ἘΣ Qasinude eats
Lileary ul
| Wellesley, οἷ > 2 Cullege.
Neesented [πὰ
σὺ Sel
3 Ne 52905
Return on or before
rv, \ WAP O \
NOES
eof NAR 2 2
ἘΞ ἰδὲ 5: - , a . od
8, is = ας
᾿ τ δ᾽
ῃ ἀνὰ δι ὦ
᾿
᾿
*
͵ = Th
ν.
a a
‘ >
a
ἣν“ ξεν 2 i 4 thew."
‘ ν
νὸν
4 “
2»; ον τὰς στον ἀπ i ee Φ Ὁ | ΝΑ bh \
a
= « με Ld
a 5
᾿
μὰ
πο δ » oe rs : ...--
= =.
aL > (ὦ -Ψ
ἜΝ TRODUCTION ΚΟ
fmt OLD TESTANENT IN GREEK
BZondon: C. J. CLAY anv SONS, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AVE MARIA LANE.
Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET,
Leipsig: F. A. BROCKHAUS. few Work: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. Bombay; E. SEYMOUR HALE.
AW INTRODUCTION. FO
foe OD TRSTAMENT
IN: GREEK
BY
HENRY BARGEAY *SWETE. 909,
HON. LITT.D. DUBLIN FELLOW OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY
WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING. |THE. LETTER
OF ARISTEAS EDITED: BY
H. Sr J. THACKERAY M.A
CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1900
All rights reserved
s2905 > a , is \ \ , A c , ἐξεγερῶ TA TEKNA COY, Σειών, ἐπὶ TA TEKNA τῶν “Ἑλλήνων.
EBERHARDO NESTLE Pe. ee Ped
Min. Sl OVIS; ALTVS,. DE: BIS. SEVDIIS OPTIME MERITO HVIVS OPERIS ADIVTORI HVMANISSIMO
τ: ΘΟ Δ HT, HHT : Mee |
OT EMRE: AM TIO. ie
= enh ain 141 Siu He te ost
HIS 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 uncertain- ties. 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 Testa- ment 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 Pro- fessor Eberhard Nestle, of Maulbronn, who has added
Vili
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 refer- ences 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.
Η ον
CAMBRIDGE, Seplember 1, 1900.
CON TEN ES:
Poe δι
Bae FISTORY OF THE GREEK OLD. TESTAMENT
AND OF ITS TRANSMISSION.
CHAPTER. 1,
The Alexandrian Greek Version .
CHAP EER Vit.
Later Greek Versions .
CHAPTER. 111.
The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions of the Septuagint
CHAPTER UM
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint
CHAPTER V.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint
CHAPTER ‘VI. Printed Texts of the Septuagint
PAGES
I—28
29—538
59—86
87—I21
122---170
I7I—194
Χ Contents.
PAH ote THE CONTENTS OF THE ALEXANDRIAN OLD TESTAMENT. PAGES
CHAPTER’ I.
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of the Books . 197—230 CHAPTER: 1h
Books of the Hebrew Canon i : : . 231-264 CHAPTER III.
Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. . 265—288 CHAPTER “FV.
The Greek of the Septuagint ‘ : : : . 289-—314 CHAPTER... V. ,
The Septuagint as a Version. : : : . 315—341
CHAPTER V1.
Text divisions: S¢ichz, Chapters, Lections, Catenae,&c. 342—366
PAKS It
LITERARY USE, VALUE, AND TEXTUAL CONDITION OF THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT.
CHAPTER. 4 Literary use of the Septuagint by non-Christian Hel- lenists . : : ; : ; ; . 369--380 CHAPTER. Ah
Quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament 381—405
Contents.
CHAPTER III.
Quotations from the Septuagint in early Christian writings .
CHAPTER IV. The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study .
CHAPTER “¥.
Influence of the Septuagint on Christian Literature .
CHAPTER VI.
Textual condition of the Septuagint, and problems arising out of it
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.
APPENDIX.
THE LETTER OF PSEUDO-ARISTEAS.
Introduction
Text
INDICES.
i. Index of Biblical references .
ii. Index of Subject-matter
ΧΙ
PAGES
406—432
433-461
462---477
478—497
501—-518 519—574
577—584 585—592
" ie a : Ra Te ig | Ber eee ee ety | are ἢ ioe-ths |} lw: ἌΣ βρὲ: ak Ἐπο σε
ὌΝ τυ. ὃν ἐξ ἀπὼν τὸμ Daren: nto STRAY Se 471 Io Sa ee >) Pea " ᾿
a | ie τ Ἀγ ΑΒ
' ἀγα ϊθοσα Bas. Aten odd τὸ neti bnie το wow ΝΣ COR Re | ΠΕ Τὺ: «, 51 ΤΟ ΤΌΝ
RUONUTENAUD, OOK, EROVS RS ΡΝ
α΄
SA ιν. λα δι ρν αι Real yor Sou era ae
δηλ τὸν .: ; ; : Mieke
aherne)2
PCR Ie ἢν
ΡΟ ΟΡ THE “GREEK OLD: LESTAMENT AND OF ITS TRANSMISSION.
ΓΤ ΟῚ ΟΣ
Clive ERE
THE ALEXANDRIAN GREEK VERSION.
tr. 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’ ; it is therefore improbable that any Greek version of the Scrip- tures 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’. Thus Aristobulus (af. Clem. Al. strom. 1. 22; cf. Eus. praep. ev. Xill. 12) writes: κατηκολούθηκε δὲ καὶ ὁ Πλάτων τῇ καθ᾽
1 Individual cases, such as that of the Jew mentioned by Clearchus ee Jos. c. Ap. τ, 22), who was ‘EAAnuikds οὐ τῇ διαλέκτῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ Kal TH ψυχῇ, are exceptions to a general rule. How numerous and prosperous were the Jewish colonies in Asia Minor at a later period ty ae from the Acts of the Apostles; see also Ramsay, PArygza 1. 11. p. 667 ff.
2 This belief was inherited by the Christian school of Alexandria; see Clem. strom. Vv. 29, Orig. c. Cels. iv. 39, vi. 19; and cf. Lact. 2227: Iv. 2.
ᾧ S. S. I
2 The Alexandrian Greek Version.
ἡμᾶς νομοθεσίᾳ, καὶ φανερός ἐστι περιεργασάμενος ἕκαστα τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ λεγομένων. διηρμήνευται δὲ πρὸ Δημητρίου ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου", πρὸ τῆς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου καὶ Περσῶν ἐπικρατήσεως, τά τε κατὰ τὴν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐξαγωγὴν τῶν ᾿Εβραίων τῶν ἡμετέρων πολιτῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν γεγονότων ἁπάντων αὐτοῖς ἐπιφάνεια καὶ κράτησις τῆς χώρας καὶ τῆς ὅλης νομοθεσίας ἐπεξήγησις---νγοτ5. 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 attri- buted by Pseudo-Aristeas to Demetrius of Phalerum: τοῦ νόμου τῶν Ἰουδαίων BuBria...odx ws ὑπάρχει σεσήμανται, καθὼς ὑπὸ τῶν εἰδότων προσαναφέρεται. 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 ἃ
2. The earliest and most important of the extant Greek versions of the Old Testament was an offspring of the ‘Greek Dispersion’ (ἡ διασπορὰ τῶν “EXAnvwr, Jo. vil. 35), which began with the conquests of Alexander the Great.
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 διασπορά (O.L. dispersio) employed by the Greek translators in these and similar passages (cf. 2 Esdr. xi. 9, Ps. cxxxviii. (cxxxix.) tit. (codd. A? T), cxlvi. (cxlvii.) 2, Judith v. 19, Isa. xlix. 6, Jer. xill. 14 (cod. x*), Dan. xil. 2 (LXx.), 2 Mace. i. 27) became the technical Greek term for Jewish communities in foreign lands, whether planted there by forcible deportation, or
1 δι᾿ ἑτέρων, Eus.
2 See Tischendorf, V. 7. Gr. (1879) prolegg. p. xiii. ἢ,
9. Cf. Walton (ed. Wrangham), p. 18; Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 14f.; Buhl, Kanon u. Text, p. 108 f.
The Alexandrian Greek Version. 3
by their own free agency (Jo. vil. 35, Jas. i. 1, 1 Pet. 1.1)’. 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 Baby- lonian conquerors (2 Kings xvii. 6, xxiv. 14 ff., xxv. 11 f, 21f.). Apart of the Babylonian captivity returned (Ezra 1. 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 Caz. 36, Acts 11. 9, Joseph. Anz. x1. 5. 2, Xv. 3. I, XVill. 9. 1ff.). This ‘Eastern’ Dispersion need not detain us here. No Biblical version in the stricter sense” had its origin in Babylonia; there, as in Palestine, the services of the synagogue interpreter (1227'N!D) 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 Testa- ment 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. xil. 2f., who invaded Palestine® in the tenth century B.c., may have carried into Egypt captives or hostages from the conquered cities whose names still appear upon the
1 The later Hebrew term was ἼΩΝ ‘exile’; see Dr Hort on 1 Pet. Ζ. Ἢ.
2 The ‘ Babylonian’ Targum is of Palestinian origin (Buhl, p. 173). On early Aramaic translations arising out of the synagogue interpretations, see id., p. 168f. ; and for the traditional account of the origin of the Syriac O. T. see Nestle, Urtext τι. Ubersetzungen der Bibel (Leipzig, 1897),
5» 229, 3 Authority and Archaeology, p. 87 f.
4 The Alexandrian Greek Version.
walls of the temple at Karnak. Isaiah (xix. 19 f.) foresaw’ 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.: ἑτέρων ξυμμαχιῶν ἐξαπεσταλμένων πρὸς τὸν τῶν Αἰθιόπων βασιλέα μάχεσθαι σὺν Ψαμμιτιχῷσθ. The panic which followed the murder of Gedaliah drove a host of Jewish fugitives to Egypt, where they settled at Migdol (Μάγδωλος), Tahpanhes (Tagvas = Δάφνη)", Noph (Memphis), and Pathros (Ia@ovpy)*, 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 (ἤδη μὲν καὶ πρότερον ἱκανῶν εἰσεληλυθότων σὺν τῷ Πέρσῃ). 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’. 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
1 The passage is thought by some scholars to belong to the Ptolemaean age; see Cheyne, utr. to [saiah, p. 105.
2 Cf. Authority and Archaeology, p. 107.
3 Jer. li.=xliv. 1 ff. ἅπασιν τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτου κτλ. Many of these refugees, however, were afterwards taken prisoners by Nebuchadnezzar and transported to Babylon (Joseph. az. x. 9. 7).
4 Ant. xi. 8. 4f. The story is rejected by Ewald and Gratz, and the details are doubtless unhistorical : cf. _Droysen, 7hzstoire de [ Hellenisme,
i. P+ 300+
The Alexandrian Greek Version. 5
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 ag. Joseph. ¢. Ap. 1. 22 ἔτι γε μὴν ὅτι καὶ ᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ συνεστρατεύσαντο καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τοῖς διαδόχοις αὐτοῦ μεμαρτύρηκεν); 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’, he not only assigned a place in his new city to Jewish colonists, but admitted them to full citizenship.
Joseph. amt. xix. 5. 2 ἐπιγνοὺς ἀνέκαθεν τοὺς ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ ἸΙουδαίους...ἴσης πολιτείας παρὰ τῶν βασιλέων τετευχότας : c. AP. ll. 4 οὐ γὰρ ἀπορίᾳ γε τῶν οἰκησόντων τὴν μετὰ σπουδῆς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κτιζομένην ᾿Αλέξανδρος τῶν ἡμετέρων τινὰς ἐκεῖ συνήθροισεν, ἀλλὰ πάντας δοκιμάζων ἐπιμελῶς ἀρετῆς καὶ πίστεως τοῦτο τοῖς ἡμετέροις τὸ γέρας ἔδωκεν. B. J. ii. 18. 7 χρησάμενος προθυμοτάτοις κατὰ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ᾿ἸΙουδαίοις ᾿Αλέξανδρος γέρας τῆς συμμαχίας ἔδωκεν τὸ μετοικεῖν κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ἐξ ἴσου μοίρας πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας.
Mommsen indeed (Provinces, E. T., p. 162 n.) expresses a doubt whether the grant of citizenship’ 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’.
5. The premature death of Alexander (B.c. 323) wrecked his larger scheme, but the Jewish colony at Alexandria con- tinued 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). 11. Philadelphus (B.c. 285—247). III. Euergetes I. (B.C. 247—222). IV. Philopator I. (B.c.222—205). V. Epiphanes
1 Plutarch Alex. 26 ἐβούλετο πόλιν μεγάλην Kal πολυάνθρωπον Ἑλληνίδα συνοικίσας ἐπώνυμον ἑαυτοῦ καταλιπεῖν.
* See Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolenties, p. 86.
3 On the relations in which the Jews stood to Alexander and his succes- sors see Wellhausen, 757. u. 724. Geschichte, c. xvi.
6 9c" The Alexandrian Greek Version.
--- == nn nn ee EE UE EESn SSUES ι΄ οῦὺἷ΄͵͵-ςς
(B.C. 205—182). VI. Eupator (B.c. 182). VII. Philometor (B.C. 182—146). VIII. Philopator II. (B.c. 146). IX. Euer- getes 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. amt. xii. 1. 1 6 δὲ Πτολεμαῖος πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους λαβὼν ἀπό τε τῆς ὀρεινῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας καὶ τῶν περὶ Ἰεροσόλυμα τόπων καὶ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος καὶ τῶν ἐν Ταριζείν, κατῴκισεν ἅπαντας εἰς
΄ ’
Αἴγυπτον ἀγαγών: ἐπεγνωκὼς δὲ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν Ἰεροσολύμων περὶ τὴν τῶν ὅρκων φυλακὴν καὶ τὰς πίστεις βεβαιοτάτους ὑπάρχοντας . . ‘ > ΄ ΄ , > > , , , , πολλοὺς αὐτῶν τοῖς Μακεδόσιν ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ ποιήσας ἰσοπολίτας" > > ,ὔ Ν » A cal 2} > / Ὁ] A a οὐκ ὀλίγοι δὲ οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων ᾿Ιουδαίων εἰς THY Αἴγυπτον παρε- γίγνοντο, τῆς τε ἀρετῆς τῶν τόπων αὐτοὺς καὶ τῆς τοῦ Πτολεμαίου φιλοτιμίας προκαλουμένης.
A separate quarter of the city was assigned to the colony (Strabo af. Joseph. ant. xiv. 7. 2 τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρείας πόλεως ἀφώρισται μέγα μέρος τῷ ἔθνει TovTw'); it lay in the north-east of Alexandria, along the shore, near the royal palace*. Here the Jews lived under their own ethnarch*, who exercised judi- cial 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
1 In Philo’s time the Jews occupied two districts out of five (772 Flacc. 8).
2 Droysen, iii. p. 59.
3 Strabo, ap. Jos. ant. xiv. 7. 2; cf. Schiirer Gesch. d. jiid. Volkes*, ili. 40; Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 218; Droysen, iii. p. 4o n. On the ἀλαβάρχης dpaSdpxns) who is sometimes identified with the ethnarch see Schiirer iii. 88.
The Alexandrian Greek Version. 7
(Philo ad Caz. 20, in Flacc.6'). 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. azz. xii. g. 7, xlil. 3. 1, B. 7. vil. το. 4). 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 popu- lation (Philo zz Flacc. 6, Joseph. « Ag. 11. 4). In the Fayim villages were founded by Jews, and they lived on equal terms with the Greeks*. 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. il. 23), and he was a familiar figure at Jerusalem in the Apostolic age (Mt. xxvii. 32, Acts il. 10, vi. 9*, Xl. 20, xill. 1; cf. Strabo af. Joseph. az. KV. 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®, “was the mother city, not of a single country, but of most of the countries of the world, through the
1 On the magnificence of the principal synagogue see Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation (ed. White), p. 67.
2 A temporary check seems to have been sustained by the Alexandrian Jews under Philopator ; see 3 Macc. ii. 31, and cf. Mahaffy, p. 270.
3 See Mahaffy, Empire, &c., p. 86n.; cf. Philo de seft. 6.
4 Where Blass (Philology of the Gospels, p. 69 f.) proposes to read Λιβυστίνων for Λιβερτίνων.
5 Philo ad Caz. 36.
ὃ The Alexandrian Greek Version.
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’; pilgrimages were still made to Jerusalem at the great festivals (Philo af. Eus. praep. ev. vill. 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 necesssity of common life*. If it was not required by the State as a condition of citizenship*, yet self-interest compelled the in- habitants 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*; 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® Any prejudice See Schiirer®, ili. 97 ff.
Droysen, iii. p. 35.
3 Mommsen, Provinces, ii. p. 163f. On the whole question see Hody, de Bibl. textibus, p. 224 f.; Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, iii. p. 268 ff.; Deissmann, Bide/studien, p. 61 ff.; Kennedy, Sources of ἘΣ ΠΡΟ ἋΣ Ti
4 There was a large Greek settlement on the Pelusiac arm of the Nile
at an early period ; see Herod. ii. 163. 5 Cf. Streane, Double Text of Feremiah, p. τι f.
1 2
Lhe Alexandrian Greek Version. 9
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. ,
But the Greek which the Jews of Alexandria learnt to speak was neither the literary language employed by the scholars of the Museum, nor the artificial imitation of it affected by Hellenistic writers of the second and first centuries B.C.’ It was based on the 2αζοῖς of the Alexandrian streets and markets—a mixture, as we may suppose, of the ancient spoken tongue of Hellas with elements gathered from Mace- donia, Asia Minor, Egypt, and Libya. Into this hybrid speech the Jewish colony would infuse, when it became their usual organ of communication, a strong colouring of Semitic thought, and not a few reminiscences of Hebrew or Aramaic lexico- graphy and grammar. Such at any rate is the monument of Jewish-Egyptian Greek which survives in the earlier books of the so-called Septuagint.
7. The ‘Septuagint®,” or the Greek version of the Old Testament which was on the whole the work of Alexandrian Jews, is, written in full, the Luzerpretatio septuaginta virorum or sentorum, 1.6. 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
1 Cf. Thiersch de Pent. vers. Alex., Ὁ. 65 ff.; Mahaffy, Greek life and thought?, p. 196f.; Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 18 ff. The remarks of Hatch (Zssays, p. τὸ ff.) are less satisfactory.
2 Trenaeus (111. 21. 3) speaks of the senzorum interpretatio; Tertullian (Afol. 18) of the septuaginta et duo interpretes; Jerome, of the ZLXX. interpretes, or translatores (praeff. in Esdr., Isat.), LX X. editio (praef. in Job, ep. ad Pammach.), editio LXX. (praef. in Paralipp.). Augustine (cited by Nestle, Urtext, p. 62) remarks: ‘‘interpretatio ista ut Septwaginta vocetur iam obtinuit consuetudo.”
ΙΟ The Alexandrian Greek Version.
Testament it is described as the version ‘according to the LXX.’ (κατὰ τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα, παρὰ ἑβδομήκοντα, O. T. in Greek, i. p. 103, ili. p. 479), and quoted by the formula οἱ ο΄ or οἱ of. 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 ᾿Αριστέας Φιλοκράτει.
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 περὶ τῶν o ἑρμηνευτῶν βιβλία 6’ (Athens, 1849) ; the best edition hitherto available is that of M. Schmidt in Merx, Archiv αὶ wessensch. Erforschung d. A. T.i. p. 241 ff.; a new edition is promised under the title: Azzsteae ad Philocratem epistula cum ceteris de origine verstonis LX X. interpretum testimonis. Ex Ludovict Mendelssohniit schedis ed. Paulus Wendland. For the earlier editions see Fabricius-Harles, iii. 660 ff.; the edztio prin- ceps 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. Rosenmiiller, Handbuch f. d. Literatur d. bibl. Krittk u. Exegese; Dahne, gesch. Darstellung a. jiudisch. Alex. Religions-Philosophie, ii. p. 205 ff.; Papageor- gius, Uber den Aristeasbrief; Lumbroso, Recherches sur [éco- nomie politique de Egypte, p. 351 f. and in Atti di R. Accademia della Scienza di Torino, iv.(1868—g). Fuller lists will be found in Schiirer’, iii. 472 f. (and in Nestle s.v. Avisteas, in Reat- encyklopadie f. p. Th. τι. K.3), and 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’. Addressing his brother Philocrates, he relates the issue of a journey which he had recently made to Jerusalem. It appears that Demetrius Phalereus’, who is
1 From the mention of Cyprus as ‘the island’ (§ 3) 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. 7. 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). The Aristeas who wrote περὶ Lovdaiwy (Euseb. praep. ev. ix. 25) was doubtless an Alexandrian Jew who, as a Hellenist, assumed a Greek name.
2 See Ostermann, de Demetrii Ph. vita (1857); Susemihl, Gesch. αἰ. gr. Litt. in d. Alexandrinerzett, i. Ὁ. 135 ff. On the royal library at Alexandria
The Alexandrian Greek Version. II
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 (7a τῶν Ἰουδαίων νόμιμα μεταγραφῆς agi καὶ τῆς παρὰ σοὶ βιβλιο- θήκης εἶναι). 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 a roll composed of skins (σὺν... «ταῖς διαφόροις διφθέραις ev ais ἡ νομοθεσία γεγραμμένη χρυσογραφίᾳ τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαικοῖς γράμμασι). Α 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’ 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 transla- tion, 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 if 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
see Susemihl, i. p. 335 ff., and the art. Bzdliotheken in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadie, v. 409 f.
1 The mole which connected the Pharos with the city: see art. Alexandria in Smith’s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geography, pp. 96 f.
12 The Alexandrian Greek Version.
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 rever- ἢ ence (προσκυνήσας), and desired that it should be preserved with scrupulous care (ἐκέλευσε μεγάλην ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖσθαι τῶν βιβλίων καὶ συντηρεῖν ἁγνῶς).
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: ἡ δὲ ὅλη ἑρμηνεία τῶν διὰ Tov νόμου πάντων ἐπὶ τοῦ προσαγορευθέντος Φιλαδέλφου βασιλέως σοῦ δὲ προγόνου [he is addressing Philometor] προσενεγ- καμένου μείζονα φιλοτιμίαν, Δημητρίου τοῦ Φαληρέως πραγματευ- σαμένου τὰ περὶ τούτων!. Philo, vz. Moys. ii. 5 ff.: Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Φιλάδελφος ἐπικληθεὶς... ζῆλον καὶ πόθον λαβὼν τῆς νομοθεσίας ἡμῶν εἰς Ἑλλάδα γλῶτταν τὴν Χαλδαικὴν μεθαρμόζεσθαι διενοεῖτο, καὶ πρέσβεις εὐθὺς ἐξέπεμπε πρὸς τὸν τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἀρχιερέα.. 6 δέ, ὡς εἰκός, ἡσθεὶς καὶ νομίσας οὐκ ἄνευ θείας ἐπιφροσύνης περὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἔργον ἐσπουδακέναι τὸν βασιλέα... ἀσμένως ἀποστέλλει... καθίσαντες δ᾽ ἐν ἀποκρύφῳ καὶ μηδενὸς παρόντος... καθάπερ ἐνθουσιῶντες ἐπρο- φήτευον, οὐκ ἄλλα ἄλλοι, τὰ δὲ αὐτὰ πάντες ὀνόματα καὶ ῥήματα ὥσπερ ὑποβολέως ἑκάστοις ἀοράτως ἐνηχοῦντος κτλ. Josephus, ant. i. prooem. 3: Πτολεμαίων μὲν ὁ δεύτερος μάλιστα δὴ βασιλεὺς περὶ παιδείαν καὶ βιβλίων συναγωγὴν σπουδάσας ἐξαιρέτως ἐφιλοτι- μήθη τὸν ἡμέτερον νόμον καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν διάταξιν τῆς πολιτείας εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα φωνὴν μεταλαβεῖν κτλ. In ant. xil. 2. I—I5 Josephus gives a full account obviously based on Aristeas (whom he calls ᾿Αρισταῖος), 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 Alex- andrian tradition which was perhaps originally independent of the letter, and is certainly not entirely consistent with it. He
1 In defence of the genuineness of this testimony see Schiirer, G. 7. V.* iii. 384—392. On the other hand cf. L. Cohn in Meue Jahrbiicher f. d.
Klass. Alterthum i. 8 (1895), and Wendland in Ayzantinische Zeitschrift vii. (1898), 447—449. For Aristobulus see Susemihl, p. 630 f.
The Alexandrian Greek Version. 13
states (Δ 4) 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 (μέχρι νῦν ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος ἑορτὴ καὶ πανήγυρις ἄγεται κατὰ τὴν Φάρον νῆσον, εἰς ἣν οὐκ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ παμπληθεῖς ἕτεροι διαπλέουσι, τό τε χωρίον σεμνύνοντες ἐν ᾧ πρῶτον τὸ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἐξέλαμψε κτλ.). 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 Phila- delphus, and who is identified both by Eusebius (4) and by Clement’ (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.
to. 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. ii, 21. 2 f.; Clem. Alex. s#vom. i. 22, 148 f.; Tertullian, apol. 18; Anatolius af. Eus. 27. £. vi. 32; Eusebius, 2γαεῤ. ev. Viil. I—9, ix. 38 ; Cyril of poeta, catech. wv. 34; Hilary, prod. ad Psalmos, tract. tn Pss. i1., cxvili.; Epiphanius, de mens. et pond. ὡς 3,6; Philastrius de haer. 1 38% ‘Jerome, praef. in Gen., praef. zn libr. “guaest. eSNG eee Augustine, de civ. Det xvii. 42 f., de ae EArt. 22 ; Theodore of Mopsuestia zz Habakk. ii., in Zeph. 1. Chrysostom, o7. 1. adv. Fud., c. 6, hom. iv. in Gen., c. 4; Theo.
1 Clement of Alexandria identifies this Aristobulus with the person named in 2 Macc. i. το ᾿ἀριστοβούλῳ διδασκάλῳ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ βασιλέως. See Valckenaer diatribe de Aristobulo (printed at the end of Gaisford’s edition of Eus. fraep. ev. iv.).
[4 The Alexandrian Greek Version.
doret, praef. in Psalmos,; Cyril of Alexandria, adv. Fulian. or. 1; Pseudo-Athanasius, syxops. scr. sacr. ὃ 77; the anonymous dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (ed. Conybeare, Oxford, 1898,
p. go 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 com- pared 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' declares that at Alexandria he had been shewn the vestiges of the cells in which the translators had worked (αὐτοὶ ἐν τῇ ᾿Αλεξ- ανδρείᾳ γενόμενοι kal τὰ ἴχνη TOV οἰκίσκων ἐν TH Φάρῳ ἑωρακότες ἔτι σωζόμενα, καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἐκεῖ ὡς τὰ πάτρια παρειληφότων ἀκηκο- ὅτες ταῦτα ἀπαγγέλλομεν). 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*. The Fathers generally accept both the belief and the legend which it generated, though the latter sometimes undergoes slight modi- fication, as when Epiphanius groups the Lxxll. in pairs (ζύγη ζύγη κατ᾽ οἰκίσκον). Jerome is an honourable exception; he realises that the tale of the cells is inconsistent with the earlier tradition (2701. in Gen. “nescio quis primus auctor Lxx cel- lulas 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 inter- pretem”)*.
1 On the date of this treatise, which is commonly ascribed to Justin, see Kriiger, Hist. of Chr. Literature (E. T.), p. 112f., and cf. Harnack- Preuschen, p. 107.
; 2 Cf. 2b. οὐχ ἑρμηνεῖς ἐκείνους ἀλλ᾽ ἱεροφάντας καὶ προφήτας προσαγο- ρεύοντες.
3 The story of the cells is not peculiar to Christian writers; it is
echoed by the Talmud (Bab. Talm. Aegil/ah 98, Jerus. Talm. Jeg. c. 1.5 cf. Sopherim, c. i.).
The Alexandrian Greek Version. 15
11. Doubts as to the genuineness of the Aristeas-letter were first expressed by Ludovicus de Vives in his commentary on Aug. de civ. Det, 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)!. A few later writers have pleaded in its favour (e.g. Grinfield Apology for the LXX., and Constantinus Oeconomus, of. 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’; the letters of Philadelphus and Eleazar are of the same stamp as the con- fessedly fictitious correspondence between Philadelphus and the Palestinian Jews in 2 and 3 Maccabees. 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
1 In his Contra historiam LX Δ΄. interpretum Aristeae nomine inscrip- tam dissertatio, originally published in 1684, and afterwards included in De Libliorum textibus originalibus, verstonibus Graecis, et Latina vulgata libri wv. (Oxon. 1705). For other writers on both sides cf. Buhl, p. 117 ΝΕ ἾΣ p- τὰ 5).
2 On the Rabbinical partiality for this number, cf. Ewald, Hist. of Ζεγαεί, ποτὶ τὲ ΤῊ: Schiirer it. 1. p.'1743. Buhl, .p, τα (=116, E. T.).
16 ‘The Alexandrian Greek Version.
demonstrated by the knowledge which he displays of life at the Alexandrian Court’. 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’. 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 under- taken 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.
12. There is no improbability in the first of these state- ments. The personal tastes of Philadelphus, if by no means purely literary, included a fancy for the society of scholars and the accumulation of books*. He founded a second library at the Serapeion to receive the overflow of that which Soter had established near the Museum and the Palace*. His syncre- tistic temperament disposed him to listen to the representatives of various creeds. A Buddhist mission from the Ganges found a welcome at his court’; and the reign which produced
1 See the remarks of Wilcken in PAzlologus 1111. (1894), p. 111 f., and cf. Lumbroso, p. xiii.
2 See Schiirer’, iii. p. 468 f.
3 Tertullian exaggerates his literary merits (apo/. 18 Ptolemaeorum eru- ditissimus...et omnis litteraturae sagacissimus).
4 Cf. Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 164 ff. On the character of
Philadelphus see also Droysen, ili., p. 254 f. 5 Mahaffy, pp. 163 f., 170.
The Alexandrian Greek Verston. 17
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 Gratz 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}.
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 NM!) Naw by τῇ ἐπαύριον τῆς πρώτης. The Pharisees understood the word Naw in that context to refer to the day after the Paschal Sabbath i.e. Nisan 15, while the Sadducees adhered to the usual meaning. Gratz argued with much force that, since the rendering of the LxXx. shews evident signs of Pharisaic influence, the version itself must have been later than the rise of the Pharisees. But v. 15 renders the same words by ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπαύριον τοῦ σαββάτου, and as it is not likely that a translator who had of set purpose written τῆς πρώτης in v. 11 would have let τοῦ σαββάτου escape him a little further down, we must suppose that τοῦ co. stood originally in both verses and that τῆς mp. 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 Gratz desired to draw?
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 Περὶ τῶν ἐν
1 Gesch. Juden’, iii. p. 615 ff. 2 See Expository Times, il. pp. 209, 277 f.
18 The Alexandrian Greek Version.
τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ βασιλείᾳ are preserved by Clement (s¢vom. 1. 21) and Eusebius ( fraep. ev. ix. 21, 29). The following specimens may suffice to prove this assertion.
Demetrius. ἀντὶ TOV μήλων TOD μανδρα-
γόρου.
ἄγγελον τοῦ θεοῦ παλαῖσαι καὶ ἅψασθαι τοῦ πλάτους τοῦ μηροῦ τοῦ ᾿Ιακώβ.
λέγειν κτηνοτρόφους αὐτοὺς
Genesis (LXxX.).
evpev μῆλα pavdpayopov... ἀντὶ τῶν μανδραγορῶν (Xxx, 4}.
ἐπάλαιεν...καὶ ἥψατο τοῦ πλάτους τοῦ μηροῦ ἼἸακωβ (xxx. 58),
ἐρεῖτε "Ανδρες κτηνοτρόφοι
ἊΨ εἰναι.
ἐσμέν (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’. 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 beginning of the third century 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’. Aristobulus merely represents Demetrius as having ‘negociated the matter’ (πραγματευσαμένου τὰ περὶ τούτων), but Aristeas states that he did so (1) in the capacity of head of the royal library (κατασταθεὶς ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως βιβλιοθήκης), and (2) in the days of Philadelphus, with whom he appears to be on intimate terms. Both these particulars are certainly unhis- torical. Busch* has shewn that the office of librarian was
1 Cf. Freudenthal, Aellen. Studien, Ὁ. 41.
2 The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila strangely says: ἦν δὲ οὗτος ὁ Δημήτριος τῷ γένει EBpaios.
3 De bibliothecariis Alexandrinis (1884), p.
1 ff.; cf. Droysen, iii. p- 256; Mahaffy, p. 115.
The Alexandrian Greek Version. 19
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)’. 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’, 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 yewpas, «iv, σάββατα“, when such Greek equivalents as προσήλυτος, δίχουν, ἀνάπαυσις, 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 Alex- andrian, would have been left without the advice and help of experts in the Greek tongue.
Thus everything points to the conclusion that the version
1 Diog. Laert. v. 78. The statement rests on the authority of Hermippus Callimachus (¢em. Ptolemy III.).
2 Cf. Plutarch, Apophthegm. viii. Δημήτριος ὁ Φαληρεὺς Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ παρήνει τὰ περὶ βασιλείας Kal ἡγεμονίας βιβλία κτᾶσθαι καὶ ἀνα-
γινώσκειν.
3 Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 8 f.
20 The Alexandrian Greek 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'. In the closing paragraphs of the letter of Aristeas which describe the joy with which the work of the LxxIl. was welcomed by the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, the writer unconsciously reveals the true history of the ver- sion, when he represents the Jews as having heard and welcomed the Greek Pentateuch before it was presented to the King*®. 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* 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 note- worthy* 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 (παρα- γενηθεὶς eis Αἴγυπτον καὶ ovyxpovicas); but the clumsy Greek of the prologue, and the stiff artificiality of the book, offer a
1 Cf. Philo ap. Eus. praep. ev. viii. 7 τῶν ἱερέων δέ τις παρών, ἢ τῶν γερόντων els, ἀναγινώσκει τοὺς ἱεροὺς νόμους αὐτοῖς καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐξηγεῖται." But ἐξηγεῖται is ambiguous.
2 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: οὐ μόνον αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας δέον ἐστὶν ἐπιστήμονας γίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἐκτὸς δύνασθαι τοὺς φιλομαθοῦντας χρησίμους εἶναι καὶ λέγοντας καὶ ypddovras—where however the influence of the Jewish Scriptures on pagans is regarded as indirect, and not immediate.
* Cf. Mommsen, Provinces, ii. p. 164.
4 Another example is offered by the Greek Esther, if the note at the end of the book is to be trusted (ἔφασαν.. ἑρμηνευκέναι Λυσίμαχον Πτολεμαίου τῶν ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ).
The Alexandrian Greek Version. 21
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 ἄχει (Gen. xli. 2 ff.), κόνδυ (Gen. xliv. 2 ff.), ἶβις (Lev. x1. 17 ; Deut. xiv. 16), βύσσος (Exod. xxv.—xxxix. passim) and such characteristically Egyptian terms as δίδραχμον, ἀλήθεια (= ODN), ἀρχιμάγειρος, ἀρχιοινοχόος and the like. The argument is not conclusive, since after the time of Alexander the κοινή contained elements drawn from various localities’. 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’.” This statement has been abundantly justified by the publication of Deissmann’s Bibelstudien (Marburg, 1895), and lVeue 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.* 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 *
1 See Hody, ii. 4; Eichhorn, p. 472; H. H. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 24f.; on the other hand, cf. Frankel, Vorstudten, p. 40 ff.
2 Exp. Times, 111. p. 291; cf. Mahaffy, Greek life, p. 198 f.
8 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. 4 See however Buhl, p. 124.
22 The Alexandrian Greek Version.
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’, 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 μητρόπολις, 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”; 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 present- ing 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 usque Serapeum Ptolemaei bibliothecae cum ipsis Hebraicis litteris exhibentur®.”’
1 According to Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. τὸ 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.
* See, however, Mahaffy, “7157. of Gk. class. literature, 1. ii. p. 195.
3 Apol. 18; cf. Justin, apol. i. 31, Chrys. 97. 1 adv. Fud., and Epiph.
The Alexandrian Greek Version. 23
15. It has been stated that the letter of Aristeas does not profess to describe the origin of any part of the Alexandrian Bible except the Pentateuch. This was evident to Josephus : ant. 1. prooem. 3 οὐδὲ yap πᾶσαν ἐκεῖνος (sc. Πτολεμαῖος ὁ δεύτε- ρος) ἔφθη λαβεῖν τὴν ἀναγραφήν, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ τοῦ νόμου παρέδο- σαν οἱ πεμφθέντες ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξήγησιν εἰς ᾿Αλεξάνδρειαν. 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’.” Epiphanius goes so far as to apportion the books of the Hebrew canon among thirty-six pairs of translators’. 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 comple- tion before the High-Priesthood of Simon II. (219—199B.c.)*. 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
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. 1 In Ezech. v.; cf. in Gen. xxxi., i2 Mich. ii. See the Talmudical passages cited by Hody, p. 269. 2 de mens et pond. 3 54. "πε γε ΘΕΟΣ of the O. T., p. 113. ΟἹ. Buhl, p. 12.
24 The Alexandrian Greek Version.
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 (ov yap ἰσοδυναμεῖ αὐτὰ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ᾿Εβραιστὶ λεγόμενα, καὶ ὅταν μεταχθῇ εἰς ἑτέραν γλῶσσαν" οὐ μόνον δὲ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος καὶ αἱ προφητεῖαι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ Tov βιβλίων οὐ μικρὰν τὴν διαφορὰν ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτοῖς λεγόμενα). This sentence reveals the progress which had been made in the work of translation between the second Ptolemy and the ninth. Under Euergetes 11. 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’ which had not as yet formed themselves into a complete group. The latter are doubtless the books which are known as 3 Π3 or Hagiographa. Since the author of the prologue was a Palestinian Jew, we may perhaps assume that under αἱ προφητεῖαι and τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων 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. vill. 17, wrote about the middle of the second century, makes use of the Greek Chronicles, as Freudenthal has
1 Cf. prol. supra: τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων
βιβλίων.
The Alexandrian Greek Version. 25
clearly shewn’. 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 περὶ Ἰουδαίων) quotes the book of Job according to the Lxx., and has been suspected’ of being the author of the remarkable codicil attached to it (Job xlii. 17 d—e). The footnote to the Greek Esther, which states that that book was brought to Egypt in the 4th year of “ Ptolemy and Cleo- patra” (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.” The Psalter of the Lxx. appears to be quoted in rt Macc. vil. 17 (Ps. lxxviii. =]xxix. 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®* ; 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 frag- mentary, 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, Ecciesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Lamen- tations, Ezekiel, Daniel‘. But, as Professor Ryle points out,
Ye τοϑ. τὸ; Ch. 5 185- 2410 Doh ons 3 Cf. Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, pp. 12, 83. 4 Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xxxi. f.
26 The Alexandrian Greek Version.
‘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’,” 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.p. (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*. 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 circula- tion among Palestinian Jews. (0) 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’*.”
Thus while the testimony of the first century A.D. does not absolutely require us to believe that all the books of the
1 Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xxxiii. * Ryle, Canon, Ὁ. 151. ἘΞ Lh, Da i632.
The TE Greek Version. 27 εἰ
Hebrew canon had been translated and were ἜΣ in a Greek version during the Apostolic age, such a view is not im- probable ; 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. Capellus, crztéca sacra, 1651; J. Pearson, praefatio parae- netica, 1655; Ussher, Syztagma, 1655; Walton, prolegomena, 1657; Hottinger, dzsertationum fasciculus, 1660; I. Voss, de LXX,. interpretibus, 1661—1663; J. Morinus, EL xercttationes, 1669; R. Simon, héstoire critique du Vieux Testament*, 1685 ; H. Hody, de L201. textibus originalibus, 1705; H. Owen, Enguzry 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, 111. 658 ff., 1793; 1. Holmes, Episcopo Dunelm. epistola, 1795; pracfatio ad Pentateuchum, 1798; Schleusner, ofuscula critica, 1812; Topler, de Pentateucht tnterpretat. Alex. zndole, 1830; Dahne, jud.-alexandr. Philosophie, 1834; Grinfield, Apology for the LXX., 1841; Frankel, Vorstudien zur d. LXX., 1841; uber den Einfluss da. palast. Exegese auf die alexandr. Hermeneuttih, 1851; do., “ber paldst. u. alexandr. Schriftforschung, 1854; Thiersch, de Pentateuchi vers. Alexandr.. 1841; Constantinus Oeconomus, περὶ τῶν ο΄ ἑρμηνευτῶν, 1849; Churton, 7he /nfluence of the LXX. upon the progress of Christianity, 1861; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel*, 1868; E. Nestle, Septuaginta-Studien, i. 1886, ii. 1896; 5. R. Driver, Motes on Samuel (Introd. § 3f.), 1890; P. de Lagarde, Septwaginta-Studien, i. 1891, ii. 1892;
28 The Alexandrian Greek Version.
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. 7: zz the Jewish Church*, 1892; E. Klostermann, Amalecta zur LXX*., 1895;
Nestle, Urtext τε. Ubersetzungen 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® (1893), Konig (1893); and the Ency- clopedias and Bible Dictionaries, especially the articles on the Septuagint in Smith’s D. B. iii. (Selwyn), the Excyclopedia Britannica? (Wellhausen), and the Real-Encykl. αὶ prot. Theo- logie τ. Kirche* (Nestle; also published in a separate form,
under the title Urtext τι. Ubersetzungen, & ¢.).
CEA Pe Res is
LATER GREEK VERSIONS.
1. Art 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 ii. 1. 1, Frankel, Vorstudzen, p. 56 ff., Konig, Eznlectung, p. 105 ff.; the negative is stoutly maintained by J. Lightfoot, hor. Flebr. (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 (afol. i. 31 ἔμειναν ai βίβλοι [the translated books] καὶ παρ᾽ Αἰγυπτίοις μέχρι τοῦ δεῦρο καὶ πανταχοῦ παρὰ πᾶσίν εἰσιν ᾿Ιουδαίοις : dial. 72 αὕτη ἡ περικοπὴ ἡ ἐκ τῶν λόγων τοῦ Ἰερεμίου ἔτι ἐστὶν ἐγγεγραμμένη ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις τῶν ἐν συναγωγαῖς Ἰουδαίων), Tertullian (apfol. τὸ ‘‘Judaei palam lectitant”), Pseudo-Justin (cohort. ad Gr. 13 τὸ δὲ παρ᾽ ᾿Ιουδαίοις ἔτι καὶ viv τὰς TH ἡμετέρᾳ θεοσεβείᾳ
30 Later Greek Versions.
διαφερούσας σώζεσθαι βίβλους, θείας προνοίας ἔργον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γέγονεν... ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων συναγωγῆς ταύτας ἀξιοῦμεν προκο- μίζεσθαι).
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, da/, 68 τολμῶσι λέγειν τὴν ἐξήγησιν ἣν ἐξηγή- σαντο οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα ὑμῶν πρεσβύτεροι παρὰ Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεῖ γενόμενοι μὴ εἶναι ἔν τισιν ἀληθῆ). The crucial instance was the rendering of ΠΡΟΣ by παρθένος in Isa. vil. 14, where νεᾶνις, it was contended, would have given the true meaning of the Hebrew word (20. 71, 84; Iren. 111. 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'.” An official text differing con- siderably 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, dza/. 71 αὐτοὶ ἐξηγεῖσθαι πειρῶνται. Of two such fresh translations Irenaeus speaks in terms of reprehension (/.¢. οὐχ ws ἔνιοί φασιν τῶν νῦν μεθερμηνεύειν τολμώντων τὴν γραφήν... ὡς Θεοδοτίων.... ὁ ᾿Ἐφέσιος καὶ ᾿Ακύλας ὁ ΠΠοντικός, ἀμφότεροι Ἰουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι). 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*. Of the anonymous versions little remains, but Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus are represented by numerous and in some cases important fragments.
1 Robertson Smith, Zhe O. 7. im the F Ch., p. 643 cf. 2b. p. 87f. 3 Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, p. 63 ff.; cf. Buhl, p. 118 f. 2 Eus. By evi. (76.
Later Greek Versions. 31
3. AquiLA. The name had been borne in the Apostolic age by a native of Pontus who was of Jewish birth (Acts xviii. 2 ᾿Ιουδαῖον ὀνόματι ᾿Ακύλαν, Ποντικὸν τῷ γένει). Aquila the trans- lator was also of Pontus, from the famous sea-port' 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 (zev6epi- dns, Epiph., Dial. of Timothy and Aquila; wevOepos, Ps.-Ath., Chron. Pasch.). adrian 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 interpreta- tion 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 fond. 14 sq. : λαβὼν [sc. 6 ᾿Αδριανὸς] τὸν ᾿Ακύλαν τοῦτον.. “Ἕλληνα ὄντα καὶ αὑτοῦ πενθερίδην, ἀπὸ Σινώπης δὲ τῆς Πόντου ὁρμώμενον, καθίστησιν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖσε ἐπιστατεῖν τοῖς ἔργοις κτλ....πικρανθεὶς δὲ... προσηλυ- τεύει καὶ περιτέμνεται ᾿Ιουδαῖος" καὶ ἐπιπόνως φιλοτιμησάμενος ἐξέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν μαθεῖν τὴν “EBpaiwy διάλεκτον καὶ τὰ αὐτῶν στοιχεῖα. ταύτην δὲ ἀκρότατα παιδευθεὶς ἡρμήνευσεν οὐκ ὀρθῷ λογισμῷ χρησά- μενος, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως διαστρέψῃ τινὰ τῶν ῥητῶν, ἐνσκήψας τῇ τῶν of’ ἑρμηνείᾳ ἵνα τὰ περὶ Χριστοῦ ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς μεμαρτυρημένα ἄλλως ἐκδώσει). The same tale is told in substance by the Pseudo- Athanasian author of Syzofszs script. sacr., c. 77, and in the Dialogue between Timothy and Aguila printed in Axnecdota Oxou., class. ser. pt vill. According to the writer of the Dialogue Aquila learned Hebrew in his 4oth 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,
1 Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, p. 27 f.; cf. Hort, Commentary on i Peter, p. 172 ff.
32 Later Greek Versions.
which he believes to have been ultimately the history of Ariston of Pella (of. czt. p. xxvi. ff.). An Aquila figures in the Clement- ine romance (hom. 11. sqq., vecogn. 11. 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. deg. 1. 11, Kiddush. 1. 1), in which he appears as 133, 6 προσήλυτος. After his conversion to Judaism, Aquila became a pupil of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua (Meg. f. 71 ¢) 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. vill. 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 /orwt of Aquila is to be placed in the 12th year of Hadrian (Epiph. de mens. et ond. 13 ᾿Αδριανὸς ἔτη κα΄, οὗτινος τῷ δωδεκάτῳ ἔτει ᾿Ακύλας ἐγνωρίζετο... ὡς εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ χρόνου τῆς ἑρμηνείας τῶν Of ἑρμηνευτῶν ἕως ᾿Ακύλα τοῦ ἑρμηνευτοῦ, ἤγουν ἕως δωδεκάτου ἔτους ᾿Αδριανοῦ, ἔτη vA’ καὶ μῆνας δ. The 12th year of Hadrian was Α.Ὁ. 128—g9, 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°, 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 third decade of the second century. When Irenaeus wrote his third book, in
1 The name is written Do»py, ὈΟῬΝ, pip, or pbyrpy, and in the Bab. Talmud, pidpon. On the identity of Aquila with Onkelos see Anger de Onkelo Chaldaico (before 1845), Friedmann Ovkelos u. Akylas (Wien, 1896); or the brief statement in Buhl, p. 173.
2 Field, Hexapla, prolegg. p. xviil.
Later Greek Versions. 33
the eighth decade, Aquila’s translation might still be regarded as comparatively recent (τῶν νῦν μεθερμηνεύειν τολμώντων τὴν γραφήν... ὡς... ᾿Α κυλας).
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. 2, DUN 30 DYB{H)" The Talmud quotes or refers to his translation of not a few Massaves, (Gen. xvil. τ; Lev. xix. 20, 23, 40; Esth. 1. 65 Prov. MMM 21; ΧΣΥ͂. ΤΙ; Isa. i. .20; Ezek. xvi. 10, xxii. 43°; Dan. v. 5, Vili. 13). In Origen’s time he was trusted implicitly in Jewish circles, and used by all Jews who did not understand Hebrew (ef. ad African. 2 φιλοτιμότερον πεπιστευμένος παρὰ Ιουδαίοις. -ᾧ μάλιστα εἰώθασιν οἱ ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν “EBpaiwv διά- λεκτον χρῆσθαι, ὡς πάντων μᾶλλον ἐπιτετευγμένῳ) ; and the same preference for Aquila seems to have been characteristic of the Jews in the fourth and fifth centuries (cf. Jerome on Ezek. ili. 5, and Augustine de civ. Dei xv. 23), 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 (zovel/. 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”. 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’ (δουλεύων τῇ ᾿Εβραικῇ λέξει) ; whatever was wanting in the Hebrew text was not to be
1 Megilla τ. 9: in 55" there is a play upon NH (cf. Gen. ix. 27).
2 See Dr C. Taylor in the preface to Mr 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.”
S275! 3
34 Later Greek Versions.
found in Aquila (οὐ κεῖται παρὰ τοῖς ᾿Εβραίοις, διόπερ οὐδὲ παρὰ τῷ ᾿Ακύλᾳ). So Origen σοηΐεββεβ᾽ ; 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”; 6. ad Marcell. “‘iamdudum cum voluminibus Hebraeorum editio- nem 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’.
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 (pvolegomena in Flexapla, p. xix. ff.) and Dr C. Taylor (D. C. ZB. art. Hexapla) to illustrate the purpose and style of Aquila’s work. But an unexpected discovery has now placed at our disposal several larger fragments of the version, emanating from a Jewish source. Among the débris of the Genizah of the Cairo syna- gogue lately brought to Cambridge through the efforts of Dr Taylor and Dr Schechter, Mr F. C. Burkitt has been 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. g—17 and 2 Kings xxiil. 12—27°*, From the same treasure Dr Taylor has recovered Pss. xc. 6—13, xcl. 4—104, and a portion of Ps. xxii. The
1 Ep. ad Afric.3. Cf. Aug. 2. c. #7 ee Ds BT
3 Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the translation of Aguila (Cambridge, 1897).
4 See the facsimile and letterpress prefixed to Sayings of the Fewish Fathers (ed. 2, 1897).
Later Greek Versions. 35
student will find below specimens of these discoveries, placed for the purpose of comparison in parallel columns with the
version of the LxXx.
3 Regn. xxi. (1 Kings xx.) 10—13.
ΤΟΣ ΘΟ 8...
