The headings of the Psalms in Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus

and 56 (55). Research to date demonstrates that Field did not use these notes in Codex Ambrosianus to their full extent. As far as the three elements under investigation are concerned, this paper demonstrates that the Three frequently differ from the LXX in their rendering of certain aspects of the headings. In some instances, the Three reflect a rendering much closer to the Hebrew. In others, they contain a rendering that is dependent on the Hebrew, but which displays a lack of understanding of especially some of the technical terms in the Hebrew. Contribution: The research shed new light on the variants recorded in the margin of Codex Ambrosianus and their value for the text-critical study of the headings in the Psalms in the MT and the Septuagint. Textual Criticism is one of the core disciplines for the study of the text of the Hebrew Bible and its translation and transmission in different ancient languages.


Introduction
In Codex Ambrosianus of the Syro-Hexapla, marginal readings related to the headings of some of the Psalms occur (Ceriani 1874). The importance of these variants for the history of the Greek and Syriac Psalm headings warrants further discussion. In his study of the Syro-Hexaplaric Psalter, Robert Hiebert (1989:260-261) discusses the marginal notes in the different manuscripts he studied for his edition of this psalter. He compares them with the readings noted by Frederick Field (1875) and makes some corrections and additions. Hiebert did not make a comprehensive study of these notes, but his additions and corrections remain very valuable for the study of the Syro-Hexapla. This paper will undertake a comparative study of the headings of these Psalms, with attention to the notes referring to Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus. These notes do not occur for all headings and only rarely do variants from all three the witnesses occur (such as in Ps 7). The following Psalms have variants: 3-15, 17-23, 28, 29, 33, 35, 37-41, 43-58, 60-69, 75-80, 82-84, 86, 87, 91, 97, 99, 101-103, 107, 110, 111, 119-122, 126, 130, 131, 138-141 and 144. These variants will be compared to the readings of the headings of the LXX and the Syro-Hexapla. For the purpose of this paper, only three matters will be considered, namely the rendering of the technical term ַ ‫֥ח‬ ‫ַּצֵ‬ ‫נ‬ ְ ‫ַמ‬ ‫ל‬ in the Three, the references to the name of David and some instances where the LXX has a substantial plus in comparison to the Masoretic Text (MT), such as in Psalms 98 (97), 104 (103), 43 (42) and 56 (55).

