was later published in the Congress Volume.3 What follows here is an assessment of the contribution by Oloffson and a proposal with respect to issues of research methodology. Oloffson has sought to develop a broader contextual framework than 1. See also PJ. Gentry, "The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job and the Question of the KAIGE Recension', Textus 19 (1998), p. 141 n. 1. Professor Albert Pietersma was not only my first instructor in Hellenistic Greek and the co-supervisor of my doctoral dissertation, but has been all I could ask for in a friend over the past 25 years. 2. PJ. Gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job (SBLSCS, 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). See also idem, "The Place of Theodotion-Job in the Textual History of the Septuagint', in A. Salvesen (ed.), Origen's Hexapla and Fragments (TSAJ, 58; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), pp. 199-230, and idem, 'KAIGE Recension', pp. 141-56. 3. S. Olofsson, 'The Kaige Group and the Septuagint Book of Psalms', in B.A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge, 1995 (SBLSCS, 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 189-230.

GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kai/ye Tradition

75

has previously been employed for examining questions pertinent to Kaiye group research. In the process, he has adopted S.P. Brock's characterization of the LXX translator as either expositor or interpres, operating in the context of tensions between Diaspora or Hellenistic Judaism and Palestinian Judaism regarding the translation of Scripture.4 This approach has much to commend it. Such a framework is necessary since discussions about various types of translation technique will not be productive, nor will the early history of this translation be clarified, without such contextualization. The first stage in the process that gave rise to the Kaiye group of texts, according to Oloffson, is that certain circles in Palestine felt the need to bring the Greek translation into closer alignment with the Hebrew text of their time. Diaspora Judaism countered this development in the Letter ofAristeas by affirming that the original translation had indeed followed the ideal of literal translation and had a respectable pedigree. 'Later on, when it was evident that the translation differed not only from the Hebrew, but also was not consistent as regards translation technique, the LXX was boldly put on a par with the Hebrew original, and regarded as divinely inspired, as evidenced by e.g. Philo.'5 The final stage, which occurred sometime after the destruction of the Second Temple, was the recognition by literalist revisers that no translation, however literal, could do justice to the original language of revelation. Therefore, extremely literal renderings were produced on the basis of an interlinear model which only had meaning in relation to the Hebrew text. Olofsson assumes here a bilingual community. 4. S.P. Brock, 'The Phenomenon of Biblical Translation in Antiquity', The University of Birmingham Review 2 (1969), pp. 96-102; idem, 'The Phenomenon of the Septuagint', OTS 17 (1972), pp. 11-36; idem, 'Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity', Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 20 (1979), pp. 69-87; idem, 'Translating the Old Testament', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.),/f Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture—Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 87-98; idem, 'To Revise or Not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Translation', in G.J. Brooke and B. Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings (SBLSCS, 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 301-38; A. Pietersma, 'Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint', in A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers (Mississauga: Benben, 1984), pp. 85-101.1 have urged (in Greek Job, p. 496) that this approach be given greater attention. 5. Olofsson, 'The Kaige Group', p. 192.

76

The Old Greek Psalter These translations and revisions presuppose access to a Hebrew text or an interpreter in the same way that the 'meturgeman' in the synagogue worship translated and commented on Hebrew texts. These extremely literal translations and revisions seem to be the product of a bilingual community where the original language had cultural and religious prestige. The subordinate positions of the translations was at the same time a great advantage, because it implied that translations could also function as commentaries.6

Olofsson does not, however, appear to correlate the results of his investigation of translation technique in the Greek Psalter clearly and directly with the framework he establishes at the outset. Among numerous studies over the years by scholars who have attempted to discern different revisions in the history of the transmission of the Greek Old Testament, he acknowledges the work of D. Barthelemy in identifying the revisional activity of the icaiye group and the relationship between the Greek Psalter and the Kaiye group—observations that have subsequently been elaborated upon and refined by H.-J. Venetz, A. van der Kooij and O. Munnich. The similarities between LXX Psalms and the kaige group which are disclosed by Barthelemy: [sic] the translation of DilQlC rniT by Ktipio<; T<»V Suvdueoov, of "IDiCD by aahKiyyoc, Kepcmvni; in 98.6, the common rendering of D3 by Kai yap and the use of Pdpi? and 7n)py6papi<; are seen by Munnich as original traits in LXX Psalms which are taken up by the revisers of the kaige group. This is exactly the outcome of this investigation.7

Olofsson concludes this portion of his investigation by saying: 'Rather than a reflection of a Palestinian mode of interpretation or influenced by [sic] the kaige group, the LXX of Psalms is the point of departure for the revision in certain aspects'.8 The other part of his study deals with Quinta. Ever since Barthelemy associated Theodotion in Psalms with Kaiye and Venetz linked Quinta in Psalms with Kaiye, it has been evident that these proposed connections require critical scrutiny.9 Venetz proposed that Quinta reflects a later, more developed phase in the revisional process than Theodotion 6. Olofsson, 'The Kaige Group', p. 193. 7. Olofsson, The Kaige Group', p. 198. 8. Olofsson, 'The Kaige Group', pp. 224-25. 9. D. Barthelemy, Les devanciers d'Aquila (VTSup, 10; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1963), p. 47.

GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kcdye Tradition

77

does.10 Olofsson agrees with Venetz that Quinta makes more systematic use of the vocabulary of the LXX Psalms and he furnishes additional examples.11 The significance of Olofsson's piece, and the major difference between his work and that of his predecessors, derives from the fact that his conclusions are based upon consideration of a much larger number of equivalents. He has examined evidence for approximately 100 patterns of translation technique for the Greek Psalter, as compared with the handful considered by others before him. But how do the conclusions of Olofsson's study relate to the framework referred to above? There are relationships between the icai/ye group and the Greek Psalter as well as the revision of it by Quinta. Connections between the Greek Psalter and Kaiye are only partial, as is clear from Olofsson's data which is discussed below. Olofsson concludes with Munnich that the translation of the Psalter into Greek is to be situated at the beginning of the process that gave rise to the KCtiye group, and that it, in fact, served as a model for the group. This implies that the Greek Psalter reflects the inclination of those in certain circles in Palestine to bring the Greek translation into closer alignment with the Hebrew text. Olofsson also brings forth evidence to show that Quinta uses the vocabulary of LXX Psalms more systematically than earlier revisions do. Furthermore, he refers to equivalences that connect Quinta to Kaiye. He appears to follow Venetz in proposing that Quinta represents a later stage in the development of the KCtiye group. This implies that Quinta reflects either the concerns of those in Palestine who sought to make the Greek formally equivalent to the Hebrew, or the interests of the bilingual community of the late post-Second Temple period, which used the translation as a kind of interlinear aid to understanding the Hebraica veritas.12 10. H.-J. Venetz, Die Quinta des Psalteriums: Ein Beitrag zur Septuaginta- und Hexaplaforschung (Publication de 1'Institut de recherche et d'histoire des textes: Section biblique et massoretique. Collection massorah: Serie 1, Etudes classiques et textes, 2; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1974), p. 90. 11. Olofsson, 'The Kaige Group', pp. 199-203. 12. The interlinear model envisioned by Olofsson appears to be a literal one. More helpful heuristically is an interlinear model that is construed as a metaphor or paradigm for depicting the dependent relationship of the Septuagint to its Hebrew parent text. See especially A. Pietersma, Translation Manual for 'A New English

78

The Old Greek Psalter

This theory accounts for evidence of the relationships that there seem to be between the Kctiye group and both the Old Greek Psalter, on the one hand, and later revisions of it by Theodotion and Quinta, on the other. These are the clear implications of the results of Olofsson's study in relation to the translation context that he envisions, but he never explicitly states them. Had he done so, problems would have become apparent in both his contextualizing framework and his interpretation of the various kinds of translation technique that are evident. The first of these problems is the connection between certain aspects of Greek translation technique and the exegetical work carried out in rabbinic circles in Palestine at the time. Olofsson appears to accept too readily the theory of the Palestinian background of the Greek Psalter maintained by Venetz, and not to consider sufficiently the widelyaccepted criticisms of Venetz by others. Munnich, both in his doctoral dissertation on the Greek Psalter and in later studies on the Kaiye group, has demonstrated that a number of patterns of translation technique are not, pace Barthelemy, necessarily attributable to peculiarities of rabbinic exegesis.13 Indeed, many patterns discovered after Barthelemy first made his proposals have no obvious link to that interpretative school whatsoever. Pietersma, too, has challenged both the interpretation of the evidence and the proposed Palestinian origin of the Greek Psalter. His words bear repetition even after some twenty years: Translation of the Septuagint' (NETS) (Ada, MI: Uncial Books, 1996); idem, 'Panel Presentation of a New English Translation of the Septuagint' (The Xth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998) (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/discussion/oslo-presentation.html); 'Comments to the Panel on Modern Translations of the Septuagint (Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 31 July, 1998) by Natalio Fernandez Marcos and Arie van der Kooij on A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Responses by Albert Pietersma' (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/discussion/ oslo-discussion). Essays demonstrating that the data of the texts support this paradigm are those of C. Boyd-Taylor, 'A Place in the Sun', BIOSCS 31 (1998), pp. 71-105, and RJ.V. Hiebert, Translation Technique in the Septuagint of Genesis and its Implications for the NETS Version' (Paper presented to the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, November, 1999) (BIOSCS, forthcoming). 13. O. Munnich, 'Etude lexicographique du Psautier des Septante' (PhD dissertation, Universite de Paris-Sorbonne, 1982); idem, 'Indices d'une Septante originelle dans le Psautier grec', Bib 63 (1982), pp. 406-16; idem, 'La Septante des Psaumes et le groupe Kaige\ VT 33 (1983), pp. 75-89; idem, 'Contribution a 1'etude de la premiere revision de la Septante', in ANRW, n, 20/1, pp. 190-220.

GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kaiye Tradition

79

Venetz not only sees a general connection between icai/ye and icai yap (like Barthelemy) but in fact stresses that both translations of Hebrew (w)gm are expressive of the same or at least similar exegesis. Two things should be borne in mind from the outset: 1) what similarity exists can easily be overrated (as it is, in fact, by Venetz); 2) even if similarity is thought to exist one might well ask whether this inexorably argues for a Palestinian origin of the Greek Psalter, as Venetz would have us believe.14

Van der Kooij has subsequently attempted to bolster the argument of Venetz for a Palestinian provenance for the Old Greek Psalter.15 However, in a soon-to-be-published response, Pietersma argues that the preponderance of evidence is for an Egyptian origin.16 On the question of the connection of certain characteristics of the Greek Psalter to rabbinic exegesis in Palestine, Olofsson, in fact, seems a bit unclear. At one point he agrees with Venetz and van der Kooij: Papiq and Trupyopapiq are according to Venetz and van der Kooij characteristic renderings of the the kaige group, even though they also occur in the so-called KOI yap-group of which the book of Psalms is an exponent. Thus even though not a specific characteristic of the kaige group it confines the LXX Psalms to a Palestinian hermeneutic tradition.17

However, his conclusion later in the piece seems to contradict this position: 'Rather than a reflection of a Palestinian mode of interpretation or influenced by the kaige group, the LXX of Psalms is the point of departure for the revision in certain aspects'.18 A second problem arises if one accepts, as most do, the criticisms of Venetz made by Munnich and Pietersma. The correlation between the Greek Psalter and the framework posited by Olofsson must then either be rejected or revised. Probably the latter is the route to take. Different approaches to translation were adopted for even the first books of the

14. A. Pietersma, 'Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues', VT 35 (1985), pp. 296-311 (307). 15. A. van der Kooij, 'On the Place of Origin of the Old Greek of Psalms', VT 33 (1983), pp. 67-74. 16. A. Pietersma, 'The Place of Origin of the Old Greek Psalter', in P.M.M. Daviau, J.W. Wevers and M. Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans. I. Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion (JSOTSup, 324; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). 17. Olofsson, 'The Kaige Group', p. 222. 18. Olofsson, 'The Kaige Group', pp. 224-25.

80

The Old Greek Psalter

LXX—those of the Pentateuch—to be translated: some reflect a philosophy of dynamic equivalence, others different degrees of formal equivalence.19 Debate with respect to faithful modes of translation may well have gone on within communities of Diaspora and Palestinian Jews, and not only between them. Thus formal equivalence does not necessarily correlate only with the concerns of Palestinian rabbis, nor is it an indisputable sign of Palestinian provenance. In fact, a clearer definition of just what the Kociye group is would have helped Olofsson relate the textual data to the contextual framework that he proposes. We turn now to the evidence regarding patterns of translation amassed by Olofsson to support his conclusion that the Greek Psalter stands at the beginning of the revisional continuum that produced the Kaiye group and that it served as a model for those responsible for the group. He states that Barthe'lemy and Munnich based their conclusions on not many patterns of translation technique.20 In his study, Olofsson broadens the base by carefully examining (1) Core Patterns, that is, characteristics employed by Barthe'lemy to identify the members of the Kdtye group, (2) Precursor Patterns, that is, traits that show these members to be precursors of Aquila and dependent on the hermeneutics of Palestinian rabbis, and (3) Post-Barthelemy Patterns, that is, other characteristics of the members of the Kaiye group proposed in subsequent investigations up to and including that of L. Greenspoon.21 Barthelemy posited nine Core Patterns. The chart below lists those patterns and the results of Olofsson's study of translation technique. In this and the subsequent chart, agreement with the Kaiye group is indicated by a plus sign (+), disagreement by a minus sign (-). P indicates partial agreement with the patterns of the Kaiye group, while NA signifies that analysis is Not Applicable for the Greek translation of the Hebrew Psalms.

19. As Olofsson himself acknowledges ('The Kaige Group', p. 190). See also A. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (AASF, Diss. Hum. Litt., 31; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982), pp. 175-81. 20. Olofsson, 'The Kaige Group', p. 198. 21. L. Greenspoon, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua (HSM, 28; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983).

GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kcdye Tradition 1. D3 / D31 = Kaiye

81 -

2. 2TK = dvf|p

–

3. ^UQ = eTidvooOev / d7idvo)6ev + Genitive

-

4. :ET - rBfl = ornXoco

-

5. mJSSn = adX,jn.y£ / "1D12J = Kepacivri

-

6. Elimination of Historical Presents

NA

7. "pR = OUK ecmv

P

8. "O3K = eyo> eim

-

9. DK'lp'? = ei<; truvdvaioiv

P22

There is only partial agreement with the Kaiye group for two of the criteria listed above. For one of these the evidence is rather scant. Thirteen Precusor Patterns were posited by Barthelemy. The analysis of Olofsson is once again summarized in a chart. It shows not only the equivalent preferred by the Kcciye group, but also that of Aquila, whose work is characterized by a more systematized approach. 1. Tn3 = H.OVO£(QVO<; (a' ei)£covo<;)

-

2. mN32i mrp = K\»pio<; T(5v 8vvd|i£tov (a' Kv>pio<; T
P

3. ^K = iaxvpoi; (a' iax^poi; employed exclusively for *?K)

-

4.13] = Various Derivatives of evavti (a' KOTevavri)

P

5. pb / p-^U / n«r^r = 6id Tomo (a' Separate Equivalents)

P

6. thsh = eiq tov airava (a'eiqaiwva)

+

7. TT = ot>ai (a' coi)

NA

8. "[OK = cruvdyco (a' av^Xeyco)

+

9.1DD = xtojiapeiu, (a' Teueviiric;)

NA

10. n^DK =CTKOtia(a' aKotaqioi;)

NA

11. pn = e^o8o<; (a' E^COTOTOV)

P

12. Tin / nTin = ei)7tpe7ieia (a' SiairpeTtEia)

-

"?^

13. TIQ = taxwco (a' taxwoo )

+

22. One of two instances where ntOp1? is rendered by the Greek Psalms translator (Pss. 34[35].3 and 58[59].5). 23. Barthelemy notes that, whereas Old Greek translators normally use ojievSco

82

The Old Greek Psalter

In summary, three traits do not apply. Of the remaining ten, three are characteristic of the Greek Psalter, four are only partly so, while three are not at all. Some 75 equivalences have been proposed post-Barthelemy as additional characteristics of the Kcciye group.24 Olofsson analyses approximately 72 of these and includes another seven possible traits of the Kcdye group proposed by Venetz. If we exclude the latter seven traits and include Core and Precursor Patterns, Oloffson's analysis embraces a total of approximately 94 characteristics of the Kodye group: 14 patterns are found consistently in the Greek Psalter, 13 are attested some of the time, 34 contradict the habits of the translator of the Greek Psalter, and some 33 do not apply. Oloffson emphasizes the agreement and concludes, as mentioned above, that 'the LXX of Psalms is the point of departure for the revision in certain aspects'.25 Before evaluating these general results, I propose to select just one of the characteristics analysed by Olofsson and to examine his work more closely.26 I will inspect the data for the one Core Pattern that is 'partially consistent with the kaige group' and that occurs more than just once or twice, that is, the rendering of "ftf by OVK eaxiv. Here is Olofsson's analysis: The emphasis of the atemporal character of the Hebrew J^K by using oinc eativ even in the midst in [sic] a series of aorists is a sign of the kaige group. In the Psalms ]'$ is as a rule rendered by OUK eativ, whether or not the verbs are aorists, 3.3; 5.10; 6.6; 10.4; 14.1 (2x), 3 (2x); 19.7; 22.12; 32.9; 34.10; 36.2; 38.4 (2x), 8,11; 40.13; 53.2 (2x), 4 (2x); 55.20; 69.3; 71.11; 73.4; 74.9; 86.8 (2x); 104.25; 119.165; 139.4; 142.5; 144.14; 145.3; 146.3; 147.5, but also otnc etmv -ciq 40.6, or oi)8e eonv 32.2 (pun), owe fjv 18.42; 37.36 (Wtjt); 79.3; 105.34, 37; 107.12; 142.5, ofi OVK fjv 105.34, <5v oi)K eoTiv 104.25 QW), OUK eioiv [we] 19.4; 73.5 CtojpN)- Other equivalents sporadically appear, OVK excov 38.15, ov UTJ wtdp^oxnv 59.14, ofy xwrip^ev 69.21; 72.12 (]•>«]), ot>x iwwxp^ei 103.16, UTJ wtdpxeiv awoiii; 104.35, Kai o\) jifj tmdp^fl (]W) 37.10, Kai ov UTI for 1HQ, the Kaiye recension of Kingdoms and the Greek Translator of Psalms use Taxwco. Aquila further systematizes this when he establishes the equivalents "1HD = taxvvQ), Bftn = OTieiiSco and "PPD = Kataa7cou§ti£a> (Barthelemy, Les devanciers d'Aquila, p. 184). 24. See Gentry, Greek Job, pp. 402-10; T. McLay, 'Kaige and Septuagint Research', Textus 19 (1998), pp. 127-39. 25. Olofsson, 'The Kaige Group', p. 225. 26. Chosen entirely at random from Core/Precursor Patterns.

GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kceiye Tradition

83

eupTiq Ofi?W) 37.10, or u.n5e [s/c] 7.3 QW), probably reflecting ]'«. According to Bodine it may be a genuine characteristic of the kaige group, but there are some cases in the kaige sections where it is not revised and thus the characteristic is not consistent in the kaige material.27

This data is summarized in his conclusions as well under the heading 'Partly consistent with the Kaiye group': ]'S translated by ot>K E«rav (oi)K eorvv approx 40x, OV>K ^v 7x, ouSe e«mv Ix, OUK ex«uv Ix, ou jin. imdp/joxnv lx,28 o\>x wcfjp^ev 2x, oiix twtdp^ei. lx, un. •undpxevv lx), ]'flr] o\>6e eonv lx, cov otnc eonv lx, oi>x imfjp^ev lx, KOI ot> uf| untip£g lx, HT|8e 133'R OUK fjv lx, 13?.'R1 OUK eimv [sic] lx, ^'Kl vai ou nn eiip^? lx.29

As a basis for evaluating the evidence presented by Olofsson, all the data for renderings of ft* in the Greek Psalms as well as in Exodus and Deuteronomy are provided in the Appendix. Since dynamic equivalence is the approach of the translator of the Greek Exodus, while formal equivalence is the approach of the translator of the Greek Deuteronomy, we will have the opportunity to compare and contrast patterns in the Greek Psalter with both expositor and interpres styles in the Greek Pentateuch. The evidence for the Psalter recorded in the Appendix can be summarized as follows: ]'» = 01) IX

•p«l = ot>Se 3x fw = un8e lx f« = oi>eev lx j'K = owe elvai 47x (e
27. Olofsson, 'The Kaige Group', pp. 205-206. 28. Although Olofsson states that his study of the text of the Greek Psalter is based on the Gottingen edition of A. Rahlfs (p. 205), this reading is derived instead from the text of Rahlfs's Handausgabe (Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935]). At 58(59). 14, the Gottingen edition (A. Rahlfs [ed.], Septuaginta: Societatis Scientiarum Gottingensis auctoritate. X. Psalmi cum Odis [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931]) has tmdpijouCTiv (see Appendix). 29. Olofsson, "The Kaige Group', p. 226. 30. Textual variant at 49(50).22.

84 ST"}"^ ptfl PN j^ f'ft "['ft "pR "P^ PR ]'R "pR

The Old Greek Psalter = oi)8e Eivca Ix (eotiv) = ot)8e Eivat Ix (eativ) = u,f| urcdpxfiiv Ix (present infinitive) = oi) u,f| \)7idpx£iv 2x (aorist subjunctive Ix, future indicative Ix31) = DUX \Mtdp%£iv 3x (aorist Ix, imperfect Ix, and future indicative Ix) = OVKETI [ii\ wtdpXEiv Ix (future indicative/aorist subjunctive) = OUKETI oi) U.TI wdpXEiv Ix32 = ovx EXEIV Ix = oi) |ifj EupicncEiv Ix = oAiyov Ix = alpha privative Ix

Excluding cases of textual variants, the total is 67.

This presentation of the evidence differs considerably from that of Olofsson. Apart from cases of ptfl rendered by ouSe or ur|8e—always in contexts correlative with ]'R = OUK ecmv—the evidence does not require separating 'ptf from ]*W or j'K from forms bearing pronominal suffixes as far as patterns of translation are concerned. There is no particular reason to list cases of OIJK eioiv separately from oi)K ecrnv, and 39(40).6 should not be listed separately since ]^ is equivalent to ot>K eoTiv there and not to OTJK ecmv TI<;. Nor is it correct to list 103(104).25 rov o\)K ea-civ and 104(105).34 ov o\)K EOTIV as separate from ]'R = OUK eaiiv and to count them twice. At 71(72). 12, the form is tmfip%ev and not imfjp^ev. If we eliminate cases counted twice, Oloffson's total is 57; ten instances of ]'K rendered into Greek are therefore omitted. In addition, the data in his conclusions do not match his earlier listing of the data. There |'«] &v OI>K ecmv Ix, o\>x VTifip^ev Ix, lar^ OVK fjv Ix, and WYto] (sic for 'pK]) OVK eiaiv Ix are all counted twice, since 40x must include 39(40).6 and 18(19).4 and 72(73).5. No statistic is given for |j,r|8e, that is, Ix. This yields a new total of 58 in comparison with his earlier 57. These inaccuracies and omissions are an indication of the fact that all the data presented by Olofsson must be carefully checked. So far only surface statistics have been considered. Three more important issues of translation technique should be noted here. First, since 40 out of 67 instances of pR are rendered by oi)K ecrnv, and the remaining 27 show considerable diversity and adaptation to contextual 31. At 58(59). 14, however, there is an aorist subjunctive as a textual variant in the Gottingen edition (see Appendix). Rahlfs's Handausgabe, on the other hand, has the aorist subjunctive as the lemma and the future indicative as the variant. 32. Textual variant at 38(39). 14.

GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kaiye Tradition

85

concerns, we should be wary of concluding that j'R = OTJK ecrav is a fixed equivalence in the Greek Psalter. Second, the real issue is that the members of the Kctiye group attest the change from an aorist or future to a present. Since the present is preferred in secondary sequences and nominal on clauses in Hellenistic Greek, only one case seems anomalous, that of 141(142).5. In the first instance of ]'N, we have a past in a nominal on clause, and in the second instance, we might expect f(v instead of eonv. This is insufficient evidence to show a trait partly consistent with the Kai/ye group. Third, we should consider the equivalents for Exodus and Deuteronomy. Exodus

r« r« I* r« r« r« r« r« r« r«

= o\)5x = Hf|2x = o\)5e Ix = tiT|8eiq Ix = o\)K eivai 7x (present 4x, past 3x) = |ifi ei vai Ix = H.TI wcdpxeiv 2x = nil poijXeo9ai Ix = OXIKETV Ix = avei> Ix

Deuteronomy

r« r« r« V*

= oi)5x = OVK eivai 22x (present 15x, past 3x, future 4x) = U.TI eivai 2x = (if) iojf6eiv Ix

These data show that the patterns in the Greek Psalter are not dissimilar to those in Exodus and Deuteronomy. In fact, the patterns exhibited in the Greek Psalter are more like those of Deuteronomy than those of Exodus, as we would expect, since the approach to translation technique in Deuteronomy is that of formal equivalence. Consideration of the evidence presented by Olofsson, in general, and of renderings of ]'R, in particular, points to the need for clarification of certain issues. First, Olofsson never clearly describes what he means by the Koiye group. Kdiye is not a monolithic recension, nor even a group of revisors. Rather it is a tradition in which a certain approach to the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek was considered to be the

86

The Old Greek Psalter

faithful way of performing this task, and in which certain equivalents and traits of translation, perhaps original to earlier members of the tradition or translators prior to it, became its hallmarks. Both original translations and recensions of original translations belong to this tradition. What is more, as we consider the diverse group of translations conveniently labelled the Septuagint, we should probably envision a continuum, something like the light spectrum, in which some approaches to translation are more dynamic and others more formal. The books of the Greek Pentateuch—the Septuagint in the original sense of the word— reveal this continuum, as do the books that were translated subsequently. Both original translations and revisions of them reveal this continuum. Those who appreciated the approach of formal equivalence— whether on opposite sides of the above-mentioned debate in Palestine and the Diaspora regarding biblical translation, or on the same side— noticed certain traits that exemplified this approach, and they began to make more and more systematic use of them. The Katye tradition was an integral part of that process. Olofsson comes close to recognizing that there is a continuum in a valid criticism he makes of my work: In the evaluation of these characteristics one may agree with Gentry in his critical assessment that for different reasons 'most of the patterns gathered post-Barthelemy are of little value.' On the other hand, his denial that common equivalents in LXX can be used as criteria for the kaige group is not self-evident. Since the kaige group is a revision of LXX it cannot be expected to be based only on a totally new set of equivalents; one would rather presuppose a more consistent use of many of the existing equivalents in the LXX.33

If Olofsson had been clearer on just what he means by the Kai/ye group, and also less insistent that absolute consistency with respect to the attestation of characteristics is not a necessary criterion for the identification of members of this tradition, his diligent efforts would have been more productive in relating the Greek Psalter both to the larger textual history of the LXX as a whole and to the Kaiye tradition specifically. Second, we confuse the issue by raising the possibility, as Olofsson does, that the present text of the Greek Psalter is a revision belonging to the icaiye tradition. He seems wisely to steer away from this at the end 33. The Kaige Group', p. 204.

GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kdiye Tradition

87

of his study: 'Thus if the OG has not been lost altogether, which I would regard as less probable, the traits identical with the characteristics of the KCtiye group reflect the vocabulary of the original translator of the Psalms'. Even though we do not possess a fully critical text of the Greek Psalter, positing this text to be a revision rather than the Old Greek clouds the entire question of the relation of the Greek Psalter to Kaiye. Where does the Greek Psalter fit into the picture? Certainly, it belongs to the group of translations that are characterized by formal equivalence. Connections with the Kaiye tradition, however, are not strong. On the basis of my own preliminary study and the evidence amassed by Olofsson, we can say that the Greek Psalter may represent an early stage of this tradition. To go any further than that, we would have to analyse the translation technique of the Greek Psalter as a whole34 and compare this global picture with those of translations executed both prior to the LXX Psalter (i.e., the books of the LXX Pentateuch) and subsequent to it. Obvious revisions like the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever would need to be included in such an investigation. Furthermore, we would need to do both contrastive and comparative analysis in looking at neologisms created by the Greek Psalms translator and used by later translators.35 Only then would a clearer picture with respect to just exactly how the Greek Psalter relates to the Kaiye tradition emerge.

34. See F. Austermann, 'Der Septuaginta-Psalter als Ubersetzung und Interpretation' (Dr. theol. dissertation, Georg-August Universitat, Gottingen, 1999). 35. See Gentry, Greek Job, pp. 475-77.

The Old Greek Psalter

88

APPENDIX Renderings o/]^ in Greek Psalms, Exodus and Deuteronomy Psalms ]••» = oi)6ev 39.6 38.6

-pa ]'«D H^m KOI f) {ntoCTTaaig p.oi> cbael aoOev evamiov oou

I'K = jifi iwudpxew 104.35 OTR TIB D'BBhl 103.35 Kai avojjxn mate (it) tmapxsiv autoii;

"['K = OTJ (if) X)7tdpX8lV 37.10 36. 10

BBJ-I ]'«! tSBD 11B1 ical en oXiyov Kai or> nt| \>nap^\\ b duaptcaXo?

59.14

IQJW n"pD nann n^D

58.14

ev opyfj awteXEia?, Kai ot> (iij -undp^ODcrtv Djcap^ouoav B R Lb<sil)He* 1219'] -axnv S La'

]'S = ot>x wtdpxeiv 69.21 68.2 1

]'K1 Trf? mpm KOI meneiva o\)U,wcovitievov, Kai o\»x wriip^Ev

72.12 71.12

I1? niB~|'«l '3B1 Kai JteviTta, m oi»x wriipxev por|66(;

103.16 i:r«i la-mas mi ':> 102. 16 on JtveCua 5ifjA,6ev ev atn^, Kai
1'K = OIJKETI nfj iwcdpxeiv 39.14 38. 14

'1TW ~p» DntD3 TtpoTOUne coceXeelv Kai OWCETI |if| vjcdp^co o\)Ken (IT) B' R] ouKen ou (iT| 2013 L' A"

]'R = ovKeTi ou IO.TI \)jidpxeiv see 38.14 above

]'» = oi> \JLT[ eupioKeiv 37.10
GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kaiye Tradition ftf = \ir\ eivai 50.22 49.22

'j'JfQ J'Kl sptMTjS (iTjjcoTe dpitdar) KOI |tT| fi 6 fcoonevoq jiriB'2013]pr.oi>RL'55

["8 = OX) |if| eivat see 49.22 above

]'K = OUK eivai 3.3 avftia •& nruner ]'» 3.3

ot»K £
5.10 5.10

HTD3 IH'33 ]'R '0 on ot)K sonv ev TO> oioiiaiv awrov dXr|9eia

6.6

"pnr man f« »D

6.6

on or»K eonv ev t^ Oavdrtp 6 nvri(ioveijcov oov

10.4

vmarcrtD avb» ]'«

9.25

oi)K eimv 6 Oeo^ evamiov amoi)

14.1 13.1

D'rfTR T« n"P3 "P33 ~O« etreev d<|)pa)v ev icapSuj aiko-O OWK ^
14.1

ryiernto ]'«

13.1

Ot)K E
14.3

3i£a-nto |'»

13.3

or>K eomv noiwv w^cnovwa

14.3

nn«~Dj j'R

13.3

K stTTiv eax; evoq

18.42 17.42

JPGrtrfKl WtiT eKEKpa^av, KOI O-UK i\v 6 ocp^tov

19.4

tr-m f«i na«-]'«

18.4

OWK eioriv XaXmi oviSe Xoyoi

19.7

innno TTC: ]w

18.7

KOI O(>K eernv 85 dTtoKpupfioeiav rfiv 9ep^T|v ainov

22.12 21.12

"infl j'M-'S oil ow §<mv 6 fk>T|9(QV

32.9 31.9

]'3n )'« TIED 010D rnn^R IATJ YivEoOe cbg '{jtJiog Kai fi|iiovoq, 015 O\»K i«rnv oiivecn^

89

90

The Old Greek Psalter 34.10 •rorr1? -norm pro 33.10 on ot)K eortv ixneprma TOI<; o|Jo\)H£vot<; avtov

36.2

vra ixh> Errfw Trarp*

35.2

ot)K £
37.36

upK ram "inn

36.36

Kai napffaQov, Kai I6o\> <W>K f|v

38.4

IQUT '3QD ntan onD']^

37.4

OVK Ecrnv iaoi<; EV tfj oapKi ^OD draco Ttpoacwcot) TTIQ opyfi? OOD

38.4

TIKE)!! '3SQ 'D^Un D^EJ-]^

37.4 OT>K EOTIV Eipt|vnTOII;oateoiq ^ov dno Tipoaronoi) trov ajxapnwv jiov

38.8

'iftna ona ]'«i

37.8

KOI ot)K e«rctv laai<; ev rrj aapKt ^IOD

38.11 TW ]'» OTTO TJTTIW 37.11 Kai TO <(>c5(; TCOV 6(|)6aA|icov jiou Kai avco ot)K e
40.6 "|st7« TIU p* ir^« *]snatonDi 39.6 Kai Toiq 8iaXoyiajiot(; aou OVK feonv nq ojioKoOTJaeTat aoi

40.13

isoQ ]nmr mm ^insa« '3

39.13

on jiepieoxov ne Kaicd, c&v OWK e
53.2

D'n^K ]'« inba taa IQ«

52.2 eiTiev d^pcov ev Kap8ia a-uroii Ot»K feonv 6eo<;

53.2

aTD~ntoi» ]'»

52.2 O-OK sortv noiwv dyaGov 53.4 DlD-ntD^ ]»« 52.4 ot>K ccrnv TCOIWV dya96v 53.4 in«-Q3 )'H 52.4 O\>K e
55.20

iQb ms^n )'« nttfH

54.20

ot> yap ecrnv aixtoi? dvtdAAayjia

69.3 nDl?Q ]1« n^TSffl ]T3 ^UDtD 68.3 eveTidyTiv Eiq i>,i)v Pv9o\), Kai OUK ecrnv {wtooiaoaq

7i.il

*?'2iQ pro imtem isin

70.11

KCTaSico^aTE Kai KaiaXdpETE aikov, on OI>K e
73.4

arch rraxin ]'« o

72.4 on ot»K e
GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kaiye Tradition

73.5 72.5

•era en» 7Din

74.9 73.9

jraa TUTTR

79.3 78.3

-Dip ]'«i ofotfYT rm'ao D^DD GDI TDBEJ

86.8 85.8

TW crrf^ia -poD-ft*

86.8 85.8

"Ttoi«D ]w

104.25 103.25

TSJDD 1^1 &DTTK>

EV Konoiq dvOpowoDV OI»K eioiv OWC eonV ETl 7tpO(|)T|Tr|q

E^EXEOV TO ai|j.a amcov ax; i)8cop KwXcp Iepo\)oaXii|i, Kai O-UK f|v 6 GdtTiTcov

OWK EOTIV o|xoioq aoi ev Seoiq, Kiipie

KOI Ot)K EffTIV KOTO TC( EpyCl ODD

EKEl EpTIEtd, WV OX)K etTCtV dpl6|i6^

105.34 "BOD ]S«T p'TI 104.34 KOI Ppoiixoi;, ov O\>K f(v dpiOnoi; 105.37 17&D TDDBfa )^T 104.37 KOI o\)K f|v EV idlq (t»vXdi<; avroav doOEVwv 107.12 Itr ]-W I^KJD 106.12 fio9EVTiaav, Kai OI>K f(v 6 poTj9cov 119.16i 'TKZDD Ttfrjnn 118.16! Kai otnc ecrctv autoi<; oKdvSaXov

139.4 0

'118^3 n^Q ]'« ^D

142.5 141.5

TDD <|lT|n« on ot)K f|v 6 ETtiyivaxyKeov (IE 1

142.5 141.5

OTI ot>K eonv Xoyoq ev yAxoaa^ HOD

'ttfcn ? e)nn p*

KOI OT>K eonv 6 EK^TJTWV TT^V xjAj^fjv |iou

144.14 ««!' }'K1 pET]^ 143.14 oi)K E
145.3 144.3

ipn f« -\rbifo

146.3 145.3

niDBJn f? jnwJ amrjaa

147.5 146.5

"BOD ]'« T\yorb

Kai Tfjq HEyaAxoavvrn; avcoi)OT>Kecrav TCEpaq

Kai E^)' moxx; dvSpawwov, olq OOK eonv acornpia Kai Tfjq awEOEoaq a\>roi) O-OK eonv dpiG^oq

91

92

The Old Greek Psalter

"ft* = o\)Se ewai

32.2

rrm irrra pro

31.2

ot>5e Efftiv ev T<;

135.17 DPPEn mTtf'I'R *]« 134.17 ot>8e yap etra v Ttvevjia ev T(p at6|j,aTi avtrov

]'« = oi)

33.16

'rrrma wzh] ~]'?arrpK

32.16

ot) aw^etai paaiXe'uq 8id TtoAAfiv 8'6vajj,iv

]">» = o\)5e

19.4 O'Tll |^l 1D«-|^ 18.4 OVK eioiv XaXiai ovfis Axiyoi 144.14 n«SV ]'»1 pB~]'« 143.14 ot)K ecniv KataTtTcoiia ^payiAoi) ovSe Sie^oSoq

144.14 irramn nms fw 143.14 ot)8E Kpauyfi ev TOI<; ic^aieiai^ avtwv ]'K = ^Tj8e

7.3 b^Q |'«1 p~l 7.3 (if) 6vto<; A-inpouiaevoa) ^itiSe CTCO^OVTO<; j^ = o\>x e%eiv

38.15

rnrDin rsn jw

37.15

Kai ot)K exov ev tw OTOfiati amo\> eXeyjio'uq

]'K = oAiyov 73.2 '"12JR (^ere IDStD) rDDttf |'«D 72.2 jrap' 6X,iyov e£ext>6Ti id 8iapf||4,aT(x |a,ov

1^ = alpha privative 88.5 87.5

s

0Dn DTICD [6] ^«~|^ 132D ^"H eyevf|6r|v dx; dvSpowioq dpor|0iiTO<; ev veKpoi<; etevQepoq

Exodus ]^ = oi) 2.12 tt)'« |»« '3 «T1 HD1 HD IS11! 2.12 7uepipXe\|/dp£Voq 8e roSe KOI (»8e OTL>X opq. ot)8eva

GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kcdye Tradition

3.2

•»« IITK mom

3.2

6 8e pdtoi; ow KaTEKaieto

5.11 5.11

"an cormaa irca p* 'D ou yap d<|>ai.peuav onto if\c, ouvrd^ecoq •fyiaiv ot»9ev

5.16 5.16

-p-ash jra j'R pn ax^pov ov 6180101 TOIQ oiKETaii; GOD

17.7

pra* TOnpa mrr o'n noR^

17.7

Xeyovra^ Ei eaivv Kupioq ev fpvv f\ on;

]'R = HT|

32.32 32.32

T«na«i nnntDn KBITDK nnn KOI vov ei nev d<|)ei<; awoli; TTIV duap-ciav, atyec; ei 8e (ifj

33.15 33.15

ma •n'wr'pK D'D^n "j'ffl PJTDK rt« nowi KOI XEYEV tpoi; amov Ei HT| crimx; oi) TtopeiiT), (iT| jie dvayaYTi? evtetiQev

T« = »iTi8ei?

22.9

n»n ]'K natfrw "aajrw noi...~nnn inan-'pR tS^s p^D

22.9

eav 8e u<; 8^ Ttp TtXiioiov XOTO^UYIOV. . .iced awrpi|3fi 11 teXe\)Tr|orri f[ aiyiiaXaymv yevtitai, Kai fiT|5Ei; yvfp

]'R = (ifj urtdpxeiv 14.11 14.11

-anon mo1? imp1? onsm D'-ap"p« ''jann ntio-^K i-o«'i Kai eiTtev icpoq Mcouofiv Flapa TO fti\ vJtdpxetv (i.vf|p.ata ev y^ AiyvjCT^ e^nyaye; fma^ GavaTwoav ev tf\ ep%u^;

22.2 22.2

iraan nDQn i1? ]'«~D« C"PEJ' n^ts "b D'an rtu ejaton nnnrn« eav 8e dvateiXi] 6 f\A.ioq eit' aiii:^, evo/6? eativ, dvtaTioOaveuai. eav 8e [iii imdpXD aurcp, TtpaOritO) dv-a TOU KXdpjiOToq.

I'K = OXIK elvai 8.6 8.6

irifw mrrs I'R-'s ann ]3Jch> fnnnD nnH'i einev o5v 'fiq eipriica?' iva eiS^i; oti O«K £o"tiv dA,Xog JtX^v KUplOD

9.14 9. 14

p«n-^o3 '3QD |'» '5 unn TOin 'iva ei8fj<; on OWK e<mv w? eyro dXAoi; ev ndcr^ tfi yfi

12.30

na DD~]'« note no ^D

12.30

aw yap ^v oiKia, ev fj OTJK fjv ev avni teOvriKcoq

93

94

The Old Greek Psalter 12.30 12.30

DQ DtZrpK 10* TO ]1TO 01) yap rjv oiKia, ev fi O-UK fiv ev awrj TeGvrjKax;

17.1

Di?n rnzfr cro ]*w irrsra Tarn

17.1

Kai napevepaXov ev 'Pa«|)i8iv ot»K fjv 8e uSoop -op Xatp wieiv

22.1

trm V? p* ncn rom n33n!«»' ninno3-D«

22.1

edv 8e ev t^ Siop-uyjiati ei)pe9fi 6 KA£7rai<; KOI nA,Tiyeiq djcoedv(j, ot>K eonv avc^ <|)6voq

32.18

ntoi^n ni3i? *?ip f«i nraa m» ^p ]n noin

32.18

KOI Xeyei OWK ecrnv (jwovfj e^apxovttov Kat' iox^v o-u8e <|>Q)vf| e^apxovTcov Tponrnq

]'H = HTJ elvai 22.13 22.13

D^KT tf?BJ 1DJr]'K V^3 nO™IK "OB&l IH^I D^Q E7S« 'PKtD'-'DI edv 8e aitnofl tig jcapd toti xcXrioiov, Kai mmpipfi r\ dnoOdv^i, 6 8e Kt)pio<; jifj ^ pet' avcoi), dnmeiaei

]'» = oi)8e 32.18 ntffrrr rrar bip ]io rrnaa mar 'pip ]s« TMTI 32.18

Kai Xeyei OUK eo-nv <|)(avfi e^apxovtcov KOT' iax^v ot»8e <j>o)vf| e£apxovTG)v TpoTrfji;

]^ = ovKeti

5.10

pn DDb )ra '3r« nine IQK ns

5.10

TdSe Xeyet Oapaco Otuceti 5i8eojii -univ axi)pa

pH = JJ.TI povA^aGai

8.17

•'QirriK rfpcto -]r«-D« o

8.17

edv 8e |it| povJnj eJjarcoaTeiAm TOV Xaov ^IOD

|'W = avei) 2i.il P]OD ]s« mn mcri n1? nto!?116 rfttnzfteroKi 21.11

edv 8e TO tpia xaika \ir\ TCOITJOTJ awrj, e^eXeiiaeTai Scopedv dvev dpYDpiov

Deuteronomy )'R = o\)

1.32

DD'nb« mrra CD'Q«Q DDr« nrn "a*m

1.32

Kai ev i& X6yq> toikq) ot)K eveTiiCTeijaaTe Kvplq) T(j> 0e» \)^«v

GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kctiye Tradition 4.12

"Tip TfTIT D'm DDr« TOlDm ETSDKJ DT1« mm ^lp

4.12

((wovfiv pTijidTOov \)nei<; fjKowiaTe, Kai 6|ioi(0|ia owe el8eTe, dXX' fi (j)0)vf|V

4.22

]TT7mR "00 '3TK n«TH ptQ TO '3» 'D

4.22

eyd> yap drco6vT|aKa> ev TTJ yfj TOUTR Kai oii Siaftaiva) TOY 'Iop8dvnv Toinov

21.18 IQ« 'Tipm ra« ^ip2 uoti i3T« mioi ~mo p &vb mrr^D 21.18

edv 8e nvi xi vioq d7iei6fj<; KOI epe6iarnq o\>x WCOKOVCDV (j>am)v Ttatpoq Kai <|>G>vnv ^Tpoi;

21.20 21.20

tf?pa DOtf 11PH niQl TITO HT 1333 TV2 'apr'w 1TDW Kai epovoivTOI<;dv8pdx iwraKoijei Tfjq ((Kovfj*; fm&v

]^ = o\)K etvai

1.42 DDmpn '3TK 'D TorfpnrrfTi i^^n rf? an1? IQ« ^ mrp ~IQ«'IT 1.42

Kai eiTcev Kvpio^ 7tp6<; p£ EiTtov avcoii; Oi)K dvapTJaeaOe o\)8e jifi 7toA£|j.f|oeTe, o-u yap eijit neO' v^iwv

4.35 nn^Q TU> ]••« crrfawi «in mrr o run1? n«nn nn« 4.35

K etrcvv en TI^TIV axytoi)

4.39 D^n^^n «in mrr '3 "jaayw ratom nrn rurri TUJ ]'« nnno pHrrtm ^oa D^Qon 4.39

Kai yvtoor) ofi^epov Kai eKiaTpa<|)T|ais -qj Siavoig oti Kiipioq 6 6eoq aoa>, ofaoq 6eoq ev T^ ovpav^ avco Kai ewi tnq yiiq Kdico, KOI oi)K eortv exv icXfiv avtoi)

8.15 D^Q-]S« nt2J« 8.15 o() ot)K fjv iiSrap

12.12 DDDN n^nii p^n V? r« SD 12.12

OTI o\)K eortv aw^ |iepi^ ot)8e KXfjpoi; \ie.& v^icov

14.10 V»«n K1? ntoptopi -i^aao -ftqii ~ieJ« 'PDT 14.10

KOI ndvxa, ooa O«K £ (|>dyea0e

14.27 -JQU rf?nj) p^n -b ]'« o 14.27 oti ot)K ecrav amcp ^epiq ot>8e KXfipoi; jieTCt oov

14.29 io» rr?rm p'pn Vr]'« 'D 14.29

OTI OVK E«TUV a\Vr^ ^epiq o\)8e KXf\poq jieTct oov

19.6

mOTDSBto ]'« I1?!

19.6

KOI TOtnq) O\>K E«TCIV Kpiaiq 9av<XTOD

95

96

The Old Greek Psalter 22.26 22.26

niD KOn (qere mitf?) "1U31? ]'R OVK £
22.27

rb jrtfiD [w nfiriRon (^/-e mun) "iwn nprs

22.27

eporioev r\ vedviq fj iie^vTiaievM-EVTi, KOI 6 poTiOrjacov OVK fjv atitfj

28.26

Tim pro p«n nonn^i D'Dton ^w^D1? 'psKD1? ^n'pa] nn'm

28.26

Kai eaovtai oi veKpoi t)|i
28.29 28.29

PBJTQ |'«1 D'DTTta 'TTCn plKJI? 1« nwm Kai eori TOTE dSiKoiJjxevoi; Kai 8iap7ta£6|a.evo<; itdaaq tdq fniepaq, Kai OVK e
28.31

irtma -[^ )w -j^^ mm "p*

28.31

td itpopatd aov 8e8ojj£va tot,^ ex^poiq oov, Kai OVK EtTTai ooi 6 POTlOfflV

28.68 rap |?«i mrraefri DHaifr I^T^ DC on-iDanm 28.68 KOI 7ipa9iiaea9e EKEI TOII; ex9poi<; VILWV ei<; TtaiSaq Kai 7tai8iaKaq, Kai OX>K sorai 6 Kitoj^evoq

31.17

rfrttn rrwnn 'Jiwfla ^"ipn 'n"7N j^'O ^u rf?n

31.17

SIOTI oi)K etrnv Kvptoq 6 9eo<; jiiou ev e^ioi, eupoodv [ie ia KOKO TaiiTa

32.4

*7\9 ^l H31Q« ^«

32.4

9e6(; TCIOTOI;, Kai OVK EITTIV d6iKia

32.12

iD3 •» in!? |'«i Tanr nn mrr

32.12

Ktjpioi; |j.6voi; fjyev aiJToiii;, Kai ot»K flv ^et' avtcov 9eo<; dXA,OTpio<;

32.28

n:inn onn )wnai m& "a« 'ir^

32.28

on e9vo<; djtoX,toXeK6<; povXriv eaTiv, Kai otnc eo"nv ev atnoiq eTcicfrrmii

32.39 32.39

HQJ) D'n"?« ]W «1H '» S3K O HH^ 1«"l iSete iSeie OTI eyco eijii, Kai OVK ecmv 9eoq 7tA/nv efioi)

32.39 32.39

^'iiQ 'TQ ]W «D~1R '»1 ^H^nQ Ttatd^w Kdycb idao^iai, Kai OVK Ecrav 65 E^eXEiiai EK TWV XEipwv \iov

33.26 33.26

p"IKJ' ^«D |'R ot)K eortv WCTIEP 6 9£Oi; toO fiyajnuiEVO-u

]^ = infj elvai 25.5 ^-]^« pi

GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kdiye Tradition 25.5

cmep^ia 8e \ir\ f| avtcp

29.14 Trn1?^ mrr '3s1? DTTJ IDJ? iiau ns w ~IKJ«-H« ^ 29.14

orn I]QU ns i3r« ™ n«T dXXci KOI TOII; ro8e ovaiv |ie6' ipcdv crr||iepov evavn Kupiov tou 6eo\) f^wv Kai ioiq jiii ovoxv «8e ne0' f^ciiv crrniepov

"pR = o\)K iox^eiv

28.32

-JT •?«•? ]w Drrr1?^ EIT^ mbm m«n "['rui

28.32

KOI oi 6<|>9aA,|a,oi oov pXeyovtai o(j)aKeU^ovTe(; eiq aijta, Kai oi)K itrxvcret i\ xeip ao\)

97

THE ASSESSMENT OF MANUSCRIPT AFFILIATION WITHIN A

PROBABILISTIC FRAMEWORK: A STUDY OF ALFRED RAHLFS'S CORE MANUSCRIPT GROUPINGS FOR THE GREEK PSALTER Cameron Boyd-Taylor, Peter C. Austin and Andrey Feuerverger

Ever since the advent of modern text criticism in the early nineteenth century, the assessment of manuscript affiliation has played a key role in critical methodology.1 Through the identification of family relations between textual witnesses, the text critic seeks a way of organizing and assessing the mass of evidence which bears on the establishment of a critical text. Of the literature of antiquity, the problem of sheer bulk is felt especially in the editing of the so-called Septuagint, where literally hundreds of manuscripts may have to be taken into consideration for a given reading to be evaluated properly.2 Needless to say, there is always a pressing need for methodological advancement. This is particularly so in the case of the Greek Psalter, for which there are roughly ten times as many manuscripts available as for the next most-attested corpus within

1. E. Bickerman ('Some Notes on the Transmission of the Septuagint', in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part I [Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1976], pp. 13766 [140]) attributes a leading role in the development of the genealogical method to the classicist K.L. Lachmann (1793-1851), whose work provided a departure point for the seminal contribution to Septuagintal text criticism by Paul de Lagarde (1827-1891). The Lagardian project was taken up by his student, A. Rahlfs (18651935), under whose direction the Septuaginta-Unternehmen was established by the Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen in 1908. See S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 1-25, for a brief historical survey. 2. Bickerman, 'Some Notes', p. 141, points out that the situation in classical text criticism is quite different, in that a unique early medieval examplar, for instance, can at times be shown to stand behind the extant Latin manuscripts of a text.

BOYD-T AYLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation

99

the Septuagint, the Pentateuch.3 The Psalter presents its editor with a truly Herculean undertaking. With a revised edition of this text on the horizon, it seems a fitting time to rethink the question of manuscript grouping, if only to offer its editor, Albert Pietersma, the service of an lolaus. What we propose to do is examine the assumptions underlying the classification of manuscripts in the Gottingen edition of Alfred Rahlfs,4 the text that Pietersma will be revising, for the purpose of clarifying certain issues fundamental to the determination of affiliation for any body of textual witnesses. While Rahlfs's scholarship will remain the basis for any future work on the Greek Psalter, Pietersma has shown that his approach to textual affiliation presents us with a number of problems that need to be addressed and resolved if his manuscript groupings are to remain viable for scholarship. This of course simply reflects the ongoing need for conceptual and methodological refinement in the discipline of Septuagintal text criticism.5 Using the critical apparatus of Rahlfs's Psalter as a point of departure, we will introduce a statistical technique that offers considerable purchase on the thorny problem of estimating the relative evidentiary value of witnesses, one of the central problems of text criticism. \.Manuscript Groupings in Rahlfs's Edition of the Greek Psalter In 1931, Rahlfs published his Psalmi cum Odis. While not a fully critical text, his edition of the Greek Psalter does reflect a remarkable commitment to the use of external criteria in the assessment of textual variants.6 In the Prolegomena to the edition, he identifies 'the three old 3. See A. Pietersma, 'The Present State of the Critical Text of the Greek Psalter', in A. Aejmelaeus and U. Quasi (eds.), Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochtertibersetzungen (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen; MSU, 24; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), p. 13. 4. A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta: Societatis Scientiarum Gottingensis auctoritate. X. P salmi cum Odis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1931). 5. Pietersma ('The Present State', p. 18) remarks that 'if Rahlfs' manuscript groupings turn out to be valid, they are valid in spite of his demonstrations rather than because of them'. 6. J.W. Wevers, 'The Gottingen Septuagint', BIOSCS 8 (1975), pp. 19-23 (21), points out that Rahlfs's edition of the Psalter 'is not really a fully critical text'. Pietersma ('The Present State', p. 22) notes that Rahlfs was well aware of the provisional nature of his edition.

100

The Old Greek Psalter

text-forms' of the Psalter, namely the Upper Egyptian (UE), Lower Egyptian (LE) and Western (WE) texts. Under these headings Rahlfs is able to organize a considerable amount of textual material: the UE, consisting of U, 2013 and the Sahidic version (Sa); the LE, consisting of Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (S) and the Bohairic version (Bo); and the WE, consisting of R, LaR, and LaG, together with the testimony of Augustine, Tertullian and Cyprian.7 These groupings are, in turn, distinguished from the Origenic and Lucianic recensions.8 Rahlfs proposes to use this typology to provide critical leverage in his recovery of the original Greek translation of the Hebrew Psalter, that is, the Old Greek (OG).9 At the heart of his methodology is a laudable commitment to the principle of multiple independent attestation. Since it is assumed that the old text forms are relatively independent of one another, and relatively free of assimilation to what would become the Masoretic text (MT), they count as independent witnesses to the OG, and may therefore be contrasted with the younger recensions which, by definition, lack such independence. From this twofold premise, Rahlfs draws the following implications. Where the three old text forms are in agreement, we have reason to believe that the reading in question represents the OG. When these groups disagree amongst themselves, their competing claims may be arbitrated on the basis of their putative independence from the MT vis-a-vis the dependence of the younger text types. When an old text form agrees with the MT, this counts in its favour. Conversely, when a recension agrees with the MT over against the old text forms, this counts against its claim to originality.10 7. For a key to the sigla and a description of the MSS, see Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, pp. 10-21. The LE also includes the fragments 2008, 2014, 2019, 2037, 2039, 2042, 2044, 2049 and 2051. The UE includes the fragments 1093, 1119, 1220, 1221, 2009, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2038, 2046, 2050 and 2052. 8. In the present paper, I shall not deal with the so-called recensions. For Rahlfs's discussion of those witnesses classified as Origenic and Lucianic, see Psalmi cum Odis, pp. 52-60 and 60-70, respectively. Rahlfs recognizes a sixth classification as mixed (MG), consisting of Codex Alexandrinus (A), 1219 and 55 as well as the fragments 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2025, 2027, 2029,2030, 2031, 2036, 2043, 2047, 2048 and 2054. 9. See Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, pp. 71-72. 10. Rahlfs stops short of formalizing his text-critical principles, which evidently serve him more as guidelines than as a formal mechanism for arbitrating conflicting readings. P.L. Hedley, 'The Gottingen Investigation and Edition of the Septuagint', HTR 26 (1933) pp. 57-72 (68-69), observes of Rahlfs's method that it 'is walking

BOYD-T AYLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation 101

The approach adopted by Rahlfs in the Prolegomena is, in certain respects, a model for the use of external criteria in text criticism. His proposal promises a non-arbitrary way of negotiating the conflicting testimony of the witnesses without recourse to internal criticism. Of course, the validity of Rahlfs's undertaking stands or falls on his identification and characterization of the text forms. For the empirical basis of his editorial method, one must turn to his 1907 publication, Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters,11 for it is here that he presents the rationale for his text groupings. Not surprisingly, Rahlfs's approach to affiliation turns out to be firmly rooted in the genealogical method of classification pioneered in the early nineteenth century. As E. Bickerman has observed, this approach entails the identification of distinct Rezensionen, each constituting a family of manuscripts with a common ancestor, or archetype.12 For the Greek Psalter, two such Rezensionen had been identified by F. Baethgen13 prior to Rahlfs's study: O1, the so-called Vulgar text (L), represented by the majority of manuscripts collated by R. Holmes and J. Parsons,14 and O, represented by the Sixtine edition of 1587.15 For Rahlfs, Baethgen's approach 'ist fragelos richtig' (is unquestionably correct).16 His own contribution is to replace the Sixtine edition by Codex Vaticanus, but he then proceeds to organize his evidence according to the lines set down by Baethgen. Accordingly, he is interested by faith and not by sight'. Rahlfs is by no means deaf to the claims of internal criticism, however, and one can identify passages in which he defers to such evidence in his recovery of the OG, e.g., LXX-Ps. 21.3 where he places to the left of the bracket a reading that is supported by the Lucianic text in conceit with the MT (together with certain Latin evidence), and to the right of the bracket a reading that is supported by B, S, Bo, Sa and A, i.e., representatives of both of his Egyptian texts, as well as the support of a mixed text. 11. A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien. II. Der Text des Septuaginta-Psailers (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1965). 12. Bickerman, 'Some Notes', p. 40. 13. F. Baethgen, 'Der textkritische Wert der alten Ubersetzungen zu den Psalmen', Jahrbucher fur protestantische Theologie 8 (1882), pp. 405-667 (407408). 14. R. Holmes and J. Parsons (eds.), Vetus Testamentum graecum cum variis lectionibus (5 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1798-1823). 15. Vetus Testamentum iuxta Septuaginta ex auctoritate Sixti V. Pont. Max. editum (Rome: Ex Typographia Francisci Zanetti, 1587). 16. Rahlfs, Der Text, p. 39.

102

The Old Greek Psalter

only in those variation units where O and O1 provide rival readings. From these passages, he selects a subset of 129 as a sample. His criteria for selection are, first, that a given reading be applicable to the daughter versions, and second, that e silentio conclusions be drawn for no more than one-eighth of the manuscripts collated by Holmes and Parsons.17 To the left of the bracket he places the reading of O1, together with those witnesses that support it; to the right of the bracket he places the O variant and its supporters.18 Hence, he puts but a single question to his data. For each variation unit where B and L diverge, he asks of each witness whether it agrees with B or with L. His results indicate that, while the earliest Greek witnesses (together with the daughter versions) tend to agree with B, the younger witnesses tend to side with L. Rahlfs then classifies his witnesses on the basis of their distribution relative to the disjunction of O and O1.19 He finds, for instance, that the Bohairic version agrees with O1 over against O only five out of 128 times. It is, therefore, the closest neighbour to B, followed by S, which agrees with O1 only 17 out of 129 times. Accordingly, Rahlfs concludes that B, Bo and S represent a family. The regional identity of this family is provided by the Coptic text, which can be identified on the basis of its dialect as Lower Egyptian. Conversely, the Sahidic version, which can be located in Upper Egypt, concurs some 30 times with O1 over against O. Where 2013 and U are preserved, they follow Sa in these passages.20 Hence, 2013, U and Sa together represent a second distinct family for Rahlfs, the Upper Egyptian. The Greek transcription within the Greek-Latin bilingual R, which Rahlfs identifies as a Western witness, follows O1 in 39 out of 127 cases. Together with the Latin evidence, it thus belongs to a third family. Lastly, Rahlfs identifies a varied pattern of O and O1 readings in A, which he classifies as a mixed text. A critical assessment of Rahlfs's study brings to light two sorts of methodological infelicities, the first of which is logical, and the second interpretative. Let us begin by reviewing certain problems in the logic 17. Pietersma (The Present State', pp. 14-15) notes that the first criterion is meant to ensure the full participation of the daughter versions in the process of classification, while the second ensures that the so-called Vulgar text is adequately represented. 18. Where B is missing (Pss. 105.27-137.6), Rahlfs (Der Text, p. 41) proposes to supply the reading of another old witness. 19. Rahlfs, Der Text, pp. 53-54. 20. Within Der Text, Rahlfs identifies 2013 as L.

BOYD-T AYLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation 103

of his analysis. One fundamental criticism pertains to the notion of text type. Clearly, the two Rezensionen, O and O1, do not, as such, represent actual text types, or even critical reconstructions of textual archetypes. Instead, they simply reflect the two poles around which he has organized a list of divergences between the Vulgar text and Codex Vaticanus (or, where it is absent, another major uncial): L and its supporters in one column, B and its supporters in another. Yet, Rahlfs goes on to treat these two poles as if they were in fact textual archetypes. Hence, while B is silent for 20 of the 129 test variants, Rahlfs makes inferences regarding the affiliation of B on the basis of all 129. Of course, he can do this because he equivocates on the meaning of Rezension. By treating O as the text type to which B belongs, rather than as a Tendenz among certain witnesses to agree with B when it disagrees with L, he can make inferences regarding the textual character of B from the distribution of the other witnesses within his O column. But this way of proceeding is surely invalid. By the same token, Rahlfs's L is not a text in any meaningful sense but rather a numerical majority among the later Greek witnesses. To treat this Vulgar text as coextensive with a 'Lucianic' recension of the Psalter is misleading, to say the least. As P.L. Hedley noted long ago, the disentanglement of L remains a desideratum for Psalter scholarship.21 Perhaps the most telling criticism against Rahlfs's use of the genealogical method is that made by Pietersma.22 He points out that the classification of test variants according to Baethgen's bipolar model (either O or O1) obscures the fact that a single text, namely the OG Psalter, lies behind every member of his two Rezensionen. The actual history of the text, Pietersma urges, is best captured by the image of a tree, with a single beginning and a subsequent branching out.23 The logical point of this image is to remind us that all of the branches share a common stock. In the case of the Greek Psalter, the common stock, shared more or less by members of every manuscript family (including L), is the OG itself. Any argument for the relatedness of manuscripts cannot draw on this stock to make its case, for any given manuscript could, in principle, have inherited such readings directly from the OG. The distinctive aspects of members of a manuscript grouping have to do precisely with those instances in which they collectively depart from 21. Hedley, 'Gottingen Investigation', p. 71. 22. Pietersma, 'The Present State', pp. 15-16. 23. Pietersma, 'The Present State', p. 16.

104

The Old Greek Psalter

the common stock, as evinced by the secondary readings they share. If we have reason to believe that a given reading is primary, then its distribution throughout our witnesses can tell us nothing about their affiliation. Pietersma's image of spreading branches from a single stock reflects a crucial methodological insight, namely, that only secondary readings have any bearing on the issue of affiliation. There is, of course, a paradox here: the prime reason for determining affiliation in the first place is the establishment of objective criteria for distinguishing primary from secondary readings. Yet it seems that we must first know what is primary and what secondary if we are to identify affiliation. In practice, however, this circularity is not as problematic as it might seem. The process is actually one of mutual refinement. As a critical text is approximated through the application of various internal criteria, patterns that arise in the distribution of secondary readings amongst one's witnesses point tentatively to manuscript groupings. These, in turn, offer increased leverage on the critical text, which then further clarifies the textual character of each manuscript. The undertaking is incremental; the text critic necessarily builds on the foundations established by earlier scholarship. There can be little doubt that a process of this sort lies behind the best in Rahlfs's work. At the same time, his methodology, to the extent that it is formalized, belies this fact. Of the test variants listed in Septuaginta-Studien, only 35 of the 107 readings that bear directly on the affiliation of B constitute secondary readings according to Rahlfs's own edition of the Psalter. This means that 67% of the time the evidence relevant to B's putative affiliation with S and Bo is based on attestations that, in principle, could be shared by witnesses with nothing more in common than the fact that they retail the OG Psalter. This is indeed a fatal flaw in Rahlfs's manuscript groupings.24 With respect to Rahlfs's interpretation of his data, a number of issues may be raised. Pietersma suggests that a sample of 129 test variants is too small to warrant the sort of inferences that Rahlfs wants to make.25 We shall take up this matter later. Suffice it to say that the question of just what sort of a database is required for the demonstration of manuscript affiliation is tied not only to the sort of analysis one undertakes 24. Though, as we shall argue presently, it is not necessarily a flaw fatal to his edition of the Psalter. As Pietersma has remarked (personal communication), Rahlfs was too good a text critic to be hamstrung by his groupings. 25. Pietersma, 'The Present State', p. 15.

BOYD-T AYLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation 105

but also to the purpose for which that analysis is intended. Yet, there is no doubt that Rahlfs's bipolar organization of the evidence results in the loss of much relevant information. Rahlfs is interested only in readings that support either O or O1 when the two disagree. Thus he overlooks all those cases in which the other witnesses depart from L independently of B. This will tend to skew his evidence in favour of a strong alignment at each of his poles, while at the same time obscuring the very patterns of agreement and disagreement that arise from true affiliation. A more serious difficulty pertains to Rahlfs's estimation of the degree and character of affiliation among his witnesses. In short, it strikes the reader as highly arbitrary, for Rahlfs's approach leaves him no means of determining a priori just what a significant affiliation would consist of. His groupings are, therefore, determined in an entirely post hoc manner. Using the agreement of a witness with O1 over against O as his criterion, he identifies families intuitively on the basis of an ordering by rank. Thus while Bo agrees with O1 over against O 12 times fewer than S does, the difference between S and Sa is 13. Rahlfs assumes that Bo and S are thereby shown to be closely affiliated, while Sa represents a distinct text type. But this cannot be demonstrated since one might just as easily have placed S together with Sa. Furthermore, R deviates 39 times, which places it in a category of its own. While this makes some intuitive sense, Rahlfs offers no basis upon which to mark off such groupings. The underlying problem here would seem to be that Rahlfs has not taken into account the role of chance in the transmission history of his witnesses. He can offer no criteria for analysing the significance of the observed patterns. This is because the model he has used provides him with no way of estimating what we would expect to see if chance alone had given rise to the results of his analysis. This problem of interpretation may be shown to exist even if we correct for Rahlfs's conflation of primary and secondary readings. If, for instance, we replace his O1 with a list of primary readings drawn from his sample (according to the OG as it is approximated by his own edition of the Greek Psalter), and then ask which witnesses agree with B when B departs from this list, we are left with 35 test variants (see Table 1).

106

The Old Greek Psalter Table 1. Rahlfs's Test Variants

The following represents a corrected version of Rahlfs's list of test variants. To the left of the square bracket are OG readings from his edition of the Psalter; to the right are secondary readings attested by B, as well as select witnesses which read in support of B. 36.7 o88Ti] SriXoxjEi B S Bo 2013 Sa R LaR LaG 44.13 TOD AXXOD] + triq ynq B Bo 55 44.14 eoweev] eoeptov B S Bo 2013 Sa 1093 45.6 TO 7cpo<; Tcpcni] TCO rcpoaomo) B S Bo R LaR La° 55.3 coco DVOD<;] ad 31 trahunt (+ riuepai;) B S Bo R LaR LaG 58.14 o GEO<; SEGTCO^EI TOD iaKco|3 TOOV Ttepaioov] o 9eo£ TOD IOK. SEGTC. TCDV nep. B Bo Sa 55 58.16 UT]]>BSBo55 62.6 mo\ia HOD] ovoua OOD B S Bo Sa R LaR LaG 1219 55 63.2 (JMOvng] npooeD%Ti5 B Bo R LaR LaG 64.13 opaia] opTi B S Bo Sa 2017 65.11 em. TOV vcarov] evowtiov B S Bo Sa 70.20 ooa<;] on B S Bo R LaR La° 72.21

e^eKaD0Ti] Titx|>paveTi B S Bo 2039 Sa LaG

73.16 <|)aDaiv.. .TiXiov] TiXiov.. .aefa\vr\v B S Bo R LaR LaG 73.18 ^vna6riTi TaDTn,£] + rnq K-naecD^ GOD B Bo Sa R LaR LaG 1219 78.10 TO e9vn] ev TOI<; eOveoiv B S Bo Sa 80.9 KOI 8iajiapi. ooi tapariX] KOI XaXtjaco oof lapanX KOI 8ia^iapT. trot (55 OE) B S Bo Sa 55 82.13 ayiaoTJipiov] eDanaar. B Bo R LaR 1219 91.15 £Tt]TOTEB Bo Sa 94.4 init.] pr. stichum on ODK aTtoxjETat KDpio^ TOV Xaov CIDTOD B Bo R La R La G 103.1 £U£yaXDv9ii
BOYD-T A YLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation 107

While this represents a great reduction in Rahlfs's original list, it is undoubtedly a more interesting sample in that it points to potentially significant relations between the witnesses to the right of the bracket. In other words, it might conceivably tell us something about their relationship to B. We can now order certain key witnesses by rank in terms of their agreement with B, knowing that this agreement is, on average, likely to be based on their mutual departure from the OG. We find that Bo agrees with B 34 out of 35 times, and that S agrees with B 25 out of 35 times. Sa, however, agrees only 15 times. At first blush, the observed pattern is suggestive of just the sort of familial relationships posited by Rahlfs, in particular his identification of Upper and Lower Egyptian groups. Unfortunately, owing to the bipolar schema underlying Rahlfs's data, a serious problem arises when it comes to interpreting the pattern of agreements in the corrected list. Quite simply, an ordering of witnesses by rank, based on their agreement with test variants drawn from a single manuscript, while suggestive, admits no point of comparison; it cannot be objectively evaluated. For one thing, we have no way of knowing the likelihood that the observed pattern of agreements would have occurred even if the witnesses were not in fact affiliated. This is because Rahlfs's model does not take into account the relative significance of those cases in which the witnesses diverge from one another over against the OG, that is, where there are disjunctions in which manuscripts offer rival secondary readings for the same text. Yet it is precisely such disjunctive readings that would have offered us critical purchase on the issue of affiliation, by providing a bench mark against which conjunctive readings (where manuscripts agree on a secondary reading) might be evaluated. If, however, we attempt to take into account those readings that depart from both the OG and B, and so make up a list including both conjunctive and disjunctive variants, we find that Rahlfs's sampling procedure has a built-in bias against any impact they might have on the analysis. This is because in 22 out of 36 cases there is only one textual variant available for consideration, and hence in these cases there is no possibility of disagreement amongst the witnesses to the right of the bracket.26 Thus disjunctive readings, which by definition presuppose 26. The 14 cases in which more than one variant is available are as follows: LXX-Pss. 36.28; 38.13; 41.9; 44.13; 45.6; 55.3; 58.14; 63.2; 64.13; 80.9; 91.15; 138.4; 138.24; 139.11.

108

The Old Greek Psalter

more than one variant, will prove to be relatively rare. This, in turn, will inflate the relative numerical significance of the conjunctive readings. Not only is there no non-arbitrary way of assessing the ranking of witnesses according to Rahlfs's scheme, it becomes clear that even when the ranking rests exclusively on shared secondary readings, this still says nothing definite about affiliation. All such data can tell us is that certain witnesses, like Bo and S, are more closely aligned to B than others, like Sa. As to the significance and character of this alignment, however, we can infer nothing. Hence, even when we restrict our analysis to meaningful agreements between the witnesses, we are uncertain about what those agreements have to tell us. Since Rahlfs's sampling of test variants is often harnessed to the witness of a single manuscript, not only can his data tell us nothing certain about the grouping of other witnesses—S and Bo, for instance—it cannot even be used to estimate their relative independence from B. We again face the problem of identifying significant versus insignificant differences in ranking: S and Sa are more closely ranked than are S and Bo, and R and Sa are very closely ranked. But what this says about manuscript affiliation is anyone's guess. This problem is felt particularly when the fragmentary witnesses are taken into consideration. The number of observed agreements among witnesses, as well as the significance of those agreements, will obviously be related to the amount of text they share. Since this varies among witnesses, there is no real basis for comparison. One might attempt to calculate percentages, but this would entail a misrepresentation of the data. The test variants were selected by Rahlfs on the basis of readings that distinguish B from L; they are not necessarily representative of the character of the other witnesses, especially when those witnesses are only partially extant.27 It would seem that, on the basis of Rahlfs's evidence, it is impossible to draw valid inferences regarding affiliation. Inherent not only in his analysis but in the sampling and coding of his test variants is Baethgen's genealogical model, and this proves to be the undoing of his study. The problem with such models, as Bickerman has argued, is that they tend to obscure the complexities of textual transmission.28 Studies premised on such models may capture certain alignments among the 27. For a critical assessment of Rahlfs's classification of the early fragmentary texts, see Pietersma, 'The Present State', pp. 18-19. 28. Bickerman, 'Some Notes', pp. 165-66. He makes specific reference to Rahlfs's edition of the Psalter.

BOYD-T AYLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation 109

witnesses, but can tell us nothing certain about the affiliation. The burden of Bickerman's argument is that, while it may be possible, at least in the case of the Greek Psalter, to delineate certain main text types that were current prior to Origen, the individual members of these families do necessarily derive from unique historical archetypes. Thus they may or may not be strongly affiliated. To begin a study of affiliation by positing such archetypes is therefore methodologically faulty.29 2. Affiliation within a Transmission Model As we see it, one of the fundamental problems with the genealogical model is its tendency to place in the background the purpose that manuscript affiliation actually serves within the text-critical enterprise. Regardless of how the relationships amongst one's witnesses are conceptualized, once demonstrated, their signal function is to provide the basis in principle for evaluating the relative evidentiary value of manuscript combinations. For example, if manuscripts X and Y have been shown to be relatively independent witnesses, and if, in a given passage, they share a reading, while manuscript Z attests to a different reading, all else being equal, the reading of X and Y will be favoured on the principle of multiple independent attestation. If, on the other hand, X and Y have been shown to lack independence from one another, then together they provide but a single attestation of the reading. The evidentiary value of X and Y together will, in such a case, be no greater than that of Z alone. We might say that, due to their lack of independence, their relative evidentiary value is diminished in this instance vis-a-vis a third independent witness. The estimation of affiliation is first and foremost a device for adjudicating the evidence of multiple witnesses. It is this close connection between affiliation and evidentiary value that tends to be lost sight of in a study such as that of Rahlfs. This arises perhaps from the failure to distinguish adequately between the related notions of affiliation and alignment.30 Let us define alignment as the tendency of manuscripts to share secondary readings. Alignment then points to general trends within the transmission history of a text, and 29. This is, of course, particularly true when the so-called Vulgar text is treated as if it were an archetype, when in fact it represents the end result of a gradual levelling process. See Hedley, 'Gottingen Investigation', pp. 68-69. 30. See Pietersma, 'The Present State', p. 17, where this distinction is made.

110

The Old Greek Psalter

helps us to characterize a given witness with respect to that history. But when it comes to arbitrating the claims of rival readings, the demonstration of alignment (or its absence) does not give us leverage with respect to what we most need to know, namely, the evidentiary significance of manuscript combinations. In this regard, we must ask to what extent one manuscript exhibits independence from the copying history of another or, in other words, to what degree are they affiliated, as evinced by the pattern of conjunctive and disjunctive secondary readings they share. When two manuscripts, over against other witnesses, agree on a reading, the text critic wants to know what the likelihood is that this agreement is independent of the respective copying histories of those manuscripts and therefore representative of the original text. Our contention is that studies premised on the genealogical model fall silent on this crucial matter. Let us then adopt a model sensitive to this issue, not to replace the genealogical model but to complement it. What we would propose is one in which each textual witness is conceptualized as a distinct signal. The original text represents the ultimate source—the transmitter, as it were—from which the signal comes down to us. Each signal has a transmission history of its own, one within which distortions and developments have occurred. Furthermore, and most importantly, each signal is likely to have suffered interference.31 For this reason, in reconstructing the original message, we must link the evidentiary value of a given signal with its relative independence from other signals. What is required by the text critic is a pair-wise analysis of signals, that is, one that identifies the relative independence of each from the others. The transmission model emphasizes the need to conceive of affiliation in terms of the problem it is meant to address, namely the contingent fact that for a given reading there may be any number of witnesses whose evidence must be adjudicated. The first task of the text critic is that of determining whether, in the case of a contested reading, a given

31. The transmission model is therefore particularly suited to the text history of the Greek Psalter, characterized as it is by such a high degree of editing and revision. Hedley ('Gottingen Investigation', pp. 68-69), reminds us that 'we can touch no stage in the history of the text when correction to the Hebrew was not practised, and we have already seen instances of apparently genuine readings preserved in single manuscripts, versions, or even fathers'.

BOYD-T AYLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation 111

variant enjoys multiple independent attestation. There is a need, therefore, to determine the relative independence of pairs of witnesses with respect to the information they transmit. One way of demonstrating such independence is to look at those points in the text where both witnesses deviate from the original. As our discussion of Rahlfs's study has indicated, we need to consider the possibility of agreement as well as disagreement between the witnesses if we are to estimate the likelihood that the observed pattern of agreements is meaningful—that is, that chance factors in transmission history do not account for it—since it is possible that the two witnesses agree in their disagreement with the primary text due to chance alone. Therefore, we need to determine with some measure of confidence whether or not that is the case. This can only be done if we have some idea of how frequently they agree to disagree. Hence, our sample of test variants must include just those instances in which the two witnesses could, in principle, have either agreed or disagreed in their departure from the OG. Even in circumstances in which two manuscripts are independent, and all their agreements on secondary readings are by chance, these agreements might still tend to overshadow the disagreements. This is because, for a majority of readings, there is only one variant in the manuscript evidence, that is, there is only one path of departure from the OG in the record. Hence, if two manuscripts depart from the OG, they may be in agreement by default. By the same token, there are relatively few readings for which a disagreement is even possible. To control for this skewing of the evidence, only those readings for which there is more than one variant and for which both manuscripts depart from the OG should be considered. In the case of such readings, one can say, a priori, that the two manuscripts will either agree or disagree on the secondary reading they offer. What we seek, then, is a list of test variants in which the OG appears in the left column and a minimum of two variants appears in the right column. For each pair of manuscripts under analysis, this will yield a distinct pattern of agreements (conjunctions) and disagreements (disjunctions) on secondary readings. With this data, we can then frame the question of manuscript affiliation within a probabilistic framework. That is to say, we can ask, first, what the likelihood is that this pattern of agreements and disagreements is a chance occurrence, and second, whether it points to the independence or to the dependence of the witnesses.