το Ng 3.1} \ > \ καὶ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὑτὸν /
υἱὸς “Adep λέγων Τάδε ποιήσαι ε \ Ν (ὃ θ 4 μοι ὃ θεὸς καὶ τάδε προσθείη, Ἢ Lal 4 εἰ ἐκποιήσει ὁ χοῦς Σαμαρείας ~ 3 ’, c Ἂ wn a” ταῖς ἀλωπεξιν παντὶ τῷ aw “ “ Il Ν 3 ὍΘ τοῖς πεζοῖς μου. καὶ ἀπεκρίθη \ βασιλεὺς
Ἱκανούσθω: μὴ
\ > και €LTTEV
Ἰσραὴλ ΄ὔ ε καυχάσθω 6 \ ε ε 3 ΄ 12 \ KupTos ὡς ὃ ὀρθός. καὶ she te Y 3 ΄, NN / ἐγένετο ὅτε ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ τὸν λό- A ἊΣ γον τοῦτον, πίνων ἦν αὐτὸς καὶ ’ὔ A > > ~ > πάντες βασιλεῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ev σκηναῖς: καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς παισὶν 3. ὧι > ΄ ΄ 7 \ αὐτοῦ Οἰκοδομήσατε yapaKka’ καὶ 5 ᾽’ὔ ΕἸ Ν \ / ἔθεντο χάρακα ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν. 13 Ν io Ν ΄ Φ καὶ ἰδοὺ προφήτης εἷς προσ- ~ a ΄ ? ἤλθεν τῷ βασιλεῖ ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ εἶπεν Τάδε λέγει Κύριος ἘΠ TA ἊΝ κω ἊΝ vA ἑόρακας τὸν ὄχλον τὸν μέγαν “A 3 x > Ν ’ὔ 3 Ν τοῦτον ; ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτὸν σήμερον εἰς χεῖρας σάς, καὶ / φ ΔΝ ΑΝ, , γνώσῃ ote ἐγὼ Κύριος.
AQUILA.
10 ἌΝ 7, Ἂς aN καὶ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ε > vids Abad καὶ εἶπεν Τάδε ποιήσαι- ’ὔ ἣν Ν ’ ’ὔ σάν μοι θεοὶ καὶ τάδε προσθείη- Sia: 4 A ’ σαν, εἰ ἐξαρκέσει χοῦς Sapapias “ A cal ~ ~ τοῖς ALyaow* τοῦ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ a > , : Ir \ 3 ’ ὃς ἐν ποσίν μου. “Kal ἀπεκρίθη Ν βασιλεὺς Λαλήσατε Μὴ καυχάσθω ζωννύ-
3 \ > Ἰσραὴλ καὶ εἶπεν ς- ε ΄ προ στα μενος ὡς ὁ περιλυόμενος. καὶ Ψ ε 4 ~ ἐγένετο ὡς ἤκουσεν σὺν TO ῥῆμα τοῦτο, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔπιννεν αὐτὸς Ν 6 “ 3 A καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς ἐν συσκιασμοῖς: Ν > x , 3 A καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς δούλους αὐτοῦ Θέτε: καὶ ἔθηκαν ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν. Skat ἰδοὺ προφήτης εἷς προσ- ’ὔ Ν > Ἴγγισεν πρὸς “AaB βασιλέα 3 Ν “Ὁ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ εἶπεν Τάδε λέγει ΞΓΞΡ̓Ρῤ Εἶδες σὺν πάντα τὸν δὰ Si fe ~ ~) \ oxAov τὸν μέγαν τοῦτον; ἰδοὺ > Ν δί 3 Ν > nw vd ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτὸν εἰς χεῖρά σου , Ἂς (A 7 > ‘\ σήμερον, καὶ γνώσῃ ὅτι ἐγὼ
5331.
1 Cod. A is nearer to Aquila, as the following variants shew: 10 ποιησαι-
σαν μοι οἱ Geo και Tade προσθειησαν A
12 ore] ws Α | παντες οἱ B. A
13 Tw βασ.] pr Tw Αχααβ A | Tov οχλον] pr παντὰ A | εἰς xX. σας σημερον A. > MS. ye[iAijaclin]; see Burkitt, of. cz. p. 2.
36 Later Greek Versions.
4 Regn. (2 Kings) xxiil. 21—24.
txx: (Cod..B:).
kal ἐνετείλατο ὃ βασιλεὺς ~ ~ ’ παντὶ τῷ λαῷ λέγων Ποιήσατε ~ a ¢ - πάσχα τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐπὶ βιβλίου τῆς δια- / ΤΑ 22% > > ’ὔ θήκης ταύτης. ““ὅτι οὐκ ἐγενήθη τὸ πάσχα τοῦτο ἀφ᾽ ἡμερῶν τῶν nw ε » Ν " ’ κριτῶν οἱ ἔκρινον τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ, Ἀ 4 A ε / / Kal πάσας Tas ἡμέρας βασιλέων > Ἰσραὴλ καὶ βασιλέων ᾿ἸἸούδα- “ἡ n 367. GAN ἢ TO ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει τοῦ βασιλέως ‘Iwoeia ἐγε- , ἈΝ ’ nw , > > νήθη τὸ πάσχα τῷ κυρίῳ ἐν Ἴε- ρουσαλήμ. kai γε τοὺς θελητὰς καὶ τοὺς γνωριστὰς καὶ τὰ θερα- - A A 4 A , A φεὶν καὶ τὰ εἴδωλα Kal πάντα τὰ / προσοχθίσματα τὰ γεγονότα ἐν γῇ ᾿Ιούδα καὶ ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ. ἐξῆρεν “I ας. ἵ 7 ov ἐξῆρεν ᾿Ιωσείας, ἵνα στήσῃ τοὺς λόγους τοῦ νόμου τοὺς γεγραμ- “ φ e μένους ἐπὶ τῷ βιβλίῳ οὗ εὑρεν Χελκείας ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐν οἴκῳ Κυ-
΄ ριου.
AQUILA.
“Ἰ καὶ ἐνετείλατο ὃ βασιλεὺς
Ἁ Ἁ - »“ “- , σὺν παντὶ τῷ λαῷ τῴ λέγειν Ποιήσατε φέσα τῷ 5333 θεῷ ὑμῶν κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐπὶ
Ψ -“ ΄ ’ὔ βιβλίου τῆς συνθήκης ταύτης. “2 5“ 3 ΕῚ / Ν Ν ,
ὅτι οὐκ ἐποιήθη κατὰ τὸ φέσα
al ε »“» ~ ~ τοῦτο ἀπὸ ἡμερῶν τῶν κριτῶν ot ΜΝ Ν > Ν Ν “» ἐκριναν τὸν Ἰσραὴλ καὶ πασῶν
ε fal ἡμερῶν βασιλέων ἸΙσραὴλ καὶ βασιλέων ᾿Ιούδα: “ὅτι ἀλλὰ ἐν > , ΕΣ ΄“ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει τοῦ βασι- λέως Ἰωσιαοὺ ἐποιήθη τὸ φέσα τοῦτο τῷ 533 ἐν ἸΙερουσαλήμ. Py ee , \ \ ΄ κ
καὶ Kal γε σὺν τοὺς μάγους καὶ σὺν τοὺς γνωριστὰς καὶ σὺν τὰ
, . A A , μορφώματα Kal σὺν τὰ Kabap- ματα καὶ σὺν πάντα προσοχθί-
« ε / ΕἸ a? / σματα ἃ ὡράθησαν ἐν γῇ lovda καὶ ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ. ἐπέλεξεν Ἴω- σιαού, ὅπως ἀναστήσῃ τὰ ῥή- ματα τοῦ νόμου τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐπὶ τοῦ βιβλίου
“λκιαοὺ ὁ ἱερεὺς οἴκῳ Kupiov’.
[οὗ εὗρεν]
1 The following variants in Cod. A agree with Aquila: 22 πάσων
ἡμέρων A
23 To tacxa]+Tovro A
2 MS. KY; at the end of a line: see Burkitt, p. 16.
Later Greek Versions. 37
Ps. xc. (xci.) 64—13.
Lxx. (Cod. B). 3 Ν , \ ἀπὸ συμπτώματος Kal δαι- μονίου μεσημβρινοῦ. πεσεῖται ἐκ τοῦ κλίτους σου χιλιᾶς, Ν Ν 3 ὃ € a καὶ μυριὰς ἐκ δεξιῶν σου, \ ‘\ Ν > > 7 πρὸς σὲ δὲ οὐκ ἐγγιεῖ: δπλὴν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς σου κατα- ’ νοήσεις, 3 4 «ε a ἀνταπόδοσιν ἁμαρτωλῶν Μ own. ε ϑὅτι σύ, Κύριε, ἡ ἐλπίς μου: “ , τὸν ὕψιστον ἔθου καταφυγήν σου. 10,2 , x SN ΄ οὐ προσελεύσεται πρὸς σὲ κακά, καὶ μάστιξ οὐκ ἐγγιεῖ τῷ σκη- νώματί σου" mu? A 3 , ee OTL τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντε- λεῖται περὶ σοῦ, τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς σου. vie a “~ 3 “ ’ ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, ’, ’ Ν λίθ μὴ ποτεπροσκόψῃς προς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου" 9 ’, ἈΝ ἀσπίδα καὶ
ἐπιβήσῃ.
Ber βασιλίσκον
1. 11 ras odas] pr πάσαις A(R)T
AQUILA. ἀπὸ δηγμοῦ δαιμ[ ονίζοντος με- ’ὔ σημβρίας!. 7 “ 3 Ν Xr ’ πεσεῖται ἀπὸ πλαγίου σίου ’ χιλιάς], καὶ μυριὰς ἀπὸ δεξι[ῶν cov}: πρὸς σὲ οὐ προσεγγ[ίσει" ἐκτὸς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς [σου ἐπι- βλέψεις,
1 9 , 3 A ¥ καὶ ἀπότισιν ἀσεβῶν own.
8
ν ϑὅτι σύ, AVA, ἐλπίς μου’ σ » 9 , , ὕψιστον ἔθηκας οἰκητήριόν σου. 10,3 ’ Ν Ν “ οὗ μεταχθήσεται πρὸς σὲ κακία, Ν ε Ἂς > 3 , > / καὶ ἀφὴ οὐκ ἐγγίσει ἐν σκέπῃ σου: "Or. ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖταί σε, τοῦ φυλάξαι σε ἐν πάσαις ὁδοῖς σου" 123 A “- > A 4 ἐπὶ ταρσῶν ἀροῦσίν ce, μήποτε προσκόψῃ ἐν λίθῳ [πούς σου]᾽ "ἐπὶ λέαινα[ν]" καὶ ἀσπίδα πατή-
σεις.
2 MS. λεενὰ.
38 Later Greek Versions.
Ps. xci. (xcii.) 5—T1o.
Lxx (Cod. B’).
» A Sore εὐφρανάς pe, Κύριε, ἐν τῷ ποιήματί σου, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν χειρῶν σου ἀγαλλιάσομαι. 6" ry λύ 6 Ν μὴ ὡς ἐμεγαλύνθη τὰ ἔργα σου, Κύριε, 4 σφόδρα ἐβαρύνθησαν ot δια- λογισμοί σου. 7 cent >» > 4 avnp adpwv ov γνώσεται,
Ν tf Vd καὶ ἀσύνετος οὐ συνήσει ταῦτα.
55 a? a ἣν ε ‘ ἐν τῷ ἀνατεῖλαι τοὺς ἁμαρτωλοὺς / ὡς χόρτον \ / ’ ε 39 καὶ διέκυψαν πάντες οἱ ἐργα- Ν 3 Yd ζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν, - xa aA ὅπως ἂν ἐξολεθρευθῶσιν εἰς Ν lal “ “- τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰώνος. A a ϑσὺ δὲ Ὕψιστος εἰς τὸν aidva, Κύριε. . Ν 3 or. ἰδοὺ οἱ ἐχθροί σου -“ἀπο- λοῦνται, Ν / ’ καὶ διασκορπισθήσονται πάν- / Ν τες οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν > ἀνομίαν.
AQUILA. S[ore ηὔφρανάς pe, AASAA, ἐν
/ κατέργῳ σου, [ἐν ποιήμασι] χειρῶν σου αἰνέσω. S[ws ἐμεγαλύνθη] ποιήματά σου, 5331, σφόδρα [ἐβαθύνθ]ησαν λογι- σμοί σου. ee Ae > , > , 7[ἀνὴρ] ἀσύνετος ov γνώσεται, καὶ ἀνόητος οὐ συνήσει σὺν ταύτην. δὲν τῷ βλαστῆσαι ἀσεβεῖς ὁμοίως , χλόῃ ‘ »” , καὶ ἤνθησαν πάντες κατεργα- / > / ζόμενοι ἀνωφελές, 9 ~ > Ν A »” ἐκτριβῆναι αὐτοὺς ἕως ETL
θϑκαὶ σὺ Ὕψιστος εἰς αἰῶνα, Ξ331. τοϊδοὺ οἱ ἐχθροί σου, AAA, ἰδοὺ ε 3 ’ὔ 3 a ot ἐχθροί σου ἀπολοῦν- ται, , , [σκορπι]σθήσονται πάντες κατ-
ἐργαζόμενοι ἀνωφελές].
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
1 The following variants deserve attention: 6 εβαθυνθ. BabRcaRT
10 pr ore ἰδου οἱ expo cov κε RA#RT
Later Greek Versions. 39
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 ὃς ἐν ποσίν μου -Ξ O03 WN (LXX. τοῖς πεζοῖς μου) ; 12 θέτε: καὶ ἔθηκαν = 0%) wy (LXX. οἰκοδομήσατε χάρακα, καὶ ἔθεντο χάρακα) ; 2 Kings xxiil. 21 τῷ λέγειν = “ON? (LXx. λέγων) ; 24 ἃ ὡράθησαν = 3872 WS (Lxx. τὰ γεγονότα). (2) Under certain circumstances! σύν is employed to represent the Hebrew Πὲξ, when it is the sign of the accusative*; e.g. 1 Kings xx. 12 σὺν τὸ ῥῆμα-- WITS, 13 σὺν πάντα τὸν ὄχλον -- ἢ ΠΠ oD ny, 2 Kings ΧΧΠΙ. 21 σὺν παντὶ τῷ λαῷ (where the dat. is governed by the preceding verb), 24 σὺν τοὺς μάγους κτλ. (3) The same Hebrew words are scrupulously rendered by the same Greek, 6.5. καὶ xai’ye = 03) occurs thrice in one context (2 Kings xxiii. 15, 190, 24); and in Ps. xcil. ὃ, 10 κατεργαζόμενοι ἀνωφελές twice represents ἰδ by. (4) The transliterations adhere with greater closeness to the Hebrew than in the Lxx.*; thus MDB becomes φέσα, TUN Ἰωσιαού, amspen ‘EAkiaov. (5) The Tetra- grammaton is not transliterated, but written in Hebrew letters, and the characters are of the archaic type (A941, not 7) ; cf. Orig. zz Ps. 11., καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀκριβεστάτοις δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων "EBpaiows χαρακτῆρσιν κεῖται τὸ ὄνομα, “EBpaxots δὲ οὐ τοῖς νῦν ἀλλὰ τοῖς a&pxatotarors—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 xs or xe for 117"*, (6) That the crudities of Aquila’s
1 For these see Burkitt, Aguz/a, p. 12.
? This singular use of σύν appears also in the Lxx., but only in Eccle- siastes and the Song of Songs, which Freudenthal is disposed to assign to Aguila (p. 65); cf. Konig, Ainlettung, p. 108 ἢ.
3 Aq. does not transliterate 8 7 MY (see Burkitt, p. 14).
+ In a few Hexaplaric Mss. (e.g. Q, 86, 88, 243™8, 264) the Greek letters ΠΙΠῚ are written for 7171’, but the Greek Mss. use it solely in their
excerpts from the non-Septuagintal columns of the Hexapla, and only the Hexaplaric Syriac admits IITIII into the text of the Lxx., using it freely
for κύριος, even with a preposition (as ρὲ δῦ), Ceriani expresses the
40 Later Greek Versions.
style are not due to an insufficient vocabulary’ 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 follow- ing are specimens; 1 Kings xx. 10 LXX. ἐκποιήσει, Aq. ἐξαρ- κέσει; LXX. ἀλώπεξιν, Ag. Atydow"; 12 LXX. σκηναῖς, Aq. συσκιασμοῖς ; 2 Kings xxili. 21 Lxx. διαθήκης, Aq. συνθήκης ; 24 LXX. θεραφείν, Ag. μορφώματα ; LXx. εἴδωλα, Aq. καθάρ- pata; Ps. xc. 8 ΧΧ. ἀνταπόδοσιν, Aq. ἀπότισιν ; 70. το LXX. προσελεύσεται, Aq. μεταχθήσεται; LXX. μάστιξ, Aq. ἁφή ; ΧΕΙ. 5 LXX. ποιήματι, Aq. κατέργῳ.
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 mean- ing 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. vu. 13, where Aquila substituted χεῦμα, ὁπωρισμόν, στιλπνότητα for σῖτον, οἶνον, ἔλαιον in order to reflect more exactly the Hebrew 121, ὉΠ, W¥'—as though, adds Jerome humorously, we were to use in Latin fuszo, pomatio, splendentia. Similarly,
opinion that the use of IIIIII is due either to Origen or Eusebius, i.e. one of those fathers substituted ΠΙΠῚ for 93494 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 profana, ii. p. τοῦ ff.; Schleusner s. v. mim, Field, flexapla ad Esa. i. 2; Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, Ὁ. 1135; Z. D. M. G. (1878), 501, 506. Mr Burkitt acutely points out (p. 16) that 9944 (and doubtless also IILIII) was read as Κύριος, since in one place in the Aquila fragments where there was no room to write the Hebrew cha- racters ‘instead of οἴκῳ 9494 we find οἴκῳ kv.”
1 Even Jerome speaks of Aquila as ‘‘eruditissimus linguae Graecae ’ (in Isa. xlix. 5).
2 See Mr Burkitt’s note (p. 26).
>
Later Greek Versions. 41
Aquila represented DOSY by ὀστεοῦν, and avn by ἐπιστημο- view Or ἐπιστημονοῦν, and even coined the impossible form ἁφημένος to correspond with 5.22, (2) An attempt is made to represent Hebrew particles, even such as defy translation ; thus 7 local becomes the enclitic δὲ (e.g. vorovde = 13131, Gen. xil. 9, Κυρήνηνδε = ΠῚ, 2 Kings xvi. 9); and similarly prepositions are accumulated in a manner quite alien from Greek usage (e.g. εἰς ἀπὸ μακρόθεν = PIN, 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. ΠΝ is converted into τράγος ἀπολυόμενος and ΣΎ into σκιὰ σκιά; a Hebrew word is replaced by a Greek word somewhat similar in sound, e.g. for ἧχι (Deut. xi. 30) Aquila gives avAwv, and for O°20A (1 Sam. xv. 23) θεραπεία". 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*. 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
1 The student who wishes to pursue the subject may refer to Field, Prolegg. p. xxi. sqq., and Dr Taylor’s article Hexapla in D. C. B. iii. p- 17 ff. Jerome speaks more than once of a second edition of Aquila ‘‘quam Hebraei κατ᾽ ἀκρίβειαν nominant.’’ The question is discussed by (prolegg. xxiv. ff.).
2 See Mr Burkitt’s article Aguz/a in the Fewrsh Quarterly Review, Jan. 1898, p. 211 ff.
42 Later Greek Versions.
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 *.” 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 ap- proved by the chief Jewish teachers of the generation which followed the close of the Apostolic age.
7. THEODOTION. With Aquila Irenaeus couples Theo- dotion of Ephesus, as another Jewish proselyte who translated the Old Testament into Greek (Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ Ἐφέσιος καὶ “Axvdas...aupdrepor Ιουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι). Him- self 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 foruzt is fixed by Epiphanius in the reign of the second Commodus, i.e. of the Emperor Commodus, so called to distinguish him from L. Crionius Commodus, better known as L. Aurelius Verus.
Epiph. de mens. et pond. 17 περὶ τὴν τοῦ δευτέρου Κομόδου βασι- λείαν τοῦ βασιλεύσαντος μετὰ τὸν προειρημένον Κόμοδον Λούκιον Αὐρήλιον ἐ ἔτη ιγ΄, Θεοδοτίων τις Ποντικὸς ἀπὸ τῆς διαδοχῆς Μαρκίωνος τοῦ αἱρεσιάρχου τοῦ Σινωπίτου, “μηνίων καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ αὐτοῦ αἱρέσει καὶ εἰς Ἰουδαισμὸν ἀποκλίνας καὶ περιτμηθεὶς καὶ τὴν τῶν Ἐβραίων
φωνὴν καὶ τὰ αὐτῶν στοιχεῖα παιδευθείς, ἰδίως καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκε: Hieron. ef. ad Augustin.; “hominis Judaei atque blasphemi” ;
1 Dr Taylor, pref. to Fragments of Aquila, p. vii.
Later Greek Versions. 43
praef. in Fob: ‘*Tudaeus Aquila, et Symmachus et Theodotio Judaizantes haeretici”; de virr. zll. 54 ‘‘editiones...Aquilae... Pontici proselyti et Theodotionis Hebionaei”; praef. ad Daniel. : “Theodotionem, qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit, seu quidam dicant Hebionitam qui altero genere Iudaeus 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 Alexan- drian version would naturally be one of respectful considera- tion, 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. fraef. ad evang.); ‘simplicitate sermonis a LXx. interpretibus non discordat” ( praef. in Pss.); ‘“‘Septuaginta et Theodotio...in plurimis locis concordant” (771 Ecc. i.)—such is Jerome’s judgement ; and Epiphanius agrees with this estimate (de mens. et fond. 17: τὰ πλεῖστα τοῖς of" συνᾳδόντως ἐξέδωκεν). 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 /ob)*, and in Daniel, on the other hand, the Midrashic expansions which characterise 1 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.
2. See Field, Hexapla, p. xxxix.; Hatch, Essays, p. 215; Margoliouth, art. ‘Job’ in Smith’s Bzble Dict. (ed. 2).
44 Later Greek Versions.
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’, and that the book of Baruch found place in his version appears from certain notes in the margin of the Syro-Hexaplar*; but there is no evidence that he admitted the non-canonical books in general.
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 /acunae in Jeremiah (Lxx.). The following passage, preserved in the margin of Codex Marchalianus, will serve as a specimen of his style and manner’.
Jeremiah xl. (xxxill.) 14—26.
4 Ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, φησὶ Κύριος, καὶ ἀναστήσω τὸν λόγον μου τὸν ἀγαθὸν ὃν ἐλάλησα ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον ᾿Ιούδα. 5 ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀνατελῶ τῷ Δαυὶδ ἀνατολὴν δικαίαν, ποιῶν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐν τῇ γῇ. “ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις. σωθήσεται ἡ Ιουδαία καὶ ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ κατασκηνώσει πεποιθυῖα" καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα ὃ καλέσει αὐτὴν Κύριος AIKAIOCYNH ἡλλῶν. 17 ὅτι τάδε λέγει Κύριος, Οὐκ ἐξολοθρευθήσεται τῷ Δαυὶδ ἀνὴρ καθήη-
8 Ν A e A - ͵ὔ καὶ τοῖς ἱερεῦσι τοῖς Λευίταις
μενος ἐπὶ θρόνον οἴκου Ἰσραήλ" * οὐκ ἐξολοθρευθήσεται ἀνὴρ ἐκ προσώπου μου, ἀναφέρων ὁλοκαυ- ’ Ἀ , 6 ’ὔ 19 \ > ’ὔ λό ’ ‘
τώματα Kat θύων θυσίαν. καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος Κυρίου πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν λέγων “ Τάδε λέγει Κύριος Εἰ διασκεδάσετε τὴν διαθήκην μου τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ τὴν διαθήκην μου τὴν νύκτα, τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτα ἐν καιρῷ αὐτῶν ™ καίγε ἡ διαθήκη μου διασκεδασθήσεται μετὰ Δαυὶδ τοῦ δούλου μον, τοῦ μὴ
1 Orig. ef. ad Afric. 3.
2 See art. Zheodotion in D. C. B. iv. 978.
3 0. T. in Greek, iii. pp. vii. ff., 320 f.
Later Greek Versions. 45
εἶναι αὐτῷ υἱὸν βασιλεύοντα ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡ πρὸς τοὺς Λευίτας τοὺς ἱερεῖς τοὺς λειτουργοῦντας μοι. “5 ὡς οὐκ ἐξαριθμηθήσεται ἡ δύναμις τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, οὐδὲ ἐκμετρηθήσεται ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, οὕτως πληθυνῶ τὸ σπέρμα Δαυὶδ τοῦ δούλου μου καὶ τοὺς Λευίτας τοὺς λειτουργοῦντάς μοι. 7 καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος Κυρίου πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν λέγων * ἾΑρά γε οὐκ ides τί ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐλάλησαν λέγοντες Αἱ δύο πατριαὶ ἃς ἐξελέξατο Κύριος ἐν αὐταῖς, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀπώσατο αὐτούς ; καὶ τὸν λαόν μου παρώξυναν τοῦ μη εἶναι ἔτι ἔθνος ἐνώπιόν μου. “5 τάδε λέγει Κύριος Εἰ μὴ τὴν διαθήκην μου ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, ἀκριβάσματα οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, οὐκ ἔταξα, “5 καίγε τὸ σπέρμα Ἰακὼβ καὶ Δαυὶδ τοῦ δούλου μου ἀποδοκιμῶ, τοῦ μὴ λαβεῖν ἐκ τοῦ σπέρ- ματος αὐτοῦ ἄρχοντα πρὸς τὸ σπέρμα ᾿Αβραὰμ. καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ: ὅτι ἐπιστρέψω τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν αὐτῶν, καὶ οἰκτειρήσω αὐτούς".
Unfortunately there is no other Greek version which can be compared with Theodotion in this passage, for the Lxx. 15 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.? 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 un- known to the Lxx. (e.g. ἀκριβάσματα =MiPh)*, or a reminiscence of Aquila ; on the other hand Theodotion agrees with the Lxx. against Aquila in translating ΓΞ by διαθήκη. If in one place
1 Another considerable fragment of Theodotion may be found in Jer. xlvi. (xxxix.) 4—13, see Ὁ. 7.22 Greek, p. 534 f.
τ flexapla, prolegg. p. xxxix. ‘* Theodotionis stylus simplex et gravis est.’
3 Cod. A employs ἀκριβασμός 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 Joc.
46 Later Greek Versions.
Theodotion is more obscure than Aquila (τὴν διαθήκην τὴν ἡμέραν...τὴν νύκτα, AQ. τῆς ἡμέρας...τῆς νυκτός), 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 lan- guages. Field gives a list of 90 words which are treated by Theodotion in this way without any apparent cause’. When among these we find such a word as ON (which is represented by 7A 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®. Field’s judge- ment is here sounder than Montfaucon’s; Theodotion is not to be pronounced ixdoctior, or indiligentior, but only ‘“‘scrupulosior quam operis sui instituto fortasse conveniret®.”
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’, announced his intention of using Theodotion’s version of Daniel; and an examination of Origen’s extant works shews that his citations of Daniel ‘“‘asree almost verbatim with the text of Theodotion now current®.” The action of Origen in this matter was generally endorsed by the Church, as we learn from Jerome (fragf. zm Dan.: “‘Danielem prophetam iuxta Lxx. interpretes ecclesiae
Op. cit. p. xl. sq.
1
2 D.C. B. art. Hexapla (iii. p. 22). Cf. 2b. iv. p. 978.
3 Thus in Mal. Δ. c. he was perhaps unwilling to use θεός in connexion with the phrase D2 by.
4 Jerome on Dan. iv.: “ Origenes in nono Stromatum volumine asserit se quae sequuntur ab hoc loco in propheta Daniele non iuxta LXX. inter- pretes...sed iuxta Theodotionis editionem disserere.”
5 Dr Gwynn in D. C. Δ. (iv. p. 974):
Later Greek Versions. 47
non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione”; cf. c. ARufin. 11: 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’, 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 (aed. 11. 8, iil. 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 Mr F. C. Burkitt®, 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 pre- dominates. Irenaeus, notwithstanding his reverence for the Lxx. and distrust of the later versions, cites Daniel after Theodotion’s version®. Further, Theodotion’s Daniel appears to be used by writers anterior to the date usually assigned to this translator. Thus Hermas (vs. iv. 2, 4) has a clear reference to Theo- dotion’s rendering of Dan. vi. 22*. Justin (d¢a/. 31) gives a long extract from Dan. vil. in which characteristic readings from the two versions occur in almost equal proportions’. Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 34) cites a part of the same context,
1 The Chigi MS. known as Cod. 87 (H. P. 88); see Ὁ. 7. 7722 Greek, iii. pp. vi., xii., and cf. the subscription printed 20. p. 574.
* Old Latin and Itala, p. 18 ff.
3 An exception in i. 19. 2 (Dan. xii. g f.) is due to a Marcosian source.
4 See Salmon, /ztr. to the NV. 7.’ p. 639.
> On the trustworthiness of Justin’s text here see Burkitt, of. cz#. p. 25 τ. (against Hatch, Zssays, p. 190).
48 Later Greek Versions.
with a Theodotionic reading (ἐλειτούργουν, LXX. ἐθεράπευον). Barnabas (ef. iv. 5) also refers to Dan. vii., and, though his citation is too loose to be pressed, the words ἐξαναστήσονται ὄπισθεν αὐτῶν are more likely to be a reminiscence of ὀπίσω αὐτῶν ἀναστήσεται (Th.) than of pera τούτους στήσεται (LXX.). The Greek version of Baruch (i. 15—18, 11. 11—19) un- doubtedly 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’. The Apocalypse, which makes frequent use of Daniel, supports Theodotion on the whole; cf. Apoc. ix. 20 (Dan. v. 23), x. 6 (Dan. xil. 7), xil. 7 (Dan. x. 20), xii. 7 (Dan. vill. 21), xix. 6 (Dan. x. 6), xx. 4 (Dan. vii. 9), xx. tr (Dan. ii. 35). Even in the Synoptic Gospels Theodotion’s rendering in Dan. vil. 13 (μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν) occurs as well as the Lxx. ἐπὶ τῶν v.; comp. Mc. xiv. 62 with Mt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64%
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*. 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 ἀπηρείσατο αὐτὰ ἐν TO εἰδωλείῳ αὐτοῦ in τ Esdr. 11. 9 and Dan. i. 2 (Lxx.)
1 Heb. Δ c. ἔφραξαν στόματα λεόντων (Dan. Th., ἐνέφραξεν τὰ στόματα τῶν λεόντων : LXX., σέσωκέ με ἀπὸ τῶν λεόντων).
2 The references are from Dr Salmon’s 7727. p. 548 f. Headds: “1 actually find in the Apocalypse no clear evidence that St John had ever seen the so-called LXX. version.”’
3 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 Schiirer’, iii. p. 324, ‘‘entweder Th. selbst ist alter als die Apostel, oder es hat einen ‘Th.’ vor Th. gegeben.”
4 D.C. 8. art. Theodotion iv. p. 970 ff. Dr Salmon (Zztr. p. 547) is disposed to accept this view.
Later Greek Versions. AQ
has been regarded as an indication that the Greek Esdras and the Chigi Daniel were the work of the same translator’. An obvious objection to the hypothesis of two Septuagintal or Alexandrian versions is the entire disappearance of the version which was used ex hypothest 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?.
to, 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’.
Eus. ΚΓ £. vi. 17 τῶν ye μὴν ἑρμηνευτῶν αὐτῶν δὴ τούτων ἰστέον βιωναῖον τὸν Σύμμαχον γεγονέναι... «καὶ ὑπομνήματα δὲ τοῦ Συμμά- χου εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται ἐ εν οἷς δοκεῖ πρὸς τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἀποτειν ὁ- μενος εὐαγγέλιον τὴν δεδηλωμένην αἵρεσιν κρατύνειν. ταῦτα δὲ ὁ ᾿Ωριγένης μετὰ καὶ ἄλλων εἰς τὰς γραφὰς ἑρμηνειῶν τοῦ Συμμάχου σημαίνει παρὰ Ἰουλιανῆς τινος εἰληφέναι, ἣν καί φησι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ Συμμάχου τὰς βίβλους διαδέξασθαι. Hieron. de virr. tll. 54 *“Theodotionis Hebionaei et Symmachi eiusdem dogmatis” (cf. in Hab. iii. 13) ; prac. 2722 Job: ‘‘Symmachus et Theodotion Iudaizantes haeretici.” Epiph. de mens. e¢ pond. 15 ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Σευήρου χρόνοις Σύμμαχός τις Σαμαρείτης τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς σοφῶν μὴ
τιμηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ οἰκείου ἔθνους... “προσηλυτεύει καὶ περιτέμνεται , ’, ἘΝ δευτέραν περιτομήν..«οὗτος τοίνυν ὁ Σύμμαχος πρὸς διαστροφὴν τῶν
ae, Ὁ ἘΠ τν 0: 977 n.; ci. Hastings’ 2. Z.,.1. p.,761,
2 On the whole question of the date of Ἐπ τῶ see Schiirer, G. 7. V.? iii. 323 f., where the literature of the subject is given.
3 The name DIDDD 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 Sym- machus; see Field, prolegg. ad Hex. p. xxix.
SS. 4
50 Later Greek Versions.
mapa Zapapeiras ἑρμηνειῶν éppnvevoas τὴν τρίτην ἐξέδωκεν ἐρμηνειαν.
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’; the Symmachians, an Ebionite sect probably named after him, are mentioned by Ambrosiaster (comm.in Gal., prolegg.) and Augustine (¢. Faust. xix. 4, ¢. Crescon. i. 36). His floruit is open to some question. Dr Gwynn has shewn’ that Epiphanius, who makes Theodotion follow Sym- machus, probably placed Symmachus in the reign of Verus, i.e. Marcus Aurelius. Now in the Astoria 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)*. The version of Symmachus was in the hands of Origen when he wrote his earliest commentaries, 1.6. about Α.Ὁ. 228°; 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
1 Euseb. 7. ¢.
2 Philastrius, who represents the Symmachzani as holding other views, says (c. 145): ‘‘sunt haeretici alii qui Theodotionis et Symmachi itidem interpretationem diverso modo expositam sequuntur.” See Harnack, Gesch. a. dichr, Tiit., ΤῊ i. Pp. 212.
3D. C. B. iv. p. 971 ff. Σευήρου in de pond. et mens. 16 is on this hypothesis a corruption of Ovjpov. Cf. Lagarde’s Symmcta, ii. p. 168.
4 The Gospel of Peter, which cannot be much later than A.D. 170, and may be fifteen or twenty years earlier, shews some verbal coincidences with Symmachus (Ashmim fragment, pp. xxxiv. 18, 20), but they are not decisive. ° Cf. D. C. B. iv. p. 103.
Later Greek Versions. 51
a verbal rendering: ‘‘non solet verborum κακοζηλίαν sed intel- legentiae ordinem sequi” (zz Am. 111. 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 con- clusion that his purpose was polemical (πρὸς διαστροφὴν τῶν Tapa Σαμαρείταις ἑρμηνειῶν ἑρμηνεύσας). 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 Theo- dotion. The following extracts will serve to illustrate this view of his relation to his predecessors.
MALACHI II. 131.
LXX: AQ. καὶ ταῦτα ἃ ἐμίσουν καὶ τοῦτο δεύτερον ἐποιεῖτε: ἐκαλύπτετε ἐποιεῖτε" ἐκαλύπτετε δάκρυσιν τὸ θυσια- δακρύῳ τὸ θυσια- στήριον Κυρίου καὶ στήριον κλαυθμῷ καὶ στεναγμῷ κλαυθμῷ καὶ οἰμωγῇ, ἐκ κόπων. ἔτι ἄξιον ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι ἐπιβλέψαι εἰς θυσίαν νεῦσαι πρὸς τὸ δῶρον ἢ λαβεῖν δεκτὸν ἐκ καὶ λαβεῖν εὐδοκίαν τῶν χειρῶν ὑμῶν; ἀπὸ χειρὸς ὑμῶν.
‘PH. SYMM. καὶ τοῦτο δεύτερον καὶ ταῦτα δεύτερον ἐποιήσατε: ἐκαλύπτετε ἐποιεῖτε, καλύπτοντες δάκρυσιν τὸ θυσια- ἐν δάκρυσιν τὸ θυσια- στήριον, στήριον, κλαίοντες καὶ στένοντες, κλαίοντες καὶ ,οἰμώσσοντες, ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι προσεγγίζοντα τὸ ὁλοκαύτωμα νεύοντα πρὸς τὸ δῶρον καὶ λαβεῖν τέλειον καὶ δέξασθαι τὸ εὐδοκημένον ἐκ χειρῶν ὑμῶν. ἀπὸ χειρὸς ὑμῶν.
1 The Taga renderings are from Cod. 86 (Cod. Barberinus) : Field, Hexafia, ii. p. 1033.
4—2
52 Later Greek Versions.
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. xvill. 25 ὃ πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἀπαιτῶν δικαιοπραγεῖν, ἀκρίτως μὴ ποιήσῃς τοῦτο; Job XXV1. 14 τί δὲ ψιθύρισμα τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ ἀκούσομεν, ὅπου βροντὴν δυναστείας αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς ἐννοήσει; Ps. xlill. 16 δ ὅλης ἡμέρας ἡ ἀσχημόνησίς μου ἄντικρύς μου, καὶ ὃ καταισχυμμὸς τοῦ προσώπου μου καλύπτει με. Ps. Ixvill. 3 ἐβαπτίσθην εἰς ἀπεράντους καταδύσεις, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν στάσις: εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὰ βάθη τῶν ὑδάτων, καὶ ῥεῖθρον ἐπέκλυσέν με. Eccl. iv. 9 εἰσὶν ἀμείνους δύο ἑνός: ἔχουσιν γὰρ κέρδος ἀγαθόν. Isa. xxix. 4 ὑπὸ γῆν ἐδαφισθήσεται ἡ λαλιά σου, καὶ ἔσται ὡς ἐγγαστρίμυθος ἡ φωνή σου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἡ λαλιά σου ῥοίσεται.
It cannot be said that these renderings approach to excel- lence, 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. pwns, Symm. ἀναιτίως, MYA {!¥, Symm. ὀφθαλμοφανῶς,
32 WIND, Symm. axpoywviatos); he converts into a participle the first of two finite verbs connected by a copula (Exod. v. 7 ἀπερχόμενοι καλαμάσθωσαν, 4 Regn. i. 2 σφαλέντες ἔπεσον) ; he has at his command a large supply of Greek particles (e.g. he renders δ by apa, ὄντως. tows, δι᾿ ὅλου, μόνον, οὕτως, ἀλλ᾽
Later Greek [767 510715, 53
ὅμως). More interesting and important is the tendency which Symmachus manifests to soften the anthropomorphic expres- sions of the Old Testament; e.g. Gen. 1. 27, ἔκτισεν. 6 θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐν εἰκόνι διαφόρῳ" ὄρθιον ὃ θεὸς ἔκτισεν αὐτόν. Exod. xxiv. 10, εἶδον ὁράματι τὸν θεὸν Ἰσραήλ. Jud. ix. 13 τὸν οἶνον... τὴν εὐφροσύνην τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Ps. xhil. 24 ἵνα τί ὡς ὑπνῶν εἶ, Δέσποτα; In these and other instances Sym- -machus seems to shew ἃ knowledge of current Jewish exegesis* 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, Oxkelos u. Akylas, 1896; Lagarde, Clementina, p. 12 ἢ; Krauss, Akylas der Proselyt (Festschrift), 1896; F. Ὁ. Burkitt, Fragments of Aguzla, 1897; C. Taylor, Sayengs of the Sewish "Fathers, 1697, (p>, Vill.) = ΞΟΠ τοι απ θ᾽ 517,1. On. Sym- machus, C. H. ‘Thieme, pro puritate Symmachi AtUSSOrt. 1755 art. in D.C. Ὁ. (J. Gwynn); «τον. Mercati, 2 eta dt Simmaco interprete, 1892. On Theodotion, Credner, Bettrage, 11: p. 253 ff.; απ πὶ aC...) .awynn)s G. Salmon; J777:,,10the LV. ΤΙ Ὁ. 538 ff.; Schiirer’, iii. p. 323 ff. Works which deal with the ancient non-Septuagintal versions in general will be mentioned inc. 111.,) 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 col- lection (see c. ili.) they are known as the Quznta (ε΄), Sexta (ς΄), and Septima (ζ΄) respectively. The following are the chief authorities :
Hus..7../. vi.. 16 τοσαύτη δὲ εἰσήγετο τῷ ᾿Ωριγένει τῶν θείων λόγων ἀπηκριβωμένη ἐξέτασις ὡς...καί τινας ἑτέρας παρὰ τὰς καθη- μαξευμένας. ἑρμην εἰας ΠΧ αὐ σας Ἔ ἐφευρεῖν, ἃς οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅθεν € ἔκ τινων μυχῶν τὸν πάλαι λανθανούσας χρόνον εἰς φῶς ἀνιχνεύσας
1 For other examples see Field, Arolegg, p. xxvi. f.5 D. C. B. iv. p: 10 f. ' * Reading, perhaps, πον ὈΟΥΔῚ odya; cf. Nestle, Margzaliez,
P40 Tl. Eysee D.C. δ. iii. p. 20.
54 Later Greek Versions.
mponyayev...Tivos ἄρ᾽ εἶεν οὐκ εἰδὼς αὐτὸ τοῦτο μόνον ἐπεσημήνατο ὡς ἄρα τὴν μὲν εὕροι ἐν τῇ πρὸς ᾿Ακτίῳ Νικοπόλει... ἐπὶ μιᾶς αὖθις σεσημείωται ὡς ἐν Ἰεριχοῖ εὑρημένης ἐν πίθῳ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους ᾿Αντωνίνου τοῦ υἱοῦ Σεβήρου. Epiph. de mens. et pond. 18 μετὰ τὸν διωγμὸν τοῦ βασιλέως Σευήρου ηὑρέθη ἡ πέμπτη ev πίθοις ἐν Ἰεριχῷ κεκρυμμένη ἐν χρόνοις τοῦ υἱοῦ Σευήρου τοῦ ἐπικληθέντος Καρακάλλου τε καὶ Τέτα...ἐν δὲ τῷ ἑβδόμῳ αὐτοῦ ἔτει ηὑρέθησαν καὶ βίβλοι τῆς πέμπτης ἐκδόσεως ἐν πίθοις ἐν ᾿εριχῷ κεκρυμμένης μετὰ ἄλλων βιβλίων βραικῶν καὶ Ἑλληνικῶν. τὸν δὲ Καράκαλλον διαδέχεται ᾿Αντωνῖνος ἕτερος...μετὰ τοῦτον ἐβασίλευσεν ᾿Αλέξανδρος... ἔτη ιγ΄ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν χρόνων τούτων ηὑρέθη ἕκτη ἔκδοσις, καὶ αὐτὴ ἐν πίθοις κεκρυμμένη, ev Νικοπόλει τῇ πρὸς ᾿Ακτίῳ. Pseudo-Ath. syn. SCY. SACY. 77 πέμπτη ἑρμηνεία ἐστὶν ἡ ἐν πίθοις εὑρεθεῖσα κε- κρυμμένη ἐπὶ ᾿Αντωνίνου βασιλέως τοῦ Καρακάλλα ev “lepiy@ παρά τινος τῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις σπουδαίων. ἕκτη ἐρμηνεία ἐστὶν ἡ ἐν πίθοις εὑρεθεῖσα, καὶ αὕτη κεκρυμμένη, ἐπὶ ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μαμαίας παιδὸς ἐν Νικοπόλει τῇ πρὸς Ακτιον ὑπὸ ᾿Ωριγένους γνωρίμων. Hieron. de virr. zl. 54 “quintam et sextam et septimam edi- tionem, quas etiam nos de eius bibliotheca habemus, miro labore repperit et cum ceteris editionibus conparavit”: 272 ef. ad Tit. “nonnulli vero libri, et maxime hi qui apud Hebraeos versu compositi sunt, tres alias editiones additas habent quam ‘quin- tam’ et ‘sextam’ et ‘septimam’ translationem vocant, auctori- tatem sine nominibus interpretum consecutas.” Cf. zz Had. ii. 11, ill. 13.
It appears from the statement of Eusebius’ that Origen found the Quinta at Nicopolis near Actium, and that either the Sexta or the Seftima was discovered in the reign of Caracalla (a.D. 211—217) at Jericho; while Epiphanius, reversing this order, says that the Quznta was found at Jericho c. A.D. 217, and the Sexta at Nicopolis under Severus Alexander (A.D. 222-—235)”. According to Epiphanius both the Quzzfa and the Sex/a, according to Eusebius the Sexfa only, lay buried in a πίθος (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®. Since
1 Jerome (fol. in Orig. exp. Cant.) confirms Eusebius.
2 The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila identifies Nicopolis with Emmaus Nicopolis in Palestine.
3 D. of Gk and Lat. Ant. p. 1202. These πίθοι are said to have been sometimes used instead of cistae or capsae for preserving books.
Later Greek Versions. 55
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 (τὸν πάλαι AavGavovcas χρόνον). The version found at or near Nicopolis may have been a relic of the early Chris- tianity of Epirus, to which there is an indirect allusion in the Pastoral Epistles'. 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*. Of Seftima 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 A lost ®. | 2 Seal
There is no conclusive evidence to shew that any of these versions covered the whole of the Old Testament*. Renderings from Quin¢a 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. Sex¢a is well represented in the Psalms and in Canticles, and has left indications of its exist- ence in Exodus, 1 Kings, and the Minor Prophets.
With regard to the literary character of Quznta and Sexfa, the style of Quznta is characterised by Field as “ omnium elegantissimus...cum optimis Graecis suae aetatis scriptoribus comparandus.” Sexta also shews some command of Greek,
1 Lightfoot, Azd/ical Essays, Ὁ. 432.
2 Cf. Eus. 77. Z. vi. 7; Spartian. zz Sev. 17.
3 Prolegg. ad Hexapla, p.xl\vi. Ps.-Athanasius strangely calls Lucian the seventh version: ἑβδόμη πάλιν καὶ τελευταία ἑρμηνεία ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Λουκιανοῦ.
* According to Harnack-Preuschen (i. p. 340) the opposite is implied by Eusebius’ use of ἐναλλαττούσας in reference to these versions: ‘‘d. ἢ. die eine war nur fiir diese, die andere nur fiir jene Biicher vorhanden.”
56 Later Greek Versions.
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 ς΄ renders, Εἶδον ἀσεβῆ καὶ ἀναιδῇ ἀντιποιούμενον ἐν σκληρότητι καὶ λέγοντα Hipi ὡς αὐτόχθων περιπατῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ. Jerome’ attributes both versions to ‘ Jewish translators,’ but the Chris- tian origin of Sexfa betrays itself’ at Hab. ili. 13 ἐξῆλθες τοῦ σῶσαι τὸν λαόν σου διὰ Ἰησοῦν τὸν χριστόν Gov’.
The Greek fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries quotes non-Septuagintal renderings from an interpreter who is styled ὁ "EBpaios. Ὃ Σύρος is also cited, frequently as agreeing with ὁ "EBpaios. Nothing is known of these translators (if such they were), but an elaborate discussion of all the facts may be seen in Field*.
13. The ‘Grarcus VENEtTUS. This is a version of the Pentateuch, together with the books of Ruth, Proverbs, Can- ticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Daniel, preserved in St Mark’s Library at Venice in a single MS. of cent. xiv.—xv. (cod. Gr. vii.)®. It was first given to the world by de Villoison (Strassburg, 1784) and (Ὁ. F. Ammon (Erlangen, 1790—1); a new edition with valuable prolegomena by O. von Gebhardt appeared at Leipzig in 1875°. This translation has been . made directly from the M. T., but the author appears to have occasionally availed himself of earlier Greek versions (LXx.,
1 adv. Rujin.
2 «‘Prodens manifestissime sacramentum,”’ as Jerome himself remarks. No doubt the primary reference is to Joshua (Field), but the purport of the gloss is unmistakable.
3 leg, fors. Ἰησοῦ τοῦ χριστοῦ σου.
4 Prolegg. pp. Ixxv.—lxxxii. See also Lagarde, Ueber den Hebraer Ephraims von Edessa. On τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν see Field, p. lxxii. ff, and Nestle, Urtext, p. 206.
5 See Eichhorn, p. 421 ff.; De Wette-Schrader, p. 122 f.
6 Graecus Venetus Pentateuchi &c. versio Graeca. Ex unico biblioth. S. Marci Venetae codice nunc primum uno volumine comprehensam atque
apparatu critico et philologico tnstructam edidit O. G. Praefatus est Fr. Delitzsch.
Later Greek Versions. 57
Aq., Symm., Theod.)?. His chief guide however appears to have been David Kimchi, whose interpretations are closely followed®. That he was a Jew is clear from incidental render- ings (e.g. in Exod. xxiii. 20 he translates D190 τὸν ὀντωτήν sc. 717‘). 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 con- clusion; as a Jew he may have been moved by a desire to place before the dominant Orthodox Church a better render- ing 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 i.
* τεθέανται γοῦν οἱ υἱεῖς τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τοῦ ἀνθρώ- που ὅτι καλαὶ ἐτέλουν, καὶ ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν ὧν εἵλοντο. 3 ἔφη τοίνυν ὃ ὀντωτής Οὐ κρινεῖ πνεῦμα τοὐμὸν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐς αἰῶνα, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἔτι πέρ ἐστι σάρξ: τελέσουσι
> εὖ αἱ, ΕΘ \ Vix 5" ὃ αι ἡμεραι AVTOV EKATOV και εικοσὶν €T7).
Prov. villi. 22 ff.
e2 5 \ 3 , / > ‘\ ε a ε Ν a μὴ 3 A 2 ὃ ὀντωτὴς ἐκτήσατό με ἀρχὴν ὁδοῦ οἱ, TPO τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ > / 3 3 ? 2a ’ 3 \ ΄ > Ν λ ΄ ἐκ τότε. ἀπ᾿ αἰώνος κέχυμαι, απὸ κρατὸς, ato προλήμματος A 3 -“ 4 γῆς. 7 ἐν οὐκ ἀβύσσοις πέπλασμαι, ἐν οὐ πηγαῖς δεδοξασμέ- δά 25 Ν 4 > an ‘ a - Ou Ἢ νων υδάτων'" πρὶν ὄρη ἐμπαγῆναι, πρὸ τῶν βουνῶν ὠδίνημαι :5΄᾽.:) > 3 , a ὃ “ὃ Ν λὴ ΄ a ἄχρις οὐκ ἐποίησε γῆν, διόδους Kal κεφαλὴν κόνεων τῆς οἰκουμένης. Daniel vii. 13. Ay RE 4 3 ε / 3 / Saal ξὺ “- ὁράων ἐκύρησα ἐν ὁράσεσιν εὐφρόνας, αὐτίκα τε ξὺν ταῖς 1 Gebhardt, p. lvii. ff.
2/8, p..\xii. 3’Ovrwrhs, ὀντουργός, οὐσιωτής are his usual renderings of 1111’.
