The Origins of _Kai ge_

The Origins Of καΙ γε 1. IntroductIon PE ET ER S The identification of distinct translational layers within the septuagint is associated with the name of Thackeray.1 recognizing within the books of Kingdoms five separate translation sections, he surmised that two of them (his βγ and γδ) had been added later than the rest of the translation. he considered that these two sections had been originally omitted from the translation owing to the translators’ religious sensibilities. Thackeray’s identification was in part confirmed by the discovery of the Minor Prophets scroll from naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXiigr), which displayed a similar translation technique to those “later” sections. Barthélemy saw the naḥal Ḥever scroll as one of a group of translations employing the same translation technique observable in a number of septuagint books and in later manuscripts. he famously called this translation tradition by the name kaige,2 owing to the distinctive translation of ‫ גם‬and ‫ וגם‬by καί γε.3 Barthélemy saw these versions as a revision of the earlier Old greek (rather than Thackeray’s view of a later insertion) and proposed that it was to be placed in a proto-rabbinic Palestinian movement of the first century c.e. it was a translation method that had close affinities with that of Theodotion, and one that eventually paved the way for the translation technique of Aquila in the second century c.e. As a translation method the so-called kaige tradition can be said to be distinctly odd. To the minds of some scholars “rigid isomorphism” pervades 1. h. st. J. Thackeray, “The greek Translators of the four Books of Kings,” JTS 8 (1907): 262–78. 2. Throughout i use καί γε in greek letters to denote the actual translation equivalents, and kaige in transliteration to refer to the “revision” or tradition that includes a number of different features, only one of which is the use of the καί γε equivalent. 3. D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila: première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton, trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien (VTsup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963). The equivalent καί γε had been noted by Thackeray (“greek Translators,” 271) but not singled out. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 21 26/10/15 10:49 22 J.K. AiTKen PE ET ER S the tradition.4 This is represented by regular equivalents being given for the same hebrew word, even where this disrupts the semantics, and every element in hebrew is found an equivalent in greek. Assessments are accordingly critical. for example, the translators, in order to distinguish the pronoun ‫( אני‬translated by ἐγώ) from ‫אנכי‬, would usually render the latter by ἐγώ εἰμί. The resulting syntax in which ἐγώ εἰμί is even followed by a finite verb (as in 2 Kgdms 11:5; 12:7; 13:28) is called by Taylor a “barbarism.”5 The most famous of all such “barbarisms” is the syntagm καί γε, used to render the hebrew ‫ גם‬or ‫ ;וגם‬it too has been attributed to the oft-styled “pedanticism” of the Aquila method.6 The precise nature and extent of this kaige tradition remains debated to this day and cannot be fully examined here.7 Barthélemy reserved the term “recension” only for the βγ section of Kingdoms, and for the other books he only spoke of the kaige “group” of texts,8 but subsequently it became common to see the kaige as a recension or revision of the Old greek, and apparently homogenous. There is increasing uncertainty as to whether it should be seen as either a revision or a recension, however we define the terms, or whether or not it is even a monolithic movement. There is no agreement over the characteristics of the translation, and accordingly over the classification of books and manuscripts into kaige groups. As a result there is also no certainty over the date or the location in which a putative translation method arose. in all this, it is surprising that little attention has been paid to the very features of the translation technique, and especially there have been few attempts to explain the linguistic features of the most characteristic translation equivalent καί γε, from which Barthélemy gave the 4. P. D. McLean, “The Kaige Text of reigns,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (ed. A. Pietersma, and B. g. Wright; new York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 271– 341 at 271. 5. McLean, “Kaige Text,” 271. 6. Cf. f. C. Burkitt, “Aquila,” JQR 10 (1898): 207–16 at 209. 7. A review of the debate can be found in r. A. Kraft, “reassessing the impact of Barthélemy’s Devanciers, forty Years Later,” BIOSCS 37 (2004): 1–28. Cf. L. J. greenspoon, “The ‘Kaige’ recension: The Life, Death, and Postmortem existence of a Modern – and Ancient – Phenomenon,” in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (ed. M. K. h. Peters; sBLsCs 54; Atlanta, ga.: sBL, 2006), 5–16; T. M. Law, “Kaige, Aquila, and Jewish revision,” in Greek Scripture and the Rabbis: Studies from the European Association of Jewish Studies Seminar, 2010 (ed. T. M. Law and A. salvesen; CBeT 66; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 39–64. i am grateful to Michael Law for an advance copy of his paper. 8. This point is rightly emphasized by P. J. gentry, “The Asterisked Materials in the greek Job and the Question of the ‘Kaige recension,’” Textus 19 (1998): 141–56 at 142. O. Munnich also speaks of a group (“La septante des Psaumes et le groupe kaige,” VT 33 (1983): 75–89). 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 22 26/10/15 10:49 23 The Origins Of καΙ γε S group its name. in the complex picture of scholarship on and primary data for the kaige tradition, some illumination can be gained by focussing upon the grammatical minutiae of this translation unit. The distribution of the equivalent καί γε has regularly been noted, but there is a need to explain the equivalent semantically and grammatically, and through this it might be possible to examine its significance for understanding the nature of the kaige tradition more generally. it is hoped that a study aiming to place the development of an apparently septuagint greek feature within the context of the history of greek will be a fitting tribute to the work of John Lee. he has taught us to be attuned to the literary nature of certain aspects of the septuagint,9 and to recognize that distinctive features of geek can reflect developments of the language of the time.10 ER 2. the KaIge tradItIon dIstrIbutIon of ΚΑΙ and the ΓΕ PE ET Barthélemy isolated a number of characteristics that he saw as typical of the kaige translation. Beginning with the naḥal Ḥever scroll, he identified distinguishing features of a number of septuagint books and accordingly assigned them to this kaige group. The translation method culminated in the work of Theodotion, which led Tov to speak of the kaige-Theodotion revision(s). As research has continued, more and more features have been attributed to the kaige translation method,11 such that greenspoon was able to identify a total of 96 traits,12 although he himself recognized the lack of consistency between books.13 indeed, the inconsistency in kaige has long 9. see for example his study of rhetorical features: “Translations of the Old Testament: i. greek,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 BC–AD 400 (ed. s. e. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 775–83. issues of register and literary “style” have also been taken up by him in his grinfield lectures at the University of Oxford, and we look forward to the publication of those lectures. 10. As an example see his “A Lexical Study Thirty Years On, with Observations on ‘Order’ Words in the LXX Pentateuch,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. s. M. Paul, r. A. Kraft, L. h. schiffman, and W. W. fields; VTsup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 513–24. 11. K. 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 (hsM 3; Cambridge, Mass.: harvard University Press, 1972); W. r. Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges: Recensional Developments (hsM 23; Chico, Calif.: scholars, 1980). 12. L. J. greenspoon, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua (hsM 28; Chico, Calif.: scholars, 1983), 269–73. 13. greenspoon, Textual Studies, 275. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 23 26/10/15 10:49 24 J.K. AiTKen PE ET ER S been known, even if it has not been emphasized. As Pietersma notes, even Barthélemy admits of textual diversity within the kaige group.14 it is this diversity that has led scholars more recently to question the nature of the kaige group. Pietersma draws out how there is not only a lack of consistency in the fidelity to the translation method but at times even contradiction. he concludes it should more properly be called a tradition than a recension.15 in recent research it has become clear that the multiplicity of traits is indicative of an inconsistent method in which individual translators made choices as to which equivalents to use, favouring at times those that are apparently not the most characteristic of the group.16 There was an ongoing process of translation of which kaige formed one part, resulting in variety in the method employed by individual translators, and at times the inclusion of kaige features in non-kaige translations.17 McLay has particularly drawn attention to the fact that there is a lack of homogeneity in the kaige tradition.18 he notes that it is also incorrect to call it a revision of Old greek since Canticles, Lamentations and ruth, given our present knowledge, appear to be first translations rather than revisions and therefore the equivalent of the Old greek.19 The developing process of the tradition and the individual choice on the part of translators account for aspects of the distribution of the particular equivalent καί γε. Janz has already noted how the apparently characteristic features of the kaige group, namely καί γε and ἐγώ εἰμι, “were not necessarily the characteristics which mattered most to the translators and revisors responsible for it.”20 Likewise De Crom, observing the meagre two occurrences of καί γε in Canticles, concludes that it might be an idiosyncratic choice of certain translators, and therefore appearing irregularly or not at all: “for the ancient translators and revisors this pattern was perhaps not at the heart of their translation activity, although for us it is of great significance.”21 A distribution of kaige characteristics appearing in the 14. Barthélemy, Les devanciers, 47. see A. Pietersma, “septuagint research: A Plea for a return to Basic issues,” VT 35 (1985): 296–311 at 304; cf. 311. 15. Pietersma, “septuagint research,” 304–5. 16. D. De Crom, “The LXX Text of Canticles: A Descriptive study in hebrew-greek Translation” (PhD diss., Catholic University of Leuven, 2009), 165–70. 17. see on this P. J. gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job (sBLsCs 38; Atlanta, ga.: scholars, 1995); T. Janz, “The second Book of ezra and the ‘καίγε group’,” in IX International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Cambridge, 1995 (ed. B. A. Taylor; Atlanta, ga.: scholars, 1997); De Crom, “LXX Text”; Law, “Kaige.” 18. T. McLay “Kaige and septuagint research,” Textus 19 (1998): 127–39. 19. McLay “Kaige,” 128. 20. Janz, “second Book,” 157. 21. De Crom, “LXX Text,” 176. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 24 26/10/15 10:49 The Origins Of καΙ γε 25 PE ET ER S studies of particular translations has been presented by McLay. for the specific equivalence of καί γε for hebrew ‫ וגם‬he observes that in the studies of Bodine (on Judges) and gentry (on kaige-Theodotion Job) the equivalence appears at least 75 per cent of the time, while in O’Connell (Theodotionic exodus) and greenspoon (Joshua) it appears less than 50 per cent, and in McLay (Daniel) it is classed among his mixed results, meaning somewhere between 50 per cent and 75 per cent.22 in this last case the statistics are perhaps not significant since the hebrew syntagm appears less than three times. examination of the precise distribution of καί γε reinforces this point.23 The most consistent use of καί γε is found in ecclesiastes where it is the equivalent for one of two hebrew elements in the source: hebrew ‫ גם‬on 43 occasions (eccl 1:17; 2:1, 7, 8, 14, 15bis, 19, 21, 23bis, 24, 26; 3:11; 4:4, 8tris, 11, 14, 16bis; 5:9, 16, 18; 6:5, 9; 7:14, 21, 22; 8:10, 12, 14, 16; 9:1bis; 6tris, 12, 13; 10:20; 12:5), and ‫ וגם‬on 14 occasions (eccl 1:11; 3:13; 5:15; 6:3, 7; 7:6, 18; 8:17; 9:3, 11tris; 10:3; 11:2).24 in addition, the one occurrence of ‫( )אף‬9:2) is rendered by καί γε (cf. Cant 1:16), and at 3:18 the septuagint reads καί γε where ‫ גם‬would have to be presumed in the translator’s Vorlage, and indeed goldman argues would have been the original reading.25 The one exception is eccl 7:22a where it seems that ‫גם‬ in the Masoretic Text has not been translated at all, perhaps owing to its redundancy before the ‫ גם‬later in the sentence causing its omission in the Vorlage, or owing to ‫ גם‬being rendered by a simple καί in 7:22b.26 All these statistics are based on the Leningrad Codex (B19A), and naturally there are variants in the Masoretic manuscript tradition in some verses where the waw has been added or omitted. Already in the Qumran fragments we find a variant of ‫ גם‬in place of ‫ וגם‬at eccl 5:15 (4QQoha i 1 i 3) and 7:6 (4QQoha ii 1 ii, 3–6 i 20), in the latter case supported by some Targumic 22. McLay “Kaige,” 131. 23. The history of this translation feature has been sketched out by Barthélemy, Les devanciers, 31–47. 24. These references represent a corrected version of gentry’s list (“ecclesiast,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (ed. A. Pietersma, and B. g. Wright; new York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 648–56 at 649). 25. goldman, Y.A.P., “Commentaries on the Critical Apparatus: Qoheleth,” in Biblia Hebraica Quinta: fasc. 18: General Introduction and Megilloth (ed. A. schenker et al.; stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004), 64–112 at 77. 26. On the repetition of ‫ גם‬here, see r. n. Whybray, Ecclesiastes (nCBC; grand rapids, Mich.: eerdmans, 1989), 122–3. since lxx 7:22a and 7:22b are doublets of the hebrew, gentry (“ecclesiast,” 649) suggests 7:22b is translating hebrew ‫ גם‬by simple καί, although the καί is in fact joining the two doublets. in the first of the doublets ‫ גם כי‬is rendered by simple ὅτι. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 25 26/10/15 10:49 26 J.K. AiTKen ET ER S manuscripts.27 it is not necessary to compile all the statistics, especially as there is clear variation between ‫ גם‬and ‫וגם‬, but the point is that both are consistently translated by καί γε. ecclesiastes is usually considered the translation closest to the style of Aquila,28 although it has recently also been compared to Theodotion.29 it is no surprise therefore to find it being the most consistent in its renderings. ecclesiastes is also, therefore, probably the latest of the translations of the septuagint, which accounts for its being the most developed. since the nineteenth century the greek version has been considered to be from the hand of Aquila and therefore placed in the second century c.e.,30 the time of the Jewish reviser, but a cautious estimate would place it in the first century.31 The significance of this date we will return to later. Comparison to other books illustrates how far ecclesiastes of all translations is developed in its application of this particular translation feature. The one other book that is consistent in its rendering of ‫ גם‬by καί γε is Lamentations (in six instances).32 The book of ruth is partially consistent, rendering by καί γε in six out of nine occurrences of ‫גם‬,33 while Canticles is inconsistent, choosing καί γε only twice, once for of ‫ גם‬and once for ‫אף‬.34 indeed, in Canticles adverbial πρός is also used to render both ‫ גם‬and ‫ אף‬so that only one of the four eligible instances corresponds to Barthélemy’s characteristic for the kaige group.35 On this basis De Crom suggests the equivalent is not an PE 27. see J. Muilenburg, “A Qoheleth scroll from Qumran,” BASOR 135 (1954): 20–8 at 27; e. Ulrich, “Qohelet,” in Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles (ed. e. C. Ulrich, et al.; DJD 16; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 221–8 at 223, 225; goldman, “Qoheleth,” 40. Ulrich suggests the greek reading καί γε supports the Mt’s ‫ וגם‬rather than the Qumran text, but clearly the septuagint evidence is ambiguous on this. 28. see, e.g., e. Podechard, L’Ecclésiaste (Études bibliques; Paris: gabalda, 1912), 201; r. B. salters, “Observations on the septuagint of ecclesiastes,” Old Testament Essays 6 (1993): 163–74. 29. P. J. gentry, “Propaedeutic to a Lexicon of the Three: The Priority of a new Critical edition of hexaplaric fragments,” Aramaic Studies 2 (2004): 145–74 at 171; Y. Y. Yi, “Translation Technique of the greek ecclesiastes” (PhD diss., The southern Baptist Theological seminary, 2005). 30. As f. Vinel, L’Ecclésiaste (BA 18; Paris: Cerf, 2002), 24. 31. so, e.g., M. hengel, with the assistance of r. Deines, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (introd. r. hanhart; London: T&T Clark, 2002), 89. 32. Lam 1:8; 2:9; 3:8; 4:3, 15, 21. see Barthélemy, Les devanciers, 33; K. J. Youngblood, “Translation Technique in the greek Lamentations” (PhD diss., southern Baptist Theological seminary, 2004), 275. 33. Barthélemy, Les devanciers, 34. Barthélemy also discusses manuscript variants in this case. 34. see De Crom, “LXX Text,” 539, where he also discusses details of the manuscripts. 35. De Crom, “LXX Text,” 539. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 26 26/10/15 10:49 The Origins Of καΙ γε 27 PE ET ER S important one for the Canticles translator: “the discriminatory value of a particular rendering for present-day research does not necessarily reflect its importance to an ancient translator.”36 2 esdras displays kaige characteristics if not consistently, but only has one instance in its Vorlage of ‫( וגם‬ezr 1:1), and this is rendered by καί γε. As the sole instance of the equivalent, we cannot infer much regarding the translation.37 Other textual traditions in the septuagint also reflect some use of καί γε, but rarely with such consistency as in the books mentioned above. it is probable that in each case these are to be seen as later revisions that have found their way into the septuagint text such that καί γε was not an original translation feature. Thus, in Thackeray’s βγ and γδ sections of Kingdoms καί γε appears for ‫ גם‬or ‫וגם‬ approximately 26 and 17 times respectively,38 but it was not consistent or distinctive enough for Thackeray to mark it out as the prime feature of this tradition.39 examples are to be found in the traditions of Judges (especially in Mss i r u a 2 and B e f s z), manuscripts of Chronicles, the asterisked materials in Job, and so on. Theodotion Daniel is already a separate tradition from Old greek Daniel, but is not consistent in its rendering. There are only two occurrences of ‫ וגם‬in Daniel (11:8, 22), but only in 11:8 does Theodotion render by καίγε.40 recognition then that kaige is a trend in translation rather than a uniform revision allows one to consider the emergence and development of individual translation features. ecclesiastes is the most developed of the traditions, but is also recognized as a relatively late translation in the septuagint, and later than the first stages of the kaige-Theodotion tradition. We can therefore identify its early appearance and its later reuse. second, the variation in the usage of καί γε among those translators and the manuscript histories that have it is an indication of a developing tradition. 3. the syntax of ΚΑΙ ΓΕ in order to understand the development of καί γε as an alternative translation equivalent and to see what light it might shed on the tradition as a 36. De Crom, “LXX Text,” 539. 37. This instance is omitted in Barthélemy, but noted by Janz, “second Book,” 153–70 at 157. 38. McLean, “Kaige Text,” 271. 39. The expression is number five in his list of ten characteristics (Thackeray, “greek Translators,” 268) and barely receives any comment (271). 40. T. McLay, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (sBLsCs 43; Atlanta, ga.: scholars, 1996), 227. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 27 26/10/15 10:49 28 J.K. AiTKen 3.1. The Function of γε ER S whole, we need to account for the reasons for καί γε being the chosen translation equivalent. Although this translation feature could be attributed to the “pedanticism” of the Aquila method,41 there is a lack of agreement as to its semantic value or function. On the one hand it has been questioned owing to “its dubious semantic appropriateness,”42 while it has also been praised as an “excellent” rendering, but without further elucidation of the grammar.43 The choice of καί γε is often attributed to the similarity in sound (homophony) for the first letter of the hebrew ‫ גם‬and the greek γε.44 While this is one possible explanation, the importance of the phonetic matching might have been exaggerated by modern scholars (it is, after all, rooted in but one velar consonant γ) to the detriment of the literary effect in greek. it shall be argued here that multiple explanations apply all at once, which opens up questions regarding how the greek operates within the grammatical analysis of the language. in addition to the influence of the source text in homophonic and lexical matching, reasons for the choice include the intended effect it will have within the target language. PE ET The grammatical analysis of the expression καί γε may assist in appreciating its choice as a translation equivalent. in hebrew the primary function of ‫ גם‬is that of addition or inclusion, from which its other uses are derived.45 it is frequently employed when giving an “exaggerated, aggravated or extreme case.”46 This moderately emphatic usage is probably derived from 41. Cf. Burkitt, “Aquila,” 209. 