¹ Barthélemy, D., “Redécouverte d'un chaînon manquant de l'histoire de la Septante,” RB 60 (1953), 18–29Google Scholar. Cf. F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumrân, rev. ed. (New York, 1961), pp. 28f., n.35 (bibliography), and pp. 174f., n.19 [hereafter abbreviated ALQ².] In 1963, Barthélemy published transcriptions of the new recension as well as an analysis of its place in the textual history of the Septuagint: Les devanciers d'Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton (Leiden, 1963) [hereafter, DA]. See also B. Lifshitz, “The Greek Documents from the Cave of Horror,” IEJ 12 (1962), 201–07, and Pl. 32B.

² Selected items of bibliography can be found in ALQ², pp. 177f., n.21. To these should be added M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, Text and Language in Bible and Qumran, pp. vii–xv; pp. 51–85; and Textus III (1963), 130–58; H. M. Orlinsky, “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament,” in The Bible and Ancient Near East, ed. G. E. Wright (New York, 1961), pp. 113–32.

³ See, for example, the distinguished textual scholar, Ziegler, J., “Die Vorlage der Isaias-Septuaginta (LXX) und die erste Isaias-Rolls von Qumran (IQ Is^a),” JBL 78 (1959), 34–59.Google Scholar

⁴ The Greek scripts and Palaeo-Hebrew inserts in “R” (i.e., the Recension of Barthélemy) point to a date about the middle of the first century of our era, or, perhaps better, the second half of the century. See DA, pp. 167f, and C. H. Roberts apud P. Kahle, “Problems of the Septuagint,” Studia Patristica, ed. Aland and Cross, I (1957), 332.

⁵ Cf. P. Katz, “Justin's Old Testament Quotations and the Greek Dodekapropheton Scroll,” Studia Patristica, I, 350.

⁶ See DA, pp. 228–45 for discussion of other relations of the Recension; Cf. D. Katz, op. cit. (note 5), 345–53.

⁷ DA, pp. 246–70.

⁸ The Septuagint and Jewish Worship [Schweich Lectures 1920] (London, 1921).

⁹ DA, pp. 33–47; pp. 91–143.

¹⁰ The case of Judges is not established by Barthélemy, and insufficient data is presented for Canticles, et al. Much labor is needed to test most of the suggested instances of the καίγε Recension. In the case of the Book of Reigns, Barthélemy's careful study, the data presented below, as well as a dissertation of my student Father D. Shenkel, which goes well beyond Barthélemy in dealing with the recensions in 1 and 2 Kings, put the identification beyond doubt.

¹¹ E.g., the additions to Old Greek Job, the “Theodotionic” material in Psalms, including “Quinta,” etc. Cf. Barthélemy, DA, pp. 41–47. On the “Proto-Theodotionic” text of Daniel, see J. A. Montgomery, The Book of Daniel [ICC] (Edinburgh, 1927), pp. 46–50; J. Ziegler, Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco [Göttingen Septuaginta] (Göttingen, 1954), p. 28, n. 1 and pp. 61f. Barthélemy's thesis that the καίγε Recension is to be identified with Theodotion must remain sub judice. The evidence to equate Theodotion with Jonathan ben Uzziel is highly speculative, and little is actually solved by reassigning the designation “Theodotion.” In Samuel-Kings we must still deal, as Barthélemy recognizes, with two “Palestinian recensions” (at least), in the Minor Prophets with both the Sixth Column and Quinta, with Theodotion in the Pentateuch, and so on. Until the character of “late” Theodotion is fully analyzed, perhaps it is better to retain more traditional designations, ‘Proto-Theodotion” and “Theodotion,” rather than shifting with Barthélemy to what may be termed “Theodotion” and “Post-Theodotion.”

¹² Kahle, P., “Die im August 1952 entdeckte Lederrolle mit dem griechischen Text der kleinen Propheten …,” TLZ 79 (1954), coll. 81–94Google Scholar; Cross, ALQ², p. 171, n.13; Barthélemy, DA, p. 266.

¹³ Cf. ALQ², p. 174 and n.19.

¹⁴ Paul Kahle is thus justified in his fulminations against Rahlf's treatment of the Proto-Lucianic problem. It is ironical, however, that Kahle himself then argued (1947) that the biblical quotations from the historical books in Josephus had later been brought into conformity with the Lucianic text by Christian scribes! (The Cairo Geniza [London, 1947], pp. 150–56).

