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

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 332 Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive...

Author: Robert J. V. Hiebert | Claude E. Cox | Peter John Gentry

41 downloads 1217 Views 16MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

332

Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor Andrew Mein Editorial Board John Jarick, Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press

The Old Greek Psalter Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma Edited by Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox and Peter J. Gentry

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 332

Copyright © 2001 Sheffield Academic Press

Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19 Kingfield Road Sheffield SI 19AS England www.SheffieldAcademicPress.com

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd Midsomer Norton, Bath

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-84127-209-4

CONTENTS Preface Publications of Albert Pietersma Abbreviations List of Contributors

7 9 13 17

MARGARET PIETERSMA Who Is Albert Pietersma?

19

JOHN WILLIAM WEVERS The Rendering of the Tetragram in the Psalter and Pentateuch: A Comparative Study

21

TAKAMITSU MURAOKA

Pairs of Synonyms in the Septuagint Psalms RAIJA SOLLAMO 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

36

44

ANNELI AEJMELAEUS Characterizing Criteria for the Characterization of the Septuagint Translators: Experimenting on the Greek Psalter

54

PETER J. GENTRY The Greek Psalter and the Kcciye Tradition: Methodological Questions

74

6

The Old Greek Psalter

CAMERON BOYD-TAYLOR, PETER C. AUSTIN AND ANDREY FEUERVERGER The Assessment of Manuscript Affiliation within a Probabilistic Framework: A Study of Alfred Rahlfs's Core Manuscript Groupings for the Greek Psalter

98

EMANUEL TOY

Scribal Features of Early Witnesses of Greek Scripture

125

JOHAN LUST The pisqah be'emsa' pasuq, the Psalms, and Ezekiel 3.16

149

ROBERT A. KRAFT AND BENJAMIN G. WRIGHT III Coptic/Sahidic Fragments of the Biblical Psalms in the University of Pennsylvania Museum

163

ROBERT J.V. HIEBERT

Syriac Biblical Textual History and the Greek Psalter

178

NATALIO FERNANDEZ-MARCOS

David the Adolescent: On Psalm 151

205

JOHANN COOK

Intertextual Relationships between the Septuagint of Psalms and Proverbs

218

ARIE VAN DER KOOIJ

The Septuagint of Psalms and the First Book of Maccabees

229

TYLER F. WILLIAMS Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter MOISES SILVA The Greek Psalter in Paul's Letters: A Textual Study

248

277

CLAUDE E. cox Schaper's Eschatology Meets Kraus's Theology of the Psalms Index of References Index of Authors

289 312 343

PREFACE This volume is presented as a tribute to Albert Pietersma, Professor of Septuagint and Hellenistic Greek in the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto, on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. The choice of the Old Greek Psalter as the focus of this collection of essays is an obvious one, given the important body of work in this area of scholarship that Professor Pietersma has produced during the course of a distinguished academic career. Nineteen scholars from nine different countries have contributed to this effort. Such broad geographical representation is a testament both to the many friendships and connections that he has cultivated throughout the world and to the rich diversity within the guild of Septuagint scholars known as the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS). Professor Pietersma has, in fact, served in various capacities on the IOSCS executive for nearly thirty years, first as Secretary and Archivist (1972-80), next as President (1980-87), and subsequently as Immediate Past President (1987-93) and Honorary President (1993-). He continues to play a key role in the ongoing business of the IOSCS and in the supervision of its special projects. Most prominent among the latter are the New English Translation of the Septuagint, currently in preparation (to be published by Oxford University Press), and a commentary series on the Septuagint, which has recently been launched. The range of topics that is addressed in the present volume is indicative of the significance of the Old Greek Psalter for biblical research and related disciplines. Subject areas that are treated include translation technique, textual criticism, scribal phenomena, literary criticism, versions, Hebrew Bible, apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, Hellenistic literature, New Testament, and biblical theology. The burgeoning interest in Septuagint studies, which Professor Pietersma has done his part to foster, bodes well for the future of interdisciplinary research of the sort exemplified in this book. Robert J.V. Hiebert Claude E. Cox Peter J. Gentry