112

The Old Greek Psalter 3. A Pair-Wise Analysis of the Affiliation and Selected Witnesses

ofVaticanus

For the present study, we have conducted a pair-wise analysis of Vaticanus (B) and a group of selected witnesses—namely S, A, R, Bo and Sa—in order to determine the evidentiary value of those witnesses when they support B. Vaticanus is the obvious point of reference for a preliminary analysis, since it plays such a pivotal role in Rahlfs's groupings. We have, therefore, isolated all those cases in which Rahlfs identifies a variation unit for which B offers a secondary reading. The primary reading (OG) is placed on the left side of the bracket, the variants on the right. Only those texts for which there are at least two secondary readings have been retained. While the analysis looks exclusively at the affiliation of B with S, A, R, Bo and Sa, for the purpose of determining the number of secondary readings available for a given text, all Greek manuscript evidence recorded in Rahlfs's apparatus has been taken into consideration. Variants with support outside of the witnesses included in the study are bracketed in this fashion {}. Two sorts of variants have been dropped from the analysis: those that are unlikely to have been transmitted by scribes, and those that do not discriminate between witnesses. After citing the variants, we code the conjunctions (X=Y) and disjunctions (X~Y) of the witnesses under investigation where they occur. Thus X=Y indicates that, for a given text, X and Y agree upon a secondary reading, while X~Y signifies that they disagree. Finally, the number of variants provided by Rahlfs for each variation unit is recorded within parentheses. On the basis of the test variants, we have drawn up lists of conjunctions and disjunctions in relation to B for each witness. The order of these conjunctions and disjunctions reflects the order of variation units within the Psalter. For each such unit, the number of variants cited in Rahlfs's apparatus is again indicated. 3.3 5.12 6.11 6.11 9.13

como] ctvcou R, > B e-u<|>pav6.] + em aoi B A, + erci oe S arco(Trpa<|)eiT|aav] emaip. B, -((niTcooav R KaTaia%i)v0evriaav] Kat > B S; -ervccaaav R KpavyTy;] Seriaeax; B, <|xflvr|<; A

B~R B=A, B~S

(2) (2)

B~R

(2)

B=S, B~R B~A

(2) (2)

BOYD-T AYLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation 113 16.14

OTTO oXiyrov] COTOXDWV B, cwioXX'ucov Sa B~Sa (2) 17.23 anecraiaa] -aTqaav B S R A; { -CTTTI U} B=S,B=A,B=R (2) 17.44 pwni] pvaai B S Bo; pucavte A B=S, B=Bo, B~A (2) 21.3 Ti^iepa^] + 7tpo<; ae B S Bo Sa A, pr. B=S, B=A, B=Bo, B=Sa, (2) Tipoq oe R B~R 26.8 e^tyrriaev TO Jipooawtov jiov] e£t|T. t. n. ao\) Sa; e£nxr|aa i. n. oov R, ei;e£r|Tncja T. TC. ao\) B Bo A; {KDpiov ^TiTTjaa) e^e^ntnaev oe t. 7i. HOD 1219 55} B=A, B=Bo, B~R, B~Sa (4) 32.11 etq Yeveav Kai Yeveavl a7l° Yeveo)V EIQ YeveaG B S Bo, arco Yeeav Sa, eiqTOYOKDVO TOV aitovoq R B=S, B=Bo, B~Sa, B~R (3) 36.28 avo^ioi 8e] a^to^ioi B S Bo, { OYIOI B=S, B=Bo (2) 2013} 38.13 jtapa oot] ev TH Y^l B Bo Sa; {>Tht} B=Bo, B=Sa (2) 39.17 01 OYOTI.TOCTCOT.aov] + 8va rcavtoq B BoSa, {pr. 8ux Ttavio; 2013 2050} B=Bo, B=Sa (2) 41.4 jioi to 8aKp-ua ^iov] ^iot > B S, T. 8. (2) HO\) ejioi A B=S, B~A 41.6 vvxn] pr- n B; t| \|/. \LOV rel. B~S, B~A, B~R, B~Bo, (2) B~Sa 41.9 o)8T|] (oSri awov A, {(0811 auttoSc}; B=S, B=Bo, B=Sa, B=R, (3) StiXtoaei B S Bo Sa R B~A 42.4 o 0eo<; 1°] KVpie B, > S Sa A B~S, B~A, B~Sa (2) 44.13 TO\) Xaov] TH<; Yn<; Sa, + TTI<; Ynq B Bo B=Bo, B~Sa (2) 45.6 TO npoq Ttpcoi] TO Kpoq Ttpcov Ttpcoi A; TO) TtpoCTQwieo B S Bo R B=S, B=Bo, B=R, B~A (2) 55.3 COTO -u\|fo\)(;] + tmepcov Sa; ad 31 trahunt (+ Tjnepa<;) B S Bo R; {31 add. ^ Tijiepcov sed hab. ajto vtyovc, etiam in 3 fin 1219} B=S, B=Bo, B=R, B~Sa (3) 55.4 <|>opT|0Ti B; aiveoco ad 14 tractum add. ae Sa B~Sa (3) 58.12 Xaou ILOV] VO\LOV oo\) B S Bo R; B=S, B=Bo, B=R, B~Sa (2) ovoiiatoq oov Sa

114 58.14

60.6 63.2 63.9

64.13 67.19 67.22 68.4 70.15 70.21 70.22 73.12 75.8 75.9 76.9 77.48 78.6 79.14 80.9

The Old Greek Psalter o 9eo<; SeonoCei TO\) iaica>|3 TWV nepaTcov] KOI ante TCOV add. R; o 0£o<; TOD IOK. Sean. TCOV nep. B Bo Sa TWV evxdov] TCOV npooevxcov B, TTI<; npooevxTK S Sa 5eeo9ai ^e] + npo<; OE B Sa(uid.); 0Xipeo0ai ne R KOI e£r|a9evnaav en avco\x;] post e^Tja6. add. auton R, {ibidem add. avrcov 55}; { KOI e£no9evr|a.. .hab. etiam 1219); KOI e£oi)9evTiaav OUTOV B a>paia] opii B S Bo Sa; opiates R aveprv;]-pTi S Bo Sa; avapaq B awwv] awou B; > S Bo eppayxiaaev] -ayxvi- B S, {-axvi 55},{-a%i-He} YpafifiaTeiaq] Ttpaynmeiaq B Bo R; Tpa-u^iaTiaq (uel Tpa^iOTiai;) Sa ETtA^ovaoai;] TiXeovaaa^ B, enXeov. en ejxe Sa R, nteov. en en« Bo o 0eo<;] > Bo, post ooi le (+ ev Xaoiq Kvpie) tr. Sa, post \|/aXco aot tr. B 9eo<; paoiA^ix; T^COV] 9eo<; > B, 0. r\\uov p. rmcov Sa, {6. rpcov p. 55} ano TOTE i\ opyn] TOTe ano tr\$ opyrn; R, ano Tnq OPYTI<; B TiKovnaaq] pr. oru Kupie Sa; TjKovtiaaq B TO eXeoq aurot) / anoKoyei] aurou > B (tr.), anoK. > S eiq xa^aCavlev -fy\ B; eiq aixnaA,axnav S ywdxncovTa] {pr. em 55}, eneyvooKOTa B, ei8oTa S ^vio<;] \LOVO<; R, ovoq B S Bo Sa Kai 5iajj.apT. oof loparjA,] Kai XoXr|ao) aor lapaTjX KOI 8ia^iapT. ooi B S Bo Sa, { KOI A«A,t|a« aor tcpariX KOI SiajaapT. ce 55}; Kai XaXrioo) aoi KOI 5tanapt. aor laprniX R; { KOI XaXriaco aoi' lapaiiA. L Pau}

B=Bo, B=Sa, B~R

(2)

B~S, B~Sa

(2)

B=Sa, B~R

(2)

B~R B=S, B=Bo, B=Sa, B~R B~S, B~Bo, B~Sa B~Bo, B~S

(4) (2) (2) (2)

B=S

(3)

B=Bo, B=R, B~Sa

(2)

B~Sa, B~Bo, B~R

(3)

B~Bo, B~Sa

(3)

B~Sa

(3)

B~R

(2)

B~Sa

(2)

B~S

(2)

B~S

(2)

B~S B~R, B=S, B=Bo, B=Sa

(3) (2)

B=S, B=Bo, B=Sa, B~R

(4)

BOYD-T AYLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation 115 81.7 82.8 82.12 87.10

\)|i£u; 8e] + 8t| B S; ecce Sa, {i8ou 811 lust. Mart.}, {i8ou 8e Clem. Alex.} B=S, B~Sa yEpciX (uel yaip.)] -Pep Sa, {ycapa 2049}, vaipaX B S B=S, B~Sa aaXuava] afiXu. B, {aaXanav 2049}, aaXuav R, {aaXuuvav Lb} B~R 102] pr. Kca B R, {pr. Kayco 55 (tr. EKEKp. pOSt KVplE)}

88.13 90.16 91.6 91.15 93.6

93.9 93.23

98.3 98.6 101.16 103.28 104.36 105.23 137.7 138.4 138.9 138.24 139.11 139.11 146.9

epuwv] {epuoM 55}; epuwvuu^ B S Bo (Bo- mm) Sa R A uaKpoTryra]-TITCI B S, {-frvro<;LPau} Epa6\)v9Tiaav] EpapvvG. B S, £7iXne\)v6. Sa (uid.) eti] TOTE B Bo Sa, {OTI LPau}, > S 7tpoc, -^io\>q R, o(|)6aX,junx; B S Kata rnv TtovTjpiav] KOTO > B S Bo; EV trn -pia Sa; {+ TCOV £jcvrn8£D|j,aTcovl219} E^o^ioXoyiicTaoSaKTav] -yiaOoxiav S; + 7tavtE<; B R mraov] avtoiq B, a\)TO\)<; R Kvpioi)] pr. xo\) Sa; oo\) KvpiE B Bo R TiXiiaOTioovTai] -orEiai, R; e^TcXnafhiaETca B ev TH yrj avtoov] EK tri<; yn? a. B, rn<; yriqa. Sa; {EVyn aiywcTO) 1219} rnv opyTjv] tov ODJIOV A; cwco 6A)|iot) opyTiq B Bo fiou] OOD Sa, > B S Bo A Xoyoq] + aSiKoq B S Bo A; 8oXoq Sa; 8oXo<; ct8iKo<; R EOV avaXapoi|ii] ava > S, / (?) analabo my R, eav avaXapa) B A o8oq] {pr. EOTIV He}, £i8£<; B S Bo; Ei8£<; oSov A ev Jtvpi] nupoq B S Bo; {nvpoq, EV Tcvpi 1219} EV rcupi (uel nvpoq)] + em. TT\C, jr\c, B Bo; + EV tn yn in terra R 8i8ovci] pr. too R; pr. KCU B S A

(4) (3) (4)

B=R

(2)

B=S, B=Bo, B=Sa, B=R, B=A B=S

(2) (2)

B=S, B~Sa B=Bo, B=Sa, B~S

(2) (3)

B=S, B=Bo, B=A, B~R

(2)

B=S, B~R

(2)

B=S, B=Bo, B~Sa

(3)

B~S, B=R B~R

(2) (2)

B=Bo, B=R, B~Sa

(2)

B~R

(2)

B~Sa

(3)

B=Bo, B~A B=S, B=Bo, B=A, B~Sa B=S, B=Bo, B=A, B~Sa, B~R

(2) (2)

B=A, B~S, B~R

(3)

B=S, B=Bo, B~A B=S, B=Bo

(2) (2)

B=Bo, B~R B=S, B=A, B~R

(2) (2)

(3)

116

The Old Greek Psalter The Conjunctions I Disjunctions for B and S

5.12

B~S

(2)

58.12

B=S

(2)

90.16

B=S

(2)

6.11 17.23 17.44 21.3 32.11 36.28 41.4 41.6 41.9 42.4 45.6 55.3 55.4

B=S B=S B=S B=S B=S B=S B=S B~S B=S B~S B=S B=S B=S

(2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (3) (2)

60.6 64.13 67.19 67.22 68.4 76.9 77.48 78.6 79.14 80.9 81.7 82.8 88.13

B~S B=S B~S B~S B=S B~S B~S B~S B=S B=S B=S B=S B=S

(2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (3) (2) (4) (4) (3) (2)

91.6 91.15 93.6 93.9 93.23 98.3 137.7 138.4 138.9 138.24 139.11 146.9

B=S B~S B=S B=S B=S B~S B=S B=S B~S B=S B=S B=S

(2) (3) (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (3) (3) (2) (2) (2)

B=Sa B=Sa B~Sa B~Sa B=Sa B~Sa B=Sa B~Sa B~Sa B~Sa B~Sa B~Sa

(2) (4) (4) (3) (2) (2) (3) (3) (2) (3) (2) (3)

B~Bo B=Bo B~Bo B~Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo

(2) (2) (3) (3) (2) (4) (2) (3) (2)

The Conjunctions 1 Disjunctions for B and Sa 16.14 21.3 26.8 32.11 38.13 39.17 41.6 41.9 42.4 44.13 55.3 55.4

B~Sa B=Sa B~Sa B~Sa B=Sa B=Sa B~Sa B=Sa B~Sa B~Sa B~Sa B~Sa

(2) (2) (4) (3) (2) (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (3) (2)

55.13 58.12 58.14 60.6 63.2 64.13 67.19 70.15 70.21 70.22 73.12 75.9

B~Sa B~Sa B=Sa B~Sa B=Sa B=Sa B~Sa B~Sa B~Sa B~Sa B~Sa B~Sa

(3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (3) (3) (2)

79.14 80.9 81.7 82.8 88.13 91.6 91.15 93.23 101.16 104.36 137.7 138.4

The Conjunctions 1 Disjunctions for B and Bo 16.14 17.44 21.3 26.8 32.11 36.28 38.13 39.17 41.6

B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B~Bo

(2) (2) (2) (4) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2)

41.9 44.13 45.6 55.3 55.4 58.12 58.14 64.13 67.19

B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B=Bo B~Bo

(3) (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

67.22 70.15 70.21 70.22 79.14 80.9 88.13 91.15 93.6

BOYD-T AYLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation 117 93.23 B=Bo (3) 101.16 B=Bo (2) 105.23 B=Bo (2)

137.7 B=Bo (2) 138.4 B=Bo (3) 138.24 B=Bo (2)

139.11 B=Bo (2) 139.11 B=Bo (2)

The Conjunctions I Disjunctions for B andR 3.3 6.11 6.11 17.23 21.3 26.8 32.11 41.6 41.9 45.6 55.3 55.4

B~R B~R B~R B=R B~R B~R B~R B~R B=R B=R B=R B=R

(2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (4) (3) (2) (3) (2) (3) (2)

58.12 58.14 63.2 63.9 64.13 70.15 70.21 75.8 79.14 80.9 82.12 87.10

B=R B~R B~R B~R B~R B=R B~R B~R B~R B~R B~R B=R

(2) (2) (2) (4) (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (4) (4) (2)

88.13 93.6 93.9 98.3 98.6 101.16 103.28 138.4 138.9 139.11 146.9

B=R B~R B~R B=R B~R B=R B~R B~R B~R B~R B~R

(2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (3) (2) (2)

B~A B=A B=A B=A B~A B=A

(2) (2) (3) (3) (2) (2)

The Conjunctions I Disjunctions for B and A 5.12 9.13 17.23 17.44 21.3 26.8 30.15

B=A B~A B=A B~A B=A B=A B~A

(2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (4) (2)

41.4 41.6 41.9 42.4 45.6 88.13 93.6

B~A B~A B~A B~A B~A B=A B=A

(2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2)

105.23 137.7 138.4 138.9 138.24 146.9

4. Assessing the Affiliation of Manuscripts within a Probabilisitc Framework The lists above contain the data for our pair-wise analysis of the selected witnesses in reference to B. Assessing the relative affiliation of each pair is essentially a matter of estimating the degree of relationship that would best account for the observed pattern of disjunctions and conjunctions between the two witnesses, and then determining the likelihood that this degree of relationship would be observed among witnesses that are indeed independent of each other. For each pair of witnesses, we have assumed that there is a certain parameter called 0 which could take on any value between zero and one. This parameter measures the degree to which the transmission

118

The Old Greek Psalter

histories of the two witnesses are linked. It represents the probability that the two share a secondary reading by virtue of affiliation. For example, if two witnesses both exhibit a secondary reading, 9 is the probability that they agree, and that this agreement is due to the fact that a scribe at some stage in the transmission history of one witness copied this reading from some stage in the history of the other. We might say that, in such instances, the two agree in their disagreement with the OG, not due to chance but by virtue of their respective histories. Therefore, if 6 were equal to 0.75, this would mean that when both witnesses depart from the OG, 75% of the time they exhibit the same reading due to the reliance of one upon the other. The other 25% of the time, each witness offers the reading it does without having had recourse to the other. Of course, both manuscripts could occasionally attest to the same text in these cases, but they would do so independently of one another. For the present study, we have examined various pairs of witnesses to the Greek Psalter and calculated an estimate of their respective 0 values. The method that has been used to do this is a common technique in statistics called maximum likelihood estimation. This determines, for a given pair of witnesses, that value of 0 under which the observed pattern of agreements and disagreements has the highest probability of arising. Let us assume that 0 ranges from 0 to 1 in increments of 0.01. The likelihood of 0,1(0), is a function of 0. For a given value of 0,1(0) is the probability of the observed pattern of agreements and disagreements, given that particular value of 0. Hence, the likelihood function at '0=0' measures how likely the observed pattern would be if, in fact, the transmission histories of the two witnesses were completely independent of one another. The likelihood function for '0=0.01' measures the likelihood of the observed pattern if copyists within either transmission history had had recourse to the other, one time in 100, while the other 99 times they had worked independently of one another. As indicated above, one can evaluate the likelihood function from '0=0' to '0=1' in computationally convenient increments of 0.01. The likelihood function for '0=1.00' measures how likely the observed pattern would be if one transmission history had been reliant upon the other 100% of the time. Obviously, the likelihood function will be zero at '0=1' in the event of even a single discrepancy between the two witnesses in their shared departures from the OG, because if they differ on a secondary reading in even one place, they could not have agreed

BOYD-T AYLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation 119

100% of the time—that is, they exhibit some slight degree of independence from one another. Further details about the likelihood function are provided in the Appendix. For each pair of witnesses, we have evaluated the likelihood function, from '6=0' to '0=1' in increments of 0.01. We have then determined the value of 0 that maximizes the likelihood function. This value, 0mie, is our maximum likelihood estimate. It is the value of 0 at which the likelihood function attains its largest numerical value. Suppose that our estimated 0mie for manuscripts X and Y were 0.60. This would mean that '0=0.60' is the value of 0 under which the observed pattern has the highest probability of arising. This suggests that 60% of the time one of the witnesses is dependent upon the other for a secondary reading. The remaining 40% of the time, they independently go their own way. Now, in these instances in which they each go their own way, they could still exhibit the same reading, but it would be by pure chance or due to factors other than any knowledge that copyists in one transmission history might have had of the other. Next, we have assessed how 'statistically significant' the estimated value of 0mie is for each pair of witnesses. This is because we require a bench mark for analysing the meaning of a given estimated 0mie value. We have accomplished this by determining the probability of obtaining our results if the respective transmission histories of the two witnesses were indeed completely independent of one another. It is logically possible that the true value of 0 for two witnesses is zero, that is, that their shared departures from the OG are due to random chance, even though we have estimated 0 to be, say, 0.60. Let us assume that this is indeed the case. To assess the 'statistical significance', we ask how rare an estimated 0 m i e value of 0.60 would be under these circumstances. Statistically speaking, what we seek to do is to test the 'null hypothesis' that the true underlying 0 is zero. An analogy to this would be to estimate the probability of a coin turning up heads when flipped. If a coin were tossed ten times, and seven heads turned up, we could ask how much evidence this provides that the coin is unfair, that is, biased. If a coin is fair (probability of heads = 0.5), the probability of a result at least this extreme (i.e., at least seven heads or seven tails) may be computed to be 0.34375. This means that when we flip a fair coin ten times, 34% of the time we expect to see at least seven heads or seven tails. Therefore, this does not provide convincing evidence that the coin is biased or unfair. Returning to the problem before us, what we want to

120

The Old Greek Psalter

determine is this: if the true value of 0 is indeed zero (in other words, if the transmission histories of a pair of witnesses are completely independent of one another), how likely would we be to estimate a 0mie greater than or equal to the value 0.60 which we have, in fact, observed? To address this question, we have created a randomly generated set of results under the null hypothesis that the respective copying histories of both members of each pair of witnesses are independent. We have done this by simulating for each variation unit common to that pair the range of lexical choice that would obtain within a purely random framework. For instance, if, at a given place in the Greek text, Rahlfs's apparatus lists three variants on the lemma, we would say that, under the assumption of pure randomness, a given witness could conceivably have exhibited any one of these three readings with equal probabilities. The probability of choosing any given one would therefore be 0.333. Hence, we have designed our model so that our two simulated witnesses would each independently choose one of three readings according to this probability. They would then move to the next variation unit, and repeat the process. If, at this point, the manuscript evidence offers four variants, then each of our simulated witnesses would choose one of the four randomly and independently of one another. In this way, we have created, for each pair of witnesses, a simulated set of agreements and disagreements according to choices made under the assumption of manuscript independence. Using this new simulated pattern, we have carried out the maximum likelihood estimation to calculate a simulated estimate of 0. We have then repeated this process 1000 times. That is to say, 1000 times we have created a simulated set of agreements and disagreements under the hypothesis that each transmission history has been free to choose any one of the extant variants independently of the other. For each of these patterns, we have calculated a simulated estimate of 0, obtaining a total of 1000 such estimates in all. Now if a particular value of 0mie or larger had proven to be a common occurrence among these trials, then one would have said that this value of 0mie is not a very rare event, and that it does not give convincing evidence of any real dependence in terms of the respective transmission histories of the witnesses. In other words, even though it might seem to be a large value, it is one that is relatively likely to have arisen by chance alone in the event that the two witnesses are independent. Associated with each statistical test of an hypothesis is a p-value. The

BOYD-T AYLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation 121

p-value denotes the probability of observing a Omie at least as large as the one actually obtained, if indeed the null hypothesis of independence is true. Historically, statisticians have used p=0.05 as the cutoff for 'statistical significance'. Thus if the p-value is less than 0.05, we feel safe in concluding that it is unlikely that the results observed would have arisen if the null hypothesis were true, and we therefore reject the null hypothesis. For example, in the table below, the best estimate of 9 relating B and A is found to be 0mie=0.13. Yet if A and B were actually independent of one another (9=0), then 22.4% of the time one would observe a value of 9mie at least this large. We therefore cannot reject the null hypothesis in this instance. 5. Results Comparison A B B Bo R B B Sa B S

6mle

0.13

0.73 0.00 0.00 0.48

p-value 0.224 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000

To summarize, 9 denotes the probability that two witnesses will agree in their disagreement by virtue of one relying upon the other. We shall say that two witnesses are independent if there is insufficient evidence that 9 does not equal zero. Furthermore, we shall say that two witnesses are dependent if there is sufficient evidence that 9 is greater than zero. The parameter 9 quantifies the degree of dependence between the two witnesses. The best estimate of 9 relating A and B is 0.13. We have tested the hypothesis Ho:9=0 and obtained a p-value of 0.224. If indeed A and B were independent of one another, we would expect to see an observed 9mie greater than or equal to the 0.13 that was observed 22.4% of the time. Thus there is insufficient evidence to conclude that A and B are not independent of each other. The best estimate of 9 relating B and Bo is 0.73. Since the p-value is very close to 0, one would be very unlikely to observe a 9mie greater than or equal to 0.73 if B and Bo were indeed independent. We therefore reject the null hypothesis of independence, and conclude that B and Bo are dependent (i.e. that 9 is greater than 0). In those instances where they both disagree with the primary text, 73% of the time they jointly

122

The Old Greek Psalter

and dependently agree on the secondary reading. The same interpretation holds for B and S, except that the percentage is 48% rather than 73%. For B and R, and B and Sa, the best estimate of 6 turns out to be 0 in both cases. Under the null hypothesis of independence, one would of course observe a 0 greater than or equal to zero 100% of the time. Hence there is insufficient evidence to claim either that B and R or B and Sa are dependent. Conclusions: Tentative Guidelines for the Revision ofRahlfs's Apparatus It is perhaps not surprising that the results tend to confirm Rahlfs's assessment of Vaticanus. After all, he worked extensively with the manuscript and clearly had an intuitive understanding of its textual character. As Rahlfs would have predicted, our analysis points to the affiliation of B with Bo, and B with S. We can say that there is sufficient evidence to warrant treating these pairs of witnesses as dependent. For the text critic, this means that the relative evidentiary value of Bo and S is diminished when either of these two witnesses offers a reading in support of B. A revised apparatus for Rahlfs's Psalter would thus be warranted in using the notations B-S and B-Bo to indicate the fact that each pair counts as only one witness when they agree. Again, as Rahlfs would have predicted, for R, Sa and A we lack grounds for rejecting the null hypothesis of independence from B. This is not to say that these witnesses have been shown to be independent of B; rather, we simply have no evidence of their affiliation. It is logically possible that if we had more data, we might be able to observe some degree of affiliation. Yet, in the absence of positive evidence for affiliation, the text critic must work in accordance with the hypothesis of relative independence. When these witnesses read in support of B, all else being equal, it seems best to treat the reading as multiply attested. Whether Rahlfs was correct to speak of A as a mixed text remains to be seen. On the basis of the present analysis we cannot say. But clearly the relationship between A and B warrants further study. The results reported here do not allow us to make inferences about relationships involving other witnesses like Bo and S. Thus we cannot speak of manuscript groupings as such. Nonetheless, the affiliation between B and Bo, contrasted with the lack of positive affiliation

BO YD-T AYLOR ET AL. Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation 123

between B and Sa, does tend to confirm Rahlfs's characterization of B as a Lower Egyptian text. Subsequent research will need to address the relationship between S and Bo in order to determine whether we can speak of B-S-Bo as a family. Our analysis of Vaticanus indicates that the Lower-Upper Egyptian axis might continue to provide a viable schema for grouping certain Psalter witnesses. A desideratum for future study is to determine, on the basis of further pair-wise investigations, which other manuscripts exhibit a disjunctive relationship with Bo and Sa, that is, affiliation with either Bo or Sa coupled with independence from the other. In particular, the application of techniques such as those introduced in the present study to some of the fragmentary witnesses might prove fruitful. The prospect of further analyses using the method outlined here of course raises the question of methodological refinement. It cannot be overly stressed that the results of any study of affiliation are provisional. This is because such results depend upon the establishment of a critical text, a task that is itself provisional. Yet as the Old Greek comes increasingly into view, so too will the witnesses tend to cluster in identifiable groupings. We have relied on a particular stage in the establishment of the critical text to provide leverage on the issue of affiliation. Having drawn certain tentative conclusions regarding the affiliation of Vaticanus to selected witnesses, we suggest that the next step should be to turn back to Rahlfs's apparatus. In other words, we need to reconsider the texts which form the basis of our analysis. We shall ask again of each reading to the left of the bracket whether its claim to being OG can be sustained. We shall also ask whether or not the variation units have been correctly identified and, if so, whether they are of real significance in assessing affiliation. Such a reappraisal of the readings that we have selected for our analysis, together with their supplementation, both with evidence derived from fresh collations and with text-critical revisions to Rahlfs's apparatus, will render our estimation of manuscript affiliation that much more accurate. Of course, unlike lolaus we cannot, with each severed head, stay the growth of another. Increased accuracy in the analysis of affiliation will bring further refinements to the critical apparatus, which will raise anew the question of affiliation. But we can hope to provide the editor of the revised Greek Psalter with some further measure of control in his ongoing struggle with the text.

124

The Old Greek Psalter

APPENDIX The Likelihood Function Let us consider one instance in which two witnesses diverge from the primary text. Let us assume that there are k possible readings at this location in the text. Let 6 be the underlying probability of agreement between these witnesses. Let XI, ..., Xk denote the possible readings. P (Xi, Xj) is the probability that the first witness chooses the variant Xi, and the second witness chooses variant Xj. Then: P6 (Xi, Xi) = 9 • 1/k + (1 - 9) 1/k • 1/k.

This is so since P9 (Xi, Xi) = P(Xi, Xi | they go together) P(they go together) + P(Xi, Xi | they act independently) P(they act independently) = 1 / k - 9 + 1 / k - 1/k (1-9). Here P9 (A|B) is the probability of A conditional on B being true. Next, P9 (Xi, Xj) (where i does not equal j) = P(Xi, Xj | they go together) P(they go together) + P (Xi, Xj) | they act independently) P(they act independently) = O-9+1/k- 1/k-(1-9) = l/k- 1/k-(1-9). So for a given 9 value we can obtain P9 (Xi, Xi) and P9 (Xi, Xj). Assume that there are n places where both witnesses depart from the primary text. Then the likelihood function, 1(9), is defined as:

1(9) =

n — || i=l

P9(Xl,i,X2,i),

where Xl,i is the reading of the first witness in place i, and X2,i is the reading of the second witness in place i.

SCRIBAL FEATURES OF EARLY WITNESSES OF GREEK SCRIPTURE* Emanuel Tov This study describes several scribal features displayed in early witnesses of Greek Scripture with a view to discovering links with early Jewish scribal traditions, such as those known from the Hebrew scrolls from Qumran. Special attention is paid to the indication of verses and sections, paragraphoi, ekthesis, and the writing of the divine names. The parameters of this investigation are as follows: 1. The coverage of the Greek texts is intentionally vague ('Greek Scripture'), since the dividing line between the so-called Old Greek translation and other early translations and revisions is often unclear, as are the exact limits of what may be considered Scripture. 2. The great majority of the early papyri that could be located have been examined for the present paper, with the exclusion of very fragmentary texts. The table lists, in presumed chronological sequence, all the texts that in their publications, have been given dates up to the fourth century CE, including '4-5 CE'. Most texts examined have been dated to the third and fourth centuries CE. The large codices A, B, S and G are excluded from the analysis. 3. The distinction between Jewish and Christian copies is relevant insofar as the former are more likely to preserve ancient Jewish scribal practices. Although this distinction is often very difficult, all texts predating the middle of the first century CE are Jewish. According to * This paper is dedicated with appreciation to Al Pietersma, who has contributed much to the understanding of the early papyri of Greek Scripture. Another authority in this field, R.A. Kraft, kindly agreed to read a draft of this paper and he is to be thanked for making several critical remarks and providing helpful information. After this paper went to press, another twenty-five papyri were examined (mainly 3-4 CE), but the basic picture presented here has not changed. Note that, throughout this paper, numbers appearing with the designations BCE and CE signify centuries.

126

The Old Greek Psalter

K. Treu,1 several texts written after that period might possibly be recognized as Jewish as well, and are indicated in the first column of the Table as 'Jew.' A major criterion, but not the only one, for the Jewish nature of a text is the writing in scrolls, indicated as S in the second column of the Table, but even this criterion is not always stable. The great majority of texts written from the first century CE onwards are Christian. The Christian nature of Scripture texts can usually be detected by their being written in codex form (indicated as C in the second column), and their abbreviated forms of the divine names (indicated in the seventh column in the table). 4. Texts and plates were examined in their editio princeps or in a central edition, located with the aid of K. Aland, Repertorium, and J. Van Haelst, Catalogue (both until 1976) as well as later lists.2 Bibliographical details concerning the papyri listed below are found in those sources or are otherwise obvious to the user of those books (such as volumes of P.Oxy. from the period after 1976). '1 BCE' et sim. refers to the first century BCE. The table lists information on the following items: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

Name and reference to the Jewish nature of the source. (S)croll or (C)odex. Indication of biblical verses or parts of verses through spacing or other systems, or the lack of such indications. Indication of sense divisions through spacing or additional systems, or the lack of such indications. Indication of paragraphoi. Ekthesis (enlarged letters protruding into the margin at the beginning of new sections). Special features used in the writing of the divine names. The notation 'ic(vpio)<;' implies that the abbreviated form of this word is included in the text, usually together with other abbreviated nomina sacra. The notation '0(eo)<;' implies that KCupio)<; has not been preserved, but beyond 6(eo)<; other abbreviated nomina sacra may appear as well. Writing of poetical texts in stichographic arrangement.

1. 'Die Bedeutung des Griechischen fur die Juden im romischen Reich', Kairos NF 15 (1973), pp. 123-44. 2. K. Aland, Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri. I. Biblische Papyri, Altes Testament, Neues Testament, Varia, Apokryphen (Patristische Texte und Studien, 18; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1976); J. Van Haelst, Catalogue des papyrus litteraires juifs et Chretiens (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1976). In addition, the material collected by the Ancient History Research Centre (Macquarie University), which I was able to consult in 1999, was very helpful.

Table 1. Scribal Features in Early Greek Sources Name

SIC

Indication of verses

P.Rylands Greek 458 of Deut. (2 BCE) Jew.

S

no evidence

no

no

no evidence

—

4QLXXDeutofDeut. 1 1 (middle 2 BCE) Jew. 4QLXXLevaofLev. 26 (late 2 or early 1 BCE) Jew. RFouad 266a (942) of Gen. 3-38 (middle 1 BCE) Jew. (Treu) RFouad 266b (848) of Deut. 10-33 (middle 1 BCE) Jew. (Treu)

S

spaces (in one case + high dot), also after groups of words no evidence

no evidence

no evidence

no evidence no evidence

—

S

no

closed

yes

no

no evidence

—

S

spaces, also after groups of words

open and closed no

no

no evidence

—

S

spaces, also after groups of words

open and closed yes

no

S

spaces, also after groups of words

no evidence

the first scribe left stichoi (Deut. 32) spaces in which two dots were indicated; a second scribe wrote the Tetra in square characters — no evidence

RFouad 266c (847) of Deut. (second half of 1 BCE) Jew. (Treu)

Indication of Paragraphoi sense divisions

no

Ekthesis

no

Divine names

Stichographic arrangement

Ekthesis

Divine names

Stichographic arrangement

SIC

4QpapLXX-Levbof Lev. 2-5(1 BCE) Jew. 7QpapLXX-Exod of Exod. 28(1 BCE) Jew. 4QLXXNum of Num. 3-4 (1 BCE) Jew. 8HevXU.gr hand A (end of 1 BCE) Jew.

s

spaces

closed

yes

no evidence IAQ

—

s

no evidence

no evidence

no

no evidence no evidence

—

s

spaces, also after groups of words spaces, also after groups of words

no evidence

no

no

no evidence

—

open and closed yes

yes

no

8HevXIJ.gr hand B (end of 1 BCE) Jew. P.Oxy. 3522 of Job 42 (1 CE) Jew.

s

spaces

open and closed no

yes

s

spaces, also after groups of words

no

no

no

P. Yale 1 of Gen. 14 (end of 1 CE)3 Jew. (Treu) P.Oxy. 4443 of Est. E and ch. 9 (late 1 or early 2 CE) P.Antinoopolis 7 of Pss. 81-82LXX(2CE)

c

spaces after verses, with middle dot

no

no

no

paleo-Hebrew Tetra, including final he paleo-Hebrew Tetra paleo-Hebrew Tetra, including final he no evidence

s

no

open

yes

yes

no evidence

—

c

no

no

no

no

K(vpioX

stichoi

3.

s

Indication of verses

Indication of Paragraphoi sense divisions

Name

no no

—

This date, given in the editio princeps, is contested by several scholars, who date this text to the second or third century CE.

Name

SIC

P.Chester Beatty VI (963) of Num. and Deut. (end of 2 CE or early 3 CE) P.Leipzig 170 of Ps. 118LXX(2-3CE) P.Oxy656ofGen. 1427 (2 or 3 CE) Jew. (Treu)

C

no

some open and yes (rarely) closed

C

no

no

C

no

P.Scheide + P.Chester Beatty IX (967) of Ezek. (early 3 CE) (same codex as next)

C

P.Chester Beatty X (967) of Dan. and Est. (early 3 CE) P.Oxy. 4442 of Exod. 20 (early 3 CE) P.Oxy. 1007 of Gen. 2-3 (3 CE) Jew. (Treu)

C

C C

Indication of verses

Indication of sense divisions

Paragraphoi

Ekthesis

Divine names

Stichographic arrangement

no

K(\)pio)<;

—

no

no

K(upio)q

stichoi

open and no closed, with dots in different positions high dots, median open and closed no dots, dots on the sections filled line (no spaces with two diagoleft), also after nal dots or groups of words strokes

no

spaces left by ori- — ginal scribe, filled in by a second scribe with Kt>pio<; no K(x>pioX

oblique strokes in rarely closed spaces, also when and open no space was left closed + dino colon one closed no section

rarely, and usually not related to the beginning of new sections

yes

no

K(t)pio)<;

no

no

no

K(t>plo)<;

—

no

no

Two yods with horizontal stroke through both letters; also 6(eo)<;

—

Name

SIC

Indication of verses

Indication of sense divisions

Paragraphoi

Ekthesis

Divine names

Stichographic arrangement

P.Lit London 204 of Ps. 2 (3 CE) P.Antinoopolis 9 of Prov. 2-3 (3 CE)

c

no

no

no

no

K(t>pio)£

no

c

spaces with dino cola or high dots, also after groups of words

no

no

no evidence

no

P.Vindob. Gr. 26035B of Pss. 68-69 LXX (3CE) Pap W (Freer) of the Minor Prophets (3 CE) Jew. (Treu) P.Berlin Fol. 66 1/H of Genesis (end of 3 CE) P.Oxy. 1075ofExod. 40 (3 CE) Jew. (Treu)

c

no

no

no

no

e(eo)<;

stichoi

c

high dots, also after groups of words

occasional dicola in closed sections

yes

no

KftploX

no

c

no

no

yes

no

K(upio)i;

—

s

space + high dot after 40.28; otherwise continuous

no

no

no

K(vpio)<;

—

c

no

no

no

no

KftptoX

stichoi

P.Antinoopolis 8 of Prov. 5-10, 20 (3 CE) Jew. (Treu)

SIC

Indication of verses

P.Oxy. 1166 of Gen. 16 (3 CE) Jew. (Treu)

s

REgerton 4 (B.M.) of 2 Chron. 24 (3 CE) P.Fir. Soflsa. 19 (3CE) P.Merton 2 = P.Chester Beatty VJloflsa. 8-60 andEzek. 11-17 (3 CE) P.Berlin 17213 of Gen. 19 (3 CE) Jew. (Treu) RRendel Harris 166 of Exod. 22-23 (3 CE)4 P. Sch0yen 2648 of Joshua 9-11 (3 CE)5 P.Berlin 17212 of Jer. 2-3 (3 CE)

c

Name

Indication of sense divisions

Paragraphoi

spaces with median dots, also after groups of words high dots, usually in spaces spaces + high dots high dots and dicola, sometimes in spaces space + high dot (once)

no

no

no

K(vpioX

—

no

no

no

K(upio)<;

—

no

no

no

no evidence

no

no

no

no

K(upio)<;

no

closed (once)

no

no

c

no

open and closed yes

no

possibly space left — for divine name no evidence —

c

no

no

no

no

K(-6pio)<;

—

c

spaces + high dots

no

no

no

KftpioX

—

c c

Ekthesis

Divine names

Stichographic arrangement

4. The Rendel Harris Papyri (Studia amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia, 26; Zutphen: Terra, 1985). 5. Unpublished; information kindly provided by K. DeTroyer.

Name

SIC

P.Chester Beatty V (962) of Gen. (second half of 3 CE) P.Lit London 202 of Gen. 46-47 (300 CE) Jew. (Treu) P.Berl. 14039 of Exod. 34-35 (3-4 CE)

c

P.Flor.B.L.980ofPss. 143-148 LXX (3-4 CE) P.Vindob. Gr. 39777 (Symmachus) of Pss. 68, 80 LXX (3-4 CE) P.Oxy. 1226 of Pss. 78 (3-4 CE) P.Lit London 209 of Cant. 5-6 (early 4 CE) P.Oxy. 1352 of Pss. 82-83 LXX (early 4 CE)

c

P.Oxy. 1225 of Lev. 16 (4 CE) Jew. (Treu) P.Oxy. 11 68 of Josh. 4-5 (4 CE)

Indication of sense divisions

Paragraphoi

no

closed

yes (rare)

rarely

K(t>pio)<;

—

c

spaces + high dots

no evidence

no

no

no evidence

—

c

no

no

no

K(upio)<;

—

no

no

no

K(i3pio)q

no

s

spaces + high dots, also after groups of words dicola mostly in spaces —

—

—

—

paleo-Hebrew Tetra and 9eo<;

—

c

no

no

no

no

K(t>pio)<;

stichoi

c

high dots mostly in spaces dicola in spaces after groups of words spaces + high and low dots spaces + high dots

no

no

no

no evidence

no

no

no

no

K(vpio)<;

no

no

no

no

no evidence

—

no

no

no

K(t>pio)<;

—

c s c

Indication of verses

Ekthesis

Divine names

Stichographic arrangement

Name P.Geneve Gr. 252 of Jer. 5-6 (4 CE). P.Berlin 18 196 of Cant. 5-6 (4 CE) P.Berlin 11 766 of Exod. 5-7 (4 CE)

SIC C C

Indication of verses

Indication of Paragraphoi sense divisions

Ekthesis

Divine names

Stichographic arrangement

spaces + high dots no

open (once)

no

no

K(t>pio)<;

—

no

no

no

no evidence

stichoi

no? (see information on verses)

no

no

K(v>pio)<;

—

no

no

no

K(t>pio)<;

—

P.Flor. B.L. 11 63 of Job 1-2 (4 CE) P.Grenfell 5 of Ezek. 5-6 (4 CE) P.Oxy. 1351 of Lev. 27 (4CE) P.Hamb. Ibscher 5 of Gen. 41 (4 CE)

C

space + dicolon after 6.24; otherwise continuous text; space in the middle of 6.24 no

C

no

no

no

no

K(\>pio)<;

—

C

no

open

yes

yes

no evidence

—

C

no

no

no

no evidence

—

P.Oxy. 1779 of Ps. 1 (4CE)

C

rarely spaces + high dots, also after groups of words high dots in spaces, also after groups of words

no

no

no

K(\)pio)<;

no

C

Name

SIC

P.Vindob. Gr. 26205 of Ps. 34 LXX (4 CE)

C

P.Chester Beatty IV (961) of Gen. (4CE) RFlor. B.L. 1371 of Ps. 36 LXX (4 CE) Codex St. Cath. of Gen. 27-28 (4 CE)6

c

no no; spaces with apostrophes for stichoi in the middle of the line no closed

C

no

c

P.Amherst 1 (Aquild) of Gen. 1(4CE) P.Antinoopolis 10 of Ezek. 33-34 (4 CE) Jew. (Treu) P.Leipzig39ofPss. 30-55 LXX (4 CE) P.Vindob. Gr. 35781 of Ps. 77 LXX (4 CE)

Indication of verses

Indication of sense divisions

Paragraphoi

Ekthesis

Divine names

Stichographic arrangement

no

no

no evidence

no

yes (wedgeshapes)

no

K(vpio);

—

no

no

no

K(\)pio)<;

stichoi

spaces with high dots, also after groups of words

open

no

—

?

no

no

no

yes (disK(t>pio)<; tance of 3-4 letters in the margin) no 6(e6X

c

high dots, in spaces, but also when no space was left

no

no

no

K(vpio)<;

—

s

no

no

yes

no

K(vpio)<;

no

c

no

no

no

no

no evidence

stichoi

—

6. J.H. Charlesworth, The New Discoveries in St. Catherine's Monastery: A Preliminary Report of the Manuscripts (ASOR Monograph Series, 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981).

Name

SIC

P.Oxy. 1167 of Gen. 31(4CE) P.Vindob. Gr. 29274 of Ps. 32 LXX (4-5 CE)

c

no

Stichographic arrangement

Indication of sense divisions

Paragraphoi

no

no

no

e(eo)<;

—

c

spaces + low dots no with an apostrophe

no

no

K(i)pio)<;

no

P.Oxy. 845 of Pss. 6870 LXX (4-5 CE) P.Oxy. 2386 of Pss. 83-84 LXX (4-5 CE)

c

no

no

no

no

no evidence

stichoi

s

spaces + two oblique strokes after each stich

no

no

no

K(upio)<;

stichoi

P.Damasc. VH of Cant. 2, 5 (4-5 CE) P.Erlangen 2 of Gen. 41 (4-5 CE) P.Yale Beinecke 544 of 1 Sam. 24 -2 Sam. 1 (4-5 CE)7

c

no

no

no

yes

no evidence

stichoi

c

spaces + high and no evidence low dots minute spaces no with high dots and dicola, also after groups of words some spaces with open (rare) high dots, also after groups of words

no

no

e(eo)<;

—

yes

no

K(upio)<;

—

no

no

paleo-Hebrew Tetra with identical yod and waw

—

Cod. Cambridge of 2 Kgs 21-23 (Aquila) (502)

7.

c

c

Indication of verses

Ekthesis

Divine names

E.G. Wright, 'A Greek Fragment of the Books of Samuel: Beinecke Library MS 544 (Ra 846)', Textus 17 (1994), pp. 79-100.

136

The Old Greek Psalter ANALYSIS 1. Indication of Small Content Units (Verses)

The following procedures are evidenced for the indication or nonindication of verses. a. Small Spaces without Additional Indications There is no sound evidence from early times for the notation of small textual units in Hebrew sources, and the only available material pertains to the early biblical versions. Some evidence is available for the indication of verses with dicola by means of spaces in 4QtgLev (4Q156), ascribed by J.T. Milik8 to 2-1 BCE. Early Greek sources similarly indicated with spaces units, which in the Masoretic tradition were known as verses, and which often more or less agree with the Masoretic tradition. The use of spacing for the signification of verses was a natural development in the tradition of the writing of Scripture, as larger units (sections) were likewise signified with spacing, either in the middle of the line or after the last word. Spacing indicating new sections was always larger than spacing indicating verses, which was never more extensive than the equivalent of one to three letters. In a small group of early Greek texts, the ends of verses are indicated by means of small spaces without any additional notations. Since all these texts are early, they undoubtedly reflect early Jewish traditions. Some of these texts reflect early Jewish revisions (P.Fouad 266a-c, SHevXIIgr), while others probably contain the Old Greek translation (4QpapLXXLevb, 4QLXXNum), different from the text contained in all other witnesses. The nature of P.Oxy. 3522 is unclear. P.Rylands Greek 458 of Deuteronomy (2 BCE) has spaces after Deut. 24.1 (+ high dot), 25.2, 26.17,18, as well as after groups of words.9 P.Fouad 266a-c of Genesis and Deuteronomy (1 BCE) consists of three different scrolls,10 all of which display spaces after biblical verses, and

8. Qumrdn grotte 4JI. II. Tefillin, Mezmot et Targums (4Q128^Q157) (DID, 6; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), pp. 86-89. 9. C.H. Roberts, Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1936). A more complete photograph is found in E. Wiirthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 177. 10. See Z. Aly and L. Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and

TOY Scribal Features of Early Witnesses

137

sometimes also after groups of words: P.Fouad 266a of Genesis (942; middle of 1 BCE); P.Fouad 266b of Deuteronomy (848; middle of 1 BCE), in the latter case, for example, after Deut. 22.8, 28.67, 32.19, 25, as well as after 28.9a, 65a, but not after Deut. 28.65, 31.25, 32.46; P.Fouad 266c of Deuteronomy (847; second half of 1 BCE).1! 4QpapLXXLevb of Leviticus 2-5 (1 BCE) has spaces after Lev. 3.11 and 4.26, while 4QLXXNum of Numbers 3-4 (1 BCE) has them after 3.41 and 4.6, as well as after groups of words. SHevXIIgr hand A (end of 1 BCE) contains substantial segments of the Minor Prophets. The evidence pertains to the ends of almost all verses,12 as well as to several groups of words. SHevXIIgr hand B of Zechariah (end of 1 BCE) has spaces after Zech. 9.5, but not after 9.1. This scribe also indicated word-divisions with small spaces. P.Oxy. 3522 of Job 42 (1 CE) has spaces after 42.11, as well as after groups of words (42.1 la,12a).

This group may be extended by the following texts which likewise indicate spaces. b. Graphic Indicators (Usually High Dots or Dicola) Added in Spaces Left by the Original Scribes Graphic indicators (usually high dots or dicola, and in one case oblique strokes) were often added in texts that already had spaces marking the ends of verses. With two exceptions, all these texts are from the third century CE onwards, which shows that the ancient tradition of indicating verse endings with spacing was supplemented with a Greek system of indicating small content units with dots. Sometimes these dots were inserted by the original scribes, but often they were added after the completion of the writing. In those instances, extant spaces could not be erased, and if no spaces had been left, the new markings were inserted Deuteronomy (Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, 27; Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1980). 11. See F. Dunand, Papyrus grecs bibliques (Papyrus F. Inv. 266): Volumina de la Genese et du Deuteronome, texte et planches (Extrait des etudes de papyrologie, 9; Cairo: Institut fran£ais d'archeologie orientale, 1966); Aly and Koenen, Three Rolls, p. 5 n. 24 and p. 7 n. 32; J.M. Oesch, Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen zu einer iiberlieferten Gliederung im hebrdischen Text des Alien Testament (OBO, 27; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), pp. 297-98. 12. See E. Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (SHevXIIgr) (DJD, 8; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 11-12.

138

The Old Greek Psalter

between the existing letters. The use of either a dot or dicolon depended on the personal preference of the scribe. In poetical texts, the graphic indicators were placed in the middle of the lines. P.Rylands Greek 458 of Deuteronomy (2 BCE): a space after Deut. 24.1 (+ high dot). P.Yale 1 of Genesis 14 (end of 1 CE?): spaces after verses with median dots. P.Chester Beatty X (967) of Daniel and Esther (early 3 CE): oblique strokes both in spaces and when no space was left (see group c below). P.Scheide + P.Chester Beatty IX (967) of Ezekiel (early 3 CE): high dots, median dots, and dots on the line (no spaces left), also after groups of words. P.Antinoopolis 9 of Prov. 2-3 (3 CE): marks at the end of most verses with a dicolon or high dot, all in spaces. P.Merton 2 of Isa. 8-60 (965) = P.Chester Beatty VH (3 CE): high dots and dicola, sometimes in spaces. P.Egerton 4 (B.M.) of 2 Chron. 24 (3 CE): high dots, usually in spaces. P.Oxy. 1075 of Exod. 40 (3 CE): a space with a high dot after 40.28; otherwise the text is continuous. P.Berlin 17212 of Jer. 2-3 (3 CE): spaces with high dots. P.Berlin 17213 of Gen. 19 (3 CE): a space with a high dot after 19.17. P.Oxy. 1166 of Gen. 16 (3 CE): median dots in spaces at the end of verses, also after some groups of words. P.Fir. 8 of Isaiah (3 CE): high dots, mainly in spaces. P.Flor. B.L. 980 of Pss. 143-48 LXX (3-4 CE): dicola, mainly in spaces. P. Berl. 14039 of Exod. 34-35 (3-4 CE): spaces + high dots, also after groups of words. P.Lit London 202 of Gen. 46-47 (c. 300 CE): spaces + high dots. P.Lit London 209 of Cant. 5-6 (early 4 CE): spacing, sometimes with high dots. P.Oxy. 1352 of Pss. 82-83 LXX (early 4 CE): spaces + dicola after groups of words. Codex St. Cath. of Gen. 27-28 (4 CE): spaces with high dots, also after groups of words. P.Berlin 11766 of Exod. 5-7 (4 CE): a space with dicolon after 6.24 and a space in the middle of 6.24; otherwise the text is continuous. P.Antinoopolis 10 of Ezek. 33-34 (4 CE): inconsistently placed high dots, sometimes in spaces, but also when no space was left. P.Hamb. Ibscher 5 of Gen. 41 (4 CE): some spaces with high dots, also after groups of words. P.Oxy. 1225 of Lev. 16 (4 CE): high and low dots in spaces. P.Oxy. 1168 of Josh. 4-5 (4 CE): high dots in spaces. P.Geneve Gr. 252 of Jer. 5-6 (4 CE): spaces with high dots. P.Oxy. 1779 of Ps. 1 (4 CE): high dots in spaces, also after groups of words. P.Erlangen 2 of Gen. 41 (4-5 CE): high and low dots in spaces.

TOY Scribal Features of Early Witnesses

139

P.Oxy. 2386 of Pss. 83-84 LXX (4-5 CE): spaces with two oblique strokes after each stich. P.Yale Beinecke 544 of 1 Sam. 24-2 Sam. 1 (4-5 CE): minute spaces with high dots and dicola, also after groups of words. Cod. Cambridge of 2 Kgs 21-23 (Aquild) (5 CE): high dots in spaces, also after groups of words.

c. High Dots and/or Dicola Superimposed on Texts Written without Spaces Many of the high dots and dicola were superimposed, often inelegantly, on texts that were initially written continuously. The secondary status of these interpunction signs is evident from the lack of space left and often also from the colour of the ink of the dots. P.Scheide and P.Chester Beatty IX (967) of Ezekiel (early 3 CE), which originally formed one scroll, indicate systematically the end of each verse, as well as segments of verses, with dots in different positions (high dots, median dots, and dots on the line), apparently without assigning a different meaning to the positions of these dots.13 Papyrus W (Freer) of the Minor Prophets (3 CE) has dots at the ends of verses as well as after groups of words. Probably all of them were inserted after the completion of the writing.

Many of the texts listed in the previous section have dots or dicola inserted in the texts, sometimes in existing spaces, and often when no space was left (see the data in the table). In this regard, manuscripts of Psalms form a special group since the graphic indicators only come at the ends of the lines when the texts are arranged stichographically, and the secondary nature of such indicators cannot be determined easily. d. Continuous Writing Involving No Notation/or the Indication of Verse Endings Some texts do not indicate verse endings. Although in principle such texts could reflect the first stage of the Greek translation, it seems that they reflect a secondary development since the earliest available evidence (group a above) reflects spacing between the verses.

13. See A.C. Johnson et al., The John H. Scheide Biblical Papyri: Ezekiel (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1938), pp. 16-17.

140

The Old Greek Psalter P.Oxy 656 of Gen. 14-27 (2 or 3 CE) P.Chester-Beatty VI (963) of Numbers and Deuteronomy (2 or 3 CE) P.Oxy. 1007 of Gen. 2-3 (3 CE) P.Lit London 204 of Ps. 2 (3 CE) P.Chester-Beatty V (962) of Genesis (second half of 3 CE) P. Sch0yen 2648 of Josh. 9-11 (3 CE) P.Chester-Beatty IV (961) of Genesis (4 CE) P.Grenfell 5 of Ezek. 5-6 (4 CE) P.Oxy. 1167 of Gen. 31 (4 CE) P.Oxy. 1779 of Ps. 1(4 CE) P.Flor. B.L. 1163 of Job 1-2 (4 CE) PAmherst 1 (Aquild) of Gen. 1 (4 CE) P.Vindob. Gr 26205 of Ps. 34 LXX (4 CE) P.Oxy. 845 of Pss. 68-70 LXX (4 CE)

When the text is laid out in stichoi, the writing of a continuous text without verse indication is inherent with the system of writing. P.Antinoopolis 7 of Pss. 81-82 LXX (2 CE) P.Leipzig 170 of Ps. 118 LXX (2-3 CE) P.Antinoopolis 8 of Prov. 5-10, 20 (3 CE) P.Vindob. Gr. 26035B of Pss. 68-69 LXX (3 CE) P.Oxy. 1226 of Pss. 7-8 LXX (3-4 CE) P.Flor. B.L. 1371 of Ps. 36 LXX (4 CE) P.Leipzig 39 of Pss. 30-55 LXX (4 CE) P.Berlin 18196 of Cant. 5-6 (4 CE) P. Vindob. Gr. 35781 of Ps. 77 LXX (4 CE) P.Oxy. 2386 of Pss. 83-84 LXX (4-5 CE)

e. Presumed Developments As the earliest available Greek sources reflect spaces between the verses (group a), this practice probably reflects the oldest form in which verse division was indicated in the Greek textual tradition, possibly even in the original translation itself. This evidence resembles the system used in 4QtgLev (dicola), and suggests that the division into verses was early, recorded only in early translations, and probably other sources as well, but not in Hebrew biblical manuscripts such as those known from the Judaean Desert. Based on this assumption, one surmises that the continuous writing of the Greek texts as recorded in group d is secondary. Over the course of time, graphic signs were added in these spaces in accord with the Greek manuscript writing tradition (groups b and c). In Greek inscriptions, the high dot ( '), dicolon ( : ) , tricolon (: ), as

TOY Scribal Features of Early Witnesses

141

well as various additional graphic signs,14 were used regularly from the seventh century BCE onwards to indicate small or large sense divisions, while in papyri this system was developed further. Thus in the punctuation system devised by Aristophanes of Byzantium (c. 257-180 BCE) and recorded by Aristotle,15 different values were assigned to the dot, depending on whether it stood above the line (a full stop), in the middle of the line (a comma), or on the line (a semicolon).16 The high dots were often inserted by a later hand, as illustrated by a papyrus of Homer's Iliad.11 A comparison of verse division in ancient Greek biblical manuscripts and the Masoretic tradition is hampered by the fact that, in the course of transmission of the Greek manuscripts (certainly the Christian copies), there was movement away from the original translation. The original form of the verse divisions cannot be reconstructed easily, but there are sufficient indications of differences in details. Some of the details in the Greek sources may reflect early traditions, while others will have been denoted secondarily, such as the indication of a pause after groups of words, especially in the middle of the verse, but also in other positions (see the third column in the table).18 These divisions in the middle of verses probably reflect pauses that were natural for a scribe or early reader. A relatively late source, such as P.Oxy. 1352 of Psalms 82-83 LXX (early 4 CE) with dicola in spaces after groups of words, shows how unnatural this tradition (often against MT) may be. The spacing in 14. See especially L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. I. Phonology (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1980), pp. 73-94. 15. De arte rhetorica 3.8.1409a. 16. See F.W. Hall, A Companion to Classical Studies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), p. 13; V. Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie (Leipzig: Veil, 2nd edn, 1911-13), II, p. 400; W. Schubart, Griechische Palaeographie (Munich: Beck, 1966), p. 173; F.G. Kenyon, The Palaeography of Greek Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899), p. 28; R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 180; E.G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies, 2nd edn, revised and enlarged by P.J. Parsons, 1987), pp. 48, 50, and index, with examples of manuscripts from the second century CE onwards; D.C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 31-34. 17. E.G. Turner, Greek Papyri: An Introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), plate IV. 18. For the details regarding SHevXIIgr, see Tov, Minor Prophets, pp. 11-12.

142

The Old Greek Psalter

P.Oxy 656 of Genesis 14-27 (2 or 3 CE), separating the verbs of speaking from the direct speech in 15.7a and 9a, likewise is unparalleled in the Jewish Scripture tradition. See also the high dots before or after personal names in accordance with a Greek writing system19 in P.Fouad 266a-c of Genesis and Deuteronomy (1 BCE), P.Berlin 11766 of Exodus 5-7 (4 CE), as well as the spaces in these places in 4QLXXLevb and 4QPara Exod gr. On the other hand, according to E. J. Revell, the spacing and high dots in the middle of a verse in early Greek manuscripts reflect, though not consistently, the Hebrew accent system known from the later Masoretic sources regarding disjunctive accents.20 However, while this claim can be made for probably Jewish sources such as P.Rylands Greek 458 of Deuteronomy (2 BCE), P.Fouad 266a-c (942, 848, 847) of Genesis and Deuteronomy (middle 1 BCE), 4QLXXNum of Numbers 3-4 (1 BCE), SHevXIIgr (end of 1 BCE), and P.Oxy 3522 of Job 42 (1 CE), it is unlikely for non-Jewish sources such as P.Scheide + P.Chester-Beatty IX (967) of Ezekiel (early 3 CE), Pap W (Freer) of the Minor Prophets (3 CE), P.Antinoopolis 9 of Proverbs 2-3 (3 CE), P. Berl. 14039 of Exodus 34-35 (3-4 CE), P.Oxy. 1352 of Psalms 82-83 LXX (early 4 CE), P.Hamb. Ibscher 5 of Genesis 41 (4 CE), and Codex St. Cath. of Genesis 27-28 (4 CE). 2. Indication of Sections a. Sections in the Ancient Translations The division of the text into sense units, together with the verse division in some early sources, reflect the earliest visible components of context exegesis of the written text. This early exegesis must have been extant in the Hebrew manuscripts used by translators, and from those manuscripts it was transferred to the early witnesses of some ancient versions. However, during the course of the transmission of these translations, this evidence was contaminated. Three typological stages of development (not always evidenced in chronological sequence) with regard to the indication of sense divisions

19. Cf. Threatte, Attic Inscriptions, pp. 82, 85. 20. E.J. Revell, 'The Oldest Evidence for the Hebrew Accent System', BJRL 54 (1971-72), pp. 214-22; 'Biblical Punctuation and Chant in the Second Temple Period', JSJ1 (1976), pp. 181-98.

TOY Scribal Features of Early Witnesses

143

are visible in the manuscripts of Greek Scripture (until the fifth century CE). In some cases, the evidence is too fragmentary to determine whether the space in a manuscript denoted a verse ending or a new section. 1. Some early witnesses reflect some, most, or all of the sense divisions of the Hebrew texts from which the Greek translations were made. Several of these texts reflect early Jewish revisions (P.Fouad 266a-b [middle 1 BCE], 8HevXIIgr hands A and B [end of 1 BCE]), while others probably contain the Old Greek translation (4QLXXLeva [2-1 BCE], 4Qpap-LXXLevb [1 BCE]). 4QLXXLeva of Leviticus 26 (late 2 or early 1 BCE) has a closed section, together with aparagraphos sign in frag. 1, line 21 (after Lev. 26.13). P.Fouad 266a-b (942 and 848) of Genesis and Deuteronomy (middle of 1 BCE) have open and closed sections, accompanied by a paragraphos above the first letter in the next line. While the evidence for the open sections is sound (e.g., before Deut. 18.6; 28.1), that for the closed sections is partly reconstructed. 4QpapLXXLevb of Leviticus 2-5 (1 BCE) has closed sections and paragraphoi in frags. 27-31, line 6 (after Lev. 5.19) as well as in unidentified frag. 32. SHevXIIgr, hands A and B (end of 1 BCE), has open and closed sections, usually accompanied by paragraphoi, and often with ekthesis (see below). The system of sense divisions in this scroll is more developed than in the MT (40 divisions, partly reconstructed, compared with 21 in the MT), and resembles the contemporaneous MurXII.21 P.Oxy. 4443 of Esther E and ch. 9 (late 1 or early 2 CE) has open sections before 8.13, 14, with paragraphoi and ekthesis. P.Oxy 656 of Gen. 14-27 (2 or 3 CE) has an open section after 19.38, as well as closed sections after 15.7a, 7, 9a, 20.4a, in all cases with high or median dots. The spaces and median dots in 15.7a, 9a precede direct speech.

2. Several late manuscripts of Greek Scripture, copied by Christian copyists, have moved away from the Hebrew manuscript tradition, and consequently reflect fewer content divisions than the original translation, but the spacing systems themselves are more or less identical. P.Chester Beatty VI (963) of Numbers and Deuteronomy (end of 2 CE or beginning of 3 CE) has some open and closed sections. P.Scheide + P.Chester Beatty IX of Ezekiel (early 3 CE) designate open and closed sections by spaces filled with two small diagonal strokes or dots 21. See Table 12 in Tov, Minor Prophets, p. 10.

144

The Old Greek Psalter

(except for the open section in col. 40.41 at the separation between chs. 39 and 37, in that sequence). The original scribe probably inserted the signs himself (e.g., col. 39.11 [before Ezek. 20.1]; 44.24 [Ezek. 21.8]).22 As a rule, these signs reflect the division of the MT, with differences regarding the distinction between open and closed sections. Ekthesis occurs at the beginning of some sections (e.g., col. 44.11 [Ezek. 21.6]; col. 49.3 [Ezek. 22:23]; col. 55.32 [Ezek. 25.1]), but usually it is unrelated to these sections. P.Oxy. 4442 of Exodus 20 (early 3 CE) has a closed section after 20.21 with a dicolon. P.Chester Beatty X (967) of Daniel (early 3 CE) rarely indicates sense divisions, for example, a closed section in Dan 4.34 and an open section before 4.1 and 8.1. P.Oxy. 1007 of Genesis (3 CE) has a closed section before Gen. 3.1. P.Berlin 17213 of Genesis 19 (3 CE) has a closed section after 19.18. P.Rendel Harris of Exodus 22-23 (3 CE) has open and closed sections. Pap W (Freer) of the Minor Prophets (3 CE) has occasional dicola in closed sections. P.Chester Beatty V (962) of Genesis (second half of 3 CE) has closed sections before Gen. 34.61, 62 and 35.4. P.Berlin Fol. 661/ll of Genesis (end of 3 CE) has someparagraphoi. P.Chester Beatty IV (961) of Genesis (4 CE) has closed sections, with some paragraphoi, before Gen. 15.1, 18.24, 21.1, 29.1, 34.22, 35.13, 36.11 and 41.53. P.Geneve Gr. 252 of Jeremiah 5-6 (4 CE) has an open section before 6.1.

3. Large sense divisions (as opposed to small units similar to verses and half-verses) are not indicated at all in many sources. For details on the indication of sections, see the fourth column in the table. b. Developments Developments in the scribal tradition cannot be reconstructed satisfactorily because of the fragmentary preservation of the manuscripts. The preserved evidence points to the same system as is known for early Hebrew manuscripts (open sections, closed sections), which in the course of the transmission of Greek Scripture was represented with increasing imprecision. While the original Greek systems were probably identical to those of the Hebrew manuscripts, there are many differences in details with regard to the indication of specific sense units. These details need to be

22. See Johnson et al., Scheide, p. 13.

TOY Scribal Features of Early Witnesses

145

examined in the aforementioned sources as well as in later manuscripts, since the editions of the LXX are imprecise in this regard. These editions reflect different manuscripts, as demonstrated in detail by D. Barthelemy in his critique of the Gottingen editions.23 While the systems used for the indication of the sense divisions in manuscripts of the Greek versions ultimately go back to Hebrew manuscripts, two additional types of indications were indigenously Greek, viz., paragraphoi and ekthesis. Several Greek manuscripts indicate new sections with paragraphoi in addition to spacing (for details, see column 5 in the table), just like several of the Qumran Hebrew texts. Since these paragraphoi were probably indicated by readers, they do not reflect the systems used by the original scribes. Some manuscripts denote new sections with an enlarged initial Greek letter protruding into the margin (ekthesis). For a description and parallels, see C.H. Roberts.24 The number of sources using ekthesis is small, and no pattern, such as frequent occurrence in a certain type of text or period, is detectable: SHevXIIgr hands A and B (end of 1 BCE) P.Oxy. 4443 of Esther E and ch. 9 (late 1 or early 2 CE) P.Scheide + P.Chester Beatty IX of Ezekiel (beginning of 3 CE), rarely, and usually not related to the beginning of new sections P.Chester Beatty V (962) of Genesis (second half of 3 CE) P.Oxy. 1351 of Lev. 27(4 CE) Codex St. Cath. of Gen. 27-28 (4 CE), protruding as much as 3-4 letter spaces into the margin P.Damasc. VII of Cant. 2, 5 (4-5 CE)

23. D. Barthelemy, Critique textuelle de I'Ancien Testament (OBO, 50/3; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), pp. cxviicxxiv. For a different view, see P. Harle and D. Pralon, La Bible d'Alexandrie. III. Le Levitique (Paris: Cerf, 1988), pp. 16-24. For a brief description of the systems used in the uncial manuscripts and editions of the L X X , see R. Devreesse, Introduction a I'etude des manuscrits grecs (Paris: Klincksieck, 1954), pp. 139-44. For a description of the internal differences between manuscripts A, B and S in Isaiah, see J.W. Olley, 'Texts Have Paragraphs too—A Plea for Inclusion in Critical Editions', Textus 19 (1998), pp. 111-25. 24. Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London: Oxford University Press, 1979), pp. 16-18.

146

The Old Greek Psalter 3. Special Writing of the Divine Names

Although the evidence for the special writing of divine names is limited, it points to differences between Jewish and Christian texts. Jewish texts have the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters, either in paleo-Hebrew characters or in the square script, as well as in Greek transcription. The presumed sequence of these writing practices, their relation to icupiot;, and the question of which of these practices was included in the Old Greek version is debatable.25 Paleo-Hebrew characters: SHevXIIgr hand A (end of 1 BCE), including a final he SHevXIIgr hand B (end of 1 BCE) P.Oxy. 3522 of Job 42 (1 CE), including a final he P.Oxy. 1007 of Gen. 2-3 (3 CE): two yods with a horizontal stroke through both letters; also 0(eo)<; P.Vindob. Gr. 39777 of Pss. 68, 80 (LXX) (3^ CE) (Symmachus) Cod. Cambridge of 2 Kgs 21-23 (5 CE) (Aquila), with identical yod and waw Square script: P.Fouad 266b (848) of Deut. 10-33 (middle 1 BCE): the first scribe left spaces in which two dots were indicated; a second scribe inserted the Tetragrammaton

IAG: 4QpapLXXLevb of Lev. 2-5 (1 BCE)

Christian scribes wrote the abbreviated nomina sacra, while the case of the unabbreviated ic6pio£ is unclear.

25. For the views of the honoree, see A. Pietersma, 'Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX', in A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Mississauga, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1984), pp. 85-101. For my own views, see 'Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert', Proceedings of the Meeting at Hampton Court (British Library, forthcoming).

TOY Scribal Features of Early Witnesses Kvpiog: P.Oxy 656 of Gen. 14-27 (2 or 3 CE): spaces left by the original scribe were filled in with Kiipioq by a second scribe K(vpw)g, together with other abbreviated nomina sacra: P.Antinoopolis 7 of Pss. 81-82 (LXX) (2 CE) P.Chester Beatty VI (963) of Numbers and Deuteronomy (end of 2 CE or early 3 CE) P.Leipzig 170 of Ps. 118 (LXX) (2-3 CE) P.Scheide + P.Chester Beatty IX (967) of Ezekiel (early 3 CE) P.Oxy. 4442 of Exod. 20 (early 3 CE) P.Chester Beatty X (967) of Daniel and Esther (early 3 CE) P.Lit London 204 of Ps. 2 (3 CE) P.Vindob. Gr. 26035B of Pss. 68-69 (LXX) (3 CE) Pap W (Freer) of the Minor Prophets (3 CE) P.Oxy. 1075 of Exod. 40 (3 CE) RAntinoopolis 8 of Prov. 5-10, 20 (3 CE) P.Oxy. 1166 of Gen. 16 (3 CE) P.Egerton 4 (B.M.) of 2 Chron. 24 (3 CE) P.Merton 2 = P.Chester-Beatty VII of Isaiah (3 CE) P.Berlin 17212 of Jer. 2-3 (3 CE) P.Chester Beatty V (962) of Genesis (second half of 3 CE) P.Lit London 202 of Gen. 46-47 (300 CE) P. Berl. 14039 of Exod. 34-35 (3-4 CE) P.Flor. B.L. 980 of Pss. 143^8 (LXX) (3-4 CE) P.Oxy. 1226 of Pss. 7-8 (3-4 CE) P.Oxy. 1352 of Pss. 82-83 (LXX) (early 4 CE) P.Oxy. 1168 of Josh. 4-5 (4 CE) P.Geneve Gr. 252 of Jer. 5-6 (4 CE) P.Berlin 11766 of Exod. 5-7 (4 CE) RFlor. B.L. 1163 of Job 1-2 (4 CE) P.Grenfell 5 of Ezek. 5-6 (4 CE) P.Oxy. 1779 of Ps. 1 (4 CE) P.Chester Beatty IV (961) of Genesis (4 CE) RFlor. B.L. 1371 of Ps. 36 (LXX) (4 CE) Codex St. Cath. of Gen. 27-28 (4 CE) RAmherst I (Aquila) of Gen. 1 (4 CE) P.Antinoopolis 10 of Ezek. 33-34 (4 CE) P.Leipzig 39 of Pss. 30-55 (LXX) (4 CE) P.Oxy. 1167 of Gen. 31(4 CE) P.Vindob. Gr. 29274 of Ps. 32 (LXX) (4-5 CE) P.Oxy. 2386 of Pss. 83-84 (LXX) (4-5 CE) RErlangen 2 of Gen. 41 (4-5 CE) P.Yale Beinecke 544 of 1 Sam. 24-2 Sam. 1 (4-5 CE)

147

148

The Old Greek Psalter

4. Conclusion Early Jewish copies of Greek Scripture reflect some of the scribal phenomena of the Hebrew manuscripts from which the translation was made, such as those known from the Hebrew manuscripts found in the Judaean Desert. This pertains to the following features: indication of small content units (verses) and sections with spacing, and the special writing of the divine names in paleo-Hebrew characters. In several details, new features were introduced that reflected the writing tradition in Greek (graphic indicators inserted in spaces left by the original scribes for the indication of verses; paragraphos signs; ekthesis) or early Christian practices (abbreviated nomina sacra). But with the transmission of this translation by Christian scribes, these features were contaminated and often can no longer be recognized.

THE PISQAH BE'EMSA' PASUQ, THE PSALMS, AND EZEKIEL 3.16

Johan Lust

The ancient Hebrew MSS of the Bible display a number of intriguing blank spaces in the middle of a verse or sentence. Traditionally they are called pisqah be'emsa' pasuq (p.b.p.}, 'break in the middle of the verse'. They look exactly like the break at the end of or at the beginning of a section or parashiyyah—called setumah or petuchah—but do not seem to have a similar structuring function. Whereas the break in between sections often corresponds to a similar structuring marker in the Greek MSS, the/?./?./?, does not seem to have an equivalent in these MSS. Its meaning, moreover, remains much more cryptic. In an interesting essay published in 1966, S. Talmon1 suggested that the p.b.p. may be a liturgical sign, often referring to a psalm. My attention was drawn to the p.b.p. by Ezek. 3.16, the only passage of Ezekiel in which the phenomenon is attested in all of the three main codices.2 The verse begins with an introductory phrase, DJO2? nupn TH D'D'' 'it happened at the end of seven days', followed by a break, and a new opening formula, "IDK^ ^K rniT~"m TH 'and the word of the Lord came to me'. The combination of these two introductory phrases, combined with the break between them, has given rise to speculations concerning the interrelation of the clauses of this verse. W. Zimmerli interpreted the break as a symptom of corruption in the textual tradition. 1. S. Talmon, 'Pisqah be'emsa' pasuq and HQPsa', Textus 5 (1966), pp. 1121. Concerning 'the break in the middle of the verse', see also P. Sandier, "Iprf? plODH UiJDtQ NpO'Sn, in the D. Neiger Memorial Volume, Publications of the Israel Society for Biblical Research 1 (1959), pp. 222-49; M.Z. Segal, pIGS RpO'Sn UHDtO, Tarbiz 29 (1960), pp. 203-206; A. Or, ?»na plOD JttDKa KpCTD, in E. Auerbach Volume, Publications of the Israel Society for Biblical Research 1 (1955), pp. 33ff. 2. The Leningrad Codex has two cases in Ezekiel, 3.16 and 43.27; the Aleppo Codex has five, 3.16; 20.31; 27.3; 37.9; 43.27; the Cairo Codex has one only, 3.16.