¹⁵ Cross, F. M., “A New Qumrân Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint,” BASOR 132 (Dec, 1953), 15–26Google Scholar; cf. corrections of misprints in Cross, F. M., “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumrân,” JBL 74 (1955), 165, n.40.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Baillet, M., Milik, J. T. et de Vaux, R., Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân, DJD III (Oxford, 1962)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Skehan, P. W., “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qumrân,” BASOR 136 (Dec, 1954), 12–15Google Scholar; cf. ALQ², pp. 182–84.

¹⁸ Cross, F. M., “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumrân,” JBL 74 (1955), 147–72Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Skehan, P. W., “Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumrân,” JBL 74 (1955), 182–87Google Scholar.

²⁰ From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore, 1941, 1946²), p. 336, n.12.

²¹ See the writer‘s remarks in “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, p. 189, n.4, and in the Harvard dissertation of my student James Purvis dealing with the Samaritan schism (1962).

²² ALQ², pp. 168–94. Other general studies include Greenberg, M., “The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible …,” JAOS 76 (1956), 161–63Google Scholar; H. M. Orlinsky, “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, pp. 113–32. The most provocative single study was Albright's brief “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible,” BASOR 140 (1955), 27–33Google Scholar.

²³ Cf. Skehan, P. W., “The Text of Isaias at Qumrân,” CBQ 8 (1955), 38–43Google Scholar; and “Some Textual Problems in Isaias,” CBQ 22 (1960), 47–55. References to Orlinsky's series of detailed studies can be found in the article cited in n.22. See also E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1959).

²⁴ See, provisionally, Sanders, J. A., “The Scroll of Psalms (11Q Pss) from Cave II: A Preliminary Report,” BASOR 165 (Feb., 1962), 11–15Google Scholar; “Ps. 151 in 11Q Pss,” ZAW 75 (1963), 73–86Google Scholar; “Two Non-Canonical Psalms in 11Q Ps^a,” ZAW 76 (1964), 57–75Google Scholar.

²⁵ Some readings from an Exodus scroll (4Q Ex^a) together with a photograph of a fragment from it are published in ALQ², p. 184, n.31; see also the Plate opposite p. 141.

²⁶ On 4Q Num^a, see already ALQ², p. 186 and n.36.

²⁷ Against the text's having arisen by a simple crossing of MSS of Palestinian and Egyptian types stands the evidence of occasional agreement with LXX minuses and occasional omission of LXX plusses, as well as a sprinkling of so-called Proto-Lucianic readings (i.e., 4Q Num-L vs. MT-BA0).

²⁸ A sample of the text of the shorter recension is published in ALQ², p. 187, n.38 (4Q Jer^b). One of my students, Mr. J. G. Janzen, has shown in a forthcoming Harvard dissertation that a large portion of the plusses of MT in Jeremiah stem from expansionist tendencies of the type familiar for example in the Samaritan Pentateuch. On the contrary, the short text represented at Qumrân and in the Septuagint is exceedingly well preserved.

²⁹ P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, et R. de Vaux, Les grottes de Murabba^cât, DJD II (Oxford, 1961), 75–85 (Pls. XIX-XXIV), and 181–205 (Pls. LVI-LXXIII).

³⁰ To this material will be added other fragments from the Naḥal Ḥever (Wâdī Ḥabrā). See provisionally Y. Yadin, Yediot 25 (1961), 49–64, and esp. Pl. 32: 2. Cf. Aharoni, Y., “The Caves of the Naḥal Ḥever,” ^cAtiqot 3 (1961), 148–75Google Scholar; Yadin, Y., “New Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” BA 24 (1961), 34–50Google Scholar; and Milik, J. T., “Deux documents inédits du Désert de Juda…,” Biblica 38 (1957), 255–64Google Scholar. The new discoveries at Maṣada may enable us to push back the existence of the Rabbinic recension, if not its official promulgation, to before A.D. 73. See below.

³¹ Compare the writer's remarks in ALQ², p. 170, n.13.

³² See, for example, Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur (Sitzungsb. der kais. Akad. der Wiss. in Wien, Phil.-Hist. Klasse Bd. 153:6 [1906]; 160:7 [1908]), and H. L. Strack, Prolegomena critica in Vetus Testamentum hebraicum (Leipzig, 1873). Cf. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, Text and Language in Bible and Qumrân, pp. x-xii.