Introductory remarks on the Psalter in the Syro-Hexapla
It is impossible to discuss the Syro-Hexapla in detail here. Ignacio Carbajosa Pérez presents a good survey of important issues (2016; see also Hiebert 2001). Hiebert (2005) discusses the In Codex Ambrosianus of the Syro-Hexapla, marginal readings related to the headings of some of the Psalms occur. The importance of these variants for the history of the Greek and Syriac Psalm headings warrants further discussion. To this end, this paper undertakes a comparative study of the marginal notes that accompany the headings of the Psalms in the Syro-Hexapla. These notes do not occur for all headings and only rarely do variants from all three occur (as is the case for Ps 7). These variants are compared to the readings of the headings of the Septuagint (LXX) and the Syro-Hexapla. Three matters are investigated in this paper, namely the rendering of the technical term ַ ‫֥ח‬ ‫ַּצֵ‬ ‫נ‬ ְ ‫ַמ‬ ‫ל‬ in the Three (Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus), references to the name of David and some instances where the LXX has a substantial plus in comparison to the Masoretic Text (MT), such as in Psalms 98 (97), 104 (103), 43 (42) and 56 (55). Research to date demonstrates that Field did not use these notes in Codex Ambrosianus to their full extent. As far as the three elements under investigation are concerned, this paper demonstrates that the Three frequently differ from the LXX in their rendering of certain aspects of the headings. In some instances, the Three reflect a rendering much closer to the Hebrew. In others, they contain a rendering that is dependent on the Hebrew, but which displays a lack of understanding of especially some of the technical terms in the Hebrew.  (Hiebert 1989:5-14). Hiebert discusses whether the Psalms in the Syro-Hexapla can be considered as a witness to the hexaplaric tradition dating back to Origen. Although he finds more hexaplaric influence in the text than Rahlfs (1979), he states that it cannot be regarded as a primary witness to that recension (Hiebert 1989:235, 247). Hiebert (1989) discusses the evidence for this claim in detail in Chapter III. In a later publication, he discusses the Syro-Hexapla and other later Syriac translations of the Psalms (Hiebert 2017). Norton (1995:194;see also Fraenkel 2000:317) states that the Syro-Hexapla is the most complete witness to the Origenic recension and agrees with Rahlfs when he states that it is not faithful to that recension. Jenkins (1998:86) discusses the marginal notes in the Syro-Hexaplaric Psalms (and Job) with a view to the possibility of a Tetrapla in addition to a Hexapla. His view is that the text of the Syro-Hexapla is based on the Tetrapla and that this is the reason why it differs from the hexaplaric evidence in, for example, the Gallicanum. Fraenkel (2002:309-310) is reluctant to enter the debate about the Hexapla and Tetrapla. As the notes in the margin of the Syro-Hexaplaric Psalter are not in the first instance related to the recension of Origen, the possibility that the Syro-Hexapla represents a different version of the Origenic recension is not that important for the discussion of the notes to the headings. As far as the origin of the marginal notes are concerned, they were probably added by Paul of Tella (Hiebert 1989:261).
With regard to the marginal notes in the Syro-Hexaplaric Psalter, Fraenkel (2000:317) notes that because the text of the Syro-Hexapla is not Origenic, it raises questions about the hexaplaric fragments in the marginal notes. This is complicated by the lack of Greek notes in some of the hexaplaric manuscripts. . Manuscript E is closer to the tradition of A, B and C but presents its own unique character in many headings. Manuscript F has quite a number of unique variants (Van Rooy 2005:126). The variants in these manuscripts will be discussed only in instances where the marginal notes agree with any of the variants in the specific heading.
The headings of the Psalms in the LXX are paramount in the study of the headings in the Syro-Hexapla. It is impossible to discuss the headings of the Psalms in detail, but in the examples discussed below, the headings in the LXX must be taken into consideration. In this regard, three publications of Albert Pietersma deserve specific attention. Where necessary, they will be used in the discussion below (Pietersma 1980(Pietersma , 2013a(Pietersma , 2013b).
Manuscript F of the Syro-Hexapla is intriguing in this regard. Some of the variants are significant, because they demonstrate that Manuscript F is unique in many respects. This manuscript is discussed in more detail by Van Rooy (2005), and the remarks below are summarised from that contribution. With regard to ‫ܒܫܘܠܡܐ‬ in SyrPs, the variant that appears frequently in manuscripts H and J ‫)ܠܫܘܠܡܐ(‬ has already been noted. ‫ܠܫܘܠܡܐ‬ also occurs in Manuscript F in Psalms 9, 11 (10), 19

