Gentry, Peter John. Review of The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job.
SBLSCS 38. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-7885-0093-7. Pp.
xxxviii+559. US $49.95 (cloth), $33.95 (paper).
1. One of the most problematic areas in Septuagintal research is the
remarkably comprehensive text-critical work executed by Origen, especially
the six-columned description found in his Hexapla. This massive compilation
of textual variants was of course never transmitted in its entirety;
however, the fifth column, which contained the Old Greek as constructed by
Origen, had a major impact on later textual traditions.
2. A major problem with this detailed work, as is well known, is Origen's
use of appropriate symbols to describe the differences which he encountered
in the texts he used. The intentions of Origen were naturally clear: to
distinguish between those passages that were extant in the Hebrew but not in
the Greek, which he marked with an asterisk, and the passages that appeared
in the Greek without any counterparts in the Hebrew, which he marked by
means of an obelus. The problem, however, remains; during the later
historical vicissitudes of the Hexapla, these sigla unfortunately became
intermingled, with the result that it became impossible to trust any
diacritical mark which referred to the monumental work by Origen. His work
has a bearing on the whole of the transmission history of the LXX, as it
contaminated many later manuscripts. Subsequent scribes inaccurately
rendered these sigla or in many instances simply omitted them, and the
result was textual confusion. Two positive developments are the preservation
of parts of Origen's text-critical work by Eusebius of Caesarea and the
translation of the fifth column into Syriac. This Syro-hexapla can be used
as basic comparative material, even though it has problems of its own.
Fortunately these problems are now being dealt with systematically by the
newly formed Syro-hexaplaric project, an undertaking of the Peshitta
Institute in Leiden.
Methodological Orientation
3. The various textual problems I mentioned above are nowhere more evident
than in the Greek book of Job. And as to be expected of a student of the
"Toronto school", Peter Gentry has formulated a novel research proposal,
focussing upon the asterisked materials in the textual tradition of the
Greek Job with the greatest detail. The questions he intends to address are:
why are specific lines asterisked? what is the origin of this material? what
is its nature and its textual affiliation? Another issue he deals with is
the question of the sources utilised by Origen in respect to Job.
4. Gentry has done his ground work excellently. In true text-critical
fashion he approaches the question of the exact limits of the asterisked
materials from the perspective of both external evidence--i.e., the
manuscript evidence--and internal evidence--concentrating on the work of the
translator(s)/revisor(s). One way in which he examines the internal evidence
is by contrasting the translation technique of the asterisked materials with
that found in the OG.
5. The asterisked materials are assembled from two primary sources: first,
lines described by Origen which found their way into the so-called
ecclesiastical text, and second, other materials attributed to Theodotion in
the church fathers and the Catena manuscripts. The main source used by
Gentry is of course Ziegler's critical edition of Job in the Göttingen
series. Gentry has a precisely demarcated methodological approach towards
the asterisked materials which entails first the identification of these
materials.
Identification of the Asterisked Materials
6. Although the author uses the work by Ziegler (1982) as a point of
departure, he nevertheless rightly approaches this publication critically.
Gentry deals with the materials in a meticulous way. He works through each
example of asterisked data quoted by Ziegler. In some instances he discovers
discrepancies between Ziegler's introduction and his text, whereupon he
offers appropriate corrections. One prominent feature that he discusses is
the difference of stichometry between Rahlfs and Ziegler. This applies also
to the lines that were asterisked by Ziegler but considered OG by Rahlfs
(1935). One case in point is Job 9:3b, ou) mh\ u(pakou/sh|
au)tw|=, which is also taken as OG by Pietersma contrary to Ziegler.
The main argument used by Pietersma (1985:305-311) and followed by Gentry
(p. 19) is that the manuscript evidence (from the C tradition) is extremely
weak. Gentry is moreover critical of Ziegler's statement that the Old Latin
omits 3b. Gentry sees the Old Latin version at this point as a "kind of
conflation of 3b and 3c" (p. 21).
