Save

Statistics and Kaige Research

In: Textus
Author:
Timothy A. Lee University of Cambridge Cambridge UK

Search for other papers by Timothy A. Lee in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0229-3326
Open Access

Abstract

This article provides a new statistical methodology to identify kaige revision within the Septuagint. The method establishes the most accurate criteria for identifying this revision through searching the undisputed kaige texts. These criteria include existing suggestions and several new ones. The result leads to a more secure grasp of kaige revision and the ability to confidently detect kaige readings in manuscripts and quotations.

1 Introduction1

It is a curiosity of kaige research that despite years of hard labour the identification of kaige revision in the Septuagint still lacks a rigorous methodology. Scholars cannot confidently distinguish between those features that actually reflect kaige revision and those that are misleading traits. Whereas Barthélemy initially compiled a modest list of criteria that could be used to identify kaige revision, the number of suggested features has advanced out of control. This article provides objective data for identifying criteria of kaige revision and thus reduces dependence on subjective judgements. This is achieved through calculating with statistical precision the accuracy of each previously suggested criterion. Furthermore, this method is applied to discern several new criteria.

Kaige is a textual layer in which the Old Greek Septuagint was revised to accurately match the Proto-Masoretic Text (Proto-MT) at a lexeme level.2 It appears to have originated in the first century BCE and its method evolved into the stronger isomorphic technique adopted by Aquila.3 The revision is witnessed among the Dead Sea Scrolls (8ḤevXIIgr) and parts of the received Septuagint such as 2 Kingdoms 10–3 Kingdoms 2:12 (βγ); 3 Kingdoms 22–4 Kingdoms (γδ).4 It moves away from the occasionally free translations in the Old Greek texts towards a stronger isomorphic approach that matches the Hebrew word order and standardises translation equivalents.5 The most basic isomorphic feature is the translation of καί γε to represent the Hebrew ‮וְגַם‬‎ or ‮גַּם‬‎ ‘(and) indeed.’ Throughout the relevant revised texts, this equivalent is so consistent that it supplies the name for the whole revision itself: kaige.6

Attempts to identify kaige revision began with several suggestions in Dominique Barthélemy’s study on the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr), though hints of this distinctive revision were already present in Thackeray.7 Beyond the occurrence of καί γε, Barthélemy identified eight further revision characteristics that he associated with the kaige phenomenon.8 For instance, the collective sense of ‮אִישׁ‬‎ is lost in kaige revision. The translation of ‮אִישׁ‬‎ varies in the Old Greek Septuagint; it is often translated with ἀνήρ, or ἄνθρωπος, but when it is used in its distributive sense, it is appropriately translated ἕκαστος. Kaige revision, however, consistently standardises this translation to ἀνήρ (e.g., Jonah 3:8, Mic 4:4). Advancing this research, Greenspoon gathered ninety-six potential kaige translation equivalents from all the relevant studies up to his day.9

The point of departure for this present study is Tim McLay’s article in Textus 19.10 McLay investigated these ninety-six suggested marks of kaige revision listed by Greenspoon. From this list, McLay enumerated the opinions of several scholars on the validity of each potential kaige feature. McLay’s tabular analysis underlined the mixed opinions on what constitutes a true kaige feature. Some are generally accepted, while others are rejected. McLay added a couple of markings to enhance the data and caution against certain opinions.

A quarter of a century since McLay’s study, research into the field has slowed down. Most focus has instead been on the style of kaige revision and has resulted in the recognition that the revisers were not mere automata, but showed some signs of sensitivity to the Greek text.11 Nonetheless, the extraction of translation equivalent is still seen as an important task of kaige research.12 Sixteen new suggested features have been catalogued by Tekoniemi and Tucker, thus bringing the number of potential features up to 112.13 Overall, however, the suggested criteria marking kaige revision have generally remained unchanged in decades.14 This is unexpected, given McLay’s observation that many of these criteria are not accurate, or should be excluded.

Therefore, the purpose of this article is to analyse statistically the accuracy and usefulness of all the features associated with kaige revision. I assess those suggested features linked to kaige revision in previous scholarship, and add several of my own. McLay concludes his article by writing: “Only a more refined methodology will provide the means to determine which texts, if any, may be so closely related as to justify the conclusion that they originate from the same author or the same school of translators.”15

This article presents just this refined methodology that is based on my own statistical analysis of the entire Septuagint and Greek Minor Prophets Scroll (8ḤevXIIgr). The results are important and provide a firm foundation for future research.

2 A New Statistical Methodology

I turn now to supplant McLay’s study with a new methodology that can be used to confidently identify kaige revision. My method calculates the statistical accuracy of each suggested feature and indicates whether or not it predicts a kaige text. These results are displayed in Table 2. Features unique, or most common, to kaige texts will score the highest. If, however, a feature is inconsistently found in kaige texts, or is common in Old Greek texts then it will score lower. This accuracy is recorded in a new column alongside the number of instances where this criterion can be tested in the Bible. The accuracy figure is a weighted average of positive and negative matches: positive matches being where the criterion is found in a text, while negatives are mismatches where the criterion is not met. For a kaige feature, one would expect a high number of matches in kaige texts, and low number of mismatches in nonkaige texts, and vice versa. Two further columns show the likelihood that a feature is found in kaige (KR) and OG texts.

In order to obtain the accuracy of each criterion, I turned to the digital humanities and adopted a corpus statistical approach in a computer-assisted study. It required a complete analysis of every word in the entire Greek and Hebrew Bibles. To produce this analysis, I used the CATSS parallel database16 and my own alignment of the extant Greek Minor Prophets Scroll with BHS.17 Then I enhanced the CATSS data in places where its matching was suboptimal. This sometimes happened where parallel matches were at the phrase level, not individual words; that is, many-to-many mappings. Therefore, for each parallel, I identified the key word for consideration, which involved ignoring articles, pronouns, and occasionally other parts of speech. Where a suggested criterion involves sequential words, I wrote several programs to identify matches.18 I have not investigated criteria 7 and 95 since the manual identification required for these is too vast for now, although I hope to include these results in the future. Given that CATSS depends upon the text of Rahlfs’s edition, this will raise concerns with some readers. However, the large corpus means the differences between Rahlfs and the Göttingen Septuagint are negligible. On the rare occasions that an accurate criterion retains a negative result, I sometimes found an explanation in the Göttingen text or its apparatus.19

To derive an accuracy figure, I first marked known kaige or kaige-related text (Ruth; Kingdoms βγ, γδ; Ecclesiastes; Canticles; 8ḤevXIIgr; Theodotion-Job) against other nonkaige texts. I have not marked Theodotion-Daniel as kaige when making statistical calculations. This is in light of differences between this text and kaige texts,20 but future research should include Theodotion readings in a separate column. The text from Theodotion-Job is far smaller, but included due to several shared features, some of which will be commented on below. Ecclesiastes displays a later development of kaige revision, but is included given the shared features. The Judges text from Codex Vaticanus (Judges B) could also be included as a kaige text, for it generally reflects a kaige revision compared to the text found in Codex Alexandrinus (Judges A). However, due to contamination in the textual tradition, I have left it out as a certain kaige text.21 Then for each criterion I count the number of positive matches (i.e., where a Hebrew word is translated by a Greek word or words) in kaige texts and negative matches (i.e., where the Hebrew word is not translated as expected for kaige) in nonkaige texts. This count is compared against the mismatches to produce a figure. Table 1 shows the results for the first criterion: ‮וְגַם/גַּם‬‎ translated by καί γε.

