A paper delivered in an IOSCS session at the annual meeting of the Society of
Biblical Literature, San Diego, Nov. 21–25, 2014, specifically on Sunday
morning, the 23rd. Some changes have been made since its presentation. In
particular, comment has been added about Ziegler’s text at 31.6, in a footnote;
remarks about the prehexaplaric nature of the Sahidic have been qualified. This
paper will be submitted for publication at a later day. If cited, please identify it
with the words “(provisional copy).” The title will remain the same. Thanks.
Mar. 3, 2015.
The Text of Old Greek Job: a History of its Transmission
Claude Cox
McMaster Divinity College
This presentation has as its purpose to describe briefly the history of the
transmission of OG Job from the time of its translation to the publication of
ZIEGLER’S critical edition (1982). Emphasis will be placed on the early period,
that is, down to the 5th century, by which time the major elements of OG Job’s
textual development were complete.
LITERATURE
Claude E. COX, Armenian Job. Reconstructed Greek Text, Critical Edition of the
Armenian with English Translation (HUAS 8; Leuven: Peeters, 2006). • idem,
“The Nature of Lucian’s Revision of the Text of Greek Job,” in Anssi VOITILA
and Jutta JOKIRANTA (eds.), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint,
Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (JSJS 126;
Leiden: Brill, 2008), 423–42. • idem, “Does a shorter Hebrew parent text underlie
Old Greek Job?” in K. DE TROYER, T. M. LAW, M. LILJESTRÖM (eds.), In the
Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes. Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli
Aejmelaeus (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 72. Leuven: Peeters,
2014), 449–60. • Natalio FERNÁNDEZ MARCOS, “The Septuagint Reading of the
Book of Job,” W. A. M. BEUKEN (ed.), The Book of Job (BETL 114; Leuven:
Peeters 1994), 251–66. • Gillis GERLEMAN, Studies in the Septuagint. I. Book of
2
Job (Lunds Universitets Arsscrift, N.F. Avd. 1., Bd. 43, nr. 2; Lund: C.W.K.
Gleerup, 1946). • Samuel Rolles DRIVER and George Buchanan GRAY, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Job (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clarke,
1921; repr. 1984). • Peter J. GENTRY, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job
(SBLSCS 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). • Carl H. HOLLADAY, Fragments
from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume 1: Historians (SBLTT 20, PS 10; Chico:
Scholars, 1983). • Karen H. JOBES and Moisés SILVA, Invitation to the Septuagint
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000). • Martina KEPPER and Marcus WITTE,
Job. Das buch Ijob / Hiob, in Martin KARRER and Wolfgang KRAUS (eds.),
Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten
Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 2, 2041–2126. •
Dominique MANGIN, Le texte courte de la version grecque du livre de Job et la
double interprétation du personnage jusqu’au IIe siècle (Unpublished doctoral
thesis, Université d’Aix-Marseille-1 [Université de Provance], 2005). • James
Hope MOULTON and Nigel TURNER, A Grammer of New Testament Greek (Vol. 3;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906). • Jacob NEUSNER and William Scott GREEN (eds.),
Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period: 450 B.C.E. to 600 C.E. (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1999; first published 1996). • Otto STEGMÜLLER, ed., Berliner
Septuagintafragmente (BKT 8; Berlin: Weidman, 1939). • Henry St. John
THACKERAY, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the
Septuagint. Vol. 1 Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (Cambridge: at the
University Press, 1909). • Joseph W. TRIGG, Origen (The Early Church Fathers;
London: Routledge, 1998). • John W. WEVERS, Text History of the Greek
Deuteronomy (AKWG 106; MSU 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1978). • Joseph ZIEGLER (ed.), Iob: Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum, XI,
4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). • Ernst WÜRTHWEIN, The Text of
the Old Testament (2nd ed.; trans. Errol F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995).
