Textual and Literary Criticism of the Books of Kings Collected Essays (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum) 9004388311, 9789004388314

Citation preview

Textual and Literary Criticism of the Books of Kings

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Editor in Chief Christl M. Maier Editorial Board Christl M. Maier (Editor in Chief) – H.M. Barstad – N. Calduch-Benages – D.M. Carr – L.C. Jonker – J. Joosten – G.N. Knoppers † – S.L. McKenzie – C.A. Newsom – M. Nissinen – W.T. van Peursen – H. Spieckermann – N. Wazana

volume 185

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/vts

Textual and Literary Criticism of the Books of Kings Collected Essays By

Julio Trebolle Barrera Edited by

Andrés Piquer Otero Pablo A. Torijano

LEIDEN | BOSTON

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2020018339

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0083-5889 ISBN 978-90-04-38831-4 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-42601-6 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Foreword ix Abbreviations  xI Introduction  1 1

Recensional Criticism of 4 Kingdoms 25:18–19  12

2

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem (MT 1 Kings 12:2–3a; LXX 3 Kingdoms 11:43; 12:24d, f, p) 16 1 History of Research  17 2 Delimitation and Spirit of the Parenthesis Clause 25 3 Apodosis of the Main Period 30 4 Contextual Relationships 33 5 Conclusions 42

3

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam (MT 1 Kings 12, 14 and LXX 3 Kingdoms 12:24b–z) 44 1 Jeroboam’s Flight and Return and the Assembly at Shechem 45 2 Ahijah’s/Shemaiah’s Symbolic Action and Oracle 65 3 Shemaiah’s Oracle (1 Kgs 12:22–24) 69 4 The Consultation of Jeroboam’s Wife with Ahijah of Shiloh on Her Ill Son’s Fate 69 5 Summary 81 6 Conclusions: Composition and Redaction of the Literary Cycle 83 7 Final Conclusions 95

4

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms 2:35a–o and 2:46a–l and the Main Body of the Composition of MT/LXX 1 Kings 4–10 96 1 1 Kgs 4:20; 5:1–6 // LXX-S 2:46a, b, e, f, g, (h), i 103 2 MT 3:1b // LXX 2:35cα 106 3 MT 9:15, 17b–18, 23–25 // LXX 2:35k, i, h, f, g 109 4 The Construction of Solomon’s Temple and Palace (1 Kgs 5–7) 114

5

Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings  125 1 Jeroboam at the Assembly at Shechem: MT 1 Kgs 12:2 // LXX 11:43 127

vi

Contents

2 3 4 5

The Accession Formula: Text and Composition 131 The Construction of Solomon’s Palace: MT 1 Kgs 7:1–12 // LXX 7:38–50 135 The Translation Equivalent lkn = ouch houtōs (lʾ kn): Vorlage or Targum? 138 Conclusions: Method in Identifying the Original Text of Kings 140

6

“Kaige” Texts in the Vetus Latina of Kings (4 Kingdoms 10:25–28)  142

7

Two Texts for a Story of a Resurrection: 2 Kings 13:20–21 (MT LXXB/LXXL OL)  152 1 The Two Textual Forms 155 2 The Two Literary Forms of the Narrative 157 3 The Midrashic Account and the Midrashic Version 159

8

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms: the Antiochene Text “before Lucian.” A Revision of A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher 163 1 Identity of the Basic Text of LXXL with a Pre-Hexaplaric Text Very Similar to That of the Vatican Codex 167 2 The Basic Text of LXXL Cannot Simply Be Identified with That of Codex Vaticanus (Aeth) 181 3 Pre-Lucianic Elements in LXXL 189

9

2 Kings 11 (MT/LXX B/L ): Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative  191 1 Hiphil of the Verb mlk 195 2 Coup d’État Accounts 195 3 References to the Intervention of the People in Other Passages Alluding to the Coronation of a King Confirm the Previous Conclusions 199

10

From the “Old Latin” through the “Old Greek” to the “Old Hebrew” (2 Kings 10:23–25) 211

11

The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in the Books of Kings  221 1 The Original Text of the LXX Version 221 2 The Recensional History of the LXX Text 222 3 The Hebrew Parent Text 222 4 Conclusions 231

Contents

vii

12

Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings in the Books of Judges and Kings 233 1 The OL Marginal Readings in the Book of Judges 233 2 The OL Marginal Readings in the Book of Kings 243 3 Conclusions 246

13

The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin in Post-Qumranic Textual Criticism (1 Kings 18:26–29, 36–37) 247 1 1 Kings 18:27 250 2 1 Kings 18:36–37 254 3 1 Kings 18:26, 29 258

14

Samuel/Kings and Chronicles: Book Divisions and Textual Composition  264 1 Divisions between the Books: Multiple Endings and Beginnings 265 2 The Beginning of the Kaige Section (LXX 2 Kingdoms 11:1) and of the Succession History (2 Sam 11:1) 267 3 Different Arrangements of the Text: 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles 270 4 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles: Translatio Imperii or Translatio Templi 272

15

Kings (MT/LXX) and Chronicles: the Double and Triple Textual Tradition 275 1 The Mention of Moses in 1 Kgs 8:9 // 2 Chr 5:10; 2 Kgs 14:6 // 2 Chr 25:4; and 2 Kgs 21:8 // 2 Chr 33:8 275 2 The Composition of the Solomon Narrative: 1 Kgs 3–10 MT/LXX and 2 Chronicles 1–9 283 3 Old Elements of the Textual and Literary Tradition of Samuel–Kings 289

16

Textual Criticism and the Literary Structure and Composition of 1–2 Kings/3–4 Kingdoms: the Different Sequence of Literary Units in MT and LXX 292 1 Old Latin Readings in 2 Kgs 13:17 293 2 The Literary Structure and Composition of 1–2 Kings/3–4 Kingdoms: Different Sequence of Literary Units in MT and LXX 297 3 Conclusions 314

viii

Contents

17

The Contribution of the Old Latin to the Reconstruction of the Old Greek of Judges and Kings: “Doublets” and “Additions” of the Antiochene Text Missing in the Old Latin 317 1 Judges 324 2 1–2 Kings (3–4 Kingdoms) 337

18

The Old Greek of Kings Preserved in Recent Witnesses: Manuscripts 158 and 56–246; the Marginal Readings of the Syro-Hexaplaric Text and the Syriac Text of Jacob of Edessa 349 1 Antiochene Readings in Manuscript 158 352 2 Antiochene Pre-Lucianic Readings in the Marginal Notes of the Syro-Hexaplaric Version 362 3 Pre-Lucianic Readings in the Syriac Text of Jacob of Edessa (3 Kingdoms 1) 363 4 Conclusions 364

19

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I. From Greek Hexaplaric Additions to Hebrew Editorial Glosses 366 1 Hexaplaric Additions as Empirical Evidence of Editorial Activity in the Proto-MT and in the LXX’s Vorlage 370 2 Textual Traces of Additions of the Proto-MT and of LXX’s Vorlage to Their Common Archetype 378 3 Conclusions 398

20 The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II. The Different Order of the Literary Units in MT and LXX and the Composition Process 401 1 Transpositions in MT/LXX 1 Kings 4:17–20; 5:1–7: a Case Study Developed by Rahlfs as Model of Analysis 404 2 Transpositions in MT/LXX throughout 1 Kings 3 to 10 407 3 Transpositions in 1 Kings 11:1–25. The “Satans” against Solomon and Israel 415 4 The Narratives of Jeroboam’s Revolt and Ahijah’s Symbolic Action 418 5 The Narratives of the “Alternative History” (LXX 12:24a–z) Transposed from Rehoboam’s Reign to an Interregnum between Solomon and Rehoboam 420 6 Transpositions in MT/LXX throughout 1 Kings 22 to 2 Kings 14 425 Index of References of Biblical Passages and Ancient Literature 435 Index of Modern Authors 457

Foreword Approaching a corpus is always, and especially to text-critics or text historians, a task which involves fascination and awe. Though that is clear in the standard labor of dealing with unearthed texts of Antiquity or with the Bible in its multifaceted transmission through peoples, places, and languages, it is not less true of the attitude we assume before a modern corpus, especially in this case, a production of scholarship by a mentor and friend which spans long decades and which has, in many ways, shaped our own academic standpoint on textual criticism and on the history of Kings. Thus, we have approached this selection of papers by Professor Trebolle Barrera precisely as that, as a historical corpus which covers 40 long years on the study of the books of Kings, a corpus which is highly relevant for present-day scholarship, but also, like the ancient texts it tries to unravel, shows growth and change in the scholar’s gaze and reflection on the text. Change, but also permanence and continuity. If we are to offer here a quick assessment on Prof. Trebolle’s works included in this volume, we have to underscore how, since his earliest papers, he has taken upon himself to combine different methodologies (textual, literary, and redaction-source history) in order to produce a richer and fuller vision of the history of the books of Kings. The reader will be able to appreciate that continuity within change by him- or herself as the earliest papers are compared with the latest, seeing how some ideas are systematically repeated and offered to the researcher as a leitmotif; as the same texts and cases are treated from different angles, creating a continuum which finds (for now) a resounding closure in the last two papers of the collection, as if all the pieces and processes of earlier articles, of the previous decades of study, took shape in an organic way. In this sense, it is clear that Prof. Trebolle is a scholar, but also a musician, and his research on Kings of this volume may be read as a historical corpus, but also as a symphony or an organ fugue, which advances forward, changing key and tone, but at the same leading to a distinct whole where everything falls into place. Our labor as editors has tried to preserve these features of Prof. Trebolle’s work as much as possible. That has led to some choices, like keeping the sigla of Greek manuscripts used in the original papers or not altering the structure or contents of each paper, even if some ideas are repeated from chapter to chapter, so that the original, self-extant character of each of them is preserved. A little of “composition archaeology” to highlight the process of textual growth of a scholar who is a master of studying that very same process. We have also limited, in agreement with the author, the collection to papers which deal only with the books of 1–2 Kings (3–4 Kingdoms), even if textual issues and

x

Foreword

problems are connected to Samuel and other historical books; in this way, the discourse of the author feels more focused, as the corpus of studied texts and their particular, hands-on problems are clearly defined. Nothing else remains to be said, as the book clearly speaks for itself, the history of scholarship of a master who, as we edited his papers, continues to enlighten and teach us like he has done for long years of mentoring and friendship. Andrés Piquer Otero Pablo Torijano Morales

Abbreviations AB Anchor Bible ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D.N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch ATSat Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament BA Biblical Archeologist BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BC Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament BEAT Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BHQ Biblia Hebraica Quinta BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Bib Biblica BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BK.AT Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CBOTS Coniectania Biblica. Old Testament Series CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CCSL Corpus christianorum: Series latina. Turnhout, 1953– CRB Cahiers de la Revue Biblique CSIC Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas DJD Discoveries in the Judean Desert EHAT Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament EstB Estudios bíblicos FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J.J. Stamm. Translated and Edited under the supervision of M.E.J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden 1994–1999 HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament Hen Henoch HK Handkommentar zum Alten Testament HOTTP The Hebrew Old Testament Project HSAT Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments

xii HSM HSS HTR HUB HUCA ICC IEJ IntB IOSCS JBL JJS JPOS JPS JQR JSHRZ JSJ JSOT JSOTSup JTS KAT KHC KK LAPO LSJ MSU NETS NJPST NRSV OBO OTG OTL OTP OTS OTS PEQ RB RBén

Abbreviations Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review The Hebrew University Bible Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Interpreter’s Bible International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Jewish Quarterly Review Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies (= JThS) Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu der heiligen Schrift Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient Liddell, H.G., R. Scott, H.S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996 Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens New English Translation of the Septuagint New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh New Revised Standard Version Orbis biblicus et orientalis The Old Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus. Edited by A.E. Brooke, N. McLean, and H.St.J. Thackeray Old Testament Library Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York 1983 Old Testament Studies Oudtestamentische studiën Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue Biblique Revue Bénedictine de critique, d’histoire et de littérature religieuses

Abbreviations

xiii

RTL Revue théologique de Louvain SAT Die Schriften des Alten Testaments in Auswahl SBL Society of Biblical Literature ScrHie Scripta Hierosolymitana Sef Sefarad SOTSMS Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series SS Studi semitici STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah STHB Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible THB Textual History of the Bible ThR Theologische Rundschau ThZ Theologische Zeitschrift TOB Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible TECC Textos y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WO Die Welt des Orients. Wissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Kunde des Morgenlandes ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZNTW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentlische Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche ZThK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Introduction This volume brings together a collection of papers on the editorial process and the textual transmission of the books of Kings. At the same time, it tries to show a forty-year long trajectory on the study of the textual history and the textual criticism of these books. Since the first article included in this volume, “Recensional Criticism of 4 Kingdoms 25:18–19” (1977), I have tried to develop a work method based on the assumption that the history of the Septuagint— consisting of the progressive displacement of the “Old Greek” text by the kaige and Hexaplaric recensions—reproduces an earlier and similar history in the Hebrew text: a Hebrew edition, basis of the Septuagint translation, was progressively displaced by the proto-Masoretic recension. This parallel history of the Greek and Hebrew textual traditions suggests that research should begin at the more recent stages of the Greek tradition and then progressively move backwards in time towards the earliest Hebrew tradition, as proposed in the title of chapter 10, “From the ‘Old Latin’ through the ‘Old Greek’ to the ‘Old Hebrew’ (2 Kgs 10:23–25)” (1984). The “Old Greek” was translated into the Old Latin, Ethiopic and Armenian versions, which were later revised in order to adapt their “old” texts to the veritas hebraica represented by the kaige and Hexaplaric recensions. This process reflects the previous one of an “Old Hebrew” text translated into the “Old Greek” which was later revised in the kaige and Hexaplaric recensions to adapt its text to the (proto-) Masoretic form. Research on the books of Kings was dominated in the past decades by M. Noth’s work of 1943 on the history of the Deuteronomistic redaction, that coincided with a generalized “return to the Masoretic text” movement and a general consideration of the Greek version mostly as a Targum or as a Midrashic paraphrase of the Masoretic Hebrew. As a consequence, the numerous studies on the history on the Deuteronomistic redaction barely scratched the problems of the history of the text. The first studies in this volume were published in the 1970s and 80s (chapters 2–4). They focused on the comparative study of the “Alternative History” of LXX 3 Kgdms 12:24a–z and of the parallel passages of MT/LXX 1 Kgs 11–12 and 14, as well as on the “miscellanies” of 3 Kgdms in LXX, compared to the parallel passages of MT/LXX 1 Kgs 3–10. Therefore, they were academically located between the line of studies represented by D.W. Gooding, who considered those LXX texts as “relics of ancient exegesis,” and research on the Deuteronomistic redaction, represented in those decades by F.M. Cross and his followers, and by the Göttingen school integrated by R. Smend, W. Dietrich and T. Veijola. Those first papers basically proposed that

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_002

2

Introduction

the Hebrew edition represented by LXX constitutes a textual form which is older than the text transmitted by MT/LXX in chapters 11–12 and 14, which is more elaborated and sophisticated than the former. In the 60s and 70s of the last century, preliminary editions of the Qumran biblical manuscripts began to reveal the textual plurality of the historical books, confirming the antiquity of the text of the Masoretic tradition but vindicating at the same time the text-critical value of the Septuagint as a witness of a Hebrew text different from the Masoretic text. The Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever made known the existence of a recension of LXX developed in Palestine at the beginning of the first century BCE or perhaps earlier. It represented the first attempt to bring the Old Greek text in line with the form of the Hebrew text that was in use by that time among Rabbinic circles, an early form of the Masoretic textual tradition. This revision affected the text of sections 3 Kgdms 1:1–2:11 and 3 Kgdms 22:1–4 Kgdms 25:30. In these sections, the Greek majority text (represented mainly by Codex Vaticanus (B) and manuscripts y = 121 and a2 = 501) transmits the text of the kaige recension, while the Antiochene text (transmitted by the Lucianic manuscripts boc2e2 = 19–82– 93–108–127) preserves a text very close or substantially identical to that of the Old Greek. The merit of the Antiochene text (LXXL) resides in the fact that, behind its Hexaplaric and Lucianic elements, there lurks a text which corresponds to a textual level older than the kaige recension. In these kaige sections the Antiochene Greek becomes therefore the only way of approaching the Old Greek text. With these data in mind, the complex textual history of Kings implies a method of analysis that, as in an archaeological excavation, starts from a secure point and then reconstructs the textual history step by step, delving further back into the past. Instead of looking at the textual and literary history from early to late, I proceeded, as anticipated above, from late to early. Chapter 5, “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings” (1982) presents this work method, consisting of a four-stage approach aiming at rediscovering the Old Greek, its Hebrew Vorlage and, if possible, an archetypical textual form from which both editions represented by LXX and MT derive. This approach thus tries to follow backwards the path traced by the successive recensions (kaige-Theodotionic, Hexaplaric and Lucianic), reflected in the daughter versions of the Septuagint, mainly the Old Latin. The first step moves from the secondary versions and their recensions to their Greek originals. Three chapters in this volume try this approach in relation to the Vetus Latina, which plays a decisive role in the task of distinguishing the pre-Lucianic readings from those of the 4th century Antiochene text: chapter 6, “‘Kaige’ Texts in the Old Latin of Kings (4 Kingdoms 10:25–28)” (1982); chapter 12 “Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings in the Books

Introduction

3

of Judges and Kings” (1993); and chapter 13 “The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin in Post-Qumranic Textual Criticism (1 Kgs 18:26–29, 36–37)” (2006). The second step moves from the Greek recensions to the Old Greek, in particular from the late Lucianic level of the Antiochene text to its pre-Lucianic/ Old Greek level. In his influential study The Recension by Lucian of the Books of Kings (1911), Rahlfs attributed the peculiarities of the Greek Antiochene text to the Lucianic recension of the 4th century CE, although he did not give an explanation for many readings which appeared in early sources, like Josephus and the Old Latin version. Chapter 8, “The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms: the Antiochene Text ‘before Lucian.’ A Revision of A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher” (1984) undertook the long-needed revision of this work regarding those readings of the Antiochene text which, according to Rahlfs himself, had a pre-Hexaplaric text as their basis, very similar to Vaticanus; and those whose base text cannot be identified with Vaticanus. In these stages two well-established principles in textual criticism are followed: 1) free translation—attested by the Antiochene and OL texts—is generally older that the literal one—transmitted by the kaige text; 2) the item that translates a divergent Hebrew Vorlage—an Antiochene Greek reading—is generally to be preferred to the item based on MT—the corresponding kaige reading. These principles answer to the tendency of the Greek recensions to produce a more literal rendition and to correct the Old Greek towards the (proto-)Masoretic Hebrew. Similarly, the Old Latin and Old (pre-Hexaplaric) Armenian versions were corrected towards a kaige and Hexaplaric Greek text. The third step starts with the original Septuagint text and tries to approach its Hebrew Vorlage. Although it is not possible to reconstruct the Hebrew original of LXX in all its grammatical and syntactic details, its constituent elements as additions, omissions, transpositions and alternative variants are perfectly recognizable. The fourth step compares the Hebrew textual forms represented by MT and the Vorlage of the Septuagint and tries to approach the archetypal readings which allow us to explain the origin of the MT and LXX variants and to reconstruct, whenever possible, the process of formation of these two editions. Editors’ activity can be told apart from that of redactors in the fact that it has left textual traces whose study is better accomplished by a joint analysis of textual and literary criticism. The comparative analysis of MT and LXX textual variants helps to recognize the readings from which the variants of these two textual forms developed. Chapter 11, “The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in the Books of Kings” (1990) offers examples of this kind of analysis. Beyond the correction of typos and deliberate changes introduced in the copying of manuscripts, textual criticism has to describe the larger-scope changes introduced by editors, like the rearrangement of paragraphs throughout

4

Introduction

1 Kgs 2 to 14 and 1 Kgs 16 to 2 Kgs 14, as well as the insertion of many editorial comments or glosses that left traces in the textual transmission of Kings. Ideally, textual criticism aims at recovering the text of a biblical book as it came from the last redactor or editor’s hands and literary criticism tries to reconstruct the process of literary formation of the book down to the moment of its final redaction. These two disciplines converge and even overlap in the study of those variants generated in the editorial process, particularly in a book as Kings, transmitted in two Hebrew textual forms. Chapters 9 “2 Kings 11 (MT/ LXXB/L): Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative” (1983) and 7, “Two Texts for a Story of a Resurrection: 2 Kings 13:20–21 (MT LXXB/LXXL OL)” (1983) develop this type of analysis. The Hebrew original of the Greek version represents a literary edition of the books older and shorter than that attested by MT. For some time, these two editions circulated in parallel and influenced each other, thus creating new variants in Hebrew and in the old versions. Unravelling the double readings and recognizing the insertions introduced in the Hebrew tradition through the editing technique known as resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme) is the basic task of a joint analysis of textual and literary criticism. Textual variants tend to occur especially at the beginning and end of interpolations or at “seams” between literary units juxtaposed by a redactor or editor. In 1 Samuel 1–3 a series of narratives focusing on Eli and his sons (2:11–17, 22–26, 27–36; 4:12–18, 19–22) was inserted into an earlier sequence consisting of 1 Sam 1:1–28 + 2:11; 2:18–21; 3:1–4:1a; 4:1b–11. The different variants of MT, 4QSama, LXX and OL reflect distinct ways of making the connection between these two series of literary units, as shown in an article not included in this volume: “Textual Criticism and the Composition History of Samuel. Connections between Pericopes in 1 Samuel 1–4,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel. The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History (eds. Philippe Hugo and Adrian Schenker, Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2010), 261–286. The three following chapters oscillate between textual and literary criticism and treat large blocks or sections of text. Chapter 14, “Samuel/Kings and Chronicles: Book Divisions and Textual Composition” (2006) focuses on different endings and beginnings which cause the different division between books, paying special attention to the beginning of the kaige γδ section and of the Succession History in 2 Sam 11:1. Chapter 15, “Kings (MT/LXX) and Chronicles: the Double and Triple Textual Tradition” (2007) analyses passages introduced in the editorial process of Kings (1 Kgs 2:4; 8:9; 8:23–26; 2 Kgs 14:6 and 21:8) that show a growing tendency to insert references to Moses, David and the Torah as well as quotations taken from the book of Deuteronomy. A comparative study

Introduction

5

of the triple (passages present in Kings MT/LXX and Chronicles) and double tradition (passages in Kings MT/LXX) contributes to reconstruct the textual growth of the books of Kings. Chapter 16, “Textual Criticism and the Literary Structure and Composition of 1–2 Kings/3–4 Kingdoms: the Different Sequence of Literary Units in MT and LXX” (2012) deals first with two OL readings in 2 Kgs 13:17 in order to test the value of the OL as witness to a pre-Lucianic text and then relates the different delimitation and order of the literary units in MT and LXX to the different way of inserting the prophetic narratives into the synchronic history. The last four chapters of this volume are recent and unpublished works. Chapter 17, “The Contribution of the Old Latin to the Reconstruction of the Old Greek of Judges and Kings: ‘Doublets’ and ‘Additions’ of the Antiochene Text Missing in the Old Latin,” goes back over the question of discriminating between late Lucianic readings and pre-Lucianic readings which can be traced to the Old Greek text. Special attention is given to Judges because the Old Latin text of this book has been almost completely preserved in Codex Lugdunensis and because the Greek text has been transmitted in two textual forms clearly differentiable: the A text representing the Old Greek and the B text transmitting the kaige text. The OL of Judges does not contain the late Lucianic additions, giving witness to a short pre-Lucianic text, which, together with the A text, goes back to the OG. This conclusion constitutes a valuable precedent for the analysis of the OL of Kings, which has been preserved only in a fragmentary form. Chapter 18, “The Old Greek of Kings Preserved in Recent Witnesses: Manuscripts 158 and 56–246; the Marginal Readings of the Syro-Hexaplaric Text and the Syriac Text of Jacob of Edessa” shows how pre-Lucianic/OG readings may reappear in the last phases of the textual transmission through glosses or marginal readings introduced in manuscripts representing the Greek majority text or the Hexaplaric textual tradition. The two last chapters, “The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I–II,” treat again issues already studied in earlier chapters with a double aim: to advance from earlier results and to give an overview on the editorial process of the Hebrew text and on the subsequent recensional processes of the Greek text. The first part, “I. From Greek Hexaplaric Additions to Hebrew Editorial Glosses,” examines once more many cases of additions or glosses introduced into MT, LXX, or both through the editorial technique of resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme). It shows how Hexaplaric additions to the Greek mirror glosses introduced during the editorial process of the Hebrew text. Thus, the Hexaplaric additions become an empirical evidence of the editorial activity

6

Introduction

that affected the proto-MT as well as the Septuagint’s Vorlage. It also studies the textual traces left by additions of the proto-MT and of the Septuagint’s Vorlage to their common archetype. The second part, “II. The Different Order of the Literary Units in MT and LXX and the Composition Process,” focuses on the frequent cases where a sentence or a passage appears transposed to a different context in MT and LXX. The most important transpositions involve large sections of Kings; interlace with each other; and originate in the process of edition of the book, in the growth from the first edition represented by LXX to the second one, transmitted in the Masoretic tradition. The study comprises: 1) the transpositions present in MT/LXX 4:17–20; 5:1–7; 2) the transpositions throughout 1 Kgs 3 to 10, in relation to the “supplements” LXX 2:35a–o and 2:46a–l; 3) the transpositions in 1 Kgs 11:1–25; 4) the stories about Jeroboam’s revolt and the symbolic action of Ahijah the prophet; 5) the alternative version of LXX 12:24a–z; and, finally, 6) the transpositions throughout 1 Kgs 22 to 2 Kgs 14. In order to explain the textual growth of the books of Kings, composition criticism—the analysis of the order of its literary units and of the interconnections between them—has as much or greater weight than redaction criticism. This final chapter would stand between a starting reference to the history of the editions of the Hebrew Bible and a final one to the future perspectives on a critical edition of the Hebrew and Greek texts of Kings which would take into account the new scenarios opened by research on the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few decades, as outlined at the beginning of this Introduction. The papers in this volume follow their chronological order of publication. Their text has not been modified and thus, at times, some expressions or references may have been already surpassed by contemporary scholarship, like a proto-Lucianic recension based on Qumran readings or a Yahwistic redaction of the Solomonic period. Each chapter may be read independently from the others and that creates unavoidable repetitions and redundancies, especially in the required introductory references to the Antiochene text and the kaige recension. I have not updated bibliography either or engaged in discussion with opinions contained in monographs or papers published after the original date of the studies in this volume. Only in the last four chapters I give special attention to recent bibliography, but without delving into a debate which would require a book of a far larger extension. Throughout the volume, especial attention is given to Alfred Rahlfs’ opinions regarding the Antiochene text; to J.A. Montgomery regarding textual criticism; and to E. Würthwein in issues of literary criticism. The earliest origin of the work carried out during forty years is perhaps related to a childhood memory which I will allow myself to impose upon the reader:

Introduction

7

As a child, I spent long hours at my parents’ small printing press, watching the two typographers, heirs to the ancient scribes. With lead letters, character by character and line by line, they composed the box which they would later place in the printing machine to do a draft on paper, adjusting the pressure, the drag and the ink in the rolls. Later, one of them read aloud the printed pages while the other compared the original to detect possible typos. The original from the author would be laden with handwritten corrections and interlinear or marginal annotations, which the typographers had to decipher. At times, my father came into the workshop with the “author,” who could be the local poet, eager to add new lines or full poems to his already-in-press book. Then, the two typographers, the author, and my father would talk for a long time about how to redo the text. Then, among other movements, the typographers would string together a thread full blocks of letters or lines, which they would add to the box, moved to a different place, in a sort of cut and paste. If it was a second edition, always “corrected and augmented,” they used the plates of the previous one, inserting into them all the required changes. To me, the book was the typographers’ work. Later I read that the whole merit was the author’s, especially if it was a sacred writer. Editor and copyists receive a presumably perfect text, which can then be corrupted only in the hands of supposedly unskilled copyists. Nevertheless, I never lost that first image of author, editor, and copyists discussing together in the workshop about how to redo a book in press or “correct and augment” the text for a second edition. Even later on, I learned that a book owes even more to other books and their authors. According to the etymology of the word, ‘author,’ from the Latin augere, ‘augment,’ an author increases known lore with glosses, comments, or new contributions which, if they receive recognition, endow him with ‘authority’ and even rights. When I lift my eyes from the computer and look at the books in the closest shelf I see that they are not organized according to subjects or any other criterion of use—as Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint, Old Latin …, but by sympathy or affinity with their authors, as they bring me back the face or image I treasure of old teachers; of scholars whom I have admired; of colleagues I have exchanged work with, like those offprints of old; and of friends I have spent half a lifetime with. Among my teachers in my formation years I remember with special gratitude Luis Alonso Schökel at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome; François Langlament at the École Biblique et Archéologique Française of Jerusalem; Erich Zenger at Münster University; and Alejandro Díez Macho, who accepted to advice my PhD Dissertation presented at Universidad Complutense de Madrid. In the years I spent in Jerusalem in the 1970s and 80s I had the fortune to have conversations with Frank M. Cross, John Strugnell, Eugene Ulrich, Emanuel

8

Introduction

Tov, Hartmut Stegemann and A. Rofé, who made me feel stronger in the line of research which I had started, whilst, at the same time, stirred new doubts and questions which I tried to answer by linking fields of research which at the time were barely connected. Over the years I was lucky enough to contact editors and scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls, among which I must quote for various reasons Sidnie White Crawford, Russell E. Fuller, George J. Brooke, Devorah Dimant, Eileen M. Schuller, Annette Steudel, James C. VanderKam and Armin Lange. From those years and those that followed I keep a special memory and gratitude to Timo Veijola, A. Graeme Auld, André Lemaire, John J. Collins and Mark S. Smith. In the field of Septuagint studies, very connected to Qumran scholarship, I would like to manifest specially my gratitude to A. Aejmelaeus. We have celebrated many fruitful and pleasant work meetings in the International Workshop on Textual Criticism of Samuel-Kings in Helsinki, in Madrid, and in several SBL Meetings. I would also like to remember scholars with whom I shared ideas or works, Adrian Schenker, Zippora Talshir, Kristin De Troyer, Stephen Pisano, Johan Lust, Philippe Hugo, Juha Pakkala, Hans Ausloos, Bénedicte Lemmelijn, Timothy M. Law, Tuukka Kauhanen, Corrado Martone, Anna Passoni Dell’Acqua and Eberhard Bons. In the field of Old Latin studies I feel very indebted to Pierre-Marie Bogaert. I owe special thanks to Jan Joosten, Ronald Hendel, Stephen McKenzie and Matthieu Richelle, who visited Madrid several times for study sessions on Kings, both informal and fruitful. Also, N. Fernández Marcos, to whose research group in the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas I belonged for a few years. I am specially indebted to my colleagues from the Department of Hebrew and Aramaic Studies of Universidad Complutense de Madrid. I have left for the end to name Émile Puech, lifelong friend and colleague I owe much of my Qumran work; and of Florentino García Martínez, with whom I have shared much work, but, overall, decisive moments in our lives. I thank Christl M. Maier for the publication of this volume in the series of Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, with a thankful memory also for the members of a board I belonged to for a few years. I thank Pablo Torijano Morales and Andrés Piquer Otero for the edition of this volume and the translation of some of its chapters, but I am especially grateful for the continued collaboration in the research project leading to the critical edition of 3–4 Kingdoms in the Göttingen Series and 2 Kings in The Hebrew Bible. A Critical Edition. This book is dedicated to Susana Pottecher. Together, we have written fourhands a book on Psalms and another on Job. Her continuous questions, like Job’s, have no answer, at least no final one: “That which is, is far off, and deep, very deep; who can find it out?” (Eccl 7:24).

Introduction



9

First Publication of Chapters 1–16

In the present volume, the Spanish articles have been translated and every article has been revised in matters of style and citation. Chapter 1. Recensional Criticism of 4 Kingdoms 25:18–19: “Crítica recensional aplicada a LXX IV Reges 25,18–19,” Estudios bíblicos 36 (1977) 91–94. Chapter 2. Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem (MT 1 Kgs 12:2–3a; LXX 3 Kgdms 11:43; 12:24d, f, p): “Jeroboán y la asamblea de Siquén (1 Rey. TM 12,2–3a; LXX 11,43; 12,24d.f.p.),” Estudios bíblicos 38–39 (1979–80) 189–220. Chapter 3. The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam (MT 1 Kings 12, 14 and LXX 3 Kingdoms 12:24b–z): “Los relatos sobre Salomón y Jeroboán (MT 12–14 y LXX 12,24b–z),” Salomón y Jeroboán. Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1 Reyes 2–12; 14 (Salamanca, 1980) 120–184. Chapter 4. The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms 2:35a–o and 2:46a–l and the Main Body of the Composition of MT/LXX 1 Kings 4–10: “Los suplementos de LXX 1 Reyes 2,35a–o y 2,46a–l y el cuerpo principal de la composición de MT/LXX 1 Reyes 4–10,” Salomón y Jeroboán. Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1 Reyes 2–12; 14 (Salamanca, 1980) 274–320. Chapter 5. Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings: Bulletin of the International Society for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 15 (1982) 12–35. Reprinted in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999). Chapter 6. “Kaige” Texts in the Vetus Latina of Kings (4 Kingdoms 10:25–28): “Textos ‘Kaige’ en la Vetus latina de Reyes (2 Re 10,25–28),” Revue Biblique 89 (1982) 198–209.

10

Introduction

Chapter 7. Two Texts for a Story of a Resurrection: 2 Kgs 13:20–21 (MT LXXB/ LXXL OL): “Dos textos para un relato de resurrección: 2 Re 13,20–21 TM LXXB/LXXL VL,” Sefarad 43 (1983) 3–16. Chapter 8. The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms: the Antiochene Text “before Lucian.” A Revision of A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher: “El texto ‘luciánico anterior a Luciano.’ Revisión de la obra de A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher,” Jehú y Joás. Texto y composición literaria de 2 Reyes 9–11 (Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo, 1984) 44–73. Chapter 9. 2 Kings 11 (MT/LXXB/L): Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative: “La coronación de Joás (2 Re 11). Texto, narración e historia,” Estudios Bíblicos, C.S.I.C. 41 (1983) 5–16. Chapter 10. From the “Old Latin” through the “Old Greek” to the “Old Hebrew” (2 Kgs 10:23–25): “From the Old Latin through the Old Greek to the Old Hebrew (2 Kgs 10:23–25),” Textus XI (1984) 17–36. Chapter 11. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in the Books of Kings: “The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in the Books of Kings,” in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Leuven 1989), ed. C.E. Cox (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 31; Atlanta GA: Scholars Press, 1990) 285–299. Chapter 12. Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings in the Books of Judges and Kings: “Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings in the Books of Judges and Kings,” in Georg Braulik, Walter Gross, Sean McEvenue (eds.), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Für Norbert Lohfink (Freiburg—Basel—Wien: Herder, 1993) 315–329.

Introduction

11

Chapter 13. The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin in Post-Qumranic Textual Criticism (1 Kgs 18:26–29, 36–37): “The Text-critical Value of the Old Latin in Postqumranic Textual Criticism (1 Kgs 18:26–29.36–37),” in Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel and Eibert Tigchelaar (eds.), From 4QMMT to Resurrection. Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech (STDJ 61; Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2006) 313–332. Chapter 14. Samuel/Kings and Chronicles: Book Divisions and Textual Composition: “Samuel/Kings and Chronicles. Book division and text composition,” in Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam (eds.), Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2006) 96–108. Chapter 15. Kings (MT/LXX) and Chronicles: the Double and Triple Textual Tradition: “Kings (MT/LXX) and Chronicles: The Double and Triple Textual Tradition,” in Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim and W. Brian Aucher (eds.), Reflection and Refraction. Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2007) 483–502. Chapter 16. Textual Criticism and the Literary Structure and Composition of 1–2 Kings/3–4 Kingdoms: the Different Sequence of Literary Units in MT and LXX: “Textual Criticism and the Literary Structure and Composition of 1–2 Kings/3–4 Reigns. The Different Sequence of Literary Units in MT and LXX,” in Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser und Marcus Sigismund (eds.), Die Septuaginta—Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte. 3. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX, D), Wuppertal 22.–25. Jul 2010 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 55–78.

Chapter 1

Recensional Criticism of 4 Kingdoms 25:18–19 This note was suggested by Peter Walters’ commentary on two LXX readings in 4 Kgdms 25:18–19.1 In a “miscellaneous note” on LXX 2 Sam 3:39, Walters formulates a thesis according to which behind the seeming variety of text-forms there is but one old and genuine text.2 Walters had a central role in England in the discussion with P. Kahle on the origins of the LXX. His name is thus associated with Lagarde’s theory, which, along the generations, added names like Rahlfs, Margolis, Montgomery, Orlinsky, Roberts, Gehman, Wevers, Ziegler, as well as the general spirit of the Göttingen edition project of the Septuaginta Unternehmen. Walters gives further explanation of his thesis in this sentence: “all else is a superimposed contamination, the source of which we are able to trace, namely the Hexapla following in the wake of the reconditioned Masorah.”3 Studies conducted on the Dead Sea Scrolls have allowed for a better knowledge of the history of the Hebrew text of the Bible and of the parallel development of the Greek recensions, which progressively corrected the text of the old Septuagint according to a proto-Masoretic text-type. With these studies, and at least regarding 1–4 Kingdoms, it is possible to go back to earlier sources of contamination than the Hexaplaric recension alluded to by Walters.4 The process of correction of LXX according to veritas hebraica and the subsequent contamination of the former by the influence of the latter took place even before the literalist version of Aqiba’s school and has left its mark in the almost totality of Greek mss. of 1–4 Kingdoms in two sections of these books among the five proposed by Thackeray (both kaige sections βγ and γδ, 2 Kgdms 11:2–3 Kgdms 2:11 and 3 Kgdms 22:1–4 Kgdms 25:30).5 In these sections of text, only the 1  P. Walters (formerly Katz), The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and their Emendation, ed. D.W. Gooding (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973). 2  Walters, Text, 272, cf. also 270–274. 3  Walters, Text, 272. 4  D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963); S.P. Brock, “Lucian redivivus. Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciers d’Aquila,” SE 5 (1968): 176–181; F.M. Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” HTR 57 (1964): 281–289; id., “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; J.D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings, HSM I (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1968). 5  H.St.J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” JTS 8 (1907): 262–278.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_003

Recensional Criticism of 4 Kingdoms 25:18–19

13

Antiochene mss. (boc2e2), together with the oldest stratum of the Armenian version, the Old Latin, and Flavius Josephus and other sources, have preserved materials which allow us to approach the text of the Old Greek version or that of a first proto-Lucianic recension. In this attempt to approach the original LXX text, I will follow the trace of two readings whose discussion seems to stop half way through in Walters’ work. In 2 Kgs 25:18, Walters proposes that the translation of ‫ כהן משׁנה‬as υιον της δευτερωσεως “must be emended into ιερεα τ.δ. as L and Aquila rightly read, cf. 23:4.”6 Nevertheless, even though ιερεα should indeed substitute υιον, the “Lucianic” reading is τον ιερεα τον δευτερον (boc2e2 Arm Syr(mg) Chr). Also, in 23:4, against LXXB τοις ιερευσιν της δευτερωσεως, boc2e2 (Arm Luc) read τ. ι. τοις δευτερευουσι. Translation through the noun is more literal and thus part of a recensional (kaige) level, whereas the version preserved in the Antiochene (Arm OL) text is that of OG and/or the proto-Lucianic recension. The translation of Hebrew ‫ משנה‬in non-kaige sections is always δευτερος (1 Sam 8:2; (17:13); 23:17; 2 Sam 3:3), against the literalism of the noun δευτερωσις in kaige sections (2 Kgs 23:4; 25:18, cf. Sir 42:1). In these passages, the literal form substituted the early translation δευτερον/δευτερευουσι, which has been preserved only in the Antiochene text and is still reflected in the Armenian and Old Latin (Lucifer) versions.7 Thus, a discussion like Walters,’ focused on the confusion and inconsistency in the formation of those words via forms in -ευω and -οω with diverse nuances of meaning (cf. also δευτερευοντα or δευτερουντα (ABc) in the parallel text Jer 52:54 = 2 Kgs 25:18), should be supplemented by a form of analysis that discriminates between OG readings and those of a pre-Hexaplaric recension. Regarding the correction of modernized post-Ptolemaic forms, Walters studied the rendering of 2 Kgs 25:19. According to Walters MT ‫הספר שר הצבא‬ should have been translated as τον γραμματεα τον αρχοντα της δυναμεως. The mistaken interpretation of ‫ ספר‬as “secretary” or “deputy civilian officer” led the Greek translator to drop the article before ‫ספר‬. The absence of the article in the parallel Hebrew text of Jer 52:25 probably sprang from corruption due to a similar misunderstanding. The Hexaplaric recension restored the text in both cases following the correct interpretation of ‫ שר הצבא‬as an apposition to ‫ספר‬, reading instead of the genitive the accusative τον αρχοντα (247 Arm-ed).8

6  Walters, Text, 313. 7  There is no reason to assume a Hebrew reading ‫ השני‬instead of ‫ משני‬as Klostermann does, cf. H.J. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1973), 182. 8  Walters, Text, 309.

14

Chapter 1

Walters did not pay attention to the double reading of the Lucianic text: Σαφαν τον αρχιστρατηγον (19 108 158 82 127 93, Chr) και τον γραμματεα του αρχοντος της δυναμεως.9 The Hebrew word ‫ צבא‬and its composite expressions, like ‫שר הצבא‬, are translated in the OG by the word στρατια or composites thereof, such as αρχιστρατηγος, and in the kaige recension by the noun δυναμις as in αρχων (της) δυναμεως.10 In our case as in all others in kaige section, the Lucianic manuscripts are the only ones to have preserved the old version αρχιστρατηγος, whereas the rest of the Greek manuscripts have incorporated the kaige version αρχων (της) δυναμεως. Therefore we can find in this text yet another instance of “an old stage of the LXX in a Lucianic doublet.”11 Regarding the personal name Σαφαν, even Rahlfs, always reluctant to acknowledge a “Lucian before Lucian,”12 was obliged to include the reading Σαφαν in the list of variants of the Lucianic text earlier than Lucian. He does reconstruct a Hebrew ‫ את שפן‬or ‫ספן‬.13 He acknowledges that, generally speaking, the Lucianic text preserves personal names more faithfully than the rest of the Greek manuscript tradition. Walters corroborates this statement.14 It is quite revealing that the Vulgate also assumes in this case the presence of a personal name, Sopher principem exercitus, without the preceding article, in contrast to the common noun with the article in MT 2 Kgs ‫הספר‬. Neither is there, as I have already mentioned, an article in the Hebrew parallel of Jer 52:25, nor in 3 manuscripts of 2 Kings, and both the version with the genitive του αρχοντος and the apposition τον αρχοντα imply the absence of the article before the noun in question. The name “Saphan” would then be part of the list of names of noteworthy captives: “took Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest … and Saphan the commander of the army” (‫ויקח את שריה‬ ‫)כהן הראש ואת צפניהו כהן משנה … ואת ספן שר הצבא‬. The double reading, τον σαφαν … τον γραμματεα, could have its origin in the juxtaposition ‫ספן הספר‬, which appears in 2 Kgs 22:9, 10, 12. 9  J .A. Montgomery and H.S. Gehman, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1951), 569. 10  Shenkel, Chronology, 114 and 136. 11  Walters, Text, 269. Here Walters is speaking of the agreement between the text of a double Lucianic reading and ChB 966 of Jer 5:1. It is necessary to note also the “plus” of boc2e2 in 1 Kgs 2:5 αρχιστρατεγω Ιουδα, not mentioned by Shenkel and that Rahlfs interprets as a secondary independent LXX change, cf. A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta Studien III (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911, 19622), 250. 12  Rahlfs, Lucians, 254 and 268–269. 13  Rahlfs, Lucians, 290. 14  Walters, Text, 300.

Recensional Criticism of 4 Kingdoms 25:18–19

15

Finally, it is important to notice the value of the readings in the oldest substratum of the Armenian version which agrees with readings in boc2e2 (OL). Such is the case of the first example which I have discussed, 2 Kgs 25:18, and could also be the case of the reading in the accusative in Arm-ed in the second example. In Walters’ opinion, on the contrary, mss. xy and Arm-ed are attesting a supposed Hexaplaric reading τον αρχοντα, unacknowledged by Field.15 Walters acknowledges, nevertheless, that the Armenian version in Samuel-Kings is not “ein reiner O-Text,” like the one Rahlfs had defended.16 Therefore, regarding the Greek text of Samuel-Kings, it is possible to go back to sources of contamination prior to Origen’s recension. It is then necessary to tell apart readings of a pre-Hexaplaric recension and readings of the Old Septuagint version itself. The leads to approach this original text and further labor of textual criticism include the Antiochene Greek text (boc2e2) in its “pre-Lucianic” readings, as well as the preserved remains of the Old Latin and readings in the oldest, pre-Hexaplaric, stratum of the Armenian version. 15  Walters, Text, 309. 16  A. Rahlfs, Studie über den griechischen Text des Buches Ruth, MSU 3 (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1922), 142. Walters, Text, 272. On the pre-Hexaplaric character of the oldest stratum of the Armenian version, cf. B. Johnson, Die armenische Bibelübersetzung als hexaplarischer Zeuge im 1. Samuelbuch, CBOTS 2 (Lund: Gleerup, 1968), 96; id., “Some Remarks on the Daughter Versions of the Septuagint,” BIOSCS 5 (1972): 7–9.

Chapter 2

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem (MT 1 Kings 12:2–3a; LXX 3 Kingdoms 11:43; 12:24d, f, p) A mere reading of 1 Kgs 12:2, in its apparent insignificance, contains possibly the widest and most difficult set of problems of the text of 1 Kings, in the triplesided world of textual, literary and historical criticism. The manuscript traditions in Hebrew, Greek and other versions, together with criticism of modern authors, hesitate between two possible vocalizations and the change of a single consonant: -‫( וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב ב‬MT 12:2; LXX 11:43) versus -‫( וַ ּיָ ָׁשב מ‬2 Chr 10:2 and the Hexaplaric text in 1 Kgs 12:2). Many varied factors play a role in resolving this issue: besides matters of textual criticism, there are questions of literary criticism, like identifying two possible narratives or parallel notices on the assembly at Shechem. There are also issues of historical congruity with other sections of the narrative (12:20), as the matter of the presence or absence of Jeroboam in the assembly at Shechem. Some authors think that it is possible to unveil “tendencies” of a Midrashic tone in the Greek text of this passage as a LXX feature. 12:2 is also the main point of intersection with another form of the same narrative, transmitted by LXX in 12:24d, f, p, usually described as “Midrashic.” Three basic forms of the text may be outlined, plus a fourth one of a mixed character, besides the peculiar LXX 12:24d, f, p: 1. The reading -‫ וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב ב‬is the most salient feature of the textual form of MT 1 Kgs 12, also reproduced by the Hexaplaric text of Codex Alexandrinus, ms. x, and the Armenian Version. Codex A has, nevertheless, και επεστρεψεν εξ and therefore is closer to the second textual form. 2. The reading -‫ וַ ּיָ ָׁשב מ‬and the omission of verse 20 proper of 1 Kgs 12 characterize the text of 2 Chr 10 and its Greek version in Par, which offers a “double reading” which picks up both Hebrew variants: και κατωκησεν εν… και απεστρεψεν… 3. The passage in the old Septuagint which contains the same text as MT 12:2 appears in 11:43 and includes a clause not found in MT: κατευθυνει και ερχεται εις την πολιν αυτου εις την γην Σαρειρα την εν ορει Εφραιμ. Nevertheless, this text offers more agreements with MT 12:2 than the parallel Hebrew text of 2 Chr 10:2, which omits ‫ עדנו‬and has the reading ‫וַ ּיָ ָׁשב‬ ‫מ‬-; on the other hand, LXX 3 Kgdms 11:43 agrees with MT 1 Kgs in the reading -‫ וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב ב‬and also omits ‫ המלך‬and ‫ירבעם‬. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_004

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

17

4.

Greek mss. Ndefhmp-tvwyz (Syr) offer a mixed textual form: the location of the text in 12:2 is Hexaplaric, as is the reading του βασιλεως; on the other hand, the reading εκαθητο εν Αιγυπτω, the omission of Ιεροβοαμ and the whole clause κατευθυνει… εν ορει Εφραιμ agree with LXX 11:43. Before beginning the study of these verses, it is relevant to have a quick look at the research produced on this textual passage. 1

History of Research

Criticism of this passage has usually been from the point of view of historical considerations, supported on one textual variant or the other and taking into account the data in 12:20a. Scholars have tried to solve the apparent contradiction between 12:2 and verse 20a: according to the first, Jeroboam returns from Egypt and is invited to take part in the Shechem assembly. According to verse 20, on the contrary, it is when the assembly is over that the Israelites find out about Jeroboam’s return and send him an invitation to come to Shechem. This difficulty of historical agreement likely gave birth to the textual variants in the text: “he was still in … / remained in” (MT 12:2 // LXX 11:43) “returned from …” (LXXA 12:2; 2 Chr). Also, the quickening of the pace and the uncertain relationship between events (Solomon’s death and its announcement to Jeroboam, exiled in Egypt; beginning of the assembly; and Jeroboam’s return) constitute another source of difficulties. Some modern scholars (Benzinger, Kittel, Stade, Hrozný, Šanda, Gressmann, de Vaux …) tried to solve this by inverting the order of verses 1 and 2 in chapter 12. These difficulties probably led to the variant placement of text in MT (12:2) and LXX (11:43). Solutions proposed to these difficulties also depend on—and at times are nothing but the consequence of—other options or assumptions on more general problems. One option in support of or against the version of the narrative contained in LXX 12:24a–z may determine a preference for the text of LXX 11:43 (12:24f) or of MT 12:12. 19th century and early-20th-century criticism had no qualms in accepting feature elements of the Greek text; many scholars (Thenius, Klostermann, Winckler, Graetz, Benzinger, Cheyne, Burney, Hrozný, Gressmann, Šanda …) took from LXX the notice of Jeroboam’s return to his land in Sareira, completing MT 12:2 with LXX 11:43, even using its Lucianic form. Meyer (1906) initiates a widespread preference for Hebraica veritas also in this passage. Though before Meyer an eclectic and heavy text was created with MT and LXX 11:43 12:24f (Lucianic or otherwise), from Meyer onwards there has been a marked preference for the Hebrew text which, nevertheless,

18

Chapter 2

is generally mutilated (omission of verse 3a) and corrected in agreement with the Hexaplaric version and 2 Chr (“and Jeroboam returned from Egypt”). Also, scholarship on 12:2–3a is not independent of more global criticism in the traditions of chapters 11–12. Thus, e.g.: verse 2, together with verse 20, may be part of a notice of royal “chronicle,” independent of the prophetic traditions preserved in these chapters (Jepsen, Debus); verse 2 might be a connection parenthesis between 11:26–28, 40 and 12:1–20, two parts of a single literary unit which have been driven apart by the insertion of the regnal formula in 11:41–43 (Šanda); verses 2 and 20 belong to a tradition different from that represented in the narrative of 12:1, 3b–19, which brings closure to the great work of Yahwistic historiography (Hölscher); verses 2–3a are just an insertion, the aim of which is to connect two Shechemite traditions, one favourable to the rebels in the assembly, the other against Jeroboam and his religious reform (Nielsen); against that, the same insertion may be connecting the assembly story with the Jeroboam-Ahijah tradition (I. Plein); the insertion is useless and tautological, it repeats already-known data and delays the narrative flow (Noth, Gray). It is very informative to carry out a quick survey of the history of research on the problems of reading in 1 Kgs 12:2–3a, with its literary connections and historical implications. The different opinions and views and their multiple authors offer meaningful aspects from different angles, though always within a common framework. C.F. Keil, Die Bücher der Könige (BC II 3; Leipzig, 18762): The texts of 2 Chr and V represent an attempt to clarify the lectio difficilior in MT; Keil also rejects the additions to the text of 12:2 proposed by Thenius from LXX 11:43 and 12:24d (“dass diese alexandrinischen Zusätze ohne allen geschichtlichen Wert sind,” p. 162). J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin, 1899*): “Das Stück (I 12,1–24) beginnt nicht selbständig, sondern setzt 11,43 fort, woran sich 12,2, da ‫ כשמע‬den Tod Salomos zum Objekt hat, unmittelbar anschliesst, dann v. 1 und v. 3b” (p. 276). Regarding verse 20, Wellhausen reads according to LXX: “returned from Egypt” (Hexaplaric); he also deletes verse 3a (cf. p. 276). A. Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige (KK A III; Nördlingen, 1887): The version proposed by Klostermann reads: “und es geschah, da Jerobeam der Sohn Nebats hörte—er war aber noch in Aegypten, denn er war vor dem Könige Salomo geflohen und war in Aegypten geblieben—(dass Salomo gestorben wäre, setzt er es durch) und kehrte zurück aus Aegypten (und kam in seine Stadt Serera die im Gebirge Ephraim liegt) …” (p. 357). Klostermann composes an artificial text, crafted from double readings: “he was

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

19

still in Egypt” (MT) and “he returned from Egypt” (LXX 12:24d); he also picks the Lucianic addition in LXX 11:43, “… that Solomon had died” and the second part of 11:43, as it happens in ms. x. H. Winckler, “Beiträge zur Quellenscheidung der Königsbücher,” Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1892, 1–54): In agreement with his general thesis supporting the value of the source used by LXX 12:24a–z, Winckler writes: “Ebenso ging der wichtige Schluss (12:24d) über Jerobeams Rückkehr nach Salomos Tode, seine Besetzung von Ṣerêdâ und seine Anerkennung als Führer von Ephraim verloren, ein Schluss, der so wichtig war, dass ihn S von der Parallele her wieder nach 11,42 einsetzten, da man ganz richtig empfand, dass derselbe die Erklärung für 12,3, wo Jerobeam als Führer von ganz Israel auftritt, bildet” (p. 12). Despite this, according to him LXX 11:43 is not original, but taken from 12:39 (= 12:24f) (cf. p. 11 note 4). Winckler does not therefore see contradictions between LXX 11:43 and MT 12:3, the suppression of that verse in LXX notwithstanding. H. Graetz, Emendationes in plerosque Sacrae Scripturae Veteris Testamenti Libros. III Pentateuchi et priorum prophetarum libros continens (Breslau, 1894): He adds in 12:2, according to 11:43 (LXXL), ‫ כי מת שלמה‬and κατευθυνει = ‫“ וישר‬leg. ‫( ”וישב וימהר‬cf. p. 31). I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige (KHC IX: Freiburg, 1899): Verse 2 is part of the notice on Jeroboam’s revolt, 11:26–28; in its original location, verse 12:2 would follow 11:40 (cf. p. 82). R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige (HK I 5; Göttingen, 1900): Like Klostermann, Kittel integrates the LXXL and ms. x readings into the Hebrew text; he reads with 2 Chr “and returned from …” He also inverts the order of verses 12:1 and 2, given that verse 2 refers to 11:43 and verse 1 has its true continuation in verse 3b. After the loss in 12:2 of the reference to Jeroboam’s return to Zareda, verse 3a also has to be suppressed, “als lediglich zur Aushilfe von einem Späteren geschaffen, nachdem die Verstümmelung entstanden war” (p. 102). T.K. Cheyne “Jeroboam,” Encyclopaedia Biblica II (London, 1901) cols. 2404– 2406: Cheyne only takes into account the version of the Jeroboam story according to LXX 12:24a–z. Thus he accepts the notice of LXX 11:43 and 12:24f on Jeroboam’s return to his motherland: “not Sareira, but Tirzah or rather Bethzur”; “So L at 12:39 (= 12:24f), and originally MT of 11:40” (cf. col. 2404, n. 3). A second book by Cheyne is rich in ingenious proposals and totally arbitrary readings: T.K. Cheyne, Critica Biblica or Critical Notes on the Text of the Old Testament Writings. Part IV First and Second Kings (London, 1903). Cheyne attributes, e.g., an Arabic origin to Jeroboam, making him a native of “Ephrath in the Negeb”; “The ‘Shiloh’ from which Ahijah came was in the Negeb”;

20

Chapter 2

“Shechem, but more properly Cusham … described as in Mt. Ephraim … now there was a Mt. Ephraim in the Jerahmeelite Negeb,” “the Pharaoh Šišaq was king of Miṣrim, but might quite well be, racially, a Cushite …” (p. 338–400). C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford, 1903): Burney reads with 2 Chr -‫ ;וַ ּיָ ָׁשב מ‬nevertheless, the LXX 11:43 notice on Jeroboam’s return to Sareira must have been part of the original text (cf. p. 173). The text of LXX is better than MT 12:3a, 12a; these verses allude to the presence of Jeroboam in Shechem, in contradiction with verse 20 (cf. pp. 166–67). Stade, B. and Schwally, F., The Books of Kings. The Sacred Books of the Old Testament 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1904): Stade follows Kittel in the inversion of verses 12:1 and 2. The MT reading -‫ וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב ב‬is qualified as “nonsensical.” “The error was caused by ‫ במצרים‬in the first half of this verse” (p. 127). The text of LXX 11:43 adds to 12:2 Midrashic elements taken from 12:24d; the Lucianic text is preferable to that of LXX. However, “compared with MT 12:2, LXX 11:43 is secondary, as is evident also from the reappearance of the textual error ‫וישב‬ ‫( ”ירבעם במצרים‬p. 127). E. Meyer, “Bericht der Septuaginta über Jerobeam,” Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme. Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen (Halle, 1906) 363–370: Verses 12:2–3a and the mention of “Jeroboam” in verse 12 are, according to Meyer, interpolations in the text. The introduction of the narrative in 12:1 “kann nur eine Überarbeitung des hebräischen Berichts sein …; dadurch soll der Anschluss an die vorhergehenden Erzählungen von Jerobeam hergestellt werden” (p. 364). The notice of Jeroboam’s return to Sareira has no value. H. Hrozný, Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus vom hebräischen Texte in den Königsbüchern (Leipzig, 1909): Hrozný prefers LXX 11:43 over MT 12:2–3a and explains the origin of this second text in this way: “Durch diesen kleinen Zusatz wird in dem grossen ein Doppeltes bestätigt. Erstens die Notiz in 12,24b, dass Jerobeam in Ephraim Sareira erbaute (für sich?), zweitens die Angabe in 12,24f, dass Jerobeam auf der Rückreise aus Aegypten zuerst nach Sareira und nicht, wie der MT berichtet, gleich nach Sichem ging. Mit Hilfe dieser Einschübe kann man ausserdem noch 12,1–3 MT wiederherstellen. Wenn man in 12,2 mit LXX ‘und er kam in seine Stadt’ ergänzt, hat man nicht nötig, mit Kamphausen statt ‫ וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב‬was die LXX 11,43 mit και εκαθητο εν Αιγυπτω wiedergibt ‫( וַ ּיָ ָׁשב‬2 Chr 10:2) zu lesen. Sodann ist in 12,2 MT nach 12,24d S2 ‫ כי מת שלמה‬zu ergänzen. Der MT ist dann in folgenden Reihenfolge zu lesen: 12,2.1, 3b (3a ist zu streichen)” (p. 35). H. Gressmann, Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels (von Samuel bis Amos und Hosea) (SAT II 1; Göttingen, 19212): Gressmann transfers verse 12:2 to the beginning of the chapter and expands its text according to LXX 11:43: “… hörte, ‘dass König Salomo tot sei,’ kehrte er aus Aegypten

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

21

zurück und ging geraden Weges nach Sereda, in seine Stadt auf dem Gebirge Ephraim” (p. 240). A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel. Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches, III Josua, Richter, I. u. II. Samuelis (Leipzig, 1910): He corrects MT 12:2 according to the parallel of 2 Chr 10:2 (cf. p. 244). A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige (EHAT IX 1–2; Münster, 1911–12): He also transfers verse 2 to the beginning of the narrative, in agreement with a similar placement in the parallel text of LXX 11:43; he completes the text of verse 2 with the Greek in its Lucianic form, but reads with 2 Chr -‫ וַ ּיָ ָׁשב מ‬and omits verse 3a, but, on the other hand, accepts the notice of LXX 12:24f, “eine durchaus wahr­ scheinliche Bemerkung”: και συναγεται εκει παν σκηπτρον Εφραιμ και ωκοδομησεν Ιεροβοαμ εκει χαρακα (pp. 334–35). Šanda considers the whole of verses 11:26– 28, 40 and 12:1–20 to be a single literary unit: “Es lässt sich kein stichhaltiger Grund für die Notwendigkeit vorbringen, mit v. 1.2 in Kap. 12 eine neue von 11:26–28.40 verschiedene Quelle anzusetzen. Die Parenthese ‫ והוא‬usw. in v. 2 ist durch die Einschaltung von 11:41–43 veranlasst und stammt von R … Ein noch späterer Glossator wollte damit (v. 5 und wohl auch 19 vom judäischen Standpunkt) G 12:24nβ zusammenreimen. Darum schaltete er v. 3a und in v. 12 den Namen Jerobeam ein” (pp. 346–47). F. Delitzsch, Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament (Berlin, 1920): he corrects 12:2 with the parallel of 2 Chr -‫( וַ ּיָ ָׁשב מ‬cf. p. 113). J.W. Wevers, “Exegetical Principles underlying the Septuagint Text of I Kings ii 12–xxi 43,” OTS 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1950) 300–332: Wevers thinks that the omission in LXX of MT 12:2–3a and of the name “Jeroboam” manifests a particular instance of a general tendency of the Greek translator to denigrate the Northern kings, especially Jeroboam and Achab. J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ed. H. Gehman; ICC; Edinburgh, 1951): Montgomery attempts to solve the contradiction between verses 2–3a and 20a; to do it, and following Meyer, he eliminates verses 2–3a (“as an intrusion from Ch”) and the mention of “Jeroboam” in verse 12 (cf. p. 248). G. Hölscher, Geschichtsschreibung in Israel. Untersuchungen zum Jahvisten und Elohisten (Acta Reg. Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 50; Lund, 1952): The narrative composed of verses 12:1, 3b–11, 12*, 13–14, 16, 18–19 constitutes the conclusion of the great Yahwistic work. Hölscher attributes to “E” verses 11:26–28, 40, 41–43 and 12:2, 20, 25–26, 27abª, 28–29, 30b (“und dazu noch das in LXX L bewahrte Sätzchen ‘und vor dem andern nach Betel’”) (cf. pp. 388–9); “Glossen sind 12:3a (om LXX) und in 12:12 ‘Jeroboam und’ (om LXX)” (p. 388). In his earlier work, Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion (FRLANT 36,1; Göttingen, 1923), he had not already attributed verses

22

Chapter 2

12:2–20 to “E,” and the function of those verses would be to introduce the figure of Jeroboam into the Yahwistic history (cf. p. 182). A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches (Halle, 19562): Verses 12:2, 20a constitute a “notice,” together with 11:26, 40 (cf. p. 5). Verse 2 should be corrected according to 2 Chr. Verse 3a is a late addition. N.H. Snaith, The First and Second Books of Kings. Introduction and Exegesis (IntB; New York, 1954): Snaith pays attention to the chronological relationship between the different events; he gives some value to the LXX indications on a late return of Jeroboam: “It is evident that Jeroboam did not return from Egypt immediately upon the death of Solomon, so there is a certain amount of truth in the story of the LXX (vs. 24de), though whether he was delayed long enough for a son to be begotten and born is open to question (see also vs. 20). It is necessary, therefore, to treat the substance of vs. 2 with reserve, and to delete the name of Jeroboam from vss. 3 and 12. Even according to the general tenor of the M.T., Jeroboam was not present when the first conversations took place at Shechem” (p. 11). Altogether, “The LXX account is not nearly as satisfactory as that of the MT” (p. 113). E. Nielsen, Shechem. A Traditio-Historical Investigation (Copenhagen, 1955): Regarding the text of 12:2, Nielsen writes: “The introductory clause of the passage, ‘And when Jeroboam heard etc.’ clearly demands an apodosis in which Jeroboam is the subject of a verb of action; hence LXX A and Chr should be preferred. The text may have been altered in LXX B in order to make room for the secondary addition quoted above (11:43). Lastly MT and Pesh were influenced by LXX B” (!) (pp. 172–73). Nielsen assumes that “1 Kings 12 represents a combination of two Shechemite traditions,” the first (LXX 11:43, 12, 1–3ff.) favourable to the Northern rebels, the second contrary to Jeroboam’s religious innovations. The merge of both traditions, that is, “the connection between the rebellion and Jeroboam must be literarily secondary … Therefore verses 2–3a were inserted in their present place, and ‘Jeroboam’ added in verse 12. For literary reasons the insertion was moved back to 11:43 in LXX B …, in order to make room for some additional remarks” (pp. 174–5). I. Plein, “Erwägungen zur Überlieferung von I Reg 11,26–14,20,” ZAW 78 (1966) 8–24: Chapter 12, according to I. Plein, is the work of an author belonging or very close to the circles where the Succession Story to David’s throne was crafted. “Erst Dtr. hat diese Erzählung in den Rahmen der Überlieferung über Jerobeam und Ahia eingefügt und zu diesem Zwecke 12:2 und 3a aus einem anderen Zusammenhang an ihre jetzige Stelle gesetzt” (p. 13). Verses 2, 20 were originally an independent notice, similar to Jepsen’s “annals notices” (cf. p. 21). J.A. Soggin, Das Königtum in Israel. Ursprünge, Spannungen, Entwicklung (BZAW 104; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967): Soggin prefers the 2 Chr reading. “Diese

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

23

Nachricht (vv. 2–3a) fehlt bei der LXX (ausser LXXA) und scheint äusserst unwahrscheinlich. Kann man sich vorstellen, dass der legitime Erbe in dieser Lage, also unter Druck eines vermutlichen Nebenbuhlers, verhandelt hätte? Die Nachricht nimmt ferner v. 20 vorweg, wo sie am richtigen Orte steht” (pp. 91–92). P. Ellis, 1–2 Kings (The Jerome Biblical Commentary London, 1968): “There is disagreement between verse 3a and verse 20, and authors agree that at least verse 3a, if not also verse 2 and the reference to Jeroboam in verse 12, may have come either from 2 Chr 10:2 or from the hand of a glossator” (p. 191). The first possibility is preferred by Montgomery and is the one also followed by Ellis. M. Noth, Könige (BK.AT IX 1; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1968): Noth justifies the correction of MT 12:2 in this way: “Trotz nur schwacher textlicher Bezeugung wird doch wohl die Lesung von LXXA für ursprünglich zu halten sein, da sich das Nebeneinander der beiden Varianten am Leichtesten so erklärt, dass 2b (trotz 3a) in MT mit Rücksicht auf 20 (dieser Vers ist in Ch 10 ausgelassen) verändert worden ist” (pp. 266–7). Noth does not justify the reading and origin of LXX 11:43a. Verses 12:2–3a constitute an addition, which contradicts verse 20 and interrupts the narrative sequence of 11:26–28–40 and chapter 12, uselessly repeating many already known details (like 11:40bβ) (cf. pp. 272–73). R.W. Klein, “Jeroboam’s Rise to Power,” JBL 89 (1970) 217–218: Klein criticizes Gooding’s hypothesis. On the grounds of textual criticism data, he proposes the following conclusions: 1) “all Israel” (LXX) has to be read in verse 12, with no explicit mention of “Jeroboam” as in MT, “Jeroboam and all the people”; 2) Verses 2–3a contradict the correct data in verse 20 on Jeroboam’s return after the beginning of the negotiations; also, the inclusion in LXX 11:43 of materials similar to verses 2–3a “is a correction by a later hand, requiring the awkward doubling of the regnal formula” (p. 217); 3) The verse 3a “can only be interpreted as an addition from Chronicles” (p. 218). The TM reading ‫“ לכל קהל ישראל‬is a conflation of ‘synonymous’ variants ‫( וכל ישראל‬MT) and ‫( וכל הקהל‬LXXB, cf. LXXA), attested separately in Chronicles texts” (p. 218).1 Klein repeats the same ideas in his book Textual Criticism of the Old Testament. From the Septuagint to Qumran (Philadelphia, 1974) 40–42. J. Gray, I and II Kings. A Commentary (London, 19702): Gray reads with LXXA “and he returned from …” to facilitate Jeroboam’s return from Egypt 1  Cf. the list and classification of “synonym” readings in S. Talmon, “Double Readings in the Masoretic Text,” Textus 1 (1960): 144–185. In MT 1 Kgs 12:8 Talmon remarks that “MT of I Kings has combined the two synonymous readings ‫ אשר עמדים‬// ‫ה‬, only one of which has been preserved in II Chron” (p. 179). Cf. also S. Talmon, “Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament,” ScrHie 8 (1961): 335–383.

24

Chapter 2

immediately after Solomon’s death, as LXX suggests. He also suppresses with LXXBL verse 3a, which contradicts the notice in verse 20 on Jeroboam’s arrival once the assembly at Shechem had concluded (cf. p. 301 nn. a and b). All in all, 12:2–3a “are secondary glosses to the original narrative in 12:1, 3b–14, 16–19” (cf. p. 300). On MT 12:2–3a and LXX 11:43, Gray says: “both G and MT may preserve important facts, G the immediate return of Jeroboam to his home on the death of Solomon, and MT Jeroboam’s role in the assembly at Schechem, probably in its later stages …”; “12,2f., … may be owing to a Judean version, while G, with the more intimate details about Jeroboam’s return, may reflect a Hebrew original which has preserved the Israelite account” (p. 301). It has to be noted that all of Gray’s statements fall under the incertitude of a “may be,” which also affects many of his other opinions (cf. pp. 59–60). J. Robinson, The First Book of Kings, The Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge, 1972): according to Robinson, who reads with MT “he remained there” (p. 149), the editor who added verse 2 together with the references to “Jeroboam” in verses 3 and 12 probably “wished to show that the prophecy of Ahijah, recorded only a few verses earlier, was fulfilled as quickly as possible” (p. 151). All in all, this excursus on the history of research on 1 Kgs 12:2–3a, with its parallels, literary contexts and historical implications, shows a more or less generalized consensus among scholars on substituting the MT 12:2 reading with that implied in Codex A and present in 2 Chr 10:2 “When Jeroboam found out … (he was already in Egypt …) and Jeroboam returned from Egypt.” In order to preserve the historical coherence of the narrative with the data of verse 20, the amputation of “foreign bodies” embedded into the narrative also becomes necessary. This procedure of literary criticism may reach two levels: 1. Montgomery and Noth remove the totality of verses 2–3a, which interrupt the obvious narrative flow from verse 1 to verse 3b:2 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king.2 When Jeroboam son of Nebath heard of it (for he was still in Egypt, where he had fled from King Solomon), then Jeroboam returned from Egypt.3 And they sent and called him; and Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came and said to Rehoboam. (NRS)

2  Montgomery, Kings, 249; Noth, Könige, 265.

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

25

2. Jepsen and Gray eliminate from the previous text verse 3a, missing in LXX and even in 11:43, as they consider it a gloss added into the previous parenthesis.3 The mentioned scholars do not pay attention to the parallel text of the ancient Septuagint in 11:43, which stresses the excised MT reading “and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt.” Gooding compares both texts and chooses the traditional MT form, with any correction or omission: he proposes an ingenious fix, consisting of moving sentences; he extends the parenthesis and includes in it Jeroboam’s “stay” in Egypt and moves forward the apodosis of the main clause to have it span Jeroboam’s travel to the assembly at Shechem:4 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king.2 When Jeroboam son of Nebath heard of it (for he was still in Egypt, where he had fled from King Solomon; Jeroboam stayed in Egypt and they sent and called him) and Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came and said to Rehoboam. I will carry out the study of this passage in three parts: delimitation and spirit of the parenthesis clause; apodosis of the main clause; and, finally, contextual relationships. 2

Delimitation and Spirit of the Parenthesis Clause

With Gooding as a dissonant voice, modern scholarship closes the parenthesis before the sentence “Jeroboam returned from/stayed in Egypt,” which would constitute the apodosis of the main period. Majority opinions also opt for the first variant “Jeroboam returned from Egypt.” Noth acknowledges the weak representation of this reading, only in Codex Alexandrinus, minuscule x, and the parallel of 2 Chr 10:2. Debus also acknowledges the consistency of the Masoretic readings and admits that, in general, Masoretes did a better job on the books of Samuel and Kings than on Chronicles. Thus, scholars give weight in their argumentation to reasoning based on the context and to evidence of historical congruity with data in verse 20. Textual, semantic, and syntactic, nevertheless, should be preferred to contextual and historical considerations,

3  Jepsen, Quellen, 2; Gray, Kings, 301. 4  D.W. Gooding, “The Septuagint’s Rival Versions of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power,” JBL 17 (1967): 173–185.

26

Chapter 2

both in the methodological sequence of analysis and in the hierarchy of assessment of arguments. In order to explain the origin and persistence of the Masoretic reading, it is necessary to determine the meaning of the word ‫ישב‬. Generally speaking, and due to the influence of verse 20, together with the variant of LXX A and of 2 Chr, it is common to consider that the MT word ‫ ישב‬disagrees in this case with the Hexaplaric variant, και επεστρεψεν, and with verse 20, ‫שוב‬, both in semantics and in historical implications. Modern versions use contradictory terms in the translated text and in the associated footnotes: “permaneció”—“regresó”; “rester”—“revenir”; “to remain”—“to return”; “er blieb”—“er kehrte zurück.” This does nothing except reflect the opposition of readings in the Greek manuscripts: και εκαθητο (LXX 11:43 and several mss. in 12:2) and και επεστρεψεν (12:2 LXX A; υπεστρεψεν x). The verb ‫ שוב‬actually has three possible meanings: 1) “to sit”; 2) “to remain”; 3) “to inhabit” or “to dwell.”5 A detailed study of the expression ‫ ישב ב‬yields meaningful data. This expression, in most cases, follows a verb of motion, ‫יצא‬, ‫בוא‬, ‫הלך‬, ‫עלה‬, ‫נסע‬, ‫ברח‬, ‫ … נוס‬and normally appears at the conclusion of a narrative, literary unit or even chapter, less frequently at the beginning of those. Remarkable are the cases where it is part of the conclusion of a battle narrative (Num 21:25, 31; Judg 20:47; 2 Sam 5:9); of the formula of “construction and settlement of a city” (Josh 19:50; Judg 18:28; 21:23; 1 Kgs 12:25); of the Deuteronomic formula “to settle the land which God gives” (Deut 3:19; 17:14; Judg 1:21, 29, 30; 2 Kgs 17:24); or of the structure of a “reference of flight” (Exod 2:15; Judg 9:21; 11:3; 1 Sam 19:2; 23:14, 25; 27:5; 1 Kgs 12:2; Jer 26:21). The meaning of the expression is always in these cases, 3) “to settle” or to reside in a place or city. Our text, 1 Kgs 12:2, is a reproduction of a fixed and conventional pattern of reference to a flight, visible in narratives more important that this mere reference. A series of fixed features articulates the structure of this genre-member (K. Koch),6 which I will name “reference of flight”: “When X heard of it … he sought to kill Y; Y was afraid and fled from X and settled in/remained in …”

‫וישמע א׳ את דבריו‬ ‫ויבקש א׳ להמית את ב׳‬ ‫וירא ב׳‬ ‫ויברח מפני א׳‬ … ‫וישב ב‬

5  “1. seat on a seat,” “2. remain, stay,” “3. dwell, have one’s abode in (‫ )ב‬a land, city, house, etc.,” F. Brown, – S.R. Driver, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), 442–443. 6  K. Koch, Was ist Formgeschichte? (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), 29–31.

27

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

Works as different as the Yahwistic narrative, tribal period and monarchy traditions, the so-called Succession History or the Life of Jeremiah narrate the flight of their main characters (Moses, Jephthah, David, Absalom, Jeremiah …) according to a well-established pattern: Exod 2:14–15 “Then Moses was afraid … When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses. But Moses fled from Pharaoh. He settled in the land of Midian.”

Exod 2:14–15

… ‫וַ ּיִ ָירא מ ֶֹׁשה‬ ‫ת־ה ָּד ָבר ַהּזֶ ה וַ ַיְב ֵּקׁש‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַמע ַּפ ְרעֹה ֶא‬ ‫ַל ֲהר ֹג ֶאת־מ ֶֹׁשה‬ ‫וַ ְּיִב ַרח מ ֶֹׁשה ִמ ְּפנֵ י ַפ ְרעֹה‬ ‫ץ־מ ְדיָ ן‬ ִ ‫וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב ְּב ֶא ֶר‬

Jer 26:21 Jer 26:21 “And when King Jehoiakim …, heard his words, ‫ת־ּד ָב ָריו‬ ְ ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַמע ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך־יְ הֹויָ ִקים … ֶא‬ the king sought to put him to death; ‫וַ ַיְב ֵּקׁש ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ֲה ִמיתֹו‬ but when Uriah heard of it, he was afraid ‫אּורּיָ הּו וַ ּיִ ָרא‬ ִ ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַמע‬ and fled and escaped to Egypt.” ‫וַ ְּיִב ַרח וַ ּיָבֹא ִמ ְצ ָריִם‬ Judg 9:21 “Then Jotham ran away and fled, going to Beerah, and he remained there for fear of his brother Abimelech.”

Judg 9:21

Judg 11:37 “Then Jephthah fled from his brothers and lived in the land of Tob.”

Judg 11:3

1 Sam 19:2 “My father Saul is trying to kill you; therefore be on guard tomorrow morning; stay in a secret place and hide yourself.”

1 Sam 19:2

‫יֹותם וַ ְּיִב ַרח וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך ְּב ֵא ָרה‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיָ נָ ס‬ ‫ימ ֶלְך ָא ִחיו‬ ֶ ‫וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב ָׁשם ִמ ְּפנֵ י ֲא ִב‬

‫וַ ְּיִב ַרח יִ ְפ ָּתח ִמ ְּפנֵ י ֶא ָחיו‬ ‫וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב ְּב ֶא ֶרץ טֹוב‬

‫יתָך‬ ֶ ‫ְמ ַב ֵּקׁש ָׁשאּול ָא ִבי ַל ֲה ִמ‬ ‫וְ ַע ָּתה ִה ָּׁש ֶמר־נָ א ַבּב ֶֹקר‬ ‫את‬ ָ ‫וְ יָ ַׁש ְב ָּת ַב ֵּס ֶתר וְ נַ ְח ֵּב‬

7  This notice is part of the original narrative, cf. W. Richter, “Die Überlieferungen um Jephtah. Ri 10,17–12,” Bib 47 (1966): 485–556, esp. 497.

28

Chapter 2

1 Sam 23:14–15, 25 1 Sam 23:14–15, 25 … ‫וַ ַיְב ְק ֵׁשהּו ָׁשאּול‬ “Saul sought him (David)… and he realized8 that Saul had come out ‫וַ ּיַ ְרא ָדוִ ד ִּכי־יָ ָצא ָׁשאּול‬ to seek his life ‫ְל ַב ּ֣קׁש ֶאת־נַ ְפׁשֹו‬ and he was in the wilderness of Ziph … … ‫וְ ָדוִ ד ְּב ִמ ְד ַּבר־זִ יף‬ (v. 25) Saul and his men went to search for him. ‫וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך ָׁשאּול וַ ֲאנָ ָׁשיו ְל ַב ֵּקׁש‬ When David was told, he went down to the rock ‫וַ ּיַ ּגִ דּו ְל ָדוִ ד וַ ּיֵ ֶרד ַה ֶּס ַלע‬ and stayed in the wilderness of Maon.” ‫וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב ְּב ִמ ְד ַּבר ָמעֹון‬ 1 Sam 27:1–5 “then Saul will despair of seeking me … (v. 3) David stayed with Achish … (v. 4) When Saul was told that David had fled to Gath, he no longer sought for him … (v. 5) so that I may live there …”

1 Sam 27:1–5

2 Sam 4:1–3 “When Saul’s son Ishbaal heard that Abner had died … the people of Beeroth fled to Gittaim and were there.”

2 Sam 4:1–3 …‫ן־ׁשאּול ִ ּ֣כי ֵמת ַא ְבנֵ ר‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַמע ֶּב‬

‫נֹואׁש ִמ ֶּמּנִ י ָׁשאּול ְל ַב ְק ֵׁשנִ י‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ … ‫ם־א ִכיׁש‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב ָּדוִ ד ִע‬ ‫י־ב ַרח ָּדוִ ד ּגַ ת‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיֻ ּגַ ד ְל ָׁשאּול ִ ּֽכ‬ ‫יֹוסף עֹוד ְל ַב ְק ֽׁשֹו‬ ֵ ‫… וְ ֽל ֹא־‬ … ‫וְ ֵא ְׁש ָבה ָּׁשם‬

‫יְמה‬ ָ ‫וַ ְּיִב ְרחּו ַה ְּב ֵאר ִֹתים ּגִ ָּת‬ ‫יּו־ׁשם‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיִ ְה‬

2 Sam 13:37–38 2 Sam 13:37–38 “But Absalom fled, and went to Talmai … ‫ל־ּת ְל ַמי‬ ַ ‫וְ ַא ְב ָׁשלֹום ָּב ַרח וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך ֶא‬ Absalom, having fled to Geshur, stayed there …” ‫י־ׁשם‬ ָ ‫וְ ַא ְב ָׁשלֹום ָּב ַרח וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך ּגְ ׁשּור וַ יְ ִה‬ The persistence of this convention is visible in two samples totally independent in context and intention: Idri-mi’s flight, narrated by the king himself in his own statue (14th century BCE) and Jesus’ flight to Egypt according to the Gospel of Matthew:

8  The flight narrative pattern favours the usually accepted conjecture ‫וַ ּיִ ָירא‬, instead of MT ‫וַ ּיַ ְרא‬ (cf. verse 17, “don’t be afraid”). The MT reading is explainable as a transition to introduce verses 15–18, which belong to a different narrative tradition; cf. H.J. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT 8.1 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1973), 424. In the narrative of Elijah’s flight from Jezebel the same conflict of readings may be found (1 Kgs 19:3), with the added problem of some Hebrew mss, LXX, S and V supporting in this case the reading in agreement with the flight pattern, “and he was afraid.”

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

29

There was trouble in the city of Aleppo, my inheritance, so we fled to the men of the city Emar, my mother’s relatives, and we abode in the city Emar.9 “‘for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.’” “So he got up …, and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod” (μελλει γαρ Ηρωδης ζητειν το παιδιον … ο δε εγερθεις … ανεχωρησεν εις Αιγυπτον και ην εκει εως της τελευτης Ηρωδου, Math 2:13–15). In the narrative of Jeroboam’s flight to Egypt both elements of the narrative pattern appear almost in their entirety. The only missing element would be the “fear” (‫ )וירא‬caused by the persecution and which triggers the flight: 1 Kgs 11:40 1 Kgs 12:2

‫יׁשק‬ ַ ‫ל־ׁש‬ ִ ‫וַ ַיְב ֵּקׁש ְׁשֹלמֹה ְל ָה ִמית ֶאת־יָ ָר ְב ָעם וַ ּיָ ָקם יָ ָר ְב ָעם וַ ְּיִב ַרח ִמ ְצ ַריִם ֶא‬ ‫ְך־מ ְצ ַריִם וַ יְ ִהי ְב ִמ ְצ ַריִם ַעד־מֹות ְׁשֹלמֹה‬ ִ ‫ֶ ֽמ ֶל‬ ‫עֹודּנּו ְב ִמ ְצ ַריִם ֲא ֶׁשר ָּב ַרח ִמ ְּפנֵ י ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ֶ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִּכ ְׁשמ ַֹע יָ ָר ְב ָעם ֶּבן־נְ ָבט וְ הּוא‬ ‫ְׁשֹלמֹה וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב יָ ָר ְב ָעם ְּב ִמ ְצ ָריִם‬

The expression -‫ וישב ב‬always follows the mention of flight and has the unambiguous meaning of “dwelling,” “settling in.” MT in 12:2 presents the standard pair of verbs “he fled and settled in …” The correction proposed by scholars with basis on Alexandrinus and the Hebrew parallel of 2 Chr, “he fled and returned from …,” does not respect the narrative canon of the flight narrative. It would be the exception to the rule in 2 Chr that requires explanation, and not the standard usage of 1 Kgs 12:2. As I will show later, the text of 2 Chr ignores the previous data on the history of Jeroboam and the later data included in 1 Kgs 12:20. This survey of texts establishes several points: The meaning of the expression -‫ ישב ב‬in the flight narrative is not 2) “remain in,” but the more neutral 3) “dwell in”; data of verses 2 and 20 are not necessarily contradictory, because the “dwelling” in Egypt does not imply “permanency” thereof after Solomon’s death. The text fixes a terminus a quo of the residency period, from the day of flight onwards, but does not say anything about the terminus ad quem, the time of return. 9  Italics are mine. Cf. the text edited by S. Smith, The Statue of Idri-mi, Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara 1 (London: 1949), 14–15:   3.  i-na aliha-la-apKI bit a-bi-ia.   4.  ma-ši-ik-tu it-tab-ši u hal-ka-nu pan   5. amelutiHI.A ale-marKI a-hateHI.A   6. ša um-mi-la u aš-ba-nu a-na ale-marKI.

30

Chapter 2

More remarkably, the clause “and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt” cannot be the apodosis of the main period; it is part of the inserted parenthesis. Thus, it is necessary to find a closure to the paragraph which the parenthesis interrupts: “When Jeroboam son of Nebath found out—he was still in Egypt, where he had fled from Solomon and where Jeroboam dwelt—, …” 3

Apodosis of the Main Period

Gooding is right to remark that the old Septuagint does not omit the passage of MT 12:2–3a.10 It appears in LXX 11:43, inserted between the conclusion formulae of Solomon’s reign. The text has two parts. The first is identical to MT 12:2, included the reading -‫ = וישב ב‬και εκαθητο εν. Doubtlessly, the clause “and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt” is included in the parenthesis, and this ratifies the two conclusions presented in the previous paragraph. The second part is the apodosis of the main clause, “When Jeroboam son of Nebath found out (…), he sets off and arrives into his city …” This second part agrees, according to Gooding, with MT 12:3a, absent in LXX. Gooding compares “both paired textual blocks” in this way: When Jeroboam son of Nebath heard of it —(for he was still in Egypt, and Jeroboam stayed in Egypt, where he had fled from King Solomon and they sent and called him) and Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came and … TM 12:2–3a

—he sets off and arrives into his city into the land of Sareira in the mount of Ephraim … LXX 11:43

Gooding finds the apodosis to the main clause in the words of MT 12:3, “Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came.” The parenthesis is stretched out to include the first words of this v. 3: “and they sent and called him.” Gooding’s proposal barely manages to preserve the necessary identity of the subject between protasis and apodosis.11 This subject has to be “Jeroboam”; 10  Gooding mentions Montgomery, who just comments: “verses 2.3a, absent in OGr,” see Gooding, “Rival Versions,” 175; cf. Montgomery, Kings, 248. 11  Cf. Gooding, “Rival Versions,” 177: “The introductory clause of the passage: ‘And when Jeroboam heard etc.’ clearly demands an apodosis in which Jeroboam is the subject of a verb of action,” E. Nielsen, Shechem. A Traditio-Historical Investigation (Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad, 1955) 172. Gooding admits this possibility when affirming: “here surely never

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

31

the agreeing verb should thus be in the singular. Nevertheless, Gooding faithfully follows the Ketib plural of MT ‫ויבאו‬, which agrees with the double subject, “Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel.” On the contrary, the Qere, 17 Hebrew mss., the Greek text of Ax, and the Armenian and Syriac versions, together with 2 Chr 10:3 (cf. also BHK ad locum), read or imply the singular form ‫ויבא‬. Such is, according to Montgomery, the “correct” form.12 Montgomery and most scholars, nevertheless, do not accept that the mention of “Jeroboam” within v. 3a (and 12) was original, especially when all the LXX tradition omits it in that section. Any presence of Jeroboam in the assembly is problematic as it contradicts v. 20. In fact, the singular form ‫ ויבא‬with “Jeroboam” as subject constitutes the apodosis of LXX 11:43.13 The verb ‫ בוא‬and the subject “Jeroboam” are the only two points of contact between MT 12:3b and LXX 11:43, although the former adds a new subject, which would be the cause of the plural verb form, and in the latter the verb in the singular implies an implicit subject, doubtlessly “Jeroboam.” Besides this, there is no agreement between the apodoses of both textual blocks, either in their literary formulation or it their historical implications. It should also be noted that in Gooding’s comparison and proposal the closure of the parenthesis and the beginning of the apodosis are not at the same level in both cases: in the Greek text, the parenthesis is closed after the words “Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt”; in the Hebrew, it would continue with the following words: “and the sent and called him.” In Gooding’s proposal, this clause, “and they sent and summoned him,” justifies the presence of the parenthesis; the reason for it is to explain how Jeroboam could find out in Egypt what was happening in his land;14 plainly, and as the text says, because some individuals “sent and summoned him,” only then could he return and he came to Shechem with “all the assembly of Israel.” Nevertheless, and always according to Gooding, the characters who got Jeroboam to come are not the same as those who went with him to Shechem, the leaders of “all the assembly of Israel”; one reference was a Hebrew text, unless it was a sadly mutilated one, that began its first half by saying ‘And it came to pass when Jeroboam heard …’ and then had no second half to tell us what Jeroboam did when he heard” (italics are mine). 12  Montgomery, Kings, 258. 13  και ερχεται = ‫ויבא‬. The historic present is a feature of the Old Greek. A. Klostermann assumes this Vorlage: ‫ויצלח ויבא אל עירו (אל) צררה אשר בהר אפרים‬, see id., Die Bücher, 344. Šanda assumes a Hebrew text … ‫ויישר ויבא‬, “eventuell ‫ויישר לבא‬, cf. Prov. 15:21,” see id., Könige, 334–335. 14  Cf. Gooding, “Rival Versions,” 181: “But with the mention of Jeroboam’s hearing, the historian realizes that he must explain how Jeroboam, who was last described as being in Egypt, came to hear of these new events and to return. He therefore inserts a parenthesis.”

32

Chapter 2

belongs to the parenthesis and the other to the main clause. Jeroboam’s informants are a nameless group, an impersonal subject, “they,” some of his closer supporters, members of the tribe of Ephraim, rather than the leaders of the official assembly of the 10 tribes.15 When treating verse 20, Gooding adds yet another group of characters, all the members of the 10 tribes, who, after knowing of Jeroboam’s return due to his presence at the assembly at Shechem, “sent and called him” for a second crowning assembly. Without yet judging the “intention” of the parenthesis or such a complicated play of characters and assemblies, issues which should come later in the methodological research procedure,16 the boundaries proposed by Gooding for the parenthesis and apodosis feel like a forced artifice. In fact, LXX omits verse 3a altogether or, better said, MT and the Hexaplaric “addition” “add” the whole of verse 3a. One way or another, ancient and modern criticism has seen in verse 3a a unit, independent from the already closed parenthesis. The sentence “and they sent and called him” seems to be related to the following one (plural yiqtol-x in both cases,) and not to the preceding one, as it takes an abrupt turn from it. The subject of the expression ‫ו ל‬/‫ו ויקרא‬/‫ וישלח‬is always the same as that of the preceding sentence, formed by the verb ‫ אמר‬in yiqtol. Such an expression then introduces a direct speech statement: Gen 27:42; 41:8 (‫ את‬instead of ‫ל‬, and the equivalent ‫ ;)ויפרו‬41:14 (15); Judg 4:6; 1 Kgs 1:36, 42.17 Only the text of 1 Kgs 12:20, close to 12:3a, lacks any form of dialog (which will subsequently confirm the secondary character of verse 20a), but nevertheless preserves the identity of the subject: “they sent and called him … and made him king of Israel.” Deducing from the general usage, 1 Kgs 12:3a would also have a single subject: “they sent and called him and (Jeroboam and) the leaders of all the assembly of Israel came.” With the mention of Jeroboam, who is at the same time the summoned one and the first of the leaders, the sentence in 3a feels clumsy. Bound to such a clause, Gooding’s proposed solution is not much more successful. Against it, it is possible to bring forth the ultimate fact that the parenthesis was closed in verse 2, as the traditional formula of “reference of flight” 15  Cf. Gooding, “Rival Versions,” 181: “It (v. 20) simply means that during the negotiations all the ten tribes, as distinct from his immediate supporters, had become aware that Jeroboam had returned.” 16  Cf. W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 114–115. 17  In Josh 24:9 the expression is followed by an infinitive. In Num 16:12, the subject of each clause is different, but it seems to be the short summary of a situation normally developed in dialogue: “Moses sent and called Dathan and Abiram (ʾabīrām) sons of Eliab (ʾelīāb). They answered ….”

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

33

shows, together with the parallel of LXX 11:43; stretching the parenthesis and proposing an apodosis with a multiple subject and verb in plural defy syntax and have a textual support which is both minimal and contested. Gray, Jepsen and most scholars choose to eliminate the whole passage of MT 3a, absent from LXX; nevertheless, even accepting this omission, it is necessary to keep looking for the apodosis in a primitive form of this very MT 3a text or in the parallel of LXX 11:43; the closure of the parenthesis at the end of verse 2 prevents any search backwards in the text, as was attempted by most scholars with the change of reading in the previous sentence “and Jeroboam returned from Egypt.” Now it is time to go back to a hint noticed earlier in both textual blocks, MT 3a and LXX 11:43. It is the singular verb form ‫( ויבא‬Q) with the subject “Jeroboam,” two elements both necessary and sufficient to define the apodosis we need. The whole text of 11:43 flows without any syntactic blunders. Gooding berates that text and general scholarship has bound it to oblivion, only because of its inadequate fit into the context. If most scholars disqualify MT 12:3a due to its contradicting verse 20, Gooding condemns LXX 11:43 as “pedantic” in its eagerness to record the time and hour of Jeroboam’s return after Solomon’s death (11:40) (21).18 Both passages should thus be examined in their respective contexts in order to determine their origin and value. 4

Contextual Relationships

The parallel texts of MT 12:2–3a and LXX 11:43 have a double context: a previous one, related to earlier events, like Solomon’s death; and a later one, the following narrative of the events which took place at the assembly at Shechem. 4.1 Previous Context: References to Solomon’s Death (11:40) The beginning of MT 12:2–3a and LXX 11:43, “When Jeroboam son of Nebath heard …,” requires a conclusive apodosis, but also, and not least, a previous reference to the event which Jeroboam found out about. In MT 12 the placement of the clause after verse 1 suggests that such an event was the journey of Rehoboam and all Israel to Shechem (verse 1); on the contrary, the placement of LXX 11:43 after the notice of Solomon’s death 18  Cf. Gooding, “Rival,” 178: “… and so our verse insists that it was precisely upon the death of Solomon, and not a week or so later at the parliament in Shechem, that Jeroboam returned.”

34

Chapter 2

(verse 40) and the inserted regnal formula of royal demise and burial (verse 43), makes quite clear that the news which reached Jeroboam in Egypt was that of Solomon’s death; to avoid any possible doubt, the Lucianic mss. took care to explicitly add: “When Jeroboam heard … that Solomon had died …” An identical clarification may be seen in LXX 12:24d. In order to assess the value of either version of the notice which Jeroboam heard about, it is necessary again to compare both textual blocks and their respective context (common text to both versions appears in the middle column): LXX

When Jeroboam son of Nebath heard (he was still in Egypt whither he had fled from Solomon, and stayed in Egypt) he sets off and comes to his city to the land of Sareira in the mount of Ephraim. And Solomon rested with his forefathers.

MT/LXX 11:40 Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam; but Jeroboam promptly fled to Egypt, to King Shishak of Egypt, and remained in Egypt until the death of Solomon. 41 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon … are they not written in the Book …? 42 The time that Solomon reigned … was forty years. 43 Solomon slept with his ancestors and was buried in the city of his father David; and his son Rehoboam succeeded him

MT

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

And Rehoboam reigned in his place. 12:1 And Rehoboam went to Shechem because all Israel was coming to Shechem to make him king.

And the people spoke to King Rehoboam saying …

35

2 When Jeroboam son of Nebath heard (he was still in Egypt, whither he had fled from King Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt) 3 And they sent and called him and Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came (sg Q, pl K) and they spoke to Rehoboam saying …

The text of LXX 11:43 loses most of its credibility if we observe its bad start in the most inadequate place one could imagine, that is, between the second and third members of the conclusive formula of Solomon’s reign (verse 43). In order to complete the interrupted formula it is necessary to repeat its first member, “and Solomon rested with his forefathers,” so that the continuation of the text where Rehoboam reigns in his place could make sense. Without that repetition, the dynamics of the text would have made Rehoboam the son of Jeroboam and his successor on the throne. According to Gooding, this intrusion is due to the “pedantic” attitude which has Jeroboam punctually returning at the time of Solomon’s death (11:40) and before the summons to the assembly at Shechem (12:1), events which, it seems, follow each other very quickly. For Gooding, this is another example of the “pedantic” tendency of LXX in insisting in minutiae of times and chronologies.19

19  Cf. Gooding “Rival Versions,” 178: “… but it is no worse than the pedantry displayed elsewhere in LXX 3 Reigns.”

36

Chapter 2

Otherwise, the “trend criticism” (“Tendenzkritik”) must be reserved for the last stages of exegetical analysis. For the time being it is advisable to stick to the verification and interpretation of purely formal data, such as the technique used for the insertion of the passage from LXX 11:43. It is a procedure known as “linking repetition” (Wiederaufnahme).20 In order to introduce a gloss into a literary piece, the latter is interrupted at the point more prone to digression; once the gloss is concluded, the first line of the text is taken up again by repeating the last words included before the interruption. In the resulting text, it is easy to see both “knots” which the additional element was sewn into. This roughness in the text startles the reader and makes him suspect the presence of a foreign element. At times it may not be easy to determine whether it is a true gloss or a mere digression from the main literary piece; nevertheless, if to the clumsiness of the repetition procedure we add the inadequacy of the chosen point of insertion, it is easy to see that the addition of a gloss was at work. 11:43 is a good example thereof. A blunder in the context is not, nonetheless, an infallible symptom of a lack of rationale in the text itself.21 The gloss may contain a lost element of the glossed narrative or a remainder of a different source or tradition, at times earlier and more valuable than the full narrative. Also, if the mere error of placement were enough to discard the text of LXX 11:43 as valueless, the same could be said of its parallel of MT 12:2–3a.22 Its placement is no less secondary, as most scholars think, and as the testimony of LXX, which flows smoothly from verse 1 to 3b without any interruption, confirms. This is not an obstacle to MT being considered as part of a “notice of chronicles” (Jepsen, I. Plein) or as a fragment of a different source (Hölscher) or tradition (Nielsen). In order to overcome the difficulty posed by the present placement of verse 2, many of the scholars mentioned assume that the second verse would precede the first, 20  C. Kuhl, “Die ‘Wiederaufnahme’—ein literarkritisches Prinzip?,’” ZAW 64 (1952): 1–11; I.L. Seeligmann, “Hebräische Erzählung und biblische Geschichtsschreibung,” ThZ 18 (1962): 305–325; Richter, Exegese, 51–53; G. Fohrer, Exegese des Alten Testaments: Einführung in die Methodik (Heidelberg: UTB, 1973), 45–47. 21  Gooding makes the value of LXX 11:43 dependent of its contextual relationship: “… the difference of each part is seen to be geared to, if not occasioned by, the position of its block as a whole in the narrative,” see id., “Rival Versions,” 177. “And if the position of the block is secondary, it is very probable that the peculiarities of the second part, which are so well fitted to the secondary position, are a secondary adaptation also,” cf. id., “Rival Versions,” 179. 22  Cf. J. Gray, I and II Kings (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 300: “(11:43) interrupts the stereotyped obituary for Solomon and notice of Rehoboam’s succession. The statement, then, is as suspect as at 12:1–3 in MT, though that need not, as D.W. Gooding apparently assumes, invalidate the fact that is communicated by 11,43 (G).”

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

37

inverting the order of reading to have the text flow without interruption, as in LXX, and, also, manage to have Jeroboam return at his due time, between Solomon’s death and the summons to the assembly at Shechem. Accepting the logic of this proposal and now leaving aside Solomon’s conclusive regnal formulae (11:41–43), which are clearly a redactional element in the book of Kings, the situation is that Solomon’s death and the transmission of the notice to Jeroboam follow each other as the rationale of the narrative would require: “Solomon attempted to kill Jeroboam but he fled to Egypt, coming under Shishaq, king of Egypt; he stayed there until Solomon’s death. When Jeroboam heard (…), he came back from Egypt.” This proposal is marred by its unfeasible resort to the apodosis “Jeroboam came back from Egypt,” but it acknowledges logically that the material in 11:40 and 12:2 on the one hand, and in 12:1, 3b on the other, requires a level of textual continuity in the order indicated. Nevertheless, if, in agreement with the mentioned scholars, the second verse comes just before the first, the result is that the clause “When Jeroboam heard …” immediately follows the conclusion formulae which end with the sentence “and Rehoboam his son reigned in his place”; there is no relationship between those two sentences; Jeroboam hears in Egypt of an event mentioned considerably earlier (verse 40) and whose recollection is quite erased by the conclusive formulae. On the other hand, in LXX 11:43 the clause “When Jeroboam heard …” appears in all logic after the reference to the king’s death and burial, precisely the events which Jeroboam hears about. This textual layout in LXX, with its signature materials of 11:43 embedded within the conclusion regnal formula, shows a more coherent rationale which agrees especially better with composition techniques such as Wiederaufnahme. Leaving aside the redactional formulae, the text would be the following with the order of verses 11:40; LXX 11:43 (= 12:2*?); 12:1, 3b: Solomon attempted to kill Jeroboam, but he fled to Egypt, coming under Shishaq, king of Egypt; he stayed there until Solomon’s death. When Jeroboam son of Nebath heard (he was still in Egypt, whither he had fled from Solomon, and dwelt in Egypt), he sets off and comes to his city, to the land of Sareira in the mount of Ephraim … The connection established in the LXX composition between Solomon’s death and Jeroboam’s return is not a “pedantic” whim of the Greek translation (Gooding), but a logical reflection of the evident sequence of events. In fact, similar passages use identical expressions, which build the established connection and original continuity between Jeroboam’s death and the transmission of

38

Chapter 2

that news to Jeroboam in Egypt.23 “He was stoned until he died. Then they informed Jezebel and said: ‘Neboth has been stoned to death.’ When Jezebel heard that Naboth had died by stoning …” (‫)ויהי כשמע איזבל כי סקל נבות וימת‬ (1 Kgs 21:14–15); “‘Naboth does not live anymore, he has died.’ When Achab heard that Naboth had died …” (‫( )ויהי כשמע אחאב כי מת נכות‬1 Kgs 21:15–16); “Hadad heard in Egypt that David had died and that Joab had died” (‫שמע … כי‬ ‫[ )שכב … וכי מת‬1 Kgs 11:2.1]. The parallel text of LXX 12:24c, d would be additional confirmation of this and other previous observations. The text of 12:24c is the exact match of MT 11:40; it is even more faithful to the conventional structure of “reference to flight,” as it contains an element absent from MT 11:40, which is the fear previous to the flight itself: “and he feared” (LXX και εφοβηθη = ‫)וירא‬. The sentences which in LXX 11:40 and 43 (= MT 12:2) appear disjoined due to the interposition between them of the regnal formulae follow each other here with no interruption: Jeroboam feared and fled and he came under Susakeim king of Egypt and stayed with him until Solomon died. And Solomon heard in Egypt that Solomon had died … (24f) and Jeroboam came out of Egypt and came to the land of Sareira in the mount of Ephraim. Other details may be observed. The text says explicitly that Jeroboam finds out in Egypt “that Solomon had died”; it contains nothing like the parenthesis in MT 12:2 LXX 11:43; it has an apodosis with the verb ερχομαι = ‫ בוא‬in singular and the subject “Jeroboam”; the full text of the apodosis is almost identical to LXX 11:43. After finishing this survey on the immediate context of LXX 11:43 and MT 12:2, the same questions on the origin and value of both texts remain in place, that is, the nature of the parenthesis in both texts; the apodosis of 11:43 (12:24f); and the strange clause of MT 12:3a with no agreement with the versions. Now it is possible to propose the following answers: The initial clause “When Jeroboam heard …” and its apodosis, whatever it is, are substantial elements of the text. Due to the interposition of the regnal formulae, the whole period became removed from its original context after 11:40. The parenthesis 23  The expression “When X heard” has an explicit object:   ‫ כי‬+ qatal: Josh 10:1; 1 Kgs 12:20; 21:15.16; 2 Kgs 5:8; cf. 1 Kgs 11:21.   ‫ את‬+ Acus.: Gen 29:13; Jer 7:15; 1 Kgs 14:6; 2 Kgs 22:11.   ‫את דבר א׳‬: Gen 39:19; 1 Kgs 13:4; 2 Kgs 6:30.   ‫את הדבר הזה‬: 1 Kgs 20:12; 21:17.   Without explicit object: Josh 9:1; 1 Kgs 12:2; 15:21; 19:13; 2 Kgs 19:1 (twice at the beginning of the chapter).

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

39

clause “he was still in Egypt …” is a result of that interposition; its purpose is to save the distance created by the regnal formulae and to pick up the late circumstances on Jeroboam’s flight and stay in Egypt until Solomon’s death. The parenthesis is in fact just a summary of verse 40 and it agrees closely with it; it is an abridgement of the literary pattern of “notice of flight” to its two most essential elements, “he fled from X and stayed at Y.” The parenthesis would have no reason to exist if the text had flown with no interruption. Such is the case of the version of the narrative in LXX 12:24c, d., where there is nothing similar to that parenthesis. Thus, it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between the main clause and the inserted parenthesis. The former is an essential part of a pre-existing narrative; the parenthesis, on the other hand, is a secondary insertion, introduced with the aim of going back to earlier data of the story, prior to the interruption caused by the regnal formulae. In this sense the general observation of most scholars, who just eliminate the text of verses 2–3a as supercilious or “tautological,”24 whether because it is seen as a gloss (Montgomery, Noth) or attributed to a chronicle notice with or without verse 3a (Jepsen), a different source (Hölscher) or tradition (Nielsen), should be corrected. M. Noth, e.g., disagrees with C.F. Keil, who qualifies the whole of 2–3a as a retrospective parenthesis; according to Noth, the text is too long to be a parenthesis.25 On the other hand, it is necessary to say that such a parenthesis exists, but it should be reduced to a smaller size than what Keil, Noth and most scholars assume. Regarding the basic issue on the apodosis of the main period, positive evidence is scarce but meaningful: the three textual forms which have been transmitted contain or imply the verb ‫ בוא‬in its wayyiqtol sg form, with or without the explicit subject Jeroboam; these three textual forms are MT 3a Q; LXX 11:43; and LXX 12:24f. The signature apodosis of LXX specifies that Jeroboam’ s travel was to Sareira, his birthplace on the mount of Ephraim. The text shows excellent syntactic fluidity; the rejection it has endured due to its contextual position is unbased. A deeper analysis of its contextual relationships also turns those accusations into favourable arguments; the main clause, with its apodosis about Jeroboam’s going to his land in Ephraim, is a fundamental element of an earlier narrative. The version of the story of Jeroboam reflected in LXX 12:24b–c, f. constitutes a close parallel. Nevertheless, due to the criticism leveled at this passage and at the “Midrashic” supplement of 12:24a–z as a whole, the value of this witness should be suspended for now. We have no other 24  Cf. Gray, Kings, 300. 25  See M. Noth, Könige, 273: “Man kann diesen Passus (2.3a) mit Rücksicht auf seinen grossen Umfang nicht wohl als eine nachholende Parenthese fassen (so CFKeil z. St.).”

40

Chapter 2

external sources which allow for the historical veracity of Jeroboam’s supposed travel from Egypt to his birthplace on Ephraim. Still, we have to ask ourselves whether the immediate development of events contradicts the authenticity and logic of these data. Later Context: Absence of Participation of Jeroboam in the Assembly at Shechem Almost all scholars change the MT reading of verse 2 “and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt” into that of Alexandrinus and 2 Chr “and Jeroboam returned from Egypt.” This reading, together with the mention of Jeroboam in verses 3a and 12 as an active member of the assembly, contradicts verse 20, according to which Jeroboam would not go before the assembly after he was summoned, once negotiations with Rehoboam had failed. This leads to the suppression of 3a and the name “Jeroboam” in verse 12; the omission of both in LXX justifies their elimination from the Hebrew text. In this way a historical framework is created which leaves some time for Jeroboam’s return after Solomon’s death and skips the difficulty of him being present at the assembly.26 Thus, Jeroboam does not go to Shechem until the revolutionaries have summoned him. Another way of avoiding the contradiction is to suppress the total of verses 2–3a (and “Jeroboam” in verse 12), which interrupt the normal sequence of verses 1, 3b as attested in LXX. Gooding defends MT to the bitter end, the reading -‫ וישב ב‬and the authenticity of verses 2–3a and the mention to “Jeroboam” in verse 12. Thus, he participates in the assembly from the very beginning. Gooding is also aware of the incongruity, which this implies when compared to the data in verse 20. In order to solve that difficulty, he assumes that two different assemblies took place. Jeroboam, summoned by some of his Ephraimite followers when he was still in Egypt, returns and takes part in the Shechem assembly together with the official representatives of the ten Northern tribes. All of them propose to Rehoboam the terms of a mutual pact, which makes his coronation acceptable. The proposal is noble and sincere, but Rehoboam’s intransigence causes the breakup of negotiations. In this situation it becomes necessary to find a new candidate for the throne. Jeroboam had been progressively defining himself as the most able. A second assembly is all that is needed to make him king (verse 20).27 The ten tribes of Israel would take part in this second assembly 4.2

26  Cf. Gray, Kings, 301. 27  See Gooding, “Rival versions,” 181: “This congregation (v. 20) was presumably a different and slightly later occasion than the one at which the rebellion was announced.”

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

41

and they would have slowly become aware of Jeroboam’s return as he was present among the nobles in the previous assembly.28 There are no external sources which might offer evidence of the accuracy of that historical reconstruction, based solely on MT. Gooding rejects the two parallel versions of LXX 11:43 and LXX 12:24b, f, one because it excuses Jeroboam too much; the other because of being a refined calumny against the very same character. A critical procedure based on textual history is open to any kind of agreement attempt, such as with verse 20 in this case, as well as to uncontrollable conjectures about potential hidden “tendencies” in the text. Before any historical reconstruction and evaluation of the historicity of LXX parallels, it is necessary to acknowledge a fundamental piece of information: the apodosis composed of the verb “to come” and the subject “Jeroboam,” visible in MT (Q) and attested by both LXX parallels of 11:43 and by 2 Chr, does not contradict verse 20 at all. According to the parenthesis, at the time of Solomon’s death Jeroboam “dwelt in Egypt”; according to the main clause, when Jeroboam found out about it, he decided to “go” to a place in the territory of the ten tribes, be it Shechem (MT?) or Sareira on the mount of Ephraim (both LXX versions of the story).29 The narrative of the assembly held in Shechem does not make any reference at all to the character of Jeroboam; the main actors are Rehoboam, the youths, the elders, and the people. Once negotiations break up, the decision to summon Jeroboam, “who had returned from Egypt,” and make him king of the ten tribes is taken (verse 20). Therefore, just the mention of “Jeroboam” in verse 12, in agreement with the unanimous witnesses of LXX and the general support of scholars, needs to be eliminated. Regarding MT 3a, this text preserves elements of an earlier textual form, the nucleus of the original apodosis of Jeroboam’s “going”: ‫ויבא ירבעם‬ (Q, versions and 2 Chr). Gooding was on the right path when he looked for the conclusion of the main clause there. It is inadequate to suppress the totality of 3a (Jepsen, Gray, et al.), 28  See Gooding, “Rival versions,” 181: “It (v. 20) simply means that during the negotiations all the ten tribes, as distinct from his immediate supporters, had become aware that Jeroboam had returned.” 29  Gray (Kings, 301) acknowledges the value of LXX 11:43 when he writes: “11,43b states that, on hearing of the death of Solomon, Jeroboam returned forthwith from Egypt but went to his home town of ‘Sereira,’ Zaredah of MT, and at 12,24d.f, adds that he gathered all the tribe of Ephraim and fortified the town. This seems natural in view of the confidence which Ahijah’s call would have inspired, and might support the reading of Ga, Sh, and V, cf. II Chron, 10.2, wayyāšob … mimiṣrayim, which we adopt.” The reading of MT and LXX 11:43 nevertheless has the meaning of “dwelt in Egypt,” and, also, the return is expressed by the verb ‫ בוא‬and not by ‫שוב‬.

42

Chapter 2

without making any distinction between the materials it contains. Before eliminating text, it is necessary to tell the old apart from the new: “and Jeroboam came” is a residue of the original apodosis; the mention of “Jeroboam” in 3a is thus not comparable with that in verse 12; in 3a, this mention referred only to a “coming” of Jeroboam and did not at all imply his presence at the assembly at Shechem, as is the case in the present form of MT 3a. Also, any removal of 3a from the text should include a substitution of the text with something else. LXX does ignore MT 3a, but in its place it has the apodosis preserved in 11:43. All in all, MT 3a contains the core of the original apodosis, which has been fully preserved in the parallels of LXX 11:43 and 12:24f,30 with the reference to Jeroboam going from Egypt to his birthplace on the mount of Ephraim. 5 Conclusions 1. This analysis takes an in-depth look at the text of 1 Kgs MT 12:2–3a // LXX 11:43d, f, p (Old Greek in a non-kaige section of the Greek text) with the aim of finding an explanation which is fair to both the Greek and Hebrew texts. The joint application of textual and literary criticism on the genre of “notice of flight” (“X tried to kill Y; he feared for his life and fled from X and dwelt in Z”) supports the reading of MT and LXX against the correction proposed by most scholars, especially the more recent ones, based on the Hexaplaric text and 2 Chr 10:2 “and he returned from …” This clause is not thus the apodosis to the main clause, which begins in verse 2, “When Jeroboam heard …,” but it is part of an inserted parenthesis (“he was still in Egypt, whither he fled from King Solomon; and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt”). 2. The original core of the apodosis may still be seen in the words “and Jeroboam came to …” (‫)ויבא ירבעם‬, attested in the totality of extant textual forms (MT 3a Q; LXX 11:43; 12:24f; 2 Chr 10:3).

30  A survey of the level of manuscript representation of the different textual forms underscores the persistence of readings, which I have qualified as original and the reduced evidence of recent readings. The reading -‫ וישב ב‬appears in the totality of the Hebrew and Greek manuscript traditions, with the exception of Alexandrinus and ms. x, as well as in 2 Chr. The text of the original apodosis is attested in the adequate location of the Old Greek, 11:43, by Vaticanus, the Antiochene mss. and OL. The rest of the Greek tradition (Ndefhmp-tvwyz) (Syr) has the textual element of the apodosis in the location of MT, that is, in place of 3a. Only Hexaplaric mss. Ax (Arm) include the text of MT 3a, with the addition of the Old Septuagint text in the case of x.

Jeroboam and the Assembly at Shechem

43

3. The resulting clause, “When Jeroboam son of Nebath heard (…) he came to (…)” connects with 11:40 and thus continues the narrative interrupted by the inclusion of Solomon’s conclusive regnal formulae (verses 41–43). The contextual placement of MT 12:2–3a and of the parallel text of LXX at 11:43 is in both cases secondary; in MT those verses interrupt the sequence of verses 1, 3b, attested by the Old Septuagint with the omission here of 2–3a; in LXX, the insertion of this text in the middle of the regnal formulae requires the repetition of the formula of Solomon’s death and burial. Nevertheless, the contextual layout of the Septuagint allows for a better reconstruction of the process of composition and redaction of this passage. The narrative of Jeroboam’s flight incidentally alluded to Solomon’s death in verse 40. The “composer” of the book of Kings took advantage of this allusion in the narrative to introduce the framework of the regnal formulae (verses 41–43) and thus the continuation of the narrative “when Jeroboam son of Nebath heard (…), he came …” is now inserted within the formulae in LXX; the placement of this clause in the context of MT (2–3a) is far less adequate, as it interrupts the sequence of events in 12:1, 3b; also, when the clause is placed after verse 1, it becomes open to misinterpretations, like concluding that Jeroboam came back from Egypt after knowing about the summons and beginning of the assembly at Shechem (verse 1) when in fact what Jeroboam hears about in Egypt and what makes him decide to return is the death of his persecutor, Solomon. 4. The apodosis, “and Jeroboam came to” a place in the land of Israel, identified in LXX 11:43 and 12:24f as “Sareira in the mount of Ephraim,” does not contradict later information in the narrative. Jeroboam, present at the assembly at Shechem, does not take part directly in the deliberations thereof, because that function always remains with the “elders of the people” (LXX 12:24q), who are the authorized representatives to make or break pacts, such as those of the negotiations at Shechem. In the version of the story according to 1 Kgs 12, Jeroboam is not named again until, the negotiations broken, he is summoned by the Israelites (verse 20). The present text of MT 3a has been taken from 2 Chr, which meaningfully misses the parallel to 1 Kgs 12:20. The clause of 3a has displaced the original apodosis of the text; nevertheless, it preserves its essential elements: “and Jeroboam came to …” (Q). The mention to “Jeroboam” in verse 12 is, on the other hand, a secondary addition of MT.

Chapter 3

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam (MT 1 Kings 12, 14 and LXX 3 Kingdoms 12:24b–z) The purpose of this chapter is to compare the parallel literary units of MT chapters 12, 14 and LXX 12:24b–z: The narratives relating to the flight and return of Jeroboam (1.1); to the Shechem Assembly (1.2); to the symbolic action and oracle of Ahijah/Shemaiah (2); to the oracle of Shemaiah (3) and to the consultation of Jeroboam’s wife about the fate of his sick child (4). Comparing the two versions of each literary unit will allow conclusions to be drawn on the priority of either version. The analysis involves a previous delimitation of the literary units and an analysis of the literary form, origin, horizon and intention of each.1 1  For a history of research on the value of LXX 12:24a–z cf. J. Debus, Die Sünde Jerobeams, FRLANT 93 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 68–80: “Die bisherige Forschung.” Except for the critical notes on pp. 55–56 Debus does not study the Greek text from the perspective offered by current knowledge on the parallel history of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Debus does not take into account either the problems around the supposed “tendencies” and translation features of LXX. In his bibliographic panorama and his review of the research history one misses, for example, the article by J.W. Wevers, “Exegetical Principles underlying the Septuagint Text of I Kings ii 12–xxi 43,” OTS 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1950): 300–322. It is necessary also to point out a very nuanced judgment by Swete: “(12:24a–z) is a second and distinct recension of the story, resting equally with the first on a Hebrew original … there is no a priori ground for deciding which of the two is the most trustworthy,” H.B. Swete and R.R. Ottley, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19142), 248.    Research after Debus’ monograph has not returned to the text of LXX 1 Kgs 12:24a–z except for the articles, which I will later examine in detail, by Gooding and Gordon on the one hand and Seebass on the other, in two very different lines of research to the point of ignoring each other, see D.W. Gooding, “The Septuagint’s Rival Version of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power,” VT 17 (1967): 173–189; id., “Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns,” Textus 7 (1969): 1–29; id., “Jeroboam’s Rise to Power: A Rejoinder,” JBL 91 (1972): 529–533; R.P. Gordon, “Source Study in 1 Kings xii 24a–nα,” Transactions of the Glasgow Univ. Or. Sod. 25 (1973–74): 59–70; id., “The second Septuagint Account of Jeroboam: History or Midrash?,” VT 25 (1975): 368–393; H. Seebass, “Zur Königserhebung Jerobeams I,” VT 17 (1967): 325–333; id., “Die Verwerfung Jerobeams I. und Salomos durch die Prophetie des Ahia von Silo,” WO 4 (1968): 163–182; id., “Tradition und Interpretation bei Jehu ben Chanani und Ahia von Silo (I Reg 16,1–4.7; 14,7–16),” VT 25 (1975): 175–190; id., “Zur Teilung der Herrschaft Salomos nach I Reg 11:29–39,” ZAW 88 (1976): 363–376.    Several authors have made sporadic and marginal allusions to the text of LXX 3 Kingdoms 12:24a–z. According to I. Plein, “Man wird deshalb annehmen dürfen, dass III Βας 12,24a–z

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_005

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

1

45

Jeroboam’s Flight and Return and the Assembly at Shechem

1.1 The Narrative of Jeroboam’s Flight and Return The first function of literary criticism is to delimit the extent of each literary unit, that is, its beginning and end.2 1.1.1 MT/LXX 11:26–28, 40, 43* (LXX) With the presentation of Jeroboam in 11:26 a new story begins. In the whole of the composition this story could be an independent unit of a triad of rebellious “satans” against Solomon (Hadad, Rezon, Jeroboam: 1 Kgs 11:14–40). Its end can eine sekundäre, ‘judaisierende,’ den wirklichen Ereignissen zeitlich und im Verständnis fernstehende Kompilation aus dem massoretischen Text darstellt,” see I. Plein, “Erwägungen zur Überlieferung von I Reg. 11,26–14,20,” ZAW 78 (1966): 8–24, n. 5. Seebass values very positively some fragments of the Greek text, as, for example, the story about consulting Ahijah of Shiloh. Against the Hebrew text of 11:26–12: 24 Seebass contrasts the Greek parallel: “Dagegen scheint mir 12,24b.c.o–z so wertvolle Nachrichten zu enthalten dass eine historische Interpretation versucht werden soll,” see Seebass, “Zur Königserhebung,” 325. Cf. also M. Noth, Könige, BK.AT IX 1 (Neukirchen—Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 270: “(12,24a–z) es handelt sich um eine seltsam und willkürlich geordnete Zusammenstellung von Elementen der Jerobeamüberlieferung mit einigen frei konstruierten Zusätzen.” In response to Gooding’s theses, Aberbach and Smolar discuss the main details of the LXX story that could confirm its allegedly polemical character against Jeroboam: “So far from denigrating Jeroboam, LXX indeed raises Jeroboam to the stature of a worthy antagonist of Solomon.” The final conclusion of the article proposes a general assessment of LXX 12:24a–z: “Indeed, I Kings 12:24a–z generally appears to contain no less a reliable reconstruction of events leading to Jeroboam’s rise to power than is found in its Masoretic counterpart. It certainly exhibits no more of a Tendenz that is found in MT,” see M. Aberbach and L. Smolar, “Jeroboam’s Rise to Power,” JBL 88 (1969): 69–72, 72. Gray’s commentary to Kings recognizes a historical value to the text of LXX 3 Kingdoms 12:24a–z: “Here (11:29ss, 40; 12:2–3), however, in MT objective history is obscured by Deuteronomistic rationalization. There seems, on the other hand, to be a genuine historical source behind the variant account in G (vv. 24a–z),” see J. Gray, I and II Kings. A Commentary, OTL, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 289. 2  According to W. Richter literary criticism proceeds in several steps: first it establishes the criteria that allow us to delimit the units that compose the text. Next it has to recognize the secondary elements that could have been introduced into the primitive unit. Finally, a diachronic relationship is established between the small units of the text, in order to know which one is the oldest. The criteria proposed by W. Richter are in descending order of importance: duplicates and repetitions, tensions and parallels to other texts, cf. W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft: Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturtheorie und Methodologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 51–53. Sometimes not all criteria are applicable to the text and the order of importance may vary. Other times, as in our case, it will be necessary to resort to other criteria such as the language used. Cf. A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches, 2nd ed. (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1956), 6 n. 2: “Sprachgebrauch”; O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1956), 217: “Verschiedenheit des Sprachgebrauchs.”

46

Chapter 3

be established at the main clause of LXX 11:43* (MT 12:21), which notifies the return of Jeroboam from his exile in Egypt. The narrative material of the Jeroboam story is found in 11:26–28, 40; LXX 11:43*/MT 12:2. In this context the secondary character of the prophetic legend of Ahijah (11:29–39) becomes evident. According to Benzinger, Šanda, Montgomery and Jepsen, this legend ended up displacing and supplanting an alleged story about Jeroboam’s revolution. Verses 27b, 28 would be nothing more than the initial residue of such a lost narrative.3 Debus reduces the story to verses 26 and 40, a short notice about the failed attempt at revolt followed by Jeroboam’s flight to Egypt. The sentence of verse 27a introduces new data on Jeroboam to those contained in verses 27b, 28, which were part of the original legend of Ahijah in its first independent form (verses 29–31).4 1.1.2 LXX 12:24b–c, f The parallel unit of LXX 12:24b–f also concludes with the information about Jeroboam’s return to his land of Sareira on the mountain of Ephraim. The end of the unit is clearly marked by the immediate transition to the account of the consultation of Jeroboam’s wife to Ahijah of Shiloh (12:24g–n). This confirms the previous assumption about the end of the unit in MT 12:2 = LXX 11:43 with Jeroboam’s return from exile. The LXX version contains in 12:24d–e a reference to the marriage of Jeroboam to one of Pharaoh’s daughters in Egypt. It is surely an old addition, framed by the linking repetition (Wiederaufnahme): καὶ ἐλάλησεν εἰς τὰ ὦτα Σουσακιμ βασιλέως Αἰγύπτου λέγων ἐξαπόστειλόν με καὶ ἀπελεύσομαι… ……………………………………………………………. καὶ εἶπεν Ιεροβοαμ πρὸς Σουσακιμ Οὔτως ὄντως ἐξαπόστειλόν με καὶ ἀπελεύσομαι (cf. Hadad’s story in 1 Kgs 11:18–22).5 3  L. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige, KHC IX (Freiburg: Mohr, 1899), 82; A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige, EHAT IX/2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1911–1912), 318; J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 242. Jepsen argues that “in 11,27b.28 ein Bruchstück aus den Geschichtsberichten (A) vorliegt,” cf. id., Quellen, 14 and 20. M. Noth does not see enough justification for this hypothesis and Debus finds no confirmation of it in the parallel of LXX 3 Kingdoms 12:24b, cf. Noth, Könige, 256; Debus, Sünde, 5, n. 11. 4  Cf. Debus, Sünde, p. 4 n. 8: “Diese ‚Einleitungs-Formel’ (cf. Dt. 1,1; 2.Sam 23,1; 2.Kön 19,21) ist ja auch zur Einführung einer Glosse gut geeignet.” To this should be added the closer text of 1 Kgs 9:15 ‫וזה דבר המס‬. Debus cites the case of 1 Kgs 5:4, gloss of 5:2s. 5  Cf. the same formula in Gen 24:56: ‫שלחוני ואלכה‬.

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

47

The resulting text, 12:24b–c, f., confirms the continuity of the narrative materials of MT 11:26–27b–28, 40, without the interruption of Ahijah’s legend (verses 29–39). On the other hand, the presence of the material corresponding to MT verses 27b–28 and the absence of any additional data on Jeroboam’s revolt do not confirm the hypothesis quoted earlier on the existence of a specific and independent story about Jeroboam’s revolt (Benzinger, Šanda, Montgomery, Jepsen). Likewise, the form of the LXX account disallows the reduction of this account to 11:26, 40 and the attribution of 11:27b–28 to the legend of Ahijah (11:29ff.), unknown in this location by the parallel account of LXX (Debus). 1.2 The Story of the Assembly at Shechem 1.2.1 MT/LXX 12 In the opinion of scholars 12:1 initiates a new literary unit. M. Noth is, however, inclined to consider the data on the presentation, flight, and return of Jeroboam as the introduction of a single narrative beginning at 11:26 and continuing, after 11:40, at 12:1, 3b, 4.6 Two considerations support his proposal: 11:40 is not an adequate conclusion for a narrative; 12:20 requires a previous introduction of the character Jeroboam, as well as an earlier story that tells of his return from Egypt; 12:2, 3a form an addition which likewise requires antecedents. Indeed, the first account cannot conclude by leaving Jeroboam in the exile of Egypt (verse 40). It extends to include the data of LXX 11:43/MT 12:2 on Jeroboam’s return to the land of Israel. The value of M. Noth’s second consideration based on verse 20 depends on the decision that is taken on what the end of the literary unit is and on whether verse 20 belongs to that unit or not. Jepsen constructs with verses 2 and 20 a literary unit that does not need any antecedent. According to I. Plein the story of the assembly concludes in verse 19 with the expression “to this day.” The story would try to explain a given situation: the actual division of the kingdom in contrast to the personal union of the Solomonic monarchy.7 However, for thematic reasons “that it is not possible to exclude altogether from the formal analysis,” M. Noth tends towards the 6  Cf. Noth, Könige, 272: “Danach dürfte in 11,26–28+40 der Anfang der Erzählung von Kap. 12 zu sehen sein.” Noth (Könige, 269) seems to contradict the previous insinuation: “Der mit 1.3b beginnende Erzählungsfaden …” 7  According to Plein the narrative is formed by 12:1, 3b–15a, 16, 18–19, cf. id., “Erwägungen,” 8 and 13. The material of 11:26, 27b, 28, 40; 12:2, 20, 25; 14:20 is part of “notices” (“Notiz,” “Berichte”) of an origin more or less close to the annals of Israel or a chronicle of both kingdoms, cf. id., “Erwägungen,” 21. Jepsen reaches the same conclusion after considering verses 2 and 20a as a unitary notice which continues 11:26, 40, cf. id., Quellen, 5; see also H. Schulte, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Israel, BZAW 128 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972), 217, n. 54; E. Würthwein, Das erste Buch der Könige, ATD 11,1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 158.

48

Chapter 3

continuity of the story including “at least” verse 20.8 The most common opinion considers the following verses 21–24 as an independent secondary unit. Grønbaeck disagrees with this assumption and says that “verse 21 contains a tradition worthy of all confidence or, better still, a fragment of a tradition whose original continuation was suppressed and replaced by verses 22–24.”9 The oracle of Shemaiah, verses 22–24, has all the appearance of being an appendix added to the previous account. On the other hand, verse 25 seems to be an isolated piece of data from the royal archives (Jepsen). It gives the impression that with it begins a new section or literary unit on the reign of Jeroboam. However, Noth supposes that the material of verses 26–29 + 30b, 31, 32 was in the beginning part of the story of the assembly, so that the whole had the “constitution of the state of Israel” as its subject.10 It is therefore difficult to pinpoint the end of the story. When it comes to isolating the original elements and telling apart the “intruders” into the story, the discussion is entangled and each author weaves a network from which it is not easy to find a way out. 1.2.2 LXX 12:24nβ–z The parallel account of LXX 12:24nβ–z has an easy to identify beginning, but also an undefined and problematic end. The two prophetic oracles of 12:24 o and 24y–z, introduced by the formula “The word of the Lord came upon …,” are easily extricated from the narrative the content of which is: Jeroboam gathers the tribes of Israel in Shechem, where Rehoboam also goes; the participants in the assembly are on one side Rehoboam and his advisers and on the other the people and their elders; after the breakdown of negotiations, Rehoboam again goes to Shechem in his war against Jeroboam. The oracle of Shemaiah 8  Cf. Noth, Könige, 269: “Sehr wahrscheinlich ist, dass der mit 1 + 3 beginnende Erzählungsfaden nicht schon in 16 abreisst, sondern wenigstens bis 19.20 reicht, weil erst hier das behandelte Thema zu einem gewissen Ende kommt (inhaltliche Argumente lassen sich bei der Formalanalyse nicht ganz ausscheiden),” “Erzählungsstück 1.3b.4–14, 16, 18–20.” Noth notices a certain tension between verse 20 and the previous material: “Wie sich zeitlich und räumlich das in 20a Berichtete zum Vorangehenden verhält, darüber verlautet nichts. Die Formulierung am Anfang von 20 deutet eher einen gewissen zeitlichen Abstand an als eine unmittelbare Aufeinanderfolge,” cf. id., Könige, 279. 9  Cf. J.H. Grønbaeck, “Benjamin und Judah: Erwägungen zu 1Kön. 12,21–24,” VT 15 (1965): 421–436, esp. 423 and 429: “… dass hinter V. 21 eine zuverlässige Überlieferung liegt, oder besser ein Bruchstück einer Überlieferung, deren ursprüngliche Fortsetzung gestrichen und durch V. 22–24 ersetzt worden ist.” J.H. Grønbaeck provides a series of arguments in favour of the historical value of the data contained in verse 21. 10  Noth, Könige, 269–270 and 280; likewise cf. Gray, Kings, 300 and 311–313; Montgomery, Kings, 254; Jepsen, Quellen, 5–6.

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

49

allows for a cessation of hostilities and may well have displaced the continuation of the story itself (Grønbaeck). The text of the oracle, LXX 12:24y, z, coincides literally with that of MT 12:22–24, in contrast to the previous continued departures. Even more meaningful is the fact that LXX immediately links to the previous MT thread from verse 25, according to which Jeroboam builds the new capital of Shechem and establishes himself there. In the account of LXX, the hostilities of Rehoboam against Jeroboam (verse 24x) are certainly part of the narrative and not of the prophetic oracle that follows. Authors generally conclude the story of MT with verse 19 or 20, so that the reference to hostilities of verse 21 is not to be seen as part of the historical narrative, but rather it should be considered as data belonging to the oracle added in verses 22–24. However, Grønbaeck provides valid arguments that vindicate the value of verse 21 and find confirmation in the version of the story according to LXX. In this story, as in other similar stories, the breaking off of negotiations is followed by the opening of hostilities.11 These end with the triumph of one of the two contending sides. In any case, the previous negotiations and the hostilities both belong to the literary unit as such. It is already possible to advance a series of conclusions that will receive confirmation in later literary criticism and in study of the form of each unit. The narrative that, following the traditional denomination, we call the “Assembly at Shechem” begins with the narrative material transmitted in MT from 12:1 and in the version of LXX from 12:24nβ onwards. After verses 19–20 the story does not end but still continues with new data on the opening and cessation of hostilities (12:21) and the establishment of the kingdom’s capital in Shechem. It finally concludes with the establishment of national sanctuaries on the northern and southern frontiers of the kingdom (verses 29–32). This account of the Assembly at Shechem is independent of the previous one on Jeroboam’s flight and return from Egypt, but both narratives need each other. They certainly have the same origin and were transmitted together, forming what we could name the “History of the Secession and Schism of Israel.” The separation of the two accounts in LXX 12:24b–c, f on the one hand and 12:24nβ, p, x on the other, with the interposition between them of the legend on the consultation to Ahijah of Shiloh, constitutes good evidence of both the independence of each literary unit and their belonging to the same cycle on this “History of the Secession and Schism of Israel.” In the composition of the book the Alternative History of LXX 12:24a–z appears to have been inserted in the most appropriate place. The initial “duplicate” of the royal formulae of Solomon and Jeroboam (11:41–43/LXX 12:24a) 11  Cf. Grønbaeck, “Benjamin,” 424.

50

Chapter 3

frames the Alternative History. They contain parallel, albeit divergent, materials when compared to the known version of MT. The final “duplicate” (Wiederaufnahme) of the oracle of Shemaiah (12:22–24/LXX 12:24y–z) facilitates the return to the narrative thread in 12:25, which is also the continuation of the very version of LXX 12:24a–z. This means that the narrative materials contained in 12:25ff. constitute the continuation of the versions of both MT 12:1–21 and LXX 12:24nβ–x. 1.3 Literary Criticism Within the account of 12:1–32 numerous repetitions and tensions of expression and content reveal a much reworked text, which has given rise to the most disparate explanations on the part of scholars. Academic consensus only includes the oracle of Shemaiah (12:22–24), identified as secondary addition, old for some and postexilic for most.12 Of the previous material, verse 17 is considered secondary, a gloss absent from the ancient Greek version,13 as well as at least the “note of accomplishment” (Erfüllungsvermerk) of 15bγδ (… ‫)למען הקים‬.14 The core of the story in 1 Kgs 12 is formed by the scene of Rehoboam’s consultation with the elders and the young people. According to H. Schulte, this scene does not belong to the primary layer of the narrative, reduced to verses 1, 3b, 4abα, 13a, 15a, 16, 18, 19. Her opinion is based solely on the absence of expressions typical of 10th century BCE language in that scene.15 12  Cf. Montgomery, Kings, 251; Jepsen, Quellen, 5; Gray, Kings, 308; Noth, Könige, 269 and 279; Würthwein, Das erste Buch der Könige, 161. Cf., on the other hand, the opinion in Grønbaeck, “Benjamin,” 422–424. 13  Šanda assumes that verse 17 originally followed verse 20; cf. id., Könige, 339; likewise, Gray, Kings, 302–303, n. 1. According to Montgomery, “v. 17, a disturbing interlude, is an intrusion from Ch.,” see id., Kings, 249. Debus suspects a dependency of 2 Chr 11:16–17, id., Sünde, 20. Würthwein assumes also a dependency, but of the parallel of 2 Chr 10:17, id., Das erste Buch der Könige, 157. Noth is inclined to acknowledge the secondary character of the verse, even if he finds no conclusive evidence, see id., Könige, 269 and 277. 14  Cf. Montgomery, Kings, 250; Noth, Könige, 276; Jepsen, Quellen, 5 and 8; Würthwein, Das erste Buch der Könige, 15–16; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktions­ geschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, FRLANT 108 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 25; E. Lipiński, “Le récit de 1 Rois XII 1–19 à la lumière de l’ancien usage de l’hébreu et de nouveaux textes de Mari,” VT 24 (1974): 430–437, esp. 436–437. 15  Cf. Schulte, Entstehung, 217, n. 54: “In IReg 12,1ff. halte ich nur die Verse 1.3b.4abα.13ª.15ª.16. 18.19 für den ursprünglichen Text, der später um die Beratung Rehabeams mit den Alten und den Jungen erweitert wurde. In den angegebenen Versen ist kein Ausdruck typisch für die alte Sprache, doch auch nichts ungewöhnlich. Nur v. 16 šwb (hi.) dabar (auch Vv. 6 u. 9) ist bezeichnend, weil es nur noch in IISam 3,11 (David-Gesch.) vorkommt. Auch die sog. ‘Marseillaise’ (V. 16) hat Beziehung zur David-Geschichte, indem sie IISam 20,1

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

51

In the verses excluded by Schulte, however, there are numerous expressions which correspond to the language of the books of Samuel and which appear with special frequency in the so-called “Succession Story to the Throne of David”: – 1 Kgs 12:5 (12) ‫שלשה ימים‬, cf. 2 Sam 20:4 ‫שלשת ימים‬. In both cases the topic is the call for an assembly after three days. – 12:6 ‫בהיתו חי‬, cf. 2 Sam 12:18. – 12:7 ‫דברים טובים‬, cf. 1 Sam 9:10; 26:16; 2 Sam 15:3; 1 Kgs 2:38, 42. – 12:8 ‫עמד לפני‬, cf. 1 Sam 16:21, 22; 1 Kgs 1:2, 28.16 – 12:6, 8, 9, 13, 28, cf. the chapter 2 Sam 17.17 – 12:6, 9, 16 ‫השיב דבר‬, cf. 2 Sam 3:11, quoted by H. Schulte.18 To her quotation must be added 1 Kgs 2:30 ‫ ;וישב … את המלך דבר‬2 Sam 24:13 ‫מה אשיב שלחי דבר‬. Same expression, ‫השיב את א׳ דבר‬, in 1 Sam 17:30; 2 Sam 3:11; 1 Kgs 20:9; 2 Kgs 22:9, 20. The remaining passages are: Gen 37:14; Exod 19:8; Num 13:2; 22:8; Deut 1:22, 25; Josh 14:7; 22:32; Isa 41:28. – 12:10 ‫קטני עבה ממתני אבי‬. Among the features of 10th century BCE language Schulte points out the absence of sexual inhibition. Noth and Gray recognize that the phrase has a likely obscene meaning.19 – 12:16 ‫מה לנו חלק בדוד ולא נחלה בבן ישי‬. The so-called “Marseillaise” (Schulte) is paralleled in 2 Sam 20:1, with some significant variants. Next to this sentence, attention should be given to three others that also offer a marked parallelism in the structuring of the clause: – 1 Kgs 12:11, 14 ‫אבי יסר אתכם בשוטים‬ ‫ואני איסר אתכם בעקרבים‬

I. Plein attributes the expressiveness of this phrase to the taste of the author of the “Succession History” because of the imagistic language he uses.20 etwas verkürzt und abgewandelt zitiert. Nicht zur alten Sprache gehört rgm ‘steinigen,’ hingegen könnte pšʿ ‘abfallen’ durch ISam 13,3 nach LXX belegt sein.” 16  Cf. Schulte, Entstehung, 217, n. 54: “ʿamad lipnē Gen. 43,15; 1 Sam. 16,21.22; 1 Reg 1,2.28; 3,16; 12,8, sonst profan nur Gen 41,46 (P); im übrigen bei E, Dtn und P ‘vor Gott stehen,’ in der Sprache des 10. Jh.: ‘vor dem Herrscher stehen.’” 17  Cf. Plein, “Erwägungen,” 11: “Die in IReg geschilderte Beratungsszene ist am ehesten mit IISam 17 zu vergleichen …” The root ‫ יעץ‬appears 17 times in 2 Sam; the “counsellor” (‫)יועץ‬ acts in 2 Sam 15:22; cf. 16:20, 23. 18  Cf. supra n. 15. 19  Cf. the chapter “Die sexuelle Unbefangenheit” in Schulte’s book, Entstehung, 195–197. Noth speaks of “einer wahrscheinlich obszönen und vermutlich sprichwörtlichen Redensart,” see id., Könige, 275; cf. also Gray, Kings, 306. 20  Cf. Plein, “Erwägungen,” 12: “An die Neigung des Verfassers der Thronfolgegeschichte zu anscheinlich bildhafter Rede wird man besonders durch die Antwort des Königs an das Volk (12,24) erinnert.”

52

Chapter 3

– 1 Kgs 12:11 (also repeated with some variants in verse 14) ‫אבי העמיס עליכם על כבד‬ ‫ואני אוסיף על עלכם‬

– 12:4

‫אביך הקשה את עלנו‬ ‫ואתה עתה הקל מ … עלו … ונעבדך‬

This phrase has undergone an evident extension, like others in the story. LXX 12:24p probably preserves better the original parallelism, cf. the Hebrew translation by Debus:21 ὁ πατήρ σου ἐβάρυνεν τὸν κλοιὸν αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐβάρυνεν τὰ βρώματα τῆς τραπέζης αὐτοῦ καὶ νῦν εἰ κουφιεῖς σὺ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ δουλεύσομέν σοι

‫אביך הקשה‬ ‫את עלו עלינו‬ ‫ויכבד את מאכל שלחנו‬ ‫ועתה אתה הקל מעלינו‬ ‫ונעבדך‬

Three of the indicated expressions (‫שלשה ימים‬, ‫יעץ‬, ‫ )השיב דבר‬and four of the quoted sentences that present a parallel structure (12:4, 10, 11, [14], 16) are common to both the story of MT 12 and that of LXX 12: 24nβ. p–x. Before any analysis of textual criticism based on the Hebrew text is undertaken, it is important to verify how the LXX renders other expressions and phrases, unparalleled in the Hebrew version, but which also offer the same language and style features proper to the books of Samuel–Kings and more specifically of the “Succession Story.” The following list of expressions and phrases extends to the two accounts that make up the history of Israel’s secession and schism, and in LXX correspond to 12:24b–f and nβ, p–x: – 12:24b και ην επαιρομενος (επι την βασιλειαν). The sentence possibly reflects a Hebrew ‫ויהי מתנשא‬, according to 1 Kgs 1:5 ‫( מתנשא‬επηρετο). The parallel of Dan 11:36 provided by Debus is too distant and inaccurate (‫)ויתרומם‬: King Antiochus proudly “exalts” himself above the gods; on the other hand, Adonijah and Jeroboam are “exalted” and revolt against the king.22

21  See Debus, Sünde, 63. Meyer, who started the negative attitude towards the “midrash” of LXX 12:24a–z, acknowledges that it has preserved original elements; cf. E. Meyer, “Bericht der Septuaginta über Jerobeam,” in, id., Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme. Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen (Halle: Verlag von Max Niemeyer, 1906), 365. 22  Meyer, “Bericht,” 368.

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

53

– 12:24d και ηκουσεν… οτι τεθνηκεν (= ‫)וישמע … כי מת‬, cf. LXX 11:43 και εγενηθη ως ηκουσεν… (LXXL οτι τεθνηκε) (= ‫ ;)ויהי כשמע … כי מת‬2 Sam 4:1 ‫וישמע … כי‬ … ‫ ;מת‬1 Kgs 21:(15), 16 … ‫ויהי כשמע … כי מת‬. – 12:24d, q και ελαλησεν… εις τα ωτα (= ‫)דבר באזן‬, cf. 1 Sam 8:21; 11:4; 18:23; 25:24; 2 Sam 3:19 (2×) The remaining texts that use this expression are: Gen 20:8; 23:13, 16; 44:18; 50:4; Exod 11:2; Num 14:28; Deut 5:1; 31:28, 30; 32:44; Josh 20:4; Judg 9:2, 3. The later texts use the verb ‫קרא‬, cf. the corresponding passages in the book of Jeremiah. – 12:24e και εδωκεν… την Ανω… αυτω εις γυναικα (‫)ויתן … את א׳ … לו לאשה‬, cf. MT 11:19 (the similar story of Hadad) ‫( ויתן לו אשה‬1 Kgs 2:17, 21; 2 Kgs 14:9; 1 Sam 18:17, 19, 27). According to many authors23 the story of Jeroboam’s marriage in Egypt is a copy of the Hadad story (11:19–20). The abovementioned Greek expression of 12:24a reflects better the Semitism with the preposition (‫ ל)אשה‬than 11:19, without the preposition. At the very least, it must be acknowledged that LXX has a Hebrew original, whether such story is or is not a copy of Hadad’s. – 12:24n τας φυλας του Ισραηλ (‫)שבטי ישראל‬, cf. 2 Sam 15:2, 10; 19:10; 20:14; also 1 Sam 2:28; 9:21; 10:20. – 12:24n(y) και ανεβη εκει (εις Σικιμα) Ροβοαμ (= ‫)ויעל שם רחבעם‬, cf. MT 1 Kgs 12:1 ‫וילך רחבעם שכם‬. Roboam’s “ascent” takes place from Jerusalem to Shechem, as was the case in 12:24y. As it is in fact a descent, this text should be included with the other four (Yahwistic) passages which use the word “ascend” with the meaning of “going up the land,” that is, northwards.24 – 12:24p τα βρωματα της τραπεζης (αυτου) (‫)מאכל שלחנו‬, cf. 1 Kgs 10:5 (= 2 Chr 9:4). Meyer himself acknowledges this expression as an original element of the narrative.25

23  Montgomery, Kings, 256. 24  Cf. S.R. Driver, “On ‫‘ עלה‬went up country’ and ‫‘ ירד‬went down country,’” ZAW 69 (1957): 74–77, esp. 76: “In all instances in which ‫ עלה‬refers to going downhill, the journeys are actually in a northerly direction, though not necessarily towards Jerusalem; they are directly N. (Ziph to Gibeah, ISam xxviii 19), to the N.E. (Rehobot to Beersheba, Gen xxvi 23, Maon to Engedi, 1Sam xxiv 1) or N.W. (Engedi to Adullam, ISam xxiv 13) … The most probable conclusion then is that ‫‘ עלה‬went up’ may be used of goings northwards, i.e., ‘up country,’ and ‫‘ ירד‬went down’ may be used of going southwards, i.e., ‘down country,’ without reference to the heights involved.” 25  Meyer, “Bericht,” 365.

54

Chapter 3

– 12:24q οι πρεσβυτεροι του λαου (‫)זקני העם‬. This expression appears only in 1 Sam 15:30 and Num 11:16, 24; Isa 3:14; Jer 19:1; Ruth 4:4. A similar juxtaposition of “elders of Israel” – “tribes of Israel” is found in 2 Sam 5:3 (verse 1).26 – 12:24r και διεσκεδασεν Ροβοαμ την βουλην αυτων (‫;)ויפר רחבעם את עצתם‬27 the matching parallel in MT 12:8 has ‫ויעזב את עצת הזקנים‬, cf. 2 Sam 15:34 και διασκεδασεις μοι την βουλην Αχιτοφελ (‫)והפרתה לי את עצת אחיתפל‬, 2 Sam 17:4 αγαθη η βουλη… και Κυριος ενετειλατο διασκεδασαι την βουλην (… ‫טבה עצת‬ … ‫ ;)ויהוה צוה להפר את עצת‬cf. also Ps 33:10 ‫ הניא מחשבות עמים‬/ ‫יהוה הפיר עצת‬ ‫ ;גוים‬Job 5:12–13; ‫ ;מפר מחשבות ערומים … עצת‬Prov 15:22 ‫הפר מחשבות באין סוד‬ ‫וברב יועצים תקום‬. − 12:24r, s. ηρεσεν ενωπιον + genitive, ‫ייטב בעני‬, according to the typical equation of OG ενωπιον = ‫בעני‬. In Samuel–Kings the same expression may be found in 1 Sam 18:5; 24:5; 2 Sam 3:36; 18:4; 1 Kgs 3:10. The remaining passages are: Gen 41:37; 45:16; Lev 10:18, 20; Deut 1:23; Josh 22:30, 33; Est 1:21; 2:4, 9. The Vorlage of the LXX narrative has not undergone a Deuteronomistic redaction. Also, its text shows affinities with other Samuel/Kings stories. – 12:24r και απεστειλεν και εισηγαγεν (‫)וישלח ויביא‬, cf. 1 Sam 16:12 ‫וישלח ויביאהו‬. – 12:24t και ειπεν πας ο λαος ως ανηρ εις εκαστος τω πλησιον αυτου (‫ויאמר כל העם‬ ‫)האיש אחד איש אל רעהו‬, Judg 10:18; 1 Sam 10:11 ‫ויאמר העם איש אל רעהו‬, the expression ‫ אמר אל רעהו‬also appears in Gen 11:3; Judg 6:29; 2 Kgs 7:3, 9. The expression ‫ כאיש אחד‬appears in 1 Sam 11:7; 2 Sam 19:15 and, finally, in Judg 6:16; 20:1; 20:8; 20:11. – 12:24t Ου μερις ημιν εν Δαυειδ ουδε κληρονομια εν υιω Ιεσσαι. This text (… ‫אין לני‬ … ‫ )ולא‬is more similar to 2 Sam 20:1 (… ‫ )אין לני … ולא‬than to the Hebrew text of 12:16: … ‫מה לנו … ולא‬. Against M. Noth’s opinion, the parallelism of the clause is more perfect with the double negation than with the interrogativenegative of 12:16.28 – 12:24t (ουκ εις) αρχοντα ουδε εις ηγουμενα (‫)לא לראש ולא לנגיד‬. The Hebrew word ‫ ראש‬appears only in 1 Sam 15:17 ‫ ראש שבטי ישראל‬and in the story of Jephthah, Judg 10:18; 11:8, 9, 11. – 12:24u και απηλθεν εκαστος εις το σκηνωμα αυτου, cf. 2 Sam 18:17 ‫;נסו איש לאהלו‬ 2 Sam 20:22 ‫איש לאהליו‬. The equivalent text of MT 12:16b is ‫וילך ישראל לאהליו‬. 26  On these institutions, cf. G. Buccellati, Cities and Nations of Ancient Syria. An Essay on Political Institutions with Special Reference to the Israelite Kingdoms, SS 26 (Roma: Università di Roma, 1967), 124, n. 149. 27  Debus, Sünde, 63. 28  Cf. Noth, Könige, 276–277: “Er [der Spruch] ist jedenfalls rhythmisch geformt, beginnend mit einem Doppeldreier mit parallelismus membrorum, der in 1 Kö 12 besser erhalten ist als in 2 S 20 (auch der rhetorisch fragende ‫ מה‬am Anfang wirkt eindrucksvoller und ursprünglicher als ‫)אין‬.”

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

55

Against the affinity between 1 Kgs 12 and the Succession Story, I. Plein objects that 12:16b presents a different formulation from 2 Sam 18:17 and 20:22, which are, on the contrary, identical.29 The same cannot be said of the expression of LXX 12:24u, which coincides with both passages of the Succession Story. – 12:24x και εγενετο ενισταμενου του ειναυτου… και ανεβη του πολεμειν προς… (… ‫)ויהי בראשית השנה … ויעל להלחם עם‬, cf. 2 Sam 11:1 ‫;ויהי לתשובה השנה‬ 1 Kgs 20:26 … ‫ ;ויהי לתשיבה השנה … ויעל אפקה למלחמה עם‬2 Kgs 3:21 ‫כי עלו‬ ‫המלכים להלחם בם‬. – 12:24x παντα ανδρα Ιουδα (‫)כל איש יהודה‬. The parallel text of MT 12:21 is ‫ ;כל בית יהודה‬cf., on the contrary, 2 Sam 19:15, 43 ‫כל איש יהודה‬. After the analysis of the expressions and formulae of MT 12:5–14 and LXX 12:24b–f, nβ, p–x it is possible to propose some first conclusions. There is no justification for the critical operation proposed by H. Schulte, who removes from the story almost all of the aforementioned verses of 1 Kgs 12. In literary criticism, a lexical criterion alone is very random and uncertain. On the other hand, it is incongruous to keep, as Schulte does, verses 13a and 15a if the previous verses, on which both depend, are removed. The richness of characteristic expressions of 1–2 Samuel and in particular of the Succession Story found in the account of LXX 12:24 is very significant. This means that the Greek text is based on a faithfully translated Hebrew original. At the same time, it constitutes a first indication of the antiquity of this form of the story, divergent from that of MT chapter 12. Also meaningful is the fact that the two versions of the story coincide more literally in those phrases and expressions that constitute the nucleus of the narrative and around which the other narrative elements revolve. This means that those sentences of parallel structure and of a proverbial and poetic tone, as well as some of the expressions mentioned, are the most original and stable core of the story. The other narrative elements may have undergone considerable editorial modifications in the form of either version of the narrative.30 In addition to the already mentioned secondary verses, 12:15b and 17, verses 18a, 19, 20a are not part of the narrative material common to both versions either. Verse 18 on the stoning of Adoniram, head of public works or forced labor, “is probably a genuine data, coming from a source close to the facts.” 29  Plein, “Erwägungen,” 12. 30  Coincidences between both forms of the narrative are more numerous than the ones mentioned, as the comparison carried out by Debus indicates. In her comparative synopsis, underlining indicates words and phrases where the narrative of the LXX Vorlage does not coincide with MT; cf. Debus, Sünde, 63–64.

56

Chapter 3

It is, however, probably an addition.31 Verse 19 ‫ויפשעו ישראל בבית דויד עד היום הזה‬ can only be an editorial addition, as recently acknowledged by E. Würthwein.32 On the contrary, according to I. Plein, if “Israel is separated from the House of David to this day,” this presupposes the existence at the time when that phrase was written not only of the kingdom of the South, but also of the Northern Kingdom. Consequently, verse 19 must have been formed before the year 722 and under no circumstances can it come from the Deuteronomistic redaction. The formula “to this day” is the conclusion of an etymological account.33 It must be said, however, that the narrator does not intend to explain the contemporary fact of the division of Israel and Judah. The redactor has used an already existing account and by adding that formula attests that the conditions derived from the division are still valid at his time. It may be the time of Josiah, with the interests and attempts to reunify the kingdom. By then, a century after the fall of Samaria, the consciousness of division was still alive. Noth points out as the last possible terminus ad quem the year 587, although probably it is not necessary to go down so much in time.34 The term ‫ פשע‬that qualifies as “schism” the political secession is purely Deuteronomistic. Similarly, the opposition of the terms “House of David” and “Israel” reappears only once in reference to the schism of Israel in 2 Kgs 17:21, in a Deuteronomistic context and in close proximity to the formula “to this day” (17:23; in Kings this formula is used a third and last time in 2 Kgs 8:22). The expression “House of David” appears in 1 Sam 20:16; 2 Sam 3:1, 6; 1 Kgs 12:19–20 (cf. verse 16); 12:26; 13:2; 14:8; 2 Kgs 17:21. It can be said that all of the passages in Kings correspond to a dtr redaction. Regarding 2 Sam 3:1 Schulte considers this verse “as a late addition of predominantly Deuteronomistic character.”35 The reading of 1 Sam 20:16 entails its own difficulties.36 The account of LXX 12: 24u–x moves directly from what in the Hebrew MT story is verse 18b–20b, 21: 31  Cf. Gray, Kings, 300. Schulte (Entstehung, 217, n. 54) comments that the word ‫רגם‬, “to stone,” is not a feature of ancient language. Noth (Könige, 278) denies the secondary character of v. 18a and insists on the authenticity of the narrative. 32  Würthwein, Das erste Buch der Könige, 158. 33  Plein, “Erwägungen,” 8–9. 34  Cf. Noth, Könige, 272. In his study of the formula “until this day,” B.S. Childs classifies 1 Kgs 12:19 among “political etiologies” (1 Kgs 12:19 = 2 Chr 10:19; 2 Kgs 8:22 = 2 Chr 21:10; 2 Kgs 17:23; 1 Chr 5:26): “We conclude, therefore, that in none of these examples is there a genuine etiology involved. Historical traditions, some of which stemmed from the annals of Judah, were later joined to the formula. In every case, the formula was secondary”; see id., “A Study on the Formula ‘Until This Day,’” JBL 82 (1963): 279–292, esp. 289. 35  Schulte, Entstehung, 166. 36  On 1 Sam 20:16 cf. H.J. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT VIII/1 (Gütersloh: 1973), 376.

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

καὶ διεσπάρη πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἐκ Σικιμων καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸ σκήνωμα αὐτοῦ καὶ κατεκράτησεν Ροβοαμ καὶ ἀπῆλθεν καὶ ἀνέβη ἐπὶ τὸ ἅρμα αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Ιερουσαλημ καὶ πορεύονται ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ πᾶν σκῆπτρον Ιουδα καὶ πᾶν σκῆπτρον Βενιαμιν [24] καὶ ἐγένετο ἐνισταμένου τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ καὶ συνήθροισεν Ροβοαμ πάντα ἄνδρα Ιουδα καὶ Βενιαμιν καὶ ἀνέβη τοῦ πολεμεῖν πρὸς Ιεροβοαμ εἰς Σικιμα

57 12:16b

‫והמלך רחבעם התאמץ‬ ‫לעלות במרכב‬

12:18b

…………………………..