58 Later Greek Versions.
΄ὔ A / ε eS > , 5» , »” 4 νεφέλαις τῶν πόλων ὡς υἱεὺς ἀνθρώπω ἀφικνούμενος ἔην, μέχρι τε τῶ παλαιῶ ταῖς ἁμέραις ἔφθασε κἀνώπιον τήνω προσήγαγόν ε 14 ’ 3 ἐδ 60 3 \ 4 Ν β λ / , Xr \ é. τήνῳ τ᾽ ἐδόθη ἀρχὰ τιμά τε Kat βασιλεία, πάντες τε λαοὶ » Ν aA U ’ ε 5 /, ε 5 ‘ 7a ἔθνεα καὶ γλῶτται τήνῳ λατρευσείοντι: ἃ ἀρχά εὗ ἀρχὰ αἰῶνος
Ὁ > / 7 ’ Ν᾿, > > , Os ov παρελευσείεται, a τε βασιλεία εὗ ἅπερ οὐκ οἰχησείεται.
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 (Azalecta 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 (κατὰ τὴν νῦν κοινὴν τῶν Τραικῶν φωνήν). A version of the Pentateuch into modern Greek in Hebrew characters was printed at Constanti- nople in 1547, forming the left-hand column of a Polyglott (Hebrew, Chaldee, Spanish, Greek). It is described in Wolf, | Bibliotheca Hebraea, 11. p. 355, and more fully in La version lVeo-grecque du Pentateuche Polyglotte...remargues du Dr Lazare Belléli (Paris, 1897). This Greek version has recently been transliterated and published in a separate form with an intro- duction and glossary by D. C. Hesseling (Leide, 1897).
ΘΈΑ ΤΕ
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)'; at eighteen he was already head of the catechetical school of Alexandria®» 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. ΕΞ. vi. 16 τοσαύτη δὲ εἰσήγετο τῷ ᾿Ωριγένει τῶν θείων λόγων ἀπηκριβωμένη ἐξέτασις, ὡς καὶ τὴν ᾿Εβραίδα γλῶτταν ἐκμα- θεῖν τάς τε παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐμφερομένας πρωτοτύπους αὐτοῖς ᾿Ἐβραίων στοιχείοις γραφὰς κτῆμα ἴδιον ποιήσασθαι. Hieron. de virr. wl. 54 “quis autem ignorat quod tantum in scripturis divinis habuerit studii ut etiam Hebraeam linguam contra aetatis gentisque suae naturam edisceret??”
The feat was perhaps without precedent, in the third century, among Christian scholars not of Jewish origin*; in one so
1.Eus. . £. vi. 2.
2 Hieron. de virr. zll. 54.
3 Cf. ep. ad Paulam.
4 See D. C. B. art. Hebrew Learning (11. p. 351 ff.).
60 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.
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’. 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 him- self in his famous letter to Africanus (c. A.D. 240), and more fully in his commentary on St Matthew (c. A.D. 245) *.
Orig. ad Afric. 5: καὶ ταῦτα δέ φημι οὐχὶ ὄκνῳ τοῦ ἐρευνᾷν καὶ τὰς κατὰ Ιουδαίους γραφὰς καὶ πάσας τὰς ἡμετέρας ταῖς ἐκείνων συγκρίνειν καὶ ὁρᾷν τὰς ἐν αὐταῖς διαφοράς, εἰ μὴ φορτικὸν γοῦν εἰπεῖν, ἐπὶ πολὺ τοῦτο (ὅση. δύναμις) πεποιήκαμεν, γυμνάζοντες αὐτῶν τὸν νοῦν ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκδόσεσι καὶ ταῖς διαφοραῖς αὐτῶν. μετὰ τοῦ πόσως μᾶλλον ἀσκεῖν τὴν ἑρμην εἰαν τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα... ἀσκοῦμεν δὲ μὴ ἀγνοεῖν καὶ τὰς παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις, ἵνα πρὸς Ἰουδαίους διαλεγόμενοι μὴ προσφέρωμεν αὐτοῖς τὰ μὴ κείμενα ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγρά- φοις αὐτῶν, καὶ ἵνα συγχρησώμεθα τοῖς φερομένοις παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις, εἰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἡμετέροις οὐ κεῖται βιβλίοις. Lx Matt. xv. 14: τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν, θεοῦ διδόντος, εὕρομεν. ἰάσασθαι, κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκ- δόσεσιν: τῶν γὰρ ἀμφιβαλλομένων παρὰ τοῖς o διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφωνίαν, τὴν κρίσιν ποιησάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων, τὸ συνᾷδον ἐκείναις ἐφυλάξαμεν - καί τινα μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν ἐν τῷ ᾿Εβραικῷ μὴ κείμενα, οὐ τολμῶντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν, τινὰ δὲ μετ᾽ ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν- ἵνα δῆλον ἢ ἦ ὅτι μὴ κείμενα παρὰ τοῖς ο᾽ ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων συμφώνως τῷ ᾿Ἑβραικῷ προσεθή-
τ
καμεν, καὶ ὁ μὲν βουλόμενος προῆται aura: ᾧ δὲ προσκόπτει τὸ
τοιοῦτον, ὃ βούλεται περὶ τῆς παραδοχῆς αὐτῶν ἢ μὴ ποιήσῃ.
* See D. C. B. art. Origenes, iv. p. 129 ff. 2 Cf. Bp Westcott in D. C. 8. iv. p. 99: “1 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 LXxX. in connexion with the other Greek versions.”
The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 61
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 (ἀθετεῖν τὰ ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις φερόμενα ἀντίγραφα καὶ νομοθετῆσαι τῇ ἀδελφότητι ἀποθέσθαι μὲν τὰς παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐπιφερομένας βίβλους, κολακεύειν δὲ ᾿Ιουδαίοις καὶ πείθειν iva μεταδῶσιν ἡμῖν τῶν καθαρῶν). 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 appear- ance of the Hexapla.
62 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recenstons.
HEBREW.
nyinbl mip 205 τον ὃν wy Ὁ onds ny) MOND ΠΝ ΓΥΥΣ IND NYD)
12 by xvi xd yon γι p31 pn aba fey
Ps. xly. (xlvi.) 1—3°.
| HEB. TRANSLITERATED. | | λαμανασσὴ | [λ]αβνηκορ |
ad - αλμωθ Katana λανου ἢ μασε- ουοζ | εἰρ |
βσαρωὼωθ νεμσα pwd
aX + χεν" A@- vipa βααμιρ ααρς ουβαμωτ αριμ βλεβ
tapi
* In the MSS. Aavov | appears in the third column, where it has dis- placed Aquila’s render-
ing.
εὑρέθη *
ἐν τῷ avTa
AQUILA. τῷ νικοποιῷ" τῶν υἱῶν Κύρε > ἈΝ ’ ἐπὶ νεανιοτήτων > dopa. [ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν (2)] > ‘ ‘ / ἐλπὶς Kal κράτος, βοήθεια ἐν θλίψεσιν σφόδρα.
>
’ ἐπὶ τούτῳ
οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα
>
γῆν,
καὶ ἐν τῷ σφάλλεσθαι
a” ὄρη ἐν καρδίᾳ
θαλασσῶν.
* MS. εὑρέθης.
λλάσσεσθαι
1 Cf. Un palimpsesto Ambrosiano det Salmi Esapli (Gior. Mercati) in Atti d. R. Accademia d. Scienze di Torino, 10 Apr. 1896; and E. Kloster-
mann, die Mailinder Fragmente der Hexapla. the Hebrew column.
The MS. does not supply
The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 63
SYMMACHUS.
ἐπινίκιος" τῶν υἱῶν Κόρε «ς ‘ ~ > , ὑπὲρ τῶν αἰωνίων a7 ῳδη. ς A €¢ £6 ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν , ‘3 7 πεποίθησις καὶ ἰσχύς, , βοήθεια ἐν θλίψεσιν
¢ , , εὑρισκόμενος σφόδρα.
διὰ τοῦτο οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα » ~ % r ἐν TO* avyxeicbat γὴν καὶ κλίνεσθαι ” ὄρη ἐν καρδίᾳ
θαλασσῶν.
* MS. ταῖς.
Ps. xlv. (xlvi.) 1—3
LXX. εἰς TO τέλος" | ὑπὲρ τῶν υἱῶν Ἔ Kope ὑπὲρ τῶν κρυφίων ψαλμός.
ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν t κἀταφυγὴ καὶ δύναμις, βοηθὸς ἐν θλίψεσι
΄ ’ ε ΄ UG Tals εὑρούσαις ἡμᾶς |
σφόδρα. διὰ τοῦτο οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα > ~ Ps ἐν τῷ ταράσσεσθαι
τὴν γὴν
καὶ μετατίθεσθαι
ΒΩ ὄρη ἐν καρδίᾳ
| | | θαλασσῶν.
Ι
* With interlinear / variant τοῖς υἱοῖς.
+ MS. τὰ manu ἡμῖν. + With interlinear
!
| τ e , e ~
| variant εὑρεθήσεται ἡμῖν.
THEODOTION.
| ᾿ 4 τῷ νικοποιῷ *:
|
| ~ ~ ,
τοῖς υἱοῖς Kope
| ¢ ‘ ~ /
| ὑπὲρ τῶν κρυφίων
| on™.
ς Retain
| ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν καταφυγὴ καὶ δύναμις, | βοηθὸς
] » ,
| ev θλίψεσιν
| εὑρέθη Ἰ σφόδρα.
]
διὰ τοῦτο οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα > ~ ΄ ἐν τῷ ταράσσεσθαι τὴν γῆν καὶ σαλεύεσθαι »” ὄρη
» , ev καρδίᾳ
θαλασσῶν.
* With marginal variants, εἰς τὸ τέλος, ψαλμός.
+ With interlinear variant ταῖς εὑρούσαις
.] ἡμᾶς. + With interlinear
variant μετατίθεσθαι.
64 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions,
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.
mes. 27, 22. Vi, 163 ταύτας δὲ ἁπάσας [sc. τὰς ἐκδόσεις} ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν συναγαγὼν διελών τε πρὸς κῶλον καὶ ἀντιπαραθεὶς ἀλλήλαις μετὰ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς Ἑβραίων σημειώσεως τὰ τῶν λεγομένων Ἑξαπλῶν ἡμῖν ἀντίγραφα καταλέλοιπεν, ἰδίως τὴν ᾿Ακύλου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος ἔκδοσιν ἅμα τῇ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα ἐ ἐν τοῖς Τετραπλοῖς ἐπι- κατασκευάσας. Hieron. zz ep. ad Tit.: “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 Sym- machus, LXX. quoque et Theodotio suam 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 (ef. 106) and to Augustine (ef. 112) and the preface to the Book of Chronicles, Epiph. de mens. et pond. 7: Tas yap ἐξ ἑρμηνείας καὶ τῆν "EBpatxny γραφὴν fac στοιχείοις Kal ῥήμασιν αὐτοῖς ἐν σελίδιΐ μιᾷ συντεθεικώς, ἄλλην σελίδα ἀντιπαράθετον δι “Ἑλληνικῶν μὲν γραμμάτων ᾿Εβραικῶν δὲ λέξεων πρὸς κατάληψιν τῶν μὴ εἰδότων. ᾿Εβραικὰ στοιχεῖα. «Kal οὕτως τοῖς λεγομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἑξαπλοῖς ἢ ἢ ὀκταπλοῖς τὰς μὲν δύο ᾿Εβραικὰς σελίδας καὶ τὰς ἐξ τῶν ἑρμηνευτῶν ἐκ παραλλήλου ἀντιπαραθεὶς μεγάλην ὠφέλειαν γνώσεως ἔδωκε τοῖς φιλοκάλοις. Ib. 19 τὰς δύο ᾿Εβραικὰς πρώτας κειμένας, μετὰ ταύτας δὲ τὴν τοῦ ᾿Ακύλα τεταγμένην, μεθ᾽ ἣν καὶ τὴν τοῦ Συμμάχου, ἔπειτα τὴν τῶν οβ΄, μεθ᾽ ἃς ἡ τοῦ Θεοδοτίωνος συντέτακται, καὶ ἑξῆς ἡ πέμπτη τε καὶ ἕκτη".
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 κῶλα 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
1 On σελίς, cf. Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palacography, p. 58.
2 See also 26. 18 sq.; Hieron. Praecf. in Paral., and in ep. ad Tit., c. ili.
3 Used here loosely as=xéumara, the κῶλον being properly a line con-
sisting of a complete clause, and of 8—17 syllables: cf. E. M. Thompson, Gk and Lat. Palacography, p. 81 f.; J. R. Harris, Stichometry, p. 23 f.
The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 65
untenable hypothesis that Origen regarded the Lxx. as the standard of accuracy (de mens. et pond. 19: Ὠριγένης πυθό- μενος τὴν τῶν οβ΄ ἔκδοσιν ἀκριβῆ εἶναι μέσην ταύτην συνέθηκεν, ὅπως τὰς ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν ἑρμηνείας διελέγχῃ). 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 κῶλα, 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 open- ing ; and it will be seen that in the Psalms at least not more than two Hebrew words were included in a line, the corre- sponding Greek words being at the most three or four. But the claims of the sense are not neglected ; indeed it will appear upon inspection that the method adopted serves in a remark- able degree to accentuate the successive steps in the movement of the thought.
4. Besides the Hexapla, Origen compiled a Tetrapla, ie. a minor edition from which he omitted the first two columns con- taining the Hebrew text in Hebrew and Greek characters; cf. Kus. ἀφ ἰδίως τὴν ᾿Ακύλου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος ἔκδοσιν ἅμα τῇ TOV ο΄ ἐν τοῖς τετραπλοῖς ἐπικατασκευάσας". Epiph. de mens. et pond. 19 τετραπλᾶ γάρ εἰσι τὰ “Ἑλληνικὰ ὅταν αἱ τοῦ ᾿Ακύλου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ τῶν οβ΄ καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος ἑρμηνεῖαι συντεταγμέναι ὦσι. The Tetrapla is occasionally mentioned along with the Hexa- pla in scholia attached to MSS. of the txx. Thus in the
\"Emcxarackeud few is trsuper vel postea concinnare (Field, prolegg. p. ΧΙ); cf. Dio Cass. l. 23 τὰ σκάφη κατεσκεύασε. ..καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὰ πύργους ἐπε- κατεσκεύασε. Oeconomus (iv. 873), who regards the Tetrapla as the earlier work, understands Eusebius to mean only that Origen added to the LXxx. the three columns containing Α΄ Σ΄ Θ΄.
SS. 5
66 The πε μοι μέ and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.
Syro-Hexaplaric version at the end of ced it is itaee that the Greek codex on which the version was based had the note: ἐγράφη ἐκ Tod ἑξαπλοῦ, ἐξ οὗ καὶ παρετέθη: ἀντεβλήθη δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὸν τετραπλοῦν. Cod. Q still contains two similar references to the Tetrapla (O. 7. in Gree, iil., p. viil., 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. Ixxv. 1, 1xxxvi. 5, Ixxxvill. 43, CXXXl. 4, CXXXV1. I)’. 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 (ΠΩ. E. vi. 16 ἔν ye μὴν τοῖς ἑξαπλοῖς τῶν Ψαλμῶν peta τὰς ἐπισήμους τέσσαρας ἐκδόσεις οὐ μόνον πέμπτην ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕκτην καὶ ἑβδόμην παραθεὶς ἑρμηνείαν). Epiphanius, on the other hand, seems to limit the Hexapla to the six columns (Δ ¢ τῶν τεσσάρων δὲ τούτων σελίδων Tats δυσὶ ταῖς "EBpatxats συναφθεισῶν ἑξαπλᾶ καλεῖται" ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἡ πέμπτη καὶ ἡ ἕκτη ἑρμηνεία συναφθῶσιν...ὀκταπλᾷ καλεῖται. 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. Ixxxvi. 5 we find the following note: MHTHP CIWN’ τὸ Ρ κατὰ προσθήκην ἔκειτο εἰς THY τῶν ο΄ ἐν τῷ τετρασελίδῳ (the Tetrapla), ἐν δὲ τῷ ὀκτασελίδῳ (the Octapla), MH TH CIWN, ἤγουν δίχα tov p. The inference is that the name ‘Octapla’ some- times superseded that of ‘ Hexapla’ in the Psalms, because in the Psalter of the Hexapla there were two additional columns which received the Quénta 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”.
1 Field, Hexapla, ii. ad loc. ; cf. Hieron. iw Psalmos (ed. Morin.), p. 66. 9 It occurs (e.g.) in the Hexaplaric Syriac at 2 Kings xvi. 2.
The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 67
‘Pentapla’ is cited by J. Curterius from cod. Q at Isa. 111. 24, but Field’s suspicion that Curterius had read his MS. incorrectly is confirmed by a reference to the photograph, which exhibits ἐν τῷ TETpaceAiow. Origen’s work, then, existed (as Eusebius implies) in two forms: (1) the Hexapla, which contained, as a rule, six columns,:but sometimes seven or eight, when it was more accurately denominated the 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 3= x, D=k, and Ὁ, ¥, v=o, and that yn» are without equivalent’. The divergences of the vocalisation from that which is repre- sented by the pointing of the M. T. are more important; see Dr Taylor’s remarks in D. C. Z. ii. ἢ. 15 f.
In regard ἴο 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
1 Cf. the practice of Aquila (Burkitt, 7ragments ψ' the Books of Kings acc. to Aquila, p. 14). :
[2
68 The sabi tad and the ae wc and other sisi
iavidiced him that ἀμὸ was iswpesarida bib: ies us suppose that there lay before him an Alexandrian or Palestinian MS., containing the ‘common’ text of the Lxx. (y κοινή, or vulgata editio, as Jerome calls it), 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 extend- ing 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 co- ordination 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 in- spiration (θεοῦ διδόντος εὕρομεν).
Origen began by assuming (1) the purity of the Hebrew text, and (2) the corruption of the κοινή where it departed from the Hebrew*. The problem before him was to restore the LXX. to its original purity, 1.6. 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 disturb- ing 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
1 Ep. ad Sunn. et Fret.
2 See Driver, Samzel, p. xlvi.: ‘‘he assumed that the original Septua- gint was that which agreed most closely with the Hebrew text as he knew it...a step in the wrong direction.”
The io id and the i occas and other Recensions. ΕΞ
ΕΝ In this manner whole sections yieided places in the .ΧΧ. 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 diver- gence of the Greek order from the Hebrew was indicated by certain marks? prefixed to the sticht of the Lxx. column. (2) Corruptions in the κοινή, 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, bya simple adaptation of the Alexandrian Greek form to that which was found in the current Hebrew’. (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 trans- lators*.
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 ᾿Αριστάρχεια σήματα took their name from the prince of Alexandrian grammarians, Aristarchus, who flourished in the reign of Philopator (a.p.
1 A combination of the asterisk and obelus; see below, p. 71.
* E.g. at Exod. vi. τό, Γηρσών was substituted by Origen for Τεδσών. Whether his practice in this respect was uniform has not ~ been definitely seeertaines
᾿ 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, Ιὼβ στίχοι ax’ χωρὶς ἀστερίσκων, μετὰ δὲ τῶν ἀστερίσκων BS’.
70 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recenstons.
222—-205), and they appear to have been first employed in connexion with his great edition of Homer’. 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 azecdoton printed by Gardthausen: ὃ δὲ ὀβελὸς πρὸς τὰ ἀθετούμενα ἐπὶ TOD ποιητοῦ ἤγουν νενοθευμένα ἢ ὑποβεβλημένα" ὃ δὲ ἀστερίσκος...ὡς καλών εἰρημένων τῶν ἐπῶν. Similarly, in connexion with Platonic dicta, Diogenes Laertius (platon. 111.. 657) used the obelus πρὸς τὴν ἀθέτησιν and the asterisk πρὸς τὴν συμφωνίαν τῶν δογμάτων. 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’, 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 mesodelus. When the passage exceeded the length of a single line, the asterisk or obelus was repeated at the beginning of each subse- quent line until the metobelus was reached.
Epiph. ad mens. et pond. 2, ik ἢ ἀστερίσκος...σημαίνει τὸ ἐμφερόμενον ῥῆμα, ἐν τῷ Ἐβραικῷ κεῖσθαι...οἱ δὲ οβ΄ ᾿ἑρμηνευταὶ παρῆκαν καὶ οὐχ ἡρμήνευκαν.. ὀβελὸς δὲ.. παρετίθη.. ταῖς τῆς θείας γραφῆς λέξεσιν ταῖς παρὰ τοῖς οβ΄ ἑρμηνευταῖς κειμέναις, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς περὶ ᾿Ακύλαν καὶ Σύμμαχον μὴ ἐμφερομέναις. Schol. ap. Tisch. not. ed. cod. Sin. Ῥ. γ6 ὅ ὅσοις οἱ ὀβελοὶ πρόσκεινται ῥητοῖς, οὗτοι οὐκ ἔκειντο οὔτε παρὰ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἑρμηνευταῖς οὔτε ἐν τῷ βραικῷ, ἀλλὰ παρὰ μόνοις τοῖς δι: καὶ ὅσοις οἱ ἀστερίσκοι πρόσκεινται ῥητοῖς, οὗτοι ἐν μὲν τῷ ᾿Εβραικῷ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἑρμηνευταῖς ἐφέροντο, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ο΄ οὐκέτι.
1 See a complete list of these in Gardthausen, Griech. Paliographie, p- 288 f.
2 On an exceptional case in which he obelised words which stood in the Hebrew text, see Cornill, Zzekiel, p. 386.
The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions, 71
Occasionally Origen used asterisk and obelus together, as Aristarchus had done, to denote that the order of the Greek was at fault (avecd. ap. Gardthausen: ὁ δὲ ἀστερίσκος μετὰ ὀβελοῦ, Ws ὄντα μὲν τὰ ἔπη τοῦ ποιητοῦ, μὴ καλώς δὲ κείμενα : schol. ap. Tisch. wot. ed. Sin. 1.c. φέρονται μὲν παρὰ τοῖς ο΄, φέρονται δὲ ἐν τῷ Ἑβραικῷ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἑρμηνευταῖς, τὴν θέσιν δὲ μόνην παραλλάσσουσιν οἱ λοιποὶ καὶ τὸ “EBparxov παρὰ τοὺς ο΄- ὅθεν ὠβέλισται ἐν ταὐτῷ καὶ ἠστέρισται, ὡς παρὰ πᾶσι μὲν φερόμενα, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς δὲ τόποις : also ap. mon. sacr. ined. il. Pp. Xvli. τὰ δὲ ἡστερισμένα ἐν ταὐτῷ καὶ ὠβελισμένα ῥητὰ... ὡς παρὰ πᾶσι μὲν φερόμενα, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς δὲ τόποις) 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.
The form of the asterisk, obelus, and metobelus varies slightly. The first consists of the letter x, usually surrounded by four dots (*, the x@ περιεστιγμένον); the form + occurs but seldom, and only, as it seems, in the Syro-Hexaplar. The ὀβελός, ‘spit’ or ‘spear,’ is represented in Epiphanius by \, but in the MSS. of the Lxx. a horizontal straight line (—)’ has taken the place of the original form, with or without occupying dot or dots (+ + +); the form + was known as a /emmniscus, and the form + as a Aypolemniscus. Epiphanius indeed (of. céz., c. 8) fancies that each dot represents a pair of translators, so that the /emniscus 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 Zypolemniscus
1 This sometimes becomes a hook («).
72 The caine a and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.
claims τὰ it the support of only one pair. This explanadneal 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’. The metobelus is usually represented by two dots arranged per- pendicularly (:), 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 (Εὐαγρίου cy., one of the σχύλια εἰς τὰς παροιμίας printed in the (Votztia ed. cod. Sin., Ὁ. 76, from a Patmos MS.; see Robinson, Philocalia, pp. xill., xvil. ff.) : εἰσὶν ὅσα προτεταγμένον “ἔχουσι τὸν ἀριθμὸν Ce ges ᾿Ωριγένην ἐπι- γεγραμμένον ἔχει τούτῳ τῷ μονοσυλλάβῳ, φ.. ὅσα δὲ περὶ διαφωνίας ῥητῶν τινῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ ἐδαφίῳ ἢ ἢ ἐκδόσεών ἐστιν σχόλια, ἅπερ καὶ κάτω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει προτεταγμένην, τῶν ἀντιβεβλη- κότων τὸ βιβλίον ἐστίν: ὅσα δὲ ἀμφιβόλως ἔξω κείμενα ῥητὰ ἔξω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει προτεταγμένην, διὰ τὰ σχόλια προσε- τέθησαν κατ᾽ αὐτὰ τοῦ μεγάλου εἰρηκότος διδασκάλου, ἵ ἵνα μὴ δόξη κατὰ κενοῦ τὸ σχόλιον φέρεσθαι, ἐν πολλοῖς “μὲν τῶν “ἀντιγράφων τῶν ῥητῶν οὕτως ἐχόντων, ἐν τούτῳ δὲ μὴ οὕτως κειμένων ἢ μηδ᾽ ὅλως φερομένων, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο προστεθέντων.
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 1,ΧΧ.) on the other’.
1 Prolegg. p. lix. sq.
2 The vertical bars denote, of course, the length of the lines of Cod. 6. 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.
The ἀὐὐώής and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. ὦ 3
Joshua xi. 1o—14 (Cod. neta
και ἐπεστρεψεν is ev | τω kaipw εκεινὼ «| κατελαβετο Χ' την : αἀσωρ | και τον βασιλεα avrns | Χ' ἀπέκτεινεν εν ρομὶ Χ φαια: nv δὲ ἀσωρ To προΐτερον ἀαρχουσα πασῶ | τῶν βασιλειων τουΐτων και απεκτεινᾷ | παν ἐνπνεον Χ o : ev | αὐτὴ εν στοματι ξιῴους | και
εξωλεθρευσαν : | ---παντας : και ov κατελιίῴθη εν αὐτὴ ἐνπνεῖον Kat THY ασωρ ενείπρῆσεν εν πύυρι και πα͵σας τας πόλεις των | βασιλειων “Χ' τουτῶ : καὶ % παντας : τοὺς βασιΐλεις αὐτων ελαβεν ts | και
ἀνεῖλεν αὐτους | εν στοματι ξιῴφους κὶ εξωλεθρευσεν αὑυτους | ον τροπον.συνεταξε | Μωσῆς o mas KU: adda | πασας τας πολεις Tas | Kexopatiopevas | X αὐτων : οὐκ ever pn|oev Mr πλὴν & την: αἰσωρ μονὴν - αὐτὴν : ἐνεπρῆσεν iS και πᾶτα Ta σκυλα αὐτῆς Χ' καΪ | X ra KTNVN : ἐπρονομευΐσαν εαυτοις οἱ ὕϊοι HA | * κατα To ρημα KU o eve * τείλατο τω W : avrous | Oe mavras eEwdeOpev|cev ev στοματι Erovs | ews atwAecev autos | ov κατιλιπον ; αὐτῶ : | οὐδε ev evrveov * * *
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’. A large part of the labour of tran- scription may have been borne by the copyists who were in constant attendance on the great scholar, but he was doubtless his own διορθωτής, 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: 4, Z. vi. 23 ταχυγράφοι γὰρ αὐτῷ πλείους ἢ ἑπτὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν παρῆσαν ὑπαγορεύοντι, χρόνοις τεταγμένοις ἀλλή- λους ἀμείβοντες, βιβλιογράφοι τε οὐχ ἥττους ἅμα καὶ κόραις ἐπὶ τὸ καλλιγραφεῖν ἠσκημέναις" ὧν ἁπάντων τὴν δέουσαν τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἄφθονον περιουσίαν ὁ ᾿Αμβρόσιος παρεστήσατο. Two of these classes of workers, the βιβλιογράφοι and καλλιγράφοι (cf. Gardt- hausen, Gr. Palacographie, 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
1 See the confused and inexact statement of Epiphanius, de mens. et pond. 18.
74 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.
material on which literary works were written” (Kenyon, Padazo- graphy 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 (ef. 141) that Acacius and Evagrius endea- voured 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”)!. According to Tischendorf (frolegg. in cod. Frid. Aug. § 1) cod. δὲ 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 ἐργοδιώκτης.
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 un- canonical 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; 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 improba- ble 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 de- posited, perhaps by Origen himself, in the library of Pam- philus. There they were studied by Jerome in the fourth century (2 Psalmos comm. ed. Morin., p. 5 : “ἑξαπλοῦς Origenis in Caesariensi bibliotheca relegens” ; 2d. p. 12 : “cum vetustum Origenis hexaplum psalterium revolverem, quod ipsius manu
1 See Birt, das antike Buchwesen, pp. 100, 107 ff.
The edad and the ee and other Recensions. 75
fuerat emendatum”; zz ep. ad Tit.: “nobis curae fuit omnes veteris legis libros quos v. d. Adamantius in Hexapla diges- serat de Caesariensi bibliotheca descriptos ex ipsis authenti- cis 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. 8: ἀντεβλήθη πρὸς παλαιότατον λίαν ἀντίγραφον δεδιορθωμένον χειρὶ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος Παμφίλου: πρὸς δὲ τῷ τέλει τοῦ αὐτοῦ παλαιοτάτου βιβλίου... ὑποσημείωσις τοῦ αὐτοῦ μάρτυρος ὑπέκειτο ἔχουσα οὕτως: ΛλΛετελήμφθη kal λιορθώθη πρὸς τὰ ἐξάπλὰ ᾿Ωριγενοῦο yr ἀὐτοῦ διορθωλένὰ (0. 7: zx 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 Ταὐτὰ MeTeEAH@OH ἀπὸ τῶν KATA τὰς ἐκλόσειο EZATIAGN, KAl λιορθώθη ἀπὸ TON’ Opirenofc αὐτοῦ τετραπλῶν ATINA Kal ayTOY χειρὶ Διόρθωτο Kal ἐοκολιογράφητο (2. iii. p. vill.)*. The library of Pamphilus was in existence in the 6th century, for Montfaucon (dzb0th. Coist. p. 262) quotes from Corst. 2027, a MS. of that century, a colophon which runs: ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Katoapia ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον αὐτοῦ. 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 τί. 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.
1 See also the note at the end of the Scholia on Proverbs printed i in the Notitia l.c.: μετελήφθησαν ἀφ᾽ ὧν εὕρομεν, καὶ πάλιν αὐτὰ χειρὶ Πάμφιλος καὶ Εὐσέβιος διορθώσαντο.
= Hpa"!, Gregory, p. 449, Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 183 f. > See G. A. Smith, Azst. Geogr. of Palestine, p. 143 f.
76 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions,
LITERATURE. Fragments of the Hexapla were printed by Peter Morinus in his notes to the Roman edition of the Septua- gint (1587). Separate collections have since been published by J. Drusius (Vet. cuterpretum Graecorum.. fragmenta collecta...a Fo. Drusio, Arnheim, 1622), Bernard Montfaucon (Ovigenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Paris, 1713), and Ε΄. Field (Oxford, 1875), whose work has superseded all earlier attempts to recover the Hexapla. A fuller list may be seen in Fabricius-Harles, il. 701 ff. Materials for an enlarged edition of Field are already beginning to accumulate; such may be found in Pitra, Anatecta sacra, 111. (Venice, 1883), p. 551 ff.; E. Klostermann, Analecta zur...Hexapla (Leipzig, 1895), ἃ. Morin, Azecdota Maredsolana iii. 1 (Mareds., 1895; cf. Eaposttor, June 1895, p. 424 ff.). Among helps to the study of the Hexapla, besides the introductions already specified, the following may be men- tioned: the Prolegomena in Field’s Hexafla, the art. Hexapla in D.C. B. by Dr C. Taylor; the introduction to Dr Driver’s Notes on Samuel (p. xii. ff.), and Harnack-Preuschen, Gesch. d. altchristt. Litt. i. p. 339 ff. For the literature of the Syro- Hexaplaric version see c. iv.
8. If the Hexapla as a whole was too vast to be copied’, and copies even of particular books were rarely if ever at- tempted, yet there was nothing to forbid the separate publi- cation 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 addi- tions 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? he warns his correspondents “‘aliam esse editionem quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores κοινήν (id est communem) appellant atque vulgatam..., aliam Lxx. interpretum quae in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur..et Ierosoly-
1 Hieron. praef. in Fos.: “ et sumptu et labore maximo indigent.” * Ep. ad Sunn. et Fret. 2.
The TES and the 4. ee wc and other LETS, 77
mae atque in orientis ἘΠῚ tenn The Bee ic text receives his unhesitating support: “ea autem quae habetur in é€a7rAots...ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incor- rupta et immaculata Lxx. interpretum translatio reservatur!.” This edition, sometimes described as τὸ Εὐσεβίου or τὸ TaXa- στιναῖον, or simply ’Op[cyevys], 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 pro- duction of the book. Thus a note quoted by an early hand in cod. δὲ at the end of 2 Esdras says, ᾿Αντωνῖνος ἀντέβαλεν, Πάμφιλος διόρθωσα. The subscription to Esther ends ’Avtw- vivos ὁμολογητὴς ἀντέβαλεν, Πάμφιλος διορθώσατο [τὸ] τεῦχος ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ. The scholion prefixed to Ezekiel in Q introduces the name of Eusebius, assigning him another function: Εὐσέ. Bios ἐγὼ τὰ σχόλια παρέθηκα' Ἰ]άμφιλος καὶ Εὐσέβιος διορθώ- σαντο. [Ιῃ 115 subscription to 1 Kings the Syro-Hexaplar quotes a note which runs: Εὐσέβιος διορθωσάμην ὡς ἀκριβῶς ἠδυνάμην. It would seem as though the work of comparing the copy with the original was committed to the otherwise unknown Anto- ninus, whilst the more responsible task of making corrections was reserved for Pamphilus and Eusebius’. 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 com- pleted 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 com- municate this treasure to the whole Church. It was impos-
1 Adv. Rujin. ii. 27. 2 On ἀντιβάλλειν and διορθοῦσθαι, see Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 55.
78 The Hexapla,and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.
sible 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’. 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 Pro- phets. 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*. 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.
1 Jerome says indeed (ef. ad Aug. ii.): ‘‘quod si feceris (i.e. if you refuse Origen’s recension) omnino ecclesiae bibliothecas damnare cogeris ; vix enim unus vel alter inveniatur liber qui ista non habeat.” But he is drawing a hasty inference from experiences gathered in Palestine.
“ See ¢. v.
The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 79
Hieron. zz praef. ad Paralipp.: “ Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem”; cf. adv. Rufin. ii. where the statement is repeated!, 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 Gelasi?, 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’*. 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®* the martyr Bishop who is mentioned by Eusebius in connexion with Phileas Bishop of Thmuis, Pachymius, and Theodorus (AE. vill. 13 Φιλέας τε καὶ Ἡσύχιος καὶ Παχύμιος καὶ Θεόδωρος τῶν ἀμφὶ τὴν Αἴγυπτον ἐκκλησιῶν ἐπίσκοποι). The four names appear together again in a letter addressed to Meletius (Routh, rell. sacr. ἵν. Ὁ. gt ff.); and Eusebius has preserved a pastoral written by Phileas in prison in view of his approaching martyr- dom (#. £. viii. 10). Phileas was a distinguished scholar (HZ. E. νι]. 9 διαπρέψας... ἐν... τοῖς κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λόγοις, 20. το τῶν ἔξωθεν μαθημάτων ἕνεκα πολλοῦ λόγου ἀξιον...τοῦ ὡς ἀληθῶς φιλοσόφου... μάρτυρος), 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
1 Jerome speaks elsewhere (i Zsa. lviii. rr) of ‘‘exemplaria Alexan- drina.”’
2 Fabricius-Harles, vii. p. 547 (cf. vi. p. 205).
3 This is however mere conjecture ; see Harnack-Preuschen, i. p. 442: ‘“‘dass dieser Hesychius...identisch ist mit dem etwa gleichzeitigen Bibel- kritiker gleichen Namens, ist nicht zu erweisen.”
80 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.
and Antoninus were working under similar conditions at Caesa- rea. It is easy to account for the acceptance of the Hesychian revision at Alexandria and in Egypt generally, if it was pro- duced under such circumstances.
To what extent the Hesychian recension of the Old Testa- ment is still accessible in MSS. and versions of the Lxx. is uncertain. As far back_as 1786 Munter threw out the very natural suggestion that the Egyptian recension 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’ as yielding an Hesychian text in Ezekiel. For the remaining books of the Lxx. we have as yet no published list of MSS. con- taining 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.
to. Meanwhile the rising school of Antioch was not inactive in the field of Biblical revision. An Antiochian recension of the κοινή had in Jerome’s time come to be known by the name of its supposed author, the martyr Lucian’.
Hieron. praef. in Paralipp.: “Constantinopolis usque Antio- chiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat.” Cf. ad Sunn. et Fret. 2 “[ἡ xown]...a plerisque nunc Λουκιανός dicitur.” Ps.-Athan. syn. sacr. script. ἑβδόμη πάλιν καὶ τελευταία ἑρμηνεία ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Λουκιανοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου ἀσκητοῦ καὶ μάρτυρος, ὅστις καὶ αὐτὸς ταῖς προγεγραμμέναις ἐκδόσεσι καὶ τοῖς ᾿Εβραικοῖς ἐντυχὼν καὶ ἐποπ- τεύσας μετ᾽ ἀκριβείας τὰ λείποντα ἢ καὶ περιττὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ῥήματα 1 Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, p. 66 ff.; the Hesychian group in Ezekiel is BSxAupy, i.e. codd. 49, 68, 87, 90, 91, 228, 238 (Parsons). See also Ceriani in Rendiconti (Feb. 18, 1886).
2 Cf. the scholion in cod. M at 3 Regn. iii. 46 ἐντεῦθεν διαφόρως ἔχει τὰ ἀνατολικὰ βιβλία. The Lucianic text was also known as the ἐκκλη- σιαστικὴ ἔκδοσις (Oeconomus, iv. 548).
The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 81
καὶ διορθωσάμενος ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις τῶν γραφῶν τόποις ἐξέδοτο τοῖς χριστιανοῖς ἀδελφοῖς: ἥτις δὴ καὶ ἑρμηνεία μετὰ τὴν ἄθλησιν καὶ μαρτυρίαν τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἁγίου Λουκιανοῦ τὴν γεγονυῖαν ἐπὶ Διοκλητιανοῦ καὶ Μαξιμιανοῦ τῶν τυράννων, ἤγουν τὸ ἰδιόχειρον αὐτοῦ τῆς ἐκδόσεως βιβλίον, εὑρέθη ἐν Νικομηδείᾳ ἐπὶ Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως τοῦ μεγάλου παρὰ ᾿Ιουδαίοις ἐν τοίχῳ πυργίσκῳ περικεχρισμένῳ κονιάματι εἰς διαφύλαξιν (cf. the Acts of Lucian in Bolland. 1. p. 363). Suidass.v. οὗτος Tas ἱερὰς βίβλους θεασάμενος πολὺ τὸ νόθον εἰσδεξαμένας, τοῦ γε χρόνου λυμηναμένου πολλὰ τῶν ἐν αὐταῖς. καὶ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρων εἰς ἕτερα μεταθέσεως. . αὐτὸς ἁπάσας ἀναλαβὼν ἐκ τῆς EBpaidos ἐπανενεώσατο γλώσσης.
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. 1 Z. vii. 29, Hieron. de virr. wt. 71). At Antioch Lucian acquired a great reputation for Biblical learning (Eus. 4. £. ix. 6 rots ἱεροῖς μαθήμασι συγ- κεκροτημένος, Suid. 5... αὐτὴν [sc. τὴν ᾿Εβραίδα yAdooay] ws τὰ μάλιστα ἦν ἠκριβωκώς). From some cause not clearly explained Lucian was under a cloud for several years between A.D. 270 and 299 (Theodoret’, H. £. i. 3 ἀποσυναγωγὸς ἔμεινε τριῶν ἐπισκόπων πολυετοῦς χρόνου. On his restoration to com- munion he was associated with Dorotheus, who was a Hebrew scholar, as well as a student of Greek literature (Eus. 27. 2. vii. 32 φιλόκαλος δ᾽ οὗτος περὶ τὰ θεῖα γράμματα καὶ τῆς Ἔ βραίων ἐπεμελήθη γλώττης, ὡς καὶ αὐταῖς ταῖς ᾿Εβραικαῖς γραφαῖς ἐπιστη- μόνως ἐντυγχάνέιν: ἦν δὲ οὗτος τῶν μάλιστα ἐλευθερίων, προπαι- δείας τε τῆς καθ᾽ Ἕλληνας οὐκ ἀμοιρος). 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?,” the
1 Oeconomus refuses to identify this person with the martyr and saint
(iv. p. 498 n.). 2 Introduction to the N. T. in Greek, p. 138; cf. the Oxford Debate om the Textual Criticism of the N. T., Ῥ. 29.
S. S. 6
82 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.
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 ex- clusive 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 ἑβδόμη ἑρμηνεία, placing it on a level with the Greek versions of the Hexapla. But Jerome’s identification of ‘Lucian’ with the κοινή presents quite another view of its character and one which is probably nearer to the truth. It was doubtless an attempt to revise the κοινῇ in accordance with the principles of criticism which were accepted at Antioch. In the New Testament (to use the words of Dr Hort’) “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’, 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® Field noticed that in an epistle prefixed to the Arabic Syro-Hexaplar*, the marginal letter δ (L) was said
1 [ntroduction, p. 134 f.
2 Cf. F.C. Burkitt, Old Latin and Jtala,. p. 91, ‘‘ Lucian’s recension 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.”
8 Prolegg. Ὁ. \xxxiv. f.
« See'c, v.
The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 83
to indicate Lucianic readings. Turning to the Syro-Hexaplar itself, he found this letter in the margin of 2 Kings (= 4 Regn.) aCe ΙΣ Ὁ 20. Ἀν 24. 25. ΧΙ: T, XXitl./33,.95.)° 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-Nehe- miah 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 Gegardwcodd. 22; 36,)48,-51, 62;' 90} 93; LAA LAT; 252, 2398 as presenting a more or less Lucianic text in the Prophets. Meanwhile, Lagarde had independently’ reached nearly the same result, so far as regards the historical books. He satisfied himself that codd. 19, $2, 93, 108, 118%, had sprung from a common archetype, the text of which was practically identical with that of the Lxx. as quoted by Chrysostom, ie., 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—z 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.
Kai εἶπεν Ἡλίας πρὸς τὸν λαὸν ᾿γὼ ὑπολέλειμμαι προφήτης κυρίου, προφήτης μονώτατος, καὶ οἱ προφῆται τοῦ Βααλ τετρακύσιοι ὙΠ ᾽ ρ \ a A A ~ > ΄ , καὶ πεντήκοντα ἄνδρες, καὶ οἱ προφῆται τῶν ἀλσῶν τετρακύσιοι. ξβϑδότωσαν οὖν ἡμῖν δύο Boas, καὶ ἐκλεξάσθωσαν ἑαυτοῖς τὸν ἕνα καὶ
΄ὕ ΄ “ ΄, μελισάτωσαν καὶ ἐπιθέτωσαν ἐπὶ ξύλα καὶ πῦρ μὴ ἐπιθέτωσαν : καὶ 2 Ν tA \ a) \ 2 \ a > \ 2 θῶ 24 \ ΄σ ἐγὼ ποιήσω τὸν βοῦν τὸν ἄλλον, καὶ πῦρ οὐ μὴ ἐπιθῶ. καὶ βοᾶτε ἐν ὀνόματι θεῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ ἐγὼ ἐπικαλέσομαι ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου τοῦ
1 Cf. his Prolegomena to Librorum V. T. Canon. Pars prior graece (Gotting. 1883), p. xiv. Or, as he denotes them, ὦ, f, γε, d, 2.
6—2
84 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.
θεοῦ μου, καὶ ἔσται 6 θεὸς ὃς ἂν ἐπακούσῃ σήμερον ἐν πυρί, οὗτός ἐστι θεός. καὶ ἀπεκρίθη πᾶς ὁ λαὸς καὶ εἶπεν ᾿Αγαθὸς ὁ ὁ λόγος ὃ ὃν ἐλάλησας. 25 καὶ εἶπεν Ἡλίας. τοῖς προφήταις τῆς αἰσχύνης ᾿Ἐκλέξασθε ἑαυτοῖς τὸν βοῦν τὸν ἕνα, ὅτι ὑμεῖς πολλοί, καὶ ποιήσατε πρῶτοι, καὶ ἐπικα- λεῖσθε ἐ ἐν ὀνόματι θεῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ πῦρ μὴ ἐπιθῆτε. 36 καὶ ἔλαβον τὸν βοῦν καὶ ἐποίησαν, καὶ ἐπεκαλοῦντο ἐν ov όματι τοῦ Βααλ καὶ εἶπον ᾿Ἐπάκουσον ἡμῶν, ὁ Βααλ, ἐπάκουσον ἡμῶν. καὶ οὐκ ἦν φωνὴ καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἀκρόασις. καὶ διέτρεχον ἐπὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου οὗ ἐποίησαν. 27καὶ ἐγένετο μεσημβρία, καὶ ἐμυκτήρισεν αὐτοὺς Ἡλίας ὁ Θεσβίτης καὶ προσέθετο λέγων ᾿Επικαλεῖσθε ἐ ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἅμα, μήποτε ἀδο- λεσχία τις ἔστιν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἅμα μήποτε χρηματίζει αὐτὸς ἢ μήποτε καθεύδει, καὶ ἐξαναστήσεται. ΞΒ καὶ ἐπεκαλοῦντο ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ κατετέμνοντο κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν αὐτῶν ἐν μαχαίραις καὶ ἐν σειρομάσ- ταις ἕως ἐκχύσεως αἵματος ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς.
22 Ἠλειου BA | κυριου] pr του BA | om προφητης 2° BA ᾿ οι προφηται 2°] om οἱ A| του αλσους ΒΑ | om τετρακοσιοι 29 A 23 0m ow BA | om και επιθ. ἐπι ξυλα A | ξυλα] των ξυλων B | τὸν αλλον]}ὔ- και δωσω ἐπι τα Evla A 24 θεων] θεου A | εαν ΒΑ | om σημερον BA | om εστι BA | απεκριθησαν BA | εἰπον Β ear A | ayaos ο λογος ον] καλον To ρημα o BA 25 Ἡλειου BA | βουν] μοσχον ΒΑ | και ποι. πρωτοι ort πολλοι υὑμεις BA | επικαλεσασθε B | θεων] θεου BA 26 ελαβεν A | βουν] μοσχον BA+ov εδωκεν avtois A | Baad 1°|+ex πρωιθεν ews μεσημβριας BA 27 Ἡλειου BA | προσεθετο λεγων] evrev BA | awa] ort θεος ἐστιν BA | μη- ποτε 19] ort BA | τις ἐστιν avtw] avtw εστιν BA | καθεύδει] - αὑτος ΒΑ 28 κατα τον εθισμον αὐτων] om Β κατα το κριμα αὐτων A | μαχαιρα B | om εν 3° 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. Ἠλίας for Ἠλειού, the repeti- tion of προφήτης before μονώτατος, the substitution of τῶν ἀλσῶν for τοῦ ἄλσους, of ἀπεκρίθη for ἀπεκρίθησαν, and of ἀγαθὸς ὁ λόγος for καλὸν τὸ ῥῆμα, and the addition of σήμερον. (2) Others seem to indicate an attempt to get nearer to the Hebrew, e.g. δότωσαν οὖν (5217), βοῦν (1B); or an adherence to an older reading which the Hexaplaric LXx. had set aside, e.g. the omission of ὃν ἔδωκεν avroist and ἐκ πρωίθεν ἕως μησημβρίας. On the other hand Lucian follows the current Hebrew in κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν αὐτῶν, though he substitutes the easier ἐθισμός for Aquila’s κρίμα, which cod. A has taken over from the Hexapla.
Professor Driver, as the result of a wider examination, points out? that the Lucianic recension is distinguished by (1) the sub-
1 A Hexaplaric reading due to Aquila; see Field ad Joc. 2 Notes on the Heb. text of the Books of Samuel, p. 11. f.
The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 85
stitution 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 im- portance for the criticism of the Hebrew Bible.
Lucian suffered martyrdom at Nicomedia under Maximin in the year 311 or 3124. 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 ἑβδόμη (as ‘ Lucian’ is called by the author of the Synopsis) with the same air of romance that belonged to the Quzu¢a and Sex¢a, both of which were found, as he asserts, ἐν πίθοις. 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 Constanti- nople. 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 συλ- λουκιανισταί. Moreover, a revision which emanated from Antioch, the “ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople’,” 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.
11. The result of these multiplied labours of Christian scho- lars 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 Tes- tament in the recension of Lucian, if they lived in North Syria, Asia Minor, or Greece ; in that of Hesychius, if they belonged
1 Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 324. 2 Newman, Avzans, p. 6 f. ; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 31 n. 3 Hort, /utrod. p. 143.
86 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recenstons.
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’”’). 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 κοινή represented by Hesychius or Lucian. Fortunately the task was beyond his strength, and MSS. afd versions still survive which represent more or less fully the three recensions of the fourth century. But the ¢zfaria 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 recensions became dominant and traditional, as in the case of the New Testament? ; among the later MSS. groups may be discerned which answer more or less certainly to this recension 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.
1 Praef. in Paralipp. 2 Cf. Hort, Jntrod. p. 142.
CHAPTER ΤΙΝ
ANCIENT VERSIONS BASED UPON THE SEPTUAGINT.
THE Christian Churches of Greek-speaking countries throughout the Empire read the Old Testament in the Alexan- drian Version. Few of the provinces were wholly non-Hellenic ; Greek was spoken not only in Egypt and Cyrenaica, in West- ern 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’. Official letters addressed to the Roman Church or proceeding from her during the first two centuries were written in Greek ; only four of the Bishops of Rome during the same period bear Latin names}. In Gaul the Greek tongue had spread up the valley of the Rhone from the Greek colony at 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 gnoszs of the age. The Old Testament as known to Clement of Rome and Irenaeus of Lyons is substantially the Greek version of
1 The evidence is collected by Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. d. Tauf-
symbols, iii. 267f., and summarised by Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. li. ff.
88 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
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’; 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.
1 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. &. 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. ]
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 89
Aug. de civ. Det 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 “Tatinorum 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 in- terpretari.” 706. 22: “in ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala ceteris praeferatur.” 222. ii. 82 (ad Hieronymum): “ideo autem desidero interpretationem tuam de LXxX. 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 officious- ness 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 exem- plaria 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’.
Genesis xlvili. 17 ἢ. CYPRIAN, festimonia i. 213. LYONS PENTATEUCH.
7ubi vidit autem loseph quo- niam superposuit pater suus manum dexteram super caput Effraim, grave illi visum est, et adprehendit Ioseph manum pa- tris sui auferre eam a capite Effraim ad caput Manasse. *dixit autem Ioseph ad patrem suum Non sic, pater; hic est primi- tivus meus; superpone dexteram tuam super caput suum.
7videns autem Ioseph quod misisset pater ipsius dexteram suam super caput Ephrem, grave ei visum est, et adprehendit Io- seph manum patris sui ut aufer- ret eam a capite Ephrem super caput Manassis. “dixit autem Ioseph patri suo Non sicut, pater; hic enim primitivus est; impone dextram tuam_ super caput huius.
1 To facilitate comparison obvious errors of the MSS. and orthographical
peculiarities have been removed.