³³ Compare S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1950), pp. 20–27; Talmon, S., “The Three Scrolls of the Law That Were Found in the Temple Court,” Textus II (1962), 19–27Google Scholar.

³⁴ See for example, ALQ², p. 191, n.45.

^34a Cf. the studies listed in n.33, to which should be added Talmon, S., JJS 2 (1951), 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar f.

³⁵ 5Q1, DJD III, 169–71; Pl. xxxvi.

³⁶ For the writer's detailed arguments for this date, see ALQ², pp. 109–60, and the literature cited therein. To this should now be added R. de Vaux, L'archéologie et les manuscrits de la Mer Morte (London, 1961), esp. pp. 86–94.

³⁷ Cf. Kutscher, op. cit., esp. p. 472; Barthélemy, DA, pp. 3–21; and the judicious statements of S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, pp. 47–68.

^37a On this text, see the analysis of Talmon, S., Textus I (1960), 167Google Scholar, 152.

³⁸ That is, in 1 Sam. 31; 2 Sam. 5:1, 6–25; 6:1–23; 7–8; 10; 11:1.

³⁹ On the Proto-Lucianic character of the sixth column of the Hexapla, see below, n.44.

⁴⁰ ALQ², pp. 188–89, n.40a. Samples are chosen arbitrarily from a passage at the beginning and a passage at the end of the section.

⁴¹ Among other things it means that we can control better the Chronicler's treatment of his sources. The usual picture painted of the Chronicler violently or willfully distorting Samuel and Kings to suit his fancy must be radically revised.

⁴² See W. F. Albright, “New Light on Early Recension of the Hebrew Bible,” PP. 27–33; ALQ², pp. 189f.

⁴³ A Mez, Die Bibel des Josephus … (Basel, 1895). Cf. Barthélemy, DA, pp. 139f.

⁴⁴ See Barthélemy, DA, pp. 126–36. The following points should be stressed about θ, i.e., the sixth column in the section βγ of Reigns: (1) the readings follow the Lucian text closely, but occasionally are superior to the witnesses boc₂e₂; (2) the readings are very often against MT; and (3) the readings often give translations of terms where LXX^B transliterates!

In addition to the new Qumrân evidence, supporting the identification of the Proto-Lucianic recension, we should observe that elsewhere in Samuel there are Greek materials difficult to explain by Barthélemy's hypothesis. For example, in I Sam. 17–18, where the Old Greek text has not been suppressed, the Old Greek is much shorter than the Massoretic text, and perhaps original in its short form (cf. J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis [Göttingen, 1871], pp. 1041.). The Greek minuses in 17:12–31, 55–18:5 are filled in by (1) a recension belonging to the καίγε/Theodotionic group, and (2) the Lucianic recension of boc₂e₂, which, despite its Hexaplaric character, preserves many older readings against the MT, against the Theodotionic recension, and, of course, against the Old Greek (omissions).

Barthélemy's readiness to discard the Lucianic recension, sensu stricto, is puzzling. He recognizes that L in boc₂e₂ and in θ of the βγ section go back to a non-Massoretic Hebrew tradition, closely related to the Old Greek. But these data do not require or even support his radical solution.

It may be observed in passing that Barthélemy's selective treatment of Jerome's testimonies to Lucian leaves much to be desired, and that he omits mention of the relatively early and important witness of Pseudo-Athanasius. Compare the judicious recent treatment of these testimonies to Lucian by B. Metzger, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Leiden, 1963), pp. 3–7. Cf. also Jellicoe, S., “The Hesychian Recension Reconsidered,” JBL 82 (1963), 409–18Google Scholar.

In short, I do not perceive any ground for doubting the existence of a “late” Lucianic recension, and, in any case, the evidence for an early or Proto-Lucianic recension, the substratum of the text of Antioch, remains unaffected.

⁴⁵ Kahle, P., “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 88 (1915), 399–439Google Scholar (now republished in Opera Minora [Leiden, 1956], pp. 3–37).

⁴⁶ Synoptic Studies in the Old Testament (Lund, 1948), pp. 9–12. As will be evident below, I cannot accept his explanation of the reasons for this phenomenon. Cf. Talmon, S., “The Samaritan Pentateuch,” JJS 2 (1951), 146–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ For this analysis of the short recension of Jeremiah I am greatly indebted to my student Mr. Gerald Janzen.