12:19 12:20b

‫לנוס ירושלם‬

‫לא היה אחרי בית דוד‬ ‫זולתי שבט יהודה לבדו‬ ‫ויבאו רחבעם ירושלם‬

12:21

‫ויקהל את כל בית‬ ‫יהודה ואת שבט בנימן‬ ‫מאה ושמנים אלף בחור‬ ‫עשה מלחמה‬ ‫להלחם‬ ‫עם בית ישראל‬ ‫להשיב את המלוכה‬ ‫לרחבעם בן שלמה‬

The LXX story flows in a smooth and light narrative stream. Rehoboam rides in his chariot and enters Jerusalem. The two tribes of Judah and Benjamin come to his side. At the beginning of the year Rehoboam summons Judahites and Benjaminites and “ascends” to Shechem in war against Jeroboam. This form of the narrative ignores all the material corresponding to verses 19 and 20a. The suspicion that such verses are not part of the original account is confirmed by the double mention that frames and makes possible the insertion of such verses: the “flight to Jerusalem” (verse 18b) and “Rehoboam’s going to Jerusalem” (verse 21). Taking as a basis only the text of 1 Kgs 12, it is useless and meaningless to try to reconstruct the original story in all its details. The text has undergone such a reworking that the clues shown by literary criticism based on just MT 1 Kgs 12 do not allow safe conclusions susceptible of consensus between scholars. From the previous analysis, however, it is possible to state an observation that allows the discussion to be advanced: the materials common to both versions of the story make up the most stable and original core of the story. Of the remaining materials, it is significant what is missing from the Greek story and what is added in the Hebrew one. In the LXX version not even the slightest indication of a Deuteronomistic redaction can be detected. This is a phenomenon that encompasses the whole of the Alternative History (12:24–z) and has

58

Chapter 3

always attracted the attention of scholars. A “haggadic” reworking on 1 Kgs 12 would be very strange and unlikely. It would imply to remove accurately every sign of religious dtr thought in verses 15b and 19, the explicit allusions to the providence of Yahweh in verse 15, the Chronicler’s disquisitions on the Israelites who lived in Judah in verse 17, and the question of the intervention or absence of Rehoboam in the discussions of the assembly, an issue that already worried glossers and copyists in verse 3a and 12a (Q/K). In the dtr version of 1 Kgs 12, also secondary, in addition to the verses already cited, are 15b, 17, verses 18a, 19 and 20a, as well as the sentence of verse 16: “Look for your house, David,” and many other formulations of materials that were originally part of the story, but whose precise formulation cannot be reconstructed, as happens, for example and especially, in verses 20b, 21. The two versions of the story exhibit a series of features and differences that need to be analyzed in more detail to determine the origin and intention of each and, ultimately, the truthfulness of the historical data that each one supplies. 1.4 Literary Form The analysis of the structure and literary form of the narrative is decisive to determine the intention and content of the story. The author of 1 Kgs 12 was, according to Lipiński, a sage who intended to delight his audience with his narrative art and at the same time to instruct in the practice of good government. For the sake of this literary and pedagogical purpose, the author sacrifices the story itself, for where he should say “the elders of Israel” he says “the elders of Solomon,” transforming into court discussion between old and young counselors what in fact was a violent clash between the elders of the tribes of Israel and the young king, ill-advised by his young courtiers. According to Lipiński, the story of 1 Kgs 12 has a concentric structure: A. Purpose of the assembly (v. 1) B. Discourse of the people (vv. 3b–4) C. King’s address to the people (v. 5) D. Council of the elders (‫ויועץ‬, v. 6; ‫וידברו‬, v. 7) E. Negative attitude of the king (v. 8a) D′. Council of the “companions” (‫ויועץ‬, vv. 8b–9; ‫וידברו‬, vv. 10–11) C′. King’s speech to the people (vv. 12–14) B′. Discourse of the people (v. 16) A′. Result of the assembly (vv. 18–19)

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

59

Lipiński finds the key to the story in the central clause “and he rejected the counsel of the elders who had counseled him” (verse 8a). The narrator is more concerned with the “moral” of the story than with the story itself: a king must listen and follow the wise advice of “the elders of the people.” The text actually speaks of the “elders who served Solomon,” but Lipiński interprets this expression as if it meant the “elders who had opposed Solomon.”37 Lipiński introduces into the interpretation of 1 Kgs 12 an element of LXX 12:24q, which seems more likely from a historical and literary point of view: the opposition between the “elders of Israel” on the one hand and the king with his courtiers on the other. This opposition makes of the structure of the story according to LXX a neat model of parallelism. The correlation between the various parts of the narrative and the parallel repetition of similar phrases generates the various levels of the antithesis that construct the narrative: the people are willing to recognize Rehoboam’s sovereignty under less harsh conditions than those imposed by Solomon. Rehoboam listens to the elders and rejects their advice. He favours, on the contrary, the advice of the courtiers. In his response to the people he threatens to exacerbate the conditions of oppression in force. The people refuse all subjection to Rehoboam considering him inept for the functions of government (see text below). Between the correlative speeches of the people to Rehoboam (A–A′) and of Rehoboam to the people (B–B′), Rehoboam’s counsel with “the elders of the people” and with “his companions” (C–C′) is structured in parallel clauses, which underscore the antithesis between characters and attitudes: 1. “Bring me the elders”—1′ “And he had his companions brought” 2. “And he spoke … as the people has communicated” – 2′ “And he spoke … thus has the people communicated” 3. “And the elders of the people said”—3′ “And his companions said” 4. “Thus you will say to the people in a good way”—4′ “Thus you will say to the people saying …”

37  Cf. Lipiński, “Récit,” 430–31 and 436–37: “La morale de l’histoire est donc claire: il convient au roi d’écouter et de suivre les sages conseils des anciens du peuple, « les anciens d’Israël », que l’auteur aurait normalement dû employer s’il avait voulu faire œuvre de pur historien. C’est de façon analogue que se justifie l’emploi du terme yelādīm au lieu d’une mention précise des conseillers royaux présents à Sichem. Manifestement, le dessein de l’auteur était surtout littéraire et éducatif. Le récit est l’œuvre d’un sage.”

60

Chapter 3

5. “Rehoboam38 undid their counsel and it did not please him”—5′ “The proposal pleased Rehoboam” A

B C

1

2 3 4 5 C′

1′ 2′ 3′ 4′

B′ A′

5′

[24p] καὶ εἶπεν ὁ λαὸς πρὸς Ροβοαμ υἱὸν Σαλωμων ὁ πατήρ σου ἐβάρυνεν τὸν κλοιὸν αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐβάρυνεν τὰ βρώματα τῆς τραπέζης αὐτοῦ καὶ νῦν εἰ κουφιεῖς σὺ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ δουλεύσομέν σοι καὶ εἶπεν Ροβοαμ πρὸς τὸν λαόν ἔτι τριῶν ἡμερῶν καὶ ἀποκριθήσομαι ὑμῖν ῥῆμα [24q] καὶ εἶπεν Ροβοαμ εἰσαγάγετέ μοι τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ συμβουλεύσομαι μετ᾽ αὐτῶν τί ἀποκριθῶ τῷ λαῷ ῥῆμα ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ ἐλάλησεν Ροβοαμ εἰς τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν καθὼς ἀπέστειλεν ὁ λαὸς πρὸς αὐτόν καὶ εἶπον οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ οὕτως ἐλάλησεν πρὸς σὲ ὁ λαός [24r] καὶ διεσκέδασεν Ροβοαμ τὴν βουλὴν αὐτῶν καὶ οὐκ ἤρεσεν ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπέστειλεν καὶ εἰσήγαγεν τοὺς συντρόφους αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων ταῦτα καὶ ταῦτα ἀπέστειλεν πρός με ὁ λαός καὶ εἶπαν οἱ σύντροφοι αὐτοῦ οὕτως λαλήσεις πρὸς τὸν λαὸν λέγων ἡ μικρότης μου παχυτέρα ὑπὲρ τὴν ὀσφὺν τοῦ πατρός μου ὁ πατήρ μου ἐμαστίγου ὑμᾶς μάστιγξιν ἐγὼ δὲ κατάρξω ὑμῶν ἐν σκορπίοις [19] καὶ ἤρεσεν τὸ ῥῆμα ἐνώπιον Ροβοαμ καὶ ἀπεκρίθη τῷ λαῷ καθὼς συνεβούλευσαν αὐτῷ οἱ σύντροφοι αὐτοῦ τὰ παιδάρια [20] καὶ εἶπεν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ὡς ἀνὴρ εἷς ἕκαστος τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνέκραξαν ἅπαντες λέγοντες οὐ μερὶς ἡμῖν ἐν Δαυιδ οὐδὲ κληρονομία ἐν υἱῷ Ιεσσαι εἰς τὰ σκηνώματά σου Ισραηλ ὅτι οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὐκ εἰς ἄρχοντα οὐδὲ εἰς ἡγούμενον

38  The same verb διασκεδω is used in 2 Sam 15:31 (‫ )סכל‬and 17:14 (‫ )הפר‬referring to Ahitophel’s counsel.

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

61

The antithetic structure and the correlation of the various elements and expressions of the narrative are perfectly crafted. The acceptance of one plan explicitly contrasts with the rejection of another. Consequently, the initial good will of the people is transformed into open rebellion. The structure that Lipiński seems to discover in 1 Kgs 12 is, on the contrary, more thematic than formal. The proposed central phrase, verse 8, has no highlight in the whole of the narrative nor is it even marked by an inversion. Lipiński does not take into account the literal repetition of this phrase in verse 13b, which would confirm the wisdom character of the story, but which, like so many of the repetitions in chapter 12, thwarts any possible formal structure of the story, since literary criticism fails to reconstruct an allegedly original repetition-free original. The formal comparison of the two versions of the story favours the one attested by the LXX translation. In it there are no disturbing interferences such as Jeroboam’s meddling (12:12); or a deus ex machina (12:15); or repetitions that could be attributed to the bombast of Oriental discourse (12:4b, 9b, 10aβ…), but which are undoubtedly foreign and alien to the original form of the story. The narrative of LXX 3 Kingdoms 12:24nβ–x is short. In spite of the apparent stiffness of parallelism, it advances lightly, adding in each correlative sentence new information that prepares Rehoboam’s response to the people and their fulminating reaction. The parallelism of the narrative framework fits with the poetic parallelism of the speeches of counselors and the people, discourses of pure wisdom proverb-like style which open and close the assembly (A–A′) and point to the high point of the deliberations (C′ 4′). The three speeches bring into play the same triad of references: you/my father Solomon, you/Rehoboam, us/Israel. The literary structure proposed by Lipiński is based on an uncertain assumption regarding the narrative of chapter 12, which is also absolutely false regarding LXX 12: 24nβ–x. Lipiński, like many other scholars, concludes the story with the condemnatory and etiological formula of verse 19. On the other hand, in the LXX version the story continues without interruption. The failure of the negotiations leads to the beginning of hostilities. The narrator is not content with sending the Israelites to their tents and Rehoboam to his city of Jerusalem. In the new year Rehoboam calls on Judahites and Benjaminites to participate in the war and “ascends” to Shechem. After the immediate cessation of hostilities, Jeroboam appears finally established in his capital, Shechem (12:24u.x; 12:25). In this way the narrative circle which had begun with the call of Jeroboam to the tribes of Israel to go to Shechem and with the ascent of Rehoboam to this city (12:24b) comes full circle. The scope and significance of this account is not reduced to a pure literary plaything and a wise instruction on the art of good government. Lipiński

62

Chapter 3

acknowledges that in the background of the literary narrative and of the historical events there is an underlying opposition between “the elders of the people” of Israel and the pretender to the throne supported by his courtiers of Jerusalem. This opposition moves to the battlefield and is resolved by the division of the tribes into two kingdoms, each endowed with its own political and religious capital (Jerusalem and Shechem, with the frontier sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel). 1.5 Literary Genre, Sitz im Leben, and Intention The “Story of Secession and Schism of Israel” is part of a unitary ensemble, composed of two literary units which develop two episodes of the story: Jeroboam’s flight from Solomon; and Jeroboam’s and Shechem’s political-religious victory over Rehoboam and Jerusalem. The total constitutes, therefore, the history of the political secession and religious schism of Israel. Literary materials in this story are preserved, although in a very elaborate way, in MT 1 Kgs 11:26–28*, 40; 12:2 (according to LXX 11:43*); 12:1*, 3b–14*, 16*, 18b*20*, 25, 28–29, 30b, 32*. In the alternative version of LXX, the materials would be 12:24b–dα, f, nβ, p–x. According to Jepsen, the Nebi’istic redactor (RII) collected these materials from oral traditions and inserted them into his historical work. It is nevertheless more probable that from the beginning the “Story of Secession and Schism” constituted a written tradition or at least involved a set form very close to the written one. The Deuteronomistic redaction incorporated this tradition in the same way as it selected other blocks of written materials, like, saliently, the “Succession Story.”39 The “Story of Secession and Schism of Israel” constitutes a veritable historical narrative (“miniature history,” I. Plein) and not a mere Cervantine “exemplary novella” (Jepsen: “Beispielerzählung”) with the didactic and wisdom aims of the shaming of unskilled kings and counsellors.40 The origin of this story should be found in circles close to the author or authors of the Succession Story and of the “Yahwistic” history in general.41 39  Cf. Jepsen, Quellen, 78: “Auch I 12 wird mündlicher Überlieferung entstammen, aber anderen Kreisen als die Nabi-Erzählungen.” By contrast, cf. Schulte, Entstehung, 203. 40  Cf. Jepsen, Quellen, 78: “Nicht in erster Linie Geschichte, sondern … als Beispielerzählung einer Weisheitsschule … in dem Dienst der Lehre.” On the other hand, cf. Plein, “Erwägungen,” 15: “Die in I Reg 12,1–19 vorliegende literarische Einheit wird deshalb ebenso wie das große Werk von der Thronnachfolge und wohl auch jenes von Aufstieg Davids dem Bereich der Geschichtsschreibung zuzuweisen sein. Ebenso wie die beiden großen, in den Samuelisbüchern erhaltenen Werke nahm Dtr. auch dieses Miniaturgeschichtswerk in nahezu unveränderter Form in seine Darstellung der Geschichte Israels auf.” Cf. also Noth, Könige, 270; Gray, Kings, 311. 41  I use the term “Yahwistic” in a very general sense and not in the classical and precise one of “Yahwistic source,” which presently faces a new moment of opposition started by

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

63

The politico-religious secession of Israel and its literal rendering bring to a close the old history and the ancient narratives on the struggles for sovereignty (status of firstborn, cf. Reuben and Judah) between Joseph and Judah, that is, between the House of Joseph or the tribes close to Joseph on the one hand, and the House of Judah on the other; between Israelite supporters of the House of Saul and David and his supporters; between David and the Israelite supporters of the House of Saul who survived the purge (Ishbaal, Michal, Mephiboshet); between David and Absalom, presented as the advocate of oppressed Israelites; between David and the Benjaminite Shimei, who proclaimed that “Yahweh has avenged the blood of the House of Saul and put the kingdom in Absalom’s hands” (2 Sam 16:8); and between David and yet another Benjaminite, Sheba, whom “all Israelites” followed, forsaking David (2 Sam 20:21). The conflict continues between Solomon and those who contest his legitimacy: Abiathar, descendant of the Shiloh Israelite priesthood; Adonijah, Absalom’s younger and also handsome brother (1 Kgs 1:6) and, again, the already-known Benjaminite, Shimei. In general, there are not too many objections against the attribution of the “Story of Secession and Schism” to circles close to the authors of the Yahwistic historical narrative and the Succession Story. It is enough to remember that Hölscher did place the end of the Yahwistic History exactly at 1 Kgs 12.42 Arguments for it come mostly from the field of language and style of these narratives. The analysis I have presented above on shared expressions is good evidence thereof. A generic attribution to Yahwistic origins often takes a more particular form in further attribution to Judaean circles, that is, of the Southern Kingdom, in opposition to the Kingdom of Israel. Gray attributes the version of the story of 1 Kgs 11:26ff.; 12 to Judaean origins and the version preserved in LXX 12:24+ to Northern Kingdom sources. Each presents its own set of data which indicate Judaean or Israelite points of view.43 In the version of the story according to MT 1 Kgs 12 it is easy to spot details which in fact support Judaean interests and attitudes and which are missing in the LXX version. The most meaningful R. Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977). 42  G. Hölscher, Geschichtsschreibung in Israel. Untersuchungen zum Jahvisten und Elohisten, Acta Reg. Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 50 (Lund: Gleerup, 1952), 288. Cf. the reasons of L. Rost, “Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids,” in id., Das Kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965), 136–138; Plein, “Erwägungen,” 11–15; see also Noth, Könige, 270; D.M. Gunn, The Story of King David. Genre and Interpretation, JSOTSup 6 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978), 65–66. 43  Gray, Kings, 300–301.

64

Chapter 3

detail is the condemnatory clause in verse 19 which, according to Gray and others, closes the narrative: “Israel broke the unity (‫ )פשע‬with the House of David to this day.” This biased sentence does not belong, nevertheless, to the original form of the narrative, and for that reason it is not valid evidence in the discussion on the origin of the narrative. Other less striking data also show Judaean concerns: references to Solomon (12:6) and to his minister Adoram (12:18); Jeroboam’s coronation as the aims of the assembly and the justification of his travel to Shechem (12:1) when, according to the LXX version, the initiative of gathering the tribes is taken not by Rehoboam, but by Jeroboam; the detail given to and continuous repetition of the consultations between Rehoboam and his Jerusalem advisors, elder and young, always presented as distinct from the Northern tribes which, in the LXX version, take an active role in the deliberations through the “elders of the people”; the attention given to these deliberations is not proportionate to the rest of the narrative, and this becomes more evident when confronted with the LXX narrative; finally, the justification of the war against Israel “to return royal power to Rehoboam, son of Solomon” (12:21) and the reference to the House of David in the Israelites’ proclamation of independence: “Look after your House, David” (12:16; cf. also verses 26–28). All these details involve verses and sentences which have already been proven secondary in relationship to the original form of the narrative. This same “Southern” revision, of an anti-Solomonic tendency, has affected, as I will show, the prophetic passage of the oracle and symbolic action of Ahijah, locating the event in the environs of Jerusalem and during Solomon’s life, including the reference to this king in an oracle which originally referred only to the tribes of Israel. The same “Southern” redaction has affected both the secession story and the prophetic oracle which interprets that story (11:26–29; 12). On the other hand, it would be false to interpret a higher frequency of references to Jeroboam and Shechem in the LXX version of the narrative as indicators of a partisan attitude favourable to the Northern Kingdom, and thus attribute this version of the story to Israelite circles which expressed their opposition to the South. Also, the more explicit references to Solomon’s oppression (rise of taxation for the “royal table”) and to Rehoboam’s incompetence (as captain and nagid) do not go beyond the usual, also visible in the Succession Story: Absalom defends the rights of the oppressed tribes of Israel; Solomon brutally eliminates all his possible enemies; David, in his final days, is a weak king, unfit to rule. The story in its first version according to LXX 12:24a–z was not so biased in representing the specific interests and points of view of either of two kingdoms which fought each other with weapons in the field and with stylus in the official propaganda reflected in stories such as this. Doubtless, this produces in the reader a certain sympathy towards Jeroboam, a skilled

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

65

manager unfairly persecuted, and towards the upstarts in the Assembly at Shechem, together with a clear antipathy against Solomon, the oppressor, and Rehoboam, the unfit.44 2

Ahijah’s/Shemaiah’s Symbolic Action and Oracle

The precise delimitation of the extension of this unit constitutes a basic step for determining its meaning and scope and establishing the priority of either preserved version: the first (MT 11:29ff.) accompanied by a long Deuteronomistic addition; the second (LXX 12:24 o) defined by a very simple and archaic formal structure (command—fulfillment). 2.1 MT 11:29ff. The beginning of the unit in verse 29 entails no difficulties, but when it comes to defining its end and telling the original narrative apart from the dtr comment, opinions are many and very different. M. Noth in his 1943 book Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien attributes to the old narrative verses 11:29aβb, 31, 36abα, 37. In his commentary to Kings (1968), Noth assumes that verses 29–39 constitute a mostly congruous unit.45 Jepsen draws a distinction between a “story of Ahijah and Jeroboam,” 11:29– 31a and Ahijah’s “prophetic speech,” added in 11:31b, 38bα. Snaith qualifies 11:31– 39 as “fully Deuteronomic in tone.”46 Gray wavers between attributing verse 32 to the prophetic narrative or to the dtr addition. According to Debus, the 11:32– 38b passage belongs to dtr in origin and crafting. Dietrich isolates an older stratum, where he places verses 29–31, 33a, 34a, 35abα, 37aβγb. Würthwein also defines two strata: one with allusions to the Ten Tribes only (verses 31, 33a, 34abα, 35, 37), the other considering the fate of Judah’s tribe alone (verses 32, 33b, 34bβ, 36, 38).47 44  The LXX expression is usually seen as an insult to Jeroboam, son of a prostitute and rebellious ab initio; cf., e.g., Montgomery, Kings, 253. 45  Cf. M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Halle: 1943; Tübingen: 19673), 72; id., Könige, 246. 46  Jepsen, Quellen, 15 and 20; N.H. Snaith, The First and Second Books of Kings. Introduction and Exegesis, IntB (New York: Abingdon 1954), 109. 47  Gray, Kings, 288: “A Deuteronomistic expansion (vv. 33–39)”; id., Kings, 296: “the retention of one tribe by the house of David (vv. 32–35, cf. v. 13) may be part of the original tradition.” Cf. Debus, Sünde, 11, n. 19; Dietrich, Prophetie, 19; Würthwein, Könige, 139–142. According to Seebass the old Ahijah tradition features in verses 26–28, 29aβb, 37, 38b, 40, see id., “Zur Teilung der Herrschaft Salomos nach I Reg 11:29–39,” ZAW 88 (1976): 363–375, esp. 373. Seebass identifies a possible double tradition in the Ahijah narrative,

66

Chapter 3

The problem thus lies first in placing the literary division which tells the narrative apart from the added dtr comment or comments: this division can be located between verses 31a and 31b or after verse 32 or 33. Criteria used in literary criticism of this passage are generally based on dtr vocabulary and thematic tensions within the passage. Jepsen does not detail his reasons for placing the literary break exactly after verse 31a. I will study this verse, contributing to the discussion with essentially literary arguments instead of content considerations or the blurry proposals based on presumably dtr vocabulary. 1. Verse 31b has a two-member structure: ‫הנני קרע את הממלכה מיד שלמה‬ ‫ונתתי לך את עשרה השבטים‬

This sentence reproduces the same phrasing of other passages: 1 Sam 15:28; 28:17; 1 Kgs 11:11(13); 11:31(32); 14:8. The analysis of these passages allows to detect the existence of a formula which contains the following elements: ‫קרע (יהוה) את הממלכה‬ ‫ונתנה ל‬

The subject thereof is always Yahweh in the 1st (1 Sam 15:28; 1 Kgs 11:11, 31; 14:8) or 3rd person (1 Sam 28:17), in different verbal forms (participle, qatal, yiqtol). In 1 Sam 28:17 and 1 Kgs 11:31 we find ‫ מיד‬instead of ‫מעל‬. The formula appears in direct speech with the dispossessed king, reflected in the pronoun. The second part of the formula also refers to another person, to whom royal power will be granted (1 Sam 15:28; 28:17; 1 Kgs 11:31). The object of the verb ‫ נתן‬is a pronoun which refers to the previous noun ‫ממלכה‬. In 11:(34), 35 there is another reflection of this formula with the verb ‫ לקח‬instead of ‫ קרע‬and in parallel with ‫נתן‬. The text of 11:31b is the only one to include meaningful variants to this formula, and they are: 11:29–39. See id., “Zur Königserhebung Jerobeams I,” VT 17 (1967): 325–33, 327: “Die eine dieser beiden Traditionen sprach Jerobeam das gesamtisraelit. Königtum zu, die andere das Königtum über 10 Stämme.” The first tradition is preserved in 11:11–13, in agreement with LXX 12:24b (Jeroboam’s attempt to obtain “all” of Solomon’s power) and with MT 12:20a (the tribes crown Jeroboam as king “over all Israel”). Some elements of this tradition still surface in 11:35abα and 31bα, to which 34a belongs. Seebass changes the position of 12:24 o, which should follow the election of Jeroboam as king (MT 12:20a). The second tradition promises Jeroboam ten tribes. It appears in 11:13 and in the addition “the ten tribes” of 35bβ. Shemaiah’s second speech shows this same concern; see Seebass, “Zur Königserhebung Jerobeams I,” 327–28.

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

67

– The sentence is not pronounced in a dialog with the deposed king, Solomon, but with the newly designated king, Jeroboam. Thus, the references to both members are blurred: the first one speaks of the dispossessed king in the 3rd person and the second refers to the new king in the 2nd person. – The object which is granted (‫ )נתן‬is not the “kingdom,” reflected in the pronoun ‫ה‬, but the “Twelve Tribes.” The formula has thus in 11:31b undergone a double adaptation, related to the previous context: Ahijah’s oracle and symbolic action are directed to Jeroboam and not Solomon; the mention and grant of the “Ten Tribes” mimics the giving of ten parts of Ahijah’s mantle to Jeroboam. Therefore, it seems to be a perfect adequacy between the narrative of the symbolic action and the oracle which interprets it. 2. Nevertheless, there are tensions between the two texts and parallels with others which call for a literary divide between narrative and oracle, that is, after verse 31a. The word ‫ קרע‬assures the connection between the two units. There is an interplay of meanings within the same term: a movement from the sense of “rending” to “tearing off from.”48 The oracle does not limit itself to explaining the implications of the prophetic symbol; when it adds an explicit mention of Solomon, it goes beyond the prophetic narrative which had fully ignored Solomon. In the narrative, the mantle symbolizes the kingdom and belongs to the prophet, with no single mention of Solomon and his kingdom. The aim (“Ziel”) of the narrative is just the fate of the ten parts of the mantle and thus of the ten tribes of Israel. The already mentioned parallels of 11:31b can be classified in two groups, with different features: a) 1 Sam 15:27–28 (and 1 Sam 28:17, just a reference to the former) offers perfect unity and agreement between symbol and oracular explanation; b) the texts of 1 Kgs 11:11; 14:8 and also 11:35 are part of clearly dtr sections. Although related to a symbolic action similar to the one which takes place between Samuel and Saul, the formulation of 1 Kgs 11:31b is much closer to this second group of Deuteronomistic texts, and it introduces a long dtr section. Such an expression is only found in another dtr text, also referring to the same event of the schism, 2 Kgs 17:21: ‫כי קרע ישראל מעל בית דוד‬. The mention of Solomon in the formula of 11:31b has in all likelihood the same dtr origin than all the other references to Solomon present in the same formula in 11:11 and 11:35 (14:8). There is no reason to assume that within the 48  F. Brown—S.R. Driver, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), 902: “Tear, rend: 1. of rending garment in grief: …1 K. 11, 30…, 2. Tear away sovereignty … 1K. 11, 31,”; La Bible de Jérusalem: “dechirer en”—“arracher de”; Noth, Könige, 240: “zerreissen”—“wegreissen.”

68

Chapter 3

same dtr unit the same formula is prior to the redaction in one case and redactional in the others. Modifications to the formula, required by the mention of Solomon in 11:31b, lead us to think that the usage of the formula in this context is simultaneous to or derived from the desire to mention Solomon and, therefore, its usage is also redactional and foreign to the original prophetic narrative. These earlier observations allow us to assume the existence of an earlier literary unit (verses 29–31a); its scope and content conclude with and do not go beyond the equaling of the ten parts of the mantle with the ten tribes of Israel. In the transition from the narrative to the beginning of the oracle (verse 31bff.) a higher level of tension may be felt than in the content of the oracle itself (verses 31–38). It represents a thematic change when compared to the narrative. The focus moves from North to South, from the “Ten Tribes” to the “only tribe” remaining under the power of Solomon’s successor. On the contrary, inside the oracle there are only variations around the same theme: “All my kingdom”—“ten tribes and one tribe”—“not in Solomon’s life”—“in the life of his son.” The narrative does not go beyond the division of the kingdom. In the oracle, the kingdom is stripped from Solomon due to his own actions, but not then and not all of the kingdom. The narrative is objective and its religious content is fulfilled inasmuch it is a prophet who, in the name of Yahweh, plays a role in the division of the kingdom. The oracle requires a reason and gives a moralizing and universalizing content (plural in verse 33a). 2.2 LXX 12:24 o The parallel narrative of LXX 12:24 o has clear boundaries. It is inserted into the narrative between the opening formula “The word of the Lord came upon …” and a conclusive repetition which leads back to the continuation of the narrative about the assembly: καὶ ἐπορεύθη Ιεροβοαμ εἰς Σικιμα τὴν ἐν ὄρει Εφραιμ καὶ συνήθροισεν ἐκεῖ τὰς φυλὰς τοῦ Ισραηλ καὶ ἀνέβη ἐκεῖ Ροβοαμ υἱὸς Σαλωμων καὶ λόγος κυρίου ἐγένετο πρὸς Σαμαιαν τὸν Ελαμι λέγων λαβὲ σεαυτῷ ἱμάτιον καινὸν τὸ οὐκ εἰσεληλυθὸς εἰς ὕδωρ καὶ ῥῆξον αὐτὸ δώδεκα ῥήγματα καὶ δώσεις τῷ Ιεροβοαμ καὶ ἐρεῖς αὐτῷ  τάδε λέγει κύριος λαβὲ σεαυτῷ δέκα ῥήγματα τοῦ περιβαλέσθαι σε καὶ ἔλαβεν Ιεροβοαμ καὶ εἶπεν Σαμαιας τάδε λέγει κύριος ἐπὶ τὰς δέκα φυλὰς τοῦ Ισραηλ (24p) καὶ εἶπεν ὁ λαὸς πρὸς Ροβοαμ υἱὸν Σαλωμων …

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

69

The prophetic narrative of 12:24 o has very different structure and style when compared with MT 11:29–31a but, on the other hand, is quite similar to Shemaiah’s formula of prophetic intervention in 12:22–24 (commandfulfillment pattern). The aim (“Ziel”) of the prophetic action is just the division of the mantle in twelve parts which symbolize the Twelve Tribes. Of those, ten are given to Jeroboam. There is no reference to Solomon. This confirms the literary criticism analysis of MT 11:29ff. 3

Shemaiah’s Oracle (1 Kgs 12:22–24)

The passage MT 12:22–24 constitutes an autonomous literary unit, structured on the command-fulfillment pattern. Both in the MT 12:24 and in LXX 12:24y–z the unit is inserted into the narrative of the assembly via the formula “The word of the Lord came …” (cf. also LXX 12:24 o). The most important thing to note here is that the tradition reflected in the Alternative History of LXX is identical to MT 12:24. Both texts fully agree, with only two minor variants (verse 22, ‫—האלהים‬Κυριου [‫ ;]יהוה‬verse 24, ‫—וישבו‬και ανεσχον [‫)]וישתבו‬. This clearly stands in contrast to the continuous divergences between the two traditions. Thus, it has to be said that LXX 12:24y–z would not be part of the LXX Alternative History proper but a linking repetition (Wiederaufnahme) which helps a return to the shared narrative line where both traditions continue, that is 12:25 ff. 4

The Consultation of Jeroboam’s Wife with Ahijah of Shiloh on Her Ill Son’s Fate

4.1 MT 1 Kgs 14:1–8 Scholarly opinions on this passage cannot be more diverse when it comes down to defining the text of the original legend in relation to its own oracle and the various redactional additions which interpret and amplify the scope and meaning of the original oracle. The aim (“Ziel”) of this oracle does not, beyond the tragic fate of the child (Eissfeldt, Jepsen, Dietrich, Würthwein), have an impact on Jeroboam and his dynasty (Noth, Gray, Debus) or even involve the doom of all Israel (Seebass).49 49  Cf. O. Eissfeldt, Das erste Buch der Könige, HSAT 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1922), 526. Seebass (“Verwerfung,” 180) applies a literary criticism analysis to the narrative of LXX

70

Chapter 3

In a first approach to the text, it is easy to distinguish between the narrative section of the legend (verses 1–6, 17–18) and the spoken oracle (verses 7–16*). The difficulty lies in isolating the primary layer of the oracle, extricating it from the expansion or expansions, double (Dietrich) or triple (Würthwein), introduced by Deuteronomistic redactors. There are as many critical options as scholars who have studied the text. Verses 8b and 9, due to their peculiar vocabulary and formulation, are doubtless attributed to dtr. Regarding verses 7–8a, Noth cannot find any pre-dtr trace in them either. He does not exclude the possibility that the dtr redactor, when adding the cause of the condemnation in verses 7aβb, 8, 9, would have displaced an already existing cause original to Ahijah’s oracle.50 According to Debus, on the contrary, the dtr redactor just filled a gap, adding as a block verses 7aβ–10aα.51 Seebass keeps verses 7, 8a, 9a as primary layer: verse 7 because it includes the word “nagid” and verse 8 because it states that monarchic legitimacy has moved to Jeroboam. Dietrich distinguishes two redactional levels: verses 7, 8a, 9b–11, 13b belong to the redactor of prophetic texts (“RedP”); verses 8b–9a (15, 16) to the Nomistic redactor (“DtrN”). Würthwein only isolates verse 8b as a secondary element in the unit of verses 7–11.52 In fact, verse 8a may include pre-dtr formulae, but that does not require that those verses are predtr themselves. The same can be said of the stereotypical formulae of verses 10aβb, 11a. These verses could be older than the previous ones, if it is true that originally there was no “motive” for the condemnation (cf. infra LXX 12:24m). Seebass rejects verse 10b as a duplicate of 16:3. Verses 12–13 preserve the most original core of the oracle. Seebass eliminates verse 13aβ as a duplicate of 11a. Jepsen excludes verse 13b due to its usage of presumed dtr vocabulary, which, nevertheless, only involves the expression “Yahweh, God of Israel.” Dietrich also discards 13b, which would turn an oracle of misfortune (verses 12–13a) into one of salvation: “that Abijah should die and be buried becomes a great privilege.”53 Würthwein is more coherent and 12:24g–n and finds in it two lines of tradition. The first is a folk story on the visit of Jeroboam’s wife to an unnamed “man of God.” The second is a dynastic tradition on the visit of Jeroboam to Ahijah of Shiloh. In an appendix entitled “Traditionsgeschichte des LXX-Zusatzes 12:24a–z” Seebass defines the core of this text as “Shemaiah tradition,” composed by two literary pieces which were originally independent: the first, 24b–d, f, o, is opposed to Jeroboam; the second, 24p–x, contains the second Shemaiah oracle, where he avoids a second possible war. 50  Noth, Könige, 311. 51  Debus, Sünde, 52. 52  Dietrich, Prophetie, 53; Würthwein, Könige, 172–175. 53  Dietrich, Prophetie, 53.

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

71

also eliminates the sentence of 13a, because he will be the only one of those of Jeroboam to get a grave.54 On the secondary character of verse 14 only Debus seems to have doubts, as the new reference to the extermination of Jeroboam’s dynasty perfectly fits his idea that the primary oracle is focused on the condemnation of Jeroboam’s dynasty. Seebass, on the contrary, rejects this verse as a repetition which duplicates 10b, 11a.55 Seebass sees verse 15aα as the nucleus of the primary unit: Ahijah seems to have announced in essence not a catastrophe for the house of Jeroboam, but a catastrophe for the whole of Israel. Due to this assumption, Seebass interprets verse 11a as the reference to a military disaster for the whole of the people of Israel and verse 10aβ as part of that disaster. “All Israel’s” mourning in verse 13b is for Abijah’s burial, but also for the burial of all the hopes of the Kingdom of Israel.56 Therefore, the earliest core of Ahijah’s oracle is constituted by verses 12, 13aα (on the difficulties for the interpretation of verse 13aβγb see below). The condemnation of Jeroboam’s dynasty expressed through the stereotypical formulae of verses 10aβγb, 11a may constitute an addition to the oracle, nevertheless older than the dtr justification of the condemnation (‫( )יען אשר… לכן‬cf. infra on LXX 12:24m). Originally, the oracle would be just an answer to the question posed by Jeroboam’s wife about the future of her sick child (Jepsen, Gray, Dietrich, Würthwein). The condemnation of Jeroboam’s dynasty would be an added interpretation. Regarding the narrative section of the legend, some meaningful additions may also be seen in it. Jepsen, Noth, Debus and Würthwein delete the sentence of verse 2bβ, “he prophesized to me that I would be king of this nation,” as an allusion to 11:29–39.57 Dietrich insists that the “fulfillment” formula of verse 18b “as the Lord had said through his servant the prophet Ahijah,” is part of the original narrative and even constitutes the model which served as inspiration for the redactor of prophetic texts for other similar cases,58 Würthwein eliminates the disguise motif (verses 2aα*βγ, 5b, 6bα) and the reference to the gifts (verse 3a). Those insertions exalt the prophet’s foreknowledge59 and hint at 54  Jepsen, Quellen, 6, n. 2; Seebass, “Verwerfung,” 166; Dietrich, Prophetie, 52; Würthwein, Könige, 174. 55  See Seebass, “Verwerfung,” 166; cf. also Debus, Sünde, 52. 56  See Seebass, “Verwerfung,” 168–169. 57  Jepsen, Quellen, 6. 58  Dietrich, Prophetie, 53 (“RedP,” cf. 12:15; 15:29; 16:12, 34; 10:17 dtr addition according to H. Ch. Schmitt; 17:13; 24:2). 59  Würthwein, Könige, 174–75.

72

Chapter 3

the notion of a confrontation between Jeroboam and Ahijah which would not appear in the primary narrative. Würthwein’s argument is based on considerations of content, with no support from genuinely literary criteria; in particular, the presentation of gifts to a prophet or his servants is a basic element in the genre of the consultation of a prophet or seer (see infra). 4.2 LXX 12:24g–nα Those more skeptical about the value of the version of LXX 12:24a–z, like Meyer, do nevertheless acknowledge the value of the materials preserved in 12:24g–nα. This version of the legend lacks any Deuteronomistic elaboration, which is in itself very meaningful. 4.2.1 The Oracle Ahijah’s oracle here is limited to the announcing of Jeroboam’s child’s death and burial. The announcing of extermination directed at Jeroboam’s dynasty (verse 24mα) in all likelihood represents a foreign element which interrupts the logical sequence of the story “… they will come to meet you and say: ‘the child has died (because thus says the Lord …) and they will mourn him …” καὶ τὰ κοράσιά σου ἐξελεύσονταί σοι εἰς συνάντησιν καὶ ἐροῦσίν σοι τὸ παιδάριον τέθνηκεν ὅτι τάδε λέγει κύριος ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξολεθρεύσω τοῦ Ιεροβοαμ οὐροῦντα πρὸς τοῖχον καὶ ἔσονται οἱ τεθνηκότες τοῦ Ιεροβοαμ ἐν τῇ πόλει καταφάγονται οἱ κύνες καὶ τὸν τεθνηκότα ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ καταφάγεται τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ  καὶ τὸ παιδάριον κόψονται οὐαὶ κύριε ὅτι εὑρέθη ἐν αὐτῷ ῥῆμα καλὸν περὶ τοῦ κυρίου The stereotypical formulae of condemnation, introduced by the messenger formula “thus says the Lord” interrupt the sequence of events with the same subject, “they will say (…) they will bury.”60 Regarding the content relationships, the tension between the narrative and the inserted oracle cannot be stronger: Ahijah prophesies a solemn burial for Abijah, Jeroboam’s son; the interpolated formulae condemn all of Jeroboam’s descendants to the ignominy of dying unburied. The redactor of the MT 1 Kgs 14 version noticed the visible 60  The verb κόπτω translates ‫ ספד‬and is used together with the verb ‫“( קבר‬to bury”) in 1 Sam 25:1; 2 Sam 3:31–32; 1 Kgs 13:29, 30; 14:13, 18. It implies a burial even if it is not mentioned explicitly: 2 Sam 1:12; 11:26 (cf. in the New Testament Luke 8:2).

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

73

contradiction in the sentence “and they will bury him” (verse 13). He attempted to mend the incongruity with the addition of 14:13aβγ: “because he will be the only one of those of Jeroboam to be buried.” MT 14:13 “… All Israel will mourn him and they will bury him because he will be the only one of those of Jeroboam to be buried as there was in him something which pleased the Lord, God of Israel in the House of Jeroboam.”

LXX 12:24mβ “… they will mourn him, ‘oh Lord,’

as there was in him something which pleased the Lord.”

The version of the legend according to LXX confirms the proposal where the original oracle just answered the question posed by Jeroboam and his wife. The condemnation formulae against Jeroboam’s dynasty are a later insertion, introduced in clear contradiction to the context, although it has some logic in using the reference to the death of Jeroboam’s first descendant. The explanation in MT 13aβγ, “because he will be the only one of those of Jeroboam to be buried,” represents a first attempt at harmonization between the announcement of the extermination unburied of all Jeroboam’s descendants and the primary legend which concludes with Abijah’s funeral. In the LXX tradition the sentence “as there was in him something which pleased the Lord” (cf. MT verse 13b) explains the cause of the mourning for Abijah, according to the previous sentence, “And they will mourn the child, ‘O Lord,’ because …” In MT verse 13 the earlier insertion of the restrictive clause, “because he will be the only one of those of Jeroboam to be buried,” determines that the following explanation does not account for the mourning, but for the burial itself: Abijah will be the only one of those of Jeroboam to be buried “because there was in him something which pleased the Lord.” This last explanatory clause does not attempt, as Noth, Dietrich, and Würthwein assume, to account for a “privilege” (“Vorzug”) justified by a theology of individual retribution (“Vergeltung”): when all of Jeroboam’s descendants have been doomed to become carrion for dogs or ravens, Abijah is buried because, in the end, something good must have been in him.61 This could in fact be a new meaning of the sentence in the present redaction of MT, after the insertion of the previous sentence which announces in fact the existence of a “privilege,” whose 61  Noth, Könige, 317; Dietrich, Prophetie, 52–53, Würthwein, Könige, 174–178.

74

Chapter 3

explanation would then be verse 13b. But the original legend ignored all allusions and condemnation of Jeroboam’s descendants and, therefore, any “privilege” for Abijah. There is mourning and lamentation because “there was something in him which pleased the Lord.” The version of the legend transmitted by LXX shows sympathy for the child. Ahijah is forced to “pass the bad news” (σκληρὰ ἐγὼ ἐπαποστελῶ ἐπὶ σέ) of the child’s death, but at the same time announces that Abijah will have a kingly burial.62 Thus, a synoptic comparison of both traditions, represented by MT and LXX, allows us to find three main periods in the history of transmission of this oracle: first. Ahijah has sadly to announce to Jeroboam’s wife her son’s death, with no more explanation than divine will, but with the consolation of popular mourning. Later, a condemnation of Jeroboam’s descendants is introduced: their corpses will be carrion for dogs and ravens (LXX 12:24mα; MT 14:11, with still further additions of formulae of verse 10). In a third phase, a “cause” for that condemnation is introduced (verses 7–9 ‫)יען אשר … לכן‬, with possible later additions within and a harmonizing parenthesis of both superposed oracles, the primary one on Abijah and the later one on Jeroboam’s descendants damned to feed dogs and ravens, “because he will be the only one of those of Jeroboam to be buried” (MT verse 13aβγ; the rest of verse 13 is, thus, original, but for the MT additions “all Israel” and “God of Israel in the House of Jeroboam”). Westermann classifies prophetic sayings in “condemnation announcements” and “salvation announcements” (Gerichtsankündigung—Heilsankündigung); the former with an explanation of the cause and thus consisting of two parts (human guilt motivates divine punishment): the latter without any kind of motivation, because divine love is freely given. Westermann finds difficulties in several “exceptional” texts, which he calls “unmotivated condemnation oracles” (Unheilsworte ohne Begründung). Those are 2 Kgs 20:1; Jer 22:10, 11f., 24–27, 30; 37:17. Debus proposes to add to that list our text of 1 Kgs 14: the

62  The expression in MT 13aα (18a) ‫ ויספדו לו כל ישראל וקברו אתו‬appears with the same elements and word-order in 1 Sam 28:3 and 25:1 (Samuel’s death). In 1 Kgs 13:29–30 we find again the same sequence of verbs ‫( ספד–קבר‬niphal in Jer 16:4 and 25:33); also, in 1 Kgs 13:22 the expression of 14:13 ‫ בא אל קבר‬may be found alone. In 13:30 it is said, “they wept for him, ‘Woe, brother’” (‫)הוי אחי‬, an expression identical to LXX 12:24m, και το παιδαριον κοψονται Ουαι κυριε. See Montgomery, Kings, 272: “The mourning cry, ‫הוי אדון‬, as at Jer 22:18; 34:5 appropriate to a prince (otherwise 13:30, ‘Ah, my brother’); the phrase may well be original and have been euphemistically omitted by the Hebrew text.”

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

75

condemnation oracle of verses 10aβ–11 is original, the explanation of motives in verses 7aβ–9 is a later addition.63 In fact, the condemnation oracle of verses 10aβ–11, an addition to the original legend, originally lacked any motivation (cf. LXX 12:24 mα). Once it was added in verses 7aβ–9, it would be more accurate to speak, in this case and similar ones, of a three-part structure. It would be an oracle of “rejection of the representative of a royal (or priestly) house.” The first member would be a “remembrance of the granted power” according to the dtr theology of history which begins with a “remembrance of the benefits granted in the past”: “I took you out from among the people and made you nagid of my people Israel, tearing the kingdom off David’s dynasty to give it to you” (1 Kgs 14:7aβ–8a); “I anointed you king of Israel, I delivered you from Saul …” (2 Sam 12:7b); “the Lord has anointed you king of Israel” (1 Sam 15:17); “among all the tribes of Israel I chose him for me as priest … and gave to your father’s family …” (1 Sam 2:27–28). In this tripartite pattern64 the presence of the first member gives a new spirit to the two-member pattern of accusation—damnation: the stress is now not placed so strongly on the accusation of unfaithfulness to the king or priest, but on the gratuity of Yahweh’s earlier choice. In dtr theology, the figure of the prophet is not a mere prosecutor of the law, but a representative of tribal law and dispenser of “divine” election. It is he who designates the nagid-king or priest and demotes them when they have been unfaithful to that law and to Yahweh’s election.65 4.2.2 The Narrative After the analysis of the oracle or discourse section of the legend, I will survey its narrative section and the other minor discourses which constitute it. In the two known traditions, MT and LXX, the legend is structured in three scenes; the first and last take place in Jeroboam’s house in Tirzah (MT)/Sareira (LXX); the middle one in Shiloh with the coming and going of Jeroboam’s wife, 63  Westermann, Grundformen, 69 and 115–16; Debus, Sünde, 53. Cf. also Noth, Könige, 319. The texts lacking a “motivation” are not exceptional at all according to Ellermeier, who basically disagrees with Westermann’s opinions. Cf. F. Ellermeier, Prophetie in Mari und Israel (Herzberg: Erwin Jungfer, 1968), 212. 64  S. Uriel notes a similar tripartite structure regarding 2 Sam 12; cf. id., “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb. An Example of a Juridical Parable,” Bib 48 (1967): 207–242, esp. 235. 65  According to Westermann (Grundformen, 95) the original form of the prophetic oracle is a Botenspruch-Gerichtswort, consisting of “accusation” and “announcement.” The prophet’s person appears originally as an “accuser” (Ankläger) and prophecy is similar to a legal process; cf. also R. Rendtorff, “Erwägungen zur Frühgeschichte des Prophetentums in Israel,” ZThK 59 (1962): 145–167, esp. 157. Ellermeier (Prophetie, 201–203) is critical of this opinion, which he finds too restrictive for the range and meaning of prophecy in its origins.

76

Chapter 3

who acts as emissary between Jeroboam and Ahijah the seer in order to learn the divine will about their sick child. The first scene is structured according to the command-fulfillment pattern which sets the narrative into motion. Jeroboam’s first speech develops the motif of gifts to be brought to the seer and, in the MT version, the topic of the woman’s disguise. Both are, according to Würthwein, secondary, as he reduces Jeroboam’s speech to the single command to his wife to go to Shiloh and consult the prophet on the boy’s illness (the repetition … ‫ הוא … הוא‬would seem to confirm the elimination of verses 2bβ, 3a). The LXX version of the legend has no trace of the disguise motif but develops the item of the gifts destined for “the man of God and his disciples” and whose delivery, not attested in MT, is mentioned, as it should be, in the second scene. According to this version, “Jeroboam goes to ask about the child,” but simultaneously commands his wife: “Go and ask the god about the child.” This and other repetitions demand a closer survey of the process of formation of the legend. The text of the first scene in LXX 12:24g–i is as follows, a perfect match of sentences in the command-fulfillment pattern: 24g [7] 24h [8]

24i [9] 24k [11]

καὶ ἠρρώστησε τὸ παιδάριον αὐτοῦ ἀρρωστίαν κραταιὰν σφόδρα καὶ ἐπορεύθη Ιεροβοαμ ἐπερωτῆσαι ὑπὲρ τοῦ παιδαρίου καὶ εἶπε πρὸς Ανω τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἀνάστηθι καὶ πορεύου ἐπερώτησον τὸν θεὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ παιδαρίου εἰ ζήσεται ἐκ τῆς ἀρρωστίας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐν Σηλω καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῷ Αχια καὶ οὗτος ἦν υἱὸς ἑξήκοντα ἐτῶν καὶ ῥῆμα κυρίου μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν Ιεροβοαμ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἀνάστηθι καὶ λαβὲ εἰς τὴν χεῖρά σου τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄρτους καὶ κολλύρια τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτοῦ καὶ σταφυλὴν καὶ στάμνον μέλιτος καὶ ἀνέστη ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἔλαβεν εἰς τὴν χεῖρα αὐτῆς ἄρτους καὶ δύο κολλύρια καὶ σταφυλὴν καὶ στάμνον μέλιτος τῷ Αχια καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος πρεσβύτερος καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ἠμβλυώπουν τοῦ βλέπειν καὶ ἀνέστη ἐκ Σαριρα καὶ πορεύεται καὶ ἐγένετο εἰσελθούσης αὐτῆς εἰς τὴν πόλιν…

The boy, whose name is not given (cf. earlier 12:24e), falls ill and Jeroboam sets off to ask about the boy’s fate. Twice he speaks to his wife; first, when she is known as Ano, to go and ask the god about the child; this is followed by a first introduction of “Ahijah” a seventy-year old elder, who lives in Shiloh and

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

77

is endowed with the divine oracle. The same formula introduces the second command to Jeroboam’s wife, with no specification of her name or that of the “man of God” to whom the gifts are to be brought. The execution of the second command is then immediately narrated: the woman takes the gifts for “Ahijah”; there then follows a second introduction of the elder whose eyes remain closed. The woman “rises” again, this time to leave Sareira, in order to fulfill the first command of “going” to ask about the sick child’s fate. All evidence seems to indicate a fusion of two forms of the narrative into a single one. Nevertheless, after attempting many solutions combining multiple details of the narrative and other similar narratives of the same genre (see below), it is necessary to accept the impossibility of extricating each form of the narrative from the other or of indicating with a minimum of certitude the elements introduced into a proposed original story.66 The certain and important fact is that the legend of the consultation of Ahijah had surely circulated in different versions, although always within the same genre of “consultation of a prophet in case of sickness.” The tradition reflected in LXX merges two forms of the narrative with variants in the first scene. The MT 1 Kgs 14 tradition offers a different form with its own motifs, like the woman’s disguise which, given that it implies some sort of enmity between Jeroboam and Ahijah, could be not original (Würthwein), but is perfectly integrated into the narrative and is clearly archaic. Attempting to retrieve the original text of the legend is a doomed enterprise: in all likelihood, several versions of it started circulating very early, with a growing tendency to make Jeroboam guilty (disguise motif) and to condemn his dynasty (“condemnation oracle” and “dtr motivation” thereof) and finally the whole of Israel (14:15–16). The legend of Ahijah’s consultation in its different versions sticks to a genre of narrative which could be called “consultation of a prophet in case of sickness.”67 The samples which have come down to us refer to a king, heir or claimant; they all conclude with the sick person’s death, fulfilling the prophet’s negative oracle (2 Kgs 1:2–8; 5:1–19; 8:7–15). The elements which configure the narrative structure are as follows: 1. Presentation of the sick king or heir (‫ ;חלה‬in 2 Kgs 5:1 ‫ )מצירה‬and of the man of God or prophet (‫ויגד לו‬, 2 Kgs 8:7; ‫ויגד לאדניו‬, 2 Kgs 5:4). 66  See Seebass’ attempt (“Verwerfung,” 164–166), based on the different identification of the characters (“man of God”—Ahijah; “Jeroboam’s wife”—“Ano”) and the differences of content. The repeated sentences, marked in the text, should be the starting point for any critical analysis. 67  Cf. C. Westermann, “Die Begriffe für Fragen und Suchen im Alten Testament,” Kerygma und Dogma 6 (1960): 18–22; see also O. García de la Fuente, La búsqueda de Dios en el Antiguo Testamento (Madrid: Guadarrama, 1971), 19–22 and 279–306.

78

Chapter 3

2. Speech to the messenger: “take with yourself gifts for the prophet” (‫… לקח בידך‬, 2 Kgs 8:8; [5:5]; 1 Kgs 14:2; LXX 12:24h) “go to meet …” (‫לך לקראת‬, 2 Kgs 8:8; 5:5; 1:2; 1 Kgs 14:2 ‫ ;הלך‬LXX 12:24h); “ask from Yahweh” (or another god) an Oracle (‫ )דרש אל יהוה מאותו‬on “whether he will survive the illness” (‫אם אחיה‬ ‫מחלי זה‬, 2 Kgs 8:8; 1:2; [1 Kgs 14:3b]); the sentence in LXX 12:24g is closer to the usual one: ἐπερώτησον τὸν θεὸν… εἰ ζήσεται ἐκ τῆς ἀρρωστίας αὐτοῦ). 3. Journey of the messenger to fulfill the given mission: a narrative sequence of verbs of motion (yiqtol-x), )‫( ויקם … וילך … ויקח … ויבא … (ויעמד לפניו‬2 Kgs 8:9; 5:5; 1 Kgs 14:4), και ελαβεν… και ανεστη… και πορευεται… (και εγενετο) ελθουσης αυτης… (και μη στης) (LXX 12:24i, k). 4. Consultation of the man of God/prophet: change of scene, at the threshold of the prophet’s house (‫ בפתח‬2 Kgs 5:9; 1 Kgs 14:6; f. LXX 12:24k); introduction of the messenger to the man of God (“the king has sent me to you” 2 Kgs 8:9; 5:6; incognito visit in 1 Kgs 14); “go and say to …” (“Botenauftag,” 2 Kgs 8:10; 1 Kgs 14:7); oracle in response to the consultation (‫כי מת ימות‬, 2 Kgs 8:10; 1:4, 6; 1 Kgs 14:24; LXX 12:24l). 5. Epilog: messenger’s return (‫ )בוא—הלך‬and fulfillment of the prophetic oracle. According to Westermann, the institution of consultation of Yahweh existed in two periods: until the beginning of the monarchy, consultation was carried out through a priest who cast lots and gave a yes or no answer; from the 10th century and until the exile, a prophet was consulted and he would give answers in principle related to private matters only, such as illness, and later to public issues only. Nevertheless, the illness of a princely heir should be considered a public matter inasmuch as the succession of a dynasty is at stake. The fact is that consultation via a man of God, especially in cases of illness, was common in the monarchic period.68 The already mentioned narratives of this consultation genre belong to the Elijah and Elisha cycle. They originate from the Northern Kingdom, like the legend of Ahijah. This represents the link between the consultation genre of the times of Samuel in Shiloh and the consultation practiced in the age of Elijah and Elisha. The analysis of some expressions common to both versions of the legend would allow the more accurate determination of its literary affinities and original setting (Sitz im Leben). In MT 1 Kgs 14:4b it is said of Ahijah that “he could not see because his eyes had been closed by old age,” ‫ואחיהו לא יכל לראות כי קמו עיניו‬. The first introduction of the prophet, according to LXX 12:24h, says: και ουτος ην υιος εξηκοντα ετων. The second introduction, a variant of the tradition, adds: και ο ανθρωπος 68  Cf. Westermann, “Begriffe,” 21.

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

79

πρεσβυτερος και οι οφθαλμοι αυτου ημβλυωπουν του ιδειν. Eli, Ahijah’s forerunner in Shiloh, is described with the same expressions in a single sentence, 1 Sam 4:15: ‫ועלי בן תשעים ושמנה ועיניו קמו ולא יכל לראות‬.69 In 1 Sam 3:2 we can also read ‫( ועיניו החלו כחות לא יוכל לראות‬cf. also, speaking of Samuel in 1 Sam 15:35, ‫ולא‬ ‫)יסף שׁמואל לראות‬.70 Eli and Abiathar, at the city gates or at the threshold of the house, “hear” (‫ )שמע‬the traveler’s voice or footsteps. A literary affinity can be seen between the story of consultation of Ahijah and the traditions about Eli and his sons (1 Sam 2:12–17, 22–25, also 4:12–18(19– 21) and about Samuel’s childhood in Shiloh (1 Sam 1; 2:11, 18–21; 3). History-wise, there could be a genealogical connection between Ahijah of Shiloh and Eli, priest of Shiloh:71 Eli _____________________ Hophni Phineas _____________________ Ichabod Ahitub (1 Sam 4:21) _____________________ Ahijah Ahimelech (1 Sam 22:9) Abiathar (1 Sam 22:20; 1 Kgs 2:27) Jonathan (2 Sam 15:27). Caquot even identified Ahijah of Shiloh (1 Kgs 14) with Ahijah the priest mentioned in 1 Sam 14:3. On the ideological side, Caquot sees Ahijah as the representative of the ideals of the Shiloh priesthood, of their first illusions and

69  ‫ה‬  ‫ קמ‬preserves the archaic dual form. In 1 Kgs 14:12 there is a similar agreement in the dual: ‫( בבאה רגליך העירה‬BHK l frt ‫ ;בבוא‬BHS ‫)בביא‬. Nevertheless, 12:24l και εσται εισελθουσης σου is not a true LXX translation, but a Hexaplaric version taken from Aquila, εν τω εισερχεσθαι ποδας σου, servile in its literal character: ‫ ב‬+ inf. 70  The quoted sentence from 1 Sam 3:2 is very likely part of an addition, verses 2aβ–3. Also, a linking repetition (Wiederaufnahme), present in LXX and involving, many others, a Hebrew original, allows us to see as an addition the clause from 2 Sam 4:15 (Cf. J. Trebolle Barrera, “Textual Criticism and the Composition History of Samuel. Connections between Pericopes in 1 Samuel 1–4,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel. The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, ed. P. Hugo and A. Schenker [Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2010], 261–286). 71  See A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (Roma: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 82, n. 56: “The authenticity of this genealogy is accepted generally, but not unanimously.”

80

Chapter 3

the immediate disappointment on a quick restoration of the Shiloh sanctuary by Jeroboam.72 One of the most important characters of the priestly family of Shiloh was Abiathar, mentioned twice in the Succession Story. To him was somehow attributed the paternity of the Yahwistic work or a part thereof. The genealogical filiation of Abiathar and Ahijah and the literary paternity of the Yahwistic work in the person of Abiathar again bring up the issue of the literary origin of the traditions around Ahijah and the events of the schism of Israel. Earlier I concluded that the Story of the Secession and Schism, composed of the narratives of Jeroboam’s flight and return and of the Assembly at Shechem would have its origins in literary circles close to the author(s) of the Succession Story and of the Yahwistic History in a wide sense. Now it would be necessary to add that the origins of the legend on the oracular consultation of Ahijah of Shiloh should be searched for in circles close to the authors of the narratives contained in the first chapters of 1 Samuel and, more generally, of the Abiathar story, composed of 1 Sam 21–23, 27, 29–30; 2 Sam 1–2, 5, whose most relevant feature is, according to Schulte, an insistence on oracular consultation operated through the priest, in this case Abiathar.73 Ultimately, even if there are different nuances, both the Secession and Schism Story and the legend on the consultation point out to an origin in circles of the “Yahwist” historiography. Also, both narratives were transmitted as one unit. Soon, they underwent the addition of the oracle with the symbolic action and Shemaiah’s oracle, the oracle on the extermination of Jeroboam’s dynasty (12:24m) and, finally, all the additions and changes in the composition operated by dtr redaction in different steps. M. Noth assumes the existence of an “Ahijah Story” similar to those of Elijah, Elisha, and Isaiah, integrated into 1 Kgs 11:29–39; 12:1–20, 26–31; 14:1–18. G. von Rad expresses his doubts on that proposal, given that dtr intervention is essential here.74 The fact is that LXX 12:24b–z collects the same traditions which have to be qualified as a “well-rounded whole” (“wohl abgerundetes Ganzes,” Noth), where, nevertheless, there is no trace of a dtr redactor. Thus, we could speak of a veritable pre-dtr cycle of narratives about the secession and schism of Israel. The symbolic actions of the prophet Shemaiah 72  A  . Caquot, “Aḥiyya de Silo et Jéroboam 1er,” Semitica 11 (1961): 17–27, esp. 25. Similar ideas may be found in M.A. Cohen, “The Role of the Shilonite Priesthood in the United Monarchy of Ancient Israel,” HUCA 36 (1965): 57–98. 73  Cf. Schulte, Entstehung, 129–130, n. 78. 74  Cf. M. Noth, “Jerusalem und die israelitische Tradition,” OTS (1950): 28–46; G. von Rad, “Die deuteronomistische Geschichtstheologie in den Königsbüchern,” in id., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (München: Kaiser Verlag, 1971), 189–204, esp. 196, n. 7.

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

81

(LXX)/Ahijah (MT) and Shemaiah’s oracle are two additions which interpret the secession following the Assembly at Shechem and that, due to their formal structure and likeness to similar prophetic interventions in 1 Kgs 20:22, would have their origin (Sitz im Leben) in circles shared with the cycles of Elijah and Elisha. Therefore, the cycle of the secession and schism is basically composed of the narrative of Jeroboam’s flight and return and the assembly at Shechem. The latter was soon framed by two prophetic oracles, structured according to the command-fulfillment pattern (LXX 12:24o and 24y–z). The legend of the consultation of Ahijah of Shiloh would also be part of that cycle on the secession and schism. 5 Summary The story of Jeroboam’s flight and return, 1 Kgs 11:26, 27b–28, 40 concluded with the text preserved in LXX 11:43* and partially in MT 12:2–3*. The parallel unit in the version of the story transmitted by LXX appears in 12:24b–dα, f. This narrative was born and transmitted as a unitary whole together with the assembly at Shechem, which starts at MT 12:1 // LXX 12:24nβ, and concludes beyond the limits usually assigned by scholars (verses 12, 19 or 20). The narrative or cycle of short stories included an allusion to Rehoboam’s hostility to Jeroboam (verse 21) and, after the interpolated Shemaiah oracle (verses 22, 24), resumed with the establishment of Jeroboam in Shechem and Penuel (verse 25) to end possibly with the building of the national sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan. The continuity of the parallel narrative of LXX 12:24nβ, p–x confirms these proposals. Materials shared by both versions of the narrative, in particular the sentences with parallel structure and a proverb-like tone (12:4, 10, 11(14), 16) shape its most stable and original core. The version transmitted by MT 1 Kgs 12 collects redactional materials, amongst them the dtr notice of the fulfillment of an oracle, 12:15bβγ; also the dtr conclusive sentence in verse 19; the sentence of verse 16 “look after your house, David”; and the gloss in verse 17 (Chr), absent in LXX. The likely true information on Adoram’s lapidation (verse 18a) would come from a different source, although also close to the events. It is not possible to reconstruct the precise formulation of the remaining narrative materials which were originally part of the story, as is especially the case of verses 20b–21. The present opening and closing formulations of the narrative (verses 1 and 20a) come from a redactional re-elaboration. The version of the narrative preserved in LXX 3 Kingdoms 12:24b–dα, f, nβ, p–x is marked by the absolute absence of any dtr trace and by many expressions

82

Chapter 3

and sentences typical of the language and style of the books of Samuel, of the so-called Succession Story in particular (2 Sam 9[?]–1 Kgs 2). The LXX version is a model of concentric narrative and antithetic parallelism narrative, with a well-managed correlation between the different members and expressions in the story. The form of the preserved version in Greek translation is the closest to the original. The story is not a mere “exemplary novella,” with wisdom and moralistic purposes for the rebuke of unskilled kings and counselors. It aspired to the category of “historical narrative.” Its origin should be searched for in circles close to the authors of the Succession Story and, in general, of the “Yahwistic” history. It reflected a pan-Israelite concern, with no marked traces of pro-Judaean or pro-Israelite bias, which are only reflected in later additions. The legend of the rending of the mantle by the prophet (Ahijah/Shemaiah) had no reach beyond symbolizing the destiny of the ten Northern tribes. A dtr comment, introduced by the formula of “demoting and granting of the kingdom in the hands of” a new successor (11:31b …) adds the references to Solomon and the remainder of his broken kingdom. The parallel narrative of 12:24 o and of the oracle of Shemaiah (12:22–24 // LXX 12:24y–z) have a very simple and archaic command-fulfillment structure, typical in oracular narratives of the Elijah-Elisha period. Criticism cannot define the boundaries and intention of the oracle pronounced by Ahijah as an answer to Jeroboam’s wife’s consultation on the fate of their sick child: the oracle does not go beyond the tragic death of the child Abijah (Eissfeldt, Jepsen, Dietrich, Würthwein); reaches Jeroboam and his dynasty, doomed to extermination (Noth, Gray, Debus); or even encompasses the fate of all Israel, doomed to catastrophe (Seebass). The oracle has undergone a double (Dietrich) or triple (Würthwein) redactional re-elaboration. The “synoptic” study of the two forms in which the legend has been transmitted leads to the following conclusions: – Ahijah’s oracle was limited in the beginning to the announcement of Jeroboam’s child’s death and burial, as an answer to the consultation. – Condemnation of the dynasty of Jeroboam to be food for the birds was the first added element (LXX 12:24m; in MT 14:10 more stereotyped formulae were added to it). The sentence of MT 14:13aβγ, “because he will be the only one of those of Jeroboam to be buried,” does not imply a privilege (Noth, Dietrich, Würthwein), but constitutes a device and attempt to reduce the incongruity between the added oracle, which doomed a whole dynasty to unburied death, and the primary legend which ended with Abijah’s funeral. – The dtr re-elaboration of the narrative added a “motivation” (14:7–9) which has a tripartite structure, typical of oracles of “rejection of the

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

83

representative of a royal or priestly house” (remembrance of the granted privileges—accusation—condemnation). – The version of the legend reflected in the Greek translation has not been affected by dtr alterations and comments. It merges two archaic forms of the narrative with different intentions. The MT 1 Kgs 14 version develops the motif of the disguise of Jeroboam’s wife, which could be not original, but nevertheless would still be archaic. The different forms of the narrative fit into the genre of “consultation of a prophet in case of sickness.” The legend of consultation of Ahijah of Shiloh represents a link between this genre in the time of Samuel in Shiloh and the kind of consultation practiced in Elijah’s and Elisha’s times. Besides the genealogical link of Ahijah with the priestly house of Eli in Shiloh, there is a clear literary affinity between the oldest recognizable form of the Ahijah legend and legends and stories contained in the first chapters of 1 Samuel and, more generally, with the “Abiathar Story,” that of a priest of Shiloh and recipient of the oracle of consultation of Yahweh (to whom the origins of some of the “large units” of “Yahwistic” historiography in 1–2 Samuel have been connected). A cycle of narratives or a (pre-dtr) large literary unit about the “Story of Secession and Schism” included the narratives of Jeroboam’s flight and return and of the assembly at Shechem. This second narrative was soon framed by two oracular stories of the command-fulfillment pattern (LXX 12:24 o and 24y–z). The prophetic legend of Ahijah’s consultation was put about as part of the same cycle. 6

Conclusions: Composition and Redaction of the Literary Cycle

After the individual analysis of the different literary units it is possible now to study the relationships between them. These relationships are of two kinds: 1. Composition relationships: the placement of each unit in the piece as a whole and any possible movements of the different units draw a picture of mutual correlations and interferences which support new possibilities of meaning or break the already existing ones. The meaning of a piece is not the sum or aggregations of the meanings of each of the units which comprise it.75

75  Cf. W. Kayser, Das sprachliche Kunstwerk. Eine Einführung in die Literaturwissenschaft (Bern: Francke, 197115) 169: “Durch die Zusammenordnung zu einem Ganzen entsteht ein Mehr gegenüber einer blossen Addition.”

84

Chapter 3

2. Redactional relations: editorial comments and allusions introduced into the text by the redactor establish new relationships between the different units and offer a model of unity and interpretation of the whole. My aim now is to determine what the composition and redaction process was for each of the redactional traditions which have preserved the cycle of secession and schism and, ultimately, what the principle or key interpretation which oriented the composer-redactor is. Though starting with similar literary units, the processes of composition and redaction of MT 1 Kgs 11:26–12:24 on the one hand and LXX 12:24a–z on the other have crystallized into two literary pieces with different meanings and keys of interpretation. 6.1 MT 1 Kgs 11–12, 14 In the Hebrew version of the secession and schism the redactor’s work is more visible, but the composition work is no less meaningful. 6.1.1 Redaction Work Among the comments and observations typical of a redactor, the following have already been indicated: – 11:21b–38: motivation and limits to the previous oracle on the division of the kingdom. The kingdom will be “torn off” Solomon in his son’s lifetime due to his sins and, only in part, for consideration due to David. The kingdom is actually divided by Jeroboam’s political mistakes or bad faith (12:15b) rather than due to the rebellion of Jeroboam and the Israelite tribes. – 14:7–9(10–11), 14–16: announcement and motivation of the extermination of all of Jeroboam’s dynasty. In 15:29 the redactor corroborates the fulfillment of that prophecy, “as the Lord had said through his servant Ahijah of Shiloh.” – The references of 14:2b to 11:29ff. They establish unity between the two large prophecies and motivations of the division of the Solomonic kingdom (chapter 11) and of the extermination of the Jeroboam dynasty (chapter 14). 6.1.2 Composition Work The composer has arranged the different units in two large blocks, separated by the conclusive formulae of Solomon’s kingdom (11:41–43). The narrative of Jeroboam’s flight, up to the incidental mention of Solomon’s death (“and he stayed there till Solomon died”) precedes the conclusive formulae of Solomon’s reign. This narrative, together with Ahijah’s symbolic action, does not take place in Sareira, but in Jerusalem or near the capital. Jeroboam’s revolt and his designation by Ahijah as the future king are so close to each other

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

85

that it would seem that Solomon’s persecution is a reaction to that prophecy, rather than to Jeroboam’s rebellion. The events which take place after Solomon’s death are framed in an interregnum which lasts until Jeroboam’s crowning (12:20) and during his reign until its conclusion in 14:19–20. Therefore, Jeroboam is already king when his son becomes ill. His wife needs to disguise herself “not to be known as Jeroboam’s wife,” that is, as the queen. Abijah is mourned by all Israel in a funeral fit for a royal heir. 6.1.3 Redaction and Composition Thus, composition and redaction together define two large arcs of prophecyfulfillment: the first focused on Solomon, David’s dynasty and his city of Jerusalem; the second on Jeroboam, his dynasty and the Kingdom of Israel. The first redactional arc of suspense opens with information on Solomon’s wives and their heathen cults (1 Kgs 11:1–8), seen by the redactor as the cause of divine punishment (11:9–13). It continues with the stories of the “satans” (11:14–25) and of Jeroboam’s revolt (11:26–28, 40; LXX 11:43* // 12:2–3a*). After the prophecy which announces the future division of the kingdom (verses 29–31a) and after the dtr motivation thereof (verses 31b–39), the first arc closes and is fulfilled when “the king (Rehoboam) did not hearken to the people: it was an act of Yahweh to fulfill the word spoken by …” (12:15bβγ). The second arc opens with the allotment of heritage between the houses of David and Israel (12:16) and Jeroboam’s crowning (12:20). Jeroboam strengthens his position on the throne of Shechem after Shemaiah’s intervention (verses 21–25), but with the “religious schism” of Bethel and Dan (verses 26–33), “this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam and caused its destruction and extermination from the earth” (13:34). Such is the message of Ahijah’s oracle (14:7–11) which is fulfilled, closing the second arch with the deaths of Nadab and his family, which take place “according to the word which the Lord had spoken through Ahijah of Shiloh” (15:29b). A third large redactional arch, which leads beyond the boundaries of my analysis, would open in 14:14–16 and close in 2 Kgs 17 with the final destruction of the Kingdom of Israel. If the consequences of the events are political (division of Solomon’s kingdom and extermination of Jeroboam’s dynasty), their motivations are always religious: Solomon’s cultic transgressions and his women in the first case and Jeroboam’s “sins,” also against the cult, in the second. To the redactor’s eyes, Solomon is the only one to blame for the division of his kingdom, because Jeroboam is just an instrument, one of the “satans” which Yahweh uses to punish Solomon. Jeroboam is, on his part, guilty of the disappearance of his

86

Chapter 3

own dynasty, because Yahweh has made a promise to him, similar to David’s (11:31bff.), and Jeroboam has proved himself unworthy of it. 6.2 LXX 12:24a–z It seems that the redactor-composer of LXX 3 Kingdoms 12:24a–z merely undertook an anthological recollection of units which he simply linked to each other. No activity, apart from composition, can be observed. Only in the formulae of judgment on Rehoboam’s actions is an early dtr redactor’s hand visible. The three major units of the cycle are juxtaposed after each other: the history of Jeroboam’s flight and return: the legend of the consultation: and the history of the assembly which concludes in Israel’s politico-religious secession. Unity of place gives a feeling of cohesion to the ensemble: Jeroboam’s story begins in Sareira on the mount of Ephraim. After a possible stay “at the city of David” and the flight to Egypt, the story concludes with Jeroboam’s return to the same place, Sareira on the mount of Ephraim. Jeroboam’s wife sets off from Sareira to ask the prophet about the outcome of her child’s illness (24k). The prophet of Shiloh announces to her that when she returns to Sareira (24l) her child will be dead. The child does die when the woman returns to Sareira (24n). The story of the assembly begins with Jeroboam’s and Rehoboam’s journeying to Shechem on the mount of Ephraim (24n). After the failure of the negotiations, “the people withdrew to Shechem” (24u). Rehoboam musters Benjamin’s and Judah’s troops in Jerusalem and, after a year, marches up to Shechem once more (24x). Finally, war does not start and Jeroboam finally affirms his kingdom in Shechem (12:25). Some secondary elements contribute to the greater cohesion of the three main units: the digression on Jeroboam’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter gives notice of the names of the wife and child, Ano and Abijah. Ano’s name reappears in the legend of the consultation (24g, h) though Abijah is not named again (cf. MT 1 Kgs 14:1). Both of Shemaiah’s prophetic interventions, which frame the narrative on the assembly, are closely linked. Both justify Jeroboam’s actions against persecution and attempted war by Solomon and Rehoboam. The oracle against Jeroboam’s dynasty, introduced in 12:24m, constitutes a first step in the line of accusation and condemnation later carried on by dtr. The action as a whole advanced towards a denouement focused on Jeroboam’s fate. After the flight from Solomon, the death of his child and Rehoboam’s threats of war, the hero of the story emerges victorious and manages to establish a kingdom in Shechem. This piece of evidence on the construction of “Shechem in the mount of Ephraim” (12:25), where Jeroboam had previously summoned the tribes of Israel (24 o) mirrors the similar notice on

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

87

the earlier construction of “Sareira in the mount of Ephraim,” where Jeroboam had also summoned to himself the tribe of Ephraim (24f). The composition of LXX 12:24b–z allows one to speak of a veritable “cycle of narratives about Jeroboam and the division of the kingdom.” In the beginning, it would be composed of the narrative of Jeroboam’s flight and return and the story of the assembly and schism. The legend of the consultation, originating in the prophetic circles of Shiloh, would be added immediately or soon afterwards. Comparative Redaction and Composition of MT 1 Kgs 11–12 and LXX 12:24a–z In these passages, MT and LXX do not represent merely two “textual types” of a single literary work. The differences between them cannot be explained merely on the level of textual transmission, but go back to an earlier, deeper phase. Both texts have behind them very different processes of redaction and composition and therefore represent two different “redaction traditions.”76 A comparison between these two “redaction traditions” will determine the possible influences and literary dependencies of one to the other. The aim of the comparison is not to prove that the tradition reflected by LXX 12:24a–z, being devoid of dtr traces, contains the original version of the stories, as opposed to the re-elaborated version in MT. As was clearly proven regarding the legend of the consultation, it has to be considered that, from very early times, different versions of the same narrative (Yahwistic or Elohistic in some cases; with or without prophetic influences; Northern or Southern; etc.) could have been in circulation. Nevertheless, it is hard to admit that a non-dtr text such as LXX is later and Midrashic to a dtr text such as MT. This would imply that the dtr version had been expurgated of its signature passages and features, leaving no trace of them. It is more realistic to assume that, between two parallel texts, the non-dtr one is also pre-dtr, as, in the case of Targumic traditions, “when it is anti-Mishnaic it is pre-Mishnaic.”77 A comparison of these redaction traditions 6.3

76  These are E. Tov’s terms from his study of the book of Jeremiah, where LXX has a shorter text, devoid of many dtr additions present in MT and with a different order of units and verses. According to E. Tov, “les différences entre TM et LXX sont plus marquées que celles de deux types textuels … Il est donc plus exact de caractériser le TM et la LXX comme les témoins de deux traditions rédactionnelles distinctes, bien qu’apparentées,” see id., “L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur la critique littéraire dans le livre de Jérémie,” RB 79 (1972): 189–199, esp. 191. 77  A. Díez Macho, El Targum. Introducción a las traducciones aramaicas de la Biblia (Barcelona: 1972), 191.

88

Chapter 3

is valid at the very least in order to determine their common elements and isolate those who may have been added to either of them. Therefore, besides the ex silentio argument defined by the total absence of dtr influences in the redaction of LXX 12:24b–z,78 it is necessary to provide further positive data on the basis of shared elements in both redactions. I will first study the literary process in each redaction; then the theological key which gives sense and justification to it. The literary process of redaction comes earlier in the gnoseological order from the interpreter’s point of view. It allows one to know the theological key which inspired and started the redaction process. On the other hand, this “hermeneutical principle” rooted in theology is earlier in the causal order, although it can only be identified through the particular literary process chosen at redaction.79 6.3.1 The Literary Process LXX 12:24a keeps together and in immediate succession the conclusive and initial formulas of the reigns of Solomon and Rehoboam respectively. In the editorial tradition represented by MT, there has been a double shift: Solomon’s conclusive formulae were introduced in the middle of the story of Jeroboam’s escape and return. Rehoboam’s initial formulae are postponed after 14:20, leaving room for the literary material attributed to Jeroboam’s reign. 6.3.1.1 Solomon’s and Rehoboam’s Regnal Formulae Regnal formulae in MT 1 Kgs 11:41–43 interrupt Jeroboam’s story with the excuse of an incidental reference to Solomon’s death. The story continues in the parallel passage to MT 12:2, but according to the preserved text of LXX 11:43, which mentions Jeroboam’s return to Sareira. Also, original continuity of the narrative between MT 11:26–28 and verse 40 is interrupted by the insertion of Ahijah’s prophetic narrative (11:29–39). The parallel version of LXX 12:24b–f preserves the unity and integrity of the original narrative. It offers a quick transition between the elements which in MT appear dissociated; it also preserves the final reference to Jeroboam’s

78  A.T. Olmstead has underscored this feature of the version transmitted by LXX, see id., “Source Study and the Biblical Text,” AJSL 30 (1913): 1–35, esp. p. 30. If LXX 12:24a–z depended on the text of the dtr redaction attested in MT, it would be very difficult to explain why LXX removed precisely the dtr additions. Later re-elaborations constitute, on the contrary, a development of dtr theology, as is the case, e.g., in the book of Chronicles; cf. Debus, Sünde, 85. 79  Cf. the relations between form and content (“der formale Ansatz” and “der Inhalt”) in Richter, Exegese, 177ff.

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

89

return to Sareira and does not know the foreign elements which the MT version has introduced here. 24b [2] καὶ ἦν ἐπαιρόμενος ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν

‫ֵה ִרים יָ ד ַּב ֶּמ ֶלְך‬

(11:29–39) 24c [3] καὶ ἐζήτει Σαλωμων θανατῶσαι αὐτόν ‫מה ְל ָה ִ ֣מית ֶאת־יָ ָר ְב ָעם‬ ֹ ֖ ‫ וַ ַיְב ֵ ּ֥קׁש ְׁשֹל‬11:40 καὶ ἐφοβήθη καὶ ἀπέδρα αὐτὸς ‫וַ ּיָ ָקם יָ ָר ְב ָעם וַ ְּיִב ֤רח ִמ ְצ ַריִם‬ πρὸς Σουσακιμ βασιλέα Αἰγύπτου ‫ְך־מ ְצ ַריִם‬ ִ ‫יׁשק ֶ ֽמ ֶל‬ ַ ‫ל־ׁש‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬ καὶ ἦν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἕως ἀπέθανεν Σαλωμων ‫ד־מֹות ְׁשֹלמֹה‬ ֥ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ְב ִמ ְצ ַריִם ַע‬ …………………… (11:41–43) 24d [4] καὶ ἤκουσεν Ιεροβοαμ ‫ וַ יְ ִ֞הי ִּכ ְׁשמ ַֹע יָ ָר ְב ָעם ֶּבן־נְ ָבט‬12:2 ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ‫עֹודּנּו ְב ִמ ְצ ַריִם‬ ֶ ‫וְ הּוא‬ ὅτι τέθνηκεν Σαλωμων 24d–f* [4–6] LXX 11:43: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν Ιεροβοαμ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου κατευθύνει καὶ ἦλθεν καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς τὴν πόλιν αὐτοῦ εἰς γῆν Σαριρα εἰς τὴν γῆν Σαριρα τὴν ἐν ὄρει Εφραιμ τὴν ἐν ὄρει Εφραιμ The Ahijah prophetic narrative (11:29–39) interrupts Jeroboam’s story. The interest in inserting the narrative at that point and the required adaptations it involves determine some redactional changes which facilitate the insertion. The beginning, with indications of place and time, is part of this redaction, both deliberate and necessary. The first indication is general and imprecise: “it happened at that time …” (‫)ויהי בעת ההיא‬. The second is very precise and clearly intentional: the scene is set in Jerusalem when Jeroboam is leaving the city after having worked as overseer of forced labor in the king’s service. The redactor who places the legend in this moment of the composition and in the geographical location of Jerusalem is thus establishing an intentional relationship between the Jeroboam and Ahijah narratives, but such a relationship is clearly secondary.80 Also, it becomes necessary to introduce Ahijah, a character so far unknown. The form of the introduction, “Ahijah, the one of Shiloh, the prophet,” 80  Debus, Sünde, 6: “Nach dem MT fand diese Szene vor den Toren Jerusalems statt, wohl mit Rücksicht auf vs. 27b.” One could wonder if the identification of the Akra with the Millo of Jerusalem in MT 1 Kgs 11:27 is not a secondary modification of the reference in LXX 12:24b to the construction of Sareira and the Akra of Ephraim, cf. Debus, Sünde, 82.

90

Chapter 3

is secondary and depends on the introduction in the legend of the consultation (MT 14).81 On the placement of this episode in the composition Fohrer says that “Manches spricht für die von der Septuaginta vollzogene Einordnung nach der Rückkehr Jerobeams aus Ägypten.”82 The passage fits smoothly into the shared context with the narrative of the assembly: “the Ten Tribes” (Wiederaufnahme). The prophecy on the division immediately precedes the narrative of the events of the division which took place in Shechem. It presents a clear commandfulfillment structure, similar to other narratives in 1–2 Kings.83 In the MT version this structure has been lost due to the redaction. Also, the secrecy which surrounds Ahijah’s designation of Jeroboam does not agree with Solomon’s open persecution (verse 40). Thus, in the MT redaction tradition the insertion of the regnal formulae after 11:40 places the Jeroboam narrative and the legend of Ahijah’s symbolic action within the literary frame of Solomon’s reign. In the redaction tradition reflected in LXX 12:24a–z both narratives are integrated within the frame of Jeroboam’s reign. The prophet’s symbolic action takes place after Solomon’s death and not during the life of the king, as in MT 11:29ff. Thus, in the MT version the Jeroboam narrative is juxtaposed to the “satans” Hadad and Rezon. The similarity of the revolts favours this approach.84

81  The insertion of the epithet “the one of Shiloh” in the expression “X … the prophet” is another sign of the secondary character of this introduction and its current placement. The expression “X the prophet” appears in the following cases: 1 Sam 22:5; 24:11 (Gad); 2 Sam 7:2; 12:25; 1 Kgs 1:8, 10, 22, 23, 32, 34, 44, 45 (Nathan); 1 Kgs 14:2, 18 (Ahijah); 16:7, 12 (Jehu); 18:36 (Elijah); 2 Kgs 6:12; 9:1 (Elisha); 19:2; 20:11, 14 (Isaiah). Only in three cases is the mention to the prophet’s father inserted: “X son of …” (1 Kgs 16:7; 2 Kgs 20:1; Isa 37:2). A mention of the prophet’s birthplace is never inserted, as in this case (11:29). 82  G. Fohrer, “Der Vertrag zwischen König und Volk in Israel,” in Studien zur alttestamentli­ chen Theologie und Geschichte (1949–1966), BZAW 115 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969), 337. 83  See Olmstead, “Source Study and Biblical Text,” 30: “We have in the Jeroboam story only the style and vocabulary of the prophetic writings found elsewhere in Kings and which, at least in the Elijah-Elisha cycles, have been preserved to us virtually untouched by the ‘Deuteronomistic’ coloring.” 84  Despite the similarities in content, the closeness between the Jeroboam narrative and that of the “satans” is purely redactional. The Jeroboam story is independent. It opens with a typical introduction (LXX 12:24b, “There was a man from the mount of Ephraim …,” cf. 1 Sam 9:1; Judg 13:2, etc.) and closes with Jeroboam’s return to Sareira, before his travel to the assembly at Shechem. Cf. the opposite considerations, though nuanced and careful, in Noth, Könige, 245 and 271.

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

91

In turn, the prophetic legend, located now in Jerusalem and “at that time” immediately after Solomon’s death, is an ideal opening for the insertion of a dtr oracle of judgment and condemnation against Solomon.85 6.3.1.2 The Narrative of the Assembly at Shechem In the MT version the insertion of the regnal formulae (11:41–43) not only interrupted the end of the narrative of Jeroboam’s flight and return, but also truncated the beginning of the narrative of the assembly: LXX 12:24n, p. καὶ ἐπορεύθη Ιεροβοαμ εἰς Σικιμα τὴν ἐν ὄρει Εφραιμ καὶ συνήθροισεν ἐκεῖ τὰς φυλὰς τοῦ Ισραηλ καὶ ἀνέβη ἐκεῖ Ροβοαμ υἱὸς Σαλωμων καὶ εἶπεν ὁ λαὸς πρὸς Ροβοαμ υἱὸν Σαλωμων ὁ πατήρ σου ἐβάρυνεν…

MT 12:1, 3b

‫וַ ֵּי ֶ֥לְך ְר ַח ְב ָ ֖עם ְׁש ֶכ֑ם‬ ‫ִ ּ֥כי ְׁש ֶכ֛ם ָ ּ֥בא ָכל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵ ֖אל ְל ַה ְמ ִ ֥ליְך א ֹֽתֹו‬

‫ַ �וֽיְ ַד ְּב ֔רּו‬ ‫מר‬ ֹ ֽ ‫ל־ר ַח ְב ָ ֖עם ֵלא‬ ְ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ָא ִ ֖ביָך ִה ְק ָ ׁ֣שה‬

The MT version does not know the first sentence of LXX, that is, Jeroboam going to Shechem, where he summons the tribes of Israel. It preserves the minimum necessary data for its narrative, summarized in the sentence: “because all Israel was coming to Shechem to make him king.” MT 12:1b then has to repeat the mention of Shechem, against the smooth sequence in the text of LXX: “to Shechem,” “there,” “there.” In MT “all Israel” is a secondary interpretation of “the tribes of Israel” (LXX 12:24n); “to make him king” is, again, a redaction interpretation (cf. verse 20). The analysis of the narrative in its central scene, the deliberations in the assembly, proved the value of the version represented by LXX 12:24p, t over the text of MT 12:3b–16, rife with repetitions and additions (dtr, verse 15bβγ). The redaction work becomes, again, more intense in the conclusion of the narrative, as it was in the beginning.

85  Debus, Sünde, 92: “Daher wurde nun die Designierungs-Szene ganz an den Anfang der Jerobeamtradition gestellt, … weil dtr damit schon hier, noch vor der eigentlichen ‘Reichsteilung,’ darlegen konnte, welche Gründe Jahwe zu diesem Handeln bewegten und welche Absichten er dabei hegte.”

92 LXX 12:24u, x καὶ διεσπάρη πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἐκ Σικιμων καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸ σκήνωμα αὐτοῦ

καὶ κατεκράτησεν Ροβοαμ καὶ ἀπῆλθεν καὶ ἀνέβη ἐπὶ τὸ ἅρμα αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Ιερουσαλημ

καὶ πορεύονται ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ πᾶν σκῆπτρον Ιουδα καὶ πᾶν σκῆπτρον Βενιαμιν [24] καὶ ἐγένετο ἐνισταμένου τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ καὶ συνήθροισεν Ροβοαμ πάντα ἄνδρα Ιουδα καὶ Βενιαμιν καὶ ἀνέβη τοῦ πολεμεῖν πρὸς Ιεροβοαμ εἰς Σικιμα [25] καὶ ἐγένετο ῥῆμα κυρίου…

Chapter 3

MT 12:16b–22

‫וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ְלא ָֹה ָליו‬

‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫ּובנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ַהּי ְֹׁש ִבים ְּב ָע ֵרי י‬ ְ )17( ‫יהם ְר ַח ְב ָעם‬ ֶ ‫וַ ּיִ ְמֹלְך ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ת־אד ָֹרם‬ ֲ ‫( וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַלח ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְר ַח ְב ָעם ֶא‬18) ‫ל־ה ַּמס וַ ּיִ ְרּגְ מּו ָכל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ּבֹו ֶא ֶבן וַ ּיָ מֹת‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ַע‬ ‫וְ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְר ַח ְב ָעם ִה ְת ַא ֵּמץ‬ ‫ַל ֲעלֹות‬ ‫ַּב ֶּמ ְר ָּכ ָבה‬ ִ‫רּוׁש ָלם‬ ָ ְ‫ָלנּוס י‬ ‫( וַ ּיִ ְפ ְׁשעּו יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ְּב ֵבית ָּדוִ ד ַעד ַהּיֹום ַהּזֶ ה‬19) ‫י־ׁשב יָ ָר ְב ָעם‬ ָ ‫( וַ יְ ִהי ִּכ ְׁשמ ַֹע ָּכל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ִּכ‬20) ‫ל־ה ֵע ָדה וַ ּיַ ְמ ִליכּו אֹתֹו‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ְלחּו וַ ּיִ ְק ְראּו אֹתֹו ֶא‬ ‫ל־ּכל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ָ ‫ַע‬ ‫ית־ּדוִ ד‬ ָ ‫לֹא ָהיָ ה ַא ֲח ֵרי ֵב‬ ‫הּודה ְל ַבּדֹו‬ ָ ְ‫זּול ִתי ֵׁש ֶבט־י‬ ָ ִ‫רּוׁש ַלם‬ ָ ְ‫וַ ּיָ בֹאּו ְר ַח ְב ָעם י‬ ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫ל־ּבית י‬ ֵ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיַ ְק ֵהל ֶא‬ ‫יָמן‬ ִ ְ‫ת־ׁש ֶבט ִּבנ‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ּוׁשמֹנִ ים ֶא ֶלף ָּבחּור ע ֵֹׂשה ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ְ ‫ֵמ ָאה‬ ‫ְל ִה ָּל ֵחם‬ ‫ם־ּבית יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ִע‬ ‫ן־ׁשֹלמֹה‬ ְ ‫לּוכה ִל ְר ַח ְב ָעם ֶּב‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ְּמ‬ ַ ‫ְל ָה ִׁשיב ֶא‬ …‫וַ יְ ִהי ְּד ַבר‬

Verse 17 is extant in the MT-related tradition (cf. 2 Chr). Verse 18a in MT may represent a historical notice coming from independent sources of a Judaean redactor (cf. the repetition of “king Rehoboam”). Verses 19–20 are inserted in a repetition the aim of which is to pick up the narrative line interrupted in verse 18b: “… to flee to Jerusalem … Rehoboam arrived in Jerusalem.” The second sentence is mirrored accurately by the only clause present in LXX, και εισηλθεν εις Ιερουσαλημ. Verse 19 can be a redactional comment of the “editor’s note” type of 2 Kings 1:1, which has the same expression, ‫( ופשׁע מואב בישׂראל אחרי אחאב‬cf. 2 Kgs 3:5). Verse 19 represents a Judaean point of view which considers Israel’s

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

93

secession a form of “rebellion.”86 Verse 20b is a re-elaboration of ancient materials, according to which Benjamin supported Rehoboam’s party. The dtr redactions mention “only the tribe of Judah alone” regarding the “only tribe” which Ahijah’s prophecy assigned to Solomon’s successor (11:32, 36). This “only tribe” is in fact Judah, which, as a kingdom, opposes all Northern Israel.87 6.3.2 The Hermeneutic Principle or Theological Key of the Redaction Religious and cultic behavior is the measure by which the dtr addition judges Solomon and Jeroboam, and also all the other kings of Israel and Judah. Responsibilities and consequences of the “sins of Solomon” and the “sins of Jeroboam” are clearly defined: (A) cultic transgressions by Solomon and his foreign wives are the cause of the appearance of the “satans,” Jeroboam included, and of the division of the kingdom; (B) the “sins of Jeroboam” are the cause of the extermination of his dynasty. The source analysis has demonstrated that the most meaningful redaction to the version of the legend preserved in MT 1 Kgs 11:29–31a is the reference to Solomon in verses 31b33. It places upon Solomon the responsibility for the uprisings and the division of the kingdom for “having followed other gods” (11:1–13 and 31b/33). The division of the kingdom is fulfilled in 1 Kgs 12:15b. Between the two extremes of this arc (11:1–12:15b) the Judaean-Deuteronomistic redactor has re-elaborated under a “Solomonic and Judaean” lens all the pre-existing materials that he uses. He has added data which are interesting only to the Southern Kingdom, such as: – The scene of the tearing of Ahijah’s mantle is located now in Jerusalem, right before the death of Solomon, who, in his old age, leaned towards heathen cults. – The interest of the oracle is not focused anymore on the “ten tribes” of the North, as happened in the earlier Northern version (LXX 12:24 o), but in the fate of the “only tribe” (11:32, 36; of “the tribe of Judah only,” 12:20b), for love to David and Jerusalem. – The redaction of the assembly episode also shows special interest in “the elders who served Solomon” (12:6); it is concerned with the rebels’ answer: “Now, David, take care of your house” (verse 16); with the fate of Adoniram, one of Solomon’s administrators (verse 18); with the future of the “tribe of 86  Cf. Montgomery, Kings, 348; Noth, Könige, 279; Gray, Kings, 307. 87  Debus, Sünde, 17: “Wenn er (dtr) von Juda spricht, meint er den judäischen Staat.” Noth, Könige, 260: “… das Verhältnis Israel-Juda = 10:1, sowie es in 2S 19,44 festgestellt wird.” The addition “and Benjamin” in LXX 12:20b does not agree with the sense and dtr origin of the story; it is a harmonizing addition, of the same kind as the LXX reading “two tribes” in 11:32, 36 instead of MT “one tribe.”

94

Chapter 3

Judah only” which follows Rehoboam (verse 20); and with the number of soldiers of Judah and Benjamin mustered in order to “claim back the kingdom for Rehoboam” (verse 21). The division of Solomon’s kingdom was a “work of God” according to Shemaiah’s prophecy (“because this has happened by my will,” 12:24 = 12:24y). Everything happens in agreement with the symbolic action and earlier oracle by the prophet. The dtr redactor just adds a motivation which justifies the actions of the divine will: Solomon’s adoration of foreign gods has been the cause of the division of his kingdom. dtr overlooks the key importance of Jeroboam’s first revolt and the social and political protests of the tribes for the division of the kingdom. On the contrary, in the historical version of LXX 12:24a–z the division of the kingdom fulfilled the prophet’s oracle on the “Ten Tribes” entrusted to Jeroboam. But it is also the result of revolt by Jeroboam himself and by the Northern tribes, together with Rehoboam’s disastrous political reactions against the social protests of the groups in Shechem. There is no cultic motivation for the events. Motivations are, rather, more transcendent and at the same time more realistic than in the dtr version of MT. On one hand, Yahweh’s pure will expressed in the prophetic oracles (command-fulfillment) and, on the other hand, the mere dynamics of the worldly events which determine by themselves the fall of the Solomonic empire. The version of the history of the “schism” is thus more prophetic and more mundane in the LXX version; the MT text is, in turn, more cultic and moralizing. The second redactional arc presents the same tone as the preceding one: (A) the “sins of Jeroboam” in the organization of the cult at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:28–30); (B) a prophetic oracle of condemnation with a dtr motivation (1 Kgs 14:7–11); (C) the fulfillment of the oracle with the extermination of Jeroboam’s dynasty (1 Kgs 15:29–30). Therefore, Jeroboam was not responsible for the division of Solomon’s kingdom. He is guilty, nevertheless, of his dynasty’s downfall and, ultimately, of the doom of Israel due to “the sins of Jeroboam” (cf. the arc spanning 1 Kgs 14:14–16 to 2 Kgs 17). The story featured in LXX is limited to the period prior to the division of the kingdom. The lack of interest of the Greek version in the dtr motivations of the religious schism is visible in the absence of chapter 14:1–20.88

88  The LXX Vorlage likely knew the text of MT 1 Kgs 14:1–20, given that in LXX the fulfillment of that oracle appears in 15:29–30. The reason for the suppression would be that the legend of consultation of Ahijah was already part of the text of LXX and its repetition would be an unnecessary duplication.

The Alternative Stories about Solomon and Jeroboam

7

95

Final Conclusions

In the process of dtr redaction of the book of Kings the narratives of the cycle were set in a double arc of prophecy and fulfillment: Solomon and Jeroboam are punished for the “sins” of a heterodox cult; Solomon’s dynasty loses ten parts of its kingdom, Jeroboam’s is doomed to extermination. Data, notices, and narratives, collected in the composition, are commented on in redactional paraphrases of dtr style, which expand pre-existing oracles (1 Kgs 11:9–13, 31b–39 and 14:7–9[14–16]); finally, a “notice of fulfillment” interprets the narrated events as the expected fulfillment of those dtr oracles (1 Kgs 12:15bβγ and 15:29b). Also, the different placement of the narratives in the composition and their insertions and interconnections determine a series of correlations and mutual references which open new possibilities of meaning or mar existing ones. The meaning of a work is not the gregarious addition of the meanings of each constitutive unit. Thus, the insertion of the framing formulae of Solomon’s reign determines a distribution of the narratives ante and post mortem Salomonis; the narrative of Jeroboam’s flight and return is moved into a trilogy of revolting “satans” in Solomon’s life; the conclusion of the story implies the death of the king and thus the composer postpones it to the conclusive regnal formulae and thus it is left as an unconnected sentence (LXX 11:43* // MT 12:2–3a*). Besides, the dtr composer has already interrupted that same narrative to insert the symbolic action of the prophet Ahijah; in principle that story was a very well defined unit (command-fulfillment), integrated in a very different literary and historical narrative (LXX 12:24 o), at the beginning of the assembly and after Solomon’s death; in its new placement, the prophet, Ahijah, is acting in the Jerusalem area and during Solomon’s life (11:29–39). The Story of the Secession and Schism in the redactional form reflected by LXX 12:24a–z has simultaneously a more prophetic and worldly tone; the same story, re-composed and glossed by the dtr redactors (MT 1 Kgs 11–14) shows more marked moralizing and cultic orthodoxy concerns.

Chapter 4

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms 2:35a–o and 2:46a–l and the Main Body of the Composition of MT/LXX 1 Kings 4–10 The study of the supplements of LXX 1 Kingdoms 2:35a–o and 2:46a–l is especially difficult and irksome. In order to increase the clarity of exposition I will begin by proposing a chart detailing the correspondence between the different MT and LXX passages both in the main body (LXX-MB) and in supplements (LXX-S) of the latter. In the main body of the composition, MT and LXX basically follow the same arrangement of literary units, with some meaningful differences which I will survey soon: LXX 2:35a  b  cα  cβ  d ……. eα ……. eβ  f  g  h  i  k 2:35l–o 2:46aα  aβ  b  c ……. d ……. e ……. f–g  h

ΜΤ = 5:9 = 5:10 = 3:1b = 6:38b (LXX-MB om.) = 5:29 (cf. 11:27) = 9:24 = 9:25 = 9:23 / = MT 5:30 = 9:15b, 17*, 18* = 9:15a (Shimei Story) = 4:20 = 5:1aα, b = 9:18* = 5:2–3 = 5:4–5 = 4:2–6

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_006

97

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

 i  k  l

= 5:6 / 10:26a = 5:1a (LXX-MB 5:1a after 10:26 / cf. LXX-S 2:46b)

Main body of the composition (MT/LXX 1 Kgs 3–10) MT LXX 3:1a 3:1b 3:2–28 3:2–28 4:1 4:1 4:2–6 4:2–6 4:7–19 4:7–19 4:20 5:1 5:2–4 5:5 5:6 = 10:26a 5:7–8 5:7–8 5:2–4 5:9–10 5:9–10 5:11–14 5:11–14 3:1b 9:16–17a 5:15–30 5:15–30 5:31–32a 5:32b 5:32b 6:1a 6:1a 6:1b 5:31–32a 6:37–38a 6:2–10 6:2–10 6:11–14 6:15–36 6:15–36 6:37–38a 6:38b 7:1–12 7:13–51 7:13–51 7:1–12 8 8

LXX Supplements = 2:35cα (cf. 2:46h) = 2:46a = 2:46b* (cf. 2:46k) = 2:46e, f, gα = 2:46gβ = 2:46i = 2:35a, b (2:35cα) vv. 29–30 = 2:35d, (h)

= 2:35cβ

98

Chapter 4

9:1–9

9:1–9 9:24a

9:26–28 10:1–13 10:14–22 9:15 9:17b–18 9:19–22 10:23–26 5:1a 10:27–29

9:10–14 9:15a 9:15b 9:6–17a 9:17b–18* 9:19–22 9:23 (= 5:30) 9:24a, b 9:25 9:26–28 10:1–13 10:14–22

10:23–26 10:27–29

= 2:35k* = 2:35i = 2:35i (cf. 2:46d) = 2:35h = 2:35f = 2:35g

v. 26a = 2:46i (5:6) = 2:46k (cf. 2:46b)

The differences between MT and LXX in the main body of the composition are two: 1. MT adds two blocks of verses that have parallels in LXX-S, but no correspondence in LXX-MB, at least in the same location as MT. So, there are loose materials added between MT 4:7–19 and 5:7–8; these appear in LXX-S in the same sequence and order: MT 4:20; 5:1–6 = LXX-S 2:46a, b*, e, f, g, i, k. Between the units of MT 9:10–14 and 9:26–28, there are also disjointed materials which have an agreement in LXX-S, in an almost inverse order: MT 9:15, 17b–18*, 23–25 = LXX-S 2:35k, i, h, f, g. Some of these materials have no like passage in LXX-MB. These are 4:20; 5:5; and 9:25. Others do have similar passages in LXX-MB, but in a different location. Their location in LXX-MB always comes after the place where MT has an element also included in the supplements, as can be seen in these cases: MT 5:1a = LXX-S 2:46e–f–g appears in LXX-MB after 5:7–8. MT 9:15–17b–18* = LXX-S 2:35k–i appears in LXX-MB after 10:1–22.

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

99

The same happens, outside the mentioned sections of text, in MT 3:1a = LXX-S 2:35a, whose text appears in LXX-MB after 5:9–14. The case of MT 9:24 = LXX-S 2:35f, which is apparently anticipated in LXX-MB after 9:1–10, remains exceptional (see infra). 2. The same transposition phenomenon also affects larger composition units with no corresponding passages in LXX-S. Thus, on the chronology of the construction of the Temple, MT and LXX-MB have a very different verse order, which also includes a number of variants. Therefore, it is necessary to explain the kind of relationship between the “duplicates” of MT, LXX-MB and LXX-S, as well as the causes of those transpositions in the main body of MT and LXX. For clarity’s sake, I will first formulate my working hypothesis, which will then be tested on each of the texts: – The so-called “Supplements” of LXX 2:35a–o and 2:46a–l (also others like 12:24a–z; 16:28a–h; 2 Kgs 1:18a–d) were part of the Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Septuagint. – Their clearly fragmentary and marginal character when compared to the main body of the composition of 1 Kings would suggest the possibility of their elimination as supplementary bodies. – Some materials of the supplement were already represented in the main body of the composition of 1 Kings (e.g. LXX-S 2:35a–b = 5:9–10). Others featured only in the supplement. The Masoretic text-type integrated the latter into the main body of the composition; consequently, it eliminated the supplements, because almost all of them are now included in the main text of the book. Confirmation of this hypothesis comes from the survey of 1) the text of each “duplicate”; and 2) its placement within the main body of the composition. 1. In the three cases where MT and LXX-S contain a passage which has no corresponding one in MT-MB, the MT is identical to the LXX-S translation: MT 4:20 = LXX 2:46a; MT 5:5 = LXX-S 2:46gβ; MT 9:25 = LXX-S 2:35g (cf. infra for a more detailed presentation). When a passage features in MT, LXX-MB, and LXX-S, MT agrees with either LXX-MB or LXX-S, depending on the location where the agreement takes place. A couple of examples will better demonstrate the procedure followed in MT for that section of parallels. Let us examine the textual section of chapters 3–5:

100 LXX-CP 3:2–28 4:1 4:2–6 4:7–19

Chapter 4

MT 3:1a 3:1b 3:2–28 4:1 4:2–6 4:7–19 4:20 5:1 5:2–4 5:5

5:7–8 5:2–4 5:9–10 5:11–14 3:1b

5:6 5:7–8 5:9–10 5:11–14

LXX-S = (2:35cα) (cf. 2:46h) = 2:46a = 2:46b + 2:46k 2:46c = 2:46e, f, gα = 2:46gβ 2:46h = 2:46i = 2:35a, b

MT matches, so to speak, the first parallel text it finds and does not notice the one following it. MT 3:1b agrees with LXX-S 2:35cα, against LXX-MB 3:1b (after 5:11–14), which is eliminated from MT. The same happens with MT 5:2–4 = LXX-S 2:46e, f, gα, against LXX-MB 5:2–4 (after 5:7–8), also eliminated from MT. On the other hand, the “list of Solomon’s administrators” in MT agrees with that in LXX-MB, against the one preserved in LXX-S 2:46h, which was later removed from its right place according to the order of the supplement, that is, between 5:5 and 5:6. The question is not to determine whether one text, MT = LXX-S or LXX-MB, is “better” than the other. Such an approach would muddle the discussion and unavoidably lead to solutions based on pre-conceptions. The concept of “better reading,” typical in textual criticism, cannot be mechanically transferred to the realm of literary criticism: principles such as lectio difficilior or lectio brevior imply that the opposite reading has been corrupted or retouched. In the literary analysis of parallel texts, room should be made for the possibility of the texts being truly parallel, that is, that they represent two “alternative variants” of the same data, with their own value and tone, as is the case with the double list of Solomon’s administrators (MT 4:2–6 = LXX-MB ≠ LXX-S 2:46h).

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

101

For now, I have just confirmed the agreement of MT with LXX-MB or LXX-S according to where it may be verified. This would mean that MT chooses either text according to its placement in the flow of the composition. 2. The passages where MT agrees with LXX-S against LXX-MB or with LXX-S only with no equivalent in LXX-MB are concentrated into two blocks, in the first, MT follows the same order that these materials follow in the supplement: MT 4:20, 5:1–6 = LXX-S 2:46a, b*, e, f, g, i. In the second one, MT follows an order inverse to that in the supplement: MT 9:15, 17b–18*, 23–25 = LXX-S 2:35k, i, h, f, g. Both blocks interrupt the sequence of literary units in the main body of the composition and disjoint parts which constitute a unitary whole, like 4:7–19 and 5:7–8 on the organization of provinces and governors of the Solomonic kingdom; or 9:10–14 and 9:26–28 on the relations between Solomon and Hiram of Tyre. These two intrusions also generate other transpositions of materials, which are now displaced from their original context. Thus, e.g., verses 9:16–17a are part of the main body of LXX, together with 3:1b (after 5:11–14) of a notice on Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter, who receives the city of Gezer as her dowry. In MT this information on the dowry interrupts a notice such as 9:15–17–18* on the cities built by Solomon, among which Gezer also features. The intromissions and transpositions carried out by the proto-Rabbinic textual form have altered the main body of the composition of 1 Kings. The procedure followed would be: In the archetypal Hebrew text, two ensembles of supplementary materials preceded the main body of the composition, as is reflected in the text of the old Greek version. Some of those materials were already included in the main body; others had been left aside. The proto-Rabbinic textual form is characterized by having collected those marginal materials and integrated them into the main body, creating two intercalated blocks between units 4:17–19…5:17–18 on the one hand and 9:10–14…9:26–29 on the other. The passages of the main body of text, which later “duplicate” some elements of these blocks, are removed. Thus, e, g. MT eliminates from the main body the passage of 5:2–4 which in LXX-MB appears after 5:7–8, for the simple reason that it already features according to the text of LXX-S 2:46e, f, gα. On the contrary, in the first block MT does not include the list of Solomon’s administrators of LXX-S 2:46h, as it already appears in 4:2–6 in agreement with the text of LXX-MB. In these two blocks, MT always agrees literally with the text of LXX-S, against LXX-MB in those cases where it has a corresponding version for those

102

Chapter 4

passages. Such an agreement between MT and LXX-S can be theoretically attributed to one reflecting the text of the other, or to both of them sharing the same source. In this case, the agreement is explained by the Masoretic textual form having taken the Hebrew text of those supplementary materials and integrated it into the main body of the composition. It was not, therefore, the Greek translator or a Hebrew compiler who gleaned isolated materials from MT 3–10 to collect them in miscellanies which, in the Greek translation, appear after 2:35 and 2:46. The evidence for this is that the order of literary units in the composition of 1 Kgs 3–10 is disturbed and altered by the insertion of supplementary materials in MT. The original sequence of units would be the one reflected by LXX-MB (cf. e.g. the sequence of 4:7–9 and 5:7–8). It is not possible to envisage an inverse process. It would require the acceptance first that a Greek translator or Hebrew compiler (“Sammler”) selected from MT 3–10 a series of unconnected materials to create with them two floppy supplements and then assume that in this way they managed to restore the original archetypal sequence of units, broken in MT by the introduction of the same materials which they have removed. It is also possible not to agree with this and still accept that such a Hebrew compiler kept the “duplicate” in the main body and in the supplement.” Then the Greek translator omitted the duplicate passages, doing it in the main body when he could have done it easier in the supplements. The Greek translator then rearranged the proto-Rabbinic text and eliminated materials, which had been inserted into it, managing to reconstruct, at least in some cases, the archetypal order of the text; that would have us admire him for an unmatched critical intuition. The working hypothesis that I propose here better explains the data in the text and is also confirmed by the history of the text of Kings. The protoRabbinic textual form represents a phase in the evolution of the text later than the Vorlage of the old Greek version. The latter is closer and more faithful to the archetypal form of the text, especially regarding the sequential order of units in the main body of the composition and the preservation of certain loose materials in marginal supplements. The Masoretic textual form collected materials from these supplements and integrated them into the main textual body of the composition, fully eliminating the supplements and omitting passages from the main body of text already collected in materials taken from the supplements; these materials share their textual features. This does not mean that the whole process took place after the Greek version of the Septuagint, which is in the 3rd–2nd centuries BCE. This process, which gives birth to and “typifies” the proto-Rabbinic textual form, may have started once the archetypal text, fruit of the final redaction and composition

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

103

of Kings in the final decades of the 6th century, had been constituted. The proto-Masoretic textual form developed with full independence, probably in the Babylonian diaspora, without contact with the textual form preserved in Palestine, the origin of the Vorlage of the Old Greek text. It is now time to carry out a more detailed study of the supplements of LXX in relation to the transpositions,1 additions, and omissions in the main body of the composition according to MT and LXX. 1

1 Kgs 4:20; 5:1–6 // LXX-S 2:46a, b, e, f, g, (h), i

Both textual forms follow the same order in the same textual blocks: 3:2–3, 4–15, 16–28; 4:1, 2–6; 4:7–19. MT then presents in 4:20; 5:1–6 loose materials, which appear in the LXX supplements in the same sequence and order: 2:46a, b*, e, f, g, i, k; 4:1, 2–6; 4:7–19. Some of these materials appear in the main body of the composition according to the LXX order in a different location from MT. That is the case of verses 5:2–4, which appear in LXX after 5:7–9, and of 5:1a, which features after 10:26. Verse 5:6 is duplicated in MT also in 10:26, agreeing also with MT 10:26. Only MT 4:20 and 5:5 remain unknown to the main body of LXX. 1.1 Text a) In 5:1a MT agrees with the text of LXX-S against LXX-MB: MT = LXX-S ≠ LXX-CP (2 Chr 9:26 = LXX-S 3 Kgdms 2:46k): MT 5:1 LXX 2:46b LXX 5:1 (after 10:26)

‫ושלמה היה‬

και Σαλωμων και ην

1  On the transpositions of MT and LXX, Driver wrote, “In some cases (but by no means in all) there is good reason to suppose that the recension represented by the LXX has preserved better readings that the Hebrew,” S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), 182, n. 1. Cf. id., “in the MSS. used by them the Hebrew text here had not yet reached the form in which we now have it,” p. 182. On the other hand, the following remark by Montgomery is typical of the change of attitude which took place during the mid-20th century: “But all presumption is against Greek rearrangements in general,” see J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 319.

104

Chapter 4

MT 5:1 LXX 2:46b LXX 5:1 (after 10:26)

‫בכל הממלכות‬

MT 5:1 LXX 2:46b LXX 5:1 (after 10:26)

‫מגשים מנחה ועבדים את שלמה כל ימי חייו‬

εν πασαις ταις βασιλειαις παντων των βασιλεων (εν πασαις τοις βασιλευσιν, 2:46k; ‫בכל המלכים‬, 2 Chr 9:26).

προσφεροντες δωρα και εδουλευσιν τω Σαλωμων πασας τας ημερας της ζωης αυτου omits (= LXX 2:46k; 2 Chr 9:26).

The same relationship between the texts is visible in MT 5:4 = LXX 2:46f ≠ LXX 5:4 (after 5:7–8): MT 5:4 LXX 2:46f LXX 5:4 (after 5:7–8)

‫מתפסח ועד עזה בכל מלכי עבר הנהר‬

απο Ραφει εως Γαζης εν πασιν τοις βασιλευσιν περαν του ποταμου omits (556).2

b) The passages of MT 4:20 and 5:5 which have no reflection in LXX-MB agree with LXX-S 2:46a and 2:46gβ respectively; it is where their text has been taken from. c) MT does not collect the text of LXX-S 2:46h because this passage, the list of Solomon’s administrators, already appears in MT 4:2–6, here following the same order and text as the main LXX body. In this case, MT agrees with the text of LXX-MB, against LXX-S: MT 4:2 ‫ ;אשר לו‬LXX 4:2 οι ησαν αυτου (αυτω); LXX 2:46h του Σαλωμων. The list of administrators of MT/LXX 4:2b–6, despite the differences between MT and LXX, is clearly different, in turn, from the one preserved in the supplement, 2:46h, whose text is eliminated by MT. Thenius and Benzinger considered that both texts reproduced independent lists, and that LXX 2:46h was the older of the two. Since Klostermann, though, it has become a common 2  According to Hrozný, a case of homoioteleuton has taken place here: “Der Abschreiber irrte nämlich von einem περαν του ποταμου auf das andere ab,” H. Hrozný, Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus vom hebräischen Texte in den Königsbüchern (Leipzig: Drugulin, 1909), 22. That explanation would be possible if there were a single Vorlage, shared by the three texts, but it is not possible if LXX 2:46f and LXX 5:4 represent two different text-types and MT is reproducing the first of them.

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

105

opinion that both texts go back to a single list. Thus, the text of LXX 2:46h was used to “correct” and clarify MT 4:2–6. Nevertheless, Hrozný and Hänel saw between the two lists a greater disparity than in the other duplicates of the supplement. Hrozný concludes that the list in LXX “ihren Ursprung einem Verfasser verdankt, der bei jedem Wechsel der Minister Salomos deren Namen aufgezeichnet hat.” M. Rehm wrote a paper on the 2:46h list to conclude also “dass in 2:46h eine selbständige Liste der Beamten Salomos vorliegt und dass die in ihr beschriebenen Verhältnisse zeitlich der Liste 1Kön 4,2–6 vorausgehen.”3 d) In a similar although inverse way, MT “omits” the passage of LXX 5:2–5 because it has already reflected it according to the text of the supplement 2:46e, f, gα.4 Also, MT “omits” LXX 5:1a (after 10:23–26) because it also had already been reflected, partly by taking the text from 2:46b = MT 5:1aα, b and party from 2:46k = MT 5:1aβγ.

3  L. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige, KHC IX (Freiburg: Mohr, 1899), 16–18; A. Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, KK A III (Nördlingen; Beck’sche Buchhandlung, 1887), 66; A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige, EHAT IX/2 (Münster: Aschendoff, 1911–1912), 65–72; J.A. Montgomery, “The Supplement at the End of 3 Kingdoms 2,” ZAW 50 (1932): 124–129; Noth, Könige, 63–66; Hrozný, Abweichungen, 26–27; I. Hänel, “Die Zusätze der Septuaginta in 1 Reg 2,35a–o und 46a–l,” ZAW 47 (1929): 76–79; E. Würthwein, Das erste Buch der Könige, ATD 11,1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 38–41 (Würthwein does not take into account the list of LXX 2:46h).    Some important remarks may be gleaned from Rehm’s paper: “Als sicher darf gelten, dass die Liste X (2,46h) ursprünglich hebräisch abgefasst war … Die griechische Form der Liste kann daher nicht von den Übersetzern stammen, die Sam und Kön übertragen haben. Da X (2,46h) in der Hss-Gruppe MN usw. fehlt, ist zu vermuten, dass sie nicht zum ursprünglichen Bestand der LXX gehörte, sondern erst später eingefügt wurde … Auf welchem Weg sie in die LXX-Hss gelangte, ist unbekannt,” J. Rehm, “Die Beamtenliste der Septuaginta in 1Kön 2,46h,” in Wort, Lied, und Gottesspruch. Beiträge zur Septuaginta I, Festschrift J. Ziegler, ed. J. Schreiner (Würzburg: Echter, 1972), 95–101, esp. 99ff. This latter supposition lacks any basis. The text of 2:46h is in fact omitted in mss MNnqvyz. It appears, nevertheless, in the rest of the Greek manuscript tradition and in the Ethiopic (which follows LXXB) and Old Latin (which in general reflects a text close to the Antiochene Greek) versions. According to Rehm himself, the agreement ‫ = אדניה‬Ορνειου/Ορνια is only explainable from a Hebrew original. He remarks that “LXX schreibt in 2 Sam Ορνεια, in 1 Kön dagegen Αδωνιας. Lukian übernahm die Form Ορνια auch in 1 Kön,” id., “Beamtenliste,” 100, n. 10. Precisely Αδωνιας appears in the kaige section. The form Ornia is typical of the OG. The Lucianic mss and OL preserve it also in the kaige section.    Gooding studies the differences between MT and the two lists in LXX concluding: “Some differences are merely scribal, of course, but several are occasioned by variations in the underlying Hebrew texts, while the most important arise from debate over the meaning and implication of the original Hebrew text,” D.W. Gooding, Relics of Ancient Exegesis: A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reigns 2, SOTS Mon 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 92. 4  Gooding, Relics, 26.

106

Chapter 4

1.2 Location The textual form reflected in the Greek version preserves in the main body of the composition the archetypal sequence of the literary units: 4:7–19; 5:7–8; 5:2–4, on the provincial division and the names and functions of Solomon’s administrators. The Masoretic textual form broke this sequence when the supplementary material of 4:20; 5:1–6, was inserted, taken from the Hebrew behind LXX-S 2:46a–i. Most scholars (Wellhausen, Benzinger, Kittel, Hrozný, Šanda, Hölscher, Jepsen and Gooding himself) have written in defense of the LXX order and against MT.5 2

MT 3:1b // LXX 2:35cα

2.1 MT MT closed chapter two with the conclusion clause “and the kingdom was consolidated in Solomon’s hands,” moved to this place from its first location in 2:35+ (LXX). The Hexaplaric Greek text is the only one to reproduce this sentence here, using a strange idiom in absolute genitive to imitate the Hebrew, της δε βασιλειας εδρασθεισης; cf. the version in LXX 2:35+ η δε βασιλεια κατωρθουτο). Chapter 3 begins in MT with a comment not known by LXX and reflected only in the Hexaplaric text. It is clearly a late gloss: “Solomon became the son in law of Pharaoh, king of Egypt” (3:1a). The following text, 3:1b, has a double parallel in LXX: in the supplement of 2:35cα and in the main body of text after 5:11–14. Despite the brevity of the sentence, MT shows again in this case enough agreements with the supplement and against the main body of text: MT = LXX-S ≠ LXX-MB.

5  Against the LXX order, C.F. Keil, Die Bücher der Könige, BC II 3 (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 18762), 41, n. 1. On the contrary for a defense of a better order in LXX: J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1899*), 271; Benzinger, Könige, 22; id., Jahvist und Elohist in den Königsbüchern, BZAW 2 (Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1921), 21; R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige, HK I 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 36. Hrozný also refers to the list of districts in the final verses: 4:18, 19, 17; 5:7, 8, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10ff., “Diese Versfolge ist zweifellos der des MT vorzuziehen,” id., Die Abweichungen, 27; Šanda, Das erste Buch der Könige, 87; G. Hölscher, “Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion,” in EUCHARISTERION: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, FS Gunkel, FRLANT 36 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 160; id., Geschichtsschreibung in Israel. Untersuchungen zum Jahvisten und Elohisten, Acta Reg. Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 50 (Lund: Gleerup, 1952), 381; A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches, 2nd ed. (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1956), 14; Gooding, Relics, 40–42.

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

MT 3:1b LXX 2:35cα LXX 3:1b

‫ויקח‬

MT 3:1b LXX 2:35cα LXX 3:1b

‫את בת פרעה‬

MT 3:1b LXX 2:35cα LXX 3:1b

‫לבנות‬

MT 3:1b LXX 2:35cα LXX 3:1b MT 3:1b LXX 2:35cα LXX 3:1b

107

και ελαβεν και ελαβεν Σαλωμων την θυγατερα Φαραω την θυγατερα Φαραω εαυτω εις γυναικα (‫)לאשה לו‬ οικοδομησαι (?) (Mbefgjmowybc2, Aeth) omits ‫את ביתו ואת בית יהוה‬

τον οικον αυτου και (τον – και om. Ba2) τον οικον Κυριου εν πρωτοις τον οικον Κυριου και τον οικον εαυτου ‫סביב‬

κυκλοθεν omits (also the Hexaplaric text)

2.2 LXX LXX begins chapter 3 with a sentence which has been counted as the last one in the equivalent text of the supplement, 2:46l, and which constitutes the initial regnal formula: “Solomon son of David was king over Israel and Judah in Jerusalem” (Σαλωμων υιος Δαυειδ εβασιλευσεν επι Ισραηλ και Ιουδα εν Ιερουσαλημ). “Die Eingangsnotiz zur Regierung Salomos, die im MT jetzt fehlt, hat sich in GB 2:46l wohl noch erhalten.”6 This sentence is followed by the clauses in verses 2–3, which involve the formulae of dtr judgment on Solomon’s 6  Jepsen, Die Quellen, 13. Cf. also Hrozný, Die Abweichungen, 21. Gooding himself came to assume that LXX 2:46l “is based on a non-MT type Hebrew text which used the accession formula for Solomon whereas the MT does not,” id., Relics, 15. The sentence of MT 4:1 could be a repetition of the initial regnal formula, preserved in 2:46l. What is true is that 4:1 does not constitute the header of the list of officers (MT 4:2–6), which begins with the expression ‫ואלה השרים אשר‬. Evidence for it is that the list preserved in LXX 2:46h opens with that same expression and does not know the sentence of MT 4:1. Würthwein assumes that verse 4:1 originally followed 3:15 as the original conclusion of the dream story (3:4–15), Würthwein, Das erste Buch der Könige, 34 and 38, n, 1. His argumentation uses theological arguments: “Jetzt erst ist er (Salomo) König im Sinne Jahwes,” that is, after the divine legitimacy conferred at Gibeon. The two stories in 3:4–15 (the dream) and 3:16–28 (Solomon’s judgment) were integrated together into the framework of Solomon’s reign during the dtr process of composition and redaction, as evidenced by the dtr connection between verses 3:3b and 4aβ.

108

Chapter 4

behavior and thus complete the initial framework of Solomon’s reign. It is important to notice that the supplements are perfectly located between the end of the Succession Story (2:35+) and the initial formulae of Solomon’s reign (LXX 2:46l; 3:2–3). The notice of MT 3:1b constitutes a unit with 9:16–17a. This unit is located after 5:11–14. The issue can be phrased as a simple dilemma: Either the supplement depends on and duplicates MT 3:1b or MT had been the one to use the Hebrew text of the supplement and integrate it into its present location at the beginning of chapter 3. The present location of 3:1b, between the initial formulae already commented on (LXX 2:46l … verses 2–3) or prior at least to the dtr introductory remarks in verses 2–3 (cf. the usage of ‫)רק‬, is in all likelihood an insertion out of place. The sentence of 3:1a, only known to the Masoretic tradition, is a mere gloss, which does not reproduce any already existing information, as is at least the case with 3:1b. This notice on Solomon’s marriage and the temporary residence of Pharaoh’s daughter in the City of David makes almost no sense unless it is integrated in a more extensive comment and in a more adequate context, as happens in the main body of LXX (after 5:11–14). Here, the notice on the marriage is connected to the information on the dowry. Solomon’s construction works in Gezer also link to those undertaken in Jerusalem. The information alluding to the temporary residence of Pharaoh’s daughter before the construction of the temple, palace, and city walls precedes chapters 5–9:9, on the construction of the temple and the palace. Once the works are finished and the temple dedicated, LXX confirms the moving of Solomon’s wife to the just-built palace (9:24a, placed after 9:1–9). This information appears in MT as part of the second block of loose materials with parallels in LXX-S, among which also features, although with no LXX-S parallel, the reference to the dowry (cf. MT 9:15, 16–17ª, 17b–18, 23, 24ª, b, 25). It is not possible to dissociate the discussion of these two correlative series of texts which refer to the temporary and permanent residency of Pharaoh’s daughter and which frame the central chapters on the construction of the Jerusalem temple and palace. At the very least, we have enough data to consider as certain the working hypothesis that I presented earlier. The proto-Masoretic textual form collected the literal text of the Vorlage of LXX-S 2:35cα and integrated it into its present location of 3:1b, adding also the gloss of 3:1a. When the same information appears later in the main body of the composition, right before chapters 5–9:9, MT just suppresses it, as a duplicate now rendered unnecessary. The Thus, it is easy to propose that the sentence of 4:1 was nothing but a repetition of the initial formula, which led into literary materials on Solomon’s reign.

109

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

second part of the notice would be integrated later into the present location of MT 9:16–17a. Most scholars acknowledge a preference for the order and layout of the text of LXX-MB, both regarding the unity of data on the marriage, dowry, and residence of Pharaoh’s daughter, and the location of this unit right before chapters 5–9:9.7 3

MT 9:15, 17b–18, 23–25 // LXX 2:35k, i, h, f, g

Between units 9:10–14 and 9:26–28, which in LXX-MB follow each other with no interruption, MT includes a series of materials, some of which have corresponding texts in the main body of LXX, but in a different location, whereas others appear only in the supplement of LXX 2:35f–k. LXX 9:1–9 9:24a 9:10–14

9:26–28 10:1–13 10:14–22 9:15a, b 9:17b–18 9:19–22 10:23–26 5:1a

MT 9:1–9 9:10–14 9:15a 9:15b 9:16–17a …17b–18* 9:19–22 9:23 9:24a, b 9:25 9:26–28 10:1–13 10:14–22

10:23–26

LXX

= 2:35k* = 2:35i = 2:35i = 2:35h = 2:35f = 2:35g

(10:26a = 2:46i = 5:6) = 2:46k

7  Cf. BHS; C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, Press, 1903), 47; A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige, EHAT IX/2 (Münster: Aschendoff, 1911–1912), 53–54; Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige, 40f.; Hrozný, Die Abweichungen, 13–15; B. Stade and F. Schwally, The Books of Kings, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1904), 79; Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige, 14; id., Jahvist und Elohist, 21; Jepsen, Die Quellen, 13: “Ähnlich ist das Schicksal der Notiz 3,1b + 9,16.17a + 24 gewesen, die im MT in 3 Teile, in GB in

110

Chapter 4

3.1 Text The text of MT always agrees with the text of the supplement, whether it has a parallel in the main body of LXX or not. MT has an order almost inverse to the supplement: MT 9:15, 17b–18*, 23–25 // LXX 2:35k*, i, h, f, g. The last verses, MT verses 23, 24, 25, represent three totally unconnected pieces of data which, nevertheless, also appear together in the supplement, a fact which should be of some relevance (cf. LXX 2:35h, f, g).8 a) MT 9:24 agrees with LXX 2:35f against LXX 9:24a, located after 9:9 and with a partial agreement with 2 Chr 8:11 in its text: MT 9:24 LXX 2:35f LXX 9:24a

‫אך‬

ουτως (‫כה‬/ ‫)כן‬ τοτε (‫( )אז‬563)9

MT 9:24 LXX 2:35f LXX 9:24a 2 Chr 8:11

‫בת פרעה עלתה‬

MT 9:24 LXX 2:35f LXX 9:24a

‫מעיר דוד אל ביתה‬

MT 9:24 LXX 2:35f LXX 9:24a

‫אשר בנה לה‬

θυγατηρ Φαραω ανεβαινεν ανηγαγεν Σαλωμων την θυγατερα Φαραω ‫את בת פרעה העלה שלמה‬

εκ της πολεως Δαυειδ εις τον οικον αυτης εκ πολεως Δαυειδ εις οικον αυτου ον ωκοδομησεν αυτη ον ωκοδομησεν εαυτω (+ εν ταις ημεραις εκειναις)

  2 Teile zersprengt ist, ursprünglich aber auch eine Einheit gebildet haben dürfte, die mit der Heirat Salomos einen kurzen Baubericht verbindet.” Cf. Gooding’s opposed explanation and conclusion in id., “The Septuagint’s Version of Solomon’s Misconduct,” VT 15 (1965): 325–335, esp. pp. 326–331; id., Relics, 66–73. 8  Due to the juxtaposition of very different materials in MT 9:24, 25, 23 and in LXX 2:35f–h, Hrozný argues that “der Bearbeiter des MT wie der des Zusatzes derselben Quelle entnommen hat,” id., Die Abweichungen, 12f.; Gooding tries to give an explanation for the inverted order of data in LXX 2:35f, g, h, which would have this order in MT: 9:24, 25, 23. “It seems obvious that in the miscellany the item about Pharaoh’s daughter has been re-arranged to stand first so that it could appropriately continue the daughter-of-Pharaoh theme begun in v. c,” id., Relics, 12. The same kind of argumentation could be used to propose that it was MT that inverted the order, anticipating verse 23 to link with verse 22, which is also dealing with officers of Solomon and with public works. 9  Montgomery, Kings, 214: “doubtless original ‫אז‬.”

111

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

MT 9:24 LXX 2:35f LXX 9:24a 2 Chr 8:11

‫אז בנה את המלוא‬

τοτε ωκοδομησεν την ακραν omits omits

b) MT 9:23 agrees with LXX 2:35h, with no equivalent in the main body of the composition according to LXX. Nevertheless, the same verse appears to have a duplicate within MT in 5:30, this time with a parallel in the LXX translation also at 5:30. It is a single base text, with some variants between MT 9:23/LXX 2:35h on one hand and MT/LXX 5:30 on the other: LXX 5:30 χωρὶς ἀρχόντων τῶν καθεσταμένων ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων τῶν Σαλωμων τρεῖς χιλιάδες καὶ ἑξακόσιοι ἐπιστάται οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰ ἔργα

MT 5:30

‫ְל ַבד‬ ‫ִמ ָּׂש ֵרי‬ ‫ַהּנִ ָּצ ִבים‬ ‫ִל ְׁשֹלמֹה‬ ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ְּמ ָל‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ַע‬ ‫ֹלׁשת ֲא ָל ִפים‬ ֶ ‫ְׁש‬ ‫ּוׁשֹלׁש ֵמאֹות‬ ְ ‫ָהר ִֹדים‬ ‫ָּב ָעם‬ ‫ָהע ִֹׂשים‬ ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ַּב ְּמ ָל‬

LXX 2:35h καὶ οὗτοι οἱ ἄρχοντες οἱ καθεσταμένοι

MT 9:23

ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Σαλωμων τρεῖς χιλιάδες καὶ ἑξακόσιοι ἐπιστάται τοῦ λαοῦ τῶν ποιούντων τὰ ἔργα

‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ְּמ ָל‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ַע‬ ‫ִל ְׁשֹלמֹה‬ ‫ֲח ִמ ִּׁשים‬ ‫וַ ֲח ֵמׁש ֵמאֹות‬ ‫ָהר ִֹדים‬ ‫ָּב ָעם‬ ‫ָהע ִֹׂשים‬ ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ַּב ְּמ ָל‬

‫ֵא ֶּלה‬ ‫ָׂש ֵרי‬ ‫ַהּנִ ָּצ ִבים‬

The variants are limited to the initial words ‫ = אלה שרי‬και ουτοι οι αρχοντες (MT/ LXX 2:35h) – ‫ = לבד משרי‬χωρις αρχοντων (MT/LXX 5:30); and to the numbers of the staff assigned to the works: “550” and “3000” in Hebrew versus a single number in Greek, “3600.” The inversion of the reference ‫ לשלמה‬has no reflection in the Greek.10 c) MT 9:25 coincides literally with LXX 2:35g, with no equivalent in the main body of the composition according to LXX:

10  Cf. Gooding’s discussion, focused mostly on the figures in the different texts, 2 Chr 8:10 included, which finishes with these words: “… behind all this there seems to lie an awareness on the part of the Greek that some Hebrew texts were confusing, if not confused,” id., Relics, 62.

112

Chapter 4

LXX 2:35g καὶ Σαλωμων ἀνέφερεν τρεῖς ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ ὁλοκαυτώσεις καὶ εἰρηνικὰς ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον ὃ ᾠκοδόμησεν τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ ἐθυμία ἐνώπιον κυρίου καὶ συνετέλεσεν τὸν οἶκον

MT 9:25

‫וְ ֶה ֱע ָלה ְׁשֹלמֹה ָׁשלׁש ְּפ ָע ִמים ַּב ָּׁשנָ ה‬ ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬ ַ ‫ּוׁש ָל ִמים ַע‬ ְ ‫עֹלֹות‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ָּבנָ ה ַליהוָ ה וְ ַה ְק ֵטיר‬ ‫ִאּתֹו ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫ת־ה ָּביִת‬ ַ ‫ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה וְ ִׁש ַּלם ֶא‬

The insertion of MT ‫ ִאּתֹו ֲא ֶׁשר‬is in all likelihood the addition of the protoMasoretic text to an original Hebrew similar to the Vorlage of LXX 2:35g.11 d) MT 9:15, 17b–18*, without the interruption of verses 16–17a, basically agrees with the equivalent passage of LXX, located after 10:1–22. Nevertheless, verse 18 includes data from the supplement, which have no equivalent in the main body of the LXX composition. 2 Chr 8:4 LXX 2:46d LXX 2:35i καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ ‫ וַ ֶּיִבן‬ᾠκοδόμησεν ᾠκοδόμησεν τὴν Ασσουρ καὶ τὴν Μαγδω καὶ τὴν Γαζερ

MT 9:15b, 17b–18 LXX 9:15b, 17

)… ‫( ( ִל ְבנֹות‬οἰκοδομῆσαι…) ‫ת־חצֹר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֶא‬καὶ τὴν Ασσουρ ‫ת־מגִ ּ֖דֹו‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֶא‬καὶ τὴν Μαγδαν ‫ וְ ֶאת־ּגָ זֶ ר‬καὶ τὴν Γαζερ (vv. 16–17a) καὶ τὴν Βαιθωρων ‫ת־ּבית חֹר ֹן‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֶא‬καὶ τὴν Βαιθωρων τὴν ἐπάνω ‫ ַּת ְחּתֹון‬τὴν ἀνωτέρω καὶ τὰ Βααλαθ ‫ת־ּב ֲע ָלת‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ת־ּת ְדמֹר‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬τὴν Θερμαι ‫ת־ּת ָמר ] ַּת ְדמֹר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֶא‬καὶ τὴν Ιεθερμαθ ‫ ַּב ִּמ ְד ָּבר‬ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ‫ַּב ִּמ ְד ָּבר‬ ‫ָּב ָא ֶרץ‬

11  Gooding (Relics of Ancient Exegesis, 65ff.) supposes (“it might well be”) that 2:35g is in the supplement and not in the main body of LXX “because at some stage, someone felt it to be a difficult verse, and removed it.” Gooding has no qualms about giving a Midrashic explanation for this difficulty, taking as its basis a conjecture by Klostermann: ‫את אשיו‬ instead of MT ‫אתו אשר‬. Also according to Gooding “the only other explanation would be that the main Greek text was translated from a Hebrew Vorlage that lacked this verse, and that someone later added v. g to the miscellany on the basis of the MT. But the fact that v. g ignores the ‫ אתו אשר‬of the MT, seems to go against this view.” In my explanation, the Vorlage of LXX in its main body did ignore this verse. It is also true, as Gooding says, that the absence of ‫ אתו אשר‬in LXX 2:35g goes against the possibility that this verse was “added to the miscellany on the basis of the MT.” Gooding, nevertheless, does not take into account the inverse possibility, that is, that MT 9:25 had been added into the main body of the composition from the underlying Hebrew text of LXX 2:35g.

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

113

In verse 17b MT alludes to “Lower” Beth-Horon, whereas both Greek texts mention “Upper” Beth Horon (την ανωτερω = ‫)העליון‬. 2 Chr 8:5 mentions both cities. Verse 18 in MT collects and merges three pieces of data from each of the two LXX texts and adds a new one: LXX 2:35i refers only to Βαλλαθ/Βααλαθ and LXX 2:46d (= 2 Chr 8:4) only to θερμαι εν τη ερημω. LXX mentions only Ιεθερμαθ with no specification of it being “in the desert,” as MT does. MT adds up all those elements into a single reading: “Baalath and Taemor /Tadmor in the desert in the land.” MT has a Ketib ‫ תמר‬and a Qere ‫תדמר‬. The Antiochene text follows the latter (θοδμορ oc2e2; δοθδμορ b), as the Syro-Hexaplaric, Aramaic and Latin Vulgate versions do, together with the Hebrew of 2 Chr 8:4. The final specification “in the land” is exclusive of MT. 3.2 Context The location of MT 9:16–17a is clearly secondary. It interrupts the notice of 16:17b–18, taking advantage of the mention of Gezer included in it. The insertion is verified if we notice the procedure of linking repetition, given that the inserted material coincides with a similar expression to that of the notice: “and he built Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer (then … and Solomon built Gezer) and Beth-Horon …” The parallel text of LXX-S 2:46i, free of interruptions, confirms the original continuity of the notice. It would be necessary to grant both the composer of the main textual body according to LXX and the compiler of the supplement a very high level of critical acumen had they been the ones to expurgate that notice, freeing it from the included parenthesis. The protoMasoretic textual form is secondary here. In the archetypal text the parenthetical element on the granting of Gezer as the dowry of Pharaoh’s daughter came together with the previous data on the celebration of the marriage, as attested by the unit of LXX-MB 3:1b; 9:16–17a (cf. Josh 16:10).12 The whole of MT 9:15–25, whose text collects insertions such as verses 16– 17a or additions like “in the land” and for the most part materials with a parallel in the LXX supplement, is located between two units which in the main body of LXX follow each other with no interruption: 9:10–14 and 9:26–28. Both refer to the same topic: trade relationships by land and sea between Solomon and Hiram of Tyre and the gold which Solomon acquired from that trade (cf. 9:14 and 9:28). The narrative of the Queen of Sheba’s visit (10:1–13) comes here due to the mention of the gifts of gold and jewels brought by the Queen (10:2, 10–11). 12  Cf. S. Holmes, Joshua. The Hebrew and Greek Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 63ff; H.M. Orlinsky, “The Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint of the Book of Joshua,” in Congress Volume Rome 1968, ed. G.W. Anderson et al., VTSup 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 190.

114

Chapter 4

Afterwards, the topic of gold and trade coming to Solomon continues (10:14–22; cf. 9:28 and 10:14) and concludes with a new allusion to Hiram and the riches brought by the trade fleet chartered by the two kings (10:22). In LXX-MB then come the materials related to the draft and Solomon’s building program (9:15, 17b–18, 19–22 without the loose verses of MT 9:23–25), a material which in MT interrupted the unit of 9:10–14, 26–28. Therefore, there are several reasons to think that the textual layout of MT is secondary when compared to the structure reflected in the main body of LXX. In MT the parenthesis of verses 16–17a interrupts the notice of verses 15, 17b–18. The redaction of this element is harmonizing and late. This block of loose materials interrupts the unit of 9:10–14, 26–28. This block agrees in large measure with an identical text in the supplement to LXX 2:46f–k. Verses 9:23, 24b, 25 (= LXX 2:35h, f*, g) constitute a “plus” when compared to LXX-MB. All of this indicates that MT collected and integrated into the main body of the composition a textual block of supplementary materials (LXX 2:35f–k), transposing the text of 9:15, 17b–18, 19–22 from its original location reflected in LXX (after 10:22) to the present MT one, with the same transposition and insertion of verses 9:16–17a. The supplement of LXX 2:35a–k gives information on the stay of Pharaoh’s daughter in the City of David until the new temple and palace were built (35cα) and her moving once they were completed (35ff.). The inserted data allude to the time the works took (35cβ), the number of porters and masons (35d) and works conducted in the inner court of the temple. This is exactly the order of texts and events, which appears reflected in the main body of the composition according to LXX. The notice that mentions the temporary stay of Pharaoh’s daughter in the City of David until the completion of the temple, palace, and walls of the capital, precedes chapters 5–9:9, which develop the construction of temple and palace. Once the works are finished and the temple is dedicated, LXX mentions, at the right time and place, the moving of Pharaoh’s daughter to the just built palace (9:24a, located after 9:1–9). 4

The Construction of Solomon’s Temple and Palace (1 Kgs 5–7)

In the preceding sections, I have studied phenomena of transposition, addition or omission in either MT or LXX related to texts of the LXX supplement 2:35a–k; 2:46a–l. In the main body of the composition of 1 Kgs 3–10 there are other transpositions which are not related to the insertion of materials taken from those supplements. I will examine two meaningful cases in chapters 5–7. The

115

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

transposition in this case also includes omissions or additions, as well as corruptions, in either MT or LXX. Many problems of textual corruption are connected to transpositions of textual units or blocks. It is possible to establish a principle according to which the corruption of a text related to a change of context is caused by that very change (cf. supra 1.2). Such is the case of MT 6:36 and 7:2b on one hand and MT 5:32a (‫ )הגבלים‬on the other. 4.1 The Construction of the Palace (7:1–12) The order of units in MT and LXX is as follows:

Temple

LXX 6:37–38a 6:2–36

Temple Palace

7:13–51 7:1–12

MT 6:2–36 6:37–38a 38b (LXX 2:35cβ) 7:1–12 7:13–51

Temple Palace Temple

The most meaningful change is the one affecting the passage on the construction of Solomon’s palace, 7:1–12. In LXX the literary material about the construction and decoration of the temple (6:12–36) is followed immediately by the description of the cultic objects located in the inner court and the other temple utensils (7:13–51). Finally, after all the materials concerning the temple, the text on the construction of the palace starts (7:1–12). In MT, on the contrary, the unit of 7:1–12, together with 6:37–38, is located between two blocks of units about the temple. When discussing this and similar cases of transposition of texts in MT and LXX it is usual to resort to argumentation based on theology and translation tendencies. Thus, Gooding rejects the “reverent” order of LXX, which he attributes to a compunctious piety on the translator’s part and a modicum of pedantry in chronological issues.13 13  Gooding, “Pedantic Timetable,” 155–56: “… piety would suggest that it were improper for the palace-plans to be inserted among the temple-plans,” “a strict sense of ‘timetable,’ as well as piety, is responsible for the LXX order, in which the palace-plans came after the temple-plans.” According to O. Eissfeldt, “… MT verdient hier den Vorzug. Seine Anordnung des Stoffes erklärt sich daraus, dass Tempel und Palast als eine Bauanlage empfunden werden,” id., Das erste Buch der Könige, HSAT 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1922), 504. In the LXX order, A. Šanda argues: “… werde der absurde Anschein erweckt,

116

Chapter 4

In a correct methodological approach, argumentation based on formal data in the text should come before any discussion on content and tendency. Formal criticism is less susceptible to manipulation and misconstruction than “tendency” criticism, exposed to all the fantasies and “misconstructions” of the exegetes themselves. All formal evidence vouches for the order reflected in LXX (6:37–38a; 6:2– 36; 7:13–51; 7:1–12). The transposition of 6:37–38a (with the addition of 38b, cf. LXX-S 2:35cβ) and of 7:1–12a took place at the stage of the proto-Rabbinic textual form.14 Proof of it is the traces, which the transposition has left in the text itself. The insertion of those materials between the blocks 6:2–36 and 7:13–51 caused damage to the verses which constituted the insertion points, that is 6:36 and 7:12b (= LXX 6:36*). The text of these verses is as follows: 6:36 καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἐσωτάτην τρεῖς στίχους ἀπελεκήτων καὶ στίχος κατειργασμένης κέδρου κυκλόθεν (‫) ָס ִביב‬ καὶ ᾠκοδόμησε καταπέτασμα τῆς αὐλῆς τοῦ αιλαμ τοῦ οἴκου (‫)לאלם הבית‬ τοῦ κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ ναοῦ15 7:13–51 7:1–11 7:12 τῆς αὐλῆς τῆς μεγάλης κύκλῳ τρεῖς στίχοι ἀπελεκήτων καὶ στίχος κεκολαμμένης κέδρου

‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫ת־החָ צֵ ר הַ ּ ְפנ‬ ֶ ‫ וַ ֶּיִבן ֶא‬6:36

‫טּורי גָ זִ ית‬ ֵ ‫ֹלׁשה‬ ָ ‫ְׁש‬ ‫וְ טּור ְּכ ֻרתֹת ֲא ָרזִ ים‬

6:37–38 ‫דֹולה ָס ִביב‬ ָ ְ‫ וְ ָח ֵצר ַהּג‬7:12 ‫טּורים ּגָ זִ ית‬ ִ ‫ֹלׁשה‬ ָ ‫ְׁש‬ ‫ וְ טּור ְּכ ֻרתֹת ֲא ָרזִ ים‬12b ‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ַל ֲח ַצר ֵּבית־יְהוָ ה הַ ּ ְפנ‬ ‫ו ְּלאֻ לָ ם הַ ּ ָביִ ת‬

als sei der Tempel erst nach Vollendung des Palastbaus eingeweiht worden,” id., Das erste Buch, 206. 14   M T concentrates these units here due to their chronological references: the beginning of the construction of the temple in the fourth year of [whose?] reign and its completion in the eleventh (verses 37–38a); a period of seven years (38b) and thirteen years for the works on the palace (7:1a). 15  Origin acknowledged the correlation between LXX 6:36+ and MT 7:12b (om. LXX) and combined both passages in the MT placement, that is, in 7:12b: Ax (Arm SyrH) και ωκοδομησεν αυλην οικου Κυριου την εσωτατην των αιλαμ του οικου του κατα προσωπον του ναου (÷); ΜΤ ‫ ;(ול)חצר בית יהוה הפנימית (ול)אלם הבית‬LXXB 6:36+ και ωκοδομησεν καταπετασμα της αυλης του αιλαμ του οικου του κατα προσωπον του ναου. This is a typical case of the double fidelity of Origen to both the Old Hebrew and Greek text, preserving always the MT order.

117

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

8:1

καὶ συνετέλεσεν Σαλωμων ὅλον τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ συντελέσαι Σαλωμων τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι τὸν οἶκον κυρίου καὶ τὸν οἶκον ἑαυτοῦ μετὰ εἴκοσι ἔτη τότε ἐξεκκλησίασεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Σαλωμων …

7:13–51

… ‫ ָאז ְיַק ֵהל ְׁשֹלמֹה‬8:1

Both passages use an identical expression to describe the inner court of the temple (6:36 ‫ )חצר הפנימית‬and the large courtyard around the palace and the ensemble of constructions (7:12a ‫)חצר הגדלה‬: ‫סביב שלשה טורי(ם) גזית וטור כרתה‬ ‫( ארזים‬in LXX 6:36 ‫ סביב‬appears at the end of the sentence: κυκλοθεν). This agreement between texts favours the movement from one into the other. A second agreement involves context. In both textual forms, the two verses, 6:36 in LXX and 7:12b in MT, give way to the next block of textual units, 7:13–51. This contextual relationship is marked by the shared reference to the “inner court” (‫ )חצר הפנימית‬and to the temple portico (‫)אלם הבית‬, where the cultic objects then listed are placed (pillars, bronze “sea” and receptacles …): 6:36

7:13 7:15

καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν (‫)וַ ֶּיִבן‬ τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἐσωτάτην (‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫ת־ה ָח ֵצ֣ר ַה ְּפנ‬ ֶ ‫ימית ) ֶא‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ַל ֲח ַצר ֵּבית־יְהוָ ה ַה ְּפנ‬ ……………………………. καὶ ᾠκοδόμησε καταπέτασμα τῆς αὐλῆς τοῦ αιλαμ τοῦ οἴκου ‫ּולְ ֻאלָ ם ַה ָּביִ ת‬ καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Σαλωμων (…τοῦ αιλαμ τοῦ οἴκου…) ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַלח ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְׁשֹלמֹה‬

7:12

7:13

The words of MT 7:12b refer to the inner court of the temple (6:36) but have no meaning by themselves, least of all in the context they have been placed in; the passage 7:1–12a refers to the building of the palace and the large outer courtyard. In this context, mention of the inner court of the temple is meaningless. Nevertheless, it is necessary in order to introduce the materials of 7:13–51. That is the reason for the “plus” in MT 7:12b. The reference in MT 12b to the ulam or temple portico (‫ )לאלם הבית‬proves the value of the alleged “plus” of LXX in 6:36, which, after the description of the inner doors of debir and hekhal, mentions the outer curtain of the temple ulam.16 In fact, MT is repeating and taking elements from 6:36, which had 16  The description of the Temple seems to follow a double movement of entry and exit: of entry in the description of the architectural and decorative elements (ulam, debir, hekhal), and of exit in the description of the doors of the debir and hekhal and the outer

118

Chapter 4

their right location there: it repeats (Wiederaufnahme) the words ‫חצא הפנימית‬, with the explanatory addition of ‫בית יהוה‬, required because the earlier context spoke of Solomon’s palace. It there refers to the temple ulam (‫)לאלם הבית‬ which, whereas in MT 7:12b makes no sense, in 6:36 is part of a text free of corruption and required in the context by the established pattern of relations. The text of LXX 6:36 και ωκοδομησεν καταπετασμα της αυλης του αιλαμ του οικου του ναου cannot be interpreted as a secondary addition.17 It was rather the proto-Masoretic textual form that underwent an omission here, triggered by the insertion at this very point of the passages 6:37–38; 7:1–12a. This insertion concludes with words identical to 6:36, though referring now to the outer courtyard and not to the inner court: ‫סביב שלשה טורי(ם) גזית וטור כרתת‬. This in MT facilitated the reappearance in MT 7:12b of elements of verse 36, like references to the inner court and to the temple ulam, which are necessary to introduce the next textual block (7:13–51). The “plus” of MT in 7:12b matches a “minus” of MT in 6:36. Therefore, the archetypal Hebrew text, as reflected in the LXX Vorlage, concluded its description of the temple (debir, hekhal, and ulam) with the reference to the inner court and the outer veil “to the temple ulam” (7:15 του αιλαμ του οικου, MT ‫)נחשת‬. There is no doubt that there is a relation of continuity between the two texts, 6:36 and 7:15. 4.2 The Construction of the Temple (5:31–6:1, 37–38) The order of texts in MT and LXX is as follows: LXX 5:15–30 32b 6:1a 1b (?) 5:31–32a 6:37–38a 6:2–36

MT 5:15–30 5:31–32a 32b 6:1a 1b 6:2–36 6:37–38a, b

veil of the ulam. This so-called “Babylonian” veil, hung in front of the entrance portico, is referred to by Josephus in Bellum Iudaicum V 5:4 (cf. Exod 23:36 ff). It is discussed whether the veil of the temple to which Mk 15:38 alludes is the interior of the debir or that of the portico visible to the outside. 17  The following comment from Šanda is representative of the contrary view, which considers the LXX plus at 6:36 as secondary by arguing that “… diese Worte aus 7:12b

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

119

The change of order of 5:31–32a, either before (MT) or after (LXX) verse 6:1a, which gives notice of the year and month of the beginning of the construction depends, according to Gooding, on whether the works mentioned in 5:31–32a are considered merely preparations (MT) or foundation works of the temple (LXX).18 For Gooding, the transposition operated in LXX depends ultimately on a textual corruption of the Greek text και εβαλαν αυτους (MT 5:32 ‫“( )והגבלים‬an inner-Greek textual corruption”). This OG reading has not been accepted by scholars who, at the very best, have suspected that it hides a transliteration of a technical architecture word. The clause και εβαλαν αυτους means “they laid the foundations.” In 1 Esdras 6:19 we read ενεβαλετο τους θεμελιους του οικου κυριου and in 2:14 και τα τειχη θεραπευουσιν και τον ναον υποβαλλονται (cf. 5:5 και εθεμελιωσαν (‫ )יסד‬τον ναον του θεου). The Greek phrase εις τα θεμελια εμβαλλειν (‫ )יסד אבן‬appears in Isa 28:16. The passage from Job 38:6 cited by Gooding contains a similar expression βαλων λιθον γυνιαιον επ’ αυτης, ‫“( ירה אבן פנתה‬established its cornerstone”). The immediate context of the contested clause και εβαλαν αυτους requires the same meaning, because the previous verse reads και αιρουσιν λιθους… εις τον θεμελιον (MT ‫ )ליסד‬and the following verb is precisely εθεμελιωσεν (‫)יסד‬. To assess the value of this reading and of the order of the texts in MT and LXX it is necessary to look for formal evidence. An isolated comparison of the variant readings ‫—הגבלים‬και εβαλαν αυτους does not provide a solution to the existing problem. The only way is to compare the context of both expressions and their context in the textual layout of MT and LXX. In the LXX composition verses 5:31, 32a follow immediately after 6:1, that is, the precise dating of the beginning of the construction works. The inauguration of the works coincides with the solemn and official command of “laying the foundations” or “first stone.” In MT, on the contrary, the “extraction and cutting” of the stone (“in the mountain”) takes place before the beginning of the works to be carried out in situ. In 5:31–32, according to MT, these are mere preparations, all of them far in space and earlier in time than the official inauguration of the works. After the solemn presentation of the beginning date

  entstanden sind (von ‫ ולחצר‬an). Damit stimmt überein, dass G diesen zweiten Teil von 7:12b sonst unübersetzt lässt. Καταπέτασμα ist das in v. 21 fehlende, hierher versprengte Wort. Καὶ ᾠκοδόμησε könnte die vom Rande zu G v. 5 hierher geratene richtige Variante für das hebräische ‫ ויבן‬sein. Τῆς αὐλῆς τοῦ αἰλὰμ τοῦ οἴκου entspricht dem hebräischen ‫ ולחצר … ולאלם הבית‬in 7:12b. Das dortige ‫ הפנימית‬kann zu κατὰ πρόσωπον = ‫ לפני‬geworden sein. Τοῦ ναοῦ wäre für ‫ בית יהוה‬gesetzt (anders Klostermann),” Šanda, Das erste Buch der Könige, 150. 18  Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling,” 158 and 163.

120

Chapter 4

(6:1a) MT has a generic sentence: “and he built the temple for the Lord.” It is evident that verse 6:1a marks the beginning of a literary unit or, at least, of a clause or gloss which demands continuation. At the same time, it marks the beginning of a historical time in which a particular activity is going to be taking place. The study of the literary genre of this unit and its comparison with other biblical and extra-biblical narratives of temple constructions constitute the only formal elements which can determine whether the solemn inauguration of the works on a temple of a well-determined date coincides historically with the “placement of the first stone” and, consequently, whether the literary narrative should begin with a mention of the precise date of beginning of the works, then commenting immediately and necessarily on the works on the foundations as the first step in the building process. Laying the foundations (‫ )יסד‬and erection of the gates mark the beginning and ending of the construction works of a city. In Josh 6:26 we may read the curse on Jericho which is fulfilled in 1 Kgs 16:34 on the sons of Hiel of Bethel: “Joshua then pronounced this oath, saying: ‘Cursed before the Lord be anyone who tries to build this city—this Jericho! At the cost of his firstborn he shall lay its foundation (‫)יסדנה‬, and at the cost of his youngest he shall set up its gates!’ (‫( ”)יציב דלתיה‬Josh 6:26 NRS); “In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho; he laid its foundation (‫ )יסדה‬at the cost of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates (‫ )הציב דלתיה‬at the cost of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord, which he spoke by Joshua son of Nun” (1 Kgs 16:34). The pair of nominal elements “foundations” – “gates” means the totality of the building of the Zion temple. Isa 54:11–12 speaks of the New Jerusalem: “I will make your stones (‫ )אבן‬in antimony and I lay your foundation (‫ )יסד‬with lapis-lazuli. I will make your pinnacles out of gems, your gates (‫ )שער‬out of beryl.” The reference to the construction of Zion is created through a simple allusion to the laying of its foundations: Isa 14:32 ‫ ;כי יהוה יסד ציון‬Isa 28:16–17: “I am laying in Zion a foundation stone (‫)יסד בציון אבן‬, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation (‫)מוסד‬.” In Job 38:4–7 Yahweh rebukes Job referring metaphorically to the building of the earth: “Where were you when I laid the foundation (‫ )יסד‬of the earth? … or who laid its cornerstone? (‫)אבן פנתה‬.” The construction work begins with the laying of the foundations; it ends with the setting of the cornerstone, which is a time for celebration among the celestial beings.