Table 1

Example of statistical analysis with extra data

#

Rule

Match

Mismatch

Results

Hebrew

Greek

Kaige

OG

Kaige

OG

Accuracy

Count

KR

OG

1

וְגַם / גַּם‬‎

καί γε

136

15

23

510

94 %

685

86 %

3 %

This means that in kaige texts, ‮וְגַם/גַּם‬‎ (criterion 1) was translated as καί γε 136 times, but only 15 times in Old Greek (OG) texts. Then ‮וְגַם/גַּם‬‎ was not translated by καί γε 510 times in Old Greek (OG) texts, but also 23 times in kaige texts it was translated surprisingly in another manner. Thus, of the total 685 occurrences of the Hebrew ‮וְגַם/גַּם‬‎, 94 percent followed the expected results. That is, it correctly predicts a kaige text 646 times (136 + 510), and fails only 38 times (15 + 23).

2

The final new columns (KR and OG) refer to the likelihood that a feature is found in a kaige or Old Greek passage respectively. These figures complement the percentage supplied in the overall ‘accuracy’ column through supplying a different angle on the data. These columns are particularly useful for features that tend to occur in kaige revision, even if they are also found in OG texts. In this example, the translation of ‮וְגַם/גַּם‬‎ with καί γε occurs 86 percent of the time in kaige texts (136/(136 + 23) = 86 %). In the OG, however, it is only found 3 percent of the time (15/(15 + 510) = 3 %).22 The value of this data is demonstrable when looking at criterion 3. Here it indicates ἀνήρ translates ‮אִישׁ‬‎ 89 percent of the time in kaige texts and also in 50 percent of OG texts. Kaige texts generally standardise other translations of ‮אִישׁ‬‎ such as ἄνθρωπος and ἕκαστος, but sometimes retains ἄνθρωπος, especially in the set phrase ἄνθρωπος τοῦ θεοῦ.23 The fact ἀνήρ is so common in the OG means its appearance cannot alone be considered a revision. It is, however, 80 percent more likely to be found in kaige revision than in OG texts. Therefore, this criterion could be used as evidence of revision with sensitivity to further evidence.

Table 2 retains McLay’s annotations on the opinions of other scholars regarding the validity of the criteria. Where McLay evaluated a study in a different way to what an author concluded, he marked that author’s name with #. Where studies were based on fewer than three examples, so less significant, McLay marked an asterisk indicating hesitation to include the opinion. The studies he includes, with their author’s abbreviated name in parentheses, are as follows:

  • (S) James Donald Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968)

  • (O) Kevin G. O’Connell, 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 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972)

  • (B) Walter Ray Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges: Recensional Developments (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980)

  • (Gr) Leonard J. Greenspoon, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983)

  • (Gn) Peter John Gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995)

  • (M) Tim McLay, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996)

For ease of reference, I have marked the best criteria in dark grey. These score higher than 70 percent accuracy (column 4) and are found in kaige texts with a significantly higher percentage than in Old Greek texts.24 Other promising criteria are marked in light grey. I retain the numbering of Greenspoon’s criteria, but reorder their position chronologically in the new table. Therefore, the criteria are grouped by published date and not the order Greenspoon chose to introduce them into his study on Joshua.25 I have also pointed the Hebrew words and enumerated the Greek or Hebrew words under specific roots when necessary.

Table 2

Statistical analysis of suggested kaige criteria

Rule

New analysis

Previous scholarship

#

Hebrew

Greek

Acc26

Fre.27

KR

OG

Agree

Disagree

Mixed

N/A

Barthélemy’s primary suggestions

1

וְגַם / גַּם‬‎

καί γε

94 %

685

86 %

3 %

B,Gn

O,Gr

M*

3

אִישׁ‬‎

ἀνήρ

58 %

2224

89 %

50 %

B,Gn

Gr

O#

M

4

מֵעַל28‬‎

ἐπάνωθεν (ἀπάνωθεν) + gen.