2 On the MSS. of the Zestimonia cf. O. L. Texts, ii. p. 123 ff.
90
LYONS PENTATEUCH.
tet dixit Moyses ad Aron Quid fecit tibi populus hic quia induxisti super eos peccatum magnum? 22et dixit Aron ad Moysen Noli irasci, domine; tu enim scis impetum populihuius. 73dixerunt enim mihi Fac nobis deos qui praeeant nos; nam Moyses hic homo qui eduxit nos de Aegyp-
to, mnescimus quid qactaim) sit .c1. et dixi eis Quicunque
habet aurum demat sibi. et dederunt mihi, et misi illud in ignem, et exiit vitulus.
Exod. xxxil. 2I—24.
WURZBURG FRAGMENTS.
tet dixit Moyses ad Aron Quid fecit populus hic quia in- duxisti super eos pec- catum magnum? *et dixit Aron ad Moysen Noli irasci, domine; tu enim scis impetum populi huius. *dixe- runt enim mihi Fac nobis deos qui praece- dant nos; nam Moy- ses hic homo qui e- duxit nos ex terra Ae- gypti, nescimus quid factum Ost eis: et dixi illis Quicunque habet aurum, demat ; et dempserunt*, et dederunt mihi, et misi illud in ignem, et exiit vitulus.
* cod. demiserunt
Leviticus iv. 27—29.
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
MUNICH FRAGMENTS.
2tet dixit Moyses ad Aron Quid fecit tibi populus hic quo- niam immisisti eis delictum maximum ἢ et dixit Aron ad Moysen Ne irascaris, domine; tu enim scis populi huius impe- tum. *dixerunt enim mihi Fac nobis deos qui praecedant nos; Moyses enim hic homo qui nos eiecit de terra Aegypti, ne- scimus quid acciderit el. *et dixi eis Si qui habet -aurum }2..sseei tollatad me; et dede- runt mihi, et proieci in ignem, et exivit vitulus.
+ hiat cod.
Lyons MS.
775i autem anima deliquerit in- prudenter de populo terrae in faciendo vel unum ex omnibus praeceptis Dei quod non faciet, et neglexerit, “et cognitum ei fuerit delictum in quo deliquit* in eo, et adferett+ primitivum de ovibus feminum immaculatum quod deliquit; *?et imponet ma- num supra caput eius et occident primitivum delicti in loco in quo occidunt holocausta.
+ cod. adfert
*
cod. delinguit
WURZBURG FRAGMENTS.
5751 autem animauna deliquerit invita de populo in terra eo quod fecit unum ab omnibus praecep- tis Domini, quod fieri non debet, et neglexerit, “et cognitum fuerit peccatum eius quod peccavit in ipso, et adferet hedillam de ca- pris feminam sine vitio propter delictum quod deliquit; et su- perponet manum super caput de- licti sui et victimabunt hedillam quae est delicti in loco ubi vic- timabunt holocausta.
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. ΟἹ
Micah v. 2.
CYPRIAN, ¢estimoznia 11. 12.
et tu, Bethleem, domus illius Ephratha, num exigua es ut constituaris in milibus Iuda? ex te mihi procedet ut sit princeps apud Israel, et processiones eius a principio, a diebus saeculi.
WEINGARTEN FRAGMENTS.
et tu, Be[thleem,] domus [ha- bita]tioni[s! Efra]ta, nu[mquid mini{ma es] ut sis [in pode luda? [ex te miJhi pro[diet qui] sit prin[ceps in]- Istra{hel, et eg|ressus ip[sius ab] initi[o, ex diebus] saec{ uli].
Isaiah xxix. II, 18.
CYPRIAN, /estimonia 1. 4.
™et erunt vobis hi omnes ser- mones sicut sermones libri qui signatus est, quem si dederis homini scienti litteras ad legen- dum dicet Non possum legere, signatus est enim..."’sed in illa die audient surdi sermones libri, et qui in tenebris et qui in nebula sunt; oculi caecorum vi- debunt.
WURZBURG PALIMPSEST.
"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, signa- tum est enim...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? 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’* to later revisions of the European text. The classi- fication of the Old Latin authorities for the O. T. is less advanced, and owing to the fragmentary character of most of
1 Burkitt (O. 2. and [tala, p. 93) proposes refectionis.
* Introduction, p. 78 ff. Cf. Westcott, Canon, p. 252 ff.; Wordsworth,
O. L. Biblical Texts, i., p. xxx. ff. > On Augustine’s use of this term see F. C. Burkitt, O. 2. and /tala,
p- 55 ff.
92 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
the MSS. it is more difficult; but we may assume that it will proceed on the same general lines, and that the pre-Hierony- mian types of text in the Old Testament as in the New will be found to be mainly two, ie. the African, and the European, with a possible sub-division of the latter class’. In pursuing this enquiry use must be made not only of the surviving frag- ments 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’, 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 (Bzbliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae... opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier O. S. B., Reims, 1743, ’49, Paris, 1751; vols. i. 11. 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*, and they often need to be supplemented from sources which were not at his command’.
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
1 Cf. Berger, Wistozre de la Vulgate, p. 6; Kennedy, in Hastings’ D. 8. 8 ff.
2 Lntroduction, p. 83.
3 For this purpose the Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Lcclesiasticorum Latinorum is the best collection available ; but it is still far from complete.
4 A revised Sabatier is promised by the Munich Academy (A7chzz, viii. 2, Ὁ. 311 ff.).
on
p-
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 03
the time of Origen. What Mr Burkitt has pointed out’ 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* 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* and Ceriani*. This element is found even in the African text®, 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, Pentateucht e Codice Lugdunenst versio Latina antiguissima, Paris, 1881; Librorum Levitict et Numerorum versio antigua Itala e cod. perantiquo in bibliotheca Ashburnhamienst conservato, London, 1868; Delisle, Découverte Mune tres ancienne verston latine de deux livres de la Bible in the Journal des Savants, Nov. 1895, p. 702 ff.).
1 Rules of Tyconius, p. cxvi. f.
* Histoire dela Vulgate, p.6. Cf. Driver, Samuel, p. Ixxvii. ff.
3 Variae lectiones, ii., p. 426.
4 Monumenta sacra et profana,1.i.,p. xvi.; Le recensioni dei LX X ela versione latina della [tala (Rendiconte, Feb. 18, 1886). See also Driver, Notes on Samuel, p. \xxviii. f.; Kennedy, in Hastings’ D. B., Δ c.; Nestle, Banpilrung?, pp- 148 note, 280; Wordsworth- White, p. 654.
Burkitt, Aedes of Tyconius, p. cxvii.
94 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
Containing Gen. xvi. 9—xvil. 18, xix. 5—29, Xxvi. 33—XxXxill. 15, XXXVll. 7—XxXXvlil. 22, xliil. 36—l. 26; Exod. i. I—vil. 19, xxi. g—36, xxv. 25—-xxvl. 13, xxvil. 6—xl. 32; Leviticus! i. I—xviii. 30, xxv. 16—xxvii. 34; Numbers! ; Deuteronomy?.
Fragmenta Wirceburgensia palimpsesta, ? vi. (E. Ranke, Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgenstum*, Vienna, 1871).
Containing Gen. xxxvi. 2—7, 14—24, xl. 12—20, xli. 4—5; Exod. xxil. 7-28, xxv. 30—xxXVi. 12, xxxil. 15 —33, XXXill. 13—27, XXXV. I13—XXxVl. I, xxxix. 2—xl. 30; Lev. iv. 23—-vi. I, vil. 2, II, 16—17, 22—27, Vill. I—3, 6—13, Xl. 7—Q, 12—I5, 2225, 27— 47, XVii. I4—XVIil. 21, XIX. 31—XxX. 3, XX. 12, 20—-XxXI. 2, xxil. 10--- 29; Deut. xxviii. 42—53, ΧΧΧΙ. 1I—26.
Fragmenta Monacensia, v.—vi. (L. Ziegler, Bruchstiicke einer
vorhieronymianischen Ubersetzung des Pentateuchs, Munich, 1883).
Containing Exod. ix. I5—x. 24, xil. 28—xiv. 4, xvi. IO—xx. 5, XXX1. I5—XXXIll. 7, XXxVi. 13—xl. 32; Lev. 111. 17—1v. 25, xi. 12— ΧΙ]. 6, xiv. 17—xv. 10, xvill. 18—xx. 3; Num. lil. 34—Iv. 8, iv. 31 —v. 8, vii. 37---73, ΧΙ. 20—xil. 14, xxix. 6---χχχ. 3, ΧΧΧΙ. 14—XXXV. 6, χχάνί. 4—13; Deut. viii. 19--Χ. 12, ΧΧΙΪ. 7—xxlll. 4, XXvill. I— 31, Xxx. 16—xxxll. 29.
Lectiones ap. Cod. Ottobonian., viii. (C. Vercellone, variae lecttones, Rome, 1860, 1. p. 183 ff.).
Containing Gen. xxxvil. 27—35, xxxvill. 6—14, xli. I—4, 14— 20, xlvi. 15—20, xlviil. 13, 20—22, xlix. 1I— 32, l. I—25; Exod. x. 13—I4, xi. 7—IO, xvl. 16—36, xvll. I—IO, xxili. 12—30, xxiv. I— 18, xxv. I—37, XXVl. I—27, Xxvll. I—5.
Fragmenta Philonea (F. C. Conybeare, in Exfosttor Iv. iv. D;. 03-11).
Consisting of Gen. xxv. 20—xxviii. 8 in a Latin version of Philo, guaest.
Fragmenta Vindobonensia (J. Belsheim, Palzmpsestus Vindob., 1885).
Containing Gen. xil. 17—-xill. 14, xv. 2—I2.
1 Leviticus and Numbers formed until recently a separate codex, see Robert, p. vi. f.
2 Deut. xi. 4—xxxiv. 12 belongs to the fragment announced by Delisle but not yet published.
3 Belonging to the Library of the University of Wiirzburg.
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 95
11. HISTORICAL BOOKS. Joshua, Judges.
Cod. Lugdunensis (including the new portion announced by Delisle, Découverte &c.).
Ruth.
Cod. Complutensis, ix., Madrid, Univ. Libr. (S. Berger in
Notices et Extratts, 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 (Vindictae, p. cccxli. ff.), from a Vienna MS. in Haupt’s vet. antehteron. vers. fragmenta Vindobonensia, 1877, from an Ein- siedeln MS. in Notices e¢ Extraits xxxiv. 2, p. 127 ff., and from leaves found at Magdeburg and Quedlinburg! printed by W. Schum, 1876, and A. Dining, 1888. A Vienna palimpsest con- taining considerable fragments of 1I—2 Regn. (J. Belsheim, Palimpsestus Vind., 1885). Readings from the margin of Cod. Goth. Legionensis? printed by C. Vercellone, ii. p. 179 ff.; cf. Archiv, viii. 2.
I Esdras.
An O.L. text is to be found in the Paris MS. Bibl. Nat. lat. I11, 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, Vindzezae, 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 Wotices et Extratts, p. 142 ff. Of these texts some were printed by Sabatier, and Munich 6239 is in Belsheim’s Lzbr. Todbztae, &c. (1893).
Esther.
Cod. Pechianus (Sabatier). Cod. Vallicellanus (Bianchini, Vindiciae, p. ccxciv. ff.).
1 See V. Schultze, de Quedlinburger Italo-Miniaturen der k. Bibliothek in Berlin (Munich, 1898).
2 On these see Berger, Hist. de la Vulgate, p. 18 f., and the caution in O. L. and Itala, p. 9 f.
96 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
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 (Bzblioth. Casin. i., 1873), the Milan MS. Amb. E. 26 infr. (see S. Berger of. cét.).
I, 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, of. 222)
iil. POETICAL BOOKS. Psalms.
Cod. Veronensis (in Bianchini).
Cod. Sangermanensis (in Sabatier).
A Reichenau palimpsest described by Mone, /. 2. or. Messen, Pp. 40.
Fragments of the @dai 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 (/Vodzces et Extraits, p. 111 ff.).
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. Readings in a St Gallen MS., see (Votices et Extraits, p. 137 {{
Wisdom, Sirach. See Lagarde, Witthetlungen i. (Gottingen, 1884).
iv. PROPHETS.
Fragmenta Wirceburgensia, vi. (Ὁ) (E. Ranke, Par palimp. Wirceb. p. 49 sqq.).
Containing Hos. i. I—il. 13, iv. 13—Vil. 1; Jon. 111. Io—iv. 11; Isa. xxix. I—xxx. 6, xlv. 20—xlvi. 11; Jer. ΧΙ]. 12—xili. 12, xiv. 15 —xvii. 10, xviii. 16—xxiil. 39, xxxv. I5—19, XXxVi. 2—XxxVIll. II, XXxVili. 23—xl. 5, xli. 1—17; Lam. 11. 16—ili. 40; Ezek. xxiv. 4—21, Χχνὶ. IO—xxvii. 4, χχχῖν. I16—xxxv. 5, XXXvVil. 19—28, XXXVill. 8—z20, xl. 3—xlii. 18, xlv. I—xlvi. 9, xlvilil. 28—35; Dan. i. 2—ii. 9, iii. 15 —(26), vill. 5—ix. 10, x. 3—xl. 4, 20—42, and Bel.
Fragmenta Fuldensia, v. (E. Ranke, Fragm. verstonts ante- Hieronymianae, Marburg, 1856).
Containing Hos. vii. 6—ix. 1, Amos ix. 3—9, Mic. il. 3—ili. 3.
tt 6 ee nti el δα ed
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 07
» Fragmenta Weingartensia, v. (E. Ranke, Fragm. v. ante-fH., Vienna, 1868; P. Corssen, Zwet neue Fragmente d. Weingar- tener Prophetenhandschi 272, Berlin, 1899).
Containing Hos. iv. 13 f., v. 5, 7, vil. 16, vill. I—6, 13 f., ix. 1-17; oh a Pa ga ae ee. ae Oa 3—XIv. 2; Amos v. 24—vIi. 8, viil. IO—ix. I, 5—x. 9; Mic. i. panei 3: 10: 3-νῇ!. 20; Joeli. 1---ἴ 4, li. 3—5, lV. 2—4, 1517; Jon. 1. 124: νι 8; Ezek. xvi. 52—xvil. 6, 19—xvill. 9, XXlv. 25—xxv. 14, XXVl. IO—xxvVil. 7, I17—IQ, XXVill. I—I7, Xxxlli. 7—II, xlil. 5, 6, 14, xliill. 22—xliv. 5, 19—xlv. 2, xlvi. 9—23, xlvii. 2—I5, xlviil. 22—30; Dan. ii. 18—33, ix. 25— x. II, xl. 18—23.
Fragmenta Stutgardiana (E. Ranke, Antiguissima V. T. verstonis Latinae fragmenta, Marburg, 1888).
Containing Amos vil. I—vill. 10; Ezek. xvill. 9—17, xx. 18— 21, XXVil. 7—I7, ΧΧΧΙΪ. 26—30, xxxiv, 6—12; Dan. xi. 35—39.
Fragmenta monast. 5. Pauli Carinthiaci (A. Vogel, Beztrage zur Herstellung der A. L. Bibeliibersetzung, 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 conversta palimpsesto Vaticano eruta, Helsing- fors, 1881).
Containing Hosea iv. 6, 7; Joel ii. 5—7; Amos v. 16—18, vil. 2—7, ix. 5—8; Jon. iil. 7—iv. 2; Hab. i. 16—11. 3; Zeph. iii. 13—20; Zech. vii. I1I—14, viii. 16—21.
Fragmenta palimpsesta Sangallensia (F. C. Burkitt, O. Z. and Itala, Camb. 1896).
Containing Jer. xvil. IO—17, xxix. 13—19. Codex Vallicellanus B. vii. (Bianchini, Vzndzciae, 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 Lzder de divinis scripturis sive Specu- Zum, wrongly attributed to St Augustine (ed. F. Weihrich in the Vienna Corus, vol. xil.). Two other patristic collections of Ὁ. L. excerpts may also be mentioned here—the Testzmonia of St Cyprian (ed. Hartel, Corpus, vol. iii. 1), and the “ber regu- larum Tyconi (ed. F. Gs Burkitt, in Texts and Studies, 111. 1). See also the Col/atio Carthaginiensis printed in Dupin’s SET:
(Paris, 1700), p. 379 ff. SoS. Z
98 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
(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'” upon the Old Testa- ment 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 (t 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 posi- tum 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...renas- centes spinas eradicem.....notet sibi unusquisque vel iacentem lineam vel signa radiantia, id est vel obelos (+) vel asteriscos (X ) 5 et ubicunque viderit virgulam praecedentem (+), ab ea usque ad duo puncta (:) quae impressimus, sciat in LXxX. translatoribus: plus haberi; ubi autem stellae (ὃς) 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’, the former in the cursus psallendi, the latter in the
1 Aug. ep. 82 (ad Hieronymum): “hi qui me invidere putant utilibus
laboribus tuis.”
2 Cf. adv. Rujfin. ii. 30 “ psalterium...certe emendatissimum iuxta LXX. interpretes nostro labore dudum Roma suscepit”’; where, as Westcott says. (Smith’s D. BZ. iii. 1698 7.), he seems to include both revisions.
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 99
bibliotheca or Church Bible. At length Pius V. (fT 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’. In MSS. of the Vulgate a triple Psalter not infrequently appears, shewing Jerome’s two Septuagintal revisions side by side with the Psa/- terium Hebraicum, his later translation from the Hebrew; but the ‘ Hebrew’ Psalter never succeeded in displacing the Hiero- nymian 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 Hezry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth’; 1.6. it is on the whole a version of the ‘Gallican’ Psalter which had passed through Tindale and Coverdale into Cranmer’s Bible (1540). The following specimen (Ps. lxvii.=Ixvili. 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’ Psalter.
ROMAN.
τῷ Dominus dabitver- bum evangelizantibus virtute multa; “rex virtutum dilecti,et spe- ciei domus dividere spolia. 1451 dormiatis in medios cleros, pen- nae columbae dear- gentatae, et posteriora dorsi eius in specie auri. [dzapsalma),..... *currus Deidecem mi- lium multiplex, milia laetantium. Dominus
GALLICAN,
15 Dominus dabit ver- bum evangelizantibus virtute multa; ‘rex virtutum ὃς dilecti: et speciei domus divi- dere spolia. 1:51 dor- miatis inter medios cleros pennae colum- bae deargentatae et posteriora ¥ dorsieius in pallore auri. da- PsALMA. 1.00000" CUITUS Dei decem milibus multiplex, milia lae-
HEBREW.
15 Domine, dabis ser- monem adnuntiatri- cibus fortitudinis plu- rimae, “reges exerci- tuum foederabuntur, foederabuntur et pul- critudo domus dividet spolia. **si dormieritis inter medios termi- nos, pennae columbae deargentatae et pos- teriora eius in virore AUG δον ὁ *currus Dei innumerabiles, milia
1 Martene, de ant. rit. i. p. 18 f.
Dee
100 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
ROMAN.
in illis in Sina in sancto. *ascendens in altum captivam duxit captivitatem, dedit dona hominibus. et- enim non credunt in- habitare. * Dominus Deus benedictus ; be- nedictus Dominus de die in diem. prospe- rum iter faciet nobis Deus salutaris noster. diapsalma. ™ Deus noster deus salvos fa- ciendi, et Domini exi- tus mortis. *verum- tamen Deus conquas- sabit capita inimico- rum suorum, verticem capilli perambulan- tium in delictis suis.
GALLICAN.
tantium : Dominus in eis *® in : Sina in sancto. 9 ascendisti in altum: cepisti cap- tivitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus. etenim non credentes inhabitare Dominum Deum. * benedictus Dominus die quoti- die; prosperum iter faciet nobis Deus sa- lutarium nostrorum. diapsalma. ** Deus noster, Deus salvos+ faciendi: et Domini * Domini: exitus mortis. ??verumtamen Deus confringet capi- ta inimicorum suo- rum, verticem capilli
HEBREW.
abundantium; Domi- nus in els in Sina, in sancto. *ascendisti in excelsum, captivam duxisti captivitatem, accepisti dona in ho- minibus; insuper et non credentes habi- tare Dominum Deum. °>benedictus Domi- nus per singulos dies ; portabit nos Deus salutis nostrae. sem- per. **Deus noster deus salutis,et Domini Dei mortis egressus. *verumtamen Deus confringet capita ini- micorum suorum, ver- ticem crinis ambulan- tis in delictis suis.
+perambulantium 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’. 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 cor- rected and supplemented from the Hexaplaric Lxx. The result gave him for the time profound satisfaction ; he had lifted up Job from the dunghill’, and restored him to his pristine state® ;
1 Burkitt, O. 2. and tala, pp. 8, 32 f.
2 Praef. in libr. Fob: ‘qui adhuc apud Latinos iacebat in stercore et vermibus scatebat errorum.”
3 762d. ‘‘integrum immaculatumque gaudete.”’
ΡΥ ΨΥ Ὑ νιν νιν νυ» ἡ» ν».“νν.΄«ὦἀὰ» νιν» τσ» ΜΌΝ
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 101
the difference between the Old Latin version and the new seemed to him to be nothing short of that which separates falsehood from truth’. The asterisks shewed that from 700 to 800 lines had been restored to this long mutilated book’.
A few brief specimens from Lagarde’s text? 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 X; at illi in perpetuum despexerunt me; cum surrexero, locuntur ad me.
xlii. 7 et defunctus est Job senex plenus dierum. + scriptum est atitem 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 transla- tion 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. auc- toritati reddidi, vel antepositis lineis (+) superflua quaeque
1 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”).
* Praef. in Fob ed. Heb. See below, pt 1., c. ii.
3 In Milthetlungen, ii.
ΙΟ2 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
designans, vel stellis (%*) titulo(?) praenotatis ea quae minus habebantur interserens...et ubi praepostero ordine atque per- verso sententiarum fuerat lumen ereptum suis locis restituens feci intellegi quod latebat.” Praef. in libr. Paralipomenon: “cum a me nuper litteris flagitassetis ut vobis librum Paralipo- menon 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 LXxX. 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 com- plete, 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?” £7. 71 (ad Lucintum): “LXX. editionem et te habere non dubito.” 452. 106 (ad Sunn. et Fret.): “editionem LXX. interpretum quae et in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus repe- ritur et a nobis in Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est.” Cf. Ep. Augustint ad Hieron. (116), (c. 405): ‘“‘mittas obsecro inter- pretationem tuam de LXxX. 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” (Σ 2. 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,
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 103
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’.”
The coexistence of the two versions naturally produced mixture in the MSS.*, 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 Safpzentia Salomonis inscribitur et in Ecclesiastico...calamo temperavi, tantummodo canonicas scrip- turas vobis emendare desiderans.” The books of Tobit and Judith® 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 consider- able 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, L£zz/eztung, i. 321; N. Wiseman, Zssays, 1. (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. Z. iii.; H. Rénsch,
Itala τι. Vulgata (Marburg, 1869); F. Kaulen, Handbuch zur Vulgata (Mainz, 1870); Ziegler, Dze lat. Bibeliibersetzungen vor
1 Praef. ad Moralia in Fob.
2 Cf. e.g. Berger, of. cit. p. xi.: ‘les textes des anciennes versions et de la nouvelle sont constamment mélés et enchevétrés dans les manuscrits.”
3 On the relation of Jerome’s Latin Judith to the Septuagint see Ὁ. J. Ball in Speaker’s Commentary, Apocrypha, p. 257 ff.
104 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
Hieronymus (Munich, 1879); Lagarde, Probe einer neuen Ausgabe
der lat. Ubersetzungen des A. T. (1870); A. Ceriani, Le recenstont det LXX e la versione latina della Itala, 1886; L. Salembier, Une page inédite de [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, Zhe Old Latin and the Itala, in Texts and Studies (Cambridge, 1896); E. Nestle, Urtext, pp. 84 ff. [specially valuable for the bibliography of the Latin versions]; H. A. A. Kennedy, Zhe Old Latin Versions, in Hastings’ D. ZB. iil. pp. 47—62.
2. THE EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
The tradition of St Mark’s episcopate at Alexandria’ 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?, 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 en- countered native Egyptians who spoke dialects of the Egyptian tongue*. 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 eccle- siastics of Egypt. Christianity however is probably responsible for either introducing or spreading the use of a new system of
1 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 ᾿Αλεξ- avdpeds...ds ἦν κατηχημένος ἐν TH πατρίδι τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου, on which Blass (Acta app. p. 201) remarks: ‘‘itaque iam tum (id quod sine testi- monio suspicandum erat) in Aegyptum quoque nova religio permanaverat.”
2 Acts ii. g f. of κατοικοῦντες... Αἴγυπτον. 70. vi. ο τινὲς ἐκ τῆς συναγω-
γῆς τῆς λεγομένης... Αλεξανδρέων. 3 Cf. what is said of St Anthony in the Vita Antoniz (Migne, P. GC.
XXxVi. 944 56:).
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 105
writing with characters which are chiefly of Greek origin’. This writing, known as Coptic—a corruption of Αἰγύπτιος---ἰ5 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’) 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 Egyp- tian 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 argu- ment applies equally to the Old. His view is on the whole supported by Dr Hort*, Ciasca*, and Mr A. Ὁ. Headlam’: 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®.” _ The plurality of the Egyptian versions is well ascertained. Perhaps the geographical form of Egypt gave special oppor- tunities 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’.
1 Of the 31 letters of the Coptic alphabet 7 only (uj, “1, S, 9, 5, S, t) are not from the Greek. On the pre-Christian systems see Clem. strom. v. 4 οἱ map Αἰγυπτίοις παιδευόμενοι πρῶτον μὲν πάντων...ἐκμανθάνουσι τὴν ἐπιστολογραφικὴν καλουμένην (the Demotic), δευτέραν δὲ τὴν ἱερατικὴν... ὑστάτην δὲ καὶ τελευταίαν τὴν ἱερογλυφικήν.
2 Scrivener- Miller, ii. p. 97. ᾿
3 Intr. to N. T. in Greek, p. 85.
4 Sacr. bibl. fragmenta Copto-Sahidica, i. p. viii.
> Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 105 f.
§ Hastings, D. 8. i. p. 672. 7 The Demotic, as it is known to us, appears to present no dialectic
106 Axcient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
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’, 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’; in Bohairic he enumerates 6 MSS. of the Penta- teuch, 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
variation, perhaps because the specimens which have reached us were all the work of the single class—the scribes: see Hyvernat, Etude sur les versions Coptes in Revue Biblique, v. 3, Ῥ. 429; A. C. Headlam in Scrivener-Miller, p. 105.
1 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 e/-Bohairvah, a district S. of Alexandria. ‘Sahidic,’ also called Thebaic, is from es-sa‘td= Upper Egypt. On some characteristics of the several dialects see Hyvernat, p. 431.
2 Cf. Steindorff, Die Apokalypse des Elias, p. 2.
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 107
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. Ὁ. Wilkins, Quingue libri Moysts, 1731; La- garde, Der Pentateuch hoptisch, 1867; Bruchstiicke der kopt.
Ubersetzungen 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, Gottingen, 1875, F. Rossi, Cimgue manoscrittt &c., 1894; Job by H. Tattam, 1846; the Prophets by Tattam (Prophetae minores, 1836, Proph. matores, 1852).
SAHIDIC. Lagarde, Aegyftiaca, 1883; Ciasca, Sacr. 6261. Jragm. Coptosahidica Muset Borgtant, 1885—9; Amélineau, Fragments coptes in Recuetl v. (1884), and Fragments de la version thébaine, ib. vii.—x. (1886—g) ; the same scholar has edited Job in Proceedings of the Soc. of Bibl. Arch., 1887; O. v. Lemm, Bruchstiicke, 1885, Sahidische Bibelfragmente, 1890; Krall, Mit- thetlungen, 1887; F. Rossi, Papiri Copiz, 1889, Un nuovo codice, 1893; Maspéro, Fragments de Ancien Testament in Mémotres publiés par les membres de la mission arch. francaise au Caire, vi., 1892; E. A. Budge, The earliest known Coptic Psalter, 1898 ; N. Peters, Dze sahidisch-koptische Ubersetzung a. Buches Eccle- Stasticus...untersucht, 1898.
MIDDLE EGYPTIAN, &c. Tuki, Rudimenta linguae Cofptae, 1778; Quatremére, Recherches sur la langue et la littérature de Egypte, 1808; Zoega, Catal. codd. Copt., 1810; Engelbreth, fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica V. et N. T., 1811; Von Lemm, Mittelagyptische Fragmente, 1885; Krall, MWitthetlungen, 1887 ; Bouriant in M/émotres de [Institut égyptien 11., 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
108 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
to be of much importance for the criticism of the text of the Lxx. Ceriani’ 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 har- mony with the text which is quoted by Cyril of Alexandria. A German scholar’, 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* as Hesychian (22, 23, 26, 36, 49, 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, those which belong to the book of Job yield a pre-Origenic text’, whilst the Sahidic 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®, and much remains to be done before these versions can be securely used in the work of recon- structing the text of the Greek Old Testament ®. LITERATURE, Quatremére, Recherches ; Zoega, Catalogus ; L. Stern, Koftische Grammatik, 1880; Kopten, Koptische Sprache u. Litteratur, 1886; Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 91 ff.
(Jj. B. Lightfoot and A. C. Headlam); Gregory, Jrolegg., p. 859; J.P. P. Matin, 2, ‘partie theor, .p. 350 ts
H. Hyvernat, Etude sur les versions coptes de la Bible in Revue bibligue, Vv. 3, 4, vi. 1; E. Nestle, Urtext, Ὁ, 144 ff.
1 See O. 7. in Greek, iii. p. ix.
2 A. Schulte in 7heol. Quartalschrift, 1894-5; see Hyvernat, p. 69.
8 Ezechiel, p. 66 ff.
4 Cf. Hatch, Zssays, p. 215 ff.; Dillmann, Zextkritisches zum Buche Zjob, p- 43 Burkitt, O. 2. and tala, p. 8; Kenyon, Our Bible and the ancient MSS., p. 751.
5 Hyvernat, p. 71.
9; See the remarks of Εν, Robinson in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, 1. O75.
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 109
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’, 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 conse- cration at Alexandria, create an @ priori probability that any early translations from the Old Testament into Ethiopic were based upon the Septuagint, whether immediately or through the Coptic versions.
This conclusion is on the whole supported by the character of the version. The Ethiopic Bible presents phenomena which are not easily reconciled with the hypothesis of a Greek origin. These appear, however, to be limited to a certain group of MSS. Dillmann, who at one time had explained the numerous transliterations and other approaches to the Hebrew 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—cor- rected by other MSS. of the Lxx.; (3) those in which the original version has been revised from the Hebrew’. Lagarde suggested that the existing Ethiopic version was translated. from the Arabic, as late as the fourteenth century, and main- tained 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
1 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.
2 Nestle, Urtext, p. 148. Loisy, Aistotre critique, 1. 11. p. 231-
110 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
the reconstruction of the Septuagint’. The latter statement is possibly not far from the truth, but there appears to be no sufficient reason for doubting the influence of the Greek Bible’.
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), Rodiger (1815), Dorn (1825), and Jeremiah, Lamentations and Malachi by Bachmann (1893); Bachmann also edited the Dodecapro- pheton, and part of Isaiah.
Lists of the MSS. may be seen in Wright, Ethzopic MSS. of the British Museum (London, 1878); Zotenberg, Catalogue des MSS. éthiopiens de la Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris, 1877); D’Abbadie, Catalogue raisonné de MSS. éthiopiens (Paris, 1859) ; Dillmann, Catalogus MSS. Aethiop. tn Bibliotheca Bodletana (Oxford, 1848), and Adessinische Handschr. d. k. Biblioth. zu Berlin; Miller, Aethiop. Handschr. der k. Hofbtblioth. in Wien (ZDMG. xvi. p. 554). For fuller information as to this Version see Εἰ, Pratorius, 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.—z2 Regn. xii. 17, Nehemiah 1.—ix. 27, and Job from the Peshitta; the Septuagint has supplied the basis for
1 Ankiindigung einer neuen Ausgabe der gr. Ubersetzung d. A. T., p. 283
cf. Materialen, i. p. iil. ι ' 2 Charles, 4. σι: “1 is unquestionable that our version was made in the
main from the Greek.”
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 111
the other poetical books and for the Prophets’. 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 Pro- verbia arabice, GOttingen, 1876)”.
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. 8. i. Ὁ: 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, of. czz.
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 Stnattica, 111. (London, 1894), Catalogue of Arabic MSS. at Sinai (codd. 1—67). Cf. Hyvernat, op. czz.
LITERATURE. Schnurrer, Aibliotheca Arabica, 1780; H.E. G. Paulus, Bodletana specimina verstonum Pent. Arab., 1789; Eichhorn, Zzulectung, ὃ 275 ff.; R. Holmes, Praef. ad Pent.; Rodiger, De origine et indole Arab. libr. V. T. interpretationis (Halle, 1829). Among more recent works reference may be made to Cornill, /zechzel, Ὁ. 49f.; Loisy, Azst. cr7z. I. 11.:p. 238 ; Fritzsche-Nestle in Urtext, p. 150 ff.; F. C. Burkitt, art. Arabic Versions, in Hastings’ D. &. i. p. 136 ff.; H. Hyvernat, of. 622
5. THE SyRIAC VERSIONS.
According to Moses bar-Cephas (t 913), there are two Syriac versions of the Old Testament—the Peshitta, translated
1 Loisy, Ast. crit., I. ii. p. 239. Mrj Burkitt in Hastings’ D. BZ. (i. p. 137) writes ‘‘J(udges), S(amuel), K(ings), and Ch(ronicles), are all from the Peshitta.”
* Lagarde gives for the Psalter four texts, viz. those published at Rome (1614), Paris (1645), Ruzhayya (1612), Aleppo (1706); for Job, besides the versions mentioned in the text, that of the Paris Polyglott.
112 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
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: ἡρμήνευται δὲ ταῦτα εἰς μὲν τὴν τῶν Σύρων παρ᾽ ὅτου δήποτε, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔγνωσται μέχρι τῆς τήμερον ὅστις ποτὲ οὗτός ἐστιν. 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*.” 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 *.”
(2) The Syriac version ascribed to Paul, Bishop of Tella- dhe-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
1 Migne, P. G., Ixvi. 241; cf. 2b. 252 f., 263, 466 ff., 492 ff. 2 Nestle in Urtext, p. 230; cf. Bleek-Wellhausen, pp. 558—560. 3 Gwynn, D. C. B., iv. p. 434.
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 113
the translation of the entire Greek Bible into Syriac, the New Testament having been undertaken by Thomas, while Paul worked upon the Old’.
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® 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 Rordam in 1861, and Genesis and Exodus (i.—xxxili. 2) by Ceriani (AZon. sacr. et prof. 11.}, who has also given to the world the Milan fragments in JZon. vol. vil.
The Hexapla, Tetrapla, and occasionally the Heptapla, are
' Gwynn, Paulus Tellensts and Thomas Harklensis, in D.C. B., iv. pp- 266 ff., τοις ff.
2 Viz., parts of Genesis and Joshua, half of Numbers, nearly the whole of Judges, Ruth, and 3 Kingdoms, and Exodus complete.
Sy FS 8
114 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
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 trans- lators. The version is servile to such an extent as sometimes to violate the Syriac idiom’. 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 re- cension 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.
(2) Fragments of a Syriac version in the Palestinian dialect have been printed by Land, Axecdota Syriaca, iv. (Leyden, 1875), J. R. Harris, Biblical Fragments from Mt Sinat (London, 1890), G. H. Gwilliam, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, I. v., ix. (Oxford, 1893—6), D. S. Margoliouth, Liturgy of the Nile (London, 1897), and Mrs Lewis, Studia Sinaitica, vi. (London, 1897). This version has been made from the Lxx.; in the Books of Kings the text appears to
1 Field, Prolegg. in Hex., p. |xix., where many instances are produced.
2 The fragments in Studia Stnattica are accompanied by critical notes,
the work of Dr Nestle, in which they are carefully compared with the Greek text (pp. xl.—lxxiv.).
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 115
be Lucianic (Anecd. Oxon. ix. p. 32); In the Greater Prophets, it is in part at least Origenic (Studia Sinattica, pp. xvi., 1xiii.) ; Job seems to have contained the interpolations from Theodotion which are found in the extant Greek texts of that book’.
The following is a complete list of the Palestinian fragments included in the publications mentioned above : Gen. 1, I—ill. 24, Vi. Q—ix. 19, Xvill. I—5, 18—xix. 30, ΧΧΙΪ. I—19; Ex. viii. 22>— xl. IO, xxvill. I—12; Num. iv. 46 f., 49—v. 2f., 4, 6,8; Deut. vi. 4 —16, vil. 25-26%, x. 12—xi. 28, xii. 23—xiv. 3; 2 Regn. 11. 1g—22; 3 Regn. ii. 10°—15, ix. 4—5?; Pss. vill. 2f., xxi. 2, 19, xxii. I, 5, ἘΣ tt ΕΧΥΣ 2, A. Xxx, 2. OMXKIV. I, Ely XENI, 2.18, XE SOR 7, xlili. 12—27, xliv.—xlvi., xlviii. 15 ff., xlix. 1—9, liv. 2, 22, lv. 7 ff, Ivi. I—7, Ixiv. 2, 6, Ixviii. 2, 3, 22, Ixxvi. 2, 21, Ixxvii. 52—65, Ixxxi., Ixxxii. I—10, Ixxxiv. 2, 8, Ixxxv. 1, 15 f., Ixxxvil.. 2, 5—7, ce wake. Ὑ ΧΟ 2, xevil. I, Of, Cl. 2 ἔτ Prov. 1. 1-10, ix. I—II; Job xvi. I—xvii. 16, xxl. I—34, xxli. 3—12; Sap. ix. S—II, 14—x. 2; Amos ix. 5—14%, vill. 9—12; Mic. v. 2—5; Joel i. 14—1ii. 27, iii. g—21; Jonah; Zech. ix. 9—15, xi. 11>—14; Isa. iii. g>—15, vii. 10—16, viii. 8—xi. 16, ΧΙ]. I—6, xiv. 28—32, XV. I—5, xxv. I—3%, xxxv. I—I0, xl. I—17, xlil. 5—10, 17—xlili. 21, xliv. 2—7, 1. 4—9, lil. 13--[111. 12, ΙΧ. I—22, [ΧΙ]. I—11, Ixiii. I—7; Jer. xi. 18—202.
(4) Mention is made® 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* mentions a Philoxenian ‘edition’ of Isaiah,
1 Cf. Burkitt in Anecd. Oxon., Semitic ser., 1. ix. p. 44, and cf. Nestle’s notes to Studia Sinaitica, vi.
* See Studia Sin., vi. p. xiv. f.
Bickell, Conspectus rei Syr. lit., p..g; cf. Ebedjesu in Assemani, iii. 71.
* Field, Hexafla, ii. p. 448.
8—z2
[16 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
to which two fragments printed by Ceriani’ 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.’, and the fragments of the other Greek translations. Some books of this revised version exist in MS. at London and Paris*, and a few specimens have been printed?*.
(4) From Melito downwards the Greek fathers refer occasionally to the Greek renderings of an interpreter who is called 6 Σύρος. 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®.
EDITIONS. PESHITTA. Lee, V. 7: Syrvzace (London, 1823); O. and N. T., 1826. A complete Syriac Bible has recently been published by the Dominicans of Mosul (()1887—91, ©) 1888—g2).
SYRO-HEXAPLAR. A. Masius, /osuae-historia tllustrata (1574); M. Norberg, Codex Syriaco-Hexaplaris (1787); C. Bugati, Danzel (1788), Psalmz (1820); H. Middledorpf, cod. Syrohexapl., lib. IV. Reg. e cod. Paris. Iesaias &c. e cod. Mediol. (1835): Skat Rordam, /z6r¢ [udicum et Ruth sec. Syro- hexapl. (1861); P. de Lagarde, V. 7. ab Origene recensiti frag- menta ap. Syros servata v, (1880), and V. 7. Graect in sermonem Syrorum verst fragm. vit. (in his last work Bzbliothecae Syriacae ...guae ad philologiam sacram pertinent, 1892). Ceriani has published the contents of the London MS. in Monumenta sacra
1 Mon. sacr. et prof. v.; cf. Gwynn in D. C. 8. iv. p. 433.
2 Gwynn, D. C. B. iii.
3; Regn. i. r—3 Regn. ii. 11, and Isaiah are in the London MSS. Ix., Ixi. (Wright, Catalogue, p. 37ff.), and the Pentateuch and Daniel are preserved at Paris.
4 See Ladvocat, Fournal des savants, for 1765; Eichhorn, Bibliothek, ii. p. 270; De Sacy, WVotzces et extrazts, iv. p. 648 ff.; Ceriani, Mon. sacr. et prof. V. 1. I.
: 5 On the other hand see Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 7, note; and Bleek-
Wellhausen (1893), Ρ- 560.
|
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 117
et profana, ii.,and those of the Milan MS. in vol. vu. (1874) of the same series}.
LITERATURE. 6. Bickell, Consfectus ret Syrorum literartae (1871); Field, Hexapla, τ. p. Ixvii. sqq. (1875); W. Wright, Syzzac literature in Encycl. Britannica, xxii. (1887); E. Nestle, Lz¢ttera- tura Syriaca (1888), and Urtext (1897), p. 227 ff.; Scrivener- Miller, ii. p. 6 ff.; Gregory, p. 807 ff.; J. P. P. Martin, /troduc- tion (p. théor.), p. 97 ff.; Loisy, Histoire critique 1. il. p. 234 f.
6. THE GOTHIC VERSION.
About the year 350 a translation of the Bible into the Gothic tongue was made by Ulfilas (Wulfila)*, 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. Zoc. cit.: μετέ- φρασεν eis τὴν αὐτῶν φωνὴν τὰς γραφὰς ἁπάσας πλήν ye δὴ τῶν Βασιλειῶν ἅτε τῶν μὲν πολέμων ἱστορίαν ἐχουσῶν, τοῦδε ἔθνους ὄντος φιλοπολέμου). Unfortunately only a few scanty frag- ments of the Gothic Old Testament have been preserved, i.e., some words from Gen. v. 3—30, Ps. 111. 2—3, 2 Esdr. xv. 13— 16, xXVi. 14—xvil. 3, Xvll. 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 (Udflas: V. et Δ. Testamentt...frag- menta, Lipsiae, 1843) and in Migne /.Z. xviii.; a more recent edition is that of Massmann (U/filas: die hetligen Schriften alten u. neuen Bundes tn gothischer Sprache...Stuttgart, 1895—7).
1 For the Apocryphal books see Lagarde, Lzbrz V. 7. apocr. Syrtace,
and Bensly-Barnes, Zhe fourth book of Maccabees in Syriac (Camb., 1895). ΦΘΌΟΟΙ ΠΤ ν 52, Lneodoret iv: 5.7. hhilostorg.! 11315.
118 Anczent Versions based upon the Septuagint.
Lagarde (Librorum V. T: canonicorum pars t., 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, Beitrdge zur Quellenkritik d. gothischen Bibel- libersetzung (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. (‘“‘Con- stantinopolis 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’ 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” * 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*. On the other hand the existing Armenian version
1 So F. C. Conybeare (Hastings, i. p. 152). In Scrivener-Miller, ii. p- 151, he suggests that the earlier books had been rendered previously.
7 On this see Conybeare, Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 153.
3 See Dr Salmon in D. Ὁ. B., iii. p. go8.
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 110
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’.” But, as Lagarde has pointed out’, 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’.
The order of the books of the O.T. in Armenian MSS., as given by Conybeare‘ (Octateuch, 1—4 Regn., 1—2 Paralipp., 1 and 2 Esdr., Esther, Judith, Tobit, 1—3 Macc., Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, Job’, 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®, 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 Cony- beare it is a MS. of the last century.
EDITIONS. Venice (Psalter), 1565; Amsterdam, 1666; Con- stantinople, 1705; Venice, 1805 (the first edition which is of any critical value, by J. Zohrab); Venice, 1859—60 (by the Mechitar- ist fathers of San Lazzaro).
LITERATURE ΚΕ. Holmes, Praef. ad Pent.; Ἐς C. Conybeare in Scrivener-Miller, ii. 148 ff. and in Hastings’ D. B., δε;
1 Conybeare, of. cit., p. 151 f. He attributes the composite character of the Armenian text (of which he gives instances) to Hexaplaric influences.
2 Genesis Gr., p. 18.
3 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.”
5, OP.. Chlag' Dx 052; fe
5 In some MSS. Job precedes the Psalter.
© See Part II. c. 1.
120 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.
H. Hyvernat, in Vigouroux’ D. B.; C. R. Gregory, Prolegg. p. 012 ff.; J. P. P. Martin, /ztrod. (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 move- ment 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.—vill. is preserved at the monas- tery 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, w#ber Georgianische Litteratur (Vienna, 1798); A. A. Tsagarelli, 42 account of the monuments of Georgian Literature [in Russian], St Petersburg, 1886—94; A. Khakhanow, Les 77.5.5. Georgiens de la Bibliotheque Nationale ἃ 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
Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 121
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’.” 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, 1879).
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 Ubersetzung der griech. Text der Lucianischen (Antiochenisch-Konstantinopolita- nischen) 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., and the article in Ch. Quarterly Review cited above.
1 The Russian Bible, in Ch. Quart. Review, xii. 81 (Oct. 1895), 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 (1.—xIIL., 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!. 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
1 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.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 123
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 (4 m 2 2 for the Lucianie MSS. 82, 93, 118, 441, whilst Cornill with a similar object substituted the small letters of the Greek alphabet for the Arabic numerals?. Uniformity in this matter can scarcely be expected until the cursive codices have been thoroughly ex- amined and catalogued; meanwhile it is sufficient to call atten- tion 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=8, 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 par- ticular book (as Genesis, or the Psalms, with or without the liturgical wdac), or a particular group of books such as the Pen- tateuch (7 mevtdtevxos*) or the Octateuch (7 ὀκτάτευχος = Gen. —Ruth), the Historical Books (1 Regn.—2 Esdr., Esth., Judith, Tobit), the three or five books ascribed to Solomon, the Minor Prophets (τὸ δωδεκαπρόφητον), the Major Prophets (οἱ τέσσαρες), or the Prophets complete (τὸ ἑκκαιδεκαπρόφητον). Larger com- binations 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 distri- bution 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
Shite. V. T.1taus, pars.2., p; ve sq.
2 Exzechiel, p. 19 ff.
3 Cf. Orig. 22 Joann, t. xiii. 26, Epiph. de mens. et pond. 4. Penta- teuchus occurs in Tertullian adv. Marc. i. το.
124 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
idea of the proportion in which the MSs. of the Lxx. were dis- tributed 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. Uncrat 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 ν London II B Vaticanus iv Rome ς Ephraemi v__‘ Paris I D Cottonianus ν London E Bodleianus ix—x Oxford VII F Ambrosianus ν Milan IV+V G Sarravianus v Leyden, »:Paris))) St Petersburg H Petropolitanus vi St Petersburg MEI b=13; ἢ Bodleianus ix Oxford K Lipsiensis vil Leipzig VI L Vindobonensis v—vi Vienna x M Coislinianus vii Paris XI N Basilianus vlii—ix Rome Vcr Gr Dublinensis vi Dublin XII [9) Marchalianus vi Rome R Veronensis vl Verona S=8 Sinaiticus iv Leipzig, St Petersburg 262 νὴ Turicensis vii Zurich 6 Londinensis vii London 23 ν Venetus viii—ix Venice 43 W Parisiensis ero k Ones 258 Χ Vaticanus ix Rome hg Taurinensis ie © Pore Z4-¢ Fragmenta Tischendorfiana ΤῸ Cryptoferratensis vili—ix A Bodleianus iv—v Oxford II Petropolitanus viii—ix St Petersburg 1 For IX=P see under Cursive MSS. (H.-P. 294).
Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 125
(A) Complete Bibles.
A (III). Copex ALEXANDRINUS. British Museum, Royal I. D. v.—vui.
A MS. of the O. and N. Testaments, with lacunae. The O.T. is defective in the following places: Gen. xiv. 14—17, xv. I—5, 16—19, xvi. 6—g (leaf torn across and the lower portion lost); 1 Regn. xil. 20—xiv. 9 (leaf missing); Ps. xlix. 19—Ixxix. 10 (nine leaves missing). Slighter defects, due to the tearing of leaves, occur in Gen. i. 20—25, 29—11. 3; Lev. viii. 6, 7, 16; Side, 21.22, 11,
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—z2 Chronicles; vol. 11. Hosea—4 Maccabees; vol. iii. Psalms—Siracht. 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 ψαλμὸς ἰδιόγραφος (cli.) and the liturgical canticles, is preceded by the Epistle of Athanasius to Marcellinus, the ὑποθέσεις of Eusebius, a table, and the canons of the Morning and Evening Psalms. The books of vol. ili. are written στιχηρῶς.
The covers of the volumes bear the arms of Charles I. The codex had been sent to James I. by Cyril Lucar, patriarch suc- cessively 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. 1.: “ Liber iste
..prout ego traditione habebam, est scriptus manu Theclae nobilis faeminae Aegy ptiae ante MCCC annos circiter, paulo post concilium Nicaenum.” But, apart from palaeographical con- siderations”, 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 poly- glott of 1657 (facsimile of Ps. τ, Gale, 1678 (Psalter); and the MS. was used by Grabe as the basis of his great edition
1 For the order of the books see Part 11. c. 1. 2 As to these see Kenyon, Our Bzble and the Ancient MSS., Ὁ. 129.
[26 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
of the LXx. (1707—1720!). 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 valu- able 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 diffi- cult 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*.” 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®.” 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 apo- strophe 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
eesti
OYNOC, AdA, IHA, IAHM, TINA, and k, Δ, ὃ, N,, T, (καί, μου, σου, -vat,-Ta). There are numerous and lengthy erasures, over which a corrector has written the text which he preferred. The earliest corrector (A!) was contemporary with the scribe or nearly so; the second corrector (A#) may have lived a century later; a third and still later hand (A>) 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). Coprx 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 πόλιν eis γῆν Ῥαμεσσή). Through the tearing of fol. 178 2 Regn. il. 5—7, 10—13, has also disappeared, and the loss of
1 See c. vi. 2 Prolegg. i. p. 358. % E. Maunde Thompson, Cod. Alex. i. p. 8 ff. bid.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 127
10 leaves after fol. 348 involves a /acuna which extends from Ps. cv. (cvi.) 27 to Ps. cxxxvii. (cxxxvili.) 6», 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'; reference is made to this MS. in letters addressed by the librarian of the Vatican to Erasmus in 1521 and 15332, 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 Biblio- theque Nationale (ZS. 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 antigut- tate codicis Vaticanz (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, Nei- ther 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 pub- lishing 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 fac- simile 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.3
1 This has been proved by Nestle (Academy, May 30, 1891) against Batiffol (Za Vaticane de Paul 7221. ἃ Paul V., Paris, 18go, p. 82. Cf. Nestle, Septuagintastudien, 11. p. 11, note i.
* La Vaticane de Paul 7772. ἃ Paul V. (Paris, 1890). Gregory, Prolegg. p. 361.