42. Janz, “second Book,” 156. 43. J. W. Wevers, “Barthélemy and Proto-septuagint studies,” BIOSCS 21 (1988): 23–34 at 24. 44. e.g., h. st.J., Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, according to the Septuagint. Vol. 1: Introduction, Orthography, and Accidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 36–7, notes this as an instance of greek words chosen for their similarity in sound to the hebrew. Cf. Thackeray, “greek Translators,” 271; h. B. swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 39. 45. One of the most influential studies on this particle has been T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), 143–46. Prior to this f. i. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (Janua Linguarum, series practica 231; The hague: Mouton, 1974), 154, determined ‫ גם‬was part of an inclusive sentence-type. see further W. richter, Grundlagen einer althebräischen Grammatik (3 vols.; ATs 8, 10, 13; st. Ottilien: eOs, 1978–1980); C. h. J. van der Merwe, The Old Hebrew Particle gam: A Syntactic-Semantic Description of gam in Gn–2Kg (ATs 34; st. Ottilien: eOs, 1990); C. h. J. van der Merwe, “Old hebrew Particles and the interpretation of Old Testament Texts,” JSOT 60 (1993): 27–44. in his later work van der Merwe moved away from a syntactic explanation to a pragmatic one. 46. Muraoka, Emphatic Words, 143. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 28 26/10/15 10:49 The Origins Of καΙ γε 29 PE ET ER S the additive function (for example, num 22:33; Deut 12:31; 2sam 17:10), and as such the hebrew has the function of focusing on the addition made by the clause that follows.47 The fact that even the simple ‫ גם‬without connective is translated by καί γε is an indicator of the latter’s semantics, namely that the greek expression as a whole is a suitable translation for ‫גם‬, and not merely the particle γε by itself, as might be implied had καί γε been the consistent equivalent of ‫וגם‬, with two greek elements representing the two elements in hebrew. it is only Aquila later who feels the insufficiency of καίγε once the two elements have been compounded, and therefore requires καὶ καίγε to represent the hebrew elements, presumably from a desire for quantitative rather than a semantic equivalence. The classical explanation of the function of γε in greek is that it is emphatic48 or that it has a focussing function,49 sometimes with a limiting force,50 explanations not dissimilar to earlier explanations for the hebrew particle. its function is most likely to mark an addition, being positioned after the element it marks, and therefore as the hebrew has a secondary effect of emphasis. This interpretation is supported by studies in discourse linguistics,51 in which the simple greek καί could serve as a coordinating conjunction or adverbially to mark addition.52 The greek γε disambiguates the clause, indicating that the new topical frame is emphatic and not contrastive to the previous clause.53 The function, therefore, of greek γε in stressing the addition signalled by καί ensures that the whole expression καί γε corresponds effectively to the function of the hebrew ‫ גם‬that it is translating. it accordingly serves as a semantically or pragmatically appropriate translation equivalent. 47. Van der Merwe, “Particles,” 30, places ‫ גם‬in the class of focus inducers, forming single constituents that are the focus of a sentence. 48. f. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A Translation and Revision of the Ninth-Tenth German Edition incorporating Supplementary Notes of A. Debrunner by Robert W. Funk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), §439. 49. f. M. Abel, Grammaire du Grec biblique, suivie d’un choix de Papyrus (Paris: gabalda, 1927), §77k. 50. J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1954), 173. 51. s. e. runge, “Joel 3:1–5 in Acts 2:17–21: The Discourse and Text-Critical implications of Quotation and Variation from the LXX,” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Vol. 2 Exegetical Studies (ed. C. A. evans and h. D. Zacharias; LnTs 392; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 103–13. i am grateful to Chris fresch for drawing my attention to this article. 52. Cf. runge, “Joel 3:1–5,” 107. 53. runge, “Joel 3:1–5,” 108–9. Although runge is unaware of the kaige tradition that might account for the text in Acts, his grammatical explanation of the function of the particles is independent of such considerations. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 29 26/10/15 10:49 30 J.K. AiTKen 3.2. The Word Combination καί γε ET ER S The specific combination of καί γε can easily be accounted for. As noted by others,54 and following Denniston,55 classical greek would normally require an intervening word, usually a single word or rarely two, between the two segments.56 As a result, in many cases where we find expressions such as καὶ πολλοί γε “and a great many” (Plato, Phaed. 58d) the γε is in fact emphasizing the addition indicated by καί or emphasizing the whole clause (cf. καί . . . δή).57 By the roman period, however, we find in many greek writers that γε has shifted earlier in the clause to second position immediately after καί, producing the phrase καί γε (and later combined into the one word καίγε). This tendency to take second place is already seen in earlier greek in the frequency with which γε in an articular clause immediately follows the article rather than the noun that it emphasizes (such as ὅ γε πόλεμος, Thucydides 1.66).58 This shift in the position of γε is not restricted to these combinations, but is reflected in the development of many new compound particles such as μέντοιγε (from an original μέντοι . . . γε), καίτοιγε, and μενοῦνγε.59 The later practice of combining καί and γε into the one word καίγε is, therefore, also well attested in greek, as demonstrated by these conjunctions with similar functions. The reason for the shift in greek is most likely to be explained by the tendency for emphatics to come early in the clause and by the fact that γε normally follows the word it stresses;60 in reality it is in many cases the καί and not any intervening PE 54. Treat “Lost Keys,” 359–60, n. 105; De Crom, “LXX Text,” 232, who suggests the focus word is the intervening word. rather it is in some cases, while in others, as we shall see, the καί is the word being modified by the γε. 55. Denniston, Particles, 157; cf. h. W. smyth, Greek Grammar (2nd ed.; rev. gordon M. Messing; Cambridge, Mass.: harvard University Press, 1956), §2829. 56. Although principally a particle “of conversation, of question and reply” (Denniston, Particles, 116) γε has a range of genres in which it functions. C. h. george, “greek Particles: Just a Literary Phenomenon?” in Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek (ed. g. Wakker and s. Bakker; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 155–69 at 157 and 167–68, draws out the ambiguous role of this particle, building upon the work of Y. Duhoux. 