87 %

169

44 %

2 %

O*,B#,Gr,M*

Gn

5

נָצַב / יָצַב‬‎

στηλόω

89 %

119

35 %

2 %

B,Gr,Gn*

O,M

6

שׁוֹפָר / חֲצֹצְרָה‬‎

σάλπιγξ / κερατίνη

29 %

101

100 %

91 %

B

Gr#

O,Gn,M

7

Elimination of historical present

8

אַ֫יִן‬‎

οὑκ ἔστιν in a series of aorist verbs

64 %

755

66 %

36 %

Gr,Gn,M

B

O

9

אָֽנֹכִ֫י‬‎

ἐγώ εἶμι

83 %

363

55 %

13 %

O,Gn*

Gr

B#

M

10

לְקִרְאָה‬‎

εἰς συνάντησιν / εἰς ἀπαντην

51 %

111

78 %

63 %

B

O,Gr,G,M

Barthélemy’s secondary criteria

11

גְּדוּד‬‎

μονόζωνος

100 %

33

100 %

0 %

Gn*

O,B,Gr,M

12

יהוה צְבָא֖וֹת‬‎

κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων

89 %

214

100 %

12 %

O*#,B,Gr,Gn,M

13

אֵל‬‎

ἰσχυρός

98 %

226

85 %

1 %

Gn

Gr,M

B,O

14

נֶ֫גֶד‬‎

forms of ἔναντι

75 %

144

75 %

25 %

Gr*

Gn

B#,M

O

15

לְפְּנֵ֥י‬‎

ἐνώπιον

80 %

612

47 %

17 %

O*,Gr

B#,Gn,M

16

עַל זֹאת / עַל כֵּן‬‎

διὰ τοῦτο

24 %

147

86 %

79 %

B*

Gn*

O,Gr,M

17

לְעֹלָם‬‎

εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

15 %

175

69 %

90 %

Gr*,M*

O,B,Gn

18

הוֹי‬‎

οὐαί

43 %

51

100 %

62 %

O,B,M,Gr,Gn

19

אָסַף‬‎

συνάγω

47 %

216

76 %

60 %

Gn*,M*

Gr

B

O

20

כֹּ֫מֶר‬‎

χωμαρείμ

33 %

3

0 %

0 %

O,B,Gr,Gn,M

21

עֲרָפֶל / אֲפֵלָה‬‎

σκοτία / γνόφος

61 %

23

100 %

45 %

O,B,Gr,Gn*,M

22

חוּץ‬‎

ἔξοδος

87 %

163

35 %

5 %

Gr*,Gn*

O,B,M

23

הֲדָרָה / הָדָר‬‎

εὐπρέπεια

94 %

34

100 %

6 %

Gn,M

O,B,Gr

24

מָהַר‬‎

ταχύνω

84 %

61

67 %

12 %

B#,Gr

O,Gn,M

Smith’s criterion

25

הוֹרָה‬‎

φωτίζω

93 %

60

57 %

2 %

B*,Gn*

O,Gr,M

Shenkel’s criteria

26

בְּעֵינֵי‬‎

ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς

86 %

138

68 %

5 %

Sh,B

Gr

O,Gn,M

28

זָבַח‬‎

θυσιάζω

35 %

465

96 %

72 %

Sh

O,B*

Gr*,Gn,M

29

רָדַף‬‎

διώκω

89 %

130

83 %

9 %

Sh,B,Gr

O,Gn,M

30

שַׂר־ (הַ)צְבָאוֹת‬‎

ἄρχων (τῆς) δυνάμεως

67 %

145

69 %

34 %

Sh

Gr*,M*

O,Gn,B*

31

חכם29‬‎

σοφ-30

40 %

298

98 %

76 %

Sh,O*,Gn,M

B*#,Gr

32

חָשָׁה / חָרֵשׁ‬‎

κωφεύω / σιωπάω

76 %

63

79 %

23 %

Sh,Gn

B,Gr*

O,B,M

33

עָוֹן‬‎

ἀνομία

75 %

229

64 %

24 %

Sh

Gr*,M

O,B,Gn

34

הָרָה‬‎

ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχω or λαμβάνω

58 %

12

100 %

56 %

Sh

B

O,Gr,Gn,M

35

לֹא אָבָה‬‎

()θέλω

54 %

57

73 %

52 %

Sh

B

O,Gr*,Gn,M

Grindel’s criterion

36

נֵ֫צַח‬‎

νῖκος

92 %

37

100 %

9 %

Gn*

O,B,Gr,M

O’Connell’s criteria

37

אָדֹם‭(pu. part.)31‬‬‎

πεπυρ(ρ)ωμένος

100 %

8

100 %

0 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

38

מִשְׁכָּן/ אֹ֫הֶל‬‎

σκέπη / σκηνή

26 %

446

59 %

76 %

O

Gr,Gn,M*

B

39

אוּרִים‬‎

φωτισμοί

100 %

6

0 %

0 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

40

אַלְיָה‬‎

κέρκιον

100 %

4

0 %

0 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

41

אִלֵּם‬‎

μογιλαλόν

71 %

7

0 %

17 %

O*

M

B,Gr,G

42

אִשֶּׁה‬‎

πυρ(ρ)όν

98 %

59

0 %

2 %

O*

B,Gr*#,Gn,M

43

בֵּין‬‎

ἀνὰ μέσον

27 %

303

95 %

84 %

O,Gn*

Gr

B,M

44

בְּקֶ֣רֶב‬‎

ἐν μέσῳ

75 %

91

100 %

27 %

O,B*

Gr#

Gn,M

46

בְּשָׂמִים‬‎

ἀρώματα

64 %

28

86 %

43 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

47

בָּתִּים‬‎

θήκαι

81 %

48

0 %

7 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

48

וָוִים‬‎

κόσμοι

100 %

10

0 %

0 %

O

B,Gr,Gn,M

49

חִזֵּק‭(pi.)‬‬‎

ἐνισχύω

73 %

71

31 %

17 %

O*,B,M*

Gr*

Gn

50

חֶ֫רֶב‬‎

ῥομφαία

55 %

414

76 %

48 %

O*,B,M*

Gr

Gn

51

חֵ֫שֶׁב‬‎

μηχανώματος, μηχανήματος

71 %

7

0 %

29 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

52

חֹ֫שֶׁן‬‎

λόγιον

70 %

27

0 %

30 %

O

B,Gr,Gn,M

53

חֹתֵן / חָתָן‬‎

γαμβρός / νυμφίος

42 %

48

100 %

68 %

O*,B

Gr,Gn,M

54

יְלָדִים‬‎

παιδάρια, παιδία

45 %

92

77 %

66 %

O*

M

B,Gr,Gn

55

יָרָה‬‎

τοξεύομαι

90 %

80

30 %

1 %

O*

Gr*

B,Gn,M

56

יֹתֶ֫רֶת‬‎

περιττόν

100 %

11

0 %

0 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

57

כִּפֻּרִים‬‎

ἐξιλασμός

57 %

7

0 %

43 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

58

מְעִיל‬‎

ἐπενδύτης, ἐπιδύτης

100 %

24

100 %

0 %

O*,Gn*

B,Gr,M

59

מִשְׁבְּצ(וֹ)ת‬‎

συνεσφιγμένοι, συνεσφραγισμένοι

88 %

8

0 %

13 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

60

נִיחֹחַ‬‎

εὐαρέστησις

98 %

44

0 %

2 %

O*

M*

B,Gr,Gn

61

עבד32‬‎

δουλ-33

64 %

1174

64 %

36 %

O,Gr,Gn

B#

M

62

עֲבֹת / עֲבֹתֹת‬‎

ἀλυσιδωτά or ἀλύσεις

71 %

28

0 %

17 %

O

B,Gr,Gn,M

63

עָרַף‭(vb.)‬‬‎

νωτοκοπέω

100 %

4

0 %

0 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

64

פָּרַע‬‎

διασκεδάζω, διασώζω

82 %

11

0 %

18 %

O

B,Gr,Gn,M

65

קְרָסִים‬‎

περόναι

100 %

6

0 %

0 %

O

B,Gr,Gn,M

66

קֶ֫רֶשׁ‬‎

σανίς

93 %

28

0 %

7 %

O

B,Gr,Gn,M

67

שֹׁ֫הַם‬‎

ὄνυξ

85 %

13

100 %

17 %

O,Gn*

B,Gr,M

68

שׁוּלִים‬‎

πρός ποδῶν

100 %

9

100 %

0 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

69

שִׁלֵּם‭(pi.)‬‬‎

ἀποκτιννύω

85 %

82

0 %

0 %

O

Gn

B,Gr,M

70

שָׁרַץ‬‎

ἐξέρπω

92 %

13

0 %

8 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

71

שַֽׁרְשֹׁ֥ת / שַׁרְשְׁרֹת‬‎

χαλαστά

100 %

10

0 %

0 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

72

תָּמִים‬‎

τελειότητες

93 %

92

33 %

2 %

O*

Gn*

B,Gr,M

73

תְּרוּמָה‬‎

ἀπαρχή

44 %

72

0 %

56 %

O*

B,Gr,Gn,M

Tov’s criterion

94

Transliteration of unknown words

17 %

833

22 %

12 %

B,Gr,Gn,M

Bodine’s criteria

74

יַעַן אֲשֶׁר‬‎

ἀνθὦν ὅσα

93 %

30

75 %

4 %

Gr*

O,B*,Gn,M

75

‮‭Various‬‬‎

ἡνίκα

13 %

46

100 %

100 %

B

Gn,Gr,M

76

אָחַז‬‎

κρατέω

79 %

66

47 %

10 %

B

Gr*

Gn

O,M

77

גָּלָה‬‎

ἀποικίζω

86 %

170

52 %

8 %

B*

O,Gr,Gn,M

78

טוֹב‬‎

ἀγαθός

59 %

481

91 %

49 %

B

Gr

Gn*,M*

O

79

ישר‬‎

εὐθύς

60 %

140

80 %

43 %

M*

Gr*

B#

O,Gn

80

לִין‬‎

αὐλίζω

77 %

78

95 %

30 %

B,Gn*

Gr

O,M

81

נָצַל‬‎

ῥύομαι

61 %

215

50 %

37 %

Gr,M

B#

O,Gn

82

שׁוּב‭(q.)‬‬‎

ἐπιστρέφω

65 %

689

68 %

35 %

O*

B#,Gr#,Gn*,M

83

אוֹר‬‎

διαφαύσκω

86 %

155

6 %

3 %

B*

O*,M*

Gr,Gn

84

הֵבִיא‬‎

φέρω, εἰσφέρω

63 %

573

44 %

35 %

B

Gr,Gn*,M

O

85

זָעַק / צָעַק‬‎

βοάω

61 %

132

56 %

37 %

M*

Gn*

B#

O,Gr*

86

חָרָה אַף‬‎

ὀργίζομαι θυμῷ

62 %

55

54 %

36 %

B

Gn*

Gr*

O,M

87