150

The Old Greek Psalter

He argued for the connection of v. 16a with vv. 22-27, qualifying vv. 16b-21 as an insert which does not belong to the visionary context. M. Greenberg, referring to S. Talmon, does not accept this argument. According to him, similar sequences occur elsewhere in the Bible,3 more specifically in 2 Sam. 7.4 and 1 Kgs 13.20. In his opinion, therefore, this phenomenon cannot be regarded as a disturbance of the original narrative. Before taking a closer look at these texts, a survey of the other occurrences of pisqah be'emsa' pasuq, together with a presentation of Talmon's views on the phenomenon seems to be called for. The number of 'breaks in the middle of the verse' differs from one manuscript to another. Massoretic lists of these breaks, embracing the whole Hebrew Bible, are extremely rare. In his Introduction to the Massoretico-critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, C.D. Ginsburg notes that he found such a list in only one MS.4 In the second volume of his monumental work, The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts, Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged, he presents four lists.5 The first is taken from the printed Massorah of Jacob ben Chayim and gives only the five passages in the Pentateuch;6 the second, third and fourth cover the whole Hebrew Bible.7 The most extensive fifth list deals with all the biblical books with the exclusion of the Pentateuch. It offers 45 cases. None of these are to be found in poetic books such as the Psalms, only four in the Latter Prophets,8 and five in the Writings.9 The majority of these instances (32 cases, or 64%) occur in the books of Samuel.10

3. Exod. 19.16; Judg. 19.1; Ruth 1.1; 2 Sam. 7.4; 1 Kgs 13.20; the last two have the break in the middle of the verse. See M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 (AB, 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983). 4. C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London, 1897; repr. New York: Ktav, 1966), p. 547. 5. (4 vols.; London/Vienna, 1880-1905; repr. New York: Ktav, 1968), II, pp. 449-50, lists nn. 184-88. Scholars such as Segal and Or dress up their own lists based on those of Ginsburg. 6. Gen. 4.8; 35.22; Num. 25.19; Deut. 2.8; 23.18. 7. The second list is copied from the only MS in which Ginsburg found such a list; see n. 3. 8. Isa. 36.16; Jer. 38.28; Ezek. 3.16; Hos. 1.2. 9. Neh. 7.73; 1 Chron. 11.2; 17.3; 2 Chron. 10.18; 24.7. 10. In addition to the occurrences in Samuel, the list offers four cases in the other books of the Former Prophets: Josh. 4.1; Judg. 2.1; 1 Sam. 10.11, 22; 14.12, 19, 36; 16.12; 19.21; 20.27; 21.10; 23.2, 11, 12; 2 Sam. 5.19; 7.4, 5, 8; 8.16, 17;

LUST The pisqah be'emsa' pasuq

151

Talmon observes that this phenomenon probably attests to the wellknown instability of the textual tradition of these books.11 One wonders then why he refuses to recognize traces of editorial activity in these 'breaks'. This brings us to Talmon's theory on the topic. He holds that the phenomenon is completely unrelated to matters concerning the transmission of the text, to textual corruption or to any omissions that might have occurred. Its basic purpose is entirely extra-textual. In this, he sides with M.Z. Segal.12 Against the latter, however, he defends the thesis that the p.b.p. does not indicate a parashiyyah division differing from the one that has taken root in the mainstream of Massoretic tradition, but that it alludes rather to literary expansions for liturgical and homiletical purposes. He distinguishes between two kinds of expansions: intrabiblical and extra-biblical supplements. Psalm 151 A, preserved in 1 lQPsa, figures among the latter. According to Talmon, it is referred to in 1 Sam. 16.12. The p.b.p. in this verse offers a pause for reflection which is seized upon by Psalm 151 A. Similarly, Psalm 15IB is said to be alluded to in 1 Sam. 17.37. The other examples given by Talmon belong to the category of the intra-biblical texts. While Talmon's theory is tempting, it nevertheless lacks solid grounding. Even if one accepts its general thrust, one may be inclined to question its distinction between intra-biblical and extra-biblical supplements. With the possible exception of Psalms 151A and 15IB, all the cases discussed by Talmon refer to intra-biblical texts. 1 Chronicles 5.1 is said to offer additional information for the p.b.p. at Gen. 35.22, Psalm 132 is likewise associated with the p.b.p. at 2 Sam. 7.4, Psalm 51 with the one at 2 Sam. 12.12, and Psalm 3 with the one at 2 Sam. 16.13. This evidence suggests that the scribes who used the p.b.p. may have considered Psalms 151A and 15 IB as part of the canonical writings.13 The least one can say is that the association of these

10.17; 12.7; 14.19; 16.13; 17.14; 18.28; 19.8; 20.10, 14; 21.1, 6; 24.10, 11, 23; 1 Kgs 13.20; 21.22. 11. 'Pisqah be'emsa' pasuq\ p. 16. 12. Seen. 1. 13. See P. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ, 17; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 212-13. See also G.H. Wilson, 'The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate', CBQ 47 (1985) pp. 624-42 (629-30).

152

The Old Greek Psalter

psalms with the p.b.p. says nothing about their extra-biblical or apocryphal status. Although Talmon notes that the p.b.p. most likely fulfils more than one function of textual annotation,14 he appears to draw general conclusions in which he seems to treat all the occurrences of the phenomenon en bloc. Indeed, he concludes that the p.b.p. is completely unrelated to matters concerning the transmission of the text. Its basic purpose is extra-textual, and most probably liturgical. In the following pages we will examine the p.b.p. in Ezek. 3.16, comparing it to the p.b.p. in 2 Sam. 7.4 and 1 Kgs 13.20. We will endeavour to elucidate the literary or text-critical value of this phenomenon, and to verify Talmon's theories in its regard. It should be noted from the outset that not all of the major ancient MSS have the p.b.p. in 2 Sam. 7.4. It is attested in the Aleppo Codex but not in the Leningrad Codex, nor in the Cairo Codex. In each of the three passages referred to, one finds the verb form TP1 at the beginning of the verse and a second TH in the middle of the verse after the 'break'. It has been said that this sequence of two successive TPI verb forms is rather blunt, and probably a symptom of editorial manipulation.15 In this context, it may be useful to have a closer look at the verb form in question. TP1, occurring with another clause (the 'apodosis') on which it depends, is a 'macro-syntactic sign' of narrative. Its textual function is to introduce a new element into the main narrative thread.16 This is not so, however, when it is a form of the verb iTn in its own right.17 In the three passages discussed here, the function of each Tfl is different. The first is a 'macro-syntactic sign' of the narrative, while the second—which is a full verb—comprises the 'apodosis'.18 This suggests that, from the point of view of grammar and style, one cannot really say that the construction of the verses is awkward. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that it is rather unusual.19

14. Talmon, 'Pisqah be'emsa' pasuq\ p. 17. 15. Against W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), p. 86. 16. A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (JSOTSup, 86; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), p. 48; see also E. Talstra, 'Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. I: Elements of Theory', BO 39 (1978), pp. 169-74 (173); E. Konig, 'Syntaktische Exkurse zum AT, 3', ZAW19 (1899), pp. 259-72. 17. Niccacci, Syntax, p. 159. 18. Niccacci, Syntax, p. 52. 19. In addition to the occurrences in Ezek. 3.16, 2 Sam. 7.4 (with its parallel

LUST The pisqah be'emsa' pasuq

153

In the three passages under consideration, the second TH introduces the prophetic 'word-reception formula' m!T~~Q"I TH. This formula occurs about 83 times in the Hebrew Bible.20 It almost always figures at the beginning of a verse. The exceptions are few in number and are to be found among the verses with a TP1.. .VH sequence.21 Since it usually opens a new section, the Massoretes as a rule marked it off from the foregoing section by a break (setumah or petuchah). This may explain the break in the middle of the verse in Ezek. 3.16, 2 Sam. 7.4 and 1 Kgs 13.20. We have already noted that, in these three passages, the formula is preceded by a temporal indication introduced by TH.22 Some copyists of particular books, who were used to inserting a 'break' before the formula, may have automatically extended this habit to these passages, even when the particular formula in question did not begin a new section. Copyists of other books may not have done so.23 This hypothesis is in agreement with the views of Talmon and Segal insofar as it confirms the extra-textual character of the p.b.p. It differs from them, however, inasmuch as it does not say that the p.b.p. indicates an alternative parashiyyah division (Segal), or that it alludes to literary expansions for liturgical or homiletic purposes (Talmon). In the ancient MSS of the Septuagint, no trace can be found of the break in the middle of the verse in these passages. This may come as something of a surprise, since the copyists of the Septuagint, like their Hebrew colleagues, as a rule signalled the beginning of a new section at 1 Chron. 17.3) and 1 Kgs 13.20, see Exod. 19.16, Ruth 1.1 and Jer. 42.7; compare Gen. 27.30. 20. 1 Sam. 15.10; 2 Sam. 7.4; 1 Kgs 6.11; 13.20; 16.1; 17.2, 8; 21.17, 28; 2 Chron. 11.2; Isa. 38.4; Jer. 1.4, 11, 13; 2.1; 13.3, 8; 16.1; 18.5; 24.4; 28.12; 29.30; 32.26; 33.1, 19, 23; 34.12; 35.12; 36.27; 37.6; 42.7; 43.8; Ezek. 3.16; 6.1; 7.1; 11.14; 12.1, 8, 17, 21, 26; 13.1; 14.2, 12; 15.1; 16.1; 17.1, 11; 18.1; 20.2; 21.1, 6, 13, 23; 22.1, 17, 23; 23.1; 24.1, 15; 25.1; 27.1; 28.1, 11, 20; 30.1; 33.1, 23; 34.1; 35.1; 36.16; 37.15; 38.1; Jon. 1.1; 3.1; Hag. 1.3; 2.20; Zech. 4.8; 6.9; 7.4, 8; 8.1, 18; in addition to these 83 occurrences, we note two instances in which HIIT is replaced by DTI^N: 1 Kgs 12.22 and 1 Chron. 17.3. In one instance the word is from a human: 1 Sam. 4.1 b« ^aETtn sm. 21. Ezek. 3.16; 2 Sam. 7.4 (with its parallel 1 Chron. 17.3); 1 Kgs 13.23; Jer. 42.7. The sequence ~Q"F nTF...'7n is found six times in Ezekiel in the oracles against the nations: 26.1; 29.17; 30.20; 31.1; 32.1, 17. 22. Compare 1 Chron. 17.3 and Jer. 42.7, which display the same construction, without p.b.p. 23. See 1 Chron. 17.3 and Jer. 42.7.

154

The Old Greek Psalter

the word-reception formula. In Ezek. 3.16, the lack of such a signal may be due to the fact that the translator did not render the Hebrew word for word. He omitted the second TP1, which eliminated the stereotypical character of the word-reception formula. In 2 Sam. 7.4, the formula is slightly unusual because of the replacement of A,6yo<; by pfpa. This, in addition to the fact that most of the Hebrew MSS do not have a break in this verse, may help to explain why the copyist of the Greek text did not note a break here. A similar reason cannot be given for the absence of such a break in the translation of 1 Kgs 13.20. If it is accepted that the insertion of the p.b.p. in the Hebrew text of Ezek. 3.16, 2 Sam. 7.4 and 1 Kgs 13.20 is due to a misplaced automatic reflex on the part of the copyists, this does not necessarily imply that the passages in question are free of literary tensions. A further examination may shed more light on the problem. Ezekiel 1-3 comprises the prophet's first vision, including the account of his call. Its first part ends in 3.15. Verse 16 introduces a different type of narrative, extending from v. 16 to v. 21, relating the appointment of the prophet as a watcher over his people. It is followed by the second part of the opening vision, in vv. 22-27. Many critical commentators draw attention to the possible literary complexity of Ezek. 3.16. Most of them mention the p.b.p. and are convinced that it signals a fundamental break in the text. In their view, it shows that v. 16 consists of two parts which originally did not belong together. These exegetes can be subdivided into three groups. The majority, headed by W. Zimmerli, is of the opinion that v. 16a should be taken with vv. 22-27.24 A second group, led by G.A. Cooke, holds that the temporal indication in v. 16a originally led up to Ezek. 4.1.25 The connection has been broken by the two insertions, vv. 16b-21 and

24. Zimmerli, Ezechiel, p. 100. See also R. Kraetzschmar, Das Bitch Ezechiel (HKAT, in/3/1; Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), pp. 36-37; J. Herrmann, Ezechiel (KAT; Leipzig: Deichert, 1924), pp. 25-26; G. Holscher, Hesekiel: DerDichter unddas Buck (BZAW, 39; Giessen: Topelmann, 1924), p. 54; A. Bertholet, Hesekiel (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1936), pp. 12-14; L. Allen, Ezekiel 1-19 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), p. 58. 25. G.A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), pp. 43-44. See also E. Sellin, Geschichte des israelitisch-jtidischen Volkes. II. Vom babylonischen Exil bis zu Alexander dem Grossen (Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1932), p. 39; G. Fohrer, Ezechiel (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1955), pp. 27-28; J.W. Wevers, Ezekiel (The Century Bible; London: Thomas Nelson, 1969), pp. 51-52.

LUST The pisqah be'emsa' pasuq

155

vv. 22-27. A minority defends the thesis that the break indicates an important loss of text between v. 16a and v. 16b. In W.H. Brownlee's view, for example, this is where the scroll vision originally stood.26 Some exegetes accept the unity of 3.16, but recognize in 3.16-21 the hand of a later editor whose work was prior to that of the editor who inserted 3.22-27. Among them, special attention should be given to E. Vogt.27 According to Vogt, v. 16 is not to be split up into two verse halves. The two parts of the verse belong together as a predicate (v. 16a) and its subject (v. 16b), or as a protasis and an apodosis. Originally the verse introduced the symbolic acts in ch. 4. The editor of the book appended a section of the watcher episode (ch. 33) to the account of call, limiting the insertion to the oracle in vv. 7-9. He did not copy the introductory word-event formula of 33.1 since he found such a formula in 3.16. The result of the insert was that the report of the symbolic acts in ch. 4 lost its introductory word-event formula. The p.b.p. in v. 16 was inserted in order to make it clear that the time-notice in v. 16a did not originally apply to the watcher scene. Several authors are convinced that the present arrangement of Ezek. 3.16 is original. D.I. Block presents the most recent and best argued version of this view. He begins with a survey of the tensions in Ezek. 3.16-21,28 drawing attention to the following features. First, the wordevent formula in v. 16b identifies the following section as a formal oracle from the Lord, quite different from the divine speeches in the preceding vision report. Moreover, if the oracle in vv. 16b-21 were removed, the narrative would flow smoothly from v. 16a to v. 22. Second, v. 16 begins with a time notice, linking the verse with the preceding material. This notice, however, is immediately followed by another introductory formula, beginning a new narrative. The TH...<>m sequence occurs nowhere else in Ezekiel. Third, the preceding narrative prose gives way to a quasi-legal style. Fourth, the content of vv. 16b21, defining the prophet's task, appears redundant after the foregoing 26. W.H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1-19 (WBC, 28; Waco: Word Books, 1986), p. 47. 27. E. Vogt, Untersuchungen zum Buch Ezechiel (AnBib, 95; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981), pp. 35-37; See also K.-F. Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel), Kapitel 1-19 (ATD, 22/1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), pp. 69-72; compare Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien (BZAW, 202; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1992), pp. 32-33. 28. D.I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). He does not mention the p.b.p.

156

The Old Greek Psalter

account of call. Fifth, the passage introduced by v. 16b is duplicated in expanded form in 33.1-9. On the basis of this evidence, many exegetes treat 3.16b-21 as a secondary insertion. In Block's view, however, all these arguments can be countered. Stylistic conformity to the foregoing verses is not demanded. The differences between 3.16-21 and 33.1-9 are considerable. The two texts present an example of the typically Ezekelian pattern of resumption. It is likely that 33.1-9 represents an expansion of 3.16-21. The appropriateness of 3.16-21 in the present context is obvious the moment one recognizes that the entire call narrative is driven by a divine determination to conscript a man resistant to his prophetic call.29 Block's argument is well developed but does not directly address the views of those who see 3.16, or at least 3.16b, as a direct introduction to ch. 4. If one accepts that 4.1 opens the first major section of Ezekiel's book, following upon the account of call in chs. 1-3, then one has to admit that it lacks the word-reception formula which, as a rule, figures in all the headers of the major sections of the book. In this perspective, one must assume that this formula is preserved in 3.16, and is now separated from 4.1 by two insertions. The address, 'And you son of man', in 4.1 is a suitable continuation of the opening part of the new section.30 The temporal indication in 3.16a also fits the pattern. Several paragraphs in the book open with a date followed by the word-reception formula and the address, '(And you) son of man'.31 The second insertion (3.22-27) is marked by conformity in style and content with the visionary report of the prophet's call in 1.4-3.15. The warning that a hostile response awaits his message, given in 2.6 and 3.7, is repeated in 3.25. The rebelliousness of his public and the inescapable character of his message mentioned in 2.7-8 is repeated in 3.27. One theme dominates the visionary parts of the introductory section: the prophet is to be the mouthpiece of the Lord, and nothing else. He has to speak as an ambassador: 'Thus says my Lord Yhwh' (2.4; 3.11, 27). As a rule, the formula in question is followed by a message.

29. Along similar lines, several other authors defend the originality of the present arrangement. See, for example, C. Aalders, Ezechiel (COT; Kampen: Kok, 1955) pp. 76-77; T. Kriiger, Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch (BZAW, 180; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1989), pp. 341-51, 394. 30. Compare 7.12; 22.1-2; 27.1-2. 31. See 20.1-2; 26.1-2; 29.1-2, 17-18; 30.20-21; 31.1-2; 32.1-2,17-18.

LUST The pisqah be'emsa' pasuq

157

Here it is not. This implies that its use here intends to draw attention to the function of the prophet, more than to the message. Note the repetition of the formula at the end of the second insertion, emphasizing its importance. The first insertion, the watcher scene in 3.17-21, is of a different type. It interrupts the continuity of the vision. It was added by an editor who wished to emphasize that divine concern for the salvation of the righteous was a feature of Ezekiel's ministry from the outset. It was abstracted from 33.7-16 and placed immediately after 3.16. The second insert is to be read in connection with 24,15-27 and 33.21-22. It was composed by an editor who wished to distinguish between two periods in the watcher function of the prophet.32 In the first, up to the fall of Jerusalem, he was strictly forbidden to interfere. He was only allowed to proffer the words of the Lord. With regard to his own feelings and opinions, he was to be dumb. His house arrest was a sign of this limitation. After the fall of Jerusalem, his mouth was going to be opened, giving him more freedom. These notes concerning 3.16 and its context should have made it clear that there is no need for Greenberg's interpretation of the break in the middle of this verse, based on Talmon's views. It is unlikely that the break implied a reference to ch. 33. One does not see why such a reference would have been signalled here, and not in 3.26 where the connection with 24.25-27 and 33.21-22 was equally well worth mentioning. It cannot be excluded that the p.b.p. has a connection with the editorial character of the watcher episode. If so, the views of Vogt are to be taken into consideration, according to which the break signals that the time notice at the beginning of the verse does not apply to the immediately following narrative. Our investigation, however, has demonstrated that a different, extra-textual interpretation is to be preferred. The break is probably due to a copyist who was used to inserting a blank space before the word-reception formula. Let us now turn to 2 Sam. 7. The chapter can be divided into two parts: a dialogue (vv. 1-17), and a prayer (vv. 18-29). The first part of the dialogue features King David and the prophet Nathan. David wishes to build a temple and Nathan supports the project (vv. 2-3). The second part of the dialogue contains a message of the Lord spoken through the mouth of the prophet. The prophet now voices the Lord's refusal of the 32. Compare Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien, pp. 24-25, who interprets the second insert as a corrective to the watcher narrative added by the diaspora editor.

158

The Old Greek Psalter

temple plan (vv. 5-17). Verse 4, with its p.b.p., is the hinge between these two sections, 'And it happened that very night—p.b.p.—and the word of the Lord came to Nathan'. Talmon assumes that the 'break' in 7.4 alludes to Psalm 132. He writes, 'When revealing his desire to build a house for the God of Israel, David's speech [sic] to Nathan ends with the words (2 Sam. 7.4): Kinn \t7*72 TH, after which the MT records & p.b.p. We assume that the p.b.p. refers to Psalm 132 which treats of this very event.'33 Several remarks can be made here. First, rather than saying that the MT records a p.b.p. after Kirn n^D TP1, it might be safer to state that some MSS, such as the Aleppo Codex, do record such a 'break', whereas other MSS, such as the important Leningrad Codex, and the Cairo Codex, do not do so at this point. Second, Talmon does not seem to offer sufficient reason for discerning some kind of liturgical sign in the p.b.p. calling for a pause during which a particular psalm was to be recited. Third, the expression Kinn nI7'l73 TP1 in v. 4 does not belong to 'the end of David's speech to Nathan', it introduces a new section. David's speech to Nathan begins and ends in v. 2, and v. 3 renders Nathan's acquiescent answer. Verse 4 seems to introduce a second answer of the prophet. This time his response is formulated as a divine oracle, and its message is radically negative. Scholars have been mystified by Nathan's inconsistent attitude.34 In L. Rost's view, the tensions in this composition are to be explained as follows. After v. 4a there is a clear hiatus. Verses l-4a recount David's decision, supported by Nathan, to build a home for the ark. A new scene is introduced by the words, 'And it happened that night' (v. 4a). This scene has been replaced by the account of the Lord's instructions to Nathan to stop David from building the temple. The fact that v. 4a and v. 4b do not belong directly together is perhaps reflected by the fact that the MT leaves a gap between the two.35 33. Talmon, 'Pisqah be'em$a' pasuq\ p. 18. 34. T. Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel (BZAW, 142; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977), p. 94. 35. See L. Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David (trans. M.D. Rutter and D.M. Gunn; Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship, 1; Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1982), p. 52 = Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT, 42; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926), p. 69. Many exegetes have followed the general lines of Rost's analysis of 2 Sam. 7. It is not my intention here to give a full survey of research on the question. One of the finest elaborations of

LUST The pisqah be'emsa' pasuq

159

The tensions caused by v. 4 are either ignored or explained as artistic devices by some recent scholarly studies.36 A chiastic structure links the Lord's speech (7.4-6) to the complex composed of the combination of David's proposal and Nathan's reply (7.2-3). The turning point in this structure comes at the beginning of v. 4: 'And it happened that very night'. Before that point, Nathan had given his advice to the king. Now the Lord rejects Nathan's saying. Whereas Nathan's words were phrased as a simple saying ("IQK), the Lord's rejection takes the shape of an authoritative oracle (miT ~Q"I). Obviously Nathan spoke out of turn and not a 'word of the Lord'. Rost admits that Nathan's change of opinion could have been brought about by a revelation to him. In his view, however, it is not possible that there was also an account of David himself receiving that revelation, as presupposed by 7.27. It should be clear that Rost's theory on the tensions in vv. 1-6 is to a large extent influenced by his conviction that the core of the prayer in the second part of the chapter is very old and that v. 27 is included in that old stratum.37 Once the ancient character of this prayer is proven to be very dubious, the tensions in v. 4 and its context tend to disappear. There does not seem to be a cogent reason to interpret the p.b.p. in v. 4 as a trace of these hypothetical tensions. The refined chiastic structure of the section seems to plead against this. Nevertheless, one cannot exclude this possibility. An editor may have phrased the Lord's speech in an artistic way as a perfect reaction to the earlier dialogue between king and prophet. He did not smooth out the tensions in v. 11, however, at the end of which the Lord's speech is unexpectedly interrupted by a saying about the Lord. With good reason, J. Coppens suggests that v. lie formed the original continuation of the

Rost's views, however, can be found in the works of J. Coppens, especially in his short contribution on the topic in 'L'union du trone et du temple d'apres 1'oracle de Nathan', ETL 44 (1968), pp. 489-91. 36. L. Eslinger, House of God or House of David. The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 (JSOTSup, 164; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 24-27. See also A. F. Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 1-2 Kings 10) (CBQMS, 17; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1986), p. 78; J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. III. Throne and City (II Sam. 2-8 & 21-24) (SSN, 27; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990), p. 212. 37. See T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF, B 193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975), pp. 69-70.

160

The Old Greek Psalter

dialogue between David and Nathan in vv. 1-3.38 If this is so, the/?.b.p. in v. 4 may somehow be a trace of the later reworking of the text. It is more likely, however, that the break, present in a few MSS only, was once more simply due to a scribe who automatically inserted a break before the word-reception formula. The second text with a p.b.p. in a verse similar to Ezek. 3.16 is 1 Kgs 13.20. The story in 1 Kgs 13 tells of a nameless man of God from Judah who came to Jeroboam I at Bethel and delivered an oracle against the altar upon which Jeroboam was about to offer sacrifices. Having declined an invitation by the king to stay and dine with him, the nameless man set out for home. On his journey, however, he was induced by a prophet who lived at Bethel to depart from his divinely ordained way, as a result of which he was killed by a lion after he had resumed his journey. The story divides into two main parts. The first (vv. 1-10) focuses upon the fate of the altar, the second (vv. 11-32) upon the fate of the man of God. The central section of the second part is a judgment scene (vv. 20-26). The man of God is condemned because of his disobedience to his divine commission. The scene opens with a verse similar to that in Ezek. 3.16, and in 2 Sam. 7.4, 'And they were sitting at the table—p.b.p.—and the word of the Lord came to the prophet who had brought him back'. Talmon does not explicitly deal with this passage. We may presume that, in his view, the break in this verse, as in Ezek. 3.16, must have a liturgical function, signalling a reference to a psalm or to another text connected with the theme of the passage in question. Without his help, however, it is not easy to see which text might have been referred to and why the signal should have been placed exactly in v. 20. With good reason, recent text-critical studies strongly suggest that vv. 20b-22 are a late Deuteronomistic insertion.39 Several expressions, such 38. Coppens, 'L'union', pp. 489-90. 39. See especially J. Briend, 'Du message au messager. Remarques sur 1 Rois 13', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume. Paris 1992 (XIV Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament; VTSup, 61; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1995), pp. 13-24. See also A.H.J. Gunneweg, 'Die Prophetenlegende 1 Reg 13 —Missdeutung, Umdeutung, Bedeutung', in V. Fritz, K.-F. Pohlmann and H.-C. Schmitt (eds.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch (Festschrift O. Kaiser; BZAW, 185; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1989), pp. 73-81 (79-80); E. Wiirthwein, 'Die Erzahlung vom Gottesmann aus Juda in Bethel: Zur {Composition von 1 Kon 13', in H. Gese, Wort und Geschichte (Festschrift K. Elliger; AOAT, 18; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), pp. 181-89, esp. p. 186; F.L. Hossfeld and I. Meyer,

LUST The pisqah be'emsa' pasuq

161

as 'be rebellious to the mouth of the Lord' (v. 21) must be identified as Deuteronomistic. The passage interrupts the flow of the story. The end of v. 19 is taken up again in v. 23, where the original narrative continues. In that verse, the reader is told that the man of God leaves the house of his host without any reaction to the verdict pronounced against him, which confirms the suspicion that the original story did not yet contain vv. 20-22. One should note, as does J. Briend, that the original narrative focused on the fulfilment of prophecy. A divine oracle always comes true, even when the messenger fails. The insert provides a different emphasis. It concentrates upon the disobedience of the prophet, emphasizing that a messenger of the Lord has no choice but to execute the will of his divine master. The interpretation of the p.b.p. in this verse is similar to that in the parallel cases. Here again, there does not seem to be a special reason for a pause in which a psalm could be recited or another biblical text inserted to provide supplementary information. One may be tempted to follow Briend, however, and to detect in vv. 20-22 an insert that changes the Tendenz of the story. Yet even then, it remains difficult to prove that the p.b.p. should be seen as a signal of this editorial work. Conclusions 1. Ezekiel 3.16, 2 Sam. 7.4 and 1 Kgs 13.20 display many similarities. While the syntactical construction of the three passages is unusual, it is not necessarily harsh or corrupt. The repetition of the Tn verb form in the same verse does not present a problem, given that each has a different function.

Prophet gegen Prophet: Eine Analyse der alttestamentlichen Texte zur Thema: wahre und falsche Propheten (Biblische Beitrage, 9; Fribourg: Verlag Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973), pp. 24-25; W.E. Lemke, 'The Way of Obedience: 1 Kgs 13 and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History', in P.M. Cross, W.E. Lemke and P.D. Miller (eds.), Magnolia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God (Festschrift G.E. Wright; New York, Doubleday, 1976), pp. 301-26 (308-309). None of these authors seems to mention the p.b.p. as a critical feature supporting their views. It is impossible here to discuss all the essays and commentaries written on 1 Kgs 13. For some additional bibliographical information, see E. Eynikel, 'Prophecy and Fulfillment in the Deuteronomistic History (1 Kgs 13; 2 Kgs 23,16-18)', in C. Brekelmans and J. Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies (BETL, 94; Leuven: Peelers and Leuven University Press, 1990), pp. 227-37 (227).

162

The Old Greek Psalter

2. The three passages include a 'break in the middle of the verse'. In these contexts, the break is most likely to have been inserted automatically and mistakenly by a scribe who was used to placing a blank space (petuchah or setumah) before the second TP1 which introduces the word-reception formula, because that formula as a rule opens a new section. 3. While a liturgical function for the p.b.p. cannot be excluded, it remains hard to prove. 4. It is also difficult to prove that the p.b.p. had a text-critical function, signalling a loss of text or an insertion. Nevertheless, it has to be admitted that, in each of the cases discussed here, the passage following upon the verse with the break, or even including it, is often seen as an insert.

COPTIC/SAHIDIC FRAGMENTS OF THE BIBLICAL PSALMS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA MUSEUM Robert A. Kraft and Benjamin G. Wright III*

Al Pietersma's interest in the book of Psalms has spanned the last two and a half decades, reaching perhaps its most mature expression in his translation of Psalms for the New English Translation of the Septuagint. But Al has also paid attention to the daughter versions of the OG, especially the Sahidic Coptic, publishing several fragments of Sahidic biblical texts, including Psalms, contained in the Chester Beatty Library.! In this article, we will look at some of the Sahidic Coptic biblical pieces that we have been able to identify over the years in the University of Pennsylvania Museum, with a focus on the fragments from Psalms—in recognition of Al Pietersma's contributions to the study of the Greek Psalter and its Sahidic version. The Egyptology Collections at the University of Pennsylvania Museum include a wide variety of literary and non-literary fragments in various languages and on various writing surfaces.2 Although most of these materials have been in the museum since the early 1900s, they * In what follows, Benjamin Wright bears primary responsibility for the analysis of the large codex, and Robert Kraft for the smaller pieces and the general introduction, with a great deal of cooperation overall. 1. A. Pietersma, 'Greek and Coptic Inedita of the Chester Beatty Library', BIOSCS 1 (1974), pp. 10-18; A. Pietersma and S.T. Comstock, 'New Fragments of Genesis in Sahidic', BASF 23 (1986), pp. 137-47; A. Pietersma and S.T. Comstock, 'A Sahidic Lectionary of the New Testament and Psalms', BASF 29 (1992), pp. 57-66. 2. For a general introduction to the collection, see John R. Abercrombie, 'The University Museum's Collection of Papyri and Related Materials', EXPEDITION Magazine2Q (Winter 1978), pp. 2-12, and Abercrombie'smore detailed (but unpublished) draft, 'A History of the Acquisition of Papyri and Related Written Material in the University (of Pennsylvania) Museum'. An electronic form of these materials is available at gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:70/l 1/journals/kraftpub/Papyri/.

164

The Old Greek Psalter

have received relatively little systematic attention thus far.3 Especially extensive are the museum's holdings in the Coptic language. The only sizable Coptic manuscript in the collection is a mutilated paper codex of (most of) Psalms 1-49 that has already received some preliminary treatment from Robert Kraft and Janet Timbie.4 While the University of Pennsylvania (partial) Psalter is much more recent (perhaps ninth to twelfth century) than the other two extensively preserved Sahidic Psalters (Berlin from about 400 CE and British Museum from about 600; see further below), some explorations of its textual affinities would seem to be in order. Some years ago, William Adler, as a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania, made notes on the variant readings of the main Sahidic witnesses, and in what follows below, Ben Wright has reevaluated, revised and analyzed some of that raw material. In this connection, we have also attempted to provide a basic bibliography for the study of the Coptic (especially Sahidic)5 bib3. Publications of specific items include Giorgio Delia Vida, 'An Arabic Block Print', Scientific Monthly (December 1943), pp. 473-74; Peter Maurer, 'Two Pennsylvania Papyri', ArchP 22 (1973), pp. 151-54 [Greek]; Robert A. Kraft, 'A Sahidic Parchment Fragment of Acts 27:4-13 at the University Museum, Pennsylvania', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 256-65; and Leslie S.B. MacCoull, 'A Coptic Letter in the University Museum, Philadelphia', BASF 13 (1976), pp. 15-16. Note also Benjamin G. Wright and James N. Hubler, 'A Coptic Manuscript of the Gospel of John at the University of Pennsylvania Museum' (unpublished paper delivered to the American Society of Papyrologists, San Francisco, December 1990) and Benjamin G. Wright and James N. Hubler, 'A Coptic Manuscript of the Gospel of John in the University of Pennsylvania Museum', in Benjamin G. Wright (ed.), A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (Scholars Press Homage Series, 24; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), pp. 245-62. 4. Robert Kraft, 'An Unpublished Coptic Sahidic Psalter Codex at the University Museum, Philadelphia', in Michael E. Stone (ed.), Armenian and Biblical Studies (Jerusalem: St James Press, 1976), pp. 81-89; also now available electronically (see Kraft's web site at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html); Janet Timbie, 'The Dating of the Coptic/Sahidic Psalter Codex from the University Museum in Philadelphia', Le Museon 88 (1975), pp. 387-90. 5. We have not attempted to pursue the question of Coptic dialects and subdialects in this brief study, but have searched the University of Pennsylvania Coptic literary fragments with the electronic form of the British Museum Psalter as the base text. There are undoubtedly other fragments of the Coptic Psalms in the University collection, but textual and dialectical variations make them more difficult to identify by the methods used. On dialectical differences in biblical materials, see, for example, R. Kasser, 'A propos des caracteristiques lexicales des dialectes copies

KRAFT AND WRIGHT Coptic/Sahidic Fragments

165

lical Psalms, both to address our own needs and to encourage others to pursue similar paths as more images of such materials become available in electronic and other formats. With regard to the smaller fragments identified below, the availability of computer data and resources has been indispensable. Already in 1987, the Center for Computer Analysis of Texts (CCAT) and the Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint/Scriptural Studies (CATSS) project had produced electronic versions of various Sahidic biblical texts, including the British Museum Psalter, and several of these were included on the 'Demonstration CD-ROM #1* issued by the Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) that year. By running sophisticated searches on the IBYCUS Scholarly Computer (ignoring blanks and non-alphabetic codes, permitting 'both/and' searches), Kraft was able to identify at that time the rather small fragments of Psalm 17(18) and Psalm 28(29) published here. More recently, similar computer-assisted searching has identified the liturgical fragment containing Psalm 44(45) and Luke 10. The authors (and our colleague Noel Hubler) have identified a few other New Testament pieces, but we note them only in passing here.6 Access to the available electronic biblical files is possible through the CCAT Archives (see gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:3333/l I/Religious/Biblical/ Coptic). \.A Fragment of Psalm 17(18) E16287.7 (E-CL-18) Coptic/Sahidic

Fragment of Psalm 17(18).26-29,42^5 Parchment codex, 2 cm (w) x 4.5 cm (h) Estimated date (paleographical), 9th-llth century (perhaps 10th)

This manuscript was written in strophes, with about 30-36 lines per page (assuming that there would not have been two columns per page with the fragment on the inner columns, which would make for an dans divers textes bibliques', in W. Godlewski (ed.), Coptic Studies: Acts of the Third International Congress of Coptic Studies, Warsaw, 20-25 August, 1984 (Warsaw: PWN-Editions scientifiques de Pologne, 1990), pp. 187-94. 6. In addition to the fragments of the Gospel of John (E 16292) and of Acts 27.4-13 (E 16690.1) mentioned above in n. 3, we have also found fragments of Mt. 11.11 (E 16306.5), 2 Cor. 6.11-12, 7.12 (E 16288[e]), Phil. 2.15-16 (E 16287[a]), 2 Tim. 4.2-Titus 1.1 (E 16306.19), Heb. 11.34-12.5 (E 16306.13, and possibly a title or subscript to another copy of Hebrews in E 16287.3).

166

The Old Greek Psalter

oddly shaped page—very wide and not very tall—with only 11-12 lines per column). There is no evidence of word division, but probably line 8 on side one was short or (less likely, judging from the reverse) was the bottom margin. The strophic structure appears to be broken on side two, lines 7-8, and the top of an unidentified letter appears on line 9.7 Side One (close to right margin; line numbers appear on the right): v. 26

KN^P cwTfi MN OYCUJTn ^Y"> KN^SOHOMe MN n6T6]OOM[S

V. 27

v. 28 V. 29

v. 30

1

2C6 NTOK KNXXICS MnA*.O]C eT-fr[BBlHY

2

XYtO KNaceBBlO NNBA.A NNX]A.C12[HT

3

xe NTOK erpoYoem en*.2]HBC n[2soeic n^Noyre Kpoyoem enx]KaJ<e[

4 5

2£6 fNXNOY2M N2HTK 6YM&.]NCO[ONe

6

^Y«> 2M n^NOYTS tNXOYU)]TB N[OYCOBT

7

n^NOYTe Teq2in OY^^B] (blank?) [ Rtp^xe Mnxoeic noce TNM0T6 ne NOYON NIM eT26Anize epoq

8

[...17(18).31^U not included here] Side Two (close to left margin): v. 42

tNvrp6YriA.Ke fi-ee NOYqjoeiuj N\2PN OYTHY tNxoc]($OYt Fi-ee NOYOHS N2ip

V. 43

KNawT]OY2£O[T 6BOA 2N NOYC02M MnAXOC

2

VVW K]NXK[^-»ICTA. MMOl NXHS NN2&&NOC

3

nx^oc ]ere[ MnicoYcoNq *xip 2M2^A NM xqcto]TM NfctuT 2N OYCIOTM MMxa^se x R(9H]pe R[tyMMo XI&OA epoi A. NtpH]pe[ RUJMMO pa^c xyp^Ae BBOA 2]N N[eY2iooYe

4 5 6 7 8

v. 44 v. 45

].[

1

9

2. A Fragment of Psalm 28(29) University Museum E 16287.2 Coptic/Sahidic Fragment of Psalm 28(29).2-5 Parchment (codex?), 4.7 cm (w) x 5.5 cm (h) Dated paleographically to about the 9th century (8th-l 1th)

7. For the sections on Psalm 17(18) and Psalm 28(29), we have ignored punctuation in the supplied text.

KRAFT AND WRIGHT Coptic/Sahidic Fragments

167

Side two of this fragment cannot yet be read due to the presence of some tatters of papyrus layers that are adhering to the leather (see also E 16306.1, with similar writing and papyrus residue on one side). It is probably from a codex (rather than having been inscribed on only one side), but that cannot be determined with assurance at this time. The format seems to be strophic, possibly with marginal letters and/or indentation on the left side of some lines. Side One: v. 2

v. 3

v. 4 v. 5

XNI oyeooY nneqp^N OY]CUU}[T finxoeic 2N req ^Y-Me ero[Y*AB re]CMH R[nxoeic aixFi HHOOY ]*. rmoYT[e fineooY tuuj eeox inxoeic 2iX[N 2eNMQOY sNxqjtuoY Tec]MH Rn[xoeic 2N OY<SOM rec]HH[ nnxoeic 2N OY HNTNOS TSC]MH[ Rnxoeic eqoYcutpq FiNKeApoc nxoeic N^OYcoipq

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

NNKeAROC HnXIBXNOC

Side two is covered with adhering papyri. 3. A Liturgical Fragment Citing Psalm 44(45) and Luke 10 University Museum E16385 Coptic/Sahidic Liturgy for Purification of a Woman after Childbirth Paper codex, 13.5 cm (w) x 20.5 cm (h) [double page] Dated paleographically to about the 9th century

This fragment contains the inside portion of two joined pages, with parts of the upper and lower margins also intact. Occasionally enlarged letters appear in the left margin. Changes in the text are indicated by horizontal broken lines. Rubrication is also used in these text dividers. Side One (to the right of the joined margin): upper margin 2 lines divider (rubricated) .. 2 lines (?) header (rubricated) divider [probable; the area is badly damaged]

168

The Old Greek Psalter Ps. 44(45).9-10 (9 lines, large letter [rubricated] in the margin at the start). divider (rubricated) .. 2 line header (rubricated) lower margin Side Two (reverse of side one) upper margin (possibly one line missing) Lk. 10.38-39 using about 15 lines (some mutilated badly) (possibly one line missing at bottom) lower margin Side Three (across the inner margins from side two) upper margin Lk. 10.40-42 using the full page, about 15 lines (letter in margin) (several lines missing near the middle and bottom) (no lower margin preserved) Side Four (reverse of side three) Lk. 10.42 using 5 lines illegible line end (new header?) (about 4 lines missing) final letters of 2-3 lines (the column breaks off, no lower margin preserved)

This material fits neatly into the description offered by O.H.E. Burmeister: 'Absolution of the Woman if she have given birth to a daughter, at the end of 80 days'.8 Burmeister outlines the elements of the service as: Prayer of Thanksgiving; Epistle—1 Cor. 7.12-14; Trisagion; Prayer of the Gospel; ps. 44(45). 10 (part); Alleluia; Gospel—Lk. 10.38-42; Prayers for the Peace of the Church, etc.; 8. The Egyptian or Coptic Church: A Detailed Description of Her Liturgical Services and the Rites and Ceremonies Observed in the Administration of Her Sacraments (Cairo: French Institute of Oriental Archaeology, 1967), p. 113.

KRAFT AND WRIGHT Coptic/Sahidic Fragments

169

Creed; Special Prayer; Lord's Prayer; Prayer of Absolution [Purification?]; Anointing of the Woman and Blessing; The Woman Partakes of Holy Communion.

The preserved text of Psalm 44(45).9b-10a in the fragment seems identical with the British Museum codex, but it is not in strophic format and has no evidence of word division. Nor are there any variants in other manuscripts of the exact words/letters preserved here. 44.9b-10a M rppto a^ep^TC [2i OYN\M MMOK 2N oY[2BCiu eco NSI en[NoyB ec &ooAe[ eco Rxyei N\Y^N[ (10) CCOTM Txuje[epe NTSN^Y NTep[iKe MHOY Ma^xfe

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. The Penn Coptic Psalter—El6261 In 1976 Robert Kraft announced the 'rediscovery' in 1972 of a Sahidic Coptic Psalter written on paper.9 In its preserved form, the manuscript used to contain most of Psalms 1-^49 on 227 pages, seven of which are currently missing. It is described extensively in Kraft's initial publication, and we will not repeat that description here any more than is necessary. The codex preserves three separate hands, hands 1 and 2 in short initial sections of the codex up to Psalm 7 and hand 3 from Psalm 7 onwards.10 Janet Timbie concludes that hand 3, which covers the largest portion of the manuscript, probably dates from the eleventh century. Hand 2, in her estimation, comes from the ninth to the tenth century and 9. Kraft, 'Coptic Sahidic Psalter Codex', pp. 81-89. 10. For descriptions of the hands, see Timbie, 'Dating of the Coptic/Sahidic Psalter Codex', pp. 387-90, and Kraft, 'Coptic Sahidic Psalter Codex', p. 82.

170

The Old Greek Psalter

hand 1 is the latest hand, dating from the late eleventh or the twelfth century.11 Kraft's conclusions about the dates of the hands are less precise than Timbie's, but they generally coincide with her dates. Kraft suggests dates for hands 2 and 3 from somewhere between the ninth and the eleventh centuries with hand 2 perhaps a bit earlier than hand 3. Hand 1 'leaves the impression of being later than hands 2 and 3'.12 The manuscript was divided into signature units, the numbers of which survive on the first and last pages of several of them throughout the third hand. The first signature evidently was damaged or lost in antiquity, and Kraft understands the text extant in hands 1 and 2 to be the result of repairs in the manuscript.13 He reconstructs a two-stage repair process. [S]ome pages from another old and damaged codex of slightly smaller format were used for some of the missing material...but the opening pages had to be supplied from a third source, perhaps written by the repairer himself... Thus a composite initial signature was prefixed to the other material.14

In what follows we will treat each of the three hands separately. The text-critical place of El6261 in the Coptic Psalter tradition is difficult to assess due to the fact that there is no standard critical edition nor is there any convenient collection of textual data on the Coptic Psalter. An additional handicap is presented by the state of preservation of the Psalter manuscripts. As a rule, they are not extant for the entire Psalter, and in many cases, such as R and V below, only fragments survive. Since there is at present no clear understanding of the shape of the entire Psalter tradition in Sahidic, we can only investigate the relationship of El6261 to particular manuscripts. In order to make some text-critical remarks, however, we have used a collation of El6261 (hereafter designated as Penn) that was made against six other Sahidic Coptic Psalter manuscripts and collections of fragments. They are: B = Berlin (c. 400 CE), edited by Alfred Rahlfs, 'Die Berliner Handschrift des sahidischen Psalter', in Abhandlungen der kgl. Gesell. der Wiss. zu Gottingen, 4.4 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1901).

11. Timbie, 'Dating of the Coptic/Sahidic Psalter Codex', p. 390. 12. Kraft, 'Coptic Sahidic Psalter Codex', p. 88. 13. Kraft, 'Coptic Sahidic Psalter Codex', p. 87. See also Timbie, 'Dating of the Coptic/Sahidic Psalter Codex', pp. 387-90. 14. Kraft, 'Coptic Sahidic Psalter Codex', p. 87.

KRAFT AND WRIGHT Coptic/Sahidic Fragments

171

F = Freer (5th-7th CE), edited by William H. Worrell, The Coptic Psalter in the Freer Collection (University of Michigan Studies: Humanistic Series, X, 1; New York: Macmillan, 1916). L = London (British Museum, late 6th CE), edited by E.A.W. Budge, The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter (London: Paul, 1898). R = Fragments in Rome and Naples (9th-12th CE), edited by Agostino Ciasca, Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani (Rome: Typis eiusdem S. Congregationis, 1885). V = Vienna fragments (early 6th CE), edited by Carl Franz Josef Wessely, Sahidisch-griechische Psalmenfragmente (Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien; Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 155, 1; Vienna: A. Holder, 1907). Z = de la Zouche manuscript (British Museum, 9th-10th CE), published by Paul de Lagarde, Psalterii versio memphitica, accedunt psalterii thebani fragmenta parhamiana, proverbiorum memphiticorum fragmenta berolinensa (Gottingen: W.F. Kaestner, 1875), Appendix.15 Hand I

This hand is certainly the sloppiest of the three. Its text covers Pss. 1.14.5 in three folios (six pages). One additional folio (two pages) is missing from this section. The text of this hand is characterized by numerous orthographic variations. One can observe them in a number of contexts.16 The spelling of Greek loan words often differs from what one would expect to see in Coptic transliterations (1.1 K^-errp*. Penn; YJ>&eAp^, B L; 4.5 AIKSCUCOYNH, Penn; AIKMOCYNH, L). Penn frequently has interchanges of long and short vowels (1.2 qjcoon, Penn; (noon, L; 1.6 re2ie, Penn; re2iH, L; 4.2 eporn, Penn17; epcorFi, B L V). The Penn Psalter witnesses a great many examples of short syllables being lengthened (1.3 XGN, Penn; XN, B L; 2.3 NNeyneppe, Penn; NNeynppe, B L; 2.5 2©M, Penn; 2M, B L). One interesting orthographic difference occurs in 2.9 and 3.7. Penn spells the verb and object 'break/ crush them' as oyiocpBOY. The other manuscripts have oyotnqoY. W.E. Crum's lexicon gives OYCUU>B as a Sahidic variant for the absolute form 15. The bibliographical information in this list was taken primarily from William H. Worrell, The Coptic Psalter in the Freer Collection (New York: Macmillan, 1916), pp. xxiii-xxiv, with supplemental information from the WorldCat electronic database and the Harvard OnLine Library Information System. 16. Unfortunately we cannot be exhaustive here; we are limited to giving examples that illustrate the point. 17. Penn's orthography does not usually include overstrokes on short syllables. We have only included them for Penn where they are present in the manuscript.

172

The Old Greek Psalter

of the infinitive.18 In the two cases in Penn, however, the pronominal form of the infinitive is required, but Crum does not list OYCUUJB as a pronominal form. Whoever copied the Penn manuscript may have created the pronominal based on the unusual absolute form of the infinitive, or he may have confused this verb with the one meaning 'to answer'. There are several genuine textual variants in the Psalms covered by hand 1, although none of them could be considered significant. They involve matters like the lack of H before a direct object (1.3), the addition of Ae (1.5), or a defined relative instead of a definite article (4.3 where B and L understand pauuty as a noun and Penn apparently takes it as a verb). There is certainly not enough information here to get a clear sense of hand 1's textual affinity with, or independence from, any other manuscript. Hand 2 At least three folios (six pages) appear to be missing between the end of hand 1 and the beginning of hand 2, which commences with the last verse of Psalm 5 and continues to 7.5a. Hand 2 is contained in four manuscript pages. Unlike hand 1, hand 2 is a neat, upright Coptic hand. The text written in this hand does not have the numerous orthographic variations that characterize hand 1, although some are present. The verb u/roprp (Ps. 6.2, 3, 7, 10) is in every case written tpToprep. The one example of a long/short vowel change (Ps. 6.6) has 2U>pfi in B and L and 2opn in Penn, which in this case amounts to a difference between the absolute infinitive of the verb (B and L) and the qualitative infinitive (Penn). Most of the textual variants that are present in hand 2 appear for the most part to be uniquely its own. In four cases, however, Penn agrees with L against B, which are the only two manuscripts used in our collation that are extant in this section (V comes in at the end of the material covered by hand 2, but there are no major variants, just one orthographic difference). There are no places where Penn and B agree against L. Those places where Penn and L agree against B are: Ps. 6.3 U^NTS Penn, L] tpvre B (copyist's mistake?) Ps. 6.5 MneKMeeye Penn, L] MneKMeye B (orthography)

18. W.E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939).

KRAFT AND WRIGHT Coptic!Sahidic Fragments

173

Ps. 6.7 2M Penn, L] M B (preposition) Ps. 6.7 N^xixeeye Penn, L] N^xixeoy B (B's plural is a more archaic form according to Crum)

Hand 3 Hand 2 ends with the first five verses of Psalm 7, but several of its final lines have been crossed out, presumably by the manuscript's repairer, since hand 3 begins with the title and first verses of Psalm 7. Kraft describes the hand as a 'neat, regular, slightly slanting Coptic uncial'.19 This hand is preserved in the better part of 103 folios (206 pages), and thus for our analysis of this hand we have conducted several textcritical probes, collating Pss. 7.1-9.9, 17(18), 28(29), 34(35) and 41(42). This sampling covers Psalms throughout this hand and also enables us to collate the two smaller fragments from Psalms 17(18) and 28(29) that are edited above. Like hand 1, hand 3 contains numerous phonetic and orthographic variations throughout. These involve: the spelling of Greek loan words (7.6 TGKopKH, Penn; TeKoprH B L; 7.14 T^NOMI^, Penn; T^NOMI^ B F L); vowel and diphthong confusion (7.2 core, Penn; CCUTS, B L; 2toc, Penn; 200, B L; 17.2 tpcurrr, Penn, L; cponT, B F Z [two different Sahidic forms of the infinitive]; 7.1 Rccoi, Penn; ilctoei, B); lengthening of short syllables (8.3 [see also the same change again in 8.3 and in 8.6, 28.1 and 41.7] MGN, Penn; MN, L R; 17.31 NBSA, Penn; NBA, L Z; NBAA, F); doubling of vowels (7.9 Aoore, Penn; Aore, F L; 7.12 xcocup, Penn; xcup, B L; 7.15 TXMIOOQ, Penn; T^MIOQ, B L). We have tallied the agreements and disagreements between Penn and the other manuscripts in our collation for these orthographic and phonetic differences. One can see a convenient profile of our manuscript in the table below. The statistics provided for each manuscript are tallied for those instances where more than one manuscript is extant. Further, it is the relationship between agreements and disagreements that is important, not the overall number of agreements or disagreements, since the fragmentary nature of the witnesses will affect how many instances can be compared. For example, V only shows up in the collations for Psalm 28; it is not extant for the other psalms we examined. Yet in that

19. Kraft, 'Coptic Sahidic Psalter Codex', p. 82. For a more detailed paleographical analysis, see Timbie, 'Dating of the Coptic/Sahidic Psalter Codex', pp. 388-89.

174

The Old Greek Psalter

psalm, V shows only one agreement with Penn against other manuscripts (and that is a qualified agreement; see below), but the two disagree five times. Some other manuscripts—like F, which is fragmentary at the beginning—either do not have extant text in some psalms or are missing some psalms altogether. In the statistics given below, we use two numbers to record the number of agreements. The number before the slash represents the total number of agreements between Penn and that specific manuscript; the number after the slash represents the number of instances in the first total where Penn agrees with all witnesses but one.20 Thus, for example, Penn agrees with manuscript F in 29 cases, but twenty three of them represent all witnesses against a single maverick witness. Such cases are clearly not as significant in determining the extent of textual agreement between Penn and other manuscripts. In the remaining six instances, Penn agrees with F when the witnesses are divided, as in 28.1 where Penn and F read oyraao and B, L, V and Z have oyT^eio. Penn and B = agreements 15/15; disagreements 60 Penn and F = agreements 29/23; disagreements 64 Penn and L = agreements 34/31; disagreements 80 Penn and R = agreements 12/12; disagreements 18 Penn and V = agreements 1/1; disagreements 5 Penn and Z = agreements 27/22; disagreements 46

What these statistics suggest is that Penn stands pretty much on its own for orthographic and phonetic differences when compared to these other manuscripts. For example, Penn contains no agreements with B that do not involve the two manuscripts, and all others, combining to agree against one witness. Yet it differs from B on 60 occasions. The text of hand 3 perhaps comes closest to R, although R's fragmentary nature militates against any firm conclusions. In the seven chapters that we have used for our text-critical probe, there are enough significant textual variants to get some impression of the affinities between the Penn Psalter and the other Coptic manuscripts. Like the orthographic and phonetic differences we have examined above, the largest number of textual variants in the Penn Psalter are not supported by any of the other manuscripts. This observation may be misleading, however, as a means of understanding its textual 20. This procedure is also used for the textual variants discussed in the next section.

KRAFT AND WRIGHT Coptic/Sahidic Fragments

175

character. Since the witnesses against which Penn is being collated are themselves fragmentary or incomplete, one simply does not know whether a given reading would originally have been present in another Coptic manuscript that now has a lacuna in that place. That is, if Penn differs from B and L (which it often does) in a section of Psalms where R is not extant, one cannot know if R would have supported Penn's reading were it extant in that psalm. On the other hand, manuscripts B, F and L are all extant for most of Psalms 7-49, and in those places where the Penn manuscript differs from these three (or these three combined with the other extant witnesses), one may be getting a good sense of its character. Some examples of Penn's independence from these three are: 7.4 7.7 8.6 17.15 17.32 34.4

Ne-eooy Penn] ne-eooy B F L enxice Penn] eyxice B F L NNT^K^Y Penn] > RNT B F L R 2MrmiBe Penn] SBOX finNiqe F L; eeox anrmiqe B Z neTMoyp Penn] STMOYP F L Z N26N Penn] 626N B F L Z; 62N R

In a number of cases, the Penn Psalter agrees with all but one of the witnesses, demonstrating that single witness's maverick character. The following are just a few examples: 8.5 9.9 17.23 34.25

npcone L] npume B R Penn NT6-&xitic L] NNe-exitic B R Penn eqoi L] epoi B F Z Penn RrentY^H L] TNtY*n R Z Penn21

In our collation, we have looked only at those variants that reflect or could reflect significant variation, that is, variants other than orthographic or phonetic changes. Some changes in vowels, however, may make a difference in the form of the infinitive or in the presence of a preposition or an article, for example. These cases cannot be considered to be simply orthographic or phonetic. We consider them to have potential significance and have counted them in what follows. Penn and B = agreements 15/10; disagreements 52 Penn and F = agreements 23/22; disagreements 56 Penn and L = agreements 26/25; disagreements 81 21. It is not entirely serendipitous that L is the maverick in these examples. Our collations show that L frequently goes its own direction, different from the other Coptic Psalter manuscripts that we have used.

176

The Old Greek Psalter Perm and R = agreements 34/18; disagreements 21 Penn and V = agreements 1/1; disagreements 4 Penn and Z = agreements 34/21; disagreements 30

Of those manuscripts collated here, it is clear that the Penn Psalter's closest relationship is with R; viz., if those cases in which R and Penn stand with all other witnesses are removed, there are 16 agreements and 21 disagreements. These are all clustered in Psalms 8, 9, 28, 34. In fact, R is the only manuscript with which Penn has even close to as many agreements as disagreements. Penn shows its most dramatic differences from B, F and L in that the number of times that these manuscripts part company with Penn vastly exceeds the number of times that they stand together. Indeed, most of the times that these manuscripts agree with Penn are when they all agree against a single maverick witness.22 One needs to be careful about how these numbers are used, however. All of the readings in these manuscripts should be subjected to much closer scrutiny in order to determine whether they are truly indicative of any textual relationships. But as a rough indication, they work well. The next step, of course, would be to collate the whole of hand 3 against as many Coptic Psalter manuscripts as possible, including ones we have not been able to include here. This task stands outside the limits of the present study.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE While there have been, over the course of the last century, quite a number of publications of Coptic Psalms manuscripts and fragments, there is no one place to find the requisite bibliographical data. As more and more museums begin to make information on their holdings available on the internet, one will be able increasingly to find Coptic material through electronic means.23 For publications of Coptic biblical 22. The texts extant in El6287 (the fragment of Psalm 17) and El6288 (the fragment of Psalm 28) show no variations from the manuscripts collated here. 23. A version of the Coptic holdings of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, compiled and annotated by Ben Wright and Noel Hubler, can be found on Kraft's website (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/ppenn.html) under 'University Museum Collections'. The Princeton University Library has also recently posted information on some of its unpublished materials, including some Coptic fragments (http://www. princeton.edu/ papyrus/).

KRAFT AND WRIGHT Coptic/Sahidic Fragments

ill

material up to 1993, see the following bibliographical studies (listed in chronological order): Vaschalde, A., Ce qui a etc public des versions copies de la Bible: Textes sahidiques (Paris: Lecoffre, 1922) [published in Revue biblique as a series of articles under the same title between 1919 and 1922]; Le Museon 43 (1930), pp. 409-31 [Bohairic]; Le Museon 46 (1933), pp. 299-306 [Fayumic/Middle Egyptian]; Le Museon 46 (1933), pp. 306-13 [Achmimic/Subachmimic]. Kammerer, Winifred (with the collaboration of Elinor Mullett Husselman and Louise A. Shier), A Coptic Bibliography (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1950). Till, Walter, 'Coptic Biblical Texts Published after Vaschalde's Lists', BJRL 42 (1959/60), pp. 220-40. Brock, Sebastian, Charles T. Fritsch and Sidney Jellicoe, A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint (Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums, 6; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973), pp. 150-60 ['Versions: Coptic']. Nagel, Peter, 'Editionen koptischer Bibeltexte seit Till I960', Archivfur Papyrusforschung 35 (1989-1990), pp. 43-100. Dogniez, Cecile, Bibliography of the SeptuagintlBibliographic de la Septante 1970-1993 (VTSup, 60; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 286-92 ['Versions coptes'].

SYRIAC BIBLICAL TEXTUAL HISTORY AND THE GREEK PSALTER Robert J.V. Hiebert

It is a distinct pleasure to have the opportunity to include this piece in a collection of essays dedicated to Albert Pietersma, my teacher, mentor and friend. We have interacted a good deal on this subject in the past, inasmuch as it was he who supervised me, his first PhD student, while I wrote my dissertation on the so-called Syrohexapla of Psalms. I am grateful to him for all that he has taught me and for his generous support throughout the course of my academic career. I also deeply appreciate the hospitality that he and Margaret have extended to my family and me. Although distance now prevents us from attending the famous Pietersma barbeques, we have enduring memories of the good food and conversation in their backyard 7capd8eiooq, with its trees, flowers, and fish pond ringed—not surprisingly, given his interest in ancient manuscripts—with papyrus plants. As Septuagint scholars are well aware, the Syrohexapla is the Syriac version which reflects Origen's recension of the Greek Old Testament. Alfred Rahlfs has characterized it as 'gewohnlich unser zuverlassigster Zeuge fur den hexaplarischen ©-Text',1 a text Origen created by altering the Septuagint (LXX) to align it more closely with the Hebrew text of his day. The Syrohexapla is also one of the few textual witnesses to have preserved the Aristarchian signs which Origen used to mark departures from the Hebrew. Of additional significance is the fact that thousands of variant readings from the other Greek translations contained in Origen's 'Hexapla'—that is, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Quinta and Sexta2—are preserved in the margins of certain Syrohexaplaric manuscripts. 1. 'Usually our most reliable witness for the hexaplaric ©-text'. SeptuagintaStudien. II. Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1965), p. 122. 2. Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica 6.16.1-3) refers to a seventh translation,

HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History

179

The name that is typically associated with the production of this version is that of Paul, the Jacobite bishop of Telia in Mesopotamia.3 Sources indicate that the political, ecclesiastical and theological circumstances surrounding the execution of this project were turbulent. The time frame was the second decade of the seventh century when Persian forces, led by Khosrau II, were on the march westward. Paul and a number of other bishops—in the company of their patriarch, Athanasius I Gammala of Antioch—had fled to Alexandria at the invitation of Anastasius Apozygatius, the Monophysite patriarch of the city. Their place of refuge was the Antonian monastery at the Enaton of Alexandria, a relay post nine miles from the city itself. This collocation of Syrian and Egyptian clerics was predicated on the joint opposition of their ecclesiastical forebears in the mid-fifth century to the Dyophysite Christology formally defined by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. However, a rift between these two branches of the Monophysite Church had developed several decades before the arrival of Paul and the others at the Enaton. Thus, Anastasius's invitation was evidence, not only of his benevolence toward them in the face of the invasion of their homeland, but also of ecclesiastical reconciliation. It was during the next several years prior

Septima, for which little or no textual evidence exists (F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt [2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875], I, p. xlvi; H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek [rev. R.R. Ottley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914; repr. New York: Ktav, 1968], pp. 53-56; C. Taylor, 'Hexapla, The', DCB, III, pp. 14-23; S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968; repr. Ann Arbor: Eisenbrauns, 1978], pp. 118-21). 3. A number of manuscript and literary sources associate Paul with the Syrohexapla. They include a Catena Patrum in Ms Br. Mus. Add. 12,168, fol. 161b (W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum [3 vols.; London: British Museum, 1870-72], II, pp. 906-907); the 4 Kingdoms colophon in Ms Par. syr. 27, fol. 90a (P. de Lagarde, Bibliothecae Syriacae...quae adphilologiam sacram pertinent [Gottingen: Prostant in aedibus Dieterichianis Luederi Horstmann, 1892], p. 256; H. Middeldorpf [ed.], Codex Syriaco-Hexaplaris [Berlin: Enslin, 1835], p. 66); Moses bar Kepha's commentary on the Hexaemeron (cited by J.P.P. Martin, Introduction a la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament [5 vols.; Paris: Maisonneuve freres et C. Leclerc, 1884-85], I, p. 101, from Ms Par. syr. 241); Barhebraeus's prooemium to his Ausar Raze, i.e., Horreum Mysteriorum (M. Sprengling and W.C. Graham [eds.], Barhebraeus' Scholia on the Old Testament [The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 13; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1931], pp. 4-5).

180

The Old Greek Psalter

to the sack of Alexandria by the Persians that the Syrohexapla—commissioned by the Antiochian patriarch, Athanasius—came into being.4 Another Jacobite bishop at the Antonian monastery during the time that Paul sojourned there was Thomas of Harkel, who had been exiled from his see in Mabbug in the province of Euphratesia. While at the Enaton, Thomas produced a Syriac version of the New Testament that, like the Syrohexapla, closely followed the idiom—though not the text type—of the Alexandrian Monophysites who spoke Greek.5 The Syrohexapla and the Harklean New Testament represented the culmination of a process that saw the appearance of Syriac Bible versions characterized by greater and greater faithfulness to Greek text and diction.6 At the beginning of this continuum in the Old Testament stood 4. J. Gwynn, 'Paulus (48) Tellensis', DCB, IV, pp. 266-71; A. Voobus, The Hexapla and the Syro-Hexapla (Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 22; Stockholm: ETSE, 1971), pp. 33-44; G. Zuntz, The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament (The British Academy Supplemental Papers, 7; London: Oxford University Press, 1945), pp. 7-12; 'Jacobites', 'Monophysitism', in F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingston (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 1974), pp. 722, 931-32. 5. Thomas's testimony concerning his work is found in colophons of the Harklean New Testament: Gospels: J. White (ed.), Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio syriaca Philoxeniana (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1778), pp. 561-62. Note that White mistakenly calls the Harklean version Philoxenian. Acts and Catholic Epistles: J. White (ed.), Actuum Apostolorum et Epistolarum tarn Catholicarum quanr Paulinarum, versio syriaca Philoxeniana (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1799-1803), I, pp. 274-75. Corpus Paulinum: W. Wright and S.A. Cook, A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts Preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901), I, p. 11. Apocalypse: A. Voobus, The Apocalypse in the Harklean Version (CSCO; Subsidia, 56; Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1978), pp. 35*, 52-62. 6. J. Gwynn, 'Paulus (48) Tellensis', 'Polycarpus (5)', Thomas (17) Harklensis', DCB, IV, pp. 266-71, 431-34, 1014-21; Zuntz, Harklean New Testament, pp. 10-12; A. Voobus, Early Versions of the New Testament (Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 6; Stockholm: ETSE, 1954), pp. 103-21; S. Brock, 'The Resolution of the Philoxenian/Harclean Problem', in E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee (eds.), New Testament Textual Criticism—Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), pp. 325-43; B. Aland and A. Juckel (eds.), Das Neue Testament in syrischer Uberlieferung. II. Die paulinischen Briefe. 2.2. Korintherbrief, Galaterbrief, Epheserbrief, PhilipperbriefundKolosserbrief(ANTF, 23; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1995), p. 8.

HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History

181

the Peshitta which was based primarily on the Hebrew but which showed evidence of varying degrees of influence by the LXX from book to book. The New Testament Peshitta was a moderate revision of the Vetus Syra / Old Syriac toward the Koine text type associated with Lucian of Antioch. By the early fifth century, the Peshitta had achieved a position of pre-eminence among Bible versions for most Syriac-speaking Christians. A century later, another Syriac version of the Bible— this one sponsored by Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbug (c. 440-523)— made its appearance. The relatively few vestiges of this version that have survived exhibit a text that is rather more closely aligned with the Greek—frequently with the distinctive tradition that would have been current in the Antiochian patriarchate—than is the Peshitta. Another century after the completion of the Philoxenian Bible, the creators of the Syrohexapla and the Harklean New Testament pushed this graecizing trend about as far as it could go in producing a Syriac Bible that was frequently Aquilanic in its servility to the Greek textual traditions that were employed. As already mentioned, the Syrohexapla was normally a witness to the text of Origen's recension as it existed at the time. Thomas of Harkel's testimony in the colophons of his version is that his work was a revision of the Philoxenian version. The revision of the Old Testament which Jacob, the Monophysite bishop of Edessa (c. 640-708), produced nearly a century later was, however, characterized by a return to more normal Syriac idiom. With the Peshitta and the Syrohexapla in hand, Jacob fashioned a text that drew from both versions.7 The tendency in revisional activity in Syriac biblical scholarship following the seventh century was generally in the direction of greater conformity to the Peshitta. That is not to say, of course, that the Enaton Bible—as GUnther Zuntz designates the product of the Jacobite clerics 7. A. Voobus, 'Syriac Versions', IDBSup, pp. 848-54; Swete, Old Testament in Greek, pp. 111-17; R.J.V. Hiebert, The "Syrohexaplaric" Psalter (SBLSCS, 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), ch. 5; R.G. Jenkins, The Old Testament Quotations of Philoxenus of Mabbug (CSCO; Subsidia, 84; Louvain: Peeters, 1989), pp. v-vii, 1-29, 83-164, 177, 200-204; K. Aland and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament (trans. E.F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1987), pp. 188-95; J.H. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 47-49, 90-91; 'Peshitta, The', in Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1067; W. Baars, New Syro-Hexaplaric Texts (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968), p. 149.

182

The Old Greek Psalter

who laboured in the monastery outside Alexandria8—did not continue to occupy a significant place in the history of Syriac textual traditions. Indeed, the Old Testament portion of that Bible, the Syrohexapla, was reproduced by copyists for the benefit of both biblical scholars (Jacobite and Nestorian alike) and—despite its linguistic awkwardness—worshippers, as its presence in Jacobite lectionaries indicates.9 Furthermore, in addition to its important role as a key witness to the hexaplaric recension and a preserver of non-Septuagintal variant readings, the Syrohexapla provides vital testimony to the Septuagint text of Daniel—the only other complete witness to which is, of course, Chigi manuscript 88.10 Aspects of the political and theological background to the creation of the Syrohexapla and its place within the history of the transmission of Syriac biblical texts have been outlined very briefly above. But what about the nature of the text itself and the Unterlage on which it was based? The colophons of certain manuscripts provide some interesting tidbits of information in this regard. For certain books (e.g. Proverbs, Song of Songs, Lamentations11) the information given is that the Greek base was the Hexapla. For 3 Kingdoms, the base is described as a copy of the Hexapla to which was collated the exemplar corrected by Eusebius.12 For Judges, Ruth,13 Job, the Minor Prophets and Daniel,14 the Tetrapla is designated. For Joshua, it is the Hexapla collated with the

8. Zuntz, Harklean New Testament, pp. 8-12. 9. Baars, New Syro-Hexaplaric Texts, pp. 2, 17-20, 41-149; Voobus, The Hexapla and the Syro-Hexapla, pp. 54-60. 10. J. Ziegler (ed.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum. XVI.2. Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), pp. 7-8. 11. Ms Milan, Ambr. Libr., C. 313. Inf., fols. 66a, 72a, 142a, respectively, published by A. Ceriani in Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus photolithographice editus (Monumenta sacra et profana, 7; Milan: Typis et impensis Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, 1874). 12. Ms Br. Mus. Add. 14,437, fol. 122a (see Wright, Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, I, pp. 33-34). 13. With regard to Judges and Ruth, see Ms Br. Mus., Add. 17,103, fol. 70b; Wright, Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, I, p. 32; Voobus, The Hexapla and the Syro-Hexapla, p. 45 and n. 2. 14. With regard to Job, the Minor Prophets and Daniel, see Ms Milan, Ambr. Libr., C. 313. Inf., fols. 52a, 114a, and 150b, respectively.

HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History

183

Tetrapla.15 The colophon of 4 Kingdoms specifies the Heptapla as the translation base and talks, in fact, about two such manuscripts.16 When it comes to the Pentateuch, the colophons of some books are even more fascinating with respect to the information they divulge about the textual basis for the Syrohexaplaric version. For the book of Genesis, one reads that the exemplar used contained an inscription stating that the text had been transcribed from the Tetrapla but also collated to the Hexapla that was in the library of Caesarea (Maritima).17 The Exodus colophon is the most extensive of those extant for the Pentateuch. It mentions that the manuscript from which it had been translated contained an inscription claiming that the text of this book had been taken from a copy of the Hexapla that had been collated with another copy whose Hebrew text had, in turn, been collated to the Samaritan version. Furthermore, this second Hexaplaric witness had been corrected by Eusebius.18 The colophon of Numbers likewise talks about an exemplar of the Hexapla from the library of Caesarea whose Hebrew text had been collated to the Samaritan version.19 These Syriac colophons contribute noteworthy data to the field of LXX research. Not only do they give a description of the textual basis and character of the Syrohexapla, but they also provide a synopsis of the history of transmission of these textual traditions. Based on the sorts of collations and corrections that are referred to, one may infer that those involved were motivated by a desire to get back to a more pristine form of the biblical text. It is clear that most of this work had already been done prior to the time that the Greek exemplars upon which the Syrohexapla was based were penned, since the colophons that speak about this activity were themselves translated from the Greek. The references in the colophons to the Tetrapla, the Hexapla and even the Heptapla raise some interesting questions. What do these 15. Ms Br. Mus. Add. 12,133, fol. 169b (see Wright, Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, I, p. 32). 16. Ms Par. syr. 27, fol. 90a (see Middeldorpf, Codex Syriaco-Hexaplaris, p. 66; de Lagarde, Bibliothecae Syriacae, p. 256). 17. Ms Abdullah Gu^e, fol. 19a (A. Voobus [ed.], The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla [CSCO; Subsidia, 45; Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1975]). 18. Ms Br. Mus. Add. 12,134, fol. 132b (see Wright, Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, I, p. 30); Ms Abdullah Giilge, fol. 65a (Voobus, The Pentateuch). 19. Ms Abdullah Gulce, fol. 15 Ib (Voobus, The Pentateuch).

184

The Old Greek Psalter

references contribute to our knowledge about the work of Origen? Did he, in fact, publish more than one multi-columned work, as Eusebius seems to suggest,20 or are these all designations of the same single edition—designations that Origen, in fact, did not use but that were coined by subsequent writers who focused on different portions of Origen's version as it suited their purposes?21 It is not my intention in this essay to enter into this debate in any significant way. Suffice it to say that the evidence of the Syriac colophons on this matter does not preclude either of the preceding options. The references to the Tetrapla, Hexapla and Heptapla could be regarded as corroboration of Eusebius's testimony about separate publications by Origen, or they could be interpreted as reflecting the several terms used in antiquity for the single work of Origen. Barring the emergence of new evidence on the matter, the Tetrapla/Hexapla/Heptapla question may continue to be moot. What is obvious, however, is that sometime after Origen finished his work of paralleling the various versions that he had at his disposal, the result 20. Historia Ecclesiastica 6.16. 21. For the opinion that the Tetrapla is the predecessor of the Hexapla, see B. de Montfaucon, Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt (Paris: Apud Ludovicum Guerin, 1713); cf. O. Procksch, 'Tetraplarische Studien, I-IF, ZAW NS 12 (1935), pp. 24069, ZWNS 13 (1936), pp. 61-90. For the idea that the Tetrapla is a later version of a shortened edition of the Hexapla in which Origen emended his translation and corrected the textual corruptions of the LXX, see O. Pretzl, 'Der hexaplarische und tetraplarische Septuagintatext des Origenes in den Biichern Josua und Richter', Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30 (1929-30), pp. 262-68. For the proposal that the sixcolumned Hexapla is to be distinguished from the Tetrapla, which likely consisted of four textual traditions (one complete and three excerpted [i.e., Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion]) that were arranged in two columns a la Syrohexapla, see R.G. Jenkins, 'Colophons of the Syrohexapla and the Textgeschichte of the Recensions of Origen', in C.E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (SBLSCS, 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 261-77. For the position that there was only one multi-columned Bible produced by Origen which went by different names, see H.M. Orlinsky, 'The Septuagint—Its Use in Textual Criticism', BA 9 (1946), pp. 21-34; 'Origen's Tetrapla—A Scholarly Fiction?', in Proceedings of the First World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1947, I (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1952), pp. 173-82; cf. G.J. Norton, 'Cautionary Reflections on a Re-edition of Fragments of Hexaplaric Material', in G.J. Norton and S. Pisano (eds.), Tradition of the Text: Studies offered to Dominique Barthelemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday (OBO, 109; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 129-55 (14041).

HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History

185

was mined for variants to the LXX. In the Syrohexapla and, undoubtedly, in the Greek exemplars on which it was based, the results of that sort of collation work appear in the margins of a number of the extant manuscripts. Evidence that this sort of thing occurred in Greek manuscripts can be adduced from a text like Codex Q which, in Isaiah for example, has an apparatus that is virtually identical to that of the Syrohexapla in terms of the selection, arrangement and textual nature of the readings.22 As for the references to collations involving the Samaritan Pentateuch, corroborating evidence is found in the margins of the so-called Midyat manuscript of the Pentateuch published by Arthur Voobus.23 However, the interesting textual history of the Syrohexapla has more facets to it than are reflected in the colophons discussed above. A case in point involves the Psalter. Although the Syrohexapla is normally one of the chief witnesses to Origen's revision of the LXX toward the Hebrew, this is not the case in the book of Psalms. That is to say, while some extant manuscripts of this version attest to a few of the Aristarchian signs that would have punctuated the text of Origen's revised LXX and to a certain percentage of the distinctive readings of his recension (though most of them are unmarked), and while the margins of some of the manuscripts contain non-LXX readings that would have come from the other columns of Origen's Hexapla, the text of the socalled Syrohexaplaric Psalter is not, in fact, innately hexaplaric. Why a non-hexaplaric text type was chosen by the Syriac translator is not clear. The paucity of extant hexaplaric Psalter texts—fragmentary Greek manuscripts 1098 and 2005, the Gallican Psalter, and the Psalms quotations in Jerome's Letter to Sunnia and Fretela24—makes one wonder whether a text of that manuscript tradition was even available in seventh-century Alexandria. This possible lacuna, along with the likely availability of a Syriac version of Psalms that already bore the marks of a certain degree of revision toward the Greek, that is, a Philoxenian

22. J. Ziegler (ed.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum. XIV. Isaias (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), p. 108; Jenkins, Old Testament Quotations of Philoxenus, p. 4 and n. 20. 23. For example, fols. 130b, 132a, 132b. 24. A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta: Societatis Scientiarum Gottingensis auctoritate. X. Psalmi cum Odis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931), pp. 52-60.

186

The Old Greek Psalter

Psalter,25 may account for the anomalous situation involving the version of Psalms associated with Paul of Telia. Rahlfs, in his edition of Psalmi cum Odis, grouped the so-called Syrohexaplaric Psalter with his L family of Byzantine textual witnesses which, he declared, preserves the Lucianic recension of the LXX.26 He based this conclusion on his analysis of primarily one witness, the great Milan manuscript published by Antonio Ceriani, prior to the emergence of additional texts.27 Included along with this Syriac version as core members of the L family are most of the extant Greek Psalter manuscripts (more than 1000 in all) and the text of Psalms cited in the commentary by Theodoret, the fifth century bishop of Cyrrhus in Syria.28 Rahlfs utilized only about 100 of these Greek manuscripts in Psalmi cum Odis,29 yet it is by far the largest of his textual groupings. Unfortunately, he did not break this rather amorphous group of witnesses down into sub-groups based on textual affinity. That daunting task still remains to be done. At this juncture, suffice it to say that, although the Syriac Psalter aligns itself more often with L than with any of Rahlfs's other textual families, this observation is inadequate in terms of defining its textual character and history with any kind of precision.30

25. Scholars continue to debate whether there ever was a Psalter in this version. For a summary of the evidence, the issues, and my arguments for its existence, see my "Syrohexaplaric" Psalter, pp. 248-53. 26. Psalmi cum Odis, pp. 52, 60, 66-67. 27. Milan, Ambr. Libr., C. 313. Inf. (Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus); see Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, pp. 18-19. In notes accompanying this edition, Ceriani did record some variant readings from four other sources: Br. Mus., Add. 14,434, fols. 1-79 and fols. 80-128; Br. Mus., Add. 17,257, fols. 84-94; Paris, Nat. Libr., Syr. 9. 28. Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, pp. 60-63, 69; 'Theodoret', Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, pp. 1360-61. 29. They were collated for R. Holmes and J. Parsons's Vetus Testamentum graecum cum variis lectionibus, III (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1823) but not recollated by Rahlfs (see Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, p. 61). 30. The relationship between the 'Syrohexaplaric' Psalter and the text that Theodoret quotes is one that bears further investigation. Rahlfs points out that Theodoret and 'Sy' often agree when they deviate from L (Psalmi cum Odis, p. 66). I hope to revisit this connection in order to gain a better understanding of the Greek text upon which the Syriac revisions of the Psalter discussed in this essay are based. This would contribute to the larger task of bringing definition to the ill-defined L tradition.

HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History

187

In the past, I have subjected Rahlfs's conclusions about the 'Syrohexaplaric' Psalter to critical scrutiny, based both on my full collations of textual sources available at the time (in varying degrees of completeness, eleven in total, including the Milan manuscript31) and on a reexamination of its relationship to Origen's recension, to L, and to Paul of Telia. The result of that undertaking was a more comprehensive edition of this version, which I designated SyrPss, than had previously been available, along with an accompanying textual analysis in which I discussed its complex and distinctive textual character and history.32 Based on my investigation of translation technique, I was able to isolate three textual groups of SyrPss. The majority text, which I called SyrPs, consists of seven of the eleven witnesses referred to above (a-g) along with the text written on the last two folios of another (hi). The two other groups are SyrPsa, which is extant in the first portion of manuscripts h and j as far as Ps. 27.6, and SyrPsb, which is attested in h and j from Ps. 27.7 onward and in the surviving fragments of Psalms 70, 73, 77 and 79 in manuscript k. I have previously published some of the data that provides the rationale for these three textual groups, and have discussed the nature of their relationships with one another and the LXX and explored the

31. The names of the manuscripts that correspond to my lower case designations in italics are as follows: a = Milan, Ambr. Libr., C. 313. Inf., folios 6b-38b (Ceriani's A): eighth/ ninth century b = Br. Mus., Add. 14,434, folios 1-79 (Ceriani's B): eighth century c = Br. Mus., Add. 14,434, folios 80-128 (Ceriani's C): eighth century d = Br. Mus., Add. 17,257, folios 84-94 (Ceriani's E): thirteenth century e = Cambridge, Univ. Libr., Orient. 929, folios la-184a: fourteenth century / = Baghdad, Libr. of the Chald. Patr., 211, folios 8b-152a (Mosul Cod. 4): twelfth century g = Vat. Libr., Borg. sir. 113, folios 1-135 (copy of/): nineteenth century h = Baghdad, Libr. of the Chald. Patr., 1112, folios la-127b (Diarbakir Cod. 2): twelfth century h, = Baghdad, Libr. of the Chald. Patr., 1112, folios 128a-129a (Diarbakir Cod. 2): fifteenth century j = Paris, Nat. Libr., Syr. 9, folios 165b-228a (Ceriani's D): thirteenth century k = Moscow, Publidnaja Biblioteka S.S.S.R. im. V. I. Lenina, Gr. 432, 4 folios (Norov 74): eighth century 32. Hiebert, "Syrohexaplaric" Psalter.

188

The Old Greek Psalter

possibilities with regard to their origin.33 In the remainder of this essay, I would like to focus on SyrPsa in particular, comparing it with SyrPs and the LXX in order to define more clearly its textual character. I will also probe further the question as to who may have been responsible for creating this quite interesting text. It bears repeating that SyrPsa is quite distinct from SyrPs. In an appendix to this essay, I have compiled a list of more than 250 divergent translation equivalences found in Pss. 1.1 to 27.6 where these two textual traditions coincide. This serves as a supplement to earlier work I have done in delineating mem.34 Not only are they distinct from one another, but in the witnesses that contain the SyrPsa text (manuscripts hf), that text type ceases precisely at Ps. 27.6 and is replaced by another one, which I have labelled SyrPsb, at 27.7. The striking change in the translation of two Greek terms in particular provides evidence that the transition occurs specifically at this place in the Psalter: the rendering of 8eTiai<; which, in 27.6, contains the last case of ^°>T^ as the equivalent in hj (thereafter it is rtkcum, as it is in SyrPs throughout the Psalter), and the rendering of iMiepaamaTrn;, with regard to which manuscripts hj for the first time in 27.7 agree with SyrPs in showing rdj-»Aun=*> as the equivalent (before this, hj have •** «.-«-«•«)35 There are many other examples of that same sort of shift in hj. Indeed, apart from some stylistic features such as the independent possessive pronoun (theA-.i form) and the absence of the proleptic suffix before .1 in genitival constructions—both of which continue to predominate in hj (in contrast to SyrPs's frequent employment of pronominal and proleptic suffixes, respectively)—the number of divergences between hj and the majority SyrPs text after 27.6 is relatively low. In the following translation equivalent profiles, which include some divergences of this type, I have supplied data from the Peshitta (Pesh)36 to show the kinds of agreements and disagreements that typically occur between the constituent

33. "Syrohexaplaric" Psalter, ch. 5; 'The "Syrohexaplaric" Psalter: Its Text and Textual History', in A. Aejmelaeus and U. Quasi (eds.), Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochteriibersetzungen (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen; MSU, 24; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 123-46. 34. "Syrohexaplaric" Psalter, pp. 252-58. 35. "Syrohexaplaric" Psalter, p. 257 and n. 77 (pp. 311-12). 36. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. H.3. The Book of Psalms (ed. The Peshitta Institute; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1980).

HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History

189

traditions of SyrPss, on the one hand, and the 'Syriac Vulgate', on the other.37 rcopeuojiai = = = = =

Pesh

SyrPs* nf:tt 1.1; SyrPs An* SyrPs3 OV^CD 14.2, 22.4; SyrPs A,* SyrPsa
The Greek verb rcopevoum occurs 34 times in the Psalter. In all five cases where SyrPsa is extant, it renders the verb differently than SyrPs does, though in four of those cases it agrees with the Peshitta. Of the 29 occurrences where SyrPsb is extant, only once does it diverge from SyrPs in regard to the equivalent that is employed, but the Peshitta is different from both SyrPsb and SyrPs. SyrPss (i.e. SyrPs + SyrPsb in this example) agrees with the Peshitta in only six of the preceding 29 cases. pdpSoq

Pesh

= SyrPsa nr^eu, 2.9, 22.4; SyrPs -*\~ = SyrPss r^V" 44.7(6) (2x), 73.2, 88.33(32)(except j of SyrPsb), 109.2, 124.3;; r^V* 88.33(32) = *V=* 2.9, 23(22).4, 45.7 (44.6) (2x), 74(73).2, 89.33 (88.32), 125(124)3 = rttVu,110(109).2

Two of the eight passages in which the Greek noun pdp8oc; appears are found in the portion of the Psalter where SyrPsa is extant. Both times SyrPs and SyrPsa disagree as to the equivalent, but, in this instance, 37. Note that when Greek and SyrPss (i.e. one or more of SyrPs, SyrPsa, SyrPsb) references are cited, the Greek reference is listed first, followed, if it is different, by the SyrPss one in parentheses. When Peshitta references are given, the ones which follow in parentheses are those of SyrPss.

190

The Old Greek Psalter

SyrPs's choice is the noun found in the Peshitta. In the remaining six cases, SyrPss and the Peshitta are in full agreement except at 88.33(32) (Pesh 89.33), where h of SyrPsb sides with SyrPs and the Peshitta, while j adopts the reading that SyrPs3 favours where it is extant.38 eXTtiCeo ETC! = SyrPs3 A^ t±i« 4.6(5), 5.12(11), 9.11(10), 16.7, 17.3(2), 31(30), 20.8(7), 21.9(8), 24.20; SyrPs^ *=» = SyrPsbA^ fe» 113.17(9), 18(10), 19(11); SyrPs^ to = SyrPss A^ i^» 30.20(19), 25(24), 31.10, 32.18, 41.6(5), 12(11), 42.5, 51.10(8), 68.4(3), 77.22, 129.6 (2x) = SyrPss ~ to 32.22, 33.9(8), 23(22), 36.3, 5, 40, 39.4(3), 54.24(23), 61.9(8), 11(10), 63.11(10), 83.13(12), 85.2, 90.2, 111.7,117.9(8) (2x), 118.42,146.11 = SyrPss A r£*» 130.3 Pesh = ^ to 4.6(5), 5.12(11), 9.11(10), 21.8 (20.7), 25(24).20, 31.20 (30.19), 25(24), 32(31). 10, 34.23 (33.22), 37(36).3, 5, 40, 40.4 (39.3), 52.10 (51.8) (variant A to), 55.24 (54.23), 62.9 (61.8), 84.13 (83.12), 86(85).2 = A to78(77).22,147(146).! 1 = ta» 17(16).7 (variant .= tsu») = A^ AA* 18.3 (17.2), 31(30), 22.9 (21.8), 115.9 (113.17[9]), 10(18[10]), 11(19[11]), 34.9 (33.8), 62.11 (61.10), 64.11 (63.10),91(90).2, 112(111).7, 118.9 (117.8) (2x), 119(118).42 = A rc*» 33(32). 18, 22, 42.6 (41.5), 12(11), 43(42).5, 69.4 (68.3), 130.5-7 (2x) (129.6 [2x]), 131(130).3

There are 44 occurrences of the eAjti£a> eiui, verb plus preposition, combination. Nine of these fall within the SyrPsa range, and for none of them do SyrPsa and SyrPs agree as to the equivalent construction to employ. However, in five of those nine cases, the SyrPs equivalent agrees with the Peshitta reading, though in none of the remaining four does SyrPsa agree with the Peshitta. In three additional instances, SyrPsb and SyrPs diverge, but neither of them correlates with the Peshitta in these cases. In the remaining 32 instances, SyrPs and SyrPsb agree, though in only 10 of those is there also agreement with the Peshitta. ejtieAm£(o = SyrPsa ti«A^ 7.2(1), 21.5(4), 6(5); SyrPs to^, = SyrPss ti» A^ 12.6(5), 15.1, 25.1, 27.7, 30.2(1), 7(6), 15(14), 40.10(9), 43.7(6), 55.12(11), 143.2 = SyrPss ti» ~ 37.16(15), 55.5(4), 70.1,90.14, 140.8, 142.8 = SyrPss * *i» 55.4(3) 38. This is also the reading that is found in the Peshitta at 110(109).2.

HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History Pesh

191

= t=» ^ 7.2(1), 22.5 (21.4), 6(5), 26(25).!, 31.2 (30.1), 7(6), 56.5 (55.4), 71(70).! = **» A 38.16 (37.15) = r£^ A 91(90). 14 = ^^56.12(55.11) = A*A. A.* 13.6 (12.5), 16(15).!, 28(27).7, 31.15 (30.14), 44.7 (43.6), 56.4 (55.3), 141(140).8,143(142).8, 144(143).2 = A^ A*fc 41.10 (40.9)

There are 21 instances of the em eAjci^co, preposition plus verb, sequence. Three of these are found in that section of the Psalter in which SyrPsa is extant. Again, SyrPsa and SyrPs do not agree, though SyrPs and the Peshitta do. In the remaining 18 cases, SyrPsb and SyrPs have the same reading, though only twice are they in agreement with the Peshitta. The preceding examples illustrate differences among the Syriac textual traditions that make up SyrPss. In terms of textual character, SyrPsb stands between the distinctive traditions of SyrPs3 and SyrPs, though it resembles the latter more than the former in most respects. Although the Peshitta must obviously be factored into any analysis of the origins of SyrPss, it is nonetheless clear from evidence presented here and elsewhere39 that the Peshitta's influence did not eclipse the overriding concern of those who produced SyrPss to represent rather literally the the Greek version of the Psalter that they had in hand. I have suggested previously40 that the Greek base for each of SyrPs, SyrPsa and SyrPsb was substantially the same. To be sure, there are instances in which SyrPsa, in particular, differs from SyrPs in rendering the LXX, or a specific segment of the LXX tradition, more exactly than SyrPs does. Yet a good number of these divergences are not likely to have been based on different underlying Greek texts. This seems to be the case in the following examples in which SyrPsa and SyrPs both have acceptable equivalents for the same Greek text and/or one of the two reproduces or, to one degree or another, parallels the Peshitta. 9,17(16) 9.19( 18) 9.24(23)

Kpijiata nouov x=ul r£j-'.t .TA SyrPs3, cf. .1=^:1 i<j-.i Pesh] rtfil'n .TaA..i SyrPs ejuA,Tiaef|aeTai rt^Vu SyrPs3] r£^fc» SyrPs = Pesh Kai 6 d8iK«v Acu^i.i oerio SyrPs3] r£jAo-^aa SyrPs; rcla^. (variant: r^o^.a) Pesh 10.3

39. "Syrohexaplaric" Psalter, chs. 3 and 5. 40. "Syrohexaplaric" Psalter, p. 235.

192

The Old Greek Psalter

7te7ioi8a AA^^r* SyrPs3; A»t=» Pesh 11.1] r
10.1 12.5(4)

20.10(9)

eiq KOlpOV toi) IlpOOCOTtOV rtfaa^ta.f

rilnlA SyrPs3]

r£lala

r^v^oi.i SyrPs, cf. rtft^oi.i niunA (variant: i
22.1

Other divergences within SyrPss do, however, correspond to different readings attested within the broader textual history of the LXX. 9.37(36)

10.1 12.3(2) 13.1 16.3

paoOeiXH-i KVpioq B R' Tht'Ch A' SyrPs(r<.to «^MJ)] tr. S 1221 La°Aug Ga Z SyrPsa(o>A»Li r<.t»), paoiXevoei Kvpioq uel Kvpicx; paai^evaei Bo Sa; K-upio? Paciteix; L = 3JI Pesh 10.16 epeite dicetis LaG SyrPsa(voteoi
The Syriac readings in 9.37(36) seem to be based on different Greek texts. In 10.1, SyrPsa provides a precise equivalent of the Greek future verb, while SyrPs's periphrastic construction that corresponds to the indicated variant also equals the Peshitta. In this case, then, one suspects that the Greek base for both Syriac readings is the same. That appears to be true as well in 12.3(2), where SyrPs3 carefully distinguishes between eox; Tivoq (^a\ C^D.-UL) and eco<; nme (,Av»ri_^ ,di5*f
HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History

\93

v. 3(2), a translation choice that was likely influenced by the Peshitta, with which SyrPs is in agreement on this reading. As for 13.1 and 16.3, it is possible that the different Syriac readings are witnesses to different Greek texts. In both instances, however, SyrPsa corresponds to the Peshitta—in the latter case, exactly. Another interesting divergence within the Syriac tradition occurs in 13.3. do7u8cov] -8o<; U SyrPsa(».i-jM»i<s); r£i SyrPs

One cannot be certain that this difference goes back to the Greek since SyrPs could be a reflection of either the lemma or the variant.41 It does appear, however, that SyrPsa specifically reflects the variant. At the very least, then, we have another example of SyrPsa representing the Greek more precisely than SyrPs does. In view of the evidence presented above and in the appendix, which suggests that SyrPs and SyrPsa are independent translations of the Greek Psalter, one is naturally inclined to wonder who produced them. Unfortunately, there is no colophon attested in the extant Syriac manuscripts of the Psalter, so one cannot be certain about who is responsible. Although Paul of Telia is associated with the Syrohexapla in general, his name is not linked with the Psalter specifically. However, I have argued that there are indications of his involvement with this book— and with SyrPs in particular—and that Thomas of Harkel, his colleague for a time at the Antonian monastery, is a candidate for the creator of SyrPsa.42 I would now like to revisit the question of the authorship of SyrPsa and the possibility of Thomas's connection with it. Thomas's revision of the Philoxenian New Testament in the direction of rigid conformity to the Greek is well known to textual scholars. There is evidence, however, that Thomas may not have limited his work to the New Testament. In Ms Par. syr. 27, a certain Thomas is said to have supervised the workers who prepared the Syrohexapla of 4 Kingdoms. He is described as the the deacon/minister and syncellus (cellmate and domestic chaplain) of the Antiochian patriarch, Athanasius, 41. Note the equivalences elsewhere in SyrPss: 57.5(4) <xcnu8o<;<*Aa>rfti SyrPss = Pesh 58.5 90.13 do7ti8a ^Pesh 91.13 139.4(3) dcmi8(ov rrt SyrPss = Pesh 140.4 42. "'Syrohexaplaric" Psalter, pp. 247-60; 'Text and Textual History', pp. 140-44.

194

The Old Greek Psalter

with whom, it appears, Thomas of Harkel had earlier spent time at the Monastery of QenneSre, the renowned Syrian Monophysite centre of Graeco-Syriac studies.43 With respect to the Psalter, the fact that one of the members of the SyrPsa group, manuscript h, has been identified as 'heracleenne' by both A. Scher and I. Voste in their catalogue descriptions of manuscripts from Diarbekir44 makes the idea of a linkage between SyrPs3 and Thomas worth investigating. That both Thomas and Paul would have produced separate versions of Psalms is not as farfetched as it might at first seem. If, as seems likely, there was a Philoxenian Psalter available—a copy of which could even have been appended to the Philoxenian New Testament that served as Thomas's Syriac base for the revision of that part of the Bible45—then he may well have translated it too. Besides manuscript h of the Psalter, another text that is not part of the New Testament canon is identified as Harklean. One of two Syriac versions of the deuterocanonical book of Susannah contained in Ms Pococke 391 (Bodleian Library) has this designation. The first version of this supplement to the book of Daniel to appear in this manuscript is that of the Peshitta. The second is preceded by an inscription that reads, 'Again we write the record of young Daniel, the story of Susannah [in] the Harklean version'.46 This version of Susannah is different from that 43. J. Gwynn, 'Thomas (17) Harklensis', DCB, pp. 1014-21; Hiebert, "Syrohexaplaric" Psalter, p. 256 and n. 74 (p. 311). 44. A. Scher, 'Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques et arabes conserves a 1'archeveche chaldeen de Diarbekir', Journal asiatique, 10th series, vol. 10 (1907), p. 332; I. Voste, 'Notes sur les manuscrits syriaques de Diarbekir et autres localites d'Orient', Le Museon 50 (1937), p. 348. Unfortunately, neither Scher nor Voste elaborate on the basis upon which they make that identification. 45. Greek manuscripts 69, 283, 1011, 1024, 1025, 1031, 1063, 1087, 1109 and 1226 are examples of substantially New Testament texts with which the Psalter is included (see A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alien Testaments [MSU, 2; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1914], pp. 394-96). J. Gwynn describes a Syriac manuscript that consists of the Gospels and the Psalter (Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible, I (London: Williams & Norgate, 1909), pp. xviii-xix. 46.

r^^Aatu rtf&uiAao ^x.cut.1 rtf&i*-&_x&i

r^1cui.l Artf*J.l.l

r£=idi^

VV.. -lA^i

.aadt

(fol. 291r). This manuscript was written in Jerusalem in 1614 CE (fol. 538r). See R. Payne Smith, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae. VI. Codices syriacos, carshunicos, mendaeos, complectens (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1864), cols. 16-22. Note that the folio numbers in this catalogue (which correspond to Arabic numbers added to the manuscript in a later hand) do not agree with the

HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History

195

of the Peshitta in the same manuscript and that of the Syrohexapla in the Milan manuscript47 in terms of both text type and content, although of those two versions it stands somewhat closer to the Peshitta than to the Syrohexapla. With respect to content, the Harklean is the only one of the three preceding versions, as well as those of Theodotion and the LXX,48 that, for example, begins with an introduction of Daniel, and that confirms the inscription's statement about his youthfulness by declaring that he was twelve years old at the time that this incident involving Susannah took place. Other unique details abound. Susannah is described as a wise woman and the daughter of a priest (v. 2). She is married for only a short time before her very wealthy husband dies.49 She spends the rest of her widowed life engaged day and night in the service of the Lord (v. 4). As for the ordeal which is the focus of the story, only the Harklean version says that she is bound with fetters and put in jail for three days (vv. 27-28) after the elders, named .t-.-»_^ (immersed/plunging one?) and x^ar* (lost/perishing one?) (v. 5), have made their accusations about her having had a liaison with a youth r£oL..ft9L=i (v. 37), in the garden. These elders, in addition to being described as principal men of the people and judges, are also identified as rulers of the synagogue/assembly (I^ALXOJJ^ *=»i [v. 16 passim]) and chief priests (»a«t reiciaLt [v. 41]). After Susannah's conviction based on their false testimony, she is sentenced to be executed by stoning. At the ninth hour, this version states, she is delivered up to be cast from the place whence adulteresses (r
196

The Old Greek Psalter

behalf is characterized as prophecy (v. 48). Displaying an admirable lack of pretension, he refuses to sit on the chair that is brought to him from the sanctuary for his use while (re)trying the case (vv. 50-51), this time with the elders as defendants. Having separated the two so that there can be no collusion with regard to their testimony, he asks the first to specify the tree under which the adulterous union between Susannah and the unidentified youth allegedly took place. In the Harklean version, the accuser-turned-defendant identifies it as a pistachio tree (rtfuJuaa); in the Peshitta, it is an oak/terebinth (WAi^^a), and in the Syrohexapla, the LXX and Theodotion, it is a mastic (au-jWaxivoq) (v. 54). In response to the same question, his partner in slander makes it, in the Harklean version, a pomegranate (rCisooV), but in the other versions, an oak (7tpivo<;, specifically the accusative case, npivov, in the LXX and Theodotion; transliterated just that way, vcu^ta, in the Syrohexapla, with the same word in Greek characters in the margin; r^oia in the Peshitta) (v. 58). The treachery of the two thus exposed, Daniel's stock with Susannah's clan soars, and his renown is perpetuated among all the people (v. 64). Perhaps the best word to describe the textual character of the Harklean Susannah is eclectic. Generally speaking, it corresponds more often to the Peshitta and Theodotion's text than to the Syrohexapla and the LXX, though differences in comparison to all the versions are frequent. Sometimes it is aligned with Theodotion rather than the Peshitta. Verse 6 Theod Hark Pesh51

O^TOV TtpooeKaptepow ev TTJ oiKiqi ICCKXKIU,,

LXX

Syh

(lacking) (lacking)

Theod Hark Pesh

i
LXX Syh

.^ij.a.eu.T .tnAij 1*1 a am ^. \*"nt< .^Aro ;vojm ••n.o.CT.* a>duj9\ JuniJuJMrf a am ^Avpt? ^Acn V
xai %>XOVTO Jtpoi; autoix; JtdvTeq oi Kpwonsvov.

Kai TJPXOVTO Kpioeii; e^ aXXcov TtoXewv npbq awouq. vomA»cA

rtfivjjturr r<4aJ.'.iia ^a rCi^'.T oam ^.Jkrtfo

51. The text is that of Ms Pococke 391. 52. This version in Ms Pococke 391 adds . ,»Ai oam ^j^.iAiivaio . .1*. -pa. .•!»• to end the verse. 53. The suffix is abbreviated in this manuscript. 54. This version in Ms Pococke 391 adds r^j^.-iAeoo to end the verse.

HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History

197

On other occasions, the Peshitta has a reading that is closer to Theodotion than the Harklean version is. Verse 24 Theod

Kai dvep6T|ae ^covfi (neyd^ Zouodwa

Pesh

^XCLX rtfsol r*"V"- &^aa

Hark

.rOal r^na .^XCLX &a^.tr
LXX Syh

(lacking) (lacking)

In still other cases, the Harklean version stands alone against the others. Verse 9 Theod/LXX Kai e{;eKA,ivav TO\)<; 6<|>6afyio\)c; awwv toi) JIT) pA&teiv et<; TOV ovpavov... Syh Kai dvep6T|ae ^covfi (neyd^ Zouodwa Pesh Hark

Kai dvep6T|ae ^covfi (neyd^ Zouodwa Kai dvep6T|ae ^covfi (neyd^ Zouodwa

The style of this Harklean text conforms to more normal Syriac idiom than is the case in the remarkably graecized Syrohexaplaric and Harklean versions of other books. To be sure, there is the unwieldy composite expression r«raoAr
198

The Old Greek Psalter

is that one cannot automatically equate Harklean with Thomas of Harkel. Having said that, it is nonetheless possible that Thomas could have been involved at different stages in his career with projects other than his literalistic rendering of the New Testament, projects in which different modi operandi were employed. Such a possibility cannot be discounted in view of the fact that even a translation as uniformly executed as the Syrohexapla exhibits some variability in terms of translation technique.55 This lack of absolute consistency may be evidence of the work of different translators under Paul of Telia's supervision rather than of independent undertakings. Perhaps a similar situation obtains with respect to the diverse 'Harklean' corpus. Until more evidence is forthcoming, however, such possibilities can only be mooted. In conclusion, the Syrohexapla continues to occupy an important place in the textual history of the LXX and of Syriac Bible versions. Its significance as a witness to the hexaplaric recension of the LXX and to variant readings drawn from non-LXX translations, which Origen included in his multi-columned Bible, is well known. Less familiar are other aspects of the complex textual history of this version that is associated primarily with Paul of Telia. The present essay represents an attempt to shed further light on these matters as they pertain to the Psalter.

APPENDIX LXX I SyrPs 1 SyrPs Equivalents in Psalms 0

dyaXXidoum =^o.t 18.6(5); SyrPs 10* ayioq= rex.icui 21.4(3); SyrPs rc**xa d8iKia = rd»al«lv 7.4(3), 15(14), 17(16), 10.5(6), 16.3,27.3; SyrPs *W 9800 = ISM 26.6; SyrPs ..i-ir deETeeo = Aa*. aphel 14.4; SyrPs 73^, aivera = .*=« 21.24(23); SyrPs «Aa pael aipETt^co = ;m>i 24.12; SyrPs rCa^ dXA,' ij = rAr< 1.2,4; SyrPs ^rf i^rf a>a>uo<; = paw rd.t 14.2, 17.24(23), 31(30) (and a of SyrPs), 33(32), 18.8(7), 14(13); SyrPs r6»eiM *A.-i (including bcefg of SyrPs at 17.31 [30]) dvayYe^o = rfeu,21.31(30) ethpaal, 32(31) pael; SyrPs AA aphel ccvdncruCTK; = r«&uio 22.2; SyrPs r^u^i dvdTiTO) passive = fi\.i 17.9(8); SyrPs at i^j ethpaal 55. See examples given in Hiebert, "Syrohexaplaric" Psalter, pp. 306-10 nn. 58-60, 65, 67-68.

HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History

199

OtVOlCt= rdJOtn Akot^jMu 21.3(2); SyrPs r£icm> rd

dvtait68o^ia = rduiiaa 27.4; SyrPs r*&cu_x*aa dvTctrcoSoaiq = r*&tcu-».iaa 18.12(11); SyrPs rti-vtaa dvtiXoyia = r£L.tu 17.44(43); SyrPs rAlxn &tcuAaaaa> dftopAETtco (variant em-) = leu* 9.29(28); SyrPs Am aphel = nru. 10.4(5); SyrPs icu. cwK>8i8a>ni = ^ta 21.26(25); SyrPs AAu dnoKaGianmi = ^nAe* «^aa> (^>At» = aphel participle [^>A»]) 15.5; SyrPs r&u&M aphel participle (rCia) drcoKpAxlKx; = rf&uojt^* 9.29(28), 16.12; SyrPs r*k-»\,*« pael passive participle

(*A,) = rdueutV- 9.30(29), 26.5; SyrPs r^o\, dTto npoCTttwto'u = rcao^ta ^» 9.26(25), 16.9; SyrPs rtiao^ta p.io ^» dTCOoKopaKi^ca = rOma*! rtfxx 26.9; SyrPs s^a doe^eia = r^a^oti 5.11(10); SyrPs r£x*ai d(|)iimi = rial aphel 16.14; SyrPs ,0=* d^toTimi = -DM* aphel 9.22(21); SyrPs .uva aphel a<|>pa)v = r 13.1; SyrPs r"-\,» dxpeoco passive = *.t» ethpeel 13.3; SyrPs rtux* rA r^oa> POKTHpla = rtf&aaax 22.4; SyrPs r^i\CU>

pepilXoca medio-passive = jaata ethpaal 9.26(25); SyrPs -«n\, ethpaal poTjBeia = t^cu-t.-L&jn 7.11(10); SyrPs riii.ta^ PODXTJ = rtfkaxtea 1.1; SyrPs rtb^ik = rriu.^ 1.5, 20.12(11); SyrPs «&=***» (1.5 rf^cuw/11^) poOq = r*tn= 8.8(7); SyrPs KTioA* YVO<)>O<; = r^ati. 17.10(9); SyrPs rii^pxx yvcopiCo) = -a-x- aphel 24.4; SyrPs rftui pael SETIOK; = rfAia^Ai 5.3(2), 6.10(9), 16.1, 21.25(24), 27.2, 6; SyrPs rd*a~i 8eiA,id(o = Aixt 13.5,26.1; SyrPs .-i to ethpaal 8eo(iai = .«>T-> ethpaal 27.2; SyrPs rtf^a 5t| = Ai^. 7.10(9), 21.24(23) (= Rahlfs's variant); SyrPs A^co 8iapovXia = rriu_x*fc 5.11(10); SyrPs rfAiaxua. 8ia0Tpcr| = rfsnla 24.10, 14; SyrPs rn.i = j».-u» 2.3; SyrPs nm& pael Siarnpeo) = t^j pael 11.8(7); SyrPs iAu» pael Sid TOWO = rCiaAVa 1.5, 15.9,17.50(49) (and c of SyrPs), 24.8; SyrPs rftun\V» 8ia<|>6opd = r*A~" 9.16(15); SyrPs r*&iai\au&iM 8iKaioq = I^OL..-!! 7.12(11) SyrPs r£ir&i = r^AtcuL..-*! H, r^UL..fiy 2.12; SyrPs r^Aur<&

SoKijid^co = r K .\->i-g9 = ctacn ^A.-viAi*** 13.3; SyrPs aocn ^jAAciAJ

200

The Old Greek Psalter

SoXoto = Aaj ethpeel 14.3; SyrPs AAJ peal 86£a = *u=a* 7.6(5), 16.15, 20.6(5); SyrPs n&ua^Ai 8ovX£i>co = *Aa 2.11, 17.44(43), 21.31(30); SyrPs K&O.T^ *Aa Sweden = ,!»**. 17.39(38), 20.12(11); SyrPs r^» 5uvato5 = nnAd^u 17.18(17), 20(19), 23.8 (2x); SyrPs ro-j-s. peal participial adjective (^JLA.) 8(5pov = r£i±>icu> 14.5; SyrPs nrruxu edv uf| = rA y(* 7.13(12); SyrPs r*W Eyy\)<; = unions 21.12(11); SyrPs.». to eiaaKotxo = ^sox 4.2(1), 12.4(3), 17.42(41); SyrPs to_». eiq ia oTtiaco = nfiduu=A 9.4(3); SyrPs miduaaX eic, IE^OC, = :nU\ 9.7(6); SyrPs te»^ = -to^ 15.11, 17.35; SyrPs rtoxWi^ eKaaro<;= .n\^ 11.3(2); SyrPs .-u. AA EK^iea) = ^=d« 9.13(12), 34(33); SyrPs ^^. pael EKKM.VCD = ^1 aphel 16.11; SyrPs *d^» aphel EKXeiTto) = •toi\9.7(6); SyrPs *\\ ethpaal EKOTtdo) =-aAu 21.10(9); SyrPs V«* = ^>Au 24.15; SyrPs A^ EKTCtpdcKJCfl = Ail.-! 17.5(4); SyrPs >»^t EKtpE<})to = tsoik 22.2; SyrPs rtf=i pael EX£TlHOat»VT| = r^ieu^iutM 23.5; SyrPs rtf&uo.ii (C Of SyrPs rtfA»OCL..-n)

EtodCffl ETti =A^ *=» pael 4.6(5), 5.12(11), 9.11(10), 16.7, 17.3(2), 31(30), 20.8(7), 21.9(8), 24.20; SyrPs^ ta» pael em. EA,nt^(o = t=i» Ju. pael 7.2(1), 21.5(4), 6(5); SyrPs t^w ^ pael EJITTVEVOK; = rricauu 17.16(15); SyrPs r&usg EV£8pa = r^=A>a»i 9.29(28); SyrPs rCin^iA Evipo^ioi; = r«rAiieuxt 17.8(7); SyrPs !j&a» ETCtaTtXacyiox; = r£ar<£ rt's-ir-i 11.7(6); SyrPs •*•*-.»-. .-u, EpEiiyo^ai = A_=U aphel 18.3(2); SyrPs r<m\ ETOV|id^(o = jaei\, pael 22.5, 23.2; SyrPs ^A» aphel Etoi^iacria = r^aa^M 9.38(37); SyrPs r£=L.a\, Et)8oKia = •^'--^ 18.15(14); SyrPs «An«—V^*"

eu9ei<;tfi Kap8i(jt = r^Ar, t^.iAi 7.11(10), 10.2(3); SyrPs rfa\ t^t^ (7.11[10] f<=^= [!])

HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History

201

etietrav; = K&Q^*A» 10.7(8) (and/g of SyrPs), 16.2; SyrPs rek^ib e\)XoY^o? = »<**=»> pael passive participle (oyt=) 17.47(46); SyrPs otn uyta peal participial adjective (uvi±j) e\)<|>paivpoawn = r*&a.tu 4.8(7), 15.11 (and cfg of SyrPs); SyrPs rOuaoa e<|>opd
rf^yu^fg

iaxucfl = A**» ethpaal 12.5(4); SyrPs nA.in r^w ethpeel 'ixvoq = r^icui 17.37(36); SyrPs r^d^cn KaOaipeoo = tn^. 9.7(6); SyrPs -*iu» = -***» 10.3(4), 27.5 (/z of SyrPs3); SyrPs tk» (and; of SyrPsa at 27.5) KOtd + genitive = l=ncA 2.2 (2x); SyrPs AJL KataKvpieuco = r^too I^ aphel 16.5; SyrPs t* pael Kata(|)X,oYiCo> = A»o\ ethpaual 17.9(8); SyrPs jaoxV eshtaphal Katevavn = \-.Q«\ 5.6(5); SyrPs p.ta KCtTEuGtiva) = ipk aphel 5.9(8); SyrPs^ik pael Kevoq = bL.rta*+tt> 7.5(4); SyrPs r<So*Aj»peal passive participle (.nW) Kepajietx; = r^ocm 2.9; SyrPs rt\u* Kivera = A.QI aphel 21.8(7); SyrPs .ieu aphel KXa-u9p.6q = KV^I 6.9(8); SyrPs «&^ (f
202

The Old Greek Psalter

Xecdvco = <*a-t 17.43(42); SyrPs A** Xoyiov = i
u,ctKpdv = rOuiatX 21.2(1); SyrPs rOmata uaicpoeev = «£auai „» 9.22(21); SyrPs rOxuatl uaKpornq = rAatA^ 20.5(4); SyrPs rekas^irt = ri&ta-u^i 22.6; SyrPs r*t\eu udvSpa = nrAu^ciate. 9.30(29); SyrPs rtt-.-i VUEyaljavxew = i*ia^ .at. aphel 9.39(38); SyrPs tcna eshtaphal fieyaAx)p(p)Tina)v = rA» jst. aphel 11.4(3); SyrPs r£iatcit&99 jieXern = K^XQCD 18.15(14); SyrPs n^tm H£vo) = rtfeui pael 9.8(7); SyrPs 5a-jj HETCI tauia = ^q palpal 9.25(24); SyrPs i\j aphel 7tappT|aid£onai = .I±IJL r^aujxuir^a 11.6(5); SyrPs r^acn r^j»r^t&9 (various spellings of r^jwrtfta) noTpid = urtiat* 21.28(27); SyrPs r&«^ TiEiparnpiov = rdtt^ 17.30(29); SyrPs r^icuau &*** itepaq = rtfao« 2.8, 18.5(4), 21.28(27); SyrPs rrt=^ Ttepiexco =o^ 16.9, 21.13(12), 17(16); SyrPs .-u«« = is*, 17.5(4); SyrPs *»*<

HIEBERT Syriac Biblical Textual History

203

rtepmncXooo = i.-u» 21.13(12); SyrPs U\*A ethp. = «*v*a 17.6(5); SyrPs *.-u, TcnyTl = Kixoasj 17.16(15); SyrPs rO.\«ai 7iiKpict = r*4»at»tei 13.3; SyrPs rrfkt»i 7ci^i7cXr||ii passive = i<\» ethpeel 16.14; SyrPs -* •»«" ntantis = rCaa* 17.43(42); SyrPs n*.\,\«> TtA-fiGoq = rfr^fUD 5.8(7), 11(10), 9.25(24); SyrPs rd»or<*v rctapoo) = r*X=o pael 19.5(4), 6(5); SyrPs rA» shaphel notion; = rfxii. 18.2(1); SyrPs rtfb.T*±u. peal feminine passive participle as substantive (.taA.) ac, rtfbct.T*±u. fg noX,vcop8(o = rCaji rC^» aphel 11.9(8); SyrPs r^jxil r^» aphel rcovTipevonat = ^i = KiutrCasa 21.17(16); SyrPs *&*+* = rAeD pael 25.1, 11; SyrPs *** npai5q = *•<*••*•* peal participial adjective (uoa) 24.9 (2x); SyrPs I
pdtp8o(; = r^\,cu. 2.9, 22.4; SyrPs -<\— po(i(()aia = riatj 21.21(20); SyrPs r<2uj» pwum = r^apael 16.13, 17.1(title), 21.5(4), 9(8), 24.20; SyrPs *ta pvorrn; = rd-jjasa 17.3(2); SyrPs i^oota mSiipotx; = r^AttA 2.9; SyrPs r«A»-ta.-i rA.i r^cucu

aKt»^ivo(; = «<.*rfti rc.10^16.12; SyrPs ptf.10^ oieap = r^iMox 16.10; SyrPs *SaiAi aiepecD = i«u 20.3(2); SyrPs i^ OTpepX6q = i
204

The Old Greek Psalter

<j(p£co passive = jots ethpeel 17.4(3), 21.6(5); SyrPs .ateut eshtaphal oconip = rOiatd 26.1; SyrPs r£u>icia TaXaiTtCOpia = K&CL.O.I 13.3; SyrPs rtiaa.t (lOartfi c) TCOTeiv6<; = i.«.•« TcwteivaxiK; = n^o^i 21.22(21), 24.18; SyrPs r
= rtf&fto*^*) pael participial adjective (tn-) 20.4(3); SyrPs ^•UIL. peal participial adjective (tcu) \ntep + accusative = ,» t.Au 17.18(17); SyrPs ^*> = ^» t.Au 18.11(10) 2°; SyrPs ,=» ^ iMtepaonl^co = A.eu» pael 19.2(1); SyrPs *Au» pael imepacniic^oi; = r£^avo<; = fOimajc 17.28(27); SyrPs nAnr**) pael participial adjective (Aox) •UTtoA,a(j.pdv(o = r^aro caamM aphel passive participle (maa>) 16.12; SyrPs -^-« pael imooKeXi^co = .\n% parel 16.13; SyrPs «\ia aphel ityoq = rtf»oi 7.8(7), 17.17(16); SyrPs recite. \)\l/6co active = pa* palpel 9.14(13); SyrPs rtfi»te9te3 \)\|/6to passive = po* ethpalpal 7.7(6), 9.33(32), 12.3(2); SyrPs pen ethpeel <|>apETpa = r«Au 10.2(3); SyrPs r
Xvovq = rrta-i. 1.4; SyrPs r«ftaA. %o\><; = r^ioA. 17.43(42); SyrPs I<WU:T Xpeia = rduuciflj 15.2; SyrPs n.nr> peal participle (jnj») rop-uojKxt = im\21.14(13); SyrPs pou

DAVID THE ADOLESCENT: ON PSALM 151 Natalio Fernandez-Marcos

Among many excellent works published by Albert Pietersma, an outstanding article that he produced in 1980, 'David in the Greek Psalms',1 anticipated his main area of LXX research over the last two decades. I will devote the present contribution on the distinctive portrait of David transmitted in Psalm 151 as an homage to this rigorous scholar and warm friend. As we have joined through the years in the common adventure of biblical research, it has been a privilege to meet him at the regular congresses of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Psalm 151, described in the superscriptio as ISioypa^ot; ei<; AamS KCti e£co0£v TOO) dpi0ux)i)2 ('an autograph of David and outside the number'), was also known in the Old Latin3 as a translation of the Greek Psalter, and in the Syriac in the preserved form dependent on the Septuagint.4 It is attested also in Psalter texts in Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.5 This psalm, along with other apocryphal writings (in Qumran and elsewhere), describes certain aspects of David's adolescence derived from biographical information contained in 1 Samuel 16-17. When I

1. A. Pietersma, 'David in the Greek Psalms', VT 30 (1980), pp. 213-26. 2. A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum graecum. X. Psalmi cum Odis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1967), pp. 339-40. 3. The best edition is in T. Ayuso Marazuela (ed.), La Vetus latina hispana. V. ElSalterio (TECC, 5; Madrid: CSIC, 1962), pp. 1140-41. 4. The best edition is by W. Baars (ed.), Vetus testamentum syriace. IV/VI. Apociyphal Psalms (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972), pp. 2-5. 5. M.S. Smith, 'How to Write a Poem: The Case of Psalm 151A (1 IQPs3 28.312)', in T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995; STDJ, 26; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 182-208 (182).

206

The Old Greek Psalter

expound on the theme of David's adolescence I will refer specifically to Psalm 151 and to other apocryphal literature where applicable. When a Hebrew version of Psalm 151 appeared among the Qumran documents of cave 11, a flood of publications signalled renewed interest in this psalm.6 Apart from Psalm 151, Qumran has attested to quite a number of psalms and songs of David, including four songs 'for making music over the stricken'.7 One thinks immediately of the recently published apocryphal psalms from cave 11—psalms for relieving the demon-possessed.8 In addition, there are the Syriac Pss. 152 and 153, devoted to David's exploits with the lion and bear, the psalm on David's election and anointing in Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities 59, and especially the psalm of exorcism in Biblical Antiquities 60, intended for accompaniment by David when playing music to bring relief to Saul. All of these serve as a testimony to a number of psalms from the Second Temple period that are attributed to David, some of which have been preserved in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature.9 The 6. J.A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (HQPsa) (DID, 4; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), pp. 53-64; F. Garcia Martfnez and D.W. Parry, A Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert ofJudah 1970-95 (STDJ, 19; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1996); P.W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ, 17; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997), and 'The Book of Psalms in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls', VT48 (1998), pp. 453-72. 7. 'And David, the son of Jesse, was wise, and a light like the light of the sun, and literate, and discerning and perfect in all his ways before God and men. And the Lord gave him a discerning and enlightened spirit. And he wrote 3,600 psalms; and songs to sing before the altar... And all the songs that he spoke were 446, and songs for making music over the stricken, 4. And the total was 4,050. All these he spoke through prophecy which was given him from before the Most High' (Sanders, The Psalms Scroll, p. 92). 8. F. Garcia Martinez, E.J.C. Tigchelaar and A.S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11. n. 11Q2-18, 11Q20-31 (incorporating earlier editions by J.P.M. van der Ploeg, with a contribution by E. Herbert; DJD, 23; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 181-205. "The "Four Songs for Making Music over the Stricken" mentioned in David's Compositions most likely denote the collection found in HQPsArA which was used at Qumran' (Flint, "The Book of Psalms in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls', p. 469). 'Je suis de 1'avis que le rouleau llQPsApP d'ecriture herodienne a conserve" les restes de ces 4 cantiques' (E. Puech, lllQPsApa: Un rituel d'exorcismes. Essai de reconstruction', RevQ 55 [1990], pp. 377-408 [400]). 9. H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Commentary (2 vols.; AGJU, 31; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1996), I, p. 82. 'The description of David in this language [that is, pastorem

FERNANDEZ-MARCOS David the Adolescent

207

War Scroll also alludes to David's greatest exploit, his defeat of Goliath: 'Goliath, the Gittite, a mighty man of valor, you delivered into the hand of David, your servant, because he trusted in your great name and not in sword and spear. For the battle is yours.'10 Thus the main features and deeds of David as an adolescent, recorded in 1 Samuel 16-17, are retained and diversely developed in the Qumran documents as well as in the contemporaneous literature at the turn of the era: for instance, David's election and anointing, his playing the harp to relieve Saul when he was troubled by evil spirits, and especially his battle with Goliath, the enemy of the Hebrew people. To this could be added his fighting and defeat of the lion and bear (1 Sam. 17.34-36), recorded in LAB 59.5. This reference also introduces the use of stones to kill the lion as a foreshadowing of his victory over Goliath. These accomplishments are alluded to in the titles of the Syriac Psalms 152 and 153. Two of these exploits—David's fight with the lion and bear, and his exorcism of Saul—are absent from Psalm 151 in the Greek and Hebrew versions. Nevertheless, S. Talmon has defined this psalm as 'a paraphrastic expansion of 1 Sam. 16.7-13 in the style of an autobiographical ode'.11 Due to the references in v. 3 of the Hebrew Qumran version to the mountains, the hills, the trees and the flock,12 which are lacking in Greek, a number of publications have been released which emphasize omnium minimum, LAB 59.2] recalls the emphasis at the beginning of Ps. 151' (Jacobson, A Commentary, II, p. 1167). According to J. Strugnell, this psalm of LAB 59 might be one of the non-canonical Psalms of David that circulated in the late second-temple period ('More Psalms of David', CBQ 27 [1965], pp. 207-16). 10. 1QM 11.1-2 (C.A. Evans, 'David in the Dead Sea Scrolls', in S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans [eds.], The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After [JSPSup, 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], pp. 183-97 [186]). 11. S. Talmon, 'Extra-canonical Hebrew Psalms from Qumran—Psalm 151', in S. Talmon, The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1989), pp. 244-72 (270). 12. The translation of the editor, J.A. Sanders (The Psalms Scroll, p. 89) is: 'The mountains do not witness to him, nor do the hills proclaim; the trees have cherished my words and the flock my works'. But contrast this with the translation of P.M. Cross in 'David, Orpheus, and Psalm 151.3-4', BASOR 231 (1978), pp. 6971 (69): 'O that the mountains would bear Him witness. O that the hills would tell of Him. The trees (recount) His deeds, and the flock, His works!' For a slightly different translation and discussion of these verses, cf. Smith, 'How to Write a Poem', pp. 188-92.

208

The Old Greek Psalter

the Orphic interpretation of this psalm, an issue that I will consider in the following paragraphs. 1. David Orpheus? J.A. Sanders, the editor of the Qumran fragments, was the first to suggest the possibility of an Orphic connection to Psalm 151,13 but then later dismissed it.14 All the same, prominent French scholars, particularly A. Dupont-Sommer and J. Magne, made this interpretation popular among non-specialists in the 1960s and 1970s.15 Magne's conclusion in one of his most representative articles on the subject is a good example of this interpretation: 'The author has attached to David the triple merit, attributed among others to Orpheus by the Greeks, of having charmed nature by his songs, invented instruments of accompaniment, and established the cult of praise.'16 It is true that, from the third or even the second century CE, Jews and Christians appropriated the figure of David/Orpheus and/or Jesus/ Orpheus in order to incorporate the best Greek tradition into their religious histories.17 The Jewish historian Aristobulos (second century BCE) quoted a poem taken from the Orphic lepoi Aoyoi,18 and Artapanus 13. 'A picture of mute animals and trees being charmed by music from the lyre comes to mind and with such a picture the myth of Orpheus' (Sanders, The Psalms Scroll, p. 61). 14. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll, p. 63. 15. For the basic bibliography, see Cross's article quoted in n. 12, and Smith, 'How to Write a Poem'. 16. 'L'auteur a reporte sur David le triple merite attribue entre autres a Orphee par les grecs d'avoir charme la nature par ses chants, d'avoir invente les instruments d'accompagnement, d'avoir instaure le culte de louange.' J. Magne, 'Orphisme, pythagorisme, essenisme dans le texte he'breu du Psaume 151', RevQ 8 (1975), pp. 508-47 (543). 17. S. Morton, 'Psalm 151, David, Jesus, and Orpheus', ZAW 93 (1981), pp. 247-53 (250), and H.G. Kippenberg, 'Pseudikonographie: Orpheus auf jiidischen Bildern', in H.G. Kippenberg (ed.), Genres in Visual Representation, Visible Religion (Annual for Religious Iconography, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1990), pp. 233-49. 18. N. Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos (TU, 86; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964), pp. 202-61, and C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. IV. Orphica (SBLTT, 40; Pseudepigrapha Series, 14; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), p. 63. In general, Holladay follows Waller's conclusions on the four recensions, but he dates the three oldest recensions significantly earlier. He argues that recension A may go back as far as the late third century BCE and he thinks

FERNANDEZ-MARCOS David the Adolescent

209

(c. 100 BCE) identified Moses with Mousaios in order to make Moses Orpheus's master—that is, father and teacher of Orpheus—not his son and pupil as recorded in the Greek tradition. They ultimately tried to derive all the wisdom of the Egyptians and Greeks from Moses as part of a wide program of Hellenistic interpretation of Israel's history.19 It is worth noting, however, that the Orpheus of the literary sources does not coincide with the Orpheus represented in the visual arts. The Jewish Hellenistic historians were interested in Orpheus as mythic forefather of the Greek past, as the founder of an esoteric tradition that represented the true religion of Moses that had been hidden until the Hellenistic period. Orpheus, portrayed as a wise pagan in this literature, was the prototype of the proselyte and defender of monotheism, whereas the Orpheus of the artistic illustrations and iconography was the inventor of music, living in harmony with the animals. Subsequently, this latter image would be reproduced in the representations of David/ Orpheus in Dura-Europos or Jesus/Orpheus in the catacombs. It is also important to remember the chronological and geographical gap between the literary witnesses of Hellenistic Judaism (Egypt of the second century BCE) and the first known examples in the catacombs and synagogues of the Orpheus-like paintings (Palestine/Euphrates region of the third to sixth centuries CE).20 A recent analysis by P. V.M. Flesher of the David image in Dura-Europos, however, demolishes the Orphic interpretation of these paintings. Consequently, the reasoning that saw messianic meaning in Orpheus among the Jews of the Euphrates frontier has been undermined.21 From the textual point of view, two recent contributions by P.M. Cross and M. Haran have also challenged the Orphic interpretation of the Hebrew version of Psalm 151. In a brief but rigorous article, Cross maintains that this interpretation, suggested with caution by Sanders, is based on readings that cannot be substantiated. He maintains that the psalm can be explained and understood fully in the context of the 'quite likely that one of the longer recensions, either Recension B or C, belongs in the time of Aristobulos'. 19. N. Fernandez-Marcos, 'Interpretaciones helenfsticas del pasado de Israel', CFC 8 (1975), pp. 157-86. 20. N. Walter, Pseudo-Orpheus: Gefdlschte Verse auf Namen griechischer Dichter (JSHRZ, IV/3; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1983), pp. 230-32. 21. P.V.M. Flesher and D. Urman (eds.), Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995).

210

The Old Greek Psalter

biblical tradition, making the Orpheus argument superfluous.22 In addition, Haran has recently confirmed that the Qumran verses, where this possible association with Orpheus occurs, belong to a later stage of the psalm. In other words, on the basis of a linguistic analysis it can be determined that the presumed Orphic features of David were inserted in this later layer of the Qumran version of the psalm. Moreover, Haran argues against Sanders (convincingly, in my opinion) that the Hebrew psalm from Qumran is a unity, not two psalms, and that the Septuagint version of the psalm is closer to the original than the Qumran version is.23 Once the first Orphic interpretation of Psalm 151 has been rejected, it is fitting to search for a new Sitz im Leben for this composition on the periphery of the Greek Psalter. In this regard, it is appropriate to extend our horizon to Jewish literature that is contemporary with Psalm 151 and that features similar compositions concerning young David's achievements. I refer to other apocryphal psalms attributed to David as an adolescent inspired by chs. 16-17 of 1 Samuel. First of all, there is the psalm transmitted in LAB 59.4, in which David is associated with two biblical heroes. Abel is openly mentioned and Joseph, though not explicitly named, is alluded to, but without any evidence of Orpheus's features or attributes.24 The description of David with the words pastorem omnium minimum {LAB 59.2) and minimus enim inter fratres meos fui pascens oves (LAB 62.5) recalls the emphasis at the beginning of Psalm 151. The motif of the youngest son who is abandoned by his parents and is the object of his brothers' jealousy (quoniam fratres mei zelaverunt me, et pater meus et mater mea neglexerunt me) is a clear 22. "There is no unbiblical assertion in the psalm that nature "cannot bear witness" to God and His works. The reading "the trees esteemed my words, and the flock my poems," crucial to Dupont-Sommer's interpretation, has disappeared under scrutiny from the psalm without a trace—and with it, alas, Orpheus' (Cross, 'David, Orpheus, and Psalm 151.3-4', p. 71). 23. 'Now all the indications of Late Hebrew and all the expressions suggesting artificial and forced language—all of them appear in those portions of the psalm which are not found in the LXX' (M. Haran, 'The Two Text-Forms of Psalm 151', JJS 39 [1988], pp. 171-82 [176]). Cf. also Smith: 'The Greek and Syriac versions had a shorter Hebrew Vorlage which differed on a number of points from the extant Hebrew version' ('How to Write a Poem', p. 186). 24. Jacobson, A Commentary, I, p. 81, and II, p. 1167. For the Hebrew retroversion of this Psalm, see J. Strugnell, 'More Psalms of David', CBQ 27 (1965), pp. 207-16.

FERNANDEZ-MARCOS David the Adolescent

211

allusion to the Joseph story. It is used by the author of LAB who rewrites this biblical account, employing Ps. 69(68).9 as an autobiographical source concerning David.25 Just after the aforementioned reference, the author of LAB inserts the episode involving David's fight with the lion in which he uses stones. The stones are introduced as a sign that foreshadows his success in the slaying of Goliath. But before describing this greatest of David's deeds, LAB 60 develops and expands upon another significant episode in David's adolescence, his appeasement of Saul's spirit with the music of the kithara. 2. David the Exorcist The psalm from LAB 60 is a strange one, beginning with an evocation of creation and finishing with an exorcism. It now appears, however, that it is not as isolated as one might have thought, but could be associated after the discoveries at Qumran with the psalms that circulated in the Second Temple period. The apocryphal psalms of Qumran offer striking parallels to this exorcism. In the psalm of LAB 60.2-3, to which David is said to have provided accompaniment on the kithara at night, mention is made first of creation (tenebre et silentium erant antequam fieret saeculum). Then comes an allusion to a demon (molesta...secunda creatura) dwelling in Sheol (memorare tartari in quo ambulas). The spell of exorcism follows as the demons are upbraided and told that a descendant of David will dominate them (arguet autem te metra nova unde natus sum, de qua nascetur post tempus de lateribus meis qui vos domabit).26

25. djcr|A,XoTpia)U€VO<; eyevrjGnv TOI<; d8eX<j>oi<; ux>u KOI £evo<; TOI<; wol<; 1% u,Tytp6<; uou. 26. Jacobson, A Commentary, I, p. 82. Jacobson says that this is 'a reference either to Solomon, famous for his power over demons, or to a Messianic figure who is sometimes said to conquer evil spirits' (A Commentary, II, p. 1180). The womb is frequently regarded as a living being in Jewish magic spells (H.D. Betz, 'Jewish Magic in the Greek Magical Papyri (PGM VII.260-71)', in P. Schafer and H.G. Kippenberg [eds.], Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium [Studies in the History of Religions; Numen Book Series, 75; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997], pp. 45-63; G. Veltri, 'Zur Uberlieferung medizinisch-magischer Traditionen: das uf|Tpa-Motiv in den Papyri Magicae und der Kairoer Geniza', Henoch 18 [1996], pp. 157-75).

212

The Old Greek Psalter

In spite of the fragmentary state of preservation of the four apocryphal psalms from Qumran attrituted to David (HQPsApa, cols. 1-5), one can discern that they have some features in common with the above-mentioned psalm. For instance, a situation involving exorcism and demons seems clear from the fragments preserved in cols. 1.3 (iliratf, 'oath') and 1.10 ("TCJn PK, 'the demon'). There is also reference made to the separation of heaven and earth in col. 2.10-11 (...D'DtZJn HN ^'"nn ~1CJ[ ], 'the heavens...[w]ho separated' (more accurately: [w]hich he separated}), the depths in col. 3.1-6, and the great abyss in col. 4.7 (mi Dinn1?, 'to the great abyss'). It is very likely that deepest Sheol, Abaddon and darkness are mentioned in col. 4.8, 10-11. The spell of exorcism, with the reproach 'Who are you?...you are darkness and not light', in col. 5.6-7 ("TIK RVn nDK "]tfin...nnR "Q)27 is also reminiscent of the previously mentioned psalm in LAB 60.3. The concern with angels and demons is characteristic of some pseudepigraphic writings. One example is found in 1 En. 10.13 which describes the punishment of the fallen angels. Likewise, Tdptapoq is commonly used in Jewish Greek texts for Sheol.28 The evocation of the first day of creation with the separation of light and darkness, and of heaven and earth, is frequent in other adjurations and incantations of Greek magical papyri. For example, in the 'Charm of Pibechis' (PGM 4.3008-85), the origins of the world are described in terms reminiscent of the creation account in Genesis 1 or the allusions to it in Job or the Psalter.29 27. Garcia Martinez et aL, Qumran Cave 11. II, pp. 188-200. 'L'interrogation "Qui es-tu?" sera habituelle dans le Test, de Salomon, ou, a chaque reprise, le roi s'informe sur le demon, son nom et son activite, avant de faire intervenir la vertu prophylactique de son sceau' (Puech, 'llQPsAp": un rituel d'exorcismes', pp. 392-93). 28. In 1 Enoch, the Esdras Apocalypse and the Sibylline Oracles (cf. A.-M. Denis, Concordance grecque des Pseudepigraphes d'Ancien Testament [Louvainla-Neuve: Institut orientaliste, 1987]). 29. In lines 3050-85 in particular, reference is made to the main events of creation, the marvelous crossings by the Israelites of the Jordan River and the Red Sea, the destruction of the giants, and the abyss (K. Presisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri [Stuttgart: Teubner, 2nd edn, 1973], pp. 170-73; H.D. Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri inTranslation Including the Demotic Spells [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986], pp. 96-97; J. Schwartz, 'A propos d'interdits concernant le recit de la creation', in Paganisme,juda'isme, christianisme [Melanges offerts a Marcel Simon; Paris: E.de Boccard, 1978], pp. 45-53).

FERNANDEZ-MARCOS David the Adolescent

213

In spite of the fact that, according to Josephus (Ant. 8.45-46), Solomon is the main author of exorcisms and charms in the Jewish tradition, it is evident, based on 1 Sam. 16.14-23, that David was the first to charm evil spirits by playing the kithara. The attribution to David of these four psalms of exorcism as well as the psalm of LAB 60.2-3 confirms the tradition that exalts David as an adolescent exercizing his power over demons.30 3. David the Hero Let us turn again to Psalm 151. The title, although secondary, at least with respect to its second part (che e|iovoudxr|aev too roA,iex8),31 intends, like other titles of the Greek Psalter, to supply some information regarding the circumstances of its composition by David.32 In the postbiblical period, a number of sagas and legends concerning David's election and his first achievements, when 'the spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward', 33 expanded upon the information contained in 1 Samuel 16-17. Psalm 151 is a midrashic paraphrasis that emphasizes: (a) the contrast between him—a shepherd and the youngest of the sons—and his brothers (uiicpoi; TJUTJV ev TOiq d5eA,(|)oi<; \LOV KCXI vec6T£po<;...£7roiuxxivov xd rcpopaxa [v. 1]); (b) his ability as musician (v. 2); (c) his election and anointing (aircog e£a7i£r|A,Xato 7ive%ia Kupioi) ETti Aaw8 arco ir\c, -(\\iepac, eKeivt|<; KOI erceiceiva (N. Fernandez-Marcos and J.R. Busto Saiz [eds.], El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega. I. 1-2 Samuel (TECC, 50; Madrid: CSIC, 1989), p. 47.

214

The Old Greek Psalter

involving an angel who helps David to slay Goliath: dimitte nuntium tuum qui praecedat lapidem fundibuli huius.34 Likewise, in LAB 61.5, God sends the angel Zervihel to reinforce David. When Goliath is defeated, the Philistine realizes who his real antagonist is, exclaiming, 'You did not kill me alone' (et respiciens Allophilus vidit angelum et dixit: Non solus occidisti me).35 In the sequence of young David's deeds according to Psalm 151, two important motifs are lacking: his fighting with the lion and the bear (1 Sam. 17.34-36) and his appeasement of Saul's evil spirit (1 Sam. 16.14-23). However, both of them are well represented in the abovementioned sources—especially the first one—in LAB 59.5 and in the titles of the Syriac Pss. 152 and 153. The psalm of LAB 60.2-3 and the four psalms of exorcism from Qumran all attest to David's power over demons and spirits. We have still another account of David's youth that celebrates his domination of beasts and his victory over Goliath. It is transmitted by the author of Sirach in his praise of Israel's ancestors, the catalogue of Israel's heroes of the past (Sir. 44-50): ev A^ovoiv erccti^ev cb<; ev epi(|>oi<;, KOI ev dpicoiq ax; ev dpvaaw jcpopdteov. ev veoTnti amoii ovxl drceKieivev yiyavta KOI e^rjpev 6vei8iaji6v eic Xaoi)...; ('He played with lions as though they were young goats, and with bears as though they were lambs of the flock. In his youth did he not kill a giant, and take away the people's disgrace...?').36 The emphasis on his youth (italics are mine) as well as on his playing with lions and bears recalls the description of the eschatological paradise in the messianic oracle of Isa. 11.6: 'The calf and the bull and the lion will pasture together, and a little child shall lead them'.37

34. C. Morano Rodriguez, Glosas marginales de Vetus Latina en las Biblias Vulgatas espanolas: 1-2 Samuel (TECC, 48; Madrid: CSIC, 1989), p. 23; N. Fernandez-Marcos, Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings (VTSup, 54; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1994), pp. 49-50. 35. LAB 62.8. For a parallel in Homer's account of the slaying of Patroclus by Hector, see Iliad 16.844-850; cf. Jacobson, A Commentary, H, p. 1186. 36. Sir. 47.3-4 (NRSV). 37. iced u.ooxiis (J. Ziegler [ed.], Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum. XIV. Isaias [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1967], p. 166).

FERNANDEZ-MARCOS David the Adolescent

215

4. David the Adolescent As we can see, these midrashic developments with respect to the biblical text emphasize three main features of the young David that make him an ideal figure for the time of this poem's writing: (a) his power over animals (lion and bear); (b) his domination of demons and spirits; and especially (c) his victory over Goliath, prototype of the arch-enemy of the people of Israel and a type of Satan in the Christian tradition since Hippolytus.38 In other words, this description of the young David focuses on the messianic expectations of those times, inasmuch as it portrays a messianic figure who is able to restore the primaeval conditions of the lost paradise, as suggested at the end of the psalm in LAB 60.3: 'Because from him will arise one who will dominate you' (de qua nascetur post tempus de lateribus meis qui vos domabif). The beliefs about the Davidic messiah, the anointed of Israel, are well attested in the Judaism of the first century BCE.39 Was he not called 'a shoot from the stump of Jesse?' We are witnesses to a reinterpretation of the past for the situation at the time of writing, in the same way that most of the Hellenistic writers, and especially the Jewish Hellenistic historians, reinterpreted the principal issues of the Greek tradition and Israel's past in the light of their circumstances. They understood the power of a vital past for the present age.40 The same occurred in artistic representations. As E. Zenger observes, 'a subtle fusion of biblical and contemporary levels, that is, of past and present, occurs in the pictures'.41 Relevant heroes of the past become mirrors for the changing ideals of later generations. 38. G. Garitte (ed.), Traites d'Hippolyte sur David et Goliath, sur le Cantique des cantiques et sur VAntechrist: Version georgienne (CSCO, 263-64; Scriptores Iberici, 15-16; Leuven: Peelers, 1965). 39. A. Hultgard, 'The Ideal "Levite", the Davidic Messiah and the Saviour Priest in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs', in G.W.E. Nickeisburg and J.J. Collins (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism (SBLSCS, 12; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 93-110. 40. D.R. Edwards, Religion and Power. Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greek East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 35; Fernandez-Marcos, 'Interpretaciones helenisticas', pp. 157-86. 41. For the history of the reception of this motif in the arts, cf. E. Zenger, 'David as Musician and Poet: Plotted and Painted', in J.C. Exum and S.D. Moore (eds.), Biblical StudieslCultural Studies: The Third Sheffield Colloquium (JSOTSup, 266; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 263-98 (298).

216

The Old Greek Psalter

Psalm 151, in paraphrasing aspects of 1 Samuel 16-17, has the same purpose as other pieces of rewritten Bible. It is a genre quite abundant in Qumran texts and in the intertestamental literature, particularly in the LAB or in Ben Sira's hymn in honour of the ancestors. There is no need to invoke an Orphic allusion. Instead the psalm can be explained perfectly within a reshaped biblical tradition as a means of providing hope to the Jews involved in different wars with their neighbours. The psalm is a poetical account of the young David which stresses his election/ anointing by Yhwh (in spite of his being the smallest of his brothers), his ability as a musician, and his glorious victory over Goliath, the enemy of Israel. The poem also introduces the motif of the angel (v. 4) who accompanies David in his battle with the giant, a motif attested by the Old Latin version of 1 Sam. 17.49 and by LAB 61.8. This motif emphasizes the fact that victory over enemies, as stated in the War Scroll, belongs to Yhwh: 'For the battle is yours' (1QM 11.2). The book of Psalms was probably translated into Greek in the second century BCE. The Qumran Psalms Scroll, with its expanded Hebrew version of Psalm 151, dates from the middle of the first century BCE.42 The shorter Septuagint version of Psalm 151 was probably written before the Qumran version, but it cannot have antedated the Greek Psalter. The time of the Hasmonaean rule (142-63 BCE) would be a fitting temporal context for the Greek version of the psalm, with its new emphasis on the description of the adolescent David, a national hero elected by Yhwh and the victor over Goliath. There are other traces of a lively interest in the books of Samuel in the Hellenistic era, specifically, during the Maccabaean period, in the story of David's victory over Goliath.43 But the patriotic reaction continued under Hasmonaean rule, and the aim was to restore David's kingdom to its full extent. David's duel with Goliath provided the ideal background for the colourful messianic expectation which adapted itself to different historical and social circumstances. To a certain extent, the Maccabaean revolt reproduced these heroic deeds of the past, giving rise to 'an unlikely story of a small band of brothers who turn aside the might of the Seleucid army and restore sovereignty to the land of Israel'.44 It is clearly evident in 42. Cf. Haran, 'The Two Text-Forms', p. 178. 43. Cf. A. van der Kooij, 'The Story of David and Goliath. The Early History of its Text', ETL 68 (1992), pp. 118-31 (130). 44. J.G. Gager, 'Messiahs and their Followers', in P. Schafer and M.R. Cohen (eds.), Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco

FERNANDEZ-MARCOS David the Adolescent

217

the Qumran texts, in the New Testament, and in Josephus's accounts of prophetic figures that God and his angels were expected to intervene at the proper time to defeat Israel's enemies.

(Studies in the History of Religions; Numen Book Series, 77; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), pp. 37-46 (45).

INTERTEXTUAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE SEPTUAGINT OF PSALMS AND PROVERBS Johann Cook

1. Introduction Albert Pietersma has done ground-breaking research on a variety of subjects in the Septuagint field, though his work on the Psalms is certainly the most comprehensive.1 His recent paper at a Septuagint symposium in Gottingen (July 1997) serves as a model of the way this complicated corpus should be approached. In this contribution I intend to honour the work of this productive and generous scholar from whom I have learned, and continue to learn, so much.2 It is widely recognized that the books of Psalms and Isaiah were among the most utilized texts within the ancient socio-religious culture in which they were produced. The Psalter also played a prominent role in the textual history of the Bible. One indication of this is its influence on the Septuagint translator of Proverbs. The relationship between Psalms and Proverbs in this version can be determined on more than one level. For example, there is evidence in Proverbs of both direct quotations from, and allusions to, the Psalms. In addition, these books correspond to some extent on a lexical level, an issue that I will address first in the paragraphs that follow. 2. Correspondence on a Lexical Level The wisdom corpus, broadly construed, shares many lexical items, a good number of which are found only in these books. One needs only to 1. His article, 'Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues', VT 35 (1985), pp. 296-311, endures as a seminal contribution of great influence. 2. This applies especially to his critical remarks on my forthcoming translation of the Septuagint of Proverbs for the New English Translation of the Septuagint.

COOK Intertextual Relationships

219

peruse the concordance of Hatch and Redpath3 to observe this. Some lexemes appear solely either in the Psalms or in Proverbs. Others are used primarily in these collections, suggesting that there is a relationship of sorts between them. It is, however, difficult to determine the exact extent of this relationship. Some examples are simply inconclusive. The adverb en^avwq, for example, is used only in three passages in the Septuagint—Ps. 49(50).2, Prov. 9.14 and Zeph. 1.9—where the intended denotation is 'openly'. For other lexemes, the connection is easier to make, wfev^c,, for example, appears only in Prov. 2.18, 9.18, Ps. 48(49).3, Wis. 7.1 and Jer. 39(32).20. In both the passages in Proverbs the context is Hades. Hades is mentioned three times in the Psalm as well. The same does not apply to the passages in Wisdom and Jeremiah. That there is some sort of a relationship between the passages in Proverbs and Psalms in this regard seems evident, but exactly how it should be formulated, however, is not that clear. The difficulty in determining a connection between these corpora on a lexical level is demonstrated by the use of the word uotxoq in Ps. 49(50). 18 and Prov. 6.32. Both are based upon the Hebrew word *]«3, which in turn appears only in one other verse in Proverbs, namely 30.20, where it is rendered by means of a related word, |Aoi%aA,i<;. 8aveiOTn<; occurs in Ps. 108(109).! 1, Prov. 29.13, Sir. 29.28 and 4 Kgs 4.1. In the Psalm it is the counterpart to HCJ13, whereas in the passage in Proverbs it acts as the equivalent for D^DDD CTN. The rendering in Proverbs constitutes a somewhat free interpretation of the Hebrew since, on a semantic level, there is a difference between an oppressor (Hebrew) and a creditor (Greek). Psalm 108(109). 11 reads as follows in the Greek: 'Let the creditor search out all his belongings, let strangers spoil all his labours'. The choice of 8aveicrni<; by this translator to render nttfl] is a logical one since both words convey the idea of giving credit or lending. The Psalms translator is in this case more literal than the translator of Proverbs. That is not surprising since the approaches to translation exhibited in these two are dramatically different. Whereas the translator of Proverbs renders the parent text rather freely, the opposite is true of the translator of Psalms. Whether the preceding passage in Psalms actually had a direct influence upon the translator of Proverbs is unfortunately not immediately evident. 3. E. Hatch and H.A. Redpath et al., A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2nd edn, 1998).

220

The Old Greek Psalter

The word Epyaoia appears 45 times in the Septuagint, but only once in Proverbs and twice in the Psalms. In Proverbs it is part of a significant addition with respect to the bee in conjunction with the ant in ch. 6. It has been shown that this plus was taken from the Historia Animalium of Aristotle.4 In the first passage in Psalms, 103(104).23, the counterpart to Epyaoict is iTTQJ?, while in the second, 106(107).23, it is rOKL?Q. Unfortunately it is difficult to establish a definite lexical relationship here apart from the fact that the Greek noun occurs in both books. The word KTipiov (honeycomb) appears in six books of the Septuagint, including three occurrences each in the Psalter and in Proverbs. Psalm 18(19).11 and Prov. 16.24 exhibit possible correspondences. The latter is part of a context in which wisdom is mentioned a number of times but with the emphasis on righteousness. In this regard, v. 8 in the Septuagint talks about finding wisdom with righteousness. In Psalm 18(19) the subject is the law of the Lord (v. 8[7]), his ordinances (v. 9 [8]), and the fear and judgments of the Lord (v. 10[9]). They are to be desired, says the psalmist, more than gold, honey and the honeycomb (v. 11 [10]). The possibility that this passage was taken into account by the Proverbs translator seems more probable when the close correspondence between wisdom and Torah in Proverbs is kept in mind. I will return to this issue below. With regard to jLieiyvuui, the two passages in Ps. 105(106).35 and Prov. 14.16 seem the closest. The latter contrasts the wise who turn away from evil and fools who trust in themselves and associate with the transgressor. The Psalm states that the Israelites mingled with the heathen and learned their works. However, it is again difficult to determine indisputable influence. A much stronger case can be made with respect to the word Kixpdco which is used in 1 Kgs 1.28, Ps. 111(112).5 and Prov. 13.11. In the psalm it reads as follows:

:CDS50Q2 T-m tt^ nfpQi |iin BftraitD XpTiatoq avf\p 6 oiKTipoov KOI Kixprav, oiKovop,f|oei to\)<; Tubyovc, awou ev Kpiaev

4. G. Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint, III. Proverbs (Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, N.F. Avd. 1, 52/3; Lund: Lund University Press, 1956), p. 31; see also J. Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs—Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs (VTSup, 69; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), p. 166.

COOK Intertextual Relationships

221

The good man is one who deals generously and lends, he will conduct his affairs with justice.

Prov. 13.11 reads: :ngT "T^s ppi oyip1 "TOS jirr Wealth hastily gotten will dwindle, but those who gather little by little will increase it. (NRSV) ikap^iq ejua7iov8a£o|ievr| uetd dvoulaq eXdaatov yivexai, 6 5e cruvdyoov eavcw |iei' E\)ae|3eia<; 7tXT|6w9r|CTeTav 8tKaioq oiKtipei KOI Kixpa\ Wealth gotten hastily with iniquity5 is diminished; but one who gathers for oneself with piety will be increased. The righteous one is merciful, and lends.

The passage in Proverbs includes the word under discussion in a plus which is an expansion of the second strophe. The fact that this verb is actually part of the plus, which corresponds largely to the passage in Psalm 111(112), underscores the possibility that the translator of Proverbs indeed took the Psalm into account at this juncture. However, typical of the translator of Proverbs is the additional religious colouring.6 u£ia dvoulai; and JIET' evcrepeiaq, as well as the final strophe, have no equivalents in the parent text. However, these additions can be related to the whole passage in Psalms, for there the man (dvf|p) 'lends' and conducts his affairs 'with justice'. This is an example of the distinctive approach of this translator. He apparently took his cue from the Psalm but interpreted it in a unique way. 3. Allusions to the Psalms There are many examples of allusions to theologoumena in the Psalter and in Proverbs. A prominent one has to do with the law of Moses, specifically the love for this law. This is a recurring theme in the Psalms, for example in Ps. 118(119).33-48, especially v. 47. Other examples include Prov. 6.23 and Ps. 118(119). 105 where the law (the commandment of the law, evtoXfi v6ux>v [Prov. 6.23]) is called a lamp and a light. In view of the previous discussion, it is possible to suggest that 5. Underlining indicates a plus whereas the use of italics indicates interpretation. 6. J. Cook, 'Apocalyptic Terminology in the Septuagint of Proverbs', Festschrift Hannes Olivier, JNSL 25/1 (1999), pp. 251-61.

222

The Old Greek Psalter

the translator of Proverbs was actually aware of this phenomenon. I recently demonstrated that the law of Moses plays a much more prominent role in the Septuagint of Proverbs than was previously recognized.7 In addition to the fact that a number of Greek words with this connotation are used in Proverbs—notably vouxx;, 6eauo<; and Xoyot;— a number of passages testify to this inference. The pregnant phrase, TO...YVc5vai vouxw 8iavoiac; eaiiv ayaGfjq to know the law is the sign of a sound mind, for example, is used in two different contexts (Prov. 9.10a and 13.15) in order to emphasize the function of the law. Another convincing example appears in Prov. 28.4 where the law is called a wall around the righteous.

:on nar rnin n$tfi ren Vp'prp rnin 'nto Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law struggle against them. (NRSV) oikox; oi eYKataXeiTtovTE^ TOY vou,ov eyKooiiidCovaiv aae|3eiav, ol 8e arfcm&vtec, TOY vouov TUEpipdXAmxnv eamoi<; TEIXO^. Likewise those who forsake the law praise impiety; however, those who love the law build a wall around themselves.

This interpretation is part of a chapter in which the word vouxx; is used by far the greatest number of times in the Septuagint of Proverbs. It shows some correspondence with an ancient rabbinic interpretation which occurs, inter alia, in the Babylonian Talmud, Ab. I, 1, and in the Mishna: 'Be patient in (the administration of) justice, rear many disciples and make a fence around the Torah' (my italics). The major difference between these traditions is that in the Septuagint of Proverbs the fence is built around the righteous whereas in the other instance it shields the Torah. There is some correspondence between this passage in Proverbs and the Letter ofAristeas (paragraph 139): When therefore our lawgiver, equipped by God for insight into all things, had surveyed each particular, he fenced us about with impregnable palisades and with walls of iron* (7C£pi£<|>pal;ev fpaq ctfiaKonou; X<*Pa£l KOI ai8iipoT<; Teixeaiv).

I have worked out the implications of these statements elsewhere.9 7. J. Cook, 'The Law of Moses in Septuagint Proverbs', VT 49/4 (1999), pp. 448-61. 8. M. Hadas (ed. and trans.), Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter ofAristeas) (Jewish Apocryphal Literature; New York: Ktav, 1973), p. 157. The italics are mine. 9. Cook, "The Law of Moses', pp. 448-61.

COOK Intertextual Relationships

223

However, the point to make is that the Torah, the law of Moses, plays a more prominent role in the Septuagint of Proverbs than some scholars have been willing to accept in the past.10 Scholars differ on the possibility of there being theologoumena in the Septuagint Psalms. In a paper read at the recent Septuagint congress held in Helsinki, F. Austermann11 issued a warning with regard to finding theological perspectives too readily in the Septuagint, and urged caution in the application of the term dvojiia in the Psalter. To him the acceptable methodological approach is first of all to exhaust all linguistic explanations before proposing a 'theological' perspective. J. Schaper12 is more bold in his approach and talks about the Septuagint Psalter as a Jewish eschatological document. His interpretation of Ps. 59(60).9 is significant in this regard. The Hebrew phrase, 'ppnp IITliV, 'Judah is my scepter', is rendered interpretatively by the Greek translator as Io\)8a<; paaiA£\><; JJ.OD, 'Judah is my king'. There is a definite relationship between this passage and Ps. 107(108).9 where there is a nearly word-for-word repetition of the verse in the former psalm. Genesis 49.10, which contains one of the classic messianic passages, is undoubtedly part of the background to these Psalter passages.13 r^n po ppnoi n-prrp coric? ixrvh icnyp nnj?: fti (rfatf) rfW to^? 12 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. 10. Cf. Gerleman, Studies, p. 53; M.B. Dick, 'The Ethics of the Old Greek Book of Proverbs', in D.T. Runia (ed.), The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, II (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 20-50 (21). 11. 'ctvouia im Septuaginta-Psalter. Ein Beitrag zum Verhaltnis von Ubersetzungsweise und Theologie'. 12. J. Schaper, 'Der Septuaginta-Psalter als Dokument jiidischer Eschatologie', in M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer (eds.), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994), pp. 38-61. See the review of his published doctoral dissertation (Eschatology in the Greek Psalter [Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995) by A. Pietersma in BO 54 (1997), pp. 185-90. Cf. also C. Boyd-Taylor, 'A Place in the Sun: The Interpretative Significance of LXX-Psalm 18:5c', BIOSCS 31 (1998), pp. 71-105 (71). 13. J. Cook, 'The Composition of the Peshitta Version of the Old Testament (Pentateuch)', in P.B. Dirksen and M.J. Mulder (eds.), The Peshitta: Its Early Text and History—Papers Read at the Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden, 30-31 August 1985 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988), pp. 147-68 (163).