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

121

Both events, the beginning and conclusion of the construction works of a city or public building, were occasions for important festivities. Here it is important to notice that the beginning coincides with the setting of the first stone or laying of the boundaries, in a carefully pre-determined date, which is indicated at the beginning of the narrative. The works are considered officially finished with the erection of the gates, be they arched or linteled, or, in the case of a temple, with the solemn introduction of gold and silver liturgical items into the temple treasury. Some biblical passages may be mentioned; in Ezra 3:8 the date for the beginning of reconstruction works in the temple is fixed (second year, second month after the return of the exiles). Until then, sacrifices were performed on the placement of the old temple “although the foundations (‫)יסד‬ of the temple of Yahweh had not been laid yet” (3:6). At the appointed date, the works begin (‫( )החלו‬verse 8) when the Levites start directing the works (‫לנצח‬ ‫( )על עשה המלאכה‬verse 9) and the foundations are laid (‫“ )ויסדו‬on the new month of the second month of the second year” (LXX). Immediately, priests and Levites celebrate a solemn holiday (verse 10) of thanksgiving and all the people break into cries of praise to Yahweh “because the temple of Yahweh already has its boundaries” (‫)על חוסד בית יהוה‬. Priests and ancient Levites “who had seen the old temple on its foundations” (‫ )ביסדו‬cried with joy. The Aramaic letter of the Samaritan leaders to king Artaxerxes alludes to the beginning of the reconstruction of the Temple “the foundations are already laid (υποβαλλονται, Ezra 4:12; LXX 2:14). The king has to know that if the construction of the city continues they will refuse to pay taxes, contributions, tolls …” (4:13). Another Aramaic letter to the authorities of the Western Euphrates region (LXX: Syria and Phoenicia) informs King Darius on the progress of the construction works in accordance with Cyrus’ edict: “Sheshbazzar came and laid … (ενεβαλετο τους θεμελιους) but has not been concluded yet” (5:16; LXX 6:19). According to Zechariah 8:9–13, the day “when the foundations of the temple of Yahweh were laid for the reconstruction of the sanctuary” (‫ )ביום יסד‬was not only a holiday, but it marked a radical change in the history of the people. Prophets prophesize on that day (MT) or from that day onwards (LXX) (Zech 8:9). Up to that day, there was no hire for men or beasts, nor was there any peace or calm. After that day, the vine, the earth and the sky will give fruit and dew (Zech 8:1–12). In Haggai 2:10–19 we find the same sequence of data. The day when the foundations of the new temple are laid is accurately established. On that day, the prophet receives and proclaims the word of Yahweh. From that day onwards a radical change will come to the situation of the people: verse 10,

122

Chapter 4

“The twenty-fourth day of the ninth month … it came to Haggai the prophet …” verse 15, “… before any stone was laid upon stone in the holy of Yahweh,” verse 16, “what was your condition? … but there were no more than ten …”; verses 18–19, “… since today and for the future … the foundations of the sanctuary of Yahweh, … it is still missing in the barn …” The passage of 1:1–15 presents the same sequence of events with a slightly different date, the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month of the second year of Darius. In the mentioned passages, it is important to remark that the date when the construction works of the temple begin is established with total accuracy. This date coincides with the laying of the foundations or of the first stones. The importance of the event is occasion for holidays and celebrations; it is heralded by the intervention of the prophet and marks a radical change in the social and political life of the people as well as in Yahweh’s attitude towards them. These data are also reflected as “(temple) building narratives” in extrabiblical literature. I will just mention a text of the kalû ritual: “Lorsque les fondations d’un temple seront jetées, en un mois propice, en un jour favourable tu creuseras les fondations du temple … Lorsque des pierres d’angles (des portes) seront installées …”19 Coming back to the primary text of my study, on the construction of Solomon’s temple, it is necessary to note the structure of 6:37–38a and their placement in the composition of MT and LXX: “In the fourth year, in the month of Ziv, the foundations were laid (‫ … )יסד‬it was concluded (‫ )כלה‬according to all plans and projects.” Therefore, precise dates are given for the beginning and completion of the temple works. The beginning coincides with the laying of the foundations. The conclusion is not marked by a particular activity, but by the completion of all building projects and plans. These two correlative notices on the beginning and conclusion of the works appear in the LXX order right after 6:1; 5:31, 32a, that is, after the reference to the inauguration date of the works (6:1) and the first works of the laying of the foundations (5:31, 32a). Verses 6:37–38a(b) constitute, according to most scholars, an independent unit and earlier than the secondary dating of 6:1 (cf. ‫)חדש—ירח‬. In fact, in both cases and in all the witnesses I have mentioned, from very different periods, these two indications always come together: the

19  “The ritual of Kalû,” O. 174, reverse, lines 2 and 15, in F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens (Paris: Leroux, 1921), 42–45.

The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms

123

date of the works and their beginning, that is, laying of the foundations. This would confirm the order of LXX (6:1; 5:31–32a), “In the year … and month … the king commanded … and they laid (the foundations).”20 Scholars have often seen in MT “the Giblites” = inhabitants of Gebal (Byblos) a textual corruption. On the contrary, in Montgomery’s words, cited and accepted by Gooding, “There is no reason to doubt this novel datum; later editors of the tradition and the text would not have introduced the Gentile Giblites as co-operators in the building of the Temple; in 7:14 pains are taken to note that the Tyrian artist Hiram had an Israelite mother. The Giblites were employed by Solomon in the same way as Solomon used Phoenician naval experts to build and man his ships in the Red Sea (9:26ff.).”21 The arguments added by Gooding are based on an exclusion of hypotheses until the (apparently) only valid one remains: a) if the reading and location of LXX were original and the corruption were in MT there would be no reason for the reading and its context (5:31–32a) being moved from their location after 6:1, where they make perfect sense; on the contrary, b) if the corruption had been caused in LXX the transposition would be necessary, because the expression makes no sense after 5:32b; consequently, the placement and reading of LXX are secondary to MT. In the first hypothesis, it is relevant to note a possible reason for the proto-Masoretic text-type to displace the reference to “Hiram’s builders and the Giblites.” As Montgomery says, late editors of the text would not have included heathens among the temple builders. That same pious scruple would have led these editors to banish heathens from the sacred precinct of the construction works, together with any reference to them in the text, which narrates that construction. Arguments based on presumed tendencies, such as pious scruples in LXX according to Gooding, may be turned back and applied to MT.

20  Burney and Wellhausen were already partly in favour of the order of LXX, but with comments that need to be corrected or qualified on some points, cf. Burney, Notes, 58–59; Wellhausen, Die Composition, 267. 21  Montgomery, Kings, 138; Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling,” 164. The word “giblitas” only appears in Josh 13:5 and “Gebal” only in Ezek 27:9.

124

Chapter 4

MT 9:23

LXX 2:35h

LXX

‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ְּמ ָל‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ַע‬ ‫ִל ְׁשֹלמֹה‬ ‫ֲח ִמ ִּׁשים וַ ֲח ֵמׁש‬ ‫ֵמאֹות ָהר ִֹדים‬

ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Σαλωμων τρεῖς χιλιάδες καὶ ἑξακόσιοι ἐπιστάται

ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων τῶν Σαλωμων τρεῖς χιλιάδες καὶ ἑξακόσιοι ἐπιστάται

5:30 χωρὶς ‫ ֵא ֶּלה‬καὶ οὗτοι ‫ ָׂש ֵרי ַהּנִ ָּצ ִבים‬οἱ ἄρχοντες οἱ καθεσταμένοι ἀρχόντων τῶν καθεσταμένων

‫ ָּב ָעם‬τοῦ λαοῦ ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ ָהע ִֹׂשים ַּב ְּמ ָל‬τῶν ποιούντων τὰ ἔργα

οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰ ἔργα

5:32b ἡτοίμασαν τοὺς λίθους καὶ τὰ ξύλα τρία ἔτη

MT

‫לבד‬ ַ ‫ִמ ָּׂש ֵרי ַהּנִ ָּצ ִבים‬ ‫ִל ְׁשֹלמֹה‬ ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ְּמ ָל‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ַע‬ ‫ְׁש ֹ֥ל ֶׁשת ֲא ָל ִ ֖פים‬ ‫ּוׁשֹלׁש ֵמ ֑אֹות‬ ְ ‫ָהר ִ ֹ֣דים‬ ‫ָּב ֔עם‬ ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ָהע ִֹׂשים ַּב ְּמ ָל‬

‫ וַ יְ ַצו ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬5:31 ‫וַ ּיַ ִּסעּו ֲא ָבנִ ים ּגְ ד ֹלֹות‬ ‫ֲא ָבנִ ים יְ ָקרֹות ְליַ ֵּסד‬ ‫ַה ָּביִת ַא ְבנֵ י גָ זִ ית‬

Chapter 5

Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings Research1 on the books of Kings has been dominated in these last decades by the work of M. Noth on the Deuteronomistic redaction.2 His masterpiece opened up new paths and proposed new models of research. After every masterpiece, however, research sooner or later becomes “scholasticized” and confines itself tamely to the lines traced by the master. Furthermore, the impact of a masterpiece tends either to marginalize earlier paths of research or to close them off entirely. Thus in the work of Noth and his disciples very little importance has been given to the contributions to be drawn from the versions (esp. the LXX and the VL [Vetus Latina = Old Latin]) for the recension history and text history of the books of the Bible. In the books of Kings these versions offer many important variant readings with respect to the MT. Noth’s work in 1943 coincided with a generalized “return to the MT” movement.3 At that time the Greek version came to be considered mostly as a targum or as a midrashic paraphrase of the Hebrew. J.W. Wevers at mid-century and more recently D.W. Gooding and R.R. Gordon developed this line of research by studying the “principles of exegesis” underlying the Greek version of Kings and the midrashic elements it contains.4 1  I wish to thank Professor John Strugnell of Harvard for offering corrections in the manuscript and F. Normand Bonneau of Worcester, Massachusetts, for translating the Spanish original into English. 2  M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien 1: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse 18 (Halle: Niemeyer, 1943). 3  H.S. Nyberg, “Das textkritische Problem des Alten Testaments am Hoseabuche demonstriert,” ZAW 52 (1934): 241–54. A work of earlier times, as valuable as it is forgotten, is that of H. Hrozný, Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus vom hebräischen Texte in den Königsbüchern (Leipzig: Drugulin, 1909). 4  J.W. Wevers, “Exegetical Principles Underlying the Septuagint Text of I Kings ii 12–xxi 43,” OTS 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1950): 300–322; id., “Principles of Interpretation Guiding the Fourth Translator of the Book of the Kingdoms (3 K. 22:1–4 K. 25:30),” CBQ 14 (1952): 40–56; D.W. Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns,” Textus 7 (1969): 1–29; id., Relics of Ancient Exegesis: A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reigns 2, SOTSMS 4 (Cambridge: University Press, 1976); R.P. Gordon, “The Second Septuagint Account of Jeroboam: History or Midrash?,” VT 25 (1975): 368–393.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_007

126

Chapter 5

If the early decades of this century were characterized by both the use and abuse of conjecturally restoring the “primitive text” (Urtext) by choosing among the many variants found in the versions, these last decades have seen the analogous abuse of conjecturing, on literary grounds, what the ‘primitive form’ (Urform) was, and this was done on the basis of the Masoretic text alone. Consequently, if on the one hand the history of the tradition and redaction of Kings (10th–5th century BCE) now appears excessively complicated, on the other hand we are content with a very simple history of the transmission of the text. In the long span stretching from the 5th century BCE down to the medieval Masoretes, it is currently assumed that there only existed a simple and direct line of textual transmission in Hebrew;5 the variants of the versions are considered to be merely tendentious deviations from a uniform Hebrew text. The study of the biblical manuscripts of Qumran, in particular of 4QSama.b.c, has facilitated a new understanding of the parallel history and parallel evolution of the Hebrew and Greek texts of Samuel–Kings. This new knowledge creates the need for an interdisciplinary dialogue between the practitioners of redaction history (M. Noth and his school) and those of the study of the transmission and recension of the text (e.g., W.F. Albright, F.M. Cross, D. Barthélemy, etc.).6 In such a dialogue it will be accepted that many of the variants in the versions do not represent isolated phenomena or occasional acts of negligence on the part of the translators and/or copyists. Rather, they represent complete patterns all their own which correspond to different types of text that once existed in the Hebrew tradition. It will also be accepted that the plurality of textual types can even reflect different stages in the earlier process of the redaction and editing of the text. Our study begins with the textual and literary analysis of selected passages. From these analyses a working method will be extracted which will prove to be better adapted to the textual and literary characteristics of the books of Kings. As a result, we will see the need for a return to textual criticism and frequently 5  M. Noth, Die Welt des Alten Testaments: Einführung in die Grenzgebiete der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft (2nd ed.; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1953), 286. 6  W.F. Albright, “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible,” BASOR 140 (1955): 27–33; D. Barthélemy, Les Dévanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963); F.M. Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” HTR 57 (1964): 281– 299; id., “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, 1975), 306–320; E.C. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, HSM 19 (Missoula: Scholars, 1978); E. Tov, “Determining the Relationship between the Qumran Scrolls and the LXX: Some Methodological Issues,” in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel, 1980 Proceedings IOSCS (Jerusalem: Academon, 1980), 45–67.

Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings

127

to the Urtext as found in the text of the versions. Instead of being an arsenal for random corrections to the current Hebrew text, these versions will serve as evidence for the existence of a non-Masoretic Hebrew type of text or a preMasoretic recension-form of the text. For its part, textual criticism will be seen to need the literary-critical method to help it isolate merely textual phenomena such as glosses, omissions, and transpositions. 1

Jeroboam at the Assembly at Shechem: MT 1 Kgs 12:2 // LXX 11:43

1 Kings 12:2 is one of the most important and most discussed passages in the books of Kings. The history of the Assembly at Shechem depends on the correct interpretation of this text. The majority of authors tend to correct the MT wayyēšeb … be (“and he settled in”) to wayyāšob … min (“and he returned from”), in conformity with Alexandrinus (LXXA) and with the parallel in Chronicles: “Jeroboam returned from Egypt.”7 The expression wayyēšeb be appears frequently in contexts speaking of a flight into exile, forming part of a fixed narrative structure: “(… when X heard these things,) he sought to kill Y; Y was afraid, and he fled from the presence of X and settled in Z” (… wyšmʿ… ʾt dbryw wybqš … lhmyt ʾt…. wyrʾ… wybrḥ mpny … wayyēšeb be …) (“… when he heard his words, he sought … to kill … and he was afraid … and he fled from … and he settled in …”). The flights of Moses, Jephthah, David, Absalom, and Jeremiah are all expressed in this narrative pattern (cf. esp. Exod 2:14–15; Jer 26:21; cf. also Judg 9:21, 11:3; 1 Sam 19:2, 23:14–15, 27:1–4; 2 Sam 4:1–3, 13:37–38). This conventional expression is found in narratives from such diverse epochs as, for example, the story of the flight of Idrimi (14th century BCE) and the NT flight of Joseph into Egypt.8 In these notices the fleeing protagonist ends up “residing in” or “settling in” a place of exile. The text in 12:2 reproduces essential elements (“he fled … and settled in …” = wybrḥ… wyšb b …) of that narrative sequence (above). This proves the value of the reading wayyēšeb … be against the generally proposed correction. Furthermore, it renders impossible the proposed separation of the two verbs by consigning one to the parenthetical sentence and one to the main sentence: 7  J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 249; M. Noth, Könige, BEAT 9/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 265; A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches, 2nd ed. (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1956), 2; J. Gray, I and II Kings: A Commentary (2nd ed.; London: SCM, 1970), 301. 8  Matt 2:3–15; cf. S. Smith, The Statue of Idri-mi (London: The British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara, 1949), 14–15.

128

Chapter 5

“When Jeroboam, son of Nebat, learned of this (for he was still in Egypt, whither he had fled from King Solomon), then Jeroboam returned from Egypt.” The expression wayyēšeb be also forms part of the inserted parenthesis. The corresponding passage in the Old Greek, located in 11:43, confirms this conclusion: here the parenthesis includes and closes after the expression ‘and Jeroboam settled in Egypt’ (hōs ephygen ek prosōpou Salōmōn kai ekathēto en Aigyptō, “he fled from the presence of Solomon and settled in Egypt”). Then follows the apodosis of the main sentence: “he set out and came to his city in the land of Sarira, in the mountains of Ephraim” (kateuthynei kai erchetai eis tēn polin autou eis tēn gēn Sareira tēn en orei Ephraim). The subject of the apodosis must be the same as the subject of the protasis, “Jeroboam.” Furthermore, the same verb, wybʾ, is attested in all the forms of the manuscript tradition: in the Q wybʾ (“and he came”) of 1 Kgs 12:3 and in 17 manuscripts (K wybʾw, “and they came”); in LXX 11:43 and in LXX 12:24f.; in the Hexaplaric text of LXXA 12:3 (including the Armenian and Syro-Hexaplaric versions); and in 2 Chr 10:3. The nucleus of the original apodosis, then, is contained in the expression: “When Jeroboam learned of this …, he came to …” (wybʾ yrbʿm). This main sentence is found outside its proper context in both the MT and the Old Greek. In the MT it interrupts the sequence between verses 1 and 3b (cf. LXX): “[v 1] Rehoboam went to Shechem, where all Israel had come to proclaim him king. [v 3b] They said to Rehoboam ….” In the Old Greek it is interpolated by means of the process of Wiederaufnahme (“resumptive repetition”), between the concluding formulas of Solomon’s reign: “Solomon rested with his ancestors; he was buried in the City of David his father (LXX: When Jeroboam, son of Nebat, learned of this …). King Solomon rested with his ancestors, and his son Rehoboam succeeded him as king.”9 LXXBL 12:24b καὶ ἦν ἐπαιρόμενος ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν 12:24c καὶ ἐζήτει Σαλωμων θανατῶσαι αὐτόν καὶ ἐφοβήθη

LXXBL 11:27a καὶ τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα ὡς ἐπήρατο χεῖρας ἐπὶ βασιλέα Σαλωμων (verses 27–39) 11:40 καὶ ἐζήτησεν Σαλωμων θανατῶσαι τὸν Ιεροβοαμ

MT

‫ וְ זֶ ה ַה ָּד ָבר‬11:27a ‫ר־ה ִרים יָ ד ַּב ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ֶׁש‬

(verses 27–39)

‫ וַ ַיְב ֵּקׁש ְׁשֹלמֹה‬11:40 ‫ְל ָה ִמית ֶאת־יָ ָר ְב ָעם‬

9  D.W. Gooding, “The Septuagint’s Rival Versions of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power,” VT 17 (1967): 173–189, cf. 178; R.W. Klein, “Jeroboam’s Rise to Power,” JBL 89 (1970): 217–218.

Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings

καὶ ἀνέστη καὶ ἀπέδρα εἰς Αἴγυπτον πρὸς Σουσακιμ βασιλέα Αἰγύπτου καὶ ἦν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἕως οὗ ἀπέθανεν Σαλωμων 11:43 … καὶ ἐγενήθη ὡς ἤκουσεν Ιεροβοαμ 12:24d καὶ ἤκουσεν Ιερββοαμ υἱὸς Ναβατ καὶ αὐτοῦ ἔτι ὄντος ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ὡς ἔφυγεν ἐκ προσώπου Σαλωμων καὶ ἐκάθητο ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ὅτι τέθνηκεν Σαλωμων … (ὅτι τέθνηκεν Σαλωμων boc2e2) κατευθύνει 12:24f καὶ ἐξῆλθεν Ιεροβοαμ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου καὶ ἔρχεται καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν γῆν Σαριρα εἰς γῆν Σαριρα τὴν ἐν ὄρει Εφραιμ… τὴν ἐν ὄρει Εφραιμ… καὶ ἀπέδρα αὐτὸς πρὸς Σουσακιμ βασιλέα Αἰγύπτου καὶ ἦν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἕως ἀπέθανεν Σαλωμων

12:24p καὶ εἶπεν ὁ λαὸς πρὸς Ροβοαμ…

12:3 καὶ ἐλάλησεν ὁ λαὸς πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Ροβοαμ …

129

‫וַ ּיָ ָקם יָ ָר ְב ָעם‬ ‫וַ ְּיִב ַרח‬ ‫יׁשק‬ ַ ‫ל־ׁש‬ ִ ‫ִמ ְצ ַריִם ֶא‬ ‫ְך־מ ְצ ַריִ ם‬ ִ ‫ֶמ ֶל‬ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ְב ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬ ‫ַעד־מֹות ְׁשֹלמֹה‬ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי‬12:2 ‫ִּכ ְׁשמ ַֹע יָ ָר ְב ָעם‬ ‫ֶּבן־נְ ָבט‬ ‫עֹודּנּו‬ ֶ ‫וְ הּוא‬ ‫ְב ִמ ְצ ַריִם‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ָּב ַרח ִמ ְּפנֵ י‬ ‫ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְׁשֹלמֹה‬ ‫וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב יָ ָר ְב ָעם‬ ‫ְּב ִמ ְצ ָריִם‬

‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ְלחּו וַ ּיִ ְק ְראּו־לֹו‬ ‫וַ ּיָ בֹאּו יָ ָר ְב ָעם‬ ‫ל־ק ַהל יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָכ‬12:3 ‫וַ יְ ַד ְּברּו‬

… ‫ל־ר ַח ְב ָעם‬ ְ ‫ֶא‬

According to the arrangement of the text in the MT, Jeroboam returns from Egypt when he learns that all Israel and Rehoboam have assembled in Shechem (cf. v. 1); thus, the šmʿ of 12:2 now in the MT refers to the assembly. The Old Greek, on the contrary, alone preserves an original element: Jeroboam returns from Egypt when he learns that Solomon has died; thus, the šmʿ (“he heard”) of 12:2 (= the ēkousen, “he heard,” of LXX 11:43) originally referred to the death of Solomon and connected with 11:40, of which it is the direct continuation. Accordingly, “[Jeroboam] remained in Egypt until the death of Solomon …; when Jeroboam learned of [the death of Solomon]…, he came ….” A similar passage in 1 Kgs 11:21 has a formally similar element: Hadad also returned from

130

Chapter 5

Egypt upon hearing of the death of David (šmʿ… ky [mt]…, “he heard that (he died)”).10 A further confirmation is found in the text of a notice preserved in the socalled “supplement” or “midrash” of the Old Greek in 12:24c (d, f). This form of the notice represents or closely approximates the original. It even contains a formal element of the literary genre “flight notice” which is absent in MT/LXX 11:40, that is, the “fear” of the persecuted (wyrʾ = kai ephobēthē, “and he was afraid”): “[v 24c] Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam; Jeroboam was afraid and fled to Egypt where he found refuge with Shishak, and he settled there until the death of Solomon. [24d] When Jeroboam learned in Egypt that Solomon had died …, [24f] he came to ….”11 All the essential elements of the “flight notice” are found here assembled in the proper order: 1) the persecution (wybqš … lhmyt ʾt …, “and he sought to kill”); 2) the flight of the persecuted (wybrḥ, “and he fled”); 3) the temporary residence in exile of the persecuted person (wyšb/ wyhy b …, “and he settled/and he was in”); 4) the news of the persecutor’s death (wyhy kšmʿ ky mt, “and when he heard that he died”); and 5) the return (wybʾ…, “and he came”). Such an argument of literary criticism, based on the literary genre of the “flight notice” and based on form rather than on content, allows us to resolve here a question of textual criticism: which of the two is the preferred reading, “settled in” or “returned from”? It equally allows us to discover the limits of the present literary unit. The “flight notice” of the MT/LXX 11:40 (= also LXX 12:24c) continues and ends with the sentence: “When Jeroboam heard …, he came to …” (MT 12:2; LXX 11:43 and 12:24d, f). The LXX texts 11:43 and 12:24f both identify this place as Sarira. This “flight notice” is a part of the whole narrative beginning with the abortive revolt of Jeroboam (MT 11:26–28; LXX 12:24b) and following with the account of the Assembly at Shechem (MT 12:3b–21; LXX 12:24nß, p–x). There can be no doubt, then, that Jeroboam was at the Assembly at Shechem from its very outset.12 He is not, however, expressly mentioned as being present. In 10  Cf. also 1 Kgs 21:15: wyhy kšmʿ… ky sql nbwt wymt, ‘when she heard … that Naboth had been stoned and died.’ 11  Cf. the text of the mss boc2e2 in 11:43: (ēkousen)… hoti tethnēke Solomōn … ‘(he heard)… that Solomon died …’ 12  J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und Jüdische Geschichte (2nd ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1895), 57; R. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (7th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1925), 2.219–220; M. Noth, Geschichte Israels (6th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 208. For the contrary view, cf. Montgomery, Kings, 248; J. Bright, A History of Israel (2nd ed.; London: SCM, 1972), 226. For the whole discussion, cf. J. Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán: Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1 Rey. 2–12; 14, Bibliotheca Salmanticensis,

Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings

131

fact, the only people who intervene in the deliberations are those who are authorized, such as the elders of the people and, in opposition to them, the young friends and counselors of Rehoboam’s court. 2

The Accession Formula: Text and Composition

It is not possible to discuss here the text of the so-called “supplement” or “duplicate” in LXX 12:24a–z. Since the time of Meyer (1906)13 it was quite simply set aside as being late “midrash.” Gooding qualified it as pedantic in its chronology and as biased against, and insulting to, Jeroboam. The first verse of this “supplement” (LXX 12:24a) appears to be a “duplicate” of the accession formula of Solomon and Rehoboam. The stereotyped phraseology of the accession formula recurs frequently throughout the books of Kings. This therefore allows us another approach to the study of the process of the recension and composition of the books. Despite the rigidity of its formulation, the accession formula nevertheless undergoes numerous variations. As an explanation for this phenomenon Bin-Nun supposes a plurality of formulations in the original source. E. Cortese thinks rather of a redactor’s literary variations upon the primitive formula. These authors do not take into account the textual variants of the Old Greek and, in the case of Rehoboam, do not pay the least attention to the text of LXX 12:24a.14 The accession formula is as follows: “In the year … of X, king of Israel/Judah, there became king Y, son of Z, king of Judah/Israel …” (bšnt … l … [bn …] mlk yśrʾl/yhwdh mlk … bn … ʿl … yhwdh/yśrʾl). In five cases in the MT, the formulation of the phrase presents a common anomaly, repeated by LXXB in the kaige (a revision of the Old Greek) section. This anomaly consists in inverting the order of the sentence in such a way that the synchronism shifts to the second position: “Y, son of Z, became king over Judah/Israel in the year … of X, king of Israel/Judah” (1 Kgs 16:29 Ahab; 22:41

Dissertationes 3 (Salamanca/Jerusalem: Universidad Pontificia/Instituto Español Bíblico y Arqueológico, 1980), 226–231. 13  Cf. E. Meyer, “Bericht der Septuaginta über Jerobeam,” Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen (Halle: Niemeyer, 1906), 363–370. 14  Sh. R. Bin-Nun, “Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and Judah,” VT 18 (1968): 414–432; E. Cortese, “Lo schema deuteronomistico per i re di Giuda e d’Israele,” Bib 56 (1975): 37–52; J. Debus, Die Sünde Jerobeams: Studien zur Darstellung Jerobeams und der Geschichte des Nordreiches in der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung, FRLANT 93 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 86; J. Trebolle, Salomón, 84–109.

132

Chapter 5

Jehoshaphat; 22:52 Ahaziah of Israel; 2 Kgs 3:1 Jehoram of Israel; 12:1 Jehoash of Judah). In these cases, the text of the Old Greek, reflected in the kaige section only by the Antiochene text, always preserves intact the original formulation with the synchronism in the initial position: en tō eniautō …, “in the year.” The change in the MT is always occasioned by the transposition of the whole formula to a different context from its primitive location. A displacement of the formula in the ensemble of the composition provokes a readjustment in the formulation of the phrase. The anomaly in the formulation of MT 1 Kgs 16:29 (Ahab), 22:41 (Jehoshaphat), and 22:52 (Ahaziah of Israel) is in each case due to the transposition of the occurrence of the formula in reference to Jehoshaphat. The original position of Jehoshaphat’s accession formula was in 1 Kgs 16:28a. This is attested by the Old Greek (LXXBL in a non-kaige section), which has here the formula in its regular form. The original position fits the pattern of synchronisms which structures the composition of 1–2 Kings.15 In the same way the anomaly of MT in the formulation of 2 Kgs 3:1 (Jehoram of Israel) is motivated by the transposition of the formula. Its original position was in 2 Kgs 1:18a. This fact is attested by the Old Greek (LXXL in the kaige section and Josephus),16 which here has the normal formula; it corresponds, furthermore, to a second principle of the composition of the books: that compositional units (notices or historical narratives, prophetic oracles and narratives, etc.) must be integrated within the framework of that reign with which they are synchronized. In the text-form reflected by the Old Greek, the prophetic narratives of chapter 2 are set within the framework of the reign of Jehoram. On the contrary, in the MT they remain outside the framework of any reign.17 The MT of 2 Kgs 12:1 first gives the age of Jehoash of Judah at the moment of his accession to the throne, followed by the synchronism for his accession. The Old Greek, represented here by LXXL, preserves once more the habitual formulation. In an earlier passage MT presents the synchronism in the accession formula for Ahaziah of Judah in 8:25 (“In the 12th year of Jehoram son of Ahab”), but in 9:29 it adds a different synchronism corresponding to the chronological system of the Old Greek: “in the 11th year of Jehoram son of Ahab, Ahaziah began to 15  Cf. S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 5th ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1894), 179; J.D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings, HSM 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1968), 58, 73–86. 16  Cf. Shenkel, Chronology, 69, 73, 82. 17  O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 294.

Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings

133

reign over Judah.” This phrase and its synchronism belong to the original text of the regnal formula of Ahaziah as preserved in the so-called “addition” of LXXL OL after 10:36. The formula comes immediately before the “conspiracy notice” (qšr ʿl) of Jehu, redacted according to the narrative pattern of the “conspiracy” or “coup d’état” (hkh, Putschbericht): … καὶ ’Οχοζίας υἱὸς ἦν εἴκοσι καὶ δύο ἐτων ἐν τῷ βασιλεύειν αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν ἔνα ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ ὄνομα τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Γοδολία θυγάτηρ Αχααβ βασιλέως Ισραηλ, καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἐν ὁδῷ οἴκου Αχααβ… Καὶ ἐπορεύθη ’Οχοζίας ἐπὶ Αζαηλ βασιλέα Συρίας εἰς πόλεμον. Τότε συνῆψεν Ιου υἱὸς Ναμεσσει ἐπὶ Ιωραμ υἱὸν Αχααβ βασιλέα Ισραηλ, καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτὸν ἐν Ιεζραηλ, καὶ ἀπέθανεν. Καὶ ἐτόξευσεν Ιου καὶ τὸν ’Οχοζίαν βασιλέα Ιουδα ἐπὶ τὸ ἅρμα, καὶ ἀπέθανεν. καὶ ἀνεβίβασαν αὐτὸν οἵ παῖδες αὐτοῦ ἐν Ιερουσαλημ καὶ θάπτουσιν αὐτὸν μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ ἐν πόλει Δαυειδ (LXXL 4 Kgdms 10:36+). Ochozias [Ahaziah] was twenty-two years old when he began to reign and he reigned in Jerusalem for one year. The name of his mother was Gotholia [Athaliah], daughter of Achaab [Ahab] king of Israel. And he walked in the way of the house of Achaab … Ochozias went to war against Azael [Hazael] king of Syria. At that time Jou [Jehu] son of Namessei [Nimshi] conspired against Ioram [Jehoram] son of Achaab king of Israel and he wounded him in Jezrael [Jezreel] so that he died. And Jou shot (with an arrow) Ochozias king of Judah upon a chariot so that he died. His servants brought him into Jerusalem and buried him with his fathers in the City of David. The Old Greek (cf. OL) here preserves the text of Jehu’s coup d’état notice integrally and in its proper place, that is, after the initial formula of Ahaziah and before the beginning of chapter 11. Also in the MT the initial sentence of the notice (8:28a) follows the initial formula of Ahaziah (8:25–27). Nevertheless, the remainder of this notice, taken from the Annals of Judah, now appears in the MT in pieces scattered throughout a prophetic narrative which comes from the Northern Kingdom and recounts the revolt of Jehu (8:28a; 9:14a, 28).18 The composition of the books of Kings appears then as a process in three stages: 1) At first there was a synchronic scheme of the reigns of Israel and Judah. 2) Within this scheme were integrated notices from the Annals of both kingdoms (e.g., “conspiracy notices”). Also in the second stage, narratives gathered 18  Note the comment of Montgomery concerning Lucian’s faculty of “putting things in their right place,” id., Kings, 434.

134

Chapter 5

from prophetic and historical sources were incorporated into the framework of the respective reigns with which they were synchronized. 3) Finally, deuteronomic comments were added at various stages difficult to define precisely for each case.19 One thing is clear: in order to reconstruct the history of the redaction and composition of the books it is necessary first to reestablish correctly the history of the recension of the text. The type of text on which the Old Greek is based occasionally shows knowledge of a text in which not all of the deuteronomic additions had yet been made or in which these had been arranged according to a different compositional plan.20 Thus, for example, the regnal formula of Rehoboam in LXX 1 Kgs 12:24a lacks the dtr addition found in MT/ LXX 14:21–22 and ignores the anomalous formulation found in 14:21a. Again, the narratives of the consultation of Ahijah of Shiloh and of the Assembly at Shechem are presented in LXX 12:24g–z in a pre-dtr form. Or again, in the LXX the account of the construction of the Jerusalem temple lacks the dtr addition found in MT 1 Kgs 6:11–14; this addition is demarcated in the MT by means of Wiederaufnahme, where the expression “Solomon built the temple and completed it” is repeated (6:9 and 14). A final example will summarize and confirm the above conclusions. In the MT of 2 Kgs 13:10–13, and consequently in the kaige text of LXXB, the initial and final formulas of Jehoash of Judah follow immediately one upon the other. No space is left, then, for any narrative material which belongs to the reign of Jehoash. The prophetic narrative of 13:14–21 and the notice of the verses 22, (23), 24–25 are found outside the framework of his reign. This is contrary to the principle of integration of literary units which governs the composition of the book. Moreover, a duplicate of the concluding formula of Jehoash is reproduced in the MT/LXXB at 14:15–16. Finally, the notice in MT and kaige 13:22, 24–25, taken from the Annals, appears interrupted by the dtr insertion of v. 23: OG (LXXL) 13:3–7, 23 13:10–11 13:14–21 13:22, 24–25 13:25+

dtr comments accession formula epilogue formula prophetic narrative notice epilogue formula

MT/LXXB 13:3–7 13:10–11 13:12–13 13:14–21 13:22, (23 dtr), 24–25

19  Cf. A. Jepsen, Die Quellen. 20  This is a very promising field of research. For the moment, see, Trebolle, Salomón, 168–185.

Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings

135

On the other hand, in the text of the OG (LXXL) and Josephus the concluding formula of Jehoash, here located after 13:14–25, encloses the prophetic narrative and the historical notice corresponding to his reign (vv. 14–25). Furthermore, this same OG text ignores the repetition of the concluding formula as found in the MT of 14:15–16. It also locates 13:23 inside the dtr commentary composed of vv. 3–7 and 23. The notice of the victory over the Arameans, then, does not undergo the deuteronomic interruption found in the MT (13:23). Moreover, this OG notice preserves an ending (cf. 13:25, now missing in the MT) in which reference is made to a war in Aphek. All these literary units (prophetic narrative, notice, and dtr comments) are linked among themselves by mutual references: all revolve around the “salvation” in the war at Aphek (tšwʿh, sōtēria, cf. 13:5, 17, 24–25). In the above examples we have used an analysis which combines textual (“lower”) and literary (“higher”) criticism, that is, recension history and redaction history. We applied this method to the two text-types of 1–2 Kings, the proto-Masoretic and that underlying the Old Greek. This kind of analysis allows us to discover an earlier stage of the composition of the books in which distinct literary units maintain a greater degree of literary unity and integrity, and in which they are not as fragmented and riddled with interruptions as they are in the proto-Masoretic text. 3

The Construction of Solomon’s Palace: MT 1 Kgs 7:1–12 // LXX 7:38–50

J.W. Wevers, D.W. Gooding, and L. Prijs have stressed the midrashic and targumic character of the LXX translation in the books of Kings. It is now necessary to establish the criteria which will allow us to answer the question: “Vorlage or Targum?” In order to do this we now propose two further examples for discussion. In MT and in OG of 1 Kgs 6:2–7:51 the differences in order of the literary units are as follows (the LXX verse numbers have their counterpart in the MT listed in brackets): Chronological note Temple

LXX 6:4–5a (6:37–38a) 6:6–34 (6:2–36)

Temple Palace

7:1–37 (7:13–51) 7:38–50 (7:1–12)

MT 6:2–36 6:37–38a, b 7:1–12 7:13–51

Temple Chronological note Palace Temple

136

Chapter 5

In MT the description of the construction of the palace is found inserted in the middle of the account of the construction of the temple. LXX, by contrast, first presents the narrative of the construction and decoration of the temple and only later makes reference to the palace. It appears intentionally to separate the temple from the palace. Gooding sees in this a separation of the religious from the profane and accordingly rejects this “reverent” order. He attributes it to the typical piety and pedantry of the translator in questions of chronology.21 Methodologically speaking, however, an argument based on the formal aspects of a given text should take precedence over an argument based on its possible “tendencies.” It also comes first in order as one applies the several critical methods. Tendenzkritik is very much exposed to the fantasies and the biases of each exegete. In the present case the valid formal criteria derive from a principle already demonstrated above: when a textual corruption is related to a transposition in a given text, the corruption is probably caused by, and is a sign of, that same transposition. In this case the transposition could have been made under the influence of the process of ring composition or Wiederaufnahme. The proto-Masoretic text has transposed the ensemble formed by the two literary units 6:37–38a and 7:1–12a. The evidence for these two transpositions is found in the discrepancies which have been left in the present text. The insertion of this block of material in a new context has caused the corruption of the form of the MT in the two verses which constitute the points of insertion and suture: 6:36 and 7:12b (LXX 6:34). The text of these verses is as follows: LXXB 6:34 [6:36] καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἐσωτάτην τρεῖς στίχους ἀπελεκήτων καὶ στίχος κατειργασμένης κέδρου κυκλόθεν (‫) ָס ִביב‬ [1] καὶ ᾠκοδόμησε καταπέτασμα τῆς αὐλῆς τοῦ αιλαμ τοῦ οἴκου (‫) ְּול ֻא ָלם ַה ָּביִת‬ τοῦ κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ ναου

MT

‫ וַ ֶּיִבן‬6:36 ‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫ת־ה ָח ֵצר ַה ְּפנ‬ ֶ ‫ֶא‬

‫ְׁשל ׁ ָֹשה טו ֵּרי גָ זִ ית וְ טוּר ְּכ ֻרתֹת א ֲָרזִ ים‬

21  Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling,” 155–156; see, in contrast, Trebolle, Salomón, 307–320.

Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings

7:49 [7:12a] τῆς αὐλῆς τῆς μεγάλης κύκλῳ τρεῖς στίχοι ἀπελεκήτων καὶ στίχος κεκολαμμένης κέδρου

Transposition 7:37–38a.(b) 7:1–11

137

7:1–12a

‫דֹולה ָס ִביב‬ ָ ְ‫וְ ָח ֵצר ַהּג‬ ‫ְׁשל ׁ ָֹשה טו ִּרים ָּגזִ ית וְ טוּר ְּכ ֻרתֹת א ֲָרזִ ים‬

7:1–12b

‫וְ ַל ֲח ַצר ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫ּול ֻא ָלם ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫ַה ְּפנ‬

6:34 (6:36) and he built the inner court of three courses of hewn stones and one course of cedar beams surrounding, and he built the curtain of the court for the portico of the temple which was in front of the shrine 7:49 (7:12a) and the large surrounding court of three courses of hewn stones and one course of cedar beams 7:12b for the inner court of the temple of Yhwh and for the portico of the temple The two passages (LXX 6:34 [6:36] and MT 7:12) use identical expressions to refer to the portico of the temple (ʾlm hbyt), the interior court (ḥṣr hpnymyt), and the type of construction composing the interior and exterior court walls (sbyb šlšh ṭwry[m] gzyt wṭwr krtt ʿrzym; in LXX the only difference is that 6:34 (6:36) kyklothen = sbyb, “surrounding,” appears at the end of the sentence). This textual parallelism is heightened by a parallelism of context. The two verses cited above, MT 7:12b and LXX 6:34[6:36], mark the transition to a similar block of material (MT 7:13–51 // LXX 7:1–37) also referring to the portico of the temple (cf. LXX 7:3[7:15] to ailam tou oikou) and to the interior court, in which are found the cult objects mentioned in the sequel (columns, “sea,” and bronze basins, etc.). This double parallelism of text and context facilitates the movement from one text to the other and simplifies the insertion of the block MT 7:1–9(10–11) between the two, with 7:12 forming a Wiederaufnahme of 6:36. As it now stands, the insertion of 7:1–11 has caused a textual corruption in MT in its forms of the two verses, 7:12b and 6:36, between which the foreign piece has been forcibly interpolated: 1. MT 7:12b has little meaning in itself and even less in its present context (7:1–12a). The context makes reference to the construction of the palace and of its large outer court. It makes no sense to refer, as does 12b, to the interior court and the portico (ulam) of the temple. This reference, however, helps to smooth the transition to the following description in MT 7:13–51 of the cult objects found in the ulam and the interior court of the temple. This shift to a

138

Chapter 5

description of the temple is the reason for the “addition” by Wiederaufnahme of 7:12b in MT. 2. Furthermore, the MT form of 6:36 has lost its ending, which was in part transposed to provide 7:12b in MT. The reference to the vestibule of the temple (lʾlm hbyt) retains its original context in LXX 6:34. After the description of the debir (“inner shrine”) and the hekhal (“great hall”) with their respective doors (6:18aß–33[6:19–35]), we pass logically to the description of the third section of the temple: the ulam or vestibule framed by its bronze pillars (7:13–22). Such is the sequence in the LXX where the link between the references to the vestibule and those to its two pillars is expressed by the common allusion to the “vestibule of the temple” in 6:34 (om. MT) and 7:3 (7:15) (to ailam tou oikou). 4

The Translation Equivalent lkn = ouch houtōs (lʾ kn): Vorlage or Targum?

S.R. Driver qualified as “strange” the occasional LXX translation of the particle lkn (‘therefore’) by an interrogative ouch houtōs (‘not so’), as though one were dealing with lʾ kn 8 ‘not so’): 1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Kgs 1:4, 6, 16; 19:32; 21:12; 22:20.22 All these passages are found in the kaige section γδ of the Greek text of 1–2 Kings. According to L. Prijs, the “LXX” in this case employs a “targumic” interpretation of the type ʾal tiqra, which consists in understanding a word by dividing it into two parts.23 This “strange” version, however, is not the original in OG. It is a clue which betrays a later recension of the text. Wherever it occurs, the Antiochene text, or at least some one of its representatives, such as the Vetus Latina or the Armenian version in its intermediate stage,24 preserves the old version. Thus, in 2 Kgs 1:16 the Antiochene text (boc2e2) has dia touto (“on account of this”) whereas we find the reviser’s phrase ouch houtōs in the rest of LXX mss. In two other cases, 2 Kgs 1:4, 6, the LXXL offers a double reading, the reviser’s reading followed by the primitive reading: ouch houtōs dia touto. In 2 Kgs 19:32 there is an omission in the LXXL, but the Armenian version attests propter hoc (“on account of this”); the intermediate stage of this version depends on the proto-Lucianic text and consequently attests dia touto in the OG. In two other 22  S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 44. 23  L. Prijs, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 59–61. 24  B. Johnson, Die armenische Bibelübersetzung als hexaplarischer Zeuge im 1. Samuelbuch, Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 2 (Lund: Gleerup, 1968), 96.

Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings

139

cases, 2 Kgs 21:12 and 22:20, the LXXL now presents the reviser’s translation, but again the Armenian version here joined by Lucifer (propter hoc) reflects the primitive Greek dia touto. Finally, in LXXL at 1 Kgs 22:19 the reviser’s form reappears, but significantly enough Theodoret ignores it. In Samuel–Kings the Hebrew particle lkn appears only five more times: 1 Sam 2:30, 3:14, 27:6, 28:2; 1 Kgs 14:10. The first four cases correspond to section α, non-kaige, of the Greek text. In 1 Sam 2:30 and 27:6 all the mss. offer dia touto, confirming our supposition that this was the original version of the LXX. In 3:14 the reviser’s form reappears in the G mss. oud’/ouch houtōs (“not so”), but VL (Palimpsestus Vindobonensis) offers ideo and the Ethiopic version (Aetha) has et propterea, which attests a Greek dia touto. In 1 Sam 28:2 the transmitted version is houtō (‘thus’), which can come either from ouch houtōs or dia touto. The passage in 1 Kgs 14:10 forms part of a larger Hexaplaric addition (vv. 1–20) which was never part of the OG and here is taken from Aquila. Its version, dia touto, is in this case the typical Aquilan version. In order to obtain a more complete view of the translations of the particle lkn, we need to take into account also the rendering of the expression lʾ kn from which the reviser’s version is derived. In the only case of lʾ kn in a non-kaige section (1 Sam 30:23) the OG translation for lʾ tʿśw kn (“you shall not do so”) is ou poiēsete houtōs (“you shall not do so”). All the other cases of the reading ouch houtōs (= MT lʾ kn) are found in the kaige sections of the G text. This does not help to make a comparison between the possible readings of the old version and those of the proto-Theodotionic or kaige recension found elsewhere: 2 Sam 20:21, 23:5 (hoti ouch houtōs, “that not so,” boc2e2 OL); 2 Kgs 7:9 (ti houtōs, “one so” or “something,” boc2e2); 2 Kgs 17:9 (adikous, “unjust,” boc2e2 OL). However, the case of 2 Sam 18:14 is in itself very eloquent: MT LXXB LXXL Arm

lʾ kn ʾḥylh “I will not wait” touto egō arksomai ouch houtōs menō “I will begin this; I will not remain so” dia touto egō arksomai “on account of this, I will begin” propter hoc quidem praeteribo “on account of this, indeed I will pass by”

The current text of the LXX offers a double reading. The first element preserves the old version, albeit in a truncated form without dia; the same form is attested by the Antiochene text, reflected in the Armenian version as well, presupposing the Vorlage lākēn ʾāḥēllāh, “therefore I will begin.” The second element corresponds to the reviser’s version made according to the proto-MT.25 25  Barthélemy, Devanciers, 116.

140

Chapter 5

Thus, in the books of Samuel–Kings the translation lkn = ouch houtōs is not that of the Old Greek. It corresponds instead to the later Hebraizing recension represented by the kaige revision. 5

Conclusions: Method in Identifying the Original Text of Kings

The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin variants must be studied and assessed from the perspective of the history of the biblical text. The correct use of the principles of textual and literary criticism in restoring the Urtext depends in great measure upon following a correct theory of the history of the biblical text. The new understanding of the history of the text of (Samuel–)Kings gained in the light of the mss. discovered in Cave 4 at Qumran grounds the possibility of assigning a high value to the readings and the passages of the OG and (in the kaige sections) of the Antiochene text. The OG translated a type of Hebrew text which had already been used by Chronicles and which has now reappeared in Hebrew, especially in 4QSama.b.c. Around the turn of the era the OG was revised according to a Hebrew text of the proto-Masoretic type. This kaige revision in the mss. tradition replaced the OG text in the sections 1 Kgs 1–2:11 and 1 Kings 22–2 Kings and may have left traces in the non-kaige section in some mss. In those sections then, the only path capable of leading us back to the primitive form of the Greek version is that which retraces the pre-Lucianic substratum of the Antiochene mss. Consequently, a working method consisting of a three-stage approach is needed for the establishment and exegesis of the Hebrew Urtext of Kings: 1. The first stage is that of rediscovering the OG. This consists in reascending the path traced by the successive revisions (“proto-Lucianic,” protoTheodotionic or kaige, Hexaplaric, and Lucianic). 2. The second stage is that of approaching as closely as possible to the Hebrew Vorlage of the first translation and its revisions.26 In the dilemma Vorlage or Targum (and here we speak only for the text of Samuel–Kings) the balance weighs in favour of a non-Masoretic Vorlage which is reproduced with a high degree of literalness by the OG translation. This primary version does not reflect more or less isolated Greek variants from a constant protoMasoretic text, but rather an independent type of Hebrew text which had a different development. 26  On the whole question of the reconstruction of the Hebrew text underlying the LXX, see E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3 (Jerusalem: Simor, 1981).

Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings

141

3. The third stage consists in moving still farther back toward the Hebrew archetype (Urtext). This implies a critical examinatio of the two basic types of text: the one represented by the proto-Masoretic text, reflected by the kaige and Hexaplaric recensions, and the other represented by the Hebrew text of Chronicles (and by 4QSama.b.c in Samuel) and reflected by the OG.27 This examinatio must be carried out before any argumentation based on possible biases in the content of the text, and it must utilize formal criteria such as the fixed structure of literary formulas and genres, the literary procedure of transposition and insertion of one passage into another by, e.g., Wiederaufnahme, and the general principles of composition of the books of Kings. Editors, translators, and critics of the books of Kings have had frequent recourse to the Antiochene text in the kaige sections. It is all the more significant that this preference for the Antiochene text as “the better text” in these cases does not stem from a tendency favourable to it, but rather overcomes a prejudice widespread since the days of Rahlfs against the Lucianic revision and against any possible existence of a “Lucian before Lucian.”28 Such modern authors, then, must assign a high critical value to the type of text represented by the OG and/or by the pre-Lucianic or Antiochene text. This should not remain a merely occasional recognition, confined to those passages where the MT presents an insuperable corruption or difficulty. The two types of texts must first be studied separately on their own merits. Either or both of the two text-types may sometimes reflect previous secondary redactional activity. Consequently, the analysis of the recensional history of these texts constitutes a necessary step methodologically prior to the literary analysis of the chronologically prior history of the composition and redaction of the critically-identified Urtext.

27  The question about the “better text” then concerns the earlier period of the editors, rather than that of more or less careless or innovative later copyists. At that earlier stage the limits between higher and lower criticism become rather fluid and both methods must work side by side. Cf. D. Barthélemy, “Notes critiques sur quelques points d’histoire du texte,” in Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, OBO 21 (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires Fribourg/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 289–303, esp. 296–97; id., “La qualité du texte massorétique de Samuel,” in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel, 1–44. 28  A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta Studien III (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911, 19622), 290–295.

Chapter 6

“Kaige” Texts in the Vetus Latina of Kings (4 Kingdoms 10:25–28) In the Books of Kings, the Old Latin (OL) reflects a “Lucianic text prior to Lucian.”1 In the kaige sections of the Greek text, 3 Kgdms 1–2:11 and 3 Kgdms 22–4 Kgdms, the Lucianic or Antiochene text (LXXL) is based on one very close to Old Greek (OG). In these same sections, the text of the Codex Vaticanus (LXXB) reproduces the text of the proto-Theodotionic or kaige recension.2 The Old Latin (OL) text in Kings presents many cases of duplicates: one reading of the duplicate follows the pre-Lucianic text while another reflects the kaige text. These duplicates prove the activity of a Latin recensor predecessor of Jerome.3 We will examine here the duplicate extant in 2 Kgs 10:25ab–28: Et percussit eos qui colebant bahal gladio et euertit tempulum bahal et accepit idolū bahal et contriuit eum et proiecit eum at sinistrā templi et tempulū bahal posuit in sterculino. Et eradicauit tempulum bahal de israel (OL1) et percussit eos qui seruiebant bahal gladio et abierunt in ciuitatem 1  Against A. Rahlfs and L. Dieu, B. Fischer has proved that the presence of Lucianic readings in the OL text supports the antiquity of its text. Cf. A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta Studien III, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 169; L. Dieu, “Retouches Lucianiques sur quelques textes de la vieille latine (I et II Samuel),” RB 16 (1919): 372–403, esp. 309 and 403; B. Fischer, “Lukian-Lesarten in der Vetus Latina der vier Königsbücher,” Studia Anselmiana 27–28 (1951): 169–177, esp. 173–175. Cf. the list of agreements between LXXL and OL noted by C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), xxxvi–xxxix; cf. also R.S. Haupert, The Relation of Codex Vaticanus and the Lucianic Text in the Books of the Kings from the Viewpoint of the Old Latin and the Ethiopic Versions, University of Pennsylvania Diss. (Philadelphia: 1930). 2  D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963); F.M. Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” HTR 57 (1964): 282– 299; S.P. Brock, “Lucian redivivus. Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciers d’Aquila,” Studia Evangelica 5 (1968): 176–181; E. Tov, “Lucian and Proto-Lucian. Toward a New Solution of the Problem,” RB 79 (1972): 101–113. As for the text of the OL version, cf. E. Ulrich, “The Old Latin Translation of the LXX and the Hebrew Scrolls from Qumran,” in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel, ed. E. Tov, 1980 Proceedings IOSCS Vienna (Jerusalem: Academon, 1980), 121–165. 3  Cf. J. Carmignac, “Les devanciers de S. Jérôme. Une traduction latine de la recension kaige dans le second Livre des Chroniques,” in Mélanges D. Barthélemy, ed. P. Casetti, O. Keel and A. Schenker, OBO 38 (Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 31–50.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_008

143

“ Kaige ” Texts in the Vetus Latina of Kings

praecursores et triari at domum bahal et protulerunt uestem bahal et succenderunt eam et detraxerunt ti(t)ulos bahal et aes et domum eius euerterunt et proiecerunt eam in sterculino et eradicauit bahal de israel (OL2).4 The initial phrase of each part of the duplicate, OL1 and OL2, constitutes a very simple example of how they belong to two different textual traditions: OL2 OL1 et eradicauit et eradicauit Ieu Bahal tempulum bahal de Israel

LXXL LXX N … καὶ ἠφάνισεν καὶ ἠφάνισεν Ιου Ιου τὸν Βααλ καὶ τὸν οἶκον τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ τοῦ Βααλ ἐξ Ισραηλ ἐξ Ισραηλ

MT LXXB καὶ ἠφάνισεν ‫וַ ּיַ ְׁש ֵמד‬ Ιου ‫יֵ הּוא‬ τὸν Βααλ ‫ת־ה ַּב ַעל‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ ἐξ Ισραηλ

‫ִמּיִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬

The reading of OL2 reflects the Greek text of the kaige recension5 and the type of Hebrew text of the proto-Masoretic tradition.6 The reading of OL1 corresponds to that preserved by the rest of the Greek manuscript tradition (N rel.).7 This reading is characteristic of the OG and reflects a non-Masoretic Hebrew text. The Lucianic text (LXXL) combines both readings in a single phrase and replaces the proper noun Βααλ with the pronoun αὐτοῦ, since the noun baal is already present in the first reading of the duplicate. This criterion of differentiation of textual variants may also explain the other duplicates present in the Old Latin (10:25ab–28). Again the correspondences OL1 = LXXL (OG, based on a non-Masoretic text) and OL2 = LXXB (kaige) = MT are verified. The Lucianic text assembles and juxtaposes the two readings, the OG and the proto-Theodotionic or kaige. In the following synoptic table the phrases are numbered from 1 to 12. The text immediately preceding this passage refers to the order given by Jehu to the guards and officers to break into 4  The OL text has been taken from the only textual source that preserves the complete episode, the Palimpsestus Vindobonensis according to the unpublished transcription made by Dom B. Fischer in 1942, in which he corrected the edition of J. Belsheim, Palimpsestus Vindobonensis. Antiquissimae Veteris Testamenti translationis latinae fragmenta (Christianiae: 1885). 5  The Hexaplaric tradition (mss. a x and Armenian text) has the same reading. 6  The Vulgata follows as usual the Hebrew text of Masoretic tradition: delevit itaque Hieu Baal de Israel. 7  A group of mss. of “mixed” character, which may include the mss. Nefhmvw, frequently preserves the OG text, although sometimes within a Hexaplaric context, cf. J. Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboám. Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1 Reyes, 2–12; 14 (Salamanca— Jerusalén: Institución San Jerónimo, 1980), 118.

144

Chapter 6

Baal’s temple and slay all the worshippers (MT 10:25aα ‫וַ יְ ִהי ְּכ ַכֹּלתֹו ַל ֲעׂשֹות ָהע ָֹלה‬ ‫)וַ יא ֶֹמר יֵ הּוא ָל ָר ִצים וְ ַל ָּׁש ִל ִׁשים ּבֹאו ַהּכּום ִאיׁש ַאל־יֵ ֵצא‬. Despite their variants, phrases 1 and 12 (i.e., the first and the last) are common to all the columns and forms of the text. Phrases 8, 9 and 10 are found only in OL1 and in LXXL. OL has taken them from the Antiochene text. They undoubtedly belong to the text of the OG and represent a type of text of non-Masoretic tradition. Phrases 3, 4, 5 and 6 appear in MT LXXB and in LXXL OL2. They correspond to the proto-Masoretic text reflected by the kaige recension. The Antiochene text incorporated the kaige readings into its own base text. At a certain point in time they became part of the Antiochene text as well as of the OL textual tradition. Evidence for this is the fact that the two series of duplicate phrases are found in the OL textual tradition, juxtaposed to each other, each with its own introduction and conclusion (OL1: phrases 1, 7–11, 12; OL2: phrases 1, 3–7, 12). On the contrary, the Antiochene text integrates the kaige addition into the OG without repeating the first and the last sentences (1 and 12), as happens in the layout of the Latin text. On the other hand, an obvious error in LXXB,8 στολήν instead of στηλήν (LXXL = MT ‫ות‬/‫)מצבת‬, an error reproduced literally in the Latin uestem (as compared to the correct idolum in OL1), proves that here OL does not depend on the Lucianic text, but on the Greek text resulting from the kaige recension (LXXB).9 1 et percussit eos qui colebant bahal

et percussit eos qui seruiebant bahal

gladio 2

gladio

3

et abierunt in ciuitatem

καὶ ἐπάταξαν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐπάταξαν αὐτοὺς

‫וַ ּיַ ּכּום‬

οἱ παρατρέχοντες καὶ οἱ τριστάται ἐν στόματι ῥομφαίας ἐν στόματι ῥομφαίας καὶ ἔρριψαν καὶ ἔρριψαν οἱ παρατρέχοντες καὶ οἱ τριστάται καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἕως πόλεως ἕως

‫י־ח ֶרב‬ ָ ‫ְל ִפ‬ ‫וַ ּיַ ְׁש ִלכּו‬ ‫ָה ָר ִצים‬ ‫וְ ַה ָּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬ ‫וַ ּיֵ ְלכּו‬ ‫ד־עיר‬ ִ ‫ַע‬

8  Burney, Notes, xxii. 9  στήλην mss. deafgbimnpqtvwazc2e2, Arm. The mistake στόλην also appears in the Ethiopic version that usually follows the LXXB text (et combusserunt domum Baal et omnia uasa eius et omnia uestimenta eius). The addition uasa is similar to OL et aes (phrase 6, v. 27a). The Old Latin translation (OL1) and that of the recension (OL2) use equivalent terms: colebant/ serviebant, templum/domum.

145

“ Kaige ” Texts in the Vetus Latina of Kings

praecursores et triari οἴκου τοῦ Βααλ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ Βααλ et domum bahal ‫ית־ה ָּב ַעל‬ ַ ‫ֵּב‬ 26 καὶ ἐξήνεγκαν 26 καὶ ἐξήνεγκαν et protulerunt ‫ּי ִֹצאּו‬26 τὴν στήλην τοῦ Βααλ τὴν στολὴν τοῦ Βααλ uestem bahal ‫ֶאת־‬

4

‫ַמ ְּצבֹות‬ et succenderunt eam καὶ ἐνέπρησαν αὐτήν καὶ ἐνέπρησαν αὐτήν ‫ית־ה ַּב ַעל‬ 5 ַ ‫ֵּב‬ 27 καὶ κατέσπασαν 27 καὶ κατέσπασαν et detraxerunt 6 ‫פּוה‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיִ ְׂש ְר‬ τὰς στήλας πάσας τὰς στήλας titulos ‫וַ ּיִ ְּתצּו‬27 τοῦ Βααλ τοῦ Βααλ bahal ‫ֵאת ַמ ְּצ ַבת‬ (καὶ καθεῖλον καὶ καθεῖλον et domum eius 7 et euertit ‫ַה ָּב ַעל‬ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Βααλ) ‫וַ ּיִ ְּתצּו ֶאת־‬ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ tempulum bahal euerterunt καὶ ἔλαβεν Ιου 8 et accepit ‫ֵּבית‬ τὴν στήλην τοῦ Βααλ idolum bahal ‫ַה ַּב ַעל‬

9 et contriuit eum 10 et proiecit eum at sinistram templi et proiecerunt eam 11 et tempulum bahal posuit in sterculino in sterculino 12 et eradicauit

et eradicauit ieu

tempulum bahal bahal de israel

de israel

καὶ συνέπτριψεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἔρριψεν αὐτὴν ἐξ ἀριστερῶν τοῦ Βααλειμ καὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Βααλ ἔθετο εἰς κοπρῶνα ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης καὶ ἠφάνισεν Ιου τὸν Βααλ καὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐξ Ισραηλ

καὶ ἔταξαν αὐτὸν εἰς λυτρῶνας ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης 28 καὶ ἠφάνισεν Ιου τὸν Βααλ ἐξ Ισραηλ

‫וַ יְ ִׂש ֻמהּו‬ ‫ְל ַמ ֲח ָראֹות‬ ‫ד־היֹום‬ ַ ‫ַע‬ ‫וַ ּיַ ְׁש ֵמד‬28 ‫יֵ הּוא‬ ‫ת־ה ַּב ַעל‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ִמּיִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬

The few OL fragments preserved in Kings do not allow us to detect the different features of the kaige translation which were noticed by J. Carmignac in the text of Chronicles: και/καιγε (‫ = )וגם‬et/et quidem, εκαστος/ανηρ (‫ = (איש‬unusquisque/vir, απο/επι/επανω (‫ = )מעל‬ab-super/desuper, ενωπιον/εν οφθαλμοις (‫ = )בעני‬in conspectu/in oculis.10 Research cannot be satisfied with the classification of the extant variants within two types of text. It is necessary to explain the origin of such variants

10  Although there are not many appearances of some of these terms, if we take into account that a recension is not a systematic textual revision, we can conclude with Carmignac: “la version peu septantique de 2 Chroniques dépend en fait de la recension KAIGE,” id., “Les devanciers de S. Jérôme,” 42.

146

Chapter 6

from a common archetype. For this purpose, it is essential to apply a joint analysis of textual and literary criticism (“lower” and “higher” criticism). The two phrases show two fundamental differences: the MT describes the action consisting of “burning” a maṣṣēbāh (‫ )וישרפוה‬and performed by the guards. The non-Masoretic textual type implies an action in the singular performed by Jehu, who “breaks” (‫ )וישברה‬the stela of Baal. Which of the two textual forms represents the “best text”?11 The passage 10:25–28 gives rise to many critical difficulties; three of them stand out here: – Phrase 7 (v. 27ba) is common to MT OL2 and LXXL OL1. This phrase is omitted in LXXB and marked with an asterisk in the Syro-Hexaplaric text. Critics considered, therefore, that it did not form part of the OG (cf. BHS).12 – The maṣṣēbāh was an object made of stone and, consequently, fireproof. Most critics therefore accept Stade’s suggestion to replace ‫ות‬/‫ מצבת‬with ‫אשרת‬, in accordance with the parallel text 2 Kgs 23:6 (‫) ָה ֲא ֵׁש ָרה … וַ ּיִ ְׂשר ֹף א ָֹתּה‬. The ʾašērāh is a combustible log; the difficulty of the text is, in this way, eliminated.13 11  About the question of the “best text,” cf. D. Barthélemy, “La qualité du Texte Massorétique de Samuel,” in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel, ed. E. Tov, 1980 Proceedings IOSCS (Jerusalem: Academon, 1980), 1–44, esp. 34. 12  According to Montgomery, in the MT the phrase 7 (v. 27ba) seems to be a doublet of the previous one (v. 27a). Gray, on the contrary, and following the text of the versions, suggests that the first phrase is genuine, although it has to be read, as Stade proposed, as mzbḥ instead of mṣbt. Cf. J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 416; J. Gray, I and II Kings. A Commentary, OTL, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 558; B. Stade, “Miscellen. 10. Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö 10–14,” ZAW 5 (1885): 275–297, esp. 278; B. Stade and F. Schwally, The Books of Kings, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1904), 233. H.Ch. Schmitt removes v. 27a in his translation; he thinks Klostermann’s opinion, according to which the v. 27a is a variant of v. 26, to be probable. This variant would appear misplaced after wytṣw, and caused the repetition of this verb, see H.Ch. Schmitt, Elisa. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Gerd Mohn, 1972), 234, n. 229; Klostermann, Die Bücher, 246. On the other hand, Ehrlich removed v. 26 as being a variant of v. 27, cf. A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel. Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches, III Josua, Richter, I. u. II. Samuelis (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910), 304. 13  Cf. BHS; cf. also Stade, Anmerkungen, 278. Eissfeldt, Kittel, Benzinger, Burney, de Vaux and Van den Born (this last with doubts) accept the emendation. Cf. O. Eissfeldt, Das erste Buch der Könige, HSAT 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1922), 559; R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige, HK I 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 242; L. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige, KHC IX (Freiburg: Mohr, 1899), 154; Burney, Notes, 306; R. de Vaux, Les Livres des Rois, La Sainte Bible (Jérusalem; Paris, 1949), 172; A. Van den Born, Koningen uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd, BOT 4/2 (Roermond en Maaseik, 1958), 166.

“ Kaige ” Texts in the Vetus Latina of Kings

147

– In phrase 2, the verb ‫ וישלכו‬lacks an object. Two solutions have been proposed to this problem, in accordance with the two terms of the question as posed by Eissfeldt; “War hier von den Leichen die Rede oder von Kultgegenständen?”14 Klostermann suggested that the unnecessary repetition of the subject ‫( ָה ָר ִצים וְ ַה ָּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬cf. formerly v. 25aa) ended up by displacing the words that, in principle, specified the type of object and the place to which it was cast; the exact lost words would have been ‫האשרים ארצה‬ (“[they threw] the ašērîm to the soil”).15 The second possible solution consists in assuming the existence of an implicit object in the third person plural, right after ‫וישלכו‬, referring to the corpses of Baal’s worshippers, thrown into an indeterminate place; Gray rightly adds the suffix ‫וישלכום‬.16 In search of a solution to these difficulties, we must first take into account some textual remarks: The two phrases (6 and 7) of v. 27aba are almost identical: ‫ ויתצו את בית הבעל‬/ ‫ויתצו את מצבת הבעל‬. The Hebrew is ‫ נתץ‬in both cases; nevertheless, two different verbs are used in the Greek version: κατέσπασαν… καθεῖλον. In Samuel– Kings, the verb ‫ נתץ‬is found on seven occasions, always in the kaige γδ section. The version with the verb καθαιρεῖν, which is preserved, above all, in the Antiochene text, corresponds to the text of the OG. On the other hand, the version with the verb κατασπᾶν is typical of the kaige recension, as is proved by a simple statistical analysis of the texts: – 2 Kgs 11: 18 κατέσπασαν, in the whole manuscript tradition. – 2 Kgs 23:7 and 8 καθεῖλεν, in the whole manuscript tradition. – 2 Kgs 23:12, the Greek text presents a double reading: ‫ = נתץ המלך‬καὶ καθεῖλεν ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ κατέσπασεν (καὶ κατέσπασεν αὐτὰ ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ καθεῖλεν αὐτά). – 2 Kgs 23:15: κατέσπασεν; καθεῖλε boc2e2. – 2 Kgs 25:10: κατέσπασεν; καθεῖλε boc2e2. Therefore, in two cases, 23:15 and 25:10, the text which represents the kaige recension (LXXB), has the expected translation, i.e. κατέσπασεν; on the other hand, the Antiochene text, which preserves in the kaige section a text close Klostermann, Montgomery, Médebielle and H.Ch. Schmitt are against the correction, cf. A. Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, KK A III (Nördlingen: Beck’sche Buchhandlung, 1887), 426; Montgomery, Kings, 411 and 416; A. Médebielle, Les livres des Rois, La Sainte Bible III, ed. L. Pirot and A. Clamer (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1949), 734; Schmitt, Elisa, 234, n. 228. 14  Eissfeldt, Könige, 559. 15  Klostermann, Bücher, 426. Kittel accepts this reading albeit with some doubts, Kittel, Könige, 241. However, cf. Burney, Notes, 305f; Montgomery, Kings, 415; Gray, Kings, 558 note e. 16  Cf. Gray, Kings, 558; BHS: “frt l ‫( אתם‬cf. Syr ’nwn) vel ‫( המתים‬Targ qṭjljn).”

148

Chapter 6

to the OG, presents the old reading καθεῖλε in both cases. In one of the cases, 23:12, there is a double reading; the first part corresponds to the OG, καθεῖλεν, and the second to the kaige recension, κατέσπασεν. Finally in only one case, 11:18, do all Greek manuscripts reproduce the recensional reading κατέσπασαν. Therefore, in 4 Kgdms 10:27 the version ‫ = נתץ‬κατέσπασαν will also correspond to the text of the recension while the version preserved in the Antiochene text is that of the OG: καὶ καθεῖλον τὸν οἴκον αὐτοῦ. It is now clear that sentence 7 was part of the OG text (LXXL OL1). In the MT the original Hebrew version of this phrase is found in v. 27ba. The omission of this phrase in LXXB may be explained by the frequent haplographic character of Codex Vaticanus. On the other hand, as we shall now see, this phrase concerning the demolition of Baal’s Temple is an integral and necessary part of the narrative scheme relating the desecration of a pagan temple.17 At this point, it is necessary to go one step further and introduce into the discussion literary considerations, such as those referring to the narrative scheme used in this passage. Beyond the simple parallelism between the ašērāh and the maṣṣēbāh proposed by Stade, the phrases of 10:25b–27 find a long series of correspondences in the passage of 23:6ff. Both passages refer to a religious reform against Baalism, led by Josiah in one case and by Jehu in another. Josiah’s reform materialized in the following actions: “he took out (‫ )ויצא‬the ašērāh …, burned it (‫)וּיִ ְׂשר ֹף א ָֹתּה‬, cast (‫ )וישלך‬its ashes to the common grave18 and demolished (‫( … )ויתץ‬23:7–8).” In MT 10:25b–26 the same verbs are found together again: take out, burn, cast and demolish. In this case, nevertheless, the third verb, ‫שלך‬, occupies the first place without any definite object as a reference: cast, draw out, burn and demolish. The text proper to LXXL OL1 in v. 27ba (phrases 9 and 10) contains the peculiarity, already mentioned, that Baal’s “stela” is not “burnt” but “broken” (συντριβεῖν).19 On the other hand, the verbal sequence and that of the actions is exactly the same as in 23:6–8, with the verb ‫ שלך‬being placed in the third position and referring to the broken stela: “he took the stela, broke it and cast it away”; the demolition of the temple

17  In OL2 and LXXL the pronoun eius/αὐτοῦ has a secondary character and depends on the previous noun bahal. OL1 and the OG, besides TM, preserve the noun. 18   M T ‫קבר‬/LXXB τάφον. However, LXXL and the Armenian version (in its pre-Hexaplaric stratum) have τάφους (‫)קברי‬, a reading that is also followed by Targ and Vulg (except for R Cr M); these readings, in which Targ and Pesh follow LXXL (OL, Arm, Josephus), correspond to a non-Masoretic textual type, cf. Trebolle, Salomón y Jeroboán, 332ff. 19  συντριβεῖν: 1 Kgdms 4:18; 3 Kgdms 13:26, 28; 16:28; 19:11; (22:49a); 4 Kgdms 1:18c (LXX, cf. MT 3:2); 11:18; 18:4 and 23:14 (στήλας = ‫ ;) ַמ ֵּצבֹות‬23:15; 25:13 (LXXL συνεκοπσαν) ἔρριψεν = ‫שלך‬, cf. precisely 4 Kgdms 23:6.

“ Kaige ” Texts in the Vetus Latina of Kings

149

comes before these actions (LXXL OL1, phrase 7). Such is the usual order of the phrases when describing the profanation of a pagan temple. In LXXL and OL1 the problem of the incombustibility of the maṣṣēbāh or stela is not posed; the stone is not burnt but destroyed by a succession of blows. Several passages confirm this form of the text preserved in LXXL and OL1, both as regards the order of the phrases and the already mentioned procedure of “breaking” the stela. In 2 Kgs 18:4 and 23:14 it is said that the reformers Hezekiah and Josiah broke the “stelas” (‫וישבר את המצבות‬, καὶ συνέτριψεν τὰς στήλας). The Hebrew and Greek texts know how to distinguish perfectly between the stone “stela” and the statue or log (ašērāh). Evidence of this is brought about by the fact that in both cases a different allusion is immediately made to the ašērāh (‫ ִרים‬-/‫ת־ה ֲא ֵׁש ָרה‬ ָ ‫ּיִ ְכר ֹת ֶא‬/‫)וְ ָכ ַר ְת‬, καὶ ἐξωλέθρευσεν (LXXL ἐξέκοψε) τὰ ἄλση.20 In verse 23:15 it is also said that the “ašērāh was burned,” and not the stela (‫וישרף‬ ‫אשרה‬, καὶ κατέκαυσεν τὸ ἄλσος). There is therefore no possibility of confusion between maṣṣēbāh and ašērāh, as surmised by the correction proposed by Stade. The main proof is, however, the following: the description of the profanation of a pagan place of worship entails a series of terms and actions that retain a fixed order: 1) the objects to be worshipped are “taken out” (‫יצא‬, hiphil) from the temple; 2) they are either “broken” (‫ )שבר‬or “burned” (‫ ;)שרף‬and finally 3), “thrown” (‫שלך‬, hiphil) to a place of shame and impurity. Sooner or later it is said that the pagan temple was “demolished” (‫)נתץ‬.21 The same series of actions, taking out, breaking and throwing, is mentioned in the Antiochene text of 23:12. The text of 23:12 reads as follows: καὶ κατέσπασεν αὐτὰ ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ καθεῖλεν αὐτὰ καὶ ἐξήνεγκεν αὐτὰ καὶ συνέτριψεν καὶ ἔρριψεν

καὶ καθεῖλεν ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ κατέσπασεν ἐκεῖθεν καὶ ἔρριψεν

‫נָ ַתץ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ‫וַ ּיָ ָרץ ִמ ָּׁשם‬ ‫וְ ִה ְׁש ִליְך‬

The MT reading ‫ וירץ משם‬is without doubt desperate. It has no equivalent in the text of the kaige recension, since κατέσπασεν is the translation of the verb ‫נתץ‬. The proposed corrections are numerous: Ehrlich proposed ‫ויתצם‬ ‫ ;שם‬Klostermann and Benzinger, and with some reservations, Kittel, ‫ ויאצם‬in 20  Cf. also the following passages: ‫ = מצבה‬στήλη, 2 Sam 18:18 (2×); 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 1:18; 3:2; 10:26, 27; 17:10; 18:4; 23:14. ‫ = אשרה‬ἄλσος: 2 Kings 13:6; 17:10, 16; 18:4; 21:3, 7; 23:4, 6, 7, 14, 15. 21  Cf. 2 Kgs 23:6. In v. 23:4 LXXL has καὶ ἐξήγαγον αὐτὰ (om. MT LXXB) καὶ κατέκαυσεν αὐτὰ ἐξω*.

150

Chapter 6

accordance with LXXL; BHK suggests ‫ ;ויקדם שם‬BHS ‫וירצם שם‬.22 Montgomery accepts this correction as the most probable.23 However, in order to express the “breaking” of stelae, statues and cult objects as a sign and act of desecration, the verb ‫ שבר‬is used instead of ‫רצץ‬,24 as implied also here by LXXL συνέτριψεν.25 It can therefore be assumed that the MT reading ‫ וירץ משם‬derives from the one surmised by the OG ‫ויצאם משם‬. In any case, this passage of 23:12, presents and confirms the succession of verbs: destroy, remove, break and throw.26 Finally, it should be added that the anti-Baalist reform promoted by the priest Jehoiada (2 Kgs 11:18) is materialized in the “demolition” (‫ )נתץ‬of the temple and in the “breaking” (‫ )שבר‬of the pagan images. In the passage of 2 Kgs 10:25b–27 that we are considering, the text of LXXL and OL1 presents the following narrative scheme: Jehu “destroys” (καθεῖλεν, ‫)נתץ‬ the temple, “takes” the stela (ἔλαβεν, ‫לקח‬, instead of the usual ‫)הוציא‬, “breaks” the stela (συνέτριψεν, ‫ )שבר‬and “throws” (ἔρριψεν, ‫ )שלך‬its remains away. Two conclusions can be drawn from what has been said. The first refers to the MT reading ‫וישלכו‬. According to the narrative scheme of profanation, structured in the triple action of drawing out the idol, breaking (or burning) it and casting its remains away, the object thrown away in this passage can be none other than the ashes of the burned maṣṣēbāh. The verb “throw,” ‫וישלכו‬, on the other hand, is also completely out of place, displaced from its rightful place after the verbs “draw out” and “burn.” The order implied by the OG (LXXL and OL1) is the original one: demolished, removed out, broken and thrown. Within the same proto-Masoretic textual tradition, the reading of OL2 in phrase 11 (v. 27bb), et proiecerunt, corresponds to the Hebrew ‫ ;וישלכו‬it retains the marks of a textual stage prior to MT, when the verb ‫ וישלכו‬followed the verbs “to remove” and “to burn,” according to the required order. The second conclusion refers to the alternative “breaking” (LXXL OL1) or “burning of” (MT LXXB OL2) the stone stela (maṣṣēbāh). The quoted passages (2 Kgs 18:4; 23:14 and 23:12 [LXXL]) confirm the reading of the OG in 10:26ff., as well as the application of the method of desecration consisting in “breaking” 22  Cf. Ehrlich, Randglossen, 320; Klostermann, Bücher, 480; Benzinger, Könige, 193; Kittel, Könige, 302. 23  Montgomery, Kings, 540. 24  Cf. 2 Kgs 11:18; 18:4; 23:14, 15; 25:13. Cf. also 2 Kgs 1:18c (LXX, MT 3:2?). ‫ רצץ‬in 1 Sam 12:3, 4; 2 Kgs 18:21. 25  According to Burney the LXXL translation καὶ συνέτριψεν is “apparently a third rendering of the word (‫)וירץ‬.” The other two would be καὶ καθεῖλεν and καὶ ἐξήνεγκεν. The former reading corresponds, as we have seen, to ‫נתץ‬, and the second one presupposes the Hebrew (‫ויצא(ם‬. Cf. Burney, Notes, 360. 26  Cf. also 2 Kgs 24:13, when Nebuchadnezzar took out from there (‫ )ויצא משׁם‬the treasures of the Temple.

“ Kaige ” Texts in the Vetus Latina of Kings

151

the stela (LXXL καὶ συνέτριψεν, ‫ ;שבר‬OL1 et contriuit eum). On the other hand, the reading of MT has a parallel in 23:6; however, the system used to destroy the stela by applying fire to the stone indeed poses a difficulty. The ašērāh conjecture is only a subterfuge. On the other hand, the agility and concreteness of style found in the phrases of the text according to LXXL OL1, as opposed to the repetition and uncertainty in the expression of the text according to MT LXXB, add a new argument in favour of the form of the text attested by the OG. The story of chapters 9–10:28 is one of the best quality literary pieces in the classical Hebrew prose. In this sense, the Masoretic text of 10:25–27 cannot in any way represent the exact form of the original text.27 According to MT LXXB, the subject of the action in plural is the runners and the thirds. On the contrary, according to LXXL OL1, Jehu is the main character of the action.28 The plural responds better to the sequence order-execution between Jehu’s command (“Enter and strike …”) and the following plural narrative (“and they struck …”). The text of LXXL OL1 is incongruent in this respect and, as a consequence, “more difficult.” Also in this detail the OG text is preferable to MT, which has standardized the text. In the old story, the saying “Quod facit rex per alios facit per se” is fulfilled. In conclusion, it can be said that the double readings of the OL version may sometimes preserve the “best and oldest” text. In any case, these readings preserve precious traces of the history of the recension of the biblical text and, in particular, of a revision of the Vetus Latina along the lines of Jerome’s work.

27  Cf. Eissfeldt, Könige, 559; A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige, EHAT IX/2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1911–1912), 116; Kittel, Könige, 241; Benzinger, Könige, 154. 28  In LXXL the phrases 1 and 7 are, however, plural. The OL1 text is singular: et percussit … et euertit.

Chapter 7

Two Texts for a Story of a Resurrection: 2 Kings 13:20–21 (MT LXXB/LXXL OL) One dead man returns to life after his contact with Elisha’s bones in the grave of the prophet. It will be difficult indeed to find a stranger passage than this throughout the Old Testament. Modern critics approach this account with a mixture of coyness and blushing. They turn their attention to this passage only to disqualify it as a late and legendary creation aimed at magnifying the figure of the prophet Elisha.1 In tune with this, Sirach will say: “In his life he performed wonders, and in death his deeds were marvelous” (48:19 NETS). Lying in his grave, Elisha performed a miracle such as he had already performed in his lifetime: the resurrection of a dead man (2 Kgs 4). The sense of the text seems quite clear: “Elisha died and he was buried. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land at the coming of every year.2 Once a man was being buried, when the people caught sight of such a band; so they 1  According to L. Benzinger, this episode “gehört zu den jüngsten Bestandteilen der Elisalegende,” id., Die Bücher der Könige, KHC IX (Freiburg: Mohr, 1899), 146. H. Gressmann affirms that “ein schöner Gedanke, jedoch in abstossender Form: Grosse Menschen strahlen Leben noch im Tode aus,” id., Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels (von Samuel bis Amos und Hosea), SAT II/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19212), 315. Finally N.H. Snaith says that “it is a relic of superstitious belief which somehow crept into the tradition concerning Elisha,” id., The First and Second Books of Kings. Introduction and Exegesis, IntB (New York/Nashville: Abingdon 1954), 258.    Kittel insists on the “legendary” tone of this narrative. G. Quell speaks of biographische Legenden as a literary genre of the resurrection stories (1 Kgs 17; 2 Kgs 4). Alcaina Canosa classifies the narrative of 2 Kgs 13:20–21 within a series of “prophetic anecdotes,” whose horizon does not reach beyond the communities of prophets, with no irradiation into the political sphere. H. Ch. Schmitt considers this episode an appendix (Nachtrag) added to the cycle in the last phase of redaction, although its origin could be earlier. Cf. R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige, HK I 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 259; G. Quell, “Das Phänomen des Wunders im Alten Testament,” Verbannung und Heimkehr, Festschrift W. Rudolph (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1961), 253–300, esp. 279; C. Alcaina Canosa, “Panorama crítico del ciclo de Eliseo,” EstBib 23 (1964): 217–234, esp. 225; H.Ch. Schmitt, Elisa. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Gerd Mohr, 1972), 235.    It is interesting to remark that in the narratives of the “miracle” genre in Romance literatures, automatism in the performance of the miracle is seen as typical of late and decadent forms, cf. W. Kroemer, Formas de la narración breve en las literaturas románicas hasta 1700 (Madrid: Gredos, 1979), 46. 2  See NJPST note on the passage: “Meaning of Heb. uncertain; emendation yields ‘year by year.’” © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_009

Two Texts for a Story of a Resurrection

153

threw the corpse (Heb. “the man”) into Elisha’s grave and made off (Heb. “he made off”). When the [dead] man came into contact with Elisha’s bones, he came to life and stood up.” (NJPST). The person who was revived in this way was, most probably, an Israelite who was being carried to his last abode by the same people who had formerly buried Elisha, or perhaps by other unidentified Israelites. The Lucianic text (LXXL) and the Old Latin (OL) give a very different version of this episode. In the course of one of their inroads into the land of Israel, some Moab bandits rashly cast a corpse into Elisha’s grave. When coming into contact with Elisha, the Moabite corpse—an alleged bandit—comes to life again. This chapter intends to offer an example of how the OL occasionally preserves textual traces that allow an approach to the pre-Lucianic Greek text and, through it, to the Old Greek (OG) version, eventually arriving at the Hebrew text that stood as the primary source of the versions. In the Book of Kings, the OL reflects a Lucianic Greek text “prior to Lucian.”3 In the section of the Greek text γδ, 1 Kgs 22–2Kings, to which our passage belongs, that pre-Lucianic text constitutes the only possible path of approach to the OG text. Its basic Hebrew text responds to a textual type different from the one represented by the Masoretic tradition (MT). In the section 1 Kgs 22–2 Kgs Codex Vaticanus (LXXB) and the ensuing manuscripts reproduce a text that corresponds to an LXX recension. This recension, known as kaige or proto-Theodotionic section, was performed in Palestine at the beginning of the 1st century BCE with the ultimate aim of revising the LXX text in terms of the proto-Masoretic text that was circulating at that time within the rabbinical circles.4 This historical analysis of the transmission of the text is completed by another one possessing a literary and exegetical nature designed to elucidate the 3  Despite Rahlfs’ and Dieu’s reluctance, B. Fischer has proved that the presence of Lucianisms in the OL text is a clue in favour of the ancient character of the text. Cf. A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta Studien III (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19622), 169; L. Dieu, “Retouches Lucianiques sur quelques textes de la vieille latine (I et II Samuel),” RB 16 (1919): 372–403, esp. 390 and 403; B. Fischer, “Lukian-Lesarten in der Vetus Latina der vier Königsbücher,” Studia Anselmiana 27–28 (1951): 169–177, esp. 173. Cf. the list of points of contact between LXXL and OL which C.F. Burney puts together for the text of Kings, id., Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, Press, 1903), xxxvi– xxxix; in the same way see R.S. Haupert, The Relation of Codex Vaticanus and the Lucianic Text in the Books of the Kings from the Viewpoint of the Old Latin and the Ethiopic Versions, Pennsylvania University Diss. (Philadelphia: 1930), passim. 4  Cf. D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963); F.M. Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” HTR 57 (1964): 282–299; S.P. Brock, “Lucian redivivus. Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciers d’Aquila,” Studia Evangelica 5 (1968): 176–181; E. Tov, “Lucian and Proto-Lucian. Toward a New Solution of the Problem,” RB 79 (1972): 101–113. Regarding OL, cf. E. Ulrich, “The Old Latin Translation of the LXX and the Hebrew Scrolls from Qumran,” in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel, ed. E. Tov, 1980 Proceedings IOSCS Vienna (Jerusalem: Academon, 1980), 121–165.

154

Chapter 7

priority of one or the other account, that is, either the one represented by MT LXXB Vulgate or that reflected by LXXL OL.5 Vulgata Mortuus est ergo Heliseus et sepelierunt eum. Latrunculi quoque de Moab venerunt in terra in ipso anno quidam autem sepelientes hominem

viderunt latrunculos et proiecerunt cadaver in sepulchro Helisei quod ambulavit et tetigit ossa Helisei et revixit homo et stetit super pedes suos.

MT

LXXL καὶ Ελισαιε ἀπέθανε καὶ θάπτουσιν αὐτόν καὶ μονόζωνοι Μωαβ ἦλθον ἐν τῇ γῇ ἐλθόντος τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ Et factum est 21 καὶ ἐγένετο cum sepellirent αὐτῶν θαπτόντων pirate ἄνθροποv hominem ἕνα unum καὶ ἤγγισε accesserunt τὸ πειρατήριον ad monumentum. αὐτοῖς

LXXB καὶ ἀπέθανεν Ελισαιε καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτόν καὶ μονόζωνοι Μωαβ ἦλθον ἐν τῇ γῇ ἐλθόντος τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ 21 καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῶν θαπτόντων τὸν ἄνδρα

‫דּודי‬ ֵ ְ‫ּוג‬ ‫מֹואב יָ בֹאּו‬ ָ ‫ָב ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫ָּבא ָׁשנָ ה‬ ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬21 ‫ֵהם‬ ‫ק ְֹב ִרים‬ ‫ִאיׁש‬

καὶ ἰδοὺ εἶδον τὸν μονόζωνον

‫וְ ִהּנֵ ה ָראּו‬ ‫ת־הּגְ דּוד‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬

καὶ ἔρριψαν τὸν ἄνδρα ἐν τῷ τάφῳ Ελισσαιε καὶ ἔφυγον καὶ ἦλθε καὶ ἥψατο ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ θαπτόμενος τῶν ὀστέων Ελισσαιε καὶ ἔζησε καὶ ἔστη ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ

καὶ ἔρριψαν τὸν ἄνδρα ἐν τῷ τάφῳ Ελισαιε

‫וַ ּיַ ְׁש ִליכּו‬ ‫ת־ה ִאיׁש‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ְּב ֶק ֶבר‬ ‫יׁשע‬ ָ ‫ֱא ִל‬

OL Et mortuus est helisseus et sepelierunt eum. Et piratae moab uenerunt in terran illam

Et proiecerunt hominem in monumentum helissei et fugerunt et adplicitus est homo ossibus helissei. Et uixit homo et surrexit super pedes suos.

καὶ ἐπορεύθη καὶ ἥψατο τῶν ὀστέων Ελισαιε καὶ ἔζησεν καὶ ἀνέστη ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ

‫וַ ּיָ ָמת‬ ‫יׁשע‬ ָ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ‫וַ ּיִ ְק ְּב ֻרהּו‬

‫וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך‬ ‫וַ ּיִ ּגַ ע‬ ‫ָה ִאיׁש‬ ‫ְּב ַע ְצמֹות‬ ‫יׁשע‬ ָ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ‫וַ יְ ִחי‬ ‫וַ ּיָ ָקם‬ ‫ל־רגְ ָליו‬ ַ ‫ַע‬

5  The OL text is taken from the only textual source, which has preserved this episode in its entirety, Palimpsestus Vindobonensis according to the transcription made by Dom. B. Fischer

Two Texts for a Story of a Resurrection

1

155

The Two Textual Forms

1.1 The Hebrew Text The MT presents difficulties, which have always compelled the critics to propose hypothetical explanations or introduce corrections into the text. MT’s reference ‫“ בא שנה‬does not make sense.”6 LXXL ἐλθόντος τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ suggests the correction ‫כבא השנה‬, “at the beginning of the (new) year,” similar to Targ ‫( במיעל שתא‬cf. 1 Kgs 20:22, 26 ‫)לתשובת השנה‬. The Vulgate, in ipso anno, much the same as the Peshitta, apparently surmises the construction of an Aramean style ‫בא בשנה‬. Apart from the former corrections already contained in the text of the versions, modern authors have suggested other possibilities, like ‫“ בשנה‬annually,”7 ‫“ שנה בשנה‬each year”8 or ‫“ השנה‬in that year.”9 The MT phrase in the singular ‫ וילך‬making reference to the corpse cast into Elisha’s grave, is absolutely unacceptable; the corpse begins to “walk” or starts moving even before coming into contact with Elisha’s bones and revives as a result of this. Most critics prefer, therefore, to render the phrase in the plural ‫וילכו‬, putting the atnaḥ into a different place and explaining the loss by a haplography of the final ‫ו‬. All this results in the Israelites rashly casting the corpse into Elisha’s grave and hurriedly “leaving” for fear of the Moabites.10   in 1942, in which he corrects the edition of Belsheim, Palimpsestus Vindobonensis. After the writing of this article, this transcript appeared published in B. Fischer, “Palimpsestus Vindobonensis: A Revised Edition of L 115 for Samuel–Kings,” in E. Ulrich, J. Sanderson (eds.), BIOSCS 16 (1983): 13–87. 6  Burney, Notes, 317. 7  Benzinger, Könige, 147. 8  Kittel, Könige, 259; O. Eissfeldt, Das erste Buch der Könige, HSAT 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1922), 563. 9  A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige, EHAT IX/2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1911–1912), 156; B. Stade and F. Schwally, The Books of Kings, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1904), 254; Stade reads ‫ שנה בשנה‬or simply ‫בשנה‬, cf. 245. H. Gressmann follows the Vulgate reading “in that year,” id., Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels (von Samuel bis Amos und Hosea), SAT II 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19212), 315. Gray accepts the LXXL reading, but understood as alluding to “the end of the year,” that is, “late summer,” J. Gray, I and II Kings. A Commentary, OTL, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 600. More surprising emendations are Ehrlich’s, ‫“( בראשנה‬zum ersten Mal”) and Klostermann’s, ‫“( בא שמה‬eben dahin”), cf. A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel. Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches, vol. VII (Leipzig, 1914), 309; A. Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, KK A III (Nördlingen: Beck’sche Buchhandlung, 1887), 439. 10  Cf. BHK; Benzinger, Könige, 147; Ehrlich, Randglossen, 309; Kittel, Könige, 259; N. Schlögl, Die Bücher der Könige, Kurzgefasster Wissenschaftlicher Kommentar (Wien, 1911), 439; Stade and Schwally, Kings, 245; Eissfeldt, Könige, 563; f. J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 436; Gray, Kings, 600; Schmitt, Elisa, 253.

156

Chapter 7

The subject of the phrase of v. 21aa is expressed by the pronoun “they” (‫)הם‬. According to the customary interpretation made by the critics, those are the same Israelites who had buried Elisha (v. 20), or “some” unidentified Israelites.11 One cannot, nevertheless, disregard the difficulty that between the first phrase, “they buried” (Elisha), and the second one, “they/some people carried him to his burial ceremony,” there appears another phrase, v. 20, whose subject is: “bands of Moabites,” so that the pronoun might refer to those bandits. In the main phrase of v. 21a, some significant variants are recorded in LXXL and OL, to which no sufficient attention has been paid. 1.2 The Greek Text The text of the kaige recension (LXXB) follows close behind the proto-Masoretic text, as befits the purpose of this recension. The Antiochene text, on the contrary, offers considerable variants. The use of the “historical present” θάπτουσιν (LXXL) is characteristic of the OG; the kaige recension systematically replaces the historical present by the aorist, ἔθαψαν in this case (LXXB).12 The most important variant of LXXL is καὶ ἤγγισε τὸ πειρατήριον αὐτοῖς, in comparison to MT ‫ = והנה ראו את הגדוד‬καὶ ἰδοὺ εἶδον τὸν μονόζωνον (LXXB). The double reading, καὶ ἔφυγον καὶ ἦλθε, is connected with this variant. The reading in the singular, καὶ ἦλθε, corresponds to MT ‫ וילך‬and to the text of the kaige recension (καὶ ἐπορεύθη, LXXB). The reading in the plural, καὶ ἔφυγον, in relation to the former variant καὶ ἤγγισε, makes the pre-Lucianic text rather close or even, identical to that of the OG, as evidenced by the OL’s text. 1.3 The Latin Text The OL renders the phrase in the plural et fugerunt. It thus confirms the preLucianic character of the reading of LXXL καὶ ἔφυγον. On the other hand, the OL ignores the duplicate of LXXL in the singular καὶ ἦλθε corresponding to the reading of the kaige recension and the proto-Masoretic text. The OL previously used the phrase (piratae …) accesserunt ad monumentum. This proves that the verb and the subject of the phrase of LXXL καὶ ἤγγισε τὸ πειρατήριον belong to elements of the pre-Lucianic text, quite close or identical to that 11  According to Klostermann, “Nicht die Räuber, sondern die Bewohner des Ortes, bei welchem die Begräbnisstätte lag,” id., Bücher, 439. Also, according to Kittel, “‘Jene’ können natürlich nach dem Zusammenhang nur die von Israel sein,” Kittel, Könige, 259. The study in other texts of the phrase ‫ ויהי הם‬with a participle followed by a finite verb, does not allow one to draw conclusions about the subject of the sentence in relation to its context (cf. the closest examples in 1 Kgs 13:20 and 2 Kgs 2:11), cf. Burney, Notes, 182. 12  Barthélemy, Devanciers, 63–65. Earlier, H. St. J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” JThS 8 (1907): 262–278, esp. 274.

Two Texts for a Story of a Resurrection

157

of the OG. The OL equally shows that LXXL (ἄνθροποv) ἕνα is not an addition of the Lucianic recension, despite the well-known “Lucianic” tendency to expand the text.13 This is also an element taken from the pre-Lucianic textual tradition, as attested by the OL. The presumable text of the Hebrew Vorlage of the OG as attested by the pre-Lucianic reading could be the following: ‫להם ויקרב הגדוד אל הקבר‬/ ‫( ויהי הם קברים איש אחד‬LXXL OL). The OG text and its Hebrew original can be considered as lost; it would be impossible to make an exact reconstruction of its text in all its terms and grammatical details. Nevertheless, the OL and the pre-Lucianic text preserve essential and very significant elements of that textual tradition, which acts as an alternative to that represented by the proto-Masoretic text and by the kaige Greek recension. It becomes imperative now to compare the Hebrew, the Greek and the Latin texts, by bringing into the discussion considerations of literary criticism and exegetical interpretation. 2

The Two Literary Forms of the Narrative

Each textual tradition corresponds to a different literary version of the narrative. The basic difference between both forms refers, as already seen, to the subject of the action in v. 21a. According to MT LXXB, the same Israelites who had buried Elisha or perhaps other unidentified Israelites proceed to bury a certain man; prompted by the presence of some Moab brigands who approach the scene, they rashly cast the corpse into Elisha’s grave, whereupon the miracle happens.14 The current Antiochene text may give cause for a similar interpretation: “they” (some Israelites) bury a man. The “band” (of Moabites) approaches them (αὐτοῖς) whereupon the Israelites cast the corpse into Elisha’s grave and “run away.” Nevertheless, the most obvious interpretation of the Antiochene text points in the direction clearly indicated by the OL. In OL cum sepellirent piratae the pronoun of ‫ = הם קברים‬αὐτῶν θαπτόντων refers to the Moabite brigands mentioned in the previous phrase. In MT the pronoun “they” (‫ )הם‬referring to ‫ גדוד מואב‬is also possible and correct. The phrase 13  Later on LXXL has ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ θαπτόμενος (MT ‫האיש‬, OL homo); in this case ὁ θαπτόμενος is in all likelihood a typical expansion of the Lucianic recension, cf. Stade, Kings, 245. On “Lucianic” features, cf. B.M. Metzger, “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible,” Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 1–14, esp. 24–27. 14  Šanda interprets the scene in this way: “Vielleicht war das eigentlich bereitstehende Grab zu weit entfernt. Darum brechen sie das wohl erst jüngst verschlossene Felsengrab des Elisäus auf und legen den Toten hinein,” id., Könige, 157.

158

Chapter 7

that follows in MT, unlike that of LXXL and OL, renders this interpretation impossible in MT; the pronoun “they” (‫ )הם‬cannot refer to the “brigands” because it is said, immediately thereafter, that “they,” that is, other people necessarily, some Israelites, “saw the band.” On the other hand, in LXXL, the reference to the brigands by the pronoun confirmed by the O, is grammatically flawless, and more appropriate in the context. In LXXL the “band” (τὸ πειρατήριον, ‫ )הגדוד‬is not the object, but the subject of the action. It is not Israelites who see how the brigands approach, but rather the bandits who come close to “them” (αὐτοῖς). The proximity of the reference to Moab’s brigands in v. 20b would recommend considering these brigands as the antecedent of the pronoun (‫)הם‬. Instead of the pronoun, the OL offers the substantive piratae, a literary equivalent to the pre-Lucianic τὸ πειρατήριον.15 The OL does not leave any doubt as to the identity of the subject of the phrase: it is the bands of Moabites who are going to bury one of their fellow raiders. With that purpose in mind they approach Elisha’s “monument” (monumentum = τάφος LXXBL), cast the corpse there and run away. This seems to be a case where a law frequent in textual criticism of the Greek and Latin texts is fulfilled: an OL reading at variance with the Lucianic text is most probably the OL reading reflecting the pre-Lucianic text. The Lucianic text, then, represents a variant due to a recensional deviation.16 In our case, the reading of the OL ad monumentum becomes preferable to LXXL αὐτοῖς. The Lucianic text seems to have suffered a process of assimilation into the form of the narrative proper to TM LXXB. The readings hominem unum = ἄνθροπον ἕνα go back to a Hebrew ‫איש אחד‬. The reading ‫ וילכו‬conjectured by modern critics is that of LXXL καὶ ἔφυγον and OL et fugerunt.

15  There are not enough elements of comparison to consider the word μονόζωνος (twice here) as a feature element of the kaige recension. 16  D. de Bruyne, “Étude sur le texte latin de l’Ecclésiastique,” RBen 40 (1928): 5–48, esp. 38: “… quand il y a un doublet ou une variante, il faudra préférer le texte qui s’éloigne du grec.” Regarding the Greek text, Rahlfs has applied a similar law in his edition of Genesis, cf. A. Rahlfs, Genesis, Septuaginta I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), 34; S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (London: Oxford University Press, 1911), XLIV. Wevers asks for caution regarding a too mechanical application of this law, as if a variant of a version was the older the greater its divergence from its base text, J.W. Wevers, “Septuaginta Forschungen seit 1954,” ThR 33 (1968): 18–76, 74.

Two Texts for a Story of a Resurrection

3

159

The Midrashic Account and the Midrashic Version

The last question tries to elucidate which of the two forms of the story comes to be the original form. The copyists and interpreters of the Rabbinic period were in no way worried by the clumsy and magical character of the miracle which so much disturbs and displeases modern critics; what haunts them is the moral condition of the man whose corpse is brought back to life when coming into contact with Elisha’s remains. Taking for granted that this had been a wicked man (the false prophet of Betel mentioned in 1 Kgs 13, as tradition held it), it became imperative to find an acceptable explanation for the inconceivable and “impossible” fact that the corpse of a wrongdoer had been buried alongside that of a just man; this occurrence appeared to them still more unaccountable than the very resurrection of the corpse. In the treatise Sanhedrin 47a of the Babylonian Talmud, it is said that the R. Aha b. Hanina based on this passage of 2 Kgs 13:20–21 the fact that a wicked man could not be buried alongside a just man. Contrarily, R. Papa related the same passage to Elisha’s request to Elijah: “Let a double part of your spirit come upon me” (2 Kgs 2:9). Considering that Elijah had revived a corpse, that of the widow’s son in Zarephath (1 Kgs 17), Elisha had had to perform two resurrections: the first was that of the Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4); the second was the one narrated by 2 Kgs 13:20–21. R. Aha b. Hanina objected that, in the case of the man who was revived when coming into contact with Elisha’s remains, this was nothing more than a temporal resurrection, with the only purpose of lending time to the corpse of the wrongdoer to find another grave distant from that of Elisha, that would be more becoming to him. No infringement is, thus, committed of the law that forbids a villain being buried alongside a righteous man. As regards the problem posed by Elisha’s request concerning the two parts of Elisha’s spirit, which must be fulfilled through a double resurrection by Elisha, R. Johanan found a satisfactory explanation when he alluded to the healing of the leprous Naaman and viewed it as equivalent to a resurrection.17 It is evident that the concerns and the disquisitions of the Rabbis in relation to the passage of 2 Kgs 13:20 revolve around the possibility—inconceivable and 17  Cf. I. Epstein (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Neziin III: Sanhedrin (London: Soncino, 1935), 311–2 and notes to the text. Cf. the following reference by Klostermann: “… jüdischer Deutung bei dem Marginaltharg. zu Jon. Lag. p. XXIV, damit die Gebeine Elias nicht durch einen toten Menschen verunreinigt würden, geschah ihm das Wunder, dass der Mann … wiederauflebte und er erhub sich auf seine Füβe und ging aus dem Grabe hinaus, ging aber nicht zu seinem Hause, sondern nach dem ihm bestimmten Begräbnisse und starb daselbst,” id., Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, 439.

160

Chapter 7

outrageous—that a corpse of a criminal could have lain, but for a single moment, alongside the remains of a prophet like Elisha. To find an explanation of this fact, undeniable as it was because it was attested in the Scriptures, the Rabbis do not hesitate to ascribe to the miracle an even clumsier and more outrageous character than it actually had already: the corpse revives, in their version, just long enough to look for another grave distant from that of the prophet and only then meets its final death. Within this context of ideas and mental framework, the transfer from the form of the account as preserved by the non-Masoretic textual tradition to the form transmitted by MT LXXB and Vulgata would be unthinkable. It is impossible to imagine that the original figure of an Israelite, not even that of a wretched man, even if revived when coming into contact with Elisha’s remains, could be transformed, in the Rabbinic period or later, in the personality of a Moab’s brigand cast into Elisha’s grave by some foreigners who moreover, were wrongdoers. It would, on the contrary, be more credible to surmise that the real characters of the original account were those Moabite raiders; the proto-Masoretic textual type reflects the typical concerns of later Rabbinical ideology in that it incorporates a slight textual change (whnh rʾw ʾt hgdwd), by which Elisha comes to revive an Israelite, not a foreign brigand. Somehow, the rabbinic tradition that the corpse buried alongside Elisha’s remains belonged to a wrongdoer may preserve the remembrance that, in fact, the original history was actually referring to a Moabite brigand. At its origin, therefore, this story follows the same orientation and is set within the same atmosphere as the other narratives having regard to the resurrections and miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha precisely on foreign personages: the son of the widow in Zarephath and the leprous Naaman, the Syrian (cf. the application made in the NT in Luc 4).18 The previous analysis and conclusions may leave a feeling of uncertainty. A correct evaluation of the contributions made by the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly those of 4QSama.b, helps to dissipate most of the unsolved doubts and consider them as mere reserves rather than actual uncertainties. The point concerning the validity of the conclusions obtained during the study 18  It is not possible to attribute here to Christian re-elaboration the presumed changes made to the pre-Lucianic and OL text, as can be seen in the following comment by R.A. Kraft: “… although a rather large number of undeniably Christian copies of various portions of Jewish scriptures exist, there is relatively little evidence in the biblical text as such of tendentious, unambiguously Christian editing,” id., “Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures: A Methodological Probe,” Paganisme, Judaïsme, Christianisme. Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique, in Mélanges offerts à Marcel Simon, ed. A. Benoit, M. Philonenko, C. Vogel (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1978), 207–226, esp. 211.

Two Texts for a Story of a Resurrection

161

of this specific passage does not seem so important as the general question about the value of the textual testimony of the OL and the pre-Lucianic text. In this sense and following the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, undertaken in the last decades, it is not possible to continue disregarding the contribution made by the OL and the Antiochene Greek text (LXXL) to the analysis of the Book of Kings, even and above all, in passages in which the MT seems to present a fully intelligible text, devoid of critical difficulties. In cases such as the one studied here, the OL may represent the only method of approach to the pre-Lucianic Greek text and, once and for all, to the OG.19 On the other hand, the textual tradition represented by LXXL OL (as well as by the Hebrew text of Chronicles, the Greek text used by Josephus and the intermediate stratum of the Armenian version, may reflect a more primitive type of Hebrew text, preferable to the one transmitted by the proto-Masoretic tradition (MT, LXXB in the kaige sections, and Vulgata). Finally, the antiquity and the priority of the form typical of the account of 2 Kgs 13:20–21 according to LXXL OL, will be duly recognized. In conformity with this version, some Moabite brigands who were raiding the Israelite territory cast the corpse of one fellow bandit into Elisha’s grave; when the body came into contact with the bones of the prophet, the man revived.20 This, therefore, constituted the resurrection of the corpse of a Moabite, which, like the resurrection of the widow’s son in Zarephath by Elijah and the healing of a Syrian called Naaman performed by Elisha, affect foreign personages. Against a xenophobic emotional background, anti-Canaanite fanaticism and the antiBaalist polemics21 that mostly characterize the figures of Elijah and Elisha and 19  It suffices, in this sense, to bring forward an old statement by Burkitt: “There are renderings found in the Old Latin representing Greek readings which have disappeared from every known Greek ms., but which, by comparison with the Hebrew, are shown to preserve the genuine text of the LXX, from which the readings of our present Greek MSS. are corruptions,” see F.C. Burkitt, The Book of Rules of Tyconius (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894), cxii. Cf. the case indicated by P.W. Skehan in 1 Sam 17,53: “this is one of those cases … where that ancient secondary version (Old Latin Comburentes) preserves a reflex of the original LXX,” in the present instance, which has otherwise vanished from the ms. tradition of the Greek, see id., “Turning or Burning? 1 Sam 17:53 LXX,” CBQ 38 (1976): 193–195, esp. 193. 20  The impossibility of envisaging that the MT narrative (resurrection of an Israelite) could have been turned into the LXX version (resurrection of a Moabite bandit) somehow follows the principle defined by P. Kahle, according to which an anti-Mishnaic tradition (like the one implied here by LXX) is by that very same reason pre-Mishnaic; cf. A. Díez Macho, El Targum. Introducción a las traducciones arameas de la Biblia (CSIC: Barcelona, 1972), 87. 21  L. Bronner catalogs this narrative together with others that have as the main theme the resurrection of a dead person in a group called “The Life-Group: The Resurrection Motif.” All these stories, together with those classified in the sections “The Child Giving

162

Chapter 7

the period in which they lived, these accounts of healings and resurrections of foreign personalities, as well as the political activity of the prophets vis-à-vis the neighboring countries, complement and enrich the image of the prophet Elisha. Close to his death, Elisha once more saves Israel from its foreign enemies coming from Aram (13:14–19). From his grave in Israel, Elisha revives a foreign fiend who had infiltrated from the land of Moab (13:20).

Motif” and “The Healing Motif,” “may be regarded as intentional polemics to undermine the belief in the myths circulating about Baal, that he or the other gods or goddesses of the Ugaritic pantheon could revive the dead,” see id., The Stories of Elijah and Elisha as Polemics Against Baal Worship, Pretoria Oriental Series 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 122.

Chapter 8

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms: the Antiochene Text “before Lucian.” A Revision of A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher In the early days of modern exegesis, the Antiochene text of 1–4 Kingdoms was recognized as a witness of great value. Wellhausen noted the importance of readings from the group of Lucianic manuscripts, which sometimes reflect a text older than that offered by the Vatican Codex (LXXB).1 Driver also affirmed that certain readings of Lucian presuppose a Hebrew original that was much better than the known Masoretic text.2 According to Burney, Lucian had access to sources that retained original readings of unmatched value.3 According to Thackeray, the passage of 3 Kgdms 8:53b, for example, presents in LXXBL a text more original than that of MT, which is conditioned by editorial concerns and religious scruples. This positive assessment of LXXL found support in the assumption of the existence of an Ur-Lucian that would have worked during the previous years of the end of the s. I. d. C. The proof of his existence was found in the “Lucianisms” of Josephus and the Old Latin, which necessarily preceded the recensor of the 4th century.4 However, Rahlfs’ negative judgment in his work Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (1911) determined a radical shift in the evaluation of the Antiochene text. Rahlfs concluded that the Lucianic text is based on a preHexaplaric text of the same type as that of the Vatican Codex.5 He was therefore reluctant to acknowledge the existence of a “Lucian before Lucian,” a pre-Hexaplaric text independent of that known by LXXB, especially in the 1  J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871), 221–224. 2  S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1890; 19132), LII. 3  C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), XXX–XXXI. 4  H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929), 85: “We are forced to postulate an Ur-Lucian in currency before the end of the first century A.D.”; id., “New Light on the Book of Jashar (A Study of 3 Regn. VIII 53b LXX),” JThS 9 (1910): 518–532, esp. 518. 5  A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta Studien III, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 290: “L’s Grundlage ist ein alter, vorhexaplarischer G-Text, der mit B Aeth aufs engste verwandt ist.”

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_010

164

Chapter 8

kaige sections of the text. Rahlfs’ judgment had a decisive influence far beyond the field of pure textual criticism and beyond the LXX Ur-text reconstruction program Lagarde had proposed and that Rahlfs was set to continue. The authority of Rahlfs and the influence of his manual edition Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interpretes (1935) determined a widespread underestimation and even the actual oblivion of the Lucianic text of Kings by the exegetes. The study of the biblical manuscripts of Qumran, in particular the scroll of Twelve Prophets of Naḥal Ḥever and 4QSama.b.c, has made us consider again and, finally, reassess the testimony of the Lucianic text. This new orientation is based not so much on the analysis of the Lucianic text of Kings as on the study of the text represented by the Vatican Codex, supposedly the underlying text of the Lucianic revision. Thackeray had already observed differences of translation within the LXXB text. The typical example is the translation of the particle ‫וגם‬, translated on some occasions as και and on others as καιγε. Thackeray thus established a division of the text into five sections, whose version would have been the work of as many other translators (α 1 Kgdms; ββ 2 Kgdms 1:1–11:1; βγ 2 Kgdms 11:2–3 Kgdms 2:11; γγ 3 Kgdms 2:12–21:43; γδ 3 Kgdms 22–4 Kgdms).6 Thackeray also verified the language similarity of the third and fifth sections with the Theodotion version, but refused to recognize the existence of an Ur-Theodotion, although this explanation, according to Thackeray himself, gives reason for the data with greater satisfaction than any other: “Our translator appears to have been a pioneer of the literal school and a predecessor of Aquila.”7 D. Barthélemy has taken up precisely this denomination, “les devanciers d’Aquila,” to characterize the recension made on the text of Twelve Minor Prophets of Naḥal Ḥever.8 6  H.St.J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” JThS 8 (1907): 262–278, esp. 277. 7  H.St.J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship (London: Oxford University Press, 1921), 26. 8  D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 47. The kaige recension reaches the following texts: Lamentations, Ruth, and probably Song of Songs; the θ text of Daniel, the additions of Job and (in some mss.) of Jeremiah; kaige sections of Samuel–Kings; the minor Prophets of Naḥal Ḥever and the Fifth (ε´) of Minor Prophets; θ and the Fifth of Hexapla in Psalms; the column θ, except in Minor Prophets and 2 Sam 10:1–1 Kgs 2:11; probably in Judges in the B Codex and the mss. that follow it; perhaps some intrusion in be2 of Chronicles. Cf. Thackeray, Worship, 13; Barthélemy, Devanciers, 47; J.A. Grindel, “Another Characteristic of the ΚΑΙΓΕ Recension: ‫נצח‬/νικος,” CBQ 31 (1969): 499–513. According to K.G. O’Connell, “the Theodotionic material in Exodus comes from a systematic revision of the OG to reflect the present MT,” id., The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus. A Contribution to the Study of the Early History of the Transmission of the Old Testament in Greek, HSM 3

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

165

Consequently, the text of LXXB and the manuscripts that follow it is now in these third and fifth sections the text of that kaige recension of the 1st century CE and not the old version of the third or second century BCE.9 The base text used by the Lucianic recension was not affected by this previous recension (kaige), so that the Antiochene text now takes on enormous importance by constituting in these sections βγ and γδ the only surviving witness to the OG and/or an early revision of it. The problem lies in distinguishing the contributions of the Lucianic recension from its pre-Lucianic original.10 The characteristics and tendencies of the Lucianic recension are well known: interpolations for the achievement of a more correct and fluent reading of the Greek, doublets by juxtaposition of a reading of the OG and another Hexaplaric closer to the known Hebrew, substitution of Hellenistic Greek forms by their corresponding Attic ones, etc.11 However, similar tendencies are also observed in the pre-Lucianic substrate, making it occasionally impossible to distinguish the readings of one level from the other.12 In this respect, the help provided by   (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), 292. R.W. Klein adds new data on the text of the kaige recension of 4 Kgdms by comparing parallels between the Greek text of Kings and Paralipomena, id., “New Evidence for an Old Recension of Reigns,” HTR 60 (1967): 93–105. 9  Thus the hypothesis of an ‘Ur-Theodotion,’ which came into existence at the turn of the century (Bludau, Schürer and Swete), opposed by Thackeray and supported later by Montgomery, is confirmed now by the Dead Sea biblical scrolls. Barthélemy has even tried to turn the traditional Theodotion (second century CE) into a notable member of the recensional kaige group, a predecessor of Aquila, to be perhaps identified with Hillel’s disciple, Jonathan ben Uzziel, who lived in the first half of the first century CE, see Barthélemy, Devanciers, 144–157; S. Jellicoe, “Some Reflections on the ΚΑΙΓΕ Recension,” VT 23 (1973): 15–24, esp. 21. 10  Brock, “Lucian redivivus,” 180: “The task for the future remains to separate the Lucianic from the pre-Lucianic in this text.” 11  B.M. Metzger, “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible,” in Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 1–41, esp. 24–27; Rahlfs, Lucians, 171, 183 and 290–294; H.B. Swete and R.R. Ottley, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 85. On the existence of the Lucianic recension itself, J. Ziegler, “Hat Lukian den griechischen Sirach rezensiert?” Bib 40 (1959): 210– 229, esp. 228–9; id., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum XII/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 68. 12  Brock insists that the Lucianic text is also a recensional text, even if it did not undergo the Palestinian recension identified by Barthélemy, who even accepts that the Antiochene text has experienced a “recension grécisante.” Tov looks for an intermediate position between those of Cross and Barthélemy; he suggests that the substrate of boc2e2 contains “either the Old Greek translation or any Old Greek translation.” According to Cross, in the Lucianic text of Kings, there are not two but three layers “symmetrical with the three text types: Old Greek (Egyptian), proto-Lucian (Palestinian), Lucianic proper (Babylonian).

166

Chapter 8

OL and Josephus and, to a lesser extent, by readings of the Armenian version is of great value. A further problem is the distinction between the readings of the proto-Lucianic revision (S. Brock) and the original readings of the old version. In any case, these differences appear to be rather stylistic in nature and do not affect the substance of the text. Even though the literal text of OG may be considered lost or unrecognizable, the Antiochene text allows for an approximation to it.13 For exegetical purposes, such as the ones we are proposing here, it may well be said with Barthélemy, although this is not exact at the textual level, that the Antiochene text represents a text “substantially identical” to the OG.14 Especially in a kaige section, such as that of 4 Kingdoms, to whose text belong the passages that will be analyzed in this study, the Antiochene Greek text is of paramount importance not only at the textual level but also for literary, historical and theological purposes. The best and most complete study on the characteristics, origin and value of the Antiochene text is undoubtedly the one carried out by A. Rahlfs, published in 1911. Seventy years later, however, a new study of the Antiochene text and even a correction of the basic orientation, as well as of the detailed analyses of Rahlfs’ work, are necessary. But this revision must be carried out on the basis of Rahlfs’ own work and according to the same basic principles and with the same rigor, if attainable, as that of the great master. This is not the purpose of Proto-Lucianic readings belong to the formulae: GL (4QSam) ≠ GB/Μ (in which M and GB are not in agreement), 4QSam Josephus M ≠ GB, and 4QSam Josephus ≠ GBL,” cf. S.P. Brock, “Lucian redivivus. Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciers d’Aquila,” Studia Evangelica 5 (1968): 176–181, 181; 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, SCS 2 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972), 16– 89, esp. 28; E. Tov, “Lucian and Proto-Lucian. Toward a New Solution of the Problem,” RB 79 (1972): 101–113, esp. 108; 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, esp. 315. 13  An approximation to the text of the OG is the most we can reach in many cases, as is said by the editor of the book of Genesis for the Göttingen Septuagint, J.W. Wevers: “es handelt sich bei dem hier vorgelegten kritischen Text um eine Annäherung an den LXX-Text, hoffentlich die beste, die aufgrund des gegenwärtigen Standes unserer Kenntnis rekonstruiert werden kann. Der Herausgeber unterliegt nicht der Illusion, dass er durchgängig den ursprünglichen Septuagintatext wiederhergestellt habe,” cf. id., Genesis, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 63. 14  Barthélemy, Devanciers, 139. See J.W. Wevers, “Septuaginta Forschungen seit 1954,” ThR (1968): 18–76, esp. 75: “Aber die Gleichsetzung des boc2e2 Textes mit der unrevidierten LXX ist m.E. nicht beweisbar … Alles, was wir mit Sicherheit schliessen können ist dies: wenn der B-Text von Sam-Kön die Arbeit des R-Revisors im 1. Jahrh. ist, dann gibt es für diesen Abschnitt keine unrevidierte LXX.”

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

167

this study. But given that the passages submitted here for analysis were the subject of a study and a very definite position in Rahlfs’ work, it is necessary to return now with attention to the general approaches and some concrete solutions of Rahlfs’ work. The research path followed by Rahlfs advances in two stages: 1) The basis of the Antiochene text is a pre-Hexaplaric text of LXX, very similar to that of the Vatican Codex (and Aeth). 2) Despite this affinity, the basic text of LXXL cannot simply be identified with that of the Vatican Codex (Aeth). Rahlfs moves between two options and wants to do justice to the double fact of the identity and diversity of the Lucian text with respect to LXXB. 1

Identity of the Basic Text of LXXL with a Pre-Hexaplaric Text Very Similar to That of the Vatican Codex

Rahlfs first studies the duplicates and readings of LXXL, in which according to him the dependence of the Lucianic text on the majority Septuagint text is proved.15 There are therefore two sections in this first stage of the study. 1.1 Duplicates Rahlfs assumes that the double readings in the Antiochene text depend on and derive from the respective single reading contained in LXXB. The explanation is however very different. A first statistical observation attracts attention. Only 9 Lucianic duplicates are found in non-kaige section; 49 belong to kaige section. This fact speaks for itself.16 In most cases, that is to say, in those of kaige section, the reading of the duplicate that is characteristic of the Antiochene text proves to be in reality a pre-Lucianic reading that goes back to the OG. On the contrary, the reading 15  In sections 49 and 50 of his work, Rahlfs (Lucians Rezension, 191–2, 193–210 and 171) intends to prove “die Abhängigkeit L’s von LXX im allgemeinen durch die Dubletten, in welchen regelmässig unser LXX-Text den einen der beiden Bestandteile bildet, und durch L-Lesarten, bei welchen der LXX-Text als Grundlage L’s noch deutlich erkennbar ist.” 16  Rahlfs (Lucians Rezension, 294, note 1) is aware that the duplicates of LXXL are more frequent in the second book and the Lucianic “variant” clearly departs here from MT. His explanation however points, as we shall see, to the wrong direction.    The 9 cases in non-kaige section are: 1 Kgs 2:26; 7:14; 8:33; 8:66; 10:15; 11:17; 15: 15; 16:11; 18:21.    The 49 cases in kaige section are: 1 Kgs 1:36; 1:40; 2:3; 2:5; 22:38; 22:47; 2 Kgs 1:2, 3, 6, 16; 1:4, 6 (‫לכן‬, cf. LXXL); 1:6 (‫אלהים‬, cf. LXXL); 2:23; 3:4; 3:7; 3:20; 3:21; 3:23; 4:16; 4:34; 4:37; 5:18 (2×); 5:21; 6:30; 7:10; 8:1; 10:11; 10:28; 11:4; 11:8; 11:9; 11:10; 11:14; 12:13; 14:10; 14:14; 16:18; 17:3; 17:21; 18:17; 20:3; 20:13; 21:23; 23:6; 23:28; 25:19.

168

Chapter 8

of LXXL, which reproduces that of the standard text of LXX (LXXB), proves to be of a recensional (kaige) nature and constitutes a late approximation to the proto-Masoretic text. We will study, by way of example, some cases discussed by Rahlfs and belonging to the kaige section. 2 Kgs 1:4, 6: ‫ לכן‬MT, ουχ ουτως LXXB (‫)לא כן‬, + δια τουτο LXXL. According to Rahlfs, the duplicate ουχ ουτως δια τουτο is the work of Lucian. In 1:16 δια τουτο appears instead of ουχ ουτως, which Rahlfs interprets as a substitution operated by Lucian, who on other occasions would have kept the previous version ουχ ουτως (1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Kgs 21:12; 22:20), or would have suppressed it without anything in return (2 Kgs 19:32). In 2 Kgs 20:10 LXXL would have introduced ουχ ουτως instead of the simple ουχι (‫)לא‬.17 The truth is on the contrary that the “strange” version ‫ = לכן‬ουχ ουτως is not, as Rahlfs supposes, the original version of OG, but a recensional kaige correction. The Antiochene text or one of its representatives (OL or Arm in its middle layer) retains here the old version δια τουτο.18 It is symptomatic that the totality of the passages in which the conflicting version is verified ‫ = לכן‬ουχ ουτως/δια τουτο belongs to the kaige section γδ (1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Kgs 1, 4, 6, 16; 19:32; 21:12; 22:20). In 2 Kgs 1:16 the Antiochene text offers δια τουτο instead of the recensional expression of the rest of LXX ουχ ουτως. On two occasions 2 Kgs 1:4, 5 LXXL presents a double reading, the recensional followed by the original: ουχ ουτως δια τουτο. In 2 Kgs 19:32 there is an omission of LXXL but the Armenian version (propter hoc) depending on the proto-Lucianic text assumes the Greek δια τουτο (α´ σ´). On two occasions 21:12 and 22:20 LXXL offers the revised translation, but Lucifer and the Armenian version reflect the early Greek reading (propter hoc). Finally, in 1 Kgs 22:19 the recensional form appears again in LXXL, but it does not cease to be significant that Teodoretus does not know it. In Samuel–Kings ‫ לכן‬appears on only five other occasions: 1 Sam 2:30; 3:14; 27:6; 28:2; 1 Kgs 14:10. The first four cases correspond to the non-kaige section α of the Greek text. In 1 Sam 2:30 and 27:6 all manuscripts offer the form δια τουτο. This confirms the assumption that this is the original version of LXX. In 3:14 the recensional form ουδ/ουχ ουτως, reappears, but OL (Vindobonensis) offers ideo and the Ethiopic version (Aetha) et propterea, which supposes the original Greek δια τουτο. In 1 Sam 28:2 the transmitted text is reduced to τουτο. 17  Rahlfs, Lucians, 195. 18  Driver defines as “strange” this procedure of translation of the particle ‫לכן‬, as it was a contracted form constructed from ‫לא כן‬, Driver, Notes, 44. According to L. Prijs, LXX would have done in these cases an al tiqre “targumic” interpretation, consisting of the division of the word in two elements and the translation of both of them as they were two different words, see id., Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 59–61.

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

169

The 1 Kgs 14:10 passage is part of a Hexaplaric addition taken from Aquila. Its version is in this case the typical version of Aquila.19 The translation of this passage as well as that of 1 Sam 2:30; 27:6 is therefore not, as Sperber supposes, the work of the same translator, even though the translation is the same in both cases: δια τουτο. In order to obtain a more complete view of the textual panorama relating to the version of ‫ לכן‬it is also necessary to take into account the use and translation of the expression ‫לא כן‬, from which derives the recensional form (cf. the OG translation in 1 Sam 20:23 ‫לא תעשו כן‬, ου ποιησετε ουτως). All the MT cases ‫ = לא כן‬ουχ ουτως are found in kaige sections of the Greek text, which does not make it easy to compare the possible translation differences between the old version and the proto-Theodotionic revision: 2 Sam 10:21; 23:5 (boc2e2 οτι ουχ ουτως m OL); 2 Kgs 7:9 (boc2e2 τι ουτως); 2 Kgs 17:9 (boc2e2 αδικους, OL). However, the case of 2 Sam 18:14 is by itself eloquent: MT ‫ ;לא כן אחילך‬LXXB τουτο εγω αρξομαι ουχ ουτως μενω, LXXL δια τουτο εγω αρξομαι, Arm propter quod quidem praeteribo. The current text of LXX offers a double reading: the first one retains, although truncated, the old version; the second one corresponds to the recensional form according to MT.20 The Antiochene text, also reflected in the Armenian version, offers only the first reading, which supposes the Vorlage ‫לכן אחלה‬.21 Thus, in Samuel–Kings’ books the translation ουχ ουτως is not OG; it corresponds to a later level of recension (kaige), with a tendency to change ‫לכן‬ in ‫לא כן‬, a trend that seems to be current already in the proto-Rabbinical text itself (cf. 2 Sam 18:14). − 2 Kgs 3:4; 17:3: the Hebrew expression to designate the payment of taxes with the verb ‫ השיב‬is mechanically translated, according to Rahlfs, by επιστρεφειν; in the two cases cited, LXXL would have introduced the version φερειν, maintaining in the first case, 2Kgs 3:4, the old version next to the one added by Lucian και ην φερων φορον και επιστρεφων.22 The version with the verb φερειν is, on the contrary, that of the OG (VL 17:3 adferebat … offerebat). − 2 Kgs 25:19: ‫ואת הספר שר הצבא‬, και τον γραμματεα του αρχοντος της δυναμεως LXXB; pr. και τον Σαραν αρχιστρατηγον LXXL (reading ‫ ספן‬or ‫ שפן‬instead

19  Barthélemy, Devanciers, 84–5; K. Hyvärinen, Die Übersetzung von Aquila, CBOTS 10 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell 1977), 99–107. 20  Barthélemy, Devanciers, 116. 21  A. Sperber tries to give an exegetical explanation to the “phonetic” confusion that he describes as “superfluous” between ‫ לא כן‬and ‫לכן‬, see id., The Bible in Aramaic. IV B The Targum and the Hebrew Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 383, see also 305 and 358. 22  Rahlfs, Lucians, 195.

170

Chapter 8

of ‫)הספר‬, Rahlfs believes that this is a typical duplicate of Lucian’s revision.23 However, the real explanation is different. The Hebrew term ‫ צבא‬and the expressions composed with it, as it is ‫שר הצבא‬, are translated in the OG by the Greek term στρατια or compounds of the same root, as αρχιστρατηγος; on the contrary, the kaige recension replaced the term στρατια and the expression αρχιστρατηγος by the expression αρχων (της) δυναμεως.24 In the present case of 2 Kings 25:19 the Lucianic mss. have preserved the old version whereas the rest of the Greek manuscript tradition has incorporated the characteristic term of the kaige recension.25 As far as the proper name Σαφαν is concerned, Rahlfs himself is obliged to recognize the pre-Lucianic character of this reading.26 It is very significant that the Vulgate has the proper noun Sopher principem exercitus, without a preceding article, by opposition to the common name with article of MT ‫הספר‬. Neither is there an article in the parallel text of Jer 52:25, nor in 3 Hebrew manuscripts of the text of Kings; on the other hand, both the genitive version του αρχοντος, and the apposition version τον αρχοντα, suppose the absence of an article before the noun. The character Shaphan, already known by 22:9, 10, 12, becomes part of the list of notable captives, “the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest … and Shaphan the commander of the army” (‫)ויקח את שריה כהן הראש ואת צפניהו כהן משנה … ואת ספן שר הצבא‬. The repetition ‫ אשר נמצאו בעיר‬/ ‫ הנמצאים בעיר‬is a sign of a juxtaposition of references, with the probable interference of v. 19aa (‫ )ומן העיר… אשר נמצאין בעיר‬on a list made up mostly of proper names, including Shaphan’s name.

23  Rahlfs, Lucians, 199. Talmon explains as follows the Hebrew text: “When the title hasôfēr hamaṣbîʾ ʾt ʿam ha‌ʾareṣ was no longer properly understood, the interpretative gloss śar haṣābāʾ was infused into the text of II Kings xxv:19. The resulting syntactical difficulty, hasôfēr śar haṣābāʾ, was subsequently eased in the parallel reading in Jer. lii:25 by the elimination of the determinative article before sôfēr,” see S. Talmon, “The Judaean ʿam ha‌ʾareṣ in historical perspective,” Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies 1 (Jerusalem: Magness, 1967), 71–76, esp. 74, note 15. 24  J.D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings, HSM 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 114 and 136. 25  Walters considers that the version of hspr śr hṣbʾ should have been τον γραμματεα τον αρχοντα της δυναμεως, see P. Walters (Katz), The Text of the Septuagint. Its Corruptions and their Emendation, ed. D.W. Gooding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 309. Walters does not pay attention to the Lucianic reading and does not know its value; cf. chapter 1 of the present volume, “Recensional Criticism of 4 Kgdms 25:18–19.” 26  Rahlfs, Lucians, 290. Rahlfs acknowledges the greater fidelity of the Lucianic text in the transmission of personal names. Walters adds new proof of it, cf. id., Septuagint, 183– 186, 300.

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

171

Other cases are even more evident: – 2 Kgs 8:1: ‫וגם בא אל הארץ שבע שנים‬, και γε ηλθεν επι την γην επτα ετη LXXB; pr. και παρεσται επι την γην επτα ετη LXXL. This is according to Rahlfs the Lucianic reading in the duplicate και παρεσται επι την γην επτα ετη και γε ηλθεν επι την γην επτα ετη.27 However, as is well known, the version ‫= וגם‬ και γε is the main feature of the kaige revision, which has not affected the Lucianic text which retains the old version και. – 2 Kgs 10:11: ‫וכל גדליו‬, και παντας τους αδρους αυτου LXXB; και παντας τους αρχιστευοντας αυτου (VLb) και τους αδρους αυτου LXXL. According to Rahlfs, this is an addition of Lucian, which supposes the Hebrew variant ‫גאליו‬.28 However, the version ‫ = וגם‬και γε is again a kaige characteristic, which makes it possible to recognize the pre-Lucianic character of the reading preserved by LXXL, as confirmed by the VL. Other more far-reaching and complex passages will be the subject of specific analysis in this chapter (see 2 Kgs 10:28; 11:4, 8, 9, 14).29 1.2 Variant Readings Rahlfs lists other passages, more numerous, in which, despite the Lucian reelaboration, it would still be possible to recognize the text of LXX as the basis of that of the Antiochene text. The passages listed are of very diverse characteristics and do not show any other classification principle than the one given by Rahlfs: Lucian readings, which, in the opinion of Rahlfs, still reveal an origin from the text of LXXB. We will examine only some of the more significant passages cited by Rahlfs, which also belong to the kaige section. – 1 Kg s 22:35: We will stop especially in this case. According to Rahlfs, LXXB offers here an ‘ancient duplicate,’ which the Lucianic text would have eliminated by reducing it to a single sentence.30 This would therefore be a process in reverse order to those discussed in the previous section. The case is particularly interesting as it concerns another type of duplicate, which is 27  Rahlfs, Lucians, 197. 28  Rahlfs, Lucians, 197. A. Klostermann and Stade accept the reading of LXXL, see id., Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, KK A III (Nördlingen: Beck’sche Buchhandlung, 1887), 424; B. Stade and F. Schwally, The Books of Kings, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1904), 228. Kittel and Montgomery object to it, on the basis of the use of the same word ‫ גדל‬in 10:6, R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige, HK I 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 237; J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 414. 29  Rahlfs, Lucians, 197–198. 30  Rahlfs, Lucians, 204–205.

172

Chapter 8

frequent in the LXXB text in kaige section. Besides, in this case, we can add the testimony of the parallel text of Chronicles. LXXL ἀπὸ πρωὶ ἕως ἑσπέρας καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο (‫ )ויצא‬τὸ αἷμα ἐκ τῆς πληγῆς (τῆς τροπώσεως) εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ ἅρματος καὶ ἀπέθανεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἑσπέρας

36 καὶ ἔστη ὁ στρατοκῆρυξ δύνοντος τοῦ ἡλίου

LXXB 2 Chr 18:34 1 Kgs 22:35–36 ἀπὸ πρωὶ ἕως ἑσπέρας ‫ד־ה ָע ֶרב‬ ָ ‫ַע‬ καὶ ἀπέχυννε τὸ αἷμα ἐκ τῆς πληγῆς εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ ἅρματος καὶ ἀπέθανεν ‫וַ ּיָ ָמת‬ ‫וַ ּיָ ָמת‬ ἑσπέρας ‫ָּב ֶע ֶרב‬ καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο (‫)ויצא‬ ‫וַ ּיִ ֶצק‬ τὸ αἷμα ‫ַּדם‬ τῆς τροπῆς ‫־ה ַּמ ָּכה‬ ַ ἕως τοῦ κόλπου τοῦ ἅρματος ‫ל־חיק ָה ָר ֶכב‬ ֵ ‫ֶא‬ 36 καὶ ἔστη ὁ στρατοκῆρυξ ‫ וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹר ָה ִרּנָ ה‬36 (+ ἐν τῇ παρεμβολή) ‫ַּב ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה‬ δύνοντος τοῦ ἡλίου ‫ְל ֵעת ּבֹוא ַה ּֽׁש ֶמׁש‬ ‫ְּכבֹא ַה ֶּׁש ֶמׁש‬

Neither of the two LXXB readings exactly matches the MT. The second corresponds, in part at least, to the MT sentence. As far as the text is concerned, και εξεπορευετο does not correspond to MT ‫ויצק‬, but it supposes the Hebrew ‫ויצא‬. The exact correspondence of MT ‫ ויצק‬is found in the first reading of the duplicate: και απεχυννετο… εις + Accusative (‘spilling blood on the cart’), as shown by the parallel of 2 Kgs 4:4: ‫ויצקת על‬, και αποχεεις εις + Accusative (‘pouring oil into the vessels’).31 In Rahlfs’ view, the Lucianic text would have fused both halves of the duplicate into a single sentence, placing it on the location of the first half, before MT’s phrase ‫וימת בערב‬. In effect, LXXL seems to pick up the expression και εξεπορευετο from the second half and juxtapose the two variants to the MT ‫ המכה‬της πληγης/της τροπης εως (from which the mistake of LXXL τροπωσεως).32 Rahlfs does not take into account the fact that the first half of the duplicate is preceded by the expression απο πρωι εως εσπερας (‫עד הערב‬, cf. 2 Chr). This 31  In the second reading εως + genit. seems to imply a Hebrew ‫עד‬. 32  Such is Rahlfs’ proposal. He quotes the case of uncial ms. N, in which it is written ΤΡΟΠΟΣΕΩΣ instead of the usual LXX ΤΡΟΠΗϹΕΩϹ. It may be suggested that the supposed formation of τροποσεως should be linked with the initial expression of v. 35: και ετροπωθε o πολεμος (τροπόω as well as τρέπω, means “make to turn, put to flight,” Liddell—Scott).

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

173

expression corresponds, in part at least, to the MT sentence between the two members of the duplicate: ‫וימת בערב‬, και απεθανεν εσπερας. Contrary to Rahlfs’ opinion, it must be said that the first reading of the duplicate is actually that of the OG; the second is the product of recensional activity, which seeks an approximation to the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. In this case, Lagarde’s aforementioned principle applies, according to which a Greek variant is more likely to belong to the OG the greater its remoteness from the TM is. The parallel text of 2 Chr 18:34 provides the necessary evidence that confirms the well-founded application of the general principle in this case. The text of Chr confirms, although only partially, that the reading εως εσπερας (‫עד הערב‬, Chr) is not an invention of the LXX, let alone of the Lucianic recensor. The complete reading of the OG απο πρωι… του αρματος has its original location before the sentence of MT ‫וימת בערב‬. It is important to point out that the Armenian version (besides the Ethiopic that usually reproduces very closely the text of LXXB) also follows in this case the Antiochene text, omitting in consequence the second part of the duplicate. Again, the contrast of text types is checked: LXXL (Arm) Chr ≠ MT LXXB (the Vatican codex offers in this occasion a mixed text formed by both types). On the basis of the LXX and Chr text, BHS, as well as BHK before, proposes to insert in the text the expression ‫ עד הערב‬and transpose to the end of the verse the MT sentence ‫וימת בערב‬, so the death is the consequence of the blood loss.33 Montgomery opposes a change of the Masoretic text of 1 Kgs 22:35; he notes that the Chr text omits any reference to the blood effusion.34

33  Burney, Notes, 258: “In v. 35b LXX, Luc., which place ‫ וימת בערב‬after ‫ויצק … הערב‬, are superior,”; A. Šanda rejects the addition of “from the dawn,” but accepts the LXX transposition of ‫ וימת‬to the end of the clause, id., A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige, EHAT IX/2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1911–1912), 500. Benzinger and Kittel accept to add at the end of 35a, following LXX and Chr, ‫עד הערב‬, see L. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige, KHC IX (Freiburg: Mohr, 1899), 125; Kittel, Könige, 178. 34  Montgomery, Kings, 346. Montgomery’s position is actually the most consequent; the usual hypothesis, adopted by BHS and BHK, errs on the side of a certain inclusive eclecticism, which intends to integrate within the textus receptus partial elements of a different textual from that reflected by LXX and Chronicles. This proposal does not pay any attention or value to the terms απο πρωι which undoubtedly form part of and cannot be isolated from the complete expression απο πρωι εως εσπερας. It is worth suggesting that the original Hebrew text contained the ‫מן הבקר עד הערב‬, followed by the reading preserved here by the OG, and that it may have been lost by haplography in the leap of ‫עד‬ ‫ הערב‬to ‫וימת בערב‬. The reinsertion into the text in the wrong place, after the phrase ‫וימת‬ ‫בערב‬, could be influenced by the same thought, which Schmitt expresses in relation to the washing of prostitutes in the blood of Ahab’s chariot, cf. the following note.

174

Chapter 8

It is not possible to continue here the study of these and other passages related to 22:35.35 Suffice it to have pointed out the behavior of the Antiochene text, independently of that of LXXB (except τροπωσεως) and the origin of the duplicate in LXXB. The Hebrew text of Chronicles confirms in this case the Hebrew Vorlage of OG (cf. also Chronicles’ support for the text of LXX in the later verses of 22:30f. = 2 Chr 18:30f.). Literary criteria endorse the archetypal and original value of the text reflected by the OG, according to which Ahab, wounded by an arrow, stands on the chariot in front of the Syrians “from dawn to dusk. Blood flowed from the wound inside the chariot and Ahab died at dusk.” – 2 Kgs 3:1: LXXL 1:18a καὶ Ιωραμ υἱὸς Αχααβ βασιλεύει ἐπὶ Ισραηλ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ ἔτη δέκα δύο ἐν ἔτει δευτέρω τοῦ Ιωραμ υἱοῦ Ιωσαφατ βασιλέως Ιουδα ἐβασίλευσεν Ιωραμ υἱὸς Αχααβ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ

LXXB 1:18a Καὶ Ιωραμ υἱὸς Αχααβ βασιλεύει ἐπὶ Ισραηλ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ ἔτη δέκα δύο ἐν ἔτει ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ Ιωσαφατ βασιλέως Ιουδα

MT 3:1

‫ן־א ְח ָאב‬ ַ ‫יהֹורם ֶּב‬ ָ ִ‫ו‬ ‫ָמ ַלְך‬ ‫ַעל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ְּבׁש ְֹמרֹון‬ ‫ִּב ְׁשנַ ת ְׁשמֹנֶ ה ֶע ְׂש ֵרה‬ ‫יהֹוׁש ָפט‬ ָ ‫ִל‬ ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫ֶ ֣מ ֶלְך י‬ ‫וַ ּיִ ְמֹלְך‬ ‫ים־ע ְׂש ֵרה ָׁשנָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ְׁש ֵּת‬

35  Schmitt claims that v. 35bb is a secondary addition, which introduces the subject of the blood effusion of Achab. He sees in this sentence an editorial element, by which the war story formed by 22:1a, 2–4, 29–35a, ba, 36 is inserted into the composition of the book of Kings (“Redaktor, der die Kriegserzählungensammlung in die Königsbücher einfügte”), H.Ch. Schmitt, Elisa. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Gerd Mohn, 1972), 191 and 200; H. Schweizer, “Literarkritischer Versuch zur Erzählung von Micha ben Jimla (1. Kön 22),” BZ 23 (1979): 1–19, esp. 16, note 29. Montgomery and Schmitt relate that phrase to the passage of v. 38 also concerning Ahab’s blood, which the dogs lick and in which the prostitutes of Samaria bathe. This solution to Elijah’s prophecy in 21:19 betrays the secondary character of this passage, v. 38, Montgomery, Kings, 341; Schmitt considers vv. 37–38 to be part of the same editorial reworking as mentioned above, see id., Elisa, 200. Previously Benzinger and Kittel considered vv. 35bb and 38 secondary, Benzinger, Könige, 125; Kittel, Könige, 178; cf. B.D. Napier, “The Omrides of Jezreel,” VT 9 (1959): 375–376; E. Würthwein, “Zur Komposition von I Reg 22,1–38,” in Das ferne und nahe Wort, BZAW 105 (Berlin: 1967), 245; Seebass reconstructs a mixed text from MT and LXX that can only be suspicious, H. Seebass, “Zu 1 Reg XXII 35–38,” VT 21 (1971): 380–383. The text represented by the OG (LXXL) and Chr, closer to the Hebrew archetype, in no way supports the hypothesis on the secondary character of v. 35bb. Montgomery himself acknowledges that the text of LXX follows the correct order of events: blood loss precedes the death of Ahab, Montgomery, Kings, 346. In this way, the reference to blood loss is an integral part of the narrative is related to and expected consequence of the wound inflicted on Ahab.

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

175

The initial formula corresponding to the reign of Joram of Israel is found in MT/LXX 2 Kgs 3:1, but the OG (LXXBL, in kaige section, and Josephus) repeats it with some variants in their own particular passage, 1:18a–d. The variants refer to 1) the formulation of the sentence, and 2) the number of synchronisms. According to Rahlfs, in 1:18a LXXB collects in a single sentence what MT says in two sentences; it also puts the data on the duration of the reign (‘12 years’) before that of synchronism (‘in the 18th year’). LXXL presents two phrases that do not correspond to those of MT; rather it follows, according to Rahlfs, the same order of LXXB, with a simple final addition. This case is particularly difficult. It cannot be studied on its own, as Rahlfs does, but in relation with the series of initial regnal formulae. On the other hand, it is necessary to criticize not only the MT but also the Greek text.36 The stereotypical text of this formula37 is as follows: “In the year … of X king of Judah/Israel reigned Y, the son of Z, King of Israel/Judah …” (]…‫בשנת ל … [בן‬ ‫ישראל‬/‫יהודה מלך … בן … מלך יהודה‬/‫)מלך ישראל‬.38 In five cases of MT the formulation of this sentence presents the same anomaly, repeated by LXXB in section kaige; it consists of the reversal of the order of the sentence, so that the synchronism passes to the second term: “Y, son of Z …, reigned over Judah/Israel in the year … of X, king of Israel/Judah” (MT 1 Kgs 16:29 Ahab; 22:41 Jehoshaphat; 22:52 Ahaziah of Israel; 2 Kgs 3:1 Jehoram of Israel; 12:1 Jehoash of Judah). In such cases, the text of the OG, represented 36  J .C. Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboám. Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1 Reyes, 2–12; 14 (Salamanca—Jerusalem Institución San Jerónimo, 1980), 85–105. 37  The stereotypical phraseology of these formulae and their frequency and distribution throughout the book of Kings allows us to enter into a study of the process of composition of the book. Despite the rigidity of the formulation, there are many variations to it. To explain them Bin-Nun supposes a plurality of formulations in the original sources; E. Cortese thinks rather of a redactional deviation with respect to the primitive formula. The authors do not take into account the textual variations of the OG and do not pay any attention, for example, to the text of LXX in 12:24a. Thus H. Weippert does not quote this “duplicate” of the OG, which, however, lacks evident dtr interpolations, present on the contrary in the corresponding passage of MT 14:21–22. Cf. E. Cortese, “Lo schema deuteronomistico per i re di Giuda e d’Israele,” Bib 56 (1975): 37–52; Sh.R. Bin-Nun, “Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and of Judah,” VT 18 (1968): 414–432; J. Van Seters, “Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East: the Israelites,” Orientalia 50 (1981): 137–185, esp. 179–180; H. Weippert, “Die ‘deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher,” Bib 53 (1972): 301–339; id., “‘Der Ort, den Jahwe erwählen wird, um dort seinen Namen wohnen zu lassen.’ Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Formel,” BZ NF 24 (1980): 76–94; J. Debus, Die Sünde Jerobeams, FRLANT 93 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 86. 38  Kings of Judah: 2 Kgs 8:16–17; 8:25–26; 14:1–2.; 15:32–33; 16:1–2; 18:1–2; Kings of Israel: 1 Kgs 15:33; 16:8 (≠ LXX); 16:15; 16:23; 2 Kgs 13:10; 14:23; 15:8; 15:17; 15:23; 15:27; 17:1. The formula for Kings of Judah adds the data relating to the years of the king at the time of accessing the throne and the years of reign, as well as the name of the queen-mother.

176

Chapter 8

in section kaige by the Antiochene text of the mss. boc2e2, always preserves the original formulation intact, with the synchronism in the foreground: εν τω ενιαυτω τω… του… βασιλεως Ισραηλ/Ιούδα βασιλευει… υιος… The change in MT is always caused by the same reason: the formula has been transposed into a different context from the original one. This displacement of the formula in the composition as a whole causes a readjustment in the formulation of the sentence. The anomaly in the formulation of MT 1 Kgs 16:29 (Ahab), 22:41 (Jehoshaphat) and 22:52 (Ahaziah of Israel) is due to the transposition of the formula of Jehoshaphat. The original site of this formula was 1 Kgs 16:28a, as attested by the OG with a normal formulation (LXXBL in non-kaige section). This is also required by the law of alternation of synchronisms by which the composition of 1–2 Kings is structured.39 Coming now to our case, 2 Kgs 3:1 (Jehoram of Israel), MT produces the same anomaly in the formulation of the phrase: the order of terms is reversed so that the synchronism no longer begins the sentence. This irregularity in the text is again the consequence of a change in the context. The original placement of this formula was the one indicated by the OG in 2 Kgs 1:18a (LXXBL and Josephus); this is also required by a second law of the composition of the book: the different units of composition (news or historical stories, prophetic oracles or legends, etc.) must be integrated within the framework of the kingdom with which they synchronize. In the composition reflected by the OG, the prophetic narratives in chapter 2 are inscribed within the framework of Jehoram’s reign; in MT they are left out of every regnal frame.40 The formulation of LXXL in 2 Kgs 1:18a is not, as Rahlfs supposes, the same as LXXB, with a simple final addition. Although in this case the proper formulation of the OG has not been preserved with the same purity and fidelity as on the occasions quoted above (1 Kgs 16:28a Jehoshaphat; 16:29 Ahab; 22:52 Ahaziah of Israel), however the formulation of LXXL is very close to this; it is enough to read the phrase from synchronism: εν ετει δευτερω του Ιωραμ υιου Ιωσαφατ βασιλεως Ιουδα εβασιλευσεν Ιωραμ υιος Αχααβ εν Σαμαρεια (ετη δεκαδυο). As far as the synchronism is concerned, the same MT gives two divergent figures: ‘in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat’ (3:1, ‘in the 2nd year of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat’ (1:17b). The Antiochene text ignores the first synchronism of 3:1. In 1:18a it presents the same number of MT 1:17b, ‘in the second year of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat.’ According to Rahlfs, the Lucianic text here depends on MT 1:17b. However, as Shenkel has shown, this synchronism of MT 39  S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), 79. 40  O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament. An Introduction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966), 294.

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

177

is exceptional and unique; the MT follows and confirms in this case the synchronism proper to the chronological system reflected by the text of the OG (LXXL 1:18a).41 To complete this analysis of the initial regnal formula, it is necessary to refer to the last case of anomaly in the formulation, which we had previously noted. It is the formula of Jehoash of Judah in 2 Kgs 12:1. MT puts here the data on Jehoash’s age (‘7 years’) at the time of his accession to the throne; only then does the synchronism of his reign appear. The Antiochene text represents here, in kaige section, the OG and retains the correct formulation: εν ετει εβδομω Ιου υιου Ναμεσσει βασιλευει Ιωας υιος Οχοζιου υιος ων επτα ετων Ιωας εν τω βασιλευειν αυτον. – 2 Kgs 17:4: ‫ולא העלה מנחה למלך אשור כשנה בשנה‬, και ουκ ηνεγκεν μαναα τω βασιλει Ασσυριων εν τω ενιαυτω εκεινο LXXB, και ην Ωσηε φερων δωρα τω βασιλει Ασσυριων ενιαυτον κατ ενιαυτον εν δε τω ενιαυτω εκεινω ουκ ηνεγκεν αυτω μαναα LXXL. According to Rahlfs, LXXB mistranslated the Hebrew ‫כשנה בשנה‬. LXXL presents a correct translation. It preserves the old text of LXX, but adds for greater emphasis a phrase in which MT and LXX expressions appear again.42 Indeed, the expression of LXXL εν (δε) τω ενιαυτω εκαινω, variant with respect to MT, is also found in the rest of LXX, so it was undoubtedly part of the old Septuagint. It is not a mistranslation. This is one of the typical cases in which, as we will see in this work, it is not possible to give an answer with data and criteria of textual criticism only, but at the same time it is necessary to make use of literary criticism. Thus, the supposed addition of LXXL και ην Ωσηε φερων δωρα repeats the same sentence in v. 3b και εφερεν αυτω δωρα. These phrases belong to the OG, as is evidenced by the use of the terms φερειν and δωρα instead of επιστρεφειν and μαναα (kaige) (cf. infra). The duplicate dates back to the Hebrew original. Here we verify a linking repetition (Wiederaufnahme), which allows us to discover the secondary character of v. 4aa. In fact, two different notices about the Assyrian intervention against Hoshea of Israel are gathered here.43

41  Rahlfs, Lucians, 270–1; Shenkel, Chronology, 69, 73 and 82. A similar case will be addressed later. In 2 Kgs 8:25, MT offers the synchronism corresponding to Ochozias of Judah, ‘in the 12th year of Jehoram son of Ahab,’ but later in 9:29 adds a different synchronism, ‘in the 11th year of Jehoram son of Ahab,’ which corresponds to the chronological system of the OG. 42  Rahlfs, Lucians, 208. 43  J. Trebolle Barrera, “La caída de Samaría. Crítica textual, literaria e histórica de 2 Re 17,3–6,” in Escritos de Biblia y Oriente, ed. R. Aguirre and F. García López (Salamanca—Jerusalem Universidad Pontificia, 1981) 137–152, esp. 142–147.

178

Chapter 8

Again, it is shown that LXXL is based on a pre-Lucianic text, independent of the one known as LXXB and the rest of the manuscript tradition in general. In a further step, Rahlfs believes he can specify the type of LXX text on which LXXL depends. Rahlfs notes that, in an even greater number of characteristic readings, the Lucianic text shows such precise contacts with that of the Vatican Codex (and the Ethiopic version), that it is certainly possible to conclude that there is a close relationship between the basic text of LXXL and the type of text present in LXXB (Aeth). Rahlfs concludes the analysis of each passage studied in this section with the same affirmation: LXXL and LXXB (Aeth) are the only testimonies that preserve the original text, as opposed to the Hexaplaric text in general, which has influenced the rest of the manuscript tradition.44 Again, it is enlightening to see the distribution on which Rahlfs relies: 30 cases are found in the non-kaige section and only 11 in the kaige section. Those in the non-kaige section reach wide passages (1 Kgs 4:7–19; 5:2–4; 6:11–14; 7:13–51; 7:19–22; 11:1–8; 11:23–25) while those in the kaige section are hardly significant. The largest and most significant passage is quoted from 1 Kgs 4:7–19, which lists Solomon’s administrative districts. We cannot enter here into a detailed analysis of the numerous variants of this passage; the two types of text in which this passage has been transmitted to us, the pre-Hexaplaric and Hexaplaric, are distinctly differentiated here.45 Rahlfs concludes that Lucian’s recension is based on the ancient text of LXX, which is often preserved here by only the Lucianic mss. and Codex Vaticanus (Aeth).46 Naturally, this conclusion is generally valid as regards the text of the nonkaige section, to which the quoted passages belong, those of greater extension and importance. Rahlfs is conscious of the existence of different sections in the text. The division of sections coincides in this case with the division into books, first and second of Kings. Rahlfs is aware that his conclusions on the affinity of the basic text of LXXL with that reproduced in LXXB are especially valid for 1 Kings. In this book, the differences between MT and LXX are so 44  Rahlfs, Lucians, 217–223: “Der alte LXX-Text ist uns durch B Aeth L … erhalten” (1 Kgs 2:23–25a); “B L haben hier also allein den ursprünglichen LXX-Text erhalten” (2 Kgs 7:6). Similar statements are repeated in the section called “Abhängigkeit L’s von einem mit B Aeth verwandten, vorhexaplarischen G-Texte,” Rahlfs, Lucians, 211–224. 45  Rahlfs, Lucians, 224, cf. 225–239: “[hier] scheiden sich die Texttypen besonders schön, und es ist nicht zu viel gesagt, wenn man diesen kurzen Abschnitt als grundlegend für die Lösung des textkritischen Problems der Königsbücher bezeichnet.” 46   L XXL has at times retained the old text of LXX in a purer state than LXXB (Aeth); this is the case, above all and as usual, when it comes to proper names. Overall, and according to Rahlfs, LXXL is, however, a secondary text, see Rahlfs, Lucians, 235.

