__________________________________________________________________ Title: An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Additional Notes. Creator(s): Swete, Henry Barclay (1835-1917) (author) Rights: Public Domain CCEL Subjects: All; Bibles; Reference; Proofed; LC Call no: BS738.S8 LC Subjects: The Bible Old Testament Early Versions __________________________________________________________________ AN INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT IN GREEK BY HENRY BARCLAY SWETE D.D., F.B.A. REVISED BY RICHARD RUSDEN OTTLEY, M.A. WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS EDITED BY H. ST J. THACKERAY, M.A. HENDRICKSON PUBLISHERS PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01961-3473 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT IN GREEK Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. edition ISBN: 0-943575-21-4 reprinted from the edition originally published by Cambridge University Press, 1914 First printing - January 1989 Printed in the United States of America IN PIAM MEMORIAM EBERHARDI NESTLE PH. ET TH. D. VIRI, ST QVIS ALIVS, DE HIS STUDIIS OPTIME MERITI HVIVS OPERIS ADIVTORIS HVMANISSIMI . __________________________________________________________________ PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. WHEN some two years ago it became clear that a reprint of this Introduction would shortly be required, the Syndics of the Press at my request put the revision, which I was unable to undertake, into the hands of a scholar already known to students of the Greek Old Testament by his Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint. Mr Ottley, while leaving intact the form and even the pagination of the Introduction, has made every endeavour to bring the contents up to the present state of knowledge. This has been done partly by a careful revision of the text and the occasional rewriting of a paragraph, partly by writing new footnotes and a large number of valuable additional notes, and by expanding the bibliographical lists that follow each chapter, which after the lapse of so many years were necessarily defective. I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude to Mr Ottley for the unremitting labour which he has expended on my book, and I am confident that future readers will share my sense of obligation. I venture to hope that, thus revised, the Introduction may continue for some years to be of service to those who are entering on the study of the Greek Old Testament. H. B. S. Cambridge, May 11, 1914. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. THIS book is an endeavour to supply a want which has been felt by many readers of the Greek Old Testament. The literature of the subject is enormous, and its chief points have been compendiously treated in Biblical Dictionaries and similar publications. But hitherto no manual has placed within the student's reach all the information which he requires in the way of general introduction to the Greek versions. A first attempt is necessarily beset with uncertainties. Experience only can shew whether the help here provided is precisely such as the student needs, and whether the right proportion has been preserved in dealing with the successive divisions of the subject. But it is hoped that the present work may, at least meet the immediate wants of those who use The Old Testament in Greek, and serve as a forerunner to larger and more adequate treatises upon the same subject. Such as it is, this volume owes more than I can say to the kindness of friends, among whom may especially be mentioned Principal Bebb, of St David's College, Lampeter, and Grinfield Lecturer at Oxford; Mr Brooke and Mr McLean, editors of the Larger Cambridge Septuagint; Mr Forbes Robinson, and Dr W. E. Barnes. But my acknowledgements are principally due to Professor Eberhard Nestle, of Maulbronn, who has added to the obligations under which he had previously laid me by reading the whole of this Introduction in proof, and suggesting many corrections and additions. While Dr Nestle is not to be held responsible for the final form in which the book appears, the reader will owe to him in great measure such freedom from error or fulness in the minuter details as it may possess. Mr Thackeray's work in the Appendix speaks for itself. Both the prolegomena to Aristeas and the text of the letter are wholly due to his generous labours, and they will form a welcome gift to students of the Septuagint and of Hellenistic Greek. Free use has been made of all published works dealing with the various branches of learning which fall within the range of the subject. While direct quotations have been acknowledged where they occur, it has not been thought desirable to load the margin with references to all the sources from which information has been obtained. But the student will generally be able to discover these for himself from the bibliography which is appended to almost every chapter. In dismissing my work I desire to tender my sincere thanks to the readers and workmen of the Cambridge University Press, whose unremitting attention has brought the production of the book to a successful end. H. B. S. Cambridge, September 1, 1900. CONTENTS PART I. THE HISTORY OF THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT AND OF ITS TRANSMISSION pages CHAPTER I. The Alexandrian Greek Version. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1--28 CHAPTER II. Later Greek Versions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29--58 CHAPTER III. The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions of the Septuagint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59--86 CHAPTER IV. Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86--121 CHAPTER V. Manuscripts of the Septuagint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122--170 CHAPTER VI. Printed Texts of the Septuagint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171--194 PART II. THE CONTENTS OF THE ALEXANDRIAN OLD TESTAMENT pages CHAPTER I. Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of the Books. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197--230 CHAPTER II. Books of the Hebrew Canon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231--264 CHAPTER III. Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265--288 CHAPTER IV. The Greek of the Septuagint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289--314 CHAPTER V. The Septuagint as a Version. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315--341 CHAPTER VI. Text divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, Catenae, &c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342--366 PART III. LITERARY USE, VALUE, AND TEXTUAL CONDITION OF THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT pages CHAPTER I. Literary use of the Septuagint by non-Christian Hellenists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369--380 CHAPTER II. Quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381--405 CHAPTER III. Quotations from the Septuagint in early Christian writings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406--432 CHAPTER IV. The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433--461 CHAPTER V. Influence of the Septuagint on Christian Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462--477 CHAPTER VI. Textual condition of the Septugint, and problems arising out of it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478--497 ADDITION NOTES. pp. 498--530. APPENDIX The Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas. pages The Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533--550 Text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551--606 INDICES. i. Index of Biblical references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609--616 ii. Index of Subject-matter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617--626 __________________________________________________________________ PART I. THE HISTORY OF THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT AND OF ITS TRANSMISSION. PART I. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER I. THE ALEXANDRIAN GREEK VERSION. 1. A Greek version of any portion of the Old Testament presupposes intercourse between Israel and a Greek-speaking people. So long as the Hebrew race maintained its isolation, no occasion arose for the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into a foreign tongue. As far as regards the countries west of Palestine, this isolation continued until the age of Alexander [1] ; it is therefore improbable that any Greek version of the Scriptures existed there before that era. Among the Alexandrian Jews of the second century before Christ there was a vague belief that Plato and other Greek philosophical writers were indebted for some of their teaching to a source of this kind [2] . Thus Aristobulus (ap. Clem. Al. strom. i. 22; cf. Eus, praep. ev. xiii. 12) writes: katekoloutheke de kai ho Platon te kath' emas nomothesia, kai phaneros esti periergasamenos hekasta ton en aute legomenon. diermeneutai de pro Demetriou huph' heterou [3] , pro tes Alexandrou kai Person epikrateseos, ta te kata ten ex Aiguptou exagogen ton Ebraion ton emeteron politon kai he ton gegonoton hapanton autois epiphaneia kai kratesis tes choras kai tes holes nomothesias epexegesis--words which seem to imply the existence before B.C. 400 of a translation which included at least the Books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. A similar claim has been found in the statement attributed by Pseudo-Aristeas to Demetrius of Phalerum: tou nomou ton Ioudaion biblia. . .ouch hos huparchei sesemantai, kathos hupo ton eidoton prosanapheretai [4] . But no fragments of these early translations have been produced, and it is more than probable that the story arose out of a desire on the part of the Hellenistic Jews to find a Hebrew origin for the best products of Greek thought [5] . 2. The earliest and most important of the extant Greek versions of the Old Testament was an offspring of the 'Greek Dispersion' (he diaspora ton Hellenon, Jo. vii. 35), which began with the conquests of Alexander the Great [6] . The Hebrew Prophets foresaw that it was the destiny of their race to be scattered over the face of the world (Deut. xxviii. 25, xxx. 4, Jer. xv. 4, xxxiv. 17). The word diaspora (O.L. dispersio) employed by the Greek translators in these and similar passages (Cf. 2 Esdr. xi. 9, Ps. cxxxviii. (cxxxix.) tit. (codd. A^a T), cxlvi. (cxlvii.) 2, Judith v. 19, Isa. xlix. 6, Jer. xiii. 14 (cod. '*), Dan. xii. 2 (LXX.), 2 Macc. i. 27) became the technical Greek term for Jewish communities in foreign lands, whether planted there by forcible deportation, or by their own free agency (Jo. vii. 35, Jas. i. 1, 1 Pet. i. 1) [7] . Such settlements were at first compulsory, and limited to countries east of Palestine. Between the eighth and sixth centuries B.C. the bulk of the population of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms was swept away by Assyrian and Babylonian conquerors (2 Kings xvii. 6, xxiv. 14 ff., xxv. 11 f., 21 f.). A part of the Babylonian captivity returned (Ezra i, ii.), but Babylonia and Mesopotamia continued to be the home of a large body of Jewish settlers (Tob. i. 14 ff., 4 Esdr. xiii. 39 ff., Philo ad Cai. 36, Acts ii. 9, Joseph. Ant. xi. 5. 2, xv. 3. 1, xviii. 9. 1 ff.). This 'Eastern' Dispersion need not detain us here. No Biblical version in the stricter sense [8] had its origin in Babylonia; there, as in Palestine, the services of the synagogue interpreter (mtvrgtn) sufficed for the rendering of the lections into Aramaic, and no desire was manifested on the part of the Gentile population to make themselves acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures. It was among the Jews who were brought into relation with Hellenic culture that the necessity arose for a written translation of the books of the canon. Egypt was the earliest home of the Hellenistic Jew, and it was on Egyptian soil that the earliest Greek version of the Old Testament was begun. 3. Long before the time of Alexander Egypt possessed the nucleus of a Jewish colony. Shashanq, the Shishak of 1 K. xiv. 25 f., 2 Chr. xii. 2 f., who invaded Palestine [9] in the tenth century B.C., may have carried into Egypt captives or hostages from the conquered cities whose names still appear upon the walls of the temple at Karnak. Isaiah (xix. 19 f.) foresaw [10] that a time must come when the religious influence of Israel would make itself felt on the banks of the Nile, while he endeavoured to check the policy which led Judah to seek refuge from Assyrian aggression in an Egyptian alliance (xxx. 1 ff.). Jewish mercenaries are said to have fought in the expedition of Psammetichus I. against Ethiopia c. B.C. 650 (cf. Ps.-Arist.: heteron xummachion exapestalmenon pros ton ton Aithiopon basilea machesthai sun Psammiticho). The panic which followed the murder of Gedaliah drove a host of Jewish fugitives to Egypt, where they settled at Migdol (Magdolos), Tahpanhes (Taphnas = Daphne) [11] , Noph (Memphis), and Pathros (Pathoure) [12] , i.e. throughout the Delta, and even in Upper Egypt; and the descendants of those who survived were replenished, if we may believe Pseudo-Aristeas, by others who entered Egypt during the Persian period (ede men kai proteron hikanon eiseleluthoton sun to Perse). These earlier settlers were probably among the first to benefit by Alexander's policy, and may have been partly hellenised before his birth. 4. Alexander's victory at Issos in B.C. 333 opened the gate of Syria to the conqueror. In the next year he received the submission of Tyre and Gaza and, according to Josephus, was on the point of marching upon Jerusalem when the statesmanship of the High Priest turned him from his purpose [13] . Whether the main features of this story be accepted or not, it is certain that the subsequent policy of Alexander was favourable to the Jews. His genius discovered in the Jewish people an instrument well fitted to assist him in carrying out his purpose of drawing East and West together. Jews served in his army (Hecataeus ap. Joseph. c. Ap. i. 22 eti ge men hoti kai Alexandro to basilei sunestrateusanto kai meta tauta tois diadochois autou memartureken); and such was his sense of their loyalty and courage that when Alexandria was founded (B.C. 332), although the design of the conqueror was to erect a monument to himself which should be essentially Greek [14] , he not only assigned a place in his new city to Jewish colonists, but admitted them to full citizenship. Joseph. ant. xix. 5. 2 epignous anekathen tous en Alexandreia Ioudaious . . . ises politeias para ton basileon teteuchotas: c. Ap. ii. 4 ou gar aporia ge ton oikesonton ten meta spoudes hup' autou ktizomenen Alexandros ton hemeteron tinas ekei sunethroisen, alla pantas dokimazon epimelos aretes kai pisteos touto tois hemeterois to geras edoken. B. J. ii. 18. 7 chresamenos prothumotatois kata ton Aiguption Ioudaiois Alexandros geras tes summachias edoken to metoikein kata ten polin ex isou moiras pros tous Hellenas. Mommsen indeed (Provinces, E. T. ii. p. 162 n.) expresses a doubt whether the grant of citizenship [15] was made before the time of Ptolemy I., but in the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary the repeated statement of Josephus justifies the belief that it originated with Alexander [16] . 5. The premature death of Alexander (B.C. 323) wrecked his larger scheme, but the Jewish colony at Alexandria continued to flourish under the Ptolemies, who succeeded to the government of Egypt. It may be convenient to place here for reference the names and dates of the earlier Ptolemies. I. Lagi, or Soter (B.C. 322--285). II. Philadelphus (B.C. 285--247). III. Euergetes I. (B.C. 247--222). IV. Philopator I. (B.C. 222--205). V. Epiphanes (B.C. 205--182). VI. Eupator (B.C. 182). VII. Philometor (B.C. 182--146). VIII. Philopator II. (B.C. 146). IX. Euergetes II., also known as Physkon (B.C. 146--117). Of the brief reigns of Eupator and the younger Philopator nothing is known. The first Ptolemy added considerably to the Jewish population of Alexandria. His expeditions to Palestine and capture of Jerusalem placed in his hands a large number of Jewish and Samaritan captives, and these were conveyed to Alexandria, where many of them acquired civic rights. The report of the King's liberality towards his captives, and of their prosperity in Egypt, attracted other Palestinians to Alexandria, and many came thither as voluntary settlers. Joseph. ant. xii. 1. 1 ho de Ptolemaios pollous aichmalotous labon apo te tes oreines Ioudaias kai ton peri Ierosoluma topon kai tes Samareitidos kai ton en Garizein, katokisen hapantas eis Aigupton agagon; epegnokos de tous apo ton Ierosolumon peri ten ton horkon phulaken kai tas pisteis bebaiotatous huparchontas. pollous auton tois Makedosin en Alexandreia poiesas isopolitas; ouk oligoi de oude ton allon Ioudaion eis ten Aigupton paregignonto, tes te aretes ton topon autous kai tes tou Ptolemaiou philotimias prokaloumenes. A separate quarter of the city was assigned to the colony (Strabo ap. Joseph. ant. xiv. 7. 2 tes Alexandreias poleos aphoristai mega meros to ethnei touto [17] ); it lay in the north-east of Alexandria, along the shore, near the royal palace. Here the Jews lived under their own ethnarch [18] , who exercised judicial authority in all cases between Jew and Jew. They were permitted to follow their own religion and observe their national customs without molestation. Synagogues sprang up not only in the Jewish quarter, but at a later time in every part of the city (Philo ad Cai. 20, in Flacc. 6 [19] ). In the time of Philometor the Jews stood so high in the royal favour that they were suffered to convert a disused Egyptian temple at Leontopolis into a replica of the Temple at Jerusalem, and the Jewish rite was celebrated there until after the fall of the Holy City, when the Romans put a stop to it (Joseph. ant. xii. 9. 7, xiii. 3. 1, B. J. vii. 10. 4) [20] . Under these circumstances it is not surprising that shortly after the Christian era the Jewish colony in Egypt exceeded a million, constituting an eighth part of the population (Philo in Flacc. 6, Joseph. c. Ap. ii. 4). In the Fayûm villages were founded by Jews, and they lived on equal terms with the Greeks [21] . Nor were the Jewish settlers on the African coast limited to the Delta or to Egypt. A daughter colony was planted in Cyrenaica by the first Ptolemy, and at Cyrene as at Alexandria the Jews formed an important section of the community. The Jew of Cyrene meets us already in the days of the Maccabees (1 Macc. xv. 23, 2 Macc. ii. 23), and he was a familiar figure at Jerusalem in the Apostolic age (Mt. xxvii. 32, Acts ii. 10, vi. 9 [22] , xi. 20, xiii. 1; cf Strabo ap. Joseph. ant. xiv. 7. 2). 6. The Jews of the Dispersion everywhere retained their religion and their loyalty to national institutions. In each of these settlements among Gentile peoples the Holy City possessed a daughter, whose attachment to her was not less strong than that of her children at home. "Jerusalem," in the words of Agrippa [23] , "was the mother city, not of a single country, but of most of the countries of the world, through the colonies which she sent forth at various times." No colony was more dutiful than the Alexandrian. The possession of a local sanctuary at Leontopolis did not weaken its devotion to the temple at Jerusalem [24] ; pilgrimages were still made to Jerusalem at the great festivals (Philo ap. Eus. praep. ev. viii. 14. 64; cf. Acts ii. 10); the Temple tribute was collected in Egypt with no less punctuality than in Palestine (Philo de monarch. ii. 3). But it was impossible for Jews who for generations spent their lives and carried on their business in Greek towns to retain their Semitic speech. In Palestine after the Return, Aramaic gradually took the place of Hebrew in ordinary intercourse, and after the time of Alexander Greek became to some extent a rival of Aramaic. In Alexandria a knowledge of Greek was not a mere luxury but a necessity of common life [25] . If it was not required by the State as a condition of citizenship [26] , yet self-interest compelled the inhabitants of a Greek capital to acquire the language of the markets and the Court. A generation or two may have sufficed to accustom the Alexandrian Jews to the use of the Greek tongue. The Jewish settlers in Lower Egypt who were there at the coming of Alexander had probably gained some knowledge of Greek before the founding of his new city [27] ; and the children of Alexander's mercenaries, as well as many of the immigrants from Palestine in the days of Soter, may well have been practically bilingual. Every year of residence in Alexandria would increase their familiarity with Greek and weaken their hold upon the sacred tongue [28] . Any prejudice which might have existed against the use of a foreign language would speedily disappear under a rule which secured full liberty in worship and faith. The adoption of the Greek tongue was a tribute gladly paid by the Alexandrian Jews to the great Gentile community which sheltered and cherished them. The Greek which they learnt was the koine as colloquially used in Alexandria: based on the less elevated kind of Attic, with some loss of the niceties; but less exclusive in its vocabulary, retaining many old Ionic and Homeric words, and adopting, but less freely, others of foreign origin. When the Jews employed this tongue, now common to the regions of Greek life and Greek conquest, to translate the Old Testament, they naturally used forms of expression which matched the original as closely as possible; though many of them were more or less prevalent, or paralleled, in the koine. Their ingrained habits of thought, and their native speech, even if partly forgotten, led them to give constant prominence to these expressions, which correspond with Semitisms, as well as, to some extent, with the current Greek speech and colloquial writings. 7. The 'Septuagint [29] ,' or the Greek version of the Old Testament which was on the whole the work of Alexandrian Jews, is, written in full, the Interpretatio septuaginta virorum or seniorum, i.e. the translation of which the first instalment was attributed by Alexandrian tradition to seventy or seventy-two Jewish elders. In the most ancient Greek MSS. of the Old Testament it is described as the version 'according to the LXX.' (kata tous hebdomekonta, para hebdomekonta, O. T. in Greek, i. p. 103, ii. p. 479), and quoted by the formula hoi o or hoi ob'. All forms of the name point back to a common source, the story of the origin of the version which is told in the pseudonymous letter entitled Aristeas Philokratei. See App. Literature. The text of the letter of Aristeas is printed in the Appendix to this volume. It will be found also in Hody de Bibl. text. orig. (Oxon. 1705), and in Constantinus Oeconomus peri ton o hermeneuton biblia d' (Athens, 1849); a better text was given by M. Schmidt in Merx, Archiv f. wissensch. Erforschung a. A. T. i. p. 241 ff.; the latest separate edition appeared in 1900 under the title: Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula cum ceteris de origine versionis LXX. interpretum testimoniis. Ludovici Mendelssohn schedis usus ed. Paulus Wendland. A trans. by Mr H. St J. Thackeray appeared in J. Q. R. Ap. 1903 (since reprinted). For the earlier editions see Fabricius-Harles, iii. 660 ff.; the editio princeps of the Greek text was published at Basle in 1561. The controversies raised by the letter may be studied in Hody or in Fabricius-Harles; cf. Rosenmüller, Handbuch f. d. Literatur d. bibl. Kritik u. Exegese; Dähne, gesch. Darstellung d. jüdisch Alex. Religions-Philosophie, ii. p. 205 ff.; Papageorgius, Über den Aristeasbrief; Lumbroso, Recherches sur l'économie politigue de l'Égypte, p. 351 f. and in Atli di R. Accademia della Scienza di Torino, iv. (1868--9). Fuller lists will be found in Schürer³, iii. 472 f., and in Nestle (Real-encyklopädie f. p. Th. u. K.³ 3, p. 2), and Hastings (D.B. iv. 438 f., where much interesting information is collected); cf. Van Ess, Epilegg. p. 29 f. 8. The writer professes to be a courtier in the service of Philadelphus, a Greek who is interested in the antiquities of the Jewish people [30] . Addressing his brother Philocrates, he relates the issue of a journey which he had recently made to Jerusalem. It appears that Demetrius Phalereus [31] , who is described as librarian of the royal library at Alexandria, had in conversation with the King represented the importance of procuring for the library a translation of the Jewish laws (ta ton Ioudaion nomima metagraphes axia kai tes para soi bibliothekes einai). Philadelphus fell in with the suggestion, and despatched an embassy to Jerusalem with a letter to the High Priest Eleazar, in which the latter was desired to send to Alexandria six elders learned in the law from each of the tribes of Israel to execute the work of translation. In due course the seventy-two elders, whose names are given, arrived in Egypt, bringing with them a copy of the Hebrew Law written in letters of gold on rolls [32] composed of skins (sun . . . tais diaphorois diphtherais en hais he nomothesia gegrammene chrusographia tois Ioudaikois grammasi). A banquet followed, at which the King tested the attainments of the Jewish elders with hard questions. Three days afterwards the work of translation began. The translators were conducted by Demetrius along the Heptastadion [33] to the island of Pharos, where a building conveniently furnished and remote from the distractions of the city was provided for their use. Here Demetrius, in the words of Aristeas, 'exhorted them to accomplish the work of translation, since they were well supplied with all that they could want. So they set to work, comparing their several results and making them agree; and whatever they agreed upon was suitably copied under the direction of Demetrius. . . . In this way the transcription was completed in seventy-two days, as it that period had been pre-arranged.' The completed work was read by Demetrius to the Jewish community, who received it with enthusiasm and begged that a copy might be placed in the hands of their leaders; and a curse was solemnly pronounced upon any who should presume to add to the version or to take from it. After this the Greek Pentateuch was read to the King, who expressed delight and surprise, greeted the book with a gesture of reverence proskunesas, and desired that it should be preserved with scrupulous care (ekeleuse megalen epimeleian poieisthai ton biblion kai sunterein hagnos). 9. The story of Aristeas is repeated more or less fully by the Alexandrian writers Aristobulus and Philo, and by Josephus. Aristobulus ap. Eus. praep. ev. xiii. 12. 2: he de hole hermeneia ton dia tou nomou panton epi tou prosagoreuthentos Philadelphou basileos sou de progonou [he is addressing Philometor] prosenenkamenou meizona philotimian, Demetriou tou Phalereos pragmateusamenou ta peri touton [34] . Philo, vit. Moys. ii. 5 ff.: Ptolemaios ho Philadelphos epikletheis . . . zelon kai pothon labon tes nomothesias hemon eis Hellada glottan ten Chaldaiken metharmozesthai dienoeito, kai presbeis euthus exepempe pros ton tes Ioudaias archierea. . ho de, hos eikos, hestheis kai nomisas ouk aneu theias epiphrosunes peri to toiouton ergon espoudakenai ton basilea . . . asmenos apostellei . . . kathisantes d' en apokrupho kai medenos parontos . . . kathaper enthousiontes epropheteuon, ouk alla alloi, ta de auta pantes onomata kai rhemata hosper hupoboleos hekastois aoratos enechountos ktl. Josephus, ant. i. prooem. 3: Ptolemaion men ho deuteros malista de basileus peri paideian kai biblion sunagogen spoudasas exairetos ephilotimethe ton hemeteron nomon kai ten kat' auton diataxin tes politeias eis ten Hellada phonen metalabein ktl. In ant. xii. 2. 1--15 Josephus gives a full account obviously based on Aristeas (whom he calls Aristaios, and to a great extent verbally identical with the letter. The testimony of Josephus establishes only the fact that the letter of Aristeas was current in Palestine during the first century A.D. Philo, on the other hand, represents an Alexandrian tradition which was perhaps originally independent of the letter, and is certainly not entirely consistent with it. He states (l.c.) that the completion of the work of the LXX. was celebrated at Alexandria down to his own time by a yearly festival at the Pharos (mechri n un ana pan etos heorte kai paneguris agetai kata ten Pharon neson, eis hen ouk Ioudaioi monon alla kai pampletheis hermeneias exelampse ktl.). A popular anniversary of this kind can scarcely have grown out of a literary work so artificial and so wanting in the elements which ensure popularity as the letter of Aristeas. The fragment of Aristobulus carries us much further back than the witness of Philo and Josephus. It was addressed to a Ptolemy who was a descendant of Philadelphus, and who is identified both by Eusebius (l.c.) and by Clement [35] (strom. 1. 22) with Philometor. Whether Aristobulus derived his information from Aristeas is uncertain, but his words, if we admit their genuineness, establish the fact that the main features of the story were believed by the literary Jews of Alexandria, and even at the Court, more than a century and a half before the Christian era and within a century of the date assigned by Aristeas to the translation of the Law. 10. From the second century A.D. the letter of Aristeas is quoted or its contents are summarised by the fathers of the Church, who in general receive the story without suspicion, and add certain fresh particulars. Cf. Justin, apol. i. 31, dial. 68, 71, 'cohort. ad Graecos' 13 ff.; Iren. iii. 21, 2 f.; Clem. Alex. strom. i. 22, 148 f.; Tertullian, apol. 18; Anatolius ap. Eus. H. E. vii. 32; Eusebius, praep. ev. viii. 1--9, ix. 38; Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. iv. 34; Hilary, prol. ad Psalmos, tract. in Pss. ii., cxviii.; Epiphanius, de mens. et pond. §§ 3, 6; Philastrius de haer. 138; Jerome, praef. in Gen., praef. in libr. quaest. Hebr.; Augustine, de civ. Dei xvii. 42 f., de doctr. Chr. ii. 22: Theodore of Mopsuestia in Habakk. ii., in Zeph. i.; Chrysostom, or. i. adv. Jud., c. 6, hom. iv. in Gen., c. 4; Theodoret, praef. in Psalmos; Cyril of Alexandria, adv. Julian. or. 1; Pseudo-Athanasius, synops. scr. sacr. § 77; the anonymous dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (ed. Conybeare, Oxford, 1898, p. 90 f.). Most of these Christian writers, in distinct contradiction to the statement of Aristeas, represent the Seventy as having worked separately, adding that when the results were compared at the end of the task they were found to be identical (so Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, &c.). The author of the Cohortatio ad Graecos [36] declares that at Alexandria he had been shewn the vestiges of the cells in which the translators had worked (autoi en te Alexandreia genomenoi kai ta ichne ton oikiskon en te Pharo heorakotes eti sozomena, kai para ton ekei hos ta patria pareilephoton akekootes tauta apangellomen). This story of the cells therefore was probably of Alexandrian origin, and had grown out of the local belief in the inspiration of the Seventy which appears already in the words of Philo quoted above [37] . The Fathers generally accept both the belief and the legend which it generated, though the latter sometimes undergoes slight modification, as when Epiphanius groups the LXXII. in pairs (zuge zuge kat' oikiskon). Jerome is an honourable exception; he realises that the tale of the cells is inconsistent with the earlier tradition (prol. in Gen. "nescio quis primus auctor LXX cellulas Alexandriae mendacio suo exstruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scriptitarint, quum Aristeas . . . et Josephus nihil tale retulerint"), and rightly protests against the doctrine which was at the root of the absurdity ("aliud est enim vatem, aliud est esse interpretem") [38] . 11. Doubts as to the genuineness of the Aristeas-letter were first expressed by Ludovicus de Vives in his commentary on Aug. de civ. Dei, xviii. 4 (published in 1522), and after him by Joseph Scaliger. Ussher and Voss defended the letter, but its claim to be the work of a contemporary of Philadelphus was finally demolished by Humphry Hody, Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford (1698-1706) [39] . A few later writers have pleaded in its favour (e.g. Grinfield Apology for the LXX., and Constantinus Oeconomus, op. cit.); but the great majority of modern scholars, and perhaps all living experts, recognise the unhistorical character of much of the story of Aristeas. Indeed it scarcely needed the massive learning of Hody to convict the letter of Aristeas of being pseudonymous, and to a large extent legendary. The selection of the elders from all the tribes of Israel awakens suspicions; their names are clearly imaginary; the recurrence of the number seventy-two seems to have struck even the writer as open to remark [40] ; the letters of Philadelphus and Eleazar are of the same stamp as the confessedly fictitious correspondence between the Egyptian and the Palestinian Jews in 2 Maccabees [41] . Above all, whereas the letter professes to have been written by a Greek and a pagan, its purpose proclaims it to be the work of a Jew; while it addresses itself to Gentile readers, its obvious aim is to glorify the Jewish race, and to diffuse information about their sacred books. On the other hand, though the story as 'Aristeas' tells it is doubtless a romance, it must not be hastily inferred that it has no historical basis. That the writer was a Jew who lived in Egypt under the Ptolemies seems to be demonstrated by the knowledge which he displays of life at the Alexandrian Court [42] . There is also reason to suppose that he wrote within fifty years of the death of Philadelphus, and his principal facts are endorsed, as we have seen, by a writer of the next generation [43] . It is difficult to believe that a document, which within a century of the events relates the history of a literary undertaking in which the Court and the scholars of Alexandria were concerned, can be altogether destitute of truth. Detailed criticism is impossible in this place, but it is necessary to examine the credibility of the chief features of the romance so far as they affect questions relating to the date and origin of the LXX. There are certain points in the letter of Aristeas which demand investigation, especially the statements (1) that the translation of the Law was made in the time of Philadelphus; (2) that it was undertaken at the desire of the King, and for the royal library; (3) that the translators and the Hebrew rolls which they used were brought from Jerusalem; and (4) that their translation when completed was welcomed both by Jews and Greeks [44] . 12. There is no improbability in the first of these statements. The personal tastes of Philadelphus, if by no means purely literary, included a fancy for the society of scholars and the accumulation of books [45] . He founded a second library at the Serapeion to receive the overflow of that which Soter had established near the Museum and the Palace [46] . His syncretistic temperament disposed him to listen to the representatives of various creeds. A Buddhist mission from the Ganges found a welcome at his court [47] ; and the reign which produced Manetho's Greek history of Egyptian institutions may well have yielded also a translation into Greek of the Hebrew sacred books. The presence of a large Jewish colony at Alexandria could hardly have failed to awaken in the King and his scholars of the Museum an interest in the ancient laws and literature of the Jewish race. For these reasons modern scholars have for the most part shewn no desire to disturb the tradition which assigns the Alexandrian version of the Law to the days of Philadelphus. One exception must be noted. The late Professor Grätz maintained with much ingenuity that the Greek Pentateuch was a work of the reign of Philometor, thus transferring the inception of the LXX. from the middle of the third century to the middle of the second [48] . His opinion was based partly on the fact that the Jewish colony at Alexandria touched the zenith of its influence under Philometor, partly on internal grounds. Under the latter head he insisted on the translation in Lev. xxiii. 11 of the phrase chsbt mmhrt by te epaurion tes proes. The Pharisees understood the word sbt in that context to refer to the day after the Paschal Sabbath i.e. Nisan 15, while the Sadducees adhered to the usual meaning. Grätz argued with much force that, since the rendering of the LXX. shews evident signs of Pharisaic influence, the version itself must have been later than the rise of the Pharisees [49] . But v. 15 renders the same words by apo tes epaurion tou sabbatou, and as it is not likely that a translator who had of set purpose written tes protes in v. 11 would have let tou sabbatou escape him a little further down, we must suppose that tou s. stood originally in both verses and that tes pr. is due to a Pharisaic corrector who left his work incomplete. But a partial correction of the passage in the interests of Pharisaism points to the version being pre-Maccabean, a conclusion quite opposite to that which Dr Grätz desired to draw [50] . There is, moreover, positive evidence that the Alexandrian version of Genesis at least was in existence considerably before the beginning of Philometor's reign. It was used by the Hellenist Demetrius, fragments of whose treatise Peri ton en te Ioudaia basileon are preserved by Clement (strom. i 21) and Eusebius (praep. ev. ix. 21, 29). The following specimens may suffice to prove this assertion. Demetrius Genesis (LXX.) anti ton melon tou mandragorou. heuren mela mandragorou . . . anti ton mandragoron (XXX. 14 f.). angelon tou theou palaisai kai hapsasthai tou platous tou merou tou Iakob. epalaien . . . kai hepsato tou platous ou merou Iakob (xxxii. 25). legein ktenotrophous autous einai. ereite Andres ktenotrophoi esmen (xlvi. 34). As Demetrius carries his chronology no further than the reign of Philopator, it may be assumed that he lived under the fourth Ptolemy [51] . He is thus the earliest of the Alexandrian Hellenistic writers; yet equally with the latest he draws his quotations of the Book of Genesis from the LXX. It may fairly be argued that a version, which at the end of the third century B.C. had won its way to acceptance among the literary Jews of Alexandria, probably saw the light not later than the reign of Philadelphus. 13. Both 'Aristeas' and Aristobulus associate with the inception of the LXX. the name of Demetrius Phalereus [52] . Aristobulus merely represents Demetrius as having 'negociated the matter' (pragmateusamenou ta peri touton), but Aristeas states that he did so (1) in the capacity of head of the royal library (katastatheis epi tes tou basileos bibliothekes), and (2) in the days of Philadelphus, with whom he appears to be on intimate terms. Both these particulars are certainly unhistorical. Busch [53] has shewn that the office of librarian was filled under Philadelphus by Zenodotus of Ephesus, and on the decease of Zenodotus by Eratosthenes. Moreover Demetrius, so far from being intimate with Philadelphus, was sent into exile soon after the accession of that monarch, and died a little later on from the bite of an asp, probably administered at the King's instigation (c. B.C. 283) [54] . Thus, if Demetrius took part in the inception of the LXX., he must have done so during the reign of Soter. This is not in itself improbable. He had taken refuge in Egypt as early as B.C. 307, and for many years had been a trusted adviser of the first Ptolemy; and it is not unlikely that the project of translating the Jewish Law was discussed between him and the royal founder of the Alexandrian library, and that the work was really due to his suggestion [55] , though his words did not bear fruit until after his death. The point is of importance to the student of the LXX. only in so far as it has to do with the question whether the version was made under official guidance. The breakdown of the chronology of this part of the story of Aristeas leaves us free to abandon the hypothesis of direct intervention on the part of the King, and internal evidence certainly justifies us in doing so. An official version would assuredly have avoided such barbarisms as geioras, hein, sabbata [56] , when such Greek equivalents as proselutos, dichoun, anapausis, were available. The whole style of the version is alien from the purpose of a book intended for literary use, nor is it conceivable that under such circumstances Jewish translators, Palestinian or Alexandrian, would have been left without the advice and help of experts in the Greek tongue. Thus everything points to the conclusion that the version arose out of the needs of the Alexandrian Jews. Whilst in Palestine the Aramaic-speaking Jews were content with the interpretation of the Methurgeman, at Alexandria the Hebrew lesson was gladly exchanged for a lesson read from a Greek translation, and the work of the interpreter was limited to exegesis [57] . In the closing paragraphs of the letter of Aristeas which describe the joy with which the work of the LXXII. was welcomed by the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, the writer unconsciously reveals the true history of the version, when he represents the Jews as having heard and welcomed the Greek Pentateuch before it was presented to the King [58] . But it is not improbable that the King encouraged the work of translation with the view of promoting the use of the Greek language by the settlers [59] as well as for the purpose of gratifying his own curiosity. 14. The Greek of the Alexandrian Pentateuch is Egyptian, and, as far as we can judge, not such as Palestinian translators would have written. Instances are not indeed wanting of translations executed in Egypt by Palestinians; the most noteworthy [60] is the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, which, as the prologue tells us, was turned into Greek by the grandson of the writer after a prolonged visit to the banks of the Nile (paragenetheis eis Haigupton kai sunchronisas); but the clumsy Greek of the prologue, and the stiff artificiality of the book, offer a marked contrast to the simple style of the Pentateuch. That the latter is mainly the work of Alexandrian Jews appears from more than one consideration. An older generation of Biblical scholars pointed to the occurrence in the LXX., and especially in the Pentateuch, of such words of Egyptian origin as achei (Gen. xli. 2 ff.), kondu (Gen. xliv. 2 ff.), ibis (Lev. xi. 17; Deut. xiv. 16), bussos (Exod. xxv.-xxxix. passim) and such characteristically Egyptian terms as didrachmon, aletheia (= ttym), archimageiros, archioinochoos and the like. The argument is not conclusive, since after the time of Alexander the koine contained elements drawn from various localities [61] . But recent discoveries in Egypt have yielded a criterion of Egyptian Greek which has been applied to the LXX. with definite results. In 1892 Prof. Mahaffy was able to write: "in the vocabulary of the papyri we find a closer likeness to the Greek of the LXX. than to any other book I could name [62] ." This statement has been abundantly justified by the publication of Deissmann's Bibelstudien (Marburg, 1895), and Neue Bibelstudien (1897), where a number of the peculiar or characteristic words and forms of the LXX. are shewn to have been in common use among Egyptian Greeks of the third and second centuries B.C. [63] The vocabulary and style of the LXX. will be treated in a later chapter; for the present it is enough to say that they are such as to discredit the attribution of the Greek Pentateuch to a company consisting exclusively or chiefly of Palestinian Jews. The LXX. as a whole, or at any rate the earlier part of the collection, is a monument of Alexandrian Greek as it was spoken by the Jewish colony in the Delta under the rule of the Ptolemies [64] . The story of the rolls being written in letters of gold and sent to the King by the High Priest may be dismissed at once; it belongs to the picturesque setting of the romance. But there is nothing improbable in the statement that the Hebrew rolls were freshly brought from Jerusalem [65] , for communication between Jerusalem and Alexandria was frequent during the reigns of the earlier Ptolemies. Yet the legend may be intended to represent the loyalty of the colony towards the metropolis, and the conviction of the Alexandrian Jews that in their Greek version they possessed the same sacred texts which their brethren in Judaea read in Hebrew. Nothing was further from their intention than to create an Alexandrian canon, or an Alexandrian type of text. The point is one which it is important to remember. The welcome accorded to the Greek version by the Jews of Alexandria was doubtless, as Aristeas represents, both cordial and permanent; nor need we doubt that Philadelphus and his scholars approved what had been done. Insignificant and even intolerable as a literary work, the version promised to supply the Greek scholars of Alexandria with a trustworthy account of Hebrew origins. There is however little or no trace of the use of the LXX. by pagan writers [66] ; the style was probably enough to deter them from studying it, and the Hellenistic Jews of a somewhat later date rendered the task unnecessary by presenting the history of their country in more attractive forms. As to the preservation of the original in the Alexandrian libraries, we have no evidence beyond Tertullian's scarcely trustworthy statement, "Hodie apud Serapeum Ptolemaei bibliothecae cum ipsis Hebraicis litteris exhibentur [67] ." 15. It has been stated (p. 11) that the letter of Aristeas does not profess to describe the origin of any part of the Alexandrian Bible except the Pentateuch [68] . This was evident to Josephus: ant. 1. prooem. 3 oude gar pasan ekeinos (sc. Ptolemaios ho deuteros) ephthe labein ten anagraphen, alla mona ta tou nomou paredosan hoi pemphthentes epi ten exegesin eis Alexandreian. Christian writers, however, failed to notice this limitation; the whole Greek Bible was familiarly known as the version of the LXX., and no misgivings were felt upon the matter except by Jerome, whose intercourse with the Rabbis had opened his eyes on this and other matters about which the Jews were better informed: "tota schola Judaeorum (he writes) quinque tantum libros Moysis a LXX. translatos asserunt [69] ." Epiphanius goes so far as to apportion the books of the Hebrew canon among thirty-six pairs of translators [70] . Nevertheless the Jews were unquestionably right; Aristeas has nothing to say about the translation of any books beyond the first five. His silence as to the Prophets and the Hagiographa is entirely consistent with the conditions of the period in which he fixes his story. The canon of the Prophets seems to have scarcely reached completion before the High-Priesthood of Simon II. (219--199 B.C.) [71] . If this was so in Palestine, at Alexandria certainly there would be no recognised body of Prophetic writings in the reign of the second Ptolemy. The Torah alone was ready for translation, for it was complete, and its position as a collection of sacred books was absolutely secure. 16. But when the example had once been set of rendering sacred books into Greek, it would assuredly be followed as often as fresh rolls arrived from Jerusalem which bore the stamp of Palestinian recognition, if a bilingual Jew was found ready to undertake the task. A happy accident enables us to estimate roughly the extent to which this process had gone by the sixth or seventh decade of the second century. The writer of the prologue to Sirach, who arrived in Egypt in the 38th year of Euergetes--i.e. in the year 132 B.C. if, as is probable, the Euergetes intended was the second of that name--incidentally uses words which imply that "the Law, the Prophets, and the rest of the books" were already current in a translation (ou gar isodunamei auta en heautois Ebraisti legomena, kai hotan metachthe eis heteran glossan; ou monon de tauta, alla kai autos ho nomos kai hai propheteiai kai ta loipa ton biblion ou mikran ten diaphoran echei en heautois legomena). This sentence reveals the progress which had been made in the work of translation between the second Ptolemy and the ninth. Under Euergetes II. the Alexandrian Jews possessed, in addition to the original Greek Pentateuch, a collection of prophetic books, and a number of other writings belonging to their national literature [72] which had not as yet formed themselves into a complete group. The latter are doubtless the books which are known as ktvvym or Hagiographa. Since the author of the prologue was a Palestinian Jew, we may perhaps assume that under hai propheteiai and ta loipa ton biblion he includes such books of both classes as were already in circulation in Palestine. If this inference is a safe one, it will follow that all the 'Prophets' of the Hebrew canon, 'former' and 'latter,' had been translated before B.C. 132. With regard to the Hagiographa, in some cases we have data which lead to a more definite conclusion. Eupolemus, 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, as Freudenthal has clearly shewn [73] . Ezra-Nehemiah, originally continuous with Chronicles, was probably translated at the same time as that book. Aristeas (not the pseudonymous author of the letter, but the writer of a treatise peri Ioudaion quotes the book of Job according to the LXX., and has been suspected [74] of being the author of the remarkable codicil attached to it (Job xlii. 17 b--e). The footnote to the Greek Esther, which states that that book was brought to Egypt in the 4th year of "Ptolemy and Cleopatra" (probably i.e. of Ptolemy Philometor), may have been written with the purpose of giving Palestinian sanction to the Greek version of that book; but it vouches for the fact that the version was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C. [75] The Psalter of the LXX. appears to be quoted in 1 Macc. vii. 17 (Ps. lxxviii. = lxxix. 2), and the Greek version of 1 Maccabees probably belongs to the first century B.C. At what time the Greek Psalter assumed its present form there is no evidence to shew, but it is reasonable to suppose that the great Palestinian collections of sacred song did not long remain unknown to the Alexandrian Jews [76] ; and even on the hypothesis of certain Psalms being Maccabean, the later books of the Greek Psalter may be assigned to the second half of the second century. 17. On the whole, though the direct evidence is fragmentary, it is probable that before the Christian era Alexandria possessed the whole, or nearly the whole, of the Hebrew Scriptures in a Greek translation. For the first century A.D. we have the very important evidence of Philo, who uses the LXX. and quotes largely from many of the books. There are indeed some books of the Hebrew canon to which he does not seem to refer, i.e. Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel [77] . But, as Professor Ryle points out, "it may be safely assumed that Ruth and Lamentations were, in Philo's time, already united to Judges and Jeremiah in the Greek Scriptures"; and Ezekiel, as one of the greater Prophets, had assuredly found its way to Alexandria before A.D. 1. Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Daniel, which "seem to have been among the latest books to be received into the Sacred Canon [78] ," may have been purposely neglected by Philo, as not possessing canonical authority. But it would be precarious to conclude that they had not been as yet translated into Greek; the Book of Esther, as we have seen, was probably current at Alexandria during the second century B.C. Two other Jewish, but not Alexandrian, authorities assist us to ascertain the contents of the Greek Bible in the first century A.D. (a) The New Testament shews a knowledge of the LXX. version in most of the books which it quotes, and it quotes all the books of the Old Testament except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and certain of the Minor Prophets [79] . As in the case of Philo, it is possible, though scarcely probable, that Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song were passed by as not having received the stamp of canonicity; but the silence of the Apostolic writers about them does not in any case prove that Greek translations of these books were not yet in circulation among Palestinian Jews. (b) Josephus, who knew and used the LXX., unfortunately has no explicit statement as to the extent of the Greek version; but his list of the Hebrew books is practically identical with our own, and, as it occurs in a treatise intended for Gentile readers, it is perhaps safe to assume that he speaks of books accessible in a translation; "in other words, that he writes with the LXX. version before him [80] ." Thus while the testimony of the first century A.D. does not absolutely require us to believe that all the books of the Hebrew canon had been translated and were circulated in a Greek version during the Apostolic age, such a view is not improbable; and it is confirmed by the fact that they are all contained in the canon of the Greek Bible which the Christian Church received from its Jewish predecessors. It is another question whether the versions were all of Alexandrian origin, or the only Greek translations which claimed to represent the corresponding Hebrew books. In a few cases there were certainly rival interpretations or recensions of the same book (e.g. in Judges, Daniel, Tobit). But as a whole the work of translation was doubtless carried out at Alexandria, where it was begun; and the Greek Bible of the Hellenistic Jews and the Catholic Church may rightly be styled the Alexandrian Greek version of the Old Testament. LITERATURE. The following list embraces a mere fraction of the vast literature of the Alexandrian Version. The selection has been made with the purpose of representing the progress of knowledge since the middle of the seventeenth century. L. Cappellus, critica sacra, 1651; J. Pearson, praefatto paraenetica, 1655; Ussher, Syntagma, 1655; Walton, prolegomena, 1657; Hottinger, disertationum fasciculus, 1660; I. Voss, de LXX. interpretibus, 1661--1663; J. Morinus, Exercitationes, 1669; R. Simon, histoire critique du Vieux Testament², 1685; H. Hody, de Bibl. textibus originalibus, 1705; H. Owen, Enquiry into the text of the LXX., 1769; Brief account of the LXX., 1787; Stroth, in Eichhorn's Repertorium, v. ff., 1779 ff.; White, Letter to the Bp of London, 1779; Fabricius-Harles, iii. 658 ff., 1793; R. Holmes, Episcopo Dunelm. epistola, 1795; praefatio ad Pentateuchum, 1798; Schleusner, opuscula critica, 1812; Töpler, de Pentateuchi interpretat. Alex. indole, 1830; Dähne, jüd.-alexandr. Philosophie, 1834; Grinfield, Apology for the LXX., 1850; Frankel, Vorstudien zu der LXX., 1841; über den Einfluss d. paläst. Exegese auf die alexandr. Hermeneutik, 1851; do., über paläst. u. alexandr. Schriftforschung, 1854; Thiersch, de Pentateuchi vers. Alexandr., 1841; Constantinus Oeconomus, peri ton o hermeneuton, 1849; Churton, The Influence of the LXX. upon the progress of Christianity, 1861; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel³, 1868; E. Nestle, Septuaginta-Studien, i. 1886, ii. 1896, iii. 1899, iv. 1903, v. 1907; S. R. Driver, Notes on Samuel (Introd. § 3f.), 1890; P. de Lagarde, Septuaginta-Studien, i. 1891, ii. 1892; A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, i. 1904, ii. 1907, iii. 1911; Buhl, Kanon u. Text der A. T., 1891; A. Loisy, histoire critique du texte et des versions de la Bible, 1892; Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek, 1892; W. Robertson Smith, O. T. in the Jewish Church², 1892; E. Klostermann, Analecta zur LXX^ta, 1895; Nestle, Urtext u. Übersezungen der Bibel, 1897. Monographs on special books or particular aspects of the subject will be enumerated elsewhere. The student should also consult the best Introductions to the O.T., especially those of Eichhorn (1777 ff.), De Wette-Schrader (1869), Bleek-Wellhausen^6 (1893), König (1893); and the Encyclopedias and Bible Dictionaries, especially the articles on the Septuagint in Smith's D. B. iii. (Selwyn), the Encyclopædia Britannica² (Wellhausen), the Real-Encykl. f. prot. Theologie u. Kirche³ (Nestle; also published in a separate form, under the title Urtext u. Übersetzungen, &c.), and Nestle's art. Septuagint in Hastings' D.B. iv.; the arts. Septuaginta (Hoberg) in Wetzer-Welte's Encyklopaedie² xi. (1899), 147--159, and Text and Versions (Burkitt) in Cheyne and Black's Encyclop. Biblica. __________________________________________________________________ [1] Individual cases, such as that of the Jew mentioned by Clearchus (ap. Jos. c. Ap. 1, 22), who was Ellenikos ou te diakekto monon alla kai te psuche, are exceptions to a general rule. How numerous and prosperous were the Jewish colonies in Asia Minor at a later period appears from the Acts of the Apostles; see also Ramsay, Phrygia 1. ii. p. 667 ff. [2] This belief was inherited by the Christian school of Alexandria; see Clem. strom. v. 29, Orig. c. Cels. iv. 39, vi. 19; and cf. Lact. inst. IV. 2. [3] di heteron, Eus. [4] See Tischendorf, V. T. Gr. (1879) prolegg. p. xiii. n. [5] Cf. Walton (ed. Wrangham), p. 18; Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 14f.; Buhl, Kanon u. Text, p. 108 f. [6] See art. Diaspora in suppl. vol. of Hastings' D.B. [7] The later Hebrew term was gvlh, 'exile'; see Dr Hort on 1 Pet. l. c. [8] The 'Babylonian' Targum is of Palestinian origin (Buhl, p. 173). On early Aramaic translations arising out of the synagogue interpretations, see ib., p. 168 f.; and for the traditional account of the origin of the Syriac O. T. see Nestle, Urtext u. Übersetzungen der Bibel (Leipzig, 1897), p. 229. [9] Professor Driver in D. G. Hogarth's Authority and Archaeology, p. 87 f. [10] The passage is thought by some scholars to belong to the Ptolemaean age; see Cheyne, Intr. to Isaiah, p. 105. [11] Cf. Authority and Archaeology, p. 117. [12] Jer. li. = xliv. 1 ff. hapasin tois Ioudaiois tois katoikousin en ge Aiguptou ktl. Many of these refugees, however, were afterwards taken prisoners by Nebuchadnezzar and transported to Babylon (Joseph. ant. x. 9. 7). [13] Ant. xi. 8. 4 f. The story is rejected by Ewald and Grätz, and the details are doubtless unhistorical: cf. Droysen, l'histoire du l'Hellenisme, i. p. 300. [14] Plutarch Alex. 26 ebouleto polin megalen kai poluanthropon Hellenida sunoikisas eponumon heautou katalipein. [15] See Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 86. [16] On the relations in which the Jews stood to Alexander and his successors see Wellhausen, Isr. u. jüd. Geschichte, c. xvi. [17] In Philo's time the Jews occupied two districts out of five (in Flacc. 8). Droysen, iii. p. 59. [18] Strabo ap. Jos. ant. xiv. 7. 2; cf. Schürer Gesch. d. jüd. Volkes³, iii. 40; Lumbroso, Recharches, p. 218; Droysen, iii. p. 40 n. On the alabarches (arabarches) who is sometimes identified with the ethnarch see Schürer iii. 88. [19] On the magnificence of the principal synagogue see Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation (ed. White), p. 67. [20] Temporary checks seem to have been sustained by the Alexandrian Jews under Philopator I. and Physcon; see 3 Macc. ii. 31, and cf. Mahaffy, pp. 267 ff., 381, 390. [21] See Mahaffy, Empire, &c., p. 86 n.; cf. Philo de sept. 6. [22] Where Blass (Philology of the Gospels, p. 69 f.) proposes to read Libustinon for Libertinon. [23] Philo ad Cai. 36. [24] See Schürer³, iii. 97 ff. [25] Droyson, iii. p. 35. [26] Mommsen, Provinces, ii. p. 163 f. On the whole question see Hody, de Bibl. textibus, p. 224 f.; Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, iii. p. 268 ff.; Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 61 ff.; Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Gk., p. 21 ff. [27] There was a large Greek settlement on the Pelusiac arm of the Nile at an early period; see Herod. ii. 163. [28] Cf. Streane, Double Text of Jeremiah, p. 11 f. [29] Irenaeus (iii. 21. 3) speaks of the seniorum interpretatio; Tertullian (Apol. 18) of the septuaginta et duo interpretes; Jerome, of the LXX. interpretes, or translatores (praeff. in Esdr., Isai.), LXX. editio (praef. in Job, ep. ad Pammach.), editio LXX. (praef. in Paralipp.). Augustine, de civ. Dei, xviii. 42, remarks: "quorum interpretatio ut Septuaginta vocetur iam obtinuit consuetudo." [30] From the mention of Cyprus as 'the island' (§ 5) it has been inferred that Aristeas was a Cypriot. The name occurs freely in inscriptions from the islands of the Aegean and the coast of Caria (C. I. G. 2262, 2266, 2349, 2399, 2404, 2655, 2693, 2694, 2723, 2727, 2781, 2892), and was borne by a Cyprian sculptor (see D. G. and R. B., i. 293). Wendland, however, thinks 'the island' is Pharos, as certainly in § 301. The Aristeas who wrote peri Ioudaion (Euseb. praep. ev. ix. 25) was doubtless an Alexandrian Jew who, as a Hellenist, assumed a Greek name. [31] See Ostermann, de Demetrii Ph. vita (1857); Susemihl, Gesch. d. gr. Litt. in d. Alexandrinerzeit, i. p. 135 ff. On the royal library at Alexandria see Susemihl, i. p. 335 ff. and the art. Bibliotheken in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie, v. 409 f. [32] See See Birt, Die Buchrolle in der Kunst (Leipzig 1907), p. 21 f. [33] The mole which connected the Pharos with the city: see art. Alexandria in Smith's Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geography, pp. 96 f. [34] In defence of the genuineness of this testimony see Schürer, G. J. V.³ iii. 384--392. On the other hand cf. L. Cohn in Neue Jahrbücher f. d. Klass. Alterthum i. 8 (1895), and Wendland in Byzantinische Zeitschrift vii. (1898), 447--449. For Aristobulus see Susemihl, p. 630 f. [35] Clement of Alexandria identifies this Aristobulus with the person named in 2 Macc. i. 10 Aristoboulo didaskalo Ptolemaiou tou basileos. See Valckenaer diatribe de Aristobulo (printed at the end of Gaisford's edition of Eus. praep. ev. iv.). [36] On the date of this treatise, which is commonly ascribed to Justin, see Krüger, Hist. of Chr. Literature (E. T.), p. 112 f., and cf. Harnack-Preuschen, p. 107. [37] Cf. ib. ouch hermeneis ekeinous all' hierophantas kai prophetas prosagoreuontes. [38] The story of the cells is not peculiar to Christian writers; it is echoed by the Talmud (Bab. Talm. Megillah 9a, Jerus. Talm. Meg. c. i.; cf. Sopherim, c. i.). [39] In his Contra historiam LXX. interpretum Aristeae nomine inscriptam dissertatio, originally published in 1684, and afterwards included in De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, versionibus Graecis, et Latina vulgata libri iv. (Oxon. 1705). For other writers on both sides cf. Buhl, p. 117 (E. T. p. 115). [40] On the Rabbinical partiality for this number, cf. Ewald, Hist. of Israel, v. 252 n. (E. T.); Schürer 11. i. p. 174; Buhl, p. 117 (=116, E. T.). [41] Or the letters of Philopator in 3 Maccabees. [42] See the remarks of Wilcken in Philologus liii. (1894), p. 111 f., and cf. Lumbroso, p. xiii. [43] See Schürer³, iii, p. 468 f. [44] See Mr I. Abrahams in J.Q.R. xiv. 2, pp. 321 ff., Recent Criticisms of the Letter of Aristeas. [45] Tertullian exaggerates his literary merits (apol. 18 Ptolemaeorum eruditissimus . . . et omnis litteraturae sagacissimus). [46] Cf. Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 164 ff. On the character of Philadelphus see also Droysen, iii., p. 254 f. [47] Mahaffy, pp. 163 f., 170. [48] Gesch. Juden³, iii. p. 615 ff. [49] He also notes the rendering archon in Deut. xvii. 14--20. [50] See Expository Times, ii. pp. 209, 227 f. [51] Cf. Freudenthal, hellen. Studien, p. 41. [52] The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila strangely says: en de houtos ho Demetrios to genei Ebraios. [53] De bibliothecariis Alexandrinis (1884), p. 1 ff.; cf. Droysen, iii. p. 256; Mahaffy, p. 115. [54] Diog. Laert. v. 78. The statement rests on the authority of Hermippus Callimachus (temp. Ptolemy III.). [55] Cf. Plutarch, Apophthegm. viii. Demetrios ho Phalereus Ptolemaio to basilei parenei ta peri basileias kai hegemonias biblia ktasthai kai anaginoskein. [56] Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 8 f. [57] Cf. Philo ap. Eus. praep. ev. viii. 7 ton hiereon de tis paron, e ton geronton eis, anaginoskei tous hierous nomous autois kai kath' hekaston exegeitai. But exegeitai is ambiguous. [58] The hope of winning converts may have been among the motives which inspired the translators and gained a ready welcome for their work; cf. the prol. to Sirach: ou monon autous tous anaginoskontas deon estin epistemonas ginesthai, alla kai tois ektos dunasthai tous philomathountas chresimeus einai kai legontas kai graphontas--where however the influence of the Jewish Scriptures on pagans is regarded as indirect, and not immediate. [59] Cf. Mommsen, Provinces, ii. p. 164. [60] Another example is offered by the Greek Esther, if the note at the end of the book is to be trusted (ephasan . . . ermeneukenai Lusimachon Ptolemaiou ton en Ierousalem). [61] See Hody, ii. 4; Eichhorn, p. 472; H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 24 f.; on the other hand, cf. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 40 ff. [62] Exp. Times, iii. p. 291; cf. Mahaffy, Greek life, p. 198 f. [63] Evidence of this kind will doubtless accumulate as new volumes of papyri are issued. The verbal indices which usually accompany such collections offer a rich field for the Biblical student who will be at the pains to explore them. [64] See however Buhl, p. 124. [65] According to Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 10 f.) the rolls only were sent in the first instance, and the interpreters followed in consequence of a second application from Philadelphus. This form of the story suggests that the desire for a translation may have been stimulated by the arrival of MSS. from Jerusalem. [66] See, however, Mahaffy, Hist. of Gk. class. literature, 1. ii. p. 195. [67] Apol. 18; cf. Justin, apol. i. 31, Chrys. or. 1 adv. Jud., and Epiph. de mens. et pond. § 11. The library in the Brucheion perished in the time of Julius Caesar; that of the Serapeion is said to have been destroyed by Omar, A.D. 640. [68] See, e.g., §§ 3, 10, 46, 171, 176. [69] In Ezech. v.; cf. in Gen. xxxi., in Mich. ii. See the Talmudical passages cited by Hody, p. 296. [70] de mens. et pond. 3 sq. [71] Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 113. Cf. Buhl, p. 12. [72] Cf. prol. supra: tou nomou kai ton propheton kai ton allon patrion biblion. [73] Pp. 108, 119; cf. p. 185. [74] Ib. p. 138f. [75] Ib. p. 138f. [76] Cf. Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, pp. 12, 83. [77] Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xxxi. f. [78] Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xxxiii. [79] Ryle, Canon, p. 151. [80] Ib. p. 163. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER II. LATER GREEK VERSIONS. 1. At Alexandria and in Egypt generally the Alexandrian version was regarded, as Philo plainly says, with a reverence scarcely less than that which belonged to the original. It was the Bible of the Egyptian Jews, even of those who belonged to the educated and literary class. This feeling was shared by the rest of the Hellenistic world. In Palestine indeed the version seems to have been received with less enthusiasm, and whether it was used in the synagogues is still uncertain. But elsewhere its acceptance by Greek-speaking Jews was universal during the Apostolic age and in the next generation. On the question of the use of the LXX. in the synagogues see Hody iii. 1. 1, Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 56 ff., König, Einleitung, p. 105ff.; the negative is stoutly maintained by J. Lightfoot, hor. Hebr. (add. to 1 Cor. xiv.). If the Ep. to the Hebrews was addressed to the Church of Jerusalem, the preponderating use of the LXX. in its quotations from the O. T. is strong evidence, so far as it goes, for the acceptance of the LXX. by Palestinian Hellenists. Its use by St Paul vouches for the practice of the Hellenists of Asia Minor and Europe; no rival version had gained circulation at Antioch, Ephesus, or Rome. In the next century we have the evidence of Justin (apol. i. 31 emeinan hai bibloi [the translated books] kai par' Aiguptiois mechri tou deuro kai pantachou para pasin eisin Ioudaiois: dial. 72 haute he perikope he ek ton logon tou Ieremiou eti estin engegrammene en tisin antigraphois ton en sunagogais Ioudaion), Tertullian (apol. 18 "Judaea palam lectitant"), Pseudo-Justin (cohort. ad Gr. 13 to de par' Ioudaiois eti kai nun tas te hemetera theosebeia diapherousas sozesthai biblous, theias pronoias ergon huper hemon gegonen . . . apo tes ton Ioudaion sunagoges tautas axioumen prokomizesthai). 2. When the LXX. passed into the hands of the Church and was used in controversy with Jewish antagonists, the Jews not unnaturally began to doubt the accuracy of the Alexandrian version (Justin, dial. 68 tolmosi legein ten exegesin hen exegesanto hoi hebdomekonta humon presbuteroi para Ptolemaio to ton Aiguption basilei genomenoi me einai en tisin alethe). The crucial instance was the rendering of tslth by parthenos in Isa. vii. 14, where neanis, it was contended, would have given the true meaning of the Hebrew word (ib. 71, 84; Iren. iii. 21. 1). But the dissatisfaction with which the LXX. was regarded by the Jewish leaders of the second century was perhaps not altogether due to polemical causes. The LXX. "did not suit the newer school of [Jewish] interpretation, it did not correspond with the received text [81] ." An official text differing considerably from the text accepted in earlier times had received the approval of the Rabbis, and the Alexandrian version, which represented the older text, began to be suspected and to pass into disuse. Attempts were made to provide something better for Greek-speaking Israelites (Justin, dial. 71 autoi exegeisthai peirontai). Of two such fresh translations Irenaeus speaks in terms of reprehension (l.c. ouch hos enioi phasin ton nun methermeneuein tolmonton ten graphen . . . hos Theodotion . . . ho Ephesios kai Akulas ho Pontikos, amphoteroi Ioudaioi proselutoi). Origen, who realised the importance of these translations, was able to add to those of Aquila and Theodotion the version of Symmachus and three others which were anonymous [82] . Of the anonymous versions little remains, but Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus are represented by numerous and in some cases important fragments. 3. Aquila. The name had been borne in the Apostolic age by a native of Pontus who was of Jewish birth (Acts xviii. 2 Ioudaion onomati Akulan, Pontikon to genei). Aquila the translator was also of Pontus, from the famous sea-port [83] Sinope, which had been constituted by Julius Caesar a Roman colony; but he was of Gentile origin. He lived in the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117--138), and was a connexion of the Emperor (pentherides, Epiph., Dial. of Timothy and Aquila; pentheros, Ps.-Ath., Chron. Pasch.). Hadrian employed his relative to superintend the building of Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, and while there Aquila was converted to Christianity by Christians who had returned from Pella. Refusing, however, to abandon the pagan practice of astrology, he was excommunicated; upon which he shewed his resentment by submitting to circumcision and attaching himself to the teaching of the Jewish Rabbis. The purpose of his translation was to set aside the interpretation of the LXX., in so far as it appeared to support the views of the Christian Church. This is the story of Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 14 sq.: labon [sc. ho Hadrianos] ton Akulan touton . . . Hellena onta kai hautou pentheriden, apo Sinopes de tes Pontou hormomenon, kathistesin auton ekeise epistatein tois ergois ktl. . . . pikrantheis de . . . proseluteuei kai peritemnetai Ioudaios; kai epiponos philotimesamenos exedoken heauton mathein ten Ebraion dialekton kai ta auton stoicheia. tauten de akrotata paideutheis hermeneusen ouk ortho logismo chresamenos, all' hopos diastrepse tina ton rheton, enskepsas te ton ob' hermeneia hina ta peri Christou en tais graphais memarturemena allos ekdosei). The same tale is told in substance by the Pseudo-Athanasian author of Synopsis script. sacr., c. 77, and in the Dialogue between Timothy and Aquila printed in Anecdota Oxon., class. ser. pt viii. According to the writer of the Dialogue Aquila learned Hebrew in his 40th year, and there are other features peculiar to this form of the story which have led the editor, Mr F. C. Conybeare, to conjecture that it is independent of the Epiphanian narrative, though derived from the same source, which he believes to have been ultimately the history of Ariston of Pella (op. cit. p. xxvi. ff.). An Aquila figures in the Clementine romance (hom. ii. sqq., recogn. ii. sqq.); the name and character were perhaps suggested by some floating memories of the translator. Cf. Lagarde, Clementina, p. 12 f. That Aquila was a proselyte to Judaism is attested by the Jewish tradition (Jer. Talm. Meg. 1. 11, Kidush. 1. 1), in which he appears as hgr, ho proselutos [84] . After his conversion to Judaism, Aquila became a pupil of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua (Meg. f. 71 c) or, according to another authority, of R. Akiba (Kiddush. f. 59 a). The latter statement seems to have been current among the Jews of Palestine in Jerome's time (Hieron. in Isa. viii, 14 "scribae et Pharisaei quorum suscepit scholam Akybas, quem magistrum Aquilae proselyti autumant"), and it derives some confirmation from the character of the version. According to Epiphanius the floruit of Aquila is to be placed in the 12th year of Hadrian (Epiph. de mens. et pond. 13 Hadrianos ete ka, houtinos to dodekato etei Akulas egnorizeto . . . hos einai apo tou chronou tes hermeneias ton ob' hermeneuton heos Akula tou hermeneutou, egoun heos dodekatou etous Hadrianou, ete ul' kai menas d'. The 12th year of Hadrian was A.D. 128--9, the year in which the Emperor began to rebuild Aelia. This date is doubtless approximately correct, if Aquila was a pupil of R. Akiba, who taught from A.D. 95 to A.D. 135 [85] , or even of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, who immediately preceded Akiba. It must have taken the Greek proselyte many years to acquire an adequate knowledge of Hebrew and of the Rabbinical methods of interpretation, and under these circumstances his great work could hardly have been completed before the fourth decade of the second century. When Irenaeus wrote his third book, in the ninth decade, Aquila's translation might still be regarded as comparatively recent (ton nun methermeneuein tolmonton ten graphen . . . hos . . . Akulas). 4. It was natural that the version of Aquila should be received with acclamation by his co-religionists. His teachers congratulated him in the words of Ps. xlv. 3, yphyphyt mbny 'dm ? [86] . The Talmud quotes or refers to his translation of not a few passages (Gen. xvii. 1; Lev. xix. 20, 23, 40; Esth. i. 6; Prov. xviii. 21, xxv. 11; Isa. iii. 20; Ezek. xvi. 10, xxiii. 43; Dan. v. 5, viii. 13). In Origen's time he was trusted implicitly in Jewish circles, and used by all Jews who did not understand Hebrew (ep. ad African. 2 philotimoteron pepisteumenos para Ioudaiois . . . o malista eiothasin hoi agnoountes ten Ebraion dialekton chresthai, hos panton mallon epiteteugmeno); and the same preference for Aquila seems to have been characteristic of the Jews in the fourth and fifth centuries (cf. Jerome on Ezek. iii. 5, and Augustine de civ. Dei xv. z3), and at a still later period, for even Justinian, when regulating the public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogues, thought it expedient to permit the use of Aquila (novell. 146: "at vero ii qui Graeca lingua legunt LXX. interpretum utentur translatione . . . verum . . . licentiam concedimus etiam Aquilae versione utendi"). It was equally natural that the proselyte's version should be regarded with distrust by Christians, who saw in it the work of a champion of Rabbinism as well as a bold attempt to displace the Septuagint [87] . Yet the few Christian writers who were students of the Hebrew Bible learnt to recognise the fidelity of Aquila's work. He was 'a slave to the letter' (douleuon te Ebraike lexei; whatever was wanting in the Hebrew text was not to be found in Aquila ou keitai para tois Ebraiois, dioper oude para to Akula). So Origen confesses [88] ; and Jerome, though when in a censorious mood he does not spare the proselyte (e.g. praef. in Job, ep. ad Pammach.), elsewhere admits his honesty and diligence (ep. ad Damas. 12 "non contentiosius, ut quidam putant, sed studiosius verbum interpretatur ad verbum"; ep. ad Marcell. "iamdudum cum voluminibus Hebraeorum editionem Aquilae confero, ne quid forsitan propter odium Christi synagoga mutaverit, et--ut amicae menti fatear--quae ad nostram fidem pertineant roborandam plura reperio"). After these testimonies from the two most competent witnesses in the ancient Church, we need not stop to consider the invective of Epiphanius [89] . 5. Until the summer of 1897 Aquila's version was known to students only from the description of ancient writers, chiefly Christian, and the fragments of the Hexapla (c. iii.), which when complete contained the entire work. These sources were used with admirable skill by Dr Field (prolegomena in Hexapla, p. xix, ff.) and Dr C. Taylor (D. C. B. art. Hexapla) to illustrate the purpose and style of Aquila's work. But an unexpected discovery has since placed at our disposal several larger fragments of the version, emanating from a Jewish source. Among the débris of the Genizah of the Cairo synagogue brought to Cambridge in 1897 through the efforts of Dr Taylor and Dr Schechter, Professor Burkitt was so fortunate as to discover some palimpsest scraps which under later Hebrew writing contain in a good uncial hand of the sixth century Aquila's translation of 1 Kings xx. 9--17 and 2 Kings xxiii. 12--27 [90] . From the same treasure Dr Taylor recovered portions of Pss. xc.-ciii., and a Hexaplar fragment of Ps. xxii. [91] The student will find below specimens of these discoveries, placed for the purpose of comparison in parallel columns with the version of the LXX. 3 Regn. xxi. (1 Kings xx.) 10--13. LXX. (Cod. B [92] ) Aquila. ^10kai apesteilen pros auton uios Hader legon Tade poiesai moi ho theos kai tade prostheie, ei ekpoiesei ho chous Samareias tais alopexin panti to lao tois pezois mou. ^11kai apekrithe basileus Israel kai eipen Hikanoustho; me kauchastho ho kurtos hos ho orthos. ^12kai egeneto hote apekrithe auto ton logon touton, pinon en autos kai pantes basileis met' autou en skenais; kai eipen tois paisin autou Oikodomesate charaka; kai ethento charaka epi ten polin. ^13kai idou prophetes heis proselthen to basilei Israel kai eipen Tade legei Kurios Ei heorakas ton ochlon ton megan touton; idou ego didomi auton semeron eis cheiras sas, kai gnose hoti ego Kurios. ^10kai apesteilen pros auton uios Hadad kai eipen Tade poiesaisan moi theoi kai tade prostheiesan, ei exarkesei chous Samarias tois lichasin [93] tou pantos tou laou hos en posin mou. ^11kai apekrithe basileus Israel kai eipen Lalesate Me kauchastho zonnumenos hos ho periluomenos. ^12kai egeneto hos ekousen sun to rhema touto, kai autos epinnen autos kai hoi basileis en suskiasmois; kai eipen pros doulous autou Thete; kai ethekan epi ten polin.^ 13kai idou prophetes heis prosengisen pros Aab basilea Israel kai eipen Tade legei Eides sun panta ton ochlon ton megan touton; idou ego didomi auton eis cheira sou semeron, kai gnose hoti ego . 4 Regn. (2 Kings) xxiii. 21--24. LXX. (Cod. B [94] ). Aquila. ^21kai eneteilato ho baseleus panti to lao legon Poiesate pascha to kurio theo hemon, kathos gegraptai epi bibliou tes diathekes tautes. ^22hoti ouk egenethe to pascha touto aph' hemeron ton kriton ohi ekrinon ton Israel, kai pasas ta?s hemeras basileon Israel kai basileon Iouda; ^23hoti all' e to oktokaidekato etei tou basileos Ioseia egenethe to pascha to kurio en Ierousalem. ^24kai ge tous theletas kai tous gnoristas kai ta theraphein kai ta eidola kai panta ta prosochthismata ta gegonota en ge Iouda kai en Ierousalem exeren Ioseias, hina stese tous logous tou nomou tous gegrammenous epi to biblio hou heuren Chelkeias ho hiereus en oiko Kuriou. ^21kai eneteilapo ho basileus sun panti to lao to legein Poiesate phesa to theo humon kata to gegrammenon epi bibliou tes sunthekes tautes. ^22hoti ouk epoiethe kata to phesa touto apo hemeron ton kriton ohi ekrinan ton Israel kai pason hemeron basileon Israel kai basileon Iouda; ^23hoti alla en oktokaidekato etei tou basileos Iosiaou epoiethe to phesa touto to en Ierousalem. ^24kai kai ge sun tous magous kai sun tous gnoristas kai sun ta morphomata kai sun ta katharmata kai sun panta prosochthismata ha horathesan en ge Iouda kai en Ierousalem epelexen Iosiaou, hopos anastese ta rhemata tou nomou ta gegrammena epi tou bibliou [hou heuren] Helkiaou ho hiereus oiko Kuriou [95] Ps. xc. (xci.) 6b--13. LXX. (Cod. B). Aquila. apo sumptomatos kai daimoniou mesembrinou. apo degmou daim[onizontos mesembrias]. ^7peseitai ek tou klitous sou chilias, ^7peseitai apo plagiou s[ouchilias], kai murias ek dexion sou, kai murias apo dexi[on sou]; pros se de ouk engiei; pros se ou proseng[isei]; ^8plen tois ophthalmois sou katanoeseis, ^8ektos en ophthalmois [sou epible]pseis, kai antapodosin hamartolon opse. kai apotisin asebon opse. ^9hoti su, Kurie, he elpis mou; ^9hoti su, , elpis mou; ton hupsiston ethou kataphugen sou. hupsiston ethekas oiketerion sou. ^10ou proseleusetai pros se kaka, ^10ou metachthesetai pros se kakia, kai mastix ouk engiei to skenomati sou; kai haphe ouk engisei en skepe sou; ^11hoti tois angelois autou enteleitai peri sou, ^11hoti angelois autou enteleitai se, tou diaphulaxai se en tais hodois [96] sou. tou phulaxai se en pasais hodois sou; ^12epi cheiron arousin se, ^12epi tarson arousin se, me pote proskopses pros lithon ton poda sou; mepote proskopse en litho [pous sou]; ^13ep' aspida kai basiliskon epibese. ^13epi leaina[n] [97] kai aspida pateseis. Ps. xci. (xcii.) 5--10. LXX. (Cod. B [98] ). Aquila. ^5hoti euphranas me, Kurie, en to poiemati sou, ^5[hoti euphranas me, ] , en katergo sou, kai en tois ergois ton cheiron sou agalliasomai. [en poiemasi] cheiron sou aineso. ^6hos emegalunthe ta erga sou, Kurie, ^6[hos emegalunthe] poiemata sou, sphodra ebarunthesan hoi dialogismoi sou. sphodra [ebathunth]esan logismoi sou. ^7aner aphron ou gnosetai, ^7[aner] asunetos ou geosetai, kai asunetos ou sunesei tauta. kai anoetos ou sunesei sui tauten. ^8en to anateilai tous hamartolous hos chorton ^8en to blastesai asebeis homoios chloe kai diekupsan pantes hoi ergathomenoi ten anomian, kai enthesan pantes katergazomenoi anopheles, hopos an exolethreuthosin eis ton aiona tou aionos. ektribenai autous heos eti; ^9su de Hupsistos eis ton aiona, ^9kai su Hupsistos eis aiona, Kurie. . ^10hoti idou oi echthroi sou apolountai, ^10idou oi echthroi sou, , idou hoi echthroi sou apolountai, kai diaskorpisthesontai pantes hoi ergathomenoi ten anomian. [skorpi]sthesontai pantes katergazo[menoi anopheles]. 6. If the student examines these specimens of Aquila's work and compares them with the Hebrew and LXX., the greater literalness of the later version and several of its most striking peculiarities will at once be apparent. He will notice especially the following. (1) There are frequent instances of an absolutely literal rendering of the original, e.g. 1 Kings xx. 10 hos en posin mou = 'sr brgly (LXX. tois pezois mou); 12 thete;kai ethekan = symv vysymv (LXX. oikodomesate charaka, kai ethento charaka); 2 Kings xxiii. 21 to legein = l'mr (LXX. legon); 24 ha horathesan = 'sr nr'v (LXX. ta gegonota). (2) Under certain circumstances [99] sun is employed to represent the Hebrew 't, when it is the sign of the accusative [100] ; e.g. 1 Kings xx. 12 sun to rhema = 'thdvr?, 13 sun panta ton ochlon = 'tklhhmvn?, 2 Kings xxiii. 21 sun panti to lao (where the dat. is governed by the preceding verb), 24 sun tous magous ktl. (3) The same Hebrew words are scrupulously rendered by the same Greek, e.g. kai kaige = vgm occurs thrice in one context (2 Kings xxiii. 15, 19, 24); and in Ps. xcii. 8, 10 katergazomenoi anopheles twice represents ply 'vn? (4) The transliterations adhere with greater closeness to the Hebrew than in the LXX. [101] ; thus pmch becomes phesa, y'syhv Iosiaou, chlqyhv Helkiaou. (5) The Tetragrammaton is not transliterated, but written in Hebrew letters, and the characters are of the archaic type ( , not yhvh); cf. Orig. in Ps. ii., kai en tois akribestatois de ton antigraphon Ebraiois charaktersin keitai to onoma, Ebraikois de ou tois nun alla tois archaiotatois--where the 'most exact copies' are doubtless those of Aquila's version, for there is no reason to suppose that any copyists of the Alexandrian version hesitated to write o ks or ke for yhvh? [102] . (6) That the crudities of Aquila's style are not due to an insufficient vocabulary [103] is clear from his ready use of words belonging to the classical or the literary type when they appear to him to correspond to the Hebrew more closely than the colloquialisms of the LXX. The following are specimens; 1 Kings xx. 10 LXX. ekpoiesei, Aq. exarkesei; LXX. alopexin, Aq. lichasin [104] ; 12 LXX. skenais, Aq. suskiasmois; 2 Kings xxiii. 21 LXX. diathekes, Aq. sunthekes; 24 LXX. theraphein, Aq. morphomata; LXX. eidola, Aq. katharmata; Ps. xc. 8 LXX. antapodosin, Aq. apotisin; ib. 10 LXX. proseleusetai, Aq. metachthesetai; LXX. mastix, Aq. haphe; xci. 5 LXX. poiemati, Aq. katergo. From the fragments which survive in the margins of hexaplaric MSS. it is possible to illustrate certain other characteristic features of Aquila which arise out of his extreme loyalty to the letter of his Hebrew text. (1) Jerome remarks upon his endeavour to represent even the etymological meaning of the Hebrew words (ad Pammach. 11 "non solum verba sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre conatus est)," and by way of example he cites the rendering of Deut. vii. 13, where Aquila substituted cheuma, oporismon, stilpnoteta for siton, oinon, elaion in order to reflect more exactly the Hebrew ytshr ,tyrs ,dgn--as though, adds Jerome humorously, we were to use in Latin fusio, pomatio, splendentia. Similarly, Aquila represented tsm by osteoun, and hskyl by epistemonizein or epistemonoun, and even coined the impossible form haphemenos to correspond with ngv?. (2) An attempt is made to represent Hebrew particles, even such as defy translation; thus h local becomes the enclitic de (e. g. notonde = hngbh, Gen. xii. 9, Kurenende = qyrh?, 2 Kings xvi. 9); and similarly prepositions are accumulated in a manner quite alien from Greek usage (e.g. eis apo makrothen = lmrchvq?, 2 Kings xix. 25). (3) Other devices are adopted for the purpose of bringing the version into close conformity with the original; a word of complex meaning or form is represented by two Greek words (e.g. z'zl is converted into tragos apoluomenos and tsltsl into skia skia; a Hebrew word is replaced by a Greek word somewhat similar in sound, e.g. for 'lvn (Deut. xi. 30) Aquila gives aulon, and for trphym ? (1 Sam. xv. 23) therapeia [105] . Enough has been said to shew the absurdity of Aquila's method when it is regarded from the standpoint of the modern translator. Even in ancient times such a translation could never have attained to the popularity which belonged to the LXX.; that it was widely accepted by the Greek synagogues of the Empire can only have been due to the prejudice created in its favour by its known adherence to the standard text and the traditional exegesis [106] . The version of Aquila emanated from a famous school of Jewish teachers; it was issued with the full approval of the Synagogue, and its affectation of preserving at all costs the idiom of the original recommended it to orthodox Jews whose loyalty to their faith was stronger than their sense of the niceties of the Greek tongue. For ourselves the work of Aquila possesses a value which arises from another consideration. His "high standard of exactitude and rigid consistency give his translation, with all its imperfections, unique worth for the critic [107] ." Its importance for the criticism of the Old Testament was fully recognised by the two greatest scholars of ancient Christendom, and there are few things more to be desired by the modern student of Scripture than the complete recovery of this monument of the text and methods of interpretation approved by the chief Jewish teachers of the generation which followed the close of the Apostolic age. 7. Theodotion. With Aquila Irenaeus couples Theodotion of Ephesus, as another Jewish proselyte who translated the Old Testament into Greek (Theodotion hermecheusen ho Ephesios kai Akulas . . . amphoteroi Ioudaioi proselutoi). Himself of Asiatic origin, and probably a junior contemporary of Theodotion, Irenaeus may be trusted when he assigns this translator to Ephesus, and describes him as a convert to Judaism. Later writers, however, depart more or less widely from this statement. According to Epiphanius, Theodotion was a native of Pontus, who had been a disciple of Marcion of Sinope before he espoused Judaism. According to Jerome, he was an Ebionite, probably a Jew who had embraced Ebionitic Christianity. His floruit is fixed by Epiphanius in the reign of the second Commodus, i.e. of the Emperor Commodes, so called to distinguish him from L. Ceionius Commodus, better known as L. Aurelius Verus. Epiph. de mens. et pond. 17 peri ten tou deuterou Komodou basileian tou basileusantos meta ton proeiremenon Komodon Loukion Aurelion ete ig', Theodotion tis Pontikos apo tes diadoches Markionos tou hairesiarchou tou Sinopitou, menion kai autos te autou hairesei kai eis Ioudaismon apoklinas kai peritmetheis kai ten ton Ebraion phonen kai ta auton stoicheia paideutheis, idios kai autos exedoke. Hieron. ep. ad Augustin.: "hominis Judaei atque blasphemi"; praef. in Job: "Iudaeus Aquila, et Symmachus et Theodotio Judaizantes haeretici"; de virr. ill. 54 "editiones . . . Aquilae . . . Pontici proselyti et Theodotionis Hebionaei"; praef. ad Daniel.: "Theodotionem, qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit, licet eum quidam dicant Hebionitam qui altero genere Iudaeus est [108] ." The date assigned to Theodotion by Epiphanius is obviously too late, in view of the statement of Irenaeus, and the whole account suspiciously resembles the story of Aquila. That within the same century two natives of Pontus learnt Hebrew as adults, and used their knowledge to produce independent translations of the Hebrew Bible, is scarcely credible. But it is not unlikely that Theodotion was an Ephesian Jew or Jewish Ebionite. The attitude of a Hellenist towards the Alexandrian version would naturally be one of respectful consideration, and his view of the office of a translator widely different from that of Aquila, who had been trained by the strictest Rabbis of the Palestinian school. And these expectations are justified by what we know of Theodotion's work. "Inter veteres medius incedit" (Hieron. praef. ad evang.); "simplicitate sermonis a LXX. interpretibus non discordat" (praef. in Pss.); "Septuaginta et Theodotio . . . in plurimis locis concordant" (in Eccl. ii.)--such is Jerome's judgement; and Epiphanius agrees with this estimate (de mens. et pond. 17: ta pleista tois ob' sunadontos exedoken). Theodotion seems to have produced a free revision of the LXX. rather than an independent version. The revision was made on the whole upon the basis of the standard Hebrew text; thus the Job of Theodotion was longer than the Job of the LXX. by a sixth part of the whole (Orig. ep. ad Afric. 3 sqq., Hieron. praef. ad Job) [109] , and in Daniel, on the other hand, the Midrashic expansions which characterise the LXX. version disappear in Theodotion. His practice with regard to apocryphal books or additional matter appears not to have been uniform; he followed the LXX. in accepting the additions to Daniel and the supplementary verses in Job [110] , but there is no evidence that he admitted the non-canonical books in general [111] . 8. Specimens of Theodotion's style and manner may be obtained from the large and important fragments of his work which were used by Origen to fill up the lacunae in Jeremiah (LXX.). The following passage, preserved in the margin of Codex Marchalianus, will serve as an example [112] . Jeremiah xl. (xxxiii.) 14--26. ^14 Idou hemerai erchontai, phesi Kurios, kai anasteso ton logon mou ton agathon hon elalesa epi ton oikon Israel kai epi ton oikon Iouda. ^15 en tais hemerais ekeinais kai en to kairo ekeino anatelo to Dauid anatolen dikaian, poion krima kai dikaiosunen en te ge. ^16 en tais hemerais ekeinais sothesetai he Ioudaia kai Ierousalem kataskenosei pepoithuia; kai touto to onoma ho kalesei auten ^17 hoti tade legei Kurios, Ouk exolothreuthesetai to Dauid aner kathemenos epi thronon oikou Israel; ^18 kai tois hiereusi tois Leuitais ouk exolothreuthesetai aner ek prosopou mou, anapheron holokautomata kai thuon thusian. ^19 kai egeneto logos Kuriou pros Ieremian legon ^20 Tade legei Kurios Ei diaskedasete ten diatheken mou ten hemeran kai ten diatheken mou ten nukta, tou me einai hemeran kai nukta en kairo auton; ^21 kaige he diatheke mou diaskedasthesetai meta Dauid tou doulou mou, tou me einai auto huion basileuonta epi ton thronon autou, kai e pros tous Leuitas tous iereis tous leitourgountas moi. ^22 hos ouk exarithmethesetai he dunamis tou ouranou, oude ekmetrethesetai he ammos tes thalasses, houtos plethuno to sperma Dauid tou doulou mou kai tous Leuitas tous leitourgountas moi. ^23 kai egeneto logos Kuriou pros Ieremian legon ^24 Ara ge ouk ides ti ho laos elalesan legontes Hai duo patriai has exelexato Kurios en autais, kai idou aposato autous;; kai ton laon mou paroxunan tou me einai eti ethnos enopion mou. ^25 tade legei Kurios Ei me ten diatheken mou hemeras kai nuktos, akribasmata ouranou kai ges, ouk etaxa, ^26 kaige to sperma Iakob kai Dauid tou doulou mou apodokimo, tou me labein ek tou spermatos autou archonta pros to sperma Abraam kai Isaak kai Iakob; hoti epistrepso ten epistrophen auton, kai oikteireso autous [113] . Unfortunately there is no other Greek version which can be compared with Theodotion in this passage, for the LXX. is wanting, and only a few shreds of Aquila and Symmachus have reached us. But the student will probably agree with Field that the style is on the whole not wanting in simple dignity, and that it is scarcely to be distinguished from the best manner of the LXX. [114] With his Hebrew Bible open at the place, he will observe that the rendering is faithful to the original, while it escapes the crudities and absurdities which beset the excessive fidelity of Aquila. Now and again we meet with a word unknown to the LXX. (e.g. akribasmata = chqvt?) [115] , or a reminiscence of Aquila; on the other hand Theodotion agrees with the LXX. against Aquila in translating bryt by diatheke. If in one place Theodotion is more obscure than Aquila ten diatheken ten hemeran . . . ten nukta, Aq. tes hemeras . . . tes nuktos), yet the passage as a whole is a singularly clear and unaffected rendering. His chief defect does not reveal itself in this context; it is a habit of transliterating Hebrew words which could have presented no difficulty to a person moderately acquainted with both languages. Field gives a list of 90 words which are treated by Theodotion in this way without any apparent cause [116] . When among these we find such a word as 'l (which is represented by el in Mal. ii. 11), we are compelled to absolve him from the charge of incompetence, for, as has been pertinently asked, how could a man who was unacquainted with so ordinary a word or with its Greek equivalent have produced a version at all? Probably an explanation should be sought in the cautious and conservative temperament of this translator [117] . Field's judgement is here sounder than Montfaucon's; Theodotion is not to be pronounced indoctior, or indiligentior, but only "scrupulosior quam operis sui instituto fortasse conveniret [118] ." 9. The relation of the two extant Greek versions of Daniel is a perplexing problem which calls for further consideration. In his lost Stromata Origen, it appears [119] , announced his intention of using Theodotion's version of Daniel; and an examination of Origen's extant works shews that his citations of Daniel "agree almost verbatim with the text of Theodotion now current [120] ." The action of Origen in this matter was generally endorsed by the Church, as we learn from Jerome (praef. in Dan.: "Danielem prophetam iuxta LXX. interpretes ecclesiae non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione"; cf. c. Rufin. ii. 33). Jerome did not know how this happened, but his own words supply a sufficient explanation: "hoc unum affirmare possum quod multum a veritate discordet et recto iudicio repudiata sit." So universal was the rejection of the LXX. version of Daniel that, though Origen loyally gave it a place in his Hexapla, only one Greek copy has survived [121] , Theodotion's version having been substituted in all other extant Greek MSS. of Daniel. But the use of Theodotion's Daniel in preference to the version which was attributed to the LXX. did not begin with Origen. Clement of Alexandria (as edited) uses Theodotion, with a sprinkling of LXX. readings, in the few places where he quotes Daniel (paed. ii. 8, iii. 3, strom. i. 4, 21). In North Africa both versions seem to have influenced the Latin text of Daniel. The subject has been carefully investigated by Prof. F. C. Burkitt [122] , who shews that Tertullian used "a form of the LXX. differing slightly from Origen's edition," whilst Cyprian quotes from a mixed text, in which Theodotion sometimes predominates. Irenaeus, notwithstanding his reverence for the LXX. and distrust of the later versions, cites Daniel after Theodotion's version [123] . Further, Theodotion's Daniel appears to be used by writers anterior to the date usually assigned to this translator. Thus Hermas (vis. iv. 2, 4) has a clear reference to Theodotion's rendering of Dan. vi. 22 [124] . Justin (dial. 31) gives a long extract from Dan. vii. in which characteristic readings from the two versions occur in almost equal proportions [125] . Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 34) cites a part of the same context, with a Theodotionic reading (eleitourgoun, LXX. ethera?euon). Barnabas (ep. iv. 5) also refers to Dan. vii., and, though his citation is too loose to be pressed, the words exanastesontai opisthen auton are more likely to be a reminiscence of opiso auton anastesetai (Th.) than of meta toutous stesetai (LXX.). The Greek version of Baruch (i. 15--18, ii. 11--19) undoubtedly supports Theodotion against the LXX. Still more remarkable is the appearance of Theodotionic renderings in the New Testament. A writer so faithful to the LXX. as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in his only reference to Daniel Heb. xi. 33 = Dan. vi. 23) agrees with Theodotion against the Chigi version [126] . The Apocalypse, which makes frequent use of Daniel, supports Theodotion on the whole; cf. Apoc. ix. 20 (Dan. v. 23), x. 6 (Dan. xii. 7), xii. 7 (Dan. x. 20), xiii. 7 (Dan. vii. 21), xix. 6 (Dan. x. 6), xx. 4 (Dan. vii. 9), xx. 11 (Dan. ii. 35) [127] . Even in the Synoptic Gospels Theodotion's rendering in Dan. vii. 13 (meta ton nephelon) occurs as well as the LXX. epi ton n. comp. Mc. xiv. 62 with Mt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64 [128] . From these premisses the inference has been drawn that there were two pre-Christian versions of Daniel, both passing as 'LXX.', one of which is preserved in the Chigi MS., whilst the other formed the basis of Theodotion's revision [129] . It has been urged by Dr Gwynn with much acuteness that the two Septuagintal Books of Esdras offer an analogy to the two versions of Daniel, and the appearance of the phrase apereisato auta en to eidolio autou in 1 Esdr. ii. 9 and Dan. i. 2 (LXX.) has been regarded as an indication that the Greek Esdras and the Chigi Daniel were the work of the same translator [130] . An obvious objection to the hypothesis of two Septuagintal or Alexandrian versions is the entire disappearance of the version which was used ex hypothesi not only by the authors of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse, but by Theodotion and other writers of the second century. But Theodotion's revision of Daniel may have differed so little from the stricter Alexandrian version as to have taken its place without remark [131] . 10. Symmachus. Of this translator Irenaeus says nothing, and it has been inferred, perhaps too hastily, that he was unknown to the Bishop of Lyons, and of later date. Origen knew and used Symmachus, and had received a copy of his commentary on St Matthew from a wealthy Christian woman named Juliana, to whom it had been given by the author. According to Eusebius, Symmachus was an Ebionite, and this is confirmed by Jerome; a less probable tradition in Epiphanius represents him as a Samaritan who had become a convert to Judaism [132] . Eus. H. E. vi. 17 ton ge men hermeneuuon auton de touton isteon Ebionaion ton Summachon gegonenai . . . kai hupomnemata de tou Summachou eiseti nun pheretai en hois dokei pros to kata Matthaion apoteinomenos euangelion ten dedelomenen hairesin kratunein. tauta de ho Origenes meta kai allon eis tas graphas hermeneion tou Summachou semainei para Ioulianes tinos eilephenai, hen kai phesi par autou Summachou tas biblous diadexasthai. Hieron. de virr. ill. 54 "Theodotionis Hebionaei et Symmachi eiusdem dogmatis" (cf. in Hab. iii. 13); praef. in Job: "Symmachus et Theodotion Iudaizantes haeretici." Epiph. de mens. et pond. 15 en tois tou Seuerou chronois Summachos tis Samareites ton par autois sophon me timetheis hupo tou oikeiou ethnous . . . proseluteuei kai peritemnetai deuteran peritomen . . . houtos toinun ho Summachos pros diastrophen ton para Samareitais hermeneion hermeneusas ten triten exedoken hermeneian. That Symmachus, even if of Jewish or Samaritan birth, became an Ebionite leader is scarcely doubtful, since an Ebionitic commentary on St Matthew bearing his name was still extant in the fourth century [133] ; the Symmachians, an Ebionite sect probably named after him, are mentioned by Ambrosiaster (comm. in Gal., prolegg.) and Augustine (c. Faust. xix. 4, c. Crescon. i. 36) [134] . His floruit is open to some question. Dr Gwynn has shewn [135] that Epiphanius, who makes Theodotion follow Symmachus, probably placed Symmachus in the reign of Verus, i.e. Marcus Aurelius. Now in the Historia Lausiaca, c. 147, Palladius says that Juliana sheltered Origen during a persecution, i.e. probably during the persecution of the Emperor Maximius (A.D. 238--241). If this was so, the literary activity of Symmachus must have belonged, at the earliest, to the last years of M. Aurelius, and it may be questioned whether Epiphanius has not inverted the order of the two translators, i.e. whether Theodotion ought not to be placed under M. Aurelius and Symmachus under Commodus (A.D. 180--192) [136] . The version of Symmachus was in the hands of Origen when he wrote his earliest commentaries, i.e. about A.D. 228 [137] ; but the interval is long enough to admit of its having reached Alexandria. 11. The aim of Symmachus, as Jerome perceived, was to express the sense of his Hebrew text rather than to attempt a verbal rendering: "non solet verborum kakozelian sed intellegentiae ordinem sequi" (in Am. iii. 11). While Aquila endeavoured "verbum de verbo exprimere," Symmachus made it his business "sensum potius sequi" (praef. in Chron. Eus., cf. praef. in Job). Epiphanius, who believed Symmachus to have been a Samaritan proselyte to Judaism, jumped to the conclusion that his purpose was polemical (pros diastrophen ton para Samareitais hermeneion hermeneusas). But if Symmachus had any antagonist in view, it was probably the literalism and violation of the Greek idiom which made the work of Aquila unacceptable to non-Jewish readers. So far as we can judge from the fragments of his version which survive in Hexaplaric MSS., he wrote with Aquila's version before him, and in his efforts to recast it made free use of both the LXX. and Theodotion. The following extracts will serve to illustrate this view of his relation to his predecessors. MALACHI II. 13 [138] LXX. Aq. kai tauta ha emisoun epoieite; ekaluptete dakrusin to thusiasterion Kuriou kai klauthmo kai stenagmo ek kopon. eti axion epiblepsai eis thusian e labein dekton ek ton cheiron humon kai touto deuteron epoieite; ekaluptete dakruo to thusiasterion klauthmo kai oimoge, apo tou me einai eti neusai pros to doron kai labein eudokian apo cheiros humon. Th. Symm. kai touto deuteron epoiesate; ekaluptete dakrusin to thusiasterion, klaiontes kai stenontes, apo tou me einai eti prosengizonta to holokautoma kai labein teleion ek cheiron humon. kai tauta deuteron epoieite, kaluptontes en dakrusin to thusiasterion, klaiontes kai oimossontes, apo tou me einai eti neuonta pros to doron kai dexasthai to eudokemenon apo cheiros humon. But it must not be supposed that Symmachus is a mere reviser of earlier versions, or that he follows the lead of Aquila as Theodotion follows the LXX. Again and again he goes his own way in absolute independence of earlier versions, and sometimes at least, it must be confessed, of the original. This is due partly to his desire to produce a good Greek rendering, more or less after the current literary style; partly, as it seems, to dogmatic reasons. The following may serve as specimens of the Greek style of Symmachus when he breaks loose from the influence of his predecessors: Gen. xviii. 25 ho panta anthropon apaiton dikaiopragein, alritos me poieses touto; Job xxvi. 14 ti de psithurisma ton logon autou akousomen, hopou bronten dunasteias autou oudeis ennoesei; Ps. xliii. 16 di holes hemeras he aschemonesis mou antikrus mou, kai ho kataischummos tou prosopou mou kaluptei me. Ps. lxviii. 3 ebaptisthen eis aperantous kataduseis, kai ouk estin stasis; eiselthon eis ta bathe ton hudaton, kai rheithron epeklusen me. Eccl. iv. 9 eisin ameinous duo henos; echousin gar kerdos agathon. Isa. xxix. 4 upo gen edaphisthesetai he lalia sou, kai estai hos engastrimuthos he phone pou kai apo tes ges he lalia sou rhoisetai. It cannot be said that these renderings approach to excellence, but a comparison with the corresponding LXX. will shew that Symmachus has at least attempted to set himself free from the trammels of the Hebrew idiom and to clothe the thoughts of the Old Testament in the richer drapery of the Greek tongue. It is his custom to use compounds to represent ideas which in Hebrew can be expressed only by two or more words (e.g. blyphs, Symm. anaitios, yn ?byn, Symm. hophthalmophanos, lr's pnh Symm. akrogoniaios); he converts into a participle the first of two finite verbs connected by a copula (Exod. v. 7 Symm. aperchomenoi kalamasthosan, 4 Regn. i. 2 sphalentes epeson); he has at his command a large supply of Greek particles (e.g. he renders 'k by ara, ontos, isos, di holou, monon, houtos, all' homos) [139] . More interesting and important is the tendency which Symmachus manifests to soften the anthropomorphic expressions of the Old Testament; e.g. Gen. i. 27, ektisen ho theos ton anthropon en eikoni diaphoro [140] ; orthion ho theos ektisen auton. Exod. xxiv. 10, eidon horamati ton theon Israel. Jud. ix. 13 ton oinon . . . ten euphrosunen ton anthropon. Ps. xliii. 24 hina ti hos hupnon ei, Despota; In these and other instances Symmachus seems to shew a knowledge of current Jewish exegesis [141] which agrees with the story of his Jewish origin or training. Literature. On Aquila the student may consult R. Anger de Onkelo Chaldaico, 1845; art. in D. C. B. (W. J. Dickson); M. Friedmann, Onkelos u. Akylas, 1896; Lagarde, Clementina, p. 12 ff.; Krauss, Akylas der Proselyt (Festschrift), 1896; F. C. Burkitt, Fragments of Aquila, 1897; C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers^2, 1897 (p. viii.); Schürer^3, iii. p. 317 ff. On Symmachus, C. H. Thieme, pro puritate Symmachi dissert., 1755; art. in D. C. B. (J. Gwynn); Giov. Mercati, l'età di Simmaco interprete, 1892. On Theodotion, Credner, Beiträge, ii. p. 253 ff.; art. in D. C. B. (J. Gwynn); G. Salmon, Intr. to the N. T.^7, p. 538 ff.; Schürer^3, iii. p. 323 ff. Works which deal with the ancient non-Septuagintal versions in general will be mentioned in c. iii., under Literature of the Hexapla. 12. Other ancient Greek versions. The researches of Origen (A.D. 185--253) brought to light three anonymous versions besides those of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus; from their relative position in the columns of his great collection (see c. iii.) they are known as the Quinta (e'), Sexta (s'), and Septima (z') respectively. The following are the chief authorities: Eus. H. E. vi. 16 tosaute de eisegeto to Origenei ton theion logon apekribomene exetasis hos . . . kai tinas heteras para tas; kathemaxeumenas hermeneias enallattousas . . ., epheurein, has ouk oid' hothen ek tinon muchon ton palai lanthanousas chronon eis phos anichneusas proegagen . . . tinos ar eien ouk eidos auto touto monon epesemenato hos ara ten men heuroi en te pros Aktio Nikopolei . . .epi mias authis sesemeiotai hos en Ierichoi heuremenes en pitho kata tous chronous Antoninou tou uiou Seberou. Epiph. de mens. et pond. 18 meta ton diogmon tou basileos Seuerou heurethe he pempte en pithois en Iericho kekrummene en chronois tou huiou Seuerou tou epiklethentos Karakallou te kai Geta . . . en de to hebdomo autou etei heurethesan kai bibloi tes pemptes ekdoseos en pithois en Iericho kekrummenes meta allon biblion Ebraikon kai Hellenikon. ton de Karakallon diadechetai Antoninos heteros . . . meta touton ebasileusen Alexandros . . . ete ig'; en meso ton chronon touton heurethe hekte ekdosis, kai aute en pithois kekrummene, en Nikopolei te pros Aktio. Pseudo-Ath. syn. scr. sacr. 77 pempte hermeneia estin he en pithois heuretheisa kekrummene epi Antoninou basileos tou Karakalla en Iericho para tinos ton en Ierosolumois spoudaion. hekte ermeneia estin he en pithois heuretheisa, kai haute kekrummene, epi Alexandrou tou Mamaias paidos en Nikopolei te pros Aktion hupo Origenous gnorimon. Hieron. de virr. ill. 54 "quintam et sextam et septimam editionem, quas etiam nos de eius bibliotheca habemus, miro labore repperit et cum ceteris editionibus conparavit": in ep. ad Tit. "nonnulli vero libri, et maxime hi qui apud Hebraeos versu compositi sunt, tres alias editiones additas habent quam 'quintam' et 'sextam' et 'septimam' translationem vocant, auctoritatem sine nominibus interpretum consecutas." Cf. in Hab. ii. 11, iii. 13. It appears from the statement of Eusebius [142] that Origen found the Quinta at Nicopolis near Actium, and that either the Sexta or the Septima was discovered in the reign of Caracalla (A.D. 211--217) at Jericho; while Epiphanius, reversing this order, says that the Quinta was found at Jericho c. A.D. 217, and the Sexta at Nicopolis under Severus Alexander (A.D. 222--235) [143] . According to Epiphanius both the Quinta and the Sexta, according to Eusebius the Sexta only, lay buried in a pithos (dolium), one of the earthenware jars, pitched internally, and partly sunk in the ground, in which the mustum was usually stored while it underwent the process of fermentation [144] . Since Origen was in Palestine A.D. 217, and in Greece A.D. 231, it is natural to connect his discoveries with those years. How long the versions had been buried cannot be determined, for it is impossible to attach any importance to the vague statements of Eusebius (ton palai lanthanousas chronon). The version found at or near Nicopolis may have been a relic of the early Christianity of Epirus, to which there is an indirect allusion in the Pastoral Epistles [145] . The Jericho find, on the other hand, was very possibly a Palestinian work, deposited in the wine jar for the sake of safety during the persecution of Septimius Severus, who was in Palestine A.D. 202, and issued edicts against both the Synagogue and the Church [146] . Of Septima nothing is known, beyond what Eusebius tells us, and the very sparing use of it in the Psalter of some Hexaplaric MSS.; the few instances are so dubious that Field was disposed to conclude either that this version never existed, or that all traces of it have been lost [147] . There is no conclusive evidence to shew that any of these versions covered the whole of the Old Testament [148] . Renderings from Quinta [149] are more or less abundant in 2 Kings, Job, Psalms, Canticles, and the Minor Prophets, and a few traces have been observed in the Pentateuch. Sexta is well represented in the Psalms and in Canticles, and has left indications of its existence in Exodus, 1 Kings, and the Minor Prophets. With regard to the literary character of Quinta and Sexta, the style of Quinta is characterised by Field as "omnium elegantissimus . . . cum optimis Graecis suae aetatis scriptoribus comparandus." Sexta also shews some command of Greek, but is said to be disposed to paraphrase; Field, while he regards that charge as on the whole 'not proven,' cites a remarkable example of the tendency from Ps. xxxvi. 35, which s' renders, Eidon asebe kai anaide antipoioumenon en skleroteti kai legonta Eimi hos autochthon peripaton en dikaiosune. Jerome [150] attributes both versions to 'Jewish translators,' but the Christian origin of Sexta betrays itself [151] at Hab. iii. 13 exelthes tou sosai ton laon sou dia Iesoun ton christon sou [152] . The Greek fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries quotes non-Septuagintal renderings from an interpreter who is styled ho Ebraios. Ho Suros is also cited, frequently as agreeing with ho Ebraios. Nothing is known of these translators (if such they were), but an elaborate discussion of all the facts may be seen in Field [153] . 13. The 'GRAECUS VENETUS.' This is a version of the Pentateuch, together with the books of Ruth, Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Daniel, preserved in St Mark's Library at Venice in a single MS. of cent. xiv.--xv. (cod. Gr. vii.) [154] . It was first given to the world by de Villoison (Strassburg, 1784) and C. F. Ammon (Erlangen, 1790--1); a new edition with valuable prolegomena by O. von Gebhardt appeared at Leipzig in 1875 [155] . This translation has been made directly from the M. T., but the author appears to have occasionally availed himself of earlier Greek versions (LXX., Aq., Symm., Theod.) [156] . His chief guide however appears to have been David Kimchi, whose interpretations are closely followed [157] . That he was a Jew is clear from incidental renderings (e.g. in Exod. xxiii. 20 he translates hmqvm ton ontoten [158] , sc. yhvh). From the fact of his having undertaken a Greek version Gebhardt infers that he was a proselyte to Christianity, but the argument may be used to support an opposite conclusion; as a Jew he may have been moved by a desire to place before the dominant Orthodox Church a better rendering of the Old Testament than the LXX. Delitzsch wishes to identify him with Elissaeus, a Jewish scholar at the court of Murad I., who flourished in the second half of the 14th century. The style of this remarkable version will be best illustrated by a few specimens: Gen. vi. 2 f. ^2 tetheantai goun hoi huieis tou theou tas thugateras tou anthrhopou hoti kalai eteloun, kai elaron heautois gunaikas apo pason on heilonto. ^3 ephe toinun ho ontotes Ou krinei pneuma toumon en to anthropo es aiona, eph' hois eti per esti sarx; telesousi d' hai hemerai autou hekaton kai eikosin ete. Prov. viii. 22 ff. ^22 ho ontotes ektesato me archen hodou hoi, pro ton ergon autou ek tote. ^23 ap' aionos kechumai, apo kratos, apo prolemmatos ges. ^24 en ouk abussois peplasmai, en ou pegais dedoxasmenon hudaton; ^25 prin ore empagenai, pro ton bounon hodinemai; ^26 achris ouk epoiese gen, diodous kai kephalen koneon tes oikoumenes. Daniel vii. 13. ^13 horaon ekuresa en horasesin euphronas, autika te xun tais nephelais ton polon hos huieus anthropo aphiknoumenos een, mechri te to palaio tais hamerais ephthase kanopion teno prosegagon he. ^14 teno t' edothe archa tima te kai basileia, pantes te laoi ethnea kai glottai teno latreuseionti; ha archu heu archa aionos hos ou pareleuseietai, ha te basileia heu haper ouk oicheseietai. The student will not fail to notice the translator's desire to render his text faithfully, and, on the other hand, his curiously infelicitous attempt to reproduce it in Attic Greek; and lastly his use of the Doric dialect in Daniel to distinguish the Aramaic passages from the rest of the book. The result reminds us of a schoolboy's exercise, and the reader turns from it with pleasure to the less ambitious diction of the LXX., which, with its many imperfections, is at least the natural outgrowth of historical surroundings. Klostermann (Analecta p. 30) mentions a MS. Psalter (Vat. Gr. 343), bearing the date 22 April, 1450, which professes to be a translation into the Greek of the fifteenth century (kata ten nun koinen ton Graikon phonen). A version of the Pentateuch into modern Greek in Hebrew characters was printed at Constantinople in 1547, forming the left-hand column of a Polyglott (Hebrew, Chaldee, Spanish, Greek). It is described in Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. p. 355, and more fully in La version Neo-grecque du Pentateuche Polyglotte . . . remarques du Dr Lasare Belléli (Paris, 1897). This Greek version has recently been transliterated and published in a separate form with an introduction and glossary by D. C. Hesseling (Leide, 1897). A Greek version of job (1576) is mentioned by Neubauer in J. Q. R. iv. p. 18 f. __________________________________________________________________ [81] Robertson Smith, The O. T. in the J. Ch., p. 64; cf. ib. p. 87 f.; Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, p. 63 ff.; cf. Buhl, p. 118 f. [82] Eus. H. E. vi. 16. [83] Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, p. 27 f.; cf. Hort, Commentary on Peter, p. 172 ff. [84] The name is written qylm ,'qylm ,qylm or qylm, and in the Bab. Talmud, 'gqlvm. On the identity of Aquila with Onkelos see Anger de Onkelo Chaldaico (before 1845), Friedmann Onkelos u. Akylas (Wien, 1896); or the brief statement in Buhl, p. 173. [85] Field, Hexapla, prolegg. p. xviii. [86] Megilla 1. 9: in yphyphyt there is a play upon ypht (cf. Gen. ix. 27). [87] See Dr C. Taylor in the preface to Prof. Burkitt's Fragments of Aquila, p. vi.: "Aquila in a sense was not the sole or independent author of the version, its uncompromising literalism being the necessary outcome of his Jewish teachers' system of exegesis." [88] Ep. ad Afric. 3. Cf. Aug. l.c. [89] See p. 31. [90] Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the translation of Aquila (Cambridge, 1897). [91] Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests (Camb. 1900). See also Amherst Papyri, i. p. 30 f. (London, 1900). [92] Cod. A is nearer to Aquila, as the following variants shew: 10 poiesaisan moi oi theoi kai tade prostheiesan A 12 ote] os A | pantes oi b. A 13 to bas.] pr to Achaab A | ton ochlon] pr panta A | eis ch. sas semeron A. [93] MS. ; see Burkitt, op. cit. p. 2. [94] The following variants in Cod. A agree with Aquila: 22 pason emeron A 23 to pascha] + touto A [95] MS. , at the end of a line: see Burkitt, p. 16. [96] 11 tais odois] pr tasais A(R)T [97] MS. . [98] The following variants deserve attention: 6 ebathunth. Bab'c.aRT 10 pr oti idou oi echthroi sou ke 'AaRT [99] For these see Burkitt, Aquila, p. 12. [100] This singular use of sun appears also in the LXX., but only in Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, which Freudenthal is disposed to assign to Aquila (p. 65); cf. König, Einleitung, p. 108 n., and McNeile, Introd. to Ecclesiastes. [101] Aq. does not transliterate chh' (see Burkitt, p. 14). [102] In a few Hexaplaric MSS. (e.g. Q, 86, 88, 243mg, 264) the Greek letters PIPI are written for yhvh, but (with the exception of the Genizah Palimpsest, Taylor, p. 27) the Greek MSS. use it solely in their excerpts from the non-Septuagintal columns of the Hexapla, and only the Hexaplaric Syriac admits PIPI into the text of the LXX., using it freely for kurios, even with a preposition (as ). Oxyrh. Pap. 1007 (vol. VII.), late 3rd cent., has ZZ, representing doubled yod, in Gen. ii., iii. Ceriani expresses the opinion that the use of PIPI is due either to Origen or Eusebius, i.e. one of those fathers substituted PIPI for for in the non-Septuagintal columns, using the letters to represent the Hebrew characters which were familiar to them. On the whole subject the student may consult Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profane, ii. p. 106 ff.; Schleusner, s.v. pipi, Field, Hexapla ad Esa. i. 2; Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, p. 1135; Driver in Studia Biblia, i. p. 12, n. 3; Z. D. M. G. (1878), 465 ff., 501, 506. Prof. Burkitt acutely points out (p. 16) that (and doubtless also PIPI was read as Kurios, since in one place in the Aquila fragments where there was no room to write the Hebrew characters "instead of oiko we find oiko ku." On the orthography see Burkitt, p. 15, par. 4. [103] Even Jerome speaks of Aquila as "eruditissimus linguae Graecae" (in Isa. xlix. 5). [104] See Prof. Burkitt's note (p. 26). [105] The student who wishes to pursue the subject may refer to Field, Prolegg. p. xxi. sqq., and Dr Taylor's article Hexapla in Smith and Wace's Dict. Chr. Biog. iii. p. 17 ff. Jerome speaks more than once of a second edition of Aquila "quam Hebraei kat' akribeian nominant." The question is discussed by Field (prolegg. xxiv. ff.). [106] See Prof. Burkitt's article Aquila in the Jewish Quarterly Review, Jan. 1898, p. 211 ff. [107] Dr Taylor, pref. to Fragments of Aquila, p. vii. [108] Marcion flourished c. A.D. 150; Commodus was Emperor from 180--192. The Paschal Chronicle, following Epiphanius, dates the work of Theodotion A.D. 184. [109] See Field, Hexapla, p. xxxix.; Hatch, Essays, p. 215; Margoliouth, art. 'Job' in Smith's Bible Dict. (ed. 2). [110] Orig. ep. ad Afric. 3. [111] On Baruch see Nestle's remarks in Hastings' D. B. iv. (art. Septuagint). [112] O. T. in Greek, iii. pp. vii. ff., 320 f. [113] Another considerable fragment of Theodotion may be found in Jer. xlvi. (xxxix.) 4--13, see O. T. in Greek, p. 534 f. [114] Hexapla, prolegg. p. xxxix. "Theodotionis stylus simplex et gravis est." LXX. of Jer. xxiii. 