Aristeas
3
The earliest evidence for the existence of OG Job is contained in Aristeas’ On the
Jews. Eusebius cites some 30 lines of this work in the Preparatio Evangelica
(9.25.1–4) on the basis of Alexander Polyhistor, who appears to have flourished
in the first half of the 1st century BCE: suggested dates include mid-first cent.
BCE (HOLLADAY 1, 262); ca. 105–35 BCE (DJBP); ca. 80–40 BCE (MANGIN,
112, citing A.-M. DENIS). Aristeas obviously predates Polyhistor, so On the Jews
is to be dated in the late 2nd cent. or early in the 1st cent. BCE and OG Job some
time before Aristeas. In addition, a relative dating for the translation of Job can be
established on the basis of G’s practice of quoting other books in the LXX corpus:
Lev (Iob 14.20b = 17.10 et passim); Num (Iob 3.16a = 12.12a); Deut (Iob 9.33b =
1.16); Esa (Iob 4.21a = 40.24); Pss (Iob 40.19 = 103.26b).
Aristeas offers a brief summary of the story of Iob, beginning with a statement of
his genealogy that is based on Iob 42.17ba–ea, that is, the second addition at the
end of the book. This is significant for our understanding of the development of
the transmission history of OG Job: it reveals that the form of OG Job that Aristeas
knew included 42.17ba–ea, as well as, almost certainly, 42.17aa, the first
addition, since the first addition was in place before the second. Neither is part of
the Job story as known in its earlier, Hebrew form, and neither was part of OG Job
in its original form. That Aristeas is citing OG Job is clear from the genealogical
information; from the location of Iob’s home as e0n th=| Au0si/tidi xw/ra|—wherein
–i/tidi is a Hellenistic, adjectival ending for the transliteration of Cw(
(THACKERAY §11.14; MANGIN, 114–15); and from the identification of the three
friends as “Eliphaz, king of the Temanites, and Bildad, the ruler of the Shuhites,
and Zophar, king of the Minnaites” (trans. HOLLADAY). It is of theological interest
that the summary interprets Job’s experience as one of God’s testing his fidelity:
peira/zonta d’ au0to\n to\n qeo\n e0mmei=nai. Neither peira/zw nor e0mme/nw occurs
in Iob.
Old Greek Job is an abbreviated text written in good Greek style
4
Old Greek Job is an abbreviated edition of the story of Job. It might be said that
no information vital to the story has been lost in the transition from the longer
source text. The Greek is about 83% as long as the original (see “Does a Shorter
Hebrew ...,” 451–52) and the abbreviation, though it begins with only a few words
(2.1), becomes substantial in the speeches (chapter 28 is reduced by 50%, the
Elihu speeches similarly). Nor are the “God speeches” spared: they are reduced
by 16% (so DRIVER and GRAY, lxxiv–lxxv, oft cited; cf. GERLEMAN, 27). This
feature of the OG is immediately noticeable, even to the casual reader. G’s reason
for abbreviating the text—but not, as noted, the story—is, it seems to me,
sociological, certainly not theological. G has pared down the source text for the
sake of an intellectual, Hellenistic audience, not used to such repetitive story-
telling and argumentation. By how much can one abbreviate the Odyssey? How
much extraneous detail is there in such poetry in Greek? How much can one
remove from The Apology of Socrates, a document that bears some similarity to
the judicial speeches in Job? OG Job is shorter by intention. While there are many
little bits in the original OG that G has added, the longest are two lines and this
occurs but twice (19.4cd, an interpretation of 19.4ab; 33.23ce).
The basic feature of Hebrew poetry, the means of communication in most of the
book of Job, is parallelism. This G could not overcome entirely in the interests of
Greek style, but often enough G omits one line of two parallel lines or
summarizes two lines in one (e.g., 18.17; 22.3; 30.6; 33.8; 34.11; 39.6) or even
longer sections in a few words (18.9–10; 20.20–21; 34.22; 34.23). Often G does
not follow the word order of the source text and may construct a line of
translation using only one or two words of its words (e.g., 40.19b).
