2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.

1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 1

Textus (2020) 1–20

brill.com/text

The Use of the Earliest Greek Scripture Fragments

running headline abbreviated, please check

in Text Editions

Emanuel Tov
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
emanuel.tov@mail.huji.ac.il

Abstract

This article deals with the relation between the early papyri of the LXX and the pre-
sumed original text of the translation units. The assumed dates of these units can be
compared with the assigned dates of the earliest preserved fragments. Do the oldest
known fragments reflect the purest form of the Old Greek or had they been revised
to MT? Some modern editions of the LXX tend to disregard the possible guidance of
some early fragments, recording them almost always in the apparatus rather than in the
reconstructed eclectic text. Due to the recognition of revisional traits in several early
fragments, a prejudice developed against them, except for P.967 covering Ezekiel and
Daniel. Because of their early date these papyri should have a central place in recon-
structing the original text of the LXX in text edition, certainly in the Torah.

Keywords

Septuagint – papyri – text editions – revision of the Septuagint – Old Greek

1 Early Greek Scripture Papyri and the Original Text

of the Septuagint1

Before the important manuscripts finds of the last few centuries became avail-
able, the descriptions of the textual development of Hebrew Scripture were

1 This article was first presented at a conference on the dating of manuscripts organized by the
Museum of the Bible in Oklahoma City in March 2014. I am grateful to Kristin De Troyer and
Eugene Ulrich for sharing helpful insights on the original text of the paper with me. I also

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/2589255X-bja10001

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 2

2 tov

limited in outlook. At that time, scholars based themselves on abstract ideas

about the development of texts, statements in the Talmud, the printed Maso-
retic text based on medieval sources, and inner-Masoretic comparisons. Like-
wise, from the beginning of the seventeenth century, the S(amaritan) P(enta-
teuch) was studied from medieval copies only. The only known ancient Scrip-
ture manuscripts were three almost complete uncials of the Greek Bible.
Ancient Hebrew sources were beyond the horizon and this situation necessar-
ily led to imprecision in the textual outlook.
Views about the original biblical text developed gradually, often influenced
by religious ideas, with the Jews and Protestants favoring MT, and the Catholics
leaning towards the LXX. Also today scholars continue to oscillate between
these two sources, but it is not a matter of either/or, since presumed original
readings are found in all these sources, whether MT, a Qumran scroll, the LXX,
or another source.
There are many additional aspects to this question. We are still far removed
from a firm understanding of the nature of the original text(s), and some will
claim that such an original text never existed. In the present study, we are
concerned with the nature and chronological background of the main biblical
texts.
As often happens in research, the more we know, the less we know. Before
the large manuscripts of MT and the LXX became known and before fragmen-
tary texts were found in the Judean Desert, scholars thought that they had a
good idea about the nature of the few available texts, but now that so many
texts are known it is more difficult to combine them into a coherent picture.
The Judean Desert finds solved many an issue in details in the biblical text, but
they also multiplied the number of questions. We often wonder what the status
was of these texts, what their dates are, and to what extent we now know more
about the content of the biblical books. We would like to know where to place
these texts and their ancestors in the history of the biblical text. MT does not
embody the original text of the Bible, and accordingly we would like to know
when that text was created and how it related to the presumed original text
of Scripture. The Qumran fragments are dated between the mid-third century
BCE and 70CE. This makes them very old documents, but too late in order to
provide any information on the composition of the Torah or Isaiah.
In the case of the Greek translation, we are on firmer ground. The Torah was
probably translated between 285 and 250 BCE, and the oldest known papyri

note my gratitude to Detlef Fraenkel of Göttingen for a meaningful telephone conversation

(27.1.2014) and important references to literature.

10.1163/2589255X-bja10001 | Textus (2020) 1–20

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 3

the use of the earliest greek scripture fragments 3

were copied some 100 years later. The find of these papyri, however, compli-
cated rather than simplified the evaluation of the LXX since we do not know
whether the idiosyncratic renderings in the oldest known fragments faithfully
preserve the so-called Old Greek (OG) translation.
Little is known about the dates of the translation of the individual books,
the relation between these translations, the dates of the preserved textual wit-
nesses, and the relation between the text of the early witnesses and the pre-
sumed original text of the LXX. We often have a view on the relative dating of
texts, but if we change our mind on the dating of one text on which other texts
or theories depend, other details also need to be changed.
Thus, the date of the creation of the so-called kaige-Th recension of the LXX
has to precede that of the Greek Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever since
that scroll reflects the kaige-Th revision. This date is of central importance in
LXX research, since the text that we call the “LXX,” such as included in the Rahlfs
edition,2 includes segments of the kaige-Th revision, for example, in parts of
Samuel–Kings.3 Now, hands A and B of the Minor Prophets scroll have been
dated by Peter J. Parsons, as “a date in the later i B.C.”4 On the basis of this dat-
ing, the date of kaige-Th has been placed in the middle of the first century BCE
or somewhat earlier.5 However, Parsons proposes his date “tentatively (since I
have seen only photographs, not the originals and with all the provisos listed
above).” Moreover, he quotes also other experts who proposed later dates.6 In
his words, “Barth[élemy] 1953 dated the script (that is, hand A) towards the end
of i A.D. Roberts apud Kahle (p. 226) opted for 50 B.C–A.D. 50, and Schubert
ibid. for a date around the reign of Augustus; Barth. 1964 accepted Schubart’s
date for hand A, found parallels for hand B in dated papyri of i A.D. and assigned
the whole manuscript to mid i A.D.” These other options thus allow for a date
that is a century later than the date that is accepted now in scholarship for
this scroll and the kaige-Th revision. The dates of Aquila (125 ce) and Sym-
machus (around 200 ce) are not at stake. They are based on kaige-Th, and
therefore also on the Minor Prophets scroll, but since both are relatively late,

2 Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart:
Württemberger Bibelanstalt, 1935).
3 2Sam 11:1 (10:1?)–1 Kgs 2:11 and 1 Kgs 22:1–2Kings.
4 Peter J. Parsons, “The Scripts and their Date,” in Emanuel Tov with the collaboration of Robert
A. Kraft, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) (The Seiyal Collection I),
DJD VIII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 19–26 (26).
5 Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed., rev. and enl. (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2012), 143 and the literature quoted there.
6 Ibid., 22.