5, 6 may be set beside Th of xl. 14, 15. [115] Cod. A employs akribasmos in this sense (Jud. v. 15, 3 Regn. xi. 34, 4 Regn. xvii. 15), but under the influence of Theodotion, at least in the last two passages; see Field ad loc. [116] 0p. cit. p. xl. sq. [117] D. C. B. art. Hexapla (iii. p. 22). Cf. ib. iv. p. 978. [118] Thus in Mal. l. c. he was perhaps unwilling to use theos in connexion with the phrase 'l gkr. [119] Jerome on Dan. iv.: "Origenes in nono Stromatum volumine asserit se quae sequuntur ab hoc loco in propheta Daniele non iuxta LXX. interpretes . . . sed iuxta Theodotionis editionem disserere." [120] Dr Gwynn in D. C. B. (iv. p. 974). [121] The Chigi MS. known as Cod. 87 (H. P. 88); see O. T. in Greek, iii. pp. vi., xii., and cf. the subscription printed ib. p. 574. [122] Old Latin and Itala, p. 18 ff. [123] An exception in i. 19. 2 (Dan. xii. 9 f.) is due to a Marcosian source. [124] See Salmon, Intr. to the N. T.^7 p. 639. [125] On the trustworthiness of Justin's text here see Burkitt, op. cit. p. 25 n. (against Hatch, Essays, p. 190). [126] Heb. l. c. ephraxan stomata leonton (Dan. Th., enephraxen ta stomata ton leonton; LXX., sesoke me apo ton leonton). [127] The references are from Dr Salmon's Intr. p. 548 f. He adds: "I actually find in the Apocalypse no clear evidence that St John had ever seen the so-called LXX. version." See Bludau in Th. Q. 1897 (p. 1 ff.). [128] The N. T. occasionally inclines to Theodotion in citations which are not from Daniel; cf. Jo. xix. 37 (Zech. xii. 10), 1 Cor. xv. 54 (Is. xxv. 8); see Schürer³, iii. p. 324 "entweder Th. selbst ist älter als die Apostel, oder es hat einen 'Th.' vor Th. gegeben." [129] D. C. B. art. Theodotion iv. p. 970 ff. Dr Salmon (Intr. p. 547) is disposed to accept this view. [130] D. C. B. iv. p. 977 n.; cf. Hastings' D. B., i. p. 761. [131] On the whole question of the date of Theodotion, see Schürer, G. J. V.³ iii. 323 f., where the literature of the subject is given. [132] The name svmkvm occurs in the Talmud as that of a disciple of R. Meir, who flourished towards the end of the second or beginning of the third century. Geiger desires to identify our translator with this Symmachus; see Field, prolegg. ad Hex. p. xxix. [133] Euseb. l. c. [134] Philastrius, who represents the Symmachiani as holding other views, says (c. 145): "sunt haeretici alii qui Theodotionis et Symmachi itidem interpretationem diverso modo expositam sequuntur." See Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Litt., 1. i. p. 212. [135] D. C. B. iv. p. 971 ff. Seuerou in de pond. et mens. 16 is on this hypothesis a corruption of Ouerou. Cf. Lagarde's Symmicta, ii. p. 168. [136] The Gospel of Peter, which cannot he much later than A.D. 170, and may be fifteen or twenty years earlier, shews some verbal coincidences with Symmachus (Akhmîm fragment, pp. xxxiv. 18, 20), but they are not decisive. [137] Cf. D. C. B. iv. p. 103. [138] The Hexaplaric renderings are from Cod. 86 (Cod. Barberinus): Field, Hexapla, ii. p. 1033. [139] For other examples see Field, prolegg. p. xxx. ff.; D. C. B. iv. p. 19 f. [140] Reading, perhaps, vlm vvlm 'lhym; cf. Nestle, Marginalien, pp. 3, 15. [141] See D. C. B. iii. p. 20. [142] Jerome (prol. in Orig. exp. Cant.) confirms Eusebius, on whose words see Dr Mercati, Studi a Testi 5, v. p. 47 (1901). [143] The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila identifies Nicopolis with Emmaus Nicopolis in Palestine. [144] D. of Gk and Lat. Ant. p. 1202. These pithoi are said to have been sometimes used instead of cistae or capsae for preserving books. In 1906 five Greek documents were found in an earthenware jar at Elephantine; see Dr F. G. Kenyon in Egypt Exploration Fund Archaeological Report for 1907--8, p. 50. [145] Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 432. [146] Cf. Eus. H. E. vi. 7; Spartian. in Sev. 17. [147] Prolegg. ad Hexapla, p. xlvi; see however R. Sinker, Psalm of Habakkuk (Camb. 1890), p. 42. Ps.-Athanasius calls Lucian the seventh version: ebdome palin kai teleutaia hermeneia he tou hagiou Loukianou. [148] According to Harnack-Preuschen (i. p. 340) the opposite is implied by Eusebius' use of enallattousas in reference to these versions: "d. h. die eine war nur für diese, die andere nur für jene Bücher vorhanden." [149] On Quinta see Mercati, Studi e Testi 5, IV. p. 28; and Burkitt in Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeology, June 1902. [150] adv. Rufin. [151] "Prodens manifestissime sacramentum," as Jerome himself remarks. No doubt the primary reference is to Joshua (Field), but the purport of the gloss is unmistakable. [152] leg. fors. Iesou tou christou sou. [153] Prolegg. pp. lxxv.--lxxxii. See also Lagarde, Ueber den Hebräer Ephraims von Edessa. On to Samareitikon see Field, p. lxxii. ff., and Nestle, Urtext, p. 206. For some ambiguous references to other(?) versions see Philostr. haer. cc. 143, 144. [154] See Eichhorn, p. 421 ff.; De Wette-Schrader, p. 122 f. [155] Graecus Venetus Pentateuchi &c. versio Graeca. Ex unico biblioth. S. Marci Venetae codice nunc primum uno volumine comprehensam atque apparatu critico et philologico instructam edidit O. G. Praefatus est Fr. Delitzsch. [156] Gebhardt, p. lvii. ff. [157] Ib. p. lxii. [158] Ontotes, hontourgos, ousiotes are his usual renderings of yhvh. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER III. THE HEXAPLA, AND THE HEXAPLARIC AND OTHER RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 1. THE century which produced the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus saw also the birth of the great Christian scholar who conceived the idea of using them for the revision of the Alexandrian Greek Bible. Origen was in his 17th year when his father suffered martyrdom (A.D. 202) [159] ; at eighteen he was already head of the catechetical school of Alexandria [160] . The Old Testament from the first engaged his attention, and, rightly judging that it could not be fruitfully studied without a knowledge of the original, he applied himself at once to the study of Hebrew. Eus. H. E. vi. 16 tosaute de eisegeto to Origenei ton theion logon apekribomene exet?sis, hos kai ten Ebraida glottan ekmathein tas te para tois Ioudaiois empheromenas prototupous autois Ebraion stoicheiois graphas ktema idion poiesasthai. Hieron. de virr. ill. 54 "quis autem ignorat quod tantum in scripturis divinis habuerit studii ut etiam Hebraeam linguam contra aetatis gentisque suae naturam edisceret [161] ?" The feat was perhaps without precedent, in the third century, among Christian scholars not of Jewish origin [162] ; in one so young it seemed prodigious to a veteran like Jerome. These studies, begun in Egypt, were continued in Palestine at Caesarea, where Origen sought shelter during the storm of persecution which burst upon Alexandria in the reign of Caracalla (A.D. 216--219). On his return to Egypt Origen's period of literary productivity began, and between the years 220 and 250 he gave to the world a succession of commentaries, homilies, or notes on nearly all the books of the Old Testament [163] . In the course of these labours, perhaps from the moment that he began to read the Old Testament in the original, he was impressed with the importance of providing the Church with materials for ascertaining the true text and meaning of the original. The method which he adopted is described by himself in his famous letter to Africanus (c. A.D. 240), and more fully in his commentary on St Matthew (c. A.D. 245) [164] . Orig. ad Afric. 5: kai tauta de phemi houchi okno tou ereunan kai tas kata Ioudaious graphas kai pasas tas hemeteras tais ekeinon sunkrinein kai horan tas en autais diaphoras, ei me phortikon goun eipein, epi polu touto (hose dunamis) pepoiekamen, gumnazontes auton ton noun en pasais tais ekdosesi kai tais diaphorais auton meta tou posos mallon askein ten hermeneian ton hebdomekonta . . . askoumen de me agnoein kai tas par ekeinois, hina pros Ioudaious dialegomenoi me prospheromen autois ta me keimena en tois antigraphois auton, kai hina sunchresometha tois pheromenois par ekeinois, ei kai en tois hemeterois ou keitai bibliois. In Matt. xv. 14: ten men oun en tois antigraphois tes palaias diathekes diaphonian, theou didontos, heuromen iasasthai, kriterio chresamenoi tais loipais ekdosesin; ton gar amphiballomenon para tois o' dia ten ton antigraphon diaphonian, ten krisin poiesamenoi apo ton loipon ekdoseon, to sunadon ekeinais ephulaxamen; kai tina men obelisamen en to Ebraiko me keimena, ou tolmontes auta pante perielein, tina de met' asteriskon prosethekamen; hina delon e hoti me keimena para tois o' ek ton loipon ekdoseon sumphonos to Ebraiko prosethekamen, kai ho men boulomenos proetai auta; ho de proskoptei to toiouton, ho bouletai peri tes paradoches auton e me poiese. 2. To attempt a new version was impracticable. It may be doubted whether Origen possessed the requisite knowledge of Hebrew; it is certain that he would have regarded the task as almost impious. Writing to Africanus he defends the apocryphal additions to Daniel and other Septuagintal departures from the Hebrew text on the ground that the Alexandrian Bible had received the sanction of the Church, and that to reject its testimony would be to revolutionise her canon of the Old Testament, and to play into the hands of her Jewish adversaries athetein ta en tais ekklesiais pheromena antigrapha kai nomothetesai te adelphoteti apothesthai men tas par autois epipheromenas biblous, kolakeuein de Ioudaiois kai peithein hina metadosin hemin ton katharon). In this matter it was well, he urged, to bear in mind the precept of Prov. xxii. 28, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." The same reasons prevented him from adopting any of the other versions in place of the Septuagint. On the other hand, Origen held that Christians must be taught frankly to recognise the divergences between the LXX. and the current Hebrew text, and the superiority of Aquila and the other, later versions, in so far as they were more faithful to the original; it was unfair to the Jew to quote against him passages from the LXX. which were wanting in his own Bible, and injurious to the Church herself to withhold from her anything in the Hebrew Bible which the LXX. did not represent. Acting under these convictions Origen's first step was to collect all existing Greek versions of the Old Testament. He then proceeded to transcribe the versions in parallel columns, and to indicate in the column devoted to the Septuagint the relation in which the old Alexandrian version stood to the current Hebrew text. 3. The following specimen, taken from a fragment lately discovered at Milan, will assist the reader to understand the arrangement of the columns, and to realise the general appearance of the Hexapla. Ps. xlv. (xlvi.) 1--3 [165] . HEBREW. HEB. TRANSLITERATED. AQUILA. lmntsch lamanasse to nikopoio; lvny qrch [l]abnekor ton uion Kore l lmvt al · almoth epi neanioteton syr sir asma. 'lhym lnv eloeim · lanou [166] [ho theos hemin(?)] mchsh vz mase · ouoz elpis kai kratos, zrh ezr betheia vtsrvt bsaroth en thlipsesin nmts' m'd nemsa mod heurethe [167] sphodra. l kn al · chen; epi touto l' nyr' lo · nira ou phobethesometha vhmyr baamir en to antalassesthai 'rts aars gen, vvmvt oubamot kai en to sphallesthai hrym arim ore vlv bleb en kardia ymym iamim thalasson. Ps. xlv. (xlvi.) 1--3 SYMMACHUS. LXX. THEODOTION. [168] epinikios; eis to telos; to nikopoio [169] ton huion Kore huper ton huion [170] Kore tois huiois Kore huper ton aionion huper ton kruphion huper ton kruphion ode. psalmos. ode. [171] ho theos hemin ho theos hemon [172] ho theos hemon pepoithesis kai ischus, kataphuge kai dunamis, kataphuge kai dunamis, boetheia boethos boethos en thlipsesin en thlipsesi en thlipsesin euriskomenos sphodra. tais heurousais hemas [173] sphodra. heurethe [174] sphodra. dia touto dia touto dia touto ou phobethesometha ou phobethesometha ou phobethesometha en to [175] suncheisthai en to tarassesthai en to tarassesthai gen ten gen ten gen kai klinesthai kai metatithesthai kai saleuesthai [176] ore ore ore en kardia en kardia en kardia thalasson. thalasson. thalasson. The process as a whole is minutely described by Eusebius and Jerome, who had seen the work, and by Epiphanius, whose account is still more explicit but less trustworthy. Eus. H. E. vi. 16: tautas de hapasa [sc. tas ekdoseis] epi tauton sunagagon dielhon te pros kolon kai antiparatheis allelais meta kai autes tes Ebraion semeihoseos ta ton legomenon Hexaplon hemin antigrapha kataleloipen, idios ten Akulou kai Summachou kai Theodotionos ekdosin hama te ton hebdomekonta en tois Tetraplois epikataskeuasas. Hieron. in ep. ad Tit. iii. 9: "nobis curae fuit omnes veteris legis libros quos vir doctus Adamantius in Hexapla digesserat de Caesariensi bibliotheca descriptos ex ipsis authenticis emendare, in quibus et ipsa Hebraea propriis sunt characteribus verba descripta et Graecis literis tramite expressa vicino; Aquila etiam et Symmachus, LXX. quoque et Theodotio suum ordinem tenent; nonnulli vero libri et maxime hi qui apud Hebraeos versu compositi sunt tres alias editiones additas habuit." Cf. his letter to Sunnias and Fretela (ep. 106) and to Augustine (ep. 112) and the preface to the Book of Chronicles. Epiph. de mens. et pond. 7: tas gar hex hermeneias kai ten Ebraiken graphen Ebraikois stoicheiois kai rhemasin autois en selidi [177] mia suntetheikos, allen selida antiparatheton di Hellenikon men grammaton Ebraikon de lexeon pros katalepsin ton me eidoton Ebraika stoicheia . . . kai houtos tois legomenois hup' autou hexaplois e oktaplois tas men duo Ebraikas selidas kai tas hex ton hermeneuton ek parallelou antiparatheis megalen hopheleian gnoseos edoke tois philokalois. Ib. 19 tas duo Ebraikas protas keimenas, meta tautas de ten tou Akula tetagmenen, meth' hen kai ten tou Summachou, epeita ten ton ob', meth' has he tou Theodotionos suntetaktai, kai hexes he pempte te kai hekte [178] . It will be seen that the specimen corroborates ancient testimony in reference to the relative order of the four Greek versions (Aq., Symm., LXX., Theod.), and illustrates the method of division into corresponding kola [179] which made comparison easy. With regard to the order, it is clear that Origen did not mean it to be chronological. Epiphanius seeks to account for the position of the LXX. in the fifth column by the not less untenable hypothesis that Origen regarded the LXX. as the standard of accuracy (de mens. et pond. 19: Origenes puthomenos ten ton ob' ekdosin akribe einai mesen tauten sunetheken, hopos tas enteuthen kai enteuthen hermeneias dielenche). As we have learned from Origen himself, the fact was the reverse; the other Greek versions were intended to check and correct the LXX. But the remark, though futile in itself, suggests a probable explanation. Aquila is placed next to the Hebrew text because his translation is the most verbally exact, and Symmachus and Theodotion follow Aquila and the LXX. respectively, because Symmachus on the whole is a revision of Aquila, and Theodotion of the LXX. As to the kola, it was of course necessary that the lines should be as short as possible when six or more columns had to be presented on each opening; and it will be seen that in the Psalms at least not more than two Hebrew words were included in a line, the corresponding Greek words being at the most three or four [180] . But the claims of the sense are not neglected; indeed it will appear upon inspection that the method adopted serves in a remarkable degree to accentuate the successive steps in the movement of the thought. 4. Besides the Hexapla, Origen compiled a Tetrapla, i.e. a minor edition from which he omitted the first two columns containing the Hebrew text in Hebrew and Greek characters; cf. Eus. l.c. idios ten Akulou kai Summachou kai Theodotionos ekdosin hama te ton o' en tois tetraplois epikataskeuasas [181] . Epiph. de mens. et pond. 19 tetrapla gar eisi ta Hellenika hotan hai tou Akolou kai Summachou kai ton ob' kai Theodotionos hermeneiai suntetagmenai osi. The Tetrapla is occasionally mentioned along with the Hexapla in scholia attached to MSS. of the LXX. Thus in the Syro-Hexaplaric version at the end of Joshua it is stated that the Greek codex on which the version was based had the note: egrale ek tou hexaplou, ex hou kai paretethe; anteble?the de kai pros ton tetraploun. Cod. Q still contains two similar references to the Tetrapla (O. T. in Greek, iii., p. viii., notes). Mention is also made in the MSS. of an Octapla (cf. the Syro-Hexaplar in Job v. 23, vi. 28, and the Hexaplaric MSS. of the Psalter in Ps. lxxv. 1, lxxxvi. 5, lxxxviii. 43, cxxxi. 4, cxxxvi. 1) [182] . The question arises whether the Octapla was a distinct work, or merely another name for the Hexapla in books where the columns were increased to eight by the addition of the Quinta and Sexta. Eusebius appears to support the latter view, for he speaks of the Hexapla of the Psalms as including the Quinta and Sexta (H. E. vi. 16 en ge men tois hexaplois ton Psalmon meta tas etisemous tessaras ekdoseis ou monon pempten alla kai hekten kai hebdomen paratheis hermeneian). Epiphanius, on the other hand, seems to limit the Hexapla to the six columns (l. c. ton tessaron de touton selidon tais dusi tais Ebraikais sunaphtheison hexapla kaleitai; ean de kai he pempte kai he hekte hermeneia sunaphthosin . . . oktapla kaleitai. But it has been observed that when the scholia in Hexaplaric MSS. mention the Octapla they are silent as to the Hexapla, although the Octapla and the Tetrapla are mentioned together; e.g. in Ps. lxxxvi. 5 we find the following note: to kata prostheken ekeito eis ten ton o' en to tetraselido (the Tetrapla), en de to oktaselido (the Octapla), , egoun dicha tou . The inference is that the name 'Octapla' sometimes superseded that of 'Hexapla' in the Psalms, because in the Psalter of the Hexapla there were two additional columns which received the Quinta and Sexta. Similarly the term 'Heptapla' was occasionally used in reference to portions of the Hexapla where a seventh column appeared, but not an eighth [183] . 'Pentapla' is cited by J. Curterius from cod. Q at Isa. iii. 24, and Field's suspicion that Curterius had read his MS. incorrectly is not confirmed by a reference to the photograph, which exhibits en to pentaselido. Origen's work, then, existed (as Eusebius implies) in two forms: (1) the Hexapla, which contained, as a rule, six columns, but sometimes five or seven or eight, when it was more accurately denominated the Pentapla, Heptapla, or Octapla; and (2) the Tetrapla, which contained only four columns answering to the four great Greek versions, excluding the Hebrew and Greek-Hebrew texts on the one hand, and the Quinta and Sexta on the other. 5. The Hebrew text of the Hexapla was of course that which was current among Origen's Jewish teachers in the third century, and which he took to be truly representative of the original. Portions of the second column, which have been preserved, are of interest as shewing the pronunciation of the Hebrew consonants and the vocalisation which was then in use. >From the specimen already given it will be seen that k = ch, q = k, and s ,ts ,s = s and that ' h ch are without equivalent [184] . The divergences of the vocalisation from that which is represented by the pointing of the M. T. are more important; see Dr Taylor's remarks in D. C. B. ii. p. 15 f. In regard to Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and the minor Greek versions, Origen's task was limited to transcription under the conditions imposed by the plan of his work. But the fifth column, which contained the Hexaplaric LXX., called for the full exercise of his critical powers. If his first idea had been, as his own words almost suggest, merely to transcribe the LXX. in its proper place, without making material alterations in the text, a closer comparison of the LXX. with the current Hebrew text and the versions based upon it must soon have convinced him that this was impracticable. Let us suppose that there lay before him an Alexandrian or Palestinian MS., containing the 'common' text of the LXX. e koine, or vulgata editio , as Jerome calls it [185] ), i. e. the text of the Greek Bible as it was read by the Church of the third century. As the transcription proceeded, it would be seen that every column of the Greek contained clauses which were not in the Hebrew, and omitted clauses which the Hebrew contained. Further, in many places the order of the Greek would be found to depart from that of the Hebrew, the divergence being sometimes limited to a clause or a verse or two, but occasionally extending to several chapters. Lastly, in innumerable places the LXX. would be seen to yield a sense more or less at variance with the current Hebrew, either through misapprehension on the part of the translators or through a difference in the underlying text. These causes combined to render the coordination of the Alexandrian Greek with the existing Hebrew text a task of no ordinary difficulty, and the solution to which Origen was led appeared to him to be little short of an inspiration theou didontos heuromen). Origen began by assuming (1) the purity of the Hebrew text, and (2) the corruption of the koine where it departed from the Hebrew [186] . The problem before him was to restore the LXX. to its original purity, i.e. to the Hebraica veritas as he understood it, and thus to put the Church in possession of an adequate Greek version of the Old Testament without disturbing its general allegiance to the time-honoured work of the Alexandrian translators. Some of the elements in this complex process were comparatively simple. (1) Differences of order were met by transposition, the Greek order making way for the Hebrew. In this manner whole sections changed places in the LXX. text of Exodus, 1 Kings, and Jeremiah; in Proverbs only, for some reason not easy to determine, the two texts were allowed to follow their respective courses, and the divergence of the Greek order from the Hebrew was indicated by certain marks [187] prefixed to the stichi of the LXX. column. (2) Corruptions in the koine, real or supposed, were tacitly corrected in the Hexapla, whether from better MSS. of the LXX., or from the renderings of other translators, or, in the case of proper names, by a simple adaptation of the Alexandrian Greek form to that which was found in the current Hebrew [188] . (3) The additions and omissions in the LXX. presented greater difficulty. Origen was unwilling to remove the former, for they belonged to the version which the Church had sanctioned, and which many Christians regarded as inspired Scripture; but he was equally unwilling to leave them without some mark of editorial disapprobation. Omissions were readily supplied from one of the other versions, namely Aquila or Theodotion; but the new matter interpolated into the LXX. needed to be carefully distinguished from the genuine work of the Alexandrian translators [189] . See Add. Notes. 6. Here the genius of Origen found an ally in the system of critical signs which had its origin among the older scholars of Alexandria, dating almost from the century which produced the earlier books of the LXX. The Aristarcheia semata took their name from the prince of Alexandrian grammarians, Aristarchus, who flourished in the reign of Philopator (A.D. 222--205, and they appear to have been first employed in connexion with his great edition of Homer [190] . Origen selected two of these signs known as the obelus and the asterisk, and adapted them to the use of his edition of the Septuagint. In the Homeric poems, as edited by Aristarchus, the obelus marked passages which the critic wished to censure, while the asterisk was affixed to those which seemed to him to be worthy of special attention; cf. the anecdoton printed by Gardthausen: ho de obelos pros ta athetoumena epi tou poietou egoun nenotheumena e hupobeblemena; ho de asteriskos . . . hos kalon eiremenon ton epon. Similarly, in connexion with Platonic dicta , Diogenes Laertius (platon. iii. 657) used the obelus pros ten athetesin and the asterisk pros ten sumphonian ton dogmaton. As employed by Origen in the fifth column of the Hexapla, the obelus was prefixed to words or lines which were wanting in the Hebrew, and therefore, from Origen's point of view, of doubtful authority [191] , whilst the asterisk called attention to words or lines wanting in the LXX., but present in the Hebrew. The close of the context to which the obelus or asterisk was intended to apply was marked by another sign known as the metobelus. When the passage exceeded the length of a single line, the asterisk or obelus was repeated at the beginning of each subsequent line until the metobelus was reached. Epiph. de mens. et pond. 2, 3 ho asteriskos . . . semainei to empheromenon rhema en to Ebraiko keisthai . . . hoi de ob' hermeneutai parekan kai ouch hermeneukan . . . obelos de . . . paretithe . . . tais tes theias graphes lexesin tais para tois ob' hermeneutais keimenais, para de tois peri Akulan kai Summachon me empheromenais. Schol. ap. Tisch. not. ed cod. Sin. p. 76 hosois oi obeloi proskeintai rhetois, houtoi ouk ekeinto oute para tois loipois hermeneutais oute en to Ebraiko, alla para monois tois o'; kai hosois hoi asteriskoi proskeintai rhetois, outoi en men to Ebraiko kai tois loipois hermeneutais epheronto, en de tois o' ouketi. Occasionally Origen used asterisk and obelus together, as Aristarchus had done, to denote that the order of the Greek was at fault (anecd. ap. Gardthausen: ho de asteriskos meta obelou, hos onta men ta epe tou poietou, me kalos de keimena: schol. ap. Tisch. not. ed. Sin. l. c. pherontai men para tois o', pherontai de en to Ebraiko kai para tois loipois hermeneutais, ten thesin de monen parallassousin hoi loipoi kai to Ebraikon para tous o'; hothen obelistai en tauto kai esteristai, hos para pasi men pheromena, ouk en tois autois de topois: also ap. mon. sacr. ined. iii. p. xvii. ta de esterismena en tauto kai obelismena rheta . . . hos para pasi men pheromena, ouk en tois autois de topois). The Aristarchian (or as they are usually called by students of the Old Testament, the Hexaplaric) signs are also used by Origen when he attempts to place before the reader of his LXX. column an exact version of the Hebrew without displacing the LXX. rendering. Where the LXX. and the current Hebrew are hopelessly at issue, he occasionally gives two versions, that of one of the later translators distinguished by an asterisk, and that of the LXX. under an obelus [192] . The form of the asterisk, obelus, and metobelus varies slightly. The first consists of the letter x, usually surrounded by four dots ( , the chi teriestigmenon); the form occurs but seldom, and only, as it seems, in the Syro-Hexaplar. The orelos, 'spit' or 'spear,' is represented in Epiphanius by , but in the MSS. of the LXX. a horizontal straight line (--) [193] has taken the place of the original form, with or without occupying dot or dots ( ); the form was known as a lemniscus, and the form as a hypolemniscus. Epiphanius indeed (op. cit., c. 8) fancies that each dot represents a pair of translators, so that the lemniscus means that the word or clause which the LXX. adds to the Hebrew had the support of two out of the thirty-six pairs which composed the whole body, whilst the hypolemniscus claims for it the support of only one pair. This explanation, it is scarcely necessary to say, is as baseless as the fiction of the cells on which, in the later Epiphanian form, it rests. Other attempts to assign distinct values to the various forms of the obelus have been shewn by Field to be untenable [194] . The metobelus is usually represented by two dots arranged perpendicularly (:), like a colon; other forms are a sloping line with a dot before it or on either side (/., ·/.), and in the Syro-Hexaplar and other Syriac versions a mallet . The latter form, as the least ambiguous, is used in Field's great edition of the Hexapla, and in the apparatus which is printed under the text of the LXX. version of Daniel in the Cambridge manual Septuagint. Certain other signs found in Hexaplaric MSS. are mentioned in the following scholion Euagriou sch., one of the scholia eis tas paroimias printed in the Notitia ed. cod. Sin., p. 76, from a Patmos MS.; see Robinson, Philocalia, pp. xiii., xvii. ff.): eisin [195] hosa protetagmenon echousi ton arithmon hode; hosa Origenen epigegrammenon echei touto to monosullabo, . . . hosa de peri diaphonias rheton tinon ton en to edaphio e ekdoseon estin scholia, haper kai kato neneukuian periestigmenen echei protetagmenen, ton antibeblekoton to biblion estin; hosa de amphibolos exo keimena rheta exo neneukuian periestigmenen echei protetagmenen, dia ta scholia prosetethesan kat' auta tou megalou eirekotos didaskalou, hina me doxe kata kenou to scholion pheresthai, en pollois men ton antigraphon ton rheton houtos echonton, en touto de me houtos keimenon e med' holos pheromenon, kai dia touto prostethenton. The following extract from the great Hexaplaric MS. known as G will enable the student, to whom the subject may be new, to practise himself in the interpretation of the signs. He will find it instructive to compare the extract with his Hebrew Bible on the one hand and the text of Cod. B (printed in the Cambridge LXX.) on the other [196] . Joshua xi. 10--14 (Cod. Sarravianus). kai epestrepsen is en | to kairo ekeino | katelabeto ten : asor | kai ton basilea autes | apekteinen en rom | phaia : en de asor po pro|teron archousa paso | ton basileion tou|ton kai apekteina | pan enpneon o : en | aute en stomati xiphous | kai exolethreusan : | --pantas : kai ou kateli|phthe en aute enpne|on kai ten asor ene|presen en puri kai pa|sas tas poleis ton | basileion touto : | kai pantas : tous basi|leis auton elaben is | kai aneilen autous | en stomati xiphous | exolethreusen autous | on tropon sunetaxe | Moses o pais ku; alla | pasas tas poleis tas || kechomatismenas | auton : ouk enepre|sen inl plen ten : a|sor monen auten : enepresen is kai pa|ta ta skula autes | ta ktene : epronomeu|san eautois oi inl | kata to rema ku o ene | teilato to iu : autous | de pantas exolethreu|sen en stomati xiphous | eos apolesen autous | ou katilipon auto : | oude en enpneon * * * 7. The Hexapla was completed, as we have seen, by A.D. 240 or 245; the Tetrapla, which was a copy of four columns of the Hexapla, followed, perhaps during Origen's last years at Tyre. [197] A large part of the labour of transcription may have been borne by the copyists who were in constant attendance on the great scholar, but he was doubtless his own diorthotes, and the two Hebrew columns and the LXX. column of the Hexapla were probably written by his own hand. Eusebius in a well-known passage describes the costly and laborious process by which Origen's commentaries on Scripture were given to the world: H. E. vi. 23 tachugraphoi gar auto pleious e hepta ton arithmon paresan hupagoreuonti, chronois tetagmenois allelous ameibontes, bibliographoi te ouch hettous hama kai korais epi to kalligraphein eskemenais; hon hapanton ten deousan ton epitedeion aphthonon periousian ho Ambrosios parestesato. Two of these classes of workers, the bibliographoi and kalligraphoi (cf. Gardthausen, Gr. Palaeographie, p. 297), must have found ample employment in the preparation of the Hexapla. The material used was possibly papyrus. Although there are extant fragments of writing on vellum which may be attributed to the second century, "there is every reason to suppose that to the end of the third century papyrus held its own, at any rate in Egypt, as the material on which literary works were written" (Kenyon, Palaeography of Gk papyri, p. 113 f.; on the size of existing papyrus rolls, see p. 16 ff.). This view receives some confirmation from Jerome's statement (ep. 141) that Acacius and Evagrius endeavoured to replace with copies on parchment some of the books in the library at Caesarea which were in a damaged condition ("bibliothecam . . . ex parte corruptam . . . in membranis instaurare conati sunt") [198] . According to Tischendorf (prolegg. in cod. Frid. Aug. § 1) cod. ' was written on skins of antelopes, each of which supplied only two leaves of the MS. The Hexapla, if copied in so costly a way, would have taxed the resources even of Origen's generous ergodioktes. It is difficult to conceive of a codex or series of codices so gigantic as the Hexapla. Like the great Vatican MS., it would have exhibited at each opening at least six columns, and in certain books; like the Sinaitic MS., eight. Its bulk, even when allowance has been made for the absence in it of the uncanonical books, would have been nearly five times as great as that of the Vatican or the Sinaitic Old Testament. The Vatican MS. contains 759 leaves, of which 617 belong to the Old Testament; when complete, the O. T. must have occupied 650 leaves, more or less. From these data it may be roughly calculated that the Hexapla, if written in the form of a codex, would have filled 3250 leaves or 6500 pages [199] ; and these figures are exclusive of the Quinta and Sexta, which may have swelled the total considerably. Even the Tetrapla would have exceeded 2000 leaves. So immense a work must have been the despair of copyists, and it is improbable that any attempt was made to reproduce either of the editions as a whole. The originals, however, were long preserved at Caesarea in Palestine, where they were deposited, perhaps by Origen himself, in the library of Pamphilus. There they were studied by Jerome in the fourth century (in Psalmos comm. ed. Morin., p. 5: "hexaplous Origenis in Caesariensi bibliotheca relegens"; ib. p. 12: "cum vetustum Origenis hexaplum psalterium revolverem, quod ipsius manu fuerat emendatum"; in ep. ad Tit.: "nobis curae fuit omnes veteris legis libros quos v. d. Adamantius in Hexapla digesserat de Caesariensi bibliotheca descriptos ex ipsis authenticis emendare." There also they were consulted by the writers and owners of Biblical MSS.; compare the interesting note attached by a hand of the seventh century to the book of Esther in cod. ' : anteblethe pros palaiotaton lian antigraphon dediorthomenon cheiri tou hagiou `arturos Pamphilou; pros de to telei tou autou palaiotatou bibliou . . . huposemeiosis tou autou marturos hupekeito echousa houtos; (O. T. in Greek, ii. p. 780); and the notes prefixed to Isaiah and Ezekiel in Cod. Marchalianus (Q); the second of these notes claims that the copy from which Ezekiel was transcribed bore the subscription , (ib. iii. p. viii.) [200] . The library of Pamphilus was in existence in the 6th century, for Montfaucon (biblioth. Coisl. p. 262) quotes from Coisl. 202 [201] , a MS. of that century, a colophon which runs: anteblethe de he biblos pros to en Kaisaria antigraphon tes bibliothekes tou hagiou Pamphilou cheiri gegrammenon autou. But in 638 Caesarea fell into the hands of the Saracens, and from that time the Library was heard of no more. Even if not destroyed at the moment, it is probable that every vestige of the collection perished during the vicissitudes through which the town passed between the 7th century and the 12th [202] . Had the Hexapla been buried in Egypt, she might have preserved it in her sands; it can scarcely be hoped that the sea-washed and storm-beaten ruins of Kaisariyeh cover a single leaf. LITERATURE. Fragments of the Hexapla were printed by Peter Morinus in his notes to the Roman edition of the Septuagint (1587). Separate collections have since been published by J. Drusius (Vet. interpretum Graecorum . . . fragmenta collecta . . . a Jo. Drusio, Arnheim, 1622), Bernard Montfaucon (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Paris, 1713), and F. Field (Oxford, 1875), whose work has superseded all earlier attempts to recover the Hexapla. A fuller list may be seen in Fabricius-Harles, iii. 701 ff. Materials for an enlarged edition of Field are already beginning to accumulate; such may be found in Pitra, Analecta sacra, iii. (Venice, 1883), p 551 ff.; E. Klostermann, Analecta zur . . . Hexapla (Leipzig, 1895), G. Morin, Anecdota Maredsolana iii. 1 (Mareds., 1895; cf. Expositor, June 1895, p. 424 ff.), and the Oxford Concordance. Among helps to the study of the Hexapla, besides the introductions already specified, the following may be mentioned: the Prolegomena in Field's Hexapla, the art. Hexapla in D. C. B. by Dr C. Taylor; the introduction to Dr Driver's Notes on Samuel (p. xliii. ff.), and Harnack-Preuschen, Gesch. altchristt. Litt. i. p. 339 ff. For the literature of the Syro-Hexaplaric version see c. iv. 8. The Hexapla as a whole was perhaps too vast to be copied [203] , and copies even of particular books were rarely attempted; yet there was nothing to forbid the separate publication of the fifth column, which contained the revised Septuagint. This idea presented itself to Pamphilus and his friend Eusebius, and the result was the wide circulation in Palestine during the fourth century of the Hexaplaric LXX., detached from the Hebrew text and the other Greek versions, but retaining, more or less exactly, the corrections and additions adopted by Origen with the accompanying Hexaplaric signs. "Provinciae Palestinae," writes Jerome in his preface to Chronicles, "codices legunt quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt." Elsewhere [204] he warns his correspondents "aliam esse editionem quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores koinen (id est communem) appellant atque vulgatam . . ., aliam LXX. interpretum quae in exaplois codicibus reperitur . . et Ierosolymae atque in orientis ecclesia decantatur." The Hexaplaric text receives his unhesitating support: "ea autem quae habetur in hexaplois . . . ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata LXX. interpretum translatio reservatur [205] ." This edition, sometimes described as to Eusebiou or to Palaistinaion, or simply Or[igenes], is mentioned with great respect in the scholia of MSS. which do not on the whole follow its text. Specimens of such notes have already been given; they usually quote the words in which Pamphilus describes the part borne by himself and his friends respectively in the production of the book. Thus a note quoted by an early hand in cod. ' at the end of 2 Esdras says, Antoninos antebalen, Pamphilos diorthosa. The subscription to Esther ends Antoninos homologetes antebalen, Pamphilos diorthosato [to] teuchos en te phulake. The scholion prefixed to Ezekiel in Q introduces the name of Eusebius, assigning him another function: Eusebios ego ta scholia paretheka; Pamphilos kai Eusebios diorthosanto. In its subscription to 1 Kings the Syro-Hexaplar quotes a note which runs: Eusebios diorthosamen hos akribos edunamen. It would seem as though the work of comparing the copy with the original was committed to the otherwise unknown [206] Antoninus, whilst the more responsible task of making corrections was reserved for Pamphilus and Eusebius [207] . Part of the work at least was done while Pamphilus lay in prison, i.e. between A.D. 307 and 309, but it was probably continued and completed by Eusebius after the martyr's death. The separate publication of the Hexaplaric LXX. was undertaken in absolute good faith; Pamphilus and Eusebius believed (as did even Jerome nearly a century afterwards) that Origen had succeeded in restoring the old Greek version to its primitive purity, and they were moved by the desire to communicate this treasure to the whole Church. It was impossible for them to foresee that the actual result of their labours would be to create a recension of the LXX. which was a mischievous mixture of the Alexandrian version with the versions of Aquila and Theodotion. The Hexaplaric signs, intended for the use of scholars, lost their meaning when copied into a text which was no longer confronted with the Hebrew or the later versions based upon it; and there was a natural tendency on the part of scribes to omit them, when their purpose was no longer manifest. When we consider that the Hexaplaric Septuagint claimed to be the work of Origen, and was issued under the authority of the martyr Pamphilus and the yet greater Bishop of Caesarea, we can but wonder that its circulation was generally limited to Palestine [208] . Not one of our uncial Bibles gives the Hexaplaric text as a whole, and it is presented in a relatively pure form by very few MSS., the uncials G and M, which contain only the Pentateuch and some of the historical books, and the cursives 86 and 88 (Holmes and Parsons), which contain the Prophets. But a considerable number of so-called Hexaplaric codices exist, from which it is possible to collect fragments not only of the fifth column, but of all the Greek columns of the Hexapla; and a still larger number of our MSS. offer a mixed text in which the influence of the Hexaplaric LXX., or of the edition published by Pamphilus and Eusebius, has been more or less extensively at work [209] . The problems presented by this and other causes of mixture will come under consideration in the later chapters of this book. 9. While the Hexaplaric Septuagint was being copied at Caesarea for the use of Palestine, Hesychius was engaged in correcting the common Egyptian text. Hieron. in praef. ad Paralipp.: "Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem"; cf. adv. Rufin. ii. where the statement is repeated [210] , and praef. in Evangelia, where the revision of Hesychius is represented as having included both Testaments, and his O. T. work is condemned as infelicitous ("nec in V.T. post LXX. interpretes emendare quod licuit"); the Hesychian revision of the Gospels is censured by the Decretum Gelasii, which even denounces them as apocryphal ("evangelia quae falsavit Hesychius, apocrypha"). It is not easy to ascertain who this Hesychius was. The most conspicuous person of that name is the lexicographer, and he has been identified with the reviser of the Greek Bible [211] . But later researches shew that Hesychius the lexicographer was a pagan who lived in the second half of the fourth century. The author of the Egyptian revision was more probably [212] the martyr Bishop who is mentioned by Eusebius in connexion with Phileas Bishop of Thmuis, Pachymius, and Theodorus (H. E. viii. 13 Phileas te kai Hesuchios kai Pachumios kai Theodoros ton amphi ten Aigupton ekklesion episkopoi). The four names appear together again in a letter addressed to Meletius (Routh, rell. sacr. iv. p. 91 ff.); and Eusebius has preserved a pastoral written by Phileas in prison in view of his approaching martyrdom (H. E. viii. 10). Phileas was a distinguished scholar (H. E. viii. 9 diaprepsas . . en . . tois kata philosophian logois, ib. 10 ton exothen mathematon heneka pollou logou axion . . . tou hos alethos philosophou . . marturos), and the association of his name with that of Hesychius suggests that he may have shared in the work of Biblical revision. It is pleasant to think of the two episcopal confessors employing their enforced leisure in their Egyptian prison by revising the Scriptures for the use of their flocks, nearly at the same time that Pamphilus and Eusebius and Antoninus were working under similar conditions at Caesarea. It is easy to account for the acceptance of the Hesychian revision at Alexandria and in Egypt generally, if it was produced under such circumstances. To what extent the Hesychian recession of the Old Testament is still accessible in MSS. and versions of the LXX. is uncertain. As far back as 1786 Münter threw out the very natural suggestion that the Egyptian recession might be found in the Egyptian versions. In his great monograph on the Codex Marchalianus Ceriani takes note that in the Prophets, with the exception perhaps of Ezekiel, the original text of that great Egyptian MS. agrees closely with the text presupposed by the Egyptian versions and in the works of Cyril of Alexandria, and that it is supported by the cursive MSS. 26, 106, 198, 306; other cursives of the same type are mentioned by Cornill [213] as yielding an Hesychian text in Ezekiel. For the remaining books of the LXX. we have as yet no published list of MSS. containing a probably Hesychian text, but the investigations now being pursued by the editors of the larger Cambridge LXX. may be expected to yield important help in this direction [214] . 10. Meanwhile the rising school of Antioch was not inactive in the field of Biblical revision. An Antiochian recession of the koine had in Jerome's time come to be known by the name of its supposed author, the martyr Lucian [215] . Hieron. praef. in Paralipp.: "Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat." Cf. (Ep. cvi.) ad Sunn. et Fret. 2 "[he koine] . . . a plerisque nunc Loukianos dicitur." Ps.-Athan. syn. sacr. script. hebdome palin kai teleueaia hermeneia tou hagiou Loukianou tou megalou asketou kai marturos, hostis kai autos tais progegrammenais ekdosesi kai tois Ebraikois entuchon kai epopteusas met' akribeias ta leiponta e kai peritta tes aletheias rhemata kai diorthosamenos en tois oikeiois ton graphon topois exedoto tois christianois adelphois; hetis de kai hermeneia meta ten athlesin kai marturian tou autou hagiou Loukianou ten gegonuian epi Diokletianou kai Maximianou ton turannon, egoun to idiocheiron hautou tes ekdoseos biblion, heurethe en Nikomedeia epi Konstantinou basileos tou megalou para Ioudaiois en toicho purgisko perikechrismeno koniamati eis diaphulaxin (cf. the Acts of Lucian in Bolland. i. p. 363). Suidas s.v. houtos tas hieras biblous theasamenos polu to nothon eisdexamenas, tou ge chronou lumenamenou polla ton en autais kai tes sunechous aph' heteron eis hetera metatheseos . . . autos hapasas analabon ek tes Ebraidos epaneneosato glosses. Cf. also Cyr. Alex. in Psalmos praef. Lucian, who was born at Samosata, began his studies at Edessa, whence he passed to Antioch at a time when Malchion was master of the Greek School (Eus. H. E. vii. 29, Hieron. de virr. ill. 71). At Antioch Lucian acquired a great reputation for Biblical learning (Eus. H. E. ix. 6 tois hierois mathhumasi sunkekrotemenos, Suid. s.v. auten [sc. ten Ebraida glossan] hos ta malista en ekribokos). From some cause not clearly explained Lucian was under a cloud for several years between A.D. 270 and 299 (Theodoret [216] , H. E. i. 3 aposunagogos emeine trion episkopon poluetous chronou). On his restoration to communion he was associated with Dorotheus, who was a Hebrew scholar, as well as a student of Greek literature (Eus. H. E. vii. 32 philokalos d' houtos peri ta theia grammata kai tes Ebraion epemelethe glottes, hos kai autais tais Ebraikais graphais epistemonos entunchanein; en de houtos ton malista eleutherion, propaideias te tes kath' Hellenas ouk amoiros). As Pamphilus was assisted by Eusebius, as Phileas and others were probably associated with Hesychius, so (the conjecture may be hazarded) Dorotheus and Lucian worked together at the Antiochian revision of the Greek Bible. If, as Dr Hort thought, "of known names Lucian's has a better claim than any other to be associated with the early Syrian revision of the New Testament [217] ," the Syrian revision of the Old Testament, which called for a knowledge of Hebrew, may have been due more especially to the Hebraist Dorotheus. Lucian, however, has the exclusive credit of the latter, and possibly was the originator of the entire work. If we may believe certain later writers, his revision of the LXX. was on a great scale, and equivalent to a new version of the Hebrew Bible; Pseudo-Athanasius goes so far as to call it the hebdome hermeneia, placing it on a level with the Greek versions of the Hexapla. But Jerome's identification of 'Lucian' with the koine presents quite another view of its character and one which is probably nearer to the truth. It was doubtless an attempt to revise the koine in accordance with the principles of criticism which were accepted at Antioch. In the New Testament (to use the words of Dr Hort [218] ) "the qualities which the authors of the Syrian text seem to have most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness . . . both in matter and in diction the Syrian text is conspicuously a full text." If the Lucianic revision of the LXX. was made under the influences which guided the Antiochian revision of the New Testament, we may expect to find the same general principles at work [219] , modified to some extent by the relation of the LXX., to a Hebrew original, and by the circumstance that the Hebrew text current in Syria in the third century A.D. differed considerably from the text which lay before the Alexandrian translators. We are not left entirely to conjectures. During his work upon the Hexapla [220] Field noticed that in an epistle prefixed to the Arabic Syro-Hexaplar [221] , the marginal letter (L) was said to indicate Lucianic readings. Turning to the Syro-Hexaplar itself, he found this letter in the margin of 2 Kings (= 4 Regn.) at cc. ix. 9, 28, x. 24, 25, xi. 1, xxiii. 33, 35, But the readings thus marked as Lucianic occur also in the cursive Greek MSS. 19, 82, 93, 108; and further examination shewed that these four MSS. in the Books of Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah agree with the text of the LXX. offered by the Antiochian fathers Chrysostom and Theodoret, who might have been expected to cite from 'Lucian.' Similar reasoning led Field to regard codd. 22, 36, 48, 51, 62, 90, 93, 144, 147, 233, 308 as presenting a more or less Lucianic text in the Prophets. Meanwhile, Lagarde had independently [222] reached nearly the same result, so far as regards the historical books. He satisfied himself that codd. 19, 82, 93, 108, 118 [223] , had sprung from a common archetype, the text of which was practically identical with that of the LXX. as quoted by Chrysostom, i.e., with the Antiochian text of the fourth century, which presumably was Lucianic. Lagarde proceeded to construct from these and other sources a provisional text of Lucian, but his lamented death intercepted the work, and only the first volume of his Lucianic LXX. has appeared (Genesis--2 Esdr., Esther). The following specimen will serve to shew the character of Lucian's revision, as edited by Lagarde; an apparatus is added which exhibits the readings of codd. B and A. 3 Regn. xviii. 22-28. ^22 kai eipen Helias pros ton laon Ego hupoleleimmai prophetes kuriou prophetes monotatos, kai hoi prophetai tou Baal tetrakosioi kai pentekonta andres, kai hoi prophetai ton alson tetrakosioi. ^23 dotosan oun hemin duo boas, kai eklexasthosan heautois ton hena kai melisatosan kai epithetosan epi xula kai pur me epithetosan; kai ego poieso ton boun ton allon, kai pur ou me epitho. ^24 kai boate en onomati theon humon, kai ego epikalesomai en onomati kuriou tou theou mou, kai estai ho theos hos an epakouse semeron en puri, houtos esti theos. kai apekrithe pas ho laos kai eipen Agathos ho logos hon elalesas. ^25 kai eipen Helias tois prophetais tes aischunes Eklexasthe heautois ton boun ton hena , hoti humeis polloi, kai poiesate protoi, kai epikaleisthe en onomati theon humon, kai pur me epithete. ^26 kai elabon ton boun kai epoiesan, kai epekalounto en onomati tou Baal kai eipon Epakouson hemon, ho Baal, epakouson hemon. kai ouk en phone kai ouk en akroasis. kai dietrechon epi tou thusiasteriou hou epoiesan. ^27 kai egeneto mesembria, kai emukterisen autous Helias ho Thesbites kai prosetheto legon Epikaleisthe en phone megale hama, mepote adoleschia tis estin auto, kai hama mepote chrematizei autos e mepote katheudei, kai exanastesetai. ^28 kai epekalounto en phone megale kai katetemnonto kata ton ethismon auton en machairais kai en seiromastais heos ekchuseos haimatos ep' autous. 22 Eleiou BA | kuriou] pr tou BA | om prophetes 2^0 BA | oi prophetai 2^0] om oi A | tou alsous BA | om tetrakosioi 2^0 A 23 om oun BA | om kai epith. epi xula A | xula] ton xulon B | ton allon] + kai doso epi ta xula A 24 theon] theou A | ean BA | om semeron BA | om esti BA | apekrithesan BA | eipon B eipan A | agathos o logos on] kalon to rema o BA 25 Eleiou BA | boun] moschon BA | kai poi. protoi oti polloi umeis BA | epikalesasthe B | theon] theou BA 26 elaben A | boun] moschon BA + on edoken autois A | Baal 1^0] oti BA | tis estin auto] auto estin BA | katheudei] + autos BA 28 kata ton ethismon auton] om B kata to krima auton A | machaira B | om en 3^0 B A comparison of 'Lucian' in this passage with the two great uncials of the LXX. reveals two classes of variants in the former. (1) Some of the changes appear to be due to a desire to render the version smoother or fuller, e.g. Helias for Heleiou, the repetition of prophetes before monotatos, the substitution of ton alson for tou alsous, of apekrithe for apekrithesan, and of agathos ho logos for kalon to rhema, and the addition of semeron. (2) Others seem to indicate an attempt to get nearer to the Hebrew, e.g. dotosan oun (vytgv), boun (pr); or an adherence to an older reading which the Hexaplaric LXX. had set aside, e.g. the omission of hon edoken autois [224] and ek proithen heos mesembrias. On the other hand Lucian follows the current Hebrew in kata ton ethismon auton, though he substitutes the easier ethismos for Aquila's krima, which cod. A has taken over from the Hexapla. Professor Driver, as the result of a wider examination, points out [225] that the Lucianic recession is distinguished by (1) the substitution of synonyms for the words employed by the LXX.; (2) the occurrence of double renderings; (3) the occurrence of renderings "which presuppose a Hebrew original self-evidently superior in the passages concerned to the existing Massoretic text." The last of these peculiarities renders it of great importance for the criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Lucian suffered martyrdom at Nicomedia under Maximin in the year 311 or 312 [226] . According to the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis, his recension of the LXX. was subsequently discovered at Nicomedia, bricked up in a wall. The story may have arisen from a desire to invest the hebdome (as 'Lucian' is called by the author of the Synopsis) with the same air of romance that belonged to the Quinta and Sexta, both of which were found, as he asserts, en pithois. It is more probable that copies were circulated from Antioch in the ordinary way, and that some of these after the persecution reached Nicomedia and Constantinople. The name of Lucian would be enough to guarantee the general acceptance of the work. He died in the peace of the Church, and a martyr; on the other hand his name was in high repute with the Arian leaders, who boasted of being sulloukianistai [227] . Moreover, a revision which emanated from Antioch, the "ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople [228] ," would naturally take root in the soil of the Greek East. In all dioceses which felt the influences of those two great sees, the Lucianic LXX. doubtless furnished during the fourth and fifth centuries the prevalent text of the Greek Old Testament [229] . 11. The result of these multiplied labours of Christian scholars upon the text of the LXX. was not altogether satisfactory. Before the time of Jerome much of the original text of the Alexandrian Bible had disappeared. Men read their Old Testament in the recension of Lucian, if they lived in North Syria, Asia Minor, or Greece; in that of Hesychius, if they belonged to the Delta or the valley of the Nile; in Origen's Hexaplaric edition, if they were residents at Jerusalem or Caesarea. Thus, as the scholar of Bethlehem complains, the Christian world was divided between three opposing texts ("totus . . . orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat [230] "). To Jerome, as a Palestinian and an admirer of Origen's critical principles, the remedy was simple; the Hexaplaric text, which had been assimilated to the Hebraica veritas, ought everywhere to take the place of the koine represented by Hesychius or Lucian. Fortunately the task was beyond his strength, and MSS. and versions still survive which represent more or less fully the three recessions of the fourth century. But the trifaria varietas did not continue to perplex the Church; a fusion of texts arose which affected the greater part of the copies in varying proportions. No one of the rival recessions became dominant and traditional, as in the case of the New Testament [231] ; among the later MSS, groups may be discerned which answer more or less certainly to this recession or to that, but the greater number of the cursives present a text which appears to be the result of mixture rather than of any conscious attempt to decide between the contending types. __________________________________________________________________ [159] Eus. H. E. vi. 2. [160] Hieron. de virr. ill. 54. [161] Cf. ep. ad Paulam. [162] See D. C. B. art. Hebrew Learning (ii. p. 351 ff.). [163] See D. C. B. art. Origenes, iv. p. 129 ff. [164] Cf. Bp Westcott in D. C. B, iv. p. 99: "it was during this period (i.e. before A.D. 215) in all probability that he formed and partly executed his plan of a comparative view of the LXX. in connexion with the other Greek versions." [165] Cf. Un palimpsesto Ambrosiano dei Salmi Esapli (Giov. Mercati) in Atti d. R. Accademia d. Scienze di Torino, 10 Apr. 1896; and E. Klostermann, die Mailänder Fragmente der Hexapla. The MS. does not supply the Hebrew column. [166] In the MS. lanou appears in the third column, where it has displaced Aquila's rendering. [167] MS. eurethes. [168] Or Quinta? Cf. H. Lietzmann in G. G. A. 1902, v., p. 332: "die letzte Columne ist nicht, wie man anfangs glaubte, Theodotion, sondern die Quinta mit Interlinearvarianten." [169] With marginal variants, eis to telos, psalmos (LXX.). [170] With interlinear variant tois huiois (Th.). [171] With marginal variants, eis to telos, psalmos (LXX.). [172] MS. 1 a manu hemin (? Aq. Sym.). [173] With interlinear variant heurethesetai hemin. [174] With interlinear variant tais heurousais hemas (LXX.). [175] MS. tais. [176] With interlinear variant metatithesthai (LXX.). [177] On selis, cf. Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography, p, 58. [178] See also ib. 18 sq.; Hieron. Praef. in Paral., and in ep. ad Tit., c. iii. [179] Used here loosely as = kommata, the kolon being properly a line consisting of a complete clause, and of 8--17 syllables: cf. E. M. Thompson, Gk and Lat. Palaeography, p. 81 f.; J. R. Harris, Stichometry, p. 23 f. [180] In the earlier Cairo palimpsest even such words as 'l and me had each a line to itself; see Nestle in Hastings' D.B. iv. 443. [181] Epikataskeuazein is insuper vel postea concinnare (Field, prolegg. p. xii.); cf. Dio Cass. l. 23 ta skaphe kateskeuase . . . kai ep' auta purgous epekateskeuase. Oeconomus (iv. 873), who regards the Tetrapla as the earlier work, understands Eusebius to mean only that Origen added to the LXX. the three columns containing A'S'Th' . [182] Field, Hexapla, ii. ad loc.; cf. Hieron. in Psalmos (ed. Morin.), p. 66. [183] It occurs (e.g.) in the Hexaplaric Syriac at 2 Kings xvi. 2. [184] Cf. the practice of Aquila (Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings acc. to Aquila, p. 14). [185] Ep. ad Sunn. et Fret. [186] See Driver, Samuel, p. xlvi.: "he assumed that the original Septuagint was that which agreed most closely with the Hebrew text as he knew it . . . a step in the wrong direction." [187] A combination of the asterisk and obelus; see below, p. 71. [188] E.g. at Exod. vi. 16, Gerson was substituted by Origen for Gedson. Whether his practice in this respect was uniform has not been definitely ascertained. [189] Hieron. Praef. ad Chron.: "quod maioris audaciae est, in editione LXX. Theodotionis editionem miscuit, asteriscis designans quae minus ante fuerant, et virgulis quae ex superfluo videbantur apposita." The Book of Job offered the largest field for interpolation: a scholion in cod. 161 says, Iob stichoi, ach' choris asteriskon, meta de ton asteriskon ,bs'. [190] See a complete list of these in Gardthausen, Griech. Paläographie, p. 288 f. [191] On an exceptional case in which he obelised words which stood in the Hebrew text, see Cornill, Ezechiel, p. 386 (on xxxii. 17). [192] A somewhat different view of Origen's practice is suggested by H. Lietzmann (Gött. gel. Anz. 1902, 5) and G. Mercati (Atti d. R. Acc. d. Sci. di Torino, 10 Apr. 1896: vol. 31, p. 656 ff. [193] This sometimes becomes a hook . [194] Prolegg. p. lix. sq. [195] Lietzmann proposes to read: Euagriou scholia eisin, hosa . . . arithmon, Or. de, hosa Origenen k.t.l. [196] The vertical bars denote, of course, the length of the lines of Cod. G. The lines of the LXX. column of the Hexapla, if we may judge by the specimen (p. 62 f.), varied in length according to the sense. [197] See the confused and inexact statement of Epiphanius, de mens. et pond. 18. [198] See Birt, das antike Buchwesen, pp. 100, 107 ff. [199] If the Hexapla was written in lines consisting of only one word like the Cairo palimpsest, this estimate is far too low; see Nestle in Hastings, D. B iv. p. 443. [200] See also the note at the end of the Scholia on Proverbs printed in the Notitia l. c.: metelephthesan aph' hon heuromen hexaplon, kai palin autocheiri Pamphilos kai Eusebios diorthosanto. [201] = Hpaul, Gregory, p. 449, Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 183 f. [202] See G. A. Smith, Hist. Geogr. of Palestine, p. 143 f. [203] Hieron. praef. in Jos.: "et sumptu et labore maximo indigent." [204] Ep. ad Sunn. et Fret. 2. [205] Adv. Rufin. ii. 27. [206] Identified by some with an Antoninus martyred three months before Pamphilus (Lake). [207] On antiballein and diorthousthai, see Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 55. [208] Jerome says indeed (ep. ad Aug. ii.): "quod si feceris (i.e. if you refuse Origen's recension) omnino ecclesiae bibliothecas damnare cogeris; vix enim onus vel alter inveniatur liber qui ista non habeat." But he is drawing a hasty inference from experiences gathered in Palestine. [209] See c. v. [210] Jerome speaks elsewhere (in Esa. lviii. 11) of "exemplaria Alexandrina." [211] Fabricius-Harles, vii. p. 547 (cf. vi. p. 205). [212] This is however mere conjecture; see Harnack-Preuschen, i. p. 442: "dass dieser Hesychius . . . identisch ist mit dem etwa gleichzeitigen Bibelkritiker gleichen Namens, ist nicht zu erweisen." [213] Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, p. 66 ff., the Hesychian group in Ezekiel is bs' klmphps, i.e. codd. 49, 68, 87, 90, 91, 228, 238 (Parsons). See also Ceriani in Rendiconti (Feb. 18, 1886). [214] For the Octateuch Mr McLean (J. Th. St. ii. 306) quotes as Hesychian or Egyptian MSS. H.-P. 44, 74, 76, 84, 106, 134, &c. [215] Cf. the scholion in cod. M at 3 Regn. iii. 46 enteuthen diaphoros echei ta anatolika biblia. The Lucianic text was also known as the ekklesiastike ekdosis (Oeconomus, iv. 548). [216] Oeconomus refuses to identify this person with the martyr and saint (iv. p. 498 n.). [217] Introduction to the N. T. in Greek, p. 138; c., the Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the N. T., p. 29. [218] Introduction, p. 134 f. [219] Cf. F. C. Burkitt, Old Latin and Itala, p. 91, "Lucian's recession in fact corresponds in a way to the Antiochian text of the N. T. Both are texts composed out of ancient elements welded together and polished down." [220] Prolegg. p: lxxxiv. f. [221] See c. v. [222] Cf. his Prolegomena to Librorum V T. Canon. Pars prior graece (Gotting. 1883), p. xiv. [223] Or, as he denotes them, h, f, m, d, p. [224] A Hexaplaric reading due to Aquila; see Field ad loc. [225] Notes on the Heb. text of the Books of Samuel, p. li. f. [226] Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 324. [227] Newman, Arians, p. 6 f.; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 31 n. [228] Hort, Introd. p. 143. [229] On Lucian's work see the art. Lucianic Recension of the LXX. in Ch. Q. R. (Jan. 1901); E. Hautsch, Der Lukiantext des Oktateuch (in Mitteilungen des Septuaginta Unternehmens, Heft i., Berlin, 1910. [230] Praef. in Paralipp. [231] Cf. Hort, Introd. p. 142. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER IV. ANCIENT VERSIONS BASED UPON THE SEPTUAGINT. THE Christian Churches of Greek-speaking countries throughout the Empire read the Old Testament in the Alexandrian Version. Few of the provinces were wholly non-Hellenic; Greek was spoken not only in Egypt and Cyrenaica, in Western Syria, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia, but to a great extent in the West, in Italy and at Rome. Roman satirists of the first century complained that the capital had become a Greek city; the upper classes acquired Greek; the freedmen and slaves in many cases spoke it as their mother tongue [232] . Official letters addressed to the Roman Church or proceeding from her during the first two centuries were written in Greek; only three or at the most four of the Bishops of Rome during the same period bear Latin names [233] . In Gaul the Greek tongue had spread up the valley of the Rhone from Marseilles to Vienne and Lyons; the Viennese confessors of A.D. 177 used it in their correspondence both with the Roman Bishops and with their brethren in Asia Minor; the Bishop of Lyons wrote in the same language his great work against the false gnosis of the age. The Old Testament as known to Clement of Rome and Irenaeus of Lyons is substantially the Greek version of the Seventy. To the Church of North Africa, on the other hand, the Greek Bible was a sealed book; for Carthage, colonised from Rome before the capital had been flooded by Greek residents, retained the Latin tongue as the language of common life. It was at Carthage, probably, that the earliest daughter-version of the Septuagint, the Old Latin Bible, first saw the light [234] ; certainly it is there that the oldest form of the Old Latin Bible first meets us in the writings of Cyprian. Other versions followed as the result of missionary enterprise; and to this latter source we owe the translations of the Old Testament which were made between the second century and the ninth into Egyptian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonic. All these versions rest either wholly or in part upon the Septuagint, and therefore possess a special interest for the student of the Greek Bible. One other group has a claim upon his consideration. The earliest of the Syriac versions of the Old Testament is on the whole a translation from the Hebrew, but it shews the influence of the Septuagint in certain books. The rest, which belong to post-Nicene times, are based directly upon the Alexandrian Greek, and one of them forms the most important of extant witnesses to the text of the Hexaplaric recension. 1. LATIN VERSIONS FROM THE SEPTUAGINT. (1) The Latin Bible before Jerome. With the exception of Jerome himself, our earliest authority upon the origin of the Old Latin Bible is Augustine of Hippo, and it may be well to begin by collecting his statements upon the subject. Aug. de civ. Dei xviii. 43 ex hac LXX. interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam interpretatum est quod ecclesiae Latinae tenent. De doctr. Christ. ii. 16 [after a reference to the "Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas"] "qui enim scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini interpretes nullo modo; ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur ausus est interpretari." Ib. 22: "in ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala ceteris praeferatur." Ep. ii. 82 (ad Hieronymum): "ideo autem desidero interpretationem tuam de LXX. ut . . . tanta Latinorum interpretum qui qualescunque hoc ausi sunt quantum possumus imperitia careamus." This is African testimony, but it belongs to the end of the fourth century, and needs to be verified before it can be unhesitatingly received. Many of the discrepancies to which Augustine refers may be due to the carelessness or officiousness of correctors or transcribers; if, as Jerome tells us, there were towards the end of the fourth century as many types of text as there were MSS. of the Latin Bible ("tot exemplaria quot codices"), it is clearly out of the question to ascribe each of these to a separate translator. A few specimens, taken from Cyprian and extant MSS. of the O. L., will enable the student to form some idea of the extent to which these differences are found in extant texts [235] . Genesis xlviii. 17 f. CYPRIAN testimonia i. 21 [236] . LYONS MS. ^17 ubi vidit autem Ioseph quoniam superposuit pater suus manum dexteram super caput Effraim, grave illi visum est, et adprehendit Ioseph manum patris sui auferre eam a capite Effraim ad caput Manasse. ^18 dixit autem Ioseph ad patrem suum Non sic, pater; hic est primitivus meus; superpone dexteram tuam super caput suum. ^17 videns autem Ioseph quod misisset pater ipsius dexteram suam super caput Ephrem, grave ei visum est, et adprehendit Ioseph manum patris sui ut auferret eam a capite Ephrem super caput Manassis. ^18 dixit autem Ioseph patri suo Non sicut, pater; hic enim primitivus est; impone dextram tuam super caput huius. Exod. xxxii. 21-- 24. LYONS MS WÜRZBURG FRAGMENTS. MUNICH FRAGMENTS. ^21 et dixit Moyses ad Aron Qid fecit tibi populus hic quia induxisti super eos peccatum magnum? ^22 et dixit Aron ad Moysen Noli irasci, domine; to enim scis impetum populi huius. ^23 dixerunt enim mihi Fac nobis deos qui praeeant nos; nam Moyses hic homo qui eduxit nos de Aegypto, nescimus quid factum sit ei. ^24 et dixi eis Quicunque habet aurum demat sibi. et dederunt mihi, et misi illud in ignem, et exiit vitulus. ^21 et dixit Moyses ad Aron Quid fecit populus hic quia induxisti super eos peccatum magnum? ^22 et dixit Aron ad Moysen Noli irasci, domine; to enim scis impetum populi huius. ^23 dixerunt enim mihi Fac nobis deos qui praecedant nos; nam Moyses hic homo qui eduxit nos ex terra Aegypti, nescimus quid factum sit ei. ^24 et dixi illis Quicunque habet aurum, demat; et dempserunt [237] , et dederunt mihi, et misi illud in ignem, et exiit vitulus. ^21 et dixit Moyses ad Aron Quid fecit tibi populus hic quoniam immisisti eis delictum maximum? ^22 et dixit Aron ad Moysen Ne irascaris, domine; to enim scis populi huius impetum. ^23 dixerunt enim mihi Fac nobis deos qui praecedant nos; Moyses enim hic homo qui nos eiecit de terra Aegypti, nescimus quid acciderit ei. ^24 et dixi eis Si qui habet aurum . . . . . . . . [238] tollat ad me; et dederunt mihi, et proieci in ignem, et exivit vitulus. Leviticus iv. 27-- 29. LYONS MS WÜRZBURG FRAGMENTS. ^27 si autem anima deliquerit inprudenter de populo terrae in faciendo vel unum ex omnibus praeceptis Dei quod non faciet, et neglexerit, ^28 et cognitum ei fuerit delictum in quo deliquit [239] in eo, et adferet [240] primitivum de ovibus feminum immaculatum quod deliquit; ^29 et imponet manum supra caput eius et occident primitivum delicti in loco in quo occidunt holocausta. ^27 si autem anima una deliquerit invita de populo in terra eo quod fecit unum ab omnibus praeceptis Domini, quod fieri non debet, et neglexerit, ^28 et cognitum fuerit peccatum eius quod peccavit in ipso, et adferet hedillam de capris feminam sine vitio propter delictum quod deliquit; ^29 et superponet manum super caput delicti sui et victimabunt hedillam quae est delicti in loco ubi victimabunt holocausta. Micah v. 2. CYPRIAN, testimonia ii. 12. WEINGARTEN FRAGMENTS. et tu, Bethleem, domus illius Ephratha, num exigua es ut constituaris in milibus Iuda? ex to mihi procedet ut sit princeps apud Israel, et processiones eius a principio, a diebus saeculi.> et tu, Be[thleem,] domus [habita]tioni[s [241] Efra]ta, nu[mquid] mini[ma es] ut sis [in milibus] Iuda? [ex to mi]hi pro[diet qui] sit prin[ceps in] Istra[hel, et eg]ressus ip(sius ab] initi[o, ex diebus] saec[uli]. Isaiah xxix. 11, 18. CYPRIAN, testimonia i. 4. WÜRZBURG FRAGMENTS. ^11 et erunt vobis hi omnes sermones sicut sermones libri qui signatus est, quem si dederis homini scienti litteras ad legendum dicet Non possum legere, signatus est enim . . . ^12 sed in illa die audient surdi sermones libri, et qui in tenebris et qui in nebula sunt; oculi caecorum videbunt. ^11 et erunt verba haec omnia sicut verba libri huius signati, quem si dederint homini scienti litteras dicentes ex lege haec, et dicet Non possum legere, signatum est enim . . . ^12 et audient in die illa surdi verba libri, et qui in tenebris et qui in nebula; oculi caecorum videbunt. It is clearly unsafe to generalise from a few specimens, but the student will not fail to observe that the variations in these extracts may, perhaps without exception, be attributed either to the ordinary accidents of transcription or to the recensions of the original text. In the case of the New Testament Dr Hort [242] held that there was "some justification for the alternative view that Italy had an indigenous version of her own, not less original than the African," and where both types of text existed, he distinguished them by the designations 'African Latin' and 'European Latin,' applying the term 'Italian' [243] to later revisions of the European text. The classification of the Old Latin authorities for the O. T. is less advanced, and owing to the fragmentary character of most of the MSS. it is more difficult; but we may assume that it will proceed on the same general lines, and that the pre-Hieronymian types of text in the Old Testament as in the New will be found to be mainly two, i.e. the African, and the European, with a possible sub-division of the latter class [244] . In pursuing this enquiry use must be made not only of the surviving fragments of O. L. MSS., but of the numerous quotations of the Latin versions which occur in writings anterior to the final triumph of the Vulgate. As Dr Hort has pointed out [245] , certain of the Latin fathers "constitute a not less important province of Old Latin evidence than the extant MSS., not only furnishing landmarks for the investigation of the history of the version, but preserving numerous verses and passages in texts belonging to various ages and in various stages of modification." These patristic materials were collected with great care and fulness by Sabatier (Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae . . . opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier O. S. B., Reims, 1743, '49, Paris, 1751; vols. i. ii. contain the O. T.) ; but after the lapse of a century and a half his quotations can no longer be accepted without being compared with more recent editions of the Latin fathers [246] , and they often need to be supplemented from sources which were not at his command [247] . These researches are important to the student of the Septuagint in so far as they throw light on the condition of the Greek text in the second and third centuries after Christ. The Latin translation of the Old Testament which is largely quoted by Cyprian was probably made in the second century, and certainly represents the text of MSS. earlier than the time of Origen. What Mr Burkitt has pointed out [248] in reference to the prophetic books is doubtless true in general; "no . . . passage [to which the asterisk is prefixed in Hexaplaric MSS. is found in any form of the African Latin." Thus, as he remarks, "the Old Latin brings us the best independent proof we have that the Hexaplar signs introduced by Origen can be relied on for the reconstruction of the LXX." Again, M. Berger [249] has called attention to the prominence of Lucianic readings in certain Old Latin texts; and the fact that a Lucianic element is widely distributed in Old Latin MSS. and quotations has also been recognised by Vercellone [250] and Ceriani [251] . This element is found even in the African text [252] , and its occurrence there suggests that the Antiochian recension, though it was made at the beginning of the fourth century, has preserved ancient readings which existed also in the African copies of the LXX., though they found no place in our oldest codices. We proceed to give a list of the extant remains of the Old Latin Version of the LXX., and the editions in which they are accessible. OLD LATIN FRAGMENTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. i. PENTATEUCH. Cod. Lugdunensis, vi. (Ulysse Robert, Pentateuchi e Codice Lugdunensi versio Latina antiquissima, Paris, 1881; Librorurn Levitici et Numerorum versio antiqua Itala e cod. perantiquo in bibliotheca Ashburnhamiensi conservato, London, 1868; Delisle, Découverte d'une très ancienne version latine de deux livres de la Bible in the Journal des Savants, Nov. 1895, p. 702 ff.; U. Robert, Heptateuchi partis post. versio Lat. antiquissima e cod. Lugd., Lyons, 1900 [253] . Containing Gen. xvi. 9-- xvii. 18, xix. 5-- 29, xxvi. 33-- xxxiii. 15, xxxvii. 7-- xxxviii. 22, xlii. 36-- l. 26; Exod. i. 1-- vii. 19, xxi. 9-- 36, xxv. 25-- xxvi. 13, xxvii. 6-- xl. 32; Leviticus [254] i. 1-- xviii. 30, xxv. 16-- xxvii. 34; Numbers [255] ; Deuteronomy [256] . Fragmenta Wirceburgensia palimpsesta, ? vi. (E. Ranke, Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium [257] , Vienna, 1871). Containing Gen. xxxvi. 2-- 7, 14-- 24, xl. 12-- 20, xli. 4-- 5; Exod. xxii. 7-- 28, xxv. 30-- xxvi. 12, xxxii. 15-- 33, xxxiii. 13-- 27, xxxv. 13-- xxxvi. 1, xxxix. 2-- xl. 30; Lev. iv. 23-- vi. 1, vii. 2, 11, 16-- 17, 22-- 27, viii. 1-- 3, 6-- 13, xi. 7-- 9, 12-- 15, 22-- 25, 27-- 47, xvii. 14-- xviii. 21, xix. 31-- xx. 3, xx. 12, 20-- xxi. 2, xxii. 19-- 29; Deut. xxviii. 42-- 53, xxxi. 11-- 26. Fragmenta Monacensia, v.-- vi. (L. Ziegler, Bruchstücke einer vorhieronymianischen Übersetzung des Pentateuchs, Munich, 1883). Containing Exod. ix. 15-- x. 24, xii. 28-- xiv. 4, xvi. 10-- xx. 5, xxxi. 15-- xxxiii. 7, xxxvi. 13-- xl. 32; Lev. iii. 17-- iv. 25, xi. 12-- xiii. 6, xiv. 17-- xv. 10, xviii. 18-- xx. 3; Num. iii. 34-- iv. 8, iv. 31-- v. 8, vii. 37-- 73, xi. 20-- xii. 14, xxix. 6-- xxx. 3, xxxi. 14-- xxxv. 6, xxxvi. 4-- 13; Deut. viii. 19-- x. 12, xxii. 7-- xxiii. 4, xxviii. 1-- 31, xxx. 16-- xxxii. 29. Lectiones ap. Cod. Ottobonian., viii. (C. Vercellone, variae lectiones, Rome, 1860, i. p. 183 ff.). Containing Gen. xxxvii. 27-- 35, xxxviii. 6-- 14, xli. 1-- 4, 14-- 20, xlvi. 15-- 20, xlviii. 13, 20-- 22, xlix. 11-- 32, l. 1-- 25; Exod. x. 13-- 14, xi. 7-- 10, xvi. 16-- 36, xvii. 1-- 10, xxiii. 12-- 30, xxiv. 1-- 18, xxv. 1-- 37, xxvi. 1-- 27, xxvii. 1-- 5. Fragmenta Philonea (F. C. Conybeare, in Expositor IV. iv. p. 63 ff.). Consisting of Gen. xxv. 20-- xxviii. 8 in a Latin version of Philo, quaest. Fragmenta Vindobonensia (J. Belsheim, Palimpsestus Vindob., 1885). Containing Gen. xii. 17-- xiii. 14, xv. 2-- 12. ii. HISTORICAL BOOKS. Joshua, Judges i. 1-- x. 31. Cod. Lugdunensis (in the portion published by Robert in 1900). Ruth. Cod. Complutensis, ix., Madrid, Univ. Libr. (S. Berger in Notices et Extraits, xxxiv. 2, p. 119 ff.). 1-- 4 Regn. Fragments of Corbie and St Germain MSS. (Sabatier); fragments from a Verona MS. and a Vatican MS. in Bianchini (Vindiciae, p. cccxli. ff.), from a Vienna MS. in Haupt's vet. antehieron. vers. fragmenta Vindobonensia, 1877, from an Einsiedeln MS. in Notices at Extraits xxxiv. 2, p. 127 ff., and from leaves found at Magdeburg and Quedlinburg [258] printed by W. Schum, 1876, Weissbrodt, 1887, and A. Düning, 1888. Fragments of 2 Regn. at Vienna published by J. Haupt, 1877. A Vienna palimpsest containing considerable fragments of 1-- 2 Regn. (J. Belsheim, Palimpsestus Vind., 1885). Readings from the margin of Cod. Goth. Legionensis [259] printed by C. Vercellone, ii. p. 179 ff.; cf. Archiv, viii. 2. (The Verona and Vatican fragments should perhaps be classed as Vulgate.) 1 Esdras. An O. L. text is to be found in the Paris MS. Bibl. Nat. lat. 111, the Madrid MS. E. R. 8, and another in a Lucca MS. ap. Lagarde, Septuagintastudien, 1892. Judith, Tobit. Cod. Complutensis. Cod. Goth. Legionensis. Cod. Vatic. regin. (Bianchini, Vindiciae, p. cccl. f.; Tobit only). O. L. texts are also to be found in the Paris MSS. Bibl. Nat. lat. 6, 93, 161 (Tobit), 11505, 11549 (Judith), 11553, in the Munich MS. 6239, the Milan MS. Amb. E 26 infr. (Tobit), and the Oxford MS. Bodl. auct. E. infr. 2 (Judith). See Notices et Extraits xxxiv. 2, p. 142 ff. Of these texts some were printed by Sabatier, and Munich 6239 is in Belsheim's Libr. Tobiae, &c. (1893). Esther. Cod. Pechianus (Sabatier). Cod. Vallicellanus (Bianchini, Vindiciae, p. ccxciv. ff.). Cod. Complutensis (see above under Ruth). An O. L. text of Esther is found also in the Paris MS. Bibl. Nat. lat. 11549 (= Corb. 7), the Lyons MS. 356, the Munich MSS. 6225, 6239, the Monte Casino MS. 35 (Biblioth. Casin. i., 1873), the Milan MS. Amb. E. 26 infr. (see S. Berger op. cit.). 1, 2 Maccabees. O. L. texts are to be found in the Paris MS. Bibl. Nat. lat. 11553 (Sabatier) and the Milan MS. Amb. E. 26 inf. (A. Peyron, Cic. fragmm. i. 70 ff: (1824). (See Berger, op. cit.) iii. POETICAL BOOKS. Psalms. Cod. Veronensis (in Bianchini). Cod. Sangermanensis (in Sabatier). A Reichenau palimpsest described by Mone, l. u. gr. Messen, p. 40. Fragments of the odai edited by F. F. Fleck (Leipzig, 1837), and L. F. Hamann (Jena, 1874). Job. Fragment. Floriacense (Sabatier). Containing c. xl. 3-- 9. Readings from the margin of Cod. Goth. Legionensis (Notices et Extraits, p. 111 ff.). Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. Readings in a St Gallen MS., see Notices et Extraits, p. 137 ff. Fragments published by Sabatier, Vogel, Mone, Berger (Hastings' D. B. iii. p. 50). Wisdom, Sirach. See Lagarde, Mittheilungen i. (Göttingen, 1884). C. Donais, Une ancienne Version latine de l'Ecclésiastique (Paris, 1895). iv. PROPHETS. Fragmenta Wirceburgensia, vi. (?) (E. Ranke, Par palimp. Wirceb. p. 49 sqq.). Containing Hos. i. 1-- ii. 13, iv. 13-- vii. 1; Jon. iii. 10-- iv. 11; Isa. xxix. 1-- xxx. 6, xlv. 20-- xlvi. 11; Jer. xii. 12-- xiii. 12, xiv. 15-- xvii. 1O, xviii. 16-- xxiii. 39, xxxv. 15-- 19, xxxvi. 2-- xxxvii. 11, xxxviii. 23-- xl. 5, xli. 1-- 17; Lam. ii. 16-- iii. 40; Ezek. xxiv. 4-- 21, xxvi. 10-- xxvii. 4, xxxiv. 16-- xxxv. 5, xxxvii. 19-- 28, xxxviii. 8-- 20, xl. 3-- xlii. 18, xlv. 1-- xlvi. 9, xlviii. 28-- 35; Dan. i. 2-- ii. 9, iii. 15-- (26), viii. 5-- ix. 10, x. 3-- xi. 4, 20-- 42, and Bel. Fragmenta Fuldensia, v. (E. Ranke, Fragm. versionis ante-Hieronymianae, Marburg, 1868). Containing Hos. vii. 6-- ix. 1, Amos viii. 1-- ix. 1, ix., 5-- 9, Mic. ii. 3-- iii. 3. Fragmenta Weingartensia, v. (E. Ranke, Fragm. v. ante-H., Vienna, 1868; P. Corssen, Zwei neue Fragmente d. Weingartener Prophetenhandschrift, Berlin, 1899). Containing Hos. iv. 13 f., v. 5, 7, vii. 16, viii. 1-- 6, 13 f., ix. 1-- 17, xii. 3, 7, 9, 12, xiii. 1, 3-- xiv. 2; Amos v. 24-- vi. 8; Mic. i. 5-- iii. 3, iv. 3-- vii. 20; Joel i. 1-- 14, ii. 3-- 5, iv. 2-- 4, 15-- 17; Jon. i. 14-- iv. 8; Ezek. xvi. 52-- xvii. 6, 19-- xviii. 9, xxiv. 25-- xxv. 14, xxvi. 10-- xxvii. 7, 17-- 19, xxviii. 1-- 17, xxxiii. 7-- 11, xlii. 5, 6, 14, xliii. 22-- xliv. 5, 19-- xlv. 2, xlvi. 9-- 23, xlvii. 2-- 15, xlviii. 22-- 30; Dan. ii. 18-- 33, ix. 25-- x. 11, xi. 18-- 23. Fragmenta Stutgardiana (E. Ranke, Antiquissima V. T. versionis Latinae fragmenta, Marburg, 1888). Containing Amos vii. 13-- viii. 10; Ezek. xviii. 9-- 17, xx. 18-- 21, xxvii. 7-- 17, xxxiii. 26-- 30, xxxiv. 6-- 12; Dan. xi. 35-- 39. Fragmenta monast. S. Pauli Carinthiaci (A. Vogel, Beiträge zur Herstellung der A. L. Bibelübersetzung, Vienna, 1868). Containing Ezek. xlii. 5, 6, 14, xliv. 19-- xlv. 2, xlvi. 9-- 23, xlvii. 2-- 15. Fragmenta palimpsesta Vaticana (F. Gustafsson, Fragmenta V. T. in Latinum conversi a palimpsesto Vaticano eruta, Helsingfors, 1881) [260] . Containing Hosea iv. 6, 7; Joel ii. 5-- 7; Amos v. 16-- 18, vii. 2-- 7, ix. 5-- 8; Jon. iii. 7-- iv. 2; Hab. i. 16-- ii. 3; Zeph. iii. 13-- 20; Zech. vii. 11-- 14, viii. 16-- 21. Fragmenta palimpsesta Sangallensia (F. C. Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, Camb. 1896). Containing Jer. xvii. 1-- 17, xxix. 13-- 19. Codex Vallicellanus B. vii. (Bianchini, Vindiciae, p. ccxiii.). Containing Baruch. O. L. texts of Baruch are also to be found in the Paris MSS. Bibl. Nat. lat. 11, 161, 11951, and Arsenal 65, 70; and in the Monte Casino MS. 35, and the Reims MS. 1. Copious extracts from most of the books of the O. L. Bible are given in the anonymous Liber de divinis scripturis sive Speculum, wrongly attributed to St Augustine (ed. F. Weihrich in the Vienna Corpus, vol. xii.). Two other patristic collections of O. L. excerpts may also be mentioned here--the Testimonia of St Cyprian (ed. Hartel, Corpus, vol. iii. 1), and the liber regularum Tyconii (ed. F. C. Burkitt, in Texts and Studies, iii. 1). See also the Collatio Carthaginiensis printed in Dupin's Optatus (Paris, 1700), p. 379 ff. (2) Latin versions of the LXX. revised or taken over by Jerome. The great Pannonian scholar, Eusebius Hieronymus (A.D. 329-- 420), began his "useful labours [261] " upon the Old Testament at Rome about the year 383, probably (as in the case of his revision of the Gospels) at the suggestion of the Roman Bishop Damasus ( 384). His first attempt was limited to a revision of the Latin Psalter and conducted on lines which afterwards seemed to him inadequate. A few years later--but before 390-- 1, when he began to translate from the Hebrew--a fresh revision of the Psalter from the LXX. was undertaken at the desire of Paula and Eustochium; its immediate purpose was to remove errors which had already found their way into the copies of the earlier work, but the opportunity was seized of remodelling the Latin Psalter after the example of the Hexapla. Praef. in libr. Psalmorum: "psalterium Romae dudum positum emendaram et iuxta LXX. interpretes, licet cursim, magna illud ex parte correxeram. quod quia rursum videtis, o Paula et Eustochium, scriptorum vitio depravatum, plusque antiquum errorem quam novam emendationem valere, cogitis ut . . . renascentes spinas eradicem. . . . . notet sibi unusquisque vel iacentem lineam vel signa radiantia, id est vel obelos ( ) vel asteriscos ( ); et ubicunque viderit virgulam praecedentem ( ), ab ea usque ad duo puncta (:) quae impressimus, sciat in LXX. translatoribus plus haberi; ubi autem stellae ( ) similitudinem perspexerit, de Hebraeis voluminibus additum noverit aeque usque ad duo puncta, iuxta Theodotionis dumtaxat editionem qui simplicitate sermonis a LXX. interpretibus non discordat." These two revised Latin Psalters were afterwards known as Psalterium Romanum and Psalterium Gallicanum respectively. Both recensions established themselves in the use of the Latin Church [262] , the former in the cursus psallendi, the latter in the bibliotheca or Church Bible. At length Pius V. ( 1572) ordered the Gallican Psalter to be sung in the daily offices, an exception being made in favour of St Peter's at Rome, St Mark's at Venice, and the churches of the Archdiocese of Milan, which retained the 'Roman' Psalter [263] . In MSS. of the Vulgate a triple Psalter not infrequently appears, shewing Jerome's two Septuagintal revisions side by side with the Psalterium Hebraicum, his later translation from the Hebrew; but the 'Hebrew' Psalter never succeeded in displacing the Hieronymian revisions of the Old Latin, and the Latin Church still sings and reads a version of the Psalms which is based on the Septuagint. The liturgical Psalter of the Anglican Church "followeth . . . the Translation of the Great English Bible, set forth and used in the time of King Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth"; i.e. it is based on Coverdale's version, which was "translated out of Douche and Latyn into Englishe"; and many of its peculiarities may be traced to the LXX. through the Gallican Psalter incorporated in the Vulgate [264] . The following specimen (Ps. lxvii=lxviii. 12-14, 18-22) will enable the reader to form an idea of the relation between Jerome's two revisions of the Old Latin and his 'Hebrew' [265] Psalter. ROMAN. GALLICAN. HEBREW. ^12Dominus dabit verbum evangelizantibus virtute multa; ^13rex virtutum dilecti, et speciei domus dividere spolia. ^14si dormiatis in medios cleros, pennae columbae deargentatae, et posteriora dorsi eius in specie auri. [diapsalma]......^18currus Dei decem milium multiplex, milia laetantium. Dominus ^12Dominus dabit verbum evangelizantibus virtute multa; ^13rex virtutum dilecti: et speciei domus dividere spolia. ^14si dormiatis inter medios cleros pennae columbae deargentatae et posteriora dorsi eius in pallore auri, diapsalma.........^18currus Dei decem milibus multiplex, milia laetantium: ^12Domine, dabis sermonem adnuntiatricibus fortitudinis plurimae, ^13reges exercituum foederabuntur, foederabuntur et pulcritudo domus dividet spolia. ^14si dormieritis inter medios terminos, pennae columbae deargentatae et posteriora eius in virore auri.......^18currus Dei innumerabiles, milia in illis in Sina in sancto. ^19ascendensin altum captivam duxit captivitatem, dedit dons hominibus. etenim non credunt inhabitare. ^20Dominus Deus benedictus; benedictus Dominus de die in diem. , prosperum iter faclet nobis Deus salutaris poster. diapsalma. ^21Deus noster deus salvos faciendi, et Domini exitus mortis. ^22verumtamen Deus conquassabit capita inimicoruril suorum, verticem capilli perambulantium in delictis suis. Dominus in eis in: Sina in sancto. ^19ascendisti in altum: cepisti captivitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus. etenim non credentes inhabitare Dominum Deum. ^20benedictus Dominus die quotidie; prosperum iter faciet nobis Deus salutarium nostrorum. disapsalma. ^21Deus noster, Deus salvos faciendi: et Domini Domini: exitus mortis. ^22verumtamen Deus confringet capita inimicorum suorum, verticem capilli perambulantium in delictis suis. abundantium; Dominus in eis in Sina, in sancto. ^19ascendisti in excelsum, captivam duxisti captivitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus; insuper et non credentes habitare Dominum Deum. ^20benedictus Dominus per singulos dies; portabit nos Deus salutis nostrae. semper. ^21Deus noster deus salutis, et Domini Dei mortis egressus. ^22verumtamen Deus confringet capita inimicorum suorum, verticem crinis ambulantis in delictis suis. The book of Job offered a still more promising field for the labours of the Hexaplarising reviser, for the Greek text as known to Origen fell greatly short of the current Hebrew, and it was this defective text which formed the basis of the Latin versions used by Cyprian and Lucifer and in the Speculum [266] . Jerome, who had access to the Hexapla at Caesarea, took advantage of Origen's revision, in which the lacunae of the Greek job were filled up from Theodotion, and sent his friends, Paula and Eustochium, a Latin version of Job at once corrected and supplemented from the Hexaplaric LXX. The result gave him for the time profound satisfaction; he had lifted up job from the dunghill [267] , and restored him to his pristine state [268] ; the difference between the Old Latin version and the new seemed to him to be nothing short of that which separate falsehood from truth [269] . The asterisks shewed that from 700 to 800 lines had been restored to this long mutilated book [270] . A few brief specimens from Lagarde's text [271] will suffice to shew the character of the work. x. 4. aut sicut homo perspicit, perspicis? aut sicut videt homo, videbis? aut humana est vita tua? aut anni tui sunt tanquam dies hominis? xix. 17 et rogabam uxorem meam invocabam blandiens filios uteri mei ; at illi in perpetuum despexerunt me; cum surrexero, locuntur ad me. xlii. 7 et defunctus est job senex plenus dierum. scriptum est autem resurrecturum cum his quos Dominus suscitabit. Jerome also revised from the Hexaplaric Septuagint, for the benefit of Paula and Eustochium, the 'books of Solomon' (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles), treating the Greek text after the manner of Origen; but his work has perished, the preface alone surviving. A like fate has overtaken a translation of Chronicles, undertaken at the desire of Domnio and Rogatianus. This version of Chronicles appears from the preface to have been influenced by Jerome's Hebrew studies, which were now sufficiently matured to enable him to form an independent judgement in reference to the merits of his Greek text, though he still clung to his old belief in the inspiration of the original Septuagint. Praef. in libros Salomonis: "tres libros Salomonis, id est, Proverbia, Ecclesiasten, Canticum canticorum, veteri LXX. auctoritati reddidi, vel antepositis lineis ( ) superflua quaeque designans, vel stellis ( ) titulo (?) praenotatis ea quae minus habebantur interserens . . . et ubi praepostero ordine atque perverso sententiarum fuerat lumen ereptum suis locis restituens feci intellegi quod latebat" Praef. in libr. Paralipomenon: "cum a me nuper litteris flagitassetis ut vobis librum Paralipomenon Latino sermone transferrem, de Tiberiade legis quondam doctorem qui apud Hebraeos admirationi habebatur assumpsi . . . et sic confirmatus ausus sum facere quod iubebatis. libere enim vobis loquor, ita et in Graecis et Latinis codicibus hic nominum liber vitiosus est ut non tam Hebraea quam barbara quaedam . . . arbitrandum sit. nec hoc LXX. interpretibus qui Spiritu sancto pleni ea quae vera fuerant transtulerunt, sed scriptorum culpae adscribendum. . . . ubicunque ergo asteriscos . . . videritis ibi sciatis de Hebraeo additum . . . ubi vero obelus, transversa scilicet virga, praeposita est, illic signatur quid LXx. interpretes addiderint." Whether Jerome dealt with the rest of the canonical books of the Old Latin in the same manner must remain an open question. No trace remains either of such revised versions or of prefaces which once belonged to them, nor does he refer to them in the prefaces of his translations from the Hebrew. On the other hand his letters occasionally speak of his revision of the Old Latin in terms which seem to imply that it was complete, and in one of them there is a passage which suggests that the disappearance of the other books was due to the dishonesty of some person whose name is not given. Adv. Rufin. ii. 24: "egone contra LXX. interpretes aliquid sum locutus quos ante annos plurimos diligentissime emendatos meae linguae studiosis dedi?" Ep. 71 (ad Lucinium): "LXX. editionem et te habere non dubito." Ep. 106 (ad Sunn. et Fret.): "editionem LXX. interpretum quae et in hexaplois codicibus reperitur et a nobis in Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est." Cf. Ep. Augustini ad Hieron. (116), (c. 405): "mittas obsecro interpretationem tuam de LXX. quam te edidisse nesciebam." At a later time (c. 416) Jerome excuses himself from doing as Augustine had desired, since "pleraque prioris laboris fraude cuiusdam amisimus" (Ep. 134). In any case Jerome's Hexaplarised version had little or no influence on the text of the Latin Bible, except in the Psalter. Even his translations from the Hebrew did not easily supersede the Old Latin. The familiar version died hard and, as the list of MSS. will have shewn, parts of it were copied as late as the seventh century. Even at Rome the old version long held its ground by the side of the new; in the last years of the sixth century, Gregory the Great, while basing his great commentary on Job upon the Vulgate, claimed a right to cite the Old Latin when it served his purpose, "quia sedes apostolica utrique nititur [272] ." The coexistence of the two versions naturally produced mixture in the MSS. [273] , which was not altogether removed by the revisions of the sixth and ninth centuries. Moreover, the Old Latin version continued to hold its place in those books of the Church Bible which had no Semitic original, or of which the Semitic original was no longer current. In the preface to the Salomonic Books Jerome says explicitly: "porro in eo libro qui a plerisque Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur et in Ecclesiastico . . . calamo temperavi, tantummodo canonicas scripturas vobis emendare desiderans." The books of Tobit and Judith [274] were afterwards translated by him from the Aramaic (praeff. in librum Tobiae, in librum Judith), and these versions have been incorporated in the Vulgate, but the Vulgate Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1, 2 Maccabees are supplied from ante-Hieronymian sources. Thus to this day a considerable part of the Latin Bible is in greater or less degree an echo of the Septuagint. LITERATURE. Besides the editions already mentioned the student may consult with advantage Eichhorn, Einleitung, i. 321; N. Wiseman, Essays, i. (London, 1853)--a reprint of his Two letters on some parts of the controversy concerning 1 Joh. v. 7; B. F. Westcott, art. Vulgate in Smith's D. B. iii.; H. Rönsch, Itala u. Vulgata (Marburg, 1869); F. Kaulen, Handbuch zur Vulgata (Mainz, 1870); Ziegler, Die lat. Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus (Munich, 1879); Lagarde, Probe einer neuen Ausgabe der lat. Übersetzungen des A. T. (1870); A. Ceriani, Le recensioni dei LXX e la versione latina detta Itala, 1886; L. Salembier, Une page inédite de l'histoire de la Vulgate, Amiens, 1890; Bleek-Wellhausen (1893), p. 553 ff.; Scrivener-Miller, ii, p. 191 ff.; Gregory, p. 949 ff.; F. C Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala, in Texts and Studies (Cambridge, 1896); E. Nestle, Urtext, pp. 84 ff. [especially valuable for the bibliography of the Latin versions]; H. A. A. Kennedy, The Old Latin Versions, in Hastings' D. B. iii. pp. 47-- 62; Corssen in Jahresb. f. d. class. Altertumswissensch (1899); Latin Versions of the O. T., art. in Ch. Q. R. (Apr. 1901); W. O. Oesterley in J. Th. Stud. v. vi. (text of Min. Proph.). 2. THE EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. The tradition of St Mark's episcopate at Alexandria [275] may be taken as evidence, so far as it goes, of the early planting of the Church in that city. The first converts were doubtless, as at Rome, Greek-speaking Jews, descendants of the old Jewish settlers [276] , and their Greek proselytes; and the first extension of the movement was probably amongst the Greek population of the towns on the sea-coast of the Mediterranean. As it spread to the interior, to the villages of the Delta, to Memphis, Oxyrhynchus, Panopolis, and eventually to Thebes, it encountered native Egyptians who spoke dialects of the Egyptian tongue [277] . How soon they were evangelised there is no direct evidence to shew, but the process may have begun shortly after the Gospel reached Alexandria. The native Church retained its own tongue, and in the fourth and fifth centuries Greek was still unknown to many of the monks and ecclesiastics of Egypt. Christianity however is probably responsible for either introducing or spreading the use of a new system of writing with characters which are chiefly of Greek origin [278] . This writing, known as Coptic--a corruption of Aiguptios--is found with some variations in all MS. fragments of the Egyptian versions of the Old and New Testaments. The analogy of the Old Latin would lead us to suppose (as Bp Lightfoot remarks [279] ) that no long interval passed between the acceptance of Christianity by any large number of native Egyptians, and the first attempts to translate the Scriptures into the Egyptian tongue. "We should probably not be exaggerating if we placed one or both of the principal Egyptian versions, the Bohairic and the Sahidic, or at least parts of them, before the close of the second century." The Bishop is writing with only the New Testament in view, but his argument applies equally to the Old. His view is on the whole supported by Dr Hort [280] , Ciasca [281] , and Mr A. C. Headlam [282] : but Mr Forbes Robinson, following Guidi, produces reasons for regarding it as 'not proven,' and prefers to say that "historical evidence . . . on the whole, points to the third century as the period when the first Coptic translation was made." "But this view," he adds, "can only be regarded as tentative. In the light of future discoveries it may have to be modified [283] ." The plurality of the Egyptian versions is well ascertained. Perhaps the geographical form of Egypt gave special opportunities for the growth of popular dialects; certain it is that increased knowledge of the language has added to the dialectic complications with which the Coptic scholar has to struggle [284] . It was in these popular dialects that the translations of the Bible were made. "Christianity . . . was in Egypt a great popular movement . . . the Scriptures were translated, not into the literary language, but into that of the people; and the copies of these translations in each locality reflected the local peculiarities of speech." Fragments of Biblical versions have been found in the Bohairic [285] , Sahidic, and Middle Egyptian dialects. The Bohairic dialect was spoken in Lower, the Sahidic in Upper, Egypt, and the Middle Egyptian in the intermediate province of Memphis. Some authorities speak of two other dialects, the Fayumic and Akhmimic, assigning to them certain Biblical fragments which are regarded by others as belonging to the Middle Egyptian. Translations of books of the Old Testament into these Egyptian dialects were naturally made from the Alexandrian Greek version, and, if we may judge from the extensive use of the Old Testament in early Christian teaching, there is no reason to doubt that they were translated at as early a date as the Gospels and Epistles, if not indeed before them. Portions of the Old Testament exist in each of the Egyptian dialects. Hyvernat mentions fragments of Isaiah, Lamentations and Ep. of Jeremiah in Fayumic and Middle Egyptian, and of Exodus, Sirach, 2 Macc., and each of the Minor Prophets in Akhmimic [286] ; in Bohairic he enumerates 6 MSS. of the Pentateuch, 14 of the Psalms, 5 of Proverbs, 3 of Job, 4 of the Minor Prophets, 5 of Isaiah, 3 of Jeremiah, 4 of Daniel, and one MS. of Ezekiel; in Sahidic, though few complete MSS. of any Biblical book have survived, there is a large number of extant fragments representing most of the canonical books and certain of the non-canonical (the two Wisdoms, the Ep. of Jeremiah, and the Greek additions to Daniel). The following list gives the more important publications which contain portions of the Old Testament in the Egyptian versions. BOHAIRIC. D. Wilkins, Quinque libri Moysis, 1731; Fallet, La version Cophte du pentateuque, 1854; Lagarde, Der Pentateuch koptisch, 1867; Bruchstücke der kopt. Übersetzungen des A. T. in Orientalia i. 1879. The Psalter has been edited by R. Tuki, 1744, J. L. Ideler, 1837, Schwartze, 1848, Lagarde, Psalterii versio Memphitica, Göttingen, 1875, F. Rossi, Cinque manoscritti &c., 1894; Job by H. Tattam, 1846; the Prophets by Tattam (Prophetae minores, 1836, Proph. maiores, 1852). SAHIDIC. Lagarde, Aegyptiaca, 1883; Ciasca, Sacr. bibl. fragm. Coptosahidica Musei Borgiani, 1885-- 9; Amélineau, Fragments coptes in Recueil v. (1884), and Fragments de la version thébaine, ib. vii.-- x. (1886-- 9); the same scholar has edited Job in Proceedings of the Soc. of Bibl. Arch., 1887; O. v. Lemm, Bruchstücke, 1885, Sahidische Bibelfragmente, 1890; Krall, Mittheilungen, 1887; F. Rossi, Papiri Copti, 1889, Un nuovo codice, 1893; Maspéro, Fragments de l'Ancien Testament in Mémoires publiés par les membres de la mission arch. française au Caire, vi., 1892; E. A. T. W. Budge, The earliest known Coptic Psalter, 1898 [287] ; Coptic Biblical Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt, 1912; N. Peters, Die sahidisch-koptische Übersetzung d. Buches Ecclesiasticus . . . untersucht, 1898; P. Lacau, Textes de l'A. T. en copte sahidique, 1901; Sir H. Thompson, The Coptic Version of certain books of the O. T., 1908; A Coptic Palimpsest, 1911. MIDDLE EGYPTIAN, &c. Tuki, Rudimenta linguae Coptae, 1778; Quatremère, Recherches sur la langue et la littérature de l'Egypte, 1808; Zoega, Catal. codd. Copt., 1810; Engelbreth, Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica V. et N. T., 1811; Von Lemm, Mittelägyptische Fragmente, 1885; Krall, Mittheilungen, 1887; Bouriant in Mémoires de l'Institut égyptien ii., 1889, and in Mémoires publiés par &c. vi. 1; Steindorff, die Apokalypse des Elias, p. 2 ff. (Leipzig, 1899). It may reasonably be expected that the Egyptian versions of the Old Testament; when they have been more fully recovered and submitted to examination by experts, will prove to be of much importance for the criticism of the text of the LXX. Ceriani [288] has shewn that the Greek text of Cod. Marchalianus agrees generally with that which underlies the Bohairic version of the Prophets, whilst both are in harmony with the text which is quoted by Cyril of Alexandria. A German scholar [289] , starting with the Bohairic Prophets, finds that their text is similar to that of the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Marchalianus, a series of cursive Greek MSS., some of which had been recognised by Cornill [290] as Hesychian (22, 23, 26, 36, 40, 42, 49, 51, 62, 86, 91, 95, 97, 106, 114, 130, 147, 153, 185, 228, 233, 238, 240, 310, 311), and the Greek columns of the Complutensian Polyglott. Of the Sahidic fragments, Job is perhaps "a translation of Origen's revised text, with the passages under asterisk omitted [291] ," whilst Isaiah is distinctly Hexaplaric, and traces of the influence of the Hexapla are also to be found in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Ezekiel, although in varying degrees. On the whole it is natural to expect the Hesychian recension to be specially reflected in Egyptian versions. But other influences may have been at work [292] , and much remains to be done before these versions can be securely used in the work of reconstructing the text of the Greek Old Testament [293] . LITERATURE. Quatremère, Recherches; Zoega, Catalogus; L. Stern, Koptische Grammatik, 1880; Kopten, Koptische Sprache u. Litteratur, 1886; Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 91 ff. (J. B. Lightfoot and A. C. Headlam); Gregory, prolegg., p. 859 ff.; J. P. P. Martin, Intr., partie théor., p. 310 ff.; H. Hyvernat, Étude sur les versions coptes de la Bible in Revue biblique, v. 3, 4, vi. 1; E. Nestle, Urtext, p. 144 ff.; W. E. Crum, Coptic Studies, 1897-- 8; Catalogue of Coptic MSS. in Brit. Museum, 1905; A. E. Brooke in J. Th. St. iii. 3. THE ETHIOPIC VERSION. Ethiopia is said to have been evangelised in the fourth century from Tyre. The Tyrian missionaries were probably of Greek speech [294] , and brought with them the Greek Bible. But apart from this, the contiguity of Ethiopia to Egypt, and the circumstance that the first Bishop of Auxume received consecration at Alexandria, create an a priori probability that any early translations from the Old Testament into Ethiopic were based upon the Septuagint, whether immediately or through the Coptic versions. Dillmann, who at one time had explained the numerous transliterations and other approaches to the Hebrew in the existing Ethiopic version by assuming that the translators worked upon a Hexaplaric text, ultimately found cause to classify the MSS. under three heads, (1) those which on the whole represent the text of the LXX. on which he supposed the version to have been based; (2) those of a later recension--the most numerous class--corrected by other MSS. of the LXX.; (3) those in which the original version has been revised from the Hebrew [295] . Lagarde, on the other hand, suggested that the version was translated from the Arabic, as late as the fourteenth century, and maintained that in any case the printed texts of the Ethiopic Old Testament depend upon MSS. which are too late and too bad to furnish a secure basis for the employment of this version in the reconstruction of the Septuagint [296] . "These suggestions are not however supported by a closer examination of the Ethiopic version of the Octateuch. The text as printed by Dillmann, and especially the readings of the oldest MS. he used, which is supported by a dated thirteenth century MS. brought from Abyssinia to Paris since his edition was published, betray direct descent from a Septuagint text of a somewhat interesting type, which had apparently undergone less Hebrew or hexaplar revision than the Greek ancestors of the Armenian and Syro-hexaplar versions. We are safe in concluding with Charles, 'It is unquestionable that our version was made in the main from the Greek [297] .'" The Ethiopic version of the Old Testament contains all the books of the Alexandrian canon except 1-- 4. Maccabees, together with certain apocrypha which are not found in MSS. of the LXX. (Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, 4 Esdras, &c.). A considerable part of it has appeared in print. Dillmann edited the Octateuch and the four books of Kingdoms (1853-- 71), and the deuterocanonical books (1894); the book of Joel appeared in Merx, Die Prophetie des Joels, the book of Jonah in W. Wright's Jonah in four Semitic versions (London, 1857). The Psalms were printed by Ludolf (1701), Rödiger (1815), Dorn (1825), and Jeremiah, Lamentations and Malachi by Bachmann (1893); Bachmann also edited the Dodecapropheton, and part of Isaiah. Lists of the MSS, may be seen in Wright, Ethiopic MSS. of the British Museum (London, 1878); Zotenberg, Catalogue des MSS. éthiopiens de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1877); D'Abbadie, Catalogue raisonné de MSS. éthiopiens (Paris, 1859); Dillmann, Catalogus MSS. Aethiop. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana (Oxford, 1848), and Abessinische Handschr. d. k. Biblioth. zu Berlin; Müller, Aethiofi. Handschr. der k. Hofbiblioth. in Wien (ZDMG. xvi. p. 554). For fuller information as to this Version see F. Prätorius, Urtext, p. 147 ff. 4. THE ARABIC VERSION. The Arabic Old Testament printed in the Paris and London Polyglotts is a composite work, the Hexateuch being a translation from the Hebrew, and the books of Judges, Ruth, 1 Regn. i.--2 Regn. xii. 17, Nehemiah i.--ix. 27, and Job from the Peshitta; the Septuagint has supplied the basis for the other poetical books and for the Prophets [298] . Some of the MSS. exhibit in certain books a translation which has come from the LXX. through the Coptic; the book of Job in this version has been published by Lagarde (Psalterium Job Proverbia arabice, Göttingen, 1876) [299] . The Arabic version directly derived from the LXX. is said to exhibit in the Prophets a text akin to that of Cod. A (Ryssel, in ZA W. 1885, p. 102 ff., 158). It shews traces of Hexaplaric influence (H. Hyvernat, in Vigouroux, D. B. i. p. 846). EDITIONS of Arabic versions of the Septuagint. Besides the Polyglotts (Paris, 1645; London, 1652), mention may be made of the Psalters published at Genoa, 1516; Rome, 1614 and 1619; Aleppo, 1706; London (S.P.C.K.), 1725. In W. Wright's Book of Jonah the Arabic is from a MS. in the Bodleian (see p. vii.). Cf. H. Hyvernat, op. cit. MSS. Lists of MSS. of the Arabic versions of the Old Testament will be found in the Preface to Holmes and Parsons, vol. i.; Slane's Catalogue des MSS. Arabes de la Bibl. nat.; Mrs M. D. Gibson's Studia Sinaitica, iii. (London, 1894), Catalogue of Arabic MSS. at Sinai (codd. 1-- 67). Cf. Hyvernat, op. cit. LITERATURE. Schnurrer, Bibliotheca Arabica, 1780; H. E. G. Paulus, Bodleiana specimina versionum Pent. Arab., 1789; Eichhorn, Einleitung, § 275 ff.; R. Holmes, Praef. ad Pent.; Rödiger, De origine et indole Arab. libr. V. T. interpretationis (Halle, 1829). Among more recent works reference may be made to Cornill, Ezechiel, p. 49 f.; Loisy, Hist. crit. I. ii. p. 238; Nestle in Urtext, p. 150 ff.; F. C. Burkitt, art. Arabic Versions, in Hastings' D. B. i. p. 136 ff.; H. Hyvernat, op. cit. 5. THE SYRIAC VERSIONS. According to Moses bar-Cephas ( 913), there are two Syriac versions of the Old Testament--the Peshitta, translated from the Hebrew in the time of King Abgar, and the version made from the Septuagint by Paul, Bishop of Tella. This statement is neither complete nor altogether to be trusted, but it may serve as a convenient point of departure for a summary of the subject. (1) The origin of the Peshitta is still as obscure as when Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote: hermeneutai de tauta eis men ten ton Suron par hotou depote, oude gar egnostai mechri tes temeron hostis pote houtos estin [300] . That the translation on the whole was made from the Hebrew is the verdict of modern scholars as it was that of Moses bar-Cephas. Yet certain books display the influence of the LXX. While "the Pentateuch follows the Hebrew text and the Jewish exegesis, Isaiah and the twelve Minor Prophets contain much which is from the LXX., and the influence of the Greek version appears to have been felt also in the Psalter [301] ." From the first the Peshitta seems to have included the non-canonical books of the Alexandrian Bible except 1 Esdras and Tobit, "and their diction agrees with that of the canonical books among which they are inserted [302] ." (2) The Syriac version ascribed to Paul, Bishop of Telladhe-Mauzelath (Constantine) in Mesopotamia, was a literal translation of the LXX. of the Hexapla, in which the Origenic signs were scrupulously retained. A note in one of the rolls of this version assigns it to the year 616-- 7; the work is said to have been produced at Alexandria under the auspices of Athanasius, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, who with five of his suffragans had gone thither to visit the Alexandrian Patriarch. Paul of Tella and Thomas of Harkel appear to have been of the party, and their visit in Alexandria led to the translation of the entire Greek Bible into Syriac, the New Testament having been undertaken by Thomas, while Paul worked upon the Old [303] . The version of Paul of Tella, usually called the Syro-Hexaplar, was first made known to Europe by Andreas Masius (Andrew Du Maes, 1573). In editing the Greek text of Joshua he used a Syriac MS. which contained part of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Judith, and part of Tobit, in this translation. The codex which he employed has disappeared, but the Ambrosian library at Milan possesses another, possibly a second volume of the lost MS., which contains the poetical and prophetic books, in the order Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, the two Wisdoms, the twelve Prophets, Jeremiah (with Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle), Daniel (with Susanna and Bel), Ezekiel, Isaiah. Portions of the historical books of the Syro-Hexaplar [304] have been discovered among the Nitrian MSS. of the British Museum, and a catena, also at the Museum, contains fragments of Chronicles and the books of Esdras, while the Paris Library contributes 4 Kingdoms. Norberg edited Jeremiah and Ezekiel in 1787; Daniel was published by Bugati in 1788 and the Psalms in 1820; Middeldorpf completed the prophetical and poetical books in his edition of 1835, and in 1861 Ceriani added Baruch, Lamentations, and the Ep. of Jeremiah. Of the historical books Judges and Ruth were published by Skat Rördam in 1861, and Genesis and Exodus (i.--xxxiii. 2) by Ceriani (Mon. sacr. et prof. ii.), who has also given to the world the Milan fragments in Mon. vol. vii. The Hexapla, Tetrapla, and occasionally the Heptapla, are mentioned as the sources of the text in the subscriptions to the books of the Syro-Hexaplar. These subscriptions were doubtless translated with the rest of the Greek archetypes, but they shew the character of the copies employed by the translators. The version is servile to such an extent as sometimes to violate the Syriac idiom [305] . It is obvious that this extreme fidelity to the Greek, while it must have hindered the use of the version in the Monophysite churches of Syria, is of vast advantage to the Biblical critic. It places in his hands an exact reflexion of the Hexaplaric LXX. as it was read at Alexandria at the beginning of the 7th century, derived ultimately from the Hexapla and Tetrapla through the recession of Eusebius. Thus it supplements our scanty stock of Greek Hexaplaric MSS., and indeed forms our chief authority for the text of Origen's revision. In the case of one of the canonical books the version of Paul of Tella renders even greater service. One of the Greek texts of Daniel--that which Origen regarded as the true Septuagintal text--has survived only in a single and relatively late MS. The Syro-Hexaplar here supplies another and earlier authority, which enables us to check the testimony of the Chigi Greek. (3) Other Syriac versions made from the Greek. (a) Fragments of a Syriac version in the Palestinian dialect have been printed by Land, Anecdota Syriaca, iv. (Leyden, 1875), J. R. Harris, Biblical Fragments from Mt Sinai (London, 1890), G. H. Gwilliam, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, I. v., ix. (Oxford, 1893-- 6), G. Margoliouth, Liturgy of the Nile (London, 1897), and Mrs Lewis, Studia Sinaitica, vi. (London, 1897) [306] . This version has been made from the LXX.; in the Books of Kings the text is now known not to be Lucianic, as it was at first supposed to be (Anecd. Oxon. ix. p. 32); in the Greater Prophets, it is in part at least Origenic (Studia Sinaitica, pp. xvi., lxiii.); Job seems to have contained the interpolations from Theodotion which are found in the extant Greek texts of that book [307] . The following is a complete list of the Palestinian fragments included in the publications mentioned above: Gen. i. 1-- iii.-- 24, vi. 9-- ix. 19, xviii. 1-- 5, 18-- xix. 30, xxii. 1-- 19; Ex. viii. 22^b-- xi. 10, xxviii. 1-- 12^a; Num. iv. 46 f., 49-- v. 2 f., 4, 6, 8; Deut. vi. 4-- 16, vii. 25-- 26^a, x. 12-- xi. 28, xii. 28-- xiv. 3; 2 Regn. ii. 19-- 22; 3 Regn. ii. 10^b-- 15^a, ix. 4-- 5^a; Pss. viii. 2 f., xxi. 2, 19, xxii. 1, 5, xxiv. 1 f., xxix. 2, 4, xxx. 2, 6, xxxiv. 1, 11, xxxvii. 2, 18, xl. 2, 5, 7, xliii. 12-- 27, xliv.-- xlvi., xlviii. 15 ff., xlix. 1-- 9, liv. 2, 22, lv. 7 ff., lvi. 1-- 7, lxiv. 2, 6, lxviii. 2, 3, 22, lxxvi. 2, 21, lxxvii. 52-- 65, lxxxi., lxxxii. 1-- 10, lxxxiv. 2, 8, lxxxv. 1, 15 f., lxxxvii. 2, 5-- 7, 18, lxxxix. 1-- xc. 12, xcvii. 1, 8 f., ci. 2 f.; Prov. i. 1-- 19, ix. 1-- 11; Job xvi. 1-- xvii. 16, xxi. 1-- 34, xxii. 3-- 12; Sap. ix. 8-- 11, 14-- x. 2; Amos ix. 5-- 14^a, viii. 9-- 12; Mic. v. 2-- 5; Joel i. 14-- ii. 27, iii. 9-- 21; Jonah; Zech. ix. 9-- 15, xi. 11^b-- 14; Isa. iii. 9^b-- 15, vii. 10-- 16, viii. 8-- xi. 16, xii. 1-- 6, xiv. 28-- 32, xv. 1-- 5, xxv. 1-- 3^a, xxxv. 1-- 10, xl. 1-- 17, xlii. 5-- 10, 17-- xliii. 21, xliv. 2-- 7, l. 4-- 9, lii. 13-- liii. 12, lx. 1-- 22, lxi. 1-- 11, lxiii. 1-- 7; Jer. xi. 18-- 20 [308] . (b) Mention is made [309] of a version of the Greek Old Testament attempted by the Nestorian Patriarch Mar Abbas (A.D. 552). But notwithstanding the declared preference of Theodore for the LXX., the Nestorians have always used the Peshitta, and there is no extant Nestorian version from the Greek. (c) Of Jacobite versions from the LXX. there were several. (1) Polycarp the chorepiscopus, who in the fifth century laboured upon a translation of the New Testament under the auspices of Philoxenus, the Monophysite Bishop of Mabug, is known to have rendered the Greek Psalter into Syriac. The margin of the Syro-Hexaplar [310] mentions a Philoxenian 'edition' of Isaiah, to which two fragments printed by Ceriani [311] from the British Museum MS. Add. 17106 are believed to belong. The text of these fragments agrees on the whole with that of the Lucianic MSS. of the Prophets. (2) Another Monophysite, Jacob of Edessa, applied himself in 704-- 5 to the revision of the Syriac Old Testament, using for the purpose the Hexaplaric LXX. [312] , and the fragments of the other Greek translations. Some books of this revised version exist in MS. at London and Paris [313] , and a few specimens have been printed [314] . (d) From Melito downwards the Greek fathers refer occasionally to the Greek renderings of an interpreter who is called ho Suros The student will find in Field's prolegomena a full and learned discussion of the question who this Syrian interpreter was. Field inclines to the opinion that he was a bilingual Syrian, of Greek origin, who translated into Greek from the Peshitta [315] . EDITIONS. PESHITTA. Lee, V. T. Syriace (London, 1823); O. and N. T., 1826. A complete Syriac Bible has recently been published by the Dominicans of Mosul (^(1)1887-- 91, ^(2)1888-- 92). SYRO-HEXAPLAR. A. Masius, Josuae-historia illustrata (1574); M. Norberg, Codex Syriaco-Hexaplaris (1787); C. Bugati, Daniel (1788), Psalmi (1820); H. Middledorpf, cod. Syrohexapl., lib. IV. Reg. e cod. Paris. Iesaias &c. e cod. Mediol. (1835): Skat Rördam, libri Iudicum et Ruth sec. Syro-hexapl. (1861); P. de Lagarde, V. T. ab Origene recensiti fragmenta ap. Syros servata v. (1880), and V. T. Graeci in sermonem Syrorum versi fragm. viii. (in his last work Bibliothecae Syriacae . . . quae ad philologiam sacram pertinent, 1892); G. Kerber, Syro-hexaplarische Fragmente (ZATW., 1896). Ceriani has published the contents of the London MS. in Monumenta sacra et profana, ii., and those of the Milan MS. in vol. vii. (1874) of the same series [316] . LITERATURE. G. Bickell, Conspectus rei Syrorum literariae (1871); Field, Hexapla, I. p. lxvii. sqq. (1875); W. Wright, Syriac literature in Encycl. Britannica, xxii. (1887); E. Nestle, Litteratura Syriaca (1888), and Urtext (1897), p. 227 ff.; Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 6 ff.; Gregory, p. 807 ff.; J. P. P. Martin, Introduction (p. théor.), p. 97 ff.; Loisy, Histoire critique I. ii. p. 234 f.; E. Nestle, Syriac Versions (in Hastings' D. B. iv. 6. THE GOTHIC VERSION. About the year 350 a translation of the Bible into the Gothic tongue was made by Ulfilas (Wulfila) [317] , the descendant of a Cappadocian captive who had been brought up among the Goths in Dacia, and was in 341 consecrated Bishop of the Gothic nation, which was then beginning to embrace Arian Christianity. According to Philostorgius he translated the whole of the Old Testament except the books of Kingdoms, which he omitted as likely to inflame the military temper of the Gothic race by their records of wars and conquests (Philostorg. loc. cit.: metephrasen eis ten auton phonen tas graphas hapasas plen ge de ton Basileion hate ton men polemon historian echouson, toude ethnous ontos philopolemou). Unfortunately only a few scanty fragments of the Gothic Old Testament have been preserved, i.e., some words from Gen. v. 3-- 30, Ps. lii. 2-- 3, 2 Esdr. xv. 13-- 16, xvi. 14-- xvii. 3, xvii. 13-- 45. With the exception of the scrap from Genesis, they are derived from palimpsest fragments belonging to the Ambrosian Library which were discovered by Mai in 1817 and subsequently published at Milan by Mai and Castiglione; and they are printed in the great collection of Gabelentz and Loebe (Ulfilas: V. et N. Testamenti . . . fragmenta, Lipsiae, 1843) and in Migne P. L. xviii.; more recent editions are those of Uppstrom, Upsala, 1854-- 7; Massmann, Stuttgart 1855-- 7; Stamm, Paderborn, 1865; Bernhardt, Halle, 1875, 1884; G. H. Balg, The First Germanic Bible, Milwaukee, 1891; Stamm-Heyne, 1896. Lagarde (Librorum V T. canonicorum pars i., p. xiv., 1883) shews by an examination of the Esdras fragments that Ulfilas probably used MSS. of the Lucianic recension, and the same view is held by A. Kisch, Der Septuaginta-Codex des Ulfilas (Monatschrift f. Gesch. u. W. des Judenthums, 1873), and F. Kauffmann, Beiträge zur Quellenkritik d. gothischen Bibelübersetzung (Z. f. d. Phil. 1896). Ulfilas was in Constantinople for some time about 340, and his MSS. of the LXX. were doubtless obtained in that city, which according to Jerome was one of the headquarters of the Lucianic LXX. ("Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat"). 