224

The Old Greek Psalter OTJK eKXeiyei dpxtov E£ Iov8a Kai fiyo'6u,£vo<; EK trov uripcav ainov, eox; av eX0^ td cwtoKeiiieva amm, Kai aiiibc, 7cpoa6oKia e9vd>v. A ruler shall not fail from Juda, nor a leader from his loins, until there come the things stored up for him; and he is the expectation of nations.

The clause Kai amoc, 7cpoa8oKia eGvcov is, in my opinion, significant for this discussion.14 Schaper15 could very well be correct in surmising that the Greek Psalter is dependent upon the Pentateuch in this instance and that the references to Judah as king indeed constitute messianic interpretations. However, it seems to me that both he and G. Vermes underestimate some semantic connotations of the Hebrew verb ppn (to inscribe) which lie at the root of these interpretations. This root is used extensively in the Pentateuch to describe the Torah. As a matter of fact, two of the prominent words that refer to the law of Moses, or to certain precepts of the Torah, are related nouns, pn and nj?n. This is the case in Exod. 12.14, 17 and 43. Deuteronomy 4.44 and 45 are also important in this regard, inasmuch as the law (rnirn) is mentioned in v. 44 and its individual precepts (D^prin) in v. 45. In Proverbs the ppn root is used a number of times. Proverbs 8.15 is one passage in which rulers who make just decrees are referred to. However, Prov. 31.5 is the most instructive in this regard. rginga-1^ pi nacn pj?ra rraefa nr«£"ja ...lest they drink and forget what has been decreed, and pervert the rights of all the afflicted. iva u/n movies £JtiA,d6cflVTai Tr\c, aofyiac, Kai 6p9d Kpivai o\> HTJ 8tiv
The pual of ppn (pj?nQ) appears only in this passage in the Hebrew Bible. C.H. Toy and W. McKane16 are of the opinion that, in this 14. Strangely enough, neither G. Vermes (Scripture and Tradition in Judaism [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973], p. 50) nor Schaper refers to this phrase. 15. Schaper, 'Der Septuaginta-Psalter', p. 51. 16. C.H. Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1904), p. 540; W. McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1970), p. 410.

COOK Intertextual Relationships

225

context, the verb has to do with the civil law, emphasizing the 'legal responsibility of the king'. 17 The Greek translator interprets rather freely in the opening verses of ch. 31. First, the reference to King Lemuel is simply removed in vv. 1 and 4. The theologically conservative Jewish translator has done this because Proverbs 1 states that King Solomon is responsible for the Proverbs. There is also no reference to Agur in ch. 30! Secondly, ao(|>ia is used as an equivalent of pj?np. The previous verses, especially in the Septuagint, emphasize the fact that responsible kings should do all things with 'counsel'. The book of Proverbs makes it clear that a ruler should govern wisely, and it is possible that the translator of 31.5 has actually interpreted wisdom in this broader sense. However, at least in the mind of the translator, the Hebrew term refers to the Torah. This is borne out by the translation of v. 8:

Fji^rj '{CjrtD TT1^ D1?**1? TS'nre Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all who are left desolate. avoiye aov atoua X6yo> Qeov KOI Kpive JMXVTCK; vyiroc;' Open your mouth with the word of God and judge aU. fairly.

Although D'jpK in its unvocalized form could have been interpreted as a reference to deity, the whole phrase in Greek seems to refer to the Torah. I would therefore argue that here is evidence of the identification of law with wisdom in the Septuagint of Proverbs. Vermes18 thus seems to me to be correct in his suggeston that the substantive ppPJQ was associated with the notion of royal power in the Septuagint. However, the pual form, which he does not discuss, is understood by the translator to contain wisdom connotations and to allude to the law of Moses. It would seem that the Septuagint of Proverbs is in line with Palestinian exegetical traditions which relate this root to the teaching of the Torah.19 Again, it is difficult to pinpoint a definite development from the Greek Psalms to Proverbs. Nevertheless, what is clear is that the Mosaic law plays a prominent role in the latter. However, it is possible that the 17. McKane, Proverbs, p. 410. 18. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, p. 51. 19. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, p. 52.

226

The Old Greek Psalter

translator of Proverbs was actually influenced in this regard by the Psalter where the law is central. The final category of proposed connections I will now discuss seems to me to provide evidence for that possibility. 4. Quotations from the Septuagint of Psalms Direct quotations from the Psalms are encountered in various texts of Proverbs. There are intertextual connections between Prov. 13.11 and Ps. 111(112).5. This applies to Prov. 31.20 and Ps. 127(128).2 as well. However, perhaps the most familiar passage in the Septuagint of Proverbs that I could identify in this regard is the programmatic statement in 1.7 which, in turn, is part of the introduction to this collection of wisdom sayings.20 nin rrtptn rnrr ni*-p nra utyTk TOTDi'rnppn The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. (NRSV) 'Ap%fi aotyiac, <|>6|3oq Qeov, CFUVEOK; 8e dycc(Wi naoi TOIX; noiownv atnfiv evaepeia 8e eiq Geov dpxn aiaOrjoEax;, ao<|>iav 8e iced nai5eiav dae|3e:i<; e^o-uBevnoovaiv. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God, and understanding is beautiful for those who practice it. Now piety toward God is the beginning of insight, but the impious despise wisdom and instruction.

The two stichs that have been added in comparison to the MT constitute the first major plus in the Septuagint version of Proverbs. There are, moreover, conspicuous correspondences and differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts. First, the Hebrew order of v. 7a is inverted in the first stich of the Greek which, interestingly enough, corresponds to the order of the Peshitta. Secondly, the second Greek stich has no equivalent in the MT or in any of the other versions. Thirdly, the final stich in the Greek seems to be a relatively literal rendering of the second stich in the Hebrew, while the third stich in the Greek parallels v. 7a in the Hebrew. Finally, stichs 'a' and 'b' in the Greek correspond to a large extent to the Septuagint of Ps. 110.10:

20. Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs, pp. 57-62.

COOK Intertextual Relationships

227

dpXTj ao<|)iaq <|>6po<; Kupiou, cruveon; dya&fi rcaai TOI£ Ttoioiiaiv awnv. TI aiveaiq awou ^evei eiq TOY ai<SvaTO-Uaicovoq.

The Hebrew counterpart of this verse, Ps. 111.10, reads: mrr n«T noDn rrtito DiTtoir1?:)1? nlo ^pto nifr rn#i> in'pnn In the first two stichs, there are only two differences between these passages in the Septuagint of Psalm 110 and Proverbs 1, the first of which concerns the name of God. In Prov. 1.7, the Old Greek reads Oeoi),21 whereas in Ps. 110(111). 10 it is Kupiou. The second difference involves the presence of a particle, 8e, in the second stich in Prov. 1.7, a particle that is not there in the corresponding stich in the Psalter passage.22 It is therefore possible that the translator of Proverbs actually consulted, or indeed utilized, Ps. 110(111). 10 when translating these opening verses of ch. 1. This helps to account for the second stich in Prov. 1.7 which has no equivalent in the MT of the same verse. Even though it is rather difficult to determine which of these stichs in the Septuagint is original, I have argued elsewhere that all four actually come from the hand of the translator.23 It remains problematic in a translation unit as freely rendered as is Proverbs to distinguish between the work of the translator and that of possible later hands. One way of dealing with this issue is to make a study of the lexemes in the pluses. However, they tend to be used relatively regularly in the Septuagint of Proverbs. Yet at times, lexemes in the pluses appear only rarely, if at all, elsewhere in the book. One such case involves e^ovGeveo) which occurs in Proverbs only in 1.7.24 At any rate, it remains rather difficult to reach a conclusion with 21. This is attested in the witnesses 23 S B and Clem. Epit. 97 (R. Holmes and J. Parsons [ed.], Vetus Testamentum graecum cum variis lectionibus [5 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1798-1827]). 22. The abundant use of particles is a typical stylistic characteristic of the translator of Proverbs. A conspicuous example of this phenomenon is the particle xe, which is used only in the first part of ch. 1 (vv. 2, 3 [twice], 4, 6 [twice]), and then three times in ch. 6 (vv. 8, 8a and 33), and once each in chs. 7 (v. 21), 8 (v. 13), 15 (v. 3) and 23 (v. 20). 23. Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs, p. 62. 24. Singularities of this sort are not uncommon in the Septuagint of Proverbs (Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs, pp. 335-42).

228

The Old Greek Psalter

respect to the origin of the pluses in Prov. 1.7. The presence of hexaplaric insertions in the Septuagint of Proverbs still needs to be studied exhaustively. 25 Syh attests to stichs 'a' and 'b' being part of the Old Greek. It could be, therefore, that stich 'c' is hexaplaric. It is a reasonably close parallel to the Hebrew of v. 7a, as is stich 'd' of the Greek to Hebrew v. 7b. However, because stich 'c' is not that literal a translation of the MT, the possibility of its being hexaplaric is not great.26 The solution to this problem is, in my opinion, to be found in a more comprehensive interpretation of the first seven verses, for they function as an introduction to the book as a whole. These verses give an indication of what a wise person needs in order to be wise, or to become even wiser (v. 5), that is, the raxpoiulai EaXGOu^vToq. However, the most basic aspect of this wisdom—the beginning thereof—is the <|)6po<; Geou. Consequently, no specific form of wisdom, or some speculative or even esoteric knowledge, is basic to understanding, but a religious idea, the fear of God. Although this is the intention of the Hebrew as well, the translator adds the passage from Ps. 110(111). 10 in order to emphasize this point. 5. Conclusion To me it is evident that the translator of Proverbs had prior knowledge of the Septuagint of Psalms. This is clear, in the first place, from the way Greek words that occur in both books are used. Furthermore, there are pertinent allusions to common theologoumena in both the Greek Psalms and Proverbs. Finally, the fact that Ps. 110(111).10 is used in the paradigmatic statement in Prov. 1.7 is evidence, in my opinion, that the person responsible for the Septuagint of Proverbs actually utilized the Psalms intertextually.

25. Cf. J. Cook, 'The Hexaplaric Text, Double Translations and Other Textual Phenomena in the Septuagint (Proverbs)', JNSL 22/2 (1996), pp. 129-40. 26. P.A. de Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Ubersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1863), p. 6.

THE SEPTUAGINT OF PSALMS AND THE FIRST BOOK OF MACCABEES Arie van der Kooij

1. Introduction It is a great pleasure to contribute to this Festschrift in honour of our highly esteemed colleague, Albert Pietersma. In this essay I would like to discuss two cases in which the Septuagint of Psalms (hereafter LXX Psalms) and the first book of Maccabees show specific links: LXX Ps. 78.2-3 and 1 Mace. 7.17, and LXX Ps. 109.4 and 1 Mace. 14.41. The purpose of this discussion is to see whether these cases shed any light on the question as to which group, or party, in ancient Judaism may have been responsible for the Old Greek version of the book of Psalms. The connections between these two books are all the more interesting because 1 Maccabees dates, roughly speaking, from the same period as LXX Psalms.1 Ancient Judaism in Palestine and Egypt in the Hellenistic era is characterized by different groups or sects.2 Typical of the several 1. 1 Maccabees is usually dated around 100 BCE. It is generally held that this book was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). In view of its propagandistic nature, one can easily imagine that the Greek version was composed around the same time in order to make this important document also available to Greek-speaking Jews in Palestine and in Egypt. LXX Psalms may be dated to the second half of the second century BCE (cf., e.g., J. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter [WUNT, 2/76; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995], p. 45). The quotation from LXX Ps. 78 in 1 Mace. 7 favours a date before 100 BCE. 2. See A.I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (SJSJ, 55; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997); J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998); G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

230

The Old Greek Psalter

groups and sects is the use that is made, for purposes of legitimizing their position, of the 'biblical' books. This phenomenon in ancient Judaism is particularly evident in the period after the 'crisis' in the first half of the second century BCE. According to the literature of the time (Daniel, 1 and 2 Maccabees), the temple state of the Jews and everything that was understood to be basic to that state (city, temple, cult, laws) was seriously threatened. It can easily be imagined that this crisis resulted in a strong emphasis on everything 'ancestral', such as the ancient books—the books of the Jewish tradition—symbolizing the Jewish self-identity.3 This may explain the growing significance and authority of the biblical books as reflected in the way these 'foundational texts'4 are used. A telling example is 4QMMT which, at the same time, makes fully clear that matters of interpretation divided people. 'As Origen noted, "the variety of the interpretations of the writings of Moses and the sayings of the prophets" was one of the major factors that caused Jewish sects to come into existence.'5 As far as the book of Psalms is concerned, it is interesting to note that passages such as 4QMMT C.10 ('those of David') and 2 Mace. 2.13 ('those of David') indicate that this book belonged to the collection of holy books.6 It should be emphasized, however, that the great authority attached to the biblical books in the Hellenistic era did not imply a standardized, or canonical, text form of a biblical book.7 Recently, J. Schaper has suggested that the Old Greek version of the Psalms 'can be called a document of early Pharisaic theology'.8 This idea is based on eschatological and messianic beliefs which are, in his 3. See A. van der Kooij, 'The Canonization of Ancient Books Kept in the Temple of Jerusalem', in A. van der Kooij and K. van der Toorn (eds.), Canonization and Decanonization (Study in the History of Religions, 82; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1998), p. 36. 4. On this expression, see G.G. Stroumsa, 'The Christian Hermeneutical Revolution and its Double Helix', in L.V. Rutgers, P.W. van der Horst, H.W. Havelaar and L. Teugels (eds.), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World (CBET, 22; Leuven: Peelers, 1998), p. 26: 'foundational texts endowed with a particular status, distinguished and higher than other writings, framed in a hermeneutical construct of commentaries and interpretative methods'. 5. Baumgarten, Jewish Sects, pp. 114-15. See Origen, Contra Celsum 3.12. 6. Van der Kooij, Canonization, p. 27. 7. For the Qumran texts of Psalms, see P. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ, 17; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997). 8. Schaper, Eschatology, p. 164.

VANDERKOOU The Septuagint of Psalms

231

view, reflected in LXX Psalms. I share the basic assumption of Schaper that LXX Psalms can be seen as a document that mirrors religious ideas of a particular milieu. However, apart from the fact that we know so little about 'early Pharisaic theology', the complicating factor is, as Schaper is fully aware, that, since LXX Psalms is a rather literal translation, it is difficult to detect clear evidence regarding the time and the milieu of the translators. For example, Schaper holds that LXX Ps. 1.5 provides a significant interpretation of the Hebrew. MT tDattiaa D'azh lop* vb p *»

crpHX mm cnwm

LXX

5id TOWO o\)K dvaoTrioovcai doEfteiq ev Kpioei oi)8e duaptcoXoi ev pouXfj SiKaiwv

His rendering of the Greek text reads thus: Therefore unbelievers will not rise [from death] in judgement nor will sinners [rise] in the counsel of righteous men.

'The usage of ctviarrpi as an intransitive verb referring to the future state of a group of individuals', he argues, 'clearly confers the idea of "rising from the dead", "be resurrected".'9 This interpretation of the Greek text, however, is far from certain. The Greek dviorrpi is a usual equivalent of Hebrew Op, and can easily be understood in this case, as in other places in LXX Psalms, as 'to rise'. Furthermore, the connotation 'from death' is not plausible in view of the clause that follows: 'nor will sinners rise in (according to) the counsel of righteous men'. The idea is that the unbelievers, the sinners, will fall and lose their power if judged by righteous men (compare LXX Amos 5.2: erceoev OVKETI jif| npoaOfj toft dvaCTtfjvai rcapGevoq Toti laparjX,).10 This is expressed in the last words of the psalm: KOI 686<; doeprov duoXelxai, 'the way of the ungodly will perish'. Contextually speaking, then, there is no reason to think here of a rising from death. The underlying idea of this contribution is that LXX Psalms, like other parts of the LXX and like other ancient versions such as Targums and the Vulgate, were produced by learned translators, or 'scribes'.11

9. Schaper, Eschatology, p. 47. See also M. Flashar, 'Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter', ZAW 32 (1912), pp. 81-116 (115). 10. One may compare 1 Mace. 9.73: KO\ fip^aio Io>va6av Kpivew TOV Xaov KOI fi<|)dvioev TOIX; aaefJeiq e£ lapanX. 11. See A. van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah 23 as

232

The Old Greek Psalter

Several sources of the time indicate that scribes and scholars were reading and interpreting the texts of the ancestral books in view of, among other things, societal and religio-political issues of the time. A wellknown example is the laus patrum section in the Wisdom of Ben Sira (chs. 44-50) which is meant to defend, on the basis of ancient traditions, the high priesthood of the Oniad family.12 2. LXX Psalm 78 and 1 Maccabees 7 The first case of a connection between LXX Psalms and 1 Maccabees concerns the quotation of Ps. 78.2-3 in 1 Mace. 7.17. 1 Maccabees 7.525 contains a story about the 'wicked' Alcimus (v. 9: "AA,Kiuov xov daepTJ), who was made high priest of the Jewish nation by Demetrius, the Seleucid king. Together with Bacchides, the governor of Beyond the River (Euphrates), he was sent with orders to take vengeance on Israel (v. 9b). When they arrived in Judaea with a large force, their attempts to make a peaceful agreement with Judas and his brothers failed because the Maccabees regarded the proposed meeting to be a venue for false offers of friendship (vv. 10-11). In v. 12 we are told that 'a company of scribes' (awayoyyfi ypajiumeGov) appeared before Alcimus and Bacchides to ask for a just settlement. Verse 13 then continues, 'And the Hasideans (AaiSaiot) were first among the Israelites and they were seeking peace from them'.13 They did this because they said, 'A priest from the seed of Aaron is come with the forces, and he will not treat us unjustly' (v. 14). However, their trust in Alcimus turned out to be a great mistake. The latter arrested sixty of them and put them to death all on one day (v. 16). This event is related to a biblical quotation (v. 17):

Versionand Vision (VTSup, 71; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), pp. 112-23. On the scribes in general, see now C. Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second Temple Period (JSOTSup, 291; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). 12. For a similar view, see B.L. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira's Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1985), pp. 128-37, and T.R. Lee, Studies in the Form ofSirach 44-50 (SBLDS, 75; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). 13. For this translation, see J. Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism: A Study of I and 2 Maccabees (SBLSCS, 24; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 120.

VANDERKOOIJ The Septuagint of Psalms

233

KOTO TOY A,6yov, 6v eypctti/ev awov EdpKaq oaicov aot) Kai cuuxx atraav e^exeav KUKtap lepowafoiu,, KCU OUK T|V ccuToig 6 GOOTTCOV.

For the reading odpicac;, see the edition of A. Rahlfs.14 W. Kappler, in his Gottingen edition,15 prefers the reading Kpecu;, which is actually a conjecture. In his view, the reading Kpeaq fits with the singular alfia better (p. 39). However, for the same reason one can argue that Kpectc; which, in the textual tradition, is only attested together with adpKaq (cf. the MSS S*V: aapKaq Kpea<;), is the result of a secondary adaptation.16 The quotation in 1 Mace. 7.17 is derived from LXX Ps. 78.2-3, which reads as follows: LXX

(2) e9evTO TCI Ovnoiuma TOOV 8o\)Xcov aou PpODuaTd Totq Tceteivoiq toi) ovpavoi) taq adpKaq TWV oaicov aov Toi<; Oripioi^ tr\q yf\<; (3) e^exeav TO aip,a amcov ebq i)8(op KiJKXep lepouaaXTip. KOI oi)K fjv 6 GdiiTtov

MT (79)

"jHHSJ rta] PIN 13PQ D'QEJH ^^ "PDKQ "j'T'On "12J3 |"1R iriTI1? D'QD DDT 1DD2J D^tZJIT m3'HO "131p ]'"KT

The quotation in 1 Mace. 7.17 begins with v. 2b (TOK; adpKOi; T(5v oaicov aoa)). Syntactically speaking, the phrase 'the bodies (of your saints)' has been taken as the first object of the verb e^e/cav in v. 3, and 'their blood' as the second object. As a result, the phrase tolq 0r|pioiq Tfj<; yfjc; has been omitted, and the word order e^e^eav / TO aijia airaSv has been changed. Further, the comparison 'as water' has been left out (presumably because it does not fit the new text with adpicaq as the first object). Finally, the last clause of the quotation has a plus (cnkoiq). The result of these modifications is a text that may be considered strange because of 'the bodies' as the (first) object of the verb 'to pour 14. Septuaginta: id est, Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, 2 vols. in 1 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979). 15. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum. IX. 1. Maccabaeorum liber I (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1967). 16. On the question of the grammatical subject of eypa\|/ev, see N. Martola, Capture and Liberation: A Study in the Composition of the First Book of Maccabees (Acta Academiae Aboensis, Ser. A, Humaniora 63/1; Abo: Abo Akademi, 1984), pp. 260-61 n. 12.

234

The Old Greek Psalter

out'. However, there is a parallel passage to be found in LXX Zeph. 1.17b: Kai eKxeel TO olua amcov ax; %ouv Kai td<; adpica<; awaW ax; jioXpiTa ('and he shall pour out their blood as dust, and their flesh as dung'). In the MT, the second part of this verse reads O^ID DDn1?. This is the only place where the Hebrew verb ~|D2J is linked with Din1? ('flesh', 'body') as (second) object, in addition toD"T ('blood'), which is the usual object of this verb. The combination of this verb with Hebrew "12D as object, however, is without parallel.17 The passage from LXX Psalm 78 is applied to a specific event as presented in the story of 1 Maccabees 7. It is an example of 'the exegetical procedure of actualization', as D. Dimant aptly states.18 It is to be observed that 'the contemporary is read into the psalm, which is apparently considered as a prophecy' (p. 391). She also remarks, rightly so, that 'in both purpose and method this quotation is strikingly reminiscent of the Qumranic pesharim' (p. 391). As is well known, there is also clear evidence from Qumran that psalms could be read as a prophecy (see, e.g., 4QpPs 37). In this respect it is important to note that, in HQPsa 27.11, David is presented as a prophet who composed the psalms under divine inspiration. The relationship between quotation and event as described in 1 Mace. 7.16 rests primarily on the exegetical equation between 'the saints' (OCTIOI) of the psalm and the group of the Hasideans (AoiSoloi [v. 13]). This explains why the quotation starts with the phrase adpiccu; 6aia>v aou Thus, the author of 1 Maccabees connects the Hasideans with 'the saints' of LXX Ps. 78.2. It raises the intriguing question of whether this link was established for the purpose of this passage only, or whether it might reflect some relationship between the group of the Hasideans and LXX Psalms.19 Before dealing with this question, a few words about the Hasideans are in order.

17. Here the question arises as to whether the quoted passage of Ps. 78 (MT 79) in its abbreviated form was part of the Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees. 18. D. Dimant, 'Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha', in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, II. 1; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum; Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 379-419 (391). 19. In the presupposed Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees, the connection between narrative text and quotation may have been clear because of the same term in Hebrew (but see n. 17). The interesting thing about the Greek text is that it offers, in

VANDERKOOIJ The Septuagint of Psalms

235

As has been made clear by recent research, we do not know much about the group known as the Hasideans.20 There are only three passages in which they are mentioned: 1 Mace. 2.42, 7.13 and 2 Mace. 14.6. From these passages, the picture emerges of a group of leading citizens (Tcpcotoi), who are 'voluntarily devoted to the Law',21 and who actively support Judas the Maccabee in his struggle against the enemy. As far as the evidence of these passages goes, it is not clear whether this group is to be related in one way or another to the Pharisees, as is often assumed.22 1 Maccabees 7.12-13 suggests a close relationship between the scribes (cf. 'the company of scribes' in v. 12) and the Hasideans, but it is uncertain whether they can be equated.23 Some scholars have argued that the presentation of the Hasideans in 1 Maccabees 7 is meant to disqualify this group.24 Apart from the fact that this idea is based partly on the assumption of a relationship between the Hasideans and the Pharisees, this interpretation is not convincing in the light of the context in 1 Maccabees 7. The issue at stake is rather to be linked with the statement made by the Hasideans in v. 14: "AvOpconoc, iepeix; EK TOV cmepjiato^ Aapcov f|A,9ev ev iai<; 8\)vdueai Kai OVK a8iKT|aei TIUXX<;. It is their belief that one can seek peace with Alcimus and Bacchides, because the former is 'a priest from the seed of Aaron'.25 This statement in v. 14 is particularly interesting in the light of the immediate context in which Alcimus is described as someone who wanted to be the high priest of the Jews (v. 5: po\)A,6u€voq iepaietieiv), v. 13, the designation of a particular group (A7io<; iepeiii;, compare LXX Lev. 21.9, and for orcepuxx Aapcov see, e.g., LXX Lev. 22.4 and Ben Sira 45.25 (Greek).

236

The Old Greek Psalter

and upon whom the Seleucid king conferred the high priesthood (v. 9: Kcei eoTTjcyev awep Tf|v iepoxruvTyv). This motif is also found in v. 21 where it is stated that Alcimus put up a strong fight for his high priesthood (KCCI fiycoviaaxo "AAxiuxx; rcepi i\\c, dpxiepooa'uvTic;). Thus, the statement of the Hasideans has to do with the question of the high priesthood of the Jews. This issue is to be related to the major concern of 1 Maccabees, viz. the legitimation of the Hasmonaean high priests as the new leaders of the Jewish nation. It seems that, in view of this concern, the passage in 1 Mace. 7.12-1726 plays a twofold role. First, the statement by the Hasideans, a group described as having great authority (Tiprotoi), is meant to make clear that Alcimus, as a priest from the seed of Aaron, is to be seen as a legitimate priestly leader. This also sheds light on the idea that 'he will not treat us unjustly' (v. 14). One would expect peace of a legitimate priest in the line of Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, because of 'the covenant of peace' that was made with Phinehas.27 Second, the passage is also meant to provide proof of the wickedness of Alcimus (v. 9: "AA,Kiux>v tov a.GE$r\). The negative judgment is strongly emphasized by the authority of Scripture (the only instance in 1 Maccabees!). So, in 1 Maccabees, the priest Alcimus, the only high priest of the pre-Hasmonaean period mentioned in this book, is depicted as a legitimate priestly leader, on the one hand, but also as a leader who turned out to be the wrong one, on the other. This, of course, evokes the question as to who will be the right one. The answer of 1 Maccabees is Jonathan and his successors. We now turn to the question of whether the quotation from LXX Ps. 78 in 1 Maccabees 7 might indicate a relationship between the Hasideans and LXX Psalms. As far as the Hebrew is concerned, it is important to note that the term TOP! appears quite frequently in the book of Psalms; it is used 25 times, whereas elsewhere in the Old Testament it occurs only occasionally.28 In the Hebrew text of the Old Testament 26. On the issue of the historicity of this passage, see Schams, Jewish Scribes, pp. 119-20. 27. See Num. 25.12; Ben Sira 45.24 (see also below). On Phinehas, see also 1 Mace. 2.54. 28. See Deut 33.8; 1 Sam. 2.9; 2 Sam. 22.26 (= Ps. 18.26); Jer. 3.12; Mic. 7.2; Prov. 2.8; and 2 Chron. 6.41 (= Ps. 132.9). As for Qumran, see HQPs 18.10; 19.7; 22.3, 6; and 4Q175 (= Deut. 33.8).

VANDERKOOIJ The Septuagint of Psalms

237

(and in Qumran as well), the term TOFT does not convey the notion of being a member of a particular group or sect. However, in the case of a group that bears the name 'Hasideans', a relation between this group and the book of Psalms suggests itself. As we have seen, in Ps. 79.2 the Hebrew TOPI is rendered as 6oio<; in the Old Greek version. This rendering of TOPI is typical of LXX Psalms. Elsewhere in the Greek Bible, however, this equivalent is used for other Hebrew words: "KZT (Deut. 32.4), D'OP / DD (Prov. 2.21; 10.29; 29.10; Amos 5.10; Sir. 39.24), lino (Prov. 22.11) and trbti (Deut. 29.18). The rendering 6aio<; for Hebrew TOPI outside LXX Psalms is found only in Deut. 33.8 and 2 Sam. 22.26 (= Ps. 18.26).29 In other places, the term TOPI is rendered e\)A,apr|q (Mic. 7.2), evtaxpeoum (Prov. 2.8), eXermcov (Jer. 3.12) or woq (2 Chron. 6.41). These lexical choices may not seem significant, but the agreement between LXX Psalms and LXX Deut. 33.8 regarding the choice of ooioq for Hebrew TOPI is noteworthy.30 The relevant versions of Deut. 33.8 read thus: LXX AOTE Aem 5f|Xovq awov KOI dXf|6eiav cmtoi) TO) dv8pi T(p ocriq)

MT fan "p"TIR1 "[TOPI HTR1?

4QDeuth 'flV? lant31

This passage constitutes the beginning of the saying to Levi in the blessings of Moses. In the LXX, this text is about Levi as the one to whom the office of the high priesthood will be given. The expression 'the holy man' refers here to a priest from the tribe of Levi. It may well be that the choice of oaux; for Hebrew TOPI in LXX Psalms was influenced by this passage. If so, it means that 'the saints' are persons belonging to the circles of the priests and/or Levites. In LXX Psalms itself, this is supported by the parallelism between 'your priests' and 'your saints' in Ps. 131.6, 9. It is further to be noted that a passage in 4Q176 points in the same direction. Fragments 1-2 contain traces of an interpretation of Ps. 79.2-3, according to which the expression 'the bodies of your servants' is explained as 'the bodies of your priests' (1.3). 29. Compare also Isa. 55.3: TO otna (MT HOn). 30. The other instance, LXX 2 Sam. 22.26, is part of the kaige-ttadition and is therefore of a later date than LXX Psalms. 31. See E. Ulrich et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DID, 14; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), p. 68. For this reading, see also 4Q175 14 (J.M. Allegro [ed.], Qumran Cave 4.1. [4Q158-4Q186] [DJD, 5; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968], p. 58).

238

The Old Greek Psalter

Understood this way, it creates another passage with a parallelism between ('servants' interpreted as) 'priests' and 'saints'.32 Admittedly, this does not provide incontrovertible proof of a specific relationship between (the oaioi of) LXX Psalms and the Hasideans (Aai8aioi), as suggested by 1 Mace. 7.13-17. On the other hand, the idea of Hasideans being a group of priests fits with 1 Maccabees 7 quite well. First, the fact that the Hasideans are presented as leading persons in Israel makes perfect sense for a group of priests, and second, their argument used in 1 Mace. 7.14 ('A priest from the seed of Aaron is come...') becomes more understandable. 3. LXX Psalm 109 and 1 Maccabees 14 In 1 Maccabees 14 we read about the formal legitimization of Simon and his family by the people as the ruling high priestly family. In September of the year 140 BCE, it was decided 'in a great assembly of the priests and the people and the rulers of the nation and the elders of the land' (v. 28) that Simon should be 'high priest' and 'leader' of the Jews. Verse 41 says: K<xi on oi Iou8aToi KOI oi iepeiq ei)86icnaav wo elvai airaSv Eiuxova f|yot)|ievov KOI dpxtepea ei£ TOV aiwva eax; toO dvaarnvai npotyf\tr\v TCIOTOV. .. And the Jews and the priests consented that Simon should be their leader and High Priest forever until a true prophet should appear...

Scholars have pointed to the fact that this passage contains an expression (dp%iepea ei<; tov aic5va) that is very similar to LXX Ps. 109.4 (MT 110): (oi) el) iepexx; eiq TOV aic5va (icaid TTJV xd^w MeA,xiae8eK).33 Here we touch upon the well-known issue of the role that Psalm 109(110), together with Genesis 14, seems to have played for the

32. For another, non-Jewish, example of the use of 60105 as designation of a group of priests, see Plutarch, De hide et Osiride ch. 35. 33. See J.J. Petuchowski, The Controversial Figure of Melchisedek', HUCA 28 (1957), pp. 127-36 (131-32); H. Balz, 'Melchisedek ffl. Neues Testament', TRE 22 (1992), pp. 420-23 (422). For a recent discussion of the relationship between 1 Mace. 14.41 and Ps. 110, see H. Donner, 'Der verlaBliche Prophet. Betrachtungen zu I Makk 14,41ff und zu Ps 110', in H. Donner, Aufsdtze zum Alien Testament aus vier Jahrzehnten (BZAW, 224; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1999), pp. 213-23.

VANDERKOOIJ The Septuagint of Psalms

239

legitimation of the Hasmonaean leadership.34 This has particularly to do with the designation 'priest of the most high God' (Gen. 14.18) as a reference to the Hasmonaean rulers (see, e.g., Ass. Mos. 6.1).35 Since, however, this epitheton does not occur in Psalm 109(110), nor in 1 Maccabees 14, we leave aside this element of the Melchizedek tradition as it was used for legitimizing purposes. Rather, we will concentrate on another aspect of this tradition, namely, the combination of priest and king in one person, as it was understood in Jewish circles in the Hellenistic era. This concerns the ideology of the 'priestly monarchy': a high priest who also has royal authority as leader of the Jewish nation. This concept is to be distinguished from the theory of the diarchic constitution: two individuals, priest and king, sharing leadership.36 The ideology of the priestly monarchy is typical of 1 Maccabees 14, because Simon is officially declared to be 'high priest' (dtpxiepevq) and 'leader' (fiyoiJ^evoq, eGvdpxnq) (see vv. 35, 41). It is true that the title 'king' is not (yet) used here nor elsewhere in 1 Maccabees for a Hasmonaean leader, as would be the case at a later date. However, the difference between the terms used (rryoijuevoi;, eOvdpxnc;, fkiaiXeix;) is not a matter of principle. It may be noted in this regard that the term fvyo\)|ievo<; occurs in LXX Samuel and Kings (Kingdoms) for a leader who is (going to be) king (see, e.g., 1 Sam. 15.17; 25.30; 2 Sam. 7.8). With regard to the link between 1 Mace. 14.41 and LXX Ps. 109.4, the question arises as to whether it points to a common ideology—that of the priestly monarchy—in these two books. LXX Psalm 109 may seem to reflect this ideology because of the reference to the Melchizedek tradition (v. 4). It must be asked, however, whether this applies also to the rest of the psalm, in particular to v. 3, which is a crucial and difficult passage of this psalm.

34. See D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle (TSAJ, 38; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994), pp. 52-55. Some scholars believe that Ps. 110 was composed in the Maccabean era (for example, see G. Gerleman, 'Psalm ex', VT 31 [1981], pp. 1-19), but an earlier date seems more plausible (see K. Seybold, Die Psalmen [HAT, 1/15; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996], p. 437). For the possibility that Ps. 110 was part of the Qumran psalter, see Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, pp. 191-92. 35. See Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, p. 55. 36. On the two concepts, see Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, pp. 30-56 ('priestly monarchy') and pp. 57-76 ('doctrine of the diarchy').

240

The Old Greek Psalter LXX Ps. 109.3 netct ao-u fj dpxfj ev fi|iep(jc Tf|<; Swdiietoq aov ev tali; Xau,7tp6tT|(Jiv toov dyioov EK yacrcp6<; rcpo eoxj(|>6po\) e^eyewnad ae37

MT Ps. 110.3 rm3 "]DJJ "j'TTT DTD 2Hp '"n!"Q "inttfQ DmQ "I'm1?' ^tD "]*?

The most recent discussion of this passage is to be found in the study on LXX Psalms by Schaper,38 in which he argues that the LXX version of the verse testifies to the idea of 'the Messiah's pre-existence' (p. 163), a concept that was 'a feature of proto-Pharisaic theology' (p. 164). His translation of the verse runs as follows: With you [will] the dominion [rest] on the day of your strength amidst the radiance of the saints: from the womb I have begotten you before the morning star (p. 102).

The phrase ev xaiq XauTtpotricnv TCOV dyicov is best understood, he argues, in the light of Theod. Dan. 12.3 (KOI oi ODvievxe^ eKX,dp,xi/ooxnv COQ TI XauTtpoTTiq TOO)
VANDERKOOIJ The Septuagint of Psalms

241

'the temple'. This meaning is also attested in other places in LXX Psalms (55.1; 73.3; 133.2; 150.1).39 The Hebrew expression Chp 'Tin points in the same direction because of the similar phrase 2Hp HTin that can be found in Ps. 29(28).2 and 96(95).9. The Old Greek version of these two latter cases supports the idea that the temple is the point of reference (ev aMf) dyic? cruxou), although the actual rendering is different from the one in LXX Ps. 109. This difference, however, may be due to the fact that the ceremony involved in Psalm 109 takes place in the temple itself (see below), and not in one of its courts. A second issue concerns the meaning of the preposition rcpo in the expression rcpo ecoa^opoi). Schaper takes it in the temporal sense, but here, too, one should consider another possibility, viz. the local sense. Two passages in LXX Ps. 71 (MT 72) are of interest here: v. 5:

Kai \) evXoyTmevov eiq TO\)<; aiwvaq jtpo TO\) fiXiou 8ia^evel TO ovoua awou

Contextually speaking, in both cases the preposition rcpo is best understood locally: 'before the moon', and 'before the sun', that is, as long as the moon or the sun will stand.40 This may also be the case in LXX Ps. 109.3, despite the difference between MT Ps. 72.5, 17 03S1?) and MT Ps. 110.3 (]I2) as far as the preposition is concerned. The meaning of the expression then would be 'before / in front of the morning star', that is, at the moment of the morning star, the first light in the morning. A third point concerns the question of how to interpret this phrase in the context of the verse. The moment of the morning star is best understood as the moment of help, because 'aid in the (early) morning' is a well-known motif in the Old Testament; for this, see passages like Exod. 14.24, 2 Kgs 19.35, Isa. 17.14 and Ps. 46.6. It is worth noting that LXX Ps. 21.1 testifies also to this idea: \rnep TTJ<; dvTiA,r||j,\j/ea)<; Trig eeoGivfj^ (MT ~in$n n^'tr1?!?). This phrase is about the aid in the early morning, at the moment that corresponds to that of the morning star (cf. daTfjp ecoGivoq in Sir. 50.6). In the Greek superscription of the psalm, the Hebrew word n'T'K is given the sense of 'help', which seems to be 39. Cf. also 1 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon. 40. See also G. Schimanowski, Weisheit und Messias: Die judischen Voraussetzungen der urchristlichen Praexistenzchristologie (WUNT, 2.17; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1985), pp. 147-48.

242

The Old Greek Psalter

related to the rendering in v. 20: TTft'R—ifjv Pof|9eidv uou (the term dvTiA,T|UYi<; is used in the second part of this verse as the equivalent of

m«?). Understood this way, the passage in LXX Ps. 109.3 is about birth at a favourable moment, a moment associated with the help of God. It means that v. 3b can be seen, to some extent, as a parallel to v. 3a: '(With you is the dominion) on the day of your power'. Finally, in contrast to the MT which has a substantive (mi1?''), the Greek of v. 3 offers a verb (eKyewdco [2110: yEVvdco]) which reflects the same root ("T17'). This reminds one of LXX Ps. 2.7 where it says, ey® orpepov YeyevvriKa ere. The latter passage is about a 'birth' of sorts, that is, the moment at which someone is made king by God on Mount Zion (cf. v. 6: eyd> 8e KaTeotd6r|v pacnXeix; im amov eni Zicov opoq TO ayiov at)TO\)). The choice of the verb in LXX Ps. 109.3 may well have been influenced by LXX Ps. 2.7. On the basis of the preceding considerations, I propose the following interpretation. Just as in LXX Ps. 2.7, LXX Ps. 109.3 refers to a 'birth', that is, the consecration of a leader, 'in the splendours of the sanctuary' (in the temple), 'at the moment of the morning star' (at a moment symbolizing God's aid and salvation). Syntactically speaking, the expression 'in the splendours of the sanctuary' should not be linked with the preceding part of the verse (as Schaper does), but with the words that follow. Understood this way, v. 3 makes perfect sense in the context of LXX Ps. 109 as a whole. The above-mentioned relationship between LXX Psalm 109 and LXX Psalm 2 is of particular interest because it points to the concept of the priestly monarchy with a leader who is both 'king' (Ps. 2) and 'priest' (Ps. 109). In order to strengthen this idea, we will discuss another, more telling feature of LXX Psalms in this regard. This concerns the way in which the Hebrew term "IT3 is rendered in LXX Ps. 88.40 and 131.18. In texts such as 2 Sam. 1.10, 2 Chron. 23.11, Ps. 89.40 and 132.18, this term is used in the sense of the crown or diadem of a king. In the LXX, it has been rendered differently: 2 Sam. 1.10 2 Chron. 23.11 Ps. 88.40 Ps. 131.18

TO [JacriAeiov TO paoiXeiov TO dyiaajia TO ayiaona4!

41. LXX 2 Kgs 11.12 reads TO ve£ep.

VANDERKOOIJ The Septuagint of Psalms

243

M. Flashar, who regards the rendering in LXX Psalms 'incorrect', is of the opinion that the Greek dyiaauxx is to be understood in these places as 'temple, sanctuary', a meaning that is also attested in other places in LXX Psalms (77.54, 69; 95.6).42 However, the question is whether this meaning is the most plausible one in LXX Ps. 88.40 and 131.18. Let us take a closer look at these passages, beginning with the latter one, which reads as follows: ETtl 8e CTOTOV e£av6fjo£i TO dyiaoua jiou

(MT [132] nn pr r^s) Since the dyiaaua is something 'on him', that is, the anointed one of v. 17, the meaning 'sanctuary' does not recommend itself. Rather, the Greek text makes good sense if it is understood as a reference to the plate of pure gold on the holy diadem of the high priest. This plate is called TO TteiaXov to dyiaaua (MT 2Hpn 1T3) in LXX Exod. 29.6. It was a frontlet engraved with the inscription, dyiaauxx Kvpico (LXX Exod. 36.37 [MT (39.30) mrr1? 2np). The term dyiaaua is not the usual rendering of the Hebrew root "1T3, but it is not impossible either (see Lev. 8.9 [1T3—KaGrryiaouevov], 25.5 [TT3—dyiaaua], Amos 2.11 [TtS—ayiaoii6Q], and Zech. 7.3 [1T3n—TO dyiaoiAa]). The choice of this rendering, rather than TO paolXeiov, may be due to the fact that it is part of the designation for the golden plate (TO 7ceT<xA,ov TO dyiaaua; compare TO KaGrryiaauevov dyiov in LXX Lev. 8.9 for MT tznpn "in!) and/or that the term dyiaaua is part of the inscription on it (dyiaauxx KDpico, 'holiness to the Lord'). The idea that the Greek dyiaaua in LXX Ps. 131.18 refers to the plate on the holy diadem of the high priest also sheds light on the rendering TO ayia,a\id JIOD, 'my holiness', that is, the holiness of God (MT: 'his nezer', the crown of the king). We therefore translate v. 18b: 'and on him my holiness will shine'.43 The other passage in this connection, LXX Ps. 88.40, reads: KaTeoTpexjraq tr\v Bia&nienv Toti SoiiXou aov epeptiXcoaaq eiq rr\v yf\v TO dyiaoy,a atxroi)

This also concerns an 'anointed one' (v. 39), in the present context one who is rejected by God. One could argue, as Flashar does, that the Greek dyiaaiAa in the second line of the verse carries the meaning of 'sanctuary'. However, the difficulty with this interpretation is that the 42. Flashar, 'Exegetische Studien', p. 185. 43. For the denotation 'shine', see LSJ, s.v. dvQeoo.

244

The Old Greek Psalter

temple does not play any role in LXX Ps. 88 (MT 89). The idea that God profanes (to the ground) 'his holiness', that is to say, the dignity of holiness symbolized by the golden plate with its inscription, makes better sense, in particular as a parallel to the first line of the verse where it is said that God overthrew the covenant of his servant. Thus, there is evidence that LXX Psalms testifies to the concept of the priestly monarchy. Psalms about the covenant of David, such as 89 and 132, were apparently understood to be referring to an anointed figure who was both 'high priest' and 'king'. This may seem strange, but there is a passage in the literature of the time that helps us to understand this interpretation, namely, Sir. 45.24-25. The Greek version of this passage reads:44 8td tovto eaid9r| airap 8ia9f|Kti etpfivrjq Ttpoatateiv dyicov Kai X.ao'D awou 'iva avccQ fi Kai TCO anep\iati awou ieptoanjvTi^ ueyateiov eiq TO\)<; aimvaq KOI 8ia9f|KTiv TG> Aaw8 viq> leooai EK <]n)Xfj<; Iov8a KXripovoula jtaaiteax; wou el; woti \i6vov Therefore a covenant of peace was made with him that he should be the chief of the sanctuary and of his people and that he and his posterity should have the dignity of the priesthood for ever, as well as the covenant with David the son of Jesse from the tribe of Juda; the heritage of the king is an individual one only

The remarkable thing about this passage is the fact that the covenant of Phinehas and that of David are brought together. As far as the Hebrew text is concerned, it has been convincingly argued by P.C. Beentjes that the passage testifies to the view that the covenant of David is seen as part of the covenant of Phinehas, because the passage about the covenant of David is to be taken as a continuation of the preceding clause: '...so that to him (i.e., Phinehas) and to his descendants should belong the high priesthood for ever, and also his covenant with David, the son of Jesse, from the tribe of Judah'.45 The Greek version seems to reflect 44. J. Ziegler (ed.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum. XII.2. Sapientia lesufilii Sirach (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965). 45. See P.C. Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach (Dissertation; Nieuwegein: Selbstverlag, 1981), p. 190, and J.D. Martin, 'Ben Sira's Hymn to the Fathers: A

VANDERKOOIJ The Septuagint of Psalms

245

the same concept, because, here too, the phrase about the covenant of David makes perfect sense if taken as a continuation of the preceding 'iva-clause.46 It has been observed by scholars that the Greek version, which differs in some respects from the Hebrew text of the passage as we have it, reflects the political reality of the time. Elements of this version can be related to the legitimation of Hasmonaean claims.47 Of particular interest is the addition 'of the people' in v. 24: 'he (Phinehas) should be the chief of the sanctuary and of his people'. Here the Greek version is fully in line with a description of the leadership of Simon as given in 1 Mace. 14.47 (KOI erceSe^ato ZIJLICGV icai e\)86Kt|aev dpxiepaTeueiv KCCI etvai aTpaTryyoc; Kai e0vdp%r|<; TCOV lovSaioov Kai iepecov Kai TOU TCpooTCtTnaaircdvTGOv).In both passages it is emphasized that the 'high priest' is also the 'ruler' of the priests (cf. temple) and of the Judaeans (cf. the people). The expression rcpocnaTnaai Tcdvicov carries the same meaning as rcpocnmeiv dyicov KOI Xaou awou in Sir. 45.24. 4. Conclusion As to the question concerning which group in ancient Judaism might have been responsible for the production of LXX Psalms, it seems reasonable to suggest that, since it turns out that this Old Greek version shares with 1 Maccabees the concept of the 'priestly monarchy', LXX Psalms was produced in pro-Maccabaean circles. Quantitatively speaking, the evidence may seem meager, but just as in the case of the

Messianic Perspective', OTS 24 (1986), pp. 107-23 (114). See also E. Janssen, Das Gottesvolk und seine Geschichte (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971), p. 22; H. Stadelmann, Ben Sim als Schriftgelehrter (WUNT, 2.6; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1980), p. 166: 'Nichts steht also der Interpretation von 45:25 entgegen, nach der die hohenpriesterlichen Nachfahren Aarons das Erbe des Davidsbundes fiir alle Zukunft ubernommen haben'. Regarding Phinehas and David, see also 1 Mace. 2.54, 57. 46. For a parallel case including an accusative form, which actually constitutes the second subject (the reading 8ia0f|icnv is well attested [cf. Ziegler]), see the 'ivaclause of v. 26 ('iva u,fi d<()avia9fi id dya6d ax>t<5v Kai tfrv 86£av atmov eiq yevedqaxraBv)! 47. Cf. R. Hayward, 'Phinehas—The Same is Elijah: The Origins of a Rabbinic Tradition', JJS 29 (1978), pp. 22-34 (31).

246

The Old Greek Psalter

Samaritan Pentateuch, only a few, but specific, readings can provide a sufficient basis for the assignment of a text to a particular group or sect. The link between LXX Psalm 78 and 1 Maccabees 7 does not allow us, however, to assume a specific relationship between the Hasideans and LXX Psalms. It might have been so, and it would also fit with the idea that LXX Psalms stems from pro-Maccabaean circles, but the evidence is not that clear. The idea that LXX Psalms stems from these circles seems to point to Judaea (Jerusalem) as the place of origin.48 One cannot exclude, however, the possibility that, just as in the case of the Greek version of the Wisdom of Ben Sira, the Greek version of the book of Psalms was composed in Egypt by Jewish scholars with a Judaean background. Be that as it may, the link between 1 Maccabees 7 and LXX Psalm 78 suggests that the text of LXX Psalms was available in Jerusalem at the time.49 One might object that the readings in LXX Psalms that have been discussed above, especially doioq and ciYiaaua, can be seen as equivalents that were chosen intuitively, or just as one of the possible options, and nothing more. However, as I stated at the outset of this contribution, the underlying assumption is that LXX Psalms was produced by scholars ('scribes')50 who were interested in reading and interpreting the ancient texts in view of, among other things, ideological issues of the time.51 This also has a bearing on the question as to why biblical books such as the book of Psalms were translated into Greek. It is usually held that this work was carried out just so that there could be a Greek version. This does not account, however, for the great variety of styles of translation within the Septuagint, and, more particularly, for the fact that the books of this ancient version were not made at the same place, in the

48. On this idea, see A. van der Kooij, 'On the Place of Origin of the Old Greek of Psalms', VT 33 (1983), pp. 67-74; Schaper, Eschatology, pp. 34-41. 49. Cf. the presence of biblical texts in Greek in Qumran. 50. See also A. van der Kooij, 'Zur Frage der Exegese im LXX Psalter. Ein Beitrag zur Verha'ltnisbestimmung zwischen Original und Ubersetzung', in A. Aejmelaeus and U. Quasi (eds.), Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochteriibersetzungen. Symposium in Gottingen 1997 (MSU, 24; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 366-79. 51. Cf., e.g., the pesharim of Qumran.

VANDERKOOIJ The Septuagint of Psalms

247

same period, nor, presumably, by members of one and the same Jewish group. It is my contention that the decision to translate the book of Psalms into Greek was made by a group that was interested in it for reasons of ideology and propaganda.52

52. The same applies, in my opinion, to the Old Greek of Isaiah. See A. van der Kooij,' "The Servant of the Lord": A Particular Group of Jews in Egypt According to the Old Greek of Isaiah. Some Comments on LXX Isa 49,1-6 and Related Passages', in J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah (Festschrift Willem A.M. Beuken; BETL, 132; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), pp. 390-96.

TOWARDS A DATE FOR THE OLD GREEK PSALTER* Tyler F. Williams

The translation of the Psalter into Greek has traditionally been dated to the second century BCE.1 This conclusion, however, has been called into question by recent discussions concerning the formation of the book of Psalms. On the basis of the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls—especially the so-called Qumran Psalms Scroll (llQPs3)— many have argued that the Hebrew text of the book of Psalms was not 'fixed' until the first century CE.2 But in these discussions the witness of * A version of this paper was read at the IOSCS annual meeting in conjunction with the Boston AAR/SBL meetings on 21 November 1999. The topic is related to my doctoral dissertation entitled, 'The Formation of the Book of Psalms in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek Psalter', being completed under the supervision of Professor Albert Pietersma for the University of St Michael's College, University of Toronto. I consider it a great privilege to be able to honour Albert Pietersma with this essay, as I have learned so much about Septuagint studies from him. Of course, any errors or omissions found herein should be interpreted as indications that I ought to have listened to him more carefully! 1. See, e.g., Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), p. 25. In this paper, terms such as 'Septuagint Psalter' and 'LXX Psalter' signify the 'Old Greek Psalter', i.e., the original translation of the Hebrew Psalms into Greek. Furthermore, in order to avoid having to employ the cumbersome term, 'proto-MT Psalter', I use 'MT Psalter' to refer to the tradition of the book of Psalms that reflects the sequence and contents of the MT Psalter. Finally, Psalm references throughout this paper are those of the LXX, with the MT numbering, when different, included in parentheses. 2. The tone of the initial debate was set by James Sanders, who, in a series of publications between 1966 and 1974, laid the groundwork for, and developed, his 'Qumran Psalter Hypothesis'. See, for example, James A. Sanders, 'Variorum in the Psalms Scroll (1 lQPsa)', HTR 59 (1966), pp. 83-94 (reprinted in McCormick Quarterly 21 [1968], pp. 284-98); idem, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967); idem, 'Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon', in S.Z. Leiman (ed.), The Canon and the Masorah of the Hebrew Bible

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

249

the Septuagint (LXX) Psalter to the early establishment of the content and order of the Masoretic Psalter has not been given sufficient attention.3 This is in part due to the perceived uncertainty of the date of the LXX Psalter.4 This paper will seek to establish some methodological parameters to the discussion, and work towards establishing a firm date for the LXX Psalter. Since one of the more compelling lines of evidence for ascertaining the date of the translation is its reception history represented in unambiguous external citations of, and allusions to, the Greek Psalter in other ancient writings, a preliminary and necessary step to the discussion will be to demonstrate the homogeneous character of the translation. This will be demonstrated through the isolation of a number of the 'linguistic fingerprints' of the translator which betray his particular style and method, and which are found throughout the translation as a whole. All of the available evidence converges to support the idea of the unity of the translation, and to confirm the thesis that the Greek Psalter originated in the second century BCE. (The Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1974), pp. 37-51; idem, 'The Dead Sea Scrolls—A Quarter Century of Study', BA 36 (1973), pp. 110-48; idem, 'The Qumran Psalms Scroll (llQPs3) Reviewed', in M. Black and W.A. Smalley (eds.), On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida (Paris: Mouton, 1974), pp. 79-99. For more recent discussions, see Peter W. Flint, 'The Book of Psalms in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls', VT 48 (1998), pp. 453-72; idem, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ, 17; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997); Gerald H. Wilson, 'The Qumran Psalms Scroll (llQPs3) and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping', CBQ 59 (1997), pp. 448-64; idem, 'The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate', CBQ 47 (1985), pp. 624-42. 3. Two participants in the debate do, however, appeal to the LXX Psalter (albeit in passing), namely, Roger T. Beckwith ('The Courses of the Levites and the Eccentric Psalms Scrolls from Qumran', RevQ 11 [1984], pp. 499-524; idem, 'The Early History of the Psalter', TynBul 46 [1995], pp. 1-27) and Lawrence A. Sinclair ('HQPsa—A Psalms Scroll form [sic] Qumran: Text and Canon', in J.C. Knight and L.A. Sinclair [eds.], The Psalms and Other Studies on the Old Testament Presented to Joseph I. Hunt [Cincinnati, OH: Forward Movement Publications, 1990], pp. 109-15). 4. For instance, Gerald Wilson argues that any appeal to the LXX Psalter is, at best, debatable since there are no extant pre-Christian manuscripts of a LXX Psalter, and that, even if there were pre-Christian Greek translations of individual psalms or psalm collections (which, according to Wilson, is likely), it is impossible to know their extent or composition without any manuscript evidence (Wilson, 'Qumran Psalms Scroll', p. 626 n. 8).

250

The Old Greek Psalter 1. Dating Ancient Translations

Determining the date of any ancient composition based primarily on circumstantial evidence is not an easy task. This task is only made more difficult when it involves a translation of an ancient text such as the LXX Psalms. The earliest uncontested witnesses to the LXX Psalter date to the third century CE, though these are only small fragments, ranging in extent from ten verses to parts of four psalms.5 Thus, there are no pre-Christian manuscripts of the LXX Psalter.6 While there is no direct manuscript evidence for the exact date of this translation (there rarely ever is for such an undertaking), two types of data may be employed to ascertain the time frame with a fair degree of certainty.7 First, internal evidence—such as allusions to historical situations, events, or persons in the translation, unique vocabulary, and features of the translation technique—may be used. Second, external evidence from the translation's reception history—that is, quotations of the LXX Psalter in other 5. Rahlfs manuscripts 2014, 2019, 2051. MS 2051 contains just ten verses, while MS 2019 contains Pss. 11(12).7-14(15).4. The most extensive Psalter papyrus discovered to date (containing most of Pss. 17[18].45-118[119].44), Papyrus Bodmer XXIV (Rahlfs 2110), has been dated to the late second century CE on the basis of paleographical evidence by D. Barthelemy, 'Le Psautier grec et le papyrus Bodmer XXIV, RTF 102 (1969), pp. 106-10. However, most scholars situate the papyrus in the third or fourth century CE. See Rodolphe Kasser and Michel Testuz (eds.), Papyrus Bodmer XXIV: Psaumes XVII-CXVIII (Cologny-Geneve: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1967), p. 7; Albert Pietersma, 'The Edited Text of P. Bodmer XXIV, BASF 17 (1980), pp. 67-79; idem, 'Ra 2110 (P. Bodmer XXIV) and the Text of the Greek Psalter', in D. Fraenkel, U. Quast and J.W. Wevers (eds.), Studien zur Septuaginta—Robert Hanhart zu Ehren (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen; MSU, 20; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), pp. 262-86; idem, 'Origen's Corrections and the Text of P. Bodmer XXIV, JNSL 19 (1993), pp. 133-42. 6. Moreover, extant manuscripts show signs of Christian interpolations, one of the more substantial being the addition of material from Rom. 3 to Ps. 13(14). On the question of the Christian transmission of the LXX, see Robert A. Kraft, 'Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures: A Methodological Probe', in Paganisme, judal'sme, christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1978), pp. 207-26. 7. See the discussion of dating the different books of the LXX in Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judal'sme hellenistique au christianisme ancien (Initiations au christianisme ancien; Paris: Cerf CNRS, 1988), pp. 83-101.

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

251

ancient literature or other books of the LXX—may be employed. By means of these indicators a relative chronology can be established. Recent discussion regarding the date of the LXX translation of the Psalms has focused more on internal than on external evidence. Arie van der Kooij8 suggests a first-century BCE date based both on similarities between the hermeneutical methods of the so-called Kaiye tradition and the translation technique of the LXX Psalter, and on liturgical notices in some superscriptions. The supposed close connection between Kaiye and the LXX Psalter has, however, been critiqued by a number of scholars. Their arguments do not need to be repeated here.9 Recent 8. Arie van der Kooij, 'On the Place of Origin of the Old Greek of Psalms', VT 33 (1983), pp. 67-74. Van der Kooij's work is based on that of H.-J. Venetz, Die Quinta des Psalteriums: Ein Beitrag zur Septuaginta- und Hexaplaforschung (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1974). For a critique of van der Kooij's position that the non-MT superscriptions found in the LXX Psalter are OG rather than later innerGreek developments, see Albert Pietersma, 'Exegesis and Liturgy in the Superscriptions of the Greek Psalter', in B. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998 (forthcoming); idem, 'David in the Greek Psalms', VT 30 (1980), pp. 213-26. 9. For a general critique of the idea that there is a close connection between the kaige tradition and later rabbinic hermeneutics, see Leonard J. Greenspoon, 'Recensions, Revisions, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthelemy and Early Developments in the Greek Traditions', Textus 15 (1990), pp. 153-67; Lester L. Grabbe, 'Aquila's Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis', JJS 33 (1982), pp. 527-36. For critiques that focus particularly on the alleged connection between kaige and the LXX Psalter, see Olivier Munnich, 'Contribution a 1'etude de la premiere revision de la Septante', ANRW 11.20.1 (1987), pp. 190-220; idem, 'La Septante des Psaumes et le groupe kaige', VT 33 (1983), pp. 75-89; idem, 'Indices d'une Septante originelle dans le Psautier Grec', Bib 63 (1982), pp. 406-16; idem, 'Etude lexicographique du Psautier des Septante' (doctoral thesis, L'Universite de Paris-IV, 1982), pp. 16-53; Staffan Olofsson, 'The kaige Group and the Septuagint Book of Psalms', in B. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (SBLSCS,45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 190-230; Albert Pietersma, 'The Place of Origin of the Old Greek Psalter', in P.M.M. Daviau, J.W. Wevers and M. Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans. I. Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion (JSOTSup, 324; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001); idem, 'Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues', VT 35 (1985), pp. 296-311; Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995), pp. 34-45; idem, 'Der Septuaginta-Psalter als Dokument jiidischer Eschatologie', in M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer (eds.), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (WUNT, 72; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994), pp. 38-61.

252

The Old Greek Psalter

works by Staffan Olofsson10 and Joachim Schaper11 also touch on the issues of dating and translational unity, though both authors tend to synthesize rather than break new ground. In Schaper's analysis of Psalms 59(60) and 107(108), however, he argues that they contain allusions to events in the second half of the second century BCE.12 I will return to this matter below. The scholar who has addressed the questions of the date and homogeneity of the LXX Psalter most comprehensively is Olivier Munnich. On a number of occasions he has argued (primarily) on the basis of lexicographical evidence that the LXX Psalter is a unified translation and that it may be dated either to the third, or to the beginning of the second, century BCE.13 My own work builds upon the above-mentioned research. I hope to establish a broader and more comprehensive context for formulating conclusions regarding the date of origin of the LXX Psalter, especially as evinced by external evidence. 2. The Unity of the LXX Psalter Translation As noted above, one of the most compelling lines of evidence for determining a date for the LXX Psalter is external attestation. But before we can turn to this evidence, we must substantiate the unity of the translation. Thus the question to be addressed is whether the text is a coherent and homogeneous translation produced by one or more translators, or a hodgepodge produced by any number of translators at various times. The importance of this question should not be underestimated. If the latter is true, then there is no way to establish the date of the book on the basis of external evidence. It could be argued, for example, that although the individual psalm from which a given quotation was drawn may have been translated at a particular time, that might 10. Staffan Olofsson, 'Qumran and LXX', in F.H. Cryer and T.L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (JSOTSup, 290; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 232-48; idem, 'The kaige Group'; idem, The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (ConBOT, 30; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990); idem, God Is my Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint (ConBOT, 31; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990). 11. Schaper, Eschatology; idem, 'Der Septuaginta-Psalter'. 12. Schaper, Eschatology, pp. 40-45, 83-84. 13. See the works referred to in n. 10 above.

willliams owardsa date a date for the old rgreek psalte 253

253

not necessarily be the case for the entire Psalter.14 If, however, the former is true, then what is determined about individual verses and psalms is applicable to the LXX Psalter as a whole. a. Method of Verifying Translational Unity The question as to how one may verify the unity or homogeneity of a translation is a difficult one. What constitutes a 'homogeneous translation' is not always clear. Leslie McGregor, in his book on the Greek text of Ezekiel,15 highlights a number of areas of investigation to determine this, including Hebrew-Greek lexical equivalents, grammatical constructions, and word order. While some of McGregor's criteria are better suited to demonstrating the homogeneous character of a translation for which the opposite has been argued (as in the case of the LXX of Ezekiel), the procedure adopted in this study is to focus on the first of McGregor's categories mentioned above. Not all lexical equivalents, however, are of equal importance for the purposes of this analysis. They need to be evaluated on the basis of five factors. 1. 2.

Frequency. Lexical equivalents that occur with some frequency will be more significant than those that are infrequent. Distribution. Studies of the editorial shape of the book of Psalms have shown that the first three books of the Psalter (Pss. 1-89) exhibit a different editorial strategy than the last two books (Pss. 90-150).16 Based on this observation as well as on the evidence of the Qumran Psalms manuscripts, a number of scholars have contended that the book of Psalms came together gradually, with the contents and order of the first

14. As, in fact, Wilson suggests; see n. 3 above. Similarly, in his discussion of the dependence of LXX Isaiah on certain passages from LXX Psalms, I.L. Seeligmann (The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems [Mededelingen en verhandelingen, 9; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1948], p. 72) notes that such a connection 'does not necessarily imply that the whole of Septuagint [sic] of the Psalms had already been completed, and was in circulation, during the translator's own period'. 15. Leslie John McGregor, The Greek Text of Ezekiel: An Examination of its Homogeneity (SBLSCS, 18; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 22-23. 16. For example, Gerald H. Wilson (The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter [SBLDS, 76; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985]) argues that the first segment (Pss. 1-89) is organized principally on the basis of author and genre distinctions, while the second (Pss. 90-150) is dominated by smaller collections organized on the basis of common themes or catchwords.

254

The Old Greek Psalter

3.

4.

5.

three books having been stabilized prior to the last two, which took their present shape only in the first century CE.17 One who argues for the homogeneity of the LXX Psalter will find more persuasive evidence in lexical equivalents that are distributed throughout the book of Psalms than in those with a limited distribution. Consistency. By definition, a lexical equivalent must have some degree of consistency in order to be designated a standard or default equation. It will be recognized, of course, that no translator is entirely consistent, and that some types of words, such as nouns or structural lexemes like prepositions, are more likely to be glossed consistently than others, such as verbs. Uniqueness. Lexical equivalents that are unique to the LXX Psalms are of more value than those found in other books of the LXX that are known to predate the translation of the Psalter. Here I am thinking primarily of the Pentateuch. Similarly, Hebrew-Greek equations for which there is considerable semantic overlap are not as persuasive as others, since it can be assumed that any translator in a similar situation would employ the same equation (e.g., jiairnp for DK, d8eX,(|)6<; for riK, (j>d><; for "T)K, etc.). Patterns. This last factor—perhaps the most significant, yet the most difficult to detect—has to do with the grammatical and syntactical patterns that go beyond semantics. These are the 'linguistic fingerprints' of the translator, so to speak, which betray a particular style and method.

All of these factors are significant to consider, as they have the potential to strengthen or weaken any conclusions regarding homogeneity. Once again, however, mere statistics are not sufficient. Many factors may contribute to a translator's use of a certain word in the target language to render a construction in the source language.18 And these have to be taken into account as the lexical equivalents are evaluated. 17. In addition to the works of Sanders, Wilson and Flint mentioned in n. 3 above, see Gerald H. Wilson, 'A First Century CE Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter?', in J.J. Adler (ed.), Haim M.I. Gevarjahu Memorial Volume: English-French-German Section (Jerusalem: World Jewish Bible Center, 1990), pp. 136-43. 18. McGregor (Greek Text ofEzekiel, pp. 36-46) notes a number of factors that

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

255

b. Assumptions I have two working assumptions. The first is that the best available Greek edition to use for this study, despite the fact that its text is not everywhere to be equated with the Old Greek, is Psalmi cum Odis, the semi-critical version of the LXX Psalter produced by Alfred Rahlfs.19 One must employ it cautiously, all the while recognizing its limitations.20 The same caveat applies to Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), the text of the MT that will provide the basis of comparison with

the LXX. My second assumption is that the LXX Psalter is the work of one translator. This seems to be a logical one with which to begin since, to my knowledge, it has never been demonstrated that the LXX Psalter is have to be considered. For instance, the more times that a word occurs, the higher the expectation that a translator will be inconsistent. Furthermore, a cluster of occurrences of a word may tend to make the translator more consistent within that cluster because he or she will be more conscious of the rendering of that particular word. On the other hand, it may have the opposite effect, as the translator may consciously alter his or her renderings for stylistic reasons. There may also be a gradual change in preference for a particular term as the translator works through his or her text. 19. Alfred Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta: Societatis scientiarum Gottingensis auctoritate. X. Psalmi cum Odis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967 [1931]). Where it exists outside Psalms, the Gottingen critical edition has been used (J.W. Wevers [ed.], Genesis [1974], Exodus [1991], Numbers [1982], Deuteronomy [1977]; J. Ziegler [ed.], Job [1982[, Isaiah [2nd edn, 1967], Jeremiah [2nd edn, 1976], The Twelve Prophets [3rd edn, 1984]; W. Kappler [ed.], 1 Maccabees [2nd edn, 1967]); otherwise the text employed for the LXX is that of Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935). 20. Since the publication of Rahlfs's Gottingen edition, there have been significant advancements made in Septuagint research. First, methodologically, modern Septuagint scholars assign more credence to internal considerations such as translation technique than to external factors like relationships between manuscript families (see Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989 (1968)], pp. 314-18). Second, since the time of Rahlfs, some important manuscripts have been discovered, including Papyrus Bodmer XXIV (= Rahlfs 2110) (see n. 6 above, and Albert Pietersma, Two Manuscripts of the Greek Psalter [AnBib, 77; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978]). In the present study, 2110 will be collated with Rahlfs's text, and the manuscript evidence will be reevaluated when necessary. For reviews of Rahlfs's edition, see P.L. Hedley, 'The Gottingen Investigation and Edition of the Septuagint', HTR 26 (1933), pp. 57-72; Pietersma, 'Ra 2110', pp. 262-65; idem, 'Septuagint Research', pp. 299-300.

256

The Old Greek Psalter

the work of more than one translator or one group of translators working in close collaboration.21 H.St.J. Thackeray proposes that the slight changes in orthography between the first and second halves of the LXX Psalter (Pss. l-77[78] and 78[79]-150) may indicate that there was 'a division of the clerical labour of transcription'.22 This division, however, is only consistently found in Codex Vaticanus (B). In no way does it signify a change of translators, as Munnich seems to think that Thackeray suggests.23 Thackeray, in fact, argues that it is quite clear that the peculiar vocabulary found throughout the LXX Psalter provides strong evidence for only one translator.24 M. Flashar, in his monumental exegetical study on the LXX Psalter, makes the same assumption.25 c. Analysis of Data At this point I will provide a sampling of the results of my research on the unity of the LXX Psalter, highlighting some of the more compelling data. 1. Standard/Default Hebrew-Greek Renderings. It is not difficult to cite multiple examples of standard or default Hebrew-Greek equivalents in the LXX Psalter. A number of these are not unique to this corpus, but they are remarkable for their consistency. These include the rendering of "I3K by d7i6A,AA>a> / an;6A,A/U|a.i all 26 times that it is found in the Psalter,26 "j'a by dyaAAidoum all 19 times,27 and pTT by KoM,do> all 21. This is Arthur Soffer's conclusion: 'It would also appear that the LXX of Psalms is the work of a single translator; we found no significant differences in vocabulary or style within the 150 Psalms' ('The Treatment of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Septuagint Psalms', in S. Jellicoe [ed.J, Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations [New York: Ktav, 1974], pp. 395-417 [originally published inHUCA 38 (1957), pp. 85-107]). On the possibility that more than one translator was involved, see Schaper, Eschatology, p. 33. 22. 'The Bisection of Books in Primitive Septuagint MSS', JTS 9 (1907-1908), pp. 88-98 (90-93). 23. Munnich, 'Indices', p. 407 n. 12. 24. Thackeray, 'Bisection', p. 92; idem, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), pp. 68-69. 25. See M. Flashar, 'Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter', ZAW 32 (1912), pp. 81-117, 161-89, 241-68 (85-86). 26. Pss. 1.6; 2.12; 5.7; 9.4, 6, 7, 19, 37 (10.16); 20(21).! 1; 30(31).13; 36(37).20; 40(41).6; 48(49).! 1; 67(68).3; 72(73).27; 79(80).17; 82(83).18; 91(92).10;

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

257

eight times.28 Other examples that are significant for their distinctiveness are the usual employment of eKKA,r|aia for *?np and awaYcoyri for mj),29 and the regular translation of fBn by 9eA,o> (as opposed to the expected poM,oum, which is the default outside the LXX Psalms).30 For all of these equivalents, the level of consistency in other books of the LXX is not as high as it is in the Psalter. Another example, which may at first blush seem insignificant, is the exclusive translation of JH8 by yf\ when it is singular (184 times). However, the four times in Psalms that it occurs in the plural it is rendered by xcopa.31 This clear differentiation between singular and plural is not found outside the Psalter.32 There are also a number of Hebrew-Greek equivalents that do not seem to be as mechanical as the preceding one is. When one examines the translator's departure from the default rendering in these cases, it is clear that contextual and stylistic factors are determinative. This is apparent when one examines how, for instance, the cluster of verbs for

101(102).27; 111(112).10; 118(119).42, 45, 176; 141(142).5; 142(143).12; 145(146).4. 27. Pss. 2.11; 9.15; 12(13).5, 6; 13(14).7; 15(16).9; 20(21).2; 30(31).8; 31(32).! 1; 34(35).9; 47(48).12; 50(51).10; 52(53).7; 88(89). 17;95(96).! 1; 96(97).!, 8; 117(118).24; 149.2. 28. Pss. 21(22). 16; 43(44).26;62(63).9; 100.4(101.3); 101(102).6; 118(119).25, 31; 136(137).6. 29. 'PHp is rendered by eKKA-Tjaia in eight of its nine occurrences (Pss. 21[22].23, 26; 25[26].5; 34[35].18; 39[40].10; 88[89].6; 106[107].32; 149.1). In Ps. 39(40).! 1 it is rendered by cuvcr/coyi!, which is likely due to the fact that *?np is translated by eKKA,rjaia in the previous verse (v. 10). mu (V 7V) is translated by a-uvayayyii nine out often times (Pss. 7.8; 21[22].!7; 67[68].31; 73[74].2; 81[82].l; 85[86].!4; 105[106].17, 18; 110[lll].l). The one exception is Ps. 1.5 where it is rendered by po-uA,TJ. This is most likely due to the translator having a Vorlage that read HSJn rather than HliJD, since POV^TI is the standard translation for H2il> (Pss. 1.1; 12[13].3; 13[14].6; 19[20].5; 32[33].10, 11; 72[73].24; 105[106].13, 43; 106[107].ll), and it is difficult to account for this translation solely on the basis of the occurrence of povXrj in Ps. 1.1. 30. psn is rendered by 6eXeo 14 out of 17 times (Pss. 17[18],20; 21[22].4; 36[37].23; 39[40].7; 40[41].12; 50[51].18; 67[68].31; 72[73].25; 108[109].17; lll[112].l; 113.11 [115.3]; 118[119].35; 134[135].6; 146[147].10). 31. Pss. 104(105).44; 105(106).27; 106(107).3; 114(116).9. 32. In LXX Genesis, the plural is rendered by yf\ (singular) four times (10.5; 26.3, 4; 41.54) and by x
258

The Old Greek Psalter

'salvation' or 'deliverance' are rendered. The most frequently attested term in Psalms for salvation is I>2T. It is translated 56 out of 57 times by CTCp^co, with the one exception appearing to be a misreading.33 The next most commonly used term in this semantic grouping is ^3, and its default rendering is pvoum.34 In most of the cases where the translator departs from this default, it appears to be for stylistic reasons. For instance, in 58(59).2 ^3 is rendered by e^aipeox But this is surely because ptioum is used as the equivalent for *72fl in the next verse where, as usual, aa>£o) is used to render UCT.35 Similar patterns are found for j^n and ltf?D.36 2. Isolate Renderings. Another category of lexical equivalents that demonstrates the unity of the translation is the isolate or etymological rendering. Many occurrences of a given isolate, however, do not provide as compelling evidence for unity as fewer attestations do, since 33. In Ps. 54(55). 17, JJ2T is translated by eioaKouo). The semantic incongruity of this translation, and the fact that this equivalence is parallel to N"lp = Kpd^co, suggests that the translator read ^JJQGT 'and he listened to me' (= LXX eiofpcouaev um>), rather than ^ITtfT 'and he saved me' (see Flashar, 'Exegetische Studien', p. 161 n. 1; 242). The default rendering of oot^co is found in Pss. 3.8; 6.5; 7.2, 11; 11(12).2; 16(17).7; 17(18).4, 28, 42; 19(20).7, 10; 21(22).22; 27(28).9; 30(31).3, 17; 32(33).16; 33(34).?, 19; 35(36).?; 36(37).40; 43(44).4, 7, 8; 53(54).3; 56(57).4; 58(59).3; 59(60).?; 68(69).2, 36; 70(71).2, 3; 71(72).4, 13; 75(76). 10; 79(80).4, 8, 20; 85(86).2, 16; 97(98).!; 105(106).8, 10, 21, 47; 106(107).13, 19; 107(108).?; 108(109).26, 31; 114.6 (116.6); 117(118).25; 118(119).44, 117, 146; 137(138).?; 144(145). 19. 34. l»3 is translated by puoum 34 out of 45 times (Pss. 7.2; 17[18].l, 18, 49; 21[22].21; 24[25].20; 30[31].16; 32[33].19; 33[34].5, 18; 34[35].10; 38[39].9; 39[40].14; 49[50].22; 50[51].16;53[54].9; 55[56].14; 58[59].3; 68[69].15; 70[71].2, 11; 71[72].12; 78[79].9; 81[82].4; 85[86].13; 90[91].3; 96[97].10; 105[106].43; 106[107].6; 108.22 [109.21]; 118[119].1?0; 119[120].2; 141[142].7; 143[144].7). 35. See Pss. 30(31).3 and 143(144).! 1 where *72i3 is also translated by e^aipeco, and 21(22).9 where it is rendered by ao^co. 36. Of the 12 times that f^n occurs, six times it is translated by puoucei (Pss. 6.5; 17[18].20; 33[34].8; 59[60].7; 80[81].8; 107[108].7). The other occurrences are translated by e£aipea> (Pss. 49[50].15; 90[91].15; 114.8 [116.8] [but R attests pwum]; 118[119].153; 139[140].2), and anonim® (Ps. 7.5). Similarly, CD^D is rendered nine times out of 18 by puouat (Pss. 16[17].13; 17[18].44; 21[22].5, 9; 30[31].2; 36[37].40; 42[43].l; 70[71].4; 90[91].14), while piel participial forms are consistently rendered by the cognate neologism p\km|<; (Pss. 17[18].3,49; 69[70].6 [but Sa, R, He, 55 have \mepaaniatr\c,]', 143[144].2). The remainder of occurrences are glossed by e^atpeco (Pss. 36[37].40; 70[71].2; 81[82].4), Xvcpoco (Ps. 31[32].7) and wtepaoTtiorni; (Ps. 39[40].18).