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

179

considerable that they gave rise to a deep Hexaplaric revision. This explains the similarly considerable difference between the LXXBL text and the Hexaplaric text of LXXA and the manuscripts that follow it. In 2 Kings, the differences between MT and LXX are, on the contrary, practically ‘minimal,’ as Rahlfs states; the Hexaplaric corrections are therefore of little importance and, for this reason, the difference between LXXBL and the rest of the manuscript tradition is negligible.47 In this second book of Kings and in this kaige section (γδ), Rahlfs ‘minimizes’ however overly the differences between MT and the OG. He practically identifies the old Septuagint with the current text of LXXB (Aeth), which would be followed by the Antiochene text with its specific variants. Rahlfs recognizes, as we will see, pre-Lucianic materials in LXXL, but again “minimizes” their reach and significance, which prevents him from recognizing the differences between the text of the OG, recognizable through these pre-Lucianic materials, and the recensioned (kaige) text of LXXB or the Hexaplaric of LXXA. Although the difference between the text of the OG and that of the later revisions, kaige and Hexaplaric, is not in 2 Kings as considerable as in 1 Kings, it is not however negligible, as will be seen mainly with regard to the chapters 2 Kgs 9–11. Regarding the non-kaige section of 1 Kings, rather than talking with Rahlfs about an LXXL depending on a text similar to the pre-Hexaplaric of LXXB (Aeth), it would be better to speak of two similar underlying texts, both preHexaplaric, LXXL and the one represented by Vaticanus. Rahlfs’ assertion gives excessive value to Vaticanus, regardless of its characteristics and deficiencies; these are not to be attributed to the earlier tradition represented by that Codex and certainly did not affect the text underlying the Antiochene text. In the non-kaige section of 1 Kings the original text of LXX can sometimes be unrecognizable, because of the deficiencies of the Vatican Codex itself, and because of the stylistic revision that resulted from the proto-Lucianic revision (Brock) or from a continuous process of revision according to ‘Lucianic’ characteristics (Barthélemy).48 47  Rahlfs, Lucians, 290–1: “diese Seite L’s macht sich besonders im ersten Königsbuche geltend … Im zweiten Königsbuche dagegen sind die Unterschiede zwischen LXX und MT ziemlich minimal, infolgedessen ist hier die hexaplarische Korrektur und dem gemäss auch die Beeinflussung des Vulgärtextes durch sie nur unbedeutend, und so nehmen B Aeth L hier keine solche Sonderstellung ein, wie im ersten Buche.” 48  Cf. supra nota 88. B. Sacchi is closer to Barthélemy’s positions when he states “che una recensione lucianea non sia mai esistita se non nella fantasia di chi ad Antiochia si sentiva in dovere di limitare la fortuna del testo cesariense,” see B. Chiesa, “Sull’ edizione critica del Deuteronomio greco di Gottinga,” Hen 1 (1979): 283–288, esp. pp. 287–88. This statement is not valid with regards to the text of Kings. M. Spanneut already preferred the hypothesis that “le texte dit antiochien c’est élaboré historiquement, par un devenir progressif, sur la

180

Chapter 8

As regards the text of the kaige sections, Rahlfs’ conclusion is at least out of focus. LXXL is actually based on a pre-Lucianic and pre-Hexaplaric text, which has not undergone the kaige revision, present in the text of the Vatican Codex. Rahlfs mentions the existence of ‘exceptional’ cases, in which LXXL follows other types of text against LXXB (Aeth). He quotes passages of 2 Kings 10:23, 25 and 11:10f. He does not discuss them, because Rahlfs’ intention, as he himself claims, is nothing more than to make a global examination of the text underlying LXXL.49 The reality is that these and other cases that turn out to be “exceptional” for Rahlfs are not such, but absolutely “normal” texts, within, it is true, a different normativity from that supposed by Rahlfs. Such passages will constitute the precise object of the study that we propose to carry out here. The quoted note by Rahlfs has become one of the elements that have suggested the object and objective of this work. The explanations of Rahlfs about the important and multiple variants of chapters 9–11 of 2 Kings are too shallow and point in the wrong direction. For the moment, one of the passages quoted by Rahlfs, which are also part of the chapters in our study, can be chosen as example. This is 2 Kings 9:13. The complexity of this variant text does not allow an explanation of all its details, but it does make it clear that the Antiochene variant is independent of and prior to that of Codex Vaticanus. LXXL ἐφ’ ἓν τῶν γαρεμ ἐπὶ μίαν τῶν ἀναβαθμίδων ἐκάθητο

LXXB ἐπὶ γαρεμ

LXXA ἐπὶ γὰρ ἕνα

MT

τῶν ἀναβαθμῶν

τῶν ἀναβαθμῶν ἐκάθηντο

‫ַ ֽה ַּמ ֲעלֹות‬

‫ֶאל־ּגֶ ֶרם‬

base d’un fonds ancien, selon les lois d’un évolutionisme littéraire. Même les ‘lucianismes prélucianiques,’ c’est-à-dire en fait les antiochénismes qu’on retrouve dans d’autres versions anciennes, deviennent alors explicables,” see id., “La Bible d’Eustathe d’Antioche: Contribution à l’histoire de la ‘Version lucianique,’” Studia Patristica 4 (1961): 171–190, esp. 189–190. H. Dörrie already considered the Lucianic text as “nicht eine beabsichtigte Rezension, sondern eine geschichtlich gewordene, in sich uneinheitliche Textform,” see id., “Zur Geschichte der Septuaginta im Jahrhundert Konstantins,” ZNTW 40 (1940): 57–110, 105. 49  Rahlfs, Lucians, 211, n. 1: “Stellen, an welchen L mit anderen Texttypen gegen B Aeth in eigentümlichen Lesarten zusammengeht, kommen allerdings vor, z. B. hat L in Kön. II 10,23, 25 und 11,10f. ähnliche Zusätze, wie gewisse LXX-Hss. in II 10,23; 11,10 (an beiden Stellen bilden die Zusätze in den übrigen Hss. eine Einheit, während sie in L auf zwei Verse verteilt sind). Aber derartige Ausnahmen kommen schliesslich bei jedem Texttypus und in jeder Handschrift einmal vor. Sie müssen hier, wo es sich um den Gesamtcharakter des von Lucian zugrunde gelegten Textes handelt, zurücktreten.”

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

181

According to Rahlfs,50 the majority reading γαρ ενα derives from γαρεμ =

‫ערם‬, a reading preserved by LXXBL. But LXXL has reworked the text, and has

also taken into account the late variant γαρ ενα. In reality, every reading with εν/ενα is pre-Hexaplaric; it is found in the column of LXX of the Hexapla, in Symmachus and Theodotion; as in many other occasions the text of the Vatican Codex is defective.51 The Antiochene text offers a double reading εφ εν των γαρεμ / επι μιαν τῶν ἀναβαθμιδων. Both nouns have correspondence in Hebrew: ‫ גרם‬/ ‫המעלות‬. It can be assumed that the reading of the OG and its Vorlage was the second one; the first corresponds to the proto-Rabbinical textual tradition, whose reading enters the Greek text through a transcription, as is customary in kaige recension. The verb εκαθητω is not, as Rahlfs supposes, an addition motivated by the corruption of γαρεμ into γαρ ενα. The particle γαρ begins a new phrase that requires a verb. Actually, the OG didn’t really contain any readings with γαρ. 2

The Basic Text of LXXL Cannot Simply Be Identified with That of Codex Vaticanus (Aeth)

Rahlfs acknowledges that, despite the close affinity of the basic text of LXXL with that of LXXB, it is not possible to consider both texts identical.52 Indeed, numerous LXXL deviations from LXXB are explained, according to Rahlfs, as changes consisting of 1) MT corrections or translations of words previously transcribed; 2) changes based on parallel or related passages; and 3) other changes due to very different reasons depending on the case. Regarding the alleged corrections of LXXL to LXXB due to a desire of getting nearer to MT,53 we will analyze only a couple of cases in which the LXXB transmits a text revised according to MT while the Antiochene retains the original Septuagint version. The passage in question is 2 Kgs 25:18: ‫כהן משנה‬, υιον της δευτερωσεως LXXB (‫)בן המשנה‬, τον ιερεα τον δευτερον LXXL. Following Rahlfs, the Antiochene text would have changed υιον into ιερεα, by assimilation 50  Rahlfs, Lucians, 225–226; Montgomery, Kings, 404–405. 51  εκαθηντο in the plural is the Hexaplaric reading (A, Arm SyrH), cf. 9:5. The rest of the mss. have the singular form. The omission of Codex Vaticanus is again due to haplography. On the tendency to shorten the text, characteristic of Codex Vaticanus (short text of Judges, Tobit and Daniel, and omission of the books of Maccabees), cf. S. Jellicoe, “The Hesychian recension reconsidered,” JBL 82 (1963): 409–418. 52  Rahlfs, Lucians, 291: “Trotz der engen Verwandtschaft kann indessen L’s Grundlage mit B Aeth nicht einfach identisch gewesen sein.” 53  Rahlfs, Lucians, 171–174 and 239–250.

182

Chapter 8

to MT ‫כהן‬.54 However, we focus our attention here only on the version of the term ‫משנה‬: της δευτερωσεως in LXXB, and τον δευτερον in the Antiochene text (boc2e2), followed by the Armenian version, a marginal reading of the Syro-Hexaplaric text and Chrysostom. At 2 Kgs 23:4 LXXB offers similarly (τοις ιερευσιν) της δευτερωσεως, while the Antiochene text, accompanied by the Old Latin (Lucifer) and Armenian versions, offers (τoις ιερευσιν) τοις δευτερευουσι. The correct explanation seems to be as follows: the faithful translation of ‫ משנה‬by the noun δευτερωσεως, belongs to the kaige revision while the version with the adjective δευτερον (LXXL VL Arm) is the pre-Lucianic/OG reading. The proof of this is obtained by means of a statistical study of the translation of Hebrew ‫ משנה‬along 1–4 Kgdms. The LXXBL text which in non-kaige section goes back to the OG presents always the reading δευτερος (1 Sam 8:2; [17:13]; 23:17; 2 Sam 3:3), while in kaige section the LXXB offers a literal version, δευτερωσις, due to assimilation to MT (2 Kgs 23:4; 25:18). In these passages the original reading δευτερον/δευτερευουσι still survived in the Antiochene text and in the Old Latin and Armenian versions.55 Another case of those offered by Rahlfs is that of 2 Kgs 12:10, for which it is possible to propose a solution, debatable perhaps, but at least, in our opinion, well supported: ‫המזבח בימין‬, ιαμειβειν/αμμαζειβη in. The mss. borc2e2 have το θυσιαστηριον εν δεξια (a latere altaris Arm). According to Rahlfs, the Lucianic text does an exact translation of the Ketib ‫ב‬, just as Aquila translates the Qere ‫מ‬, which numerous Hebrew mss. preserve.56 On the contrary, it can be assumed that the Lucianic text only preserves the original version, which agrees with MT (the text of Josephus τ. βωμον is significant) while the rest of the Greek tradition reproduces the (kaige) correction, which supposes a greater assimilation to Hebrew, by means of a transliteration, poorly preserved in Greek: αμμαζειβη ιαμειβειν (‫)מזבח מימין‬. LXXB (Aeth) keeps only the second term of the transliteration and the rest of the mss. only the first one.57 Consequently, the Greek version would have avoided and obscured this term leaded with pagan connotations, taking advantage of a transliteration, 54  Rahlfs, Lucians, 247. P. Walters proposes that the translation of LXXB “must be emended into ιερεα της δευτερωσεως as L and Aquila rightly read, cf. 23:4,” see id., Septuagint, 313. Lucian’s correct reading also reaches to τον δευτερον. Walters’ posthumous work does not take into account the type of analysis made on the basis of the kaige recension that is present in LXXB. 55  Consequently, there is no reason to assume the Hebrew form ‫ השני‬instead of ‫משני‬, as Klostermann did, Bücher, 24; H.J. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT VIII/1 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973), 182. 56  Rahlfs, Lucians, 245. 57  The correction proposed by Stade and generally accepted by critics, based precisely on Greek transliteration (BHS), is therefore not necessary, cf. Stade and Schwally, Kings, 239.

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

183

while the Hebrew text would have slightly altered the term ‫ מזבח‬into ‫מצבה‬.58 If the reasoning is valid, it applies more to kaige recensor than to the Greek translator (cf. above, on the revision ‫לכן‬: ουχ ουτως). The hypothesis, however, is based on a partial consideration of the Greek transcription, which reaches, as has been said, the two terms αμμαζειβη ιαμειβειν (with its many variants). The passages studied by Rahlfs of 2 Kgs 10:24, 27 and 11:5 will be accurately analyzed in this study. The last analyzed case (2 Kings 12:10) leads us by the hand to study a whole series of transcriptions, peppered in the text of LXXB and which, in Rahlfs’ opinion, the Antiochene text would have been replaced by the corresponding translations.59 This series of translations that replace previous transcriptions, even though they are not at the same level as the previous corrections according to MT,60 nevertheless ‘testify equally to a certain knowledge of the Hebrew language.’ Rahlfs warns that it is not possible to determine to what extent this knowledge is direct and independent. Lucian may also have collected borrowed materials from other translations or from parallel locations (as would be the last four cases to be quoted). The assumption of a direct knowledge of Hebrew presents very serious difficulties; on the other hand, a mediatized knowledge, through interposed translations, of readings of the Hebrew supposedly incorporated by Lucian in his text does not suffice to explain the numerous cases, both of corrections according to MT and of alternative translations of transcriptions. The material that can be collected from other translations whose text approaches parallel places is very scarce, so that it is sometimes difficult to speak of a true ‘parallel.’ But the decisive objection to Rahlfs’ assumption comes again from the recensional (kaige) character of the LXXB text in 2 Kings and the pre-Lucianic character of the LXXL readings in this section of the text. Indeed, again and again all examples of transcriptions and translations that supposedly those transcriptions, are found in the kaige sections of the text. It is equally significant that all the cases reported by Rahlfs of LXXL coincidences with the other Greek translations (α´, σ´, θ´) also belong to these sections. Through these translations, Rahlfs intends to answer the question: ‘from where has Lucian taken his corrections according to MT?’61 Rahlfs considers 58  Montgomery, Kings, 429. 59  Rahlfs, Lucians, 249–250. 60  Rahlfs warns here in a note that the example of 2 Kgs 12:10 should be studied in the previous section: “weil die Transkription hier nur dann gedeutet werden konnte, wenn man auf MT selbst zurückging,” id., Lucians Rezension, 249, note 1. The supposed substitution of the transcription by the translation would in this case be proof of something more than ‘a certain knowledge of the Hebrew language’ on the part of Lucian. 61  Rahlfs, Lucians, 172–174 and 247.

184

Chapter 8

Lucian’s use of the versions of Symmachus and Theodotion to be probable. Ultimately, he fails to explain the alleged loans of Lucian taken from MT. For the same reason Rahlfs must also assume a certain familiarity with Hebrew by Lucian. The reality is that Lucian’s coincidence with the previous Greek translations is a new data, which can only be explained on the assumption of a preLucianic basis of the LXXL text. The list of transcripts provided by Rahlfs, supposedly replaced by translations in LXXL, includes some examples precisely of the coincidence of LXXL with the other Greek translations, which show the same or a similar translation rather than the transcription of LXXB. The list is as follows:62 .

2 Kgs 8:8; 17:3, 4; 20:12 ‫מנחה‬, μαναα, LXXL δωρα (in 8:9 and 17:4 LXXL μαναα); the translation δωρα also appears in Aquila and Symmachus. 11:12 ‫נזר‬, νεζερ, LXXL αγυασμα, σ´ αγιον. 12:10 ‫המזבח בימין‬, αμμαζειβη/ιαμειβειν, LXXL το θυσιαστηριον εν δεξια 14:25 ‫ הערבה‬της Αραβα, LXXL της προς εσπεραν. 23:4 ‫בשדמות קדרון‬, εν σαλ(/δ)ημωθ Κεδρων, LXXL εν τω εμπυρισμω του χειμαρρου Κεδρων. 23:5 ‫כמרים‬, χωμαρ(ε)ιμ, LXXL ιερεις (OL sacerdotes). 23:7 ‫בתים‬, χεττιειμ, LXXL στολας. 24:6 MT om. γαν, LXXL κηπω (from 2 Chr 36:8). 25:4 ‫הערבה‬, την Αραβα, LXXL την επι δυσμας. 25:5 ‫בערבות‬, εν Αραβωθ, LXXL κατα δυσμας. 25:12 ‫גבים‬, γαβειν, LXXL γεωργους. 25:13, 16 ‫מכנות‬, μεχωνωθ, LXXL βασεις (Symmachus and Jer 52:17). 25:14 ‫את היעים‬, τα ιαμειν, LXXL τας κρεαγρας. 25:17 ‫כתרת‬, χωθαρ, LXXL επιθεμα (1 Kgs 7:16ff.). 25:17 ‫שבכה‬, σαβαχα, LXXL δυχτυον (1 Kgs 7:17, 41f.). We will discuss only three of these passages as examples. Rahlfs attributes the change of μαναα in δωρα to the will of the stylistic variation on the part of the Lucianic recensor.63 The truth is that δωρα represents the old version. The transcription μαναα is on the contrary a product of the kaige revision. To prove this, it is enough to examine case by case. a) In the non-kaige section, the Greek tradition as a whole preserves the old version ‫מנחה‬, δωρα (1 Sam 10:27; 1 Kgs 5:1 [LXX 2:46b]; 1 Kgs 10:25). The case of 1 Kgs 8:64 is somewhat special and is therefore significant: LXXB uses the term 62  Rahlfs, Lucians, 248–250. 63  Rahlfs, Lucians, 182, 208 and 248.

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

185

θυσυας in the plural, to which the Hexaplaric mss. Ax (α´, σ´, SyrH, Arm) add και το δωρον; later, against the omission of B (Z) a2 (Aeth), the rest of the mss. adds και το δωρον. b) In kaige section LXXL is the only one that retains the old version δωρα. Josephus, OL and Arm confirm in three cases the pre-Lucianic character of the reading: 2 Kgs 8:8 δωρα bgoy(mg)c2e2, Josephus. 2 Kgs 8:9 LXXB has the double reading μαανα … δωρα; Josephus and the ms. c2a read only δωρα. 2 Kgs 8:11 δωρα bgoc2e2, besides huz(mg) SyrH, munera OL, without correspondence whatsoever in MT/LXXB, which is more significant. 2 Kgs 17:3 δωρα bgorc2e2, munera OL.64 2 Kgs 17:4 δωρα bgorc2e2, munera OL; in a second time δωρα rc2, μαναα boe2. 2 Kgs 20:12 δωρα bgc2e2, Arm. 2 Kgs 23:4: the LXXL translation εν τω εμπυρυσμω is not Lucian’s work; proof of this can be the presence in the OL of the same translation in incendio riui (Lucifer).65 A further and definitive proof is found in the addition of του χειμαρρου; this is not a product of Lucian’ well-known tendency to amplify the text. It definitely dates back to a pre-Masoretic Hebrew, as shown by the Hebrew variant in Kennicott 384 ‫אל נחל‬. 2 Kgs 19:15; 20:16: ‫יהוה‬, κυριε, LXXL + παντοχρατωρ/-τορος, alleged translation of the previous transcription σαβαωθ. Rahlfs classifies this case under the heading of “changes from similar places.” According to him, the parallel text would be in this case that of Is 37:16; 39:5 ‫צבאות‬, transcribed in LXX as Σαβαωθ. Lucian would have taken the Hebrew word from here and translated it by the term παντοκρατωρ. Rahlfs notes however that this translation does not correspond to the usual one in 2 Kings; ‫ צבאות‬is translated in 2 Kgs 3:14 and 19:31 by κυριος των δυναμεων (cf. 19:20), a translation preserved here also by LXXL. However, the OG usually translates ‫יהוה צבאות‬, κυριος παντοκρατωρ, a version revised by the kaige recensor as κυριος των δυναμεων.66 In general, the kaige recension translates the term ‫ צבא‬by δυναμις, while the OG used the term στρατια. 64  According to OTG moneta, perhaps by assimilation to μαναα. 65  “De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus,” VII, 47, cf. G.F. Diercks, Luciferi Calaritani Opera quae supersunt, CCSL 8 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1978). 66  Barthélemy, Devanciers, 82–83.

186

Chapter 8

It cannot be said, therefore, that the translation is later than the transcription and that Lucian revised the text of LXX replacing the previous transcription by the translation. The reality is that Lucian transmits and preserves a pre-Lucianic text that represents in these cases the ancient translation; the kaige revision replaced the translation with the corresponding transcription. Neither can it be said that Lucian revised the translation from LXX on the basis of the Masoretic Hebrew, as Rahlfs supposes, thus attributing to Lucian “some” knowledge of the Hebrew language. A scarce knowledge of the Hebrew language is not enough for those corrections and translations according to Hebrew; a greater familiarity with the Hebrew text and even an uncommon knowledge of difficult technical language (‫שבכה‬, ‫כתרת‬, ‫יתים‬, ‫כמרים‬, ‫)כערבה‬ would be necessary. Rahlfs presents afterwards numerous cases, which he himself considers changes to the text of LXX operated by Lucian on the basis of parallel passages.67 In many of them, however, the so-called ‘parallel’ is too tentative or even contradictory to make the basis for any loan. This is the case, for example, of one of the first passages quoted by Rahlfs, 1 Kgs 2:5: ‫לעמשא בן יתר‬, τω Αμεσσα υιω Ιεθερ, LXXL + αρχιστρατηγω Ιουδα. This ‘Lucianic’ addition would be taken according to Rahlfs from 2:32; however, in this ‘parallel’ passage Abner and Amasa are cited as the two generals (αρχιστρατηγοι) of ‘Israel,’ and not of ‘Judah,’ as it is said in the alleged addition of LXXL at 2:5. The correct explanation will be to recognize here too a pre-Lucianic element, authenticated by the OG translation characteristic of αρχιστρατηγος, instead of αρχων της δυναμεως (‫)שר הצבא‬, the usual correction of the kaige recension.68 Similarly, in 1 Kgs 1:25 Lucian would have changed according to Rahlfs the expression of LXXB τους αρχοντας της δυναμεως (‫ )לשרי הצבא‬by τον αρχιστρατηγον. Notice the use of the singular, more in keeping with the literary context and the unfolding of events. For the alleged change, Lucian would have been inspired by the ‘parallel’ passage of the same LXXL in v. 19. LXXB offers again the typical kaige expression αρχοντα της δυναμεως, which demonstrates the secondary character of this reading with respect to that of the OG, preserved in LXXL αρχιστρατηγον.69 It is also worth mentioning the addition of LXXL in 1 Kgs 21:27 και τον υιον αυτου, which according to Rahlfs would be taken from a ‘parallel’ passage, 67  Rahlfs, Lucians, 250–259: “Änderungen nach ähnlichen Stellen.” 68  Rahlfs has to acknowledge the pre-Lucianic character of the variant τ. στρατηγους, contained in a Lucianic duplicate of 2 Kgs 7:10, Rahlfs, Lucians, 288. In 2 Kgs 25:19 Rahlfs notes that in a second reading LXXL has στρατηγος, p. 181, note 1. 69  Rahlfs, Lucians, 166, 175–176 and 181 (“Vertauschung von Synonymis”). Rahlfs characterizes in another occasion the alleged change made by LXXL in 1 Kgs 1:25 ‘als verdeutlichende Umbildung eines zu allgemeinen Ausdrucks,” Lucians, 180.

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

187

2 Kgs 9:26, in which, however, the children of Naboth are mentioned, again in the plural. Rahlfs attributes numerous Lucianic corrections to loans from the ‘parallel’ Greek text of Chronicles or Paralipomena. As evidence against this, it is sufficient to quote as an example the case of 2 Kings 24:3f. (2 Chr 36:5), in which the recensional reading of LXXB κατα παντα οσα εποιησεν και γε αιμα αθωον εξεχεεν is marked by the characteristic και γε (‫)וגם‬, while LXXL retains the old reading with the version και (‫)וגם‬. This brings us hand in hand with other types of changes, which Rahlfs qualifies generically as ‘special.’ In the chapter on so-called ‘special changes’ (“sonstige Änderungen”) operated by LXXL,70 Rahlfs piles up a multitude of variants of very varied characteristics. Rahlfs tries to reduce them to a classification system with the following sections: grammatical corrections, improvement of poor translations, stylistic revisions, enlargements, “Emendationen” and erasures, and finally introduction of synonymous expressions. In the section ‘Verbesserungen schlechter Übertragungen’ Rahlfs includes numerous translations of LXX described as “mechanical,” which would have been corrected and improved by Lucian. Thus, for example, in LXXB the Hebrew expression le is often translated by a dative, when what is expressed belongs to a name and the genitive should be used for it, as indeed the Lucianic text does.71 The most notable example of this is the literary formula that puts an end to every reign; in it, reference is made to the Annals of Israel and Judah: ...‫הלא כתובים על ספר הדברי המאלכי‬. The version with the dative τοις βασιλευσιν is found in LXXB in the kaige section and is a revision of this recension; on the other hand, the version by means of the genitive των βασιλεων is that of the OG, preserved in the pre-Lucianic Antiochene text.72 There is therefore no correction by Lucian, but transmission of a pre-Lucianic reading; the correction has been operated in these cases, as in so many others, by the kaige recension, transmitted in LXXB. The correct explanation is therefore precisely the opposite of what Rahlfs proposed.73 A new case worth mentioning is that of 1 Kgs 22:41. LXXB offers an apparent duplicate of the formulae and narrative material pertaining to the reign of Jehoshaphat, 1 Kings 22:41–51, which also appears in 16:28a–h. Shenkel has shown that the Greek text of the first passage quoted, 22:41–51, is a late 70  Rahlfs, Lucians, 259–283. 71  Rahlfs, Lucians, 281–82 and 263–64. 72  This is a Hexaplaric characteristic: “(l) wird meistens mit dem Dativ wiedergegeben,” I. Soisalon–Soininen, Der Charakter der asterisierten Zusätze in der Septuaginta (Helsinki: Suomalaienen Tiedeakatemia, 1959), 142. 73  Rahlfs, Lucians, 265–267 and 294.

188

Chapter 8

reworking of 16:28a–h.74 What we are interested in here is Rahlfs’ conclusion regarding the Lucianic text. Lucian eliminated a part of the duplicate: MT 22:41–51. He did it for two reasons: the opposition between both parallel passages and the un-Greek character of the expression εν οφθαλμοις (22:43), which Lucian would have replaced with ενωπιον (16:28b).75 Shenkel has shown on the contrary that εν οφθαλμοις (‫ )בעיני‬is a characteristic of the kaige recension that replaces the original ενωπιον, also preserved in kaige section by the Antiochene text.76 Finally, we would like to point out other well-known data. Rahlfs attributes to Lucian the systematic suppression of ειμι in the version ‫ = אנכי‬εγω ειμι as the subject of a finite verb, thus forming an impossible construction in Greek. As it is well known εγω ειμι is a characteristic of the kaige recension, present in LXXB, while LXXL retains the reading εγω of the old translation.77 Also the use of the historical present in the OG, preserved in kaige sections by LXXL, was replaced by the aorist in LXXB; it is not, therefore, a stylistic correction by Lucian “to make the story more vivid.”78 Among Lucian’s so-called ‘stylistic corrections’ (Verbesserungen der Ausdrucksweise), Rahlfs lists the substitution of ανηρ by εκαστος; among the changes of synonyms (“Umtauschung von Synonymis”) he quotes those of θυσιαζειν by θυειν (‫)זבח‬, αρχων της δυναμεως by αρχιστρατηγος, κερατινη by σαλπιγξ.79 Today, it is well known that the terms εκαστος, θυειν, αρχιστρατηγος, σαλπιγξ are those of the OG preserved by the Antiochene text, the other corresponding terms being those of the kaige recension.80 74  Shenkel, Chronology, 58. 75  Rahlfs presents this conclusion as decisive evidence against the assumption that LXXL may retain here and/or in other cases the original text, Rahlfs, Lucians, 267. In the final conclusions Rahlfs claims: “… könnte man auf den Gedanken kommen, dass LXXL noch die ursprüngliche Fortsetzung vorgefunden und zugrunde gelegt hätte; hiergegen spricht jedoch das in N. 55 zu Kön. I 22,41ff. bemerkte,” see id., Lucians, 294. 76  Shenkel, Chronology, 13–17. 77  Rahlfs, Lucians, 259 and 282; Thackeray, “Translators,” 272. 78  Rahlfs, Lucians, 268 and 282; Thackeray, “Translators,” 273–274; Barthélemy, Devanciers, 63–5. 79  Rahlfs suspects that a new translation has been operated rather than a revision, but he fails to recognize the pre-Lucianic character of the translation: “Hier lässt sich manchmal wohl ein Grund ausfindig machen, z. B. glaube ich, das σαλπιγξ als klassisch für das vulgäre, allerdings nicht ganz gleichbedeutende κερατινη eingesetzt ist. Aber oft hat man doch den Eindruck, dass hier das Mass bedeutend überschritten ist, und dass in L eher eine unter Benutzung LXX’s entstandene neue Übersetzung vorliegt, als eine Rezension LXX’s,” Rahlfs, Lucians, 182. 80  On εκαστος and σαλπυγξ, cf. Barthélemy, Devanciers, 48–50 and 60–62; on θυεν and αρχιστρατηγος, cf. Shenkel, Chronology, 114.

The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms

3

189

Pre-Lucianic Elements in LXXL

Finally Rahlfs collects the “pre-Lucianic material” of LXXL (“vorlucianisches Gut”), formed by a “remainder” of Antiochene variants with respect to LXX, which is “inexplicable” according to the previous criteria, i. e. as changes to the text of LXX. However, this negative criterion is not the only one that allows us to establish the pre-Lucianic character of a LXXL reading. Other data and reasons open the way to this conclusion, as the fact that the reading of LXXB is explained from the Antiochene reading text, or the fact that the Antiochene variant dates back to a Hebrew original different from the one known by MT (LXXB) and is therefore probably of ancient date.81 The number of readings collected by Rahlfs as ‘pre-Lucianic material’ is by any means reduced. Rahlfs points out that indeed the number can be greater.82 He believes he is in a position to affirm with great probability that the readings collected as ‘pre-Lucianic’ are indeed so. On the other hand, he does not believe it is possible to establish such a certain statement in the case of the readings included in the previous sections, although he acknowledges that some or many of them may also be pre-Lucianic.83 New insights into the history of LXX’s recension allow for greater emphatic assertion of the pre-Lucianic character of numerous readings of LXXL,84 as we have seen in the cases studied above. Other formal arguments, derived from literary criticism, confirm this conclusion.85 81  Various explanations of Rahlfs manifest his initial prejudice against possible prelucianisms in the Antiochene text. Faced with what he describes as “the failure of any other explanation,” he is “compelled” to conclude, “dass schon Lucians Vorlage von den uns bekannten LXX-Texten abwich,” Rahlfs, Lucians, 283. “… so bleibt doch ein unerklärlicher Rest, der uns ebenso, wie das Vorkommen lucianischer Lesarten vor Lucian, zu dem Schlusse nötigt, dass gewisse Eigentümlichkeiten des L-Textes nicht erst von Lucian geschaffen sind, sondern bereits seiner Vorlage angehört haben.” Rahlfs still doesn’t overcome one last doubt when he goes on to say: “Wenn aber überhaupt in L vorlucianische Bestandteile enthalten sind …,” Lucians, 291. 82  Rahlfs, Lucians, 283: “Auch gibt es Stellen, wo die L-Lesart aus anderen Gründen für vorlucianisch zu halten ist, entweder weil sich aus ihr die LXX-Lesart erklärt, oder weil sie auf eine von MT und LXX abweichende, also wahrscheinlich alte hebräische Grundlage zurückgeht.” 83  Rahlfs, Lucians, 291. 84  Rahlfs points to this especially with regard to the second book of Kings, Rahlfs, Lucians, 293–294, cf. supra nota 76. 85  Such a statement is obtained in the cases cited by Rahlfs of 1 Kgs 2:1; 2 Kgs 17:4; 25:19. On these cases cf. J. Trebolle Barrera, “Testamento y muerte de David. Estudio de historia de la recensión y redacción de I Rey. II,” RB 87 (1980): 87–103; id., “Samaría,” 137–152; id., “Crítica recensional aplicada a LXX IV Kgdms 25,18–19,” EstB 36 (1977): 91–94.

190

Chapter 8

Rahlfs therefore believed that the Antiochene text is and does represent a basic text, which is substantially identical to that of the Vatican Codex. That this is not the case has been clearly demonstrated, especially in passages belonging to kaige sections. However, the history of the text is actually much more complex and, consequently, the explanation of both categories of variants (in addition to other less important ones) must also be more complex and nuanced. The text of the kaige recension (present in the sections βδ of LXXB), as well as the LXXL text (even in sections kaige), goes back to the same textual tradition, which is ultimately that of the OG. Following Lagarde and Rahlfs, there was a single Greek translation and a single ancient textual tradition. Textual differentiation was introduced at the level of subsequent revisions, although with a greater incidence and antiquity than assumed by Lagarde and Rahlfs, as the preHexaplaric text of LXXB is already a recensional text (in kaige sections). On the other hand, while the unity of the basic textual tradition is important, the later textual plurality is no less important. The text considered to be old, that of LXXB,86 is actually a pre-Hexaplaric text although affected by the previous kaige recension; on the other hand, the most recent text, the Lucianic, preserves a basic pre-Hexaplaric and pre-Lucianic text, free of traces of the kaige recension and is the only way of approach, in kaige sections, to the OG textual tradition (and/or of the proto-Lucianic recension). 86  Rahlfs, Lucians, 211: “die älteste Ausgestaltung der Septuaginta …, die uns erhalten ist.”

Chapter 9

2 Kings 11 (MT/LXX B/L ): Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative The text of 2 Kgs 11 raises multiple textual and literary problems. Modern criticism still adds several others, sometimes rather fictitious. We will discuss here the most significant problems, around which others of lesser consideration revolve. The first and most important question is the alleged duplication of sources in this story. On this issue, there has been a practical consensus among the authors, who generally follow the proposal advanced by Stade. A first source would run through vv. 1–12. 18b–20, interrupted by the second source in vv. 13–18a.1 Gray emphasizes the complementarity more than the diversity of the two stories. Basically, however, he follows Stade. The first story would be of a priestly nature, while the second would reflect the participation and views of the ‘people of the country.’2 This literary surgery is based on two fundamental reasons: 1) the death of Athaliah is mentioned twice in vv. 13–15 and in v. 20; in the first case, death happens after the anointing of Jehoash, but before the covenant between Yahweh and the people; in the second case, death happens when the whole ceremonial of enthronement and covenant has ended; 2) the “people of the country” is the protagonist in vv. 13–18a, but it is practically ignored in the rest of the account.3 1  B. Stade, “Miscellen. 10. Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 10–14,” ZAW 4 (1885): 275–297, esp. 280–288; C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 308; A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige, EHAT IX/1–2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1911–2), 134–136; O. Eissfeldt, Könige, HSAT I (Tübingen: J.B.C. Mohr, 1922), 4; J. Montgomery, The Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 417–418; G. von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien, FRLANT 58 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1947, 1973), 109–153, esp. 145; J.A. Soggin, “Der judäische ʿam-haʾareṣ und das Königtum in Juda. Ein Beitrag zum Studium der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung,” VT 13 (1963): 187–195; T.N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings, CBOT 8 (Gleerup: Lund, 1976), 142–143. H. Gressmann proposes a different division of the story: vv. 1–18 on the one hand, and 18b–20 on the other, see id., Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels (von Samuel bis Amos und Hosea), SAT II/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19212), 312. 2  J. Gray, I and II Kings. A Commentary. The Old Testament Library (London: SCM, 19702), 566–568. 3  A third reason is that Athaliah’s name has a short form, Atalyah, in 13–18a, and a long one, Atalyahu, in 5–12, 18–20. However, as Gray notes, in vv. 1–4 both forms are mixed, so the hypothesis loses all its support, cf. id., Kings, 566–568. Šanda thinks “likely” that the long form is

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_011

192

Chapter 9

Regarding the double mention of Athaliah’s death, Gray acknowledges that it is not reason enough to divide the story in two. The first mention in v. 16 specifies the place of execution of Athaliah (“in the way of entry of horses into the palace”); it coincides fundamentally with the generic location of v. 20, “in the palace”; the first mention may be, according to Gray, anticipation of the second, or this may be an extension of the first.4 The most recurred argument is that of the protagonism of the “people” in vv. 13–18a, apparently excluded from action according to the priestly version of the story. Gray tries to lessen the supposed opposition between the two forms of the story: if the priestly class takes the initiative in the elevation of Jehoash, it is in their capacity as leaders of public opinion (cf. 2 Chr 23:1–2). The people alluded to in the second interpolated account may be none other than the cultic community gathered for this occasion. Therefore, “it is not true that the people are excluded from the priestly narrative of the coup d’état.”5 On the other hand, the second narrative (vv. 13–18a) does not exclude the role of priests either. Both narratives complement each other. The second explains the first one, especially as regards the popular support given to the initiative of the priests and the details of Athaliah’s death. In spite of these clarifications and nuances, Gray remains faithful to the principle of the two sources, priestly and popular. The data in the text regarding the participation of the “people” (vv. 13 twice, and 17 three times) or the “people of the country” (vv. 14, 18, 19, 20) are most controversial. Šanda considers that the mention in v. 19 of “all the people of the country” is editorial (“R”), since it has no precedent in the previous portion of the same account A (vv. 1–12).6 On the contrary, the mention of the “people of the country” in v. 20 is the only valid and authentic one in this first form of the account (A); this shows, according to Šanda, that the two accounts A and B are based on the same historical facts. Those who defend the duplicity of sources the original of vv. 1–3, id., Könige, 135. On the other hand, Šanda adds news arguments to the previous ones: the difference of construction of the expression krt bryt with byn in v. 17 and with l in v. 14. Besides v. 19 links with v. 18b, but in no way with 18a: “In v. 19 erscheinen wieder die Zenturionen und Trabanten, von denen in B (13–18a) nicht die Rede ist,” id., Könige, 135. Šanda has to delete then the mention of the “centurions” in v. 15, in favour of the more problematic pqdy hḥyl, as well as that of the “runners” in v. 13. He notes that in v. 14 hršym is not followed by hmʾywt, as is the case in the first story (vv. 4, 9, 10, 19). 4  W. Rudolph considers this argument devoid of value, for the construction with drk in v. 16 has the same meaning as in v. 19ag; Rudolph translates it as follows: “nachdem sie durch den Rosseeingang in den Palast gegangen war, wurde sie dort getötet,” id., “Die Einheitlichkeit der Erzählung vom Sturz der Atalja (2 Kön 11),” in Festschrift A. Bertholet, ed. W. Baumgartner (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1950), 473–478, esp. 476. 5  Gray, Kings, 567. 6  Šanda, Könige, 135.

Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative

193

tend to reduce the mentions of the “people” in the first account, without being able to suppress them altogether, as is the case of v. 20; on the other hand, they have to recognize the complementarity of both stories: the second makes the first explicit, in particular as regards the intervention of the “people.” W. Rudolph defends the unity of the story.7 It does so, however, on the basis of deleting all the mentions of the “people” preceding v. 20. In this way, the tensions that give rise to the fragmentation of the narrative disappear; the question is whether, by this procedure, the account of a fundamental part is amputated: the participation of the people in the proclamation of the king and in the subsequent pact, which legitimizes the new monarch and sets in motion the anti-Baalistic religious reform. Rudolph finds a first difficulty in the unexpected mention of “the people of the country” in v. 14. According to Rudolph, the previous summoning of this ruling class of the people should not have gone unnoticed, without any mention being made of it. From a historical perspective, it is quite possible that Jehoiada would have secured the support of this class before taking any initiative. However, the text silences such prior negotiations; Rudolph lists those that he considers to be compelling reasons for assuming that the “people of the country” was not mentioned at all before v. 20: − The “people of the country” do not take sides for Jehoash or Athaliah until v. 20: It is therefore unlikely that they would have had any previous role. − Blowing the trumpets does not correspond to the people (v. 14), but to ordained members of the cult staff or some royal guard corps. The manifestations of joy (śmḥ) of the people anticipate prematurely what is referred to in v. 20; they cannot correspond to the acclamation;8 on the contrary, they are part of the ritual of enthronement. The destruction of the temple of Baal (v. 18a) could not take place in the midst of the coronation ceremony (between vv. 17 and 19). The reference to the destruction of the temple of Baal (v. 18a) is to be placed after v. 20, after completion of the coronation ceremony; thus v. 18b splices directly with v. 17: When the covenant between the king and the people is sealed, Jehoiada establishes ‘episcopoi’ at the head of the temple; such a measure is justified by the possibility of an uprising of the supporters of Athaliah. The reference to the “people” in v. 17 drew v. 18a to itself; the destruction of Baal’s temple was then considered an act of fulfilling the commitments made in the newly agreed alliance (v. 17).

7  Galling follows Rudolph (cf. supra, note 367) from the point of view of Chronicles, cf. K. Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia, ATD 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), 136. 8  Thus von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien, 44.

194

Chapter 9

Stade already noted that the reference to “all the people of the country” in v. 19 is a secondary intrusion. References to the “people of the country” before v. 20 are therefore in fact secondary. Against what may seem, the reference of v. 14 is not prepared by the previous two mentions in v. 13: in 13b the “people” is nothing more than the multitude, the people crowded together; this word could not have been anticipated in advance of the previous sentence (v. 13a); in this clause it is to be suppressed hʿm and not hrṣyn, as it is derived from the previous sentences (vv. 11 and 12). The “people,” and not “the people of the country,” with an inexplicable abbreviation, appears again in v. 17. However, any possibility that the “people,” present there by chance, might be a contracting part to the established covenant is ruled out; this alliance only regulated the duties of the new king, without reference to those of the people. Rudolph thus reconstructs the process that followed the reworking of the text, in the following terms: the people are not a part in the establishment of the alliance; in v. 17a wbyn hʿm is an addition, taken from v. 13 or introduced by echoes of 14:21 and 21:24. The addition comes from a marginal gloss to wbyn hmlk (v. 17a). The text of the gloss was then entered in the text at the current location of 17b: wbyn hmlk wbyn hʿm. The people thus became part of the pact. That is why it was introduced in v. 17a wbyn hʿm. The original text would initially have been as follows: byn yhwh wbyn hmlk lhywt lʿm yhwh lmlk. The last word, lmlk, later disappeared because of the gloss introduced, wbyn hmlk. In short, what the text purported to affirm was that Jehoash made a promise to be a king worthy of the people of Yahweh. Rudolph considers a previous and secret agreement between Jehoiada and the “people of the country” to be very possible and even unavoidable. Only in this way could the proclamation of Jehoash against Athaliah be guaranteed to succeed. However, what Rudolph considers probable on a historical level, he denies at the level of literary narrative. What must be assumed logically and what the text affirms repeatedly, that is, the intervention of the “people of the country” is systematically subtracted from the story, no less than eight times. In the expurgated account that Rudolph proposes, the “people of the country” do nothing but endorse in extremis what priests and soldiers have decided and executed. In order to resolve the question of the uniqueness or duplicity of stories and, in particular, the question of the participation or absence of the “people of the country” in the decisions and actions prior to and subsequent to Jehoash proclamation as king, it is necessary to bring to the fore textual data whose relation with the problem under discussion has not been recognized until now. The king’s coronation ceremony is initiated by Jehoash, who makes the king come out, imposes the diadem and the badges. Four plural verbs follow: “They

Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative

195

proclaimed him king, anointed him, clapped hands and shouted: ‘Long live the king!’” (wymlkw ʾtw wymšḥhw wykw kp wyʾmrw yḥy hmlk). The first two verbs appear in singular in Greek, εβασιλευσεν αυτον και εχρυσεν αυτον. 22 Hebrew mss. (Kennicott) also offer the singular in the first case. Critics are generally inclined towards the singular.9 Montgomery decides for the plural; the verbs have a collective subject, since the actors are several, the priest Jehoiada and the “runners” at least.10 It is not easy to arrive at valid and reliable conclusions by this path and argument that starts from the content and subject of the action. Formal and comparative criteria with related texts will provide a more solid basis for judgment. The comparison is established with a) the series of texts in which the hiphil of the verb mlk is used, b) the 5 passages in particular that correspond to accounts of coup d’état, as it is definitely the present case, and c) the accounts that narrate or refer to the coronation of a king. 1

Hiphil of the Verb mlk

The form appears in 1–2 Kings on 15 occasions. In 11 cases the verb is presented in plural form, or it depends on a plural or collective subject, if the infinitive verb is used:11 1 Kgs 12:1; 12:20; 16:16; 16:21; 2 Kgs 8:20; 10:5; 11:12; 14:21; 17:21; 21:24; 23:30. The remaining four cases are presented in singular. They are exceptional cases, because the subject of the action is also exceptional: Yahweh, David, or a foreign king. In 1 Kgs 3:7, the subject is Yahweh (as in 1 Sam 15:11, 35; 1 Chr 28:4; 2 Chr 1:8, 9, 11). David is attributed or enjoys the privilege of designating a successor and establishing Solomon as king by his own personal decision (1 Kgs 1:43). Necho and “the king of Babylon” designate and crown Jehoiakim and Zedekiah after having changed their name as a sign of their vassal status (2 Kgs 23:34; 24:17). 2

Coup d’État Accounts

Five passages from the above list (hmlyk with collective subject) correspond to the series of texts structured according to the literary genre of coup d’état (cf. 9  Gray, Kings, 571, n. f. 10  Montgomery, Kings, 425. 11  Mettinger, King, 107–130: “Part two. The Civil Legitimation of the King. Chapter VII. The Participation of the Elders and the Assembly at the Royal Investiture.”

196

Chapter 9

above). In the case of Josiah it is not a real conspiracy, but the structure of literary unity corresponds and becomes the same as that of conspiracy accounts. In three of these cases, the subject of the action is “the people of the land” (21:24 and 23:30) or “the people of Judah” (14:21). In one more case, 1 Kgs 16:21, “the people of Israel” is divided into two factions, in favour of Tibni (“to make him king,” lhmlykw) or Omri. Finally, in 1 Kgs 16:16 according to MT it is “all Israel” which makes Omri king (wymlkw kl yśrʾl). However, this statement is false or at least inaccurate. “All Israel” could not achieve unanimity on Omri. Many were followers of Zimri, whom they defended during the siege of Tirzah by Omri’s troops. For five or several years the Israelites were further divided between Omri supporters and Tibni followers. The Greek text (LXXB) overlooks this difficulty: και εβασιλευσαν εν Ισραηλ τον Ζαμβρει. It operates a simple changeover, kl/εν. The Antiochene Greek text once again attracts attention: και εβασιλευσε ο λαος τον Aμβρι. Both the change of LXXB kl/εν, as well as the change of LXXL ο λαος were motivated according to Montgomery by the accurate observation that not “all Israel” participated in the designation of Omri. It is logical to attribute the kl/εν change to a corrective purpose. Indeed, the Greek variant cannot be traced back to a Hebrew original. In the same sentence there would be a duplicate of the formula hmlyk ʾt … ʿl …, with an anomalous formulation (ʿl/εν) in the first case εν Ισραηλ… επι Ισpaηλ. The reading of LXXL “the people” could also be attributed to the same corrective purpose. However, if this were so, the correction would have also extended equally and for the same reason into the immediately following phrase: “Omri and with him all of Israel went up from Gibbethon and besieged Tirzah.” Not “all Israel” accompanied Omri, for some of the Israelites defended Zimri in Tirzah. At the margin of the possible critical value of the variant ο λαος, the fact is that it incorporates the subject of the previous sentence, the following sentence and the whole action of the narrative (hʿm, vv. 15, 16, 21, 22). In fact, in historical reality it was “the people,” that is to say, the army or the men with the capacity to possess and carry a weapon, who played the leading role in the designation of Omri as king. Gray expressly acknowledges this.12 Once again, the success of LXXL cannot be attributed to Lucian’s correcting scruple. Whatever this variant of LXXL may be with regard to a possible 12  Gray, Kings, 364: “he was elected by the army in the field, which … was still ‘the people.’” See also Mettinger, King, 117: “The investiture of Omri falls in line with the other ones where the people are reported to have played a significant role.” A. Alt also acknowledges here Omri’s acclamation by the people, id., “Das Königtum in den Reichen Israel und Juda,” Kleine Schriften II (München/Berlin: C.H. Beck’sche, 1953) 116–134, 121–122. According to J.A. Soggin, Omri would have been proclaimed King by the professional mercenary army, see id., Das Königtum in Israel. Ursprünge, Spannungen, Entwicklung, BZAW 104 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967), 99.

Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative

197

Hebrew original hʿm and its belonging to the archetypal narrative, the truth is that based on the passages referred to above, a valid general conclusion can be drawn. The promoter and responsible for the crowning (hmlyk) of a king was “the people of the country,” Israel or Judah. Of the 11 passages (hmlyk with collective subject, cf. above), in four of them the spotlight is expressly conferred to the “people” (1 Kgs 16:21; 2 Kgs 14:21; 21:24; 23:30). In the case of 1 Kgs 16:16 is also the “people” the main character, although only LXXL expressly affirms it. The following is an analysis of the passages in which hiphil is used in plural and which do not belong to coup d’état accounts. In 2 Kgs 8:20, the subject of the action is “Edom.” However, in the following verse, v. 21, Edom is referred to by the expression “the people” (hʿm). In another sentence of the same v. 21, the Antiochene text makes express reference once again to the “people” (LXXL και επαταξεν τον Εδωμ τον λαον τον κυκλουντα επ αυτον; LXXΒ και επαταξεν τον Εδωμ τον κυκλωσαντα επ αυτον).13 The phrase of 1 Kgs 12:1 refers to the failed coronation of Rehoboam. The phrase of 12:20 refers to the effective coronation of Jeroboam. These two phrases frame the story of the assembly of Shechem (12:1–20). In v. 1 it is said that “all Israel” went to Shechem to crown Rehoboam. According to v. 20, it is “the assembly” (hʿdh) who crowns Jeroboam. It is significant that the body of the narrative never speaks of “Israel,” “all Israel” or “the assembly,” but only and repeatedly of “the people” (hʿm), vv. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16.14 The “elders” and “youths” fall here on Rehoboam’s side, even if the “elders” are favourable to the demands of the people. On the contrary, the version of the account according to the ancient Septuagint in 12:24n–x opposes “the elders of the people” (οι πρεσβυτεροι του λαου), who speak on behalf of the tribes,15 to the young comrades or counselors of Rehoboam. It is evident that “the people” plays a decisive role in the negotiations prior to the coronation pact; if in vv. 1 and 20 there is no mention of the “people,” as would be appropriate in the whole of the account, this is an indication of the secondary character of these expressions of vv. 1 and 20.16 Whatever it may be, the truth is that here too “the 13  Cf. the Lucianic duplicate και επεπεσεν επι Εδωμ και επαταξεν τον Εδωμ. 14  Verse 3 must be added to the list; in it, according to the ancient Septuagint, it is the “people” who go to Rehoboam. The subject supposed in v. 3b MT, “Jeroboam and the assembly of Israel,” is clearly secondary. On the other hand the LXX omission of MT hʿm in v. 5 does not make any sense, for such must be the subject supposed by LXX, due to the presence of o λαoς in v. 3. 15  It can be said that this is also a case of “a strange oscillation between ‘the elders’ and ‘the people,’” (Mettinger, King, 109). 16  Cf. further data in J. Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán. Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1 Reyes 2–12; 14, Bibliotheca Salmanticensis. Dissertationes 3 (Salamanca, Jerusalem: 1980), 164–165.

198

Chapter 9

people” with one or the other name (“the people,” “all Israel,” “the assembly”) are the protagonist of the king’s coronation.17 The case of 2 Kgs 17:21 is part of a Deuteronomistic passage. With the establishment of Jeroboam as king, Israel split from the house of David, which was a great sin. In this context, the mention of “Israel” as the subject of the action has nothing to do with the description of the coronation ceremony and the question discussed here, which refers to the participation of the people in the designation of the king. Finally, the case of 2 Kgs 10:5 remains to be discussed, “we will not make anyone king” (lʾ nmlyk ʾyš). Those who speak in this way are the governor of the palace, the governor of the city (Samaria), the elders and the preceptors.18 Contrary to Mettinger’s opinion, in this case, as in the previous ones, it is not a real assembly, at least not an assembly of the people, legitimized to decide the king’s coronation.19 In this account “the people” and “the city” are opposed (cf. vv. 1 and 9). Jehu challenges those of “the city” to crown a king and fight for him, against and with the opposition of the “people,” or in other words, of the army. Jehu is instead crowned king (“Long live the king!” cf. infra) by the army raised in arms, in a conspiracy of Jehu encouraged by circles of prophets (cf. 2 Kgs 9:13).20 It is clear from the passages examined (hiphil of mlk in plural) that the assembly of the people or the people of the land is the body authorized to elect and crown a king. It also results from all this that the people are also protagonists in the designation and coronation of Jehoash (2 Kgs 11:12), as assumed by the plural of MT wymlkw and the text of the ancient Septuagint expressly affirms with the previous reference to the convocation made by Jehoiada of the assembly of the “people of the land.” 17  Mettinger, King, 115–116. 18  They are the preceptors of Achab’s sons, cf. LXX v. 1. 19  Mettinger, King, 117: “The role of an assembly is also presupposed in Jehu’s ironical letter to the elders and other prominent persons in Samaria.” Mettinger is forced to underline the presence of the “elders,” but the elders here alluded to, are not the people’s elders, but persons of the town, as the rest of the mentioned characters: the palace and city governors, the preceptors, and according to v. 1, the generals of “the city” (LXXL) or Samaria (TM/LXXB). 20  Verse 5 speaks of śry hḥyl. The LXX expression οι αρχοντες της δυναμεως, characteristic of the kaige section (ṣbʾ = δυναμις), instead of στρατια, the normal term of the ancient Septuagint, would literally suppose śry hṣbʾ, in a direct reference to the army or militia of the people. As Mettinger states “the problem is, however, that it is difficult to decide whether the army here consisted of the professional soldiers or of the militia. In the latter case, the officers (vv. 5, 11) could be men who held the position of elders in peace” (id., King, 117).

Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative

3

199

References to the Intervention of the People in Other Passages Alluding to the Coronation of a King Confirm the Previous Conclusions

The first passage to point out, by the use also of the hiphil hmlyk, is 1 Sam 11:15. All the people (kl hʿm, and equally kl ʾnšy yśrʾl) go to Gilgal and crown there Saul as king.21 Mettinger also points to Saul’s ‘designation’22 and acclamation as king by the people who shout: “Long live the king!” (yḥy hmlk, 1 Sam 10:24, cf. v. 17). The data highlighted by Mettinger in the account of 1 Sam 9:1–10:16 are significant. Samuel claims to have brought the people together (hʿm qrʾty 9:24). The congregants (qrʾym 9:12, 22) are also designated as “people” (9:12, 13, 24). Saul sits “at the head of the guests” (brʾš hqrʾym 9:22). When the sacrifice was celebrated, Saul’s investiture took place the next day. The same relationship of succession between the congregation of the people, sacrifice and royal investiture is found in the proclamation of Absalom, with the participation of 200 guests in the sacrifice (qrwʾym, 2 Sam 15:7–12, cf. v. 11), and in the frustrated proclamation of Adonijah, preceded by a sacrifice with the participation also of guests (qrwʾym, 1 Kgs 1:41, 49).23 In the investiture of David as king over the tribes of the North, the elders of these tribes act as the authorized representatives of the “people” (2 Sam 5:1–3).24 On the other hand, the “men of Judah” are the ones who anoint David king over the House of Judah (2 Sam. 2:4a). One can speak of a second “coronation” of David, after Absalom’s revolt, when “the elders of Judah” (19:12, cf. vv. 15 and 17) representing the people, reinstate David on his throne (“On this day I am 21  M  . Noth, “Gott, König, Volk im Alten Testament,” in Gesammelte Schriften, TB 6 (München: Suhrkamp, 1957) 188–229, esp. 211: “… als Subjekt des ‘Königsmachens’ erscheint doch eben ‘das Volk.’” 22  The verb rʾh would have in this and other similar cases the meaning of “designating,” “choosing,” derived from the primary “to see.” Mettinger quotes the cases of Gen 7:1; 22:8; 41:33; 1 Sam 16:1; 2 Kgs 8:13; 10:3, see id., King, 112–113. However, in the present case, the visual connotation required by the context cannot be lost: “to see” the chosen one and “to see” the size of Saul that surpasses others. Mettinger is concerned to find here and in other cases indications of what he calls “synergism” or the active and joint participation of God and the people in the designation and coronation of a king, cf. id., King, 107–109. 23  According to Mettinger the people do not intervene in the fights and ceremonial installations of Solomon and Adoniah. He explains it in the following terms “the assembly of Judah had lost something of its importance during the latter half of David’s reign” (Mettinger, King, 121). The support given by the people and their elders, both from the tribes of the North and those of the South, to Absalom’s revolt against David led to the loss of importance of the assembly of the people during the second half of David’s reign, most heavily supported by the members of his court, see id., King, 122–123. 24  So Mettinger, King, 115.

200

Chapter 9

king over Israel,” 19:23).25 Similarly, before the monarchy was definitively established, “the men of Israel” had offered power to Gideon (Jdg 8:22–23). “All the lords of Shechem” (bʿly), that is, the owners and “the people” in short, had given power to the hands of Abimelech (Jdg 9:6). The “elders” had offered power to Jephthah and “the people” (ʿm) had made him “captain and leader” (lrʾš wlqṣyn, Jdg 11:4–11).26 In brief, once again the people, directly or represented by their elders, appear as protagonists in the designation and coronation of the kings of Israel and Judah. A quick analysis of the subject of the anointing of a king (wymšḥhw, plural in v. 12) confirms the conclusion reached about the subject and protagonist of the royal coronation. Such are the cases of David (2 Sam 2:4; 2:7; 5:3 [1 Chr 11:3] 5:17), Solomon (1 Kgs 5:15; 1 Chr 29:22) and Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:30).27 Jehoash was also anointed by the people. This is what the plural form of MT implies, and this is expressly stated by E. Kutsch and T.N.D. Mettinger.28 25  Cf. Mettinger, King, 118–119. 26  Cf. Soggin, Königtum, 11–25. Cf. also the passages of Jdg 9:6, 16, 18; 1 Chr 11:10; 12:32, 39; 29:22; 2 Chr 22:1. 27  In 2 Sam 19:11 the people claim to have anointed Solomon, even though there is not reference it in Chapter 15. 28  Z. Weisman, who also quotes 1 Sam 11:15 following LXX, states: “In the historical accounts … the common usage of ‘anoint king over …’ denotes the people’s installation of the king,” see id., “Anointing as a Motif in the Making of the Charismatic King,” Bib 57 (1976): 378– 398, esp. p. 382. Regarding 2 Kgs 11:12, E. Kutsch explicitly affirms: “Der Akt der Salbung geht also vom Volk bzw. von seinen hier nicht näher benannten Repräsentanten aus,” see id., Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient, BZAW 87 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963) 54. According to Kutsch the singular form of LXX is secondary; the shift from singular to plural is more unlikely. H. Weinel distinguished three readings of the text: 2 Kgs 11:12; 2 Chr 23:11 and LXX 2 Kgs 11:12. “2 Kö 11:12 hat das Ursprüngliche, die beiden Parallelen zeigen Gleichmachung der Subjekte, jede nach andrer Seite hin,” id., “mšḥ und seine Derivate. Linguistisch-archäologische Studie,” ZAW 18 (1898): 1–82, esp. 24.    Mettinger (id., King, 192) understands the case of Jehoash as an anointing by the priest “with the assembly as the active subject.” L. Schmidt does not express an opinion about the “textlich schwierige Vers 2 Kön 11,12,” see id., Menschlicher Erfolg und Jahwes Initiative, WMANT 38 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), 175, note 1. On the conception of anointing, sacral or secular, theological or juridical, according to the use of the singular or plural in the formulation, and on its origin (Egyptian or Hittite according to Kutsch) and evolution, cf. the same authors, Kutsch, Salbung, 52–61; Schmidt, Erfolg, 172–188; Mettinger, King, 185–232. On the anointing as an integral rite of the coronation ceremonies, cf. C.R. North, “The Religious Aspects of Hebrew Kingship,” ZAW 50 (1932): 8–38, esp. 14; K.F. Mueller, “Das Assyrische Ritual. I Texte zum assyrischen Königsritual,” Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft 4 (1937): 4–58, esp. 51; G. Widengren, Sakrales Königtum im Alten Testament und im Judentum (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1955): 102, note 1. On anointing as a rite of appointment, Weisman, “Anointing,” 382–386.

Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative

201

All the above discussion thus makes it more than plausible that also in the coronation of Jehoash of Judah (2 Kings 11) the people are the protagonist of the designation and enthronement of the king. The plural reading of MT wymlkw ’tw wymšḥhw seems to imply this (v. 12).29 The singular of LXX has by subject “the people of the country” and depends without doubt on the previous mention of the “people of the country,” that would be present in the temple. The text near to the ancient Septuagint, represented here in section kaige by LXXL (v. 12), is as follows: καὶ ἐξεκκλησίασεν Ιωδαε ὁ ἱερεὺς πάντα τὸν λαὸν τῆς γῆς εἰς οἶκον κυρίου καὶ ἐξήγαγε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ βασιλέως ‫ן־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ת־ּב‬ ֶ ‫ֹּיוצא ֶא‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ καὶ ἔδωκεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸ ἁγίασμα (νεζερ) καὶ τὸ μαρτύριον ‫ת־ה ֵעדּות‬ ָ ‫ת־הּנֵ זֶ ר וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫וַ ֵּיִּתן ָע ָליו ֶא‬ καὶ ἔχρισεν αὐτόν καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν αὐτὸν ‫ּיִמ ָׁש ֻחהּו‬ ְ ַ‫ּיַמ ִלכּו אֹתֹו ו‬ ְ ַ‫ו‬ καὶ ἐκρότησαν ὁ λαός ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ εἶπον ζήτω ὁ ‫אמרּו ִיְחי ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ְ ֹ ‫ּיַּכּו־כף וַ ּי‬ ָ ַ‫ו‬ βασιλεύς LXXL specifies the subject, “the people,” that applaud and acclaim the king. Even if it is a typical Lucianic addition, the subject of the action must be plural. In the current state of the Hebrew text, it would be the guards (v. 11). The text of Chronicles preserves and bears witness to the plural. It adds, however, on its own, the subject “Jehoiada and his children.”30 A similar problem, on the intervention of the people in the coronation ritual, arises in v. 19 in the final reference to the enthronement ceremonies. Jehoiada took all the people of the country and “they made the king descend” (MT wyrydw) or “he made the king descend” from the temple (2 Chr 23:30, κατηγαγεν Ndefi-np-tvwyz, Josephus), “they entered” (MT wybwʾw), “he entered” (εισηλθεν LXXB) or “they made the king enter” (εισηγαγον αυτον LXXL) in the palace, and finally “he sat down” (wyšb). It is worth proposing that the action was initially expressed in hiphil, being the subject of the same, along with Jehoiada and the soldiers, the people of the country. 29  According to M. Noth, the assembled people establish Jehoash as king: “Dieses Subjekt wird nicht ausdrücklich genannt, aber die unbestimmte 3. pers. plur. kann kaum in einem anderen Sinne verstanden werden,” id., “Gott, König, Volk,” 188–229, esp. 217. According to T. Veijola, the term hʿdwt constitutes a late dtr addition which sets a second dtr addition in vv. 17–18a, id., “‘Jäljestäpäin lisätty laki.’ Crux interpretum 2 Kun 11:12 (‘Das hinzugefügte Gesetz,’ Crux interpretum 2 Kön 11,12,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja 84 (1979): 91–104. 30  Kutsch, Salbung, 54: “… wie unsachgemäss diese Einschaltung ist, ergibt sich daraus, dass nun auch der Ruf ‘es lebe der König’ allein dem Priester und seinen Söhnen in den Mund gelegt ist.”

202

Chapter 9

The LXXL text και εξεκκλησιασεν o ιερευς παντα τον λαον της γης εις οικον κυριου can hardly be attributed to the Lucianic recensor. This same text is also found in mss. inuxy, as well as in the SyrH placed in v. 10. It is certainly part of the ancient Septuagint. The verb εξεκκλησιαζειν is indeed in the old translation the usual corresponding version of the Hebrew qhl (2 Sam 20:14; 1 Kgs 8:1; [8:2 Hexaplaric]; 12:21).31 The presence of the people of the land in the temple is also a necessary fact in the text and in the course of action. The story is unitary. Textual analysis deprives of support the hypothesis of the duplicity of literary sources. This hypothesis is based on the absence of any mention of the “people” prior to v. 13. The textual problems of this chapter and story must be studied as a whole and within the interrelationship of its many variants, always taking into account the totality of the textual tradition, and in particular that represented by the Antiochene text. Again, this analysis of textual criticism is also inseparable from the analysis of literary criticism. In this sense, and before returning to the Antiochene reading and the main role of the “people of the country,” it is necessary to re-examine the hypothesis, repeated from Wellhausen on, according to which v. 6 would be a gloss. Verse 6 shows a contradiction with the following v. 7. According to vv. 5–6, the guard is divided into only three bodies, but in v. 7 two other guard corps are mentioned. This v. 7 is confirmed by v. 9, which, on the contrary, makes no reference to the fulfilment of what is ordered in v. 6. Wellhausen accordingly sacrifices the two divisions referred to in v. 6, to maintain the number of three divisions, as said at v. 5.32 G. Robinson has questioned Wellhausen’s hypothesis 31  W  . Rudolf discards this “addition” of LXXL, which would be motivated by the logical perception that the summoning of this ruling class of the people could not go silent. This same reasoning can become an argument in favour of the “omission” of this text in the TM tradition, cf. supra. Rudolph adds: “… schon die Stellung des Einschubes zeigt, dass er sekundär ist: nachdem schon die Leibwache vor dem Tempel aufmarschiert ist, kann nicht erst das Aufgebot des ʿm hʾrṣ erfolgen,” id., “Einheitlichkeit,” 476. Such arguments of historical congruence are easily reversible. A previous convocation of the “people of the land” or his previous entry into the Temple would require a presentation of the young Jehoash to the people, and a pact or acceptance on his part, which would totally change the meaning of the story and the course of the narrated events. We should not necessarily think, as Rudolph seems to suppose, in a summons made through Judah’s lands to the leaders of the country; it is the congregation or meeting in the Temple immediately previous to the events that are going to happen (και εξεκκλησιασεν… εις τον οικον Κυριου). 32  J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: G. Reimer, 18993), 292: “Der Vers 11,6 ist zu streichen. Denn er stösst sich mit seinem durch v. 9 beglaubigten Nachfolger, welcher abermals über die bereits v. 6 vorausgabten zwei anderen Drittel verfügt. Auch wird der v. 6 gegebene Befehl in der doch ausdrücklich als ganz exact bezeichneten Ausführung v. 9 nicht berücksichtigt, ist zudem völlig unverständlich und wahrscheinlich ein Geröll verfehlter Glossen.” According to

Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative

203

in its entirety and, in particular, the consideration of hšlšyt (vv. 5–6) and hydwt (v. 7) as synonymous terms. He also criticizes Wellhausen’s interpretation of the terms bʾ and yṣʾ (“heimgehn” and “aufziehen” respectively) with reference to their garrisoning in the palace. The text states, according to Wellhausen, that the part of the field army that was to return and be quartered in the palace remained in the temple on this occasion, so that Athaliah was deprived of all possible help.33 According to G. Robinson, the meaning of the verbs is the obvious of “entering” service and “leaving” service to return to one’s home. Wellhausen, on the other hand, supposed a garrison in the palace as a point of departure and arrival. G. Robinson explains the correspondence between the order given in vv. 6–7 and the execution of it, fulfilled in v. 9, supposing a previous order of Jehoiada, not explicit in the text, by which their divisions, which entered and left, were to remain together in service. It supposes therefore that in v. 7 the same paragraph of v. 9 is to be reintroduced (2 Chr 23:8) bʾy hšbt ʿm, “those who enter on the Sabbath with those who leave on the Sabbath.” Consequently, according to G. Robinson, every Saturday there was a relief guard in the temple and in the palace. Those entering service were divided into three platoons and staked on three different posts: in the palace, at the horse gate and at the door behind the runners. The three platoons that had completed service at the same three posts retire and return home. Jehoiada was able to retain them and count on the personnel of the two shifts.34 According to Wellhausen also v. 10 is an interpolation (“und zwar eine recht törichte”).35 This phrase states that Jehoiada delivered to the centurions the spears and shields of King David, which were in the Temple of Yahweh. The content of this reference and its timeliness in the context is highly questionable. The joint analysis of textual and literary criticism provides the solution to the complicated problem of the possible interpolations of the story. A linking repetition (Wiederaufnahme) delimits here once again the text of the interpolated gloss; it encompasses not only the already suspicious v. 10, but also the previous v. 9, which, according to Wellhausen, was in contradiction with v. 6. Gray (Kings, 570–571, n. d) this gloss is old: “a redactional gloss suggested by the mention of a third part in v. 5, but ignoring ‘the two detachments’ in v. 7, which continues the sense of v. 5 normally and gives an intelligible text. Probably the particularization on the two gates and relative positions of the troops there denotes a well-informed early glossator.” 33  Cf. Wellhausen, Composition, 293. 34  G. Robinson, “Is 2 Kings XI 6 a gloss?,” VT 21 (1977): 56–61, esp. 60–61. The difficulty with this solution is its lack of textual support; the supposed loss of bʾy hšbt ʿm in v. 7 is an unbridled hypothesis. On the other hand, taking into account the transmitted text of vv. 5–7, the three thirds of the guard are the ones who come in on duty, while the two divisions of v. 7 come off duty. 35  Wellhausen, Composition, 293, n. 2.

204

Chapter 9

It is necessary to have a comprehensive overview of the text, in its different traditions, Masoretic, kaige and Antiochene. LXXL 8 καὶ καταστηήσατε ἑαυτοὺς Περὶ τὸν βασιλέα κύκλῳ ἀνὴρ καὶ τὸ σκεῦος αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ὁ εἰσπορευόμενος εἰς τὰ σαδηρωθ καὶ ἀποθανεῖται καὶ γίνεσθε μετὰ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐκπορεύεσθαι 9 καὶ ἐποίησαν οἱ ἑκατόνταρχοι Κατὰ πάντα ὅσα ἐνετείλατο αὐτοῖς Ιωδαε ὁ συνετός ἱερεύς Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐν τῷ ἐκπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰσπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ἔλαβον ἕκαστος τοὺς ἄνδρας αὐτοῦ τοὺς εἰσπορευομένους τὸ σάββατον μετὰ τῶν εἰσπορευομένων καὶ ἐκπορευομένων τὸ σάββατον καὶ εἰσῆλθον πρὸς Ιωδαε τὸν ἱερέα 10 καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῖς ἑκατοντάρχαις τὰς φαρέτρας36 καὶ τὰ δόρατα Δαυιδ τοῦ βασιλέως ἃ ἦν ἐν οἴκῳ κυρίου καὶ ἦσαν ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐποίησαν οἱ ἑκατόνταρχοι καὶ οἱ παρατρέχοντες κατὰ πάντα ἃ ἐνετείλατο αὐτοῖς Ιωδαε ὁ ἱερεύς 11 καὶ ἔστησαν οἱ παρατρέχοντες ἕκαστος καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ

LXXB 8 καὶ κυκλώσατε ἐπὶ τὸν βασιλέα κύκλῳ ἀνὴρ καὶ τὸ σκεῦος αὐτοῦ ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ εἰσπορευόμενος εἰς τὰ σαδηρωθ ἀποθανεῖται καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐν τῷ ἐκπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰσπορεύεσθαι αὐτόν 9 καὶ ἐποίησαν οἱ ἑκατόνταρχοι πάντα ὅσα ἐνετείλατο Ιωδαε ὁ συνετός

καὶ ἔλαβεν ἀνὴρ τοὺς ἄνδρας αὐτοῦ τοὺς εἰσπορευομένους τὸ σάββατον μετὰ τῶν ἐκπορευομένων τὸ σάββατον καὶ εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς Ιωδαε τὸν ἱερέα 10 καὶ ἔδωκεν ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῖς ἑκατοντάρχαις τοὺς σειρομάστας καὶ τοὺς τρισσοὺς τοῦ βασιλέως Δαυιδ τοὺς ἐν οἴκῳ κυρίου

11 καὶ ἔστησαν οἱ παρατρέχοντες ἀνὴρ καὶ τὸ σκεῦος αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ

MT

‫וְ ִה ַּק ְפ ֶּתם‬ ‫ל־ה ֶמ ֶלְך ָס ִביב‬ ַ ‫ַע‬ ‫ִאישׁ וְ ֵכ ָליו ְּביָ דֹו‬ ‫ל־ה ְּׂש ֵדרֹות‬ ַ ‫וְ ַה ָּבא ֶא‬ ‫יּומת‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫וִ ְהיּו ֶא‬ ‫ְּב ֵצאתֹו‬ ‫ּובבֹאֹו‬ ְ ‫ וַ ּיַ ֲעׂשּו ָׂש ֵרי ַה ֵּמאיֹות‬9 ‫ר־צּוָ ה‬ ִ ‫ְּככֹל ֲא ֶׁש‬ ‫יְ הֹויָ ָדע ַהּכ ֵֹהן‬

‫וַ ּיִ ְקחּו ִאיׁש‬ ‫ת־אנָ ָׁשיו‬ ֲ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ָּב ֵאי ַה ַּׁש ָּבת‬ ‫ִעם י ְֹצ ֵאי ַה ַּׁש ָּבת‬ ‫וַ ּיָ בֹאּו‬ ‫ֶאל־יְ הֹויָ ָדע ַהּכ ֵֹהן‬ ‫ וַ ּיִ ֵּתן ַהּכ ֵֹהן‬10 ‫ְל ָׂש ֵרי ַה ֵּמאיֹות‬ ‫ת־ה ֲחנִ ית‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ת־ה ְּׁש ָל ִטים‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ַל ֶּמ ֶלְך ָּדוִ ד‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ְּב ֵבית יְ הוָ ה‬

11 ‫וַ ּיַ ַע ְמדּו ָה ָר ִצים‬

‫ִאיׁש וְ ֵכ ָליו ְּביָ דֹו‬

36  Against the singular reading of MT TM (hḥnyt), the LXX plural (Pesh and Vulg), 2 Chr 23:9 and Josephus (δορατα τε και φαρετρας, in significant agreement with the pre-Lucianic text

Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative

205

The linking repetition, preserved by the Antiochene text, dates back to the ancient Septuagint and the Hebrew text it translates: και εποιησαν οι εκατονταρχοι κατα παντα οσα ενετειλατο αυτοις Ιωδαε ο (συνετος) ιερευς. This repetition frames vv. 9–10, which constitute the interpolated text.37 This sentence also expresses the fulfillment of the order previously given by Jehoiada. Therefore, the following v. 11 repeats expressions of v. 8, according to the literary scheme of order-execution (ʿl hmlk sbyb ʾyš wklyw bydw). Among these correspondences, vv. 9–10 are an interruption that is out of place. Therefore, v. 9 is not to be taken as a criterion for judging on vv. 5–7, as Wellhausen does. On the contrary, v. 9 turns out to be a gloss, along with the already suspect v. 10. Verse 6 is part of the narrative and is necessary to complete the data of v. 5. Three thirds of the guard, who “enters” on duty on Saturday and who is to be stationed at three points of the palace and the annexes of the palace, without entering the Temple, are indeed referred to here. On the other hand, two other divisions that “come out” of the ordinary service of the Temple, corresponding to the weekdays, must remain stationed in the same Temple and surround the king when he leaves.38 So it is not a matter of gathering in the Temple and at the same time, on the one hand, the third part, who leaves the service and returns to its quartering in the palace (v. 5), and on the other, the two divisions (v. 7), who leave the same barracks in the palace to be the guard of the Temple, reinforced and thus doubled on the Sabbath. Such is the reconstruction proposed by Wellhausen, with the difficulty that the two “hands” (hydwt, v. 7) can hardly be equated as if they were two “thirds,” to complete the three mentioned in v. 5. In his opinion, Jehoiada managed to gather in the Temple the two shifts, formed by three bodies each, the turn of “those who entered and those who left service on the Sabbath.”39 The replacement of this point in v. 7 is hypothetical. The text of vv. 5–7 places the three thirds in the palace and its attached quarters, and φαρετρας και τα δορατα, against LXXB σειρομαστας και τους τρισους) is the variant specific to the non-Masoretic type of text. 37  In v. 9 the MT translation ʿm yṣʾy hšbt, μετα των εκπορευομενων τον σαββατον, is marked with asterisk, so it could be a section taken from v. 7, in precisely the opposite sense to the assumption made by G. Robinson regarding bʾy hšbt. The reference ʾt ʾnšyw is very unclear; the phrase wybʾw ʾl yhwydʿ hkhn somehow repeats that of v. 4 or supposes the change to a new scene. 38  There is no justification for Wellhausen’s proposed change of v. 7 šmrw to participle šmry, necessary to link vv. 5 and 7, after removing v. 6. The Greek translates φυλαξουσιν. 39  Robinson, “Gloss,” 61: “Thus, v. 5f. describes the three positions normally taken up by the guards on sabbaths. But what happens new in the account of Athaliah’s fall is just this: through secret negotiations with the centurions, Jehoiada manages to retain both the detachments of guards, those coming in on the sabbath together with those going off on the sabbath, at the temple. This is, obviously, only a special measure for the occasion.”

206

Chapter 9

two other guard corps in the Temple. It is therefore not two shifts of the same guard, divided into thirds, as G. Robinson supposes, but two different guards, the first divided into “thirds” and on duty on Saturday and the second divided into “halves” (ydwt)40 and on duty on weekdays. The correspondence between the related terms, three “thirds” and two “halves,” is significant.41 It prevents the equivalence and synonymy between the two, supposed by Wellhausen, but obliges us to recognize the fact that both terms belong to the same semantic field: they are divisions of guard corps into thirds and half-bodies. G. Robinson assumed on the contrary that ydwt refers to two turns of entry and exit. So, what Jehoiada did in reality was to station on the palace and on two strategic posts of the outbuildings attached to it three “thirds” of the guard, who was to enter service in the Temple on Saturday. On the other hand, Jehoiada kept in the Temple the two “halves” that served there during the week. Soldiers are to protect and surround the king, arms in hand (v. 8). The gloss of v. 10 claims to know that these weapons were David’s (2 Sam 8:7).42 Everyone who approached the śedērōt, was to be executed. Šanda interprets this term as referring to the colonnade or “rows” of columns between the temple atrium and the palace. Other authors interpret it as the “rows” of soldiers, as if it were a phonetic variant of śedērōt.43 The term śedērōt appears only once again in 1 Kgs 6:9, at the conclusion of the data concerning the construction of the Temple: “He built the Temple and finished it. He covered the Temple, gēbīm ūśedērōt, with cedars.” The two Hebrew terms are missing in the Greek version; the first, gēbīm, is a hapax. Although it is not possible to specify the exact meaning of these terms, it is easy to conclude from the context in which they are found that they are technical terms of the language of architecture. They must also refer to architectural elements of the exterior of the Temple, with which the construction work was considered completed. The translation of Aquila śdrwt περιβολοι (2 Kgs 11:15) refers to the closing or wall of the Temple.44 40  Cf. A.S. Van der Woude, “jād Hand,” in ThWAT I (1976): 667–674, esp. 669. 41  G. Robinson (“Gloss,” 61) does not accept, against Wellhausen, the reinforcement of the guard for the Sabbath: “There is, otherwise, no indication that on normal sabbaths there was an extraordinary thrust of pilgrims at the temple which necessitated the doubling of guards on that day.” However, in this text the authors have always seen a source for information on the ancient practice of Sabbath with a massive influx of believers to the Temple. 42  Cf. Gray, Kings, 572–573. 43  Šanda, Könige, 129. Gray translates in 1 Kgs 6:9 “aligned beams” and in 2 Kgs 11:8 “the ranks of the guardsmen,” see id., Kings, 172, 571 and 576. 44  Such is also the translation of Theodotion in 11:8. Symmachus uses in 11:15 the word δυαταξις, “troop rank.” The version of TOB is remarkable because it joins both terms: “sortir de l’enceinte parmi les rangs.”

Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative

207

Such may be the meaning of the term in both cases. Jehoiada orders to execute whoever, coming from the palace, passes over the wall that delimits the space of the Temple. Athaliah effectively enters this space, where the people are (11:13b). Yehoyada then commands the centurions: “Make her leave the Temple to the śedērōt,45 that she should not die in the Temple of Yahweh.” The Hebrew expression ʿl mbyt lśdrwt must refer to the Temple (cf. mktp hbyt, wlbyt v. 11). Soldiers must take Athaliah beyond the śedērōt, beyond the boundary of sacred space, that is, the wall or the closing colonnade. In the text that follows (11:15), the Old Greek, preserved by the Lucianic mss., is superior to the Masoretic Hebrew, even if it makes perfect sense and does not offer any critical difficulty: LXXL καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς ἐξαγάγετε αὐτὴν ἔσωθεν τῶν σαδηρωθ καὶ εἰσαγάγετε αὐτὴν ὀπὶσωθεν οἴκου τῶν στρατηγῶν καὶ θανατώσατε αὐτὴν ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ μὴ θανατώσατε αὐτὴν ἐν οἴκω Κυρίου καὶ ἔσται πᾶς ὁ εἰσπορευόμενος ὀπίσω αὐτῆς ἀποθανεῖται

LXXB καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς ἐξαγάγετε αὐτὴν ἔσωθεν τῶν σαδηρωθ

καὶ ὁ εἰσπορευόμενος ὀπίσω αὐτῆς θανάτῳ θανατωθήσεται ῥομφαίᾳ ὅτι εἶπεν ὁ ἱερεύς καὶ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ ἐν οἴκῳ κυρίου

MT

‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וַ ּיא ֶֹמר ֲא ֵל‬ ‫הֹוציאּו א ָֹתּה‬ ִ ‫ל־מ ֵּבית ַל ְּׂש ֵדר ֹת‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬

‫יה‬ ָ ‫וְ ַה ָּבא ַא ֲח ֶר‬ ‫ָה ֵמת ֶּב ָח ֶרב‬ ‫ִּכ֚י ָא ַמר ַהּכ ֵֹהן‬ ‫ל־ּתּומת ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ַא‬

In the MT the explicit order to kill Athaliah is missing, and the place to which they must take her is not specified. On the contrary, it is said that anyone who follows Athaliah will die by the “sword.” The explicative sentence that follows is unrelated to the previous one. In any case, it would refer to the first one: “He said to them, ‘Throw her out …,’ because the priest said: ‘Let not her die in the Temple.’” The unnecessary repetition wyʾmr … kʾmr, with the same subject, is suspect. The beginning of a sentence with the particle ky is in many cases a sign of the beginning of an insertion, either of a gloss or of an original phrase, transposed from its original location, as is our case. Indeed, in the ancient Septuagint, this phrase precedes the previous one, always within the same and unique discourse of Jehoiada, without any repetition. A seemingly insignificant detail may offer the key to understanding this text. The preposition of bḥrb, ‘by the sword,’ is not translated in the text of the recension, LXXB 45  ʾl mbt, LXX εσωθεν, cf. Gray, Kings, 576, n. e.

208

Chapter 9

ρομφαια; however, it appears in the Antiochene εν ρομφαια. The Lucianic text cannot take the preposition of the text of the recension (LXXB); on the other hand, ρομφαια is part of the text of the old Septuagint, without correspondence in the MT (και εισαγαγετε αυτην… εν ρομφαια). These two sentences cannot be taken from the Masoretic type of text, which ignores them. Specifically εν ρομφαια cannot be taken from MT, since in such a case it would appear on the same place as MT, referring to the death of the possible followers of the queen (MT) and not to Athaliah herself (LXXL). The explanation could be the following: the type of text from which the Masoretic one arises lost the part of text corresponding to LXX και εισαγαγετε αυτην οπισωθεν οικου των στρατηγων και θανατωσατε αυτην. It knew, however, the one corresponding to the following words: εν ρομφαια και μη θανατωσατε αυτην εν οικω, whose text now appears out of its correct context. The term bḥrb now refers to the death of the possible followers of Athaliah; originally it was undoubtedly referred to the death of Athaliah “by the sword”; for this purpose the soldiers had their weapons ready (v. 11; in v. 20b it is expressly said that Athaliah was killed by sword); on the other hand ʿl twmt byt yhwh is, as we said, out of place, after a repetitive introduction (wyʾmr … ky ʾmr hkhn) as a causal phrase, which tries to give reason for something that has not been said, or that only has been partially suggested (“‘Get her out’… because she has said …”). The truth is that it is easier to explain the MT through the Vorlage underlying the old Septuagint, than to explain the text of LXXL by that of LXXB or by resorting to the Masoretic text. The technical term śedērōt is rare, but it is repeated here twice, in vv. 8 and 15, precisely in phrases corresponding to the two supposed different stories, the priestly one, vv. 4–12, 18b–20, and the popular one, vv. 13–18a. This same fact of repetition in both passages, together with the rarity of the same term, is a good sign in favour of the unity of the story. Indeed the whole defense strategy mounted by Jehoiada seems to be thought around the place called śedērōt, the insurmountable boundary between the palace area and the sacred enclosure. Athaliah and her possible followers may not trespass the śedērōt, under penalty of death; if they do so, Athaliah will be thrown out of the śedērōt and executed in the palace area, in any case outside the Temple enclosure itself. The argument put forward is therefore aimed at proving the unity of the narrative and the main role of the “people” in it, as manifested in the text of the ancient Septuagint and its Vorlage (και εξεκκλησιασεν o ιερευς παντα τον λαον της γης εις οικον Κυριου, v. 11). The analysis of the structure and conformation of the narrative is also a good proof of its literary unity. The action of the story advances and is structured into three scenes, with an introduction in vv. 1–3: 1st scene, vv. 4–9a, 11; 2nd scene, vv. 12*–18; 3rd scene, vv. 19–20.

Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative

209

In the first scene, the protagonists are Jehoiada and the military. The stage is the Temple. There, they “pact” and “swear.” In the background of the scene the young “son of the king,” Jehoash, appears, whom the priest shows to the soldiers. After this presentation (v. 4), Jehoiada gives the pertinent orders to the soldiers (wyṣwm lʾmr with a series of qatal-x). What is ordered is fulfilled punctually (wyʿśw … wyʿmdw …, yiqtol-x). The second scene begins with the entrance of the “people” on stage and in the Temple. The coronation rite begins, interrupted by the irruption of Athaliah into the scene; all this is told in a long narrative series of yiqtol-x (vv. 12–13). In v. 14 the action stops and is displayed. The narrative gives way to pure description. The narrator puts before the eyes of the listener or reader the same picture seen by Athaliah (wtrʾ); the whnh interjection and the nominal propositions in participle that follow it, set the picture, with rigid and static expressions, as rigid and static is the picture described: the king standing on the pedestal, the soldiers standing around the king and the people who show joy and blow the trumpets. The narrative recovers its accelerated dynamic with the rupture of the dresses and the cry of “Treachery!” uttered by Athaliah (yiqtol-x). Again, with the same formulation and protagonists of the first scene, Jehoiada gives an order to the military, who immediately execute it (with a series of imperatives, cf. LXXL, and yiqtol-x). Jehoiada makes a covenant between Yahweh, the king and the people (wykrt yhwydh ʾt hbryt bn …, v. 17), just as he had made a pact with the soldiers (wykrt lhm bryt, v. 4). Just as at the beginning of the first scene, the priest had gathered the military and introduced them into the Temple (wyqḥ… wybʾ ʾtm ʾlyw byt yhwh) to show them the king’s son (wyrʾ ʾtm ʾt bn hmlk), so also now, at the beginning of the second scene, Yehoyada gathers all the people of the land in the Temple (qhl ʾt kl ʿm hʾrṣ byt yhwh) and makes the king’s son come out (wyṣʾ ʾt bn hmlk). The third final scene opens with a phrase identical to that of the first scene (wyqḥ ʾt śry hmʾwt wʾt hkry wʾt hrṣym, v. 19). The people of the land also participate in the action. In the new palace setting, in the midst of rejoicing and harmony, all the last ceremonies of the coronation are concluded. The story revolves around the movements of entry and exit of the different characters in the Temple or palace (yṣʾ 4×, bʾ 9×, excluding vv. 9–10). It opposes the screams of “Long live the king!” (ḥyh) to the numerous death threats and the effective death of Athaliah (mt). The center of the story, in the second scene, is the one made up of the fixed picture seen by Athaliah. The series of nominal propositions in participle contrasts with the agility of the rest of the narrative and in particular with the two series of yiqtol-x, which frame this painting. Athaliah “hears … sees … and cries out” (wtšmʿ… wtrʾ… wtqrʾ); all the senses are at stake, those of Athaliah and also those of the reader. In vv. 1–3,

210

Chapter 9

the story has an introductory scene, absolutely necessary to it. The narrative effectively requires a presentation of the characters and, above all, an exposition of the circumstances that give rise to the subsequent action. The opposing characters and true protagonists of the story are Jehoash and Athaliah: the young “son of the king” and the queen-mother. On the one hand, the possible successor Jehoash, whom Athaliah intends to exterminate, but who, however, hidden in the Temple, gets spared (wlʾ hwmt, v. 2) and will end up in the palace sitting on the throne of kings (ʿl ksʾ hmlkym, v. 19); on the other hand, the queen who begins reigning (mlkt, v. 3) and ends up dying (vv. 16 wtwmt and 20 hmytw). The coronation of the king and the death of the regent are the two themes and objectives of the story. The circumstances set forth in vv. 1–3 are necessary to understand the later action and justify the action of the priest Jehoiada. Athaliah has tried to exterminate the dynasty at the death of his son Ahaziah; only Jehoash has been saved, hidden in the Temple for six years by a sister of Ahaziah, Jehosheba. In the seventh year Jehoiada the priest already can attempt dynastic restoration.46 The account in chapter 11 is therefore unique and unitary. The only important gloss is that of vv. 9–10 (delimited by the linking repetition preserved in LXXL). The role of the “people of the country” is not limited to a single scene of the narrative, nor is it a criterion for differentiating sources within the narrative.

46  The correspondence and relation between the introductory verses and the rest of the story is greater if, as in 2 Chr 22:11, Jehosheba was Jehoiada’s wife.

Chapter 10

From the “Old Latin” through the “Old Greek” to the “Old Hebrew” (2 Kings 10:23–25) The different Latin, Greek and Hebrew texts of 2 Kgs 10:23–25 are the starting point for an inquiry into the recensional approaches to the Old Greek text and ultimately to its Hebrew Vorlage.1 This approach is sometimes only possible by means of the Old Latin version with the occasional help of some Greek minuscules and other secondary testimonies. We have further to establish the critical value of the Hebrew text represented by the Old Greek (OG) and Old Latin (OL) texts. For that purpose we have to engage in an interdisciplinary dialog between textual criticism and literary criticism, facing even historical questions relating to the textual variants.2

I

In the kaige section (γδ) of the books of Kings (1 Kgs 22–2 Kings), the text followed by Codex Vaticanus (LXXB) represents that of the kaige recension. 1  For basic bibliography, cf. F.C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala. With an Appendix containing the Text of the S. Gallen Palimpsest of Jeremiah (Cambridge: University Press, 1896); H.St.J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” JThS 8 (1907): 262– 278; A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta Studien III (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19622); D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963); id., “La qualité du Texte Massorétique de Samuel,” The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel, ed. E. Tov, 1980 Proceedings IOSCS (Jerusalem: Academon, 1980), 1–44; F.M. Cross, “The Old Testament at Qumran,” in The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (New York: Baker, 1961), 163–194; id., “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; S. Talmon, “The Old Testament Text,” in The Cambridge History of the Bible I. From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. P.R. Ackroyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 159–199; S.P. Brock, “Lucian redivivus. Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s Les Devanciers d’Aquila,” Studia Evangelica 5 (1968): 176–181; E. Tov, “Lucian and Proto-Lucian. Toward a New Solution of the Problem,” RB 79 (1972): 101–11. 2  Cf. specially D. Barthélemy, “Problématique et tâches de la critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament hébraique,” in Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, OBO 21 (Fribourg— Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 289–303; E. Tov, “L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur la critique littéraire dans le livre de Jérémie,” RB 79 (1972): 189–199; id., The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor, 1981), 293–306; M. Greenberg, “The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text. A Sampling from Ezekiel II,1–III,11,” in Congress Volume Göttingen 1977, VTSup 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 131–148. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_012

212

Chapter 10

According to the scope of this recension its text conforms almost faithfully to that of the Hebrew known to us through MT, except for some minor changes like that of the singular καὶ εἰσῆλθεν instead of the plural MT ‫( וַ ּיָ בֹאּו‬v. 24). In v. 23 LXXL adds καὶ ἐξαποστείλατε αὐτούς καὶ εἶπον οὐκ εἰσίν. In v. 25 a second addition of LXXL reads as follows: καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ τῶν δούλων κυρίου καθ’ ὡς ἐλάλησεν Ιου ὅτι ἀλλ᾽ ἢ οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ Βααλ μονώτατοι (cf. v. 23). LXXL also transposes v. 24b before v. 24a; the plural of v. 24a καὶ εἰσῆλθον (= MT) is immediately followed by the plural ὡς συνετέλεσαν ποιοῦντες, as distinguished from the singular of MT/ LXXB ‫ = ְּכ ַכֹּלתֹו ַל ֲעׂשֹות‬ὡς συνετέλεσεν ποιῶν. The OL text has as its regular Vorlage a Greek text analogous to the basic text of the Lucianic recension. However, in our case OL exhibits substantial deviations from LXX.3 OL places v. 24b before vv. 23–24a and ignores the first phrase of v. 25a (MT ‫)וַ יְ ִהי ְּכ ַכֹּלתֹו ַל ֲעׂשֹות‬, as well as the addition of LXXL in v. 25a. Furthermore the OL addition in v. 23 is very much longer than that of LXXL, agreeing twice with phrases of LXXL in v. 25a: et eicite omnes seruos dmi = καὶ ἐξαποστείλατε αὐτούς, (et factum est) sicut locutus est Ieu rex = lxxL v. 25 καθ’ ὡς ἐλάλησεν Ιου, et cum nemo fuisset ibi de seruis dmi = καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ τῶν δούλων κυρίου, cf. v. 23 οὐκ εἰσίν. The most impressive fact is that OL here turns out to be the literal translation of a Greek text like that transmitted by mss. hijnuvxz: καὶ ἐξαποστείλατε πάντας τοὺς δούλους κυρίου τοὺς εὑρισκομένους ἐκεῖ καὶ ἐγένετο καθ’ ὡς ἐλάλησεν Ιου ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ τῶν δούλων κυρίου. VL -citu. 24b Et dixit eis quicumq’ saluatus fuerit uirorum quos ego trado in manus uestras anima illius pro anima eius erit. 23 Et intrauit ieu rex Israel et Ionadab filius Recab in tempulum Bahal et dixit ieu ad seruos Bahal

LXXL

LXXB

23 καὶ εἰσῆλθεν Ιου

23 καὶ εἰσῆλθεν Ιου

καὶ Ιωναδαβ υἱὸς Ρηχαβ εἰς οἶκον τοῦ Βααλ καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς δούλοις τοῦ Βααλ

καὶ Ιωναδαβ υἱὸς Ρηχαβ εἰς οἶκον τοῦ Βααλ καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς δούλοις τοῦ Βααλ

MT

‫וַ ּיָבֹא יֵ הּוא‬ ‫ן־ר ָכב‬ ֵ ‫וִ יהֹונָ ָדב ֶּב‬ ‫ֵּבית ַה ָּב ַעל‬ ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ ‫ְלע ְֹב ֵדי ַה ַּב ַעל‬

3  The text of OL is that of Palimpsestus Vindobonensis, according to the transcription in B. Fischer et alii, “Palimpsestus Vindobonensis: A Revised Edition of L 115 for Samuel–Kings,” BIOSCS 16 (1983): 13–87.

213

OLD LATIN, OLD GREEK, OLD HEBREW

scrutinate et uidete ne sit uobiscum ex seruis Dmi et eicite omnes seruos Dmi qui inuenti fuerint in tempulum Bahal. Et factum est sicut locutus est Ieu rex et cum nemo fuisset ibi de seruis Dmi nisi soli serui Bahal 24a Et introierunt ut facerent sacrificia et holocausta

et dixit rex precursoribus

ἐρευνήσατε καὶ ἴδετε εἰ ἔστιν μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν τῶν δούλων κυρίου καὶ ἐξαποστείλατε αὐτούς

ἐρευνήσατε καὶ ἴδετε εἰ ἔστιν μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν τῶν δούλων κυρίου

‫ַח ְּפׂשּו ְּוראּו‬ ‫ֶּפן־יֶ ׁש־ּפֹה ִע ָּמ ֶכם‬ ‫ֵמ ַע ְב ֵדי יְ הוה‬

καὶ εἶπον Οὐκ εἰσίν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ Βααλ μονώτατοι

ὅτι ἀλλ᾽ ἢ οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ Βααλ μονώτατοι

‫ִּכי ִאם־ע ְֹב ֵדי‬ ‫ַה ַּב ַעל ְל ַב ָּדם‬

24b καὶ Ιου ἔταξεν ἑαυτῷ τρισχιλίους ἄνδρας ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ καὶ εἶπεν ἀνήρ ὃς ἐὰν διασωθῇ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ὧν ἐγὼ ἀνάγω ἐπὶ χεῖρας ὑμῶν ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ 24a καὶ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ προσοχθίσματος τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὰ θύματα καὶ τὰ ὁλοκαυστώματα 25a καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς συνετέλεσεν ποιῶν τὴν ὁλοκαύτωσιν καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ τῶν δούλων κυρίου καθ’ ὡς ἐλάλησεν Ιου ὅτι ἀλλ᾽ ἢ οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ Βααλ μονώτατοι καὶ εἶπεν Ιου τοῖς παρατρέχουσιν

24a καὶ εἰσῆλθεν τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὰ θύματα καὶ τὰ ὁλοκαυτώματα 24b καὶ Ιου ἔταξεν ἑαυτῷ ἔξω ὀγδοήκοντα ἄνδρας καὶ εἶπεν ἀνήρ ὃς ἐὰν διασωθῇ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ὧν ἐγὼ ἀνάγω ἐπὶ χεῖρας ὑμῶν ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ

25a καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς συνετέλεσεν ποιῶν τὴν ὁλοκαύτωσιν

καὶ εἶπεν Ιου τοῖς παρατρέχουσιν

‫וַ ּיָ בֹאּו‬ ‫ַל ֲעׂשֹות זְ ָב ִחים‬ ‫וְ עֹלֹות‬ ‫וְ יֵ הּוא ָׂשם־לֹו‬ ‫ַבחּוץ‬ ‫ְׁשמֹנִ ים ִאיׁש‬ ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ ‫ָה ִאיׁש‬ ‫ר־יִּמ ֵלט‬ ָ ‫ֲא ֶׁש‬ ‫ן־ה ֲאנָ ִׁשים‬ ָ ‫ִמ‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ֲאנִ י ֵמ ִביא‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ַעל־יְ ֵד‬ ‫נַ ְפׁשֹו‬ ‫ַּת ַחת נַ ְפׁשֹו‬

‫וַ יְ ִהי‬ ‫ְּכ ַכֹּלתֹו‬ ‫ַל ֲעׂשֹות ָהע ָֹלה‬

‫אמר יֵ הּוא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ ‫ָל ָר ִצים‬

214 et triariis intrate et percutite nemo saluetur ex eis.

Chapter 10

καὶ τοῖς τριστάταις εἰσελθόντες πατάξατε αὐτούς ἀνὴρ μὴ ἐξελθάτω ἐξ αὐτῶν.

καὶ τοῖς τριστάταις εἰσελθόντες πατάξατε αὐτούς ἀνὴρ μὴ ἐξελθάτω ἐξ αὐτῶν

‫וְ ַל ָּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬ ‫ּבֹאּו‬ ‫ַהּכּום‬ ‫ִאיׁש ַאל־יֵ ֵצא‬

The last words in OL/LXXmin, de seruis dmi = τῶν δούλων κυρίου, reflect the last words of MT before the addition ‫ ֵמ ַע ְב ֵדי יְ הוָ ה‬. Prior to that, MT seems to present a double reading ‫ּפֹה ִע ָּמ ֶכם‬.4 In fact, the Greek and Latin know only ‫ = ִע ָּמ ֶכם‬μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, vobiscum;5 in the next addition they have twice ἐκεῖ, ibi, with the same local reference as MT ‫ּפֹה‬, but in two different phrases.6 The Greek and Latin separated the double reading, ascribing each element to a different phrase. The result is a repetition, indicating one of two possible phenomena: the loss by homoioteleuton of the portion of text which was embraced between ‫ֵמ ַע ְב ֵדי‬ ‫ יְ הוָ ה‬and ‫ ֵמ ַע ְב ֵדי יְ הוָ ה‬or the insertion of the same text by the device known as ring-composition. It is hard to imagine that a Hebrew editor, not to speak of a Greek translator, would create ex novo a text so well fitted to the context, allotting each one of the two references of ΜΤ ‫ ּפֹה ִע ָּמ ֶכם‬to two different phrases embracing the inserted gloss. The proof that this is rather a further case of haplography in the MT is obtained by the analysis of the Hebrew expression which follows thereafter: ‫ … ִּכי ִאם‬always follows a negative ‫ ַאל‬/‫)…לֹא ) ֵאין‬7 exactly as it is reflected in the Greek version οὐκ ἦν… ἀλλ᾽ ἤ. This is the rendering characteristic of the OG: ‫ = ִּכי ִאם‬ἀλλ᾽ ἤ. The kaige recension shifts to a more distinct rendition of the Hebrew: ὅτι (‫ ) ִּכי‬ἀλλ᾽ ἤ. a) Apart from our passage, 2 Kgs 10:23, the expression ‫ … ִּכי ִאם …לֹא‬is found in 16 cases in the kaige sections of 1–4 Kingdoms (2 Sam 11:1–1 Kgs 2:11 and 1 Kgs 22–2 Kgs). In 10 instances the recensional version ὅτι ἀλλ᾽ ἤ is found, 2 Sam 13:33; 19:29; 21:2; 1 Kgs 22:18 (διότι); 2 Kgs 4:2; 5:15; 14:6; 17:36, 39; 23:23. In 4  On double readings in Kings, cf. J.W. Wevers, “Double Readings in the Books of Kings,” JBL 65 (1946): 307–310; S. Talmon, “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,” Textus 1 (1960): 144–185; F. Zimmermann, “The Perpetuation of Variants in the Masoretic Text,” JQR 34 (1934–44): 459–474. 5  Following MT, the Hexaplaric text adds ὡδε Axyb, Arm SyrH. 6  ἐκεῖ = ‫ שם‬and ὡδε = ‫ פה‬are the usual equivalents. In Jehu’s speech the narrator obviously uses the adverb ‫פה‬, but in the narrative section the expected adverb is ‫שם‬, as reflected in the Greek ἐκεῖ. 7  A. Klostermann had already observed that ‫ ִּכי ִאם‬had to refer to a preceding negation. But he wrongly found this negative in the correct addition of LXXL in v. 23, cf. id., Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, KK A III (Nördlingen: Beck’sche Buchhandlung, 1887), 425, followed by N. Schlögl, Die Bücher der Könige (Wien: Mayer, 1911), 251.

OLD LATIN, OLD GREEK, OLD HEBREW

215

5 of these occurrences the pre-Lucianic text (LXXL OL Arm) omits ὅτι preserving the OG version ἀλλ᾽ ἤ, 2 Sam 19:29; 21:2; 1 Kgs 22:18; 2 Kgs 4:2; 14:6.8 In the remaining 6 cases the old version is attested by the whole manuscript tradition, 2 Sam 12:3; 1 Kgs 22:8, 31; 2 Kgs 5:17; 13:7; 19:18. b) In non-kaige sections the Hebrew negative + ‫ ִּכי ִאם‬appears 13 times.9 In 5 instances LXX offers the primitive version ἀλλ᾽ ἤ, 1 Sam 2:10; 8:19; 18:25; 1 Kgs 8:19; 17:12. In the remaining 8 occurrences we find the composite form ὅτι ἀλλ᾽ ἤ, which is expected in the non-kaige sections; in fact, in 5 of these cases the old version is preserved by LXXL (OL Arm) which omits ὅτι, 1 Sam 10:19; 21:7; 30:17, 22; 1 Kgs 18:18.10 In the last three cases the composite form does not seem to be original, 1 Sam 2:30; 12:12; 21:5.11 The assumed addition of LXXmin OL with the primitive rendering οὐκ … ἀλλ᾽ ἤ proves also to belong to the original Greek version and to be based on a Hebrew Vorlage containing the negative + ‫ ִּכי ִאם‬. Additional proof is provided by the Antiochene text. LXXL is here a typically Lucianic amalgam, a mixture of the kaige (LXXB) and the Old Greek text. To the kaige text belongs the expression of LXXL in v. 25 ὅτι ἀλλ᾽ ἢ οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ Βααλ μονώτατοι, duplicating the same expression of the OG in v. 23. To the OG belongs the phrase καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ τῶν δούλων κυρίου καθ’ ὡς ἐλάλησεν Ιου. Slightly differing from the OG in v. 23, LXXL turns out to be also a witness to the OG.12 The OG text of v. 23 fits perfectly into the preceding and following contexts. Jehu orders the devotees of Baal to inquire if there are any devotees of Yahweh “with them” and to expel all who were found “there.” This order is immediately executed, “according to what Jehu had told.” Then, “when there were no devotees of Yahweh ‘there,’ but only devotees of Baal, these proceeded to offer 8  2 Sam 19:29 om. abovc2e2; 21:2 om. MNad-gi-np-wyzb2, Arm Aeth; boc2e2 offer (οὐκ…) ὅτι…; 1 Kgs 22:18 om. beouc2e2 Thdt; 2 Kgs 4:2 om. Aborsc2e2; 14:6 om. bdorc2e2 Arm SyrH.    In the remaining cases the omission of ὅτι in other witnesses of the manuscript tradition has to be taken into consideration: 2 Sam 13:33 om. ὅτι q; 2 Kgs 5:15 om. ⟨44⟩; 17:36 om. d; 17:39 om. B; 23:23 om. ⟨71.246⟩, nxy ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ὅτι. 9   The case of 1 Sam 2:10 is included. LXX presupposes here this Hebrew expression, according to the parallel text Jer 9:23. In 1 Sam 2:30; 10:19; 12:12, MT offers only ‫ ִּכי‬, and not ‫ ִּכי ִאם‬. ln 1 Sam. 18:25 KOr 9 MSS ‫( ִּכי ִאם‬MT ‫) ִּכי‬. 10  1 Sam 10:19 om. ὅτι Abcosxa2c2e2, Aeth OL; 21:7 om. bioyza2c2e2, Arm(uid). Or-gr. Eus.; 30:17 om. begiovxc2e2; 30:22 om. bova2c2e2 Aeth; 1 Kgs 18:18 b′eou, Chr. 11  1 Sam 2:30 om. t, Arm Aeth Thdt, οὐχ οὕτως fmsv, also in a preceding context bgoc2e2 Thdt; 12:12 ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ὅτι in an inverted order; this fact proves the independence of the variants (cf. 1 Sam 10:19; 2 Sam 19:29) om. ὅτι Afmnbswya2, Aeth(uid); 21:5 ὅτι πλήν bghozc2a2, καὶ deflmp-tw. 12  On the possibilities and impossibilities of reconstructing the Hebrew text underlying the LXX, cf. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 73–158.

216

Chapter 10

sacrifices and holocausts.” The stories of Jehu (2 Kgs 9–10), like those of the Elijah and Elisha cycles, are characterized by the frequent use of the literary structure “order—execution” and the perfect correspondence of the discursive and narrative parts (imperative—wayyiqtol). It could be said that a Hebrew editor, well trained in this narrative technique, inserted here the explicit reference to the fulfillment of Jehu’s orders. In such a case we cannot but admire the artistic and technical skills of this Hebrew glossator, who mastered likewise the technique of the ring-composition and supplied the needed negation to the following … ‫ ִּכי ִאם‬. It could still be said that the construction of MT is absolutely normal, with ‫ ֶּפן־יֶ ׁש‬fulfilling the function of the expected negation, as in 1 Kgs 17:12 ‫ ִאם־יֶ ׁש‬. MT obviously retains a certain intelligibility and grammatical correctness, without which the same haplography would not have occurred. However, the resultant phrase in MT sounds rather hard. The stylistic gifts of the narrator of 2 Kgs 9–10, recognized by H. Gunkel, are so great as to constitute a valid, even if negative, criterion to discount those readings that also for other reasons appear to be unworthy of the author’s narrative art.13 Finally, when referring to the argument from presumed glosses and tendencies (‘Tendenzkritik’), the assumption of an omission of a rather cumbersome allusion to the presence of devotees of Yahweh among the pagan worshippers seems more feasible than the assumption of glossing by a later editor on such disturbing conduct by devotees of Yahweh.

II

In v. 24 the plural of MT ‫ וַ ּיָ בֹאּו‬can refer to the worshippers of Baal, to an impersonal subject (those present in Baal’s temple), or to Jehu accompanied by Jehonadab. In v. 25 the singular suffix of MT ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ְּכ ַכֹּלתֹו‬takes for granted that Jehu offered the holocaust, thus favouring the singular reading of LXX in v. 24a καὶ εἰσῆλθεν, which many modern critics and translators are eager to accept.14 13  Cf. H. Gunkel, Geschichten von Elisa, Meisterwerke hebräischer Erzählungskunst I (Berlin: Verlag Karl Curtius, 1922), 67ff. 14  Klostermann, Die Bücher, 425; Stade, “Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 10–14, 278; B. Stade and F. Schwally, The Books of Kings, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1904), 232; L. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige, KHC IX (Freiburg: Mohr, 1899), 16–18; Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, 154; R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige, HK I 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 240; C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 305; A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige, EHAT IX/2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1911–1912), 115; O. Eissfeldt, Das erste Buch der Könige, HSAT 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1922), 558; H. Gressmann, Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels (von Samuel bis Amos und Hosea) (Göttingen:

OLD LATIN, OLD GREEK, OLD HEBREW

217

Those critics at large do not pay attention here to the Lucianic text, so successfully discredited by A. Rahlfs since 1911; they refer in passing to the Lucianic “large supplement” (Montgomery), “embellishing expansions” (Stade) or “erweiternde Zusätze” (Benzinger). The omission of this passage in Rahlfs’ study on the Lucianic text strikes one as rather odd.15 In LXXL the phrases of vv. 24a and 25a follow each other, so that v. 24b precedes v. 24a καὶ εἰσῆλθον… τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὰ θύματα καὶ τὰ ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς συνετέλεσαν ποιοῦντες τὴν ὁλοκαύτωσιν… OL for its part also presents the plural reading et introierunt and reverses in a different way the order of verses, so that v. 24b precedes v. 23. Verse 24b therefore has three different locations: TM/LXX 23, 24ab, 25; LXXL 23, 24b, 24a, 25; OL 24b, 23, 24a, 25. Verse 24b begins with an inversion x-qatal … ‫ וְ יֵ הּוא ָׂשם‬that denotes a pause in the narrative. The whole of v. 24b has the character of a parenthesis. Its contents can be accommodated to the different contexts in which it appears: there it is said that Jehu posted soldiers “outside” (MT LXXB) or in a “hideout” (LXXL) and threatened them with the death penalty if a single one of the Baal worshippers were to escape. In MT (LXXB) these data (v. 24b) are placed between the two correlative phrases of v. 24a and 25a: – v. 24a ‫וַ ּיָ בֹאּו ַל ֲעׂשֹות זְ ָב ִחים וְ עֹלֹות‬ – v. 25a ‫וַ יְ ִהי ְּכ ַכֹּלתֹו ַל ֲעׂשֹות ָהע ָֹלה‬ The interjection of v. 24b between these phrases does not allow any doubt about the singular subject (Jehu) of v. 25a. The story according to MT tells us that Jehu “entered” the temple of Baal with Jehonadab (v. 23), both proceeded to offer sacrifices and holocausts (24a) and finally Jehu alone is said to have finished offering the holocaust (25a). If this should reflect the original form of the story, it seems rather strange that two “comings” (‫ )בוא‬are referred to, apparently with the same subject, but in the first case the verb being singular and in the second plural. The singular of LXX seems to be more consistent with the context, but it is certainly not original. At least this singular has the advantage of not leaving Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921), 307 and 309; J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 41; Keil refers the singular suffix of v. 25 ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ְּכ ַכֹּלתֹו‬to the offering priest (“Opferpriest”), C.F. Keil, Die Bücher der Könige, BC II 3 (Leipzig: 1876); J. Gray reads in v. 24 the plural of MT, id., I and II Kings. A Commentary, OTL, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 557. 15  Montgomery, Kings, 415; Stade, Kings, 232; Benzinger, Könige, 154; Klostermann declares the text of LXX in v. 25 as “Zusatz, um den Mord auf die Götzendiener zu beschränken,” id., Die Bücher, 425. According to Stade, the additions of LXX in vv. 22ff. are due to a wish to emphasize the extermination of the heathen, see id., Kings, 231f.

218

Chapter 10

room for doubt about the subject of v. 24, otherwise the reader would imagine that the plural subject of 24a could be the worshippers of Baal. In fact, the foregoing phrase reports on those worshippers in Baal’s temple, who then “proceeded” (v. 23) to offer sacrifices to Baal. The OG turns this assumption into certainty. According to the OL those who proceeded to offer the sacrifices were the worshippers of Baal. A short text, without the first phrase of v. 25, provides a direct sequence of events and a close relationship between the phrases: et introierunt ut facerent sacrificia et holocausta et dixit rex praecursoribus et triariis intrate et percutite eos nemo saluetur ex eis.16 As soon as the worshippers of Baal “entered,” Jehu ordered the soldiers to “enter” and sacrifice all of them. The location of v. 24b before v. 23 suits the progress of the plot better. Jehu orders appropriate vestments to be brought out for all the devotees of Baal and posts soldiers in a hideout outside the temple. Jehu enters with Jehonadab and orders all Yahwists present there to be expelled. As the worshippers of Baal enter to offer the sacrifices, Jehu orders the soldiers to enter and destroy all of them. The plot follows a direct movement from outside into the temple, without any flashback. In the MT arrangement, on the contrary, v. 24b becomes a backward step, reminiscent of something which happened previously. The transition in the OL from v. 24a directly to v. 25 is attested also by LXXL. This provides further proof that the MT location of v. 24b between w. 24a and 25a is not a fixed datum in the textual tradition nor is it suitable in the course of the narration. However, the arrangement of verses and phrases in LXXL is a new and secondary mixture of MT and OG elements. The pluses located by LXXL at v. 25a belong to the text of v. 23 (cf. LXXmin OL). The OG version may then be reconstructed as: ’Ερευνήσατε καὶ ἴδετε εἰ ἔστι μεθ’ ὑμῶν τῶν δούλων κυρίου καὶ ἐξαποστείλατε πάντας τοὺς δούλους κυρίου τοὺς εὑρισκομένους ἐκεῖ καὶ ἐγένετο καθ’ ὡς ἐλάλησεν Ιου καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ τῶν δούλων κυρίου ἀλλ’ ἢ οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ Βααλ μονώτατοι καὶ εἰσῆλθον τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὰ θύματα καὶ τὰ ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ εἶπεν Ιου τοῖς παρατρέχουσι καὶ τοῖς τριστάταις Εἰσελθόντες παταξάτε αὐτούς ἀνῆρ μῆ διασωθήτω ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπάταξεν (-αν)… (v. 24b precedes v. 23 according to OL).

16  The reading of OL LXXL nemo saluetur ex eis = ἀνὴρ μὴ διασωθήτω ἐξ αὐτῶν corresponds to MT LXXB ‫ = ִאיׁש ַאל־יֵ ֵצא‬ἀνὴρ μὴ ἐξελθάτω ἐξ αὐτῶν. The OG preserves here the same expression as in v. 24b (saluatus fuerit—διασωθῇ —‫יִּמ ֵלט‬ ָ , once ‫)?יפלט‬, whereas MT LXXB have in v. 25 the verb “go out” (‫—יצא‬ἐξελθάτω), while in MT the counterpart to ἐξ αὐτῶν is lacking.

OLD LATIN, OLD GREEK, OLD HEBREW

219

The conciseness, liveliness, dramatic vigor and internal logic of this form of the story speak for themselves. In a perfect structure of order-execution, the question if there were any Yahwists among those who worship Baal corresponds to the immediate verification that there were no Yahwists on the spot. As the worshippers of Baal enter, so the soldiers enter after them. From a historical point of view, the distinctive mark of this form of the story is the radicalism with which Jehu conducts himself and carries out his plot. Jehu does not participate in pagan worship. Those who proceed (‫ )בוא‬to offer the sacrifices are exclusively Baal’s devotees. Even more, Jehu could not have given time to the Baal devotees to perform their pagan cults. According to OL, as soon as they proceed to the offering, Jehu’s soldiers proceed to their sacrifice. But the first phrase of v. 25 ‫וַ יְ ִהי ְּכ ַכֹּלתֹו ַל ֲעׂשֹות ָהע ָֹלה‬, even if wanting in OL, could very well have belonged to the OG in the plural form of LXXL: καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς συνετέλεσαν ποιοῦντες τὴν ὁλοκαύτωσιν. Jehu’s way of acting is the most consistent with the radicalism of his religious reform. It is true that Jehu had promised “to offer a great sacrifice to Baal, a greater one than that which Ahab had ever done” (v. 19a), in order to mislead the worshippers of Baal. But this ploy is to be no more than a trick; the deceit succeeds in the assembling of all the devotees of Baal. V. 21 accounts for the fulfillment of Jehu’s order and the success of his trick: “all the devotees of Baal arrived, not a man was left who did not attend.” What follows has nothing to do with the previous trick. The effective accomplishment of the false promise is absolutely superfluous, it minimizes the astuteness of the stratagem, and contradicts the aims and spirit of Jehu’s reform. The picture of a champion of a religious revolution by fire and sword, who offers a sacrifice to Baal along with the most fanatical Rechabite Jehonadab, does not correspond to reality. The plural ‫( וַ ּיָ בֹאּו‬MT), a lectio difficilior in its context, has been preserved in MT, in spite of the loss of the preceding phrases specifying this plural subject as Baal’s worshippers. However, this loss evokes hesitation on the subsequent subject of the action; this is to be dissipated in the following phrases. Jehu now becomes the only protagonist and worshipper of Baal. This change is favoured by past records of the story. In v. 23 it was noted that “Jehu went into the temple of Baal,” and v. 19 had recorded a promise by Jehu of offering a great sacrifice to Baal. Furthermore, the presence of v. 24b, with Jehu as subject, smooths out the path to the initial phrase of v. 25. Here Jehu appears offering alone the sacrifice to Baal. Only after having performed the whole of the pagan ceremony does he order the soldiers to proceed manu militari against his co-religionists for the occasion. In this way the prophetic and deuteronomistic doom against Jehu’s pagan cults also found a historical justification (cf. vv. 29, 31). The reading καὶ

220

Chapter 10

εἰσῆλθεν is a further step in the same tendency of MT to assign to Jehu the chief role in the offering to Baal. Modern critics, who follow the variant of LXXB, ascribe to the B text an original status, which it does not have in the kaige section; moreover, they extend the tendency emerging in the proto-Masoretic text, that makes of Jehu an inconsistent and ridiculous character, caught in his own trap, quite the opposite of the hawkish and astute hero, undefiled by pagan apostasies and deserving God’s praise: “Since you have done properly what was pleasing in my sight …” (v. 30). Internal criticism alone confirms the conclusions of this study. They receive further credibility in the light of the parallel history of the Hebrew and Greek text, such as is now known through the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls (in particular 4QSama.b.c and the Naḥal Ḥever Dodekapropheton). It now appears likely that OL can bear a unique witness to the OG; its Vorlage was a non-kaige text, analogous to the basis of the Lucianic recension. Via the OL, LXXL and other Greek mss., the Hebrew of Chronicles, the Greek of Josephus, and occasional readings of the Armenian and Syro-Hexaplaric versions, we now have access to the OG text in 2 Kgs. This OG text reflects a form of the Hebrew different from MT, but no less original. In some cases, more frequent than is generally admitted, this traditio non recepta preserves the better and “older Hebrew.” In our case, in 2 Kgs 10:23–25, it preserves an older version of the story with better stylistic qualities and closer to the related facts of the history. To sum up, the only way to trace the OG text and its Hebrew Vorlage in 2 Kgs 10, 23–25a, is by means of OL, sustained by the Greek mss. hijnuvzyb and partly by the Lucianic text. MT has suffered here a homoioteleuton, reflected also in the kaige text of LXXB. In v. 24, however, MT preserves the plural reading ‫וַ ּיָ בֹאּו‬ (= LXXL), a lectio difficilior in its context, but perfectly understandable in the original context reflected by the OG. In this as well as in other cases in 2 Kings, OL, through the OG, reflects an Old Hebrew text. Finally, this Old Hebrew text, partly surviving in MT ‫וַ ּיָ בֹאּו‬, related in 2 Kgs 10:23ff. not to Jehu’s offering to Baal (MT), but Jehu’s slaughter of the devotees of Baal even before they could offer their sacrifice to their deity (LXX).

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 examining 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 absence 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 protoLucianic 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 generally 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 significant 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.

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

223

MT, however, a most significant variant in 4QKings is an extensive reading lacking in MT 1 Kings 8:16–18, but preserved in the parallel text of Chronicles (2 Chr 6:5–6) and partially also in the OG of Kings. Furthermore, the complex textual history of the book of Samuel revealed by 4QSama.b applies also to the books of Kings, since the books of Samuel and Kings have a common history of editorial composition and textual transmission. This is especially evident from the frequent readings in the kaige sections of 1–4 Kgdms common to the protoLucianic text, Josephus, the OL (also the Armenian text), and the Hebrew parallel text in Chronicles, in contrast to the MT and the Greek proto-Theodonic recension. In view of the complex history of editorial composition and textual transmission of the books of Kings, I cannot pretend to subject the notes of the BHS based on the OG text of Kings to critical review here. I will concentrate only on a particular type of variant: omissions (zero readings) in the LXX related to the interpolation of a gloss introduced into the text by means of the editorial technique of linking repetition. BHS and modern critics still tend to consider such omissions as cases of parablepsis, which is sometimes indeed possible. In the past the presumption was often that such errors were committed in the translation process, whereas today, after the Qumran discoveries, they are more commonly considered to have been produced at the level of the Hebrew parent text of the LXX. I intend to show that these zero readings and the corresponding pluses in the MT—and less frequently vice versa—are best explained not as isolated phenomena to be compared to each other (omission versus addition), but as phenomena depending on extensive editorial interventions in the Hebrew texts. The omission and pluses that will be considered here are found at the points of suture of inserted glosses and transposed text blocks. Glosses did not enter into the text, nor were literary units transposed, without leaving traces at the beginning and the end of such insertions or transpositions. I have treated in a recently published book a hundred cases of linking repetitions often combined with double readings.6 In such instances the repeated text has been preserved, in a shorter or longer form, in one or another of the two main textual traditions, the MT or that represented by the parent text of the LXX. Eleven more cases are discussed here. The last three concern more directly the OL text. Omission in the LXX is indicated by ⟨…⟩ and literary interpolation by […].

6  J. Trebolle Barrera, Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum. Variantes textuales y composición lit­ eraria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes, TECC 47 (Madrid: CSIC, 1989).

224 3.1

Chapter 11

1 Kings 1:36

L (OL) καὶ εἶπεν γένοιτο οὕτως πιστώσαι ὁ θεὸς τοὺς λόγους τοῦ κυρίου μου τοῦ βασιλέως οὕτως εἶπε κύριος ὁ θεός σου κύριέ μου βασιλεῦ

MT

B καὶ εἶπεν γένοιτο οὕτως πιστώσαι (+ κύριος) ὁ θεὸς

‫אמר ָא ֵמן‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ ‫אמר‬ ַ ֹ ‫ֵּכן י‬ ‫יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫ֹלהי‬ ֵ ‫ֱא‬

τοῦ κυρίου μου τοῦ βασιλέως

‫ֲאד ֹנִ י ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬

BHS has three notes which denote the Greek reading πιστώσαι as equivalent to ‫יאמן‬, the omission of the name of God ‫ יְ הוָ ה‬in the OG, and the Lucianic reading ὁ θεὸς τοὺς λόγους. However, it should be noted also that the Lucianic reading οὕτως εἶπε κύριος ὁ θεός σου κύριέ μου βασιλεῦ follows immediately, containing the supposed missing word, κύριος. The Lucianic text contains a typical double reading: the first is the kaige reading which is close to the MT, γένοιτο οὕτως πιστώσαι (+ κύριος) ὁ θεὸς τοῦ κυρίου μου τοῦ βασιλέως (cf. B, ‫אמר יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ֹ ‫ָא ֵמן ֵּכן י‬ ‫ֹלהי ֲאד ֹנִ י ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ֵ ‫) ֱא‬. The second is the OG reading πιστώσαι ὁ θεὸς τοὺς λόγους σου κύριέ μου βασιλεῦ, which translates the Hebrew ‫יאמן אלהים דבר(י)ך אדני המלך‬.7 A similar formula, “let thy word be confirmed,” always referring to the promise made by God to David, is also and only found in 1 Kgs 8:26 ‫( יֵ ָא ֶמן נָ א ְּד ָב ֶריָך‬and the parallel in 2 Chr 6:17), 1 Chr 17:23 ‫ד־עֹולם‬ ָ ‫( ַה ָּד ָבר ֲא ֶׁשר ִּד ַּב ְר ָּת … יֵ ָא ֵמן ַע‬cf. v. 24) and in 2 Chr 1:9 ‫יֵ ָא ֵמן ְּד ָב ְרָך‬. Rahlfs presents this example as proof that the Lucianic text depends on the standard text.8 However, the Lucianic double readings, most of which belong precisely to the kaige sections of 1–2 Kgdms, generally preserve the OG reading to which the kaige (B) reading was later added.

7  Klostermann and Kittel accept that variant ‫ ;יאמן‬Burney and Montgomery follow the MT. Cf. A. Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, KK A III (Nördlingen: Beck’sche Buchhandlung, 1887), 266; R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige, HK I 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 10; C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903); Montgomery, Kings, 75. 8  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 171.

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

3.2

225

1 Kings 2:4 ‫ּוב ָכל־נַ ְפ ָׁשם ֵלאמֹר‬ ְ ‫ל־ל ָב ָבם‬ ְ ‫ת־ּד ְר ָּכם ָל ֶל ֶכת ְל ָפנַ י ֶּב ֱא ֶמת ְּב ָכ‬ ַ ‫ֵלאמֹר ִאם־יִ ְׁש ְמרּו ָבנֶ יָך ֶא‬

B λέγων ἐὰν φυλάξωσιν οἱ υἱοί σου τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτῶν πορεύεσθαι ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ ἐν ὅλῃ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ ψυχῇ αὐτῶν λέγων BHS points out an omission of the second instance of ‫ ֵלאמֹר‬in a Hebrew ms. and in the Greek Lucianic and the Vulgate, suggesting therefore that this word should be omitted.9 However, the longer MT (and kaige) reading preserves an important editorial link: the resumptive repetition formed by the two occurrences of ‫ ֵלאמֹר‬, which surrounds an addition of dtr character. This is reduced to the text enclosed between the two occurrences of ‫ ֵלאמֹר‬. The recognition of this editorial device allows for a better delimitation of the dtr additions.10 3.3

1 Kings 3:15

καὶ ἔστη κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ (÷) (‫)לפני המזבח‬ κατὰ πρόσωπον κιβωτοῦ διαθήκης κυρίου ἐν Σιων (÷) (‫)יהוה בציון‬

‫וַ ּיַ ֲעמֹד‬ ‫ִל ְפנֵ י ֲארֹון ְּב ִרית־‬ ‫ֲאד ֹנָ י‬

Two notes in BHS signal the addition in the Greek of κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ and ἐν Σιων. These two additions, as well as that of κυρίου (not signaled in BHS), are marked with an obelus in the Syro-Hexaplaric version. This is a further case of double or alternative readings, one represented by MT ‫ית־אד ֹנָ י יְ הוָ ה‬ ֲ ‫(וַ ּיַ ֲעמֹד) ִל ְפנֵ י ֲארֹון ְּב ִר‬, and the other reflected by the OG ‫(וַ ּיַ ֲעמֹד) ִל ְפנֵ י‬ ‫ ִמזְ ֵּב ַח יְ הוָ ה בציון‬.11 The variants attested by the Greek seem to be irrelevant if treated separately, but compose a meaningful reading if taken together. 9  S imilarly E. Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige. Kapitel 1–16, ATD 11/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 5; for the opposite opinion, cf. Burney, Notes, 14; Montgomery, Kings, 98. 10  Cf. T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deute­ ronomistischen Darstellung (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975), 29; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomis­ tischen Geschichtswerk (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 73, n. 35; M.A. O’Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment, OBO 92 (Freiburg—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 141; Würthwein, Könige, 8. 11  According to Klostermann the Lucianic text represents the original text. Burney thinks it more probable that the additional words are an insertion of the translator: Klostermann, Die Bücher, 278, and Burney, Notes, 34.

226 3.4

Chapter 11

1 Kings 12:32–33 ‫ר־ע ָׂשה וְ ֶה ֱע ִמיד ְּב ֵבית ֵאל‬ ָ ‫ית־אל [ ְלזַ ֵּב ַח ָל ֲעגָ ִלים ֲא ֶׁש‬ ֵ ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח ֵּכן ָע ָׂשה ְּב ֵב‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיַ ַעל ַע‬ ]‫ית־אל‬ ֵ ‫ר־ע ָׂשה ְּב ֵב‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח ֲא ֶׁש‬ ַ ‫) וַ ּיַ ַעל ַע‬33( ‫ֶאת־ּכ ֲֹהנֵ י ַה ָּבמֹות ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ָׂשה‬

In v. 33 BHS signals the omission in the OG of the words ‫ית־אל‬ ֵ ‫ ְּב ֵב‬and chooses to omit the expression ‫ר־ע ָׂשה‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח ֲא ֶׁש‬ ַ ‫ וַ ּיַ ַעל ַע‬as a variant of the similar expression in the second part of the verse ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח להקטיר‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיַ ַעל ַע‬.12 Similarly, in v. 32 BHS proposes the omission of ‫ית־אל‬ ֵ ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח ֵּכן ָע ָׂשה ְּב ֵב‬ ַ ‫ וַ ּיַ ַעל ַע‬as a repetition of material from v. 33aα. In my opinion this repetition accomplishes an editorial function, making possible the insertion of the enclosed text (of priestly or Levitical origin): “… to sacrifice to the calves which he had made, and he posted in Bethel the priests of the high places which he made.” Deleting such editorial links may smooth the present text, but prevents any understanding of its historical growth.13 3.5

1 Kings 16:11–12 ‫( וַ ּיַ ְׁש ֵמד זִ ְמ ִרי ֵאת‬12) ‫א־ה ְׁש ִאיר לֹו ַמ ְׁש ִּתין ְּב ִקיר וְ ג ֲֹא ָליו וְ ֵר ֵעהּו‬ ִ ֹ ‫ל־ּבית ַּב ְע ָׁשא ל‬ ֵ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ל־ּבית ַּב ְע ָׁשא‬ ֵ ‫ָּכ‬

According to the BHS, the omission in the OG is due to homoioteleuton (‫ל־ּבית ַּב ְע ָׁשא‬ ֵ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫ל־ּבית ַּב ְע ָׁשא … ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫) ֶא‬.14 However, an analysis of the vocabulary and of the editorial technique employed indicates rather that an interpolation imitating dtr style has entered into the Masoretic tradition. The words ‫וְ ג ֲֹא ָליו‬ ‫ וְ ֵר ֵעהּו‬are an even later gloss.15

12  Würthwein, Könige, 166, n. 1. J. Gray (Kings, 313, n. j) omits ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬ ַ ‫( וַ ּיַ ַעל ַע‬32a), “which was obviously erroneously repeated here from verse 33a.” 13  Cf. M. O’Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis. A Reassessment, OBO 92 (Freiburg and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 64. 14  Similarly Benzinger, Könige, 103; Burney, Notes, 201; Montgomery, Kings, 289; S.J. de Vries, 1 Kings, Word Biblical Commentary 12 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), 196; Gray, Kings, 359. 15  The story in ch. 6 employs the verb ‫(הכה) נכה‬, while the verb ‫ השמיד‬is characteristic of the dtr redaction (1 Kgs 13:34; 12:29; 16:12; 2 Kgs 10:17; 18:28; 21:9). Würthwein (Könige, 195) considers vv. 11–12 “als spätere[n] Erfüllungsvermerk des zweiten Dtr.” However, textual and formal arguments favour the opinion that a later interpolation has been produced, with its text reduced to that omitted in the Greek (vv. 11ab–12); cf. Kittel, Könige, 130.

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

3.6

227

1 Kings 21:29 ‫ית ִּכי־נִ ְכנַ ע ַא ְח ָאב ִמ ְּל ָפנָ י‬ ָ ‫ֲה ָר ִא‬ ‫ִמ ָּפנַ י‬ ‫ִּכי־נִ ְכנַ ע‬ ‫יַ ַען‬

B (20:29) ἑώρακας ὡς κατενύγη Αχααβ ἀπὸ προσώπου μου According to BHS the OG omits by homoioteleuton MT ‫יַ ַען ִּכי־נִ ְכנַ ע ִמ ָּפנַ י‬, the eye of the copyist having skipped from ‫ ִמ ְּל ָפנָ י‬to ‫ ִמ ָּפנַ י‬.16 But the Greek ὡς κατενύγη Αχααβ ἀπὸ προσώπου μου can be interpreted as translating the Hebrew ‫ִמ ָּפנַ י ִּכי־‬ ‫נִ ְכנַ ע ַא ְח ָאב‬, instead of ‫ ִמ ְּל ָפנָ י‬, and of ignoring the words ‫ ִמ ְּל ָפנָ י יַ ַען ִּכי־נִ ְכנַ ע‬. These are in fact the words omitted in two Hebrew mss., Kennicott 93 and 182.17 An analysis of the translation equivalents allows us to identify here two parallel Hebrew readings, the second having been inserted into the MT. 3.7

1 Kings 22:17–19

17

καὶ εἶπεν Μιχαιας οὐχ οὕτως ἑώρακα ………… καὶ εἶπεν Μιχαιας οὐχ οὕτως οὐκ ἐγώ ἄκουε ῥῆμα κυρίου οὐχ οὕτως εἶδον…

18 19

‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ָר ִא‬

…………

‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ ‫ָל ֵכן‬

‫ְׁש ַמע ְּד ַבר־יְ הוָ ה‬

…‫ָר ִא ִיתי‬

Following BHS in v. 17, the LXX adds οὐχ οὕτως which reflects the Hebrew ‫“( לא כן‬ex ‫)”? ָל ֵכן‬. This information is irrelevant if not complemented with an 16  B  . Stade and F. Schwally, The Books of Kings, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1904), 168; R. Bohlen, Der Fall Naboth. Form, Hintergrund und Werdegang einer alttestamentlichen Erzählung (1 Kön 21) (Trier: Paulinus Verlag, 1978), 89, n. 151; G. Hentschel, Die Elijaerzählungen. Zum Verhältnis von Historischem Geschehen und geschichtlicher Erfahrung, EthSt33 (Leipzig, 1977), 39, n. 204. 17  Montgomery, Kings, 335. The Greek ἀπὸ προσώπου (μου) is the usual translation of ‫ִמ ָּפנַ י‬ (2 Sam 10:18 and 2 Kgs 32:19), which is an older form of the particle ‫ ִמ ְּל ָפנָ י‬. Cf. A. Jepsen, “Ahabs Busse. Ein kleiner Beitrag zur Methode literarhistorischer Einordnung,” in Archäologie und Altes Testament, Festschrift K. Galling (Tübingen: Mohr, 1970), 145–155, esp. 152, n. 16.

228

Chapter 11

additional note on v. 19, where οὐχ οὕτως is found twice, in the first instance corresponding to MT ‫ ָל ֵכן‬. These repetitions, as well as those of ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ּי‬and ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ָר ִא‬ (ἑώρακα—εἶδον), introduce two different literary units: first, the oracle of vv. 17–18, and second, the narrative of vv. 19–22, 23.18 Furthermore, the repetition of οὐχ οὕτως (‫ )לא כן‬in v. 19 allows one to recognize a further addition: the formula ‫ ְׁש ַמע ְּד ַבר־יְ הוָ ה‬. 3.8

2 Kings 4:12–15 ‫א־לּה וַ ַּת ֲעמֹד ְל ָפנָ יו‬ ָ ‫אמר … ְק ָרא ַלּׁשּונַ ִּמית ַהּזֹאת וַ ּיִ ְק ָר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫( וַ ּי‬12) ‫וַ ַּת ֲעמֹד ַּב ָּפ ַתח‬ ‫־לּה‬ ָ ‫א־לּה וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא‬ ָ ‫אמר ְק ָר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫( וַ ּי‬15)

In v. 15 BHS does not take into consideration the omission by the OG of MT ‫א־לּה‬ ָ ‫אמר ְק ָר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬, which the Hexaplaric text replaces with καὶ εἶπεν Κάλεσον αὐτήν. The resumptive repetition of vv. 12 and 15, “And he said … ‘Call this Shunammite.’ When he had called her, she stood before him. […] And he said, ‘Call her.’ And when he had called her, she stood in the doorway,” encompasses the insertion of the episode formed by vv. 13–14.19 The longer MT preserves again an important editorial link. 3.9

1 Kings 12:27

Καὶ ἐπιστραφήσεται καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ

καὶ ἐπιστραφήσεται καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ

πρὸς κύριον αὐτῶν πρὸς Ροβοαμ βασιλέα Ιουδα καὶ ἀποκτενοῦσίν με

πρὸς κύριον καὶ κύριον αὐτῶν πρὸς Ροβοαμ βασιλέα Ιουδα καὶ ἀποκτενοῦσίν με

‫וְ ָׁשב ֵלב ָה ָעם ַהּזֶ ה‬

‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ל־אד ֹנ‬ ֲ ‫ֶא‬ ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫ל־ר ַח ְב ָעם ֶמ ֶלְך י‬ ְ ‫ֶא‬ ‫וַ ֲה ָרגֻ נִ י‬ ‫ל־ר ַח ְב ָעם‬ ְ ‫וְ ָׁשבּו ֶא‬ ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫ֶמ ֶלְך־י‬

Like BHS, a few Hebrew mss. and the OG omit the phrase ‫ל־ר ַח ְב ָעם‬ ְ ‫וְ ָׁשבּו ֶא‬ ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫ ֶמ ֶלְך־י‬, “which is strictly redundant”20 and should be considered an addition to the MT. The verb ‫ וַ ֲה ָרגֻ נִ י‬is omitted also by a few Hebrew mss. and the Greek Lucianic text (ioc2e2). This is, in fact, an omission of the proto-Lucianic 18  E. Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige. 1 Kön. 17–2 Kön. 25, ATD 11/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 254. 19  Würthwein, 1 Kön. 17–2 Kön. 25, 289. 20  Gray, Kings, 313.

229

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

text, as attested by the OL (Lucifer), and ultimately of the OG. The repetition of the words … ‫ל־ר ַח ְב ָעם‬ ְ ‫וְ ָׁשבּו ֶא‬/‫ וְ ָׁשב‬is to be connected with the interpolation of the verb ‫וַ ֲה ָרגֻ נִ י‬. BHS should have signaled the omission of this word in the OG, as attested by the proto-Lucianic text and the OL. 3.10

1 Kings 13:24–25

OL (= L) et leo stabat ad corpus eius.

B

MT

καὶ ὁ λέων εἱστήκει ‫וְ ָה ַא ְריֵ ה ע ֵֹמד‬ παρὰ τὸ σῶμα 25 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες παραπορευόμενοι καὶ εἶδον ‫ וְ ִהּנֵ ה ֲאנָ ִׁשים ע ְֹב ִרים וַ ּיִ ְראּו‬25 τὸ θνησιμαῖον ἐρριμμένον ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ‫ת־הּנְ ֵב ָלה ֻמ ְׁש ֶל ֶכת ַּב ֶּד ֶרְך‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ καὶ ὁ λέων εἱστήκει ἐχόμενα τοῦ θνησιμαίου ‫ת־ה ַא ְריֵ ה ע ֵֹמד ֵא ֶצל ַהּנְ ֵב ָלה‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬ Et venerunt viri … καὶ εἰσῆλθον B / ἔρχονται οἱ ἄνδρες L (‫וַ ּיָ בֹאּו ) ַה ֲאנָ ִׁשים‬ The proto-Lucianic text and the OL omit v. 25a. This omission, which is not considered in the BHS, cannot be explained by the mechanism of homoioteleuton; it is, rather, a case of addition in the rest of the Greek tradition. This is proved by the different translation of the words ‫ ֵא ֶצל ַהּנְ ֵב ָלה‬. The OG equivalent παρὰ τὸ σῶμα is found in v. 24 (‫ = נְ ֵב ָלה‬σῶμα, vv. 13, 22, 24 (twice). 28 (three times), 29, 30 L; παρὰ τὸ σῶμα also in v. 28), the recensional equivalent ἐχόμενα τοῦ θνησιμαίου appears in v. 25. The equivalence ‫ = נְ ֵב ָלה‬θνησιμαῖον is found twice in this recensional insertion and only once more in 2 Kgs 9:37 (a kaige section).21 The OG text, as represented by the proto-Lucianic and the OL, reflects a shorter Hebrew text. The inserted sentence (v. 25a), which was introduced in the MT by means of a resumptive repetition, simply makes more explicit what is implicit in the following “and men (LXXL OL) came and told” (v. 25b), and repeats expressions taken from the surrounding context: ‫( ַהּנְ ֵב ָלה ֻמ ְׁש ֶל ֶכת ַּב ֶּד ֶרְך‬vv. 24 and 28) and ‫( ֲאנָ ִׁשים‬v. 25 LXXL OL). ‫ וְ ִהּנֵ ה‬is frequently used to insert a gloss. Finally, it is to be noted that the B text preserves, without changes, the text of the repetition ‫וְ ָה ַא ְריֵ ה ע ֵֹמד ֵא ֶצל ַהּנְ ֵב ָלה‬, while the MT has further integrated the inserted text into the context by adding the particle ‫ ֶאת‬, a characteristic of late Hebrew (‫ת־ה ַא ְריֵ ה‬ ָ ‫ת־הּנְ ֵב ָלה … וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫)וַ ּיִ ְראּו ֶא‬.

21  The Hexaplaric equivalent is νεκριμαῖον, cf. verse 30.

230 3.11

Chapter 11

1 Kings 20:15–17

OL Et inspectis rex principibus et pueris regionum qui fuerunt ducenta triginta duo

16 exiuit in pugnam

17

et dispositis his in primis iussit sequi virtutem reliquam et videntes speculatores regis Syriae indicaverunt ei

B(L) καὶ ἐπεσκέψατο Αχααβ τοὺς ἄρχοντας (καὶ L) τὰ παιδάρια (τῶν ἀρχόντων L) τῶν χωρῶν καὶ ἐγένοντο διακόσιοι καὶ τριάκοντα καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπεσκέψατο τὸν λαόν πᾶν υἱὸν δυνάμεως ἑξήκοντα χιλιάδας 16 καὶ ἐξῆλθεν μεσημβρίας καὶ υἱὸς Αδερ πίνων (καὶ L) μεθύων ἐν Σοκχωθ αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς τριάκοντα καὶ δύο βασιλεῖς συμβοηθοὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ 17 καὶ ἐξῆλθον (οἱ) ἄρχοντες (καὶ τὰ) παιδάρια (τῶν ἀρχόντων) τῶν χωρῶν ἐν πρώτοις

καὶ ἀποστέλλουσιν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλουσιν τῷ βασιλεῖ Συρίας

MT

‫ וַ ּיִ ְפקֹד‬15

‫ֶ ֽאת־נַ ֲע ֵרי‬ ‫ָׂש ֵרי‬ ‫ַה ְּמ ִדינֹות‬ ‫וַ ּיִ ְהיּו‬ ‫אתיִם ְׁשנַ יִם‬ ַ ‫ָמ‬ ‫ֹלׁשים‬ ִ ‫ּוׁש‬ ְ ‫יהם ָּפ ַקד‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ‫ל־ה ָעם‬ ָ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ל־ּבנ֥ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ִׁש ְב ַעת ֲא ָל ִפים׃‬ ְ ‫ָּכ‬ ‫ וַ ּיֵ ְצ ֖אּו‬16 ‫ן־ה ַדד ׁש ֶֹתה‬ ֲ ‫ּוב‬ ֶ ‫ַּב ָּצ ֳה ָריִם‬ ‫ִׁשּכֹור ַּב ֻּסּכֹות הּוא‬ ‫ים־ּוׁשנַ יִם‬ ְ ‫ֹלׁש‬ ֽ ִ ‫וְ ַה ְּמ ָל ִכים ְׁש‬ ‫ֶמ ֶלְך עֹזֵ ר אֹתֹו‬ ‫ וַ ּיֵ ְצאּו נַ ֲע ֵרי ָׂש ֵרי‬17 ‫ַה ְּמ ִדינֹות‬ ‫ָּב ִ ֽראׁש ֹנָ ה‬

‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַלח‬ ‫ן־ה ַדד‬ ֲ ‫ֶּב‬ ‫וַ ּיַ ִּג֤ידּו‬ ‫לֹו‬

Finally, I discuss an OL marginal gloss from the 56 such glosses to 1 Kgs 20–22 preserved in Codex 92 (Legionensis 2), Codex 93 and Codex 95, not included in the Vercellone edition. The marginal readings corresponding to chapter 20 have been recently edited by Antonio Moreno Hernández.22 A marginal gloss 22  Antonio Moreno, “Glosas inéditas de Vetus latina en manuscritos españoles: aportaciones para la reconstrucción de 1 Re 20,” Sef 48 (1988): 343–356 (346).

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

231

to v. 15 covers also partly vv. 16 and 17. In v. 16 the MT has the plural ‫ וַ ּיֵ ְצאּו‬while the LXX καὶ ἐξῆλθεν (and one Hebrew ms.) reflects the singular ‫וַ ּיֵ ְצא‬, which is confirmed as the OG reading by the OL exiuit. The plural form is found again in v. 17. This repetition, and that of the words ‫( נַ ֲע ֵרי ָׂש ֵרי ַה ְּמ ִדינֹות‬vv. 15 and 17), surround two literary developments inserted in the Masoretic textual tradition, which influenced the Greek tradition. The first is in v. 15 (‫וְ ַא ֲח ֵר ֶיהם ָּפ ַקד‬ ‫ל־ּבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ִׁש ְב ַעת ֲא ָל ִפים‬ ְ ‫ל־ה ָעם ָּכ‬ ָ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫ ) ֶא‬and has a shorter counterpart in the OL iussit sequi virtutem reliquam, which represent the earlier form of the text. The second, in v. 16, is enclosed by the resumptive repetition … ‫… וַ ּיֵ ְצאּו‬ ‫ וַ ּיֵ ְצאּו‬and is completely ignored by the OL. It reproduces here the passage of v. 12, adding the word ‫ ִׁשּכֹור‬to ‫ ׁש ֶֹתה ַּב ֻּסּכֹות‬and combines the expression ‫הּוא וְ ַה ְּמ ָל ִכים‬ with that of v. 1 ‫ּוׁשנַ יִם ֶמ ֶלְך ִאּתֹו‬ ְ ‫ֹלׁשים‬ ִ ‫ּוׁש‬ ְ , adding the word ‫עֹזֵ ר‬. In v. 1 the words ‫ּוׁשנַ יִם ֶמ ֶלְך ִאּתֹו וְ סּוס וָ ָר ֶכב‬ ְ ‫ֹלׁשים‬ ִ ‫ּוׁש‬ ְ are an interpolation enclosed by a new resumptive repetition, preserved this time by the longer Greek text καὶ ἀνέβη καὶ περιεκάθισεν ἐπὶ Σαμάρειαν… καὶ ἀνέβησαν καὶ περιεκάθισαν ἐπὶ Σαμάρειαν. The shorter reading of the OL in vv. 16–17a (until ‫) ָּב ִראׁש ֹנָ ה‬, the repetition of MT/ LXX of vv. 15 and 17 (‫)נַ ֲע ֵרי ָׂש ֵרי ַה ְּמ ִדינ֖ ֹות‬, the longer and double reading of the OG in v. 1 and the variants of the Hebrew and the Greek, as well as considerations of literary criticism, converge here to prove the composite character of the passages involved (vv. 1 and 16).23 4 Conclusions To sum up, the text critical use of the LXX must be based on the complete Greek evidence and also on that of the other old versions (particularly the OL and Peshitta). The LXX must be read as a literary monument in itself, first of all as a work of translation into Greek, second, as a faithful witness to an independent Hebrew textual tradition, different from that represented by the MT. The most substantial variants that differentiate these two basic textual forms are not phenomena which occurred in the process of the Hebrew textual trans­ mission or of the translation into Greek. They are rather traces of an intensive 23  Kittel and Rehm consider v. 16 a gloss: see Kittel, Könige, 168; M. Rehm, Das erste Buch der Könige: ein Kommentar (Eichstätt: Echter, 1977), 196. According to Montgomery, Kings, 322–323, verse 16 is a doublet of verse 12. Würthwein and Schmitt reduce the extent of the gloss to the words “thirty-two kings, his auxiliaries”: Würthwein, Könige, 234; H.Ch. Schmitt, Elisa. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nord­ israelitischen Prophetie (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Gerd Mohn, 1972), 193; cf. also H.-J. Stipp, Elischa—Propheten—Gottesmänner: Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert auf der Basis von Text- und Literarkritik zu 1 Kön 20.22 und 2 Kön 2–7, ATSAT 24 (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1987), 246.

232

Chapter 11

earlier editorial activity. The textual form represented by the MT is the result of 1) a complete rearrangement of the text of the γγ section (by incorporating into the main body of the book the Hebrew supplements and miscellanies translated by the OG), and 2) the introduction of literary developments ignored by the textual Hebrew form represented by the Old Greek. These literary developments were frequently produced my means of the editorial technique of resumptive repetition, leaving textual traces at the points of suture of the inserted passages.

Chapter 12

Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings in the Books of Judges and Kings The present chapter1 has been prompted by the study of the Qumran manuscript 4QJudga and by the newly edited Old Latin (OL) marginal readings of the book of Kings preserved in some medieval codices of the Vulgate.2 4QJudga shows surprising points of contact with variants of the protoLucianic Greek and/or the OL version, which represent the best Greek textual tradition in Judges. On the other hand, 4QJudga lacks a whole passage that is generally considered deuteronomistic (Judg 6:7–10). This makes us more confident about the possibilities of recognizing earlier and less developed stages of the Hebrew textual tradition of Judges.3 1 The OL Marginal Readings in the Book of Judges Before examining the textual affiliations of the OL variants and embarking upon an exercise of textual criticism of the Latin, Greek or Hebrew texts, one must bear in mind the established grouping of Greek manuscripts in the book of Judges. By A and B “texts” we refer in this study to the text of the A and B “groups” of manuscripts. The A group, namely (Codex A) Gabd(k)x(Syr),4 is very 1  I am most honored to participate in this work of homage dedicated to Prof. P. Norbert Lohfink. On this occasion I wish to testify to the great influence exerted by Prof. Lohfink in the Spanish speaking countries, for which he deserves the highest expression of gratitude.   I thank Dr. Peter Flint (University of Notre Dame) for his revision of my English manuscript. 2  A. Moreno Hernández, Las glosas marginales de Vetus Latina en las Biblias Vulgatas españolas. 1–2 Reyes, TECC 49 (Madrid: CSIC, 1992). 3  J. Trebolle, “Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges,” in The Texts of Qumran and the History of the Community. Proceedings of the Groningen Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls (20–23 August 1989) [vol. I.; ed. F. Garcia Martinez], RQ 14 (1989): 229–245. 4  The parentheses indicate that the designated manuscript often deviates from the common text of the group. We refrain from speaking of “texts A and B” as reflected by Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, since these two codices often deviate from the text of the group of manuscripts to which they belong and consequently from the type of text they are supposed to represent.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_014

234

Chapter 12

close to the OG, except for its Hexaplaric characteristics. The B group, formed by mss. Befj(m)qsz, is related to the Palestinian (so called kaige recension). A subgroup formed by the mss. irua2, although being the weaker witness to the B text, is the stronger witness to this recension.5 The K (koine) group, M N (h) and b2, has a mixed text, based on the A text (OG), but is influenced by the B text (kaige). The Lucianic (L) group, namely (K)(Z)g1nw is pre-Hexaplaric, and forms the best witness to the OG in Judges. The subgroup L, which is formed by (d)ptv, shows strong Hexaplaric influence. Special attention, therefore, is to be paid to the agreements between groups A and L that go back to the older tradition of the Greek text. The Old Latin version was based on a Greek Vorlage similar to the protoLucianic text. Sometimes it constitutes our only extant means of approaching this proto-Lucianic text and consequently the OG text. The 89 extant OL marginal notes of Judges, published in 1967 by T. Ayuso Marazuela, have not yet been studied with respect to their textual affiliation.6 We cannot offer here the text of all 89 notes nor the entire text of all those selected for discussion. There will be only 35 notes, which nevertheless are well representative of the whole picture of the extant notes. Sufficient context surrounding the variants will be offered so that the reader may evaluate for himself the relation of the Latin variants to their Greek counterparts as well as the incidence of the inner Latin variants in the present state of the OL textual tradition. The readings preserved in the text of the Latin Fathers are also taken into account. They complete a picture that prima facie seems to do justice to the bitterness of Augustine towards the state of confusion (vitiosissima varietas) in which the text of the Old Latin version was known at his time. Nevertheless, set apart the inner Latin variants—which text-critically cannot be counted as real variants—one might be surprised to discover that all real variants go back to one or another of the known Greek textual forms of the book of Judges. The A/L Greek text is most often represented, as should be expected, having been the basis of the OL version. The B kaige text follows, particularly in the marginal readings; these notes can therefore be considered in great measure a collection of readings representative of the Greek kaige text. 5  D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 34 and 47; W.R. Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges. Recensional Developments, HSM 23 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 3; J. Targarona Borrás, Historia del texto griego del libro de los Jueces (Madrid: 1983), 46–49 [unpublished dissertation]. 6  The marginal notes are preserved in five Spanish medieval codices from the 10th–13th centuries and all go back to a single archetype; cf. T. Ayuso Marazuela, La Vetus Latina Hispana, I. Prolegómenos (TECC 1; Madrid: CSIC, 1962) 409; II. El Octateuco (TECC 6; Madrid: CSIC, 1967) 29 and 279–305.

Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings

235

The few contacts with other Greek groups are no less significant. More interesting are the Hebraisms present in the marginal notes. The various—often conflate—OL readings preserved in the writings of the Fathers are also a good reflection of the conflicting Greek readings. The sigla “GR” stand for the marginal readings, that were considered to have been taken from a Greek source (in graeco), and the sigla “VL” (Vetus Latina) stand for the readings of the other textual witnesses of the OL.7 For the book of Judges these are the Codices Ottoboniensis, Lugdunensis, Monachensis, Wirceburgensis and Florentinus from the 5th–7th centuries. 1. 1:17 GR habitantem zephat et extirpauerunt eam et uocauerunt nomen ciuitatis exterminium offers correspondences with the A text, but omits with the B text the words καὶ ἀνεθεμάτισαν αὐτὴν: B τὸν κατοικοῦντα Σεφεκ καὶ ἐξωλέθρευσαν αὐτούς καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως Ἀνάθεμα. VL habitantem Sefec, et exterminauerunt eam et anathematizauerunt eam, et nominauerunt nomen ciuitatis exterminium = A/L τὸν κατοικοῦντα Σεφεθ/Σαφαν καὶ ἀνεθεμάτισαν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐξωλέθρευσαν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐκάλεσαν τὸ ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως Ἐξολέθρευσις. 2. 1:19 GR quoniam currus ferri erant eis = K αὐτῷ] + καὶ ἄρματα σιδηρᾶ αὐτῷ (cf. 4:3, 13). VL quoniam recehab partitus eam = A ὅτι Ῥηχαβ διεστείλατο αὐτήν (B αὐτῷ). AUG (Augustinus) has a conflate reading: quoniam rechab obstitit eis et currus erant eis ferrei. 3. 1:21 GR AUG non haereditauerunt = Β οὐκ ἐκληρονόμησαν. VL non abstulerunt = A οὐκ ἐξῆραν. 4. 1:27 GR AUG non haereditauit = A οὐκ ἐκληρονόμησεν. VL non abstulit = Β οὐκ ἐξῆρεν. 5. 1:34 GR et conflictabat amorraeus filios dan nec …, OL et tribulauit amorreus filios dan quoniam … = L > εἰς τὸ ὄρος. PS-IS (Pseudo-Isidorus) et angustauit amorraeus filios dan in monte quia …, AUG et contribulauit amorrhaeus filios dan in monte quoniam … = B A καὶ ἐξέθλιψεν ὁ Αμορραῖος τοὺς υἱοὺς Δαν εἰς τὸ ὄρος (cf. Josh 19:7a). 6. 2:3 GR ego autem dixi non auferam eos a facie uestra et erunt uobis in pressura et dii eorum erunt uobis in scandalum = B κἀγὼ εἶπον οὐ μὴ ἐξαρῶ

7  The sigla VL (Vetus Latina) may be considered inadequate since the marginal notes (GR) are also OL texts. However, these sigla are retained in order to stress that the witnesses introduced as VL represent a text close to the original OL version, while the text of the marginal readings (GR) in Judges are mainly reflective of the Greek recensional (kaige) text.