7. THE ARMENIAN VERSION. Armenian writers of the fifth century ascribe the inception of the Armenian Bible to Mesrop (354-- 441) and his associates. The book of Proverbs was the first translated, whether because it stood first in the volume [318] on which the translators worked, or because its gnomic character gave it a special importance in their eyes. The work is said to have been begun at Edessa, but MSS. were afterwards obtained from Constantinople; and Moses of Khoren, a nephew and pupil of Mesrop, was despatched to Alexandria to study Greek in order to secure "a more accurate articulation and division" [319] of the text. Moses indeed affirms that the earliest translations of the O.T. into Armenian were from the Syriac, and his statement receives some confirmation from the mention of Edessa as the place of origin, and from the circumstance that Syriac was the Church-language of Armenia before the introduction of the Armenian alphabet [320] . On the other hand the existing Armenian version is clearly Septuagintal. It fits the Greek of the LXX. "as a glove the hand that wears it"; keeping so close to the Greek that it "has almost the same value for us as the Greek text itself from which (the translator) worked would possess [321] ." But, as Lagarde has pointed out [322] , the printed text is untrustworthy, and the collation made for Holmes and Parsons cannot be regarded as satisfactory. A fresh collation will be made for the larger edition of the Cambridge Septuagint [323] . The order of the books of the O.T. in Armenian MSS., as given by Conybeare [324] (Octateuch, 1--4 Regn., 1--2 Paralipp., 1 and 2 Esdr., Esther, Judith, Tobit, 1--3 Macc., Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, Job [325] , Isaiah, the Minor Prophets, Jeremiah, with Baruch and Lamentations, Daniel, Ezekiel) is on the whole consistent with the grouping found in the oldest Greek authorities [326] , and seems to point to the use by the translators of good early codices. MSS. Few codices of the entire Bible are earlier than the 13th century; one at Edschmiatzin belongs to the year 1151. Holmes assigns his Arm. 3 to A.D. 1063, but according to Conybeare it is a MS. of the eighteenth century. EDITIONS. Venice (Psalter), 1565; Amsterdam, 1666; Constantinople, 1705; Venice, 1805 (the first edition which is of any critical value, by J. Zohrab); Venice, 1859-- 60 (by the Mechitarist fathers of San Lazzaro). LITERATURE R. Holmes, Praef. ad Pent.; F. C. Conybeare in Scrivener-Miller, ii. 148 ff. and in Hastings' D. B., l.c.; H. Hyvernat, in Vigouroux' D. B.; C. R. Gregory, Prolegg. p. 912 ff.; J. P. P. Martin, Introd. (p. théor.), p 323 ff.; E. Nestle in Urtext, p. 155, where fuller bibliographical information will be found. 8. THE GEORGIAN VERSION. The origin of this version is obscure. According to Moses of Khoren, the Georgian as well as the Armenian version was the work of Mesrop. Iberia seems to have received the Gospel early in the fourth century, if not before; but it may have possessed no translation of the Scriptures until the movement initiated in Armenia by Mesrop had communicated itself to the neighbouring region. That the Georgian Old Testament was based upon the Greek is said to be manifest from the transliteration of Greek words which it contains. MSS. A Psalter of cent. vii.--viii. is preserved at the monastery of St Catherine's, Mt Sinai, and at Athos there is a MS., dated 978, which originally contained the whole Bible, but has lost Lev. xii.--Joshua. Both the Sinai library and the Patriarchal library at Jerusalem are rich in Georgian MSS. EDITIONS. The Georgian Bible was printed at Moscow in 1743 and at St Petersburg in 1816 and 1818; the Moscow edition is said to have been adapted to the Russian Church Bible. LITERATURE. F. C. Alter, über Georgianische Litteratur (Vienna, 1798); A. A. Tsagarelli, An account of the monuments of Georgian Literature (in Russian, St Petersburg, 1886-- 94; A. Khakhanow, Les MSS. Georgiens de la Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris (without place or date, ? 1898). 9. THE SLAVONIC VERSION. The Greek Bible was translated into Slavonic by the brothers Cyril and Methodius, from whom in the ninth century the Slavs received the faith. Of the Old Testament the Psalter alone was finished before the death of Cyril, but according to contemporary testimony Methodius brought the work to completion. As a whole this original version no longer exists, the codices having perished in the Tartar invasion of the thirteenth century; and the fragments of the Old Testament of Cyril and Methodius which are embedded in the present Slavonic Bible are "so mixed up with later versions as to be indistinguishable [327] ." The existing version has not been made uniformly from the Greek. Esther was translated from the Hebrew, while Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, and certain other books, were rendered from the Latin Vulgate in the fifteenth century. On the other hand the Octateuch, the books of Kingdoms, and the poetical books are from the Greek, and some of them, especially the Octateuch, contain old materials probably due, at least in part, to the work of Cyril and Methodius. A Psalter in the Glagolitic script, preserved at Sinai, has been edited by Geitler (Agram, 1883); and there is a critical edition of the Slavonic Psalter by Amphilochius (Moscow, 1874-- 9). So far as the Slavonic Old Testament is based on the LXX., its text is doubtless Lucianic; cf. Lagarde, Praef. in Libr. V. T. can. i. p. xv. "ni omnia fallunt Slavus nihil aliud vertit nisi Luciani recensionem," and Leskien in Urtext, p. 215, "dass im allgemeinen der Kirchenslavischen Übersetzung der griech. Text der Lucianischen (Antiochenisch-Konstantinopolitanischen) Rezension zu Grunde liegt ist sicher." LITERATURE. The Russian authorities are given by Mr Bebb in Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 158. See also Gregory, Prolegg. p. 1112 ff.; Professor Leskien of Leipzig in Urtext, p. 211 ff.; the article in Ch. Quarterly Review cited above; and Th. Literaturzeitung, 1901, col. 571. __________________________________________________________________ [232] The evidence is collected by Caspari Quellen zur Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, iii. 267 f., and summarised by Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. lii. ff. [233] The evidence is collected by Caspari Quellen zur Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, iii. 267 f., and summarised by Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. lii. ff. [234] On the other hand reasons have been produced for suspecting that the Latin version had its origin at Antioch; see Guardian, May 25, 1892, p. 786 ff., and Dr H. A. A. Kennedy in Hastings' D. B. iii p. 54 ff. [This chapter was already in type when Dr Kennedy's article came into my hands. I regret that for this reason I have been unable to make full use of his exhaustive treatment of the Latin versions.] [235] To facilitate comparison obvious errors of the MSS. and orthographical peculiarities have been removed. [236] On the MSS. of the Testimonia cf. O. L. Texts, ii. p. 123 ff [237] cod. demiserunt [238] hiat cod. [239] cod. delinquit [240] cod. adfert [241] Burkitt (O. L. and Itala, p. 93) proposes refectionis. [242] Introduction, p. 78 ff. Cf. Westcott, Canon, p. 252 ff.; Wordsworth, O. L. Biblical Texts, i., p. xxx. ff. [243] On Augustine's use of this term see F. C. Burkitt, O. L. and Ita1a, p. 55 ff. [244] Cf. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 6; Kennedy, in Hastings' D. B. p. 58 ff. [245] Introduction, p. 83. [246] For this purpose the Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum is the best collection available; but it is still far from complete. [247] A revised Sabatier is promised by the Munich Academy (Archiv, viii. 2, p. 311 ff.). [248] Rules of Tyconius, p. cxvi. f. [249] Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 6. Cf. Driver, Samuel, p. lxxvii. f. [250] Variae lectiones, ii., p. 426. [251] Monumenta sacra et profana, 1. i., p. xvi.; Le recensioni dei LXX e la versione latina detta Itala (Rendiconti, Feb. 18, 1886). See also Driver, Notes on Samuel, p. lxxviii. f.; Kennedy, in Hastings' D.B., l.c.; Nestle, Einführung^ 2 , pp. 148 note, 280 [E. Tr., p. 182 f.]; Wordsworth-White. p.654. [252] Burkitt, Rules of Tyconius, p. cxvii. [253] Cf. N. McLean in J. Th. St. ii. 305 ff. [254] [255] Leviticus and Numbers formed until recently a separate codex, see Robert, p. vi. f. [256] Deut. xi. 4--xxxiv. 12 belongs to the fragment announced by Delisle and published by Robert in 1900. [257] Belonging to the Library of the University of Würzburg. [258] See V. Schultze, die Quedlinburger Itala-Miniaturen der k. Bibliothek in Berlin (Munich, 1898). [259] On these see Bergen Hist. de la Vulgate, p. 18 f., and the caution in O. L. and Itala, p. 9 f. [260] These fragments, as I am informed by Dr W. O. E. Oesterley, contain an almost purely Vulgate text, and should perhaps disappear from this list. [261] Aug. ep. 82 (ad Hieronymum): "hi qui me invidere putant utilibus laboribus tuis." [262] Cf. adv. Rufin. ii. 30 "psalterium . . . certe emendatissimum iuxta LXX. interpretes nostro labore dudum Roma suscepit"; where, as Westcott says (Smith's D. B. iii. 1698 n.), he seems to include both revisions. [263] Martène, de ant. rit. i. p. i8 f. [264] Cf. Bp Westcott, History of the English Bible, pp. 206 ff., 351 ff.; Kirkpatrick, Psalms, Intr. p. lxxiii f. [265] Editions published in 1874 by Baer and Tischendorf (Lib. Psalm. Heb. atque Lat.) and by Lagarde (Psalt. iuxta Hebraeos). [266] Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, pp. 8, 32 f. [267] Praef. in libr. Job: "qui adhuc apud Latinos iacebat in stercore et vermibus scatebat errorum." [268] ibid. "integrum immaculatumque gaudete." [269] Ad Pammach.: "veterem editionem nostrae translationi compara, et liquido providebitis quantum distet inter veritatem et mendacium." Jerome's satisfaction with his original revision of Job was continued even after he had produced a new version from the Hebrew; in the preface to the latter he leaves the student free to choose between the two ("eligat unusquisque quod vult"). [270] Praef. in Job ed. Heb. See below, pt II., c. ii. [271] In Mittheilungen, ii. [272] Praef. ad Moralia in Job. [273] Cf. e.g. Berger, op. cit. p. xi.: "les textes des anciennes versions et de la nouvelle sont constamment mêlés et enchevêtrés dans les manuscrits." [274] On the relation of Jerome's Latin Judith to the Septuagint see C. J. Ball in Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha, p. 257 ff. [275] See Gospel acc. to St Mark, p. xiv. f. The Clementine Homilies (i. 8 ff.) attribute the foundation of the Alexandrian Church to Barnabas. But a yet earlier beginning is possible. In Acts xviii. 24 cod. D reads Alexandreus . . . hos en katechemenos en te patridi ton logon tou kuriou, on which Blass (Acta app. p. 201) remarks: "itaque iam tum (id quod sine testimonio suspicandum erat) in Aegyptum quoque nova religio permanaverat." [276] Acts ii. 9 f. hoi katoikountes . . . Aigupton. Ib. vi. 9 tines ek tes sunagoges tes legomenes . . . Alexandreon. Cf. Report of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1899-- 1900, p. 54. [277] Cf. what is said of St Anthony in the Vita Antonii (Migne, P. G. xxvi. 944 sq.). [278] Of the 31 letters of the Coptic alphabet 7 only () are not from the Greek. On the pre-Christian systems see Clem. strom. v. 4 hoi par Aiguptiois paideuomenoi proton men panton . . . ekmanthanousi ten epistolographiken kaloumenen (the Demotic), deuteran de ten hieratiken . . . hustaten de kai teleutaian ten hierogluphiken. [279] Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 97. [280] Intr. to N. T. in Greek, p. 85. [281] Sacr. bibl. fragmenta Copto-Sahidica, i. p. viii. [282] Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 105 f. [283] Hastings' D. B. i. p. 672. Cf. F. E. Brightman in J. Th. St. i. 254. [284] The Demotic, as it is known to us, appears to present no dialectic variation, perhaps because the specimens which have reached us were all the work of the single class--the scribes: see Hyvernat, Étude sur les versions Coptes in Revue Biblique, v. 3, p. 429; A. C. Headlam in Scrivener-Miller, p. 105. [285] Formerly known as the Memphitic, a name which might be more appropriately applied to the form of Middle Egyptian current at Memphis. 'Bohairic' is derived from el-Bohairah, a district S. of Alexandria. 'Sahidic,' also called Thebaic, is from es-saîd = Upper Egypt. On some characteristics of the several dialects see Hyvernat, p. 431. [286] Cf. Steindorff, Die Apokalypse des Elias, p. 2. [287] On the correspondence of this Psalter with cod. U see below, p, 143. [288] See O. T. in Greek, iii. p. ix. [289] A. Schulte in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1894-- 5; see Hyvernat, p. 69. [290] Ezechiel, p. 66 ff. [291] Burkitt in Encycl. Brit. iv. 5027; cf. Hatch, Essays, p. 215 ff.; Dillmann, Textkritiches zum Buche Ijob, p. 4; Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, p. 8; Kenyon, Our Bible and the ancient MSS., p. 751. [292] Hyvernat, p. 71. [293] See the remarks of F. Robinson in Hastings' Dict. of the Bible i. 673a. [294] Charles (art. Ethiopic Version, in Hastings' D. B. i. p. 792) states that "the Abyssinians first received Christianity through Aramaean missionaries." But Tyre in the fourth century was as Greek as Alexandria and Antioch. [295] Nestle, Urtext, p. 148. Loisy, Histoire critique, I. ii. p. 231. [296] Ankündigung einer neuen Ausgabe der gr. Übersetzung d. A.T., p. 28; cf. Materialen, i. p. iii. [297] This criticism of Lagarde's view is due to Mr N. McLean, who has recently examined the Ethiopic Genesis for the larger Cambridge Septuagint. [298] Loisy, Hist. crit., I. ii. p. 239. Mr Burkitt in Hastings' D. B. (i. p. 137) writes "J(udges), S(amuel), K(ings), and Ch(ronicles), are all from the Peshitta." [299] Lagarde gives for the Psalter four texts, viz. those published at Rome (1614), Paris (1645), Quzhayya (1612), Aleppo (1706); for Job, besides the versions mentioned in the text, that of the Paris Polyglott. [300] Migne, P. G., lxvi. 241; cf. ib. 252 f., 263, 466 ff., 492 ff. [301] Nestle in Urtext, p. 230; cf. Bleek-Wellhausen, pp. 558-560; W. E. Barnes in J. Th. St. ii. 186 ff. [302] Gwynn, D. C. B., iv. p. 434. [303] Gwynn, Paulus Tellensis and Thomas Harklensis, in D. C. B. iv. pp. 266 ff., 1014 ff. [304] Viz., parts of Genesis and Joshua; half of Numbers, nearly the whole of Judges, Ruth, and 3 Kingdoms, and Exodus complete. [305] Field, Prolegg. in Hex., p. lxix., where many instances are produced. [306] The fragments in Studia Sinaitica are accompanied by critical notes, the work of Dr Nestle, in which they are carefully compared with the Greek text (pp. xl.-- lxxiv.). [307] Burkitt in Anecd. Oxon., Semitic ser., 1. ix. p. 44, and cf. Nestle's notes to Studia Sinaitica, vi. [308] See Studia Sin., vi. p. xiv. f. For recent additions see Nestle in Hastings' D. B. iv. 447. [309] Bickell, Conspectus rei Syr. lit., p. 9; cf. Ebedjesu in Assemani, iii. 71. [310] Field, Hexapla, ii. p. 448. [311] Mon. sacr. et prof. v.; cf. Gwynn in D. C. B. iv. p. 433. [312] Gwynn, D. C. B. iii. [313] 1 Regn. i. 1-- 3 Regn. ii. 11, and Isaiah are in the London MSS. lx., lxi. (Wright, Catalogue, p. 37 ff.), and the Pentateuch and Daniel are preserved at Paris. [314] See Ladvocat, Journal des savants, for 1765; Eichhorn, Bibliothek, ii. p. 270; De Sacy, Notices et extraits, iv. p. 648 ff.; Ceriani, Mon. sacr. et prof. v. i. 1. [315] On the other hand see Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 7, note; and Bleek Wellhausen (1893), p. 560. [316] For the Apocryphal books see Lagarde, Libri V T. apocr. Syriace, and Bensly-Barnes, The fourth book of Maccabees in Syriac (Camb. 1895). [317] Socr. ii. 11, iv. 33, Theodoret iv. 37, Philostorg. ii. 5. [318] So F. C. Conybeare (Hastings, i. p. 152). In Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 151, he suggests that the earlier books had been rendered previously. [319] On this see Conybeare, Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 153. [320] See Dr Salmon in D. C. B., iii. p. 908. [321] Conybeare, op. cit., p. 151 f. He attributes the composite character of the Armenian text (of which he gives instances) to Hexaplaric influences. [322] Genesis Gr., p. 18. [323] Mr McLean, who has collated the greater part of the Octateuch, informs me that "the Armenian shews a typical hexaplar text in Genesis and Exodus, agreeing closely with the Syriaco-hexaplar version, and in varying degrees with the MSS. that compose the hexaplar group." "The hexaplar element (he adds) is much less in evidence in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, but again appears strongly in Joshua, Judges, and Ruth." [324] Op. cit., p. 152 f. [325] In some MSS. Job precedes the Psalter. [326] See Part II. c. i. [327] The Russian Bible, in Ch. Quart. Review, xli. 81 (Oct. 195), p. 219. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER V. MANUSCRIPTS OF THE SEPTUAGINT. THE great edition of the Septuagint published by Holmes and Parsons ends with a complete list of the MSS. employed (vol. v. ad fin., addenda). It enumerates 311 codices (I--XIII., 14--311), of which I.--XIII., 23, 27, 39, 43, 156, 188, 190, 258, 262, are written in uncial letters, or partly so, while the rest are in minuscule or cursive hands. Since 1827, the date of the publication of the last volume of the Oxford edition, the list of available codices or fragments has been largely increased, owing partly to the researches and publications of Tischendorf, partly to the progress which has recently been made in the examination and cataloguing of Eastern libraries, and the discovery in Egypt of fragments of papyrus bearing Biblical texts. In this chapter an effort has been made to present the student with a complete list of all the MSS. which have been or are being used by editors of the LXX., and of the important fragments so far as they are known to us. It is, however, impossible to guarantee either the exhaustiveness or the correctness in regard to minor details of information which has been brought together from many sources and cannot be verified by enquiry at first hand. SYSTEMS OF NOTATION. Two systems have been used to denote the uncial MSS. Holmes employed Roman numerals; Lagarde, the capitals of the Roman alphabet [328] . For the cursive MSS. Holmes used Arabic numerals, beginning with 14; but, as we have seen, several uncials were allowed to take rank among them. Later scholars have for the most part retained this method of notation for the cursives, excepting in the case of a few groups which are supposed to represent a particular recension; thus Lagarde adopted the symbols f h m p z for the Lucianic MSS. 82, 93, 118, 44 [329] , whilst Cornill with a similar object substituted the small letters of the Greek alphabet for the Arabic numerals [330] . Uniformity in this matter can scarcely be expected until the cursive codices have been thoroughly examined and catalogued; meanwhile it is sufficient to call attention to the variety of practice which exists. Manuscripts of the LXX., whether uncial or cursive, rarely contain the whole of the Greek Old Testament. There are some notable exceptions to the general rule (e.g. A, B, C, S = '?, 64, 68, 106, 122, 131, and the number of these exceptions may be increased by adding MSS. which have been broken up into two or more separate codices (e.g. G, N + V). But the majority of the copies seem never to have included more than a particular book (as Genesis, or the Psalms, with or without the liturgical odai), or a particular group of books such as the Pentateuch (he pentateuchos [331] ) or the Octateuch (he oktateuchos = Gen.--Ruth), the Historical Books (1 Regn.--2 Esdr., Esth., Judith, Tobit), the three or five books ascribed to Solomon, the Minor Prophets (to dodekapropheton, the Major Prophets (hoi tessares), or the Prophets complete (to hekkaidekapropheton). Larger combinations are also found, e.g. Genesis--Tobit, the Poetical Books as a whole, or the Poetical Books with the Prophets. In reference to the date of their execution, the uncial MSS. of the LXX. range from the third century to the tenth, and the cursives from the ninth to the sixteenth. Their present distribution may be seen from the descriptions; an analysis of the list of Holmes and Parsons gives the following general results: Italy, 129; Great Britain and Ireland, 54; France, 36; Austria, 26; Russia, 23; Germany, 13; Spain, 7; Holland, 6; Switzerland, 6; Denmark, 4. This summary conveys a general idea of the proportion in which the MSS. of the LXX. were distributed among European countries, Greece excepted, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. But the balance will be considerably disturbed if we add the acquisitions of Tischendorf and other discoverers, and the treasures of the libraries at Athens, Athos, Patmos, Smyrna, Jerusalem, and Mount Sinai, which are now within the reach of the critical student. I. UNCIAL MSS. The following table of the Uncial MSS. may be found convenient. A detailed account of each will follow. Symbols. Name of Codex. Century. Present locality. H.--P. Lagarde. III A Alexandrinus v London II B Vaticanus iv Rome C Ephraemi v Paris I D Cottonianus v London E Bodleianus ix--x Oxford VII F Ambrosianus v Milan IV+V G Sarravianus v Leyden, Paris, St Petersburg H Petropolitanus vi St Petersburg XIII=13 I Bodleianus ix Oxford K Lipsiensis vii Leipzig VI L Vindobonensis v--vi Vienna X M Coislinianus vii Paris XI N Basilianus viii--ix Rome VIII O [332] Dublinensis vi Dublin XII Q Marchalianus vi Rome R Veronensis vi Verona S = ' Sinaiticus iv Leipzig, St Petersburg 262 T Turicensis vii Zurich U Londinensis vii London 23 V Venetus viii--ix Venice 43 W Parisiensis ix Paris 258 X Vaticanus ix Rome Y [333] Taurinensis ix Turin Z^a--c Fragment Tischendorfiana G Cyrptoferratensis viii--ix Grotta ferrata D Bodeianus iv--v Oxford Th Washingtoniensis v--vi Detroit P Petropolitanus viii--ix St Petersburg (A) Complete Bibles. A (III). CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. British Museum, Royal, I. D. v.--viii. A MS. of the O. and N. Testaments, with lacunae. The O. T. is defective in the following places: Gen. xiv. 14--17, xv. 1--5, 16--19, xvi. 6--9 (leaf torn across and the lower portion lost); 1 Regn, xii. 18--xiv. 9 (leaf missing); Ps. xlix. 19--lxxix. 10 (nine leaves missing). Slighter defects, due to the tearing of leaves, occur in Gen. i. 20--25, 29--ii. 3; Lev. viii. 6, 7, 16; Sirach l. 21, 22, li. 5. The codex now consists of four volumes, of which the first three contain the O. T. in 639 leaves. The books are thus distributed: vol. i. Genesis--2 Chronicles; vol. ii. Hosea--4 Maccabees; vol. iii. Psalms--Sirach [334] . The first volume begins with a table of the Books, in a hand somewhat later than the body of the MS. The Psalter, which contains the psalmos idiographos (cli.) and the liturgical canticles, is preceded by the Epistle of Athanasius to Marcellinus, the hupotheseis of Eusebius, a table, and the canons of the Morning and Evening Psalms. The books of vol. iii. are written sticheros. The covers of the volumes bear the arms of Charles I. The codex had been sent to James I. by Cyril Lucar, patriarch successively of Alexandria and Constantinople, but did not reach England till after the succession of Charles. It had previously belonged to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, as we learn from an Arabic note at the beginning. Another but later Arabic note states that the MS. was the work of 'the martyr Thecla,' and Cyril Lucar has written on a leaf prefixed to vol. i.: "Liber iste . . . prout ego traditione habebam, est scriptus manu Theclae nobilis faeminae Aegyptiae ante MCCC annos circiter, paulo post concilium Nicaenum." But, apart from palaeographical considerations [335] , this date is discredited by the occurrence in the MS. of excerpts from the works of Athanasius and Eusebius, and the liturgical matter connected with the Psalter. It has been proposed to identify Thecla with a correspondent of Gregory of Nazianzus (see THECLA (10), D. C. B. iv., p 897); but this later Thecla seems to have belonged to Cappadocia, not to Egypt. Portions of the text of cod. A were printed by Patrick Young, 1637 (Job), Ussher, 1655 (Judges vi., xviii.), Walton in the polyglott of 1657 (facsimile of Ps. i.), Gale, 1678 (Psalter); and the MS. was used by Grabe as the basis of his great edition of the LXX. (1707--1720 [336] ). Baber in 1812 published the Psalter and in 1816--1821 the whole of the O. T. in facsimile type. Finally, an autotype facsimile, which, as Gregory well says, leaves nothing to be desired, was issued in 1881--3 by order of the Trustees of the British Museum under the editorship of Mr (now Sir) E. Maunde Thompson, who has added brief but valuable prolegomena. The codex is written on leaves of fine vellum, arranged in quires usually of eight. The writing "varies in different parts of the MS., though sufficient uniformity is maintained to make it difficult to decide the exact place where a new hand begins . . . the style of writing in vol. iii. is for the most part different from that of the other volumes [337] ." In a few of the superscriptions and colophons the occurrence of Egyptian forms of the Greek letters has been noted, "proving that the MS., if not absolutely written in Egypt, must have been immediately afterwards removed thither [338] ." The leaves measure about 32 centimetres by 26.3; each leaf contains two columns of 49--51 lines, the lines usually consisting of 23--25 letters. Except in the third volume, the commencement of a new section or paragraph is marked by a large initial letter in the margin as well as by paragraph-marks. There are no breathings or accents by the first hand; an apostrophe occasionally separates words or consonants; here and there an asterisk is placed in the margin (e.g. Gen. xli. 19). Punctuation is limited to a single point, generally high. The abbreviations which occur are and , (kai, mou, sou, -nai, -tai). There are numerous and lengthy erasures, over which a corrector has written the text which he preferred. The earliest corrector (A¹) was contemporary with the scribe or nearly so; the second corrector (A^a) may have lived a century later; a third and still later hand (A^b) has also been at work. But the question of the 'hands' in this MS. remains to be worked out, and calls for the knowledge of an expert in palaeography. B (II). CODEX VATICANUS (Vatican Library, Gr. 1209). A MS. of the Old and New Testaments, defective at the beginning and in some other places. The O. T. has lost its first 31 leaves, the original hand beginning at Gen. xlvi. 28 (with the words polin eis gen Rhamesse). Through the tearing of fol. 178 2 Regn. ii. 5--7, 10--13, has also disappeared, and the loss of 10 leaves after fol. 348 involves a lacuna which extends from Ps. cv. (cvi.) 27 to Ps. cxxxvii. (cxxxviii.) 6^b. The longer gaps have been filled by a recent hand. The present codex is a quarto volume containing 759 leaves, of which 617 belong to the O. T. Every book of the Greek O. T. is included, except 1--4 Maccabees, which never found a place in the MS. The order of the books differs from that which is followed in cod. A, the poetical books being placed between the canonical histories and the Prophets; and there are variations also in the internal arrangement of the groups. Of the history of this MS. before the sixteenth century nothing is certainly known. A Vatican collection of Greek MSS. was already in existence in the middle of the fifteenth century, and the greatest treasure in the present library was among its earliest acquisitions. It finds a place in the early catalogues of the Vatican [339] ; reference is made to this MS. in letters addressed by the librarian of the Vatican to Erasmus in 1521 and 1533 [340] , and it formed the chief authority for the Roman edition of the LXX. in 1587. By this time its importance was already recognised, and it is amazing that an interval of nearly 300 years should have been allowed to pass before the actual text of the MS. was given to the world. A collation of B with the Aldine text was made by Bartolocci in 1669, and is still preserved at Paris in the Bibliothèque Nationale (MS gr. supplem. 53). With other treasures of the Vatican the codex was carried to Paris by Napoleon, and there it was inspected in 1809 by Hug, whose book De antiquitate codicis Vaticani (Freiburg, 1810) aroused fresh interest in its text. On the restoration of the MS. to the Vatican it was guarded with a natural but unfortunate jealousy which for more than half a century baffled the efforts of Biblical scholars. Neither Tischendorf in 1843 and 1866 nor Tregelles in 1845 was permitted to make a full examination of the codex. Meanwhile the Roman authorities were not unmindful of the duty of publishing these treasures, but the process was slow, and the first results were disappointing. An edition printed by Mai in 1828--38 did not see the light till 1857. It was followed in 1881 by Cozza's more accurate but far from satisfactory volumes in facsimile type. At length in 1890 under the auspices of Leo XIII. the Vatican Press issued a photographic reproduction worthy of this most important of Biblical MSS. [341] The codex is written on the finest vellum in a singularly beautiful hand [342] which "may be attributed to the fourth century," and probably to the middle of the century [343] , and bears a resemblance to the hand which is found in papyri of the best Roman period [344] . The leaves are arranged in quinions (gatherings of ten pages); each page exhibits three columns of 42 lines with 16--18 letters in each line. There are no breathings or accents in the first hand; a point occurs but rarely; initial letters do not project into the margin. The text is written in two contemporary hands, the transition being made at p. 335. The MS. has been corrected more than once; besides the scribe or contemporary diorthotes (B^1), we may mention an early corrector denoted as B^a, and a late instaurator, who has gone over the whole text, spoiling its original beauty, and preserving oftentimes the corrections of B^a rather than the original text. C. CODEX EPHRAEMI SYRI RESCRIPTUS PARISIENSIS. Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 9 (formerly Reg. 1905, Colbert. 3769). A folio consisting at present of 209 leaves, of which 64 contain portions of the O. T. The fragments are as follows: Prov. i. 2 noesai--ii. 8, xv. 29 kreisson--xvii. 1, xviii. 11 he de doxa--xix. 23, xxii. 17 ten de sen--xxiii. 25, xxiv. 22 e hoste abrota--56 he ge, xxvi. 23 cheile leia--xxviii. 2, xxix. 48--end of book; Eccl. i. 2 mataiotes--14, ii. 18 hupo ton helion--end of book; Cant. i. 3--iii. 9 Salomon; Job ii. 12 rhexantes--iv. 12 en logois sou, v. 27, su de gnothi--vii. 7, x. 9--xii. 2 anthropoi, xiii. 18 oida ego,--xviii. 9 panides, xix. 27 ha ho ophthalmos--xxii. 14 nephele, xxiv. 7 gumnous pollous--xxx. 1 en merei, xxxi. 6--xxxv. 15 orgen autou, xxxvii. 5--xxxviii. 17 thanatou, xl. 20 peritheseis--end of book; Sap. viii. 5 ergazomenos--xii. 10 topon metanoias, xiv. 19--xvii. 19--xvii. 18 eumeles, xviii. 24 epi gar--end of book; Sir. prol. 1--vii. 14 presbuteron, viii. 15 autos gar--xi. 17 eusebesin, xii. 16 kai ean--xvi. 1 achreston, xvii. 12--xx. 5 sophos, xxi. 12--xxii. 19, xxvii. 19--xxviii. 25 stathmon, xxx. 8--xxxxiv. 22 ou me soi, xxx. 25--xxxi. 6, xxxii. 22 kai ho kurios--xxxiii. 13 Iakob, xxxvii. 11--xxxviii. 15, xxxix. 7--xliv. 27 aphikometha, xlv. 24 hina auto--xlvii. 23 Rhoboam, xlviii. 11--xlix. 12 Iesous huios. The distribution of the leaves is Proverbs 6, Ecclesiastes 8, Cant. 1, Job 19, Wisdom 7, Sirach 23. The copy of the Greek Bible of which these fragments have survived unfortunately fell during the middle ages into the hands of a scribe in want of writing materials. Originally, as it seems, a complete Bible, written probably in the fifth century and, as Tischendorf believed, in Egypt, in the twelfth century it was taken to pieces, sponged, and used for other writings [345] . What became of the missing leaves we do not know; those of the Paris volume are covered with the Greek text of certain works of Ephrem the Syrian [346] . The book was probably brought to Florence early in the 16th century by Andreas Lascaris, the agent of Lorenzo de' Medici, and passing into the possession of Catharine de' Medici, accompanied her to France, where it found its way into the Royal Library. Here the value of the underlying text was recognised by Montfaucon, who called attention to it in his Palaeografihia Graeca, and gave a specimen from the fragments of the N. T. (p. 213 f.). The O. T. fragments were partly examined by Wetstein and Thilo [347] , but were not given to the world until in 1845 Tischendorf, who had published the N. T. portion in 1843, completed his task by printing the LXX. text. This once noble MS. was written in single columns from 40 to 46 lines in length, each line containing about 40 letters [348] . The writing of the O. T. differs, according to Tischendorf, from that of the N. T.; it is more delicate, some of the letters (A, D, B, K, X, Ch, Ph) assume different forms in the two portions of the codex, and there are other palaeographical indications that the hand which wrote the earlier books did not write the later. Nevertheless Tischendorf regarded the two hands as contemporary, and believed the codex to have been originally one. A seventh century corrector has left traces of his work, but his corrections are not numerous except in Sirach. As to the order of the books nothing can be ascertained, the scribe who converted the MS. into a palimpsest having used the leaves for his new text without regard to their original arrangement [349] . S = '. CODEX SINAITICUS. Leipzig and St Petersburg. The remains of this great uncial Bible contain the following portions of the O. T.: Gen. xxiii. 19 haute--xxiv. 4 poreuse, xxiv. 5 eis ten gen--8, 9 rhematos--14 kamelous, 17 kai eipen--19 heos an, 25 auto--27 ten, 30 anthropon--33 lalesai, 36 auto (1º)--41 ek tes, 41 horkismou--46 aph'; Num. v. 26 autes--30 poiesei, vi. 5 hagios--6 teteleutekuia, 11 kephalen--12 hai (2º), 17 kano--18 marturiou, 22, 23, 27 Kurios, vii. 4 Mousen--5 Leueitais, 12 Naasson--13 hen, 15 hena (2º)--20 thumiamatos, 1 Par. ix. 27 to proi--xix. 17, 2 Esdr. ix. 9 Kurios--end of book; Psalms--Sirach; Esther; Tobit; Judith; Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lam. i. 1--ii. 20; 1 and 4 Maccabees. The forty-three leaves containing 1 Par. xi. 22--xix. 17, 2 Esdras ix. 9--end, Esther, Tobit i. 1--ii. 2, Jer. x. 25--end, and Lam. i. 1--ii. 20 were found by Tischendorf in a wastepaper basket at the Convent of St Catharine's, Mount Sinai, in 1844, and published by him in a lithographed facsimile under the name of Codex Friderico-Augustanus [350] (Leipzig, 1846); to these in Mon. sacr. ined., nov. coll. i. (1855) he was able to add Isa. lxvi. 12--Jer. i. 7 from a copy made during the same visit to Sinai. A second visit in 1853 enabled him to print in the next volume of the Monumenta (1857) two short fragments of Genesis (xxiv. 9, 10, 41--43). During a third visit to the Convent in 1859, he was permitted to see the rest of the codex, including 156 1eaves of the Old Testament, and ultimately succeeded in carrying the whole to St Petersburg for presentation to the Czar Alexander II. This final success led to the publication in 1862 of the Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, containing a facsimile of the St Petersburg portion of the Sinaitic MS. Lastly in 1867 Tischendorf completed his task by printing in his Appendix Codicum certain fragments of Genesis and Numbers which had been discovered by the Archimandrite Porfirius in the bindings of other Sinai MSS. [351] This great Bible was written on leaves which originally measured 15 x 131 inches, and were gathered, with two exceptions, into quires of four. Each column contains 48 lines, with 12--14 letters in a line; and in all but the poetical books each page exhibits four columns, so that eight lie open at a time [352] ; in the poetical books, where the lines are longer, two columns appear on each page, or four at an opening. The characters are assigned to the fourth century; they are well-formed and somewhat square, written without break, except when an apostrophe or a single point intervenes; a breathing prima manu has been noticed at Tobit vi. 9, but with this exception neither breathings nor accents occur. Tischendorf distinguished four hands in the codex (A, B, C, D), and assigned to A the fragments of Chronicles, 1 Macc., and the last 4½ leaves of 4 Macc., as well as the whole of the N. T.; the fragments of Numbers and the Prophets are ascribed to B; the poetical books to C; Tobit and Judith and the rest of 4 Macc. to D, who is identified with the scribe to whom we owe the N. T. of Codex Vaticanus. He also detected traces of five stages in the correction of the MS., which he represented by the symbols '^a, '^c.a, '^c.b, '^c.c, '^d. The first symbol covers the work of the diorthotes and other nearly contemporary correctors; '^c.a, c.b, c.c are three seventh century hands, of which the last appears chiefly in the Book of Job, whilst the later '^d has occupied itself with retracing faded writing in the Prophets. After 1 Chron. xix. 17 cod. ' (FA) passes without break to 2 Esdr. ix. 9, but the place is marked by the corrector '^c.a with three crosses and the note mechri toutou [tou] semeiou ton trion stauron estin to telos ton hepta phullon ton perisson kai me onton tou Esdra. Five of these leaves remain, and the two which preceded them probably contained 1 Chron. vi. 50--ix. 27^a (H. St J. Thackeray in Hastings' D.B., i. p. 762). Westcott (Bible in the Church, p. 307) supposes that the insertion of this fragment of 1 Chron. in the heart of 2 Esdras is due to a mistake in the binding of the copy from which the MS. was transcribed; comp. the similar error in the archetype of all our Greek copies of Sirach [353] . Whether 1 Esdras formed a part of cod. ' is uncertain, the heading Esdras b' does not prove this, since cod. ' contains 4 Maccabees under the heading Makkabaion d' although it certainly did not give the second and third books (Thackeray, 1.c.). No uniform edition or photographic reproduction of this most important MS. has yet appeared [354] . The student is still under the necessity of extracting the text of ' from the five works of Tischendorf mentioned above. A homogeneous edition of the remains of the codex or a photographic reproduction of the text is one of our most urgent needs in the field of Biblical palaeography. (The N. T. has now appeared in collotype; H. and K. Lake, introd. by K. Lake, Oxford, 1911.) N (XI). CODEX BASILIANO-VATICANUS. Vatican Library, Gr. 2106, formerly Basil. 145 [355] . V (23). CODEX VENETUS. St Mark's Library, Venice, cod. Gr. 1 [356] . Dr E. Klostermann (Analecta, pp. 9 f., 33 f.) has produced good reasons for believing that these two codices originally formed portions of a complete copy of the Greek Old Testament. The Vatican portion now contains Lev. xiii. 59--Num. xxi. 34, Num. xxii. 19--Deut. xxviii. 40, Deut. xxx. 16--Jud. xiv. 16, Jud. xviii. 2--1 Regn. xvii. 12, 1 Regn. xvii. 31--3 Regn. viii. 8, 3 Regn. xi. 17--end of 2 Paralip., 2 Esdr. v. 10--xvii. 3, Esther. The Venice MS. yields Job xxx. 8 to end, Prov., Eccl., Cant., Sap., Sirach, the Minor Prophets (in the order Hos., Am., Joel, Ob., Jon., Mic., Nab., Hab., Zeph., Hag., Zech., Mal.), Isa., Jer., Bar., Lam., Ezek., Daniel, Tobit, Judith, 1--4 Macc. The Venice folio measures 16½ x 11? inches, the Vatican at present a little less, but the breadth and length of the columns is identical in the two codices; in both there are two columns of 60 lines. The Venice MS. contains 164 leaves, the Vatican 132. The first leaf of the Venice book begins the 27th quire of the original MS., and on computation it appears that, if to the Vatican leaves were added those which would be required to fill the lacunae of the earlier books and of Job, the entire number would make up 26 quires of the same size [357] . As regards the history of the separated portions, it appears that the Vatican MS. was originally brought to Rome from Calabria by a Basilian monk [358] ; the Venice book was once the property of Cardinal Bessarion, by whom it was presented to St Mark's [359] . The handwriting of N and V is in the sloping uncials of cent. viii.--ix. Some use was made of V in the Roman edition of 1587, where it seems to have supplied the text of Maccabees; both codices were collated for Holmes and Parsons, who numbered V as a cursive. (B) Octateuch and Historical Books. (D) (T). CODEX COTTONIANUS. British Museum, Cotton MSS., Otho B. vi. 5--6. A collection of fragments, the largest of which measures no more than 7 x 5½ inches, containing portions of the Book of Genesis with vestiges of pictures executed in a semi-classical style. No other uncial codex of the LXX., of which any portion remains, has suffered so lamentable a fate. Brought to England from Philippi [360] in the reign of Henry VIII. by two Orthodox Bishops [361] , and presented to the English monarch, it remained in the Royal Library till the reign of Elizabeth, who gave it to her Greek tutor Sir John Fortescue, and from his hands after several vicissitudes it found its way into the Cotton collection. In 1731, while the codex was at Ashburnham House with the rest of that collection, it was reduced by fire to a heap of charred and shrivelled leaves. Even before the fire it had been imperfect [362] ; the beginning and end of the book had disappeared, and other leaves were defective here and there; yet 165 or 166 leaves remained and 250 miniatures. The existing remains at the British Museum, though collected with the most scrupulous care, consist only of 150 mutilated fragments; to these must be added a smaller series preserved at the Baptist College, Bristol, to which institution they were bequeathed by Dr A. Gifford, formerly an Assistant Librarian at the Museum. Most of the London fragments were deciphered and published by Tischendorf in 1857 (Mon. sacr. ined., nov. coll. ii.); the rest, together with the Bristol fragments, are now accessible in Dr F. W. Gotch's Supplement to Tischendorf's Reliquiae cod. Cotton. (London, 1881). Happily we have means of ascertaining with some approach to completeness the text of this codex as it existed before the fire. Although no transcript had been made, the MS. was more than once collated--by Patrick Young and Ussher for Walton's Polyglott, and afterwards by Gale, Crusius, and Grabe; and Grabe's collation, which is preserved in the Bodleian, was published by Dr H. Owen (Collatio cod. Cotton. Geneseos cum Editione Romana . . . , Londini, 1778). Some assistance can also be obtained from the Vetusta Monumenta published by the London Society of Antiquaries (vo1 i. 1747), where two plates are given depicting some of the miniatures, together with portions of the text of fragments which have since disappeared. Lastly, among the Peiresc papers in the Bibltothèque Nationale, transcripts have been found of Gen. i. 13, 14, xviii. 24--26, xliii. 16, which were made from the MS. in 1606. They are printed in Mémoires de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France, liii. pp. 163--172 [363] . As this discovery was overlooked when the second edition of The Old Testament in Greek, vol. i., passed through the press in 1895, it may be convenient to the student to have the new fragments placed before him in extenso. Gen. i. 13, 14 . . . ^13hespera kai egeneto proi, hemera trite. ^14kai eipen ho theos Genethetosan phosteres en to stereomati tou ouranou eis phausin tes ges, kai archetosan tes hemeras kai tes nuktos tou diacho[rizein] . . . 11. xviii. 24--26. ^24ean osin pentekonta dikaioi en te polei, apoleseis autous; ouk aneseis panta ton topon ekeinon heneka ton pentekonta dikaion, ean osin en aute; ^25medamos su poieseis hos to rhema touto, tou apokteinai dikaion meta asebous, kai estai ho dikaios hos ho asebes; medamos. ho krinon pasan ten gen, ou poieseis krisin; ^26eipen de kurios Ean heuro en So[domois] . . . 16. xliii. 16 . . . thumata kai hetoimason; met' emou ga[r] phagontai hoi anthropoi houtoi artou[s] ten mesembrian . . . The vellum of the MS. is fine, but not so thin as in some other early uncials. The leaves were arranged in quires of four. Each page, where the writing was not broken by an illustration, contained from 26 to 28 lines of 27 to 30 letters. The uncials are well formed, but vary to some extent in thickness and size. Initial letters are used, and the point is sometimes high, sometimes middle or low. On the whole the codex may probably be assigned to cent. v.--vi. The hands of three scribes have been traced in the fragments, and there appear to have been two correctors after the diorthotes; the earlier of the two, who seems to have lived in the eighth century, has retraced the faded letters. E. CODEX BODLEIANUS. Bodleian Library, Oxford. Auct. T. infr. ii. 1. The Bodleian volume contains the following fragments of Genesis: i. 1--xiv. 6, xviii. 24 dikaion--xx. 14 kai apedoken, xxiv. 54 ekpempsate--xlii. 18 eipen de au[tois]. Another leaf, now at the Cambridge University Library, contains xlii. 18 [au]tois te hemera--xliv. 13 ton hena kai, verso, to which xlii. 31--xliv. 13 belongs, is written in (?) contemporary minuscules. It is now known that this text is carried on by more than one cursive MS. The St Petersburg cod. lxii. begins where the Cambridge fragment leaves off (at Gen. xliv. 13 Beniamin; ego men gar), and proceeds, with some lacunae, as far as 3 Regn. xvi. 28 ta loipa ton sumplokon). The largest of the lacunae (Jos. xxiv. 27--Ruth, inclusive) is supplied by the British Museum MS. Add. 20002, which once belonged to the same codex as E, the Cambridge fragment, and St Petersburg cod. lxii. The recent history of this MS. is both curious and instructive. The portions now at Oxford and London were brought from the East by Tischendorf in 1853; the Cambridge leaf and the St Petersburg portion followed in 1859. Tischendorf published the contents of the Bodleian volume in Monumenta sacra inedita, n. c. ii. (1857); the Cambridge leaf remained in his possession till his death in 1874, when it was purchased by the Syndics of the University Library. In 1891 it was recognised by the present writer and Mr H. A. Redpath as a continuation of the Bodleian Genesis [364] ; and its contents were at once communicated to the Academy (June 6, 1891), and were afterwards incorporated in the apparatus of the Cambridge manual LXX. (vol. i., ed. 2, 1895). Finally, in 1898, Dr A. Rahlfs of Göttingen [365] proved that the Petersburg and London volumes originally formed a part of the codex to which the Oxford Genesis and the Cambridge leaf belonged. The entire MS. will be used for the apparatus of the larger Cambridge LXX.; a description by the Editors (Messrs Brooke and M^cLean) may be found in the Classical Review for May, 1899 (vo1. xiii., pp. 209--11). The Bodleian Genesis is written in large sloping uncials of a late form on 29 leaves of stout vellum; each page carries two columns of 37--44 lines; in the earlier pages the letters are closely packed and there are sometimes as many as 28 in a line, but as the book advances the number seldom exceeds and sometimes fall below 20. Tischendorf was disposed to assign the writing to the 9th, or at the earliest the 8th century; but the debased character of the uncials, as well as the readiness of the scribe to pass from the uncial to the cursive script, point to a still later date [366] . According to the same authority the uncial leaves of the codex have passed through the hands of a nearly contemporary corrector, and also of another whose writing is more recent. F (VII). CODEX AMBROSIANUS. Ambrosian Library, Milan. A. 147 infr. The remains of this important Codex consist of the following fragments of the Octateuch: Gen. xxxi. 15 [allotri]ai--37 eraunesas, xlii. 14 hoti kataskopoi--21 eisekousamen autou, 28 etarachthesan--xlvi. 6 ten ktesin, xlvii. 16 ei ekleloipen--xlviii. 3 ho theos moi ophthe, xlviii. 21 ton pateron--li. 14 oi adelphoi. Exod. i. 10 ges--viii. 19 to [Pharao], xii. 31 hoi huioi--xxx. 29 ho apt. auton, xxxi. 18 en to orei--xxxii. 6 thus[ian], xxxii. 13 [poluple]thuno--xxxvi. 3 pros[edechonto], xxxvii. 10 hai baseis--end of book. Lev. i. 1--ix. 18 kuklo, x 14 [aphairema]tos--end of book. Num. (without lacuna). Deut. i. 1--xxviii. 63 euphran[the], xxix. 14 kai ten aran--end of book. Jos. i. 1--ii. 9 eph' [he]mas, ii. 15 autes en to t[e]ichei--iv. 5 emprosthen, iv. 10 [su]netelesen--v. 1 Iordanen, v. 7 Iesous--vi. 23 adelphous autes, vii. 1 Zambri--ix. 27 tes semeron hem[eras], x. 37 en en aute--xii. 12 bas. Eglon [367] . An inscription on a blank page states that the fragments were "ex Macedonia Corcyram advecta, ibique Ill. Card. Fed. Borromaei Bibliothecae Ambrosianae Fundatoris iussu empta eidemque Bibliothecae transmissa sunt." They attracted the notice of Montfaucon (Diar. Ital., p. 11, Pal. sacr. pp. 27, 186), and were collated for Holmes, but in an unsatisfactory manner. Ceriani's transcript (Mon. sacr. et prof. iii., Mediol. 1864) supplies the text, for the accuracy of which the name of the Editor is a sufficient guarantee, and a learned preface, but the full prolegomena which were reserved for another volume have not appeared. A photograph is needed not only for palaeographical purposes, but to shew the marginal readings, many of which are Hexaplaric. The MS. is written on the finest and whitest vellum, the leaves of which are gathered in fours [368] ; three columns of writing stand on each page, and 35 lines in each column. The characters are those of cent. iv.--v.; initial letters are used, which project to half their breadth into the margin. Punctuation is frequent, and there is much variety in the use of the points; accents and breathings are freely added prima manu, a feature in which this MS. stands alone amongst early Uncials [369] . The colour of the ink changes after Deuteronomy, and the rest of the fragments seem to have been written by another scribe; but the work is contemporary, for the quire numbers have been added by the first scribe throughout. The MS. has passed through the hands of two early correctors, and the margins contain various readings, notes, and scholia. G (IV, V). CODEX COLBERTO-SARRAVIANUS. (1) Leyden, University Library, Voss. Gr. Q. 8. (2) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, cod. Gr. 17, formerly Colbert. 3084. (3) St Petersburg, Imperial Library, v. 5. Of this codex Leyden possesses 130 leaves and Paris 22, while one leaf has strayed to St Petersburg. When brought together the surviving leaves yield the following portions of the Octateuch: Gen. xxxi. 53 auton--xxxvi. 18 thugatros Ana. [370] Exod. xxxvi. 8--29, xxxvii. 3 huphantou--6, xxxviii. 1--18, xxxix. 1 [kat]eirgasthe--11, 16 skeue--19, xl. 2 ekei ten kiboton to end of book, Lev. i. 1--iv 26 ex(e)ilasetai peri, iv. 27 laou tes ges--xiii. 17 kai idou, xiii. 49 himatio--xiv. 6 lempsetai auto kai, xiv. 33--49 aphagni[sai]. xv. 24 koimethe--xvii. 10 pros[eluton], xviii. 28 [e]thnesin--xix. 36 stathmia dikaia kai, xxiv. 9 kai tois huiois--xxvii. 16 anthropos to. Num. i. 1--vii. 85 ton skeuon, xi. 18 tis psomiei--xviii. 2 phulen, xviii. 30 ereis--xx. 22 paregenonto hoi, xxv. 2 auton kai--xxvi. 3, xxix. 12 heortasete--33 sunkrisin, 34 kai ch(e)imar(r)on--end of book. Deut. iv. 11 [kar]dias: tou ouranou--26 ekei kle[ronomesai], vii. 13 ton siton--xvii. 14 katakleronome[ses], xviii. 8--xix. 4 ton ple[sion], xxviii. 12 [ethne]sin--xxxi. 11 Jos. ix. 33 [eklexe]tai--xix. 23 haute he kleronomia. Jud. ix. 48 autos kai pas--x. 6 Assaroth kai sun tois, xv. 3 [Sam]pson--xviii. 16 hoi ek ton huion, xix. 25 aute holen--xxi. 12 tetrakosiois. The Leyden leaves of this MS. are known to have been in the possession of Claude Sarràve, of Paris, who died in 1651. After his death they passed into the hands successively of Jacques Mentel, a Paris physician, who has left his name on the first page, and of Isaac Voss ( 1681), from whose heirs they were purchased by the University of Leyden. The Paris leaves had been separated from the rest of the MS. before the end of the 16tb century, for they were once in the library of Henri Memme, who died in 1596. With a large part of that collection they were presented to J. B. Colbert in 1732, and thus found their way into the Royal Library at Paris. Among earlier owners of the St Petersburg leaf were F. Pithaeus, Desmarez, Montfaucon [371] , and Dubrowsky. The text of the Leyden leaves and the St Petersburg leaf was printed in facsimile type by Tischendorf in the third volume of his Monumenta sacra (Leipzig, 1860); a splendid photographic reproduction of all the known leaves of the codex appeared at Leyden in 1897 [372] . The leaves measure 9? x 8? inches; the writing is in two columns of 27 lines, each line being made up of 13--15 letters. In Tischendorf's judgement the hand belongs to the end of the fourth or the first years of the fifth century. There are no initial letters; the writing is continuous excepting where it is broken by a point or sign; points, single or double, occur but rarely; a breathing is occasionally added by the first hand, more frequently by an early corrector. Of the seven correctors noticed by Tischendorf three only need be mentioned here,--(A) a contemporary hand, (B) another fifth century hand which has revised Deuteronomy and Judges, and (C) a hand of the sixth century which has been busy in the text of Numbers. In one respect this codex holds an unique position among uncial MSS. of the Octateuch. It exhibits an Origenic text which retains many of the Hexaplaric signs. Besides the asterisk ( ) and various forms of the obelus ( , , , , and in the margin, --), the metobelus frequently occurs (:, ·/, /·, ·/·). The importance of Cod. Sarravianus as a guide in the recovery of the Hexaplaric text has been recognised from the time of Montfaucon (comp. Field, Hexapla, i., p. 5); and it is a matter for no little congratulation that we now possess a complete and admirable photograph of the remains of this great MS. H. CODEX PETROPOLITANUS. In the Imperial Library at St Petersburg. This palimpsest consists at present of 88 leaves in octavo; in its original form there were 44 arranged in quaternions. Under the patristic matter which is now in possession of the vellum, Tischendorf detected a large part of the Septuagint text of Numbers. The fragments recovered contain chh. i. 1--30, 40--ii. 14, ii. 30--iii. 26, v. 13--23, vi. 6--vii. 7, vii. 41--78, viii. 2--16, xi. 3--xiii. 11, xiii. 28--xiv. 34, xv. 3--20, 22--28, 32--xvi. 31, xvi. 44--xviii. 4, xviii. 15--26, xxi. 15--22, xxii. 30--41, xxiii. 12--27, xxvi. 54--xxvii. 15, xxviii. 7--xxix. 36, xxx. 9--xxxi. 48, xxxii. 7--xxxiv. 17, xxxvi. 1--end of book. They are printed in Monumenta sacr. ined., nov. coll. i. (Leipzig, 1855). In Tischendorf's judgement the upper writing is not later than the ninth century; the lower writing he ascribes to the sixth; for though the characters are generally such as are found in fifth century MSS., yet there are several indications of a later date, e.g. the numerous compendia scribendi and superscribed letters, and the occasional use of oblong forms. Chapters and arguments are noted in the margin--the chapters of Numbers are 207--and at the end of the book the number of stichi is specified (,gphla' = 3535); the scribe appends his name-- . K. FRAGMENTA LIPSIENSIA. Leipzig, University Library (cod. Tisch. ii.). Twenty-two leaves discovered by Tischendorf in 1844, of which seventeen contain under Arabic writing of the ninth century fragments of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges (Num. v. 17--18, 24--25; vii. 18--19, 30--31, 35--36, 37--40, 42--43, 46--47; xv. 11--17, 19--24; xxvii. 1--xxviii. 5, xxviii. 10--xxix. 2, xxxv. 19--22, 28--31. Deut. ii. 8--10, 15--19, ix. 1--10, xviii. 21--xix. 1, xix. 6--9; xxi. 8--12, 17--19. Jos. x. 39--xi. 16, xii. 2--15, xxii. 7--9, 10--23; Jud. xi. 24--34, xviii. 2--20 [373] ). The Greek writing is not later than cent. vii. The fragments are printed in the first volume of Monumenta sacra inedita, n. c. L (VI). CODEX PURPUREUS VINDOBONENSIS. Vienna, Imperial Library. This MS. consists of 24 leaves of Genesis, with which are bound up two leaves of St Luke belonging to Codex N of the Gospels [374] . The Genesis leaves contain Gen. iii. 4--24, vii. 19--viii. 20, ix. 8--15, 20--27; xiv. 17--20, xv. 1--5, xix. 12--26, 29--35; xxii. 15--19, xxiv. 1--11, 15--20; xxiv. 22--31, xxv. 27--34, xxvi. 6--11, xxx. 30--37; xxxi. 25--34; xxxii. 1--18, 22--32; xxxv. 1--4, 8, 16--20, 28--29, xxxvii. 1--19, xxxix. 9--18, xl 14--xli. 2, xli. 21--32, xlii. 21--38, xliii. 2--21, xlviii. 16--xlix. 3, xlix. 28--33, l. 1--4. Like e great Cotton MS. the Vienna purple Genesis is an illustrated text, each page exhibiting a miniature painted in water-colours. The writing belongs to the fifth or sixth century; the provenance of the MS. is uncertain, but there are notes in the codex which shew that it was at one time in North Italy. Engravings of the miniatures with a description of the contents may be found in P. Lambecii Comm. de bibliotheca Vindobonensi, lib. iii. (ed. Kollar., 1776), and a transcript of the text in R. Holmes's Letter to Shute Barrington, Bishop of Durham (Oxford, 1795); but both these earlier authorities have been superseded by the splendid photographic edition lately published at Vienna (die Wiener Genesis herausgegeben von Wilhelm Ritter v. Hartel u. Franz Wickhoff, Wien, 1895). M (X). CODEX COISLINIANUS. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coisl. Gr. 1. A MS. of the Octateuch and the Historical Books, with lacunae; the 227 remaining leaves contain Gen. i. 1--xxxiv. 2, xxxviii. 24--Num. xxix. 23, xxxi. 4--Jos. x. 6, Jos. xxii. 34--Ruth iv. 19, 1 Regn. i. 1--iv. 19, x. 19--xiv. 26, xxv. 33--3 Regn. viii. 40. This great codex was purchased in the East for M. Seguier, and brought to Paris about the middle of the seventeenth century. It was first described by Montfaucon, who devotes the first 31½ pages of his Bibliotheca Coisliniana to a careful description of the contents, dealing specially with the capitulation and the letters prefixed to the sentences. Facsimiles were given by Montfaucon, Bianchini (Evangelium quadruplex), Tischendorf (Monumenta sacr. ined., 1846), and Silvester, and a photograph of f. 125 r., containing Num. xxxv. 33--xxxvi. 13, may be seen in H. Omont's Facsimilés, planche vi. Montfaucon gives a partial collation of the codex with the Roman edition of the LXX., and a collation of the whole was made for Holmes; an edition is now being prepared by Mr H. S. Cronin. The leaves, which measure 13 x 9 inches, exhibit on each page two columns of 49 or 50 lines, each line containing 18--23 letters. According to Montfaucon, the codex was written in the sixth or at latest in the seventh century ("sexto vel cum tardissime septimo saeculo exaratus"), but the later date is now usually accepted. The margins contain a large number of notes prima manu [375] , among which are the excerpts from the N. T. printed by Tischendorf in the Monumenta and now quoted as cod. F^a of the Gospels [376] . The MS. is said by Montfaucon to agree frequently with the text of cod. A, and this is confirmed by Holmes as far as regards the Pentateuch. Lagarde (Genesis graece, p. 12) styles it Hexaplaric; hexaplaric signs and matter abound in the margins, and of these use has been made by Field so far as he was able to collect them from Montfaucon and from Griesbach's excerpts printed in Eichhorn's Repertorium. Z^a, d. FRAGMENTA TISCHENDORFIANA. Two of a series of fragments of various MSS. discovered by Tischendorf and printed in the first and second volumes of Monumenta sacra inedita, nov. coll. i. ii. (1855, 1857). Z^a. Three palimpsest leaves containing fragments of 2--3 Regn. (2 Regn. xxii. 38--42, 46--39; xxiii. 2--5, 8--10; 3 Regn. xiii. 4--6, 8--11, 13--17, 20--23, xvi. 31--33, xvii. 1--5, 9--12, 14--17). The upper writing is Armenian, the lower an Egyptian-Greek hand of the 7th century, resembling that of cod. Q (v. infra). Z^d. Palimpsest fragment containing 3 Regn. viii. 58--ix. 1, also from the Nitrian MSS. There are two texts over the Greek of which the lower is Coptic, the upper Syriac; the Greek hand belongs to cent. v. Th. CODEX WASHINGTONIENSIS. See Additional Notes. II. FRAGMENTA TISCHENDORFIANA. Four leaves taken from the binding of Cod. Porfirianus Chiovensis (P of the Acts and Catholic Epistles [377] ), and published by Tischendorf in Mon. sacr. ined., nov. coll. vi. p. 339 ff. They yield an interesting text of portions of 4 Maccabees (viii. 6, 12, 15, 29; ix. 28--30, 31--32). The writing appears to belong to cent. ix. (C) Poetical Books. I (13). CODEX BODLEIANUS. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D. 4. 1. A Psalter, including the Old Testament Canticles and a catena. Described by Bruns in Eichhorn's Repertorium, xiii. p. 177; cf. Lagarde's Genesis graece, p. 11, and Nov. Psalt. Gr. edit. Specimen, p. 3. Parsons, who reckons it among the cursives, is content to say "de saeculo quo exaratus fuerit nihil dicitur"; according to Coxe (Catalogus codd. Biblioth. Bodl. i. 621), it belongs to the 9th century. R. CODEX VERONENSIS. Verona, Chapter Library. A MS. of the Psalter in Greek and Latin, both texts written in Roman characters. A few lacunae (Ps. i. 1--ii. 7, lxv. 20--lxviii. 3, lxviii. 26--33, cv. 43--cvi. 2) have been supplied by a later hand, which has also added the psalmos idiographos (Ps. cli.). The Psalms are followed prima manu by eight canticles (Exod. xv. 1--21, Deut. xxxii. 1--44, 1 Regn. ii. 1--10, Isa. v. 1--9, Jon. ii. 3--10, Hab. iii. 1--10, Magnificat, Dan. iii. 23 ff.). Printed by Bianchini in his Vindiciae canonicarum scripturarum, i. (Rome, 1740), and used by Lagarde in the apparatus of his Specimen and Psalterii Gr. quinquagena prima, and in the Cambridge manual Septuagint (1891). A new collation was made in 1892 by H. A. Redpath, which has been employed in the second edition of The 0. T. in Greek (1896); but it is much to be wished that the Verona Chapter may find it possible to have this important Psalter photographed. The codex consists of 405 leaves, measuring 10½ x 7½ inches; each page contains 26 lines. The Greek text appears at each opening on the left-hand page, and the Latin on the right. T (262). CODEX TURICENSIS. Zurich, Municipal Library. A purple MS. which contained originally 288 leaves; of these 223 remain. The text now begins at xxvi. (xxvii.) 1, and there are lacunae in the body of the MS. which involve the loss of Pss. xxx. 2--xxxvi. 20, xli. 6--xliii. 3, lviii. 24--lix. 3, lix. 9--10, 13--lx. 1, lxiv. 12--lxxi. 4, xcii. 3--xciii. 7, xcvi. 12--xcvii. 8. The first five Canticles and a part of the sixth have also disappeared; those which remain are 1 Regn. ii. 6--10 (the rest of the sixth), the Magnificat, Isa. xxxviii. 10--20, the Prayer of Manasses [378] , Dan. iii. 23 ff., Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis. Like Cod. R this MS. is of Western origin. It was intended for Western use, as appears from the renderings of the Latin (Gallican) version which have been copied into the margins by a contemporary hand, and also from the liturgical divisions of the Psalter. The archetype, however, was a Psalter written for use in the East--a fact which is revealed by the survival in the copy of occasional traces of the Greek staseis The characters are written in silver, gold, or vermilion, according as they belong to the body of the text, the headings and initial letters of the Psalms, or the marginal Latin readings. Tischendorf, who published the text in the fourth volume of his nova collectio (1869), ascribes the handwriting to the seventh century. The text of T agrees generally with that of cod. A, and still more closely with the hand in cod. ' known as '^c.a. U. FRAGMENTA LONDINENSIA. London, British Museum, pap. xxxvii. Thirty leaves of papyrus which contain Ps. x. (xi.) 2 [e]is pharetran--xviii. (xix.) 6, xx. (xxi.) 14 en tais dunasteiais sou--xxxiv. (xxxv.) 6 katadiok[o]n. These fragments of a papyrus Psalter were purchased in 1836 from a traveller who had bought them at Thebes in Egypt, where they had been found, it was said, among the ruins of a convent. Tischendorf assigned to them a high antiquity (Prolegg. ad V. T. Gr., p. ix., "quo nullus codicum sacrorum antiquior videtur"), and he was followed by Lagarde, who as late as 1887 described the London codex as "bibliorum omnium quos noverim antiquissimus" (Specimen, p. 4). But a wider acquaintance with the palaeography of papyri has corrected their estimate, and the fragments are now ascribed by experts to cent. vi.--vii. [379] The writing slopes, and the characters are irregularly formed; the scribe uses breathings and accents freely; on the other hand he writes continuously, not even breaking off at the end of a Psalm or distinguishing the title from the rest of the text. The hand is not that of a learned scribe or of the literary type [380] . It has been pointed out that the text of U corresponds closely with that of the Sahidic Psalter published by Dr Budge [381] . X (258). CODEX VATICANUS IOBI. Rome, Vatican Library, Gr. 749. A MS. of Job with occasional lacunae; the remaining portions are i. 1--xvii. 13, xvii. 17--xxx. 9, xxx. 23--xxxi. 5, xxxi. 24--xxxiv. 35. There are miniatures, and a catena in an uncial hand surrounding the text. At the beginning of the book Hexaplaric scholia are frequent [382] . The text is written in a hand of the ninth century. It was used by Parsons, and its Hexaplaric materials are borrowed by Field [383] . W (43) CODEX PARISIENSIS. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 20. A portion of an uncial Psalter containing in 40 leaves Ps. xci. 14--cxxxvi. 1, with lacunae extending from Ps. cx. 7 to cxii. 10, and from Ps. cxvii. 16--cxxvi. 4. So Omont (Inventaire sommaire des mss. grecs, p. 4); according to Parsons (Praef. ad libr. Pss.), followed generally by Lagarde (Genesis gr. 15), the omissions are Ps. c. 4--ci. 7, cx. 6--cxi. 10, cxvii. 16--cxviii. 4, cxviii. 176--cxxvi. 4. The codex was written by a hand of the ninth or tenth century, and contains paintings which, as Parsons had been informed, are of some merit. Z^c. See above under (B), p. 140. Fragments of the fourth or fifth cent. (Tisch.), containing Pss. cxli. (cxlii.) 7--8, cxlii. (cxliii.) 1--3, cxliv. (cxlv.) 7--13. (D) Prophets. O (VIII). FRAGMENTA DUBLINENSIA. Dublin, Trinity College Library, K. 3. 4. Eight palimpsest leaves--in the original MS. folded as four--which are now bound up with Codex Z of the Gospels [384] and yield Isa. xxx. 2--xxxi. 7, xxxvi. 19--xxxviii. 2. The original leaves of the Codex measured about 12x9 inches, and each contained 36 lines of 14--17 letters. The writing, which belongs to the early part of the sixth century, appears to be that of an Egyptian scribe, and Ceriani is disposed to connect the text of the fragments with the Hesychian recension [385] . They have been printed in facsimile type by Professor T. K. Abbott (Par palimpsestorum Dublinensium, Dublin, 1880), and are used in the apparatus of the Cambridge manual Septuagint. Q (XII). CODEX MARCHALIANUS. Rome, Vatican Library, Gr. 2125. A magnificent codex of the Prophets, complete, and in the order of cod. B (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, Epistle, Ezekiel, Daniel (Theod.) with Susanna and Bel). This MS. was written in Egypt not later than the sixth century. It seems to have remained there till the ninth, since the uncial corrections and annotations as well as the text exhibit letters of characteristically Egyptian form. From Egypt it was carried before the 12th century to South Italy, and thence into France, where it became the property of the Abbey of St Denys near Paris, and afterwards of René Marchal, from whom it has acquired its name. From the library of R. Marchal it passed into the hands of Cardinal F. Rochefoucauld, who in turn presented it to the Jesuits of Clermont. Finally, in 1785 it was purchased for the Vatican, where it now reposes. The codex was used by J. Morinus, Wetstein and Montfaucon, collated for Parsons, and printed in part by Tischendorf in the ninth volume of his Nova Collectio (1870). Field followed Montfaucon in making large use of the Hexaplaric matter with which the margins of the MS. abound, but was compelled to depend on earlier collations and a partial transcript. The liberality of the Vatican has now placed within the reach of all O.T. students a magnificent heliotype of the entire MS., accompanied (in a separate volume) by a commentary from the pen of Ceriani (1890). This gift is only second in importance to that of the photograph of Codex B, completed in the same year. Codex Marchalianus at present consists of 416 leaves, but the first twelve contain patristic matter, and did not form a part of the original MS. The leaves measure 11? x 7 inches; the writing is in single columns of 29 1ines, each line containing 24--30 letters. The text of the Prophets belongs, according to Ceriani, to the Hesychian recension; but Hexaplaric signs have been freely added, and the margins supply copious extracts from Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the LXX. of the Hexapla. These marginal annotations were added by a hand not much later than that which wrote the text, and to the same hand are due the patristic texts already mentioned, and two important note [386] from which we learn the sources of the Hexaplaric matter in the margins. The result of its labours has been to render this codex a principal authority for the Hexapla in the Prophetic Books. Y. CODEX TAURINENSIS. Turin, Royal Library, cod. 9. This codex consists of 135 leaves in quarto, and contains the dodekapropheton. The MS. is difficult to read, and there are many lacunae. The text, written according to Stroth [387] in the ninth century, is surrounded by scholia, and prefaced by Theodoret's hupotheseis to the various books. The Turin MS. does not appear to have been used hitherto for any edition of the LXX., nor has any transcript or collation been published [388] . Z^b, c. See above, under (B), p. 140. Z^b. Palimpsest fragments of Isaiah (iii. 8--14, v. 2--14, xxix. 11--23, xliv. 26--xlv. 5). As in Z^a, the upper writing is Armenian; the Greek hand belongs apparently to cent. viii.--ix. Z^c. Palimpsest fragment of Ezekiel (iv. 16--v. 4) found among the Nitrian leaves at the British Museum. The Greek hand resembles that of Z^a, and is probably contemporary with it. G. CODEX CRYPTOFERRATENSIS. Basilian Monastery of Grotta Ferrata, cod. E. b. vii. This volume consists partly of palimpsest leaves which once belonged to a great codex of the Prophets. A scribe of the 13th century has written over the Biblical text liturgical matter accompanied by musical notation. Some portions of the book are doubly palimpsest, having been used by an earlier scribe for a work of St John of Damascus. About 130 leaves in the present liturgical codex were taken from the Biblical MS., and the Biblical text of 85 of these leaves has been transcribed and published (with many lacunae where the lower writing could not be deciphered) in Cozza-Luzi's Sacrorum bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta, vol. i (Rome 1867) and iii. (1877). The original codex seems to have contained 432 leaves gathered in quires of eight; and the leaves appear to have measured about 10¾ x 8¼ inches. The writing, which is in sloping uncials of the eighth or ninth century, was arranged in double columns, and each column contained 25--28 lines of 13--20 letters. It cannot be said that Cozza's transcript, much as Biblical students are indebted to him for it, satisfies our needs. Uncial codices of the Prophets are so few that we desiderate a photographic edition, or at least a fresh examination and more complete collation of this interesting palimpsest. D. FRAGMENTUM BODLEIANUM. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Gr. bibl. d. 2 (P). A fragment of Bel in the version of Theodotion (21 gunaikon--41 Daniel). A vellum leaf brought from Egypt and purchased for the Bodleian in 1888. Written in an uncial hand of the fifth (?) century, partly over a portion of a homily in a hand perhaps a century earlier. __________________________________________________________________ The following uncial fragments have not been used for any edition of the LXX., and remain for the present without a symbolical letter or number. (1) A scrap of papyrus (B. M., pap. ccxii.) yielding the text of Gen. xiv. 17. See Catalogue of Additions to the MSS., 1888--93, p. 410. Cent. iii. (?). (2) The vellum fragment containing Lev. xxii. 3--xxiii. 22, originally published by Brugsch (Neue Bruchstücke des Cod. Sin., Leipzig, 1875), who believed it to be a portion of Codex Sinaiticus; a more accurate transcription is given by J. R. Harris, Biblical Fragments, no. 15 (cf. Mrs Lewis's Studia Sin. i. p. 97 f.). Cent. iv. (3) Another Sinaitic fragment, containing Num. xxxii. 29, 30 (J. R. Harris, op. cit., no. 1). Cent. vii. (4) Another Sinaitic fragment, containing a few words of Jud. xx. 24--28 (J. R. Harris, op. cit., no. 2). Cent. iv. (5) Another Sinaitic fragment, containing Ruth ii. 19--iii. 1, iii. 4--7 (J. R. Harris, op. cit., no. 3). Cent. iv. (6) Part of a Psalter on papyrus (B. M., pap. ccxxx.), containing Ps. xii. 7--xv. 4; see Athenaeum, Sept. 8, 1894, and Kenyon, Palaeography of Greek Papyri, pp. 109, 131. Cent. iii. (7) Part of a Psalter on a Berlin papyrus, containing Ps. xl. 26--xli. 4; see Blass in Z. f. ägypt. Sprache, 1881 (Kenyon, op. cit., p. 131). (8) Nine fragments of a MS. written in columns of about 25 lines, one on each page. The fragments give the text of Ps. ci. 3, 4, cii. 5--8, cv. 34--43, cvi. 17--34, cviii. 15--21, cxiii. 18--26, cxiv. 3--cxv. 2. J. R. Harris, op. cit., no. 4. Cent. iv. (9) A vellum MS. in the Royal Library at Berlin (MS. Gr. oct. 2), containing Ps. cxi.--cl., followed by the first four canticles and parts of Ps. cv. and cant. v. See E. Klostermann, Z. f. A. T. W., 1897, p. 339 ff. (10) Fragments discovered by H. A. Redpath at St Mark's, Venice, in the binding of cod. gr. 23, containing the text of Prov. xxiii. 21--xxiv. 35. Published in the Academy, Oct. 22, 1892. A fuller transcript is given by E. Klostermann, Analecta, pp. 34 ff. (11) Portion of a leaf of a papyrus book, written in large uncials of cent. vii.--viii., exhibiting Cant. i. 6--9. This scrap came from the Fayûm and is now in the Bodleian, where it is numbered MS. Gr. bibl. g. 1 (P); see Grenfell, Greek papyri (Oxford, 1896), pp. 12 f. (12) Palimpsest fragments of Wisdom and Sirach (cent. vi.--vii.), carried by Tischendorf to St Petersburg and intended for publication in the 8th volume of his Monumenta, which never appeared. See Nestle, Urtext, p. 74. (13) Two palimpsest leaves of Sirach belonging to cod. 2 in the Patriarchal Library at Jerusalem: cf. Papadopulos, Ieros. Bibl., i. p. 14: ta anaplerotika phulla 27 kai 56 eisi palimpsesta hon he archike graphe anekei eis ton e' aiona . . . to palaion de auton keimenon esti distelon, kai en phul. 56 diakrinetai he epigraphe . The leaves contain Sir. prol. 1--i. 14, i. 29--iii. 11. Printed by J. R. Harris, op. cit., no. 5. (14) Part of a Papyrus book which seems to have contained the Minor Prophets. The discovery of this fragment was announced in 1892 by W. H. Hechler, who gave a facsimile of Zach. xii. 2, 3 ('Times,' Sept. 7, 1892; Transactions of the Congress of Orientalists, 1892, ii., p. 331 f.). Mr Hechler claimed for this papyrus an extravagantly early date, but the hand appears to belong to the seventh century; see Kenyon, Pa1aeography of papyri, p. 118. This MS., which contains Zech. iv.--xiv., Mal. i.--iv., is now the property of the University of Heidelberg [389] . (15) Two leaves of a small vellum book, from the Fayûm, now Bodl. MS. Gr. bibl. e. 4 (P); the handwriting, "in small, fine uncials," yields the text of Zach. xii. 10--12, xiii. 3--5. "About the fifth century" (Grenfell, Greek papyri, p. 11 f). (16) A Rainer papyrus, assigned to the third century and containing Isa. xxxviii. 3--5, 13--16; see Nestle, Urtext, p. 74. (17) A portion of a leaf of a papyrus book, bearing the Greek text of Ezech. v. 12--vi. 3 (Bodl. MS. Gr. bibl. d. 4 (P)); see Grenfell, Greek papyri, pp. 9 ff. The text shews Hexaplaric signs; the writing is said to belong to the third century (Kenyon, Palaeography of papyri, p. 107). (18) A fragment of a lead roll on which is engraved Ps. lxxix (lxxx). 1--16, found at Rhodes in 1898. See Sitzungsberichte d. konigl. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1898 (xxxvii.) [390] . II. CURSIVE MSS. The following are the cursive MSS. used by Holmes and Parsons, with the addition of others recently examined or collated by the editors of the larger Cambridge Septuagint [391] . (A) The Octateuch. 14. Gen., Ex., ep. Arist., cat. (xi) Rome, Vat. Palat. Gr. 203 Klostermann, Anal. p. 11 n. 15. Octateuch (ix--x) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 2 Hexaplaric in early books 16. Octateuch (xi) Florence, Laur. v. 38 Batiffol, Vat., p. 91 17. Genesis, cat. (x) Moscow, Syn. 5, Vlad. 28. 18. Octateuch (x--xi) Florence, Laur. Med. Pal. 242 (formerly at Fiesole) 19. Octateuch. . . . . . [392] (?x) Rome, Chigi R. vi. 38 Bianchini, Vind., p. 279 ff. Lucianic, Lagarde's h 20. Genesis (ix) [Cod. Dorothei i.] 25. Gen., Ex., ep. Arist., cat. (xi) Munich, Staatsbibl. Gr. 9 Field, ii. Auct. p. 3. Lag.'s m (Gen. gr.) 28. Num., Deut., Jos. imperf. (xi) Rome, Vat. Gr. 2122 (formerly Basil. 161) 29. Octateuch (inc. Gen. xliii. 15) . . . (x) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 2 Cf. Lagarde Genesis, p. 6, Septuagintast. i. p. 11. Lag.'s x 30. Octateuch (inc. Gen. xxiv. 13) (xi) Rome, Casan. 1444 31. Genesis, cat. (xvi) Vienna, Imp. Lib. Theol. Gr. 4 (Lamb.) ? Copied from Ald. (Nestle.) Lag.'s w 32, Pentateuch (xii) [Cod. Eugenii i.] Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 224. 37. Lectionary (A.D. 1116) Moscow, Syn. 31, Vlad. 8 38. Octateuch . . . (xv) Escurial, U. 11. 5 Hexaplaric, cf. Field, i. p. 398 44. Octateuch . . . (xv) Zittau, A. 1. 1 Lagarde's z: see Genesis gr., p. 7 ff. and Libr. V. T. can. i. p. vi.; Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 261; Redpath, Exp. T., May 1897 45. Num. (lect.), (xi) Escurial 46. Octateuch . . . (xiv) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 4 O. T. exc. Psalter 47. Fragment of lectionary Oxford, Bodl. Baron. 201 50. Lectionary (xiii) Oxford, Bodl. Seld. 30 52. Octateuch . . . , ep. Arist., cat. (x) Florence, Laur. Acq. 44 53. Octateuch (A.D. 1439) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 17^A 54. Octateuch, ep. Arist. (xiii--xiv) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 5 Field, i. p. 223. Lagarde's k 55. Octateuch . . . (xi) Rome, Vat. Regin. Gr. 1 Part of a complete Bible, cf. Klostermann, p. 12 56. Octateuch . . . (A.D. 1093) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 3 57. Octateuch, ep. Arist., cat. (xi) Rome, Vat. Gr. 747 Field, i. pp. 5, 78 58. Pentateuch. . . . . .(xiii) Rome, Vat. Regin. Gr. 10 Hexaplaric. Field, l. p. 78 59. Octateuch (xv) Glasgow, Univ. BE. 7^b. 10 (formerly at C.C.C., Oxford 61. Lectionary (xi) Oxford, Bodl. Laud. 36 Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 329 63. Jos., Jud., Ruth (imperf.) (x) Rome, Vat. 1252 Klostermann, p. 12 64. Octateuch . . . (x--xi) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 2 Field, i. p. 5 O. and N.T. 68. Octateuch . . . (xv) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 5 O. and N.T. Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 219 70. Jos., Jud., Ruth . . . (xi) Munich, Gr. 372 (formerly at Augsburg) 71. Octateuch . . . (xiii) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 1 72. Octateuch (xiii) Oxford, Bodl. Canon. Gr. 35 (formerly at Venice; see H. P.) Hexaplaric. Tischendorf in L. C.-Bl., 1867 (27) 73. Octateuch, ep. Arist. (part), cat. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 746 Field, i. p. 78 74. Octateuch . . . (xiv) Florence, Laur. Acq. 700 (49) Hesychian 75. Octateuch (A.D. 1126) Oxford, Univ. Coll. lii. Lagarde's o. Hornemann, p. 41; Owen, Enquiry, p. 90 76. Octateuch . . . (xiii) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 4 Hesychian 77. Octateuch, cat. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 748 78. Gen., Ex., cat. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 383 Field, i. p. 78 79. Gen., ep. Arist., cat. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1668 82. Octateuch . . . (xii) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 3 Lucianic (in part). Rahlfs, Sept.-St. i. 5 ff. (Lagarde's f) 83. Pentateuch, cat. (xvi) Lisbon, Archivio da Torre da Tombo 540 &c. (formerly at Evora) ? Copied from Ald. (Nestle) 84. Heptateuch (imperf.) (x) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1901 Hesychian 85. Heptateuch (imperf.) (xi) Rome, Vat. Gr. 2058 (formerly Basil. 97) Field, i. pp. 78, 397 ("praestantissimi codicis") 93. Ruth . . . (xiii) London, B. M. Reg. i. D. 2 Lucianic (Largard's m in "Lucian" 94 = 131 105. Exod. xiv. 6--26 &c. (xiii--xiv) London, B. M. Burney 106. Octateuch . . (xiv) Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 187 Hesychian. O. T., N. T. (582 Greg., 451 Scr). Lagarde, Ank. p. 27 107. Octateuch . . . A.D. 1334) Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 188 Lagarde, ib. 108. Octateuch . . . (xiv) Rome, Vat. Gr. 330 Field, i. p. 5. Lucianic (Lagarde's d) 118. Octateuch . . . (imperf.) (xiii) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 6 Lucianic (Lagarde's p) 120. Octateuch . . . (xi) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 4 121. Octateuch . . . (x) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 3 122. Octateuch . . . (xv) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 6 O. and N. T. (Ev. 206) in Latin order. Copy of 68. Lag.'s y 125. Octateuch . . . (xv) Moscow, Syn. 30, Vlad. 3 126. Heptateuch . . . cat. in Gen., Ex. (A.D. 1475) Moscow, Syn. 19, Vlad. 38 127. Octateuch . . . (x) Moscow, Syn. 31 a, Vlad. 1 Field, i. p. 5. Lagarde, Ank. p. 3 128. Octateuch (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1657, formerly Grotta ferrata Field, i. pp. 168, 224 129. Octateuch (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1252 See note to 63 130. Octateuch (? xiii) Vienna, Th. Gr. 3 (Nessel 57) Field, i. p. 6. Lagarde's t: Ank. p. 26. See note to 131 131. Octateuch . . . . . . (x--xi) Vienna, Th. Gr. r (Nessel 23) Field, i. p. 5: "in enumeratione Holmesiana [cod. 130] perserve designature 131, et vice versa.' O. and N.T. 132. Lectionary (palimpsest, xi--xii) Oxford, Bodl. Selden. 9 133. Excerpts from MSS. by I. Voss Leyden, Univ. 134. Octateuch . . . (xi) Florence, Laur. v. 1 Hesychian 135. Gen., Ex. i. 1--xii. 4, cat. (xi) Basle, A. N. iii. 13 (omont 1) Field, i. p. 6. Lagarde's r (Genesis, p. 6) Hexaplaric 136. Excerpts from Pentateuch (A.D. 1043) Oxford, Bodl. Barocc. 196 209. Jos., Jud., Ruth, cat. (xii) [Cod. Dorothei iv] 236. Jos., Jud., Ruth . . . (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 331 Klostermann, p. 78 237 = 73 241. Jos., Jud., Ruth . . . (xvii) London, B. M. Harl. 7522 P. Young's copy of Cod. A 246. Octateuch . . . (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1238 Cf. Batiffol, d'un important MS. des Septante, in Bulletin Critique, 1889, pp. 112 ff. __________________________________________________________________ Josh.--Ruth (x--xi) London, B. M. Add. 20002 Continuation of E (p. 134) with Petersburg lxii. See next page Octateuch, cat. (xii--xiii) London, B. M. Add. 35123 Lev.--Ruth, cat. (A.D. 1104) Lambeth, 1214 Lev.--Ruth, cat. (A.D. 1264) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 5 Jos.--Ruth . . . . . cat. (xii) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 7 Octateuch . . . . . . schol. Paris, Arsenal 8415 Hexaplaric readings Heptateuch (imperf.) (xiii) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 184 Lucianic (?) Lev.--Ruth, cat. (xiii) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 6 Octateuch . . . . (xiv) Paris, Nat. Suppl. Gr. 609 Hesychian (?) Octateuch, ep. Arist., cat. (xii) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 128 Ex.--Ruth, cat. (xv) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 132 Hexaplaric readings Octateuch, ep. Arist., cat. (xiii) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 129 Hexaplaric readings Gen.--Ex. (imperf.), ep. Arist., cat. (xv) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 130 Ex. (imperf.), cat. (xvi) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 131 Hexaplaric readings (interlinear) Gen. i.--iii.(?), comm. (palim.) (xiii) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 161 Gen., Ex., ep. Arist., cat. (A.D. 1586) Escurial S. i. 16 Hexaplaric readings Octateuch . . . (imperf.) (xi) Escurial O. i. 13 Octateuch, cat. (xiii) Leyden, 13 (belongs to Voss collection) Exod.--Deut. (imperf.) (xi) . . . Leipzig, Univ. Libr. Gr. 361 Hexaplaric readings. Published by Fischer in 1767 = Lips. (H. P.) Gen., Ex., ep. Arist., cat. (xvi) Munich, Gr. 82 Octateuch, ep. Arist., cat. (xiii) Zurich, Bibl. de la ville, c. 11 Hexaplaric matter Gen. iv.--v., Ex. xii.--xxviii., comm. (xi) Basle, O. ii. 17 Octateuch, cat. (? xii) Rome, Barb. Gr. iv. 56 Gen., cat. (xvi) Rome, Barb. Gr. vi. 8 Num.--Ruth . . . (xiv--xv) Rome, Vat. Gr. 332 Hexateuch . . . (x) Grotta Ferrata U. g. 1 Gen.--Jos. (imperf.) . . . (x--xi) St Petersburg, Imp. Libr. lxii Continuation of E (p. 134) Gen. comm. Chrys. Moscow, Syn. Vlad. 35 Joshua--Ruth . . . . cat. (xii) Athos, Ivér. 15 Octateuch (x) Athos, Pantocr. 24 Hexaplaric readings Octateuch . . . (x--xi) Athos, Vatop. 511 Octateuch . . . . . (A.D. 1201) Athos, Vatop. 513 Lev.--Ruth, cat. (xi--xii) Athos, Vatop. 515 Ex.--Ruth . . . . . . (xiv) Athos, Vatop. 516 Hexaplaric readings, much faded Pentateuch (imperf.),) (A.D. 1327) Athos, Protat. 53 Hexaplaric readings Octateuch (A.D. 1013) Athos, Laur. g. 112 Hexaplaric readings (a few) Genesis, cat. (? xi) Constantinople, 224 (formerly 372) Octateuch . . . cat. (xi) Athens, Bibl. Nat. 43 Octateuch . . . (xiii) Athens, bibl. Nat. 44 Lucianic (?) Octateuch . . . cat. Niceph. (xii) Smyrna, schole euang. 1 Pentateuch, cat. (xi) Patmos, 216 Num.--Ruth, cat. (xi) Patmos, 217 Heptateuch (imperf.) (xiii) Patmos, 410 Pentateuch, test. xii. patr. (xv) Patmos, 411 Octateuch . . . (x--xi) Sinai, 1 Pentateuch, cat. (? x) Sinai, 2 Octateuch . . . (ix. med.) Jerusalem, H. Sepulchre 2 Genesis, cat. (xii--xiii) Jerusalem, H. Sepulchre 3 Octateuch, cat. (xi) Venice, Gr. 534: see below, p 508 (B) Historical Books. 19 [393] . . . 1 Regn., 2 Esdr., Judith, Esth., 1--3 Macc., &c. (x) Rome, Chigi R. vi. 38 29 . . . 1--4 Regn., 1--3 Macc. (imperf.), &c (x) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 2 38 . . . 1 Regn., 2 Regn. i. 1--xx. 18 (xv) Escurial U. 11. 5 44 . . . 1 Regn., 2 Esdr., 1--4 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob., (N. T.) &c. (xv) Zittau, A. 1. 1 46. . . 1 Regn.--2Esdr., Esth., Judith, 1--4 Macc., Tob.... Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 4 52. . . 1 Regn.--2Esdr., Esth., Judith, 1--4 Macc., Tob., schol. (x) Florence, Laur. Acq. 44 55. . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr., Judith, Esth., Tob., 1--4 Macc. (xi) Rome, Vat. Regin. Gr. 1 56. . . 1--4 Regn., 1--2 Chron., 1--2 Macc. (xii) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 3 58. . . 1--4 Regn., 1--2 Chron., 1--2Esdr., Jud., Tob., Esth., &c. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Regin. Gr. 10 60. 1--2 Chron. (? xii) Cambridge, Univ. Libr. Ff. i. 24 Walton, Polygl. vi. 121 ff.; J. R. Harris, Origin of Leicester Cod., p. 21 64. . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr., Esth., Tob., 1--2 Macc. (x) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 2 68. . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr., Esth., Judith, Tob., 1--3 Macc. . . (xv) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 5 70. . . 1--4 Regn., parts of Chron., Tob. (xi) Munich, Gr. 372 (formerly at Augsburg) 71. . . 2 Esdr., 1--3 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiii) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 1 74. . . 1--2 Esdr., 1--4 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiv) Florence, St Mark's 76. . . Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiii) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 4 82. . . 1--4 Regn. (xii --xiii) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 3 92. 1--4 Regn. (x) Paris, Nat. Gr. 8 Field, i. p. 486 93. . . 1--2 Esdr., Esth., 1--3 Macc. (xiii) London, B. M. Reg. i. D. 2 Facsimile in Kenyon. Two texts of Esther 98. 1--4 Regn., 1--2 Chron., cat. Escurial, S. 2. 19 106. . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr., Judith, Esth., 1--2 Macc. Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 187 107. . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr., 1--3 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob. (A.D. 1334) Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 188 108. . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr., Judith, Tob., Esth. (xiv) Rome, Vat. Gr. 330 Cf. Field, i. p. 702 119. 1--4 Regn., 1--2 Chron., 1--2 Esdr. (x) Paris, Nat. Gr. 7 120. . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr., 1--4 Macc., Esth. (xi) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 4 121. . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr. (x) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 3 122. . . Historical Bks., . . . (xv) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 6 123. 1--4 Regn. (xi) [Cod. Dorothei v.] 125. . . Historical Bks., . . . (xv) Moscow, Syn. 30, Vlad. 3 126. . . Judith, Tob.(xv) Moscow, Syn. 19, Vlad. 38 127. . . 1--4 Regn., 1--2 Chron. xxxvi. (x) Moscow, Syn. 31 a, Vlad. 1 131. . . Historical Bks. (exc. 4 Macc.) (? xii) Vienna, Th. Gr. 1 (Nessel 23) 134. . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr., 1 Macc. (x) Florence, Laur. v. 1 158. 1--4 Regn., 1--2 Chron. Basle, B. 6. 22 Wetstein, N. T. i. p. 132 236. . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr., Esth., Judith, Tob., 1--4 Macc., cat. (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 331 241. . . 1--4 Regn., 1--2 Chron. London, B. M. Harl. 7522 242. 1--4 Regn. Vienna, Th. Gr. 5 243. 1--4 Regn., cat. Paris, Nat. Coisl. 8 Field, i. p. 486 243*. 1--4 Regn. (cat.), 1 Chron.--2 Esdr., Esth., Tob., Jud., 1--4 Macc. Venice, St Mark's, cod. 16 Field, i. p. 486 244. 1--4 Regn. (x) Rome, Vat. Gr. 333 245. 1 Regn. (ix--x) Rome, Vat. Gr. 334 Lucianic (Field) 246. . . 1 Regn. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1238 247. 1--4 Regn. (4 Regn. imperf.) Rome, Vat. Gr. Urb. 1 248. . . 1--2Esdr., Tob., Judith, Esth., &c. (xiv) Rome, Vat. Gr. 346 Nestle, Marg. p. 58 311. . . Historical Bks. (xi) Moscow, Syn. 341 __________________________________________________________________ . . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr., Esth., Tob. ... Judith, 1--3 Macc. (3 M. imperf.) (xi) Escurial, O. 1. 13 . . . 1 Regn.--2 Chron. (x) Munich, Gr.454 (? formerly at Augsburg) . . . 1 Regn.--3 Regn. xvi. 28 (x or xi) St Petersburg, Imp. Libr. lxii. . . . Tob., Judith, Esth., Ruth (x) Grotta Ferrata, A. g. 1 (catal., 29) . . . Tobit (xiv or xv) Rome, Vat. Gr. 332 . . . 1 Esdr., Tobit (fragments) (x or xi) Leipzig, Univ. Libr. Gr. 361 Hexaplaric readings . . . Esth., Judith, Tob., 1--4 Regn. (x or xi) Athos, Vatop. 511 . . . Esth., Tob., Judith (A.D. 1021) Athos, Vatop. 513 . . . 1--2 Chron. (xiv) Athos, Vatop. 516 . . . 1--4 Regn., cat. (xi) Athens, Bibl. Nat. 43 . . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr., Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiii) Athens, Bibl. Nat. 44 . . . 1--4 Regn., 1--2 Chron. (xiv) Paris, Arsenal 8415 . . . 1 Regn.--2 Esdr., 1--4 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiv) Paris, Nat. Suppl. Gr. 609 . . . 1--5 Regn. (xii) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 7 (C) Poetical Books. 13. = I (see under Uncial MSS.) 21. Psalms, schol. (xiii--xiv) [Cod. Eugenii iv.] 27. Psalms i--lxx Gotha, formerly Lothringen An uncial MS., Lagarde's M^ps (Specimen, p. 27) 39. Psalms (imperf.) (ix) [Cod. Dorothei ii.] An uncial MS., Lagarde's E^ps (Specimen, p. 2) 43. = W (see under Uncial MSS.) Lagarde's F^ps (Specimen, p. 2) 46. . . Prov., Eccl., Cant., Job, Sap., Sir., humnos ton pat. hemon (xiv) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 4 55. . . Job, Psalms (? xi) Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 1 65. Psalms, cant., Lat. (xii) Leipzig 66. Psalms, cant. (xiv) Eton Coll. 67. Psalms, cant. (xvi) Oxford, C.C.C. 19 Harris, Leicester Codex, p. 20 68. . . Poetical Books (xv) Venice, St Mark's, Gr.5 69. Psalms, cant. (? x) Oxford, Magd. Coll. 9 80. Psalms, cant. (xiii--lxiv) Oxford, Christ Ch. A 81. Psalms (xi) Oxford, Christ Ch. 2 99. Psalms, schol., cat. (xii--xiii) Oxford, Trin. Coll. 78 100. Psalms, cant. (xi--xii) Oxford, Christ Ch. 3 101. Psalms, cant. (xiii) Oxford, Christ Ch. 20 102. Psalms, cant. (xiii) Oxford, Christ Ch. 1 103. Prov. i.--xix. (xv) Vienna, Th. Gr. 25 Klostermann, pp. 6, 18 104. Psalms i.--x.(xvi) Vienna, Th. Gr. 27 (Nessel 229) 106. . . Job, Prov., Eccl., Cant., Sap., Sir. . . . Psalms (xiv) Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 187 109. Proverbs. . . (xiii) Vienna, Th. Gr. 26 110. Job, schol. (ix) Vienna, Th. Gr. 9 Klostermann, p. 18 111. Psalms (ix) Milan, Ambr. P. 65 112. Psalms, cat. (A.D. 961) Milan, Ambr. F. 12 113. Psalms, cat. (A.D.. 967) Milan, Ambr. B. 106 114. . . Psalms, comm. Evora, Carthus. 2 115. Psalms, comm. Evora, Carthus. 3 122. . . Poetical Books (xv) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 6 124. Psalms, cant. Vienna, Th. Gr. 21 125. . . Proverbs (comm. Chrys.), Eccl., Cant., Sap. (xv) Moscow, Syn. 30, Vlad. 3 131. . . Poetical Books, &c. (? xii) Vienna, Th. Gr. 23 137. Job, cat. (xi--xii) Milan, Ambr. B. 73 Field, ii. p. 2, and Auct. p. 5 138. Job (x) Milan, Ambr. M. 65 Field, ii. p. 2 139. Proverbs--Job, cat. (x) Milan, Ambr. A. 148 Field, ii. p. 2 140. Psalms Basle, B. 10. 33 141. Psalms (A.D. 1344) Turin, B. 2. 42 142. Psalms, comm. Vienna, Th. Gr. 10 (Nessel 8) 143. Psalms, prooem. Vienna, Th. Gr. 19 144 = 131 145. Psalms, cant. (x) Velletri, Borg. 146. Psalms (x) [Cod. Fr. Xavier] In Capitular Lib. Toledo 147. Prov.--Job, cat. . . . (xiii) Oxford, Bodl. Laud. 30 Klostermann, p. 51 149. Job, Prov., Eccl., Cant., Sap., Pss. Sal., comm. (xi) Vienna, Th. Gr. 7 =308* H. P. See Gebhardt, Die Psalmen Salomo's, p. 15 150. Psalms (? xiv) Ferrara, Carmelit. 3 151. Psalms (imperf.) Venice, Bibl. Zen. A Graeco-Latin MS. 152. Psalms (xi) (Cod. Nan. 25) Now in St Mark's Lib. Venice 154. Psalms, cant. (xiii) (Cod. Meermanni I) 155. Psalms (xii--xiiii) (Cod. Meermanni II) Now Bodl. Misc. Gr. 204 156. Psalms, interlin. Lat. Basle, A. 7. 3 An uncial MS. Lagarde's D^(ps) (Specimen, p. 2, cf. Ank. p. 27) [394] 157. Job, Prov., Eccl., Cant., Sap. Basle, B. 6, 23 Wetstein, N. T. i. 132 159. Eccl, Prov. (part), Cant., schol. (xi) Dresden, 1 Klostermann, p. 39 160. Job (xiv) Dresden, 2 161. Job, Prov., Eccl., Cant. (xiv) Dresden, 3 Field, ii. p. 2; cf. 6, 309, and Auct. 22. Cf. Klostermann, pp. 16, 39 Job, comm. (xv) Turin, Royal Library, 330 162. Psalms, interlin. Latin (xi) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 24 163. Psalms (xii) Paris, Nat. Colbert. Gr. 26 164. Psalms (xiv) London, B. M. Harl. 5533 165. Psalms (xiv) London, B. M. Harl. 5534 166. Psalms, cant. (A.D. 1283) London, B. M. Harl. 5535 167. Psalms, cant. (xiv) London, B. M. Harl. 5553 168. Psalms (imperf.) (xi-xii) London, B. M. Harl. 5570 169. Psalms (xii--xiii) London, B. M. Harl. 5571 170. Psalms, cant. (xii) London, B. M. Harl. 5582 171. Psalms, cant. (xiv) London, B. M. Harl. 5653 172. Psalms, cant. (A.D. 1488) London, B. M. Harl. 5737 173. Psalms, cant. London, B. M. Harl. 5738 174. Psalms (Latin, Arabic) (A.D. 1153) London, B. M. Harl. 5786 175. Psalms (xi) London, B. M. 2. A. vi. 176. Psalms, cant. London, B. M. Harl. 5563 177. Psalms (imperf.) cant. (xiii) Paris, Nat. Gr. 27 178. Psalms, cant. (A.D. 1059) Paris, Nat. Gr. 40 179. Psalms, cant. (xii) Paris, Nat. Gr. 41 180. Psalms, cant. (xii) Paris, Nat. Gr. 42 181. Psalms, cat. (xii) Cod. Ducis Saxo-Goth. 182. Psalms, cant. (xi) Rome, Chigi 4 183. Psalms, cant. (xii) Rome, Chigi 5 184. Psalms, comm. (ix-x) Vienna, Th. Gr. 17 185. Psalms, comm. (xi) Vienna, Th. Gr. 18 186. Psalms, comm. (xi) Vienna, Th. Gr. 13 187. Psalms (imperf.) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 10 188. Psalms (imperf.) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 186 An uncial MS. Lagarde's H^(ps) (Specimen, p. 3). Often agrees with 156 189. Psalms, cant. Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 13 190. Psalms (imperf.) cant. Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 187 An uncial MS. Lagarde's K^(ps) (Specimen, p. 3) 191. Psalms, cant. Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 188 192. Psalms (imperf.) cant. (xiii) Paris, Nat. Gr. 13 193. Psalms, cant. (xii) Paris, Nat. Gr. 21 194. Psalms, cant. (xii) Paris, Nat. Gr. 22 195. Psalms, cant. (xii) Paris, Nat. Gr. 23 196. Psalms (inc. ii. 3), cant. (xii) Paris, Nat. Gr. 25 197. Psalms, cant. (xiv) Paris, Nat. Gr. 29 199. Psalms (xi) Modena, Est. 37 200. Psalms, cant. Oxford, Bodl. Barocc. 15 Cf. Nestle, Septuagintastud. iii. p. 14 201. Psalms, cant. Oxford, Bodl. Barocc. 107 202. Psalms, cant., comm. Oxford, Bodl. Cromw. 110 203. Psalms, cant., prayers (A.D. 1336) Oxford, Bodl. Laud. C. 41 204. Psalms (imperf.) schol., prayers Oxford, Bodl. Laud. C. 38 205. Psalms, cant. Cambridge, Trin. Coll. 206. Psalms, cant. (xiv) Cambridge, Gonville & Caius Coll. 348 Facsimile in Harris, Leicester codex 208. Psalms (imperf.), cant. Tübingen, (cod. Schnurrer) 210. Psalms (xiv) [Cod. Demetrii v.] 211. Psalms, cant. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1541 212. Psalms (imperf.) (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1542 213. Psalms (imperf.) (xiii) Rome, Vat. G4. 1848 214. Psalms, cant. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1870 215. Psalms, cant. (A.D. 1011) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1873 Klostermann, p. 13 216. Psalms, cant. (x) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1927 217. Psalms, cant. (A.D. 1029) Rome, Vat. Gr. 341 218. Psalms, li.--liii. (xiii--xiv) ? 219. Psalms, cant. Vienna, Th. Gr. 20 220 = 186 Vienna, Th. Gr. 13 221. Psalms, ix.--cl., comm. Vienna, Th. Gr. 16 222. Psalms, cant. Vienna, Th. Gr. 21 223. Psalms, cant. Vienna, Th. Gr. 22 225. Psalms, cant. (xi) Bologna, 720 226. Psalms, cant., prayers (x) Rome, Barber. 1 (Gr. 372) 227. Psalms (imperf.) cant., prayers (x) Rome, Barber. 2 (Gr. 322) 228. Job, &c. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1764 241. . . Prov., Eccl., Cant. London, B. M. Harl. 7522 248. . . Prov., Ecc1., Cant., Job, Sap., Sir., &c. (xiv) Rome, Vat. Gr. 346 Hexaplaric readings Field, ii. p. 2 249. Job, Sap., Sir., &c. Rome, Vat. Pius 1 Field, l.c. 250. Job (xiv) Munich, Elect. 148 Field, l. c. 251. Job, cat., Psalms (xiv) Florence, Laur. v. 27 252. Job, Prov., Eccl., Cant. (ix--x) Florence, Laur. viii. 27 Field, l.c.; cf. p. 309 and Auct. p. 2 253. Job, Prov., Sir. (xi--xiv) Rome, Vat. Gr. 336 Klostermann, p. 17 ff. Gebhardt, Die Psalmen Salomo's p. 25 ff. 254. Job, Prov. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 337 255. Job (ix) Rome, Vat. Gr. 338 Field, ii. p. 2. Klostermann, p. 69 ff. 256. Job, schol. (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 697 Field, l.c. 257. Job, comm. (x) Rome, Vat. Gr. 743 258. Job, cat., pict. (ix) Rome, Vat. Gr. 749 Field, l.c. Klostermann, p. 68 259. Job, schol. (x) Rome, Vat. Pal. Gr. 230 Field, l.c. Klostermann, p. 11 260. Job, cat., Prov. Copenhagen, Royal Libr. 261. Job, Prov., Eccl., Sap. (xiv) Florence, Laur. vii. 30 263. Psalms Copenhagen, Royal Lib. 264 Psalms, cat. Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 398 Cf. Field, ii. p. 84 f., and Auct. p. 11 265. Psalms, cant., pict. (xiv) Rome, Vat. Gr. 381 266. Psalms (imperf.) (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 2101 267. Psalms, cant. (xiv) Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 294 268. Psalms, cat., cant. Rome, Vat. Gr. 2057 Cf. Field, ii. p. 84 269. Psalms, comm. Athen. (A.D. 897) Rome, Vat. Pal. Gr. 44 270. Psalms, cant. (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1864 271. Psalms, comm. (xi) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1747 272. Psalms (imperf.) cat. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Pal. Gr. 247 273. Psalms, cat. (xiv) Rome, Vat. Regin. Gr. 40 Cf. Field, ii. p. 84 274. Psalms (imperf.) comm. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 343 275. Psalms, cant. (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1874 276 = 221 277. Psalms, cant. Vienna, Th. Gr. 24 278. Psalms (xii--xiii) Florence, Laur. v. 23 279. Psalms, cant. (xiii--xiv) Florence, Laur. v. 35 280. Psalms (xi) Florence, Laur. v. 5 281. Psalms (xi) Florence, Laur. v. 18 282. Psalms (xv) Florence, Laur. v. 25 283. Psalms (xii) Florence, Laur. vi. 36 284. Psalms, cant. (xiv) Florence, Laur. v. 17 285. Psalms, cant. (xiii) Florence, Laur. v. 34 286. Psalms, comm. (xii) Florence, Laur. v 30 287. Psalms (imperf.) comm. (xii) Florence, Laur. v. 14 288. Psalms, comm. Thdt. (xii) Florence, Laur. xi. 5 289. Psalms, comm. Euth.-Zig. (xiii) Florence, Laur. ix. 2 290. Psalms, cant. Florence, Laur. 291. Psalms (xi--xii) Florence, Laur. v. 39 292. Psalms, cat. (xi) Florence, Laur. vi. 3 293. Psalms, metr. paraphr. (xv) Florence, Laur. v. 37 294. Psalms, lxxi. 14, --lxxxi.7, cxxvii 3--cxxxix. 6, cxxxv. 11--cxxxvi. 1, cxxxvii. 4--cxli. 21 (? xiii) Cambridge, Emmanuel College Lagarde calls it P in Genesis graece, but N^(ps) in the Specimen. Apparently a copy in a Western hand of an early cursive Psalter; see M. R. James in Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 1892--3, p. 168 ff. [395] 295. Prov., comm. Procop. (xiv) Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 56 296. Prov.--Sir. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Palat. Gr. 337 297. Prov., cat. (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1802 298. Eccl., comm. (xii) [Cod. Eugenii 3] 299. Eccl., Comm. Greg. Nyss., al. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1694 Klostermann, p. 29 f. 300. Cant., comm. (xii) [Cod. Eugenii 3] 302. Prov. . . . (ix) = 109 Psalms, A.D. 1066 London, B. M. Add. 19,352 Psalms Rome, Vat. Gr. 754 (D) Prophetical Books. 22. Prophets (xi--xii) London, B. M. Reg. i. B. 2 Cod. Pachomianus. Lucianic; Field, ii. p. 428 f. Cornill's x 24. Isaiah, cat. (xii) [Cod. Demetrii i.] 26. Prophets (? xi) Rome, Vat. Gr. 556 Hesychian (Cornill, Ceriani): cf. Klostermann, p. 10 f. 33. Dan., Jer., cat. (x) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1154 Originally belonged to same codex as Vat. gr. 1153: see Klostermann, p. 11. Cf. 87, 97, 238 34. Dan. (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 803 Klostermann, p. 11 n. 35. Dan. (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 866 36. Prophets (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 347 Lucianic (Field). Cornill's o 40. Dodecapropheton (xii) [Cod. Dorothei iii.] 41. Isa., Jer. (ix--x) [Cod. Demetrii ii.] 42. Ezek.,Dan., Min. Proph. (xi--xii) [Cod. Demetrii iii.] Lucianic (Field) 46. . . Isa., Jer., Bar., Lam., Ep. Ezek., Dan., Minor Prophets. . . (xiv) Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 4 48. Prophets (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1794 Lucianic(Field), Cornill's e. Klostermann, pp. 11, 14 49. Prophets (xi) Florence, Laur. xi. 4 Hesychius, Cornill's k 50. Prophets (xi) Florence, Laur. x. 8 Lucianic (Field). Cornill's th 58. . . Prophets (xiii) Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 10 On the text of Daniel in this MS. see Klostermann, p. 12 62. Prophets (xiii) Oxford, New Coll. Lucianic (Field). Field, ii. p. 907; Burkitt, Tyconius, p. cviii; Klostermann, p. 51 68. . . Ezek., Dodecapr. (xv) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 5 Hesychian. Cornill's ps 70. . . Prophets (x--xi) Munich, Gr. 372. (formerly at Augsburg) 86. Isa., Jer., Ezek., Dodecapr.(? ix) Rome, Barber. v. 45 Field, ii. p. 939. Walton, vi. 131 f.; Klostermann, p. 50 87. Prophets (? ix) Rome, Chigi 2 Hesychian. Cornill's b. For the relation of 87 to 91 and 96 see Faulhaber Die Propheten-catenen. 33, 97, 238 are copied from 87 88. Isa., Jer., Ezek., Dan. (LXX.) (? xi) Rome, Chigi 3 87 in Field (ii. p. 766). O.T. in Greek (iii. p. xiii.). Cf. Klostermann, p. 31 89. Daniel (xi) = 239 90. Isa., Jer., Ezek., Dan., cat. (xi) Florence, Laur. v. 9 Lucianic (Field); in Ezekiel, Hesychian acc. to Cornill: Cornill's l 91. Prophets, cat. (xi) Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 452 Hesychian (Cornill). Cornill's m See note on 87 93. . . Isa. (xiv) London, B. M. Reg. i. D. 2 Lucianic (Field) 95. Dodecaproph., comm. Theod. Mops. Vienna, Th. Gr. 163 Lucianic (Cornill) 96. Isa., Jer., Ezek., Dan. Copenhagen See note on 87 97. Dodecapr., Isa., cat. (x) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1153 See notes on 33, 87 104. . . Isa. v.--lxii. Vienna, Th. Bib. 27 (Nessel 229) 105. . . Fragments of Prophets, &c. (xiii--xiv) London, B. M. Burney 106. . . Isa., Jer., Ezek., Dan., Minor Prophets to Micah (xiv) Ferrara, Gr. 187 Hesychian 109. Isaiah, cat. = 302 Vienna, Th. Gr. 26 114. Dodecaproph., comm. Theod. Mops. . . Evora, Carthus. 2 122. . . Prophets (xv) Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 6 131. . . Prophets (? xii) Vienna, Th. Gr. (Nessel 23) 147. . . Isa., Jer., Ezek., Dan. (imperf.), Dodecaproph. Oxford, Bodl. Laud. 30 Lucianic (cf. Field, ii. p. 907) 148. Daniel (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 2025 153. Prophets (exc. Zech.), comm. (x) Rome, Vat. Pal. Gr. 273 Lucianic (Cornill) 185. . . Dodecaproph. (xi) Vienna, Th. Gr. 18 Lucianic (Cornill) 198. Prophets (imperf.) (ix) Paris, Nat. Gr. 14 = Ev. 33. Burkitt, Tyconius, p. cviii 228. . . Prophets (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1764 Hesychian (Cornill, but cf. Klostermann, p. 13 f. Cornill's ph) 229. Jer., Dan., comm. (xiv) Rome, Vat. Gr. 673 230. Daniel (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1641 231. Jer. with Baruch &c. (xi) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1670 From Grotta Ferrata. Lucianic, Cornill's i. Cp. Klostermann, p. 14 232. Daniel (xii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 2000 A Basilian MS., cp. Klostermann, p. 15 233. Prophets (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 2067 Lucianic (Field) 234. Susanna Moscow, Syn. 341 235. Susanna Rome, Vat. Gr. 2048 238. Ezekiel, cat. (x) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1153 Hesychian (Cornill). Cornill's s See notes on 33, 87, 97 239. Prophets (A.D. 1046)= 89 240. Dodecapr., cat. (A.D. 1286) Florence, Laur. vi. 22 301. Isaiah (ix) Vienna, Th. Gr. 158 302. . . Isaiah, cat. ( xiii) = 109 303. Isaiah, comm. Cyril. Vienna, Th. Gr. 100 304. Isaiah i.--xxv. comm. Basil. (xi) Florence, Laur. iv. 2 305. Isaiah (imperf.), cat. Copenhagen, Reg. 306. Isa., Ezek. (xi) Paris, Nat. Gr. 16 307. Isaiah, comm. Basil. (xi) Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 430 308. Isaiah, comm. Basil. and Thdt. (xiii) Rome, Vat. Gr. 1509 Lucianic (Field) 309. Isaiah, cat. (x) Rome, Vat. Gr. 755 Cf. Klostermann, p. 11 310. Dodecapr., schol. (xi) Moscow, Syn. 209 311. . . Prophets (xi) = 234 . . . Prophets (ix, med.) Jerusalem, H. Sepulchre 2 III. LECTIONARIES. From the second century the Greek-speaking Churches, following the example of the Hellenistic Synagogue, read the Greek Old Testament in their public assemblies. Justin, Apol. i. 67 ta sungrammata ton propheton anaginosketai. Const. ap. ii. 57 mesos de ho anagnostes eph' hupselou tinos hestos anaginosketo ta Moseos kai Iesou tou Naue, ta ton Kriton kai ton Basileion k.t.l. Ibid. viii. 5 meta ten anagnosin tou nomou kai ton propheton. Chrys. in Rom. xxiv. 3 ho maten entautha eiselthon, eipe tis prophetes, tis apostolos semeron dielechthe. At a later time the anagnoseis or anagnosmata were copied consecutively for ecclesiastical use. The lectionaries or fragments of lectionaries which survive, although frequently written in large and showy uncials [396] , are rarely earlier than the tenth or eleventh century; but a thorough investigation of their contents would doubtless be of interest, not only from a liturgical point of view, but for the light which it would throw on the ecclesiastical distribution of various types of text. Little has been done as yet in this direction, and our information, such as it is, relates chiefly to the N.T. See Matthaei, N. T. Gr., ad fin. vol. i.; Neale, Holy Eastern Church, General Intr., p. 369 ff.; Burgon, Last twelve verses of St Mark, p. 191 ff.; Scudamore, art. Lectionary, D. C. A. ii.; Nitzsch, art. Lectionarium, Herzog-Plitt, viii.; Gregory, prolegg. i. p. 161 ff., 687 ff.; Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 74 ff.; E. Nestle, Urtext, p. 76; M. Faulhaber, Die Propheten-catenen nach röm. Handschriften (Freiburg i. B., 1899). The following list of MSS. [397] containing lections from the Old Testament has been drawn up from materials previously supplied by Dr E. Nestle. It will be seen that with few exceptions they are limited to those which are bound up with N.T. lections and have been catalogued under the head of N.T. lectionaries by Dr C. F. Gregory and Scrivener-Miller. London, Sion College, Arc. i. 1 (vi or vii) Gr. p. 720 (234, Scr. 227) " B. M. Add. 11841 (? xi) Gr. p. 783 (9, Scr. 75) " B. M. Add. 18212 (xi) Gr. p. 715 (191, Scr. 263) " B. M. Add. 22744 (xiii) Gr. p. 731 (324, Scr. 272) " Burdett-Coutts, iii. 42 (xiv) Gr. p. 730 (315, Scr. 253) " Burdett-Coutts, iii. 44 (xv) Gr. p. 749 (476, Scr. 290) " Burdett-Coutts, iii. 46 (xiii) Gr. p. 719 (226, Scr. 249) " Burdett-Coutts, iii. 53 (xv) Oxford, Christ Church, Wake 14 (xii) Gr. p. 717 (207, Scr. 214) " Christ Church, Wake 15 (A.D. 1068) Gr. p. 717 (208, Scr. 215) Cambridge, Univ. Libr. Add. 1879 (? xi) (Gen. xi. 4--9, Prov. xiii. 19--xiv. 6, Sir. xxxvii. 13--xxxviii. 6): a fragment purchased from the executors of Tischendorf " Christ's College, F. i. 8 (xi) Gr. p. 714 (185, Scr. 222) = Z^scr, WH. 59 Ashburnham, 205 (xii) Gr. p. 720 (237 Scr. 237--8) Paris, Nat. Gr. 308 (xiii) Gr. p. 779 (24) " Nat. Gr. 243 (A.D. 1133) Omont, MSS. Grecs datés, no. xlvi. Paris, Nat, suppl. Gr. 32 (xiii) Gr. p. 704 (84) Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 59 (xii) Gr. p. 757 (573, Scr. 395) " Vat. Gr. 168 (xiii or xiv) Gr. p. 786 (188, Scr. 116) " Vat. Gr. 2012 (xv) Gr. p. 756 (556, Scr. 387) " Barb. 18 (xiv) Gr. p. 780 (40) Grotta Ferrata, A' d' 2 (x) Gr. p. 748 (473, Scr. 323) " A' d' 4 (xiii) Gr. p. 748 (475, Scr. 325) " D' b' 22 (xviii) Gr. p. 751 (506, Scr. 358) Venice, St Mark's, i. 42 (xii) Gr. p. 724 (268, Scr. 173) [398] Trèves, Bibl. Cath. 143 F (x or xi) Gr. p. 713 (179) Athens, Nat. 86 (xiii) Gr. p. 745 (443) Salonica, Hellenikou gumnasiou id' (xv or xvi) Gr. p. 771 (837) Cairo, Patr. Alex. 927 (xv) Gr. p. 776 (759, Scr. 140) Sinai, 748 (xv or xvi) Gr. p. 775 (900) " 943 (A.D. 1697) Gr. p. 775 (908) St Saba, in tower, 16 (xii) Gr. p. 770 (829, Scr. 364) Jerusalem, H. Sepulchre (xiii) Harris, p. 13 LITERATURE (on the general subject of this chapter). Stroth, in Eichhorn's Repertorium (vi., viii., xi.); the prolegomena to Grabe, Holmes and Parsons, Tischendorf, and The Old Testament in Greek; the prefaces to Lagarde's Genesis graece, Libr. V. T. Canon., p. i., Psalterii specimen; Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS.; Madan, Summary, p. 615 ff. (Holmes MSS., A.D. 1789--1805); Nestle, Urtext, p. 71 ff.; H. Omont, Inventaire Summaire des MSS. Grecs de la Bibl. Nationale; S. Berger, Hist. de la Vulgate. The lists of MSS. given in this chapter must be regarded as tentative and incomplete. The student may supplement them to some extent by referring to recently published catalogues of MS. libraries, especially the following: V. Gardthausen, Catalogus codd. Graecorum Sinaiticorum (Oxford, 1886); Papadopulos Kerameus, Ierosolumitike Bibliotheke i.--iv. (St Petersburg, 1891--1899); Sp. P. Lambros, Catalogue of the Greek MSS. on Mount Athos (Cambridge, vol. i., 1895; vol. ii., with index, 1900). He may also consult with advantage J. B. Pitra, Analecta sacra, iii. (1883), p. 551 ff.; H. A. Redpath, in Academy, Oct. 22, 1893; E. Klostermann's Analecta zur Septuaginta (1895); Mrs Lewis, in Exp. Times, xiii. 2, p. 55 ff.; H. Omont, in Lit. C. Blatt; A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, ii. (1907). __________________________________________________________________ [328] Lagarde's CEHKRSUYZ were unknown to the Oxford editors. Greek capitals have been used in the Cambridge manual LXX. for a few uncials not mentioned by Lagarde. [329] Libr. V. T, can. pars i., p. v. sq. [330] Ezechiel, p. 19 ff. [331] Cf. Orig. in Ioann. t. xiii. 26, Epiph. de mens. et pond. 4. Pentateuchus occurs in Tertullian adv. Marc. i. 10. [332] For IX = P see under Cursive MSS. (H.-P. 294. [333] This MS. ought to take rank among the cursives; see below, p. 145. [334] For the order of the books see Part II. c. i. [335] As to these see Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS., p. 129. [336] See c. vi. [337] Prolegg. i. p 358. [338] E. Maunde Thompson, Cod. Alex. i. p. 8 ff. Ibid. [339] This has been proved by Nestle (Academy, May 30, 1891) against Batiffol (La Vaticane de Paul III. à Paul V., Paris, 1890, p. 82. Cf. Nestle, Septuagintastudien, ii. p 11, note i. [340] La Vaticane de Paul III. à Paul V. (Paris, 1890). Gregory, Prolegg. p. 360. [341] On this work see Nestle, Septuagintast. iii. p. 13 ff. [342] Specimens are given in Sir E. Maunde Thompson's Greek and Latin Palæography, p. 150; and F. G. Kenyon's Our Bible &c., p. 136; E. Nestle, Einführung², Tafel 4. [343] Sir E. M. Thompson, op. cit. p. 159; WH., Intr. p. 75. [344] F. G. Kenyon, Palæography of Greek papyri, p. l20. See A. Rahlfs, A1ter u. Heimath der Vat. Bibelhandschrift, in G. G. N., 1899, i. p. 72 ff. [345] On palimpsest MSS. see Sir E. M. Thompson, Greek and Latin Palæography, p. 75 ff. [346] For a list of these see Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs, p. 2. [347] Tischendorf, Cod. Ephraemi rescriptus, prolegg. p. 9. [348] See a photographic facsimile in Facsimilés des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibl. Nat. (H. Omont, Paris, 1892). [349] See Tischendorf, op. cit., prolegg. p. 5. [350] So called in honour of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony. [351] Cf. Tischendorf's remarks in Litt. C.-Blatt, 1867 (27). [352] "They have much of the appearance of the successive columns in a papyrus roll, and it is not at all impossible that it [the MS.] was actually copied from such a roll." Kenyon, p. 124; cf. Scrivener-Miller, p. 95. [353] Another explanation (suggested by Dr Gwynn) is given by Dr Lupton in Wace's Apocrypha, i., p. 2. [354] A facsimile of 2 Esdr. xviii. 15--xix. 15 may be seen in Stade, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, ii, p. 192. [355] Cf. Wetstein, N. T. i. p. 133; Lagarde, Septuagintastudien, p. 48. [356] Cf. Deutsche Lit.-Zeit. 1897, p. 1475 f. [357] Klostermann, p. 9. [358] Holmes, Praef. ad Pentateuch. [359] It was the eighth of Bessarion's MSS.; see Schott in Eichhorn's Repert., viii. 181. [360] Still an episcopal see in the time of Le Quien; see Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 64, note. [361] They stated that it had once been the property of Origen. [362] Walton's statement that Cod. D at one time contained the Pentateuch is however groundless; in the Cotton catalogue of 1621 it is described as "Genesis only." [363] I owe the reference to Dr Nestle (Urtext, p. 71). [364] Mr Bradshaw, I now learn, had previously noticed this, but he does not appear to have published the fact, or to have left any written statement about it. [365] In his paper über eine von Tischendorf aus dem Orient mit-gebrachte, in Oxford, Cambridge, London, u. Petersburg liegende Handschrift der Septuaginta, reprinted from Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1898; cf. Th. L.-Z., Feb. 4, 1899, p. 74. See also E. Klostermann, G. G. A., 1895, p. 257. [366] "The date of the whole MS., including the uncial part, may very well be the tenth century" (Class. Review, l.c.). [367] The fragments of Malachi and Isaiah, attributed to F in Holmes, followed by Tischendorf V. T.², and Kenyon (p. 62), belong to a MS. of cent. xi.; see Ceriani, Mon. sacr. et prof., praef. p. ix. [368] See Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Pal., p. 62. [369] Cf. Thompson, op. cit. p. 72, "they were not systematically applied to Greek texts before the 7th century." [370] Fragments marked are at Paris; that marked is at St Petersburg. [371] Montfaucon, Pal. sacr. p. 186 f.; Tischendorf, Mon. sacr. ined. n. c. iii. prolegg. p. xviii. [372] V. T. gr. cod. Sarraviani-Colbertini quae supersunt in bibliothecis Leidensi Parisiensi Petropolitana phototypice edita. Praefatus est H. Omont. [373] On the fragments of Judges see Moore, Judges, p. xlv. [374] On the latter see H. S. Cronin, Codex Purpurcus Petropalitanus, p. xxiii. [375] Other notes occur in a hand of the ninth century and in a late cursive hand. [376] Gregory, i. p. 375; Scrivener-Miller, i. p1 134. [377] See Gregory, i. p. 447, Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 172 f. [378] Cf. Nestle, Septuagintastudien, iii. p. 17 ff. [379] See Catalogue of Ancient MSS. in the British Museum, i. (1881), where there is a photograph of Ps. xxiii. 10 ff., and Dr Kenyon's Palaeography of papyri, p. 116 f. [380] Kenyon, loc. cit. [381] Cf. F. E. Brightman in J. Th. St. ii. 275 f. [382] See E. Klostermann, Analecta zur Septuaginta, &c., p. 63. [383] Hexapla, ii. p. 2. [384] See Gregory, i. p. 399 f.; Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 153. [385] Recensioni dei LXX., p. 6. [386] Printed in 0. T. in Greek, iii.², p. 8 f. [387] In Eichhorn's Repertorium, viii. p. 202 f. [388] The specimens and descriptions in the Turin catalogue (p. 74 ff.) seem to shew that the headings only are written in uncials. [389] Edited (1905) by Prof. G. Deissmann. [390] The Amherst Papyri, pt. i. (1900), adds some small uncial fragments from Gen. (i. 1--5) and Job (i. 21 f., ii. 3) and portions of Pss. v., lviii., lix., cviii., cxviii., cxxxv., cxxxviii.--cxl. Finally, Mrs Lewis (Exp. Times, Nov. 1901) announces the discovery of a palimpsest from Mt Sinai containing Gen. xl. 3, 4, 7 in an uncial hand of the sixth or seventh century. [391] The arabic numerals are the symbols employed by H. and P. For descriptions of the unnumbered MSS., the writer is indebted to Messrs Brooke and McLean, and Mr Brooke has also assisted him in verifying and correcting the earlier lists. [392] Dots in this position shew that the MS. extends beyond the Octateuch. [393] Dots before the name of the first book quoted indicate that the MS. has already appeared under (A), where fuller information may be sought. This note applies mutatis mutandis to (C) and (D). [394] The only Greek MS. which in Ps. xcv (xcvi) 10 adds apo to xulo (sic); see below, p. 467. [395] Other Psalters used by Lagarde (Specimen, p. 3 f.) are St Gall 17 (ix) = G(ps); Munich 251 = L(ps); a Bamberg Graeco-Latin MS. and a Cologne MS. closely related to it, which he calls W and Z respectively. Cf. Rahlfs, Sept.-St. ii. pp. 7, 8. [396] Specimens are given by H. Omont, Facsimilés du plus anciens MSS. Grecs (Paris, 1892), nos. xx.--xxii. [397] A few lectionaries have already been mentioned among the H.P. MSS. (37, 61, 132). [398] At Messina, as Mr Brightman informs me, there are six lectionaries of cents. xii, xiii. Mr T. W. Allen (Notes on Greek MSS. in Italy, 1890) mentions two at Bologna (xi) and one at Lucerne (xv). __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER VI. PRINTED TEXTS OF THE SEPTUAGINT. THE printed texts of the Septuagint fall naturally into two classes, viz. (1) those which contain or were intended to exhibit the whole of the Greek Old Testament; (2) those which are limited to a single book or to a group of books. I. COMPLETE EDITIONS. 1. The first printed text of the whole Septuagint is that which forms the third column in the Old Testament of the great Complutensian Polyglott. This great Bible was printed at Alcalà (Complutum) in Spain under the auspices of Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros, Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo. Ximenes, who, in addition to his ecclesiastical offices, was Regent of Castile, began this undertaking in 1502 in honour of the birth of Charles V. (1500--1558), and lived to see the whole of the sheets pass through the press. He died Nov. 8, 1517, and the fourth volume, which completes the Old Testament and was the last to be printed, bears the date July 10, 1517. But the publication of the Polyglott was delayed for more than four years: the papal sanction attached to the N. T. volume is dated May 22, 1520, and the copy which was intended for the Pope seems not to have found its way into the Vatican Library until Dec. 5, 1521. The title of the complete work (6 vols. folio) is as follows: "Biblia sacra Polyglotta complectentia V.T. Hebraico Graeco et Latino idiomate, N.T. Graecum et Latinum, et vocabularium Hebraicum et Chaldaicum V.T. cum grammatica Hebraica necnon Dictionario Graeco. Studio opera et impensis Cardinalis Fr. Ximenes de Cisneros. Industria Arnoldi Gulielmi de Brocario artis impressorie magistri. Compluti, 1514[--15, --17]." The O.T. volumes of the Complutensian Bible contain in three columns (1) the Hebrew text, with the Targum of Onkelos at the foot of the page, (2) the Latin Vulgate, (3) the Septuagint, with an interlinear Latin version--an order which is explained by the editors as intended to give the place of honour to the authorised version of the Western Church [399] . The prejudice which their words reveal does not augur well for the character of the Complutensian LXX. Nevertheless we have the assurance of Ximenes that the greatest care was taken in the selection of the MSS. on which his texts were based [400] . Of his own MSS. few remain, and among those which are preserved at Madrid there are only two which contain portions of the Greek Old Testament (Judges--Macc., and a Psalter). But he speaks of Greek MSS. of both Testaments which had been sent to him by the Pope from the Vatican Library [401] , and it has been shewn that at least two MSS. now in that Library (cod. Vat. gr. 330 = H.P. 108, and cod. Vat. gr. 346 = H.P. 248) were used in the construction of the Complutensian text of the LXX. [402] There is reason to suppose that a Venice MS. (S. Marc. 5 = H.P. 68) was also employed; a copy of this MS. still exists at Madrid. The editors of the Complutensian Polyglott were the Spaniard Antonio de Nebrija, Professor of Rhetoric at Alcalà, and his pupil Ferdinando Nunez de Guzman (Pincianus); Diego Lopez de Zuñiga (Stunica); Juan de Vergara, Professor of Philosophy at Alcalà; a Greek from Crete, by name Demetrius; and three converts from Judaism, to whom the Hebrew text and the Targum were entrusted. The editing of the Greek LXX. text seems to have been left chiefly in the hands of Pincianus, Stunica and Demetrius. The Complutensian text is followed on the whole in the Septuagint columns of the four great Polyglotts edited by Arias Montanus, Antwerp, 1569--72; B. C. Bertram, Heidelberg, 1586--7, 1599, 1616; D. Wolder, Hamburg, 1596; Michael Le Jay, Paris, 1645. 