This page intentionally left blank

PUBLICATIONS OF ALBERT PlETERSMA

Books A Revised Critical Edition of the Greek Psalter. In progress. Sahidic Manuscripts of Luke and 2 Corinthians (with S. Comstock). In progress. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title: The Psalms (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Translation Manual for 'A New English Translation of the Septuagint' (NETS) (Published for the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies; Ada, MI: Unical Books, 1996). The Apocryphon ofjannes and Jambres the Magicians: Papyrus Chester Beatty XVI (with New Editions of Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek inv. 29456+29828 verso and British Library Cotton Tiberius B. v f. 87) (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 119; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994). The Acts of Phileas, Bishop of Thmuis (Including Fragments of the Greek Psalter: P. Chester Beatty XV with a New Edition of P. Bodmer XX, and Halkin's Latin Acta (Cahiers d'orientalisme, 7; Geneva: P. Cramer, 1984). De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers (ed. A. Pietersma [primary editor] and C. Cox; Mississauga, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1984). The Apocalypse of Elijah, Based on P. Chester Beatty 2018 (Texts and Translations, 19; Pseudepigrapha Series, 9; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981) (primary author; with S. Comstock and with assistance from Harold W. Attridge). Two Manuscripts of the Greek Psalter in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin (Analecta Biblica, 77; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978). Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri IV and V: A New Edition with Text-Critical Analysis (American Studies in Papyrology, 16; Toronto and Sarasota: Samuel Stevens Hakkert and Company, 1977).

Articles 'The Text of the Old Testament', in William R. Farmer, Armando J. Levoratti, Sean McEvenue and David L. Dungan (eds.), International Catholic Bible Commentary (Verbo Divino Estelle, Spain [Spanish language version]; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press [English language version], forthcoming). '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. In press.

10


'The Place of Origin of the Old Greek Psalter', in P.M.M. Daviau, J.W. Wevers and M. Wiegl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans. I. Biblical Studies in Honour of PaulEugene Dion (JSOTSup, 324; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). 'The Present State of the Critical Text of the Greek Psalter', in A. Aejmelaeus and U. Quast (eds.), Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterubersetzungen (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen; MSU, 24; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 12-32. 'Yohanah and his Brother', in Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), II, pp. 1000-1001. 'A New English Translation of the Septuagint', in B. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (SBLSCS, 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 177-87. 'The Acrostic Poems of Lamentations in Greek Translation', in L. Greenspoon and O. Munnich (eds.), VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992 (SBLSCS, 41; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 183201. 'Inscribed Artifacts at Tell Jawa, Jordan: Naoumas' Jug', BASOR 295 (1994), pp. 73-80 (with P.M.M. Daviau). 'Origen's Corrections and the Text of P. Bodmer XXIV, JNSL 19 (1993), pp. 133-42. 'A Sahidic Lectionary of the New Testament and Psalms', BASP 29 (1992), pp. 57-66 + plates (primary author; with S. Comstock). 'Coptic Texts in the Chester Beatty: Pshoi of Jeremias and Cephalon', BASP 29 (1992), pp. 67-78 + plates (primary author; with S. Comstock). Articles in David Noel Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992): 'Bodmer Papyri' (I, pp. 766-67), 'Chester Beatty Papyri' (I, pp. 901-903), 'Enemessar' (II, p. 507), 'Holofernes' (III, p. 257), 'Hydaspes' (III, pp. 340-41), 'Jannes and Jambres' (III, pp. 638-40), 'Nanea' (IV, pp. 1019-20). 'The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (XIII Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament; VTSup, 43; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), pp. 383-95. 'Articulation in the Greek Psalms: The Evidence of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV, in GJ. 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. 184-202. '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. 'Coptic Martyrdoms in the Chester Beatty Library', BASP 24 (1987), pp. 143-63 (primary author; with S. Comstock). 'New Greek Fragments of Biblical Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library', BASP 24 (1987), pp. 37-61. 'New Fragments of Genesis in Sahidic',BASP 23 (1986), pp. 137-47 (primary author; with S. Comstock). 'Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues', VT 35 (1985), pp. 296-311. 'Jannes and Jambres', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I (New York: Doubleday, 1985), pp. 427-42 (primary author; with R.T. Lutz).