Textus (2020) 1–20 | 10.1163/2589255X-bja10001

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 4

4 tov

their dependence on kaige-Th allows for both mid-first century BCE and mid-
first century ce dates of the scroll.
This was just an example of the complications involved with dating. Equally
complicated are other aspects of the LXX. Thus, except for the translation of
Esther, there is no external evidence on the dates of the individual LXX transla-
tions although there is some indirect evidence in the form of quotations from
the LXX in early sources.7 Traditionally it has been believed that all the books of
the LXX translation were produced in Egypt, but this is a misconception. The
Torah was translated in Egypt, as narrated in the Epistle of Aristeas and sup-
ported by its vocabulary, but the background of most other books is unknown.
The Greek translation as a whole is often named “Alexandrian,” but this descrip-
tion is not supported by any firm evidence. With some exceptions, we know
very little about the place of origin of the post-Pentateuchal books, and Pales-
tine would be a more logical candidate since Hebrew was insufficiently known
in the diaspora. Egypt should only be considered secondarily.
The Torah was probably translated during the reign of Ptolemy Philadel-
phus II (reigned 285–247 bce) according to the generally accepted understand-
ing of the Epistle of Aristeas. This assumption is compatible with the early
date of several Greek papyrus and leather fragments of the Torah from Qum-
ran and Egypt, the earliest of which dates to the middle of the second century
BCE. The remaining Scripture books were translated at different times. Some
evidence for their dates is external, for example, quotations from the LXX in
ancient sources, and some internal, for example, reflections of historical situa-
tions or events reflected in the translation. In any event, the post-Pentateuchal
books were translated after the Torah, for most of them use its vocabulary,
and some also quote from the Greek Torah. The most updated analysis of the
dates of the individual translations is that by Gilles Dorival.8 The clearest case
is Esther, where a colophon found in all the manuscripts dates the introduc-
tion of the translation to Egypt as 78–77BCE, following Bickerman’s chronol-
ogy.9

7 For an early list, see Henry B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2nd ed.
(Cambridge: University Press, 1914; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 406–432. See fur-
ther below, nn. 10–12.
8 Gilles Dorival, “L’Achèvement de la Septante dans le judaïsme. De la faveur au rejet,” in
idem, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hel-
lénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf/C.N.R.S., 1988), 86–98. See also Emanuel Tov,
“Reflections on the Septuagint with Special Attention Paid to the Post-Pentateuchal Trans-
lations,” in idem, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays,
Vol. 3, VTSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 429–448.
9 Elias Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, AGJU IX (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 1.225–

10.1163/2589255X-bja10001 | Textus (2020) 1–20

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 5

the use of the earliest greek scripture fragments 5

Other types of evidence are less specific. The Prophets and several of the
hagiographa (named “other books”) were known in their Greek version to the
grandson of Ben Sira between 132 and 117BCE.10 Accordingly, a century had
passed between the translation of the Torah and that of the later books. How-
ever, some of the books may have been rendered closer to the time of the
translation of the Torah.
Some books have been dated based on quotations in literary sources. Thus
the Jewish historian Eupolemos living in Palestine in the middle of the sec-
ond century BCE, compared the Greek version of 1 Kings (3 Reigns) with that
of Chronicles.11 Likewise, the Greek form of Job was known to Pseudo-Aristeas
in the middle of the first century BCE,12 one century before the earliest textual
evidence of that book, viz., P.Oxy 3522 (Job 42:11–12).
Less stable is the use of presumed allusions to historical situations and
events suggested in the literature. Thus, for Isaiah, Fischer points to the period
between 250 and 201 BCE based on the assumption that the translator was igno-
rant of the destruction of Carthage13 while, in the wake of the LXX of Isa 23:10,
Seeligmann and van der Kooij assign that translation to the period after the
destruction of that city, in 146BCE.14

245 (“The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther”) and 1.246–274 (“Notes on the Greek
Book of Esther”). See also Dorival, Septante, 90.
10 For an analysis, see Dorival, Septante, 88. The date 132 refers to the mentioning in the
Greek prologue of the thirty-eighth year of King Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (170–117) and
of his death. See also the analyses of George B. Caird, “Ben Sira and the Dating of the Sep-
tuagint,” in Studia Evangelica VII: Papers Presented to the Fifth International Congress on
Biblical Studies Held at Oxford, 1973, ed. E.A. Livingstone, TUGAL 126 (Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1982), 95–100; Armin Lange, “The Book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew and Greek Texts
of Ben Sira,” in Making the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible,
ed. I. Himbaza, OBO 273 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 118–161.
11 Thus Swete, Introduction, 24: “Eupolemos, who, if identical with the person of that name
mentioned in 1 Macc. viii 17, wrote about the middle of the second century, makes use
of the Greek Chronicles.” Detailed research is presented by Carl R. Holladay, Fragments
from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. I. Historians (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 93–156 (100–
101) and Ben-Zion Wacholder, Eupolemos, A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (Cincinnati:
Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974), 248–258. See also Dorival, Sep-
tante, 90.
12 According to Swete, Introduction, 25, Pseudo-Aristeas “quotes the book of Job according
to the LXX, and has been suspected of being the author of the remarkable codicil attached
to it (Job xlii.17 b-e).” Dorival, Septante, 91 provides a more detailed analysis.
13 Johann Fischer, In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor? BZAW 56 (Giessen: Alfred
Töpelmann, 1930), 5–6.
14 Isac Leo Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (Leiden:
Brill, 1948), 76–94 (91), republished as The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Stud-
ies, ed. Robert Hanhart and Herrmann Spieckermann (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004),

Textus (2020) 1–20 | 10.1163/2589255X-bja10001

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 6

6 tov

The collection of LXX books as included in the edition of Rahlfs, Septuag-

inta also contains units that were late revisions of the OG translation, produced
mainly by the late kaige-Th revision. The date of that revision is not known, but
it was probably before 50 BCE. This pertains to the B text of Judges and the “LXX”
of 2Sam 11 (10?):1–1 Kgs 2:11, 1 Kgs 22:1–2Kings (4 Reigns), Ruth, and Lamenta-
tions.15
Based on Dorival’s tentative list of the dates of the translation units, they can
now be arranged chronologically16 and be compared with the assumed dates of
the earliest preserved fragments of these books. The second column in the list
summarizes the character of the fragment as either OG or revisional (my own
view), while the third column refers to the presentation in these fragments of
the divine names (for an analysis, see below). The characterization “revision”
refers to an approximation to MT.