2. In February 15 , after the printing of the Complutensian Polyglott but before its publication, Andreas Asolanus [403] , father-in-law of the elder Aldus, issued from the Aldine press a complete edition of the Greek Bible bearing the title: Panta ta kat' exochen kaloumena biblia, theias delade graphes palaias te kai neas. Sacrae scripturae veteris novaeque omnia. Colophon: Venetiis in aedib[us] Aldi et Andreae soceri. mdxviii., mense Februario. Like Ximenes, Andreas made it his business to examine the best MSS. within his reach. In the dedication he writes: "ego multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis biblia (ut vulgo appellant) graece cuncta descripsi." His words, however, do not suggest an extended search for MSS., such as was instituted by the Spanish Cardinal; and it is probable enough that he was content to use Bessarion's collection of codices, which is still preserved in St Mark's Library at Venice [404] . Traces have been found in his text of three at least of those MSS. (cod. ii = H.P. 29; cod. iii = H.P. 121; cod. v = H.P. 68). The Aldine text of the LXX. was followed on the whole in the editions of (1) Joh. Lonicerus, Strassburg, 1524, 1526; (2)? with a preface by Philip Melanchthon, Basle, 1545; (3) H. Guntius, Basle, 1550, 1582; (4) Draconites, in Biblia Pentapla, Wittenburg, 1562--5; (5) Francis du Jon (Fr. Junius) or (?) Fr. Sylburg, Frankfort, 1597; (6) Nic. Glykas, Venice, 1687. 3. In 1587 a third great edition of the Greek Old Testament was; published at Rome under the auspices of Sixtus V. (editio Sixtina, Romana). It bears the title: E PALAIA DIAThEKE | KATA TOUS EBDOMEKONTA | DI AUThENTIAS | XUSTOU E' AKROU ARChIEREOS | EKDOThEISA | VETVS TESTAMENTVM | IVXTA SEPTVAGINTA | EX AUCTORITATE | SIXTI V. PONT. MAX. | EDITVM | ROMAE | EX TYPOGRAPHIA FRANCISCI ZANETTI. M.D.LXXXVI(I) [405] | CVM PRIVILEGIO GEORGIO FERRARIO CONCESSO.. The volume consists of 783 pages of text, followed by a page of addenda and corrigenda, and preceded by three (unnumbered) leaves which contain (1) a dedicatory letter addressed to Sixtus V. by Cardinal Antonio Carafa, (2) a preface to the reader [406] , and (3) the papal authorisation of the book. These documents are so important for the history of the printed text that they must be given in full. (1) SIXTO QUINTO PONTIF. MAX. ANTONIUS CARAFA CARDINALIS SANCTAE SEDIS APOSTOLICAE BIBLIOTHECARIUS Annus agitur iam fere octavus ex quo Sanctitas vestra pro singulari suo de sacris litteris benemerendi studio auctor fuit beatae memoriae Gregorio XIII. Pont. Max. ut sacrosancta Septuaginta Interpretum Biblia, quibus Ecclesia tum Graeca tum Latina iam inde ab Apostolorum temporibus usa est, ad fidem probatissimorum codicum emendarentur. Quod enim Sanctitas V. pro accurata sua in perlegendis divinis scripturis diligentia animadvertisset, infinitos pene locos ex its non eodem modo ab antiquis sacris scriptoribus afferri quo in vulgatis Bibliorum Graecis editionibus ctrcumferrentur, existimassetque non aliunde eam lectionum varietatem quam a multiplici eaque confusa veterum interpretatione fluxisse; rectissime censuit ad optimae notae exemplaria provocandum esse, ex quibus, quoad fieri posset, ea quae vera et sincera esset Septuaginta Interpretum scriptura eliceretur. Ex quo fit ut vestram non solum pietatem sed etiam sapientiam magnopere admirer; cum videam S. V. de Graecis Bibliis expoliendis idem multos post annos in mentem venisse quod sanctos illos Patres Tridenti congregatos auctoritate ac reverentia ductos verae ac purae Septuaginta interpretationis olim cogitasse cognovi ex actis eius Concilii nondum pervulgatis. Huius autem expolitionis constituendae munus cum mihi demandatum esset a Gregorio XIII., cuius cogitationes eo maxime spectabant ut Christiana Religio quam latissime propagaretur, operam dedi ut in celebrioribus Italiae bibliothecis optima quaeque exemplaria perquirerentur atque ex iis lectionum varietates descriptae ad me mitterentur [407] . Quibus sane doctorum hominum quos ad id delegeram industria et iudicio clarae memoriae Gulielmi Cardinalis Sirleti (quem propter excellentem doctrinam et multiplicem linguarum peritiam in locis obscurioribus mihi consulendum proposueram) persaepe examinatis et cum vestro Vaticanae bibliothecae (cui me benignitas vestra nuper praefecit) exemplari diligenter collatis; intelleximus cum ex ipsa collatione tum a sacrorum veterum scriptorum consensione, Vaticanum codicem non solum vetustate verum etiam bonitate caeteris anteire; quodque caput est, ad ipsam quam quaerebamus Septuaginta interpretationem, si non toto libro, maiori certe ex parte, quam proxime accedere. Quod mihi cum multis aliis argumentis constaret, vel ipso etiam libri titulo, qui est kata tous hebdomekonta, curavi de consilio et sententia eorum quos supra nominavi, huius libri editionem ad Vaticanum exemplar emendandam; vel potius exemplar ipsum, quod eius valde probaretur auctoritas, de verbo ad verbum repraesentandum, accurate prius sicubi opus fuit recognitum et notationibus etiam auctum. Factum est autem providentia sane divina, ut quod Sanctitate vestra suadente sui Cardinalatus tempore inchoatum est, id variis de causis aliquoties intermissum per ipsa fere initia Pontificatus sui fuerit absolutum; scilicet ut hoc praeclarum opus, vestro Sanctissimo nomini dicatum, quasi monumentum quoddam perpetuum esset futurum apud omnes bonos et vestrae erga Rempublicam Christianam voluntatis et meae erga Sanctitatem vestram observantiae. (2) PRAEFATIO AD LECTOREM Qui sunt in sacrosanctis scripturis accuratius versati, fatentur omnes Graecam Septuaginta Interpretum editionem longe aliis omnibus quibus Graeci usi sunt et antiquiorem esse et probatiorem. Constat enim eos Interpretes, natione quidem Iudaeos, doctos vero Graece, trecentis uno plus annis ante Christi adventum, cum in Aegypto regnaret Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, Spiritu sancto plenos sacra Biblia interpretatos esse, eamque interpretationem a primis Ecclesiae nascentis temporibus tum publice in Ecclesiis ad legendum propositam fuisse, tum privatim receptam et explanatam ab Ecclesiasticis scriptoribus qui vixerunt ante B. Hieronymum, Latinae vulgatae editionis auctorem. Nam Aquila quidem Sinopensis, qui secundus post Septuaginta eosdem libros ex Hebraeo in Graecum convertit et multo post tempore sub Hadriano principe floruit, et eius interpretatio, (quod ea quae de Christo in scripturis praedicta fuerant, ut a Iudaeis gratiam iniret aliter quam Septuaginta vertendo, subdola obscuritate involverit) iamdiu est cum a recte sentientibus, licet in hexaplis haberetur, aliquibus locis non est probata. Hunc vero qui subsequuti sunt, Symmachus et Theodotio, alter Samaritanus sub L. Vero, alter Ephesius sub Imp. Commodo, uterque (quamvis et ipsi in hexaplis circumferrentur) parum fidus interpres habitus est: Symmachus, quod Samaritanis offensus, ut placeret Iudaeis, non unum sanctae scripturae locum perturbato sensu corruperit; Theodotio, quod Marcionis haeretici sectator nonnullis locis perverterit potius quam converterit sacros libros. Fuerunt praeter has apud Graecos aliae duae editiones incertae auctoritatis: altera Antonio Caracalla Imp. apud Hierichuntem, altera apud Nicopolim sub Alexandro Severo in doliis repertae. quae quod in octaplis inter Graecas editiones quintum et sextum locum obtinerent, quintae et sextae editionis nomen retinuerunt. Sed nec hae satis fidae interpretationes habitae sunt. His additur alia quaedam editio sancti Luciani martyris, qui vixit sub Diocletiano et Maximiano Impp., valde illa quidem probata, sed quae cum Septuaginta Interpretibus comparari nullo modo possit, vel ipsis etiam Graecis scriptoribus testantibus et Niceta confirmante his plane verbis in commentario Psalmorum: hemeis de kai ten toiauten ekdosin sebazomenoi, te ton hebdomekonta proskeimetha malista, hoti dieremenos ten tes dialektou metabolen poiesamenoi mian en hekastois ennoian kai lexin apodedokasin. Adeo Septuaginta Interpretum editio magni nominis apud omnes fuit; nimirum quae instinctu quodam divinitatis elaborata bono generis humani prodierit in lucem. Sed haec etiam ipsa, quod in hexaplis ita primum ab Origene collocata fuerit ut eius e regione aliae editiones quo inter se comparari commodius possent ad legendum propositae essent, deinde vero varietates tantum ex iis ad illam sub obelis et asteriscis notari essent coeptae, factum est ut vetustate notis obliteratis insincera nimis et valde sui dissimilis ad nos pervenerit: quippe quae insertis ubique aliorum interpretationibus, aliquibus autem locis duldici atque etiam triplici eiusdem sententiae interpretatione intrusa, male praeterea a librariis accepta, suum ob id nitorem integritatemque amiserit. Hinc illae lectionum penitus inter se dissidentes varietates et, quod doctissimorum hominum ingenia mentesque diu torsit, ipsae exemplarium non solum inter se sed a veteribus etiam scriptoribus dissensiones. Quod malum primo a multis ignoratum, ab aliis postea neglectum, quotidie longius serpens, principem librum, et a quo tota lex divina et Christiana pendent instituta, non levibus maculis inquinavit. Quo nomine dici non potest quantum omnes boni debeant Sixto V. Pont. Max. Is enim quod in sacris litteris, unde sanctissimam hausit doctrinam, aetatem fere totam contriverit, quodque in hoc libro cum veterum scriptis conferendo singularem quandam diligentiam adhibuerit, vidit primus qua ratione huic malo medendum esset; nec vidit solum, sed auctoritate etiam sua effecit ut summus Pontifex Gregorius XIII. Graeca Septuaginta Interpretum Biblia, adhibita diligenti castigatione, in pristinum splendorem restituenda curaret. Quam rem exequendam cum ille demandasset Antonio Carafae Cardinali, viro veteris sanctitatis et omnium honestarum artium cultori, nulla is interposita mora delectum habuit doctissimorum hominum qui domi suae statis diebus exemplaria manuscripta, quae permulta undique conquisierat, conferrent et ex iis optimas quasque lectiones elicerent; quibus deinde cum codice Vaticanae biliothecae saepe ac diligenter comparatis intellectum est, eum codicem omnium qui extant longe optimum esse, ac operae pretium fore si ad eius fidem nova haec editio pararetur. Sed emendationis consilio iam explicato, ipso quoque ratio quae in emendando adhibita est nunc erit apertenda, in primisque Vaticanus liber describendus, ad cuius praescriptum haec editio expolita est. Codex is, quantum ex forma characterum coniici potest, cum sit maioribus litteris quas vere antiquas vocant exaratus, ante millesimum ducentesimum annum, hoc est ante tempora B. Hieronymi et non infra, scriptus videtur. Ex omnibus autem libris qui in manibus fuerunt unus hic prae aliis, quia ex editione Septuaginta si non toto libro certe maiorem partem constare vises est, mirum in modum institutam emendationem adiuvit; post eum vero alii duo qui ad eius vetustatem proximi quidem sed longe proximi intervallo accedunt, unus Venetus ex bibliotheca Bessarionis Cardinalis, et is quoque grandioribus litteris scriptus; alter qui ex Magna Graecia advectus nunc est Carafae Cardinalis: qui liber cum Vaticano codice ita in omnibus consentit ut credi possit ex eodem archetypo descriptus esse. Praeter hos magno etiam usui fuerunt libri ex Medicea bibliotheca Florentiae collati, qui Vaticanas lectiones multis locis aut confirmarunt aut illustrarunt. Sed libri Vaticani bonitas non tam ex horum codicum miro consensu perspecta est, quam ex iis locis qui partim adducuntur partim explicantur ab antiquis sacris scriptoribus; qui fere nusquam huius exemplaris lectiones non exhibent ac reponunt, nisi ubi aliorum Interpretum locum aliquem afferunt, non Septuaginta. quorum editio cum esset nova emendatione perpolienda, recte ad huius libri normam, qui longe omnium antiquissimus, solus iuxta Septuaginta inscribitur, perpolita est; vel potius rectissime liber ipse ad litteram, quoad fieri potuit per antiquam orthographiam aut per librarii lapsus, est expressus. Nam vetus illa et iam absoleta eius aetatis scriptura aliquibus locis repraesentata non est; cum tamen in aliis omnibus, nisi ubi manifestus apparebat librarii lapsus, ne latum quidem unguem, ut aiunt, ab huius libri auctoritate discessum sit, ne in iis quidem quae si minus mendo, certe suspicione mendi videbantur non carere. satius enim visum est locos vel aliquo modo suspectos (nec enim fieri potest ut in quantumvis expurgate exemplari non aliqua supersit macula) quemadmodum habentur in archetypo relinqui quam eos ex alicuius ingenio aut coniectura emendari: quod multa quae primo vel mendosa vel mutilata in hoc codice videbantur, ea postea cum aliis libris collata vera et sincera reperirentur. Nam in libris Prophetarum, qui maxime in hoc exemplari (uno excepto Daniele) puram Septuaginta editionem resipiunt, mirum quam multa non habeantur; quae tamen recte abesse et eorum Interpretum non esse, intellectum est tum ex commentariis veterum scriptorum Graecis et Latinis, tum ex libris manuscriptis in quibus illa addita sent sub asteriscis. Atque haec ratio in notationibus quoque servata est, in quibus cum multa sint ex commentariis Graecis petita quae in codicibus manuscriptis partim mutilata partim varie scripta aliquibus locis circumferuntur, ea non aliter atque in archetypis exemplaribus reperiuntur descripta sunt, quo uniuscuiusque arbitratu adiuvantibus libris restitui possint. Nec vero illud omittendum, quod item pertinet ad notationes; non omnia in its repraesentata esse quae aut ad confirmandas lectiones Vaticanas e scriptoribus vulgatis, aut ad explenda quae in Septuaginta non habentur, ex aliorum editionibus afferri potuissent, quod in communibus libris cum legantur, inde sibi unusquisque nullo negotio ea parare possit. Quae vero in libris manuscriptis reperta, vel ad indicandas antiquarum tum lectionum tum interpretationum varietates (sub scholii illas nomine, quod ipsarum incerta esset auctoritas, nonnunquam relatas) vel ad stabiliendam scripturam Vaticanam et eius obscuriores locos illustrandos pertinere visa sunt, ea certe non sunt praetermissa. Ordo autem librorum in Vaticano exemplari cum idem fere sit cum eo qui apud Graecos circumfertur, a vulgatis tamen editionibus variat in hoc quod primo habet duodecim Prophetas et hos ipsos aliter dispositos; deinde reliquos quattuor, quemadmodum vulgo editi sunt. Atque hunc ordinem verum esse intelligimus ex eo quod illum agnoscunt et probant veteres Ecclesiastici scriptores. Et cum toto exemplari nulla capitum divisio sit, (nam in nova editione consultum est legentium commoditati) in libro tamen quattuor Prophetarum distinctio quaedam apparet subobscura, illi paene similts quam describit sanctus Dorotheus martyr, qui vixit sub Magno Constantino. Maccabaeorum libri absunt ab hoc exemplari, atque item liber Genesis fere totus; nam longo aevo consumptis membranis mutilatus est ab initio libri usque ad caput XLVII. et liber item Psalmorum, qui a Psalmo CV. usque ad CXXXVIII. nimia vetustate mancus est. Sed haec ex aliorum codicum collatione emendata sunt. Quod si aliqua videbuntur in hac editione, ut ait B. Hieronymus, vel lacerata vel inversa, quod ea sub obelis et asteriscis ab Origene suppleta et distincta non sint; vel obscura et perturbata, quod cum Latina vulgata non consentiant, et in aliquibus aliis editionibus apertius et expressius habeantur; eris lector admonendus, non eo spectasse huius expolitionis industriam ut haec editio ex permixtis eorum qui supra nominati sunt interpretationibus (instar eius quam scribit B. Hieronymus a Graecis koinen, a nostris appellatam Communem) concinnata, Latinae: vulgatae editioni, hoc est Hebraeo, ad verbum respondeat; sed ut ad eam quam Septuaginta Interpretes Spiritus sancti auctoritatem sequuti ediderunt, quantum per veteres libros fieri potest, quam proxime accedat. Quam nunc novis emendationibus illustratam et aliorum Interpretum reliquiis quae supersunt auctam, non parum profuturam ad Latinae vulgatae intelligentiam, dubitabit nemo qui hanc cum illa accurate comparaverit. Quae si doctis viris et pie sentientibus, ut aequum est, probabuntur, reliquum erit ut Sixto V. Pont. Max. huius boni auctori gratias agant, et ab omnipotenti Deo publicis votis poscant, optimum Principem nobis florentem quam diutissime servet. qui cum omnes curas cogitationesque suas in amplificandam ornandamque Ecclesiae dignitatem contulerit, dubitandum non est quin Rep. Christiana optimis legibus et sanctissimis institutis per eum reformata, religione ac pietate, revocatis antiquis ritibus, in suum splendorem restituta, in hoc quoque publicam causam sit adiuturus ut sacri veteres libri, hominum incuria vel improbitate corrupti, pro sua eximia benignitate ab omni labe vindicati, quam emendatissimi pervulgentur. (3) SIXTUS PAPA V. Ad perpetuam rei memoriam. Cupientes, quantum in nobis est, commissi nobis gregis salute quacunque ratione ac via prospicere, ad pastoralem nostram curam pertinere vehementer arbitramur Sacrae Scripturae libros, quibus salutaris doctrina continetur, ab omnibus maculis expurgatos integros purosque pervulgari. Id nos in inferiori gradu constituti, quantum potuimus, studio et diligentia nostra praestitimus, et in hac altissima specula a Deo collocati assidue mentis nostrae oculis spectare non desistimus. Cum itaque superioribus annis piae recordationis Gregorius Papa XIII. praedecessor noster, nobis suggerentibus, Graecum Vetus Testamentum iuxta Septuaginta Interpretum editionem, qua ipsi etiam Apostoli nonnunquam usi fuerunt, ad emendatissimorum codicum fidem expoliendum mandaverit; eius rei cura dilecto filio nostro Antonio Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Presbytero Cardinali Carafae, et ad id per eum delectis eruditis aliquot viris demandata, et iam expolitio huiusmodi, permultis exemplaribus ex diversis Italiae bibliothecis et praecipue ex nostra Vaticana diligenter collatis matureque examinatis, absoluta sit: Volumus et sancimus ad Dei gloriam et Ecclesiae utilitatem, ut Vetus Graecum Testamentum iuxta Septuaginta ita recognitum et expolitum ab omnibus recipiatur ac retineatur, quo potissimum ad Latinae vulgatae editionis et veterum Sanctorum Patrum intelligentiam utantur. Prohibentes ne quis de hac nova Graeca editione audeat in posterum vel addendo vel demendo quicquam immutare. Si quis autem aliter fecerit quam hac nostra sanctione comprehensum est, noverit se in Dei Omnipotentis beatorumque Apostolorum Petri et Pauli indignationem incursurum. Datum Romae apud Sanctum Marcum sub Anulo Piscatoris. Die viii. Octobris M.D.LXXXVI, Pontificatus nostri anno secundo. Tho. Thom. Gualterutius. The reader will not fail to note the intelligent appreciation of the LXX., and the wide outlook over the history of the Greek versions which are implied by these documents [408] . They shew that the Vatican had already learnt the true value of the Alexandrian Old Testament and, as a consequence, had resolved to place in the hands of the scholars of Europe as pure a text as could be obtained of the version which was used by the ancient Church, and was now felt to be essential to a right understanding of the Fathers and of the Latin Vulgate. The inception of the work was due to Pope Sixtus himself, who had suggested it to his predecessor Gregory XIII. in 1578; but the execution was entrusted to Cardinal Antonio Carafa and a little band of Roman scholars including Cardinal Sirleto, Antonio Agelli, and Petrus Morinus. Search was made in the libraries of Italy as well as in the Vatican for MSS. of the LXX., but the result of these enquiries satisfied the editors of the superiority of the great Vatican Codex (B = cod. Vat. gr. 1209) over an other known codices, and it was accordingly taken as the basis of the new edition. Use was made, however, of other MSS., among which were a Venice MS. which has been identified with S. Marc. cod. gr. 1 (H. P. 23, Lag. V); a MS. belonging to Carafa, possibly cod. Vat. gr. 1252 (H. P. 63 + 129, cf. Klostermann, p. 12 f., and Batiffol, Bulletin critique, 15 Mars 1889), and certain Laurentian MSS. of which collations are still preserved in the Vatican Library (Vat. gr. 1241, 1242, 1244; see Batiffol, La Vaticane, p. 90 f.). From these and other sources the editors supplied the large lacunae of Cod. B [409] . But they did not limit themselves to the filling up of gaps or even to the correction of errors, as will appear from a comparison of the Sixtine text with the photographic representation of the Vatican MS. The edition of 1587 is not an exact reproduction of a single codex, even where the selected MS. was available; but it is based as a whole on a great uncial MS., and it is the first edition of the LXX. which possesses this character. Moreover, criticism has confirmed the judgement of the Roman editors in regard to the selection of their basal MS. It is a fortunate circumstance that the authority of the Vatican was given before the end of the sixteenth century to a text of the LXX. which is approximately pure. Besides the text the Roman edition contained considerable materials for the criticism of the Greek Old Testament, collected by the labours of Morinus, Agelli, Nobilius, and others. These include readings and scholia from MSS. of the LXX., renderings from Aquila and the other non-Septuagintal Greek versions, and a large assortment of patristic citations. Editions based upon the Sixtine are very numerous. The following list is abridged from Nestle's Urtext (p. 65 ff.): 1. Jo. Morinus, Paris, 1628, 1641. 2. R. Daniel, London, 4to and 8vo, 1653; Cambridge, 1653. 3. B. Walton, London, 1657 (the third column of his Polyglott). 4. Field, Cambridge, 1665 (with the praefatio paraenetica of J. Pearson [410] , Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, afterwards Bp of Chester). 5. J. Leusden, Amsterdam, 1683. 6. Leipzig, 1697 (with prolegomena by J. Frick). 7. L. Bos, Frankfort, 1709. 8. D. Mill, Amsterdam, 1725. g. C. Reineccius, Leipzig, 1730. 10. Halle, 1759--62 (with a preface by J. G. Kirchner). 11. Holmes and Parsons, Oxford, 1798--1827. 12. Oxford, 1817 (with introduction by J. [G.] [411] Carpzow). 13. F. Valpy, London, 1819. 14. London, 1821, 26, 31, 51, 69, 78 (the LXX. column of Bagster's Polyglott). 15. Venice, 1822. 16. Glasgow and London, 1822, 31, 43. 17. L. Van Ess, Leipzig, 1824, 35, 55, 68, 79, 87 (prolegomena and epilegomena separately in 1887). 18. London, 1837. 19. Didot, Paris, 1839, 40, 48, 55, 78, 82. 20. Oxford, 1848, 75. 21. A. F. C. von Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1850, 56, 60, 69, 75, 80, 87. Of the above some are derived from the Sixtine indirectly, whilst others present a Sixtine text more or less modified, or accompanied by variants from other MSS. 4. The example of Rome was followed in the 18th century by England, which had meanwhile acquired an uncial Bible only less ancient, and in the view of some scholars textually more important than the great Vatican MS. The variants of Codex Alexandrinus had been given in Walton's Polyglott under the Sixtine text [412] , but the honour of producing an edition on the basis of the English codex belongs to a Prussian scholar, John Ernest Grabe, an adopted son of the University of Oxford. This edition appeared ultimately in four folio volumes (1707--20), but only the first and fourth had been published when Grabe died (1712); the second and third were undertaken after his decease by Francis Lee, M.D., and William Wigan, D.D. respectively. Vol. i. (1707) contains the Octateuch, Vol. ii. (1719) the Historical Books, Vol. iii. (1720) the Prophets, Vol. iv. (1709) the Poetical Books. The title to the first volume runs: "Septuaginta | interpretum | tomus I | continens Octateuchum | quem | ex antiquissimo codice Alexandrino | accurate descriptum | et ope aliorum exemplarium, ac priscorum scriptorum | praesertim vero Hexaplaris editionis Origenianae | emendatum atque suppletum | additis saepe asteriscorum et obelorum signis | summa cura edidit | Joannes Ernestus Grabe S.T.P. | Oxonii, a theatro Sheldoniano | . . . MDCCVII." This title sufficiently indicates the general principles upon which this great undertaking was based. Like the Sixtine edition, Grabe's is in the main a presentation of the text exhibited in a single uncial codex; like the Sixtine, but to a greater extent, its text is in fact eclectic and mixed. On the other hand the mixture in Grabe's Alexandrian text is overt and can be checked at every point. He deals with his codex as Origen dealt with the koine, marking with an obelus the words, clauses, or paragraphs in the MS. for which he found no equivalent in the Massoretic Hebrew, and placing an asterisk before such as he believed to have been derived from Theodotion or some other non-Septuagintal source. If he constantly adds to his MS. or relegates its readings to the margin, such additions and substituted words are distinguished from the text of cod. A by being printed in a smaller type. So far as it professes to reproduce the text of the MS., his edition is substantially accurate. The prolegomena by which each volume is introduced are full and serviceable; and the work as a whole, whatever may be thought of the method adopted by the editors, is creditable to the Biblical scholarship of the age. Grabe's text was reproduced by Breitinger (Zurich, 1730--2), and Reineccius (in his Biblia sacra quadrilinguia, Leipzig, 1750--1); also in a Greek Bible issued at Moscow in 1821 under the authority of the Holy Synod. A more important work based upon this edition is the Septuagint published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge under the care of Dr Field (Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX. interpretes. Recensionem Grabianam ad fidem codicis Alexandrini aliorumque denuo recognovit . . . F. Field, Oxonii, 1859). But the purpose which the Society had in view forbade a critical treatment of the materials, and whilst the learned editor has removed many of the imperfections of Grabe's work, the text remains arbitrary and mixed, and the arrangement is alien from that of all LXX. MSS. the non-canonical books being relegated to an appendix as apokrupha. 5. Each of the four great editions of the Septuagint already described (the Complutensian, Aldine, Sixtine, and Grabian) endeavoured to supply a text approximately representing either a group of MSS., or a single uncial of high antiquity. No attempt had been made as yet to offer an exact reproduction of a codex, or to provide a full apparatus criticus, the purpose of the editors in each case being practical rather than critical. This want was met in some degree in certain of the secondary editions; thus the Basle reprint of the Aldine text (1545) gave a short list of variants and conjectural emendations; in the London Polyglott the readings of Codex Alexandrinus were printed underneath the Sixtine text, and those of Codex Sarravianus were exhibited in the Septuagint of Lambert Bos. But the first comprehensive effort in this direction was made by Robert Holmes (1748--1805), Professor of Poetry at Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church, and, from 1804, Dean of Winchester. The preparations for his great work were begun in 1788. An appeal was made to the liberality of public bodies and private patrons of learning, and the task of collating MSS. was committed to a large number of scholars at home and on the continent, whose names are honourably mentioned in the opening pages of the first volume. From 1789 to 1805 an annual account was printed of the progress of the work [413] , and the Bodleian Library contains 164 volumes of MS. collations (Holmes MSS. A.D. 1789--1805, nos. 16455--16617) [414] which were deposited there during those seventeen years. In 1795 a specimen of the forthcoming work was published together with a transcript of the Vienna Genesis in a letter to the Bishop of Durham (Shute Barrington). Genesis appeared separately in 1798, followed in the same year by the first volume bearing the title: Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus. Edidit Robertus Holmes, S.T.P., R.S.S., Aedis Christi Canonicus. Tomus primus. Oxonii: e typographeo Clarendoniano. MDCCXCVIII. This volume, which contains the Pentateuch, with a preface and appendix, was the only one which Holmes lived to complete. He died Nov. 12, 1805, and two years later the editorship was entrusted to James Parsons [415] , under whose care the remaining volumes were issued (Vol. ii., Joshua--2 Chronicles, 1810; Vol. iii., 2 Esdras--Canticles, 1823; Vol. iv., Prophets, 1827; Vol. v., the non-canonical books, 1 Esdras--3 Maccabees, 1827). At the end of Vol. v. there is a list of the Greek MSS. collated for the work. Three hundred and eleven are enumerated. (i.--xiii., 14--311); a corrected estimate gives a total of 297 separate codices, of which 20 are uncial. Besides the readings of this large number of Greek MSS., the apparatus of Holmes and Parsons exhibits the evidence of the Old Latin versions so far as it had been collected by Sabatier, and of the Coptic (Memphitic and Sahidic), Arabic, Slavonic, Armenian and Georgian versions, obtained partly from MSS., partly from printed texts. Use was also made of patristic citations and of the four great editions of the Septuagint, the Sixtine supplying the text, while the Aldine, Complutensian and Alexandrine (Grabian) are cited in the notes. In addition to these, Holmes employed the printed text of the catena of Nicephorus (Leipzig, 1772--3), and J. F. Fischer's edition of cod. Lips. 361 (Leipzig, 1767--8) [416] . The great work of Holmes and Parsons has been severely criticised by later scholars, especially by Hatch [417] and Lagarde [418] . A vigorous defence of the Oxford editors will be found in a recent article in the Church Quarterly Review (already quoted). It appears to be certain that every effort was made by Holmes to secure the services of the best scholars who were available for the work of collation. Among the collators of Greek MSS. employed by the Oxford editors were Bandini (Florence), C. F. Matthäi (Moscow), F. C. Alter (Vienna), Schnurrer (Tübingen), Moldenhawer (Copenhagen). "The Armenian Version was chiefly collated by Hermannus Breden-Kemp (1793) and F. C. Alter (1795--1804), the latter also taking the Georgian . . the Slavonic . . Coptic . . and Bohemian Versions. The Arabic Versions were undertaken by Paulus and Prof. Ford, and the Syriac quotations in the Horreum mysteriorum of Gregorius Bar-Hebraeus . . by Dr Holmes" (F. C. Madan, Summary catalogue, p. 640). But in so vast an accumulation of the labours of many workers it was impossible to maintain an uniform standard of merit; nor are the methods adopted by Holmes and his continuator altogether such as would commend themselves at the present day. The work is an almost unequalled monument of industry and learning, and will perhaps never be superseded as a storehouse of materials; but it left abundant room for investigations conducted on other lines and among materials which were not accessible to Holmes and his associates. 6. The next step was taken by A. F. C. von Tischendorf (1815--1874), who in the midst of his researches in Eastern libraries and his work upon the text of the New Testament found leisure to project and carry through four editions (1850, 1856, 1860, 1869) a manual text of the Septuagint. Its plan was simple, but suggestive. His text was a revised Sixtine; underneath it he placed an apparatus limited to the variants of a few great uncials: "eam viam ingressus sum (he writes [419] ) ut textum per tria fere secula probatissimum repeterem, mutatis tantummodo quibus mutatione maxime opus esset, addita vero plena lectionis varietate ex tribus codicibus antiquissimis quos fere solos utpote editos confidenter adhibere licebat." The three MSS. employed by Tischendorf in his first edition (1850) were A (from Baber's facsimile), C (from his own facsimile), and FA, the portion of Cod. Sinaiticus which was published in 1846; in the third and fourth editions he was able to make further use of Cod. Sinaiticus, and to take into account Mai's edition of Cod. B. Since Tischendorf's death three more editions of his Septuagint have appeared--a fifth in 1875, a sixth and a seventh in 1880 and 1887 respectively, the last two under the supervision of Dr Eberhard Nestle. Nestle added a Supplementum editionum quae Sixtinam sequuntur omnium in primis Tischendorfianarum, consisting of a collation of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. with the Sixtine text, the Vatican text being obtained from Vercellone and Cozza's facsimile, and the Sinaitic from Tischendorf's edition of '; an appendix contained a collation of Daniel (LXX.) from Cozza's edition of the Chigi MS. The Supplementum was reissued in 1887 with various enrichments, of which the most important was a collation of cod. A from the London photograph which appeared in 1882--3. With these helps the reader of Tischendorf's Septuagint is able to correct and supplement the apparatus, and to compare the text with that of cod. B so far as it could be ascertained before the publication of the photograph. 7. Another of the great Biblical scholars of the nineteenth century, Paul de Lagarde, commenced an edition of the Greek Old Testament, which was intended to be a definite step towards the reconstruction of the text. Lagarde's general plan was announced in Symmicta ii. (1880), p. 137 ff., and in a modified and simpler form by a pamphlet published two years later (Ankündigung einer neuen Ausgabe der griechischen übersetzung des A.T., Göttingen, 1882). A beginning was made by the appearance of the first half of the text of the Lucianic recension (Librorum V.T. canonicorum pars prior Graece Pauli de Lagarde studio et sumptibus edita, Göttingen, 1883). Lagarde's untimely death in 1891 left this work incomplete, and though his papers are preserved at Göttingen, it is understood that no steps will be taken to carry out the scheme, at least on the same lines. The published volume contains the Octateuch and the Historical Books as far as Esther. Of the last named book two texts are given, with an apparatus, but with this exception the text stands alone, and the reader knows only that it is an attempted reconstruction of Lucian, based upon six MSS. which are denoted a f h m p z (H. P. 108, 82, 19, 93, 118, 44). This is not the place to discuss Lagarde's critical principles, but it may be mentioned here that his attempt to reconstruct the text of Lucian's recension was but one of a series of projected reconstructions through which he hoped ultimately to arrive at a pure text of the Alexandrian version. The conception was a magnificent one, worthy of the great scholar who originated it; but it was beset with practical difficulties, and there is reason to hope that the desired end may be attained by means less complicated and more direct. 8. In the spring of 1883 the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press issued a notice that they had undertaken " [420] an edition of the Septuagint and Apocrypha with an ample apparatus criticus intended to provide material for a critical determination of the text," in which it was "proposed to give the variations of all the Greek uncial MSS., of select Greek cursive MSS., of the more important versions, and of the quotations made by Philo and the earlier and more important ecclesiastical writers." As a preliminary step they announced the preparation of "a portable text . . . taken from the Vatican MS., where this MS. is not defective, with the variations of two or three other early uncial MSS." The suggestion was originally due to Dr Scrivener, who submitted it to the Syndics of the Press in the year 1875, but was ultimately prevented by many preoccupations and failing health from carrying his project into execution. After undergoing various modifications it was committed in 1883 to the present writer, instructed by a committee consisting of Professors Westcott, Hort, Kirkpatrick, and Bensly; to Dr Hort in particular the editor was largely indebted for counsel in matters of detail. The first edition of the portable text was completed in 1894 (The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, vol. i., Genesis--4 Regn., 1887; vol. ii., 1 Chron.--Tobit, 1891; vo1 iii., Hosea--4 Macc., r89q); the second and third revised editions [421] followed (vol. i., 1895, 1901; vol. ii., 1896, 1907; vol. iii., 1899, 1905 [422] ). The larger Cambridge Septuagint has been entrusted to the joint editorship of Dr A. E. Brooke, Fellow of King's College, and Mr N. McLean, Fellow of Christ's College; and of the Octateuch, which will form the first volume, Genesis appeared in 1906, Exod., Lev. 1909, Numb., Deut. 1911. It reproduces the text of the manual Septuagint, but the apparatus embraces, according to the original purpose of the Syndics, the evidence of all the uncial MSS., and of a considerable number of cursives "selected after careful investigation with the view of representing the different types of text"; the Old Latin, Egyptian, Syro-Hexaplar, and Armenian versions are also represented, whilst use is made of the quotations in Josephus as well as those in Philo and the more important Christian fathers. Such an apparatus falls far short of that presented by Holmes and Parsons, in regard to the quantity of evidence amassed; but efforts are being made to secure a relatively high degree of accuracy, and the materials are selected and arranged in such a manner as to enable the reader to study the grouping of the MSS. and other authorities. Thus the work proceeds upon the principle formulated by Lagarde: "editionem Veteris Testamenti Graeci . . . collatis integris codicum familiis esse curandam, nam familiis non accedere auctoritatem e codicibus, sed codicibus e familiis [423] ." A word may be added with regard to the text which will be common to the manual and the larger edition of the Cambridge Septuagint. It is that of the great Vatican MS., with its lacunae supplied from the uncial MS. which occupies the next plane in point of age or importance. For a text formed in this way no more can be claimed than that it represents on the whole the oldest form of the Septuagint to be found in any one of our extant MSS. But it supplies at least an excellent standard of comparison, and until a critical text has been produced [424] , it may fairly be regarded as the most trustworthy presentation of the Septuagint version regarded as a whole. II. EDITIONS OF PARTICULAR BOOKS, OR OF GROUPS OR PORTIONS OF BOOKS. THE PENTATEUCH. G. A. Schumann, 1829; Pentateuchus hebraice et graece, 1 (Genesis only published). GENESIS. P. A. de Lagarde, Leipzig, 1868: Genesis graece e fide editionis Sixtinae addita scripturae discrepantia e libris manu scriptis a se collatis et edd. Complutensi et Aldina adcuratissime enotata. The MSS. employed are ADEFGS, 25, 29, 31, 44, 122, 130, 135. The text is preceded by useful lists of the available uncial MSS. and VSS. of the LXX. DEUTERONOMY. C. L. F. Hamann, Jena, 1874: Canticum Moysi ex Psalterio quadruplici . . . manu scripto quod Bambergae asservatur. JOSHUA. A. Masius, Antwerp, 1574: Iosuae imperatoris historia. Readings are given from the Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus. JUDGES. J. Ussher, 1655 (in his Syntagma, Works, vol. vii.). Two texts in parallel columns (1) "ex codice Romano," (2) "ex codice Alexandrino." O. F. Fritzsche, Zurich, 1867: liber Iudicum secundum lxx. interpretes. A specimen had previously appeared (in 1866). P. A. de Lagarde, 1891 (in his Septuaginta-studien, 1. c. i.--v.). Two texts. A. E. Brooke and N. M^cLean, Cambridge, 1897: The Book of Judges in Greek, acc. to the text of Codex Alexandrinus. [G. F. Moore, Andover, Mass. (in his Critical and exegetical Commentary on Judges, p. xlv.), promises an edition of the recension of the book exhibited by K, 54, 59, 75, 82, and Theodoret.] RUTH. Drusius, 1586, 1632. L. Bos, Jena, 1788: Ruth ex versione lxx. interpretum secundum exemplar Vaticanum. O. F. Fritzsche, Zurich, 1867: Rhouth kata tous o'. PSALMS. Separate editions of the Greek Psalter were published at Milan, 148I; Venice, 1486; Venice, not later than 1498 (Aldus Manutius); Basle, 1516 (in Hieronymi Opera, t. viii., ed. Pellicanus); Genoa, 1516 (Octaplum Psalterium Justiniani); Cologne, 1518 (Psalterium in iv. linguis cura Iohannis Potken). Other known editions bear the dates 1524, 1530 (Ps. sextuplex), 1533, 1541, 1543, 1549, 1557, 1559, 1571, 1584, 1602, 1618, 1627, 1632, 1643, 1678 (the Psalter of cod. A), 1737, 1757, 1825, 1852, 1857, 1879 (Ps. tetraglotton, ed. Nestle), 1880, 1887 (Lagarde, Novae psalterii gr. editionis specimen), 1889 (Swete, The Psalms in Greek acc. to the LXX., with the Canticles; 2nd ed. 1896), 1892 (Lagarde, Ps. gr. quinquagena prima [425] ). JOB. Patrick Young, 1637 (in the Catena of Nicetas). J. Terrentius, Franeker, 1663. ESTHER. J. Ussher, 1655 (in his Syntagma, Works, vol. vii.). Two texts, one Hexaplaric from an Arundel MS. (H. P. 93). A second edition, Leipzig, 1696. O. F. Fritzsche, Zurich, 1848: Esther. Duplicem libri textum ad opt. Codd. emendavit et cum selecta lectionis varietate edidit. The Greek additions appear also in his Libri apocryphi V. T. (see below). MINOR PROPHETS. W. O. E. Oesterley, Codex Taurinensis, 1908 (with apparatus). HOSEA. J. Philippeaux, Paris, 1636; Hos. i.--iv., after Cod. Q. D. Pareus, Heidelberg, 1605: Hoseas commentariis illustratus. AMOS. Vater, Halle, 1810. W. O. E. Oesterley, Cambridge, 1902 (parallel texts of Q, 22). JONAH. S. Münster, 1524, 1543. ISAIAH. S. Münster, 1540 (in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin). J. Curter, Paris, 1580 (in Procopii commentarii in Iesaiam--text based on Cod. Q). R. R. Ottley, Cambridge, 1906 (text of Cod. A). JEREMIAH. S. Münster, 1540. G. L. Spohn, Leipzig, 1794: Jeremias vates e vers. Judaeorum Alex. ac reliquorum interpretum Gr.; 2nd ed., 1824. LAMENTATIONS. Kyper, Basle, 1552: Libri tres de re gramm. Hebr. ling. (Hebr Gr., Lat.). EZEKIEL. Iezekiel kata tous o', Rome, 1840. DANIEL (Theod.). Ph. Melanchthon, 1546. Wells, 1716. DANIEL (LXX.). S. de Magistris (?), Rome, 1772. Daniel secundum lxx. ex tetraplis Origenis nunc primum editus a singulari Chrisiano codice. Reprinted at Göttingen, 1773, 1774; (Michaelis); at Utrecht, 1775 (Segaar); at Milan, 1788 (Bugati); and at Leipzig, 1845 (Hahn). Cozza, 1877. The LXX. text is also given in the editions of Holmes and Parsons, Oxf. ed. of 1848, 1875, Tischendorf, and Swete. NON-CANONICAL BOOKS (in general) [426] . J. A. Fabricius, Frankfort and Leipzig, 1691: Liber Tobias, Judith, oratio Manasse, Sapientia, et Ecclesiasticus, gr. et lat., cum prolegomenis. Other complete editions were published at Frankfort on the Main, 1694, and at Leipzig, 1804 and 1837; the best recent edition is that by O. F. Fritzsche, Leipzig, 1871: Libri apocryphi V. T. gr. . . . accedunt libri V. T. pseudepigraphi selecti (Psalmi Salomonis, --5 Esdras, Apocalypse of Baruch, Assumption of Moses]. This edition, besides the usual books, gives 4 Maccabees, and exhibits Esther in two texts, and Tobit in three; there is a serviceable preface and an extensive apparatus criticus. WISDOM OF SOLOMON. Older editions: 1586, 1601, 1733, 1827. Reusch, Freiburg, 1858; Liber Sapientiae sec. exemplar Vaticanum. W. J. Deane, Oxford, 1881: The Book of Wisdom, the Greek text, the Latin Vulgate, and the A. V.; with an introduction, critical apparatus, and commentary. WISDOM OF SIRACH. Hoeschel, Augsburg, 1604: Sapientia Sirachi s. Ecclesiasticus, collatis lectionibus var . . . . cum notis. Linde, Dantzig, 1795: Sententiae Iesu Siracidae ad fidem codd: et versionum. Bretschneider, Regensburg, 1806: Liber Iesu Siracidae. Cowley-Neubauer, Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, &c. (Oxford, 1897); Schechter-Taylor, Wisdom of Ben Sira: (Cambridge, 1899) [427] . J. H. A. Hart, Cambridge, 191O (text of Cod. 248). TOBIT. Reusch, Bonn, 1870: Libellus Tobit e cod. Sinaitico. BARUCH. Kneucker, Leipzig, 1879. 1 MACCABEES. Drusius, Frankfort, 1600; Bruns, Helmstadt, 1784. PSALMS OF SOLOMON. J. L. de la Cerda, in an appendix to his Adversaria Sacra, Lyons, 1626. J. A. Fabricius, in Codex pseudepigraphus V. T., Hamburg and Leipzig, 1715. A. Hilgenfeld, in Zeitschrift für wissensch. Th. xi., and in Messias Iudaeorum, Leipzig, 1869. E. E. Geiger, Augsburg, 1871: Der Psalter Salomo's herausegeben. O. F. Fritzsche in Libri apocryphi V. T. gr. B. Pick, Alleghany, Pens., in the Presbyterian Review, 1883. H. E. Ryle and M. R. James, Cambridge, 1891: Psalms of the Pharisees commonly called the Psalms of Solomon; the Greek text with an apparatus, notes, indices, and an introduction. H. B. Swete in O. T. in Greek, vol. iii., Cambridge, 1894; 2nd ed. 1899. O. von Gebhardt, Leipzig, 1895: Die Psalmen Salomo's. ENOCH (the Greek version of). The fragments [in Ep. Jud. 14, 15; the Chronography of G. Syncellus (ed. W. Dindorf, in Corpus hist. Byzant., Bonn, 1829); ZDMG. ix. p. 621 ff. (a scrap printed by Gildemeister); the Mémoires publiés par les membres de la mission archéologique française au Caire, ix., Paris, 1892] have been collected by Dillmann, über den neufundenen gr. Text des Henoch-buches (1893); Lods, Livre d'Henoch (1893); Charles, Book of Enoch, (1893), and are printed with an apparatus in the O. T. in Greek, vol. iii., 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1889). LITERATURE (upon the general subject of this chapter). Le Long-Masch, ii. p. 262 ff., Fabricius-Harles, p. 673 ff., Rosenmüller, Handbuch, i. p. 47 ff., Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, p. 242 ff:, Tischendorf, V. T. Gr:, prolegomena § vii. sqq., Van Ess [Nestle], epilegomena, § 1 sqq., Loisy, Histoire critique, 1. ii. p. 65 ff., Nestle, Septuaginta-studien, i. 1886, ii. 1896, iii. 1899; Urtext, p. 64 ff. __________________________________________________________________ [399] Their words are: "mediam autem inter has Latinam B. Hieronymi translationem velut inter Synagogam et orientalem ecclesiam posuimus, tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones, medium autem Iesum, hoc est Romanam sive Latinam ecclesiam, collocantes." [400] In the dedication to Leo X. he says: "testari possumus . . . maximi laboris nostri partum in eo praecipue fuisse versatum ut . . . castigatissima omni ex parte vetustissimaque exemplaria pro archetypis haberemus." [401] "Ex ista apostolica bibliotheca antiquissimos tum V. tum N. Testamenti codices perquam humane ad nos misisti." [402] See Vercellone, in V. et N. T. ed. Mai, i. p. v. n.; Var. lectt. ii. p. 436; Dissertazioni Accademiche, 1864, p. 407 ff.; Tregelles, An account of the printed text of the Greek N.T. (London 1854), p. 2 ff.; Delitzsch, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Polyglotten Bibel des Cardinals Ximenes (Leipzig, 1871); Lagarde Libr. V. T. can. i., p. iii.; E. Nestle, Septuagintastudien, i., pp. 2, 13; E. Klostermann, Analecta, p. 15 f. [403] On the orthography see Nestle, Septuagintastudien, ii., p. 11, note b. [404] Cf. Lagarde, Genesis graece, p. 6; Cornill, Ezechiel, p. 79; Nestle, Urtext, p. 65. On the source of the Psalms in this edition see Nestle, Septuagintastudien, iii., p. 32. [405] The second i has been added in many copies with the pen. The impression was worked off in 1586, but the work was not published until May 1587. [406] "Elle n'est point signée, mais on sait qu'elle fut redigée par Fulvio Orsini. Elle est d'ailleurs très inférieure à la lettre de Carafa." (P. Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul III. à Paul V., p. 89). [407] On the genesis of the Sixtine edition the curious reader may consult Nestle, Septuagintastudien, i., ii., where the particulars are collected with the utmost care and fulness. [408] Cf. Tregelles, An account of the printed text, &c., p. 185. [409] According to Nestle (Septuagintastudien, i. p. 9, ii. p. 12) Genesis i. 1--xlvi. 28 in cod. B are supplied from cod. Chis. R. vi. 38 (H.P. 19, Lag. h). [410] The praefatio was reprinted with Archd. Churton's notes by Prof. W. Selwyn (Cambridge, 1855). The 1665 edition was reissued by John Hayes, 1684. [411] See Nestle, Septuagintastudien, iii. p. 32, note p. [412] Patrick Young had projected a complete edition of cod. A (Walton's Prolegomena, ed. Wrangham, ii. p. 124). His transcript of the MS. is still preserved at the British Museum (Harl. 7522 = Holmes 241; see above, p. 152). [413] Cf. Ch. Q. R., April 1899, p. 102. [414] Cf. Madan's Summary catalogue of MSS. in the Bodleian: Eighteenth Century collections, pp. 614--641. [415] On Holmes' less distinguished coadjutor see Ch. Q. R. p. 104. Parsons died in 1847 at the age of 85. [416] See above, p. 153. [417] Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 132. [418] Libr. V. T. Canon. p. i. p. xv. [419] Prolegg. § viii. [420] Cambridge University Reporter, March 13, 1883. [421] Much of the labour of revision was generously undertaken by Dr Nestle, and valuable assistance was also rendered by several English scholars; see i. p xxxiii., ii. p. xiv., iii. p. xviii. f. [422] The fourth edition is in progress (i. 1909). [423] V. T. Libr. can. praef. p. xvi. [424] Cf. E. Nestle, Zur Rekonstruktion der Septuaginta, in Philologus, N. F. xii. (1899), p. 121 ff. [425] See also Nestle in Hastings, D. B. iv. 441. [426] A fuller list is given by Nestle in Hastings, D.B. iv. 441. [427] See Nestle's art. Sirach in Hastings, iv. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ PART II. THE CONTENTS OF THE ALEXANDRIAN OLD TESTAMENT. PART II. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER I. TITLES, GROUPING, NUMBER, AND ORDER OF THE BOOKS. THE Greek Old Testament, as known to us through the few codices which contain it as a whole, and from the lists which appear in the Biblical MSS. or in ancient ecclesiastical writings, differs from the Hebrew Bible in regard to the titles of the books which are common to both, and the principle upon which the books are grouped. The two collections differ yet more materially in the number of the books, the Greek Bible containing several entire writings of which there is no vestige in the Hebrew canon, besides large additions to the contents of more than one of the Hebrew books. These differences are of much interest to the Biblical student, since they express a tradition which, inherited by the Church from the Alexandrian synagogue, has widely influenced Christian opinion upon the extent of the Old Testament Canon, and the character and purpose of the several books. 1. The following tables shew (A) the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin titles of the canonical books of the Old Testament; (B) the order and grouping of the books in (1) lists of Jewish origin, (2) the great uncial MSS. of the Greek Bible, (3) patristic and synodical lists of the (a) Eastern, (b) Western Church. A. TITLES OF THE BOOKS. Hebrew Transliteration [428] Septuagint Vulgate Latin brsyt Bresith Genesis Genesis v'lh smvt Ouele smoth Exodos Exodus vyqr' Ouikra Leu[e]itikon Leviticus vydbr Hammes phekodeim [429] Arithmoi Numeri 'lh hdvrym Ele haddebareim Deuteronomion Deuteronomium yhvs Iosoue ben Noun Iesous Iosue svphtym Saphateim Kritai Iudices smv'l Samouel Basileion{ a', b' g', d' Regum{ 1, 2 3, 4 mlkym Ouammelch Dabid [430] ysyh ,ysyhv Iessia Esaias Isaias yrmyh ,yrmyhv Ieremia Ieremias Ieremias ychzq'l Iezekiel Iezekiel Ezechiel hvs Hosee Osee yv'l Ioel Ioel mvs Amos Amos vdyh Obdeiou, Abd[e]iou Abdias yvnh Ionas Ionas mykh M[e]ichaias Michaeas nchvm ,nchvm Naoum Nahum chvqvq Hambakoum Habacuc tsphnyh Sophonias Sophonias chgy Hangaios Aggaeus zkryh Zacharias Zacharias ml'ky Malachias Malachias thlym Sphar thelleim Psalmoi, Psalterion Psalmi msly Meloth [431] Paroimiai Proverbia 'yvv Iob Iob Iob syr hsyrym Sir hassirim Asma, asmata [asmaton] Canticum canticorum rvt? [432] Rhouth Ruth 'ykh? [433] Threnoi Threni, Lamentationes qhlt Koelth Ekklesiastes Ecclesiastes 'str Esther Esther Esther dny'l Daniel Daniel Daniel tszr' Ezra Esdras Esdras 1, 2 dvryhymym Dabre iamein Paraleipomenon a', b' Paralipomenon 1, 2 B (1). ORDER OF THE BOOKS IN JEWISH LISTS [434] . TALMUDIC SPANISH MSS. GERMAN & FRENCH MSS. MASSORETIC MSS. PRINTED BIBLES I Torah " " " " II Nebiim " " " " Joshua Joshua Joshua Joshua Joshua Judges Judges Judges Judges Judges Samuel Samuel Samuel Samuel 1, 2 Samuel Kings Kings Kings Kings 1, 2 Kings Jeremiah Isaiah Jeremiah Isaiah Isaiah Ezekiel Jeremiah Isaiah Jeremiah Jeremiah Isaiah Ezekiel Ezekiel Ezekiel Ezekiel xii Prophets xii Prophets xii Prophets xii Prophets Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zachariah Malachi III Kethubim " " " " Ruth Chronicles Psalms Chronicles Psalms Psalms Psalms Proverbs Psalms Proverbs Job Job Job Job Job Proverbs Proverbs Song of Songs Proverbs Song of Songs Ecclesiastes Ruth Ruth Ruth Ruth Song of Songs Song of Songs Lamentations Song of Songs Lamentations Lamentations Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes Daniel Lamentations Esther Lamentations Esther Esther Esther Daniel Esther Daniel Ezra-Neh. Daniel Ezra-Neh. Daniel Ezra-Neh. Chronicles Ezra-Neh. Chronicles Ezra-Neh. 1, 2 Chronicles B (2). ORDER OF THE BOOKS IN UNCIAL MS. BIBLES. Codex Vaticanus (B) Codex sinaiticus (') Genesis Genesis Exodos * Leueitikon * Arithmoi Arithmoi Deuteronomion * Iesous * Kritai * Rhouth * Basileion a'--d' * Paraleipomenon a', b' Paraleipomenon a', [b'] Esdras a', b' Esdras [a'], b' Psalmoi Esther Paroimiai Tobeith Ekklesiastes Ioudeith Asma Makkabaion a', d' Iob Esaias Sophia Salomonos Ieremias Sophia Seirach Threnoi Ieremiou Esther * Ioudeith * Tobeit * Hosee * Amos * Meichaias * Ioel Ioel Obdeiou Abdeiou Ionas Ionas Naoum Naoum Hambakoum Hambakoum Sophonias Sophonias Hangaios Hangaios Zacharias Zacharias Malachias Malachias Esaias Psalmoi D?d rna' (subscr.) Ieremias Paroimiai [+ Solomontos subscr.] Barouch Ekklesiastes Threnoi Asma asmaton Epistole Ieremiou Sophia Salomontos Iezekiel Sophia Iesou huiou Seirach Daniel Iob Codex Alexandrinus (A) Codex Basiliano-Venetus (N+V) Genesis kosmou * Exodos Aiguptou * Leueitikon (N) Leuitikon Arithmoi Arithmoi Deuteronomion Deuteronomion Iesous huios Naue Iesous Kritai Rhouth Rhouth [homou biblia e'] Kritai Basileion a'--d' Basileion a'--d' Paraleipomenon a', b' [homou biblia s'] Paraleipomenon a', b' Prophetai is' Esdras [a'], b' Hosee a Esther Amos b' * Michaias g' * Ioel d' * Abdeiou e' (V) Iob (subscr.) Ionas s' Paroimiai Naoum z' Ekklesiastes Hambaoum e' Asma asmaton Sophonias th' Sophia Solomontos Zacharias ia' Hosee Malachias ib' Amos Esaias prophetes ig' Ioel Ieremias prophetes id' Abdiou Barouch Ionas Threnos [+ Ieremiou, subscr.] Michaias Epistole Ieremiou Naoum Iezekiel prophetes ie' Hambakoum Daniel [+ prophetes is', catal.] Sophonias Esther Hangaios Tobit (Tobeit, subscr.) Zacharias Ioudeith Malachias Ezras a' ho hiereus (Eszras a' hiereus, catal.) Hesaias Ieremias Ezras b' hiereus (Eszras b' hiereus catal.) Barouch Threnoi Makkabaion a'--d' Iezekiel Psalterion (Psalmoi rhn' kai idiographos a'subscr., seq. odai id'. Psalterion met' odon catal.) Daniel Tobit Ioudith Iob Makkabaion a'--d' Paroimiai Solomontos Ekklesiastes Asmata (Asma subscr.) asmaton Sophia Solomontos (S. Solomonos subscr.; + e Panaretos, catal.) Sophia Iesou huiou Sirach (Seirach, subscr.) Psalmoi Solomontos, catal. B (3) (a). ORDER OF THE BOOKS IN PATRISTIC AND SYNODICAL LISTS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH. 1. Melito (ap. Eus. H.E. iv. 26). 2. Origen (ap. Eus. H.E. vi. 25). Mouseos pente Genesis Genesis Exodos Exodos Leuitikon Arithmoi Arithmoi Leuitikon Deuteronomion Deuteronomion Iesous uios Naue Iesous Naue Kritai Kritai Rhouth Rhouth Basileion a'--d' Basileion tessara Paraleipomenon a', b' Paraleipomenon duo Esdras a', b' Psalmon Dabid Biblos Psalmon Salomonos Paroimiai, he kai Sophia [435] Solomontos Paroimiai Ekklesiastes Ekklesiastes Asma asmaton Asma asmaton Iob Esaias Propheton Ieremias sun Threnois kai te Epistole en heni Esaiou Ieremiou Daniel Ton dodeka en monobiblo Iezekiel Daniel Iob Iezekiel Esther Esdras Exo de touton esti Ta Makkabaika 3. Athanasius (ep. fest. 39, Migne, P.G. xxvi. 1436). 4. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. iv. 35). Genesis Hai Moseos protai pente bibloi Exodos Genesis Leuitikon Exodos Arithmoi Leuitikon Deuteronomion Arithmoi Iesous ho tou Naue Deuteronomion Kritai Hexes de Rhouth Iesou huiou Naue Basileion tessara biblia Ton Kriton biblion meta tes Rhouth Paraleipomenon a', b' Ton de loipon historikon biblion Esdras a', b' Basileion a'--d' Biblos Psalmon Paraleipomenon a', b' Paroimiai Tou Esdra a', b' Ekklesiastes Esther (dodekate) Asma asmaton Ta de stichera tunchanei pente Iob Iob Prophetai Biblos Psalmon Hoi dodeka Paroimiai Esaias Ekklesiastes Ieremias kai sun auto Barouch, Threnoi, Epistole Asma asmaton (heptakaidekaton biblion) Iezekiel Epi de toutois ta prophetika pente Daniel Ton dodeka propheton mia biblos Esti kai hetera biblia touton exothen, Esaiou mia ou kanonizomena men tetupomena de Ieremiou [mia] meta Barouch kai para ton peteron anaginoskesthai Threnon kai Epistoles tois arti proserchomenois . . . Iezekiel Sophia Solomontos Daniel (eikoste deutera biblos) Sophia Sirach Ta de loipa panta exo keistho en deutero Esther Ioudith Tobias 5^a. Epiphanius (haer. 1. i. 6). 5^b. Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 4). a'. Genesis Pente nomikai he pentateuchos he kai nomothesia) b'. Exodos g'. Leuitikon (Genesis--Deuteronomeon) d'. Arithmoi Pente stichereis e'. Deuteronomion (Iob, Psalterion, Paroimiai Salomontos, Ekklesiastes, Asma asmaton) s'. Iesou tou Naue z'. Ton Kriton e'. Tes Rhouth Alle pentateuchos, ta kaloumena Grapheia, para tisi de Hagiographa legomena (Iesou tou Naue, biblos Kriton meta tes Rhouth, Paraleipomenon a', b', Basileion a', b', Basileion g', d') th'. Tou Iob i'. To Psalterion ia'. Paroimiai Tolomontos ib'. Ekklesiastes ig'. To Asma ton asmaton id'-iz'. Basileion a'--d' He prophetike pentateuchos (to dodekapropheton, Esaias, Ieremias, Iezekiel, Daniel) ie', ith'. Paraleipomenon a', b' k'. To Dodekapropheton ka'. Esaias ho prophetes Allai duo (tou Esdra duo, mia logizomene, tes Esther) kb'. Ieremias ho prophetes, meta ton Threnon kai Epistolon autou te kai Barouch __________________________________________________________________ He tou Solomontos he Panaretos kg'. Iezekiel ho prophetes legomene kd'. Daniel ho prophetes He tou Iesou tou uiou Seirach ke', ks'. Esdra a', b' kz'. Esther __________________________________________________________________ He Sophia tou Sirach He [Sophia] tou Solomontos 5^c. Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 23). 6. Gregory of Nazianzus (carm. 1. xii. 5 ff.). Genesis kosmou Bibloi historikai ib' Exodos ton huion Israel ex Aiguptou (Genesis, Exodos, Leuitikon, Arithmoi, Deuteros nomos, Iesous Kritai, Rhouth, Praxeis basileon, Paraleipomenai, Esdras) Leuitikon Arithmon To Deuteronomion He tou Iesou tou Naue Bibloi sticherai e' He tou Iob (Iob, Dauid, treis Solomontiai, Ekklesiastes, Asma, Paroimiai) He ton Kriton He tes Rhouth To Psalterion Bibloi prophetikai e' Ton Paraleipomenon a', b' (Hoi dodeka--Hosee, Amos, Michaias, Ioel, Ionas, Abdias, Naoum, Habbakoum, Sophonias, Haangios, Zacharias, Malachias--Hesaias, Ieremias, Ezekiel, Danielos) Basileion a'--d' He Paroimion Ho Ekklesiastes To Asma ton asmaton To Dodekapropheton Tou prophetou Esaiou Tou Ieremiou Tou Iezekiel Tou Daniel Tou Esdra a', b' Tes Esther 7. Amphilochius (ad Seleuc. ap. Greg. Naz. carm. 11. vii. Migne, P.G. xxxvii. 1593). 8. Pseudo-chrysostom (syn. script. sacr. praef.). Migne, P.G. lvi. 513 sqq. He pentateuchos To historikon, hos (Ktisis, Exodos, Leuitikon, Arithmoi, Deuteronomion) He Genesis (he oktateuchos) He Exodos Iesous To Leuitikon Hoi Kritai Hoi Arithmoi He Rhouth To Deuteronomion Basileion a'--d' Iesous ho tou Naue Paraleipomenon a', b' Hoi Kritai Esdras a', b' Rhouth Sticherai bibloi e' Hai Basileiai a'--d' (Iob, Psalmoi, treis Solomontos--Paroimiai, Ekklesiastes, Asma asmaton) Esdras To sumbouleutikon, hos Hai Paroimiai Prophetai hoi dodoka He tou Sirach Sophia (Hosee, Amos, Michaias, Ioel, Abdias, Ionas, Naoum, Hambakoum, Sophonias, Hangaios, Zacharias, Malachias Ho Ekklesiastes Ta Asmata ton asmaton To prophetikon, hos Hoi dekaex prophetai Prophetai hoi tessares Rhouth (?) (Esaias, Ieremias, Iezekiel, Daniel) Daueid Toutois prosegrkinouri ten Esther tines 9. Sunopsis en epitomo ap. Lagarde, Septuagintast., ii. p. 60 f. [436] 10. Anonymi dial. Timothei et Aquilae. a'. Genesis He Mosaike pentateuchos Ta Mosaika b'. Exodos a'. Genesis g'. To Leuitikon b'. Exodos d'. Hoi Arithmoi g'. Leuitikon e'. To Deuteronomion d'. Arithmoi s'. Ho tou Naue e'. Deuteronomion z'. Hoi Krotai, meta te Rhouth Ta hetera e'. Ta Paraleipomena a', b' s'. Iesous ho tou Naue th'. Ton basileion a', b' z'. Kritai i'. Ton basileion g', d' ee'. Rhouth ia'. Iob Telos tes oktateuchou ib'. To Psalterion tou Dauid To tetrabasileion ig'. Hai Paroimiai Tolomontos th'. Basileion a' id'. Ho Ekklesiastes, sun tois Asmasin i'. Basileion b'. ia'. Basileion g' ie'. To dodekapropheton; Esaias, Ieremias, Iezekiel, Daniel, Esdras ib'. Basileion d' ig'. Paraleipomena a' id'. Paraleipomena b' ka'. Ioudith ie'. Esdra a' kb'. Esther is'. Esdra b' Apokrupha iz'. Esther Tobias ie'. Tobit He Sophia Solomontos ith'. Ioudeth He Sophia Iesou huiou Sirach k'. Iob Tousolomontos ka'. Sophia kb'. Paroimiai kg'. Ekklesiastes kd'. Asma asmaton Hoi ib' prophetai ke'. Osee ks'. Amos kz'. Michaias ke'. Ioil kth'. Abdiou l'. Ionas la'. Naoum lb'. Habbakoum lg'. Sophonias ld'. Angaios le'. Zacharias ls'. Malachias Hoi d' meaaloi prophetai lz'. Hesaias le'. Hieremias lth'. Hiezekiel m'. Daniel Telos ton hex kai deka propheton ma'. Sophia Iesou tou Sirach 11. Junilius de inst. reg. div. legis i. 3 ff. (ed. Kihn). 12. Pseudo-Athanasii syn. scr. sacr. (Migne, P.G. xxviii. 283 ff.) Historia (xvii) Genesis Genesis Exodos Exodus Leuitikon Leviticus Arithmoi Numeri Deuteronomion Deuteronomium Iesous ho tou Naue Iesu Nave Kritai Iudicum Rhouth Ruth Basileion a', b' Regnn. i--iv Basileion g', d' [Adiungunt plures Paralipomenon ii, Iob i, Tobiae i. Esdrae ii, Iudith i, Hester i, Macchabaeorum ii] Paraleipomenon a', b' Esdras a', b' Psalterion Dabitikon Paroimiai Solomontos Prophetia (xvii) Ekklesiastes tou autou Psalmorum cl Asma asmaton Osee Iob Esaiae Prophetai dodeka eis hen arithmoumenoi Ioel Hosee, Amos, Michaias, Ioel, Abdiou, Ionas, Naoum, Hambakoum, Sophonias, Hangaios, Zacharias, Malachias Amos Abdiae Ionae Michaeae Hexes de heteroi tessares Naum Esaias Habacuc Ieremias Sophoniae Ezekiel Hieremiae Daniel Ezechiel Ektos de touton eisi palin hetera biblia k.t.l. (as in Athanasius, but adding Daniel Aggaei Zachariae Makkabaika biblia d' Malachiea Ptolemaika Proverbia (ii) Psalmoi kai ode Solomontos Sosanna) Salomonis Proverbiorum Iesu filii Sirach [Adiungunt quidam libr. Sapientiae et Cantica Canticorum] Dogmatica (i) Ecclesiastes 13. Leontius (de Sectis ii.) 14. John of Damascus (de fide orthod. iv. 17). Ta historika biblia (ib') Prote pentateuchos, he kai nomothesia (Genesis Exodos, Arithmoi, Leuitikon, Deuteronomion; Iesous tou Naue, Kritai, Rhouth, Logoi ton basileion a'--d', Paraleipomenai, Esdras) (Genesis Exodos, Leuitikon, Arithmoi, Deuteronomion) Deutera pentateuchos, ta kaloumena Grapheia, para tisi de Hagiographa (Iesous ho tou Naue, Kritai meta Ta prophetika (e') tes Rhouth, Basileion a', b', Basileion g', d', ton Paraleipomenon a', b') (Esaias, Ieremias, Iezekiel, Daniel, to Dodekapropheton) Ta parainetika (d') Trite pentateuchos, hai sticherai bibloi (Iob, Paroimiai Solomontos, Ekklesiastes, to Asma ton asmaton, to Psalterion) (tou Iob, to Psalterion, Paroimiai Solomontos, Ekklesiastes, tou autou, ta Asmeta ton Asmaton tou autou) Tetarte pentateuchos he prophetike (to Dodekapopheton, Esaias, Ieremias, Iezekiel, Daniel) Allai duo (tou Esdra a', b', he Esther) __________________________________________________________________ He Panaretos t. e. he Sophia tou Solomontos He Sophia tou Iesou 16. Ebedjesu (catal. libr. Eccl., Assemani, Bibl. Or. iii. 5 f.). 15. Nicephorus, Stichometria. Genesis A. Hosai eisi graphai ekklesiazomenai kai kekanonismenai Exodus Liber sacerdotum a'. Genesis stich. ,dt' Numeri b'. Exodos stich. ,bo' Deuteronomii g'. Leuitikon stich. ,bps' Josue filii Nun d'. Arithmoi stich. ,gphl' Iudicum e'. Deuteronomion stich. ,gr' Samuel s'. Iesous stich. ,br' Regum z'. Kritai kai Rhouth stich. ,bun' Liber Dabariamin e'. Basileion a', b' stich. ,bsm' Ruth th'. Basileion g', d' stich. ,bsg' Psalmi David Regis i' Paraleipomena a', b' stich. ,eph' Proverbia Salomonis ia'. Esdras a', b' stich. ,eph' Cohelet ib'. Biblos Psalmon stich. ,eph' Sirat Sirin ig'. Paroimiai Tolomontos stich. ,aps' Bar-Sira Sapientia Magna id'. Ekklesiastes stich. psn' Iob ie'. Asm asmaton stich. sp' Isaias is'. Iob stich. ,ao' Hosee iz'. Esaias prophetes stich. ,go' Ioel ie'. Ieremias prophetes stich. ,d' Amos ith'. Barouch stich. ps' Abdias k'. Iezekiel stich. ,d' Ionas ka'. Daniel stich. ,b' Michaeas kb'. Hoi dodeka prophetai stich. ,g' Nahum Homou tes palaias diathekes bibloi kb'. Habacuc Sophonias __________________________________________________________________ B. Hosai antilegontai kai ouk ekklesiazontai Aggaeus Zacharias a'. Makkabaika g' stich. ,zt' Malachias b'. Sophia Solomontos stich. ,ar' Hieremias g'. Sophia huiou tou Sirach stich. ,bo' Ezechiel Daniel d'. Psalmoi kai odai Solomontos stich. ,br' Iudith Esther e'. Esther stich. tn' Susanna s'. Ioudith stich. ,aps' Esdras z'. Sosanna stich. ph' Daniel Minor e,. Tobit, ho kai Tobias stich. ps' Epistola Baruch Liber traditionis Seniorum Josephi proverbia Historia filiorum Samonae [i.e. Maccab. iv] Liber Maccabaeorum (i--iii) 17. Laodicene Canons (lx.). 18. Apostolic Canons (lxxxiv.). a'. Genesis kosmou Mouseos pente b'. Exodos ex Aiguptou (Genesis, Exodos, Leuitikon, Arithmoi, Deuteronomion) g'. Leuitikon d'. Arithmoi Iesous Naue e'. Deuteronomion Rhouth s'. Iesous Naue Basileion tessara z'. Kritai, Rhouth Paraleipomenon duo e'. Esther Esdra duo th'. Basileion a', b' Esther i'. Basileion g', d' Makkabaion tria ia'. Paraleipomenon a', b' Iob ib'. Esdras a', b' Psalterion ig'. Biblos Psalmon rn' Solomontos tria id'. Paroimiai Solomontos (Paroimiai, Ekklesiastes, Asma asmaton) ie'. Ekklesiastes is'. Asma asmaton Propheton dekaduo hen iz'. Iob Esaiou hen ie'. Dodeka prophetai Ieremiou hen ith'. Esaias Iezekiel hen k'. Ieremias kai Barouch, Threnoi kai Epistolai Daniel hen Exothen de prosistoreistho manthanein humon tous neous ten Sophian tou polumathous Sirach ka'. Iezekiel kb'. Daoiel 19. List in Codd. Barocc. 206; B.M. Add. 17469; Coisl. 120. Peri ton x' biblion, kai hosa touton ektos e'. Deuteronomion s'. Iesous a'. Genesis z'. Kritai kai Rhouth b'. Exodos e'--a'. Basileion a'--d' g'. Leuitikon ib'. Paraleipomena a', b' d'. Arithmoi ig'. Iob id'. Psalterion kth'. Zacharias ie'. Paroimiai l'. Malachias is'. Ekklesiastes la'. Esaias iz'. Asma asmaton lb'. Ieremias ie'. Esdras lg'. Iezekiel ith'. Hosee ld'. Daniel [437] k'. Amos * * ka'. Michaias * * kb'. Ioel Kai hosa exo ton x' kg'. Ionas a'. Sophia Solomontos kd'. Abdiou b'. Sophia Sirach ke'. Naoum g'--s'. Makkabaion [a'--d'] ks'. Hambakoum z'. Esther kz'. Sophonias e'. Ioudeth ke'. Hangaios th'. Tobit B (3) (b). ORDER OF THE BOOKS IN PATRISTIC AND SYNODICAL LISTS OF THE WESTERN CHURCH. 1. Hilary, prol. in libr. Psalm. 2. Ruffinus (Comm. in symb. 36). i--v. Moysi[s] libri quinque Moysi[s] quinque libri vi. Iesu Naue (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium) vii. Iudicum et Ruth viii. Regnorum i, ii Iesus Naue ix. Regnorum iii, iv Iudicum, simul cum Ruth x. Paralipomenon i, ii Regnorum iv xi. Sermones dierum Esdrae Paralipomenon (= Dierum liber) xii. Liber Psalmorum Esdrae ii xiii--xv. Salomonis Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Canticum Canticorum Hester Prophetarum xvi. Duodecim Prophetae (Esaias, Ieremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, xii Prophetarum liber i) xvii--xxii. Esaias, Jeremias cum Lamentatione et Epistola, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Hester Iob Psalmi David __________________________________________________________________ Salomon[is] iii [xxiii--xxiv. Tobias, Judith] [438] (Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorum) __________________________________________________________________ Sapienta Salomonis Sapientia Sirach (= Ecclesiasticus) Tobias Iudith Maccabaeorum libri 3. Augustine (de doctr. Chr. ii. 23) 4. Innocent I. (ep. ad Exsuperium). [Historiae:] Moysi[s] libri quinque Quinque Moyseos [libri] (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium) (Genesis, Exodi, Levitici, Numeri, Deuteronomii) Iesu Naue Iesu Naue Iudicum Iudicum Regnorum libri iv Ruth Ruth Regnorum libri iv Prophetarum libri xvi Paralipomenon libri ii Salomonis libri v Iob Psalterium Tobias Historiarum: Esther Job Iudith Tobias Machabaeorum libri ii Hester Esdrae libri ii Iudith Prophetae: Machabaeorum libri ii David liber Psalmorum Esdrae libri ii Salamonis libri iii Paralipomenon libri ii (Proverbiorum, Canticum Canticorum, Ecclesiastes) Sapienta, Eccleasiasticus [439] Prophetarum xii (Osee, Ioel, Amos, Abdias, Ionas, Michaeas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias) Prophetae iv maiorum voluminum (Isaias, Ieremias, Daniel, Ezechiel) 5. Pseudo-Gelasius decret. de libr. 6. Cassiodorius (de inst. Div. litt. 14). Moysis v libri: Genesis Genesis Exodus Exodus Leviticus Leviticus Numeri Numeri Deuteronomium Deuteronomium Iesu Nave Iesu Naue Regum i--iv Iudicum Paralipomenon i, ii Ruth Psalterium Regum i--iv Item libri prophetarum numero xvi: Salomonis libri v (Isaias, Ieremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Amos, Michas, Iohel, Abdias, Ionas, Naum, Abacu, Sofonias, Agaeus, Zacharias, Maleachias) (Proverbia, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Ecclesiastes, Canticum canticorum) Paralipomena i, ii Prophetae Psalmorum cl (Isaias, Hieremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Amos, Michaeas, Joel, Abdias, Jonas, Naum, Abbacuc, Sofonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias, qui et Angelus) Salamonis libri iii Job (Proverbiorum, Ecclesiastes, Canticum Canticorum) Tobi[as] Liber Sapientiae filii Siracis Esther Alius subsequens liber Sapientiae Iudith Item historiarum: Esdrae [libri] ii Iob Machabaeorum libri ii Tobias Hester Iudith Macchabaeorum libri ii 7. Isidorus de ord. libr. s. scr. 1. Quinque libri Moyseos 4. Prophetae: Psalmorum liber i, Salomonis libri iii (Proverbiorum, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorum), Sapienta, Ecclesiasticus, libri xvi Prophetarum 2. Iesu Nave, Iudicum, Ruth 3. Regum i--iv, Paralipomenon i, ii, Tobiae, Esther, Iudith, Esdrae, Machabaeorum libri duo 8. Mommsen's List, cited by Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, ii. p. 143 f.; Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii. p. 222 f.; Preuschen, Analecta, p. 138 [440] . Libri canonici Regnorum liber ii ver IICC Genesis versus IIIDCC Regnorum liber iii ver IIDL Exodus ver III Regnorum liber iv ver IICCL Numeri ver IIII Fiunt versus VIIIID Leviticus ver IICCC Paralipomenon liber i ver IIXL Deuteronomium ver IIDCC liber ii ver IIC Hiesu Nave ver MDCCL Machabeorum liber i ver IICCC Iudicum ver MDCCL liber ii ver MDCCC Fiunt libri vii ver XVIIIC Iob ver MDCC Rut ver CCL Tobias ver DCCCC Regnorum liber i ver IICCC Hester ver DCC Iudit ver MC Ieremias ver IIIICCCCL Psalmi Davitici cli ver V Daniel ver MCCCL Salomonis ver VID Ezechiel ver IIICCCXL Prophetae maiores ver XVCCCLXX numero IIII Prophetae xii ver IIIDCCC Esaias ver IIIDLXXX Erunt omnes versus numero LXVIIIID 10. Liber sacramentorum (Bobbio, cent. vi. vii). 1. List in Cod. Claromontanus. Versus scribturarum sanctarum Liber Genesis ita Genesis versus IIIID Exodum Exodus versus IIIDCC Leviticum Leviticum versus IICCC Numeri Numeri vrsus IIIDCL Deuteronomium Deuteronomium ver. IIICCC Josue Iesu Nauve ver. II Judicum Iudicum ver. II Libri mulierum Rud ver. CCL Ruth Regnorum ver Hester primus liber ver. IID Judith secundus lib. ver II Maccabeorum libri duo tertius lib. ver. IIDC Job quartus lib. ver IICCCC Thobias Psalmi Davitici ver. V Regum quattuor Proverbia ver. IDC Prophetarum libri xvi Aeclesiastes DC Daviticum v Cantica canticorum CCC Solomonis iii Sapientia vers. I Esdra i Sapientia IHU ver. IID Fiunt libri Veteris numero xliiii XII Profetae ver IIICX Ossee ver DXXX Amos ver CCCCX Micheas ver CCCX Ioel ver. CL Abdias ver. LXX Ionas ver. CL Naum ver. CXL Ambacum ver. CLX Sophonias ver. CXL Aggeus vers. CX Zacharias ver. DCLX Malachiel ver. CC Eseias ver. IIIDC Ieremias ver IIIILXX 11. Council of Carthage, A.D. 397 (can. 47 = 39). Ezechiel ver IIIDC Genesis Daniel ver IDC Exodus Maccabeorum sic. Leviticus lib. primus ver. IICCC Numeri lib. secundus ver IICCC Deuteronomium lib. quartus ver. I Iesu Naue Iudit vr. ICCC Iudicum Hesdra ID Ruth Ester ver I Regnorum libri iv Iob ver. IDC Paralipomenon libri ii Tobias ver. I Job Psalterium Davidicum Salomonis libri v xii libri Prophetarum Iesaias Ieremias Ezechiel Daniel Tobias Iudith Hester Hesdrae libri ii Machabaeorum libri ii [441] 2. We may now proceed to consider the chief points which these tables illustrate. (1) THE TITLES OF THE BOOKS. It will be seen that the Hebrew titles fall into three classes. They consist of either (1) the first word or words of the book (Genesis--Deuteronomy, Proverbs, Lamentations); or (2) the name of the hero or supposed author (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah and the other Prophets, Job, Ruth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra); or (3) a description of the contents (Psalms, Song of Songs, Chronicles). Titles of the second and third class are generally reproduced in the Greek; there are some variations, as when Samuel and Kings become 'Kingdoms,' and 'Diaries' (dvyhytym) is changed into 'Omissions' (Paraleipomena [442] ), but the system of nomenclature is the same. But titles of the first class disappear in the Greek, and in their place we find descriptive names, suggested in almost every case by words in the version itself. Thus Genesis appears to come from Gen. ii. 4 haute he biblos geneseos ouraoou kai ges, Exodus from Ex. xix. 1 tes exodoth ton huion Israel ek ges Aiguptou, Numbers from Num. i. 2 kata arithmon ex onomatos, Deuteronomy from Deut. xvii. 18 grapsei auto to deuteronomion touto eis biblion [443] , Ecclesiastes from Eccl. i. 1 rhemata ekklhsiastou. The Greek titles are probably of Alexandrian origin and pre-Christian use. Not only were they familiar to Origen (Eus. H. E. vi. 25), but they are used in Melito's list, although it came from Palestine. Some of them at least appear to have been known to the writers of the New Testament; cf. Acts ii. 30 en biblo psalmon, xiii. 33 en to psakno to deutero, Rom. ix. 25 en to Hosee legei [444] . Philo [445] uses Genesis, Leuitikon or Leuitike biblos, Dethteronomion, Basileiai, Paroimiai, but his practice is not quite constant; e.g. he calls Exodus he Exagoge [446] ; Deuteronomy is sometimes he Epinomis, and Judges he ton K?imaton [447] biblos, Similar titles occur in the Mishna [448] , whether suggested by the Alexandrian Greek, or independently coined by the Palestinian Jews; thus Genesis is spr ytsyrh, Numbers s msprym, Proverbs s chkmh, Lamentations qynvt. Through the Old Latin version the Greek titles passed into the Latin Bible [449] , and from the Latin Bible into the later versions of Western Christendom. In three instances, however, the influence of Jerome restored the Hebrew titles; 1, 2 Kingdoms have become 1, 2 Samuel, and 3, 4 Kingdoms, 1, 2 Kings, whilst 'Chronicles,' representing the Hebrew dvryhymym, has taken the place of Paralipomenon. Cf Hieron. Prol. Gal.: "tertius sequitur Samuel, quem nos Regnorum primum et secundum dicimus; quartus Malachim, id est Regum, qui tertio et quarto Regnorum volumine continetur . . . septimus Dabre aiamim, id est 'Verba dierum,' quod significantius Chronicon totius divinae historiae possumus appellare." The Greek titles vary slightly in different codices and lists. Besides the variations of cod. A which appear in Table B (2), the following are mentioned in the apparatus of Holmes and Parsons. Joshua: Iesous ho Naue, ho tou Naue, Judges: Kritai tou Israel, hai ton kriton praxeis. Chronicles: Paraleipomenon ton basileion Iouda. Psalms: Dauid prophetou kai basileos melos. When Nehemiah is separated from Ezra its title is: ta peri Neemiou or logoi N. huiou Hachalia. A few further forms may be gleaned from the patristic lists. As an alternative for Paraleipomenon the Apostolic Canons give tou bibliou ton hemeron, while Ezra is known to Hilary as sermones dierum Esdrae. The Psalter is sometimes biblos Psalmon, liber Psalmorum, or Psalterion Dabitikon, Psalmi David regis, Psalterium Daviticum. For Asma asmaton we have occasionally asmata asmaton--a form rejected by Origen (ap. Eus. H.E. vi. 25 ou gar, hos hupolambanousi tines, Asmata asmaton), but used by Pseudo-Chrysostom and John of Damascus, and found in cod. A and in several of the Latin lists [450] ; cf. the English Article VI. "Cantica, or Songs of Solomon." The lesser Prophets are hoi dodeka or dekaduo, ton dodeka propheton mia biblos, to dodekapropheton, prophetae xii; the greater, hoi tessares, prophetae iv, prophetae iv maiorum voluminum, or simply maiores; when the two collections are merged into one they become hoi dekaex or hoi hekkaideka, to hekkaidekapropheton, prophetae xvi. (2) THE GROUPING OF THE BOOKS. The methods of grouping adopted in the Hebrew and Alexandrian Greek Bibles differ not less widely than the nomenclature of the books. The Hebrew canon is uniformly tripartite, and "the books belonging to one division are never (by the Jews) transferred to another [451] ." Its three groups are known as the Law (tvrh), the Prophets (nv'ym), and the Writings (ktvvym). The Massora recognised, however, certain subdivisions within the second and third groups; the Prophets were classed as Former (r'svnym), i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings; and Latter ('chrvnym), and among the 'Latter' the Twelve minor Prophets formed a single collection [452] . Similarly 'the five Rolls' (mglvt), i.e. Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, made a subsection among the Kethubim. The tripartite division of the canon was known at Alexandria in the second century B.C., for the writer of the prologue to Sirach refers to it more than once (1 f. tou nomou kai ton propheton kai ton allon ton kat' autous ekolouthekoton: 6 f. tou nomou kai ton propheton kai ton allon patrion biblion: 14 f. ho nomos kai hai propheteiai kai ta loipa ton biblion). It is also recognised in the New Testament, where the Law and the Prophets are mentioned as authoritative collections, and in one passage the 'Writings' are represented by the Psalter (Lc. xxiv. 44 panta ta gegrammena en to nomo Mouseos kai tois prophetais kai psalmois). But the New Testament has no comprehensive name for the third group, and even Josephus (c. Ap. i. 8) speaks of four poetical books (probably Psalms, Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) as forming with the Law and the Prophets the entire series of sacred books; the rest of the Hagiographa seem to have been counted by him among the Prophets [453] . At Alexandria the later books were probably attached to the canon by a looser bond. The writer of the De vita contemplativa appears to recognise four groups [454] (§ 3 nomous, kai logia thespisthenta dia propheton, kai humnous, kai ta alla hois episteme kai eusebeia sunauxontai kai teleiountai). Only the first of the three Palestinian groups remains undisturbed [455] in the Alexandrian Greek Bible, as it is preserved to us in MSS. and described in Christian lists. When the Law was translated into Greek, it was already a complete collection, hedged round with special sanctions, and in all forms of the Greek Bible it retains its precedence and has resisted any extensive intrusion of foreign matter. It is otherwise with the Prophets and the Hagiographa. Neither of these groups escaped decomposition when it passed into the Greek Bible. The Former Prophets are usually separated from the Latter, the poetical books coming between. The Hagiographa are entirely broken up, the non-poetical books being divided between the histories and the prophets. This distribution is clearly due to the characteristically Alexandrian desire to arrange the books according to their literary character or contents, or their supposed authorship. Histories were made to consort with histories, prophetic and poetical writings with others of their respective kinds. On this principle Daniel is in all Greek codices and catalogues one of the Greater Prophets, while Ruth attaches itself to Judges, and Canticles to Ecclesiastes. In many of the Greek patristic lists the Alexandrian principle of grouping receives express recognition. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Leontius, divide the books of the Old Testament into (1) historical--12, including the Mosaic Pentateuch; (2) poetical--5; (3) prophetical--5. Epiphanius, followed by John of Damascus, endeavours to combine this grouping with a system of pentateuchs [456] --(1) legal, (2) poetical, (3) historical [457] , (4) prophetical --an end which he attains by relegating Ezra and Esther to an appendix. Pseudo-Chrysostom's arrangement is similar, though slightly different in some of its details; according to his view the Bible began with an Octateuch, and the stichera are broken up, the Psalter being placed with the Prophets, and the Salomonic books described as 'hortatory [458] ' (to suibouleutikon). Even in the eccentric arrangement of Junilius [459] the Greek method of grouping is clearly dominant. The relative order of the groups in the Greek Bible, being of literary and not historical origin, is to some extent liable to variation. The 'five books of Moses' always claim precedence, and the 'rest of the histories' follow, but the position of the poetical and prophetical books is less certain. Codex B places the poetical books first, whilst in Codd. ' and A the prophets precede. But the order of cod. B is supported by the great majority of authorities both Eastern and Western (Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius (1, 3), Gregory, Amphilochius, the Laodicene and 'Apostolic' canons, Nicephorus, Pseudo-Chrysostom, the Cheltenham list, the African canons of 397, and Augustine). Two reasons may have combined to favour this arrangement. 'David' and 'Solomon' were higher up the stream of time than Hosea and Isaiah. Moreover, it may have seemed fitting that the Prophets should immediately precede the Evangelists. (3) THE NUMBER OF THE BOOKS. In our printed Hebrew Bibles the books of the Old Testament are 39 (Law, 5; Former Prophets (Joshua--2 Kings), 6; Latter Prophets, 15; Hagiographa, 13). But Samuel, Kings, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles [460] , were originally single books [461] , and the Minor Prophets were also counted as a single book. Thus the number is reduced to 24 (Law, 5; Former Prophets, 4; Latter Prophets, 4; Hagiographa, 11), and this answers to the prevalent Jewish tradition. On the other hand Josephus expressly limits the books to 22 (Law, 5; Prophets, i3; Hymns and moral pieces, 4). He has probably included the historical Hagiographa among the Prophets, and treated Ruth and Lamentations as appendices to Judges and Jeremiah respectively. Both traditions were inherited by the Church, but the latter was predominant, especially in the East. In some lists indeed the twenty-two books became twenty-seven, the 'double books' being broken up into their parts (Epiph. 1) [462] ; in some a similar treatment of the Dodecapropheton raised the number to 34 (the 'Sixty Books'), and there are other eccentricities of numeration which need not be mentioned here. Josephus, c. Ap. i. 8: ou muriades biblion eisi par' hemin asumphonon kai machomenon, duo mona pros tois eikosi biblia . . . kai touton pente men esti Mouseos . . . hoi meta Mousen prophetai . . . sunegrapsan en trisi kai deka bibliois; hai de loipai tessares humnous eis ton theon kai tois anthropois hupothekas tou biou periechousin. He is followed by Origen ap. Eus. l.c. ouk agnoeteon d' einai tas endiathekous biblous hos Ebraioi paradidoasin, hosos ho arithmos ton par autois stoicheion estin; and Cyril. Hier. catech. iv. 33 anaginoske tas theias graphas, tas eikosi duo biblous tes palaias diathekes. Similarly Athanasius, ep. fest. 39 (Migne, P.G. xxvi. col. 1437). When another numeration was adopted, efforts were made to shew that it did not involve a real departure from the canon of twenty-two; cf. Epiph. haer. i. I. 8, hautai eisin hai eikosi hepta bibloi hai ek theou dotheisai tois Ioudaiois, eikosi duo de hos ta par autois stoicheia ton Ebraikon grammaton arithmoumenai dia to diplousthai deka biblous eis pente legomenas; dial. Tim. et Aq. (ed. Conybeare, p. 66), hautai hai bibloi hai theopneustoi kai endiathetoi, ks' men ousai, kb' de arithmoumenai dia to . . . ex auton diplousthai. On the other hand the numeration in 4 Esdr. xiv. 44 rests, if nongenti quatuor be the true reading, on a tradition which makes the Hebrew books 24. This tradition is supported by the testimony of the Talmud and the Rabbinical literature [463] , and the Canon is known in Jewish writings by the name kd sphrym, "the Twenty-Four Books." It finds a place in certain Western Christian writers, e.g. Victorinus of Petau comm. in Apoc.: "sunt autem libri V.T. qui accipiuntur viginti quatuor quos in epitome Theodori invenies [464] ." Victorinus compares the 24 books to the 24 Elders of Apoc. iv., and the same fancy finds a place in the Cheltenham list ("ut in apocalypsi Iohannis dictum est Vidi XXIIII seniores mittentes coronas suas ante thronum, maiores nostri probant hoc libros esse canonicos"). Jerome knows both traditions, though he favours the former (Prol. Gal. "quomodo igitur viginti duo elementa sunt . . . ita viginti duo volumina supputantur . . . quamquam nonnulli Ruth et Cinoth inter Hagiograpba scriptitent et libros hos in suo putent numero supputandos et per hoc esse priscae legis libros viginti quatuor"). Let us now turn to the ecclesiastical lists and see how far the Hebrew Canon was maintained. Our earliest Christian list was obtained from Palestine [465] , and probably represents the contents of the Palestinian Greek Bible. It is an attempt to answer the question, What is the true number and order of the books of the Old Testament? Both the titles and the grouping are obviously Greek, but the books are exclusively those of the Hebrew canon. Esther does not appear, but the number of the books is twenty-two, if we are intended to count 1--4 Regn. as two. The next list comes from Origen. It belongs to his commentary on the first Psalm, which was written at Alexandria [466] , i.e. before A.D. 231. The books included in it are expressly said to be the twenty-two of the Hebrew canon eisi de hai eikosi duo bibloi kath' Hebraious haide). Yet among them are the first book of Esdras [467] and the Epistle of Jeremiah, which the Jews never recognised. With the addition of Baruch, Origen's list is repeated by Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius (1), and in the Laodicean canon; Amphilochius mentions two books of Esdras, and it is at least possible that the Esdras of Gregory of Nazianzus is intended to include both books, and that the Epistle, or Baruch and the Epistle, are to be understood as forming part of Jeremiah in the lists both of Gregory and Amphilochius. Thus it appears that an expansion of the Hebrew canon, which involved no addition to the number of the books, was predominant in the East during the fourth century. The Eastern lists contain other books, but they are definitely placed outside the Canon. This practice seems to have begun with Origen, who after enumerating the twenty-two books adds, exo de touton esti ta Makkabaika. Athanasius takes up the expression, but names other books--the two Wisdoms, Esther [468] , Judith, and Tobit [469] . Palestine was perhaps naturally conservative in this matter; Cyril will not allow his catechumens to go beyond the Canon, and Epiphanius mentions only, and that with some hesitation, the two books of Wisdom (eisi de kai allai par autois bibloi en amphilekto [470] . . . hautai chresimoi men eisi kai ophelimoi, all' eis arithmon rheton ouk anapherontai) [471] . And this was the prevalent attitude of the East even at a later time. There are exceptions; Pseudo-Chrysostom places Sirach among the Hortatory books of the canon; the Apostolic canons, while excluding Sirach, include three books of Maccabees. But John of Damascus reflects the general opinion of the Greek fathers when, while reckoning both books of Esdras [472] as canonical, he repeats the verdict of Epiphanius upon the two Wisdoms, Eearetoi men kai kalai, all' ouk arithmountai [473] . On the other hand the West, further from the home of the Hebrew canon, and knowing the Old Testament chiefly through the Latin version of the LXX., did not scruple to mingle non-canonical books with the canonical. Hilary and Ruffinus [474] were doubtless checked, the one by the influence of Eastern theologians, the other by the scholarship of Jerome; but Hilary mentions that there were those who wished to raise the number of the canonical books to twenty-four by including Tobit and Judith in the canon. From the end of the fourth century the inclusion of the non-canonical books in Western lists is a matter of course. Even Augustine has no scruples on the subject; he makes the books of the Old Testament forty-four (de doctr. Chr. ii. 13 "his xliv libris Testamenti Veteris terminatur auctoritas [475] "), and among them Tobit, Judith, and two books of Maccabees take rank with the histories; and the two Wisdoms, although he confesses that they were not the work of Solomon, are classed with the Prophets. His judgement was that of his Church (Conc. Carth. iii. can. xlvii. "sunt canonicae scripturae Salomonis libri quinque . . . Tobias, Judith . . . Machabaeorum libri duo"). The African Church had probably never known any other canon, and its belief prevailed wherever the Latin Bible was read. There can be little doubt that, notwithstanding the strict adherence of the Eastern lists to the number of the Hebrew books, the Old Latin canon truly represents the collection of Greek sacred books which came into the hands of the early Christian communities at Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. When Origen and the Greek fathers who follow him fix the number of the books at twenty-two or twenty-four, they follow, not the earlier tradition of the Church, but the corrected estimate of Christian scholars who had learned it from Jewish teachers. An earlier tradition is represented by the line of Christian writers, beginning with Clement of Rome, who quoted the 'Apocryphal' books apparently without suspecting that they were not part of the Canon. Thus Clement of Rome [476] places the story of Judith side by side with that of Esther; the Wisdom of Sirach is cited by Barnabas [477] and the Didache [478] , and Tobit by Polycarp [479] ; Clement of Alexandria [480] and Origen appeal to Tobit and both the Wisdoms, to which Origen adds Judith [481] . Our earliest MSS. of the Greek Bible confirm the impression derived from the quotations of the earliest Christian writers. Their canon corresponds not with that of the great writers of the age when they were written, but with that of the Old Latin version of the LXX. Codd. B ' A contain the two Wisdoms, Tobit, and Judith; 1--2 Maccabees are added in ', and 1--4 Maccabees in A; cod. C still exhibits the two Wisdoms, and when complete may have contained other books of the same class. Moreover, the position of the books shews that the scribes of these MSS. or of their archetypes lacked either the power or the will to distinguish them from the books of the Hebrew canon. In the light of the facts already produced, it is clear that the presence of the non-canonical books in Greek Bibles cannot be attributed to the skilled writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. They have but perpetuated an older tradition--a tradition probably inherited from the Alexandrian Jews. An explanation of the early mixture of non-canonical books with canonical may be found in the form under which the Greek Bible passed into the keeping of the Church. In the first century the material used for literary purposes was still almost exclusively papyrus, and the form was that of the roll [482] . But rolls of papyrus seldom contained more than a single work, and writings of any length, especially if divided into books, were often transcribed into two or more separate rolls [483] . The rolls were kept in boxes (kibotoi, kistai, capsae, sistae) [484] , which served not only to preserve them, but to collect them in sets. Now while the sanctity of the five books of Moses would protect the cistae which contained them from the intrusion of foreign rolls, no scruple of this kind would deter the owner of a roll of Esther from placing it in the same box with Judith and Tobit; the Wisdoms in like manner naturally found their way into a Salomonic collection; while in a still larger number of instances the two Greek recensions of Esdras consorted together, and Baruch and the Epistle seemed rightly to claim a place with the roll of Jeremiah. More rarely such a writing as the Psalms of Solomon may have found its way into the company of kindred books of the canon. It is not a serious objection to this hypothesis that Philo does not quote the Apocrypha, and has no certain allusion to it [485] . A great scholar would not be deceived by the mixture of heterogeneous rolls, which might nevertheless seriously mislead ordinary readers, and start a false tradition in an unlettered community such as the Christian society of the first century. (4) THE INTERNAL ORDER OF THE GROUPS. Even in Jewish lists of the Hebrew Canon there are variations in the internal order of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. The 'Great Prophets' occur in each of the three orders (1) Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel; (2) Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah; (3) Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel [486] . The order of the Hagiographa varies more extensively. In the printed Bibles they are arranged in three subdivisions: (1) Psalms, Proverbs, Job; (2) Canticles, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther (the five Megilloth); (3) Daniel, Ezra, Chronicles. The Talmudic order is as follows: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Chronicles. The MSS. vary, many agreeing with the printed Bibles; others, especially those of Spanish provenance, following the order: Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra [487] . In the lists of the Greek Bible and the sequence of its MSS. the Law and the 'Former Prophets' generally retain their Hebrew order, with the noteworthy exception that Ruth is always attached to Judges. But there are also minor exceptions which are of some interest. Even in the Pentateuch Melito, Leontius, and the Cheltenham list reverse the common order of Leviticus and Numbers [488] . The sequence is broken in some lists after Ruth (Laod., Epiph. 1), or even after Joshua (Epiph. 3 [489] ) or Deuteronomy (Epiph. 1). Occasionally Chronicles, which is an intruder from the Hagiographa, precedes 1--4 Regn. (Epiph. 2, Dial. Tim. et Aq.), or drops out altogether (Ps.-Chrys., Junilius, Cod. Clarom.). All these disturbances of the normal order may be ascribed to local or individual influences, and find no support in the uncial MSS. of the Greek Bible. But it is otherwise when we come to the 'Latter Prophets' and the Hagiographa. With regard to the Prophets, three questions of order arise. (1) There is the relative order of the Twelve and the Four. In the majority of patristic lists the Twelve precede (Ath., Cyr., Epiph., Greg., Amph., &c.), and this is also the order of Codd. A, B, N-V. But Cod. ' begins with the Four, and it is supported by other authorities, chiefly Western (Ruff, Chelt., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius, Nicephorus); whilst in a few the subdivisions are mixed (Melito, Junilius, Ebedjesu [490] ). (2) The internal order of the dodekapropheton in most of the MSS. and catalogues [491] where it is stated differs from the Hebrew order in regard to the relative positions of the prophets in the first half of the group; the Hebrew order being Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, but the Greek, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah. The dominant Greek order may perhaps be due to "an attempt to secure greater accuracy in the chronological arrangement [492] ." (3) The Greek order of the Greater Prophets follows the oldest Hebrew tradition (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), but it appends Lamentations to Jeremiah, and enlarges the group by placing Daniel either before (Melito, Origen, Hilary, Chelt., Augustine), or, more usually, after Ezekiel. The relative order of the Hagiographa in the LXX. is more perplexing. For Ruth, Lamentations, and Daniel we have already accounted; there remain Chronicles, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, and Ezra. Chronicles, in accordance with the theory enshrined in its Greek name, usually follows Kings. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, for the most part hold together in that order, as a group of poetical books; but there are many exceptions. 'David' sometimes goes with the Prophets (Ps.-Chrys., Junilius, Augustine, Isidorus), and the group is then regarded as 'Salomonic,' or 'hortatory.' Lists which admit the two books of Wisdom usually join them to this subdivision (Ebedjesu, Carth., Augustine, Innocent, Cod. Clarom., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius, Isidorus). The internal order of the Salomonic books varies (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles; Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Proverbs; Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes); the Wisdoms usually follow, but sometimes break the sequence of the three canonical books. Much difficulty seems to have been felt as to the place of Job; the book normally appears in connexion with the poetical books, either last or first, but it is sometimes placed among the histories (Augustine, Innocent, Cod Clarom., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius), or after the Prophets (Origen). The position of Esdras is not less uncertain; its normal place is after Chronicles, but it is also found before or after the Prophets (Melito, Epiph., John of Damascus, Cod. Barocc.), or in connexion with a group of the apocryphal histories (cod. A, Carth., Augustine, &c.). Esther is still more erratic; sometimes it follows the poetical books, sometimes the Prophets, sometimes the histories; not a few lists place it among the antilegomena, or omit it altogether. When admitted to a place in the Canon, it is usually to be found at or near the end (Origen, Epiphanius, Amphilochius, John of Damascus, Hilary, Carth., Cod. Clarom., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius), and in company with apocryphal books, especially Judith [493] and Tobit (codd. B'A, Chelt., Carth., Augustine, and the later Latin lists [494] ). It seems as if the doubt which the Jewish authorities felt with regard to this book was inherited by many Christians. On the other hand Cyril, who represents the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem, makes it the twelfth of the canonical books, and in the Laodicene list it stands eighth. Except in cases where an old or well-defined tradition fixed the internal order of groups of books, there was clearly room for every possible variation so long as the books were written on separate rolls. The cista might serve to keep a group together, but it offered no means of fixing the relative order of its contents. In the codex, on the other hand, when it contained more than one writing, the order was necessarily fixed [495] , and the scribe unconsciously created a tradition which was followed by later copyists. The 'transition to vellum,' and the consequent transition from the roll to the codex, does not seem to have been general before the fourth century, although in the case of Biblical MSS. it may have begun a century earlier [496] ; and thus we may regard our earliest uncial codices as prototypes of the variations in order which mark the mass of later MSS. A single instance may suffice. It has been stated that Esther is frequently found in company with Judith and Tobit. But these books occur in varying order in the oldest MSS.; in B we have Esther, Judith, Tobit, but in ' A, Esther, Tobit, Judith; a favourite Western order is Tobit, Esther, Judith (Chelt., Augustine, Innocent, Gelasius, Cassiodorius, Isidorus); another, sanctioned at Carthage in 397, is apparently more common in MSS. of the Vulgate, viz., Tobit, Judith, Esther [497] . Such variations, resting on no obvious principle, are doubtless ultimately due to the judgement or caprice of a few scribes, whose copies supplied the archetypes of the later Greek MSS. and the daughter-versions of the Septuagint. LITERATURE. On the general subject of this chapter the student may consult C. A. Credner, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons (ed. Volkmar, Berlin, 1860); Th. Zahn, Gesch. d. N.T. Kanons, ii., p. 143 ff. (Erlangen, 1890); B. F. Westcott, Hist. of the Canon of the N. T.^6 (Cambridge, 1891); W. Sanday, The Cheltenham List, in Studia Biblica, iii., pp. 226--243 (Oxford, 1891); Buhl, Kanon u. Text des A. T. (Leipzig, 1891); H. E. Ryle, Canon of the O.T. (London, 1892); E. Preuschen, Analecta (Leipzig, 1893); H. L. Strack, art. Kanon des. Alten Testamentes in P.R.E.^3 ix. 741--767. __________________________________________________________________ [428] As given by Origen ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 25. [429] I.e. chms pqvdym 'fifth of the precepts'; cf. the Mishnic title pqvdym sphr (Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 294). Jerome transliterates the initial word, vayedabber; cf. Epiph. (Lagarde, Symmicta ii. 178), ouaidaber he estin Arithmon. The book is also known as btdbr. [430] I.e. vhmlk dvd, (first two words of 1 Kings i.), Malachim, Jerome; dmalacheim, Epiphanius. [431] With variants Mesloth, Misloth (leg. for. Msloth). Masaloth, Jerome; dmethaloth, Epiphanius. [432] Origen includes Ruth with Judges under Saphateim. [433] Epiph. l.c.: esti de kai alle mikra biblos he kaleitai Kinoth [Mishn. qynvt], hetis hermeneuetai Threnos Ieremiou. [434] This list has been adapted from Ryle, Canon of the O.T. (table following p. 280). [435] Cf. Eus. H.E. iv. 22 ho pas ton archaion choros Panareton Sophian tas Solomonos paroimias ekaloun. [436] Lagarde, l.c.: "ich widerhole sie, von mir redigiert." [437] The B.M. MS. counts Ruth as a separate book and after Daniel places the numeral le'. [438] "Quibusdam autem visum est additis Tobia et Judith xxiv libros secundum numerum Graecarum literarum connumerare." [439] Of the canonicity of these two books Augustine speaks with some reserve: "de quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur . . . qui tamen quoniam in auctoritatem recipi meruerunt inter propheticos numerandi sunt." [440] The text of Preuschen has been followed; it is based on a St Gall MS. which appears to be less corrupt than the Cheltenham MS. used by Mommsen and others. [441] See also the Latin list printed by Mr C. H. Turner in J. Th. St. i. 557 ff. [442] Or less correctly Paraleipomenoi, 'omitted books,' as in some lists. [443] On this rendering see Driver, Deuteronomy, p. i. The Massora calls the book msgh htvrh. [444] See also Acts xiii. 20, 33, Rom. x. 16, xv. 11, Heb. xi. 22. [445] See Prof. Ryle's Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xx. ff. [446] So in Cohn-Wendland's edition (iii. 4, 57, 230); in ii. 271 this title is ascribed to Moses, although exagoge does not like exodos occur in the Alexandrian version of the book. He Exagoge was also the title of the Hellenist Ezekiel's poem on the Exodus (see below, p. 371). [447] Cf. the change from mlkym to Basileiai. [448] See Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 294. [449] Sometimes in a simple transliteration, as Genesis &c. Tertullian has Arithmi but in Cyprian the Latin Numeri is already used; see Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, p. 4. [450] The official Vulgate had Canticum, until the plural was adopted by Sixtus V.; see Nestle, ein Jubiläum der Lat. Bibel, p. 18. [451] Driver, Introd., p. xxvii. [452] So already in Sir. xlix. 10 ton ib' prpheton. [453] See Ryle, Canon of the O.T., p. 165 f. [454] Unless we omit the comma after humnous and regard hu. kai ta alla as = the Hagiographa; cf. Joseph. c. Ap. as quoted below, p. 220. [455] Yet even the Torah was not always kept apart in the Greek Bible, as the names Octateuch and Heptateuch witness. [456] Dr Sanday (in Studia Biblica, iii. p. 240) regards this as Palestinian, identifying it with Cyril's method. But Cyril begins with a dodecad (dodekate he Esther; kai ta men Historika tauta). [457] The term grapheia (ktvvym) or hagiographa is transferred to this group. [458] So Leontius ta tarainetika), but he classed the Psalter among them. [459] See Kihn, Theodor v. Mopsuestia u. Junilius, p. 356 f. [460] Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah appears to have been originally a single book. But while Ezra and Nehemiah are still joined in the Greek Bible, Chronicles stands by itself both in and , and in it follows Nehemiah and forms the last book of the Canon (cf. Mt. xxiii. 35, and see Barnes Chronicles, in the Cambridge Bible, pp. x.--xiii.). [461] The division probably began in the LXX. [462] Jerome, Prol. Gal.: "quinque a plerisque libri duplices aestimantur." As the twenty-two books answered to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, so these 'double books' were thought to correspond to the 'double letters,' i.e. those which had two forms (k ,m ,n ,ph ,ts). The 'double books were not always identical in different lists; see Sanday, op. cit. p. 239. [463] Cf. Ryle Canon, pp. 157 f., 222, 292; Sanday, op. cit. p. 236 ff. [464] Zahn offers a suggestion, to which Sanday inclines, that the writer refers to the Excerpta ex Theodoto which are partly preserved in the works of Clement of Alexandria. [465] Melito ap. Eus. H.E. iv. 26 epeide mathein ten ton palaion biblion eboulethes akribeian, posa ton arithmon kai hopoia ten taxin eien . . . anelthon eis ten anatolen kai heos tou topou entha ekeruchthe kai eprachthe . . . epempsa soi. [466] Eus. H.E. vi. 24. [467] Already cited freely by Josephus as an authority for the history of the period. Origen, it should be added, regards 1, 2 Esdras as a single volume (Esdras prote, deutera en heni). [468] Cf. Melito's omission of Esther, and the note appended to the list of Amphilochius. [469] The N.T. members of the same class are the Teaching and the Shepherd. [470] Haer. I. i. 1. [471] De mens. et pond. 4. [472] Like Origen, he explains that they form together but a single book (tou Esdra hai duo eis mian sunaptomenai biblon). [473] The non-canonical books (ta exo) are however carefully distinguished from real apocrypha when the latter are mentioned; e.g. in the stichometry of Nicephorus, and in the list of the 'Sixty Books.' [474] In symb. 38 "alii libri sunt qui non canonici sed ecclesiastici a maioribus appellati sunt." [475] Cf. Retract. ii. 4. [476] 1 Cor. 55. [477] c. 19. 9. [478] c. 4. [479] Philipp. 10. [480] Strom. i. 10, v. 14. [481] Cf. Westcott in D. C. B. iv. p. 130. [482] See Kenyon, Palaeography of Greek papyri, pp. 24, 113 ff. [483] Ib. p. 122: "no papyrus roll of Homer hitherto discovered contains more than two books of the Iliad. Three short orations fill the largest roll of Hyperides." [484] E. M. Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 57. [485] Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xxxiii. [486] See Ryle, Canon, p. 225 ff. [487] Ryle, ib., pp. 229 ff., 281 f. [488] On this see Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii. p. 241. [489] Ruth is attached to 1 Regn. in the Cheltenham list, and Augustine inclines to this arrangement (see Sanday, 1.c., p. 242). The result was to create a Heptateuch; for the word cf. J. E. B. Mayor, The Latin Heptateuch, p. xxxvi. R. Peiper's text of the Heptateuchos, to which Prof. Mayor refers (p. xxxiv.), appeared in the Vienna Corpus scr. eccl. lat. vol. xiii. (1895). [490] For statements by early Mohammedan writers as to the extent of the Jewish and Christian Canons see Margoliouth in Exp. Times, Nov. 1899, p. 91. [491] The chief exceptions are: Cod. v, Hosea, Amos, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah; Greg. Naz. and Cod. Barocc., Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Jonah, Obadiah; Junilius, Ebedjesu, Augustine, the Hebrew order. [492] Ryle, Canon, p. 229. [493] The proximity of Esther to Judith in many lists is perhaps due to the circumstance that in both books the central figure is a woman; cf. p. 213 (right-hand column). [494] Cf. Ryle, Canon, p. 199 ff. [495] Cf. Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii. p. 233 ff. [496] See Kenyon, Palaeography of papyri, p. 119 f.; Sanday, l.c. Papyrus was freely used for codices in Egypt during the third century; cf. Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ii. p. 2. [497] For the order of the books in Latin MS. Bibles see S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, pp. 301--6, 331--9. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER II. BOOKS OF THE HEBREW CANON. THE books which are common to the Hebrew Bible and the Alexandrian Version [498] differ in regard to their contents as well as in their titles and order. Differences of contents may conveniently be considered under two heads, as they affect the sequence or the subject-matter. (A) DIFFERENCES OF SEQUENCE. 1. The following table shews the principal instances in which the Greek and the Hebrew books are at variance in reference to the order of the contents. The chapters and verses in the left-hand column are those of the Cambridge Septuagint; the right-hand column follows the numeration of the printed Hebrew Bibles. GREEK. HEBREW. Gen. xxxi. 46^b--52 Gen. xxxi. 48^a, 47, 51, 52^a, 48^b, 49, 50^a, 52^b " xxxv. 16--21 " xxxv. 16+21, 17--20, 22^a Exod. xx. 13--15 Exod. xx. 14, 15, 13 " xxxv. 8--11, 12, 15--16, 17, 18, 19^b " xxxv. 9--12, 17, 13--14, 16, 19, 15 Exod. xxxvi. 8^b--40 Exod. xxxix. 1--31 " xxxvii. 1--2 " xxxvi. 8--9 " " 8--6 " " 35--38 " " 7--21 " xxxviii. 9--23 " xxxviii. 1--17 " xxxvii. 1--24 " " 18--20 " xxxvi. 20--34 " " 21--24 " xxxviii. 1--7 " " 25 " xxxvii. 29 " " 26 " xxxviii. 8 " " 27 " xl. 30--32 " xxxix. 1--10 " xxxviii. 24--31 " " 11 " xxxix. 32 " " 13--23 " " 33--43 " xl. 6^b--8, 10--25, 26, 27--32 " xl. 8--10, 12--27, 29, 33, 38 Num. i. 24--10 Num. i. 26--37, 24--25 " vi. 22--26 " vi. 22, 23, 27, 24, 25, 26 " xxvi. 15--47 " xxvi. 19--27, 15--18, 44--47, 28--43 Josh. ix. 3--33 Josh. viii. 30--33, ix. 3--27 " xix. 47--48 " xix. 48, 47 3 Regn. iv. 17, 18, 19 1 Kings iv. 18, 19, 17 " " 20--21, 22--24, 25--30 " " 7--8, 2--4, 9--14 " v. 1--16, 17 " v. 15--30, 32^b " vi. 4--5, 6--7, 8, 9--15, 16--34 " vi. 37--38, 2--3, 14, 4--10, 15--36 " vii. 1--6, 7, 8--9, 10--11, 12--13 " vii. 13--18, 21, 19--20, 23--24, 26, 25 " vii. 14--37, 38--50 " vii. 27--51, 1--12 " x. 23--24^a, 24^b, 25 " ix. 15, 17--19, 20--22 " " 26--29 " x. 23--26 " " 30 " v. 1^a " " 31--33 " x. 27--29 " xi. 3--8 " xi. 4, 3, 7, 5, 8, 6 " xx. xxi " xxi. xx Psalms ix. 22--39 Psalms x. 1--18 " x.--cxii " xi.--cxiii " cxiii. 1--8 " cxiv. 1--8 " cxiii. 9--12 " cxv. 1--4 " cxiv " cxvi. 1--9 " cxv " cxvi. 10--19 " cxvi.--cxlvi " cxvii.--cxlvii. 11 " cxlvii. 1--9 " cxlvii. 12--20 Prov. xv. 27^b--xvi. 4, 6, 9 Prov. xvi. 6, xv. 28, xvi. 7, xv 29 " xvi. 8--9, xv. 30--33^a " xvi. 5, 4^a " xx. 10^a--12, 13^b--16, 17--24 " xx. 20--22, 10--13, 23--30 " xxiv. 24--37, 3849, 50--68, 69--77, xxix. 28--49 " xxx. 1--14, xxiv. 23--34, xxx. 15--33, xxxi. 1--9, 10 Jer. xxv. 14--19 Jer. xlix. 34^a--39 " xxvi. 1 " " 36^b " " 2--28 " xlvi. 2--28 " xxvii " l " xxvii " li " xxxvii. 1--2 " xxxvi. 8--9 " xxix. 1--7 " xlvii. 1--7 " " 8--23 " xlix. 7--22 " xxx. 1--5, 6--11, 12--27 " " 1--5, 28--33, 23--27 " xxxi. " xlviii " xxxii. 1--24 " xxv. 15--38 " xxxiii " xxvi " xxxiv. 1--18 " xxvii. 2--22 " xxxv " xxxviii " xxxvi " xxix " xxxvii " xxx " xxxviii. 1--34, 35--37, 38--40 " xxxi. 1--34, 37, 35, 36, 38--40 " xxxix " xxxii " xl " xxxiii " xli " xxxiv " xlii " xxxv " xliii " xxxvi " xliv " xxxvii " xlv " xxxviii " xlvi " xxxix " xlvii " xl " xlviii " xli " xlix " xlii " l " xliii " li. 1--30, 31--35 " xliv. 1--30, xlv. 1--5 Ezech. vii. 3--9 Ezek. vii. 6--9, 3--5 2. Each of these contexts must be separately examined with the view of discovering the extent and the cause of the divergence. This can be done but briefly here; for further particulars the student is referred to the commentaries which deal with the several books. In the following pages = the Greek text, and ^A, B, etc. = the Greek text as given in cod. A, cod. B, or as the case may be; = the Massoretic text as printed in the Hebrew Bibles. GEN. xxxi. 46 ff. The passage is in some confusion; "vv. 45, 47, 51--54 appear to embody E's account . . . vv. 46, 48--50 the account given by J [499] ." is loosely put together, and v. 50^b, which omits, is hardly consistent with vv. 48, 52. In the materials seem to have been re-arranged with the view of giving greater consistency to the narrative. GEN. xxxv. 16 ff. The transposition in appears to be due to a desire to locate Eder (Gader;) between Bethel and Bethlehem: see art. EDER in Hastings' D. B. (i. p. 644). EXOD. xx. 13--15. and represent here two distinct traditions with regard to the order of the Decalogue. For the order followed by ^B see Lc. xviii. 20, Rom. xiii. 9, Jas. ii. 11, Philo de x. orac. 10, de spec. legg. iii. 2; that of ^AF is supported by Mt., Mc., and Josephus. In Deut. v. 17--19 cod. B wavers between the two, but cod. A consistently agrees with [500] . EXOD. xxxv.--xl. is "the sequel to c. xxv.-xxxi., relating the execution of the instructions there communicated to Moses," the correspondence being so close that "in the main, the narrative is repeated verbatim--with the single substitution of past tenses for future [501] ." But whilst in c. xxv. ff. the LXX. generally follows the Massoretic order, in the corresponding sections at the end of the book "extraordinary variations occur in the Greek, some verses being omitted altogether, while others are transposed and knocked about with a freedom very unlike the usual manner of the translators of the Pentateuch [502] ." The passage deals with the building and furniture of the Tabernacle, and the attire of the Priesthood: The following rough table will enable the student to see how the detail are arranged in the LXX. and Heb. severally. Ornaments of the Ministers. Structure of the Tabernacle. Ephod (xxxvi. 9--12). Hangings (xxxvi. 8--19). Onyx stones (xxxvi. 13--14). Boards (xxxvi. 20--34). Breastplate (xxxvi. 15--29). Veils (xxxvi. 35--38). Robe of Ephod (xxxvi. 30--34) Linen vestments (xxxvi. 35--37). Furniture of the Tabernacle and its Court. Crown plate (xxxvi. 38--40). Ark (xxxvii. 1--9). Table (xxxvii. 10--16). Structure of the Tabernacle, and Court. Candlestick (xxxvii. 17--24). Hangings (xxxvii. 1--2). Altar of incense (xxxvii. 25--29). Veils (xxxvii. 3--6). Altar of Burnt-offering (xxxviii. 1--7). Court (xxxvii. 7--18). Laver (xxxviii. 8). Court (xxxviii. 9-20). Furniture of the Tabernacle, &c. Ornaments of the Ministers. Ark (xxxviii. 1--8). Ephod (xxxix. 2--5). Table (xxxviii. 9--12). Onyx stones (xxxix. 6--7). Candlestick (xxxviii. 13--17). Breastplate (xxxix. 8--21). Altar of Burnt-offering (xxxviii. 22--24). Robe of the Ephod (xxxix. 22--26). Oil and Incense (xxxviii. 25--26). Linen vestments (xxxix. 27--29). Laver (xxxviii. 17). Crown plate (xxxix. 30--31. It is clear from this comparison that both and follow a system, i.e. that the difference of sequence is due to a deliberate rearrangement of the groups. Either the Alexandrian translator has purposely changed their relative order, giving precedence to the ornaments of the priesthood which are subordinated in the M. T. of cc. xxxv.--xl., as well as in both texts of cc. xxv.--xxx.; or he had before him in c. xxxv. ff. another Hebrew text in which the present Greek order was observed. Many O. T. scholars (e.g. Kuenen, Wellhausen, Dillmann) regard cc. xxxv.--xl. as belonging to a "secondary and posterior stratum of P [503] ." Thus it is permissible to suppose that the Hebrew text before the original translators of Exodus did not contain this section, and that it was supplied afterwards from a longer Hebrew recension of the book in which the last six chapters had not yet reached their final form. That the translation of these chapters was not made by the same hand as the rest of Exodus has been gathered from the fact that the Hebrew technical terms which are common to xxv.--xxx. and xxxv.--xl. are in certain cases differently rendered in the two contexts [504] . NUMBERS i. 24 ff., xxvi. 15 ff. Each of these passages contains a census of the tribes, and in each the order of the tribes is slightly different in and . In both lists places Gad third, and Asher eleventh; whereas according to Gad is ninth in the first of the two lists, and sixth in the second, and in the second Asher is seventh. The effect of the sequence presented by is to bring Gad into close proximity to Asher, a position which this tribe occupies in i. 5--15 ( and ). For this there may have been genealogical reasons; see Gen. xxx. 10 ff., xlix. 19. C. vi. 22 ff. Here obviously has the simpler and more natural order, and legontes autois at the end of v. 23 seems to shew that the Greek order, though supported by BA'*, is the result of an early accidental displacement in the Greek text. JOSHUA ix. 3 ff. In the present Hebrew text the ceremony at Ebal and Gerizim follows immediately upon the taking of Ai, but in it is separated from the latter incident by the hostile gathering of the western kings (ix. 1, 2) and placed immediately before the story of the Gibeonites. "involves a geographical difficulty, for Ebal lies considerably to the north of Ai, and until the intervening territory was conquered . . . it is difficult to understand how Joshua could have advanced thither [505] ." The situation however is scarcely improved if we adopt the order of , unless the gathering of the kings is taken to imply a further victory on the Israelite side which opened the way to central Palestine. Dillmann suggests that ix. 2 was once followed by the details of a battle. If so, it is possible that still preserves the original order, though in common with it has lost this record. C. xix. 47--48. On these verses, which exchange places in the Greek, see under (B) [506] . 3 REGN. iv. 17 ff. The change of order in vv. 17--19 needs no discussion; the transposition may be due to an accident of transcription in the archetype of Cod. B, or, like the variations in Num. i., xxvi., to some consideration connected with the placing of the tribes. The real problem of the passage begins at iv. 20. Its nature may best be understood from a table of the contents. These consist of the details of Solomon's personal greatness and public works; the facts are arranged by ^B and respectively as follows: Provision for the royal table (iv. 20--23). Solomon's marriage (iii. 1). Solomon's power (iv. 24). Provision for the royal table (v. 2f., 7f.) His wisdom (iv. 25--30). The King's power (v. 4). His marriage (iv. 31). His wisdom (v. 9--14). His wife's dowry (iv. 32 ff.). His negociations with King Hiram (v. 15--25). His negociations with King Hiram (v. 1--12). His corvée of workmen (v. 27--32). His corvée of workmen (v. 13--17). Foundations of the Temple laid (vi. 1). Foundations of the Temple laid (vi. 1--5). Dimensions of the Temple (vi. 6). Dimensions of the Temple (vi. 6 f.). Details of the building (vi. 2, 7, 36) Details of the building (vi. 8--34). Building of the royal palaces (vii. 1--12). Work of Hiram the artist (vii. 1--37). Work of Hiram the artist (vii. 12--51). Building of the royal palaces (vii. 38--50). Solomon's wife's dowry (ix. 16 f.). As in the disturbed section at the end of Exodus, it is easy to see that each order follows a system: (1) Whilst places the marriage of Solomon to Pharaoh's daughter, and the use made by the king of his wife's marriage portion, in their historical settings, ^B brings the two incidents together, as the finishing strokes to the picture of Solomon's power. Again, whilst deals with the whole of Solomon's public works before it describes the skill of Hiram, ^B completes the history of the building of the Temple with the account of Hiram's labours before it describes the construction of the royal palaces. The above comparison is necessarily rough; it does not shew' the minor differences of order, or the omissions and additions of the Greek text. A closer examination leaves little doubt that ^B has been translated from a recension of the book earlier than that which is preserved in the Massoretic text [507] . C. x. 23--33. The text of ^B, Luc. here admits two passages which it had passed over in the earlier contexts, where they stand in (c. ix. 15, 17--22, v. 1). Of ix. 10--28 Prof. Driver remarks that it "consists of a series of notices imperfectly connected together," and that its "literary form . . . is, for same reason, less complete than that of any other portion of the Books of Kings [508] ." Under these circumstances it is not surprising that some of these notices occupied another place in the text which was before the Alexandrian translator. C. v. 1^a, which in the Greek order is x. 30, belongs in to another similar collection of loosely-connected paragraphs. The arrangement followed by ^B is perhaps not materially better, but it probably represents an earlier stage in the formation of the book. C. xi. 3-8. Here ^B, Luc. presents a text which differs from ^A and both in order and in form. A comparison of ^B with ^A and will be found to be instructive; the latter is diffuse and repeats itself unnecessarily (3 eklinan gunaikes autou ten kardian autou . . . 