נִלְחַם‬‎

παρατάσσομαι

80 %

192

49 %

8 %

B

Gr,M*

O,Gn

88

מִלְחָמָה‬‎

παράταξις

84 %

316

26 %

1 %

B

Gr,M

O,Gn

89

נָתַץ‬‎

καθαιρέω

65 %

46

63 %

33 %

B

O,Gr,Gn,M

90

סֶ֫רֶן‬‎

ἄρχων

93 %

29

88 %

5 %

B

Gr*

O,Gn,M

91

פָּגַע‬‎

συναντάω / ἀπαντάω

74 %

46

43 %

21 %

B,Gn*

Gr#

O,M

92

קָצִין‬‎

ἀρχηγός

87 %

15

100 %

15 %

B*

M*

O,Gr*#,Gn

93

רָעָה‬‎

πονηρία

83 %

304

26 %

6 %

O*,B

Gn,M

Gr

Greenspoon’s criteria

2

רַק‬‎

πλήν

51 %

97

88 %

58 %

Gr

O,BGn,M

27

פֶּה‬‎

στόμα

35 %

465

96 %

72 %

O,B,M,Gr,Gn

45

בְּתוֹךְ‬‎

ἐν μέσῳ

56 %

274

75 %

45 %

Gn*

Gr#

O,B,M

95

אִישׁ (גָּדוֹל)‬‎

ἀδρός

96

אֲבָל‬‎

καί μάλα

92 %

13

100 %

10 %

M*

O,B,Gr,Gn

Tekoniemi and Tucker’s criteria

97

נָחַם‭(ni.)‬‬‎

παρακαλέω

81 %

53

86 %

20 %

98

הָלַךְ‭(ipt.)‬‬‎

δεῦρο, δεῦτε

70 %

258

60 %

27 %

99

גִּלּוּל‬‎

εἴδωλον

73 %

44

100 %

30 %

100

שִׁקּוּץ‬‎

προσόχθισμα

96 %

27

75 %

0 %

101

אוֹב‬‎

θελητής

100 %

13

100 %

0 %

102

מָאַס‬‎

ἀπωθέω

77 %

70

71 %

22 %

103

פֶּ֫תַח‬‎

θύρα

43 %

151

84 %

63 %

104

כָּלַם‬‎

ἀτιμάζω, αἰσχύνω

94 %

34

67 %

3 %

105

דָּרַשׁ‬‎

ἐπιζητέω

93 %

160

38 %

1 %

106

צוּר‬‎

πολιορκέω

69 %

32

45 %

19 %

107

לָכֵן‬‎

οὐ οὕτως

92 %

190

50 %

5 %

108

כִּי אִם‬‎

ὅτι ἀλλά ἤ

79 %

146

26 %

5 %

109

חֻקָּה‬‎

δικαίωμα

82 %

96

86 %

18 %

110

צָבָא‬‎

δύναμις

51 %

179

91 %

55 %

111

מִנְחָה‬‎

μαναα

89 %

210

29 %

6 %

112

עָבַד‬‎

λατρεύω

64 %

279

26 %

29 %

This analysis confirms that the suggested criteria are generally helpful in identifying kaige texts. Forty-two criteria score higher than 70 percent overall accuracy, and occur with a significantly higher proportion in kaige texts, highlighted here in dark grey. They should be consulted when discussing kaige revision. A further twenty-eight criteria score higher than 70 percent accuracy, but are not established significantly in kaige texts to provide certainty, and are highlighted here in light grey. However, some criteria are unhelpful. Rare criteria could present a dangerous sense of overconfidence.

I am especially hesitant about O’Connell’s criteria, since many of these are rare words found only in accounts of the tabernacle construction from Theodotion readings in Exodus.34 For example, criteria 39, 48, 51, 52, 57, 59, 60, 65, and 70 are only found in Theodotion (e.g., Exod 28:4, 30; Exod 38:28).35 Many of these are coloured in light grey reflecting their omission outside of Theodotion-Exodus; see, for example, criterion 48. Likewise, criterion 52 appears to be the same standardising tendency detectable in the Minor Prophets scrolls, and not a specific mark of kaige revision.36 These Theodotion suggestions are distinct from kaige and do not occur frequently enough to be useful kaige identifiers.

Some of these criteria fail since they flatten a subtlety behind kaige revision.37 Criterion 61, for example, states the Hebrew root ‮עבד‬‎ is translated in kaige texts with forms from the Greek root δουλ-.38 The data, however, suggests this is true only 64 percent of the time. The translation of ‮עֶבֶד‬‎ with δοῦλος or παῖς is complex and explained in various ways.39 Kim argued that kaige revision consistently differentiates according to social status, with δοῦλος denoting a servant or slave, while παῖς is used for persons of higher rank.40 The varied translation of ‮עבד‬‎ to fit the context shows kaige revision was more subtle than sometimes realised and undertaken with attention to small details.

Criterion 94 deserves special comment. It shows a low accuracy because transliteration is found throughout most Old Greek texts; that is, it is not unique to kaige revision. Transliterations, however, are more common in kaige texts. While kaige texts only constitute 10 percent of the texts I analysed, they contain 17 percent of all transliterations. This means transliteration is almost twice as common in kaige texts as in Old Greek texts (0.22 % to 0.12 % across all words). Therefore, this criterion may be used with care. For example, when variants differ between a Greek translation or Hebrew transliteration, this criterion should be used. In other cases, mere transliteration without variant readings does not necessarily suggest kaige revision.

3 The Method Applied to New Features

This new statistical methodology does not need to stop after reviewing past criteria. Hence, I adopted and extended it to identify potential new features that were previously unidentified (Table 3). Through searching all the translation equivalents found in the kaige portions of Kingdoms I identified five hundred potential criteria. Among these suggestions I present the twelve that were most promising and several further possibilities that merit comment.41 The first features I now highlight are those that they appear to be the most accurate and occur with a sufficiently high frequency that they cannot be overlooked.

Table 3

Statistical analysis of new features

Rule

New analysis

#

Hebrew

Greek

Accuracy

Freq.

KR

OG

113

יָטַב‬‎

ἀγαθύνω

89 %

115

75 %

7 %

114

מֵעַ֖ל‬‎

ἐπάνωθεν or ἀπάνωθεν

92 %

353

43 %

0 %

115

סָגַר‬‎

ἀποκλείω

83 %

86

79 %

15 %

116

זֹאת‬‎

οὕτως

85 %

594

11 %

2 %

117

קָשַׁר‬‎

συστρέφω

92 %

39

91 %

7 %

118

חָרֵשׁ‬‎

κωφεύω

86 %

44

100 %

16 %

119

דָּרַשׁ‬‎

ἐπιζητέω

92 %

160

38 %

1 %

120

גָּדַל‬‎

ἁδρύνω

90 %

126

38 %

2 %

121

מִקְנֶה‬‎

κτῆσις

91 %

74

83 %

7 %

122

גַּן‬‎

κῆπος

86 %

37

92 %

17 %

123

רָמַס‬‎

συμπατέω

90 %

22

100 %

11 %

124

כִּי + ‭yiqṭol‬‬‎

ὅτι + subjunctive

83 %

757

36 %

1 %

3.1 113. ‮יָטַב‬‎ = ἀγαθύνω

This translation equivalent is found across kaige texts (Judges B, Kaige-Kingdoms, Ruth, Ecclesiastes). This is especially the case in the hiphil stem, which one would expect with the causative ending -υνω. It is similar to criterion 78 regarding adjectives (‮טוֹב‬‎ and ἀγαθός) but, unlike that criterion, this one for the verb form is far more accurate (89 % to 59 %). Crucially it is found as a mark of revision in the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll where καλοί (OG) becomes ἠγ]άθυναν (Mic 2:6); compare, Nah 3:8.