Generally speaking, G has produced a literary translation as opposed to a literal
translation, as FERNÁNDEZ MARCOS puts it, for the sake of intellectual Hellenistic
readers. This involves broad modifications that include “the Hellenization of the
religious universe designed in the Hebrew” (“The Septuagint Reading,” 256–57).
5
For example, the diverse names for God in the source text are reduced almost
entirely to ku/rioj. G’s literary endeavour also involved many small details: G
often uses rare words or, at least, words that are for us rarely attested; sometimes
this follows the source text in that G employs a rare word for a word that is rare in
the Hebrew corpus that has come down to us. This appears to be a matter of style.
Hundreds of particles are employed in the Greek text. These are stimulating for
the reader and reflect G’s interest in producing a text of good literary style (e.g.,
see MOULTON & TURNER 3, 333, concerning interr. h] and a]ra; MANGIN, 588). A
predeliction for particles and compounds reflects G’s concern “to produce a good
and easily flowing Greek”; and G’s interest in variety of expression is reflected,
for example, in the modification in the translation of the parallel remarks at 1.6–8
and 2.1–3, and 1.15–16 and 1.17–19 (GERLEMAN, 8–10). Having said all this, the
nature of the source text proved a challenge for the translator’s intention to adapt
it to the target language and culture, so that the result could only be partially
successful and remain in any sense a translation.
Three additions to the abbreviated text
Early on OG Job was supplemented with three additions: 2.9ag, 9a–9d; 42.17aa;
42.17a–e. The practice of making additions to existing texts was well-established
by the time Job was translated into Greek. Indeed, in more ancient times,
prophetic books gained supplementation (e.g., Isaiah) and even the Books of
Moses reveal growth by addition (e.g., the entire book of Deuteronomy). In
somewhat more recent times Ecclesiastes attracted its interpretive Epilogue and in
times not far removed from the translation of Job additions were made to Greek
Daniel and Esther. The additions to OG Job should be viewed in the same light,
though they have their own unique function.
1. The first addition made to OG Job was 42.17aa, which asserts, “And it is
written that he (Iob) will rise again with those the Lord raises.” This supplement
places the story of Iob in an entirely new light, controverting both the message of
6
the source text and its OG translation, which insist that the Lord must reward Job
in this life if at all (14.10–12). In fact, that does happen with the replacement of
Iob’s family and fortunes, but 42.17aa goes far beyond that, because Iob will rise
from the dead (with the other righteous). This addition reflects a growing belief in
the resurrection of the dead among some Jews, attested by Dan 12.1–3. It is
hardly a Christian gloss, a suggestion SWETE mentions (256). The words “It is
written” allude to texts like Dan 12 or to a “resurrection interpretation” of texts
that could be so read. “It is written” gives the supplement the authority of a
written source, as dramatically illustrated by Matt 4.4–10.
2. The second epilogue of OG Job, 42.17a–e, was added next. The intention that
instigated its addition is clear. Job, who is a foreigner, is found to be—now as
Iob— a fifth generation descendant of Abraam (and Sara), with a genealogical
tree like the ancestors in Genesis. In fact, he is none other than Iobab, about
whom one can read in that authoritative text (Gen 36, esp. vv.31–35). If Iob is
descended from the “patriarchs” (sic) of Israel, he is one of the Lord’s people and,
as one only five generations removed from Abraam, is deserving of the
consideration that such antiquity bestows. Genealogies like this one provided for
Job carried great weight in the Persian and Hellenistic periods (see, for example, 1
Chron 1–9; Neh 10–12; Matt 1). This second addition is said to be e0k th=j
Suriakh=j bi/bliou “from the Syriac book,” i.e., an Aramaic book. Though it is
not in the Hebrew source text, the genealogy is not Greek in origin. No, it was in
Aramaic, like parts of Daniel and Ezra—so, not in Hebrew, but almost—and
derives again from a written source and, therefore, like 42.17aa, carries an
authority. There is no indication that the second epilogue displaced the first, but
the addition of the second suggests that the worthies of antiquity will rise along
with those of more immediate memory.