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

259

any translator may have referred to previous occurrences of a term for inspiration. Thus, the frequently attested etymological rendering of nmd? by eiq TO teXoq 'to the end' (in over 50 psalm titles) does not constitute persuasive evidence. There are less common isolates that are more compelling. For example, the rare noun "13, which is accurately translated as Teixo£ in LXX Exod. 15.8 and as Triyyuxx in LXX Josh. 3.16, is rendered by doicoq in Pss. 32(33).7 and 77(78). 13. This odd rendering is likely due to a confusion between 1] and "TN3, and thus bears witness to a single translator.37 A similar example involves the consistent translation of PHD as rcapcmiKpaiveo in the LXX Psalter.38 This is evidently the result of the translator's misconstruing of n")Q as ID (or

-no).39

3. Beyond Lexical Equivalents. More compelling evidence for translational unity than the preceding lexical equivalents are cases in which contextual or grammatical factors are part of the equation. One example that has been noted by a number of scholars is the way that DOC? is glossed in the LXX Psalter. Munnich observes that in the LXX Psalms, #D2? is rendered by eiaaKoako when the context indicates 'God hearing favourably', while CXKOXXO is employed when the simple act of hearing is ntended.40 There is a remarkable distinction between the use of eioaKOTJCO when God is the (expressed or assumed) subject of UQC? and the use of otKOija) when he is not the subject. Of 80 occurrences of #QC) in the Psalter, God is the explicit or implicit subject some 40 times, and in only six of these cases is DQC? not rendered by eicraico'ua).41 Clear 37. Munnich, 'Indices', pp. 408-409. 38. Pss. 5.11; 77(78).8, 17, 40, 56; 104(105).28; 105(106).7, 33, 43; 107(108).11. See J.A.L. Lee, 'Equivocal and Stereotyped Renderings in the LXX', RB 87 (1980), pp. 104-17 (115-16). 39. This may have been picked up by the translator from Deut. 31.27, as Peter Walters (The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and their Emendation [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], p. 152) and Flashar ('Exegetische Studien', pp. 186-87) suggest. Walters notes that it is more likely that the translator had mistaken notions about the meaning of "ID than that he confused ma with the rare root "DO. 40. Munnich, 'Indices', pp. 409-10. Also see James Barr, 'The Meaning of enaKova) and Cognates in the LXX', JTS 31 (1980), pp. 67-72. 41. The exceptions that are translated by dicoiia) are Pss. 17(18).7; 29(30). 11; 77(78).21; 93(94).9; 101(102).21; 118(119).149. In Ps. 144(145).19, it is rendered by ETKXKOVCQ (but R, L', 1219s' have eioaKovco).

260

The Old Greek Psalter

examples of both senses in the same psalm are provided in the following table.42 The Rendering o/UMS m Psa/ms- .tf(.?4; a/K/ 65(66) 33(34).3 33(34).? 33(34). 12 33(34).18 65(66). 16 65(66). 18 65(66).19

maa lUDttf' ycai mm '•njffltf

sao mm •ratf-D1? TIK aozj' «"? D'rfTR J3Q2J

p»

otKovaaTCoaav Ttpaeiq Kav 6 icupux; eurriKO'uaev oruwu OKOWaTE UOU

KOI 6 icupiog eioTjKoixjev avrdov 8euTE aKouaaTE |if| eioaKOVodiTCO idipux; 8ia towo EiafiKouaev um> 6 OEO^

Another striking example of distinctive translation technique at a grammatical level is the translator's almost perfect consistency—from the beginning to the end of the Psalter—in regard to the verb eAjd^co when used with the preposition eni. When the object precedes the verb in the Hebrew, it is rendered by em plus the dative case (all 18 times);43 when it follows the verb, it is translated by eni plus the accusative case (43 out of 46 times).44 This level of consistency is not found outside the Psalter. The preceding sample of data regarding the consistency of the translator's work clearly demonstrates that the LXX Psalter is a homogeneous translation, and confirms the results of Munnich and others.45

42. This distinction is also evident in Ps. 142 (143). 43. Pss. 7.2; 15(16).!; 21(22).5a, 6; 25(26).!; 27(28).?; 30(31).2, 7; 32(33).21; 35(36).8; 37(38).16; 43(44).?; 55(56).4, 5, 12; 70(71).!; 142(143).8; 143(144).2. 44. There are also eight places where ETci does not occur. 45. Munnich has argued convincingly that the translation of the LXX Psalter is a homogeneous entity. See, for example, his 'Indices'. There he adduces three lines of evidence to make his case: repetition of unique translations in the LXX Psalter; the translations of 'doublets' in the Psalter (Ps. 13 [14] = 52 [53]; Ps. 39[40].14-18 = 69[70].2-6; Ps. 56[57].8-12 + Ps. 59[60].7-14 = 107[108].2-14); and indications that the translator continually consulted his own translation, from the beginning to the end of the Psalter. His work is commendable, and is corroborated by my own. The value of his examination of the doublets is not clear, however, since a hypothetical second translator could surely refer to the parallel psalm in the process of translation. Moreover, the relationship between the doublets is far more complex than Munnich allows.

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

261

3. Towards a Date for the LXX Psalter With the case for the unity of the Greek Psalter established, we can now move on to a discussion of internal and external evidence for the approximate date of its translation from the Hebrew. a. Internal Evidence There is only one potential piece of internal evidence to which one may appeal in order to date the LXX Psalms. This is the rendering of nTliT 'ppnn 'Judah is my staff by Io\)8a<; Paaiteix; uo\) in Ps. 59(60).9 and its parallel 107(108).9. This translation may constitute an allusion to Judas Maccabaeus (166-61 BCE), the leader of the Jewish revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes, as has been proposed recently by Schaper.46 If this is the case, then it provides a terminus a quo for the translation of the Psalter. There are three different arguments in support of the preceding interpretation. First, the combination of the natural reading of Ioi)5a<; as a personal name47 and the translation of "'ppPfD as paoiXevc; fiot)48 46. Schaper, Eschatology, pp. 40-45, 83-84. My own analysis of this passage (including a tentative identification with Judas Maccabaeus) was done independent of Schaper's work, originally as a paper at the University of Toronto for Albert Pietersma in May of 1994.1 also presented this paper, in a modified format, at the Toronto School of Theology Biblical Department Seminars in May of 1996. 47. One would expect the geographical designation louSctia in this context, as all of the other references are either to peoples or territories (d^Ao^'uXoi, FaAxxaS, Mtoap, ISo-Duma, etc.). This reading is even more surprising in the light of how mirr is characteristically translated in the Psalter. In six of the ten occurrences it is translated by the regional designation Iou8cda (Pss. 47[48]. 12; 62[63].l [in the title; strongly contested by ISouuma in B', Sa, R", Vulg, L b ', He, 2110]; 68[69].36; 75[76].2; 96[97].8; 113[114].2). In the remaining four instances it is rendered by lovSaq, two of which are found in the passages being investigated in Pss. 59 (60) and 107 (108). In the other two cases, Iov8a<; is demanded by the context, as both have the tribe of Judah in view. Ps. 77(78).68 is explicit (THV <|>\)A,f|v Io\)8a), while in Ps. 67(68).28 it is clear that dpxovTEQ Ioi)8a refers to the leaders of the tribe of Judah. While the tribe of Judah may be the referent in Pss. 59 (60) and 107 (108), this is not the most natural reading, as Io/u8a<; is in a predicate nominative relationship with paoiXeiji;. 48. Pss. 59(60).9 and 107(108).9 contain the only two occurrences of ppn in the Psalter, and these are the only two places in the Psalms where paoiXeix; is used to translate any word besides "j^D (or its cognates). F.W. Mozley (The Psalter of the Church: The Septuagint Psalms Compared with the Hebrew, with Various Notes

262

The Old Greek Psalter

indicates that this reading may be more than just a bad translation or a scribal error. Second, the content and concerns of the psalm reflect the historical situation and events that serve as a backdrop to the heroic actions of Judas as recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees.49 Third, the translation of DC^S "*?S "^Dinn as euoi ceAA6<|n)A,oi vTceidyTiaav in Ps. 59(60). lOc may be taken as a description of the success of the Maccabaean revolution.50 All of these factors combine to make a fairly strong case for the idea that the translator purposefully created his version of Psalms 59(60) and 107(108) to reflect the period of the Maccabaean uprising. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the fact that Judas Maccabaeus never held the title of king is problematic to this interpretation. No matter how

[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1905], p. 97) suggests that the LXX either read "0*70, or that the translation reflects some sort of historical situation. He also mentions the possibility that the translator was making a metaphor explicit. In the light of this data, it seems likely that the translator simply did not know what ppn meant. Though ppn occurs 19 times in the Old Testament, there are only two other places outside the Psalter where it also has the meaning 'commander's staff. Both cases involve difficult poetic texts, and in neither instance is ppn translated by paoiA,e\iq. In Gen. 49.10 it is rendered by fryot)U£vo<;, and in Num. 21.18 the nominal equivalent is pcccnXeia. The translator of Psalms, rather than employing one of the equivalents used in the Pentateuch (assuming that those particular texts were available to him) or adopting some other translation strategy, apparently produced a translation that would, to a certain extent, fit both the context and his ideological concerns. 49. For instance, the foreign nations mentioned in these psalms (e.g. dXAo<|n>Ax>i, FaXaaS and I5ovu.aia) are nations against which Judas fought (see 1 Mace. 3-6). 50. The rendering of the hithpael imperative of sm (Tinnn) in Ps. 59(60). 10 and of the prefix form of the same verb (WmnK) in Ps. 107(108). 10 by twteTdyTjaav is unusual. This shifts what is in the MT a solemn pronouncement (Ps. 59[60]) or a future certainty (Ps. 107[108]) to a past reality in the LXX. That the translator read the verb as a hithpael of UIH is evident. Why the translator chose to render it thus is less obvious given that he clearly knew the meaning of UT1, translating it appropriately as dXaXd^co on eight occasions (Pss. 46[47].2; 65[66].l; 80[81].2; 94[95].l, 2; 97[98].4, 6; 99[100].l). On the other hand, the only other instance of I?in in the Psalter is misconstrued by the translator as HD") and rendered noiumvo) (Ps. 2.9). Moreover, nowhere in the LXX is \moT<xa0a> used to translate Uin. Summing up then, it is clear that, even though the translator knew the meaning of fill, he chose in Pss. 59 (60) and 107 (108) to read it as wn. By doing so, he dramatically transformed the meaning of the verse, perhaps in order to reflect the events surrounding the Maccabaean revolution.

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

263

attractive it may seem, this hypothesis is, however, of limited value for establishing the date of the translation of the LXX Psalter.51 b. External Evidence There are a number of quotations of, and allusions to, the LXX Psalter in so-called apocryphal, pseudepigraphical and other ancient writings, as well as in other LXX books.52 Evidence that the translators of the LXX of Isaiah and Proverbs relied on the LXX Psalms can be found in a number of places. There are also explicit quotations of the LXX Psalter in 1 and 4 Maccabees, as well as isolated allusions to it in the Wisdom of Solomon. Among ancient authors, Philo of Alexandria quotes the LXX Psalter some sixteen times. For the purposes of this paper, I shall limit myself to examining the evidence from the LXX of Isaiah, Proverbs and 1 Maccabees, and from Philo.53 51. Even if the LXX version of the verses in question contains a veiled allusion to Judas Maccabaeus, this does not necessarily mean that the translation has a Palestinian provenance or was produced in the Maccabaean period (contra Schaper, Eschatology, and van der Kooij, 'Place of Origin'). It merely demonstrates that the translator was familiar with the situation in Judaea at that time. See Pietersma's review of Schaper's Eschatology in BO 54 (1997), pp. 185-90, and also his forthcoming 'The Place of Origin'. 52. For a general survey, see MJ. Mulder and Harry Sysling (eds.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 379-419. 53. Wisdom of Solomon contains a number of allusions to the LXX Psalms. These can be detected when comparing, for example, Wis. 1.1-15 and 6.1-21 with Pss. 2 and 45.8 (see Patrick W. Skehan, 'Borrowings from the Psalms in the Book of Wisdom', CBQ 10 [1948], pp. 384-97). In addition, the dependence of Joseph and Aseneth on the LXX—and particularly the Psalter—has been recognized by many scholars (e.g., Gerhard Delling, 'Einwirkungen der Sprache der Septuaginta in "Joseph und Aseneth" ', JSJ 9 [1978], pp. 29-56). For instance, the portrayal of Joseph in 5.5-6.6 has some parallels to the bridegroom-sun imagery in Ps. 18(19). However, the problem with relying in any way on this pseudepigraphical composition when attempting to date the translation of the LXX Psalms is that its temporal context is even more uncertain than that of the Psalter. Joseph and Aseneth has typically been assigned a date somewhere between the first century BCE and the early second century CE. However, this consensus has been challenged in two recently published works. Gideon Bohak, in Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Early Judaism and its Literature, 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), argues that it was written by a Jew who was connected with Onias's temple and who lived in the second century BCE. Ross Kraemer, in When Aseneth Met Joseph:

264

The Old Greek Psalter

c, LXX Isaiah A relationship between the LXX of Psalms and Isaiah has been noted by a number of scholars who, however, hold different opinions regarding the order of dependence. Mozley and Flashar suggest that the translator of the Psalter relied on Isaiah, while Seeligmann argues for the opposite.54 There are at least five instances in which a connection between the two books is possible. 1. Psalms 27(28)3,84(85).9 and Isaiah 32.4. In Isa. 32.4, mm* "Hi? is rendered by XaXeiv eiprrvrrv. The adjective ns (BDB: 'dazzling, glowing, clear'; HALAT: 'shimmering, gleaming, plain') is found only four times in the Hebrew Bible, and it appears to have caused some problems for Greek translators. It occurs twice in Isaiah—in the passage under consideration and in 18.4.55 Apparently the translator of Isaiah was not sure what ITO meant, so he opted for contextual translations.56 Xateiv £ipr|VT|v in 32.4 represents the same verbal root plus noun combination that is found twice in the Psalter. In 27(28).3 it renders Dl^tf nm, while in 84(85).9 it translates Dl^E? 12T.57

A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and his Egyptian Wife (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), goes in a different direction: 'It seems to me at least minorly perverse to argue that a Greek Aseneth was composed prior to the early second century CE and yet has no discernible life until three centuries later, when it suddenly seems to burst on the scene' (p. 452). Kraemer argues that it was written no earlier than the third or fourth century CE, which would make it completely useless for ascertaining the date of the Greek Psalter. (I would like to thank Edith Humphrey for her bibliographic assistance and for bringing to my attention the parallels between Joseph and Aseneth and Ps. 18[19].) 54. Mozley, Psalter of the Church, p. 182 n. 1; Flashar, 'Exegetische Studien', pp. 181-82; Seeligmann, Septuagint Version of Isaiah, p. 73. 55. In Song 5.10, the 'beloved' is described as DTTK1 PFS, which the LXX renders as XEVKO*; KOI Truppoq. Jer. 4.11 describes a searing wind, I"IK m*T, which is translated in the LXX as rcveuua TtXavnaecoq, a rendering that may have been influenced by LXX Isa. 18.4. 56. The translation of n^ in Isa. 18.4 is problematic. It appears that the translator related n^ to DHnu, and thus rendered it as U€crrpppia<;, which is one of the default translations of D'TTX in the LXX. 57. Cf. Ps. 121(122).8. See Seeligmann, Septuagint Version of Isaiah, p. 71.

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

265

2. Psalm 59(60).5 and Isaiah 29.1 PS. 60.5 MT rfrinn ]" larrptDn 59.5

isa. 29.10

LXX

...you have given us wine to drink that made us reel (NRSV) ercoTiacu; fpai; olvov KataviJ^eax; ...you gave us wine to drink that stupefied us (NETS)58

MT

nann mi mrr uy^s "pro

LXX

For the LORD has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep (NRSV) oti TCETtouKev iuua<; Kiipioc; Twetiuxxti Kaiavti^eax; For the Lord has given you a spirit of astonishment to drink

The use of TCOTi^co to render "]03, and the use of the rare word Kcrcdvu^ic;, 'astonishment', in Isa. 29.10 both suggest some form of intertextual connection with Ps. 59(60).5, the only other place where these terms occur together.59 While scholars agree that there is a dependency involving these verses, the direction of the dependency is debated. The discussion is focused on the neologism Katdvu^tc;, which is found only in these two passages in the LXX. Munnich60 argues that Kaidvu^iq does not mean 'stupification' as LSI indicates, but rather 'staggering' or 'reeling'. Thus, it is not an appropriate gloss for rftinn in Ps. 59(60).5. He then suggests that the translator did not attempt to extrapolate the sense of the noun from its context, but rather was inspired by the LXX of Isaiah. Munnich's line of reasoning breaks down, however, due to the fact that the LXX Isaiah is translating nQTin, not rftinn. This leads him to conjecture that either the Vorlage of Ps. 59(60).5 read (or the translator misread) nQ~nn, or that the translator was influenced by the occurrence of |" in the preceding verse. While this is possible, I think it is more plausible that the Psalms passage served as an example for the translator of Isaiah. First, it is not clear what would have caused the translator of the Psalms to think of Isa. 29.10, as there are no parallel terms in the 58. All English translations of the LXX Psalter are, unless otherwise indicated, taken from Albert Pietersma, A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title: The Psalms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), abbreviated as NETS. All English translations of the LXX for other books are my own. 59. Seeligmann, Septuagint Version of Isaiah, pp. 53, 71-72. 60. Munnich, 'Etude lexicographique', pp. 130-31,184-87.

266

The Old Greek Psalter

Hebrew.61 Second, the translation of the Isaiah passage is peculiar. Specifically, the rendering of "J03 (HALAT: 'pour out') by Tioii^co, 'give to drink', especially in conjunction with 7we\)|J,a,62 is unprecedented in the LXX and seems to betray the influence of Ps. 59(60).5 since Tioii^oo is the default for np2? in the LXX Psalms.63 Furthermore, the use Kaxdvu£i£ to render nQTT) in Isaiah is without parallel elsewhere in the LXX.64 Third, that the translation in Ps. 59(60).5 is inappropriate is not clear. The translator likely based his choice of equivalent for rftjnn on his knowledge of the cognate verb Kaiavijacyco, which he employed a number of times to render DDT.65 Thus it is more likely that the Isaiah translator did not know how best to translate his Vorlage, and was influenced by the LXX Psalter.66 3. Psalm 23(24)7 and Isaiah 6.4. Ps. 24.7 23.7 Isa. 6.4

MT tf7\B WIS Wttm .. .and be lifted up, O ancient doors (NRSV) LXX iced eTcdpOryte, nruXai aitovioi . ..and be raised up, O perpetual gates (NETS) MT

D'SOn niD« Wl The pivots on the thresholds shook (NRSV)

LXX

K0d e7tf|p0Tl TO \OTEp9vpOV

And the lintel was lifted up

61. It would seem to me that if the translator of the LXX Psalms had been influenced by the LXX of Isaiah, he would have recalled the two times that n^inn is accurately translated in Isa. 51.17, 22. In these verses, the phrase n'Pinnn DID, 'cup of reeling', is rendered by to TCOTTiptov TH<; Traoaeox;. See Munnich, 'Etude lexicographique', p. 184. 62. See Seeligmann, Septuagint Version of Isaiah, pp. 53, 71-72. In Isaiah, the verb "]D3 occurs four other times and is rendered by Ttoieco in 40.19 and yXityo) in 44.10, while in 25.7 (= pot>A/n?) and 30.1 (= cn>v9iiKii?) it is not exactly clear how the translator understood the underlying Hebrew. 63. nptd is rendered throughout the LXX Psalms by noti^G): Pss. 35(36).9; 59(60).5; 68(69).22; 77(78).15; 79(80).6; 103(104).! 1, 13. 64. ilDTYl is translated by eKOtaon; in Gen. 2.21 and 15.12, by Gdufioi; in 1 Sam. 26.12, by <|>6po<; in Job 4.13, by Seivoq <|>6po<; in Job 33.15, and by dvSpoywaioq in Prov. 19.15. 65. Pss. 4.5; 29(30).13; 34(35).15. In 108(109).16, Karavijaaco is the equivalent for HD3. 66. See Mozley, Psalter of the Church, p. 97.

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

267

Seeligmann, based on the use of ercctipco to render #13, suggests that the translation in Isa. 6.4 was inspired by Ps. 23(24).? (also v. 9).67 This equivalence is rather striking, given that the translator of Isaiah apparently knew what D13 meant as his rendering of it elsewhere shows: aatevo) (7.2 [2°]), aeia> (19.1), KXivco (24.20) and Ktveo (37.22).68 If there is any dependency involving the passages in Psalm 23(24) and Isaiah 6, it would have to be on the part of Isaiah since the translation in this psalm is entirely unremarkable, with enaipco as a standard equivalent for R2?3 in the Psalter.69 It is possible, therefore, that the translation in Isaiah was influenced by the Psalter, and that the liturgical contexts of both passages facilitated this connection.

4. Psalm 87(88).11 and Isaiah 26.14. PS. 88.il MT TTTP imp' D'KBTDK vberrwsn D'no^n 87.11

Isa. 26.14

LXX

MT LXX

Do you work wonders for the dead? Do the shades rise up to praise you? (NRSV) p,f| Totq veKpoiq jioif|OEi<; Gouuacna; il iatpol dvctCTniaovaiv, KOI e^ouoXoynaovTai aoi; Surely, you shall not work wonders for the dead? Or will physicians rise up and acknowledge you? (NETS) IQp'-^a DW1 TTT'n D'tlQ The dead do not live; shades do not rise (NRSV) oi 8e veicpoi ^eofjv or> u/q IScooiv, ot)8e iocpoi o\> u/n dvaaTTjatoai But the dead will not see life, nor will physicians raise them up

The rendering of D'KSn by laTpoi links these two verses. Obviously, in both translations D'RSI is regarded to be a participle (pointed as D'RS*"I) from the verbal root WEH, hence the idea of healers or physicians.70 As both translators clearly knew the meaning of the verbal root,71 it is

67. Seeligmann, Septuagint Version of Isaiah, p. 72. 68. I?1] occurs two other times in Isaiah. In 7.2 (1°) it is rendered by E^iornjii, while in 29.9 there is no clear Greek equivalent. 69. KtD3 is rendered by a variety of terms in the LXX Psalter, with ercaipoo being one of the more common equivalents (eight times). It is most frequently translated by aipco (15 times). Xa^pdvo) is another fairly common equivalent (seven times). 70. Cf. Par. II (2 Chron.) 16.12, Job 13.4 and Jer. 8.22 where participles of KS1 are also rendered by iaTpoq. 71. KB"! is almost always translated by itiouxxi in both the Psalms and Isaiah

268

The Old Greek Psalter

difficult to ascertain the direction of this dependency, if, indeed, there is such.

5. Psalm 78(79).! and Isaiah 1.8. PS. 79.1 MT DMjft D*?Grrrn« TDB 78.1

isa. 1.8

LXX

...they have laid Jerusalem in ruins (NRSV) e9evTO lepovaaXriu, eiq 6n:
MT

ntapan rat>aD...prn:i mrvrn

LXX

And daughter Zion is left... like a shelter in a cucumber field (NRSV) eyKaTdAei<|>0f|aeTai r\ GvydiTip Eieov... ax; o7i(opo<|)\)XdKiov ev anewpatq) The daughter of Zion will be deserted... like a fruit-watcher's hut in a field of cucumbers

The translation of TB, 'heap of ruins' (HALAT), by 67C(Dpo<j)\)A,aiaov, 'hut for one who guards a garden or an orchard' (LEH), occurs in Ps. 78(79).! as well as in Mic. 1.6 and 3.12 (with an Aramaic plural: ]"#). In Jer. 33(26).18, T is rendered by dpaioq, 'desolate'. In Isaiah, OTKDpO(|>vA,dKiov is used twice as an equivalent for n]l^D, 'watchman's hut' (1.8; 24.20). Mozley suggests that the translation in the psalm could have been intended to convey an image of solitary melancholy, or that perhaps Isa. 1.8 provided the template for the other occurrences.72 Seeligmann, on the other hand, proposes that the psalm may have influenced the translator of Isaiah.73 Again, the direction of any such dependency is difficult to determine. d. LXX Proverbs There are a number of indications that the LXX of Proverbs is dependent on the Greek translation of the Psalter. The most compelling example is found in Prov. 1.7.

(e.g. Pss. 6.3; 29[30].3; 40[41].5; 59[60].4; 102[103].3; 106[107].20; 146[147].3; Isa. 6.10; 19.22; 30.26; 53.5; 57.18,19). 72. Mozley, Psalter of the Church, p. 132. Cf. Flashar, 'Exegetische Studien', pp. 181-84; Olofsson, LXX Version, p. 27. 73. Seeligmann, The Septuagint of Isaiah, pp. 73-74.

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

269

1. Psalm 110(111).10 and Proverbs 1.7a. PS. 111.10 MT Drr-Bir^ aio l»o mrr n«T rison rrttan 110.10

Prov. 1.7

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. (NRSV) LXX <xp%fi oo<(>iaq fyofioc, Kupiou, CTTJVEOK; dyaGri rcaal TOI<; rcoiotiaiv awnv. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. (NETS)

MT in D^IR IDIOT HQDn run rTEto mm mrp The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. (NRSV) LXX apXTi CTo^iaq tyofioc, Qeov, cniveCTK; 8e dyaOfi rcaci tolc, rcoioiiaiv at)TT|v evae|3eia 8e eiq 0eov apxt] aiaSriaeax;, ao<|>iav 8e KOI TiaiSeiav daepEiq e£ou0evf|aoD(nv. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and all those who practice it have a good understanding. And piety towards God is the beginning of knowledge, but the ungodly will despise wisdom and instruction.

The Hebrew text of Prov. 1.7 is significantly different from the Greek translation, but the first half of the latter corresponds almost exactly to the LXX translation of the first half of Ps. 110(111). 10. This suggests that the translator of Proverbs took that part of the verse from Psalms.74 The choice of 9eo<; over KTjpioq in Prov. 1.7a is likely conditioned by the use of 6eo<; later in the verse.75 2. Psalm 111(112).5 and Proverbs 13.11.

PS. 112.5

MT oaizm r-m bzto' rrrTDi jurr eptraio It is well with those who deal generously and lend, who conduct their affairs with justice. (NRSV)

74. It appears that the translator of Proverbs deliberately took the first half of the verse from LXX Psalms, since even the order of 'the beginning of wisdom' and 'fear of God/Yhwh' is that of the Psalter, not of Proverbs. The only other option is to suggest that the Vorlage of LXX Proverbs was significantly different than the MT. See Munnich, 'Etude lexicographique', pp. 437-39. 75. It may also reflect a variant in the LXX Psalter since the Sahidic text of Ps. 110(111). 10 attests eeov. However, given that the Sahidic also attests 8e in the second stich, it seems more likely that the Upper Egyptian text was influenced by Proverbs.

270

The Old Greek Psalter 111.5

LXX %pi\
Prov. 13.11 MT (T3T T*?B ppl BSD11 "PSHD ]lil Wealth hastily gotten will dwindle, but those who gather little by little will increase it. (NRSV) LXX uicap^iq ejtic7tot>5a£o|i£VTi \iEiit avouaaq EXaaoaw yi VETCH, 6 8e ouvaymv eautq> net' etioepeiai; JiXn6wftr|aetav SiKaioq oiKtipev KOI KixptjiWealth hastily gotten with iniquity will become less, but the one who gathers for himself with godliness will be multiplied. The righteous one is merciful and lends.

Another possible example of dependency is to be found in the last part of LXX Prov. 13.11, which has no Hebrew counterpart but is reminiscent of Ps. 111(112). 5. First, there is the parallel use of the verbs oiKxipoo and Kixpdox Second, the latter verb is a neologism that is found in only one other LXX text, 1 Sam. 1.28. That the Greek Proverbs text is dependent on the Psalms translation is the most plausible explanation for the parallels. This, of course, raises the question about the date of Greek Proverbs. Evidently the translation is pre-Philo, since Philo appears to quote LXX Proverbs in a number of his writings.76 Recently, Johann Cook has dated the Septuagint of Proverbs to the beginning of the second century BCE on the basis of internal evidence.77 If this date is accurate, it would push back the translation of the Psalter to the late third century BCE. e. 1 Maccabees 1. Psalm 78(79)2-3 and 1 Maccabees 7.16-17. Ps. 79.2-3

MT

avan epsf? toKD -poj) rfxirrw iru ptrirrn1? fTon nra •nip ]'KI cfazrrr nnno D'DD DDT issto They have given the bodies of your servants to the birds of the air for food, the flesh of your faithful to the wild animals of the earth.

76. For example, Prov. 3.4 and 4.3 (Ebr. 84), 4.11-12 (Congr. 177), 8.22-23 (Ebr. 31andV;Vf.62). 77. "The Dating of Septuagint Proverbs', ETL 69 (1993), pp. 383-99.

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

78.2-3

1 Mace. 7.16-17

271

They have poured out their blood like water all around Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them. (NRSV) LXX eGevto TCI 6vr|CTiuma TG>V SoiiXcov ao\> (3pa>uma TOI<; TteTeivoig toi) ovpavoi), Tag octpKai;TC&Vooicov aou Toiq 0rjpioi<; tnq fife e^exeav to alu,a avreov ax; i)5oop Ktnctap lepouaaXrp, KOI OVK fjv 6 SCWIITOOV. They placed the corpses of your slaves as food for the birds of the air, the flesh of your devout for the wild animals of the earth. They poured out their blood like water all around lerousalem, and there was no one to bury them. (NETS) Kai eveTtioTeuoav crimp, Kai
The appeal to this psalm in conjunction with the description of the massacre of the Hasideans by Alcimus was probably inspired by the linguistic connection between the term Hasideans (1 Mace. 7.13) and the 'faithful ones' (Ps. 78[79].2).78 Significantly, the TOH = oaioq equiva78. See Robert Doran, 'The First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections', in L. Keck et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter's Bible, IV (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), p. 96. There are problems with the text of this passage in 1 Maccabees. In particular, the quotation formula, 6v eypa\|/ev awov, literally translated would read, 'which he wrote it'. This has been taken by Jonathan A. Goldstein (I Maccabees [AB, 41; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976], p. 332) as an indication that Alcimus himself wrote Ps. 78(79).2-3. While he and others have dated this psalm to the Maccabaean era on the basis of its alleged connection with Alcimus, most scholars associate it with the events of 587 BCE (see the discussion in H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60-150: A Commentary [trans. H.C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989], pp. 133-34). In any case, the quotation formula remains difficult to interpret. Various copyists altered the text in order to solve the problem (adding 'the prophet', 'Asaph' or even 'David'). Some commentators (e.g. Neil J. McEleney, '1-2 Maccabees', in R.E. Brown, J.A. Fitzmyer and R.E. Murphy [eds.],

272

The Old Greek Psalter

lence is found almost exclusively in Psalms, and this may be another indicator that the translator of 1 Maccabees was inspired by the LXX Psalter.79 Indeed, whereas all 25 occurrences of TOPI in the Psalter are rendered by 6ato<;,80 this equation is attested only twice elsewhere (Deut. 33.8; 2 Sam. 22.26).81 This evidence strongly suggests that 1 Mace. 7.17 is dependent on the LXX translation of Ps. 78(79).2-3. 2. Psalm 105(106).!, etc. and 1 Maccabees 4.24. Another possible sign of a connection between 1 Maccabees and the LXX Psalter is found in 1 Mace. 4.24 which contains a reference to Judas and his band returning home from battle singing hymns and praises to heaven, 'For he is good, for his mercy endures forever' (oti KataSv, on eiq tov aiwva TO eXeoc; awoi)). The fact that this refrain is found a number of times in the LXX Psalter82 may be indicative of an intertextual relationship, though it is just as likely that this was a commonly used liturgical formula at that time. If 1 Maccabees was dependent on the Septuagint of Psalms, which seems likely, that would mean that the translation of the LXX Psalter took place sometime prior to the first century BCE. f. Philo of Alexandria Philo of Alexandria (c. 20-15 BCE-50 CE) quotes or alludes to the book of Psalms 17 times in his writings.83 The citations range from exact The New Jerome Biblical Commentary [Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990], pp. 421-46 [432]) argue that the implied subject of eypaxj/ev is God. 79. Munnich, 'Etude lexicographique', p. 425. 80. Pss. 4.4; 11(12).2; 15(16).10; 17(18).26; 29(30).5; 30(31).24; 31(32).6; 36(37).28; 42(43).!; 49(50).5 (20.18 attests 07105); 51(52). 11; 78(79).2; 84(85).9; 85(86).2; 88(89).20; 96(97).10; 115.6 (116.15); 131(132).9, 16; 144(145).10, 17; 148.14; 149.1, 5, 9. 81. Four other occurrences of Ton are translated in various ways: eX,eTiu,a)v (Jer. 3.12); eMaprj<; (Mic. 7.2); eMapeoum (Prov. 2.8); woq (Par. II [2 Chron.] 6.41); in 1 Sam. 2.9a where TOPF appears in the MT, the LXX attests a different text. 82. Cf. cm eiq TOV cdwva TO eXeoq autou in Pss. 105(106).!; 106(107).!; 117(118).!, 2, 3, 4, 29; 135(136).!, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, etc. 83. The quotations may be categorized as follows: (1) exact quotations: Deus Imm. 77 = Ps. 74(75).9; Mut. Norn. 115 = Ps. 22(23).!; Agr. 50 = Ps. 22(23).!; Plant. 39 = Ps. 36(37).4; Somn. 2.245 = Ps. 64(65). 10; Migr. Abr. 157 = Ps. 79.6 [* MT 80.6]; Gig. 17 = Ps. 77(78).49; (2) quotations with slight modifications (typically of a contextual nature): Deus Imm. 74—Ps. 100(101).!; Deus Imm. 82—Ps. 61(62). 12; Plant. 29—Ps. 93(94).9; Fug. 59—Ps. 113.25 (115.17);

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

273

quotations that correspond to the text of the LXX Psalter to free paraphrases or adaptations.84 In between these two extremes are citations that exhibit minor contextual modifications.85 Frequently when Philo quotes the LXX Psalms exactly, the text of the LXX corresponds closely to the Hebrew text. In a number of other cases in which Philo follows the LXX Psalter, the Greek translator has rendered a Hebrew term in a unique or unconventional way. These latter examples furnish evidence for Philo's dependence on the Greek translation.

1. Psalm 74(75).9 and Quod Deus sit immutabilis 77. PS. 75.9 MT "JOD tfTQ non p mrr-pu DID o 74.9

Deus Imm, 11

For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup with foaming wine, well mixed (NRSV) LXX oti rcotf|piov ev xeiPl Kupiou OIVOD otKpdtov TiXf^pet; Kepda^icnxx; For in the Lord's hand there is a cup of pure wine, a cup full of a mixture (NETS) noTnpiov ev xeiP* Kupiov, oivou aKpaiou nkr\pe<; Kepdcrumoq ...in the hand of the Lord there is a cup of pure wine, full of a mixture86

In Ps. 74(75).9, the rendering of "1QH by aKpatoq deserves comment since Philo's discussion of this verse hinges on the distinction between mixed (icepaauxx) and unmixed (aKpcrroc;) wine—a distinction that is Somn. 2.246—Ps. 45.5(46.4); Conf. Ling. 52—Ps. 79(80).7; Migr. Abr. 157—Ps. 41(42).4; (3) paraphrases: Rer. Div. Her. 290—Ps. 83(84). 11; Decal. 74—Ps. 113.13-16 (115.5-8); Deus Imm. 182—Ps. 90(91).! 1-12. The edition of the Greek text of Philo employed in this study is that of The Loeb Classical Library (12 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1929-62). 84. This is in line with his use of the LXX in general. See Swete, Old Testament in Greek, pp. 372-74; Herbert Edward Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture; or, The Quotations of Philo from the Books of the Old Testament (London: Macmillan, 1895). 85. For example, in Deus Imm. 82, Philo cites Ps. 61(62).12, substituting only Kiipioq for 6eo<;; in Somn. 2.246, when quoting Ps. 45.5 (46.4) he changes plural subject and verb to singular; in Conf. Ling. 52, he cites Ps. 79(80).7 but substitutes a third person verb for one in the second person and adds 6 6eo<; to make the subject explicit. 86. The English translations of Philo in this essay are my own.

274

The Old Greek Psalter

made in the LXX but not the MT.87 This appears to be due to the translator's construing of "IDfl as the noun IDn (HALAT: 'still fermenting wine'), rather than as the verb as is the case in the MT tradition.88 2. Psalm 79(80)7 and De confusione linguarum 52. Ps. 80.7a 79.7a

Conf. Ling. 52

MT iriDe/? |Tia lami You make us the scorn of our neighbors... (NRSV) LXX eeov f|u,a<; ei<; dvnXoyiav toi<; yevcoaiv i\\i&v You made us an object of contention to our neighbors (NETS) eOeto yap T|ux5<; 6 6eo<; eiq dvuXoyiav TOI<; yeiToaw fpaiv For God made us an object of contention for our neighbours

This is another instance in which Philo's quotation attests to a distinctive rendering in the LXX Psalms. While the quotation is modified slightly to fit Philo's context,89 dvuXoYia, which is the Psalter translator's equivalent for ]1~ID, remains. In fact, this is the only place in the LXX where this lexical equivalence occurs.90 Philo's employment of dvTtAx>yia in this context suggests that it was his knowledge of the LXX version of this verse that inspired the quotation in the first place. While one could argue that Philo was making his own ad hoc translation of the Hebrew, it is doubtful that he would come up with the same distinctive Hebrew-Greek equivalent, especially considering that his command of Hebrew was probably minimal.91 87. See Yehoshua Amir, 'Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo', in Mulder and Sysling (eds.), Mikra, pp. 440-41 for other examples of Philo's exegesis based on the Greek text where that text diverges from the Hebrew. 88. In the only other place that the verb ion is found in the Psalter, it is rendered appropriately by tapdaow in the context of a description of foaming waters (Ps. 45[46].4). aKpatoc; is found only one other time in the LXX, as part of a phrase that corresponds to ildftn ]"!"[, 'wine of wrath', i.e., 'this unmixed wine' (Jer. 32.1 [25.15]). 89. A second person verb is changed to third person, and the subject is made explicit by adding 6 6eo<;. 90. plQ occurs a total of 19 times in the LXX, though this is the only occurrence in the Psalter. It is translated by a variety of terms, and occurs most frequently in Proverbs. 91. See Peder Borgen, 'Philo of Alexandria', ABD, V, pp. 333-42.

WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter

275

3. Psalm 79(80).6 and De migratione Abrahami 157. Ps. 80.6a 79.6a

Migr. Abr. 157

njJDT OH1? Drfofcn You have fed them with the bread of tears (NRSV) LXX \|«ji>ui£i<; awotx; [v.l. T^aq] apxov 8aKp\)(ov Will you feed them [mg. us] with the bread of tears (NETS) MT

\|/a>n,iei<; fpaq ap-rov SaKpixov You will feed us with the bread of tears

In this case as well, Philo's quotation agrees with the LXX Psalter whose rendering is not a precise equivalent of the MT.92 Philo follows the Greek, whose majority text features the first person plural pronoun as object rather than the third person plural of the Hebrew, and which attests the future, rather than the perfect, tense of the verb. The latter is somewhat odd since Hebrew suffixed forms are typically translated by aorists. The preceding quotations of the LXX Psalter by Philo provide evidence to suggest that the translation of Psalms must have taken place no later than the early part of the first century BCE. However, as argued above,93 Philo also cites the LXX of Proverbs on a number of occasions, and that translation appears, in turn, to be dependent on the LXX Psalter. Given that the LXX of Proverbs must, therefore, have been produced between the time of Philo's literary career and the translation of the LXX Psalter, this could mean that the date for the creation of the LXX Psalter is to be located within the second century BCE, if not earlier. 4. Conclusions Taking into account the quotations of, and allusions to, the LXX Psalms that have been discussed in this paper, one can establish a relative chronology that situates this translation prior to the translations of both Isaiah94 and Proverbs. The evidence of 1 Maccabees seems to indicate that the LXX Psalter was translated before the first century BCE. Philo's 92. An additional possible example is the exact quotation of Ps. 22(23).! (Kvpioq Tioiuaivei ue Kai ovSev ue ixneprioei) in Mut. Norn. 115 and Agr. 50. The translation of the Hebrew participle by a present tense verb is somewhat atypical, and could therefore be an indication that Philo was dependent on the LXX Psalter. 93. Seen. 73. 94. Seeligmann dates the translation of LXX Isaiah to c. 170-150 BCE (Septuagint Version of Isaiah, pp. 76-94).

276

The Old Greek Psalter

quotations tend to confirm this since Philo apparently also quoted from the LXX of Proverbs. In addition, if the possible allusion to Judas Maccabaeus in Ps. 59(60) is taken into consideration, one could conclude that the translation was made after, perhaps not long after, the events of 161 BCE. Thus, on the basis of this convergence of evidence—internal and external, biblical and non-biblical—we can, with a high degree of confidence, date the translation of the LXX Psalter to the second century BCE. Whether it was the early part of the second century BCE as the external evidence appears to suggest, or the second half of the second century as the possible allusions to Judas Maccabaeus might indicate, depends on how one assesses the evidence. While this conclusion is modest, it does confirm what many have argued before. It also provides a starting point from which one may enter into the discussion regarding the completion of the canonical Psalter, in the light of all the available evidence from both the Qumran Psalms manuscripts and the Septuagint Psalter.

THE GREEK PSALTER IN PAUL'S LETTERS: A TEXTUAL STUDY Moises Silva

As is well known, the Old Greek Psalter is the source for a large proportion of scriptural quotations found in the New Testament, and in Paul's writings in particular. Out of 107 quotations in the Pauline corpus (if we include ten that are somewhat debatable), fully 24 come from the Psalter.1 It may be useful to begin by providing a complete table of the references. For the reader's convenience, a second table sorts these references according to their sequence in the Psalms. Chapter and verse numbers in the Psalter correspond to those of the Greek text, with the English reference included in parentheses (a question mark indicates that not all scholars identify the reference as a citation). For most of these citations, there are no substantial differences among the Masoretic Text (MT), the OG and the Pauline texts—but this is to some extent a matter of personal opinion. An asterisk (*) and a hash sign (#) are used in the first list to indicate instances where, in my judgment, there is a significant difference between MT and OG: if Paul agrees with OG against MT, the asterisk is used; if he agrees with neither OG nor MT, the hash sign is used. There are no instances where Paul agrees with MT against OG (except perhaps for the omission of lou cdcbvoq in 2 Cor. 9.9). The measure of agreement between Paul and OG is further indicated in the first list with the following sigla (a double label signifies that different grades are being assigned to different parts of the citation): 1. This number is exceeded only by the book of Isaiah, which accounts for almost thirty citations. The books of Genesis and Deuteronomy account for approximately fourteen each. For the data, see M. Silva, 'Old Testament in Paul', in G.F. Hawthorne et al. (eds.), Dictionaiy of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), pp. 630-42, especially the table on p. 631.

278

The Old Greek Psalter

[A]= exact agreement, according to the critical texts2 [B]= trivial difference(s) without textual (or hermeneutical) significance [C]= difference(s) of textual (or hermeneutical) interest [D]= substantial discrepancy Table 1 [B] [B] [D] [A] [A] [B,C] [B] [C] [A] [B] [A] [B,C] [D] [A] [C] [C] [C] [A] [B, C] [B, C] [A] [A] [C] [D]

Rom. 2.6 Rom. 3.4 Rom. 3.10-12 Rom.3.13a Rom. 3.13b Rom. 3.14 Rom. 3.18 Rom. 3.20 Rom. 4.7-8 Rom. 8.36 Rom. 10.18 Rom. 11.2 (cf. v.l) Rom. 11.9-10 Rom. 15.3 Rom. 15.9 Rom. 15.11 1 Cor. 3.20 1 Cor. 10.26 1 Cor. 15.25 1 Cor. 15.27 2Cor.4.13 2 Cor. 9.9 Gal. 2.16 Eph. 4.8

Ps. 61.13 (62.12); cf. Prov. 24.12 *Ps. 50.6 (51.4) *#Ps. 13.1-3 (14.1-3) = 52.2-4 (53.1-3) Ps. 5.10 (5.9) Ps. 139.4 (140.3) *Ps. 9.28 (10.7) Ps. 35.2 (36.1) ?Ps. 142.2 (143.2) *Ps. 31.1-2 (32.1-2) Ps. 43.23 (44.22) *Ps. 18.5 (19.4) ?Ps. 93.14 (94.14) #Ps. 68.23-24 (69.22-23) Ps. 68.10 (69.9) Ps. 17.50 (18.49) = 2 Sam. 22.50 Ps. 116.1(117.1) Ps. 93.11 (94.11) Ps. 23.1 (24.1) ?Ps. 109.1 (110.1) Ps. 8.7 (8.6) Ps. 115.1 (116.10) Ps. 111.9 (112.9) ?Ps. 142.2 (143.2) #Ps. 67.19 (68.18)

2. That is, A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta. X. Psalmi cum Odis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3rd edn [unchanged from 2nd edn], 1979); and the New Testament text found in both the 4th edn of UBSGNT and the 27th edn of NestleAland, Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993).

SILVA The Greek Psalter in Paul's Letters

279

Table 2 Ps. 5.10(5.9) Ps. 8.7 (8.6) Ps. 9.28 (10.7) Ps. 13.1-3 (14.1-3) = 52.2-4 (53.1-3) Ps. 17.50 (18.49) = 2 Sam. 22.50 Ps. 18.5 (19.4) Ps. 23.1(24.1) Ps. 31.1-2(32.1-2) Ps. 35.2(36.1) Ps. 43.23 (44.22) Ps. 50.6(51.4) Ps. 61.13 (62.12); cf. Prov. 24.12 Ps. 67.19 (68.18) Ps. 68.10 (69.9) Ps. 68.23-24 (69.22-23) Ps. 93.11 (94.11) Ps. 93.14 (94.14) Ps. 109.1(110.1) Ps. 111.9(112.9) Ps. 115.1(116.10) Ps. 116.1(117.1) Ps. 139.4(140.3) Ps. 142.2 (143.2) Ps. 142.2 (143.2)

Rom. 3.13a 1 Cor. 15.27 Rom. 3.14 Rom. 3.10-12 Rom. 15.9 Rom. 10.18 1 Cor. 10.26 Rom. 4.7-8 Rom. 3.18 Rom. 8.36 Rom. 3.4 Rom. 2.6 Eph.4.8 Rom. 15.3 Rom. 11.9-10 1 Cor. 3.20 Rom. 11.2 1 Cor. 15.25 2 Cor. 9.9 2 Cor. 4.13 Rom. 15.11 Rom. 3.13b Rom. 3.20 Gal. 2.16

The high proportion of references in Romans, and after that in 1 Corinthians, is not peculiar to citations from the Psalter; one finds a similar proportion when Pauline citations from the whole Greek Bible are taken into account. What is remarkable, however, is the fact that six out of the sixteen instances occur in one paragraph, Rom. 3.10-18 (the quotations in vv. 15-17 come from Isa. 59.7-8). Although we find multiple citations elsewhere (see especially Rom. 9.25-33 and Gal. 3.6-14), this passage stands out in that respect.3 The second table reveals no obvious patterns; Paul ranges throughout the whole of the Psalter in search of passages that support or illustrate the points he wishes to make. 3. See the discussions in Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Venvendung und zum Verstdndnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT, 69; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986), pp. 179-84, and Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS, 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 87-99.

280

The Old Greek Psalter 1. Exact and Nearly Exact Citations: Categories [A] and [B]

The passages labeled [A], where the form of Paul's quotation agrees exactly with the earliest ascertainable OG text, are the following: Rom. 3.13a = Ps. 5.10 Rom. 3.13b = Ps. 139.4 Rom. 4.7-8 = Ps. 31.1-2 Rom. 10.18 = Ps. 18.5 Rom. 15.3 = Ps. 68.10 ICor. 10.26 = Ps. 23.1 2 Cor. 4.13 = Ps. 115.1 2 Cor. 9.9 = Ps. 111.9

In all eight of these citations, both the OG and the New Testament text are secure; indeed, for most of them, there are no extant textual variants at all.4 For the citations that do have variants, only a few comments are needed. In Rom. 4.8 the relative pronoun o\) has been corrected to the dative co in most of the manuscript tradition, both in the New Testament (including A C *P 33 1881, and late correctors of K and D) and in the Lucianic Recension of the OG. In 2 Cor. 9.9, F G K add the words TOV cdoovoi; at the end, thus bringing the citation into greater conformity with OG. In 2 Cor. 4.13, K joins F G and a few other witnesses in adding KQI after 816. In another eight cases, labeled [B], the quotations are not exact, but what discrepancies there are have no implications, either for the transmission of the OG text or for our understanding of Paul's hermeneutics. The difference may simply be the result of adjusting the syntax to the context, such as changing the verb from second person to third (Rom. 2.6 = Ps. 61.13; 1 Cor. 15.27 = Ps. 8.7, meta^ev) or from future to past (Rom. 11.2 = Ps. 93.14), or changing a pronoun from singular to plural (Rom. 3.14 = Ps. 9.28, cov; Rom. 3.18 = Ps. 35.2). In two instances we simply have morphological variations: Rom. 3.4 = Ps. 50.6 (viKf|oei<^ viKT|
4. For this information, I am dependent on the editions by Rahlfs and NestleAland, and also on C. Tischendorf (ed.), Novum Testamentum Graece (2 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 8th edn critica maior, 1869-72).

SILVA The Greek Psalter in Paul's Letters

281

Labels [A] and [B] apply to approximately two-thirds of the citations. The textual significance of this fact is that it suggests the existence of a stable OG text for the Psalter, used by Paul in the first century and accessible to us today. To put it differently: if these were the only quotations from the Psalms in the Pauline literature, we would not have any reason to believe that Paul had access to a Greek translation of the Psalter different in character from that preserved in the major uncials. 2. Citations with Substantial Discrepancies: Categojy [D] Three of the quotations contain weighty differences, but it is doubtful that any of them can be used as evidence for the existence of an alternative translation of the Psalter available to Paul. 1. The long citation in Rom. 3.10-12 = Ps. 13.1-3 (cf. 52.2-4) gives every indication that the differences should be attributed to Paul's own rhetorical interests. Note in v. 10, for example, the use of 8ixmo<; (so crucial in Romans) in place of TIOKDV xprjaTOTryca (Ps. 52.2 has JIOICDV dya66v). Similarly, the changes in the clauses that follow can hardly be attributed to a competing translation of the Hebrew: Ps. 13.1-2 o\)K e<mv Ttoiwv %piiaTOtT|Ta, ot>K ecmv ecoq evo<;. Kvpioq EK TOV ovpavot) SiEKUxjTEV £jti toix; movq TOW dvGpamcov TOU iSelv ei ecmv eruvioov r\ £K£r|T(»v tov Geov.

Rom. 3.10-12a ot)K eativ 8iKaioq o\)8e eiq,

o\)K ecmv 6 cruvicov, o\)K ecmv 6 eK^Tcav TOV 0eov.

The statement in OG (following the Hebrew) that 'The Lord peered down from heaven on humankind / to see if there are any who have understanding, or who seek after God'5 is interpreted by Paul, reasonably, as a poetic way of saying that such people do not exist. To quote that statement fully, however, would have broken the rhetorical effect of the short clauses used in Romans. Accordingly, Paul changes eco<; evo<; to ot)8e ei<; so that he can move down the second OIJK ecmv, which now can take the place of the indirect question (loft I8eiv el); he 5. Translation by Albert Pietersma, to whom I am thankful for letting me see a pre-publication draft of his contribution to the New English Translation of the Septuagint (A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title: The Psalms [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000]).

282

The Old Greek Psalter

then adds a definite article to the participle ouvicov, and repeats the technique with the participle eK^rjKOv.6 It is a fine example of Paul's ability to adapt the language of the scriptural text to the purposes at hand. 2. More difficult to analyze is Rom. 11.9 = Ps. 68.23 (Rom. 11.10 is identical to Ps. 68.24, and both verses are free of textual variation): Ps. 68.23 Rom. 11.9 yevn6f|TO) fj Tpdrce^a atMxSv yevT|6iTKfl fj tpaTte^a aira»v evawctov avccov eiq rcayiSa eiq TtayiSa KOI eiq Oripav Kai ei<; dvccwcoSoaiv Kai eiq aicdv8aXov Kai ei<; oKavSaXov ical ei<; dvtaTtoSoua awoii;

The change in the word order of the last two lines, as well as the addition of ax)Toi<;, can easily be understood as minor stylistic variations that subtly improve the sense (cf. oKdv8aA0v plus dative in 1 Cor. 1.2324). Similarly, not much should be made of the dviaTcoSocnv/dvTa7i65ofia variation. Why, however, would Paul omit evcwciov avtoav and add KOI ei<; Orjpav?7 Some have suggested that Paul is echoing Ps. 34.8 (35.8), but the evidence for this proposal—namely, the mere occurrence of the word Gfjpa in the context of the psalmist's enemies—is hardly weighty. One must leave open the possibility that Paul's quotation reflects an alternate translation based on a different reading of the Hebrew (that is, HS^l nn*h> instead of HED^T DH^D^).8 3. Our last instance, found in one of the disputed letters, Eph. 4.8 = Ps. 67.19 (68.18), is a particularly intriguing citation:

6. The transmission of the respective texts has suffered somewhat, partly as a result of mutual influence (not only between Ps. 13 and Rom. 3, but also between Ps. 13 and 52). For example, in Ps. 13.3 some witnesses add the definite article before JIOKBV, no doubt under the influence of Romans; conversely, the majority of New Testament MSS (including A and B) omit the same article, though here the decision is more difficult. Especially problematic is the omission of the last oinc eonv (Rom. 3.12c) in B and a few other MSS. 7. Tischendorf reports some minimal textual evidence for changes that adjust the New Testament form to that of the OG. 8. This proposal was made by K. Miiller, Anstoft und Gericht: Eine Studie zum judischen Hintergrund des paulinischen Skandalon-Begriffs (SANT, 19; Munich: Kosel, 1969), p. 21; in a footnote, the author credits Joseph Ziegler with this suggestion. Koch, objecting that there are no other clear signs the quotation has been corrected toward the Hebrew, prefers to see this change as a pre-Pauline, stylistic development of the text (Schrift, pp. 137-38).

SILVA The Greek Psalter in Paul's Letters Ps. 67.19 avspr\c, eic, ityoc;, TOiaXrotewai; aixn-cAaxricev, eXapie? dojicrca ev dvBpamcp

283

Eph. 4.8 dvapai; eic; uifo^ fixuataoreuaev aixjiaXaxnav, eScoKev SonataTOiqtivOpcanoi;

The change in the verbs from second to third person, with the concomitant change of the first verb from finite to participle, fits the pattern of minor stylistic adjustments we noticed among citations labeled [B]. The third line, however, involves such a substantive change—after all, the verbs 'to give' and 'to receive' are conversives9—that it appears to create an opposite meaning. Various attempts have been made to explain the hermeneutics involved, but the purpose of this article is only to inquire into the textual question as such. The Ephesians passage has played havoc with the transmission of the OG text. Indeed, every one of the textual distinctives in Ephesians is to be found in one or another group of witnesses to the Greek Psalter. None of these variants, however, can be said to have any claim to originality, nor is there good reason to believe that any of them predate Paul.10 On the other hand, the OG text has had very little effect on New Testament manuscripts. According to Tischendorf, several Greek manuscripts, including A and L, retain the second person •fjxuako>Te'uoa<;; note also the presence of ev after Souaia in F G and a handful of cursives. How does one then account for eScoicev? It has been suggested (a) that the Hebrew verb for 'take/receive', Op1?, was at some point (whether deliberately or by mistake) read as p'pn, 'distribute'; and/or (b) that an early Jewish tradition—eventually incorporated into the Targum to Psalms—interpreted the text as a reference to Moses, who had 'taught the words of the Torah' and who 'gave them as gifts to the sons of men'.11 If so, the author of Ephesians (whether Paul or a disciple of 9. Cf. John Lyons, Semantics (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), I, pp. 279-80; Eugene A. Nida, Componential Analysis of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Structures (Approaches to Semiotics, 57; The Hague: Mouton, 1975), p. 109. 10. It is therefore misleading to say, "The Vaticanus text of the LXX already has the aorist participle instead of the second person singular of the aorist tense, and this more easily prepares the way for the alteration from the second person singular of the original to the third person in the rest of the citation' (Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians [WBC, 42; Dallas: Word Books, 1990], p. 242). 11. See P. de Lagarde (ed.), Hagiographa chaldaice (repr. Osnabriick: Zeller,

284

The Old Greek Psalter

his) might have capitalized on such an interpretative tradition and applied the psalm to Christ. And, clearly, one cannot rule out the possibility that some such Christian interpretation was already circulating prior to the writing of Ephesians. The view that Eph. 4.8 reflects an early (oral) Aramaic textual tradition should be taken seriously, though the evidence can be interpreted in other ways. It would be rather precarious, at any rate, to pile probability on probability by inferring that the author of Ephesians had access to a competing Greek translation of the Psalm. 3. Remaining Citations: Category [C] Having discussed both the least and the most problematic passages, we can quickly survey the remaining citations. 1. Rom. 3.14 = Ps. 9.28 (English 10.7) involves two types of changes. First, there is a contextual adjustment of singular to plural, which belongs in category [B]. Second, we find a change in the word order: OG = dpaq TO aiouxx cwtoi) yejiei Kai Ttiicpiac; KOI 56A,oi); New Testament = to otojia dpaq Kai TiiKpiaq yeu€i.12 In his own writing, Paul consistently avoids the stylish separation of verbal objects, a feature that would have been especially conspicuous as a result of his decision not to include the third object (KOI 86X00)). 2. Many scholars do not regard Rom. 3.20 and Gal. 2.16 as citations of Ps. 142.2. In the psalm we have a petition, entreating God not to judge his servant, on o\) 6iKaico0fiCTeTai evomiov aov Tiaq £cov. With a couple of alterations, Paul uses these words as he argues for justification apart from the law: 8ioti13 e£ epycov v6jio\) ov 5iKaio>6r|aeTai rcaaa aap£ evawiiov awoi) (Galatians omits the last two words). It goes without saying that the phrase e£ epycov vouou comes from Paul himself, but he probably would have been baffled at the suggestion that he 1967 [1873]), p. 38: KKtt 'Eft ]]DD |inb Nmrp KmiR 'DafTS Rre'PK. The Peshitta of this psalm, though otherwise a literal translation of the Hebrew, also uses the verb yhbt. Perhaps the most persuasive argument for the view that such a Jewish textual tradition may have been the source of the wording in Ephesians is the clear article by Richard A. Taylor, 'The Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8 in Light of the Ancient Versions', BSac 148 (1991), pp. 319-36. 12. Here B and 33 add axraSv. 13. In Gal. 2.6, the majority of MSS have 6ioti, but the original reading is almost surely on. Some witnesses retain the OG order of the clauses in Rom. 3; others do it in Gal. 2 (cf. Tischendorf).

SILVA The Greek Psalter in Paul's Letters

285

was not quoting Scripture. The plea of the psalmist reflects a recognition that his conduct deserves condemnation, and sinful conduct (that is, behavior that does not measure up to the demands of the law) is surely what Paul has in mind when he refers to the psalm.14 The use of Tictacx odpJ; instead of the uniquely occurring naq £(»v should just as surely be attributed to his personal preference for the former phrase, which is the usual expression. 3. Some specialists also fail to accept Rom. 11.2 = Ps. 93.14 as an actual citation, partly because it has no introductory formula. The promise affirmed by the psalmist, OTJK dircoaetai K\)pio<; TOY Axxov a\)io'0, is turned into a rhetorical question in Rom. 11.1, uf| otTccoaaxo 6 0eo<; TOY A,aov cruToi); and then into a fulfillment in v. 2, OVK CUKOCTOTO 6 9eoq TOY A,aov amov 6v Tcpoeyvco. The change from the future to the aorist can be classified as [B]. As for the use of 0eoq instead of Kupioq, this substitution is perhaps a bit more significant, but not by much. Rather than suspecting a competing textual tradition, one should interpret the reason for this change along the lines of the omission in Rom. 15.9, as follows. 4. Rom. 15.9 is an exact quotation of Ps. 17.50—8id TOUTO e£oux>A,oyfiaou<xi ooi ev eGveaiv, Kupie, KOI too ovoumi aou \|/aXa> (= 2 Sam. 22.50, with slight variations)—except for the textually insignificant omission of Kt>pie (which is added by a late corrector of K and a few other witnesses). The same type of omission occurs in Rom. 11.8 = Deut 29.3, possibly to avoid confusion with Christ.15 5. Rom. 15.11 = Ps. 116.1 involves three minor alterations: a change in word order (OG = Aiveiie TOV Kt>piov, rcdvTct id eGvrj; New Testament = Aivevre, Tidvia TQ eGvTj, TOV Ktipiov);16 the addition of Kat at the beginning of the second line; and a change from the second person ercaiveaate to the third person ejcaweadtcoaav. The majority of New Testament manuscripts, but with virtually no early support, follow OG in reading the second person ercaiveaaTe; the third person is attested in P46 K A B C D *F and a number of important cursives. (A few OG 14. Of course, proponents of the so-called new perspective on Paul would dispute this point. If they are right, then the apostle is indeed not quoting the psalm, or else he is injecting foreign ideas into the text. 15. So Koch, Schrift, p. 87: 'offenbar um ein mogliches MiBverstandnis von K\>pio<; im Sinne von Xpi
286

The Old Greek Psalter

witnesses have the third person, possibly influenced by the Romans passage.) Because this difference in the verbal form is not the result of an adjustment to the Romans context, I did not mark it as [B], but we should certainly regard it, along with the other two changes, as a stylistic improvement introduced by Paul himself. 6. 1 Cor. 3.20 = Ps. 93.11 is an interesting case. The Psalter reads, icupio<; ytvcooicei io\)<; 6iaXoyiauo\)<; icov dvOpccwccov on eiotv umaioi. Paul's quotation is exact but for the use of ao(|>d>v in place of dv0powto)v (only a handful of late Greek MSS, with little additional support, read the latter). Given the emphasis on the theme of wisdom in the early chapters of 1 Corinthians, one is not surprised that Paul should adjust this quotation accordingly. It is worth pointing out, however, that the immediately preceding citation (v. 19 = Job 5.12-13)—which differs markedly from the OG reading and may indeed reflect a competing translation—includes the word ao^otx;. 7. 1 Cor. 15.25 = Ps. 109.1 is another passage that not all scholars consider a citation. It may be helpful to deal with it alongside the quotation in 1 Cor. 15.27 = Ps. 8.7. Ps. 109.1 eox; ov 6
1 Cor. 15.25 «XPl °u ®UrcdvTai;TOIX;ex6poi>£ into TO\X; TcoSaq aircot)

Ps. 8.7 TtdvTa wrETa^otq wtoKaTeo T(»V 7to8ci)v awou

1 Cor. 15.27 jidvta yap twieTa^ev wo TOOK; Jt68a<; airayG

We should first note that Rahlfs records no variants for either of the OG texts; as for the New Testament texts, the only variant recorded by Nestle-Aland is the addition of auwu after ex0po\)<; in 1 Cor. 15.25. Note also that the postpositive yap in 1 Cor. 15.27 functions as an introductory conjunction and thus should not be regarded as a change in the citation. Finally, the change from first person 0<5 to third person 6fj in 15.25, and from second person twteia^a^ to third person iLWcexa^ev in 15.27, belong in category [B]. That leaves us with three significant alterations: (a) the change from eox; dv to the semantically equivalent dxpi ov in 15.25; (b) the addition of TCCCVTCK; in 15.25; and (c) the change from \wco7c68tov/uicoKd/co) tcov Jio8d>vCTOI)to iwto TOIX; TcoSat; avxoi) in both 15.25 and 15.27. The difference between the substantive imo7c68iov and the (improper) preposition -UTroKaTCO is weighty enough that it may seem inappropriate to

SILVA The Greek Psalter in Paul's Letters

287

discuss them together. My reason for doing so, however, is that it serves to highlight the merging of the two Psalms passages in Paul's thought, a feature already suggested by the addition of TKXVTCK; in 15.25 (this natural linkage is also reflected in Mk 12.36). Since the text of Ps. 109.1 is fully integrated into Paul's own language in 1 Cor. 15.25,17 we have no reason to see this citation as evidence of textual diversity in the first century. That consideration in turn suggests that, in 15.27, Paul's use of \>no + accusative in place of •UTcoKdio) + genitive should be attributed to his own stylistic preference (the latter preposition occurs nowhere in his letters), not to the existence of a competing translation. Conclusion In the past, New Testament scholars have too readily assumed that 'the' Septuagint, as found in Rahlfs's (or Swete's!) edition, is an accurate reproduction of the Greek Bible used by Paul; moreover, they have not always taken into account the reality of textual pluriformity in the first century. Even today, it is not all that rare to come across prominent Pauline specialists whose handling of OG studies is less than reassuring. On the other hand, the growing recognition of this problem has unfortunately led to what can only be called an overreaction. Some scholars seem ready to posit the existence of alternate Greek versions at the drop of a hat—indeed, even before the hat drops. The suggestion that Paul himself, having some knowledge of the Hebrew Bible, may be responsible for this or that variant rendering is often laughed out of court without a second thought. Even in the case of changes that can be most reasonably attributed to the apostle's stylistic or hermeneutical concerns, one finds a curious resistance to accepting them as such.18 It is, admittedly, rare for Paul to agree with the MT against the OG

17. This is one of the reasons Koch (Schrift, p. 19) does not consider 1 Cor. 15.25 a quotation. 18. The strongest and most thorough argument for the view 'that Paul actively adapted the wording of his biblical quotations to communicate his own understanding of the passage in question and to obviate other possible readings of the same text' is Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture (quotation from p. 12). The reader is referred to this careful monograph for further discussion of the passages treated in the present article.

288

The Old Greek Psalter

(no cases of this type can be clearly attested for citations from the Psalter), and any proposal that he has himself translated the Hebrew would have to be accompanied by persuasive evidence. Again, one must be open to the possibility that what at first blush appears like a rhetorical or interpretative change may in fact reflect an alternate text available to Paul. Nevertheless, the weight of the evidence speaks loudly in favor of textual stability and continuity. Out of 24 Pauline citations from the Greek Psalter, 22 clearly reflect the critically restored text. Only in the case of Rom. 11.9 = Ps. 68.23 and Eph. 4.8 = Ps. 67.19 is there any real chance that they derive from a competing translation—and even these are not quite convincing. What is true for the Psalter, to be sure, is not necessarily true for the other OG books, but considering the frequency with which Paul quotes the Psalms, we would be amiss to ignore the significance of this evidence in any attempt to describe the apostle's use of the Greek Bible.19

19. I am delighted to offer this modest contribution in honor of Al Pietersma, as a sign of appreciation for his outstanding leadership in the field of Septuagint studies.

SCHAPER'S ESCHATOLOGY MEETS KRAUS'S THEOLOGY OF THE PSALMS

Claude E. Cox

In 1974-75, several of us gathered with Albert Pietersma at Victoria University for his course 'Hellenistic Greek Religious Literature'. That year we worked on the Greek Psalter. Specifically we were comparing the Hebrew and Greek texts, analysing how particular Hebrew words were rendered in the Old Greek translation and then checking those Greek words to see what Hebrew words they had been used for in the OG. It was therefore a close study of an aspect of translation technique. It was for Professor Pietersma in that course that I produced a paper entitled 'eiaaKovoo and ETCQKOIJCD in the Greek Psalter'. The paper was read at the IOSCS Congress in Gottingen in 1977 and later published.1 My interest there was really in the exegesis of the Psalter, but my treatment of Psalm 85 (MT 86) only got as far as the first verse where eiacxKOVGOV appears as a variant reading. Nevertheless, my interest in the exegesis of the Psalter has continued over the intervening years, stimulated in part by Professor Pietersma's ongoing work on the Psalms and by conversations we have shared on many occasions. The latter include international congresses of IOSCS, SBL meetings, late afternoon visits in his office at the Department of Near Eastern Studies in Toronto, and 'the Pietersma BBQ', usually in June, when Al and Marg play host to former students in the garden at their home. Our boys Michael and Jason, then four and two, remember the first of these they attended because they inadvertently locked themselves in the upstairs washroom—the only key, a skeleton key, being in the lock on the inside of the door! At the most recent such gathering, Al and Marg's daughter, Larisa, captivated our four-year old Laura. These social contacts fill out the character of someone who may be known to many readers of this 1.

Bib 62 (1981), pp. 251-58.

290

The Old Greek Psalter

volume solely for his incisive and solid scholarship, because they only know him in print. But Al is also a husband and father, a woodworker and a gardener, as well as the keeper of many a Dutch aphorism. My contribution to this volume has two roots. First, Melvin K.H. Peters' review of Joachim Schaper's book2 in the Journal of Biblical Literature relates to my interest in questions about the exegesis of the OG Psalter.3 Second, I teach Biblical Theology at McMaster Divinity College, and in that course deal with the theology of the Psalter. So here I am trying to find some firmer approach to the treatment of the OG Psalms than one finds in Schaper by drawing on biblical theology. The order of my remarks follows the two-part sequence just outlined. That is, first I am going to review Schaper's work on OG Psalms in some detail; then I am going to approach the OG Psalms through a theology of the Psalter, namely Hans-Joachim Kraus's Theology of the Psalms* 1. Theological Features of the OG Psalter: Schaper on Eschatology and Messianism Schaper argues that eschatology is an essential feature of the OG translation of Psalms (p. 20). As Peters notes, the title should probably include the word 'messianism' because the heart of the book, 'Theological Features of the Greek Psalter' (pp. 46-126), has two parts, the first entitled 'Eschatology' and the second entitled 'Messianism'. In each section Schaper deals with a number of texts; for each of these he begins with the Hebrew text, usually without translation, and then goes on to the Greek. He often brings the evidence of the Targum to bear on the issue of interpretation and in so doing demonstrates that the text was read eschatologically. That is, he shows that the Hebrew text was read 2. Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT, 2.76; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995). 3. Review in JBL 116/2 (1997), pp. 350-52. 4. Trans. Keith Crim (A Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). The English translation was copyrighted by Augsburg in 1986; the original German edition appeared in 1979. James Barr has recently stated that all the major work in biblical theology has been done by biblical scholars. Of Kraus he says, 'Perhaps the person who came closest to being both a biblical scholar and a doctrinal theologian was H.-J. Kraus, though mainly in the sense that he was first one and then the other'; see The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), p. 3 and p. 642 n. 11.

COX Schaper Meets Kraus

291

in that way; it is very likely that the OG text was read that way too. However, what Schaper argues is that this eschatological outlook is embedded to a significant degree in the Greek text itself. In what follows I examine each of the texts Schaper puts forward, first under 'Eschatology', then under 'Messianism'. a. Schaper: Eschatology Under the heading of 'Eschatology' nine texts are considered. I will take them up briefly in order. 1. Psalm 1.5. Schaper's translation of the OG text is, 'Therefore unbelievers will not rise [from death] in judgement nor will sinners [rise] in the counsel of righteous men'. He says, 'The idea of a last judgement is implied in the Greek of Ps. 1,5' (p. 47). But is that so? S. has added the words in square brackets, which makes the text say what he would like it to say. According to him, the use of dviCTTrjui 'clearly confers the idea of "rising from the dead", "be resurrected" ' which he then adds as well for the second line. From there he proceeds to the assumption that resurrection here is only of the righteous. A glance at H-R shows that dviaTrpi is simply a common equivalent for Dip in the LXX/OG corpus. It need not refer to resurrection at Ps. 1.5. That must be read into the text. Indeed, Flasher suggests that the translator chose the general equivalent for Dip, that is, dvioTnju, because he was uncertain about the correct meaning of Dip in this context. There is something of a levelling in the OG as a result, which obliterates the specific nuance of the parent text.5 2. Psalm 15(16).9-10. There is no translation of the Hebrew text here; that was also true of 1.5. The NRSV renders 15.9-10, 'Therefore my heart is glad, and my soul rejoices; / my body also rests secure. (10) For you do not give me up to Sheol, / or let your faithful one see the Pit.' S. translates the OG 'my flesh will rest upon hope / because you will not abandon my soul to Hades / nor let your righteous one see corruption'. He says, 'These changes (i.e. nCQ1? "in security" rendered by zri eX,m8i "upon hope" and nntZJ "pit" by 8ux(|>6opd "destruction; physical corruption") indicate the introduction of the notion of physical resurrection

5. Martin Flashar, 'Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter', TAW 32 (1912), pp. 81-116, 161-89, 241-68. The remark about 1.5 is found in section 3.

292

The Old Greek Psalter

(again only of the righteous) into the sacred text' (p. 49). But do they? Or must these ideas not be read into the translation? 3. Psalm 21(22).30-32. There are textual difficulties here but the OG is clear. S. translates, 'And my soul lives for him', to which he adds 'i.e. lives for him in eternity, as is suggested by the use of the future tense in neighbouring verses' (p. 52). It seems to me that S. has added the eschatology. The line after 'my soul lives for him' reads, 'and my seed will serve him'—is that too 'in eternity'? 4. Psalm 45(46).9(8). The NRSV reads, 'Come, behold the works of the LORD; / see what desolations he has brought on the earth.' Schaper's translation of the OG is, 'Come, see the works of the Lord / which he has set upon the earth as portents'. He says of this rendering, 'The change from "devastation" [[HIDE?]] to "portents" [[Tepaia]]6 obviously expresses the need to adjust the text to reflect a modified concept of the inception of the messianic age'. The OG, he points out, uses Tepcmx for DTIS1Q (the only exception is 46.9), 'which makes it extremely likely that we are here dealing with an interpretative translation' (p. 53). The question is whether 'portents' are really a matter of eschatology, since the word Tepaia is frequently used in the LXX in connection with the Exodus experience. 5. Psalm 47(48).15(14). The NRSV translates, 'that this is God, / our God forever and ever. / He will be our guide forever'. At issue is the translation of niQ'^J? (?) by eiq TOIX; ctiwvat;, which S. renders '(he himself will shepherd us) forever' (p. 54). He argues that with the use of cticDv 'the idea of eternity implied in the Hellenistic usage of aicov was subsequently taken over and maintained by the translators of Psalms and, e.g., in Psalm 47 LXX, applied to man's individual existence'. The idea is 'democratized' so 'the flock tended by the eternal shepherd could now hope to participate in his eternity' (p. 56). One fails to see how this could not be said of the Hebrew as well. 6a. Psalm 48(49).12(11). The NRSV translates, Their graves [[mg.: Gk Syr Compare Tg: Heb their inward (thought)]] are their homes forever, / their dwelling places to all generations, / though they named lands 6. Schaper uses square brackets for what he has added; to differentiate I am employing double square brackets for what I have added.

COX Schaper Meets Kraus

293

their own'. Here the first two lines are reckoned as synonymous parallelism. S. does not emend the Hebrew but translates, 'Their inward [thought] is [set on] their houses [to last] forever, / their dwellings [to last] from generation to generation'. This of course avoids a translation where the Hebrew is identical to the Greek, in which case one would have to attribute to the Hebrew the same eschatological outlook. S. renders the OG, 'And their graves are their houses forever, / their dwellings for many generations [= forever]'. His comment is, 'It is highly likely that the Greek version in fact provides us with another "theological exegesis" which again serves to stress the prospect of the eternal death of the wicked (cp. Ps. 73) over against the eternal salvation of the righteous' (p. 58). In fact, the point of the context in the Hebrew is that all die, both wise and foolish; death is their dwelling always. The OG does not mention the wicked here (nor the wise!), only the foolish who, as in the Hebrew, will have a home in the grave forever. 6b. Psalm 48(49).15(14). The NRSV reads, 'and their form shall waste away; / Sheol shall be their home'. S. translates, 'And their form will vanish, Sheol will be their abode', and that becomes, according to his translation of the OG, 'and their help will wither away from their glory [once they are] in Hades'. Here S. adds the interpretative gloss (p. 61). He recognizes that the translator may have read T2S ('form') as ""112$ ('help') but suggests 'it may also reflect a new way of thinking about the afterlife' (p. 62). He also knows that the Hebrew is already eschatological (p. 60) but thinks that the translator 'amplified' the picture provided by the Hebrew (p. 62). It is hard to make much sense of Schaper's translation of the OG—what does 'wither away from their help' mean?—and it is also difficult to see any development from the Hebrew to the OG. 7. Psalm 55(56).9(8). We read in the NRSV, 'You have kept count of my tossings; / put my tears in your bottle. / Are they not in your record?' Here S. considers the translation of "]maoa 'in your ledger' (NJB) by (ox; KOI) ev tfj ejrayYeAla
294

The Old Greek Psalter

it to the psalm'. But S. also cites Hart's explanation of the OG rendering, namely that 'the book Sepher, in which God places the tears of the Psalmist, is God's Promise, which is made known to all by Sopher, the Scribe'. In that case the text is not necessarily eschatological, whether it shows Pharisaic influence or not (pp. 64-65). 8. Psalm 58(59).14(13). The NRSV translates, 'consume them in wrath; / consume them until they are no more. / Then it will be known to the ends of the earth / that God rules over Jacob.' Flashar mentions this text 'as a possible example for an eschatological interpretation of the original', but decides against it, that is, against understanding owueteia eschatologically and translating opyfi owteXeiaq as 'wrath of destruction'. Nevertheless, S. picks that up and renders ev opyfi owreXeiaq, KOI o\) or) \)7KXp£o\)aiv 'on the day [sic] of consummation, and they will be no more'. Mozley suggested that awreXetai represents an underlying ri*P3 (from rte 'destruction') but S. thinks that this 'does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that auvTeXeia, in the context of Psalm 58 LXX, means "destruction" and nothing else'. That conclusion, he says, 'is in fact highly unlikely with regard to the usage of the word in other parts of the Greek Bible' (p. 66). Rather, S. thinks that because owreAeia means 'consummation' in Greek Daniel and the Testaments, it should mean that here—contra Delling, as well as Flashar (pp. 67-68). His own conclusion is that it is 'highly likely' that 58.14 is eschatological and that owteXeia means 'final judgment' (p. 68). His reason? The Greek Psalter, Daniel and 'vast sections of the Testaments were composed around the same time'. He asks, 'Why should the usage of awreA-eia differ in both works?' The answer to the question is not that difficult— because they are quite different works! 9. Psalm 72(73)4. S. cites the RSV translation of the Hebrew, which is, 'For they have no pangs; / their bodies are sound and sleek'. The NRSV is identical except that it reads 'pain' instead of 'pangs'. Schaper's own translation of the Hebrew is, 'Yet it is manifest that they will see no return from death / nor find steadfastness in their affliction'. The OG is on OVK ecmv dvdveuau; TOO Oavdico auicov / KOI aiepecflua ev tfj udaTi/yi CWTCOV, which we might translate, 'that there is no refusal in their death / and no strength in their suffering'. Schaper's translation of the OG is, 'There is no return/revival in their death / and [there is no]

COX Schaper Meets Kraus

295

steadfastness in their suffering' (p. 70), or, alternatively, 'Yet it is manifest that they will not see a return from death, / and there is steadfastness in their scourge (i.e. their punishment is perpetual)' (p. 72). It seems to me unlikely that the second line of the Greek should be construed as a separate, positive statement as S. has done in his second attempt at translation. His own translation of the Hebrew, unlike RSV and NRSV, continues the negation through the second line, that is, with 'nor', as does his first rendering of the OG. At any rate he concludes, 'We are once again confronted with the (proto-)Pharisaic belief that there will be no resurrection for the wicked nor the gift of steadfastness in affliction which can only arise from true faith' (p. 70). But, yes 'but' he says, 'It must be pointed out that this view depends on an alternative, rather speculative reading of Ps. 72,4'. One notices a development from Schaper's first translation of OG 74.4 to the second ('there is no return/revival in their death' becomes 'they will not see a return from death'). Both depend on rendering dvaveDOK; as 'return' or 'revival'. b. Schaper: Messianism Schaper cites ten texts under the title of 'Messianism'; they can be reviewed briefly as follows. Here too the evidence seems not to support the conclusion. 1. Psalm 2.11-12. The NRSV translation of vv. 11-12 is, 'Serve the LORD with fear, / with trembling (12) kiss his feet, / or he will be angry, and you will perish in the way; / for his wrath is quickly kindled. / Happy are all those who take refuge in him.' The NRSV has a note that says concerning lib and 12a, 'Cn: Meaning of the Heb of verses lib and 12a is uncertain'. Schaper's comments centre on the OG 8p<xE;aa0e 7cai6eia<; as a translation of "Q'lpEfa (perhaps, literally 'kiss the son'). The OG he renders, 'Reach for wisdom'. He looks at texts in Wis. 6.11, 7 En. 51.3 and Psalms of Solomon (in the latter there is vocabulary 'evidently borrowed' from Ps. 2), but all he can then say is, 'It is difficult to arrive at certain conclusions from all these observations [[about 7cai8eia]]'. The most he can conclude is that Pss. Sol. 17 and 18 borrowed from Psalm 2 and that this language they used was for writing messianic psalms (p. 75).