David in the three
In 1980, Pietersma published a seminal article on David in the LXX. In this article, he draws a number of significant conclusions. He demonstrates that the phrase ‫ֽד‬ ‫וִ‬ ‫ְדָ‬ ‫ל‬ is consistently rendered as τᾠ Δαυιδ in the Old Greek and that this is frequently changed to τοῦ Δαυιδ in the course of the transmission of the text. This phrase is also frequently added to psalm titles, with the result that more psalms are ascribed to David. It is interesting to consider this situation in the Syro-Hexapla as well as in the notes to the Three in Codex Ambrosianus.
As far as the Syro-Hexapla is concerned, one might suspect that τᾠ Δαυιδ would have been rendered as ‫,ܠܕܘܝܕ‬ and τοῦ Δαυιδ as ‫.ܕܕܘܝܕ‬ These two forms are indeed encountered in the Syro-Hexapla: together they appear 80 times. Of these instances, the form ‫ܕܕܘܝܕ‬ appears in only 11 instances ( Field neglects to note that the two words of the heading of Psalm 43 (42) are in the same order in the Syro-Hexapla as in Codex Sinaiticus.
As far as the references to the Three in the margin of Codex Ambrosianus are concerned, in many cases, no notes appear and notes to all three appear in only a very few instances. The name David occurs in 39 notes to Aquila, seven with the preposition and 32 with the relative. In Symmachus, the preposition occurs once and the relative 21 times. In Theodotion, two prepositions and one relative occur because of the paucity of notes to Theodotion in the margin. Field does not note that in the margin to the heading of Psalm 19 (18), the reading of Aquila and Symmachus has the name with the relative particle, in contrast with the preposition in the Syro-Hexapla (Hiebert 1989:265-266). The LXX has the dative, with no variant in any of the witnesses (see also Pietersma 1980:215). In this regard, the Syro-Hexapla agrees with the LXX. There is no good reason for Aquila and Symmachus to have the relative particle, which indicates that they were not consistent with the rendering of the Hebrew name of David with the preposition.
Only a few of these notes are truly significant. In Psalm 58 (57), Aquila omits the reference to David in the note, disagreeing with the MT, LXX and Syro-Hexapla. In Psalm 108 (107), the Syro-Hexapla has the relative, and the Three the preposition. In this instance, the Three agrees with the LXX (see also Pietersma 1980:215). In Psalm 132 (131), the Syro-Hexapla follows some LXX witnesses in adding the reference to David. This reference is explicitly omitted in the margin by Aquila and Symmachus. Field does not provide much additional information in this regard. When one considers the Psalms where the LXX adds David to the heading, Field frequently provides a reference to Origen that states the Psalm is without a heading in the Hebrew. In most of these instances, there are no references to the Three at all. In the case of Psalm 33 (32), Field notes that Origen includes a note that states this Psalm is without a heading in the Hebrew and the Three (Field 1875:137). In most of the other instances, Field maintains that Origen states that the Psalm is without a heading in the Hebrew and without any reference to the Three (see also It would seem that in the cases where Origen has a reference that states the Hebrew does not have a heading, the marginal notes in Codex Ambrosianus give a reference to the Three only infrequently, as they would normally agree with the Hebrew in this regard. However, in a number of instances, Field does not indicate the variant readings of Aquila and Symmachus.