7. What impressed me is the nuanced combination of arguments utilised by
Gentry when making a decision on whether a certain line should be deemed to
be asterisked or Septuagintal. He combines the external and internal
criteria which I mentioned above. For example, he regards the textual
support for taking Job 25:6b (kai\ ui(o\s a)nqrw/pou skw/lhc) as
asterisked to be weak. However, when looking at the issue from the
perspective of translation technique, he comes to a different conclusion. At
this point the meticulous manner in which he approaches the subject matter
becomes evident yet again. He studies the way each Hebrew lexical item is
rendered by the Greek translator and in the revisor's text (R). In the final
analysis he then comes to the conclusion that Ziegler made a sound decision
by taking 25:6b as asterisked.
8. An interesting issue addressed by Gentry is the question of textual
material containing features of the hexaplaric material pre-dating the
Hexapla. This phenomenon occurs in the Greek version of Proverbs too (cf.
the discussion in Cook 1997), so it may be helpful to consider the evidence
related to Proverbs alongside that of Job. The occurrence of what appear to
be hexaplaric readings in older material is called a "hebraisierende
Tendenz" by Zuntz (1956:165). Not much has been published on the question of
hexaplaric influence in LXX Proverbs (Cook 1996), at least not before the
discovery of the Antinoopolis papyri in 1913-14. One of these mss, 928,
contains a number of fragments from Proverbs that were published by C. H.
Roberts (1950:18).
9. Another relatively unknown textual witness, the Prophetologion used in
the eastern church for liturgical purposes, was studied by Zuntz (1956:125).
This corpus, consisting of about 160 mss dating between the 9th and the 16th
centuries, had not been utilised sufficiently by scholars before Zuntz. The
mss in the corpus are based on a work originally created in the 8th century
and since then transmitted by church officials. According to Zuntz, the
Prophetologion exhibits a surprisingly stable text which significantly
corresponds to the Antinoopolis fragments mentioned above.
10. Zuntz does a painstaking comparison between these textual corpora. He
finds that the papyrus fragments of Proverbs contain 21 readings that are
practically unique in the LXX. Significantly, they represent a
"hebraisierende Tendenz", which I have mentioned already. They also exhibit
a definite relationship with a specific group of textual witnesses which
Zuntz (1956:165) designates as g. To this group belong the Prophetologion
and the late minuscules 336, 443s, and 252, as well as the majuscule V.
Apparently the two latter witnesses do not agree to the same extent as the
rest of the group (Zuntz 1956:166). This group should be seen as
"hexaplaric", for V and 252 are after all prominent Origenic mss.
11. The dating of the Antinoopolis papyri is naturally of crucial importance
in this regard. For if it should be placed in the third and not the fourth
century, then it is surprising that the same tendency towards the Hebrew
that is so typical of Origen is already in evidence so early. Zuntz
(1956:174) is conspicuously careful in his treatment of this issue. For
example, he mentions the possibility that the papyrus could date from the
latter period of Origen's life and that it is possible that it indeed
represents a text that was actually reviewed by Origen himself. He
nevertheless regards this as improbable. He also mentions the views
expressed by J. Ziegler that, as far as the book of Isaiah is concerned, the
hexaplaric witnesses Q and Syro-hexapla are not the result of Origen's work,
but the work of students of Eusebius of Caesarea (Ziegler 1983:52); another
possibility is that Origen could have found additions tending towards
Massoretic readings in his Hebrew Vorlage (Ziegler 1983:62). In the final
analysis he sees 928 as a real Septuagint text and not a representative of
some other translation, for example, Theodotion (Zuntz 1956:175). (Zuntz
[1956:127] mentions a letter in which Roberts confirms his view that the
third century date is preferable.)
12. The implications of Zuntz's study are important. The notion that
adaptation towards the Hebrew took place earlier than previously thought is,
of course, not new. The kai/ge recension found by Barthélemy
(1963) represents earlier evidence of this phenomenon. The discovery of a
similar development in the context of the book of Proverbs is nevertheless
significant for the unravelling of its complicated textual history. It could
have the implication that some of the double translations which occur in LXX
Proverbs are in fact pre-hexaplaric phenomena.
13. The hypothesis by Zuntz has not been universally accepted, nor has it
been discussed exhaustively. P. Katz (1957:77-84), among others, has
expressed some reservations about this theory. He nevertheless does not
reject the fact of Hebraising recensional work in the Septuagint before the
existence of the Hexapla. He in fact views Zuntz's viewpoint as an
independent testimony to this recension. His main criticism is aimed at the
endeavours by Zuntz to relativise the Hebraising revision that Origen
actually executed. Katz (1957:80) has a very clear view of the unique
situation in the books of Proverbs and Job. Talking about the deliberate use
of Greek mss by Origen that were the closest to MT, he makes the following
statement: "und bei so willkürlich übersetzten Büchern wie Prov und Hiob
musste dieser Rückgriff so gut wie den ganzen Umfang der Bücher umfassen".