3. The third supplement to OG Job is 2.9ag, 9a–9d. It is commonly held to be a
later addition to OG Job (so also KEPPER and WITTE: see their discussion, 2047–
50). This is doubtless a correct assessment because its presence, without a source
7
text, runs entirely contrary to G’s modus operandi. This third supplement was
added after the second: it is bolder in execution than the other two because it is
not a supplement placed at the end but an insertion into the text. If Iob is a
“patriarch,” we might well expect from his wife some larger role than the one
verse of the source text. In the source text all the main characters except Job’s
wife have substantial speeches. This inequity is rectified by the addition of 2.9ag,
9a–9d. The speech serves to emphasize Iob’s persistance in the face of its cost to
his person and to his family. At the same time, our sympathy for Iob’s wife is
diminished by the tone of her complaint: she holds Iob responsible for her
suffering. He remains resolute.
The problem of the shorter text of OG Job is addressed
There were two problems with the Old Greek translation of Job. First, it was not
“faithful” to the source text in that it was not an interlinear-style translation. The
OG gives relatively little access to the parent text; it is often impossible to know
what the underlying Hebrew text says on the basis of the OG. There are some
“Hebraisms” in the OG and the quotations from other parts of the LXX corpus
leave no doubt about its community of origin and intended usage, but this was not
enough to satisfy some in its community at a slightly later day.
The interest in bringing about a rapprochement between the LXX and its source
texts began early. Papyrus 848 (= P. Fouad, Inv. 266), which dates from the
middle of the 1st cent. BCE—it contains much of the second half of Deut—
already shows signs of a conscious or unconscious influence upon it from the
Hebrew. See WEVERS’ THGD, 69–71. Note that the copying of this papyrus was
done not long after the translation of Job. The growing requirement for a literal
translation of Job was more than satisfied by the work of Aquila, ca. 125 CE,
whose principles of translation stand at the opposite end of the spectrum from
those of G Job. Occupying a space somewhere in the middle, between OG Job and
Aquila, but more towards the latter, is the translation connected with the name of
8
Theodotion which, as a text-type, falls somewhere near the kaige group of texts.
In the case of Job, “Theodotion” represents a new translation, not a revision, and
is, according to GENTRY, to be dated to the 1st century CE (Asterisked Materials,
494–98), something more than a century after OG Job.
Berlin Papyrus 11778 (Rahlfs 974), dated to ca. 220—earlier than the Hexapla,
offers an intriguing example of the revision of OG Job toward the Hebrew source
text. It contains 33.23, 24 on the recto and 34.10cb–15ba on the verso and is, by
genre, a magic prayer. At 34.11b it preserves a translation identical to Theodotion,
inserted into the OG. That is noteworthy in itself, but even more intriguing is its
text for 33.23–24, which in ZIEGLER involves six lines of text and in 974 six and a
half. For verse 23 the OG offers an extended paraphrase in which 23c and 23e are
a creation of G: 23c is inspired by passages like 22.22a, while 23d and 23e
represent a first and second, briefer, rendering of the third line of the source text.
The OG is far from a literal translation of the Hebrew. In the papyrus 23d and 24a
are replaced with a translation closer to the Hebrew:
23d
wr#y Md)l dyghl BHS
one who declares a person upright NRSV
a0nagei/lh| de\ a0nqrw&pw| th\n e9autou= me/myin OG
and [he] declare to a person his own fault NETS
e0cagoreu=sai de\ a0nqrw&poij th\n e9autou= para/ptwsin 974
and make known to people his transgresssion
24a (= 24ab BHS)
tx# tdrm wh(dp || rm)yw w@n@nexuy:w BHS
and he is gracious to that person, and says,
‘Deliver him from going down into the Pit; NRSV
a0nqe/cetai tou= mh\ pesei=n ei0j qa/naton OG
he (the Lord) will provide support so that he does not fall into death NETS
9
e0rei= ou]n a!fete au0to\n tou= mh\ e0mpesei=n ei0j qa/naton 974
then he will say, “Release him, so that he does not fall into death”
See STEGMÜLLER for a detailed discussion of 974 in comparison with the OG and
the Hebrew text. He argues convincingly that the translation in 974 represents a
translation from the Hebrew and is closer to the Hebrew than the OG.