table 1 Early texts dated between the second century BCE and the first century CE

Name and suggested date OG/revision Divine names

P.Rylands Greek 458 of Deuteronomy OG no evidence

(2nd c. BCE)17 = Ra 957
4QLXXDeut of Deut 11 no evidence no evidence
(middle 2nd c. BCE) = Ra 819
4QLXXLeva of Lev 26 OG no evidence
(late 2nd or early 1st c. bce) = Ra 801
P.Fouad 266a18 of Gen 4, 7, 37–38 no evidence no evidence
(middle 1st c. bce) = Ra 942

251; Arie van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and
Vision, VTSup 71 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 186–187.
15 Although much research has been performed, this list is still based on the initial findings
of Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963).
16 Dorival, Septante, 96–97.
17 Publication: Colin H. Roberts, Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1936).
18 Publication: Françoise Dunand, Papyrus grecs bibliques (Papyrus F. Inv. 266): Volumina
de la Genèse et du Deutéronome, Texte et planches, Extrait des études de papyrologie IX
(Cairo: Institut francais d’archéologie orientale, 1966); eadem, Papyrus grecs bibliques
(Papyrus F. Inv. 266): Volumina de la Genèse et du Deutéronome, Introduction, Recherches
d’archéologie, de philologie et d’histoire XXVII (Cairo: Institut francais d’archéologie ori-
entale, 1966).

10.1163/2589255X-bja10001 | Textus (2020) 1–20

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 7

the use of the earliest greek scripture fragments 7

Table 1 Early texts dated between the second century BCE and the first century CE (cont.)

Name and suggested date OG/revision Divine names

P.Fouad 266b of Deut 17–33 revision 1st scribe left spaces and
(middle 1st c. bce)19 = Ra 848 (“Deut I”) two dots; 2nd scribe wrote
Tetragr. in square script
P.Fouad 266c (847) of Deut 10–11, 31–33 revision no evidence
(50–51 bce) = Ra 847 (“Deut II”)20
7QpapLXXExod of Exod 28 revision21 no evidence
(1st c. bce) = Ra 805
4QpapLXXLevb of Lev 2–5 OG ΙΑΩ
(1st c. BCE) = Ra 802
4QLXXNum of Num 3–4 OG? no evidence
(1st c. BCE) = Ra 803
8ḤevXIIgr hand A revision paleo-Hebrew Tetragr.,
(end of 1st c. BCE) = Ra 943 including final he
8ḤevXIIgr hand B revision paleo-Hebrew Tetragr.
(end of 1st c. BCE) = Ra 943
P.Oxy. 50.3522 of Job 42 no evidence paleo-Hebrew Tetragr.,
(1st c. CE) = Ra 857 including final he
P.Yale 1 of Gen 14 no evidence no evidence
(end of 1st c. CE)22 = Ra 815

19 Ibid.
20 Publication: Zachary Aly, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy,
Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 27 (Bonn: Habelt, 1980).
21 The evidence is limited. See the analysis of John W. Wevers, “Pre-Origen Recensional Activ-
ity in the Greek Exodus,” in Studien zur Septuaginta: Robert Hanhart zu Ehren, ed. Detlef
Fraenkel et al., MSU XX (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 64–73. On the other
hand, Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible,
VTSup169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 156 describes this fragment as “independent scribal com-
monplace.”
22 This date, given in the editio princeps, is contested by several scholars, who date this text
to the second or third century CE. See Robert A. Kraft, “The ‘Textual Mechanics’ of Early
Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments,” in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek
Text, ed. Scott McKendrick and Orlaigh A. O’Sullivan (London: British Library and Oak
Knoll Press in association with The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2003),
51–72 (60).

Textus (2020) 1–20 | 10.1163/2589255X-bja10001

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 8

8 tov

Table 1 Early texts dated between the second century BCE and the first century CE (cont.)

Name and suggested date OG/revision Divine names

P.Oxy. 77.5101 of Psalms revision paleo-Hebrew Tetragr.

(1st or 2nd c. CE)23 = Ra 2227
P.Bodl. MS. bibl. Gr. 5 of Ps 48–49 no evidence no evidence
(late 1st or early 2nd c. CE) = Ra 2082
P.Oxy. 65.4443 of Esther E and ch. 9 irrelevant Θεός
(late 1st or early 2nd c. CE) = Ra 996

Note: See Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the
Judean Desert, STDJ 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 304–305. See also the helpful lists of Robert A. Kraft
in http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlylxx/jewishpap.html and http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/
/earlylxx/earlypaplist.htm where the information in cols. 2 and 3 is not provided in the tabula-
tion.

In the next section, we focus on the presentation of these fragments in the text
editions of the LXX. Here we note that most early texts—almost all Jewish24—
present the Torah.25

23 Danielle Colomo and W.B. Henry, “5101. LXX, Psalms xxvi 9–14, xliv 4–8, xlvii 13–15, xlviii 6–
21, xlix 2–16, lxiii 6–lxiv 5,” in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. Amin Benaissa, Graeco-Roman
Memoirs 98 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 2011), 77.1–11. For an analysis, see Jannes
Smith, “The Text-Critical Significance of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5101 (Ra 2227) for the Old
Greek Psalter,” BIOSCS 45 (2012): 5–22.
24 Although the distinction between Jewish and Christian fragments is often very difficult,
all texts antedating the middle of the first century CE are Jewish. According to Kurt Treu,
“Die Bedeutung des Griechischen für die Juden im römischen Reich,” Kairos NF 15 (1973):
123–144, it is possible that several texts written after that period might also be recognized
as Jewish (in Table 1, all but the last two items are considered Jewish). A major though
not exclusive criterion for the Jewish nature of a text is the writing in scrolls (see already
Colin H. Roberts, “The Christian Book and the Greek Papyri,” JTS 50 [1949]: 155–168, espe-
cially 157–158). The Christian nature of Scripture texts can usually be detected by their
inscription in codex form (in Table 1 only P.Yale 1 and P.Bodl. MS. bibl. Gr. 5), and their
use of abbreviated forms of the divine names. See further Kraft, “The ‘Textual Mechan-
ics’.”
25 Torah: 11, Minor Prophets: 1, Psalms: 2, Esther: 1. It would not be logical to assume that
the oldest translations especially have been preserved, as it would make more sense that
more recent ones survived. It is more likely that the large percentage of Torah texts indi-
cates their popularity.