57. This applies to adverbial καί as well (Denniston, Particles, 158). There are cases where the two particles are independent of each other and the γε modifies the intervening word and not the καί (Denniston, Particles, 159). 58. Denniston, Particles, 146. 59. Cf. Denniston, Particles, 150. 60. The application of Wackernagel’s Law would be relevant here, whereby enclitics tend to be positioned second in the sentence, accounting for repositioning of γε. furthermore, Janse observes how even the occasional application of this Law in the septuagint indicates the translators were native speakers of greek, which would support the arguments of this chapter. see M. Janse, “Aspects of Bilingualism in the history of the greek Language,” in Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text (ed. J. n. Adams, M. Janse, and s. swain; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 332–90 at 383. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 30 26/10/15 10:49 31 The Origins Of καΙ γε ER S word that is qualified by the γε. no definitive cases of καί γε in literary sources can be detected, however, before the time of the septuagint. Denniston correctly rules out manuscript variants to classical authors since in these cases the modified word order could have entered the manuscript tradition later.61 Likewise, we can exclude as uncertain appearances of καί γε in fragmentary authors, since the preservation of the quotation within a later writer could account for the introduction of this phrase at that later time. This discounts such authors as Ctesias (citing scylax),62 Aristophanes the grammarian, and the hippocratic corpus (De septimestri partu 9), whose attribution is doubtful. nonetheless, even with these exclusions, καί γε begins to appear from the first century c.e., being found in Longinus (De sublimitate 13.2) and the philosopher Cornutus (De natura deorum 40), and then continues in the second century with galen, and later on in Cassius Dio and sextus empiricus.63 4. the regIster of ΚΑΙ ΓΕ PE ET The papyri are important indicators of natural greek usage at the time, displaying preferences in usage and the revival in later periods of earlier forms. Their value as resources for understanding Koine, including the greek of the septuagint, has been emphasized by Lee.64 Conveniently for the particle γε a summary of the evidence in papyri has been given by Clarysse.65 in the hellenistic period we see a sharp decline in the use of γε in standard greek, such that it virtually disappears in later Ptolemaic papyri 61. Denniston, Particles, 157. 62. f. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (3 parts in 14 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1923–58), f51b. 63. Sibylline Oracles 3.429 would be a very early reference if that sibylline is dated to the second century b.c.e.; see J. J. Collins, “sibylline Oracles (second Century b.c.–seventh Century a.d.),” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (ed. J. h. Charlesworth; Peabody, Mass.: hendrickson, 1983), 317–472 at 354–57. it is possible that the reading has been influenced in later transmission by a scribe imitating the biblical tradition. it is likely, however, that lines 350–488 comprise a series of oracles perhaps originating from different periods, and we should not presume the work is a single composition. A challenge to the consensus date of the second century is the study by r. Buitenwerf, who places it slightly later in the first century b.c.e. (Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting, With an Introduction, Translation and Commentary [sVTP 17; Leiden: Brill, 2003]). 64. Lee, “Thirty Years On.” 65. W. Clarysse, “Linguistic Diversity in the Archive of the engineers Kleon and Theodoros,” in The Language of Papyri (ed. T. V. evans and D. Obbink; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 35–50 at 39–40. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 31 26/10/15 10:49 32 J.K. AiTKen PE ET ER S (that is, the first century b.c.e.) except in fixed expressions such as εἰ δὲ μή γε and νῦν γε. The particles γε and ἄρα, which also undergoes a sharp decline in use, reappear in the later roman and early Byzantine period, from the second century c.e. on outnumbering their appearance in the third century b.c.e.66 The resurgence of use is primarily attested in notarial and administrative documents, which Clarysse surmises is a reflection of “Atticistic tendencies of later learned greek.” The attempt to write a higher register of literary greek led to the introduction by scribes of particles including γε. The evidence adduced for καί γε indicates that at the time of its use in the septuagint tradition it was also coming into use in greek, and by the height of the Aquila tradition when it is consistently and frequently chosen, both γε itself and the specific combination καί γε were being increasingly used in greek. The phrase καί γε served the translators’s purposes very well, as acceptable in greek and one that is a fitting translation of the hebrew. The additional if neglected factor that γε is a particle of choice for literary greek offers a further characteristic to the translation profile. The translator is conveying his education in choosing a literary greek feature, even if it is one that is unnatural in its frequency. Therefore, the choice of the translation equivalent throws better light on the intent of the translation school. The greek is limited by the strict translation method employed, seeking consistent quantitative equivalence throughout, and yet a literary effect is achieved through the choice of a particular register of greek. 5. the appearance of ΚΑΙ ΓΕ This discussion of the grammar and semantics is important for several reasons. first, it confirms that there is a clear semantic correspondence between the hebrew and the greek. second, it indicates that while undoubtedly the frequency of καί γε in the septuagint translations is unusual and would have struck any greek reader as odd, the expression itself is, nevertheless, in conformity with greek syntax as it was emerging in the later Koine period. Thirdly, it could have been seen as of a higher literary register and therefore appreciated by the readers of the translation. The question remains, though, whether it is legitimate for us to conclude that at the time of the translations concerned this was acceptable greek when our literary 66. They most often are found in combination with καίτοι and μέντοι. The distribution is illustrated by Clarysse’s tables 3.1 and 3.2. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 32 26/10/15 10:49 The Origins Of καΙ γε 33 PE ET ER S evidence is from the second century c.e. onwards. A date for the septuagint καί γε translation choice can be derived to some extent from the available evidence. it is not attested in what are generally deemed to be earlier books of the septuagint (such as the Pentateuch or isaiah) but in those that could well be later (namely, Canticles, ruth, Lamentations, 2 esdras, ecclesiastes), although there is a degree of circularity in argument here when one aspect of their dating is their affinity to the kaige tradition.67 nonetheless, the lesser importance that these books most likely held in ancient Judaism would suggest that they could be among the latest strands of the translation tradition. The conjunction καί γε is also well represented, as already noted, in revised sections such as the asterixed materials in Job, the Theodotion version of Daniel (only at 11:8), and portions of Kingdoms. The most important piece of evidence, though, is the Minor Prophets scroll from naḥal Ḥever, which is our earliest datable source using the equivalent καί γε. it was this scroll that first led Barthélemy to speak of a kaige tradition. The most recent analysis of the scroll has led to the conclusion that it can be dated to the late first century b.c.e.68 which is of course only the date of the particular manuscript and not of its source. it is not possible, however, to determine whether the scroll contains a recent translation or is a copy of a much earlier one, and therefore we must settle on a terminus ante quem of the late first century b.c.e. remarkably, we now have evidence from non-Jewish greek of the very combination καί γε from a similar time period (late Ptolemaic). its location in Upper egypt (Apollonopolis Magna) is not necessarily an indicator of the place of origin of this feature. ὅς μ’ ἔτι καὶ ζώοντα περίσχεο καί γε θαν[όντα] [φρ]οντίδι χρυσείηι σῇ με κατεκτέ[ρ]ισ[ας].69 You who embraced me while i was still alive, also now when i am dead you have prepared for me the last rites with the precious care that is yours. 67. it is notable that the one most consistent translation, in addition to ecclesiastes, is the book of Lamentations, a work that Alexander has dated to after 70 c.e. This could be informative for the dating of ecclesiastes. 68. P. J. Parsons, “The Palaeography and Date of the greek Manuscripts,” in Qumran Cave 4, iV Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (ed. P. W. skehan, e. Ulrich, and J. e. sanderson; DJD 9; Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 7–13 at 11; P. J. Parsons, “The scripts and Their Date,” in The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) (ed. e. Tov, with the collaboration of r. A. Kraft and a contribution by P. J. Parsons; DJD 8; Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 19–26. 69. e. Bernand, Inscriptions métriques de l’́gypte gréco-romaine: Recherches sur la poésie épigrammatique des grecs en ́gypte (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 98; Paris: Belles Lettres, 1969), no. 6, ll. 19–20. The use of the particle is not mentioned by Bernand in his notes on the inscription (p. 64). 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 33 26/10/15 10:49 34 J.K. AiTKen PE ET ER S The inscription is in verse, and it is perhaps possible that metrical constraints affected the word order, but it nonetheless demonstrates the acceptability of this pairing. indeed, as the inscription is written in sophisticated verse (seen, for example, in the uncontracted verb περίσχεο in this quotation) its author is highly educated and would have been unlikely to choose something that would have offended the greek ear. We may surmise then that in standard greek we see an emerging use of this combination from its appearance in the first century b.c.e. to its more common use in the roman period. Other documentary evidence confirms this, since καί γε appears in papyri from the second and third centuries c.e.,70 the same time when it becomes known in literature. it also is attested in a Christian inscription, but it has not been possible to determine its date (IG 14.531; from Catania in italy).71 This evidence in non-Jewish greek coincides with what we find in translation greek, and could confirm dating by other means. The first traces of the use of καί γε in the septuagint appear in the first century b.c.e., but its frequent use in works such as ecclesiastes likely begins in the roman period. it was in this period too that we see a resurgence in use of the particle γε owing to a growing concern for a classicizing style. from this we may conclude that the choice of καί γε by the septuagint translators was not as barbarous as it might seem, but was following the practice within greek at the time. in this the translators were inventive in finding an equivalent that matched the hebrew morphologically and semantically but one that did not transgress greek syntax. Before concluding with reflections on translation method, consideration should be given to one other translation equivalent that will shed light on this discussion. 6. the syntagM ΚΑΙ ΓΑΡ The similar phrase καὶ γάρ has also had a role in discussions of καί γε. The fact that καί γε has had more success and became the preferred translation choice suggests it may be revealing to compare the relative fate of each. As a translation of the hebrew ‫וגם‬, καὶ γάρ attracted the attention of Barthélemy, who observed its presence in Psalms, 2 Chronicles, and the β 70. A contributing factor in this case, though, is the rarity of γε in papyri until this time, as noted above. The papyri are PSI 14.141 (of uncertain date between 101–300 c.e.), POxy 1.41 (301–325 c.e.). 71. it is also found in one Byzantine inscription from Macedonia (L. heuzey, Le Mont Olympe et l’Acarnanie [Paris: Didot, 1860], 478, 26). 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 34 26/10/15 10:49 The Origins Of καΙ γε 35 section of ezekiel 28–39.72 each of these texts has been posited as having affinities with kaige. The most frequent occurrences are in the Psalms, and Pietersma lays out the data clearly:73 hence, out of 35 occurrences of gm, it is rendered by καὶ γάρ 13 times. in addition, one finds καὶ γάρ 9 times out of 22 for ᾿p, once for ᾿k (clearly not by mistake since ὅτι also appears for ᾿k). γάρ (in distinction from καὶ γάρ) translates ᾿p 3 times, š/᾿šr 3 times, ky 8 times, w twice, and on some 10 occasions the translator introduced γάρ where the MT has no equivalent. PE ET ER S The presence of καὶ γάρ in the three sources suggested to Barthélemy, and later to Venetz,74 the affinity of these works to the kaige group. it further led to their seeing a rabbinic explanation behind both phrases, and accordingly a Palestinian origin too for texts displaying the καὶ γάρ translation feature. Criticism of the idea that rabbinic interpretation was behind the choice of translation equivalents can be levied in this instance as much as others,75 and accordingly Pietersma has shown the weaknesses in drawing too close a connection between the two.76 it should be noted that the phrase began as early as the Pentateuchal translators, being found in genesis, for example, both for ‫( וגם‬gen 20:12) and for other conjunctions (e.g. ‫ואך‬, gen 9:5). it therefore precedes the use of καί γε and might have been part of the inspiration for the latter’s choice. There is a fundamental difference, however, between καὶ γάρ and the instances of καί γε in that καὶ γάρ as a collocation is standard in greek, from homer onwards. it can be seen as literary and standard greek, and to a reader of the greek it would not have elicited particular attention. There has perhaps been an undue emphasis on the apparent oddity and inappropriateness of the translation choice καὶ γάρ. Pietersma, for example, notes how γάρ “includes an inferential/causal element which is foreign to gm.”77 The inferential function need not always apply, however, and Denniston draws attention to the appositional use of γάρ as an extension of the explanatory whereby the particle ceases to be a conjunction even though its 72. Barthélemy, Les devanciers, 41–43; 47. 