Unfortunately “Theodotion” is not extant for 33.23–24, but ZIEGLER says that the
translation in 974 is not Theodotion (see 62–64). For our purposes, it is sufficient
to note that 974 represents a revision of the OG, employing a translation that is
closer to the source text than is the OG, and that this revision predates Origen. See
also GENTRY, 36–38.
Inevitable textual corruption of the OG Text
In contrast to the comprehensive changes imposed on the OG text by Origen and
Lucian one could regard as of little consquence the inevitable textual corruptions
that occurred as OG Job was copied and recopied in the three centuries or so that
lead up to their dramatic interventions. In some instances corruptions extend
across virtually the entire textual tradition. Consider the following examples,
drawn from ZIEGLER:
4.6b a0kaki/a 644 680 795 Gra. Ra.] kakia
16.10b ei0j siago/na Ra.] eij ta gonata (c var) rel: but see Zi
31.6 i0stai/h me a!ra Ra. = adpendat me La Vulg] estamai gar (c
var) rel1
1
ZIEGLER’S text is almost certainly wrong: La = Jerome’s old Latin translation of
the hexaplaric text. Jerome adjusted the translation, probably on the basis of
Aquila. Jerome is known to have made such changes: see Peter GENTRY’S work
on Ecclesiastes for the Göttingen edition of that book (forthcoming). Lucifer of
Cagliari preserves the pre-hexaplaric text, positus sum. The majority text, attested
by B, is original: estamai gar. I am indebted to Old Latin specialist Eva
SCHULZ-FLÜGEL for confirming my suspicions about the La (her letter of
10
31.26 o9rw~ me/n Gra. Ra. Compl = video quidem Glos] orwmen
38.30a a)bu/ssou Gra. Ra. = Compl] asebouj mss et verss
38.30b e!phcen Gra. Ra. = Dam] epthcen or ethcen (c var) rel
The OG text of Job that came into Origen’s hands included the three additions to
its text—which he marked with obeli—and textual corruptions of various kinds,
in all likelihood those just cited and others.
Origen: editor of the ecclesiastical text (= OG + Theodotion)
Alexandria was Origen’s birthplace (ca. 185). It might also be the birthplace of
what we call today textual criticism. It was in that city with this literary heritage
that Origen completed the Hexapla when he was in his mid-to-late 30s, before his
Commentary on Lamentations (ca. 222–225: TRIGG, 16, 73 [citing P. NAUTIN]; cf.
SWETE, 73). The general methodology and appearance of this massive work are
well-known and need not be described here (see, e.g., JOBES and SILVA, 48–53).
Its unique approach to multiple, divergent copies of texts anticipates later polyglot
Bibles and parallel-columned editions of the Gospels and Books of Moses in the
modern period. Brilliant in conception, the Hexapla has not been surpassed in this
respect by later, similar works.
Origen himself describes the OG text of Job in his Letter to Africanus §3–4 (Greek
text: PG 11.48–85). He begins by stating that in many places in Greek Job the text
is longer than the Hebrew, sometimes substantially. As examples of cases where
the OG is slightly longer Origen offers 1.5d; the plus at the end of 1.6 (see
ZIEGLER’S app.); 1.21d; and the speech of Job’s wife. On the other hand, there are
many cases where the OG is lacking lines (e1ph) in the Hebrew, four or five,
sometimes as many as ten (see GENTRY, pp. 2–5, esp. 4). In fact, the OG is shorter
than the Hebrew by some 17%. It was not only this lack of substantial pieces of
01/08/2011). I am also grateful to have had Peter GENTRY’S help with respect to
Jerome’s modus operandi. 02/03/2015
11
text that posed a problem for Origen when it came to “filling in” the OG with lines
and passages from Theodotion. Origen’s challenge also lay in the nature of the OG
as a translation: G takes such license with the task that sometimes the Greek bears
little resemblence to the source text. At times G collapses two lines of the Hebrew
into one, and in that case which line is to be adjudged as missing? However,
because Origen was bringing the OG to the same length as the Hebrew text in his
possession he was relieved of some larger issues embedded in the translation.