10.1163/2589255X-bja10001 | Textus (2020) 1–20

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 9

the use of the earliest greek scripture fragments 9

2 The Centrality of the Uncial Texts in the Septuagint Editions

We now turn to the textual nature of the earliest texts, which has not been dis-
cussed sufficiently in the past. The LXX consists of different textual layers, and it
is a constant concern of scholars to reconstruct the oldest stratum, the OG. The
term “LXX” is ambiguous because of the mixed nature of the LXX canon (Rahlfs,
Septuaginta), containing both the OG and revised units (mainly the mentioned
kaige-Th units). Now, do the oldest known fragments of Greek Scripture reflect
the purest form of the OG or a somewhat revised form? From a chronologi-
cal point of view, it would make sense that these early fragments are closer to
the shape of the earliest translation, but in practice this is not true, as some
of them reflect a later, revisional text. As a result, some modern editions tend
to disregard the possible guidance of these early fragments, recording them
almost always in the apparatus of the eclectic (critical) editions rather than
in the reconstructed eclectic text. The reconstructed texts in these volumes are
based more on the great LXX uncials of the fourth and fifth centuries than on
early fragments. There are several reasons for this preference:
1. The uncials have been known since the fifteenth century,26 while the early
fragments were discovered only in the twentieth and twenty-first cen-
turies when the scholarly procedures already had been established.
2. The Greek Scripture texts discovered in the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries are too fragmentary to be used as a base for a complete mod-
ern edition. However, while the greater part of the reconstructed OG text
is based on the main uncials, important insights in matters of detail may
be learned from the early fragments. These details have implications for
the reconstructed text as a whole.
3. It so happens that most early fragments display revisional traits towards
the Hebrew text (see Table 1). Due to the recognition of these revisional
traits in the early fragments, a prejudice developed against other details
in these fragments, resulting in a great dependence on the uncials. Fur-
thermore, a negative approach developed also against fragments that do
not display revisional elements, and therefore these fragments often have
been disregarded in the reconstruction of the original text, as detailed
below.

26 In the history of research, these uncial manuscripts and not the early fragments have been
the focus of the critical investigation of the LXX. Alexandrinus (fifth century CE) and Vat-
icanus (fourth century CE) became known first in the Western world (A: London, 1627; B:
Vatican, 1475), later to be joined by Codex Sinaiticus (middle of the fourth century CE),
known since 1844.

Textus (2020) 1–20 | 10.1163/2589255X-bja10001

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 10

10 tov

A partial exception is made for the important pre-Hexaplaric Chester-

Beatty-Scheide papyrus 967 covering Ezekiel and Daniel. In the editions and
reeditions of these books in the Göttingen Septuaginta series,27 many read-
ings of this papyrus have been included in the reconstructed text, although
the basic framework is still that of the major uncials.28 Most scholars date this
manuscript to the beginning of the third century CE, while in Daniel the text of
manuscript 88 and the Syro-Hexapla is seven centuries younger.
The influence of the three uncial codices A, B, and S on the history of the
Editionstechnik is significant, as they were chosen as the base for the edi-
tions when the early fragments were not yet known. From the earliest days
of producing LXX editions, the main challenge for editors was to identify ele-
ments that presumably reflected the OG, thus bypassing revisions towards the
Hebrew text. Usually this endeavor involved the disregarding of the Hexaplaric
revisional activity of Origen that had contaminated almost all manuscripts.
This tendency is felt in the edition of Rahlfs, Septuaginta as well as in sev-
eral volumes of the Göttingen Septuagint series. For the diplomatic editions
of Swete and Brooke–McLean that represent codex B, the search for original
and revised elements is irrelevant as they do not attempt to reconstruct the
OG.29
As most of the early fragments were not available when Rahlfs, Septuaginta
was published (1935), his edition cannot be blamed for disregarding them. Yet,
although Rahlfs officially based the edition on the uncials A, B, and S, he did
include some readings from other sources, and he could have included details
from some early papyri and leather fragments.

27 Joseph Ziegler, Ezechiel, Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate Academiae

Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, XVI,1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952); Det-
lef Fraenkel, 2nd ed., 1977, with an appendix (pp. 170–213); Joseph Ziegler, Susanna, Daniel,
Bel et Draco, Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate Academiae Scien-
tiarum Gottingensis editum, XVI,2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954); Olivier
Munnich, 2nd ed., 1999. Ziegler was aware of some of the Ezekiel fragments of papyrus 967,
duly recorded in the 1952 edition, while the other fragments were recorded in an appendix
to the second edition by Fraenkel.
28 This is the case even in Daniel in which the edition of the LXX text often follows the
much younger Hexaplaric text of manuscript 88 and the Syro-Hexapla rather than that of
papyrus 967. Munnich, Daniel, 63–64 notes that papyrus 967 reflects many pre-Hexaplaric
recensional readings and secondary developments (ibid., 64–76) that were not included
in the reconstructed original text.
29 Henry B. Swete, The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1896–1925); Alan E. Brooke, Norman McLean, and Henry St.
J. Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906–1940).

10.1163/2589255X-bja10001 | Textus (2020) 1–20

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 11

the use of the earliest greek scripture fragments 11

Much more difficult is the task of the editors of the volumes in the Göttin-
gen Septuagint series, as they take into consideration the complete evidence in
an endeavor to reconstruct the OG, thus incorporating all the early texts. It is
realized that each such reconstruction was correct only for the state of knowl-
edge at the time of the preparation of the edition.30 When new manuscripts
are discovered, the reconstructed critical text is sometimes revised in a second
edition, as was the case for Daniel in the new text edition and Ezekiel in an
appendix in the new edition.31
A major problem in evaluating an early fragment is the status of its ele-
ments. Many, if not most, of the early texts mentioned in Table 1 contain revi-
sional elements, introduced either systematically or only on occasion.32 See
§4 below. Such revisional elements bring the presumed OG into agreement
with the Hebrew text current at the time, usually the proto-MT. Other revi-
sional elements cannot be identified easily. They could consist of harmonizing
elements, standard LXX equivalents replacing earlier unconventional render-
ings,33 as well as any rendering that did not carry a specific feature. It seems
to me that the early fragments contain many readings that differ from the
later uncials and that have not been included in the reconstructed Göttingen
editions because scholars are often prejudiced in favor of the uncials. This per-
tains particularly to the Qumran Greek fragments, which have been ignored
across the board in the otherwise excellent Göttingen editions of the Torah.
This approach created a somewhat distorted view of the reconstructed text,