Publications of Albert Pietersma

11

'Kyrios or Tetragram: A New Quest for the Original Septuagint', in A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers (Mississauga, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1984), pp. 85-101. 'Cephalon, a New Coptic Martyr', in Gerald E. Kadish and Geoffrey E. Freeman (eds.), Studies in Philology in Honour of Ronald James Williams (The Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities; Toronto: SSEA Publications, 1982), pp. 113-24 (primary author; with S. Comstock). 'The Edited Text of P. Bodmer XXIV, BASF 17 (1980), pp. 67-79. 'David in the Greek Psalms', VT 30 (1980), pp. 213-26. 'Proto-Lucian and the Greek Psalter', VT 28 (1978), pp. 66-72. 'The Greek Psalter: A Question of Methodology and Syntax', VT26 (1976), pp. 60-69. 'The "Lost" Folio of the Chester Beatty Ecclesiasticus', VT 25 (1975), pp. 497-99. 'Greek and Coptic Inedita of the Chester Beatty Library', B1OSCS1 (1974), pp. 10-18. 'F.G. Kenyon's Text of Papyrus 963', VT 24 (1974), pp. 113-18.

Reviews G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Early Judaism and Its Literature, 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). JNES. In press. A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993). RSR. In press. J. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT, 2; Reihe 76; Tubingen: J.C. Mohr, 1995). BO 54 (1997), pp. 185-90. B.W. Longenecker, 2 Esdras (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). SR 25 (1996), pp. 372-73. N. Fernandez-Marcos, Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of the Kings (VTSup, 54; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1994). JAOS 116 (1996), pp. 553-55. J. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters: From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). IOUDAIOS ELECTRONIC REVIEWS, 1992. A.M. Kropp, B.J. Diebner, R. Kasser et al., Hamburger Papyrus Bit. 1 (Cahiers d'orientalisme, 18; Geneva: P. Cramer, 1989). Chronique d'Egypte (1992), pp. 192-94. G.F. Willems (ed.), Elie le prophete: Bible, tradition, iconographie (Publications de 1'Institutum iudaicum; Leuven: Peeters, 1988). RSR 17 (1991), p. 81. J. Ziegler (ed.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. 11/4. lob. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). JBL 104 (1985), pp. 305-11. R.S. Bagnall and N. Lewis, Fourth Century Documents from Karanis (American Studies in Papyrology, 20; Columbia Papyri, 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979). The Second Century 3 (1983), pp. 199-200. W.R. Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges: Recensional Developments (HSM, 23; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980). RSR 8 (1982), p. 374. J.R. Busto Saiz, La traduccion de Simaco en el libro de los Salmos (TECC, 22; Madrid: CSIC, 1978). JBL 100 (1981), p. 262. M. Caloz, Etude sur la LXX origenienne du psautier (OBO, 19; Fribourg: Editions universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978). JBL 98 (1979), pp. 589-90 and RSR 8 (1982), pp. 178-79.

12


E. Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch (HSM, 8; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). JAOS 99 (1979), pp. 468-69. J.T. Nelis, / Makkabeeen (De Boeken van het Oude Testament, VI:IA; Roermond: J.J. Romen & Zonen, 1972). BO 35 (1978), pp. 304-305. A. Schenker, Hexaplarische Psalmenbmchstucke (OBO, 8; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975). JBL 96 (1977), pp. 433-36. A. Leone, L'evoluzione delta scrittura nei papiri greci del Vecchio Testamento (Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 5; Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975). JBL 96 (1977), pp. 136-37. S. Jellicoe (ed.), Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1974). SR 5 (1975-76), pp. 313-14. M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (Lectures on the History of Religions, New Series, 9; New York: Columbia University Press, 1971). JBL 91 (1972), pp. 550-52.

ABBREVIATIONS AASF AB ABD AGJU AnBib ANRW

ANTF Anton AOAT ArchP ASOR ATD BA BASOR BASF BETL BHS BHT Bib BIOSCS BJRL BO BSac BWANT BZAW CBET CBQ CBQMS CFC ConBOT

Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Analecta biblica Hildegard Temporim and Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1972-) Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung Antonianum Alter Orient und Altes Testament Archivfur Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete American Schools of Oriental Research Das Alte Testament Deutsch Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the American Society ofPapyrologists Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Beitrage zur historischen Theologie Biblica Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Bibliotheca orientalis Bibliotheca Sacra Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur ZAW Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Monograph Series Cuadernos defilologia cldsica Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament

14 COT CRINT CSCO DCB DID ETL HALAT

HAT HKAT H-R

HSM HTR HUCA ICC IDE

IDBSup IOSCS JAOS JBL JBLMS JJS JNES JNSL JSHRZ JSJ JSOTSup JSPSup KAT KBH

LEH LSI MSU NETS NICOT

The Old Greek Psalter Commentaar op het Oude Testament Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium A Dictionary of Christian Biography Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Ludwig Koehler et al. (eds.), Hebrdisches und aramdisches Lexikon zum Alien Testament (5 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967-1995) Handbuch zum Alten Testament Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 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) Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary George Arthur Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) IDB, Supplementary Volume International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Judische Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series Kommentar zum Alten Testament A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (W.L. Holladay, based upon the lexical work of L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner) J. Lust, E. Eynikel and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint H.G. Liddell, Robert Scott and H. Stuart Jones, A GreekEnglish Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edn, 1968) Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens A New English Translation of the Septuagint New International Commentary on the Old Testament

Abbreviations NRSV

OBO OTL OTS PGM RB RevQ RSR RSV

RTP SANT SBL SBLDS SBLSCS SBLTT SJSJ SNTSMS SR SSN STDJ TDNT

TECC THGD THGL THGN TRE TSAJ TU TynBul UBS UBSGNT VT VTSup WBC WUNT ZAW

15

New Revised Standard Version Orbis biblicus et orientalis Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studien K. Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri graecae magicae Revue biblique Revue de Qumran Religious Studies Review Revised Standard Version Revue de theologie et de philosophic Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Society of Biblical Literature SBL Dissertation Series SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBL Texts and Translations Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses Studia semitica neerlandica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-) Textos y estudios 'Cardenal Cisneros' J.W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy (MSU, 13; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) J.W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Leviticus (MSU, 19; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986) J.W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Numbers (MSU, 16; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982) Theologische Realenzyklopddie Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Texte und Untersuchungen Tyndale Bulletin United Bible Societies United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

This page intentionally left blank

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Anneli Aejmelaeus, University of Gottingen, Germany Peter C. Austin, The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Services, Department of Public Health Services, University of Toronto, Canada Cameron Boyd-Taylor, Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto, Canada Johann Cook, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa Claude E. Cox, McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Natalio Fernandez-Marcos, Instituto de Filologfa, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid, Spain Andrey Feuerverger, Department of Statistics, University of Toronto, Canada Peter J. Gentry, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, USA Robert J.V. Hiebert, Trinity Western Seminary, Langley, BC, Canada Arie van der Kooij, Universiteit Leiden, The Netherlands Robert A. Kraft, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Johan Lust, Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven, Belgium Takamitsu Maraoka, Universiteit Leiden, The Netherlands Margaret Pietersma, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

18


Moises Silva, biblical scholar, writer and editor, Litchfield, MI, USA Raija Sollamo, University of Helsinki, Finland Emanuel Tov, Hebrew University, Jerusalem John William Wevers, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada Tyler F. Williams, North American Baptist College, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Benjamin G. Wright III, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA

WHO is ALBERT PIETERSMA? Margaret Pietersma On 28 September 1935, Albert Pietersma—'Al' to most people—was born in the Netherlands in a small town called Opende, Groningen, just across the border from Friesland, where he grew up in a family that included four boys and two girls. Al is the second eldest. Intending to become a farmer, he started attending agricultural school at the age of thirteen. But that was interrupted by emigration to Canada in the spring of 1951. He then helped his parents build up the family farm near Brockville, Ontario, by working in a factory in the daytime and doing farm chores after he came home from his day job. In the summers he would work late into the night, bringing in the hay. But in 1956 he realized that farming was not really something he wanted to do for the rest of his life. Since he had no high school diploma, he started doing high school by correspondence and began to think about what kind of career he wanted to take up. In an immigrant society, the only educated people one came in contact with were the doctor, the domine and the school teacher, so he decided to become a domine. Once he had begun his studies at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, he saw what was out there—so many wonderful subjects to explore! After two years of college, he knew pretty well that he would like to teach classical languages, though he did not close the door completely on becoming a preacher. So, after four years of Calvin College he went to Calvin Seminary. After two years of college, he was also quite certain that he wanted to spend the rest of his life with me, Margaret Stadig, a native of Amsterdam, though by then also living in Brockville, Ontario. We were married in August of 1960. Five years and two sons later, we moved back to Canada where Al continued his studies at the University of Toronto, obtaining his PhD in 1970. He has been teaching there ever since.