Thus, when G constructs a line using only a word or two of the source text, that is
not a concern, or when G replaces a line with a quotation drawn from elsewhere
in OG Job or from elsewhere in the LXX corpus, that is not a concern, because the
resulting text is about the same length as the source text. The same is true where a
line is entirely a creation of G: there is a line of source text, there is a line in the
translation. That they are completely different in meaning is not Origen’s concern
nor, really, could it be, and maintain the methodology applied across the LXX
generally.
Sometimes G did not translate the source text or replace it and the complexity of
synchronizing the OG, the Hebrew source text, and Theodotion has thwarted
Origen’s intentions. Thus neither in the OG nor in the conflated text —the so-
called “ecclesiastical text”—is there any sort of equivalent for 10.4a; 18.9a, 18b;
20.2b; 23.14; 24.1b; 28.26ab–b; 29.10a; 30.26b; 33.30; 36.17 (apart from Nyd);
37.21c; 40.25b; 41.24a. Conversely Origen has sometimes left us with double
translations of the source text, the one OG, the other Theodotion: (Hebrew) 10.4b
(OG 4a // Theod 4b); 18.9b (9a // 9b); 20.4a (2b // 4a); 23.15 (15ab // 15cd);
28.27a (26ab // 27a); 29.11a (10a // 11a); 30.3 (OG and Theod fragmentarily);
30.22a (OG 22a [in fact = source text 22ab] // 22b); 30.27b (26b // 27b); 33.28 (30
// 28); 36.6b–7a (36.15b, 17 [kri/ma = Nyd] // 36.6b–7a); 36.33–37.1 (28cdef //
33–37.1); 37.12c (OG 12da // 12c); 37.21b (21c // 21b); 40.26a (25b // 26a);
41.24b (24a // 24b); 42.8ea (8fa // 8e). (This list of double translations
incorporates GENTRY, 517–30.) These problems of “non-translation” and double
translation in the conflated edition stem from the very nature of the OG translation,
12
which does not lend itself to a mechanically oriented endeavour such as Origen’s.
One notes that Origen did a much better job of correlating Theod to the source
text than he did of correlating the OG and the source text.
An example of the challenge posed by the OG for Origen: 34.23
A typical example of Origen’s attempt to synchronize the OG with the Hebrew,
using Theodotion, is not difficult to find. For an example, let us consider 34.23.
What follows is the MT, OG, NETS and NRSV:
+p@f#;m@ib@a l)'-l)e K7lohjla || [dwO( My#&iyF #y)i-l(a )Ol yk@]i 23
23 o( ga_r ku&rioj pa&ntaj e0fora~|
23 For the Lord observes all people—
NRSV [For he has not appointed a time for anyone]
to go before God in judgment.
The OG of verse 23 is a line shorter than the Hebrew, two lines. Origen marked
23a as lacking a translation in the OG, but he might as well have so marked 23b
instead, for the OG is a translation of neither line. Yet we may note that ga/r
represents yk (23a); pa/ntaj likely represents #y) “anyone” (23a); the prefix
e0pi/- “upon” of e)fora&w represents the prep. l( (23a); and ku/rioj renders l)'
“God” (23b). G uses these elements, perhaps triggered by yki@—which also begins
verse 21—to construct a line parallel to 21a (au)to_j ga_r o(rath&j e0stin e1rgwn
a)nqrw&pwn ... “For he is an eyewitness of human deeds ...”) so that OG 23 now
serves not simply as a re-statement of verse 21 but also as an introduction for the
liturgical “he who ...,” with its articulated ptcps., in verses 24–25. G’s treatment
of verse 23 makes emphatic Elious’ claim that the Lord sees all humans and their
deeds by repeating v.21. (For the larger discussion of v.23, see the provisional
commentary at Academia.edu under “Comm Iob 34 version 4,” where the
13
complete chapter provides a sample of the SBLCS on Job. Chapter 34 happens to
be the most heavily edited chapter of G’s translation of Job.)