3 On this work see Nestle, Sep‘uagintast. iii. p. 13 ff.
128 Manuscripts of the Septuagint. |
The codex is written on the finest vellum in a singularly beautiful hand! which “may be attributed to the fourth century,” and probably to the middle of the century*, and bears a resem- blance to the hand which is found in papyri of the best Roman ~ period’. 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 pro- ject 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!), we may mention an early corrector denoted as B4, and a late zzstaurator, who has gone over the whole text, spoiling its original beauty, and preserving oftentimes the correc- tions of B? rather than the original text.
C. CopExX EPHRAEMI SYRI RESCRIPTUS PARISIENSIS. Bibliothéque Nationale, Gr. 9 (formerly Reg. 1905, Colbert.
3769).
A folio consisting at present of 209 leaves, of which 64 con- tain portions of the O. T. The fragments are as follows : Prov. @ ie vonra—il. 8, XV. 29 κρείσσων ---ΧΥΊ!. I, XVlil. II 7 O€ b0fa—xix. | 23, Xxil. 17 Thy δὲ σήν---ΧΧΊ]]. 25, ΧΧΙν. 22 ΩΣ Ὁ ἄβρωτα---"6 ἡ γῆ, XXVi. 23 χείλη Aeta—xXXVlii. 2, xxix. 48—end of book; Eccl. i. ματαιύτης-- 14. ll. 18 ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον---ΕηἋ of book; Cant. 1. 3—iii. ἢ Σαλωμών ; Job ii. 12 ῥήξαντες .---ἶν. 12 ἐν λόγοις gov, V. 27 σὺ δὲ γνῶθι---νἹῖ. Task . 9—Xil. 2 ἄνθρωποι, xiii. 18 οἶδα eyo—xViil. 9 παγίδες, xix. 27) a6 op@ahpos—xxil. 14 νεφέλη, XXIV. a γυμνοὺς πολλούς- ΧΧΧ. I ἐν μέρει, ΧΧΧΙ. 6---χχχν. 15 ὀργὴν αὐτοῦ, ΧΧΧΥΊΪ. 5 —XxXvili. 17 θανάτου, xl. 20 περιθήσεις---Εηἀ of book; Sap. vill. 5 epyatopevos—Xil. IO τύπον μετανοίας, xiv. I9—xvil. 18 εὐμελής, XVlll. 24 ἐπὶ yap—end of book; Sir. prol. I—vii. 14 πρεσβυτέρων, Vill. 15 αὐτὸς γάρ---ΧΊ. 17 εὐσεβέσιν, ΧΙΙ. 16 καὶ ἐάν---χν]. I ἀχρή- orev, XVil. I2—xx. 5 σοφός, ΧΧΙ. 12---ΧΧΙΪ. 19, XXVil. IQ—xxviil. 25 σταθμόν, XxX. 8—XXXXIV. 22 οὐ μή σοι, XXX. 25—xxXxXi. 6, ΧΧΧΊΪ. 22 καὶ ὁ KUplos—XXXiIll. 13 Ἰακώβ, XXXVIl, II—XxXxvVilli. 15, SEXES, {|Ξ--- —xliv. 27 ἀφικώμεθα, xlv. 24 ἵνα ait@—xlvil. 23 “PoBodp, xlvili. 11I—xlix. 12 Ἰησοῦς vids. The distribution of the leaves is Proverbs 6, Eccle- siastes 8, Cant. 1, Job 19, Wisdom 7, Sirach 23.
; . ; P
1 Specimens are given in Sir E. Maunde Thompson’s Greek and Latin Paleography, p. 150; and F. G. Kenyon’s Our Bible &c., p. 136; E. Nestle, Linfiithrung*, Tafel 4.
2 Sir E. M. Thompson, af. czt. p. 159; WH., Intr. p. 75.
3 F. G. Kenyon, Paleography of Greek papyrt, Ρ' Ὡς See A. Rahlf, Alter τ. Heimath der Vat. Bibelhandschrift, in N. G. W., 1899, i. p. 72 ff.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 129
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!. 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*. 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 atten- tion to it in his Palaeographia Graeca, and gave a specimen from the fragments of the N. T. (p. 213 f.). ~The O.T. frag- ments were partly examined by Wetstein and Thilo’, but were not given to the world until in 1845 Tischendorf, who had pub- lished the N.T. portion in 1843, completed his task by printing ἘΠΕ ΓΚ x. text.
This once noble MS. was written in single columns from 4o to 46 lines in length, each line containing about 40 letters*. 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, A, B, K, =, X, ®) 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. Neverthe- less Tischendorf regarded the two hands as contemporary, and believed the codex to have been originally one. A seventh cen- tury 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?.
S=. Copex Sinaiticus. Leipzig and St Petersburg.
The remains of this great uncial Bible contain the following portions of the O. T.: Gen. xxiii. 19 αὕτη---χχὶν. 4 πορεύσῃ, xxiv.
1 On palimpsest MSS. see Sir E. M. Thompson, Greek and Latin Paleography, p. 75 ff.
2 For a list of these see Omont, /zventaire sommaire des manuscrits Eaecs,. Ὁ. 2.
9. Tischendorf, Cod. Ephraemi rescriptus, prolegg. p. 9.
4 See a photographic facsimile in Fucsimilés des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibl. Nat. (A. Omont, Paris, 1892).
> See Tischendorf, of. cit., prolegg. p. 5.
S315. 9
[30 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
5 εἰς τὴν γῆν---ὃ, 9 ῥήματος---Ἰ4 καμήλους, 17 καὶ eimev—IQ ἕως ἄν, 25 αὐτῷ---27 τήν, 30 ἄνθρωπον---33 λαλῆσαι, 36 αὐτῷ (15)---41 ἐκ τῆς, 41 ὁρκισμοῦ---46 ἀφ᾽; Num. ν. 26 αὐτῆς---30 ποιήσει, vi. 5 ἅγιος---ὁ τετελευτηκυίᾳ, 11 κεφαλήν ---Τ2 αἱ (2°), 17 kav@—18 μαρτυ- ρίου, 22, 23, 27 Κύριος, vil. 4 M@vonv—5 Λευείταις, 12 Ναασσών--- [3 ἕν, 15 ἕνα (2°)—20 θυμιάματος, I Par. ix. 27 τὸ mpwi—xix. 17, 2 Esdr. ix. 9 Kuptos—end of book; Esther; Tobit; Judith; Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zecha- riah, Malachi; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lam. i. I—ii. 20; 1 and 4 Mac- cabees.
The forty-three leaves containing 1 Par. xi, 22—xix. 17, 2 Esdras ix. 9—end, Esther, Tobit i. I—ii. 2, Jer. x. 25—end, and Lam. i. I—ii. 20 were found by Tischendorf in a waste- paper 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! (Leipzig, 1846); to these in Jon. sacr. tned., 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 Zonumenta (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 leaves 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 Bzbliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, containing a facsimile of the St Petersburg portion of the Sinaitic MS. Lastly in 1867 Tisch- endorf completed his task by printing in his Appendix Codicum certain fragments of Genesis and Numbers which had been dis- covered by the Archimandrite Porfirius in the bindings of other Sinai MSS.?
This great Bible was written on leaves which originally measured 15 x 134 inches, and were gathered, with two excep- tions, 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®; 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 some- what square, written without break, except when an apostrophe or a single point intervenes; a breathing Zrzma manu has been
1 So called in honour of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony.
2 Cf. Tischendorf’s remarks in Zztt. C.-Blatt, 1867 (27).
3 ‘* 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. 1243 cf. Scrivener-Miller, p. 95.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint. ΤΌ
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 Chro- nicles, 1 Macc., and the last 44 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, whois 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 2, Sea, Ne-b, Nee Nd. The first symbol covers the work of the diorthotes and other nearly contemporary correctors ; Nea, cb, ee are three seventh century hands, of which the last appears chiefly in the Book of Job, whilst the later 8¢ has occu- pied 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 N** with three crosses and the note μέχρι τούτου [τοῦ] σημείου τῶν τριῶν σταυρῶν ἐστιν τὸ τέλος τῶν ἑπτὰ φύλλων τῶν περισσῶν καὶ μὴ ὄντων τοῦ Ἔσδρα. Five of these leaves remain, and the two which preceded them probably contained 1 Chron. vi. 50—ix. 275 (H. St J. Thackeray in Hastings’ D.B., i. p. 762). Westcott (Bzdle zn 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!, Whether 1 Esdras formed a part of cod. δὲ is uncertain, the heading Ἔσδρας β΄ does not prove this, since cod. δὲ con- tains 4 Maccabees under the heading Μακκαβαίων 6’ although it aie did not give the second and third books (Thackeray, BZ).
No uniform edition or photographic reproduction of this most important MS. has yet appeared®. The student is still under the necessity of extracting the text of δὲ 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.
N (XI). Coprex BasiLiaANo-VaTicanus. Vatican Library, Gr. 2106, formerly Basil. 1453.
1 Another explanation (suggested by Dr Gwynn) is given by Dr Lupton in Wace’s Apocrypha, 1., p. 2.
2 A facsimile of 2 Esdr. xviii. 15—xix. 15 may be seen in Stade, Gesch. a. Volkes Israel, ii. p. 192.
3 Cf. Wetstein, V. 7. i. p. 133; Lagarde, Septuagintastudien, p. 48.
0-2
132 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
V (23). CoDEX VENETUS. St Mark’s Library, Venice, cod, Gr. 1°.
Dr E. Klostermann (Axzalecta, 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. τό, 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. to—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., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag., Zech., Mal.), Isa., Jer., Bar., Lam., Ezek., Daniel, Tobit, Judith, 1—4 Macc.
The Venice folio measures 164x113 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*. 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?; the Venice book was once the property of Cardinal Bes- sarion, by whom it was presented to St Mark’s#.
The handwriting of N and V is in the sloping uncials of cent. vilii—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.
(B) Octateuch and Historical Books.
D (I). Coprex Cotronianus. British Museum, Cotton MSS., Otho B. vi. 5—6.
A collection of fragments, the largest of which measures no more than 7x54 inches, containing portions of the Book of Genesis with vestiges,of pictures executed in a semi-classical style.
1 Cf. Deutsche Lit.-Zeit. 1897, p. 1475 f. * Klostermann, p. 9. 3 Holmes, Praef. ad Pentateuch. i 4 It was the eighth of Bessarion’s MSS.; see Schott in Eichhorn’s
Repert., viii. 181.
i es
Manuscripts of the Septuagint. ΠῚ
No other uncial codex of the Lxx., of which any portion remains, has suffered so lamentable a fate. Brought to England from Philippi! in the reign of Henry VIII. by two Orthodox Bishops?, 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; 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 (A/on. 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 Religuiae 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 (vol. i. 1747), where two plates are given depicting some of the miniatures, together with por- tions of the text of fragments which have since disappeared.
Lastly, among the Peiresc papers in the Bibliothéque Na- tionale, transcripts have been found of Gen. i. 13, 14, xviil. 24— 26, xlili. 16, which were made from the MS. in 1606. They are printed in M/émotres de la Société Nationale des Antiquatires de France, 1111. pp. 163—172%. As this discovery was overlooked
1 Still an episcopal see in the time of Le Quien; see Lightfoot, Phz/ip- pians, p. 64, note.
2 They stated that it had once been the property of Origen.
δ 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.”
4 I owe the reference to Dr Nestle (Urtext, p. 71).
134 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
when the second edition of Zhe Old Testament in Greek, vol. 1., passed through the press in 1895, it may be convenient to the student to have the new fragments placed before him 272 extenso.
Gen. i. 13, 14...73€ ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωΐ, ἡμέρα τρίτη. 14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Τενηθήτωσαν φωστῆρες ἐν τῷ στερεώματι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς φαῦσιν τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἀρχέτωσαν τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς τοῦ δια- χω[ρίζειν]...
II. ΧΥΠ]Ι. 24—26. *éay ὦσιν πεντήκοντα δίκαιοι ἐν τῇ πόλει, ἀπολέσεις αὐτούς; οὐκ ἀνήσεις πάντα τὸν τόπον ἐκεῖνον ἕνεκα τῶν πεντήκοντα δικαίων, ἐὰν ὦσιν ἐν αὐτῇ ; “5 μηδαμῶς σὺ ποιήσεις ὡς τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο, τοῦ ἀποκτεῖναι δίκαιον μετὰ ἀσεβοῦς, καὶ ἔσται ὁ δίκαιος ὡς ὁ ἀσεβής" μηδαμῶς. ὁ κρίνων πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, οὐ ποιήσεις κρίσιν; 56 εἶπεν δὲ ὁ κύριος "Ἐὰν εὕρω ἐν Σοδόμοις]...
16. xliii. 16... θύματα καὶ ἑτοίμασον: μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ γὰ[ρ] φάγονται οἱ ἄνθρωποι οὗτοι ἄρτουΪς] τὴν μεσημβρίαν...
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 Jetters are used, and the point is sometimes high, some- times 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 cor- rectors after the dorthotes; the earlier of the two, who seems to have lived in the eighth century, has retraced the faded letters.
E. Copex BoDLeIANus. Bodleian Library, Oxford. Auct. T. infr. i. 1.
The Bodleian volume contains the following fragments of Genesis: i. I—xiv. 6, xvili. 24 ducai@v—xx. 14 καὶ ἀπέδωκεν, XXiv. 54 ἐκπέμψατε----χ] 1]. πρόκεδης αὐϊτοῖς]. Another leaf, now at the Cambridge University Library, contains xlii. 18 [ai Jrois τῇ ἡμέρᾳ —xliv. 13 τὸν ἕνα καί, but the verso, to which xlil. 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. Ixii. begins where the Cambridge fragment leaves off (at Gen. xliv. 13 Βενιαμίν: ἐγὼ μὲν yap), and proceeds, with some lacunae, as far as 3 Regn. xvi. 28 (ra λοιπὰ τῶν συμπλοκῶν). 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 Cam- bridge fragment, and St Petersburg cod. Ixii.
77αγι5εγ1ῤίς of the Septuagint. 135
The recent history of this MS. is both curious and instruc- tive. 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 pub- lished 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!; and its contents were at once com- municated to the Academy (June 6, 1891), and were afterwards incorporated in the apparatus of the Cambridge manual LXxX. (vol. i., ed. 2, 1895). Finally, in 1898, Dr A. Rahlfs of Géottin- gen? 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*Lean) may be found in the Classical Review for May, 1899 (vol. xili., 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 some- times fall below 20. Tischendorf was disposed to assign the writing to the 9th, or at the earliest the δίῃ 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*. According to the same authority the uncial leaves of the codex have passed through the hands of a nearly contempo- rary corrector, and also of another whose writing is more recent.
F (VII). Copex Amprosianus. Ambrosian Library, Milan. A. 147 infr.
The remains of this important Codex consist of the following
1 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.
2 In his paper wher eine von Tischendorf aus dem Orient mit-gebrachte, in Oxford, Cambridge, London, u. Petersburg liegende Handschrift der Septuaginta, reprinted from Wachrichten der Α΄. Gesellschaft der Wassen- schaften zu Gottingen, 1898; cf. Th. L.-Z., Feb. 4, 1899, p. 74. See also E. Klostermann, G. G. 4., 1895, p. 257-
3 ‘The date of the whole MS., including the uncial part, may very well be the tenth century”’ (Class. Review, l.c.).
136 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
fragments of the Octateuch: Gen. xxxi. 15 [ἀλλοτρί]αι---37 npav- vnoas, Xlii. 14 ὅτι κατάσκοποι---21 εἰσηκούσαμεν αὐτοῦ, 28 ἐταρά- xonoav—xlvi. 6 τὴν κτῆσιν, ΧΙνΊ]. 16 εἰ ἐκλέλοιπεν --χ]ν}]], 3 6 θεός μοι ὥφθη, xiviii. 21 τῶν mwarépwv—li. 14 οἱ ἀδελφοί. Exod. i. Io yis—viii. 19 τῷ [Φαραώ], xii. 31 οἱ vioi—xxx. 29 6 ἅπτ. αὐτῶν, ΧΧΧΙ. 18 ἐν τῷ ὄρει---ΧΧΧΊΙ!. 6 θυσ[ίαν], xxxil. 13 [πολυπλη Ἰθυνῶ---χχχνὶ. 3 προσ[εδέχοντο], ΧΧΧν]]. 10 αἱ βάσεις---οπα of book. Lev. 1. I—ix. 18 κύκλῳ, x. 14 [ἀφαιρέμα]τος--δεηᾶὰ of book. Num. (without lacuna). Deut. i. I—xxviii. 63 ηὐφράν[ θη], xxix. 14 καὶ τὴν ἀράν —end of book. Jos. i. 1—ii. 9 ἐφ᾽ [n]uas, 11. 15 αὐτῆς ἐν τῷ τί εἼίχει —iv. 5 ἔμπροσθεν, iv. 10 [συ]νετέλεσεν .---ν. I Ἰορδάνην, ν. 7 Ἰησοῦς —vi. 23 ἀδελφοὺς αὐτῆς, vii. 1 Ζαμβρί---ἶἰχ. 27 τῆς σήμερον ἡμ[έρας], X. 37 ἦν ἐν av’Tn—xii. 12 Bao. ᾽᾿Ἐγλών 1.
An inscription on a.blank page states that the fragments were “ex Macedonia Corcyram advecta, ibique Ill. Card. Fed. Borro- maei Bibliothecae Ambrosianae Fundatoris iussu empta eidem- que Bibliothecae transmissa sunt.” They attracted the notice of Montfaucon (Diar. Jtal., p. τι, 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”; three columns of writing stand on each page, and 35 lines in each column. The cha- racters are those of cent. iv.—v.; initial letters are used, which project to half their breadth into the margin. Punctuation is fre- quent, 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*. 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 are crowded with various readings, notes, and scholia.
1 The fragments of Malachi and Isaiah, attributed to F in Holmes, followed by Tischendorf V. 7.?, and Kenyon (p. 62), belong to a MS. of cent. xi.; see Ceriani, Mon. sacr. et prof., praef. p. ix.
2 See Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Pal., p. 62.
3 Cf. Thompson, of. cit. p. 72, “‘they were not systematically applied to Greek texts before the 7th century.”
Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 137
G (IV, V). ΟΟΡΕΧ CoLBERTO-SARRAVIANUS. (1) Leyden, University Library, Voss. Gr. Q. 8. (2) Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, cod. Gr. 17, formerly Colbert. 3084. (3) St Peters- burg, 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 a’r@v—xxxvl. 18 XOvyarpos ᾿Ανά. 1*Exod. xxxvi. 8—29, *xxxvil. 3 ὑφαντοῦ---6, *xxxviil. I—18, *xxxix. I [κατ]ειργάσθη---τι, *16 σκεύη---Το, xl. 2 ἐκεῖ τὴν κιβωτόν to end of book, *Lev. i. I—iv. 26 ἐξίε γιλάσεται περί, ἵν. 27 λαοῦ τῆς yns—xill. 17 καὶ ἰδού, *xiil. 49 ἱματίῳ---χῖν. 6 λήμψεται αὐτὸ καί, Ἔχην. 33—49 9 apayvilcat], Ἔχ 24 κοιμηθῇ---χν!!. Io gl ΌΟΣ, [ηλύτων], *xvill, 28 [¢]@vecw—xix. 36 στάθμια δίκαια καί, χχῖν. 9 καὶ τοῖς viois—xxvlil. 16 ἄνθρωπος τῷς Num. i. I—Vil. 85 τῶν σκευῶν, ΧΙ 18, τίς Wopeet—xviil, 2 φυλήν, xVill. 30 épeis—xx. 22 παρεγένοντο οἱ, *xxv. 2 αὐτῶν καί---χχν!. 3, ἜΧΧΙΧ. 12 ἑορτάσετε--- 33 σύγκρισιν, 34 καὶ χίε )ipap(p)o yv—end of book. Deut. iv. 11 X[kap]dias: TOU οὐρανοῦ---26 ἐκεῖ κλη[ρονομῆσαι], vill. 13 τὸν oirov—xvii. 14 κατακληρονομήσῃς], ΧνΊΠ. 8—xix. 4 τὸν πλη σίον], ΧΧΥΤΠ, 12 [ἔθνε]σιν---χχχὶ. II. Jos. bre 33 [ἐκλέξη Ἰται--χιχ. 25 αὕτη ἡ κληρονομία. +Jud. ix. 48 αὐτὸς καὶ was—x. 6 ᾿Ασσαρὼώθὰς καὶ σὺν TOUS Ἐν: 3 [Sap] yov—xviii. 16 of ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν, X1X. 25 αὐτῇ ὅλην .---χχὶ. 12 τετρακοσίοις.
The Leyden leaves of this MS. are known to have been in the possession of Claude Sarrave, 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 16th 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?, 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 Wonxumenta sacra (Leip- zig, 1860); a splendid photographic reproduction of all the known leaves of the codex appeared at Leyden in 1897%.
1 5 Eregments marked * are at Paris; that marked + is at St Petersburg. co, Pal, sacr. p. 186 f.; Tischendorf, Mon. sacr. ined. 225 c.
111. Arolegg. p. xviii. ἜΣ er. cod. Sarraviant-Colbertini quae supersunt in bibliothects Leidensi Parisiensi Petropolitana phototypice edita. Praefatus est H, Omont.
138 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
The leaves measure οὗ x 82 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 fre- quently by an early corrector. Of the seven correctors noticed by Tischendorf three only need be mentioned here,—(A) a con- temporary 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 aste- risk (Ὁ ) 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 Mont- faucon (comp. Field, Herapla, i., p. 5); and it is a matter for no little congratulation that we now possess a complete and admir- able photograph of the remains of this great MS.
Ἢ. Copex Perropo.itanus. 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. I—30, 40 —ii. 14, il. 30—ill. 26, v. 13—23, vi. 6—vii. 7, vii. 41—78, vill. 2— 16, ΧΙ. 3-—xlll. II, xill. 28—xiv. 34, xv. 320, 22—28, 32—xvi. 31, XV1. 44—xvlil. 4, xvill. 1526, xxi. 15 —22, xxil. 3O—41, xxili. 12— 27, XXV1. 54—xXxvVii. 15, xxviii. 7—xxix. 36, xxx. 9—xxxl. 48, xxxii. 7—xXxXxiv. 17, xxxvi. I—end of book. They are printed in Monu- menta sacr. tned., 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 stich7 is
i Te
Μὸν το στοος - +, -“ Ψ
Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 139
specified Cypre ΕΞ 3515): the scribe appends his παιηθ--[ὡᾶν- NOY MONAXOY CEprioy.
K. FRAGMENTA LipsiENsIA. Leipzig, University Library (cod slisch. i1.).
Twenty-two leaves discovered by Tischendorf in 1844, of which seventeen contain under Arabic writing of the ninth cen- tury fragments of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges (Num. v. 17—18, 2425; vil. 183—19, 30—31, 35—36, 37—40, 42 —43, sa anal XV. II—I7, 19-——243; XXVil. I—xxvill. 5, xxvili. 10-- XXIX. 2, XXXV. 19—22, 28-31. Deut. ii. 8—Io, 15—19, ix. I—I0, xviii. 21—xix. I, xlx. 6—9; xxi. 8—I2, 17—19. Jos. x. 39—xi. 16, xii. 2—15, xxil. 7—9, 10—23; Jud. xi. 24— 34, Xvili. 2—20").
The Greek writing is not later than cent. vil. The fragments are printed in the first volume of Monumenta sacra inedita, tC:
L (VI). CopEx 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?.
The Genesis leaves contain Gen. lil. 4—24, vil. I9g—vill. 20, ix. 8—15, 20—27; xiv. I7—-20, xv. I—5, xix. I12—26, 29—35; ΧΧΙΙ. 15-19, ΧΧῖν. I—II, I15—-20; xxiv. 22—31, xxv. 27—34, XXvl. G—I11, Xxx. 30-37 ; Xxxi. 25-34; xxxil. I—18, 22——325; xxxv. I -4, 8, 16—20, 28—29, xxxvll. I—IQ, ΧΧΧΙΧ. 9—18, xl. 14—xli. 2, xli. 2I—32, xlil. 21—38, xlill. 2—21, xlvili. 16—xlix. 3, xlix. 28... 33, 1. I—-4.
Like the 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 Vindobonenst, lib. 111. (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 (de Wiener Genesis herausgegeben von Wilhelm Ritter v. Hartel u. Franz Wickhoff, Wien, 1895).
1 On the fragments of Judges see Moore, Judges, Ὁ. xlv. 2 On the latter see H. 5. Cronin, Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus, Ῥ- Xxilil.
[40 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
M (X). CopEx COISLINIANUS. Paris, Bibliothéque Natio- nale, Coisl. Gr. 1.
A MS. of the Octateuch and the Historical Books, with lacunae; the 227 remaining leaves contain Gen. i. I—xxxiv. 2, XXxVilil. 24—Num. xxix. 23, xxxi. 4—Jos. x. 6, Jos. xxii. 34—Ruth iv. 19, I Regn. i. I—iv. 19, x. 19--τῖν. 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 cen- tury. It was first described by Montfaucon, who devotes the first 314 pages of his Bibliotheca Coisliniana to a careful descrip- tion 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; a complete collation is now being prepared by 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 sep- timo saeculo exaratus”), but the later date is now usually ac- cepted. The margins contain a large number of notes prima manu, among which are the excerpts from the N. T. printed by Tischendorf in the Wonumenta and now quoted as cod. F* of the Gospels*. 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 (Cenesis 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* 4, FRAGMENTA TISCHENDORFIANA. ‘Two ofa 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*, Three palimpsest leaves containing fragments of 2—3 Regn. (2 Regn. xxii. 33—42, 46—49; xxiii. 2—5, 8—10; 3 Regn.
1 Other notes occur in a hand of the ninth century and in a late cursive hand. * Gregory, i. p. 3753 Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 134.
a ΨΆΝΝ
= ir ey a
Ss.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint. I4I
ΧΙ]. 4—6, 8—II, 13—17, 20—23, xvl. 3I—33, xvll. I—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. 7nfra).
Z4, 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.
II. FRAGMENTA TISCHENDORFIANA.
Four leaves taken from the binding of Cod. Porfirianus Chio- vensis (P of the Acts and Catholic Epistles!), 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 torcent: 1X.
(C) Poetical Books.
I (13). Coprx Bopieianus. Oxford, Bodleian Library, maces 1). A. τ.
A Psalter, including the Old Testament Canticles and a catena. Described by Bruns in Eichhorn’s Repertortum, xiii. p- 177; cf. Lagarde’s Genests graece, Ὁ. 11, and Nov. Psalt. Gr. edit. Specimen, p. 3. Parsons, who reckons it among the cur- Sives, is content to say “de saeculo quo exaratus fuerit nihil dicitur”; according to Coxe (Catalogus codd. Biblioth. Bod. i. 621), it belongs to the 9th century.
R. CoprEx VERONENSIS. Verona, Chapter Library.
A MS. of the Psalter in Greek and Latin, both texts written in Roman characters. A few /acunae (Ps. 1. I—ii. 7, ἶχν. 20— Ixviii. 3, Ixvili. 26—33, cxv. 43—cvi. 2) have been supplied by a later hand, which has also added the ψαλμὸς ἰδιόγραφος (Ps. cli.). The Psalms are followed Avzma manu by eight canticles (Exod. xv. I—21, Deut. xxxii. I—44, 1 Regn. ii. I—10, Isa. v. I—9, Jon. li. 3—10, Hab. iii. 1—10, Magnificat, Dan. iii. 23 ff.).
Printed by Bianchini in his Vzndictae canonicarum scriptura- rum, 1. (Rome, 1740), and used by Lagarde in the apparatus of his Specimen and Psalteriz Gr. guinguagena prima, and in the Cambridge manual Septuagint (1891). A new collation was made in 1892 by H. A. Redpath, which has been employed in
1 See Gregory, i. p. 447, Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 172 f.
142 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
the second edition of Zhe O. 7. 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 104 x 74 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). Coprex Turicensis. Zurich, Municipal Library.
A purple MS. which contained originally 288 leaves; of these 223 remain. The text now begins at xxvi. (xxvii.) I, and there are lacunae in the body of the MS. which involve the loss of Pss. XXX. 2—XxXxXVi. 20, xli. 6—xlhili. 3, Iviii. 24—lix. 3, lix. g—10, 13— Ix. 1, lxiv. 12—Ixxi. 4, xcii. 3—xcill. 7, xcvi. I2—xcvii. 8. The first five Canticles and a part of the sixth have also disappeared ; those which remain are 1 Regn. 11. 6—10 (the rest of the sixth), the Magnificat, Isa. xxxviii. Io—20, the Prayer of Manasses}, Dan. 111. 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 στάσεις.
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 collectto (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. δὲ known as &™.
U. FrRaGMENTA LONDINENSIA. London, British Museum, pap. Xxxvil.
Thirty leaves of papyrus which contain Ps. x. (xi.) 2 [eis φαρέτραν---χν 1]. (xix.) 6, xx. (xxi.) 14 ἐν ταῖς δυναστείαις σου--- χχχῖν. (XXxV.) 6 καταδιώκ[]ν.
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 (Pro-
1 Cf. Nestle, Septuagintastudien, iii. p. 17 fff.
etn ph - ae a aa ie i inl i κοντα... ..τώ......
Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 143
legg.ad V.T. Gr., Ὁ. 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.t
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”.
X (258). CopEx Varticanus Iosi. Rome, Vatican Library, Gr. 749.
A MS. of Job with occasional lacunae; the remaining por- tions are i. I—xvli. 13, xvii. I17—xxx. 9, XXX. 23—XXXI. 5, ΧΧΧΙ. 24 —xxxiv. 35. There are miniatures, and a catena in an uncial hand surrounding the text. At the beginning of the book Hexa- plaric scholia are frequent’.
The text 1s written in a hand of the ninth century. It was used by Parsons, and its Hexaplaric materials are borrowed by Field*.
W (43). CopEx ParisIENsis. Paris, Bibliotheque Na- tionale, Gr. 20.
A portion of an uncial Psalter containing in 4o leaves Ps. XCl. [4—cxxxvl. I, with /acunae extending from Ps. cx. 7 to cxil. Io, and from Ps. cxvii. 16—cxxvi. 4. So Omont (/zventatre sommatre des mss. grecs, p. 4); according to Parsons (Praef. ad libr. Pss.), followed generally by Lagarde (Genes¢s gr. 15), the omissions are Ps. c. 4—ci. 7, cx. 6—cxi. 10, cxvii. 16—cxviii. 4, CXVill. 176—cxxvi. 4.
The codex was written by a hand of the ninth or tenth century, and contains paintings which, as ene had been informed, are of some merit.
* See Catalogue of Ancient MSS. in the British Museum, i. (1881), where there is a photograph of Ps. xxiii. τὸ ff., and Dr Kenyon’s Palaeo- praphy of papyri, p. 116 f.
2 Kenyon, Joc. cit. 3 See E. Klostermann, Avalecta zur Septuaginta, &¢., p. 68. ΡΝ, il. p.'2-
“ὐμμ
144 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
Z*. See above under (B), p. 140.
Fragments of the fourth or fifth cent. (Tisch.), containing Pss. exli. (cxlii.) 7—8, cxlii. (cxlii.) I—3, cxliv. (cxlv.) 7—13.
(D) Prophets.
O (VIII). Fracmenta 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! and yield Isa. XxX. 2—XXxXI. 7, XXXVI. I9Q—xXXxVill. 2.
The original leaves of the Codex measured about 12x9g 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”. They have been printed in facsimile type by Professor T. K. Abbott (Par palimpsestorum Dublinenstum, Dublin, 1880), and are used inthe _ apparatus of the Cambridge manual Septuagint.
Q (XII). Coprx MarcuHa.ianus. 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
1 See Gregory, i. p. 399 f.; Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 153. 2 Recensioni dei LXX., p. 6.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 145
ninth volume of his Wova 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., accom- panied (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 113 x7 inches; the writing is in single columns of 29 lines, 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 notes! 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. Coprex TAuRINENSIS. Turin, Royal Library, cod. 9.
This codex consists of 135 leaves in quarto, and contains the δωδεκαπρόφητον. The MS. is difficult to read, and there are many lacunae. The text, written according to Stroth? in the ninth century, is surrounded by scholia, and prefaced by Theodoret’s ὑποθέσεις to the various books. '
The Turin MS. does not appear to have been used hitherto for any edition of the LXxX., nor has any transcript or collation been published.
Z”°, See above, under (B), p. 146.
Z». Palimpsest fragments of Isaiah (iii. 8—14, v. 2—14, xxix. 11—23, xliv. 26—xlv. 5). Asin Z’, the upper writing is Armenian ; the Greek hand belongs apparently to cent. viii.—ix.
Z°. Palimpsest fragment of Ezekiel (iv. 16—v. 4) found among the Nitrian leaves at the British Museum. The Greek hand resembles that of Z*, and is probably contemporary with it.
1 Printed in O. 7. ἐγ: Greek, iii.?, p. 81. 2 In Eichhorn’s Repertorium, viii. Ὁ, 202 f.
146 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
IT. CopEx CRYPTOFERRATENSIS. Basilian Monastery of
Grotta Ferrata, cod. E. β. 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 accom- panied 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).
The original codex seems to have contained 432 leaves gathered in quires of eight; and the leaves appear to have measured about τοῦ χ ὃ1 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 photo- graphic edition, or at least a fresh examination and more com- plete collation of this interesting palimpsest.
A. FRAGMENTUM BODLEIANUM. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Gr. bibl. d. 2 (P).
A fragment of Bel in the version of Theodotion (21 γυναικῶν---- 41 Δανιήλ). Avellum 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., Jap. cexii.) yielding the text of Gen. xiv. 17. See Catalogue of Additions to the MSS., 1888—93, p. 410. Cent. 11]. (?).
(2) The vellum fragment containing Lev. xxii. 3—xxlil. 22, originally published by Brugsch (/Vewe Bruchstiiche 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.97f.). Cent. iv.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 147
(3) Another Sinaitic fragment, containing Num. xxxil. 29, 30 (J. R. Harris, of. 222.) no. 1). Cent. vii.
(4) Another Sinaitic fragment, containing a few words of Jud. xx. 24—28 (J. R. Harris, of. cz¢., no. 2). Cent. iv.
(5) Another Sinaitic fragment, containing Ruth 11. 19—1ii. 1, iii. 4—7 (J. R. Harris, of. cé¢., no. 3). Cent. iv.
(6) Part of a Psalter on papyrus (B. M., pap. ccxxx.), con- taining Ps. xil. 7—xv. 4; see Athenaeum, Sept. 8, 1894, and Kenyon, Palaeography of Greek Papyri, pp. 109,131. Cent. iil.
(7) Part of a Psalter on a Berlin papyrus, containing Ps. xl. 26—xli. 4; see Blass in Ζ. αὶ dgypt. Sprache, 1881 (Kenyon, of. Rifle: 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, Cll. 5—8, αν. 34—43, ον]. I17—34, CVvill. 15---21, cxill. 18—26, cxiv. 3—cxv. 2. J. R. Harris, of. 22 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. Kloster- mann, Z. f. A. 7. 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. xxiil. 2I—xxiv. 35. Published in the Academy, Oct. 22, 1892. A fuller transcript is given by E. Klostermann, Azadecta, pp: 34 ff.
(11) Portion of a leaf of a papyrus book, written in large uncials of cent. vii.—vili., exhibiting Cant. i.6—g9. This scrap came from the Fayim and is now in the Bodleian, where it is numbered MS. Gr. bibl. g. τ (P); see Grenfell, Greek papyri (Oxford, 1896), pp. 12 f.
(12) Palimpsest fragments of Wisdom and Sirach (cent. vi.— vil.), carried by Tischendorf to St Petersburg and intended for publication in the 8th volume of his lonzumenta, 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, Ἴεροσ. BiBA., 1. p. 14: τὰ ἀναπληρωτικὰ φύλλα 27 καὶ 56 εἰσὶ παλίμψηστα ὧν ἡ ἀρχικὴ γραφὴ ἀνήκει εἰς τὸν ε΄ αἰῶνα...τὸ παλαιὸν δὲ αὐτῶν κείμενόν ἐστι δίστηλον, καὶ ἐν φυλ. 56 διακρίνεται ἡ ἐπιγραφή οοφίδ incoY Υἱοῦ cipdy. The leaves contain Sir. prol. 1—i. 14, i. 29—ill. 11. Printed by J. R. Harris, of. cé¢., 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. Heckler, who gave a facsimile of Zach. xii. 2, 3 (‘Times,’ Sept. 7, 1892; ZYvansactions of the Congress of Orientalists, 1892, ii., p. 331 f.). Mr Heckler
τος τ
148 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
claimed for this papyrus an extravagantly early date, but the hand appears to belong to the seventh century; see Kenyon, Palacography of papyrt, p. 118. When last seen, it was in the shop of Th. Graf, a dealer at Vienna (z0., p. 24).
(15) Two leaves of a small vellum book, from the Faytim, now Bodl. MS. Gr. bibl. e. 4 (P); the handwriting, “in small, fine uncials,” yields the text of Zach. xii. 1o—I2, 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. xxxviil. 3—-5, 13-16; see Nestle, U/rtext, 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 papyrt, p. 107).
(18) A fragment of a lead roll on which is engraved Ps. ~ Ixxix (Ixxx). 1—16, found at Rhodes in 1898. See Sztzungsberichte — a. konigl. Preuss. Akad. ad. Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1898 — (XXXVIL.).
II. CursivE MSS.
We proceed to give a list of cursive MSS. of the Greek Old Testament, or of books belonging to it, limiting ourselves to the codices used by Holmes and Parsons, with the addition in the Octateuch of others which have been recently examined or collated by the editors of the larger Cambridge Septuagint’.
(A) Zhe Octateuch.
14. Gen., Ex., ef. Rome, Vat. Palat.Gr. Klostermann, Azad. Arist., cat.(x1) 203 p. 110,
15. Octateuch (ix— Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. Hexaplaric in early x 2 books
16. Octateuch (xi) Florence, Laur. v. 38
17. Genesis, cat.(x) Moscow, Syn. 5 Vial. Batiffol, Vaz, p. 91
28 18. Octateuch (x— Florence, Laur. Med. x1) Pal. 242 (formerly
at Fiesole)
1 The arabic numerals are the symbols employed by H. and P. For descriptions of the unnumbered MSS., the wniter is indebted to Messrs Brooke and M°Lean, and Mr Brooke has also assisted him in verifying and correcting the earlier lists.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
149
19. 20. Se 28.
29.
30.
. Octateuch,
Octateuch...... - (?x)
Genesis (ix)
Gem, Ex, 2p. Arist., cat. (x1)
Num., Deut., Jos., zperf. (x1)
Octateuch (inc.
Gen. xliii. 15) Octateuch (inc. Gen. xxiv. 13)
(xi)
. Genesis, caz.(xiv) 2. Pentateuch (xii)
. Lectionary (A.D.
1116)
. Octateuch...(xv)
. Octateuch...(xv)
. Num. (ecz.), (xi) . Octateuch...(xiv) . Fragment of lec-
tionary
. Lectionary (xiii) . Octateuch..., ep.
Ζ χ25 7: δ. (ΣΧ)
. Octateuch (A.D.
1439)
. Octateuch, ef. A-
vist. (xili—xiv)
. Octateuch...(xi)
. Octateuch...(A.D.
1093) ep. Arist., cat. (x1)
Rome, Chigi R. vi. 38
[Cod. Dorothei i.]
Munich, Stadtbibl. Gr. 9
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2122 (formerly Basil.161)
Venice, St Mark’s,
(2 Rome, Casan. 1444 Vienna, Theol. Gr. 4 [Cod. Eugenii i.] Moscow,
Vlad. ὃ Eseurial; ¥. 11. 5
Syn / st,
Zittau, A. 1.1
Escurial
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 4
Oxford, Bodl. Baron. 201.
Oxford, Bodl. Seld. 30
Florence, Laur. Acq.
44 Paris, Nat.
yg Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr.
Reg. Gr.
5 Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. I
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr.
3 Rome, Vat. Gr. 747
Bianchini, Vzzd., p. 279 ff. Lucianic, Lagarde’s ἢ
Field, ni: Auct.:p.'3
Cf. Lagarde Geveszs, p. 6, Septuagintast. 1 ΡΣ
Scrivener- Miller, i. p. 224
Hexaplaric, cf. Field, 1. p. 398
Lagarde’sz: see Gevze- $25: 27-5 Do 7 Te and. Lz0F IVOCTS Saas 1: Ῥ- vi.; Scrivener- Miller.) 1 pr 26m Redpath, Exp. T., May 1897
O.T. exc. Psalter
Field, i. p. 223. La- garde’s &
Part of a complete Bible, cf. Kloster- mann, p. 12
Lagarde’s 2
Field, i. pp. 5, 78
1 Dots in this position shew that the MS. extends beyond the Octateuch.
73:
74. 75: 76. 77: 78.
79. 82.
83.
84. 85.
93-
. Pentateuch
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
(xiii)
. Octateuch (xv)
. Lectionary (xi)
Jos., Jud., Ruth (imperf.) (x)
. Octatéuch ...\(x
—x1)
. Octateuch...(xv)
. Jos., Jud., Ruth
(Ki)
. Octateuch...(xiii) . Octateuch,..(xiil)
Octateuch, 67. Arist. (part), cat. (xil1)
Octateuch...(xiv)
Octateuch (A.D. 1126)
Octateuch...(xili)
Octateuch, caz. (xiil)
Geng! Ex. vae. (xiii)
Gen., ep. Avist., cat. (x11)
Octateuch...(xil)
Pentateuch, caz. (xvi)
Heptateuch (277-
perf.) (x)
Heptateuch (z7-
perf, (xi) Ruth... (xiii)
Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr.
IO Glasgow, Univ. BE. "Ὁ, 10 (formerly at C.C.C., Oxford) Oxford, Bodl. Laud.
5 Rome, Vat. 1252 Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. Venice, St Mark’s,
(G15 Munich, Gr. 372 (for- merly at Augsburg) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 1 Oxford, Bod]. Canon. Gr. 35 (formerly at Venice; see:H= P.) Rome, Vat. Gr. 746
Florence, Laur. Acq.
700 (49) Υ Oxford, Univ. Coll. 111.
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 4 Rome, Vat. Gr. 748
Rome, Vat. Gr. 383
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1668
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.
Lisbon, Archivio. da Torre da Tombo 540 &c. (formerly at Evora)
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1901
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2058 (formerly Basil. 97)
London, B. M. Reg. i DP. 2
Field, i. p. 78
Scrivener- Miller, i. p.
329 Klostermann, p. 12
Field, i. p. 5
O.and N.T.
O. and N.T. Scrive- ner- Miller, i. p. 219
Hexaplaric. Tischen- dorf in £. ΞΕ
1867 (27) Field, i. p. 78
Hesychian (?) Lagarde’s 0. Horne-
mann, p. 41; Owen, Enguiry, p. 90
Field, i. p. 78
Lagarde’s f
Hesychian (?)
Field, i. pp. 78, 397 (“praestantissimi codicis”)
Lucianic (Lagarde’s 721)
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
94= 131
105. Exod. xiv. 6—26 &c. (xili—xiv)
106. Octateuch...(xv)
107. Octateuch...(A.D.
13
334 } 108. Octateuch...(xiv)
118. Octateuch (Ζ72- perf.) (xiii)
. Octateuch...(xi) . Octateuch (x)
. Octateuch...(xv)
. Octateuch...(xv)
56. Heptateuch...... pal. 222. Gen; EEX.
(A.D. 1475) 127. Octateuch... (x)
128. Octateuch (xii)
129. Octateuch (xiii) 130. Octateuch (? xi)
Zon. Octateuch ...... (x—x1i)
132. Lectionary (pa- limpsest, xi— X11)
133. Excerpts from
MSS.byI.Voss . Octateuch... (xi)
London, B. M. Bur- ney
Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 187
Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 188 Rome, Vat. Gr. 330
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 6
Venice, St Mark’s, Gr. 4
Venice, St Mark’s, Gr.
Venice, St Mark’s, Gr. 6
Moscow, Syn. 30, Vlad. 3
Moscow, Syn. 19, Vlad. 38
Moscow, Syn. 31a, Viad. 1
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1657, formerly Grotta fer- rata
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1252 Vienna, Th. Gr. 57
Vienna, Th. Gr. 23
Oxford, Bodl. Selden. 9
Leyden, Univ.
Florence, Laur. v. I
15!
Hesychian (9). O.T., Nin: (582. Greg., 451 Scr.). Lagarde, Ank. p. 27
Lagarde, zd.
Field, 1.'p. 5. Luci- anic text (Lagarde’s 4)
Lucianic (Lagarde’s
2)
Θ᾽ δ iN. {δ.: 206) in Latin order. Copy of 68
Field;;. 3. payiga Las garde, Azk. Ὁ. 3 Field, i. pp. 168, 224
See note to 63
Field;.,i..«px, G4 ,La- garde, Azk. p. 26. See note to 131
Field, a. pay 5s, enumeratione Hol- mesiana [cod. 130] perverse designatur 131, et vice versa.” O. andiNn. Ὑ
Hesychian (?)
152
135. Gen., Ex. i. 1— xli. 4, cat. (xi)
136. Excerpts from Pentateuch (A.D. 1043)
209. Jos., Jud., Ruth, cat. (xii)
236. Jos., Jud., Ruth εος (I
5357. = fs
241. Jos., Jud., Ruth ἀρ (XVil)
246. Octateuch (xiil)
eeeeee
Josh.—Ruth (x —x1) Octateuch, (xii—xill) Lev.—Ruth, caz. (A.D. 1104) Lev.—Ruth, caz. (A.D. 1264) Jos.—Ruth comm. (xii) Octateuch schol. Heptateuch (z7- perf.) (xiii) Lev.—Ruth, caz. (xiii) Octateuch...(xiv)
Octateuch, ef. Arist., cat. (xi)
Cat.
Ex.—Ruth, caz. (xv) Octateuch, ef.
Arist., cat.(xiil) Gen.—Ex. (zm- perf.) ep. A rist.,
cat. (xv)
Basle, A. N. iil. 13
Oxford, Bodl. Barocc.
196 [Cod. Dorothei iv]
Rome, Vat. Gr. 331
London, B. M. Harl.
7522 Rome, Vat. Gr. 1238
London, B.M. Add.
20002
London, B.M. Add.
35123 Lambeth, 1214
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 5 Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.
7 Paris, Arsenal 8415
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.
184
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 6
Paris, Nat. Suppl. Gr. 609
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 128
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 132
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 129
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 130
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
Field, i. p. 6. La- garde’s 7 (Genests, p- 6). Hexaplaric
Klostermann, p. 78
P. Young’s copy of Cod. A
Cf. Batiffol, @ 2 Ζ2)1- portant MS. des Septante, in Aul- letin Critique, 15 March, 1889
Continuation of E (p. 134)
Hexaplaric readings
Lucianic (?)
Hesychian (?)
Hexaplaric readings
Hexaplaric readings
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
153
Ex.(¢mperf.), cat. (xvi)
Gen. i.—iii.(?), comm. (palim.) (xiii)
Gere, 2x, “ep. Arist., cat. (A.D. 1586)
Octateuch... (272- perf.) (xi)
Octateuch, (x1li)
Exod. — Deut. (cmeperf.) (Xi)...
cat.
Gen, Πα 27. Arist.,Cat.(xvi) Jos.—Ruth... (x)
Octateuch, ef. A rist.,cat.(xili) Gen. iv.—v., Ex. Xl. — XXViil., comm. (ΧΙ) Octateuch, (? x11) Gen., cat. (xvi) Num.—Ruth ... (xiv—xv) Hexateuch... (x) Gen.—Jos. (z7- perf.)... (X—x1) Gen., comm. Chrys. Joshua—Ruth... cat. (x11) Octateuch (x) Octateuch... —xi) Octateuch (A.D. 1021) Lev.—Ruth, caz. (xi—x1i1) Ex.—Ruth (xiv)
cat.
(x
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. Hexaplaric readings 131 (interlinear) Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 161
Escurial 3. i. 16 Hexaplaric readings
Escurial ©. i. 13
Leyden, 13 (belongs to Voss collection)
Leipzig, Univ. Libr. Gr. 361
Hexaplaric readings. Published by Fis- cher in 1767 = Lips. (Ho Py
Munich, Gr. 82
Munich, Gr. 454 (for- merly at Augsburg)
Zurich, Bibl. de la Hexaplaric matter ville, c. 11
Basle, ©. i. 17
Rome, Barb. Gr. iv. 6
5 Rome, Barb. Gr. vi. 8 Rome, Vat. Gr. 332
Grotta Ferrata Y.y. I
St Petersburg, Imp. Continuation of E (p. Libr. 1xii 134)
Moscow, Syn. Vlad.
35 Athos, Ivér. 15
Athos, Pantocr. 24 Hexaplaric readings
Athos, Vatop. 511 Athos, Vatop. 513 Athos, Vatop. 515
Hexaplaric readings,
Athos, Vatop. 516 much faded
[54
το:
20...
38...
44...
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
Pentateuch (z- perf.), (A.D. 1327)
Octateuch (A.D.
1013) Genesis, caz.(?x1)
Octateuch... cat.
(xi) Octateuch...(xii1) Octateuch, cat.
LNViceph. (xii) Pentateuch, cat. (xi) Num. — Ruth, cat. (x1) Heptateuch (z7- perf.) (xiii) Pentateuch, Ζε5ζ. xt. patr. (xv)
Octateuch... (x —x1)
Pentateuch, café. (? x)
Octateuch... (ix med. )
Genesis, caz. (xli —xill)
Athos, Protat. 53 Hexaplaric readings
Athos, Laur. y. 112 Hexaplaric readings (a few)
Constantinople, (formerly 372)
Athens, Bibl. Nat. 43
224
Athens, Bibl. Nat. 44 Lucianic (?) Smyrna, σχολὴ evayy. I
Patmos, 216
Patmos, 217
Patmos, 410
Patmos, 411
Sinai, I
Sinai, 2
Jerusalem, H. Sepul- chre 2
Jerusalem, H. Sepul- chre 3
(B) Historical Books.
I Regn.,2 Esdr., Judith, Esth., 1—3 Macc.,&c.
3 Macc. perf.), &c. (x) I Regn., 2 Regn. i. I—xx. 18 (xv) I Regn.,2 Esdr., I—4 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tow. CN. 71.) &c. (xv)
Rome, Chigi R. vi. 38
Venice, St Mark’s,
Gr. 2 Escurial, Y. 11. 5
Zittau, A. I. I
1 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 mz¢atis mutandis to (C) and (D).
46.
σι WN
55:
56.
60.
64...
68...
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
1 Regn.—2 Esdr., Esth., Judith, I—4 #Macc., Teh...
...I Regn.—2 Esdr.,
Esth., Judith, I—4 1 1£Macc., Tob., schol. (x) .-I Regn.-2 Esdr., Judith, Esth., Tob., I—4 Macc. (x1) ..I—4 Regn., 1— 2 Chron., 1—2 Macc. (xil)
..-.I—4 Regn., I—
2 Chron., 1—2 Esdr,; ‘Jud, Tob. Esth; &c. (xiii)
1-2 Chron. (?x1i)
I Regn.-2 Esdr., Hsth.- / -Tob., 1-- Macc. (x)
1 Regn.—2 Esdr., Esth., Judith, Tob., I—3 Macc.... (xv)
70..,1-4 Regn., parts of Chron., Tob. (x1)
2... Esdr:, I—3 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiil)
74...1—2 Esdr., 1—4 Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiv)
76...Esth., Judith, Tob. (xii)
82...1—4 Regn. (xii
92.