296

The Old Greek Psalter

2. Psalm 8.5 (English Text [ET] 4). The NRSV has for v. 4, 'what are human beings that you are mindful of them, / mortals that you care for them?' A note on 'mortals' says: 'Heb ben adam, lit. son of man'. The OG translation for BTI3R ('human beings') and DlfcTp ('mortals') is dv0pamo<; and woe; dvOpooTcov, respectively. Schaper's treatment of v. 5 begins with the concession, 'It is hard to see why this should be an eschatological interpretation' (p. 77). The word dvGpowiot;, he says, was used in Num. 24.7, 17 to refer to a messianic saviour figure. Of course, that dvOpomoi; was so used in the Pentateuch does not mean that it was employed in that same sense in 8.5, as S. himself says. What other Greek word did we expect for DTK in 8.5? 3. Psalm 44(45) J(ET superscription), 5(4), 13(12). Here S. deals with the translation of DTT by \rnep toi) dya7cr|TO'0 in the superscription (OG 1); DD1 by paaiXeue in v. 5; n^n piel by Xixaveijeiv in v. 13. Each is problematic. The NRSV translates the superscription, 'To the leader: according to Lilies. Of the Korahites. A Maskil. A love song.' S. deals with the rendering of nTT, which contributes the word 'love' to the NRSV. It is rendered in the OG by \rnep TOU ayanr^ov) which S. renders 'for' or 'concerning the beloved one/only son'. In v. 5, 3D~I 'ride on' (NRSV) has as its equivalent in OG paaiA^ve 'O king', but the rendering really should be treated as part of the larger context. At v. 13, the prefixed form of n*?n in the piel ('flatter'; V7IT -p2 becomes 'will seek your favor') is rendered by A,vravei)CTOt>aiv. S. asks, 'Could the choice of a term virtually exclusively used in the context of divine service point towards a concept of a divinized messianic king as the ideological key to Ps 44 LXX?' He goes on to add that this would tie in with our understanding of the term ayawwoc, according to its usage in messianic contexts like Ps 28,6 LXX, Ps 67,13 LXX and Test Benj 11,2 ...It seems likely that Ps 44 LXX conveys a messianic speculation very similar to the ideas proposed by Pss 28 and 67 LXX (p. 79).

From here S. goes on to the rendering of DTI^R "|KOD 'Your throne, O God' (NRSV) by 6 Gpovoi; aoo>, 6 0eo<; 'Your throne, O God' in v. 7. As he says, 'At first sight, the Greek version seems to be a precise rendering of the original' (p. 80). Indeed. However, he rejects this in favour of regarding the OG as 'an interpretative translation'. But, of course, the OG is just like the Hebrew—there too the king receives a

COX Schaper Meets Kraus

297

divine epithet! S. then suggests that imep TO-U ayarcrjTO'O may be a dedicatory formula, along the lines of Ptolemaic ruler-worship, used of the expected messianic ruler. One can only agree with his own comment, 'Admittedly, these considerations are conjectural'. 4. Psalm 59(60).9 = 107(108).9. The NRSV translation of vv. 9-10 (ET 7-8) is, 'Gilead is mine, and Manasseh is mine; / Ephraim is my helmet, Judah is my scepter OppIlD iTTirP). / (8) Moab is my washbasin (^m TO); / on Edom I hurl my shoe; / over Philistia I shout in triumph.' At issue is the rendering of "ppriQ mirr by louSaq paotXetx; uoi) 'Judas is my king' and ^m TO 3N1Q by Mcoap Xepriq TT\<; eXmSoq um> 'Moab is the cauldron of my hope'. The 'peculiar' renderings of the OG S. connects to the personification of COtD ('scepter') and ppPIQ ('the ruler's staff) in the LXX translation of Gen 49.10 as dp%cov 'ruler' and fryo'uuEvo<; 'leader', respectively. He believes that the rendering of ppnD at 59(60).9 rests on the messianic intepretation of Gen. 49.10 in Greek. He adds, 'It also proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Io\)8a<; spoken of in Ps 59,9; 107,9 is conceived of as a messianic figure...' (p. 84). This is an interesting text since it does seems to point us back to the use of the Pentateuch for the translation of the Psalter. 5a. Psalm 67(68) J(ET 6). The NRSV renders v. 6, 'God gives the desolate a home to live in; / he leads out the prisoners to prosperity, / but the rebellious live in a parched land'. Here S. centres our attention on the translation of D'TIIO ('the rebellious'). The OG translation for this is TO\)<; TiapamicpaivovTCK;, which S. translates 'the rebellious ones'. This is followed by Toix; KaTOiKOWTaq ev Ta<|)oi<; '(the rebellious ones) who live in tombs'. He takes it that 'in tombs' is an early allegorical interpretation of 'in a parched land'. Whereas the Hebrew praises God's work in Israelite history, the OG has been 'partly transformed into an announcement of his eschatological actions'. There are a couple of problems with this, not the least of which is that the tense of the verse is set in the first line by KaxoiKi^ei, a present tense, which S. renders '(God) places'. That is, whatever the verse means, it is not set in the future. Now the same word D"HTiO is found also in v. 19 where, however, the Greek translator has used a different word to represent it, namely dTceiGowteq 'the disobedient'. That leads to the admission: 'This does certainly not exclude the possibility of their interpreting the text in the

298

The Old Greek Psalter

way we have just outlined. On the other hand, it does not give us a secure basis for our assumption' (p. 87). Right. Nevertheless, S. goes on to conclude that 'Ps. 67,7 LXX has received, on the basis of contextual exegesis, an eschatological reinterpretation alien to the Hebrew original. The promise to liberate the prisoners has been extended to those "dwelling in graves" and thereby taken on eschatological overtones' (p. 88). Such an understanding seems forced to me. 5b. Psalm 67(68).13(ET 12). The NRSV reads, 'The kings of the armies, they flee, they flee (pTT ]VTT)!' The OG translates, 6 Pacnteix; tcov 8uvduea)v TOW dyaTCTiToa), to-G dyanniToi) 'The king of the armies of the beloved, of the beloved'. The BHS apparatus suggests that the OG read TT, that is, 'beloved'. S. recognizes that this explanation for the translation may seem 'all too obvious'—confusion of TT 'loved one' (V II IT) and ]TTT 'they escape' (V I TT] 'to escape,' 'to flee'). 'But this kind of explanation assumes a simple misreading on behalf of the translators. Is it at all likely...?' (p. 90). Well, one would have to respond 'yes'. Why pass over the most likely explanation for one that is much less likely? But that is what S. does. And so he takes it that this translation is 'probably' an example of proto-rabbinical hermeneutics (p. 91). We are not surprised that he can conclude, 'it seems not unlikely that dycwCTTToq should refer to a messianic saviour figure' (p. 92). 6. Psalm 71(72).!7. The NRSV reads, 'May his name endure forever, / his fame continue as long as the sun. / May all nations be blessed in him; / may they pronounce him happy.' The OG translation includes the word eiiXoyrpevov in the first line. Schaper's translation is, 'His name shall be blessed forever, / before the sun his name will remain. / And all the tribes of the earth will be blessed in him, / all the nations will praise him.' S. tells us that the 'name' has received further stress through the insertion of e-uXoyrjuevov, which refers to the name of the king. Now both the king and God have blessed names: 'the (messianic) king is regarded as a bringer of salvation' (p. 94). So, 'We can therefore attest that a certain tendency towards an interpretation of Ps. 72,17 in terms of the pre-existence of the Messiah's name is detectable both in the Septuagint and in the Targum' (p. 95). If that is clear, it is later not so clear: 'However, Ps. 71,17 LXX seems to be informed by the idea of the preexistence of the Name at its earliest stage; the verse's ambiguity at least

COX Schaper Meets Kraus

299

allows for a tentative interpretation of this kind'. Again he adds, 'However, there definitely is a tendency...' (p. 96). So, is this re-interpretation really there, or not? 7. Psalm 79(80).16b(ET 15b). The NRSV for v. 15b reads, 'the stock that your right hand planted'. There is a footnote that reads, 'Heb adds from verse 17 and upon the one whom you made strong for yourself'. (Verse 17: 'But let your hand be upon the one at your right hand, / the one whom you made strong for yourself.') The discussion concerns the addition of wo<; dvOpcwcoi), so that OG v. 16 reads, according to Schaper's translation, 'and set right what your right hand has planted, / and [care for] the son of man whom you strengthened for yourself. Here S. is able to point to Harl, who cites the text as one that reveals a process of 'messianization' or facilitates a 'messianic' reading (p. 97 n. 354). S. asks whether v. 16 has simply been harmonized to v. 18, but rejects that in favour of a deliberate exegetical move, motivated by the use of D"Wp with "IpS at Ps. 8.5. 8. Psalm 86(87).5. Verse 5 is translated in the NRSV, 'And of Zion it shall be said, / "This one and that one were born in it"; / for the Most High himself will establish it'. The OG translates, MTJTTIP Sicov, epei dvGpOMCoq, / Keel dvOpomoQ eyevfiGri ev ouTfj, / KOI cttnxx; e0eueAicoaev amfrv 6 a>\|/iaTO<;. Schaper's translation of the OG is, '"Mother Zion", a man will say, / and "Man" was born in her, and the Most High himself laid her foundation'. At issue is the rendering 'Mother' Zion and, more importantly, the use of dvGpomoq, / Kai dvOpawux; for the Hebrew idiom 2TKT ETK 'this one and that one'. In the first case, that is, 'Mother' Zion, S. thinks we have a 'deliberate interpretative interference', whose imagery of Zion as mother goes back to Isa. 66.7-11 (pp. 99-100). In the second case, as in the first, he rejects a text-critical explanation for the OG rendering in favour of a deliberate messianic colouring which is reflected in his translation: why use 'Man' in the second line but 'man' in the first? At any rate, Schaper's conclusion is less than firm: 'Admittedly, all the texts quoted...succeed only in proving...that...an idea concerning Zion as the mother of the Messiah may have been extant at the time of the Psalter's translation. In fairness it should be said that our interpretation of Ps. 86,5 LXX as a messianic passage therefore rests on a conjectural basis' (p. 101).

300

The Old Greek Psalter

9. Psalm 109(110)3. The NRSV translation is, 'Your people will offer themselves willingly / on the day you lead your forces / on the holy mountains. / From the womb of the morning, / like dew, your youth will come to you.' S. translates the OG, 'With you [will] the dominion [rest] on the day of your strength / amidst the radiance of the saints: / from the womb I have begotten you before the morning star'. Schaper's remarks centre on the translation of the hapax "inCJD 'of the morning' by rcpo eo>a(|)6po<; 'before the morning star'. As he says, the reading could have arisen by a different vocalization—as suggested in BHS—but he wants to look further. Both Volz and Bousset saw here reference to a pre-existent saviour figure. Indeed, Tournay saw a messianic connection already in the Hebrew (p. 102 n. 372). Next, S. takes Xau7ip6ir|<; t<5v dyicov 'radiance of the saints' as a reference to angelic beings. This leads to a conclusion that the Psalm refers not only to a messianic king but to messianic judgment (p. 106). The phrase fpepct Tfjq SwdjieaK; aov 'day of your strength' is the day of the manifestation of the messiah's power (p. 107). Finally, the pdp6ov Suvd^eox; 'scepter of power' (v. 2) S. takes to corroborate his reading of the psalm as a 'psalm of messianic judgement' (p. 107). For this purpose he cites the use of pd|38o<; in Pss. Sol. 18.6-7. However, that only indicates that Psalm 109 may have been read that way: it gives no proof that the translators embedded such a view in their translation. 10. Psalm 28(29).6. The NRSV translates, 'He makes Lebanon skip like a calf, / and Sirion like a young wild ox'. At issue is the rendering of the second line D^QNTp 1QD 'J'Hfr'l, that is, of ]'"lfi? by 6 fvya7ir||4,evo<; and D^DNTp by wo<; uxwoKepcoxoov. Schaper's translation of the OG for the verse is, 'And he will crush them, [even?] Libanon, like a [lit. "the"] calf, / but the loved one will be like a unicorn'. First, on 6 fiycm;r|u,evo<;: S. recognizes that the translation could be the result simply of a misreading of JT"I2T 'Jeshurun' for ]'1to 'since the former is translated just that way in several, notably post-exilic, biblical passages' (p. 108), but states that this is 'a prime example of a consequent messianic interpretation in its understanding of ]'1fo as jnttfy f|YtX7cri|j.evo^ and in its use of the unicorn imagery which we shall discuss with reference to its messianic significance' (p. 117). Second, S. says that u,ov6Kepox; appears in all the 'messianized' LXX passages, especially Num. 24.8, Deut. 33.17, Ps. 28.6, Ps. 77.69, where

COX Schaper Meets Kraus

301

it is a 'keyword' but it is also found in non-messianic texts (e.g. Job 39.9) (pp. 121-22). In general, he says, we should see in the use of 'unicorn' the replacement of bull imagery in favour of old Oriental myths (p. 122). In Jewish legend the 'unicorn' is connected with the primordial creation. Such ideas 'may have exercised some influence on the translators of the Psalter, since their work undoubtedly draws upon the concept of the pre-existent Messiah' (p. 124). c. Remarks on 'Eschatology' and 'Messianism' The treatment of these ideas by Schaper involves about 23 verses out of the Psalter, 151 chapters. The overall impression one has is that his reading has often been forced into the text. That is, what is not there is read into it (Ps. 1), obvious solutions are passed over in favour of the less likely, and individual verses are treated apart from their contexts. Contemporary texts, that is, texts thought to be contemporary with the translation, are employed to lend an interpretation to the OG Psalms which they do not necessarily have. The approach reminds me of Ervin's in his dissertation on Psalms, and of Card's on Job, where a selective approach to the Greek text misleads the reader about particular nuances of the translator's work in contrast to the overall work of translation.7 Schaper's references to the Targum demonstrate that the Hebrew text was read messianically. And that is useful to know. Further, no one doubts that the OG text was read that way. What is at issue, however, is whether a certain 'eschatology' and 'messianism' were embedded by the translators into their work on OG Psalms. On that point the results of Schaper's study seem thin indeed. We have to conclude that, at best, there is little evidence of an eschatological or messianic colouring in the OG Psalms. It seems to me that the evidence consists at most of three items from the second section, 'Messianism', namely numbers 4, 7,10. That is not much.

7. Howard M. Ervin, 'Theological Aspects of the Septuagint of the Book of Psalms' (PhD thesis, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1962); Donald H. Gard, The Exegetical Method of the Greek Translator of the Book of Job (JBLMS, 8; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1952). Card's work was also a Princeton dissertation, directed by H.S. Gehman.

302

The Old Greek Psalter 2. Biblical Theology and the Old Greek Psalter

Studies like Schaper's fail because they try to make a few trees into a forest. That is, the major work of analysing the translation technique of a document—in this case a large one—is passed over in favour of treating some interesting but small part of the larger issue. In so doing a reader is left with little grasp of the relative importance of what is presented. That is not to say there is no hint of messianism or of antianthropomorphism (Ervin) but that the situation is misjudged in terms of the overall work of translation. The starting point for an analysis of OG Psalms is its Hebrew parent text. It is of some note that Schaper cites no Old Testament theology and no biblical theology in his extensive bibliography. There is no Eichrodt, no von Rad, no Vriezen, for example. Kraus's two-volume commentary is cited in the bibliography, though it is not cited in the notes, and his Theology of the Psalms appears nowhere. It strikes me that it might be a useful exercise to begin with Theology of the Psalms as a means of assessing the OG translation of Psalms. It will here serve as a point of reference and at the same time provide an indication of where the OG Psalms read differently than the Hebrew. After providing a brief summary of Kraus's book, I intend to look at it section by section and compare the OG with it. It must be admitted that this treatment is brief; a more extended comparison might yield greater rewards. Virtually no aspect of the theology of the Psalter is left untouched in Kraus's intensive treatment. It is divided into seven sections: 'The God of Israel' (pp. 17-49); 'The People of God' (pp. 51-71); The Sanctuary and its Worship' (pp. 73-106); 'The King' (pp. 107-23); The Enemy Powers' (pp. 125-36); The Individual in the Presence of God' (pp. 137-76); The Psalms in the New Testament' (pp. 177-203). The seventh section on the New Testament lies outside our interests, so I will leave it aside. It remains only to say that, in his Introduction, Kraus states that the Psalms are about (1) God, and (2) Israel, the people of God who stand in the presence of Yhwh. a. The God of Israel What first attracts our attention is that the word miT occurs 695 times in Psalms. It is almost always rendered by Kvptoq 'lord',8 which dramatically initiates us into the different world of OG Psalms. mtQX mrp 8.

In 686 of the 695 instances.

COX Schaper Meets Kraus

303

becomes Kvpux; iwv Swdu-ecov;9 DTT'PK, m^K and *?$ (altogether some 440 occurrences) become 6 Geoq. Appellations like 'God of Israel', 'God of Jacob' and 'God of Abraham' carry through into the OG. Among other appellations, the rendering of "Htf is of some interest: in its two occurrences the OG translator employed first TOY ercoupdviov 'the heavenly one' (68[67].15), then TOV 0eov TOU ovpavov 'the God of heaven' (91 [90].!). The nomenclature of Yhwh/God is reduced in the OG. In OG Psalms, God reveals himself in the Law (118.72) and is to be praised for his works in creation. His 'perfections' in the parent text include ion ('loyalty to community' [p. 44]). The word "ion occurs some 127 times in the Hebrew. Its rendering in the OG is eteoq 'mercy' which leads the reader in a different direction. Finally, God is a divine king enthroned above the heavenly ocean (29.10; p. 46). He dwells in the DV1Q 'heavenly height' (102.20) and looks down from there—so e£ i)\|fOD<;. That is the world of the DTfrtf 'H 'sons of God' or the woi eeoti (29[28].l) and the TOK^O 'angels' or oi oyyeJun (103[102].20; 148.2). The translation of 'the God of Israel' into Greek reveals that the translator was able to present the message of Psalms to a new world of thought. Some of the uniqueness of the original is lost (e.g. mrp rendered by K-upioc;; "ion by eteoq) but no one would mistake the OG for anything but a thoroughly Jewish document. b. The People of God

Kraus begins by pointing out the centrality of the Exodus theme in Psalms (e.g. 105.43). He says that Israel became Yhwh's Chp 'sanctuary' and nVTtfDD 'dominion', words which become in the OG dyiaaua and e^ooxria (114[113].2). We read that Yhwh's blessing is bestowed as a consequence of an act of liberation and salvation and that blessing is the bringing of Dl^tD (29.11), which is in OG eiprjvr} 'peace' (p. 54). K. continues by stating that the fact of Yhwh's revelation to his people is fundamental to Psalms, though we see that this people is not a pious people, based on the historical perspectives (pp. 59-61). The presuppositions of the existence of Israel rest on the theme of creation, for

9. Perhaps this was the basis for O. Eissfeldt's suggestion that mtGJi should be taken as an 'intensive abstract plural' with the meaning 'power' (cited in Kraus, Theology, p. 19).

304

The Old Greek Psalter

example, 124(123).8 f**")K1 D^QEJ ntoi) ([Kvpioi)] xoi) noir\aavioc, TOV oupavov KOI TTJV y^v 'who made the heaven and the earth'). The cultic community is a *?np or an eKKA,rjaia (107[106].32) and members of this people are called DHOn 'saints', O'p'IlS 'just', D'HET 'upright', and DH3I? 'servants'—in the OG 60101, Sixaioi, e\)0ei<; and 5o\)A,oi (p. 68). Their hope is directed to the triumph of Yhwh's royal authority over all the world (p. 71). We see that the great themes of the Hebrew text are faithfully carried over into the message of the OG Psalms. On the micro-level, representation of the Hebrew is often one-for-one, as we might expect with cultic literature that by nature is conservative. c. The Sanctuary and its Worship The distinctive designation of the Jerusalem sanctuary is the name 'Zion', found predominantly as ]V2T"in 'Mount Zion', or 6po<; Zicov (74[73].2). There the temple (*?D'n, vceoq) stands, the 'house of Yhwh (mrp JTQ, O'IKO<; K-upioi)) (5.8[ET 7]). The temple and inner sanctuary constitute the 'holy place' (dip, ayio<;) (20[19].3[ET 2]). Psalm 48 (47).3(ET 2) describes the location of Jerusalem as ]1S* TOT ]V2r"in 'Mount Zion, in the far north', or oprj Zicov, tot TcXevpa toO Poppa 'Mountains of Sion, the slopes of the north'. It is the abode of Dl'lPEJ 'peace', eipT|vr|. Our knowledge of worship in Jerusalem must be pieced together from such fragments as we have. The gate liturgies set out the conditions for entry through the gates. As K. states, 'The marks of the pH2* ('righteous') are proclaimed in the p"I2£ '"lIKtf ('gates of righteousness')', which become in the OG 8iKatoq and nvkai 8iKaio
COX Schaper Meets Kraus

305

50.5; OG is 6\)oia [49.5]) which establishes community, and the nn3Q (20[19].4[ET 3]; OG is again 0i)oia) where something is 'offered'. More and more, K. says, the I"!1?!} 'burnt offering' (OG 6A,OKa\)Ta>|j,a) came to be the designation for the latter type of offering (see 50.8) (p. 94). From types of sacrifice, K. goes on to a discussion of cultic practices on particular occasions. He notes that regular worship ended with benediction. So Psalm 67 can be called a 'psalm of blessing' since it centres on the theme of rD"O 'blessing' or e\)A,oyia (p. 100). In Israel 'to serve Yhwh' includes everyday conduct, 'justice' and 'righteousness', CDDEJD and np-ra, Kpiau; and 5iKaioaxwi (see 37[36].28; 119[118].5-7). The people of God were primarily related to the history of God's mighty deeds, not to a return to mythical time. Among other things, their worship was related to the future, in so far as it concerns the God who is to come: so it 'possessed an unmistakable orientation to the future' (p. 102). In Psalms this is everywhere understood as an expression of God's "TOPI 'steadfast love' (eteoc;) and as a proof of his flQK 'faithfulness' (dA,f|9eta 'trueness') (p. 103). d. The King In this chapter, K. deals with the royal psalms: 2, (18), 20, 21, 45, 72, 89, 101, 132, 144.1-11. The only distinctive feature of these psalms, he states, is that the central figure in them is the king, the "J^D or paoiAexx;. The use of the word ITI2JO 'anointed' for the king of Israel is a distinctive feature of these psalms (2.2; 20.7; 84.9; 89.38, 51; 132.10). In each instance the Greek is xpiaTO^. The office of ]rD or iepevx; 'priest' was conferred on the king (110.4) and he was declared 'son of God' in the formulation HDtf Tl or Yioq uoi) el cru 'You are my son' (2.7). It was the king's commission to judge the people p"T2$m, that is, ev 8iKaioowrj 'in righteousness', and above all to be the advocate of the poor and oppressed—DIT"3U and JT3K '3D or touq TITCOXOIX; tot) A,aot> and TO\K; vioix; TOW Tcevfiicov (72[71].4). The monarchy's influence involved shalom of the land and people. With Yhwh's help, the king achieved conquest over all foes. As Yhwh declares, 'I will crush his foes before him' (89.23). At the same time the Psalms know of the human side of the king, of his humanity and weakness (cf. 33.16). As K. notes, the royal psalms outlasted the age of the kings and 'were no longer applied to earthly rulers but were understood as prophecy and promise of the messianic king of the end-time'. He immediately adds, 'Such an understanding cannot be explicitly found in the Psalms' (p. 123). Certainly by the time of the translation of the OG Psalms, the

306

The Old Greek Psalter

kingship of David and his successors was long past. Citations in the New Testament show us that the songs about the king were discussed in relation to the Messiah. The question is whether that understanding is explicitly and extensively part of the OG translation itself. Surely the royal psalms are a place to look. e. The Enemy Powers In this chapter, K. considers the enemies of the nation, the enemies of the individual, and mythical powers. In the first part, he begins with the royal psalms where, in 45(44).6(ET 5), we find the expression "O'lK "j^QH or TWV exGpcov wO paonA^ox; 'of the king's enemies'. These enemies are otherwise called D'WtoD or TO\><; IUOOWCOQ 'haters' (e.g. 18[17].41[ET 40]), Dn*orxou<; exOpouq 'foes' (e.g. 89[88].24[ET 23]), and D'Dp or TO\X; ercaviaTctvouevovc;'adversaries' (e.g. 18[17].40 [ET 39]). These are the people who wage war on God's people. In defeating them the king acts as an agent of Yhwh. The same terminology is used in community laments and in psalms praising Yhwh's power and grace in creation and history (p. 128). The prayer songs of individuals employ this terminology as well. We may note the designation D^ID or rcovripe'uo^evoi 'evildoers' (26[25].5). K. says that the Hebrew word assumes an insight into the way people act, that is, they do 'evil'. The same is true of the words D'JHEh 'the wicked' (e.g. 3.8[ET 7]) and D'STI 'pursuers' (e.g. 7.2[ET 1]) which are rendered in the OG by dudpxooXoi 'sinners' and oi 8icfrKOVTOI 'pursuers/persecutors' in the two verses cited as examples. (The D'UIZh are frequently also oi daepeiq 'the ungodly' in Psalms, as in 1.1, 4, 5, 6, so that D'lflZH takes on a decidedly religious dimension in translation.) K. thinks the translation of'^i?D ]1R (5.6[ET 5]) as 'evildoers' is too weak. Certainly the OG rendering as oi epya^ouevoi TTJV dvouiav 'workers of lawlessness' redirects the force of the original toward religion. K. concludes the chapter with some remarks about the mythical powers. God alone rules, but the motif of hostile primaeval powers has influenced the conception of Israel's foes. Finally, only in a few passages can magic and the occult sense of the deeds of the ]1R '*7J>B be detected, for example, 10.9. It is possible to explain the designation ]1K ^JJS in some passages by relating it to the pronouncement of a curse. As we just noted, this understanding seems rather removed from the OG oi epya£6|ievoi ^v avouiav.

COX Schaper Meets Kraus

307

f. The Individual in the Presence of God K. states that three categories of psalms comprise the primary material: prayer songs, songs of thanks (PimP) of the individual, and wisdom poems which deal with the problems of human life. After some comments about the structure of the prayer song of the individual, he turns to the first category. Here he explains that the majority of the Psalms were the work of priests and temple singers. From there he leads us through sections dealing with aspects of anthropology, the poor, the faith of the righteous, life and death, the great problems of life, and the history of Israel and the significance of David. These are all stimulating and two or three of them are of real consequence for the theology of OG Psalms. As K. says, the Psalms are well suited to a study of aspects of anthropology. The questions 'What is it like to be a human being?' or 'What does it mean to be human?' as they are answered in Hebrew and then Greek are productive points of departure for studying the theology of the Psalter in its new environment. Humans are ~)2D or ootpJ; 'flesh', subject to injury and decay. They are also tfEU, which can be used with its concrete meaning 'throat' (107[106].5, 910), but more often is used with several other senses including 'person'. The OG renders 2733 by \|A)XT| 'soul', a word that has a very large background in Greek language and philosophy. The 31? 'heart' is at the centre of human life since it is the site of all thought and reflection. Its equivalent in Psalms as in the LXX generally is Kap8ia. K. says that occurrences of ITn in Psalms, when used in anthropological contexts, are difficult to interpret. He starts with the literal meaning, that is, 'wind, breath of life, life-giving power' (p. 146). It is rendered by rcvetiua throughout OG Psalms, apt since that word can also have the basic meaning of 'wind'.11 K. points out that basic to 27138 'human' is the concept of a weak, 10. These are the verses Kraus offers as examples for the meaning 'the organ through which nourishment is taken' (p. 145). Verse 9 reads literally 'the longing nephesh ' and 'the hungry nephesh*. See Robert Bratcher and William D. Reyburn, A Handbook on Psalms (UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1991), ad loc. KBH gives Ps. 105.18 for the meaning 'neck'. Here too the OG employs yvxr\. 11. We could usefully draw on the discussion of W. Eichrodt, 'The Components of Human Nature' in his Theology of the Old Testament (trans. J.A. Baker; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967), II, pp. 131-50.

308

The Old Greek Psalter

vulnerable humanity, so that the dialectic of a weak humanity versus a glorious heaven of God (8.3) is stretched to the utmost (p. 149). Nevertheless, human beings have an important place in the order of creation—DTf^KD DtfD 'little less than heavenly beings' (8.6). He notes the rendering of the RSV, 'little less than God', but states that in this passage DM^K 'has beyond doubt the meaning "heavenly beings," "elohim beings" (dyyeXoi ["angels"] in Heb. 2:5, 7, following the Septuagint of Ps. 8:5)' (p. 149). That is, here the OG has correctly understood the Hebrew as a reference to heavenly beings. In Psalms, those who are suffering from poverty and trouble call themselves ]V3R1 W 'the poor and needy' (e.g. 40[39].18[ET 17]), in the OG TCTG)x6<; Kai TCEVTH;; also *?1 'weak', 'poor' (41[40].2[ET 1]; 82[81].4), again Tcicoxoq (40.2) or Tceviiq (81.4); and ro'zn 'hapless' (e.g. 10.8, 10, 14 [OG 9.29, 31, 35]) who become in the OG 7cevii<; (9.29, 31) and TTTCOXO*; (9.35). It is these people who are the victims of their enemies and are unable to obtain justice. They lay claim to privileges of belonging to Yhwh's salvation (p. 153). Those who have experienced Yhwh's help are designated by the term P'TSJ, OG Siicaux; 'righteous'. The righteous person lives true to the covenant and is faithful to the community. In contrast to pHiS stands the word l?tzn 'ungodly' or 'wicked'. In Greek the DMJ2T) are the doepelq, the 'ungodly'. Other words used for the righteous include "Qtf 'servant' (e.g. 19[18].12[ET 11]), or 8oa)Xo<;; DnCT 'upright' (e.g. 37[36].14), or et)9ei<;; D^QP 'wholeness' (37[36].18), or djicfluxn 'blameless'; and D'TOPf 'pious' (30[29].5[ET4]), or oaioi 'holy'. The most frequent expression for the trusting relationship of worshippers with Yhwh is "W mrr 'those who fear Yhwh' (e.g. 22[21].24[ET 23]), oi (|>opoiJ|Lievoi K-upiov (p. 157). The prayers of the Psalms are full of expectation and this is expressed primarily in the verbs 'PIT 'wait' and mp 'wait for'. In the OG, these verbs are rendered by eXm^G) 'hope' (19 times) and i)7tou,evo) 'wait' (16 times12), respectively. The hope is that Yhwh will bestow on the worshippers his "ion 'tender mercies', which becomes in the OG eXeoq 'mercy', a translation that captures only part of the sense of the original. All hope is based on trust—so Tinea "p 'in you I trust', that is, em CTOI Ttercoiea (25[24].2); or DTl^'lorn TinCQ 'I trust in the steadfast love of God', and in the OG TJAmaa erct TO eXeoq TOO) 0eoi) (52[51].10

12. Exception: i\ \wtofiovt| at 39(38).8.

COX Schaper Meets Kraus

309

[ET 8]) (p. 159). That trust influences the future, as we see in 23.6, 'I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for ever', which becomes in the OG TO KOToiKeiv u,e ev OIKCO Kupiou eiq uxxicpOTnTa fpepwv 'I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for length of days'. What of life and death? Surely here we might anticipate some development toward the Greek world inasmuch as Greek conceptions of the afterlife stand in contrast to Semitic views. For a worshipper, Yhwh is the origin of all life: there is no dying or rising, nor is God a static power (p. 163). Death too is seen in relation to Yhwh. Sheol is a place far from Yhwh and in death the worshipper is cut off from Yhwh's saving help. As K. says, however, though this definition is absolute, one must be careful because Ps. 139.8 'shows that Yahweh's authority by no means ends at the borders of Sheol (cf. also Amos 9:2)' (p. 166). The OG of 139(138).8 reads, edv dvapoo eiq TOY oupavov, o\) el eicer / edv KCtTapco eiq TOV a5rjv, rcdper 'if I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I descend to the netherworld, you are present'. Since there is this absolute in the Hebrew, but yet this trust, K. examines precisely what 'salvation from death' means in Psalms. He suggests that it means 'rescue from the power of anything that interferes with one's life in an unwholesome and destructive way' (p. 166). 'Deliverance from death' is found especially in the thanksgiving songs of individuals. Psalm 118(117). 17 is striking: 'I shall not die, but I shall live, and recount the deeds of the Lord'. The OG translation is, OIJK drcoGavo'Gu.ai, dAAd £f|aouai / KQI eK8iTryr|aou.ai td epya KUpiou. It might be easy to read into this verse what is not there, except that the Hebrew says the same thing and the context determines its sense. This sixth chapter in K. ends with remarks about 'The Great Problems of Life' and 'The History of Israel and the Significance of David'. 'The Great Problems of Life' deals with Psalm 73 in detail. Our interest in this inquiry leads us to v. 24b, where K. notes the goal of God's miraculous leading, namely 'Thou wilt receive me to glory'. The NRSV reads, 'and afterward you will receive me with honor'. The translation 'to glory' is offered in a note on 'with honor'. The translation one chooses reflects an exegetical decision. The OG has made such a decision in rendering 24b as KOI neid 56£r|<; Tcpoae^dpo'u ue, that is, 'and with glory (or honor) you received me'. Indeed, the OG makes a couple of exegetical decisions: not only is the use of 'glory' or 'honor' non-eschatological but it has taken the prefixed form of the Hebrew verb as a preterit, which rules out a view of the future. So we see that

310

The Old Greek Psalter

the Hebrew is open to a reading, a possible eschatological reading, that is not there in the understanding of the OG. The final section about David is also of interest because it takes up the subject of the superscriptions. As K. points out, a 'theology of the Psalms' can leave aside the titles which, for the most part, were added later, but one cannot avoid recognizing that all the psalms connected with David demand to be read in relationship to Israel's history (p. 175). He argues that we need to recognize 'the hermeneutical direction' of those who provided the headings: they had a desire to connect the Psalms with history and to say that in the Psalms it is primarily David's voice that is to be heard. As is well known, the OG Psalms extend the relationship between the Psalms and David by attributing additional psalms to David beyond those so recognized in the MT. One might take this as the extension of a royal ideology, but K. thinks rather that the Hebrew Psalms were attributed to him simply 'as the prototype of psalm hymnody' (p. 176). I suppose that one might argue that an increasingly messianic reading of the Psalms was responsible for the attribution of ever more psalms to David, but it seems more likely to me that this came about through a growing historicization of the Psalter as the book was more and more read as a book of devotion, with David as model. 3. Conclusion Reading through Kraus's Theology of the Psalms gives us a grasp of the message of Psalms, and by comparing the Old Greek Psalter with Kraus's work we gain an appreciation of the nature of the translation. For one thing, we see that the OG is a conservative rendering of the Hebrew, as we might expect for a liturgical text. Equivalences are often one-for-one, and the 'interlinear' model of translation provides a meaningful paradigm for the relationship between the two texts, Hebrew and Greek. From the outset, we would be surprised to find an extensive imposition of Hellenistic interpretation on the translation. That does not mean that such is never present: after all, every translator leaves something of his or her worldview in what is done in a new language. Working through Kraus's Theology of the Psalms gives us some directions in which to look for the translator's worldview, ideology, theology, or whatever we want to call that new or different element of the text. For example, on the matter of eschatology and messianism, Gerhard von Rad argues that in the Nathan prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 lies

COX Schaper Meets Kraus

311

'the historical origin and legitimation of all messianic expectations'.13 So if we are looking for messianism in Psalms, we could do no better than concentrate on the 'royal' psalms. This seems to me to be an approach much preferable to looking at verses scattered throughout the Psalter, where there is a temptation to read into the text what we are hoping to find. That is a criticism that applies both to Schaper and to his predecessor Ervin. The result in both cases is that the reader is presented with much more than is really there, whether that has to do with antianthropomorphisms (Ervin) or eschatology and messianism (Schaper). Trees become forests. As I draw this contribution to a close, I must thank Professor Pietersma for the conversations about the OG Psalter which have stimulated this examination of elements of its theology. It is a conversation that I expect will continue.14

13. Old Testament Theology (trans. D.M.G. Stalker; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1970 [first published in English in 1962]), I, p. 311, citing A. Alt and L. Rost. 14. Readers can find Professor Pietersma's own review of Schaper in BO 54 (1997), pp. 185-90.

INDEXES

INDEX OF REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 1 2.21 4.3 4.8 10.5 (LXX) 12.8 14 14.18 15.2 15.8 15.12 18.3 18.14 18.27 18.30 18.31 18.32 19.2 20.4 26.3 (LXX) 26.4 (LXX) 27.30 28.13 29.30 35.22 39.16 41 .54 (LXX) 44.9 44.16 44.20 44.24 44.33 45.8 47.18

212

47.25 49.10

22 223, 297

Exodus 1.17 1.21 2.12 3.2 3.4 4.10 5.2 5.10 5.11 5.16 8.6 8.17 9.14 9.20 9.27 9.29 9.30 12.4 12.14 12.17 12.30 12.43 14.11 14.24 14.31 15.2 15.8 (LXX) 16.29 17.1 17.6 17.7

24 24 92 93 23 23 24 94 93 93 93 94 93 24 24 24 24 69 224 224 93,94 224 93 241 24 35,51 259 24 94 35 93

266 23 150 257 23 238 239 23 23 266 23 69 23 23 23 23 22 23 257 257 153 23 68 150, 151 22 257 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

18.1 19.16 20.1 21 21.8 21.11 22.1 22.2 22.9 22.13 23.17 24.1 29.6 (LXX) 32.5 32.18 32.32 33.15 34.9 34.14 34.23 36.37 (LXX) 39.30 (MT)

23 150, 153 23 23 23 94 94 93 93 94

23 24 243 24 94 93 93 23 24 23 243 243

Leviticus 8.9 8.9 (LXX) 13.3 13.20 2 1.9 (LXX) 22.4 (LXX) 25.5 27.8

69

Numbers 11.14

69

243 243 66

66 235 235 243

313

Index of References 14.9 24.7 24.8 (LXX) 24.17 25.12 25.19

24 296 300 296 236 150

Deuteronomy 1.32 1.42 2.7 2.8 3.26 4.12 4.22 4.35 4.39 4.44 4.45 8.7 8.15 10.17 12.12 14.10 14.27 14.29 17.6 17.8 19.6 21.18 21.20 22.5 22.26 22.27 23.16 23.18 28.23 28.26 28.29 28.31 28.68 29.3 29.14 29.18 30.7 31.17 31.27 32

94 95 25 150 38 95 95 95 95 224 224 25 95 25 95 95 95 95 25 69 95 95 95 96 96 96 41 150 97 96 96 96 96 285 97 237 49 96 259 127

32.4

40, 96, 237 32.12 96 32.28 96 32.31 40 96 32.39 33.8 236, 237, 272 33. 17 (LXX) 300 96 33.26

17.34-36 17.37 17.49 19.21 20.27 21.10 23.2 23.11 23.12 25.30 (LXX) 26.12

Joshua 2-2 Kgs 3. 16 (LXX) 4.1

34 259 150

2 Samuel 1.10 5.19 7

Judges 2.1 13.23 16.20 19.1

150 33 33 150

Ruth 1.1

150, 153

7.1-17 7.1-6 7.1-4 7.1-3 7.2-3 7.2 7.3 7.4-6 7.4

7 Samuel 1.8 1.28 (LXX) 2.9 4.1 6.14-23 7.4 10.11 10.22 12.16 14.12 14.19 14.36 15.10 15.17 (LXX) 16-17

16.3 16.7-13 16.12 16.13 16.14-23

37 270 236, 272 153 213 161 150 150 34 150 150 150 153 239 205, 207, 210,213, 216 207 207 150, 151 213 214

7.5 7.8 7.8 (LXX) 7.11 7.18-29 7.27 8.16 8.17 10.17 12.7 12.12 14.19 16.13 17.14 18.28 19.8 20.10 20.14 21.1 21.6 22.2-3

207,214 151 213,216 150 150 150 150 150 150 239 266

242 150 157, 158, 310 157 159 158 160 157, 159 158 158 159 150-54, 158-60 150,158 150 239 159 157 159 150 150 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 40

The Old Greek Psalter

314 2 Samuel (cont.) 40 22.2 40 22.3 236, 237, 22.26 272 22.26 (LXX) 237 22.50 278, 279, 285 24.10 151 24.11 151 24.23 151 / Kings 1.28 6.11 12.22 13 13.1-10 13.11-32 13.19 13.20-26 13.20-22 13.20

13.21 13.23 16.1 17.2 17.8 21.17 21.22 21.28

220 153 153 160, 161 160 160 161 160 160, 161 150-54, 160, 161 161 153,161 153 153 153 153 151 153

2 Kings 4.1 219 11. 12 (LXX) 242 19.35 241 23.16-18 161 1 Chronicles 5.1 11.2 17.3 2 Chronicles 6.41

10.18

151 150 150, 153

236, 237, 272 150

11.2 16.12 23.11 24.7

153 267 242 150

Nehemiah 7.73

150

Job 4.13 5.12-13 13.4 33.15

266 286 267 266

Psalms 253 1-89 (MT) 1-77 (LXX) 256 1-49 169 1. 1-27.6 (SyrPs-a) 188 1.1-4.5 (LXX) 171 306 1.1 1.1 (LXX) 171, 199, 202, 203, 257 1.1 (Pesh) 189 1.1 (SyrPs) 189 1.2 (LXX) 171, 198 1.3 (LXX) 172,202 1.4 306 1.4 (LXX) 198, 204 1.5 306 1.5 (LXX) 199,231, 257, 1.5 (OG) 291 1.6 306 1.6 (LXX) 171,256 2 305 2 (LXX) 242, 263 2.1 (LXX) 201,204 2.2 305 2.2 (LXX) 29, 201 2.2 (SyrPs) 203 2.3 304 2.3 (LXX) 171, 199, 203 2.4 (LXX) 26 2.5 (LXX) 171

2.6 (LXX) 2.7 2.7 (LXX) 2.8 (LXX) 2.8 (MT) 2.9 (Greek) 2.9 (LXX)

242 305 242 202 62 189 171,201, 203 2.9 (Pesh) 189 2.11-12(NRSV) 295 2.11 (LXX) 30, 200, 257 2.11 (NRSV) 295 2.12 (LXX) 199, 202, 256 2. 12 (NRSV) 295 151 3 3.3 (LXX) 82,112, 117 3.3 (MT) 89 3.6 (SyrPs) 201 3.7 (LXX) 171,201, 306 3.7 (SyrPs) 203 3.8 (LXX) 203, 258, 306 3.9 (LXX) 29 4.1 (SyrPs) 200, 202 4.2 (LXX) 171,200, 202 4.3 (LXX) 172 4.4 (LXX) 272 4.5 (LXX) 171,266 4.5 (SyrPs) 190, 200 4.5 (SyrPs-a) 190 4.6 (Greek) 190 4.6 (LXX) 200 4.6 (Pesh) 190 4.7 (SyrPs) 201 4.8 (LXX) 201 4.8 (MT) 65 4.8 (SyrPs) 201 4.9 (LXX) 201 5 (LXX) 172 5.2 (SyrPs) 199, 203 5.3 (LXX) 199,203 5.4 (SyrPs) 202, 203

Index of References 5.5 5.5 (LXX) 5.5 (SyrPs) 5.6 5.6 (LXX) 5.6 (SyrPs) 5.7 5.7 (LXX) 5.7 (SyrPs) 5.8 5.8 (LXX) 5.8 (SyrPs) 5.9 (LXX) 5.9 (MT) 5.9 (SyrPs) 5. 10 (LXX)

306 202, 203 201,202 306 201,202 199 304 199, 256 203 304 203 201 201 278, 279 199, 201 82, 199, 201 89 5.10 (MT) 278-80 5.10(OG) 5. 10 (SyrPs) 199, 204 27, 199, 5.11 (LXX) 203, 259 5.11 (SyrPs) 190, 200 5. 12 (Greek) 190 112, 116, 5.12 (LXX) 117,200 190 5.12(Pesh) 172 6.2 (LXX) 6.2 (MT) 39 204 6.2 (SyrPs) 6.3 (LXX) 172, 204, 268 204 6.3 (SyrPs) 204 6.4 (LXX) 6.4 (SyrPs) 203 6.5 258 172, 203, 6.5 (LXX) 258 82, 172 6.6 (LXX) 6.6 (MT) 89 172, 173 6.7 (LXX) 201 6.8 (SyrPs) 28, 201 6.9 (LXX) 6.9 (SyrPs) 199 6. 10 (LXX) 28, 172, 199 112,116, 6.11 (LXX) 117

7 169 7.1 306 7.1 (LXX) 32, 173 7.1 (SyrPs) 191,200 7.1 (SyrPs-a) 190 7. 1-9.9 (LXX) 173 7.2 258, 306 7.2 (Greek) 190 7.2 (LXX) 173, 200, 258, 260 7.2 (Pesh) 191 7.2 (SyrPs) 202 7.3 (LXX) 83, 202 7.3 (MT) 92 7.3 (SyrPs) 198 7.4 175 7.4 (LXX) 198 7.4 (SyrPs) 201 7.5 258 7.5 (LXX) 172,201, 258 7.5 (SyrPs) 200 7.6 (LXX) 173, 200 7.6 (SyrPs) 204 175 7.7 7.7 (LXX) 27,204 7.7 (SyrPs) 200 7.8 (LXX) 200, 257 7.9 (LXX) 173 7.9 (SyrPs) 199 7. 10 (LXX) 199 7.10 (SyrPs) 199,200, 202 258 7.11 7.11 (LXX) 199, 200, 202, 258 7.11 (SyrPs) 199 7.12 (LXX) 173, 199 7. 12 (SyrPs) 200 7.13 (LXX) 200 7. 14 (LXX) 173 7. 14 (SyrPs) 198, 203 7. 15 (LXX) 173, 198, 203 7. 16 (SyrPs) 198, 203 7.17 (LXX) 198, 203 7. 18 (LXX) 30,31 176 8

315 8.2 (LXX) 8.2 (SyrPs) 8.3 8.3 (LXX) 8.4 (NRSV) 8.5 8.5 (LXX) 8.5 (OG) 8.6 8.6 (LXX) 8.6 (MT) 8.7 (OG)

8.7 (SyrPs) 8.8 (LXX) 8. 10 (LXX) 9 9.3 (SyrPs) 9.4 (LXX) 9.5 (SyrPs) 9.6 (LXX) 9.6 (SyrPs) 9.7 (LXX) 9.7 (SyrPs) 9.8 (LXX) 9.8 (SyrPs) 9.9 9.9 (LXX) 9.10(MT) 9. 10 (SyrPs) 9.10(SyrPs-a) 9.11 (Greek) 9.11 (LXX) 9.11 (Pesh) 9. 12 (LXX) 9. 12 (SyrPs) 9. 13 (LXX) 9. 13 (SyrPs) 9. 14 (LXX) 9.14 (SyrPs) 9.15 (LXX) 9. 15 (SyrPs) 9. 16 (LXX) 9. 16 (SyrPs) 9.17 (Greek)

26 201 308 173, 201 296 175 308 296, 298 175, 308 173 66, 278, 279 278-80, 286 199 199 26 176 200 200, 256 200 200, 256 200, 201 200, 201, 256 202 202 202 175 202 42 190, 200 190 190 200 190 32 200 112,117, 200 204 204 200 200, 257 199, 201 199, 201 191 191

The Old Greek Psalter

316 Psalms (cont.) 9.18(SyrPs) 9. 19 (Greek) 9.19(LXX) 9.21 (SyrPs)

9.22 (LXX) 9.22 (SyrPs) 9.23 (LXX) 9.23 (SyrPs) 9.24 (Greek) 9.24 (OG) 9.24 (SyrPs) 9.25 (LXX) 9.25 (SyrPs) 9.26 (LXX) 9.27 (SyrPs) 9.28 (LXX) 9.28 (OG) 9.28 (SyrPs) 9.29 9.29 (LXX) 9.29 (SyrPs)

9.30 (LXX) 9.30 (SyrPs) 9.31 9.31 (LXX) 9.32 (SyrPs) 9.33 (LXX) 9.33 (SyrPs) 9.34 (LXX) 9.34 (SyrPs) 9.35 9.35 (LXX) 9.35 (SyrPs) 9.36 (LXX) 9.36 (SyrPs) 9.37 (Greek) 9.37 (LXX) 9.37 (SyrPs) 9.38 (LXX) 9.38 (SyrPs) 9.39 (LXX)

191 191 256 199, 202, 308 199, 202 200, 203, 204 200, 203, 204 191 191 284 202, 203 33, 89, 202, 203 199, 201 199,201 201 201 278-80 199, 200 308 199, 200 199,200, 202, 203 199, 200, 202, 203 200, 201 308 200,201 204 204 200 200 201,203 308 201,203 203 203 192 192 256 200 28,200 202, 204 202, 204

10.1 (Greek) 10.1 (LXX) 10.2 (LXX)

192 31 200, 203, 204 201,203 10.3 (LXX) 10.3 (MT) 33 10.3(Pesh) 191 10.3 (SyrPs) 200, 204 10.4 (LXX) 82, 199 10.4 (MT) 89 10.4 (SyrPs) 201 10.5 (LXX) 198 10.5 (SyrPs) 199 10.6 (SyrPs) 198 284 10.7 201 10.7 (LXX) 278, 279 10.7 (MT) 10.8 308 10.8 (SyrPs) 201 306 10.9 308 10.10 308 10.14 10.16 (MT) 256 10.16(Pesh) 192 28 10.17 (MT) 258 10.19 31 11.1 (MT) 11.1 (Pesh) 192 258 11.2 11. 2 (LXX) 258, 272 11. 2 (SyrPs) 200 11. 3 (LXX) 200 11. 3 (SyrPs) 200, 202 11. 4 (LXX) 25, 200, 202 11.4 (SyrPs) 202 11. 5 (LXX) 25, 26, 202 11. 5 (SyrPs) 202 11. 6 (LXX) 202 11. 6 (SyrPs) 200 11. 7 (LXX) 200 11. 7 (SyrPs) 199 11. 7-14.4 (LXX) 250 11. 8 (LXX) 199 11. 8 (SyrPs) 203 11. 9 (LXX) 203

192 258 192 258, 272 192, 193, 202, 204 12.3 (Greek) 192, 193 202, 204, 12.3 (LXX) 257 12.3 (SyrPs) 200, 202 12.4 (Greek) 192 200, 202 12.4 (LXX) 12.4 (MT) 25 12.4 (SyrPs) 192,201, 202 12.5 (LXX) 201,202, 258 25,26 12.5 (MT) 12.5 (SyrPs) 190, 191 12.6 (Greek) 190 31,257 12.6 (LXX) 12.7-15.4 (MT) 250 250, 260 13 (LXX) 13 (OG) 282 13.1-3 (OG) 278, 279, 281 13.1-2(OG) 281 13.1 (Greek) 192, 193 13.1 (LXX) 89, 199 13.3 (Greek) 193 89, 199, 13.3 (LXX) 201,203, 204 13.3(MT) 257 13.3(OG) 282 13.3 (Pesh) 192 13.4 (LXX) 33 13.5 (LXX) 199 13.5 (MT) 257 13.5 (Pesh) 192 203, 257 13.6 (LXX) 31,257 13.6(MT) 13.6 (Pesh) 191 200, 257 13.7 (LXX) 14 (MT) 250, 260 14.1-3(MT) 278, 279 14.1 (LXX) 82

12.1 (SyrPs) 12.2 12.2 (Greek) 12.2 (MT) 12.2 (SyrPs)

317

Index of References 89 14.1 (MT) 192 14.1 (Pesh) 14.2 (Greek) 189 198 14.2 (LXX) 14.2 (SyrPs) 189 82 14.3 89 14.3 (MT) 14.4 (Greek) 192 198 14.4 (LXX) 33 14.4 (MT) 257 14.6 (MT) 257 14.7 (MT) 250 14 (MT) 202 14.1 (LXX) 203 14.2 (LXX) 200, 201 14.3 (LXX) 203 14.4 (LXX) 200 14.5 (LXX) 257 14.6 (MT) 257 14.7 (MT) 15.1 (Greek) 190 260 15.1 (LXX) 15.1 (SyrPs) 191 26,31, 15.2 (LXX) 204 189 15.2 (Pesh) 202 15.4 (LXX) 15. 4 (Pesh) 192 15.5 (Greek) 192 199 15.5 (LXX) 15. 6 (LXX) 201 32 15.7 (LXX) 33 15.8 (LXX) 15.9-10(OG) 291 199, 257 15.9 (LXX) 15.10 (LXX) 272 15.11 (LXX) 200,201, 204 199 16.1 (LXX) 260 16.1 (MT) 191 16.1 (Pesh) 201 16.2 (LXX) 26,31 16.2 (MT) 16.3 (Greek) 192, 193 198, 199, 16.3 (LXX) 203 201 16.5 (LXX) 192 16.5 (Pesh)

200 258 190 200, 258 32 190 33 199, 202 257 203, 204 272 200 199,203, 204 258 16.13 16. 13 (LXX) 203, 204, 258 16. 14 (LXX) 113,116, 199, 203 16. 15 (LXX) 200 176 17 165, 166, 17 (LXX) 173 258 17.1 31,203, 17.1 (LXX) 258 173 17.2 (LXX) 17.2 (SyrPs) 190,200, 203, 204 17.2 (SyrPs-a) 190 258 17.3 17. 3 (Greek) 190 200, 203, 17.3 (LXX) 204, 258 192 17.3 (Pesh) 258 17.4 204, 258 17.4 (LXX) 17.4 (SyrPs) 200, 202, 204 200, 202, 17.5 (LXX) 204 17.5 (SyrPs) 203 17. 6 (LXX) 203 17.7 258 33, 259 17.7 (LXX) 258 17.7(MT) 190 17.7 (Pesh) 17.7 (SyrPs) 200

16.6 (LXX) 16.7 16.7 (Greek) 16.7 (LXX) 16.7(MT) 16.7 (Pesh) 16.8 (MT) 16.9 (LXX) 16.9 (MT) 16. 10 (LXX) 16.10(MT) 16.11 (LXX) 16. 12 (LXX)

17.8 (LXX) 17.8 (SyrPs) 17.9 (LXX) 17.9 (SyrPs) 17. 10 (LXX) 17. 10 (SyrPs) 17.11 (LXX) 17.11 (SyrPs) 17. 12 (LXX) 17.13 17.1 3 (MT) 17.15 17. 15 (SyrPs) 17. 16 (LXX) 17. 16 (SyrPs) 17.17 (LXX) 17. 17 (SyrPs) 17.18 17. 18 (LXX)

17. 19 (SyrPs) 17.20 17.20 (LXX)

17.21 (LXX) 17.23 17.23 (LXX) 17.23 (SyrPs) 17.24 (LXX) 17.25 (LXX) 17.25 (SyrPs) 17.26 (LXX) 17.26 (SyrPs) 17.27 (LXX) 17.27 (SyrPs) 17.28 17.28 (LXX) 17.28 (SyrPs) 17.29 (LXX) 17.29 (SyrPs) 17.30 (LXX) 17.30 (SyrPs)

200 198,201 198, 201 199 199 203 203 201 201 258 258 175 200, 203 200, 203 201,204 201,204 200, 205 258 50, 66, 70, 200, 204, 258 200, 201 258 200,201, 257, 258 70-72 175 113, 116, 117 198, 204 198, 204 70 202 166,202, 272 203 166, 203 204 258 166,204, 258 202 166, 202 202, 204 166, 202, 204 190, 198, 200, 204

The Old Greek Psalter

318 Psalms (cont.) 17.30(SyrPs-a)

17.49 (LXX)

190

17.31-41 (LXX) 166 17.31 (Greek) 190 17.31 (LXX) 173, 198, 200, 204 17.32 175 17.32 (LXX) 29 17.32 (SyrPs) 198 17.33 (LXX) 198 17.35 (LXX) 200 17.35(SyrPs) 192,204 17.36 (Greek) 192 17.36 (LXX) 204 17.36(SyrPs) 201 17.37 (LXX) 201 17.38 (SyrPs) 200 17.39 (LXX) 200 17.39 (SyrPs) 203 17.40 306 17.40 (LXX) 203 17.40 (SyrPs) 200 17.41 306 17.41 (LXX) 200 17.41 (SyrPs) 200 17.42 258 17.42 (LXX) 89, 166, 200, 258 17.42 (SyrPs) 202-204, 285 17.43 (LXX) 166, 202, 203, 204 17.43 (SyrPs) 199,200 17.44 258 17.44 (LXX) 113,116, 117,166, 199, 200, 258 17.45-118.44 (LXX) 250 17.45 (LXX) 166 17.45 (SyrPs) 202 17.46 (LXX) 202 17.46 (SyrPs) 201 17.47 (LXX) 201 17.49 258

17.49 (SyrPs) 17.50 (LXX) 17.50 (OG) 18 18 (LXX) 18 (MT)

18.1 18.1 (MT) 18.1 (SyrPs) 18.2 (LXX) 18.2 (MT) 18.2 (SyrPs) 18.3 (LXX) 18.3 (MT) 18.3 (Pesh) 18.4 18.4 (LXX) 18.4 (MT) 18.4 (SyrPs) 18.5 (LXX) 18.5 (OG) 18.5 (SyrPs) 18. 6 (LXX) 18. 6 (SyrPs) 18.7 (LXX) 18.7 (MT) 18.7 (SyrPs) 18.8 (LXX) 18.8 (SyrPs) 18.9 (LXX) 18. 10 (LXX) 18. 10 (SyrPs) 18.11 (LXX) 18.11 (SyrPs) 18.12 18. 12 (LXX) 18. 12 (SyrPs) 18. 13 (LXX) 18.13 (SyrPs) 18. 14 (Greek) 18. 14 (LXX) 18. 14 (SyrPs) 18. 15 (LXX)

258 199 199 278, 279 305 263, 264 165, 166, 173 258 31,258 203 203 40 200 200 39-41, 258 190 258 84, 89, 92 258 202, 204 202, 204 278-80 198 198 201 89, 201 33, 259 198 30, 198, 220 204 204, 220 220 204 204, 220 199, 200 308 199, 200 202 202 192, 198 192 198 200, 202 47, 49, 200, 202

18.17 (MT) 18.18 18.18(MT) 18.20 18.20(MT) 18.21 (MT) 18.25 (MT) 18.26(MT) 18.27(MT) 18.28 18.28 (MT) 18.29(MT) 18.30 (MT) 18.31-41 (MT) 18.31 (Pesh) 18.32(MT) 18.39 18.40 18.41 18.42 (LXX) 18.42 (MT)

18.43 (MT) 18.44 18.44 (MT) 18.45-119.44 18.45 (MT) 18.47 (MT) 18.49 18.49 (MT) 19 (MT) 19.1 (SyrPs) 19.2 (LXX) 19.3 19.4 (LXX) 19.4 (MT)

19.4 (SyrPs) 19.5 (LXX) 19.5 (SyrPs) 19.6 (LXX) 19.6 (SyrPs) 19.7 (LXX)

50 258 66,70, 258 258 257,258 70-72 70 166,236, 237,272 166 258 166, 258 166 166 166 190 29,41 306 306 306 82,258 89, 166, 258 166 258 166, 258 (MT) 250 166 40,41 258 258, 278, 279 263, 264 204 204 304 82, 305 84, 89, 92,278, 279 203 203, 257 203 203 203 82, 203,

Index of References 19.7 (MT) 19.8 (MT) 19.9 (MT) 19.10 19.10(MT) 19.11 19.11 (MT) 19.12 19.14(Pesh) 19.15 (MT) 20 20.2 20.2 (LXX) 20.2 (SyrPs) 20.3 20.3 (LXX) 20.3 (SyrPs) 20.4 20.4 (LXX) 20.4 (SyrPs) 20.5 (LXX) 20.5 (MT) 20.5 (SyrPs) 20.6 (LXX) 20.6 (SyrPs) 20.7 20.7 (LXX) 20.7 (MT) 20.7 (SyrPs) 20.7 (SyrPs-a) 20.8 (Greek) 20.8 (LXX) 20.9 (SyrPs) 20.10 20. 10 (Greek) 20. 10 (LXX) 20. 11 (LXX) 20. 11 (SyrPs) 20. 12 (LXX) 20. 18 (LXX) 21 21.1 (LXX) 21.1 (SyrPs) 2 1.2 (LXX) 21.2(MT) 2 1.2 (SyrPs) 21. 3 (LXX)

258 89, 220 30, 220 220 258 220, 258 308 220 308 192 40, 47, 49 305 304 257 201 305 201 204 305 204 202 62, 202 257 200 200 201 258, 305 201 258 190,200 190 190 200 192, 203 258 192 203, 258 256 199, 200 199, 200 272 305 241 202, 203 202, 203 257 199 113,116,

117,199 198 198, 257 190, 191, 200, 203 21.5 258 21.5 (Greek) 190 2 1.5 (LXX) 200, 203, 258, 260 21.5(MT) 62 2 1.5 (SyrPs) 190, 200, 204 2 1.6 (Greek) 190 2 1.6 (LXX) 200, 204, 260 2 1.7 (SyrPs) 201 21.8 (LXX) 201 21.8 (Pesh) 190 2 1.8 (SyrPs) 190, 200, 203 21.8(SyrPs-a) 190 21.9 258 2 1.9 (Greek) 190 2 1.9 (LXX) 200, 203, 258 2 1.9 (SyrPs) 200 2 1.10 (LXX) 200, 242 2 1.10 (Pesh) 192 21.11(MT) 256 21.11 (SyrPs) 200 21. 12 (LXX) 89, 200 21.12 (SyrPs) 202-204 21. 13 (LXX) 202-204 2 1.1 3 (SyrPs) 204 21. 14 (LXX) 204 2 1.1 5 (SyrPs) 201 21. 16 (LXX) 201, 257 2 1.16 (SyrPs) 202, 203 21. 17 (LXX) 47-49, 202, 203, 257 2 1.1 7 (SyrPs) 201 21.18 (LXX) 201 2 1.20 (LXX) 242 21. 20 (SyrPs) 203 258 21.21 21.21 (LXX) 203, 258 21.21 (SyrPs) 202, 204 21.3 (SyrPs) 2 1.4 (LXX) 2 1.4 (SyrPs)

319 258 21.22 2 1.22 (LXX) 202, 204, 258 2 1.23 (LXX) 257 2 1.23 (SyrPs) 198, 199 308 21.24 21.24 (LXX) 198, 199 2 1.24 (SyrPs) 199, 200, 203 2 1.25 (LXX) 199,200, 203 21.25 (SyrPs) 199, 202 2 1.26 (LXX) 199, 202, 257 2 1.27 (SyrPs) 202 21.28 (LXX) 72, 202 2 1.29 (LXX) 29 2 1.29 (SyrPs) 203 2 1.30 (LXX) 203 2 1.30 (SyrPs) 198,200 21.31 (LXX) 26, 198, 200 21.31 (SyrPs) 198 2 1.32 (LXX) 27, 198 22.1 (Greek) 192 272, 275 22.1 (LXX) 198, 200, 22.2 (LXX) 204 202 22.3 (LXX) 22.4 (Greek) 189,192 46, 199, 22.4 (LXX) 203 257 22.4 (MT) 22.4 (SyrPs) 189 258 22.5 200 22.5 (LXX) 258, 260 22.5 (MT) 22.5 (Pesh) 191 22.5 (SyrPs) 191,201 202 22.6 (LXX) 260 22.6 (MT) 22.6 (Pesh) 191 258 22.9 190 22.9 (Pesh) 258 22.9 (MT) 22. 12 (LXX) 82 89 22.12(MT) 257 22.16(MT)

320 Psalms (cont.) 22.17(MT) 47-49, 257 22.21 258 22.21 (MT) 258 22.22 258 22.22 (MT) 258 22.23 308 22.23 (MT) 257 22.24 308 22.26 (MT) 257 22.28 (MT) 71 22.29 (MT) 29 22.31 (MT) 26 22.32 (MT) 27 23 (LXX) 267 23.1 (LXX) 30 23.1 (MT) 272, 275 23.1 (OG) 278-80 23.1 (Pesh) 192 23.2 (LXX) 200 23.3 (LXX) 30 23.4 (LXX) 201 23.4 (MT) 46 23.4 (Pesh) 189, 192 23.5 (LXX) 200, 202 23.6 309 23.7 (LXX) 266, 267 23.8 (LXX) 200, 201 23.9 (LXX) 267 24 (MT) 267 24.1 (MT) 30, 278, 279 24.2 308 24.2 (LXX) 202 24.3 (MT) 30 24.4 (LXX) 199 24.5 (LXX) 202 24.6 (LXX) 202 24.7 (MT) 266, 267 24.8 (LXX) 29, 199 24.9 (LXX) 203 24.9 (MT) 267 24. 10 (LXX) 199 24. 12 (LXX) 33, 198 24. 14 (LXX) 199, 201 24. 15 (LXX) 32, 200 24. 16 (LXX) 200, 203

The Old Greek Psalter 24. 18 (LXX) 201,204 24.20 258 24.20 (LXX) 200, 203, 258 24.20 (Greek) 190 24.20 (SyrPs) 190 24.21 (LXX) 201 24.21 (LXX) 27 25.1 (Greek) 189, 190 25.1 (LXX) 31,203, 260 25.1 (SyrPs) 189, 191 25.2 258, 308 25.2 (LXX) 47 25.4 (LXX) 202 25.5 306 25.5 (LXX) 203, 257 25.8 (MT) 29 25.9 (Greek) 192 25.11 (Greek) 189 25.11 (LXX) 203 25.11 (SyrPs) 189 25.12(MT) 33 25.15(MT) 32 25.20 (MT) 258 25.20 (Pesh) 190 25.21 (MT) 27 26 (LXX) 213 26.1 (LXX) 199,204 26.1 (MT) 31,260 26.1 (Pesh) 189, 191 26.2 (LXX) 50 26.2 (MT) 47 26.4 (LXX) 30, 204 26.4 (SyrPs) 202 26.5 306 26.5 (LXX) 68, 199 26.5 (MT) 257 32, 198 26.6 (LXX) 26.8 (LXX) 113, 116, 117 26.9 (LXX) 199 26.9 (Pesh) 192 26. 10 (LXX) 28, 46, 48 26.11 (Pesh) 189 26. 14 (LXX) 32,33 27.2 (LXX) 199, 200 27.2 (MT) 50

27.3 (LXX) 27.4 (LXX) 27.4 (MT) 27.5 (LXX) 27.5 (MT) 27.6 (LXX) 27.6 (MT) 27.6 (SyrPs) 27.6 (SyrPs-a) 27.7 (Greek) 27.7 (LXX) 27.7 (SyrPs) 27.7 (SyrPs-b) 27.9 27.9 (LXX) 27.10(MT) 27.14(MT) 28 28 (LXX)

198, 264 70, 199 30 201 68 199 32 187 188 190 49, 260 187, 191 188 258 258 46,48 32,33 176 165, 166, 173,296 28.1 (LXX) 30,31, 167, 173 28.1 (MT) 40, 174 28.2-5 (LXX) 166 28.2 (LXX) 31,32, 241 28.3 (LXX) 167 28.3 (MT) 264 28.4 (LXX) 167 28.4 (MT) 70 28.5 (LXX) 167 28.6 (LXX) 296, 300 28.7 (MT) 49, 260 28.7 (Pesh) 191 28.9 258 28.9 (MT) 258 29 (MT) 165, 166, 173 29.1 (MT) 30,31, 241 29.2 (MT) 31,32, 167 29.2-5 (MT) 166 29.3 (LXX) 268 167 29.3 (MT) 167 29.4 (MT) 29.5 308 29.5 (LXX) 32, 272

Index of References 29.5 (MT) 29.10 29.11 29.11 (LXX) 29.1 3 (LXX) 30.1 (SyrPs) 30.2 30.2 (Greek) 30.2 (LXX) 30.3 30.3 (LXX) 30.3 (MT) 30.4 30.5 30.5 (MT) 30.6 (MT) 30.6 (SyrPs) 30.7 (Greek) 30.7 (LXX) 30.8 (LXX) 30. 10 (LXX) 30.11 (MT) 30. 13 (LXX) 30.13(MT) 30. 14 (SyrPs) 30. 15 (Greek) 30. 15 (LXX) 30.16 30. 16 (LXX) 30.17 30. 17 (LXX) 30. 19 (SyrPs) 30.20 (Greek) 30.20 (LXX) 30.24 (LXX) 30.24 (SyrPs) 30.25 (Greek) 31.1-2(OG) 31.2 31.2(MT) 3 1.2 (LXX) 31.2(Pesh) 31.3-5(MT) 31.3(MT) 3 1.5 (LXX) 3 1.6 (LXX) 31.7 3 1.7 (LXX)

167 303 303 259 266 190, 191 258 190 258, 260 258 258 268 308 308 32, 272 38 190, 191 190 31,260 257 47,48 259 256 266 190, 191 190 117 258 50, 258 258 258 190 190 27 32, 272 190 190 278-80 258 258, 260 92 191 42 40, 258 31 272 258 258

31.7(MT) 31.7(Pesh) 3 1.8 (Greek) 31.8(MT) 3 1.8 (SyrPs) 3 1.9 (LXX) 3 1.10 (Greek) 31.10(MT) 3 1.10 (SyrPs) 31.11 (LXX) 31.13(MT) 31.15(Pesh) 31.16 31.16(MT) 31.17 31.17(MT) 31.20(MT) 3 1.20 (Pesh) 31.22(MT) 31.24(MT) 31.25(Pesh) 32.1-2(MT) 32.1 (LXX) 32.2 (LXX) 32.2 (MT) 32.4 (LXX) 32.5 (MT) 32.6 (LXX) 32.6 (MT) 32.7 32.7 (LXX) 32.7 (MT) 32.8 (LXX) 32.8 (Pesh) 32.9 (LXX) 32.9 (MT) 32. 10 (LXX) 32. 10 (Pesh) 32.11 (LXX)

32.11 (MT) 32. 1 3 (LXX) 32.16 32. 16 (LXX) 32. 18 (Greek) 32. 18 (SyrPs) 32.19

31,260 191 189 257 189 89 190 47,48 190 257 256 191 258 50, 258 258 258 27 190 42 32, 272 190 278, 279 31 31 92 30 31 30 272 258 259 258 32 189 82 89 257 190 30, 113, 116, 117, 257 257 28 258 92, 258 190 190 258

321 32. 19 (LXX) 32.20 (LXX) 32.21 (LXX) 32.22 (Greek) 32.22 (SyrPs) 33.1 (MT) 33.2 (LXX) 33.2 (MT) 33.3 (LXX) 33.4 (LXX) 33.4 (MT) 33.5 33.5 (LXX) 33.6 (MT) 33.7 33.7 (LXX)

33.7 (MT) 33.8 33.8 (LXX) 33.8 (MT) 33.8 (SyrPs) 33.9 (Greek) 33.9 (LXX) 33. 10 (LXX) 33.10(MT) 33. 11 (LXX) 33.11 (MT) 33. 12 (LXX) 33.13(MT) 33. 14 (LXX) 33.16 33.16(MT) 33.18 33. 18 (LXX) 33. 18 (Pesh) 33.19 33. 19 (LXX) 33.19(MT) 33.20 (MT) 33.21 (MT) 33.22 (Pesh) 33.22 (SyrPs) 33.23 (Greek) 34 34 (LXX) 34.2 (MT)

258 32,49 260 190 190 31 32 31 31,260 32 30 258 32, 258 41 258 28, 258, 260 259 258 258 32 190 190 29 32,90 257 33 30, 257 260 28 61 258, 305 92, 258 258 28, 258, 260 190 258 258 258 32,49 260 190 190 190 176 173 32

The Old Greek Psalter

322 Psalms (cont.) 34.3 (LXX) 34.3 (MT) 34.4 34.4 (MT) 34.5 34.5 (MT) 34.7 34.7 (MT) 34.8 34.8 (MT) 34.8 (OG) 34.9 (LXX) 34.9 (MT) 34.9 (Pesh) 34. 10 (LXX) 34.10(MT) 34.11 (MT) 34.12(MT) 34. 14 (LXX) 34.14(MT) 34.15 (LXX) 34. 17 (LXX) 34.18 34. 18 (LXX) 34.18(MT) 34.19 34.19(MT) 34.23 (LXX) 34.23 (Pesh) 34.25 34.27 (LXX) 35 (MT) 35.1-2 35.2 (LXX) 35.2 (OG) 35.3 (MT) 35.7 35.7 (LXX) 35.8 (LXX) 35.8 (MT) 35.9 (LXX) 35.9 (MT) 35.10 35.10(MT) 35.14(MT)

81 31,260 175 32 258 32, 258 258 28, 258, 260 258 258 282 31,257 29 190 63, 82, 258 32,90 33 260 51,52 61 266 70 258 27, 257 28, 258 258 258 26,27 190 175 28 173 43 90 278-80 81 258 258 260 282 266 31,257 258 63, 258 51,52

266 70 27, 257 38 26,27 28 278, 279 82 90 190 190 29, 272 190 190 258 32, 106 258 260 33 266 88 29 26,28 308 63 30, 256 257 305 106, 107, 113,116, 272 36.33 (LXX) 28 36.34 (LXX) 32,33 36.36 (LXX) 90 36.40 258 36.40 (Greek) 190 36.40 (LXX) 258 36.40 (SyrPs) 190 37.3 (Pesh) 190 37.4 (LXX) 90 37.4 (MT) 29, 272 37.5 (LXX) 68 37.5 (Pesh) 190 37.6 (SyrPs) 189 37.7 (Greek) 189 37.7 (MT) 32 37.8 (LXX) 90, 106 37.9 (MT) 33

35.15 (MT) 35.17 (MT) 35.18 (MT) 35.20 (MT) 35.23 (MT) 35.27 (MT) 36.1 (MT) 36.2 (LXX) 36.2 (MT) 36.3 (Greek) 36.3 (SyrPs) 36.4 (LXX) 36.5 (Greek) 36.5 (SyrPs) 36.7 36.7 (LXX) 36.7 (MT) 36.8 (MT) 36.9 (LXX) 36.9 (MT) 36. 10 (LXX) 36.11 (LXX) 36. 13 (LXX) 36.14 36. 16 (LXX) 36.20 (LXX) 36.23 (LXX) 36.28 36.28 (LXX)

82,83 88 90 29 26,28 308 92 190, 191 260 63 190 30, 256 257 305 272 28 32,33 82 90 258 258 190 39 82 90 68 88, 106 189 82, 308 26 90 258 258 82 90 106, 107, 113,116 38. 14 (LXX) 84,88 92 38.15(MT) 260 38.16(MT) 38. 16 (Pesh) 191 39.2 (LXX) 33 39.3 (SyrPs) 190 39.4 (Greek) 190 39.6 (LXX) 84,90 39.6 (MT) 88 39.7 (LXX) 257 39.8 308, 309

