The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in the Books of Kings

Chapter 11 The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in the Books of Kings At the IOSOT Congress in Göttingen in 1977 John W. Wevers, after examin- ing the citations from the LXX version of Deuteronomy in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), established certain general guidelines for the proper use of the LXX in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible.1 These are: the information given must be factually correct and clearly quoted; it should give all the variants pertaining to the Greek tradition and relevant to the text critic; it should not be misleading, particularly when a variant is taken out of context; finally, irrelevancies due to failure to exercise text critical judgements upon the Greek text and to investigate the translation technique of the translator, should be avoided. The text-critical use of the Greek text of 3–4 Kgdms is further complicated by three additional factors: the original text of the LXX version, the recensional history of the LXX text, and the Hebrew parent text of the Greek version. 1 The Original Text of the LXX Version As yet, we possess neither a critical edition of the LXX text of Kingdoms nor a definitive grouping of the Greek mss.2 This is reflected in the apparatus of BHS, which often does not assign a given variant to the Old Greek (OG) version (G* textus graecus originalis), instead satisfying itself with a vague reference to attestation by omnes vel gravissimi codices (G nullo signo adiecto). In the ab- sence of a critical edition, notes based, for example, on readings transmitted by 1 J.W. Wevers, “Text History and Text Criticism of the Septuagint,” Congress Volume. Göttingen 1977, VTSup XXIX (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 392–402; id., “The Use of Versions for Text Criticism: The Septuagint,” in La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS), ed. N. Fernández Marcos, TECC 34 (Madrid: CSIC, 1985), 15–24; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism. The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint,” Textus 3 (1963): 130–158. 2 A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta Studien III (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911); P. Vannutelli, Libri Synoptici Veteris Testamenti seu libro rum Regum et Chronicorum loci paralleli (Roma, 1931) VI; J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H.S. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 10–12. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_013 222 Chapter 11 Codex Vaticanus alone or accompanied by the ms. a2 are especially problematic. Sometimes these seem to be the product of haplography or some other corruption. In other instances, however, Codex B may reveal itself to be the only extant witness for a given OG reading. 2 The Recensional History of the LXX Text Following the studies by Thackeray and Barthélemy, we know that the B text and its congeners preserve the OG text in the γγ section (1 Kgs 2:12–21:43), whereas in the βγ and γδ sections (2 Sam 11:2–1 Kgs 2:11 and 1 Kgs 22:1–2 Kgs 25, respectively) they follow the text of the proto-Theodotionic (or kaige) recension.3 Particularly problematic is the text-critical evaluation of the proto- Lucianic text underlying the Lucianic recension,4 not only in the kaige sections where it is the only extant way of approaching the OG, but also in the γγ section where it has preserved OG readings more frequently than is gener- ally assumed. A study of the translation techniques used by the translator and the revisers is therefore a precondition for any text-critical use of the LXX text of Kings. 3 The Hebrew Parent Text The considerable differences between the Masoretic and the LXX text of Kings, particularly in the γγ section, reflect two different Hebrew textual traditions, which ultimately go back to two different editorial arrangements of the book. The variants found in the Kings fragments from Qumran Caves 5 and 6 are less sig- nificant that those previously known from the parallel texts in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Chronicles. 4QKings agrees completely with the MT and Chronicles in passages in which the LXX contains a much shorter text.5 In comparison to 3 H.St.J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” JTS 8 (1907): 262–278; D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup X (Leiden: Brill, 1963). 4 D. Barthélemy, “Les problémes textuels de 2 Sam 11,2–1 Rois 2,11 reconsidérés à. la lumière de certaines critiques des Devanciers d’Aquila,” in 1972 Proceedings IOSCS, ed. R.A. Kraft (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972) 16–89; F.M. Cross, “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. F.M. Cross and S. Talmon (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1975), 306–320; E. Tov, “Lucian and Proto-Lucian. Toward a New Solution of the Problem,” RB 79 (1972): 101–113; S.P. Brock, “Lucian redivivus. Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciers d’Aquila,” Studia Evangelica 5 (1968): 176–181. 5 J. Trebolle Barrera, “Light from 4QJudga and 4QKgs on the Text of Judges and Kings,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty Years of Research, ed. D. Dimant, STDJ 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 315–324..

Load more