73. Pietersma, “septuagint research,” 307. 74. h.-J. Venetz, Quinta des Psalteriums: ein Beitrag zur Septuaginta- und Hexaplaforschung (Collection Massorah 1, Études classique et textes 2; hildesheim: gerstenberg, 1974), 73, 80–81. Cf. A. van der Kooij, “On the Place of Origin of the Old greek of Psalms,” VT 33 (1983): 67–74 at 69. 75. see L. L. grabbe, “Aquila’s Translation and rabbinic exegesis,” JJS 33 (1982): 527–36. 76. “septuagint research,” 307–9. 77. Pietersma, “septuagint research,” 307. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 35 26/10/15 10:49 36 J.K. AiTKen function is still explanatory.78 furthermore the specific use of καὶ γάρ often indicates it has the sense of “and further” and in answers simply “yes.”79 in an example from euripides (Phoenissae 611) καὶ γάρ provides additional information and thereby provides an explanation through that addition: Πολυνείκης: ὦ πάτερ, κλύεις ἃ πάσχω; Ἐτεοκλῆς: καὶ γὰρ οἷα δρᾷς κλύει. Polyneikes: father! hear how i am treated! eteocles: he also hears what you are doing. ER S These older grammatical explanations have been largely confirmed by Discourse grammar. runge summarizes the discussion80 by indicating that the “explanatory” function still holds in that the information introduced in a γάρ clause “adds background information that strengthens or supports what precedes.”81 As such it serves well as a translation of ‫ וגם‬and it is not to be seen as an intrusive translation. The example from gen 20:12 illustrates this well: καὶ γὰρ ἀληθῶς ἀδελφή μού ἐστιν ἐκ πατρός, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκ μητρός· ἐγενήθη δέ μοι εἰς γυναῖκα. furthermore she is indeed my sister, of my father but not of my mother. she has become my wife. PE ET Abraham offers additional information on his reasoning for lying to Pharaoh. The further details serve as an explanation while also being additional to the previous statement in verse 11. it appears then that καὶ γάρ was an appropriate translation equivalent and was a standard syntagm in classical literary greek. The direction of development between καὶ γάρ and καί γε cannot be determined definitively, but it is generally accepted that the Psalms reflect an earlier development than the kaige tradition.82 This would be implied too by the presence of καὶ γάρ in the Pentateuch before the appearance of καί γε. As a result a standard greek syntagm has been replaced by one that is apparently odd. This testifies to the success of καί γε when it becomes the 78. Denniston, Particles, 67: “that is to say, to wit.” 79. Denniston, Particles, 109. 80. s. e. runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Brs; Peabody, MA: hendrickson, 2010), 51–4. 81. runge, Discourse Grammar, 52. 82. for recent debates on the issue, see Munnich, “septante”; s. Oloffson, “The Kaige group and septuagint Book of Psalms,” in Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis: Collected Essays on the Septuagint Version (CBOTs 57; Winona Lake, ind.: eisenbrauns, 2009), 134–75. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 36 26/10/15 10:49 The Origins Of καΙ γε 37 equivalent of choice in the kaige tradition. it therefore remains for us to explain the reasoning behind choosing this distinctive equivalent. 7. MultIple-causalIty of translatIon equIvalents PE ET ER S At least four explanations for choosing καί γε as a translation equivalent have been offered (phonetics, semantics, register, and language change). The recognition of multiple explanations for any one translation phenomenon has become an important component in translation studies over recent years.83 The study of multiple causality in translation shares many features with functional theories of translation,84 in that it looks at the various explanations, often acting simultaneously, that generate the phenomena. Like functional theories, however, its examination has acted largely on a pragmatic level of social constraints and expectations. Thus, Brownlie’s study of translations of the french philosopher Lyotard identifies as the causes: individual situations (the context of production and translators’ attitudes), conditions governing textuality implied in translation, translators’ norms, and the intersecting fields within which the translation operates (academia, publishing, and professional translation).85 Certainly, ancient translations can be analysed within such a framework, as far as we are able to reconstruct the purposes of the translations and expectations of the audiences. nevertheless, here we have focussed on the multiple explanations for one linguistic phenomenon (on the level of semantics, syntax and morphology). To understand this micro-level better we must move from translation studies to studies of neologization where comparable phenomena have been identified. it can be argued that a translator choosing an equivalent is working within a similar framework to someone creating or modifying words within their own language. The matching of sound and form between languages is observable in certain branches of language studies. in the study of etymology one can see how an association, irrespective of its scientific accuracy, can lead to the 83. e.g. A. Pym, Method in Translation History (Manchester: st. Jerome, 1998); A. Chesterman, “On explanation,” in Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in Hommage to Gideon Toury (ed. A. Pym, M. shlesinger, and D. simeoni; Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2008), 363–79 at 375–6. 84. see C. nord, Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained (Manchester: st. Jerome, 1997). 85. s. Brownlie, “investigating explanations of Translational Phenomena: A Case for Multiple Causality,” Target 15 (2003): 111–52. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 37 26/10/15 10:49 38 J.K. AiTKen PE ET ER S formation or more properly the success of a word.86 in similar fashion in neologization we see a range of explanations for the creation of words. heyd’s study of the Turkish language reform identifies a substantial range of techniques by which “The Linguistic society” created Turkish substitutes for foreign words as an attempt to purify the language.87 Turkish words that share a sound with european (especially french) or Arabic words with the same meaning, “calques phonétiques,” are chosen for neologisms by a number of different means.88 The adjectival ending -(s)allel, for example, sounds like the french -al or -el endings, and thus we find a word such as dinsel “religious”, while the ending -man/-men recalls the german ending, resulting in Turkish seçmen “elector.” More striking are whole words that sound similar. heyd’s example, developed by Zuckermann,89 of a new Turkish word for school is instructive. The old Turkish mektep was replaced by the reformers with okul, which both could claim to be derived from the Turkish verb oku- “to read” and yet also sound like the french école. To give justification to the enterprise the reformers claimed the word okul was found in Anatolian dialects, although this has been doubted. in reality it is a camouflaged attempt to use the french loan-word as if it were Turkish.90 heyd compared this phenomenon to folk etymology, but recognised it was conscious and deliberate.91 he was quick too to note that it is not distinctive to this reform movement. early attempts were made to do similar in the revival of hebrew, seen in such formations as ‫( חלירע‬lit. ‘bad illness’) “cholera” and ‫‘( פרטי־כל‬details of the whole’) “protocol.”92 This feature has been termed variously, including etymological calque, phonetic transposition, and phonosemantic matching.93 in septuagint studies homophonic matching has been noted, but the term only refers to the 86. Y. Malkiel, Etymology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 7. 