3.2 114. ‮מֵעַל‬‎ = ἐπάνωθεν or ἀπάνωθεν

Ἐπάνωθεν and ἀπάνωθεν are found as equivalents for ‮מֵעַל‬‎ (‮עַל‬‎ + mem preposition) throughout kaige texts (14 and 6 times respectively), but not elsewhere; for example, in Judg 3:21 where the nonkaige text of Codex Alexandrinus reads ἀπό, while the kaige revision in Codex Vaticanus updates this to ἐπάνωθεν. Compare Judg 16:20, which reads ἀπό in A, but ἀπάνωθεν in B. Likewise, in 3 Kingdoms 2:4 we find ἀπό in the Lucian Text (L), which probably reflects the Old Greek in this case,42 while the kaige revision reads ἐπάνωθεν (Judges B). It also appears in the Theodotion text of Job 31:2. These equivalents are not always used in kaige texts, but they only appear in them.43

3.3 115. ‮סָגַר‬‎ = ἀποκλείω

This criterion is generally accurate (83 %). Συνεκλεισε (L) in 2 Kingdoms 18:28 becomes ἀποκλείω in kaige revision. It is found in 1 Kingdoms, but not 3 Kingdoms, which suggests 1 Kingdoms is influenced by a semikaige revision while 3 Kingdoms is not.44

3.4 116. ‮כָּזֹאת‬‎ = οὕτως

זֹאת‬‎ with preposition ‮כְּ‬‎ occurs twenty-eight times in the MT and is variously translated in the Septuagint (οὕτως 12 times, οὗτος 7 times, τοιοῦτος 5 times, αὐτός twice, ὡσαύτως once). In the kaige portions of Kingdoms, it is translated with οὕτως eight times, with only one exception τοιοῦτο (2 Kingdoms 14:13). Judges is more confusing where οὕτως switches to the adjective οὗτος between Judges A and B. Its use is mixed in 2 Kingdoms, suggesting something more is going on.

3.5 117. ‮קָשַׁר‬‎ = συστρέφω

This is a very common translation equivalent in the kaige portions of Kingdoms. There is one exception in 4 Kingdoms 12:21. It is also found in 1 Kingdoms, a nonkaige text, although displaying some contamination from later revision.45

3.6 118. ‮חָרֵשׁ‬‎ = κωφεύω

This is found in Kingdoms and Theodotion-Job. The Lucian Text of Kingdoms generally reads σιωπάω, which supports the idea this has been revised in the kaige revision.

3.7 119. ‮דָּרַשׁ‬‎ = ἐπιζητέω

דָּרַשׁ‬‎ is translated several ways in kaige texts, but apart from Isa 62:12, ἐπιζητέω is a translation equivalent unique to kaige texts. The kaige revision of Judges updates from the verb ἀνετάζω in Judg 6:29 (Codex Alexandrinus).

3.8 120. ‮גָּדַל‬‎ = ἁδρύνω

This is found in kaige texts such as Judges B and Ruth. The kaige revision of Judges updates from the verb αὐξάνω in Judg 13:24 A.

3.9 121. ‮מִקְנֶה‬‎ = κτῆσις

This is found consistently in texts associated with kaige revision. For example, 4 Kingdoms 3:17, Theodotion-Job (Job 36:33), Ecclesiastes (2:7) and Judges B. Furthermore, the kaige revision of Judges updates from the verb κτῆνος in Judg 6:5 (Codex Alexandrinus).

3.10 122. ‮גַּן‬‎ = κῆπος

This translation equivalent is only found in the kaige portions of Kingdoms (5 times), Canticles (8 times), and once each in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel 36. It is translated as παράδεισος in Genesis and Joel. Pertinently, while ‮גַּן‬‎ is consistently translated παράδεισος in Ezekiel (28:13, 31:8 twice, 31:9), the exception is in 36:35 where it is κῆπος. The text of Ezek 36:24–38 is not from the Old Greek, but comes from Theodotion, or kaige revision.46 It is missing in the earliest extant text of Ezekiel (P967), and the text in the Septuagint as we have it was identified as a Theodotion revision by Thackeray.47 The occurrence in Jeremiah is likely from a late scribe since it is found in chapter 52. Based on distinct translation equivalents, Thackeray labelled this as portion γ stating it ‘is probably a later appendix to the Greek book.’48 The reason for the equivalent in Isaiah is less clear, but it is also found as a translation equivalent for the feminine ‮גַּנָּה‬‎. Whether Theodotion or kaige, the translation of ‮גַּן‬‎ with κῆπος appears revisional or late.

3.11 123. ‮רָמַס‬‎ = συμπατέω

Πατέω with a σύν compound is found exclusively in 4 Kingdoms and Theodotion-Daniel. The Lucian text of Kingdoms and the Old Greek text of Daniel use the more common compound κατά with πατέω (e.g., 4 Kingdoms 7:17, Dan 8:10). That translation equivalent is updated to συμπατέω in the revisions. So this seems another possible mark of kaige revision, though the low frequency of occurrences in this particular case cautions against being overly assertive.

3.12 124. ‮כִּי‬‎ + yiqṭol = ὅτι + subjunctive

This final new feature requires more detailed explanation, given its greater complexity. Therefore, I now lay out three full examples:

Mic 5:4–5
וְהָיָה זֶה שָׁלוֹם אַשּׁוּר כִּי־יָבוֹא בְאַרְצֵנוּ וְכִי יִדְרֹךְ בְּאַרְמְנֹתֵינוּ וַהֲקֵמֹנוּ עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה רֹעִים וּשְׁמֹנָה נְסִיכֵי אָדָֽם וְרָעוּ אֶת־אֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר בַּחֶרֶב וְאֶת־אֶרֶץ נִמְרֹד בִּפְתָחֶיהָ וְהִצִּיל מֵֽאַשּׁוּר כִּי־יָבוֹא בְאַרְצֵנוּ וְכִי יִדְרֹךְ בִּגְבוּלֵֽנוּ‬‎
καὶ ἔσται αὕτη εἰρήνη· ὅταν Ἀσσύριος ἐπέλθῃ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ὑμῶν καὶ ὅταν ἐπιβῇ ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν ὑμῶν, καὶ ἐπεγερθήσονται ἐπαὐτὸν ἑπτὰ ποιμένες καὶ ὀκτὼ δήγματα ἀνθρώπων·καὶ ποιμανοῦσιν τὸν Ασσουρ ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Νεβρωδ ἐν τῇ τάφρῳ αὐτῆς· καὶ ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ Ασσουρ, ὅταν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ὑμῶν καὶ ὅταν ἐπιβῇ ἐπὶ τὰ ὅρια ὑμῶν. (OG)
καὶ ἔσ[ται αὕτη εἰρήνη] Ασσουρ ὅτι ἐλθῃ [εἰ]ς [τὴν γῆν ἡμῶ]ν καὶ ὅτι ἐπιβῇ ἐπὶ τὰς βάρ[εις ἡμῶν καὶ] ἐπεγεροῦμεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἑπτὰ π[οιμένας καὶ] ὀκτὼ ἄρχοντας ἀνθρώπω[ν.] [καὶ ποιμανοῦ]σιν τὴν γῆν Ασσουρ ἐν ῥ[ομφαίᾳ καὶ τὴν] γῆν νεβρωδ ἐν παραξ[ιφι** καὶ ῥύσεται ἐξ] Ασσουρ ὅτι ἔλθῃ εἰς τ[ὴν γῆν ἡμῶν καὶ ὅτι] ἐπιβῇ εἰς τὰ ὅρια [ἡμῶν.] (8ḤevXIIgr)
Judg 13:17
וַיֹּאמֶר מָנוֹחַ אֶל־מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה מִי שְׁמֶךָ כִּֽי־יָבֹא דבריך דְבָרְךָ וְכִבַּדְנֽוּךָ‬‎
καὶ εἶπεν Μανωε πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον κυρίου Τί ὄνομά σοι, ἵνα, ὅταν ἔλθῃ τὸ ῥῆμά σου, δοξάσωμέν σε; (A)
καὶ εἶπεν Μανωε πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον κυρίου Τί τὸ ὄνομά σοι; ὅτι ἔλθοι τὸ ῥῆμά σου, καὶ δοξάσομέν σε. (B)
Job 16:3
הֲקֵץ לְדִבְרֵי־רוּחַ אוֹ מַה־יַּמְרִיצְךָ כִּי תַעֲנֶה‬‎
τί γάρ; μὴ τάξις ἐστὶν ῥήμασιν πνεύματος; ※ ἢ τί παρενοχλήσει σοι, ὅτι ἀποκρίνῃ; ⸔