236

Chapter 12

αὐτοὺς ἐκ προσώπου ὑμῶν καὶ ἔσονται ὑμῖν εἰς συνοχάς καὶ οἱ θεοὶ αὐτῶν ἔσονται ὑμῖν εἰς σκάνδαλον. VL et ego dixi non adiciam transmigrare quem dixi excludere illos a faciae uestra et erint uobis in obsidione et di illorum erunt uobis in scandalum, AUG non adiciam transmigrare populum quem dixi eicere non auferam eos a facie uestra et erunt uobis in angustias et dii eorum erunt uobis in scandalum = A/L καὶ ἐγὼ εἶπα οὐ προσθήσω τοῦ μετοικίσαι τὸν λαόν ὃν εἶπα τοῦ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι αὐτοὺς ἐκ προσώπου ὑμῶν καὶ ἔσονται ὑμῖν εἰς συνοχάς καὶ οἱ θεοὶ αὐτῶν ἔσονται ὑμῖν εἰς σκάνδαλον. 7. 3:23 GR VL omit with the A text the words of the B text καὶ ἐξῆλθεν τοὺς διατεταγμένους (AUG adds et transiit obseruantes). 8. 3:24 GR ne quando ad sella sedet in secessu cubiculi, VL numquid ad sellam sedet in recessu culinae cubiculi = A/L μήποτε πρὸς δίφρους κάθηται ἐν τῇ ἀποχωρήσει τοῦ κοιτῶνος, against B μήποτε ἀποκενοῖ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ταμιείῳ τῷ θερινῷ. 9. 4:8–9 GR si uero non uenis mecum non eam quoniam ignoro diem in quo diriget dominus angelum mecum et dixit ad eum debbora = A καὶ ἐὰν μὴ πορευθῇς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ οὐ πορεύσομαι ὅτι οὐκ οἶδα τὴν ἡμέραν ἐν ᾗ εὐοδοῖ κύριος τὸν ἄγγελον μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὸν Δεββωρα. VL et si non abieris non abibo quoniam nescio in qua dirigit dominus angelum mecum et dixit ad eum debbora dicens follows the A text in the bold readings, but coincides with B in the omission of μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ/mecum. The reading dicens has no counterpart in the Greek. AUG et si non ieris mecum non ibo quoniam nescio diem in qua prosperat angelum dominus mecum, AMB (Ambrosius) Nisi tu ueneris mecum non ibo quia non noui diem in qua dirigit dominus angelum suum (κύριος τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ L) mecum, IS (Isidorus) nisi et tu ascenderis mecum. Vulg si nolueris uenire mecum, non pergam. Quae dixit ad eum: Ibo quidem tecum, sed in hac uice uictoria non reputabitur tibi, quia in manu mulieris tradetur Sisara, follows the MT in the omission of ὅτι… ἐμοῦ. 10. 4:11 GR et fixit = AB καὶ ἔπηξεν. VL et extendit barac = L, ἔπηξεν] + Βαρακ dglnaptvw. 11. 4:18 GR operuit eum pelle, VL et cooperuit illum de pelle = B καὶ περιέβαλεν αὐτὸν ἐπιβολαίῳ. AUG et cooperuit eum in pelle sua = A/L ἐν τῇ δέρρει αὐτῆς (AMNa-dghlnptv-yb2 Arm Aeth Syr). 12. 4:21 GR ipse vero scarizans mortuus est sub pedibus eius = A L καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπεσκάρισεν ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν γονάτων αὐτῆς καὶ ἐξέψυξεν καὶ ἀπέθανεν. VL et ipse scarizauit et friguit et mortuus est = B καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξεστὼς ἐσκοτώθη καὶ ἀπέθανεν.

Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings

237

13. 4:23–24 GR AUG follow Β A. VL et humiliauit dominus deus […] iabin regem chanaan […] donec disperderet eum, omits the passages between […]: B (23) καὶ ἐτρόπωσεν ὁ θεὸς [ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ] τὸν Ιαβιν βασιλέα Χανάαν [ἔμπροσθεν τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ. (24) καὶ ἐπορεύετο χεὶρ τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ πορευομένη καὶ σκληρυνομένη ἐπὶ Ιαβιν βασιλέα Χανάαν] ἕως οὗ ἐξωλέθρευσαν τὸν Ιαβιν βασιλέα Χανάαν. This is probably a case of haplography produced by homoioteleuton in the Latin text. 14. 5:2 GR quum inquoarent principes in israel in uoluntate populi, VL dum imperant principes in istrahel in praesumptione populi = A/L ἐν τῷ ἄρξασθαι ἀρχηγοὺς ἐν Ισραηλ ἐν προαιρέσει λαοῦ (B ἀπεκαλύφθη ἀποκάλυμμα ἐν Ισραηλ ἐν τῷ ἑκουσιασθῆναι λαόν…). 15. 5:6 GR defecerunt uiae = B ἐξέλιπον ὁδούς VL defecerunt reges = A/L ἐξέλιπον βασιλεῖς. 16. 5:8 GR elegerunt deos nouos tunc uelut panem ordeatium tegumen adulescentium iaculantium accensus est et iaculauit in XL milibus israel, VL elegerunt deos nouos sicut panem hordiacium tegumen iuuenum merronum in censum est et errauerunt in XL milibus = A/L ᾑρέτισαν θεοὺς καινοὺς, ὡς ἄρτον κρίθινον σκέπην νεανίδων σιρομαστῶν ἀνήφθη καὶ σιρομαστῆς ἐν τεσσαράκοντα χιλιάσιν. AUG elegerunt ut panem hordeaceum deos nouos tunc expugnauerunt ciuitates principum = Β ἐξελέξαντο θεοὺς καινούς τότε ἐπολέμησαν πόλεις ἀρχόντων (θυρεὸς ἐὰν ὀφθῇ καὶ λόγχη ἐν τεσσαράκοντα χιλιάσιν ἐν Ισραηλ). 17. 5:10 GR VL = A/L; they omit B καὶ πορευόμενοι ἐπὶ ὁδοὺς συνέδρων ἐφ᾽ ὁδῷ. 18. 5:13 GR domine descende mihi in fortiores me = B (λαὸς) κυρίου κατέβη αὐτῷ ἐν τοῖς κραταιοῖς ἐξ ἐμοῦ. The reading domine corresponds to the text of the groups A/L. VL domine humiliamini (sic) mihi fortiores me (Origen’s reading, not quoted by T. Ayuso, Domine, humilia mihi helps to correct the faulty humiliamini mihi)8 = A/L κύριε ταπείνωσόν μοι τοὺς ἰσχυροτέρους μου. 19. 5:28 VL per fenestra propiciebat = Β (A/L) διὰ τῆς θυρίδος παρέκυψεν/διέκυπτεν, GR per fenestram retiatam = A/L + διὰ τῆς δικτυωτῆς ἐπιβλέπουσα.

8  W.A. Baehrens (ed.), Origenes Werke, Sechster Band: Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung, Zweiter Teil: Die Homilien zu Numeri, Josua und Judices, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 29–30 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1920), 504.

238

Chapter 12

20. 6:13 GR VL AUG LUC (Lucifer) in me domine omits the genitive μου of ἐν ἐμοί κύριέ μου. In v. 15 these witnesses coincide also with A/L in the same omission.9 21. 6:26 GR assumptionis huius. VL auch, PS-SP (Pseudo-Speculum Liber de divinis Scripturis) maoch = B Μαουεκ τούτου. PS-VIG (Pseudo-Vigilius, Contra Palladium) montis macoth = A/L ὄρους (Μαωζ). 22. 7:9 GR descende hinc quam celerrime, VL descende celeriter hic = (A) L κατάβηθι τὸ τάχος ἐντεῦθεν εἰς τὴν παρεμβολήν. GR.IL (Gregorio de Elvira) descende in castra = Β κατάβηθι ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ. 23. 7:16 GR VL in medio hidriarum/hydriarum = A/L ἐν μέσῳ/ ἔνδον τῶν ὑδριῶν (Β ἐν ταῖς ὑδρίαις). 24. 7:22 GR usque ad domum hasitat zeruatha (MT ‫) ֵּבית ַה ִּׁש ָּטה ְצ ֵר ָר ָתה‬. VL usque domum arfatha = L ἕως τῆς οἴκου Βαεσαττα (Β ἕως Βηθσεεδτα Γαραγαθα; Α ἕως τῆς Βαιθασεττα, a reading of Codex A alone). 25. 7:25 GR et occiderunt oreb in iozur oreb (MT ‫ּבצּור־עֹורב‬ ֵ ) et zeb occiderunt in iezeb zebeth (MT ‫) ְביֶ ֶקב־זְ ֵאב‬. GR adds Oreb in accordance with MT. VL et occiderunt oreb in sedabar et zeb occiderunt in ualle zeb (B A/L καὶ ἀπέκτειναν τὸν Ωρηβ ἐν Σουρ/Σουρειν/Σουδειν καὶ τὸν Ζηβ ἀπέκτειναν ἐν Ιακεφζηβ). 26. 8:13 GR in ascensiones hahares (MT ‫) ִמ ְל ַמ ֲע ֵלה ֶה ָח ֶרס‬. VL ab ascensu maris = A/L ἀπὸ (ἐπάνωθεν) ἀναβάσεως Αρες (B ἀπὸ ἐπάνωθεν τῆς παρατάξεως Αρες). 27. 9:4 G R septuaginta talenta argenti de domo baalbrith = B ἑβδομήκοντα ἀργυρίου ἐξ οἴκου Βααλβεριθ. VL argenteos ex domo bahal testamenti = A/L …Βααλ διαθήκης. 28. 9:4 GR et conduxit in eis, VL et conduxit in ipsis (AUG in ipsis) = A καὶ ἐμισθώσατο ἐν αὐτῷ (Β καὶ ἐμισθώσατο ἑαυτῷ). 29. 9:9 GR relinquens pinguedinem meam quae est in me quem honorauit deus et homines, VL relinquens pinguedinem meam quam glorificauit in me dominus et homines = A/L ἀφεῖσα τὴν πιότητά μου ἣν ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐδόξασεν ὁ θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωποι (B ἀπολείψασα τὴν πιότητά μου ἐν ᾗ δοξάσουσι τὸν θεὸν ἄνδρες). 30. 9:15 GR submergite uos sub umbram meam = Β ὑπόστητε ἐν τῇ σκιᾷ μου. VL intrate in protectione mea, AUG confidite in protectione mea = A/L πεποίθατε/ὑποδύσατε ἐν τῇ σκέπῃ/ὑπὸ τὴν σκέπην μου. 9  Lucifer’s reading is not quoted by Ayuso; cf. De regibus apostaticis I 35, in Luciferi Calaritani Opera quae supersunt, ed. G.F. Diercks, CCSL 8 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1978), 136.

Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings

239

31. 9:29 GR VL Abimelech = Α τῷ Αβιμελεχ (Β πρὸς αὐτόν). 32. 11:9 GR uestrum ero caput, VL et ero tecum in capud = A/L ἐγὼ ὑμῖν ἔσομαι εἰς κεφαλήν AUG ero uobis in principem (Vulg ego ero uester princeps) = B καὶ ἐγὼ ἔσομαι ὑμῖν εἰς ἄρχοντα. 33. 11:35 GR impedisti me instimulatio doloris facta est mihi, AMB impedisti me in stimulum doloris facta est mihi = Β ταραχῇ ἐτάραξάς με καὶ σὺ ἦς ἐν τῷ ταράχῳ μου (MT ‫) ַה ְכ ֵר ַע ִה ְכ ַר ְע ִּתנִ י וְ ַא ְּת ָהיִ ְית ְּבע ְֹכ ָרי‬. VL impedisti me quoniam priuans facta est ante oculos meos, AUG impedisti me in offendiculum facta es in oculis meis, Pseudo-Prosperus offensio facta es in oculis meis = A ἐμπεποδοστάτηκάς με εἰς σκῶλον ἐγένου ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς μου. 34. 12:2 GR VL et dixit ad eos/illos Iepta/Iephte = A/L καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς Ιεφθαε (B καὶ εἶπεν Ιεφθαε πρὸς αὐτούς). 35. 12:6 GR compositio spicae = Β στάχυς (Vulg Scibboleth, quod interpretatur Spica, MT ‫) ִסּב ֶֹלת‬. VL iudicium = A/L σύνθημα. Most of the variants are inner Latin changes, produced in the process of translation or textual transmission: changes related to phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicography, and translation technique. These phenomena lie beyond the scope of our analysis here. Our attention is centered on the textual affiliation of the OL marginal readings and on the possibility of discerning “developments in the OL which were conscious revisions toward the Greek text of the day; those developments, if proved to be such, would be valuable witnesses and indices for the transmission history of the LXX.”10 In 12 of the 35 instances considered (7, 8, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34) the marginal notes (GR) as well as the other witnesses (VL) follow the A/L Greek, as is to be expected from the fact that the OL version is based on such a textual form. In 9 cases (1, 3, 6, 15, 18, 27, 30, 33, 35) the marginal notes (GR) represent the B kaige text, against the A/L text reflected by the other witnesses (VL). In 4 instances (4, 9, 12, 19), the last equation is inverted: GR = A, against VL = B. In no. 10, GR = AB // VL = L, but this has no special relevance. Three very significant cases are 5, 22, 24, in which GR and VL coincide with the L group, a representative of the OG tradition. The readings of the L group reflected by the marginal notes could be sometimes of a recensional character. 10  E. Ulrich, “Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translation of the Septuagint,” in La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS), ed. N. Fernández Marcos, TECC 34 (Madrid: CSIC, 1985), 69.

240

Chapter 12

In 2 cases (11, 21) the entire OL tradition reflects the B text. The only instance (no. 2) of agreement of a marginal note with the K group is not less significant. In 1 case (no. 13) the marginal gloss follows the B text, while the other witnesses present a case of haplography. Finally, notes 25 and 26 do not follow any known Greek text; they go back to a Hebrew Vorlage similar to that of the MT. Two main conclusions can be reached. First, all the OL variants (GR + VL) go back to readings of one or another of the different Greek text groups: A/L (12 + 9 + 4 + 3 instances), B (9 + 4 + 2 + 1) and K (1). Second, the marginal notes (GR) present a high number of agreements with the B text (GR = B, 9 + 2 + 1 instances), while the coincidences of VL with B are fewer (4 + 2). The proportion is inverted if the agreements with the A/L text are considered: GR = A/L 15 times (12 + 3), while VL = A/L 24 times (12 + 9 + 3). As for the quotations of the Latin Fathers, the 15 readings of Augustine present at first sight a very confusing picture, since virtually every reading presents a different combination of agreements and disagreements with one text-type or another. Often, they agree with the text of the marginal notes. However, it is important to note that the variants of Augustine that may represent real textual variants have always Greek counterparts.11 The same is to be said of the readings of the other Church Fathers: Lucifer (no. 20), Ambrosius (7, 33), Pseudo-Isidorus (5), Pseudo-Speculum (21), Gregorio de Elvira (22) and Pseudo-Prosperus (33). We may, therefore, safely affirm that the variants of the OL textual tradition are valuable witnesses and indices for the transmission history of the LXX;

11  As far as “variants” can be reduced to sigla, the following equations may be established:   no. 2, AUG = GR = K and AUG = VL = A   no. 3, AUG GR B against VL A   no. 4, AUG GR A against VL B   no. 5, AUG A against GR VL L   no. 6, AUG VL A/L against GR B   no. 7, AUG B against GR VL   no. 9, AUG GR B against VL A   no. 11, AUG A/L against GR VL B   no. 13, AUG GR AB   no. 16, AUG B against GR VL A/L   no. 20, AUG GR VL   no. 28, AUG GR VL A against B   no. 30, AUG VL A/L against GR B   no. 32, AUG B against GR VL A/L     no. 33, AUG VL A against GR B.

Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings

241

those of the marginal readings represent mainly the B kaige text and those of the extant OL manuscripts (VL) the A/L OG text. The marginal notes that follow the B text, as well as the many doublets present in the manuscripts, reflect a revision of the OL version (translated from a Greek original akin to the A/L text) that was accomplished at the hands of recensors, who worked on the basis of a B kaige text. In many respects this recension is the Latin counterpart of the revision of the OG text at the hands of the kaige recensors, who aimed at conforming the OG to the Hebrew protoMasoretic text. The revision attested by the marginal notes represents a kind of middle stage between the original OL version and the Vulgate of Jerome. The revisors of the OL that made use of the B kaige text were in a certain sense forerunners of Jerome, who with a similar purpose in mind used instead mainly the “Three” as representatives of the veritas hebraica. This does not mean that the work of these revisers can be recognized by specific characteristics such as those supposedly identified by J. Carmignac for the OL of Chronicles.12 It has been stated that at some point in the textual history of the OL, presumably before Jerome, a translation of at least some passages of the Greek kaige text was incorporated into the OL textual tradition. This accounts for the frequent double readings present in the only extant complete ms. of the OL of Judges, Codex Lugdunensis. An example is found in Judg 6:32, where the longer recensional reading follows the B text, which translates the MT: et uocauit illud in die illa Ieroboam dicens: iudicet sibi Bahal quoniam deposuerunt altarium eius = καὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ Ιεροβααλ λέγων δικασάσθω ἐν αὐτῷ ὁ Βααλ ὅτι καθῃρέθη τὸ θυσιαστήριον αὐτοῦ (MT ‫וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא־לֹו‬ ‫ת־מזְ ְּבחֹו‬ ִ ‫ּיֹום־ההּוא יְ ֻר ַּב ַעל ֵלאמֹר יָ ֶרב ּבֹו ַה ַּב ַעל ִּכי נָ ַתץ ֶא‬ ַ ‫) ַב‬. The shorter reading attested by the A and L texts represents here the OG: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ Δικαστήριον τοῦ Βααλ ὅτι κατέσκαψεν τὸ θυσιαστήριον αὐτοῦ. The OG translates a Hebrew text that ignored the explanation of the name Yerubbaal, “since he had said: ‘Let Baal fight with him’” (MT ‫) ֵלאמֹר יָ ֶרב ּבֹו ַה ַּב ַעל‬. The literalism of the translation λέγων δικασάσθω ἐν αὐτῷ ὁ Βααλ is a further proof of its recensional (kaige) character. The most significant conflations present in the OL tradition are those that reflect the different stages of development in the Greek tradition. They were generated by juxtaposing the OL readings and the new recensional readings which go back mostly to the proto-Theodotionic or kaige text.

12  J . Carmignac, “Les devanciers de S. Jérôme. Une traduction latine de la recension kaige dans le second Livre des Chroniques,” in Mélanges D. Barthélemy, ed. Casetti et alii (Fribourg—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 31–50.

242

Chapter 12

The complexity of the OL textual tradition, richer even than that of the Greek, goes back ultimately to a Hebrew tradition that was itself more complex than is usually recognized. The analysis of the OL and of its Greek Vorlage—a proto-Lucianic text very close to the OG—enables one to discover some variants in the Old Hebrew textual tradition. This is recognized more easily in the analysis of the OL of Kings, but an example taken from Judges (18:22) will prove the validity of the assertion for this book also: OL (Lugdunensis) et uiri qui cum illo (‫ )עמו‬erant in domo L καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες οἱ όντες ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μετὰ Μειχα A καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες ὁ λαός (‫ )עם‬οἱ ὄντες ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις οἱ σὺν τῷ οἴκῳ μετὰ (‫) ִעם‬ Μειχά B (K) L′ καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες οἱ ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις ταῖς μετὰ (‫ ) ִעם‬οἴκου Μειχαια, MT ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ם־ּבית ִמ‬ ֵ ‫“( וְ ָה ֲאנָ ִׁשים ֲא ֶׁשר ַּב ָּב ִּתים ֲא ֶׁשר ִע‬The men who were in the houses near the house of Micah”). As usual, the recensional text of the B group follows the MT. The A group adds the reading ὁ λαός, which seems to reflect the Hebrew ‫ עם‬as a synonymous of ‫ ֲאנָ ִׁשים‬. However, this reading is related to the Hebrew preposition ‫ ִעם‬that follows immediately in the MT (‫ם־ּבית ִמ ָיכה‬ ֵ ‫) ִע‬. This preposition is in fact translated in the OG by μετά (Μειχα) (A/L, cf. SyrH) and is also reflected in the OL cum illo. Moreover, the B group preserves the preposition μετά, although it is joined to οἴκου. The use of ‫ ִעם‬with locative meaning, “near” (“near the house of Micah”), is not impossible. However, the meaning “in company with,” “together with,” which is reflected in the Greek μετά and the Latin cum, is here certainly preferable. The preposition refers to the person of Micah, “The men who were in company with him” (‫) ִעם ִמ ָיכה‬, and not to the house of Micah as in the MT (‫ם־ּבית ִמ ָיכה‬ ֵ ‫) ִע‬. The awkwardness of the literal translation μετά οἴκου (B) or σὺν τῷ οἴκῳ (A, reminiscent of Aquila), “with the house,” instead of the more correct ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ (L, in domo OL), reflects the difficulty present in the MT reading ‫ם־ּבית ִמ ָיכה‬ ֵ ‫ ִע‬, “with the house of Micah.” The proto-Lucianic and OL ignore the words ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις οἱ / ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις ταῖς, which correspond to ΜΤ ‫ ַּב ָּב ִּתים ֲא ֶׁשר‬. This shorter reading of the Antiochene Group καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες οἱ ὄντες ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μετὰ Μειχα goes back to the OG, which is properly preserved only in the OL et uiri qui cum illo erant in domo. In the Masoretic tradition the words ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר ַּב ָּב ִּתים‬are a gloss, parallel to the following ‫ם־ּבית‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר ִע‬. The insertion was made via the system of ring-composition (Wiederaufnahme), in which the relative ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר‬was repeated. The gloss inserted in the MT, ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר ַּב ָּב ִּתים‬, which extends to the houses in the vicinity the alarm

Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings

243

over the image stolen from the house of Micah, has produced the present incongruence in the MT. The OG and OL texts represent here an Old Hebrew text which reads “Micah and the men who were with him in the house.” 2 The OL Marginal Readings in the Book of Kings The textual affiliation of the OL marginal readings in the book of Kings has recently been studied by the editor of the new materials.13 The results are summarized as follows: from a total of 376 marginal notes 164 follow the Antiochene text—which in the kaige sections (113 instances) represents a text akin to the OG—and 64 the “vulgar” Septuagint text (LXX rel.). The remaining 148 notes do not follow any known Greek counterpart. We will gain a different perspective if, instead of comparing the text of the marginal notes with Greek texts of the IV century AD (the Antiochene and the “vulgar” LXX), we try to compare it with the former stages of the Greek textual tradition. These stages are: the proto-Lucianic, which is very close to the OG, and the kaige, which is closer to a proto-Masoretic text. Considering the greater and more significant unities and disregarding for our purpose the grammatical and lexical variants, the textual picture offered by the marginal notes proves to follow well-defined patterns rather than being haphazard. After the readings going back to a proto-Lucianic text are separated from those reflecting the kaige text, the proto-Lucianic textual basis of the OL tradition becomes more evident. As a result, the hypothesis of a single OL version followed by a process of recension for the books of Samuel-Kings becomes more probable than the hypothesis of a plurality of versions. The more important readings to be considered here are the “additions” in which the OL follows LXXL (66 times) or LXX rel. (16) or disagrees with both (57). 2.1 OL = LXXL, > LXX rel. The readings of the Antiochene text followed by the OL and “omitted” by LXX rel. are not in fact additions characteristic of the late “Lucianic” recension, but proto-Lucianic readings (OG). LXX rel. does not “omit” these readings but presents parallel readings representing the kaige text. We shall comment only on a few examples. 13  A  . Moreno Hernández, Las glosas marginales, 224–226. Similar evaluations, although considering the text of the marginal notes in fewer units of greater extension, are provided in N. Fernández Marcos and J.R. Busto Sáiz, El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega. II 1–2 Reyes, TECC 50 (Madrid: CSIC, 1992), XLIII–XLIX.

244

Chapter 12

In 1 Kings 1:36 LXX rel. “omits” τοὺς λόγους = OL verbo. In fact the OL reading Fiat sic fιdeliter faciat Deus verbo domini mei regis corresponds to the protoLucianic (OG) γένοιτο οὕτως πιστώσαι ὁ θεὸς τοὺς λόγους τοῦ κυρίου μου τοῦ βασιλέως against the recensional reading that derives from the MT ‫אמר יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ֹ ‫ָא ֵמן ֵּכן י‬

‫ֹלהי ֲאד ֹנִ י ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ֵ ‫“( ֱא‬So be it! May the Lord, the God of my lord the king, so decree!”). This is reflected in the doublet of the Lucianic text οὕτως εἶπε κύριος ὁ θεὸς σου… more clearly even than in LXX rel. οὕτως πιστώσαι κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ κυρίου μου… (πιστώσαι is here reminiscent of the OG , against the redactional εἶπε = MT ‫אמר‬ ַ ֹ ‫)י‬.

In 1 Kings 1:40 the marginal note presents a doublet et populus cantabat in canticis et melodiis, et gaudebant gaudio magno / organizantes in organis et iucundabantur in iucunditate magna. The first part corresponds to a recensional addition of the LXX kaige text καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαός ἐχόρευον ἐν χοροῖς καὶ εὐφραινόμενοι εὐφροσύνη μεγάλη; the second part, apparently omitted by LXX rel., is not a late “Lucianic” addition but rather the original (OG) reading ηὔλον ἐν αὐλοῖς καὶ ἔχαιρον χαρᾷ μεγάλῃ. Similarly, in 1 Kings 2:1 the words Et praecepit David Salomoni filio suo in conspectu mortis suae, dicens go back to the proto-Lucianic text as even Rahlfs was obliged to recognize:14 καὶ ἐνετείλατο τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Σολομῶντι ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ φανάτου αὐτοῦ (boe2). LXX rel. has substituted this text by the kaige reading, which is more akin to MT: καὶ ἤγγισαν αἱ ἡμέραι Δαυὶδ ἀποθανεῖν αῦτόν, καὶ ἀπεκρίνατο Σαλωμών. 2.2 OL = LXX rel., > LXXL The text of the marginal notes coinciding with “additions” of LXX rel., which is absent from the Antiochene text, corresponds to Greek kaige readings. However, these are not to be viewed as OL readings proper. This is particularly true for the marginal notes introduced with the sigla Al. as will be shown in the following two examples. In 2 Kings 3:4 the words (Al.) ex subiectione (= LXX rel. ἐν τῇ ἐπαναστάσει) belong to the reading Et Mosa rex Moab erat pecuarius, et praestabat regi Israel ex subiectione centum millis …, which reflects the kaige text: καὶ Μωσὰ βασιλεὺς Μωὰβ ἦν νωκήδ καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν τῷ βασιλεῖ ’Ισραήλ ἐν τῇ ἐπαναστάσει ἑκατόν… (LXX rel.). The alternative reading, Et Mosa rex Moab ferebat tributum regi Israel centum …, which ignores the addition of the kaige (Al.) text, goes back to

14  A  . Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta Studien III (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 283.

Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings

245

the proto-Lucianic text preserved in a characteristic Lucianic doublet: ἦν φέρων φόρον (OG) καὶ ἐπιστρέφων… (kaige).15 In 2 Kings 17:2 the words of the Al. note non sicut reges Israel qui fuerant correspond to a kaige reading, οὐχ ὡς οἱ βασιλεῖς ’Ισραήλ οἳ ἦσαν (LXX rel.). They are not “omitted” by the Antiochene text, which attest a different reading, that of the proto-Lucianic (OG) text: παρὰ πάντας τοὺς γενομένους, which is reflected by the original OL reading prae omnes qui fuerant ante eum (In gr.). 2.3 OL Differs from LXXL and LXX rel. The 57 notes which present “additions” not attested by any known Greek text are mostly of a grammatical and lexical character. Such notes do not have much bearing on the discussion about the Greek or Hebrew affiliation of the OL readings. On the contrary, the rather frequent (14) Hebraisms detected in the marginal readings, and particularly the 17 extensive passages that present a text completely different from that of all known Greek witnesses, are of the most interest for our purposes. 1 Kings 22:17 indicates how the complexity and richness of the Latin and Greek traditions go back to a Hebrew tradition, that was more complex and richer than the present state of the Hebrew manuscript evidence (mainly the MT and the new fragmentary Qumran manuscripts). The Al. reading et dixit Dominus: Si fidi vos estis in Deo, redeat unusquisque in domum in pace follows the Antiochean καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος Εἰ κυρίως αὐτοὶ πρὸς θεόν; ἀποστραφήτω δὴ ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ οἶκον ἐν εἰρήνῃ. The parallel reading (In gr.), et ideo vellem, Domine, ut statueris his et reverterentur singuli quique in domum suam in pace, goes back to a Hebrew Vorlage that differs from the MT at least as far as the word ideo is concerned. This stands for the Hebrew ‫ ָל ֵכן‬, which is also reflected in the Greek οὐχ οὕτως ‫א־כן‬ ֵ ֹ ‫( ל‬ex ‫ ) ָל ֵכן‬at the beginning of the verse and twice in v. 19. The repetition (Wiederaufnahme) of the words ‫אמר ָל ֵכן‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ּי‬at the beginning of vv. 17a and 17b is probably a textual trace of a literary interpolation: v. 17a “I see all Israel scattered on the mountains, like sheep without a shepherd.” The repetition also of the verbs ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ּי‬and ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ ָר ִא‬in verses 17 and 19 confirms at least the composite character of this passage (vv. [17a], 17b–18 and vv. 19–22 [23]).16 15  D  . Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament vol. 1 (Fribourg—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 381. 16  Cf. the opinions of Schmitt, Elisa, 42–45; E. Würthwein, “Zur Composition von I Reg 22,1–38,” in Das ferne und das nahe Wort, Festschrift L. Rost (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967), 245–254; H. Schweizer, “Literarkritischer Versuch zur Erzählung von Micha ben Jimla (1 Kön 22),” BZ 23 (1979): 1–19; O.H. Steck, “Bewahrheitungen des Prophetenworts. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Skizze zu 1. Könige 22,1–38,” in Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann?, ed. H.G. Geyer et al. (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983) 87–96, esp. 92.

246

Chapter 12

3 Conclusions In conclusion, the OL textual tradition of the books of Judges and Kings does not appear as chaotic as is often alleged. Apart from inner Latin changes, the OL variants go back to one or another of the known Greek textual forms of these books and in a few cases to Hebrew readings different from the MT and not attested in the Greek textual tradition. In the book of Judges the text of the OL marginal readings represents mainly the B kaige text, while the text of the extant OL manuscripts follows the A/L OG text or presents a conflation of both textual traditions. As for the book of Kings, once the readings reflecting the Greek kaige recension have been isolated, the proto-Lucianic character of the original OL text comes to the fore. The points of contact of 4QJudga with variants of the OL version, together with the presence in the OL text of Hebraisms and readings not known in the Greek textual tradition, invites the reader to search for the underlying Hebrew text of such readings. The complexity of the OL tradition, richer even than that of the Greek tradition, goes back ultimately to a Hebrew tradition that was more complex than is generally recognized. Whether directly or through its Greek Vorlage—a proto-Lucianic text very close to the Old Greek—the Old Latin text makes it possible to identify variants of an Old Hebrew tradition.

Chapter 13

The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin in Post-Qumranic Textual Criticism (1 Kings 18:26–29, 36–37) E. Puech has recently attempted to identify the totality of fragments of 1QJudges (1Q6), correcting reading errors in the editio princeps and showing that this manuscript preserves remains from the most part of the chapters of Judges.1 The proposed reconstruction gives an idea of column widths and of the layout of the text in the preserved sections. It especially allows one to detect a number of variants, the absence of a word or expression and the presence or absence of vacats which often do not match those in the MT tradition.2 Two variants identified by E. Puech in 1Q6 match the Old Latin (OL) readings. In Judg 9:29 (1Q6 frgs. 5 + 6 + 14 = Judg 9:28–33), Barthélemy had already pointed out the 1Q6 variant ‫ויאמרו‬, in the plural, which coincides with the Latin Versions (OL and Vulgate), against the MT singular ‫ויאמר‬. The name which follows in MT is translated by the pronominal πρὸς αὐτόν in the B text, whereas the A and L texts, together with OL, offer the name Αβιμελεχ (Abimelech). In Judg 9:44 (1Q6 frgs. 7 + 8 + 12 = Judg 9:38–44), against MT ‫וַ ֲא ִב ֶימ ֶלְך‬, 1Q6 reads ‫אבימ]לך‬, without the copula, in coincidence with the Greek manuscript l, of the Lucianic group, as well as with OL and the Sahidic Coptic text.3 Also, in Judg 10:8, the reconstruction of lines in frgs. 11 + 20 (= Judg 10:7–9) allows one to suppose that 1Q6 would not have included the expression ‫ ַּב ָּׁשנָ ה ַה ִהיא‬, which 1  I would like to thank Dr. Andrés Piquer (University of California, Berkeley) for the English translation of the Spanish original. 2  E. Puech, “Les manuscrits 4QJugesc (=4Q50A) et 1QJuges (=1Q6),” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich, ed. P.W. Flint et alii, VTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 184–202. He publishes at the same time the remains of a new Judges manuscript probably from Qumran Cave 4, to which he gives the sigla 4QJudgesc (4Q50A). Cf. D. Barthélemy and J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave I, DJD 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 62–64 and Pl. XI. 3  The coincidence between the OL and Coptic texts is especially meaningful, as A.V. Billen acknowledged, cf. id., “The Old Latin Versions of Judges,” JThS 43 (1942): 140–149, esp. 146; cf. B. Lindars, “Some Septuagint Readings in Judges,” JThS N.S. 22 (1971): 1–14. A remarkable example of coincidence between OL and the Sahidic Coptic is the reading “from Gilgal to Klauthmon and to Bethel” (Judg 2:1). A. Piquer studies the same coincidence in 1 Kgs 1:52 in “An Old Greek Reading Attested in the Sahidic and Old Latin Fragments of 1 Kgs 1:52. Text-Critical Analysis and Relationship with the Hebrew Text,” Hen 30/1 (2008): 80–93.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_015

248

Chapter 13

is also ignored by the representative Greek manuscripts of the Lucianic text (glnow), and also partly by the Kennicott manuscripts 4 and 70, as well as by the Syriac Milan Manuscript. The Lucianic text transmits a previous one which was the basis for OL. These small coincidences between the Qumran text and OL give an idea of the importance of OL in the textual criticism of Judges and the other Historical books. They are no less meaningful, given the scant materials of 1Q6 which have been preserved and the additional circumstance that a full OL manuscript of Judges has been preserved, the Lugdunensis.4 Were it not for this circumstance, probably it would have been impossible to perceive these coincidences. Another Qumran manuscript of Judges, 4QJudga, preserves only nine incomplete lines of text corresponding to Judg 6:2–6, 11–13. It shows clear points of contact with Greek proto-Lucianic and OL readings which preserve the oldest Greek textual tradition. In spite of the scarcity of preserved materials, 4QJudga presents three meaningful agreements with the OL text. Judg 6:5 (4QJudga line 3): OL (et tabernacula sua) et camelos = LXXL (καὶ τὰς σκηνὰς αὐτῶν) καὶ τὰς καμήλους = 4QJudga ‫)ואהליהם(וגמליהם‬, against MT, which ignores this reference to the Madianites’ camels. Judg 6:5 (4QJudga line 4): OL does not know, together with 4QJudga, the reading καὶ τοῖς/ταῖς καμήλοις αὐτῶν = MT ‫וְ ִלגְ ַמ ֵּל ֶיהם‬. Judg 6:11 (4QJudga line 6): OL patris Esri represents a slightly different reading from those attested in the Greek tradition: πατρὸς τοῦ εσδρει (manuscript groups BAK), αβιεζρι (group L), πατρὸς Αβιεζρι (subgroup L′). The Lucianic reading corresponds to that of 4QJudga, ‫האביעזרי‬. Subgroup L′ presents a double reading (BAK + L). OL seems to correspond to BAK, although Esri reproduces more precisely the Gk. εζρι in L/L′.5 After studying numerous OL readings in Judges (3:1; 6:19, 21, 26; 7:6, 8, 24; 11:8–9; 9:21; 15:9 and 18:7, 24, among others) A.V. Billen stated that the OL text in Judges reflects a Greek which stands very close to the original of LXX and is at times superior to the Hebrew.6 4  U. Robert, Heptateuchi partis posterioris versio latina antiquissima e codice Lugdunensi. Version latine de Deutéronome, de Josué et des Juges antérieure à saint Jérôme publiée d’après le Ms. De Lyon avec un fac-similé, des observations paléographiques et philologiques sur l’origine et la valeur de ce texte (Lyon: Rey, 1900). 5  J. Trebolle Barrera, “49. 4QJudga (Pl. XXXVI),” in Qumran Cave 4, IX Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. E. Ulrich et al., DJD XIV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 161–164. 6  Billen, “The Old Latin Versions,” 147. I have examined the cases of Judg 1:19; 2:3; 6:32; 8:19; 18:22; 18:30 in the article “The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin and Antiochene Greek Texts in the Books of Judges and Joshua,” in Interpreting Translation. Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, ed. F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne with the collaboration of B. Doyle (Leuven: University Press—Peeters, 2005) 401–414.

the Old Latin in Post-Qumranic Textual Criticism

249

In 1–2 Samuel, the coincidence of Hebrew readings of 4QSama with Greek Lucianic readings has provided a solid basis for the hypothesis of a protoLucianic text.7 Post-Qumran research on the text of LXX is ready to acknowledge the critical value of the textual tradition represented by LXXL in the kaige sections (2 Sam 11:1–1 Kgs 2:11 and 1 Kgs 22:1–2 Kgs 25:30) when it is supported by OL readings, the Greek text used by Josephus and the pre-Hexaplaric stratum of the Armenian version, as well as the parallel Hebrew text of Chronicles. In these kaige sections, the Codex Vaticanus (B), from the 4th Century, and the rest of the Greek tradition, excepting the Hexaplaric one, reproduce the text of the proto-Theodotionic or kaige recension. In these sections the preLucianic text (boc2e2), followed by the OL, is the only witness that preserves a text which is very close or substantially identical to that of the Old Greek (OG). The “Old Latin” occasionally preserves textual traces of the “Old Greek” that goes back to an “Old Hebrew” text.8 In 2 Kgs 18–20 // Isa 36–39, the proto-Lucianic stratum of 3 Kgdms proves to be the earliest attainable textual level, very close to 1QIsaa and Old Greek Isaiah. In 2 Kgs 20:11 // Isa 38:8 it is possible to follow the evolution of the text from 1QIsaa ‫ עלית אחז את השמש‬and, progressively, through Old Greek Isaiah τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ πατρός σου ἀποστρέψω τὸν ἥλιον, MT Isa ‫ ְב ַמ ֲעלֹות ָא ָחז ַּב ֶּׁש ֶמׁש‬, OL 2 Kgs in gradus et detenta est in sole, LXXB 2 Kgs καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν ἡ σκιὰ, until the form of MT 2 Kgs ‫ ְּב ַמ ֲעלֹות ָא ָחז‬.9 The textual tradition moved from the verbal form ‫ =אחז‬ἀποστρέψω / ἐπέστρεψεν = detenta est (“the shadow stopped”) into the personal name “Ahaz” (“the dial of Ahaz”). The purpose of this chapter is to show that not only in the kaige sections but also in the non-kaige section of 3 Kgdms (1 Kgs 2:12–1 Kgs 21:19) LXXL and OL may represent the Old Greek text more faithfully than Codex B and the manuscripts which follow it. To this end, some passages within the narrative of 1 Kings, belonging to this non-kaige section, will be analyzed. Textual criticism still has many things to say, both about the text of LXX Kgdms and about its Hebrew original and the forerunners of MT. Therefore it is necessary to pay more attention than usual to the testimony of OL, whose readings, at times 7  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, 315; E. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 95–96; id., E. Ulrich, “The Old Latin Translation of the LXX and the Hebrew Scrolls from Qumran,” in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel, ed. E. Tov, 1980 Proceedings IOSCS Vienna (Jerusalem: Academon, 1980), 121–165. 8  J. Trebolle Barrera, “From the Old Latin Trough the Old Greek to the Old Hebrew (2 Kgs 10:25– 28),” Textus XI (1984): 17–36; cf. Chapter 9 in the present volume (2 Kings 11 (MT/LXXB/L): Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative.). 9  A. Catastini, Isaia ed Ezechia. Studio di storia della tradizione di II Re 18–20 // Isaiah 36–39 (Rome: Università degli Studi “La Sapienza,” 1989), 251–255.

250

Chapter 13

less fragmentary than those from Qumran manuscripts, can be of an equal value, even if they belong to a secondary version.10 Beginning with the works of M. Noth, the study of the historical books has been focused on criticism of the Deuteronomistic redaction(s), with some neglect of textual criticism, accompanied by a certain discrediting of the LXX and the secondary versions. But the Qumran biblical manuscripts of the “Former Prophets” are among the best representatives of non-aligned texts as 4QJosha and 4QJudga and of texts close to the presumed Hebrew source of LXX as 4QSama.11 The historical books together with the book of Jeremiah, which have undergone a similar process of Deuteronomistic redaction, are those which better match a model of editorial pluralism.12 1

1 Kings 18:27

The narrative of the sacrifice on Mount Carmel is a literary piece of high stylistic value, as H. Gunkel already pointed out. It also supplies invaluable information for a correct understanding of the religion of Ancient Israel in the monarchic period.13 10  Cf. A. Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher. Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher (Fribourg: Academic Press—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 134–146. 11  E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press—Assen/ Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992), 115–116. 12  E. Ulrich, “Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text,” in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995, ed. D.W. Parry and S.D. Ricks (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 78–105. 13  Without listing the comments of Kings, some specialized articles on 1 Kgs 18 will be listed, whose discussion cannot be carried out here: K. Galling, “Der Gott Karmel und die Ächtung der fremden Götter,” Geschichte und Altes Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, 1953), 105–126; A. Alt, “Das Gottesurteil auf dem Karmel,” in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II, ed. M. Noth (München: Beck, 1953), 135–149; H.H. Rowley, “Elijah on Mount Carmel,” in Men of God: Studies in Old Testament and Prophecy (London: Thomas Nelson, 1963), 37–65, previously published in BJRL 43 (1960–1): 190–219; R. de Vaux, “Les prophètes de Baal sur le mont Carmel,” Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 5 (1941): 7–20 = Bible et Orient (Paris: Le Cerf, 1967), 485–97; E. Würthwein, “Die Erzählung vom Gottesurteil auf dem Karmel,” ZThK 70 (1973): 121–136; N.J. Tromp, “Water and Fire on Mount Carmel. A Conciliatory Suggestion,” Bib 56 (1975): 480–502; C. Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs. Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion, BBB 94,1–2 (Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995); M. Álvarez Barredo, Las narraciones sobre Elías y Eliseo en los libros de los Reyes. Formación y teología (Murcia: Publicaciones Instituto Teológico, 1996); F. Crüsemann, Elia—die Entdeckung der Einheit Gottes. Eine Lektüre der Erzählungen über

251

the Old Latin in Post-Qumranic Textual Criticism

The text of 1 Kgs 18:27 presents great textual and interpretative difficulties: “Surely he is a god; either he is meditating, or he has wandered away, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened” (NRSV). The correspondences between the different texts are as follows:14 Lucifer

Vindobonensis

LXXL

LXXB ὅτι θεός ἐστιν ὅτι

ἅμα Μήποτε ἀδολεσχία τις αὐτῷ ἐστιν Pariter ne forte

ne forte

occupatus sit sortes de[derit Uel Dormiat Ipse Et suscitabitur

καὶ ἅμα μήποτε

MT

‫ֹלהים הּוא‬ ִ ‫י־א‬ ֱ ‫ִּכ‬ ‫ִּכי‬

ἀδολεσχία

‫ִׂש ַיח‬

αὐτῷ ἐστιν Καὶ ἅμα ‫אּולי‬ ַ μήποτε

aut] Dormiat

χρηματίζει αὐτός ἢ πότε καθεύδει

et exc[itetur] et exsurget

καὶ ἐξαναστήσεται

χρηματίζει αὐτός ἢ μήποτε καθεύδει αὐτός Καὶ ἐξαναστήσεται

‫י־ד ֶרְך לֹו‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִכ‬ ‫אּולי‬ ַ

‫וְ ִכי‬ ‫ִׂשיג לֹו‬ ‫לֹו‬ ‫אּולי‬ ַ ‫יָ ֵׁשן‬ ‫הּוא‬ ‫וְ יִ ָקץ‬

Elia und seine Zeit (1 Kön 17–2 Kön 2) (Gütersloh: Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1997); M. White, The Elijah Legends and Jehu’s Coup (Atlanta, GA; Scholars Press, 1997); E. Blum, “Der Prophet und das Verderben Israels: Eine ganzheitliche, historisch-kritische Lektüre von 1 Regum XVII–XIX,” VT 47 (1997): 277–292; M. Beck, Elia und die Monolatrie. Ein Beitrag zur religionsgeschichtlichen Rückfrage nach dem vorschriftprophetischen Jahwe-Glauben, BZAW 281 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999); A.J. Hauser, “Yahweh versus Death—The Real Struggle in 1 Kings 17–19,” in From Carmel to Horeb: Elijah in Crisis, ed. A.J. Hauser and Russell Gregory (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1999), 9–89; A.F. Campbell and M. O’Brien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000); S. Otto, Jehu, Elia und Elisa. Die Erzählung von der Jehu-Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-Elisa-Erzählung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001); J. Keinänen, Traditions in Collision: A Literary and Redaction-Critical Study on the Elijah Narratives 1 Kings 17–19 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001); J.J.M. Roberts, “A New Parallel to 1 Kings 18:28–29!,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. J.J.M. Roberts (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 102–103; B. Lehnart, Prophet und König im Nordreich Israel. Studien zur sogenannten vorklassischen Prophetie im Nordreich Israel anhand der Samuel-, Eliaund Elischa-Überlieferungen, VTSup 96 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 177–357. 14  The OL text transmitted by Lucifer of Cagliari is taken from the treatise De Abrahamo I, xvii, 48–51, edited by G.F. Diercks, Luciferi Calaritani Opera quae supersunt. Ad fidem

252

Chapter 13

The OL will allow one to determine what the Old Greek text is and what the Hebrew underlying the LXX is. The transmitted LXX text closely follows MT, which adds ‫י־ד ֶרְך לֹו‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִכ‬. OL is considerably shorter. Both OL readings occupatus sit (Lucifer) and sortes dederit (Palimpsestus Vindobonensis) reflect the two meanings which the Greek verb χρηματιζειν may have: “1. negotiate, have dealings … 4. of an oracle, give a response to those who consult it.”15 The particle pariter (Lucifer) corresponds to αμα in LXXBL. This particle also appears before μήποτε χρηματίζει. The joint testimony of OL and LXXBL indicates that the Old Greek ignored the text included between the two ἅμα Μήποτε: (ὅτι) ἀδολεσχία αὐτῷ ἐστιν καὶ. The Old Greek did not know the expression ὅτι θεός ἐστιν either, which is omitted from the Antiochene text and the Ethiopic version, which, in general, faithfully follows the text of LXXB.16 Consequently, the short Old Greek text seems to correspond with an also brief Old Hebrew. As a further step, it is possible to propose that in MT there is a convergence of two variant forms of the text. The first form, unknown to Old Greek/Old Hebrew and present only in MT, is characterized by a syntactic construction based on nominal clauses preceded by an emphatic ‫( ִּכי‬the third element, ‫י־ד ֶרְך לֹו‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִכ‬, is a later addition): “Surely he is a god; he is meditating (or he is on a journey)”

‫ֹלהים הּוא‬ ִ ‫י־א‬ ֱ ‫ִּכ‬ ‫ִּכי ִׂש ַיח‬ (‫י־ד ֶרְך לֹו‬ ֶ ‫)וְ ִכ‬

The second form of the text, transmitted both by MT and LXX, shows a parallel structure, characterized by the repetition ‫ …הוא …אולי‬// ‫…הוא …אולי‬:   duorum codicum qui adhuc extant necnon adhibitis editionibus veteribus (Turnhout: Brepols, 1978), 31. The text of the Vienna Palimpsest was edited in B. Fischer, “‘Palimpsestus Vindobonensis.’ Manuscript 115 of the Books of Kingdoms,” in Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen Bibeltexte, Vetus latina (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1985), 308–438. Without noticing the relationship between OL and LXXL, Sabatier attributed the omission in the Latin text to Lucifer of Cagliari or to a scribe: Quae vero hic superaddunt ut Graece, facile pretermitti potuerunt vel a Lucifero ipso, vel ab incauto scriba, vel forte typographi ipsius incuria, decepti nimirum vocum superiorum recursu ac similitudine, see P. Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae seu Vetus Italica I (Parisiis: apud Francicum Didot, 1751), 1.584. 15  H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: OUP, 1968), ad. loc. The Syriac version also knows both translations. 16  It cannot be assumed, as Montgomery does, that LXXL Aeth omitted ‘for he is a god’ “to avoid such a confession,” see J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 310.

the Old Latin in Post-Qumranic Textual Criticism

Pariter ne forte Ocupatus sit/sortes dederit uel/aut Dormit ipse et suscitabitur/excitetur/exsurget

ἅμα μήποτε χρηματίζει αὐτός ἢ μήποτε καθεύδει αὐτός (> αὐτός LXXL) καὶ ἐξαναστήσεται

253 ‫אולי‬ ‫שיג הוא‬ ‫אולי‬ ‫ישן הוא‬ ‫ויקץ‬

The fusion of these two forms of text in MT triggered the loss of the particle ‫( אולי‬1st) and of the pronoun (1st). The particle ‫ אולי‬is faithfully reflected in the Greek μηποτε, which the Antiochene and Armenian texts also present at the beginning of what was the original reading of the Old Greek. The pronoun ‫הוא‬, which follows ‫שיג‬,17 is also faithfully translated by αὐτός, present in all the Greek tradition. Other variants are not meaningful for criticism: αὐτός (1st) has no correspondence in OG; neither does αὐτός (2nd) in LXXL, attested, nevertheless, in OL ipse. Therefore, OG/Old Hebrew knew only the form of text which has also been transmitted to OL: “he may be negotiating, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” The testimony of OL is priceless, also in this non-kaige section, for the reconstruction of the pre-Lucianic Greek text, of Old Greek, and ultimately of the Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint, as an alternative text to the Masoretic Hebrew. Both alternative forms of the text of Elijah’s mocking, which can be equally old, hint at clear allusions to the Canaanite myths of Baal. Following the first one, Elijah mocks Baal with these words: “Surely he is a god; he is meditating (or he is on a journey).” The idea of a traveling Baal is typical in Canaanite mythology. The second form of text, “he may be negotiating, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened,” seems to be alluding to the motif of dreamdeath and resurrection of Baal, perhaps in a later form than its portrayal in the Ugaritic myths and closer to Tyrian cults of Phoenician times. After Elijah’s mocking, the prophets of Baal “as their custom, cut themselves with swords and lances until the blood gushed out over them” (v. 28). These self-lesions, practiced here by the prophets of Baal, have been related to Syrian cults, in particular those of a goddess-consort of Baal, according to the testimonies of

17  The fusion of both forms of the text (‫ )אולי שיג הוא—כי שיח הוא‬has yielded in MT ‫כי שיח וכי שיג לו‬, and thereby the sequence ‫ שיח לו‬is interrupted and the loss of the pronoun ‫ הוא‬takes place; the repetition of the particle ‫כי‬, feature of the first form of the text, into which the expression ‫ אולי שיג הוא‬is inserted (due to association ‫)שיח—שיג‬, displaces the particle ‫אולי‬, a feature of the second form of text.

254

Chapter 13

Apuleius and Lucian.18 The shedding of blood could be interpreted as a symbolic way to induce Baal to send the desired rain.19 The self-lesion rites have here a mourning meaning, as they are related to the slumber of death of a god who does not attend the call of his prophets. Baal seems to be dead. In the Baal mythology, the news of the god’s death is followed by mourning rites carried out by Ilu, consisting of cuts in cheeks, arms, chest and back (“The Combat of Baʿlu and Motu,” KTU 1.5 VI 9–24, cf. also KTU 1.6 I 1–6):20 ‘Dead is Mightiest Baal, / Perished the Prince, Lord of the Earth.’ / Then Beneficent El the Benign / Descends from his seat, sits on the footstool, / [And] from the footstool, sits on the earth. / He pours dirt on his head for mourning, / Dust on his crown for lamenting; / For clothing he puts on sack-cloth. / With a stone he scrapes his skin, / Double-slits with a blade. / He cuts cheeks and chin, / Furrows the length of his arm. / He plows his chest like a garden, / Like a valley he furrows the back. / He raises his voice and cries: / ‘Baal is dead! What of the peoples? / The Son of Dagan! What of the multitudes? / After Baal I will descend to Hell.’ Also, in a mourning scene in the Aqhatu epic, “Those breaking their skin to his court. He weeps for Aqhat the hero” (KTU 1.19 IV 11, cf. also line 22).21 After Elijah’s allusion to Baal’s death-sleep, the lacerations of Baal’s prophets can mean more mourning than summoning. The mourning for Baal, “Baal is dead,” contrasts with the cry of triumph, “Yahweh is God.” The summoning meaning is expressed openly in Elijah’s own words, “cry aloud!,” so that, if the god is asleep, perhaps he will awaken and arise, but, once the absolute inaction of the god is confirmed, tantamount to his death, the lacerations become a sign of mourning and lament. 2

1 Kings 18:36–37

The narrative of the sacrifice on Mount Carmel is characterized by a structure of successive contrasts. To the invocation of the prophets of Baal, “Oh, 18  J . Gray, I and II Kings. A Commentary, OTL, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 387 and 397–398; Montgomery, Kings, 302–330. 19  J. Robinson, The First Book of Kings (Cambridge: University Press, 1972), 21. 20   “The Baal Cycle,” translated by Mark S. Smith, in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. Simon B. Parker (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), 87–180, esp. 149. 21  “Aqhat,” translated by Simon B. Parker, in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 49–80, esp. 76.

the Old Latin in Post-Qumranic Textual Criticism

255

Baal, answer us!” (v. 26), Elijah’s invocation is opposed: “Answer me, Yahweh, answer me” (v. 37). Whereas nothing is said about the contents of the invocation to Baal, the invocation directed towards Yahweh is extensively developed and has a very marked finality: “Yahweh, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your bidding. Answer me, Yahweh, answer me, so that this people may know that you, Yahweh, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back” (vv. 36–37). Integrated within the “acknowledgement formula” (Erkenntnisausgabe), there are two different expressions of the Yahwistic confession of faith: “you are God of/in Israel” and “you, Yahweh, are God.”22 Modern textual criticism has not found great difficulties in this passage. Generally speaking, it merely lists the variants of the Greek texts and favours MT.23 OL exaudi me, domine, exaudi me Hodie in igne ut sciant omnis populus hic quoniam tu es dominus deus Israel et ego servus tuus et propter te feci haec opera 37

LXXL ἐπάκουσόν μου, κύριε ἐπάκουσόν μου σήμερον ἐν πυρί καὶ γνώτω πᾶς ὁ λαός οὗτος ὅτι σὺ εἶ μόνος κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ καὶ ἐγὼ δοῦλος σός καὶ διὰ σὲ πεποίηκα ταῦτα πάντα

LXXB MT ἐπάκουσόν μου, κύριε 36 ἐπάκουσόν μου σήμερον ‫ַהּיֹום‬ ἐν πυρί καὶ γνώτωσαν ‫יִ ּוָ ַדע‬ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ὅτι σὺ ‫י־א ָּתה‬ ַ ‫ִּכ‬ εἶ κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ ‫ֹלהים ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ִ ‫ֱא‬ κἀγὼ δοῦλός σου ‫וַ ֲאנִ י ַע ְב ֶּדָך‬ καὶ διὰ σὲ πεποίηκα ‫ִּוב ְד ָב ֶריָך ָע ִׂש ִיתי‬ τὰ ἔργα ταῦτα ‫ל־ה ְּד ָב ִרים‬ ַ ‫ֵאת ָּכ‬ ‫ָה ֵא ֶּלה‬

ἐπάκουσόν μου, κύριε ‫ ֲענֵ נִ י יְ הוָ ה‬37 ἐπάκουσόν μου ‫ֲענֵ נִ י‬ ἐν πυρί καὶ γνώτω ὁ λαὸς ‫וְ יֵ ְדעּו ָה ָעם ַהּזֶ ה‬ οὗτος

22  W  . Zimmerli, “Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel,” in Gottes Offenbarung. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (München: Kaiser, 1963), 41–119; H. Graf Reventlow, “Formeln, Liturgische I. Altes Testament,” in Theologische Realenzyklopädie XI/2–3, ed. G. Krause and G. Müller (Berlin—New York: De Gruyter, 1982), 252–256, esp. 253–254: “Bekenntnisformeln.” 23  Cf. BHK, BHS; also, Montgomery, Kings, 311.

256

Chapter 13

ὅτι σὺ εἶ κύριος ὁ θεὸς et tu uersasti cor populi huius retro

καὶ σὺ ἐπέστρεψας καὶ σὺ ἔστρεψας τὴν καρδίαν τοῦ λαοῦ τὴν καρδίαν τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου ὀπίσω σου τούτου ὀπίσω

‫י־א ָּתה יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ִּכ‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ָה ֱא‬ ‫וְ ַא ָּתה ֲה ִסּב ָֹת‬ ‫ת־ל ָּבם‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ֲאח ַֹרּנִ ית‬

LXXB presents a long text: in v. 36, it represents, together with LXXL (OL), the OG; in v. 37 it follows a recensional text which reproduces MT. The text of v. 36a is very similar to v. 37a. The most remarkable difference is related to the formula of Yahwistic confession: “you are God (in Israel)” (v. 36) / “you, Yahweh, are God” (v. 37). The Hexaplaric text (A, N, Arm, SyrH) offers a text which is closer to MT: σήμερον γνώτωσαν ὅτι εἶ κύριος ὁ θεὸς (ἐν SyrH) Iσραηλ. The Lucianic text (LXXL) offers the same text as LXXB in v. 36, but it omits the sentence of v. 37a.24 The OL follows after its original pre-Lucianic Greek. The text of LXXBL and OL in v. 36 corresponds with that of the OG (BHS).25 The duplicate of vv. 36 and 37 seems to derive from a problem of literary criticism.26 Thus, according to Seebass, v. 36 is a repetition of v. 37, introduced in function of v. 24 (“the god who answers by fire is indeed God”).27 Smend supposes, on the other hand, that v. 37 is original and v. 36 is a secondary variant.28 Hentschel considers that 36ab–b is a redaction insertion.29 In my opinion, both textual forms, that transmitted by MT (LXXB in v. 37) and that represented by LXXL (OL), have been shaped out of two variants of the confession of faith: “you are God” (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫י־א ָּתה ֱא‬ ַ ‫ ִּכ‬, v. 36) / “you, Yahweh, are God” (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫י־א ָּתה יְ הוָ ה ָה ֱא‬ ַ ‫ ִּכ‬, v. 37). The duplication of readings is related to the insertion of the reference to the prophet: “Answer me, Yahweh, answer me today in the fire, so that it be known this day that you are God in Israel, [that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your bidding]. Answer 24  The reading μόνος is a Lucianic addition, unknown to OL. It casts upon the passage a monotheistic connotation alien to the Hebrew text. 25  According to Montgomery there are not enough reasons to abbreviate the text of this verse following LXXL, Montgomery, Kings, 305. 26  E. Würthwein, “Die Erzählung vom Gottesurteil auf dem Karmel,” ZThK 59 (1962): 131–44, esp. 134. 27  H. Seebass, “Elia und Ahab auf dem Karmel,” ZThK 70 (1973): 121–136, esp. 133. 28  R. Smend, “Das Wort Jahwes an Elia—Erwägungen zu 1 Reg XVII–XIX,” VT 25 (1975): 237– 242. S. Timm points out that in R. Smend’s analysis “die Textgeschichte der LXX ist dabei u.E. zu leicht genommen,” see id., Die Dynastie Omri. Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert vor Christus, FRLANT 124 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 81, n. 123. 29  G. Hentschel, Die Elija-Erzählungen. Zum Verhältnis von historischen Geschehen und geschichtlicher Erfahrung (Leipzig: St. Benno Verlag, 1977), 45–47.

the Old Latin in Post-Qumranic Textual Criticism

257

me, Yahweh, answer me, so that this people may know that you, Yahweh, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.” The oldest form of the text presented the uninterrupted sequence … ‫ַא ָּתה‬ … ‫וְ ַא ָּתה‬: “that you, Yahweh, are God and that you have turned their hearts back.” The insertion of the reference to the prophet broke this structure introducing a reference in 1st person: “that you … [that I am … and I have …] and you …” The insertion was made after the word ‫אלהים‬, giving a new nuance to the confession of faith. The primitive formula was “you, Yahweh, are God” (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ָה ֱא‬, with article), to which the interpolation added “(God) of Israel)” (‫ֹלהי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬, without article). A further modification in MT changed the construct chain into the expression “God in Israel” (‫ֹלהים ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ִ ‫) ֱא‬. The following table depicts the insertion which took place and the process followed, with the subsequent changes in meaning: ἐπάκουσόν μου, κύριε ‫ֲענֵ נִ י יְ הוָ ה‬ ἐπάκουσόν μου ‫ֲענֵ נִ י‬ ἐν πυρί ‫ָּב ֵאׁש‬ καὶ γνώτω πᾶς ὁ λαός οὗτος ‫וְ יֵ ְדעּו ָה ָעם ַהּזֶ ה‬ ὅτι σὺ εἶ κύριος ‫י־א ָּתה יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ִּכ‬ ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ ‫ֹלהים ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ִ ‫ֱא‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ָה ֱא‬ καὶ ἐγὼ δοῦλος σός ‫וַ ֲאנִ י ַע ְב ֶּדָך‬ καὶ διὰ σὲ πεποίηκα ‫ִּוב ְד ָב ֶריָך ָע ִׂש ִיתי‬ ταῦτα πάντα ‫ל־ה ֵא ֶּלה‬ ָ ‫ֵאת ָּכ‬ καὶ σὺ ἐπέστρεψας ‫וְ ַא ָּתה ֲה ִסּב ָֹת‬ τὴν καρδίαν τοῦ λαοῦ ‫ת־ל ָּבם‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬ τούτου ὀπίσω σου ‫ֲאח ַֹרּנִ ית‬ Therefore, the oldest text which can be reconstructed with the preserved textual data is as follows: “Answer me, Yahweh, answer me in the fire, so that this people may know that you, Yahweh, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.” This formula of the Yahwistic confession of faith, “(that) you, Yahweh, are God,” is pronounced and repeated by the people at the end of the story: “Yahweh is God” (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫יְ הוָ ה ָה ֱא‬, LXX κύριός ἐστιν ὁ θεός; MT adds twice ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ֹלהים יְ הוָ ה הּוא ָה ֱא‬ ִ ‫יְ הוָ ה הּוא ָה ֱא‬, v. 39).30 This formula seems to be a holy 30  According to Zimmerli, “the prophetic expression of presentation of Yahweh’s selfpresentation” seems to have its origin in the oldest prophecy, as 1 Kgs 20:13, 28 indicates: “I will give it (this great multitude) into your hand today, and you shall know that I am Yahweh,” W. Zimmerli, “Das Wort des göttlichen Selbsterweises (Erweiswort), eine prophetische Gattung,” in Mélanges Bibliques rédigés en l’honneur de André Robert (Paris:

258

Chapter 13

war-cry in a story which takes war-like hues on Yahweh’s side with the extermination of Baal’s prophets (18:19–20 and 40). The expression “God of/in Israel” answers to concerns alien to the original narrative. Its origin is to be found in the genre of stories of oracular consultation by a foreign character or before a foreign god (“Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel,” 2 Kgs 5:15; “Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are sending to inquire of Baal-zebub?” 2 Kgs 1:3, 6, 16). It manifests a polemical intention against the gods and cults of neighboring countries. It seems to have been introduced by the “children of the prophets” together with the expression of acknowledgement of the prophet: “that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your bidding” (“That he may learn that there is a prophet in Israel,” 2 Kgs 5:8); “Elisha, the prophet in Israel,” 2 Kgs 6:12; “If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty,” 2 Kgs 1:10). Regarding the textual history of the Greek version, the text of LXXB in v. 37a, which matches MT, would be a “kaige-like” recensional text which pursues the assimilation to MT. In this case, in non-kaige section, the text of LXXL (OL) represents the OG more faithfully than LXXB. 3

1 Kings 18:26, 29

1 Kgs 18:26–29 narrates the fruitless attempts of Baal’s prophets to achieve a manifestation of the god which would prove his capacity as god of the rain.31 The scene is divided into two parts or movements, from morning to noon and from noon to dusk: “(26) So they took the bull that was given them, prepared it, and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon … (27) At noon Elijah mocked them … (29) As midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation” (NRSV). Elijah’s mocking, at noon, separates the two movements. Gunkel already pointed out the odd order in this passage: the prophets of Baal take the heifer, they prepare it and invoke their god from morning to noon and, after noticing the absence of any response, they start dancing around the altar which they had built. The reference to dance should feature before the invocation or together with it: the data on the construction of the altar would surely feel better place at the beginning and not at the end.32

Bloud & Gay, 1957), 154–164; id., Grundriss der alttestamentlichen Theologie (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972), 15. 31  D.R. Ap-Thomas, “Elijah on Mount Carmel,” PEQ 92 (1960): 146–155. 32  H. Gunkel, Elias, Jahve und Baal (Tübingen: Mohr, 1906), 17.

259

the Old Latin in Post-Qumranic Textual Criticism

Nevertheless, the difficulties of the text and the LXX variants are more numerous than what translations and commentaries reflect. OL Vindobonensis et acceperunt bouem

OL Lucifer

LXX

MT

Et acceperunt vitulum καὶ ἔλαβον τὸν μόσχον

et fecerunt sacrificium et fecerunt, et inuocauerunt et inuocabant in nomine bahal in nomine Bahal a mane usque ad uesperum, et dixerunt et dicebant: exaudi nos bahal exaudi nos, Bahal, exaudi nos exaudi nos. Et non erat uox Et non fuit istis uox et non erat exauditio neque auditio.

καὶ ἐποίησαν καὶ ἐπεκαλοῦντο ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Βααλ ἐκ πρωίθεν (> LXXL) ἕως μεσημβρίας (> id.)

καὶ διέτρεχον ἐπὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου Οὗ ἐποίησαν καὶ ἐγένετο μεσημβρίᾳ καὶ ἐμυκτήρισεν αὐτοὺς Ηλιου ὁ Θεσβίτης καὶ εἶπεν ἐπικαλεῖσθε …………………… καὶ ἐπροφήτευον ‫ויתנבאו‬

27 et addidit helias thesbita dicens inuocate ………………. 29 et profetabant

Et apposuit helias Thesbites dicens: inuocate ………………… et prophetabant

donec transit medius dies et cum hora esset ut ascenderet Sacrificium

usque dum transiret meridies. Et factum est quomodo tempus erat ut ascenderet sacrificium,

ἕως οὗ παρῆλθεν τὸ δειλινόν καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ὁ καιρὸς τοῦ ἀναβῆναι τὴν θυσίαν [καὶ οὐκ ἦν φωνή] >

dixit helias thesbita ad profetas

et locutus est Helias Thesbites ad prophetas

καὶ ἐλάλησεν Ηλιου ὁ Θεσβίτης πρὸς τοὺς προφήτας

‫עד אשר‬ ‫עבר‬ ‫הצהרים‬ ‫ויהי‬ ‫כעת‬

‫ת־ה ָּפר‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיִ ְקחּו ֶא‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר־נָ ַתן ָל ֶהם‬ ‫וַ ּיַ ֲעׂשּו‬ ‫וַ ּיִ ְק ְראּו‬ ‫ם־ה ַּב ַעל‬ ַ ‫ְב ֵׁש‬ ‫ֵמ ַהּב ֶֹקר‬ ‫ד־ה ָּצ ֳה ַריִ ם‬ ַ ‫וְ ַע‬ ‫ֵלאמֹר‬ ‫ַה ַּב ַעל‬ ‫ֲענֵ נּו‬ ‫וְ ֵאין קֹול‬ ‫וְ ֵאין עֹנֶ ה‬ ‫וַ יְ ַפ ְּסחּו‬ ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬ ַ ‫ַע‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ָׂשה‬ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַב ָּצ ֳה ַריִ ם‬ ‫וַ יְ ַה ֵּתל ָּב ֶהם‬ ‫ֵא ִלּיָ הּו‬ ‫אמר ִק ְראּו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬

…………….. ‫יְ ִהי‬

‫ ַּכ‬‫ֲעבֹר‬ ‫ַה ָּצ ֳה ַריִ ם‬ ‫וַ ּיִ ְתנַ ְּבאּו‬ ‫ַעד‬ ‫ַל ֲעלֹות‬ ‫ַה ִּמנְ ָחה‬ ‫וְ ֵאין־קֹול‬ ‫וְ ֵאין־עֹנֶ ה‬ ‫וְ ֵאין ָק ֶׁשב‬

260 offensionis dicens […]

Chapter 13

dicens: discedite a modo et ego faciam holocaustomata. Et discesserunt et abierunt. 30 Et dixit Helias …

τῶν προσοχθισμάτων λέγων μετάστητε ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν καὶ ἐγὼ ποιήσω τὸ ὁλοκαύτωμά μου καὶ μετέστησαν καὶ ἀπῆλθον 30 καὶ εἶπεν Ηλιου…

… ‫אמר ֵא ִלּיָהּו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬

In v. 26 LXX omits the relative clause “(the bull) that was given them” (‫ֲא ֶׁשר־נָ ַתן‬ ‫ ָל ֶהם‬, with Elijah as subject). The most meaningful variants are connected with temporal references. The Antiochene Greek text and also OL represented in Palimpsestus Vindobonensis omit “from morning until noon,” which should correspond with an omission in the OG text.33 At the beginning of v. 29 MT supposes that, after noon, the prophets of Baal kept prophesying until the hour of the evening oblation. It is followed in this by the A Greek text καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς παρῆλθεν τὸ δειλινόν καὶ ἐπροφήτευον and also by the Syro-Ηexaplaric and Armenian versions. On the other hand, the OG text, represented by B and the rest of the manuscript tradition, invert the order of the sentence: they were prophesying until noon (μεσημβρινόν, boc2e2; meridies, VL) or evening (δειλινόν, LXXB) passed. OL omits the indication in v. 27 “when it was noon,” as well as the previous phrase in v. 26b, “and they hopped around the altar they had prepared,” a phrase dissociated from its context. The phrase of v. 26, “but there was no voice and no answer” is repeated in v. 29, with the addition of “and no response” (‫)וְ ֵאין־עֹנֶ ה וְ ֵאין ָק ֶׁשב וְ ֵאין־קֹול‬. But the textual tradition of LXX here ignores the second and third elements, “no answer and no response” (‫ )וְ ֵאין־עֹנֶ ה וְ ֵאין ָק ֶׁשב‬and also the first one, “there was no voice” (‫)וְ ֵאין־קֹול‬, as Codex Vaticanus and the Lucianic manuscripts oe2, together with Aeth and OL, attest. These omissions and variants in LXX determine a “shorter” text. The invocation by the prophets of Baal does not appear divided into two movements, but it is portrayed without interruptions in a single lapse of time, whose beginning is not marked and whose end is the “pass of noon” or the dusk. In this way, Elijah’s intervention does not interrupt the action of the prophets of Baal by marking a before and an after, as is the case in MT. In LXX Elijah’s mocking accompanies the fruitless invocations and dances of his adversaries. The Antiochene text introduces Elijah’s mocking words with the expression 33  The reading a mane usque ad uesperum in Lucifer’s text can represent an assimilation to the majority LXX text.

the Old Latin in Post-Qumranic Textual Criticism

261

καὶ προσέθετο λέγων which indicates a continuity and insistence in the jest; OL also offers the imperfect illudebar, which gives more of an idea of continuity than the aorist ἐμυκτήρισεν. No distinction is made of an ante meridiem where the lacerations and punctures take place, also fruitlessly. If there is a before and an after it is merely in relationship to Elijah’s mocking words. The temporal division is determined by the additions and changes introduced in MT and which have also made their way partially into the Greek textual tradition: “from morning to noon” (v. 26), “when it was noon” (v. 27), “as midday passed” (v. 29), and the parallelism between two movements established by the duplicated phrase at the end of each movement: “there was no voice, and no answer” (‫)וְ ֵאין־עֹנֶ ה וְ ֵאין־קֹול‬. Considering v. 26b as an added gloss is justified by textual and literary reasons. The text is omitted in OL. Also, the placement of this sentence in such a context is unfortunate. The verb ‫פסח‬, which in Kings appears only in vv. 21 and 26 of this chapter, here has a different meaning from that in v. 21, where Elijah accuses the Israelites of jumping around, from Yahweh to Baal and back again. In v. 26 he accuses the prophets of Baal who jump and dance while the Israelites stand waiting. The reference to the construction of the altar is also out of place here. The MT reading ‫ ָע ָׂשה‬, in the singular, has deserved the notice of the Committee of the Universal Biblical Alliance, in the collaborative work Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. The Committee is right in “protecting” MT against the facilitating reading in the plural, but has to suppose an impersonal subject. The singular ‫ ָע ָׂשה‬probably has to be put in relationship with the singular ‫ נָ ַתן‬also in v. 26. Both have Elijah as the most handy and closer subject, also in the first case it would contradict what has been said in v. 23; and in the second case the construction of the altar where the sacrifice to Baal is to be performed would be attributed to Elijah, which is somewhat strange. These are really difficult readings and it will be necessary to acknowledge their place in MT. What is not conceivable is that the great narrator of this story would commit fumbles such as contradicting himself or giving notice of the construction of the altar to Baal in an inadequate section of the story; the narrator knows how to initiate Elijah’s sacrifice scene with a first allusion to the altar upon which the sacrifice is going to be offered (v. 32). The reference to the construction of an altar for the sacrifice to Baal has all the signs of being a late elaboration, the work of somebody concerned with minor details of the text, such as the exact division of the time of prayer of the prophets of Baal. After these analyses, a continuous reading of the text which can be glimpsed from LXX and OL allows us to notice new details which confirm the previous observations:

262 26 So they took the bull, prepared it, and called on the name of Baal, crying, “Answer us, O Baal, answer us” But there was no voice, and no answer. ………………………………………………………… 29 They prophesized until midday passed. And when it was the time of the offering of the oblation, then Elijah said …

Chapter 13

‫ת־ה ָּפר וַ ּיַ ֲעׂשּו וַ ּיִ ְק ְראּו‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיִ ְקחּו ֶא‬ ‫ם־ה ַּב ַעל‬ ַ ‫ְב ֵׁש‬ ‫ֵלאמֹר ַה ַּב ַעל ֲענֵ נּו‬ ‫וְ ֵאין קֹול וְ ֵאין עֹנֶ ה‬

…………………………

‫וַ ּיִ ְתנַ ְּבאּו ַעד ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ַבר ַה ָּצ ֳה ַריִ ם‬ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ָּכ ֵעת ַל ֲעלֹות ַה ִּמנְ ָחה‬

… ‫וַ יְ ַד ֵּבר ֵא ִלּיָ הּו‬

The three initial verbs (wayyiqtol) follow each other without the interruption caused by the relative clause MT ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר־נָ ַתן ָל ֶהם‬. Also, the expression “and called on the name of Baal crying” (‫ )וַ ּיִ ְק ְראּו … ֵלאמֹר‬is not interrupted by the parenthesis “from morning until noon.” After confirming the absence of any response to the cuts of Baal’s prophets, Elijah’s mocking follows immediately. The invocation, dances and lacerations of the Baal worshippers and at the same time Elijah’s mocking continue until noon passes. This is the only temporal indication in the story, together with the following “when was the time of the offering of the oblation …” The Greek reproduces here a Hebrew idiom καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ὁ καιρός τοῦ + infinitive = ‫ויהי כעת ל‬- (MT ‫)ויהי כ … עד‬. The sentence “there was no voice, and no answer” (‫ )ענה‬makes complete sense right after the invocation “O Baal, answer us!” But its repetition in the context of MT v. 29 is not preceded by any invocation which justifies it nor the correlation of verbs “answer us”— “but there was no answer” is attested. The repetition of that phrase only makes sense when or after the invocation to Baal is divided in two parts. In the text reproduced by LXX that phrase is unnecessary, given that the withdrawal of the prophets of Baal is mentioned, and it would imply the acknowledgement of their failure and of the lack of an answer from Baal. Elijah commands the prophets of Baal to withdraw (‫)סיר‬, because it is his turn to make the sacrifice. The prophets of Baal withdraw. In contrast, Elijah commands the people to approach (‫ )נגש‬immediately after, and they do. Therefore, two parallel commandfulfillment sequences are attested (imperative—wayyiqtol), with two verbs which express actions in contrast: the prophets of Baal withdraw, the people approaches. The story knows a division in two movements, an “until” (‫עד‬, ἕως) and a “from” (‫מעתה‬, ἀπὸ τὸ νῦν). The prophets of Baal have a set time until the passing of noon ‫ ַעד ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ַבר ַה ָּצ ֳה ַריִ ם‬, according to LXX v. 29). Elijah’s time begins from the moment of offering the oblation onwards (… ‫… מעתה‬ ‫ויהי כעת לעלות המנחה‬, LXX). The contrast is double: morning and evening, the prophets of Baal and Elijah. The morning corresponds with the former, the evening with Elijah. The

the Old Latin in Post-Qumranic Textual Criticism

263

whole story follows a structure of contrast between the prophets and Elijah, between Baal and Yahweh. The structure of the narrative has no room for subdividing the time assigned to the prophets of Baal into an ante and a post meridiem. This subdivision is just the result of a secondary development in the proto-Masoretic textual tradition. The original text did not know the repetitions and chronological precisions of the present Hebrew text, which could be qualified as a “Pedantic Timetabling”:34 “from morning until noon”—“when it was noon”—“as midday passed.” The original narrative knew only the expression “(they prophesied) until midday passed.” Together with it, the following expression “And when it was the time of the offering of the oblation …” constitutes a pair in opposition. MT falls again into a repetition, unknown in LXX, in v. 36: “At the time of the offering of the oblation …” (… ‫)ויהי בעלות המנחה‬.35 The purpose of this chapter was to show that OL and its Greek Vorlage, a pre-Lucianic text, may represent the Old Greek text more faithfully than Codex B and the manuscripts which follow it not only in the kaige sections but also in the non-kaige section of 3 Kgdms (1 Kgs 2:12–1 Kgs 21:19). But it is, above all, the happy occasion to contribute to the homage to a friend and fellow for many years at l’École Biblique of Jerusalem, Professor E. Puech, whom I once again thank for his generous help on so many occasions. 34  Paraphrasing the title of an article by Gooding and the qualification which the same author gives to the text of LXX in other passages, D.W. Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling in 3rd Book of Reigns,” VT 15 (1965): 153–166. 35  According to A. Klostermann, the data of the coincidence of Elijah’s sacrifice with the time of the evening oblation is a secondary interpretation, see id., Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige (Nördlingen: Beck’sche Buchhandlung, 1887), 368. Nevertheless, these data appear both in MT and LXX. Timm criticizes Klostermann’s proposal: “Denn mit dieser Zeitangabe gehören die beiden anderen zusammen, nach denen die Baalspropheten von Morgen bis Mittag Baal anrufen (V. 26) und (von Mittag) bis Abend in Raserei geraten (V. 29). Es geht nicht an, die dritte Zeitbestimmung als Korrektur eines Interpolators zu streichen, die anderen beiden aber stehen zu lassen,” id., Die Dynastie Omri, 77.

Chapter 14

Samuel/Kings and Chronicles: Book Divisions and Textual Composition An analysis that combines textual and literary criticism allows us to approach the complex editing process of the books of 2 Samuel/1 Kings and 1 Chronicles. This article focuses on the divisions between these books and the arrangement of the material they comprise within 2 Samuel/1 Kings 1–3.1 This is my contribution to the volume in homage to Eugene Ulrich, a pioneer in the study of the editorial history of biblical books based on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint.2 Decisive factors in the editing and canonization of a book are “a fixed arrangement of content” and “the tendency to produce a standardized text.”3 In the transmission of ancient Mesopotamian literature, “Text stability and fixed sequence of tablets within a series are also the criteria by which to define a cuneiform text as standard or canonical.”4 Studies conducted after M. Noth have been focused on the reconstruction of the redaction history (hereafter “dtr”) of the historical books (Joshua-Kings), without a proper consideration of the history of their composition and editing processes. However, the redactional texts, especially the Deuteronomistic texts, are located especially at the beginning and end of these books, where editorial activity is more obvious from duplicate passages and transpositions that give rise to different textual forms attested by the manuscript tradition. 1  The research presented here was possible thanks to a three month stay as Guest Professor at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in September–December 2002. The English translation has been verified by Wilfred G. Watson. 2  E. Ulrich, “Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text,” in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995 ed. D.W. Parry and S.D. Ricks, STDJ 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 78–105; id., “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment, ed. P.W. Flint and J.C. VanderKam, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1998–99), 1.79–100. 3  N.M. Sarna, “The Order of the Books,” in Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History and Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev, ed. Ch. Berlin (New York: Ktav, 1971), 407–413, esp. 411 and 413 n. 15. 4  M. Civil, Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 14 (1979): 168–189, as quoted by W.W. Hallo, “The Concept of Canonicity in Cuneiform and Biblical Literature: A Comparative Appraisal,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective. Scripture in Context IV, K.L. Younger, et al. (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991), 1–20, esp. 6.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_016

Samuel / Kings and Chronicles

1

265

Divisions between the Books: Multiple Endings and Beginnings

The book of Joshua has more than one ending and links up with Judges in different ways. As noted by A. Rofé, LXX Josh 24:33ab is connected with Judg 3:12–30, omitting the material in between, which is largely dtr (1:1–3:11).5 Since Josh 24:28, 31, 29–30 (according to the sequence in the LXX) duplicates Judg 2:6–9, it establishes another link between the two books that omits Judg 1:1– 2:5. Literary criticism has identified another ending in Josh 23 (dtr) that also joins with Judg 2:6.6 Finally, Josh 21:43–45 appears to be an ancient ending of Joshua that seems connected with Judg 2:8ff.*.7 All these endings and links can only be explained by supposing multiple editions.8 The Antiochene Greek text, which sometimes represents the Old Greek or a form near to it in style, contains in Judg 2:10 a plus that repeats 3:5–6a. This linking repetition delimits the insertion ascribed to a Deuteronomistic redaction(s): 2:11–3:4. Moving beyond the proposal made by A. Rofé, it has to be said that the three elements which comprise LXX Josh 24:33b are not directly connected with Judg 3:12, but instead mark three different links: with 2:6 (they went to their own inheritances), with 2:11ff. (they worshipped the gods of the surrounding peoples) and with 3:12ff. (the story of Eglon/Ehud). When studying the historical books, alongside the analytical model that assigns various texts to successive redactions another analytical model has to be used that accepts the co-existence of parallel editions. The final process of composition and redaction of a work can give rise to several editions that can coexist and even intermix. Judges likewise has three different endings: (a) the present one, with the “appendices” of chaps. 17–21, framed by the duplicate 17:6 and 21:25; (b) the one formed by 16:31 (“he judged Israel for twenty years”), also marked in the LXX and the OL by the inclusion at this juncture of MT 3:31; and (c) the ending 15:20, parallel to 16:31. Unfortunately, virtually all the beginnings and ends of the biblical books are not preserved in the Qumran manuscripts, thus depriving us of 5  A. Rofé, “The End of the Book of Joshua According to the Septuagint,” Henoch 4 (1982): 17–36. 6  H.N. Rösel, Von Josua bis Jojachin. Untersuchungen zu den deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments, VTSup 75 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 49–58. 7  U. Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch, BZAW 192 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 68–72; E. Blum, “Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter. Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust, BETL 133 (Leuven: Leuven University Press—Peeters, 1997), 181–212. 8  Books of the Pentateuch also conclude with different appendixes, cf. E. Talstra, “Deuteronomy 31. Confusion or Conclusion? The Story of Moses’ Threefold Succession,” in Vervenne and Lust (ed.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, 87–103.

266

Chapter 14

data that would be illuminating and even surprising with respect to the edition of these books. The only end of a biblical manuscript that has been preserved is of 4QJudga, which “possibly knew a variant shorter text or presented a text arrangement different from that of MT.”9 2 Kings seems to have a clear beginning in 1:1, with the formula: “After the death of Ahab.” However, the kaige recension ends with LXX 1 Kgs 21(MT 20):43. On the other hand, the Old Greek (as represented by LXXL) places the regnal formulae of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram in 1 Kgs 16:28a–h (before Ahab), as against MT 22:41–42 (after Ahab). The law of alternating synchronisms between Israel and Judah favours placing the formula of Jehoshaphat as in the LXX. Similarly, the Old Greek places the initial formula of Jehoram of Israel in 2 Kgs 1:18a–d, as against the MT which places it in 2 Kgs 3:1–3. The arrangement of the MT leaves the Elijah/Elisha story (chapter 2) completely out of the framework of reigns, which means that it contravenes another law of composition for the book, according to which every piece of narrative material has to be included within the reign-formulae to which it corresponds chronologically. In the arrangement of the text according to the Old Greek, the opening formula of the book, “After the death of Ahab,” occurs closer to the information about Ahab’s death than it does in the MT, without the interposition of the formulae that correspond to Jehoshaphat. Thus, the dividing line between 1 and 2 Kings is more problematic than is usually supposed. The ending of 2 Samuel is interrupted by the addition of the “appendices” 21–24. Noth had already recognised three endings of this book in 1 Kgs 2:12, 35 (LXX) and 46, all reproducing the same closing formula: “the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.”10 The “supplements” in LXX 2:35+ and 2:46+ mark the close of one book and the beginning of another, as also occurs with “appendices” of 2 Sam 21–24. However, more significant is the fact that the kaige recension places the ending of 2 Samuel in 1 Kgs 2:11, with David’s death, as also occurs in the parallel 1 Chr 29:28–30, thus following the model of other books that conclude with the death of the protagonist (Gen 50:26; Deut 34:1–12; Josh 24:29–31; Judg 16:31; 1 Sam 31:1–13; 2 Kgs 1:1).

9  J . Trebolle Barrera, “50. 4QJudg,” in Qumran Cave 4. IX Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. E. Ulrich et al., DJD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 164–169, esp. 167. 10  M. Noth, Könige, BEAT 9/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 7–8, 10 and 37; W. Dietrich, “Das Ende der Thronfolgegeschichte,” in Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids. Neue Einsichten und Anfragen, ed. A. de Pury and Th. Römer, OBO 176 (Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 38–69; Stefan Seiler, Die Geschichte von der Thronfolge Davids (2 Sam 9–20; 1 Kön 1–2). Untersuchungen zur Literarkritik und Tendenz, BZAW 267 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), 56–58.

Samuel / Kings and Chronicles

267

Even more decisive is the fact that the Old Greek (LXXL) text places David’s death in 1 Kgs 2:1: “David died and slept with his ancestors,” connecting it with 1 Kgs 2:10, “David slept with his ancestors …”11 This linking repetition marks off the insertion of 2:1b–9, corresponding to the “testament” of David, composed of very differing material: verses 2–4, 5–6, 7, 8–9. The dtr introduction (verses 2–4) is comparable to that for Joshua 1, but supposes a further stage in the editing process and in the relationship between the books, already inserting the citation formulae … ‫( ככתוב בתורת משה‬cf. LXX). Verses 5–6 blame Joab, following a tendency of the tradition to marginalize or eliminate this important character who overshadowed David (see below). Verses 8–9 are taken from the story about Shimei, which the LXX preserves whole and entire after 2:35+, whereas in the MT it is divided into two parts distributed in different contexts (2:8–9 + 36–46). The problem of the ending of 2 Samuel is closely related to the ending of the succession history, which in turn is related to its beginning, since accounts could have been added both to the beginning and to the end of the first nucleus of this history. 2

The Beginning of the Kaige Section (LXX 2 Kingdoms 11:1) and of the Succession History (2 Sam 11:1)

Chronicles starts its account of the biblical history by beginning with David, using as a source the second book of Samuel up to 2 Sam 11:1 (2 Sam 5–11:1 // 1 Chr 11:1–20:1).12 After this point Chronicles continues with the accounts that form part of the “Appendix” of 2 Sam 21–24 (1 Chr 20:4–8 = 2 Sam 21:18–22 and 1 Chr 21 = 2 Sam 24). Thus it omits the story of David and Bathsheba (11:2–12:25), as well as the rest of the “history of succession” (2 Sam 13–20; 1 Kgs 1–2).13 11  The Antiochene Greek text καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ ταῦτα, καὶ ἀπἐθανε Δαυἰδ καὶ ἐκοιμήθη μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ can be easily retranslated into Hebrew: ‫ויהי אחרי הדברים האלה וימת דוד‬ ‫ ;וישכב עם אבתיו‬see A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta Studien 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 283. Rahlfs is reluctant to recognize that the Antiochene text preserves the Old Greek, and that it represents a Hebrew Vorlage different from the MT, but he is forced to admit this is the case here. 12  After studying 4QSama, F.M. Cross concluded that Chronicles follows a Hebrew text of Samuel that differs from the MT, but it is close to the Old Greek and 4QSama, see id., “The Fixation of the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” in From Epic to Canon. History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 206–218, esp. 214. 13  Regarding different approaches to defining and characterizing the “succession history,” see W. Dietrich, Die frühe Königszeit in Israel. 10 Jahrhundert v. Chr., Biblische Enzyklopädie

268

Chapter 14

2 Sam 11:1, “a fascinating verse” (S.L. McKenzie), closes the non-kaige section of the LXX text (1 Sam 1 to 2 Sam 11:1) and opens the kaige section that runs as far as 1 Kgs 2:11. The division of the text according to the kaige recension corresponds to another identical one in the original Hebrew, not only at its close (1 Kgs 2:11), as several authors are ready to admit, but also at its beginning, 2 Sam 11:1. This suggests that the text delimited by this recension, 1 Sam 11:1 to 2 Kgs 2:11, could have been a separate scroll. Both the omission in Chronicles of 2 Sam 11:1 and the kaige division of the Greek text on this same point have been ascribed to the wish to avoid texts that compromise David’s character, such as the account that immediately follows concerning David, Bathsheba and Uriah.14 However, the textual and literary cuts in 11:1 are rather due to phenomena derived from the composition and editing of 2 Samuel. “Tendenzkritik” easily falls prey to subjectivity and, methodologically, comes after criticism of the composition and edition of the text. 1 Sam 11:1 is the point of insertion for the story of David and Bathsheba and the other stories that make up the so-called “succession history.” Recent criticism has revised the theory of L. Rost concerning this history, querying among other elements its opening, which overlaps with the close of the previous “history of David’s ascent.” This may conclude with 2 Sam 5, but it may also include the ark narrative (2 Sam 6), which is connected with the passages related to the construction of the temple and the Davidic dynasty (chapter 7). On the other hand, chaps. 6 and 7 are, according to Rost, the prelude to the history of succession, a collection made up of 1 Sam 4–6; 2 Sam 6–7; 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2 that requires earlier references such as the list of David’s sons (3:2–5 and 5:13–16) and information about Abiathar, Joab and Abishai. The account of the war against the Ammonites (2 Sam 10:1–14 + 11:1 + 12:26[27–29], 30–31, is the frame for the insertion of the story of David and Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:1*–12:25).15 1 Chronicles reproduces in 20:1–3 the text of 2 Sam 11:1* + 12:26, 30–31, but without the interposed story of David and

3 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1997), 203–212; id., Von David zu den Deuteronomisten. Studien zu den Geschichtsüberlieferungen des Alten Testaments, BWANT 16/156 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002), 32–57; W. Dietrich and T. Naumann, Die Samuelbücher, Erträge der Forschung 287 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995), 169–296; S.L. McKenzie, “The So-Called Succession Narrative in the Deuteronomistic History,” in Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids. Neue Einsichten und Anfragen, ed. A. de Pury and T. Römer, OBO 176 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 123–135. 14  S.L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History, HSM 33 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985), 37 and 72. 15  Seiler, Die Geschichte von der Thronfolge, 223–240.

Samuel / Kings and Chronicles

269

Bathsheba, and with very significant variants between the texts of Samuel and Chronicles.16 In 2 Samuel the action concerns David and his veterans: “David sent Joab … They ravaged … and laid siege …” (11:1), and then Joab: “Joab attacked … and conquered …” (12:26). The same action, with the same verbs, is then attributed to David: “David … attacked it and conquered it” (12:29b). The result is a linking repetition (Wiederaufnahme), “attacked and conquered … attacked and conquered,” which marks the addition of the sub-paragraph formed by verses 27–29a. This insertion ascribes to Joab the wish to leave to David the honour of having conquered the city of Rabbah. As a result there is an inconsistency in the text, for the same verbs “attacked and conquered” first have Joab as their subject and then David. In 1 Chr 20:1, instead, Joab is the only protagonist: “Joab led the troops … reduced Rabbah and destroyed it.” Chronicles does not know of Joab’s message to David, in which he offered him the honour of taking the city (2 Sam 12:26–29). Chronicles does not omit this passage, which would have supposed the real application of modern “Literarkritik,” but reproduces a text that did not know the passage 2 Sam 12:26–29. The text of 1 Chr 20:1 reproduces the words of 2 Sam 11:1 in line with its own Vorlage, which represents here a text earlier than the MT. Joab was the protagonist both in this verse and throughout the account of the campaign against the Ammonites, 2 Sam 10:1–14 + 11:1 + 12:30–31 // 1 Chr 19:1–15 + 20:1–3.17 David’s role is reduced to sending Joab into battle and collecting the booty at the end of the battle. In Chronicles, Joab is also the protagonist in the conquest of Jerusalem (1 Chr 11:4–9). He is the first to enter the city and he then restores part of the city. Josephus (Ant. 7.63–64) also ascribes the taking of the city to Joab, in an account similar to the one in Chronicles. Instead, in the text of 2 Sam 5:6–10 it is David who takes the fortress and builds the Millo, with no reference at all to Joab. Here also Chronicles knows a text of Samuel earlier than the present MT. Tradition has lessened Joab’s role in favour of David’s, more in the tradition of 2 Samuel and less in the 1 Chronicles tradition. The textual variants and the phenomena of composition produced around 2:11 belong to a wider frame of relationships that includes the various arrangements of 2 Samuel // 1 Chronicles.

16  See S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1993), 361–365. 17  The victory over the Arameans, 2 Sam 10:15–19 // 1 Chr 19:16–19, is inserted in the narrative of the war against the Ammonites. 2 Sam 11:1 (1 Chr 20:1) links directly to 2 Sam 10:14 (1 Chr 19:15).

270 3

Chapter 14

Different Arrangements of the Text: 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles

The Appendix of 2 Sam 20–24 is not an editorial achievement in a book of narratives whose literary merit has been exalted by all critics.18 This Appendix collects narratives and other material displaced from its own context and interrupts the “succession history,” dividing it into two blocks: 2 Sam (?)–19 and 1 Kgs 1–2. However, the materials of 2 Sam 20–24 retain a close relationship with the accounts in 2 Sam 5:1–11:1, of which they are the beginning, the continuation or a complement. Thus, the story of the famine and Saul’s descendants (2 Sam 21:1–14), together with the story of Meribbaal (9:1–13), originally formed an independent narrative. The episode of the exploits against the Philistines (2 Sam 21:15–22) was a literary unit in the context of David’s wars against the Philistines (5:17–25). Similarly, the story of the census, the plague and the construction of an altar (2 Sam 24:1–25) belonged to the material concerning the conquest of Jerusalem (5:6–10) or the transfer of the ark (chapter 6). It was moved to its present location as the altar erected by David in the threshing floor of Araunah was identified with the altar of sacrifices of the temple of Jerusalem. The text of 1 Chr 21:26–22:1, like the text of LXX 2 Sam 24:25 (καὶ προσέθηκεν… ἐν πρώτοις), makes this connection explicit.19 Similarly, the set of texts about David’s Heroes (2 Sam 23:8–39) is related to the account of the taking of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:6–10). In effect, 1 Chr 11:(10)11–47 places it after this account together with an expansion peculiar to Chronicles concerning David’s followers and warriors (1 Chr 12). The unit dealing with David’s warriors and the account of the census, the plague and the construction of an altar appear successively in 2 Sam 23:8–39; 24:1–25. Both are connected with the capture of Jerusalem (5:6–10), or with the removal of the ark (2 Sam 6:1–11), or with both, since in the text of Chronicles they are consecutive. There is an inversion in the order of the chapters between 2 Samuel and Chronicles. In Chronicles, the account of the removal of the ark comes immediately after the account of the capture of Jerusalem. In 2 Samuel, however, it comes after the material pertaining to Hiram of Tyre, David’s family in Jerusalem and the war against the Philistines (2 Sam 5:11–12; 5:13, 14–16 and 5:17–25). In 18  The author is called “a fine teller of tales,” see D.M. Gunn, The Story of King David. Genre and Interpretation, JSOTSup 6 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978), 111. 19  P.K. McCarter, II Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, AB 8 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 264, 434, 443, 451 and 516; I. Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten. Literarisch-historiographische Abweichungen der Chronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern, BZAW 226 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 115.

Samuel / Kings and Chronicles

271

Chronicles this material is inserted between the two parts of the account of the removal of the ark: first to the house of Obed-Edom (1 Chr 13:6–14 // 2 Sam 6:1–11) and then to the City of David (1 Chr 15:25–16:3 // 2 Sam 6:12*–19). The sequence in Samuel seems to give priority to the political consequences of the capture of Jerusalem and the sequence in Chronicles gives priority to the consequences related to the removal of the ark and to the future temple, linking the tradition of Gibeon with the tradition of Jerusalem (infra). Of the remaining elements of the Appendix, the Psalm of David in 2 Sam 22 (= Psalm 18), forms an arc with the opening poem of the book, David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam 1:17–27). The Last Words of David (23:1–7), which in some way represent a duplication of his testament (1 Kgs 2:1–9), point towards the ending of the book, in the manner of the farewell discourses of Jacob (Genesis 49) and of Moses (Deuteronomy 33). This ending occurs in 2 Kgs 2:11 (kaige) and 1 Chr 29:28–30, where the reference to David’s death is accompanied by information about the length of his reign: 40 years in total, 7 in Hebron and 33 in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 2:11 and 1 Chr 29:26–27). This information also occurs in MT 2 Sam 5:4–5, but is omitted here in Chronicles, which probably followed a Hebrew Vorlage. The omission of these verses from the Old Latin could be an indication that they were not in the Old Greek either. The information appears in 1 Chr 3:4, as part of the genealogies of chaps. 1–9. The reference to the regnal years in Hebron and Jerusalem is also connected with the information concerning David’s sons, born in one or other capital. The list of those born in Jerusalem occurs in 2 Sam 5:14–16 // 1 Chr 14:3–7, as well as in 1 Chr 3:5–8, among the genealogical lists. The function of all these duplicates, transmitted in different ways in the various textual traditions, is to delimit the blocks of text that have been inserted or displaced. Thus, the list of David’s rule (2 Sam 8:16–18 // 1 Chr 18:14–17) appears duplicated in 2 Sam 20:23–26, at the close of the present book, either before the Appendix or as its first element.20 Ultimately, Chronicles follows a text of Samuel in which the materials of the Appendix were closely connected to those prior to 2 Sam 11:1.

20  According to McCarter, the separation of the original literary unit (21:1–6, 8–14 + 9:1–13) was the work of a Deuteronomistic intervention. From the removal of 21:1–14, which in its original position before 9:1–13 was attached to the list of David’s cabinet, arose the duplication of 1 Sam 8:16–18 = 2 S 20:23–26. See McCarter, II Samuel, 264, 434 and 443.

272 4

Chapter 14

2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles: Translatio Imperii or Translatio Templi

The beginning of 2 Samuel seems to be the best example of the editing process in a biblical book. In Chronicles, Saul’s death marks a divide that splits this account into two halves: from Adam to the death of Saul (1 Sam 31) and from David to the end of the Exile. The first half is described using a series of genealogical lists from Adam and Noah to David (1 Chr 3) and Saul (8:29–40; 9:35– 44). It contains absolutely no reference to the Exodus, and the name of Moses appears as just another name in one genealogy. Significantly, like Chronicles, the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo begins with Adam and ends with Saul’s death. This division of biblical history highlights the importance of the transition from the patriarchs and judges to the kings, as well as the transition from the dynasty of Saul to the dynasty of David. Alongside a historiography with the Exodus and the Law of Sinai as its focus,21 there was another, having as its focus the history of the origins of the monarchy and the royal ideology (the “writing of David” or the “order of the king,” Chronicles). This claimed to make the monarchy legitimate, making history of the transfer of traditions (concerning the Saulide dynasty and the sanctuaries of Shiloh and Gibeon) from the North to the Davidic dynasty and to the city and Temple of Jerusalem. It is not possible to discuss these matters further here. All we can do is to note that this monarchical historiography was developed along two lines: one which is more political (translatio imperii) and the other more cultic (translatio templi). 2 Samuel seems to follow the first line more, 1 Chronicles the second. Chronicles pays more attention than Samuel to the character of Saul and the city of Gibeon, the political and religious centre of the territory of Benjamin and of the dynasty of Saul. This contradicts the tendencies of the author of Chronicles, who in principle takes no interest in anything related to the Northern kingdom. This suggests, therefore, that the references to Saul and Gibeon exclusive to Chronicles derive from its Vorlage or from other sources. These references occur before and after the beginning of 2 Samuel and before and after its ending, which again makes the dividing line between the two books, 1 and 2 Samuel, movable in this case. Chronicles includes the genealogy of Saul and extends it as far as the exile and even duplicates its text in a repetition that frames material concerning 21  K  . Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus. Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments, WMANT 81 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 352–357.

Samuel / Kings and Chronicles

273

Jerusalem, the sacred city, taken from Nehemiah 11 (1 Chr 8:29–40 // 9:35–44). From the burial of Saul in Jabesh (the last verse of 1 Samuel, 31:13) until his remains are finally interred together with those of Jonathan and of his other sons, “in the land of Benjamin, in Zela, in the tomb of his father Kish” (end of 2 Sam 21:14), king Saul, his descendant Ishbaal and his Benjaminite partisans are present in the plot of the narrative throughout the whole book. The Davidic accession and succession narratives are made up in great measure of stories of the North adapted in the South. Gibeon is a key reference in the literary structure and in the historical conception of Samuel/1 Kings and, in even greater measure, of Chronicles. The structure of these books corresponds to a movement from Gibeon to Jerusalem that supposes the transfer of the political and religious legitimacy of Saul’s old capital to the new capital and the new temple of Jerusalem. Saul’s dynasty has its roots in Gibeon: “The father of Gibeon, Jeiel, dwelt in Gibeon … Ner begot Kish and he begot Saul” (1 Chr 8:29–33 // 9:35–39). The first story in 2 Samuel is the account of the battle of Gibeon between the troops of Ishbaal, Saul’s son, and of David (2 Sam 2:12–32). The results of the battle are recorded later (2 Sam 3:30). Then, David defeats the Philistines “from Gibeon to the entrance of Gezer” (2 Sam 5:25 = 1 Chr 14:16). “On the heights of Gibeon” is the Ark, which is transported to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1–19 // 1 Chr 13:6–14; 12:25–16:3). Gibeon is the place where the followers of Zeba and of David meet (2 Sam 20:8). David leaves priests “on the height of Gibeon” (1 Chr 16:39), “the main sanctuary” to which Solomon comes at the beginning of his reign (1 Kgs 3:4–13 // 2 Chr 1:1–13). The Chronicles account makes Solomon return “from the height of Gibeon” to Jerusalem (2 Chr 1:13, a reference absent in 1 Kings 3). The altar of holocausts was “on the height of Gibeon,” as Chronicles notes at the end of the story of the census, the plague and the construction of the altar (2 Sam 24:21–28 // 1 Chr 21:1–28). This story of the building of the altar points to that of the building of the Temple of Jerusalem. Chronicles makes this relationship explicit in 1 Chr 21:28–22:19, as does LXX 2 Sam 24:25, καὶ προσέθηκεν… ἐν πρώτοις, a phrase missing from the MT. Chronicles prefers to take the line that recounts the transfer of the “main sanctuary” of Gibeon to the temple of Jerusalem. 2 Samuel takes another line with political overtones that narrates the translatio imperii of Saul’s dynasty to David’s and of Gibeon to Jerusalem. From beginning to end, 2 Samuel is the history of this translatio. Important elements of this translatio imperii are missing from Chronicles: the elements 2 Samuel uses to mark from start to finish the disappearance or neutralization of each of the heirs or supporters of Saul’s dynasty: Michal has no children (6:20–23); Meribbal is a prisoner in Jerusalem

274

Chapter 14

“at the king’s table” (2 Sam 9:11, 13);22 Shimei, “a man of the same family as the house of Saul,” is put down and eliminated (2 Sam 16:1–14; 19:16–31; 1 Kgs 2:8–9, 36–46); Sheba, also a Benjaminite, is beheaded (2 Sam 20:1–3), and Saul’s other sons are impaled (2 Sam 21:1–14). To this can be added the suppression of Absalom’s rebellion, supported by forces from the North. Thus, the arrangement of the literary units and the references to Joab and Saul or to Gibeon in 1 Chronicles seem to correspond to a different edition of 1 Samuel from the one transmitted in the MT. On the other hand, the division between the books does not seem to be as clear-cut and fixed as would appear from a consideration of the MT of 2 Samuel, and the same applies to Joshua, Judges and 1–2 Kings. The account of Saul’s death that closes 1 Samuel seems to mark the end of history prior to the monarchy, as occurs in Chronicles and the Biblical Antiquities. However, in Chronicles, this same account marks the beginning of the history of the Davidic monarchy portrayed throughout 2 Samuel // 1 Chronicles. This account of Saul’s death ends 1 Samuel, but it leaves the history of Saul’s family hanging in the air (final verses of 1 Samuel, 31:11–13) until the definitive burial of Saul and his sons, as told at the end of 2 Samuel (21:1–14). Similarly, the account of Solomon’s dream in Gibeon marks the beginning of 1 Kings and inaugurates the history of Solomon according to 2 Chronicles, but the many references to Gibeon throughout 2 Samuel sketch out an arc that is only closed in 1 Kings 3, just as the various references to the ark and to the erection of an altar have their expected continuation in the account of the building of the Temple of Jerusalem. Study of the Old Greek version and of the kaige recension in 2 Samuel, as also of 1 Chronicles, seems to indicate the existence of forms of composition or editing that differ from the present MT, even though their reconstruction in detail is not possible due to the lack of necessary data.

22  This could be a magnificent end to the history of Saul’s dynasty, considered from the point of view of Jerusalem, as compared to the end of the Davidic dynasty with its last king supported by the king of Babylon (2 Kgs 25:30).

Chapter 15

Kings (MT/LXX) and Chronicles: the Double and Triple Textual Tradition The present study re-examines the book by Graeme Auld, Kings Without Privilege. It is a tribute to the author for his valuable contribution to the study of the historical books of the Hebrew and Greek Bible.1 Auld advances a new model of analysis for the relationships between the books of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. Against the traditional theory, according to which Chronicles is a re-elaboration of Samuel-Kings, Auld proposes that these two groups of books constitute two literary developments of a previous “source.” The books of Samuel-Kings, like those of Chronicles, are also a “commentary” to this common source. The text shared by Samuel-Kings and Chronicles presents a clear and coherent structure. The common source consisted of the two stories of Solomon’s visions, the temple-speech and a brief account of its building. The “supplementary” material added to Kings underscores the political aspects of Solomon’s reign and at the same time criticizes the figure of a king who was unworthy of his father, David. Auld positions himself against the common opinion, according to which Chronicles suppressed this “supplementary” material in order to clean Solomon’s image, which appeared tainted in the book of Kings. 1

The Mention of Moses in 1 Kgs 8:9 // 2 Chr 5:10; 2 Kgs 14:6 // 2 Chr 25:4; and 2 Kgs 21:8 // 2 Chr 33:8

The first part of this article alludes to the subtitle of the book, David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings. From the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE the Hebrew Old Testament text was in a situation of textual fluidity, propitious to textual emendations,2 especially as they are related to the different polemics between Jewish groups, or in the midst of the multiple exegetical 1  A.G. Auld, Kings Without Privilege. David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994). 2  E. Tov, “Correction Procedures in the Texts from the Judean Desert,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts and Reformulated Issues, ed. D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich, STDJ 40 (Leiden—Boston—Cologne: Brill, 1999), 232–263.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_017

276

Chapter 15

tendencies and interpretations. The study of the transmission of the biblical text has to be carried out in connection with the history of Jewish religion.3 Thus, one can speak of a process of “Mosaitisation” and also of “Davitisation,” characteristic of the late redaction level of the Psalter.4 The Hebrew text of 1–2 Kings underwent a similar process, as the analyses of 1 Kgs 8:9; 2 Kgs 14:6 and 21:8; 1 Kgs 2:4 and 8:23–26 indicate.5 All of them show a growing number of references to Moses and, to a lesser extent, to David, in the literary and textual tradition of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. They also show a tendency of the latest biblical tradition to insert references or quotations taken from the book of Deuteronomy. To analyze adequately the phenomena which belong to the editorial phase of the books of Kings one must use a combination of textual criticism and literary criticism. 1. In 1 Kgs 8:9 (// 2 Chr 5:10) an addition in the Old Greek, “the tablets of the Covenant,” and a possible ellipsis of the term “a covenant” of the MT seem to be the only textual difficulties: “There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone [LXX + the tablets of the Covenant] that Moses had placed there at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites” (NRSV). The plus of the Greek version, “the tablets of the Covenant” (πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης), corresponds to a Hebrew reading, ‫לחות הברית‬, which forms a double reading together with the preceding ‫לחות האבנים‬, “the tablets of stone”: ‫לחות הברית לחות האבנים‬. The successive editions of Biblia Hebraica indicate that ‫ לחות הברית‬is to be read after v. 9a. But, according to the Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, this indication has led many authors into error, as if the words “the tablets of the Covenant,” placed before the second relative ‫אשר‬, belonged to the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX.6 The double reading ‫ לחות הברית לחות האבנים‬corresponds to the double relative ‫… אשר‬ ‫אשר‬. The articulation between these elements and, especially, 3  A. Rofé, “The History of Israelite Religion and the Biblical Text: Corrections Due to the Unification of Worship,” in Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. Sh.M. Paul et al., VTSup 94 (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2003), 759–793. 4  E. Zenger, “Der Psalter im Horizont von Tora und Prophetie. Kanongeschichtliche und Kanonhermeneutische Perspektiven,” in The Biblical Canons, ed. J.-M. Auwers and H.J. De Jonge (Leuven: University Press—Peeters, 2003), 111–134, esp. 129. 5  M. Fishbane speaks of nomicization through the interpolation of “Torahistic” values, precepts, or regulations, as in Josh 1:6–9 and 1 Kgs 2:2–4, or frequently in Chronicles (e.g. 1 Chr 15:12–15 or 2 Chr 12:1), see id., Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 426. Similarly, see D.W. Gooding on nomicizing revisions in the LXX at 1 Kgs 18:45b, 20:16, and 21:27–29, id., “Ahab According to the Septuagint,” ZAW 76 (1964): 269–280. 6  D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. 1 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 349.

Kings ( MT / LXX ) and Chronicles

277

between the second relative and its antecedent is, according to Burney and Barthélemy, “vague” and “lâche.”7 The fact seems to be that MT and LXX reproduce in two different ways an interpolation in the text. MT and the Vorlage of the LXX of Kings could reflect two different and juxtaposed readings: “the stone tablets which Moses deposited …” and “the tablets of the Covenant, which Yahweh established …” The second reading is a quotation of Deut 9:9: ‫לקחת לוחת האבנים לוחת הברית אשר כרת יהוה עמכם‬, which refers to “two” tablets (v. 10), as is also noted in 1 Kgs 8:9. The reference to Moses in the first relative “which Moses deposited there in Horeb” (‫ )אשר הנח שם משה בחרב‬constitutes a gloss and at the same time a new quotation or allusion to Deut 10:5: “I deposited the tablets in the ark which I made and there they still stay” (‫)ואשם את הלחת בארון אשר עשיתי ויהיו שם‬. In contrast to the verb used in Deut 10:5, ‫שים‬, the verb in 1 Kgs 8:9, ‫נוח‬, shows traces of being secondary. The new quotation intends to indicate that the tablets were still in the ark in the time of Solomon and while the Solomonic Temple endured. The presence of the locative ‫ שם‬in Kings, missing in Chronicles but to be restored with LXX and Targum,8 confers into the gloss a stronger mark of quotation of Deut 10:5. In conclusion, the presence of “Moses” in 1 Kgs 8:9 // 2 Chr 5:10 belongs to what seems to be a gloss, consisting of a reference to Deut 10:5. 2. 2 Kgs 14:6 and its parallel in 2 Chr 25:4 relate that, after putting to death those who had made an attempt against his father, Amaziah of Judah did not extend his revenge to the rebels’ children, “according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the Lord commanded, ‘The parents shall not be put to death for the children, or the children be put to death for the parents’” (NRSV). The Hebrew text does not seem to pose any text-critical difficulties. Nevertheless, a comparison between the MT and the LXX together with the Chronicles parallel offers meaningful data. The text of Chronicles adds ‫כי‬ before ‫ככתוב‬, which is usually considered as a probable case of dittography.9 The Greek text of Kings presents καθώς as corresponding to ‫ כ‬and presents again ὡς instead of the Hebrew relative ‫ אשר‬as if in fact it were reading ‫כאשר‬. The repetition καθώς… ὡς = … ‫… כי‬ ‫ כי‬lets one suppose that we are before a case of resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme), caused by the insertion of a gloss. The text of this gloss corresponds to the formula which introduces a biblical quotation: “according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses.” The presence in Chronicles of the particle ‫כי‬, which authors explain away as 7  C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 109. 8  W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (Tübingen: Mohr, 1955), 211. 9  Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 278.

278

Chapter 15

a mere dittography, given that no function can be found for it, would confirm the fact that an insertion in the text has taken place. This particle is the leftover from a previous text, free of the gloss: “he did not put them to death, according to what Yahweh commanded, saying …” (‫)לא המית כאשר צוה‬. The present text seems to be laden with formulae to introduce a Biblical citation: ‫כאשר צוה‬, ‫ ככתוב‬and ‫לאמר‬.10 The Greek text of Chronicles operates through an even larger accumulation of formulae: καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτῶν οὐκ ἀπέκτεινεν κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην τοῦ νόμου κυρίου καθὼς γέγραπται (+ LXXL ἐν νόμῳ Μουση) ὡς ἐνετείλατο κύριος λέγων. 3. 2 Kgs 21:8b // 2 Chr 33:8 offers a new case of double reading, only detectable through a comparison with the Antiochene Greek text of Kings. The MT reads: “I will not cause the feet of Israel to wander any more out of the land that I gave to their ancestors, if only they will be careful to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them” (NRSV). LXXL πλὴν ἐὰν ἀκούσωσι

LXXB

TM Kgs

κατὰ πάντα ἃ ἐνετειλάμην αὐτοῖς καὶ φυλάξωνται κατὰ πάντα τὸν νόμον

πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην

‫רק‬ ‫אם‬ ‫ישמרו‬ ‫לעשות‬ ‫ככל אשר‬ ‫צויתים‬

κατὰ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐντολήν

‫ו‬ ‫לכל‬ ‫התורה‬

ὃν ἐνετείλατο αὐτοῖς

ἣν ἐνετείλατο

‫אשר‬ ‫צוה‬ ‫אתם‬

ὁ παῖς μου Μωσῆς

ὁ δοῦλός μου Μουσῆς

‫עבדי‬ ‫משה‬

οἵτινες φυλάξουσιν

TM Chr

‫רק‬ ‫אם‬ ‫ישמרו‬ ‫לעשות‬ ‫את כל אשר‬ ‫צויתים‬

‫לכל‬ ‫התורה‬ ‫והחקים‬ ‫והמשפטים‬

‫ביד‬ ‫משה‬

10  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 106. On the relationship between 2 Kgs 14:5–6 and Deut 24:16, cf. 341.

Kings ( MT / LXX ) and Chronicles

279

The MT verb ‫ ישמרו‬corresponds to the LXXB (kaige text) φυλάξουσιν. The Old Greek, as attested by the proto-Lucianic reading ἀκούσωσι (OL audierint), knew a Hebrew ‫ ישמעו‬in accordance with ‫( ולא שמעו‬v. 9a). The Antiochene text offers afterwards καὶ φυλάξωνται, which opens a new sentence. Other differences between the Masoretic, mainstream Greek and Antiochene Greek are not pertinent to this discussion. Amongst them it is to be underscored that MT ‫ לעשות‬has no correspondence in the versions (except for Hexaplaric readings). Also, the MT particle (‫כ)כל‬, ignored by LXXB πάντα ὅσα… is translated in LXXL as κατὰ πάντα ἃ; the MT conjunction (‫ ו)לכל‬is unknown in LXXB; the Antiochene Greek presents this conjunction before the verb, καὶ φυλάξωνται. The fact that Chronicles omits the conjunction (which precedes ‫ )לכל‬may be added evidence on how here an abrupt juxtaposition of two independent expressions has been conducted. The disparity between variants does not allow for a detailed reconstruction of the underlying texts. However, it is possible to identify two juxtaposed readings, the second of which seems to be secondary: 1. ‫“( רק אם ישמעו (את) כל אשר צויתים[…] ולא שמעו‬only if they will hear all that I commanded them …, and did not hear”). 2. ‫“( וישמרו ככל התורה אשר צוה אתם עבדי משה‬and will observe the whole Teachings that commanded them my servant Moses”). The secondary sentence is exactly that which refers to the Law and to Moses. The juxtaposition of 1st-person (‫ )צויתי‬and 3rd-person (‫צוה‬, with Moses as the subject) references stresses the composite character of the text and reminds one of the Temple Scroll which attributes directly to Yahweh discourses that the canonical Pentateuch relates to Moses. 4. In 1 Kgs 2:4 BHS indicates the omission of the second ‫ לאמר‬in the Antiochene text and in the Vulgate, as well as in a medieval Hebrew manuscript. It suggests that this second ‫ לאמר‬must therefore be omitted. Nevertheless, the reading of MT and of mainstream LXX preserve here a remarkable editorial element: the expression which often introduces a quotation or biblical reference. The repetition of the expression ‫ לאמר‬corresponds with the biblical quotation which is introduced by each of them: “with the aim that Yahweh keeps the word he pronounced about me, saying (1) ‘If your children keep their way, walking loyally in my presence, with all their heart and all their soul,’ saying (2) ‘You shall not be deprived of a male upon the throne of Israel.’” The first quotation corresponds to Deut 6:5; the second constitutes a generic reference, but, clear, to 2 Sam 7 (cf. v. 25). The first quotation, taken from Deut 6:5, also appears in 2 Kgs 23:25, without any formula or other introductory expression, but together with the concluding reference “according to Moses’ Torah.” All of it constitutes an interpolation which has dissociated the correlative elements within the sentence: “Before

280

Chapter 15

him there was not such a king, and none like him came after him.” Würthwein attributes the whole v. 25 to the Deuteronomistic redactor of the last period, known as the “nomist” (DtrN).11 The reference to Deut 6:5 and the formula ‫ ככל תורת משה‬seem to answer, nevertheless, to the intervention of an editor in a period later than that of the Deuteronomistic redaction. Similar references to Moses’ Torah appear in 1 Kgs 2:3a and in Josh. 1:7, whose discussion will not be treated here. The expression in 1 Kgs 2:4, which introduces both quotations from Deut 6:5 and 2 Sam 7 also appears in 1 Kgs 8:25 as the introduction and closing of a double quotation, similar to that in 1 Kgs 2:4. 5. The Hebrew and Greek textual tradition of 1 Kgs 8:23–26 is extremely complex. According to MT, Solomon addresses Yahweh in these terms: “(23) [Yahweh, God of Israel]…, (24) who have kept for your servant David, my father, what you had told him; you spoke through your mouth and with your hand you have fulfilled [it], as today. (25) Now, so, Yahweh, God of Israel, keep for your servant David, my father, what you told him, saying: ‘You will not be deprived of a male …’ (26) Now thus, (Yahweh), God of Israel, confirm, please, your word, that which you told to your servant David, my father …” LXX omits the words from v. 24a ‫את אשר דברת לו‬, “what you had told him.”12 These same words appear repeated in v. 25a. The repetition has in fact deeper consequences. It encompasses the whole sentence: “keep for your servant David what you had told him” (‫שמר לעבדך דוד אבי את אשר דברת לו‬/‫)שמרת‬. The MT also offers other repetitions. In v. 26 there is a phrase similar to that previously mentioned, with just a simple word-order inversion: “that which you had told to your servant David, my father” (‫)אשר דברת לעבדך דוד אבי‬. LXX does not know anything of it but the reference to τῷ Δαυιδ τῷ πατρί μου. In addition, the opening expression in v. 25, which indicates a transition in discourse, “Now, then, Yahweh, God of Israel …” (‫)ועתה יהוה אלהי ישראל‬, appears again in the beginning of v. 26. Also the sentence of MT v. 23b opens with the verb ‫ שמר‬in participle form, the same which appears in v. 25aα as an imperative. MT and LXX present, also, meaningful differences in the text of vv. 23b and 24a. MT speaks in the plural of “your servants, which walk before you with a whole heart.” Contrarily, LXX refers in the singular to “your servant 11  E  . Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige. 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön 25, ATD 11/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 461. 12  According to Stade, the clause omitted in LXX is indispensable for the text, see B. Stade and F. Schwally, The Books of Kings, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1904), 104; the omission probably took place, according to J.A. Montgomery, “through mistranslation of ‫ אשר‬1º with ἅ,” see id., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 202.

Kings ( MT / LXX ) and Chronicles

281

which walks before me with a whole heart.” Also, MT and LXX make the same reference to “your servant David, my father” (v. 24a). The transition between vv. 23b and 24a is made in different ways in each text. MT connects the relative ‫ אשר‬to Yahweh. Contrarily, in LXX the relative does not represent the subject of the phrase, but its object (ἃ ἐλάλησας), as if it were reading ‫את אשר‬. This is connected to the reading and omission of the words ‫את אשר דברת לו‬. These constitute in MT the object or complement of the sentence. In LXX they are completely unnecessary in the position they take. The sentence in MT v. 24a applies to David the general statement already established in the previous sentence (v. 23b). In LXX both sentences merely repeat the same idea, without the latter contributing anything new beyond the former. It is possible to ask whether LXXB constitutes here the text of the Old Greek. The Antiochene Greek exhibits meaningful variants. In v. 23b it adds Δαυιδ τῷ πατρί μου, which anticipates the reading in v. 24a ‫לעבדך דוד אבי‬, but here LXXL omits τῷ δούλῳ σου. Furthermore, it offers the reading ἐλάλησας, which cannot but correspond to ‫את אשר דברת‬, as the correspondence between the Greek and Hebrew texts in v. 25aα demonstrates. The Antiochene text seems to have known the MT reading ‫(את אשר דברת ל‬v. 24a). In order to shed some light upon these tangled texts it is necessary to identify the fundamental elements which constitute this passage. These elements are the same as those found in 1 Kgs 2:4: a) A formula which makes reference to what Yahweh said and its expected fulfillment: v. 25a, “keep for your servant, David, what you told him” (‫)שמר לעבדך דוד אבי את אשר דברת לו‬, repeated under a very similar formulation in v. 24a, “that you have kept for your servant, David, what you had told him” (‫)שמרת לעבדך דוד אבי את אשר אמרת לו‬. These references correspond with 1 Kgs 2:4. b) An expression which introduces one or more quotations: v. 25, ‫לאמר‬. c) A first quotation, alluding to David’s offspring: v. 25: “You shall not be deprived of a male which sits in my presence on the throne of Israel,” ‫לא יכרת לך איש מלפני ישב על כסא ישראל‬. This quotation is parallel to that in 1 Kgs 2:4: ‫לא יכרת לך איש על כסא ישראל‬. d) A second quotation, relative to the rightful walking before Yahweh as a condition for the fulfillment of what Yahweh said: v. 25b, “as long as your children keep their way walking in my presence like you walked before me,” ‫אם ישמרו בניך את דרכם ללכת לפני כאשר הלכת לפני‬. This reference is parallel to the quotation of Deut 6:5 in 1 Kgs 2:4: ‫אם ישמרו בניך את דרכם ללכת לפני באמת‬ ‫בכל לבבם ובכל נפשם‬. Some elements from this quotation also appear in v. 23b, in the words ‫ההלך לפניך בכל לבו‬, “who walks (plural in the MT) before you with a whole heart (plural in the MT).” If it were not already clear enough how

282

Chapter 15

these words constitute or repeat a quotation like that in v. 25b, the Antiochene Greek text shows here the more complete expression ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (ἐν ὅλῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ), which matches exactly the quotation in 1 Kgs 2:4 (in the singular, not in the plural, as in MT). These words in v. 23b are interpolated between others which belong to the first element amongst the four which constitute this passage: ‫שמר הברית והחסד לעבדך ההלך לפניך באמת ובכל לבו אשר שמר לעבדך את‬ ‫אשר דבר לו‬. It is possible that before the interpolation of the words “who walks before you (in truth and) with his whole heart,” the original contiguous text of vv. 23–25 was “Yahweh, God of Israel …, who keep the Covenant and the grace for your servant David, my father, on what you told him.” The continuation in v. 24b insists on the fulfillment of what Yahweh said “as in this day.” 1 Kgs 2:4 and 8:23–26 also juxtapose two references or citations from Deut 6:5 and 2 Sam 7. Without David’s or Moses’ name appearing in one or the other case, it is easy to appreciate that the literary and textual traditions point towards a progressive increase in the references to passages allusive to David and Moses. In conclusion, the mentions of Moses which appear in the three passages from the text shared by Kings and Chronicles (1 Kgs 8:9 // 2 Chr 5:10; 2 Kgs 14:6 // 2 Chr 25:4; and 2 Kgs 21:8 // 2 Chr 33:8) belong to elements incorporated at a late stage in the editorial process of the book of Kings. The incorporation of such elements into the text has left traces in the textual transmission itself. This phenomenon is to be related with Qumran citation formulae in which the name of a book is substituted with Moses’ or David’s name, for example, “as David said” (Catenaa [4Q177] 12–13+15+19.7), “and Moses said” (CD v. 8), “[whic]h Moses spoke” (Ordinancesa [4Q159] 5.3), or “as You spoke by the hand of Moses, saying” (1QM x.6).13 Also, CD 6.3 introduces the citation Num 21:18 with the words “as Moses said” though this formula is omitted in the CD version of 4Q266 3 ii 19 and 4Q267 2 9, as well as in the Cairo Genizah text. The “Words of the Heavenly Luminaries” (4Q504 1 iii 12–13) speak of punishments “of which Moses and your servants the prophets wrote”; in this case, however, no quotation is given. Also without a specific citation, 4Q266 18 v. 6 (a CD fragment = 4Q270 11 i 20) refers to “all the statutes found in the Torah of Moses.” The Apocryphon of Moses C (4Q377 2 ii 2) refers to matters learned “in the statutes of Moses.” The more usual expression “in the book of Moses” (‫)בספר משה‬

13  M. Bernstein, “Scriptures: Quotation and Use,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. L.H. Schiffman and J.V. VanderKam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 839–842.

Kings ( MT / LXX ) and Chronicles

283

is used several times in the halakhic letter (4QMMT, C 11 = 4Q398 frg. 1 5) and in the Florilegium text (4Q174) introducing Exod 15:17–18.14 2

The Composition of the Solomon Narrative: 1 Kgs 3–10 MT/LXX and 2 Chronicles 1–9

Auld establishes the shared Text of Kings and Chronicles through a synoptic comparison of the sequence of the literary units which integrate those two works. Nevertheless, a more detailed comparison has to be performed on the basis of the text of LXX 3 Kingdoms, which preserves in its main text the oldest available layout of the text of Kings. Chronicles knew a text of Samuel-Kings different from that of the MT in these books and similar to that attested by 4QSama (4Q51), the Old Greek, the Old Latin and Josephus (Cross, Ulrich).15 The Greek translation of Chronicles (Paraleipomena) reflects this textual tradition. Therefore, variants that were ascribed to the author(s) of Chronicles, particularly historical or theological changes, are rather to be explained as elements proper to the textual tradition of Samuel-Kings represented by the LXX. A case in point is that of the order of the text after 1 Kgs 10:26 where LXX immediately places the text which corresponds with MT 5:1. 2 Chronicles (9:25–26) presents the same order of materials as LXX 3 Kgdms (10:26; 5:1). Chronicles and LXX 3 Kingdoms also coincide in not knowing the MT addition at the beginning of 10:26 (‫)ויאסף שלמה רכב ופרשים‬. In 5:1a16 the reading of Chronicles ‫ בכל המלכים‬coincides with that of LXX 3 Kgdms in the same location (5:1 after 10:26) πάντων τῶν βασιλέων, and also with that of LXX 2:46k, ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν, against MT 5:1 ‫בכל הממלכות‬, which coincides with LXX 2:46b. The half verse 5:1b appears only in MT, a text which agrees with the supplement of LXX 2:46b: ‫ = מגשים מנחה ועבדים את שלמה כל ימי חייו‬προσφέροντες δῶρα καὶ ἐδούλευον τῷ Σαλωμων πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς αὐτοῦ. The text of LXX 3 Kgdms represents an older textual form than that transmitted by MT Kings and Chronicles. Proof of this is that it does not include 14  J.E. Bowley, “Moses in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Living in the Shadow of God’s Anointed,” The Bible at Qumran. Text, Shape, and Interpretation, ed. P.W. Flint (Grand Rapids, MI— Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2001), 159–181. 15  F.M. Cross, “The Fixation of the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” in From Epic to Canon. History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 206–218, esp. 214; E. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, HSM 19 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1978). 16  1 Kgs 5:1a appears at the same time in bold and italics, as it appears in LXX after 10:26, where it has a parallel in 2 Chr 9:26.

284

Chapter 15

additions of Chronicles which have made their way into MT Kings, like those present in 1 Kgs 8:1–6. The LXX version reflects a Hebrew text of Kings which did not know such influence of Chronicles.17 Orlinsky’s statement is not circumscribed only to the glosses from Chronicles: “… wherever the Masoretic text has an excess over the LXX, it is most frequently the former that underwent expansion in post-LXX days, rather than a case of contraction in the latter.”18 The text represented by LXX Kingdoms is closer to this common source than MT Kings and Chronicles. Without going into detail, the text of 1 Kgs 3–10 // 2 Chr 1–9, which has been the subject of recent studies, is analyzed below.19 Within it, four blocks of text can be distinguished, represented differently in each textual tradition. The first one is composed of the materials common to the three textual traditions. These common materials constitute the near totality of the text of 1 Kgs 3–10 // 2 Chr 1–9 (texts in bold). The second is formed by the passages common to LXX and MT Kings: the story of Solomon’s judgment (3:16–28), the lists of governors (4:1, 6) and provinces (4:7–19) and the description of the palace (7:1–12), as well as other references to Solomon’s wisdom and to the temple (5:7–8; 5:9–10; 5:11–14; 5:28; 5:32b; 6:1a; 6:4–10) (text in red). As for the rest of the materials, some are also common to MT Kings/LXX 3 Kgdms but with different placements in MT and LXX (passages in italics): 3:1b; 5:1a; 5:2–4; 5:31–32a; 6:37–38a; 7:1–12; 9:15a, b; 9:16–17a; 9:17b–18*; 9:19–22; 9:24a. Of these, the following have correspondences with the text of the supplements: 3:1b = 2:35c; 5:1a = 2:46b*/k; 5:2–4 = 2:46e, f, ga; 9:15a = 2:35k*; 9:17b–18* = 2:35i; 9:24ª = 2:35f. The remaining ones have no equivalent in the supplements.

17  Cf. Montgomery, Kings, 185; Gray, Kings, 43. Similarly, G. Braulik, “Spuren einer Neubearbeitung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes in 1 Kön 8,52–53.59–60,” Bib 52 (1971): 20–33. M. Noth was skeptical regarding such a conclusion on the literary level based on the shorter text of LXX, id., Könige, BK.AT IX/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 171 and 174. 18  H.M. Orlinsky, “The Kings–Isaiah Recensions of the Hezekiah Story,” JQR 30 (1939–40): 33–49, esp. 40. 19  F.H. Polak, “The Septuagint Account of Solomon’s Reign: Revision and Ancient Recension,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Oslo, 1998, ed. B.A. Taylor (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 2001), 139–164; A. Schenker, Septante et texte massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14, CRB 48 (Paris: Gabalda, 2000); Z. Talshir, “The Reign of Solomon in the Making. Pseudo-Connections between 3 Kingdoms and Chronicles,” VT 50 (2000): 233–49; P.S.F. van Keulen, Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative. An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11, VTSup 104 (Leiden—Boston: Brill, 2005).

285

Kings ( MT / LXX ) and Chronicles

Finally, some materials are exclusive to MT, with no match in LXX: 3:1a; 4:20; 5:1b; 5:5; 5:6 (10:26); 6:1b; 6:11–13; 6:14; 6:38b; 9:23; 9:24b; 9:25. 2 Chr

Bamot Vision 1 Judgment

1:3–13

List 1 List 2 Provisions

9:26

1:14; 9:25 Wisdom Pharaoh’s daughter Hiram Workmen

2:1–15 2:16 2:17

Temple

3:1–4

LXX Kings main text

MT Kings

>

3:1a 3:1b 3:2–3 3:4–15 3:16–28 4:1 4:2–6 4:7–19 4:20 5:1a 5:1b 5:2–4 5:5 5:6 = 10:26 5:7–8

3:2–3 3:4–15 3:16–28 4:1 4:2–6 4:7–19 > > > > 5:7–8 5:2–4 5:9–10 5:11–14 3:1b 9:16–17a 5:15–26 5:27 5:28 5:29–30 5:32b 6:1a > 5:31–32a 6:37–38a 6:2–3 6:4–10 > >

5:9–10 5:11–14 5:15–26 5:27 5:28 5:29–30 5:31–32a 5:32b 6:1a 6:1b 6:2–3 6:4–10 6:11–13 6:14

LXX Kings supplem. 2:46l 2:35ca

(2:46l) (2:46h) 2:46a 2:46b*/k 2:46efga 2:46gb 2:46i 2:35a.b (2:35ca) (2:35i)

2:35d(h)

2:35cb

286

Chapter 15

3:4b–14*

>

Palace Hiram Cultic objects

(2:12–13) 3:15–17* 4:1–5:2

Dedication Vision 2

5:3–7:10 7:11–22

Hiram Buildings and corvée

8:1–2

Pharaoh’s daughter Altar Fleet Sheba Wealth

Wisdom Chariots Silver Chariots

6:15–36

8:3–6* 8:6*–9 8:10 8:11 8:12 8:17–18 9:1–12 9:13–21

9:22–24 9:25/1:14 9:26 9:27/1:15 9:8*/1:16 1:17

7:13–14 7:15–21 7:22–51 7:1–12 8 9:1–9 9:24a 9:10–14

> > > 9:26–28 10:1–13 10:14–22 9:15a.b 9:17b–18 9:19–22 10:23–25 10:26 5:1a 10:27 10:28 10:29

6:15–36 6:37–38a 6:38b 7:1–12 7:13–14 7:15–21:22

2:35cb

7:22–51 8 9:1–9 9:10–14 9:15a 9:15b 9:16–17a 9:17b–18* 9:19–22 9:23(5,30) 9:24a 9:24b 9:25 9:26–28 10:1–13 10:14–22

10:23–25 10:26 (5:6) 10:27 10:28 10:29

2:35k* 2:35i 2:35i 2:35h 2:35f 2:35f 2:35g

2:46i* 2:6k(46b)

In my opinion, composition criticism is to be carried out before redaction criticism (Deuteronomistic or sapiential) and also before the analysis of the possible exegetical tendencies underlying MT or the Hebrew reflected by LXX. The study of the composition of the text is centered, on one side, on the literary seams between the various units which integrate the composition and, on the

Kings ( MT / LXX ) and Chronicles

287

other, on the correspondence between the materials of MT/LXX (main text) and that of the supplements of LXX (2:35a–k; 2:46a–l). The most stable and oldest textual tradition is that attested by the three textual traditions (texts in boldface). The texts common to LXX and MT Kings, missing in 2 Chronicles, are not necessarily more recent because of this. They can also be ancient, although of a different provenance (passages in red and in italics). The texts of MT Kings absent from the main text of LXX 3 Kingdoms correspond in a large proportion with materials present in the supplements of LXX. Three sections can be discerned in which these correspondences seem to concentrate: 1. The materials of MT in 4:20–5:6 correspond to those of the supplement of LXX 2:46a.b*/k.e.f.g.(h).i. In MT they interrupt the literary unit formed by 4:7–19 and 5:7–8:2–4. The overwhelming majority of critics acknowledge that here LXX represents an older form than that transmitted by MT.20 2. Also, the materials of MT 9:15 to 9:25 correspond with those of LXX 2:35k*.i.h.f.g. In this case, the insertion of this material in MT interrupts the literary unit composed of 9:10–14 and 9:26–28, and centered on the trade relationships between Solomon and Hiram of Tyre, with references to the gold which Solomon received from this trade (verses 9:14 and 9:28). The text of LXX keeps together the elements which integrate this unit. It is a remarkable fact, and hard to explain, that Chronicles contains here part of this material (2 Chr 8:3–12 and also 9:26). 3. In the MT the description of the construction of the palace is found inserted in the middle of the account of the construction of the temple (7:1–12). The LXX first presents the narrative of the construction and decoration of the temple and only later makes reference to the palace. This different order in MT and LXX is connected to the different placement in either text of 5:31–32a and 6:7–38a. In my opinion the MT has transposed these materials together with 7:1–12.21

20  J . Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1899), 271; H. Hrozný, Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus vom hebräischen Texte in den Königsbüchern (Leipzig: Drugulin, 1909), 27; D.W. Gooding, Relics of Ancient Exegesis. A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reigns 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 40–42; Polak, “The Septuagint Account,” 150. 21  J. Trebolle Barrera, “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah. Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. G.N. Knoppers and J.G. McConville (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000) 475–492 (see chapter 5). For a different opinion, Polak, “The Septuagint Account,” 153.

288

Chapter 15

The “main text” of LXX constitutes the oldest identifiable form of 1 Kgs 3–10 // 2 Chr 1–9. Chronicles shows that the MT additions which coincide with the “miscellanies” are secondary in the text, even those of the text of Chronicles itself (8:3–12 = 3 Kgdms 2:35i, h, f, g). The “miscellanies” formed two collections more or less structured around the topic of Solomon’s wisdom and his secular politics. The Hebrew edition represented by the LXX placed these collections at the more suitable point within its own literary structure (at the beginning of the narrative on Solomon). The second edition transmitted by the MT scattered the material of these collections through chapters three to ten, placing every piece in the more suitable context according to its own content. Chronicles did not know the second collection (2:46a–l) and a great part of the first (2:35a–n). As observed by G. Auld, the earliest biblical tradition of 1 Kings was centered around the Temple of Jerusalem. Only later, by the insertion of the “miscellanies,” did the biblical tradition—as represented differently by the MT and LXX—take on a more sapiential and profane aspect. But the sapiential character does not seem completely absent from an old form of the text, prior to the triple textual tradition. The most stable and oldest material of Kings, in fact, has to be looked for in the texts of the triple and double traditions. F.H. Polak maintains that the ancient Solomon narrative is represented by the following pericopes: 4:1 (similar to LXX 2:46l); 4:2–19; 5:7–8; 5:2–4; 5:14a–b LXX (corresponding to 3:1; 9:16 MT); 5:15–30; 5:31–32 (= 6:1a–b LXX); 6:37–38 (corresponding to 6:1c–d LXX); 6:2–36 (except 6:11–14); 7:1–51; 9:10b (corresponding to 9:1; 8:1 LXX); 9:11–14; 9:26–28; 10:11–12; 10:14*; 9:15b, 18–19; 10:26, 28–29; 11:1a, 3a. All these texts are common to MT and LXX, some of them are also present in Chronicles and others are placed in different contexts of MT and LXX. They probably constitute the ancient stock of Kings, somewhat more extensive than what is represented by Chronicles. Polak assigns to a “wisdom redaction” the passages: 3:4–15; 3:16–28; 5:9–10, 11–14, 21; 9:15a, 19b–23, 25; 10:1–10, 11–15*, 21–22, 23–25, 27.22 This material is heterogeneous, encompassing as it does texts from the triple tradition (3:14–15; 5:21; 10:1–10; 10:11–15*, 21–22, 23–25, 27) together with others attested by MT and LXX (3:16–28; 5:9–10, 11–14 and verses present in different locations: 9:15a, 19b–23, 25, the last [v. 25] absent from LXX). Nevertheless, among the ancient stock of Kings there was already material of a sapiential theme like 3:4–15; 5:9–10, 11–14. It does not seem possible to reconstruct a “wisdom redaction” with materials of such a heterogeneous textual attesting.

22  Polak, “The Septuagint Account,” 162–163.

Kings ( MT / LXX ) and Chronicles

3

289

Old Elements of the Textual and Literary Tradition of Samuel–Kings

With the modifications previously proposed, the model of study advanced by G. Auld may be valid for 1 Kgs 3–10 MT LXX // 2 Chr 1–9 and in particular for the story of the vision in Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:4–15 // 2 Chr 1:6b–13).23 It does not seem to be so, nevertheless, for the rest of 1 Kings and 2 Kings, which not only imply other sources,24 but also other models of analysis. The comparative study of MT/LXX Samuel–Kings and Chronicles can contribute to advancing the debate around the composition history of Samuel–Kings. Research after Martin Noth has been centered on the study of the Deuteronomistic redaction, neglecting the study of the composition of the book, as well as the history of the text and textual criticism. Biblical manuscripts from Qumran, concretely those of historical books (4QJosha, 4QJudga and 4QSama) and of Jeremiah, which have experienced the influx of Deuteronomistic redactors, show that the order of composition units also has a history to be reconstructed, as it is fundamental for the understanding of the affected book. A comparative of the triple textual tradition of MT/LXX Kings and Chronicles could contribute to the recovery of recent and old elements of the textual and literary tradition of Samuel–Kings. Here I will briefly mention two of them. The first one is related to the division of the books of Samuel–Kings, which knows of different textual evidence in the different texts. Chronicles starts its account of the biblical history using as a source 2 Samuel up to 11:1 (2 Sam 5–11:1 // 1 Chr 11–20:1). At this point it omits the story of David and Bathsheba, 2 Sam 11:2–12:25, as well as the rest of the “succession history,” 2 Sam 13–20; 1 Kgs 1–2.25 The same verse 11:1 closes the non-kaige section of the LXX text (1 Sam 1:1–2 Sam 11:1) and opens the kaige section that runs as far as 1 Kgs 2:11 (LXXL). The division of the text according to the kaige recension corresponds probably to a similar division in the original. This could suggest that the text delimited by 23  A.G. Auld, “Solomon at Gibeon: History Glimpsed,” in Avraham Malamat Volume, Eretz-Israel. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 24 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 1*–7*. 24  Auld, Kings without Privilege, 148. 25  After 2 Sam 11:1 Chronicles continues with the accounts that form part of the “Appendix” of 2 Sam 21–24 (1 Chr 20:4–8 = 2 Sam 21:18–22 and 1 Chr 21 = 2 Sam 24). Chronicles follows a text of Samuel, in which the materials of the appendix were closely connected to those prior to 2 Sam 11:1. On the different definitions and characterizations of the “history of succession” see, W. Dietrich, Von David zu den Deuteronomisten. Studien zu den Geschichtsüberlieferungen des Alten Testaments, BWANT 16/156 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002), 32–57.

290

Chapter 15

this recension, 1 Sam 11:1–2 Kgs 2:11, could have formed a separate scroll.26 The textual and literary cut in 11:1 seems due to phenomena pertaining to the composition and editing of 2 Samuel. Chronicles reproduces in 20:1–3 the text of 2 Sam 11:1* + 12:26, 30–31, without the interposed story of David and Bathsheba. In 2 Samuel a linking repetition (Wiederaufnahme) “attacked and conquered … attacked and conquered” marks the addition of vv. 27–29a. This insertion ascribes to Joab the wish to leave to David the honor of having conquered the city of Rabbah. As a result the same verbs “attacked and conquered” first have Joab as their subject (12:26) and then David (12:29b). In 1 Chr 20:1, instead, Joab is the only protagonist: “Joab led the troops … reduced Rabbah and destroyed it.” Chronicles reproduces a text that did not know 2 Sam 12:26–29. 1 Chr 20:1 reproduces 1 Sam 11:1 in line with its own Vorlage, which represents here an earlier form than that of MT. Joab was the protagonist throughout the account of the campaign against the Ammonites (2 Sam 10:1–14 + 11:1 + 12:30–31 // 1 Chr 19:1–15 + 20:1–3). David’s role is reduced to sending Joab into battle and collecting the booty at the end of the battle. Joab is also the protagonist in the conquest of Jerusalem (1 Chr 11:4–9). Josephus (Ant. VII 63–64) also ascribes to Joab the taking of the city, in an account similar to the one in Chronicles. Instead, in 2 Sam 5:6–10 it is David who takes the fortress and builds the Millo, without any reference to Joab.27 The second element of the ancient literary tradition of Samuel–Kings which can be recovered through a comparison with Chronicles is the reference to Saul and Gibeon which is exclusive to Chronicles. This reference derives from its Vorlage of Samuel–Kings or from other sources. Chronicles includes the genealogy of Saul and extends it as far as the Exile and even duplicates its text in 1 Chr 8:29–40 // 9:5–44. Saul’s dynasty has its roots in Gibeon (1 Chr 8:29–33 // 9:35–39). The results of “the battle of Gibeon” (2 Sam 2:12–32) are recorded later (2 Sam 3:30). David defeats the Philistines “from Gibeon to the entrance of Gezer” (2 Sam 5:25 = 1 Chr 14:16). The Ark which was “on the heights of Gibeon” is transported to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1–19 // 1 Chr 13:6–14; 12:25–16:3). The followers of Sheba and of David meet in Gibeon (2 Sam 20:7–8). David leaves priests “on the height of Gibeon” (1 Chr 16:39), “the main sanctuary” to which Solomon 26  Both the omission in Chronicles of the stories following 2 Sam 11:1 as well as the kaige division of the Greek text at this same point have been ascribed to the wish to avoid texts that compromise David’s character, such as the immediately following account concerning David, Bathsheba and Uriah, see S.L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History, HSM 33 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985), 37 and 72. 27  S.K. Bietenhard, Des Königs General. Die Heerführertraditionen in der vorstaatlichen und frühen staatlichen Zeit und die Joabgestalt in 2 Sam 2–20; 1 Kön 1–2, OBO 163 (Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998).

Kings ( MT / LXX ) and Chronicles

291

comes at the beginning of his reign (1 Kgs 3:4–13 // 2 Chr 1:1–13). The Chronicles account makes Solomon return “from the height of Gibeon” to Jerusalem (2 Chr 1:13, a reference absent in 1 Kgs 3). The altar of holocausts was “on the height of Gibeon” as Chronicles notes at the end of the story of the census, the plague and the construction of the altar (2 Sam 24:21–28 // 1 Chr 21:1–28). This narrative about the building of the altar points to that of the building of the Jerusalem temple. Chronicles makes this relationship explicit in 1 Chr 21:28– 22:19, as does LXX 2 Sam 24:25, καὶ προσέθηκεν Σαλωμων ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτῳ ὅτι μικρὸν ἦν ἐν πρώτοις, a sentence missing from MT. Chronicles seems, therefore, to attest (Northern) traditions that contained more references to Saul and to Gibeon than can be distinguished in Samuel/Kings.

Chapter 16

Textual Criticism and the Literary Structure and Composition of 1–2 Kings/3–4 Kingdoms: the Different Sequence of Literary Units in MT and LXX The differences between the Masoretic text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) in the non-kaige section of 3 Kingdoms (γγ, 1 Kgs 2:12–21:43) are well known, particularly those regarding the sequence of the literary units that compose chapters 2–12.1 But the differences of order between both texts in the kaige section (γδ) of 1 Kgs 22–2 Kings are hardly taken into account. Generally speaking, it is customary to use the kaige text of Codex Vaticanus in which Rahlfs’ edition is based. A century ago (1911) Alfred Rahlfs could not operate with the idea of the existence of a kaige recension nor with the knowledge that in 4 Kingdoms the majority Greek textual tradition represents the text of this kaige recension. He was also quite reluctant to acknowledge the existence of a proto-Lucianic text that could represent a text nearer to Old Greek (OG) than that of Codex B. Nevertheless, he had to recognize that in some cases the Lucianic text preserves a “vorlucianisches Gut.”2 However, the progressive publication in the past years of texts akin to the Hebrew original of the Septuagint as 4QSama and 4QJerb.d, and of “unaligned” or independent texts as 4QJosha, 4QJudga and also 4QSama, has underlined the remarkable textual plurality of the biblical books in the Qumran period. The history of the discovery and study of the Qumran biblical manuscripts has been that of a growing awareness of the plurality of Hebrew texts or editions of the biblical books. Scholars are now more open to recognize that in the books of Kingdoms the Lucianic text preserves a non-kaige pre-Lucianic layer, older than the kaige text transmitted by the Codex Vaticanus and the manuscripts that follow it. This pre-Lucianic substratum constitutes the only extant way of 1  I thank Andrés Piquer Otero for the translation into English of the Spanish original. This paper has been produced in the framework of the public Research Project “Nueva Edición Políglota de Textos Bíblicos,” funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. 2  Alfred Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta Studien 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 283: “Gibt es Stellen, wo die L-Lesart aus anderen Gründen für vorlucianisch zu halten ist, entweder weil sich aus ihr die G-Lesart erklärt, oder weil sie auf eine von MT G abweichende, also wahrscheinlich alte hebräische Grundlage zurückgeht.”

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_018

Literary Structure & Composition of 1–2 KGS/3–4 KGDMS

293

approaching an OG text. In the task of identifying pre-Lucianic readings present in the Lucianic text, the Old Latin version (OL) is fundamental since this translation is based on a proto-Lucianic text. In some occasions, it can even be the only way of approaching a lost proto-Lucianic text or a Greek text different from that preserved in the majority tradition.3 The present chapter deals first with two OL readings in order to test the value of the OL as witness of a pre-Lucianic text for textual criticism of the Septuaginta and ultimately for the recovery of its Hebrew Vorlage. The second part presents an overview of the differences between the MT and LXX in the sequence of literary units that compose and structure the books of Kings. 1

Old Latin Readings in 2 Kgs 13:17

The OL, together with Josephus, the pre-Hexaplaric stratum of the Georgian and Armenian versions, as well as the Hebrew readings of Chronicles, attest the antiquity of pre-Lucianic readings preserved in the Lucianic text. In order to study OL as a witness of its Greek original, the analysis of the Latin variants has to begin by discarding those which are internal to the Latin version or are the result of corruption or error. The textual picture offered by the preserved OL texts follows well-defined patterns. A portion of readings attributed to the OL represent in fact a kaige text. They can not therefore be considered as genuine OL readings. After these readings are separated from those reflecting a proto-Lucianic text, the proto-Lucianic basis of the OL becomes more evident. The most significant readings of the OL are those that do not correspond to any known Greek text, but seem nevertheless to represent an OG text and even a Hebrew text not attested in the Hebrew textual tradition.4 According to 2 Kgs 13:17 Elisha orders king Jehoash of Israel to shoot through the window that looked toward the East, shouting the battle-cry: “The Lord’s arrow of victory, the arrow of victory over Aram! For you shall fight the Arameans in Aphek until you have made an end of them.” The reading ἐν Συρίᾳ of the Greek majority text, represented by Codex Vaticanus (B), is a kaige element that reflects the Masoretic Hebrew text, ‫בארם‬. 3  P.-M. Bogaert, “La vetus latina de Jérémie: texte très court, témoin de la plus ancienne Septante et d’une forme plus ancienne de l’hébreu (Jer 39 e 52),” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. A. Schenker (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2003), 51–82. 4  The title of my previous article “From the Old Latin through the Old Greek to the Old Hebrew (2 Kgs 10,25–28),” Textus XI (1984): 17–36, should be reformulated today as “From the Old Latin through the/an Old Greek to an Old Hebrew”; cf. Chapter 10 in the present volume.

294

Chapter 16

Rahlfs points out the automatic literalism of this version that translates the particle -‫ ב‬by the Greek preposition ἐν. Furthermore, he observes that the Greek version ἐν Συρίᾳ does not translate the meaning of the Hebrew ‫חץ תשועה בארם‬, “arrow of victory over Aram” or “against Aram.”5 In Rahlfs’ opinion Lucian did not consider that the Greek reading ἐν Συρίᾳ reflected the Hebrew ‫בארם‬. For this reason he amended ἐν Συρίᾳ into ἐν Ἰσραήλ. The meaning of the Hebrew is correctly translated in the Vulgate, contra Syriam. Vulgata sagitta salutis Domini et sagitta salutis contra Syriam

LXXB MT βέλος σωτηρίας τῷ κυρίῳ ‫ׁשּועה ַליהוָ ה‬ ָ ‫ץ־ּת‬ ְ ‫ֵח‬ καὶ βέλος σωτηρίας ἐν Συρίᾳ ‫ׁשּועה ַב ֲא ָרם‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵחץ ְּת‬

Rahlfs does not quote the OL witness sagitta salutis Israel. This reading does not know the Greek preposition ἐν. Besides, Israel is here a genitive that parallels the previous genitive Domini: sagitta salutis Domini et sagitta salutis Israel. The OL translates a proto-Lucianic text with the reading Israel instead of Συρίᾳ and with the meaning: “Arrow of victory for Yahweh / arrow of victory for Israel.” Old Latin sagitta salutis Domini et sagitta salutis Israel

LXXL βέλος σωτηρίας τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ βέλος σωτηρίας Ἰσραήλ

Hebrew Vorlage

‫חץ תשועה ליהוה‬ ‫וחץ תשועה לישראל‬

The two-member parallelism makes here more likely the reading of the Old Latin and its Greek Vorlage, a proto-Lucianic reading that aligns κυρίῳ and Ἰσραήλ. In the same way, it is possible to suppose the Hebrew parallelism ‫ליהוה‬/‫ לישראל‬in the battle cry: ‫חץ תשועה ליהוה וחץ תשועה לישראל‬. This formula of Israel’s battle-cry, “Arrow of victory for Yahweh / arrow of victory for Israel,” seems to have been modified in the context of a war against the Arameans. The whole Hebrew and Greek tradition has the reading “(For you shall fight the Arameans) in Aphek until you have made an end of it” ba‌ʾafeq ʿad kallēh (MT), ἐν Αφεκ ἕως συντελείας (LXX), in Afec donec consumas eam (Siriam)

5  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 208: “‫ חץ תשועה בארם‬heisst ‘ein Pfeil der Hülfe gegen Syrien.’ Das ist aber aus G’s mechanischer Übersetzung nicht zu erkennen, vielmehr könnte man bei ihr an Hülfe, die Syrien selbst zu teil wird, denken. Daher emendiert L Syrien in Israel.” Rahlfs (Lucians Rezension, 200–210) classifies this Lucianic reading in the chapter of “L-Lesarten, bei welchen der G-Text als Grundlage L’s noch deutlich erkennbar ist.”

295

Literary Structure & Composition of 1–2 KGS/3–4 KGDMS

(Vulg). Instead, the OL text preserved in the Vindobonensis palimpsest reads in aseroth quae est contra faciem samariae usq’ at finē.6 Old Latin (17) et dixit aperi fenestram quae ab oriente est et aperuit et dixit helisseus sagittare et sagittauit et dixit helisseus sagitta salutis domini et saggita salutis israel (= Ἰσραήλ L) et percuties syriam in aseroth quae est contra faciem samariae usq’ at finē

LXXBL καὶ εἶπεν ἄνοιξον τὴν θυρίδα κατ᾽ἀνατολάς καὶ ἤνοιξεν καὶ εἶπεν Ελισαιε τόξευσον καὶ ἐτόξευσεν καὶ εἶπεν βέλος σωτηρίας τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ βέλος σωτηρίας ἐν Συρίᾳ B/ἐν Ἰσραήλ L καὶ πατάξεις τὴν Συρία ἐν Αφεκ ἕως συντελείας

MT

‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ ‫ְּפ ַתח ַה ַחּלֹון‬ ‫ֵק ְד ָמה‬ ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּיִ ְפ ָּתח וַ ּי‬ ‫יׁשע‬ ָ ‫ֱא ִל‬ ‫יְ ֵרה וַ ּיֹור‬ ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ ‫ׁשּועה ַ ֽליהוָ ה‬ ָ ‫ץ־ּת‬ ְ ‫ֵח‬ ‫ׁשּועה‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵחץ ְּת‬ ‫ַב ֲא ָרם‬ ‫ת־א ָרם‬ ֲ ‫ית ֶא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִּכ‬ ‫ַּב ֲא ֵפק‬

‫ד־ּכ ֵּלה‬ ַ ‫ַע‬

Two are the questions to be answered: Is there a Greek (and a Hebrew) toponym underlying the OL reading Aseroth? Which are the circumstances of place and time that are supposed in the OL text: in aseroth quae est contra faciem samariae? The Latin toponym Aseroth appears in the Vulgata of Num 11:35 (2×); 12:16; 33:17, 18 and Deut 1:1, corresponding to LXX Ασηρωθ and MT ‫ חצרות‬or ‫חתרת‬ (Ḥatserot). This place is located in the Sinai. According to Yohanan Aharoni, it corresponds to modern ʿAin Khaḍrā.7 The Samaria ostraca, that are to be dated around the first third of the reign of Jeroboam II (790–750 BCE), mention several times a place called Ḥatseroth, that Aharoni relates with ʿAṣireh eš-Šamaliyeh, located “5 miles south-east of Samaria.”8 The expression quae est contra faciem samariae suggests a situation toward the East of Samaria, as if one was facing the sun.

6  Bonifatius Fischer, with the collaboration of Eugene Ulrich and Judith E. Sanderson, “Palimpsestus Vindobonensis: A Revised Edition of VL 115 for Samuel-Kings,” BIOSCS 16 (1983): 13–87, esp. 85. 7  Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (London: Burns & Oates, 1968), 378. 8  Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 325.