20


Al's academic accomplishments are many. But he is not only an outstanding scholar, he is also quite handy around the house. An excellent carpenter, he has renovated our last two houses—which has included digging out basements in order to gain proper ceiling height. He does plumbing and electrical work, including adding extra circuits. But enough of his accomplishments. What kind of a person is he? He is a warm, generous, honest, loyal, kind, loving individual. He is also very determined and forthright. He does not beat around the bush. He stands up for his convictions and is not afraid of confrontations. He will apologize when he is wrong—which is not often, and that can be very infuriating! I've been married to Al for forty years. We have two sons, Bryan and Kevin, and a daughter, Larisa. We all love and admire him. Al is a happy person. He often sings around the house, mostly Dutch hymns, of which he knows many. Al and I love gardening together. We also enjoy going to garage sales, seeing plays, going to concerts, and listening to classical music. But we derive the greatest pleasure from the simple things in life, such as when Al reads me stories after dinner, or, most of all, when we sit in our garden, each sipping a mug of coffee in the morning or a cup of tea in the afternoon. It is not unusual to see us doing that late in the fall or very early in the spring while it is still quite chilly, with our coats and hats on. We love the outdoors. Al is a man of simple pleasures, a homebody, who is looking forward to retirement!

THE RENDERING OF THE TETRAGRAM IN THE PSALTER AND PENTATEUCH: A COMPARATIVE STUDY John William Wevers

In 1984, Albert Pietersma honoured me with a brilliant analysis of how the translators of the Pentateuch dealt with the tetragram in his 'Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX'.1 In it he discussed critically the place of the tetragram, either in Palaeohebrew script or reflected in mm in Greek uncials as a misreading of the tetragram in Aramaic script, that is, of mn\ The latter phenomenon had led scholars, both ancient and modern, to believe that the Pentateuch translators had not translated the perpetual qere TIN in Greek by Kupioq, but had simply left the tetragram either in Aramaic or in Palaeohebrew script. Pietersma argued forcibly, and I believe convincingly, that the evidence for the tetragram in certain old papyri of the Pentateuch— particularly in mss 848, 943, 802 (with its IAQ) and 847—as well as the mm of the Milan Psalter (Ra 1098)2 as part of the text history of the Greek Psalter, was not original text, but was a revision within its text history. 1. Yhwh in the Pentateuch In order to clarify any relation which might conceivably exist between the Greek Pentateuch's method of dealing with the tetragram and that of the translator of the Psalter, I first offer a brief resume of the situ-

1. In Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers (Mississauga, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1984), pp. 85-101. 2. G. Mercati, Psalterii hexapli reliquiae (Vatican City: Bybliotheca Vaticana, 1965). For an analysis of its contents, see S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 130-33.

22


ation in the books of the Pentateuch,3 based in part on earlier work done on the Greek Pentateuch,4 but re-examined for this paper. As is well known, it is the perpetual qere, rendered as Kvpioq, that is represented throughout the books of the Old Testament, rather than the kethib, miT. This was the thesis that Pietersma ably defended in his essay referred to above. But since Kt>piov; see 44.9, 16,47.18 (2x), 25.

WEVERS The Rendering of the Tetragram

23

are rendered by icupie, and so are necessarily unarticulated.7 In two cases (15.2, 8) the word is also vocative, but is rendered by Searcota, for which Pietersma has given a convincing explanation.8 Twice (18.27, 31) the word occurs in a non-vocative context. Abraham says to God, 'I would be so bold as to speak ^"TK ^K', for which the prepositional phrase is rendered in both cases by rcpoq tov Kt>piov. This contrasts with the translator's rendering for the tetragram. In the nominative, only once is K-upioq articulated: at 28.13, a 6 8e Kvpioq structure occurs. Since the particle 8e is necessarily postpositive, the 6 serves simply as a grammatical convenience. The genitive Kvpioi) is always unarticulated, as is the accusative icupiov. The dative occurs only eight times, of which two, 4.3 and 12.8, are articulated. In both cases, the tcp represents the preposition in the phrase miT1?. In other words, the LXX represents the two morphemes separately: TO> renders"?, and Ki)piq> stands for mrp. In Exodus, KupiOQ is much more frequent, occurring 354 times in the book, mainly for the tetragram. In four instances, it represents a textual problem, since the MT reads QTfrK.9 But the use of Kt)piopi6pio ]1T«. At 110(109).!, the Hebrew reads îvb HIPP DW. The one addressed is iq> KDpicp uot), that is, the ideal ruler. Finally, at 122(123).2, 'the eyes of slaves look to the hands TO>V KDpioov auTedv, that