I have emphasised where the revision updates the translation of ‮כִּי‬‎ + yiqṭol formations to read as ὅτι + subjunctive. It is remarkable that this is only found in material associated with kaige.49 Throughout the Septuagint, ‮כִּי‬‎ + yiqṭol is usually translated with a standard ὅτι + imperfect, but in kaige texts it is also found as ὅτι + subjunctive. This rare syntax is found in the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll (8ḤevXIIgr), the kaige portions of Kingdoms (2 Kingdoms 18:22),50 Judges B (Judg 13:17),51 Ecclesiastes (2:18), and Theodotion-Job (Job 16:3, 22:3, 34:33),52 all texts associated with kaige.

This does not appear to have been a deliberate feature of kaige revision, but one that originated by accident. The revisers updated ὅταν with ὅτι and left unchanged the following subjunctive (see Mic 5:4–5), which leaves us with atypical Greek syntax.53 I suggest this can explain the other renderings of ‮כִּי‬‎ + yiqṭol using the standard ὅτι + indicative. Evidence is limited, but in Hab 1:5, we can probably recreate ὅτι ἐκδιηγ]ηθῇ, which suggests an aorist passive, not subjunctive followed ὅτι in this kaige text.54 If ὅτι + subjunctive was a specific kaige feature, this too ought to have been updated. The fact that the aorist remains suggests ὅτι + subjunctive is a by-product of kaige revision, and not a deliberate feature. However, when this by-product is identified, it can be inferred that some kaige redaction has taken place. There are three possible exceptions (1 Kingdoms 28:22, Jer 35:4, and Job 10:3), but these all have plausible explanations.55 Therefore, this feature should be added as a mark of the kaige revision.

3.13 Other Potential Features

I have shared the most promising new features, yet this new methodology uncovers many more. However, I found they are insufficiently accurate or lack alternative readings among the textual variants in order to be listed as new identifications. This is the case where they appear in nonkaige Kingdoms and in the lack of variants in Judges A, and the Lucian Text. I list them in Table 4 for interested readers working on text-critical problems especially in Kingdoms, but also other kaige texts. The list may prove useful when used with care.

Table 4

Statistical analysis of other potential criteria

Rule

New analysis

#

Hebrew

Greek

Accuracy

Freq.

KR

OG

a

קָרָא‬‎

βοάω

81 %

751

11 %

4 %

b

גָּלָה‬‎

ἀποικίζω

86 %

169

54 %

8 %

c

חָזַק‬‎

ἐπιλαμβάνομαι

80 %

308

15 %

6 %

d

סָלַח‬‎

ἱλάσκομαι

93 %

47

100 %

7 %

e

פָּשַׁע‬‎

ἀθετέω

87 %

40

86 %

12 %

f

חֳלִי‬‎

ἀρρωστία

91 %

24

100 %

11 %

g

שָׁמַד‬‎

ἀφανίζω

86 %

88

60 %

10 %

h

חֻקָּה‬‎

δικαίωμα

82 %

96

86 %

18 %

i

יַעַן‬‎

ὅσος

96 %

86

63 %

0 %

j

יַרְכָה‬‎

μηρός

100 %

25

100 %

0 %

k

מַעֲלָה‬‎

βαθμός

95 %

48

78 %

46 %

For these criteria, I provide only brief comments to illustrate why they cannot confidently be considered marks of kaige revision, despite initially appearing positive. The inconsistent use of these translation equivalents in kaige and nonkaige texts means I do not consider them certain marks of kaige revision. However, the evidence is strong enough that they might have been used by the kaige revisers, but this is uncertain. Therefore, this list might still prove useful when making text-critical decisions involving these words, but they should be used with great caution. For example: (b) ‮גָּלָה‬‎ = ἀποικίζω generally holds, but in the kaige texts ‮גָּלָה‬‎ occurs almost exclusively in hiphil, where the causative ending -ίζω is used (e.g., 4 Kingdoms, Lamentations 4), so ἀποικίζω is to be expected and cannot be regarded as a revision; (c) ‮חָזַק‬‎ = ἐπιλαμβάνομαι seems to work in 2 Kingdoms when in hiphil, but this equivalent is not found in Nehemiah; (e) ‮פָּשַׁע‬‎ = ἀθετέω generally holds in kaige texts, but this is not so in Lamentations and is found in 1 Kingdoms in a non-kaige text; (h) ‮חֻקָּה‬‎ = δικαίωμα is possible since the Lucian Text that read προσταγματα is updated to δικαίωμα (2 Kingdoms 22:23). However, δικαίωμα is also the consistent translation choice in Deuteronomy; (j) ‮יַרְכָה‬‎ = μηρός is a possible equivalent, but there are only three positive examples to compare; (k) ‮מַעֲלָה‬‎ = ἀναβαθμός when definite, or βαθμός when indefinite, is possibly a mark of kaige revision. It holds in kaige texts, but is also found in 1 Kingdoms.

4 This Method and the Distribution of Kaige across the Septuagint

Beside identifying kaige revision, this method also makes it possible to plot the occurrences of diverse features across the entire Septuagint.56 Thus it provides a visual representation of the distribution of kaige revision in the Bible. Therefore, we now turn to four pertinent charts based on different criteria for marking kaige revision. The first chart shows by book the absolute number of instances where ‮וְגַם‬‎ or ‮גַּם‬‎ is translated by καὶ γε (Figure 1). The second chart includes only Barthélemy’s nine suggested features and plots the average number of their occurrences per chapter (Figure 2). The third chart displays the distribution of all 112 suggested features across the Septuagint (Figure 3). The fourth chart is the most important, for it retains only the best criteria for identifying kaige revision. That is, it filters out the weakest criteria as calculated by my statistical method. Further, unlike the third chart, it plots the ratio of positive to negative matches. This provides more accurate results than simply the average number of positive results per chapter. A negative result where a kaige reading is not found is often just as important as a positive result.