As has often been noted, the Hexapla led to the corruption of virtually the entire
textual tradition of OG Job. The Hexapla itself was too massive to be copied, but
Origen’s work in the 5th column was copied and recopied and the conflated text
became the norm for comparison. Scribes soon did not copy the text-critical signs
accurately, confused them, or neglected them altogether. What difference did it
make to the text to preserve them? The conflated text prospered; only the Sahidic
sub-version preserves the original, prehexaplaric, short text—and even the
Sahidic is not entirely free of hexaplaric influence (e.g., ei0j diplasiasmo/n,
printed as text by ZIEGLER at 42.10c, is likely a hexaplaric addition).
Lucian’s revision of the hexaplaric text of Iob
A few years before Origen’s death (ca. 253), Lucian was born in Syria (ca. 250).
He studied in Edessa and Caesarea and went on to found an exegetical school in
Antioch. (See FERNÁNDEZ MARCOS, 223–38). With his name is connected a
revision of the LXX corpus that, like Origen’s work, affected much of the textual
tradition of the LXX, though it was of an entirely different character. The basis for
Lucian’s work is the “best” text-form of the day, that is, the hexplaric text of
Origen. That is clear from an examination of ZIEGLER’S apparatus, where
Lucian’s revision, easily recognizable, carries right through the hexaplaric
additions that Origen made to the OG.
Lucian makes numerous small additions to the text, sometimes deriving from
parallel passages; some longer additions come from Theodotion. More typically,
Lucian makes many stylistic and grammatical changes to the Greek text. For
example, he replaces the ubiquitous de/ with kai/. Often the changes are entirely
gratuitous, as in the cases of the replacement of a word with a synonym and the
changes of word order. In keeping with the sentiments of his time, Hellenistic
14
forms may be replaced by Attic, classical forms. (See COX, “Lucian,” 429–39;
FERNÁNDEZ MARCOS’ summary, 230.) If Origen’s conflated text of Job was
popular, Lucian’s was even moreso in some regions: ca. 400 his text-type was
dominant from Constantinople to Antioch. (See ZIEGLER, 117–25.) Because
Lucian’s revision was based on Origen’s work, the hexaplaric text-type likely
achieved greater dominance than it otherwise would have. The most desirable
Greek text of Job to possess came to be the text connected with Lucian’s name. It
was the last great text-type in the development of the text of OG Job. From that
time until modern times, the texts of Job in use —prehexaplaric, hexaplaric,
Lucianic—obtained change only with corruptions that occur in the normal course
of copying.
An example of the Lucian’s revision of the hexaplaric text of Iob
Chapter 34, verses 25–26, offers a typical example of Lucian’s revision of the
hexaplaric text of Job. Lucian’s revision is represented by the main L group.
OG
25 o9 gnwri/zwn au)tw~n e!rga.
26 e!sebesen de\ a)sebei=j,
o9ratoi\ de\ e0nanti/on au0tou=,
Lucian
25 gnwri/zwn au)tw~n e!rga
kai\ stre/yei nu/kta, kai\ tapeinwqh/sontai [Zi –setai]. !
26 e!sebesen de\ a)sebei=j,
kai oratoi egenonto e0nanti/on autwn exqrwn
NETS
25 he discloses their workings.
15
[ and he will turn night about, and they will be brought low !]
26 Now, he extinguished the impious—
but visible before him,
Lucian
25 revealing their deeds;
and he will turn night about, and they will be brought low.