296

Chapter 16

The Hebrew Masoretic text locates the battle in Aphek. There is a place called Aphek in Aramean hinterland, around the Golan Heights (Kh. el-ʿAsheq). According to 1 Kgs 20:26–30, this was the point of departure of Ben Hadad, King of Damascus, at war with Ahab of Israel, and was also the place where he returned to after being defeated. The Aphek mentioned in MT 2 Kgs 13:17 may be this same place, to the East of Samaria, in the road from Damascus to Samaria.9 There is other Aphek to the Southwest of Samaria, a place quoted several times in the biblical texts, identified with the site of Ras el-ʿAyin, a tell situated in the Yarkon sources. In this strategic position, frontier between Israelites and Philistines, 1 Sam 4:1 locates the battle in which the Israelites lost the Ark to the Philistines.10 In conformity with a common phenomenon in the transmission of literary and historic traditions of every sort, it is possible that a battle located at the beginning in an unknown place, Ḥatseroth, was later situated in a famous site, where important battles were fought before and during the Biblical period. In what it bears on our text, the Latin translator could not have invented the mention of the place Aserot. He reproduced a Greek original (or Hebrew?), which transmitted a different tradition regarding the placing of the battle against the Arameans. This supposition has greater strength if we consider that the Samaria ostraca, that place Aserot just in front of Samaria looking upon the East, are dated about two decades later than the battle against the Arameans according to the biblical text.11

9  J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes place the battle against the Arameans in the same location where Saul fought his last battle against the Philistines, that is, in the Gilboa mountains, identifying there a place called Aphek as well, see id., A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd ed.; (Louisville—London: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 346. 10  This place is well known in extra biblical sources: the topographic list of Tutmosis III, the second Asiatic campaign of Esarhaddon against Egypt (ANET 292), and an Aramaic papyrus that mentions the King of Babylon at Aphek. Cf. B. Porten, “The Identity of King Adon,” BA 44 (1981): 36–52, esp. p. 36. 11  I made reference for the first time to the connection between the OL reading and the toponym attested in the Samaria ostraca in J. Trebolle, “Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for Non-Standard and Parabiblical Texts,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and their Historical Context, ed. T.H. Lim et al. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 89–106. According to A. Schenker “Als Ergebnis zeichnet sich die Textgestalt der VL als die ursprünglichste ab,” see id., Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher. Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher, OBO 199 (Fribourg: Academic Press—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 140.

297

Literary Structure & Composition of 1–2 KGS/3–4 KGDMS

2

The Literary Structure and Composition of 1–2 Kings/3–4 Kingdoms: Different Sequence of Literary Units in MT and LXX

MT and LXX present six meaningful divergences in the sequential order of reigns or in the location of the different literary units which integrate the composition. These divergences are associated to the introduction of the prophetic stories of Elijah-Elisha and of the Aramean Wars. The composition of Kings is ruled by the synchronic sequence of kings of Israel and Judah as well as by the law according to which any literary unit— chronicle notice, narrative or Deuteronomistic comment—must be framed within the reign with which it synchronizes, that is, between the respective initial and conclusive reign formulae. 2.1 2 Kgs 3:1 // LXX 1:17–18a ( Jehoram of Israel) The formulae for the beginning of the reign of Jehoram of Israel appear in MT in 2 Kgs 3:1–3, whereas in LXX they are located at 1:18a–c. These differences between MT and LXX are associated to differences in the chronological data between both texts, and, as J.D. Shenkel remarked, both in text-order and in chronological data, OG is prior to MT.12 MT also breaks the composition rule according to which every literary unit must be framed by the reign with which it composes a synchrony. The chapter 2 narratives about Elijah and Elisha are left out of Jehoram of Israel’s reign. LXXL 17 καὶ ἀπέθανεν ’Οχοζείας κατὰ τὸ ρῆμα Κυρίου ὃ ἐλάλησεν ’Ηλίας καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν ’Ιωρὰμ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ’Οχοζείου ἀντ’ αὐτοῦ

ὅτι οὐκ ἦν αὐτῷ υἱός 18 καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν λόγων ’Οχοζείιου …

LXXB 17 καὶ ἀπέθανεν κατὰ τὸ ρῆμα Κυρίου ὃ ἐλάλησεν Ηλιου

MT

‫ וימת‬17aα ‫כדבר יהוה‬ ‫אשר דבר אליהו‬ ‫וימלך יהרם‬ ‫פ‬

‫תחתיו‬

‫ בשנת שתים‬17aβ

18 καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν λόγων Οχοζιου …

‫ליהורם בן יהושפט‬ ‫מלך יהודה‬ ‫ כי לא היה לו בן‬17b ‫ ויתר דברי‬18 … ‫אחזיהו‬

12  J .D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings, HSM 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 37 and 48.

298 18a καὶ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱὸς ’Αχαὰβ βασιλεύει ἐπὶ ’Ισραὴλ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ ἔτη δέκα δύο ἐν ἔτει δευτέρω τοῦ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱοῦ ’Ιωσαφὰτ βασιλέως ’Ιούδα ἐβασίλευσεν ’Ιωρὰμ υἱὸς ’Αχαὰβ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ. 18b καὶ ἐποίησε τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον Κυρίου …

Chapter 16

18a καὶ Ιωραμ υἱὸς Αχααβ βασιλεύει ἐπὶ ’Ισραὴλ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ ἔτη δέκα δύο ἐν ἔτει ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ Ιωσαφατ βασιλέως Ιουδα 18b καὶ ἐποίησεν τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον Κυρίου …

2:1–25 Elijah’s story

2:1–25 Elijah’s story

3:1 Καὶ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱὸς ’Αχαὰβ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν ’Ισραὴλ δώδεκα ἔτη

3:1 Καὶ Ιωραμ υἱὸς Αχααβ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν Ισραηλ ἐν ἔτει ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ Ιωσαφαθ βασιλεῖ Ιουδα, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν δώδεκα ἔτη

2:1–25 Elijah’s story 3:1

‫ויהורם בן אחאב‬ ‫מלך על ישראל‬ ‫בשמרון בשנת שמנה‬ ‫עשרה ליהושפט מלך‬ ‫יהודה וימלך‬ ‫שתים עשרי שנה‬

2.1.1 2 Kgs 3:1 The usual formulation of synchronisms of kings of Israel is: “In the year X of C king of Judah reigned A the son of B over Israel (in Tirsa/Samaria) Y years,” ‫שנה‬ … ‫על ישראל בתרצה|בשמרון‬ … ‫בן‬ … ‫מלך‬ … ‫מלך יהודה‬ … ‫ל‬ … ‫( בשנת‬1 Kgs 15:33; 16:8; 16:15; 16:23; 2 Kgs 13:10; 14:23; 15:8; 15:17; 15:23; 15:27; 17:1). MT 2 Kgs 3:1 shows an unusual formulation: “A, the son of B, began to reign over Israel in the year X of C, king of Judah, and he reigned over Israel (in Samaria) Y years” (‫מלך יהודה‬ … ‫ל‬ … ‫מלך על ישראל (בשמרון) בשנת‬ … ‫בן‬ … ‫ו‬ ‫שנה‬ … ‫)וימלך‬: MT ‫ויהורם בן אחאב מלך על ישראל בשמרון בשנת שמנה עשרה‬ ‫ ;ליהושפט מלך יהודה וימלך שתים עשרי שנה‬LXXB (kaige, = MT): Καὶ Ιωραμ υἱὸς Αχααβ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν Ισραηλ ἐν ἔτει ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ Ιωσαφαθ βασιλεῖ Ιουδα, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν δώδεκα ἔτη; LXXL Καὶ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱὸς ’Αχαὰβ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν ’Ισραὴλ δώδεκα ἔτη. LXXL omits ἐν ἔτει ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ Ιωσαφαθ βασιλεῖ Ιουδα, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν and the synchronism “in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat.” 2.1.2 2 Kgs 1:18a LXX LXX presents this same verse at 1:18a (LXXBL and Josephus). The B text follows the unusual formulation (… ‫… מלך על ישראל‬ ‫… בן‬ ‫)ו‬. It inverts the order

Literary Structure & Composition of 1–2 KGS/3–4 KGDMS

299

of references to the reign years (ἔτη δέκα δύο) and the synchronism (ἐν ἔτει ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ): LXXB καὶ Ιωραμ υἱὸς Αχααβ βασιλεύει ἐπὶ ’Ισραὴλ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ ἔτη δέκα δύο ἐν ἔτει ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ Ιωσαφατ βασιλέως Ιουδα. The L reading begins with a text common with B, but it omits the synchronism “in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat”: LXXL καὶ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱὸς ’Αχαὰβ βασιλεύει ἐπὶ ’Ισραὴλ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ ἔτη δέκα δύο· ἐν ἔτει δευτέρω τοῦ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱοῦ ’Ιωσαφὰτ βασιλέως ’Ιούδα ἐβασίλευσεν ’Ιωρὰμ υἱὸς ’Αχαὰβ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ. Then it presents the beginning of the usual formula (… ‫ל‬ … ‫ )בשנת‬with a synchronism different from MT 3:1 and LXXB 18a: LXXL ἐν ἔτει δευτέρω τοῦ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱοῦ ’Ιωσαφὰτ βασιλέως ’Ιούδα ἐβασίλευσεν ’Ιωρὰμ υἱὸς ’Αχαὰβ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ. L offers the synchronism in the second year of Jehoram son of Jeshoshaphat,” different from that in MT and LXXB in 3:1 and LXXB in 1:18a: “in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat.” L omits here the number of years of Jehoram’s reign (“twelve years”), but this is precisely the only element to which the L text at 3:1 is reduced: Καὶ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱὸς ’Αχαὰβ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν ’Ισραὴλ δώδεκα ἔτη. It seems that the complete L text (according to the usual formulation) is split between 1:18a and 3:1, so that the two verses should be read one after the other: ἐν ἔτει δευτέρω τοῦ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱοῦ ’Ιωσαφὰτ βασιλέως ’Ιούδα ἐβασίλευσεν ’Ιωρὰμ υἱὸς ’Αχαὰβ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ δώδεκα ἔτη. 2.1.3 2 Kgs 1:17 In 1:17 MT presents a portion of text omitted in LXXB: ‫וימלך יהורם תחתיו בשנת‬ ‫שתים ליהורם בן יהושפט מלך יהודה כי לא היה לו בן‬. This omission goes back to the OG, according to Rahlfs and BHS. The MT clause ‫ בשנת שתים ליהורם בן יהושפט מלך יהודה‬appears also in L 18a with the same synchronism “in the second year of Jehoram son of Jeshoshaphat”: ἐν ἔτει δευτέρω τοῦ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱοῦ ’Ιωσαφὰτ βασιλέως ’Ιούδα. The petuḥah (‫ )פ‬present in MT denotes a beginning. It is the beginning of the usual formula … ‫… מלך יהודה‬ ‫… ל‬ ‫בשנת‬, but the verb of the sentence is missing … ‫מלך‬. This verb and the continuation of the clause appear in L 18a: ἐν ἔτει δευτέρω τοῦ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱοῦ ’Ιωσαφὰτ βασιλέως ’Ιούδα ἐβασίλευσεν ’Ιωρὰμ… The MT clause ‫ וימלך יהורם תחתיו‬is usual in the formula which closes a reign.13 This is the only element preserved of the conclusive formulae of Ahaziah of Israel together with v. 18: … ‫ויתר דברי אחזיהו‬. It has an analogue in L καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν ’Ιωρὰμ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ’Οχοζείου ἀντ’ αὐτοῦ, with its own addition οf ἀδελφὸς ’Οχοζείου.

13  1 Kgs 14:31; 15:8; 15:24; 15:28; 16:6; 16:10; 16:28; 22:40; 22:51; 2 Kgs 8:15; 8:24; 10:35; 12:22; 13:9; 13:24; 14:16; 14:21; 23:30; 23:34.

300

Chapter 16

The number of the synchronism of the beginning of Jehoram of Israel’s reign according to MT 1:17, “in the second year of Jehoram son of Jeshoshaphat,” differs from the same MT number in 3:1: “in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat.” It is an exceptional case in which MT follows and confirms a synchronism belonging to the chronological system reflected by OG (1:18a): “in the second year of Jehoram son of Jeshoshaphat.”14 2.1.4 2 Kgs 2:1–25 If one follows MT 3:1 (anomalous formulation and synchronism “in the eighteenth year”), the 2:1–25 narrative belonging to the Elijah-Elisha cycle stands outside any regnal frame. That would violate the composition rule of the books of Kings, according to which any literary unit (annals notice, narrative, or dtr commentary) has to be placed within the regnal frame it belongs to, that is, between the initial and conclusive formulae of the king in question, in this case Jehoram of Israel. If one follows MT 17αβ (usual formulation and synchronism “in the second year”), the 2:1–25 narrative is integrated in the reign of Jehoram. But in v. 18 the conclusive formula of Ahaziyah’s reign interposes itself: … ‫ויתר דברי אחזיהו‬. The insertion of the 2:1–25 narrative has produced the repetitions and anomalies present both in MT and in LXX: Synchronic history: OG 2 Kgs 1:17aα Ahaziah > 17b 18 18a–d [3,1 kaige]

Jehoram

Inserted narrative

2:1–25 Elijah story

Synchronic history: MT 2 Kgs 1:17aα Ahaziah Jehoram 17aβ 17b 18 > 3,1

Jehoram

Three Other Instances of Anomalous Formulation of the Synchronism: 1 Kgs 22:41; 22:52 (Kaige Section) and 16:29 (Non-Kaige Section) The unusual formulation of 2 Kgs 3:1 (‫… מלך‬ ‫… ל‬ ‫… מלך על ישראל בשנת‬ ‫… בן‬ ‫ו‬ ‫… שנה‬ ‫ )יהודה וימלך‬is to be found in three other instances: 22:41; 22:52 (kaige 2.2

14  Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development, 69, 73 and 82.

Literary Structure & Composition of 1–2 KGS/3–4 KGDMS

301

section) and 1 Kgs 16:29 (non-kaige section). The OG preserves in these passages the usual formulation. 2.2.1 1 Kgs 22:41 MT LXXB // 16:28a LXX (Jehoshaphat of Judah) The formulae of Jehoshaphat of Judah’s reign appear in MT in 1 Kgs 22:41–51, behind Ahab’s reign. MT 22:41 presents the anomalous formulation ‫ויהושפט בן‬ ‫אסא מלך על יהודה בשנת ארבע לאחאב מלך ישראל‬, followed partly by the kaige B text: καὶ Ιωσαφαθ υἱὸς Ασα ἐβασίλευσεν ἐπὶ Ιουδα ἔτει τετάρτῳ τῷ Αχααβ βασιλέως Ισραηλ ἐβασίλευσεν. The punctuation marks the beginning of a clause which follows the usual formulation with the verb ἐβασίλευσεν (2nd). The protoLucianic text does not present the text matching MT 22:41–51, which was missing from OG as it had already appeared in 16:28a–h. In the OG (LXXBL) the formulae of Jehoshaphat appear in 16:28a–h in the non-kaige section γγ, after the previous reign of Omri: B καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ τῷ ἑνδεκάτῳ τοῦ Aμβρι βασιλεύει Ιωσαφατ υἱὸς Ασα ἐτῶν τριάκοντα καὶ πέντε ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ; L καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ τῷ ἑνδεκάτῳ τοῦ ’Aμβρεὶ βασιλεύει ’Ιωσαφὰτ υἱὸς ’Ασὰ ἐπὶ ’Ιούδαν· υἱὸς τριάκοντα καὶ πέντε ἐτῶν ’Ιωσαφὰτ ἐν τῷ βασιλεύειν αὐτόν. The formula here is usual; the synchronism varies: MT “in the fourth year of Ahab,” LXX “in the eleventh year of Zimri.” 2.2.2 1 Kgs 22:52 MT LXXB/LXXL (Ahaziah of Israel) MT followed by the kaige B text presents the unique syntax ‫אחזיהו בן אחאב מלך‬ ‫על ישראל בשמרון בשנת שבע עשרה ליהושפט מלך יהודה וימלך על ישראל שנתים‬, B καὶ Οχοζιας υἱὸς Αχααβ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐπὶ Ισραηλ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ ἐν ἔτει ἑπτακαιδεκάτῳ Ιωσαφατ βασιλεῖ Ιουδα καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν Ισραηλ ἔτη δύο. The L (= OG) formulation is, on the other hand, the usual one: ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ τῷ τετάρτῳ καὶ εἰκοστῷ τοῦ ’Ιωσαφὰτ βασιλέως ’Ιούδα βασιλεύει ’Οχοζείας υἱὸς ’Αχαὰβ ἐπὶ ’Ισραὴλ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ δύο ἔτη. The synchronism changes: MT LXXB “in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat,” LXX “in the twenty fourth year of Ahab.” 2.2.3 1 Kgs 16:29 (Ahab of Israel) MT offers again the anomalous formulation, followed by the B kaige text:

‫ואחאב בן עמרי מלך על ישראל בשנת שלשים ושמנה שנה לאסא מלך יהודה וימלך‬ ‫אחאב בן עמרי על ישראל‬, ‫בשמרון עשרים ושתים שנה‬, Β/L ἐν ἔτει δευτέρω τῷ Ιωσαφατ

βασιλεύει Αχααβ υἱὸς Ζαμβρει/Αμβρι· ἐβασίλευσεν ἐπὶ Ισραηλ ἐν Σαμαρεια εἴκοσι καὶ δύο ἔτη. The anomaly of MT in the formulation of these three passages versus the usual formulation in OG would be related to the different text order in MT and

302

Chapter 16

LXX. The materials on Jehoshaphat’s reign appear in MT in 22:41–45; in OG in 16:28a–h. Synchronic History: LXX 16:28a–h Jehoshaphat 16:29–34 Ahab

22:39–40 > 22:52–54 Ahaziah

Inserted Narratives 17–19; 21, Elijah Stories 20; 22, Aramean wars

Synchronic History: MT > 16:29–34 Ahab

22:39–40 22:41–51 Jehoshaphat 22:52–54 Ahaziah

2.3 2 Kgs 8:25–27 + 9:28–29* // LXX 10:36+ (LXXL OL) (Ahaziah of Judah) The formulae for the beginning of Ahaziah of Judah’s reign appear in MT at 8:25–27: “In the twelfth year (L ‘in the eleventh year’) of King Jehoram son of Ahab of Israel, Ahaziah … began to reign …” The proto-Lucianic text—attested also by the Old Latin—has these formulae also in 10:36+, after the concluding formulae of Jehu: “… Jehu reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty-eight years.” The OL reads “twenty-seven” (anni XXVII). Both the pre-Lucianic text and OL present immediately the synchronism with the beginning of Jehu’s reign, missing in MT. The L text “In the second year of Athaliah the Lord made Jehu king …” (ἐν ἔτει δευτέρω τῆς Γοθολίας βασιλεύει κύριος τὸν ’Ιού) is clearly corrupt, both in the expression “the Lord made Jehu king”—the verb βασιλεύει does not admit the causative meaning of a hiphil ‫—ימליך‬as in the synchronism “in the second year of Athaliah.” The OL text et erat annus Gotholiae cum regnare coepisset Hieu can help us solve these two difficulties in the Greek, although the Latin expression et erat annus seems to be incomplete, unless it is understood in the sense of annus primus. Instead of L βασιλεύει κύριος τὸν ’Ιού the Old Greek reading would probably be βασιλεύει ’Ιού, regnare coepisset Hieu. The confusion ‫ יהוה > יהוא‬could have taken place, though it is not possible to explain the transit to the accusative τὸν ’Ιού. Also, given that Athaliah and Jehu began to reign in the same year, the synchronism should be “in the first year,” thus it would be possible to reconstruct the Greek ἐν ἔτει πρότῳ (?) τῆς Γοθολίας from the Latin et erat annus. At any rate, it is difficult to conceive that a late editor included this synchronism, when it cannot be found in the more extensive text, synchronisms-speaking, which is MT, which does include duplicates or additions with synchronisms such as the alreadymentioned 2 Kgs 1:17 // 3:1 or the addition to 2 Kgs 8:16 “Johoshaphat being

Literary Structure & Composition of 1–2 KGS/3–4 KGDMS

303

king of Judah” (‫ )ויהושפט מלך יהודה‬and when it is not a king of Judah but of the Northern Kingdom, also condemned by the “sins of Jeroboam.” Rahlfs gives a summary verdict on what follows: “Ausserdem fügt L hier noch eine Geschichte des Königs Ahasja von Juda hinzu (Regn. δ 10:37–43), aber diese wiederholt nur das, was in 8:26–9:28 bereits von Ahasja erzählt war. Ihr Anfang deckt sich so gut wie völlig mit 8:26ff., dann kommt ein mageres Exzerpt aus 8:28–9:27, und der Schluss ist wieder beinahe wörtlich aus 9:28 herübergenommen.”15 Nevertheless, Rahlfs does not mention the OL text which attests the protoLucianic nature of the Lucianic text. It is therefore an OG text.16 Also, a study of the literary structure of the “coup notice” shows that the information on Jehu’s coup according to LXXL OL faithfully follows the narrative pattern of other notices of the same genre (2 Kgs 12:21–22; 14:19–21; 21:23–24, 26; 23:29–30).17 The continuous and complete literary unit of the notice of Jehu’s coup preserved in LXXL and OL appears in MT divided in two pieces: the first in 8:28* after the initial formula of Ahaziah and the second in 9:27–28* before a repetition of the initial formula of Ahaziah with a different synchronism. If the LXXL and OL text has difficulties, difficulties in MT are no less. In 8:25 the synchronism of MT “In the twelfth year of King Jehoram” differs from that of L, “In the eleventh year …,” that is found also in MT 9:29 in the repeated initial formula “In the eleventh year …” This synchronism belongs to the chronological system of the Septuagint. The insertion of the prophetic narrative on Jehu’s revolt in the structure of the synchronic framework of Kings caused the present textual form of MT LXXB. Again, the many textual and literary problems of chapters 8–10 are due to the insertion of a narrative—in this case Jehu’s revolt with the support of prophetic circles—in the structure of the “synchronic history” of the book of Kings. This is a typical case in which literary and textual criticism overlap. Literary criticism detects the existence of literary units of different genres in principle independent: on the one hand, the regnal formula and short notices which the former frame, like the notice on Jehu’s coup (L OL 10:36+); on the other, prophetic narratives like Jehu’s revolt carried out with the support of prophetic circles. Textual criticism detects the existence of two texts, MT and LXX, where these units are integrated in a different form. 15  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 276–277. 16   O G features are ἐνώπιον and the historical present θάπτουσιν. 17  J. Trebolle Barrera, Jehú y Joás. Texto y composición literaria de 2 Reyes 9–11 (Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo, 1984), 110–118 and 218.

304

Chapter 16

OL 10:36+

anni XXVII et erat annus (πρότῳ?) Gotholiae cum regnare coepisset Hieu filius Namesse Cum esset annorum XXII Hocozias enim post Ioram regnauit anno uno in Hyerusalem Et nomen erat matris eius Gotholia filia Ambri regis Hysrael quae defuncto filio tenuit regnum anni VIII et abiit in uiam domus Ahab et fecit malignum in conspectu Domini sicut Ahab quoniam de genere erat domus Ahab Cum enim abiisset Ocozias conuictus

L 10:36+

ἐν ἔτει δευτέρω τῆς Γοθολίας βασιλεύει [κύριος τὸν] ’Ιοὺ [υἱὸν] υἱὸς Ναμεσσεί. καὶ ’Οχοζείας υἱὸς ἦν εἴκοσι καὶ δύο ἐτῶν ἐν τῷ βασιλεύειν αὐτόν καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν ’Ιερουσαλήμ. Καὶ ὄνομα τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Γοθ. θυγάτηρ ’Αχαὰβ βασιλέως ’Ισραήλ. Καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἐν ὁδῷ οἴκου ’Αχαὰβ καὶ ἐποίησε τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον Κυρίου ὡς οἶκος ’Αχαὰβ ὅτι γαμβρὸς ἦν τοῦ οἴκου ’Αχαάβ. Καὶ ἐπορεύθη ’Οχοζείας ἐπὶ ’Αζαὴλ

LXX 8:26–28 + 9:27–29 8:25 ἐν ἔτει δωδεκὰτῳ / ενδεκατω L τῷ Ιωραμ υἱῷ Αχααβ βασιλεῖ Ισραηλ ἐβασίλευσεν Οχοζιας υἱὸς Ιωραμ

26 υἱὸς εἴκοσι καὶ δύο ἐτῶν Οχοζιας ἐν τῷ βασιλεύειν αὐτόν, καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν Ιερουσαλημ. Καὶ ὄνομα τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Γοθολια θυγάτηρ Αμβρι βασιλέως Ισραηλ.

27 Καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἐν ὁδῷ οἴκου ’Αχαὰβ καὶ ἐποίησεν τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον Κυρίου καθὼς ὁ οἶκος Αχααβ. 28 Καὶ ἐπορεύθη μετὰ Ιωραμ υἱοῦ Αχααβ εἰς πόλεμον μετὰ Αζαηλ βασιλέως ἀλλοφύλων

MT

‫בשנת שנים עשרי‬ ‫שנה‬ ‫ליורם בן אחאב‬ ‫מלך ישראל‬ ‫מלך אחזיהו‬ ‫בן יהורם‬ ‫מלך יהודה‬

‫בן‬ ‫עשרים ושתים שנה‬ ‫אחזיהו‬ ‫במלכו‬ ‫ושנה אחת‬ ‫מלך‬ ‫בירושלם‬ ‫ושם אמו‬ ‫עתליהו‬ ‫בת עמרי‬ ‫מלך ישראל‬

‫וילך בדרך‬ ‫בית אחאב‬ ‫ויעש‬ ‫הרע‬ ‫בעיני יהוה‬ ‫כבית אחאב‬ ‫כי חתן‬ ‫בית איאב הוא‬ ‫וילך‬ ‫אל יורם בן אחאב‬ ‫למלחמה עם‬ ‫חזהאל מלך ארם‬

Literary Structure & Composition of 1–2 KGS/3–4 KGDMS

ἐν Ρεμμωθ Γαλααδ,

dolore regis Israel βασιλέα in pugna aduersus Συρίας εἰς πόλεμον. Azahel regem Syriae et in uerbo Domini comprehendisset Ieu filium Namessi Hyoram regem Israel filium Ahab et interfecisset eum factum est ut in eodem bello sagittaret Ochoziam regem Iuda in curru quem cum retulissent mortuum pueri eius in Hyerusalem et sepelissent eum cum patribus eius.

305 ‫ברמת גלעד‬

Τότε συνῆψεν ’Ιοὺ υἱὸς Ναμεσσεὶ καὶ ἐπάταξαν οἱ Σύροι τὸν ἐπὶ ’Ιωρὰμ ‫ויכו ארמים‬ Ιωραμ υἱὸν ’Αχαὰβ ‫את יורם‬ βασιλέα ’Ισραήλ. ……………………………… ……………………… Καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτὸν ἐν ’Ιεζραήλ καὶ ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἐτόξευσεν ’Ιοὺ καὶ τὸν Οχοζείαν βασιλέα ’Ιούδα ἐπὶ τὸ ἅρμα καὶ ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνεβίβασαν αὐτὸν οἱ παῖδες αὐτοῦ ἐν ’Ιερουσαλὴν καὶ θάπτουσιν αὐτὸν μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ ἐν πόλει Δ.

Synchronic History: LXX Ahaziah 8:25–27 Jehu 10:29–31 10:34–36 Ahaziah 10:36+ (L OL)

9:28 Καὶ ἐπεβίβασαν αὐτὸν οἱ παῖδες αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ἅρμα καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ταφῳ αὐτοῦ ἐν πόλει Δαυιδ. 9:29 Καὶ ἐν ἔτει ἐνδεκάτῳ Ιωραμ βασιλέως Ισραηλ ἐβασίλευσεν Οχοζειας ἐπὶ Ιουδαν.

Inserted Narratives 8:28–10,28, Jehu’s coup 10:32–33, Aramean War

9:28

‫וירכבו‬ ‫אתו עבדיו‬

‫ירוׁשלמה‬ ‫ויקברו אתו‬ ‫בקברתו‬ ‫עם אבתיו‬ ‫בעיר דוד‬ ‫ובשנת אחת‬ ‫עשרה שנה ליורם‬ ‫בן אחאב‬ ‫מלך אחזיה‬ ‫על יהודה‬

Synchronic History: MT Ahaziah 8:25–27 Jehu 10:29–31 10:34–36 >

306

Chapter 16

The duplicate of MT in 8:25 and 9:29 with a different synchronism (“In the twelfth year,” “In the eleventh year”) is related to a problem of composition of the text. The ubication of 9:29 after the conclusive regnal formula in 9:28 is clearly secondary. Its original placement seems to be the one preceding the text preserved by L OL, forming the continuum 9:29; 10:36+:18 (9:29) ’Eν ἔτει ἐνδεκάτῳ ’Ιωρὰμ βασιλέως ’Ισραὴλ ἐβασίλευσεν ’Οχοζείας ἐπὶ Ιουδαν. (10:36+) καὶ ’Οχοζείας υἱὸς ἦν εἴκοσι καὶ δύο ἐτῶν ἐν τῷ βασιλεύειν αὐτόν καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν ’Ιερουσαλήμ. Καὶ ὄνομα τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Γοθολία θυγάτηρ ’Αχαὰβ βασιλέως ’Ισραήλ. Καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἐν ὁδῷ οἴκου ’Αχαὰβ καὶ ἐποίησε τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον Κυρίου ὡς οἶκος ’Αχαὰβ ὅτι γαμβρὸς ἦν τοῦ οἴκου ’Αχαάβ. Καὶ ἐπορεύθη ’Οχοζείας ἐπὶ ’Αζαὴλ βασιλέα Συρίας εἰς πόλεμον. Τότε συνῆψεν ’Ιοὺ υἱὸς Ναμεσσεὶ ἐπὶ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱὸν ’Αχαὰβ βασιλέα ’Ισραήλ. Καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτὸν ἐν ’Ιεζραήλ καὶ ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἐτόξευσεν ’Ιοὺ καὶ τὸν Οχοζείαν βασιλέα ’Ιούδα ἐπὶ τὸ ἅρμα καὶ ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνεβίβασαν αὐτὸν οἱ παῖδες αὐτοῦ ἐν ’Ιερουσαλὴν καὶ θάπτουσιν αὐτὸν μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ ἐν πόλει Δαυίδ. (Hebrew Vorlage:) ‫ובשנת אחת עשרה שנה ליורם (בן אחאב) מלך אחזיה על‬ ‫ בן עשרים ושתים שנה אחזיהו במלכו ושנה אחת מלך בירושלם ושם אמו‬.‫יהודה‬

‫עתליהו בת עמרי מלך ישראל וילך בדרך בית אחאב ויעש הרע בעיני יהוה כבית‬ ‫אחאב כי חתן בית אחאב הוא וילך אל יורם בן אחאב למלחמה עם חזהאל מלך ארם‬ ‫אז יקשר יהוא בן נמשי על יורם בן אחאב מלך ישראל ויך אתו ביזרעאל וימת ויור‬ ‫יהוא אחזיהו מלך יהודה על המרכבה וימת והעלוהו עבדיו ירשלמה ויקברו אתו עם‬ .‫אבתיו בעיר דוד‬

2.4 2 Kgs 13:14–21 (Elisha’s Death) // after 10:28 (OL) This change is attested only in OL. It affects the narrative of Elisha’s death and burial. This passage appears in MT—followed by the kaige B text—in 13:14–21, outside the frame of Jehoash reign to which it is related, thus breaking the before mentioned composition rule of the book. MT also requires to suppose that Elisha lived around 80 years, because already in Ahab’s days

18  The text attested by L and its reconstructed Hebrew Vorlage present some textual and literary difficulties, like the adscription of ἐπὶ τὸ ἅρμα (‫ )על המרכבה‬to the verb ἐτόξευσεν, “and Jehu shot Jehoram in his chariot” (2 Kgs 9:24), or rather to ἀνεβίβασαν, “they carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem,” fitting the coup notice formula. Also the L reading ἐν ’Ιερουσαλήν seems to be secondary when compared with εἰς Ιερουσαλημ (9:28).

Literary Structure & Composition of 1–2 KGS/3–4 KGDMS

307

(died in 853) and before the Aramean wars he appears as Elijah’s disciple (1 Kgs 19:19–21; 20).19 The OL text, preserved in the Vindobonensis palimpsest, places this narrative in an earlier location, in chapter 10, between verses 30 and 31, after the initial formula of Jehu’s reign and the deuteronomistic judgment about him. Consequently, the king of Israel who takes part in this narrative is not Jehoash, but Jehu, who reigned from 841 to 815/14 (G. Galil) or from 839 to 822 (J. Maxwell and John H. Hayes), quite a bit before Jehoash (806/5–791/790 or 804–789):20 (10:29) set a peccatis Hierobam filii Nabaat qui peccare fecit Israel non discessit Ieu rex set abit post uaccas peccati quae erant in Bethel et in Dan 30 et dixit dominus ad Ieu quia fecisti secundum cor meum et secundum animam meam domui Acab sedebunt tibi fili quarti in throno Israel (13:14–21) Helisseus infirmatus est infirmitatē suam qua mortuus est et descendit at eum rex … (10:31) Et Ieu non obseruauit ire in uiam domini dei Israel ex toto corde suo … In the narrative text according to OL Jehu is mentioned in verses 16, et dixit at Ieu regem Israel, and 18, et iterum dixit Helisseus Ieu regi. In v. 14 there is a reference to the “King of Israel” without mentioning him, et descendit at eum rex Israel, but the context identifies him as Jehu. MT presents here a linking repetition or Wiederaufnahme: “Jehu did not turn from the sins of Jeroboam, which he caused Israel to commit” (2 Kgs 10:28 and 31). This repetition is better explained if one assumes the earlier presence of the inserted narrative. The inclusion of the narrative of Elisha’s death in its actual location in MT probably has to be connected with the topic of Israel’s salvation to which allusions are made in the three units which form the text. The deuteronomistic judgment mentions “a saviour” (‫מושיע‬, v. 5); in the prophetic narrative there is talk of “salvation” or “victory” (‫תשועה‬, v. 17); and the notice about the Aramean war gives information on the effective victory or salvation from the Aramean oppression (vv. 24–25). The Lucianic text presents other interesting variants not to be considered here.

19  The historians are quite divided about dating the wars against the Arameans (2 Kgs 6:24– 7:20; 13) in the period of Jehu’s dynasty, during the reigns of Jehoahaz or Jehoash, or even in the period of Omri’s dynasty. 20  G. Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 71–73; Miller and Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 337.

308

Chapter 16

MT 2 Kings 13:23 (Dtr) // LXX (LXXL) 13:2–7, 23:8–9: Placement of the Deuteronomistic Commentary This change of order involves a single verse, 13:23, usually considered deuteronomistic: “But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion on them; he turned towards them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them; nor has he banished them from his presence until now.” This verse is out of place in the context of MT. It interrupts the notice on the Aramean war, formed by verses 22 and 24–25. The OG text represented by LXXL places 13:23 after v. 7, which refers to the divine punishment inflicted upon Jehoahaz and the Israelites through the king of Aram. Thus v. 23 is part of the dtr material of 13:2–7, 23, placed between the initial and conclusive formulae of Jehoahaz’ reign. In 13:23 the omission of “until now” (MT ‫ )עד עתה‬in LXXB would be, according to D. Barthélemy, a case of modernization by the Greek translator.21 Nevertheless, the OG text is not the kaige of LXXB, but the text known by LXXL and placed after v. 7, where the expression ἕως τοῦ νῦν, in agreement with MT v. 23 ‫ עד עתה‬appears. It is not necessary, therefore, to give preference to the assumed omission of LXX as critics and translations usually do without taking into consideration the testimony of LXXL and the different text order of the original Greek version.22 2.5

MT 2 Kings 13:12–13 // LXX post 13:24–25 (LXXL Josephus) ( Jehoash of Israel) The textual layout in MT again breaks the composition rule according to which every literary unit must be framed within a reign. In fact, in MT the initial formula of 13:10–11 and the conclusive one of 13:12–13 follow each other, leaving outside of the frame of the reign of Jehoash the narrative about Elisha’s death and the notice on the Aramean war in which that king took part. Also, MT repeats the conclusive formula of 13:12–13 later on in 14:15–16; LXX ignores v. 15. The OG text attested by LXXL (and Josephus) presents the conclusive formulae of Jehoash after 13:25, thus integrating within the frame of that reign the materials which synchronize with it and following the aforementioned composition rule of the book of Kings. As J.A. Montgomery acknowledged, the conclusive formula for Jehoash is “in the right place” following the notice of 2.6

21  D  . Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, OBO 50/1 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 402–403. 22  Verse 6 represents, according to Würthwein, a linking repetition or Wiederaufnahme (vv. 2 and 6), see E. Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige. 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25, ATD 11/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 360. A comparative study of MT and LXXL shows that vv. 3–5, which reproduce the dtr scheme of the book of Judges, are an addition to the accusation pattern (“the sins of Jeroboam”) characteristic of Kings (vv. 2 and 6).

309

Literary Structure & Composition of 1–2 KGS/3–4 KGDMS

13:24–25. According to Montgomery, “Lucian is a weak authority, even with his faculty of putting things in their right place.”23 But here we are not before the Lucianic text of the 4th century, late and conflate, and thus lacking authority, but before the pre-Lucianic or OG text which, in this as in other cases, preserves clauses or literary units which, as Montgomery acknowledges, appear “in their right place.” 2 Kgs 13–14: MT Order Initial formulae of Joahaz (Israel) Dtr commentary on Joahaz

2 Kgs 13–14, OG Order (LXXL) 13:1 Initial formulae of Joahaz (Israel) 13:1 2–7 Dtr commentary on Joahaz 2–7 23 Deuteronomistic commentary > 8–9 Concluding formulae 8–9 Concluding formulae 10–11 Initial formulae of Jehoash (Israel) 10–11 Initial formulae of Jehoash (Israel) 12–13 Concluding formulae of Jehoash > 14–21 Prophetic stories on Elisha 14–21 Prophetic stories on Elisha 22 Notice on Hazael 22 Notice on Hazael > 23 Deuteronomistic commentary 24–25 Notice on Hazael 24–25 Notice on Hazael 12–13 Concluding formulae of Jehoash > 14:1–4 Initial formulae of Amaziah 14:1–4 Initial formulae of Amaziah 5–7; 8–14 Notice and narrative 5–7; 8–14 Notice and narrative 15–16 Concluding formulae of Jehoash > v. 15; v. 16 = v. 13 1 Kgs 13 v. 1 Initial formulae of Joahaz of Israel

L Ἐν ἔτει εἰκοστῷ καὶ τρίτῳ τοῦ Ἰωὰς υἱοῦ Ὀχοζείου βασιλέως Ἰούδα ἐβασίλευσεν Ἰωαχὰζ υἱὸς Ἰοὺ ἐπὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ ἑπτὰ καὶ δέκα ἔτη.

B ἐν ἔτει εἰκοστῷ καὶ τρίτῳ ἔτει τῷ Ιωας υἱῷ Οχοζιου βασιλεῖ Ιουδα ἐβασίλευσεν Ιωαχας υἱὸς Ιου ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ ἑπτακαίδεκα ἔτη.

vv. 2–7 Dtr commentary

καὶ ἐποίησε τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον Κυρίου …

καὶ ἐποίησεν τὸ πονηρὸν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς κυρίου …

MT

‫בשנת עשרים‬ ‫ושלש שנה‬ ‫ליואש‬ ‫בן אחזיהו‬ ‫מלך יהודה‬ ‫מלך חהואחז‬ ‫בן חהוא‬ ‫על ישראל‬ ‫בשמרון שבע‬ ‫עשרה שנה‬ ‫ויעש‬ ‫הרע‬ ‫בעיני יהוה‬

23  J.A. Montgomery, The Book of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T& Clark, 1951), 434.

310 (MT 23 infra)

vv. 8–9 Concluding formulae vv. 10–11 Initial formulae of Jehoash vv. 12–13 Concluding formulae of Jehoash

Chapter 16

καὶ μετεμελήθη Κύριος καὶ ᾤκτειρεν αὐτοὺς διὰ τὴν διαθήκην αὐτοῦ τὴν πρὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ, καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησε τοῦ διαφθεῖραι αὐτούς, καὶ οὐκ ἀπέρριψεν αὐτοὺς ἐκ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἕως τοῦ νῦν. καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν λόγων τῶν λόγων Ἰωαχὰζ … Ιωαχας … ἐν ἐτει τριακοστῷ καὶ ἐβδόμῳ τοῦ Ἰωὰς βασιλέως Ἰούδα ἐβασίλευσεν Ἰωὰς … (infra, post v. 25)

ἐν ἔτει τριακοστῷ ‫בשנת שלשים‬ καὶ ἑβδόμῳ ἔτει ‫ושבע שנה ליואש‬ τῷ Ιωας ‫מלך יהודה‬ βασιλεῖ Ιουδα … ‫מלך‬ ἐβασίλευσεν Ιωας … καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ‫ויתר‬ λόγων Ιωας… … ‫דברי יואש‬ καὶ ἐκοιμήθη Ιωας μετὰ ‫וישכב יואש‬ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ … … ‫עם אבתיו‬

vv. 4–21 Elisha’s story

καὶ Ἐλισσαῖε καὶ Ελισσαῖε ἠρρώστησε ἠρρώστησεν τὴν ἀρρωστίαν αὐτοῦ … τὴν ἀρρωστίαν αὐτοῦ …

v. 22 Notice on Hazael

καὶ Ἀζαὴλ βασιλεὺς Συρίας ἐξέθλιψε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας Ἰωαχάζ.

v. 23 (supra, after v. 7) Dtr commentary

‫ויתר‬ ‫דברי‬ … ‫יהואחז‬

καὶ Αζαηλ ἐξέθλιψεν τὸν Ισραηλ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας Ιωαχας. καὶ ἠλέησεν κύριος αὐτοὺς καὶ οἰκτίρησεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐπέβλεψεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς διὰ τὴν διαθήκην αὐτοῦ τὴν μετὰ Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ

‫ואלישע‬ ‫חלה‬ … ‫את חליו‬ ‫וחזאל מלך ארם‬ ‫לחץ‬ ‫את ישראל‬ ‫כל ימי יהואחז‬ ‫ויחן יהוה‬ ‫אתם‬ ‫וירחמם‬ ‫ויפן אליהם‬ ‫למען‬ ‫בריתו‬ ‫את אברהם‬ ‫יצחק‬

Literary Structure & Composition of 1–2 KGS/3–4 KGDMS

24–25 Notice on Hazael

Supra MT 12–13

καὶ ἀπέθανεν Ἀζαὴλ βασιλεὺς Συρίας, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν υἱὸς Ἀδὲρ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἀντ’ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν Ἀζαήλ ἐπέστρεψεν Ἰωὰς υἱὸς Ἰωαχὰζ καὶ ἔλαβε τὰς πόλεις ἐκ χειρὸς υἱοῦ Ἀδὲρ υἱοῦ Ἀζαὴλ ἃς ἔλαβεν Ἀζαὴλ ἐκ χειρὸς Ἰωαχὰζ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ, καὶ ἐπάταξεν Ἰωὰς τὸν υἱὸν Ἀδὲρ υἱὸν Ἀζαὴλ τρὶς ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ ἐν Ἀφὲκ κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου καὶ ἐπέστρεψε τὰς πόλεις Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ὅσα ἔλαβεν. καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν λόγων Ἰωὰς … καὶ ἐκοιμήθη Ἰωὰς μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ …

311

καὶ Ιακωβ ‫ויעקב‬ καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ‫ולא אבה‬ κύριος ‫השחיתם‬ διαφθεῖραι αὐτοὺς ‫ולא‬ καὶ οὐκ ἀπέρριψεν ‫השליכם‬ αὐτοὺς ‫מעל פניו‬ ἀπὸ τ. προσώπου αὐτοῦ ‫עד עתה‬ > καὶ ἀπέθανεν Αζαηλ ‫וימת חזאל‬ βασιλεὺς Συρίας ‫מלך ארם‬ καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν υἱὸς ‫וימלך‬ Αδερ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ‫בן הדד בנו תחתיו‬ ἀντ᾽αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν Ιωας υἱὸς Ιωαχας καὶ ἔλαβεν τὰς πόλεις ἐκ χειρὸς υἱοῦ Αδερ υἱοῦ Αζαηλ ἃς ἔλαβεν ἐκ χειρὸς Ιωαχας τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τρὶς ἐπάταξεν αὐτὸν Ιωας καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν τὰς πόλεις Ισραηλ

‫וישב יהואש‬ ‫בן יהואחז‬ ‫ויקח‬ ‫את הערים‬ ‫מיד בן הדד‬ ‫בן חשאל‬ ‫אשר לקח‬ ‫מיד יהואחז‬ ‫אביו‬ ‫במלחמה‬ ‫שלש פעמים‬ ‫הכהו יואש‬ ‫וישב את‬ ‫ערי ישראל‬

312

Chapter 16

1–4 Initial formulae of Amaziah

Εν ἔτει δευτέρῳ τοῦ Ἰωὰς υἱοῦ Ἰωαχὰζ βασιλέως Ἰσραὴλ ἐβασίλευσεν Aμεσσείας καὶ ἐποίησε τὸ εὐθὲς ἐνώπιον Κυρίου …

ἐν ἔτει δευτέρῳ τῷ Ιωας υἱῷ Ιωαχας βασιλεῖ Ισραηλ καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν Αμεσ. καὶ ἐποίησεν τὸ εὐθὲς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς κυρίου …

‫בשנת שתים‬ ‫ליואש‬ ‫בן יואחז‬ ‫מלך ישראל‬ ‫מלך אמציהו‬ ‫ויעש הישר‬ ‫בעיני יהוה‬

5–7 Notice

καἵ ἐγένετο, ὡς καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐκραταιώθη ἡ βασιλεία κατίσχυσεν ἡ βασιλεία ἐν τῇ χειρὶ Ἀμεσσείου … ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ …

‫ויהי כאשר‬ ‫חזקה הממלכה‬ … ‫בידו‬

8–14 Narrative

καὶ ἀπέστειλεν Ἀμεσσείας ἀγγέλους πρὸς Ἰωὰς… 15 >

τότε ἀπέστειλεν Αμεσσιας ἀγγέλους πρὸς Ιωας καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν λόγων Ιωας…

‫אז שלח‬ ‫אמציה מלאכים‬ … ‫אל יהואש‬

καὶ ἐκοιμήθη Ἰωὰς μετὰ καὶ ἐκοιμήθη Ιωας μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ … τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ …

‫וישכב יהואש‬ … ‫עם אבתיו‬

15–16 Concluding formulae of Jehoash (14:16 = 13:13)

‫ויתר דברי‬ … ‫יהואש‬

A global vision allows us to notice how the narratives from the Elijah-Elisha cycle and the stories of the Aramean wars are inserted in a different way in MT and LXX into the “synchronic history” which constitutes the primary structure of the book of Kings (I = Israel; J = Judah).24 It is at the seam points between 24   The collection of Elijah-Elisha narratives seems to have been inserted into the Deuteronomistic History in a relative late period, given rise to the two textual forms attested by MT and LXX. If that were the case, this integration would not have been carried out by the Deuteronomistic historian (dtr), as M. Noth thought, but by a later editor. According to R. Smend, E. Würthwein, H.-J. Stipp, E. Blum, M. Beck, and S. Otto, a large part of the prophetic narratives entered the Deuteronomistic history after the formation of this work, that is, along the post-exilic period. This issue still requires a study which integrates data of textual and literary history of the book of Kings. Cf. M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 3rd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 19673); R. Smend, “Das Wort Yahwes and Elia. Erwägungen zu Komposition von 1. Reg. XVII–XIX,” VT 25 (1975): 525–543; Würthwein, Könige, 215–232; H.-J. Stipp, Elischa—Propheten—Gottesmänner. Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert auf der Basis von Text- und Literarkritik zu 1 Kön 20.22 und 2 Kön 2–7, ATSAT 24 (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1987); E. Blum, “Der Prophet und das Verderben Israels. Eine ganzheitliche, historischkritische Lektüre von 1 Regum XVII–IX,” VT 47 (1997): 277–292, esp. 290–292; M. Beck,

Literary Structure & Composition of 1–2 KGS/3–4 KGDMS

313

the different literary pieces where the most important variants and duplicates presented above take place. Synchronic history Inserted narratives MT LXX Omri (I) 1 Kgs 16:23–28 = > Jehoshaphat (J), 16:28a–h Ahab (I) 16:29–34 = 17–19; Elijah 21 20; 22 Aramean wars 22:39–40 = Jehoshaphat (J) 22:41–51 >>> Ahaziah (I) 22:52–54 = 2 Kgs 1:1–17 Elijah 2 Kgs 1:18 = > Jehoram (I), 1:18a–c 2:1–25 Elijah Jehoram (I) 3:1–3 >>> 3:4–8:15 Elisha Jehoram (J) 8:16–24 = Ahaziah (J) 8:25–27 = 8:28–10:28 Jehu’s story Jehu (I) 10:29–31 = OL 13:14–21 Elisha 10:32–33 Aramean war 10:34–36 = > Ahaziah (J) 10:36+ (LXXL OL) Athaliah (J) 11:1–3 = 11:4–20 Jehoash (J) 12:1–22 =

Elia und die Monolatrie. Ein Beitrag zur religionsgeschichtlichen Rückfrage nach dem vorschriftprophetischen Jahwe-Glauben, BZAW 281 (Berlin—New York: de Gruyter, 1999); S. Otto, Jehu, Elia und Elisa. Die Erzählungen von der Jehu-Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-Elisa-Erzählungen, BWANT 152 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001).

314 Jehoahaz (I)

Jehoash (I)

Amaziah (J)

Chapter 16

13:1 13:2–7 > 13:8–9 13:10–11 13:12–13

=

13:23 dtr

>>>

>>>

13:12–13 (LXXL Josephus) =

14:1–4

13:23 dtr = = >>> (LXXL)

MT 13:14–21 Elisha 13:22 Aramean war 13:24–25

id.

14:5–14 14:15–16 = 13:12–13 (> v. 15 LXXL) 3 Conclusions As a conclusion, I will give a series of general statements which would require further development and nuancing: 1. MT and LXX present a different order of composition, a different delimitation of the literary units which form the book, and, consequently, a different relationship between those units. A comparative of both texts allows us to observe how the Elijah-Elisha prophetic narratives and those of the Aramean wars were introduced into the “synchronic history” in different ways in MT and the Vorlage of the Septuagint. This “synchronic history” may be qualified as a Deuteronomistic composition because it included the typical judgment formulae on the kings’ behaviour. 2. Criticism of the books of Kings has been dominated since Martin Noth by the Redaktionsgeschichte that has left aside in great measure the witness of the Septuagint and textual criticism. Generally speaking the recent studies about the composition or redaction of Kings do not take into account the LXX text when it diverges from MT.25 25  Such is the case in recent works, such as those reviewed by G.N. Knoppers, “Theories of the Redaction(s) of Kings,” in The Books of Kings. Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception, ed. A. Lemaire and B. Halpern, VTSup 129 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 69–88;

Literary Structure & Composition of 1–2 KGS/3–4 KGDMS

315

3. There is a tight relationship between textual criticism and the Kompositionsgeschichte of Kings. Textual variants, particularly the most significant ones, pile up at the junctures of the literary units that make up the composition. When two pericopae get juxtaposed or when one is introduced inside the other, their text undergoes an adaptation in the boundaries between the two. A good example of this are variants between MT and LXX in the formulation of synchronisms at the points where the insertion of Elijah-Elisha stories into the text of the “synchronic history” has been operated in a different way in MT and LXX (1 Kgs 16:29; 22:41; 22:52; 2 Kgs 1:17 and 3:1). Therefore, after having analyzed the variants according to their typology (omission, additions, transpositions, etc.), it is necessary to assess them according to the function they accomplish in the context. This function is often that of adjusting the different pieces of the composition among themselves. Doublets and particularly cases of Wiederaufnahme are the main clues of this activity.26 This implies that there is a tight relationship between textual and literary criticism, between the history of the edition and the history of the (dtr) composition and redaction of the book in its final stages.27 4. Similarly, the boundaries between textual criticism of the Hebrew texts and textual criticism of the Greek version are not so clearly cut today as it could have been in the past. The Greek version is a work in itself with independent value from its Hebrew original, but, speaking of the kaige sections of Kings, the translation which has come down to us does intently return to the Hebrew text, which happens to be not that of the Vorlage of the original version, but one of proto-Masoretic affiliation. Even just to decide when a Lucianic reading has to be considered pre-Lucian we have to resort as Rahlfs himself did R.L. Cohen, “The Literary Structure of Kings,” in The Books of Kings, 107–122; B. Halpern and A. Lemaire, “The Composition of Kings,” in The Books of Kings, 123–153. 26  Julio Trebolle, “Textual Criticism and the Composition History of Samuel. Connections between Pericopes in 1 Samuel 1–4,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel. The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, ed. P. Hugo and A. Schenker (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 261–286. 27  H.-J. Stipp, “Das Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik in neueren alttestamentlichen Veröffentlichungen,” BZ (1990): 16–37; Z. Talshir, “The Contribution of Diverging Traditions Preserved in the Septuagint to Literary Criticism of the Bible,” in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992, ed. Leonard J. Greenspoon (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), 21–41; G.J. Brooke, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction Between Higher and Lower Criticism,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies, ed. J.G. Campbell, W.J. Lyons and L.K. Pietersen, Library of Second Temple Studies 52 (London—New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 26–42; R. Hendel, “Plural Texts and Literary Criticism: For Instance, 1 Samuel 17,” Textus 23 (2007): 97–114.

316

Chapter 16

to the underlying Hebrew Vorlage (“die alte hebräische Grundlage”). From the 34 cases of pre-Lucianic readings accepted by Rahlfs, 23 correspond to a kaige section (1 Kgs 1–2:10; 1 Kgs 22–2 Kgs), and only 9 to the non-kaige section (1 Kgs 2:11–21:43).28 Also, in kaige sections, the critical edition of LXX depends in a good measure of the secondary versions, especially those who may attest an Old Greek or proto-Lucianic text: the OL, Arm, Georg, and, occasionally, the Sahidic Coptic.29 5. Although it may now seem obvious, it is necessary to say that the Greek version in not a translation of MT. Therefore, a critical edition of LXX Kings will yield a Greek text more removed from MT than it usually would be expected, especially in the kaige sections, where Rahlfs’ edition basically follows the B text, close to MT. The proto-Lucianic text, especially if attested by OL—which at times presents an independent text—goes back to an OG, which also differs from MT more than it is usually expected. If a Hebrew manuscript with the textual features of LXXL OL had been found at Qumran, it would perhaps have been classified as a “parabiblical” text, later as an “independent” text, and today as a “biblical” text, as it is the case of 1 Kings LXX, marked by deep differences when compared to MT.30

28  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 283–290. 29  A. Piquer, P. Torijano and J. Trebolle, “Septuagint Versions, Greek Recensions and Hebrew Editions. The Text-Critical Evaluation of the Old Latin, Armenian and Georgian Versions in III–IV Regnorum,” in Translating a Translation. The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism, ed. H. Ausloos et al., BETL 213 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008). 30  E. Tov, “3 Kingdoms Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions,” in Flores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, ed. A. Hilhorst et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 345–366, esp. 358 and 365; id., “Three Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions from Qumran and Elsewhere,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D 20.–23. Juli 2006, Wuppertal), ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 369–393.

Chapter 17

The Contribution of the Old Latin to the Reconstruction of the Old Greek of Judges and Kings: “Doublets” and “Additions” of the Antiochene Text Missing in the Old Latin The purpose of this chapter is to show how the text of the Old Latin version (OL) contributes to discriminating within the Antiochene text (L) between late Lucianic readings and pre-Lucianic readings, which go back to the Old Greek text (OG).1 The issue of the distinction between both kinds of readings is one of the most complex ones in Septuagint research.2 In order to achieve this goal, a study of pluses and minuses of the Antiochene text in relationship with the Old Latin version will be carried out. Special attention is given to Judges because the text of that book offers two advantages when compared to Kings. The first is that Codex Lugdunensis preserves an almost full text of the OL version of Judges,3 whereas in Kings we only have the text of some chapters, verses, or single sentences of that version. The second is that the Greek text of Judges has been transmitted in two textual forms (A and B) clearly differentiable and edited synoptically by Rahlfs:4 the A text represents the OG, while the B text transmits a revised kaige text. In this way it is possible to compare the OL text with its Antiochene Vorlage and both with the A text (OG) and B (kaige). 1  This study continues the line of research developed in previous ones, J. Trebolle, “Textual Affiliation of the Old Latin Marginal Readings in the Books of Judges and Kings” (Chapter 12 in this volume); id., “The Textual History and the Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin Version in the Book of Judges,” in Die Septuaginta—Text, Wirkung, Rezeption. 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012, ed. W. Kraus and S. Kreuzer (Tübingen: Mohr, 2014), 53–72; id., “The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin and Antiochene Greek Texts in the Books of Judges and Joshua,” in Interpreting Translation. Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, ed. F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne, BETL 192 (Leuven: University Press—Peeters, 2005), 401–414. 2  J.W. Wevers, “Proto-Septuagint Studies,” in The Seed of Wisdom. FS. T.J. Meek (Toronto: University Press, 1964), 58–77, esp. 69: “All in all, the so-called proto-Lucianic text is to my mind the most difficult problem in modern Septuagint work.” 3  U. Robert, Heptateuchi partis posterioris versio latina antiquissima e codice Lugdunensi (Lyon: Librairie de A. Rey et Cie, 1900). 4  A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Editio octava (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_019

318

Chapter 17

Among the old versions of LXX modern criticism acknowledges OL a certain primacy for two main reasons: its antiquity and its literalism. It has long been debated if there was only one translation, which subsequently branched out into the extant variety of text-forms, or whether several versions coexisted for a certain time since the beginning. Until the mid-twentieth century it was generally thought that the discrepancies between the preserved texts were due to the diversity of concurrent translations. But studies like those of P. Capelle and D. De Bruyne & B. Sodar,5 and the published Old Latin Beuron volumes have suggested otherwise. Examples include the Heptateuch (B. Fischer), Proverbs (J. Schildenberger), Isaiah (R. Gryson),6 Esther, as well as Wisdom, Ben Sira and 1–2 Maccabees.7 That plurality of text types developed from an original single translation is explained by two mechanisms acting sometimes simultaneously. Within the Latin textual tradition and as the text spread from North Africa to Europe in the third century CE and even more so in the fourth, the vocabulary was cleared of Africanisms, words or expressions frequently used in the OL witnesses of the African writers. Some of the more well-known differences are (Greek/ African/European): ἀγάπη/dilectio/caritas, αὐτός/ille/is, βαπτίζω/tingere/baptizare, δόξα/claritas/gloria, δοξάζω/clarificare/glorificare, ἔρημος/eremus/desertus, θλῖψις/pressura/tribulatio, κάλλος/species/pulchritudo, καταιγίς/procella/ tempestas, λόγος/sermo/verbum, μακάριος/felix/beatus, μυστήριον/mysterium/ sacramentum, ὀνειδίζειν/improperare/detrahere, πλαναν/decipere/seducere, 5  P. Capelle, Le texte du psautier latin en Afrique (Rome: Pustet, 1913), 179–191; D. De Bruyne and B. Sodar, Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabées (Abbaye de Maredsous: Desclée de Brouwer, 1932), XV: “Il n’y a qu’une traduction primitive qui a subi des révisions diverses.” 6  B. Fischer (ed.), Genesis, Vetus Latina 2 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1954), 14*–28*; J. Schildenberger, Die altlateinischen Texte des Proverbien-Buches I (Beuron: Beuroner Kunstverlag, 1941); R. Gryson (ed.), Esaias 1–39, Vetus Latina 12/1 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1987–1993); id., Esaias 40–66, Vetus Latina 12/1 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1993–1997); id., “Les anciennes versions latines du livre d’Isaïe. Signification et voies d’une recherche,” RTL 17 (1986): 22–37, esp. 27: “Dés la fin du IIe siécle, cependant, une version latine d’Isaïe s’est imposée, et c’est d’elle que procèdent tous les remaniements ultérieurs”; J.-C. Haelewyck, “The Relevance of the Old Latin Version for the Septuagint with Special Emphasis on the Book of Esther,” JTS NS 57 (2006): 439–473; id., “Les premières versions latines de la Bible,” in Les premières traditions de la Bible, ed. Ch.-B. Amphoux and J. Margain (Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 1996), 121–136. 7  W. Thiele, Sapitentia Salomonis, Vetus latina 11/1 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1977–1985), 11; id., Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Vetus Latina 11/2 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1996), 100; A.I. Forte, “The Old Latin Version of Sirach: Editio critica and Textual Problems,” in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation, ed. J.-S. Rey and J. Joosten (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 199–214; Th. Legrand, “La version latine de Ben Sira: État de la question, essai de classement thématique des ‘Additions,’” in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira, 215–234; De Bruyne and Sodar, Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabées, XV.

The Contribution of the Old Latin

319

πόλεμος/bellum/praellum, πρόσταγμα/imperium/preaceptum, ὑψηλός/altissimus/excelsus, φόβος/metus/timor.8 In the study of translation technique, we apply the same methodology as in that of the Septuagint.9 It has to be taken into account that a witness that can be considered as marginal and late as the glossae of the codices of Leon (Beuron 91–95) in 1–2 Samuel corresponds to an African text that should be dated between the 150 and the 300 CE.10 The same can be applied to the glossae of 1–2 Kings. In the process of diversification of the OL text also intervened the tendency to revise it according to Greek models diverging from the basis of the first translation. The OL text evolved in parallel to the text of the Greek recensions. In due time, variants typical of the different Greek recensions entered the OL tradition, in particular from the kaige and Hexaplaric recensions. The critical value of OL in 3–4 Kingdoms is linked to the problems of its “Lucianic” readings and to their pre-Hexaplaric and pre-Lucianic character. In 3 Kgdms 1:1–2:11 (βγ) and 3 Kgdms 22:1–4 Kgdms 25:30 (γδ) the LXX majority text represented by the B group of manuscripts (B 509) transmits the text of the kaige recension. This recension was the first attempt to bring the Old Greek text (OG) in line with an early form of the Hebrew Masoretic tradition. In these sections the Lucianic text (L) of manuscripts 19 82 93 108 127 (700) is the only one that preserves a text that is very close or “substantially identical” to that of the Old Greek.11 On the other hand, A. Rahlfs and L. Dieu thought to notice in the OL of Kings “Lucianic touches,” so that OL Lucianisms would be late revisions from readings of a Lucianic text very extended in the West.12 Nevertheless, according to B. Fischer, an OL text is older and more primitive when its Lucianic readings are more abundant.13 8  Haelewyck, “Les premières,” 132; A.I. Forte, “The Old Latin Version of Sirach,” 203. 9  A. Aejmelaeus, “What We Talk about When We Talk about Thanslation Technique,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998, ed. Bernard A. Taylor (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 531–552. 10  C.M. Rodríguez, Glosas marginales de Vetus latina en las Biblias Vulgatas españolas (Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1989), lxxix–lxxxi. 11  D. Barthélemy, “Les problèmes textuels de 2 Sam 11,2–1 Rois 2,11 reconsidérés à la lumière de certaines critiques des Devanciers d’Aquila,” BIOSCS (1972): 16–89; T. McLay, “Kaige and Septuagint Research,” Textus 19 (1998): 127–139; R. Kraft, “Reassessing the Impact of Barthélemy’s Devanciers, Forty Years Later,” BIOSCS 37 (2004): 1–28; E. Tov, “Lucian and Proto-Lucian,” RB 79 (1972): 101–113. 12  A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta Studien III (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 161; L. Dieu, “Retouches Lucianiques sur quelques textes de la vieille latine (I et II Samuel),” RB 16 (1919): 390–403. 13  B. Fischer, “Lukian-Lesarten in der Vetus Latina der vier Königsbücher,” Studia Anselmiana 27–28 (1951): 169–177, esp. 175, see also 173 and 177.

320

Chapter 17

Intra-OL textual variants are few and not very meaningful, except for those which came late into the textual tradition from a kaige or Late Lucianic Greek base text, also Hexaplaric.14 It may serve as an example the only passage of which three OL witnesses have been preserved, 3 Kgdms 12:24k.l: the Vienna Palimpsest (Vindobonensis, L 115),15 the text quoted by Lucifer of Cagliari16 and the marginal readings in Leon Bible codices (Beuron 91–95).17 It is an OG passage with no equivalent in the Masoretic tradition, and thus free of any possible kaige or Hexaplaric influence. For the same reason, the Greek text is quite homogeneous with not very meaningful variants between the majority (LXXB) and Antiochene (LXXL) texts: Legionensis 24k (et) dixit Achia puero suo exi nunc in obviam Ano uxori Hieroboam et dices ad eam intra et noli stare quoniam haec dicit Dominus dura ego inmittam in te 24l et introivit Ano ad Achiam hominem Dei et dixit ad eam Achia ut quid mihi attulisti panem et uvas et collyrida et vas mellis

Lucifer 24k dixit Achiab puero suo exi nunc in obviam Annae uxori Hieroboam et dices ei intra et noli stare quoniam haec dicit dominus dura ego mitto in te 24l et intrauit Anna ad hominem dei et dixit ei Achiab ut quid mihi adtulisti panes et uuam et collyrides et uas mellis

Vindobonensis 24k dixit Achia puero suo exi nunc in obuiam Ano uxori Hieroboam et dices ei intra et noli stare quia haec dicit dominus dura ego inmitto super te 24l et intrauit Ano ad hominem dei et dixit ei Achias ut quid attulisti mihi panes et uuas et collyras et uas mellis

LXXB/L 24k καὶ εἶπεν Αχια τῷ παιδαρίῳ αὐτοῦ ἔξελθε δὴ εἰς ἀπαντὴν Ανω τῇ γυναικὶ Ιεροβοαμ καὶ ἐρεῖς αὐτῇ εἴσελθε καὶ μὴ στῇς ὅτι τάδε λέγει κύριος σκληρὰ ἐγὼ ἐπαποστελῶ ἐπὶ σέ 24l καὶ εἰσῆλθεν Ανω πρὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ Αχια ἵνα τί μοι ἐνήνοχας ἄρτους καὶ σταφυλὴν καὶ κολλύρια καὶ στάμνον μέλιτος

14  A  . Piquer Otero, “3–5.2.2.1 Vetus Latina. Joshua-Judges,” in Textual History of the Bible. 1B Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, ed. A. Lange and E. Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 397–400. 15  B. Fischer with the collaboration of E. Ulrich and J.E. Sanderson, “Palimpsestus Vindobonensis: a Revised Edition of L115 for Samuel-Kings,” BIOSCS 16 (1983): 13–87; reprint “Palimpsestus Vindobonensis. II. Manuscript 115 of the Books of Kingdoms,” in Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen Bibeltexte (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1986), 315–333. 16  G.F. Diercks, “De regibus apostaticis,” in Luciferi Calaritani Opera quae supersunt. Ad fidem dvorum codicum qui adhuc extant necnon adhibitis editionibvs veteribvs (Turnhout: Brepols, 1978), I:58–60. 17  A. Moreno, Las glosas marginales de Vetus Latina en las Biblias Vulgatas Españolas. 1–2 Reyes (Madrid: CSIC, 1992), 99–100. The readings reflecting 3 Kgdms 12:24k.l appear on

The Contribution of the Old Latin

321

The variants quoniam—quia, inmittam—mitto—inmitto, introivit—intrauit, ad eam—ei, Achia—Achiab—Achias, panem et uvas—panes et uuam—panes et uuas, collyrida—collyrides—collyras or the addition ad Achiam (Legionensis) are not caused by differences in translation but in textual transmission. The only variant of the Greek text μοι ενηνοχας (Bja2)—ενηνοχας μοι (N rell. Aeth Syr(mg) Thdt) has a reflection in the OL variants: mihi attulisti (Lucifer, Legionensis) = Bja2 and attulisti mihi (Vindob.) = LXX rell. Rahlfs follows in this case, and also in general, the reading of the mss. group Ba2 against the remainder of the manuscript tradition. The text of this group Ba2 seems to have been the basis of the one used for Hexaplaric notations, but that does not mean in any case that it is always representing the OG text, because at times it is haplographic, as Vaticanus (B) is even more frequently. A second example, also taken from γγ section (non-kaige), 3 Kgdms. 18:23– 27, shows that Vindobonensis follows closer the Antiochene text (LXXL), whereas Lucifer is closer to the majority text (LXXB), but the base text is always a single translation. Lucifer Vindobonensis LXXB/L καὶ πῦρ μὴ ἐπιθέτωσαν et ignem non subponant et ignem non subponant et ego faciam bouem alterum et ego faciam bouem alterum καὶ ἐγὼ ποιήσω τὸν βοῦν τὸν ἄλλον (+ καὶ δωσω επι τα ξυλα Ac2 α’) et ignem non subponam et ignem non subponam καὶ πῦρ οὐ μὴ ἐπιθῶ 24 et clamate in nomine 24 et clamate in nomine 24 καὶ βοᾶτε ἐν ὀνόματι deorum uestrorum et ego deorum vestrorum et ego θεῶν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐγὼ ἐπικαλέσομαι clamabo in nomine dei mei inuocabo in nomine dei mei. ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ μου καὶ Et deus et erit hic deus ἔσται ὁ θεός quicumque exaudierit quicumque exaudierit ὃς ἐὰν ἐπακούσῃ hodie σήμερον (boc2) et dederit ignem nos in igne ἐν πυρί hic est deus. hic erit deus. οὗτός (ἐστι L) θεός Et respondit omnis populus Et respondit omnis populus καὶ ἀπεκρίθησαν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς et dixit et dixerunt καὶ εἶπον/εἶπεν (L) bonum uerbum bonum uerbum καλὸν τὸ ῥῆμα / ἀγαθὸς ὁ λόγος (L) quod locutus est helias. quod locutus est helias. ὃ/ὃν (L) ἐλάλησας 25 Et dixit helias 25 Et dixit helias 25 καὶ εἶπεν Ηλιου profetis confusionis ad prophetas confusionis τοῖς προφήταις τῆς αἰσχύνης   the margin of the text of 14:1–18, which seems to indicate that the OL tradition was copied according to the Vulgate text, in the same way that modern criticism tends to study LXX passages in function of the MT.

322

Chapter 17

ἐκλέξασθε ἑαυτοῖς τὸν μόσχον/βοῦν (L) τὸν ἕνα καὶ ποιήσατε πρῶτοι ὅτι πολλοὶ ὑμεῖς / ὅτι ὑμεῖς πολλοὶ quia uos multi estis καὶ ποιήσατε πρῶτοι (boc2e2) et facietis sacrificium primi et inuocate et clamate καὶ ἐπικαλέσασθε/ἐπικαλεῖσθε in nomine deorum uestrorum in nomine deorum uestrorum ἐν ὀνόματι θεοῦ/θεῶν (L) ὑμῶν et ignem nolite inponere. et ignem nolite supponere. καὶ πῦρ μὴ ἐπιθῆτε 26 Et acceperunt bouem 26 Et acceperunt uitulum 26 καὶ ἔλαβον τὸν μόσχον/βοῦν (L) (+ ὃν εδωκεν αὐτοῖς A Arm α´ θ´) et fecerunt sacrificium et fecerunt καὶ ἐποίησαν et inuocauerunt et inuocabant καὶ ἐπεκαλοῦντο in nomine bahal in nomine Baal ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Βααλ a mane usque ad uesperam ἐκ πρωίθεν ἕως μεσημβρίας / > (L) et dixerunt exaudi nos et dicebant exaudi nos καὶ εἶπον ἐπάκουσον ἡμῶν bahal (ex-)audi nos Baal exaudi nos. ὁ Βααλ ἐπάκουσον ἡμῶν et non e(rat) uox Et non fuit istis uox καὶ οὐκ ἦν φωνὴ et non exa(udi)tio neque auditio. καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἀκρόασις eligite vobis vitulum unum et facite priores quoniam uos multi estis

eligite uobis unum bouem

– v. 24 hodie (Vindob.) = LXXL (bioc2e2): om. Lucifer = LXXB. – v. 25 quia uos multi estis et facietis sacrificium primi (Vindob.) = ὅτι ὑμεῖς πολλοὶ καὶ ποιήσατε πρῶτοι (boc2e2)—et facite priores quoniam uos multi estis (Lucifer) = καὶ ποιήσατε πρῶτοι ὅτι πολλοὶ ὑμεῖς (LXXB). – v. 26 Vindob. and LXXL (boc2e2) omit the sentence in Lucifer a mane usque ad uesperam = LXXB ἐκ πρωίθεν ἕως μεσημβρίας. Regarding the Greek original of OL, the following “Lucianisms” may be observed: – v. 24 erit (Lucifer)/est (Vindob.) = ἐστι LXXL (bioc2e2): om. LXXB. – v. 25 deorum (Lucifer, Vindob.) = θεῶν LXXL (bimoc2e2 Jos Arm) ≠ θεοῦ (LXXB) – v. 27 apposuit (Lucifer)/addidit (Vindob.) = προσέθετο LXXL (boc2e2): om. LXXB. The biblical Qumran manuscripts, particularly of 4QJudga and 4QSama, have provided a further clarification of the nature of the Lucianic text, although many problems are still unresolved.18 The OL represents a pre-Lucianic Greek 18  S. Kreuzer, “Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta. Forschungsgeschichte und eine neue Perspektive,” in Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung, ed. S. Kreuzer and M. Sigismund (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 23–56; N. Fernández Marcos, “The Antiochene Edition in the Text History of the

The Contribution of the Old Latin

323

text, very close to the OG, which was based on a Hebrew text different from that of the Masoretic tradition and which quite frequently agrees with the Qumran text of Samuel.19 This textual filiation is the grounds for the critical value of the OL text.20 The witness of the OL has not been thoroughly taken into account, due mainly to the fragmentary state of the preserved evidence and to its being a secondary translation.21 In the study of the OL as of any other versions the first task consists in identifying the internal variants produced along the textual transmission: copy errors, omissions and additions, linguistic or stylistic revisions, influences of the Vulgate tradition in the pre-Jerome text, etc. The following task consists of differentiating in the OL textual tradition readings of Hexaplaric or Lucianic provenance.22 A further step consists of discriminating between OL readings, which reflect a kaige Greek text, from the properly OL readings, which follow a pre-Lucianic and OG Greek original.23 A clear and typical example is the double translation of the Hebrew expression ‫ל־ה ָּצ ָבא‬ ַ ‫( ַע‬1 Kgs 4:4): dux virtutis = ἐπὶ τῆς δυνάμεως and dux militiae = ἐπὶ τῆς πατριᾶς (“over the paternal family”), reading in Rahlfs’ edition, which should be corrected to ἐπὶ τῆς στρατίας.24 The Greek Bible,” in Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta, 57–73; P. Hugo, “Die antiochenische Mischung: L zwischen Altem und Neuem in 2Sam,” in Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta, 109–132. T. Kauhanen, The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). 19  E. Ulrich, “The Old Latin Translation of the LXX and the Hebrew Scrolls from Qumran,” The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel. 1980 Proceedings IOSCS (Jerusalem: Academon, 1980). 121–165; id., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, HSM 19 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978). 20  J. Trebolle, “From the Old Latin Through the Old Greek to the Old Hebrew (2 Kgs 10:25– 28),” Textus 11 (1984): 17–36; P.-M. Bogaert, “De la vetus latina à l’hébreu pré-massorétique en passant par la plus ancienne Septante: le livre de Jérémie, exemple privilégié,” RTL 44 (2013): 216–243. 21  E. Ulrich, “Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translation of the Septuagint,” in La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS), ed. N. Fernández Marcos (Madrid: CSIC, 1985), 67–81; id., “Translation, Corruption and Interpretation: The Genesis of the Old Latin Variants,” in Scribes and Translators. Septuaginta and Old Latin in the Books of Kings, VTSup 54 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 53–70. 22  S.P. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuaginta Version of I Samuel (Torino: S. Zamorani, 1996), 217; Kauhanen, The Proto-Lucianic Problem, 141–142. 23  J. Trebolle, “Textos ‘Kaige’ en la Vetus Latina de Reyes (2 Re 10,25–28),” RB 89 (1982): 198–209; id., “From the Old Latin,” 17–36; P.-M. Bogaert, “Bulletin de la Bible latine (1955–75),” Bulletin d’ancienne littérature chrétienne latine 5, Revue bénédictine de critique, d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 74–84 (1964–74): 162; P. Torijano, “3–52.1.2 Vetus latina. Samuel-Kings,” in Textual History of the Bible. 1B, 400–403. 24  In verse 6 the reading πατριᾶς, included in Rahlfs’ edition, should be corrected, although in this case OL knows the reading super patrias (MT ‫ל־ה ָּביִת‬ ַ ‫) ַע‬.

324

Chapter 17

version ἐπὶ τῆς δυνάμεως is not attested in LXX 1 Kgs 4:4, but constitutes one of the most acknowledged features of the kaige recension: the substitution of the original translation στρατία with the kaige version δύναμις, the same way as ἀρχιστράτηγος is replaced with ἄρχων (τῆς) δυνάμεως.25 OL dux militiae and LXX ἀρχιστράτηγος in 2:46h seem to translate the Hebrew ‫ הצבא שר‬instead of MT ‫ל־ה ָּצ ָבא‬ ַ ‫ ַע‬. 1 Judges In LXX Judges the A group of manuscripts offers a text very close to the Old Greek version (OG), exception made of its Hexaplaric characteristics. The group is formed by manuscripts (A) G 15 19 (58) 376 426, plus the Syriac version (the parentheses indicate that the designated manuscript often deviates from the common text of the group). The B group, formed by B S 52 53 56 57 (72) 85 120 129 130 407 509 is related to the so called kaige recension.26 The Lucianic group (L′), namely (K) (Z) 54 59 75 (82) 314, is pre-Hexaplaric and forms the best witness to the OG in Judges. The subgroup L′′, formed by (44) 106 134 344, shows strong Hexaplaric influence. Special attention, therefore, is to be paid to the agreements between groups A and L that go back to the older tradition of the Greek text. The K (koine) group, M N 29 55 121, has a mixed text, based on the A text (OG), but influenced by the B text (kaige).27 The Old Latin of Judges is based on a Greek pre-Lucianic text. Sometimes it constitutes the only extant means of approaching this pre-Lucianic text 25  J.D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 114 and 136. 26  D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 34 and 47. 27  O. Pretzl, “Septuagintaprobleme im Buch der Richter. Die griechischen Handschriftengruppen im Buch der Richter untersucht nach ihrem Verhältnis zu einander,” Bib 7 (1926): 233–269 and 353–383; A.V. Billen, “The Hexaplaric Element in the LXX Version of Judges,” JTS 43 (1942): 12–19; id., “The Old Latin Version of Judges,” JTS 43 (1942): 140–149; I. SoisalonSoininen, Die Textformen der Septuaginta-Übersetzung des Richterbuches (Helsinki: Universität Helsinki, 1951), 20; J. Schreiner, Septuaginta-Massora des Buches der Richter. Eine textkritische Studie, AB 7 (Rome: Pontificial Biblical Institute, 1957); W. Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges. Recensional Developments, HSM 23 (Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 3; J. Targarona Borrás, “Historia del texto griego del Libro de los Jueces I–II” (PhD diss., Universidad Complutense Madrid, 1983), 46–49 and 127–134; J. Kabiersch et al., “Kritai/Iudicum/Das Buch der Richter,” in Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, Band I Genesis bis Makkabäer, ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 657–700.

The Contribution of the Old Latin

325

and consequently the OG text.28 Nevertheless, the manuscript tradition of OL merges several levels of text which have to be distinguished prior to any critical usage of its readings, although it is not easy task to discern the lines of transmission of the kaige and Hexaplaric forms that converge in the OL textual tradition. In the study of the Antiochene text of Judges it is customary to compare the L and B text so that minuses and pluses of L and OL when compared to B are considered “additions” or “omissions” introduced into the L text taking the B text as a starting point. Nevertheless, the comparison should not be established with the B text, which represents the recensional kaige text, but with the A text, in closer agreement with the OG. The OL reflects an Antiochene preLucianic text so it allows to tell apart between pre-Lucianic and later Lucianic readings. The “additions” in L not supported by OL are late. Such is clearly the case of 16:30, ‫ ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתים‬MT, τῶν ἀλλοφύλων AB, alienigenis OL] + τῶν ἀπεριτμήτων τοῦτων L. The Lucianic addition “those uncircumcised ones” can be connected to 15:18 ‫ ָה ֲע ֵר ִלים‬MT, τῶν ἀπεριτμήτων AB] + τουτων L Copt OL SyrH (÷). In this case, it is remarkable to note the double reading of the OL alienigenarum incircumcisorum horum. The second reading, incircumcisorum horum, follows L, but the first one, alienigenarum, has no agreement in the Greek. In Hebrew, the usual term to refer to the Philistines is ‫( ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתים‬3:31; 10:11; 14:3, 4, 4; 15:3, 6, 6, 9, 11, 14; 16:9, 12, 14, 20, 21, 28, 30). The Hebrew text alludes to the Philistine with the term ‫“( ערל‬uncircumcised”) only in two cases, in the formerly mentioned 15:18 and in 14:3. Here the Greek tradition contains the reading τῶν ἀλλοφύλων τῶν ἀπεριτμήτων as a translation of MT ‫ ִמ ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתים ָה ֲע ֵר ִלים‬. Nevertheless, OL omits τῶν ἀπεριτμήτων. This omission might lead us to think that the OG and also its Vorlage did not contain any other mention than the usual τῶν ἀλλοφύλων, later supplemented by the inclusion of the pejorative “uncircumcised.” The OL witness is key, in any case, to tell apart between pre-Lucianic (OG) readings and later Lucianic readings. “Lucianic” Additions of the Antiochene Text Not Present in the Old Latin The OL text does not contain late Lucianic additions. It gives witness to a pre-Lucianic text which, together with the A text, goes back to the OG. Thus, e.g., in 12:11, OL et post illum iudicauit Istrahel Aelom Zabulonites et iudicauit Istrahel X annis reflects the OG transmitted by group A καὶ ἔκρινεν μετ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν Ισραηλ Αιλων ὁ Ζαβουλωνίτης καὶ ἔκρινεν τὸν Ισραηλ δέκα ἔτη, against B καὶ 1.1

28  Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges, 134–136; B. Lindars, Judges 1–5. A New Translation and Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), passim.

326

Chapter 17

ἔκρινεν μετ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν Ισραηλ Αιλωμ ὁ Ζαβουλωνίτης δέκα ἔτη. The OG reading (A L) καὶ ἔκρινεν τὸν Ισραηλ is confirmed by the Coptic, Ethiopic, OL, and SyrH versions. The late Lucianic text makes explicit the subject of ἔκρινεν (2º) adding Αιλωμ, reading not known by OL iudicauit Istrahel. Also, the shorter reading in B may be older than the reading of LXXBL, reflecting a short Hebrew ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁשּפֹט‬ ‫ ַ ֽא ֲח ָריו ֶאת־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֵאילֹון ַהּזְ בּוֹלנִ י ֶע ֶׂשר ָׁשנִ ים‬, against MT ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁשּפֹט ַ ֽא ֲח ָריו ֶאת־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֵאילֹון‬ ‫ ַהּזְ ּוֹלנִ י וַ ּיִ ְׁשּפֹט ֶאת־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֶע ֶׂשר ָׁשנִ ים‬. α. Inserted names or pronouns, mainly as subject. These additions attempt to clarify the text, especially by avoiding ambiguities regarding the subject of the verbal action. – 1:30 καὶ ἐγένετο BAK] + ο Χαναναιος L Copt. OL et habitauit Channaneus in tributarium = και κατωκησεν ο Χαναναιος εις φορον is probably following the L text which repeats ο Χαναναιος… ο Χαναναιος, allowing the haplography present in OL. Thus, OL is attesting the L text in an indirect way. – 1:31 καὶ ἐγένετο BAK] + ο Χαναναιος L > OL. – 2:11 τοῖς Βααλιμ BAK, Bahalim OL] + και τη ασταρτη L. – 3:5 καὶ τοῦ Ιεβουσαίου BAK, et Iebusei OL] + και του γεργεσαιου L. – 3:8 καὶ ἀπέδοτο αὐτοὺς BAK, et tradidit illos OL] + κυριος L. – 3:9 καὶ ἤγειρεν κύριος σωτῆρα BAK, et excitauit Dominus saluatorem OL] + αγαθον L. – 7:9 κατάβηθι τὸ τάχος ἐντεῦθεν εἰς τὴν παρεμβολήν AK, descende celeriter hic in castra OL] + Μαδιαμ. The B reading καταβηθι εν τη παρεμβολη agrees with MT ‫ ֵרד ַּב ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה‬. The OG text καταβηθι τα ταχος εις την παρεμβολην adds το ταχος (A L Arm Copt Aeth OL SyrH = ‫)מהרה‬. – 8:2 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς BAK, et dixit ad illos OL] + Γεδεων L. – 8:16 καὶ ἔλαβεν BAK, et cepit OL] + Γεδεων L. The OL reading et cepit principes et seniores ciuitatis belongs to the OG text represented by AL και ελαβεν τους αρχοντας και τους πρεσβυτερους της πολεως against B και ελαβεν τους πρεσβυτερους της πολεως. – 8:17 κατέσκαψεν AK, subuertit OL] + Γεδεων L. – 8:18, 20 καὶ εἶπεν BAK, et dixit OL] + Γεδεων L. – 8:35 ἐποίησεν BAK, fecit OL] + Γεδεων L. – 9:20 καὶ καταφάγοι τὸν Αβιμελεχ BAK] + και τον οικου αυτου L, comedat domum Abimelec OL. – 9:43 καὶ ἔλαβεν/παρέλαβεν BAK, et accepit OL] + ο αβιμελεχ L. – 9:46 καὶ ἦλθον/εἰσῆλθον BAK, et intrauerunt OL] + και οι αρχοντες L. Double reading in L και ηλθον οι αρχοντες και εισηλθον. – 9:54 καὶ ἀπέθανεν ΒAK, et mortuus est OL] + αβιμελεχ L (OL + ibi, also Copt). – 10:1 καὶ ἀνέστη ΒAK, et surrexit OL] + ο θεος L.L presents a different text and meaning.

The Contribution of the Old Latin

327

– 10:2 ἔτη ΒAK, annis OL] + ο θωλα L. – 10:3 μετ᾽ αὐτόν ΒAK, post illum OL] μετα τον θωλα L. – 10:16 καὶ ἐξέκλιναν/μετέστησαν ΒAK, et sustulerunt OL] + οι υιοι ισραηλ L. – 11:22 καὶ ἐκληρονόμησεν A] + ισραηλ L. The OL reading et hereditate possedit omnem finem Amorrei (Aeth Arm) reflects the OG text transmitted by AL και εκληρονομησεν παν το οριον του Αμορραιου AL, omitted in B. – 11:35 − A Arm Copt Aeth OL SyrH] αὐτός BK, ιεφθαε L. The OG text had no subject, as attested by OL and the other versions. – 11:36 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν ΒAK, et dixit ad eum OL] + η θυγατηρ αυτου L. – 11:38 καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν αὐτήν ΒAK, et dimisit illam OL] + ο πατηρ αυτης L. – 12:9 καὶ ἔκρινεν ΒAK, et iudicauit OL] + Εσσεβων L. – 12:14 καὶ ἔκρινεν ΒAK, et iudicauit] + Λαβδων L. – 13:19 καὶ ἀνήνεγκεν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν BAK] + ολοκαυτωμα L. The OL reading obtulit illud hostiam supra aram follows L with the inversion of the words hostiam supra aram. – 14:5 καὶ ἦλθεν ἕως τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος Θαμναθα Β, καὶ ἐξέκλινεν εἰς ἀμπελῶνα Θαμναθα A, et declinauit in uinea Thamanatha OL] + ο σαμψων L. – 14:8 καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν/ἐπέστρεψεν ΒAK, et reuersus est OL] + σαμψων L. – 14:8 λαβεῖν αὐτήν ΒAK, accipere illam OL] την γυναικα L. – 14:17 καὶ ἔκλαυσεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν ΒAK, et plorauit ad illum OL] + η γυνη L. – 14:17 αὐτῇ 1º ΒAK, ei OL] + το προβλημα. – 14:17 καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπήγγειλεν ΒAK, et illa indicauit OL] + το προβλημα L. – 15:8 καὶ κατέβη ΒAK, et discendit OL] + σαμψων L. – 15:18 καὶ ἐδίψησεν ΒAK, et sitiuit OL] + σαμψων L. – 15:19 τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς ΒAK, nomen eius OL] το ονομα του τοπου εκεινου L. – 15:20 καὶ ἔκρινεν ΒAK, et iudicauit OL] + ο σαμψων L. – 16:3 καὶ ἀνέστη ΒAK, et surrexit OL] + σαμψων L. – 16:4 καὶ ἠγάπησεν ΒAK, et dilexit OL] + σαμψων L. – 16:9 ἀποτινάγματος ΒAK] το σπαρτιον (spartum OL) του αποτιναγματος του διαφθειρομενον L. – 16:11 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτήν ΒAK, et dixit ad eam OL] + σαμψων L. – 16:12 καὶ διέσπασεν αὐτά ΒAK, et disruit ea OL] + σαμψων L. – 16:13 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτήν ΒAK, et dixit ad eam OL] + σαμψων L. – 16:16 καὶ ὠλιγοψύχησεν ΒAK, et minorabatur animo OL] + σαμψων σφοδρα L. – 16:17 καὶ ἀπήγγειλεν αὐτῇ ΒAK, et indicauit illi OL] + σαμψων L. – 16:18 ἀνήγγειλεν αὐτῇ ΒAK, indicauit illi OL] + ο σαμψων L. – 16:20 καὶ ἐξηγέρθη BK, et surrexit OL] + αυτω A: + τω σαμψων L. – 17:5 καὶ ἐποίησεν ΒAK, et fecit OL] + μιχα L. – 18:21 ἔνδοξον ΒAK, gloriosam OL] + και τα κτηνη αυτου L. – 19:10 μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ΒAK, secum OL] + και ο παις αυτου L.

328

Chapter 17

β. Adverbial constructions. As a late text the “Lucianic” level of the Antiochene text tends to amplify the text with references such as time and place. The OL version attests a pre-Lucianic text free of those additions: – 5:24 εὐλογηθείη ΒAK, benedicta OL] + εκ δευτερου εν επαινω L.29 – 9:47 συνήχθησαν πάντες οἱ ἄνδρες τοῦ πύργου Σικιμων ΒAK, conuenerunt omnes uiri turris Sicimorum OL] + εις την ακραν L. – 11:38 καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν αὐτὴν δύο μῆνας ΒAK, et dimissit illam duos menses OL] + ημερων L. – 12:5 οὔκ ἐσμεν ΒAK, non sumus OL] + εκ του εφραιμ L. – 12:7 ἐν τῇ πόλει αὐτοῦ Γαλααδ ΒAK, in ciuitate sua in Galaad OL] + εν σεφ γαλααδ L. – 13:11 λαλήσας πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα ΒAK, locutus es ad mulierem OL] + το προτερον L. – 19:1 παροικῶν ΒAK, hospitans OL] + εν ιερουδιθ L. – 19:18 Ιουδα 1º ΒAK, Iuda OL] + εως ιερουδιθ L. γ. Inserted verbs or sentences. In Judges 2:19 the Antiochene reading ἀπέστησαν (καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτῶν τῆς σκληρᾶς οὐκ ἀπέστησαν) is apparently an addition when compared to B καὶ τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν τὰς σκληράς (= MT). It is actually representing the OG text attested also by A although in a different word order due to stylistic reasons: καὶ οὐκ ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτῶν τῆς σκληρᾶς. This OG reading is faithfully reflected in OL et non recesserunt a uia sua dura, which reproduces the Hebrew ‫ולא־סרּו ִמ ַּד ְר ָּכם ַה ָּק ָׁשה‬ ָ , “and they did not turn away from their way,” probably lost by haplography in MT (BHQ 47*).30 Other instances of inserted verbs or sentences follow: – 6:31 ὅτι κατέσκαψεν τὸ θυσιαστήριον αὐτου ΒAK, quoniam distruxit altarium eius OL] και υμεις τι επισυνιστασθε αυτο L.31 – 9:17 καὶ ἔρριψεν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐξ ἐναντίας ΒAK, et dabit animam suam pro anima uestra OL] + υπερ υμων και υπεραπαθνησκεν υμων L.32 – 9:48 ποιήσατε ὡς καὶ ἐγώ ΒAK, facere sicut ego OL] + εποιησα L, feci Aeth.33 – 9:53 αὶ ἔρριψεν γυνὴ μία κλάσμα μύλου ΒAK, et misit mulier una fragmentum molae OL] + λαβουσα L. 29  “The doublet in AII k ἐκ δευτέρου ἐν ἐπαίνῳ, evidently reading the text as ‫בתחלה משנים‬, again seems to be the original rendering, and attests the damaged state of the text from which the first translation was made. It makes reasonable sense in the context,” Lindars, Judges 1–5, 294. Cf. Schreiner, Septuaginta-Massora, 98. 30  Lindars, Judges 1–5, 107–108; R.G. Boling, Judges. Introduction, Translation and Commentary, AB 6A (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 75. 31  Schreiner, Septuaginta-Massora, 71: “Ausdeutende Ergänzung der Rede des Joas nach 31a.” 32  Schreiner, Septuaginta-Massora, 72: “eine übertreibende Ausgestaltung des Vorhergehen­ den, vgl. 832, wo klar genug steht: ‘Gedeon … starb in hohem Alter.’” 33  Schreiner, Septuaginta-Massora, 72: “Nach dem Sinn des Satzes ergänzend beigegeben.”

The Contribution of the Old Latin

329

– 10:5 καὶ ἀπέθανεν ΒAK, et mortuus est OL] + και ελαβεν τον αυωθ ιαειρ L. – 11:24 ἀπὸ προσώπου ἡμῶν ΒAK, a facie nostra OL] + και εξηρεν L. – 11:26 τὸν Ιορδάνην ΒAK, Iordanen OL] + αι ησαν πλησιον μωαβ L. – 11:27 πονηρίαν ΒAK, malignitatem OL] + και ηκεις L. – 12:5 ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Εφραιμ ΒAK, uos de Efrem OL] + εστε L. – 13:11 πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα ΒAK, ad uirum OL] + και ειδεν αυτον L. – 15:6 ἐν πυρί ΒAK, in igne OL] pr. κατεκαυσαν L. – 15:13 λέγοντες οὐχί ΒAK, dicentes: non OL] + αποκτενουμεν σε L. – 16:24 καὶ εἶδεν ΒAK, et uidit OL] + και εκαλεσαν σαμψων εκ του δεσμωτηριου και ενεπαιζον αυτω ενωπιον αυτων L. – 18:15 ἐκεῖ ΒAK, ibi OL] + οι εξακοσιοι ανδρες οι οντες εκ των υιων δαν και ειπον προς του ανδρας τους πορευθεντας κατασκεψασθαι τη γην εισελθετε λαβετε το γλυπρον και τον ιερεα L (HBQ 103*). – 18:15 εἰσήλθοσαν ΒAK, et introierunt OL] + οι πεντε ανδρες οι πορευθεντες καρασκεφασθαι την γην L. δ. Additions of the Antiochene text marked with obelus. Readings of the Antiochene text marked with obelus in the Syro-Hexaplaric text could be OG readings.34 Nevertheless OL is attesting the brief AB text, so those readings of the Antiochene text are rather additions of the late Lucianic text, as in 8:19: ζη B] pr. και ωμοσεν αυτοις, et iurauit illis OL, και ωμοσεν αυτοις κατα του θεου λεγων L (SyrH ÷). The Lucianic addition is limited to the words κατα του θεου λεγων. Also in 11:17 ἠθέλησεν, uoluit OL] + ουδε ουτος ανειναι αυτω παρελθειν L (SyrH ÷) is “a typical explanatory addition of the Antiochene Text” (BHQ 85*). Other similar cases are: – 6:11 τοῦ ἐκφυγεῖν ἐκ προσώπου Μαδιαμ ΒAK, ut fugeret a facie Madiam OL] pr. και εσπευδεν L (SyrH ÷).35 – 11:24 κατεκληρονόμησέν ΒAK, hereditauit OL] + ημιν εθνη L (ημιν SyrH ÷). – 16:14 καί 5º ΒAK OL] pr. και υφανεν L (SyrH ÷). – 16:21 ἐν πέδαις χαλκαῖς ΒAK, in compedibus OL] + και εβαλον αυτου εν φυλακη L (SyrH ÷). – 18:2 καὶ παρεγένοντο ΒAK, et aduenerunt OL] + οι ανδρες L (SyrH ÷). – 18:12 Ιουδα ΒAK, Iouda OL] + και κατελυσαν εκει L (SyrH ÷). – 19:4 καὶ 1º ΒAK] pr. και εκρατησεν της χειρος L, tenuit illum OL (SyrH ÷). The text of 6:5 παρεφερον και τας καμηλους αυτων ηγον (SyrH ÷) is especially complex. The Antiochene reading και τας σκηνας αυτων παρεφερον και τας καμελους αυτων ηγον presents the double reading παρεφερον—ηγον (hiphil 34  Targarona Borrás, Historia del texto griego del Libro de los Jueces I–II, 468. 35  Schreiner, Septuaginta-Massora, 71: “Zur Kennzeichnung der Notlage Israels nach 63.4 treffend eingeschoben.”

330

Chapter 17

‫)יב(י)או‬, reflected in the OL et tabernacula sua adferebant et camelos suos ducebant.36 The OG equivalent of the hiphil ‫ הביא‬is a simple or compound form of αγω (LXXL ηγον), while the use of φερω is a (proto-Theodotionic) characteristic peculiar to the Vaticanus family of Judges.37

“Additions” of the Antiochene-Old Greek Text Supported by the Old Latin Of particular interest are those instances where OL is following L in a longer reading against a shorter text attested by A and B. In principle, the Antiochene text thus supported by OL could be representing an old text. In 7:21 L seems to offer “a major expansion” if compared with other texts but this is a case of an alternative OG reading preserved by L and OL. OL et castra Madiam et Amalec et omnes uiri aduersarii expauerunt has its Greek counterpart in L η παρεμβολη (και) μαδιαμ και αμαληκ και παντες οι ανδρες οι υπεναντιοι εξεστησαν: “the camp of the Madiam and Amalec and all the adversaries were amazed (and fled …).” The reading “were amazed/in panic” (expauerunt = εξεστησαν) is confirmed by the Vulg turbata sunt and has a parallel in 8:12: “and the whole camp he routed in panic” (πασαν την παρεμβολην εξεστησε), where the Greek εξεστησε translates the MT verb ‫חרד‬. The Coptic places και εδραμον πασα η παρεμβολη και εσημαναν και εφυγον after και εσαλπισαν αι τριακοσιαι κερατιναι. This is the order of the OG alternative reading: “And they blew the three hundred trumpets. And the camp of Madiam and Amalec and all the adversaries were amazed [and the Lord set every man’s sword against his fellow and against all the camp] and they fled as far as Beth-shittah …” MT shows a different order of sentences and also a variant text: “and all the camp ran; they cried out and fled. And they blew the three hundred trumpets [the Lord set every man’s sword against his fellow and against all the camp] and the camp fled as far as Beth-shittah.”38 The repetition “and fled … fled” as well as the change of subject (Gideon’s men or the Madianites) betray the secondary character of MT.39 1.2

36  J . Trebolle, “Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges,” in The Texts of Qumran and the History of the Community. Proceedings of the Groningen Congress and the Dead Sea Scrolls (20–23 August 1989), RQ 14 (1989): 229–245. 37  Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges, 69; Trebolle, “The Textual History,” 53–56. 38  The sentence “and the Lord set every man’s sword against his fellow and against all the camp” is an inserted theological explanation intended to correct verse 21: the victory in not caused by any stratagem, but by divine intervention. MT verse 21 has serious difficulties, cf. J.A. Soggin, Judges. A Commentary, OTL 5 (London: SCM, 1972), 144–145. 39  J. Trebolle, “The Textual History and the Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin Version in the Book of Judges,” in Die Septuaginta—Text, Wirkung, Rezeption. 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D.), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012, ed. W. Kraus und S. Kreuzer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 53–72.

The Contribution of the Old Latin

331

– 5:23 καταρᾶσθε/καταράσασθε ΒAK] + ιδοιεν αρας ιδοιεν οδυνας L, Uideant dolores, uideant maledictiones OL.40 – 6:24 ‫ ֲא ִבי ָה ֶעזְ ִרי‬MT, πατρὸς τοῦ Εζρι ΒAΚ, patris Esri OL] εν τω οικω του πατρος αυτου αβιεζρει. – 7:1 ‫ּמֹורה ָּב ֵע ֶמק‬ ֶ ‫ ַה‬MT, Αμωρα ἐν κοιλάδι BAK, a borae in ualle OL] + επιφανεις L. – 7:13 Γεδεων ΒAK] εις την παρημβολην L, in castra OL. – 7:20 καὶ συνέτριψαν τὰς ὑδρίας ΒAK] και συνετριψαν τας υδριας εκ των χειρων αυτων L. OL et proiecerunt hydrias de manibus suis et conuertuntur ad eos duae acies agrees with the reading attested by Greek ms. k: και συνετριψαν τας υδριας εκ των χειρων αυτων και συνεπιστρεφουσιν αυτοις αι δυο αρχαι. – 7:25 καί Ζηβ ΒAK] και την κεφαλην Ζηβ L, et capud Zeb OL. – 9:2 λαλήσατε δὴ ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν πάντων τῶν ἀνδρῶν ΒAK] + λεγοντες L, loquimini nunc in autibus uirorum Sicimorum, dicentes OL (‫ לאמר‬251 Kennicott). – 9:7 καί ἐκάλεσεν/ἔκλαυσεν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ΒAK] και εκραξεν και ειπεν αυτοις L, et clamauit et dixit illis OL. – 9:35 ἐνέδρου/ἐνέδρων ΒAK] υιον καρηε L, filius Charreon OL. – 14:9 τὸ μέλι ΒAK] + το κεριον του μελιτος L, fauum mellis OL. – 19:4 καί 1º ΒAK] pr. και εκρατησεν της χειρος L, tenuit illum OL. – 19:11 καὶ ἤλθοσαν ἕως B] ετι αυτων οντων κατα A, αυτοι ησαν κατα L, et ipsi erant adhuc circa OL.41 – 19:20 πρεσβύτης ΒAK] + τω ξενω L, hospiti OL. – 20:28 εἰ ΒAK] pr. ινα τι κυριε εγενηθη ο θυμος σου και η οργη αυτη εν ισραηλ ημεις δε εξελθομεν εξαραι τους ποιησαντας την ασεβειαν ταυτην και ιδου εφυγομεν απο προσωπου αυτων δευτερον τουτο και νυν L, ut quid Domine facta est indignatio et ira ista in Istrahel et nos pueri tui hic concollecti sumus ut tollamus filios iniquitatis qui fecerunt inpietatem in Istrahel et ecce fugimus a faciae eorum bis et nunc OL. – 20:31 πόλεως ΒAK] + απεστειλαν δε οι υιοι ισραηλ χιλιους ανδρας εις την οδον και ενετειλαντο αυτοις λεγοντες πορευεσθε προς τον επι των ενεδρων τοπον και εσται οταν εκπορευωνται εκ της πολεως υμεις εισελευσεσθε εκει και αρειτε πυρσον εις υψος και επιστρεψωμεν επ αυτους και εκκοψθμεν αυτους και εξηλθον οι υιοι βενιαμιν εις απαντησιν του λαου και εξειλκυσθησαν εκ της πολεως L, cf. OL v. 19: uenerunt in Gabaa ut pugnarent et dederunt eis fili Istrahel mille uiros obsidentes ciuitates in uia Gabaon applicauerunt et mandauit eis omnis 40  Pretzl, “Septuaginta Probleme,” 252; Lindars, Judges 1–5, 293–294; Schreiner, SeptuagintaMassora, 97–98; BHS 63*. 41  Targarona includes this case among the L additions, but it is actually the OG reading preserved with minor variants by AL and the OL Aeth Arm versions, cf. Targarona Borrás, Historia del texto griego de Jueces, 415.

332

Chapter 17

synagoga dicens Abite ad eum qui super insidias est et erit quando prodire coeperint fili Beniamin de ciuitate et uos secus latenter commiscetis uos et introibitis illo et tolletis pacem et reuertemur super eos et percutiemus illos et exiit Beniamin ex Gabaa in ouuiam Istrahel. Hebraisms such as και εσται οταν … (et erit quando …), ενετειλατο αυτοις λεγοντες are remarkable.42 1.3 “Omissions” The Antiochene text (L′ + L′′) supported by the OL contains the following cases of presumed omissions of OG and OL if compared with the B (kaige) text (the additions or omissions characteristic of subgroups L′ and L′′ are not taken into consideration): – 1:21 ἐν Ιερουσαλημ ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης B] εως της ημερας ταυτης AL. L does not omit εν Ιερουσαλημ, but represents together with A the OG text, into which the kaige reading εν Ιερουσαλημ was inserted. In this case the OL reading in Hierusalem usque in hodiernum diem follows the B kaige text (= MT). – 5:8 χιλιάσιν ἐν Ισραηλ B] χιλιασιν AL, milibus OL. OL attests the short preLucianic and OG reading χιλιασιν. The kaige text adds εν Ισραηλ in agreement with MT.43 – 5:10 καθήμενοι ἐπὶ κριτηρίου καὶ πορευόμενοι ἐπὶ ὁδοὺς συνέδρων ἐφ᾽ ὁδῷ B] καθημενοι επι λαμπηνων AL, supersedentes in tinnientibus OL. This is the OG reading vs. the kaige addition. – 8:35 αὐτός ἐστιν Γεδεων BK] > AL OL. The words αὐτός ἐστιν are a B addition when compared to the brief OG reading attested in the A group. MT ‫גדעון‬ seems to be an addition in the Hebrew tradition. – 11:11 ὁ λαός B] > AL OL. The asterisk in SyrH indicates that the omission is reflecting the OG text. The B addition follows MT. – 11:14 καὶ προσέθηκεν B] > AL OL Aeth. – 13:11 καὶ ἦλθεν (* SyrH)] > AL OL Aeth. – 15:4 καὶ ἔδησεν B] > AL Aeth OL SyrH. – 18:15 εἰς εἰρήνην B] > AL OL Aeth. OL et salutauerunt illum is translating the OG reading in A και ησπασαντο αυτον against the B hebraism και ηρωτησαν αυτον εις ειρηνην. – 19:30 γῆς B] > AL Copt Aeth OL SyrH. – 20:24 υἱούς B] > AL Copt Aeth OL. 42  Cf. the different opinions by P.E. Satterthwaite, “Some Septuagintal Pluses in Judges 20 and 21,” BIOSCS 24 (1991): 25–35, esp. 27–30; N. Fernández Marcos, “The Hebrew and Greek Text of Judges,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. A. Schenker (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 1–16, and Trebolle, “Textual Variants in 4QJudga,” 242–244. 43  Lindars, Judges 1–5, 289: “It is uncertain whether the OG contained ‘in Israel.’”

The Contribution of the Old Latin

333

To the former instances two more, attested by the manuscript subgroup 44 106 134 344 can be added: in 7:6 L seems to be omitting B ἐν χειρὶ αὐτῶν. Nevertheless, the OL reading lingua sua and the Ethiopic version attest the pre-Lucianic reading εν τη γλωσση αυτων, present in the A (OG) text.44 The Antiochene text followed by OL presents very few omissions if the BAK text is taken as the point of the comparison: – 1:10 > MT, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν Χεβρων ΒAΚ] > L OL (> MT) – 1:16‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫ י‬MT, Ιουδα ΒAΚ] > L OL (BHS: OG) – 7:6 ‫ ְּביָ ָדם‬MT, ἐν χειρὶ αὐτῶν ΒAΚ] > L OL (BHQ 69*). – 9:16 ‫ם־ּביתֹו‬ ֵ ‫יתם ִעם־יְ ֻר ַּב ַעל וְ ִע‬ ֶ ‫ם־טֹובה ֲע ִׂש‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִא‬MT, εἰ ἀγαθωσύνην/καλῶς ἐποιήσατε μετὰ Ιεροβααλ καὶ μετὰ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ ΒAΚ] > L. The Antiochene text reads μετα του πατρος μου και του οικου αυτου post εποιησατε 1º, followed by OL cum Ieroboam, patre meo, et cum domo eius. – 12:4 ‫ ִּכי ָא ְמרּו ְּפ ִל ֵיטי ֶא ְפ ַריִם ַא ֶּתם ּגִ ְל ָעד ְּבתֹוְך ֶא ְפ ַריִם ְּבתֹוְך ְמנַ ּֽׁשה‬MT, ὅτι εἶπαν οἱ διασεσῳσμένοι τοῦ Εφραιμ ὑμεῖς Γαλααδ ἐν μέσῳ Εφραιμ καὶ ἐν μέσῳ Μανασση ΒAΚ] > L OL. – 16:28 ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ָה ֱא‬MT, θεέ Β] > AL OL. The amount of omissions is proportionally larger in the subgroup L′ (60 L′), which constitutes the better witness to the Antiochene text: 1:16 ‫וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך‬, καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν; 1:21 ִ‫ירּוׁש ַלם‬ ָ ‫ ִּב‬, ἐν Ιερουσαλημ; 1:35 ‫ ֵּבית־‬, οἴκου; 4:10 ‫ ֶק ְד ָׁשה‬, εἰς Κεδες; 5:7 ‫ ָח ְדלּו‬, ἐξέλιπον/-εν; 5:7 ‫ ַׁש ַּק ְמ ִּתי‬, ἕως οὗ ἀναστῇ/ἐξανέστη; 5:8 ‫ ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬, ἐν Ισραηλ sub * Syr; 5:10 ‫ל־ּד ֶרְך‬ ֶ ‫וְ ה ְֹל ֵכי ַע‬, καὶ πορευόμενοι… ἐφ᾽ ὁδῷ; 6:40 ‫ ָהיָ ה‬, ἐγενήθη/ἐγένετο; 7:11 ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר ַּב ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה‬, τῶν ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ; 7:22 ‫ ַה ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה‬, ἡ παρεμβολή; 7:23 ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬, Ισραηλ; 9:20 ‫ּומ ֵּבית ִמּלֹוא‬ ִ , καὶ ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου Βηθμααλλων; 9:23 ‫י־ׁש ֶכם‬ ְ ‫וַ ְּיִבּגְ דּו ַב ֲע ֵל‬, καὶ ἠθέτησαν οἱ ἄνδρες Σικιμων; 10:8 ‫ ַּב ָּׁשנָ ה ַה ִהיא‬, ἐν τῷ καιρῷ/ ἐνιαυτῷ ἐκείνῳ; 10:12 ‫וְ ִצידֹונִ ים‬, καὶ Σιδώνιοι; 11:11 ‫ ָה ָעם‬, ὁ λαός sub * Syr; 11:14 ‫ּיֹוסף‬ ֶ ַ‫ו‬, καὶ προσέθηκεν; 11:18 ‫מֹואב‬ ָ ‫ת־א ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫ ֱאדֹום וְ ֶא‬, Εδωμ καὶ τὴν γῆν Μωαβ sub * Syr; 11:26 ‫יה‬ ָ ‫נֹות‬ ֶ ‫ּוב ְב‬ ִ , καὶ ἐν ταῖς θυγατράσιν αὐτῆς; 11:28 ‫ ֶמ ֶלְך ְּבנֵ י ַעּמֹון‬, βασιλεὺς υἱῶν Αμμων; 11:31 ‫ּיֹוצא‬ ֵ ‫ ַה‬, ὁ ἐκπορευόμενος sub * Syr; 13:11 ‫וַ ּיָבֹא‬, καὶ ἦλθεν sub * Syr; 14:12 ‫ ַהּגֵ ד‬, ἀπαγγέλλοντες; 15:2 ‫אמר ָא ִב ָיה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬, καὶ εἶπεν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῆς; 15:8 ‫ׁשֹוק‬, κνήμην/πληγήν sub * Syr; 16:28 ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬, Αδωναιε; 18:15 ‫ ְל ָשלֹום׃‬, εἰς εἰρήνην sub * Syr; 19:30 ‫ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬, τῆς γῆς. Some of these readings are also attested in medieval Hebrew manuscripts. 1.4 Double Readings of the Antiochene Text – 6:26 ‫ ַּב ַ ּֽמ ֲע ָר ָ ֑כה‬MT, ἐν τῇ παρατάξει BAK, in ordinationes OL] του εν τη καταδυσει της παραταξεως L – 6:34 ‫ וַ ּיִ ּזָ ֵעק ֲא ִב ֶיעזֶ ר ַא ֲח ָרי‬MT, καὶ ἐφοβήθη/ἐβόησεν Αβιεζερ ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ BAK] και εκαλεσεν (L′ ἐβόησεν) αβιεζρει τον αδελφον αυτου και εκηρυζεν αβιεζρει 44  “In fact, G, represented here by GLO, and followed by La: lingua sua and the Ethiopic version, may be original and reflect a different Vorlage,” ΒΗQ 69*.

334

Chapter 17

ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ L: et uocauit Abiezer fratrem suum OL. The OG reading seems to be the one attested by L and OG: και εκαλεσεν (‫ויזעק‬, qal rather than MT niphal) αβιεζρει τον αδελφον αυτου (= ‫ אחיו‬in lieu of MT ‫) ַא ֲח ָרי‬, be the reading correct or not. – 7:11 ‫ל־ק ֵצה ַה ֲח ֻמ ִׁשים ֲא ֶׁשר ַּב ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה‬ ְ ‫ ֶא‬MT, εἰς μέρος τῶν πεντήκοντα τῶν ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ AK, in partem quinquagensimam in castra OL] επι το ακρωτηριον της λαξευτης το επι τη παρεμβολη εις μερος των πεντεκοντα L. In Judg 7:11 the L text (gln) presents a typical double reading. The first reading corresponds to the pre-Lucianic or OG text: εις την παρεμβολην επι το ακρωτηριον της λαξευτης το επι τη παρεμβολη; the second one to the kaige text reflecting the MT: προς αρχην/εις μερος των πεντηκοντα των εν τη παρεμβολη, present also in the A text. The OL manuscripts attest separately the pre-Lucianic and the kaige readings, confirming in this way that the OG knew only the first reading. Although it seems to be an addition if compared to the majority text, this majority text is in reality a (kaige) addition to the pre-Lucianic (OG) reading. Theodotion attests this old reading that represents an alternative to the MT text. – 7:22 ‫ וַ ּיָ ֶׂשם‬MT, ἔθηκεν/ἔθετο BAK, et posuit OL] εξεστησαν και ενεβαλη (double translation of ‫ וישם‬from the verb ‫( שים‬BAK OL) or ‫( שמם‬L). – 8:10 καὶ Ζεβεε καὶ Σαλμανα ΒAK] και Ζεβεε και Σελμανα ησαν κεκρυμμενοι L, et Zebee et Salmana erant absconsi OL.45 – 9:21 καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἐν ὁδῷ AK, abiit in uia] + και ανεχωρησεν L, et fugit OL. The OL text Et fugit Iotham et recessit et abiit in uia et fugit contains a double reading constructed from B καὶ ἔφυγεν Ιωαθαν καὶ ἀπέδρα καὶ ἐπορεύθη and A καὶ ἀπέδρα Ιωαθαμ καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἐν ὁδῷ καὶ ἔφυγεν. – 9:25 ὁδῷ ΒAK] + και προσεκαλουντο αυτους προς εαυτους L, et aduocabant omnes transeuntes per illos in uiam OL.46 – 9:41 ‫ וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב ֲא ִב ֶימ ֶלְך‬MT, καὶ ἐκάθισεν Αβιμελεχ AK, et sedit OL] επεστρεψεν αβιμελεχ και εκαθισεν L. – 9:49, 55; 17:6 ‫ ִאיׁש‬MT, ἀνήρ B (kaige)] ἕκαστος A (OG): ἕκαστος ἀνήρ L: unusquisque OL (= OG).47 45  Schreiner, Septuaginta-Massora, 71: “Unpassender, ausmalender Zusatz oder Dublette unter Ausdeutung des Namens ‫ ַצ ְל ֻמּנָ ע‬, der verlesen und in Verbindung gebracht wurde mit dem Stamm ‫עלם‬.” 46  Schreiner, Septuaginta-Massora, 72: “Die Beifügung kommt zu spät und müßte sinngemäß vor ‘und sie plünderten jeden aus …’ stehen. Sie ist, falls La den richtigen Hinweis gibt, Dublette zu ἀνήρπαζον (advocabant La !). Sie deutet den Satz so aus, daß die Reisenden nicht beraubt, sondern dem Abimelech weggenommen und auf die Seite der Aufständischen gezogen wurden.” 47  Barthélemy, Devanciers, 48–50.

The Contribution of the Old Latin

335

– 10:10 ‫ת־ה ְּב ָע ִלים‬ ַ ‫ וַ ּנַ ֲעבֹד ֶא‬MT, καὶ ἐλατρεύσαμεν ταῖς Βααλιμ BAK, et seruiuimus Bahalim OL] εδουλευσαμεν θεοις ετεροις καὶ ελατρευσαμεν ταις Βααλιμ L. – 11:33 ‫ד־ּבֹואָך ִמּנִ ית‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ַע‬MT, ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν εἰς Σεμωιθ A, usque dum uenias Seminith OL] εως του ελθειν εἰς μωιθ εως της οδου μανωε. “Probably the reading closest to the original has been preserved in the doublet of GL ἕως τῆς ὁδοῦ Mανῶε.”48 – 13:5 ‫ נְ זִ יר‬MT, ναζιρ/ναζιραῖον BK, Nazareus OL] ἡγιασμένον ναζιραῖον AL (translation + transcription). – 15:6 ‫ת־א ִב ָיה‬ ָ ‫אֹותּה וְ ֶא‬ ָ MT, αὐτὴν καὶ τὸν πατέρα αὐτῆς Β] αυτην και την οικιαν του πατρος αυτης A = illam et domum patris illius: την οικιαν του πατρος αυτης και αυτην και τον πατερα αυτης L (A OG + B kaige). The double reading reflects two Hebrew readings: ‫ת־א ִב ָיה‬ ָ ‫( ֶא‬MT) and ‫( את בית אביה‬22 mss. Kennicott and 16 mss. De Rossi).49 – 16:31 εἴκοσι ἔτη ΒAK] + ανεστη μετα τον σαμψων σεμεγαρ υιος αιναν και εκοψεν εκ των αλλοφυλων εξαψοισιους ανδρας εκτος των κτηνων και εσωσεν και αυτος τον ισραηλ L, et surrexit post eum Asemada, filius Annam, et concidit ex alienigenis DC uiros extra iumenta, et saluum fecit Dominus Istrahel OL. This unit is duplicated in 3:31 (between setumot where it interrupts the narrative of chaps. 3 and 4). The OG reads this unity after 16:31 and probably did not contain such a duplicate.50 – 17:3 ‫ וְ ַע ָּתה ֲא ִׁש ֶיבּנּו ָלְך‬MT, καὶ νῦν ἀποδώσω σοι αὐτό B, καὶ νῦν ἐπιστρέψω αὐτὸ σοι] και νυν επιστρεψω σοι αυτο εν καιρω και αποδωσω σοι αυτο L. The Antiochene text has transmitted two variant readings: και νυν—εν καιρω; επιστρεψω— ἀποδωσω. OL et in tempore reddam illum tibi witnesses the reading και εν καιρω και αποδωσω αυτο σοι, close to the Antiochene text. – 17:7 ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫הּודה ִמ ִּמ ְׁש ַּפ ַחת י‬ ָ ְ‫ י‬MT, Ιουδα ἐκ τῆς συγγενείας Ιουδα A, Iouda de cognatione Iudae OL] pr. δήμου L. This Antiochene reading juxtaposes the OG of A and OL to the reading of the B text δήμου Ιουδα.51 Within the limits of this chapter it has not been possible to analyze in detail readings which would require a deeper study on their formation and critical value. I will only delve a bit further in the case of Judg 2:1 where presumedly L presents an addition when compared to AB. The OL and the Coptic version reflect the short OG reading which omits καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ισραηλ (ABL), a

48   B HQ, 87*. 49  D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (vol. 1; Fribourg, Suisse: Éditions Universitaires—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 110; BHQ 94*. 50  According to A. Scherer the Greek translator moved this note from 3:31 to 16:31 for editorial reasons, see id., “Simson und Shamgar. Zur Frage nach der ursprünglichen Position der Schamgarnotiz im Richterbuch,” ZAW 114 (2002): 106–109. 51   B HQ, 100*.

336

Chapter 17

doublet of καὶ ἐπὶ Βαιθηλ.52 The literalism of OL super = επι has to be noted. OL also omits the repetition κύριος κύριος present in A, as well as the B expression τάδε λέγει. OL Et ascendit nuntius Domini a Galgal super Clauth montem et super Baethel

et dixit ad eos Dominus:

Adduxi uos Ex Aegypto

L καὶ ἀνέβη ἄγγελος κυρίου ἀπὸ Γαλγαλ ἐπὶ τὸν Κλαυθμῶνα καὶ ἐπὶ Βαιθηλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ισραηλ ἀπὸ Γαλγαλων (Γαλ. κ. ἐπὶ τ. οἶκον Ισ. L′) καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς κύριος

ἀνήγαγεν ὑμᾶς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου

A καὶ ἀνέβη ἄγγελος κυρίου ἀπὸ Γαλγαλ ἐπὶ τὸν Κλαυθμῶνα καὶ ἐπὶ Βαιθηλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ισραηλ

B MT καὶ ἀνέβη ‫וַ ּיַ ַעל‬ ἄγγελος κυρίου ‫ַמ ְל ַאְך־יְ הוָ ה‬ ἀπὸ Γαλγαλ ‫ן־הּגִ ְלּגָ ל‬ ַ ‫ִמ‬ ἐπὶ τὸν Κλαυθμῶνα ‫ל־הּב ִֹכים‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ καὶ ἐπὶ Βαιθηλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ισραηλ Vacat MTLAC

καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς κύριος κύριος

καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς

ἀνεβίβασεν ὑμᾶς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου

τάδε λέγει κύριος ἀνεβίβασα ὑμᾶς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου

‫פ‬ ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬

‫ַא ֲע ֶלה ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ‫ִמ ִּמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬

If following the OL, the OG can be seen in the text καὶ ἀνέβη ἄγγελος κυρίου ἀπὸ Γαλγαλ ἐπὶ τὸν Κλαυθμῶνα καὶ ἐπὶ Βαιθηλ καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς κύριος ἀνήγαγον ὑμᾶς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, “And an angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Klauthmona and to Baithel and the Lord said to them ‘brought you up from Egypt.’” The B text has inserted the oracle introductory formula: “Thus says [the Lord], τάδε λέγει [κύριος].” The A text presents a secondary repetition (κύριος κύριος) which produces two transformations in the text: 1) it changes the subject of the verb καὶ εἶπεν which is not anymore the “angel of the Lord” (ἄγγελος κυρίου) but the κύριος himself; 2) it constructs the second clause in the third person with κύριος as a subject: “The Lord has made you come up from Egypt,” instead of the first person as in MT, B and OL: “I brought you up from Egypt.” The attribution to the angel of Yahweh (2:1a and 4) or to Yahweh himself of the speeches in 2:1b–3 (with references to Deut 7:1–5) has generated these different textual variants. To sum up, the OL of Judges is a great aid in the task of telling apart between old and late readings of the Antiochene textual tradition. The qualification of 52  G.F. Moore, Judges, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895), 60.

The Contribution of the Old Latin

337

an L and OL reading as “addition” or “omission” should not be established by comparison with the B text, which represents the recensional kaige text, but with the A text which is in close agreement with the OG. The OL text does not contain the late Lucianic additions. It gives witness to a short pre-Lucianic text which, together with the A text, goes back to the OG. This conclusion drawn from the analysis of the OL text of Judges, with a manuscript of the full book extant, constitutes a precedent for the analysis of the OL text of Kings, which has been preserved in sections or fragments only. 2

1–2 Kings (3–4 Kingdoms)

The Antiochene and OL readings are qualified as “additions” or “omissions” by comparison with the majority B text. But this comparison may be erroneous when the B majority readings transmit the kaige text and the Antiochene and OL readings go back to the OG text. The OL marginal readings of the León codices contain 34 lexical variants in the kaige sections and 8 in non-kaige section. They allow to test if the OL is reflecting a pre-Lucianic (OG) text against the lexical options of the kaige revision, as in the following instances: 1 Kgs 1:34 tuba = σάλπιγγι L/OG (κερατίνῃ B kaige); 22:10 unusquisque = ἕκαστος L/OG (ἀνήρ B kaige); 2 Kgs 4:29 and 8:10 vade = πορεύου L/OG (δεῦρο B kaige); 7:9 iniquitatem = ἀδικίαν L/OG (ἀνομίαν B kaige).53 Textual readings classified as lexical variants may actually involve a different Hebrew Vorlage, as in 2 Kgs 1:2 inquirite = ἐπερωτήσατε (Hebrew ‫≠ )שאל‬ ἐπιζητήσατε Β kaige (Hebrew ‫ ;)דרש‬3:9 ascendit = ἀνέβη L/OG (Hebrew ‫≠ )ויעל‬ ἐπορεύθη Β kaige (Hebrew ‫ ;)וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך‬17:2 prae omnes qui fuerunt = πὰρα πάντας τοὺς γενομένους L/OG (‫ ≠ )מכל אשר היו‬kaige πλὴν οὐχ ὡς οἱ βασιλεῖς οἳ ἦσαν B (‫ַרק לֹא‬ ‫) ְּכ ַמ ְל ֵכי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֲא ֶׁשר ָהיּו‬. Other meaningful cases are those related to personal names, such as 1 Kgs 2:24 Αδωνιας B] Ορνειας L, Ornias OL; 22:8 Ιεμλα/Ιεμιας] Nαμαλει, Namali; 2 Kgs 13:17 Συριαν] Ισραηλ, Israel; 17:4 Σηγωρ] Αδραμελεχ, Adramelech OL. 2.1 Double Readings in the Antiochene Text and in the OL In his influencing study on the Greek Lucianic text A. Rahlfs indicates 44 cases of doublets in kaige section and 9 in non-kaige section. In a similar way A. Moreno, editor of the OL marginal glosses present in Spanish Vulgata codices, considers the OL pluses as “additions” of OL and of its Greek Vorlage 53  Moreno, Las glosas marginales, 179.

338

Chapter 17

(L) to the majority text (B).54 However these agreements OL = L are not additions to the B text, but pre-Lucianic readings that represent, or are very near to, the OG text. The corresponding readings of the majority (B) text originated in the kaige recension and were introduced in the Greek textual tradition, often eliminating the OG readings. Many of these kaige readings entered into the Antiochene text, producing in this way the doublets or conflated readings considered typical of the Lucianic text of the IV century. This explains that most cases appear in kaige section:55 2.1.1 Double Readings of the Antiochene Text Reflected in the Old Latin – 3 Kgdms 1:40 ‫דֹולה‬ ָ ְ‫ּוׂש ֵמ ִחים ִׂש ְמ ָחה ג‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָה ָעם ְמ ַח ְּל ִלים ַּב ֲח ִל ִלים‬MT, καὶ (ο λαος *) ἐχόρευον ἐν χοροῖς καὶ εὐφραινόμενοι εὐφροσύνην μεγάλην B] και πας ο λαος εχορευον εν χοροθις και ευφραινομενοι ευφροσυνη μεγαλη ηυλουν εν αυλοις και εχαιρον χαρα μεγαλη L, organizantes in organis et iucundabantur in iucunditate magna OL. The pre-Lucianic/OG reading ηυλουν εν αυλοις και εχαιρον χαρα μεγαλη, attested by the OL, corresponds to a Hebrew reading in the piel form of ‫ חלל‬III, a denominative of ‫חליל‬, “flute.” The kaige recension added to the OG the B text ἐχόρευον ἐν χοροῖς καὶ εὐφραινόμενοι εὐφροσύνη μεγάλη, that translates the pilel form of the verb ‫)מחללים( חול‬, “dancing in the round.”56 – 3 Kgdms 2:5 ‫ ַּב ֲחג ָֹרתֹו ֲא ֶׁשר ְּב ָמ ְתנָ יו‬MT, ἐν τῇ ζώνῃ αὐτοῦ τῇ ἐν τῇ ὀσφύι αὐτοῦ B] εν τη ζωη μου57 και επι τη ζωνη της οσφυος μου L, in vita mea et in zona mea quae erat circa lumbos meos OL. Besides L/OL, also the versions Arm Aeth, together with mss. defmp-wyb read ζωη (OG) in place of ζωνη (kaige). Rahlfs’ statement according to which μου instead of αυτου seems to be a very good conjecture of L, which should not be attributed to an ancient tradition, is very meaningful.58 Rahlfs often turns Lucian into a textual critic who 54  “Tendency to interpolation of elements which have not been picked up by the remainder of the LXX tradition is one of the base tenets of the Antiochene edition,” A. Moreno, Las glosas marginales, 167–173 quoting B. Fischer, “Lukian-Lesarten in der Vetus Latina der vier Königsbücher,” in Studia Anselmiana 27–28 (1951): 169–177, esp. 175–176, and B.M. Metzger, “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible,” in New Testament Textual Criticism (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 1–41, esp. 24–26. 55  For more details Julio Trebolle, “Readings of the Old Latin (Beuron 91–95) reflecting ‘Additions’ of the Antiochene Text in III–IV Reges,” in The Legacy of Barthélemy: Fifty Years after Les Devanciers d’Aquila, ed. A. Aejmelaeus and T. Kauhanen, DSI 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 120–145. 56  Martin Jan Mulder, I Kings. Volume 1: 1 Kings 1–11 (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 73. 57  The word ζωῇ is attested also by the mss 52 92 106 107 314 489 and by the Ethiopic and Armenian versions. This gives the L reading enough antiquity and weight as to be considered near to the OG. 58  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 193.

The Contribution of the Old Latin

339

amends the authorized text which conjectures, which even today would be seen as “riskful.” – 4 Kgdms 2:23: ‫ וַ ּיִ ְת ַק ְּלסּו־בֹו‬MT, καὶ κατέπαιζον αὐτοῦ B] pr. και ελιθαζον αυτον και κατεπαιζον αυτου L, et lapidabant illum OL. L presents a double reading: “and they threw stones at him and mocked him.” The OL reflects the OG while the kaige reading, absent in OL, agrees with MT ‫וַ ּיִ ְת ַק ְּלסּו־בֹו‬. Each reading reflects a different group of consonants: OG λιθαζω = ‫ סקל‬piel (cf. 2 Sam 16:6, 3) and kaige καταπαιζω = ‫ קלס‬hithpael in MT. These are two alternative readings.59 – 4 Kgdms 3:4 ‫ וְ ֵה ִׁשיב‬MT, καὶ ἐπέστρεφεν B] ἦν φέρων… καὶ ἐπιστρέφων L, ferebat tributum, Al. et praestabat; 17:3 ‫ וַ ּיָ ֶׁשב‬MT, καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν B] εφερεν L, adferebat … offerebat. The Hebrew expression to indicate the payment of tributes with the verb ‫ השיב‬is mechanically rendered, according to Rahlfs, with ἐπιστρέφειν in the two mentioned cases. LXXL would have introduced the rendering φέρειν, keeping in the first case, 2 Kgs 3:4, the ancient version together with the addition by Lucian καὶ ἦν φέρων φόρον καὶ ἐπιστρέφων.60 Nevertheless, as attested by the OL ἦν φέρων φόρον belongs to the OG text, whereas καὶ ἐπιστρέφων constitutes the kaige reading.61 – 4 Kgdms 3:20: ‫ ִמ ֶּד ֶרְך ֱאדֹום‬MT, ἐξ ὁδοῦ Εδωμ B] ἐξ ὁδοῦ τῆς ἐρήμου Σοὺρ ἐξ Εδωμ L, de via eremi Sur ex Edom OL. OL and L offer a conflate reading, made of OG ἐξ ὁδοῦ τῆς ἐρήμου Σούρ62 (‫צור‬, cf. 4 Kgdms 3:8 ὁδὸν ἔρημον Εδωμ B, ‫ֶּד ֶרְך‬ ‫ ִמ ְד ַּבר ֱאדֹום‬MT) to which the kaige reading ἐξ (ὁδοῦ) Εδωμ (MT ‫) ִמ ֶּד ֶרְך ֱאדֹום‬ was added.63 – 4 Kgdms 3:21: ‫ וַ ּיִ ָּצ ֲעקּו ִמּכֹל חֹגֵ ר ֲחג ָֹרה וָ ַמ ְע ָלה‬MT, καὶ ἀνεβόησαν ἐκ παντὸς περιεζωσμένου ζώνην καὶ ἐπάνω B] και παρηγγειλαν παντι περιζωννυμενῳ 59  A  ccording to J. Werlitz: “Diese Ergänzung des MT καὶ ἐλίθαζον… ist wohl wiederum exege­ tisch motiviert … Allerdings könnte auch ein längerer hebr. Text zu Grunde liegen,” id., “Basileion IV” / Das vierte Buch der Königtümer / Das zweite Buch der Könige. Nach dem antiochenischen Text,” in Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament Band I. Genesis bis Makkabäer, ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 946–977, esp. 947. See also T.R. Hobbs, 2 Kings (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), 15: “Almost as if to make the taunting of the prophet by the boys more deserving of punishment GL adds here ‘they stoned him.’” It would not be an addition, but an alternative Hebrew reading. 60  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 195. 61  Cf. a broader analysis in Chapter 8 “The Old Greek of 3–4 Kingdoms: The Antiochene Text “before Lucian.” A Revision of A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher.” 62  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 195 and 288: “Vorlucianisches Gut in L.” 63  The edition of the Antiochene text by N. Fernández Marcos and J.R. Busto Saiz opts for the reading Σουδ (19 82 93 108), but OL confirms the reading Σουρ of ms. 127, as in 1 Kgdms 17:7 Σουρ (82 127: Σοὺδ 19 108: Σουρδ 93, cf. Σουρ = ‫ צור‬in Josh 13:21; Judg 7:25), see id., Texto antioqueno, 86.

340

Chapter 17

παραζωνην (OL et denuntiaverunt omni praecincto gladium) και παρατεινοντι (OG), και εβοησαν εκ παντος παραζωννυμενου παραζνην (kaige) L. Both OG and kaige translate‫ וַ ּיִ ָּצ ֲעקּו‬in the qal form.64 – 4 Kgdms 4:13 ‫ל־ה ֲח ָר ָדה ַהּזֹאת‬ ַ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫ ָח ַר ְד ְּת ֵא ֵלינּו ֶא‬MT, ἐξέστησας (ἐξίστημι “tremble”65) ἡμῖν πᾶσαν τὴν ἔκστασιν ταύτην B] εξεταξας (ἐκτάσσω66) ημιν πασαν την εκστασιν ταυτην, ecce honorificasti nos omni honore et praeparasti nobis habitationem (‫ )חדר‬istam OL. – 4 Kgdms 4:16 ‫ּמֹועד ַהּזֶ ה‬ ֵ ‫ ַל‬MT, εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον B] εις το μαρτυριον τουτο κατα τον καιρον τουτον L, in testimonio (erit sermo hic) OL.67 The pre-Lucianic/OG reading εἰς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦτο, “in testimony,” derives ‫ מועד‬from ‫עוד‬, whereas εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον, “at this season,” constitutes the kaige reading. – 4 Kgdms 7:5 ‫ ַבּנֶ ֶׁשף‬ἐν τῷ σκότει B] εν τω σκοτει ηδη διαυγαζοντος L (“in the darkness, at dawn”). The kaige reading ἐν τῷ σκότει and the OG ἤδη διαυγάζοντος (OL lucente) represent two different meanings of ‫ ַבּנֶ ֶׁשף‬, “after sunset”/“in the darkness”—“before sunrise”/(“at twilight”) (cf. 7:7 OL albescente caelo = L ἤδη διαυγάζοντος). – 4 Kgdms 8:1 ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ֶׁש ַבע ָׁשנִ ים‬ ָ ‫ם־ּבא ֶא‬ ָ ַ‫ וְ ג‬MT, καί γε ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη B] και παρεσται επι την γην επτα ετη και γε ηλθεν επι την γην επτα ετη L, et erit in terra tribus annis OL. The Antiochene text offers a typical duplicate: καὶ παρέσται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη (“and it will come on the land for seven years”) is the pre-Lucianic/OG reading as attested by the OL; καί γε ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἑπτὰ ἔτη (“and it came on the land for seven years”) originated in the kaige recension as shown by the characteristic version καί γε (= ‫)וגם‬, as well as by the change of the historic present παρέσται to the aorist καί γε ἦλθεν. – 4 Kgdms 9:37: ‫אמרּו זֹאת ִאיזָ ֶבל‬ ְ ֹ ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר לֹא־י‬MT, ὥστε μὴ εἰπεῖν αὐτούς Ιεζαβελ B] + και ουκ εσται ο λεγων Οιμμοι L, et non est qui dicat: Vae mihi! OL. The L conflate text is formed by the pre-Lucianic/OG reading “there will not be anyone saying, ‘Woe is me!’” (‫ )ולא יהיה האמר אהה‬to which the B kaige reading was added: “so that no one can say, ‘This is Jezebel.’”68 64  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 196. 65  Verse 13: ἐξίστημι, “tremble” = ‫חרד‬, 1 Sam 13:7;14:15; 16:4; 17:11; 21:2; 28:5; 2 Sam 17:2. Cf. also ἔκστασιν = ‫חרדה‬. 66  Verse 13: Fernández Marcos’ Índice griego-hebreo del texto antioqueno includes the equivalence εκτασσω = ‫חרד‬, but 2 Kgs 4:13 is the only case. The equivalence ‫ = חדר‬ταμιειον appears in 1 Kgs 20:30; 22:25 (1º 2º); 2 Kgs 6:12; 9:2 (1º 2º); 11:2. Also, ‫ = חדר‬κοιτων in 2 Sam 13:10; 1 Kgs 20:30; 2 Kgs 6:12. See N. Fernández Marcos et al., Índice griego-hebreo del texto antioqueno en los libros históricos. Volúmen I: Índice general (Madrid: CSIC, 2005), 149. 67  Montgomery qualifies this verse as crux interpretum; id., Kings, 371. 68  The construction ὥστε μή + inf. is found in 1–4 Kingdoms only on two other occasions, both in a kaige section: 2 Kgdms 14:7 MT ‫לבלתי‬, ὥστε μή + inf LXXB, τοῦ μή + inf LXXL; 4

The Contribution of the Old Latin

341

– 4 Kgdms 18:34: ‫י־ה ִּצילּו ֶאת־ׁש ְֹמרֹון ִמּיָ ִדי‬ ִ ‫ ִ ּֽכ‬, MT καὶ ὅτι69 ἐξείλαντο Σαμάρειαν ἐκ χειρός μου B] και που εισιν οι θεοι της χωρας Σαμαρειας; μη εξειλαντο την Σαμαρειαν εκ χειρος μου L, ubi sunt dii terrae Samariae OL. L and OL preserve the OG καὶ ποῦ εἰσὶν οἱ θεοὶ τῆς χώρας Σαμαρείας; “Where are the gods of the land of Samaria?” (‫)ואיה אלהי ארץ שמרון‬, against the kaige B addition “Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?” One could think that it is also an addition in MT to the Hebrew text underlying LXX, composed of three parallel elements: “Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah? Where are the gods of the land of Samaria?” The phrase of MT ‫י־ה ִּצילּו ֶאת־ׁש ְֹמרֹון ִמּיָ ִדי‬ ִ ‫ ִּכ‬, “Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?” seems to have been calqued on the following verse: ‫ת־א ְר ָצם ִמּיָ ִדי‬ ַ ‫ר־ה ִּצילּו ֶא‬ ִ ‫אׁש‬ ֶ , “Have (they) delivered their countries out of my hand?” – 4 Kgdms 23:16: ‫ וַ ּיִ ֶפן‬MT, καὶ ἐξένευσεν B] και απεστρεψεν Ιωσειας και εξενευσεν L, et reuersus est Iosias. The L/OL reading is made of OG καὶ ἀπέστρεψεν (‫’ )וישב‬Ιωσείας, and of καὶ ἐξένευσεν B. 2.1.2

Double Readings of the Antiochene Text Not Attested by the Old Latin – 4 Kgdms 1:2, 3.6, 16 ‫ֹלהי‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬θεόν B] pr. προσοχθισμα L – 4 Kgdms 1:4 ‫ וְ ָל ֵכן‬καὶ οὐχ οὕτως ὅτι B] ουχ ουτως δια τουτο L; 2 Κgs 1:6 ‫ ָל ֵכן‬οὐχ οὕτως B] ουχ ουτως δια τουτο L – 4 Kgdms 4:4 ‫ וְ ַה ָּמ ֵלא ַּת ִּס ִיעי‬MT, καὶ τὸ πληρωθὲν ἀρεῖς B] και αυτο ουκ αποστησεται L (L/OG, ‫)ולא יעמד‬. Manuscripts 55 56 158 245 attest the OG reading in the form καὶ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἀποστήσεις transposed after the kaige reading καὶ τὸ πληρωθὲν ἀρεῖς (“and when one is full, set it aside”). The verb ἀφίστημι translates the Hebrew ‫( עמד‬cf. v. 6 ‫)וַ ּיַ ֲעמֹד ַה ָּׁש ֶמן‬. In this way the Antiochene text preserves the correspondence between the v. 4, “and (the oil) will not stop,” and v. 6 “And the oil stopped.”70 – 4 Kgdms 4:31 ‫ וַ ּיַ ּגֶ ד־לֹו‬MT, καὶ ἀπήγγειλεν αὐτῷ B] και ειπεν αυτω και απηγγειλεν αυτω L (“and he said—and told him”). The pre-Lucianic/OG καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ reflects an alternative Hebrew reading ‫))ויאמר לו‬.

Kgdms 10:11 MT ‫עד בלתי‬, ὥστε μή + inf LXXB, ἕως τοῦ + inf. LXXL. It may be assumed that in our case the construction ὥστε μή in not specific to the OG. 69  Rahlfs follows the reading καὶ ὅτι, only attested by Vaticanus, whose readings by itself only lack much value. All the manuscript tradition, with the exception of this codex, reads μη or μητι. 70  The Índice of Fernández Marcos, does not point out the equivalence ἀφίστημι = ‫עמד‬, cf. verse 6, Fernández Marcos et al., Índice griego-hebreo del texto antioqueno, 72.

342

Chapter 17

– 4 Kgdms 4:34 ‫ וַ ּיִ גְ ַהר ָע ָליו‬MT, καὶ διέκαμψεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν B] και συνεκαμψεν επ᾽ αυτον (OG) και Ιγλααδ επ᾽ αυτον (kaige) L, “and he bent over him and Iglaad (transcription of ‫וַ ּיִ גְ ַהר‬, and he stretched himself) over him.”71 – 4 Kgdms 4:37 ‫ל־רגְ ָליו‬ ַ ‫ וַ ִּתּפֹל ַע‬MT, (καὶ ἔπεσε) πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ B] προς τους ποδας αυτου (kaige, MT ‫ל־רגְ ָליו‬ ַ ‫ ) ַע‬επι τα γονατα αὐτῆς (pre-Lucianic/OG, cf. 4:20 ‫ל־ּב ְר ֶּכ ָיה‬ ִ ‫) ַע‬, (“and she fell at his feet on his knees”). Rahlfs qualifies the Antiochene reading as “Schulmeisterkorrektur,” which turns Lucian into a scholar.72 The Antiochene text is just transmitting an alternative reading of the OG text. – 4 Kgdms 5:21 ‫ וַ ּיִ ְר ֶאה נַ ֲע ָמן ָרץ‬MT, καὶ εἶδεν αὐτὸν Ναιμαν τρέχοντα B] και ειδεν αυτον Ναιμαν τον Γιεζει τρεχοντα L (“And Naiman saw him Giezi running”). The Antiochene text juxtaposes the pronoun and the noun it would be referencing. The pre-Lucianic/OG reading καὶ εἶδεν αὐτόν is witnessed by two medieval Hebrew codices, ‫ויראהו‬. – 4 Kgdms 6:30 ‫ל־ּב ָׂשרֹו‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬MT, ἐπὶ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ B] επι της οσφυος αυτου επι της σαρκος αυτου L, “he saw the sackcloth—on his flesh underneath.” The pre-Lucianic/OG reading reflects the Hebrew ‫מתניו‬. – 4 Kgdms 7:10 ‫ וַ ּיִ ְק ְראּו ֶאל־ׁש ֵֹער ָה ִעיר‬MT, καὶ ἐβόησαν πρὸς τὴν πύλην τῆς πόλεως B] και εβοησαν προς την πυλην της πολεως (kaige) και εκαλεσαν τους στρατηγους της πολεως (OG) L (‫)ויקראו שרי העיר‬. According to Montgomery L “has a plus, intruding ‘the commanders of the city.’” It is an alternative reading based on the Hebrew ‫שרי‬, “the commanders.”73 – 4 Kgdms 10:11 ‫ּומיֻ ָּד ָעיו וְ כ ֲֹהנָ יו‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָכל־ּגְ ד ָֹליו‬MT, καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἁδροὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς γνωστοὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἱερεῖς αὐτοῦ B] και παντας τους αγχιστευοντες αυτου (pre-Lucianic/OG, ‫)גאליו‬74 και παντας τους γνωστους αυτου και τους ιερεις αυτου και τους αδρους αυτου L (“and all his close relatives and his acquaintances and his priests and all his prominent men”). The kaige reading καὶ τοὺς ἁδροὺς αὐτοῦ (ΜΤ ‫ )ּגְ ד ָֹליו‬is an addition to the pre-Lucianic/OG. – 4 Kgdms 10:28 ‫ת־ה ַּב ַעל‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬ΜΤ, τὸν Βααλ B] τον Βααλ και τον οικον αυτου L. The OG reading is καὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ as preserved by the majority text except BAgux Arm Aeth OL (cf. verses 26–27 ‫ת־ּבית ַה ַּב ַעל‬ ֵ ‫) ֶא‬. – 4 Kgdms 11:4 ‫ ֶאת ָׂש ֵרי ַה ֵּמאֹיֹות ַל ָּכ ִרי וְ ָל ָר ִצים‬ΜΤ, τοὺς ἑκατοντάρχους τὸν Χορρι καὶ τὸν Ρασιμ B] τους εκατονταρχους των παρατρεχοντων (pre-Lucianic/OG) 71  Werlitz, “Basileion IV,” 433: “Iglaad: Due to a copy error, the Hebrew text became incomprehensible and was therefore not translated by the LXX, but only transcribed.” Rather the LXX version translated “and bent over him,” while the kaige recensor introduced the transcription. 72  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 196. 73  Montgomery, Kings, 390; Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 288. 74  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 289: “Vorlucianisches Gut in L.”

The Contribution of the Old Latin

343

και τον Χορρει και τον Ρασειμ (kaige, MT ‫ ) ַל ָּכ ִרי וְ ָל ָר ִצים‬L, “the officers of hundreds of the runners and Chorri and Rasim.” The Antiochene text juxtaposes translation and transcription. – 4 Kgdms 11:8 ‫ת־ה ֶּמ ֶלְך ְּב ֵצאתֹו ְּובבֹאֹו‬ ַ ‫ וִ ְהיּו ֶא‬ΜΤ, καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐν τῷ ἐκπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰσπορεύεσθαι αὐτόν B] και γινεσθε μετα του βασιλεως εν τω εισπορευεσθαι αυτον και εν τω εκπορευεσθαι. Rahlfs points out that L presents in v. 9 the clause of B: καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐν τῷ εἰσπορεύεσθαι αὐτόν. This and other repetitions would rather be related to the insertion of a gloss into the Hebrew text.75 – 4 Kgdms 11:9 ‫ ַהּכ ֵֹהן‬ΜΤ, ὁ συνετός B] + ιερευς L, “the prudent priest.” – 4 Kgdms 11:10 ‫ ֵַיִּתן ַהּכ ֶֹהן ְל ָׂש ֶרי ַה ֶּמאיֹות‬ΜΤ, καὶ ἔδωκεν ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῖς ἑκατοντάρχοις B] και εδωκεν αυτοις ο ιερευς τοις εκατονταρχαις L, “and the priest gave to the officers of hundreds,” a duplicate constructed with the pronoun and the noun it refers to (cf. v. 9. καὶ ἐποίησαν οἱ ἑκατόνταρχοι πάντα ὅσα ἐνετείλατο Ιωδαε… v. 10 καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ἱερεύς…) – 4 Kgdms 11:14 ‫ וְ ַה ָּׂש ִרים וְ ַה ֲח ֽצֹ ְצרֹות‬ΜΤ, καὶ οἱ ᾠδοὶ καὶ αἱ σάλπιγγες B] και οι ωδοι και αι σαλπιγγες και οι στρατηγοι L. The BL reading “singers” (šarîm) is preferable to “captains,” reading added to the Antiochene text from MT (‫) ָּׂש ִרים‬. – 4 Kgdms 12:13 ‫ וְ ַלּג ְֹד ִרים ְּולח ְֹצ ֵבי ָה ֶא ֶבן‬ΜΤ, καὶ τοῖς τειχισταῖς καὶ τοῖς λατόμοις τῶν λίθων B] και τοις λαξευταις και τοις οικοδομοις των λιθων και τοις ξυσταις των λιθων L. – 4 Kgdms 14:10 ‫ ִה ָּכ ֵבד‬ΜΤ, ἐνδοξάσθητι B] η βαρεια ενδοξασθητι L, a different rendering of the Hebrew. – 4 Kgdms 14:14 ‫ ְּבנֵ י ַה ַּת ֲע ֻרבֹות‬ΜΤ, τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν συμμίξεων B] τους υιους των συμμιξεων των βδελυγματων L, “and the sons of the comminglings and the abominations.” The Antiochene text conflates the kaige reading (MT ‫ ַה ַּת ֲע ֻרבֹות‬occurs only here and in 2 Chr 25:24) and the OG reading τῶν βδελυγμάτων (OG, ‫התעבות‬, “of abomination”). None of the two readings makes too much sense. – 4 Kgdms 16:18 ‫ ַה ַּׁש ָּבת‬MΤ, τῆς καθέδρας B] της καθεδρας των σαββατων L (“of the seat (hašebet) of the sabbath”), cathedrae sabbati (91–95). – 4 Kgdms 20:3 ‫ ֶּב ֱא ֶמת‬ΜΤ, ἐν καρδίᾳ B] + και εν πιστει L, “with heart and fidelity,” double translation of the Hebrew term. – 4 Kgdms 20:13 ‫ל־ּבית נְ כֹתֹה‬ ֵ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫ ֶא‬ΜΤ, ὅλον τὸν οἶκον τοῦ νεχωθα B] παντα τον οικον της υπαρξεως αυτου και του νεχωθα L, “the whole house of his wealth and of nechotha,” translation plus transcription. 75  Cf. chapter 9 in this volume “2 Kings 11 (MT/LXX BL): Textual Variants and Literary unity of the story”; cf. chapter 7, “The coronation of Jehoash (2 Kgs 11 MT/LXXB/L): Text, Narration and History.”

344

Chapter 17

– 4 Kgdms 21:23 ‫… ָע ָליו‬ ‫ וַ ּיִ ְק ְׁשרּו‬ΜΤ, καὶ συνεστράφησαν… ἐπ΄ αὐτόν B] και συνεστραφησαν… επ΄ αυτον (kaige) και επεβουλευσαν αυτω (OG) L (“and they conspired … against him and plotted against him”). According to Rahlfs, the Lucianic redactor substituted in v. 24 ἐπιβεβουλευκότας τῷ βασιλεῖ (B) with συστραφέντας ἐπὶ τὸν βασιλέα.76 Nevertheless, the readings συνεστράφησαν and συστραφέντας come from the kaige revision, whereas the Antiochene text preserves the OG versions. – 4 Kgdms 23:6 ‫ ָה ֲא ֵׁש ָרה‬ΜΤ, τὸ ἄλσος B] το αλσος της Ασηρωθ L. Likely a translation, with an influence of MT on L in this case (cf. 23:7, 15). – 4 Kgdms 23:8 ‫ ְּב ַׁש ַער ָה ִעיר‬ΜΤ, ἐν τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως B] την πυλην της πολεως πυλην εκκεκεντημενων L (“at the entrance of the gate of the stabbed”) (‫)בשער הרגים‬.77 – 4 Kgdms 25:19 ‫ ַהּס ֵֹפר ַׂשר ַה ָּצ ָבא‬ΜΤ, τὸν γραμματέα τοῦ ἄρχοντος τῆς δυνάμεως B] Σαφαν78 τον αρχιστρατηγον (OG = ‫ )ספן ַׂשר ַה ָּצ ָבא‬και τον γραμματεα του αρχοντος της δυναμεως (kaige) L, “Saphan the commander and the secretary of the commander of the force.”79 2.2 “Omissions” The previous analysis of the “additions” in OL and L is confirmed in the case of “omissions” where OL is also reflecting the pre-Lucianic text, which equates the OG text and therefore does not know the kaige materials later inserted into the B text. As it is to be expected, six cases appear in kaige sections (4 Kgdms 2:19 γῆ B] > L OL; 2:23 καί; 3:10 παρερχομένους; 4:10 τόπον; 4:41 ἐκεῖ; 17:9 ὅσοι) and only one in a non-kaige section (1 Kgs 4:6 (Al.) ην). Also meaningful are the cases where OL omits additions of L alone. This indicates that the pre-Lucianic text lacked those additions, which entered late into the Antiochene tradition.80 They are mostly interpolations of pronouns and personal names, frequent in late texts, as in 1 Kgs 2:24 μοι L] > B OL and also in 2:24 θανάτῳ; 2:35 Σολομων; 3:27 τῇ γυναικί; 12:31 Ιεροβοαμ; 18:37 σου; 20:1 βασιλὲως Συριας; 20:7 αὐτοῖς; 2 Kgs 3:7 Ιωραμ; 9:20 καὶ οὗτος. Even more important are the omissions of OL vs. B and L, which usually involve names, pronouns, nouns, conjunctions and καί + verb (30 instances, 7 in non-kaige section and 23 in kaige section).81 The OL, characterized by a strong literalism, may be reflecting in many cases the short OG text. 76  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 199. 77  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 199. 78  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 290: “Vorlucianisches Gut in L.” 79  Cf. Chapter 1 in this volume “Recensional Criticism of 4 Kingdoms 25:18–19.” 80  Moreno, Las glosas marginales, 185. 81  Moreno, Las glosas marginales, 196.

The Contribution of the Old Latin

345

To sum up, Rahlfs qualified the double readings present in the Antiochene text (L) of Kings as “additions” compared to the B majority text. But this comparison may lead us to error, because the B text does not represent in the kaige sections the OG but the kaige recension. The qualification of a reading as “addition” or “omission” should not be established by comparison with B, but with the OG text. In order to reconstruct this OG text, the Antiochene (L) text is of great aid, as it represents a text very close or “substantially identical” to that of the Old Greek. For that reason, it is fundamental to tell apart readings corresponding to the kaige text from those which transmit a pre-Lucianic and OG original. In this task, the text transmitted by the OL textual tradition is of great help. The doublets and additions present in the Antiochene text were not part of the OG. Similarly, the doublets and additions transmitted in the OL textual tradition were not part of the OL original version. The duplicates of the late Antiochene text, reflected in the OL textual tradition, are made of a preLucianic or OG reading and of the corresponding kaige reading, transmitted by the majority B text. The critical value of VL of 1–2 Kings has a greater weight if we take into consideration the importance of this version in the rest of the books of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible (Deuterocanonical books).82 In Exodus, the OL (Monacensis) reflects a Greek text representing the oldest Greek form.83 In Jeremiah, the OL (Wirceburgensis) attests often to a Jeremiah text that is even briefer than that preserved in LXX and MT. It points to a stage in the textual transmission of LXX-Jeremiah prior to any Greek text preserved in the manuscript evidence. It is therefore an important witness for the reconstruction of the Old Greek of this book.84 In Ezekiel, the OL (Wirceburgensis) and 82  The “Bulletin of the Bible Latine” published by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert since 1955 offers a lot of information about research on OL, see P.-M. Bogaert, “Bulletin de la Bible latine (1955–75),” Bulletin d’ancienne littérature chrétienne latine 5, Revue bénédictine de critique, d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 74–84 (1964–74): 162. 83  P.-M. Bogaert, “L’importance de la Septante et du ‘Monacensis’ de la Vetus latina pour l’exégèse du livre de l’Exode (Chap. 35–40),” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction— Reception—Interpretation, ed. M. Vervenne (Leuven: Peeters, 1996), 399–428; id., “La construction de la tente (Exod 36–40) dans le Monacensis de la plus ancienne version latine: l’autel d’or,” in L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque: Histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, ed. A. Schenker and P. Hugo (Genève: Labor et fides, 2005), 62–76. 84  P.-M. Bogaert, “Les trois formes de Jérémie 52 (TM, LXX et VL),” in Tradition of the Text. Studies offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of its 70th Birthday, ed. G.J. Norton and St. Pisano (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 1–17; id., “La vetus latina de Jérémie: text très court, témoin de la plus ancienne Septante et d’une forme plus ancienne de l’hébreu (Jr 39 et 52),” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relation between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. A. Schenker (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2003), 51–82.