30 For a review of the procedures of the Göttingen Septuagint, with many critical remarks,
see Olivier Munnich, “Die Textüberlieferung der Septuaginta und die Editionsprinzip-
ien der Göttinger Septuaginta-Ausgabe,” in Der Göttinger Septuaginta: Ein editorisches
Jahrhundertprojekt, ed. Reinhard G. Kratz and Bernard Neuschäfer, AAWG NF 22, MSU 30
(Göttingen: De Gruyter, 2012), 31–52; Detlef Fraenkel, “Der textkritische Apparat der der
Göttinger Septuaginta,” ibid., 53–71.
31 See n. 29.
32 It was common knowledge in the second and first centuries BCE that the LXX text often
differed from the Hebrew text then current, and since the Jewish readers of the OG trans-
lation wished their translation to be as close as possible to their Hebrew text, changes
were inserted in the Greek text bringing it into close alignment with the Hebrew. The
best-known text of this kind is the anonymous revision named kaige-Th, but there were
several additional texts of this kind, equally anonymous. Revisional activity is visible in
changes of the base text (the OG) towards that Hebrew text and in the presentation of the
divine names with Hebrew characters. See Peter Gentry, “1.3.1.2 Pre-Hexaplaric Transla-
tions, Hexapla, Post-Hexaplaric Translations,” in Textual History of the Bible, The Hebrew
Bible, Vol. 1A, Overview Articles, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016),
211–235.
33 See the analysis of 4QLXXNum below.

Textus (2020) 1–20 | 10.1163/2589255X-bja10001

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 12

12 tov

which did not reflect the state of knowledge in the twentieth century. The edi-
tor of these editions, John W. Wevers, was fully aware of the difficulty of his
approach, as we will see below.
The three aspects on which we will focus are:
a) The integration of elements from early papyri in the text editions that are
traditionally based on the uncials of the fourth and fifth centuries;
b) The preponderance of the early revisional texts;
c) The creation of critical editions.
The study of the original and revisional elements in the early papyri of the LXX
pertains to opposite, though connected, aspects.

3 Integration of Elements from Early Papyri and Leather Fragments

in the Text Editions

Revisional activity, visible in many papyri and leather fragments listed in

Table 1, complicates the establishing of criteria for including readings from the
early papyri in the text editions. These papyri should have had a central place in
reconstructing the original text of the LXX in all text editions because of their
early date (for the chronological framework, see Table 1; for examples, see the
studies of Ulrich and Tov mentioned in n. 37). However, if the evidence of an
early papyrus is recognized as revisional, it should not be included in the eclec-
tic text; admittedly it remains difficult to differentiate between revisional and
original evidence. A case in point is the editorial procedure used by Wevers,
who did not record most details of the early Qumran fragments in the recon-
structed text but in the apparatus of the Göttingen Septuagint as representing
early revisions of the OG.34 However, other scholars describe these fragments
as reflecting the OG, and integrate their content into the reconstructed original
text:
a) According to Wevers and Faulkenberry Miller, 4QLXXLeva (= Ra 801)
reflects a secondary text,35 while other scholars—among them, Eugene

34 Wevers considered that the evidence of P.Rylands Greek 458 of Deuteronomy (2 BCE) (=
Ra 957) reflects elements of the OG since this text does not reflect revisional features. He
did not have to alter his editorial principles of preferring the uncials since Ra 957 almost
always agreed with manuscripts A and B. Wevers thus always recorded the combined evi-
dence of A, B, and Ra 957 as the reconstructed original text. See John W. Wevers, “The
Earliest Witness to the LXX Deuteronomy,” CBQ 39 (1977): 240–244 (243–244). In only four
instances did Wevers record the text of Ra 957 as original against A and B, as in 25:2 ὁ
ἀσεβής 957] ἀσεβῶν AB rell.
35 John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus, SBLSCS 44 (Atlanta: Scholars Press,

10.1163/2589255X-bja10001 | Textus (2020) 1–20

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 13

the use of the earliest greek scripture fragments 13

Ulrich and Emanuel Tov36—describe this text as containing the OG. The
latter’s analysis noted that the uncials reflect the same textual tradition
of the Greek Leviticus (§1 in the study quoted in n. 37), so that the dif-
ferences between the two highlight their different backgrounds. There is
ample evidence in favor of the assumption that 4QLXXLeva reflects an
earlier text (§2), and that the other witnesses were corrected towards
MT. As elsewhere in the history of the LXX revisions, the revisional activ-
ity reflected in the majority manuscript tradition of the LXX was nei-
ther consistent nor thorough. There is very little evidence for the alter-
native suggestion (see n. 36) that 4QLXXLeva reflects an early revision
(§3).
b) The agreements between 4QpapLXXLevb (= Ra 801) and the main man-
uscript tradition of the LXX (§1)37 suggest that the two sources represent
the same translation. There is more evidence for the assumption that
4QpapLXXLevb preceded the main manuscript tradition of the LXX (§2)

1997), 438–445. Wevers returned to this view in “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septu-
agint,”BIOSCS 38 (2005): 1–24 when evaluating all the Qumran Greek fragments. This view
is also reflected in a detailed analysis by John B. Faulkenberry Miller, “4QLXXLeva and
Proto-Septuagint Studies: Reassessing Qumran Evidence for the Urtext Theory,” in Qum-
ran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions, ed. Michael T. Davis and Brent A. Strawn
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 1–28.
36 Eugene Ulrich in Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave
4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, DJD IX (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992 [repr.
2003]), 163 (preceded by Patrick W. Skehan, “Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,”
VTSup 4 [1957], 158): “Though none of these readings is accepted into the Göttingen Leviti-
cus, it can be argued, on the basis not only of its antiquity but even more of its textual
readings, that 4QLXXLeva penetrates further behind the other witnesses to provide a more
authentic witness to the Old Greek translation.” Ulrich elaborated on this view in his stud-
ies “The Septuagint Manuscripts from Qumran: A Reappraisal of Their Value,” in The Dead
Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 165–
183 and, together with Sarianna Metso, in “The Old Greek Translation of Leviticus,” in The
Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, ed. Rudolph Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 248–268. Tov accepted Ulrich’s view on which he further elaborated
in his study “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert,” in The Bible as Book (see
n. 23), 97–122. Revised version: Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays,
TSAJ 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 339–364. See also Leonard J. Greenspoon, “The
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek Bible,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Com-
prehensive Assessment, ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam (Leiden: Brill, 1998),
1.101–127 (109–110); Heinz-Josef Fabry, “Die griechischen Handschriften vom Toten Meer,”
in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta: Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der griechischen
Bibel, ed. Heinz-Josef Fabry and Ulrich Offerhaus (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 131–153
(140–141).
37 See Tov, “Greek Biblical Texts.”