A selection of major variants
In his article published in 1980, Pietersma deals extensively with those Psalms containing extra-MT Davidic ascriptions in the Old Greek. For the purpose of this paper, it would have been ideal to discuss those 13 headings in detail. Unfortunately, only two of them have marginal notes in the Syro-Hexapla that is 98 (97) and 104 (103), while only one other has a reference to the Three in Field (43 [42]).
In the case of Psalm 98 (97), the Hebrew heading is merely ‫ור‬ ֡ ֹ ‫ְמ‬ ‫ז‬ ִ ‫,מ‬ while the majority of the manuscripts of the LXX add τῷ Δαυιδ. A number of Lucianic manuscripts switch the two elements and a further few add that the Psalm does not have a heading in the Hebrew. Codex Ambrosianus contains a note giving the heading without the addition of the name of David in Symmachus. For this Psalm, this is the only reference to the Three in Field.
In the case of Psalm 104 (103), the MT does not have a heading, the LXX has τῷ Δαυιδ, which agrees with 11QPs a and Codex Alexandrinus contains the genitive. Some witnesses to the LXX have further additions and the Syro-Hexapla also has a long addition. The first part agrees with the additions in some manuscripts of the LXX (about the creation of the world), with the following further addition: ‫‪('because‬ܡܛܠܕܗܠܝܢܠܟܘܢܥܒܕܬ‬ of what she did for you'). The note in Codex Ambrosianus only contains the heading ‫ܕܕܘܝܕ‬ for Aquila, agreeing with the reference in Field. Can this be an indication that Aquila used a Hebrew manuscript related to the scroll from Qumran? Pietersma (1980:225) thinks it is possible, and it indeed possible.
When one considers a selection of other Psalms, it is clear that the references to the Three in the margin of Codex Ambrosianus frequently agree with the MT in instances where the Greek has a plus. For example, the short plus to the heading of Psalm 29 (28), ἐξοδίου σκηνῆς ('at the festival of the tabernacle'), appears in the Syro-Hexapla ‫ܡܦܩܢܐܕܡܫܩܢܐ(‬ -'at the departure of the tabernacle'), but is omitted by Aquila, as noted in the margin of Codex Ambrosianus. The codex contains a note to the expression in the Syro-Hexapla, stating that it refers to the 8th day of the feast of tabernacles (see also Pietersma 2013a:192).
Pietersma discusses this text in some detail, stating that the addition in the LXX occurred during the transmission of the text in Greek (see also Pietersma 2013a:193-194).
Similar examples occur in Psalms 38 (37) and 44 (43). In Psalm 38 (37), the LXX adds 'about the Sabbath'. Pietersma is also of the opinion that this addition is an exegetical one added in the transmission in Greek (see also Pietersma 2013aPietersma :199-200, 2013b. The Syro-Hexapla also contains this addition. The marginal note states that according to Aquila, the heading should only be 'a Psalm of David' and it uses the relative and not the preposition as in the Syro-Hexapla. The remark about this in Field ascribes this reading to the Syro-Hexapla, marked with an asterisk in Codex Ambrosianus. The remark is actually the reading of Aquila according to the marginal note. The asterisk in Codex Ambrosianus is only related to 'of the Sabbath'. Field's remark is confusing. In Psalm 44 (43), the LXX adds 'a psalm' at the end of the heading. This addition is neither in Codex Sinaiticus nor some of the other witnesses to the LXX. The addition is also present in the Syro-Hexapla although it is omitted in Manuscript F. This is also omitted by Symmachus. Field has a similar reading for Aquila, but that reading is not in the marginal note in Codex Ambrosianus. It is quite clear that Aquila understood the reference to the dove, but connected the word ‫ֶם‬ ‫ל‬ ֣ ‫אֵ‬ to its root meaning of 'speechless'. It contains the same text as the Hebrew but presents a different interpretation. Following this, it connected the Hebrew ‫ים‬ ִ ‫ֹק‬ ‫ח‬ ‫רְ֭‬ to David and not to the oak trees as in the Hebrew. Although the rendering of Aquila differs from the sense of the Hebrew, it is clearly a rendering dependent on the Hebrew.
The reading for Symmachus in the margin is as follows:

‫ܕܙܟܘܬܐܚܠܦܝܘܢܐܟܪܡܢܫܪܒܬܗܪܚܝܩܗܘܐܕܘܝܕܗܘܡܟܝܟܬܪܥܝܬܐܘܕܐܠ‬ ‫ܡܘܡܐܡܬܝܕܐܚܕܘܗܝ‬
('Of victory. On the dove. When David was far from his family, he was humble of intelligence and flawless. When they caught him'.) In this rendering, it is evident that the reference to the dove was understood, but the reference to the distant oak trees was not, and, as a result, the phrase was connected to David. In the last part, the reference to Gath is omitted. It seems that this rendering is dependent on a faulty interpretation of the Hebrew. As far as the word ‫ܪܚܝܩ‬ is concerned, the marginal note seems to read the first consonant as a ‫,ܕ‬ not a ‫.ܪ‬ This must be either an error or a misreading of the punctuation. Field (1875:181, Note 2) quotes the Syriac as having a ‫.ܕ‬ In a previous note about the Cyrus, Field gives in brackets a variant reading of his Codex C, with a ‫ܪ‬ (Field 1875:181, Note 1).

Conclusions
This paper dealt with three issues relating to the marginal notes in Codex Ambrosianus, namely the rendering of the technical term ַ ‫ח‬ ֥ ‫ַּצֵ‬ ‫נ‬ ְ ‫ַמ‬ ‫ל‬ in the Three (Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus), references to the name of David and some instances where the LXX has a substantial plus in comparison to the MT. Much additional research can be done on all the notes in this codex. The research to date demonstrates that Field did not use these notes to their full extent. As far as the three elements under investigation are concerned, it has been demonstrated that the Three frequently differ from the LXX in their rendering of certain aspects of the headings. In some instances, the Three reflects a rendering much closer to the Hebrew. In others, it contains a rendering dependent on the Hebrew, but which displays a lack of understanding of especially some of the technical terms in the Hebrew.