346

Chapter 17

the Coptic version often follow the Greek manuscript 967. The OL and ms. 967 are the only witnesses preserved that show that the order of Ezekiel 37–38 according to MT is not original. The oldest text followed the sequence 38; 39; 37 and omitted Ezek 36:23c–28. In Daniel, papyrus 967 represents the more original form of the Greek text, showing the order of chapters 1–4; 7–8; 5–6 and 9–12, followed by the stories of Bel and the Dragon and Susanna.85 The OL of Canticles presents the same verse order in chapter 5 as Greek Papyrus R 952 and some Coptic witnesses (5:12, 14b, 13, 14a, 15).86 The OL text of Job although surviving only in patristic quotations has the merit of translating the original shorter form of LXX, represented also by the Sahidic version.87 The OL of Proverbs is based on a proto-Lucianic text from Antioch.88 The OL of Esther is based on a Greek model (La-GrIII) that represents the first Greek translation of the book. The other two Greek forms, the L text (GrII) and the LXX text (GrI), are later.89 The OL textual tradition of the deuterocanonical books is purer than that of the books of the Hebrew Bible, whose translation by Jerome contaminated their OL text. The OL makes possible to know old versions of the text of these books. Thus, the OL text of Baruch, transmitted together with Jeremiah, knew four textual forms, two of them dependent from the older Greek.90 In Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, the OL preserves the original order of the text against the whole Greek manuscript tradition that has 33:13b–36:10 before 30:25–33:15a. Judith has been transmitted in three forms: that of “LXX,” the “Lucianic” text, and that of ms. 58, followed by OL. The closer the variants are to the text of ms. 58, the higher the guarantee of originality is.91 In Tobit the OL, although not free of corruptions and contaminations, contributes to the reconstruction of 85  P.-M. Bogaert, “Le témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante. Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967,” Bib 59 (1978): 384–395. 86  D. De Bruyne, “Les Anciennes Versions latines du Cantique des Cantiques,” RBén 38 (1926): 97–122; F. Vattioni, “Osservazioni ai papiri greci del Cantico dei Cantici,” Studia papyrologica 17 (1978): 89–95. 87  P.-M. Bogaert, “Job latin chez les Pères et dans les Bibles: D’une version courte à des versions longues sur le grec et sur l’hébreu,” RBén 122 (2012): 48–99, 366–393. 88  H.J. Frede, “Zuwuchs zur Handschrift 165,” in Vetus Latina-Fragmente: zum Alten Testament: Die pelagianische epistula ad quondam matronam christianam, ed. H.J. Frede et al. (Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 1996), 9–34. 89  J.-C. Haelewyck, “The Relevance of the Old Latin version for the Septuagint with special emphasis on the book of Esther,” JTS NS 57 (2006): 439–473. 90  P.-M. Bogaert, “Le livre deutérocanonique de Baruch dans la liturgie romaine,” in Mélanges liturgiques offerts au R.P. dom Bernard Botte (Louvain: Abbaye du Mont César, 1972), 31–48. 91  A. Miller, Das Buch Judith (Bonn: Hanstein, 1940), 19; R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Judith (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 11–13.

The Contribution of the Old Latin

347

the text of the Sinaitic recension (GII), the oldest of the three types of Greek texts.92 In 1 Maccabees, the OL text often departs from the known Greek manuscript tradition. In many cases it is attesting a lost Greek text, superior to the one we know.93 In 2 Maccabees, the OL and the Armenian version bear joint witness to a now lost short form of Greek text. Most of the OL additions in Wisdom go back to the first Greek translation.94 Robert Hanhart has recently published the critical edition of Paralipomenon Liber II in the Series of Göttingen.95 The importance that Hanhart gives to the VL is underlined by the fact that he published Liber II before Liber I because there is a complete text of the VL for the second book (La109, Biblioteca de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid 31), while we have no VL text for the first book. On the other hand, the VL can preserve a tradition of LXX, the Greek Vorlage of which has been lost. La109 has readings incorporated into the Vulgate that appear marked so as “La109 (= Vulg).” The VL itself and the relation between secondary versions lead Hanhart to give to the secondary versions more space in the critical apparatus than usual in the Göttingen editions. The text of Paralipomenon Liber II contains readings that correspond to the Antiochene pre-Lucianic text (OG) of Kings, as, for example, ἐνώπιον (2 Par 26:4; 27:2; 28:1) = ἐνώπιον L (OG) against the kaige reading ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς of the B text (4 Kgdms 15:3; 15:34; 16:2). The Greek text of Chronicles becomes then the oldest witness of the pre-Lucianic text of 3–4 Kingdoms so it has to be included in the critical apparatus of the edition of these books. On the other hand, in the same way that the edition of these books has to include references to the text of Paralipomena, especially when it witnesses pre-Lucianic and OG readings. Hanhart includes also references to the three versions, Syriac (Peshitta), Aramaic (Targum), and Latin (Vulgate) and the Masoretic Hebrew text at their basis. In the same way, the critical apparatus of the edition of 3–4 Kingdoms has to include the witness of these versions when they support readings of the 92  J.R. Busto-Saiz, “Algunas aportaciones de la Vetus Latina para una nueva edición crítica del libro de Tobit,” Sef 38 (1978): 53–69, esp. 69; J.-M. Auwers, “La tradition vieille latine du livre de Tobie: un état de la question,” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology, ed. G.Z. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 1–21. 93  D. De Bruyne, “Le texte grec du deuxième Livre de Machabées,” RB 39 (1930): 503–519.; see De Bruyne—Sodar, Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabées, passim. 94  R. Hanhart, Maccabaeorum liber II (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 26 and 37: “In wenigen Fällen muss die lateinische (und armenische) Übersetzung mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit als der alleinige Zeuge des ursprünglichen Textes gewertet werden”; id., Zum Text des 2. und 3. Makkabäerbuches (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 56. 95  R. Hanhart, Paralipomenon Liber II, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum VII:2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 4–5 and 48–52.

348

Chapter 17

Antiochene text that are considered pre-Lucianic or OG, as, for example the readings of 4 Kgdms 14:13: ηγαγεν αυτον] L Vulg 2 Par 25:23 Jos (‫)ויביאהו‬: ηλθεν G-L (‫ ויבא‬Q mlt mss.) and απο της πυλης] L Arm T S V 2 Chr 25:23 (‫ משער‬pc mss.): εν τη πυλη B (‫ בשער‬MT). In kaige sections there are numerous cases where the pre-Lucianic and OG reading, known also by some of the secondary versions (Peshitta, Targum and Vulgate), represents an alternative variant to MT. All this makes very complex the work of edition of 3–4 Kingdoms, the options of which have to be accompanied by a textual commentary that takes into account the manuscript evidence both in Greek and in the rest of the versions, the history of recension of the text, and the internal criticism of each variant in its context and in its relationship with the Hebrew original.96

96  Cf. chapter 20 in this volume, “The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II. The Different Order of the Literary Units in MT and LXX and the Composition Process.”

Chapter 18

The Old Greek of Kings Preserved in Recent Witnesses: Manuscripts 158 and 56–246; the Marginal Readings of the Syro-Hexaplaric Text and the Syriac Text of Jacob of Edessa The ideal of textual criticism is to establish a critical text by ridding it of all conflation. This is true for the LXX translation and for classical literature. But as far as the Hebrew biblical text is concerned, this is by its very nature a “variant text.” Its formative period spanned, in some books, many centuries and continued even when the textual transmission had already begun. The variant interpretations to which the text was subjected have also left their traces in the text. Therefore, the task of editors and critics is not to reduce the plurality and diversity of variants and doublets but to take account of all of them and to try to explain their origin and meaning. Conflate readings in the Septuagint can have arisen in the Hebrew original/s (Vorlage), in the translation process,1 and in the textual transmission of the version. An example of conflate reading which takes place in the Hebrew original/s is found in 4 Kgdms 17:4b in the kaige γδ section where three Hebrew variant readings converge: ‫ וַ ּיַ ַע ְצ ֵרהּו‬MT (“the king of Assyria confined him”), ‫ ויצרהו‬reflected in the text of the kaige recension καὶ ἐπολιόρκησεν αὐτόν (“and he confined him”) and ‫ויערצהו‬, the OG reading preserved by the pre-Lucianic text καὶ ὔβρισε (τὸν Ωσηε), “he treated him despitefully.” A striking example of conflate reading brought about in the transmission of the version is found 1 Kgs 4:8 in the reading of Codex A and of many manuscripts where the name “Benhur” appears with the form Βεν υἱὸς Ωρ (Ben filius Or, Arm), composed by the transcription Βεν and the translation υἱὸς (MT ‫) ֶּבן־חּור‬. Also, in 1 Kgs 4:12, the Hexaplaric reading παρὰ Εσλσαρθαν (π. Εσλιανθαν Α) is composed of the elements παρά and Εσλ, both of them renderings of the Hebrew ‫ ֵא ֶצל‬. The closest reading of the OG has been preserved in the Antiochene text παρὰ Σασαρθαν (παρὰ Σεσαθαν B). It is not always possible to establish a clear distinction between the different levels of textual formation and textual transmission. 1  Z. Talshir, “Double Translations in the Septuagint,” in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, ed. C.E. Cox (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 21–63.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_020

350

Chapter 18

Conflation is a characteristic of the Greek recensions, particularly of the late “Lucianic” text of the 4th century BCE.2 Among the Antiochene manuscripts, ms. c2 is especially conflate. Discriminating between kaige-Theodotionic and pre-Lucianic readings is the main clue to judge double or alternative readings in the kaige sections of 3–4 Kingdoms. In elucidating the priority of either of the two renderings Lagarde’s criterion is applied: the free translation is generally older than the literal one. Similarly, the item that translates a divergent Hebrew Vorlage is generally to be preferred to the item based on the MT. This is in accord with a tendency present in the later LXX books to produce a more literal rendition and with a similar tendency of the Greek recensions, as the kaige-Th., to correct the original text towards the proto-masoretic Hebrew. Manuscript g = 158 (13th century, Basel, Univ.-Bibl., B VI 22) is a clear example of a text marked by conflate readings. This manuscript reproduces the majority text of LXX, but introduces many variants taken from the Antiochene Greek. The copyist responsible for those insertions incurs into frequent mistakes, such as inserting a given reading in a wrong context. For this and other reasons, late witnesses arouse in principle all kind of suspicions on their value, but the quality of a translated text depends more on the value of the original and on the labor of the translator himself than on the transmission of the text, as mistakes in the copying process are often repairable. Also, modern textual criticism does not focus all work in the reconstruction of the Ur-Text, but tries to value each recension, each manuscript family and each witness by themselves. Ms. 158 contains numerous readings from the Antiochene textual tradition. Rahlfs attributed these readings to the “Lucianic” recensor, but current knowledge about the kaige-Th(eodotionic) recension and the Antiochene text prompts us to revise Rahlfs’ judgement.3 Discriminating between kaige-Th. and OG readings is the main clue to judge the cases of duplicates, additions and alternative readings found in ms. 158. 2  On double readings, cf. J.W. Wevers, “Double Readings in the Books of Kings,” JBL 65 (1946): 307–10; K. Elliger, “Dubletten im Bibel Text,” in A Light unto My Path. Old Testament Studies in Honor of J.M. Myers, H.N. Brean et al. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), 131– 139; S. Talmon, “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,” Textus 1 (1960): 44–85; Z. Talshir, “Double Translations,” 21–63; J.H. Tigay, “Conflation as a Redactional Technique,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 53–96; J. Trebolle, “Conflate Readings (OT),” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D.N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), I:1125–1128. 3  A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta-Studien 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 34–43.

The Old Greek of Kings Preserved in Recent Witnesses

351

The analysis developed in this chapter arrives to the conclusion that the Antiochene readings included in 158 are not “Lucianic,” attributable to a recent stage of the Antiochene text. They are rather part of its pre-Lucianic or OG level, attested also sometimes by OL and Josephus. Generally speaking, these Antiochene readings fulfill Lagarde’s rule according to which the more original reading is the one more distant from the majority text. This chapter is part of the preparatory work for the edition of 3–4 Kingdoms in the Göttingen series, so its final aim is to test the Antiochene readings attested by the manuscripts 19–82–93–108–127 plus 158 and 56–246 and, ultimately, to identify the readings that are to appear in the lemma of the edition. Before starting the analysis of readings in ms. 158, it is necessary to remember some essential data on the history of the biblical text in general and of 3–4 Kingdoms in particular. Qumran has modified our vision of the history of the biblical text, which is not any more that of a straight line of textual transmission from the “original” to the “canonical” form of the text (“der geradelinig weiterüberlieferte Text des Kanons”).4 Qumran has also given value to the LXX text and shown that in order to reconstruct the Old Greek (OG) text the witness of the secondary versions, particularly of the Old Latin, is very important. The Old Latin version (OL) translates in an extremely literal way a pre-Hexaplaric and pre-Lucianic Greek Vorlage, very close to the OG text.5 The Armenian version follows also an Old Greek text, on which a text corresponding to the Hexaplaric Greek recension was superposed. Therefore, once discarded the internal variants of each version (copy errors, omissions and additions, linguistic or stylistic revisions, etc.) their agreements with the Antiochene text confirm the pre-Lucianic (OG) character of the corresponding readings.6 The Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever made known the existence of a recension developed in Palestine at the beginning of the 1st century BCE or perhaps earlier with the purpose of bringing the Old Greek text in line with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. This kaige-Th. recension affected the text of two sections of 3–4 Kingdoms: 3 Kgdms 1:1–2:11 (βγ) and 3 Kgdms 22:1–4 Kgdms 25:30 (γδ). In these sections the LXX majority text represented by the B group

4  M. Noth, Die Welt des Alten Testaments. Einführung in die Grenzgebiete der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1953), 286. 5  J. Trebolle Barrera, “1.4.1. Vetus Latina,” in Textual History of the Bible, Volume 1A Overview Articles, ed. A. Lange and E. Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 319–331; P. Torijano Morales, “3–5.2.1.1 Samuel-Kings,” in A. Lange and E. Tov, Textual History of the Bible, Volume 1B Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 400–403. 6  A. Aejmelaeus, “How to Reach the Old Greek in 1 Samuel and What to Do with It,” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, ed. M. Nissinen, VTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 185–206.

352

Chapter 18

of manuscripts (B 501) transmits the text of the kaige-Th. recension.7 In these same sections the Antiochene text (L, manuscripts 19 82 93 108 127) is the only one to preserve a text very close or “substantially identical” to the Old Greek.8 The merit of the Antiochene text resides in the fact that, behind its Hexaplaric and Lucianic elements, there lurks a text which corresponds to a textual tradition previous to the kaige-Th. recension. 1

Antiochene Readings in Manuscript 158

The first striking thing in ms. 158 is how some readings have been integrated in the base text. They appear misplaced, form hybrid terms or undo the grammatical and syntactical order of the text. This would reduce the manuscript’s value, but, on the other hand, that very fact highlights the efforts of the scribe to save elements of the traditions despite of the text intelligibility and the rules of grammar. The fact that such cases are found in a kaige section is very meaningful in itself: – 3 Kgdms 2:13 καὶ εἰσῆλθεν Αδωνιας υἱὸς Αγγιθ πρὸς Ορνιας Βηρσαβεε 158 merges Αδωνιας (B Arm, kaige) and Ορνιας (pre-Lucianic/OG). Besides it wrongly inserts Ορνιας between πρός and Βηρσαβεε. – 4 Kgdms 5:5 καὶ ἀνηγγέλεν τῷ βασιλεῖ 158 appears inserted at the end of verse 6 rather than at the beginning of verse 5 according to the Antiochene text.

7  D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (Leiden: Brill, 1963); N. Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 142–153; P.J. Gentry, “The Place of Theodotion-Job in the Textual History of the Septuagint,” in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments, ed. A. Salvesen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 199–230. 8  D. Barthélemy, “Les problèmes textuels de 2 Sam 11,2–1 Rois 2,11 reconsidérés à la lumière de certaines critiques des Devanciers d’Aquila,” BIOSCS (1972): 16–89; T. McLay, “Kaige and Septuagint Research,” Textus 19 (1998): 127–139; R. Kraft, “Reassessing the Impact of Barthélemy’s Devanciers, Forty Years Later,” BIOSCS 37 (2004): 1–28; E. Tov, “Lucian and Proto-Lucian,” RB 79 (1972): 101–113; id., Textual Criticism, 146–147; J. Saley, “Proto-Lucian and 4QSama,” BIOSCS 41 (2008) 44–45; S. Kreuzer, “Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta. Forschungsgeschichte und eine neue Perspektive,” in Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta in seiner Bezeugung und seiner Bedeutung, ed. S. Kreuzer and M. Sigismund (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 23–56; N. Fernández Marcos, “The Antiochene Edition in the Text History of the Greek Bible,” in Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta, 57–73; Ph. Hugo, “Die antiochenische Mischung: L zwischen Altem und Neuem in 2Sam,” in Der Antiochenische Text der Septuaginta, 109–132; T. Kauhanen, The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel, DSI 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012); M.M. Dickie, “3–5.1.6.2 Samuel-Kings,” in Textual History of the Bible, Volume 1B, 389–391.

The Old Greek of Kings Preserved in Recent Witnesses

353

– 4 Kgdms 8:15 μα[στρωμα]χμα 158 is a hybrid of στρῶμα (L OL) and μαχμα (B, kaige, MT ‫) ַה ַּמ ְכ ֵּבר‬. – 4 Kgdms 9:37 καὶ καὶ οὐκ 158 is a repetition that results from the juxtaposition of two L sentences that come from the pre-Lucianic or OG level, with the omission of the kaige reading (between square brackets): ὡς τὸ θνησιμαῖον Ναβουθαι και [ὡς τὸ θνησιμαῖον Ναβουθαι] καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λέγων οἴμμοι. – 4 Kgdms 23:5 χωτους ιερεις μαρειμ (ιερεις χωμαρειμ 246) 158 is also a hybrid of τοὺς χωμαρειμ (B) and ἱερεῖς (L). The transcription χωμαρειμ represents the kaige reading, whereas the translation ἱερεῖς constitutes the pre-Lucianic/ OG text. An important reading of ms. 158 is the one referring to the books division as specified per the Antiochene text, according to which the beginning of 3 Kingdoms is located after 2:11, so that the text previous to 1 Kgs 1–2:11 belongs to the end of 2 Samuel. Manuscript 158 knows the double tradition, since it notes at the beginning of 1 Kgs 1: “in some copies until here the end of the second [book] of Kingdoms [reaches]” (εν τισιν αντηγραφοις εως ωδε το τελος της δευτερας των Βασιλειων).9 The Antiochene readings of 158 and 56–246 can be classified in three groups: a. Duplicates made of a kaige-Theodotionic reading (B) juxtaposed to the Old Greek reading (L); b. Antiochene OG readings alternative to those of the kaige-Theodotionic text (B = MT); c. Lucianic readings in 158 transmitting a Hexaplaric text different from that of Origen. Antiochene Duplicates in 158 Made of a Kaige-Th(eodotionic) Reading (B) Juxtaposed to the Pre-Lucianic/Old Greek Reading Most of the duplicates are found in the kaige-Th. section. They are composed of the kaige reading—reflecting the proto-Masoretic text—and of the pre-Lucianic reading that goes back to the OG version and ultimately to the Septuagint’s Hebrew Vorlage. – 4 Kgdms 7:8 ἐκεῖθεν ἄρσιν 158. A variant of the Qumran scroll 6Q4 attests that the Antiochene reading of 158 goes back to a Hebrew text. Ms. 158 contains here a typical duplicate formed by B ἐκεῖθεν and L ἄρσιν αὐτῶν. The kaige reading ἐκεῖθεν reflects MT ‫( משם‬mišam, Syr, Vulg and Targ), while the Antiochene text preserves the OG reading that translates the Hebrew 1.1

9  Alfred Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta-Studien 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 38.

354

Chapter 18

masāʾām (6Q4 frg. 11 ‫)משאם‬.10 Rahlfs acknowledges in this case that the L reading is “Vorlucianisches Gut.”11 – 4 Kgdms 8:12 καὶ εἶπεν ελεισαιε τὰς πόλεις αὐτῶν ταστερεωμένας (sic) ἐνπρίσης ἐν πυρὶ ὅτι οἶδα ὅσα ποιήσεις τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ κακά σύ τὰ ὀχυρώματα αὐτῶν ἐξαποστελεῖς ἐν πυρί 158 contains a hybrid reading made of B (kaige) καὶ εἶπεν ὅτι οἶδα ὅσα ποιήσεις τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ κακά τὰ ὀχυρώματα αὐτῶν ἐξαποστελεῖς ἐν πυρὶ and L (pre-Lucianic) καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ελεισαιε ὅτι οἶδα ὅσα ποιήσεις τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ σύ τὰς πόλεις αὐτῶν τὰς ἐστερεωμένας ἐμπρήσεις ἐν πυρί. The duplicate is formed by B κακά and L σύ. Rahlfs himself admits that the L reading τὰς πόλεις αὐτῶν τὰς ἐστερεωμένας goes back to the pre-Lucianic text.12 The OG text seems to be καὶ εἶπεν οἶδα13 ὅσα ποιήσεις τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ τὰς πόλεις αὐτῶν τὰς ἐστερεωμένας ἐμπρήσεις ἐν πυρί. The B expression ἐξαποστελεῖς ἐν πυρί is a Hebraism typical of the kaige text reflecting MT ‫ ְּת ַׁש ַּלח ָּב ֵאש‬. The Antiochene text preserves the LXX original translation ἐμπρήσεις ἐν πυρί. This expression with the verb ἐμπιπραναι is found in 1 Kgdms 30:1; 15:13; 4 Kgdms 10:26; 25:9, translating the Hebrew verb ‫שרף‬. Therefore, in our case, 4 Kgdms 8:12, the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX read presumably ‫תשרף באש‬. The expression ‫שרף‬ ‫ באש‬appears in 2 Sam 23:7 (καιω); 1 Kgs 9:16 (εμπυριζω); 16:18 (εμπυριζω); 2 Kgs 17:31 (κατακαιω); 23:11 (κατακαιω); 25:9 (εμπριπημι). On the other hand, the expression ‫ שלח באש‬is found only in 2 Kgs 8:12 (‫) ְּת ַׁש ַּלח ָּב ֵאׁש‬. – 3 Kgdms 22:25 καὶ εἰσελεύσει ὅταν εἰσέλθεις 158 is again a conflate reading formed by ὅταν εἰσέλθῃς (B kaige) and καὶ εἰσελεύσῃ (L). The OG text seems to be καὶ εἰσελεύσῃ ταμίειον ἐκ ταμιείου τοῦ κρυβῆναι. – 4 Kgdms 6:32 εἰ οἴδαται ἑωράκαται μὴ οἴδαται 158 is formed by the kaige variant εἰ οἴδατε and OG ἑωράκατε (L Lucifer). – 4 Kgdms 10:19 μὴ ἀποληφθήτω μὴ ἐπεισκεπέιτω 158 is a doublet broken down in μὴ ἐπισκεπήτω (B kaige) and μὴ ἀπολειφθήτο (ἐξ αὐτῶν), which represents the pre-Lucianic and OG reading, that implies the verb ‫ שאר‬instead of MT 10  J .D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 12: “This reading together with the other Lucianic readings in the manuscripts represented by these fragments would seem to indicate that this or a related text form was the Hebrew Vorlage underlying the protoLucianic recension.” 11  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 288. 12  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 288: “Da πολις εστερεωμενη in Sam. I 6:18 ‫ עיר מבצר‬wiedergibt, ist als hebräische Grundlage L’s ‫( ערי מבצריהם‬statt ‫ )רעה מב‬zu rekonstruiren, vgl. Jer. 5:17 ‫ערי מבצריך‬.” 13  With the omission of the particle ὅτι (Bbioc2) against the rest of the manuscript tradition and the versions (Arm Aeth and Copt,) cf. MT ‫ ִּכי‬.

The Old Greek of Kings Preserved in Recent Witnesses

355

‫פקד‬. In OG the different compounds with απο-/κατα-/υπολειπω translate ‫שאר‬, whereas ἐπισκἐπτομαι (B) = MT ‫ פקד‬is characteristic of the kaige text: – Verse 11: καταλειφθέντας BL = ‫ נשאר‬ΜΤ. – Verse 11: καταλιπεῖν B, καταλιφθηναι L = ‫ נשאר‬ΜΤ. – Verse 14: κατέλιπεν BL = ‫ נשאר‬ΜΤ. – Verse 17: καταλειφθἐντας B, υπολελειμμενους borc2e2 = ‫ נשאר‬ΜΤ. – Verse 19: ἐπισκεπήτω B = ‫ פקד‬MT, απολειφθητω borc2e2 = ‫נשאר‬. – Verse 19: ἐπισκεπῇ BL = ‫ יפקד‬MT. – Verse 21: ἀπολειπέσθω B = ‫ נשאר‬MT, > L (A Arm Aeth SyrH).

– Verse 21: ἀπολειφθῇ B, > L (MT). – Verse 21: κατελείφθη BL = ‫ נשאר‬ΜΤ. – 4 Kgdms 7:5 ἤδει διαυγάζοντος 158 is the pre-Lucianic/OG reading (“at twilight, at dawn”) as attested by OL lucente. The kaige reading ἐν τῷ σκότει (“in the darkness,” MT ‫ ) ַבּנֶ ֶׁשף‬appears in the doublet of L ἐν τῷ σκότει ἤδη διαυγάζοντος. – 4 Kgdms 7:7 ἤδει διαφώσκοντος 158 corresponds to L ἤδη διαφώσκοντος which represents the OG reading as attested by the OL albescente caelo. – 4 Kgdms 9:37 ὡς τὸ θνησημαῖον Ναβουθαι καὶ καὶ (sic) οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λέγων Οἴμμοι 158 is part of the Antiochene text, composed by different levels, pre-Lucianic, kaige and Lucianic: “and the body of Jezebel will be like the body of Nebuzai, and like dung upon the face of the field, so that it will not be possible to say: ‘This is Jezebel.’ And there will be not who says, woe to me!” The Lucianic addition ὡς τὸ θνησημαῖον Ναβουθαι does not appear in the majority text, and the pre-Lucianic reading (OG) καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λέγων Οἴμμοι. The kaige text (B) adds ἐν τῇ μερίδι Ιεζραελ (MT ‫ ) ְּב ֵח ֶלק יִ זְ ְר ֶעאל‬and ὥστε μὴ εἰπεῖν (αὐτούς) Αὕτη Ιεζαβελ (MT ‫אמרּו זֹאת ִאיזָ ֶבל‬ ְ ֹ ‫) ֲא ֶׁשר לֹא־י‬. – 4 Kgdms 11:4 τῶν παρατρεχόντων καὶ 158 belongs to the Antiochene reading τοὺς ἑκατοντάρχους τῶν παρατρεχόντων καὶ τὸν Χορρει καὶ τὸν Ρασειμ that constitutes a double reading formed by the OG translation (τοὺς ἑκατοντάρχους) τῶν παρατρεχόντων (‫ ) ָר ִצים‬and by the kaige transcription (τοὺς ἑκατοντάρχους) τὸν Χορρι καὶ τὸν Ρασιμ (‫) ָר ִצים‬.14 – 4 Kgdms 15:10 Κεβδααμ εν Ιεβαααν 158 is a doublet formed by the kaige B reading Κεβδααμ and the pre-Lucianic/OG εν Ιεβαααν (double confusion of letters in 158: Δ with Λ in Κεβδααμ and A with Λ in Ιεβαααν). L ἐν Ιβλααμ reflects the toponym ‫ביבלעם‬, “in Yibleʿam” (2 Kgs 9:27; ‫ )י(בלעם‬1 Chr 6:55; Tell Belʿameh). In the kaige and Hexaplaric texts the word Κεβδααμ/Κεβλααμ (confusion Δ/Λ) is the name of a character who, together with Sellum, 14  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 197–198.

356

Chapter 18

strikes and murders Zechariah, king of Israel. Thus, the verbs are in plural, συνεστράφησαν… ἐπάταξαν… ἐθανάτωσαν, instead of the singulars found in MT … ‫… וַ ִיְמ ֵיתהּו‬ ‫… וַ ּיַ ֵּכהּו‬ ‫וַ ּיִ ְקׁש ֹר‬. – 4 Kgdms 25:19 καὶ τὸν Σαφαν τὸν ἀρχιστράτηγον 158 is the pre-Lucianic/OG reading to which the kaige counterpart καὶ τὸν γραμματέα τοῦ ἄρχοντος τῆς δυνάμεως was added. The Antiochene readings attested in marginal readings of SyrH are more numerous than those listed by Rahlfs. Among them it is relevant to mention here 4 Kgdms 25:18 τὸν ἱερέα τὸν δεύτερον preserved in the Antiochene text and reflected in the Armenian version, as well as in the SyrH marginal readings, against the B reading kaige υἱὸν τῆς δευτερώσεως. In 23:4 the Antiochene text, attested also by the Armenian version, and here also by OL (Lucifer), transmits the OG reading τοῖς ἱερεῦσι τοῖς δευτερεύουσι, against the B kaige reading τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν τῆς δευτερώσεως. In 25:19 the Antiochene text has a double reading καὶ τὸν Σαφαν τὸν ἀρχιστράτηγον καὶ τὸν γραμματέα τοῦ ἄρχοντος τῆς δυνάμεως. The first reading, καὶ τὸν Σαφαν τὸν ἀρχιστράτηγον, attested by 19–82–93–108–127 158 and Chrysostomus, is the pre-Lucianic and OG reading; the reading transmitted by the majority text, καὶ τὸν γραμματέα τοῦ ἄρχοντος τῆς δυνάμεως, is kaige-Th., and a reflection of MT ‫ ֵאת ַהּס ֵֹפר ַׂשר ַה ָּצ ָבא‬. Each reading has the basic element of the Hebrew text ‫שר הצבא‬: OG ἀρχιστράτηγος and kaige ἄρχων τῆς δυνάμεως. The “commander-in-chief” is Shaphan. The Vulgate version Sopher (principem exercitus) is a transcription which implies a noun without the article (‫ספר‬, instead of MT ‫ )הספר‬and the indication of a personal name (Sopher), thus supporting a text closer to the Antiochene and pre-Lucianic than to the majority Greek. The character “Shaphan the commander-in-chief” is a new member of the Shaphan family, to which the Deuteronomistic redaction work in times of Josiah has been connected. – 4 Kgdms 18:26 οὐ μὴ λαλήσης 158 is made of οὐ (λαλήσεις) (B) and μὴ (λάλει) (L). Several doublets of 158 are found in the non-kaige section; thus they are not composed of an OG and kaige reading, but indicate stylistic or similar issues, such as 19:4 ραθμεν ραθαμειν, duplicate formed by ραθμ ἕν (B) + ραθαμειν (L, Raphem OL). 1.2 Antiochene OG Readings in 158 Alternative to Those of the Kaige-Theodotionic Revision In the non-kaige section, the only instance in which 158 presents an Antiochene reading is 3 Kgdms 3:25 καὶ τὸ τεθνηκὸς ὁμοίως διέλετε καὶ δότε ἀμφοτέραις. Rahlfs considers this reading a Lucianic addition, but L and Josephus agree in

The Old Greek of Kings Preserved in Recent Witnesses

357

saying that Solomon orders to cut in half not only the living child but the dead one as well.15 Every other case is found in the kaige section, which is indeed very indicative of the Antiochene text of this section greatly differing from the kaige majority text. – 3 Kgdms 22:20 καὶ εἷπεν οὐ δυνήσει καὶ εἷπεν ἐν σοί 158. The Antiochene text preserves this pre-Lucianic/OG reading.16 Yahweh asks the host of heaven who will entice Ahab and “one said one thing, and another said another.” Yahweh denies that “one and another” will be able to succeed (καὶ εἷπεν Οὐ δυνήσῃ). Then a spirit comes forward and standing before Yahweh says: “I will entice him (Ahab).” God asks “With whom?” and the spirit answers “With you,” explaining thereafter his plan of been a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. Finally, Yahweh sends the spirit of deceit saying: “You will succeed.” The second clause καὶ εἷπεν ἐν σοί is to be relocated after ἐν τίνι; (verse 21).17 – 3 Kgdms 22:54 παρὰ πάντας τοὺς γενομένους 158 is the pre-Lucianic/Old Greek reading: L καὶ παρώργισεν

‫ וַ ּיַ ְכ ֵעס‬MT B καὶ παρώργισεν ‫ֹלהי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ τὸν κύριον θεὸν Ισραηλ παρὰ πάντας (‫)מכל‬ κατὰ πάντα (‫)ככל‬ ‫ְּככֹל‬ τοὺς γενομένους ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ τὰ γενόμενα ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ ‫ר־ע ָׂשה ָא ִביו‬ ָ ‫ֲא ֶׁש‬

– 4 Kgdms 3:7 Οχοζιαν 158 is a pre-Lucianic reading, as Rahlfs acknowledges, instead of B Ιωσαφατ.18 – 4 Kgdms 5:3 οφθείη (…) καὶ δεηθείη τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ 158. The B kaige text follows MT: “Would that my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! 15  Josefo: VIII 31. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 102: “An ein zufälliges Zusammentreffen kann man hier kaum denken. Auch gehört die eigentümliche Verballhornung des weisen Urteils Salomos offenbar der jüdischen Haggada an, und schon deshalb ist es wahrscheinlich, dass der L-Zusatz καὶ τὸ τεθνηκὸς ὁμοίως διέλετε καὶ δότε ἀμφοτέραις aus einer älteren Zeit stammt, wo die Septuaginta noch von den Juden benutzt wurde,” 102; see id., Lucians, 284: “Lucian wird sie also nicht erst erfunden, sondern aus einer älteren Quelle geschöpft haben. Ob dies eine schriftliche Quelle war oder die mündliche Tradition der Juden, lässt sich allerdings nicht sagen.” 16  A. Rahlfs, Studien zu den Königsbüchern, Septuaginta-Studien 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1904), 81; id., Lucians Rezension, 286. 17  J. Trebolle, “Yahweh’s Spirit of Deceit. Textual Variants that Make a Difference (1 Kgs 22),” RQ 25 (2012): 635–675. 18  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 287.

358

Chapter 18

He would cure him of his leprosy.” The Antiochene text incorporates the kaige reading with a stylistic variant (καὶ ἀποσυνάξει ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν λέπραν αὐτοῦ); but it also seems to have preserved the pre-Lucianic/OG reading attested by 158 οφθείη (…) καὶ δεηθείη τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ: “Would that my lord appear in front of the prophet who is in Samaria and pray before him.” According to this text, the “little maid from the land of Israel” just expresses her desire of his lord coming before the prophet. MT anticipates the healing of leprosy by Elisha. L καὶ (Arm Aeth) εἶπεν τῇ κυρίᾳ αὐτῆς ὄφελον οφθείη ὁ κύριός μου ἐνώπιον τοῦ προφήτου τοῦ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ καὶ δεηθείη τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀποσυνάξει ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν λέπραν αὐτοῦ

B ἡ δὲ εἶπεν τῇ κυρίᾳ αὐτῆς ὄφελον ὁ κύριός μου ἐνώπιον τοῦ προφήτου τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ τότε ἀποσυνάξει αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς λέπρας αὐτοῦ

‫אמר ֶאל־ּגְ ִב ְר ָּתּה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ּת‬MT ‫ַא ֲח ֵלי ֲאד ֹנִ י‬ ‫ִל ְפנֵ י ַהּנָ ִביא‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ְּבׁש ְֹמרֹון‬ ‫ָאז יֶ ֱאסֹף אֹתֹו‬ ‫ִמ ָּצ ַר ְעּתֹו‬

– 4 Kgdms 8:11 ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ τὰ δῶρα 158 is a pre-Lucianic reading (“and he put in from of him the gifts”) as shown by the OG translation features: ἐνώπιον + genitive (= ‫ )לפניו‬and ἐνώπιον instead of the kaige transcription μαανα (verse 9, MT ‫) ִמנְ ָחה‬.19 – 4 Kgdms 11:11 καὶ ἐξεκλησίασεν Ιωδαε ὁ ἱερεὺς πάντα τὸν λαὸν τῆς γῆς εἰς οἴκον κυρίου 158 is not to be attributed to the Lucianic recensor. The same text is found in manuscripts 247 121 56 119 372, as well as in SyrH, but placed in verse 10. Quite surely it is part of the OG text. The verb ἐξεκλησίασεν is the usual Greek equivalent of the Hebrew ‫( קהל‬2 Sam 20:14; 1 Kgs 8:1 (8:2 Hexaplaric); 12:21). The reference to the “people of the country” is, besides, a required element for the story.20 – 4 Kgdms 16:5 λαβιν την Ιερουσαλημ 158 is part of the Antiochene reading καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν τοῦ λαβεῖν τὴν ιερουσαλημ against the B kaige reading καὶ οὐκ ἐδύναντο πολεμεῖν which follows MT ‫וְ לֹא יָ ְכלּו ְל ִה ָּל ֵחם‬. – 4 Kgdms 17:4 ἐν ‘Οσῆε ἐπιβουλήν διότι ἀπέστειλεν ἀγγέλους πρὸς ’Αδραμέλεκ τὸν Αἰθίοπα τὸν κατοικοῦντα ἐν Αἰγύπτω καὶ ἦν ‘Οσῆε φέρων δῶρα τῷ βασιλεῖ 19  J . Trebolle, “The Text-critical Contribution of the Antiochene Greek and Old Latin Texts (2 Kgs 8:10–11),” in From Author tο Copyist: Composition, Redaction and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible. Essays in Honor of Zipora Talshir, ed. C. Werman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 17–37. 20  See Chapter 9, “2 Kings 11 (MT/LXXB/L): Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative.”

The Old Greek of Kings Preserved in Recent Witnesses

359

ἀσσυρίων ἐνιαυτὸν κατ’ ενιαυτόν; 158 agrees exactly with the Antiochene text, except for orthographic variants (Οσηε, απεστειλεν, Αιθιοπα, Αιγυπτω, Ασσυριων). Rahlfs acknowledges that the terms Αδραμελεκ τον Αιθιοπα τον κατοικουντα εν Αιγυπτω are part of the pre-Lucianic material of the Antiochene text (“Vorlucianisches Gut”).21 The whole reading of the Antiochene text belongs to the pre-Lucianic/OG text as witnessed by the OL version: in Osee insidia et misit nuncios ad Adramelec ethiopem habitantem in Aegypto, et offerebat Osee munera regni assyriorum ab anno in annum (Beuron 91–95). The kaige reading corresponding to MT is transmitted by the B text: ἐν τῷ Ωσηε ἀδικίαν ὅτι ἀπέστειλεν ἀγγέλους πρὸς Σηγωρ βασιλέα Αἰγύπτου καὶ οὐκ ἤνεγκεν μαναα τῷ βασιλεῖ Ἀσσυρίων ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ ἐκείνῳ. The word δωρα (L) is a feature of the OG version when translating the Hebrew ‫ מנחה‬against the transcription of the kaige-Th. recension μαναα/μαανα (B).22 – 4 Kgdms 17:6 ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης 158 is a pre-Lucianic/OG reading, as attested by the OL usque in hunc diem. This reading is not present in the B text, and thus it may be discussed whether it is a Lucianic or pre-Lucianic element. – 4 Kgdms 17:7 ὀργὴ κυρίου ἐπὶ τὸν Ισραηλ ἀφ’ ἧς ἡμέρας ἀνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης. Ms. 158 combines two clauses of L separated by a causal sentence: “and it happened that the Lord’s wrath was against Israel, because the sons of Israel sinned against the Lord their God who brought them up out of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, from that day and until this day.” The pre-Lucianic/OG character of the Antiochene text is attested by the OL ex qua die eduxit patres eorum ex aegypto et usque in hunc diem. The expression in verse 18 καὶ ἐθυμώθη Κύριος σφόδρα ἐν τῷ ᾽Ισραήλ (… ‫)וַ ּיִ ְת ַאּנַ ף יְ הוָ ה‬, translated in the OL et iratus est in indignatione dominus in reliquos Israel, is the apodosis of a long protasis that begins in verse 7 and extends over ten verses.23 Ms. 158 contains other readings from the Antiochene tradition: 3 Kgdms 1:5 Δαυιδ instead of Αγγιβ; 1:21 ημαρτηκωτες, Β αμαρτωλοι; 3:11 κριματα και δικαιωματα; 7:13 εις τον ενδον; 8:66 και ηυλογεισεν αυτον και ηυλογεισαν και αυτοι τον βασιλεα; 10:29 του τικτην; 4 Kgdms 3:7 ως αν συ και εγω; 3:17 παρεμβολαι, Β κτησεις; 3:19

21  Lucians Rezension, 115 and 290: “Hier finden wir also bei einem Antiochener (Theophilus von Antiochia) eine Lucian-Lesart vor Lucian.” 22  P. Torijano Morales, “Textual Criticism and the Text-Critical Edition of IV Regnorum: The Case of 17:2–6,” in After Qumran. Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts—The Historical Books, ed. H. Ausloos et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 195–212. 23  Julio Trebolle, “Textual Pluralism and Composition of the Books of Kings: 2 Kings 17:2–23 (MT, LXXB, LXXL OL),” in After Qumran, 213–226.

360

Chapter 18

εν τη Μωαβ; 4:7 το δανιον; 4:26 και εδραμεν εις απαντησιν αυτης και ειπεν αυτη ει ειρινη σοι ει ειρινει τω ανδρι σου ει ειρινει τω παιδαριω; 4:41 και ενεβαλον; 5:5 εξ ταλαντα χρυσιου; 10:15 ερχομενη (following ms. b); 10:27 158 κοπρον, L κοπρωνα, B λυτρωνας; 14:14 των βδελυγματων; 18:19 συ και πας Ιουδας; 23:6 τη Ασιρωθ αλσος; 25:4 και ο βασιλευς. 1.3 Hexaplaric Readings in 158 with a Different Text from Origen’s Ms. 158 inserts Hexaplaric additions of the Antiochene text which transmit a text different from Origen’s. The reading of 3 Kgdms 4:27 καὶ εγενετο το ονομα αυτου εν πασιν τοις εθνεσιν κυκλω reproduces more literally MT ‫י־ׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫ וַ יְ ִה‬than Origen’s καὶ ην ονομαστος εν πασιν τοις εθνεσιν κυκλω (A …,). Other Hexaplaric readings of the Lucianic text included in 158 are: 4 Kgdms 5:18 καὶ περι του λογου τουτου (L), versus τω ρηματι τουτω (A, MT ‫;) ַל ָּד ָבר ַהּזֶ ה‬ 5:23 επιεικως, versus ουκουν (A, MT ‫הֹואל‬ ֵ ); 15:19 κραταιωσαι την βασιλειαν αυτου εν χειρι αυτου, versus του ενισχυσαι το βασιλειον εν χειρι αυτου (Axy Arm sub * α’ SyrH);24 17:14–15 οι ουκ επιστευσαν κυριω τω θεω αυτων και απωσαντο την διαθικην αυτου και τα δικαιωματα α διεθετο τοις πατρασιν αυτων (OL et dereliquerunt legem eius et mandata eius quae disposuit patribus eorum), versus Aquila’s typical revision (συν = ‫ ) ֶאת‬και απερριψαν τους ακριβασμους αυτου και την διαθηκην αυτου ην εκοψεν συν πατρασιν αυτων (A Arm Syr*). The text of 3 Kgdms 22:24 is a good example to show the development of the text. The reading ποῖον πνεῦμα κυρίου τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν σοί; (“Which spirit of the Lord is speaking in you?”) would be the text of the original Septuagint, which reflects a text shorter than MT: “How did the Spirit of the LORD go from me to speak to you?” The Hexaplaric text expanded the OG text in order to assimilate it to MT with a literal style, thus adding the readings τουτο παρηλθεν and παρ εμου. The Lucianic text included the Hexaplaric additions, but with other variants: ἀπέστη ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ τοῦ λαλῆσαι. The text of mss. 121 and follows OG with the simple addition of παρ’ ἐμοι. Ms. h = 55 has a typical double reading, with a neat difference between both of its elements: the first one is OG and the second the Hexaplaric addition. The short text represented by LXX does not know the verb ‫ ָע ַבר‬.

24  Both readings reflect a MT duplicate, ‫ ; ִל ְהיֹות יָ ָדיו ִאּתֹו ְל ַה ֲחזִ יק ַה ַּמ ְמ ָל ָכה ְּביָ דו‬the first reading, “that his hand (power) might be with him,” is part of LXX; the second, “to confirm the kingdom in his hand,” is an MT expansion reflected in the Hexaplaric addition, cf. J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 455.

361

The Old Greek of Kings Preserved in Recent Witnesses

h = 55 ποῖον

gy = 158 121 boc2e2 ποῖον (> 19 108) ποῖον

B (Rahlfs) ποῖον

A ποῖον ‫ֵאי־‬ τοῦτο * α´ θ´ ‫זֶ ה‬ παρῆλθεν * ‫ָע ַבר‬ πνεῦμα κυρίου πνεῦμα κυρίου ‫רּוח־יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ

πνεῦμα κυρίου πνεῦμα κυρίου πνεῦμα κυρίου ἀπέστη * α´ θ´ (OL praeteriit) ἀπ ἐμοῦ * α´ (a me) παρ’ ἐμοὶ τοὺ λαλῆσαι τοῦ λαλῆσαι (Syr) τὸ λαλῆσαν τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν σοί; ἐν σοί; πρὸς σέ; ἐν σοί πνεῦμα κυρίου παρ’ ἐμοὶ τοὺ λαλῆσαι πρὸς σέ;

παρ’ ἐμοῦ * τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν σοί;

1.4 Antiochene Readings in Mss. 158 and 56–246 Among the “Lucianic” readings shared by 158 and 56–246 the most meaningful would be the duplicate of 4 Kgdms 2:8 διὰ ξηρᾶς ὡς ἐν ἐρήμῳ. The reading διὰ ξηρᾶς is typical of the pre-Lucianic text/OG (Arm), whereas ἐν ἐρήμῳ is the kaige reading which reflects MT ‫בחרבה‬.25 Ms. 158, together with Ndhijpqstvz, adds ως. In 2:14 the OL presents the same conflare reading per siccum in eremo.26 The Antiochene readings of 158 and 56–246 can also be classified in two groups: a) Duplicates in which the kaige reading (B) appears juxtaposed to the pre-Lucianic/OG: 3 Kgdms 7:45 ωκοδομησεν Σαλομων; 8:33 ενωπιον σου και πεσειν; 10:2, 10, 11 πολυν; 10:21 το αργυριον; 13:38 καὶ προ προσωπου της αλλης εις Βαιθηλ; 14:35 καὶ Βενιαμιν; 15:23 εποιησεν Ασα το πονηρον και; 16:1 βασιλεα Ισραηλ; 16:7 εν τω Ασα βασιλεια Ιουδα; 22:38 απο του αρματος; 22:38 δια Ηλιου (158 follows ms. b = 19 108); 4 Kgdms 9:5 κρυφιος. b) L (OG) readings alternative to those of the kaige text (B = MT): 3 Kgdms 8:7 το προσωπον / B τον τοπον; 9:26 εποιησεν ο βασιλευς Σολομων ναυν / B και ναυν υπερ ου εποιησεν ο βασιλευς Σαλωμων; 18:32, 35, 38 θαλαα / Β θααλα.27

25  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 269. 26  J. Trebolle, “Readings of the Old Latin (Beuron 91–95) Reflecting ‘Additions’ of the Antiochene Text in 3–4 Kingdoms,” in The Legacy of Barthélemy. 50 Years after Les Devanciers d’Aquila, ed. A. Aejmelaeus and T. Kauhanen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 120–145, esp. 130–131. 27  Rahlfs acknowledges that the Antiochene reading is “vorlucianisches Gut”; id., Lucians Rezension, 285, instead of θαλασσα (MT ‫) ְּת ָע ָלה‬

‫ֵמ ִא ּ֖תי‬ ‫ְל ַד ֵּבר‬ ‫אֹותְך‬ ָ

362

Chapter 18

2 Antiochene Pre-Lucianic Readings in the Marginal Notes of the Syro-Hexaplaric Version The marginal notes of the Syro-Hexaplaric version, together with the text of Jacob of Edessa of 3 Kingdoms chapter 1 (siglum Syr-hj in Brooke-Mc Lean’s edition) contain the readings of the Lucianic mss. boc2e2 (19 82 93 108 127). According to A. Rahlfs these are features of the Lucianic recension of the 4th century CE. Nevertheless, these readings, although certainly taken from the Lucianic text, are actually pre-Lucianic and go back to the original LXX text. Rahlfs lists 13 marginal notes from the Syro-Hexaplaric version, although there are more. Seven of them are marked with the letter ‫ܠ‬, which indicates their Lucianic source (4 Kingdoms 9:9, 28; 10:24, 25; 11:1; 23:33; 23:35). All of them, with the exception of 3 Kingdoms 3:25, belong to the kaige section γδ (3 Kingdoms 22–4 Kingdoms). – 3 Kingdoms 3:25: SyrH (mg) καὶ το τεθνηκος ομοιως διελετε καὶ δοτε αμφοτεραις. Rahlfs is forced to acknowledge that this “addition” is earlier than Lucian, because Josephus already knew that Greek text (Ant. VIII 31). – 3 Kingdoms 22:10: SyrH (mg) ενοπλοι εν οδω πυλης Σαμαρειας. This supposedly Lucianic reading already appears in the OL: armati ad viam portae Samariae (Beuron 91–95). The Antiochene reading εν οδω πυλης goes back to the Old Greek which translates the Hebrew ‫( דרך שער‬1 Sam 17:52; 2 Sam 15:2; 2 Kgs 11:19; 25:4), against the B kaige reading ενοπλοι εν ταις πυλαις Σαμαρειας. – 4 Kingdoms 3:4: SyrH (mg) ην φερων φορον και επιστρεφον τω βασιλει Ισραηλ is a pre-Lucianic and OG reading as attested by the OL ferebat tributum regni Israel. The late Lucianic text has the typical double reading: ην φερων φορον (OG) + και επεστρεφων… (kaige reading). – 4 Kingdoms 6:8: SyrH (mg) εις τον τοπον του φελμουνι ποιησωμεν ενεδρον, a pre-Lucianic reading as attested by OL in locum phalmunum obsessionem faciamus. – 4 Kingdoms 7:2: SyrH (mg) και εαν κυριος ποιηση. The reading και εαν (‫)?ואם‬ is pre-Lucianic, as it appears in the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, against the kaige variant in B ιδου (MT ‫) ִהּנֵ ה‬. The Antiochene reading is also attested by primary versions of the Hebrew, Targum, Peshitta, and Vulgate (si Dominus fecerit). – 4 Kingdoms 18:20 SyrH (mg) πλην μη λογοις χειλεων και βουλη παραταξις γινεται εις πολεμον. Two forms of OL follow this Antiochene text, which is therefore pre-Lucianic and OG: fortasse uerbis labiorum cogitatio potestas autem in pugna est—Al. numquid in uerbis labiorum atque consilio uirtus est belli. The Armenian version also seems to be following this Antiochene text: quodsi dicas uerba labiorum et consilium quod et potentia opus sit (OTG).

The Old Greek of Kings Preserved in Recent Witnesses

363

– 4 Kingdoms 23:33 SyrH (mg) και δεκα ταλαντα (‫)ܠ‬. The reading δεκα is also attested by the Armenian text and the Peshitta, against B εκατoν (MT ‫)מאה‬. Rahlfs had to acknowledge its pre-Lucianic character. 3

Pre-Lucianic Readings in the Syriac Text of Jacob of Edessa (3 Kingdoms 1)

The revision of the text of the Old Testament carried out by Jacob, bishop of Edessa, is a very eclectic work. Richard J. Saley and Alison Salvesen have studied the “distinctively Lucianic” readings in the Samuel manuscript (Syr-hj), where 3 Kingdoms 1 is included as part of the second book of Samuel. They both consider that the Antiochene readings of Jacob of Edessa in 3 Kingdoms 1:1–49 come from the late Lucianic text. Nevertheless, these readings in kaige section are for the most part pre-Lucianic as proven by the fact that they already appear in Josephus or in the OL and Ethiopic versions and are also supported by internal criticism. The following cases are good examples thereof:28 – 1:4 θάλπουσα τὸν βασιλέα] τω βασιλει συγκοιτος L, ‫ܠܡܠܟܐ ܒܪܬ ܡܫܟܒܐ‬ Syr-hj: hab συγκοιμωμενη τω βασιλει Jos (Ant., VII, 344). Josephus confirms the pre-Lucianic character of the Antiochene reading. – 1:5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 18, 24, 25, 41, 42, 43 αδωνειας] ορνια L, ‫ܐܘܪܢܝܐ ܐܘܪܘܢܝܐ‬ Syr-hj, reading confirmed as pre-Lucianic by OL and classified by Rahlfs as Vorlucianisches Gut. The name appears also in MT 2 Samuel 24:18 ‫ארניה‬. – 1:7 ἐβοήθουν ὀπίσω Αδωνιου] αντελαμβανοντο αυτου L, ‫ܘܡܤܝܥܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܠܗ‬ Syr-hj, secuti sunt Adonias et adiuuerunt eum Aeth. The Ethiopic text has a double reading. The most literal one agrees with the kaige text. – 1:9 Ζωελεθ B] Σελλαθ (Σελααθ o) L, ‫ ܬܐܠ‬Syr-hj. Rahlfs acknowledges the preLucianic character of this reading (“setzt eine andere Aussprache von ‫זחלת‬ voraus”).29 – 1:20 σύ κύριέ μου βασιλεῦ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ παντὸς Ισραηλ πρὸς σέ Β] ει δια του κυριου μου του βασιλεως γεγονε το πραγμα τουτο οτι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ παντὸς του λαου πρὸς ̈ σέ L, ‫ܕܥܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܢ ܡܢ ܡܪܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܡܠܟܐ ܗܘܐ ܣܘܥܪܢܐ ܗܢܐ ܡܛܠ‬ ‫ ܕܟܠܗ ܥܡܐ ܠܘܬܟ‬Syr-hj. According to Rahlfs, it is a Lucianic addition taken from verse 27, but it could be also said that the kaige reading of B is taken from verse 18.

28  For further development see cf. J. Trebolle, “Pre-Lucianic Readings of 3–4 Reigns in Marginal Notes of the Syrohexapla and in the Syriac Text of Jacob of Edessa” (forthcoming). 29  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 183.

364

Chapter 18

– 1:49 καὶ ἐξανέστησαν Ba2 Aeth] + και ανεπηδησαν L, ‫ ܘܪܘܫܘ‬Syr-hj(uid): αναπηδησαντες Jos (Ant., VII, 360). Josephus confirms once more the preLucianic character of the L text. 4 Conclusions As a summary and conclusions, marginal readings and glosses inserted into late witnesses and, at first sight, lacking critical value, preserve at times selections of pre-Lucianic readings which go back to the earliest text of the Greek version of Kings which can be reconstructed. Thus, the text-critical principle of recentiores non deteriores is proven right.30 But the presence of these marginal readings and glosses in late witnesses, as well as in the Old Latin manuscripts (Beuron 91–95) adds a meaningful element to the history of the biblical text. The history of the Septuagint and its secondary versions is that of the progressive revision of their texts to get them adapted to the Masoretic text. This does not mean, as it is usually thought, that late witnesses always follow that tendency and contain late readings, be them kaige, Hexaplaric, or Lucianic. On the other hand, it is the case that in the last phases of textual transmission of the biblical books, when a kaige or Hexaplaric text was imposed on the majority tradition in the Greek, as the Vulgate was in the Latin tradition, OG or OL readings reappear, as copyists and scribes would still find them in some manuscripts and tried to preserve them, even if they were not aware of their origin and value. A late witness such as the Complutensian Polyglot can give some surprises, despite the widespread negative attitude on its critical value. In J.W. Wevers’ words, “according to the preface, a large number of manuscripts were used, mainly Spanish, but including some on loan from the Vatican. Unfortunately, the resulting LXX text cannot always be relied on, since corrections based on the Hebrew text rather than on Greek manuscripts do occur.”31 In Kings, the Complutensian usually follows the Antiochene text represented by ms. 108 (Vat. Gr. 330), but the edited text constitutes a new recension which, as commented by Rahlfs, adapts the text to the Masoretic Hebrew and the Vulgate, especially regarding questions of order.32 The edition of the Antiochene text by 30  G  . Pasquali, “Recentiores, non deteriores. Collazioni umanistiche ed editiones principes,” in Storia della tradizione e critica del testo, 2nd ed. (Florence: Le Monnier, 1952), 41–108. 31  J.W. Wevers, “The Future of Septuagint Textual Studies,” in The Bible as a Book. The Transmission of the Greek Text, ed. S. McKandrick and O.A.O. Sullivan (London: The British Library & Oak Knoll Press, 2003), 209–220, esp. 209 32  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 22–23.

The Old Greek of Kings Preserved in Recent Witnesses

365

N. Fernández Marcos and J.R. Busto Sáiz does not include the Complutensian text, as it does not aid in restoring “the genuine Antiochene text, since its witness is, in the best case, that of ms. 108.”33 Nevertheless, an agreement such as that of the Complutensian text with OL readings in mss. 91–94 (Legionensis) in 4 Kgs 2:1 maybe allows to reconstruct “the genuine Antiochene text” and the OG. Against the simple “(when the Lord was about to take Elijah) by a whirlwind up to heaven … (‫) ַ ּֽב ְס ָע ָרה ַה ָּׁש ָמיִ ם‬,” the Greek text, included the Antiochene, reads ἐν συσσεισμῷ ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν (Rahlfs). The omission of ὡς in Afrvxe2 700 Arm Copt Aeth SyrH is meaningful. Complutensian has the reading ὡς ἕως εἰς, which also appears in OL quasi usque in caelum (91–95). It is a double reading ὡς εἰς and ἕως εἰς. The latter could be the older reading, as it could be proven by the parallel text in 2:11: “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (MT ‫) ַ ּֽב ְס ָע ָרה ַה ָּׁש ָמיִם‬, ἐν συσσεισμῷ ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν.

33  N  . Fernández Marcos and J.R. Busto Sáiz, El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega. II 1–2 Reyes (Madrid: CSIC, 1992), LXI.

Chapter 19

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I. From Greek Hexaplaric Additions to Hebrew Editorial Glosses In 2017, the 70th anniversary of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was celebrated. The Qumran manuscripts have confirmed the antiquity of MT and the faithfulness of its textual transmission, but also the critical value of the Septuagint and its secondary versions. Qumran has also brought to light that in Hellenistic or Second Temple times biblical books circulated in different textual forms, which could co-exist in a same library such as Qumran’s.1 This has considerably expanded the concept of “Hebrew Bible” which is not, properly speaking, just the Masoretic Bible, but also includes new nonMasoretic Hebrew texts, among them those attested by the ancient versions, the Septuagint in particular. Qumran has yielded numerous Hebrew variants, of proto-Masoretic texts, proto-Samaritan texts, texts related to LXX, and even of unknown or mixed affiliation, classified as “unaligned” or “independent.”2 The year 2017 was also the 500 anniversary of the first Rabbinic Bible, published in Venice in 1517, and of the printing of the first polyglot edition of the Bible, the Complutensian Polyglot. The Rabbinic Bible inaugurated the model of edition based in Medieval Hebrew manuscripts, presently based on the best Ben-Asher manuscripts (Aleppo Codex or Leningradensis). The edition model of Renaissance polyglots underscored the plurality of textual traditions, represented in parallel columns by the Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Vulgate Latin (and at times even Arabic and Persian) versions and, starting with the Paris Polyglot, also by the Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch. Walton’s Polyglot is still a tool in use, as its edition of the Targum and Peshitta texts has not been superseded by new editions. Yet also in 1517, five centuries ago, Luther proclaimed the Protestant Reformation and the following year Melanchthon launched the call for a “return to the sources,” to the original texts in their original languages. The 1  E. Ulrich, “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus,” in Congress Volume—Basel 2001, ed. A. Lemaire (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 85–108. 2  E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Third Edition Revised & Expanded (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011); A. Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Band 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr, 2009).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_021

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

367

sola scriptura principle ended up giving way to a single textus receptus, the Masoretic Hebrew, and its translation into vernacular readings. In the last five centuries, Biblical texts have been the object of tense polemics between Jews and Christians, Catholics and Protestants, Hebraists and Hellenists, theologians and philologists.3 In 1516, Erasmus published his edition of the New Testament inaugurating a new model of edition, the critical or eclectic edition, a standard practice in classical texts, the aim of which is to reconstruct the textual form(s) nearer to the original(s). Nestle-Aland’s critical edition of the New Testament in its 28th edition is today universally accepted, although that has required five centuries to pass. Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible has not followed a comparable development. The production of a critical-eclectic edition of the Hebrew Bible was not seen as possible because variants in ancient versions could be attributed to a deficient knowledge of the Hebrew, to translators’ interpretations or to many other reasons, although prominent representatives of modern criticism did not fail to recognize the existence of a different Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX, as O. Thenius, J. Wellhausen and S.R. Driver wrote in their commentaries on Samuel, C.H. Cornill on Ezekiel, and J.A. Montgomery for Kings and Daniel. Qumran has been a stimulus for new edition projects of the Hebrew Bible. Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) has the peculiarity of marking with the abbreviation lit. those readings that, according to the editor’s judgment, go back to a literary development of the text, suggesting that the book or a section of it has been transmitted in two or more different literary forms. The Hebrew Old Testament Project (HOTTP) gives special attention to the history of the research on the difficulties of the text, from the point of view of early and medieval Jewish and Christian sources and modern textual criticism.4 The Hebrew University Bible (HUB), based on the Aleppo codex, documents all textual data, from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the early versions to rabbinic quotations and medieval manuscripts. It is a descriptive edition that neither establishes relationships of dependence or priority between the different textual witnesses nor 3  H. Graf Reventlow, Epochen der Bibelauslegung: Band III: Renaissance, Reformation, Humanismus (München: C.H. Beck, 2001), 68–90; B. Chiesa, Filologia storica della Bibbia ebraica. Volume secondo: Dall’età moderna ai giorni nostri (Brescia: Paideia, 2002); A. Schenker, “Der alttestamentliche Text in den vier grossen Polyglottenbibeln nach dem heutigen Stand der Forschung,” ThRv 90 (1994): 177–188; id., “From the First Printed Hebrew, Greek and Latin Bibles to the First Polyglot Bible, the Complutensian Polyglot: 1477–1517,” in Hebrew Bible. The History of Its Interpretation. II From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, ed. M. Saebo (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 276–291. 4  D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 4 vols. (Fribourg, Suisse: Éditions Universitaires—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982, 1986, 1992, 2005).

368

Chapter 19

sets out to establish a critical text. The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition (HBCE) undertakes an eclectic edition that sets out to reconstruct the textual form(s) nearer to the original(s). It “aims to produce critical texts of each ancient edition, which will be presented in parallel columns,” like the classical polyglots and Origen’s Hexapla, and to represent “multiple early editions of biblical books in cases where such multiple editions are recoverable.” “In cases where one edition is not the textual ancestor of the other(s), a common ancestor to the extant editions will be reconstructed, to the extent possible.”5 But HBCE cannot avoid following a copy-text, which has to be that of a manuscript such as Leningradensis. Thus, this project, though not in a manifest way, attempts to combine the three models of edition listed above. That is where its attractiveness and interest lie, together with the reasons for criticism levelled at it as premature or even impossible to accomplish. The existence of multiple early editions implies the presentation in parallel columns. Some books have a higher degree of textual plurality than others and thus are more pliable to a parallel column edition. An ideal edition of Deuteronomy would be an electronic polyglot with five columns: MT, SP, LXX, Qumran, and a fifth one for the critical (and preferably unvocalized) text.6 Textual plurality is even higher in books where the combined testimony of Qumran and the Septuagint offers evidence of successive editions: Genesis (5; 11), Exodus (36–40), Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Psalms, Canticles, and Daniel.7 These books are basically the same that in the Greek textual tradition were affected by the Greek kaige-Th. recension and form the “Kaige-group” or the “Theodotionic group”: Exodus (chaps. 36–40), Joshua, Judges, Samuel-Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, Song of Songs,

5  R. Hendel, “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” VT 58 (2008): 324– 51, esp. 326; id., Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016). 6  S.W. Crawford, “Deuteronomy as a Test Case for an Eclectic Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions. Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot, ed. A. Piquer Otero and P. Torijano Morales, STHB 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 313–329, esp. p. 327. 7  E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2015); id., “Empirical Evidence for Scribal and Editorial Transmission of Second Temple Religious Literature,” in Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of Authoritative Texts?, ed. R. Müller and J. Pakkala (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 41–58; H. Debel, “Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Pluriform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition,” in Changes in Scripture. Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, ed. H. von Weissenberg et al. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 65–92.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

369

and Daniel. These books are the most challenging for textual criticism and for any critical edition not only of the Hebrew text but also of the Septuagint. Our new knowledge of the history of the biblical text shows that textual criticism of the Hebrew and Greek texts cannot be taken apart from each other. This is especially true for the books of Joshua, Samuel, and Kings, which do not have an edition in the LXX Göttingen series yet. The editor of 1 Kings in HBCE, Jan Joosten, has published a sample of the edition of 1 Kgs 11:1–8 in two columns where he states that “The divergences between the Septuagint on the one hand, the MT and the other versions on the other hand, point to the existence of two distinct Hebrew editions of 1 Kings. It is not easy to determine which edition precedes the other. On the whole, M reflects an older stage than G, but there are many details where the relation seems to be the reverse.”8 According to E. Tov, “its (LXX’s) editorial pluses, minuses, transpositions, and different chronology are usually later than MT.”9 Some scholars lean towards the earliness of the edition attested by LXX;10 whereas some vouch for the historical priority of the proto-M text and point out that the translator performed exegetical work in his translation (Montgomery, Wevers, Gooding, Gordon, Talshir, Van Keulen, Turkanik and Sweeney).11 These 8  S.W. Crawford, J. Joosten and E. Ulrich, “Sample Editions of the Oxford Hebrew Bible: Deuteronomy 32:1–9, 1 Kings 11:1–8, and Jeremiah 27:1–10,” VT 58 (2008): 352–366. 9  E. Tov, “1.3.1 Greek Translations,” in Textual History of the Bible. Volume 1A The Hebrew Bible, ed. A. Lange and E. Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 231. 10  A. Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher (Fribourg: Academic Press/ Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004); id., “Die zwei Erzählungen von Joabs Tod (1 Kön 2:28–34) im Massoretischen Text und in der LXX,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Oslo, 1998, ed. B.A. Taylor (Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 27–35; Ph. Hugo, Les deux visages d’Élie: Texte massorétique et Septante dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 17–18, OBO 217 (Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006); id., “Le Grec ancien des livres des Règnes: Une histoire et un bilan de la recherche,” in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta, ed. Y.A.P. Goldman et al., VTSup 110 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 113–141. 11  J.A. Montgomery, “The Supplement at the end of 3 Kingdoms 2 (1 Reg 2),” ZAW 50 (1932): 124–129; J.W. Wevers, “Exegetical Principles underlying the Septuagint Text of I Kings ii 12–xxi 43,” OTS 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1950): 300–322; D.W. Gooding, Relics of Ancient Exegesis. A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reigns 2, SOTSMS 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); R.P. Gordon, “The Second Septuagint Account of Jeroboam: History or Midrash?,” VT 25 (1975): 368–393; Z. Talshir, The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom (3 Kingdoms 12:24a–z) (Jerusalem: Simor, 1993); P.S. van Keulen, Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11 (Leiden: Brill, 2005); A.S. Turkanik, Of Kings and Reigns: A Study of Translation Technique in the gamma/gamma Section of 3 Reigns (1 Kings) (Tübingen: Mohr, 2008); M.A. Sweeney,

370

Chapter 19

positions roughly match those of scholars who tend to think that Qumran has radically changed the history of the biblical text and, therefore, the practice of textual criticism, and of those who, on the other hand, tend to minimize those changes. The book of Jeremiah is, in principle, the most adequate for an edition in parallel columns. LXX and 4QJerb.d transmit a short edition of this book and MT together with 4QJera.c represent a longer edition.12 Again, scholars are split or waver between two lines and tendencies: Some defend that textual criticism has to refrain from evaluating readings or sections of text generated in the process of edition or literary growth of a book.13 Others defend that the editing process and textual transmission overlap, and thus textual variants often echo earlier editorial processes and editors’ activity leaves imprints in the form of textual variants. The aim of this chapter is to present a joint analysis of textual and literary criticism of cases of additions introduced into MT, LXX or both through the technique of linking or resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme)—first section, From the Greek Hexaplaric Additions to the Hebrew Editorial Glosses—and then of cases of transpositions of text between MT and LXX—The Different Order of Literary Units and the Composition Process. It is not a question of determining the priority of either text, but rather of acknowledging the contribution of both texts together and of each of them by itself to the study of the process of edition or textual growth of the books of Kings. 1

Hexaplaric Additions as Empirical Evidence of Editorial Activity in the Proto-MT and in the LXX’s Vorlage

Late phenomena in the textual transmission of Kings like the Hexaplaric additions in the LXX are connected with phenomena that took place in the editorial process of these books. The Hexaplaric additions reflect the textual growth of the biblical books, providing empirical evidence of interpolations in the proto-MT and the LXX’s Vorlage or of a different arrangement of the materials in either textual form. According to Harry Orlinsky, “wherever the Masoretic text has an excess over the LXX, it is most frequently the former that underwent expansion in post-LXX days, rather than a case of contraction “A Reassessment of the Masoretic and Septuagint Versions of the Jeroboam Narratives in 1 Kings/3 Kingdoms 11–14,” JSJ 38 (2007): 165–195. 12  R. Weis, “Jeremiah amid Actual and Virtual Editions: Textual Plurality and the Editing of the Book of Jeremiah,” in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions, 370–399. 13  E. Tov, “1.1.1.6 Evaluation of Textual Evidence,” in The Hebrew Bible. Volume 1A Overview Articles, ed. A. Lange and E. Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 31–35.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

371

in the latter.”14 According to De Vries, “the essential utility of the LXX arises in the task of identifying additions to the Heb. text. The original that commends itself is, therefore, a text that lacks all the LXX and Chr pluses and virtually all the pluses of the MT.”15 The short Hexaplaric additions in LXX and their counterparts in the MT generally specify elements such as the subject or object of the action, a pronoun, an adjective or attribute, a temporal (ετι = ‫ )עוד‬or place circumstance (εν τη παρεμβολη = ‫)במחנה‬, etc.: – Readings marked with an asterisk, absent in OG and added in (proto-)MT: – 1 Kgs 22:4 Ιωσαφατ 2º] + προς βασιλεα Ισραηλ A Arm SyrH (* α´ θ´) = MT ‫ל־מ ֶלְך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֶ ‫ֶא‬

– 22:7 κυρίου] + ουκετι A Arm SyrH = MT ‫עֹוד‬ – 22:8 Ιωσαφατ Β Copt Luc] + ετι AN rell. = MT ‫עֹוד‬ – 22:15 εἶπεν 2º] αυτω L Copt Aeth(uid); + προς αυτον A SyrH (* α´ θ´) = MT ‫ֵא ָליו‬

– 22:15 εὐοδώσει] + και δωσει A Arm SyrH (* α´ θ´) = MT ‫וְ נָ ַתן‬ – 22: 24 ποῖον] + τουτο Α, * α´ θ´ hoc SyrH = MT ‫ֵאי־זֶ ה‬ – 22:24 κυρίου] + παρ εμου A; + απεστη απ εμου L Arm; + * α´ θ´ praeteriit, α´ a me SyrH = MT ‫ָע ַבר ֵמ ִא ִּתי‬ – 22:28 ἐμοί] + και ειπεν ακουσατε λαοι παντες A 158 Arm SyrH (* σ´ θ´) = MT ‫אמר ִׁש ְמעּו ַע ִּמים ֻּכ ָּלם‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬

– 22:36 στρατοκῆρυξ] + εν τη παρεμβολη A Arm SyrH (* α´ θ´) = MT ‫ַּב ַּמ ֲחנֶ ה‬ – 22:38 αἷμα] + αυτου A Arm SyrH (το αιμα αυτου *) = MT ‫ ָּדמֹו‬. – Readings marked with obelus, added to the OG Vorlage and absent from MT: – 22:6 ‫ ַהּנְ ִב ִיאים‬, τους προφητας] pr παντας sub ÷ SyrH = ‫ת־הּנְ ִב ִיאים‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ – 22:7 ‫הֹוׁש ָפט‬ ָ ְ‫אמר י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬, και ειπεν Ιωσαφατ] + προς (τον) βασιλεα Ισραηλ sub ÷ SyrH = ‫ל־מ ֶלְך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֶ ‫ ֶא‬, cf. v. 4 – 22:7 ‫וְ נִ ְד ְר ָׁשה‬, επερωτησομεν] + τον Κυριον sub ÷ SyrH = ‫את־יְ הוָ ה‬, cf. v. 8 – 22:8 ‫הֹוׁש ָפט‬ ָ ְ‫י‬, Ιωσαφατ] + βασιλευς Ιουδα sub ÷ SyrH = ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫הֹוׁש ָפט ֶמ ֶלְך־י‬ ָ ְ‫י‬, cf. v. 10 – 22:17 ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬, και ειπεν] + ουχ ουτως sub ÷ SyrH = ‫ל(א)כן‬ – 22:18 ‫הֹוׁש ָפט‬ ָ ְ‫י‬, Ιωσαφατ] + βασιλεα ιουδα sub ÷ SyrH = ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫ֶמ ֶלְך־י‬ – 22:19 ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬, και ειπεν] + Μειχαιας sub ÷ SyrH =‫יכיְ הּו‬ ָ ‫ִמ‬ – 22:19 ‫ ָל ֵכן‬, ουχ ουτως] + ουκ εγω sub ÷ SyrH = ‫?לא אני‬ – 22:19 ‫יהוה‬, Kυριου] + ουχ ουτως 2º sub ÷ SyrH = ‫ל(א)כן‬ 14  H  .M. Orlinsky, “The Kings-Isaiah Recensions of the Hezekiah Story,” JQR 30 (1939–40): 33–49, esp. 40. 15  S.J. De Vries, Prophet against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (I Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 18.

372

Chapter 19

– 22:19 ‫יהוה‬, θεον Ισραηλ sub ÷ SyrH = ‫אלהי ישראל‬. It would not be an addition (BHS) but rather an alternative reading ‫אלהי ישראל‬. – 22:20 ‫אחאב‬, Αχααβ] + βασιλεα Ισραηλ ÷ SyrH = ‫( מלך ישראל‬Vulgata and 2 Chr 18:19) – 22:30, 32 ‫הֹוׁש ָפט‬ ָ ְ‫י‬, Ιωσαφατ] + βασιλεα ιουδα ÷ SyrH = ‫מלך יהודה‬ – 22:35 και απεθανεν εσπερας και εξεπορευετο το αιμα της τροπης εως του κολπου του αρματος ÷ SyrH; > 93 – 22:38 ‫וילקו‬, και εξελιξαν] + αι υες και ÷ SyrH; cf. 21:19 + αι υες και – 22:38 ‫רחצו‬, ελουσαντο] + εν τω αιματι ÷ SyrH The text or texts earlier than the Hebrew of LXX and the proto-MT lacked almost all the additions marked with asterisk or obelus and others, which are not indicated by the Aristarchean signs. However, it is not possible to imagine a text totally deprived of elements that somehow specified the subject of a clause, identified a character or clarified some circumstance, especially one of time and location. The Qumran manuscripts contain similar additions, as for example, 4QJosha adding “Joshua” in 3:17, “wheat” in 3:15 or “now” in 7:12. The first aim of this chapter is to show how the extent of the Hexaplaric additions helps to recognize the exact length of the corresponding Hebrew additions, frequently introduced by means of a resumptive repetition or Wiederaufnahme.16 Greek Hexaplaric Additions Reflecting Hebrew Additions in the (Proto-)MT Together with added elements composed of one or two words, there are longer additions which may span one or several verses. The longest one is 1 Kgs 6:11– 14, a theological passage made of Deuteronomistic and Priestly phraseology,17 strange in the context, absent from OG and Josephus (Ant. 8.70), enclosed by petuḥah and setumah and marked with asterisk. The insertion (text in italics) was introduced by a kind of resumptive repetition (bold text):18 “10 He built 1.1

16  According to B. Halpern “the ‘resumptive repetition’ proves to be of help in drawing the dividing lines between the respective units,” see id., “Sacred History and Ideology: Chronicles’ Thematic Structure—Indications of an Early Source,” in The Creation of Sacred Literature. Composition and Redactions of the Biblical Text, ed. R.E. Friedman (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 35–54, esp. 59. 17  A. Rofé, “Studying the Biblical Text in the Light of Historic-literary Criticisms: The Reproach of the Prophet in Judg 6:7–10 and 4QJudga,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, Volume One, ed. A. Lange et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 111–123. 18  E. Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige 1. Könige 1–16 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 65; J. Lust, “Solomon’s Temple According to 1 Kings 6:3–13 in Hebrew and in Greek,” in After Qumran. Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts—The Historical Books, ed. H. Ausloos et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 265–274.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

373

the structure … with timbers of cedar (‫… ַּב ֲע ֵצי ֲא ָרזִ ים‬ ‫צּוע‬ ַ ָ‫ת־הּי‬ ַ ‫)וַ ֶּיִבן ֶא‬. [11 Now the word of the Lord came to Solomon, (12) ‘Concerning this house that you are building, if you will walk in my statutes … (13–14) I will dwell among … my people Israel….’] 15 He built the walls … with boards of cedar … (… ‫ת־קירֹות‬ ִ ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ֶא‬ ‫) ְּב ַצ ְלעֹות ֲא ָרזִ ים‬.” – 1 Kgs 4:13: “Ben Geber, in Ramoth-Gilead [he had the villages of Jair son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead]19 and the region of Argob in Bashan.” The rather obvious insertion in MT/LXXO, missing in OG, shows the growth of the text from the older Greek Vorlage to the secondary MT. LXX preserves the old reading Ρεμαθ instead of MT “Ramoth.” – 1 Kgs 5:4: “For he had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates (‫ [ ) ֵע ֶבר ַהּנָ ָהר‬from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates (‫]) ֵע ֶבר ַהּנָ ָהר‬20 and he had peace on all sides.” At 2:46f the Antiochene text ὅτι ἦν ἄρχων ἐν παντὶ πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ preserves the OG that does not include the interpolation present also in the B text of 2:46f ὅτι ἦν ἄρχων ἐν παντὶ πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ [ἀπὸ Ραφι ἕως Γάζης ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ]. The expression “west of the River” reveals the Mesopotamian perspective of a postexilic insertion. – 1 Kgs 6:5: “He built a structure against the wall of the house, running around (‫[ ) ָס ִביב‬the walls of the house, running around (‫ ]) ָס ִביב‬the nave and the inner sanctuary.” The insertion in MT of the words ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫“( ָס ִביב ֶא‬the walls of the house, running around”) missing in LXX (κυκλόθεν τῷ ναῷ καὶ τῷ δαβιρ) and reproduced in the matching Hexaplaric addition συν τοιχοις του οικου κυκλοθεν (A Arm SyrH sub * θ’) has been operated through the repetition of the word ‫ ָס ִביב‬.21 Noth and Würthwein consider that, besides the words absent from LXX, also the following two words are secondary, ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ ַל ֵה‬.22

19  Γαλααδ] + αυτω ο αυωθ ιαρειρ υκου μανασση γαλααδ Α; + τω αβωθ ιαηρ υιου μανασση γαλααδ x (sub * SyrH) = ‫ן־מנַ ֶּׁשה ֲא ֶׁשר ַּבּגִ ְל ָעד‬ ְ ‫ לֹו ַחּוֹת יָ ִאיר ֶּב‬MT (BHS: “gl?”). Cf. T.M. Law, Origenes Orientalis. The Preservation of Origen’s Hexapla in the Syrohexapla of 3 Kingdoms (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 180–181. 20  ποταμου] + απο θαψα και εως γαζης εν πασιν βασιλευσιν περαν του ποταμου LXXO Ax Arm Syr (sub * Syr) = ‫ל־מ ְל ֵכי ֵע ֶבר ַהּנָ ָהר‬ ַ ‫ד־עּזָ ה ְּב ָכ‬ ַ ‫ ִמ ִּת ְפ ַסח וְ ַע‬MT. Cf. Law, Origenes Orientalis, 181. 21  ‫ ֶאת‬is often used in the Hebrew Bible to introduce explanatory glosses, see G.R. Driver, “Glosses in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament,” in L’Ancien Testament et l’Orient. Études présentées aux VIes Journées Bibliques de Louvain [11–13 septembre 1954] (Louvain— Paris: Université de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1957) 123–161, esp. 127; Law, Origenes Orientalis, 61. 22  M. Noth, Könige. I. Teilband (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 98; Würthwein, Könige, 60; P. Dubovsky, The Building of the First Temple: A Study in Redactional, Text-critical and Historical Perspective (Tübingen: Mohr, 2015), 139.

374

Chapter 19

– 1 Kgs 6:17–19: “… the nave in front of the inner sanctuary (LXX Vulg) [18 The cedar within the house had carvings of gourds and open flowers; all was cedar, no stone was seen. 19 And the inner sanctuary] in the innermost part of the house.”23 The resumptive repetition and the omission in LXX indicate the span of the operated addition which is part of a series of additions and duplicates in the following context.24 – 1 Kgs 7:9: “stones …, sawed with saws, inside and outside (‫ּומחּוץ‬ ִ ) [even from the foundation to the coping, and so on the outside (‫ּומחּוץ‬ ִ )] to the great court.” LXX omits the first ‫ּומחּוץ‬ ִ (+ και εξωθεν Ax Arm Syr, sub * α´ σ´ θ´). According to Noth, there is a corruption here which should be corrected with the conjecture of the word )… ‫ ומחצ(ר‬instead of MT ‫ּומחּוץ‬ ִ .25 The repetition of the word ‫ּומחּוץ‬ ִ frames a gloss composed of the words ‫ד־ה ְּט ָפחֹות‬ ַ ‫ּומ ַּמ ָּסד ַע‬ ִ . The oldest text would have only ‫דֹולה‬ ָ ְ‫ד־ה ָח ֵצר ַהּג‬ ֶ ‫ּומחּוץ ַע‬ ִ ‫ ִמ ַּביִת‬. – 1 Kgs 7:30–32: “(30) Moreover each stand had four bronze wheels and axles of bronze; and at the four corners were supports for a laver. [The supports were cast, with wreaths at the side of each. (31) Its opening was within a crown which projected upward one cubit; its opening was round, as a pedestal is made, a cubit and a half deep. At its opening there were carvings; and its panels were square, not round. (32) And the four wheels were underneath the panels.] The axles of the wheels were of one piece with the stands; and the height of a wheel was a cubit and a half.” The text between square brackets, omitted in OG, would be a Hexaplaric addition (Ax Arm). Würthwein considers that v. 31 is an addition preceded and followed by a corrupt text.26 The Hexaplaric addition defines precisely the extent of this interpolation (30bβ–32aα), which interrupts the reference to the axles and the wheels. The interpolation has triggered a series of repetitions and small corruptions in the text before and after the addition. – 1 Kgs 7:38: “each basin ( four cubits each basin).” Besides LXX, some Medieval manuscripts omit the addition‫ ַא ְר ַּבע ָּב ַא ָּמה ַה ִּכּיֹור ָה ֶא ָחד‬reflected in the Hexaplaric text τον ενα] + τεσσαρων πηχων οχυτροκαυλος ο εις x Arm. – 1 Kgs 8:41–42: “When a foreigner who is not of thy people (Israel) comes (‫ ָּובא‬, καὶ ἥξουσιν OG) [ from a distant land because of your name, (42)—for 23  According to M.J. Mulder, v. 18 “is a totally ‘lost’ notation … it strongly resembles what we read in vs. 29 of this chapter and from there might have been put in the margin here by a diligent reader of the text …,” see id., 1 Kings. Volume 1/1 Kings 1–11 (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 258. Cf. Law, Origenes Orientalis, 108. 24  Würthwein, Könige, 60. Cf. D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, Vol. 1 (Fribourg, Suisse: Éditions Universitaires—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 343. 25  Noth, Könige, 132. Cf. the discussion of Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 345. 26  Würthwein, Könige, 79.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

375

they shall hear of your great name, your mighty hand, and your outstretched arm—comes (‫ ]) ָּובא‬and prays toward this house …” MT adds an insertion not in the OG (BHS does not note its absence in OG). Würthwein only considers secondary the text of v. 42.27 Stade-Schwally, Montgomery, Mulder and others think that LXX has lost vv. 41b–42 due to homoioarkton (‫) ָּובא‬.28 Again, some scholars explain the text as an omission of the LXX translator and others as an addition of the editor of the proto-Masoretic text. Alleged haplographies of LXX are rather interpolations in the proto-MT introduced by means of Wiederaufnahme. The span of this insertion is marked by the Hexaplaric addition (Ax Arm) which also includes 41b. – 1 Kgs 9:15–17: “King Solomon levied to build the house of the Lord and his own house and the Millo and the wall of Jerusalem and Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer [16 Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up and captured Gezer and burnt it with fire, and had slain the Canaanites who dwelt in the city, and had given it as dowry to his daughter, Solomon’s wife; 17 so Solomon ‘rebuilt’ Gezer] and Lower Bethhoron and Baalath….” Verses 16–17a constitute, together with 3:1b, a notice placed in LXX after (MT) 5:14. Thus, it is not really an omission of LXX,29 but of a transposition, because the same text in OG appears after 5:14 τότε ἀνέβη Φαραω βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου καὶ προκατελάβετο τὴν Γαζερ καὶ ἐνεπύρισεν αὐτὴν καὶ τὸν Χανανίτην τὸν κατοικοῦντα ἐν Μεργαβ καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὰς Φαραω ἀποστολὰς θυγατρὶ αὐτοῦ γυναικὶ Σαλωμων καὶ Σαλωμων ᾠκοδόμησεν τὴν Γαζερ (“Then Pharaoh king of Egypt went up and captured Gazer and burned it and the Canaanite who lived in Mergab, and Pharaoh gave them as send-off to his daughter, Solomon’s wife, and Solomon built Gazer”). As it is the case in other transpositions, the Hexaplaric recension underwent the “omission” in 16–17a with this OG text, but adapting it to MT: Φαραω βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου ἀνέβη καὶ κατελάβετο τὴν Γαζερ καὶ ἐνέπρησεν αὐτὴν ἐν πυρὶ καὶ συν (‫ ) ֶאת‬τὸν Χαναναιον τὸν καθημένον ἐν τῇ πόλει ἀπἐκτεινεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτην ἀποστολὰς τῇ θυγατρὶ αὐτοῦ γυναικὶ Σαλωμων καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν Σαλωμων τὴν Γαζερ. Translations such as “rebuilt” (RSV), “reconstruisit” (Bible de Jérusalem) or “baute Geser (wieder) auf” (Würthwein) imply that Solomon built Gezer together with Jerusalem, Hazor and Megiddo (v. 15) and that he rebuilt it later together with Lower Beth-Horon and Baalath (v. 17). The text should be read 27  Würthwein, Könige, 93. 28  Mulder, 1 Kings, 436. Without referring to the LXX omission, E.A. Knauf considers that the Wiederaufnahme and the change in number indicate a secondary addition, see id., 1 Könige 1–14. Übersetzt und ausgelegt (Freiburg: Herder, 2016), 269. 29  According to M.A. Sweeney, “LXX lacks v. 16, apparently because it is parenthetical,” see id., I and II Kings. A Commentary (Louisville—London: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 142.

376

Chapter 19

without the inserted gloss and it is therefore a single list of cities whose construction or, rather, reconstruction is attributed to Solomon. Very often modern translations do not allow to perceive textual or grammatical difficulties produced by interpolations in the Hebrew or Greek texts. Many times they establish causal connections or temporal relationships which try to integrate those interpolations to create a continuous text which can be read without the hesitations in the Hebrew. – 1 Kgs 9:22: “they were the soldiers, and his servants, and the commanders [his captains, and the commanders] of his chariots and his horsemen.” LXX omits ‫( וְ ָׂש ָריו וְ ָׁש ִל ָׁשיו‬καὶ παῖδες αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἁρμάτων αὐτοῦ καὶ ἱππεῖς αὐτοῦ). Origen’s recension does not add the omitted text, which appears, nevertheless, in the Lucianic text and other manuscripts (ἄρχοντες) + καὶ τρισσοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄρχοντες bdeag-jm-tzc2e2. – 2 Kgs 4:12–15: “And he said to Gehazi his servant, ‘Call this Shunammite.’ When he had called her, she stood before him. [(13–14) And he said to him, ‘Say now to her, See, you have taken all this trouble for us …’ (15) He said, ‘Call her.’ And when he had called her, she stood in the doorway.] And he said, ‘At this season, when the time comes round, you shall embrace a son.’” The resumptive repetition of vv. 12 and 15 ‫אמר ֶאל־ּגֵ ֲח ִז֣י נַ ֲערֹו ְק ָרא ַלּׁשּונַ ִ ּ֣מית ַהּזֹאת‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬ ָ ‫א־לּה וַ ּיִ ְק ָר‬ ָ ‫אמר ְק ָר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫( וַ ּי‬v. 15) en‫א־לּה ַ ֽו ַּת ֲעמֹד ְל ָפנָ יו‬ ָ ‫( וַ ּיִ ְק ָר‬v. 12) –‫א־לּה וַ ַּת ֲעמֹד ַּב ָּפ ַתח‬ compasses the insertion of the episode formed by vv. 13–14.30 BHS does not take into consideration the omission in v. 15 by the OG of MT ‫א־לה‬ ָ ‫אמר ְק ָר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ּי‬, which the Hexaplaric text replaces with καὶ εἶπεν κάλεσον αὐτήν. The expression “in the doorway” (‫ ) ַּב ָּפ ַתח‬is maybe earlier than “before him” (‫) ְל ָפנָ יו‬. The longer MT preserves again an important editorial link. In principle, the shorter reading is also the oldest one, since the copying of manuscripts tends to amplification of the text by inserting glosses or by repeating parallel passages. But the longer reading has often the advantage of having preserved textual traces without which it would be hard to identify the earlier text and its later development.

30  A  . Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige (Nördlingen: Beck’sche Buchhandlung, 1887), 402–403; B. Stade and F. Schwally, The Books of Kings, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1904), 192. According to J.A. Montgomery, “Baumgartner, following Gunkel and Gressmann, would elide simply v. 12b and wyʾmr lw, v. 13. But is no sufficient reason for alteration,” see id., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 371; Würthwein, Könige, 290.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

377

1.2 Additions in the Septuagint Reflecting Glosses in Its Hebrew Vorlage The additions to the Vorlage of LXX when compared to the archetype are less numerous than those to MT. That would be an indication of the LXX Hebrew being earlier, though not always so, than proto-MT. – 1 Kgs 7:31 (MT 7:45): “The pots, the shovels, and the basins, all these vessels that Hiram made for King Solomon for the house of the Lord [LXX + and the forty-eight pillars of the house of the King and the house of the Lord. All the works of the king that Hiram made] were of burnished bronze.” According to Mulder, “Even if one regards this addition in LXX as very late, it is still valuable, because it presumably originated in the LXX from a Hebr. ‘Vorlage.’”31 – 1 Kgs 8:65: “Solomon held the feast at that time … before the Lord our God [LXX + in the house that he built, eating and drinking and rejoicing before the Lord our God] seven days (ἐνώπιον κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ ᾧ ᾠκοδόμησεν ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων καὶ εὐφραινόμενος ἐνώπιον κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας).” Possibly, according to Barthélemy, a homoioteleuton took place in MT when compared to its Vorlage.32 It is, in any case, an addition taken from Chronicles.33 – 1 Kgs 11:14, 23–25: “And the Lord raised up a satan against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite [LXX + and Hesrom son of Eliadae who was in Raemmath, Hadrazar, king of Souba … and they were a satan to Israel all the days of Solomon. And Hadad the Edomite] was of the royal house in Edom….” The text in its earliest form referred only a single “satan,” Hadad the Edomite, with the sentence: “And the Lord raised up a satan against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite of the seed of the kingdom in Edom” (‫וַ ּיָ ֶקם יְ הוָ ה ָׂש ָטן ִל ְׁשֹלמֹה‬ ‫) ֵאת ֲה ַדד ָה ֲאד ִֹמי ִמּזֶ ַרע ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך הּוא ֶּב ֱאדֹום‬. This sentence appears in MT in v. 14; in LXX it is interrupted by the reference to a second “satan” in Syria (“and Hersom son of Eliade/Rezon the son of Eliada …”). The insertion was operated via the repetition (Wiederaufnahme) of the words “Hadad the Edomite” (‫) ֲה ַדד ָה ֲאד ִֹמי‬. In vv. 15–22 we find the narrative of the stay of Hadad the Edomite in Egypt, which concludes in LXX with the words “… And Hader returned to his land. This was the evil which Hader did, and he was indignant with Israel, and he reigned in the land of Edom” (καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν Αδερ εἰς τὴν γῆν αὐτοῦ αὕτη ἡ κακία ἣν ἐποίησεν Αδερ καὶ ἐβαρυθύμησεν ἐν Ισραηλ καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν γῇ Εδωμ, BHS “sic recte”). In MT the section of text mentioning the Syrian satan appears in 31  Mulder, 1 Kings, 359. 32  Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 354. 33  Würthwein, Könige, 95.

378

Chapter 19

vv. 23–25, after the narrative of Hadad the Edomite’s stay in Egypt (vv. 15–22). This transposition, operated by the proto-Masoretic text, required the insertion in v. 23 of the introductory sentence: “God (also) raised up a satan to him” (‫ֹלהים לֹו ָׂש ָטן‬ ִ ‫ )וַ ּיָ ֶקם ֱא‬which duplicates that in v. 14 (with the meaningful variant “the Lord,” v. 14, and “God,” v. 23). MT also adds in v. 25 aα the words “He was a satan against Israel all the days of Solomon” (‫ל־יְמי ְׁשֹלמֹה‬ ֵ ‫)וַ יְ ִהי ָׂש ָטן ְליִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ָּכ‬, which allow returning to the story on Hadad and presenting its conclusion. It is striking that there is a change in the first expression “satan against Solomon” (MT/LXX v. 14) to the second one (only in MT) in v. 25 “satan against Israel.” The Hexaplaric addition (καὶ ἐγένετο ἀντικειμένος τῷ Ισραηλ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας Σαλωμων, Ax Arm Syr (sub *) includes the beginning of v. 25, reflecting thus the extension of the MT addition (vv. 23–25aα). The Hexaplaric addition includes the words ἐν τῷ ἀποκτείνειν δαυιδ αὐτοῦ which match a MT addition. On the other hand, the MT insertion triggered the loss of LXX καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν Αδερ εἰς τὴν γῆν αὐτοῦ.34 2

Textual Traces of Additions of the Proto-MT and of LXX’s Vorlage to Their Common Archetype

Resumptive repetitions and textual variants linked with the insertion of glosses involving the “Name” of Yahweh are especially significant in view of recent debates about the reading ‫בחר‬, “he has chosen,” (Samaritan Pentateuch) or ‫ ְיִב ַחר‬, “he will choose,” (MT) in the formula ‫יכם ִמ ָּכל־‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ר־יִב ַחר יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ְ ‫ַה ָּמקֹום ֲא ֶׁש‬ ‫ת־ׁשמֹו ָׁשם‬ ְ ‫יכם ָלׂשּום ֶא‬ ֶ ‫“( ִׁש ְב ֵט‬the place where the Lord your God has chosen to place his Name”; Deut 12:5 et al.).35 Until recently, this variant has been considered part of the Samaritan editing of Deuteronomy, a polemical change made to emphasize the choice of Mt. Gerizim (as opposed to Jerusalem). The text of 2 Kgs 23:27 “and I will cast off this city which I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, my name shall be there,” is part of the interpolation introduced with a ‫אך‬. – 1 Kgs 8:29: “toward this house night and day (LXX ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός = ‫יֹומם‬ ָ ‫ וָ ַליְ ָלה‬2 Chr 6:20) [toward this place of which you said, ‘My Name shall be there,’ that you may heed the prayer that sour servant prays toward this place 34  Noth considers the “operations” in LXX “recht willkürlich,” see id., Könige, 253. BHS does not indicate the Hexaplaric addition, also ignored in commentaries. 35  A. Schenker, “Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi? L’apport de la Bible grecque ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et massorétique,” in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, ed. A. Voitila and J. Jokiranta (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 342–345.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

379

day and night (LXX + εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός)].” LXX preserves in a more complete way than MT the Wiederaufnahme that encloses the addition related to the “Name” and the Jerusalem Temple. In LXX the text of the repetition is the same in both of its members: εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός (reading of Hexaplaric witnesses: νυκτός καὶ ἡμέρας A Arm). MT omits the correspondence to the last two words which appear in LXX and 2 Chr 6:20 in the inverse order of MT 8a.36 The text of the interpolation corresponds to the dtr formula (‫יהיה שמי שם ) ֲא ֶׁשר אמרת‬, followed by other expression adapted to the immediate context: ‫ל־ה ְּת ִפ ָלה ֲא ֶׁשר ְיִת ַּפ ֵּלל‬ ַ ‫ִל ְׁשמ ַֹע ֶא‬ ‫( ַע ְב ְּדָך‬cf. vv. 28 and 30). – 1 Kgs 14:21 // LXX 12:24a: “(Rehoboam)… reigned seventeen (twelve LXX) years in Jerusalem [the city that the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there;] and his mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonite …” At 12:24a the OG text καὶ δώδεκα ἔτη ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν Ιερουσαλημ καὶ ὄνομα τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Νααναν preserves the original text free of the gloss “the city that the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there.” At 1 Kgs 14:21 MT introduces the gloss: “Jerusalem, the city that the Lord had chosen out….”37 – 1 Kgs 18:30–32: MT: “And he [Elijah] repaired the altar of the Lord that had been thrown down [(31) And Elijah took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, as the Lord had spoken to him, saying, ‘Israel shall be your name’ (32) and with the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord (LXXL OL om. in the name of the Lord)] LXX: and repaired the altar that had been thrown down.” The clause “and he [Elijah] repaired the altar of the Lord that had been thrown down” appears in MT before the interpolation, in OG after this gloss. The clause of MT v. 30 ‫וַ יְ ַר ֵּפא‬ ‫ת־מזְ ַּבח יְ הוָ ה ֶה ָהרּוס‬ ִ ‫ ֶא‬has influenced the Greek textual tradition: αὐτόν] + καὶ ἰάσατο θυσιαστήριον + καὶ ἰάσατο τὸ θυσιαστήριον Ndgp-txyz, + καὶ ἰάσατο τὸ θυσιαστήριον κυρίου τὸ κατεσκαμμένον Afmw Arm Syr (Hexaplaric). The Old Greek presents that clause καὶ ἰάσατο τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ κατεσκαμμένον after the interpolation. The transpositions of clauses frequently enclose an

36  According to S.L. McKenzie, “The expression ‘day and night’ in the OG is an expansion. It has been brought on by the occurrence of the same expression earlier in the verse,” see id., “1 Kings 8: A Sample Study,” BIOSCS 19 (1986): 25. 37  David Carr cites this passage without taking into account the parallel LXX text in 12:24a which “omits” precisely that clause, id., The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York; Oxford University Press, 2011), 168. Cf. also Z. Talshir, The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom (3 Kingdoms 12:24a–z) (Jerusalem: Simor, 1993), 244–248.

380

Chapter 19

interposed addition. The expression “in the Name of the Lord” is probably missing in the OG as attested by the Antiochene text and the OL (Lucifer).38 – 2 Kgs 21:4–5: “He built altars [in the house of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, ‘In Jerusalem I will put my name.’ (5) He built altars] for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord.” Furthermore, the OL (Lucifer) et aedificauit sacrarium in duobus aedibus domus domini omits “in the house of the Lord … altars for all the host of heaven.” If OL represents a Greek text and its underlying Hebrew, this reading was as short as “He built altars in the two courts of the house of the Lord.”39 Some MT/LXX additions when compared to their archetype reflect elements, which could be attributed to a redaction of the Deuteronomistic (dtr) type: – 1 Kgs 3:13b–14: “so that there will not be any among the kings like you all your days [14. And if you walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days”]. Würthwein considers v. 13b as well as v. 14 part of the dtr addition, but the resumptive repetition of MT “your days” seems to reduce the addition to v. 14 (LXXO and OL have “your days” in 13b, although LXXB lacks it).40 The dtr insertion has determined the textual variants of this passage.41 – 1 Kgs 8:24–25: “… who hast kept with thy servant David my father (what thou didst declare to him > LXX) [thou didst declare with thy mouth, and with thy hand hast fulfilled it this day. (25) Now therefore, O Lord, God of Israel,] keep with thy servant David my father what thou didst declare to him, saying …” The resumptive repetition encloses the addition allusive to the divine promise “this day.” This insertion has caused several variants in the connecting points in the Hebrew and Greek text; the return to the previous text is operated, as in other cases, through the words “Now therefore” (‫)וְ ַע ָּתה‬.42 – 2 Kgs 10:29–31: “But Jehu did not turn aside from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, [the golden calves that were in Bethel, and in Dan. (30) And the Lord said to Jehu, ‘Because you have done well in 38  Ph. Hugo, Les deux visages d’Élie, 218–219; J. Trebolle Barrera, Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum. Variantes textuales y composición literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1989), 139–141. 39  Trebolle, Centena, 200–201. Van Keulen acknowledges that v. 4 is a late addition, although regarding the OL text he considers that “the translator of VL may have mistakenly combined verses 4 and 5, overlooking v. 4b and the reference to the Host of Heaven in v. 5,” Two versions of the Solomon Narrative, 56–57. 40  Würthwein, Könige, 35. 41  Cf. J.W. Wevers, “Exegetical Principles,” 302, nota 4; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 335. 42  Full analysis in Trebolle, Centena, 124–127. Cf. chapter 15 in the present volume “Kings (MT/LXX) and Chronicles: The Double and Triple Textual Tradition.”

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

381

carrying out what is right in my eyes …’ (31) But Jehu was not careful to walk in the law of the Lord the God of Israel with all his heart; he did not turn from the sins of Jeroboam, which he made Israel to sin.”] According to Würthwein 31b is a mere repetition of 29a and thus its text should be eliminated.43 It would be rather a resumptive repetition. Its text should not be suppressed because then the textual traces of the interpolation would be lost (v. 29b and vv. 30–31).44 Other additions of MT/LXX of varied content would require a detailed analysis of the span of the interpolation, of the textual variants caused by it and of the reasons (theological or otherwise) which brought it about: – 1 Kgs 2:23–24: “Then King Solomon swore by the Lord, ‘So may God do to me, and more also, for (‫[ ) ִּכי‬Adonijah has devised this scheme at the risk of his life! (24) Now therefore as the Lord lives … who has made me a house as he promised, for (‫ ]) ִּכי‬today Adonijah shall be put to death.’” The insertion alludes to Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Sam 7. This is well marked by the repetition of the particle ‫ ִּכי‬and of the expression on Adonijah’s execution. The interpolation commented by Würthwein, who extends its span (“Adonijah has devised this scheme at the risk of his life!”), is original to the narrative, whereas “today Adonijah shall be put to death” is part of the addition.45 Nevertheless, the command-execution correlation requires continuity between the expressions: “today Adonijah shall be put to death (‫יּומת‬ ַ ). So King Solomon sent Benaiah, son of Jehoiada; he struck him down, and he died (‫)וַ ּיָ מֹת‬.” – 1 Kgs 2:32–33: “The Lord will bring back his bloody deeds on his own head (‫ת־ּדמֹו ַעל־רֹאׁשֹו‬ ָ ‫) ֵה ִׁשיב יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬, [because, without the knowledge of my father David, he attacked and killed … (33) So shall their blood come back on the head of Joab (‫יֹואב ְּוברֹאׁש זַ ְרעֹו‬ ָ ‫יהם ְּברֹאׁש‬ ֶ ‫ ])וְ ָׁשבּו ְד ֵמ‬and on the head of his descendants forever….” The resumptive repetition delimits more clearly the interpolation commented by Würthwein, who extends its span to include 2:31b–33.46 – 1 Kgs 4:12 “Baana son of Ahilud, in Taanach, Megiddo, [and all Beth-shean, which is beside Zarethan below Jezreel,] from Beth-shean to Abel-meholah.” The text would refer initially to the city of Beth-Shean without the addition “all (‫ ) ָכל‬Beth-shean,” which seems to convert Beth-Shean into a zone whose 43  Würthwein, Könige, 343. 44  J. Trebolle, Jehú y Joás. Textos y composición literaria en 2 Re 9–11 (Valencia: San Jerónimo, 1984), 101–164; W. Dietrich, “Jehus Kampf gegen den Baal von Samaria,” Von David zu den Deuteronomisten. Studien zu den Geschichtsüberlieferungen des Alten Testaments (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002), 164–180, esp. 173. 45  Würthwein, Könige, 6. 46  Würthwein, Könige, 7.

382

Chapter 19

location would be defined by the gloss “which is beside Zarethan below Jezreel” (‫) ֲא ֶׁשר ֵא ֶצל ָצ ְר ַתנָ ה ִמ ַּת ַחת ְליִ זְ ְר ֶעאל‬, introduced by the procedure of resumptive repetition. Nevertheless, it is not possible to reconstruct accurately the text before the interpolation. Würthwein acknowledges that v. 12 “ist flossiert und in Verwirrung geraten,” but its reconstruction alters the order of words and gives preference to the reading “all (‫ ) ָכל‬Beth-shean” which makes no sense in the city list: Taanach, Meggido, Beth-Shean, Jokmeam.47 – 1 Kgs 7:1, 12 “(7:1) and he (Solomon) finished his entire house (MT, LXX 7:38). [7:2–12 He built the House of the Forest of Lebanon … one course of cedar beams all around. LXX (7:50) + And Solomon finished his entire house.] (8:1) And it happened, when Solomon finished building the house of the Lord and his own house after twenty years, then….”48 The sentence “and Solomon finished his entire house” appears in MT (and LXXO) at the beginning of the unit, whereas in LXX it appears at the end. Often, the transposition or repetition of a clause before and after a literary unit indicates that it constitutes an addition to the earlier text. In addition, the pericope in the construction of the royal palace appears in a different position in MT and LXX; this seems to confirm that it is an addition to the common archetypal edition of Kings (MT, LXX 7:38).49 – 1 Kgs 7:41–42 (LXX 7:27–28): “and the two networks to cover the two bowls of the capitals that were on the top of the pillars [42a and the four hundred pomegranates for the two networks, two rows of pomegranates for each network, 42b to cover the two bowls of the capitals that were on the pillars.”] The only variant “on the top of the pillars (‫ּמּודים‬ ִ ‫ …) ַעל־רֹאׁש ָה ַע‬on the pillars (‫ּמּודים‬ ִ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ָה ַע‬ ְ ‫ ”) ַע‬may be only so in appearance. In fact, some translations render the expressions ‫ ַעל־רֹאׁש‬and ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬as synonyms: “on the top of.” BHS proposes the omission of the presumed duplicate of 42b as a variant to 41bβ–δ,50 but by doing so it fully integrates the gloss into the text and does not acknowledge its character anymore. – 1 Kgs 8:10–11: “And when the priests made out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house (of the Lord LXXL), [so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; the glory of the Lord filled the house (of the Lord)].” Verse 11a is an addition with a reference Exod 40:35aα. Würthwein 47  Würthwein, Könige, 40. 48  Cf. chapter 20 in this volume, “The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II. The Different Order of the Literary Units in MT and LXX and the Composition Process.” 49  On other variants at insertion points in 6:36 and 7:12, cf. again in this volume chapter 20, “The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II. The Different Order of the Literary Units in MT and LXX and the Composition Process.” 50  “Dublette von V. 41b,” Würthwein, Könige, 82, Anm. 2.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

383

limits the gloss to 11a, which leads to suppose that the previous text contained a duplicate rife with repetitions: “a cloud filled the house of the Lord, the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord.”51 The glosser changed “a cloud” to “the glory of the Lord.” – 1 Kgs 10:5 // 2 Chr 9:4: “the food of his table, the seating of his officials, and the attendance of his servants, and their clothing, [and his valets and their clothing] (2 Chr 9:4).” The text of 2 Chr 9:4 mentions “the (Solomon’s) servants,” “their clothing, his valets, and their clothing” (‫ּבּוׁש ֶיהם‬ ֵ ‫ּומ ְל‬ ַ ‫ְמ ָׁש ְר ָתיו‬ ֶ ‫ּבּוׁש‬ ֵ ‫ּומ ְל‬ ַ ). ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ּבּוׁש‬ ֵ ‫ּומ ְל‬ ַ ‫ּומ ְׁש ָקיו‬ ַ ). The parallel of 1 Kgs 10:5 omits the last word (‫יהם‬ Rudolph attributes this omission to a mistake.52 The repetition of this word contains the gloss “and his valets” (‫ּומ ְׁש ָקיו‬ ַ ). The insertion of this word with a singular suffix (“and his valets”) together with the repetition of the following one with a plural suffix (“and their clothing”) triggered the development of variants in the nominal suffixes (Q ‫ ְמ ָׁש ְר ָתיו‬/K ‫ ְמ ָׁש ְר ָתו‬in Kings MT; αὐτοῦ 3º) αὐτῶν bhiu Jos (uid)). The oldest form of the text of Kings referred to Solomon’s clothing according to the LXX text καὶ τὸν ἱματισμὸν αὐτοῦ, as it is also the case in the whole context of the verse regarding table, servants, ministers, and cult of Solomon’s. On the contrary, the text of Chronicles refers to the ministers’ and cupbearers’ clothes with suffix in both cases. – 1 Kgs 11:15–16: “For when David was in Edom (MT ‫ ) ִּב ְהיֹות‬/ when David eliminated Edom (LXX ἐξολεθρεῦσαι), and Joab the commander of the army went up to bury the slain, he slew (MT ‫ )וַ ּיַ ְך‬/ they cut off (LXX) every male in Edom [16 for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off (MT ‫ ) ִה ְכ ִרית‬/ eliminated (LXX ἐξωλέθρευσεν) every male in Edom] but Hadad fled to Egypt….” MT ‫ ִּב ְהיֹות‬is a “very early error” for ‫בהכות‬, OG ἐν τῷ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι. The gloss (within brackets), introduced with the particle ‫ ִּכי‬, could include the full reference to Joab, “and Joab the commander of the army …,” abruptly introduced with a new infinitive (‫… ַּב ֲעלֹות‬ ‫) ִּב ְהיֹות‬. – 1 Kgs 11:20: “And the sister of Tahpenes bore him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned (LXX reared) in Pharaoh’s house [and Genubath was in Pharaoh’s house] among the sons of Pharaoh” (‫ְּבתֹוְך ֵּבית ַּפ ְרעֹה וַ יְ ִהי גְ נֻ ַבת ֵּבית‬ ‫) ַּפ ְרעֹה ְּבתֹוְך ְּבנֵ י ַפ ְרעֹה‬. – 1 Kgs 11:31, 35: “(31) He (Ahiyah) said to Jeroboam: Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘See, I will tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon, and will give you ten tribes (32) and two tribes will be for him [ for the sake of my servant David … (35) And I will take the kingdom away from his son and will give you the ten tribes (36) and to his 51  Würthwein, Könige, 88. 52  W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (Tübingen: Mohr, 1955), 222.

384

Chapter 19

son I will give the two tribes.’]” The dtr commentary (32–35a) is inserted through a resumptive repetition whose text is better preserved in LXX: καὶ δώσω σοι τὰ δέκα σκῆπτρα (v. 35) = (v. 31) ‫( וְ נָ ַת ִּתי ְלָך ֵאת ֲע ָׂש ָרה ַה ְּׁש ָב ִטים‬v. 31).53 – 1 Kgs 12:15–16: “the king did not hearken to the people (‫א־ׁש ַמע ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ָ ‫וְ ֽל‬ ‫ל־ה ָעם‬ ָ ‫ [ ) ֶא‬for (‫ ) ִּכי‬it was a turn of affairs brought about by the Lord that he might fulfil his word, which the Lord spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat.] (16) And when all the people (πᾶς ὁ λαός LXXL) saw that the king did not hearken to them (‫א־ׁש ַמע ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ֲא ֵל ֶיהם‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ]) ִּכי ל‬the people answered the king …” Style and content considerations prove the secondary character of v. 15b.54 A resumptive repetition in vv. 15aα and 16a marks the precise boundaries of the interpolation. The interpolation was introduced by the particle ‫ ִּכי‬as it is usual in this kind of insertions. After the gloss, the text resumes the main line in v. 16. The link or resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme) is more evident in the text represented by LXXL that reads in v. 16 ὁ λαός (1 ms., Vulgate) instead of LXXB ’Ισραήλ. The text always refers to “the people,” also and especially in the version of the narrative preserved in LXX 12:24n–x.55 The expression “all Israel,” foreign to the narrative of the Assembly of Shechem, appears only in a text which is yet another interpolation, namely 12:1b: “Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king”; “the king did not hearken to the people and the people answered the king.” – 1 Kgs 12:27: “The heart of this people will return to their master, King Rehoboam of Judah; [they will kill me] and return to King Rehoboam of Judah.” OG ignores the repetition “and return to King Rehoboam of Judah” (‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫ל־ר ַח ְב ָעם ֶ ֽמ ֶלְך־י‬ ְ ‫)וְ ָׁשבּו ֶא‬. The Antiochene text followed by the OL omits καὶ ἀποκτενοῦσίν με (MT ‫וַ ֲה ָרגֻ נִ י‬, omitted by five medieval Hebrew manuscripts), so the OG text was likely the short reading attested in LXX and OL καὶ ἐπιστραφήσεται ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ πρὸς κύριον αὐτῶν Ροβοαμ βασιλέα Ιουδα, “The heart of this people will turn again to their master, King Rehoboam of Judah.” 53  Cf. chapter 20 in this volume “The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II. The Different Order of the Literary Units in MT and LXX and the Composition Process.” 54  H. Schulte, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Israel (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972), 217, n. 54; A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches, 2nd ed. (Halle: Niemeyer, 1956,), 5 and 8; Noth, Könige, 276; Würthwein, Könige, 155; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, FRLANT 108 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 25. 55  J. Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 122–125 and 179; id., “Textual Variants in Joshua-Kings Involving the Terms ‘People’ and ‘Israel,’” in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes. Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus, ed. K. De Troyer et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 231–256.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

385

– 1 Kgs 12:32–33 “And Ieroboam made a feast in the eighth month in the fifteenth day of the month like the feast that was in (the land of) Ioudas, [and he went up onto the altar that he made in Baithel to sacrifice to the calves that he had made, and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places that he made. 33 And he went up onto the altar that he made on the fifteenth day in the eighth month] [on the feast (MT in the month) that he fashioned from his heart,] and made a feast for the sons of Israel and he went up onto the altar to sacrifice.” LXX repeats the words καὶ ἀνέβη ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον ὃ ἐποίησεν in vv. 32a and 33a (‫ר־ע ׂ֣שה‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח ֲא ֶׁש‬ ַ ‫)וּיַ ַעל ַע‬, whereas MT has, according to Montgomery, “a careless passage,” ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח ֵּכן ָע ָׂשה‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיַ ַעל ַע‬, corrected in LXX with ὃ ἐποίησεν (‫ר־ע ׂ֣שה‬ ָ ‫) ֲא ֶׁש‬.56 This linking repetition marks the insertion of the interpolated text. BHS proposes the elimination of v. 33a, but in doing so, we would lose a textual element which, besides being attested in the whole Hebrew and Greek textual traditions, allows to identify the process of literary formation of the text, which in principle referred only to the feast instituted and celebrated by Jeroboam. To this, the reference to the construction of the calves and the appointment of the priests in Bethel was later added. In 2 Kgs 23:4–6, another resumptive repetition also frames the added reference to Bethel and the priests of the high places. – 1 Kgs 14:25–26 // 2 Chr 12:2–9: The text of 1 Kgs 14:25–26 does not know the plus of 2 Chr 12:3–8, also introduced through a resumptive repetition: “Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem; [with twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen. And the people were without number who came with him from Egypt … (vv. 3–8). 9 Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem;] he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord.” – 1 Kgs 15:5–6 “all the days of his life. [except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. 6 Now there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continued all the days of his life (MT)] 7 The rest of the acts of …? And there was war between Abijam and Jeroboam” In this case, as in others, Barthélemy considers that there is a textual accident—homoioteleuton in LXX—, whereas Würthwein treats it as a literary phenomenon—the insertion of one or two glosses through the technique of Wiederaufnahme—alluding to Uriah and the war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam (cf. 14:30).57 The Hexaplaric reading “their lives” (αὐτῶν) refers to those two kings, whereas MT is referring to David, even after the insertion of the gloss of the war between kings.

56  Montgomery, Kings, 263. 57  Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 367; Würthwein, Könige, 184.

386

Chapter 19

– 1 Kgs 15:15: “And he brought into the house of the Lord [the votive gifts of his father and his own votive gifts and he brought into the house of the Lord] silver, and gold, and vessels.” LXXL καὶ εἰσήνεγκεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου τοὺς κίονας τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς κίονας αὐτοῦ εἰσήνεγκεν (‫)וַ ֵּיָבא‬ εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου ἀργυροῦς καὶ χρυσοῦς καὶ σκεύη

LXXB καὶ εἰσήνεγκεν

MT

‫וַ ֵּיָבא‬

τοὺς κίονας τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ‫ת־ק ְד ֵׁשי ָאביו‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ καὶ τοὺς κίονας αὐτοῦ [‫וְ ָק ְדׁשֹו ]וְ ָק ְד ֵׁשי‬ εἰσήνεγκεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου ‫ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬ ἀργυροῦς καὶ χρυσοῦς καὶ σκεύη ‫ֶּכ ֶסף וְ זָ ָהב וְ ֵכ ִלים‬

Against MT Ketiv ‫ וְ ָק ְדׁשֹו‬followed by LXX, Syr and Targ and reproduced in 2 Chr 15:18, Qere ‫וְ ָק ְד ֵׁשי‬, in the construct state, links this word to the following ones through a genitival relationship, “the sacred gifts of the House of Yahweh,” ‫וְ ָק ְד ֵׁשי ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬.58 The words ‫ ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬refer to the verb of the sentence, as attested by the Greek text in the reading εἰσήνεγκεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου, marked with an obelus and absent from MT. The presence of the verb ‫ וַ ֵּיָבא‬in this place proves that the old form of the preceding word was that of Ketiv. Also, the Antiochene text, after the first καὶ εἰσήνεγκεν, adds εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου. It could be said that the LXXL addition here is just a typical Lucianic addition. Although, if that were the case, the mere repetition of the verb ‫וַ ֵּיָבא‬, attested in OG, would be enough to consider that here an interpolation, marked by the repetition of ‫וַ ֵּיָבא‬ and possibly of the whole expression ‫וַ ֵּיָבא ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬, took place. The gloss encompasses the words ‫ת־ק ְד ֵׁשי ָאביו‬ ָ ‫וְ ָק ְדׁשֹו ֶא‬.59 – 1 Kgs 17:20–21: “And he cried to the Lord, ‘O Lord my God, [hast thou brought calamity even upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?’” (21) Then he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried to the Lord, ‘O Lord my God,] let this child’s soul come into him again.’” As in many other cases the textual variants at the beginning of the sentence are to be related to an interpolation by means of a Wiederaufnahme (‫אמר יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ֹ ‫וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה וַ ּי‬ ָ ‫אמר יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ַ ֹ ‫)וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה וַ ּי‬. The text previous to the insertion was: ‫ֹלהי‬ ָ ‫ֹלהי … ֱא‬ “19 But he said to her, ‘Give me your son.’ He took him from her bosom, carried him up into the upper chamber where he was lodging, and laid him on his own bed. 20 He cried out to the Lord, ‘O Lord my God, let this child’s life come into him again.’ The Lord listened to the voice of Elijah….” The 58  Noth goes for the Ketib, see id., Könige, 324. Cf. in the same way, Montgomery, Kings, 280. 59  Trebolle, Centena, 135–136.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

387

inserted passage offers a theological consideration about the calamity or even the punishment brought upon the widow.60 – 1 Kgs 16:11–12: “He killed all the house of Baasha [he did not leave him a single male of his kindred or his friends. 12 Zimri destroyed all the house of Baasha.”] Against BHS (> G*, homoioteleuton) MT displays here an interpolation by means of a resumptive repetition. The verb “killed” (MT ‫נכה‬, OG regularly ἐπάταξεν) is usual in the expression (cf. 15:29), while the use of “destroyed” (‫שמד‬, ἐξέτριψεν Hexaplaric) is strange in the context and betrays the secondary character of the repetition. – 1 Kgs 16:30–33: LXX “And Achaab did what was evil before the Lord, he was more wicked than all who were before him (καὶ ἐποίησεν Αχααβ τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον κυρίου ἐπονηρεύσατο ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ) [31–33abα … 33abβ He did more evil (ἐκακοποίησεν) than all the kings of Israel who were before him].” LXX lets us see the resumptive repetition which frames the addition of 31–33abα better than MT. – 1 Kgs 17:10–11: “and he called to her and said, [‘Bring me a little water in a vessel, that I may drink.’ (11) And as she was going to bring it, he called to her and said,] ‘Bring me a morsel of bread in your hand …’” The theme of the drought, taken from the narrative in 17:18, 41–45, is introduced here into the story of the widow of Sarepta.61 – 1 Kgs 17:45–46: “And Ahab rode and went to Jezreel. (46) [And the hand of the Lord was on Elijah; and he girded up his loins and outran Ahab to Jezreel.”] According to Würthwein the addition of v. 46 caused the change of order in the sentences of v. 45, which originally was 45b, 45a.62 Nevertheless, the addition happened through the interplay with the last element, “Jezreel,” and the sentences “(Ahab) went to Jezreel” and “(Elijah) outran Ahab to Jezreel.” – 1 Kgs 18:11–14 “And now you say, ‘Go, tell your lord, ‘Behold, Elijah is here,’ [12 and as soon as I have gone from you, the Spirit of the Lord will carry you whither I know not; and so, when I come and tell Ahab and he cannot find you,] and he will kill me, [although I your servant have revered the Lord from my youth. 13 Has it not been told my lord what I did when Jezebel killed the prophets of the Lord, how I hid a hundred men of the Lord’s prophets by fifties in a cave, and fed them with bread and water? 14 And now you say, ‘Go, tell your lord, ‘Behold, Elijah is here,’ and he will kill me.’]” In this passage, two interpolations marked here in square brackets have taken place. Between them, we find the verb “he will kill me” (‫ )וַ ֲה ָרגָ נִ י‬which follows v. 11, 60  Hugo, Les deux visages d’Élie, 130–141. 61  Würthwein, Könige, 206. 62  Würthwein, Könige, 214.

388

Chapter 19

thus completing the text, which forms the resumptive repetition with v. 14. The first gloss introduces the motif of the persecution of the prophets and Obadiah’s innocence. The second gloss introduces and anticipates the topic of Elijah’s ascension (2 Kgs 2). Thus Würthwein’s proposal should be modified. According to him, “he will kill me” closes each of the interpolations, so it is not part of the narrative.63 The variants in the text should be related to those interpolations: the LXX omission of “Elijah is here” (‫ ִהּנֵ ה ֵא ִלּיָ הּו‬, v. 11) and “and he cannot find you” (‫וְ לֹא ְיִמ ָצ ֲאָך‬, v. 12).64 The longer MT text contributes to a better identification of the text of the resumptive repetition and thus the insertion procedure of both interpolations. Nevertheless, the oldest text did not include that repetition and therefore the short LXX text could be closer to the textual level prior to the insertion of the glosses. – 1 Kgs 18:45–46: “And Ahab rode and went to Jezreel. (46) [And the hand of the Lord was on Elijah; and he girded up his loins and outran Ahab to Jezreel.”] According to Würthwein, the addition of v. 6 caused the change of order in the clauses of v. 45 that at first was 45b, 45a.65 However, that addition was produced with the play between the last word “Jezreel” and the clauses “(Ahab) went to Jezreel” and “(Elijah) outran Ahab to Jezreel.” – 1 Kgs 19:4–5 “But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a broom tree; [and he asked that he might die, saying, ‘It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am no better than my fathers.’ 5 And he lay down and slept under a broom tree;] and behold, an angel touched him, and said to him, ‘Arise and eat.’” 4a καὶ ἦλθεν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ὑπὸ ραθμ ἕν 4b … 5a καὶ ἐκοιμήθη καὶ ὕπνωσεν ἐκεῖ ὑπὸ φυτόν

]‫וַ ּיָבֹא וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב ַּת ַחת ר ֶֹתם ֶא ָחת [ ֶא ָחד‬ …

‫יׁשן ַּת ַחת ר ֶֹתם ֶא ֑חד‬ ַ ִ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַּכב וַ ּי‬

According to Stade, “under a broom tree” “is here superfluous; it was originally a marginal correction of the scribal error tḥt rtm ʾḥt in v. 4, which got into the text at the wrong place.” Also according to Stade, perhaps this correction was not part of LXX, given the differences in translation ὑπὸ ραθμ ἕν (4a) / ὑπὸ φυτόν (5a).66 In Montgomery’s opinion, variants of the type ʾḥd – ʾḥt are indications of a 63  Würthwein, Könige, 207. According to G. Hentschel, vv. 12a and 14 are part of the narrative, whereas vv. 12b–13 were crafted by a redactor, see id., 1 Könige (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984), 109–110. 64  Trebolle, Centena, 139–140. 65  Würthwein, Könige, 214. 66  Stade and Schwally, The Books of Kings, 157; A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige (Münster: Schmidt H., 1911–12), 1: 446.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

389

double reading.67 Also, Burney and Würthwein consider the LXX reading ἐκεῖ (‫ )שם‬the only original element of the sentence “and he slept there,” so that, according to Würthwein, the text before the interpolation read “and came and sat down under a broom tree and lay down and slept there,” which actually constitutes a double reading which cannot be attributed to the original narrative.68 Faced with some difficulties, scholars resort to textual arguments, whereas they use literary ones to solve others. It is necessary to connect both kinds of data to achieve a satisfactory solution. Textual variants are related with the gloss which introduces the motif of Elijah’s lament when faced with the mission which he has to undertake alone after Jezebel’s murder of the other prophets. The words of v. 5a “and lay down and slept” do not belong to the narrative, but to the gloss and the resumptive repetition which establish two sequential moments: Elijah “sat down (under a broom tree)” and then “he lay down and slept (under a broom tree).” This second moment anticipates what the following verse narrates: – 1 Kgs 19:5–8: “And he lay down and slept under a broom tree; and behold, someone (LXX) / an angel (MT) touched him, and said to him, ‘Arise and eat.’ 6 And he looked, and behold, there was at his head a cake baked on hot stones and a jar of water. And he arose (καὶ ἀνέστη LXX), and ate and drank, [and lay down again. 7 And the angel of the Lord came again a second time, and touched him, and said, ‘Arise and eat, else the journey will be too great for you.’ 8 And he arose, and ate and drank,] and went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to Horeb the mount of God (MT) / to the mount Horeb (LXX).” The oldest text which may be reconstructed would likely be “(4/5) and [Elijah] came and sat down under a broom tree; and behold, someone touched him, and said to him, ‘Arise and eat.’ (6/8) And he looked, and behold, there was at his head a cake baked on hot stones and a jar of water. And he arose and ate and drank, and went …” – 1 Kgs 20 (LXX 21):1aα “And Hader’s son gathered all his force together and went up and laid siege against Samaria, [1aβ and thirty-two kings with him and every horse and chariot, 1b and they went up and laid siege against Samaria] and fought against it.” The Hebrew original of LXX contained the text of 1aα which constitutes the resumptive repetition with 1b, delimiting the insertion of “and thirty-two kings with him and every horse and chariot.”

67  Montgomery, Kings, 317. 68  C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 230; Würthwein, Könige, 446.

390

Chapter 19

This repetition can explain the singular/plural variants in MT and LXX. In any case, the reference to the 32 kings is also secondary in v. 16.69 – 1 Kgs 20 (LXX 21):34, 43 “So he (Benhadad) made a covenant with him and let him go (+ from his house and departed from him, ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ αὐτοῦ, Zboc2e2) [vv. 35–42] 43 And the king of Israel went to his house (MT) / And the king of Israel departed (καὶ ἀπῆλθεν LXX)…” The Antiochene text seems to have preserved better the text of the resumptive repetition, which linked vv. 34 and 43 before the insertion of the episode about the condemnation of the king of Israel by a prophet (vv. 35–42).70 – 1 Kgs 21 (LXX 20):3–4 “But Naboth said to Ahab, ‘The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers.’ [4 And Ahab went into his house vexed and sullen because of what Naboth the Jezreelite had said to him; for he had said, ‘I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers.’] And he lay down on his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no food.” There is no haplography in LXX, as several scholars have proposed.71 Instead of the MT text [in brackets] LXX has only καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ πνεῦμα Αχααβ τεταραγμένον, “And the spirit of Achaab became troubled,” in agreement with “Why is your spirit troubled” (v. 5). Mss. be*hijuxy have the LXX sentence καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ πνεῦμα Αχααβ τεταραγμένον at the end of v. 4, so that in the Greek manuscript tradition this LXX element appears before or after the MT addition. This addition collects elements from vv. 2 and 3 and from 20:43, thus linking chapters 20 and 21 (cf. 20:43 “(he) went to his house vexed and sullen,” MT ‫ ַסר וְ זָ ֵעף‬, LXX συγκεχυμένος καὶ ἐκλελυμένος; 21:4 “(he) went into his house vexed and sullen,” MT ‫) ַסר וְ זָ עֵף‬.72 – 2 Kgs 2:2–7 “2aα And Elijah said to Elisha, ‘Tarry here, I pray you; [ for the Lord has sent me as far as Bethel’… (2aβ–5) 6 Then Elijah said to him, ‘Tarry here, I pray you;] for the Lord has sent me to the Jordan.’ But he said, ‘As the Lord lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.’ And they both went on. [7 And fifty men of the sons of the prophets also went, and stood at some distance from them,] and they both stood by the Jordan.” In this passage there are two interpolations introduced through the procedure of resumptive repetition. The going from Gilgal to the nearby river Jordan is expanded into a zig-zag itinerary which goes up from Gilgal to Bethel in the 69  Cf. Stade and Schwally, The Books of Kings, 158; Montgomery, Kings, 326; H.Ch. Schmitt, Elisa. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972), 193, n. 11; Trebolle, Centena, 145–146. 70  Schmitt, Elisa, 46–51; Würthwein, Könige, 236 and 240–243; Trebolle, Centena, 147. 71  Stade and Schwally, The Books of Kings, 104; I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige (Freiburg: Mohr, 1899), 114; Montgomery, Kings, 333. 72  Trebolle, Centena, 149–150.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

391

mountains, descends from Bethel into Jericho, and finally leads from Jericho to the Jordan. At the same time, the text of the story “‘(6) for the Lord has sent me to the Jordan.’ But he said, ‘As the Lord lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.’ And they both went on [7a] and (they both) stood by the Jordan” is repeated in reference to the journey to Bethel and once more when going to Jericho, with a dialogue, in both cases, between Elisha and the sons of the prophets. Their question “Do you know that today the Lord will take away your master from over you?” anticipates later events. According to Würthwein it includes the totality of vv. 2–6, whereas v. 7a is part of the original narrative.73 Nevertheless, the resulting sequence of sentences “(2a) Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal [2b–6] (7) and fifty men of the sons of the prophets also went, and stood at some distance from them …” does not seem to be the original one. If the first interpolation introduced “the sons of the prophets,” into the narrative, the second one introduces “the fifty men of the sons of the prophets,” thus anticipating the later reference to the “fifty strong men” of v. 16 in the context of a later episode (vv. 15–18). Besides, the expression “at some distance” (‫ ) ִמּנֶ גֶ ד‬of v. 7 also appears in v. 15 at the beginning of this new episode. – 2 Kgs 3:24–25: “the Israelites … went forward and attacked the Moabites [(25) Thus they destroyed the cities; and each one threw a stone on every piece of good land and filled it. So they stopped all the springs of water and felled all the good trees; and they attacked the Moabites (LXXL)] till only its stones were left in Kirhareseth.” According to Montgomery, the LXXL sentence “and they attacked the Moabites” (καὶ ἐξέσεισαν τὸν Μωαβ) should be connected with the Qere of v. 24 ‫ּכּו־בּה‬ ָ ַ‫ וַ ּי‬that is a repetition of the earlier sentence ‫ת־מֹואב‬ ָ ‫“( וַ ּיַ ּכּו ֶא‬and they attacked the Moabites”). Barthélemy considers this proposal “fort possible.”74 Thus, the reading of the Antiochene text “and they attacked the Moabites” is part of a resumptive repetition which frames the insertion of the interpolated text. Although it is unlikely that the verb εκσειω were part of the OG, the Antiochene text gives witness here to a sentence which was part of the OG text. The narrative referred the destruction of a Moabite city, Qir-Haroshet. The gloss presents a general destruction.75 – 2 Kgs 4:25–27: “So she set out, and came to the man of God at Mount Carmel. [When the man of God saw her coming, he said to Gehazi his servant, 73  Würthwein, Könige, 273–275. 74  Montgomery, Kings, 366; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 383. 75  According to N. Glueck vv. 24b.25aβ would be a dtr re-elaboration, see id., “The Boundaries of Edom,” HUCA 11 (1936): 141–157, esp. 150 n. 43. For further discussion, see, Trebolle, Centena, 163–166.

392

Chapter 19

‘Look, yonder is the Shunammite; (26) run at once to meet her, and say to her, Is it well with you? Is it well with your husband? Is it well with the child?’ And she answered, ‘It is well.’] (27) And when she came to the mountain to the man of God, she caught hold of his feet.” The repetition frames the text of vv. 25b–26, which Benzinger, Stade, and Würthwein consider secondary.76 As usual, variants are detected in the seams of the addition. The LXX text of v. 25 is, according to Rahlfs, “‘Come on, and you shall go and come to the man of God at the Carmelite mountain.’ And it happened, as …” (δεῦρο καὶ πορεύσῃ καὶ ἐλεύσῃ πρὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς τὸ ὄρος τὸ Καρμήλιον καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς…) This reading in the imperative appears only in B and A (Arm Aeth SyrH). The rest of the Greek tradition has the text in preterite, “So she set out, and came to the man of God at Mount Carmel,” and so it could well be a kaige-type adaptation to MT. The Antiochene text has here a typical double reading: the OG reading would be like MT but with the verb in the second person and addressed to the servant, καὶ πορεύσῃ καὶ ἐλεύσῃ. – 2 Kgs 4:32–33: When Elisha came into the house (‫יׁשע ַה ָּב ָיְתה‬ ָ ‫)וַ ּיָבֹא ֱא ִל‬, [behold the lad was dead and laid on his bed. 33 So he came into the house (+ εἰς τὸν οἶκον LXX = ‫ )וַ ּיָבֹא ַה ָּב ָיְתה‬and shut the door behind them both, and prayed to the Lord.” Again, a long text such as LXX lets us identify quite accurately the boundaries of a gloss. According to Würthwein, the addition spans the totality of v. 33.77 Nevertheless, the resumptive repetition clearly marks the extension of the gloss, introduced by ‫ וְ ִהּנֵ ה‬as it is usual for the insertion of glosses. – 2 Kgs 4:34–35: “Then he went up and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth … and as he stretched himself upon him, [the flesh of the child became warm. 35 Then he got up again, and walked once to and fro in the house, and went up, and stretched himself upon him;] he instilled breath seven times and the child was moved and opened his eyes (LXXL OL).” In v. 35 the Antiochene pre-Lucianic readings διεκινήθη (commotus est OL) and καὶ ἐνέπνευσεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν (et inspiravit in eum OL) belong to the OG text καὶ ἐνέπνευσεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἑπτάκις καὶ διεκινήθη τὸ παιδάριον καὶ διήνοιξε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ (et inspiravit in eum septies; et commotus est puer, et aperuit oculos suos OL). This OG text “and he instilled breath seven times and the child was moved and opened his eyes” seems to be preferable to MT “the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes” (‫זֹורר ַהּנַ ַער‬ ֵ ְ‫וַ י‬ ‫ת־עינָ יו‬ ֵ ‫ד־ׁש ַבע ְּפ ָע ִ֔מים וַ ּיִ ְפ ַקח ַהּנַ ַער ֶא‬ ֶ ‫) ַע‬. 76  Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige, 137; Stade and Schwally, The Books of Kings, 195; Würthwein, Könige, 289. Against this view see, Montgomery, Kings, 372. 77  Würthwein, Könige, 290.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

393

– 2 Kgs 6:26, 30: “(26) Now as the king of Israel was walking on the city wall, [a woman cried out to him, ‘Help, my lord king!’… (30) When the king heard the words of the woman he tore his clothes. Now as he was walking on the city wall,] the people could see that he had sackcloth on his body underneath.” The repetition of ‫ל־הח ָֹמה‬ ַ ‫… וְ הּוא ע ֵֹבר ַע‬ ‫ל־הח ָֹמה‬ ַ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ֶמ ֶלְך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ע ֵֹבר ַע‬frames the episode of the two women, which ends abruptly, without a clause comparable to the judgment of Solomon in a similar situation in 1 Kgs 3. – 2 Kgs 6:27–28: “And he (the king) said to her (αὐτῇ), [‘If the Lord will not help you, whence shall I help you? From the threshing floor, or from the wine press?’ (28) And the king said to her,] ‘What is your trouble?’” The LXX reading in v. 27 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ reproduces more accurately the text of the resumptive repetition which highlights the addition which has been introduced.78 – 2 Kgs 7:5–8 “So they arose at twilight to go to the camp of the Syrians; but when they came to the edge of the camp of the Syrians, [behold (‫)וְ ִהּנֵ ה‬, there was no one there, for the Lord had made the army of the Syrians hear the sound of chariots, and of horses, the sound of a great army, so that they said to one another, ‘Behold, the king of Israel has hired against us the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Egypt to come upon us.’ So they fled away in the twilight and forsook their tents, their horses, and their asses, leaving the camp as it was, and fled for their lives. And when these lepers came to the edge of the camp,] they went into a tent, and ate and drank …” The resumptive repetition and the particle “behold” (‫)וְ ִהּנֵ ה‬, frequent in the insertion of glosses, mark the span of an interpolation which has Hittite kings and Egyptian pharaohs play a part in the action in a clearly outrageous growth of the literary and historical background of the story.79 – 2 Kgs 8:20–22: “In his days Edom revolted from the rule of Judah, [and set up a king of their own. (21) Then Jehoram passed over to Zair with all his chariots …] (22) And Edom revolted from the rule of Judah to this day.” – 2 Kgs 9:6 “I anoint you king over [the people of the Lord, over] Israel” (MT ‫ל־עם יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ַ ‫ ְמ ַׁש ְח ִּתיָך ְל ֶמ ֶלְך ֶא‬, LXX ἐπὶ (‫ ) ַעל‬λαὸν κυρίου ἐπὶ (‫ ) ַעל‬τὸν Ισραηλ). – 2 Kgs 9:7–8 LXX “And you shall utterly destroy (ἐξολεθρεύσεις) the house of Achaab, your master, from before me (LXX ἐξολεθρεύσεις [‫ ]כרת‬τὸν οἶκον Αχααβ τοῦ κυρίου σου ἐκ προσώπου μου [‫[ )]מלפני‬and avenge the blood of my slaves the prophets and the blood of all the slaves of the Lord from the hand 78  Würthwein, Könige, 307 and 311. 79  Würthwein limits the interpolation to vv. 6–7, De Vries to v. 6, cf. Würthwein, Könige, 315; S.J. De Vries, “Temporal Terms as Structural Elements in the Holy-War Tradition,” VT 25 (1975): 80–105.

394

Chapter 19

of Iezabel. 8 And you shall utterly destroy (ἐξολεθρεύσεις, ‫ )כרת‬from the house of Achaab], one urinating against a wall both bond and left behind in Israel.” LXX and MT represent two ways of integrating the addition of 7b. LXX makes it easier to recognize the resumptive repetition ἐξολεθρεύσεις (‫ …)כרת‬ἐξολεθρεύσεις (‫…)כרת‬, against MT “you shall strike down” (‫)וְ ִה ִּכ ָיתה‬ and “I will cut off” (‫)וְ ִה ְכ ַר ִּתי‬.80 – 2 Kgs 10:33: “from the Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead, [the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the valley of the Arnon, that is, Gilead] and Bashan.” The gloss is a reference to Num 32 and Deut 3:12–13.81 – 2 Kgs 11:9: “who were to go off duty on the sabbath, [with those who were to come on duty on the sabbath,] and came to Jehoiada the priest.” The gloss introduced by resumptive repetition ‫ ָּב ֵאי הַ ּ ׁ ַש ּ ָבת ִעם י ְֹצ ֵאי הַ ּ ׁ ַש ּ ָבת‬is reflected in the Hexaplaric addition μετὰ τῶν ἐκπορευομένων τὸ σάββατον (Anxz Arm SyrH * θ´ ε´). – 2 Kgs 11:17 “And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people (‫[ ) ֵּובין ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ֵּובין ָה ָעם‬that it should be the Lord’s people; and also between the king and the people (‫]) ֵּובין ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ֵּובין ָה ָעם‬.” The repetition “between the king and the people” is not found in 2 Chr 23:16 nor in LXX Kgdms except in BAnu Arm-ed Sah and in SyrH, where the reading is introduced by an asterisk. BHS regards it as a probable addition. According to Montgomery, “the omission was due to simplification of an apparent repetition.”82 The OG text, attested by the Antiochene text and the Chronicles parallel, did not contain the MT repetition, which, nevertheless, contributed to identifying the resumptive repetition which frames the secondary addition “that it should be the Lord’s people.” In this sense, Würthwein’s proposal, which considers the words “between the Lord and the king and the people that it should be the Lord’s people” a DtrN addition, should be corrected.83 – 2 Kgs 12:12 “And they gave (‫—וְ נָ ְתנּו‬ἔδωκαν) the money [that was weighed out into the hands of the workmen who had the oversight of the house of the Lord; and they laid it out (‫ּיֹוצ ֻיאהּו‬ ִ ַ‫ )ו‬/ gave it up (καὶ ἐξέδοσαν)] to the carpenters and the builders who worked upon the house of the Lord.” The verb ἐκδιδόναι appears in Kings only in this case. It does not seem to be translating MT ‫ּיֹוצ ֻיאהּו‬ ִ ַ‫ ו‬but rather the verb ‫ נתן‬as it is the case in Exod 2:21 and Judg 80  Würthwein, Könige, 325 and 329. 81  Würthwein, Könige, 343. 82  Montgomery, Kings, 426. 83  Würthwein, Könige, 145. This would also correct the proposal in chapter 9 of the present volume, 2 Kings 11 (MT/LXXB/L): Textual Variants and Literary Unity of the Narrative.”

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

395

1:15. In this case, the correlation “they gave the money …” and “they gave it up” is more evident. It could be a case of double reading, rather than a resumptive repetition (cf. infra 2 Kgs 22:5). – 2 Kgs 12:19: “Jehoash king of Judah took [all the votive gifts that Jehoshaphat and Jehoram and Ahaziah, his fathers, the kings of Judah, had dedicated] his own votive gifts, and all the gold that was found in the treasuries of the house of the Lord.” Würthwein includes in it the words “his own votive gifts,” so that the text before the gloss was “Jehoash king of Judah took all the gold….”84 The repetition aids in a better delimitation of the interpolation. – 2 Kgs 12:21–22 “his servants arose and made a conspiracy, and slew (‫)וַ ּיַ ּכּו‬ Jehoash in the house of Millo, [on the way that goes down to Silla]. [It was Jozacar the son of Shimeath and Jehozabad the son of Shomer, his servants,] who slew him (‫) ִה ֻּכהּו‬, so that he died …” – 2 Kgs 13:2–6 “… and followed the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin; he did not depart from them. 3–5 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel … 6 Nevertheless, they did not depart from the sins of the house of Jeroboam, which he made Israel to sin …” The repetition is more complete in MT and in the kaige text than in the Antiochene text, where v. 6 is reduced to just οὐκ ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ ἁμαρτιῶν οἴκου Ιεροβοαμ. The inserted text reproduces the typical dtr pattern of the book of Judges.85 – 2 Kgs 15:16 “Then (‫ ) ָאז‬Menahem sacked (‫ )יַ ֶּכה‬Tappuah and all who were in it [and its territory from Tirzah on; because they did not open it to him and he sacked (‫ )וַ ּיַ ְך‬it], and he ripped up all the women in it who were with child.” The whole verse is an inserted unit introduced with ‫ ָאז‬, framed by setumah and petuḥah and placed outside any regnal frame, breaking in this way a composition rule of Kings. – 2 Kgs 16:11–12 “And Uriah the priest built the altar; in accordance with all that King Ahaz had sent from Damascus, [so Uriah the priest made it, before King Ahaz arrived from Damascus (> pc mss. OG) (12) And when the king came from Damascus (> OG),] the king viewed the altar [Then the king drew near to the altar, (> OG)] and went up on it.” – 2 Kgs 16:14: “And the bronze altar which was before the Lord he removed from the front of the house of the Lord (κυρίου LXX), [ from the place between his altar and the house of the Lord,] and put it on the north side of his

84  Würthwein, Könige, 358. 85  Würthwein, Könige, 360.

396

Chapter 19

altar.” Against MT ‫ ַה ַּביִת‬the LXX reading τοῦ οἴκου κυρίου … τοῦ οἴκου κυρίου allows a better identification of the text of the resumptive repetition.86 – 2 Kgs 17:8: “and walked in the customs of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the children of Israel, [and the kings of Israel] had introduced” (cf. 17:19 “they walked in the customs which Israel had introduced”). The reading “and the kings of Israel” in MT and LXX does not make sense in the context.87 Greek manuscripts V 19 52 106–107 56 92–130–314–489 245 554 as well as the Hebrew K 70 do not include the words καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς Ισραηλ.88 – 2 Kgs 22:5: “and let it be given into the hand of the workmen who [have the oversight of the house of the Lord; and let them give it (‫ )וְ ְיִּתנּו אֹתֹו‬to the workmen who] are at the house of the Lord, repairing the house.” The Greek text is made up of two sentences (command-fulfilment): “and let them give it into the hand of those doing the work [of those in charge in the Lord’s house.”] And he gave it to those doing the work who were in the Lord’s house, to strengthen the bedeck of the house” (καὶ δότωσαν αὐτὸ ἐπὶ χεῖρα ποιούντων τὰ ἔργα [τῶν καθεσταμένων ἐν οἴκῳ κυρίου] καὶ ἔδωκαν ἐν αὐτὸ τοῖς ποιοῦσιν τὰ ἔργα τοῖς ἐν οἴκῳ κυρίου τοῦ κατισχῦσαι τὸ βεδεκ τοῦ οἴκου) (cf. supra 2 Kgs 12:12). – 2 Kgs 22:8–10: “And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, ‘I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord.’ And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it [(9) and Shaphan the secretary came to the king, and reported to the king … (10) Then Shaphan the secretary told the king, ‘Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.’ And Shaphan read it] before the king.” Würthwein introduces a different division of the text of the interpolation.89 – 2 Kgs 23:4–6: “all the vessels that they (L) made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven. And they brought them out (L) and they burned (L) them outside Jerusalem in the torrent bonfire (ἐν τῷ ἐμπυρισμῷ L) of the Kidron. [And he carried their ashes to Bethel. 5 and burned the priests whom the kings of Judah had establish to burn … to the sun, and the moon, and the constellations, and all the host of the heavens] 6 And they brought [OL] 86  P  . Dubovsky, The Building of the First Temple: A Study in Redactional, Text-Critical and Historical Perspective, FAT 103 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 56–57. 87  Burney, Notes, 332: “No doubt ‫ מלכי ישראל‬is a corruption of ‫מלפני ישראל‬, a doublet of the preceding three words; and ‫‘ אשר עשו‬who performed (them)’ is probably a marginal gloss made subsequently to the corruption to explain the occurrence of ‘the kings of Israel’ in this connection.” In the same way Gray notes that the clause “and of the kings of Israel whom they made,” “is omitted in S, suggesting that it was recognized as a redactional gloss,” see id., Kings, 645; cf. the discussion by Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 409. 88  Cf. the discussion in Trebolle, “Textual Pluralism and Composition of the Books of Kings,” in After Qumran, 213–226, esp. 218. 89  Würthwein, Könige, 446.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

397

them [the vessels] out from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the Wadi Kidron.” The OG text, represented by L, has the priests and guards as the main actors; it is circumscribed to the geography of Jerusalem and the Kedron and is likely to refer to the vessels and not to the stele/ʾasherah. On its side, MT has a wider text, with the king as the main actor; it introduces the reference to the “deposition” of the priests; expands the geography to Bethel and Judah; and is focused on the stele/ʾasherah.90 – 2 Kgs 23:15: “Moreover the altar (‫ת־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬ ַ ‫וְ גַ ם ֶא‬, καὶ γε…) [at Bethel, the high place erected by Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, moreover that altar (‫ת־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח ַההּוא‬ ַ ‫ּגַ ם ֶא‬, καὶ γε…)] with the high place he pulled down …” Three references to Bethel are introduced (vv. 4, 15, and 16). They produce several variants and textual incongruities.91 – 2 Kgs 23:16: “And Josiah turned and saw the tombs on the mount … according to the word of the Lord that the man of God spoke, [LXX + when Ieroboam stood in the feast by the altar. And turning, he lifted his eyes on the tomb of the man of God who spoke these words,” ἐν τῷ ἑστάναι Ιεροβοαμ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ ἐπιστρέψας ἦρεν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν τάφον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ λαλήσαντος τοὺς λόγους τούτους]. It is usual to attribute to homoioteleuton in MT (BHS) the omission of the LXX insertion. But, at any rate, the LXX parenthesis could be an insertion which introduces again the character of Jeroboam before the altar of Bethel in reference to 1 Kgs 13. The narrative was originally focused on Jerusalem only and to the tombs in the “Mount of Scandal,” south of the Mount of Olives. After the insertion, the text repeats with some variants the initial elements: ‫אׁשּיָ הּו‬ ִ ֹ ‫וַ ּיִ ֶפן י‬ ‫ת־ה ְּק ָב ִרים‬ ַ ‫“( וַ ּיַ ְרא ֶא‬And Josiah turned and saw the tombs …”)—‫ויפן וישא את‬ ‫“( עיניו על קבר‬and turning he lifted his eyes on the tomb …”). According to Montgomery “the original may have been simply: “And Josiah faced about, and he saw the tombs that were there in the mount, and he cast his eyes upon the tomb of the man of God, who proclaimed these things.”92 Such reconstruction does not take into account the resumptive repetition nor that the sentence “he saw the tombs on the mount …” is part of an earlier textual level than the clause “he cast his eyes upon the tomb of the man of God.” – 2 Kgs 24:15–16: “he took (‫הֹוליְך‬ ִ ) them into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. [(16) And all the men of valor, seven thousand, and the craftsmen and the smiths … the king of Babylon brought them (‫ )וַ ִיְב ֵיאם‬into captivity to Babylon.”] LXX repeats the same verb, in singular in both cases: “he led them … he led them” (ἀπήγαγεν… ἤγαγεν). 90  Montgomery, Kings, 529–530 and 538–539; Würthwein, Könige, 453. 91  Montgomery, Kings, 534 and 540; Würthwein, Könige, 453. 92  Montgomery, Kings, 535.

398

Chapter 19

– 2 Kgs 25:11: “And the rest of the people (‫[ )וְ ֵאת ֶיֶתר ָה ָעם‬who were left in the city and the deserters who had deserted to the king of Babylon, And the rest of the people (τοῦ λαοῦ L = ‫‘ ;וְ ֵאת ֶיֶתר ָה ָעם‬the rest of the multitude’ MT ‫וְ ֵאת ֶיֶתר‬ ‫ ֶה ָהמֹון‬, B kaige τὸ λοιπὸν τοῦ στηρίγματος)] Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried them into exile.”93 – 2 Kgs 25:23–24: “And all the commanders of the force, they and their men (LXXB = MT), heard that the king of Babylon had appointed Godolias, and they came to Godolias in Massephath (LXXB = MT), [Ismael son of Nathanias and Ioanan son of Karee and Saraias son of Thanemath the Netophathite and Iezonias son of the Machathi, they and their men (LXXBL = MT) came to Godolias in Massephath (LXXL)]. And Godolias swore to them and their men …” L καὶ ἤκουσαν πάντες οἱ ἄρχοντες τῆς δυνάμεως B καὶ ἤκουσαν πάντες οἱ ἄρχοντες τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες αὐτῶν ὅτι κατέστησεν βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος ὅτι κατέστησεν βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος τὸν Γοδολιαν τὸν Γοδολιαν καὶ ἦλθον πρὸς Γοδολιαν εἰς Μασσηφαθ εἰς Μασσηφαθ […] […] αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες αὐτῶν αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες αὐτῶν καὶ ἦλθον πρὸς Γοδολιαν εἰς Μασσηφαθ – 2 Kgs 25:29–30: “So Jehoiachin put off his prison garments. and he did eat bread regularly (‫ ) ָּת ִמיד‬before him all the days of his life (‫([ )ּכֹל ֵיְמי ַחּיָ ו‬30) And for his allowance, a regular (‫ ) ָּת ִמיד‬allowance was given him by the king, every day a portion, all the days of his life (‫)ּכֹל ֵיְמי ַחּיָ ו‬.”] 3 Conclusions A more detailed study of the texts listed above should involve an analysis of the representation of each variant in the different manuscript groups and consider the content and aim of the additions in a wider context. Generally speaking, glosses and additions establish connections with other biblical passages and books, saliently Deuteronomy; remark the fulfilment of an oracle; magnify the details in a story; specify geographic or architecture data, etc. All of this 93  Montgomery, Kings, 568.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I

399

reveals that the history of the formation and transmission of the text of Kings is in itself a history of the interpretation of the book in relation with other texts of the Bible. The previous analysis poses the question of what segment of text should be taken as a variant or, more accurately, what the span of a variant is when it has to be analyzed in connection to its context. A similar question arises in translation theory. A translation unit may be a morpheme, a single word, a phrase or a segment of a text that the translator treats as a single cognitive unit for the purposes of establishing an equivalence. The larger these units are the likelier it is to obtain an idiomatic translation. In the same way, a textual variant may be a morpheme, a word, a sentence or a group of sentences that show a common textual filiation. Variants derived from the activity of copyists are usually small in extension and tend to be grouped in manuscript families. Textual criticism is often practiced in an excessively atomistic way, taking as a variant every reading in a manuscript, which deviates from the rest of the tradition. A critical edition of 1–2 Kings as well as of 3–4 Kingdoms should take into account all these loose variants which in most cases have taken place in the process of transmission of the text. But for a joint analysis of textual and literary criticism it is necessary to distinguish small variant-units within a more extensive variant-unit (cf. e.g. 1 Kgs 11:25aα within vv. 23–25aα). Large variant-units establish constellations of variants or readings which give character to an edition when compared to a different one, such as MT vs. the LXX translation. Greek variants or readings resulting of a recensional type (leaving aside those which arise from stylistic revisions) are connected to a Hebrew text, be it MT for the Hexaplaric edition or proto-MT for kaige. Variants of a kaige or Hexaplaric type are usually additions and alternative readings to the OG. They go back to additions and alternative readings in the proto-Masoretic text or in the Vorlage of LXX. As commented several times, the insertion of an addition in the Hebrew text, operated through the procedure of resumptive repetition, has caused variants before and after the inserted text (cf. supra, 1 Kgs 3:13b–14; 8:24–25; 10:5 // 2 Chr 9:4; 18:11–14; 19:4–5; 2 Kgs 4:25–27). Thus, additions to the Hebrew text operated via resumptive repetition bring about satellite variants at the insertion points. An instance of variant or reading of considerable extension, which should be taken as a textual unit, appears in 1 Kgs 9:15–25. This passage is not part of OG. The expected Hexaplaric addition reflects in turn an addition in the proto-Masoretic text. This long addition is in fact an ensemble of added elements of diverse origins: verses MT 9:23, 24b and 25 are not part of LXX, but they have parallel text in the “Supplements” of LXX 2:35h, f and g respectively, also, verses MT 9:15, 17b–18, 19, 20–22 appear in LXX in a different location;

400

Chapter 19

finally verses MT 16–17a constitute an addition which interrupts the continuity of verses MT 15 and 17b–18 and appear in LXX also in a different location.94 The fact that 1 Kgs 9:15–25 is a sum of added elements both in the Hebrew and Greek texts, though in different locations, has important consequences for evaluating the historical value of the data contained in that passage, as in the case of vv. 15, 17b: “And this is the account of the forced labor which King Solomon levied to build the house of the Lord and his own house and the Millo and the wall of Jerusalem and Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer [16–17a]. And Solomon ‘rebuilt’ Gezer and Lower Bethhoron.” Historians and archaeologists often cite this text,95 without noticing that it entered into the composition of Kings in a late phase, like other passages, which have a reflection in Hexaplaric additions or appear in MT and LXX in different locations. It is not possible to ignore this information of the history of the formation of Kings, although elements added into the main body of the book may go back to ancient sources, like those included in 2 Chr 8:6. Finally, it is necessary to pose the question of how additions should be treated in a modern edition of biblical texts. A. Schenker and R. Hendel have published papers where they compare the respective edition projects where they are Editors in Chief.96 Schenker and Locher establish the principle that all witnesses should be mentioned and that in the HBCE project Hexaplaric additions have a minor relevance. According to Hendel, “This is incorrect. They are not usually mentioned in the HBCE apparatus when they agree with MT, since they are simply further instances of the same reading and not additional ‘support’ for it. Hexaplaric readings that are not mentioned may be assumed to agree with MT.” Nevertheless, a Hexaplaric addition should be cited in every instance and with its complete text, because, beyond its agreement with MT, it is giving evidence that, in principle, we are before an addition in the Hebrew whose extension is clearly delimited by it (cf. e.g. 1 Kgs 11:14, 23–25). Hexaplaric readings and the MT additions are key evidence to solve the question of giving priority to MT or to the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX, a basic issue for the edition models of both BHQ and HBCE. 94  Cf. chapter 20 “The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II. The Different Order of the Literary Units in MT and LXX and the Composition Process,” in the present volume. 95  I. Finkelstein, “King Solomon’s Golden Age: History of Myth?,” in I. Finkelstein and A. Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel. Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, ed. B.B. Schmidt (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 107–116, esp. 111–113. 96  A. Schenker and C. Locher, “Zwei neue Textausgaben der hebräischen Bibel im Vergleich: Biblia Hebraica Quinta und The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition,” ZAW 128 (2016): 468–71; R. Hendel, “Comparing Critical Editions: BHQ Proverbs and HBCE Proverbs,” ZAW 128 (2016): 681–683.