is, to Dmrm. The remaining 35 instances of 'nfl/pTK all refer to deity, of which 21 are in the nominative. Of these, ten are unarticulated.13 The following examples are illustrative. At 39(40). 18, the LXX refers to God as Kvpio^ who <J>povn.ei uou. At 67(68).20, eMoyrjioq Kupioxi 6 Ki3pioD. This parallels 6 0eo Ki)piq> occurs at 21(22).31, 67(68).33, and 13. 11(12).5; 15(16).2; 39(40). 18; 65(66).18; 67(68).12; 20, 23, 76(77).8; 77(78).65; 109(110).5. 14. 2.4; 8.2, 10; 34(35).23; 36(37).13; 38(39).8; 44(45). 12; 53(54).6; 67(68). 18; 134(135).5; 146(147).5. 15. 67(68).21; 70(71). 16; 89(90). 17; 96(97).5; 113(114).7. The plural articulated genitive form is found at 122(123).2 and 135(136).3, but in neither case, of course, is Israel's God the referent.

WEVERS The Rendering of the Tetragram

27

135(136).3. The accusative as an equivalent is attested in only one such case, at 129(130).6, whereTOVKvpiov appears in the clause, fiXmaev f| \|A)XT| |io\> eid tov Kt>piov. It may safely be concluded that, as in the case of the Pentateuch translators, the articulation of K-upioq as a rendering for T1K was a matter of indifference to the translator of the Psalter: TW could be translated by Ktipioq with or without an article. Four instances in which the deity is referred to involve textual difficulties, and merit a brief comment. In one case, 76(77).2, npbc, Kvpiov has DTI^N as its MT counterpart. Presumably the parent text read 'PK mrr. The reverse is true for the other three cases which, properly speaking, should not be included in the tally of instances in which the Psalter translator has rendered the tetragram, since miT of the MT becomes Geoq in the LXX. At 68(69).32 and 97(98).4, mrr1? of the MT becomes iq> 6eq> in the LXX. Similarly, at 70(71).!, mrr of the Hebrew becomes 6 6eopie is the equivalent in 198 cases. On 27 occasions, icupie has no equivalent vocative in the MT. I suspect that most, and probably all, are glosses rather than based on a parent mrr. Of course, theoretically, 'HR could have been employed as a vocative rather than mm. In any case, the position of Ki>pie is to be noted. In 17 instances, the vocative follows the second person singular pronoun; I would consider all of these to be original glosses.16 In two places, 79(80).8 and 93(94). 19, the vocative begins the verse. At 7.7, 34(35).23, 43(44).27 and 50(51).20, it follows an imperative. Similarly, at 87(88).3 and 142(143).8, the vocative is impelled by an imperatival clause. In two passages, 118(119).93 and 138(139). 13, it follows a second person singular aorist verbal clause. There are 34 cases in which the articulated nominative, 6 K-upioc;, corresponds to mil'' in the Psalter. In two additional places, 6 icupiot; has no equivalent in the MT. At 21(22).32, 6 icupux; is given as the subject of ercoinaev, and at 135(136).23, an articulated icupux; occurs at the end of the first stich. The MT of this stich is }£> "Dt l]f?BBn0, 'the one who remembered us in our lowliness', which the LXX has rendered by creating a oil clause and naming the subject as 6 K\>piopiopiopio£. This partly replicates v. 17 which is the sade verse, with the substitution of niotoc, for 8iKaio phrase, but there the LXX has translated it as Kaiaxp'u^fioo'ucnv erai (nXfjGei eiprivrig). The verb is quite rare, and I find it difficult to distinguish between an em plus dative modification and a direct modification by a genitive. At 2.2, Toti KDpioi) is governed by Kcmx. The phrase modifies the clause that precedes it, 'and the rulers are gathered together / against the Lord and against his anointed'. At 17(18).32, rcAjrv TO\) Kupiou renders HU^no

mrr. The articulated genitive in six cases renders a Hebrew *7 phrase conveying the sense of possession. Thus at 3.9, too) icupiou f\ aompia means the aomipia, viz. njnZJTT, belongs to the Lord. Similarly, at 21(22).29, rj jiacnXeia belongs to the Lord, that is, TO\) Kvpiov, which the parallel line also stresses with KQI crutoc; 8ecm6êi TG>V eGvrov. At