Textus (2020) 1–20 | 10.1163/2589255X-bja10001

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 14

14 tov

than for the reverse assumption. Probably the most convincing case for
the ancient character of the Qumran text is the presentation of the divine
name as ΙΑΩ, not known from other textual witnesses and highly likely to
be the original LXX rendering.38 The evidence is not overwhelming, but
the reverse claim that 4QpapLXXLevb reflects a revision of the LXX can
probably be made only in 5:21 εἰς τ[ον Ιαω.39
c) 4QLXXNum (= Ra 803) has much in common with the majority LXX tra-
dition (§1), suggesting that the two entities are branches of the same
translation.40 At the same time, the evidence is inconclusive regarding
the status of the Qumran text. Some of its lexical equivalents give the
impression of not having been adapted to the majority tradition of the
LXX vocabulary, in which case the scroll probably reflects the OG transla-
tion (§2). However, in a few other details, 4QLXXNum reflects MT more
closely. Skehan41 and Wevers42 support the view that in these details the
scroll reflects an early revision towards MT, described as a “pre-Christian
reworking” by Skehan. However, the evidence in favor of the assumption
that the scroll reflects the OG is stronger.43
d) P.Rylands Greek 458 of Deuteronomy (= Ra 957).
If de Lagarde’s theory on the history of the LXX needed any further support,
it is provided by the texts from the Judean Desert. The newly found Greek
texts share important details with the manuscript tradition of the LXX known
so far, so that all the known Greek texts reflect one single translation, rather
than different translations, as suggested by Kahle.44 Two or three of the Qum-

38 See Tov, “Greek Biblical Texts,” 356–357. On the other hand, Albert Pietersma, “Kyrios or
Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX,” in De Septuaginta, Studies in Honour
of J.W. Wevers on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox (Missis-
sauga, Ont: BenBen Publications, 1984), 85–101 (98); Wevers, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” 23
and Martin Rösel, “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic
Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch,” JSOT 31 (2007): 411–428 consider κύριος the origi-
nal rendering. This view is reflected also in Smith, “The Text-Critical Significance” (n. 24
above).
39 For an analysis, see Tov, “Greek Biblical Texts,” 358.
40 For an analysis, see Tov, “Greek Biblical Texts,” 358–361.
41 Patrick W. Skehan, “4QLXXNum: A Pre-Christian Reworking of the Septuagint,” HTR 70
(1977): 39–50.
42 John W. Wevers, “An Early Revision of the Septuagint of Numbers,” ErIsr 16 (1982): 235*–
239*.
43 Thus Ulrich, DJD IX, 189; Tov, “Greek Biblical Texts,” 360–361.
44 This argumentation was used by Alfred R.C. Leaney, “Greek Manuscripts from the Judaean
Desert,” in Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kil-
patrick on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. J. Keith Elliott, NovTSup 44 (Leiden:

10.1163/2589255X-bja10001 | Textus (2020) 1–20

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 15

the use of the earliest greek scripture fragments 15

ran texts probably reflect the OG better than the manuscript tradition con-
tained in the later uncial manuscripts (4QLXXLeva, 4QpapLXXLevb, and possi-
bly 4QLXXNum).45
Presumably 4QLXXLeva and 4QpapLXXLevb (both first century BCE) are
closer to the OG than to the later uncials, which were revised towards the
Hebrew text. 4QLXXLeva contains a slightly freer translation than that found in
the uncial manuscripts. In 4QpapLXXLevb Lev 3:12 and 4:27, ΙΑΩ for LXX κύριος
probably reflects the original, pre-Christian rendering of the Tetragrammaton,
preceding κύριος of the uncials. The translation vocabulary of the two Qumran
scrolls was not yet standardized as it was in the later uncials.
On the other hand, Wevers asserted that the early Qumran fragments reflect
developments subsequent to the OG version. A computer-assisted search of
the Göttingen apparatus46 shows that the text of these fragments, including
the Qumran fragments of Leviticus (= Ra 801 and 802), is recorded exclusively
in the apparatus as opposed to the eclectic reconstruction of the OG. These
fragments are included in the reconstructed text (before the lemma sign) only
when agreeing with the uncials.47
Likewise, 7QpapLXXExod (= Ra 805) and 4QLXXNum (= Ra 803) are never
included in the eclectic text against the combined evidence of the uncials A
and B.48
Wevers’s approach regarding the early Qumran fragments is internally con-
sistent and this procedure gives the edition a more uniform character regarding
the equivalents than had the equivalents of Qumran fragments been included
in the reconstructed original text. I will illustrate this by way of the equivalents
of ‫פקד‬, “to visit,” “to inspect” in 4QLXXNum. The standard LXX equivalent of
this verb is ἐπισκέπτομαι, “to inspect.” However, the Qumran fragment incon-
sistently uses ἀριθμέω, “to count,” in Num 3:40 next to ἐπισκέπτομαι in v. 42. In
the LXX, the former verb usually serves as an equivalent of a different verb, ‫מנה‬,
“to count.” The evidence suggests that 4QLXXNum reflects the original transla-
tion, which preceded the standardization of the equivalent of ‫פקד‬.49 However,

Brill, 1976), 283–300 (293) and Patrick W. Skehan, “The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and
the Text of the Old Testament,” BA 28 (1965): 87–100 (91–92).
45 By implication, these two texts should also share certain features, but the evidence is too
limited.
46 Based on the Accordance program.
47 In one instance (26:6), 4QpapLXX-Levb of Leviticus 2–5 = Ra 802 is recorded against A and
B, but in this case it agreed with other uncials, F and M.
48 See n. 22 above.
49 On the other hand, Udo Quast, “Der Rezensionelle Charakter einiger Wortvarianten im
Buche Numeri,” in Studien zur Septuaginta: Robert Hanhart zu Ehren, ed. Detlef Fraenkel