14. It is therefore evident that the books of Proverbs and Job are unique in
this regard. Perhaps a study of this phenomenon in Proverbs and Job can
assist us in tracing the textual histories of both these LXX texts more
accurately. There are significant correspondences, as well as differences,
between these two Greek versions (Cook 1997a).
Characterisation of the Asterisked Materials
15. The meticulous work is simply extended by the author when he endeavours
to characterise the materials. As is the case with the identification of the
materials, his methodology is to the point and applied in a systematic and
quantitative manner. He accounts for the structural differences between the
source and target languages. The literal approach of R towards the Hebrew
fortunately assists the researcher in determining the translation technique
that he follows.
16. Gentry compares the asterisked Greek and the Hebrew in detail as far as
various parts of speech are concerned. Various categories of nouns are
discussed, whereafter follow other parts of speech such as pronouns,
adjectives, adverbs, etc. The evidence speaks for itself: and far as the
noun goes, in his view it "points to an extremely high level of
correspondence formally between the Greek of R and the Hebrew of MT in the
rendering of nouns" (p. 99).
17. Much space and time are spent on verbal forms, for again Gentry deals
with the total picture, addressing the aspect/tense, number and person, and
voice of all verbal forms. He systematically deals with finite verbs,
participles, infinitives, pseudo-verbs, verbs rendered by a different
syntagmeme, and finally verbs that are used in R for nouns in MT. Moreover,
to paint the full picture he also deals with the way R renders Hebrew verbs
from a lexical perspective. Again the hand of Albert Pietersma can be
observed in the methodology followed by Gentry. The textual evidence is
categorised into four levels of variety: (1) a Hebrew lexeme rendered by one
Greek lexeme; (2) more than one Hebrew lexeme rendered by one Greek lexeme;
(3) a Hebrew lexeme rendered by more than one Greek lexeme; and (4) more
than one Hebrew lexeme rendered by more than one Greek lexeme. In order to
further systematise categories, 1 and 2 are called stereotype equivalents,
the third category regular equivalents, and the fourth non-standard
equivalents.
18. This exhaustive analysis of structural and lexical perspectives puts
Gentry in a position to draw significant conclusions as to the details of
the translator of the asterisked materials in Job. In his own words: "While
R is a literal translator, he is attentive to context and differences of
social situation and also provides stylistic variations to avoid using the
same verb in contiguous contexts" (p. 299).
19. Gentry subsequently discusses the phenomenon of transliterations,
offering solutions varying from technical terms to guesswork and ordinary
confusion of Hebrew consonants by the translator. After an exhaustive
characterisation of nearly 300 pages, the author finally concludes this
section with a discussion of the treatment of word order by R. The fact that
according to him only four out of a total of 434 stichs in the Hebrew are
different from the word order of the Hebrew is a clear indication of the
literal manner in which the translator approached his subject matter!
The Asterisked Material and the Textual History of LXX Job
20. After completing the characterisation of R, Gentry moves onto the
question of the placing of the asterisked materials in the history of the
transmission of the text. In this regard he makes a number of illuminating
observations. First, the OG represents a totally different approach towards
translation from R's literal, quantitative procedure. This leads him to
compare these texts differently, namely "holistically" or qualitatively
rather than quantitatively. He draws a third significant conclusion: "The
differences between R and OG so outweigh any similarities that one must
conclude that R is an independent translation and not a systematic revision
of OG based on certain principles" (p. 386).
21. An important part of Gentry's dissertation is his comparison of R and
the so-called kai/ge group (pp. 389-493). Again the author
approaches the theme exhaustively, taking into account practically all
research that has been conducted on this issue. He also includes Aquila and
the translator of the Greek Psalms in addition to the translator of the
Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever. As before, he differentiates
among various parts of speech, such as nouns and verbs. This puts him in a
position to reach refined conclusions as to the application of lexemes by R
and Aquila. His final conclusion is that the approach of Aquila represents
an extreme refinement of the translation technique developing in R (p. 492).