All 7,436 occurrences of the 124 possible kaige features across the Septuagint can now be conveniently plotted for analysis. Each of these 124 tagged criteria could be selected or hidden (toggled), in order to produce any combination of different charts. The data is supplied from a collation of every positive or negative occurrence of the kaige features across the Septuagint. A negative occurrence is where a Hebrew form is not translated with the expected kaige equivalent. For example, if ‮וְגַם‬‎ was translated by καὶ γε, then this would be a positive result, but if the translation was only καί or γε, then it would be negative. Red bars indicate books associated with kaige revision, while blue bars signify books where the Old Greek remains.57 Despite not including texts such as Judges B or Theodotion-Daniel in my statistical calculations as a precaution, for these charts I have coloured them in red to highlight their similarities.

d72902654e10481

Figure 1

גַּם‬‎ translated by καὶ γε

Citation: Textus 32, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/2589255X-bja10038

d72902654e10500

Figure 2

Barthélemy’s kaige features per (extant) chapter

Citation: Textus 32, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/2589255X-bja10038

The similarities between charts 1–3 demonstrate that, despite kaige criteria increasing tenfold, there has been little advance in our understanding or identification of kaige features. The reasons for this are: first, scholars have looked at obscure features in Theodotion translations, such as in Exodus; second, kaige is a more complex phenomenon than realised. The texts as we have them are not as homogeneous as might be expected. It is possible the methodology is looser than expected.58 Thus, criteria to establish kaige texts have been insufficiently accurate.

d72902654e10518

Figure 3

112 kaige features per chapter

Citation: Textus 32, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/2589255X-bja10038

d72902654e10530

Figure 4

Ratio of best refined kaige features to nonkaige features

Citation: Textus 32, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/2589255X-bja10038

Figure 4 is the most accurate chart and deserves the most attention. It shows the improved results when only the best criteria are used. These are the criteria marked dark grey in Table 2. It displays the ratio of positive kaige matches to negative mismatches. Hence, Zechariah shows if there were ten potential kaige features in the text, the Minor Prophets scroll would likely contain nine of them, only missing one expected feature. That not all features are found consistently reflects the diversity in kaige features.

In this chart, the books containing kaige revision consistently score higher than the other texts. The unique outlier is the single chapter of Obadiah, which I have left uncoloured given the small sample size for this ratio. Semi-kaige revision is also detectable in Kingdoms. The improved identification of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll, and lower ratio in nonkaige Kingdoms is especially clear. Excluding the Minor Prophets scroll, kaige texts are found in the Megilloth, and Former Prophets, but not in the Pentateuch or Later Prophets. Kaige features are detectable throughout the Septuagint, which suggests some contamination in transmission history or the borrowing of kaige features from these books.

I marked several books in purple since they appear to be contaminated with kaige readings. The text of Judges from Codex Vaticanus (B) shows more kaige features than in Codex Alexandrinus (A), as correctly discerned by Barthélemy. Judges A, however, still contains some marks of kaige revision. Ezra-Nehemiah59 shows numerous kaige features, which could group the book in the kaige tradition. Otherwise, the usual suspects appear Kaige-Kingdoms, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Theodotion-Daniel, and the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll.

It is unclear why kaige revision occurs in some books but not others. However, trends appear when books are ordered according to the Masoretic not Christian tradition. Figure 4 highlights that Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes all show similar kaige influence.60 It is uncertain why they are similar. Either they were transmitted together on a revised kaige scroll, or they were the last books to be translated, so translated in the style of kaige revision.61 Unfortunately, this puzzling question is beyond the scope of this article.

5 Conclusion

This article has filled the need for a rigorous methodology to identify kaige revision. This is seen in an enhanced list of the best features to identify kaige revision. It has demonstrated that certain criteria for identifying kaige revision are statistically more significant than others. Several criteria should be discarded, while others should only be used with care. The results are necessary for textual criticism and future kaige research. Furthermore, the new statistical method advanced in the paper was then applied to identify a list of new kaige features. This method should be applied to all future suggestions of kaige revision, in order to confidently establish true marks of kaige revision. Finally, the adoption of this methodology leads to a firmer grasp of kaige revision and the ability to confidently detect its influence in the textual traditions.

1

This article originates in my Oxford University MPhil dissertation under the ever-helpful supervision of Alison Salvesen. I also received feedback from the late Jim Aitken.

2

I have reservations that it is always towards the Proto-Masoretic Text in Kingdoms. This, however, does not concern us here as the revision is certainly towards a text very close to the Proto-MT.

3

The dating of kaige is evidenced primarily by the first-century BCE date of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) and the citations in the epistles of Paul and The Gospel of Mark from the 50s–70 CE.

4

These sigla refer to Thackeray’s divisions of Kingdoms, though I begin βγ a chapter before Thackeray, who thought it started at 2 Kingdoms 11; Henry St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” JTS 8.30 (1907), 262–278.

5

It was common in older studies to speak of ‘wooden’ or ‘mechanical’ translation; e.g., Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 80. A more sophisticated approach to this process is detailed in Theo A.W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 17–18.

6

Kaige is styled variously, such as kaige, Kaige, and καίγε. SBL now recommends the use of kaige; see SBL Handbook of Style, https://sblhs2.com/2019/02/01/on-kaige/.

7

Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (Leiden: Brill, 1963); Henry St. John Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909).

8

Barthélemy, Les devanciers, 48–78.

9

Leonard J. Greenspoon, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). It could be argued the consistent use of the same translation equivalents is merely one feature of kaige revision. However, I will speak of each equivalent as a separate feature for simplicity. For more work on standard translation equivalents, see Timothy A. Lee, “The Newly Discovered Fragments of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) and the Problem of Translation Standardisation,” JSCS 55 (2022): 89–102.

The list of studies Greenspoon used was: Barthélemy, Les devanciers; James Donald Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968); Kevin G. O’Connell, The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972); Walter Ray Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980); Michael Smith, “Another Criterion for the καίγε Recension,” Bib 48/3 (1967): 443–445; John A. Grindel, “Another Characteristic of the ‘Kaige’ Recension,” CBQ 31/4 (1969): 499–513; Emanuel Tov, “Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament,” Text 8/1 (1973): 78–92.

10

Tim McLay, “Kaige and Septuagint Research,” Text 19 (1998): 127–139.

11

For example, James K. Aitken, “The Style of the Naḥal Ḥever Scroll of the Minor Prophets,” in Les Douze Prophètes dans la LXX: Protocoles et procédures dans la traduction grecque: stylistique, poétique et histoire, ed. Cécile Dogniez and Phillipe Le Moigne (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 3–28; James K. Aitken, “The Origins of ΚΑΙ ΓΕ,” in Biblical Greek in Context: Εssays in Honour of John A.L. Lee, ed. James K. Aitken and Trevor V. Evans (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 21–40, Timothy A. Lee, “Subtlety in Kaige Revision of Kingdoms,” in The Septuagint: Multilateral Focus on the Text, ed. Eberhard Bons (Turnhout: Brepolis, forthcoming).

12

For example, Dries De Crom, LXX Song of Songs and Descriptive Translation Studies (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019), 253.

13

See Miika Tucker, The Septuagint of Jeremiah (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022), based on Timo Tapani Tekoniemi, A Game of Thrones (PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2019).

14

McLay, “Kaige and Septuagint Research”; Peter J. Gentry, “New Ultra-Literal Translation Techniques in Kaige-Theodotion and Aquila,” in Handbuch zur Septuaginta/Handbook of the Septuagint: Die Sprache der Septuaginta/Language of the Septuagint, ed. Eberhard Bons and Jan Joosten (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016), 202–220; Tuukka Kauhanen and Leonardo Pessoa da Silva Pinto, “Recognizing Kaige-Readings in Samuel-Kings,” JSCS 53 (2020): 67–86.