87. U. heyd, Language Reform in Modern Turkey (Ons 5; Jerusalem: israel Oriental society, 1954), 88–94. 88. heyd, Language Reform, 90–1. 89. g. Zuckermann, Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew (PsLhLC; Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 160. 90. Zuckermann has used the term camouflaged borrowing. 91. heyd, Language Reform, 91. 92. heyd, Language Reform, 92. Many more examples in hebrew and other languages have been gathered by Zuckermann, Language Contact. see too Y. sapir and g. Zuckermann, “icelandic: Phonosemantic Matching,” in Globally Speaking: Motives for Adopting English Vocabulary in Other Languages (ed. J. rosenhouse and r. Kowner; Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2008), 19–43, 296–325. 93. for different terms used by linguists for the phenomenon, see sapir and Zuckermann, “icelandic,” 28–9. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 38 26/10/15 10:49 The Origins Of καΙ γε 39 ER S form of the hebrew being represented in the greek.94 in this case it appears that both sound and meaning (or function) are conveyed, and therefore phonosemantic matching might be a better description given that the grammatical function is as suitable a match as the sound.95 As such there is a multiple-causal explanation for the generation of the lexeme. in the study of translation such features have not been discussed, with most attention on homophonic translation and on calques, where the sound takes precedence over the sense, often resulting in a nonsensical translated text. The principles though of phonetic and semantic matching seen in neologization could be applied well in translation studies too. The case of καί γε is illustrative of this, reflecting the multiple causes for the generation of the equivalent. it is an appropriate match for both the semantics and the phonetics of the hebrew, at a time when the collocation has become acceptable in greek. At the same time the equivalent is effective in greek as it conveys a higher literary register. 8. conclusIon: the hIstory of ΚΑΙ ΓΕ PE ET it can be shown that the translation feature of καί γε developed as an equivalent over time. it seems likely that the equivalent καὶ γάρ was first used in some translations, as it was a standard conjunction in greek. This came to be replaced by καί γε, occasionally at first but more frequently as the translation method was refined and made more consistent. eventually it was applied consistently in kaige portions of Kingdoms and in ecclesiastes, and then later by Aquila. The emergence of the kaige tradition can be placed in the late first century b.c.e., at the very same time as we begin to see the appearance of the καί γε syntagm in greek. As it becomes more frequent in the ancient record, it also becomes a consistent standard of translators in the roman period. Various factors generated the translation, such that it is not to be attributed to mere “literalism.” The greek conveyed the pragmatic function of the hebrew particle and thus was a suitable translation equivalent. its 94. e. Tov, “Loan-Words, homophony, and Transliterations in the septuagint,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTsup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 165–82 at 166: “equivalents which resemble the sounds of their hebrew-Aramaic counterparts but differ in meaning.” 95. Phonosemantics is a branch of linguistics for the symbolism of phonemes, but the idea of phonosemantic matching as a branch of lexical borrowing has been promoted by ghil‘ad Zuckermann; see Language Contact, 8. homophony has often been discussed in septuagint studies: e.g. Tov, “Loan-Words” (without discussion of καί γε). 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 39 26/10/15 10:49 40 J.K. AiTKen PE ET ER S apparent oddity in greek is not as surprising as it might seem when the transposed position of γε in later Koine generates the same syntagm in nontranslated greek writings. The resulting equivalent is also a partial phonetic matching to the hebrew. in addition, the use of the particle γε as an equivalent results in greek that would reflect an educated register, indicating sensitivity on the part of the translator to the effect of the greek as much as care to render the hebrew formally. it is therefore too simple in such instances to distinguish source-oriented from target-oriented translations. The equivalent καί γε is both at once, formally equivalent to the hebrew and yet effective and functionally successful in greek. There is no need to seek an explanation in rabbinic circles for such attention to a close representation of the hebrew in greek. nevertheless, the translation equivalent does suggest some possible circles in which such an equivalent would have found favour. There would have been few who appreciated all aspects of καί γε as a translation equivalent, recognizing both its careful representation of the hebrew and its subtle function in greek. But this reflects the small educated circle of translators and their audience. The translators were those familiar with educated greek but also paying attention to the hebrew, and the recipients of these translations would have appreciated them best if they were aware of both these aspects. We know that Aquila was well educated, using homeric forms and “etymologizing” renderings in his translation,96 and while the kaige translators did not go to the lengths that he did, they were nonetheless educated within a similar tradition. even if they were not the rabbis of later tradition, they were moving in educated circles like them. The kaige tradition, as implied by such translation features as καί γε, was a sophisticated translation movement. it certainly cannot be easily located in any one geographical location, but the attribution to Palestine is possible if not necessary. By the first century in Palestine there would have been knowledge in educated circles of hebrew while greek had become a language of importance for communication and literary composition in both the hasmonean and the herodian courts. The translation choice καί γε is not to been seen as a “barbarism” but as evidence of literary greek knowledge in the cultural circle of translators who could appreciate such techniques. James K. aItKen 96. On Aquila’s style see f. field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt; sive, Veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. Post Flaminium Nogilium, Drusium, et Montefalconium, adhibita etiam versione syro-hexaplari, concinnavit, emendavit, et multis partibus auxit Fridericus Field (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875), part 1, xxi–xxvii. 98340_Aitken_BTS22_03_Aitken.indd 40 26/10/15 10:49