—x111) I—4 Regn. (x)
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 4
Florence, Laur. Acq. 44
Rome, Vat. Regin.
Gr. I
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 3
Rome, Vat. Regin. Gr. τὸ Cambridge, Univ.
Pibe, FE 1.24 Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 2
Venice; St “Mark's;
Grrs
Munich, Gr. 372 (for- merly at Augsburg)
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 1 Florence, St Mark’s Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 4
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 3 Paris, Nat. Gr. 8
155
Walton, Polygl. vi. 121 if; J. Ri Harris: Origin of Leicester Cod., p- 21
Field, i. p. 486
156
93
98.
106
107.
108
120
...I-2 Esdr.,Esth., 1-3 Macc. (xiii)
I—4 Regn., 1—2 Chron., caz.
...I Regn.—2 Esdr., Judith, Esth., I—2 Macc.
1 Regn.—2 Esdr., I—3 1.Macc., Esth., Judith, Tob.(A.D.1334)
...I Regn.—2 Esdr.,
Judith, Tob., Esth. (xiv)
. I—4 Regn., 1—2 Chron., I—2 Esdr. (x)
...l Regn.-2 Esdr., I—4 +.Macc., Esth. (xi)
...I Regn.—2 Esdr.
(x ...Historical Bks., oa LEV) . I—4 Regn. (xi) ...Historical Bks.,
τευ. ... Judith, Tob. (xv) ...I—4 Regn., I— 2 Chron. xxxvi. (x)! ...-Historical Bks.
(exc. 4 Macc.) (? xi)
4...1 Regn.—2 Esdr.,
1 Macc. (x)
. I—4 Regn., 1—2 Chron.
...I Regn.—2 Esdr., Esth., Judith, Tob., I—4 Mace. (xil)
...I—4 Regn.,1—2 Chron.
I—4 Regn. I—4 Regn.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
London, B. M. Reg. ᾿ ΤΣ Escurial, Σ. 2. 19
Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 187
Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 188 Rome, Vat. Gr. 330 Cf. Field, i. p. 702
Paris) Nat.'Gr. 7
Venice, St Mark’s,
Gr. 4
Venice, St Mark’s, Gr.
Venice, St Mark’s, Gr. 6
{Cod. Dorothei v. ] Moscow, Syn. 30,
Vlad. 3
Moscow, Syn. 19, Viad. 38
Moscow, Syn. 314, Vlad. 1
Vienna, Th. Gr. 23
Florence, Laur. v. I
Basle, B. 6. 22 Wetstein, VV. Z. i. p. 132 Rome, Vat. Gr. 331
London, B. M. Harl. 7522 Vienna, Th. Gr. 5 Paris, Nat. Coisl. 8 Field, i. p. 486
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
157
243*. 1—4 Regn.(caz.), I Chron.—z2
Hisar, » Esth., Tob., Jud.,1—4 Macc. 244. I—4 Regn. (x) 245. I Regn. (ix—x) 246...1 Regn. (xiii) 247. I Regn. (x)
248...I—2Esdr.,Tob., Judith, Esth., &c. (xiv)
Historical Bks. (xi)
...-I Regn.—2 Esdr., Esth., Tob. ...Judith, I—3
Macc. (3 M. imperf.) (xi) ..-I Regn.—2 Chron.
(x) «1 Regn.—3 Regn. και: 28 (x or xi) 22, LOD.) .;- Judith, Esth., Ruth (x) ... Tobit (xiv or xv) ie esdr... Tobit (fragments) (x
art...
or x1) ...Esth., Judith, Tob.,1-4Regn. (x or xi) atisth., Tob., Judith (A.D. 1021)
...I-2 Chron. (xiv) ..I—4 Regn., cat. (xi)
..-I Regn.—2 Esdr., Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiii)
--I—4 Regn.,; 1— 2 Chron. (xiv)
«1 Regn.—2 Esdr., 4 /.Maec., Esth., Judith, Tob. (xiv)
Venice, δὲ
cod. 16
222
Rome, Vat. Gr. 333 Rome, Vat. Gr. 334 Rome, Vat. Gr. 1238 Rome, Vat. Gr. Urb. 1 Rome, Vat. Gr. 346
Moscow, Syn. 341
Escurial, Q. 1.13
Munich, Gr. 454 (?for-
merly at Augsburg) _
St Petersburg, Imp. Libr. ixii.
Grotta Ferrata, A. y. I (catal., 29)
Rome, Vat. Gr. 332
Leipzig, Univ. Libr. (τ 261
Athos, Vatop. 511 Athos, Vatop. 513
Athos, Vatop. 516 Athens, Bibl. Nat. 43
Athens, Bibl. Nat. 44
Paris, Arsenal 8415
Paris, Nat. Suppl. Gr. 609
Mark’s,
Field, i. p. 486
Lucianic (Field)
Nestle, JZarg. p. 58
Hexaplaric readings
158
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
..I—4 Regn. (xi) ..1 Regn.-2 Esdr.,
Judith, Esth., Tob.,1-4Macc.
13. =I (see under Uncial MSS.)
21. Psalms, schol. (xiii—xiv)
27. Psalms i—lxx
39. Psalms (zweferf.) (ix)
43. =W (see under Uncial MSS.)
AG... sPFOV., Eccl, Cant., Job, Sap, olf, Up- vos τῶν Tat. ἡμῶν (xiv)
55..-JOb, Psalms (0 Ξ|)
65. Psalms, cant., Lat. (xi)
66. Psalms, caved. (xiv)
67. Psalms, cazt. (xvl)
68...Poetical Books (xv)
69. Psalms, cave. (? x)
80. Psalms, cant. (xili—x1v)
81. Psalms (xi)
Ioo.
ΙΟΙ.
. Psalms,
schol., cant. (xii—xiil)
Psalms, cant. (xi—x1i)
Psalms, (xii1)
cant.
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.
7 Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. I
(C) Poetical Books.
[Cod. Eugenii iv. ]
Gotha, formerly Loth- ringen
[Cod. Dorothei ii.]
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 4
Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. ease
Eton Coll.
Oxford, C.C.C. 19
Venice, St Mark's, Gr. 5 Oxford, Magd. Coll. 9
Oxford, Christ Ch. A
Oxford, Christ Ch. 2 Oxford, Trin. Coll. 78
Oxford, Christ Ch. 3 Oxford, Christ Ch. 20
An uncial MS., La- garde’s M(8) (.Spe- cimen, p. 27)
An uncial MS., La- garde’s El?) (SZe- cimen, p. 2)
Lagarde’s F(?s) (Se- clmen, Ὁ. 2)
Harris, Lezcester Co- dex, p. 20
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
102. Psalms, cazt. (Χ111)
103. Prov. i.—XI1x. (xv)
104. Psalms i.-x. (xvi)
107...Job,Prov.,Eccl., Cant.,Sap., Sir. --- Psalms (xv)
109. Proverbs... (xiil)
110. Job, schol. (ix)
111. Psalms (ix)
112. Psalms, ca¢.(A.D. 961)
113. Psalms, 0772771. (A.D. 967)
114...Psalms, com.
115. Psalms, come.
122...Poetical Books (xv)
124. Psalms, cazez.
125...Proverbs (coms. Chrys.), Eccl, Cant., Sap. (xv)
131...Poetical Books, &c. (Ὁ xil)
137. Job, caz. (xi—x11)
138. Job (x) 139. Proverbs—Job (x)
140. Psalms 141. Psalms 1344)
142. Psalms, comm.
143. Psalms, proven.
144=131
145. Psalms, cant. (x)
146. Psalms (x)
147. Prov.—Job, caz. iv (5401)
149. Job, Prov., Eccl., Cant. /Sap., Pss.Sal.,comm. (xi)
150. Psalms (? xiv)
151. Psalms (z7perf)
152. Psalms (xi)
(A.D.
Oxford, Christ Ch. 1 Vienna, Th. Gr. 25
Vienna, Th. Gr. 27 Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr. 188
Vienna, Th. Gr. 26 Vienna, Th. Gr. 9:
Milan, Ambr. P. 65 Milan, Ambr. F. 12
Milan, Ambr. B. 106
Evora, Carthus. 2
Evora, Carthus. 3
Venice, St Mark’s, Gr. 6
Vienna, Th. Gr. 21
Moscow, Syn. 30, Vlad. 3
Vienna, Fh. Gr! 23 Milan, Ambr. D. 73
Milan, Ambr. M. 65 Milan, Ambr. A. 148
Basle, B. Io. 33 Turin, B. 2. 42
Vienna, Th. Gr. Io Vienna, Th. Gr. 19
Velletri, Borg. [Cod. Fr. Xavier] Oxford, Bodl. Laud.
30 Vienna, Th. Gr. 7
Ferrara, Carmelit. 3 Venice, Bibl. Zen. (Cod. Nani)
159
Klostermann, pp. 6, 18
Klostermann, p. 18
Field, ΡΣ dad Auct. p. 5
Field, ii. p. 2
Field, 11, p72
Klostermann, p. 51 = 308*H. P. See Geb-
hardt, Dze Psalmen Salomo’s, p. 15
A Graeco-Latin MS.
ς cel,
. Psalms,
. Psalms,
. Psalms . Psalms, . Psalms,
. Psalms,
. Psalms
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
. Psalms (xii) . Psalms
(x1i— ΧΙ)
. Psalms, zzferlin.
Ii.
; Job, Prov., Ecel.,
Cant., Sap. Prov. (part), Cant., schol. (xi)
. Job (xiv) - Job; Proy:, Eccl,
Cant. (xiv)
. Psalms, zzterlin.
Latin (xi)
. Psalms (xii) . Psalms (xiv)
. Psalms (xiv)
cant. (A.D. 1283) cant. (xiv)
. Psalms (2mperf.)
(xi—xil)
(xil— xiil)
cant. (x11)
cant. (xiv)
cant. (A.D. 1488)
. Psalms, cazz.
(Latin, Arabic) (A.D.
1153)
. Psalms (xi) . Psalms, cazz.
(Cod. Meermanni I)
(Cod. Meermanni II)
Basle, A: 7.3
Basle, B. 6.
Dresden,
Dresden, Dresden,
Paris, Nat.
24
Paris, Nat.
Gr. 26 London, baa London,
5534 London,
5535 London,
5558
London,
5570
London,
5571 London,
5582 London, 5653 London,
5X37 London,
5738 London, 5786
London, B. M.2.A.vi. London, B. M. Harl.
5563
I
2 2 J
B.
a ΩΞ ΘῈ ἐπ τὉΞ οἱ Ὁ ὦ ὦ
Bo τ Ἂν
Reg, Gr. Colbert.
Μ. Μ.
ἘΝῚ Ὁ
Harl. Harl. Harl. Harl. soar Harl. Harl. ὉΠ ΠῚ]; Harl. Harl. Harl.
An uncial MS. La- garde’s Dl?) (SHec- men, p. 2, cf. Ank.
Ρ. 27) Wetstein, JV. 7, i. 32
Klostermann, p. 39
Field, ii... p.j.25) Chis 309, and Auct. 22. Cf. Klostermann,
pp. 16, 39
177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 192. 183. 184. 185. 186.
187. 188.
189. 190.
191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197.
109. 200.
201.
202.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
Psalms (2,297) cant. (xiil)
Psalms, cant. (A.D. 1059)
Psalms, cant. (xii)
Psalms, cant. (xii)
Psalms, ca¢. (xi1)
Psalms, σαι. (xi)
Psalms, cant. (xil)
Psalms, comm. (ix—x) Psalms, comm. (xi)
Psalms, comm. (x1)
Psalms (zwzferf.) Psalms (z7per/.)
Psalms, cant. Psalms (zuzperf.) cane,
Psalms, cazdé.
Psalms (zmperf.) cant. (xiii) Psalms, καῖ. (xi)
Psalms, cant. (xii)
Psalms, cazz. (xii)
Psalms (inc. 1].
3), cant. (xil) Psalms, εἴ). (xiv) Psalms (xi) Psalms, cazz.
Psalms, cazzt.
Psalms, comm.
Ss: Ss.
cant.,
161
Paris, Nat. Gr. 27 Paris, Nat. Gr. 40 Paris, Nat. Gr. 41 Paris, Nat. Gr. 42
Cod. DucisSaxo-Goth. Rome, Chigi 4 Rome, Chigi 5
Vienna, Th. Gr. 17 Vienna, Th. Gr. 18 Vienna, Th. Gr. 13
St Germain ΤῸ
St Germain 186 An uncial MS. La- garde’s H() (Sfecz- men, p. 3). Often agrees with 156
St Germain 13
St Germain 187 An uncial MS. La- garde’s Κίρβ) (SHecz- MeN, Ὁ. 3)
St Germain 188
Paris, Nat. Gr. 13
Paris, Nat. Gr. 21
Paris, Nat. Gr. 22
Paris, Nat. Gr. 25
Paris, Nat. Gr. 25
Paris, Nat. Gr. 29
Modena, Est. 37
Oxford, Bodl. Barocc. Cf. Nestle, Septua- 15 gintastud. lil. p. 14
Oxford, Bodl. Barocc.
107 Oxford, Bodl. Cromw. IIO
EE
162
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
cant.,
203. Psalms, prayers (A.D. 1336)
204. Psalms (zmferf.) schol., prayers
205. Psalms, cant.
206. Psalms, cant, (xiv)
208. Psalms (zfer/.), cant.
210. Psalms (xiv)
211. Psalms,. . cami. (xiii)
212. Psalms (zmferf.) (x11)
213. Psalms (zwzferf.) (x1il)
214. Psalms, cant. (xiii)
215. Psalms, caved. (A.D. IOIT)
216. Psalms, cant. (x)
217. Psalms,” cant. (A.D. 1029)
218. Psalms, li.—liii. (xlli—xiv)
219. Psalms, canz.
220= 186
221. Psalms, ix.—cl., coum.
222. Psalms, cazzt.
223. Psalms, φῶ).
225. Psalms, ζῶ]: (x1)
226. Psalms, cant., prayers (x)
227. Psalms (zmperf.) cant., prayers x
228. Job, &c. (xiii)
2 ΓΟ ΕΙΟν,» δ σον Cant.
248... Prov., Eccl, Cant., Job,
Sap., sir., &c. (xiv)
Oxford, Bodl. Laud.
ai
Oxford, Bodl. Laud. 58
Cambridge, Trin. Coll.
Cambridge, Gonville Facsimile in Harris, & Caius Coll. 348 Leicester codex Tubingen, (cod. Schnurrer) [Cod. Demetrii v.] Rome, Vat. Gr. 1541
Rome, Vat. Gr.
1542
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1848
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1870
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1873 Klostermann, p. 13 Gr.
Gr.
Rome, Vat. Rome, Vat.
1927 341
?
Vienna, Th. Gr. Vienna, Th. Gr. Vienna, Th. Gr.
Vienna, Th. Gr. 21 Vienna, Th. Gr. 22 Bologna, 720
Rome, Barber. I
Rome, Barber. 2
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1764
London, B. M. Harl. 7522
Rome, Vat. Gr. 346 Hexaplaric readings.
Field, ii. p. 2
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
7 3.
. Job . Job, cat, Psalms
5 Jou pea, ir;
&c. (xiv)
(xiv)
jee rov., Eccl.,
Cant. (ix—x)
pagent τὸν. (xi—
XIv)
7 Ob,, Prov.’ (Xiil) . Job
. Job, schol. (xii) . Job, comm. (x) . Job, cat, pzct.(ix)
(ix)
. Job, schol. (x) , Job, caz., Prov.
7 Job, Prov., E-ccl.,
Sap. (xiv)
. Psalms
. Psalms, cat.
= Psalms,.. canz., pict. (xiv)
. Psalms (impertf.) (xii1)
. Psalms, cant. (xiv)
. Psalms, comz.., cant,
. Psalms, comm. Athen. (A.D. 897)
. Psalms, caz7. (xil)
. Psalms, comm. (xi)
. Psalms (imperf.)
cat. (xili) Psalms, cazé. (xiv)
Rome, Vat. Pius 1 Field, 2. ¢.
Munich, Elect. 148 Florence, Laur. v. 27
Field, ὦ. δ.
Florence, Laur. vill. Field, /.¢.; cf. p. 309
27 and Auct. p. 2 Rome, Vat. Gr. 336 Klostermann, 17 ff. Gebhardt, Dze Psalmen Salomo’s p. 25yil- Rome, Vat. Gr. 337 Rome, Vat. Gr. 338 _Field,ii.p.2. Kloster- mann, p. 69 ff. Rome; Vat. Gr. 697 “ Field, 25 δ. Rome, Vat. Gr. 743 Rome, Vat. Gr. 749 Field, 7c. Kloster- mann, p. 68 Rome, Vat. Gr. 230 ‘Field, ΖΦ Kloster- mann, p. II Copenhagen, Royal Libr; Florence, Laur. vil. 30 Copenhagen, Royal Lib.
Rome, Vat. Gr. 398 Cf. Field, ii. p. 84f.,
and Auct. p. II
Rome, Vat. Gr. 381
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2101
Rome, Vat. Gr. 294
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2057 Cf. Field, ii. p. 84
Rome, Vat. Gr. Pal. 44
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1864 Rome, Vat. Gr. 1747 Rome, Vat. Gr. 247
Rome, Vat., Reg. Gr. 40
Cf. Field, ii. p. 84
1.1---
164
274. 275.
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
Psalms (zperf.) comm. (Χ111) Psalms,camz.(xil)
2976= 221
27,7: 278.
. Psalms,
. Psalms,
. Psalms,
. Psalms,
. Psalms,
Psalms, cazz.
Psalms (χι:-- ΧΙ)
cant.
(xili—xiv)
. Psalms (x1) . Psalms (xi) . Psalms (xv) . Psalms (x11) . Psalms,
cant. (xiv) cant. (xill) comm.
(xi1)
. Psalms (Ζ7,129477..)
comm. (x11) comm. Thdt. (xii) comm. Euth.-Zig.
(xiil)
. Psalms, cazzz.
. Psalms (xi—xi1) . Psalms, caz. (xi) . Psalms,
m1etr.
paraphr. (xv)
, Psalms, ΠΕ ΧΙ. 14,
—]xxxl. 7,CXXVii. 3 — cxxix. 6, Cxxxv. II — CXXXV1. 1, CXXxvil. 4—cxli. 21 (? xill)
Rome, Vat. Gr. Rome, Vat. Gr.
Vienna, Th. Gr. Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur. Florence, Laur. Florence, Laur. Florence, Laur. Florence, Laur. Florence, Laur. Florence, Laur. Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur. i
Florence, Laur. Florence, Laur. Florence, Laur. Florence, Laur.
Cambridge, nuel College
343 1874
24 Vv. 23
v. 39 Vi. 3 Vi 37
Emma- Lagarde calls it P in
Genesis graece, but N(s) in the Sfecz- men. Apparently a copy in a Western hand of an early cursive Psalter; see M. R. James in } Proceedings of the Cambridge Antt- guarian Society, 1892—3, p. 168 ff.1 *
1 Other Psalters used by Lagarde (Specimen, p. 3 f.) are St Gall 17 (ix).
=G®); Munich 251 = LP");
a Bamberg Graeco-Latin MS. and a Cologne
MS. closely related to it, which he calls W and Z respectively.
205:
to to
ι 0 Oe
LoS) Oo
48.
49.
wicant.,
. Prophets
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
Prov., 407)1771.
Procop. (xiv)
. Prov.—Sir. (xill)
. Prov., com. (xii) . Eccl., comme. (xil) ἘΠΕ ΘΟΙῸ
Comm. Greg. Nyss., al. (xiil)
comm. (x11)
# DiOV....x)—109
(D)
(x1— X11) Isaiah, caz. (xi)
. Prophets (? x1)
pela.) ἘΠῚ Ἰξῶζ.
(x)
4 anes (xit) . Dan. (xi) . Prophets (xiii)
. Dodecaprophe-
ton (xil)
. Isa., Jer. (ix—x) Ὑ ezek.. Dan; (Gx
—x1l1)
erlisds, Crs; -bar., Lam., Ep. Ezek... Dan:, Minor Pro-
phets... (xiv) Prophets (xi)
Prophets (x1)
Rome, Vat.
Gr. 56
Rome, Vat. Palat. Gr.
337 Rome, Vat. Gr. 1802 [Cod. Eugenii 3] Rome, Vat. Gr. 1694
[Cod. Eugenii 3]
London, B. M. Reg.
1. Bs 2 [Cod. Demetrii i.] Rome, Vat. Gr.
Rome, Vat. Gr.
Rome, Vat. Gr. 803 Rome, Vat. Gr. 866 Rome, Vat. Gr. 347
[Cod. Dorothei iii.] [Cod. Demetrii i1.]
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.
4
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1794
Florence, Laur. xi. 4
Ottob.
165
Klostermann, p. 29 f.
Prophetical Books.
Field, ii. p. 428f. Cor- nill’s €
Hesychian (Cornill, Ceriani): cp. Klos- termann, p. 1of.
Originally belonged to same codex as Vat. gr. 1153: see Klostermann, p. II. Cp. notes on 97, 238
Klostermann, p. 11 ἢ.
Lucianic (Field).
Cornill’s o
Lucianic (Field)
Lucianic (Field), Cor- nill’s 7. Kloster- mann, pp. II, 14
Hesychius, Cornill’s x
δ8.
105
. Prophets (x1)
. Prophets (xi
...Prophets (xiii)
i)
XV ...Prophets (x—xi)
he oh εὖ.
ek.,
Dodecapr.(?1x)
isa.y fers’ hz
. Prophets (? ix)
ek.,
Dan. (LXX.)
(? xi)
. Daniel (xi)= ἘΠ 5 Ἐν 61: aoe
Han., car. ¢
. Prophets,
(xi)
ἐς ΤΡ UKIV
COMM.
Mops.
ξεν Jers Ez
Dan.
7. Dodecapr., I
cat. (x) ...Fragments
Prophets,
(xill—xiv)
239 cc. X1)
cat.
. Dodecaproph., Theod.
ek., Sa.,
of
Florence, Laur. x. 8
Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 10
Oxford, New Coll.
...Ezek.,Dodecapr. Venice, St Mark’s, Gr.
5 Munich, Gr. 372 (for- merly at Augsburg) Rome, Barber. v. 45
Rome, Chigi 2
Rome, Chigi 3
Florence, Laur. v. 9
Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr. 452 London, B. M. Reg.
1 19:02 Vienna, Th. Gr. 163
Copenhagen
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1153
London, B. M. Bur- ney
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
Lucianic (Field). Cornill’s 6
On the text of Daniel inthis MS.see Klos- termann, p. 12
Lucianic (Field). Field, 1. 9a Burkitt, Zycontus, p- ον} Kloster- mann, p. 51
Hesychian. Cornill’s
Field, ii. p. 939. Wal- ton, vi. 131 f.; Klos- termann, p. 50
Hesychian. Cornill’s B. For the relation of 87 to 91 and 96 see Faulhaber Dze Propheten - catenen (Freiburg, 1899)
87 in Field (11. p. 766). O.T. in Greek (iii. p. xul.). Cf. Klos- termann, p. 31
Lucianic (Field); in Ezekiel, Hesychian acc. to ."Cormitee Cornill’s A
Hesychian (Cornill). Cornill’s p. See note on 87
Lucianic (Field)
Lucianic (Cornill)
See note on 87
See note on 33
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
107...1sa., Jer., Ezek., Dan., Minor Prophets ἰἴο Micah (xv) 109... saiah,cat. = 302 114. Dodecaproph., comm. Theod. Mops... 122...Prophets (xv) 131...Prophets (? xii) 147...Dan. (imperf.), Dodecaproph. 148. Daniel (xii) 153. Prophets (exc. Zech.), comm. (x) 185... Dodecaproph. (xi) 198. Prophets (im- perf.) (ix) 228...Prophets (xiii) 229. Jer., Dan., comme. (xiv) 230. Daniel (xiii) 231. Jer. with Baruch
232. 233. 234. 53. 238. 239. 240.
301.
302
ἄς. (xi)
Daniel (xii)
Prophets (xiil) Susanna Susanna Ezekiel, caz. (x)
Prophets 1046) = 89 Dodecapr., (A.D. 1286) Isaiah (ix) ...[saiah, caz.( xili) — 10g
(A.D.
cat.
Ferrara, Gr. 187
Evora, Carthus. 2
Venice, St Mark’s,
Gr. 6 Vienna, Th. Gr. 23 Oxford, Bodl. Laud. 30 Rome, Vat. Gr. 2025 Rome, Vat. Gr. 273
Vienna, Th. Gr. 18
Paris, Nat. Gr. 14 Rome, Vat. Gr. 1764
Rome, Vat. Gr. 673
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1641 Rome, Vat. Gr. 1670
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2000 Rome, Vat. Gr. 2067 Moscow, Syn. 341
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2048 Rome, Vat. Gr. 1153
Florence, Laur. vi. 22
Vienna, Th. Gr. 158
167
Lucianic (cf. Field, ii. Ρ- 907)
Lucianic (Cornill)
Lucianic (Cornill)
=Ev. 33. Burkitt, Tyconius, p. cviii
Hesychian (Cornill, but cf. Kloster- mann, p. 13f. Cor- nill’s ¢)
From Grotta Ferrata. Lucianic,Cornill’s «. Cp. Klostermann, Ρ. 14
A Basilian MS., cp. Klostermann, p. 15
Lucianic (Field)
Hesychian (Cornill). Cornill’s ¢s. See notes on 33, 97
168 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
303. Isaiah, comm. Vienna, Th. Gr. 100 Cyril. 304. Isaiah i.—xxv. Florence, Laur. iv. 2 comm. Basil. (xi) 305. Isaiah (imperf.), Copenhagen, Reg. cat. 306. Isa., Ezek. (xi) Paris, Nat. Gr. 16 307. Isaiah, comm. Rome, Vat. Gr. 430 Basil. (xi) 308. Isaiah, comm. Rome, Vat. Gr. 1509 Lucianic (Field) Basil. and That. (xiii) 309. Isaiah, ca¢. (x) Rome, Vat. Gr. 755 Cf. Klostermann, p. II 310. Dodecapr.,schol. Moscow, Syn. 209
(x1) 311...Prophets (xi)=
234 ...Prophets . (ix, Jerusalem, H. Sepul- med.) chre 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, Afol. i. 67 τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται. Const. ap. ii. 57 μέσος δὲ ὁ ἀναγνώστης ἐφ᾽ ὑψηλοῦ τινος ἑστὼς ἀναγινωσκέτω τὰ Μωσέως καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυή, τὰ τῶν Κριτῶν καὶ τῶν Βασιλειῶν «.t.r. bid. viii. 5 μετὰ τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν. Chrys. 22: Rom. xxiv. 3 ὁ μάτην ἐνταῦθα εἰσελθών, εἰπὲ τίς προφήτης, τίς ἀπόστολος σήμερον διελέχθη.
At a later time the ἀναγνώσεις or ἀναγνώσματα were copied consecutively for ecclesiastical use. ‘The lectionaries or frag- ments of lectionaries which survive, although frequently written in large and showy uncials’, are rarely earlier than the tenth or eleventh century; but a thorough investigation of their con- tents would doubtless be of interest, not only from a liturgical
1 Specimens are given by H. Omont, Facsimilés des plus anciens MSS. Grecs (Paris, 1892), nos. xx.—-xxil.
vm i _—-
Manuscripts of the ls 169
point of view, but bet the light cea it would ἐπεδῷ 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, V. 7. Gv, ad fin. vol. i.; Neale, Holy Eastern Church, General Intr., p. 369 ff.; Burgon, Last twelve verses of SZ lark, p: 191 ἢ ἢ Scudamore, art. Lectionary, D.C. A. 1155 Nitzsch, art. Lectionarium, Herzog-Plitt, νὴ]. ; Gregory, prolege. i. p. 161 ff., 687 ff.; Scrivener- Miller, i. p. 74 ff. : E. Nestle, Urtext, p. 76.
The following list of MSS." 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 excep- tions 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.
Hondon, Sion College; Arc. 1, 1 (vi or vii)» Gr. ‘p. 720 (234, Scr. 227)
Ἄ B. Μ. Add. 11841 (Ὁ x1) Grp 753) (79; SCI. 7'5) a B. M. Add. 18212 (xi) aie 7 15 0101. Crs 208) a B. M. Add. 22744 (xii1) Grr p. -731 (324) ocr. 272) 9 Burdett-Coutts, ill. 42 (xiv) Gr. p,730 (315; Scr 259) τι Burdett-Coutts, iil. 44 (xv) Gr. p. 749 (476, Scr. 290) " Burdett-Coutts, ii. 46 (xiil) Gr. p. 734 (84) Burdett-Coutts, ili. 53 (xv) GED. το (2206. 50 240) Oxford, Christ Church, Wake I4 (x11) Gis pr 71 7-( 207. 0crn 2 IA) 3... warist 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—-xXxvVlll. 6): a frag- ment purchased from the executors of Tisch-
endorf a Christs College, F-1..8 (xi).* Grp. 714 {(πὃ5: Scr. 222 ΞΡ WH. 59 Ashburnham, 205 (x1i) Gr. p. 720 (237, Scr. 237-8) Paris, Nat. Gr. 308 (xil1) Gr ps 779 (24) pee ats (τί: 243 (A.D. 1133) Omont, JZS'S. Grécs datés, no. xlvi.
ΤᾺ few lectionaries have already been mentioned among the H.P. MSS. (37, 61, 132).
170
Paris, Nat. suppl. Gr. 32 (xiii) Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 59 (xii) » Wat. Gr. 168 (xiii or xiv) Vat) Gr 2082 (xv) " / arb. τὸ (xiv) Grotta Ferrata, A’ δ΄ 2 (x) ᾿ A’ & 4 (xlii) 4 A’ B’ 22 (xviii) Venice, St Mark’s, i. 42 (xii)
Tréves, Bibl. Cath. 143 F (x or xi)
Athens, Nat. 86 (xiii)
Salonica, Ἑλληνικοῦ γυμνασίου 16’ (xv or
xvi) Cairo, Patr. Alex. 927 (xv) Sinai, 748 (xv or xvi) » 943 (A.D. 1697) St Saba, in tower, 16 (xii) Jerusalem, H. Sepulchre (xiii)
LITERATURE (on the general subject of this chapter). Stroth, in Eichhorn’s Repertortum (vi., viil., x1.); the prolegomena to Grabe, Holmes and Parsons, Tischendorf, and Zhe Old Testa- ment in Greek; the prefaces to Lagarde’s Geneszs graece, Libr. V. T. Canon., p. 1., Psalterit specimen; Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS.; Madan, Summary, p. 615 ff. (Holmes MSS.,
Gr.
Gr. Gr.
ao)
BoIDDD BVDRUUDUUDUDT
Manuscripts of the Septuagint.
704 (84)
«757: ( 5735 ake 786 (188, Scr.
756 (556, Scr.
780 (40)
748 (473, Scr. 748 (475, Scr. 751 (506, Scr. 724 (268, Scr. - 713 (179) - 745 (443)
- 771 (837) . 776 (759, Scr. - 775 (900) - 775 (908) . 770 (829, Ser.
Harris, p. 13
_A.D. 1789—1805); Nestle, Urtext, p. 71 ff.
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 Stnatticorum (Oxford, 1886); Papadopulos Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη 1.—iv. (St Petersburg, 1891 —1899); Sp. P. Lambros, Catalogue of the Greek MSS. on Mount Athos (Cambridge, vol. i., 1895; vol. 11. in type, but not He may also consult with advantage J. B. Pitra, Analecta sacra, 111. (1883), p. 551 ff.; P. Batiffol, in Bulletin critique, 1888, p. 112 ff.; H. A. Redpath, in Academy, Oct. 22,
yet published).
1893; E. Klostermann’s Analecta zur Septuaginta (1895).
POSTSCRIPT.
395) 116)
387) 323) 325)
358) 173)
140)
364)
The first part of the Amherst Papyri, edited by Messrs Grenfell and Hunt, which has just appeared (October, 1900), makes the following additions to the store of unused
uncial fragments enumerated in pp. 146—8:
(19) A papyrus leaf containing, with other Biblical matter, Gen. i. r—5 (LXX. and Aquila). The writing appears to be of the time of Constantine. (20) A leaf of a papyrus book, containing Ps. ν. 6—12, Vv aa (21) Fragment of a vellum leaf belonging to a Psalter, containing parts of Pss. lviii.,
lix., ina hand “‘ dating apparently from about the fifth century.”
Cent. v. or vi.
(22) Fragments of Pss. cviii., cxviii., cxxxv., cxxxviii.—cxl., from the leaves of a
papyrus book written perhaps in cent. vii.
(23) Fragment of a leaf of a papyrus book, containing Jobi. 2rf., ii. 3. About cent. vii.
τ ι
CHAPTER Vit
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 Alcala (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.
172 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.
Hebraico Graeco et Latino idiomate, N.T. Graecum et Lati- num, et vocabularium Hebraicum et Chaldaicum V.T. cum grammatica Hebraica necnon Dictionario Graeco. Studio opera et impensis Cardinalis Fr. Ximenes de Cisneros. In- dustria 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, (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’. The prejudice which their words reveal does not augur well for the character of the Complu- tensian 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’. 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’, 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 con- struction of the Complutensian text of the Lxx.* There is
1 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.”
* 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.”
3 “Ex ista apostolica bibliotheca antiquissimos tum V. tum N. Testa- menti codices perquam humane ad nos misisti.”’
4 See Vercellone, in V. et N.7. ed. Mai, i. p. v. n.; Var. lectt. ii. p. 430; Dissertaziont Accademiche, 1864, p. 407 ff.; Tregelles, 4% account of the printed text of the Greek N.T, (London, 1854), p- 2 ff.; Delitzsch, Studien sur LEntstehungsgeschichte der Polyglotten Bibel des Cardinals Ximenes
Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 173
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 Polygott were the Spaniard Antonio de Nebrija, Professor of Rhetoric at Alcala, and his pupil Ferdinando Niinez de Guzman (Pincianus) ; Diego Lopez de Zufhiga (Stunica); Juan de Vergara, Professor of Philosophy at Alcala; 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; Vatablus, Geneva, 1586—7, 1599, 1616 ; D. Wolder, Hamburg, 1596; Michael Le Jay, Paris, 1645.
2. In February 153%, after the printing of the Complu- tensian Polyglott but before its publication, Andreas Asolanus!, father-in-law of the elder Aldus, issued from the Aldine press a complete edition of the Greek Bible bearing the title: Πάντα τὰ κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν καλούμενα βιβλία, θείας δηλαδὴ γραφῆς παλαιᾶς τε καὶ νέας. 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*. Traces have (Leipzig, 1871); Lagarde, 2107. V. T. can.i., Ὁ. iii.; E. Nestle, Septuagin- tastudien, i., pp. 2, 133; E. Klostermann, Anacecta, p. 15 f.
1 On the orthography see Nestle, Septwagintastudien, ii., p. 11, note ὦ. > Cf. Lagarde, Genesis graece, p. 6; Cornill, Ezechiel, p. 79; Nestle,
174 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.
been found in his text of three at least of those MSS. (cod. 11 = HP: δον cod. iii = H:P. αι gi 08, veo HP: 168). The Aldine text of the LXxX. was followed on the whole in the editions of (1) Joh. Lonicerus, Strassburg, 1526—8 ; (2)? with a preface by Philip Melanchthon, Basle, 1545; (3) H. Guntius, Basle, 1550, 1582; (4) Draconites, in Azb/ia Pentapla, Wittenburg 1562—5; (5) Francis du Jon (Fr. Junius) or(?) Fr. Sylburg, Frankfort, 1597 ; (6) Nic. Glycas, Venice, 1687.
3. In 1587 a third great edition of the Greek Old Testa- ment was published at Rome under the auspices of Sixtus V. (editio Sixtina, Romana). It bears the title: H ΠΑΛΑΙᾺ AIA@HKH | KATA TOYS EBAOMHKONTA | AI AY@ENTIAS | ZYSTOY Ε΄ AKPOY APXIE- PEQS | EKAO@EISA | VETVS TESTAMENTVM | IVXTA SEPTVAGINTA | EX AVCTORITATE | SIXTI V. PONT. MAX. | EDITVM | ROMAE| EX TYPOGRAPHIA FRANCISCI ZANETTI. M.D.LXXXVI(I)* | CVM PRIVILEGIO GEORGIO FERRARIO CONCESSO.
The volume consists of 783 pages of text, followed by two of addenda and corrigenda, and preceded by three (un- numbered) leaves which contain (1) a dedicatory letter addressed to Sixtus V. by Cardinal Antonio Carafa, (2) a preface to the reader*, 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 Sep-
Urtext, p. 65. On the source of the Psalms in this edition see Nestle, Septuagintastudien, 111., Ὁ. 32.
1 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.
2 «Elle n’est point signée, mais on sait qu’elle fut redigée par Fulvio Orsini. Elle est d’ailleurs trés inférieure a la lettre de Carafa.”’ (P. Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul 777. ἃ Paul V., p. 89).
Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 175
tuaginta 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 anim- advertisset, infinitos pene locos ex 115 non eodem modo ab antiquis sacris scriptoribus afferri quo in vulgatis Bibliorum Graecis editionibus circumferrentur, existimassetque non aliunde eam lectionum varietatem quam e multiplici eaque confusaveterum 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 nom 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 deman- datum esset a Gregorio XIII., cuius cogitationes eo maxime spectabant ut Christiana Religio quam latissime propagaretur, operam dedi ut in celebrioribus Italiae bibliothecis optima quae- que exemplaria perquirerentur atque ex lis lectionum varietates descriptae ad me mitterentur!. Quibus sane doctorum hominum quos ad id delegeram industria et iudicio clarae memoriae Gulielmi Cardinalis Sirleti (quem propter excellentem doc- trinam 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 e sacrorum veterum scriptorum consensione, Vaticanum codicem non solum vetustate verum etiam bonitate caeteris anteire; quodque caput est, ad ipsam quam quaere- bamus 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 κατὰ τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα, curavi de consilio et sententia eorum quos supra nominavi, huius libri editionem ad Vaticanum exemplar emen- dandam ; 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
1 On the genesis of the Sixtine edition the curious reader may consult Nestle, Septuagintastudien, i., 11., where the particulars are collected with the utmost care and fulness.
176 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.
fuerit absolutum; scilicet ut hoc praeclarum opus, vestro Sanctis- simo nomini dicatum, quasi monumentum quoddam perpetuum esset futurum apud omnes bonos et vestrae erga Rempublicam | Christianam voluntatis et meae erga Sanctitatem vestram obser- vantiae. .
(2) PRAEFATIO AD LECTOREM
Qui sunt in sacrosanctis scripturis accuratius versati, fatentur omnes Graecam Septuaginta Interpretum editionem longe 4115 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 ex- planatam 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 ludaeis 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 aucto- ritatis : 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 retinu- erunt. 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 testan- tibus et Niceta confirmante his plane verbis in commentario Psalmorum : ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ τὴν τοιαύτην ἔκδοσιν σεβαζόμενοι, τῇ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα προσκείμεθα μάλιστα, ὅτι διῃρημένως τὴν τῆς
Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 177
διαλέκτου μεταβολὴν ποιησάμενοι μίαν ἐν ἑκάστοις ἔννοιαν καὶ λέξιν ἀποδεδώκασιν.
Adeo Septuaginta Interpretum editio magni nominis apud omnes fuit; nimirum quae instinctu quodam divinitatis elabo- rata 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 duplici atque etiam triplici eiusdem sententiae interpre- tatione 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 singu- larem 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 exe- quendam 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 lis optimas quasque lectiones elicerent; quibus deinde cum codice Vati- canae bibliothecae 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 para- retur.
Sed emendationis consilio iam explicato, ipsa quoque ratio quae in emendando adhibita est nunc erit aperienda, in primis- que 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
Ss. S. ΤᾺ
178 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.
omnibus autem libris qui in manibus fuerunt unus hic prae alliis, quia ex editione Septuaginta si non toto libro certe maiorem partem constare visus est, mirum in modum institutam emenda- tionem adiuvit; post eum vero alii duo qui ad eius vetustatem proximi quidem sed longo proximi intervallo accedunt, unus Venetus ex bibliotheca Bessarionis Cardinalis, et is quoque grandioribus litteris scriptus; alter qui ex Magna Graecia ad- vectus nunc est Carafae Cardinalis: qui liber cum Vaticano codice ita in omnibus consentit ut credi possit ex eodem arche- typo 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 consensus 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 fierl potuit per antiquam ortho- graphiam aut per librarii lapsus, est expressus. Nam vetus illa et iam obsoleta eius aetatis scriptura aliquibus locis repraesentata non est; cum tamen in aliis omnibus, nisi ubi manifestus ap- parebat librarii lapsus, ne latum quidem unguem, ut aiunt, ab huius libri auctoritate discessum sit, ne in iis quidem quae 51 minus mendo, certe suspicione mendi videbantur non carere. satius enim visum est locos vel aliquo modo suspectos (nec enim fieri potest ut in quantumvis expurgato 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 sunt sub aste- riscis.
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 arche- typis exemplaribus reperiuntur descripta sunt, quo uniuscu- iusque arbitratu adiuvantibus libris restitui possint. Nec vero illud omittendum, quod item pertinet ad notationes ; non omnia
Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 179
in lis repraesentata esse quae aut ad confirmandas lectiones Vaticanas e scriptoribus vulgatis, aut ad explenda quae in Sep- tuaginta 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 inter- pretationum varietates (sub scholii illas nomine, quod ipsarum incerta esset auctoritas, nonnunquam relatas) vel ad stabiliendam scripturam Vaticanam et eius obscuriores locos illustrandos per- tinere 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 quat- tuor, quemadmodum vulgo editi sunt. Atque hunc ordinem verum esse intelligimus ex eo quod illum agnoscunt et pro- bant 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 similis quam describit sanctus Dorotheus martyr, qui vixit sub Magno Con- stantino.
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. Hie- ronymus, vel lacerata vel inversa, quod ea sub obelis et aste- riscis 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 κοινήν, 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, dubi- tabit nemo qui hanc cum illa accurate comparaverit.
Quae si doctis viris et pie sentientibus, ut aequum est, proba- buntur, reliquum erit ut Sixto V. Pont. Max. huius boni auctori gratias agant, et ab omnipotenti Deo publicis votis poscant,
12---2
180 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.
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 improbi- tate 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 saluti quacunque ratione ac via pro- spicere, 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 potui- mus, 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 recorda- tionis Gregorius Papa XIII. praedecessor noster, nobis sugge- rentibus, Graecum Vetus Testamentum iuxta Septuaginta Inter- pretum editionem, qua ipsi etiam Apostoli nonnunquam usi fuerunt, ad emendatissimorum codicum fidem expoliendum mandaverit; eius rel 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
Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 181
versions which are implied by these documents’. They shew that the Vatican had already learnt the true value of the Alexandrian Old Testament and, as a consequence, had re- solved 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 all 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 identi- fied with S. Marc. cod. gr.1 (H. P. 23, Lag. V); a MS. belong- ing to Carafa, possibly cod. Vat. gr. 1252 (H. P. 63 + 129, cf. Klostermann, p. 12f., 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, Za Vaticane, p. 90f.). From these and other sources the editors supplied the large lacunae of Cod. B’. 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 represen- tation 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 1 Cf. Tregelles, Ax account of the printed text, &c., p. 185.
2 According to Nestle (Septwagintastudien, i. p. 9, ii. p. 12) Genesis i. 1—xlvi. 28 are supplied from cod. Chis. R. vi. 38 (H. P. 19, lag. 2).
182 Printed Texts of the ων
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, 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.) :
. 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. Cambridge, 1665 (with the Draefatio paraenetica of J. Pearson’, 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. 9. 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 Ι: [G.}? Carpzow). 13. F. Valpy, London, 1819. 14. London, 1821, 26, 31, 51, 69, 78 (the LXx. column of Bagster’s Polyglott). I5. Venice, 1822. τό. Glasgow and London, 1827, 31. 17. L. Van Ess, Leipzig, 1824, 35, 55, 68, 79, 87 (prolegomena and epile- gomena separately i in 1887). 18. London, 1837. 19. Didot, Paris, £830, 40, 48, §55.76, 62: 20, (Oxtord, lots, 75. 20: te. Ε. von Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1850, 56, 60, 69, 75, 80.
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
1 The praefatio was reprinted with Archd. Churton’s notes by Prof. W. Selwyn (Cambridge, 1855). * See Nestle, Septwagintastudien, ili., Ὁ. 32, note 2.
Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 183
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 text1, 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. 11. (1719) the Historical Books, Vol. i. (1720) the Prophets, Vol. iv, (1709) the Poetical Books. The title to the first volume runs: ‘“Septuaginta | interpretum | tomus I | continens Octa- teuchum | quem | ex antiquissimo codice Alexandrino | accu- rate 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. | Oxonti, e 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 κοινή, 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 aste-
1 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).
184 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.
risk 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 tuxta LXX. interpretes. Recen- stonem Grabianam ad fidem codicis Alexandrini aliorumgque 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 ἀπόκρυφα.
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
Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 185
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 Win- chester. 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", and the Bodleian Library contains 164 volumes of MS. collations (Holmes MSS. a.p. 1789—1805, nos. 16455—16617)* 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 varits lectionibus. Edidit Robertus Holmes, $.T.P.,R.S.S., Aedis Christi Canonicus. Tomus primus. Oxonti: ὁ 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*, under whose care the remaining volumes were issued (Vol. ii, Joshua—z Chronicles, 1810; Vol. Π|., 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
CL Ce. O. X., April 1899, p. Loz. Ξ
2 Cf. Madan’s Summary catalogue of 77.8.5. in the Bodleian: Eighteenth century collections, pp. 614—641.
3 On Holmes’ less distinguished coadjutor see Ch. Q. R. p. τος.
Parsons died in 1847 at the age of 85.
186 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.
for the work. Three hundred and eleven are enumerated (i.— xlll., 14311); 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 (Mem- phitic 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)’.
The great work of Holmes and Parsons has been severely criticised by later scholars, especially by Hatch* and Lagarde’. 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. Matthai (Moscow), F. C. Alter (Vienna), Schnurrer (Tiibingen), Moldenhawer (Copen- hagen). “The Armenian Version was chiefly collated by Her- mannus 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 Hor- reum uysteriorum 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 con-
1 See above, p. 153. 2 Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 132. 8 Libr. V. ΤΟ Canon. p. t. p. Xv.
Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 187
tinuator 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’) 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 Stxtinam sequuntur omntum in primis Tischendorfianarum, con- sisting 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 8; an appendix contained a collation of Daniel (LXx.) from Cozza’s
edition of the Chigi MS. The Swpplementum was reissued in 1887 with various enrichments, of which the most important
1 Prolegg. § viii.
188 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.
was a collation of cod. A from the London photograph which appeared in 1882—3. With these helps the reader of Tischen- dorf’s Septuagint is able to correct and supplement the appara- tus, 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 Symmiucta il. (1880), p. 137 ff., and in a modified and simpler form by a pamphlet published two years later (Ankiindigung einer neuen Ausgabe der griechischen tiberset- sung des A.T., Gottingen, 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, Gottingen, 1883). La- garde’s untimely death in 1891 left this work incomplete, and though his papers are preserved at Gottingen, 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 afhm pz (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
Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 189
University Press issued a notice that they had undertaken “tan 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 com- mitted in 1883 to Dr Swete, instructed by a committee con- sisting 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 (Zhe Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, vol. i., Genesis—4 Regn., 1887; vol. ii, τ Esdr.—Tobit, 1890; vol. 111., Hosea—4 Macc., 1894); a second and revised edition*® has now been carried through the press (vol. 1., 1895; vol. il, 1896; vol. ili., 1899). The larger Cambridge Septuagint has been entrusted to the joint editorship of the Rev. A. E. Brooke, Fellow of King’s College, and Mr N. McLean, Fellow of Christ’s College; and the Octateuch, which will form the first volume, may be expected in the course of a few years, It will reproduce the text of the manual Septuagint, but the apparatus will embrace, according to the original purpose of the Syndics, the evi-
1 Cambridge University Reporter, March 13, 1883.
* 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. ft
190 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.
dence 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 will also be represented, whilst use will be made of the quotations in Josephus as well as those in Philo and the more important Christian fathers. Such an apparatus will fall 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 will be 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 will proceed upon the principle formulated by Lagarde: ‘‘editionem Veteris Testamenti Graeci...collatis in- tegris codicum familiis esse curandam, nam familiis non acce- dere auctoritatem e codicibus, sed codicibus e familiis'.”
A word may be added with regard to the text which will be common to the manual and the larger edition of the Cam- bridge Septuagint. It is that of the great Vatican MS., with its lacunae supplied from the uncial MS. which occupies the next place 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’, 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). 1 V. T. Libr. can. praef. p. xvi. 2 Cf. E. Nestle, Zur Rekonstruktion der Septuaginta, in Philologus, N. F. xii. (1899), p. 121 ff.
Printed Texts of the Septuagint. ΙΟΙ
GENESIS.
P. A. de Lagarde, Leipzig, 1868: Genests graece e fide editio- nis Sixtinae addita scriplurae discrepantia e libris manu scriptis a se collatis et edd. Complutenst et Aldina adcuratissime enotata. The MSS. employed are ADEFGS, 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 Moyst ex Psalterio guadruplict...manu scripto quod Bambergae asservatur.
JosHua.
A. Masius, Antwerp, 1574: Josuae tmperatoris historiae. Readings are given from the Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosi- anus.
JUDGES.
J. Ussher, 1655 (in his Syxtagma, Works, vol. vii.). Two texts in parallel columns (1) “εχ codice Romano,” (2) ‘ex codice Alexandrino.”
O. F. Fritzsche, Zurich, 1867: lzber Ludicum secundum lxx. interpretes. A specimen had previously appeared (in 1866).
P. A. de Lagarde, 1891 (in his Septuagznta-studien, 1. c.1.—V.). Two texts.
A. E. Brooke and N. M*Lean, Cambridge, 1891: The Book of Fudges in Greek, acc. to the text of Codex Alexandrinus.
[G. F. Moore, Andover, Mass. (in his Crztical and exegetical Commentary on Judges, p. xlv.), promises an edition of the recen- sion 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 secun- dum exemplar Vaticanum.
O. F. Fritzsche, Zurich, 1867 : Ῥοὺθ κατὰ τοὺς ο΄.
PSALMS.
Separate editions of the Greek Psalter were published at Milan, 1481 (Bonacursius); Venice, 1486; Venice, before 1498 (Aldus Manutius); Basle, 1516 (in Azeronymi Opera, t. viii., ed. Pellicanus); Genoa, 1516(Octaplum Psalterium Justiniant) ; Cologne, 1518 (Psalterium in tv, linguis cura Tohannis Potken). Other known editions bear the dates 1524, 1530 (Ps. sextuplex),
192 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.
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. editionts specimen), 1889 (Swete, The Psalms in Greek acc. to the LXX., with the Canticles; 2nd ed. 1896), 1892 (Lagarde, Ps. gr. guinguagena prima).
Jos. Patrick Young, 1657 (in the Catena of Nicetas). Franeker, 1663.
ESTHER.