4 hai gunaikes autou exeklinan ten kardian autou . . . 5 eporeuthe Salomon opiso tes Astartes . . . 7 tote okodomesen S. hupselon . . . te Astarte); former presents the facts [509] briefly and in a logical sequence. Here as elsewhere in this book Cod. A represents the Hexaplaric Greek, and not the original LXX. [510] Cc. xx., xxi. The relative order of these chapters is reversed in which justifies the change by prefacing the story of Naboth with the words vyhy 'chr hdvrym h'lh. "The dislocation may have been due to the desire to bring the prophecy of Ahab's death nearer to the account of its occurrence [511] ." Obviously wrong as the present Hebrew order is, Cod. A has adopted it, interpolating the inapposite egeneto meta ta rhemata tauta, which Origen had borrowed from Aquila; and even Lucian (if he is here rightly represented by Lagarde) has been led into the same error, though he seems to retain the true sequence of the chapters. PSALMS ix.--cxlvii. Throughout the greater part of the Psalter and follow different systems of numeration. This is due to certain consecutive Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter being counted as one in the Greek (ix. + x. Heb. = ix. LXX.; cxiv. + cxv. Heb. = cxiii. LXX.), and certain of the Hebrew Psalms being vice versa divided in the Greek into two (cxvi. Heb. = cxiv. + cxv. LXX.; cxlvii. Heb. = cxlvi. + cxlvii. LXX.). In the Heb. Psalms ix. and x. there are traces of an acrostic system which have been taken to indicate that the two Psalms were originally one [512] . Many Hebrew MSS. join Psalms cxiv., cxv. [513] , as in the LXX. For the division of Psalms cxvi. and cxlvii. it is less easy to account, but it may have been due to a desire to make up the number of the Psalms to 150 [514] . PROVERBS xxiv.--xxxi. In the first great section of this book (cc. i.--ix.) there is no important difference of order, nor does the second section (x.--xxii. 1^b) or the third (xxii. 17--xxiv. 22) offer more than an occasional variation in the grouping of proverbs, combined with omissions and additions on either side. But at c. xxiv. 23 we enter upon a series of collections which seem at one time to have formed distinct books or cycles of proverbial teaching, and here and differ widely, as a comparison of the contents will shew. Words of Agur (xxiv. 24--37). Sayings of the Wise (xxiv. 23--34). Sayings of the Wise (xxiv. 38--49). Proverbs of Solomon (xxv. 1--xxix. 21). Rest of the Words of Agur (xxiv. 50--68). Words of Agur (xxx. 1--33). Words of Lemuel (xxiv. 69--77). Words of Lemuel (xxxi. 1--9). Proverbs of Solomon (xxv. 1--xxix. 27). Praise of the Virtuous Woman (xxxi. 10--31). Praise of the Virtuous Woman (xxix. 28--49). Evidently the order of this portion of the book had not been finally settled when the Alexandrian translator did his work [515] . Moreover he has failed to understand the headings of the two sections attributed to Agur and Lemuel [516] , and has broken up Agur's collection, the unity of which he seems not to have recognised, placing the Sayings of the Wise between the fragments; unless, indeed, he found them divided in his Hebrew archetype. JEREMIAH xxv.-li. A glance at the table which stands near the beginning of this chapter will shew that the section c. xxv. 15--xlv. 5 ( ) answers in a general way to c. xxxii. 1--li. 35 ( ), whilst c. xlvi. 1--li. 64 ( ) is represented, though not without considerable interruptions of the present Hebrew order, by c. xxv. 14--xxxi. 44 ( ). Speaking roughly these two sections have exchanged places in the Greek text [517] . In the prophecies against the nations precede the parable of the intoxicating cup (xxv. 15 ff. = xxxii. 1 ff.); in they form the final section of the book, coming immediately before the historical appendix (c. lii.). If these prophecies were circulated in a separate form, the words of c. xxv. 13 might naturally have led an Alexandrian collector to place them where they stand in the LXX., whereas in Palestine they were treated as a postscript to the earlier collections and placed after xlv. 5. The two texts differ however not only in regard to the place which they assign to the section as a whole, but in the relative order of the prophecies. The order of the nations denounced is in Elam, Egypt, Babylon, Philistia, Edom, Ammon, Kedar, Damascus, Moab; but in , Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, Elam, Babylon. The prophecies had apparently been grouped in the Alexandrian collection after one manner, and after another in the collection which was current in Palestine. EZEKIEL vii. 3-9. Here the divergence of the LXX. from the Hebrew text was noticed by Jerome, who writes: "in hoc capitulo iuxta LXX. interpretes ordo mutatus est et confusus, ita ut prima novissima sint et novissima vel prima vel media, ipsaque media nunc ad extrema nunc ad principia transferantur." The transposition, to whichever side it is to be ascribed, may be explained by the genius of the passage which is in "a lyric strain such as is unwonted in Ezekiel [518] ." A full examination of the context may be seen in Cornill [519] , who justly describes it as "eine stark verderbte Stelle," and finds a solution in the hypothesis of a doublet (cf. vv. 3--4, 7--8). (B) DIFFERENCES OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 1. A further comparison of the LXX. with the Massoretic Hebrew reveals the presence in each text of a considerable number of passages which are not to be found in the other. This fact was known to Origen, and frankly recognised by him (ep. ad African. § 3 kai en allois de pollois hagiois bibliois heuromen pe men pleiona par hemin keimena e par Ebraiois, pe de leiponta) and the Hexapla, as we have seen [520] , was the result of a mistaken endeavour to assimilate the LXX. to the current Hebrew text. Its remains are still invaluable as bearing witness to the condition of both texts in the second and third centuries after Christ. The student who would grasp the nature and extent of the problem must examine them in Field's great edition; in this place we will content ourselves with some notice of additions and omissions which extend to entire verses or paragraphs. PENTATEUCH. As a whole, the Law has escaped material changes in either direction. But there are a few important exceptions In Gen. iv 8 the LXX. supplies the words of Cain (dielthomen eis to pedion), which are wanting in the Hebrew Bible. The supplementary chapters of Exodus are on the whole shorter in than in ; the former has nothing to answer to c. xxxv. 8, xxxvii. 25--28, xl. 6--8, 11, and exhibits c. xxxvi. 8-34 in an abridged form. In the Song of Moses the last four distichs are expanded in into eight, thus: [euphranthete, ouranoi, hama auto, kai proskunesatosan auto huioi theou;] euphranthete, ethne, meta tou laou autou, [kai enischusatosan auto pantes angeloi theou.] hoti to haima ton huion autou ekdikatai, [kai ekdikesei] kai antapodosei diken tois echthrois, [kai tois misousin antapodosei, ] kai ekkathariei [Kurios] ten gen tou laou. There is nothing in which corresponds with the bracketed words of the version. Yet they are present in all uncial MSS. of the LXX., and were probably in the earlier copies of Deuteronomy which passed into the possession of the Christian Church. Possibly the Song was circulated in a separate form in more than one translation. The present Greek text seems to be the result of conflation, lines 1 and 3, 2 and 4, 6 and 7, being doublets; line 2 = 4 appears to be an adaptation of Ps. xcvi. (xcvii.) 7. JOSHUA.. Besides innumerable smaller variations in this book which shew that it was not regarded by the translators as sharing the peculiar sanctity of the Torah [521] , there are in the last four chapters several important contexts in which and differ by defect or excess [522] . C. xix. 47--48 . The order of these verses is reversed in , so as to bring the words haute he kleronomia ktl. into juxtaposition with the list of the Danite towns (vv. 41--46); and to each of the verses which have thus exchanged places the LXX. attaches a rider, based apparently upon Judges ii. 34 f., and describing the relations between the new settlers and the Amorites. C. xx. 4--6. Omitted in . "It is probable that the ch. in its original form (P) has been enlarged by additions from the law of homicide in Dt. (c. 19) at a comparatively late date, so that they were still wanting in the MSS. used by the LXX. translators [523] ." C. xxi. 36-37, 42 a--d. The printed Hebrew Bibles omit vv. 36-37, which contain the names of the Levitical cities in the territory of Reuben, and they seem to have been obelised in the Greek by Origen. They are found, however, in the majority of Hebrew MSS. [524] , and are necessary to the completeness of the narrative. Vv. 42 a--c are little more than a doublet of c. xix. 50, 51b; 42 d appears to be based upon c. v. 3. C. xxiv. 30--33. V. 30a continues the story of the flint knives (v. 7, xxi. 42 d). , which omits v. 31, a doublet of Judges ii. 7, adds to the book a postscript, v. 33 a--b, based on v. 33, 1 Sam. iv. 3 ff., Judges ii. 6, 11 ff., iii. 14 [525] . 1 SAMUEL (1 REGN.). C. ii. 9, 10. The closing stanza of this hymn, like that of the Song of Moses, is presented by in a modified and expanded form. Vv. 8 c, 9 a are omitted in , which substitutes didous euchen . . . dikaiou ("apparently an attempt to accommodate the Song more closely to Hannah's position [526] "), and inserts in the heart of v. 10 a passage from Jerem. ix. 23, 24, taken from the Greek version, but with variations which form an instructive study:-- 1 Regn. ii. Jer. ix. ho phronimos en te phronesei . . . ho dunatos en te dunamei . . . ton Kurion, kai poiein krima kai dikaiosunen en meso tes ges. ho sophos en te sophia . . . ho ischuros en te ischui . . . hoti ego eimi Kurios ho poion eleos kai krima kai dikaiosunen epi tes ges. It has been noticed that 1 Regn. ii. 11 a (kai katelipen auton ekei enopion Kuriou) probably corresponds to 1 Sam. i. 28 b (vystchv sm lyhvh). If so, the Song has been inserted in and at different points in the narrative [527] ; and it seems to be a reasonable inference that it was not in the original draft of the book. Such a hypothesis will account for the freedom with which it has been treated in . Cc. xvii--xviii. This is the most important of the contexts in which ^B differs from ^A in the way of defect. The omitted verses contain the story of David's visit to the camp of Israel (xvii. 12--31); David's interview with Saul and Jonathan (xvii. 55--xviii. 5); Saul's attempts upon David's life (xviii. 10--11, 17--19); besides occasional details of less importance (xvii. 41, 50; xviii. 30). These omissions have been variously explained. According to Wellhausen and Kuenen [528] , the Greek translator, or the scribe of the archetype followed by Cod B, has deliberately removed the missing verses, from a desire to harmonise. Certainly the result of their absence is to reduce, if not altogether to remove, the conflict between c. xvi. 14 ff., which represents David as an experienced warrior with whose reputation Saul is already acquainted, and cc. xvii., xviii., where on a later occasion he appears as a shepherd lad of whom the king has as yet heard nothing. But, as Robertson Smith has pointed out, it is difficult to believe that simple omissions made without changing a word of what was left could produce a complete and consecutive narrative such as we find in . He concludes that the verses omitted by are "interpolations in the Hebrew text, extracts from a lost biography of David . . . not found in the text which lay before the LXX. translators [529] ." Driver [530] doubts whether the verses can have been interpolated in a strict sense, "for an interpolation would not insert anything at variance with the narrative interpolated." "We seem therefore (he adds) shut up to the conclusion that the verses omitted in the Vat. MS. belong to an independent narrative, which was in parts incorporated with the older account, but not in all MSS. existing when the LXX. translated the book." The omissions are supplied in ^A, ^Luc., but probably from a non-Septuagintal source; the passages are marked with an asterisk in the Hexaplaric MSS. 64, 92 [531] . C. xxiii. 11--12. Here ^B omits by homoeoteleuton the Heb. from yrd (v. 11) to ysgyrv (v. 12). But it also omits qylh vydv bly, (v. 11), and Wellhausen conjectures with probability that ei apokleisthesetai was wanting in the original form of the LXX. [532] 1 KINGS (3 REGN.). In this book ^B contains a large quantity of additional matter, of varying character and worth [533] . C. ii. 35 a--n, 46 a--l, are summaries of Solomon's personal history, which have been attached, probably by the accidents of transcription, to the verses which they severally follow. On examination each of these passages proves to be made up partly of translations from verses which are not represented in the true LXX., partly of fragments of the LXX. which occur elsewhere in their true order, partly of brief descriptions gathered from other parts of the book. Thus ii. 35 a--b = iv. 25--26, c = iv. 31, d = v. 15, e = vii. 10 ff., f--g = ix. 24--25 ( ), h = v. 16, i--k = x. 23 ff., l--o = ii. 8--9. Similarly, ii. 46 a = iv. 20 ( ), b = v. 2 ( ), c = iii. 1 ( ), d = ix. 18 ( ), e = iv. 22--23, f = iv. 24, g = v. 5 ( ), h = 2 ff., i--k = x. 29--30. C. viii. 53 a is an addition of quite another character and of the highest interest. The true LXX. ( ^B) omits viii. 12, 13, which in cod. A are thus supplied from Aquila [534] : tote eipen Salomon Kurios eipen tou skenosai en gnopho. oikodomesa oikon katoiketeriou soi, hedrsma tes kathedras sou aionos. But after v. 53 gives the substance of these words in a poetical form which is expressly attributed to an older source: tote elalesen S. huper tou oikou hos sunetelesen tou oikodomesai aupon Helion egnorisen (Luc., estesen) en ourano Kurios; | eipen tou katoikein ek gnophou (A, en gnopho); | oikodomeson oikon mou, oikon ekprepe (A, euprepe) sauto | tou katoikein epi kainotetos. | ouk idou haute gegraptai en biblio tes odes; Though this occurs in cod. A and Lucian, it was wanting in the Hebrew text which was before the translators of the second century A.D., for in the Hexapla it appeared only in the LXX. column [535] . But (as its very errors shew) it is a translation of a Hebrew original, and the biblio tes odes from which it came is doubtless none other than the Book of Jashar (sphrhysr, read as s hsyr?) [536] . Here has preserved for us a precious relic, which in has been first misplaced and then partly lost [537] . C. xii. 24 a--z. The longest interpolation in the book, partly similar to the Greek additions in c. ii., but presenting greater difficulties. After rehearsing the facts connected with the death of Solomon, and summarising the reign of Rehoboam, the interpolator tells the story of the rise of Jeroboam and the revolt of Israel, going over the ground already covered in cc. xi--xii., and anticipating c. xiv. ( ). The parallels are xii. 24 a = xi. 43, xiv. 21--22; b = xi. 26--28; c = xi. 40; d--f = xi. 43^b; xii. 2--5 ( ); g--n^a = xiv. 1--20 ( ); n^b--z = xii. 3--24. But the passage is no mere cento of verses to be found elsewhere either in or ; it is a second and distinct recension of the story, resting equally with the first upon a Hebrew original. So different and indeed in some respects contradictory are the accounts that they "cannot possibly have stood from the first in the same volume." The same action is ascribed in the one "to Shemaiah, at Shechem, in the days of Rehoboam"; and in the other "to Ahijah, at Jerusalem, in the days of Solomon [538] ." In fact, the present Greek version of 1 Kings has preserved two ancient accounts of the dismemberment of the Kingdom of David and Solomon, and though one of these survives also in there is no a priori ground for deciding which of the two is the more trustworthy. It is worthy of notice that cod. B omits the reference to Jeroboam's residence in Egypt in xii. 2, and the visit of Jeroboam's wife to Ahijah as it is told in c. xiv. 1--20, though it gives the two irreconcilable accounts of the meeting of Jeroboam with the prophet (xi. 29 ff., xii. 24 o). The whole of the narrative, so far as it exists only in the Greek, is omitted by A and the Syro-hexaplar, but it seems to have been retained by Lucian [539] . C. xvi. 28 a--h consists of another recension of the summary of Jehoshaphat's reign which occurs in c. xxii. 41--44, 47-50, where the last four verses are omitted altogether in ^B. Lucian, who agrees with ^B in the interpolation at xvi. 28, omits xxii. 40 b--52. 2 KINGS (4 REGN.). C. i. 18 a--d. An addition similar in character to that which follows 3 Regn. xvi. 28. The summary of Joram's reign has attached itself to the beginning as well as to the end of the story of Elijah's ascension, whilst in it finds a place only at the end (iii. 1--3). In this instance, however, ^A, Luc. agrees with ^B in repeating the summary, though with some variations. The student will find a comparison instructive. 1 CHRONICLES i. 10--16, 17b--23 are wanting in ^B, which thus shortens the genealogy by omitting (1) the posterity of Ham, except the Cushites, (2) the longer of two lists of the posterity of Shem. Both passages are supplied (from Gen. x. 13--18, 22--29) by cod. A, in a version which came from Hexaplaric sources (see Field, i. p. 704). 2 CHRONICLES xxxv. 19 a--d, xxxvi. 2 a--c, 5 a--d, are versions of 2 Kings xxiii. 24--27, 31b--33, xxiv. 1--4, based apparently upon a recension of the Hebrew which differs from , and only in part assimilated to . 2 ESDRAS xxi, xxii. (Neh. xi, xii.). The lists of princes and Levites are much shortened in ^B, which omits altogether xxi. 16, 20, 21, 28, 29, 32--35; xxii. 4--6, 9, 15--21, 38, 40, 41. PSALMS. In many of the Psalms receive titles, or additions to their titles, which are wanting in . The following is a list of those which occur in the uncial MSS. x. (xi.)+ psalmos. So xiii. (xiv.), xxiv. (xxv.), xliii. (xliv.), lxxx. (lxxxi.). xxiii. (xxiv.) + tes mias sabbatou. xxvi. (xxvii.) + pro tou christhenai. xxviii. (xxix.) + exodiou skenes. xxix. (xxx.) pr. eis to telos. xxx. (xxxi.) + ekstaseos. xxxii. (xxxiii.). To Daueid. xxxvii. (xxxviii.) + peri sabbatou. xli. (xlii.) + psalmos to Daueid (cod. A.). xlii. (xliii.). Psalmos to Daueid. xlvii. (xlviii.) + deutera sabbatou. lxv. (lxvi.) + anastaseos. lxvi. (lxvii.) + to Daueid (om. odes). lxix. (lxx.) + eis to Sosai me Kurion. lxx. (lxxi.). To Daueid, huion Ionadab kai ton proton aichmalotisthenton. lxxv. (lxxvi.) + pros ton Assurion. lxxix. (lxxx.) + huper tou Assuriou. xc. (xci.). Ainos odes to Daueid. xcii. (xciii.). Heis ten hemeran tou prosabbatou, hoti katokistai he ge; ainos odes to Daueid. xciii. (xciv.). Psalmos to Daueid, tetradi sabbatou. xciv. (xcv.). Ainos odes to Daueid. xcv. (xcvi.). Hoti ho oikos oikodomeitai meta ten aichmalosian; ode to Daueid. xcvi. (xcvii.). To Daueid, hote he ge autou kathistatai. xcvii. (xcviii.) + to Daueid. xcviii. (xcix.). Psalmos to Daueid. ciii. (civ.). To Daueid. civ. (cv.). Hallelouia: so cv., cvi. (cvi., cvii.), cxiii. (cxiv., cxv.), cxiv. (cxvi.) 1--9, cxvi. (cxvii.), cxvii. (cxviii.), cxxxv. (cxxxvi.), [but in each of these cases the Greek title is the equivalent of a final hllvyh in the M.T. of the preceding Psalm]. cx. (cxi.). Hallelouia: so cxi., cxii. (cxii., cxiii.), cxxxiv. (cxxxv.), [but in each of these cases the Greek title is the equivalent of an opening hllvyh in the M.T. of the Psalm]. cxv. (cxvi. 10--19). Hallelouia. So cxviii. (cxix.). cxxxvi. (cxxxvii.). To Daueid. cxxxvii. (cxxxviii.) + Zachariou A (-rias T). cxxxviii. (cxxxix.) + Zachariou (cod. A.) + en te diaspora (A^a Y). cxlii. (cxliii.) + hote auton ho huios katadiokei (katedioxen A). cxliii. (cxliv.) + pros ton Goliad. cxlv. (cxlvi.). Hallelouia; Hangaiou kai Zachariou (Heb. ldvyd thlh). cxlvi. (cxlvii. 1--11). Hallelouia; Hangaiou kai Zachariou (where Hall. answers to the first word of the Psalm in as in as in cx. (cxi.)). cxlvii. (cxlvii. 10--20). As cxlvi., except that Hall. is not in . cxlviii. As cxlvi. but Hall. is here represented in both at the end of the preceding Psalm and at the beginning of Ps. cxlviii. cxlix. Hallelouia. In at the end of cxlviii. and the beginning of cxlix. cl. Hallelouia. As in cxlix. On the questions raised by the Greek titles see Neubauer in Studia Bibl. ii. p. 1 ff., Driver, Intr. p. 348 ff., the commentaries, e.g. those of Perowne, Kirkpatrick, and Cheyne, and the last-named author's Origin of the Psalter. Valuable traditions are probably embodied in the liturgical notes which assign certain Psalms to particular days of the week te mia sabbatou, deutera s., tetradi s. [540] , eis ten hemeran tou prosabbatou (cf. Mc. xv. 42)), and in those which attribute others to the time of the Return (Zachariou, Hangaiou) or to the Dispersion (en te diaspora). On the other hand some of the Greek titles appear to be fanciful (pro tou christhenai, pros ton Goliad), whilst others are obscure (ekstaseos, anast?seos). For the Christian (mystical) interpretation of the Greek titles see Athan. de titulis Psalmorum (Migne, P. G. xxvii. 591 sqq.), the variorum prolegomena in Pitra's Analecta sacra ii. p. 411 sqq., and Corderii exp. Patr. Gr. in Psalmos, passim. Ps. xiii. (xiv.) 3 a--c. This, the only long interpolation in the Greek Psalter, is found upon examination to be made up of Pss. v. 10 b, cxxxix. (cxl.) 4 b, ix. (x.) 17 a, Isa. lix. 7, 8, Ps. xxxv. (xxxvi.) 1 a, all taken or abridged from the LXX. version with slight variations. That it never formed a part of the Hebrew Psalm may be safely affirmed, yet it is quoted continuously in Rom. iii. 13--18, where it follows without break upon an abridgement of Ps. xiii. (xiv.) 1--3. The Greek addition had a place in the koine, according to Jerome praef. in Isa.; cf. Field, ad loc. Whether it was brought into the text of the LXX. from the Epistle [541] , or was already in the Greek Psalm as known to St Paul, cannot perhaps now be ascertained. But it doubtless had its origin in the Rabbinical practice of stringing together passages excerpted from various books of the Old Testament (Sanday and Headlam on Romans, l.c.), and it may have existed under this form in a collection of testimonia used by the Apostle (on such collections see Hatch, Essays, p. 203, Westcott, Hebrews, p. 476 ff.). Ps. cli. psalmos idiographos) [542] . The MSS. of the LXX. contain after Ps. cl. a Psalm which bears the title Houtos ho psalmos id?ographos eis Daueid kai exothen tou arithmou, hote emonomachesen to Goliad, O. L. hic psalmus sibi proprie scriptus est David, extra numerum, cum pugnavit cum Golia[th]. The letter of Athanasius to Marcellinus, which is incorporated in cod. A, speaks freely of this Psalm as the work of David, and as Ps. cli. (§ 14 hoi men kaucheseos tes en Kurio apangellontes logous eisi kb' kai ks', le' . . . rna': § 25 to eklexameno kurio didous doxan psalle kai su ton rna' idion onta tou Daueid); and it is quoted as a Psalm of David by the author of the pseudonymous letter of Mary to Ignatius (cent. iv.; Lightfoot, Ignatius, iii. 144, phesin gar pou autos hoti Mikros emen, ktl.). Moreover the scribe of Cod. ' regarded it as a part of the Psalter, for his subscription runs . In cod. A, however, it is carefully excluded from the Psalter proper (subscr. ; and the judgement of the Laodicene canon (biblos psalmon hekaton pentekonta) is upheld by the title which in all the MSS. pronounces this 'autograph' (idiographos work of David to be exothen or ektos tou arithmou, i.e. ton rn' psalmon. This Psalm is clearly based on 1 Kings xvi. 7, 11, 26, 43, 51; 2 Kings vi. 5; 2 Chron. xxix. 26; Ps. lxxviii. 70, lxxxix. 20. Its resemblance to the LXX. of those passages is not so close as to suggest a Greek original, but on the other hand there is no evidence that it ever existed in Hebrew. Whether it had a Hebrew or a Greek original, it was probably added to the Greek Psalter after the translation of the fifth book was complete. For the literature of Ps. cli. see Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 749, and Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. v. 7², p. 905 ff. THE ECCLESIASTICAL CANTICLES. In certain uncial MSS. and a large proportion of the cursives the Psalms are followed by a collection of liturgical odai (cantica). The following table shews the sources and order of those which are given by codd. A, R, T. A R T 1. Exod. xv. 1--19. Exod. xv. 1--21. 2. Deut. xxxii. 1--43. Deut. xxxii. 1--44. 3. 1 Regn. ii. 1--10. 1 Regn. ii. 1--10. 4. Isa. xxvi. 9--20. Isa. v. 1V9. 5. Ion. ii. 3--10. Ion. ii. 3--10. 6. Hab. iii. 1--19. Hab. iii. 1--19. [6] 1 Regn. ii. [1]--10. 7. Isa. xxxviii. 10--20. Magnificat. 7. Magnificat. 8. Prayer of Manasseh [543] . Dan. iii. 52--90/ 8. Isa. xxxviii. 10--20. 9. Dan. iii. 26--45. 9. Prayer of Manasseh [544] . 10. " " 52--88. 10. Dan. iii. 26--45. 11. Magnificat. 11. " " 52--56. 12. Nunc dimittis. 12. " " 57--90. 13. Benedictus. 13. Benedictus. 14. Morning Hymn. 14. Nunc dimittis. 15. Morning Hymn. The nine Odes now sung at Lauds in the Orthodox Church are (following the order of cod. A) nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 + 13; the Roman Church uses at Lauds on successive days of the week 10, Isa. xii., Isa. xxxviii. 10--20, 3, 1, 6, 2, whilst 13, 11, 12 are recited daily at Lauds, Vespers, and Compline respectively [545] . The Mozarabic Breviary, as printed, provides no fewer than 76 scriptural canticles. Little has been done as yet to examine either the Greek or the Latin Psalters with the view of determining the local distribution of these canticles; but the student may refer to art. Canticles in DCA., and also to Martene, de ant. rit. eccl., p. 25, Neale, Hist. of the H. Eastern Church, ii. p. 834 f., Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, i. p. 124 f.; on the Canticles of the Latin Church he may consult with advantage Thomasius, opp. ii. pp. xv. sqq., 295 sqq. The text of the O. T. canticles in the Psalter of cod. A differs in places from that which is given by the same MS. where the canticles appear with their context in the books to which they severally belong. Thus we find the following variants: Exod. xv. 14 orgisthesan cant. ephobethesan: Deut. xxxii. 7 geneon geneais cant. geneas geneon: 18 gennesanta, cant. poiesanta: 1 Regn. ii. 10^a phronesei, cant. sophia: 10^b akra ges, cant. + dikaios hon. But the deviations are not numerous, and the text of the canticles appears on the whole to belong to the same family as that of the body of the MS. The division of the Psalter into books [546] seems to have been already made when it was translated into Greek, for though the Greek codices have nothing to answer to the headings sphr r'svn, etc., which appear in the printed Hebrew Bible, the Doxologies at the end of the first four books appear in the Greek as well as in the M. T. (Ps. xl. (xli.) 14, lxxi. (lxxii.) 18--20, lxxxviii. (lxxxix.) 5, cv. (cvi.) 48). PROVERBS. The variations of and in this book are treated by Lagarde in his early book Anmerkungen zur griech. Übersetzung der Proverbien. There is a considerable number of Greek verses for which offers no Hebrew equivalent, and there are some Hebrew verses or half-verses for which there is no Greek. Of the Greek verses not in some (e.g. iv. 27a--b, vi. 8a--c) appear to be of Greek, perhaps early Christian, origin; others have been collected from various contexts (e.g. iii. 16 = Isa. xlv. 23a + Prov. xxxi. 26; xxvi. 1 = Sir. iv. 21), or are fragments of the book which have been accidentally inserted twice (iii. 22a = iii. 8, 28c = xxvii. 1); others, again, seem to have arisen from the fusion of two renderings (xv. 18a, xvi. 17); but there remain not a few which probably represent genuine portions of the original collections, though wanting in the present Hebrew text, e.g. vii. 1a, viii. 21a, ix. 12a--c, 18a--c, xii. 11 a, 13 a, xvii. 6 a, xviii. 22 a, xxii. 8 a (cited in 2 Cor. ix. 7), xxiv. 22a--e, xxvii. 20a, 21 a. JOB. The LXX. text of Job current in Origen's time is known to have been very much shorter than the Greek text preserved in extant MSS. and the M.T. Ad African. 4 pleista te hosa dia mesou holou tou Iob par Ebraiois men keitai par hemin de ouchi, kai pollakis men epe tessara e tria; esth' hote de kai dekatessara kai dekaennea kai dekaex (for. leg. ennea kai hex [547] ). Cf. Hieron. praef. in Hiob: "cui [sc. libro Iob], si ea quae sub asteriscis addita sunt subtraxeris, pars maxima voluminis detruncabitur, et hoc duntaxat apud Graecos. ceterum apud Latinos . . . septingenti ferme aut octingenti versus desunt." The asterisks are preserved in certain cursive MSS. of the Greek Job [548] and in MSS. of Jerome's version, while the shorter form is represented by the earliest form of the O.L. and in the Sahidic version. Most of the extant Greek MSS., including the best uncials, offer a text in which the lacunae are supplied (chiefly from Theodotion), but which still falls short of the fulness of the Hexaplaric LXX. and of [549] . Dr Hatch [550] in his Essay On Origen's revision of the LXX. text of Job advocates the theory that the LXX. represents a shorter Hebrew text which was afterwards expanded into the longer form. Bickell, in his early book De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae (p. 42), maintained that the omissions were chiefly due to the translator, and this view is supported by recent critics. The evident desire of the translator to follow classical models suggests that he was an Alexandrian Hellenist [551] who intended his version for general reading, rather than for use in the synagogue [552] . Under such circumstances he may have been tempted to reduce the length of his original, especially in passages where it did not lend itself readily to his treatment. On the other hand he has not scrupled here and there to add to the original. Thus in c. ii. 9 he seeks to heighten the effect and at the same time to soften the harshness of the words uttered by Job's wife (chronou . . . pollou probebekotos . . . legon Idou anameno ktl.) [553] . The two notes at the end of the Greek Job (xlii. 17a, b--e) scarcely profess to belong to the book. The first (gegraptai de auton palin anastesesthai meth' hon ho kurios anistesin may be either a Pharisaic or a Christian gloss, intended to balance the eteleutesen Iob of the previous hemistich, and arising out of xix. 26 epi ges anastesai(v. l. anastesei) to derma mou to which passage gegraptai seems to refer. The second note, which professes to come from an Aramaic source houtos hermeneuetai ek tes Suriakes biblou [554] ), confuses Job ('yvv) with the Edomite king Jobab (yvvv) (Gen. xxxvi. 33 f. = 1 Chron. i. 44 f.), and bases on this identification a pedigree of the patriarch, according to which he was 'fifth from Abraham,' and a descendant of Esau. Similar statements occur in a fragment of the Hellenistic writer Aristeas quoted by Polyhistor, and from Polyhistor by Eusebius (praep. ev. ix. 25). From a comparison of this extract with the note attached to Job, Freudenthal was led to ascribe the note to Aristeas [555] . Beyond the geographical description of Uz (epi tois horiois tes Idoumaias kai Arabias), and the statements that Job's wife was an Arab woman and that her son's name was Ennon or Enon (v. l.), the note contains nothing new: 17c--d rests upon Gen. xxxvi. 32--35 (LXX.), and 17 e on Job ii. 11 (LXX.). ESTHER. In the Greek Esther we reach the maximum of interpolation. Of 270 verses, 107 are wanting in the present Hebrew text, and probably at no time formed a part of the Hebrew book [556] . The Greek additions are distributed through the book in contexts as long as average chapters [557] . In the Latin Bible they are collected at the end of the canonical book, where they fill several consecutive chapters (x. 4--xi. 5 = F, xi. 2--xii. 6 = A, xiii. 1--7 = B, xiii. 8--xiv. 19 = C, xv. 4--19 = D, xvi. 1--24 = E). This arrangement is due to Jerome, who relegated the Greek interpolations to the end of the canonical book; but it has had the effect of making them unintelligible. In their Greek sequence they form part of a consecutive history; A, which precedes c. i., introduces the story by describing the events which led to the first advancement of Mordecai at the court of Artaxerxes; B and E, which follow iii. 13 and viii. 12, profess to give copies of the letters of Artaxerxes referred to in those verses; C and D, which come between c. iv. and c. v., contain the prayers of Mordecai and Esther, and a description of Esther's approach to the King; F is an epilogue, which completes the story by relating the institution of the feast of Purim. Such Haggadic accretions will not create surprise if it be remembered that Esther was among the latest of the Kethubim, and that its canonicity was matter of dispute in Jewish circles even in the last years of the first century A.D. [558] . A note attached to the last of the Greek additions professes to relate the circumstances under which the book was brought to Egypt: "in the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dositheus, who said that he was a priest and Levite, and his son Ptolemy, brought the above Letter of Purim [559] , as they called it, which had been translated (so they said) by one Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy, a resident at Jerusalem." As Fritzsche remarks [560] , no fewer than four Ptolemies married a Cleopatra (Epiphanes, Philometor, Physcon, and Lathyrus), so that the date intended by the fourth year of Ptolemy and Cleopatra is by no means certain, though it is perhaps most naturally interpreted as = B.C. 178--7 (? 166--5), the fourth year of Philometor [561] . But the historical value of the note is more than doubtful [562] . The Greek text of Esther exists in two recensions (1) that of 'ABN 55, 93 b, 108 a, 249 al., (2) that of 19, 93 a, 108 b; both are exhibited by Ussher (Syntagma), Fritzsche (Esther, 1848; libri apocryphi, 1871), and Lagarde (libr. canon. V. T. i., 1883). The recensions differ considerably in the Greek additions as well as in the version. On the date of the Greek Esther the student may consult Jacob, Das Buch Esther bei dem LXX. in ZATW., 1890 (p. 241 ff.). JEREMIAH. Besides the extensive transpositions already noticed, the LXX. text of Jeremiah differs widely from M.T. in the way of excess and defect. The subject has received careful treatment from Dr A. W. Streane (Double Text of Jeremiah, Cambridge, 1896), whose verdict is on the whole in favour of the LXX. text, especially with regard to its omissions. He points out that "the tendency to diffuseness, characteristic of later Judaism . . . [and] likely specially to affect the writing of Jeremiah, as a prophet whose memory was of marked interest to the post-exilic Jews . . . operated much more slightly among Egyptian Jews than with their brethren elsewhere [563] "; and concludes that "the 'omissions' to be observed in the LXX. of Jeremiah, speaking generally, exist only in consequence of its nearer approximation to the original form of the Hebrew text." The Greek additions, in Jeremiah, rarely exceed a few words in a verse (see the list in Streane, p. 19). Omissions are more numerous, and sometimes extend over several consecutive verses of ; the following are the most noteworthy: viii. 10^b--12, x. 6, 8, 10, xvii. 1--5^a, xxix. (xxxvi., LXX.) 16--20, xxxiii. (xl., LXX.) 14--26, xxxix. (= xlvi., LXX.) 4--13, lii. 28--30. Of these passages viii. l0^b--12 seems to be based on vi. 12--15, and xxix. 16--20 on xxiv. 8--10; x. 6, 8, 10, xxxix. 4-13 and lii. 28--30 are probably interpolations in the M.T. On the other hand it is possible that the omission of xvii. 1--l5^a was due to homoeoteleuton, the eye of the translator or the scribe of his archetype having passed from yhvh (xvi. 21) to yhvh (xvii. 5^a). It is more difficult to account for the absence from of the Messianic passage xxxiii. 14--26. Dr Streane thinks that it must have been wanting in the Hebrew text which lay before the translators. Possibly the Messianic hope which it emphasises had less interest for a subject of the Ptolemies than for the Jews of Palestine. LAMENTATIONS. The Greek translator has prefixed a heading which connects the book with Jeremiah (kai egeneto . . . ekathisen Ieremias klaion ktl.), DANIEL. Like Esther the Book of Daniel in both its Greek forms [564] contains large contexts which have no equivalent in . There are three such passages in the Greek Daniel: (1) the story of Susanna (Sousanna, Sosanna), which in the version of Theodotion [565] as given by the great uncials precedes Dan. i. 1; (2) the story of Bel and the Dragon (Bel kai Drakoe) which follows Dan. xii. 13; (3) after Dan. iii. 23 a digression of 67 verses (iii. 24--90, LXX., Th.), consisting of (a) the prayer of Azarias (24--45), (b) details as to the heating of the furnace and the preservation of Azarias and his friends (46--51), (c) the Song of the Three (52--90). In the Greek MSS. no break or separate title divides these Greek additions from the rest of the text, except that when Daniel is divided into "visions," the first vision is made to begin at i. 1, Susanna being thus excluded from the number; Bel, on the other hand, is treated as the last of the visions (horasis ib' AQ). Internal evidence appears to shew that both these stories originally had a separate circulation; Susanna does not form a suitable prologue to Dan. i. [566] , for v. 6 introduces Daniel as a person hitherto unknown to the reader; and the position of Bel as an epilogue to the prophetic portion of the book is still less appropriate. From the Fathers, however, it is clear that in the earliest Christian copies of the LXX. both Susanna and Bel formed a part of Daniel, to which they are ascribed by Irenaeus and Tertullian, and implicitly by Hippolytus. The remarkable letter of Julius Africanus to Origen which throws doubt on the genuineness of Susanna, calling attention to indications of its Greek origin, forms a solitary exception to the general view; even Origen labours to maintain their canonicity. Iren. iv. 26. 3 "et audient eas quae sunt a Daniele propheta voces" (Sus. 56, 52 f.), iv. 5. 2 "quem et Daniel propheta . . . annuntiavit" (Bel 4f., 25). Tert. de idololatria, 18 (Bel 4 f.). Hippol. in Sus. (Lagarde, p. 145) haute men oun he historia gegenetai husteron, proegraphe de tes biblou protes. Africanus, ep. ad Orig. thaumazo de tos elathe se to meros tou bibliou touto kibdelon on ktl. Orig. ad African. par amphoterois (LXX. and Theodotion) ekeito to peri ten Sosannan (hos su phes) plasma, kai hai teleutaiai en to Daniel perikopai. It will be noticed that the extracts from Hippolytus and Origen shew that Susanna and Bel occupied in MSS. of the second and third centuries the same relative positions which they occupy in extant MSS. of the fourth and fifth. Notwithstanding the objection shrewdly based by Africanus on the paronomasia (schinos, schizein) in Sus. 54 f., Ball (Speaker's Comm., Apocrypha, ii. p. 330 f.) has given reasons for believing that both Susanna and Bel once existed in an Aramaic or a new-Hebrew original [567] . The LXX. version represents Bel as a fragment of Habakkuk (cod. 87, Syro-Hex., tit. ek propheteias Hambakoum huiou Iesou ek tes phules Leui), an attribution evidently due to v. 33 ff., but inconsistent with the place of the story in the Gk. MSS. The addition to Dan. iii. 23 is clearly Midrashic and probably had a Semitic original [568] . The two hymns contained in it found a place, as we have seen, among the Greek ecclesiastical Canticles, where they appear as the proseuche Azariou and the humnos ton pateron hemon (cod. A) or hu. ton trion paidon (cod. T). Besides these additions, which are common to both texts of Daniel, the text of the LXX. contains a large number of shorter interpolations, especially in c. iii.--vi. where "the original thread of the narrative is often lost in a chaos of accretions, alterations, and displacements [569] ." The student can easily test this statement by comparing the two versions as they stand face to face in the Cambridge LXX., especially in c. iii. i--3, 46, iv. 14 (17), 19 (22), 29--34 (32--37), v. 13--23, vi. 2--5 (3--6), 12--14 (13--15), 22 (23). But the whole of this section of the book in the LXX. may be regarded as a paraphrase rather than a translation of a Hebrew text. In Susanna Theodotion has here and there a much longer text than the LXX. (cf. Sus. 14--27, 42--50), and both in Susanna and Bel the two Greek versions sometimes diverge so widely as to exhibit the story in distinct forms which appear to represent different traditions. LITERATURE upon the canonical books (considered separately or in groups). PENTATEUCH. Amersfoordt, Dissert. philol. de variis lectionibus Holmes. Pentateuchi (1815). Hug, de Pentateuchi vers. Alexandrina commentatio (1818). Töpler, de Pentateuchi interpretationis Alexandrinae indole (1830). Thiersch, de Pentateuchi versione A1exandrina, libri iii (1841). Frankel, über den Einfluss der paläst. Exegese auf die alex. Hermeneutik (1851). Howorth, the LXX. and Samaritan v. the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch (Academy, 1894). GENESIS. Lagarde, Genesis Graece (1868). Deutsch, exeg. Analecten zur Genesisübersetzung der LXX. (in Jüd. Litt. Blatt, 1879). Spurrell, Genesis, ed. 2 (1898). EXODUS. Selwyn, Notae criticae in Versionem LXXviralem, Exod. i--xxiv (1856). NUMBERS. Selwyn, Notae, &c., Liber Numerorum (1857). Howard, Numbers and Deuteronomy acc. to the LXX. translated into English (1887). DEUTERONOMY. Selwyn, Notae, &c., Liber Deuteronomii (1858). Howard, op. cit. (1887). Driver, critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deut. (1895). JOSHUA. Hollenberg, Der Charakter der alex. Übersetzung des Buches Josua (1876). JUDGES. Fritzsche, Liber Iudicum sec. LXX. interpretes (1867). Schulte, de restitutione atque indole genuinae versionis graece Iudicum (1889). Lagarde, Septuagintast. i. (1891), (Jud. i--v., texts of A and B). Moore, critical and Exegetical Comm. on Judges (1895). RUTH. Fritzsche, Rhouth kata tous o' (1867). 1, 2 KINGDOMS. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis untersucht (1871). Woods, the light thrown by the LXX. on the Books of Samuel (in Studia Biblica, i. 21, 1885). Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (1890). Steinthal, zur Geschichte Sauls u. Davids (1891). Kerber, Syrohex. Fragmente zu den beiden Samuelisbüchern (ZATW., 1898). J. Méritan, la Version Grecque des livres de Samuel, précédée d'une introduction sur la critique textuelle (1898). H. P. Smith, Critical and exeg. comm. on the Books of Samuel (1899). 3, 4 KINGDOMS. Silberstein, Über den Ursprung der im Codex Alex. u. Vat. des dritten Königsbuches der Alex. Übersetzung überlieferten Textsgestalt (in ZATW., 1893). C. F. Burney, Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Kings (1903). 1, 2 CHRONICLES, EZRA-NEHEMIAH. Howorth, The true LXX. version of Chr.-Ezra-Neh. (in Academy, 1893). Nestle, Marginalien (1893), p. 29 ff. PSALMS. Sinker, Some remarks on the LXX. version of the Psalms (1879). Baethgen, der text-kritisches Werth des alten Übersetz. zu d. Psalmen (1882). Lagarde, psalteri graeci specimen (1887); psalmorum quinquagena prima (1892). Mercati, un palimpsesto Ambrosiano dei Salmi Esapli (1896). Jacob, Beiträge zu einer Einleitung in die Psalmen (I. Exc. v.), (1896). PROVERBS. Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Übersetz. der Proverbien (1863). Pinkuss, die syr. Übersetzung des Proverbien . . . in ihrem Verhältniss zu dem Mass. Text, den LXX. u. dem Targ. untersucht (ZATW., 1894). ECCLESIASTES. Wright, The book of Koheleth (1883). Grätz, Koheleth (1884). Klostermann (E.), de libri Coheleth. versione Alexandrina (1892). Dillmann, über die Gr. Übersetzung des Koheleth (1892). Köhl, observ. ad interpr. Gr. et Lat. vet. libri Job (1834). JOB. Bickell, De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae Jobi (1862); der ursprüngliche Septuaginta-text des Buches Hiob (1886). Hatch, on Origen's revision of the Book of Job (in Essays, 1889). Dillmann, Text-kritisches zum B. Ijob (1890). Maude, die Peschittha zu Hiob nebst einem Anhang über ihr Verhältniss zu LXX. u. Targ. (1892). Beer, der Text des B. Hiob (1895). Driver, in Cont. Review (Feb. 1896). Cheyne, in Exc. Bibl., 2489 f. (1901). ESTHER. Jacob, Esther bei dem LXX. (ZATW., (1890). On the Greek additions see Ryssel in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 193 ff. DODECAPROPHETON. Vollers, Das Dod. der Alexandriner (1880), continued in ZATW., 1883-4. Stekhoven, de alex. Vertaling van het Dod. (1887). HOSEA. Treitel, Die alex. Übersetzung des Buches Hosea (1888). MICAH. Ryssel, Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt des B. Micha (1887). Taylor, the Mass. text and the ancient versions of Micah (1891). OBADIAH. Seydel, Vaticinium Obadiae . . . . . . ratione habita transl. Alex. (1869). NAHUM. Reinke, Zur Kritik der ält. Vers. d. Proph. Nahum (1867). HABAKKUK. Sinker, Psalm of Habakkuk (1890). ZECHARIAH. Lowe, Comm. on Zech. (1882). ISAIAH. Scholz, Die Masor. Text u. alex. Übersetzung des B. Jesaias (1880). Weiss, Peschitta zu Deuterojesaia u. ihr Verhältniss zu M. T., LXX. u. Targ. (1893). JEREMIAH. Movers, De utriusque recens. Jeremiae indole et origine (1837). Wichelhaus, de Jeremiae vers. Alexandr. indole (1847). Schulz, de Ieremiae textus Hebr. et Gr. discrepantia (1861). Scholz, der Masor. Text u. die LXX. Übersetz. des B. Jeremias (1875). Kühl, das Verhältniss der Massora zur Septuaginta in Jeremia (1882). Workman, the text of Jeremiah (1889). Coste, die Weissagungen der Propheten Ieremias (1895). Streane, the double text of Jeremiah (1896). The question of the two recensions is dealt with at length in Bleek-Wellhausen, Einleitung, § 158 ff. LAMENTATIONS. Goldwitzer, Übersetzung mit Vergleichung d. LXX. (1828). EZEKIEL. Merx, Der Werth der LXX. für die Textkritik der AT am Ezechiel aufgezeigt (Jb. pr. Th., 1883). Cornill, das Buch des Proph. Ezechiel (1886); cf. Lagarde in Gött. gelehrte Anzeigen (1 June, 1886). DANIEL. Bludau, De alex. interprete libri Daniel indole (1891); die alex. Übersetzung des B. Daniel (1897). Bevan, the Book of Daniel (1892). Löhr, textkrit. Vorarbeiten zu einer Erklärung des Buches Daniel (ZATW., 1895). On the Greek additions see Rothstein in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 172 ff. __________________________________________________________________ [498] Following the order of The Old Testament in Greek, these are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1--4 Kingdoms (vol. i.), 1--2 Paralipomena, 2 Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, Esther (vol. ii.), the Twelve Minor Prophets, the Four Greater Prophets (vol. iii.)--37 in all. [499] Driver, Intr. p. 15. [500] The Nash (Heb.) Papyrus agrees generally with ; see S. A. Cook, A Unigue Biblical Papyrus, Exp. T. xiv. 200; Burkitt, in J.Q.R. xvi. 559. [501] Driver, Intr. pp. 37, 38. [502] Robertson Smith, O. T. in the J. Ch. p. 124 f. [503] See Driver, Intr. pp. 35, 39; Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, ii. p. 276 f. [504] Robertson Smith, O. T. in the J. Ch. p. 125. Mr H. St J. Thackeray notes, however, that "the same technical terms are sometimes differently rendered in adjacent verses." [505] Driver, Intr. p. 100. [506] Cf. infra, p. 244. [507] Cf. Driver, Intr. p. 182, and note; C. F. Burney, in Hastings' D. B. p. 862 ff. [508] Intr. p 181. [509] B however omits the important statement of v. 3a, which comes from the older narrative (Driver). [510] See Field ad loc., and cf. Silberstein, über den Ursprung der im cod. Alex. u. Vat. des dritten Königsbuches . . . überlieferten Textgestalt (Giessen, 1893). [511] C. F. Burney, l.c. [512] See Cheyne, Book of Psalms, p. 228; Bleek-Wellhausen, p. 471. Prof. Kirkpatrick (Psalms, l. p. 41) speaks with less confidence. [513] See Kennicott, ii. p. 410. It should be added that in the MSS. Pss. cxvi., cxvii., cxviii. are also often written continuously. [514] "Both in Palestine and in Alexandria great importance seems to have been attached to this number. In Palestine, however, there were some who counted only 147 Psalms" (Cheyne op. cit. p. xiv.). See also Lagarde, nov. Ps. gr. spec., p. 8. [515] Cf. Robertson Smith, O. T. in J. Ch. p. 111; Toy, Proverbs, p. xxxiii. [516] See Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Übersetzung d. Proverbien, pp. 90, 91. [517] Cf. Origen ad Afric. 4 polla de toiauta kai en to Ieremia katenoesamen, en o kai polleo metathesin enallagen tes lexeos ton propheteuomenon heuromen. [518] Driver, Intr. p. 263. [519] Ezechiel, p. 212. [520] Pt. I. c. iii. [521] See G. A. Smith in Hastings' D. B. ii. p. 784. [522] Op. cit., p. 781 ff. [523] Driver, Intr. p. 105. [524] See Kennicott, i. p. 474, De Rossi, i. p. 96 ff.; and cf. Field, Hexapla, i. p. 387, Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, ii. p. 472 ff. [525] See Knobel in Kurzgef. exeg. Handbuch zum A.T., p. 488. [526] Driver, Samuel, p. 20. [527] See Wellhausen, der Text d. B. Samuelis, p. 42; Driver, op. cit., pp. 17, 18, 21; H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 13. [528] Driver, Intr., p. 170; Samuel, p. 116 f. [529] 0. T. in J. Ch., pp. 121, 431 ff.; Cf. Kirkpatrick, 1 Samuel, p. 241 ff. [530] 1 Samuel, p. 117. [531] Cf. Field ad loc. [532] See H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 212. [533] See C. F. Burney, Notes on Heb. Text of Books of Kings, esp. pp. xix--xxx. [534] Cf. Field ad loc. [535] See Field ad loc., who quotes from cod. 243, tauta en to exaplo para monois pheretai tois o'. [536] Cf. Driver, Intr., p. 182. See Appendix on Thackeray's examination of this passage in J. Th. St. xi. 44. [537] See the passage discussed in Robertson Smith, O. T. in J. Ch., p. 433. [538] Robertson Smith, op. cit., p. 118. [539] Lagarde, V. T. Gr. i. ad loc. For a careful treatment of the differences between and in 3 Regn. see Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, ii. [540] Cf. pempte sabbatou prefixed to Ps. lxxxi. in the cursive MS. 156 (Urtext, p. 75). [541] Cf. Hatch, Essays, p. 209 ff. [542] Cf. Oeconomus, iii. p. 634 f. [543] The proseuche Mannasse (so Cod. A; Cod. T. pr. Manasse huiou Hezekiou is usually regarded as an attempt by a Hellenistic Jew to reconstruct the prayer mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18; see, however Ball in Speaker's Comm. (Apocr. ii. 362 ff.). The Greek text appears in Const. Apost. ii. 22 and in the Didascalia, where it follows a reference to Chron. l.c.; in MSS. of the LXX. it finds a place only among the canticles. See Fabricius-Harles, iii. 732, Westcott in Smith's D. B. ii. 226, Schürer³, iii. 337 f.: and for the text with an apparatus, Fritzsche, V. T. Gr. libr. Apocr., pp. xiv sq., 92 sq. A detailed account of the editions, MSS., and versions and a discussion of the origin of the Prayer will be found in Dr Nestle's Septuagintastudien iii. (Stuttgart, 1899), p. 6 ff.; see also Ryssel in Kautzsch's Apokryphen u. Pseudepigraphen. [544] The proseuche Mannasse (so Cod. A; Cod. T. pr. Manasse huiou Hezekiou is usually regarded as an attempt by a Hellenistic Jew to reconstruct the prayer mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18; see, however Ball in Speaker's Comm. (Apocr. ii. 362 ff.). The Greek text appears in Const. Apost. ii. 22 and in the Didascalia, where it follows a reference to Chron. l.c.; in MSS. of the LXX. it finds a place only among the canticles. See Fabricius-Harles, iii. 732, Westcott in Smith's D. B. ii. 226, Schürer³, iii. 337 f.: and for the text with an apparatus, Fritzsche, V. T. Gr. libr. Apocr., pp. xiv sq., 92 sq. A detailed account of the editions, MSS., and versions and a discussion of the origin of the Prayer will be found in Dr Nestle's Septuagintastudien iii. (Stuttgart, 1899), p. 6 ff.; see also Ryssel in Kautzsch's Apokryphen u. Pseudepigraphen. [545] For some other orders see Dom Morin in Revue Bénédictine (cited by A. E. Burn, Creeds, p. 262). [546] A pre-Christian arrangement, as Hippolytus, already knew (hypoth. in Psalmos, to psalterion eis pente dieilon biblia hoi Hebraioi). Cf. Robertson Smith, O. T. in Jewish Ch., p. 194 n. In the lists of the Canon "the mention of five Books of Psalms is peculiar to Codex Amiatinus" (Sanday, in Studia Biblica iii. p. 242 ff.). [547] For this correction see a note by Dr Nestle in Exp. Times, Aug. 1899 (p. 523). [548] Cf. Hatch, Essays, p. 216; Field, Hexapla, ii. p. 1 f.; E. Klostermann, Analecta, p. 63 f. [549] Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, p. 8. [550] Essays, p. 214 ff. [551] On the translator's date cf. Schürer³, iii. pp. 311, 356 f. [552] Cf. Hatch, op. cit. p. 219: "It was made after Judaism had come into contact with Greek philosophy. It may be presumed to have been intended not only for Greek-speaking Jews, but also for aliens." The version shews some knowledge of Homer and Aeschylus (cf. Smith, D. B.2, vol. I. pt. ii. p. 1723). [553] Cf. Testament of Job (ed. M. R. James, Apocr. anecd. ii. p. 117). [554] "Ek tes S, b. weist doch auf einen Midrasch oder ein Targum hin" (Dillmann, Hiob, p. 361). [555] Schürer³, iii. p. 311. [556] Cf. Origen, ad Afric. 3 ek tes Esther oute he tou Mardochaiou euche oute he tes Esther . . . par Ebraiois pherontai; all' oude hai epistolai; all' oude he to Hamman epi kathairesei tou ton Ioudaion ethnous gegrammene, oude he tou Mardochaiou. [557] In the Cambridge LXX. they are distinguished by the Roman capitals A--F, a notation suggested by Dr Hort. [558] See Ryle, Canon, p. 139 f., 203 ff.; and cf. supra, p. 228 f. [559] Phrourai (Phrouraia '*, Phrourim 'c.a), cf. c. ix. 26, and Jos. ant. vi. 13 hoi Ioudaioi tas proeiremena> hemera> heortazousin prosagoreusanres autas phroureas (v. l. phrouraias, Lat. conservatores). The 'Letter of Purim' seems to be the book of Esther as a whole; cf. c. ix. 20. [560] Handbuch zu d. Apocrypha, i. p. 73. [561] Ryssel (in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 212) inclines to B.C. 114, the fourth year of Soter ii (Lathyrus), and Willrich to B.C. 48--7, that of Ptolemy xiv. [562] See above, p. 25. [563] P. 24 f. Cf. A. B. Davidson in Hastings' D.B. ii. 573 ff. Thackeray, on the other hand, instances the large Alexandrian additions to Esther and Daniel. [564] Vide supra, p. 46 ff. [565] On Theodotion's Bel, see Gaster in J. of Bibl. Archaeology, xvi. 289, 290, 312 ff., xvii. 71 ff. [566] Susanna is perhaps made to precede Daniel because it describes events which belong to his early life; cf. v. 44 ff. and v. 62 in a, b (LXX.). [567] Cf. J. T. Marshall in Hastings, D. B. iv. 632; on the other hand, see Kamphausen in Encycl. Biblica, i. 1013, and comp. Rothstein, Apokr., p. 173 ff. On the Aramaic version of the additions from Theodotion's Greek cf. Schürer³, iii. p. 333. [568] Ball, l. c., p. 308. See Nestle, Exp. T. xii. 527, and Daubney, Exp. T. xviii. 287. [569] Bevan, Daniel, p. 46. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER III. BOOKS NOT INCLUDED IN THE HEBREW CANON. THE MSS. and many of the lists of the Greek Old Testament include certain books which find no place in the Hebrew Canon. The number of these books varies, as we have seen; but the fullest collections contain the following: 1 Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, i.--iv. Maccabees. We may add the Psalms of Solomon, a book which was sometimes included in MSS. of the Salomonic books, or, in complete Bibles, at the end of the Canon; and the Greek version of Enoch, although by some accident it has been excluded from the Greek Bible, on other grounds claims the attention of every Biblical student. There is also a long list of pseudepigrapha and other apocrypha which lie outside both the Hebrew and the Greek Canons, and of which in many cases only the titles have survived. The present chapter will be occupied by a brief examination of these non-canonical writings of the Greek Old Testament. 1. 1 ESDRAS. In MSS. of the LXX. the canonical book Ezra-Nehemiah appears under the title "Esdras b', Esdras a' being appropriated by another recension of the history of the Captivity and Return. The 'Greek Esdras' consists of an independent and somewhat free version of portions of 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, broken by a long context which has no parallel in the Hebrew Bible. Thus 1 Esdr. i. = 2 Chron. xxxv. 1--xxxvi. 2l; ii. 1--14 = Ezra i.; ii. 15--25 = Ezra iv. 7--24; iii. 1--v. 6 is original; v. 7--70 = Ezra ii. 1--iv. 5; vi., vii. = Ezra v., vi.; viii. 1--ix. 36 = Ezra vii. 1--x. 44; ix. 37--55 = Neh. vii. 73^b--viii. 13^a. The Greek book ends abruptly, in a manner which suggests that something has been lost; cf. ix. 55 kai episunechthesan with 2 Esdr. xviii. 13 sunechthesan hoi archontes ktl. The student may compare the ending of the Second Gospel (Mc. xvi. 8). The context 1 Esdr. iii. 1--v. 6 is perhaps the most interesting of the contributions made by the Greek Bible to the legendary history of the Captivity and Return. We owe to it the immortal proverb Magna est veritas et praevalet (iv. 41 [570] ), and the story which forms the setting of the proverb is worthy of the occasion. But in its present form it is certainly unhistorical; Zerubbabel (iv. 13) belonged to the age of Cyrus, and it was Cyrus and not Darius (iv. 47 f.) who decreed the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It has been suggested that "this story is perhaps the nucleus of the whole (book), round which the rest is grouped [571] ." In the grouping chronological order has been to some extent set aside; the displacement of Ezra iv. 7--24 (= 1 Esdr. ii. 15--25) has thrown the sequence of events into confusion, and the scene is shifted from the court of Artaxerxes to that of Darius, and from Darius back again to Cyrus, with whose reign the history had started. Yet Josephus [572] , attracted perhaps by the superiority of the Greek style, uses 1 Esdras in preference to the Greek version of the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah, even embodying in his narrative the legend of Zerubbabel [573] . He evades the difficulty arising out of the premature reference to Artaxerxes by substituting Cambyses [574] . In the early Church the Greek Esdras was accepted without suspicion; cf. e.g. Clem. Alex. strom. i. 21; Origen, in Joann. t. vi. 1, in Jos. hom. ix. 10; Cyprian, ep. 74. 9. Jerome, however (praef. in Ezr.), discarded the book, and modern editions of the Vulgate relegate it to an appendix where it appears as 3 Esdras, the titles 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras being given to the two parts of the canonical book Ezra-Nehemiah [575] . The relation of the two Greek recensions of Ezra to one another is a problem analogous to that which is presented by the two 'versions' of Daniel, and scarcely less perplexing. It has been stated with great care in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (i. p. 759 ff.), by Mr H. St J. Thackeray. He distinguishes three views, (1) that 1 Esdras is a compilation from the LXX. version of 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, (2) that it is based on an earlier Greek version of those books, and (3) that it is an independent translation of an earlier Hebrew text; and while refusing to regard any solution as final, he inclines to the second. The third has recently found a champion in Sir H. H. Howorth [576] , who adds to it the suggestion that 1 Esdras is the true Septuagintal (i.e. the Alexandrian) version, whilst 2 Esdras is later, and probably that of Theodotion. Mr Thackeray is disposed to regard this contention as "so far correct that [1 Esdras] represents the first attempt to present the story of the Return in a Gr[eek] dress," 2 Esdras being "a more accurate rendering of the Heb[rew]" which was "subsequently . . . required and . . . supplied by what is now called the LXX. version [577] ." 2. WISDOM OF SOLOMON. The Greek title is Sophia Salomonos (Salomontos, Solomontos, Salomon). But the book was often cited as he Sophia, he panaretos Sophia, a name which it shared with Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus; see Lightfoot on Clem. 1 Cor. 55. In the Muratorian fragment it is described as "Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta." The Latin versions and fathers called the book Sapienta or Sophia Salomonis (Cyprian, O. L.), but also simply liber Sapientiae (Lactantius, Vulg.). No other book in the Greek Bible is so manifestly Alexandrian in tone and style. Some early Christian writers attributed it to Philo (Hieron. praef. in libros Salomonis: "nonnulli scriptorum veterum hunc esse Iudaei Philonis affirmant"), and it has been ingeniously conjectured that this view found a place in the Greek archetype of the Muratorian fragment [578] . But though Wisdom has strong points of likeness to the works of Philo, it is free from the allegorizing spirit of that writer, and its conception of the Logos is less developed than his [579] . On the other hand it clearly belongs to a period when the Jewish scholars of Alexandria were abreast of the philosophic doctrines and the literary standards of their Greek contemporaries. The author is acquainted with the Platonic doctrine of the four cardinal virtues [580] (c. viii. 7 ei dikaiosunen agapa tis, hoi ponoi tautes eisin aretai; sophrosunen gar kai phronesin ekdidaskei, dikaiosunen kai andreian), and with the Platonic sense of hule (c. xi. 17 ktisasa ton kosmon ex amorphou hules; cf. Philo, de victim. 13, de mund. opif. 12). His ideas on the subject of preexistence (c. viii. 20), of the relation of the body to the spirit (c. ix. 15), of Wisdom as the soul of the world (vii. 24), are doubtless due to the same source. His language is no less distinctly shaped upon Greek models; "no existing work represents perhaps more completely the style of composition which would be produced by the sophistic school of rhetoric [581] ," as it existed under the conditions of Greek life at Alexandria. This remark may be illustrated by the peculiar vocabulary of the book. Unusual words abound, e.g. akelidotos, ambrosios, exallos, zotikos, iobolos, kakomochthos, kinetikos, krustalloeides, homoiopathes, pantepiskopos, polumeres, protoplastos; agerochia, apaugasma, aporroia, eidechtheia, energeia, eudraneia, rhembasmos, sullogismos; metakirnan, metalleuein, prouphestanai [582] . In some of these we can trace the influence of philosophical thought, in others the laboured effort of the writer to use words in harmony with the literary instincts of the age and place to which he belonged. The object of the book is to protect Hellenistic Jews from the insidious influences of surrounding ungodliness and idolatry, but while its tone is apologetic and even polemical, the point of view is one which would commend itself to non-Jewish readers. The philosophical tendencies and the literary style of Wisdom favour the view that it is earlier than Philo, but not earlier than the middle of the second century B.C. As to the author, the words in which Origen dismissed the question of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews may be applied to this pre-Christian writing--tis de ho grapsas . . . to men alethes theos oiden. It is the solitary survival from the wreck of the earlier works of the philosophical school of Alexandria which culminated in Philo, the contemporary of our Lord. 3. WISDOM OF JESUS, SON OF SIRACH. In cod. B the title of this book is simply Sophia Seirach [583] , but codd. AC give the fuller and more accurate form Sophia Iesou huiou Seirach (Cf. C. L. 27 paideian . . . echaraxa en to biblio touto Iesous huios Seirach [584] ). Jerome had seen a Hebrew Sirach which shared with the canonical book the title of Proverbs (praef. in libros Salom.: "Hebraicum reperi . . . Parabolas mslym praenotatum"). The later name, Ecclesiasticus, which appears in Cyprian (e.g. testim. ii. 1 "apud Salomonem . . . in Ecclesiastico"), marks the book as the most important or the most popular of the libri ecclesiastici--the books which the Church used for the purpose of instruction, although they were not included in the Jewish canon. Cf. Rufin. in symb. 38: "alii libri sunt qui non canonici sed ecclesiastici a maioribus appellati sunt, id est, Sapientia quae dicitur Salomonis, et alia Sapientia quae dicitur filii Sirach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur, quo vocabulo non auctor libelli sed scripturae qualitas cognominata est." The Wisdom of the Son of Sirach was the work of a Palestinian (c. L. 27 Iesous ho Ierosolumeites), and written in Hebrew; the Greek version was made by the grandson of the writer during a visit to Alexandria (prolog., ll. 5, 18 ff.). This visit is said to have begun en to ogdoo kai triakosto etei epi tou Euergetou basileos--words which, simple as they seem, are involved in a double ambiguity, since there were two Ptolemies who bore the name Euergetes, and it is not clear whether the 38th year is to be reckoned from the commencement of the reign of Euergetes or from some other point of departure. But, assuming that the Euergetes intended is Euergetes II., i.e. Physcon [585] , and that the translator is counting from the time when Physcon was associated in the government with his brother and predecessor Philometor, we arrive at B.C. 132 as the terminus a quo of the Greek version, and the original may have been composed some fifty years earlier. Fragments of the original are preserved in Rabbinic literature. These are in the dialect of the Talmud; but recent discoveries have brought to light a large part of the book in classical Hebrew. A comparison of the Greek version with the Hebrew text, so far as it has been printed, reveals considerable differences, especially when the Greek text employed is that of cod. B, which was unfortunately chosen for the purpose by the Oxford editors of the Hebrew fragments. It must be remembered that these fragments come from a MS. of the 11th or 12th century, which may present a corrupt form of the Hebrew text; and on the other hand, that there are considerable variations in the Greek text of Sirach, cod. B differing widely from the majority of the MSS. [586] Much remains to be done before the text of Sirach can be settled with any confidence. Meanwhile Professor Margoliouth has thrown doubt upon the originality of the Hebrew fragments, which he regards as belonging to an eleventh century version made from the Syriac with the help of a Persian translation from the Greek [587] . At present few experts accept this theory, but the question must perhaps be regarded as sub iudice. In all the known MSS. of the Greek Sirach [588] , there is a remarkable disturbance of the sequence. They pass from c. xxx. 34 to c. xxxiii. 13 b, returning to the omitted passage after xxxvi. 16 a. The error seems to have arisen from a transposition in the common archetype of the pairs of leaves on which these two nearly equal sections were severally written [589] --a fact which is specially instructive in view of the large divergences in the Greek MSS. to which reference has been made. The true order is preserved in the Old Latin [590] , Syriac, and Armenian versions. 4. JUDITH (Ioudeith, -dith, -deth, = yhvdyt, cf. Gen. xxvi. 34, where the same spellings are found in the cursives, though the uncials exhibit Ioudein, Ioudin, an historical romance, of which the scene is laid in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (c. i. 2). The date of its composition is uncertain. A terminus ad quem is provided by the fact that Clement of Rome knew the story (1 Cor. 55 Ioudith he makaria . . . paredoken Kurios Olophernen en cheiri theleias) [591] ; and the name of Judith's enemy has suggested a terminus a quo, for Olophernes [592] appears to be a softened form of Orophernes, the name of a Cappadocian king, c. B.C. 158, who may have been regarded as an enemy of the Jews [593] . The religious attitude of the author of Judith is that of the devout Pharisee (cf. e.g. viii. 6, x. 2 ff., xi. 13, xii. 7), and the work may have been a fruit of the patriotic feeling called forth by the Maccabean wars. Origen's Jewish teachers knew nothing of a Semitic original (cf. ad African. 13: Ebraioi to Tobia ou chrontai oude te Ioudeth, oude gar echousin auta kai en apokruphois Ebraisti, hos ap' auton mathontes egnokamen). Jerome, on the other hand, not only says expressly (praef. in Iudith): "apud Hebraeos liber Iudith inter apocrypha (v.l. hagiographa) legitur," but he produced a version or paraphrase from an Aramaic source ("ea quae intellegentia integra ex verbis Chaldaeis invenire potui, Latinis expressi") [594] . The relation of this Aramaic text to the original of the Greek book remains uncertain. The Greek Judith is said by Fritzsche [595] to exist in three recensions: (1) that of the Uncials and the majority of the cursives, (2) that of codd. 19, 108, and (3) that which is represented by cod. 58, and is in general agreement with the Old Latin and Syriac versions, which are based upon a Greek text. 5. TOBIT (Tobeit (-bit, -bet), Tobeith, Tobias, liber Tobiae, utriusque Tobiae), a tale of family life, the scene of which is laid at Nineveh and Ecbatana, the hero being an Israelite of the tribe of Naphtali, who had been carried into captivity by Shalmanezer. The book appears to have been written for Jewish readers, and in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Jews of Origen's time, however, refused to recognise its authority (Orig. de orat. 14 te de tou Tobet biblo antilegousin hoi ek peritomes, hos me endiatheko), or even to include it among their apocrypha (see above, under JUDITH); but it was accepted by the Church (ep. ad African. 1. c. chrontai to Tobia hai ekklesiai), and there is abundant evidence of its popularity among Christians (cf. Ps. Clem. 2 Cor. 16. 4, Polyc. ad Smyrn. 10. 2, Clem. Alex. strom. ii. 23, vi. 12, Orig. de orat. 11, in Rom. viii. 11, c. Cels. v. 19, Cypr. testim. iii. 1, 6, 62). Gnostics shared this feeling with Catholics; the Ophites placed Tobit among their prophetical books (Iren. i. 30. 11). Jerome translated Tobit as he translated Judith, from a 'Chaldee,' i.e. Aramaic, copy, but with such haste that the whole was completed in a single day (praef. in Tob. "exigitis ut librum Chaldaeo sermone conscriptum ad latinum stylum tradam . . . feci satis desiderio vestro . . . et quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni Hebraico, utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui, et quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui [596] "). Thus, as in the case of Judith, we have two Latin versions, the Old Latin, based upon the Greek, and Jerome's rough and ready version of the Aramaic. The Greek text itself exists in two principal recensions, represented by the two great uncials B and '. In c. vi. 9--xiii. 18 Fritzsche adds a third text supplied by the cursives 44, 106, 107 [597] . The relation of the two principal texts to each other has recently been discussed by Nestle (Septuagintastudien, iii.) and by J. Rendel Harris (in the American Journal of Theology, iii. p. 541 ff.). Both, though on different grounds, give preference to the text of '. Harris, however, points out that while ' is probably nearer to the original Hebrew, B may exhibit the more trustworthy text of the Alexandrian version of the book. 6. BARUCH and THE EPISTLE OF JEREMIAH Barouch, Epistole Ieremiou, [prophetia] Baruch) were regarded by the Church as adjuncts of Jeremiah, much in the same way as Susanna and Bel were attached to Daniel. Baruch and the Epistle occur in lists which rigorously exclude the non-canonical books; they are cited as 'Jeremiah' (Iren. v. 35. 1, Tert. scorp. 8, Clem. Alex. paed i. 10, Cypr. testim. ii. 6); with Lamentations they form a kind of trilogy supplementary to the prophecy (Athan. ep. 39 Ieremias kai sun auto Barouch, Threnoi, Ipistole, Cyril. Hier. catech. iv. 33 Ieremiou meta Barouch kai Threnon kai Epistoles [598] ). In some Greek MSS. the Epistle follows Baruch without break, and in the Latin and English Bibles it forms the sixth and last chapter of that book. The Epistle (anrigraphon epistoles hes apesteilen Ieremias pros tous achthesomenous [v.1. apachthentas] aichmalotous eis Babulona) seems to have been suggested by Jer. xxxvi. (xxix.) 1 (cf. 2 Kings xxv. 20 ff.). It is generally recognised that this little work was written in Greek by a Hellenist who was perhaps anterior to the writer of 2 Maccabees (cf. 2 Macc. ii. 1 ff.) [599] . The problem presented by Baruch is less simple. This book is evidently a complex work consisting of two main sections (1. i.--iii. 8, iii. 9--v. 9) [600] , each of which may be subdivided (i. 1--14, historical preface; i. 15--iii. 8, confession and prayer; iii. 9--iv. 4, exhortation; iv. 5--v. 9, encouragement). Of these subsections the first two shew traces of a Hebrew original; cf. e.g. i. 10 manna = mnchh ii. 3 anthropon = 'ys, iii. 4 ton tethnekoton = mty (for mty) [601] ; the third has been held [602] to rest on an Aramaic document, whilst the fourth is manifestly Hellenistic. An investigation by Professor Ryle and Dr James [603] into the relation between the Greek version of the Psalms of Solomon and the Greek Baruch, led them to the conclusion that Baruch was reduced to its present form after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus; and the tone of Bar. iv. 30 seems certainly to point to that period. On the other hand it is difficult to understand the unhesitating acceptance of the book by Christian writers from Athenagoras (suppl. 9) until the time of Jerome, and its practical inclusion in the canon, if the Greek version in its present form proceeded from a Palestinian Jew, and was the work of the last quarter of the first century A.D. [604] As to its use by the Jews there are contradictory statements in early Christian writers, for while the Apostolical Constitutions [605] inform us that the Jews read Baruch publicly on the Day of Atonement, Jerome says expressly that they neither read it nor had it in their possession, and his statement is confirmed by Epiphanius. Const. Ap. v. 20 kai gar kai nu? dekate tou menos Garpiaiou sunathroizomenoi tous Threnous Ieremiou anaginoskousin . . . kai ton Barouch. Hieron. praef. comm. in Ierem. "vulgo edition; Septuaginta copulatur, nec habetur apud Hebraeos"; praef. vers. Ierem. "apud Hebraeos nec legitur nec habetur." Epiph. de mens. et pond. 5 ou keintai hai epistolai [Barouch kai Ieremiou] par Ebraiois. 7. BOOKS OF MACCABEES (Makkabaion a', b', g', d', Machabaeorum libri; ta Makkabaika, Hippol. in Dan. iv. 3; Orig. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 25). The four books differ widely in origin, character, and literary value; the bond which unites them is merely their common connexion with the events of the age which produced the heroes of the Hasmonaean or Maccabean [606] family. 1 MACCABEES. This book seems to have been used by Josephus (ant. xii. 6. 1 sqq.), but it is doubtful whether he was acquainted with its Greek form. On the other hand, the Greek 1 Macc. was undoubtedly known to the Christian school of Alexandria; cf. Clem. Alex. strom. i. § 123 to ton Makkabaikon Origen ap. Eus. l.c. ta Makkabaika haper epigegraptai Sarbeth sabanaiel (v.l. S. sabane el). Whatever may be the meaning of this title [607] , it is clearly Semitic, and may be taken as evidence that the book was circulated in a Semitic original. Jerome appears to have seen a copy of this Hebrew or Aramaic text (prol. gal. "Maccabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum repperi"), but it has long disappeared [608] , and the book is now extant only in versions. The Latin and Syriac versions are based upon the Greek; the Old Latin exists in two recensions, one of which has taken its place in the Latin Bible, whilst the other is preserved in a St Germain's and a Madrid MS.; a Lyons MS. gives a text in which the two are mixed [609] . The history of 1 Macc. covers about 40 years (B.C. 175--132). There are indications that the writer was removed by at least a generation from the end of his period (cf. c. xiii. 30, xvi. 23 f.). He was doubtless a Palestinian Jew, but his work would soon have found its way to Alexandria, and if it had not already been translated into Greek, it doubtless received its Greek dress there shortly after its arrival. 2 MACCABEES. The existence of a book bearing this title is implied by Hippolytus, who quotes 1 Macc. with the formula en te prote biblo ton Makkabaikon anagegraptai, and by Origen, if we may trust the Latin interpretation (in ep. ad Rom., t. viii. 1 "in primo libro Machabaeorum scriptum est"); the title itself occurs in Eus. praef. ev. viii. 9 (he deutera ton Makkabaion). But the evidence goes further back. Philo shews some knowledge of the book in Quod omnis probus liber, § 13, and the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews has a clear reminiscence of its Greek (Heb. xi. 31 alloi de etumpanisthesan ktl., cf. 2 Macc. vi. 19, 30). The writer is described by Clement of Alexandria (strom. v. 14) as ho suntaxamenos ten ton Makkabaikon epitomen. This is precisely what he claims to do (c. ii. 23 hupo Iasonos tou Kurenaiou dedelomena dia pente biblion, peirasometha di henos suntagmatos epitemein). The work of the Cyrenian has perished, whilst the Alexandrian epitome survives. For Alexandrian the epitomist probably was; "the characteristics of the style and language are essentially Alexandrian . . . the form of the allusion to Jason shews clearly that the compiler was not his fellow countryman [610] ." "The style is extremely uneven; at times it is elaborately ornate (iii. 15--39, v. 20, vi. 12--16, 23--28, vii. &c.); and again, it is so rude and broken as to seem more like notes for an epitome than a finished composition" (xiii. 19--26); indeed it is difficult to believe that such a passage as the one last cited can have been intended to go forth in its present form. That the work never had a Semitic original was apparent to Jerome (prol. gal. "secundus Graecus est, quod ex ipsa quoque phrasei probari potest"). The vocabulary is extraordinarily rich in words of the later literary Greek, and the book betrays scarcely any disposition to Hebraise [611] . The second book of Maccabees presents a striking contrast to the first. Covering a part of the same period (B.C. 175--160), it deals with the events in a manner wholly different. In 1 Maccabees we have a plain and usually trustworthy history; in 2 Maccabees a partly independent but rhetorical and inaccurate and to some extent mythical panegyric of the patriotic revolt [612] . 3 MACCABEES. A third book of Makkabaika finds a place in some Eastern lists (can. Apost., Niceph. stichom.). A Greek book under that title is found in codd. AV and a few cursives [613] . There is a Syriac version, but no Latin, nor is the book mentioned in any Western list, although the stichometry of Cod. Claromontanus implies a knowledge of its existence, for it mentions a fourth book. Similarly cod. ' passes from the first book to the fourth, whether the omission of the second and third is due to the deliberate judgement of the scribe or to his want of an archetype. A more exact description of 3 Maccabees would be that which it seems to have borne in some circles--the Ptolemaica [614] . The story belongs to the reign of Ptolemy Philopator (B.C. 222--205), and the scene is laid at Alexandria. The king, infuriated by the refusal of the Jerusalem priesthood to admit him to the Holy of Holies, returns to Egypt with the intention of avenging himself on the Alexandrian Jews; but by the interposition of Providence his plans are defeated, and he becomes, like Darius in Daniel and Artaxerxes in Esther, the patron of the people he had purposed to destroy. There are reasons for believing that this romance rests upon some historical basis. "The author . . . evidently has good knowledge of the king and his history . . . the feast kept by the Egyptian Jews at a fixed date [c. vii. 11] cannot be an invention . . . that Philopator in some way injured the condition of the Jews, and that they were concerned in the insurrection of the nation, seems very probable [615] ." Moreover Josephus has a somewhat similar tale drawn from another source, and connected with another reign [616] (c. Ap. ii. 5). The present book is doubtless Alexandrian, and of relatively late origin, as its inflated style, "loaded with rhetorical ornament [617] ," sufficiently testifies. Some critics (Ewald, Hausrath, Reuss [618] ) would place it in the reign of Caligula, but the knowledge of earlier, Alexandrian life which it displays points to an earlier date, perhaps the first century B.C. [619] 4 MACCABEES. According to Eusebius and Jerome this book was the work of Josephus [620] , Eus. H. E., iii. 10 peponetai de kai allo ouk agennes spoudasma to andri (sc. Iosepo) peri autokratpros logismou, ho tines Makkabaikon epegrapsan to tous agonas ton en tois houto kaloumenois Makkabaikois sungrammasin huper tes eis to theion eusebeias andrisamenon Ebraion periechein. Hieron. de virr. ill. 13 "alius quoque libro eius qui inscribitur peri autokratoros logismou valde elegans habetur, in quo et Maccabeorum digesta martyria" (cf. c. Pelag. ii. 5). The book is a philosophical treatise upon the question, ei autodespotos estin ton pathon ho eusebes logismos But the greater part of it [621] is occupied by a rhetorical panegyric upon the Jewish martyrs, Eleazar, and the seven brothers and their mother, who perished in the Maccabean troubles. This portion appears to be based on 2 Macc. vi. 18--vii. 42, which it amplifies with an extraordinary wealth of language and a terribly realistic picture of the martyrs' sufferings. The rhetoric of the writer, however, is subordinated to his passion for religious philosophy. In philosophy he is a pupil of the Stoics; like the author of the Wisdom of Solomon he holds fast by the doctrine of the four cardinal Virtues (i. 18 tes de sophias eideai kathistasin phronesis kai dikaiosune kai andria kai sophrosune and he sternly demands that the pathe shall be kept under restraint by the power of Reason. In religion he is a legalist with Pharisaic tendencies; he believes in future punishment (ix. 9, xiii. 15), in the eternal life which awaits the righteous (xv. 3, xvii. 5, xviii. 23), and in the atonement for sin which is made by voluntary sacrifice (vi. 29, xxii. 22). The style of 4 Macc. abounds in false ornament and laboured periods. But on the whole it is "truly Greek [622] ," and approaches nearer than that of any other book in the Greek Bible to the models of Hellenic philosophy and rhetoric. It does not, however, resemble the style of Josephus, and is more probably a product of Alexandrian Judaism during the century before the fall of Jerusalem. 8. To the books of the Hebrew canon (ta endiatheka, ta eikosiduo) and the 'external' books (ta exo), which on the authority of Jerome the reformed Churches of the West have been accustomed to call the Apocrypha, some of the ancient lists add certain apocrypha properly so named. Thus the catalogue of the 'Sixty Books,' after reciting the canonical books of the O. and N. Testaments, and ta peri (leg. pera) touton exo (the two Wisdoms, 1--4 Maccabees, Esther, Judith, Tobit), continues: Kai hosa apokrupha; Adam, Henoch, Lamech, Patriarchai, Proseuche Ioseph, Eldad, Diatheke Mouseos, Analepsis Mouseos, Psalmoi Solomontos, Eliou apokalupsis, Esaiou horasis, Sophoniou apokalupsis, Zachariou apokalupsis, Esdra apokalupsis. The Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis and the Stichometry of Nicephorus count among the apokrupha tes palaias, together with certain of the above, Abraam . . . Barouch, Habbakoum, Ezekiel, kai Daniel, pseudepigrapha [623] . Ebed Jesu mentions also a book called Traditions of the Elders, the History of Asenath, and even the Fables of Aesop disguised under the title Proverbs of Josephus. Besides these writings the following are censured in the Gelasian notitia librorum apocryphorum: Liber de filiabus Adae Leptogenesis, Poenitentia Adae, Liber de Vegia nomine gigante, qui post diluvium cum dracone . . . pugnasse perhibetur, Testamentum Iob, Poenitentia Iambre et Mambre, Solomonis interdictio. Though the great majority of these writings at one time existed in Greek, they were not admitted into collections of canonical books. A partial exception was made in favour of the PSALMS OF SOLOMON. This book is mentioned among the antilegomena of the O.T. in the Stichometry of Nicephorus and in the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis. An earlier authority, the compiler of the catalogue at the beginning of Codex Alexandrinus, allows it a place in his list, although after the final summary of the books of the Old and New Testaments [624] . If the Codex itself contained these Psalms, they have perished together with a portion of Ps. Clem. ad Cor. ii., the book which in the list immediately precedes them. It has been conjectured [625] that they once had a place in Cod. Sinaiticus, which like Cod. A has lost some leaves at the end of the N.T. Their absence from the other great uncials and from the earlier cursives may be due to the influence of the Laodicean canon (lix.), hoti ou dei idiotikous psalmous [626] legesthai en te ekklesia oude akanonista biblia, alla mona ta kanonika tes palaias kai kaines diathekes. Happily the Psalms survived in private collections, and find a place in a few relatively late cursives of the poetical and the Sapiential books of the O.T., where they follow the Davidic Psalter or take their place among the writings attributed to Solomon [627] . The Psalms of Solomon are shewn by their teaching and spirit to be the work of the Pharisaic school, and internal evidence connects them with the age of Pompey, whose death appears to be described in Ps. ii. 30 ff. [628] The question of the date of the Greek version turns upon the nature of the relation which exists between the Greek Psalms and the Greek Book of Baruch. Bishop Ryle and Dr James, who regard Baruch iv. 36--v. 9 (Greek) as based on the Greek of Ps. Sol. xi., are disposed to assign the version of the Psalms to the last decade of the first century B.C. [629] . They observe that the Messianic passages contain "no trace of Christian influence at work." On the other hand there are interesting coincidences between the Greek phraseology of the Psalter and that of the Magnificat and other Lucan canticles [630] . One other apocryphon of the Greek Old Testament claims attention here. The BOOK OF ENOCH has since 1838 been in the hands of scholars in the form of an Ethiopic version based upon the Greek. But until 1892 the Greek version was known only through a few fragments--the verse quoted by St Jude (cf. 14 f.), a brief tachygraphic extract in cod. Vat. gr. 1809, published in facsimile by Mai (patr. nov. biblioth. ii.), and deciphered by Gildemeister (ZDMG., 1855, p. 622 ff.), and the excerpts in the Chronographia of Georgius Syncellus [631] . But in 1886 a small vellum book was found in a Christian grave in Akhmîm (Panopolis), in Upper Egypt, ee which contained inter alia the first thirty-two chapters of Enoch in Greek--nearly the whole of the first section of the book. This large fragment was published by M. Bouriant in the ninth volume of Mémoires publiés par les membres de la mission archéologique Française au Caire (Paris, 1^er fasc. 1892; 3^e fasc. 1893). The newly recovered Greek belongs to the oldest part of Enoch, which may be regarded as in the main a Palestinian work of the second century B.C. [632] . The Greek version is the parent of the Ethiopic, and of pre-Christian date, since it was in the hands of St Jude. Thus it possesses a strong claim upon the attention of the student of Biblical Greek, while the book itself possesses an almost unique value as an exposition of Jewish eschatology. The Greek version of Enoch seems to have been circulated in the ancient Church; cf. Barn. 4. 16; Clem. Alex. ecl. proph. 2; Orig. de princ. i. 3. 3, iv. 35, hom. in Num. 28. 2. The book was not accepted by authority (Orig. c. Cels. v. 54 en ta?s ekklesiais ou panu pheretai hos theia ta epigegrammena tou Henoch biblia: in Ioann. t. vi. 25 ei to philon paradechesthai hos hagion to biblia. Hieron. de virr. ill. 4 "apocryphus est"), but opinion was divided, and Tertullian was prepared to admit the claims of a writing which had been quoted in a Catholic Epistle (de cult. faem. i. 3 "scio scripturam Enoch . . . non recipi a quibusdam quia nec in armarium Iudaicum admittitur . . . a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod pertineat ad nos . . . eo accedit quod E. apud Iudam apostolum testimonium possidet)." In the end, however, it appears to have been discredited both in East and West, and, if we may judge by the almost total disappearance of the Greek version, it was rarely copied by Catholics even for private study. A mere chance has thrown into our hands an excerpt made in the eighth or ninth century, and it is significant that in the Akhmîm book Enoch is found in company with fragments of a pseudonymous Gospel and Apocalypse [633] . LITERATURE of the non-canonical Books . The Variorum Apocrypha, edited by C. J. Ball (London, 1892). 1 ESDRAS. De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, §§ 363--4; König, Einleitung, p. 146; Dähne, Gesch. Darstellung, iii. p. 116 ff.; Nestle, Marginalien, p. 23 f.; Bissell, Apocrypha of the O. T., p. 62 ff.; H. St J. Thackeray, art. 1 Esdras in Hastings' D. B., i.; Schürer^3, iii. p. 326 ff. ; Büchler, das apokr. Ezra-Buchs (MGWJ., 1897). Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, t. v.; Fritzsche, libri apocr. V. T. Gr., pp. viii.--x., 1--30; Lagarde, libr. V. T. canon., p. i. (Lucianic); O. T. in Greek, ii. (text of B, with variants of A); W. J. Moulton, über die Überlieferung u. d. textkrit. Werth des dritten Ezra-Buchs, ZATW., 1899, 2, 1900, I. Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch z. d. Apokr., i.; Lupton, in Speaker's Comm., Apocrypha, i.; Guthe, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 1 ff. WISDOM OF SOLOMON. Fabricius-Harles, iii. 727. De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, §§ 378--382; König, Einleitung, p. 146; Dähne, Darstellung, ii. p. 152 ff.; Westcott, in Smith's D. B. iii. p. 1778 ff.; Drummond, Philo Judaeus, i. p. 177 ff. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, libr. apocr. V. T. Gr., pp. xxiv. f., 522 ff.; O. T. in Greek, ii. p. 604 ff. (text of B, variants of 'AC). Commentaries: Bauermeister, comm. in Sap. Sol. (1828); Grimm, exeg. Handbuch, vi.; Reusch, observationes Criticae in libr: Sapientiae (Friburg, 1858); Deane, the Book of Wisdom (Oxf., 1881); Farrar, in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., i.; Siegfried, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 476 ff. On the Latin version see Thielmann, die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches der Weisheit (Leipzig, 1872). WISDOM OF THE SON OF SIRACH. Fabricius-Harles, iii. 718; De Wette-Schrader, § 383 ff.; König, p. 145. Westcott and Margoliouth, Ecclesiasticus in Smith's D. B.^2 i. 841; Schürer^3, iii. p. 157 ff. (where a full list of recent monographs will be found). Text with apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche; 0. T. in Greek, ii. (text of B, variants of 'AC); cf. J. K. Zenner, Ecclesiasticus nach cod. Vat. 346 (Z. K. Th., 1895). Bretschneider, liber Iesu Siracidae Gr., Ratisbon, 1806. Cf. Hatch, Essays, p. 296 ff. Nestle, Marginalien (1893), p. 48 ff. Klostermann, Analecta, p. 26 f. Commentaries: Bretschneider (ut supra); Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, v.; Edersheim in Speaker's Comm., Apocr. ii.; Ryssel, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 230 ff. On the newly discovered Hebrew text with relation to the versions see Cowley and Neubauer, The original Hebrew of a portion of Ecclesiasticus, Oxford, 1897; Smend, das hebr. Fragment der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 1897; Halévy, Étude sur la partie du texte hébreu de l'Ecclésiastique (Paris, 1897); Schlatter, das neu gefundene hebr. Stück des Sirach (Güterslob, 1897), I. Lévi, L'Eccelésiastique, Paris, 1898, 1901; C. Taylor, in JQR., 1898; D. S. Margoliouth, The origin of the 'Original Hebrew' of Ecclesiasticus, Oxford, 1899; S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, Cambridge, 1899; S. Schechter, in JQR. and Cr. R., Oct. 1899; various articles in Exp. Times, 1899; A. A. Bevan in JThSt., Oct. 1899; H. Herkenne, De Veteris Latinae Ecclesiastici capp. i--xliii (Leipzig, 1899); E. Nestle in Hastings, D. B. iv. 539 ff. JUDITH. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 736; De Wette-Schrader, § 373 ff.; König, p. 145 f.; Nestle, Marginalien, p.43 ff.; Westcott-Fuller in Smith's D. B.^2 1. ii. p. 1850 ff.; F. C. Porter in Hastings' D. B. ii. p. 822 ff.; Schürer^3 iii. p. 167. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, p. xviii f., 165 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, ii. (text of B, variants of 'A). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, ii.; Wolff, das Buch Judith . . . erklärt (Leipzig, 1861); Scholz, Commentar zum B. Judith (1887, 1896); cf. Ball in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., i.; Löhr, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 147 ff. TOBIT. Fabricius-Harles, iii. 738; De Wette-Schrader, § 375 ff.; König, p. 145 f.; Westcott in Smith's D. B. iii. p. 1523; Schürer^3, iii. p. 174. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.: Fritzsche, pp. xvi ff., 108 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, ii. (texts of B and ', with variants of A); Reusch, libellus Tobit e cod. Sin. editus (Bonn, 1870); Neubauer, the Book of Tobit: a Chaldee text (Oxford, 1878). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg Handbuch, Apokr., ii.; Reusch, das Buch Tobias übersetzt u. erk1ärt (Friburg, 1857); Sengelmann, das Buch Tobits erklärt (Hamburg, 1857); Gutberlet, das Buch Tobias übersetzt u. erklärt (Munster, 1877); Scholz, Commentar z. Buche Tobias (1889); Rosenmann, Studien z. Buche Tobit (Berlin, 1894); J. M. Fuller in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., i.; Löhr, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 135 ff. Cf. E. Nestle, Septuagintastudien iii. (Stuttgart, 1899); J. R. Harris in American Journal of Theology, July, 1899. BARUCH and EPISTLE. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 734 f.; De Wette-Schrader, § 389 ff.; König, p. 485 f.; Westcott-Ryle, in Smith's D. B.^2 i. p. 359 ff.; J. T. Marshall, in Hastings' D. B. i. p. 249 ff. ii. p. 579 ff.; Schürer^3, iii. p. 338 ff.; A. A. Bevan, in Encycl. Biblica, i. 492 ff. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, pp. xv f., 93 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, iii. (text of B, with variants of AQG). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, Apokr., i.; Reusch, Erklärung des Buchs Baruch (Freiburg, 1853); Hävernick, de libro Baruch (Königsberg, 1861); Kneucker, das Buch Baruch (Leipzig, 1879); E. H. Gifford in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., ii.; Rothstein, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 213 ff. 1--4 MACCABEES. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 745 ff.; De Wette-Schrader, § 365 ff.; König, p. 482 ff.; Westcott in Smith's D. B.^1 ii. p. 170 ff.; Schürer^3, iii. pp. 139 ff., 359 ff., 393 ff.; Rosenthal, das erste Makkabäerbuch (Leipzig, 1867); Willrich, Juden u. Griechen vor der makkab. Erhebung (1895); Freudenthal, die Fl. Josephus beigelegte Schrift. (Breslau, 1869); Wolscht, de Ps. Josephi oratione . . . (Marburg, 1881). Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v. (books i.--iii.); Fritzsche, pp. xix ff., 203 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, iii. (text of A with variants of 'V in books i. and iv. and V in ii., iii.). Commentaries: Keil, Komm. über die Bücher der Makk. (Leipzig, 1875) ; Bensly-Barnes, 4 Maccabees in Syriac (Cambridge, 1895) [634] ; Grimm in Fritzsche's exeg. Handbuch, Apokr., iii., iv.; Bissell, in Lange-Schaff's Comm.; G. Rawlinson in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., ii. (books i.--ii.); Fairweather and Black, 1 Maccabees (Cambridge, 1897); Kautzsch and Kamphausen, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p. 24 ff. PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. The student will find fuller information on this subject in Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus V. T. (Hamburg, 1722): Herzog-Plitt, xii. p. 341 ff. (art. by Dillmann on Pseudepigrapha des A. T.); Deane, Pseudepigrapha (Edinburgh, 1891); J. E. H. Thomson, Books which influenced our Lord and His Apostles (Edinburgh, 1891); Smith's and Hastings' Bible Dictionaries; Schürer^3, iii. pp. 150 ff., 190 ff.; the works of Credner and Zahn; M. R. James, Testament of Abraham in Texts and Studies (II. ii. p. 7 ff.); Encyclopaedia Biblica, artt. Apocalyptic Literature and Apocrypha (i. 213--58). For the literature of the several writings he may refer to Strack, Einleitung, p. 230 ff. In Kautzsch's Apokr. u. Pseudepigraphen the following O. T. pseudepigrapha are included: Martyrdom of Isaiah (Beer), Sibylline Oracles, iii.--v., and prooem. (Blass), Ascension of Moses (Clemen), Apocalypse of Moses (Fuchs), Apocalypse of Esdras (Gunkel), Testament of Naphtali, Heb. (Kautzsch), Book of Jubilees (Littmann), Apocalypse of Baruch (Ryssel), Testaments of XII Patriarchs (Schnapp). On the eschatology of this literature see Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian (London, 1899). PSALMS OF SOLOMON. Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. V.T., i. p. 914 ff.; Fritzsche, libr. apocr. V. T. gr., pp. xxv ff., 569 ff.; Ryle and James, Psalms of the Pharisees (Cambridge, 1891); O. v. Gebhardt, die Psalmen Salomo's (Leipzig, 1895); Old Testament in Greek^2 (Cambridge, 1899 [635] ). Ryle and James' edition is specially valuable for its full Introduction, and Gebhardt's for its investigation into the pedigree and relative value of the MSS. On the date see Frankenberg, die Datierung den Psalmen Salomos (Giessen, 1896). An introduction and German version by Dr R. Kittel will be found in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 127 ff. BOOK OF ENOCH. Laurence, Libri Enoch versio aethiopica (Oxford, 1838); Dillmann, Liber Henoch aethiopice (Leipzig, 1851); Bouriant, Fragments du texte grec du livre d'Énoch . . . in Mémoires, &c. (see above); Lods, le livre d'Énoch (Paris, 1892); Dillmann, über den neugefundenen gr. Text des Henoch-Buches (Berlin, 1892); Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford, 1893), The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch (Oxford, 1906), and art. in Hastings' D. B. i. p. 705 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, iii.^2 (Cambridge, 1899). For a fragment of a Latin version see James, Apocr. anecdota in Texts and Studies, ii. 3, p. 146 ff. An introduction and German version by Dr G. Beer will be found in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 217 ff. __________________________________________________________________ [570] The future (praevalebit) is without authority. In v. 38 Cod. A gives ischusei but in v. 41 huperischuei is unchallenged. The Latin texts have the present in both verses. [571] H. St J. Thackeray, in Hastings' D. B. i. p. 76. [572] ant. x. 4. 4--xi. [573] ant. xi. 3. 2 sqq. [574] ant. xi. 2. 1 sqq. [575] The English Article (vi) follows this numeration. [576] In the Academy for 1893. [577] And possibly the work of Theod. (Gramm. of O. T. in Gk, p. 13. (In Cod. '?, 1 Chron. xi. 22--xix. 17 goes on without a break to Esd. b. ix. 9, the whole being headed Esd. b..) [578] Ab amicis suggests hupo philon, and hupo philon has been thought to be a corruption of hupo Philonos. See Tregelles can. Mur., p. 53, and cf. Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, ii. p. 100. [579] See this worked out by W. J. Deane, Book of Wisdom, p. 33 f.; C. J. Bigg, Christian Platonists, p. 14 ff. [580] See Rep. 427--439, 442, &c. [581] Westcott in Smith's B. D. iii. 1780. Cf. Jerome, 1. c. "ipse stylus Graecam eloquentiam redolet." [582] See Deane, p. 27, Westcott, p. 178, Ryle, Smith's B. D2. i. p. 185. [583] Seirach = syr'. "In the Hebrew Josippon (Pseudo-Josephus) the form syrk is a transliteration from the Latin" (Cowley and Neubauer, Original Hebrew of a portion of Ecclesiasticus, p. ix. n.). [584] On Eleazar (which follows Seirach in the Greek) see Ryssel in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 253. The newly-discovered Hebrew reads vn ysv vn 'lzr vn syr' smvn on which see Schechter, Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 65; Nestle in Hastings' D. B. iv. p. 541 f. [585] Cf. Deissmann, Bible Studies (E. Tr.), p. 339 ff. [586] Cf. Hatch, Essays, p. 281. A group of MSS. headed by V = 23 contains a considerable number of verses or stichi omitted by the rest of our Greek authorities; see Smith, D. B2. 1. i. p. 842. [587] Origin of the original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus, 1899. See on this a letter by Prof. Driver in the Guardian, June 28, 1899, and Dr Taylor's remarks in Ben Sira, p. lxx ff. [588] It now appears that even H-P. 248 is no exception, so that Fritzsche's "uno fortasse cod. 248 excepto" (Libri apocr. p. 462) must be deleted. On this MS. see Fritzsche, p. xxiii; Zenner in Z. K. Th., 1895. The text of Sirach after 248 has been edited by J. H. A. Hart, for the Cambridge University Press (1909). [589] See Fritzsche in exeg. Handbuch, v. p. 169 f. [590] On the O.L. of the Wisdoms see above, pt. i. c. IV (pp. 96, 103). [591] See Lightfoot's note ad loc. and his remarks in Clement i. p. 313 ff. [592] Not Holophernes, as is presupposed by the Latin. [593] Cf. art. Holofernes in Hastings' D. B. ii. p. 402. There were, however, earlier kings of the same name (op. cit. p. 823; cf. Schürer3, iii. p. 169 f., n. 19). [594] See however Ball in Speaker's Comm. Apocr. i. pp. 243, 259 ff.; and F. C. Porter in Hastings' B. D. ii. p. 822b. [595] Fritzsche, libri apocr. p. xviii sq.; Schürer3, iii. p. 172. The text in codd. 19, 108, is said to be Lucianic (Max Löhr in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 147). [596] A Chaldee text, corresponding in some respects to Jerome's Latin, is preserved in the Bodleian, and has been edited by Neubauer (Oxford, 1878). [597] An Oxyrh. Pap. 1076 (vol. viii) gives a new recension of c. ii. 2, 3, 4, 8. [598] Origen, while omitting Baruch, includes the Epistle in a formal list of the Hebrew canon (Eus. H. E. vi. 25 Ieremias sun Threnois kai te Epistole en heri [599] On the first point see J. T. Marshall in Hastings' D. B. ii. p. 579, and on the other hand Schürer3, iii. p. 344. Cf. Nestle, Marginalien, p. 42 f. [600] In the first section the Divine Name is Kurios or K. ho theos, while in the second it is either [ho] theos or ho aionios, ho hagios. See Dr Gifford in Speaker's Comm., Apoc., ii. f. 253. Thackeray holds that "the first half of Baruch is, beyond a doubt, the production of the translator of Jer. b." Gramm. of 0. T. in Gk. i. pp. 12, 13; J. Th. St. iv. 261 ff. [601] "On the margin of the Syro-hexaplar text of Baruch there are three notes by a scribe stating that certain words in i. 17 and ii. 3 are 'not found in the Hebrew.'" (A. A. Bevan in Encycl. Biblica, i. 494.) [602] E.g. by J. T. Marshall in Hastings' D. B. i. p. 251. [603] Psalms of the Pharisees, pref., esp. p. lxxvii. [604] Dr Nestle points out that Baruch and Jeremiah seem to have been translated by the same hand, unless the translator of Baruch deliberately copied the translator of Jeremiah. Certain unusual words are common to the two books in similar contexts, e.g. abatos, apostole, desmotes, peinosa. Cf. Thackeray, l. c. [605] v. 20. But the reference to Baruch is wanting in the Syriac Didascalia (Smith, D. B.2 i. p. 359). [606] For the name Makkabaios see Schürer, E. T. i. p. 212 f. n.; it belonged primarily to Judas, cf. 1 Macc. i. 4 aneste Ioudas ho kaloumenos M.; Joseph. ant. xii. 6 Ioudas ho kal. M.. [607] For various attempts to interpret it see Ryle, Canon, p. 185; R. Kraetzschmar, in Exp. T., xii. p. 93 ff. [608] A Hebrew text is printed by A. Schweizer, über die Reste eines heb. Textes vom ersten Makkabäerbuch (Berlin, 1901); but see Th. Nöldeke in Lit. Centralblatt, March 30, 1901. [609] Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, pp. 62, 68. [610] Westcott in Smith's D. B.1 ii. p. 175. [611] See the list of words given by Westcott, l. c. i. and in Smith's D.B.2 i. and Apocrypha. [612] So Luther, in his preface to 2 Macc.: "so billig das erste Buch sollte in die Zahl der heiligen Schrift genommen sein, so billig ist dies andere Buch herausgeworfen, obwohl etwas Gutes darinner steht." [613] Fritzsche has used codd. 19, 44, 55, 62, 64, 71, 74, 93. [614] In the Pseudo-Athanasian synopsis where the MSS. give Makkabaika d', Ptolemaika. Credner proposed to read M. kai (?) Ptol. An explanation of the existing reading attempted by Fabricius, cod. pseud. epigr. V. T. i. p. 1164, is hardly to be considered satisfactory. Zahn (Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, ii. p 317) suggests polemika, but this is more ingenious than convincing. But Wendland (Aristeas, p. 133) and Thackeray consider that Ptolemaika means the letter of Aristeas. [615] Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 267 ff. [616] That of Euergetes II. (Physcon); cf. Mahaffy, p. 381. [617] Westcott in Smith's D. B. ii. p. 179. [618] Schürer3, iii. p. 365. [619] "The date is probably c. 80 B.C.," Thackeray thinks, "as shown by epistolary formulae and papyrus evidence." [620] The same belief is expressed by the fact that the book is found in some MSS. of Josephus. See Fabricius-Harles, v. 26 f. [621] Viz. c. iii. 19, to the end. [622] Westcott in Smith's D. B.1 ii. p. 181. [623] On this list see Zahn, Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, ii. p. 289 ff. and M. R. James, Testament of Abraham, p. 7 ff. (in Texts and Studies, ii. 2). [624] The catalogue ends . . . | and below, | . [625] By Dr J. R. Harris, who points out (Johns Hopkins Univ. Circular, March 1884) that the six missing leaves in ' between Barnabas and Hermas correspond with fair accuracy to the space which would be required for the Psalms of Solomon. Dr Harris has since discovered a Syriac version of sixteen of these Psalms (out of eighty contained in the MS.). [626] Cf. Bals. ap. Beveregii Synod. p. 480 heuriskontai tines psalmoi pera tous rhn' psalmous tou Dabid legomenoi tou Solomontos . . . toutous oun onomasantes hoi pateres idiotikous. [627] In the latter case they go with the two Wisdoms in the order Sap., Ps. Sol., Sir. or (in one instance) Sap., Sir., Ps. Sol. [628] Ryle and James, Psalms of the Pharisees, p. xl ff., xliv ff. Schürer3, iii. p. 152 f. [629] Ryle and James, p. lxxii ff. On the date see W. Frankenberg, die Datierung der Psalmen Salomos (Giessen, 1896). [630] Ryle and James, p. xc ff. [631] These may be conveniently consulted in the Corpus historiae Byzantinae, t. 1, where they are edited by W. Dindorf. [632] See Schürer3, iii. p. 196 ff. [633] A collection of Greek O. T. apocrypha might perhaps include, amongst other remains of this literature, the Rest of the Words of Baruch (ed. J. Rendel Harris), the Apocalypse of Baruch (ed. M. R. James), the Testament of Abraham (ed. M. R. James), parts of the Oracula Sibyllina (ed. A. Rzach), the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs (ed. Sinker), the Latin Ascension of Isaiah (ed. O. von Gebhardt, with the new Greek fragments), and perhaps also the Latin versions of certain important books which no longer survive in the Greek, e.g. 4 Esdras (ed. R. L. Bensly), the Assumption of Moses (ed. R. H. Charles), the Book of Jubilees, he lepte Genesis (ed. R. H. Charles). [634] A collation of the Syriac 4 Macc. with the Greek has been contributed by Dr Barnes to O. T. in Greek2, vol. iii. (p. 900 ff.). [635] The text in the Cambridge manual LXX., which is that of cod. Vat. gr. 336, and is accompanied by an apparatus and a brief description of the MSS., can be had, together with the text of Enoch, in a separate form. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER IV. THE GREEK OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 1. No thorough treatment of the Greek idiom of the LXX. is known to exist. Two ancient treatises upon the dialect of Alexandria, by Irenaeus (Minutius Pacatus) and Demetrius Ixion [636] , have unhappily disappeared. In modern times the ground has been broken by Sturz and Thiersch [637] , and within the last few years Deissmann [638] has used the recently discovered papyri of Egypt to illustrate the connotation or the form of a number of Septuagint nouns and verbs. Much has also been done by Dr H. A. A. Kennedy [639] and the Abbé J. Viteau [640] in the way of determining the relation of Septuagint Greek to the classical and later usage, and to the Greek of the N.T.; and the N.T. grammars of Winer-Moulton, Winer-Schmiedel, and Blass contain incidental references to the linguistic characteristics of the Alexandrian version. But a separate grammar of the Greek Old Testament was long a real want, and the time has now come for attempting to supply it. Biblical scholars have now at their disposal a store of trustworthy materials in the Oxford Concordance, and the larger Cambridge Septuagint will supply an accurate and sufficient textual guide. On the basis of these two works it ought to be possible for the workers of the twentieth century to prepare a satisfactory grammar and lexicon [641] . Meanwhile in this chapter nothing more can be attempted than to set before the beginner some of the linguistic problems presented by the Greek of the Septuagint, and to point out the chief features which distinguish it from other forms of the language. 2. The student who enters upon this subject with some knowledge of the Greek New Testament must begin by reminding himself of the different conditions under which the two parts of the Greek Bible were produced. The Greek Old Testament was not like the New Testament the work of a single generation, nor are its books as homogeneous in their general character. The Septuagint is a collection of translations interspersed with original Greek works, the translations belonging partly to the third century B.C., partly to the second and first, and the original works chiefly to the end of this period. Even in the case of the Pentateuch we are not at liberty to assume that the translators worked at the same time or under the same circumstances. These considerations complicate our enquiry, and lead us to expect in the LXX., great varieties of manner and language. In the earlier work we shall meet with the colloquial Greek which the Jews learnt to speak shortly after their settlement in Egypt. Later translations will approximate to the literary style of the second century, except in cases where this tendency has been kept in check by a desire to follow the manner of the older books. Lastly, in the original writings, many of which are relatively late, and in which the writers were free from the limitations that beset the translator, the Greek will be nearly identical with that which was written by the Jewish-Alexandrian historians and philosophers of the time. 3. We begin by investigating the literary conditions under which both the translators and the writers lived at Alexandria. In the middle of the second century B.C. Polybius [642] found Alexandria inhabited by three races, the native Egyptians, who occupied the site of the old seaport Rhacôtis, the mercenary class (to misthophorikon), who may be roughly identified with the Jews, and the Greeks of the Brucheion, a mixed multitude claiming Hellenic descent and wedded to Hellenic traditions (ei migades, Hellenes homou anekathen esan, kai ememnento tou koinou ton Hellenon ethous). This fusion of various elements in the Greek population of the city must have existed from the first. The original colony was largely made up of the veterans of Alexander's Macedonian army, volunteers from every part of Greece, and mercenaries from the Greek colonies of Asia Minor, and from Syria. Even in the villages of the Fayûm, as we now know, by the side of the Macedonians there were settlers from Libya, Caria, Thrace, Illyria, and even Italy [643] , and Alexandria presented without doubt a similar medley of Hellenic types. Each class brought with it a dialect or idiom of its own. The Macedonian dialect, e.g., is said to have been marked by certain phonetic changes [644] , and the use of barbarous terms such as ade = ouranos, bethu [645] = aer, danos = thanatos and of Greek words in unusual senses, as parembole, 'camp,' rhume, street [646] . Some of these passed into the speech of Alexandria, and with them were echoes of the older dialects--Doric, Ionic, Aeolic--and other less known local varieties of Greek. A mongrel patois, he Alexandreon dialektos, as it was called in the title of the treatise of Demetrius Ixion, arose out of this confusion of tongues. No monument of the Alexandrian 'dialect' remains, unless we may seek it in the earlier books of the Alexandrian Greek Bible. We have indeed another source from which light is thrown on the popular Greek of Egypt under the earlier Ptolemies. A series of epistolary and testamentary papyri has recently been recovered from the Fayûm, and given to the world under the auspices of the Royal Irish Academy [647] ; similar collections have been published by Drs Grenfell and Hunt [648] . The Greek of these documents is singularly free from dialectic forms, owing perhaps to local circumstances, as Professor Mahaffy suggests; but the vocabulary has, in common with the LXX., many striking words and forms, some of which are rare elsewhere. The following list has been formed from the indices to the Flinders Petrie collection: anadendras, anaphalakros, anaphalantos, archisomatophulax, architektonein, achuron, basilissa, genema, diorux, epigone, ergodioktes, euilatos, ephidein, ephiorkein, theristron, oligopsuchein, ochuroma, opsonion, paidion, paradeixai, parepidemos, peridexion, periodeuein, praktor, presbuteroi, stenochorein, choma. The Berlin papyri yield many other such words, e.g. anametresis, glumma, dikaioma, hieropsaltes, himatismos, katalochismos, ktenotrophos, misoponeria, holoscheres, sumplerosis, hupomnematismos. The following letter of the time of Philadelphus will serve to shew the style of these documents, and at the same time the use in them of certain Septuagint words. It is addressed by the foremen (dekatarchoi) of a gang engaged in a stone quarry to the engineer of the works (architekton): Kleoni chairein. hoi dekatarchoi ton eleuther[on] latomon adikoumetha; ta gar homologethenta hupo Apolloniou tou dioiketou outhen ginetai hemin, echei de ten graphen Diotimos. spoudason oun hina katha exeilephamen ede, hupo Dionusiou kai Diotimou chrematisthe hemin, kai me ta erga enleiphthe, katha kai emprosthen egeneto. ean gar aisthontai hoi ergazomenoi outhen hemas eilephotas ton sideron enechura thesousin. [649] 4. Simultaneously with the growth of the colloquial mixed dialect, a deliberate attempt was made at Alexandria to revive the glories of classical Greek. The first Ptolemy, who had been the companion of Alexander's early days, retained throughout his life a passion for literature and learning. Prompted, perhaps, by Demetrius of Phalerum, Soter founded at Alexandria the famous Museum, with its cloisters and lecture rooms and dining hall where scholars lived a common life under a warden appointed by the King [650] . To Soter is also attributed the establishment of the great library which is said to have contained 400,000 MSS [651] . Under his successor the Museum and Library became a centre of literary activity, and the age to which the inception of the Greek Bible is usually ascribed produced Aratus, Callimachus, Herondas, Lycophron, and Theocritus. There is however no reason to suppose that the Jewish translators were officially connected with the Museum, or that the classical revival under Soter and Philadelphus affected them directly. Such traces of a literary style as we find in the Greek Pentateuch are probably due not to the influence of the scholars of the Royal Library, but to the traditions of Greek writing which had floated down from the classical period and were already shaping themselves under altered conditions into a type of Greek which became the common property of the new Hellenism. 5. The later Greek, the koine or Hellenike dialektos--the dialect in general use among Greek-speaking peoples from the fourth century onwards [652] --was based on Attic Greek, but embraced elements drawn from all Hellenic dialects. It was the literary language of the cosmopolitan Hellas created by the genius of Alexander. The change had begun indeed before Alexander. Even Xenophon allows himself to make free use of words of provincial origin, and to employ Attic words with a new connotation; and the writings of Aristotle mark the opening of a new era in the history of the Greek language [653] . But the golden age of the koine begins in the second century with Polybius (c. B.C. 145), and extends a century or two beyond the Christian era, producing such writers as Diodorus Siculus (B.C. 40), Strabo (A.D. 10), Plutarch (A.D. 90), and Pausanias (A.D. 160). The language used by the writers of the Greek Diaspora may be regarded as belonging to a subsection of an early stage of the koine, although, since the time of Scaliger, it has been distinguished from the latter by the term 'Hellenistic [654] .' A 'Hellenist [655] ' is properly a foreigner who affects Greek manners and speaks the Greek tongue. Thus the Jewish Greek spoken in Palestine was 'Hellenistic' in the strictest sense. The word is often used to describe the Greek of such thoroughly Hellenised writers as Philo and Josephus, and the post-apostolic teachers of the ancient Church; but it is applied with special appropriateness to the Alexandrian Bible and the writings of the New Testament, which approach most nearly to the colloquial Greek of Alexandria and Palestine. 6. Such were the local types of Greek upon which the Jewish translators of the O.T. would naturally mould their work. While the colloquial Greek of Alexandria was their chief resource, they were also influenced, in a less degree, by the rise of the later literary style which was afterwards known as the koine. We are now prepared to begin our examination of the vocabulary and grammar of the Alexandrian Bible, and we may commence by testing the vocabulary in the translated books. Let us select for this purpose the first three chapters of Exodus, 1 Kingdoms, 2 Chronicles, Proverbs, and Jeremiah, books which are, perhaps, fairly representative of the translation as a whole. Reading these contexts in the Cambridge manual edition, and underlining words which are not to be found in the Greek prose of the best period, we obtain the following results. In Exod. i.--iii. there are 19 such words; in 1 Regn. i.--iii., 39; in 2 Chron. i.--iii., 27; in Prov. i.--iii., 16; in Jer. i.--iii., 34; making a total of 135 later words in 15 chapters, or nine to a chapter. Of these words 52--considerably more than a third--appear to be peculiar to the LXX., or to have been used there for the first time in extant literature. The following are the Septuagintal words observed in the above-named passages. Verbs: andrioun, deuteroun, diodeuein, eneulogeisthai, exolethreuein, exouthenei [656] , euodoun, katakleronomein, kataskopeuein, katemblepein, katodunan, olethreuein, orthotomein, orthrizein, pneumatophoreisthai, ptochizein, skopeuein, sunedriazein, trietizein, tropheuein, philechthran. Nouns: agape, asunthesia, asphaltopissa, bdelugma, genema, doma, ergodioktes, thlimmos, katapetasma, krima, latomos, methusma, holokautoma, holokautosis, orophoma, pantokrator, pros?lutos proskomma, rhoiskos, suntrimma. Foreign words (a) with Greek terminations: habra, thibis, siklos; (b) transliterated: ailam, dabeir, ephoud bar, nebel, eloe sabaoth, oiphi, sersereth, cheroubeim. A similar experiment has been made by Dr H. A. A. Kennedy in reference to one of the books of the Pentateuch. Of 110 late words and forms observed in Deut. i.