15

McLay, “Kaige and Septuagint Research,” 139.

16

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/catss.html.

17

For 8ḤevXIIgr, I have included all the material found in Emanuel Tov, Robert A. Kraft, and P.J. Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever, DJD 8 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) as well the fragment identified in Émile Puech, “Les fragments non identifiés de 8KhXIIgr et le manuscrit grec des Douze Petits Prophètes,” RB 98/2 (1991): 161–169 and the latest discoveries from 2021: Beatriz Riestra, Oren Ableman, Tatiana Bitler, and Ofer Sion, “These Are the Things You Are to Do,” Text 31/1–2 (2022), 159–189.

18

The use of computer-assisted quantitative approaches is not new to Septuagint studies; e.g., E. Tov and B.G. Wright, “Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation Units in the LXX,” Text 12 (1985): 149–187.

19

I look forward to the Biblical Online Synopsis where comparison with the Göttingen editions will one day be possible (http://134.76.17.52/).

20

Daniel Olariu, Theodotion’s Greek Text of Daniel (Leiden: Brill, 2023); Tim McLay, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).

21

For more on Judges B, see Bodine, Greek Text of Judges. For a less optimistic view on Judges B as a kaige text, see William A. Ross, Postclassical Greek and Septuagint Lexicography (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2022).

22

The figures do not add up to 100 percent, for they are independent.

23

See Lee, “Subtlety in Kaige Revision.”

24

Specifically, 30 percent higher.

25

Greenspoon, Textual Studies, 269.

26

Accuracy.

27

Frequency.

28

McLay lists only the consonants ‮מעל‬‎. This is not what Barthélemy listed; he excluded ‮מַ֫עַל‬‎.

29

= ‮חָכַם, חָכָם, חׇכְמָה‬‎.

30

= σοφός, σοφία, σοφιστής, σοφίζω, and κατασοφίζομαι.

31

I.e., ‮מְאָדָּמִים‬‎.

32

= ‮מַעְבָּד, עָבַד, עֶ֫בֶד, עֲבָד, עַבְדוּת, עֲבֻדָּה, עֲבֹדָה‬‎.

33

= δοῦλος, δουλεύω, σύνδουλος, δουλόω, δουλεία, δούλη, καταδουλόω, or δουλαγωγέω.

34

Kevin G. O’Connell, Theodotionic Revision, 274ff.

35

I have consulted the Septuagint and Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875).

36

Lee, “Newly Discovered Fragments and Textual Standardisation.”

37

See Lee, “Subtlety in Kaige Revision.”

38

Kevin G. O’Connell, Theodotionic Revision, 289.

39

See the wide survey of uses in Benjamin G. Wright. “‮עבד‬‎/ΔΟΥΛΟΣ—Terms and Social Status in the Meeting of Hebrew Biblical and Hellenistic-Roman Culture,” in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 213–245.

40

“Die Kaige-Rezension unterscheidet konsequent nach sozialem Status, wobei δοῦλος einen Knecht oder Sklaven bezeichnet, während παῖς für höher gestellte Personen verwendet wird.” Jong-Hoon Kim, “Die Wiedergabe von ʿebed mit dulos oder pais in der Septuaginta der Samuel- und Königebücher,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse: 2, Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.–27. Juli 2008, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Karrer, and Martin Meiser (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 391–403. I thank Siegfried Kreuzer for mentioning this article in correspondence to me at the Bratislava conference.

41

I can share the full list with any interested readers.

42

Tuukka Kauhanen, “The Proto-Lucianic and Antiochian Text,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint, ed. Alison G. Salvesen and Timothy Michael Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 537–552.

43

E.g., Zech 3.4 (8ḤevXIIgr). There is also a possible exception in Nehemiah, but this text is perhaps associated with kaige revision; see Timothy Janz, “The Second Book of Ezra and the ‘Kaige Group’,” in IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge, 1995, ed. Bernard A. Taylor (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 153–170.

44

On semi-kaige readings, see Anneli Aejmelaeus, “A Kingdom at Stake,” in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, ed. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 355–368; also Siegfried Kreuzer, The Bible in Greek (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 235. On sporadic corrections, see Anneli Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 126, and Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Where Do Doublets Come From? A Problem of the Septuagint of 1 Samuel,” in Biblical Greek in Context: Εssays in Honour of John A.L. Lee, ed. James K. Aitken and Trevor V. Evans (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 9–20 (18).

45

Aejmelaeus, “A Kingdom at Stake,” 354.

46

It was probably a later theological addition to the Masoretic Text, but that does not concern this point.

47

Henry St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Ezekiel,” JTS 4/15 (1903): 398–411.

48

Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, 11. Cf. Henry St. John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah,” JTS 4/14 (1903): 245–266.

49

I investigated this feature after it was suggested to me that it might be a mark of kaige revision by Jan Joosten.

50

Despite this odd form, the Hebrew does not display a ‮כִּי‬‎ and must be used cautiously as evidence.

51

Technically it is ὅτι + optative in our manuscripts, but the point still stands.

52

ὅτι in Eccl 2:18 translates ‮‬‎ in the Proto-MT. This could have been ‮כִּֽי‬‎ in the Vorlage of the Septuagint, but ὅτι is also a legitimate translation for ‮‬‎; cf., Eccl 2:15.

53

BDAG, s.v. “ὅταν.”

54

There is no reason to suppose the kaige revision contained anything other than ὅτι when translating ‮כִּי‬‎.

55

The Kingdoms reading, which comes from a nonkaige section of Kingdoms, could be evidence of change or contamination. Scholars such as Kreuzer speak of a ‘milder’ revision according to similar principles in the nonkaige sections of Kingdoms (Kreuzer, Bible in Greek, 235). Kreuzer points to Aejmelaeus’s work on this question in her work on 1 Kingdoms (Aejmelaeus, “A Kingdom at Stake,” 366). And Aejmelaeus reminds us ‘sporadic corrections may be present in all lines of textual transmission’ (Aejmelaeus, On the Trail, 126), especially 1 Kingdoms (Aejmelaeus, “Where Do Doublets Come From?,” 18). Jer 35:4 (28:4 MT) translates ‮כִּי אֶשְׁבֹּר‬‎ with ὅτι συντρίψω. This could suggest kaige-like revisions are found in Jeremiah (on this, see Tucker, Septuagint of Jeremiah: 335–354). Alternatively, Codex Alexandrinus reads ὅτι συνέτριψα, which is uncommon but plausible syntax used in Jeremiah, and perhaps the original reading. The unusual Greek syntax in Job 10:3 could also be an unmarked kaige reading. Job 10:4b is the only marked Theodotion reading in Job 10 and could be out of place, or perhaps through scribal haplography Job 10:3b lost its asterisk and metobelus in our extant Hexapla manuscripts.

56

The Deuterocanonical books are excluded because they do not retain complete Semitic Vorlagen necessary for comparison.

57

Or at least a close approximation to the Old Greek text.

58

On this point, see De Crom, LXX Song of Songs.

59

I.e., 2 Esdras.

60

Robert J.V. Hiebert, “Megillot (Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther),” in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint, ed. Alison G. Salvesen and Timothy Michael Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 321–336.

61

So, Alison Salvesen, “Jewish Greek Scripture (‘Septuagint’) in the First and Second Centuries CE,” in Epiphanies of the Divine in the Septuagint and the New Testament: V. International Symposium of the Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, 14–17 May 2015, Nottingham, ed. Roland Deines and Mark Wreford (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023).

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 596 596 125
PDF Views & Downloads 671 671 93