Textus (2020) 1–20 | 10.1163/2589255X-bja10001

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 16

16 tov

Wevers’s text edition includes ἐπίσκεψαι from the uncials, and not the reading
of 4QLXXNum, giving the edition a unified image. Had more attention been
focused on the Qumran scroll, it would have necessitated the alteration of the
relatively consistent vocabulary of the uncial manuscripts of the LXX to a less
consistent one in the reconstructed text of the edition. The gradual standard-
ization of the vocabulary is visible within the combined LXX manuscripts of
Genesis, presumably the first LXX translation, compared with the later LXX
books.50 It is also visible in the comparison of papyrus 967 with the uncial text
of Daniel.51 However, since we do not know in which cases to insert an element
of variation, the insertion of papyrus readings against the uncials would create
an almost chaotic situation in the reconstruction procedure. Wevers was aware
of this danger, and therefore consciously avoided the evidence of the Qumran
scrolls,52 as he admitted with regard to the equivalent ιαω of the Tetragram-
maton: “The occurrence of ιαω instead of κύριος for the tetragram in both the
Leviticus and the Numbers fragments53 was not so easy to deal with. Accepting
this as original would have had wide-reaching implications. It would mean that
I had decided that at least the Numbers translator (as well as that of Leviticus)
used this odd transcription for ‫יהוה‬, and I would have to accept it throughout
the book(s).”54

4 Preponderance of the Early Revisional Texts

Among the early texts dating to the period until approximately 100 CE, the fol-
lowing four, when differing from the uncials, contain elements of the OG (based
on my analysis):55

et al., MSU XX (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 230–252 considers this equiv-
alent of 4QLXXNum an early revisional reading. Quast does not discuss the nature of the
complete fragment.
50 See Emanuel Tov, “The Septuagint Translation of Genesis as the First Scripture Transla-
tion,” in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli
Aejmelaeus, BETL 72 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 47–64.
51 See the Appendix of Detlef Fraenkel to the second edition of Ziegler, Susanna, Daniel, Bel
et Draco (see n. 25), 183–189.
52 This point has been stressed much by Ulrich and Metso & Ulrich as recorded in n. 37.
53 The latter detail is wrong. This transcription does not occur in 4QLXXNum.
54 Wevers, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” 23 (see n. 36). Wevers continued to dwell on this issue saying
that he was happy to accept Pietersma’s suggestion (see n. 38) that the Tetragrammaton
was originally rendered by κύριος.
55 The elements in parenthesis refer to the presentation of the divine name; see Table 1.

10.1163/2589255X-bja10001 | Textus (2020) 1–20

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 17

the use of the earliest greek scripture fragments 17

– P.Rylands Greek 458 of Deuteronomy (2nd c. BCE).

– 4QLXXLeva of Leviticus 26 (late 2nd or early 1st c. BCE).
– 4QpapLXX-Levb of Leviticus 2–5 (1st c. BCE).
– 4QLXXNum of Numbers 3–4 (1st c. BCE), probably.
Seven texts contain revisional elements as recognized by their approximations
to the proto-MT text and their presentation of the divine names in Hebrew
characters (not in all texts):
– P.Fouad 266b of Deuteronomy 17–33 (middle 1st c. BCE) (Tetragrammaton:
square script).
– 7QpapLXX-Exod of Exodus 28 (1st c. BCE).56
– P.Fouad 266c of Deuteronomy 10–11, 31–33 (50–51 BCE) (no evidence for the
divine names).
– 8HevXIIgr hands A and B (end of 1st c. BCE) (both: paleo-Hebrew script).
– P.Oxy. 50.3522 of Job 42 (1st c. CE) (paleo-Hebrew script).
– P.Oxy. 77.5101 of Psalms (1st or 2nd c. CE) (paleo-Hebrew script).
Six of these seven texts approximate the OG to the Hebrew; further, five of
them represent the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters (paleo-Hebrew or
square script; see the listing above and below). According to Tov, the writing in
Hebrew characters in Greek manuscripts is a sign of the revisional character of
the Greek sources, also reflected in the following, later, revisions:57
– P.Vindob. Gr. 39777 Psalms 68, 80 in the version of Symmachus (3rd–4th c.
CE): paleo-Hebrew script.58
– The Aquila fragments of Kings and Psalms (5th–6th c. CE): paleo-Hebrew
script.59
– The second column of the Hexapla in the Psalms fragments published by
Giovanni Mercati, Psalterii Hexapli reliquiae (Milan: Bibliothèque Vaticane,
1958): square script.
– Several Hexaplaric sources (Q, 86, 88, 234margin, 264); square script repre-
sented in Greek letters as πιπι.
The seven revisional texts contain both original and nonoriginal elements, and
a text like 8ḤevXIIgr, probably reflecting kaige-Th, contains mainly late ele-

56 Limited evidence; see n. 22.

57 See a more complete list in Tov, Scribal Practices, 220–221.
58 Publication: Giovanni Mercati, “Frammenti di Aquila o di Simmaco,” RB NS 8 (1911): 266–
272.
59 Publication: Francis C. Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Trans-
lation of Aquila (Cambridge: University Press, 1897); Charles Taylor, Hebrew-Greek Cairo
Genizah Palimpsests from the Taylor-Schechter Collection (Cambridge: University Press,
1900).

Textus (2020) 1–20 | 10.1163/2589255X-bja10001

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 18

18 tov

ments. On the other hand, the texts presumably reflecting the OG contain more
early elements.
Turning to the implications of this list, there is insufficient evidence in order
to create a complete sketch of the history of the transmission of Greek Scrip-
ture in the period between the creation of the translations and the influence
of the Hexapla in the manuscript tradition of the subsequent centuries, but
a few remarks are in order. Presumably several of the earlier fragments (see
Table 1) were good reflections of the OG. If the dating of the Minor Prophets
scroll from Naḥal Ḥever is correct (end of the first century BCE), a system-
atic revision approximating early Greek Scripture scrolls to the Hebrew Bible
text was evidenced before the time of that scroll, from the beginning of the
first century BCE. Similar revisions to the Hebrew are found in several addi-
tional early sources, but they are less systematic than in that scroll. This trend
must have affected also the precursors of the uncial manuscripts.60 The proto-
Masoretic text exerted much influence on the transmission of the LXX and
for some reason relatively many such revisional texts, apparently more than
those associated with the OG, have been preserved. The background of this phe-
nomenon may be related to the fact that the protorabbinic circles advanced
MT and its counterpart in Greek (as with the Greek Minor Prophets scroll from
Naḥal Ḥever).
I note that most early (pre-Hexaplaric) texts, including those that are slightly
later than those recorded in Table 1, reflect a mixture of original and revisional
readings. Thus, P.Schøyen 2648 (Joshua) dating to 210–215 CE and P.Schøyen
2649 (Leviticus) dating to the end of the second century CE61 contain a mixture
of revisional (secondary) and original readings, there being more of the former.
Codex B remained relatively pure of such influences. It is an open question
on which sources that codex was based when it was copied in the fourth cen-
tury CE. This codex, as well as A and S, was based on a different source in each
Scripture book, and it is unknown why very few of their sources have been pre-
served.62 As more fragments become known, this aspect needs to be examined
further.