26 Now, he extinguished the impious—
and they became visible before their enemies,
Lucian makes only one small change to verse 25, removing the article o9 before
the ptcp. gnwri/zwn. The hexaplaric addition (25b) remains intact. The word
exqrwn “enemies” appears to have been already in the text that Lucian worked
on, because it is attested in O witnesses (O-339 706 795). The word exqrwn was
added at some time to the puzzling 26b to clarify how the Lord “extinguished” the
impious—it was through their enemies. Lucian further clarifed 26b by adding the
finite verb egenonto and the possessive pronoun autwn. He also, as often,
changed de/ to kai. These changes help to clarify the meaning of the text and
contribute to its further interpretation.
From Lucian to ZIEGLER
The major textual developments in the transmission of OG Job had all taken place
by the time the great uncials appeared in the 4th and 5th centuries: Vaticanus (B)
and its sister witness Sinaiticus (S) in the 4th, and Alexandrinus (A) in the 5th. In
the case of Job these three mss overshadow the papyri in importance because the
latter are so fragmentary, because B-S attests a largely prehexaplaric text, and
because A is a primary witness to the Lucianic recension. From that time on the
transmission of the text consisted of the copying and re-copying of what already
16
existed, sometimes with some mixing of textual traditions and always with more
evidence of a scribe’s inevitable humanity—mistakes.
That this sketch is largely accurate is provided by the evidence of the Armenian
sub-version, which dates to ca. 405. The collation of Armenian Job reveals that it
belongs to the main Lucianic group and that it attests readings shared uniquely
with the 11th century minuscule ms 637 (see Armenian Job, 398). That is to say,
the readings shared with the 5th century witness demonstrate that such “medieval”
variants were already in place at the beginning of the 5th century, the time of the
great uncials.
From the 5th century to the age of printing (15th century) we can say that “nothing
happened” with respect to the text of OG Job. Fortunately for OG Job, printed
editions starting with the Sixtena polyglot (1587; WÜRTHWEIN, 76: “essentially”
B) reproduced the text of Vaticanus, which we can now regard as the single most
important witness to its earliest text. The Sixtena’s predecessors, the Aldine
(1518) and the Complutensian (1519) polyglots, both printed the text of late
minuscules. (See ZIEGLER, 54–58). In the period from the Sixtena to ZIEGLER,
editions of OG Job were based on Vaticanus: HOLMES and PARSONS’ diplomatic
edition, Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus (1798–1827; based
on the Sixtena); TISCHENDORF’S Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes
(1850; 7th ed., E. NESTLE [ed.], 1887; based on the Sixtena; available online);
SWETE’S The Old Testament in Greek (1887–91; online); and RAHLFS’
provisional edition (1935). SWETE and RAHLFS collate uncial mss against B, to
which RAHLFS adds the O group. TISCHENDORF too has an apparatus but does not
identify the provenance of the variant readings. Finally, all editions through
RAHLFS publish the ecclesiastical text and only with RAHLFS are the lines
belonging to Theodotion marked with an asterisk. Until RAHLFS it’s difficult to
know what’s what. Still, even RAHLFS does not preserve the obeli in the text; nor
does ZIEGLER.
17
The publication of ZIEGLER’S critically established eclectic text (1982) made it
possible for the first time to gain an appreciation of the textual transmission of OG
Job, almost at a glance, by looking at the text and apparatus. That is not to say the
edition is free of problems. (See PIETERSMA.) The foremost of these involves the
set-up of the text. While printing the ecclesiastical text may possibly be defensible
and, if so, the marking of lines and passages drawn from Theodotion essential,
ZIEGLER chose to punctuate the conflated text as one text. That is not acceptable
and NETS does not follow ZIEGLER in this respect. Nevertheless, his edition makes
available to the scholar and student alike all the resources necessary for access to
the original text of OG Job and to its textual transmission through the moments of
its most dramatic development.