--x. he found that 66 belonged to Biblical Greek, 16 of these being peculiar to the LXX.; of 313 such words in the entire book, 152 proved to be Biblical, and 36 peculiar to the Old Testament; nearly half belonged to the koine, and more than a fourth had been used by the writers of tragedy and comedy. A complete list of the late words in the LXX. is still desideratum. Lists which have been made for the N.T. shew that out of 950 post-Aristotelian words about 314--just under one third--occur also in the Greek O.T. [657] But the writers of the N.T. have taken over only a part--perhaps a relatively small part--of the vocabulary of the LXX. As Dr T. K. Abbott has pointed out [658] , Psalm l. (li.) alone yields four important words (agathunein, akoutizein, anomema, antanairein) which find no place in the N.T. This fact is suggestive, for the Psalm is doctrinally important, and the words are such as would have lent themselves readily to N.T. use. The following LXX. words are condemned by Phrynichus as non-Attic: aichmalotizesthai, apotassesthai, basilissa, bounos, brechein (in the sense of huein), gregorein, eleusesthai, exadelphos, katorthoma, megistan, methusos, oikodome, paidiske, papuros, parembole, pepoithesis, plexai, rhapisma, rhume, skorpizesthai, sussemon. Some of these words are said to be provincialisms; e.g. bounos is Sicilian, skorpizesthai is Ionic, parembole and rhume are Macedonian [659] . As our knowledge of Alexandrian Greek increases, it may be that the greater part of the words which have been regarded as peculiar to the LXX. will prove to belong to the usage of Egyptian Greek. Deissmann has already shewn that many well-known Septuagintal words find a place in the Greek papyri of the Ptolemaic period, and therefore presumably belonged to the language of business and conversation at Alexandria. Thus gonguzein occurs in a papyrus of 241--239 B.C.; ergodioktes, 255 B.C.; parepidemos, 225 B.C.; forms such as eltha, epelthosan, gegonan, oides, can be quoted from the papyri passim; anastrephesthai and anastrophe in an ethical sense, ?eitourgein in reference to the service of a deity, peritemnesthai of circumcision, presbuteros of an official, are shewn to have been in use in Egypt under the Ptolemies. In many cases however words receive a new connotation, when they pass into Biblical Greek and come into contact with Hebrew associations. As examples the following may suffice: angelos, grammateus, diabolos, eidolon, ethne, ekklesia, pantokrator, pentekoste, proselutos, christos. The forms of many words have undergone a change since the age of classical Greek. A few specimens may be given from the pages of Phrynichus: Attic Greek. Greek of the LXX. Attic Greek. Greek of the LXX. apokrinasthai apokrithenai miaros mieros apheileto apheilato mochlos moklos (MSS.) achri, mechri achris, mechris neossos, -sia nossos, -sia genesthai genethenai noumenia neomenia glossokomeion glossokomon orthrios orthrinos dipsen dipsan oudeis outheis [660] duoin dusi peinen peinan edeito edeeto pecheon pechon heurema heurema podapos potapos katha kathos tachuteron tachion katamuein kammuein 7. But the vocabulary of the LXX. is not its most characteristic feature. With no other vocabulary than that of the Alexandrian translators, it might be possible to produce a fairly good piece of Greek prose in the style of the later prose writers. It is in its manner, in the construction of the sentences and the disposition of the words, that the Greek of the LXX. is unique, and not only or chiefly in its lexical eccentricities. This may perhaps be brought home to the student most effectually by a comparison of the Greek Bible with two great Hellenistic writers of the first century A.D. (a) In the works of Philo we have a cultured Hellenist's commentary on the earlier books of the LXX., and as he quotes his text verbatim, the student can discern at a glance the gulf which divides its simple manner, half Semitic, half colloquial, from the easy command of idiomatic Greek manifested by the Alexandrian exegete. We will give two brief specimens. Philo de opif. mundi 7: phesi d' hos en arche epoiesen ho theos ton ouranon kai ten gen, ten archen paralambanon, ouch hos oiontai tines ten kata chronon; chronos gar ouk en pro kosmou, all' e sun auto gegonen e met' auton; epei gar diastema tes tou kosmou kineseos estin ho chronos, protera de tou kinoumenou kinesis ouk an genoito, all' anankaion auten e husteron e hama sunistasthai, anankaion ara kai ton chronon e iselika kosmou gegonenai e neoteron ekeinou; presbuteron d' apophainesthai tolman aphilosophon. De migr. Abrahami 39: ean mentoi skopoumenos me rhadios katalambanes ha zeteis, epimene me kamnon . . hou charin ho philomathes tou topou Suchem eneileptai, metalephthen de tounoma Suchem omiasis kaleitai, ponou sumbolon, epeide tois meresi toutois achthophorein ethos, hos kai autos heterothi memnetai legon epi tinos athletou touton ton tropon Hupetheke ton omon eis to ponein, kai egeneto aner georgos. hoste medepote, o dianoia, malakistheisa oklases, alla kan ti doke dustheoreton einai, to en saute blepon dianoixasa diakupson eiso. (b) Josephus is not a commentator, but a historian who uses the LXX. as an authority, and states the facts in his own words. We will contrast a few passages of the Greek Bible with the corresponding contexts in the Antiquities. Exod. ii. 2--4. Joseph. ant. ii. 9. 4. eskepasan auto menas treis . . . elaben auto he meter autou thibin, kai katechrisen auten asphaltopisse kai enebalen to paidion eis auten . . . kai kateskopeuen he adelphe autou makrothen mathein ti to apobesomenon auto. treis men menas par autois trephousi lanthanontes . . . mechanontai plegma biblinon . . epeita chrisantes asphalto . . entitheasi to paidion . . . Mariame de tou paidos adelphe . . antiparexeei pheromenon hopoi choresei opsomene to plegma. 1 Regn. i. 1--4. Joseph. ant. v. 10. 2. anthropos en ex Harmathaim . . ex orous Ephraim . . kai touto duo gunaikes; onoma te mia Hanna kai te mia Phennana. kai en te Phennana paidia, kai te Hanna ouk en paidion . . plen hoti ten Hannan egapa Elkana huper tauten. aner ton en meso politon tes Ephramou klerouchias Rhamathan polin katoikon egamei duo gunaikas Hannan te kai Phennanan. ek de tautes kai paides auto ginontai, ten de heteran ateknon ousan agapon dietelei. 2 Chronicles iii. 1--2. Joseph. ant. viii. 3. 1. kai erxato Salomon tou oikodomein ton oikon Kuriou . . kai erxato oikodome en to meni to deutero en to etei to tetarto tes basileias autou. tes de oikodomias tou naou Solomon erxato tetarton etos ede tes basileias echon meni deutero. Isa. xxxix. 6--7. Joseph. ant. x. 2. 2. idou hemerai erchontai kai lempsontai panta ta en to oiko sou kai . . . eis Babulona hexei . . . kai apo ton teknon sou hon genneseis lempsontai, kai poiesousin spadontas en to oiko tou basileos ton Babulonion. isthi ou met' oligon chronon eis Babulona sou touton metatethesomenon ton plouton kai tous ekgonous eunouchisthesomenous kai apolesantas to andras einai, to Babulonio douleusontas basilei. Josephus, it will be seen, has rewritten each passage, and in doing so, has not only modified the vocabulary, but revolutionised the style. On turning from the left hand to the right hand column we pass from a literal translation of Semitic texts to an imitation of classical Greek. But the contrast is not entirely due to the circumstance that the passages taken from the Septuagint are translations, while the Antiquities is an original work. Translations, however faithful, may be in the manner of the language into which they render their original. But the manner of the LXX. is not Greek, and does not even aim at being so. It is that of a book written by men of Semitic descent, who have carried their habits of thought into their adopted tongue. The translators write Greek largely as they doubtless spoke it; they possess a plentiful vocabulary and are at no loss for a word, but they are almost indifferent to idiom, and seem to have no sense of rhythm. Hebrew constructions and Semitic arrangements of the words are at times employed, even when not directly suggested by the original. These remarks apply especially to the earlier books, but they are true to a great extent in regard to the translations of the second century; the manner of the older translations naturally became a standard to which later translators thought it right to conform themselves. Thus the grandson of Jesus son of Sirach writes his prologue in the literary style of the Alexandrian Jews of the time of Euergetes, but in the body of the work he drops into the Biblical manner, and his translation differs little in general character from that of the Greek version of Proverbs. 8. From the general view of the subject we proceed to a detailed account of some of the more characteristic features of the language of the LXX. They fall under three heads--orthography, accidence, syntax. Under the second head a full list of examples from the Pentateuch will be given, with the view of familiarising the beginner with the vocabulary of the earlier books. I. ORTHOGRAPHY. In the best MSS. of the LXX. as of the N.T. a large number of peculiar spellings occur, of which only a part can be assigned to itacism and other forms of clerical error. In many of the instances where the great uncial MSS. of the Greek Bible persistently depart from the ordinary orthography they have the support of inscriptions contemporary with the translators, and it is manifest that we have before us specimens of a system which was prevalent at Alexandria [661] and other centres of Greek life [662] during the third and second centuries before Christ. To a considerable extent the orthography of the MSS. is the same in the LXX. and the N.T. The student may find ample information with regard to the N.T. in the Notes on Orthography appended to Westcott and Hort's Introduction, and in the best N. T. grammars (Ph. Buttmann, Winer-Moulton, Winer-Schmiedel, Blass). But even in MSS. which like 'BAC originally contained the whole of the Greek Scriptures, the Greek Old Testament possesses an orthography which is in part peculiar to itself, and certain features which are common to both Old and New Testaments are found with greater frequency and with a wider application in the LXX. than in the N.T. The reader of the Cambridge manual LXX. who is interested in this question, can readily work out the details from the apparatus criticus, and more especially from the appendix, where he will find all the spellings of the uncial MSS. employed which were not thought worthy of a place in the footnotes to the text. For those to whom orthography is of little interest the specimens given below will probably suffice. Consonants. Assimilation neglected in compounds: engastrimuthos, sunkatakleronomein, sunseismos, enkainia, encheiridion. Assimilation where there is no composition: em meso, eg gastri. Use of n ephelkustikon before consonants (omission is rare, except in a few cases such as pasi before the art.); use of the final s in achris, mechris, houtos, antikrus. Retention of the m in fut. and aor. pass. of lambanein (lempsomai, elemphthen), and in words formed from it, e.g. proslempsis. Outheis, metheis (see p. 297, note) for oudeis, medeis. G dropped in the middle of a word between vowels, as kraue, olios, pheuein (especially in cod. '). Rh not doubled in compounds, e.g. epirantizein, koloboris, kataraktos, and reduplicated in the augment (rherantismenos); ss for tt in elasson, hesson, arsen, tharsein. In some verbal forms consonants are doubled, e.g. bennein, ktennein, chunnein. Rough and smooth consonants are occasionally exchanged, e.g. kuthra (1 Regn. ii. 14, B) for chutra. Vowels. Ei for i in syllables where i is long, e.g. Semitic words such as Leuei, Leueites, Daueid, Seion, and Greek words as trapezeites, geinesthai, geinoskein. Also (perhaps by itacism) in innumerable instances of ? [663] ; e.g. horeion, aletheinos, adikeia, kreinein. I for ei, e.g. tichos, litourgein, aliphein, alimma, kateliphthen, paradigma, danizein, ophiletes, aigios, and esp. in nouns in -eia, -eia, e.g. apolia, endia, paidia, Samaria, stratia, and those in eion, as danion, eidolion. A for e, as eraunan; e for a, as ekatheristhen, mieros, tesserakonta. Omission of a syllable consisting of i, as in pein, tameion. Prefixing of a vowel, as in echthes. Breathings. Rough breathing for smooth: e.g. ouch holigos, eph' helpidi, ephide, ouch heisakousomai (Jer. vii. 16), kath' hophthalmous (Ezech. xx. 14). Similarly we find halsos, halopex, heniautos Dt. xiv. 20 (Nestle, Septuagintastudien i. p. 19, ii. pp. 12, 13, 20 f.). Smooth breathing for rough: ouk eneken (2 Regn. vii. 12), ouk uparchei (Job xxxviii. 26, A). Abnormal spellings such as these occur on every page of an uncial MS. of the LXX. and sometimes cause great perplexity to an editor of the text. So far as they correctly represent the written or spoken Greek of the period, their retention is, generally speaking, desirable. In some cases the MSS. are unanimous, or each MS. is fairly persistent in its practice; in others, the spelling fluctuates considerably. The Cambridge manual LXX. usually adopts a spelling which is persistently given by the MS. whose text it prints, and on the same principle follows the fluctuations of its MS. where they are of any special interest. But the whole question of orthography is far from having reached a settlement. II. ACCIDENCE. We will deal with (i.) the formation of words, (ii.) the declension of nouns, (iii.) the conjugation of verbs. (i.) Formation of words. (a) Words formed by termination: Verbs. In -oun from nouns in -os: amauroun, apodekatoun, apolutroun, apotuphloun, asphaltoun, diabioun, ektupoun, elattonoun, epidiploun, epipemptoun, eruthrodanoun, euodoun, thanatoun, katachrusoun, kuroun, palaioun, parazeloun, perikukloun, sunkuroun. In -izein, -azein -iazein, -uzein: hagiazein, hairetizein, akoutizein, anabibazein, anathematizein, apogalaktizein, augazein, aphagnizein, aphanizein, aphorizein, badizein, geloiazein, gruzein, danizein, diagonguzein, diaskedazein, diaskorpizein, diachorizein, ektherizein, ekklesiazein, ekmuelizein, ekspermatizein, ektokizein, entaphiazein, enupniazein, enotizesthai, exeikonizein, exetazein, exoplizein, exorkizein, epikluzein, epirantizein, episkiazein, epistoibazein, epiphemizein, thusiazein, katabiazein, kataskiazein, katasophizein, kledonizein, komizein, kouphizein, lepizein, leukathizein, makarizein, melizein, oionizein, onuchizein, optazein, orthrizein, paradeigmatizein, paradoxazein, paralogizein, periaspizein, perionuchizein, perirantizein, pleonazein, poluchronizein, prosengizein, prosochthizein, sabbatizein, skepazein, spermatizein, sterizein, stochazein, sumpodizein, sunathroizein, sunoikizein, sphakelizein, scholazein, teichizein, phaulizein, phlogizein, chlorizein, chronizein, psomizein. In -euein: anchisteuein, diodeuein, exolethreuein, hierateuein, katadunasteuein, katakurieuein, kataphuteuein, katocheuein, metalleuein, propheteuein, prototokeuein, stratopedeuein, tropheuein, hudreuein. Nouns. In -ma, from verbs: hagiasma, hagnisma, adikema, ainigma, allagma, anastema, anomema, antapodoma, apodoma, asebema, augasma, aphairema, bdelugma, diegema, dikaioma, diorugma, dichotomema, doma, enkatalimma, edesma, ekkolamma, ektupoma, epithema, epikalumma, epitedeuma, hepsema, hemiseuma, thereuma, thumiama, thusiasma, hierateuma, karpoma, katakauma, katapetasma, kauchema, klemma, lepisma, holokautoma. horama, opheilema, ochuroma, paradeigma, parathema, pararuma, perithema, peripsoma, prosochthisma, prostagma, protogenema, stereoma, sunantema, sunkalumma, sustema, tagma, timema, toxeuma, phalakroma, phulagma, phurama, chortasma, choneuma. In -mos, from verbs: aphanismos, gongusmos, endelechismos, enporismos, exilasmos, episitismos, himatismos, katharismos, merukismos, oionismos, horismos, horkismos, paroxusmos, peirasmos, stathmos, stenagmos, phragmos, chorismos. In -sis, from verbs: anairesis, anamnesis, apokidarosis, aphesis, bebaiosis, gongusis, gumnosis, delosis, diabasis, diasaphesis, ekdikesis, ekstasis, ekchusis, eperotesis, katakarposis, kataleipsis, kataschesis, katoikesis, holokarposis, holokautosis, homoiosis, plerosis, poreusis, prasis, sunkrasis, sunantesis, suntimesis, sustasis, tapeinosis, huperorasis, huperopsis, hupostasis, phausis, charakosis, chereusis. In -e, from verbs: aloiphe, anazuge, aposkeue, apostole, apostrophe, aphe, diaskeue, doche, ektribe, entole, epagoge, episkope, kataphuge, holke, parabole, pronome, prophulake, sunagoge, trope. In -tes, from verbs (m.): ainigmatistes, entaphiastes, exngetes, epithumetes, hermeneutes, polemistes, rhaphideutes, skepastes, scholastes. Adjectives. In -inos: deilinos, dermatinos, karuinos, ostrakinos, prasinos, sturakinos, phloginos. In -ios: eniausios, homometrios, poluchronios, hupocheirios. In -ikos: arsenikos, eirenikos, lampenikos, leitourgikos, lithourgikos, murepsikos, patrikos, poikiltikos, polemikos, prophasistikos. In -tos: akataskeuastos, halusidotos, aoratos, aperikathartos, epikataratos, eulogetos, laxeutos, misthotos, onomastos, pleonastos, phorologistos. (b) Words formed by composition: Verbs compounded with two prepositions: anthuphairein, antapodounai, apokathistan, enkataleipein, enperipatein, exanastellein, episunistan, katemblepein, paremballein, sunanalambanein, sunanastrephesthai, sunapolluein, sunekpolemoun, sunepakolouthein, sunepiskeptein, sunkatakleronomein, sunparalambanein, sunpropempein. Nouns. Compounded with nouns: asphaltopissa, dasupous, heterozugos, kamelopardalis, koloboris, makroemeros, makrochronios, mikrothumos, holokleros, holoporphuros, polueleos, poluchronios, sklerotrachlos, choirogrullion. Compounded with a prefix or preposition : antiprosopos, Antilibanos, archidesmophulax, archidesmotes, archiereus, archimageiros, archioinochoos, archisitopoios, epipemptos, euprosopos, kataloipos, kataxeros, paralios, parepidemos, peridexion, perilupos, perioikos, perichoros, hupandros, hupermekes. Compounded with a verb stem, and forming a fresh noun or a verb: anemophthoros, glossotmetos, ergodioktes, thanatephoros, therialotos, therobrotos, hippodromos, ischnophonos, ktenotrophos, numphagogos, sitopoios, sphurokopos, telesphoros, charopoios, dichotomein, zoogonein, klopophorein, kreanomein, lithobolein, limanchonein, neurokopein, ornithoskopein, sumbolokopein, teknopoiein, psoragrian. (ii.) Declension of nouns: Declension 1. Nouns in -r?, -uia, form gen. in es, dat. e, machaire, machaires Gen. xxvii. 40, Exod. xv. 9 ("vielfach bei A, bes. in Jerem.," W.-Schm.), kunomuies Exod. viii. 17, epibebekuies 1 Regn. xv. 20 Declension 2. Certain nouns in -ous end also in -os, e.g. cheimarros, adelphidos. The Attic form in -eos disappears; e.g. laos and naos are written for leos and neos--the latter however occurs in 2 Macc. (A). Nouns in -archos pass occasionally into the first declension, e.g. toparches Gen. xli. 34, komarches Esth. ii. 3, genesiarches Sap. xiii. 3 osteon usu. contr. in nom. acc., uncontr. in gen. dat. Declension 3. Uncontracted forms are frequent, as bathea Job xii. 22, pecheon, cheileon, and in the plural nom. and acc. of neuters in -as, as kerata, perata. Geras makes gen. gerous dat. gerei. Metaplasmus occurs in some words, e.g. duo, dusi, pan with masc. noun, pule, pulesin (3 Regn. xxii. 11, A), sabbata, sabbasin, tessares tessarois, cheir, cheiran. Acc. in -an for -a, nuktan Exod. xiii. 21, tinan Nah. iii. 19, and freq. in ' and A [664] . Proper nouns. Many are mere transliterations and indeclinable, e.g. Adam, Abraam, Ioseph, Samouel, Daueid, Achaab, Eleiou, Eleisaie, Daniel. On the other hand some well-known names receive Greek terminations and are declined, as Mouses or Moses, Iesous, Hezekias, Esaias, Ieremias; while some are found in both forms, e.g. we have both Eleiou and El(e)ias, Manasse, and Manasses, Solomon indecl. and Solomon gen. -monos or -montos. But in the translated books the indeclinable forms prevail, and there is no appearance of the forms Abramos, Israelos, Iosepos, which are familiar to the reader of Josephus. In the case of local names transliteration is usual, e.g. Ierousalem, Bethleem, Baithel, Seion. A few however have Greek terminations, as Samareia or Samaria, Iordanos, and some names of foreign localities are Hellenised, as Babulon, Suria, he eruthra thalassa, Idoumaia, Aiguptos, and the two Egyptian towns Heroon polis (Gen. xlvi. 28), Heliou polis (Exod. i. 11). The declension of the Hellenised names presents some irregularities; thus we find Mouses, -se, -sei, -sen; Iesous, -sou, -soi, -soun; Manasses, -se. (iii.) Conjugation of verbs Augments. Doubled, as in kekaterantai Num. xxii. 6, xxiv. 9, apekatestesen Gen. xxiii. 16, paresuneblethe Ps. xlviii. 13, 21 (A). Prefixed to prepositions, e.g. epronomeusan Num. xxi. 1, Deut. ii. 35, epropheteusan Num. xi. 25 f., enotisanto 2 Esdr. xix. 30 (B). Lengthened, as emellon Sap. xviii. 4, eboulomen Isa. i. 29, xiii. 9, edunethen, edunasthen 2 Chr. xx. 37, Jer. v. 4. Omitted, as in anethe Jud. viii. 3, aphethe Isa. xxxiii. 24, autarkesen Deut. xxxii. 10, exolothreuen 1 Chr. xxi. 15, iden Gen. i. 4, katorthothe 2 Chr. xxxv. 10. Tenses and Persons. (1) Verbs in -o. New presents, as amphiazo, gregoro, benno, ktenno. Futures and aorists [665] with reduplication: kekraxomai (Job vi. 5), ekekraxa (Num. xi. 2), epepoithesa (Jud. ix. 26 A); cf. ekekragon, Isa. vi. 3. Contracted futures in -o from -aso: erga Gen. iv. 2, harpa Lev. xix. 13, ekdikatai Deut. xxxii. 43, enkaucha Ps. li. 3, sumbiba Isa. xl. 13, apodokimo Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.) 37. Futures (and aor.) with short vowels, poneso, Isa. xix. 10. Irregular futures: edomai, phagomai, cheo (Exod. iv. 9). Second aor. forms with termination in -a: eidamen 1 Regn. x. 14, ephugan 2 Regn. x. 14, ephagamen 2 Regn. xix. 42, elthato Esth. v. 4. Person endings: 2nd p. s. pres. pass. or middle in -sai: piesai, phagesai (Ezech. xiii. 18, Ruth ii. 9, 14), apexenousai 3 Regn. xiv. 6. 3rd p. pl. imperf, and aor. act. in -osan: egennosan Gen. vi. 4, elthosan Exod. xv. 27, kateliposan Exod. xvi. 24, katenoousan Exod. xxxiii. 8, enomousan Ezech. xxii. 11; cf. the opt. ainesaisan Gen. xlix. 8, elthoisan Deut. xxxiii. 16. 3rd p. pl. aor. mid. in -ento: epelathento Jud. iii. 7 (A), Hos. xiii. 6 (B), Jer. xviii. 15 (B*A), &c. 3rd p. pl. perf. act. in -an: heorakan Deut. xi. 7; pepoithan, Judith vii. 10. 2nd p. s. 1st aor. and perf. act. in -es; apestalkes Exod. v. 22; edokes, 2 Esdr. xix. 10, Ezech. xvi. 21. (2) Verbs in -mi. From eimi we have emen, estha. From kathemai, kathou Ps. cix. (cx.) 1. From histemi, hestekenai, hestekos. From didomi, edideto Exod. v. 13 (A), Jer. xii. 34; doi, Ps. xli. 3 (B), 2 Regn. iii. 39 (A). III. SYNTAX. Many of the irregularities which fall under this head are due to the influence of the Hebrew text or of Semitic habits of thought. These will be treated in the next section. In this place we shall limit ourselves to constructions which appear to be characteristic of the Greek idiom used by the translators. Cases and Numbers. Nom. for voc., e.g. ho theos for thee, Ps. xxi. 2, esp. in the phrase Kurie ho theos; thugater = thugater, Ruth ii. 2, 22, iii. 1, &c. Disuse of the Dual. Comparison. Use of a preposition with the positive for the comparative, e.g. megas para pantas, Exod. xviii. 11; agathos huper deka, 1 Regn. i. 8. Numerals. Hepta = heptakis, Gen. iv. 24. Omission of kai when numbers are coupled, e.g. deka duo, deka hex, deka tente, &c. Verbs. Relative rarity of the optative mood [666] , and disappearance of that mood in dependent clauses. Periphrasis with eimi, e.g. pepoithos esomai, 2 Regn. xxii. 3; isthi pepoithos, Prov. iii. 5. Indicative with an: imperf. and aor., hotan eisercheto, Gen. xxxviii. 9; hotan eperen, Exod. xvii. 11; hotan katebe, Num. xi. 9; heniaa an eiseporeueto, Jud. vi. 3; ean espeiran, Jud. vi. 2. Coordination of indicative with conjunctive: Exod. viii. 8 exapostelo autous, kai thusosi, Lev. vi. 2 psuche ean hamarte kai . . .paride . . . kai pseusetai, e edikesen . . . e heuren . . . kai pseusetai . . . kai omose ktl. Use of infinitive, with or without the article, to express object, purpose, subject, or result [667] ; e.g. (a) ezetei anelein, Exod. ii. 15: erxato tou oikodomein, 2 Chr. iii. 1; (b) paraginetai boethenai, 2 Regn. viii. 5; apesteilen tou idein, Gen. viii. 7; (c) sunebe kremasthenai, Gen xli. 13; to proskollasthai agathon Ps. lxxii. 28; (d) ho theos ego tou thanatosai kai zoopoiesai, 4 Regn. v. 7. Connexion of the sentence. Use of gen. abs. in reference to the subject of the verb: e.g. poreuomenou sou . . . hora, Exod. iv. 21. Anacoluthon: idon de Pharao . . . ebarunthe he kardia Pharao, Exod. ix. 7. Use of the finite verb where the classical language prefers to employ a participle. 9. Besides the non-classical forms and constructions which may fairly be placed to the credit of Alexandrian Greek, the translated books of the Greek Bible naturally exhibit a large number of irregularities which are of Semitic origin. The following are examples. (a) Lexical. 1. Transliterations, and Greek words formed from the Hebrew or Aramaic. 2. Words coined or adopted to express Semitic ideas, as akrobustia, anathematizein, holokautoma, skandalizein, splanchnizein. 3. Phrases answering to the Hebrew idiom: e.g. arton phagein = 'kl lchm, eleos poiein meta tinos = sh chsd m, enopion tou kuriou = lphnyyhvh, zetein psuchen = bqs nphs, thusia soteriou = slmym zvch, lambanein prosopon = ns' phnym, pasa sarx = klbsr, huios tesserakonta kai henos eniauton = bn'rbym v'cht snch. 4. Words with a new connotation: hagios, hamartolos, arete, aphorisma, aphron, diabolos, diatheke, dikaiosune, ekklesia, eleemosune, exilasmos, kardia, Kurios or ho kurios, leitourgein, mataiotes, hosiotes, peirazein, prophetes, ptochos, sarx, phugadeuterion. (b) Grammatical [668] . Nouns. Repeated to express distribution, e. g. anthropos anthropos = 'ys 'ys, Num. ix. 10; ethne ethne = gvy gvy, IV Regn. xvii. 29. Similarly duo duo, Gen. vi. 19; kata mikron mikron (AF), Exod. xxiii. 30. Emphatic adverbs also are occasionally doubled after the Hebrew manner, as sphodra sphodra, Exod. i. 12, Ezech. ix. 9; cf. sphodra sphodros, Gen. vii. 19 (A). Pronouns. Otiose use, e.g. Gen. xxx. 1 teleuteso ego ('nky mth); Exod. ii. 14 su theleis ('th 'mr); Exod. xxxvi. 4 autos, autoi. To Semitic influence is also due the wearisome iteration of the oblique cases of personal pronouns answering to the Hebrew suffixes, e.g. Jer. ii. 26 autoi kai hoi basileis auton kai hoi archontes auton kai hoi hiereis auton kai hoi prophetai auton. The fem. haute is occasionally used for touto after the manner of the Heb. z't, as in Gen. xxxv. 17, 27, xxxvi. 1, Ps. cxvii. (cxviii.) 23; see Driver on 1 Sam. iv. 7. To the circumstance that the Hebrew relative is indeclinable we owe the pleonastic use of the pronoun after the Greek relative in such passages as Gen. xxviii. 13, eph' hes . . . ep' autes ('sr . . . lyh); Deut. i. 22 di hes . . . en aute ('sr . . . bh); Prov. iii. 15 hon . . . auton. A similar redundancy occurs with relative adverbs: Deut. ix. 28, hothen . . . ekeithen (msm . . . 'sr); II Chr. i. 3, hou . . . ekei. Verbs. The following Hebraisms may be specially noted. Various phrases used to represent the Heb. inf. abs. when prefixed to a finite verb, e.g. Exod. iii. 7, idon idon (r'h r'yty); Deut. xxxi. 18, apostrophe apostrepso (hstr 'styr); also the Heb. idiom vysph l: e.g. Exod. xiv. 13, ou prosthesesthe eti idein, 1 Regn. iii. 6 prosetheto kai ekalesen (cf. v. 8 proseth. kalesai, Job xxix. 1 prostheis eipen (vysph . . . vy'mr). Constructions with prepositions contrary to the Greek idiom: bdelussesthai apo (m?pny), Exod. i. 12; pheidesthai epi, Deut. vii. 16; eperotan en Kurio (s'l byhvh), 1 Regn. x. 22; eudokein en or epi (chphts b). Hebrew forms of adjuration as 1 Regn. iii. 14 ei ('m) exilasthesetai, ib. 17 tade poiesei soi ho theos, ean . . . A question standing for the expression of a wish: Num. xi. 29 kai tis doe panta ton laon Kuriou . . . ; Ps. lii. (liii.) 6 tis dosei ek Seion to soterion tou Israel; Ego eimi followed by an ind. (Jud. vi. 18 ego eimi kathisomai, 2 Regn. ii. 2 ego eimi poreusomai)--a construction limited in B to Judges, Ruth, 2--4 Regn. Periphrases such as esomai didonai (Tob. v. 15, BA). Pleonastic use of legon = l'mvr, often soloecistically: e.g. Gen. xv. 1 egenethe rhema Kuriou . . . legon, xlv. 16 dieboethe he phone . . . legontes. Particles. Pleonastic use of kai and de, (1) in an apodosis, e.g. Num. xv. 14, ean . . . prosgenetai, . . . , kai poiesei karpoma; Prov. i. 28, estai hotan . . . ego de . . . ; (2) after a participle: Num. xxi. 11, kai exarantes . . . kai parenebalon. Use of kai in a coordinated clause, where a dependent clause might have been expected; e.g. Num. xxxv. 2, suntaxeis tois huiois Israel, kai dosousin ktl. Prepositions. See under Verbs. Peculiar uses of the Heb. prepositions are often reflected in the Greek; e.g. 1 Regn. i. 24, anebe en moscho (bphrym); Lev. xxi. 10, ho megas apo ton adelphon autou (hgdvl m?'chyv). A number of new prepositions or prepositional phrases are used to express the Hebrew lphny, e.g. enanti, apenanti, katenanti, enopion, katenopion, apo, epi, pro, prosopou. Similarly opiso represents 'chry; en meso, ana meson, dia mesou = btvk, apo (ek) mesou = m?tvk; dia cheiros, eis cheiras, ek cheiros = byd ,m?yd; hodon = drk. The use of sunto express the prefix 't, which is characteristic of Aquila, occurs in codex A six times in 3 Regn., once in Esther (where it probably came from the Hexapla), and frequently in Ecclesiastes, where even cod. B shews this peculiarity, e.g. Eccl. ii. 17 emisesa sun ten zoen ('thchyym) [669] . 10. Both the vocabulary and the syntax of the LXX. exhibit remarkable affinities with the modern language. Mr Geldart (Modern Greek Language, p. 102 f.) urges the study of modern Greek upon Biblical students on the ground that "the Greek of the present day affords a better commentary on the language of the LXX. and of the N.T. than the writings of contemporary historians, rhetoricians, grammarians and philosophers [670] ." He adds: "The phraseology of the LXX. is modern to an extent which is quite marvellous . . . let me mention a few well-known words common to the LXX. and modern Greek: episkeptomai, apokrinomai, epistrepho, proskuno, enopion, proskomma, peirazo, akoloutho, koimomai, holos, katoiko, kathezomai, kathizo, ta himatia, hup?ago . . . The Greek of the N.T. . . . is by no means so vulgar, so merely a vernacular, as that of the LXX." This estimate is perhaps overdone; certainly there are considerations which suggest caution in the use of modern Greek usage as a key to the meaning of the LXX. But the general similarity of the Alexandrian vocabulary and, to a less extent, of the Alexandrian syntax to those of the spoken language indicates a common affinity to the old colloquial Greek, which ultimately triumphed over the classical standards [671] . That the resemblance is less marked in the case of the New Testament is due to the different circumstances under which it was written. Bilingual Palestinian writers of the first century naturally possessed a more limited vocabulary and employed a more chastened style than Alexandrian translators of the time of Philadelphus and Euergetes, who had been born in the heart of a great Greek city teeming with a cosmopolitan population. 11. Some of the non-canonical books of the Greek Old Testament, which were either (a) loosely translated or paraphrased from a Hebrew original, or (b) originally written in Greek, need separate treatment in regard to their lexical and grammatical character. Such are (a) 1 Esdras, Daniel (LXX.), (b) Wisdom, 2--4 Maccabees. The lexicography of the 'Apocrypha' has been separately treated by C. A. Wahl (Clavis Abr. V. T. apocryphorum philologica, Leipzig, 1853), and with the help of the Oxford Concordance it may be studied independently. But, for the sake of the student who has not the necessary leisure to examine the subject in detail, it is desirable to notice here the more conspicuous words in each of the books referred to above. 1 ESDRAS. akolouthos = kata, dat. (2 Esdr., 2 Macc.) euphues (Sap., 2 Macc.) hierodoulos anagnostes = grammateus, 2 Esdr. hieropsaltes anamphisbetetos historein anaplerosis (Dan.) katalochismos (1, 2, Chr.) anieroun (3 Macc.) kolakeuein (Job¹, Sap.¹) antigraphon (Esth., Ep.-Jer., 1, 2 Macc.) lesteuein antiparatassein maniake (Dan.) aponoeisthai (2 Macc.) megaleiotes aposemainein meridarchia apostatis (2 Esdr.) metagenesteros bibliophulakion onomatographia demagogein, -gia horkomosia (Ez.) diadema (Esth. Sap., Isa., 2, 4 Macc.) peitharchein (Jer., Dan.) prokathegeisthai (cod. B) dogmatizein (Esth., Dan., 2, 3 Macc.) propompe proskephalaion (Ez.) dussebeia, -bema (2 Macc.) sunbrabeuein eidoleion (Dan., 1 Macc.) somatophulax (Judith, 2 Macc.) emphusioun hupomnematizein epakoustos phorologia (1 Macc.) epidoxos chamaipetes epispeudein (Esth.¹ , Prov.¹ ) chaskein eromene, he (cod. B) chrematisterion eutharses (1, 2, Macc.) chrusochalinos (2 Macc.) euprepos (Sap.) DANIEL. apothaumazein (Sir.) kopanizein (3 Regn.) apotumpanizein (3 Macc.) maniakes (1 Esdr.¹ ) archieunouchos megaleiotes (1 Esdr.) archipatriotes (Jos.¹ ) prosopsis (2 Macc.) damazein sambuke demeuein sophistes (Exod.¹ ) diamelizein sunaloan diapuros (3 Macc.) sunmolunesthai dioiketes (2 Esdr., Tob.) surinx enkuklios hupatos eporgizesthai (2 Macc.) huperainetos estiatoria (4 Regn.) huperendoxos eukataphronetos hupermegethes (1 Chr.) eusemos huperupsoun (Ps.^2) thermasia (Jer.¹ ) huperpheres kelidousthai (Jer.) philosophos (4 Macc.) koniama WISDOM. This book contains an unusually large vocabulary, consisting in great part of compound words. The following list, taken from c. i.--vi., will suffice to shew its lexical character [672] . agerochia (2, 3 Macc.) autoschedios adiaptotos aphthonos athanasia (4 Macc.) baskania (4 Macc.) akatamachetos dekameniaios akelidotos (Ps.¹ ) diorthotes akoimetos duschrestos (Isa.¹ ) alazoneuesthai (Ps.¹ ) episphalos amarantos epitedeios (1 Chr., 1--3 Macc.) amoluntos epiphemizein (Deut.¹ ) anapodismos ergateia aneklipes euklees (Jer.¹ ) anexikakia eukuklos anupokritos eumorphia (3 Macc.) apemantos eustochos apologia thumeres apotomos, apotomos idiotes (3 Macc.) atelestos kakopragia atimetos (3 Macc.) kakotechnos katadapanan polugonos (4 Macc.) katalupos pompeuein katachreos protoplastos makrobios (Isa.¹ ) stephanephorein monoemeros sungnostos homoiopathes (4 Macc.) sullogismos (Ex.¹ ) hoplopoiein tekmerion (3 Macc.) paradoxos (Judith, Sir., 2, 4 Macc.) philanthropos In 2--4 Maccabees the reader finds himself at length face to face with the full richness of the Alexandrian literary style, as it was written by cultured Hellenists of the second and first centuries B.C. The writers, especially the writer of 4 Maccabees, may be said to revel in the use of compound words, many of which may have been of their own coinage. Specimens follow. 2 MACCABEES. agoranomia euapantetos akariaios theomachein akropolis thorakismos akroteriazein kateuthektein allophulismos lelethotos analempteos litaneia apeuthanatizein hoplologein archegenetes patroos asulia polemotrophein authairetos polupragmonein barbaroun prosanalegesthai deilandrian prosupomimneskein deuterologein splanchnismos diastalsis summisoponerein doxikos sunekkentein duspetema teratopoios epeulabeisthai psuchagogia doxikos sunekkentein duspetema teratopoios epeulabeisthai psuchagogia 3 MACCABEES. alogistia anephiktos amnesikakia asines aneikastos barueches anepistreptos buthotrephes graphikos neanikos demoteles panodurtos dikaiokrites paranaginoskein dusaiaktos poludakrus eukatallaktos prokataskiroun kissophullon siderodesmos laographia hupomastiaios libanoun hupophrikos megalokrator phoberoeides megalomeres charteria mierophagia cheironomia misubris psuchoulkein 4 MACCABEES. haimoboros hieroprepes anamochleuein isopalis aposkuthizein kallipais arthrembolos kerogonia asthenopsuchos malakopsuchein asures xiphephoros autodespotos orophoitein galaktopoiein pathokrateisthai, -tia galaktotrophia paidocharakter eidolothutos pedaliouchein enankalisma prosepikatateinein enaposphragizein sumpatheia epirogologeisthai sunagelazein heptametor philometor eulogistia philostorgia thanatephoros photagogein In the style of the originally Greek books there is little to remind us of the Semitic origin of the writers. The Wisdom of Solomon follows generally the parallelisms of Hebrew poetry, and its language is moulded to some extent by the LXX., of the Psalms and of Proverbs. In 1--4 Maccabees the influence of the canonical books appears in the retention of transliterated names such as Abraam, Israel, Daniel. But Ierousalem, has become Ierosoluma, and Eleazar is usually Eleazaros. Of Hebrew constructions or modes of thought there is only an occasional instance, whilst it is obvious that the writers lose no opportunity of exhibiting their skill in the literary style of contemporary Alexandrian Greek. LITERATURE. F. W. Sturz, De dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina (1808); H. W. J. Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina, libri iii. (1841); Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (1841); F. W. A. Mullach, Gramm. d. Vulgarsprache in historischer Entwicklung (1856); G. v. Zezschwitz, Profangräcität u. hellenist. Sprachgeist (1859); E. Reuss, art. Hellenistisches Idiom (in Herzog-Plitt, vi., 1880); W. Schmid, Der Atticismus . . . von Dionysius v. Halikarnass bis auf d. zw. Philostratus (Stuttgart, 1889--97); K. Meisterhans, Gramm. d. Attischen Inschriften (1881); R. C. Jebb, App. to Vincent and Dickson's Handbook to modern Greek (1881); E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (1889), pp. 1--130; H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek (1895); G. A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien (1895), and Neue Bibelstudien (1897),--also his art., Hellenistisches Griechisch, in Hauck, vii. p. 627 ff. (Leipzig, 1899), where a full bibliography will be found. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck (1820); W. G. Rutherford, The new Phrynichus (1881); Du Cange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis (Lyons, 1688); J. C. Biel, Novus thesaurus philologicus, sive lexicon in LXX. (The Hague, 1779); J. F. Schleusner, Novus thesaurus philologico-criticus . . . V. T. (Leipzig, 1820); E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon for the Roman and Byzantine periods² (1888); H. Anz, Subsidia . . . e Pentateuchi vers. Alex. repetita (in Diss. philolog. Hal. xii. Halle, 1894); J. Viteau, Étude sur le Grec du N.T. comparé avec celui des Septante (Paris, 1896); E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint (1897); Th. Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., i., pp. 24 ff. (1897); Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1892 ff.); Archiv für Papyrusforschung (Leipzig, 1899 ff.); G. A. Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforschung der griech. Bibel, and Die Sprache der griech. Bibel (Th. Rundschau i., p. 463 ff.); A. Thumb, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (Strassburg, 1901). Much information on points of grammar and orthography may also be gleaned from the N.T. grammars--A. Buttmann, Grammatik d. NTlichen Sprachgebrauchs (Berlin, 1859); Winer-Moulton, Treatise on the Greek of the N.T.^8 (1877); Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik d. NTlichen Sprachidioms, Theil i.--ii. (1894--8); F. Blass, Grammatik d. NTlichen Griechisch (1896, or the same translated by H. St J. Thackeray, 1898); A. R. Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar (1897); and from the Introduction and Appendix to Westcott and Hort's N. T. in Greek (Intr., pp. 302--313, App., pp. 148--180). The Gramm. Untersuchungen über die biblische Gräcität of K. H. A. Lipsius is limited to such matters as accentuation, punctuation, and the abbreviations used in Biblical Greek MSS.; but within its own scope it is a serviceable book. __________________________________________________________________ [636] See Fabricius-Harles, vi. p. 193 f. Both writers lived in the time of Augustus. [637] Sturz's treatment of the dialect. of Alexandria and Egypt needs to be checked by more recent researches, but it is still the most complete work upon the subject. Thiersch deals directly with the Greek of the LXX., but he limits himself to the Pentateuch. [638] Bibelstudien (1895), and Neue Bibelstudien (1897). [639] Sources of N. T. Greek (1895). [640] Étude sur le Grec du N.T. (1896). [641] A lexicon was planned in 1895 by a Cambridge Committee, but the work is suspended for the present. There have now appeared, dealing with the Accidence, R. Helbing's Grammatik der Septuaginta, i. Laut- und Wortlehre, Göttingen, 1907; and H. St J. Thackeray's Grammar of the O. T. in Greek, vo1. I. Introd. Orthography and Accidence, Cambridge, 1909. [642] ap. Strab. 797 [643] Mahaffy in Flinders Petrie Papyri, i. p. 42. Cf. Empire of the Ptolemies p. 178 f. [644] As the change of ph into b (Berenike for Pherenike, &c.), cf. Sturz, de dial. Mac., p. 51, n. [645] A list of these words, collected from Hesychius and other lexicographers, may be seen in Sturz, p. 34 ff. [646] From Q. Curtius (De rebus gestis Alexandri M., vi. 9. 36) it appears that the Macedonian and the native Greeks understood one another with difficulty. [647] In the Cunningham Memoirs for 1891, '93, edited by Prof, Mahaffy. [648] In Fayûm Towns and their Papyri (London, 1900), pp. 100--112. Further contemporary illustrations of Alexandrian Greek may be found in Wilcken's Griechische Ostraka (1899). [649] Flinders Petrie Papyri, II. xiii. (p. 33). The reader will notice several LXX. words (dekatarchos = LXX. dekad., dioiketes, chrematizesthai, enechuron). Sometimes these papyri afford illustrations of the LXX. which are not merely verbal; cf. II. xiv. 2 es ta achura pros ten plinthon. [650] Strabo, 794; cf. Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 91 ff. [651] Joseph., ant. xii. 2. Seneca, de tranquil. animae 9. Cf. Susemihl, Gesch. d. griech. Litteratur in d. Alexandrinerzeit, i. 336. [652] See Professor Jebb in Vincent and Dickson's Handbook to modern Greek, p. 290. [653] Mullach, Gramm. d. Vulgarsprache, p. 48. H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 11 ff. [654] See Winer-Moulton, p. 29. [655] Acts vi. 1, xi. 20. [656] Or exoudenoun, other forms being due to mixture; Thackeray, Gr. O. T. p. 105. [657] Kennedy, op. cit., p. 62. Cf. the lists in the appendix to Grimm-Thayer's Lexicon of N. T. Greek (p. 691 ff.). [658] Essays, p. 69. [659] See above, p. 292. [660] oitheis began to yield again to oudeis before the end of the second century B.C., and was obsolete at the date when the earliest extant MSS. of the LXX. were written. It is hence an archaism in them (Thackeray, Gr. O. T. pp. 58 ff.). [661] Cf. Sturz, de dial. Maced., p. 111 ff. [662] See (e.g.) K. Meisterhans, Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften (Berlin, 1885); Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, Marburg, 1897. E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, I. Teil, Leipzig, 1898 (Progr. des Gymn. Heilbronn). [663] Especially in cod. B (O.T. in Greek, I. p. xiii.). [664] See Thackeray, Gr. O. T. pp. 146, 147, "always a vulgarism"; also J. Psichari, Essai sur le grec de la Septante, in Revue des Études Juives, LV. No. 110, p. 164 ff. [665] See, however, Lightfoot on Clem. Rom. i. 34; Thackeray, Gr. O. T., p. 235. [666] Yet see Job iii. 3 ff., xxiv. 18 f., Ps. cviii. (cix.) 14, Isai. xlix. 15, Ps. 1xii. (lxiii.) 6, Prov. xxv. 26, and the exx. quoted on p. 305. [667] I follow mainly the classification of C. W. Votaw in his excellent thesis on the subject (Chicago, 1896). Votaw has shewn that in the translated books of the O. T. there is almost an equal number of cases of the anarthrous and the articular inf., whereas in the N. T. the articular inf. is seldom found except in St Luke. [668] On this head see esp. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 132 ff.; Thiersch, de Pentat. vers. Alex., p. 111 ff.; Thumb, Die griech. Spr. . . . des Hellenismus, pp. 128 ff., 171 ff.: Thackeray, Gr. O. T. p. 25 ff.; Psichari, op. cit., p. 183 ff. [669] See above, p. 39, n. 2. [670] See Psichari, op. cit., p. 179 ff.; S. Menardos, The Value of Byzantine and Modern Greek, Oxford, 1909. [671] Cf. Prof. Jebb in Vincent and Dickson, p 289: "modern Greek has inherited, not only the ancient literature, but also an oral tradition which preceded that literature, which co-existed with it, and which has survived it." [672] Cf. supra, p. 268 f., for some interesting examples from other parts of the book. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER V. THE SEPTUAGINT AS A VERSION. THE purpose of this chapter is to prepare the beginner for grappling with the problems presented by the Septuagint when it is regarded as a translation of the Hebrew Bible. Almost at the outset of his study of the Alexandrian version he will find himself confronted by difficulties which can only be met by a study of the general purpose and character of the work, the limitations by which the translators were beset, and the principles which guided them in the performance of their task. I. The reader of the Septuagint must begin by placing before his mind the conditions under which it was produced, and the relation of the original work to our present texts, Hebrew and Greek. 1. (a) Strictly speaking the Alexandrian Bible is not a single version, but a series of versions produced at various times and by translators whose ideals were not altogether alike. Internal evidence [673] of this fact may be found in the varying standards of excellence which appear in different books or groups of books. The Pentateuch is on the whole a close and serviceable translation; the Psalms [674] and more especially the Book of Isaiah shew obvious signs of incompetence. The translator of Job was perhaps more familiar with Greek pagan literature [675] than with Semitic poetry; the translator of Daniel indulges at times in a Midrashic paraphrase. The version of Judges which appears in our oldest Greek uncial MS. has been suspected by a recent critic [676] of being a work of the 4th century A.D.; the Greek Ecclesiastes savours of the school of Aquila [677] . When we come to details, the evidence in favour of a plurality of translators is no less decisive. A comparison of certain passages which occur in separate contexts distinctly reveals the presence of different hands. The reader can readily form a judgement upon this point if he will place side by side in the Hebrew and the Greek 2 Regn. xxii. 2 ff. and Ps. xvii. (xviii.) 3 ff., 4 Regn. xviii. 17--xx. 19 and Isa. xxxvi. 1--xxxix. 8, or Mic. iv. and Isa. ii. A single specimen may be given from Ps. xvii. compared with 2 Regn. xxiii. Ps. xvii. 3--6. 2 Regn. xxii. 2--6. ^3Kurios stereoma mou kai kataphuge mou kai rhustes mou; ho theos mou boethos kai elpio ep' auton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^4ainon epikalesomai Kurion, kai ek ton echthron mou sothesomai. ^5perieschon me odines thanatou, kai cheimarroi anomias exetaraxan me; ^6odines hadou periekuklosan me, proephthasan me pagides thanatou. ?^7kai en to thlibesthai me epekalesamen ton kurion, kai pros ton theon mou ekekraxa; ekousen ek naou hagiou autou phones mou, kai he krauge mou [enopion autou eiseleusetai] eis ta ota autou. ^2Kurie petra mou kai ochuroma mou kai exairoumenos me emoi; ^3ho theos mou phulax estai mou, pepoithos esomai ep' auto . . . . ^4aineton epikalesomai Kurion, kai ek ton echthron mou sothesomai. ^5hoti perieschon me suntrimmoi thanatou, cheimarroi anomias ethambesan me; ^6odines thanatou ekuklosan me, proephthasan me sklerotetes thanatou. ^7en to thlibesthai me epikalesomai Kurion, kai pros ton theon mou boesomai, kai epakousetai ek naou autou phones mou, kai he krauge mou en tois osin autou. One of these versions has doubtless influenced the other, but that they are the work of separate hands seems to be clear from the differences of method which appear e.g. in the renderings of mtsvdh sl in the first verse, and the use of the aorist and the future in vv. 6, 7. If further proof is needed it may be found in the diverse renderings of the same Hebrew words in different parts of the Canon. This argument must be used with caution, for (as we shall presently see) such diversities are to be found not only in the same book but in the same context. But after making allowance for variations of this kind, there remain abundant instances in which the diversity can only be attributed to a change of hand. Thus plstym is uniformly represented in the Hexateuch by Phulistieim, but in Judges and the later books by allophuloi; psch is phasek or phasech in Chronicles^(18) and Jeremiah^1, but pescha in all other books; 'vrym is delosis or deloi in the Pentateuch, but in Ezra-Nehemiah photizontes, photison; tmym is aletheia in Exodus, but in Ezra teleion; in Isaiah tsv't is sabaoth more than 50 times, whilst pantokrator, which in other books, is the almost uniform rendering of the word when it is used as a title of Deity, does not once occur; qhl is sunagoge in Gen., Exod., Lev., Num., and again in the Prophets, but ekklesia in Deuteronomy (with one exception) and onwards to the end of the historical books. The singular [678] phrase ego eimi = 'nky is limited to Judges, Ruth, and 2--4 Regn.; sun = 't of the object occurs in the true LXX. only in Ecclesiastes; amen is peculiar to Chronicles and Ezra, other books which contain the Heb. word (Num., Deut., 1 Regn., Psalms, Jer.) preferring genoito. Similar results may be obtained from a comparison of the forms assumed by the same proper names in different books. Elijah ('lyhv) is Eleiou in the Books of Kings, but Elias in Malachi and Sirach. The lists in Chronicles use the Hebrew form of Gentile names (Thekoei, Anathothei, &c.), where other books adopt the Greek (Thekoeites, Anathotheites, &c.). In Ezra 'chsvdvs becomes Assoueros, but Artaxerxes is substituted by the translator of Esther, and Xerxes by the LXX. translator of Daniel (ix. 1) [679] . It is difficult to resist the force of this cumulative evidence in support of a plurality of translators, especially when it is confirmed by what we know of the external history of the Septuagint. (b) Further it is clear that the purpose of the version in the later books is not altogether that which the translators of the Pentateuch had in view. The Greek Pentateuch, as we have seen, was intended to supply the wants of the Alexandrian Synagogue. The Book of the Twelve Prophets, and the three major Prophets, were probably translated with the same general purpose, but under a diminished sense of responsibility, since the Prophets, even after their admission to the Canon, were not regarded as sharing the peculiar sanctity of the Law. But the Hagiographa, excepting perhaps the Psalter, stood on a much lower level, and such books as Job, Esther, and Daniel were perhaps viewed by the Alexandrians as national literature [680] which was not yet classical and might be treated with the freedom allowed by custom in such cases to the interpreter and the scribe. Our estimate of the translator's work must clearly take account of his attitude towards the book upon which he is engaged. (c) It is important also to bear in mind the peculiar difficulties which beset the translators in their attempts to render the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. To translate a Semitic book into the language of the West was a new venture when it was undertaken at Alexandria; the Greek Pentateuch "was the work of pioneers and necessarily had the defects of such work [681] ." No wonder if even in the later books the Hebrew idiom refused to lend itself to the forms even of Hellenistic Greek without losing to some extent its identity, as the translator of Sirach complains [682] . Moreover the majority of the translators had probably learnt the sacred language in Egypt from imperfectly instructed teachers, and had few opportunities of making themselves acquainted with the traditional interpretation of obscure words and contexts which guided the Palestinian Jew [683] . The want of a sound tradition is especially manifest in poetical passages and books, and it makes itself felt in the numerous transliterations, and in faulty readings and renderings of the text [684] . Such things may well make the reader smile at the claim of inspiration which was set up for the LXX., but they ought neither to mislead his judgement, nor to lessen his admiration for the courage and the general success of the Alexandrian translators. 2. The student must also endeavour to realise the condition of the Hebrew text which lay before the Alexandrian translators. (a) The text of the Hebrew Bible has undergone no material change since the beginning of the second century A.D. A vast store of various readings has been collected from the MSS. by the diligence of Kennicott and De Rossi, but few among them appear to be more than the omissions or corruptions which spring from the accidents of transcription. All existing MSS. belong to one type of text, and it is, in the main, the type which was known to Jerome, to Origen, and to Aquila, and which is reflected in the Targums and the Talmud. But it is not that which was possessed by the Alexandrians of the third and second centuries, B.C. At some time between the age of the LXX. and that of Aquila a thorough revision of the Hebrew Bible must have taken place, probably under official direction; and the evidence seems to point to the Rabbinical school which had its centre at Jamnia in the years that followed the fall of Jerusalem as the source from which this revision proceeded [685] . The subject, as a whole, will be treated in a later chapter; meanwhile it is sufficient to warn the beginner that in the LXX. he has before him the version of an early text which often differed materially from the text of the printed Hebrew Bible and of all existing Hebrew MSS. (b) The palaeographical character of the MSS. employed by the translators requires consideration. It will be remembered that the newly discovered fragments of Aquila present the Tetragrammaton in archaic letters [686] . These letters belong to the old Semitic alphabet which was common to the Hebrew, Moabite, Aramaic, and Phoenician languages, and which appears on the Moabite stone and in the Siloam inscription and, with some modifications, in MSS. of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and on coins of the Maccabean period. The transition from this ancient character to the square letters [687] which are used in existing Hebrew MSS. and in the printed Bibles must have been practically complete in our Lord's time, since He refers to the yodh as the smallest letter, and to the kereai which are peculiar to the square alphabet (Mt. v. 18). That the change had begun in the MSS. employed by the Alexandrian translators [688] may be gathered from the fact that they repeatedly confuse letters which are similar in the square character but not in the archaic. Professor Driver holds that the alphabet of their MSS. was a transitional one, in which v and v ,y and ch h ,m and m, as well as v and d ,k and r were more or less difficult to distinguish [689] . A few examples may be given from Driver's list. (1) 1 Regn. ii. 29 ophthalmo (yn, for vn ); xii. 3 apokrithete kat' emou (nv vy for yny vv); Ps. xxi. (xxii.) 17 oruxan (k'rv, for k'ry); Isa. xxix. 13 maten de sebontai me (vthv yr'tm 'ty, for vthy yr'tm 'ty). ?(2) 1 Regn. vi. 20 dielthein (lvr, for lmd); Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 25 ton huion autes (vnh for mn')? [690] ; 1 Regn. iv. 10 tagmaton (dgly, for rgly), xxi. 7 Doek ho Suros (d'g h'rmy, for d h'dmy). Another cause of confusion was the scriptio defectiva in the case of v and y where they represent long vowels, e.g. 1 Regn. xii. 8 kai katokisen autous (vysyvm for vysvvm); Ps. v. tit. huper tes kleronomouses ('l hnchlt, for 'l hnchylvt); Job xix. 18 eis ton aiona (lm, for vylym); Jer. vi. 23 hos pur (k's, for k'ys). Abbreviations, also, probably gave rise to misunderstandings; see the instances in Driver, op. cit., pp. lxiii. f., lxx. note 2, and others collected from Jeremiah by Streane, Double Text, p. 20. In the case of numerals errors appear to have arisen from the use of similar letters as numerical signs: e.g. 2 Regn. xxiv. 13 tria ete, 'seven years,' where v has been read for g. Here has the support of the Chronicler (1 Chron. xxi. 12): see König in Hastings' D.B., iii. p. 562. Further, in the MSS. used by the LXX. the words seem not to have been separated by any system of punctuation or spacing. On the Moabite stone [691] and in the Siloam inscription [692] a point has been used for this purpose, but the Phoenician inscriptions are without punctuation, and so were probably the early Biblical rolls. The division adopted by the LXX. is frequently at variance with that of the Massoretic text, and is sometimes preferable to the latter, sometimes inferior; but the differences witness to the absence of divisions in the Hebrew MSS. and the non-employment of the final letters ts ph n m k. Thus Gen. xlix. 19, 20 auton kata podas. Aser . . . = qv 'sr ?( qv m'sr); Deut. xxvi. 5 Surian apebalen = 'rm y'vd ?( 'r#1502;y 'vd); ? 1 Regn. i. 1 en Naseib = vnyv ? ( , vn tsvph); Ps. xliii. (xliv.) 5 ho theos mou ho entellomenos = 'lhy mtsvh ?( , tsvh 'lhym); Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 15 dia ti ephugen apo sou ho Apis = chph mdv nm ?( , mdv nschph); Zech. xi. 7 eis ten Chanaaniten = lknny ?( nyy lkn). Lastly, almost every page of the LXX. yields evidence that the Hebrew text was as yet unpointed. Vocalisation was in fact only traditional until the days of the Massora, and the tradition which is enshrined in the Massoretic points differs, often very widely, from that which was inherited or originated by the Alexandrian translators [693] . A few examples may suffice: Gen. xv. 11 kai sunekathisen autois = vysv 'tm ?( , vysv 'tm); Num. xvi. 5 epeskeptai = bqr ?( , bqr); ?1 Regn. xii. 2 kathesomai = ysvty ?( , vsvty); Nah. iii. 8 merida Ammon = mnt 'mvn ?( , mn' 'mvn) Isa. ix. 8 thanaton (dvr , ? , dvr) apesteilen Kurios epi Iakob. In proper names the differences of the vocalisation are still more frequent and apparent, e.g. Madiam (mdyn); Balaam (blm), Gomorra (mrh), Chodollogomor (kdrlmr), Phasga (psgh), Sampson (smsvn). (c) One other preliminary consideration remains. The student must not leave out of sight the present state of the Greek text. A homogeneous text is not to be found even in the oldest of our uncial MSS., and the greater number of Greek codices are more or less influenced by the Hexapla. The Lucianic text is subject to another vice, the Antiochian passion for fulness, which encouraged the blending or the accumulation of various renderings and thus created doublets [694] . Besides these recensional errors there are the mistakes, itacistic or other, which are incident to the transmission of ancient books. The state of the Greek text has been touched upon already, and will form the subject of a chapter in the third part of this book. Here it is sufficient to notice the presence of mixture and corruption as a factor in the problem which the student of the LXX. must keep in view. II. We are now prepared to deal with those features of the version which are not incidental but characteristic of the translators' principles and methods. 1. The reader of the Alexandrian Greek Bible is continually reminded that he has before him a translation of a Semitic writing. (a) As a whole the version aims at fidelity, and often pursues this aim to the extent of sacrificing the Greek idiom. The first chapter of Genesis will supply instances of extreme literalness, e.g. v. 4 ana meson tou photos kai ana meson tou skotous; v. ?5? egeneto hespera kai egeneto proi, hemera mia; v. 20 herpeta psuchon zoson. As we proceed, we are still conscious of moving in an atmosphere which is Hebrew and not Greek. Hebrew constructions meet us everywhere; such phrases as aphikesthai heos pros tina, parasiopan apo tinos, prostithenai (tou) poiein, lalein en cheiri tinos, echthes kai triten, apo geneon eis geneas (heos geneas kai geneas, eis genean kai genean) may be found in the Prophets and Hagiographa as well as in the Pentateuch. Occasionally the translators set the sense at defiance in their desire to be true to what they conceive to be the meaning of the Hebrew, as when in 1 Regn. i. 26 they render by (deomai) by en emoi. In some books, especially perhaps in the Psalms and in Isaiah, entire sentences are unintelligible from this cause. Even when the Alexandrians have rightly understood their original they have generally been content to render it into Greek with little regard for rhythm or style, or the requirements of the Greek tongue. (b) To the same spirit of loyalty may be ascribed in part the disposition to transliterate words which present unusual difficulty. The number of transliterations other than those of proper names is considerable [695] , and they are to be found in nearly all the translated books. In some cases they are due to misunderstanding, as in Jud. i. 19 Rhechab diesteilato autois where h) vrzl) seems to have been read as hvrzl, and rkv consequently treated as a proper name; in others, the Hebrew form is purposely maintained (e.g. hallelouia, amen). But in the majority of instances transliteration may be taken for a frank confession of ignorance or doubt; it is clearly such, for example, in Jud. viii. 7 en tais abarkenein, 4 Regn. ii. 14 aphpho ('ph hv'), Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.) 40 pantes hasaremoth heos nachal Kedron. As in the first and third of these specimens, the article is often included; and when a proper name is transliterated, the name is sometimes for this reason not easily recognised; thus Ramathaim (1 Regn. i. 1) becomes Armathaim (hrmtym)? [696] . Similarly the h local is taken over in the transliteration, as in Gen. xxxv. 6 eis Louza = lvzh. Sometimes two words are rolled into one, as in Oulammaus = 'vlm lvz (Gen. xxviii. 19) [697] . A doublet is occasionally created by adding a translation to the transliterated Hebrew, e.g. in 1 Regn. vi. 11 , 15, to thema ergab, vii. 4 ta alse Astaroth, xxiii. 14 en Maserem en tois stenois. In the case of a significant proper name, where it is necessary for the reader to be made aware of its meaning, the LXX. sometimes translate without transliterating, e. g. Gen. iii. 20 ekalesen Adam to onoma tes gunaikos autou Zoe (hvh); xi. 9 eklethe to onoma autou Sunchusis (bvl); xiv. 13 apengeilen Abram to perate (hvry). 2. The Alexandrian translators, however, while loyal to their original, sometimes even to a fault, manifest nothing like the slavish adherence to the letter with which Aquila has been charged. They often amplify and occasionally omit; they interpret, qualify or refine; they render the same Hebrew words by more than one Greek equivalent, even in the same context; they introduce metaphors or grammatical constructions which have no place in the Hebrew text and probably at no time had a place there, or they abandon figures of speech where they exist in the original. (a) Slight amplifications, which are probably not to be ascribed to a fuller text, occur frequently in all parts of the LXX.; e.g. the insertion of legon before a quotation, or of pronouns which are not expressed in the Hebrew, or of single words added in order to bring out the sense, as in Gen. xxxiv. 10 idou he ge plateia enantion humon, xl. 17 apo panton ton genematon hon ho basileus Pharao esthiei, Deut. vii. 16 phage panta ta skula ton ethnon (Heb. 'thou shalt eat all the nations'). The translators frequently manifest a desire to supply what the original had omitted or to clear up what was ambiguous: they name the subject or object when the Hebrew leaves it to be understood (Gen. xxix. 9 aute gar ebosken ta probata tou patros autes, Heb. 'fed them'; xxxiv. 14 kai eipan autois Sumeon kai Leui hoi adelphoi Deinas huioi de Leias, Heb. 'and they said unto them'), or they add a clause which seems to follow as a necessary consequence (2 Regn. xii. 21 anestes kai ephages arton kai pepokas: xvi. 10 kai aphete auton kai houtos katarastho = yqll ?(kh q) ?ky, or they make good an aposiopesis (Exod. xxxii. 32 ei men apheis autois ten hamartian auton aphes). Less frequently they insert a whole sentence which is of the nature of a gloss, as in Gen. i. 9 kai sunechthe to hudor to hupokato tou ouranou eis tas sunagogas auton kai ophthe which is merely an expansion of kai egeneto houtos in the terms of the preceding command sunachtheto ktl.; or 1 Regn. i. 5 hoti ouk en aute paidion a reminiscence of v. 2 te Hanna ouk en paidion. On the other hand the LXX. not uncommonly present a shorter text, as compared with M.T., e.g. Gen. xxxi. 21 kai diebe ton potamon (Heb. 'he rose up and passed over'), ib. 31 eipa gar Me pote ktl. (Heb. 'Because I was afraid, for I said . . . '); 1 Regn. i. 9 meta to phagein autous en Selo (Heb. 'after they had eaten in Shiloh and after they had drunk'). (b) The translators frequently interpret words which call for explanation. Hebraisms are converted into Greek phraseology, e.g. bnnkr becomes allogenes (Exod. xii. 43), and bnsnh eniausios (Num. vii. 15); v'ny rl sphtym is rendered by ego de alogos eimi (Exod. vi. 12). A difficult word or phrase is exchanged for one more intelligible to a Greek reader; thus he eremos is used for hngv (Gen. xii. 9); 'Urim and Thummim' become he delosis kai he aletheia (Exod. xxviii. 26); in the Psalms antilemptor is written for mgn (Ps. iii. 4), boethos for tsvr (xvii. = xviii. 3), and glossafor kvvd (Ps. xv. = xvi. 9); similarly in Jer. ii. 23 to poluandrion 'the cemetery' stands for bgy', i.e. the valley of Hinnom [698] . An effort is made to represent Hebrew money by its nearest Greek equivalent; thus for sql we have didrachmon (Gen. xxiii. 15, Deut. xxii. 29, 2 Esdr. xv. 15) as well as siklos, and for grh obolos. Occasionally a whole clause is interpreted rather than translated; e.g. Gen. i. 2, ? he de ge en aoratos kai akataskeuastos, Exod. iii. 14 ego eimi ho on, Ps. xl. (xxxix.) 7 soma de katertiso moi. A dogmatic interest has been detected in some of these paraphrastic renderings, chiefly where the LXX. have endeavoured to avoid the anthropomorphisms of the original; examples are most frequent in the Pentateuch, e.g. Gen. xviii. 25 medamos su poieseis (Heb. 'that be far from thee'); Exod. iv. 16 su de auto ese ta pros ton theon (l'lhym); xxiv. 10 eidon ton topon hou heistekei ho theos tou Israel (Heb. 'they saw the God of Israel,' Aq. eidon ton theon Israel; ib. 11 ton epilekton tou Israel ou diephonesen oude heis; Num. xii. 8 ten doxan (tmnt) Kuriou eiden; Exod. xv. 3 Kurios suntribon polemous ('ys mlchmh); Deut. xiv. 23 ho topos hon an eklexetai Kurios ho theos sou epiklethenai (lskn) to onoma autou ekei; Jos. iv. 24 he dunamis tou kuriou (ydyhvh). Such renderings manifest the same spirit of reverence which led the LXX. to write ho kurios, or the anarthrous Kurios, or not infrequently ho theos for the Tetragrammaton, just as their Palestinian brethren read for it 'dny or 'lhym? [699] . In other places the LXX. appear to be guided by the Jewish Halacha, e.g. Gen. ii. 2 sunetelesen ho theos en te hemera te hekte (hsvyy, Aq. te hebdome); Lev. xxiv. 7 epithesete epi to thema libanon katharon kai hala [700] ; xix. 7 ean de brosei brothe te hemera te trite, athuton estin (Heb. 'an abomination') [701] . Of Haggada also there are clear traces, as in Exod. xii. 40 en ge Aigupto kai en ge Chanaan, 1 Regn. i. 14 eipen aute to paidarion Elei [702] ; v. 6 kai meson tes choras autes anephuesan mues, kai egeneto sunchusis thanatou megale en te polei. (c) The LXX. render the same Hebrew word by more than one Greek equivalent, sometimes even in the same context. In some cases the change appears to be either arbitrary, or due to the desire of avoiding monotony; e.g. in Ps. xxxvi. (xxxvii.) rs is translated by hamartolos in vv. 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 32, 40, but by asebes in vv. 28, 35, 38. In many others it may be ascribed to the circumstance that certain common Hebrew words take a special colouring from the contexts in which they occur, and must be rendered accordingly. Thus ntn, 'give [703] ,' which belongs to this class has received in the LXX. more than 30 different renderings; sometimes it is translated by a paraphrase, e.g. Jos. xiv. 12 aitoumai se (tnh ly) Deut. xxi. 8 hina me genetai ('l ttn); when it is rendered directly, the following Greek verbs (besides didonai and its compounds) are used to represent it: agein, apostellein, apotinein, aphienai, deiknunai, doreisthai, ean, ektithenai, ektinein, ekcheein, elean, emballein, enkataleipein, epairein, epiballein, epitithenai, epicheein, ephistanai, histanai, kataballein, kathistanai, katatassein, kremazein, paratithenai, peritithenai, poiein, proekpherein, prosienai, prostithenai, sterizein, sunagein, pherein. This is a somewhat extreme instance, but a glance at Hatch and Redpath will shew that there are many which do not fall far behind it, and that in the majority of cases the ordinary words of the Hebrew Bible have more than one equivalent in the Greek of the LXX. The Alexandrian translators have evidently made an honest endeavour to distinguish between the several connotations of the Hebrew words. Thus, to take a few examples: qts is variously rendered by akron, arche, klitos, meros, peras, taxis, chronos; among the equivalents of dvr are apokrisis, eperotesis, krima, pragma, tropos, phone; for lv we have not only kardia, psuche, phren, nous, dianoia, stoma, phronesis, but stethos and even sarx; for phqd, apithmein, episkeptesthai, etazein, ekdikein; for tsdqh, dikaiosune, eleemosune, euphrosune. Conversely, the same Greek word often serves for several Hebrew words. Thus diatheke, which is generally the LXX. rendering of bryt, stands also for dvt (Exod. xxvii. 21, (xxxi. 7), tvrh (Dan. ix. 13, LXX.) and even dvr, (Deut. ix. 5); exairein, lutroun, rhuesthai are all used to represent g'l; eidolon appears in different contexts for psl ,tsv ,chmn ,chvl ,bl ,bmh ,'lyl ,'lvh ,'l ?trphym ,sqts ,tslm. Even in the same context, or verse this sometimes occurs. Thus in Gen. i.--iii. ge translates tsphr ,sdh ,'dmh ,'rts; in Exod. xii. 23 vr and phsch are both represented by parerchesthai; in Num. xv. 4 f. thusia is used both for mnchh and zvch. In such cases it is difficult to acquit the translators of carelessness; but they are far less frequent than instances of the opposite kind. On the whole the LXX. even in the Pentateuch shews no poverty of words, and considerable skill in the handling of synonyms. (d) In reference to metaphors the Alexandrians allow themselves some discretion. Thus in Gen. vi. 2 'the sons of God' become hoi angeloi tou theou; in Num. xxiv. 17 'a sceptre (svt) shall rise' is rendered by anastesetai anthropos; in Deut. x. 16 'the foreskin of your heart' is turned euphemistically into ten sklerokardian humon; in Isa. ix. 14 megan kai mikron represents Heb. 'both branch and rush.' Occasionally the translators indulge in paronomasia, without authority from the Heb., e.g. Gen. xxv. 27 oikon oikian = yvsv 'hlym; xxvi. 18 kai eponomasen autois onomata vyqr' lhn smvt; Job xxvii. 12 kena kenois; xxx. 13 exetribesan triboi mou. (e) Lastly, the reader of the Septuagint must expect to find a large number of actual blunders, due in part perhaps to a faulty archetype, but chiefly to the misreading or misunderstanding of the archetype by the translators. Letters or clauses have often been transposed; omissions occur which may be explained by homoioteleuton; still more frequently the translation has suffered through an insufficient knowledge of Hebrew or a failure to grasp the sense of the context. It follows that the student must be constantly on his guard against errors which may easily result from too ready an acceptance of the evidence offered by the Alexandrian version. Taken as a whole, and judged in the light of the circumstances under which it was produced, it is a monument of the piety, the skill, and the knowledge of the Egyptian Jews who lived under the Ptolemies, and it is an invaluable witness to the pre-Christian text of the Old Testament. But whether for textual or for hermeneutical purposes it must be used with caution and reserve, as the experience of the Ancient Church shews. With this subject we shall deal in a future chapter; it is sufficient to note the fact here. III. The beginner, for whose use this chapter is chiefly intended, will now be prepared to open his Septuagint and his Hebrew Bible, and to compare the two in some familiar contexts. The following notes may assist him in a first effort to grapple with the problems which present themselves. GEN. xv. 1--6. 1. Ta rhemata . . . rhema, Heb. dvrym . . . dvr. Legon = l'mr; cf. v. 4, where, as elsewhere, Aq. renders, to legein. Huperaspizo sou, Heb. 'am a shield to thee'; cf. Deut. xxxiii. 29, Prov. ii. 7, al. Ho misthos sou polus. Vulg., A.V., R.V. connect Heb. with the foregoing, supplying v. ?2. Despotes = 'dny, as in v. 8, and not infrequently in Jer. and Dan. (LXX.). Apoluomai ateknos--an interpretation rather than a literal rendering of hvlk ryry? [704] . Huios Masek tes oikogenous mou = vn msq vyty: cf. Hieron. quaest. in Gen. "ubi nos habemus Et filius Masec vernaculae meae, in Hebraeo scriptum est nvn msq vyty, quod Aquila transtulit ho huios tou potizontos oikian mou . . . Theodotio vero kai huios tou epi tes oikias mou." Damaskos Eliezer, a literal rendering of the Heb., leaving the difficulty unsolved. 3. Epeide = hn, and so in xviii. 31, xix. 19; did LXX. read 'm? Oikogenes here = bnhbyt. Kleronomesei me--a Hebraism, = kleronomos mou estai. 4. kaiuthus . . . egeneto = vhnh. Phone = rvr, as in xi. 1, but apparently not elsewhere. hos . . . houtos, 'sr . . . hv'. Ek sou, euphemism for Heb. m?myk, unless the LXX. read mmk. ?5. Pros auton, ^ Heb. 6. Kai episteusen = vy'mn (cf. Haupt ad loc.). Abram ^ to theo = byhvh. Elogisthe . . . eis dik., Heb. 'he counted it . . . for righteousness'; possibly the LXX. read as in Ps. cvi. 31 (M.T.), where they have the same rendering. The N.T. follows LXX. here (Jas. ii. 23, Rom. iv. 3, Gal. iii. 6). EXOD. xix. 16--24. 16. Egeneto de . . . kai egenonto = vyhy. . . vyhy. Genethentos pros orthron = bhyt hbqr. Ep' orous Seina, Heb. 'on the mountain.' Phone, cod. F with pr. kai. 17. Hupo to oros S. (om. S. AF), Heb. 'at the nether part (btchtyt) of the mountain:' 18. dia to katabebekenai, an idiomatic rendering of m?pny'sr yrd. Ton theon = yhvh, cf. 21. Ho kapnos, Heb. 'the smoke of it.' Exeste, Heb. as v. 16 where LXX. renders eptoethe. Ho laos = hm; M.T., hhr. ?19. Probainousai ischuroterai = hvlk vchzq. ?20. Ekalesen . . . Mousen, Heb. lmsh; the l after qr' is dropt in accordance with Greek idiom [705] . 21. Legon, ^ Heb. Engisosin, a softening of the .Heb. 'break forth' (hrs); in the next verse engizein = ngs ni. 22. kai, Heb. 'and also' (vgm), usually kai ge, Aq. kai kaige (Burkitt, Aquila, p. 13). Kurio to theo a double rendering of 'l yhvh. Apallaxe ap' auton: another instance of euphemism: Heb. 'break forth upon them' (Aq. diakopse en autois). 23. Prosanabenai: the double compound occurs six times in Jos. xi.--xix. Aphorisai: the verb is here as in v. 12 the equivalent of gvl hi. 'enclose,' but with the added thought of consecration which is latent in aphorizein, aphorisma, aphorismos (cf. Exod. xxix. 26, Ezech. xx. 40). 24. Apolese, euphemistic, as apallaxe in v. 22; Aq. again, diakopse. NUM. xxiii. 7--10. 7. Parabolee: here for the first time = msl. Lyons Pent., parabula. Mesopotamias, i.e. 'rm nhrym (Gen. xxiv. 10), or 'rm pdn (Gen. xxv. 20): here an interpretation of the simple 'rm . Ap', legon, []Heb. Epikatarasai moi, and katarasomai in v. 8, represent zm, whilst arasai answers to 'rr, and arasomai (v. 8) to nqv, an unusual instance of carelessness or poverty of language on the part of the translator; oreon (v. 9) is equally unfortunate as a rendering of tsrym, while on the other hand opsomai, prosnoeso fairly represent the Heb. Prosnoein renders svr again in Job xx. 9, xxiv. 15. 10. Exaribazesthai (Num.^1, Job^1, Dan. LXX..^1), a late form for exakriboun in LXX. and Jos. To sperma, Heb.'the dust': did LXX. read zr, or have they glossed phr? Kai tis exarithmesetai, reading vmy ysphr. Demous Israel, Heb. 'the fourth part of Israel' (Aq. tou teturtou I.). He psuche mou, as Heb., whilst the next word is sacrificed to an alliteration (psuche, psuchais). To sperma mou is a gloss on 'chryty (cf. Brown, Heb. and Eng. Lex., p. 31); hos to sperma touton, Heb. 'as he.' This passage illustrates both the greater freedom which the Greek translators allowed themselves in poetical contexts, and their comparative incompetence to deal with them. DEUT. vi. 1--9. 1. Hautai hai entolai, Heb. 'this is the commandment.' Ho theos hemon, Heb. 'your God.' Houtos ^ Heb. Eisporeuesthe, Heb. 'go over'; the Greek has lost the local reference, as in iv. 14, 4 Regn. iv. 8. 2. Hina phobesthe . . . humon, Heb. 2nd pers. sing. Semeron, ^ . Hoi huioi ktl., Heb. 'thy son and thy son's son.' Hina makroemereusete, Heb. 'and that thy days may be prolonged'; makroemereuein (makroemeros ginesthai) represents this or a similar phrase in iv. 40, v. 30, xi. 9, 21, xxxii. 47; makrochronios, makrochronizein also occur in iv. 40, v. 16, xvii. 20, xxxii. 27. The group is not found elsewhere in the LXX. except in Exod.^1, Jud.^1, and in Sirach. 3. Dounai ^ M.T.; perhaps added to complete the sense of the Greek; yet see v. 10 (ltt lk). ?4. Kai tauta . . . Aiguptou ^ Heb; perhaps repeated from iv. 45 to form an introduction to Akoue ktl.. 5. Dianoias . . . psuches . . . dunameos. The readings vary; for dianoias AF Luc. read kardias, and the text of B is here super rasuram; for dunameos some texts give ischuos. The N.T. citations (Mt. xxii. 37 = Mc. xii. 29 ff., Lc. x. 27) present much diversity, giving both renderings of lvvk and both of m'dk; cf. Dittmar, V. T. in Novo, p. 50 f. 6. kai en te psuche sou, ^ Heb.; for 'in thy heart' Heb. has 'upon,' "as it were imprinted there (Jer. xxxi. 33) [706] ." 7. Probibaseis, Heb. 'shalt impress them upon'; Aq. deueeroseis, as if the root were snh. En autois = bm. Kathemenos ktl., Heb. 'in thy sitting &c.'; en oiko, en hodo are inexact, Heb. 'in thy house,' 'in the way.' 8. Asaleuton (F, asaleuta) = lttpht, 'for frontlets,' circlets or tires for the head: Lyons Pent. (reading saleuta), mobilia. Asaleuton occurs in the same phrase in Exod. xiii. 16, Deut. xi. 18. Aq. seems to have rendered the Heb. here and in Exod. by nakta, i.e. 'compressed,' 'tight,' which Field (Hexapla, i. 103) explains as the "thecas in quas schedulae membraneae . . . inferciebantur." The LXX. rendering may be an Alexandrian name for the phulakterion, but the whole subject is obscure. 9. Phlias = mzzvt, as in Exod. xii. 7 ff. JOS. x. 12--14. 12. He hemera paredoken . . . hupocheirion--idiomatic rendering of byvm tt . . . lphny. The words that follow (henika . . . Israel) seem to be a gloss derived from v. 10. Kai eipen Iesous, Heb. 'and he said in the eyes of Israel.' Steto, Heb. 'be still.' Gabaon, 'Gibeon.' Ailon. 'Aijalon' ('ylvn); Cf. 2 Chron. xi. 10 A, Aialon. 13. En stasei = md, which is thus distinguished from the verb represented by este. Ho theos, Heb. gvy, Aq. to ethnos. Unless a primary error is to be suspected here, the LXX. has glossed its original, from motives of piety. After the stanza inserts a reference to the Book of Jashar, which is wanting in non-Hexaplaric texts of the LXX.; cod. G adds, ouchi touto gegrammenon epi bibliou tou euthous . Ou proeporeueto ktl., a loose rendering of Heb. l' 'ts lvv' k?yvm tmym. ?14. Emera toiaute oude to proteron oude to eschaton, a good example of a conscientious compromise between idiomatic and literal modes of rendering (cf. Heb.). Anthropou, bqvl 'ys. Sunepolemesen to I., Heb. 'fought for Israel.' JUD. v. 28--30 [707] . 28. ^B here omits the difficult word vtyvv ( ^A, kai katemanthanen). ektos tou toxikou, 'forth from the loophole'; cf. Symm. in Ezek. xl. 16 thurides toxikai: ^A dia tes diktuotes, 'through the lattice' (cf. 4 Regn. i. 2, Ezek. xli. 16). Epiblepousa . . . Sisara in A appears to be a supplementary gloss. Heschunthe (B) confuses vss pOlel with vvs kal; the general sense of the former is given by eschatisen A. For eschatizein cf. 1 Macc. v. 53; has it been suggested here by its similarity to the word used in B? Podes: A more literally ichne, but pous represents pm elsewhere, e.g. Ps. lvi. (lvii.) 6, Prov. xxix. 5. 29. Hai sophai archousai: A, again aiming at a literal rendering, ?sophai archouson. On the other hand B's apestrepsen logous autes heaute is close and yet idiomatic, while A's apekrinato en rhemasin autes goes too far afield; the latter appears to be a Hexaplaric correction (Field, ad loc.). 30. Ouch heuresousin auton diamerizonta skula; so ^BA; Heb. 'are they not finding, [are they not] dividing booty?' LXX. seem to have read mchlq for ychlqv. Oikteirmon oikteiresei B, philiazon philois A; both, while labouring to keep up the alliteration of the Heb., miss its point through ignorance of a rare use of rchm? [708] ; for philiazein cf. xiv. 20 B, 2 Chron. xix. 2. 2. Poikilton (A, poikilon) misses the dual 'embroidery on both sides' (R. V.), or 'a couple of pieces,' "precisely as rchmtym above" (Moore). Bathe in A seems to be an error for baphe, which is found in several cursives; see Field, ad loc., and Lagarde's Lucian. To trachelo autou skula = apparently ltsv'ryv sll; M.T. 'for the necks of the spoil.' ^A substitutes the usual anatole for the spirited and literal rendering of B (cf. Ps. xviii. = xix. 7), and appears to have read vgvrtyv; cf. Ps. xix. (xx.) 7. This passage is a severe test of the translator's knowledge and skill, and shews him perhaps at his worst. 1 REGN. xvii. 37--43. 37. begins vy'mr dvd, A, Luc. kai eipen D. Ek cheiros tou leontos . . . tes arkou, an exact rendering; cf. Gen. ix. 5 ek cheiros panton ton therion. Luc., Th., ek stomatos tou l. kai ek cheiros tes arkou. Tou aperitmetou, repeated from v. 36 (^ ). 38. manduan (Jud. iii. 16, 2 Regn. x. 4): + autou, A, with . Perikephalaian ch peri ten kephalen autou: Luc. (A), with , p. ch. epetheken epi ktl., adding, kai enedusen auto thoraka. 39. Ezosen ton Daueid sc. Saoul (cf. v. 38); Luc., A, follow Heb. in making David the object of the verb ezosato Daueid). Ekopiasen peripatesas (A, peripatesai) hapax kai dis, 'more than once he wearied himself with walking (strove to walk) in them,' reading vyl', as in Gen. xix. 11 vyl'v LXX. pareluthesan (Wellhausen, Driver, H. P. Smith). Hapax kai dis occurs also in Deut. ix. 13 (where, as here, there is nothing in the Heb. to correspond), and in Neh. xiii. 20, where it represents pm vstym. Aphairousin auta ap' autou, reading the verb probably as vysrm, and omitting dvd. ?40. Lithous teleious in B is obviously wrong, and A scarcely mends matters by omitting the adjective. Correct, with Lucian, lithous leious. En to kadio to poimeniko: kadion = kadiskos, here only in LXX., and perhaps unknown elsewhere: poimenikos (hrym) again in Zach. xi. 15. Eis sullogen apparently for lylqvt ?( vvylqvt, Aq. kai en analekterio). 41 is wanting in ^B, and probably belongs to the same recension of the story which has supplied the great gaps vv. 12--31, 55--xviii. 5. 42. Heb. 'looked and saw'; so A, Luc. Kurrakes; cf. xvi. 12, Gen. xxv. 25. 43. Hosei, added by the translators to soften the opprobrious kuon. En rhabdo kai lithois, 'in (with) staves'; kai lithois is probably intended to make the question correspond to the statement of v. 40. The next words in the LXX. kai eipen Daueid Ouchi, all' e cheiro[n] kunos are evidently of the same character--a "singularly vapid reply" (Driver). 4 REGN. ii. 11--18. 11. Auton poreuomenon eporeuonto kai elaloun--an interesting attempt to combine Greek idiom with some reminiscence of the Heb. phrase; Lucian abandons the Heb., and corrects, auton poreuomenon kai lalounton. Hippos puros, Heb. 'horses of fire'; cf. hippeus, Heb. 'horsemen,' v. 12. Ana meson (byv), cf. Gen. i. 7 diechorisen . . . ana meson. Anelemphthe, Heb. 'went up'; the Greek verb is apparently repeated from vv. 9, 10, where it = lqch. >From this passage it has been borrowed by the translator of Sirach (xlviii. 9, 14, xlix. 14, B), and by two writers in the N.T. (1, Acts i. 2, 11); on its symbolical use see the writer's Apostles' Creed, p. 70 f. Hos, ^ Heb.; cf. 1 Regn. xvii. 43 (above). 12. Pater pater, Heb. 'my father' bis. Dierrexen . . .rhegmata, after the Heb.: Lucian omits the noun, probably because of the harshness of the assonance. 13. Kai hupsosen = vyrm; Luc., kai aneilato. Meloten, 'sheepskin,' an interpretation of 'drt (Vulg. pallium ) wherever it is used of Elijah's characteristic raiment (3 Regn. xix. 13, 19, 4 Regn. ii. 8 ff.); cf. Heb. xi. 37 perielthon en melotais. Epanothen, sc. autou (Heb., Luc.). Eleisaie, ^ Heb.; kai epestrepsen Eleisaie is Hexaplaric, and wanting in B*, but supplied by B^abA Luc. 14. Ho theos, yhvh 'lhy. Aphpho, a transliteration answering to 'ph hv' ( ); in x. 10 the same form = 'phv', which was perhaps the reading before the LXX. in this place. Aq. kaiper autos, but Symm. kai nun, whence Jerome etiam nunc . 15. kai hoi en Iereicho: ^ kai A Luc. with . 16. ys is not represented by ^AB; Luc. adds eisi. Huioi dunameos, bnychyl. En to Iordane, Eleisaie, ^ Heb., Luc. 18. In A Luc. Aq. Th. the verse begins 'And they returned to him'; cf. v. 13. PS. cix. (cx.) 1--4. 1. [Ho] kurios to kurio mou, yhvh l'dny. Ek dexion, lymyny; in v. 5 the same Gr. is used for l ymyny. Hupopodion ton podon sou: hupokato is the reading of the best authorities in Mt. xxii. 44, Mc. xii. 36, but hupop. keeps its place in Lc.^ev. act., Hebrews. 2. kai katakurieue = vrdh apparently. 3. Meta sou, mk ?( , mk). He arche seems to point to a reading ndyvh or ndyvt (cf. Job xxx. 15, Isa. xxxii. 8); ton hagion (sou) = qdsym) qdsyk); Symm. en oresin (vhrry for vhdry) hagiois. Ek gastros pro heosphorou egennesa se, though not quoted in the N.T., had an important place in post-apostolic Christian teaching from Justin onwards (cf. Justin, Tryph. cc. 63, 76, 83; Tert. adv. Marc. v. 9; Cypr. test. 17, ep. 63); in the Arian age it was commonly cited on the Catholic side--see e.g. Cyril. Hierus., catech. vii. 2, xi. 5; Athan. or. c. Arian. iv. 27 sq.; de decr. 3, &c.; Hilar. de trin. vi. 16, xii. 8. The O.L. seems to have rendered uniformly ex utero ante luciferum genui te, with the variant generavi in Tert. l.c.; Jerome's 'Hebrew' Psalter reads with quasi de vulva orietur tibi ros adolescentiae. The LXX. appear to have read their Heb. text as mrchm mschr yldtyk, perhaps dropping lktl as unintelligible. 4. Kata ten taxin, l dvrty Aq. Symm. kata logon. Cf. Heb. v. 6 ff., vii. 11, 15 (kata ten homoioteta). The translator probably had before him the LXX. of Gen. xiv. 18; he transliterates the unique name mlkytsdq in the same way. PROV. viii. 22--25, 30--31. 22. Ektisen me. So ^'BA etc. O.L. ( condidit, creavit ); codd. 23 = V, 252, with Aq. Symm. Th. Vulg. ( possedit ), give ektesato--both possible meanings of qnh. The former rendering supplied the Arians with one of their stock arguments (cf. Athan. or. c. Arian. ii. 44 sqq.). Eis erga autou, a loose and partial translation, probably a confession of inability to understand the Heb.; Th. pro tes ergasias apo tote. 23. Ethemeliosen me, reading apparently ysdny where has nskty; cf. Ps. lxxvii. (lxxviii.) 69. Pro tou ten gen poiesai, a poor rendering of Heb., probably adopted to bring this clause into line with v. 24 with which the LXX. seem to have connected it. 24. LXX. overlook chvllty and nkvdy, unless they intend to convey the general sense by poiesai and proelthein. 25. Panton, ^ 'I was brought forth.' 30. harmozousa = 'mvn, the word being referred by the translator to 'mn; similarly Symm. Th., esterigmene. He prosechairen implies the reading yvm yvm ;ssvyv is connected by LXX. with the next clause. 31. Hote . . . suntelesas: Heb. 'rejoicing in the world of his earth.' LXX. seem to have read mschq vtklyt, as Lagarde suggests; had tvl stood in their text, oikoumene would have been ready at hand as a rendering (cf. 2 Regn. xxii. 16, Ps. ix. 9, &c.). Euphraineto, reading ssyv. Huioi anthropon = bny 'dm; cf. huious Adam, Deut. xxxii. 8; b 'dm is translated by this phrase in Ps. x. (xi.) 4, and repeatedly in the poetical books. JOB xix. 23--27. 23. Tis gar an doe; See above p. 308; the phrase is repeated in the Hebrew, but the translator contents himself with using it once. 'phv is ignored; its usual equivalent in the LXX., is nun or oun, unless it is transliterated (p. 324). Eis ton aiona seems to represent ld, which in belongs to the next verse; Th. translates it eis marturion, reading the word as ld. ?24. B* omits en petrais engluphenai which appears to be necessary to the sense; in supplying it B^ab'A prefix e, a manifest gloss. 25. Aenaos estin ho ekluein me mellon, a paraphrase of Heb. 'my Goel lives'; aenaos in the LXX. elsewhere = lm, and g'l is anchisteus (Ruth iii. 9, etc.), or lutrotes (Ps. xviii. 14, lxxvii. 35). 25--26. Epi ges anastesai or anastesei appears to correspond with l phr ?(yqvm (yqym, and to derma mou to anantloun tauta with vry nqphv z't. ^A points to lchyvt vry mklkl z't (Siegfried in Haupt ad loc.). But the translator perhaps interprets his text in the light of the doctrine of the Resurrection, which was accepted from Maccabean times (cf. Job xlii. 17^a, and see Dan. xii. 2, 2 Macc. vii. 14, xii. 43); as cited by Clem. R. 1 Cor. 26 (anasteseis ten sarka mou tauten ten anantlesasan tauta panta), the words are brought into still nearer agreement with the faith of the Church; see Apostles' Creed, p. 89 f. Para gar Kuriou . . . sunetelesthe corresponds in position with words which divides and points as vm?bsry 'chzh 'lvh, but seems to be partly borrowed from the next verse. ^A suggests ?vm'lvh nsv ly 'lh (Siegfried). 27. Panta de moi suntetelestai; , klv klyty. MICAH v. 1 (iv. 14)--4 (3). 1. Emphrachthesetai thugater emphragmo, i.e. ttgdry vt gdr. Tas phulas tou Israel: LXX. read svty ysr'l for spht y. ?2. Bethleem oikos tou Ephratha: did LXX. read ?bytlchm byt 'phrth? Oligostos ei tou einai 'art little to be,' as Heb. The passage is quoted in Mt. ii. 6 in a Greek paraphrase [709] which substitutes oudamos elachiste for 'little to be,' and tois hegemosin ('lphy) for 'thousands' ('lphy). ?3. Heos kairou tiktouses texetai, apparently for heos kairou hou tiktousa texetai or he. k. tiktouses hote texetai. 4. Kai opsetai, to poimnion autou were obelised in Hex. and find no place in ; the former has perhaps originated in a misreading of vrh as vr'h, so that kai ops. kai poimanei is in fact a doublet. Kurios, subject; Heb. 'in the strength of J.,' the subject being the same as in v. 1. Huparxousin, vysvv; the LXX. read ysvv, connecting the verb with the previous words; for ysv = huparchein cf. Ps. liv. (lv.) 20 ho huparchon pro ton aionon. JEREM. xxxviii. 31--37 (xxxi. 30--36). Vv. 31--34 are cited in Heb. viii. 8--12, q.v. 31. Diathesomai, in Hebrews sunteleso, cf. Jer. xli. (xxxiv.) 8 suntelesai (krt) diatheken, and ib. 15. To oiko bis, in Hebrews epi ton oikon. 32. Diethemen, in Hebrews epoiesa: the writer appears to dislike the repeated alliteration in diatithesthai diatheken. En hemera epilabomenou mou, for the more usual tou epilabesthai me or hote (he) epelabomen. Hoti ouk enemeinan en . . . Heb. 'which . . . they broke'; emelesa auton, reading glty for vlty. ?33. he diatheke mou, Heb. 'the covenant' Didous doso, a Hebraism not represented in ; in Hebrews didous appears without doso, and so AQ in Jer. Eis ten dianoian auton, Heb. 'in their inward parts.' 34. vd 1° has no equivalent in the Greek; ton politen autou, Heb. 'his neighbours' (cf. Prov. xi. 9. 12, xxiv. 43 = 28), reminds us that we are dealing The paraphrastic character of the reference appears more distinctly in the second stanza ek sou . . . Israel, which blends Mic. v. 1^b, 3^a. It will be observed that cod. A reads hegoumenos with Mt. with an Alexandrian version. Apo . . . heos, l . . . vd; adikiais . . . hamartion, 'iniquity,' 'sin.' 35--37. In 36, 37 precede 35. 35. Phesin Kurios, Heb. 'thus saith J.' (at the beg. of the verse). Hupsothe, reading yrvmv for ymrv; tapeinothe, Heb. 'be searched.' Ouk apodokimo: apod. is a contracted future (cf. p. 305); ouk is inserted, because the drift of the verse has been misunderstood (cf. Streane, p. 156 f.). To genos Israel, Heb. 'all the seed of I.'; genos = zr again in v. 37. 36. Selenen, , 'the ordinances of the moon' (but cf. hchqym in v. 35, Heb.). Kraugen, reading perhaps rgs or rgz for rg. ?37. Kurios Pantokrator = ?yhvh tsv'vt, as almost invariably in the Prophets [710] from Hosea xii. 5 (6) onwards, with the exception of Isaiah, who transliterates tsv'vt (Kurios sabaoth, Isa. i. 9, a1). See Thackeray, J. Th. St. IV. p. 245 ff.; this passage is from his "Jer. b." DAN. xii. 1--4. 1. Choran (LXX.), probably a corruption for horan (cf. Bevan, p. 48); pareleusetai (LXX.), reading yvr for ymd (anastesetai, Th.). Ho angelos (LXX.), a gloss; Th. literally, ho archon. Epi tous huious (LXX., Th.), . . . l bny. Ekeine he hemera, LXX., estai kairos Th.; Th. is again more literal than LXX. Thlipsis hoia ou gegonen (cf. Mt. xxiv. 21, Mc. xiii. 19). Th. repeats the subject with the view of preventing ambiguity; in the sequel LXX. (as handed down to us) overlook gvy, while Th. adds en te ge or epi tes ges. Hupsothesetai LXX.; Bevan suggests a corruption for eksothesetai or some other compound of sothesetai; but hups. may be a gloss upon the tamer word which stood in the original. Th. rightly, sothesetai. Hos an heurethe, hnmts'--overlooked by Th., unless we accept the reading of AQ, ho heuretheis [ho] gegrammenos. 2. en to platei tes ges, LXX.; en ges chomati Th., Heb. 'in the ground of dust' (but see Bevan, p. 201 f.). Diasporan kai aischunen, LXX.; diasp. is perhaps a gloss on aisch.; for the word see Deut. xxviii. 25. 3. Hoi phosteres tou ouranou, LXX. a reminiscence of Gen. i. 14 (LXX.); cf. Sap. xiii. 2. hoi katischuontes tous logous LXX., reading mchzyqy dvrym for mtsdyqyhrbym; Th. translates mhtsdyqym hrbym. Ta astra tou ouranou (LXX.), the ordinary Biblical phrase, used in iii. 36, 63; Heb., Th. have 'the stars.' 4. Apomanosin (LXX.), didachthosin (Th.). Both senses have been found in the Heb.; cf. Bevan, ad loc. Plesthe he ge adikias LXX., reading rh or rt for dt. The student who has gone through these extracts, or who is able to dispense with help of this kind, is recommended to begin the careful study of some one book or group of books. For several reasons the Books of Samuel (1--2 Regn.) offer a promising field for work of this kind. They are on the whole the part of the Old Testament in which the value of the Septuagint is most manifest and most generally recognised [711] , and invaluable help in the study of both the Hebrew text and the versions is at hand in the commentaries of Wellhausen, Driver, and H. P. Smith [712] . But whatever book may be selected, the method and the aims of the reader will be the same. He will read the Greek in the first place as a version, and he will use all the means at his disposal for ascertaining the original text which lay behind it. But he will read it also as a monument of early Hellenistic Greek, and mark with growing interest its use of words and phrases which, originating at Alexandria in connexion with the work of translating the Hebrew Scriptures, eventually became the vehicle of a fuller revelation in the writings of the Apostolic age. LITERATURE on the general subject of this chapter: Pearsoni praefatio paraenetica (Cambridge, 1665; cum notulis E. Churton, 1865); Hody, De Bibl. textibus originalibus (Oxford, 1705); Dr T. Brett, A Letter showing why our English Bibles differ from the Septuagint, London, 1743 (dated Oct. 17, 1729); A Dissertation on the Ancient Versions of the Bible, London, 1760; Thiersch, De Pent. vers. Alexandrina (Erlangen, 1841); Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841); Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alex. Hermeneutik, 1857; Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 73 ff. (Berlin, 1875--8); Selwyn, art. Septuagint in Smith's D. B. ii. (London, 1863); Wellhausen, do. in Encyclopaedia Britannica (London, 1886); W. R. Smith, Old Testament in Jewish Church (1881, ed. 2, 1892); Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford, 1889); Driver, Notes on the Books of Samuel, Intr. (Oxford, 1890; second ed., 1913); Buhl, Kanon u. Text des O. T. (Leipzig, 1891); Nestle, Marginalien (Tübingen, 1893); Streane, Double Text of Jeremiah (Cambridge, 1896); Kirkpatrick in Expositor, April 1896: Redpath in A. J. Th. VII. (1903); the various Introductions to the Old Testament; Commentaries on particular books, esp. those of Dillmann and Spurrell (Genesis), Driver (Deuteronomy), Moore (Judges), Wellhausen, Driver, and H. P. Smith (Samuel), Burney (Kings), Mozley (Psalter), Toy (Proverbs), Ryssel (Micah), Oesterley (Amos), Ottley (Isaiah), Cornill (Ezekiel). A complete commentary on the LXX., or on any of the groups of books which compose it, is still a desideratum. On the Semitic style of the LXX. the reader may consult the Eisagoge of Adrianus (Migne, P. G. xcviii. or ed. F. Gössling). __________________________________________________________________ [673] The external evidence has been briefly stated in Part i. c. i. (p. 23 ff.). [674] Cf. R. Sinker, Some remarks on the LXX. Version of the Psalms, p. 9 ff. [675] Cf. e.g. Job ix. 9, xlii. 14; from the latter passage Theodore of Mopsuestia argued the pagan origin of the book (D. C. B. iv. p. 939). [676] Moore, Judges, p. xlvi. [677] According to McNeile (Introd. to Ecclesiastes) it is the earlier edition of Aquila's version; cf. Thackeray, Gr. 0. T. pp. 13, 60. [678] On Job xxxiii. 31 see Thackeray, Gramm. O. T. p. 55. [679] Theod. has Aphphouerou in Daniel. [680] Cf. prol. to Sirach: ton allon patrion biblion. [681] A. F. Kirkpatrick in Expositor, v. iii. p. 268. Cf. W. R. Smith, O. T. in Jewish Ch., pp. 75 f. [682] Prol. ou gar isodunamei ktl. [683] Even in Palestine "before the Christian era . . . the exegetical tradition was still in a rudimentary stage" (Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, p. 69). [684] Dr Nestle points out that the mistakes of the LXX. are sometimes due to Aramaic or Arabic colloquialisms, and gives the following examples: Aramaic: Num. xxiv. 7 exeleusetai. Ps. cxl. 4 prophasizesthai. Hos. ii. 23 (25) egapemenen, vi. 5 apetherisa. Isa. iv. 2 epilampsei, liii 10 katharisai. Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.) 13 charesontai. Arabic: Ps. lxxxiii. 7 dosei. Dan. vii. 22 (LXX.) edothe. [685] See W. R. Smith, O. T. in J. Church, pp. 56 f.; Driver, Samuel, p. xxxix.; Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of the O. T., p. 64. Among the Rabbis of Jamnia were Eleazar, Joshua, and Akiba, the reputed teachers of Aquila; see Edersheim-White, History of the Jewish Nation, pp. 132 ff., 174 f. [686] See pp. 39 f. [687] ktv mrb, or, as the Talmud calls it, k 'svryt; see Driver, Samuel, pp. ix. ff. [688] Except perhaps those which lay before the translators of the Pentateuch; see Driver, l.c. [689] A specimen of such a script, but of much later date, may be seen in Driver, op. cit., p. lxv. [690] Cf. Streane ad loc. and on Jer. xx. 17. [691] See Driver, op. cit., p. lxxxvi., or Hastings' D.B. iii. art. Moab. [692] Driver, op. cit., p. xv. [693] Jerome in the last years of the 4th century knows nothing of a system of vowel points; see Nowack, Die Bedeutung des Hieronymus für die ATliche Textkritik (Göttingen, 1875). [694] Cf. Driver, op. cit., p. lviii. [695] Thus Hatch and Redpath take note of 39 transliterations, exclusive of proper names, under A alone. They are thus distributed: Pentateuch, 4; Histories, 26; Psalms &c., 3; Prophets, 6. The principles by which the LXX. appear to have been guided in these transliterations of Hebrew consonants and vowel-sounds are expounded by Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 107 ff. [696] Unless the a is here prothetic, which is however less probable. [697] Cf. Hieron. Quaest. hebr. p. 44 (ed. Lagarde), De situ et nom. pp. 106, 158. Pearson (Praef. paraen. p. 6) endeavours to defend the LXX. even here. [698] Similarly in Prov. xxii. 10, where the LXX. read vysv vt dyn, the last two words are rendered en sunedrio. [699] See W. R. Smith, O. T. in J. Church, p. 77. Aquila, as we gather from Origen and now know from his published fragments (p. 39 f.), wrote the word in archaic Hebrew characters, which however were read as Kurios. [700] "Because salt as well as frankincense was used in the actual ritual of their period" (W. R. Smith, op. cit., p. 77). [701] On xxiii. 11 see p. 17. [702] "An evident attempt to shield the priest from the charge of harshness" (II. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 10). [703] The example is suggested by Dr Hatch (Essays, p 18), who gives many of the passages at length. The index Hebraeus at the end of Trommius will enable the student to add other instances (besides didonai and its compounds). [704] Philo has apeleusokai (see below). [705] Or, as Dr Nestle, suggests, it may have been taken as introducing the acc., as in later Hebrew or in Aramaic. [706] Driver, ad loc. [707] In this passage the text of B in O.T. in Greek, i. 489, should be compared with that of A (ed. Brooke and McLean) [708] "Of the versions only [Vulg.] comes near the true sense" (Moore). Jerome renders pulcherrima feminarum. [709] The paraphrastic character of the reference appears more distinctly in the second stanza ek sou . . . Israel, which blends Mic. v. 1^b, 3^a. It will be observed that cod. A reads hegoumenos with Mt. [710] Zech. xiii. 2, Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 10 are the only exceptions, and in both cases the MSS. are divided. [711] W. R. Smith, O. T. in J. Church, p. 83. [712] If the student prefers to begin with Genesis, he will learn much as to the LXX. version from Spurrell's Notes (ed. 2, 1898). For more advanced study Proverbs will form a suitable subject, and here he may seek help from Lagarde's Anmerkungen, and Professor Toy's commentary in the 'International Critical' series. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER VI. TEXT-DIVISIONS: STICHI, CHAPTERS, LECTIONS, CATENAE. THE Greek Old Testament, as it appears in the editions of the last three centuries, is divided into chapters and verses which correspond generally with those of the printed Hebrew Bible. The traditional text-divisions of the Hebrew and the Greek Bible are not, absolutely identical. Besides the more serious differences described in Part II. c. i., it not unfrequently happens that a Greek chapter is longer or shorter than the corresponding chapter of the Hebrew by a verse or more, and that as a consequence there are two systems of verse-numeration throughout the succeeding chapter [713] . A system of verse-division [714] is mentioned in the Mishnah (Meg. 4. 4, Kidd. 30. 1). The Massorets noted the number of verses (psvqym) at the end of each book and portion of the canon; thus Deuteronomy is stated to consist of 955 pesukim, and the entire Torah of 5888. Of chapter-divisions in the Hebrew Bible there are three kinds. (a) There is a pre-Talmudic division of the canon into sections known as phrsyvt. The parashahs are of two kinds, open and closed, i.e. paragraphs, which begin a new line, and sub-paragraphs [715] , which are preceded only by a space. They are still registered in the printed Bibles by the ph (for ptvchh, 'open') and s (for stvmh, 'closed') which occur at intervals throughout the Torah [716] . (b) A second system of parashahs breaks up the text into longer sections for the use of the synagogue. The Law was divided into 54 Sabbath lessons according to the Babylonian tradition, but into 154 according to the tradition of Palestine. With few exceptions [717] the beginning of a lesson coincides with that of an open or closed parashah; the coincidence is marked in the Torah by a thrice repeated ph or s. The Prophets were similarly divided for synagogue reading, but the prophetic lections were known as haphtaroth (hphtrvt) and were not, like the liturgical parashahs, distinguished by signs inserted in the text. (c) Lastly, the printed Hebrew Bibles are divided into chapters nearly identical with those of the English versions. This system of capitulation is relatively modern, and was applied first to the Latin Vulgate in the thirteenth century, probably by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury ( 1228) [718] . It was adapted to the Hebrew Bible in R. Isaac Nathan's Concordance, a work of the fifteenth century, in which use was also made of the older division into verses or pesukim. Of printed editions the Bomberg Hebrew Bible of 1521 was the first to employ the mediaeval system of chapters; the verse-division found a place in the Latin version of Pagnini (1528), and the Latin Vulgate of Robert Stephen (1555), and finally in the Hebrew Bible of Athias (1661). Both chapters and verses were applied to the text of the Septuagint before the sixteenth century; the capitulation appeared in the Complutensian Polyglott and in the Aldine edition of 1518, and the verse-numeration in the Frankfort edition of the Aldine text [719] . Neither the verses nor the chapters of the existing text-division occur in MSS. of the Greek Old Testament, except in relatively later copies [720] , or in older MSS. where the numerals have been supplied by a recent hand. But the student who examines MSS. of the LXX. or their facsimiles finds himself confronted by other systems which are both interesting and in some respects important. To these the present chapter will be devoted. 1. We begin with the shorter divisions, known as stichoi, kola, or kommata. (a) Stichos, Lat. versus, is properly a series of objects placed in a row. The word is used in the LXX. of the stones in the High Priest's breastplate (stichos lithon, Exod. xxviii. 17 ff.), the pomegranates wrought upon the capitals of the pillars in the Temple (stichoi rhoon, 3 Regn. vii. 6), and the rows of cedar wood shafts (trion stichon stulon kedrinon, ib. 9). When applied to the art of writing, the word signifies a continuous line of letters or syllables. The extent of an author's literary work was measured by the stichi he had written; cf. e.g. Diogenes Laertius iv. 24, Krantor katelipen hupomnemata eis muriadas stichon treis: Dionysius Halicarn. vi. 1126 pente e hex muriadas stichon tou andros (sc. Demosthenous) kataleloipotos. The 'line' might be measured in various ways, as by the limits imposed upon the scribe by the breadth of his papyrus, or in the case of poetry by the number of feet in the metre; or again it might be fixed in each instance by the requirements of the sense; or it might depend upon a purely conventional standard. Evidence has been produced [721] to shew that the last of these methods was adopted in the copying of Greek prose writings, and that the length of the prose stichus was determined by that of the Homeric hexameter, i.e. it was normally a line of sixteen syllables; in some instances the Iambic trimeter seems to have been the standard preferred, and the line consisted of twelve syllables [722] . The number of letters in the stichus was on the average 37--38 in the one case, and 28--29 in the other. Such a system served more than one useful purpose. Besides facilitating reference, it regulated the pay of the scribe, and consequently the price of the book. The number of the lines in a book once determined, it might be written in any form without affecting the cost [723] . The compiler of the Cheltenham list explains that dishonest scribes at Rome and elsewhere purposely suppressed or mutilated the stichometry [724] . Thus the careful entry of the stichoi in the margins of ancient books, or the computation at the end of the number of stichoi contained in them, was not due to mere custom or sentiment, but served an important practical end. (b) Besides this conventional measurement there existed another system which regulated the length of the line by the sense. Sense-divisions were commonly known as kola or kommeta. The colon, according to Suidas, is a line which forms a complete clause (ho apertismenen ennoian echon stichos; the comma is a shorter colon [725] . This arrangement was originally used in transcribing poetry, but before Jerome's time it had been applied to the great prose authors; cf. Hieron. praef. ad Isa. [726] : "nemo cum prophetas versibus viderit esse descriptos, metro eos aestimet apud Hebraeos ligari, et aliquid simile habere de Psalmis vet operibus Salomonis; sed quod in Demosthene et Tullio solet fieri, ut per cola scribantur et commata, qui utique prosa et non versibus conscripserunt, nos quoque, utilitati legentium providentes, interpretationem novam scribendi genere distinximus"; praef. in Ezech. [727] : "legite igitur et hunc iuxta translationem nostram, quoniam per cola scriptus et commata manifestiorem legentibus sensum tribuit." Cf. Cassiod. de inst. div. litt., praef. Hesychius of Jerusalem ( c. 433) treated the Greek text of the Dodecapropheton in the same way [728] : esti men archaion touto tois theophorois to spoudasma stichedon, hos ta polla, pros ten ton meletomonon sapheneian tas propheteias ektithesthai. houto toigaroun opsei men ton Dabid kitharizonta, ton Paroimiasten de tas parabolas kai ton Ekklesiasten tas propheteias ekthemenon; houto sungrapheisan ten epi to Iob biblon, houto meristhenta tois stichois ta ton Asmaton asmata . . . ou maten en tais dodeka biblois ton propheton kai autos ekolouthesa. Specimens of colometry may be seen in Codd. ' B, where the poetical books are written in cola of such length that the scribe has been compelled to limit himself in this part of his work to two columns instead of dividing his page into three or four. Among the lists of the books of the O. T. canon printed in an earlier chapter of this book (Part II. c. i.) there are three which are accompanied by a stichometry. We will now collect their measurements and exhibit them in a tabular form. Book. Stichometry of Nicephorus. Stichometry of Cod. Clarom. Stichometry of Mommsen's list. Genesis. 4300 4500 3700 Exodus 2800 3700 3000 Leviticus 2700 2800 2300 Numbers 3530 3650 3000 Deuteronomy 3100 3300 2700 Joshua 2100 2000 1750 Judges } 2450 { 2000 1750 [729] Ruth 250 250 1 Kingdoms } 2240 { 2500 2300 2 Kingdoms 2000 2200 3 Kingdoms } 2203 { 2600 2250 4 Kingdoms 2400 2250 [730] 1 Paralip. } 5500 { 2040 2 Parlip. 2100 1 Esdras } 5500 { 1500 2 Esdras Psalms 5100 5000 5000 Proverbs 1700 1600 Ecclesiastes 750 600 Song 280 300 Job 1800 1600 1700; Wisdom 1100 1000 Sirach 2800 2500 Esther 350 1000 700 Judith 1700 1300 1100 Tobit 700 1000 900 Hosea 530 Amos 410 Micah 310 Joel 90 Obadiah 70 Jonah 150 Nahum 140 Habakkuk 160 Zephaniah 140 Haggai 110 Zechariah 660 Malachi 200 (Dodecapropheton 3000 [2970] 3800) Isaiah 3800 3600 3580 Jeremiah 4000 4070 4450 Baruch 700 Ezekiel 4000 3600 3340 Daniel 2000 [731] 1600 1350 1 Maccabees } 7300 { 2300 2300 2 Maccabees 2300 1800 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees 1000 The figures given above correspond to those in the lists printed in c. i., which follow the text of Preuschen (Analecta, pp. 156 f., 142 ff., 138 f.). Some variants and suggested rectifications may be seen in Zahn, Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, ii., pp. 295 ff., 143 ff., and Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii., pp. 266 ff. Many MSS. of the Greek Bible contain more or less complete stichometries of the several books of the canon. Either the total number of stichi is registered at the end of the book, or a record is kept throughout the book by placing a figure or figures in the margin at the end of each centenary of lines. Some of our oldest MSS: reproduce in this form the stichometry of their archetypes; in other cases, a stichometry which has been copied into the margin by a second or later hand. Thus in Cod. B, the margins of 1--4 Regn. and Isaiah present a nearly complete record [732] of stichi written prima manu, and doubtless transcribed from the MSS. to which the scribe owed his copy of those books. A marginal register of stichi is also found in part of Cod. F, beginning with Deuteronomy, and in Cod. Q, where it is due to the hand which has added the Hexaplaric matter. The entries in B and Q agree generally in Isaiah; in both MSS. the last entry occurs at Isa. lxv. 19, where the number of stichi reaches 3500. But the famous Chigi MS. of the Prophets (Cod. 87) counts 3820 stichi in Isaiah [733] . This approaches the number given by Nicephorus, whilst the total number of stichi in BQ, 3600, agrees with the computation of the Claromontane list. The addition of 200 stichi in Nicephorus and Cod. 87 is due, Ceriani suggests, to the greater length of the Hexaplaric and Lucianic texts [734] . There is a similar disparity between the stichometry of Nicephorus and the reckoning of Cod. F in Deuteronomy, where in F the stichi are 3000 [735] , but in Nicephorus 3100. On the other hand the later uncial K makes the stichi of Numbers to be 3535, which comes very near to the reckoning of Nicephorus [736] . Stichometrical variation is doubtless chiefly or largely due to divergent types of text. But other causes of disparity were at work. It was easy for scribes to misread the letters which represented the number of the lines, especially when they were mechanically copied from an archetype. The older signs may have been sometimes misunderstood [737] , or those which were intelligible may have been confused by careless copying. A glance . at the comparative table on p. 346 f. will shew that several of the larger discrepancies can only be explained in some such way. The following stichometry is derived chiefly from Dr E. Klostermann's Analecta [738] , giving the result of his researches among cursive MSS., with some additions supplied by the Editors of the larger LXX. Genesis 4308 [739] H.-P. 30, 52, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Vat. gr. 746; Pal. gr. 203; Athos, Pantocr. 24, Laur. g 112; Athens, Nat. 44 Exodus 3400 H.-P. 30, 52, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Athens, Nat. 44 Leviticus 2700 H.-P. 30, 52, 54, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Paris, Reg. gr. 2; 2000, Athens, Nat. 44 Numbers 3535 [740] H.-P. 30, 52, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Vat. gr.2122; Athens, Nat. 44; Paris, Reg. gr. 2 Deuteronomy 3100 H.-P. 30, 52, 54, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Vat. gr. 2122; Paris, Reg. gr. 2 Joshua 2100 H.-P. 30, 54, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Paris, Reg. gr. 2 Judges 2100 [741] Barb. iii. 36; 2156, Paris, Reg. gr. 2; Athos, Pantocr. 24 Ruth 300 Barb. iii. 36; Paris, Reg. gr. 2 1 Kingdoms 2500 Barb. iii. 36 (500, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi) 2 Kingdoms 2343 Barb. iii. 36; 2042, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi 3 Kingdoms 2400 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi 4 Kingdoms 2600 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi 1 Paralip. 2000 Barb. iii. 36 } 5000, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi 2 Paralip. 3000 Barb. iii. 36 1 Esdras 1300 Barb. iii. 36 } 3100, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi 2 Esdras 1800 Barb. iii. 36 Psalms 5100 Barb. iii. 36 [742] Proverbs 1750 H.-P. 16l, 248; Barb. iii. 36 Ecclesiastes 750 H.-P. 161, 248; Barb. iii. 36; 753, H.-P. 253 Song 286 H.-P. 161, 248; Barb. iii. 36; 353, H.-P. 253 Job 2200 (including asterisked lines, 1600 without them) H.-P. 161(?), 248; Barb. iii. 36 Wisdom 1250 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. gr. i. 13 Sirach 2650 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. gr. i. 13 Esther 750 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi, Ven. gr. i. 13 Judith 1300 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi Tobit 750 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi, Ven. gr. i. 13 Hosea 750 H.-P. 86 Joel 210 H.-P. 86 Habakkuk 150 H.-P. 86 Zephaniah 160 H.-P. 86 Haggai 120 H.-P. 86 Zechariah 670 H.-P. 86; 776, H.-P. 231 Malachi 190 H.-P. 86; 204, H.-P. 231 [743] Isaiah 3700 H.-P. 231; 3820, Barb. iii. 36 Jeremiah 4500 H.-P. 231; 3800, Barb. iii. 36 Baruch 514 H.-P. 231; 350, Barb. iii. 36 Lamentations [744] EPh (?) H.-P. 86; m (?) H.-P. 231; 860, Barb. iii.36 Ep. of Jeremiah 200 Barb. iii. 36 Ezekiel 4500 H.-P. 231; 4000, Barb. iii. 36 Daniel 1800 H.-P. 231; 1720, Barb. iii. 36 Susanna 224 H.-P. 231 2. No complete system of capitulation is found in any of our existing uncial MSS. of the Greek Old Testament. Yet even the Vatican MS., which is written continuously except in the poetical books, bears traces of a system of chapter-divisions which is older than itself [745] . It begins with Proverbs, and from that book onwards chapter-numbers appear in the margin of the canonical writings, whilst in some instances there is a double capitulation, as the following table will shew. Proverbs 61 16 Zephaniah 5 Ecclesiastes 25 7 Haggai 3 Song 40 5 Zechariah 18 Job 33 Malachi 6 Hosea 11 Isaiah 74 Amos 6 Jeremiah 100 98 Micah 7 Baruch 9 Joel 3 Lamentations 85 [746] Obadiah 1 Ep. of Jeremiah 6 Jonah 3 Ezekiel 56 Nahum 3 Daniel [21] 21 [747] Habakkuk 4 The figures in the left-hand column are prima manu; those on the right are in a hand of perhaps the eleventh century (? that of 'Clement the Monk,' the industrious instaurator who has left his name on pp. 238 and 264 of the MS. [748] ). In Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song the capitulation of the later hand differs widely, as will be observed, from the system which the original scribe reproduced from his archetype. But in the Prophets the corrector seems simply to have followed the numbers inscribed in the margin by B ; the latter can be detected here and there under the large coarse characters of the later hand, and towards the end of Jeremiah and throughout Daniel the two sets of numbers are distinctly visible. In Jeremiah the instaurator here and there breaks away from the guidance of the first hand, and the totals are slightly different. But the difference is probably accidental, and it is certainly slight; whereas in the Salomonic books another system is followed, in which the chapters are three or four times as long as those of the older capitulation. Cod. A is broken into paragraphs throughout the prose books, the beginning of each paragraph being indicated not only by paragraph-marks, but by the use of a capital letter which projects into the margin. Besides the paragraphing certain books--Deuteronomy, Joshua, 3--4 Kingdoms, Isaiah--retain traces of a capitulation imperfectly copied from the archetype. In Deuteronomy chapter-marks occur at cc. i. 1, 9, 19; 40; ii. 1, 7, 14; in Joshua they begin at ix. 1 (ib) and proceed regularly (x. 1, 16, 29, 31, 34, 36, 38; xi. 1, &c.) down to xix. 17 (le); in 3 Regn. the first numeral occurs at c. viii. 22 (kb), and the last at xxi. 17 (nth); 4 Regn. returns only one or two numbers (e.g. th stands opposite to c. iii. 20). In Isaiah, again, the entries are few and irregular; b appears at c. ii. 1, and th at xxi. 1. Cod. ' seems to have no chapter-marks prima manu, but in Isaiah they have been added by '^c.c throughout the book [749] . Jeremiah, the Epistle of Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are capitulated in cod. Q, and in the two last-named books the capitulation of Q agrees with that of B. In Jeremiah, where the agreement is less complete, the chapters in Q do not proceed beyond c. xxiv., a circumstance which suggests a Hexaplaric origin [750] . Cod. M like cod. B exhibits two systems of capitulation [751] , one of which is accompanied by brief headings corresponding in general character to the titloi of the Gospels. The two capitulations, which are represented with more or less of completeness in the Hexateuch and in 1--3 Kingdoms [752] , differ considerably, as the following table will shew: Marginal Capitulation. Capitulation accompanied by titles. Genesis 106 99 Exodus 84 110 Leviticus 54 61 Numbers 53 51 Deuteronomy 65 [753] 94 [754] Cod. Sin. I. (x.) is divided into kephalaia which number as follows: Genesis, 150; Exodus, 88; Leviticus, 63; Deuteronomy, 69; Joshua, 30; 1 Regn., 66; 2 Regn., 63 [755] . A list of sections quoted by Dr Klostermann [756] from the cursive MS. cod. Barberini iii. 36 (cent. x. or xi.) exhibits another widely different scheme [757] : Genesis 26 3 Kingdoms 16 Habakkuk 2 Exodus 8 4 Kingdoms 17 Zephaniah 3 Leviticus 12 Hosea 5 Haggai 3 Numbers 21 Amos 6 Zechariah 13 Deuteronomy 35 Micah 6 Malachi 2 Joshua 8 Joel 4 Isaiah 43 Judges 4 Obadiah 2 Jeremiah 41 1 Kingdoms 15 Jonah 3 Ezekiel 21 2 Kingdoms 11 Nahum 2 Daniel 9 It is clear that no induction can be drawn from the facts which are at present within our reach; nor can the various systems of capitulation be safely classified until some scholar has collected and tabulated the chapter-divisions of a large number of MSS. of varying ages and provenance [758] . It is probable, however, that the systems, which at present seem to be nearly as numerous as the capitulated copies of the LXX., will prove to be reducible to a few types reproduced by the scribes with many variations in detail. The 'titles' deserve separate consideration. In the few instances where we are able to institute a comparison these headings seem to be independent. In Numbers, e.g., the following table shews little correspondence between those in codd. K, M, even when the chapters coincide. Cod. K. Cod. M. Num. vii. 10. Ta dora ton archonton. Peri ton doron hon prosenenkan hoi [i]b' archontes. viii. 5. Peri tou hagnismou ton Leu[iton]. Aphprosmos ton Leueiton eis to leitourgein Kurio. xi. 16. Peri ton presbuteron lepsomenon [759] to pneoma. Peri o' presbuteron ton propheteusanton. xii. 1. Aaron kai Maria kata Mousen. Peri tes lepras Mariam hen eschen hubrisasa ten gunaika Mose. xiii. 1. Peri ton kataskepsamenon ten gen. Peri ton apostalenton kataskopesai ten gen. xiv. 23. Peri Cha[leb] huiou [Iephonne]. xiv. 34. Hoti hosas hemeras kateskepsanto ten gen, tosauta ete epoiesan en te eremo. xvi. 1. Peri Kore kai Dathan kai Abiron kai Aunan. Peri tes epanastaseos tes kata Mosen para tou Kore sunagoges. xvii. 1. Peri tes rhabdou Aaron tes blastesases. xxi. 21. Peri Seon basileos Amorraion. Peri ton apostalenton pros Seon, kai pos enikesen auton ho Israel. xxxiii. 1. Eparsis kai stathmoi ton huion Israel. Pos diodeusan hoi huioi Israel. xxxiii. 3. Peri tou nuchthemeron. xxxv. 9 Peri ton poleon ton phugadeuterion. Peri phoneos. The following titloi for Exod. ii.--viii. are taken from a Vienna MS. (Th. gr. 3): a. peri tes genneseos Mouseos. b. prote optasia pros Mousen en te bato. g. peri tes sunanteseos met' (?) Aaron. d. eisodos (?) Mouseos kai Aaron pros Pharao. e. peri ton mastigothenton grammateon. s. peri tes rhabdou tes strapheises eis ophin. z. prote plege; metastrophe tou hudatos eis haima. e. deutera plege, ton batrachon. th. trite plege, ton sknipon. Ktl. Examples occur of longer headings, which aim at giving a comprehensive summary or a brief interpretation. (a) The preface to Hesychius's colometrical arrangement of the Minor Prophets is followed by a complete set of titloi for the Twelve Prophets and Isaiah [760] . The numbers are as follows: Hosea 20, Joel 10, Amos 17, Obadiah 3, Jonah 4, Micah 13, Nahum 5, Habakkuk 4, Zephaniah 7, Haggai 5, Zechariah 32, Malachi 10, Isaiah 88. The titles are with scarcely an exception polemical or dogmatic in character, e.g. Hosea: a?. Eikon tes ton Ioudaion sunagoges, ex hes ho Christos to kata sarka tiktetai, kai laou to men en apistia emeinen, to de husteron epistrephei kai sozetai. (b) The Syro-hexaplaric Daniel is divided into ten chapters, each headed by a full summary of its contents [761] . 