30


23(24).!, TO-U KDpio-u fj yn real TOrcXripGouaaimiq occurs, which is then explicated in the second stich, fj oiKovu-evri Kai 7cdvxe 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 dXaXdâTe avTCwtoSaKja) anoScoaoo 900) / âare etna epei eXaX-Tioev eveYKaTe EâyopEVoo) E^dpâTE eôjioXayeioee / -o9ai EôXoyTiaaaeaxTav 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£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: rcapcoûvev 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\)A,al icupiou at 121 (122).4. There are three cases of 6 K\>piopio 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|\> 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, Kai eX,7tiw ere' avtov, wepaoTtiaTrnq p,oi) KOI Kepaq ocornpiaq îo\), 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: 6uu6yTi5 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 TOÔOV, 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


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|)5orav 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 6xf| jiov xoi f| yaoTTip |iov Ps. 144(143).2

'nnn 'D» rrnn 'n'on 131 ^D '•? •>B'?SDI "33iDD 'ntcflai non eXEOi; |ioi> icai KaTaûyri (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


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 66c&n6q HOD, f\ unjx1! Ô1) Kai fi Ya 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 eô(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 6e6u,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, 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 £oodV 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.


65

Ps. 119(1 18).72

*pDi 3nt 'S'WD 7Enmn ^-mo dvaSov not 6 vou,ou.6v KOI opyfjv Kcti f|tamvaTT|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 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 ETCiaipeêo in their various forms, in transitive and intransitive functions. The translator of the Psalter, however, differentiated between different cases of 312?: 1. distinguishing between emaTpeui 18(17).21,25; 116.12(115.3) COTOKaSiCTTnui 35(34). 17 djiOTiwuui 69(68).5 rcpoaepa> 72(71). 10


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,(6ôt)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 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 -undpÔDcrtv Djcapôuoav 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 wriipÊv

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 K ccrnv TCOIWV dya96v 53.4 in«-Q3 )'H 52.4 O\>K eK eK f(v dpiOnoi; 105.37 17&D TDDBfa )^T 104.37 KOI o\)K f|v EV idlq (t»vXdiK f(v 6 poTj9cov 119.16i 'TKZDD Ttfrjnn 118.16! Kai otnc ecrctv autoiKecrav TCEpaq

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

91

92


"ft* = o\)Se ewai

32.2

rrm irrra pro

31.2

ot>5e Efftiv ev T8e yap etra v Ttvevjia ev T(p at6|j,aTi avtrov

]'« = oi)

33.16

'rrrma wzh] ~]'?arrpK

32.16

ot) awêtai 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 SieôSoq

144.14 irramn nms fw 143.14 ot)8E Kpauyfi ev TOI 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 yap drco6vT|aKa> ev TTJ yfj TOUTR Kai oii Siaftaiva) TOY 'Iop8dvnv Toinov

21.18 IQ« 'Tipm ra« îp2 uoti i3T« mioi ~mo p &vb mrr^D 21.18

edv 8e nvi xi vioq d7iei6fjx 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 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 S Sa A B~S, B~A, B~Sa (2) 44.13 TO\) Xaov] TH B S Bo; EV trn -pia Sa; {+ TCOV £jcvrn8£D|j,aTcovl219} EôîoXoyiicTaoSaKTav] -yiaOoxiav S; + 7tavtE 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).31Û 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

nxôc ]ere[ MnicoYcoNq *xip 2M2Â NM xqcto]TM NfctuT 2N OYCIOTM MMxa^se x R(9H]pe R[tyMMo XI&OA epoi A. NtpH]pe[ RUJMMO pa^c xypÂe 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 NÔYcoipq

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.


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 aêp^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


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.


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


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


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 oyTêio. 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.


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/).


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


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.


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


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.


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 Guê, 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


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).


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


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.


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


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 8eTiaiT^ 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).