J. Ussher, 1655 (in his Syz¢agma, Works, vol. vii.). Two texts, one Hexaplaric from an Arundel MS. (H. P.93). A second edition, Leipzig, 1695.
O. F. Fritzsche, Zurich, 1848: Ἔσθηρ. Duplicem libri textum ad opt. Codd. emendavit et cum selecta lectionts vartetate edidit. The Greek additions appear also in his Libri apocryphi V. T. (see below).
HOsEA.
J. Philippeaux, Paris, 1636; Hos. 1.—iv., after Cod. Q. D. Parens, Heidelberg, 1605: Hoseas commentarits tllus- tratus.
AMOS. Vater, Halle, 1810.
JONAH. S. Minster, 1524, 1543-
ISAIAH.
S. Miinster, 1540 (in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin). J. Curter, Paris, 1580 (in Procopit commentari in Tesaiam— the text of Cod. Q).
JEREMIAH.
S. Munster, 1540. G. L. Spohn, Leipzig, 1794: /Jeremias vates e vers. Judaeorum Alex. ac religuorum tnterpretum Gr.; 2nd ed., 1824.
LAMENTATIONS.
Kyper, Basle, 1552: Lzbri tres de re gramm. Hebr. ling. (Hebr., Gr., Lat.).
Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 193
EZEKIEL. Ἰεζεκιὴλ κατὰ τοὺς ο΄, Rome, 1840.
DaniEL (Theod.).
Ph. Melanchthon, 1546. Wells, 1716.
DANIEL (LXX.).
5. de Magistris (?), Rome, 1772: Daniel secundum lax. ex tetraplis Origenis nunc primum editus e singulart Chistano codice. Reprinted at Gottingen, 1773, 1774 (Michaelis); at Utrecht, 1775 (Segaar) ; at Milan, 1788 (Bugati) ; and at Leipzig, 1845 (Hahn). The LxXx. text is also given in the editions of Holmes and Parsons, Tischendorf, and Swete.
Non-CaANONICAL Books (in general).
J. A. Fabricius, Frankfort and Leipzig, 1691: Lzber Todzas, Judith, oratio Manasse, Sapientia, et Ecclestasticus, gr. et lat., cum prolegoments. 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: Lzbr¢ apocryphi V. T. gr.... accedunt libri V. T. pseudepigraphi selectt [Psalmi Salomonis, 4—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 1601, 1733, 1827.
Rensch, Friburg, 1858: Lzber Sapientiae sec. exemplar Vatz- canum.
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.
D. Hoeschel, Augsburg, 1604: Sapientia Sirachi 5. Eccle- stasticus, collatis lectionibus var....cum notis.
Linde, Dantzig, 1795: Senxtentiae [esu Stracidae ad fidem codd. et versionum.
Bretschneider, Regensburg, 1806: Liber Jesu Siracidae.
Cowley-Neubauer, Original Hebrew of a portion of Eccle- stasticus, &c. (Oxford, 1897); Schechter-Taylor, Wisdom of Ben Sira (Cambridge, 1899).
= 5, 13
194 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.
TOBIT. Reusch, Bonn, 1870: Lzbellus Tobtt e cod. Sinattico.
BARUCH. Kneucker, Leipzig, 1879.
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 Zeztschrift fiir wissensch. Th. xi., and in Messias Iudaeorum, Leipzig, 1869.
E. E. Geiger, Augsburg, 1871: Der Psalter Salomo’s heraus- gegeben.
Ο. F. Fritzsche in Lzbrz 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 introduc- tion.
H. B. Swete in O. 7. zz Greek, vol. 111... Cambridge, 1894; 2nd ed. 1899.
O. von Gebhardt, Leipzig, 1895: 2226 Psalimen Salomo’s.
ENnocH (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 Mémotres publiés par les membres de la mission archéolo- gigue francaise au Catre, ix., Paris, 1892] have been collected by Dillmann, ber den neufundenen gr. Text des Henoch-buches (1893); Lods, Lzvre ad’ Henoch (1893); Charles, Book of Enoch, (1893), and are printed with an apparatus in the O. 7: zz Greek, vol. 1ii., 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1899).
LITERATURE (upon the general subject of this chapter),
Le Long-Masch, ii. p. 262 ff., Fabricius-Harles, p. 673 ff., Rosenmiiller, Handbuch, i. p. 47 ff., Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, p. 242ff., Tischendorf, V. 7. Gr, prolegomena § vii. sqq., Van Ess [Nestle], efclegomena δ 1 sqq., Loisy, Histoire critique, 1. il. p. 65 ff., Nestle, Septuaginta-studien, 1. 1886, ii. 1896, 111. 1899; Urtext, p. 64 ff.
ἘΑΕΎΤΙ
THE CONTENTS OF THE ALEXANDRIAN OLD TESTAMENT.
13—2
ΡΥ, Fe ee ee a ae
‘ ) ps
jeevc.vs oa Mammen Ge
CHAPTER 1:
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.
198 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of 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) patris- tic and synodical lists of the (a) Eastern, (ὁ) Western Church.
A. TITLES OF THE Books.
Hebrew Transliteration 1 Septuagint Vulgate Latin MUNA Βρησίθ Γένεσις Genesis miny mde) Οὐέλε σμώθ Ἔξοδος Exodus 872") Οὐικρά Λευ[ε]ιτικόν Leviticus WT "Aumes pexwdelu? ᾿Αριθμοί Numeri ὉΠ mds "EXe ἁδδεβαρείμ δΔευτερονόμιον Deuteronomium yin ᾿Ιωσοῦε Bev Νούν ᾿Ιησοῦς Tosue DEY Σαφατείμ Κριταί Iudices Dey Σαμουήλ α΄, β' 1, 2 prob Οὐαμμὲλχ Δαβίδϑ Βασιλειῶν i , Regum a ; Tye ; me Ἴεσσιά ᾽Ησαίας Isaias WMT, my Ἴερεμιά ᾿Ιερεμίας Teremias Sxprm Ἰεζεκιήλ *Tefekeph Ezechiel yin ‘Qofe Osee wos Ἰωήλ Toel Diy ᾿Αμώς Amos ΠΥΡῚ. ᾽Οβδειού,᾿ Αβδ[εϊιούΛ Abdias
1 As given by Origen ap. Eus. 257. 35. vi. 25. 2 Le. DPS win ‘fifth of the precepts’; cf. the Mishnic title WAD
OPS (Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 294). Jerome transliterates the ini- tial word, vayedabber; cf. Epiph. (Lagarde, Symmicta ii. 178), ovaidaByp, n ἐστιν ᾿Αριθμῶν.
ΕΠ} 321 (first two words of 1 Kings i.), Malachim, Jerome ; δὃμαλαχείμ, Epiphanius.
Litles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
199
eS SS ee ee ee eae ee eres
Hebrew mi np pina, Din) papan 7228) "5 ΠΡ] NID DAA
novi mbit. own wy
ny? TIN
n2np TADS Sy Si Dana
Transliteration
Σφὰρ θελλείμ
Μελώθ: Ἰώβ Zip ἁσσιρίμ
Κωέλθ Ἔσθήρ Δανιήλ
Ἔζρά
Δαβρὴ ἰαμείν
Septuagint
᾽Ιωνᾶς
Μ[ε]ιχαίας Ναούμ ᾿Αμβακούμ Σοφονίας ᾿Αγγαῖος Ζαχαρίας Μαλαχίας
Ψαλμοί, Ψαλτή- ριον
Παροιμίαι
Ἰώβ
Ασμα, ἄσματα [ἀσμάτων]
‘Povd
Θρῆνοι
᾿Εκκλησιαστής
Ἔσθήρ
Δανιήλ
Ἔσδρας
Παραλειπομένων a’ ‘ β΄
1 With variants Μεσλώθ, Μισλώθ (leg. for. Μσλώθ). δμεθαλώθ, Epiphanius.
* Origen includes Ruth with Judges under Σαφατείμ. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλη μικρὰ βίβλος ἣ καλεῖται Κινώθ [Mishn.
5 Epiph. ἌΣ
nip]; ἥτις ἑρμηνεύεται Θρῆνος ᾿Ιερεμίου.
Vulgate Latin Ionas
Michaeas Nahum Habacuc Sophonias Aggaeus Zacharias Malachias
Psalmi
Proverbia lob
Canticum canti- corum
Ruth
Threni, Lamen- tationes
Ecclesiastes Esther Daniel Esdras 1, 2
Paralipomenon I, 2
Masaloth, Jerome ;
200 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
B (1). ORDER OF THE Books IN JEWISH Lists’.
TALMUDIC SPANISH GERMAN ἃ MASSORETIC PRINTED MSS. FRENCH MSS. MSS. BIBLES I Zorah "9 ve τ " Il Nebitim δ Pa i τ Joshua Joshua Joshua Joshua Joshua Judges Judges Judges Judges Judges Samuel Samuel Samuel Samuel I, 2 Samuel Kings Kings Kings Kings I, 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 eer Joe Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zachariah Malachi 111 Kethubim - of Ἢ Αἱ 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
1 This list has been adapted from Ryle, Canon of the Ο. 7. (table following p. 280).
Littles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 201
B (2). ORDER OF THE Books ΙΝ Unciat MS. BIBLEs.
Codex Vaticanus (B) Codex Sinaiticus (Ν)
Γένεσις Γένεσις ᾿Ἐξοδος Bs Λευειτικόν 7 ᾿Αριθμοί ᾿Αριθμοί Δευτερονόμιον is "Inoods Ἔ Κριταί τῇ “Povd τὰ
*
Βασιλειῶν a’—6’
Παραλειπομένων a’, β΄
Ἔσδρας α΄, B’
Παραλειπομένων α΄, [β]
Ἔσδρας [α΄], 8’
Ψαλμοί Ἐσθήρ
ἸΠαροιμίαι Τωβείθ ᾿Ἐκκλησιαστής ᾽Τουδείθ
ἴΑσμα Μακκαβαίων a’, δ' ᾿Ιώβ Ἢσαίας
Σοφία Σαλωμῶνος Σοφία Σειράχ
Ἔσθήρ
᾿Ιουδείθ 4
Τωβείτ Σ
ὯὩσῆε Σ
᾿Αμώς εν
Μειχαίας ῳ
Ἰωήλ "lain
᾿᾽Οβδειού ᾿Αβδειού
Ἰωνᾶς ᾽᾿Ιωνᾶς
Ναούμ Ναούμ
᾿Αμβακούμ, ᾿Αμβακούμ
Σοφονίας Σοφονίας
“Ayyatos ᾿Αγγαῖος
Ζαχαρίας ZLaxapias
Mandaxias Μαλαχίας
Ἢσαίας Ψαλμοὶ Aad pra’ (subscr.) Ἰερεμίας ἸΠαροιμίαι [+ Σολομῶντος subscr.] Βαρούχ ᾿Εκκλησιαστής
Θρῆνοι “Agua ἀσμάτων ᾿Επιστολὴ ᾿Ιερεμίου Σοφία Σαλομῶντος Ἰεζεκιήλ Σοφία ᾿Τησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ
Δανιήλ
Ἰερεμίας Θρῆνοι ᾿ἸἹερεμίου *
Ἰώβ
202 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
Codex Alexandrinus (A)
Codex Basiliano-Venetus (N+V) Τένεσις κόσμου ἐὴ
ἜἜξοδος Αἰγύπτου μὲ Λευειτικόν (N) Λευιτικόν ᾿Αριθμοί ᾿Αριθμοί Δευτερονόμιον Δευτερονόμιον ᾽᾿Ιησοῦς vids Νανή ᾽Τησοῦς Κριταί “Povd
Kpirai
Βασιλειῶν α΄ ---δ΄ Παραλειπομένων a’, B’ "Ἔσδρας [α΄], β΄
Ῥούθ [ὁμοῦ βιβλία η1
Βασιλειῶν α΄---δ΄'
Παραλειπομένων α΄, B’ [ὁμοῦ βιβλία ς΄] Προφῆται ις΄
‘Qaje a’ "Eo Op
᾿Αμώς β΄ i
Μιχαίας +’ ‘3
᾽Ἰωήλ δ΄ τ
᾿Αβδειού ε΄ (Ν) ᾿Τώβ (szdscr.) ᾿Ιωνᾶς ς΄ Παροιμίαι Ναούμ ζ΄ ᾿Ἐκκλησιαστής
“Acua ἀσμάτων Σοφία Σολομῶντος Σοφία ᾿Ιησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ
᾿Αμβακούμ η΄ Σοφονίας θ΄ ᾿Αγγαῖος ι΄
Ζαχαρίας ια΄ ‘Qoje Μαλαχίας ιβ΄ ᾿Αμώς ᾿Ησαίας προφήτης (γ΄ ᾿Ιωήλ Ἱερεμίας προφήτης ιδ΄ ᾿Αβδιού Βαρούχ Ἰωνᾶς Θρῆνος [+ Ἰερεμίου, subscr.] Μιχαίας Ἐπιστολὴ ᾿Ιερεμίου Ναούμ ᾿᾽Τεζεκιὴλ προφήτης ιε΄ ᾿Αμβακούμ Δανιήλ [+ προφήτης 1S’, catal. | Lodovias "Eo Op ᾿Αγγαῖος Τωβίτ (Τωβείτ, στὖεε7.) Zaxapias ᾽Ιουδείθ Μαλαχίας Ἔζρας a’ ὁ ἱερεύς ("Eogpas a’ ἱερεύς, Ἡσαίας catal.) "Tepeulas "Etpas β΄ ἱερεύς (Ἔσζρας β΄ ἱερεύς Βαρούχ catal.) Θρῆνοι Μακκαβαίων α΄---δ' ᾿Ιεζεκιήλ Ψαλτήριον (Ψαλμοὶ pr’ καὶ ἰδιόγρα- Δανιήλ gos a’ subscr., seg. pdai ιδ΄. Ψ αλ- Τωβίτ τήριον μετ᾽ woav catal.) ᾽Τουδίθ Ἰώβ Μακκαβαίων α΄ ---δ΄ Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος ᾿Εκκλησιαστής
ἔλσματα (ἾΑσμα subscr.) ἀσμάτων
Σοφία Σολομῶντος (Σ. Σολομῶνος subscr.;+% Πανάρετος, catal.)
Σοφία ᾿Ιησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ (Σειράχ, subscr.)
Ψαλμοὶ Σολομῶντος, catal.
Litles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 205
B (3) (a). ORDER OF THE BOOKS IN PATRISTIC AND SYNODICAL LISTS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH.
1. Melito (ag. Eus. 27... iv. 26).
Mwvoéws πέντε Γένεσις Εξοδος ᾿Αριθμοί Λευιτικόν Δευτερονόμιον ᾿Ιησοῦς Ναυή Κριταί ἹῬούθ Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα Παραλειπομένων δύο Ψαλμῶν Δαβίδ
Σαλομῶνος Παροιμίαι, ἣ καὶ Σοφίαϊ
᾿Εκκλησιαστής “Acua ἀσμάτων "THB Προφητῶν Ἢσαίου Ἰερεμίου Τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλῳ Δανιήλ Ἰεζεκιήλ "Ἔσδρας
3. Athanasius (62. fest. 39, Migne, P.G. xxvi. 1437). Τένεσις *Eéodos Λευιτικόν ᾿Αριθμοί Δευτερονόμιον ᾽᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυή Κριταί “Povd Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα βιβλία Παραλειπομένων a’, β΄ "Ἔσδρας, a’, β΄ Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν ἸΤαροιμίαι ᾽᾿κκλησιαστής
2. Origen (af. Eus. H.Z. vi. 25). Γένεσις ”HEodos Λευιτικόν ᾿Αριθμοί Δευτερονόμιον "Inoots υἱὸς Ναυή Κριταί “Povd Βασιλειῶν a’ —6’ Παραλειπομένων a’, β΄ Ἔσδρας a’, B’ Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν Σολομῶντος ἸΤαροιμίαι ᾿Εκκλησιαστής *Acua ἀσμάτων ᾿Ησαίας ᾿Ιερεμίας σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ τῇ Ἐπι-
στολῇ ἐν ἑνί Δανιήλ ᾿Τεζεκιήλ Ἰώβ "Eo O7p
Ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ Τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά
4. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cazech. iv. 35). Ai Μωσέως πρῶται πέντε βίβλοι
Téveots
*EHéodos
Λευιτικόν
᾿Αριθμοί
Δευτερονόμιον Ἑξῆς δέ
᾽Ιησοῦ υἱοῦ Ναυή
Τῶν Κριτῶν βιβλίον μετὰ τῆς ‘Pov Τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν ἱστορικῶν βιβλίων
Βασιλειῷν α΄---δ'
Παραλειπομένων a’, B’
Tot "Ἔσδρα a’, β΄
᾽ἜΕσθηήρ (δωδεκάτη)
1 Cf. Eus. H. £. iv. 22 ὁ πᾶς τῶν ἀρχαίων χορὸς Πανάρετον Σοφίαν τὰς
Σολομῶνος παροιμίας ἐκάλουν.
204 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
“Agua ἀσμάτων ᾿Ιώβ Προφῆται Οἱ δώδεκα ᾿Ησαίας ᾿Ἰερεμίας καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ Βαρούχ, Θρῆνοι, ᾿Ἐπιστολή Ἰεζεκιήλ Δανιήλ Ἔστι καὶ ἕτερα βιβλία τούτων ἔξωθεν, οὐ κανονιζόμενα μὲν τετυπωμένα δὲ παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τοῖς ἄρτι προσερχομένοις... Σοφία Σολομῶντος Σοφία Lipax
Ul
5°. Epiphanius (Zaer. 1. i 5).
α΄. Τένεσις
β΄. ᾿Ἔ ξοδος
γ΄. Λευιτικόν
δ΄. ᾿Αριθμοί
ε΄. Δευτερονόμιον ς΄. ᾿Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Navy ζ΄. Τῶν Κριτῶν
η΄. Τῆς Ῥούθ
6’, Tod lwp
ι(. To Ψαλτήριὸόν ια΄. Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος ιβ΄. ᾿Εκκλησιαστής
>
‘uy. Τὸ ἴΑσμα τῶν ἀσμάτων
ιδ'΄--ζ΄. Βασιλειῶν α΄---δ'
ιη΄, ιθ΄. ἸΠαραλειπομένων a’, B’
κ΄. Τὸ Δωδεκαπρόφητον
xa’. "Hoalas ὁ προφήτης
κβ΄. "Ἱερεμίας ὁ προφήτης, μετὰ τῶν Θρήνων καὶ ᾿Επιστολῶν αὐτοῦ τε καὶ Βαρούχ
κγ΄. ᾿Ιεζεκιὴλ ὁ προφήτης
κδ΄. Δανιὴλ ὁ προφήτης
κε΄, KS”. "Ἔσδρα a’, B’
xe’. "EoOnp
Ἢ Σοφία τοῦ Σιράχ Ἢ [Σοφία] τοῦ Σολομῶντος
Τὰ δὲ στιχηρὰ τύγχανει πέντε Ἴω Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν Παροιμίαι ᾿Εκκλησιαστής ἾΑσμα ἀἀσμάτων
βιβλίον)
"Emi δὲ τούτοις τὰ προφητικὰ πέντε Τῶν δώδεκα προφητῶν μία βίβλος ἮἮσαίου μία "Tepeutou [μία] μετὰ Βαροὺχ καὶ
Θρήνων καὶ ᾿Επιστολῆς ᾿Ιεζεκιήλ Δανιὴλ (εἰκοστὴ δευτέρα βίβλος)
Τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ πάντα ἔξω κείσθω ἐν δευ-
τέρῳ
(ἑπτακαιδέκατον
5>. Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 4).
Πέντε νομικαί (7 πεντάτευχος ἣ Kal
νομοθεσία) (Γένεσις----Δευτερονὀμιον)
Πέντε στιχήρεις
(Ἰώβ, Ψαλτήριον, ἸΠαροιμίαι Σα- λομῶντος, Εἰκκλησιαστής, Ασμα ἀσμάτωνῚὴ
Αλλη πεντάτευχος, τὰ καλούμενα Τρα- φεῖα, παρά τισι δὲ ᾿Αγιόγραφα λε- γόμενα (Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Νανή, βίβλος Κριτῶν μετὰ τῆς Ῥούθ, Παραλει- πομένων a’, B’, Βασιλειῶν a’, β’, Βασιλειῶν +’, δ΄)
Ἢ προφητικὴ πεντάτευχος (τὸ δωδεκα- πρόφητον, ᾿Ησαίας, ᾿Ιερεμίας, ᾽Τεζε- κιήλ, Δανιηλ)
ΑΛλλαι δύο (τοῦ "Εσδρα δύο, μία Noyt- ζομένη, τῆς ᾿Βσθήρ)
Ἢ τοῦ Σολομῶντος ἡ Πανάρετος λεγομένη Ἢ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 205
5°. Epiphanius (de ens. et fond. 23). Téveois κόσμου *Héodos τῶν υἱῶν Ισραὴλ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου Λευιτικόν ᾿Αριθμῶν Τὸ Δευτερονόμιον Ἢ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ Navy Ἢ τοῦ ᾿Ιώβ Ἢ τῶν Κριτῶν ἯΙ. τῆς Βοῦθ Τὸ Ψαλτήριον Τῶν Παραλειπομένων a’, β' Βασιλειῶν α΄---δ' Ἢ Παροιμιῶν Ὃ Ἐκκλησιαστής Τὸ “Acuna τῶν ἀσμάτων Τὸ Δωδεκαπρόφητον Τοῦ προφήτου ᾿Ησαίου Tod ᾿Ιερεμίου Tod ᾿Τεζεκιήλ Tod Δανιήλ Τοῦ "Ἔσδρα α΄, β' Τῆς ᾿Εσθήρ
7. Amphilochius (ad Seleuc. ap. Greg. Naz. carm. 11. vil., Migne, P.G. xxxvii. 1593). Ἢ πεντάτευχος (Κτίσις, "Εξοδος, Λευιτικόν, ᾽᾿Αριθ- μοί, Δευτερονόμιον) ᾽Ιησοῦς Οἱ Κριταί Ἧ ‘Pové Βασιλειῶν α΄---δ' ἸΠαραλειπομένων a’, B’ Ἔσδρας a’, p’ Στιχηραὶ βίβλοι ε΄ (Ἰώβ, Ψαλμοί, τρεῖς Σολομῶντο---- Παροιμίαι, Εκκλησιαστής,, Ασμα ἀσμάτων) ἹΠροφῆται οἱ δώδεκα (Ὡσῆε, ᾿Αμώς, Μιχαίας, ᾿Ιωήλ, ᾿Αβδίας, ᾿Ιωνᾶς, Ναούμ, ᾿Αμβα- κούμ, Logovias, Αγγαῖος, Zaxa- ρίας, Μαλαχίας) Προφῆται οἱ τέσσαρες (Ἤσαίας, ᾿Τερεμίας, ᾿Ιεζεκιήλ, Δα- vinr) Τούτοις προσεγρκίνουσι τὴν ᾿Εσθήρ τινες
6. Gregory of Nazianzus (carmz. 1. xii. 5 ff.). Βίβλοι ἱστορικαὶ ιβ΄
(Γένεσις, Ἑξοδος, Λευιτικόν, ᾿Αριθ- μοί, Δεύτερος νόμος, ᾿Τησοῦς, Kpu- ταί, ἹῬούθ, ἸΠράξεις βασιλήων, Παραλειπόμεναι, ~Eodpas)
Βίβλοι στιχηραὶ ε΄
(Ἰώβ, Δαυίδ, τρεῖς Σολομωντίαι, Ἐκκλησιαστής, ἴάσμα, Ilapo- μίαι)
Βίβλοι προφητικαὶ e’
(Οἱ δώδεκα---Ὡσῆε,᾽ Αμώς, Μιχαίας, ᾿Ιωήλ, ᾿Ιωνᾶς, ᾿Αβδίας, Ναούμ, ᾿Αββακούμ, Σοφονίας, ᾿Αγγαῖος. Ζαχαρίας, Μαλαχίας---Ησαίας. ᾿Ιερεμίας, ᾿Εζεκιήλ, Δανιῆλος)
8. Pseudo-Chrysostom (sy. script. sacr. praef.). Migne, P.G. lvi. 513 sqq.
Τὸ ἱστορικόν, ws
Ἢ Τένεσις
Ἢ ᾿Εξοδος
To Λευιτικόν
Οἱ ᾿Αριθμοί
To Δευτερονόμιον
Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυή
Οἱ Κριταί
ἹῬούθ
Αἱ Βασιλεῖαι a’—-6’
Εσδρας Τὸ συμβουλευτικόν, ὡς
Αἱ ἹἸΠαροιμίαι
Ἢ τοῦ Σιρὰχ Σοφία
‘O ᾿Εκκλησιαστής
Τὰ “Acuara τῶν ἀσμάτων Τὸ προφητικόν, ὡς
Οἱ δεκαὲξ προφηταί
“Pov (?)
Δαυείδ
J 2 , \ (ἡ ὀκτάτευχο-)
206 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
9. Σύνοψις ev ἐπιτόμῳ αὖ. Lagarde, Septuagintast,, ii. p. ὅο ἔ.}
Ta Μωσαϊκά a’. Téveots β΄. "Εξοδος γ΄. Λευιτικόν δ΄. ᾿Αριθμοί ε΄. Δευτερονόμιον Τὰ ἕτερα ς΄. ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Navy - Kperat η΄. Ῥούθ Τέλος τῆς ὀκτατεύχου Τὸ τετραβασίλειον θ΄. Βασιλειῶν a’ ι(. Βασιλειῶν β’ ια΄. Βασιλειῶν γ' ιβ΄. Βασιλειῶν 6 ιγ΄. Παραλειπόμενα a’ ιδ΄. Παραλειπόμενα β’' ιε΄. Ἔσδρα a’ iS’. Ἔσδρα β’ ιζ΄. Ἐσθήρ
ιη΄. Ἰωβίτ ιθ΄. ᾿Ιουδήθ τς τ
Τοῦ Σολομῶντος κα΄. Σοφία κβ΄. ἸΙαροιμίαι κγ΄. ᾿Εκκλησιαστής κδ΄. “Agua ἀσμάτων Οἱ 18’ προφῆται
κε΄. ᾽Ὦσηέ KS. ᾿Αμώς Ke’, Μιχαίας κη΄. ᾿Ιωήλ κθ΄. ᾿Αβδιού λ΄. Ἰωνᾶς
λα΄. Ναούμ λβ΄. ᾿Αββακούμ λγ΄. Σοφονίας λδ΄. ᾿Αγγαῖος λε΄. Δαχαρίας AS’. Μαλαχίας Οἱ δ΄ μεγάλοι προφῆται
dg’. Ἡσαΐας λη΄. Ἱερεμίας λθ΄. ‘Legexunr μ΄. Δανιήλ
Τέλος τῶν ἕξ καὶ δέκα προφητῶν μα΄. Σοφία ᾿Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Σιράχ
BIT ~WUR_DWA
-- > .
Anonymi dial. Timothei et Aquilae. Γένεσις
"ΕΒ ξοδος
Τὸ Λευιτικόν
Οἱ ᾿Αριθμοί
Τὸ Δευτερονόμιον
Ἢ Μωσαικὴ πεντάτευχος
. Ὁ τοῦ Navy
Οἱ Κριταί, μετὰ τῆς ‘Povd Τὰ Παραλειπόμενα a’, β' Τῶν βασιλειῶν a’, β΄
Τῶν βασιλειῶν γ΄, 5
ca’. "IwB ιβ΄. Τὸ Ψαλτήριον τοῦ Δαυίδ ιγ΄. Αἱ Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος
SJ
~ m
~ .
x 85
ὃς A)
. Ὃ Ἐκκλησιαστής, σὺν τοῖς “A-
σμασιν Τὸ δωδεκαπρόφητον' ᾿ἩΗσαίας, "Tepeuias, ᾿Τεζεκιήλ, Δανιήλ, Ἔσδρας
Τοβίας Ἢ Σοφία Σολομῶντος Ἢ Σοφία ᾿Τησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ
1 Lagarde, /.c.: ‘‘ich wiederhole sie, von mir redigiert.”
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
tz. Junilius de cust. reg. div. legis i. 3 ff, (ed. Kihn). Htstoria (xvii) Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numeri Deuteronomium Iesu Nave Iudicum Ruth Regnn. i—iv [Adiungunt plures Paralipome- non ii, Iob i, Tobiae i, Es- drae ii, Iudith i, Hester i, Macchabaeorum 11] Prophetia (xvii) Psalmorum cl Osee Esaiae Ioel Amos Abdiae Ionae Michaeae Naum Habacuc Sophoniae Hieremiae Ezechiel Daniel Aggaeli Zachariae Malachiae Proverbia (ii) Salomonis Proverbiorum Tesu filii Sirach [Adiungunt quidam libr. Sapi- entiae et Cantica Cantico- rum | Dogmatica (i) Ecclesiastes
13. Leontius (de Secfts ii.). Ta ἱστορικὰ βιβλία (ι7)
(Γένεσις, "Εξοδος, ᾿Αριθμοί, Λευιτι- κόν, Δευτερονόμιον" ᾿Ιησοῦς τοῦ Navy, Κριταί, ‘Pov, Λόγοι τῶν βασιλειῶν a’—6’, Παραλειπόμε- ναι, Εσδρα)
207
12. Pseudo-Athanasii syz. scr. sacr. (Migne, P.G. xxviil. 283 ff.). Γένεσις Εξοδος Λευιτικόν ᾿Αριθμοί Δευτερονόμιον ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυή Κριταί “Povd Βασιλειῶν a’, β' Βασιλειῶν γ΄, δ' Παραλειπομένων a’, B’ "Ἔσδρας a’, β' Ψαλτήριον Δαβιτικόν Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος ᾿Εκκλησιαστὴς τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἴΑσμα ἀσμάτων Ἰώβ ἹΙροφῆται δώδεκα εἰς ἕν ἀριθμούμενοι ‘Qoje, ᾿Αμώς, Μιχαίας, ᾿Ιωήλ, ᾿Αβ- διού, ᾿Τωνᾶς, Ναούμ, ᾿Αμβακούμ, Σοφωνίας, ᾿Αγγαῖος, Ζαχαρίας, Μαλαχίας Ἑξῆς δὲ ἕτεροι τέσσαρες Ἢσαίας Ἴερεμίας Ἔζεκιήλ Δανιὴλ "Exros δὲ τούτων εἰσὶ πάλιν ἕτερα βιβλία κ-τ.λ. (as in Athanasius, but adding Μακκαβαικὰ βιβλία δ' Ψαλμοὶ καὶ ᾧδὴ Σολομῶντος Σωσάννα)
14. John of Damascus (de fide orthod. iv. 17). Ilpwrn πεντάτευχος, 7 Kal νομοθεσία (Γένεσις, “Eéodos, Λευιτικόν, ᾿Αριθ- μοί, Δευτερονόμιον) Δευτέρα πεντάτευχος, τὰ καλούμενα Γραφεῖα, παρά τισι δὲ ᾿Αγιόγραφα (Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Νανή, Κριταὶ μετὰ
208 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
Τὰ προφητικά (e’)
(Ἠσαίας, ᾿Ἰερεμίας, Ἰεζεκιήλ, Aa- ’
νιήλ, τὸ Δωδεκαπρόφητον) Τὰ παραινετικά (δ΄) (Ἰώβ, Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος, Ἔκ- κλησιαστής, TO Agua τῶν ἀσμά- των, τὸ Ψαλτήριον)
15. Nicephorus, Stichometria.
A. Ὅσαι εἰσὶ γραφαὶ ἐκκλησιαζόμεναι καὶ κεκανονισμέναι
α΄. Τένεσις στίχ. ,ὃτ'
β΄. Ἔξοδος στίχ. Bw’
γ΄. Λευιτικόν στίχ. βψ'
δ΄. ᾿Αριθμοί στίχ. yon’
ε΄. Δευτερονόμιον στίχ. yp"
δ “Inoots crix. Bp’
ζ΄. Κριταὶ καὶ Ῥούθ στίχ. βυν’
η΄. Βασιλειῶν a’, B’ στίχ. Bop’
θ΄. Βασιλειῶν vy’, 6’ στίχ. Bory’
U. Παραλειπόμενα α΄, β' στίχ. <p’
ια΄. "Εσδρας a’, B’ στίχ. <p’
ιβ΄. Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν στίχ. ,ερ΄
ιγ΄. Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος στίχ.
ay
ιδ΄. ᾿Εκκλησιαστής στίχ. ψν'
ιε΄. ἴλσμα ἀσμάτων στίχ. on’ ‘S's Ἰώβ στίχ. aw’ ιζ΄. "Hoaias προφήτης στίχ. yo" ιη΄. ᾿Ιερεμίας προφήτης atix. 7δὲ
1 pees Bapovx στίχ. ara
κ΄. “Tefexund στίχ. δ΄
κα΄. Δανιήλ στίχ. β΄
κβ΄. Οἱ δώδεκα προφῆται στίχ. ,γ'
Ὁμοῦ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βίβλοι κβ΄.
τῆς 'Ῥούθ, Βασιλειῶν a’, β', Βασι- λειῶν γ΄, 5’, τῶν Παραλειπομένων a’, β᾽) Τρίτη πεντάτευχος, αἱ στιχηραὶ βίβλοι (τοῦ Ἰώβ, τὸ Ψαλτήριον, ἸΠαροι- plac Σολομῶντος, ᾿Εκκλησιαστής, τοῦ αὐτοῦ, Ta” ΄Ασματα TOV’ Ασμά- των τοῦ αὐτοῦ) Τετάρτη πεντάτευχος ἣ προφητική (τὸ Δωδεκαπρόφητον, ᾿Ησαίας, ᾽Ιε- ρεμίας, ᾿Τεζεκιήλ, Δανιήλ) ἔἤΛλλαι δύο (τοῦ Ἔσδρα a’, β΄, ἡ ἜΠσθηρ)
Ἢ Πανάρετος τ. ἐ. 7 Σοφία τοῦ Σολο- μῶντος Ἢ Σοφία τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ
16. Ebedjesu (catad, libr. Eccil., Assemani, Bibl. Or. iii. 5 f.).
Genesis
Exodus
Liber sacerdotum
Numeri
Deuteronomii
Josue filii Nun
Iudicum
Samuel
Regum
Liber Dabariamin
Ruth
Psalmi David Regis
Proverbia Salomonis
Cohelet
Sirat Sirin
Bar-Sira
Sapientia Magna
lob
Isaias
Hosee
Toel
Amos
Abdias
Ionas
Michaeas
Nahum
Habacuc
Sophonias
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
209
B. Ὅσαι ἀντιλέγονται καὶ οὐκ ἐκκλη- σιάζονται α΄. Μακκαβαϊκὰ γ' στίχ. fr’ β΄. Σοφία Σολομῶντος στίχ. ,ap’ γ΄. Σοφία υἱοῦ τοῦ Σιρὰχ στίχ. Bu! δ΄. Ψαλμοὶ καὶ @dal Σολομῶντος στίχ. Bp’ ε΄. Ἐσθὴρ στίχ. Tv’ ς΄, ᾿Ιουδὶθ στίχ. αψ' ζ΄. Σωσάννα στίχ. φ' η΄. Τωβίτ, ὁ καὶ Τωβίας στίχ. ψ'
17. Laodicene Canons (Ϊχ.).
~
Γένεσις κόσμου
. ἼἝξοδος ἐξ Αἰγύπτου
Λευιτικόν
᾿Αριθμοί
Δευτερονόμιον
Ἰησοῦς Ναυή
Κριταί, ‘Pov
Ἔσθηρ
Βασιλειῶν a’, B’
Βασιλειῶν γ΄, δ΄
. Παραλειπομένων α΄, B’
ιβ΄. "Ἔσδρας a’, β΄
ιγ΄. Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν pv’
ιδ΄. Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος
ιε΄. ᾿Εκκλησιαστης
.ἾΑσμα ἀσμάτων
ιζ΄. Ἰώβ
in. Δώδεκα προφῆται
ιθ΄. ᾿Ησαίας
κ΄. ᾿Ιερεμίας καὶ Βαρούχ, Θρῆνοι καὶ Ἔπιστολαί
κα΄. ᾿Ιεζεκιήλ
κβ΄. Δανιήλ
~ >
~97r Dea
23) i)
~ Φ .
cc > Ὲ
Aggaeus
Zacharias
Malachias
Hieremias
Ezechiel
Daniel
Iudith
Esther
Susanna
Esdras
Daniel Minor
Epistola Baruch
Liber traditionis Seniorunt
Josephi proverbia
Historia filiorum Samonae []. 6.- Maccab. iv]
Liber Maccabaeorum (i—iii)
18. Apostolic Canons (Ixxxiv.),
Μωυσέως πέντε
(Γένεσις, “Eéodos, Λευιτικόν, ᾿Α- ριθμοί, Δευτερονὀμιον)
᾿Ιησοῦς Ναυή
ἹῬούθ
Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα
Παραλειπομένων δύο
Ἔσδρα δύο
Ἔσθηήρ
Μακκαβαίων τρία
Ἰώβ
Ψαλτήριον
Σολομῶντος τρία (Παροιμίαι, ᾿Εἰκκλησιαστής,
“Acua ἀσμάτωνῚ
Προφητῶν δεκάδυο ἕν
᾿Ησαίου ἕν
᾿ερεμίου ἕν
᾽Τεξεκιὴλ ἕν
Δανιὴλ ἕν
Ἔξωθεν δὲ προσιστορείσθω μανθά- νειν ὑμῶν τοὺς νέους τὴν Σοφίαν τοῦ πολυμαθοῦς Σιράχ
19. List in Codd. Barocc. 206; 8.17. Add. 17469; Cozsl. 120.
Περὶ τῶν & βιβλίων, καὶ ὅσα τούτων ἐκτός
α΄. Τένεσις
β΄. "Ἑξοδος
γ΄. Λευιτικόν
δ΄, ᾿Αριθμοί
S: S;
ε΄. Δευτερονόμιον
=’. ᾿ΙΤησοῦς
ζ΄. Κριταὶ καὶ ‘Pové ἡ΄--ια΄. Βασιλειῶν a’—6’ ιβ΄. Παραλειπόμενα a’, B’ ιγ΄. Ἰώβ
14
210 7) 7115, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
ιδ΄, Ψαλτήριον ιε΄. Παροιμίαι iS”. ᾿Εκκλησιαστής ιζ΄. ἴΑσμα ἀσμάτων ιη΄. "Εσδρας
ιθ΄. Ὥσῆε
κ΄. ᾿Αμώς
κα΄. Μιχαίας
κβ΄. ᾿Ιωήλ
κγ΄. ᾿Ιωνᾶς
κδ΄. ᾿Αβδιού
κε΄. Ναούμ
KS’. ᾿Αμβακούμ κζ΄. Σοφονίας
κη΄. ᾿Αγγαῖος
B (3) (4).
κθ΄. Ζαχαρίας
λ΄. Μαλαχίας
λα΄. "Hoalas
λβ΄. Ἱερεμίας
λγ΄. Ἰεζεκιήλ
λδ΄, Δανιήλ! * *
* *
Kal ὅσα ἔξω τῶν ξ΄
α΄. Σοφία Σολομῶντος
β΄. Σοφία Σιράχ
γ΄-ς΄. Μακκαβαίων [α΄---δ1 ζ΄. ᾽Εσθηήρ
η΄. ᾿Ἰουδήθ
9. TwBir
ORDER OF THE ΒΟΟΚΒ IN PATRISTIC AND
SYNODICAL LISTS OF THE WESTERN CHURCH.
1. Hilary, prol. in libr. Psalm. . Moysi{s] libri quinque vi. Iesu Naue vii. Iudicum et Ruth vill. Regnorum i, ii ix. Regnorum iii, iv x. Paralipomenon i, li xi. Sermones dierum Esdrae xii. Liber Psalmorum xiili—xv. Salomonis Proverbia, Ec- clesiastes, Canticum Canticorum xvi. Duodecim Prophetae xvii—xxiil. Esaias, Jeremias cum Lamentatione et Epistola, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Hester
[xxiii—xxiv. Tobias, Judith]?
2. Ruffinus (Comm. in symb. 36). Moysi[s] quinque libri (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Nu- meri, Deuteronomium) Iesus Naue Iudicum, simul cum Ruth Regnorum iv Paralipomenon (= Dierum liber) Esdrae ii Hester Prophetarum (Esaias, Ieremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, ΧΙ Prophetarum liber i) lob
Psalmi David Salomonfis] iii (Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorum)
Sapientia Salomonis
Sapientia Sirach (= Ecclesiasticus) Tobias
Iudith
Maccabaeorum libri
1 The B.M. MS. counts Ruth as a separate book and after Daniel
places the numeral λε΄.
2 «Quibusdam autem visum est additis Tobia et Judith xxiv libros secundum numerum Graecarum literarum connumerare.”
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 211
3. Augustine (de doctr. Chr. ii. 13). 4. Innocent I. (ef. ad Exsuperiumt). [Historiae :] Moysi[s] libri quinque Quinque Moyseos [libri] (Genesis, Exodi, Levitici, Nu- (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, meri, Deuteronomii) Numeri, Deuteronomium) Tesu Naue Tesu Naue Tudicum Iudicum Regnorum libri iv Ruth Ruth Regnorum libri iv Prophetarum libri xvi Paralipomenon libri 11 Salomonis libri v lob Psalterium Tobias Historiarum : Esther Job Iudith Tobias Machabaeorum libri ii Hester Esdrae libri 11 Iudith Prophetae : Machabaeorum libri it David liber Psalmorum Esdrae libri ii Salamonis libri iii Paralipomenon libri 11
(Proverbiorum, Canticum Can- ticorum, Ecclesiastes) Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus } Prophetarum xii (Osee, Ioel, Amos, Ab- dias, Ionas, Michaeas, Nahum, Habacuc, So- phonias, Aggaeus, Za- charias, Malachias) Prophetae iv maiorum volu-
proprie prophetae
minum (Isaias, Ieremias, Daniel, Ezechiel) 5. Pseudo-Gelasius decret. de libr. 6. Cassiodorius (de zust. 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
1 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.”
14—2
212
Item libri prophetarum numero xvi:
(Isaias, leremias, Ezechiel, Daniel,
Osee, Amos, Michas, Iohel, Abdias, Ionas, Naum, Abacu, Sofonias, Agaeus, Zacharias, Maleachias)
Paralipomena i, il
Psalmorum cl
Salamonis libri 11] (Proverbiorum, Ecclesiastes,
Canticum Canticorum)
Liber Sapientiae filii Siracis
Alius subsequens liber Sapientiae Item historiarum:
lob
Tobias
Hester
Iudith
Macchabaeorum libri ii
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
Salomonis libri v (Proverbia, Sapientia, Ecclesias- ticus, Ecclesiastes, Canticum canticorum) Prophetae (Isaias, Hieremias, Ezechiel, Da- niel, Osee, Amos, Michaeas, Joel, Abdias, Jonas, Naum, Abbacuc, Sofonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias, qui et Angelus) Job Tobi[as] Esther Tudith Esdrae [libri] 11 Machabaeorum libri ii
a
7. Isidorus (de ord. libr. 5. scr).
I. Quinque libri Moyseos
2. Iesu Nave, Iudicum, Ruth
3. Regum i—iv, Paralipomenon i, ii, Tobiae, Esther, Iudith, Esdrae, Machabaeorum libri duo
4. Prophetae: Psalmorum liber i, Salomonis libri iii (Proverbi- orum, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorum), Sapientia, Eccle- siasticus, libri xvi Propheta- rum
8. Mommsen’s List, cited by Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T, Kanons, ii. p. 143 f.; Sanday, Studia Biblica, lil. p. 222f.; Preuschen, Analecta, p. 1381.
Libri canonici Genesis versus IIIDCC Exodus ver III Numeri ver II] Leviticus ver IICCC
Deuteronomium ver IIDCC Hiesu Nave ver MDCCL Iudicum Ver MDCCL
Fiunt libri vii Ver XVIIIC Rut ver CCL
Regnorum liber i ver IICCC
1 The text of Preuschen has been followed;
Regnorum liber ii Ver IICC Regnorum liber iii ver IIDL Regnorum liber iv Ver IICCL Fiunt versus VIIIID Paralipomenon liber i Ver IIXL liber ii Ver ITC
Machabeorum liber i ver IICCC
liber ii Ver MDCCC Iob ver MDCC
Tobias ver DCCCC Hester ver DCC
it is based on a St Gall
MS. which appears to be less ernie than the Cheltenham MS. used by
Mommsen and others.
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 213
Iudit ver MC Psalmi Davitici cli ver V [CC Salomonis ver VID Ezechiel ver IIICCCXL
Prophetae maiores ver XVCCCLXX Prophetae xii ver IIIDCCC numero 111 Erunt omnes versus numero
Esaias ver IIIDLXXX LXVIIIID
Ieremias ver LIIICCCCL Daniel ver MCCCL
το. Liber sacramentorum (Bobbio, cent.
tertius lib. ver. IIDC quartus lib. ver. IICCCC Psalmi Davitici ver. V
g. List in Cod. Claromontanus. vi, Vii). Versus scribturarum sanctarum Liber Genesis ita Genesis versus IIIID Exodum Exodus versus IIIDCC ee aS a umeri Leviticum versus ILDCCC το ΩΝ Numeri versus IIIDCL | Josue Deuteronomium ver. IIICCC Judicum fen Mauve vec. Ἢ Libri mulierum : -- Ruth Tudicum ver. II Flecter Rud ver. CCL i R Judith per ter ee ws Maccabeorum libri duo primus liber ver. IID Job secundus lib. ver. II Thobias
Regum quattuor Prophetarum libri xvi Daviticum v Solomonis iii
Proverbia ver. IDC Esdra i rie Aeclesiastes DC Fiunt libri Veteris numero Cantica canticorum CCC xl
Sapientia vers. 1 Sapientia IHU ver. IID
XII Profetae ver. IIICX Ossee ver. DXXX Amos ver. CCCCX Micheas ver. CCCX Ioel ver. XC 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
214 TLitles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
tr. Council of Carthage, a.D. 397 (can. )
cob . 47 = 39)- Ezechiel ver. IIIDC Genesis Daniel ver. IDC pore . eviticus
Maccabeorum sic. N :
: : --- umeri
lib. primus ver. IICCC Deuteronomium
lib. secundus ver. IICCC Tesu Naue
lib. quartus ver. I a ae
: = u fad xem CCG Regnorum libri iv Hesdra ID_ Paralipomenon libri ii Ester ver. I Job | Iob ver. IDC Psalterium Davidicum |
Tobias ver. I Salomonis libri v xii libri Prophetarum
Iesaias Ieremias | Ezechiel Daniel
Tobias
Iudith
Hester
Hesdrae libri ii
Machabaeorum libri ii
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’ (Ὁ 35 2) is changed into ‘Omissions’ (IlapaAeuropeva'), 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 ver- |
1 Or less correctly Παραλειπόμεναι, ‘omitted books,’ as in some lists.
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 215
sion itself. Thus Genests appears to come from Gen. ii. 4 αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, Exodus from Ex. xix. 1 τῆς ἐξόδου τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, Numbers from Num. i. 2 κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἐξ ὀνόματος, Deuteronomy from Deut. XVli. 18 γράψει αὑτῷ τὸ δευτερονόμιον τοῦτο εἰς βιβλίον', Eccle- stastes from Eccl. 1. 1 ῥήματα ἐκκλησιαστοῦ.
The Greek titles are probably of Alexandrian origin and pre-Christian use. Not only were they familiar to Origen (Eus. HT. 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 ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμών, xill. 33 ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ τῷ δευτέρῳ, Rom. ix. 25 ἐν τῷ Ὥσῆε λέγει. Philo® uses Γένεσις, "E€odos, Λευιτικὸν or Λευιτικὴ βίβλος, Δευτερονόμιον, Βασιλεῖαι, Παροιμίαι, but his practice is not quite constant; e.g. once or twice he calls Exodus 7 “Egaywy7*; Deuteronomy is sometimes ἡ “Ezuvopis, and Judges ἡ τῶν Kpidrwv® βίβλος. Similar titles occur in the Mishna’, whether suggested by the Alexandrian Greek, or independently coined by the Palestinian Jews ; thus Genesis is ΠΡ ἼΒΌ, Numbers 88D Ὁ, Proverbs 7930 "Ὁ, Lamentations nip.
Through the Old Latin version the Greek titles passed into the Latin Bible’, and from the Latin Bible into the later ver- sions of Western Christendom. In three instances, however, the influence of Jerome restored the Hebrew titles; 1, 2 King-
1 On this rendering see Driver, Deuteronomy, p.i. The Massora calls the book NVAI ΠῚ.
2 See also Acts xiii. 20, 33, Rom. x. 16, xv. 11, Heb. xi. 22.
3 See Prof. Ryle’s Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xx. ff.
4 De migr. Abr. 3, Quis rer. div. heres (ed. Wendland) 4. In the former of these passages Philo ascribes this title to Moses. Yet étaywy7 does not like ἔξοδος occur in the Alexandrian version of the book.
5 Cf. the change from ΞΡ to Βασιλεῖαι.
6 See Ryle, Canon of the Ο. T., p- 294.
7 Sometimes in a simple transliteration, as Genesis ἄς. Tertullian has Arithmi, but in Cyprian the Latin Mumeri is already used; see Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, p. 4.
216 L2tles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
doms have become 1, 2 Samuel, and 3, 4 Kingdoms, 1, 2 Kings, whilst ‘Chronicles,’ representing the Hebrew 0°220°"737, has taken the place of Paralipomenon.
Cf. Hieron. Pro/. Gal.: “tertius sequitur Samue/, quem nos Regnorum primum et secundum dicimus; quartus JZalachim, id est Regum, qui tertio et quarto Regnorum volumine continetur... septimus Daére aiamim, id est ‘Verba dierum,’ quod significan- tius 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: Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναυή, ὁ τοῦ Navn, Judges: Κριταὶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, αἱ τῶν κριτῶν πράξεις. Chronicles: ἸΠαραλειπομένων τῶν βασιλειῶν Ἰούδα. Psalms: Δαυὶδ προφήτου καὶ βασιλέως μέλος. When Nehemiah is separated from Ezra its title is: τὰ περὶ Νεεμίου or λόγοι N. υἱοῦ “Ayadia. A few further forms may be gleaned from the patristic lists. As an alternative for Παραλειπομένων the Apostolic Canons give τοῦ βιβλίου τῶν ἡμε- ρῶν, while Ezra is known to Hilary as sermones dierum Esdrae. The Psalter is sometimes βίβλος Vapor, liber Psalmorum, or Ψαλτήριον Δαβιτικόν, Psalmt David regis, Psaltertum Davitt- cum. For *Aopa ἀσμάτων we have occasionally ἃ ἄσματα ἀσμάτων —a form rejected by Origen (ap. Eus. H.£. vi. 25 ov yap, os ὑπολαμβάνουσί τινες, “Acpata ᾳσμάτων), but used by Pseudo- Chrysostom and John of Damascus, and found in cod. A and in several of the Latin lists!; cf. the English Article vI. “Cantica, or Songs of Solomon.” The lesser Prophets are oi δώδεκα or δεκαδύο, τῶν δώδεκα προφητῶν pia βίβλος, τὸ δωδεκα- πρόφητον, prophetae xiz; the greater, οἱ τέσσαρες, Prophetae ἔν, prophetae tv matiorum voluminum, or simply mazores; when the two collections are merged into one they become oi δεκαέξ Or οἱ ἑκκαίδεκα, TO ἑκκαιδεκαπρόφητον, 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) trans- ferred to another’.” Its three groups are known as the Law
1 The official Vulgate had Canticum, until the plural was adopted by
Sixtus V. ; see Nestle, ex /ubilium der Lat. Bibel, p. 18. 2 Driver, /ztrod., p. xxvii.