3. One class of sections calls for separate treatment. In Part I. c. v. (p. 168 f.) some account has been given of MSS. which consist of lessons taken from the Old Testament. Few of these lectionaries are older than the eleventh century, and only one goes back to the sixth or seventh. But the choice of passages for public reading in the services of the Church must have begun at a much earlier period. The public reading of the O. T. Scriptures. was an institution inherited by the Church from the Synagogue (Lc. iv. 16 ff., Acts xiii. 15, xv. 21; cf. 1 Tim. iv. 13), and there is evidence that it was prevalent in Christian communities of the second and third centuries [762] . At one great Christian centre provision was made for the liturgical reading of the Bible on certain week-days as well as on Sunday. "At Alexandria (writes Socrates) on Wednesdays and Fridays the Scriptures are read and the clergy expound them . . . and this is at Alexandria a practice of long standing, for it was on these occasions that Origen appears to have given most of his instructions in the Church [763] ." Turning to Origen's homilies on the Old Testament we find allusions which shew that they were usually based on the lesson for the day, and we get light upon the length of the selected passages. In Hom. in Num. xv. Origen apologises to his hearers for not keeping strictly to the lesson for the day: "licet non ordo lectionum quae recitantur de illis dicere magis exigat quae lector explicuit, tamen quoniam nonnulli fratrum deposcunt ea potius quae de prophetia Balaam scripta sunt ad sermonem disputationis adduci, non ita ordini lectionum satisfacere aequum credidi ut desideriis auditorum." This homily probably belongs to Origen's life at Caesarea [764] , and if so, it is clear that at Caesarea as well as at Alexandria there was a well-defined order of Church lessons before the middle of the third century. In another homily, on the Witch of Endor (in 1 Sam. hom. iii.), Origen complains that the O.T. lesson for the day was too long to be expounded at a single sitting: ta anagnosthenta pleiona esti; kai epei chre epitemnomenon eipein, dusi perikopais anegnosthe ta peri Nabal . . . eita meta touto he historia he peri tou kekruphthai ton Dauid . . . eita ta exes he historia en trite, hote katephugen pros Achar . . . exes toutois en he historia he diaboetos huper tes engastrimuthou . . . tessaron ouson perikopon . . . hoti pote bouletai ho episkopos proteinato. On this occasion the O.T. lesson seems to have extended from 1 Regn. xxv. 1 to xxviii. 25, including four perikopai or shorter sections, which, judging from the description, corresponded in length very nearly to our own chapters [765] . The lections to which Origen refers were doubtless those which were read in the pre-anaphoral portion of the Liturgy in the hearing of the catechumens as well as the faithful. In the liturgy of Apost. Const. ii., the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, the Kingdoms, the Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, the Salomonic books, and the sixteen Prophets, are all mentioned as books from which the Old Testament lection might be taken; i.e. all the books of the Hebrew Canon, with the exception of the Psalter and perhaps the Book of Esther, were employed for this purpose. The order in Book viii. names only the Law and the Prophets, but probably the scope is the same. The 'Prophet,' i.e. the Old Testament lesson, preceded the 'Apostle' (the Epistle) in the liturgy of Antioch as known to St Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century, and it held its place in the East generally till the seventh [766] . In the West the 'prophecy' was read by the North African Church of St Augustine's time, and it still holds its ground in the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites [767] . In Egypt, as John Cassian tells us, the monastic communities read two lessons from Scripture both at Nocturns and Vespers, and (Saturdays and Sundays excepted) one of the two lessons was from the Old Testament [768] ; and the West generally adopted the custom of reading both the Old and the New Testament in the daily offices. Before the formation of Lectionaries the liturgical lessons were marked in the margins of Church Bibles by the words arche, telos, written opposite to the beginning and end of the perikope [769] . Such traces of adaptation to liturgical use are found even in cod. B, though not prima manu [770] . Whether any of the larger chapters which appear in certain MSS. (e.g. the later system in cod. B) are of the nature of lections, must remain doubtful until the whole subject has received the fuller treatment which it demands. The Psalter obviously needed no capitulation, nor was it ever read by the anagnostes in the lessons for the day. But special Psalms were recited or sung in the Church, as they had been in the Synagogue [771] , and in some early monastic communities arrangements were made for a regular recitation of the Psalter both in public and private [772] . The scribe of cod. A has copied into his MS. a list of Psalms for daily use, in which three are appointed to be said at each of the two public services, and one is selected for private use at each hour of the day and night. It is as follows: Orthrinoi [773] g' xb' am' rma' Luchnikoi [774] g' rkth' rk' ib' Hor[a] a' psalmos e' Hor[a] a' psalmos od' " b' " kth' " b' " kth' " g' " a' " g' " nd' " d' " ma' " d' " s' " e' " n' " e' " d' " s' " o' " s' " m' " z' " xth' " z' " na' " e' " d' " e' " p' " th' " ria' " th' " pz' " i' " rm' " i' " zo' " ia' " re' " ia' " ka' " ib' " rk' " ib' " ks' The existing order of the Orthodox Eastern Church divides the Psalter into 20 sections known as kathismata, each of which is broken by the recitation of a Gloria into three stasas. The larger sections are i.--viii., ix.--xvi,, xvii.--xxiii., xxiv.--xxxi., xxxii.--xxxvi., xxxvii.--xlv., xlvi.--liv., lv.--lxiii., lxiv.--lxix., lxx.--lxxvi., lxxxvii.--lxxxiv., lxxxv.--xc., xci.--c., ci.--civ., cv.--cviii., cix.--cxvii., cxviii., cxix.--cxxxi., cxxxii.--cxlii., cxliii.--cl. In the later liturgical Greek Psalter the cathismata are divided by an ornamental band or some other mark of separation, and the staseis by a marginal (doxa, i.e. the Doxology, which was repeated at the end of each) [775] . (1) A few other text-divisions, peculiar to certain contexts or books, may be specified here. In Isaiah it was not unusual to mark in the margin the place where each of the books of Origen's commentary ended (tomos a'--ls', cf. Eus. H.E. vi. 36). Both in Isaiah and in Daniel certain prophetic horaseis were distinguished. Thus cod. Q^mg places opposite to Isa. vii. 1, and at c. xvii. 1. In Daniel cod. A marks 12 horaseis, which begin respectively at Sus. 1, Dan. i. 1, ii. 1, iii. 1, iii. 98, v. 1, v. 30, vii. 1, viii. 1, ix. 1, xi. 1, Bel 1, and the same method of division is used in codd. QG. In Lamentations each stanza is preceded by a representation of the Hebrew letter with which it begins, e.g. aleph (alph, alpha [776] ), beth, gimel (giml), daleth (deleth, delt, delth), and so forth [777] . In the analogous case of Psalm cxviii. (cxix.), there are no signs of this treatment, except in the Graeco-Latin Psalters RT [778] . In the Song a marginal enumeration distinguishes the speeches of the interlocutors, and some MSS. (e.g. ' and V) add marginal notes after the manner of stage-directions, such as he numphe pros ton numphion, tais neanisin he numphe, hai neanides to numphio [779] . Small departures from the continuous or slightly paragraphed writing of the oldest MSS. are found in a few contexts which lend themselves to division. Thus even in cod. B the blessings of the tribes in Gen. xlix. 3--27 are separated and numbered -- . A similar treatment but without marginal enumeration is accorded to Deut. xiv. 12--18 and 1 Paral. i. 51--54, Eccl. iii. 1--8. The ten words of the Decalogue are numbered in the margins of codd. BA, but not prima manu; and the systems of numeration differ to some extent. Thus according to B^a, a' = prologue, b' = i + ii, g'=iii, d' = iv, e' = v, s' = vii, z' = viii, e' = vi, th' = ix, i' = x, while A¹ makes g' = iv, d' = v, e' = vi; the other numbers in A are effaced, or were never appended. (2) It would be interesting, if sufficient materials were available, to pursue the subject of text-division with reference to the daughter-versions of the LXX. On the stichometry and capitulation of the Latin Bible much information has been brought together by M. Berger (Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 307 ff.) and Wordsworth-White (Epilogus, p.733 ff.); for the stichometry see also Dr Sanday in Studia Biblica, iii. p. 264 f. But it remains doubtful whether these divisions of the Latin Bible belonged originally to Jerome's version or were transferred to it from the Old Latin [780] ; or, supposing the latter view to be correct, whether they came from the MSS. of the LXX. which were used by the early African or Italian translators. In referring to the N.T. Tertullian speaks of capitula not seldom (ad uxor. ii. 2, de monog. 11, de virg. vel. 4, de praescr. 5, adv. Prax. 20); but it is not clear that he uses the word to connote definitely marked sections. On the capitulation of the Coptic versions the student will find something in Wilkins, Pentat. praef., ad fin., and Lagarde, Orientalia, p. 125 ff.; on the Egyptian lectionary, he may consult the list of authorities collected by Brightman, Ancient Liturgies, p. lxix. For the Ethiopic version, cf. Dillmann's Ethiopic Pentateuch, I. ii., pp. 163 f., 173. The stichometry of the Syro-Hexaplaric is discussed by Lagarde, Mittheilungen, iv. (1891), p. 205 f. A list of Church lessons, taken from the Palestinian-Syriac lectionary recently discovered by Mrs Lewis and Mrs Gibson, is given by Nestle in Studia Sinaitica, vi. p. xxix. ff. 4. In connexion with the subject of text-division it will be convenient to mention the expositions which accompany and often break up the text in MSS. of the Greek Bible. The student will have observed that many of the codices enumerated in Part I. c. v. (pp. 148--168) contain commentaries, either original (comm.), or compiled (cat.). Of the Greek commentators something will be said when we come to consider the use of the LXX. by the Greek fathers; in this place we will limit ourselves to the relatively late compilations which are based on the exegetical works of earlier writers [781] . Such expositions were formerly described as eklogai or paragraphai, or as epitomai hermeneion, or exegeseis eranistheisai apo diaphoron pateron, or sunopseis scholikai ek diaphoron hupomnematon sullechtheisai, or by some similar periphrasis. The use of the technical term catena (seira) is of comparatively modern date. Catena aurea is a secondary title of the great compendium of comments on the Four Gospels brought together by Thomas Aquinas, and a Greek MS. Psalter of the 16th century (Vat. Gr. 2240) adopts the phrase, translating it by chruse halusis. Seira is used in this sense by the editor of the Greek catena of Nicephorus, which bears the title Seira enos kai pentekonta hupomnematiston eis ten Oktateuchon kai ta ton Basileion. The metaphor so happily expresses the principle on which such commentaries are constructed, that books of this description are now universally known as catenae or seirai. They are 'chains' in which each link is supplied by some ancient author, scraps of exegesis threaded together by the ingenuity or industry of a collector who usually elects to be anonymous. The catenists drew their materials from all sources within their reach. They laid under contribution Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus, heretics like Basileides, Valentinus, and Marcion, suspects like Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Apollinarius, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as the accepted teachers and Saints of the Catholic Church. Their range extended from the first century to the fifth or sixth, and they had access to a number of writers whose works have since disappeared. Hence their value in the eyes of patristic scholars and editors. But they are not without importance for the purposes of the biblical student. The text embedded in the commentary may be late [782] , but the commentary itself often preserves the witness of early writers to an old and valuable type. The catena is usually written in the broad margins which surround the text, or it embodies the text, which in that case is usually distinguished from it by being written in uncials or in coloured ink, or enclosed within marks of quotation. The names of the authors who have been pressed into the service of the catenist are commonly inserted in the margin at the place where their contributions begin: thus , , , , , , . If a second passage from the same author occurs in the same context it is introduced as ; an anonymous writer is . Unfortunately in the copying of catenae such attributions have often been omitted or misplaced, or even erroneously inserted, and as to this particular the student must be on his guard against a too unsuspecting acquiescence in the witness of his MS. Nor can he place implicit confidence in the verbal accuracy of the excerpts. The catenists evidently regarded themselves as free, while retaining the substance; to abbreviate and otherwise modify the language of their authors. The following is a list of the chief Greek catenae of the Old Testament which have appeared in type. Octateuch, Historical books: the Catena of Nicephorus, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1772--3; Psalms: B. Corderii expositio Graecorum patrum, 3 vols., Antwerp, 1643; Proverbs: Commentary of Procopius first printed by Mai, and in Migne, P. G. lxxxvii.; Song: Commentary ascribed to Eusebius and Polychronius (Meursius, Leyden, 1617); Job: Catena of Nicetas of Serrae (P. Junius, i.e. Patrick Young, London, 1636); Isaiah: Commentary of Procopius (J. Curterius, Paris, 1580); Jeremiah, with Lamentations and Baruch: Catena published by M. Ghisler, 3 vols., Leyden, 1623; Daniel: Catena published by A. Mai in Script. vet. nov. coll. 1. On these see Ch. Q. R. i. 99, pp. 36--42. The nineteenth century has added little to our collection of printed Greek catenae on the Old Testament, and the earlier editions do not always adequately represent the witness of the best MSS. Meanwhile a great store of MS. catenae awaits the examination of Biblical scholars. Some of these are at Athos, Athens, Smyrna and Jerusalem, but there is an abundant supply in libraries more accessible to Western students, at St Petersburg, Rome, Paris, and London. Perhaps no corner of the field of Biblical and patristic research offers so much virgin soil, with so good a prospect of securing useful if not brilliant results. The following LXX. MSS. amongst others contain catenae on one or more of the books which form their text: H.-P. 14, 17, 24, 25, 31, 33, 52, 57, 73, 77, 78, 79, 83 87, 90, 91, 97) 98, 99; 109, 112, 128, 135, 147, 181, 209, 238, 240, 243, 264, 272, 292, 302, 309; London B.M. Add. 35123, Lambeth 1214; Paris, Coisl. gr. 5, 7, Reg. gr. 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 161; Zurich c. 11; Basle gr. iv. 56, vi. 8; Esc. S. i. 16; Leyden, 13; Munich gr. 82; Athos Vatop. 15, Ivér. 15; Athens, nat. 43; Constantinople 224; Smyrna, Ev. sch. 1; Patmos, 216, 217; Sinai 2; Jerusalem H. Sep. 3. Scholia are to be found in H.-P. 14, 16, 38, 52, 56, 64, 70, 77, 79, 93, 128, 130, 131, 135, 159, 256, 310; Paris Ars. 8415, Coisl. gr. 184. On the Paris O. T. catenae see H. Lietzmann, Catenen, p. 37 ff. Some of the Vatican catenae are handled by Pitra, analecta sacra 11, Klostermann, analecta, passim; a full and valuable account of Roman MS. catenae on the Prophets is given by Faulhaber (die Propheten Catenen). For lists of the catenae in the great libraries of Europe and the East, the student must consult the published catalogues, e.g. Montfaucon, Omont (Paris), Stephenson (Vatican), Lambeccius (Vienna), Lambros (Athos), Papadopulos (Jerusalem). The more important MSS. are enumerated by Harnack-Preuschen, and Heinrici, and in the older work of Fabricius-Harles. A Catenarum graecarum catalogus by G. Karo and H. Lietzmann is in progress (Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (Philologisch-hist. Klasse), 1902 ff. 5. Besides catenae and detached scholia the margins of LXX. MSS. frequently contain notes of various kinds, written oftentimes in perplexing abbreviations. Lists of abbreviations are given by the principal palaeographical authorities, such as Montfaucon's Palaeographia Graeca, Gardthausen's Griechische Paläographie, and Sir E. Maunde Thompson's Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography; but the subject can only be mastered by working upon the MSS. themselves or their facsimiles. It may be useful, however, to print here a few of the abbreviated notes and symbols which occur in the apparatus of the Cambridge manual LXX., or are of frequent occurrence in the principal codices. = Akulas. , = Summachos. th', the' = Theodotion. = ou keitai par Ebraiois. = hoi obelismenoi (stichoi) ou keintai par Ebraiois. = homoios tois ebdomekonta. = hoi treis, i.e. Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion. p' = pantes. l = Loukianos (Field, Hexapla, 1. lxxxv.). = hoi loipoi. MO^N = monos. = horaion, or = Origenes. For PIPI see above, p. 39 f. = semeiosai, semeioteon, semeion. GR = grapson or graphetai. = arche. te' = telos. = stichos. ke' = kephalaion. = kathisma. = anagnosma. = diorthotai (i.e. 'corrected thus far'), a mark inserted by the diorthotes usually at the end of a book. For further particulars see Field, op. cit., p. xciv. sqq [783] . LITERATURE. Stichometry, colometry, &c. Kitto, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, art. Verse; Herzog-Plitt, art. Stichometrie; Gregory, i. p. 112 f.; Scrivener-Miller, i., p. 52 ff.; Gardthausen, Paläographie, p. 127 ff.; E. M. Thompson, Handbook, p. 78 ff.; Zahn, Gesch. d. Kanons, ii. p. 295 ff.; Sanday in Studia Biblica, iii. p. 261 ff.; J. R. Harris, Stichometry, passim; Wordsworth-White, Epilogus, p. 733 ff. (Oxford, 1898). Capitulation. Schürer, II. ii. 79 ff.; Buhl, Kanon u. Text d. A. T., p. 222; Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 235; Morinus, Exerc. Bibl. xvii. 3; Dathius, De ordine pericoparum (opusc. iv.); Zacagni, Collectanea, praef, pp. lxvii., lxxxi.; Montfaucon, Biblioth. Coisl., p. 1 ff.; the Benedictine Prolegomena in div. S. Hieron. biblioth. iv. (reprinted in Migne, P. L. xxviii. 101 sqq.); Suicer, Thes. eccl. s.vv. kephalaion, perikope; Herzog-Plitt, art. Perikopen; Gregory, i. p. 120 ff.; Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 56 ff.; Thomasii opp. i.; Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 323 ff. Lections. Suicer, Thes. eccl. s.vv. anagnosma, anagnosis, graphe; Brill, De lectionariis or. et occ. eccl. (Helmstadt, 1703); Neale, Hist. of the H. Eastern Church, i. p. 369; Herzog-Plitt, artt. Lectionen, Perikopen; D.C.A., art. Lections; Burgon, Last twelve verses of St Mark, p. 191 ff.; E. Ranke, Das kirchl. Perikopen-system der röm. Liturgie (Berlin, 1847). Acrostics. P. A. de Lagarde, Symmicta i. 107; C. Taylor in Hastings' Encycl of Religion and Ethics, i. p. 75; G. Bickell, art. Acrostic in Oxford New English Dict.; I. Abrahams, art. Acrostics in Jewish Encycl.; Driver, Introd. to Lit. of O. T., ch. vii. Catenae. T. Ittig, De bibliothecis et catenis patrum (Leipzig, 1707); J. C. Wolf, De catenis Gr. patrum (Wittenberg, 1742); Fabricius-Harles, viii. p. 637 ff.; J. G. Dowling, Notitia scriptorum ss. patrum (Oxford, 1839); Walch-Danz, Biblioth. patristica (Jena, 1834), p. 247 ff.; Harnack-Preuschen, Gesch. d. altchr. Litteratur, i. p. 835 ff.; G. Heinrici, in Hauck, Real-Encyklop. iii., art. Catenen; L. Eisenhofer, Procopius von Gaza, Freiburg, 1897; P. Batiffol, in Vigouroux' D. B. ii., p. 482 ff., art. Chaînes Bibliques; Lietzmann, Catenen (Freiburg i. B., 1897); M. Faulhaber, Die Propheten-Catenen nach römischen Handschriften, in Biblische Studien, iv. 2, 3 (Freiburg i. Breisgau, 1899) The two last-named works are indispensable to students who desire to prosecute research in this field. The whole subject is summarised with admirable clearness and precision in the Church Quarterly Review for Apr. 1900, pp. 29--48. __________________________________________________________________ [713] In such cases both systems are represented in the Cambridge edition of the LXX. (see O. T. in Greek, i. p. xiv.). [714] For a full account of the divisions of the Hebrew text see Buhl, Kanon u. Text, p. 222; Bleek-Wellhausen, p. 574 f.; Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 235. Blau, Massoretic Studies, iii., in J.Q.R., Oct. 1896. [715] A similar system of paragraphing has been adopted in the English Revised Version, and in the Cambridge LXX.; see R. V. Preface, and O.T. in Greek, i. p. xv. [716] In Baer's edition they are given throughout the Bible. [717] In the Pentateuch there is only one, the lesson (12) which begins at Gen. xlvii. 28 (Ryle, p. 236). [718] See Gregory, prolegg. p. 167 ff. [719] It prints the verse-numbers in the margin, and begins every verse with a capital letter. [720] E.g. H.-P. 38 (xv.), 122 (xv.), where the modern chapters are marked. [721] By Ch. Graux, Revue de philologie, II. (1878), p. 97 ff. [722] J. R. Harris, Stichometry, pp. 8, 15. [723] See E. Maunde-Thompson, Gr. and Lat. Palaeography, i. p. 80; Prof. Sanday, in Studia Biblica, iii. p. 263 f.; J. R. Harris, op. cit. p. 26. [724] "Indiculum versuum in urbe Roma non ad liquidum, sed et alibi avariciae causa non habent integrum." [725] See Wordsworth-White, Epilogus, p. 733, nn. 1, 2. [726] Migne, P. L. xxviii. 771. [727] Migne, P. L. xxviii. 938. [728] Migne, P. G. xxiii. 1339 sq. [729] Total of first 7 books, '18000.' [730] In Mommsen's list the following totals are also given: Ruth and 1--4 Kingdoms, 9500; Salomonic books, 6500; Major Prophets, 15370; the whole canon, 69500. [731] Susanna is calculated separately (500). [732] It is printed by Harris, Stichometry, p. 59 ff. Cf. Nestle, Introd. to the Textual Criticism of the N. T. (E. tr.), p. 4. [733] ok, or as Allatius read the MS., (3808); see Cozza, Sacr. bibl. vet. fragm. iii. p. xv. [734] De cod. March., p. 23 f. [735] The symbol used is , which occurs also in B. On this symbol, see J. Woisin, De Graecorum notis numeralibus, n. 67 (Kiel, 1886). [736] The numeration of the stichi in the poetical books ascribed to the greater uncials in the Cambridge manual LXX. is derived from Dr Nestle's Supplementum² (Leipzig, 1887) and rests on an actual counting of the lines, and not on statements in the MSS. themselves. [737] Cf. J. R. Harris, Stichometry, p. 31. [738] See p. 44 ff. Cf. J. Th. St., ii. p. 238 ff. [739] 4400 in H.-P. 54. [740] 3530 in H.-P. 54. [741] 2450 in H. P. 54. [742] Ecclesiastical Canticles, 600, Barb. iii. 36. [743] Total of Minor Prophets variously calculated at 3750 3500, 3300 (Barb. iii. 36). [744] Possibly a corruption of (see next page). [745] Tischendorf (Mon. sacr. ined. n. c., i. prolegg., p. xxvii.) points out that Tertullian recognises a system of chapters in Numbers. [746] In this book the chapter-numbers correspond to the divisions indicated in the original by the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and in the recension by transliteration of the Hebrew alphabetic names. [747] This number includes the Greek additions. [748] See the pref. to Fabiani and Cozza's facsimile, p. xvii. sqq. [749] Tischendorf, notes to facsimile, p. v. [750] Ceriani, de cod. March., p. 24 ff. [751] See Montfaucon, Biblioth. Coisliniana, p. 4 sqq. [752] Another Coislin MS. (Coisl. gr. 8) gives the following capitulation for some of the later histories: 1 Chron. 83, 2 Chron. 86, Tobit 21, Judith 34, 1 Esdr. 109, 2 Esdr. 80, Esther 55. [753] Beginning at c. iv. 41. [754] In Judges there is no capitulation, but the periods of bondage are distinguished as , , &c., and the exploits of the successive judges by , and so forth. [755] Cf. the numbers in B. M. Add. MS. 35123: Gen., 148; Exod., 84; Lev., 62; Num., 61; Deut., 69; Josh., 30; Jud., 33. [756] Analecta, p. 80 ff. This division into sections, however, refers not to the text of the books, but to that of the synopsis contained in the MS. Cf. also the kephalaia in Hab. iii. found in Barb. v. 45 (86, H.-P.). [757] Interesting traces of another old capitulation are to be found in the ekloge tou nomou printed in Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. i. p. 1. The chapters here are shorter and therefore more numerous than in any of the lists given above, e.g. Exod. xxii. 1--27 forms part of the 68th chapter and Deut. xxv. 11 ff. of the 93rd in their several books, while Leviticus apparently contains 150 chapters and Numbers 140. [758] Paragraphs or sections marked by capitals protruding into the margin or written in red ink, or (less frequently) distinguished by numbers, occur perhaps in the majority of cursives; the following list of cursives thus divided is taken from descriptions of MSS. made for the use of the Editors of the larger LXX.: H.-P. x. xi., 16, 17, 18, 29, 38, 46, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 64 (double system of capitulation), 68, 70, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79 (in Gen. chpb'), 83, 84, 93, 108, 118 120, 121, 123, 126, 127, 128 (contemporary numbers), 130, 131, 134; B. M. Add. 35123, Lambeth 1214; Paris Ars. 8415; Esc. O. i. 13, S i. 16; Munich gr. 454; Grotta Ferrata A. g. 1; Leipzig gr. 361; Athos, Pantocr. 24 (double system of capitulation, titloi), Vatop. 513, 516; Laur. g. 112 (both chapters and stichoi numbered); Athens, nat. gr. 44; Sinai 1, Jerusalem, H. Sep. 2. [759] Tischendorf (Mon. sacr. ined. n. c. i. p. 78) prints . [760] Migne, P. G. xciii., 1345 sqq. The titles for Isaiah with a collection of glosses, apparently by the same author, have been edited by M. Faulhaber from cod. Vat. Gr. 347 (Hesychii Hieros. interpretatio Isaiae, Freiburg i. Breisgau, l900). [761] Bugati, Daniel, p. 1. See also the periochai (or hupotheseis) eis tous psalmous ascribed to Eusebius of Caesarea, which precede the Psalter in Cod. A (printed in Migne, P. G. xxiii. 67 sqq.). [762] See above, p. 168, and cf. Gregory, Textkritik, i. p. 337. [763] H. S. v. 22 en Alexandreia te tetradi te legomene paraskeue graphai te anaginoskontai, kai hoi didaskaloi tautas ermeneuousi . . . kai touto estin en Alexandreia ethos archaion; kai gar Origenes ta polla en tautais tais hemerais phainetai epi tes ekklesias didaxas. [764] D. C. B. iv, p. 104. [765] Cf. the titloi in the Coislin MS. (M), where me', mth', n' are nearly identical with cc. xxxi., xxxii., xxxiii. respectively (Montfaucon, Bibl. Coisl., p. 28). [766] Brightman, Eastern Liturgies, pp. 470, 476, 527, 580. See Chrys. in Rom. xxiv. 3 (cited above, p. 168). [767] D. C. A., Prophecy Liturgical (ii. 173b ff.). [768] De inst. coenob. ii. 6. [769] On this word see Suicer, Thesaurus, ii. 673 sqq . It is used by Justin, Dial. 78 and Clem. Al., Strom. iii. 38. In Origen (quoted above) the perikope is merely a section; at a later time it was used for the anagnosma. [770] Fabiani and Cozza, prolegg., p. xix. [771] See p. 251. [772] Cf. Cassian, Inst. iii. 289. [773] Cf. Const. viii. 37, meta to rhethenai ton orthrinon. [774] Cf. Const. viii. 34, ton epiluchnikon psalmon. [775] Cf. O. T. in Gr., ii. p. xi. [776] The variations in the MSS. are interesting and instructive. [777] Greek numerals are sometimes added in the margin; see above, p. 351. [778] R gives the Heb. letters in Greek; T the corresponding Greek numerals. [779] In cod. V = 23 these become sometimes lengthy titloi, e.g. at v. 7 exelthen me heurousa ton numphion he numphe kai hos en nukti heuretheisa apo ton phulakon tes poleos traumatizetai, kai airousin autes to theristron hoi teichophulakountes. [780] Cf. Sanday, op. cit., p. 272. [781] Ch. Q. R. i. 99, p. 34: "the process of drawing up Catenae goes on from the fifth to the fourteenth or fifteenth century." [782] See, however, the facts collected in Ch. Q. R. i. 99, p. 46 f. [783] For terms connected with writing and reading which occur in the text of the LXX. see Nestle, Introd. to the Textual Criticism of the N. T., p. 46 f. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ PART III. LITERARY USE, VALUE, AND TEXTUAL CONDITION OF THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT. OLD TESTAMENT. [blank page] PART III. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER I. LITERARY USE OF THE LXX. BY NON-CHRISTIAN HELLENISTS. 1. A HAPPY accident has preserved fragments of the lost literature produced by the Hellenised Jews of Alexandria between the inception of the Alexandrian Version and the Christian era. The Greek historiographer, Alexander Cornelius--better known as Polyhistor (ho poluistor), from his encyclopaedic learning--wrote a treatise On the Jews which contained extracts from Jewish and Samaritan Hellenistic writings [784] . Of these a few were copied from Polyhistor's book by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea, in whose pages they may still be read. They consist of fragments of the historians Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artapanus, and Aristeas, the poets Philo, Theodotus, and Ezekiel, the philosopher Aristobulus, and Cleodemus or Malchas. There is reason to believe that Demetrius flourished c. B.C. 200; for the other writers the date of Polyhistor (c. B.C. 50) supplies a terminus ad quem, if we may assume [785] that he wrote the work attributed to him by Clement and Eusebius. The following references will enable the student to find the fragments: (1) Demetrius: Clem. Al. strom. i. 141. Eus. pr. ev. ix. 19(?), 21, 29. (2) Eupolemus: Clem. Al. strom. i. 141. Eus. pr. ev. ix. 17, 26 (= Clem. Al. strom. i. 153), 30--34, 39. (3) Artapanus: Eus. pr. ev. ix. 18, 23, 27. (4) Aristeas: Eus. pr. ev. ix. 25. (5) Philo the poet: Eus. pr. ev. ix. 20, 24, 37 (cf. Clem. Al. strom. i. 154). (6) Theodotus: Eus. pr. ev. ix. 22. (7) Ezekiel the poet: Eus. pr. ev. ix. 28 (= Clem. Al. strom. i. 155), 29. (8) Aristobulus: Eus. pr. ev. viii. 10; ix. 6 (= Clem. Al. strom. i. 22); xiii. 12. (9) Cleodemus or Malchas: Eus. pr. ev. ix. 20. Several of these fragments bear traces of a knowledge and use of the Greek Bible, and this evidence is not the less convincing because, with one exception, the purpose of the writers has kept them from actual quotation. They wished to represent their national history in a form more acceptable to their pagan neighbours; but while avoiding the uncouth phraseology of the Greek Bible they frequently betray its influence. A few extracts will make this plain. Demetrius: (a) ton theon to Abraam prostaxai auto; ton de anagagonta ton paida epi to oros puran nesai kai ton ?saak; de mellonta koluthenai hupo auto pros ten parastesantos [786] . (b) ekeithen de , enthen paragenesthai . . . kai teleutesai Rhachel ton Beniamin [787] . (c) phesi gar ton Abraam paidas epi katoikian pempsai; dia touto de kai eipein Mosen gemai [788] (d) me echonta de ekei gluku alla tou theou eipontos, ti ten pegen, kai genesthai gluku . ekeithen de elthein, kai heurein ekei men de [789] . (For other coincidences, see above, p. 18.) Eupolemus: ektisen, hos heileto anthropon chreston ek chrestou andros . . . kai architektona anthropo Turion ek metros Ioudaias ek tes phules Dan [790] . Aristeas: ton Esau gemanta Bassaran gennesai Iob; de touton chora genesthai de auton kai poluktenon, ktesasthai gar auton men de , [791] . Ezekiel (in his tragedy he Exagoge): Mariam d' adelphe mou katopteuen pelas; kapeita thugater basileos homou katelthe loutrois, chrota phaidrunai neon. d' euthus kai labous' , egno d' Ebraion onta; kai legei tade Mariam adelphe prosdramousa basilidi; soi paidi tod' heuro tachu ; he d' epespeusen koren; molousa d' eipe metri, kai paren tachu aute te meter kalaben m' es ankalas. eipen de thugater basileos Touton, gunai, apo sethen. * * * * ouk pephuka, glossa d' epri mou dusphrastos, , hoste me logous emous genesthai basileos enantion [792] . Aristobulus: (a) ho [793] . (b) [794] kai en pasi . 2. Besides these fragments, some complete books have survived the wreck of the pre-Christian literature of the Jewish colony at Alexandria. They are included in the Alexandrian Greek Bible, but may be employed as separate witnesses of the literary use of the canonical translations. And the evidence supplied by them is ample. Thus the writer of Wisdom knows and uses not only Exodus (Sap. xvi. 22 = Exod. ix. 24, and perhaps also Sap. xii. 8 = Exod. xxiii. 28) and Deuteronomy (Sap. vi. 7 = Deut. i. 17, Sap. xi. 4 = Deut. viii. 15), but Isaiah (Sap. ii. 12 = Isa. iii. 10, Sap. xv. 10 = Isa. xliv. 20). The translator of Sirach not only recognises the existence of the Greek Pentateuch and Prophets and 'the other books,' but shews everywhere the influence of the Greek phraseology of the LXX. [795] In 2 Maccabees vii. 6 we have a verbatim quotation from Deut. xxxii. 36, and in 4 Maccabees xviii. 14 ff. a catena of references to the Greek Bible, including direct citations of Isa. xliii. 2, Ps. xxxiii. 19, Prov. iii. 18, Ezek. xxxvii.4, Deut. xxxii. 39, xxx. 20--all from the LXX. The picture which the last-named passage draws of a Jewish father reading and teaching his children out of the Greek Bible (cf. 2 Tim. iii. 15) is a suggestive one, but the book, it must be remembered, is of uncertain date, possibly as late as the time of Josephus, to whom it was at one time ascribed [796] . 3. The Jewish portions of the Sibyllines, notwithstanding the epic form in which they are cast, exhibit clear signs of the influence of the LXX. Thus in Sibyll. iii. 312 execheas is a reminiscence of Ps. lxxviii. 3, LXX.; ib. 606 cheiropoieta . . . en schismais petron katakrupsantes is borrowed from Isa. ii. 19 ff., Lxx.; ib. 708 ff. is probably modelled on the Greek of Isa. xi. 6 ff. 4. There remains one Alexandrian Jewish writer, the greatest of the succession, whose extant works happily are numerous and throw abundant light on the literary use of the Septuagint at Alexandria. Philo's literary life probably coincided as nearly as possible with the first forty or five and forty years of the first century A.D.; in 40 A.D. he could speak of himself as already an old man [797] , but his literary activity was not yet at an end, as appears from his account of the embassy to Rome in that year. Thus the evidence of his writings belongs to a period just antecedent to the rise of the earliest Christian literature, and his numerous quotations enable us to form a fair idea of the condition of the text of the LXX. in Alexandrian copies shortly before it passed into the hands of the Church. The following list of Philo's works may be useful for reference. Cohn and Wendland's order is followed so far as their edition has been published. A. Exegetical works. De opificio mundi (Gen. i.). Legum allegoriae (ii. 1--iii. 19). De Cherubim etc. (iii. 24--iv. 1). De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (iv. 2 f.). Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat (iv. 3--15). De posteritate Caini (iv. 16--26). De gigantibus (vi. 1--4). Quod Deus sit immutabilis (vi. 4--12). De agricultura (ix. 20). De plantatione Noe (ix. 20). De ebrietate (ix. 21--23). De sobrietate (ix. 24). De confusione linguarum (xi. 1--9). De migratione Abrahami (xii. 1--6). Quis rerum divinarum heres (xv.). De congressu eruditionis gratia (xvi. 1--6). De fuga et inventione (xvi. 6--14). De mutatione nominum (xvii. 1--22). De somniis i., ii. (xxviii. 12 ff., xxxi. 11--13, xxxvii., xl., xli.). De Abrahamo. De Josepho. De vita Moysis. De decalogo. De circumcisione. De monarchia. De praemiis sacerdotum. De victimis. De sacrificantibus. De mercede meretricis. De specialibus legibus (3rd--10th commandments of the Decalogue). De iudice. De iustitia. De fortitudine. De humanitate. De creatione principum. De tribus virtutibus. De poenitentia. De nobilitate. De praemiis et poenis. De execrationibus. Quaestiones et solutiones (1) in Genesim, (2) in Exodum [798] . B. Philosophical works. De nobilitate. Quod omnis probus liber sit. De vita contemplativa. De incorruptibilitate mundo. De providentia. De ratione animalium. De mundo. C. Political works. In Flaccum. De legatione ad Caium. In his exegetical writings Philo quotes the LXX. directly, announcing each citation by a formula such as phesi, eipen, legei, legetai, gegraptai, or some more elaborate phrase [799] . In this way he reproduces a considerable portion of the Greek text of the Pentateuch, as well as a few passages from Joshua, Judges, 1, 3 Kingdoms, 1 Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and some of the minor Prophets. His Greek is, on the whole, clearly that of the Alexandrian version, which he regarded as the work of men divinely qualified for their task [800] . Nevertheless his quotations often differ from the Greek of the LXX., as it is found in our extant MSS., or in the oldest and best of them. 5. The task of comparing Philo's quotations with the LXX. has been undertaken in Germany by C. F. Hornemann and C. Siegfried, and in England more recently by Professor Ryle; and from these investigations the student may derive a general acquaintance with the subject, although even the latest of them will need revision when the critical edition of Philo's works, now in course of being published, has reached completion. The following specimens will shew the extent to which Philo departs from the LXX. Gen. ii. 7 eis psuchen zoes (LXX. eis psuchen zosan) [801] . iv. 21 houtos esti pater ho katadeixas psalterion kai kitharan (LXX., en ho k.). vi. 7 ethumothen (LXX. enethumethen). vi. 14 nossias nossias poieseis ten kiboton (nossias semel LXX.). ix. 25 pais oiketes doulos doulon estai (LXX. p. oiketes estai, and so Philo, ii. 225. 20). xv. 18 heos tou potamou, tou megalou potamou Euphratou (LXX. potamou 2º) [802] . xviii. 12 oupo moi gegone to eudaimonein heos tou nun (LXX. omit to eud. and so Philo once, iii. 184. 28). Exod. iv. 10 ouch eimi eulegos (so Philo, apparently [803] : LXX. ouch hikanos eimi), xv. 17 hedrasma eis kathedran sou kateirgaso (LXX. eis hetoimon katoiketerion sou ho kat.). xx. 23 met' emou (LXX., humin autois). xxiii. 2 meta pollon (LXX., meta pleionon). Lev. xix. 23 xulon broseos (LXX., x. brosimon, and so Philo ii. 152. 8). Deut. viii. 18 alla mneia mnesthese (LXX. kai mnesth.). xxi. 16 klerodote (LXX., katakleronome B, kataklerodote AF, and these readings are found as variants in Phil. i. 209. 4). The student who is at the pains to examine the readings given above, will find that while some of them may be merely recensional, or even due to slips of memory, the greater part imply a different rendering of the Hebrew, or even in some cases a different Hebrew text from that which is presupposed by the LXX. (Gen. vi. 14, Deut. viii. 18), whilst in others we seem to have a conflation of two renderings (Gen. iv. 21, ix. 25), one of which is preserved in all extant MSS. of the LXX., while the other agrees more nearly with the Hebrew. When the MSS. of the LXX. are at variance, Philo inclines on the whole to Cod. B [804] , but the preponderance is not strongly marked. Thus in Exodus--Deuteronomy, he agrees with B against one or more of the other uncials sixty times, while in fifty-two places he takes sides against B. It has been observed that in several instances where Philo opposes the combined witness of the uncials, he goes with Lucian; e.g. Lev. xviii. 5 ho poiesas; Deut. xii. 8 hosa, xxxii. 4 + en auto. Besides substantial variants, Philo's quotations shew many departures from the LXX. which may be ascribed to inaccuracy, defects of memory, or the writer's method of citing. Thus (a) he omits certain words with the view of abbreviating; (b) he substitutes for a portion of his text a gloss or other explanatory matter of his own; (c) he exchanges Hebraisms and words or phrases which offend him for others in accordance with a correct literary style; (d) he forms a fresh sentence out of two or more different contexts. E.g. (a) Gen. xxiv. 20 kai dramousa epi to phrear hudreusato tais kamelois. (LXX., kai edramen epi to phrear antlesai hudor kai hudr. pasais tais kamelois). (b) Num. v. 2 exaposteilatosan ek tes hagiou psuches (LXX. ek tes paremboles) panta lepron. (c) Gen. xxviii. 13 he ge (v. l. he gen) eph' hes su katheudeis (+ ep' autes LXX.) soi doso auten (d) Gen. xvii. 1 + xxxv. 11 ego eimi theos sos; ego ho theos sou; auxanou kai plethunou (Pil. iii. 161. 4 f.). The majority of Philo's quotations from the LXX. are modified in one or other of these ways. Philo entertained the highest veneration for the Jewish canon, especially for the law, which he regarded as a body of Divine oracles [805] ; and his respect for the Alexandrian Version was at least as great as that with which the Authorised Version is regarded in England, and Luther's Version in Germany. Nevertheless he did not scruple to quote his text freely, changing words at pleasure, and sometimes mingling interpretation with citation. This method of dealing with a source, however high its authority, was probably not peculiar to Philo, but a literary habit which he shared with other Jewish writers of his age [806] . We shall have occasion to observe it again when we consider the use of the LXX. by the writers of the New Testament. 6. The Alexandrian Version was also used by the Palestinian Jew, Flavius Josephus, who represents Jewish Hellenistic literature in the generation which followed Philo. He was born at Jerusalem within the lifetime of the great Alexandrian (A.D. 37--8). He was descended from a priestly family [807] ; his early education familiarised him with the learning of the Rabbis, and the opinions of the great schools of Jewish thought; in his nineteenth year he was enrolled a member of the sect of the Pharisees [808] . His earliest work, on the Jewish War, was written in Aramaic [809] , and when he desired to translate it into Greek, he was constrained to seek assistance (c. Ap. chresamenos tisi pros ten Ellenida phonen sunergois houtos epoiesamen ton praxeon ten paradosin). But the Antiquities of the Jews (hai Iosepou historiai tes Ioudaikes archaiologias), which appear to have been completed in A.D. 93--4, form an original Greek work which, so far as we know, was composed without material help. In it Josephus professes to interpret the Hebrew records for the benefit of Hellenic readers: Ant. i. proem. 1 tautn de ten enestosan enkecheirismai pragmateian, nomizon hapasi phaneisthai tois Hellesin axian spoudes; mellei gar periexein hapasan ten par hemin archaiologian kai diataxin tou politeumatos ek ton Ebraikon methermeneumenen grammaton. His chief source, therefore, was the Hebrew Bible, with which he was doubtless acquainted from boyhood [810] . Nevertheless, there is ample evidence in the Antiquities that the writer knew and, for the purpose of his work, used the Alexandrian Greek version. He does not, indeed, like Philo, quote formally either from the Hebrew or from the Greek, but he shews a knowledge of both. His indebtedness to the LXX. appears in a variety of ways. (a) He interprets proper names as they are interpreted by the LXX. e.g. Ant. I. 1. 2 Heua . . . semainei . . . panton metera (Gen. iii. 20); I. 2. 1 Kais . . . ktisin (v. 1. ktesin) semainei (Gen. iv. 1); iii. 1. 6 kalousi de Ebraioi to broma touto manna; to gar man ererotesis .. . ti tout' estin' anakrinothsa (Exod. xvi. 15); v. 10. 3 Samouelon . . . theaiteton an tis eipoi (1 Regn. i. 20). (b) His narrative frequently follows a Heb. text different from the M.T., but represented by the LXX.; e.g. Ant. vi. 4. 1 esan ebdomekonta ton arithmon (1 Regn. ix. 22, k?slsm; vi. 11. 4 hupotheisa tois epiboliaiois hepar kvd aigos (1 Regn. xix. 13, kvyr); vi. 12. 4 Doegos d' ho Suros ho tas hemionous autou boskon (1 Regn. xxii. 9, d'g h'dmy vhv' ntsv lvdys'vl); vii. 2. 1 monon heurontes . . . ton Iesbothon kai mete tous phulakas parontas mete ten thuroron egregoruian (cf. 2 Regn. iv. 6 LXX., kai idou he thuroros enustaxen kai ekatheuden); vii. 5. 3 husteron ho ton Aiguption basileus Sousakos . . . elabe (2 Regn. viii. 7, LXX.; ^ ). (c) Whilst retailing in his own words the story of the Hebrew records, he falls from time to time into the peculiar phraseology of the Alexandrian version. A few examples will make this evident. Ant. i. 1 (Gen. i. 1 ff.), en arche ektisen ho theos ton ouranon kai ten gen . . . genesthai phos ekeleusen ho theos . . . diechorise to te phos kai to skotos . . . kai haute men an eie prote hemera, Mouses d' auten mian eipe . . . to ton tetrapodon genos arren kai thelu poiesas. i. 10. 3 (Gen. xv. 9 f.) damalin trietizousan kai aiga trietizousan kai krion homoios triete kai trugona kai peristeran keleusantos dieile, ton orneon ouden dielon. (Gen. xxvii. 30) paren Esaus apo tes theras. i. 20. 2 (Gen. xxxii. 23 f.) cheimarroun tina Iabakchon legomenon diabebekoton Iakobos hupoleleimmenos . . . diepalaien. ii. 4. 1 (Gen. xxxix. 1) Iosephon de poloumenon hupo ton emporon onesamenos Petephres aner Aiguptios epi ton Pharaothou mageiron. ii. 6. 1 (Gen. xli. 45) prosegoreusen auton Psonthonphanechon . . . agetai gar kai Petephrou thugatera ton en te Helioupolei hiereon . . . Asennethin onomati. ii. 7. 5 (Gen. xlvi. 28) apantesomenos exeisi kai kath' Heroon polinauto suoebalen [811] . (d) There is evidence to shew that Josephus used 1 Esdras, which is known only in a Greek form, and the Book of Esther with the Greek additions. 1 Esdras. Ant. xi. 1. 1 (1 Esdr. ii. 3 f.) Kuros ho basileus legei Epei me ho theos ho megistos tes oikoumenes apedeixe bailea, ton naon autou oikodomeso en Ierosolumois en te Ioudaia chora. xi. 2. 2 (1 Esdr. ii. 21, cf. 2 Esdr. iv. 17) basileus Kambuses Rhathumo to graphonti ta prospiptonta kai Beelzemo kai Semelio grammatei kai tois loipois tois suntassomenois kai oikousin en Samareia kai Phoinike tade legei. xi. 3. 2--8 = 1 Esdr. iii.--iv. Esther. Ant. xi. 6. 6 = Esth. B; xi. 6. 8 ff. = C, D; xi. 6. 12 f. = E. The first Book of Maccabees was also known to Josephus in its Greek form [812] , which underlies his account of the Maccabean wars, just as the Greek translation of the canonical books is used in the earlier books of the Antiquities. A recent examination, by A. Mez, of Basle [813] , into the Biblical text presupposed by Josephus' history in Ant. v.--vii. has led to the following results, which are important for the criticism of the LXX. (1) The Josephus text of the LXX. has no affinity with the characteristic text of cod. B. (2) In Joshua it generally approximates to the text of . (3) In Judges it is frequently, but not constantly, Lucianic; in 1, 3 Kingdoms it agrees with Lucian so closely as to fall into the same omissions and misconceptions; only in four instances, other than proper names, does it contravene a Lucianic reading, and three of these are numerical differences, whilst in the fourth 'Lucian' appears to have undergone correction, and the reading of Josephus survives in cod. A. These investigations, so far as they go, point to a probability that in these books the Greek Bible of Palestine during the second half of the first century presented a text not very remote from that of the recension which emanated from Antioch early in the fourth. While Philo the Alexandrian supports on the whole the text of our oldest uncial cod. B, Josephus the Palestinian seems to have followed that of an 'Urlucian.' LITERATURE. Hellenistic writers before Philo: Text: C. Müller, Fragmenta historica Graeca iii. J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien i., ii. (Breslau, 1875). Cf. Susemihl, Geschichte der griech. Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, ii. p. 356 ff.; E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes³, iii. p. 345 ff.; Oeconomus, ii. 76. Philo: Text: L. Cohn and P. Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt (Berlin, vol. i. 1896; vol. ii. 1897; vol. iii. 1898; vol. iv. 1902; vol. v. 1906--in progress). Cf. C. F. Hornemann, Specimen exercitationum criticarum in versionem LXX. interpretum ex Philone (Göttingen, 1773); C. Siegfried, Philo and der überlieferte Text der LXX. (in Z. f. wiss. Theologie, 1873, pp. 217 ff., 411 ff., 522 ff.); A. Edersheim in D. C. B. iv. p. 357 ff.; E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford, 1889), p. 140 ff.; F. C. Conybeare, in Expositor, 1891, p. 456 ff.; and Jewish Q. R., 1893, p. 246 ff., 1896, p. 88 ff.; H. E. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture (London, 1895); P. Wendland, in Philologus 1898, p. 283 ff., 521 ff., 1899, 274 ff.; L. Massebieau, Le classement des oeuvres de Philon (in Bibliothèque de l'école des hautes études 1. pp. 1--91); J. Drummond, in Hastings' D. B. suppl. 197; J. H. A. Hart, in J. Q. R. xvii. p. 78 ff.; Aug. Schröder, De Philonis Alexandrini Vet. Test., Greifswald, i907. Sibyllines. Text: A. Rzach, Oracula Sibyllina, Vienna, 1891. Cf. F. Blass in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 177 ff. Josephus. Text: B. Niese, Fl. Josephi opera (Berlin, 1887--1895). Cf. Spittler, 1779, J. G. Scharfenberg, 1780; E. Schürer², E. T. 1. i. p. 77 ff.; A. Edersheim in D. C. B. iii. p. 441 ff.; C. Siegfried in Stade's Z. f. d. ATliche Wissenschaft, 1883, p. 32 ff.; H. Bloch, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus in seiner Archäologia (Leipzig, 1879); A. Mez, Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht für Buch v.--vii. der Archäologia (Basle, 1895). __________________________________________________________________ [784] Cf. Joseph., ant. i. 15, Clem. Al. strom. i. 130, Eus. pr. ev. ix. 17. [785] See Schürer³, iii. p. 347 f. [786] Cf. Gen. xxii. 1 ff. [787] Cf. Gen. xxxv. 16. [788] Cf. Gen. xxv. 6; Cf. Num. xi. 34--xii. 1. [789] Cf. Exod. xv. 23 ff. [790] Cf. 2 Chron. ii. 12 ff. [791] Cf. Job xlii. 17 b, c, i. 1 ff. Pseudo-Aristeas ad Philocratem makes abundant use of the Greek Pentateuch, as the reader may see by referring to the Appendix, where LXX. words and phrases are indicated by the use of small uncials. [792] Cf. Exod. ii. 4 ff.; iv. 10, where ouk eulogos is read by cod. F. [793] Exod. xiii. 9 [794] Exod. ix. 3. Estai A, epestai B. Kai en pasi, which is wanting in our MSS., may be due to a slip of memory, or it is a short way of expressing what follows in the text en te tois hippois ktl. [795] See Edersheim in Wace's Apocr. ii. p. 26. [796] Cf. A. Deissmann in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 150: "als Abfassungszeit wird man den Zeitraum von Pompejus bis Vespasian annehmen dürfen." [797] Leg. ad Cai. i. 28. [798] On these see J. R. Harris, Fragments of Philo, p. 11 ff., and F. C. Conybeare, Expositor, IV. iv. p. 456 ff. [799] Cf. Ryle, Philo, p. xlv. f. [800] Cf. vit. Moys. 6, 7. [801] On this see Nestle, Zur neuen Philo-Ausgabe in Philologus, 1900, p. 259. Dr Nestle informs me that cod. 75 often agrees with Philo. [802] See Nestle, op. cit., p. 270. [803] See above, p. 371. [804] In Genesis i.--xlvi. 27, where B is wanting, Philo shews on the whole a similar preference for the text represented by D. The figures, which are Dr Ryle's, are based on Mangey's text, but the new edition, so far as examined, gives very similar results. [805] See Ryle, p. xvi. ff. [806] Cf. D. C. B. iv. p. 387 a. [807] Vit. 1. [808] Ib. 2. [809] B. J. prooem. 1 te patrio [sc. glosse] suntaxas. [810] He possessed a copy of the sacred books which Titus granted him from the spoils of the Temple: Vit. 75 ten aitesin epoioumen Titon . . . biblion hieron [kai] elabon charisamenou Titou. [811] For some of these instances I am indebted to a collation made by Mr C. G. Wright for the Editors of the larger LXX. [812] Bloch, Die Quellen d. Fl. Josephus, p. 8 ff. [813] Die Bibel des Josephus, p. 59 ff. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER II. QUOTATIONS FROM THE LXX. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1. THE writings of the New Testament were the work of some nine authors, of different nationalities and antecedents. Six of them, according to the traditional belief, were Palestinian Jews; a seventh, though 'a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage,' belonged by birth to the Dispersion of Asia Minor; of the remaining two, one was possibly a Gentile from Antioch, and the other a 'Hellenist with Alexandrian proclivities.' Some diversity of practice as to the literary use of the Greek Old Testament may reasonably be expected in a collection of books having so complex an origin. With few exceptions, the books of the New Testament abound in references to the Old Testament and in quotations from it. An exhaustive list of these may be seen at the end of Westcott and Hort's New Testament in Greek (Text, p. 581 ff.), and in their text the corresponding passages are distinguished by the use of a small uncial type. But this device, though otherwise admirable [814] , does not enable the student to distinguish direct citations from mere allusions and reminiscences; and as the distinction is important for our present purpose, we will begin by placing before him a table of passages in the Old Testament which are formally quoted by New Testament writers. By passages formally cited we understand (1) those which are cited with an introductory formula, such as touto gegonen hina plerothe to rhethen (Mt.), houtos or kathos gegraptai, or gegraptai simply (Mt., Mc., Lc., Paul), gegrammenon estin (Jo.), Mouses (Daueid) legei or eipen, legei or eipen he graphe (Jo., Paul), or to hagion pneuma (Hebrews); (2) those which, though not announced by a formula, appear from the context to be intended as quotations, or agree verbatim with some context in the O. T. Table of O. T. passages quoted in the N. T. Gen. i. 27 (v. 2) Mt. xix. 4, Mc. x. 6 ii. 2 Heb. iv. 4 7 1 Cor. xv. 45 24 Mt. xix. 5 f., Mc. x. 7 f., 1 Cor. vi. 16, Eph. v. 31 v. 24 Heb. xi. 5 xii. 1 Acts vii. 3 3^ b (xxii. 18) iii. 25, Gal. iii. 8 xv. 5 Rom. iv. 18 6 Jas. ii. 23, Rom. iv. 3, Gal. iii. 8 13 f. Acts vii. 6 f. xvii. 5 Rom. iv. 17 xviii. 10, 14 ix. 9 xxi. 10 Gal. iv. 30 12 Rom. ix. 7, Heb. xi. 18 xxii. 16 f. Heb. vi. 13 f. xxv. 23 Rom. ix. 12 xlvii. 31 Heb. xi. 21 Exod. ii. 14 Acts vii. 27 f. iii. 5 ff. Mt. xxii. 32, Mc. xii. 26, Lc. xx. 37, Acts vii. 32 ff. ix. 16 Rom. ix. 17 xii. 46 (Num. ix. 12, Ps. xxxiii. 20) John xix. 36 xiii. 12 Lc. ii. 23 xvi. 4, 15 (Ps. lxxvii. 24) John vi. 31 ff. 18 2 Cor. viii. 15 xix. 13 Heb. xii. 20 xx. 12--17 (Deut. v. 16 ff.) Mt. v. 21, 27, xv. 4--6, xix. 18 f., Mc. vii. 10, x. 19, Lc. xviii. 20, James ii. 11, Rom. vii. 7, xiii. 9, Eph. vi. 2 f. xxi. 16 (17) xv. 4, Mc. vii. 10 xxi. 24 (Lev. xiv. 20, Deut. xix. 21) v. 38 xxii. 28 Acts xxiii. 5 xxiv. 8 Heb. ix. 19 f. xxv. 40 viii. 5 xxxii. 1 Acts vii. 40 6 1 Cor. x. 7 xxxiii. 19 Rom. ix. 15 Lev. xi. 44. f. (xix. 2, xx. 7, 26) 1 Pet. i. 16 xii. 6, 8 Lc. ii. 22 ff. xviii. 5 (2 Esdr. xix. 29) Rom. x. 5, Gal. iii. 12 xix. 18 Mt. v. 43, xix. 19, xxii. 39, Mc. xii. 31, Lc. x. 27, James ii. 8, Rom. xiii. 9, Gal. v. 14 xxvi. 11 f. (Ezek. xxxvii. 27 ) 2 Cor. vi. 16 Num. xvi. 5 2 Tim. ii. 19 Deut. iv. 35 Mc. xii. 32 vi. 4 f. Mt. xxii. 37f., Mc. xii. 29--33, Lc. x. 27 13, 16 iv. 7,, 10, Lc. iv. 8, 12 viii. 3 iv. 4, Lc. iv. 4 ix. 19 Heb. xii. 21 (?) xviii. 15, 18 f. Acts iii. 22 f., vii. 37 xix. 15 Mt. xviii. 16, Jo. viii. 17, 2 Cor. xiii. 1 xxi. 23 Gal. iii. 13 xxiv. 1 Mt. v. 31, xix. 7, Mc. x. 4 xxv. 4 1 Cor. ix. 9, 1 Tim. v. 18 xxvii. 26 Gal. iii. 10 xxix. 4 Rom. xi. 8 18 Heb. xii. 15 xxx. 12--14 Rom. x. 6--8 xxxi. 6, 8 (Jos. i. 5) Heb. xiii. 5 xxxii. 21 Rom. x. 19 35 xii. 19, Heb. x. 30 36 (Ps. cxxxiv. 14) Heb. x. 30 43 (Ps. xcvi. 7) i. 6 2 Regn. vii. 8, 14 2 Cor. vi. 18, Heb. i. 5 3 Regn. xix. 10, 14, 18 Rom. xi. 3 f. Psalm ii. 1 f. Acts iv. 25 f. 7 xiii. 33, Heb. i. 5, v. 5 viii. 2 Mt. xxi. 16 5--7 1 Cor. xv. 27, Heb. ii. 6--8 xiii. 3 (v. 10, ix. 28, xxxv. 2, lii. 1--3, cxxxix. 4, Isa. lix. 7 f.) Rom. iii. 10--18 xv. 8--11 Acts ii. 25--28 xvii. 50 Rom. xv. 9 xviii. 5 x. 18 xxi. 2 Mt. xxvii. 46, Mc. xv. 34 9 xxvii. 43 19 Jo. xix. 24 23 Heb. ii. 12 xxiii. 1 1 Cor. x. 26 xxxi. 1 f. Rom. iv. 6--8 xxxiii. 13--17 1 Pet. iii. 10--12 xxxiv. 19 (lxviii. 5) Jo. xv. 25 xxxix. 7--9 Heb. x. 5--7 xl. 10 Jo. xiii. 18 xliii. 22 Rom. viii. 36 xliv. 7 f. Heb. i. 8 f. l. 6 Rom. iii. 4 liv. 23 1 Pet. v. 7 lxvii. 19 Eph. iv. 8 lxviii. 10 Jo. ii. 17, Rom. xv. 3 23 f. Rom. xi. 9 f. 26 Acts i. 20 lxxvii. 2 Mt. xiii. 35 lxxxi. 6 Jo. x. 34 lxxxviii. 21 Acts xiii. 22 xc. 11 f. Mt. iv. 6, Lc. iv. 10 f. xciii. 11 1 Cor. iii. 20 xciv. 8--11 Heb. iii. 7--11 ci. 26--28 i. 10--12 ciii. 4 i. 7 cviii. 8 Acts i. 20 cix. 1 Mt. xxii. 44, Mc. xii. 36, Lc. xx. 42 f., Acts ii. 34f., Heb. i. 13 4 Heb. v. 6 (vii. 17, 21) cxi. 9 2 Cor. ix. 9 cxv. 1 iv. 13 cxvi. 1 Rom. xv. 11 cxvii. 6 Heb. xiii. 6 22 f. Mt. xxi. 42, Mc. xii. 10 f., Lc. xx. 17, 1 Pet. ii. 7 Prov. iii. 11 f. Heb. xii. 5 f. 34 Jas. iv. 6, 1 Pet. v. 5 xi. 31 1 Pet. iv. 18 xxv. 21 f. Rom. xii. 20 xxvi. 11 2 Pet. ii. 22 Job v. 13 1 Cor. iii. 19 Hos. i. 10 Rom. ix. 26 ii. 23 ix. 25 vi. 6 Mt. ix. 13, xii. 7 xi. 1 ii. 15 xiii. 14 1 Cor. xv. 55 f. Amos v. 25, 27 Acts vii. 42 f. ix. 11 f. xv. 15--17 Mic. v. 2 Mt. ii. 5 f. (Jo. vii. 42) Joel ii. 28--32 Acts ii. 17--21 Hab. i. 5 xiii. 41 ii. 3 f. Rom. i. 17, Gal. iii. 11, Heb. x. 37 f. Zech. iii. 2 Jude 9 ix. 9 Mt. xxi. 5, Jo. xii. 15 xi. 13 xxvii. 9 f. Mal. i. 2 f. Rom. ix. 13 iii. 1 Mt. xi. 10, Mc. i. 2, Lc. vii. 27 Isa. i. 9 Rom. ix. 29 vi. 9 f. Mt. xiii. 14 f., Mc. iv. 12, Lc. viii. 10, Jo. xii. 40 f., Acts xxviii. 26 f. vii. 14 i. 23 viii. 14 Rom. ix. 33, 1 Pet. ii. 8 17 Heb. ii. 13 ix. 1 f. Mt. iv. 15 f. x. 22 f. Rom. ix. 27 f. xi. 10 xv. 12 xxii. 13 1 Cor. xv. 32 xxv. 8 54 xxviii. 11 f. xiv. 21 16 Rom. ix. 33, x. 11, 1 Pet. ii. 6 xxix. 10 xi. 8 13 Mt. xv. 8 f., Mc. vii. 6 f. 14 1 Cor. i. 19 xl. 3--5 Mt. iii. 3, Mc. i. 3, Lc. iii. 4--6, Jo. 1. 23 6--8 1 Pet. i. 24 f. 13 f. Rom. xi. 34 f., 1 Cor. ii. 16 xlii. 1--4 Mt. xii. 18--21 xlv. 23 Rom. xiv. 11 xlix. 6 Acts xiii. 47 8 2 Cor. vi. 2 lii. 5 Rom. ii. 24 7 (Nah. i. 15) x. 15 11 2 Cor. vi. 17 lii. 15 Rom. xv. 21 liii. 1 Jo. xii. 38, Rom. x. 16 4 Mt. viii. 17 5 f. 1 Pet. ii. 24 f. 7 f. Acts viii. 32 f. 12 Mc. xv. 28, Lc. xxii. 37 liv. 1 Gal. iv. 27 13 Jo. vi. 45 lv. 3 Acts xiii. 34 lvi. 7 Mt. xxi. 13, Mc. xi. 17, Lc. xix. 46 lix. 20 f. Rom. xi. 26 f. lxi. 1 f. Lc. iv. 18 f. lxiv. 4 1 Cor. ii. 9 (?) lxv. 1 f. Rom. x. 20 f. lxvi. 1 f. Acts vii. 49 f. 24 Mc. ix. 48 Jer. vii. 11 Mt. xxi. 13, Mc. xi. 17, Lc. xix. 46 ix. 23 f. (1 Regn. ii. 10) 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 17 xxxviii. 15 Mt. ii. 18 31--34 Heb. viii. 8--12 Dan. xii. 11 (ix. 27, xi. 31) Mt. xxiv. 15, Mc. xiii. 14 Thus upon a rough estimate the passages directly quoted from the Old Testament by writers of the New Testament are 160. Of these 51 belong to the Pentateuch, 46 to the Poetical Books, and 61 to the Prophets. Among single books the Psalter supplies 40 and Isaiah 38; i.e. nearly half of the passages expressly cited in the N.T, come from one or other of these two sources. 2. The table already given shews the extent to which the Old Testament is directly cited in the New. In that which follows the comparison is inverted, and the student will be able to see at a glance how the quotations are distributed among the several groups of writings of which the New Testament is made up. (1) Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels. Mt. Mc. Lc. O.T. i. 23 Isa. vii. 14 ii. 23 Exod. xiii. 12 ii. 6 Mic. v. 2 15 Hos. xi. 1 16 Jer. xxxviii. 15 iii. 3 i. 3 iii. 4--6 Isa. xl. 3--5 iv. 4 iv. 4 Deut. viii. 3 6 10 f. Ps. xc. 11 f. 7 12 Deut. vi. 16 10 8 13 15 f. Isa. ix. 1 f. v. 21 Exod. xx. 13 27 14 31 Deut. xxiv. 1 33 Num. xxx. 3 (cf. Deut. xxiii. 21) 38 Exod. xxi. 24 43 Lev. xix. 18 viii. 17 Isa. liii. 4 ix. 13 (xii. 7) Hos. vi. 6 xi. 10 i. 2 vii. 27 Mal. iii. 1 xii. 7 Hos. vi. 6 18--21 Isa. xlii. 1 xiii. 14 f. vi. 9 f. 35 Ps. lxxvii. 2 iv. 18 f. Isa. lxi. 1 ff. + lviii. 6 xv. 4 vii. 10 Exod. xx. 12, xxi. 17 8 f. 6 Isa. xxix. 13 ix. 48 lxvi. 24 xix. 5 f. x. 6--8 Gen. i. 27 + ii. 24 18 f. x. 19 xviii. 20 f. Exod. xx. 12--17 xxi. 4 f. Zech. ix. 9 + Isa. lxii. 11 13 xi. 17 xix. 46 Isa. lvi. 7 + Jer. vii. 11 16 Ps. viii. 2 42 xii. 10 xx. 17 cxvii. 22 f. xxii. 24 19 28 Deut. xxv. 5 (cf. Gen. xxxviii. 8) 32 26 37 Exod. iii. 6 37 29 f. x. 27^ a Deut. vi. 4 f. 39 31 27^ b Lev. xix. 18 32 Deut. iv. 35 44 36 xx. 42 f. Ps. cix. 1 xxiv. 15 xiii. 14 Dan. xii. 11 xxii. 37 Isa. liii. 12 xxvi. 31 xiv. 27 Zech. xiii. 7 xxvii. 9 f. xi. 13 46 xv. 34 Ps. xxi. 1 (2) Quotations in the Fourth Gospel. Jo. i. 23 Isa. xl. 3 ii. 17 Ps. lxviii. 10 vi. 31 Exod. xvi. 4, 15 (Ps. lxxvii. 24 f.) 45 Isa. liv. 13 x. 34 Ps. lxxxi. 6 xii. 15 Ezech. ix. 9 38 Isa. liii. 1 40 vi. 10 xiii. 16 Ps. xl. (xli.) 10 xv. 25 xxxiv. 19 (lxviii. 5) xix. 24 xxi. 19 36 Exod. xii. 46 (Num. ix. 12, Ps. xxxiii. 21) 37 Zech. xii. 10 (3) Quotations in the Acts. Acts i. 20 Ps. lxviii. 26 + cviii. 8 ii. 17--21 Joel ii. 28--32 25--28 Ps. xv. 8--11 34 f. cix. 1 iii. 22 f. (vii. 27) Deut. xviii. 15, 18 f. 25 Gen. xii. 3 + xxii. 18 iv. 25 f. Ps. ii. 1 f. vii. 3 Gen. xii. 1 6 f. xv. 13 f. 27 f., 35 Exod. ii. 14 33 f. iii. 6--8 40 xxxii. 23 42 f. Amos v. 25--27 49 f. Isa. lxvi. 1 f. viii. 32 f. liii. 7 f. xiii. 22 Ps. lxxxviii. 21 etc. 33 ii. 7 34 Isa. lv. 3 35 Ps. xv. 10 41 Hab. i. 5 47 Isa. xlix. 6 xv. 16--18 Jer. xii. 15 + Amos ix. 11 f. + Isa. xlv. 21 xxviii. 26 f. Isa. vi. 9 f. (4) Quotations in the Catholic Epistles. James ii. 8 Lev. xix. 18 11 Exod. xx. 13 f. 23 Gen. xv. 6 iv. 6 Prov. iii. 34 1 Peter i. 24 f. Isa. xl. 6--9 ii. 6 xxviii. 16 iii. 10--12 Ps. xxxiii. 12--17 iv. 18 Prov. xi. 31 v. 7 Ps. liv. 23 2 Peter ii. 22 Prov. xxvi. 11 Jude 9 Zech. iii. 2 (5) Quotations in the Epistles of St Paul Rom. i. 17 Hab. ii. 4 ii. 24 Isa. lii. 5 iii. 4 Ps. l. 6 10--18 xiii. 1--3 [815] 20 cxlii. 2 iv. 3, 22 Gen. xv. 6 7 f. Ps. xxxi. 1 f. 17 Gen. xvii. 5 18 xv. 5 vii. 7 Exod. xx. 14, 17 viii. 36 Ps. xliii. 23 ix. 7 Gen. xxi. 12 9 xviii. 10 12 xxv. 23 13 Mal. i. 2 f. 15 Exod. xxxiii. 19 17 ix. 16 26 Hos. i. 10 27 Isa. x. 22 f. 29 i. 9 33 viii. 1 + xxviii. 16 x. 6--9 Deut. xxx. 11--14 15 Isa. lii. 7 (Nah. i. 15) 16 liii. 1 18 Ps. xviii. 5 19 Deut. xxxii. 21 20 f. Isa. lxv. 1 f. xi. 1 f. Ps. xciii. 14 3 f. 3 Regn. xix. 10, 14, 18 8 Isa. xxix. 10 + Deut. xxix. 4 9 Ps. lxviii. 23 f. + xxxiv. 8 26 f. Isa. lix. 20 + xxvii. 9 34 f. xl. 13 xii. 20 f. Prov. xxv. 21 f. xiii. 9 Exod. xx. 13 ff., Lev. xix. 18 xiv. 11 Isa. xlv. 23 xv. 3 Ps. lxviii. 10 9 xvii. 50 (2 Regn. xxii. 50) 10 Deut. xxxii. 43 11 Ps. cxvi. 1 12 Isa. xi. 10 21 lii. 15 1 Cor. i. 19 xxix. 14 31 Jer. ix. 24 ii. 9 Isa. lxiv. 4 + lxv. 17 (?) 20 Ps. xciii. 11 vi. 16 Gen. ii. 24 ix. 9 Deut. xxv. 4 x. 7 Exod. xxxii. 6 26 Ps. xxiii. 1 xiv. 21 Isa. xxviii. 11 f. xv. 32 xxii. 13 45 Gen. ii. 7 54 f. Isa. xxv. 8 + Hos. xiii. 14 2 Cor. iv. 13 Ps. cxv. 1 vi. 2 Isa. xlix. 8 16 ff. Ezek. xxxvii. 27 + Isa. lii. 11 viii. 15 Exod. xvi. 18 ix. 9 Ps. cxi. 9 x. 17 Jer. ix. 24 Gal. ii. 16 Ps. cxlii. 2 iii. 6 Gen. xv. 6 8 xii. 3 10 Deut. xxvii. 26 11 Hab. ii. 4 12 Lev. xviii. 5 13 Deut. xxi. 23 iv. 27 Isa. liv. 1 30 Gen. xxi. 10 v. 14 Lev. xix. 18 Eph. iv. 8 Ps. lxviii. 19 25 Zech. viii. 16 iv. 26 Ps. iv. 5 v. 31 Gen. ii. 24 vi. 2 Exod. xx. 12 1 Tim. v. 18 Deut. xxv. 4 2 Tim. ii. 19 Num. xvi. 5 (6) Quotations in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Heb. i. 5 Ps. ii. 7 (2 Regn. vii. 14) 6 xcvi. 7 (Deut. xxxii. 43) 7 ciii. 4 8 f. xliv. 7 f. 10--12 ci. 26--28 13 cix. 1 ii. 6--8 viii. 5--7 12 xxi. 23 13 Isa. viii. 17 f. iii. 7--12 Ps. xciv. 8--11 iv. 4 Gen. ii. 2 v. 6 (vii. 17, 21) Ps. cix. 4 vi. 13 f. Gen. xxii. 16 f. viii. 5 Exod. xxv. 40 8--13, x. 16 f. Jer. xxxviii. 31--34 ix. 20 Exod. xxiv. 8 x. 5--10 Ps. xxxix. 7--9 30 Deut. xxxii. 35 f. 37 Hab. ii. 3 f. xi. 5 Gen. v. 24 18 xxi. 12 21 xlvii. 31 xii. 5 f. Prov. iii. 11 f. 15 Deut. xxix. 18 20 Exod. xix. 12 f. 26 Hagg. ii. 6 xiii. 5 Deut. xxxi. 6, 8 6 Ps. cxvii. 6 Some interesting results follow from an inspection of these lists. (1) The Synoptic Gospels have 46 distinct quotations (Mt. 40, Mc. 19, Lc. 17), of which 18 are peculiar to Mt., 3 to Mc., 3 to Lc. There are 10 which are common to the three, 3 common to Mt. and Mc., 4 to Mt. and Lc., but none which are shared by Mc. and Lc. to the exclusion of Mt. (2) Of the 12 quotations in the Fourth Gospel, 3 only are also in the Synoptists. (3) The 23 quotations in the Acts occur almost exclusively in the speeches. (4) The Johannine Epistles do not quote the O. T. at all, and the other Catholic Epistles contain few direct citations. (5) Of 78 quotations in St Paul, 71 are in the four first Epistles (Romans 42, 1--2 Corinthians 19, Galatians 10); there are none in the Epistles of the Roman captivity, with the exception of Ephesians, which has five. (6) The Epistle to the Hebrews quotes 28 passages, of which 21 are not cited in any other N. T. writing [816] . (7) The Apocalypse does not quote, but its language is full of O. T. phraseology to an extent unparalleled in the other books. 3. Hitherto no account has been taken of the relation which the N. T. quotations bear to the Alexandrian version, although for the sake of convenience the references to the O. T. have been given according to the order and numeration of the Greek Bible. We may now address ourselves to this further question; and it may at once be said that every part of the N. T. affords evidence of a knowledge of the LXX., and that a great majority of the passages cited from the O. T. are in general agreement with the Greek version. It is calculated by one writer on the subject that, while the N. T. differs from the Massoretic text in 212 citations, it departs from the LXX. in 185 [817] ; and by another that "not more than fifty" of the citations "materially differ from the LXX. [818] " On either estimate the LXX. is the principal source from which the writers of the N. T. derived their O. T. quotations. More may be learnt by patiently examining the details of the evidence. This cannot be done here in full, but we may point out the method to be pursued in such an investigation, and its chief results. Each group of the N. T. writings must be interrogated separately. (a) Beginning with the Synoptic Gospels, we observe that the quotations partly occur in narratives or dialogue which are common to the Synoptists or to two of them, and are partly due to the individual writer. Between these two classes of quotations there is a marked contrast. Citations belonging to the common narrative, or to sayings reported by all the Synoptists, or to two of them, with few exceptions adhere closely to the LXX., the differences being only textual or in the way of omission. Some examples will make this clear. (1) Citations common to Mt., Mc., Lc. Mt. xxi. 13 = Mc. xi. 17 = Lc. xix. 46 = LXX., Mc. alone completing the verse. Mt. xxi. 42 = Mc. xii. 10 = Lc. xx. 17 = LXX., Lc. omitting para Kuriou ktl. Mt. xxii. 37 = Mc. xii. 29 f. = Lc. x. 27^a = LXX., with variants [819] . Mt. xxii. 39 = Mc. xii. 31 = Lc. x. 27^ b = LXX. Mt. xxii. 44 = Mc. xii. 36 = Lc. xx. 42 f., = LXX. with the variant hupokato in Mt., Mc. (2) Citations common to Mt., Mc. Mt. xv. 4 = Mc. vii. 10 = LXX., cod. A. Mt. xv. 8 f. = Mc. vii. 6 = LXX., with variants [820] . Mt. xix. 5 f. = Mc. x. 6 ff. = LXX., Mc. omitting proskolletheseeai ktl. Mt. xxiv. 15 = Mc. xiii. 14 = LXX. and Th. Mt. xxvi. 31 = Mc. xiv. 27 (omitting tes poimnes) = LXX., cod. A, with one important variant not found in any MS. of the LXX.; cod. B has quite a different text [821] . (3) Citations common to Mt., Lc. Mt. iv. 4 = Lc. iv. 4 = LXX., Lc. omitting the second half of the quotation. Mt. iv. 6 = Lc. iv. 10 f. = LXX., except that the clause tou diaphulaxai is omitted by Mt. and in part by Lc. Mt. iv. 7 = Lc. iv. 12 = LXX. Mt. iv. 10 = Lc. iv. 8 = LXX.., cod. A. Thus it appears that of 14 quotations which belong to this class only two (Mt. xv. 8 f., xxvi. 31) depart widely from the LXX. But when we turn from the quotations which belong to the common narrative to those which are peculiar to one of the Synoptists, the results are very different. In Mt. there are 16 quotations which are not to be found in Mc. or Lc. (Mt. i. 23, ii. 6, 15, 18, iv. 15 f., v. 33, 38, 43, viii. 17, ix. 13 = xii. 7, xii. 18 ff., xiii. 14 f., 35, xxi. 4 f., 16, xxvii. 9 f.). Of these 4 (v. 38, ix. 13, xiii. 14 f., xxi. 16) are in the words of the LXX. with slight variants; 4 exhibit important variants, and the remaining 7 bear little or no resemblance to the Alexandrian Greek [822] . Neither Mc. nor Lc. has any series of independent quotations; Mc. ix. 48, xii. 32 are from the LXX., but shew affinities to the text of cod. A; Lc. iv. 18 f. differs from the LXX. in important particulars. It may be asked whether the quotations in the Synoptists which do not agree with our present text of the LXX., or with its relatively oldest type, imply the use of another Greek version. Before an answer to this question can be attempted, it is necessary to distinguish carefully between the causes which have produced variation. It may be due to (a) loose citation, or to (b) the substitution of a gloss for the precise words which the writer professes to quote, or to (c) a desire to adapt a prophetic context to the circumstances under which it was thought to have been fulfilled, or to (d) the fusing together of passages drawn from different contexts. Of the variations which cannot be ascribed to one or other of these causes, some are (e) recensional, whilst others are (f) translational, and imply an independent use of the original, whether by the Evangelist, or by the author of some collection of excerpts which he employed. The following may be taken as specimens of these types of variation. (a) Mt. ii. 18, xxi. 4f.; (b) Mt. ii. 6, xxvii. 9f.; (c) Mt. ii. 15; (d) Lc. iv. 18 f.; (e) Mt. xii. 18 ff., Mc. xii. 29f.; (f) Mt. xiii. 35^b. But more than one cause of divergence may have been at work in the same quotation, and it is not always easy to decide which is paramount; e.g. in Mt. ii. 15 the substitution of ton huion mou for ta tekna autes may be due either to the Evangelist's desire to adapt the prophecy to the event, or to a correction of the LXX. from the Heb. (lvny). The three last-named causes of variation need to be considered at some length. (1) A few of the Synoptic quotations are manifestly composite. E.g. Mt. xxi. 4 f., which is mainly from Zech. ix. 9, opens with a clause from Isa. lxii. 11 (eipate te thugatri Sion Idou). Lc. iv. 18 f., which is professedly an extract from a synagogue lesson Isa. lxi. 1 ff., inserts in the heart of that context a clause from Isa. lviii. 6 (aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphesei). Still more remarkable is the fusion in Mc. i. 2 f., where, under the heading kathos gegraptai en to Esaia to prophete, we find Mal. iii. 1 + Isa. xl. 3 [823] . Here the parallel passages in Mt., Lc., quote Isaiah only, using Malachi in another context (Mt. xi. 10, Lc. vii. 27). (2) there is a considerable weight of evidence in favour of the belief that the Evangelists employed a recension of the LXX. which came nearer to the text of cod. A than to that of our oldest uncial B. This point has been recently handled in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift f. Wissenschaftliche Theologie [824] , by Dr W. Staerk, who shews that the witness of the N. T. almost invariably goes with codd. 'AF and Lucian against the Vatican MS., and that its agreement with cod. A is especially close [825] . It may of course be argued that the text of these authorities has been influenced by the N. T. [826] ; but the fact that a similar tendency is noticeable in Josephus, and to a less extent in Philo, goes far to discount this objection. Still more remarkable is the occasional tendency in N. T. quotations to support Theodotion against the LXX. [827] Some instances have been given already; we may add here Mt. xii. 18 = Isa. xlii. i: Mt. LXX. Th. idou ho pais mou hon heretisa, ho agapetos mou hon eudokesen he psuche mou. Iakob ho pais mou antilempsomai autou; Israel ho eklektos mou, prosedexato auton he psuche mou. idou ho pais mou, antilempsomai autou; ho eklektos mou hon eudokesen he psuche mou. Such coincidences lend some probability to the supposition that Theodotion's version bears a relation to the recension of the Alexandrian Greek which was in the hands of the early Palestinian Church. (3) Certain quotations in the First Gospel are either independent of the LXX., or have been but slightly influenced by it. These require to be studied separately, and, as they are but few, they are printed below and confronted with the LXX. Mt. ii. 6 Mic. v. 2, 4 kai su, Bethleem, ge Iouda, oudamos elachiste ei en tois hegemosin Iouda· ek sou gar exeleusetai hegoumenos, hostis poimanei ton laon mou Israel. kai su, Bethleem, oikos Ephratha, oligostos ei tou einai en chiliasin Iouda; ex hou moi exeleusetai tou einai eis archonta tou Israel . . . kai poimanei . . . oudamos] me D | ek sou] ex ou (B*)'C(D) | om gar '* ex ou | ek sou B^ b?cAQ | exeleusetai] + egoumenos A On the relation of the LXX. in this passage to the M. T. see above p. 338. Chiliasin, hegemosin answer to different vocalisations of 'lphy, but oudamos elachiste ei and hegoumenos hostis p. ton l. mou are paraphrastic. The Evangelist has put into the mouth of the Scribes an interpretation rather than a version of the prophecy. Mt. iv. 15 f. Isa. ix. 1 f. ge Zaboulon kai ge Nephthaleim, hodon thalasses, peran tou Iordanou, Galeilaia ton ethnon, ho laos ho kathemenos en skotia phos eiden mega; kai tois kathemenois en chora kai skia thanatou phos aneteilen autois. chora Zaboulon, he ge Nephthaleim, kai hoi loipoi hoi ten paralian kai peran tou Iordanou, Galeilaia ton ethnon. ho laos ho poreuomenos en skotei, idete phos mega; hoi katoikountes en chora skia thanatou, phos lampsei eph' humas. oi kathemenoi D | kai skia] om kai D* Nephthaleim] + odon thalasses '^ c.aAQ (Aq. Th.) | paralian] + katoikountes '^ c.aAQ | poreuomenos] kathemenos A | skia] pr kai '^ c.aAQG Here Mt. differs widely both from LXX. and M. T., yet he has points of agreement with both. The influence of LXX. is seen in ge Z., G. ton ethnon, chora [kai] skia. On the other hand hodon thalasses, eiden, autois agree with M.T. The writer quotes from memory, or from a collection of loosely cited testimonia. Mt. viii. 17 Isa. liii. 4 autos tas astheneias hemon elaben kai tas nosous ebastasen houtos tas hamartias hemon pherei kai peri hemon odunatai. Mt.'s version is based upon Heb., from which the LXX. departs. Cf. Symm.: tas hamartias hemon autos anelaben kai tous ponous hupemeinen. Mt. xiii. 35 Ps. lxxvii. 2 anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou; ereuxomai kekrummena apo kataboles. anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou; phthenxomai problemata ap' arches. kataboles] + kosmou '*CD V. 35^ a in Mt. follows the LXX. verbatim, while 35^ b is an independent rendering of the Heb. The departure from the LXX. in the second half of the text is not altogether for the sake of exactness; if ereuxomai is nearer to 'byh than phthenxomai, apo kataboles introduces a conception which has no place in mnyqdm, and in this sense the Greek phrase is practically limited to the N. T. (see Hort on 1 Pet. i. 20). Mt. xxvii. 9 f. [828] Zach. xi. 13 kai elabon . . . ten timen tou tetimemenou hon etimesanto apo huion Israel, kai edokan auta eis ton agron tou kerameos, katha sunetaxen moi Kurios. kai eipen Kurios pros me Kathes autous eis to choneuterion kai skepsomai ei dokimon estin, hon tropon edokimasthen huper auton. kai elabon . . . kai enebalon autous eis ton oikon Kuriou eis to choneuterion. edoken A*^ vid edoka ' edokimasthen B*^ fort'AQ Mt. has re-arranged this passage, and given its sense, without regard to the order or construction of the original. In doing this he has abandoned the LXX. altogether, and approximates to the Heb.; cf. Aq. he timen hen etimethen huper auton. In these five passages the compiler of the first Gospel has more or less distinctly thrown off the yoke of the Alexandrian version and substituted for it a paraphrase, or an independent rendering from the Hebrew. But our evidence does not encourage the belief that the Evangelist used or knew another complete Greek version of the Old Testament, or of any particular book. It is to be observed that he uses this liberty only in quotations which proceed from himself, if we except the references to the O. T. in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. v. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) which are hardly of the nature of strict citations; the formula errethe tois archaiois distinguishes them from that class, and suggests that they purport only to give the general sense. (b) The Fourth Gospel quotes the LXX. verbatim, or with slight variants, in cc. ii. 17, x. 34, xii. 38, xix. 24, 36; and more freely in vi. 31, 45, xv. 25. In other places the author takes a more or less independent course: e.g. in i. 23, quoting Isa. xl. 3 he writes euthunate ten hodon Kuriou for etoimasate t. ho. K., eutheias poieite tas tribous tou theou hemon (cf. Mt. iii. 3, Mc. i. 3, Lc. iii. 4); in xii. 40, Isa. vi. 9, 10 is paraphrased tetuphloken auton tous ophthalmous kai eporosen auton ten kardian, which agrees neither with the LXX. nor with M.T.; in xix. 37 opsontai eis hon exekentesan is a non-Septuaginta rendering of Zach. xii. 10, which was perhaps current in Palestine, since eis hon exekentesan appears also in Theodotion (cf. Aq., Symm., and Apoc. i. 7) [829] . (c) The quotations from the O. T. in the Acts are taken from the LXX. exclusively. With the exception of the perioche in c. viii. 32 [830] , they occur only in the speeches. A few points deserve special notice. In vii. 43 (= Amos v. 26) the LXX. is followed against M.T. (Rhaipha(n) or Rhaiphan, kyvn). Similarly in xiii. 34 (= Isa. lv. 3) ta hosia Daueid is read with the LXX. for chsdy dvd. C. xiii. 22 is a conflation of Ps. lxxxviii. 21 + lxxi. 20 + 1 Regn. xiii. 14 + Isa. xliv. 28. C. xv. 16 ff., which is introduced by the formula touto sumphonousin hoi logoi ton propheton, kathos gegraptai, presents a remarkable instance of free citation accompanied by conflation, which calls for separate study. Acts xv. 16 ff. Jer. xii. 15 + Amos ix. 11 f. meta tauta anastrepso kai anoikodomeso ten skenen Daueid ten peptokuian, kai ta kateskammena autes anoikodomeso kai anorthoso auten, hopos an ekzetesosin hoi kataloipoi ton anthropon ton kurion kai panta ta ethne eph' ohus epikekletai to onoma mou ep' autous, legei Kurios ho poion tauta * * * [831] . meta to ekbalein me autous epistrepso . . . anasteso ten skenen Daueid ten peptokuian . . . kai ta kateskammena autes anasteso kai anoikodomeso auten kathos hai hemerai tou aionos, hopos ekzetesosin hoi kataloipoi ton anthropon, kai panta ta ethne eph' ohus epikekletai to onoma mou ep' autous, legei Kurios ho poion tauta. katestrammena] kateskammena ACD kateskammena] katestrammena A?^bO opos] + an A | anthropon] + ton kurion A The combination in this quotation of looseness with close adherence to the LXX. even where it is furthest from the Heb. (e.g. in hopos ekzetesosin ktl.) is significant, especially when it is remembered that the speaker is St James of Jerusalem. (d) The Catholic Epistles use the LXX. when they quote the O.T. expressly, and with some exceptions keep fairly close to the Alexandrian Greek. Thus Jas. ii. 8, 11 [832] , 23, iv. 6, 1 Pet. i. 24 [833] , iv. 18, v. 5, are substantially exact. 1 Pet. ii. 6 differs from the LXX. of Isa. xxviii. 16. 1 Pet. iii. 10 ff., an unacknowledged extract from Ps. xxxiii. 12 ff., is adapted to the context by a slight change in the construction, but otherwise generally follows the LXX.: thelon zoen agapan kai idein hemeras agathas for thelon z., agapon id. hem. agathas is probably a slip, shewing that the writer was quoting from memory. In 2 Pet. ii. 22 (= Prov. xxvi. 11) kuon epistrepsas epi to idion exerama is nearer to the Heb. than k. hotan epelthe epi ton heautou emeton, and appears to be an independent rendering. (e) More than half of the direct quotations from the O.T. in the Epistles of St Paul are taken from the LXX. without material change (Rom. i. 17, ii. 24, iii. 4, iv. 7 f., 18, vii. 7, viii. 36, ix. 7, 12, 13, 15, 26, x. 6 ff., 16, 18, 19, 20 f., xi. 26 f., 34f., xii. 20 f., xiii. 9, xv. 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21; 1 Cor. iii. 20, vi. 16, x. 7, 26, xv. 32; 2 Cor. iv. 13, vi. 2, viii. 15, ix. 9; Gal. iii. 6, 10, 11, 12, iv. 27, v. 14; Eph. iv. 16; 2 Tim. ii. 19). A smaller proportion skew important variants (Rom. iii. 20 = Gal. ii. 16 pasa sarx for pas zon LXX.; ix. 9 kata ton kairon touton eleusomai, kai estai te Sarra huios for hexo . . . kata ton kairon touton . . . kai hexei huion Sarra LXX.; ix. 17 eis auto touto exegeira se for heneken toutou dieterethes, and dunamin for ischun LXX. [834] ; ix. 27 ho arithmos ton huion I., epi tes ges; xiv. 11 zo ego for kat' emautou omnuo, exomologesetai to theo for omeitai ton theon LXX.; 1 Cor. i. 19 atheteso for krupso LXX.; Gal. iii. 8 panta ta ethne for pasai hai phulai tes ges LXX.; iii. 13 epikataratos (cf. v. 20) for kekataramenos LXX.; Eph. iv. 8 edoken domata tois anthropois for elabes d. en anthropo [835] LXX.; iv. 25 meta tou plesion for pros ton pl. LXX.; v. 31 anti toutou for heneken t., om. autou 1º, 2º; cf. Mt. xix. 5 f., Mc. x. 7 f.; vi. 3 kai ese makrochronios for k. ina makrochr. gene). In other passages St Paul departs still further from the LXX., quoting freely, or paraphrasing, or fusing two distinct passages into a single citation, or occasionally deserting the Alexandrian version altogether. Examples of loose quotations or of paraphrases will be found in Rom. ix. 27, xi. 3, 4, 1 Cor. xv. 45, Gal. iv. 30; conflation occurs in Rom. iii. 10 ff. [836] , ix. 33, xi. 8, 9, 26 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 54 f., 2 Cor. vi. 16 ff. The following instances will shew how far reconstruction is carried in cases of conflation. Rom. ix. 33 idou tithemi en Sion lithon proskommatos kai petran skandalou; kai ho pisteuon ep' auto ou kataischunthesetai [837] Isa. viii. 14 ouch hos lithou proskommati sunantesesthe oude hos petras ptomati [838] . xxviii. 16 idou ego emballo eis ta themelia Seion lithon polutele, eklekton akrogoniaion, entimon . . . kai ho pisteuon ou me kataischunthe. Rom. xi. 8 edoken autois ho theos pneuma katanuxeos, ophthalmous tou me blepein kai ota tou me akouein, heos tes semeron hemeras. Isa. xxix. 10 pepotiken humas Kurios pneumati katanuxeos. Deut. xxix. 4 kai ouk edoken Kurios ho theos humin kardian eidenai kai ophthalmous [tou] blepein kai ota akouein heos tes hemeras tautes. 1 Cor. ii. 9 ha ophthalmos ouk eiden kai ous ouk ekousen kai epi kardian anthropou ouk anebe, hosa hetoimasen ho theos tois agaposin auton [839] . Isa. lxiv. 3 ouk ekousamen oude hoi ophthalmoi hemon eidon theon plen sou, kai ta erga sou ha poieseis tois hupomenousin eleon. lxv. 17 oud' ou me epelthe auton epi kardian. agaposin] upomenousin Clem. R. i. 34, 8. 1 Cor. xv. 54 f. katepothe ho thanatos eis nikos. [840] pou sou, thanate, to nikos; pou sou, thanate, to kentron; Isa. xxv. 8 katepien ho thanatos ischusas Hos. xiii. 14 pou he dike sou, thanate; pou to kentron sou, hade; In some cases a wide departure from the LXX. is probably to be explained by the supposition that the Apostle quotes from memory; e.g.: Rom. xi. 2 ff. 3 Regn. xix. 14 ff. ouk oidate en Eleia ti legei he graphe . . . Kurie, tous prophetas sou apekteinan, ta thusiasteria sou kateskapsan, kago hupeleiphthen monos kai zetousin ten psuchen mou. alla ti legei auto ho chrematismos; Katelipon emauto heptakischilious andras, hoitines ouk ekampsan gonu te Baal. kai eipen Eleiou . . . ta thusiasteria sou katheilan kai tous prophetas sou apekteinan . . . kai hupoleleimmai ego monotatos kai zetousi ten psuchen mou . . . kai eipen Kurios pros auton . . . kataleipseis en Israel hepta chiliadas andron, panta gonata ha ouk oklasan gonu to Baal. The following quotation also is probably from memory [841] , but the Apostle's knowledge of the original has enabled him to improve upon the faulty rendering of the LXX. 1 Cor. xiv. 21 Isa. xxviii. 11 f. en to nomo gegraptai hoti En heteroglossois kai en cheilesin heteron laleso to lao touto, kai oud' houtos eisakousontai mou, legei Kurios dia phaulismon cheileon, dia glosses heteras; hoti lalesousin to lao touto . . . kai ouk ethelesan akouein. Jerome, quoting these words from St Paul, rightly adds, "Quod mihi videtur iuxta Hebraicum de praesenti sumptum capitulo." Aquila's rendering is remarkably similar, hoti en heteroglossois kai en cheilesin heterois laleso to lao touto. Theodotion unfortunately is wanting. (f) The Ep. to the Hebrews is in great part a catena of quotations from the LXX. "The text of the quotations agrees in the main with some form of the present text of the LXX. [842] " A considerable number of the passages are cited exactly, or with only slight variation (i. 5, 8 f., 13; ii. 6 ff., 13; iv. 4, v. 6, vi. 13 f., viii. 5, xi. 5, 18, 21; xii. 5 f., xiii. 6). The writer usually follows the LXX. even when they differ materially from the Heb. (viii. 8 ff. [843] , x. 5 ff. , soma de katertiso moi, 37 ean huposteiletai, xi. 21 rhabdou, xii. 5 mastigoi [844] ). But he sometimes deserts both version and original, substituting a free paraphrase, or apparently citing from memory (i. 6, ix. 20 eneteilato, x. 30 [845] , xii, 19 f., 26). Some of his readings are interesting: in i. 7 we have puros phloga for pur phlegon [846] ; in i. 12 hos himation seems to be a doublet of hosei peribolaion. Notice also ii. 12 apangelo for diegesomai (perhaps after Ps. xxi. 31 f.); iii. 9 en dokimasia for edokimasan ( for ) and iii. 10 tesserakonta ete; dio prosochthisa for tess. ete prosochth.; x. 6 eudokesas for hetesas B, ezetesas 'ART; xii. 15 enochle for en chole, a corruption supported even in the LXX. by B*AF*. In the Epistles, as in the Gospels, the text of the LXX. which is employed inclines to cod. A rather than to cod. B. But its agreement with the A text is not without exception; and these are other elements in the problem which must not be overlooked. As in the Gospels, again, we notice from time to time a preference for Lucianic readings, or for the readings of Theodotion. It has been reasonably conjectured that the writers of the N.T. used a recension which was current in Palestine, possibly also in Asia Minor, and which afterwards supplied materials to Theodotion, and left traces in the Antiochian Bible, and in the text represented by cod. A. We shall revert to this subject in a later chapter; for the present it is enough to notice the direction to which the evidence of the N.T. seems to point. 4. We have dealt so far with direct quotations. But in estimating the influence of the LXX. upon the N. T. it must not be forgotten that it contains almost innumerable references of a less formal character. These are in many cases likely to escape notice, and it is not the least of the debts which we owe to the Westcott and Hort text, that attention is called to them by the use of uncial type. They will be found chiefly (a) in the words of our Lord (e.g. Mt. vii. 23 = Lc. xiii. 27, Mc. x. 21, 35 f. = Lc. xii. 52 f., xi. 5 = Lc. vii. 22, xi. 21, 23 = Lc. x. 15, 28 f., xiii. 32 = Mc. iv. 32 = Lc. xiii. 19, xvii. 17 = Lc. ix. 41, xviii. 16, xxi. 33 = Mc. xii. 1 = Lc. xx. 9, xxiv. 29 ff. = Mc. xiii. 24 ff. = Lc. xxi. 25 ff., xxiv. 39 = Lc. xvii. 27, xxvi. 64 = Mc. xiv. 62 = Lc. xxii. 69; Mc. iv. 29, vi. 23, ix. 48, xvi. 19; Lc. xii. 53, xxi. 22, 24, xxiii. 30, 46); (b) in the canticles of Lc. i.--ii.; (c) in St Stephen's speech, and, though more sparsely, in the other speeches of the Acts; (d) in the Epistle of St James [847] and the First Epistle of St Peter; (e) in the Epistles of St Paul; where, though not so numerous as the citations, the allusions to the LXX. are more widely distributed, occurring in 1, 2 Thessalonians, Philippians and Colossians, as well as in the great dogmatic Epistles; (f) in the Epistle to the Hebrews (ii. 16, iii. 5 f., vi. 7 f., 19 f., vii. 1 ff., x. 29 ff., xi. 12 f., 17 f., 28, xii. 12--21, xiii. 11, 20); and especially (g) in the Apocalypse, where references to the Greek Old Testament abound in every chapter. 5. This summary by no means represents the extent of the influence exerted upon the N.T. by the Alexandrian Version. The careful student of the Gospels and of St Paul is met at every turn by words and phrases which cannot be fully understood without reference to their earlier use in the Greek Old Testament. Books which are not quoted in the N.T., e.g. the non-canonical books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Maccabees, find echoes there, and not a few of the great theological words which meet us in the Apostolic writings seem to have been prepared for their Christian connotation by employment in the Alexandrian appendix to the Canon [848] . Not the Old Testament only, but the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament, has left its mark on every part of the New Testament, even in chapters and books where it is not directly cited [849] . It is not too much to say that in its literary form and expression the New Testament would have been a widely different book had it been written by authors who knew the Old Testament only in the original, or who knew it in a Greek. version other than that of the LXX. LITERATURE. F. Junius, Sacrorum Parallelorum libri iii. (Heidelberg, 1588); J. Drusius, Parallela Sacra (Franeker, 1594); H. Hody, De Bibl. textibus, p. 243 ff. (Oxford, 1705); W. Surenhusius, sphr hmsych sive biblos katallages (Amsterdam, 1713); H. Owen, Modes of quotation used by the Evangelical writers explained and vindicated (London, 1789); H. Gough, N. T. Quotations (London, 1855); A. Tholuck, Das A. T. in N.T.-erste Beilage (Gotha, 1836); D. M^ cC. Turpie, The Old Testament in the New (London, 1868); The New Testament view of the Old (London, 1872); Kautzsch, De Veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo ap. allegatis (Leipzig, 1869); C. Taylor, The Gospel in the Law (Cambridge, 1869); H. Monnet, Les citations de l'Ancien Testament dans les Épîtres de Saint Paul (Lausanne, 1874); Böhl, Die ATlichen Citate im N.T. (Vienna, 1878); C. H. Toy, Quotations in the New Testament (New York, 1884); E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 131 ff. (Oxford, 1889); W. Staerk, in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie, xxxv.--xl.; Bp Lightfoot's Biblical Essays, p. 136 ff. (London, 1893); A. Clemen, Der Gebrauch des A.T. in den NTlichen Schriften (Gütersloh, 1895); H. Vollmer, Die ATlichen Citate bei Paulus (Freiburg in B., 1895); J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 123 ff. (Oxford, 1889); W. Dittmar, Vetus Testamentum in Novo i. (Göttingen, 1899); Th. Zahn, Einleitung in das N.T., ii. p. 313 ff., and elsewhere (see Sachregister s. ATliche Citate (Leipzig, 1899); E. Hühn, Die ATlichen Citate and Reminiscenzen im N.T. (Tübingen, 1900). See also the commentaries on particular books of the N.T., e.g. Bp Westcott, Hebrews, p 469 ff.; J. B. Mayor, St James, p. lxviii. ff.; H. B. Swete, St Mark, p. lxx ff.; Apocalypse, p. cxxxix. ff.; G. Milligan, Thessalonians, pp. liv., lviii. f. __________________________________________________________________ [814] See below, p. 403. [815] See above, p. 251 f. [816] Westcott, Hebrews, p. 473. [817] Turpie, O.T. in the N., p. 267. [818] Grinfield, Apology for the LXX., p. 37. [819] On these see Hatch, Essays, p. 104, and the writer's St Mark, p. 255. [820] Hatch, op. cit., p. 177 f. [821] St Mark, p. 318 f. [822] Cf. Sir J. C. Hawkins, Hor. Syn., p. 123 ff. [823] St Mark, p. 2. [824] In nos. xxxv., xxxvi., xxxviii., xl. [825] xxxvi., p. 97 f. [826] Cf. Zahn, Einleitung, ii. p. 314 ff. [827] Cf. p. 48. [828] Mt. ascribes this prophecy to Jeremiah: tote eplerothe to rhethen dia Ieremiou tou prophetou. The slip is probably due to a confusion between Zach. 1. c. and Jer. xviii. 2. [829] See against this Nestle, Textual Criticism of the N. T., p. 291. [830] An exact citation, with one or two variants of the A type. [831] On this reading see W. H.², Notes on select readings, p. 96. [832] Cf. Mc. x. 19, Lc. xviii. 20. Jas. ii. 23, v. 20, 1 Pet. iv. 8, differ from LXX. [833] On the few variants in this passage see Hort, St Peter, p. 93. [834] B A reads dunamin. [835] anois Ba'Ra. [836] On this passage, see above, p. 251 f. [837] Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 8 (Hort). [838] Aq. kai eis stereon skandalou. [839] On this passage see Resch, Agrapha, p. 154 ff. [840] So Theodotion. [841] As en to nomo seems to indicate. [842] Westcott, Hebrews, p. 476. [843] Cf. p. 338. [844] Yet "he nowhere shews any immediate knowledge of the Hebrew text" (Westcott, op. cit., p. 479). [845] Cf. Rom. xii. 19. Apparently a stock quotation, current in this form. [846] A a has puros phlega (sic) in Ps. ciii. 4. [847] See Mayor, St James, pp. lxviii. ff., cxxxix. [848] The facts are collected by Dr Ryle in Smith's D.B.² art. Apocrypha (i. pp 183, 185). [849] See below, c. iv. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER III. QUOTATIONS FROM THE LXX. IN EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS. "THE quotations from the LXX. in the Greek Fathers are an almost unworked field [850] ." So wrote Dr Hatch in 1889, and the remark is still true. Indeed, this field can hardly be worked with satisfactory results until the editor has gone before, or a competent collator has employed himself upon the MSS. of the author whose quotations are to be examined. The 'Apostolic Fathers' can already be used with confidence in the editions of Lightfoot and Gebhardt-Harnack; the minor Greek Apologists have been well edited in Texte und Untersuchungen, and it may be hoped that the Berlin edition of the earlier Greek Fathers [851] will eventually supply the investigator with trustworthy materials for the Ante-Nicene period as a whole. But for the present the evidence of many Ante-Nicene and of nearly all later Greek Church-writers must be employed with some reserve. In this chapter we shall limit ourselves to the more representative Christian writers before Origen. 1. The earliest of non-canonical Christian writings, the letter addressed c. A.D. 96 by the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, abounds in quotations from the O.T.; and more than half of these are given substantially in the words of the LXX. with or without variants. The following is a list of the exact or nearly exact quotations of the LXX. in Clem. R. ad Cor. Gen. ii. 23 (vi. 3), iv. 3 ff. (iv. 1 ff.), xii. 1 ff. (x. 3), xiii. 14 ff. (x. 4 f.), xv. 5 (x. 6), xviii. 27 (xvii. 2); Exod. ii. 14 (iv. 9); Deut. xxxiii. 8 f. (xxix. 2); Ps. ii. 7 f. (xxxvi. 4), xi. 5 f. (xv. 5), xvii. 26 f. (xlvi. 2), xviii. 2 ff. (xxvii. 7), xxi. 7 ff. (xvi. 15 f.), xxiii. 1 (liv. 3), xxx. 9 (xv. 5), xxxi. 1 f. (l. 6), 10 (xxii. 8), xxxiii. 12--20 (xxii. 1 ff.), xxxvi. 35 f. (xiv. 5), xlix. 16 ff. (xxxv. 7 ff.), l. 3 ff. (xviii. 2 ff.), lxi. 5 (xv. 3), lxxvii. 36 (xv. 4), lxxxviii. 21 (xviii. 1), cii. 4 (xxxvi. 3), cix. 1 (xxxvi. 5), cxvii. 18 (lvi. 3), 19 f. (xlviii. 2), cxxxviii. 7 f. (xxviii. 3), cxl. 5 (1vi. 5); Prov. i. 23 ff. (lvii. 3 ff.), ii. 21 f. (xiv. 4), iii. 12 (lvi. 3 f.), 34 (xxx. 2), xx. 21 (xxi. 2); Job iv. 16 ff. (xxxix. 3 ff.), v. 17 ff. (lvi. 6 ff.), xi. 2 f. (xxx. 4), xix. 26 (xxvi. 2); Sap. xii. 12 + xi. 22 (xxvii. 3); Mal. iii. 1 (xxiii. 5); Isa. i. 16 ff. (viii. 4), vi. 3 (xxxiv. 6), xiii. 22 (xxiii. 5), xxix. 13 (xv. 2), liii. 1 ff. (xvi. 3 ff.), lx. 17 (xlii. 5), lxvi. 2 (xiii. 3); Jer. ix. 23 f. (xiii. 1); Ezech. xxxiii. 11 (viii. 2); Dan. vii. 10, Th. (xxxiv. 6). The variants are often of much interest, as shewing affinities to certain types of LXX. text. The following are specially worthy of notice: Ps. xxi. 7 exouthenema, 'AR; xxxi. 1 f. hou, ' BA (ag. '^ c.a ho); xxxiii. 14 cheile tou, '^ c.aAR; 16 om. hoti, '^ c.aAR; xxxvi. 36 exezetesa (H.P. 99, 183); xlix. 21 anome, 'o ; 22 harp. hos leon, R; l. 17 to stoma . . . ta cheile; lxxxviii. 21 eleei, B ; Prov. ii. 21 chrestoi esontai oiketores ges, akakoi de hupoleiphthesontai ep' autes, cf. '^ c.aA--a doublet wanting in B, whose reading "appears to shew the hand of an Alexandrian reviser" (Toy, cf. Lagarde); iii. 12 paideuei, 'A; xx. 21 (27) luchnos, a reading found in A as a doublet (phos . . . e luchnos); Job iv. 21 eteleutesan (for exeranthesan), A; v. 17 ff. is without the additions of the A text, and nearly as in B; Isa. i. 17 chera, B , ag. B^ ab'A, deute kai dielenchth. (dialechth. C^clem), 'AQ; liii. 5 hamartias . . . anomias tr., 'AQ; 6 huper ton hamartion hemon; 8 hekei for echthe, Q^ mg, 62, 90 al., Syrohex.^ mg; 9 heurethe dolos '^c.aAQ (see Lightfoot's note); tes pleges, B (A, apo t. pl.; lx. 17 archontas] episkopous | episkopous] diakonous; Ezech. xxxiii. 11 hamartolou, A (B, asebous); Dan. vii. 10 eleitourgoun, Th. (LXX. etherapeuon) [852] . (a) A few readings imply correction from the Hebrew, or rather perhaps a Greek text with affinities to the translations of the second century; e.g. Ps. cxxxviii. 8 ean katastroso, A. S. ean stroso, (LXX. ean katabo); Isa. lxvi. 2 praon, A. (LXX. tapeinon). Others seem to be due to the imperfect memory of the writer, who has not verified his quotations by referring to his papyrus, e.g. Ps. lxxxviii. 21 en eleei aiomio: Mal. iii. 1 ho hagios [853] for angelos. (b) A large proportion of Clement's quotations are composite [854] ; sixteen passages may be thus described. Some of these consist of citations accurately given from the LXX. and strung together, with or without a formula citandi (e.g. lvi. 3--14 = Ps. cxvii. 18 + Prov. iii. 12 + Ps. cxl. 5 (phesin) + Job v. 17--26 kai palin legei)). In other cases one of the citations is correctly given, and another quoted loosely (e.g. xiv. 4 = Prov. ii. 21 f. (A) + Ps. xxxvi. 38, confused with 21^ b). But more commonly in Clement's conflate quotations, texts are fused together without regard to verbal accuracy; cf. e.g. xxvi. 20 legei gar pou Kai exanasteseis me kai exomologesomai soi; kai ekoimethe kai hupnosa; exegerthen, hoti su met' emou ei, where fragments of Pss. xxvii. 7, iii. 5, xxii. 4 are blended into an arabesque. Except in this class of quotations Clement is not often guilty of citing loosely; see however xx. 7 (Job xxxviii. 11), xxviii. 3 (Ps. cxxxviii. 7), xxxii. 3 (Gen. xv. 5), xlii. 5 (Isa. lx. 17). (c) Special interest attaches to Clement's quotations of passages which are also quoted in the N.T. The following are the most instructive instances: (1) Gen. xii. 1 = Acts vii. 3 = Clem. x. 3: Clem. reads apelthe for exelthe (LXX. and Acts), but rejects kai deuro with AD against Acts and cod. E. (2) Exod. ii. 14 = Acts vii. 27 = Clem. iv. 11: Clem. reads kriten for archonta--"perhaps from confusion with Lc. xii. 14" (Lightfoot). (3) Jer. ix. 23 f. (1 Regn. ii. 10) = 1 Cor. i. 31, (2 Cor. x. 17) = Clem. xiii. 1; here the relation of Clement to the Biblical texts is best shewn by juxtaposition: Jer. l.c. 1 Regn. l.c. [855] Clem. l.c. me kauchastho ho sophos en te sophia autou, kai me kauchastho ho ischuros en te ischui autou, kai me kauchastho ho plousios en to plouto autou; all' e en touto kauchastho ho kauchomenos, suniein kai ginoskein hoti ego eimi Kurios ho poion eleos kai krima kai dikaiosunen epi tes ges. me kauchastho ho phronimos en te phronesei autou, kai me kauchastho ho dunatos en te dunamei autou, kai me kauchastho ho plousios en to plouto autou; all' e en touto kauchastho ho kauchomenos, suniein kai ginoskein ton kurion, kai poiein krima kai dikaiosunen en meso tes ges. me kauchastho ho sophos en te sophia autou, uede ho ischuros en te ischui autou, uede ho plousios en to plouto autou; all' e ho kauchomenos en Kurio kauchastho [856] , tou ekzetein auton kai poiein krima kai dikaiosunen. (4) Ps. xxi. 9 = Matt. xxvii. 43 = Clem. xvi. 15; Clem. agrees with LXX., Mt. substitutes pepoithen for elpisen, ton theon for Kurion, and ei for hoti. (5) Ps. xxxiii. 12 ff. = 1 Pet. iii. 10 ff. = Clem. xxii. 1 ff.; Clem. agrees with LXX. against St Peter, who changes the construction (ho thelon . . . pausato ktl.). (6) Ps. cix. 1 = Mt. xxii. 44 (Mc., Lc.), Acts ii. 34 f., Heb. i. 13 = Clem. xxxvi. 5: Clem. reads hupopodion with Lc., Acts, Hebr., against hupokato Mt., Mc. (BD). (7) Prov. iii. 12 = Heb. xii. 6 = Clem. lvi. 4: see above, p. 402. (8) Prov. iii. 34 = Jas. iv. 6, 1 Pet. v. 5 = Clem. xxx. 2: Theos (ho th. Jas., Pet.) against Kurios LXX.; M.T. hv', but with reference to yhvh in v. 33. (9) Isa. xxix. 13 [857] = Mt. xv. 8, Mc. vii. 6 = Clem. xv. 1: again the passages must be printed in full: Isa. l.c. Mt., Mc. ll.cc. Clem. l.c. engizei moi ho laos houtos en to stomati autou, kai en tois cheilesin auton timosin me, he de kardia auton porro apechei ap' emou. om en to stom. autou kai en 'AQ. ho laos houtos (houtos ho laos Mc.) tois cheilesin me tima, he de kardia auton porro apechei ap' emou. apechei] Mc. aphesteken D apestin L 2^ pe Houtos ho laos tois cheilesin me tima, he de kardia auton porro apestin ap' emou. tois cheilesin] to stomati C^ clem. apestin] apechei C^ clem. Through constant citation, the context has taken more than one type; Clement's is close to that of the Evangelists, but has not been borrowed from them in their present form, as apestin shews. (10) Isa. liii. 1--12 = Clem. xvi. 3--14; cf. Jo. xii. 38 (Rom. x. 16), Mt. viii. 17, Acts viii. 32 f., 1 Pet. ii. 22, Mc. xv. 28. The general result of this examination is to shew (a) that Clement's text of the LXX. inclines in places to that which appears in the N.T., and yet presents sufficient evidence of independence; (b) that as between the texts of the LXX. represented by B and A, while often supporting A, it is less constantly opposed to B than is the New Testament; and (c) that it displays an occasional tendency to agree with Theodotion and even with Aquila against the LXX. It seems in fact to be a more mixed text than that which was in the hands of the Palestinian writers of the N.T. These conclusions harmonise on the whole with what we know of the circumstances under which Clement wrote. The early Roman Church was largely composed of Greek-speaking Jews, the freedmen of Roman families; and Clement himself, as Lightfoot has suggested [858] , was probably of Jewish descent and a freedman or the son of a freedman of Flavius Clemens, the cousin of Domitian. Under these circumstances it was natural that the text of Clement's copies of Old Testament books, while derived from Palestinian archetypes, should contain readings brought to the capital by Jewish-Greek visitors from other lands. 2. Whatever the history of the so-called Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, whether it is of Roman or of Corinthian origin, like the genuine Epistle it makes extensive use of the Greek Old Testament. The following quotations occur: Gen. i. 27 (xiv. 2); Mal. iv. 1 (xvi. 3); Isa. xxix. 13 (iii. 5), xxxiv. 4 (xvi. 3), lii. 5 (xiii. 2), liv. 1 (ii. 1), lviii. 9 (xv. 3), lxvi. 18 (xvii. 4 f.), 24 (vii. 6, xvii. 24); Jer. vii. 11 (xiv. 1), Ezech. xiv. 14, 18, 20 (vi. 8). The last of these passages is cited very freely or rather summarised, although introduced by the words legei he graphe en to Ezeloel.. The writer follows Clement in the form of several of his quotations (iii. 5 = Clem. 1 Cor. xv. 2, xiv. 2 = Clem. 1 Cor. xxxiii. 5; in xiii. 2 he quotes Isa. lii. 5 as it is quoted by Polycarp (see below)). 3. Another second century document, indisputably Roman, the Shepherd of Hermas, contains no quotation from the LXX. But Ps. ciii. 15 LXX. has supplied the writer with a phrase in Mand. xii. 3. 4, and Vis. iv. 2. 4 supplies evidence that he knew and read a version of Daniel which was akin to Theodotion's. The passage runs: ho kurios apesteilen ton angelon autou ton epi ton therion onta, hou to onoma estin Segri [859] , kai enephraxen to stoma autou hina me se lumane. Compare Dan. vi. 22 (23) Th., ho theos mou apesteilen ton angelon autou kai enephraxen ta stomata ton leonton, (LXX.. sesoke me ho theos apo ton leonton) kai ouk elumenanto me [860] . 4. The Old Testament is quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas even more profusely than in the Epistle of Clement, but with less precision. The writer is fairly exact in well known contexts belonging to the Psalter or the Book of Isaiah [861] , but elsewhere he appears to trust to memory, and not to concern himself greatly about the words of his author. Even when preceded by a formula citandi his citations often wander far from the LXX., although they are clearly based upon it; e.g. Exod. xxxiii. 1--3 is quoted in Barn. vi. 8 after this manner: ti legei ho allos prophetes Mouses autois; Idou tade legei Kurios ho theos Eiselthate eis ten gen ten agathen, hen omosen Kurios to Abraam kai Isaak kai Iakob, kai katakleronomesate auten, gen rheousan gala kai meli. Similar liberties are taken even when which he is quoting: x. 2 Mouses . . . legei autois en to Deuteronomio Kai diathesomai pros ton laon touton ta dikaiomata mou--a sentence which, though it has all the notes of a strict quotation, proves to be a mere summary of Deut. iv. 1--23. The following analysis of the quotations in Barnabas may be found useful. (a) Exact or nearly exact: Gen. i. 28 (Barn. vi. 12), Exod. xx. 14. (xix. 4), Deut. x. 16 (ix. 5), Ps. i. 1, 3--6 (x. 1, xi. 6 f.), xvii. 45 (ix. 1), xxi. 17, 19 (vi. 6), cix. 1 (xii. 10), cxvii. 12, 22 (vi. 4, 6), Prov. i. 17 (v. 4), Isa. i. 2, 10 ff. (ii. 5, ix. 3, xv. 8), iii. 9f. (vi. 7), v. 21 (iv. 11), xxviii. 16 (vi. 2 f.), xxxiii. 13 (ix. 1), 16 (xi. 4 f.), xl. 12 (xvi. 2), xlii. 6 ff. (xiv. 7), xlv. 2 f. (xi. 4), x1ix. 6 f. (xiv. 8), liii. 5, 7 (v. 2), lxi. 1 f. (xiv. 9), lxvi. 1 f. (xvi. 2). (b) Partly exact, partly free: Gen. xxv. 21 ff. (xiii. 2), xlviii. 9--11, 14 ff. (xiii. 4 f.), Isa. xxviii. 16 (vi. 2), lviii. 4 ff. (iii. 1 f.), Jer. ii. 12 f. (xi. 2). (c) Free: Gen. i. 26 (vi. 12), 28 (vi. 18), Lev. xxiii. 29 (vii. 3), Deut. ix. 12 (iv. 8), x. 16 (ix. 5), Ps. xxi. 21, cxviii. 120, xxi. 17 (v. 13), Zech. xiii. 7 (v. 12), xvi. 1 f. (xi. 3), xl. 3 (ix. 3), Isa. l. 6 ff. (v. 14, vi. 1), lxv. 2 (xii. 4), Jer. iv. 3 (ix. 5), vii. 2 (ix. 2), ix. 26 (ix. 5), Ezech. xi. 19, xxxvi. 26 (vi. 14). (d) Free, with fusion: Gen. xvii. 23 + xiv. 14 (ix. 8), Exod. xx. 8 + Ps. xxiii. 4 (xv. 1), Exod. xxxii. 7 + Deut. ix. 12 (iv. 8), xxxiv. 28 + xxxi. 18 (iv. 7), Ps. xli. 3 + xxi. 23 (vi. 15), l. 19 + apocryphon (ii. 10), Jer. vii. 22 f. + Zech. vii. 10, viii. 17 (ii. 7 f.). (e) Free summary: Lev. xi., Deut. xiv. (x. 1), Deut. iv. 10 ff. (x. 2), Ezech. xlvii. (xi. 10). (f) Very loose citation: Gen. ii. 2 (xv. 3), xvii. 5 (xiii. 6), Exod. xvii. 14 (xii. 9), xxiv. 18 + xxxi. 18 (xiv. 2), xxxiii. 1 ff. (vi. 8), Lev. xvi. 7 ff. (vii. 6), Deut. xxvii. 15 (xii. 6), Ps. xxxiii. 13 (ix. 2), Sir. iv. 31 (xix. 9) Isa. xlix. 17 (xvi. 3), Dan. vii. 7 f., 24 (iv. 4), ix. 24 (xvi. 6). As the Epistle of Barnabas is not improbably a relic of the earliest Alexandrian Christianity, it is important to interrogate its witness to the text of the LXX. This can best be done, as we have seen, by examining its quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah. Ps. i. 1 epi kathedran, B' (ag. e. kathedra AR), 5 hoi asebeis, hamartoloi, B (ag. asebeis, hoi ham., A). xvii. 45 hupekousan, ' | mou, '^ c.a RU (ag. moi 1º B' A). xxi. 17 perieschen, H.-P. 81, 206. cix. 1 Kurios, R | hupopodion (ag. hupokato, Mc. xii. 36, BD). Isa. iii. 9 hoti, AG; v. 21 heauton, AQ; xxviii. 16 embalo, 'AQ; xlii. 7 kai exagagein | dedemenous ] pepedemenous (as Justin, Dial. 26, 65, 122). x1ix. 6 tetheika, 'AQ (ag. dedoka BQ^ mg), 7 lutrosamenos (for rhusamenos); liii. 5 anomias, hamartias, 'AQ, 7 tou keirontos auton, '^ c.a AQ; lviii. 5 legei Kurios, Q, 6 idou haute he nesteia hen; 1xi. i tapeinois, ' ; lxvi. 1 he de ge, 'AQ | he (for kai 2º), 'A. The leaning in Isaiah towards the text of Q especially when found in company with A or 'A, is noteworthy, and it is worth mentioning that in Zech. xiii. 7, where the text of Barnabas does not seem to have been influenced by the Gospels, it agrees with A in adding tes poimnes. Occasionally the text used by Barnabas seems to have been revised from the Heb.; e.g. in Jer. ii. 12 exeste, ephrixen become ekstethi, phrixato in accordance with M.T.; in Gen. ii. 2 Barnabas has with M.T. en te hemera te ebdome where the LXX. read e. t. he. te hekte [862] . 5. The Asiatic Christian writers of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, afford a striking contrast to Clement of Rome and Barnabas of Alexandria, in the rarity of their appeals to the Old Testament. (a) The genuine Epistles of Ignatius quote it only twice with a formula citandi (Prov. iii. 34 = Eph. v. 3, xviii. 17 = Magn. xii. 1); two or three allusions (Ps. xxxii. 9 = Eph. xv. 1, Isa. v. 26 = Smyrn, i. 2, lii. 5 = Trall. viii. 2) complete the instances of a direct use of the LXX. by this writer. When he quotes or alludes, he is fairly close to the LXX., unless we may except the last instance, where di humas dia pantos to onoma mou blasphemeitai en tois ethnesin appears to be changed into ouai di hou epi mataioteti to onoma mou epi tinon blasphemeitai--a form which occurs also in Pseudo-Clement (2 Cor. xiii. 2) and Polycarp (Phil. x. 3) [863] . (b) Polycarp is no less sparing in his references to the O. T. than Ignatius. He quotes only Isa. lii. 5 [864] (x. 3), Tob. iv. 10 = xii. 9 (x. 2), Ps. iv. 5 (xii. 1)--the last-named passage perhaps indirectly, from Eph. iv. 26--and Prov. iii. 4 (vi. 1). In Phil. vi. 1 there is an allusion to Ezech. xxxiv. 4, from which it may be gathered that Polycarp read there epistrepsate, with cod. A. 6. Irenaeus may be taken next, for though he belonged to the next generation and his literary activity was connected with the West, his copies of the Old Testament writings were doubtless of Asiatic provenance. His method of quotation however differs widely from that of the earlier writers. He is a theologian and a controversialist, and he quotes the Scriptures to refute an antagonist or to support the traditional faith. Accordingly his citations are, with few exceptions, either exact extracts, or but slightly abridged and adapted, and he is almost wholly free from the habit of loose paraphrase. How copiously he cites, especially in Adv. haereses iii. iv., will appear from the following list [865] . Gen. i. 3 (iv. 32. 1), 5 (v. 23. 2), 26 (iii. 23. 2, iv. 20. 1, v. 1. 3); ii. 1 f. (v. 28. 3), 5 (iii. 21. 10), 7 (ii. 34. 4, iv. 20. 1, v. 7. 1, v. 15. 2), 8 (iv. 5. 1), 16 f. (v. 23. 1), 23 (iii. 22. 4); iii. 1 ff. (v. 23. 1), 8 (v. 17. 1), 9 (v. 15. 4), 13 (iii 23. 5), 14 (iii. 23. 3), 15 (iv. 40. 3, v. 21. 1), 19 (v. 16. 1); iv. 7 (iv. 18. 3), 9 (iii. 23. 4), 10 (v. 14. 1); ix. 5 f. (v. 14. 1); xiii. 14 f., 27 (v. 32. 2); xiv. 22 (iv. 5. 5); xv. 18 (v. 32. 2); xvii. 9 ff. (iv. 16. 1); xix. 24 (iii. 6. 1), 31 ff. (iv. 31. 1); xxvii. 27 ff. (v. 33. 3); xlix. 10 ff. (iv. 10. 2), 18 (iii. 10. 3). Exod. i. 13 f. (iv. 30. 2); iii. 7 f. (iv. 7. 4), 8, 14 (iii. 6. 2), 19 (iv. 29. 2); xiii. 2 (i. 3. 4); xx. 3, 5 (i. 29. 4), 12 (iv. 9. 3); xxiii. 20 (iv. 20. 5): xxv. 40 (iv. 14. 3); xxvi. 16 (ii. 24. 3); xxxi. 13 (iv. 16. 1); xxxiii. 2 f. (iv. 15. 1), 20 (i. 19. 1), 21 ff. (iv. 20. 9); xxxiv. 6 f. (iv. 20. 8). Num. xvi. 15 (iv. 26. 4); xviii. 20 (iv. 8. 3); xxiv. 17 (iii. 9. 2). Deut. iv. 14 (iv. 16. 5), 19 (iii. 6. 5); v. 2 f. (iv. 16. 2), 8 (iii. 6. 5), 22 (iv. 15. 1, 4); vi. 4 ff. (iv. 2. 2, v. 22. 1); viii. 3 (iv. 16. 3); x. 12 (iv. 16. 4), 16 (iv. 16. 1); xvi. 5 f. (iv. 10. 1), 16 (iv. 18. 1); xviii. 1 (iv. 8. 3); xxviii. 66 (iv. 10. 2, v. 18. 3); xxx. 19 f. (iv. 16. 4); xxxii. 1 (iv. 2. 1), 4 (iii. 18. 7), 6 (iv. 10. 2; 31. 2), 8 f. (iii. 12. 9); xxxiii. 9 (iv. 8. 3). 1 Regn. xii. 2 f. (iv. 26. 4); xv. 22 (iv. 17. 1). 2 Regn. xi. 27, xii. 1 ff. (iv. 27. 1). 3 Regn. viii. 27 (iv. 27. 1); xi. 1 ff. (iv. 27. 1); xviii. 21, 24, 36 (iii. 6. 3); xix. 11 f. (iv. 20. 10). Ps. ii. 8 (iv. 21. 3); iii. 6 (iv. 31. 1); vii. 11 (iii. 10. 4); viii. 3 (i. 14. 8); xiii. 3 (i. 19. 1); xviii. 2 (i. 14. 8), 7 (iv. 33. 13); xx. 5 (ii. 34. 3); xxii. 4 f. (v. 31. 2); xxiii. 1 (iv. 36. 6); xxxi. 1 f. (v. 17. 3); xxxii. 6 (i. 22. 1; iii. 8. 2), 9 (ii. 2. 5, iii. 8. 2); xxxiii. 13 ff. (iv. 17. 3, 36. 2), 17 (iv. 28. 1); xxxiv. 9 (iv. 11. 3); xxxix. 7 (iv. 17. 1); xliv. 3 ff. (iv. 33. 11), 7 (iii. 6. 1); xlviii. 13 (iv. 4. 3), 21 (iv. 41. 3), 23 (v. 7. 2); xlix. 1 (iii. 6. 1), 3 f. (v. 18. 3), 9 ff. (iv. 17. 1); l. 14 (iii. 17. 2), 18 ff. (iv. 17. 1); lvii. 4f. (iii. 10. 1, iv. 41. 3); 1xviii. 27 (iii. 22. 2); lxxv. 2 (iii. 9. 2), 3 (iv. 33. 11); lxxvii. 5 ff. (iii. 16. 3); lxxix. 1 (iii. 11. 8); lxxxi. 1, 6 f. (iii. 6. 1, iii. 19. 1); lxxxiv. 12 (iii. 5. 1); lxxxv. 13 (v. 31. 1); xc. 13 (iii. 23. 7); xciv. 4 ff. (iii. 10. 4); xcv. 1 (iv. 9. 1), 5 (iii. 6. 3); xcvii. 2 (iii. 10. 3); xcviii. 1 (iv. 33. 13); ci. 26 ff. (iv. 3. 1); ciii. 30 (v. 33. 1); cix. 1 (ii. 28. 7, iii. 6. 1); cx. 10 (iii. 23. 5); cxiii. 11 (iii. 8. 3); cxxxi. 10 f. (iii. 9. 2); cxlv. 6 (i. 10. 1); cxlviii. 5 f. (ii. 34. 2, iv. 41. 1). Prov. i. 20 f. (v. 20. 1); iii. 19 f. (iv. 20. 3); v. 22 (iii. 9. 3); viii. 15 (v. 24. 1), 22 ff., 27 (iv. 20. 3); xix. 17 (iv. 18. 6); xxi. 1 (v. 24. 1). Sap. vi. 19 (iv. 38. 3). Hos. iv. 1 (i. 19. 1); xii. 10 (iii. 12, 13, iv. 20. 6). Amos i. 2 (iii. 20. 4); viii. 9f. (iv. 33. 12). Mic. vii. 19 (iii. 20. 4). Joel iii. 16 (iv. 33. 11). Jon. i. 9, ii. 3, iii. 8 f. (iii. 20. 1). Hab. iii. 2 (iii. 16. 7), 3 ff. (iii. 20. 4, iv. 33. 11). Zech. vii. 9 ff. (iv. 17. 3, iv. 36. 2); viii. 16 f. (iv. 17. 3), 17 (iv. 36. 2); xii. 10 (iv. 33. 11). Mal. i. 10 f. (iv. 17. 5), ii. 10 (iv. 20. 2); iv. 1 (iv. 4, 3). Isa. i. 2 (iv. 2. 1, iv. 41. 2), 3 (i. 19. 1), 8 f. (iv. 4. 2, iv. 33. 13), 11 (iv. 17. 1), 16 (iv. 17. 1, iv. 36. 2, iv. 41. 3), 22 (iv. 12. 1), 23 (iv. 2. 6); ii. 3 f. (iv. 34. 4), 17 (iv. 33. 13); v. 6 (iii. 17. 3), 12 (ii. 22. 2, iv. 2. 4); vi. 5 (iv. 20. 8), 11 f. (v. 34. 2, v. 35. 1); vii. 10 ff. (iii. 21. 4); viii. 3 f. (iii. 16. 4, iv. 33. 11); ix. 6 (iii. 16. 3, iv. 33. 11); xi. 1 ff. (iii. 9. 3), 6 ff. (v. 33. 4); xii. 2 (iii. 10. 3); xiii. 9 (v. 35. 1); xxv. 8 (v. 12. 1), 9 (iv. 9. 2); xxvi. 10 (v. 35. 1), 19 (iv. 33. 11, v. 15. 1, v. 34. 1); xxvii. 6 (iv. 4. 1); xxviii. 16 (iii. 21. 7); xxix. 13 (iv. 12. 4); xxx. 1 (iv. 18. 3), 25 f. (v. 34. 2); xxxi. 9 (v. 34. 4); xxxii. 1 (v. 34. 4): xxxiii. 20 (iii. 20. 4); xxxv. 3 f. (iii. 20. 3, iv. 33 11); xl. 15, 17 (v. 29. 1); xli. 4 (iv. 5. 1); xlii. 5 (iv. 2. 1, v. 12. 2), 10 ff. (iv. 9. 1); xliii. 5 ff. (iv. 14. 1), 10 (iii. 6. 2, iv. 5. 1), 18 (iv. 33. 14), 23 (iv. 17. 3), xlv. 7 (iv. 40. 1); xlvi. 9 (i 5. 4), xlviii. 22 (i. 16. 3); lix. 16 (v. 35. 2); li. 6 (iv. 3. 1), liii. 4 (iv. 33. 11), 8 (ii. 28. 5); liv. 11 ff. (v. 34. 4); lvii. (iv. 34. 4), 16 (v. 12. 2); lviii. 6 ff. (iv. 17. 3), 14 (v. 34. 2); lx. 17; lxi. 1 ff. (iii. 9.3); lxiii. 9 (iii. 20. 4); lxv. 1 (iii. 6. 1), 17 ff. (iv. 26. 4, v. 35. 2, 34. 4), 21 (v. 35. 1), 22 (v. 15. 1), 25 (v. 33. 4), lxvi. 1 (iv. 2. 5), 2 (iv. 17. 3), 3 (iv. 18. 3), 22 (v. 36. 1). Jer. i. 5 (v. 15. 3); ii. 29 (iv 37. 7); iv. 22 (iv. 2. 1); v. 8 (iv. 41. 3, v. 7. 2); vi. 17 ff. (iv. 36. 2), 20 (iv. 17. 2); vii. 2 f. (iv. 17. 2), 3 (iv. 36 2), 21 (iv. 17. 3), 25 (iv. 36. 5), 29 f. (iv. 36. 2); viii. 16 (v. 30. 2); ix. 2 (iv. 25. 3), 24 f. (iv. 17. 3); x. 11 (iii. 6. 3); xi. 15 (iv. 17. 3); xiv. 9 (iv. 33. 12), xvii. 9 (iii. 18. 3, iv. 33. 11); xxii. 17 (iv. 18. 3, iii. 21. 9); xxiii. 7 f. (v. 34. 1), 20 (iv. 26. 1), 23 (iv. 19. 2), 29 (v. 17. 4); xxxi. 10 ff. (v. 34. 3), 26 (iv. 31. 1); xxxv. 15 (iv. 36. 5); xxxvi. 30f. (iii. 21. 9); xxxviii. 11 (iii. 8. 21). Lam. iv. 20 (iii. 20. 3). Bar. iv. 36--v. fin. (v. 35. 1). Ezech. ii. 1 (iv. 20. 10); xx. 12 (iv. 16. 1), 23 f. (iv. 15. 1), xxviii. 25 f. (v. 34. 1); xxxvi. 26 (iv. 23. 4); xxxvii. 1 ff. (v. 15. 1), 12 (v. 34. 1). Dan. ii. 23 f., 41 ff. (v. 26. 1); iii. 24 ff. (v. 5. 2); vii. 8 (v. 25. 33), 10 (ii. 7. 4), 14 (iv. 20. 11), 20 ff. (v. 25. 3), 27 (v. 34. 2); viii. 11 f., 23 ff. (v. 25. 4); ix. 7 (v. 25. 4); xii. 3 f., 7 (iv. 26. 1), 9 f. (i. 19. 2), xii. 13 (v. 34. 2). Sus. 52 f., 56 (iv. 26. 3). Bel 3 f., 24 (iv. 5. 2). The Latin version, in which the greater part of these quotations are clothed, appears to be exact where it can be tested (cf. e.g. Isa. xlvi. 9 (i. 5. 4), xlviii. 22 (i. 16. 3), Dan. xii. 9 (i. 19. 2)). Assuming that it is so throughout, it is obvious that in Irenaeus we have an important witness to the LXX. text of the second century. The following variants taken from Books iii., iv., will shew the general tendencies of his text: Gen. xlix. 10 cui repositum est (M^ mg ho apokeitai [866] ); 18 in salutem tuam sustinui te, Domine (cf. F^ corr mg ap. Field). Exod. xxv. 40 facies omnia (F poieseis panta, Luc.) secundum typum eorum quae vidisti. Num. xxiv. 17 surget dux in Israel (cf. Heb. skt, S. skeptron; LXX. anthropos ex I.). Deut. v. 22 (19) scripsit ea in duabus tabulis lapideis (+ lithinas B^ abA Luc.); xxxii. 6 et fecit te et creavit te (+ kai ektisen se AF, + kai eplasen se Luc.). 1 Regn. xv. 22 auditus bonus super sacrificium (agathe Luc.). Ps. xxxix. 7 aures autem perfecisti mihi (possibly a correction from the Gallican Psalter, but a few cursives read after the Heb. otia or ota); xliv. 17 facti sunt tibi filii (B^ bART egenethesan, ag. B ' egenn.); xlix. 10 bestiae terrae (agrou '^ c.aA, drumou B' ), o15 in die tribulationis tuae (thlipseos sou '^ c.aAR); ci. 27 mutabis eos (allaxeis ' , helixeis B('^ c.a)AR(T)); cix. i suppedaneum pedum tuorum (hupopodion, not hupokato); cxiii. 11 om. en tois ouranois (with '^ c.aAT). Mic. vii. 19 ipse (autos AQ) . . . proiciet (aporripsei A(Q), aporiphesontai B), om. pasas. Hab. iii. 3 pedes eius (hoi podes AQ, kata podas B). Isa. i. 17 iustificate viduam (cheran B^ a.b'AG ag. chera B Q ); xi. 4 arguet gloriosos terrae (tous endoxous 'Q^ cor, ag. t. tapeinous BAQ ); xxv. 9 om. kai sosei hemas . . . hupemeinamen auto (with 'AQ , a hexaplaric addition, cf. Field, ad loc.); xxix. 13 populus hic labiis me honorat (om. with 'AQ en to stomati autou kai en); x1iii. 23 non servisti mihi in sacrificiis = ou[de] edouleusas moi en tais thusiais [sou] '^ c.a (AG), fecisti in (cf. A* ); lxv. i qui me non quaerunt (zetousin 'AQ, ag. eperotosin B). Jer. xliii. 31 inferam super eos (autous 'AQ , ag. auton BQ^ corr), locutus sum super eos (ep' autous AQ, pros aut. B'). Bar. v. 2 laetitiae (LXX. dikaiosunes). A special interest attaches to Irenaeus' extracts from Daniel [867] . For the most part they follow the version of Theodotion quite closely, even in the Greek additions. Two exceptions are worth noting: Dan. vii. 10 is quoted by Irenaeus as it is by Clement of Rome, in a form which agrees with neither LXX. nor Th.; Dan. xii. 9 is cited in the form Apotreche, Daniel; houtoi gar hoi logoi empephragmenoi eisin, heos hoi sunientes suniosi kai hoi leukoi leukanthosi, where apotreche is a LXX. reading, whilst empephragmenoi is from Th. and the rest of the sentence seems to be suggested by his version (cf. heos . . . ekleukanthosin, Th.). This quotation however is professedly taken from a Valentinian source, which may account for its freedom. 7. Like Irenaeus, Justin quotes profusely, and his aim as an apologist and a controversialist compels him to cite his documents with some regard to verbal accuracy. For the criticism of the LXX. his writings afford even richer materials than those of Irenaeus, since his subject leads him, especially in the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, to quote long extracts without break or interpolated matter; more than once an entire Psalm, or a passage exceeding in length one of our modern chapters, is copied into his pages, presumably as it stood in his text of the Greek Old Testament. In the following list of Justin's quotations from the LXX. account has been taken only of his undoubted writings. A. = the First Apology, D. = the Dialogue; the Second Apology contains nothing to our purpose. Gen. i. 1 ff. (A. 59, 64), 26 ff. (D. 62); iii. 15 (D. 102), 22 (D. 62); ix. 24--27 (D. 139); xi. 6 (D. 102); xv. 6 (D. 92); xvii. 14 (D. 23); xviii. 2 ff. (D. 126), 13 ff. (D. 56); xix. 1 ff. (D. 56), 23--25 (D. 56), 27 f. (D. 56); xxvi. 4 (D. 120); xxviii. 10--19 (D. 58, 120); xxxi. 1O--13 (D. 58); xxxii. 22--30 (D. 58, 126); xxxv. 6--10 (D. 58); xlix. 8--12 (A. 32, 54; D. 52, 120). Exod. ii. 23 (D. 59); iii. 2--4 (D. 60), 3 ff (A. 63); vi. 2--4 (D. 126); xvii. 16 (D. 49); xx. 22 (D. 75); xxiii. 20 f. (D. 75); xxxii. 6 (D. 20). Lev. xxvi. 40 f. (D. 16). Num. xi. 23 (D. 126); xxi. 8f. (A. 60); xxiv. 17 (A. 32, D. 106). Deut. x. 16 f. (D. 16); xxi. 23 (D. 96); xxvii. 26 (D. 95); xxxi. 2 f. (D. 126), 16--18 (D. 74); xxxii. 7--9 (D. 131), 15 (D. 20), 16--23 (D. 119), 20 (D. 27, 123), 22 (A. 60), 43 (D. 130); xxxiii. 13--17 (D. 91). Jos. v. 2 (D. 24); v. 13--vi. 2 (D. 62). 2 Regn. vii. 14--16 (D. 118). 3 Regn. xix. 10, 18 (D. 39). Ps. i. (A. 40); ii. (A. 40); ii. 7 f. (D. 122); iii. 5 f. (A. 38, D. 97); viii. 3 (D. 114); xiii. 2 ff. (D. 27); xvii. 44 f. (D. 28); xviii. 3 ff. (A. 40, D. 64); xxi. 1--24 (D. 18), 8 f. (A. 38), 17 ff. (A. 351 38, D. 97); xxiii. (D. 36); xxiii. 7 (A. 51, D. 85); xxxi. 2 (D. 141); xliv. (D. 38); xliv. 7 ff. (D. 56, 63); xlvi. 6--9 (D. 37); xlix. (D. 22); lxvii. 19 (D. 39); lxxi. 1--19 (D. 34, 64, 121); lxxi. 17--19 (D. 64); lxxxi. (D. 124); xcv. 1 ff. (A. 41), 5 (D. 79), 10 (D. 73); xcviii. (D. 37); xcviii. 1--7 (D. 64); cix. (D. 32); cix. 1 ff. (A. 45, D. 56), 3 ff. (D. 63), 4 (D. 118); cxxvii. 3 (D. 110); cxlviii. 1 f. (D. 85). Prov. viii. 21--29 (D. 129), 24--36 (D. 61). Job i. 6 (D. 79). Hos. x. 6 (D. 103). Amos v. 18--vi. 7 (D. 22). Mic. iv. 1--7 (D. 109); v. 2 (A. 34). Joel ii. 28 f. (D. 87). Jon. iv. 4 ff. (D. 107). Zech. ii. 6 (A. 52), 11 (D. 119), 10--iii. 2 (D. 115); iii. 1 ff. (D. 79); vi. 12 (D. 121); ix. 9 (A. 35, D. 53); xii. 10--12 (A. 52), 12 (D. 121); xiii. 7 (D. 53). Mal. i. 10--12 (D. 28, 41). Isa. i. 3 (A. 63), 7 (A. 47), 9 (A. 53, D. 140), 11 f. (A. 37), 16 ff. (A. 44, 61) 23 ff. (D. 27, 82); ii. 3 f. (A. 39), 5 ff. (D. 24, 135); iii. 9 (D. 136), 9--11 (D. 17), 9--15 (D. 133), 16 (D. 27); v. 18--25 (D. 17, 133), 20 (A. 49); vi. 10 (D. 12); vii. 10--16 (D. 42, 66), 14 (A. 33); viii. 4 (D. 77); ix. 6 (A. 35); xi. 1--3 (D. 87); xiv. 1 (D. 123); xvi. 1 (D. 114); xix. 24 f. (D. 123); xxvi. 2 ff. (D. 24); xxix. 13 f. (D. 27, 32, 78, 123); xxx. 1--5 (D. 79); xxxiii. 13--19 (D. 70); xxxv. 1--7 (D. 69), 4 ff. (A. 48); xxxix. 3 (D. 50); xl. 1--17 (D. 50); xlii. 1--4 (D. 123, 135), 5--13 (D. 65), 6f. (D. 26), 16 (D. 122), 19f. (D. 123); xliii. 10 (D. 122), 15 (D. 135); xlv. 23 (A. 52); xlix. 6 (D. 121), 8 (D. 122); l. 4 (D. 102), 6 ff. (A. 38); li. 4 f. (D. 11); lii. 10 f. (D. 13), 13--liii. 8 (A. 50), lii. 15--liii. 1 (D. 118); liii. 1 ff. (D. 42); liii. 8--12 (A. 51), 9 (D. 97); liv. 1 (A. 53); lv. 3 f. (D. 12), 3--13 (D. 14); lvii. 1 ff. (A. 48), 1--4 (D. 16), 1 (D. 110), 2 (D. 97, 118), 5 f. (D. 27); lviii. 1--11 (D. 15), 2 (A. 35), 6 f. (A. 37), 13 ff. (D. 27); lxii. 10--lxiii. 6 (D. 26); lxii. 12 (D. 119); lxiii. 15--lxiv. 12 (D. 25); lxiii. 17 (A. 52); lxiv. 10 ff. (A. 47, 52); lxv. 1 ff. (A. 49, D. 24), 1 (D. 119), 2 (A. 35, 38, D. 97), 8 ff. (D. 136), 9--12 (D. 135), 17--25 (D. 81); lxvi. 1 (A. 37, D. 22), 5--11 (D. 85), 23 f. (D. 44), 24 (A. 52, D. 140). Jer. ii. 12 (D. 114), 13 (D. 19); iv. 3 (D. 28); vii. 21 ff. (D. 22); ix. 25 ff. (D. 28), 26 (A. 53); xxxviii. 