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,* SyrPsaa>uo rd

dvtait68oîa = 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* «âa> (^>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 rô\, dTto npoCTttwto'u = rcao^ta ^» 9.26(25), 16.9; SyrPs rtiao^ta p.io ^» dTCOoKopaKi^ca = rOma*! rtfxx 26.9; SyrPs sâ doeêia = râôti 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 apa)v = r 13.1; SyrPs r"-\,» dxpeoco passive = *.t» ethpeel 13.3; SyrPs rtux* rA rôa> POKTHpla = rtf&aaax 22.4; SyrPs rî\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 rtbîk = rriu.^ 1.5, 20.12(11); SyrPs «&=***» (1.5 rf^cuw/11^) poOq = r*tn= 8.8(7); SyrPs KTioA* YVOOT-> ethpaal 27.2; SyrPs rtfâ 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» 8ia6opd = r*A~" 9.16(15); SyrPs r*&iai\au&iM 8iKaioq = IÔL..-!! 7.12(11) SyrPs r£ir&i = rÂtcuL..-*! H, rÛL..fiy 2.12; SyrPs rÂurco = *Aa 2.11, 17.44(43), 21.31(30); SyrPs K&O.T^ *Aa Sweden = ,!»**. 17.39(38), 20.12(11); SyrPs r^» 5uvato5 = nnAdû 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\)»^t EKtpEa»i 9.29(28); SyrPs rCinîA Evipoîoi; = r«rAiieuxt 17.8(7); SyrPs !j&a» ETCtaTtXacyiox; = r£ar^ 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); SyrPsîk pael Kevoq = bL.rta*+tt> 7.5(4); SyrPs r<So*Aj»peal passive participle (.nW) Kepajietx; = rôcm 2.9; SyrPs rt\u* Kivera = A.QI aphel 21.8(7); SyrPs .ieu aphel KXa-u9p.6q = KVÎ 6.9(8); SyrPs «&^ (f leooai EK 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 x2T. 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 eâipeox 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 ÎTtfT '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 eâipeco, 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| 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.


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\)8avA,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.


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 ooiaq fyofioc, Kupiou, CTTJVEOK; dyaGri rcaal TOITe'uoa6r|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\)piopiod>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 aoôtx;. 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 6no + 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


(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


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


(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 |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


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 paonAôx; 'of the king's enemies'. These enemies are otherwise called D'WtoD or TO\>

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

The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (JSOT Supplement)

The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms (JSOT Supplement Series)

'Many Are Saying': The Function of Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Psalter (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

Colour Terms in the Old Testament (JSOT Supplement)

The Chronicler's History (JSOT Supplement Series)

Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law (JSOT Supplement)

The Moses Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOT Supplement Series)

Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara (JSOT Supplement)

Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson (JSOT Supplement Series)

Troubling Jeremiah (Jsot Supplement Series, Vol 260)

Images of Empire (JSOT Supplement)

The Theme of the Pentateuch (Jsot Supplement Series, 10)

Text As Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson (JSOT Supplement Series)

Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT Supplement Series)

Second Temple Studies (JSOT Supplement) (v. 2)

The Theme of the Pentateuch (Jsot Supplement Series, 10)

In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronals E. Clements (JSOT Supplement)

The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Old Testament and Folklore Study (JSOT supplement)

The Chronicler in His Age (JSOT supplement)

On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament (JSOT Supplement Series)

Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

The song of fourteen songs (JSOT Supplement Series 36 )

The Book of the Covenant' (JSOT Supplement)

Understanding the Word (JSOT supplement)

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

The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (JSOT Supplement)

The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms (JSOT Supplement Series)

'Many Are Saying': The Function of Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Psalter (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

Colour Terms in the Old Testament (JSOT Supplement)

The Chronicler's History (JSOT Supplement Series)

Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law (JSOT Supplement)

The Moses Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOT Supplement Series)

Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara (JSOT Supplement)

Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson (JSOT Supplement Series)

Troubling Jeremiah (Jsot Supplement Series, Vol 260)

Images of Empire (JSOT Supplement)

The Theme of the Pentateuch (Jsot Supplement Series, 10)

Text As Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson (JSOT Supplement Series)

Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT Supplement Series)

Second Temple Studies (JSOT Supplement) (v. 2)

The Theme of the Pentateuch (Jsot Supplement Series, 10)

In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronals E. Clements (JSOT Supplement)

The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Old Testament and Folklore Study (JSOT supplement)

The Chronicler in His Age (JSOT supplement)

On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament (JSOT Supplement Series)

Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

The song of fourteen songs (JSOT Supplement Series 36 )

The Book of the Covenant' (JSOT Supplement)

Understanding the Word (JSOT supplement)

Recommend Documents