37. 10 (LXX) 37.10(MT) 37. 11 (LXX) 37.11 (MT) 37.13(MT) 37.14 37.15 (LXX) 37. 15 (SyrPs) 37. 16 (LXX) 37.16(MT) 37. 16 (Greek) 37.20 (MT) 37.23 (MT) 37.28 37.28 (MT) 37.33 (MT) 37.34 (MT) 37.36 (LXX) 37.36 (MT) 37.40 37.40 (MT) 37.40 (Pesh) 38.1 (MT) 38.4 (MT) 38.4 (LXX) 38.5 (MT) 38.6 (LXX) 38.7 (Pesh) 38.8 38.8 (LXX) 38.8 (MT) 38.9 38.9 (LXX) 38.11 38.11(MT) 38. 13 (LXX)

Index of References 26 39.8 (MT) 258 39.9 258 39.9 (MT) 39.10(LXX) 257 39.11(LXX) 257 39.1 3 (LXX) 66, 70, 90 39. 14-1 8 (MT) 260 258 39.14 39. 14 (LXX) 258 84,88 39.14(MT) 39.17 (LXX) 27, 28, 113,116 39.18 258, 308 39. 18 (LXX) 26, 49, 258 308 40.2 40.2 (LXX) 28 33 40.2 (MT) 190 40.4 (Pesh) 268 40.5 (LXX) 82 40.6 40.6 (LXX) 256 84,90 40.6 (MT) 257 40.7 (MT) 40.9 (SyrPs) 190, 191 40. 10 (Greek) 190 40.10(MT) 257 40.11(MT) 257 40. 12 (LXX) 257 40. 14- 18 (LXX) 260 40. 13 (LXX) 82 66, 70, 90 40.13(MT) 258 40.14 40.14(MT) 258 308 40.17 40.17(MT) 27,28 258, 308 40.18 40.18(MT) 26, 49, 258 41 (LXX) 173 308 41.1 308 41.2 28 41.2(MT) 4 1.4 (LXX) 113, 116, 117,273 268 41.5 (MT) 41.5 (SyrPs) 190

4 1.6 (Greek) 190 41. 6 (LXX) 113,116, 117 41.6(MT) 256 4 1.7 (LXX) 173 106, 107, 41.9 (LXX) 113, 116, 117 4 1.9 (SyrPs) 189 4 1.10 (Greek) 189 41. 10 (Pesh) 191 41.11 (SyrPs) 190 4 1.1 2 (Greek) 190 41. 12 (LXX) 50,51 41.12(MT) 257 42 (MT) 174 258 42.1 258, 272 42.1 (LXX) 42.2 (Greek) 189 42.2 (SyrPs) 189 42.3 (LXX) 46 42.4 (LXX) 113,116, 117 42.4 (MT) 273 42.5 (Greek) 190 42.5 (LXX) 50,51 42.5 (SyrPs) 190 190 42.6 (Pesh) 40 42.10(MT) 42. 10 (Pesh) 189 42.12 (MT) 50,51 42. 12 (Pesh) 190 258 43.1 258, 272 43.1 (MT) 43.2 (Pesh) 189 46 43.3 (MT) 258 43.4 48, 259 43.4 (LXX) 50,51 43.5 (MT) 43.5 (Pesh) 190 43.6 (SyrPs) 190, 191 258 43.7 43.7 (Greek) 190 258, 260 43.7 (LXX) 258 43.8 258 43.8 (MT) 278-80 43.23 (OG) 43.26 (LXX) 257

323 43.27 (LXX) 44 (LXX) 44.1(OG) 44.3 (LXX) 44.4 44.4 (MT) 44.5 (OG) 44.6 44.6 (SyrPs) 44.7 44.7 (Greek) 44.7 (LXX) 44.7 (MT) 44.7 (OG) 44.7 (Pesh) 44.8 44.8 (LXX) 44.8 (MT) 44.9-10 (LXX) 44. 10 (LXX) 44. 12 (LXX) 44.13 (LXX) 44.13(OG) 44. 14 (LXX) 44.22 (MT) 44.26 (MT) 44.27 (MT) 45 45 (MT) 45.1 (NRSV) 45.2 (LXX) 45.3 (MT) 45.4 (NRSV) 45.5 45.5 (LXX) 45.6 45.6 (LXX)

45.7 (Pesh) 45.8 (LXX) 45.8 (MT) 45.9-10 45.9-10 (MT) 45.10(MT) 45.12 (MT) 45. 12 (NRSV)

27 165, 296 296 64 258 48, 258 296 306 189 258 189 258 260 296 191 258 67 258 167, 169 168 25,26 106, 107, 113,116 296 106 278, 279 257 27 305 165 296 51,52 64 296 306 273, 274 306 106, 107, 113, 116, 117 189 263 67 169 168 168 25,26 296

The Old Greek Psalter

324 Psalms (cont.) 46.2 (MT) 46.4 (MT) 46.6 (MT) 46.9 (LXX) 46.9 (OG) 47 (LXX) 47.3 47.9 (MT) 47. 12 (LXX) 48.2 48.3 48.3 (LXX) 48.11 (LXX) 48.12(MT) 49.2 (LXX) 49.3 (MT) 49.5 49.5 (LXX) 49.11 (MT) 49.15 49. 15 (LXX) 49. 18 (LXX) 49.22 49.22 (LXX) 50.2 (MT) 50.5 50.5 (MT) 50.6 (OG) 50.8 50. 10 (LXX) 50. 14 (LXX) 50.15 50.15(MT) 50.16 50. 16 (LXX) 50. 18 (LXX) 50.18(MT) 50.20 (LXX) 50.22 50.22 (MT) 51 51.4(MT) 5 1.5 (LXX)

61 190 308 190 257 272 258 70 258 257 27 260 282 278, 279, 281 52.2 (LXX) 90 281 52.2 (OG) 52.4 (LXX) 90 67 52.5 (MT) 257 52.7 (LXX) 61 52.7 (MT) 308 52.10 52.10(Pesh) 190 52.11 (MT) 272 260 53 (MT) 53.1-3(MT) 278, 279 53.2 (LXX) 82 90 53.2 (MT) 258 53.3 (LXX) 258 53.3 (LXX) 53.4 82 90 53.4 (MT) 26 53.6 (LXX) 53.7 (LXX) 71 257 53.7 (MT) 258 53.9 258 53.9 (LXX) 258 54.3 258 54.3 (MT) 54.6 (MT) 26 258 54.7 258 54.7 (LXX) 71 54.7 (MT) 258 54.9 258 54.9 (MT) 54.14(SyrPs) 189 54.15 (Greek) 189 54.17 (LXX) 28

5 1.7 (LXX)

51,52 273, 274 241 28 292 292 304 28 27, 257, 261 304 304 219 256 27, 257, 261 219 219 305 272 256 258 258 219 258 82, 89, 258 219 305 272 278-80 305 257 70 258 258 258 258 257 219 27 258 83, 89, 258 151 278, 279 67

51.8(SyrPs) 51.10 5 1.10 (Greek) 51.10(MT) 51. 11 (LXX) 51.16 51.14(MT) 51.16 (MT) 51.18(MT) 51.20(MT) 52 (LXX) 52 (OG) 52.2-4 (OG)

54.20 (LXX) 54.22 (LXX) 54.23 (SyrPs) 54.24 (Greek) 54.24 (LXX) 55.1 (LXX) 55.3 (LXX)

90 67 190 190 27 241 106, 107, 113, 116, 117 55.3 (SyrPs) 190, 191 55.4 (Greek) 190 113,116, 55.4 (LXX) 117,260 55.4 (SyrPs) 190, 191 55.5 (Greek) 190 55.5 (LXX) 260 258 55.7 55.7 (MT) 258 55.11 (LXX) 31 55. 11 (SyrPs) 190, 191 55. 12 (Greek) 190 55. 12 (LXX) 260 55. 13 (LXX) 113,116 55.14 258 55. 14 (LXX) 258 55.15(Pesh) 189 28 55.17(MT) 55.20 (LXX) 82 55.20 (MT) 90 55.22 (MT) 67 55.24 (MT) 27 55.24 (Pesh) 190 56.4 258 56.4 (LXX) 258 56.4 (MT) 260 56.4 (Pesh) 191 260 56.5 (MT) 56.5 (Pesh) 191 56.8-1 2 (LXX) 260 31 56.1KMT) 260 56.12(MT) 56. 12 (Pesh) 191 258 56.14 258 56.14(MT) 57.4 258 57.4 (MT) 258 57.4 (SyrPs) 193 57.5 (Greek) 193

325

Index of References 57.8-12 (MT) 58 (LXX) 58.2 58.2 (LXX) 58.3 58.3 (LXX) 58.5 (LXX) 58.5 (Pesh) 58.7 (LXX) 58. 12 (LXX)

58.14 (LXX)

58. 15 (LXX) 58. 16 (LXX) 58. 17 (LXX) 59 (LXX)

59.2 59.2 (MT) 59.3 59.3 (MT) 59.4 (LXX) 59.5 (LXX) 59.5 (MT) 59.7-14 (LXX) 59.7 59.7 (LXX) 59.7 (MT) 59.9 (LXX) 59.9 (OG) 59. 14 (LXX) 59.14(MT) 59.15(MT) 59.17(MT) 60 (MT) 60.3 (LXX) 60.4 (MT) 60.5 (MT) 60.6 (LXX) 60.7-14 (MT) 60.7-8 60.7 60.7 (MT)

260 294 258 258 258 258 81 193 71 113,116, 117 83, 84, 88, 106, 107, 114, 116,117, 294 71 106 52 252, 262, 276 258 258 258 258 268 265, 266 81 260 258 258 71 223,261 297 82 83, 84, 88 71 52 252, 262, 276 68 268 265, 266 114, 116 42, 260 297 258 258

297 60.8 60.9-10(NRSV) 297 42, 223, 60.9 (MT) 261 60.11 (MT) 42 61. 2 (LXX) 62 61.3(MT) 68 61.8(SyrPs) 190 6 1.9 (Greek) 190 61. 10 (LXX) 65 61.10(SyrPs) 190 61.11 (Greek) 190 61. 12 (LXX) 272, 273 278-80 61.13(OG) 261 62.1 (LXX) 62.2 (MT) 62 62.4 (LXX) 63 106 62.6 (LXX) 40 62.8 (MT) 257 62.9 (LXX) 190 62.9 (Pesh) 65 62.10(MT) 62.11 (Pesh) 190 62.12(MT) 272, 273, 278, 279 40 62.37 (MT) 261 63.1 (MT) 106, 107, 63.2 (LXX) 114, 116, 117 63 63.4 (MT) 63.9 (LXX) 114, 117 257 63.9 (MT) 63.10(SyrPs) 190 63.11 (Greek) 190 63.11 (LXX) 31 68 64.4 (LXX) 34 64.7 (MT) 64.11 (MT) 31 64. 10 (LXX) 272 64.11 (Pesh) 190 64. 13 (LXX) 106, 107, 114, 116, 117 65.4 (MT) 68 65.10(MT) 272 65.11 (LXX) 106

65. 16 (LXX) 65. 18 (LXX) 65. 19 (LXX) 66.16(MT) 66.18(MT) 66.19(MT) 67 67 (LXX) 67.3 (LXX) 67.5 (LXX) 67.7 (LXX) 67. 12 (LXX) 67. 13 (LXX) 67.15 67. 17 (LXX) 67. 18 (LXX) 67. 19 (LXX)

260 26, 260 260 260 26, 260 260 305 296 256 34 298 26 296 303 28 26 34, 1 14, 116 67.19(OG) 278, 279, 282, 283, 288, 297 67.20 (LXX) 26 67.21 (LXX) 26,30 67.22 (LXX) 114,116 67.23 (LXX) 26 67.27 (LXX) 33 67.31 (LXX) 257 67.33 (LXX) 26 68.2 258 68.2 (LXX) 258 68.3 (MT) 256 90 68.3 (LXX) 68.3 (SyrPs) 190 68.4 (Greek) 190 68.4 (LXX) 114, 116 68.5 (LXX) 67,70 68.5 (MT) 34 68.6 (NRSV) 297 68.9 (LXX) 211 68.10(OG) 278-80 68.12(MT) 26 68.15 258, 303 68. 15 (LXX) 258 68.17(MT) 28 26, 278, 68.18(MT) 279, 282 34 68.19(MT) 68. 19 (NRSV) 297

326 Psalms (cont.) 68.20 (MT) 68.21 (LXX) 68.21 (MT) 68.22 (LXX) 68.23-24 (OG) 68.23 (MT) 68.23 (OG) 68.24 (OG) 68.27 (MT) 68.31 (MT) 68.32 (LXX) 68.33 (MT) 68.34 (LXX) 68.36 68.36 (LXX) 68.36 (MT) 69.2-6 (LXX) 69.2 69.2 (MT) 69.3 (LXX) 69.3 (MT) 69.3 (Pesh) 69.5 (MT) 69.6 69.6 (LXX) 69.9 (MT)

26 88 26,30 266 278, 279 26 282, 288 282 33 257 27,67 26 28 258 261 258 260 258 258 49,82 90 190 67,70 258 258 211,278, 279 69.15 258 69.15(MT) 258 69.21 (LXX) 82 88 69.21 (MT) 69.22-23 (MT) 278, 279 266 69.22 (MT) 69.25 (MT) 39 69.32 (MT) 27,67 69.34 (MT) 28 69.36 258 69.36 (LXX) 258 69.36 (MT) 261 70 (SyrPs) 187 70.1 (Greek) 190 70.1 (LXX) 27, 260 70.1 (SyrPs) 191 70.2-6 (MT) 260 70.2 258 70.2 (LXX) 258 258 70.3

The Old Greek Psalter 70.3 (MT) 70.4 70.4 (LXX) 70.6 70.6 (MT) 70.11 70.11 (LXX) 70.15 (LXX)

49, 258 258 258 258 258 258 90, 258 114,116, 117 70. 16 (LXX) 26 70.20 (LXX) 106 70.21 (LXX) 114,116, 117 70.22 (LXX) 114, 116 71 (LXX) 241 71.1 (MT) 27, 260 71.1 (Pesh) 191 71.2 258 71.2(MT) 258 71.3 (LXX) 258 71.3(MT) 40, 258 71.4 258, 305 7 1.4 (LXX) 258 *71.4(MT) 258 71.5 (LXX) 241 7 1.10 (LXX) 70 71.11 (LXX) 82, 258 71.11 (MT) 90, 258 71.12 258 7 1.12 (LXX) 84, 88, 258 71.13 258 71. 13 (LXX) 258 71.16(MT) 26 71. 17 (LXX) 241,298 72 305 72 (MT) 241 72.2 (LXX) 92 72.4 258, 305 72.4 (LXX) 90 72.4 (MT) 258 72.4 (OG) 295 72.5 (LXX) 84,91 72.5 (MT) 241 72.10(MT) 70 72. 12 (LXX) 82, 258 72.12(MT) 84, 88, 258

258 258 241 298 106 257 257 46,47 256 31 309 187 293 304 189 257 92 189 241 82 90 82 84,91 91 47 114,116 106 33,106 309 257 257 40, 46, 47 256 31 304 257 189 82, 272, 273 74.9 (MT) 91 74.11(MT) 47 74.18 (MT) 33 75.2 (LXX) 261 75.8 (LXX) 114,117 75.9 (LXX) 114,116 75.9 (MT) 272, 273 75.10 258 75. 10 (LXX) 258

72.13 72.13(MT) 72.17 (MT) 72.17(NRSV) 72.21 (LXX) 72.24 (LXX) 72.25 (LXX) 72.26 (LXX) 72.27 (LXX) 72.28 (LXX) 73 73 (SyrPs) 73 (OG) 73.2 73.2 (Greek) 73.2 (LXX) 73.2 (MT) 73.2 (SyrPs) 73.3 (LXX) 73.4 (LXX) 73.4 (MT) 73.5 (LXX) 73.5 (MT) 73.9 (LXX) 73. 11 (LXX) 73. 12 (LXX) 73. 16 (LXX) 73. 18 (LXX) 73.24 73.24 (MT) 73.25 (MT) 73.26 (MT) 73.27 (MT) 73.28 (MT) 74.2 74.2 (MT) 74.2 (Pesh) 74.9 (LXX)

Index of References 31 27 261 43 26 114,116 258 258 34 31 187 27 30,49 259 26 189 189 49 34 259 266 259 259 190 190 189 189 259 114,116 243 259 26 261 243, 300 256 229, 234, 236, 246 268 78.1 (LXX) 78.2-3 (LXX) 229, 232, 233,271, 272 234,271, 78.2 (LXX) 272 78.3 (LXX) 91 30,49 78.4 (MT) 114,116 78.6 (LXX) 259 78.8 (MT) 258 78.9

75.1 2 (LXX) 76.2 (LXX) 76.2 (MT) 76.4 (MT) 76.8 (LXX) 76.9 (LXX) 76.10 76.10(MT) 76. 12 (LXX) 76.12(MT) 77 (SyrPs) 77.2 (MT) 77.4 (LXX) 77.8 (LXX) 77.8 (MT) 77. 10 (Greek) 77.10(SyrPs) 77.11 (LXX) 77.12(MT) 77. 13 (LXX) 77.15 (LXX) 77. 17 (LXX) 77.21 (LXX) 77.22 (Greek) 77.22 (SyrPs) 77.39 (Greek) 77.39 (SyrPs) 77.40 (LXX) 77.48 (LXX) 77.54 (LXX) 77.56 (LXX) 77.65 (LXX) 77.68 (LXX) 77.69 (LXX) 78-150 (LXX) 78 (LXX)

78.9 (LXX) 78.10 (LXX) 78.10(Pesh) 78.11 (MT) 78. 12 (LXX) 78.13(MT) 78.15(MT) 78.17 (MT) 78.21 (MT) 78.22 (Pesh) 78.35 (MT) 78.38 (MT) 78.39 (Pesh) 78.40 (MT) 78.49 (MT) 78.49 (LXX) 78.56 (MT) 78.59 (MT) 78.62 (MT) 78.65 (MT) 78.68 (MT) 79 (SyrPs) 79 (MT) 79.1 (MT) 79.2-3 (MT)

27, 258 106 189 49 70 259 266 259 38, 259 190 40 39 189 259 36, 37, 39 272 259 38 38 26 261 187 234 268 233, 27072 237,271, 79.2 (MT) 272 79.3 (LXX) 82 79.3 (MT) 91 258 79.4 79.4 (LXX) 258 79.6 (LXX) 266, 272, 275 273, 274 79.7 (LXX) 258 79.8 79.8 (LXX) 27, 258 258 79.9 27, 258 79.9 (MT) 79.12(MT) 70 79. 14 (LXX) 114,116, 117 298, 299 79.16(OG) 79. 17 (LXX) 256 79.18(OG) 299 258 79.20 79.20 (LXX) 258 272 79.49 (MT)

327 258 258 266, 272, 275 273, 274 80.7 (MT) 258 80.8 258 80.8 (LXX) 27, 258 80.8 (MT) 106, 107, 80.9 (LXX) 114, 116, 117 80.12(SyrPs-b) 189 80.13 (Greek) 189 80. 13 (SyrPs) 189 80. 14 (Greek) 189 80. 15 (LXX) 71 80.15(NRSV) 298, 299 256 80.17 (MT) 80.17(NRSV) 298, 299 258 80.20 258 80.20 (MT) 257 81.1 (LXX) 258, 308 81.4 258 8 1.4 (LXX) 115,116 8 1.7 (LXX) 258 81.8 258 81.8(MT) 8 1.1 4 (Pesh) 189 71 81.15(MT) 257 82.1 (MT) 258, 308 82.4 258 82.4 (MT) 115, 116 82.8 (LXX) 82. 12 (LXX) 115,117 82.13 (LXX) 106 30,47 83.3 (LXX) 27 83.6 (LXX) 83.7 (SyrPs) 189 83.8 (Greek) 189 83.11 (LXX) 64, 273 83. 11 (SyrPs) 189 83. 12 (Greek) 189 83. 12 (SyrPs) 190 83. 13 (Greek) 190 30,47 84.3 (MT) 27 84.6 (MT) 189 84.8 (Pesh)

80.4 80.4 (MT) 80.6 (MT)

328 Psalms (cont.) 305 84.9 84.9 (LXX) 71,264, 272 84.11 (MT) 64, 273 42 84.12(MT) 84.12(Pesh) 189 84. 13 (LXX) 28 84.13(Pesh) 190 258 85.2 85.2 (Greek) 190 85.2 (LXX) 258, 272 85.2 (SyrPs) 190 85.4 (MT) 39 85.8 (LXX) 91 71,264, 85.9 (MT) 272 85.11 (Greek) 189 85.11 (SyrPs) 189 85.13 258 85. 13 (LXX) 258 28 85.13(MT) 85. 14 (LXX) 257 85.16 258 258 85.16(MT) 86.2 258 258, 272 86.2 (MT) 86.2 (Pesh) 190 86.5 (LXX) 299 86.8 (LXX) 82 86.8 (MT) 91 86.11 (Pesh) 189 86.13 258 86.13(MT) 258 86.14(MT) 257 86.16 258 86. 16 (LXX) 258 87.3 (LXX) 27 87.5 (LXX) 92 87. 10 (LXX) 115, 117 87. 11 (LXX) 267 244 88 (LXX) 88.3 (MT) 27 88.5 (MT) 92 88.6 (LXX) 257 88.7 (LXX) 32 88.9 (LXX) 34 88.11 (MT) 267

The Old Greek Psalter 88. 13 (LXX) 115-17 88. 15 (SyrPs) 189 88. 16 (Greek) 189 88. 17 (LXX) 257 88. 19 (LXX) 30 88.20 (LXX) 272 306 88.24 88.25 (LXX) 47 88.30 (SyrPs) 189 88.31 (Greek) 189 88.32 (SyrPs) 189, 190 88.33 (Greek) 189, 190 88.39 (LXX) 243 88.40 (LXX) 242, 243 305 89 244 89 (MT) 257 89.6 (MT) 89.7 (MT) 32 89.9 (MT) 34 89. 16 (Pesh) 189 89. 17 (LXX) 26 257 89.17(MT) 89.19(MT) 30 272 89.20 (MT) 305, 306 89.23 306 89.24 89.25 (MT) 47 89.27 (MT) 40 89.31 (Pesh) 189 89.33 (Pesh) 189, 190 89.38 305 38 89.39 (MT) 89.40 (MT) 242 89.41 (MT) 42 89.51 305 90-1 50 (MT) 253 90.1 303 90.2 (Greek) 190 90.2 (LXX) 31 90.2 (SyrPs) 190 90.3 258 90.3 (LXX) 258 90.7 (MT) 39 90. 11 -12 (LXX) 273 90.13 (Greek) 193 90.14 258 90. 14 (Greek) 190

258 191 258 258 115,116 26 303 31 31 190 259 115,116 256 273 193 258 258 191 258 106, 107, 115,116 258 91.15(MT) 304 92.1 28 92.1 (LXX) 92.2 (MT) 31 29 92.4 (LXX) 256 92.10(MT) 40 92.16(MT) 304 93.1 28 93.1 (MT) 70 93.2 (LXX) 34 93.4 (LXX) 29 93.4 (MT) 93.6 (LXX) 115-17 34 93.7 (LXX) 93.9 (LXX) 115-17, 259, 272 93.11 (OG) 278, 279, 286 93.14 (OG) 278-80, 285 93. 19 (LXX) 27 93.23 (LXX) 70,11517 94.1 (LXX) 31 70 94.2 (MT) 106 94.4 (LXX) 94.4 (MT) 34

90. 14 (LXX) 90. 14 (SyrPs) 90.15 90.15 (LXX) 90. 16 (LXX) 90.17(MT) 91.1 9 1.2 (LXX) 91.2(MT) 9 1.2 (Pesh) 91.3(MT) 9 1.6 (LXX) 91. 10 (LXX) 91.1 1-12 (MT) 9 1.1 3 (SyrPs) 91.14 91.14(MT) 9 1.1 4 (Pesh) 91.15 91. 15 (LXX)

index of refernces 259, 272 278, 279 278, 279 27 40 70 40 31 31 31 28 243 31 31 32, 241 28 257 28, 257 31 31 26 28 31 257, 261 31 32, 241 258 28, 33, 258, 272 28 96.10(MT) 257 96.11(MT) 96. 12 (LXX) 31 258 97.1 31,47, 97.1 (LXX) 258 28, 257 97.1 (MT) 27 97.4 (LXX) 32 97.5 (LXX) 26 97.5 (MT) 257,261 97.8 (MT) 28, 33, 97.10(MT) 258, 272 258 97.10 31 97.12(MT) 258 98.1 28 98.1 (LXX) 31,47, 98.1 (MT) 258

94.9 (MT) 94.11 (MT) 94.14(MT) 94.19(MT) 94.22 (MT) 94.23 (MT) 95.1 (MT) 95.1 (LXX) 95.1 (MT) 95.2 (LXX) 95.5 (LXX) 95.6 (LXX) 95.7 (LXX) 95.8 (LXX) 95.9 (LXX) 95. 10 (LXX) 95. 11 (LXX) 96.1 (LXX) 96.1 (MT) 96.2 (MT) 96.5 (LXX) 96.5 (MT) 96.7 (MT) 96.8 (LXX) 96.8 (MT) 96.9 (MT) 96.10 96. 10 (LXX)

115-17 98.3 (LXX) 27 98.4 (MT) 98.5 (MT) 32 115,117 98.6 (LXX) 76 98.6 (MT) 99.1 (LXX) 31 28 99.1 (MT) 30 99.2 (LXX) 100.1 (LXX) 272 100.1 (MT) 31 100.2(MT) 30 100.4 (LXX) 257 100.6 (Greek) 189 100.6 (SyrPs) 189 101 305 101.1 (MT) 272 257 101.3 (MT) 10 1.6 (LXX) 257 101.6(Pesh) 189 101.9 (LXX) 34 101. 16 (LXX) 115-17 101.21 (LXX) 259 10 1.23 (LXX) 30 10 1.26 (LXX) 27 101.27 (LXX) 257 102.1 (LXX) 32 102.2 (LXX) 32 102.3 (LXX) 268 102.6 (LXX) 29 257 102.6(MT) 102.8 (LXX) 29 34 102.9 (MT) 102.11 (LXX) 28 102. 16 (LXX) 88 102. 17 (LXX) 30 102.20-22 (LXX) 33 102.20 303 102.21 (MT) 259 102.22 (LXX) 32,33 102.23 (MT) 30 102.26 (MT) 27 102.27 (MT) 257 103.1 (LXX) 32, 106 32 103.1 (MT) 103.2 (MT) 32 268 103.3 (MT) 29 103.6 (MT)

329 103.8 (MT) 29 103.11 (LXX) 266 103.11 (MT) 28 103. 13 (LXX) 62, 266 103. 16 (LXX) 82 103.16(MT) 88 103.17 (MT) 30 1 03.20-22 (MT) 33 303 103.20 103.22 (MT) 32,33 103.23 (LXX) 220 103.25 (LXX) 84,91 103.28 (LXX) 115,117 103.33 (LXX) 31 103.34 (LXX) 31 103.35 (LXX) 32,88 104.1 (LXX) 31 32 104.1 (MT) 104.3 (LXX) 33 104.4 (LXX) 33 104.5 (LXX) 49 104.11 (MT) 266 104.13(MT) 62, 266 104.21 (LXX) 26 104.23 (MT) 220 104.25 (LXX) 82 104.25 (MT) 84,91 104.28 (LXX) 259 104.33 (MT) 31 104.34 (LXX) 84,91 104.34 (MT) 31 104.35 (LXX) 82 104.35 (MT) 32,88 104.36 (LXX) 115, 116 104.37 (LXX) 91 104.41 (Greek) 189 104.41 (SyrPs) 189 104.44 (LXX) 257 105.1 (LXX) 31,272 31 105.1 (MT) 105.2 (LXX) 30 33 105.3 (MT) 33 105.4 (MT) 49 105.5 (MT) 105.7 (LXX) 259 258 105.8 105.8 (LXX) 258

The Old Greek Psalter

330 Psalms (cont.) 105.10 105.10(LXX) 105.13(LXX) 105.17 (LXX) 105.18 105.18 (LXX) 105.21 105.21 (LXX) 105.21 (MT) 105.23 (LXX) 105.27 (LXX) 105.28 (MT) 105.33 (LXX) 105.34 (LXX) 105.34 (MT) 105.35 (LXX) 105.37 (LXX) 105.37 (MT) 105.38 (LXX) 105.41 (Pesh) 105.43 105.43 (LXX) 105.44 (MT) 105.47 105.47 (LXX) 106.1 (LXX) 106.1 (MT) 106.2 (MT) 106.3 (LXX) 106.5 106.6 106.6 (LXX) 106.7 (Greek) 106.7 (MT) 106.7 (SyrPs) 106.8 106.8 (LXX) 106.8(MT) 106.9 106.10 106.10(MT) 106.11 (LXX) 106. 12 (LXX) 106.13 106.13 (LXX) 106.1 3 (MT) 106. 15 (LXX)

258 258 257 257 307 257 258 258 26 115,117 257 259 259 82 84,91 220 48,82 91 48,49 189 258, 303 257-59 257 258 258 31,272 31,272 30 61, 257 307 258 258 189 259 189 258 31 258 307 258 258 257 91 258 258 257 31

106.17(MT) 257 106.18 (MT) 258 106.19 (LXX) 258 106.20 (LXX) 268 258 106.21 106.21 (LXX) 31 106.21 (MT) 258 106.23 (LXX) 220 106.27 (MT) 257 106.31 (LXX) 31 304 106.32 106.32 (LXX) 257 106.33 (MT) 259 106.35 (MT) 220 106.37 (MT) 48 106.38 (MT) 48,49 258 106.43 106.43 (LXX) 30 106.43 (MT) 257-59 258 106.47 106.47 (MT) 258 252, 262 107 (LXX) 107.1 (MT) 31,272 107.2-14 (LXX) 260 61,257 107.3 (MT) 307 107.5 258 107.6 258 107.6 (MT) 258 107.7 107.7 (LXX) 258 107.7 (Pesh) 189 107.8 (MT) 31 107.9 (LXX) 223, 261 297 107.9 (OG) 107.11 (LXX) 259 107.11(MT) 257 107. 12 (LXX) 82 107.1 2 (MT) 91 258 107.13 107.13(MT) 258 107.15(MT) 31 258 107.19 107.19(MT) 258 107.20 (MT) 268 107.21 (MT) 41 107.23 (MT) 220 107.31 (MT) 31

107.32 107.32 (MT) 107.43 (MT) 108 (MT) 108.2- 14 (MT) 108.7-14 (MT) 108.7 108.7 (MT) 108.9 (MT) 108.11 108.11 (LXX) 108.11 (MT) 108. 16 (LXX) 108.17 (LXX) 108.22 (LXX) 108.22 108.26 108.26 (LXX) 108.30 (LXX) 108.31 108.31 (LXX) 109 (LXX) 109.1 (LXX) 109.1 (MT) 109.1 (OG) 109.2 (Greek) 109.2 (OG) 109.2 (SyrPs) 109.3 (LXX) 109.4 (LXX)

109.5 (LXX) 109.11(MT) 109.16(MT) 109.17 (MT) 109.21 109.21 (MT) 109.26 109.26 (MT) 109.30 (MT) 109.31 109.31 (MT) 1 10 (LXX) IIO(MT) 110.1 (LXX) 110.1(MT)

304 257 30 252, 262 260 42 258 258 42, 223, 261 42 219 259 266 257 258 258 258 258 30,31 258 258 238-42 28 26 278, 279, 286, 287 189 300 189, 190 239-42 229, 238, 239 26 219 266 257 258 259 258 258 30,31 258 258 227 238, 239 26, 257 28, 278,

Index of References 279 110.2(Pesh) 189,190 110.3(MT) 240,241 110.4 305 11 0.4 (LXX) 29 1 10.4 (MT) 238 110.5(MT) 26 110.10 (LXX) 226-28, 269 111 (LXX) 221 11 1.1 (LXX) 32,257 lll.l(MT) 257 111.4(MT) 29 11 1.5 (LXX) 220,226, 270 11 1.7 (Greek) 190 111.7(SyrPs) 190 111.9(OG) 278,279, 281 11 1.10 (LXX) 257 lll.lO(MT) 227,228, 269 112(MT) 221 112.1(MT) 32,257 11 2.4 (LXX) 29 112.5(MT) 220,226, 269, 270 112.7(Pesh) 190 112.9(MT) 278,279 112.10(MT) 257 113.2 303 11 3.2 (LXX) 261 113.4(MT) 29 11 3.7 (LXX) 26 113.9(SyrPs-b) 190 113.10(SyrPs-b) 190 11 3. 11 (LXX) 257 113.11(SyrPs-b) 190 113.13-16 (LXX) 273 11 3. 17 (Greek) 190 11 3. 17 (LXX) 49 1 13.17 (SyrPs) 190 11 3. 18 (Greek) 190 11 3. 18 (LXX) 49

11 3. 18 (SyrPs) 190 1 13.19 (Greek) 190 11 3. 19 (SyrPs) 190 11 3.19 (LXX) 33,49 11 3.21 (LXX) 33 11 3.23 (LXX) 31 11 3.24 (LXX) 31 11 3.25 (LXX) 34, 272 1 13.26 (LXX) 35 261 1 14.2 (MT) 114.3 303 11 4.5 (LXX) 29 114.6 258 1 14.6 (LXX) 29, 258 1 14.7 (MT) 26 114.8 258 1 14.8 (LXX) 48,61, 258 1 14.9 (LXX) 257 115.1(OG) 278-80 115.3 (LXX) 31,70 115.3(MT) 257 11 5.5-8 (MT) 273 11 5. 6 (LXX) 272 1 15.9 (LXX) 31 115.9(Pesh) 190 115.9(MT) 49 1 15.10 (MT) 49 115.10(Pesh) 190 115.11 (MT) 33,49 115.11 (Pesh) 190 115.13(MT) 33 115.15 (MT) 31 1 15.16 (MT) 31 115.17(MT) 34, 272 1 15.18 (MT) 35 116.1 (LXX) 32 116.1 (OG) 278, 279, 285 116.2 (LXX) 30 116.5(MT) 29 116.6 258 116.6(MT) 29, 258 116.8 258 116.8(MT) 48,61, 258 257 1 16.9 (MT) 1 16.10 (MT) 278, 279

331 1 16.12 (MT) 31,70 116.15(MT) 272 1 16.18 (MT) 31 117.1(LXX) 31,272 117.1(MT) 32,278, 279 117.2(LXX) 272 117.2(MT) 30 117.3(LXX) 272 117.4(LXX) 33,272 117.5(LXX) 34,35 11 7.8-9 (LXX) 72,190 1 17.8 (SyrPs) 190 11 7.9 (Greek) 190 11 7. 13 (LXX) 28 117.14 (LXX) 34,51 117.19 304 117. 19 (LXX) 34 117.20 (LXX) 30 11 7.24 (LXX) 28,257 117.25 258 11 7.25 (LXX) 258 11 7.29 (LXX) 31,272 118.1 (Greek) 189 118.1(MT) 31,273 118.1(SyrPs) 189 118.2(MT) 272 11 8.3 (Greek) 189 118.3(MT) 272 118.3(SyrPs) 189 118.4(MT) 33,272 118.5-7 305 118.5(MT) 34,35 11 8.7 (LXX) 27 11 8.8-9 (MT) 65,72 118.9(Pesh) 190 1 18.13 (MT) 28 1 18.14 (MT) 34,51 118.17 309 1 18.19 (MT) 34 11 8.20 (MT) 30 11 8.24 (MT) 28,257 118.25 258 11 8.25 (LXX) 257 11 8.25 (MT) 258 1 18.29 (MT) 31,272 11 8.31 (LXX) 257 11 8.33-48 (LXX)

332 Psalms (cont.) 221 118.35 (LXX) 257 118.42 (Greek) 190 118.42 (LXX) 257 118.42 (SyrPs) 190 118.44 258 118.44 (LXX) 258 118.45 (Greek) 189 118.45 (LXX) 257 118.45 (SyrPs) 189 118.47 (LXX) 221 118.68 (LXX) 27 118.72 303 118.72 (LXX) 65 118.85 (LXX) 27 118.93 (LXX) 27 118.97 (LXX) 27 118.98 (LXX) 67 118.99 (LXX) 67 118.100 (LXX) 67 118.103 (LXX) 65 118.105 (LXX) 221 118.114 (LXX) 49 118.117 258 118.117 (LXX) 258 118.126 (LXX) 32 118.146 258 118.146 (LXX) 258 118.149 (LXX) 259 118.153 258 118.153 (LXX) 258 118.165 (LXX) 91 118.168 (LXX) 27 118.170 258 118.170 (LXX) 258 118.176 (LXX) 257 119.1(Pesh) 189 119.2 258 119.2 (LXX) 258 119.3 (Pesh) 189 119.5-7 305 119.7(MT) 27 119.25 (MT) 257 119.31(MT) 257 119.33-48 (MT) 221 119.35 (MT) 257

The Old Greek Psalter 1 19.42 (MT) 257 1 19.42 (Pesh) 190 1 19.44 258 11 9.44 (MT) 258 1 19.45 (MT) 257 1 19.45 (Pesh) 189 11 9.47 (MT) 221 1 19.68 (MT) 27 11 9.72 (MT) 65 1 19.85 (MT) 27 1 19.93 (MT) 27 1 19.97 (MT) 27 1 19.98 (MT) 67 1 19.99 (MT) 67 119. 100 (MT) 67 119.103(MT) 65 119.105(MT) 221 119.114(MT) 49 119.117 258 119.1 17 (MT) 258 119.126(MT) 32 258 119.146 1 19. 146 (MT) 258 119. 149 (MT) 259 258 119.153 11 9. 153 (LXX) 258 119.165(LXX) 82 119.165(MT) 91 119.168(MT) 27 258 119.170 119.176(MT) 257, 258 120.2 258 258 120.2 (MT) 121.1 (Greek) 189 121.1 (SyrPs) 189 121.4(LXX) 34 121.8(LXX) 47, 48, 264 122.1 (Pesh) 189 122.2 (LXX) 26 122.4 (MT) 34 122.8(MT) 47, 48, 264 123.2 (MT) 26 123.8 304 124.3 (Greek) 189 124.3(SyrPs) 189 124.8 303

125.3 (Pesh) 125. 6 (Greek) 125.6(SyrPs) 126.6 (Pesh) 127.1 (Greek) 127.1 (LXX) 127.1 (SyrPs) 127.2 (LXX) 127.4 (LXX) 128.1 (MT) 128.1 (Pesh) 128.2 (MT) 128.4 (MT) 129.3 (LXX) 129.6 (Greek) 129.6 (LXX) 129.6 (Pesh) 129.7 (LXX) 130.1 (Greek) 130.1 (LXX) 130.1 (SyrPs) 130.3 (Greek) 130.3 (LXX) 130.3 (SyrPs) 130.3(MT) 130.6 (MT) 130.7 (MT) 130.5-7 (Pesh) 131.1 (MT) 131.1 (Pesh) 13 1.2 (LXX) 131.3(MT) 13 1.3 (Pesh) 13 1.4 (LXX) 13 1.5 (LXX) 13 1.6 (LXX) 13 1.9 (LXX) 13 1.9 (LXX) 131.11 (LXX) 131.12(MT) 13 1.16 (LXX) 131. 17 (LXX) 131. 18 (LXX) 132 132(MT) I32.2(MT) 132.4 (MT)

189 189 189 189 189 33 189 226 33 33 189 226 33 34 190 27,32 190 31 189 68 189 190 32 190 34 27 31,32 190 68 189 32 32 190 48 32 237 237, 272 237 70,71 49 272 243 242, 243 151, 158, 305 244 32 48

Index of References 132.5(MT) 132.9(MT) 132.10 132.11 (MT) 132.12(MT) 132.16(MT) 132.17(MT) 132.18(MT) 133.1 (LXX) 133.2(LXX) 134.1 (MT) 134.2 (MT) 134.3 (LXX) 134.4 (LXX) 134.5 (LXX) 134.6 (LXX) 134. 17 (LXX) 134. 19 (LXX) 134.20 (LXX) 135.1 (LXX) 135.2 (LXX) 135.3 (LXX)

32 236, 272 305 70,71 49 272 243 242, 243 32 32, 241 32 32 35 28,34 26,65 28, 257 92 32 32,33 31,272 272 26, 27, 272 135.3(MT) 35 135.4 (LXX) 272 135.4(MT) 28,34 135.5 (LXX) 272 135.5 (MT) 26,65 135. 6 (LXX) 272 135.6(MT) 28, 257 135.7 (LXX) 272 135.8 (LXX) 272 135.9 (LXX) 272 135.17(MT) 92 135.19 (MT) 32 135.20(MT) 32,33 135.23 (LXX) 27 135.26 (LXX) 30 136.1 (MT) 31,272 136.2 (MT) 272 136.3(MT) 26, 27, 272 136.4(MT) 272 136.5 (MT) 272 136.6 (LXX) 257 136.6(MT) 272 136.7 (MT) 272 136.8 (MT) 273

136.9 (MT) 136.23 (MT) 1 36.26 (MT) 137.1 (LXX) 137.6 (LXX) 137.7 137.7 (Greek) 137.7 (LXX) 137.7 (SyrPs) 138 (LXX) 138.1 (MT) 138.4 (LXX)

138.6 (LXX) 138.7 138.7 (Greek) 138.7(MT) 138.7(Pesh) 138.7(SyrPs) 138.8 138.9 (LXX) 138. 12 (LXX) 138. 13 (LXX) 138. 18 (LXX) 138.24 (LXX) 139(MT) 139.2 139.2 (LXX) 139.3(SyrPs) 139.4 (LXX) 139.4 (Greek) 139.4(MT) 139.4(OG) 139.6(MT) 139.7 (LXX) 139.7 (Pesh) 139.8 139.11 (LXX) 139.12(MT) 139.13(MT) 139.18(MT) 140.2a 140.2 (MT) 140.3 (MT)

272 27 30 27 257 258 189 115-17, 258 189 68 27 91, 106, 107,11517 69 258 189 258 189 189 309 115-17 69 27 67 106, 107, 115-17 68 258 258 193 82 193 91 278-80 69 31 189 309 106, 107, 115-17 69 27 67 258 258 278, 279

333 140.4 (Pesh) 140.6 (LXX) 140.7 (MT) 140.8 (Greek) 140.8 (SyrPs) 141. 3 (Greek) 14 1.3 (SyrPs) 14 1.5 (LXX)

141.7 14 1.7 (LXX) 141. 8 (LXX) 14 1.8 (Pesh) 142 (LXX) 142.2 (OG)

142.3 (OG) 142.4 (Pesh) 142.5 (LXX) 142.5 (MT) 142.7 142.7 (LXX) 142.7 (MT) 142.8 (Greek) 142.8 (LXX)

142.8 (MT) 142.8 (SyrPs) 142. 10 (LXX) 142. 12 (LXX) 143 (LXX) 143 (MT) 143.2 143.2 (Greek) 143.2 (LXX) 143.2 (MT) 143.2 (SyrPs) 143.7 143.7 (LXX) 143.7 (MT) 143.8 (MT) 143.8 (Pesh) 143.11 143.11 (LXX)

193 106 31 190 191 189 189 85,91, 257 258 67, 70, 258 27 191 260 278, 279, 284 279 189 82 85,91, 257 258 61,71 67, 70, 258 189, 190 27, 257, 260 27 189, 191 106 257 213 260 258 190 47, 258, 260 278, 279 191 258 258 61,71 27, 260 189, 191 258 258

334 Psalms (cont.) 143.12(MT) 257 143.14(LXX) 91,92, 106 305 144.1-11 40 144.1 (MT) 258 144.2 144.2 (MT) 47, 259, 260 144.2 (Pesh) 191 144.3 (LXX) 91 144.6 (LXX) 106 144.7 258 258 144.7 (MT) 144.8 (LXX) 29 144.9 (LXX) 106 144. 10 (LXX) 272 144.11 258 144.11 (MT) 258 144. 13 (LXX) 28 144. 14 (LXX) 82 144.14(MT) 91,92 144. 17 (LXX) 28, 272 258 144.19 144. 19 (LXX) 258, 259 145.1 (LXX) 32 145.3 (LXX) 82 145.3 (MT) 91 145.4 (LXX) 257 145.6 (LXX) 91 145.8 (MT) 29 145.10(MT) 272 145.13(MT) 28 145.17 (MT) 28, 272 258 145.19 145.19(MT) 258, 259 146.1 (MT) 32 146.2 (LXX) 29 146.3 (LXX) 82, 268 146.4 (MT) 257 146.5 (LXX) 26,91 146.6(MT) 91 146.7 (LXX) 31 146.9 (LXX) 115-17 146. 10 (LXX) 257 146. 11 (Greek) 190 146.11(SyrPs) 190 147.1 (LXX) 32

The Old Greek Psalter 147.2 (MT) 147.3 (MT) 147.5 (LXX) 147.5 (MT) 147.7 (MT) 147.8 (LXX) 147.10 (MT) 147.11 (Pesh) 147.12(MT) 147.19(MT) 148.1 (LXX) 148.2 148.7 (LXX) 148. 14 (LXX) 149.1 (LXX)

29 268 82 26,91 31 49 257 190 32 49 32 303 32 272 31,257, 272 149.2 (LXX) 257 149.5 (LXX) 272 149.9 (LXX) 272 150.1 (LXX) 241 150.6 (LXX) 35 151,205, 151 (LXX) 206, 209, 210,213, 216 151.1 (LXX) 213 15 1.2 (LXX) 213 151.3 (LXX) 30 15 1.4 (LXX) 213,216 15 1.6-7 (LXX) 213 152 (SyrPs) 206,214 153 (SyrPs) 206, 214

4.11-12 6.8 6.23 6.32 6.33 7.21 8.13 8.15 8.22-23 9.10 9.14 9.18 10.29 13.11

270 227 221 219 227 227 227 224 270 222 219 219 237 220,221, 226, 270 222 220 227 220 266 237

13.15 14.16 15.3 16.24 19.15 22.11 23.20 24.12 28.4 29.10 29.13(MT) 30 30.20 31.1 31.4 31.5 31.8 31.20

278, 279 222 237 219 225 219 225 225 224, 225 225 226

Ecclesiastes 9.4

66

221

Proverbs 1

.2 1.2 1.6 .3

A 1.4 .5 1.5 1.6 .6 1.7 2.8

2.18 2.21 3.4 4.3

225, 227 227 227 227 228 227 226-28, 268, 269 236, 237, 272 219 237 270 270

Song of Songs 5.10 264 Isaiah 1.8 6.4 6.10 7.2 11.6 12.2 17.14

268 266, 267 268 267 214 51 241

Index of References 18.4 19.1 19.22 24.20 25.7 25.8 26.14 29.9 29.10 30.1 30.26 32.4 36.16 37.22 38.4 40.19 44.10 49.1-6 (LXX) 51.17 51.22 53.5 55.3 57.18 57.19 59.7-8 66.7-11

264 267 268 267, 268 266 293 267 267 265 266 268 264 150 267 153 266 266 247 266 266 268 237 268 268 279 299

153 33.1 33. 18 (LXX) 268 153 33.19 153 33.23 153 34.12 153 35.12 153 36.27 37.6 153 150 38.28 39.20 (LXX) 219 42.7 153 43.8 153

Ezekiel 1-3 1.4-3.15 2.4 2.6 2.7-8 3.7-9 3.7 3.11 3.15 3.16-22 3.16-21 3.16

Jeremiah 1.4 1.11 1.13 2.1 3.12 4.11 8.22 13.3 13.8 16.1 18.5 24.4 25.15(MT) 26.18(MT) 28.12 29.30 32.1 (LXX) 32.20 (MT) 32.36

153 153 153 153 236, 237, 272 264 267 153 153 153 153 153 274 268 153 153 274 219 153

3.17-21 3.22-27 3.25 3.26 3.27 4 4.1 6.1 7.1 7.12 11.14 12.1 12.8 12.17 12.21 12.26 13.1 14.2

154, 156 156 156 156 156 155 156 156 154 155 150, 15456 149, 150, 152-57, 160, 161 157 150, 15456 156 157 156 155, 156 154, 156 153 153 156 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153

335 14.12 15.1 16.1 17.1 17.11 18.1 20.1-2 20.1 20.2 21.1 21.6 21.8 21.13 21.23 22.1-2 22.1 22.17 22.23 23.1 24.1 24.15-27 24.15 24.25-27 25.1 26.1-2 26.1 27.1-2 27.1 28.1 28.11 28.20 29.1-2 29.17-18 29.17 30.1 30.20-21 30.20 31.1-2 31.1 32.1-2 32.1 32.17-18 32.17 33 33.1-9 33.1 33.7-16 33.21-22

153 153 153 153 153 153 156 144 153 153 153 144 153 153 156 153 153 144, 153 153 153 157 153 157 144, 153 156 153 156 153 153 153 153 156 156 153 153 156 153 156 153 156 153 156 153 155, 157 156 153, 155 157 157

The Old Greek Psalter

336 Ezekiel (cont.) 33.23 153 34.1 153 35.1 153 36.16 153 37.15 153 38.1 153 Daniel 12.3 (Theod.)

240

Hosea 1.2

150

Amos 2.11

243

5.2 (LXX)

5.10 9.2 Jonah 1.1 3.1

231 237 309

153 153

Micah 1.6 3.12 7.2

268 268 236, 237, 272

Zephaniah 1.9

1.1 7 (LXX)

234

Haggai 1.3 2.20

153 153

Zechariah 4.8 6.9 7.3 7.4 7.8 8.1 8.18

153 153 243 153 153 153 153

219

APOCRYPHA

Wisdom of Solomon 1.1-15 263 6.1-21 263 6.11 295 7.1 219 Ecclesiasticus 5.7 7.10 7.16 29.28 30.23 38.9 39.24 44-50 45.24-25 45.24 45.25 (Greek) 45.26 47.3-4 50.6 Susanna 2 4 5 6

(Sirach) 38 38 37,38 219 37 38 237 214,232 244 236, 245 235 245 214 241

195 195 195 196

9 16 24 27-28 32 37 41 45 48 50-51 54 58 64

1 Maccabees 2.42 2.54 2.57 4.24 7 7.2 7.3 7.5-25 7.5 7.9 7.10-11

197 195 197 195 197 195 195 195 196 196 196 196 196

235 236, 245 245 272 229, 23436, 246 233 233 232 235 232, 236 232

7.12-13 7.12 7.13-17 7.13

14.47

235 232, 235 238 232, 234, 235,271 232, 235, 238 271 232, 234 229, 232, 233, 272 236 231 236 236 236 238, 239 238 239 229, 238, 239 245

2 Maccabees 2.13 14.6

230 235

7.14 7.16-17 7.16 7.17

7.21 9.73 12-17 12.9 12.14 14 14.28 14.35 14.41

Index of References

337

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 11.11

165

Mark 12.36

287

Luke 10 10.38-42 10.38-39 10.40-42 10.42

165 168 168 168 168

Acts 27.4-13

165

Romans 2.6 3 3.4 3.10-18 3.10-12

3.10 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15-17

278-80 250, 282, 284 278-80 279 278, 279, 281 281 282 278-80 278-80, 284 279

3.18 3.20 4.7-8 4.8 8.36 9.25-33 10.18 11.1 11.2 11.9-10 11.9 11.10 15.3 15.9

15.11

278-80 278, 279, 284 278-80 280 278-80 279 278-80 278, 285 278-80, 285 278, 279 282, 288 282 278-80 278, 279, 285 278, 279, 285

1 Corinthians 282 1.23-24 3.20 278, 279, 286 168 7.12-14 278-80 10.26 278, 279, 15.25 286, 287 278-80, 15.27 286, 287

2 Corinthians 4.13 278-80 165 6.11-12 7.12 165 9.9 277-80 Galatians 2 2.6 2.16 3.6-14 Ephesians 4.8

Philippians 2.15-16

284 284 278, 279, 284 279

278, 279, 282-84, 288

165

2 Timothy

4.2-Titusl.l

165

Hebrews 2.5 2.7 11.34-12.5

308 308 165

62.8 152(SyrPs) 153 (SyrPs)

214 207 207

Pss. Sol. 17 18 19.6-7

295 295 300

T. Benj. 11.2

296

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

1 En. 10.13 51.3

212 295

Jos. Asen. 5.5-6.6

263

Ass. Mos. 6.1

239

Arist. Exeg. par 139

222

LAB 59 59.2 59.4 59.5 60 60.2-3

60.3 61.5 61.8 62.5

206, 207 207,210 210 207,214 206,211 211,213, 214 212,215 214 216 210

The Old Greek Psalter

338

QUMRAN

1QM 11.1-2 11.2

4QLXXLev(b)

207 216

4QtgLev

142 4QLXXNum

JQS 5.1 5.6 5.8 5.10 5.21

136 235 235 235 235 235

4Q156

7QpapLXX-Exod Exod. 28 128

Num. 3-4

128, 137,

142

llQPs

Num. 3.41 Num. 4.6

137 137

4QMMT C.10

18.10 19.1 22.3 22.6

236 236 236 236

230 HQPs(a) 27.11

234

lIQPs(a) Ps. 151

151

136 4QPara Exod gr. 4Q176 1-2 1.3 14

136, 140

142 237 237 237

4QpapLXXLev(b)

136 frags. 27-31,1. 6

HQPsAp(a)

143

1-5 1.10 2-10-11 3.1-6

Lev. 5.19

143 128,137, 143, 146 137 137 143

4QpPs 37

234

4QpPs 37

234

frag. 32 Lev. 2-5

4QLXXDeut Deut. 11

127

Lev. 3.11 Lev. 4.26

4QLXXLev(a) Lev. 26 127

4.7 4.8 4.10-11 5.6-7

212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212

84

270

OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES

Talmuds b.Ab. 1,1 Josephus Ant. 8.45-46

Congr.

Ill

270

222

Fug. Decal. 74

59

272

273

Gig.

213

Philo Agr. 50

272,275

Deus I mm. 182 74 77 82

Conf. Ling. 52

273,274

Ebr. 31

17 273 272 272, 273 272, 273

270

272

Migr. Abr.

157

272, 273,

275 Mut. Nom.

115

272, 275

Index of References Plant. 29 39

272 272

Rer. Div. Her. 290 273 Somn. 2.245 2.246

272 273

Virt. 62 Classical Homer Iliad 16.844-850

270

214

Christian Authors Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica 6.16 184 Origen Contra Celsum 3.12 230 Ancient Biblical Manuscripts SHevXIIgr

136, 137, 142 SHevXIIgr hand A 128, 143, 145, 146 SHevXIIgr handB 128, 143, 145, 146 Zech. 137 Zech.9.1 137 Zech. 9.5 137 Aleppo Codex Ezek. 3.16 149

Ezek. 20.31 Ezek. 27.3 Ezek. 37.9 Ezek. 43.27 Ps. 132

149 149 149 149 158

Cairo Codex Ezek 3. 16 Ps. 132

149 158

Cod. Cambridge Kgs21-23(Aquila) 134 2 Kgs 21-23 (Aquila) 139, 146 Codex Alexandrinus 55 100 1219 100 Codex St. Cath. Gen. 27-28 133, 138, 142, 145, 147 Coptic Psalter Codex Pss. 1-49 164, 169 E 16261 E 16287.2 E 16287.3 E 16287.7 E 1 6287| aj E 16288[e] E 16292 E 16306.1 E 16306.5 E 16306.13 E 16306.19 E 16690.1

169-71 166 165 165 165 165 165 167 165 165 165 165

LE frag. frag. frag. frag. frag.

100 100 100 100 100

2008 2014 2037 2039 2042

339 frag. 2044 frag. 2049 frag. 2051

100 100 100

Leningrad Codex Ezek. 3.16 149 Ezek. 43.27 149 Ps. 132 158 Lit London 204 Ps. 2 140 MGfrag. 2002 2003 2004 2006 2010 2011 2012 2016 2020 2021 2022 2025 2027 2029 2030 2031 2036 2043 2047 2048 2054

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Milan Psalter Ra 10989 21 PAmherst 1 (Aquila) Gen. 1 133, 140, 147 PAntinoopolis 7 Pss. 81-82(LXX) 128, 140, 147

The Old Greek Psalter

340 PAntinoopolis 8 Prov.5-10 129 Prov. 20 129,140, 147 PAntinoopolis 9 Prov. 2-3 129,138, 142 PAntinoopolis 10 Ezek. 33-34 133,138, 147 P.Berlin 114039 Exod. 34-35

142, 147 P.Berlin 11766 Exod. 5-7 132, 138, 142, 147 P.Berlin 14039 Exod. 34-35 131,138 P.Berlin 17212 Jer. 2-3 130,138, 147 P.Berlin 17213 Gen. 19 130,138,

Gen. 29.1 Gen. 34.22 Gen. 35.13 Gen. 36.11 Gen. 41.53

144 144 144 144 144

P.Chester Beatty IV Isa. 147 P.Chester Beatty IX (967) Ezek. 129 P.Chester Beatty V (962) Gen. 131,140, 145, 147 P.Chester Beatty VI (863) Deut. 147 Num. 147 P.Chester Beatty VI (936) Num. and Deut. 129 P.Chester Beatty VI (963) Deut. 143 Ezek. 140 Num. 140, 143 P.Chester Beatty VII Ezek. 11-17 130 Isa. 8-60 130

144

Gen. 19.17 Gen. 19.18

138 144

P.Berlin 18196 Cant. 5-6 132,140 P.Berlin Fol. 6611II Gen. 129, 144 P.Chester Beatty IV (961) Gen. 133, 140, 144, 147 Gen. 15.1 144 Gen. 18.24 144 Gen. 21.1 144

P.Chester Beatty X (967) Dan. 138, 144 Dan. 4.1 144 Dan. 4.34 144 Dan. 8.1 144 Dan. andEst. 129 Est. 138 PDamasc. VII Cant. 2 134,145 Cant. 5 134,145

P.Erlangen 2 Gen. 41

P. Fir. 8 Isa. Isa. 19

134, 138, 147

138 130

P.Flor. B.L. 1163 Job 1-2 132,140, 147 P.Flor. B.L. 1371 Ps. 36 (LXX) 133,140, 147 P.Flor. B.L. 980 Pss. 143-148 (LXX) 131, 138, 147 P.Fouad266(a)(942) Gen. 3-38 127 P.Fouad266(b)(848) Deut. 10-33 127 P.Fouad266(c)(847) Deut. 127 P.Fouad 266a Gen. (942) 137 P.Fouad 266a-b (848) 143 P.Fouad266a-b(942) 143 P.Fouad 266a-b Deut. 18.6 143 Deut. 28.1 143 P.Fouad 266a-c

P.Egerton 4 (B.M.) 2Chron. 24 130,138, 147

136

341

Index of References P.Fouad266a-c(847) Gen. 142 P.Fouad 266a-c (847) Deut. 142 P.Fouad 266a-c (848) Gen. 142 P.Fouad 266a-c (848) Deut. 142 P.Fouad 266a-c (942) Gen. 142 Deut. 142 P.Fouad 266a-c Gen. 136, 142 P.Fouad 266a-c Deut. 136, 142 P.Fouad 266b (848) Deut. 10-33 146

P.Hamb.IbscherS Gen. 41 132,138, 142 P. Leipzig 39 Pss. 30-55 (LXX) 133, 140, 147 P.Leipzig 170 Ps. 118 (LXX) 129,140, 147 P. Lit London 202 Gen. 46-47 131,138, 147 Ps. 2 147

P.Oxy. 1225 Lev. 16 P.Oxy. 1226 Pss. 7-8

P.Oxy. 1351 Lev. 27

131,140, 147

132,145

P.Oxy. 1352 Pss. 82-83 (LXX) 131, 138, 141, 142, 147 P.Oxy. 1779 Ps. 1

P. Lit London 204 Pss. 2 129 P. Lit London 209 Cant. 5-6 131,138

131,138

132, 138, 140, 147

P.Oxy. 2386 Pss. 83-84 (LXX) 134, 139, 140, 147

P. Merlon 2 P.Fouad 266b Deut. (847) Deut. (848) Deut. 22.8 Deut. 28.65 Deut. 28.67 Deut. 28.9 Deut. 31.25 Deut. 32.19 Deut. 32.46

137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137

P.Geneve Gr. 252 Jer. 5-6 132,138, 144, 147 Jer. 6.1 144

PGM 4.3008-85 4.3050-85 P.GrenfellS Ezek. 5-6

212 212

132,140, 147

130, 147

P.Oxy. 3522

138

Job 42

Isa. 8-60 (965)

P.Oxy. 1007 Gen. Gen. 2-3

Gen. 3.1 Exod.40 Exod. 40.28 P.Oxy. 1166 Gen. 16

P.Oxy. 1167 Gen. 31 P.Oxy. 1168 Josh. 4-5

144 129,140, 146 144 129,138, 147 138

130, 138, 147

134,140

131,138, 147

Job 42. 11 Job 42. 12

136 128,137, 142, 146 137 137

P.Oxy. 4442 Exod. 20 Exod. 20.21

129,144 144

P.Oxy. 4443 Est. 8.13 143 Est. 8.14 143 Est. E and ch. 9 128, 143, 145 P.Oxy. 656 Gen. 14.9 Gen. 14-27

143 129, 140, 142, 143, 147

The Old Greek Psalter

342 Gen. 15.7 Gen. 19.38 Gen. 20.4

143 143 143

P.Oxy. 845 Pss. 68-70 (LXX) 134,140 P.Rendel Harris 166 Exod. 22-23 130, 144

Ezek. 44.24 Ezek. 49.3 Ezek. 55.32

144 144 144

P.Sch0yen 2648 Josh. 9-11 130,140 P.Vindob. Gr. 20635B Pss. 68-69 140 Pss. 68-69 (LXX) 129, 147

P.Rylands Greek 458 Deut. 127, 138, 142 Deut. 24.1 136, 138 Deut. 25.2 136 Deut. 26.17 136 Deut. 26.18 136

P.Vindob. Gr. 26205 Ps. 34 (LXX) 133, 140

P.Scheide + P.Chester Beatty IX Dan. 147 Est. 147 Ezek. 138, 139, 142, 143, 145

P.Vindob. Gr. 35781 Ps. 77 (LXX) 133,140

P.Scheide + P.Chester Beatty IX Ezek. 37 144 Ezek. 39 144 Ezek. 39.11 144 Ezek. 40.41 144 Ezek. 44.11 144

P.Vindob. Gr. 29274 Ps. 32 (LXX) 134

P.Vindob. Gr. 39777 (Symmachus) Pss. 68 (LXX) 131 Pss. 80 (LXX) 131 Ps. 68 (Symmachus) (LXX) 146 Ps. 80 (Symmachus) (LXX) 146

P.Yale 1 Gen. 14

128,138

P.Yale Beinecke 544 1 Sam 24-2 Sam. 1 134, 139, 147 Pap W (Freer) of the Minor Prophets 129, 139, 142,144, 147

u frag. 2013

100, 102

UE frag. 1093 frag. 1119 frag. 1220 frag. 1221 frag. 2009 frag. 2015 frag. 20 17 frag. 201 8 frag. 2032 frag. 2033 frag. 2034 frag. 2035 frag. 2038 frag. 2046 frag. 2050 frag. 2052

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

INDEX OF AUTHORS Aalders, C. 156 Abercromie, J.R. 163 Adler,W. 164 Aejmelaeus, A. 54,59,80 Aland, B. 180, 181 Aland, K. 126,181 Allegro, J.M. 237 Allen, L. 154 Aly,Z. 136, 137 Amir,Y. 274 Austermann, F. 57,87,223 Baars,W. 181,182,205 Baethgen,F. 101,103 Balz,H. 238 Barclay, J.M.G. 229 Bardtke,H. 46 Barr,J. 57,58,258 Barthelemy, D. 76, 79-82, 145, 250 Baumgarten, A.I. 229, 230, 235 Beckwith, R.T. 249 Beentjes, P.C. 244 Bertholet,A. 154 Betz,H.D. 211,212 Bickerman.E. 98, 101, 108, 109 Blass,F. 62,66 Block, D.I. 155, 156 Boccaccini, G. 229 Bohak,G. 263 Borgen, P. 274 Boyd-Taylor, C. 78,223 Bratcher,R. 307 Briend.J. 160,161 Brock, S.P. 75,177,180 Brownlee, W.H. 155 BUchsel,F. 39 Budge, E.A.W. 171

Buhl.F. 38 Burmeister, O.H.E. 168 Busto Saiz, J.R. 40,213 Campbell, A.F. 159 Ceriani, A. 182, 186, 187 Charlesworth, J.H. 133 Ciasca, A. 171 Comstock, S.T. 163 Cook, J. 220-23, 226-28, 270 Cook, S.A. 180 Cooke.G.A. 154 Coppens, J. 159, 160 Cox, C. 21 Cross, P.M. 207-10 Crum, W.E. 172, 173 Davies, P. 235 Debrunner, A. 62, 66 Belling, G. 263 Denis, A.-M. 212 Devreesse, R. 145 Dick, M.B. 223 Dimant, D. 234 Dogniez,C. 38,40, 177 Donner, H. 238 Doran, R. 271 Dorival, G. 250 Dunand, F. 137 Dupont-Sommer, A. 208 Edwards, D.R. 215 Eichrodt,W. 307 Ervin, H.M. 301 Eslinger,L. 159 Evans, C.A. 207 Eynikel,E. 161

344

The Old Greek Psalter

Fernandez Marcos, N. 40,78,209,21315 Field, F. 179 Fischer, T. 235 Flashar, M. 231, 243, 258, 264, 268, 291, 294 Flesher, P.V.M. 209 Flint, P. 151, 206, 230, 239, 249 Fohrer,G. 154 Fokkelman, J.P. 159 Fritsch,C.T. 177 Gager,J.G. 215 Garcia Martinez, F. 206,212 Gard,D.H. 301 Gardthausen, V. 141 Garitte, G. 215 Gentry, P.J. 74, 82, 87 Gerleman, G. 220, 223, 239 Gesenius, W. 38 Ginsburg, C.D. 150 Glare, P.G.W. 38 Goldstein, J.A. 271 Goodblatt,D. 239 Grabbe, L.L. 251 Graham, W.C. 179 Greenberg, M. 150 Greenlee, J.H. 181 Greenspoon, L.J. 80,251 Gunneweg, A.H.J. 160 Gwynn.J. 180, 194 Hadas, M. 222 Hall,F.W. 141 Haran, M. 209,210,215 Harl, M. 38,40,250 Harle,P. 145 Hatch, E. 219 Hayward, R. 245 Hedley, P.L. 100, 103, 109, 110, 255 Hengel, M. 235 Herbert, E. 206 Herrmann, J. 154 Hiebert, R.J.V. 78, 181, 187, 188, 191, 193,194,198 Holladay, C.R. 208 Holmes, R. 101,186,227 H6lscher,G. 154

Hossfeld, F.L. 160 Hubler,J.N. 164, 165, 176 Hultgard,A. 215 Ishida,T. 158 Jacobson,H. 206,210,211,214 Janssen, E. 245 Jellicoe, S. 21,177, 179,255 Jenkins, R.G. 181, 184, 185 Johnson, A.C. 139, 144 Juckel,A. 180 Kammerer, W. 177 Kampen,J. 232,235 Kappler,W. 233,255 Kasser, R. 164,240,250 Kenyon, F.G. 141 Kippenberg, H.G. 208 Kleinknecht, H. 39 Koch, D.-A. 279, 282, 285, 287 Koenen,L. 136, 137 Konig.E. 152 Kooij, A. van der 76, 78, 79, 215, 230, 231,246,247,251,263 Kraemer,R. 263,264 Kraft, R.A. 164, 165, 169, 170, 173, 176, 250 Kraus, H.-J. 271, 290, 302-11 Kruger,T. 156 Lagarde, P. de 171, 179, 228, 283 Lee,J.A.L. 258 Lee,T.R. 232 Lemke,W.E. 161 Lyons, J. 283 MacCoull, L.S.B. 164 Mack,B.L. 232 Magne, J. 208 Marazuela, T.A. 205 Martin, J.D. 244 Martin, J.P.P. 179 Martola,N. 233 Mayser, E. 61-63,65,66 McEleny, N.J. 271 McGregor, L.J. 253,254 McKane,W. 224,225

Index of Authors McLay,T. 82 Mercati, G. 21 Meyer, I. 160 Middledorpf, H. 179, 183 Milik, J.T. 136 Montfaucon, B. de 184 Morano Rodriguez, C. 214 Morton, S. 208 Mozley,F.W. 261,264,266,268 Mulder, M.J. 263 Muller,K. 282 Munnich,O. 55,76-80,250,251,256, 258,260,265, 266, 269, 272 Muraoka, T. 39 Nagel,P. 177 Niccacci, A. 152 Nida,E.A. 283 Norton, G.J. 184 011ey,J.W. 145 Olofsson, S. 40, 41, 55, 72, 74-80, 82-87, 251,252,268 Orlinsky, H.M. 184 Parker, D.C. 141 Parry, D.W. 206 Parsons, J. 101, 186,227 Peters, M.K.H. 290 Petuchowski, J.J. 238 Pfeiffer, R. 141 Pietersma, A. 21-23, 54-56, 75, 77-79, 99, 102-104, 108, 109, 146, 163, 205, 213, 218, 223, 250, 251,255, 263,265,281,311 Ploeg, J.P.M. van der 206 Pohlmann, K.-F. 155, 157 Pralon, D. 145 Presisendanz, K. 212 Pretzl,O. 184 Procksch, O. 184 Puech,E. 206,212,213 Rahlfs, A. 22, 33, 35, 36,46, 63, 83, 84, 99-102, 104-109, 111, 112, 120, 122, 123, 170,178,185-87, 194, 205, 233, 250, 255, 278,280,286 Redpath,H.A. 219

345

Rehkopf, F. 62,66 Revell,E.J. 142 Reyburn, W.D. 307 Roberts, C.H. 136, 145 Rost,L. 158 Ryle,H.E. 273 Sailhamer, J.H. 53 Sanders, J.A. 206-208, 248 Sandier, P. 149 Schams,C. 232,235,236 Schaper, J. 223, 224, 229-31, 246, 251, 252, 256, 261, 263, 290-93, 295-302 Scher, A. 194 Schimanowski, G. 241 Schmidt, J.H.H. 37 Schokel, L.A. 36 Schubart,W. 141 Schwartz, J. 212 Seeligmann, I.L. 253, 264-68, 275 Segal, M.Z. 149, 153 Sellin, E. 154 Seybold, K. 239 Silva,M. 277 Sinclair, L.A. 249 Skehan,P.W. 263 Smith, M.S. 205,207,208,210 Smith, R.P. 194 Soffer,A. 256 Soisalon-Soininen, I. 45, 47, 52, 53, 59, 61-64,66,69 Sollamo, R. 44,47-50, 52, 53 Sprengling, M. 179 Stadelmann, H. 245 Stanley, C.D. 279,287 Stroumsa, G.G. 230 Strugnell, J. 207,210 Swete, H.B. 179, 181, 248, 273 Sysling,H. 263 Talmon, S. 149-53, 158, 160, 207 Talstra,E. 152 Taylor, C. 179 Taylor, R.A. 284 Testuz,M. 240,250 Thackeray, H.St.J. 52-54, 256 Threatte, L. 141, 142 Tigchelaar, E.J.C. 206

346

The Old Greek Psalter

Till,W. 177 Timbie,J. 164,169,170,173 Tischendorf, C. 280, 282, 285 Tov.E. 137,141,143,146 Toy,C,H, 224 Trench, R.C. 39 Treu,K. 126 Turner, E.G. 141 Ulrich,E. 237 Urman,D. 209 VanHaelst,J. 126 Vaschalde,A. 177 Veijola,T. 159 Veltri,G. 211 Venetz, H.-J. 55, 76, 77, 79, 82, 251 Vermes,G. 224,225 Vida,G.D. 164 Vogt,E. 155

Voste,!. 194 V6obus,A. 180-83,185 Walter, N. 208,209 Walters,?. 38,258 Wessely, C.F.J. 171 Wevers, J.W. 22, 24, 25, 35,99, 154, 255 White, J. 180 Wilson, G.H. 151,249,253,254 Worrell, W.H. 171 Woude, A.S. van der 206 Wright, E.G. 134, 164, 176 Wright, W. 179,180,182,183 Wurthwein,E. 136, 160 Zenger,E. 215 Ziegler, J. 182, 185, 195, 214,244, 245, 255 Zimmerli.W. 152,154 Zuntz,G. 180-82

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 166 D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context 167 Raymond F. Person, Jr, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School 168 R.N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs 169 Bert Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story 170 Wilfred G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse 171 Henning Graf Reventlow, Yair Hoffman and Benjamin Uffenheimer (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature 172 Volkmar Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology 173 M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown and Jeffrey K. Kuan (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes 174 Joe M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant': A Literary Approach 175 Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies: 2 Temple and Community in the Persian Period 176 Gershon Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls 111 David Allan Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew 178 Martin Ravndal Hauge, Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and Function in the I-Psalms 179 J.G. McConville and J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy 180 Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets 181 Bernard M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development 182 Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth 183 William Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Second and Third Series) 184 John C. Reeves and John Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday 185 Seth Daniel Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew Mythology 186 Linda Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther 187 Charles V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity 188 Robert H. O'Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of Isaiah 189 William Johnstone (ed.), William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment 190 Steven W. Hoiloway and Lowell K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom

191 Magne Saeb0, On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament 192 Henning Graf Reventlow and William Farmer (eds.), Biblical Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914 193 Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration 194 Else Kragelund Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel's History in the Book ofHosea 195 Jon Davies, Graham Harvey and Wilfred G.E. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John FA. Sawyer 196 Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible 197 William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period 198 T.J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A. Literary Comparison 199 J.H. Eaton, Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the Commentators 200 M. Daniel Carroll R., David J.A. Clines and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Roger son 201 John W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles of F.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith 202 Nanette Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible 203 Jill M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs 204 Philip R. Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway? 205 David J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible 206 M0gens Miiller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint 207 John W. Rogerson, Margaret Davies and M. Daniel Carroll R. (eds.), The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium 208 Beverly J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3 209 Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case of Athaliah and Joash 210 Jacques Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry 211 Brian E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles 212 Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea's Marriage in Literary-Theoretical Perspective 213 Yair Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context 214 Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah 215 J. Cheryl Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women 216 Judith E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink 217 Jerome F.D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

218 Harry P. Nasuti, Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition, and the PostCritical Interpretation of the Psalms 219 Gerald Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea 220 Raymond F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah 221 Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' 222 R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book 223 Scott B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job 224 Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha 225 Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders 226 Lori L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis 221 John F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas 228 Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States 229 Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker 230 Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher (eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara 231 Weston W. Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative 232 Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament 233 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms ofAsaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III 234 Ken Stone, Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History 235 James W. Watts and Paul House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts 236 Thomas M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah Reexamined 237 Neil Asher Silberman and David B. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present 238 M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian 239 Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus 240 Eugene E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats 241 Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel 242 K.L. Noll, The Faces of David 243 Henning Graf Reventlow (ed.), Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition 244 Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau and Steven W. Gauley (eds.), Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete 245 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written?

246 Gillian M. Bediako, Primal Religion and the Bible: William Robertson Smith and his Heritage 247 Nathan Klaus, Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets 248 Etienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah 249 William Paul Griffin, The God of the Prophets: An Analysis of Divine Action 250 Josette Elayi and Jean Sapin, Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene 251 Hemming A. J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History 252 David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms 253 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume 1: 1 Chronicles 1-2 Chronicles 9: Israel's Place among the Nations 254 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume 2:2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt and Atonement 255 Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative 256 Roland Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric 257 Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives 258 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150): Studies in the Psalter, IV 259 Allen Rosengren Petersen, The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit? 260 A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O'Connor and Louis Stulman (eds.), Troubling Jeremiah 261 Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible 262 Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (eds.), Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East 263 M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture 264 Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics, and Polemics in a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel 5.17-7.29) 265 John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan 266 J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Biblical StudieslCultural Studies: The Third Sheffield Colloquium 267 Patrick D. Miller, Jr, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays 268 Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: 'Pandeuteronomism' and Scholarship in the Nineties 269 David J.A. Clines and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies

270 John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar 271 Wonsuk Ma, Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah 272 James Richard Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity 273 Meir Lubetski, Claire Gottlieb and Sharon Keller (eds.), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon 274 Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in its Context 275 William Johnstone, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application 276 Raz Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah 211 Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs 278 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and Ideology 279 Kari Latvus, God, Anger and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings 280 Eric S. Christiansen, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes 281 Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah 34-35: A Nightmare/A Dream 282 Joan E. Cook, Hannah's Desire, God's Design: Early Interpretations in the Stoiy of Hannah 283 Kelvin Friebel, Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication 284 M. Patrick Graham, Rick R. Marrs and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Worship and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of John T. Willis 285 Paolo Sacchi, History of the Second Temple 286 Wesley J. Bergen, Elisha and the End ofProphetism 287 Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation of Torah from Scribal Advice to Law 288 Diana Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal Dreams of Genesis 289 Jo2e Krasovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia 290 Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments 291 Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period 292 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967-1998 Volume 1 293 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967-1998 Volume 2 294 Charles E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study 295 Jean-Marc Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives 296 Mark Cameron Love, The Evasive Text: Zechariah 1-8 and the Frustrated Reader

297 Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment 298 John D. Baildam, Paradisal Love: Johann Gottfried Herder and the Song of Songs 299 M. Daniel Carroll R., Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation 300 Edward Ball (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements 301 Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father's House: The Social Location of na 'ar and na 'arah in Ancient Israel 302 Xuan Huong Thi Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible 303 Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis 304 Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubabbel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period 305 Jo Bailey Wells, God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology 306 Albert de Pury, Thomas Romer and Jean-Daniel Macchi (eds.), Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research 307 Robert L. Cole, The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73-39) 308 Yiu-Wing Fung, Victim and Victimizer: Joseph's Interpretation of his Destiny 309 George Aichele (ed.), Culture, Entertainment and the Bible 310 Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman 311 Gregory Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in Biblical Prophecy 312 Francis Landy, Beauty and the Enigma: And Other Essays on the Hebrew Bible 314 Bernard S. Jackson, Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law 315 Paul R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and its Covenantal Development in Genesis 317 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period 320 Claudia V. Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible 321 Varese Layzer, Signs of Weakness: Juxtaposing Irish Tales and the Bible 322 Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book ofMicah 323 Martin Ravndal Hauge, The Descent from the Mountain: Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19^0 324 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 1 325 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 2 326 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 3