He finds that Aquila is more consistent than R in his application of fixed
equivalents and less sensitive to contextual factors.
22. Even though there are some striking similarities between R and Aquila,
there are also conspicuous differences. In this regard his final statement
in Chapter 3 is significant: "So there is a development in attitude to
translation from LXX to R to Aquila which is at least typological if not
chronological" (p. 493). I would like to add that the translator of Proverbs
also fits into this picture, although I am not yet sure as to where he
should be placed. On the one hand, he exhibits an extremely conservative
approach towards his subject matter, going to great lengths to avoid
possible misunderstanding of given passages. I have concluded (Cook
1994:473) that he is actually more conservative than is the author(s) of the
Hebrew version of Proverbs! On the other hand, he is prepared to adapt his
parent Hebrew text to the extent that in some instances the impression is
left that a Targumist is at work! He thus exhibits a diametrically opposed
approach towards the subject matter (his translation technique is just the
opposite of "literal" or "quantitative"), but with the same intention. These
remarks should be read together with Gentry's conclusion that the diversity
within the kai/ge group, as well as the precise line of
demarcation between kai/ge and LXX, has yet to be taken seriously
by modern scholarship (p. 496).
Conclusion
23. The dissertation by Gentry does not present spectacular results. It is
more an exercise in sound methodology. He has demonstrated that a
meticulously executed contrastive analysis combined with a comparative
analysis is the approach to follow when endeavouring to analyse deviating
textual materials. While reading him, one always gets the impression that he
has drawn on sound data upon which to base his arguments. His nuanced
critique of the results of some scholars' kai/ge research is
highly significant in this regard. It comes as no surprise that, after
studying the broader picture, in the final analysis he concludes that there
is no kai/ge recension as such, but that the deliberate
adaptations rather point to an attitude towards texts or a tradition (p.
497). From this conclusion it is already evident that he has furthered our
knowledge of recensional activity in the book of Job substantially.
24. This "holistic" approach (as Gentry calls it) can only be applauded.
Younger scholars and students will do well to follow the approach
demonstrated by Gentry, which he evidently learned at the feet of John W.
Wevers and Albert Pietersma in Toronto. In the final analysis they must also
be congratulated on the work of their student.
25. On a more personal note, I am looking forward to subsequent research by
Gentry. At the end of his dissertation he has formulated a number of
suggestions for further study which should certainly be followed up. There
is a direct relationship between his research and my own, the complicated
text of LXX Proverbs, where much work still remains to be done.
© TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1997.
Bibliography
Barthélemy, Dominique 1963. Les devanciers d'Aquila. VTS 10. Leiden: Brill.
Cook, Johann 1994. ")i$.fh zfrfh (Proverbs 1-9 Septuagint): A
Metaphor for Foreign Wisdom?" Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 106: 458-476.
Cook, Johann 1996. "The Hexaplaric Text, Double Translations and other
Textual Phenomena." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 22: 129-140.
Cook, Johann 1997. The Septuagint of Proverbs--Jewish And/Or Hellenistic
Proverbs (Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs). VTS 69.
Leiden: Brill.
Cook, Johann 1997a. "Aspects of the Relationship between the Septuagint
Versions of Proverbs and Job." In IX Congress of the International
Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge, 1995, pp.
309-328. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Katz, Peter 1957. "Frühe hebraisierende Rezensionen der Septuaginta und die
Hexapla." Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69: 77-84.
Pietersma, Albert 1985. Review of Job, Septuagint: Vetus Testamentum
Graecum, 11/4, ed. Joseph Ziegler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982).
Journal of Biblical Literature 104: 305-311.
Rahlfs, Alfred 1935. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX
interpretes. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt.
Roberts, C. H. 1950. The Antinoopolis Papyri. Part I. London: Egypt
Exploration Society.
Ziegler, Joseph 1982. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate
academiae scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Vol. 12.4: Job. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Ziegler, Joseph 1983. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate
academiae scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Vol. 14: Isaias. 3rd ed.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Zuntz, Günther 1956. "Der Antinoe Papyrus der Proverbia und das
Prophetologion", Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 68:
124-180.
Johann Cook
Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies
University of Stellenbosch