15 (D. 78), 27 (D. 123), 31 f. (D. 11). Thren. iv. 20 (A. 55). Ezech. iii. 17--19 (D. 82); xiv. 20 (D. 44, 140); xvi. 3 (D. 77); xx. 19--26 (D. 21); xxxvi. 12 (D. 123); xxxvii. 7 ff. (A. 53). Dan. vii. 9--28 (D. 31), 13 (A. 51). From the circumstances of Justin's life we are prepared to find in his writings an eclectic text of the LXX. Of Palestinian birth but of Greek parentage, he seems to have divided his maturer life between Ephesus and Rome; and each of these associations may have supplied textual peculiarities. The general result may be gathered from a few specimens of the readings exhibited by Justin's longer extracts from the O.T. Gen. xxvii. 10--19. 11 etheke, D^ silE 13 esterikto ep' auten; ho de eipen | ho theos 1°] pr Kurios | om ho theos 2° 14 ges, DE | epi 1°] eis | im epi 2°, 3°, 4° (ep') | liba] noton 15 en hodo pase he an 18 hupetheken, D^ sil 19 om ekeinou | Oulammaous, DE | to onoma. xxxii. 22--30. 24 angelos met' autou, D 26 me eulogeses, D^ silE 28 om eti, E | estai to onoma sou, D | tou theou, E | dunatos] + ese, D^ silE 29 om su, D 30 esothe] echare (but esothe, infr. D. 126). Deut. xxxii. 16--23. 16 exepikranan, AF 17 om kai ou theo, theois | edeisan] oidasin | prosphatoi] pr kai, A 20 om hemeron, AF 21 paroxunan] parorgisan, A 22 kauthesetai] pr kai |om kato. Deut. xxxiii. 13--17. 13 ep'] apo (cf. ap' AF) | ouranon, droson | abussou 14 kath' horan] katharon 15 apo] pr kai, AF| aenaon] pr kai potamon 16 kath' horan] karpon | te bato | ep'] en, AF 17 tes ges, AF Jos. v. 13--vi. 2. 13 om kai 2°| iden] hora | enantion] katenanti | om kai he rhomphaia . . . autou | ho Iesous 14 ho de] kai 15 to hupodema ek] ta hupodemata | eph' ho | om nun (so A, but adding su) | hagios] ge agia. vi. 1 ex autes exepor. | om oude eiseporeueto 2 om ego Ps. xxi. 1--24. 4 tou Israel '^ c.aU 7 anthropon, 'RU | exouthenema, 'AR 8 kai ('U) elalesan cheilesin 11 apo gastros, '^ c.a 12 boethon] + moi. '^ c.aR 14 ho arpazon] om ho, RU 15 exechuthe, '^ c.aR 16 hosei] hos, 'ARU 17 podas] + mou, '^ c.aARU Ps. xlix. 1 om kai 2°, '^ c.aRT 3 enantion] enopion, RT 4 diakrinai] pr tou, '^ c.aART 6 ho theos, 'RT 7 diamarturoumai, '^ c.aT 10 drumou] agrou, '^ c.aA 16 ekdiege, '^ c.aAT 19doliotetas, '^ c.aR^ a 21 + tas hamartias sou, B^ c'^ c.aT 22 ou me, '^ c.aRT 23 tou theou] mou, '^ c.aT. Prov. viii. 21^ a--36. 24 tas pegas proelthein (but in D. 129 pr. t. pegas) 25 ton bounon (but D. 129 omits art.) 26 ho theos 28 kai hos (1°)] henika, 'A 29 kai hos] henika 35 hetoimastai 36 asebousin] + eis, '^ c.aA. Amos v. 18--vi. 7. 18 tou keriou 19 ean phuge] hotan ekphuge, A | arktos | ho ophis 20 haute] autois 22 ta holokautomata, A | tas thusias | prosdexomai] + auta, AQ^ mg | soteriou, A 23 aposteson | echon] plethos | psalmon; organon 25 om m' ete ] + legei Kurios, AQ 26 Rhaphan | om auton, AQ . vi. 1 apetrugesan] pr hoi onomasmenoi epi toi archegois (a doublet for the Greek which follows, ascribed to Symmachus by SH) | om kai 2° | autoi] heautois, Q^ a | tou Isr.] om tou 2 + eis Chalanen, 22, 36, 42; Heb. | dielthate] poreuthete | Hemath Rhabba] Hamath ten megalen (ten meg., Symm. "20, 36, 51 al.") | allophulon] pr ton | pleioni, A | om. estin | humeteron horion] hor. humon 3 kaken] poneran 4 katheudontes] koimomenoi | eriphous] arnas 5 hestota, AQ 6 ton diulismenon (a doublet)] en phialais (Heb.) 7 dunaston] + ton apoikizomenon | kai metastraphesetai oikema kakourgon (doublet of kai exarth. ktl.). Zach. ii. 10--iii. 2. 10 terpou] chaire (cf. Eus. d.e., p. 252) | hoti, ' o11 katapheuxontai] prostethesontai | kataskenoso | epignose] gnosontai | Pantokrator] ton dunameon | apestalke 12 te meridi] kai ten merida, '^ c.aA, and, without kai, ' QG | hairetiei] eklexetai "86 in textu ex alio videlicet interprete" (Field). iii. 1 om Kurios, Kuriou | ton Iesoun] om ton, AQG | ho diabolos] om ho 2 om epitimesai (1°) . . . diabole | om hos (Heb.). Mal. i. 10--12. 10 thelema mou | tas thusias humon 11 apo, AG | om kai 1°, AQ | prosagetai] prospheretai | dioti mega] hoti timatai (hoti mega D. 41) | om Pantokrator. Isa. i. 16--20. 17 cheran, B^ ab'AG 18 deute] + kai, 'AQG | dialechthomen [868] | chiona, ereon] ereon, chiona 19 (A. 16 omits kai ean thelete . . . phagesthe.) Isa lii. 13--liii. 12. lii. 13 idou] ide gar] A. 14 polloi epi se A.D. 15 thaumasthesontai D. | om ep' auto A. 16 om opsontai A. liii. 2 enantion] enopion A. | en. autou os paid. A.D. 3 tous huious ton anthropon] tous anthropous A. (cf. pantas anthropous, AQ ) 5 autos | anomias, hamartias A., 'AQ | om hemon 3° A. 6 om Kurios A. 7 keirontos A.D., B + auton A., '^ c.aAQ 8 tou laou mou] auton A. | echthe] hekei A.D., Q^ mg 9 thanatou] + autou A., B^ a.b'AQ 10 tou ponou om tou A. 11 auton] hemon A.D. 12 paredothe] pr autos A. Isa. lxii. 10--lxiii. 6. 11 tais thugatrasin | soi ho soter, 'AQ | om autou 1°, AQ 12 ou kataleleimmene, ('). lxiii. 1 eruthema, B | himation] + autou | bia] pr anabainon (cf. Symm. bainon, Heb.) 3 +lenon epatesa monotatos, Symm., Heb. (a doublet of pl. katapep.) | om mou, 'AQ | + eis gen, B^ a.b'AQ 5 oudeis, 'AQ | antelabeto, ' | om autous | om mou 1° To shew Justin's relation to the two recensions of Daniel, it is necessary to place some verses side by side with the corresponding contexts of the LXX. and Theodotion [869] . Justin, Dial. 31 Dan. vii. 9--14. LXX. Ibid., Th. etheoroun heos hotou thronoi etethesan, kai palaios hemeron ekatheto hosei chiona leukon, kai tes kephales autou hosei erion katharon, ho thronos autou hosei phlox puros, hoi trochoi autou pur phlegon. potamos puros heilken menos ek pou ; chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto kai muriai muriades pareistekeisan auto; bibloi aneochthesan kai kriterion ekathisen. etheoroun tote etheoroun heos hote thronoi etethesan, kai palaios hemeron ekatheto hosei chiona, kai tes kephales autou hosei erion leukon katharon; ho thronos hosei phlox puros, trochoi autou pur kaiomenon. potamos puros helkon, kai prosopon autou potamos puros; chiliai chiliades etherapeuon auton kai muriai muriades pareistekeisan auto; kai kriterion ekathise kai bibloi eneochthesan. etheoroun etheoroun heos hotou thronoi etethesan, kai palaios hemeron ekatheto, kai to enduma autou hosei chion leukon, kai he thrix tes kephales autou hosei erion katharon; ho thronos autou phlox puros, hoi trochoi autou pur phlegon. potamos puros heilken emprosthen autou; chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto, kai muriai muriades paristekeisan auto; kriterion ekathisen, kai bibloi eneochthesan. etheoroun tote apo phones ton logon ton megalon hon to ton megalon logon hon to keras lalei, kai to therion, kai apoleto to soma autou kai edothe eis kausin puros; kai ta loipa theria metestathe tes arches auton, kai zoes tois theriois edothe heos . etheoroun en horamati tes nuktos, kai idou meta ton nephelon tou ouranou hos huios anthropou erchomenos, kai elthen heos tou palaiou ton hemeron, kai enopion autou; kai prosegagon auton. kai tote ton logon ton megalon hon to keras elalei; theoron emen, kai to therion, kai apoleto to soma autou kai edothe eis kausin puros. kai tous kuklo autou apestese tes exousias auton, kai zoes edothe autois heos kai kairou. etheoroun en horamati tes nuktos, kai idou epi ton nephelon tou ouranou hos huios anthropou ercheto, kai hos palaios hemeron paren; kai paresan auto. kai edothe auto exousia kai time basilike, kai panta ta ethne tes ges kata gene kai pasa doxa auto latreuousa; kai he exousia autou exousia aionios hetis ou me arthe, kai he basileia autou hetis ou me phthare. keras ekeino elalei, heos anerethe to therion kai apoleto, kai to soma autou edothe eis kausin puros. kai ton loipon theriaon he arche metestathe, kai makrotes zoes edothe autois heos kairou kai kairou. etheoroun en horamati tes nuktos, kai idou meta ton nephelon tou ouranou hos huios anthropou erchomenos, kai heos tou palaiou ton hemeron ephthasen; kai prosechthe auto. kai auto edothe he arche kai he time kai he basileia, kai pantes hoi laoi, phulai, kai glossai douleusousin auto; he exousia autou exousia aionios hetis ou pareleusetai, kai he basileia autou ou diaphtharesetai. The student will notice that Justin's O.T. text is a mixed one. (a) In Genesis it contains many readings of D or DE where those later uncials depart from A; (b) in Deuteronomy it occasionally supports A or AF against B, and (c) in the Psalms the group ART, with the concurrence sometimes of ' , sometimes of '^ c.a; (d) in the Prophets it not seldom agrees with Q (AQ, 'AQ). In the Minor Prophets it is startling to find in Justin more than one rendering which is attributed to Symmachus; and as it is in the highest degree improbable that his text has been altered from the text of Symmachus, or at a later time from a Hexaplaric copy of the LXX., we are led to the conclusion that these readings belong to an older version or recension from which both Justin and Symmachus drew. It is at least possible that many of the readings in which Justin appears to stand alone may be attributable to the same origin. Justin's Daniel text requires separate notice. It will be seen to be in fundamental agreement with the LXX., but not without a fair number of Theodotion's readings. Eleitourgoun meets us here, as in Clement of Rome, and the phrases ta loipa theria metestathe tes arches, meta ton nephelon erchomenos, heos tou palaiou, prosegagon auton, are undoubtedly due to Theodotion, or rather to the version on which he worked. On the other hand echon peribolen, to trichoma, pur phlegon, apetumpanisthe, chronos zoes, hoi parestekotes, and the whole of v. 14 as clearly belong to the Chigi text. That this mixture is not due to an eclectic taste or a fickle memory is clear from the fact that the same text meets us in the Latin version of the passage as given by Tertullian [870] . In a few instances Justin shews a disposition to criticise the LXX. reading. E.g. in Ps. lxxxi. (lxxxii.) 7, he probably proposed to read hos anthropos (k?'dm) for hos anthropoi [871] . Similarly in Deut. xxxii. 8 he realises that the LXX. has substituted angelon theou for bnyysr'l? [872] . He maintains that in Gen. xlix. 10 the reading of the LXX. is heos an elthe ho apokeitai, though according to the Jewish interpreters of his time the words should rather be rendered heos an e. ta apokeimena auto. His text of the LXX. contained some remarkable interpolations; thus he quotes Ps. xcv. (xcvi.) 10^ a in the form ho kurios ebasileusen apo tou xulou [873] , and ascribes to Jeremiah the words emnesthe de kurios ho theos apo Israel ton nekron autou ton kakoimemenon eis gen chomatos, kai katebe pros autous euangelisasthai autois to soterion autou [874] . He cites also some words which appear to have found a place in his copy after 2 Esdr. vi. 21: kai eipen Esdras to lao Touto to pascha ho soter hemon kai he kataphuge hemon; kai ean dianoethete kai anabe humon epi ten kardian hoti Mellomen auton tapeinoun en semeio, kai meta tauta elpisomen (? elpisete) ep' auton, ou me eremothe ho popos houtos eis hapanta chronon, legei ho theos ton dunameon; ean de me pisteusete auto mede eisakousete tou kerugmatos autou, esesthe epicharma tois ethnesi [875] . These passages appear to be of Christian origin, yet Justin is so sure of their genuineness that he accuses the Jews of having removed them from their copies. 8. Hippolytus of Portus, as we learn from the inscription on the chair of his statue and from other ancient sources, was the author of a large number of Biblical commentaries [876] . These included works on the Hexaemeron and its sequel (ta meta ten hexaemeron); on Exodus, and portions of Numbers and Samuel; on the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs; on Zechariah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, parts of Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel. Of these exegetical works there remains only the commentary on Daniel [877] , with fragments of most of the rest. The great treatise Adversus omnes haereses yields but little in the way of Scriptural quotations [878] , but the minor theological works collected by Lagarde [879] supply a considerable number of fairly long extracts from the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Prophets. The text of the LXX. which is exhibited in these passages is often of much interest, as a few specimens will shew. Gen. i.7 epano] huperano 28 katakurieusate] katakleronomesate. xlix. 8 ff. (Lag. 5 (1), 102 (2)) 8 ainesatosan (1) ainesaisan (2) 9 ek blastou mou huie (2) 10 o apokeitai (1), ta apokeimena auto (2) | autos] estai (1) 12 charopoi (cf. Field, ad loc.) | hos apo oinou: cf. apo oinou, ADF. Exod. xx. 13 ff. ou moicheuseis, ou phoneuseis, ou klepseis. Deut. xxxii. 34 f. 34 par emou 35 hotan] pr en kairo, AF. 22 ekpedesetai, B. Ruth ii. 9 hudreuontai, A 14 en to oxei, B^a.bA. Ps. lxviii. 1 ff. 4 engizein] elpizein (B^ a.b'R) me (R) 5 herpazon 6 egnos] oidas | apekrubesan, '^ c.a 8 ekalupsan entrope 10 katephage. Prov. vi. 27 apodesei] apodesmeuei. xxiii. 29 f. 29 aediai, 'A | pelidnoi, B^ b 30 en oino | ichneuonton] kataskopounton. Job ii. 9^ d planetis, '^ c.aA. Am. v. 12 katapatountes, AQ . Mic. ii. 7 f. poreuontai 8 katenanti] kata prosopon | doran] doxan (sic). iii. 5 egeiran] hegiasan, Q^ mg. v. 5 estai haute he par emou eirene hotan ho Assurios (cf. AQ) epelthe. Ma1. iv. 4 apostello] pempso | prin] + e | hemeran] pr ten, G 5 pateron epi tekna | elthon pataxo, '^ c.b. Isa. x. 12 ff. 13 om. en bis, 'AQG 14 te cheiri] + mou, AQ 16 Kurios sabaoth] adonai Kurios 17 puri kaiomeno] phlogi (cf. Symm.). xiv. 4 ff. 11 eis hadou] eis gen | katakalumma] kataleimma 12 pros] eis, ' o14 nephelon, 'AQG 16 thaumasousin, 'AQG 19 tethnekoton] peptokoton 20 katharos] kompsos | chronon] chronios 21 sphagenai] eis sphagen. xlv. 11 + kai ton thugateron mou (cf. 'AQ) 13 om basilea, '^ c.bAQ 14 en soi proskunesousin. lxvi. 24 teleutesei, B'Q (ag. A, teleuta). Ezech. xxviii. 5 emporia] empeiria. Dan. ii. 1 ff. 1 basileia] + Nabouchodonosor, A 5 ean] + oun, AQ | sunkrisin] + autou, The text of Hippolytus, it will be seen, like most of the patristic texts, leans slightly to AF in the Pentateuch, ' or '^ c.a in the poetical books, and AQ in the Prophets. At the same time it is full of surprises, and often stands quite alone among existing witnesses. 9. Our last witness is Clement of Alexandria. Clement had learnt the Christian faith during his early travels in Asia Minor and Magna Graecia, and he may have received copies of O.T. writings from his first Christian masters. Hence it must not be too hastily assumed that the text of his O.T. quotations is purely Alexandrian. On the other hand it is reasonable to suppose that during the period of his literary activity he was familiar with the Alexandrian text and used it when he quoted from his MS. On the whole therefore we may expect his quotations to be fairly representative of the Biblical text current at Alexandria during the generation preceding the compilation of the Hexapla. Clement quotes both the Jewish and the Christian scriptures profusely, but his extracts seldom extend beyond two or three verses, and are often broken by comments or copied with considerable freedom. His purpose was didactic and not polemical; even in the logos protreptikos he aims to persuade rather than to compel assent, whilst the Paedagogus and the Stromateis are addressed exclusively to persons under instruction, to whom the Scriptures were a familiar text-book. Hence he is exact only when verbal precision is necessary; often it is sufficient for his purpose to work into his argument a few words from a Scriptural context, giving the sense of the rest in his own words. Still it is possible even in these broken references to catch glimpses of the text which lay before him, and in the dearth of early Christian literature emanating from Alexandria, these are of no little value to the student of the Greek Bible [880] . A generally full and accurate index of Clement's Biblical quotations will be found in the edition of Potter; here it must suffice to give some specimens of the text which they exhibit in the Pentateuch, the poetical books, and the Prophets. (a) Gen. i. 26 (strom. v. 29) kat' eikona kai homoiosin hemeteran (elsewhere Cl. reads hom. hemon, or omits the pronoun). xxxvii. 24 (strom. v. 54) ho de lakkos kenos, DE. Exod. xx. 13 ff. (protrept. 108, strom. ii. 33) ou phoneuseis ou moicheuseis . . . ou klepseis ou pseudomartureseis, AF. Lev. xviii. i ff. (strom. ii. 46). 3 en aute (ep' aute B , ep' autes B^ abAF) ou poiesete (poiethesetai B ) 4 poreuesthe A 5 ho poiesas auta. Deut. xxxii. 23 ff. (paed. i. 68) 24 epapostelo, A | tes ges, A (F) 41 ff. antapodoso, AF 42 + kai he machaira mou phagetai krea apo haimatos traumation, AF (b) Ps. xxxiii. 12 ff. (strom. iv. 111). 13 hemeras idein, 'AR 14 cheile sou, '^ c.aAR. xcv. 5 (protrept. 62) daimonion eisin eidola (cf. Iren.). cii. 14 (paed. i. 62) mnestheti, B' Th. cxl. 5 (paed. i. 79) elencheto me dikaios kai paideusato. cl. 4 organo, B'RT. Prov. i. 25 (paed. i. 85) hupekouete, 'A | ou proseichete, 'AC (epeithesate, B). iii. 5 ff. (strom. ii. 4). 6 en pasais, A | tas hodous sou] + ho de pous sou ou me proskopte (cf. '^c.a: SH pr ÷) 12 paideuei, 'A (elenchei, B). xxiii. 13 me aposchou (aposche LXX.) nepion paideuon (A; paideuein, B). Sir. i. 18 (paed. i. 68) + phobos gar Kuriou apotheitai hamartemata (so far 248), aphebos d' ou dunesetai dikaiothenai, O.L. ix.9 (paed. ii. 54) me sumbolokopeses] me summataklithes ep' ankona, O.L. xxxiv. 25 (paed. ii. 31) apolesen] hechreiose. xxxvi. 6 (paed. i. 42) hos philos mokos] ho philedonos kai moichos (cf. hos philomoichos, 55, 254). xxxviii. 1 (paed. ii. 68) om. timais, 106, 296, O.L. xxxix. 13 (paed. ii. 76) agrou (hugrou 'AC)] hudaton. 18 (paed. ii. 44) hos elattosei] elattosis eis, Heb. (c) Am. iv. 13 (protrept. 79) idou ego, B^ a.bAQ (om B ). Nah. iii. 4 (paed. i. 81) epicharis, B^ a.bQ. Mal. i. 10 ff. (strom. v. 137). 11 om. kai 1°, AQ | thumiama] thusia | prosagetai] prospheretai (cf. Justin). Isa. ix. 6 (paed. i. 24) huios kai edothe, 'AQG | om egenethe, G | eklethe (kaleitai, B'QG, kalesei, A) | + thaumastos sumboulos ('^ c.aA) theos dunastes pater aionios archon eirenes ('^ c.aA). 7 megale he arche autou] + to plethunein ten paideian, Th. | horion] peras, Th., Symm. xi. 1 ff. (paed. i. 61). xi. 4 elenxei tous hamartolous tes ges (cf. Iren.). xxix. 13 (paed. i. 76) ho laos houtos tois cheilesin auton timosi me, he de kardia auton porro estin ap' emou; maten de sebontai me didaskontes entalmata anthropon (cf. Mt. xv., Mc. vii.). lxvi. 13 (paed. i. 21) humas parakaleso, '. Jer. ix. 23 f. (paed. i. 37): v. 24 abbreviated as in 1 Cor. i. 31. xiii. 24 ff. (strom. iv. 165 f.). 24 diespeira, B'Q (diephtheira A) | hupo, 'AQ (apo, B) | pheromena] petomena 25 apeithein humas emoi 27 moicheia anarthr., Q | chremetismos anarthr., B. xxiii. 23 f. (protrept. 78). 24 ei poiesei ti anthropos (ei krubesetai tis, B, ei kr. anthropos, AQ). Bar. iii. 13 (paed. i. 92) om chronon, B. Thren. i. 1 (paed. i. 80) archonta choron egenethe eis phorous. Dan. ix. 24 ff. (strom. i. 125) as in Th. (B ), with the addition kao hemisu tes hebdomados katapausei thumiama thusias kai pterugiou aphanismou heos sunteleias kai spoudes taxin aphanismou (cf. B^ abAQ). 10. This examination has been but partial, even within the narrow field to which it was limited. It has dealt only with direct quotations, and in the case of Hippolytus and Clement of Alexandria, only with a few of these. Moreover, the student who wishes to examine the whole of the evidence must not limit himself to the few great writers who have been named. Even if he adds the writings of Aristides, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and the anonymous Teaching and Epistle to Diognetus, there will still remain the fragments collected in the Relliquiae Sacrae and by the researches of Pitra, and the Pseudo-Clementine, apocryphal, and Gnostic literature of the second century. Still more important help may be obtained from Latin Christian writers who quote the O.T. in the Old Latin version, e.g. Cyprian, Lucifer, Vigilius of Thapsus, the Donatist Tyconius, and the author of the Speculum [881] . This part of the evidence was collected for Holmes and Parsons, and will be presented in a more permanent form, if not at so much length, in the apparatus of the larger Septuagint. Much useful and interesting work might be done by following the lines of Dr Hatch's attempt to collect and compare the early evidence in reference to particular texts and constantly recurring extracts from the LXX. [882] Perhaps however it would be expedient to limit such an investigation to post-apostolic Christian writers, and to carry it beyond Justin. Moreover, Dr Hatch's proposal to estimate the value of MSS., "according as they do or do not agree with such early quotations," seems to be at least precarious. It is conceivable and even probable that the peculiarities of early patristic quotations may be partly due to corruption incident upon the process of citing, whether from memory or from a MS.; and for various other reasons the text of a fourth century MS. may on the whole present a purer text than that which appears in a second century writing. This point, however, must be reserved for fuller consideration in a later chapter [883] . 11. With Origen the science of Christian Biblical criticism and hermeneutics may be said to have begun. In the Old Testament his interest was peculiarly strong; it supplied him with the amplest opportunities of exercising his skill in allegorical interpretation; and his knowledge both of the original and of the Greek versions prepared him to deal with the difficulties of his text. Unhappily there is no class of his writings which has suffered so severely. Of his great commentaries on the Old Testament, only fragments have survived; and the Homilies, with the exception of one on the Witch of Endor, and nineteen on the book of Jeremiah, have reached us only in the Latin translations of Rufinus and Jerome. But even fragments and versions of Origen are precious, and the following list of his O.T. remains [884] may be of service to the student of the LXX. Genesis. Fragments of Commentary (t. i., iii.), and notes from catenae. Homilies (17) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Exodus. Fragments of Commentary, and notes. Homilies (13) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Leviticus. Fragments and notes from catenae. Homilies (16) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Numbers. Notes from catenae. Homilies (28) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Deuteronomy. Notes from catenae, &c. Joshua. Fragments and notes from catenae, &c. Homilies (26) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Judges. Notes from catenae. Homilies (9) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Ruth. A note on Ruth i. 4. 1--4 Kingdoms. Homily huper tes engastrimuthou. Fragments. Homily in Latin on 1 Regn. i. ff. Psalms. Fragments of the Commentaries and Homilies; notes from catenae. Homilies (9) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus [on Pss. xxxvi.--xxxviii.). Proverbs. Fragments and notes, Greek and Latin. Ecclesiastes. Notes from catenae. Canticles. Fragments and notes. Homilies (2) in Latin, tr. by Jerome. Commentary (prol., tt. i.--iv.) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Job. Notes from catenae. Fragment of a Homily, in Latin. The xii. Prophets. Fragment on Hosea xii. (in Philocal. 8). Isaiah. Fragments (2) of the Commentaries, in Latin. Homilies (9) in Latin, tr. by Jerome. Jeremiah. Homilies (19) in Greek, and notes from catenae. Homilies (2) in Latin, tr. by Jerome. Lamentations. Notes from catenae. Ezekiel. Fragments, and notes from catenae. Homilies (14) in Latin, tr. by Jerome. 12. It is impossible within the limits of an Introduction to enumerate all the ecclesiastical writers who during the golden age of patristic literature quoted or commented upon the Greek Old Testament. But the student who is not a specialist in this field may be glad to have before him the names and dates of the principal Greek Fathers, with some notice of such of their extant works as are concerned with O.T. exegesis. The Roman numerals in brackets direct him to the volumes of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, in which the authors are to be found; in the case of a few writings which are not included in the Patrologia and some others, references are given to other editions. Acacius of Caesarea, 366. Fragments in catenae. Ammonius of Alexandria, c. 460. Fragments on Genesis and Daniel. (lxxxv.) Anastasius of Antioch, 598. (lxxxix.) Anastasius of Sinai, cent. vi.--vii. (lxxxix.) Apollinarius of Laodicea (the younger), c. 393. (xxxiii., cf. Dräseke's edition in Texte u. Unters. vii.) Apostolical Constitutions, cent. iii.--iv. (ed. Lagarde). Asterius of Amasea, c. 400. (xl.) Athanasius of Alexandria, 373. On the Psalms; Titles of the Psalms [885] , fragments in the catenae. (xxv.--xxviii.) Basil of Caesarea, 379. Homilies on the Hexaemeron, the Psalms and Isaiah i.--xvi. (xxix.--xxxii.) Basil of Seleucia, c. 450. Homilies on the O.T. (lxxxv.) Cosmas Indicopleustes, c. 550. (lxxxviii.) Cyril of Alexandria, 444. Works on the Pentateuch (peri tes en pneumati kai aletheia proskuneseos, and glaphura), comm. on Isaiah, comm. on the xii. Prophets; fragments on Kingdoms, Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, and the minor Prophets. (lxviii.--lxxvii.) Cyril of Jerusalem, 386. (xxxiii.) Didymus of Alexandria, 395. Fragments on the Psalms and in the catenae. (xxxix.) Diodorus of Tarsus, c. 390. Fragments from the catenae. (xxxiii.) Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, cent. v. (iii.--iv.) Dorotheus the Archimandrite, cent. vi.--vii. (lxxxviii.) Ephraem the Syrian, 373. Fragments of Commentaries on the Pentateuch, the historical and the poetical books. (Rome, 1732 ff.) Epiphanius of Salamis, 403. (xli.--xliii.) Eusebius of Caesarea, 339. Commentary on the Psalms; notes on Isaiah; fragments of other O.T. commentaries; books peri ton topikon onomaton ton en te theia graphe and peri tes tou bibliou ton propheton onomasias. Eusebius of Emesa, 359. Fragments in the catenae of a comm. on Genesis. (lxxxvi.) Eustathius of Antioch, 337. On the Witch of Endor, ag. Origen. (xviii.) Evagrius of Pontus, 398. Fragments in catenae. Gennadius of Constantinople, 471. Fragments on Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms &c. (lxxxv.) Gregory of Nazianzus, 389. (xxxv.--xxxviii.) Gregory of Neocaesarea, c. 270. (x.) Gregory of Nyssa, 395. (xliv.--xlvi.) Hesychius of Jerusalem, c. 438. (xciii.) Isidore of Pelusium, c. 450. (lxxviii.) John Chrysostom, 407. Homilies on 1 Regn., Psalms (iii.--xii., xlviii.--xlix., cviii.--cxl.); a commentary on Isa. i.--viii. 11; various hands. (xlvii.--lxiv.) John of Damascus, c. 760. (xciv.--xcvi.) Julianus of Halicarnassus, 536. Fragments in catenae. Macarius Magnes, cent. iv. (ed. Blondel). Maximus Confessor, 662. (xc.--xci.) Methodius of Olympus, cent. iii.--iv. (xviii.) Nilus of Sinai, c. 430. (lxxix.) Olympiodorus of Alexandria, cent. vi. (xciii.) Peter of Alexandria, 311. (xviii.) Philo of Carpasia, c. 380. Commentary on Canticles. (xl.) Photius of Constantinople, c. 891. (ci.--civ.) Polychronius of Apamea, 430. Fragments on the Pentateuch, Job, Proverbs, Canticles, and Daniel; comm. on Ezekiel. Procopius of Gaza, cent. vi. Commentaries on Genesis--Judges, 1 Regn.--2 Chr., Prov., Cant., Isaiah. (lxxxvii.) Severianus of Gabala, c. 420. Fragments of commentaries in the catenae. (lxv.) Severus of Antioch, c. 539. Fragments in the catenae. Theodore of Heraclea, c. 355. Fragments of comm. on Isaiah. (xviii.) Theodore of Mopsuestia, 428. Fragments of commentaries on Genesis (Syriac and Latin), the rest of the Pentateuch and the historical books: comm. on the Psalms in Syriac and large fragments in Greek: a commentary on the xii. Prophets. (lxvi.) Theodoret of Cyrrhus, c. 458. Eis ta apora tes theias graphes, questions on the Pentateuch and historical books. Commentaries on the Psalms, Canticles, the xii. Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah (including Baruch and Lam.), Ezekiel, Daniel. (lxxx.--lxxxiv.) Titus of Bostra, c. 370. (xviii.) Victor of Antioch, cent. v.--vi. (?). LITERATURE. T. Ittig, De bibliothecis et catenis patrum (Leipzig, 1707). J. G. Walch, Bibliotheca patristica, ed. J. T. L. Danz (Jena, 1834). J. G. Dowling, Notitia Scriptorum ss. Patrum (Oxford, 1839). Oeconomus, vol. iv. (Athens, 1849). J. Nirschl, Lehrbuch der Patrologia u. Patristik (Mainz, 1881). O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie (Freiburg i. B., 1894). Fessler-Jungmann, Institutiones Patrologiae (1890). H. Hody, De textibus Bibliorum, p. 277 ff. Schleusner, Opuscula critica ad versionem Graecam V. T. pertinentia (Leipzig, 1812). Credner, Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften, vol. ii. (Halle, 1834). R. Gregory, Prolegomena (de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, p. 1131 ff.). Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 167 ff. Hatch, Biblical Essays, p. 131 ff. __________________________________________________________________ [850] Biblical Essays, p. 133. [851] Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Hinrichs, Leipzig). The volumes already published contain part of Hippolytus. and an instalment of Origen. [852] On Clement's quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah, see Hatch, Essays, pp. 175--9. [853] The Latin version supports the MSS. of the Greek text of Clement in both cases, so that with our present knowledge we are not at liberty to assume a transcriptional error. [854] On 'composite' quotations from the LXX. see Hatch, op. cit. p. 203 ff. [855] Cf. p. 245. [856] 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 17: see Lightfoot's note ad loc. [857] See Hatch, op. cit., p. 177f. [858] Clement of Rome, p. 61. Dr Nestle (Z. f. die NTliche Wissenschaft, i. 2) points out the Semitic style which reveals itself in Clement, e.g. v. 6 eptakis, xii. 5 ginoskousa ginosko.. [859] The acute conjecture of Dr J. Rendel Harris, who saw that the name, which appears in the MS. as Thegri or the like, must be an attempt to reproduce the verb sgr (Dan. l. c.). [860] See above, p. 47, n. 4. [861] See Hatch, Essays, p. 180 ff. [862] For further details see Hatch, op. cit. p. 180 ff. [863] On this quotation, however, see Nestle in Exp. Times, ix., p. 14 f. [864] On this quotation, however, see Nestle in Exp. Times, ix., p. 14 f. [865] The chapters and sections are those of Stieren. [866] Cf. Justin, Dial. 120. [867] See above, p. 47. [868] See above, p. 407. [869] Words common to Justin and LXX. but not in Th. are printed in small uncials; those common to Justin and Th. but not to LXX., in thick cursives. Most of the remaining words are to be found in the three texts. [870] Burkitt, Old Latin and Itala, p. 23 ff. [871] Dial. 124. In the editions anthropoi occurs twice, but the context appears to shew that the singular should stand in the quotation. [872] Dial. 13 f. [873] Ap. i. 41, Dial. 73. Cf. Tert. c. Marc. iii. 19, adv. Jud. 10. No existing Greek MS. of the Psalter is known to contain the words except cod. 156 (see p. 160), which gives them in the suspicious form apo to xulo. A ligno is found in the Sahidic and in the Latin of R and in some other O.L. texts. Cf. the hymn Vexilla regis: "impleta sunt quae concinit | David fideli carmine | dicendo nationibus | Regnavit a ligno Deus" (for the literature see Julian, Dict. of Hymnology, p. 1220). [874] Dial. 72. The same Apocryphon is quoted by Irenaeus (iii. 20. 4, iv. 22. 1, 33. 1, 12, v. 31. 1) and attributed by him to Jeremiah (iv. 31. 1) or to Isaiah (iii. 20. 4). Cf. Lightfoot, Clement, ii. p. 40, and the writer's Apostles' Creed³, p. 58 f. [875] Dial. ib. [876] On his works see Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, ii. pp. 388 ff., 419 ff. [877] Edited by G. W. Bonwetsch and H. Achelis in the new Berlin Corpus (Hippolytus' Werke, i., Leipzig, 1897). [878] The references in the Index locorum of Duncker and Schneidewin's edition (Göttingen, 1859) direct the reader for the most part to mere allusions, or citations of only a few consecutive words. [879] In Hippolyti Romani quae feruntur omnia Graece (Leipzig, 1858). [880] Clement's text of the Gospels has been examined by Mr P. M. Barnard (Biblical texts of Clement of Alexandria in the Four Gospels and the Acts, Cambridge, 1899) with some interesting and important results. His text of the LXX. is not likely to be equally instructive, but it ought to reward a patient investigator. [Since this note was written an examination of Clement's LXX. text has been made by Dr O. Stäh1in (Clemens Alex. u. die Septuaginta, Nürnberg, 1901).] [881] See above, p. 97, and the art. Old Latin Versions in Hastings' D. B. iii. (already mentioned, p. 88). [882] Essays, i. p. 129 ff. ("On Early Quotations from the Septuagint.") [883] See Part III. c. vi. [884] They are collected in Migne, P. G. xi.--xvii. [885] See, however, H. M. Gwatkin, Arianism, p. 69 n. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER IV. THE GREEK VERSIONS AS AIDS TO BIBLICAL STUDY. I. No question can arise as to the greatness of the place occupied by the Alexandrian Version in the religious life of the first six centuries of its history. The Septuagint was the Bible of the Hellenistic Jew, not only in Egypt and Palestine, but throughout Western Asia and Europe. It created a language of religion which lent itself readily to the service of Christianity and became one of the most important allies of the Gospel. It provided the Greek-speaking Church with an authorised translation of the Old Testament, and when Christian missions advanced beyond the limits of Hellenism, it served as a basis for fresh translations into the vernacular [886] . The Septuagint has long ceased to fulfil these or any similar functions. In the West, after the fourth century, its influence receded before the spread of the Latin Vulgate; in the East, where it is still recited by the Orthodox Church in the ecclesiastical offices, it lost much of its influence over the thought and life of the people. On the other hand, this most ancient of Biblical versions possesses a new and increasing importance in the field of Biblical study. It is seen to be valuable alike to the textual critic and to the expositor, and its services are welcomed by students both of the Old Testament and of the New. A. As the oldest version of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint claims especial attention from Old Testament scholars. It represents a text and, to some extent, an interpretation earlier than any which can be obtained from other sources. 1. (a) The printed Hebrew Bibles give on the whole the Massoretic text, i.e. a text which has passed through the hands of the Massorets, a succession of Jewish scholars who endeavoured to give permanence to the traditional type. Massora (msvrt, msvrh, traditio) is already mentioned in the saying of R. Akiba, Pirqe Aboth, iii. 20 msvrh syyg ltvrh, 'tradition is a fence to the Law' [887] ; but the word is used there in reference to halachic rather than to textual tradition. It is probable, however, that Akiba and his contemporaries were concerned with the settling of the text which later generations protected by the 'Massora' technically so called. The work of the Massorets (vlyhmsrt), who flourished from the sixth century to the tenth, consisted chiefly in reducing to a system of rules the pronunciation of the text which had been fixed by their predecessors. The Massora [888] embodies the readings which tradition substituted for the written text (ktyv ,qry), the corrections known as the svphrym tqvn? [889] , and observations on the text tending to stereotype its interpretation in minute points. To the Massorets we also owe the perfecting of the system of vowel-points and accents. The labours of the Massorets culminated in the Western text of R. Ben Asher (cent. x.), and that which appeared about the same time in the East under the auspices of R. Ben Naphtali. The former has been repeated with minor variations in all Western MSS. The attitude of Christian scholars towards the Jewish traditional text has varied with the progress of Biblical learning. The question of its relation to the text presupposed by the Septuagint was scarcely present to the minds of Christian writers before the time of Origen [890] . Origen, when the problem forced itself upon him, adopted, as we have seen [891] , a middle course between the alternatives of rejecting the LXX. and refusing to accept the testimony of his Jewish teachers. Jerome took a bolder line; his new Latin version was based on the 'original Hebrew,' and on textual questions he appealed with confidence to the verdict of contemporary Jewish opinion: prol. gal. "quanquam mihi omnino conscius non sim mutasse me quidpiam me Hebraica veritate . . . interroga quemlibet Hebraeorum cui magis accommodare debeas fidem." Like Origen he indignantly, and on the whole doubtless with justice, repudiated the charge which was laid by some Christians against the Jews of having falsified their MSS. [892] But neither Origen nor Jerome entertained a suspicion that the Jewish official text had, whether by accident or design, departed from the archetype. Mediaeval Europe knew the Old Testament almost exclusively through Jerome's Latin, as the Ancient Church had known it through the LXX. [893] When at length the long reign of the Vulgate in Western Europe was broken by the forces of the Renaissance and the Reformation, the attention of scholars was once more drawn to that which purported to be the original text of the Old Testament. The printing of the Hebrew text commenced among the Jews with the Psalter of 1477; the editio princeps of the Hebrew Bible as a whole appeared in 1488, and three editions followed before the end of the fifteenth century [894] . Meanwhile Christian scholars had once more begun to learn the Hebrew language from Jewish teachers, and in 1506 the publication of John Reuchlin's Rudiments placed the elements of Hebrew learning within the reach of the theologians of Europe. Under the circumstances it was not strange that the earlier Reformers, who owed their Hebrew Bible and their knowledge of the language to the Rabbis, should have, like Jerome, regarded the traditional text as a faithful reproduction of the inspired original. In the next century a beginning was made in the criticism of the Hebrew text by the Protestant divine Louis Cappelle (L. Cappellus, 1658), and the Oratorian Jean Morin (J. Morinus, 1659), who pressed the claims of the LXX. and the Samaritan Pentateuch. A furious controversy ensued, in the course of which the Swiss Reformed Churches committed themselves to an absolute acceptance not only of the consonantal text, but of the vowel points. This extreme position was occupied not only by theologians, but by experts such as the two Buxtorfs of Basle ( 1629, 1664), who maintained that the Massoretic text in its present state had come down unchanged from the days of Ezra and the 'Great Synagogue.' The views of Louis Cappelle were set forth in Arcanum punctuationis revelatum, Amsterdam, 1624; Critica sacra, Paris, 1650; those of J. Morin in Exercitationes ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum (Paris, 1631), and Exercitationes de hebraici graecique textus sinceritate (Paris, 1633). The younger Buxtorf answered Cappelle in his treatises De punctorum origine (1648) and Anticritica (1653): see Schnedemann, Die Controverse des L. Cappellus mit den Buxtorfen (Leipzig, 1879), Loisy, Histoire critique, p. 167 ff. The formula consensus ecclesiarum Helveticarum (1675) declared (can. ii., iii.): "Hebraicus Veteris Testamenti codex quem ex traditione ecclesiae Iudaicae, cui olim oracula Dei commissa sunt, accepimus hodieque retinemus, turn quoad consonas tum quoad vocalia, sive puncta ipsa sive punctorum saltem potestatem, et tum quoad res tum quoad verba theopneustos . . . ad cuius normam . . . universae quae extant versiones . . . exigendae et, sicubi deflectunt, revocandae sunt. Eorum proinde sententiam probare neutiquam possumus, qui lectionem quam Hebraicus codex exhibet humano tantum arbitrio constitutam esse definiunt, quique lectionem Hebraicam quam minus commodam indicant configere eamque ex LXX. seniorum aliorumque versionibus Graecis . . . emendare religioni neutiquam ducunt [895] ." Reference has been made to the place occupied by the Samaritan Pentateuch in this controversy. A Samaritan recension of the Law was known to Origen, who quoted it in the Hexapla (Num. xiii. 1 ha kai auta ek tou ton Samareiton Ebraikou metebalomen, xxi. 13 ha en monois ton Samareiton heuromen: see Field, Hex. 1. p. lxxxii. f.), and Jerome (prol. gal., comm. in Gal. iii. 10); reference is made to it also by Eusebius (Chron. 1. xvi. 7 ff.), and by so late a writer as Georgius Syncellus (cent. viii.), who attaches a high value to its testimony (Chronogr. p. 83 diaphonousi ta Ebraika antigrapha pros to Samareiton archaiotaton kai charaktersi diallatton; ho kai alethes einai kai proton Ebraioi kathomologousin). In the seventeenth century, after a long oblivion, this recension was recovered by a traveller in the East and published in the Paris Polyglott of 1645. The rising school of textual criticism represented by Morin at once recognised its importance as concurring with the Septuagint in its witness against the originality of the Massoretic text. Few questions, however, have been more hotly discussed than the relation of the Samaritan to the Alexandrian Pentateuch. Scholars such as Selden, Hottinger, and Eichhorn contended that the Greek Pentateuch was based upon Samaritan MSS. Samaritans were undoubtedly to be found among the early Palestinian settlers in Egypt. Of the first Ptolemy Josephus writes: pollous aichmalotous labon apo tes Samareitidos kai ton en Garizein, katokisen hapantas eis Aigupton agagon. It is significant that Samareia occurs among the names of villages in the Fayûm [896] , and a letter ascribed to Hadrian, and certainly not earlier than his reign, mentions Samaritans as resident at Alexandria. On the other hand the traditional account of the origin of the LXX. directly contradicts this hypothesis, nor is it probable that the Jews of Alexandria would have had recourse to the Samaritans for MSS. of the Law, or that they would have accepted a version which had originated in this manner. Moreover the agreement of the Greek and Samaritan Pentateuchs is very far from being complete. A careful analysis of the Samaritan text led Gesenius to the conclusion, which is now generally accepted, that the fact of the two Pentateuchs often making common cause against the printed Hebrew Bibles indicates a common origin earlier than the fixing of the Massoretic text, whilst their dissensions shew that the text of the Law existed in more than one recension before it had been reduced to a rigid uniformity. On the Samaritan Pentateuch the reader may consult J. Morinus, Exercitationes ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum; L. Cappellus, Critica sacra, iii. c. 20; Walton, prolegg: (ed. Wrangham, Camb. 1828), ii. p. 280 ff.; R. Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, i. c. 12; Eichhorn, Einleitung, ii. § 383 ff.; Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine indole et auctoritate comm. (Halle, 1815); S. Kohn, De Pentateucho Samaritano eiusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu (Leipzig, 1865); Samareitikon u. Septuaginta, in MGJS., 1893; E. Deutsch, Samaritan Pentateuch, in Smith's D. B. iii. 1106 ff.; E. König, art. Sam. Pentateuch, Hastings' D. B. suppl. vol. p. 71; J. W. Nutt, Introduction to Fragments of a Sam. Targum (London, 1872); J. Skinner in J. Q. R. xiv. 26; P. Glaue and A. Rahlfs, Mitteilungen des Sept. Unternehmens, ii. (Berlin, 1911), for fragments of Gr. transl. of Sam. Pentateuch. The prevalent belief in the originality of the Massoretic text appeared to receive confirmation from the researches of Kennicott [897] and De Rossi [898] , which revealed an extraordinary agreement in all existing MSS. of the Hebrew Bible. But as no MS. of the Hebrew Bible has come down to us which is earlier than the beginning of the tenth century [899] , this evidence merely shews the complete success of the Massorets and the Sopherim who preceded them in preserving the traditional text, and the question remains to be answered at what period the tradition was created. It may be traced in the fourth century, when Jerome received substantially the same text from his Jewish teachers in Palestine; and in the third, for Origen's Hebrew text did not differ materially from that of Jerome or of the Massorets. We can go yet another step further back; the version of Aquila, of which considerable fragments have now been recovered, reveals very few points in which the consonantal text of the second century differed from that of our printed Bibles [900] . Other witnesses can be produced to shew that, even if Hebrew MSS. of a much earlier date had been preserved, they would have thrown but little light on textual questions [901] . On the whole, modern research has left no room for doubting that the printed Hebrew Bible represents a textus receptus which was already practically fixed before the middle of the second century. But it is equally clear that no official text held undisputed possession in the first century, or was recognised by the writers of the New Testament. Thus we are driven to the conclusion that the transition from a fluctuating to a relatively fixed text took effect during the interval between the Fall of Jerusalem and the completion of Aquila's version. The time was one of great activity in Palestinian Jewish circles. In the last days of Jerusalem a school had been founded at Jamnia (Jabneh, Yebna) [902] , near the Philistine seaboard, by R. Jochanan ben Zaccai. To this centre the representatives of Judaism flocked after the destruction of the city, and here, until the fresh troubles of the war of Bar-Cochba (A.D. 132--5), Biblical studies were prosecuted with new ardour under a succession of eminent Rabbis. At Jamnia about A.D. 90 a synod was held which discussed various questions connected with the settlement of the Canon. At Jamnia also traditionalism reached its zenith under the teaching of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, R. Joshua ben Chananya, and their more famous pupil R. Akiba ben Joseph, the author of the dogma that every word, particle and letter in the Hebrew Bible has a meaning, and serves some purpose which can be expressed by hermeneutical methods. From this canon of interpretation to the establishment of an official text is but a single step; a book of which the very letters possess a divine authority cannot be left to the unauthorised revision of scribes or editors. Whether the result was reached by a selection of approved readings, or by the suppression of MSS. which were not in agreement with an official copy, or whether it was due to an individual Rabbi or the work of a generation, is matter of conjecture. But it seems to be clear that in one way or another the age which followed the fall of Jerusalem witnessed the creation of a standard text not materially different from that which the Massorets stereotyped and which all MSS. and editions have reproduced [903] . (b) It is the business of the textual critic to get behind this official text, and to recover so far as he can the various recensions which it has displaced. In this work he is aided by the Ancient Versions, but especially by the Septuagint. Of the Versions the Septuagint alone is actually earlier than the fixing of the Hebrew text. In point of age, indeed, it must yield to the Samaritan Pentateuch, the archetype of which may have been in the hands of the Samaritans in the days of Nehemiah (c. B.C. 432) [904] ; but the polemical bias of that people, and the relatively late date of the MSS. on which the printed text depends, detract largely from the value of its evidence, which is moreover limited to the Torah. Some of the difficulties which beset the use of the LXX. as a guide to the criticism of the text have been stated already when its character as a version was discussed [905] ; others, arising out of the present condition of the version, will be noticed in the last chapter of this book. "The use of the Ancient Versions (as Prof. Driver writes [906] ) is not . . . always such a simple matter as might be inferred . . . . In the use of an Ancient Version for the purposes of textual criticism, there are three precautions which must always be observed: we must reasonably assure ourselves that we possess the Version itself in its original integrity: we must eliminate such variants as have the appearance of originating merely with the translator; the remainder, which will be those that are due to a difference of text in the MS. (or MSS.) used by the translator, we must then compare carefully, in the light of the considerations just stated, with the existing Hebrew text, in order to determine on which side the superiority lies." "In dealing with the LXX. (Prof. Kirkpatrick reminds us) we have to remember . . . that the LXX. is not a homogeneous work, but differs very considerably in its character in different books, if not in parts of books [907] ." Moreover in the case of the LXX. the task of the textual critic is complicated by the existence of more than one distinct recension of the Greek. He has before him in many contexts a choice of readings which represent a plurality of Hebrew archetypes [908] . The following list of passages in which the LXX. reflects a Hebrew text different from will enable the student to practise himself in the critical use of the Version. Gen. iv. 8 does not give the words of Cain, though vy'mr leads the reader to expect them. supplies Dielthomen eis to pedion (nlkh hsdh), and this is supported by Sam., Targ. Jer., Pesh., Vulg. xxxi. 29 'vykm, ? 'vyk (tou patros sou); so Sam., cf. v. 30. xli. 56 'tkl'sr bhm, pantas tous sitobolonas 'tsrt br? [909] , cf. Sam., 't kl 'sr vhm vr). xlix. 10 heos an elthe ta apokeimena auto, perhaps reading 'sr lv =) slv) for sylh; but see Ball in Haupt, Sacred Books, ad loc., and cf. the Greek variant ho apokeitai. Exod. v. 9 vysv . . . ysv merimnatosan . . . merimnatosan vysv . . . ysv. xiv. 25 ? vysr, kai sunedesen (vy'sr). xxx. 6 . . . lphny hprkt . . . lphny hkprt. omits the second clause: so Sam. Lev. xiii. 31 sr schr, thrix xanthizousa (sr schr). Num. xxiv. 23 prefixes kai idon ton Og ('tvg vyr'); cf. vv. 20, 21. Deut. iv. 37 bzrv 'chryv, i.e. Abraham's posterity (Driver, ad loc.); to sperma auton met' autous humas, i.e. vzrm 'chrykm; so Sam. Josh. xv. 59 + Theko . . . poleis hendeka kai hai komai auton. The omission of these names in is doubtless due to homoioteleuton. Jud. xiv. 15 byvm hsvyy , as the context seems to require, en te hemera te tetarte (hrvyy); but see Moore in Haupt, Sacred Books, ad loc. xvi. 13 f. 6 supplies a long lacuna in (kai enkrouses . . . tes kephales aupou) caused by homoioteleuton; on the two Greek renderings of the passage see Moore in Haupt, ad loc. xix. 18 eis ton oikon mou ego poreuomai ( 'tbyt yhvh 'ny hlk). The final letter of vyty has probably been taken by for an abbreviation of yhvh. o1 Sam. i. 24 bphrym slsh, en moscho trietizonti, dividing and pronouncing bphr msls. ii. 33 supplies vchrv (en rhomphaia) which seems to have. lost. iii. 13 hoti kakologountes theon huioi autou, reading 'lhym for lhm. iv. 1. The first clause in is irrelevant in this place, and must either be connected with iii. 21 or struck out altogether. In place of it has the appropriate introduction, kai egenethe . . . eis polemon (vyhy vymym ?hhm vyqvtsv phlstym lmlchmh l ysr'l). v. 6. For gvvlyh 't'sdvd v't has kai meson tes choras autes anephuesan mues. Cf. vi. 4 f., and see Driver and Budde (in Haupt's Sacred Books) ad loc. H. P. Smith would strike out the reference to mice in both contexts. vi. 19 ?vyk b'nsy vytsms. kai ouk esmenisan hoi huioi Iechoniou en tois andrasin Baithsamus, where the first six words represent an original of which preserves only three letters. Restoration is complicated by the fact that asmenizein is hap. leg. in the LXX. Klostermann suggests vl' chrv vny yknyhv ix. 25 f. s'vl lhgg vyskmv vyrbr m. , more in harmony with the context, kai diestrosan to Saoul (vyrvdv ls'vl) epi to domati, kai ekoimethe (vyskv). x. 21 + kai prosagousin ten phulen Mattarekai prosagousin ten phulen Mattarei eis andras, a clause necessary to the sense. xii. 3 v'lym yny bv. kai hupodema (cf. Gen. xiv. 23, Am. ii. 6, viii. 6); apokrithete kat' emou (?vnlym nv vy). With compare Sir. xlvi. 19 chremata kai heos hupodematon . . . ouk eilepha, where for hupod. the newly recovered Hebrew has ?nlm 'a secret gift,' leg. fort. nlym 'a pair of sandals'; see, however, Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. lxvii. xii. 8 supplies kai etapeinosen autous Aiguptos, omitted by through homoioteleuton. xiv. 18 hgysh 'rvn h'lhym, prosagage to ephoud. "The Ephod, not the ark, was the organ of divination" (Driver). xiv. 41 f. hvh tmym. ^Luc, supplying the lacuna, Ti hoti ouk apekrithes to doulo sou semeron; ei en emoi e en Ionathan to huio mou he adikia; Kurie ho theos Israel, dos delous ('vrym)· kai ei tade eipois En to lao he adikia, dos hosioteta (tmym). Similarly in v. 42 preserves the words hon an kataklerosetai . . . tou huiou autou, which has lost through homoioteleuton. See the note in Field, Hexapla, i. p. 510. xx. 19 'tsl h'vn h'zl, para to ergab ekeino = 'tsl h'dgv hlz, 'beside yonder cairn.' Similarly v. 41 apo tou argab = m?'tsl h'dgv. ?2 Sam. iv. 6. For the somewhat incoherent sentence in , substitutes kai idou he thuroros tou oikou ekathairen purous, kai enustaxen kai ekatheuden--words which explain the incident that follows. xvii. 3 , hon tropon epistrephei he numphe pros ton andra autes; plen psuchen henos andros su zeteis. In the archetype of the eye of the scribe has passed from 'ys to 'ysh, and the sentence thus mutilated has been re-arranged. xxiv. 6 v'l'rts tchtym chdsy. No 'land of Tahtim Hodshi' is known. ^Luc here preserves the true text, eis gen Chettieim Kades = 'l 'rts hchtym qdsh, 'to the land of the Hittites, even to Kadesh.' For the last word Ewald, followed by H. P. Smith, preferred chrmnh, 'to Hermon.' 1 Kings xvii. 1 glr htsby m?tsvy. ho Thesbeites ek Thesbon tes Galaad (m?tsbn g? ?). 2 Chron. xxxiii. 19 l dvry chvzy epi ton logon ton horonton hchvzm). Neh. ix. 17 bmrym. en Aigupto. (vmtsrym). Ps. xvi. (xv.) 2 'mrt sc. nphsy. eipa ('mrty) is manifestly right, and has been admitted into the text by the English Revisers. xxii. 16 (xxi. 17) k'ry, Aq. hos leon. oruxan (k'rv = krv). xxvii. (xxvi.) 13 lvl' (so ) is apparently read by as lv, and then connected with the previous verse. See Cheyne, Book of Psalms, p. 379, and Abbott, Essays, p. 25. Wellhausen (Haupt, ad loc.) would retain without the puncta extraordinaria. x1ii. 5 (xli. 6) + [kai] ho theos mou, as in v. 12. xlix. 11 (xlviii. 12) qrbm btymv lvlm. hoi taphoi auton oikiai auton eis ton aiona. lxix. 26 (1xviii. 27) ysprv, prosethekan (yvsyphv). lxxii. (lxxi.) 5 yyr'vk m sms. kai sunparamenei (vy'ryk) to helio. ci. (c.) 5 'tv l' 'vkl touto ou sunesthion ('tv l' 'kl). Prov. x. 10^ b in is repeated from v. 8^ b which has displaced the true ending of v. 10. restores the latter (ho de elenchon meta parresias eirenopoiei), and thus supplies the contrast to 10^ a which is required to complete the couplet. Jer. vi. 29 vrym l' ntqv. poneria[i] auton ouk etake[san] (vrm l' nmq). xi. 15 me euchai . . .; (hndrym); see however Streane, Double text, p. 133. xxiii. 33 'tmh ms'. humeis este to lemma (dividing and pronouncing hms' 'tm). Ezek. xlv. 20 bsvh vchds. en to hebdomo meni, mia tou menos (hsvyy v'chd lchds). Mal. ii. 3 hzr. ton omon = hzrv. (c) In dealing with such differences between the Greek version and the traditional Hebrew text the student will not start with the assumption that the version has preserved the true reading. It may have been preserved by the official Hebrew or its archetype, and lost in the MSS. which were followed by the translators: or it may have been lost by both. Nor will he assume that the Greek, when it differs from the Hebrew, represents in all cases another Hebrew text; for the difference may be due to the failure of the translators to understand their Hebrew, or to interpret it aright. His first business is to decide whether the Greek variant involves a different Hebrew text, or is simply another expression for the text which lies before him in the printed Hebrew Bible. If the former of these alternatives is accepted, he has still to consider whether the text represented by the LXX. is preferable to that of the Hebrew Bible and probably original. There is a presumption in favour of readings in which and agree, but, as we have said, not an absolute certainty that they are correct, since they may both be affected by a deep-seated corruption which goes back to the age of the Ptolemies. When they differ, will usually deserve to be preferred when it (a) fills up a lacuna which can be traced to homoioteleuton in the Hebrew, or (b) removes an apparent interpolation, or (c) appears to represent a bona fide variant in the original, which makes better sense than the existing text. Its claims in these cases are strengthened if it has the support of other early and probably independent witnesses such as the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Targum, or of Hebrew variants which survive in existing MSS. of the Massoretic text, or in the Q'ri [910] . For guidance as to the principles on which the LXX. may be employed in the criticism of the Hebrew Text the student may consult Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Übersetzung der Proverbien, p. 1 ff.; Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis, p. 1 ff.; Robertson Smith, O. T. in the Jewish Church², p. 76 ff.; Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, p. xlviii. f.; H. P. Smith, Comm. on Samuel, pp. xxix. ff., 395 ff.; Toy, Comm. on Proverbs, p. xxxii. f. See also below, c. vi. 2. In the field of O.T. interpretation the witness of the LXX. must be received with even greater caution. It is evident that Greek-speaking Jews, whose knowledge of Hebrew was probably acquired at Alexandria from teachers of very moderate attainments, possess no prescriptive right to act as guides to the meaning of obscure Hebrew words or sentences. Transliterations, doublets, confused and scarcely intelligible renderings, reveal the fact that in difficult passages they were often reduced to mere conjecture. But their guesses may at times be right; and in much that seems to be guesswork they may have been led by gleams of a true tradition. Thus it is never safe to neglect their interpretation, even if in the harder contexts it is seldom to be trusted. Indirectly at least much may be learned from them; and their wildest exegesis belongs to the history of hermeneutics, and has influenced thought and language to a remarkable degree. (a) The following specimens will serve to illustrate the exegesis of the LXX. in the historical books. Gen. iv. 1 ektesamen anthropon dia tou theou. iv. 7 ouk ean orthos prosenenkes orthos de me dieles, hemartes; hesuchason. vi. 3 ou me katameine to pneuma mou en tois anthropois toutois eis ton aiona dia to einai autous sarkas xxx. 11 kai eipen Leia En tuche; kai eponomasen to onoma autou Gad. xxxvii. 3 epoiesen de auto chitona poikilon (cf. 2 Regn. xiii. i8). xli. 43 ekeruxen emprosthen autou kerux. xlvii. 31 prosekunesen Israel epi to akron tes rhabdou autou. xlviii. 14 enallax [D enallaxas] tas cheiras xlix. 6 eneurokopesan tauron 19 Gad, peiraterion peirateusei auton; autos de peirateusei auton kata podas Exod. i. 16 kai osin pros to tiktein iii. 14 ego eimi ho on xvi. 15 eipan heteros to hetero Ti estin touto; xvii. 15 eponomasen to onoma autou Kurios kataphuge mou. xxi. 6 pros to kriterion tou theou xxxii. 32 kai nun ei men apheis autois ten hamartian auton, aphes Lev. xxiii. 3 te hemera te hebdome sabbata anapausis klete hagia to kurio. Num. xxiii. 10^ b apothanoi he psuche mou en psuchais dikaion, kai genoito to sperma mou hos to sperma touton. xxiv. 24 kai kakosousin Ebraious. Deut. xx. 19 me anthropos to xulon to en to agro eiselthein . . . eis ton charaka; xxxii. 8 estesen horia ethnon kata arithmon angelon theou. 15 apelaktisen ho egapemenos Jos. v. 2 Poieson seauto machairas petrinas ek petras akrotomou. Jud. i. 35 erxato ho Amorraios katoikein en to orei to ostrakodei (A tou mursinonos), en ho hai arkoi kai en ho hai alopekes, en to mursinoni kai en Thalabein (A om. en. to m. k. en Th.). viii. 13 epestrepsen Gedeon . . . apo epanothen tes parataxeos Hares (A ek tou polemou apo anaeaseos Hares). xii. 6 kai eipan auto Eipon de Stachus (A Sunthema). xv. 14 ff. elthon heos Siagonos . . . kai heuren siagona onou . . . kai errexen ho theos ton lakkon ton en te Siagoni . . . dia touto eklethe to onoma autes Pege tou epikaloumenou, he estin en Siagoni. xviii. 30 huios Gersom huios (A huiou) Manasse bnm^ nsh: on the n suspensum see Moore in comm. on Sacred Books, ad loc.). 1 Regn. x. 5 hou estin ekei to anastema ton allophulon; ekei Naseib ho allophulos xiii. 21 kai en ho trugetos hetoimos tou therizein; ta de skeue en treis sikloi eis ton odonta, kai te axine, kai to drepano hupostasis en he aute xx. 30 huie korasion automolounton (Luc. + gunaikotraphe). xxvii. 1O kata noton tes Ioudaias. xxxi. 10 anethekan ta skeue autou eis to Astarteion 2 Regn. i. 21 thureos Saoul ouk echristhe en elaio. xii. 31 diegagen (A apegagen) autous dia tou plintheiou (Luc. teriegagen autous en madebba). xx. 6 me pote . . . skiasei tous ophthalmous hemon. xxiv. 15 apo proithen [kai] heos horas aristou. 3 Regn. xiii. kai deiknuousin auto hoi huioi autou ten hodon 4 Regn. i. 2 f. epizetesate en to Baal muian theon Akkaron (Luc. eperotesate dia tou Baal muian prosochthisma theon Akkaron). viii. 13 tis estin ho doulos sou, ho kuon ho tethnekos, hoti poiesei to rhema touto xxiii. 22 f. ouk egenethe [kata] to pascha touto aph' hemeron ton kriton . . . hoti all e to oktokaidekato etei tou basileos Ioseia egenethe to pascha [touto] (cf. 2 Chr. xxxv. 18). (b) The translated titles of the Psalms form a special and interesting study. The details are collected below, and can be studied with the help of the commentaries, or of Neubauer's article in Studia Biblica ii. p. 1 ff. [911] Psalmos, mzmvr passim (sgyvn in Ps. vii., syr in Ps. xlv. (xlvi.)). Ode, syr passim (mzmvr in Ps. iv., hgyvn in Ps. ix. 17. Psalmos odes, mzmvr syr Pss. xxix., xlvii., lxvii., lxxiv., lxxxii., lxxxvi., xci., xciii. (A); ode psalmou, m syr or s mzmvr (lxv., lxxxii., lxxxvii. , cvii.) Proseuche, tphlh (Pss. xvi., lxxxv., lxxxix., ci., cxli.). Allelouia, hllvyh (Pss. civ.--cvi., cx.--cxiv., cxvi., cxvii., cxxxiv., cxxxv., cxlv., cxlvi., cxlviii.--cl.). Ainesis, thlh (Ps. cxliv.). Stelographia, eis stelographian, mktm (Pss. xv., lv.--lix.). Aq. tou tapeinophronos kai haplou, Th. tou tap. kai amomou. Eis to telos, lmntsch (Pss. iv.--xiii., xvii., xviii., xxi., xxix., xxx., xxxv.--lxi., lxiii.--lxix., lxxiv.--lxxvi., lxxix., lxxx., lxxxiii., lxxxiv., lxxxvii., cii., cviii., cxxxviii., cxxxix.). Cf. Aq. to nikopoio, Symm. epinikios, Th. eis to nikos. En humnois, bngynvt (Pss. vi., liii., liv., lx., lxvi., lxxv.). En psalmois, bngynvt (Ps. iv.). Huper tes kleronomouses, (?) 'lhnchylvt (Ps. v.). Aq. apo klerodosion, Symm. huper klerouchion. Huper tes ogdoes, lhsmynyt (Pss. vi., xi.). Huper tes lo gon Chousei huiou Iemenei, ldvrykvs bnymyny (Ps. vii.). Aq., Symm., Th. peri, ktl. Huper ton lenon, lhgtyt (Pss. viii., lxxx., lxxxiii.). Aq., Th. huper tes getthidos. Huper ton kruphion tou huiou, lmvt lbn (Ps. ix.; Cf. xlv.). Aq. huper neaniotetos tou huiou, Th. huper akmes tou huiou, Symm. peri tou thanatou tou huiou. Huper tou antilempseos tes heothines, l'ylt hschr (Ps. xxi.). Aq. huper tes elaphou tes orthrines. Symm. huper tes boetheias tes orthr. Huper ton alloiothesomenon, lssnym (Pss. xliv., lix., lxvii., lxxix.). Aq. epi tois krinois, Symm. huper ton anthon, Th. huper ton krinon. Huper tou agapetou (ode), syr) ydydvt) (Ps. xliv.). Aq. asma prosphilias, Symm. asma eis ton agapeton, Th. tois egaremenois. Huper tou laou tou apo ton hagion memakrummenou, lyvnt 'lm rchqym (Ps. lv.). Aq. huper peristeras alalou makrusmon. Symm. huper tes peristeras hupo tou philou autou aposmenou. E'. huper tes p. tes mongilalou kekrummenon. Huper Idithoun, lydvtvy (Pss. xxxviii., lxi., lxxvi.). Huper maeleth (tou apokrithenai), (lmchlt (lnvt (Pss.lii., lxxxvii.). Aq. epi choreia (Symm. dia chorou) tou exarchein. Eis ana?mnesin, lhzkyr (Pss. xxxvii., lxix.). Eis exomologesin ltvdh (Ps. xcix.). Aq. eis eucharistian. Eis sunesin, suneseos, mskyl (Pss. xxxi., xli.--xliv., li.--liii., lxxiii., lxxxvii., lxxxviii., cxli.). Aq. epistemonos, epistemes, epistemosunes. Me diaphtheires, 'ltscht (Pss. lvi.--lviii., lxxiv.). Symm. (Ps. lxxiv.) peri aphtharsias. Tou enkainismou tou oikou, chnkthbyt (Ps. xxix.). Ton anabathmon, hmlvt (Pss. cxix.--cxxxiii.). Aq., Symm., Th. ton anaraseon, eis tas anabaseis. It may be added that slh? [912] (Pss. iii. 3, 5, iv. 3, 5, vii. 6, &c., &c.) is uniformly diapsalma in the LXX.; Aq. renders it aei, Symm. and Th. agree with the LXX. except that in Ps. ix. 17 aei is attributed to Th. In the Psalm of Habakkuk (Hab. iii. 3) Symm. renders eis ton aiona, Th. eis telos, and in v. 13 eis telos has found its way into copies of the LXX. (cf. '^ c.a, and Jerome: "ipsi LXX. rerum necessitate compulsi . . . nunc transtulerunt in finem"). (c) Exegetical help is sometimes to be obtained from a guarded use of the interpretation affixed by the LXX. (1) to obscure words, especially hapax legomena, and (2) to certain proper names. Some examples of both are given below. (1) Gen. i. 2 aoratos kai akataskeuastos. 6 stereoma. iii. 8 to deilinon. 15 teresei . . . tereseis. vi. 2 hoi angeloi tou theou (cf. Deut. xxxii. 8, Job i. 6, ii. 1). 4 hoi gigantes. viii. 21 dianoetheis. xxii. 2 ton agapeton. xlix. 10 hegoumenos. Exod. vi. 12 alogos. viii. 21 kunomuia. xii. 22 hussopos. xxv. 29 artoi enopioi (cf. a. prokeimenoi xxxix. 18 = 36, a. tou prosopou 1 Regn. xxi. 6). xxviii. 15 logion, Vulg. rationale. Exod. xxxiv. 13 ta alse Vulg. luci, A.V. groves. Lev. xvi. 8 ff. ho apopompaios, he apopompe. Deut. x. 16 sklerokardia. Jud. xix. 22 huioi peranomon (cf. huioi loimoi 1 Regn. ii. 12, and other renderings, which employ anomia, anomema, apostasia, asebes, aphron). 2 Regn. i. 18 to biblion tou euthous. 3 Regn. x. 11 xula peleketa (cf. 2 Chr. ii. 8, ix. 10 f. x. peukina). Ps. viii. 6 par angelous. xv. 9 e glossa mou. xvi. 8 koran ophthalmou. l. 14 pneuma hegemonikon. cxxxviii. 15 he hupostasis mou. 16 o akatergaston mou. Prov. ii. 18 para to hade meta ton gegenon (a doublet). Job ix. 9 Pleiada kai Hesperon kai Arktouron (cf. xxxviii. 31). Zeph. i. 10 apo tes deuteras (cf. 4 Regn. xxii. 14). Isa. xxxviii. 8 (4 Regn. xxii.) tous deka anabathmous. Ezech. xiii. 18 proskephalaia, epibolaia. (2) Abarim, mountains of, hrhvrym to oros to en to peran, Num. xxvii. 12 (cf. xxi. 11, xxxiii. 44). Agagite, Bougaios, Esth. iii. 1, A 17 (xii. 6); Makedon, E (xvi.) 10. Ararat, land of, 'rts'rrt, Armenia, Isa. xxxvii. 38. Astoreth strt, Astarte (the Phoenician 'Ashtart), Jud. ii. 13, 4 Regn. xxiii. 13. Baca, valley of, mq hbk', he koilas tou klauthmonos Ps. lxxxiii. 7 (cf. Jud. ii. 5, 2 Regn. v. 24, 1 Chr. xiv. 14). Caphtor, Caphtorim, Kappadokia, Kappadokes, Deut. ii. 23, Am. ix. 7. Cherethites, krtym, Kretes, Zeph. ii. 5, Ezech. xxv. 16. Dodanim, ddnym, Rhodioi (rdnym), Gen. x. 4. Enhakkore ynhqvr', Pege tou epikaloumenou, Jud. xv. 19. Ichabod, 'ykvvd, ouai barchaboth (? = 'vy vrchvvt, Wellh.), 1 Regn. iv. 21. Javan, he Hellas, Isa. lxvi. 19 (cf. Joel iii. 6). Jehovah-nissi, Kurios kataphuge mou, Exod. xvii. 15. Keren-happuch, qrn hpvk, Amaltheias keras, Job xlii. 14. Kiriath-sepher, qryt sphr, polis grammaton, Jos. xv. 15 f., Macpelah, hmkplh, to spelaion to diploun, Gen. xxiii. 17, 19 (xxv. 9, xlix. 30, l. 13). Moriah, land of, 'rts hmryh, he ge he hupsele Gen. xxii. 2. Pisgah, hpsgh, to lelaxeumenou, Num. xxi. 20, xxiii. 14, Deut. iii. 27 (cf. Deut. iv. 49). Zaanaim, plain of, 'lvn btsn(n)ym, drus pleonektounton (B), dr. anapauomenon (A>, Jud. iv. 11 (cf. Moore, ad loc.). Zaphnath-paaneah, pnch tsphnt, Psonthomphanech, Gen. xli. 45 (Ball, ad loc. compares Egypt. sut' a en pa-anch). Pharaoh-Hophra, p chphr, ho Ouaphre, Jer. li. (xliv.) 30 (cf. W. E. Crum in Hastings, D. B. ii. p. 413). B. The Septuagint is not less indispensable to the study of the New Testament than to that of the Old. But its importance in the former field is more often overlooked, since its connexion with the N.T. is less direct and obvious, except in the case of express quotations from the Alexandrian version [913] . These, as we have seen, are so numerous that in the Synoptic Gospels and in some of the Pauline Epistles they form a considerable part of the text. But the New Testament has been yet more widely and more deeply influenced by the version through the subtler forces which shew themselves in countless allusions, lying oftentimes below the surface of the words, and in the use of a vocabulary derived from it, and in many cases prepared by it for the higher service of the Gospel. 1. The influence of the LXX. over the writings of the N.T. is continually shewn in combinations of words or in trains of thought which point to the presence of the version in the background of the writer's mind, even when he may not consciously allude to it. This occurs frequently (a) in the sayings of our Lord, where, if He spoke in Aramaic, the reference to the LXX. is due to the translator: e.g. Mt. v. 3 ff. makarioi hoi ptochoi . . . hoi penthountes . . . hoi praeis (Isa. lxi. i ff., Ps. xxxvi. 11). vi. 6 eiselthe eis to tameion sou (Isa. xxvi. 20). x. 21, 35 epanastesontai tekna epi goneis . . . elthon gar dichasai . . . thugatera kata tes metros autes? ?kai numphen ktl. (Mic. vii. 6). xxi. 33 anthropos ephuteusen ampelona kai phragmon auto perietheken ktl. (Isa. v. 2). Mc. ix. 48 blethenai eis geennan hopou ho skolex auton ou teleuta kai to pur ou sbennutai. (Isa. lxvi. 24). Jo. i. 51 opsesthe ton ouranon aneogota kai tous angelous tou theou anabainontas kai katabainontas (Gen. xxviii. 12); (b) in the translated evangelical record: Mc. vii. 32 pherousin auto kophon kai mogilalon . . . kai eluthe ho desmos ktl. (Isa. xxxv. 5 f., xlii. 7). xv. 29 hoi paraporeuomenoi eblasphemoun auton kinountes tas kephalas: cf. Lc. xxiii. 35 histekei ho laos theoron; exemukterizon de ktl. (Ps. xxi. 8, Isa. li. 23, Lam. ii. 15); (c) in the original Greek writings of the N.T., where allusions of this kind are even more abundant; 1 Pet. ii. 9 meis de genos eklekton, basileion hierateuma, ethnos hagion, laos eis peripoiesin, hopos tas aretas exangeilete ktl. (Exod. xix. 5 f., xxiii. 22 f., Isa. xliii. 20). iii. 14 ton de phobon auton me phobethete mede tarachthete, kurion de ton christon hagiasate en tais kardiais humon (Isa. viii. 12 f.). Rom. xii. 17 pronooumenoi kala enopion panton anthropon; cf. 2 Cor. viii. 21 pronooumen gar kala ou monon enopion Kuriou alla kai enopion anthropon (Prov. iii. 4; in Rom. l. c. this allusion is preceded by another to Prov. iii. 7). 2 Cor. iii. 3 ff.: Exod. xxxi., xxxiv. (LXX.) are in view throughout this context. Eph. ii. 17 euengelisato eirenen humin tois makran kai eirenen tois engus (Isa. lvii. 19, cf. lii. 7, lxi. 1). Phil. i. 19 ?oida gar hoti touto moi apobesetai eis soterian (Job xiii. 16). Heb. vi. 8 ge . . . ekpherousa . . . akanthas kai tribolous . . . kataras engus ((Gen. iii. 17). These are but a few illustrations of a mental habit everywhere to be observed in the writers of the N.T., which shews them to have been not only familiar with the LXX., but saturated with its language. They used it as Englishmen use the Authorised Version of the Bible, working it into the texture of their thoughts and utterances. It is impossible to do justice to their writings unless this fact is recognised, i.e., unless the reader is on the watch for unsuspected references to the Greek O.T., and able to appreciate its influence upon his author's mind. 2. To what extent the vocabulary of the N.T. has been influenced by the LXX. is matter of keen controversy. In a weighty essay On the Value and Use of the Septuagint Dr Hatch has maintained that "the great majority of N.T. words are words which, though for the most part common to Biblical and to contemporary secular Greek, express in their Biblical use the conceptions of a Semitic race, and which must consequently be examined by the light of the cognate documents which form the LXX. [914] " This statement, which has been hotly contested, may conveniently form the basis of our discussion of the subject. (a) "The great majority of N.T. words are . . . common to Biblical and contemporary secular Greek." This is certainly true. Thus Dr H. A. A. Kennedy [915] enumerates about 150 words out of over 4800 in the N. T. which are "strictly peculiar to the LXX. and N.T." The list is as follows: agathopoiein, agathosune, agalliasthai, agalliasis, hagiazein, hagiasmos, hagiosune, ainesis, akrogoniaios, aichmaloteuein, alisgema, hallelouia, allogenes, amethustos, amen, amphiazein, anazonnuein, anathematizein, anexichniastos, anthropareskos, antapodoma, apodekatoin, apokalupsis, apokephalizein, apophthengesthai, batos, bdelugma, bebeloun, broche, geenna, gnostes, gonguzein, gumnotes, dekatoun, dektos, diagonguzein, dolioun, dotes, dunamoun, hebdomekontakis, eirenopoiein, ekzetein, ekmukterizein, ekpeirazein, ekporneuein, ekrizoun, elegmos, elenxis, empaigmos, empaiktes, enanti, endiduskein, endoxazein, endunamoun, eneulogein, enkainizein, entalma, entaphiazein, enopion, enotizesthai, exapina, exastraptein, exolethreuein, exoudenoun, exupnizein, epaurion, episkope, epanapauein, epigambreuein, epiphauskein, eremosis, eudokia, ephemeria, hettema, thelesis, hierateuein, hierateuma, katharizein, katharismos, katakauchasthai, katakleronomein, katanuxis, katanussein, katenopion, katoiketerion, kauson, kauchesis, kludonizesthai, koros, krataioun, laxeutos, leitourgikos, lutrosis, makrothumein, manna, mataiotes, mataioun, megaleiotes, megalosune, metoikein, misthios, mogilalos, moichalis, nikos, olethreuein, oligopsuchos, holokleria, optanein, optasia, orthotomein, orthrizein, horkomosia, ouai, pagideuein, parazeloun, parapikrasmos, paroikia, parorgismos, patriarches, peirasmos, perikatharma, periousios, perisseia, plerophorein, proskomma, prosochthizein, proinos, rhantizein, rhantismos, sabaoth, sabbaton, sagene, satanas, saton, setobrotos, sikera, skandalon, sklerokardia, sklerotrachelos, stekein, stugnazein, sunegeirein, tapeinophron, hupakoe, hupantesis, hupolenion, huperopsoun, husterema, phoster, cheroubeim, psithurismos, otion. Since the publication of Dr Kennedy's book some of these words (e.g. gonguzein, leitourgikos [916] ) have been detected in early papyri, and as fresh documents are discovered and examined, the number of 'Biblical' Greek words will doubtless be still further diminished. Indeed the existence of such a class of words may be almost entirely due to accidental causes, such as the loss of contemporary Hellenistic literature. (b) On the other hand it must not be forgotten that the Greek vocabulary of Palestinian Greek-speaking Jews in the first century A.D. was probably derived in great part from their use of the Greek Old Testament. Even in the case of writers such as St Luke, St Paul, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the LXX. has no doubt largely regulated the choice of words. A very considerable number of the words of the N.T. seem to have been suggested by that version, or in any case may be elucidated from it. E.g.: agathosune, agalliasthai, hagnizein, agrupnein, hainigma, hairetizein, alazoneuesthai, allogenes, adialeiptos, amarantos, amerimnos, amphiblestron, amphodon, apelpizein, aperitmetos, haplotes, apokruphos, bdelugma, glossokomon, gnorizein, diadema, didrachma, distomos, diulizein, dorean, enankalizesthai, entaphiazein, enotizesthai, heortazein, exephnes, exoudenoun, eukolos, euodoun, theosebeia, hikanousthai, hikanos, ikmas, historein, kammuein, katagelos, katadunasteuein, kataklusmos, katakurieuein, katapontizein, kataphilein, kauchasthai, klasma, korasion, kophinos, lithostrotos, likman, mesonuktion, mogilalos, mukterizein, neomenia, nikos, nustazein, oikoumene (he), homothumadon, ostrakinos, pagideuein, paidarion, paradeigmatizein, parakouein, parepidemos, paroikos, perikephalaia, perilupos, perichoros, peripsema, pera, pleonazein, polulogia, polupragmonein, proselutos, proskephalaion, rhapisma, rhume, sagene, sikera, sindon, skolops, stenochoria, sullogizesthai, sumbibazein, sumphutos, tam(i)eion, tetradrachmon, trumalia, tumpanizein, hupogrammos, phimoun, chortazein, chrematizein, pseudoprophetes. To these may be added a considerable class of words which are based on LXX. words though they do not occur in the LXX.; e.g.: aprosopolemptos, baptisma (-mos), daimonizesthai, pneumatikos, sarkikos, pseudochrostos. (c) The influence of the LXX. is still more clearly seen in the N.T. employment of religious words and phrases which occur in the LXX. at an earlier stage in the history of their use. The following list will supply illustrations of these: agape, agapetos, hagiazein, hagiasmos, adelphos, adokimos, hairesis, aistheterion, akrogoniaios, anathema, anazopurein, anakainizein, anastrophe, anatole, anexichniastos, aparche, apaugasma, aphesis, aphorizein, baptizein, bebaiosis, blasphemein, gazophulakion, geenna, grammateus, gregorein, daimonion, diatheke, dogma, ethne, eirenikos, eirenopoiein, ekklesia, ekstasis, eleemosune, energeia, exomologeisthai, exousia, eperotema, episkopos, episunagein, epiphaneia, epichoregein, hetoimasia, euangelizesthai, euarestein, eudokia, eulabeia, zelotes, zogrein, zoogonein, thelema, threskeia, hilasmos, hilasterion, Ioudaismos, katallage, katanuxis, kerugma, kubernesis, Kurios, leitourgein, logos, loimos, lutrousthai, megaleiotes, megalosune, metameleia, meeorizesthai, monogenes, morphe, musterion, neophutos, holokleros, orthotomein, hosiotes, parabole, paradeisos, paroikos, peirasmos, periousios, perioche, peripoieisthai, pistis, plerophoreisthai, pleroma, pneuma, presbuteros, prosagein, rhuesthai, sarx, skandalon, sklerotrachelos, semnos, suneidesis, sphragizein, soteria, tartaros, hupostasis, husterema, Hupsistos, philanthropos, phos, charakter, cheirographon, christos. Many of the characteristic phrases of the N.T. also have their roots in the LXX., e.g. eikon theou (Gen. i. 26), osme euodias (viii. 21), paroikos kai parepidemos (xxiii. 4), prosopon pros prosopon (xxxii. 30), laos periousios (Exod. xix. 5), dopsxa Kuriou (xl. 29), thusia aineseos (Lev. vii. 2), lambanein prosopon (xix. 15), he diaspora (Deut. xxx. 4), genea diestrammene, skolia (xxxii. 5), me genoito(Jos. xxii. 29), hileos soi (2 Regn. xx. 20), mikron hoson hoson (xxvi. 20), diabolos (1 Chron. xxi. 1), to soterion tou theou(Ps. xcvii. 3), ode kaine, onoma kainon, and the like (Ps. cxliii. 9, Isa. lxii. 2, &c.), Kurios ho pantokrator (Am. ix. 5), doulos Kuriou (Jon. i. 9), trapeza Kuriou (Mal. i. 7), hemera episkopes (Isa. x. 3), hemera Kuriou (xiii. 6, 9), ho pais [tou theou] (xli. 8, &c.), ego eimi (xliii. 10), ek koilias metros (xlix. 1), ta peteina tou ouranou (Ezech. xxxi. 6), ho Gog kai Magog (xxxviii. 2). The non-canonical books have their full share in the contribution which the Septuagint makes to the vocabulary of the N.T. Many Biblical words either occur for the first time in the O.T. 'Apocrypha,' or reach there a further stage in the history of their use, or appear in new combinations. The following examples will repay examination: aion, apaugasma, apokalupsis, apostole, asunetos, aphesis, baptizein, basileia (tou theou), daimonion, diakonia, diaponeisthai, dikaioun, ekbasis, eklektos, embateuein, episkopos, epistrophe, epitimia, epiphaneia, eusplanchnos, eucharostia, idios, hilasmos, hilasterion, kanon, kleros, kleroun, koinos, koinoun, kosmos, ktisis, leitourgia, leitourgos, musterion (tou theou), nomos, parousia, pentekoste, semeia kai terata, skandalizein, sumpatheia, sumpathein, soter, charis kai eleos, christos. (d) "The great majority of N.T. words and phrases express . . . the conceptions of a Semitic race, and . . . must consequently be examined by the light of . . . the LXX." But the connotation will usually be found to have undergone considerable changes, both in ordinary words and in those which are used in a religious sense. In order to trace the process by which the transition has been effected the N. T. student must begin with an investigation into the practice of the LXX. Such an enquiry may be of service in determining the precise meaning which is to be given to the word in the N.T., but it will more frequently illustrate the growth of religious thought or of social life which has led to a change of signification. Dr Hatch indeed laid down as "almost self-evident" canons the two propositions (1) that "a word which is used uniformly, or with few and intelligible exceptions, as the translation of the same Hebrew word, must be held to have in Biblical Greek the same meaning as that Hebrew word"; and (2) that "words which are used interchangeably as translations of the same Hebrew word, or group of cognate words, must be held to have in Biblical Greek an allied or virtually identical meaning [917] ." These principles led him to some remarkable departures from the traditional interpretation of N.T. words (e.g. arete = hvd or thlh = doxa, epainos; diabolos = stn = 'enemy'; homothumadon = ychd ,ychdv = 'together'; ptochoi = penetes = praeis = tapeinoi = 'fellahin'; poneros, malicious, mischievous; hupokrites, the equivalent of poneros, panourgos, and the like). A searching examination of these views will be found in Dr T. K. Abbott's essay On N. T. Lexicography [918] . The proton pseudos of Dr Hatch's canons lies in his use of the term 'Biblical Greek' as inclusive of the pre-Christian Greek of the Alexandrian translators, and the Palestinian Greek of the Apostolic age. While it is evident that the writers of the N.T. were largely indebted to the Alexandrian version for their Greek vocabulary, we cannot safely assume that they attached to the Greek words and phrases which they borrowed from it the precise significance that belonged to them in the older book. Allowance must be made for altered circumstances, and in particular for the influence of the Gospel, which threw new meaning into the speech as well as the life of men. One or two instances will shew the truth of this remark. Agape in the LXX. rarely rises above the lower sense of the sexual passion, or at best the affection of human friendship; the exceptions are limited to the Greek Book of Wisdom (Sap. iii. 9, vi. 18 [919] ). But in the N.T., where the word is far more frequent, it is used only of the love of God for men, or of men for God or Christ, or for the children of God as such. Ekklesia in the LXX. is the congregation of Israel; in the N.T., except perhaps in Mt. xviii. 17, it is the new community founded by Christ [920] , viewed in different aspects and with many shades of meaning. Euangelion in the LXX. occurs only in the plural, and perhaps only in the classical sense of 'a reward for good tidings' (2 Regn. iv. 10); in the N.T. it is from the first appropriated to the Messianic good tidings (Mc. i. 1, 14), probably deriving this new meaning from the use of euangelizesthai in Isa. xl. 9, lii. 7, lx. 6, lxi. 1. Thus on the whole it is clear that caution must be used in employing the practice of the LXX. to determine the connotation of N.T. words. On the one hand the interpreter ought not to be led astray by visions of the solidarity of 'Biblical Greek,' for the Greek of the N.T., though in fact largely derived from the Greek of the LXX., has in not a few instances cast off the traditions of its source under the inspiration of another age. On the other hand, the student of the N.T. will make the LXX. his starting-point in examining the sense of all words and phrases which, though they may have been used in classical Greek or by the koine, passed into Palestinian use through the Greek Old Testament, and in their passage received the impress of Semitic thought and life. Bishop Pearson's judgement on this point is still fully justified: "LXX.viralis versio . . . ad Novum Instrumentum recte intelligendum et accurate explicandum perquam necessaria est . . . in illam enim omnes idiotismi veteris linguae Hebraicae erant transfusi . . . multa itaque Graeca sunt in Novo Foedere vocabula quae ex usu Graecae linguae intelligi non possunt, ex collatione autem Hebraea et ex usu LXX. interpretum facile intelliguntur [921] ." II. The Greek versions of the second century A.D. are in many respects of less importance to the Biblical student than the Septuagint. Not only are they later by two to four centuries, but they exist only in a fragmentary state, and the text of the fragments is often insecure. But there are services which they can render when rightly employed, and which the careful student will not forget to demand. 1. Each of these versions has characteristics of its own, which must be taken into account in estimating its value. (a) Aquila represents the official Hebrew text in its earliest stage, and his extreme literalness and habit of translating etumologikos [922] render it easy to recover the text which lay before him. In the large fragments of 3 and 4 Regn. published by Mr Burkitt, Aquila's Hebrew text differs from that of the printed Bibles only in thirteen readings [923] , an average of one variant in every second verse. Still more important is Aquila's reflexion of the exegetical tradition of the school of Jamnia. Here as in his text he is often in direct opposition to the LXX., and serves as a useful makeweight against the influence of the Alexandrian interpretation. Especially is this the case in regard to the meaning of obscure words, which Aquila translates with a full knowledge of both languages and of other Semitic tongues [924] , whilst the LXX. too often depended upon guess-work. This merit of Aquila was recognised by Jerome, who makes use of his interpretations in the Vulgate [925] . Moreover the influence which his work has exercised over the text of the LXX. renders it important to the textual critic of the older Greek version [926] . (b) The paraphrasing manner of Symmachus hinders the free use of his version either for textual or hermeneutical purposes. But it is often interesting as revealing the exegetical tendencies of his school, and its fulness serves to correct the extreme literalness of Aquila. Jerome used it for his Vulgate even more freely than he used Aquila; cf. Field, Hexapla i., p. xxxiv. #34;quem tam presse secutus est magnus ille interpres Latinus . . . ut aliquando nobis successerit ex Hieronymi Latinis Symmachi Graeca . . . satis probabiliter extricare." (c) Theodotion, besides contributing a whole book to the textus receptus of the Greek Old Testament, preserves in his text of the other books traces of a recension of the LXX. which seems at one time to have had a wide circulation, since Theodotionic readings occur in the LXX. quotations of the N.T. and in those of other Christian writers before A.D. 150 [927] . 2. All the post-Christian translators of the O.T., but especially Aquila, Symmachus, and the author of the Quinta [928] , appear to have been not only competent Hebraists, but possessed of a more or less extensive knowledge of Greek literature. These qualifications render them valuable allies to the interpreter whether of the New or of the Old Testament. (a) In the case of the O.T. they serve to confirm or correct the LXX. renderings, or to illustrate their meaning. The renderings of the earlier version are not infrequently retained, e. g. Gen. i. 2 mrchpht ?O' epephereto, A.S.Th. epipheromenon. 6 rqy, O' A.S.Th. stereoma. 10 mqvhhmym, ta sustemata (sustemata) ton hudaton. More often they are set aside in favour of other words which do not materially differ in signification, but seem to have been preferred as more exact, or as better Greek, e.g. Gen. xlix. 19 gdvd O' peiraterion, A. euzonos, S. lochos. Exod. v. 13 hngsym O' hoi ergodioktai, A. hoi eispraktai. Jud. v. 16 chqrylv O' epsxetasmoi kardias, A. akribologiai k., S. exichniasmoi k. Ps. lxxxviii. 8 'l nrts bsvd qdsym O' ho theos doxazomenos en boule hagion, A. Ischuros kaischureuomenos en aporrheto ha., S. thee aettete en homilia a. At other times their rendering lies far apart from that of the LXX., manifesting complete dissent from the Alexandrian version, e.g. Gen. xlvii. 31 hmth O' tes rhabdou, A.S. tes klines. Num. xxiii. 21 (trvt (mlk O' ta endoxa, A. alalagmos, S. semasia, Th. salpismos. 1 Regn. xiii. 20 mchrstv, O' to theristron (A.Th. arotron, S. hunin) autou. Ps. ii. 12, nsqvvr O' draxasthe paideias, A. kataphilesate eklektos, S. proskunesate katharos. To these instances may be added others where the later translators substitute a literal rendering for a paraphrase or a gloss; e.g. in Deut. x. 16 A. has akrobustian kardias for the euphemistic sklerokardian of the LXX.; in Ps. xv. 9 A.S.Th. restore doxa for the interpretative glossa. (b) Dr Hatch points out [929] that "in a large number of instances the word which one or other of the translators substitutes for the LXX. word is itself used in other passages of the LXX. as the translation of the same Hebrew word"; and he draws the conclusion that "the words which are so interchanged are practically synonymous." But his inference must be received with reserve, for the interchange may not be so free as appears at first sight; so careful a translator as Aquila (e.g.) has probably regulated his use of words which are generally synonymous with a view to the requirements of the particular context. (c) Many of the words of the N.T. which are not to be found in the LXX. occur in the fragments of the later Greek versions, and receive important illustration from their use of them. Indeed, in not a few instances these versions supply the only or the best explanation of rarer words or connotations. The following are examples. Ademonein, A., Job xviii. 20, S. Ps. lx. 3, cxv. 2, Eccl. vii. 17, Ezech. iii. 15; apokaradokia, cf. A. Ps. xxxvi. 7 (apokaradokei); daimonizein, A. Ps. xc. 6. enkakein, 'to faint,' S. Gen. xxvii. 46; embrimasthai, A. Ps. vii. 12, S. Isa. xvii. 13; enthumesis, 'thought,' S. Job xxi. 27, Ezech. xi. 21; epiblema, 'patch,' S. Jos. ix. 5; theomachos, S. Prov. ix. 18, xxi. 16 , Job xxvi. 5; katapheresthai, 'to drop asleep,' A. Ps. lxxv. 7; morphoun, A. Isa. xliv. 13 [930] . Even where the unusual word and meaning occur in the LXX., it will often be found that the later versions supply more abundant or more appropriate illustrations. Thus after the Septuagint these fragments, which are happily receiving continual additions from Hexaplaric MSS., offer the most promising field for the investigation of N.T. lexicography and one, moreover, which has been little worked. On the whole, perhaps, no sounder advice could be given to a student of the language of the N.T., than to keep continually at hand the Septuagint, the remains of the Hexapla as edited by Field, and the Oxford Concordance which forms a complete index to both. It is only when he has made some way with the evidence of the Greek versions of the Old Testament that he will be in a position to extend his researches to non-Biblical literature, such as the papyri, the remains of the Hellenistic writers, and the great monuments of the later Greek. LITERATURE (on the general subject of the chapter). J. Pearson, Praefatio Paraenetica (ed. E. Churton), p. 16 sqq.; H. Hody, de Bibl. textibus orig., III. c. ii., p. 293; J. F. Fischer, Prolusiones de versionibus Graecis librorum V. T. (Leipzig, 1772) ; Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zur Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841), p. 263 ff.; E. W. Grinfield, N. T. Gr., editio Hellenistica (London, 1843); Scholia Hellenistica in N. T. (London, 1848); An Apology for the Septuagint (London, 1850); W. R. Churton, The Influence of the LXX. Version of the O. T. upon the progress of Christianity (Cambridge, 1861); W. Selwyn, art. Septuagint, in Smith's D.B., iii. (London, 1863); W. H. Guillemard, The Greek Testament, Hebraistic edition [St Matthew] (Cambridge, 1875); E. Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek, i.--iii. (Oxford, 1889); S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel, Intr., p. xxxvi. ff. (Oxford, 1890); A. f. Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the O. T., p. 63 ff. (London, 1891); The Septuagint Version, in Expositor, V. iii., p. 263 ff. (London, 1896); T. K. Abbott, Essays chiefly on the original texts of the O. and N. Testaments (London, 1891); A. Loisy, Histoire critique du texte et des versions de la Bible (Amiens, 1892); H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, or the Influence of the LXX. on the vocabulary of the N. T. (Edinburgh, 1895); H. L. Strack, in Hastings, D. B. iv. p. 731. __________________________________________________________________ [886] See Part I., c. iv. [887] See Schürer, II. i. p. 329 n.; Dr C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, p. 54 f. [888] For the text see the great work of C. D. Ginsburg, The Massorah, compiled from MSS., alphabetically and lexically arranged, 3 vols. (London, 1880--5), or the Bible of S. Baer; and for the Massorets and their work, cf. Buxtorf, Tiberias, Ginsburg's Introduction (London, 1897), and his edition of the Massoreth ha-massoreth of Elias Levita, or the brief statements in Buhl, Kanon u. Text (p. 96 ff.), and in Urtext (p. 20 ff.); or Strack, art. Text of the O. T., in Hastings, D.B. iv. [889] On these see Dr W. E. Barnes in J. Th. St., April 1900. [890] See C. J. Elliott's art. Hebrew Learning, in D. C. B. ii., esp. the summary on p. 872 b. [891] Above, p. 6o ff. [892] See his comm. on Isaiah vi. 9 (Migne, P.L. xxiv. 99). [893] A few mediaeval scholars had access to the Hebrew, e.g. the Englishmen Stephen Harding ( 1134), Robert Grosseteste ( 1253), Roger Bacon ( c. 1292), the Spaniard Raymundus Martini ( c. 1286), and especially the Norman Jew, Nicolaus de Lyra ( 1340). On Lyra see Siegfried in Merx, Archiv, i. p. 428, ii. p. 28. [894] See De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, p. 217 f. [895] Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum (Leipzig, 1840), p. 731. [896] As early as 255 B.C. (Thackeray); Petrie Pap. Series II. iv. (11). [897] Vetus T. Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus (Oxford, 1776--80). [898] Variae lectiones V. T. (Parma 1784--8): Supplementum (1798). [899] "The earliest MS. of which the age is certainly known bears date A.D. 90" (Pref. to the R.V. of the O.T. p. ix. 2). [900] Cf. F. C. Burkitt, Aquila, p. 16 f. [901] Cf. S. R. Driver, Samuel, p. xxxix.: "Quotations in the Mishnah and Gemara exhibit no material variants . . . the Targums also pre-suppose a text which deviates from (the M. T.) but slightly." [902] Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 73 f. [903] See W. Robertson-Smith, O. T. in Jewish Ch., p. 62 f.; A. F. Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of the O. T., p. 63 ff. [904] See Ryle, Canon, p. 91 f. [905] Pt. II., c. v., p. 315 ff. [906] Samuel, p. xxxix. f. [907] Expositor V. iii., p. 273. [908] See H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 397 f., and the remarks that follow. [909] Lagarde (Symmicta i., p. 57) suggests a form 'ysvvr'. [910] On the relation of the LXX. to the Q'ri, see Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 219 ff. [911] The titles which are given in the LXX. but are wanting in , have been enumerated in Pt. II. c. ii. (p. 250 ff.). [912] On this word see an article by C. A. Brigs, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1899, p. 132 ff., and art. Selah, in Hastings, D.B. iv. [913] On the quotations see above p. 392 ff. [914] Essays, p. 34. [915] Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 88. [916] Deissmann, Bibelstudien, pp. 106, 138. [917] Essays, p. 35. [918] Essays, p. 65 ff. [919] Agapesis occurs in the sense of Divine love (Hos. xi. 4, Zeph. iii. 17, Jer. xxxi. 3). [920] See Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, p. 9 f. [921] Praef paraen., ed. E. Churton, p. 22 f. [922] See above, p. 40. [923] Cf. Aquila, p. 16 f. [924] Field, Hexapla, i. p. xxiv. [925] Ibidem. [926] See Burkitt, Aquila, p. 18 ff. [927] See pp. 47 ff., 395 f., 403, 417 etc. [928] On the excellence of his Greek scholarship see Field, op. cit. p. xliv. [929] Essays, p. 28. [930] These instances are chiefly from Hatch (Essays, p. 25). They might easily be multiplied by an inspection of the Oxford Concordance or of the Lexicon and Hexapla at the end of Trom. __________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER V. INFLUENCE OF THE LXX. ON CHRISTIAN BIBLICAL LITERATURE. 1. THE Church inherited from the Hellenistic Synagogue an entire confidence in the work of the Alexandrian translators. It was a treasure common to Jew and Christian, the authorised Greek Bible to which at first both appealed. When after the beginning of the second century a distrust of the LXX. sprang up among the Jews [931] , Christian teachers and writers not unnaturally clung to the old version with a growing devotion. They pleaded its venerable age and its use by the Evangelists and Apostles; they accepted and often embellished the legend of its birth [932] , and, following in the steps of Philo, claimed for it an inspiration not inferior to that of the original. When the divergences of the Septuagint from the current Hebrew text became apparent, it was argued that the errors of the Greek text were due to accidents of transmission, or that they were not actual errors, but Divine adaptations of the original to the use of the future Church. Iren. iii. 21. 3 f. "quum . . . Deus . . . servavit nobis simplices scripturas in Aegypto . . . in qua et Dominus noster servatus est . . . et haec earum scripturarum interpretatio priusquam Dominus noster descenderet facta sit et antequam Christiani ostenderentur interpretata sit . . . vere impudorati et audaces ostenduntur qui nunc volunt aliter interpretationes facere, quando ex ipsis scripturis arguantur a nobis . . . etenim apostoli quum sint his omnibus vetustiores, consonant praedictae interpretationi, et interpretatio consonat apostolicae traditioni. etenim Petrus et Ioannes et Matthaeus et Paulus et reliqui deinceps et horum sectatores prophetica omnia ita annuntiaverunt quemadmodum Seniorum interpretatio continet. unus enim et idem Spiritus Dei qui in prophetis quidem praeconavit . . . in Senioribus autem interpretatus est bene quae bene prophetata fuerant. Cyril. Hieros. cat. iv. 33 f.: anaginoske tas theias graphas, tas eik?osi duo [933] bibloths tes palaias diathekes tautas, tas hupo ton hebdomekonta duo hermeneu. ton hermeneutheisas . . . ou gar heuresilogia kai kataskeue sophismaton anthropinon en to ginomenon, all' ek pneumatos hagiou he ton hagio pneumati laletheison theion graphon hermeneia suneteleito. Chrys. in Matt. hom. v. ton allon mallon hapanton to axiopiston hoi hebdomekonta echoien an dikaios. hoi men gar meta ten tou Christou parousian hermeneusan, Ioudaioi meinantes, kai dikaios an hupopteuointo hate apechtheia mallon eirekotes, kai tas propheteias suskiazontes epitedes; hoi de hebdomekonta pro hekaton e kai pleionon eton tes tou Christou parousias epi touto elthontes kai tosoutoi ontes pases toiautes eisin hupopsias apellagmenoi. kai dia ton chronon kai dia to plethos kai dia ten sumphonian mallon an eiein pisteuesthai dikaioi. Hieron. ep. xxxiii. (ad Pammach.): "iure LXX. editio obtinuit in ecclesiis vel quia prima fuit et ante Christi facta adventum, vel quia ab Apostolis . . . usurpata"; praef. in Paralip. "si LXX. interpretum pura et ut ab eis in Graecum versa est editio permaneret, superflue me . . . impelleres ut Hebraea volumina Latino sermone transferrem." Aug. de doctr. Chr. 22 "qui (LXX. interpretes) iam per omnes peritiores ecclesias tanta praesentia Sancti Spiritus interpretati esse dicuntur ut os unum tot hominum fuisse . . . quamobrem, etiamsi aliquid aliter in Hebraeis exemplaribus invenitur quam isti posuerunt, cedendum esse arbitror divinae dispositioni quae per eos facta est . . . itaque fieri potest ut sic illi interpretati sint quemadmodum congruere Gentibus ille qui eos agebat . . . Spiritus S. indicavit." (Cf. quaest. in Hept. i. 169, vi. 19; in Ps. cxxxv.; de civ. Dei viii. 44.) 2. Under these circumstances the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament necessarily influenced the literature and thought of the Ancient Church in no ordinary degree. How largely it is quoted by Greek Christian writers of the first four centuries has already been shewn [934] . But they were not content to cite it as the best available version of the Old Testament; they adopted without suspicion and with tenacity its least defensible renderings, and pressed them into the service of controversy, dogma, and devotion. This remark applies also in effect to the Latin Christian writers before Jerome, who were generally dependent on a literal translation based upon the Greek Bible [935] . To Tertullian and Cyprian, as well as to Clement and Barnabas, Justin [936] and Irenaeus, the Septuagint was the Old Testament authorised by the Church, and no appeal lay either to any other version or to the original. Nor was this tradition readily abandoned by the few who attained to some knowledge of Hebrew. Origen, while recognising the divergence of the LXX. from the Hebrew, and endeavouring to reconcile the two by means of the Hexapla [937] , was accustomed to preach and comment upon the ordinary Greek text [938] . He even builds his system of interpretation on the LXX. rendering of Prov. xxii. 20 [939] . Jerome was long in reaching his resolve to adopt the Hebrew text as the basis of his new Latin version, and when at length he did so, his decision exposed him to obloquy [940] . Augustine, while sympathising with Jerome's purpose, thought it a doubtful policy to unsettle the laity by lowering the authority of the LXX. [941] The following examples of Christian interpretation based upon the LXX. will shew how largely that version influenced the hermeneutics of the Ancient Church. The exegesis is often obviously wrong, and sometimes it is even grotesque; but it illustrates the extent to which the authority of the LXX. became a factor in the thought and life of the Church both in ante-Nicene and early post-Nicene times. A careful study of these passages will place in the hands of the young student of patristic literature a key which may unlock many of his difficulties. Gen. i. 2 he de ge en aoratos kai akataskeuastos Iren. i. 18. 1 tom aoraton de kai ton a[okruphon autes menuonta eipein He de ge ktl. Tert. bapt. 3 "(aqua) plurima suppetit, et quidem a primordio . . . terra autem erat invisibilis et incomposita . . . solus liquor dignum vectaculum Deo subiciebat." ii. 2 te hemera te hekte.; Iren. v. 28. 3 phaneron oun hoti he sunteleia auton to ,s etos esti. iv. 7 ouk ean orthos prosenenkes ktl. Iren. iii. 23. 4 "Cain quum accepisset consilium a Deo uti quiesceret in eo quod non recte divisisset eam quae erga fratrem erat communicationem . . . non solum non acquievit, sed adiecit peccatum super peccatum"; cf. iv. 18. 3. xiv. 14 erithmesen . . . deka kai okto kai triakosious (cod. D). Barn. 9. 8 mathete hoti tous dekaokto protous, kai diastema poiesas legei triakosious; to dekaokto ( ) echeis Iesoun; hoti de ho stauros en to T emellen echein ten charin legei kai triakosious T. Cf. Clem. Al. strom. vi. 11. Hil. syn. 86. Ambr. de fide i. prol. xxxi. 13 ego eimi ho theos ho ophtheis soi en topo theou (D^ silE). Just. Dial. 58 (cf. 60). xlviiii. 14 epebalen . . . enallax tas cheiras. Tert. bapt. 8 "sed est hoc quoque de vetere sacramento quo nepotes suos . . . intermutatis manibus benedixerit et quidem ita transversim obliquatis in se, ut Christum deformantes iam tunc portenderent benedictionem in Christum futuram." xlix. 10 ouk ekleipsei archon ex Iouda kai hegoumenos ktl. Justin Dial. 52 oudepote en to genei humon epausato oute prophetes oute archon . . . mechris hou houtos Iesous Christos kai gegone kai epathen (cf. ib. 120). Iren. iv. 10. 2 "inquirant enim . . . id tempus in quo defecit princeps et dux ex Iuda et qui est gentium spes . . . et invenient non alium nisi Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum annuntiatum." Cypr. test. i. 21. Eus. dem. ev. i. 4. Cyril. H. xii. 17 semeion oun edoke tes Christou parousias to pausasthai ten archen ton Ioudaion. ei me nun hupo Rhomaious eisin, oupo elthen ho Christos; ei echousi ton ek genous Iouda kai tou Dabid, oupo elthen ho prosdokomenos. Exod. xvi. 36 to de gomor to dekaton ton trion metron en. Clem. Al. strom. ii. en hemie gar aurois tria metra, tria kriteria menuetai, aisixsos . . . logos . . . nous. xvii. 16 en cheiri kruphaia polemei Kurios epi Amalek apo geneon eis geneas. Just. Dial. 49 noesai dunasthe hoti kruthia dunamis tou theou gegone to staurothenti Christo. Iren. iii. 16. 4 "occulte quidem sed potenter manifestans, quoniam absconsa manu expugnabat Dominus Amalech." xxxiii. 19 kaleso epi to onomati Kuriou enantion sou (AF). Amb. de Sp. s. i. 13 "Dominus ergo dixit quia in nomine suo vocabit Dominum; Dominus ergo et Patris est nomen et Filii." Lev. iv. 5 ho hiereus ho christos. Tert. bapt. 7 "Aaron a Moyse unctus est, unde Christus dicitur a chrismate, quod est unctio, quae Domino nomen accommodavit." Num. xxiii. 19 ouch hos anthropos ho theos diartethenai oude hos huios anthropou apeilethenai. Cypr. test. ii. 20 [under the heading "Quod cruci illum fixuri essent Iudaei"]. xxiv. 17 anatelei astron ex Iakob, kai anastesetai anthropos ex Israel. Eus. dem. ev. i. 3, 6. Cypr. test. ii. 10 [under the heading, "Quod et homo et Deus Christus," &c.]. Deut. xxviii. 66 estai he zoe sou kremamene apenanti ton ophthalmon sou . . . kai ou pisteuseis te zoe sou Tert. (Jud. 11) quotes this as "Erit vita tua pendens in ligno ante oculos tuos; et non credes vitae tuae," explaining the words of the "signi sacramentum . . . in quo vita hominibus praestruebatur, in quo Judaei non essent credituri." Cf. Cyril H. xiii. 19 hoti he zoe en he epi tou xulou kremastheisa Moses apoklaiomenos phesi ktl. xxxii. 8 estesen horia ethnon kata arithmon angelon theou. Justin (dial. 131) cites the last three words as k. arithmous huion Israel,, adding hoi hebdomekonta exegesanto hoti Estesen ho. ethnon k. arithmon ang. theou; all' epei kai ek toutou palin ouden moi elattoutai ho logos, ten humeteran exegesin eipon. Iren. iii. 12. 9, quoting the LXX., comments: "populum autem qui credit Deo iam non esse sub angelorum potestate." Jos. v. 3 epoiesen Iesous machairas petrinas akrotomous kai perietemen tous huious Israel. Tert. Jud. 9 "circumcisis nobis petrina acie, id est, Christi praeceptis (petra enim Christus multis modis et figuris praedicatus est)." 3 Regn. xxii. 38 apenipsan to haima epi ten krenen Samareias . . . kai hai pornai elousanto en to haimati: Amb. de Sp. s. 1. 16 "fidelis ad puteum (Gen. xxiv. 62), infidelis ad lacum (Jer. ii. 13) . . . meretrices in lacu Jezabel se cruore laverunt." Ps. ii. 12 draxasthe paideias. Cyp. test. iii. 66 "continete [942] disciplinam" [under the heading "Disciplinam Dei in ecclesiasticis praceptis observandam"]. iv. 7 esemeiothe eph' hemas to phos tou prosopou sou. Amb. de Sp. 1. 14 "quod est ergo lumen signatum nisi illius signaculi spiritalis in quo credentes signati (inquit) estis Spiritu promissionis sancto [943] ." vi. 6 en de to hade tis exomologesetai soi. Cypr. test. iii. 114 [under the heading "Dum in carne est quis, exhomologesin (cf. Stud. Bibl. iv. 282, 290 n.) facere debere"]. ix. tit. eis to telos. Hil. ad loc. "intellegendum quotiens qui titulos habent in fine, non praesentia in his sed ultima contineri." Ib. huper ton kruphion tou huiou. Orig. ad loc. kruphia esti gnosis aporretos ton peri Christou tou alethinou theou musterion. Athan. ad loc. legei Huper ton akatalepton musterion tou huiou. xxi. 7. See under Hab. ii. 11. 30 kai he psuche mou auto ze. Iren. v. 7. 1 "tamquam immortali substantia eius existente." xxxii. 6 to logo tou kuriou . . . to pneumati tou stomatos autou. See Iren. iii. 8. 3, Tert. Prax. 7, Cypr. test. ii. 3, Ambr. de Sp. s. iii. 11, Hil. trin. xii. 39. xliv. 1 exereuxato he kardia mou logon agathon. Tert. Prax. 7 "solus ex Deo genitus, proprie de vulva cordis ipsius secundum quod et Pater ipse testatur Eructavit cor meum sermonem optimum." Marc. ii. 4 "adhibet operi bono optimum etiam ministrum, sermonem suum." Cf. Cypr. test. ii. 3. lxxxvi. 4 mnesthesomai Rhaab. Cyril. H. ii. 9 o megales tou theou philanthropias kai pornon mnemoneuouses en graphais (the LXX. having transliterated rchv and rhv alike). Cf. Hieron. comm. in Ps. ad loc. Ib. 5 Meter Seion erei anthropos, kai Anthropos egenethe en aute, kai Autos ethemeliosen auten ho hupsistos. Tert. Prax. 27 "invenimus illum directo et Deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente quoniam Deus homo natus est in illa, aedificavit eam voluntate Patris"; cf. Marc. iv. 13 "'Mater Sion' dicet homo, et 'homo factus est in illa' (quoniam Deus homo natus est) . . . aedificaturus ecclesiam ex voluntate patris."; Hieron. comm. in Pss. (ed. G. Morin) ad loc.: "pro 'mater Sion' LXX. interpretes transtulerunt: 'numquid Sion (me te S.) dicat homo?' . . . sed vitiose P litera graeca addita fecit errorem [944] ." Jerome however retains the interpretation 'homo Christus,' which depends on the LXX. reading anthropos. lxxxvii. 6 en eekrois eleutheros. Cyril. H. x. 4 ouk apomeinas en nekrois, hos pantes en hade, alla moeos en nekrois eleutheros. xci. 13 dikaios hos phoinix anthesei. Tert. res. carn. 13 "id est de morte, de funere, uti credas de ignibus quoque substantiam corporis exigi posse" (cf. Clem. R. 1 Cor. 25, Lightfoot, p. 85 n.). xcv. 5 pantes hoi theoi ton ethnon daimonia. Just. dial. 55 hoi theoi ton ethnon . . . eidola damonion eisin, all' ou theoi (cf. ib. 79, 83). Iren. iii. 6. 3. Tert. idololatr. 20. Cypr. test. iii. 59. Ib. 10 ho kurios ebasileusen [apo tou xulou]. Just. apol. i. 41, Dial. 73 f. [945] Tert. Marc. iii. 19; Jud. 10 "age nunc, si legisti penes prophetam in psalmis: Deus regnavit a ligno, expecto quid intelligas, ne forte lignarium aliquem regem significari putetis et non Christum." ib. 13 "unde et ipse David regnaturum ex ligno dominum dicebat." Auctor de montibus Sina et Sion 9 "Christus autem in montem sanctum ascendit lignum regni sui." Cf. Barn. 8 he basileia Iesou epi xulou. xcviii. 5 proskuneite to hupopodio ton podon autou. Ambr. de Sp. s. iii. 11 "per scabellum terra intelligitur, per terram autem caro Christi quam hodieque in mysteriis adoramus, et quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu . . . adorarunt." Cf. Aug. ad loc. cvi. 20 apesteilen ton logon autou kai iasato autous. Cypr. test. ii. 3 [under the heading "Quod Christus idem sit sermo Dei"]. cix. 3^b ek gastros pro heosphorou exegennesa se. Just. apo1. i. 45, dial. 32. Tert. Marc. v. 9 "nos edimus evangelia . . . nocturna nativitate declarantia Dominum ut hoc sit ante luciferum . . . nec generavi te edixisset Deus nisi filio vero . . . cur autem adiecit ex utero . . . nisi quia curiosius voluit intellegi in Christum ex utero generavi te, id est, ex solo utero sine viri semine?" Cypr. test. i. 17. Cyril. H. vii. 2 aper epi anthropon anatherein pases agnomosunes anapleon. xi. 5 to semeron' (Ps. ii. 7) achronon, pro panton ton aionon; ek gastros pro heosphorou ktl. Cf. Athan. or. c. Ar. iv. 27 f. Prov. viii. 22 Kurios ektisen me archen hodon autou. Just. dial. 61. Iren. iv. 20. 3. Tert. Prax. 7. Cypr. test. ii. 1 [under the heading Christum . . . esse sapientiam Dei, per quam omnia facta sunt]. Hil. trin. xii. 45 "quaerendum est quid sit natum ante saecula Deum rursum in initium viarum Dei et in opera creari." Cf. Athan. or. in Ar. ii. 16 ff. xxii. 20 kai su de apograpsai auta seauto trissos. Orig. Philoc. 1. 11 (de princ. iv.) oukoun trichos apographesthai dei eis ten heautou psuchen ta ton hagion grammaton noemata. Job xl. 14 pepoiemenon enkatapaizesthai hupo ton angelon autou. Applied to the Devil by Cyr. H. cat. viii. 4. Hos. xl. 4 (A) EV en to oiko mou heurosan me. Tert. Marc. iv. 39 "per diem in templo docebat ut qui per Osee praedixerat," &c. (For the reading of B, cf. Orig. Philoc. viii. 1.) Amos ix. 6 ho oikodomon eis ton ouranon anabasin autou. Tert. Marc. iv. 34 "aedificantem illis ascensum suum in caelum." Hab. ii. 11 lithos ek toichou boesetai kai kantharos ek xulou phthenxetai auta. Ambr. in Luc. xxiii. "bonus vermis qui haesit in ligno (Ps. xxi. 7), bonus scarabaeus qui clamavit e ligno . . . clamavit quasi scarabaeus Deus Deus meus"; or. de obitu Theodosii 46 "[Helena] adoravit illum qui pependit in ligno . . . illum (inquam) qui sicut scarabaeus clamavit ut persecutoribus suis Pater peccata donaret." Hieron. in Abac., ad loc. "quidam e nostris vermem in ligno loquentem illum esse aiunt qui dicit in Psalmo (xxi. 7) Ego natus sum vermis et non homo." iii. 2 en meso duo zoon gnosthese. Tert. Marc. iv. 22 "in medio duo animalium cognosceris, Moysi et Eliae." Eus. dem. ev. vi. 15 duo zoas (reading zoon in text) tou propheteuomenou delousthai ephamen, mian men ten entheon, thateran de ten anthropinen. Zach. vi. 12 idou aner, Anatole onoma auto. Just. dial. 106, 121. Tert. Valent. 3 "amat figura Spiritus sancti orientem, Christi figuram." Isa. i. 22 hoi kapeloi sou misgousi ton oinon hudati. Iren. iv. 12. 1 "ostendens quod austero Dei praecepto miscerent seniores aquatam traditionem." iii. 9 f. ouai te psuche auton, dioti bebouleuntai boulen poneran kath' heauton eipontes Desomen (v.l. ap. Justin., al. aromen) ton dikaion, hoti duschrestos hemin estin. Barn. vi. 7, Just. dial. 17, 133, 136 f. Tert. Marc. iii. 22. Cyril H. xiii. 12. vii. 14 he parthenos. Just. dial. 43, 67, 71, 84. Iren. iii. 21. 1 ff. Tert. Marc. iii. 13, iv. 10. Cypr. test. ii. 9. Eus. dem. ev. vii. 1. Cyr. H. xii. 21. ix. 6 megales boules angelos. Hil. trin. iv. 23 "qui Angelus Dei dictus est, idem Dominus et Deus est; est autem secundum prophetam Filius Dei magni consilii angelus." x. 23 logon suntetmemenon poiesei Kurios. Tert. Marc. iv. 4 "compendiatum est enim novum testamentum et a legis laciniosis oneribus expeditum" (cf. iv. 16). xxx. 4 hoti eisin en Tanei archegoi angeloi poneroi. Just. dial. 79 ponerous angelous katokekenai kai katoikein legei kai en Tanei, te Aiguptia chora. xlv. 1 houtos legei Kurios ho theos to christo mou Kuro [read as kurio]. Barn. xii. 11, Tert. Prax. 28, Jud. 7, Cypr. test. 1. 21. Ib. 14 kai en soi proseuxontai Ambr. de Sp. s. ii. 8 "in Christo orare nos debere Deus Pater dicit." liii. 3 anthropos en plege on. Tert. de carne Chr. 15. Ib. 8 ten genean autou tis diegesetai; Eus. h. e. i. 2. liv.15 proselutoi proseleusontai soi di emou. Ambr. de Sp. s. ii. 9 "Deus Pater ad Filium dicit: Ecce proselyti venient ad te per me." lx. 17 doso tous archontas sou en eirene kai tous episkopous sou en dikaiosune. Iren. iv. 26. 5 toioutous presbuterous anatrephei he ekklsia, peri hon kai prophetes phesen Doso ktl. Cf. Clem. R. I Cor. 42. lxiii. 1 eruthema himation ek Bosor. Hieron. comm. in Isa. ad loc. "quod multi pro errore lapsi putant de carne (vsr) Domini intellegi." Ib. 9 ou presbus oude angelos, all' autos esosen autous. Iren. iii. 20. 4 "quoniam neque homo tantum erit qui salvat nos neque sine carne (sine carne enim angeli sunt)." Tert. Marc. iv. 22 "non legatus, inquit Esaias, nec nuncius, sed ipse Deus salvos eos faciet, ipse iam praedicans et implens legem et prophetas." Jer. xi. 19 deute kai embalomen xulon eis ton arton autou Tert. Marc. iii. 19 "utique 'in corpus' . . . sic enim Deus in evangelio . . . revelavit, panem corpus suum appellans." Cypr. test. ii. 20. xvii. 9 anthropos estin, kai tis gnosetai auton; Iren. iii. 18. 3, 19. 2, iv. 33. 11; Tert. carn. Chr. 15, Jud. 14. Bar. iii. 38 meta touto epi tes ges ophthe kai en tois anthropois sunanestraphe. Cyril. H. xi. 15 blepeis theon meta ten Moseos nomothesian enanthropesanta; Lam. iv. 20 pneuma prosopou hemon christos Kurios sunelemphthe en tais diaphthorais auton. Just. apol. i. 55. Iren. iii. 10. 11. Tert. Marc. iii. 6 "Christum, spiritum scilicet creatoris, sicut propheta testatur" &c. Prax. 14 "ergo si Christus personae paternae spiritus est, merito spiritus cuius persona erat (id est Patris) cum faciem suam ex unitate scilicet pronuntiavit." Cyril. H. xiii. 7. Ambr. de Sp. s. 1. 9 "et Christus spiritus dicitur quia Ieremias dixit," &c. From these specimens it is clear that the Ancient Church was profoundly influenced by the Greek Old Testament in a variety of ways. Two may be mentioned here. (1) The Alexandrian Greek with its daughter-version, the Old Latin, supplied the basis of a practical interpretation which, notwithstanding numerous errors of text and of treatment, ministered to the religious life of the Christian Society. It was from the LXX. version and not from the official Hebrew of the Synagogue that the pre-Hieronymian Church derived her devotional use of the Old Testament, as it is on the whole the Greek and not the Hebrew Bible which still supplies the Roman Breviary and the Anglican Prayer-book with the substance of their liturgical Psalters. The Alexandrian School based its exegetical work upon the LXX., and the errors and obscurities of the version often yielded materials peculiarly adapted to the requirements of the allegorists; whilst the School of Antioch was no less whole-hearted in its devotion to the old Alexandrian version [946] . This spirit of loyalty to the LXX. continued to the age of the later Greek expositors; it is reflected in the catenae, and it fundamentally affects the traditional interpretation of the Old Testament throughout the orthodox East. Even in the West, through the spread of the Greek exegesis, and the use of the Old Latin version by the earlier Latin fathers, it has acquired a predominant influence. Thus, for good or for evil, the popular interpretation of the O. T. has been moulded by the LXX. rather than by the Hebrew text. (2) The LXX. supplied the Ancient Church with controversial weapons at two great crises in her history--during the early struggle with the rival forces of Monotheism, Judaism, Marcionism, and the various schools of Gnosticism, and in the long conflict with Arianism. Arians as well as Catholics appealed to the Alexandrian version. Thus Arius did not hesitate to argue from Joel ii. 25, LXX. (he akris . . . he kampe he dunamis mou he megale) that the Son is the Power of God in no higher sense than any other agency by which great effects are wrought upon the face of nature [947] . Both parties had recourse to Prov. viii. 22, where the LXX. rendering of qnny by ektisen me seemed to Arius to justify the statement that the Logos Himself had a beginning of existence, like the created universe [948] . Unconvincing as such arguments are now, they had an overwhelming weight in the fourth century, and Hilary speaks as if the cause of orthodoxy might be saved by wresting this crucial passage out of the hands of the Arians (de Trin. xii. "hic hiemis eorum maximus fluctus est, haec tortuosa turbinis gravis unda est, quae excepta a nobis et securo navigio infracta, usque ad ipsum nos tutissimum portum optati litoris prosequetur"). Neither the controversies of the second nor those of the fourth century can be fully understood without an appreciation of the place which the Greek Old Testament occupied in the thought and language of the Ancient Church. 3. Familiarity with the LXX. is not less essential to the student of the devotional life of the Early Church. The Greek Liturgies, especially perhaps in the oldest parts, are steeped in the language of the Greek Old Testament. (a) The prayers of the Psalter are worked into their text, often with little or no change; e.g. St Clement (B. 5) [949] dos autois kardian kainen kai pneuma euthes enkainison en tois enkatois auton (Ps. l. 12); ib. (B. 8) kai apodose autois ten agalliasin tou soteriou kai pneumati hegemoniko sterison autous (Ps. l. 14); St James (B. 37) soson ho theos ton laon sou kai eulogeson ten kleronomian sou (Ps. xxvii. 9) [950] ; ib. (B. 55) epilabou hoplou kai thureou kai anastethi eis ten boetheian mou (Ps. xxxiv. 2); St Mark (B. 117) exaposteilon to phos sou kai ten aletheian sou (Ps. xlii. 3) . . . kai tachu prokatalabetosan hemas hoi oiktirmoi sou, Kurie (Ps. lxxviii. 8). (b) Many of their magnificent addresses to God and to Christ are from the LXX. e.g. St Clement (B. 12) Kurie pantokrator, hupsiste, en hupselois, hagie en hagiois anapauomene, anarche, monarche (Isa. lvii. 15 + 3 Macc. ii. 2); ib. (B. 24) ho megas, ho megalonumos (Jer. xxxix. 19); St James (B. 44) ho en hupselois katoikon kai ta tapeina ephoron (Ps. cxii. 5 f.); St Mark (B. 137) ho kathemenos epi ton cheroubim (Ps. lxxix. 2); Sarapion (J. Th. St. i.) thee tes aletheias (Ps. xxx. 6); ton dunameon (Ps. lviii. 6); ton pneumaton (Num. xvi. 22). (c) Passing allusions are made to the LXX., some times difficult to explain without its aid, e.g. St Clement (B. 6) ho ton anthropoktonon ophin desmoten paradous hemin hos strouthion paidiois (cf. Job xl. 14); ib. (B. 15) logon theon . . . angelon tes megales boules sou (Isa. ix. 6); St James (B. 55) ton to hagion sou thusiasterion kuklounton diakonon (Ps. xxv. 6); ib. (B. 57) en chora zonton (Ps. cxiv. 9); St Mark (B. 126) eisodous kai exodous hemon en pase eirene katakosmeson (1 Regn. xxix. 6: Ps. cxx. 8); ib. (B. 133) ex hetoimou katoiketeriou sou (Exod. xv. 17; 3 Regn. viii. 39 ff.); St Basil (B. 335) he elpis ton apelpismenon (Judith ix. 11); Sarapion: ho thanaton kai zoogonon (1 Regn. ii. 6). (d) Much of the technical phraseology of the Liturgies is from the LXX.: e.g. ta hagia (Lev. xxii. 2), anaphora (Num. iv. 19), dora (Gen. iv. 4), thusia (Gen. iv. 3), leitourgia (Exod. xxxvii. 19), thusia aineseos (Lev. vii. 3 f., Ps. xlix. 14, 23), prothesis (Exod. xxxix. 18), prokeimena (Lev. xxiv. 7), prosphora (3 Regn. vii. 34), teleioun (Exod. xxix. 9). (e) The same is true with regard to some of the oldest Eucharistic formulae, e.g. the Preface and Sanctus [951] which are based on Isa. vi. 2--3, the Kyrie eleison (Psalms, passim), the Gustate (Cyril H. myst. v. 20) [952] . 4. The Greek terminology of Christian Doctrine is largely indebted to the Alexandrian translators. It is true that in this case most of the technical language of theology has passed through the New Testament and received there a fuller preparation for the use of the Church: and the influence of Greek philosophy and of Gnostic speculation must also be borne in mind by the student of the language of dogma. But it is perhaps even more important