60 Wevers, “Pre-Origen Recensional Activity” describes the occasional pre-Origenic recen-

sional activity in early papyri as well as in uncial manuscripts.
61 Kristin De Troyer in Rosario Pintaudi, Papyri Graecae Schøyen (PSchøyen I), Papyrolo-
gia Florentina XXXV (Florence: Gonnelli, 2005), 81–145; eadem in Diletta Minutoli and
Rosario Pintaudi, Papyri Graecae Schøyen (PSchøyen II), Papyrologia Florentina XL (Flo-
rence: Gonnelli, 2010), 3–68.
62 This issue is not mentioned in the excellent discussion of this codex by Detlef Fraenkel
in Alfred Rahlfs and Detlef Fraenkel, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten
Testaments I.1, Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottin-

10.1163/2589255X-bja10001 | Textus (2020) 1–20

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 19

the use of the earliest greek scripture fragments 19

Returning to the early remains of the LXX, although the revisional texts pre-
vail, several texts are presumably closer to the OG than the uncial manuscripts,
but they have been marginalized in the reconstruction of the original text in
the critical editions.

5 The Creation of Critical Editions

Although editors would be expected to reconstruct the original text according

to fixed principles, in practice this procedure is more subjective than antici-
pated.
The reconstructed text in Wevers’s Göttingen edition of Deuteronomy selec-
tively includes and excludes readings of P.Fouad 266b (= Ra 848) and 266c (=
Ra 847), both listed in Table 1 as early revisions. These readings are sometimes
recorded together with the combined evidence of the uncials as the original
LXX text, and sometimes against the uncials. Although these two papyri reflect
revisions of the OG,63 they also contain some original readings.64 Wevers also
refers frequently to the faulty character of these two manuscripts.65 Because of
these secondary readings, Wevers often decides subjectively against the read-
ings of P.Fouad 266b,66 while at other times he records P.Fouad 266b as the
original text, both together with B and against B.67

gensis editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 337–344 as it is beyond the
scope of that monograph.
63 Thus Armin Lange, “ ‘They Confirmed the Reading’ ( y. Taʿan. 4:68a): The Textual Stan-
dardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period,” in idem, From Qumran
to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in
Honor of His 65th Birthday, ed. Armin Lange et al., FRLANT 230 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2009), 29–80 (59–60).
64 John W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy, MSU XIII (Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 64 describes P.Fouad 266b as “a linear descendant of Deut ⟨that
is, Wevers’ reconstructed OG translation of Deuteronomy⟩ with very little revisionary influ-
ence apparent in its text form.” However, he does not prove this statement, and some form
of circular reasoning is involved: Several readings (how many?) of this scroll are included
in the reconstructed original text, but that original text is sometimes based on this scroll
because of its antiquity.
65 He notes, for example, “[i]n spite of its early provenance P.Fouad 266b (= Ra 848) is itself
the product of a long textual history as the numerous variants to Deut which it contains
amply demonstrate.” (ibid., 65). He then gives long lists of unique readings of P.Fouad 266b
that he considers secondary (ibid., 65–71). Among them, he lists several cases of influence
of the Hebrew on the transmission (ibid., 69–71).
66 Ibid., 67.
67 Ibid., 72–85.

Textus (2020) 1–20 | 10.1163/2589255X-bja10001

2019268 [TEXT-2020-29.1] 10001-Tov-proof-01 [version 20200207 date 20200211 16:05] page 20

20 tov

Likewise, Pap. Chester Beatty VI of Numbers from the second century CE (=

Ra 963), not included in Table 1 because it is somewhat later than the other
texts, is much appreciated by Wevers,68 but a mere eleven readings of that
manuscript are included in the eclectic text.69 In other cases, this papyrus goes
together with A against B or with B against A in the reconstructed original
text,70 but the longest list of readings recorded for this source pertains to mis-
takes.71 Wevers reminds us “Not that one should exhibit undue reverence for
963 just because of its age. The copyist was not overly careful ….”72replace 4 periods by 3?
As indicated above, three Greek Qumran papyri, 4QLXXLeva, 4QpapLXX break OK here? Hyphen needed?
Levb, and probably also 4QLXXNum, are closer to the original text (OG) than
the uncials, but they are systematically marginalized in the text editions. In my
view, their evidence ought to be included, with the implication that some or
many additional details in the reconstruction also may have to be altered.
The task of a text editor of a LXX book is very complex because it is hard to
develop objective criteria for defining original readings in the early papyri. One
criterion seems to be the exclusion of readings that may reflect approximations
to the proto-MT text. Another criterion seems to be adherence to the central
LXX vocabulary, or lack of it (see §3). The early Qumran fragments of the Torah
contain a vocabulary that is not as consistent as that found in the uncials of the
fourth and fifth centuries and may well be closer to the OG than these uncials.
For Wevers, almost all early sources carry less weight than the large uncials, cer-
tainly in the case of the Qumran scrolls. However, I attach more importance to
them, while realizing that in practical terms the use of the Qumran fragments
in the reconstruction of the OG is very complex.
The practical result of this analysis is that the use of early fragments in the
reconstruction of the original text is necessary but very complex. Sometimes
the later uncials are closer to the original text and sometimes they are further
removed from it.

68 John W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Numbers, MSU XVI (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1982), 86–93.
69 Ibid., 90.
70 Ibid., 91–93.
71 Ibid., 86–90.
72 Ibid., 86.

10.1163/2589255X-bja10001 | Textus (2020) 1–20