Chapter 20

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II. The Different Order of the Literary Units in MT and LXX and the Composition Process Hexaplaric witnesses are empirical evidence of the different location of movable units in MT and LXX. The different order of pericopes between MT and LXX is reflected in the Hexaplaric recension, which rearranges the OG text according to MT. Regarding these transpositions, S.R. Driver would say that “in some cases (but by no means in all) there is good reason to suppose that the recension represented by the LXX has preserved better readings that the Hebrew.”1 In the middle of the 20th century there was a turn in the assessment of the value of the LXX text, as shown by Montgomery’s statement: “But all presumption is against Greek rearrangements in general.”2 Nevertheless, after Qumran, as expressed by E. Tov, the different arrangement of MT and LXX in Kings is not seen to be due to the Greek translator but rather related “to late additions of sections whose position was not yet fixed when the archetypes of these texts were composed.”3 A fixed sequence of tablets within a series and text stability were the criteria which defined a cuneiform text as standard or canonical.4 Also, the emergence of a recognized corpus of classical literature manifests itself in the tendency to produce a standardized text, a fixed arrangement of content and an established sequence in which the works were to be read or studied.5 According to David Carr, “In the Hellenistic-period authors limited themselves to rearranging older material (e.g. Psalms and parts of prophetic books) and/or expanding 1  S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1913), 182. 2  J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ed. H. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 319. 3  E. Tov, “Some Sequence Differences between the MT and LXX and their Ramifications for the Literary Criticism of the Bible,” JNWSL 13 (1987): 151–160, esp. 151. 4  M. Civil, Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon; Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 14 (1979), 168–169; W.W. Hallo, “The Concept of Canonicity in Cuneiform and Biblical Literature: A Comparative Appraisal,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective. Scripture in Context IV, ed. K. Lawson Younger, et al. (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991), 1–20, esp. 6. 5  N.M. Sarna, “The Order of the Books,” in Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History and Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev, ed. C. Berlin (New York: Ktav, 1971), 407–413, esp. 411 and 413, n. 15.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426016_022

402

Chapter 20

on older material.”6 In the 2nd century CE the order of pericopes of the biblical books was something established and essential for interpretation. The different order of units or sentences in the canonical books, the Pentateuch included, is quite a frequent phenomenon. In the Samaritan Pentateuch, Exod 30:1–10 is relocated to after Exod 26:35.7 The same rearrangement is partially extant in the proto-Samaritan manuscript 4QpaleoExodm. In 4QReworked Pentateuch (4Q366 4) Deut 16:13–14 is located after Num 29:32–30:1, thus bringing into proximity two laws on the festival of Sukkoth.8 In Joshua, the unit 8:30–35, framed by petuḥot, appears in 4QJosha before 5:2–7.9 It is a movable pericope which may change from one context to another. 2 Sam 3:2–5, enclosed by petuḥah and setumah, is another movable pericope that appears in Chronicles in a different context, 1 Chr 3:1–4, where it is also marked by setumot. In the book of Jeremiah, the shorter text translated in LXX differs from the Masoretic Text precisely in the arrangement of the text.10 The transposition of Jer 23:7–8 from after v. 40 in LXX to its position at the end of v. 6 in MT is part of a contextual adaptation or redactional change introduced when creating the long text form.11 In Ezekiel, Greek manuscript 967 and the OL (Wirceburgensis) are the only preserved witnesses which show that the oldest text followed the sequence 38–39–37 and omitted 36:23c–28.12 In Daniel, Papyrus 967 represents the more original form of the Greek text, showing the order of chapters 1–4; 7–8; 5–6 and 9–12, followed by the stories of Bel and the Dragon and Susannah.13 In Song of Songs, 4QCanta goes from 6:11 to 4:7 and also 4QCantb goes from 4:3 6  “Editors” is perhaps a better designation than “authors,” cf. D. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 191. 7  M.M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture. Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 159. 8  Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 221. 9  E. Ulrich, “4Q47. 4QJosha,” in Qumran Cave 4, IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. E. Ulrich et al., DJD XIV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 143–152. 10  E. Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. R.F. Person and R. Rezetko (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2016), 213. Cf. Y. Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil. Les origenes littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jérémie (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires— Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992). 11  R.D. Weis, “Jeremiah amid Actual and Virtual Editions: Textual Plurality and the Editing of the Book of Jeremiah,” in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions. Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot, ed. A. Piquer Otero and P. Torijano, STHB 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 370–399, esp. 376. 12  P.-M. Bogaert, “Le témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante. Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967,” Bib 59 (1978): 384–395. 13   F.C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala: Texts and Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), 6.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

403

to 4:8, and it might also go from 3:5 to 3:9 (at least there is text missing between 3:2 and 3:10).14 Greek Papyrus R 952, the OL and some Coptic witnesses present the same verse order in chapter 5: 5:12, 14b, 13, 14a, 15.15 In Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, the OL preserves the original order of the text against the whole Greek manuscript tradition that has 33:13b–36:10 before 30:25–33:15a. The presentation of the two text forms of MT and LXX follows generally only one sequence, typically that of MT, which inevitably misrepresents the other text form, the one represented by the short text of the LXX. Often a textual variant in LXX is overlooked because it features in a context different from MT. Thus, in 2 Kgs 13:23 most scholars assume that LXX omits “until now” (MT ‫ד־ע ָּתה‬ ָ ‫ ) ַע‬as a case of modernization by the Greek translator.16 In fact the OG text is that transmitted by the Antiochene text, which has the reading “until now” (ἕως τοῦ νῦν) in a different position (13:7). The reference text is always MT, so that when LXX does not include a section of text, scholars speak of a LXX omission, when in fact it is generally an insertion into the proto-M text, reflected in the corresponding Hexaplaric addition. The transposition of pericopes is a phenomenon that gives information on the process of formation or growth of a text.17 In Kings the different order of pericopes or sentences between MT and the Hebrew translated in LXX takes considerable dimensions, especially throughout 1 Kgs 2 to 14 but also between 1 Kgs 16 and 2 Kgs 13, as attested by the pre-Lucianic/OG text representing a Hebrew different from the proto-MT. Transpositions of a smaller scope take place within a literary unit. In 4 Kgdms 24:11a the sentence of LXXB “And Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, entered into the city” appears in the Antiochene text at the end of v. 12 (καὶ εἰσῆλθεν βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος εἰς τὴν πόλιν, without the name “Nebuchadnezzar”).18 The “transposition” supposedly operated by Lucian is in fact a pre-Lucianic/OG reading located “in the right place.” It seems obvious to suppose that the OG, shorter than MT, approaches the archetypal text. The sentence of 11b LXXL 14  E  . Tov, “Introduction to 4QCanta–c,” in Qumran Cave 4. XI: Psalms to Chronicles, ed. E. Ulrich et al. DJD XVI (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 196–198, esp. 195. 15  D. De Bruyne, “Les Anciennes Versions latines du Cantique des Cantiques,” RBén 38 (1926): 97–122. 16  D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (Fribourg, Suisse: Éditions Universitaires—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 1:402–403. 17  Frequently the transposed unit is marked with a vacat, petuḥah and/or setumah. Cf. J. Trebolle, “Division Markers as Empirical Evidence for the Editorial Growth of Biblical Books,” in Empirical Models, 165–215. 18  For a more detailed treatment, cf. J. Trebolle, “The Text-critical Value of the Greek Antiochene Text in the Books of Kings: 4 Reges/2 Kings 24:10–12 as a sample,” BN 178 (2018): 35–52.

404

Chapter 20

“Nebuchadnezzar encircled the city,” became in MT/LXXB “the servants of N. encircled the city.” The same subject, “the servants,” was added in v. 10. However, the Ketiv still betrays the original singular. The sentence of 11a, which originally followed v. 12, was transposed to its location in MT/LXXB with the change of ‫ וַ ּיָבֹא ֶאל‬to ‫וַ ּיָבֹא ַעל‬, which modifies the meaning of the sentence. Probably the original notice mentioned only Nebuchadnezzar. The most important transpositions span long sections of the text; they interconnect with each other and their origin is located during the edition process, in the movement from the first edition, represented by LXX, to the second, transmitted by MT. 1

Transpositions in MT/LXX 1 Kings 4:17–20; 5:1–7: a Case Study Developed by Rahlfs as Model of Analysis

The list of twelve districts of Solomon’s kingdom (1 Kgs 4:8–19, 20) presents a very meaningful transposition between MT and LXX, which affects the exclusion from or inclusion in the list of the Judah district. The text itself and the following context present the basic problems that textual and literary criticism of Kings have to face. According to Rahlfs, this list allows to tell apart between the two pre-Hexaplaric “texts types” (LXXB and LXXL) and the Hexaplaric text (A 247 Arm), so that this brief passage is “fundamental for solving the textual criticism problem of the books of Kings” (“grundlegend für die Lösung des textkritischen Problems der Königsbücher”). Rahlfs analyzes the text of this list in all detail because he “wants to offer a sample of the type of textual criticism commentary which, in my opinion, should be carried out in time for the whole Septuagint.”19 The main difference between LXX and MT is in vv. 10, 11, where LXX implies the reference to a single (εἷς) governor and to a single district, whereas MT lists two governors )… ‫… ֶּבן‬ ‫ ( ֶּבן‬and two districts. Thus MT has “twelve officers” (4:7) and, among them at the end of the list, “one officer in the land (of Judah)” (v. 19).20 On the other hand, LXX integrates the district of the “land of Judah” into the eleventh position and closes the list with the district of Issachar, which in MT appears in v. 17. Thus, the interpretation of this list has followed two basic

19  A  . Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher, Septuaginta-Studien III (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 224–239, esp. 225. 20  “Whether or not ‘Judah’ is read after ‘the land,’ the district of Judah is certainly meant,” J. Gray, I and II Kings. A Commentary, 2nd ed. (London: Westminster, 1970), 140.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

405

lines: one excludes Judah from the system of twelve districts as an independent district (A. Alt) and the other includes Judah as the last district of the list (Albright).21 LXX preserves an archaic flavor, typical of lists such as Josh 12:9–24 and Ezekiel 48:23–27, where each entry is enumerated with an ‫ = ֶא ָחד‬εἷς. LXXB has nine of those cases, whereas the Antiochene text has twelve εἷς and maybe one more, thirteen. Without going here into a detailed analysis of the whole list, in the final verse the text seems to be representing the OG text, where, as a rule, εἷς appears at the end of each entry: “… Nasiph, in the land of Judah, one; Phousoud, in Issachar, one.” The B text, as well as the A text, seem to have been influenced by the Masoretic tradition.

2:46a καὶ Ιουδα καὶ Ισραηλ πολλοὶ σφόδρα ὡς ἡ ἄμμος ἡ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς πλῆθος ἐσθίοντες καὶ πίνοντες καὶ χαίροντες

LXXL 19 καὶ νασιφ ἐν γῇ Ιουδα εἷς Ιωσαφατ υἱὸς Φουασουδ ἐν Ισσαχαρ εἷς

LXXB LXXA MT 19 καὶ νασιφ εἷς 19 καὶ νασιφ εἷς ‫ ּונְ ִציב ֶא ָחד‬19 ἐν γῇ Ιουδα ἐν γῇ Ιουδα (‫יְהּודה‬ ָ ) ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ָּב ָא ֶרץ‬ Ιωσαφατ υἱὸς Φουασουδ ἐν Ισσαχαρ ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫ י‬20 καὶ Ισραηλ ‫וְ יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ πολλοὶ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος ‫ַר ִּבים ַּכחֹול‬ ἡ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης ‫ל־הּיָ ם‬ ַ ‫ר־ע‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֶׁש‬ εἰς πλῆθος ἐσθίοντες ‫ָלר ֹב א ְֹכ ִלים‬ καὶ πίνοντες ‫וְ ׁש ִֹתים‬ καὶ εὐφραινόμενοι … … ‫ּוׂש ֵמ ִחים‬ ְ

In MT the word “Judah” (without the copula) works as a resumption word to insert the textual block of MT 4:20–5:6, which begins with “Judah …” According to the parallel of LXX 2:46a, v. 20 should begin with the copula, ‫ויהודה‬, “and Judah….” LXX omits here the material of MT 4:20–5:1–6, which LXX includes in 2:46a–i. Most scholars accept that the list of districts (4:8–19) was immediately

21  A. Alt, “Israels Gaue unter Salomo,” Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II (München: C.H. Beck, 1953), 89; W.F. Albright, “The Administrative Division of Israel and Judah,” JPOS 5 (1925): 17–54, esp. 29 and 36; F. Pintore, “I dodici intendenti di Salomone,” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 45 (1970): 177–207, esp. 181.

406

Chapter 20

followed by 5:7–8, 2–4, according to the LXX order,22 where information is given on Solomon’s administration based on twelve districts with a governor responsible of the monthly provision to the royal court and central sanctuary.23 The (proto-)Masoretic text has disjointed this literary unit, interrupted by the insertion of the block of 4:20; 5:1–6. The LXX order preserves the continuity of the verses 4:7–19; 5:7–8, 2–4. This proves that the material of MT 4:20; 5:1–6 was not part of the main body of the composition. This material was inserted from the “supplementary” materials preserved in LXX 2:46a, b, e, f, g, i.24 In this passage there is a confluence of the essential problems of textual and literary criticism of Kings. According to Rahlfs, the solution to the textual problems of this books can be posed and solved in the Greek tradition, which, both in its pre-Hexaplaric and Hexaplaric forms, depends on the Hebrew Masoretic text. On the contrary, W.F. Albright, in his study on Solomon’s district list, proposed to resort to “the restoration of the Hebrew text which underlies the versions and the reconstruction, as far as possible, of the original Hebrew text underlying the former.”25 In the comparison between the texts of MT and LXX, Lagarde’s criterion, as formulated by S.R. Driver, is applied: “If two readings co-exist, of which one expresses the Masoretic text, while the other can only be explained from a text deviating from it, the latter is to be regarded as the original.”26 Research of Qumran manuscripts shows that the condition indicated by Driver, “while the other can only be explained from a text deviating 22  The better order of LXX is supported by J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1899), 271; I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige (Freiburg: Mohr, 1899), 22; R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 36; H. Hrozný, Die Abweichungen des Vaticanus vom hebräischen Texte in den Königsbüchern (Leipzig: W. Drugulin, 1909), 27; A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige (Münster: Aschendorff, 1911–12), 87; G. Hoelscher, Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 381; A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches, 2nd ed. (Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1956), 14, and even D.W. Gooding, Relics of Ancient Exegesis. A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reigns 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 40–42. 23  W. Hallo studies several Sumerian lists which show the existence of a rotative system between cities of the Ur III empire for a monthly religious service, W. Hallo, “A Sumerian Amphictyony,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 14 (1960): 88–114; F.R. Kraus, “Provinzen des neu-sumerischen Reiches von Ur,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 51 (1955): 45–75, esp. 64–68. 24  Cf. the discussion of this passage by P.S.F. van Keulen, Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative. An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11, VTSup 104 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 76–79. 25  Albright, “The Administrative Division of Israel and Judah,” 20. 26  S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1890; 19132), XLIV.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

407

from it [MT],” is fulfilled in the majority of cases and especially applicable to sections of text distinctively belonging to LXX, like the “supplements” of LXX 2:35a–o and 2:46a–l and the “alternative story” of 12:24a–z.27 The analysis of the transpositions throughout 1 Kgs 3 to 10 proves that the formation of the two different editions of Kings in 1 Kgs 3–10 was prompted by a different way of integrating the Hebrew materials of the “supplements” of LXX 2:35+ and 2:46+ into the main body of the composition.28 2

Transpositions in MT/LXX throughout 1 Kings 3 to 10

The section of the text on Solomon’s kingdom, 1 Kgs 3–11, was formed by a successive aggregation of 1) the passages attested by MT and LXX Kings and by Chronicles (triple tradition); 2) the passages contained in both MT and LXX (double tradition); 3) other passages also transmitted by MT and LXX but with different placement in each text; and, finally, 4) some elements added by MT and thus also attested in the Hexaplaric recension of LXX. Numbering and verse order in the following diagram refer to MT. The LXX text also appears according to MT order and numbering, so that, e.g., the text of LXX 5:2–4 appears after MT 5:7–8 and the text of LXX 5:1a after MT 10:23–26. Passages in italics appear both in MT and LXX. Passages in red indicate transposed elements, with different contexts in MT and LXX. MT passages in bold are not part of MT and therefore, in Greek, they constitute Hexaplaric additions (*).

27  Contra, cf. Z. Talshir, The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom (3 Kingdoms 12:24a–z) (Jerusalem: Simor, 1993); id., “The Miscellanies in 2 Reigns 2:35a–o, 46a–l and the Composition of the Books of Kings/Reigns,” in XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Helsinki, 2010, ed. M.K.H. Peters (Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 155–174; id., “The Reign of Solomon in the Making: Pseudo-Connections Between 3 Kingdoms and Chronicles,” VT 50 (2000): 233–249; id., “Literary Design—A Criterion for Originality? A Case Study: 3 Kgdms 12:24a–z; 1 Kgs 11–14,” in La double transmission du texte biblique. Études d’histoire du texte offertes en hommage à Adrian Schenker, ed. Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger (Fribourg: Academic Press—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 41–57; F.H. Polak, “The Septuagint Account of Solomon’s Reign: Revision and Ancient Recension,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Oslo, 1998, ed. B.A. Taylor (Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 139–164; Van Keulen, Two Versions, 63–81. 28  Cf. in the present volume chapter 4, “The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms 2:35a–o and 2:46a–l and the Main Body of the Composition of MT/LXX 1 Kings 4–10.”

408

Pharaoh’s daughter “and brought her …” The high places The vision of Gibeon Solomon’s Judgment Solomon’s Officials

Chapter 20

Kings // Chronicles MT/LXX triple tradition double tradition

3:4–15 // 2 Chr 1:3–13

LXX Kings

3:1a * 3:1b = LXX 2:35ca

3:2–3 3:16–28 4:1–19

4:20* = 2:46a 5:1a* = 2:46ba/k 5:1b* = 2:46bb 5:2–4 = 2:46efga 5:5* = 2:46gb 5:6*6 = 2:46i

“Judah and Israel …” “sovereign over …” “they brought tribute” Daily provisions Judah/Israel in safety Stalls and chariots Officials Daily Provisions Solomon’s wisdom “Solomon brought her …” Pharaoh’s daughter: dowry Hiram (I) Workmen 5:15–30 // 2:1–17 Temple

5:7–8 5:9–14

6:20b–36 // 3:4b–14

Palace Dedication of the Temple

7:13–14 // (2:12–13) 7:15–21 // 3:15–17 7:22–51 // 4:1–5:1

5:2–4 3:1b = 2:35ca 9:16–17a 5:32b 6:1a

6:2–3 // 2 Chr 3:1–4 6:4–10

Palace Hiram (II). Cultic objects

MT Kings

5:31–32a 6:37–38a

5:31–32a 5:32b 6:1a 6:1b*

6:11–13, 14*

6:15–20a

6:37–38a 6:38b* 7:1–12

7:1–12

409

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

The Lord’s Appearance Pharaoh’s daughter Hiram (III) Solomon’s buildings Pharaoh’s daughter Solomon’s buildings

8 // 7:11–22 9:1–9

Slave labor Solomon’s officials Pharaoh’s daughter “he built the Millo” Altar and sacrifices

(2 Chr 8:3–6) (2 Chr 8:7–9) (2 Chr 8:10) (2 Chr 8:11)

Hiram. Queen of Sheba

Wisdom. Chariots Solomon—Jeroboam The death of Solomon

9:24a 9:15a.b = 2:35k.i 9:16–17a 9:17b–18 = 2:35i 9:19 9:20–22 9:23* = 2:35h 9:24a = 2:35f 9:24b* = 2:35f 9:25* = 2:35g

9:10–14 // 8:1–2

(2 Chr 8:12) 9:15a.b 9:17b–18 = 2:46d 9:19 9:20–22

9:26–10:22 // 8:17–9:21 10:23–26 // 9:22–25 (2 Chr 9:26) 10:27–29 // 9:27–28 11:41–43

5:1a 11:1–40

1. The core of the composition of 1 Kgs 3–14 is composed of materials known by the triple tradition of MT/LXX Kings and Chronicles. They are the most consolidated elements in the literary tradition and constitute the majority of the composition of Kings. The central topic, developed in 1 Kgs 6–9, is the building and furnishing of the Temple. Before and after, there are other materials connected to the figure of Solomon as a wise and powerful king (1 Kgs 3–5; 9–10).29 2. The literary units of the double tradition which appear both in MT and LXX Kings but not in Chronicles (passages in italics) belong to the archetypal edition of Kings upon which both MT and LXX depend. These units are concentrated in the chapters before the description of the construction of the Temple: 1 Kgs 3:2–3, the high places; 3:16–28, Solomon’s judgement; 4:1–19, the lists of governors and districts; 5:7–8, the provisions; 5:9–14, Solomon’s wisdom; 29  A.G. Auld, Kings without Privilege. David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994); id., Life in Kings. Reshaping the Royal Story in the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2017).

410

Chapter 20

6:4–10, 15–20a, the building of the Temple. In the following chapters, only 1 Kgs 11:1–43 is part of the double tradition. The fact that these units do not appear in Chronicles does not mean that they are more recent than the edition of that book. 3. The two editions represented by MT and LXX contain a series of brief pieces which appear in different locations. The different arrangement of these pieces makes the difference between both editions and endows each of them with its own distinctive flavor. They are movable units added to the common archetypal edition of both MT and LXX. Four of these pieces put Pharaoh’s daughter in relation with the building of the royal palace and her own palace. – 3:1b “he (Solomon) took Pharaoh’s daughter and brought her into the city of David, until he had finished building his own house and the house of the Lord and the wall around Jerusalem.” MT connects from the beginning the transfer of Pharaoh’s daughter with the high places. – 9:16–17a “Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up and captured Gezer and burned it down, had killed the Canaanites who lived in the city, and had given it as dowry to his daughter, Solomon’s wife; 17 so Solomon rebuilt Gezer.” In LXX the two pieces (3:1b and 9:16–17a) are a unit located after 5:14.30 The reference in 9:16–17a to Gezer as dowry to Solomon’s wife appears in MT embedded within the unit on the construction works in Jerusalem (9:15, 17b–18). – 9:24a “But Pharaoh’s daughter went up from the city of David to her own house that Solomon had built for her.” The same reference to the house built for Pharaoh’s daughter appears in 7:8: “Solomon also made a house like this hall for Pharaoh’s daughter, whom he had taken in marriage.” This verse is part of the unit allusive to the building of the royal palace (7:1–12) which also appears in a different location in MT and LXX.31 – 5:2–4 appears in LXX after 5:7–8 forming a unit on the daily provisions yielded by Solomon’s officers. In MT the unit of 5:2–4 appears in the middle of a heterogeneous block of texts that are not part of LXX. MT 5:2 presents an addition (in brackets) when compared to MT 2:46e “Solomon’s provision [for one day] was thirty measures of fine flour….” MT 5:4 and LXX 2:46f (except LXXL, which could be representing the OG text) add when compared to LXX 5:4: “For he had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates

30  A. Schenker, Septante et texte massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14 (Paris: Gabalda, 2000), 17–35. 31  Cf. in the present volume chapter 19 “The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: I. From Greek Hexaplaric Additions to Hebrew Editorial Glosses” and Van Keulen, Two Versions, 63–81.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

411

[from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates;] and he had peace on all sides.” Other units are related to the beginning of the construction of the Temple: – The sum of 5:31–32ab; 6:1a.b according to MT order or of 5:32b; 6:1a; 5:31–32a according to LXX order describes the beginning of the construction of the Temple. The initial sentence in MT “In the four hundred eightieth year … he began to build the house of the Lord” poses the problem of its apodosis (v. 1b), ‫וַ ֶּי֥בן ַה ַּביִת ַליהוָ ה‬, not having an equivalent in LXX, and thus it is possible to think that this is an MT addition. In the LXX order, the protasis of 6:1a is followed by the apodosis of 5:31–32a: “and it happened, in the four hundred fortieth year … the king commanded, and they took great, costly stones for the foundation of the house, and unhewn stones … and laid them” (καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ τεσσαρακοστῷ καὶ τετρακοσιοστῷ ἔτει… καὶ ἐνετείλατο ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ἐνεγκεῖν λίθους (LXXL) … εἰς τὸν θεμέλιον… καὶ ἔβαλαν αὐτούς).32 The LXX order follows the canonic formulation in foundation notices, which begin with data on the date of the beginning of works and are followed by the command of setting the foundations (‫)יסד‬.33 Setting the foundations and rising the gates mark the beginning and end of the construction of a temple, palace, or city.34 Before the indicated date and the setting of the foundations, there is preparatory work “and they prepared (‫ )וַ ּיָ ִכינּו‬the timber and the stone to build the house” (5:32b). On the other hand, according to MT, all the works that the king commands are preparations for the construction and do not involve the setting of the boundaries as an effective beginning of the start of the works. The reference to the construction, “he built the house of the Lord” (6:1b), is very generic and similar to other notices, which seem to be marks in the composition of the text, like “He built the house, and finished it” (6:9), “Solomon built the house, and finished it” (6:14) and “He was seven years in building it” (6:38b, > LXX). MT 6:1a is composed of two pieces of data that are, in principle, independent: the first and more recent, regarding the exodus from Egypt; the second, relative to the beginning of Solomon’s kingdom: “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month …” Proof of it is the absence in 2 Chr 3:1 of the reference to 32  Van Keulen, Two Versions, 113–141. 33  D.W. Gooding rejects the “reverent” order of LXX, which he attributes to a scrupulous piety on the translator’s side, together with a certain pedantic attitude regarding chronology, see id., “Pedantic Timetabling in 3rd Book of Reigns,” VT 15 (1965): 153–166, esp. 155–156. 34  Cf. chapter 4 in the present volume, “The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms 2:35a–o and 2:46a–l and the Main Body of the Composition of MT/LXX 1 Kings 4–10.”

412

Chapter 20

the exodus from Egypt (1 Kgs 6:1aα). Also, 2 Chr 3:1–2 presents an addition to the parallel of 1 Kgs 6:1b, operated through a resumptive repetition: “Solomon began to build the house of the Lord [in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah …, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. He began to build] in the second month of the fourth year of his reign.” – 6:37–38a is a chronological note placed in LXX after 6:1; 5:31–32a. This placement obeys to the pattern mentioned above, which gives the date of the setting of the foundations and of the conclusion of the works: “In the fourth year the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid, in the month of Ziv. 38 In the eleventh year, in the month of Bul, which is the eighth month, the house was finished in all its parts, and according to all its specifications.” In MT this chronological note is linked to the unit about the construction of the royal palace (7:1–12). The transposition carried out in the (proto-)Masoretic text brought about, as usual, different variants at the insertion points of 6:37–38 + 7:1–12 between the blocks of 6:2–36 and 7:13–51, that is, in 6:36 and in 7:12a.b: “He built the inner court with three courses of dressed stone to one course of cedar beams” (LXX + κυκλόθεν (‫ ) ָס ִביב‬καὶ ᾠκοδόμησε καταπέτασμα τῆς αὐλῆς τοῦ αιλαμ τοῦ οἴκου (‫ְל ֻא ָלם‬ ‫ ) ַה ָּביִת‬τοῦ κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ ναοῦ) (6:36)—“The great court had three courses of dressed stone to one course of cedar beams all around; so had the inner court of the house of the Lord, and the vestibule of the house” (7:12). Also, MT 7:1 “And Solomon built his house in thirteen years, and he finished his entire house” juxtaposes two sentences which in LXX are framing the unit on the construction of the palace placed after MT 7:51: καὶ ᾠκοδόμησε Σολωμων (LXXL) τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ τρισκαίδεκα ἔτεσιν (LXX 7:38 = MT 7:1a) and καὶ συνετέλεσεν Σαλωμων ὅλον τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ (7:50 = MT 7:1b).35 The notice of MT 6:38b “He was seven years in building it [the Temple]” (‫ )וַ ְּיִבנֵ הּו ֶׁש ַבע ָׁשנִ ים‬does not appear in LXX. Also, MT 7:1 “Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished his entire house” (‫ת־ּביתֹו ָּבנָ ה‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ל־ּביתֹו‬ ֵ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫ ) ְׁשֹלמֹה ְׁשֹלׁש ֶע ְׂש ֵרה ָׁשנָ ה וַ יְ ַכל ֶא‬features in LXX as a shorter text: καὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ᾠκοδόμησεν Σαλωμων τρισκαίδεκα ἔτεσιν. LXX omits here the reference of MT 7:1b “and he finished his entire house,” which precedes the section of text on the construction of the palace (7:1–12). This sentence appears in LXX as a conclusion to the construction works of the royal palace (7:50 καὶ συνετέλεσεν Σαλωμων ὅλον τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ) and links to LXX 8:1, a recapitulation 35  Cf. chapter 4, “The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms 2:35a–o and 2:46a–l and the Main Body of the Composition of MT/LXX 1 Kings 4–10.” Contra D.W. Gooding, “Temple Specifications: A Dispute in Logical Arrangement between the MT and the LXX,” VT 17 (1967): 143–172; Van Keulen, Two Versions, 130–141.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

413

of chapters 6–7 with the sentence “Solomon finished building the house of the Lord and his own house after twenty years.” The reference to the “twenty years” did not originally appear until the conclusion of the construction works of temple and palace in 8:1 (LXX) and 9:10 (MT/LXX). LXX does not add seven and thirteen years in two consecutive verses: MT 6:38b (> LXX) and 7:1. Also, LXX does not include the reference of MT 9:24a to the palace of Pharaoh’s daughter. MT “But Pharaoh’s daughter went up from the city of David to her own house which Solomon had built for her” (‫ל־ּב ָיתּה ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ֵ ‫ת־ּפ ְרעֹה ָע ְל ָתה ֵמ ִעיר ָּדוִ ד ֶא‬ ַ ‫ַאְך ַּב‬ ‫ה־לּה‬ ָ ָ‫ ) ָּבנ‬appears in LXX as τότε (‫ ) ָאז‬ἀνήγαγεν Σαλωμων τὴν θυγατέρα Φαραω ἐκ πόλεως Δαυιδ εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ ὃν ᾠκοδόμησεν ἑαυτῷ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις, “Then (‫ ) ָאז‬Solomon brought up Pharaoh’s daughter from the city of David to his house that he built for himself in those days.” In LXX there is no place for the scruples expressed in the 2 Chr 8:11 addition, “for he said, ‘my wife shall not live in the house of David king of Israel, for the places to which the ark of the Lord has come are holy.’”36 LXX structures the composition through the repeated sentences “And it happened, when …” (8:1; 9:1 and 9:10). 4. Besides 6:1b and 6:38b, MT contains other loose elements also missing from LXX. The following Hexaplaric addition in the Greek is a reflection of the addition that took place in the Hebrew text. These elements concentrate in two blocks. The first block is formed by 4:20; 5:1a.b; [5:2–4]; 5:5; 5:6. This ensemble of materials roughly follows the order and text of the second “supplement” of LXX: 4:20 = 2:46a; 5:1a = 2:46ba/k; 5:1b = 2:46bb; [5:2–4 = 2:46efga]; 5:5 = 2:46gb; 5:6* = 2:46i. In 5:1 MT has an addition (within brackets) when compared to LXX 2:46b: “Solomon was sovereign over all the kingdoms [from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, even to the border of Egypt;] they brought tribute….” On the other hand, LXX 2:46gb adds, when compared to MT 5:5, “under their vines and fig trees [2:46gb + eating and drinking] from Dan to Beer-sheba.” The second block is also composed by elements which are transposed when compared to LXX and by other additions in (proto-)MT, absent from LXX. It is also roughly following, but in the inverse order, the first “supplement” of LXX: 9:15ab = 2:35k.i; [9:16–17a]; 9:17b–18 = 2:35i; [9:19, 20–22]; 9:23 = 2:35h; 9:24a = 2:35f; 9:24b = 2:35f; 9:25 = 2:35g. The (proto-)Masoretic text took the elements from the Hebrew text preserved in the supplements to LXX and integrated them into these two blocks in the main body of the composition of Kings.37 36  A. Schenker, Septante et texte massorétique, 129–130. 37  Cf. chapter 4, “The Supplements of LXX 3 Kingdoms 2:35a–o and 2:46a–l and the Main Body of the Composition of MT/LXX 1 Kings 4–10.”

414

Chapter 20

The supplements to LXX constitute a single supplement. The numbering in two blocks (2:35+ and 2:46+) is made in function of MT. The text of 2:36–46, numbered according to MT, is also part of this single supplement, which contains the complete and undivided text of Shimei’s death. This narrative would have circulated independently from the others, as its beginning indicates, with an allusion to a testament where David dictates his will on Shimei’s fate, with no reference to Adonijah and Joab: “When David was still alive he charged his son Solomon, saying …” (καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔτι Δαυιδ ζῆν ἐνετείλατο τῷ Σαλωμων λέγων …) (2:35l). The “Succession History,” formed by a collection of loose narratives that have been strung together, concluded with the story on Adonijah’s and Joab’s death and with an expression similar to LXX καὶ ἡ βασιλεία κατωρθοῦτο ἐν Ιερουσαλημ, right at the point where the supplement is introduced (2:35). The narrative of Shimei’s death was introduced later. The first part of this narrative became part of David’s testament (2:8–10), drawing a parallel between the commands of executing Joab and of executing Shimei: “do not let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace” (2:6)—“you must bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol” (2:9). The second part was added at the end of the narrative of Adonijah’s and Joab’s execution, also drawing a parallel between the three deaths: “So King Solomon sent Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he struck him (Adonijah) down, and he died” (2:25); “Then Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up and struck him down and killed him” (2:34); “the king commanded Benaiah son of Jehoiada; and he went out and struck him (Shimei) down, and he died.”38 The single supplement (2:35a–o + 2:36–46 + 2:46a–l) was inserted between similar sentences which mark the beginning of Solomon’s reign: “And the kingdom was been established in Jerusalem” (καὶ ἡ βασιλεία κατωρθοῦτο ἐν Ιερουσαλημ) (LXX 2:35), “So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon” (‫ד־ׁשֹלמֹה‬ ְ ַ‫( )וְ ַה ַּמ ְמ ָל ָכה נָ כֹונָ ה ְּבי‬2:46b), similar to 2:12b “and his kingdom was firmly established” (‫)וַ ִּתּכֹן ַמ ְל ֻכתֹו ְמאֹד‬, located after the reference to David’s death and Solomon’s ascent to the throne: “Solomon son of David reigned in Israel and Judah in Jerusalem” (Σαλωμων υἱὸς Δαυιδ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐπὶ Ισραηλ καὶ Ιουδα ἐν Ιερουσαλημ) (LXX 2:46l). The supplement is not a collection of loose elements taken from (proto-) MT, but a Hebrew source composed of data in the spirit of regnal annals. The edition represented by (proto-)MT and the text translated by LXX integrated these materials in different locations in the main composition body.39 38  Cf. Van Keulen, Two Versions, 42–52. 39  G. Darshan, “The Long Additions in LXX 1 Kgs 2 (3 Kgdms 2:35a–k; 46a–l) and their Importance for the Question of the Literary History of 1 Kgs 1–11,” Tarbiẕ 75 (2006): 5–50 (in Hebrew).

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

3

415

Transpositions in 1 Kings 11:1–25. The “Satans” against Solomon and Israel

The literary unit of 1 Kgs 11:1–10, framed by petuḥot, presents a different arrangement in MT and LXX.40 The MT v. 3a sentence “And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” appears in LXX in v. 1. The next sentence, 3b, “and his wives turned away his heart,” omitted in LXX, is repeated in MT v. 4a with the addition “after other gods” and the clause structure x-qatal (… ‫)נָ ָׁשיו ִהּטּו‬. This sentence in MT 4a “his wives turned away his heart after other gods” appears in LXXBL after v. 4b. Then, LXX omits MT v. 541 and places v. 6 after v. 8. Finally, LXX repeats the text of MT 4b after v. 10.42 Rahlfs keeps the text of v. 4b, although it interrupts the sequence of protasis and apodosis, “And it happened when …, his foreign wives turned away his heart.” He eliminates, on the other hand, the “plus” of LXXBL in v. 10. It seems preferable to follow the text of LXXBL in v. 10, where it departs from the Masoretic tradition, with no option to propose that the order in the Greek version or in its Vorlage has been caused by any tendency or exegesis. On the other hand, the LXX text in v. 4b seems to have entered into the Greek tradition at a late date due to the influence of the Masoretic text, like a kaige addition. At any rate, the comparison between MT and LXX contributes to identify the process of formation of the text from two mixed traditions. The first and earlier refers to the number of Solomon’s wives (MT/LXX v. 1a; MT v. 3a; MT/LXX v. 2b); the second to the “foreign” origins of those women, which led the king to idolatry (v. 1b, 2a, 4). In 1 Kgs 11:14, 23–25 the text alluded originally to a single “satan,” Hadad the Edomite, with the sentence “And the Lord raised up a satan against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite of the seed of the kingdom in Edom” (‫וַ ּיָ ֶקם יְ הוָ ה ָׂש ָטן ִל ְׁשֹלמֹה‬ ‫ ֵאת ֲה ַדד ָה ֲאד ִֹמי ִמּזֶ ַרע ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך הּוא ֶּב ֱאדֹום‬, MT 11:14). In LXX this sentence is interrupted by the reference to a second “satan” in Syria (“and Hersom/Rezon son of Eliada … all the days of Solomon.”) The insertion was operated in the Hebrew 40  Z. Talshir, “1 Kings and 3 Kingdoms—Origin and Revision Case Study: The Sins of Solomon (1 Kgs 11),” Textus 21 (2002): 71–105; G. Vanoni, Literarkritik und Grammatik. Untersuchung der Wiederholungen und Spannungen in 1 Kön 11–12, ATSAT 21 (St. Ottilien: Eos-Verlag, 1984). 41  E.A. Knauf’s comment (1 Könige 1–14, 329): “Nach 5 hat Salomo die sidonische Astarte und den ammonitischen Milkom kultisch verehrt (noch nicht in der Septuaginta-Vorlage!)…” does not take into account the different textual order in LXX, which includes these references in 11:6, 8: “and to their king, idol of the sons of Ammon, and to Astarte, abomination of the Sidonians.” 42  F. Ueberschaer, Vom Gründungsmythos zur Untergangssymphonie. Eine text- und literatur­ geschichtliche Untersuchung zu 1 Kön 11–14, BZAW 481 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 28–49.

416

Chapter 20

original of LXX via repetition (Wiederaufnahme) of the phrase “Hadad the Edomite” (‫) ֲה ַדד ָה ֲאד ִֹמי‬.43 The Hadad narrative (11:15–22) is laden with added data.44 Probably the LXX repetition καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι (‫ … ) ְב ַה ְכ ִרית‬ἕως ὅτου ἐξωλέθρευσεν (‫ … ) ְב ַה ְכ ִרית‬signals the insertion of the added material, although it is not easy to reconstruct the text at the points where the addition took place: “For when David eliminated Edom, [and Joab the commander of the army went up to bury the dead, he/they (LXX) killed every male in Edom, for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had eliminated every male in Edom], Hadad fled to Egypt … (11:15–17). Verses 17–18 are especially laden. Some scholars propose two different narrative lines: in one of them Hadad is a child when he flees to Egypt; in the other he is already an adult. It is likely that, once more, a repetition witnessed by LXX allows to identify an addition in the text it translates: “Hadad fled with all the Edomites who were servants of his father and came to Egypt [and Hadad was a young lad. (18) And men from the city of Madiam rose up and came into Pharan, and they took men with them and came to Pharaoh, king of Egypt,] and Hadad entered in before Pharaoh, and he gave him a house …” (καὶ ἀπέδρα Αδερ αὐτὸς καὶ πάντες ἄνδρες Ιδουμαῖοι τῶν παίδων τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰσῆλθον εἰς Αἴγυπτον καὶ Αδερ παιδάριον μικρόν (18) καὶ ἀνίστανται ἄνδρες ἐκ τῆς πόλεως Μαδιαμ καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Φαραν καὶ λαμβάνουσιν ἄνδρας μετ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ ἔρχονται (+ MT to Egypt) πρὸς Φαραω βασιλέα Αἰγύπτου καὶ εἰσῆλθεν Αδερ πρὸς Φαραω καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ οἶκον…). MT transposes the short reference to Rezon to the end of the unit about Hadad (11:23–24), according to 25aα “he was a satan against Israel all the days of Solomon.” Rezon is now not only a “satan against Solomon” (v. 14 and 23) but a “satan against Israel” during the whole of Solomon’s reign (“all the days of Solomon”). The plural reading of Vaticanus (Bh*ua2) followed by Rahlfs ἦσαν (σαταν τῷ Ισραηλ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας Σαλωμων) makes of Hadad and Rezon two satans “against Israel” and during the whole of Solomon’s life. The singular reading of the Antiochene text ἦν (σαταν) seems to be the OG. Thus, both the Hebrew and Greek traditions tend to give more relevance to satans, which do not oppose so much Solomon, but Israel, and during the totality of Solomon’s life. The Antiochene text contributes to elucidate a very 43  For a different opinion on the value of LXX in this passage, cf. Montgomery, Kings, 237; Schenker, Septante et texte massorétique, 112–114; M. Richelle, “Intentional Omissions in the Textual History of the Books of Kings. In Search of Methodological Criteria,” Semitica 58 (2016): 135–157; Van Keulen, Two Versions, 235–237; Ueberschaer, Gründungsmythos, 49–58. 44  Würthwein, Könige, 136.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

417

debated reading, both in MT and LXX, in 11:34: ‫ נָ ִׂשיא ֲא ִׁש ֶתּנּו‬MT, “I will make him ruler,” and ἀντιτασσόμενος ἀντιτάξομαι αὐτῷ LXX, “resisting, I will resist him all the days of his life” (NETS) (cf. Hos 1:6). The two sentences of MT and of LXXB “I will not take the whole kingdom away from him but (‫ ) ִּכי‬will make him ruler (LXX resisting, I will resist him) all the days of his life” are transposed in LXXL: “Resisting I will resist him all the days of his life and I will not take the whole kingdom from him in the days of his life” (καὶ ἀντιτασσόμενος ἀντιτάξομαι αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐ μὴ λάβω ὅλην τὴν βασιλείαν ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτοῦ εν ταις ἡμεραις τῆς ζωῆς αὐτοῦ). Rahlfs thinks that L is unsuccessfully trying to improve the B text and is thus dependent on it.45 Nevertheless, the Antiochene text allows to identify the complete text of a double reading: “Resisting I will resist him all the days of his life” and “I will not take the whole kingdom from him in the days of his life.” Both readings end with the expression “all/in the days of his life.” In MT (LXXB) this expression seems to be part only of the reading ‫נָ ִׂשיא ֲא ִׁש ֶתּנּו‬, added with the particle ‫ ִּכי‬. In this context, the Antiochene reading in 2:46g (MT 5:5) is very surprising: “there was no satan all the days of Solomon” (καὶ οὐκ ἦν σαταν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας Σολωμωντος Z(uid)bdgopc2e2). It is definitely an addition introduced via a resumptive repetition: “lived in safety under their vines and fig trees eating and drinking, from Dan to Beer-sheba all the days of Solomon. [There was no satan all the days of Solomon]” (πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας Σολωμωντος καὶ οὐκ ἦν σαταν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας Σολωμωντος). Nevertheless, it does not seem to be a recent addition to the Greek tradition, as it uses the old translation σαταν as opposed to the attested Hexaplaric form ἀντικείμενος (Ax Arm SyrH, 11:25). It is also difficult to imagine the insertion of a gloss which would stand in direct contradiction with the statement in MT 11:25: “He was an adversary of Israel all the days of Solomon.” The materials on Solomon’s reign were originally favourable to Solomon. It was only later that the Deuteronomistic redaction added into chapter 11 a critical vision of Solomon’s reign, with the accusation of multiplying his marriages with foreign women, which led him to idolatry, and thus provoking that “satans” would rise against him at the end or during the whole of his life. Nevertheless, according to royal ideology, marriages with foreign women were the basis of pacts with neighboring kingdoms and therefore a cause of pride. Also, the episode of Hadad’s stay in Egypt (11:18–22) is very similar to Jeroboam’s stay in Egypt according to LXX 12:24c–f., particularly regarding the marriages of both characters at Pharaoh’s court. Scholars tend to think that the 45  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 202.

418

Chapter 20

story of Jeroboam’s marriage is a copy of Hadad’s.46 Nevertheless, it is possible to think that the Jeroboam story according to 11:26–28, 40; 12:2–3 is constructed with data and expressions from the “alternative version” of LXX 12:24:b–e, n. 4

The Narratives of Jeroboam’s Revolt and Ahijah’s Symbolic Action

Two originally independent narratives converge in 1 Kgs 11:26–40, 43. The story of Jeroboam’s revolt in 11:26–28, 40, 43* links with the story of the Assembly of Shechem (12:2–3a).47 It has a parallel in the Alternative History of LXX 12:24b–f, which concludes with Jeroboam’s return to Ephraim with no connection to the narrative about the Assembly of Shechem. The narrative on the symbolic action of the prophet Ahijah, 11:29–39, is embedded within the former. It also has parallels in the alternative history (12:24 o), but instead of Ahijah it is Shemayah who carries out the symbolic action and transmits the oracle to Jeroboam. This story is limited to the text of vv. 29–32a, because what follows are two long Deuteronomistic additions. Such a short text contains an addition marked by a resumptive repetition. In v. 29b the LXX reading καὶ ἀπέστησεν αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς ὁδοῦ, “and took him aside out of the way,” may imply the Hebrew ‫ויסירהו מן‬ ‫( הדרך‬BHS). The text is overloaded with place references: “on the road” (‫) ַּב ֶּד ֶרְך‬, “outside the road” (‫)מן הדרך‬, “in the open country” (‫) ַּב ָּׂש ֶדה‬. The difficulties are not solved, as it has been proposed, by taking apart the sentences on garments from those about location: “Ahijah met him on the road; the two of them were alone in the open country. Ahijah was clothed with a garment, and he laid hold of the new garment …” On the contrary, the repetition “and he was clothed with a new garment … and Ahijah laid hold of the new garment” (‫וְ הּוא ִמ ְת ַּכ ֶּסה‬ ‫… וַ ּיִ ְתּפֹׂש ֲא ִחּיָ ה ַּב ַּׂש ְל ָמה ַה ֲח ָד ָׁשה‬ ‫ ) ְּב ַׂש ְל ָמה ֲח ָד ָׁשה‬seems to be framing the addition of “the two men were alone in the open country” (‫ּוׁשנֵ ֶיהם ְל ַב ָּדם ַּב ָּׂש ֶדה‬ ְ , LXX omits ‫) ְל ַב ָּדם‬. The text before the addition would be: “and took him aside out of the way and laid hold of the new garment he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces” (… ‫)ויסירהו מן הדרך ויתפש בשמלה החדשה אשר עליו‬. 46  Montgomery, Kings, 256. 47  A. Schenker, “Un cas de critique narrative au service de la critique textuelle (1 Rois 11,43–12,2–3, 20),” Bib 77 (1996): 219–226; id., “Jéroboam et la division du royaume dans la Septante ancienne: LXX 1 R 12–24a–z, TM 11–12; 14 et l’histoire deutéronomiste,” in Israël construit son histoire. L’historiographie déuteronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes, ed. A. de Pury et al. (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1996), 193–236; S.L. McKenzie, “The Source for Jeroboam’s Role at Shechem (1 Kgs 11:43–12:3, 12–20),” JBL 106 (1987): 297–300; T.M. Willis, “The Text of 1 Kings 11:43–12:3,” CBQ 53 (1991): 32–44.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

419

In 11:29–38 W. Dietrich and E. Würthwein isolate a first stratum, which alludes to the ten tribes only (11:29–31, 33a, 34abα, 35abα, 37) and a second one, which takes into account the tribe of Judah alone (11:32, 33b, 34bβ, 36, 38).48 In my opinion, Ahijah’s story and oracle (vv. 29–32a) are earlier than the dtr additions. As in the parallel text of LXX 12:24 o, it concludes with a reference to the ten tribes, which no mention to the other two. A resumptive repetition allows the identification of the insertion points of these two dtr comments: (31) And he (Ahijah) said to Jeroboam: Take for yourself ten pieces; Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘See, I will tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon, and will give you ten tribes (32) and two tribes will be for him [ for the sake of my servant David … (35) And I will take the kingdom away from his son and will give you the ten tribes (36) and to his son I will give the two tribes.] The first dtr insertion (vv. 32b–34, “for the sake of my servant David …”) is framed by a resumptive repetition, whose text has been better preserved in LXX: ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ῥήσσω τὴν βασιλείαν ἐκ χειρὸς Σαλωμων καὶ δώσω σοι δέκα σκῆπτρα καὶ δύο σκῆπτρα ἔσονται αὐτῷ (vv. 31b–32a) and καὶ λήμψομαι τὴν βασιλείαν ἐκ χειρὸς τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ δώσω σοι τὰ δέκα σκῆπτρα τῷ δὲ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ δώσω τὰ δύο σκῆπτρα (35b–36a). LXX preserves in v. 35b the reading ‫וְ נָ ַת ִּתי‬, without the suffix ‫ ָה‬of MT ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ּונְ ַת ִּת‬, in reference to “the kingdom” (‫לּוכה‬ ָ ‫) ְּמ‬, so that the text of the repetition in 31 and 35 is exactly the same: … ‫וְ נָ ַת ִּתי ְלָך ֵאת‬. The expression “I will take the kingdom away from his son” (v. 35a) repeats the sentence of v. 31bα “I will tear the kingdom (‫ ) ַה ַּמ ְמ ָל ָכה‬from the hand of Solomon,” with a slight adaptation to the previous context: “from his son” instead of “from the hand of Solomon.” MT transforms “two tribes” into “one tribe,” in reference to the kingdom of Judah as a “dominion” or “fief”49 for David (LXX θέσις… τοῦ θέσθαι ὄνομά μου ἐκεῖ, MT “lamp”) (36b). Verse 36b is the beginning of a new dtr comment, which continues until v. 38. Both dtr interpolations begin with the same reference to David and Jerusalem: “for the sake of (‫ ) ְל ַמ ַען‬my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, 48  Würthwein, Könige, 139–142; Dietrich, Prophetie, 15–16; cf. H. Seebass, “Zur Königserhebung Jerobeams I,” VT 17 (1967): 325–333, esp. 327. On the different scholarly views, cf. G.N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, I. The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993), 191–197. 49  D.J.A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2016), Vol. 5, 683a–b; N. Na’aman, “A ‫ ניר‬for David in Jerusalem,” JNSL 39 (2013): 29–38.

420

Chapter 20

the city …” (v. 32b)—“for the sake of (‫ ) ְל ַמ ַען‬my servant David may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city …” (v. 36b). The first dtr insertion then refers to Solomon according to the LXX text, “he has forsaken me, worshiped Astarte …, and has not walked in my ways …” (κατέλιπέν με καὶ ἐποίησεν (ἐδούλευσε LXXL) τῇ Ἀστάρτῃ… καὶ οὐκ ἐπορεύθη…, v. 33), whereas the MT text extends to the tribes of Israel Solomon’s guilt: “they forsake, worshiped …, walked” (‫א־ה ְלכּו … ֲעזָ בּונִ י וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַּת ֲחוּו‬ ָ ֹ ‫)וְ ל‬. The second dtr comment refers to Jeroboam with the promise, “I will build you an enduring house,” always conditioned by the fulfilment of Deuteronomic laws. The dtr intervention also affects, though in a smaller measure, the main narrative on the assembly, where the dtr admonition on the fulfilment of an oracle has been inserted (12:15bβγ), as well as the concluding sentence, also dtr, in v. 19, and the gloss of v. 17, absent in LXX. 5

The Narratives of the “Alternative History” (LXX 12:24a–z) Transposed from Rehoboam’s Reign to an Interregnum between Solomon and Rehoboam

The “Alternative History” of LXX 12–24a–z constitutes a collection of narratives about Jeroboam, the consultation to the prophet Ahijah; the Shechem assembly; Shemaiah’s symbolic action; and Shemaiah’s final speech. They are all integrated within the frame of Rehoboam’s reign, whose initial formula (12:24a) opens the collection. On the contrary, in the MT/LXX version, the Jeroboam narrative is framed within Solomon’s reign (11:26–28, 40), before the conclusive formulae of 11:41–43, although it ends in 12:2–3a, leading to the narrative on the assembly of Shechem.50 The initial formulae of Rehoboam’s reign appear in 14:21–22, so that all the materials from 12:1 to 13:34 (or 14:20, if the text of 14:1–20, absent from LXX, is considered) stands outside any regnal frame, thus breaking a compositional rule of the books of Kings according to which any literary unit—chronicle notice, narrative or Deuteronomistic comment—must be framed within the reign with which it synchronizes, that is, between the respective initial and conclusive reign formulae. The text added in MT 14:1–20 and absent from LXX ends with the conclusive formulae of Jeroboam’s reign (14:19–20), so that the 50  A. Schenker, “Jeroboam and the Division of the Kingdom in the Ancient Septuagint: LXX 3 Kingdoms 12:24 a–z, MT 1 Kings 11–12; 14 and the Deuteronomistic History,” in Israel Constructs Its History. Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research, ed. A. de Pury (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 214–257.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

421

narrative materials of 12:1–14:18 would seem to be integrated within the frame of Jeroboam’s reign. On the other hand, the “Alternative History” of LXX begins with the opening formulae of Rehoboam’s reign (12:24a), which immediately follow the conclusive formulae of Solomon’s reign (11:41–43).51 Rehoboam’s first verse according to the alternative history (12:24a) and the initial verse of the same reign according to MT/LXX 14:21 match the spirit of an inclusion or resumptive repetition. Also, Shemaiah’s prophecy, the last part of the alternative history (12:24y–z) constitutes an inclusion or resumptive repetition when compared to the end of the same story according to MT/LXX (12:22–24). Thus, the Alternative History fits seamlessly between the conclusive formula of Solomon’s reign (11:43) and 12:25, where the story continues according to MT/LXX. In the MT/LXX version all the materials from 12:1 to 14:20, including the story about the man of God of Judah and the prophet in Bethel (chapter 13) and even the consultation to Ahijah (14:1–20, absent from LXX) is placed in an interregnum between Solomon’s and Rehoboam’s reigns. Later, the MT addition of 14:19–20, absent from LXX; would ascribe all stories to Jeroboam’s reign. In the alternative version of LXX 12:24a–z, all the material is placed within Rehoboam’s reign, including the stories about Jeroboam and the assembly of Shechem. The Deuteronomistic redaction transformed Solomon’s praise carried out in chapters 3–10 into criticism to his persona in chapter 11, at least regarding the last years of his reign. The “alternative history” of LXX does not contain any kind of judgment, Deuteronomistic or otherwise. In this sense, it is incompatible with the text of MT/LXX in 11:26–39 and 14:1–18. It did not contain any criticism against Solomon, besides him imposing a heavy burden on the tribes, but at any rate that criticism is more clearly levelled at Rehoboam, who promises to increase that burden. It constituted an independent cycle of narratives which, at the time when the synchronic history of Israel and Judah was constructed, was assigned to Rehoboam’s reign. The data of the Antiochene text, according to which “there was no satan all the days of Solomon” (2:46g) may refer to a stage in “Solomon’s history” which had not undergone the dtr intervention in chapter 11. Solomon’s history was a full praise of a powerful and wise king, since the beginning, with the legitimating dream in Gibeon in chapter 3, to the inventory of riches and chariots and horses in chapter 10.

51  E.A. Knauf (Könige 1–14, 403) acknowledges that the chronological data in LXX 12:24a “dürften den ursprünglichen Daten näherstehen (s. die Einleitung zur Chronologie).”

422

Chapter 20

Chapter 11 would be a dtr construct which took the notice on Jeroboam’s rebellion against the royal power (καὶ ἦν ἐπαιρόμενος ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν, LXX 12:24b) and of the following persecution by Solomon (LXX 12:24c) and through it constructed the figure of a “satan” against Solomon, together with the minor figures of Rezon and Hadad, the latter possibly inspired by Jeroboam himself. A narrative about Jeroboam and the assembly of Shechem such as LXX 12:24+, more or less neutral or devoid of critical comments, was re-elaborated to fabricate criticism against Solomon, who is made responsible of the division of his kingdom due to his fall into idolatry (11:33a). The narrative on Ahijah’s symbolic action in 14:1–18 is a feature of MT and does not appear in LXX. The dtr comment is also longer than the narrative itself and includes several redaction layers (14:7–11, 13aβ–16).52 The dtr redaction acknowledges Jeroboam’s role as “prince of my people Israel,” but afterwards it announces the fall of his dynasty. Historico-theological considerations of dtr redactors in chapters 11 and 14 surpass the scope of the stories in the “Alternative History,” which just follow events transmitted by tradition, without judgment or comments. If anything can be said about blame for the secession of the tribes, this blame is placed upon Rehoboam more than upon Solomon, or, from Judah’s perspective, the Northern tribes who rebel against Rehoboam. According to Römer, the edition of Josiah’s time would blame the Northern tribes for the secession, whereas the later exilic edition would put the blame on Solomon and monarchy itself.53 The alternative history of LXX may well go back to an edition which blamed the Northern tribes, whereas the story of MT/LXX represents an edition which put the blame on Solomon and monarchy. The issue of which of the two editions (MT or LXX) is earlier is largely connected to the value and antiquity of the “Supplements” and of the “Alternative History” of LXX. Small details of different nature underscore the priority of the text translated into Greek. Thus, e.g., the reading ἕκαστος of LXXL OG (unusquisque OL, ‫ ) ִאיׁש‬instead of ‫ יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬in the sentence of 12:24u καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸ σκήνωμα αὐτοῦ and 12:16 ἀποστρεχέτο ἕκαστος εἰς τὰ σκηνώματά σου against MT 12:16 ‫… וַ ּיֵ ֶלְך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ְלא ָֹה ָליו‬ ‫ = ְלא ָֹה ֶליָך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬LXXB ἀπότρεχε Ισραηλ… καὶ ἀπῆλθεν Ισραηλ… Also, the OL reading non est nobis proves the OG character of LXXL oὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν, frente a LXXB τίς ἡμῖν = MT ‫ה־ּלנּו‬ ָ ‫ ַמ‬. The Hebrew original of 52  W  . Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, FRLANT 108 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 53; Würthwein, Könige, 172–175. 53  Th. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History. A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 72–73.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

423

LXX would have likely read ‫אין לנו‬.54 In 12:24q the reading et sic dices ad populum agrees with the reading of the Antiochene text (OG) οὕτως λαλήσεις πρὸς τὸν λαόν followed by the totality of the Greek tradition with the exception of codices B a2, whose reading οὕτως ἐλάλησεν πρὸς σὲ ὁ λαός has been followed by Rahlfs. In 12:24r the OL reading et locutus est eis dicens haec et haec mandauit ad me populus implies the Greek καὶ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων Ταῦτα (ms. 19) καὶ ταῦτα (‫ )וכזאת כזאת‬ἀπέστειλεν πρός με ὁ λαός, against καὶ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς τὰ αὐτὰ (ms. 19 ταῦτα) λέγων κατὰ ταῦτα ἀπέστειλεν (LXXL) and καὶ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς τὰ αὐτά καὶ ταῦτα ἀπέστειλεν πρός με λέγων ὁ λαός according to Rahlfs’ edition, which here also follows the reading attested only by B a2 τὰ αὐτά, against the rest of the Greek tradition ταῦτα.55 The alternative version of the story of the assembly (12:24 o–u) has “the people” as the protagonist (vv. p [2×], q [4×], r [2×], s, t, u). “Israel” appears only at the beginning (“the tribes of Israel,” 24 o) and at the end in the declaration “to your tents, Israel!” (24t). “The people” (πᾶς ὁ λαός, 24u) or “all Israel” (MT 12:16) goes back to its tents. LXXL preserves the OG ὁ λαός (‫ ) ָה ָעם‬against LXXB πᾶς Ισραηλ = MT ‫ ָּכל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬. In this way the Antiochene text preserves better than MT/LXXB the resumptive repetition that encloses the addition of 15b: “(15a) And the king did not listen to the people, (15b) because (‫( …) ִּכי‬16) And when the people saw that the king did not listen to the people to them, the people answered the king….” The interpolation was introduced by the particle ‫ ִּכי‬as it is usual in this kind of insertions. The text without the insertion reads: “the king did not listen to the people, and the people answered the king” (‫ל־ה ָעם וַ ּיָ ִׁשבּו‬ ָ ‫א־ׁש ַמע ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ֶא‬ ָ ֹ ‫וְ ל‬ ‫) ָה ָעם‬. In 12:28 LXX πρὸς τὸν λαόν reflects the Hebrew ‫ ֶאל ָה ָעם‬against MT ‫ ֲא ֵל ֶהם‬. A comparison between the OG readings in the Hexaplaric text of MT 14:1–18 and the OG text of LXX 12:24g–n allows to identify the additions operated into these two textual forms.56 In the story of 12:24g–n, the repetition of “and he said to Ano his wife, ‘Arise …’” and “Jeroboam said to his wife, ‘Arise …’” (καὶ εἶπε πρὸς Ανω τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἀνάστηθι… καὶ εἶπεν Ιεροβοαμ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἀνάστηθι…) frames the addition of the inserted text “ask God about the lad, whether he will recover from his sickness. (24h) And there was a person in Selo, and his name was Achia, and he was a son of sixty years, and the word of the Lord was with him.” This text identifies Jeroboam’s wife as Ano and the man of Shiloh as Ahijah, sixty years old. In the story it is Jeroboam who goes to 54  G  . Toloni, Jéroboam et la division du royaume. Étude historico-philologique de 1 Rois 11,26– 12,33 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 105–107. 55  Talshir, The Alternative Story, 123. 56  Cf. chapter 18, “The Old Greek of Kings Preserved in Recent Witnesses: Manuscripts 158 and 56–246; the Marginal Readings of the Syro-Hexaplaric Text and the Syriac Text of Jacob of Edessa.”

424

Chapter 20

consult on his son’s health and Ahijah is a blind elder man. The inserted text has no equivalent in the narrative of 14:1–18, which includes instead a different addition, the disguise motif: “and disguise thyself, that thou be not known to be the wife of Jeroboam” (14:2). On the other hand, the motif of gift-giving to the prophet appears in both versions and is part of the basic pattern of consultation to a prophet in case of illness of the king, of an heir, or of a pretender to the throne (2 Kgs 5:5; 8:8). The readings where the Hexaplaric text and the OG text of the alternative history agree also allow to reconstruct the skeleton of an earlier form of the narrative: – “was sick,” ἠρρώστησε (24g)—ἠρρώστησε (τὸ παιδάριον) (14:1) – “and Jeroboam said to his wife, ‘Arise …,’” καὶ εἶπεν Ιεροβοαμ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἀνάστηθι (24h)—καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Ιεροβοαμ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἀνάστηθι (14:2) – “take in your hand for the man of God, loaves and cakes for his children and grapes and a jar of honey,” καὶ λαβὲ εἰς τὴν χεῖρά σου τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄρτους καὶ κολλύρια τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτοῦ καὶ σταφυλὴν καὶ στάμνον μέλιτος (24h)—καὶ λαβὲ εἰς τὴν χεῖρά σου τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄρτους καὶ κολλύρια τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτοῦ καὶ σταφίδας καὶ στάμνον μέλιτος (14:3) – “and the person was rather old, and his eyes were dim-sighted to see,” καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος πρεσβύτερος καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ἠμβλυώπουν τοῦ βλέπειν (24i)— καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος πρεσβύτερος τοῦ βλέπειν καὶ ἠμβλυώπουν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ (14:4) – “and it happened, after she entered …,” καὶ ἐγένετο εἰσελθούσης αὐτῆς (24k)— καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εἰσέρχεσθαι αὐτην (14:5) – “and the dead of Jeroboam in the city the dogs will devour them and the birds of the air will devour the one who has died in the field,” οἱ τεθνηκότες τοῦ Ιεροβοαμ ἐν τῇ πόλει καταφάγονται οἱ κύνες καὶ τὸν τεθνηκότα ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ καταφάγεται τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανου (24m)—οἱ τεθνηκότες τοῦ Ιεροβοαμ ἐν τῇ πόλει καταφάγονται οἱ κύνες καὶ τὸν τεθνηκότα ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ καταφάγεται τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανου (14:11) – “and they shall lament for the child,” καὶ τὸ παιδάριον κόψονται (24m)—καὶ ἐκόψαντο αὐτόν (14:13) – “and the woman departed … and it happened, as she entered into Sarira that the lad died,” καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἡ γυνή… καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν Σαριρα καὶ τὸ παιδάριον ἀπέθανεν (24n)—καὶ ἀνέστη ἡ γυνή… καὶ ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὴν Σαριρα καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς εἰσῆλθεν… καὶ τὸ παιδάριον ἀπέθανεν (14:17). The usage by the Hexaplaric recensor of expressions taken from the OG text of 12:24g–n is a reflection of the usage by the redactor of 1 Kgs 14:1–18 of a Hebrew narrative similar to the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX 12:24g–n.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

6

425

Transpositions in MT/LXX throughout 1 Kings 22 to 2 Kings 14

The issue on the priority of MT or LXX comes up throughout the two books of Kings and therefore a resolution depends on a satisfactory explanation of the different order of units not only in 1 Kgs 3–14, but also throughout 1 Kgs 16 to 2 Kgs 14. The text of 1 Kgs 22 to 2 Kgs 14 belongs in the Greek text to the γδ kaige section. In this section the Antiochene text becomes more relevant, as it contributes to better identify the transpositions between MT and LXX: 1 Kgs 22:41–51/3 Kgdms 16:28a–h; 2 Kgs 1:17–18a/3:1; 8:27/LXXL 10:36+; 10:23–24; 12:1; 13:23; 13:24–25. 1. These transpositions are related to the insertion of the Elijah-Elisha stories (1 Kgs 17–20; 2 Kgs 1–13) and the narratives about the Aramean Wars (1 Kgs 21–22) into the synchronic history of the kings of Israel and Judah.57 The textual order before the insertion of the prophetic traditions should have been as represented by the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX: 16:28a–h (Jehoshaphat); 16:29–34 (Ahab); [17–22:38]; 22:39–40 (Ahab); 22:52–54 (Ahaziah). The (proto-) Masoretic text rearranged the text according to the following order: 16:29– 34 (Ahab); [17–22:38]; 22:39–40 (Ahab); 22:41–51 (Jehoshaphat); 22:52–54 (Ahaziah). – 1 Kgs 22:41–51/3 Kgdms 16:28a–h. The section of text on Jehoshaphat’s reign was originally in the location attested by LXXBL (OG) in 3 Kgdms 16:28a–h. The equivalent text in MT 22:41–51 is not part of the OG text represented here in the kaige section by the Antiochene text. LXXB presents a double reading: the kaige text corresponding to MT in 22: 41–51 and the OG in 3 Kgdms 16:28a–h. The Antiochene text offers only the OG text and has it “in the right place,” 16:28a–h. It is revealing to see how A. Rahlfs, after an analysis of the variants ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς and ἐνώπιον in both texts conceives the possibility of the Antiochene text having preserved here the original text “prior to the ancient re-elaboration.”58 He chooses, nevertheless to conclude that the Antiochene text 1) depends on the majority text, which eliminated 22:41–51 because it contradicted the earlier text of 3 Kgdms 16:28a–h; and 2) substitutes usually ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς, an expression foreign to the Greek language, with ἐνώπιον. Rahlfs could not have known that the “ancient reelaboration” would be the kaige recension we know today and that ἐνώπιον is an OG feature OG versus the kaige recensional rendering ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς.

57   Cf. chapter 16, “Textual Criticism and the Literary Structure and Composition of 1–2 Kings/3–4 Kingdoms: The Different Sequence of Literary Units in MT and LXX.” 58  Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension, 266–267.

426

Chapter 20

– 2 Kgs 1:17–18a/3:1. The initial formula of Jehoram of Israel was located, according to LXXL (OG), in 2 Kgs 1:18a. Also MT has preserved in 1:17αβ the synchronism typical of OG. The transposition of the formula to its location in MT 3:1 leaves the prophetic narratives of chapter 2 outside any regnal frame, thus breaking the compositional rule of the book, according to which all literary units (annals notice, prophetic narrative, or dtr comment) should be framed within the reign they synchronize with. – 2 Kgs 8:27/LXXL 10:36+. The Antiochene text supported by OL contains a text of its own in 10:36+, where it includes Ahaziah’s initial formulae and the notice on Jehu’s conspiracy against the king. This notice appears in MT/ LXXB broken in pieces scattered in 8:28a; 9:14a, 27*, 28. In 2 Kgs 8:25 and 9:29 MT has a double synchronism for Ahaziah of Judah: “in the twelfth year” “in the eleventh year.” The latter is following the OG chronology. – 2 Kgs 12:1. The short notice of MT, “Jehoash was seven years old when he began to reign,” is out of place, enclosed by setumah and petuḥah. In the OG attested by LXXL this sentence appears integrated in the usual initial formula: “In the seventh year of Jehu, Jehoash began to reign; he was seven years old when he began to reign …” (12:1–2). According to E. Würthwein LXXL could have transposed the clauses because of “adjustment to the usual scheme” (“Angleichung an das gewöhnliche Schema”), but the usual pattern was a rule for the composer or editor and not so much for later scribes not attentive to old formal patterns.59 – 2 Kgs 13:23, 24–25. In 2 Kgs 13 the literary units that form this chapter appear in a different order in MT and in the OG attested by LXXL. In the MT, v. 23 constitutes a Deuteronomistic interpolation (“But the Lord was gracious to them … until now”) that breaks the flow of the notice about the Aramean war (vv. 22, 24–25). In the Antiochene text v. 23 of MT belongs to the dtr material formed by vv. 2–7 + 23. The Antiochene text presents the conclusive formula of Jehoash’ reign “in the right place,” i.e. after the notice of 4 Kgdms 13:24–25. Acknowledging Lucian’s “faculty of putting things in their right place,” Montgomery disregards Lucian’s witness as “a weak authority.”60 However, the different ordering of the text in LXXL is not due to the 4th century recension but to the pre-Lucianic/OG text. In MT 2 Kgs 13 the initial formula of the reign of Jehoash (13:10–11) and the conclusive one (13:12–13) follow each other, leaving the narrative about Elisha’s death and the notice on the Aramean war outside the frame of the reign of Jehoash. In this way the textual layout in MT breaks a composition rule of 59  Würthwein, Könige, 353. 60  Montgomery, Kings, 434.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

427

Kings according to which every literary unit must be framed by the initial and final formulas of the corresponding reign.61 Furthermore, MT repeats the conclusive formula of 13:12–13 later on in 14:15–16 (LXX does not include v. 15). For its part, LXXL (and Josephus) attest an OG which presents the conclusive formulae of Jehoash after 13:25, thus integrating within the frame of that reign the materials which synchronize with it according to the aforementioned composition rule of the books of Kings.62 – The narratives about Elisha’s death and burial, which in TM/LXX-B appear in 13:14–21, are found in OL, according to Vindobonensis, in chapter 10, between vv. 30 and 31. Therefore, the king of Israel that was involved in these narratives is not Jehoash but Jehu, that is, quite a few years before than Jehoash. 2. The mentioned transpositions brought about in MT an anomaly at the point of insertion of the transposed text, that is, in the initial regnal formulae, which, instead of beginning with the synchronism (“in the year … of X, began to reign Y …”), appear in MT in the inverse order: “Y began to reign in the year … of X….” The kaige text of LXXB follows MT, whereas LXXL (OG) preserves the usual formula: – 1 Kgs 16:29: MT “Ahab son of Omri began to reign over Israel in the thirtyeight year of Asa king of Judah” (‫ן־ע ְמ ִרי ָמ ַלְך ַעל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ִּב ְׁשנַ ת‬ ָ ‫… ַא ְח ָאב ֶּב‬ ‫ְל ָא ָסא‬ ‫ּוׁשמֹנֶ ה ָׁשנה‬ ְ ‫ֹלׁשים‬ ִ ‫—) ְׁש‬LXXBL (OG) ἐν ἔτει δευτέρῳ τῷ Ιωσαφατ βασιλεύει Αχααβ υἱὸς Αμβρι ἐβασίλευσεν… – 1 Kgs 22:41: MT “Jehoshaphat son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of King Ahab of Israel” (‫הּודה ִּב ְׁשנת‬ ָ ְ‫ן־א ָסא ָמ ַלְך ַעל־י‬ ָ ‫יהֹוׁש ָפט ֶּב‬ ָ ִ‫ו‬ ‫—) ַא ְר ַּבע ְל ַא ְח ָאב‬LXXB (kaige) καὶ Ιωσαφατ υἱὸς Ασα ἐβασίλευσεν ἐπὶ Ιουδα ἔτει τετάρτῳ τῷ Αχααβ—LXXL (OG) omits (cf. 16:29). – 1 Kgs 22:52: MT “Ahaziah son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of King Jehoshaphat …” (‫ן־א ְח ָאב ָמ ַלְך ַעל־‬ ַ ‫ֲא ַחזְ יָ הּו ֶב‬ … ‫יהֹוׁש ָפט‬ ָ ‫ׂשר ֵאל ְּבׁש ְֹמרֹון ִּב ְׁשנַ ת ְׁש ַבע ֶע ְׂש ֵרה ִל‬ ָ ִ‫—)י‬LXXB (kaige) καὶ Οχοζιας υἱὸς Αχααβ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐπὶ Ισραηλ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ ἐν ἔτει ἑπτακαιδεκάτῳ Ιωσαφατ…— LXXL (OG) ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ τῷ τετάρτῳ καὶ εἰκοστῷ τοῦ Ιωσαφατ βασιλέως Ιουδα βασιλεύει Οχοζιας… – 2 Kgs 3:1: “Jehoram son of Ahab became king over Israel in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat …” (‫ן־א ְח ָאב ָמ ַלְך ַעל־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ְּבׁש ְֹמרֹון ִּב ְׁשנַ ת ְׁשמֹנֶ ה‬ ַ ‫יהֹורם ֶּב‬ ָ ִ‫ו‬ 61  Driver, Introduction, 179. 62  Cf. M. Richelle, Le testament d’Elisée: texte massorétique et Septante en 2 R 13,10–14,16 (Paris: Gabalda, 2010), passim; id., “Revisiting 2 Kings 13,14–21 (MT and LXX): The Transposition of a Pericope and Multiple Literary Editions in 2 Kings,” in Making the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible, ed. I. Himbaza (Fribourg: Academic Press—Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 62–81.

428

Chapter 20

… ‫יהֹוׁש ָפט‬ ָ ‫—) ֶע ְׂש ֵרה ִל‬LXXB (kaige) καὶ Ιωραμ υἱὸς Αχααβ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν Ισραηλ ἐν ἔτει ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ Ιωσαφατ… In OG the initial formula of Jehoram appears in 2 Kgs 1:18a, according to the LXXL text, which has a double reading: καὶ Ιωραμ υἱὸς Αχααβ βασιλεύει ἐπὶ Ισραηλ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ… (kaige) ἐν ἔτει δευτέρῳ τοῦ Ιωραμ υἱοῦ Ιωσαφατ ἐβασίλευσεν Ιωραμ υἱὸς Αχααβ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ (OG). The diverging chronological systems of MT and LXX along 1 Kgs 14–2 Kings are connected with the different arrangement of the text in both editions.63 Thus, in 1 Kgs 16:6–8 the difference of data on the synchronism of Elah’s and Asa’s reigns between MT and LXX, “In the twenty-sixth year of Asa” (MT)/“in the twentieth year of Asa,” may be related to the different placement of the element, either before (LXX) or after (MT) the insertion of v. 7, “the word of the Lord came by the prophet Jehu …”: MT “And Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried at Tirzah; and Elah his son reigned in his stead. [7…] (8) In the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah, Elah the son of Baasha began to reign over Israel in Tirzah, and reigned two years”—LXX “And Baasa slept with his fathers, and was buried at Thersa; and Elah his son reigned in his stead in the twentieth year of king Asa (ἐν τῷ εἰκοστῷ ἔτει βασιλέως Ασα) [7…] (8) And Elah son of Baasa reigned over Israel two years in Thersa.” According to the standard formula, the sentence begins with the synchronism “in the twenty-sixth/twentieth year of …” and the synchronism follows the data on the previous king’s death and succession to the throne by his son. MT has better preserved the ensemble composed by v. 8 which begins with the synchronism “In the twentysixth year of….” LXX has better preserved the continuity between v. 6 and v. 8, interrupted by the insertion of v. 7. The clause of LXXL/OG in 2 Kgs 1:18a “in the second year of king Jehoram …” was relocated in MT to v. 17 in connection with the location of the synchronism “in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat” (1:18a) or “in the second year of Jehoram son of Jeshoshaphat” (3:1 MT and LXXB). LXXL omits in 1:18a the number of years of Jehoram’s reign (“twelve years”), but this is precisely the only element to which LXXL at 3:1 is reduced (καὶ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱὸς ’Αχαὰβ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν ’Ισραὴλ δώδεκα ἔτη). It seems that the LXXL (OG) text is split between 1:18a and 3:1, so that these two verses should be read one after the other: ἐν ἔτει δευτέρω τοῦ ’Ιωρὰμ υἱοῦ ’Ιωσαφὰτ βασιλέως ’Ιούδα ἐβασίλευσεν ’Ιωρὰμ υἱὸς ’Αχαὰβ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ δώδεκα ἔτη. In 1 Kgs 16:6–8 the insertion of v. 7 triggered the different location of the synchronism, either before (LXX) or after (MT) the addition, as well as a different synchronism, “in the twentieth year” (LXX) or “in the twenty-sixth year” (MT): 63  C. Martone, “Cronologie bibliche e tradizioni testuali,” Annali di Scienze Religiose 6 (2001): 167–190.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

429

“And Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried at Tirzah; and Elah his son reigned in his stead. [7] (8) In the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah, Elah the son of Baasha began to reign over Israel in Tirzah, and reigned two years” (MT)/“And Baasa slept with his fathers, and was buried at Thersa; and Elah his son reigned in his stead in the twentieth year of king Asa. [7] (8) In the twentysixth year of Asa king of Judah, And Elah son of Baasa reigned over Israel two years in Thersa” (LXX). The earlier analysis on the relationship between the chronological systems of MT and LXX and the different textual order in these two units requires a systematic study which, in turn should be based on the critical edition work of LXX. This study has just analyzed texts whose variants allow to reconstruct the textual growth of the Hebrew text from a textual form earlier than what the LXX translation reflects and what MT has transmitted. This study needs to continue in several directions. The comparison between the texts of Kings and Chronicles should take into account more the text of LXX Kings, which requires a previous study of the relationship between the Antiochene text of 3–4 Kingdoms and the text of Paralipomena. Also, studies of composition and redaction of the books of Kings, together with those of biblical historiography—Deuteronomistic History in particular—should pay attention systematically, rather than just incidentally, to the testimony of LXX.64 Thus, for instance, a comparative analysis of the judgment formula on the kings of Israel and Judah which takes into account the text of LXX, like, e.g., 3 Kgdms 12:24a and the very order of formulae like 16:28b vs. MT 22:43–44 may contribute to elucidate a very debated issue since a seminal paper by Helga Weippert.65 Also, in the study of the composition and redaction of Kings it is necessary 64  M. Witte, et al., eds., Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006); G.N. Knoppers, “The Relationship of the Deuteronomistic History to Chronicles: Was the Chronicler a Deuteronomist?,” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, ed. M. Nissinen, VTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 307–342; A. Reiner, “Deuteronomistic History and the Heritage of the Prophets,” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, 343–368; K. Schmid, “The Deuteronomistic Image of History as Interpretive Device in the Second Temple Period: Towards a Long-term Interpretation of ‘Deuteronomism,’” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, 369–388; S.L. McKenzie, “The Still Elusive Deuteronomists,” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, 401–408; K. De Troyer, “Which Text Are We Using for Our Studies of Deuteronomistic Literature?,” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, 461–472; D. Carr, “The Many Uses of Intertextuality in Biblical Studies: Actual and Potential,” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, 505–536. 65  H. Weippert, “Die ‘deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher,” Bib 53 (1972): 301–339; E. Aurelius, Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Enneateuch, BZAW 319 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 21–70: id., “Die Beurteilungen der Könige,” 71–110; cf. also

430

Chapter 20

to resort to LXX in order to solve the questions posed by the insertion of the Elijah-Elisha prophetic cycles and of the narratives on the Aramean Wars into the Deuteronomistic work. Generally speaking, it is thought today that the prophetic cycles were composed in the post-dtr period and later inserted into the Deuteronomistic History.66 Consequently, this history, supposedly made of 1 Kgs 16:29–34; 21:1–19; 22:39–54; 2 Kgs 1:1–18; 3:1–3; 8:16–29; 9:1–10:36,67 was interrupted by the insertion of those prophetic cycles in the intermediate points between those units. Nevertheless, the indicated insertion points coincide with those where the order is different in LXX and MT; also, the order of the units which integrate those cycles is different. The relevance of these facts for the study of the composition history of the book cannot be ignored. Turning back to my opening reflections on the history and the present-day state of edition projects of the Hebrew Bible, the landscape depicted in the two parts of this chapter underscores the complexity of the history of formation, edition, and transmission of the text of Kings.68 Kings is one of the books F. Blanco Wissmann, “Er tat das Rechte …”: Beurteilungskriterien und Deuteronomismus in 1Kön 12–2Kön 25 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008). 66  Cf. R. Smend, “Das Wort Jahwes an Elia. Erwägungen zur Komposition von 1. Reg. XVII– XIX,” VT 25 (1975): 525–543; Würthwein, Könige, 215–232; S.L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History, VTSup 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 81–83; E. Blum, “Der Prophet und das Verderben Israels. Eine ganz­heitliche, historisch-kritische Lektüre von 1 Regum XVII–IX,” VT 47 (1977): 277–292, esp. 290–292; M. Beck, Elia und die Monolatrie. Ein Beitrag zur religionsgeschichtlichen Rückfrage nach dem vorschriftprophetischen Jahwe-Glauben, BZAW 281 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999); S. Otto, Jehu, Elia und Elisa. Die Erzählungen von der Jehu-Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-Elisa-Erzählungen, BWANT 152 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001); id., “The Composition of the Elijah-Elisha Stories and the Deuteronomistic History,” JSOT 27 (2003): 487–508. 67  R. Albertz, Elia. Ein feuriger Kämpfer für Gott (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006), 84. 68  E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2015); id., “Empirical Evidence for Scribal and Editorial Transmission of Second Temple Religious Literature,” in Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of Authoritative Texts?, ed. R. Müller and J. Pakkala (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 41–58; H. Debel, “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?,” JSJ 41 (2010): 161–190; id., “Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Pluriform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition,” in Changes in Scripture. Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, ed. H. von Weissenberg, J. Pakkala and M. Marttila, BZAW 419 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 65–92; C. Werman, ed., From Author to Copyist. Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipora Talshir (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015); J. Trebolle Barrera, “From Secondary Versions through Greek Recensions to Hebrew Editions. The Contribution of the Old Latin Version,” in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions, 180–216.

431

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

where textual plurality is the highest. At times OL represents a shorter text than LXX, in turn shorter than MT, which agglutinates both previous forms. That is the case in 2 Kgs 17:7–21. The textual units which constitute each edition seem to be clear, as well as their order. Nevertheless, it is not possible to know the exact text of the beginning and end of each literary unit in a textual stratum previous to the one represented by MT. 17:7*

OL Edition A1

17:15–19

LXX Edition A2

17:7 17:8–14 [17:15–19] 17:20–21

MT Edition B

17:7 17:8–14 17:15–19 17:20–21

In the points of contact between the different units, textual variants appear, especially resumptive repetitions, as it is the case between vv. 7 and 8, 14 and 15, 19 and 20. Thus, it is often impossible to reconstruct the precise text of each edition and develop a text in parallel columns: “Though here it is quite probable that the Latin materials are witnesses of the Old Greek, and ultimately of a differently-structured Hebrew redaction it is no less true that our capacity to translate this academic assessment into a continuous Hebrew text is marred by the concerns expressed above.”69 The same problem appears in 10:23–25a, where the only way to trace the OG text and its Hebrew Vorlage, albeit in a way that is incomplete and hard to place in its context, is by means of the OL, supported by the Greek mss. hijnuvzyb and partly by the Antiochene text. MT and LXX represent two different versions of the story.70 Also, the narrative about Elisha’s death and burial (13:14–21) is placed outside the frame of Jehoash’s reign to which it is related, thus breaking the aforementioned composition rule of the book. According to the OL (Vindobonensis) it was found in chapter 10, after v. 30 (between vv. 30 and 31?), after the initial formula of Jehu’s reign and the Deuteronomistic judgment about him. A Wiederaufnahme in MT v. 28 and v. 31, “Jehu did not turn from the sins of Jeroboam, which he caused Israel to commit,” encloses the dtr commentary of vv. 29b–31a. This repetition is better explained if one assumes the earlier 69  A  . Piquer Otero, “What Text to Edit? The Oxford Hebrew Bible Edition of 2 Kings 17:1–23,” in After Qumran. Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts—The Historical Books, ed. H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, and J. Trebolle Barrera (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 227–243, esp. 242. 70  Cf. chapter 10, “From the Old Latin through the Old Greek to the Old Hebrew (2 Kgs 10:23–25).”

432

Chapter 20

presence of the inserted narrative. In an early edition the story about Elisha’s death and burial concluded the Elisha cycle of stories (2–10), whereas in the MT edition it is removed from the whole in chapter 13, and connected to Jehoash’s reign instead of Jehu’s. In 1 Kgs 22:20, the Antiochene/Old Greek reading “And (the Lord) said: ‘You will not succeed.’ And (the spirit of deceit) said: ‘With you’” (καὶ εἷπεν Οὐ δυνήσῃ, καὶ εἷπεν Ἐν σοί), usually interpreted as a “corruption,” preserves a text out of context about Yahweh’s dialogue with the spirit of deceit in a form strikingly free of the “censored” version represented by MT.71 In such passages the OL, the Antiochene text, the OG and the non-Masoretic Hebrew tradition have been preserved in a fragmentary state which does not allow a safe reconstruction of a continuous and coherent Greek and Hebrew text in all its grammatical, syntactic and lexical details. In spite of it, the OL and the OG attest variants and even sections of an Old Hebrew text which cannot be ignored, not only in textual criticism studies, but also in compositional and redactional research on the book. Textual criticism of the books of Kings distances itself from textual criticism of classical texts the manuscript tradition of which starts with an autograph or authorial work. In the same measure it gets closer to criticism of texts transmitted in a plurality of textual forms, like those of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic writings, and of Qumran,72 New Testament73 and Rabbinic works. In this sense the history of the text is connected to the history of the exegesis. An edition should not be a fixed picture or a series of fixed pictures, but a movie which, besides showing every bit of

71  J . Trebolle, “Yahweh’s Spirit of Deceit. Textual Variants that Make a Difference (1 Kgs 22),” RQ 25 (2012): 635–675. 72  S. Metzo, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 153: “The material from Cave 4 thus indicates that each of the main sections of the Community Rule, even the liturgical passage and the doctrine of the two spirits, underwent redactional activity. The redaction of the document not only involved joining passages together but also entailed more radical editing of the passages”; see also Ch. Hempel, “Sources and Redaction in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Growth of Ancient Texts,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods, ed. M. Grossman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 162–181. 73  According to B. Aland, “Textkritik, so betrachtet, geht über die Frage nach dem ‘Urtext’ hinaus. Sie eröffnet neue Perspektiven für das Verständnis des Lesers in seiner Geschichte. Sie ermöglicht damit rückwirkend auch einen besseren Einsatz des sog. ‘inneren’ Kriteriums der Textkritik,” see id., “Welche Rolle spielen Textkritik und Textgeschichte für das Verständnis des Neuen Testaments? Frühe Leserperspektiven,” NTS 52 (2006): 303–318, esp. 318.

The Textual Growth of the Books of Kings: II

433

textual evidence, offers an idea of the process of textual growth of each book.74 The books of Kings as other biblical and parabiblical books had a complex “multilinear” history of composition, redaction, edition, and textual transmission, reflected in a similar complex history of translation, recension and textual transmission of the Septuagint and its secondary versions.

74  C. Milikowsky states that “perhaps no longer should the privileging of one text over another be seen as the sole objective of the textual critic; just as important—and perhaps sometimes more important—is the ‘mouvance’ from one form of a text to another,” see id., “Reflections on the Practice of Textual Criticism in the Study of Midrash Aggada: The Legitimacy, the Indispensability and the Feasibility of Recovering and Presenting the (Most) Original Text,” in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, ed. C. Bakhos (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 79–110, esp. 79.

Index of References of Biblical Passages and Ancient Literature Ugaritic Literature Baal Cycle KTU 1.5 VI 9–24 254 Aqhatu Epic KTU 1.19 IV 11, 22 254 Old Testament – MT and LXX Genesis 7:1 199n22 11:3 54 20:8 53 22:8 199n22 23:13 53 23:16 53 24:56 46n5 26:23 53n24 27:42 32 29:13 38n23 37:14 51 39:19 38n23 41:8 32 41:14 32 41:33 199n22 41:37 54 41:46 51n16 43:15 51n16 44:18 53 45:16 54 49 271 50:4 53 50:26 266 Exodus 2:14–15 27, 127 2:15 26 2:21 394 11:2 53 15:17–18 283 19:28 51 26:35 402 23:36 118n16

30:1–10 402 40:35 382 Leviticus 10:18 54 10:20 54 Numbers 13:2 51 11:16 54 11:24 54 14:28 53 21:18 282 21:25 26 22:8 51 29:32–30:1 402 Deuteronomy 1:22 51 1:23 54 1:25 51 3:12–13 394 3:19 26 5:1 53 6:5 279–80, 282 9:9 277 9:10 277 10:5 277 12:5 378 16:13–14 402 17:14 26 31:28 53 31:30 53 32:44 53 33 271 34:1–12 266 Joshua 1:6–9 276n5 1:7 280 3:15 372 3:17 372

436

Index of References of Biblical Passages

Joshua (cont.) 7:12 372 9:1 28n23 10:1 38n23 12:9–24 405 13:5 123n21 14:7 51 16:10 113 19:7 235 19:50 26 20:4 53 21:43–45 265 22:30 54 22:32 51 22:33 54 23 265 24:9 32n17 24:28 265 24:29–31 266 24:29–30 265 24:31 265 24:33 265 Judges 1:1–3:11 265 1:1–2:5 265 1:10 333 1:15 394–95 1:16 333 1:17 235 1:19 235, 248n6 1:21 26, 235, 332, 333 1:27 235 1:29 26 1:30 26, 326 1:31 326 1:34 235 1:35 333 2:1–3 336 2:1 335–36 2:3 235, 248n6 2:6 265 2:8 265 2:10 265 2:11–3:4 265 2:11 326 2:19 328 3:1 248

3:5–6 265 3:5 326 3:8 326 3:9 326 3:12–30 265 3:23 236 3:24 236 3:31 265, 325 4:6 32 4:8–9 236 4:10 333 4:11 236 4:18 236 4:21 236 4:23–24 237 5:2 237 5:6 237 5:7 333 5:8 237, 332, 333 5:10 237, 332, 333 5:13 237 5:23 331 5:24 328 5:28 237 6:2–6 248 6:5 248 6:7–10 233 6:11–13 248 6:11 248, 329 6:13 238 6:16 54 6:19 248 6:21 248 6:24 331 6:26 120, 238, 248, 333 6:29 54 6:31 328 6:32 241, 248n6 6:34 333 6:40 333 7:1 331 7:6 248, 333 7:8 248 7:9 238, 326 7:11 334 7:13 331 7:16 238 7:20 331

Index of References of Biblical Passages 7:21 330 7:22 238, 334 7:23 333 7:24 248 7:25 238, 331 8:2 326 8:10 334 8:12 330 8:13 238 8:16 326 8:17 326 8:18 326 8:19 248n6, 329 8:22–23 200 8:35 326, 332 9:2 53, 331 9:3 53 9:4 238 9:6 200 9:7 331 9:9 238 9:15 238 9:16 200n25, 333 9:17 328 9:18 200n25 9:20 326, 333 9:21 26, 27, 127, 248, 334 9:25 334 9:28–33 247 9:29 239, 247 9:35 331 9:38–44 247 9:41 334 9:43 326 9:46 326 9:47 328 9:48 328 9:49 334 9:53 328 9:54 326 9:55 334 10:1 326 10:2 327 10:3 327 10:5 329 10:7–9 247 10:8 247 10:10 335

437

10:12 333 10:26 327 10:18 54 11:3 26, 27, 127 11:4–11 200 11:8–9 248 11:8 54 11:9 54, 239 11:11 54, 325, 332, 333 11:14 333 11:17 329 11:18 333 11:22 327 11:24 329 11:26 329, 333 11:27 329 11:31 333 11:33 335 11:35 239, 327 11:36 327 11:38 327, 328 12:2 239 12:4 333 12:5 328, 329 12:6 239 12:7 328 12:9 327 12:11 325 12:14 327 13:2 90n84 13:5 335 13:11 328, 329, 333 13:19 327 14:3 325 14:4 325 14:5 327 14:8 327 14:9 331 14:12 333 14:17 327 15:3 325 15:4 332 15:6 325, 329, 335 15:8 327, 333 15:9 248, 325 15:11 325 15:13 329 15:14 325

438 Judges (cont.) 15:18 325, 327 15:19 327 15:20 265, 327 16:3 327 16:4 327 16:9 325, 327 16:11 327 16:12 325, 327 16:13 327 16:14 325, 329 16:16 327 16:16 327 16:17 327 16:18 327 16:20 325, 327 16:21 325, 329 16:24 329 16:28 325, 333 16:30 325 16:31 265, 266, 335 17–21 265 17:3 335 17:5 327 17:6 265, 334 17:7 335 18:2 329 18:7 248 18:12 329 18:15 329, 332, 333 18:21 327 18:22 242, 248n6 18:24 248 18:28 26 18:30 248n6 19:1 328 19:4 329, 331 19:10 327 19:11 331 19:18 328 19:20 331 19:30 332, 333 20:1 54 20:8 54 20:11 54 20:24 332 20:28 331 20:31 331

Index of References of Biblical Passages 20:47 26 21:23 26 21:25 265 1 Samuel 1 79 2:10 215 2:11 79 2:12–17 79 2:18–21 79 2:22–25 79 2:27–28 75 2:28 53 2:30 139, 168, 169 3 79 3:2 79 3:14 139, 168 4–6 268 4:15 79 4:12–18 79 4:18 148n19 5:6–10 269 8:2 13 8:19 215 8:21 53 9:1–10:16 199 9:1 90n84 9:10 51 9:12 199 9:13 199 9:21 53 9:22 199 9:24 199 10:11 54 10:17 199 10:19 215 10:20 53 10:24 199 10:27 184 11:4 53 11:7 54 11:15 200n28 12:3 150n24 12:4 150n24 13:3 50n152 13:7 340n65 14:3 79 14:15 340n65

Index of References of Biblical Passages 15:1 195 15:17 54, 75 15:27–28 67 15:28 66 15:30 54 15:35 79, 195 16:1 199n22 16:4 340n65 16:12 54 16:21 51 16:22 51 17:11 340n65 17:13 13 17:30 51 17:52 362 17:53 161n19 18:5 54 18:17 53 18:19 53 18:23 53 18:25 215 18:27 53 19:2 26, 27, 127 20:16 56 20:23 169 21–23 80 21:2 340n65 21:7 215 22:5 90n81 22:9 79 22:20 79 23:14–15 28, 127 23:14 26 23:17 13 23:25 26, 28 24:1 53n24 24:5 54 24:11 90n81 25:1 72n60, 74n62 25:24 53 26:16 51 27 80 27:1–5 28 27:1–4 127 27:5 26 27:6 139, 168, 169 28:2 139, 168 28:3 74n62

28:5 340n65 28:17 66, 67 28:19 53n24 29–30 80 30:1 354 30:17 215 30:22 215 30:23 139 31 272 31:1–13 266, 274 31:13 273 2 Samuel 1–2 80 1:12 72n60 1:17–27 271 2:4 199, 200 2:7 200 2:12–32 273, 290 2:13 352 3:1 56 3:2–5 268, 402 3:3 13 3:6 56 3:11 51 3:19 53 3:30 273, 290 3:31–32 72n60 3:36 54 3:39 12 4:1–3 28, 127 4:1 53 5–11:1 267, 270, 289 5 80, 268 5:1–3 199 5:3 54, 200 5:4–5 271 5:6–10 270, 290 5:9 26 5:11–12 270 5:13–15 268 5:13 270 5:14–16 270, 271 5:17–25 270 5:17 200 5:25 273, 290 6 268, 270 6:1–19 273, 290

439

440

Index of References of Biblical Passages

2 Samuel (cont.) 6:1–11 270, 271 6:11–13 248 6:12–19 271 6:20–23 273 7 268, 280, 282 7:2 90n81 8:7 206 8:16–18 271 9:1–13 270, 271n20 9:11 274 9:13 274 10:1–14 268, 269, 290 10:21 169 11:1–12:25 268 11:1 55, 267–269, 289, 290 11:2–12:25 289 11:2–12:25 267 11:26 72n60 12 75n64 12:7 75 12:18 51 12:25 90n81 12:26–29 269, 290 12:26 268, 269, 290 12:27–29 268, 290 12:29 269, 290 12:30–31 268, 269, 290 13–20 267, 289 13:10 340n66 13:33 214 14:7 340n68 15:2 53 13:37–38 28, 127 15:2 362 15:3 51 15:7–12 199 15:10 53 15:22 51n17 15:27 79 15:31 60n38 15:34 54 16:1–14 274 16:8 63 16:20 51n17 16:23 51n17 17 51

17:2 340n65 17:4 54 17:14 60n38 18:4 54 18:8 149n20 18:14 139, 169 18:17 54, 55 19:10 53 19:11 200n27 19:12 199 19:14 93n87, 199 19:15 54, 55, 199 19:16–31 274 19:17 199 19:23 200 19:29 214. 215 19:43 55 20–24 270 20:1–3 274 20:1 50n15, 51, 54 20:7–8 290 20:8 273 20:14 53, 202, 358 20:21 63, 139 20:22 54, 55 20:23–26 271 21–24 266, 267, 289n25 21:1–14 270, 274 21:2 214, 215 21:14 273 21:15–22 270 21:18–22 289n25 22 271 23:1–7 271 23:5 139, 169 23:7 354 23:8–39 270 24 289n25 24:1–25 270 24:13 51 24:18 363 24:21–28 273, 291 24:25 270, 273, 291 1 Kings 1–2 1:1 1:2

267, 268, 270, 289 353 51

Index of References of Biblical Passages 1:4 363 1:5 52, 359, 363 1:6 63 1:7 363 1:8 90n81, 363 1:9 363 1:10 90n81 1:11 363 1:13 363 1:18 51, 363 1:20 363 1:22 90n81 1:23 90n81 1:24 363 1:25 186, 363 1:27 363 1:32 90n81 1:34 90n81, 337 1:36 32, 167n16, 224, 244 1:40 167n16, 244, 338 1:41 199, 363 1:42 32, 363 1:43 195, 363 1:44 90n81 1:45 90n81 1:49 199, 364 1:52 247n3 2:1–9 267, 271 2:1 244, 267 2:2–4 276n5 2:3 167n16, 280 2:4 225, 276, 279–80, 281, 282 2:5 167n16, 186, 338 2:6 414 2:8–10 414 2:8–9 274 2:9 414 2:10 267 2:11 266, 267, 353 2:12 266, 414 2:17 53 2:21 53 2:23–24 381 2:24 337, 344 2:25 414 2:26 167n16 2:27 79 2:30 51

441

2:32 186 2:34 414 2:35 266, 344, 414 2:35a–o LXX 96–124, 267, 407, 414 2:35a–n LXX 288 2:35a–k LXX 287 2:35a–b LXX 99 2:35a LXX 99 2:35c LXX 106–109, 114, 116, 284 2:35d LXX 114 2:35f–k LXX 109 2:35f LXX 98, 99, 101, 109, 284, 288, 409, 413 2:35g LXX 98, 99, 100, 101, 111, 112, 288, 409, 413 2:35h LXX 98, 101, 111, 124, 288, 409, 413 2:35i LXX 98, 101, 112, 113, 284, 288, 40910413 2:35k LXX 98, 101, 284, 409, 413 2:25l LXX 414 2:36–46 267, 274, 414 2:38 51 2:42 51 2:46 266 2:46a–l LXX 96–124, 287, 288, 407, 414 2:46a LXX 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 405, 406, 408, 413 2:46b LXX 98, 101, 103, 104, 105, 112, 184, 283, 284, 406, 408, 413, 414 2:46d LXX 113 2:46e LXX 98, 100, 101, 103, 105, 284, 406, 408, 410, 413 2:46f–k LXX 114 2:46f LXX 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 373, 406, 408, 410, 413 2:46g LXX 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 406, 408, 413, 417, 421

442

Index of References of Biblical Passages

1 Kings (cont.) 2:46h LXX 100, 101, 104, 105, 324 2:46i LXX 98, 101, 103, 113, 406, 408, 413 2:46k LXX 98, 103, 104, 105, 283, 284, 408 2:46l 107, 108, 288 3–14 409 3–11 407 3–10 283–288, 407–414, 421 3–5 409 3 393, 421 3:1 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 106–109, 113, 284, 285, 288, 375, 408, 410 3:2–28 97 3:2–3 103, 107, 108, 408, 409 3:3 107n6 3:4–15 103, 107n6, 288, 408 3:4–13 273, 291 3:4 107n6 3:7 195 3:10 54 3:11 359 3:13–14 380, 399 3:15 107n6, 225 3:16–28 103, 107n6, 284, 288, 408, 409 3:16 51n16 3:25 356, 362 3:27 344 4:1–19 409 4:1–9 408 4:1 97, 103, 107n6, 284, 288 4:2–19 288 4:2–6 96, 97, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 107n6 4:2 104 4:4 323, 324 4:6 284, 344 4:7–19 97, 98, 101, 103, 106, 178, 284, 287, 406

4:7–9 102 4:8–19 404, 405 4:8 349 4:10 404 4:11 404 4:12 349, 381–82 4:13 373 4:17–20 404–407 4:17–19 101 4:17 106n5 4:18 106n5 4:19 106n5 4:20–5:1–6 103–106, 287 4:20 96, 98, 99, 101, 104, 106, 285, 408, 413 5–9:9 108, 109, 114 5–7 114–124 5:1–7 404–407 5:1–6 98, 101, 106 5:1 96, 97, 98, 103, 104, 105, 184, 283, 284, 285, 407, 409, 413 5:2–5 105 5:2–4 97, 100, 101, 106, 178, 284, 288, 407, 408, 410, 413 5:2–3 96 5:2 106n5 5:3 106n5 5:4–5 96 5:4 46n4, 104, 105n5, 373, 410–11 5:5 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 285, 408, 413, 417 5:6 97, 98, 100, 103, 285, 408, 413 5:7–8, 2–4 287, 406 5:7–9 103 5:7–8 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 284, 288, 408, 409, 410 5:7 106n5 5:8 106n5 5:9–14 99, 408, 409 5:9–10 97, 99, 284, 288 5:9 96, 106n5 5:10 96, 106n5

Index of References of Biblical Passages 5:11 (LXX 4:27) 360 5:11–14 97, 100, 101, 106, 108, 284, 288 5:14 288, 375, 410 5:15–30 97, 118, 288, 408 5:15 200 5:17–18 101 5:21 288 5:28 284 5:29 96 5:30 96, 98, 111, 124 5:31–6:1, 37–38 118–124 5:31–32 97, 118, 119, 123, 284, 287, 288, 408, 410, 411, 412 5:31 122, 124 5:32 97, 115, 118, 119, 122, 123, 284 5:34 354 6–9 409 6:1 97, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 284, 285, 408, 410, 411, 412, 413 6:2–36 115, 116, 118, 135, 288 6:2–10 97 6:2–3 408 6:4–10 284, 408, 410 6:5 373 6:7–38 287 6:9 134, 206, 410 6:11–14 97, 134, 178, 372–73, 408 6:11–13 285 6:14 134, 285, 411 6:15–36 97 6:15–20 408, 410 6:17–19 374 6:20–36 408 6:36 115, 116, 117, 118, 137, 138 6:37–38 97, 115, 116, 118, 122, 135, 136, 284, 288, 408, 412 6:38 96, 115, 116, 285, 411, 413 7:1–51 288 7:1–12 97, 115, 116, 117, 118, 135–138, 284, 287, 408, 410, 412

443

7:1–11 137 7:1–9 137 7:1 382, 411, 413 7:2 115 7:6 178n44 7:8 410 7:9 374 7:12 116, 117, 118, 137, 382, 411 7:13–51 97, 115, 116, 117, 118, 135, 137, 178 7:13–22 138 7:13–14 408 7:13 117, 359 7:14 123, 167n16 7:15–21 408 7:15 117, 118, 138 7:19–22 178 7:22–51 408 7:30–32 374 7:31 377 7:37–38 137 7:38 374, 382, 412 7:41–42 382 7:45 361 7:50 382, 412 7:51 412 8 97, 409 8:1–6 284 8:1 117, 202, 358, 382, 412–13 8:7 361 8:8 379 8:9 275–277, 282 8:10–11 382–83 8:16–18 223 8:19 215 8:23–26 276, 280–282 8:24–25 380, 399 8:25 280 8:26 224 8:28 379 8:29 378–79 8:30 379 8:33 167n16, 361 8:41–42 374–75 8:53 163 8:64 184

444

Index of References of Biblical Passages

1 Kings (cont.) 8:65 377 8:66 167n16 9–10 409 9:1–10 99 9:1–9 98, 108, 114, 409 9:1 413 9:6–17 98 9:9 110 9:10–14 98, 101, 109, 113, 114, 287, 409 9:10 288, 413 9:11–14 288 9:14 113, 287 9:15–25 113, 287, 399–400 9:15–17 375–76 9:15, 17b18, 23–25 109–114 9:15 96, 98, 101, 108, 112, 114, 284, 288, 409, 410, 413 9:16–17 97, 101, 108, 109, 112, 113, 284, 409, 410, 413 9:16 288, 354 9:17–18 98, 101, 108, 112, 114, 284, 409, 410, 413 9:17 96, 113 9:18–19 288 9:18 96, 113 9:19–23 288 9:19–22 98, 114, 284 9:19 409, 413 9:20–22 409, 413 9:22 110n8, 376 9:23–25 98, 101, 114 9:23 96, 98, 108, 114, 124, 285, 409, 413 9:24 96, 98, 99, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 284, 285, 409, 410, 413 9:25 96, 98, 99, 108, 111, 112, 114, 285, 288, 409, 413 9:26–10:22 409 9:26–29 101 9:26–28 98, 101, 109, 113, 114, 287, 288 9:26 123, 287, 361

9:28 113, 114, 287 10:1–22 112 10:1–13 98, 113 10:1–10 288 10:2 113, 361 10:5 53, 383, 399 10:10–11 113 10:10 361 10:11 361 10:11–15 288 10:11–12 288 10:14–22 98, 114 10:14 288 10:15 167n16 10:17 72n58 10:21–22 288 10:21 361 10:22 114 10:23–26 98, 105, 407, 409 10:23–25 288 10:25 184 10:26 97, 103, 283, 285, 288 10:27–29 98, 409 10:27 288 10:28–29 288 10:29 359 11 422 11:1–43 410 11:1–40 409 11:1–13 93 11:1–10 415 11:1–8 85, 178, 369 11:1 38, 288 11:2 38 11:3 288 11:9–13 85, 95 11:11–13 66n47 11:11 66, 67 11:14–40 45 11:14–25 85 11:14 377–78, 400, 415, 416 11:15–22 377, 416 11:15–17 416 11:15–16 383 11:17–18 415, 416 11:17 167n16

Index of References of Biblical Passages 11:18–22 417 11:19–20 53 11:19 53 11:20 383 11:21–38 84 11:21 38n23, 129 11:23–25 178, 377–78, 399, 400, 416 11:25 399, 417 11:26–12:24 45n1, 63, 84 11:26–39 421 11:26–29 64 11:26–28 18, 21, 23, 45, 46, 62, 85, 88, 130, 418, 420 11:26 22, 47, 81 11:27–28 81 11:27 46, 47, 89n80, 96, 128 11:28 46, 47 11:29–39 46, 47, 65–68, 71, 80, 88, 89, 90, 95, 418 11:29–38 419–420 11:29–32 418 11:29–31 46, 65, 69, 85, 93 11:29 65, 90n81 11:31–39 85, 95 11:31 65, 66, 67, 82, 93, 383–84 11:32–35 384 11:32 65, 66, 93 11:33 65, 66, 93, 422 11:34 65, 66, 41, 417 11:35 66, 67, 383 11:36 65, 93 11:37 65 11:38 65 11:40–43 34 11:40 18, 21, 22, 23, 29, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 45, 46, 47, 62, 81, 85, 88, 90, 128, 129, 418, 420 11:41–43 18, 21, 37, 43, 49, 53, 84, 88, 89, 91, 409, 421 11:42 19

445

11:43 LXX 16–43, 45, 46, 47, 62, 65, 81, 85, 88, 95, 127–131 12:1–14:20 421 12:1–13:34 420 12:1–32 50 12:1–20 18, 21, 80, 197 12:1–19 58 12:1–3 35, 36, 37 12:1 19, 21, 24, 33, 35, 37, 40, 43, 47, 48n8, 50, 53, 62, 64, 81, 91, 128, 129, 195, 197, 384 12:2–20 22 12:2–3 16–43, 45, 81, 85, 95, 418, 420 12:2 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38, 40, 43, 46, 47, 62, 81, 85, 127–131 12:3–21 130 12:3–16 91 12:3–15 47n7 12:3–14 24, 62 12:3–11 21, 22, 23 12:3 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 58, 81, 85, 91, 128, 129, 197n14 12:4–16 48n7 12:4 47, 50, 52, 61, 81 12:5–14 55 12:5 21, 51, 197 12:6 51, 64, 93, 197 12:7 51, 197 12:8 23n1, 51, 54, 59, 60 12:9 51, 61, 197 12:10 51, 52, 61, 81, 197 12:11 51, 52, 81 12:12 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31, 40, 42, 43, 58, 60, 81, 197 12:13–14 21, 50

446

Index of References of Biblical Passages

1 Kings (cont.) 12:13 51, 197 12:14 51, 52, 81 12:15 50, 55, 58, 60, 71n58, 81, 85, 91, 95, 197, 420, 423 12:15–16 384 12:16–22 92 12:16–21 57 12:16–19 24 12:16 21, 47n7, 48n8, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 62, 64, 81, 85, 93, 197, 422–23 12:17 50, 55, 58, 81, 420 12:18–20 48n8, 56, 57 12:18–19 21, 47n7 12:18 50, 55, 58, 62, 93 12:19–20 60 12:19 21, 49, 50, 55, 56, 58, 61, 64, 81 12:20 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33, 38n23, 40, 41, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 58, 62, 81, 85, 91, 93, 94, 195, 197 12:21–25 85 12:21–24 48, 49 12:21 22, 48, 55, 58, 64, 81, 94, 202, 358 12:22–24 48, 49, 40, 50, 69, 82, 421 12:22 81 12:24 81, 94 12:24a–z LXX 17, 19, 39, 99, 131, 406, 407, 420 12:24a LXX 49, 53, 131, 134, 175n37, 379, 420, 421, 429 12:24b–z LXX 44–50, 80, 86 12:24 b–f LXX 52, 55, 88 12:24b–e LXX 418 12:24b–d LXX 62, 70n50, 81, 89 12:24 b–c LXX 39, 46, 47, 49 12:24b LXX 41, 46n3, 52, 61, 90n84, 128, 130, 422

12:24c–f LXX 417 12:24c LXX 39, 128, 130, 422 12:24d, f LXX 89 12:24d–e LXX 46 12:24d, f, p LXX 16–43 12:24d LXX 18, 19, 20, 34, 39, 53, 129, 130 12:24e LXX 53, 76 12:24f LXX 17, 19, 20, 21, 39, 42, 43, 46, 47, 49, 62, 70n49, 81, 86, 128, 129, 130 12:24g–z LXX 134 12:24g–n LXX 46, 70n49, 72–81, 423, 424 12:24g–i LXX 76 12:24g LXX 78, 86, 424 12:24h LXX 78, 86, 424 12:24i LXX 424 12:24k 86, 320, 424 12:24l LXX 78, 79n69, 86, 320 12:24m 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 80, 86, 424 12:24n–z LXX 48–50 12:24n–x LXX 61, 197 12:24n LXX 21, 52, 53, 55, 62, 81, 86, 91, 130, 418, 424 12:24o–u LXX 423 12:24o LXX 65, 66n47, 68–69, 70n49, 81, 82, 83, 86, 93, 95, 418, 419 12:24 p–x LXX 52, 55, 62, 70n49, 81, 130 12:24p–r LXX 60 12:24p LXX 52, 53, 68, 91, 129 12:24q LXX 53, 54, 59, 423 12:24r LXX 54, 423 12:24t LXX 54, 91, 423 12:24u–x LXX 56, 57, 61, 86 12:24u LXX 54, 55, 92, 423 12:24x LXX 55, 61, 86, 92 12:24y–z LXX 50, 69, 81, 82, 83, 421 12:24y LXX 49, 53, 94 12:24z LXX 49 12:25–26 21 12:25 26, 47n7, 48, 49, 62, 81, 86

Index of References of Biblical Passages 12:26–33 85 12:26–31 80 12:26–29 48 12:26–28 64 12:26 56 12:27 228, 384 12:28–30 94 12:28–29 62 12:28 51, 423 12:29 226n15 12:30 48 12:31 48, 344 12:32–33 226, 385 12:32 48 12:27 21 12:28–29 21 12:29–32 49 12:30 21, 62 12:32 62 13 397 13:2 56 13:14 38n23, 226n15 13:20 156n11 13:22 74n62 13:24–25 229 13:26 148n19 13:28 148n19, 229 13:29–30 74n62 13:29 72n60, 229 13:30 74n62, 229 13:34 85 13:38 361 14:1–20 94, 420, 421 14:1–18 80, 322n17, 421, 422, 423, 424 14:1–8 69–72 14:1–6 70 14:1 424 14:2 71, 76, 78, 84, 90n81, 424 14:3 71, 76, 78, 424 14:4 78, 424 14:5 71, 424 14:6 71, 78 14:7–16 70 14:7–11 70, 85, 94, 422 14:7–9 74, 75, 76, 82, 84, 85 14:7–8 70

447

14:7 70, 78 14:8 56, 66, 67, 70, 90n81 14:8–9 70 14:9–11 70 14:9 70 14:10–11 75 14:10 70, 71, 74, 82, 139, 168, 169 14:11 70, 71, 74, 76, 424 14:12 79n69 14:12–13 70, 71 14:13–16 422 14:13 70, 71, 72n60, 73, 74, 82, 424 14:14 71, 84 14:14–16 85 14:15–16 77 14:15 71 14:16 38n23, 84 14:17–18 70 14:17 424 14:18 72n60 14:19–20 85, 420, 421 14:20 47n7, 420 14:21–22 134, 175n37, 420 14:21 379 14:23 149n20 14:24 78 14:25–26 385 14:30 385 14:31 299n13 14:35 361 15:5–6 385 15:8 299n13 15:13 354 15:15 167n16, 386 15:21 38n23 15:23 361 15:24 299n13 15:28 299n13 15:29–30 94 15:29 71n58, 84, 85, 95, 387 15:33 175n38, 298 16–2 Kgs 13 403 16:3 70 16:6–8 428, 429

448

Index of References of Biblical Passages

1 Kings (cont.) 16:6 299n13 16:7 90n81, 361 16:8 175n38, 298 16:10 299n13 16:11–12 226, 387 16:11 167n16 16:12 71n58, 90n81, 226n15 16:15 175n38, 196, 298 16:16 195, 196 16:18 354 16:21 195, 196, 197 16:22 196 16:23–28 313 16:23 175n38, 298 16:28 146n19, 176, 299n13 16:28a–h LXX 99, 187, 188, 266, 302, 313, 425 16:28a LXX 301 16:28b LXX 188, 429 16:29–34 302, 313, 425, 430 16:29 131, 132, 175, 176, 300–302, 315, 427 16:30–33 387 16:34 71n58, 120 17–22:38 425 17–19 302, 313 17 152n1, 159 17:10–11 387 17:12 215 17:20–21 386–87 17:45–46 387 18:11–14 387–88, 399 18:18 215 18:19–20 258 18:21 167n16 18:23–27 321–322 18:23 261 18:24 256 18:26 255, 258–263 18:27 250–54 18:29 258–263 18:30–32 379–80 18:32 261, 361 18:36–37 254–258 18:35 361 18:36 90n81

18:37 344 18:38 361 18:39 257 18:40 258 18:45–46 388 18:45 276n5 19:1 148n19 19:4–5 388–89, 399 19:5–8 389 19:13 38n23 19:19–21 307 20 302, 307, 313 20:1 344, 389–90 20:9 51 20:12 38n23, 231 20:15–17 230–31 20:22 81, 155 20:26–30 296 20:26 55, 155 20:30 340n66 20:34 390 20:35–42 390 20:43 266, 390 21 313 21:1–19 430 21:3–4 390 21:7 344 21:14–15 38 21:15–16 38, 53 21:15 130n10 21:17 38n23 21:27–29 276n5 21:27 186 21:29 227 22–2Kgs 14 425–433 22 302, 313 22:1 174n35 22:2–4 174n35 22:4 371 22:6 371 22:7 371 22:8 215, 337, 371 22:10 337, 362 22:15 371 22:17–19 227–28 22:17 245, 371 22:18 214, 215, 245 22:19–22 228, 245

Index of References of Biblical Passages 22:19 138, 168, 245, 371, 372 22:20 357, 372, 432 22:23 228 22:24 360–61, 371 22:25 340n66, 354 22:28 371 22:30 174, 372 22:31 215 22:35–36 172 22:35 171, 173, 174, 372 22:36 174n35, 371 22:38 167n16, 174n35, 361, 371, 372 22:39–54 430 22:39–40 302, 313, 425 22:40 299n13 22:41–51 187, 313, 425 22:41–45 302 22:41–42 266 22:41 131, 132, 175, 176, 187, 300–302, 315, 427 22:43–44 429 22:43 188 22:47 167n16 22:49a LXX 148n19 22:51 299n13 22:52–54 302, 313, 425 22:52 132, 175, 176, 300–302, 315, 427 22:54 357 2 Kings 1:1–18 430 1:1–17 313 1:1 92, 266 1:2–8 77 1:2 78, 167n16, 337, 341 1:3 167n16, 258, 341 1:4 78, 138, 167n16, 168, 341 1:6 78, 138, 167n16, 168, 258, 341 1:10 258 1:16 138, 167n16, 168, 258, 341 1:17–18a LXX 297–300, 425, 426

449

1:17 302, 315, 428 1:18 149n20, 313 1:18a–d LXX 99, 175, 266, 300 1:18a–c LXX 313 1:18a LXX 132, 174, 176, 428 1:18c LXX 148n19, 150n24 2–14 403 2–10 432 2 266 2:1–25 300, 313 2:1 365 2:2–7 390–91 2:2 388 2:8 361 2:9 159 2:10 267 2:11 156n11, 271, 365 2:19 344 2:23 167n16, 339, 344 3:1–3 266, 313, 430 3:1 132, 174, 175, 176, 297–300, 302, 315, 425, 426, 427, 428 3:2 149n20, 150n24 3:4–8:15 313 3:4 167n16, 169, 244, 339, 362 3:5 92 3:7 167n16, 357, 359 3:9 337 3:10 344 3:14 185 3:19 359 3:20 167n16, 339 3:21 55, 167n16, 339 3:23 167n16 3:24–25 391 4 152, 159, 341 4:2 214, 215 4:7 360 4:10 344 4:12–15 228, 376 4:13–14 228 4:13 340 4:16 167n16, 340 4:25–27 391–92, 399 4:26 360 4:20 342

450

Index of References of Biblical Passages

2 Kings (cont.) 4:29 337 4:31 341 4:32–33 392 4:34–35 393 4:34 167n16, 342 4:37 167n16, 342 4:41 344, 360 5:1–19 77 5:3 357 5:5 78, 352, 360, 424 5:6 78, 352 5:8 38n23, 258 5:9 78 5:15 214, 258 5:17 215 5:18 167n16, 360 5:21 167n16, 342 5:23 360 6:8 362 6:12 90n81, 258, 340n66 6:24–7:20 307n19 6:26 393 6:27–28 393 6:30 38n23, 167n16, 342, 393 6:32 354 7:2 362 7:3 54 7:5–8 393 7:5 340, 355 7:7 340, 355 7:8 353 7:9 54, 139, 169, 337 7:10 167n16, 186n68, 342 8:1 167n16, 171, 340 8:7–15 77 8:8 78, 184, 185, 424 8:9 78, 184, 185, 358 8:10 78, 337 8:11 185, 358 8:12 354 8:13 199n22 8:15 299n13, 353 8:16–29 430 8:16–24 313 8:16–17 175n38 8:16 302

8:20–22 393 8:20 195, 197 8:21 197 8:22 56 8:24 299n13 8:25–27 133, 302–306, 313 8:25–26 175n38 8:25 132, 177n41, 426 8:27 425, 426 8:28–10:28 313 8:28 133, 426 9–11 180 9:1–10:36 430 9–10:28 151 9:1 90n81 9:2 340n66 9:5 181n51, 361 9:6 393 9:7–8 393–94 9:9 362 9:13 180, 198 9:14 133, 426 9:24 306n18 9:26 187 9:27 426 9:28–29 302–306 9:28 133, 362, 426 9:29 426 9:37 229, 340, 353, 355 10:1 198 10:3 199n22 10:5 195, 198 10:9 198 10:11 167n16, 171, 198n20, 341n68, 342, 355 10:14 355 10:15 360 10:17 226n15, 355 10:19 354, 355 10:21 355 10:23–25 211–220, 431 10:23–24 425 10:23 180n49, 213, 217, 218, 219 10:24 183, 212, 216, 217, 218, 219, 362 10:25–28 142–151

Index of References of Biblical Passages 10:25 212, 217, 218, 219, 362 10:26 149n20, 354 10:27 149n20, 183, 342, 360 10:28 167n16, 171, 431 10:28 OL 306–307 10:29–31 305, 313, 380–81, 431 10:29 219 10:30 220, 427, 431 10:31 219, 207, 427, 431 10:32–33 305, 313 10:33 394 10:34–36 305, 313 10:35 299n13 10:36 133, 302–306 10:37–43 LXX 302–306, 425, 426 11 191–210 11:1–12 191, 192 11:1–4 191n3, 209 11:1–3 208, 313 11:1 362 11:2 210, 340n66 11:3 210 11:4 167n16, 171, 209, 342, 355 11:4–20 313 11:4–12 208 11:4–9 208 11:5–12 191n3 11:5–6 202, 203 11:5 183, 202, 205 11:6 202, 203, 205 11:7 202, 203, 205 11:8 167n16, 171, 206, 343 11:9 167n16, 171, 192n3, 202, 205, 210, 343, 362, 394 11:10 167n16, 180n49, 192n3, 203, 204, 206, 210, 343 11:11 194, 201, 207, 208, 358 11:12 184, 194, 195, 198, 200, 201 11:12–18 208

451

11:13–18 191, 192, 208 11:13–15 191 11:13 192, 194 11:14 167n16, 171, 192, 193, 194, 343 11:15 192n3, 206, 207, 208 11:16 210 11:17 193, 194, 209 11:18–20 191, 208 11:18 147, 148n19, 150, 192, 193 11:19 192, 193, 201, 209, 210 11:19–20 208 11:20 192, 193, 194, 208, 210 12:1–22 313 12:1–2 426 12:1 132, 175, 177, 425, 426 12:10 182, 183, 184 12:12 394–95 12:13 167n16, 343 12:19 395 12:21–22 303, 395 12:22 299n13 13 307n19, 309–12, 432 13:1 314 13:2–7 308, 314, 426 13:2–6 395 13:3–7 134, 135 13:5 135 13:6 149n20 13:7 215, 403 13:8–9 314 13:9 299n13 13:10–13 134 13:10–11 308, 314, 426 13:10 175n38, 298 13:12–13 308–14, 426, 427 13:14–25 135 13:14–21 134, 306–307, 313, 314, 427, 431 13:14–19 162 13:17 135, 293–296, 337 13:20–21 152–162

452

Index of References of Biblical Passages

2 Kings (cont.) 13:22 134, 308, 314 13:23 135, 308, 314, 402, 425, 426 13:24–25 134, 135, 307, 308, 308–14, 425, 426 13:24 299n13 13:25 135, 427 14 309 14:1–4 314 14:1–2 175n38 14:5–14 314 14:5–6 278n10 14:6 214, 215, 275–278, 282 14:9 53 14:10 167n16, 343 14:13 348 14:14 167n16, 343, 360 14:15–16 134, 135, 308, 314, 427 14:16 299n13 14:19–21 303 14:21 194, 195, 196, 197, 299n13 14:23 175n38, 298 14:25 184 15:3 347 15:8 175n38, 298 15:10 355 15:16 395 15:17 175n38, 298 15:19 360 15:23 175n38, 298 15:27 175n38, 298 15:32–33 175n38 15:34 347 16:1–2 175n33 16:2 347 16:5 358 16:11–12 395 16:14 395–96 16:18 167n16, 343 17:1 175n38, 298 17:2 245, 337 17:3 167n16, 169, 177, 178, 185 17:4 177, 178, 185, 337, 349, 358

17:6 359 17:7–21 431 17:7 359 17:8 396 17:9 139, 169, 344 17:10 149n20 17:14–15 360 17:16 149n20 17:19 396 17:21 56, 67, 167n16, 195, 198 17:23 56 17:24 26 17:31 354 17:36 214 17:39 214 18–20 249 18:1–2 175n38 18:4 148n19, 149, 150 18:17 167n16 18:19 360 18:20 362 18:21 150n24 18:26 356 18:28 226n15 18:34 341 19:1 38n23 19:2 90n81 19:4 356 19:15 185 19:18 215 19:20 185 19:31 185 19:32 138, 168 20:1 74, 90n81 20:3 167n16, 343 20:10 168 20:11 90n81, 249 20:12 178, 185 20:13 167n16, 343 20:14 90n81 20:16 185 21:3 149n20 21:4–5 380 21:7 149n20 21:8 275–279, 282 21:9 226n15, 279 21:12 138, 139, 168 21:23–24 303

Index of References of Biblical Passages 21:23 167n16, 344 21:24 194, 195, 196, 197 21:26 303 22:5 395 22:8–10 396 22:9 14, 51, 170 22:10 14, 170 22:11 38n23 22:12 14, 170 22:20 51, 138, 139, 168 23:4–6 385, 396–97 23:4 13, 149n20, 149n21, 182, 184, 185 23:5 184, 353 23:6–8 148 23:6 146, 148n19, 149n20, 149n21, 151, 167n16, 344, 360 23:7 147, 149n20, 184 23:8–9 308 23:8 344 23:11 354 23:12 147, 149, 150 23:14 148n19, 149, 150 23:15 147, 148n19, 149n20, 150n22, 397 23:16 341, 397 23:23 214 23:25 279–80 23:27 378 23:28 167n16 23:29–30 303 23:30 195, 196, 197, 200, 299n13 23:33 362, 363 23:34 195, 299n13 23:35 362 24:3 187 24:6 184 24:11 403–404 24:12 403–404 24:13 150n26 24:15–16 397 24:17 195 25:4 184, 360, 362 25:5 184 25:9 354

453

25:10 147 25:11 398 25:12 184 25:13 148n19, 150n24, 184 25:14 184 25:17 184 25:18–19 12–15 25:18 13, 15, 181, 182, 356 25:19 13, 167n16, 169, 170, 186n68, 344, 356 25:29–30 398 25:30 274n22 Isaiah 3:14 54 14:32 120 28:16–17 120 36–39 249 37:2 90n81 37:16 185 38:8 249 39:5 185 41:28 51 54:11–12 120 Jeremiah 5:1 14n11 5:17 354n12 7:15 38n23 16:4 74n62 19:1 54 22:10 74 22:11 74 22:18 74n62 22:24–27 74 22:30 74 23:7–8 402 23:40 402 25:33 74n62 26:21 26, 27, 127 34:5 74n62 37:17 74 52:25 13, 170 52:54 13 Ezekiel 27:9 123n21 36:23–28 346, 402

454

Index of References of Biblical Passages

Ezekiel (cont.) 36:38–39 402 37–38 346 48:23–27 405 Hosea 1:6

417

Haggai 1:1–15 122 2:10–19 121, 122 Zechariah 8:1–12 121 8:9–13 121 Psalms 18 271 33:10 54 Job

38:4–7 120 38:6 119

Proverbs 15:21 31n13 15:22 54 Ruth 4:4

54

Song of Songs 3:5 402 3:9 402 4:3 402 4:7 402 4:8 403 5:12 346, 403 5:13 346, 403 5:14 346, 403 5:15 346, 403 6:11 402 Esther 1:21 2:4 2:9

54 54 54

Daniel 1–4 344, 402 5–6 344, 402 7–8 344, 402 9–12 344, 402 11:36 52 Ezra 3:6 121 3:8 121 3:9 121 3:10 121 4:12 (LXX 2:14) 121 4:13 121 5:16 (LXX 6:19) 121 Nehemiah 11

273

1 Chronicles 3 272 3:1–4 402 3:4 271 3:5–8 271 5:26 56n34 6:55 355 8:29–40 272, 273, 290 8:29–33 273, 290 9:5–44 290 9:35–44 272, 273 9:35–39 273, 290 11:1–20:1 267, 289 11:4–9 269, 290 11:3 200 11:10 200n25 11:11–47 270 12 270 12:25–16:3 273, 290 12:32 200n25 12:39 200n25 13:6–14 271, 273, 290 14:3–7 271 14:16 273, 290 15:12–15 276n5 15:25–16:3 271 16:39 273, 290 17:23 224

Index of References of Biblical Passages 17:24 224 18:14–17 271 19:1–15 269, 290 20:1–3 268, 269, 290 20:1 269, 290 20:4–8 289 21 267, 289n25 21:1–28 273, 291 21:26–22:1 270 21:28–22:19 273, 291 28:4 195 29:22 200 29:26–27 271 29:28–30 266, 271 2 Chronicles 1–9 283–288 1:1–13 273, 291 1:3–13 408 1:6–13 289 1:8 195 1:9 195, 224 1:11 195 1:13 273, 291 2:1–17 408 2:12–13 408 3:1–4 408 3:1–2 412 3:1 411–12 3:4–14 408 3:15–17 408 4:1–5:1 408 5:10 275–277, 282 6:5–6 223 6:17 224 6:20 378–79 7:11–22 409 8:1–2 409 8:3–12 287, 288 8:3–6 409 8:4 112, 114 8:5 113 8:6 400 8:7–9 409 8:10 409 8:11 110, 111, 409, 413 8:12 409 8:17–9:21 409 9:4 53, 383, 399

455

9:25–26 283 9:26 103, 104, 409 9:27–28 409 10:2 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 40, 41, 42, 43 10:3 31, 128 10:17 50n13 10:19 56n34 11:16–17 50n13 12:1 276n5 12:2–9 385 12:3–8 385 12:2 23 15:18 386 18:30 174 18:34 172, 173 21:10 56n34 22:1 200n25 22:11 210n46 23:1–2 192 23:8 203 23:9 204n36 23:11 200n28 23:16 394 23:30 201 25:4 275–278, 282 25:23 348 25:24 343 26:4 347 27:2 347 28:1 347 33:8 275–279, 282 36:5 187 Deuterocanonical Books Bel et Draco 346, 402 Susanna 346, 402 1 Esdras 2:14 119 6:19 119 Sirach 30:25–33:15 346, 403 33:13–36:10 346, 403 42:1 13 48:19 152

456

Index of References of Biblical Passages

Texts From the Judaean Desert Damascus Document 282 1QM 282 4QMMT 283 4Q159 282 4Q174 283 4Q177 282 4Q266 282 4Q267 282 4Q270 282 4Q377 282 4Q398 283 4Q504 282

Mark 15:38 118n16

New Testament Matthew 2:3–15 127n8 2:13–14 28–29

Antiquitates Judaicae 269, 274, 290, 362, 363, 364, 372

Luke 8:2

72n60

Rabbinic Literature Babylonian Talmud Sanh. 47a 159 Greek and Latin Authors Jewish Josephus

Index of Modern Authors Aberbach, M. 45n1 Aejmelaeus, A. 319n9 Aharoni, Y. 295n7, 295n8 Aland, B. 367, 432n73 Albertz, R. 430n67 Albright, W.F. 126n6, 405n, 406n25 Alcaina Canosa, C. 125n1 Alt, A. 250n13, 405n Álvarez Barredo, M. 250n13 Ap-Thomas, D.R. 258n13 Auld, A.G. 275, 275n1, 283, 288, 289, 289n23 n24, 409n Aurelius, E. 429n65 Auwers, J.-M. 276n4, 347n92 Ayuso Marazuela, T. 234 Baehrens, W.A. 237n Barthélemy, D. 12n4, 126n6, 139n, 141n27, 142n2, 146n11, 153n4, 156n12, 164, 164n8, 165n9 n12, 166, 166n12 n14, 169n19 n20, 179, 179n48, 185n66, 188n78 n80, 211n1 n2, 222, 222n3 n4, 234n5, 245n15, 247, 247n2, 276n6, 277, 308, 308n21, 319n11, 324n26, 334n47, 335n49, 352n7 n8, 367n4, 374n25, 377, 377n32, 380n41, 385, 385n57, 391, 391n74, 396n87, 403n16 Beck, M. 251n13, 312n, 430n66 Becker, U. 265n7 Belsheim, J. 143n4, 155n5 Benzinger, I. 17, 19, 46, 46n3, 47, 104, 105n3, 106, 106n, 109n, 146n13, 149, 150n22, 151n27, 152n1, 155n7 n10, 173n33, 174n, 216n14, 217, 217n15, 226n14, 390n71, 392, 392n76, 406n22 Bernstein, M. 282n Bietenhard, S.K. 290n27 Billen, A.V. 2, 47n3, 248, 248n6, 324n27 Bin-Nun, Sh.R. 131, 131n14, 175n37 Blanco Wissmann, F. 430n65 Blum, E. 251n13, 265n7, 312n, 430n66 Bodine, W.R. 234n5, 324n27, 325n, 330n37 Bogaert, P.-M. 293n3, 323n20 n23, 345n82 n83 n84, 346n85 n87 n90, 402n12 Bohlen, R. 227n16

Boling, R.G. 328n30 Bowley, J.E. 282n14 Braulik, G. 284n17 Bright, J. 130n12 Brock, S.P. 12n4, 142n2, 153n4, 165n10 n12, 166, 166n12, 179, 211n1, 222n4, 323n22 Bronner, L. 161n21 Brooke, G.J. 315n27 Buccellati, G. 54n26 Burkitt, F.C. 161n19, 211n1, 402n13 Burney, C.F. 17, 20, 109n7, 123n20, 142n1, 144n8, 146n13, 147n15, 150n25, 153n3, 155n6, 156n11, 163, 163n3, 173n33, 191n1, 216n14, 224n7, 225n9 n11, 226n14, 277, 277n7, 389, 389n68, 396n87 Busto Saiz, J.R. 243n, 339n63, 347n92, 365, 365n Campbell, A.G. 251n13 Capelle, P. 318, 318n5 Caquot, A. 79, 80n72 Carmignac, J. 142n3, 145, 145n, 241, 241n Carr, D. 379n37, 401, 402n6, 429n64 Catastini, A. 249n9 Cheyne, T.K. 17, 19 Chiesa, B. 179n48, 367n3 Childs, B.S. 56n34 Civil, M. 264n4, 401n4 Clines, D.J.A. 419n49 Cody, A. 79n71 Cohen, M.A. 80n72 Cohen, R.L. 315n25 Cornill, C.H. 367 Cortese, E. 131, 131n14 Cross, F.M. 12n4, 126, 126n6, 142n2, 153n4, 165n12, 166n12, 211n1, 222n4, 249n7, 267n12, 283, 283n15 Crawford, S.W. 368n6, 369n8 Crüsemann, F. 250n13 Darshan, G. 414n39 De Bruyne, D. 158n16, 318, 318n5 n7, 346n86, 347n93, 403n15 De Vries, S.J. 226n14, 371, 371n15, 393n79 Debel, H. 368n7, 430n68

458 Debus, J. 18, 25, 44n1, 46, 46n3 n4, 47, 50n13, 52, 52n21, 54n27, 55n30, 65, 65n47, 69, 70,70n51,71, 71n55, 74, 75n63, 82, 88n78, 89n80, 91n85, 93n87, 131n14, 175n37 Delitzsch, F. 21 Dickie, M.M. 352n8 Diercks, G.F. 185n65, 238n9, 251n14, 320n16 Dietrich, W. 50n14, 65, 65n47, 69, 70, 70n52 n53, 71, 71n54 n58, 73, 73n, 82, 225n10, 266n10, 267n13, 268n13, 289n25, 381n44, 384n54, 419, 419n48, 422n52 Dieu, L. 142n1, 153n3, 319, 319n12 Díez Macho, A. 87n77, 161n20 Dörrie, H. 180n48 Driver, G.R. 372n21 Driver, S.R. 26n5, 53n24, 67n48, 103n, 132n15, 138, 138n22, 158n16, 163, 163n2, 168n18, 176n39, 367, 401, 401n1, 406, 406n26, 427n61 Dubovsky, P. 373n22, 396n86 Ehrlich, A.B. 21, 146n12, 149, 150n22, 155n9 Eissfeldt, O. 45n2, 69, 69n, 82, 115n13, 132n17, 146n13, 147, 147n14, 151n27, 155n8 n10, 176n40, 191n1, 216n14 Ellermeier, F. 75n63 Elliger, K. 350n2 Ellis, P.F. 23 Epstin, I. 159n17 Fernández Marcos, N. 221n1, 239n, 243n13, 320n, 322n, 323n21, 332n42, 339n63, 340n66, 341n70, 352n7, 365, 365n Finkelstein, I. 400n Fischer, B. 142n1, 143n4, 153n3, 154n, 155n4, 212n, 252n14, 295n6, 318, 318n6, 319, 319n13, 320n14, 338n54 Fishbane, M. 276n5, 278n10 Fohrer, G. 36n20, 90, 90n82 Forte, A.I. 318n7, 319n8 Frede, H.J. 347n88 Frevel, C. 250n13 Galil, G. 307, 307n20 Galling, K. 193n7, 227n17 García de la Fuente, O. 77n67 Gehman, H.S. 12, 14n9, 21, 46n3, 103n, 127n7, 147n12, 155n10, 171n28, 191n1, 217n14,

Index of Modern Authors 221n2, 252n16, 280n12, 309n, 360n, 376n, 401n2 Gentry, P.J. 352n7 Goldman, Y. 369n10, 402n10, 407n27 Gooding, D.W. 12n1, 23, 25, 25n4, 30n, 31, 31n14, 32, 32n15, 33, 33n, 35, 35n, 36n21, 37, 40, 40n27, 41, 41n28, 44n, 45n1, 105n3 n4, 106, 106n, 107n, 110n8, 111n, 112n, 115, 115n, 119, 119n18, 123, 123n21, 125, 125n4, 128n, 131, 135, 136, 136n, 170n25, 263n34, 276n5, 287n20, 369, 369n11, 406n22, 411n33, 412n Gordon, R.P. 44n, 125, 125n4, 369, 369n11 Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. 221n1 Graetz, H. 17, 19 Graf Reventlow, H. 255n22, 367n3 Gray, J. 18, 23, 24, 25, 25n, 33, 36n22, 39n24, 40n26, 41, 41n29, 45n1, 48n10, 50n12 n13, 51, 51n19, 56n31, 62n40, 63, 63n43, 64, 65, 65n47, 69, 71, 82, 93n86, 127n7, 146n12, 147, 147n15, 155n9 n10, 191, 191n2 n3, 192, 192n3, 195n9, 196, 196n, 203n32, 206n42 n43, 207n, 217n14, 226n12 n14, 228n20, 254n18, 284n17, 396n87, 404n20 Greenberg, M. 211n2 Gressmann, H. 17, 20, 152n1, 155n9, 191n1, 216n14, 376n Grønbaeck, J.H. 48, 48n9, 49, 49n11, 50n12 Gryson, R. 318, 318n6 Gunkel, H. 216, 216n13, 250, 258, 258n32, 376 Gunn, D.M. 63n42, 270n18 Haelewyck, J.-C. 318n6, 319n8, 346n89 Hänel, J. 105, 105n3 Hallo, W.W. 254n4, 401n4, 406n23 Halpern, B. 314n, 315n25, 372n16, 406n Hanhart, R. 346n91, 347, 347n94 n95 Haupert, R.S. 142n1, 153n3 Hauser, A.J. 251n13 Hayes, J.H. 296n9, 307, 307n20 Hempel, Ch. 432n72 Hendel, R. 315n27, 368n5, 400, 400n96 Hentschel, G. 227n16, 156, 256n29, 388n63 Hobbs, T.R. 339n59 Hölscher, G. 18, 21, 36, 39, 63, 63n42, 106, 106n Holmes, S. 113n

Index of Modern Authors Hrozný 17, 20, 104n, 105, 105n3, 106, 106n, 107n, 109n, 110n8, 125n3, 287n20, 406n22 Hugo, Ph. 79n70, 315n26, 323n18, 345n82, 352n8, 369n10, 380n38, 387n60 Hyvärinen, J. 169n19 Japhet, S. 269n16 Jellicoe, S. 165n9, 181n51 Jepsen, A. 18, 22, 25, 25n3, 33, 36, 39, 41, 45n2, 46, 46n3, 47, 47n7, 48, 48n10, 50n12 n14, 62, 62n39 n40, 65, 65n46, 66, 69, 70, 71. 71n54 n57, 82, 106, 106n, 107n, 109n, 127n7, 134n19, 227n17, 384n54, 406n22 Johnson, B. 15n16, 138n24 Joosten, J. 318n7, 369, 369n8 Kabiersch, J. 324n27 Kahle, P. 12, 161 Kalimi, I. 270n19 Kauhanen, T. 323n18 n22, 338n55, 352n8, 361n26 Kayser, W. 83n Keil, C.F. 18, 39, 39n25, 106n, 217n14 Keinanen, J. 252n13 Kittel, R. 17, 19, 20, 106, 106n, 109n, 130n12, 146n13, 147n15, 149, 150n22, 151n27, 152n1, 155n8, 156n11, 171n28, 173n33, 174n, 216n14, 224n7, 226n15, 231n, 406n22 Klein, R.W. 23, 128n, 165n8 Klostermann, A. 13n7, 17, 18, 19, 31n13, 104, 105n3, 112n, 119n17, 146n12, 147, 147n13 n15, 149, 150n22, 155n9, 156n11, 159n, 171n28, 182n55, 214n7, 216n14, 217n15, 224n7, 225n11, 263n25, 376n Knauf. E.A. 375n28, 415n41, 421n Knoppers, G.N. 287n21, 314n, 419n48, 429n64 Koch, K. 26, 26n6 Kraft, R.A. 160n18, 166n12, 222n4, 319n11, 352n8 Kraus, F.R. 406n23 Kreuzer, S. 317n1, 322n18, 330n39, 352n8 Kroemer, W. 152n1 Kuhl, C. 36n20 Kutsch, E. 200, 200n28, 201n30

459 Lagarde, P. de 12, 164, 173, 190, 350, 351, 406 Lange, A. 320n14, 351n5, 366n2, 369n9, 370n13, 372n17 Law, T. 373n19 n20 n21, 374n23 Legrand, Th. 318n7 Lehnart, B. 251n13 Lemaire, A. 314n25, 315n25, 366n1 Lindars, B. 247n3, 325n, 328n29,n30, 331n40, 332n43 Lipiński, E. 50n14, 58, 59, 59n37, 61 Locher, C. 400, 400n46 Martone, C. 428n McCarter, P.K. 270n19, 271n McKenzie, S.J. 268, 268n13 n14, 290n26, 379n36, 318n47, 429n64, 430n66 McLay, T. 319n11, 352n8 Margolis, M.L. 12 Médebielle, A. 147n14 Mettinger, T.N.D. 191n1, 195n11, 196n, 197n15, 198, 198n17 n19 n20, 199n22 n23 n24, 200, 200n25 n28 Metzger, B.M. 157n13, 165n11, 338n54 Metzo, S. 432n72 Meyer, E. 17, 20, 21, 52n21 n22, 53, 53, 53n25, 72, 131, 131n13 Milikowsky, C. 433n Miller, A. 346n91 Miller, J.M. 296n9, 307n20 Milik, J.T. 247n2 Montgomery, J.A. 12, 14n9, 21, 23, 24, 24n, 30n10, 31, 31n12, 39, 46, 46n3, 47, 48n10, 50n12 n13 n14, 53n23, 65n44, 74n, 93n86, 103n, 105n3, 110n9, 123, 123n21, 127n7, 130n12, 133n, 146n12, 147n13 n15, 150, 150n23, 155n10, 165n9, 171n28, 173, 173n34, 174n, 181n50, 183n58, 191n1, 195, 195n10, 196, 217, 217n, 221n2, 224n7, 225n9, 226n14, 227n17, 231n, 252n16 n17, 254n18, 255n23, 256n25, 280n12, 284n17, 308, 309, 309n, 340n67, 342, 342n73, 360n, 367, 369, 369n11, 375, 376n, 385, 385n, 386n58, 388, 389n67, 390n69 n71, 391, 391n74, 392n76, 394, 394n82, 397, 397n90, 397n91 n92, 398n, 401, 401n2, 416n43, 418n46, 426, 426n60 Moore, G.F. 336n52

460 Morano Rodríguez, C. 319n10 Moreno Hernández, A. 230, 230n, 233n2, 243n13, 320n17, 337, 337n53, 338n54, 344n80 n81 Mueller, K.F. 220n28 Mulder, M.J. 338n56, 374n23, 375, 375, 375n28, 377, 377n31 Na’aman, N. 419n49 Napier, B.D. 174n Naumann, T. 268n13 Nielsen, E. 18, 22, 30n11, 36, 39 North, C.R. 199, 199n23 Noth, M. 18, 23, 24, 24n, 25, 39, 39n25, 45n1, 46n3, 47, 47n6, 48, 48n8 n10, 50n12 n13 n14, 51, 51n19, 54, 54n28, 56, 56n31 n34, 62n40, 63n42, 65, 65n45, 67n, 69, 70, 70n50, 71, 73, 73n, 75n63, 80, 80n74, 82, 90n84, 93n86, 105n3, 125, 125n2, 126, 126n5, 127n7, 130n12, 199n21, 201n29, 250, 250n13, 264, 266, 266n10, 284n17, 289, 314, 312n, 351n4, 373, 373n22, 374, 374n25, 378n34, 384n54, 386n58 Nyberg, H.S. 125n3 O’Brien, M.A. 225n10, 226n13, 251n13 Olmstead, A.T. 88n78, 90n83 Orlinsky, H.M. 12, 113n12, 284, 284n18, 370, 371n14 Ottley, R.H. 44n, 165n11 Otto, S. 251n13, 312n, 313n, 430n66 Parker, S.B. 254n20 Pasquali, G. 364n30 Pintore, F. 405n Piquer Otero, A. 247n3, 316n29, 320n14, 368n6, 402n11, 431n69 Plein, I. 18, 22, 36, 44n, 45n1, 47, 47n7, 51, 51n17 n20, 55, 55n29, 56, 56n33, 62n40, 63n42 Polak, F.H. 284n19, 287n20 n21, 288, 288n, 407n27 Porten, B. 296n10 Pretzl, O. 324n27, 331n40 Puech, E. 247, 247n2 Prijs, L. 135, 138, 138n23, 168n18 Quell, G. 152n1

Index of Modern Authors Rad, G. von 80, 80n74, 191n1, 193n8 Rahlfs, A. 12, 14, 14n11 n12 n13, 15, 15n16, 141, 141n28, 142n1, 153n3, 158n16, 163, 163n5, 164, 165n11, 166, 167, 167n, 168, 168n17, 169, 169n22, 170, 170n23 n26, 171, 171n, 172, 172n32, 173, 175, 176, 177, 177n41 n42, 178, 178n, 179, 179n, 180, 180n49, 181, 181n50 n52 n53, 182, 182n54 n56, 183, 183n, 184, 184n, 185, 186, 186n, 187, 187n, 188, 188n, 189, 189n, 190, 190n, 211n1, 217, 221, 221n2, 224, 224n8, 244, 244n, 267n11, 292, 292n2, 294, 294n, 299, 303, 303n15, 315, 316, 316n28, 317, 317n4, 319, 319n12, 321, 323, 323n24, 337, 338, 338n58, 339, 339n60 n62, 340n64, 341n69, 342, 342n72 n73, 343, 344, 344n, 345, 350, 350n3, 353n, 354, 354n11 n12, 355n, 356, 357, 357n15 n16 n18, 359, 361n25, 362, 363, 363n29, 364, 364n32, 365, 392, 404, 404n19, 406, 415, 417, 417n, 423, 425, 425n58 Rehm, M. 105, 105n3, 231n23 Reiner, A. 429n64 Rendtorff, R. 63n42, 75n65 Richelle, M. 416n43, 427n62 Richter, W. 27n, 32, 36n, 34n, 88n Robert, U. 248n4, 317n3 Roberts, B.J. 12 Roberts, J.J.M. 251n14 Robinson, G. 202, 203, 203n34, 205n37 n39, 206, 206n41 Robinson, J. 24, 254n19 Römer, Th. 266n10, 268n13, 422, 422n53 Rösel, H.N. 265n6 Rofé, A. 265, 265n5, 276n3, 372n17 Rost, L. 63n42, 245n16, 268, 372n Rowley, H.H. 250n13 Rudolph, W. 192n4, 193, 193n7, 194, 202n31, 203, 277n8 n9, 383, 382n52 Sabatier, P. 252n14 Saley, J. 352n8, 363 Šanda, A. 17, 18, 21, 31n13, 46, 46n3, 47, 50n13, 105n3, 106, 106n, 109n, 115n, 118n, 119n, 151n27, 155n9, 157n14, 173n33, 191n1 n3, 192, 192n3 n6, 206, 206n43, 216n14, 388n66, 406n22 Salvesen, A. 352n7, 363

461

Index of Modern Authors Sanderson, J.E. 155n5, 295n6, 320n15 Sarna, N.M. 264n3, 401n5 Satterthwaite, P.E. 332n42 Schenker, A. 79n70, 142n3, 250n10, 284n19, 293n3, 296n11, 315n26, 332n42, 345n83 n84, 367n3, 369n10, 378n35, 400, 400n96, 410n30, 413n36, 416n43, 418n47, 420n Scherer, A. 335n50 Schildenberger, J. 318, 318n6 Schlögl, N. 155n10, 214n7 Schmid, K. 272n, 429n64 Schmidt, L. 200n28 Schmitt, H.Ch. 146n12, 147n13, 152n1, 155n10, 173n34, 174n, 231n, 245n16, 390n69 n70 Schreiner, J. 105n3, 324n27, 328n29 n31 n32 n33, 329n35, 331n40, 334n45 n46 Schwally, F. 20, 109n, 146n12, 155n9 n10, 171n28, 182n57, 216n14, 227n16, 280n12, 375, 376n, 388n66, 390n69 n71, 392n76 Schweizer, H. 174n34, 245n16 Schulte, H. 47n7, 50, 50n15, 51, 51n16 n19, 55, 56, 56n31 n35, 62n39, 80, 80n73, 384n54 Seebass, H. 44n, 45n1, 65n47, 66n, 69n, 70, 70n49, 71, 71n55 n56, 77n66, 82, 174n, 256, 256n27, 419n48 Seeligman, I.L. 36n20 Seiler, S. 266n10, 268n15 Shenkel, J.D. 12n4, 14n10, 132n15 n16, 170n24, 176, 177n41, 187, 188, 188n74 n76 n80, 297, 297n12, 300n14, 324n25, 354n10 Skehan, P.W. 161n19 Smend, R. 256, 256n28, 312n, 430n66 Smith, M.S. 254n20 Smith, S. 29n9, 127n8 Smolar, L. 45n1 Snaith, N.H. 22, 65, 65n46, 152n1 Sodar, B. 318, 318n5 Soggin, J.A. 22, 191n1, 196n, 200n26, 330n38 Soisalon-Soininen, I. 187n72, 324n27 Spanneut, M. 179n48 Sperber, A. 169, 169n21 Stade, B. 17, 20, 109n, 146, 146n12 n13, 148, 149, 155n9, 157n13, 171n28, 182n57, 191, 191n1, 194, 216n14, 217, 217n15, 227n16, 280n12, 375, 376n, 388, 388n66, 390n69, 392n76 Steck, O.H. 245n16

Stipp, H.-J. 231n23, 312n, 315n27 Stoebe, H.J. 13n7, 28n, 56n36, 182n55 Sweeney, M.S. 369n11, 375n29 Swete, H.B. 44n1, 165n9 n11 Talmon, S. 12n4, 23n, 126n6, 166n12, 170n23, 211n1, 214n4, 222n4, 350n2 Talshir, Z. 284n19, 315n27, 349n, 350n2, 369, 319n11, 379n3, 407n27, 415n40, 423n55 Talstra, E. 246n8 Targarona Borrás, J. 234n5, 324n27, 329n34, 331n41 Thackeray, H.St.J. 12, 12n5, 156n12, 163, 163n4, 164, 164n, 165n9, 188n77 n78, 211n1, 222, 222n3 Thenius 17, 18, 104, 367 Thiele, W. 318n7 Thureau-Dangin, F. 122n Tigay, J.H. 350n2 Timm, S. 256n28, 263n35 Toloni, G 423n54 Torijano, P. 316n29, 323n23, 351n5, 359n22, 368n6, 402 Tov, E. 87n76, 126n6, 140n, 142n2, 153n4, 165n12, 166n12, 211n, 215n12, 222n4, 250n11, 275n2, 316n30, 319n11, 351n5, 352n8, 366n2, 369, 369n9, 370n13, 401, 401n3, 402n10, 403n14 Trebolle Barrera, J. 79n70, 130n12, 131n14, 134n20, 136n21, 143n7, 148n18, 175n36, 177n43, 189n85, 197n16, 222n5, 223n, 233n3, 248n5, 249n8, 266n9, 287n21, 293n4, 296n11, 303n17, 315n26, 316n29, 317n1, 323n20 n23, 330n36 n37 n39, 332n42, 338n55, 350n2, 351n5, 357n17, 358n19, 359n23, 361n26, 363n28, 380n38 n39 n42, 381n44, 384n55, 386n59, 388n64, 390n69 n70 n72, 391n75, 396n88, 403n17 n18, 430n68 Tromp, H.J. 250n13 Troyer, K. de 384n55, 429n64 Turkanik, A.D. 369, 369n11 Ueberschaer, F. 415n42, 416n43 Ulrich, E. 126n6, 142n6, 153n4,155n5, 239n, 249n7, 250n12, 264, 264n2, 283, 283n15, 295n6, 320n15, 323n19 n21, 366n1, 368n7, 369n8, 402n9, 430n68 Uriel, S. 75n64

462 Van den Born, A 146n13 Van der Woude, A.S. 206n40 Van Keulen, P.S.F. 284n19, 369, 369n11, 380n39, 406n24, 407n27, 410n31, 411n32, 412n, 414n38, 416n43 Van Seters, J. 175n37 Vannutelli, P. 221n4 Vanoni, G. 415n40 Vattioni, F. 346n86 Vaux, R. de 17, 146n13, 250n13 Veijola, T. 201n29, 225n10 Walters, Peter (Katz) 12, 12n, 13, 13n6 n8, 14n11 n14, 15, 15n, 170n25 n26, 182n54 Weippert, H. 175n37, 429, 429n65 Weis, R. 370n12, 402n11 Weisman, Z. 200n28 Wellhausen, J. 18, 106, 106n, 123n20, 130n12, 163, 163n1, 202, 202n32, 203, 203n33 n35, 205, 205n38, 206, 206n41, 287n20, 367, 406n22 Werlitz, J. 339n59, 342n71 Werman, C. 358n19, 430n68 Westermann, C. 74, 75n63, 77n67, 78, 78n Wevers, J.W. 12, 21, 44n, 125, 125n4, 135, 158n16, 166n13, 166n14, 214n4, 221, 221n1, 317n2, 350n2, 364, 364n31, 369, 369n1, 380n41

Index of Modern Authors White, M. 251n13 Widengren, G. 200n28 Willis, T.M. 418n47 Winckler, H. 17, 19 Witte, M. 429n64 Würthwein, E. 47n7, 50n, 56, 56n32, 65, 65n47, 69, 70, 70n52, 71, 71n54 n59, 72, 73, 73n, 76, 77, 82, 105n3, 107n6, 174n, 225n9 n10, 226n12 n15, 228n, 231n, 245n16, 250n13, 256n26, 280, 280n11, 308n22, 312n, 372n18, 373, 372n22, 374, 374n24 n26, 375, 375n27, 376n, 377n33, 380, 380n40, 381, 381n, 382, 382n47 n50, 383n51, 384n54, 385, 385n57, 387,387n, 388, 388n63 n65, 389, 389n68, 390n70, 391, 391n73, 392, 392n, 393n, 394, 394n, 395, 395n, 396, 397n89, 397n, 416n44, 419, 419n48, 426n57 Zahn, M.M. 402n7 n8 Zenger, E. 276n4 Ziegler, J. 12, 105n, 165n11 Zimmerli, W. 255n22, 257n Zimmermann, F. 214n4