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 217
(77M), the Prophets (Ὁ 332), and the Writings (8°33N3), The Massora recognised, however, certain subdivisions within the second and third groups; the Prophets were classed as Former (D'RWN), ie. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings ; and Latter (Ὁ ΠΝ), and among the ‘Latter’ the Twelve minor Prophets formed a single collection*. Similarly ‘the five
Rolls’ (nidar ), Le. Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamen- tations, Esther, made a subsection among the Kethub- im. 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. τοῦ νόμου καὶ TOV προφητῶν Kal τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων : 6 f. τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων: 14 f. ὃ νόμος καὶ ai προφητεῖαι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων). 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 πάντα Ta γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσέως καὶ τοῖς προφήταις καὶ ψαλμοῖς). But the New Testament has no comprehensive name for the third group, and even Josephus (c. Ag. 1. 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*. At Alexandria the later books were probably attached to the canon bya looser bond. ‘The writer of the De vita contemplativa appears to recognise four groups® (ὃ 3 νόμους, καὶ λόγια θεσπισθέντα διὰ προφητῶν, Kai ὕμνους, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα οἷς ἐπιστήμη καὶ εὐσέβεια συναύξονται καὶ τελειοῦνται).
Only the first of the three Palestinian groups remains undis-
1 So already in Sir. xlix. 10 τῶν 18’ προφητῶν.
2 See Ryle, Canon of the O.T., p. 165 f.
3 Unless we omit the comma after ὕμνους and regard ὕ. καὶ τὰ ἄλλα as =the Hagiographa; cf. Joseph. c. Af. as quoted below, p. 220.
218 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
turbed’ 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 ex- tensive 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—s ἢ (3) prophetical—5. Epiphanius, followed by John of Da- mascus, endeavours to combine this grouping with a system of pentateuchs*—(r1) legal, (2) poetical, (3) historical*, (4) pro-
1 Yet even the Torah was not always kept apart in the Greek Bible, as the names Octateuch and Heptateuch witness.
2 Dr Sanday (in Studia Libdlica, iii. p. 240) regards this as Palestinian, identifying it with Cyril’s method. But Cyril begins with a dodecad (δωδεκάτη ἡ ᾿Εσθήρ᾽ καὶ τὰ μὲν ᾿Ιστορικὰ ταῦτα).
9. The term γραφεῖα (3) 3} or ἁγιόγραφα is transferred to this group,
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 219
phetical—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 στιχηρά are broken up, the Psalter being placed with the Prophets, and the Salomonic books described as ‘hortatory’’ (τὸ συμβουλευτικόν). Even in the eccentric arrangement of Junilius? the Greek method of grouping is clearly domi- nant.
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. κα 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, N1- cephorus, 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—z Kings), 6; Latter Prophets, 15 ; Hagiographa, 13). But Samuel, Kings, Ezra-Nehemiah, and
1 So Leontius (τὰ παραινετικά), but he classed the Psalter among
them. 2 See Kihn, Theodor v. Mopsuestia τε. Funilius, p. 356 f.
220 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
Chronicles’, were originally single books’, and the Minor Pro- phets were also counted as a single book. Thus the number is reduced to 24 (Law, 5; Former Prophets, 4; Latter Pro- phets, 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, 13; Hymns and moral pieces, 4). He has probably included the historical Hagio- grapha among the Prophets, and treated Ruth and Lamenta- tions 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)*; in some a similar treatment of the Dodecapropheton raised the number to 34 (the ‘Sixty Books’), and there are other eccentricities of nume- ration which need not be mentioned here.
Josephus, c. AP. 1. 8: οὐ μυριάδες βιβλίων εἰσὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀσυμ- φώνων καὶ μαχομένων, δύο δὲ μόνα πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι βιβλία... καὶ τούτων πέντε μέν ἐστι Μωυσέως... οἱ μετὰ Μωυσῆν προφῆται...συνέ- γραψαν ἐν τρισὶ καὶ δέκα βιβλίοις: αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς τὸν θεὸν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου περιέχουσιν. He is followed by Origen ap. Eus. /.c. ovk ἀγνοητέον δ᾽ εἶναι τὰς ἐνδιαθήκους βίβλους ὡς Ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασιν, ὅσος 6 ἀριθμὸς τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς στοιχείων ἐστίν: and Cyril. Hier. catech. iv. 33 ἀναγίνωσκε πὰς θείας γραφάς, Tas εἴκοσι δύο βίβλους τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης. Similarly Athanasius, ef. fest. 39 (Migne, P.G. xxvi. col. 1437). When another numeration was adopted, efforts were
1 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 ##1 and Gi, and in f¥1 it follows Nehe- miah and forms the last book of the Canon (cf. Mt. xxiii. 35, and see Barnes, Chronicles, in the Cambridge Bible, pp. x.—xiii.).
2 The division probably began in the Lxx.
3 Jerome, Pro/. 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 (δ, 5, 3, 9, 5). The ‘double books’ were not always identical in different lists; see Sanday,
op. cit. Pp. 239.
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 221
made to shew that it did not involve a real departure from the canon of twenty-two; cf. Epiph. Zaer. 1. 1. 8, αὗταί εἰσιν ai εἴκοσι ἑπτὰ βίβλοι ai ἐκ θεοῦ δοθεῖσαι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, εἴκοσι δύο δὲ ws τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς στοιχεῖα τῶν Ἑβραικῶν γραμμάτων ἀριθμούμεναι διὰ τὸ διπλοῦσθαι δέκα βίβλους εἰς πέντε λεγομένας" Aial. Tim. et Ag. (ed. Conybeare, p. 66), αὗται αἱ βίβλοι αἱ θεόπνευστοι καὶ ἐνδιάθε- τοι, KS μὲν οὖσαι, KB δὲ ἀριθμούμεναι διὰ τὸ...ἐξ αὐτῶν διπλοῦσθαι.
On the other hand the numeration in 4 Esdr. xiv. 44 rests, if nongentt guatuor 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!, and the Canon is known in Jewish writings by the name OSD 5, “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?.” 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 Vidz XXIIII seniores mittentes coronas suas ante thronum, maiores nostri probant hoc libros esse canonicos”). Jerome knows both traditions, though he favours the former (Pro. Gad. ‘““quomodo igitur viginti duo elementa sunt...ita viginti duo volumina sup- putantur,..quaamquam nonnulli Ruth et Cinoth inter Hagio- grapha scriptitent et libros hos in suo putent numero supputan- dos 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’, 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.
1 Cf. Ryle, Canon, pp. 157 f., 222, 292; Sanday, of. czt. p. 236 ff.
2 Zahn offers a suggestion, to which Sanday inclines, that the writer refers to the Axcerpta ex Theodoto which are partly preserved in the works of Clement of Alexandria.
3 Melito ag. Eus. H.£. iv. 26 ἐπειδὴ μαθεῖν τὴν τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίων ἐβουλήθης ἀκρίβειαν, πόσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ ὁποῖα τὴν τάξιν εἴἶεν.. «ἀνελθὼν εἰς τὴν ἀνατολὴν καὶ ἕως τοῦ τόπου ἔνθα ἐκηρύχθη καὶ ἐπράχθη... ἔπεμψά σοι.
222 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
The next list comes from Origen. It belongs to his com- mentary on the first Psalm, which was written at Alexandria’, i.e. before A.D. 231. The books included in it are expressly said to be the twenty-two of the Hebrew canon (εἰσὶ δὲ αἱ εἴκοσι δύο βίβλοι καθ᾽ Ἕ βραίους aide). Yet among them are the first book of Esdras? 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, ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά. Athanasius takes up the expression, but names other books—the two Wisdoms, Esther*, Judith, and Tobit*. Palestine was perhaps naturally conservative in this matter; Cyril will not allow his catechumens to go beyond the Canon, and Epiphanius men- tions only, and that with some hesitation, the two books of Wisdom (εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς βίβλοι ἐν ἀμφιλέκτῳ"...
4 Eus. H.£. vi. 24.
2 Already cited freely by Josephus as an authority for the history of the period. Origen, it should be added, regards 1, 2 Esdras asa single volume (Ἔσδρας πρώτη, δευτέρα ἐν ἑνί).
3 Cf. Melito’s omission of Esther, and the note appended to the list of Amphilochius.
4 The N.T. members of the same class are the Teaching and the
Shepherd. 5 Haer. 1. i. I.
d
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 223
αὗται χρήσιμοι μέν εἰσι καὶ ὠφέλιμοι, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἀριθμὸν ῥητῶν οὐκ ἀναφέρονται). 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 reckon- ing both books of Esdras” as canonical, he repeats the verdict of Epiphanius upon the two Wisdoms, Βνάρετοι μὲν καὶ Kadai, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀριθμοῦνται.
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* 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. i. 13 “his xliv libris Testamenti Veteris terminatur auctoritas®”), 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
1 De mens. et pond. 4.
* Like Origen, he explains that they form together but a single book (rod "Ἔσδρα ai δύο εἰς μίαν συναπτόμεναι βίβλον).
3 The non-canonical books (τὰ ἔξω) are however carefully distinguished from real afocrypha when the latter are mentioned; e.g. in the sticho- metry of Nicephorus, and in the list of the ‘Sixty Books.’
4 Jn symb. 38 ‘‘alii libri sunt qui non canonici sed ecclesiastici a maiori- bus appellati sunt.”
Bite ACUrOCLAlls 4.
224 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
Prophets. His judgement was that of his Church (Conc. Carth. 111. caz. xlvil. ‘‘ 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 esti- mate of Christian scholars who had learned it from Jewish teachers. An earlier tradition is represented by the lne 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’ places the story of Judith side by side with that of Esther ; the Wisdom of Sirach is cited by Barnabas? and the Didache*®, and Tobit by Polycarp*; Clement of Alex- andria® and Origen appeal to Tobit and both the Wisdoms, to which Origen adds Judith®. Our earliest MSS. of the Greek Bible confirm the impression derived from the quota- tions of the earliest Christian writers. Their canon corre- sponds 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 x A contain the two Wisdoms, Tobit, and Judith ; 1—2 Maccabees are added in ἐδ, and 1—4 Macca- bees in A; cod. C still exhibits the two Wisdoms, and when complete may have contained other books of the same class. 1.1 Cor, 55. 2 Ce IQs) Qe 8 ἀνα
4 Philipp. το. 5 Strom. i. 10, V. 14. 6 Cf. Westcott in D.C.B. iv. p. 130.
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 225
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’. But rolls of papyrus seldom contained more than a single work, and writings of any length, espe- cially if divided into books, were often transcribed into two or more separate rolls*. The rolls were kept in boxes (κιβωτοί, κίσται, capsae, cistae)*, 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 czstae 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. Morerarely 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
1 See Kenyon, Palacography of Greek papyri, pp. 24, 113 ff.
* Jb. 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.” 3 E. M. Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 57.
Θ᾿ ὦ, 15
226 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
that Philo does not quote the Apocrypha, and has no certain allusion to it’. 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) Jere- miah, Isaiah, Ezekiel’. 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’.
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 excep- tions which are of some interest. Even in the Pentateuch Melito, Leontius, and the Cheltenham list reverse the common order of Leviticus and Numbers*. The sequence is broken in some lists after Ruth (Laod., Epiph. 1), or even after Joshua
* Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. Xxxiii. 2 See Ryle, Canon, p. 225 ff.
3 Ryle, 26., pp. 229 ff., 281 ἢ 4 On this see Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii. p. 241.
—— eee ee eee
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 227
(Epiph. 3’) or Deuteronomy (Epiph. 2). Occasionally Chronicles, which is an intruder from the Hagiographa, pre- cedes 1—4 Regn. (Epiph. 2, Deal. Tim. et Ag.), 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 1s supported by other authorities, chiefly Western (Ruff, Chelt., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius, Nicephorus); whilst in a few the subdivisions are mixed (Melito, Junilius, Ebedjesu’). (2) The internal order of the δωδεκαπρόφητον in most of the MSS. and catalogues*® where it is stated differs from the Hebrew order in regard to the relative positions of the pro- phets 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 “δὴ attempt to secure greater accuracy in the chronological arrangement*.” (3) The
1 Ruth is attached to 1 Regn. in the Cheltenham list, and Augustine inclines to this arrangement (see Sanday, /.c., p. 242). The result was to create a Heptateuch; for the word cf. J. E. B. Mayor, The Latin Hepta- teuch, p. xxxvi. R. Peiper’s text of the Heptateuchos, to which Prof. Mayor refers (p. xxxiv.), appeared in the Vienna Corpus ser. eccl. lat. vol. xxill. (1895).
2 For statements by early Mohammedan writers as to the extent of the Jewish and Christian Canons see Margoliouth in Z.xp. Times, Nov. 1899,
s OF: 3 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. 4 Ryle, Canon, p. 229. |
I5—2
228 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
Greek order of the Greater Prophets follows the oldest Hebrew tradition (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), but it appends Lamenta- tions 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. 15 more perplexing. For Ruth, Lamentations, and Daniel we have already accounted; there remain Chronicles, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, and Ezra. Chroni- cles, 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., Juni- ὖ lius, 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
Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 229
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’ and Tobit (codd. BxA, Chelt., Carth., Augustine, and the later Latin lists’). 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 csta 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®, 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*; 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
1 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).
2 Cf. Ryle, Canon, p. 199 ff. ‘
3 Cf. Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii. p. 233 ff.
4 See Kenyon, Palacography of papyri, p. 119 f.; Sanday, 7.c. Papyrus was freely used for codices in Egypt during the third century; cf. Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ii. p. 2.
230 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.
with Judith and Tobit. But these books occur in varying order in the oldest MSS.; in B we have Esther, Judith, Tobit, but in καὶ 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’. 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); Β. F. Westcott, Hzst. of the Canon of the N.T.6 (Cambridge, 1891); W. Sanday, Zhe 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).
1 For the order of the books in Latin MS. Bibles see S, Berger, A7s- totre de la Vulgate, pp. 301-6, 331-9.
ee μιν. «ἡ
CHAP TER. ΠΕ:
BOOKS OF THE HEBREW CANON.
THE books which are common to the Hebrew Bible and the Alexandrian Version’ 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 foilowing 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 nght-hand column follows the numeration of the printed Hebrew Bibles.
GREEK. HEBREW. Gen, xxxi. 46>—52 Gen: xe 285. ΔΝ ΕΙ, 52. 28". 49, 50%, 52° » XXXV. 16—21 » XXXv. 16+21, 17—20, 22? Exod. xx. 13—I5 Exod. xx, 14; 15,13 » ΦΧΧχν. ὅ--:1, 12, 15—16, 9, XXXV. Q—I2, 17, 13—I4, 17, 18, τοῦ 16, 19, 15
1 Following the order of Zhe Old Testament in Greek, these are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1—4 Kingdoms (vol. i.), r—2 Paralipomena, 2 Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle- siastes, Canticles, Job, Esther (vol. ii.), the Twelve Minor Prophets, the Four Greater Prophets (vol. iii.)—37 in all.
232 Books of the Hebrew Canon. GREEK. HEBREW. Exod. xxxvi. 8>— 40 Exod. xxxix. I—3I 95 XXXVii. I—2 " =XXxXvi. 8—9g 2) 3) 8—6 ” ” fe oe “3325. “5 " 7---2Ὶ » ἜΧΧνΠ] 9Q—23 - ΟΧΧΕΝΠΠΠ 1 17 »» ΧΧΧΥΙ͂Ι. I—24 δ » [1ὃ--20 .) XXXV1. 20—34 2I—24 "9 ΧΧΧΥΝΠΙ. I—7 ” » 25 » ΧΧΧΥΙ͂Ι. 29 " 5» 26 iy yt AI. ὃ » Seine? » xl. 30—32 9» XXXIx. I—IO 99 XXXVI1L. 24—3I 3 jeer A ἜΧΕΙΝ 99 »” ν).., 135-23 » » 33-43 5 Xl. 6°—8, 10—25, 26, 27 » ΧΙ. 8—10, 12—27, 29, 33, —32 38 Num. i. 24—37 Num. 1. 26—37, 24—25 » Vi. 22—26 9. Vi. 22, 23,27, ΖΝ ΠΡ Δ 9) XXVi. I15—47 » XXVi. 109-27, 15—18, 44— AT, 28—43 Josh. ix. 3—33 Josh. vill. 30—33, 1x. 3—27 9 XIX. 47—48 2) XIX, 48, 47
3 Reon. 1v. 17; Fo, τὸ
3)
3)
» 20—2I, 22—24 25—30
v. I—I16, 17
vl. 2—3
vi. 4—5, -- ἜΝ: 8, 9—I5, _16—34
5 26—29 30 )» 91 ς 259 xi. 3—8 x. ΧΙ Psalms i 1X. 22—39 X.—Cxll cxlil. I—8 cxlil. Q—12 Cxiv CXV cxvi.—cxlvi cxlvil. I—9
I Kings iv. 18, 19, 17
” 2) ae 2—4, 9—I4
” V. 152239 ga?
hs Laer
» . Vie. 37—38,, 2 ΤῊΝ —I0, I15—36
vil. 13—18, 21, 23—24, 26, 25 vill. 27—51I, I—I2 ΙΧ. 15, I7—19, 20—22 x. 23—26 3 Waa" : ” X. 27—29 ” ΧΙ. 4, 35 7) 5, ὃ) 6 EX1. XX Psalms x. I—18 9 ΧΙ. ΟΧΗΙ
3)
» ~cxiv. I—8
9 -CXV. I—4
"τ ΌΧΥ]..1-Ὁ
» Οδχνὶ. 10--1
"»" CXVii.—cxlvil. 11 " Cxlvili, 12—20
I 9Q—20,
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 233
GREEK.
Prov. xv. 27°—xvi. 4, 6, 9
99
2)
xx. 105-12, 13°—16, 17 yk xxiv. 24—37, 38—49, 50— 68, 69—77, xxix. 28— 49 Jer. xxv. 14—19 ΧΧΥ I 55 2--2ὃ XXVII XXVIil ΧΧΙΧ. I—7 ” 8—23
”
ΤΕΣ: Vil.
divergence.
Xxx. I—5, 6—II, 12—27
XXX1
XXXI1.
XXXUl
ΧΧΧΙν. I-18
XXXV
XXXV1
XXXV11
XXXVIll. I—34, 35—37, 38— 40
ἘΧΧΙ͂Χ
xl
xli
xlil
xlili
xliv
xlv
xlvi
xlvii
xlvili
xlix
] i. 1305-31-35 3.9
I—24
HEBREW.
Prov. xvi. 6, xv. 28, xvl. 7, xv 29
2)
ise
Xvi. 8—9, XV. 30—33? 1. 5, 4 XX. 20—22, IO—1I3, 23— 30 XXx. I—I4, xxlv. 23—34,
XXX. 1533, ΧΧΧΙ. I—9, IO
xlix. 34°—39
93 30°
xlvi. 2—28
]
li
xlvii.
ΠΧ.
" _ 1—5, 28 —33, 23-27
xlviii
χχν. 15—38
XXV1
XXV1l. 2—22
XXVill
XX1X
XXX
XXX1. I—34, 37, 35, 36, 38— 40
XXXl1
XXXlll
XXX1V
XXXV
XXXV1
XXXVIl
XXXVII1
ei,
———— “as
xliv. I—30, xlv. I—5
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
This can be done but briefly here; for further
234 Looks of the Hebrew Canon.
particulars the student is referred to the commentaries which deal with the several books.
In the following pages @= the Greek text, and 65." ® =the Greek text as given in cod. A, cod. B, or as the case may be; f§4i=the Massoretic text as printed in the Hebrew Bibles.
GEN. xxxi. 46 ff. The passage is in some confusion ; “ov. 45, 47, 5I—54 appear to embody E’s account...vv. 46, 48—5o the account given by J.” J# is loosely put together, and v. 50°, which & omits, is hardly consistent with vz. 48, 52. In (ἃ 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 (Γάδερ) between Bethel and Bethlehem ; see art. EDER in Hastings’ D. B. (i. p. 644).
Exop. xx.13—15. (ἃ and {# represent here two distinct traditions with regard to the order of the Decalogue. For the order followed by &® see Le. xvill. 20, Rom. ΧΙ]. 9, Jas. ii. 11, Philo de x. orac. 10, de spec. legg. iil. 2; that of GAF PA is supported by Mt., Mc., and Josephus. In Deut. v. 17—19 cod. B wavers between the two, but cod. A consistently agrees with {#H.
Exop. xxxv.—xl. is “the sequel to c. xxv.—xxx1., 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’.” 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 Penta-
teuch*.” 1 Driver, Jztr. p. 15. 2 Driver, /nir. pp. 37, 38. 3 Robertson Smith, O. 7. zz the J. Ch. p. 124 f.
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 235
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 details
are arranged in the Lxx. and Heb. severally.
G
Ornaments of the Ministers. Ephod (xxxvi. 9—I2). Onyx stones (xxxvl. I13—1I4). Breastplate (xxxvil. I15—29). Robe of Ephod (xxxvi. 30—34). Linen vestments (xxxvi. 35—37). Crown plate (xxxvi. 38—40).
Structure of the Tabernacle and Court. Hangings (xxxvii. I—2). Veils (xxxvii. 3—6). Court (xxxvil. 7—18).
Furniture of the Tabernacle, &c.
Ark (xxxvili. I—8).
Table (xxxvili. g—1I2).
Candlestick (xxxvill. I13—17).
Altar of Burnt-offering (xxxviii. 22—24).
Oil and Incense (xxxvili. 25— 26).
Laver (xxxvill. 27).
fA
Structure of the Tabernacle. Hangings (xxxvi. 8—19). Boards (xxxvi. 20—34).
Veils (xxxvi. 35—38).
Furniture of the Tabernacle and tts Court.
Ark (xxxvii. I—9).
Table (xxxvii. 1o—16).
Candlestick (xxxvil. 17—24).
Altar of incense (xxxvii. 25—-29).
Altar of Burnt-offering (xxxviii.
i=). Laver (xxxvill. 8). Court (xxxvilil. 9—20).
Ornaments of the Ministers. Ephod (xxxix. 2—5). Onyx stones (xxxix. 6—7). Breastplate (xxxix. 8—21I). Robe of the Ephod (xxxix, 22— 26). Linen vestments (xxxix. 27—29). Crown plate (xxxix. 30—3!).
It is clear from this comparison that both (ἃ and {# follow
a system, ie. 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
236 Books of the Hebrew Canon.
and posterior stratum of P’.” Thus it is permissible to sup- pose 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’.
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 #1 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 G is to bring Gad into close proximity to Asher, a position which this tribe occupies in i. 5—15 (G@& and {#). For this there may have been genealogical reasons ; see Gen. xxx. 10-ff, ,.xlIx.,19,
C. vi. 22 ff. Here #4 obviously has the simpler and more natural order, and λέγοντες αὐτοῖς at the end of v. 23 seems to shew that the Greek order, though supported by BAw*, is the result of an early accidental displacement in the Greek text.
Josuua ix. 3 ff. In the present Hebrew text the ceremony at Ebal and Gerizim follows immediately upon the taking of Ai, but in G 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. 1 “involves a geographical difficulty, for Ebal lies considerably to the north
1 See Driver, Zutr. pp. 35, 39; Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, ii. p. 276%": * Robertson Smith, O. 7. im the J. Ch. p. 125.
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 237
of Ai, and until the intervening territory was conquered...it is difficult to understand how Joshua could have advanced thither’.” The situation however is scarcely improved if we adopt the order of G, 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 (ἃ still preserves the original order, though in common with {ΠΕ it has lost this record.
C. xix. 47—-48. On these verses, which exchange places in the Greek, see under (B) *. |
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. 1., XXvVi., 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 G&* and {#1 respectively
as follows: (355
Provision for the royal table (iv. 20—23).
Solomon’s power (iv. 24).
His wisdom (iv. 25—30).
His marriage (iv. 31).
His wife’s dowry (iv. 32 ff.).
His negociations with King Hiram (v. I—1I2).
His corvée of workmen (v. 13— 17).
Foundations of the Temple laid (vil. I—5). |
Dimensions of the Temple (vi. 6 f.).
1 Driver, 7227, p. 100.
JEL
Solomon’s marriage (iii. 1).
Provision for the royal table (v. 2 fats):
The King’s power (v. 4).
His wisdom (v. 9—I4).
His negociations. with King Hiram (v. 15—25).
His corvée of workmen (v. 27— 32),
Foundations of the Temple laid (vi. 1).
Dimensions of the Temple(vi. 6).
Details of the building (vi. 2, 7, 36).
2 Cf. infra, p. 244.
238 Looks of the Hebrew Canon.
G5 ΖΕ Details of the building (ν]. 8--:ὄ Building of the royal palaces 34). (vil. I—1I2). Work of Hiram the artist (vii. Work of Hiram the artist (vii.
I—37). 12—51). Building of the royal palaces Solomon’s wife’s dowry (ix. 16 f.). (vii. 38—50).
As in the disturbed section at the end of Exodus, it is easy to see that each order follows a system: (1) Whilst {#0 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, &® 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, &&® 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 &® has been translated from a recension of the book earlier than that which is preserved in the Massoretic text’.
C. x. 23—33. The text of &®*"~ here admits two pas- sages which it had passed over in the earlier contexts, where they stand in {WM (c. ix. 15, 17—22, v. 1). Of ix. ro—28 Prof. Driver remarks that it “consists of a series of notices imperfectly connected together,” and that its ‘“‘literary form ...1S, for some reason, less complete than that of any other portion of the Books of Kings”.”” Under these circumstances it is not surprising that some of these notices occupied another
1 Cf. Driver, 2177. p. 182, and note; C. F. Burney, in Hastings’ Ὁ. 8. p- 862 ff. 2 Intr. p. 181.
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 239
place in the text which was before the Alexandrian trans- lator. (Ὁ. v. τ΄, which in the Greek order is x. 30, belongs in 4##1 to another similar collection of loosely-connected para- graphs. The arrangement followed by G&® is perhaps not materially better, but it probably represents an earlier stage in the formation of the book.
C. xi. 3—8. Here (ἢ Τὰς presents a text which differs from &* and {#1 both in order and in form. A comparison of G* with G* and #1 will be found to be instructive ; the latter is diffuse and repeats itself unnecessarily (3 ἔκλιναν γυναῖκες αὐτοῦ THY καρδίαν αὐτοῦ... 4 ai γυναῖκες αὐτοῦ ἐξέκλιναν τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ...5 ἐπορεύθη Ξαλωμὼν ὀπίσω τῆς ᾿Αστάρτης...7 τότε φκοδό- μησεν Σ. ὑψηλὸν... τῇ ᾿Αστάρτῃ) ; the former presents the facts! briefly and in a logical sequence. Here as elsewhere in this book Cod. A represents the Hexaplaric Greek, and not the original Lxx.”
Cc. xx., xxl. The relative order of these chapters is reversed in #4, which justifies the change by prefacing the story of Naboth with the words 72873 D399 708 3%. “The dislocation may have been due to the desire to bring the prophecy of Ahab’s death nearer to the account of its occurrence’.” Ob- viously wrong as the present Hebrew order is, Cod. A has adopted it, interpolating the inapposite ἐγένετο μετὰ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα, which Origen had borrowed from Aquila; and even Lucian (if he is here nghtly represented by Lagarde) has been led into the same error, though he seems to retain the true sequence of the chapters.
PSALMS 1x.—cxlvil. Throughout the greater part of the Psalter (ἃ and #41
1 B however omits the important statement of v. 3, which comes ‘‘from the older narrative” (Driver).
2 See Field ad loc., and cf. Silberstein, cider den Ursprung der im cod. Alex. τ. Vat. des dritten Konigsbuches...tiberlieferten Textgestalt (Giessen, 1893).
$C. F. Burney, /.c.
240 Books of the Hebrew Canon.
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. =1x. LxXx.3; 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. + exivirsuxx:).
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’. Many Hebrew MSS. join Psalms cxiv., cxv.*, 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%.
PROVERBS ΧΧΙν.---ΧΧΧΙ.
In the first great section of this book (cc. i.—ix.) there is no important difference of order, nor does the second section (x.—xxil. 1) 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 G and #4 differ widely, as a comparison of the contents will shew.
6 phat Words of Agur (xxiv. 24—37). Sayings of the Wise (xxiv. 23— Sayings of the Wise (xxiv. 38— ΐ 49). Proverbs of Solomon (xxv. I— Rest of the Words of Agur Xxix. 21). (xxiv. 50—68). Words of Agur (xxx. I—33).
1 See Cheyne, Book of Psalms, p. 228; Bleek-Wellhausen, p. 471. Prof. Kirkpatrick (Psalms, 1. p. 41) speaks with less confidence.
2 See Kennicott, ii. p. 410. It should be added that in the MSS. Pss. cxvi., Cxvii., cxviii. are also often written continuously.
3 **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 of. cit. p. xiv.). See also Lagarde, nov. Ps. gr. Spect., p. 8.
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 241
G 2 Words of Lemuel (xxiv. 69—77). Words of Lemuel (xxxi. I—9). Proverbs of Solomon (xxv. I— Praise of the Virtuous Woman xxx! 27). (xxxl. IO—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’. Moreover he has failed to understand the headings of the two sections attributed to Agur and Lemuel?, 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 ({#1) answers in a general way to c. xxxii. t—li. 35 (G&), whilst c. xlvi. 1—li. 64 (39) 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’. In & the prophecies against the nations precede the parable of the intoxicating cup (xxv. 15 ff.=xxxil. 1 ff); in ΜΗ they form the final section of the book, coming immediately before the historical appendix (c. li.). 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
1 Cf. Robertson Smith, 0.7. iz 7. Ch. p. 111; Toy, Proverbs, p. xxxiii.
2 See Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Ubersetzung d. Proverbien, PP» '90; O1-
δ _ Origen ad Afric. 4 πολλὰ δὲ τοιαῦτα Kal ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιερεμίᾳ κατενοήσα- μεν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ πολλὴν μετάθεσιν καὶ ἐναλλαγὴν τῆς λέξεως τῶν προφητευομέ- vov εὕρομεν.
Ss. S. 16
242 Books of the Hebrew Canon.
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 (ἃ Elam, Egypt, Babylon, Philistia, Edom, Ammon, Kedar, Damascus, Moab; but in ##t, 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 vil. 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 transferan- tur.” 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’.” A full examina- tion of the context may be seen in Cornill’, 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 καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ πολλοῖς ἁγίοις βιβλίοις εὕρομεν πὴ μὲν πλείονα Tap ἡμῖν κείμενα ἢ παρ᾽ Ἔ βραίοις, πὴ δὲ λείποντα) ; and the Hexapla, as we have seen®, was the result of a mistaken endeavour to assimilate the Lxx. to the current:
1 Driver, /ntr. p. 263. : 2 Ezechiel, p. 212. Pt... tea.
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 243
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 (διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον), which are wanting in the Hebrew Bible. The supplementary chapters of Exodus are on the whole shorter in G than in ##1; the former has nothing to answer to c. xxxv. 8, xxxvill. 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 (ἃ into eight, thus:
[evppavOnre, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ,
καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ υἱοὶ θεοῦ"] εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη, μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ,
[καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ. ἐπὶ τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται,
[καὶ ἐκδικήσει] καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς, [καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει,
καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ [Κύριος] τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ.
There is nothing in ΜΈ 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. (xcvil.) 7.
16—2
244 Looks of the Hebrew Canon,
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’, there are in the last four chapters several important contexts in which & and #4 differ by defect or excess’.
C. xix. 4748 (#41). The order of these verses is reversed in (ἃ, so as to bring the words αὕτη ἡ κληρονομία κτλ. 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. 34f., and describing the relations between the new settlers and the Amorites.
C. xx. 4—6. Omitted in (ἃ. “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*.”
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, how- ever, in the majority of Hebrew MSS.*, and are necessary to the completeness of the narrative. Vv. 42 a—c are little more than a doublet of c. xix. 50, 51b; 42d appears to be based upon c. v. 3.
C. xxiv. 30a—33b. V. 30a continues the story of the flint knives (v. 7, xxi. 42d). &, which omits v. 31, a doublet of Judges ii. 7, adds to the book a postscript, HY. 33. a—b, based on v. 33, 1 Sam. iv. 3 ff., Judges ii. 6, 11 ff, 11.01.4,
1 See G. A. Smith in Hastings’ 2, B. ii. p. 784. 2 Op. cit., p. 781 ff. 3 Driver, Zztr. p. 105. 4 See Kennicott, i. p. 474, De Rossi, i. p. 96 ff.; and cf. Field, Hexapla,
i. p- 387, Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, il. p. 472 ff. 5 See Knobel in Kurzgef. exeg. Handbuch zum A.T., p. 488.
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 245
I SAMUEL (I REGN.).
C. ii. 9, ro. The closing stanza of this hymn, like that of the Song of Moses, is presented by & in a modified and expanded form. Vv. ὃς, 9a are omitted in &, which substi- tutes διδοὺς εὐχὴν... δικαίου (“apparently an attempt to ac- commodate the Song more closely to Hannah’s position”), 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 :—
I Regn. ii. here ς \ > “- , c > \ 6 φρόνιμος ἐν τῇ φρονήσει. ioe ὁ σοφὸς ev πῇ σοφίᾳ...ὁ ἰσχυρὸς rn ΄ ¢ U x ἢ δυνατὸς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει.. tov Κύ- ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι... ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος 6 ριον, καὶ ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιο- ποιῶν ἔλεος καὶ κρίμα καὶ δικαιο- / ~ ~ σύνην ἐν μέσῳ τῆς γῆς. σύνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
It has been noticed that 1 Regn. il. 11a (καὶ κατέλιπεν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ ἐνώπιον Κυρίου) probably corresponds to 1 Sam. 1 28b (TIM? OY ANAwW:), If so, the Song has been inserted in (ἃ and {4 at different points in the narrative*; 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 G.
Cc. xvii—xvil. This is the most important of the contexts in which G&* differs from G* {#1 in the way of defect. The omitted verses contain the story of David’s visit to the camp of Israel (xvil. 12—31); David’s interview with Saul and Jonathan (xvii. 55—xvili. 5); Saul’s attempts upon David’s life (xviii. 1o—11, 17—19); besides occasional details of less importance (xvii. 41, 50; XViil. 30).
These omissions have been variously explained. Accord- ing to Wellhausen and Kuenen®, the Greek translator, or the scribe of the archetype followed by Cod. B, has deliberately
1 Driver, Samuel, p. 20.
2 See Wellhausen, der Text d. B. Samuelis, Ὁ. 42; Driver, of. ctt., pp.
E7319, 20; HH. P. Smith, Semel, p. 13. 3 Driver, Zztr., p. 170; Samuel, Ὁ. 116 f.
246 Books of the Hebrew Canon.
removed the missing verses, from a desire to harmonise. Cer- tainly 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. xvil., xvill., 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 (ἃ. He con- cludes that the verses omitted by (ἃ are ‘‘interpolations in the Hebrew text, extracts from a lost biography of David...not found in the text which lay before the Lxx. translators’.” Driver? doubts whether the verses can have been interpolated in a strict sense, ‘‘for an interpolation would not insert any- thing 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 G‘, τῆς, but probably from a non-Septuagintal source; the passages are marked with an asterisk in the Hexaplaric MSS. 64, 92%.
C. xxill. 11—12. Here &® omits by homoeoteleuton the Heb. from 7) (v. 11) to 1492 (v. 12). But it also omits Oya ΙΒ ΠΡῸΡ (v. 11), and Wellhausen conjectures with probability that εἰ ἀποκλεισθήσεται was wanting in the original form of the Lax."
1 Kincs (3 REGN.).
In this book (ἃ contains a large quantity of additional matter, of varying character and worth.
1 0.7. in F. Ch., pp. 121, 431 ff.; cf. Kirkpatrick, 1 Samuel, p. 241 ff.
21 Samuel, p. 117. 8 Cf. Field ad Joc. 4 See H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 212.
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 247
C. 1. 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. 10ff,, f—g=ix. 24—25 (ff), h=v. τό, i—k=x. 23 ff., l—o=ii. eit Similarly, ii. 46 a=iv. 20 (fH), b=v. 2 (fA), c=iil. 1 (fA), d=ix. 18 (f{M), e=iv. 22—23, f=iv. 24, g=v. 5 (fM), h=2ff., i—k=x. 29—30.
C. vii. 53a is an addition of quite another character and of the highest interest. The true Lxx. (G*) omits viii. 12, 13, which in cod. A are thus supplied from Aquila’: τότε εἶπεν Σαλωμών Κύριος εἶπεν tod σκηνῶσαι ἐν γνόφῳ. οἰκοδόμησα οἶκον κατοικητηρίου σοι, ἕδρασμα τῆς καθέδρας σου αἰῶνος. But after v. 53 (ἃ gives the substance of these words in a poetical form which is expressly attributed to an older source:
TOTE ἐλάλησεν Σ. ὑπὲρ τοῦ οἴκου ὡς συνετέλεσεν τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι αὐτόν Ἥλιον ἐγνώρισεν (Luc., ἔστησεν) ἐν οὐρανῷ Κύριος" | εἶπεν τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐκ γνόφου (A, ἐν γνόφῳ): | οἰκοδόμησον οἶκόν μου, οἶκον ἐκπρεπῆ (Α, εὐπρεπῆ) σαυτῷ, | τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ καινότητος. | οὐκ ἰδοὺ αὕτη γέγραπται ἐν βιβλίῳ τῆς ῳδῆς;
Though this occurs in cod. A and Lucian, it was want- ing 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’. But (as its very errors shew) it is a translation of a Hebrew original, and the βιβλίον τῆς δῆς from which it came is doubtless none other than the Book of Jashar (W*T7BD, read as WT δ)", Here G has preserved
1 Cf. Field ad doc.
2 See Field ad /oc., who quotes from cod. 243, ταῦτα ἐν τῷ ἐξαπλῷ παρὰ μόνοις φέρεται Tots ο΄.
Ἐπ τίνει, /nir., p. 182.
248 Looks of the Hebrew Canon.
for us a precious relic, which in {#1 has been first misplaced and then partly lost’.
C. ΧΙ. 24 a—z. The longest interpolation in the book, partly similar to the Greek additions in c. 11., 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—xi., and anticipating c. xiv. ({#1).
The parallels are xil. 24 a=xi. 43, xiv. 2I—22; b=xi. 26— 28; c=xi. 40; d—f=xi. 43°; xii. 2—5 (ff); g—n*=xiv. I—20 (fA); nb>—z=xii. 3—24.
But the passage is no mere cento of verses to be found elsewhere either in (ἃ or #1; 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’.” 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 {#1 there is no ὦ prior? ground for deciding which of the two is the more trustworthy. It Js worthy of notice that cod. B omits the reference to Jeroboam’s residence in Egypt in xu. 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. 240). The whole of the narrative, so far as it exists only in the Greek, is omitted by A and
1 See the passage discussed in Robertson Smith, O. 7. in Ἃ Ch.,
P+ 433: ae ; 2 Robertson Smith, 92. cz¢., p. 118.
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 249
the Syro-hexaplar, but it seems to have been retained by Lucian’.
C. xvi. 28 a—h consists of another recension of the sum- mary of Jehoshaphat’s reign which occurs in c. xxll. 41—44, 47—50, where the last four verses are omitted altogether in (5. Lucian, who agrees with (5 in the interpolation at xvi. 28, omits xxl. 40 b—52.
2 ΚΙΝΟΒ (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 #1 it finds a place only at the end (iil, r—3). In this instance, however, G* ™° agrees with G* in repeating the summary, though with some variations. The student will find a comparison instructive.
1 CHRONICLES i. 1o—16, 17 b—23 are wanting in &*, 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. 1318, 22—-29) by cod. A, in a version which came from Hexaplaric sources (see Field, i. p. 704).
2 CHRONICLES xxxv. 190 a—d, xxxvl. 2 a—c, 5 a—d, are versions of 2 Kings xxilil. 2427, 31 b—33, xxlv. I—4, based apparently upon a recension of the Hebrew which differs from {Ἐϊ, and only in part assimilated to G.
2 ESDRAS xxl, xxil. (Neh. xi, χα). The lists of princes and Levites are much shortened in &*, which omits altogether xx1. 16, 20, 21, 28, 29, 32--35; xxll. 46, 9, 1521, 38, 40, 41.
1 Lagarde, V.7. Gr. i. ad loc. For a careful treatment of the diffe- rences between (5 and f€l in 3 Regn. see Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, ii.
250 Books of the Hebrew Canon.
PSALMS.
In G many of the Psalms receive titles, or additions to their titles, which are wanting in ##1. The following is a list of those which occur in the uncial MSS.
x. (xi.) + ψαλμός. So xiii. (xiv.), xxiv. (xxv.), xliii. (xliv.), Ixxx. (1xxxi.).
XXill. (xxiv.)-+T7s μιᾶς σαββάτου.
Xxvi. (xxvil.) + πρὸ τοῦ χρισθῆναι.
XXViil. (xxix. ) + ἐξοδίου σκηνῆς.
χχιχ. (Xxx.) pr. εἰς τὸ TéXos.
XXX. (ΧΧΧΙ.) Ὁ ἐκστάσεως.
χΧΧΧΙΪ. (xxxlil.). To Δαυείδ.
XXXVI. (XXXVIIL. )+mepi σαββάτου.
xli. (Χ111.)- Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυείδ (cod. A.).
xlii. (xliil.). Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυείδ.
xlvii. (xlviii.) + δευτέρᾳ ‘caBBarov.
Ixy. (Ixvi.)+avacraceas.
Ixvi. (Ixvii.)+7@ Δαυείδ (om. pois).
Ixix. (Ixx.) + εἰς τό Σῶσαί με Κύριον.
Ixx. (Ixxi.). Τῷ Δαυείδ, υἱῶν ᾿Ιωναδὰβ καὶ τῶν πρώτων aixpa- λωτισθέντων. Ixxv. (Ixxvi.)-+ πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ασσύριον. Ixxix. (Ixxx.) - ὑπὲρ τοῦ ᾿Ασσυρίου. xc. (xci.). Alvos eons τῷ Δαυείδ. XCii. (xcill.). Εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ προσαββάτου, ὅτι κατῴκισται ἡ yn αἶνος ὠδῆς τῷ Δαυείδ.
xiii. (xciv.). Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυείδ, τετράδι σαββάτου.
χοῖν. (xcv.). Αἶνος φδῆς τῷ Aaueltt
RCV. (RCV). Ὅτι 6 οἶκος οἰκοδομεῖται μετὰ THY αἰχμαλωσίαν " δὴ τῷ Δαυείδ.
xcvi. (xcvil.). Τῷ Δαυείδ, ὅτε ἡ γῆ αὐτοῦ καθίσταται.
ΧΕ (XCVIil. γε τῷ Rave.
XCVili. (xCix.). Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυείδ.
ciil. (civ.). Τῷ Δαυείδ.
civ. (cv.). ‘AAAnAouvid: SO CV., Cvi. (CVI., CVil.), Cxill. (Cxiv., cxv.), cxiv. (cxvi.) I—9Q, cCxvi. (Cxvil.), Cxvii. (Cxvill.), CXxxv. (cxxxvi.), [but in each of these cases the Greek title is the equivalent of a final moon in the M.T. of the preceding Psalm].
cx. (cxi.). Αλληλουιά: SO CXI., CXil. (CXil., Cxiii.), CxXxiv. (cxxxv.), [but in each of these cases the Greek title is the equivalent of an opening ANON in the M.T. of the Psalm].
cxv. (Cxvl. 1ο--- 10). ΣΎΝ ΚΤ, So cxvili. (Cxix.). CXXXVi. (Cxxxvil.). Τῷ Δαυείδ.
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 251
CXXXVil. (CXXXVlil.) + Ζαχαρίου A (-pias T).
CXXXVlll. (Cxxxix.) + Ζαχαρίου (cod. Α.)- ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ (A? T).
cxlii. (cxliil.) + ὅτε αὐτὸν ὁ vids καταδιώκει (κατεδίωξεν A).
cxlili. (cxliv.)+ πρὸς τὸν Γολιάδ.
cxlv. (cxlvi.). ᾿Αλληλουιά" ‘Ayyalov καὶ Ζαχαρίου (Heb. 7M 7).
cxlvi. (cxlviil. I—I1). ‘AAAnAoud: “Ayyaiou καὶ Ζαχαρίου (where “AAA. answers to the first word of the Psalm in ff as in cx. (cxi.)).
cxlvii. (cxlvii. Io—20). As cxlvi., except that “AAA. is not in
‘cxlviii. As cxlvi. but ‘ANA. is here represented in {4 both at the end of the preceding Psalm and at the beginning of Ps. cxlviil.
‘exlix. ‘AAAnAoud. In ΠΗ at the end of cxlviii. and the beginning of. cxlix.
cl. ᾿Αλληλουιά. As in cxlix.
On the questions raised by the Greek titles see Neubauer in Studia Bibl. ii. p. 1 ff., Driver, Zztr. 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 (τῇ μιᾷ σαββάτου, δευτέρᾳ o., τετράδι σ.ἷ, εἰς THY ἡμέραν τοῦ προσαββάτου (cf. Mc. xv. 42)), and in those which attribute others to the time of the Return (Ζαχαρίου, “Ayyaiov) or to the Dispersion (ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ). On the other hand some of the Greek titles appear to be fanciful (πρὸ τοῦ χρισθῆναι, πρὸς τὸν Τολιάδ), whilst others are obscure (ἐκστάσεως, ἀναστάσεως).
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 4272. patr. Gr. tn Psalmos, passim.
Ps. xiil. (xiv.) 3 a—c. This, the only long interpolatien in the Greek Psalter, is found upon examination to be made up of Pss. v.. Tob,’ exxxrx. '(exl:) 4b) a. 0) 818, Isa. hx7,°8,'Ps. Xxxv. (Xxxvl.) 18, all taken or abridged from the Lxx. version with slight variations. That it never formed a part of the
1 Cf. πέμπτῃ σαββάτου prefixed to Ps. lxxxi. in the cursive MS. 156 (Oriext, p. 75).
252 Books of the Hebrew Canon.
Hebrew Psalm may be safely affirmed, yet it is quoted con- tinuously in Rom. ii. 1318, where it follows without break upon an abridgement of Ps. xiii. (xiv.) 1—3.
The Greek addition had a place in the κοινή before the time of Origen, who marked it with an obelus (Field, ad Zoc.). Whether it was brought into the text of the Lxx. from the Epistle’, 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, /.¢.), and it may have existed under this form in a collection of ¢estzmonza used by the Apostle (on such collections see Hatch, “ssays, p. 203, Westcott, Hebrews, p. 476 ff.).
Ps. cli. (ψαλμὸς ἰδιόγραφος). The MSS. of the Lxx. con- tain after Ps. cl. a Psalm which bears the title Otros ὃ ψαλμὸς ἰδιόγραφος εἰς Aaveid καὶ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, ὅτε ἐμονομάχησεν τῷ Γολιάδ, O. L., hic psalmus sibi 2702716 scriptus est David, extra numerum, cum pugnavit cum Golia|th|. The letter of Athana- sius to Marcellinus, which is incorporated in cod. A, speaks freely of this Psalm as the work of David, and as Ps. cli. (§ 14 ol μὲν καυχήσεως τῆς ἐν Κυρίῳ ἀπαγγέλλοντες λόγους εἰσὶ κβ΄ Kat Ko’, λη΄..«ρνα΄ : ὃ 25 τῷ ἐκλεξαμένῳ κυρίῳ διδοὺς δόξαν ψάλλε καὶ σὺ τὸν ρνα΄ ἴδιον ὄντα τοῦ Δαυείδ) ; and it is quoted as a Psalm of David by the author of the pseudonymous letter of Mary to Ignatius (cent. iv.; Lightfoot, Zenatius, 111. 144, φησὶν γάρ που αὐτὸς ὅτι Μικρὸς ἤμην, κτλ.). Moreover the scribe of Cod. & regarded it as a part of the Psalter, for his subscription runs yadmo! Aad pna. In cod. A, however, it is carefully excluded from the Psalter proper (subscr. yadmol PN Kal IAIOfpadoc ἃ); and the judgement of the Laodicene canon (βίβλος ψαλμῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα) is upheld by the title which in all the MSS.
1 Cf. Hatch, Zssays, p. 209 ff.
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 253
pronounces this ‘autograph’ (ἰδιόγραφος) work of David to be ἔξωθεν or ἐκτὸς τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, 2.4. τῶν pv’ ψαλμῶν.
This Psalm is clearly based on 1 Kings xvi. 7, 11, 26, 43, 51; 2 Kings vi. 5; 2 Chron. xxix. 26; Ps. Ixxviil. 70, Ixxxix. 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 cur- sives the Psalms are followed by a collection of liturgical ᾧδαί (cantica). The following table shews the sources and order of those which are given by codd. A, R, T.
A R ἮΝ
I. Exod. xxv. I—19. Exod. xv. 1---21. 2. Deut. xxxll. I—43. Deut. xxxill. I—44. 3. 1 Regn. 11. I—10. 1 Regn. il. I—Io. 4. Isa. xxvi. 9—20. Isa. v. I—9. 5. Ion. 11. 3—I0. Ion. 11. 3—I0. 6. Hab. iii. I—109. Hab. iii. I—19. [6] 1 Regn. ii. [1 ]—10. 7. Isa.xxxvill. 10—20. Magnificat. 7. Magnificat. 8. Prayer of Manas- Dan. 111. 52—90. 8. Isa.xxxvill, 1o—2o.
seh}. 9. Prayer of Manas- 9. Dan. ili. 26—45. seh}, IO. 4, » 52—88. 10. Dan. 111. 26—45. 11. Magnificat. PIs! Yh 55 52256: 12. Nunc dimittzs. τ | gs BFS OO. 13. Benedictus. 13. Benedictus. 14. Morning Hymn. 14. Muncdimtttts.
15. Morning Hymn.
1 The προσευχὴ Μαννασσή (so Cod. A; Cod. T. mp. Μανασσὴ υἱοῦ ‘Egexiov) is usually regarded as an attempt by a Hellenistic Jew to re- construct the prayer mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18; see, however Ball
254 Books of the Hebrew Canon.
The nine Odes now sung at Lauds in the Orthodox Church are (following the order of cod. A) nos. I, 2, 3, 6, 4, 5, 9, 10, I1+13; the Roman Church uses at Lauds on successive days of the week το, Isa. xii., Isa. xxxvill. Io—20, 3, I, 6, 2, whilst 13, 11, 12 are recited daily at Lauds, Vespers, and Compline respectively. 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. ret. 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, off. 11. 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 ὠργίσθησαν, cant. ἐφοβήθησαν : Deut. xxxll. 7 γενεῶν ye- veais, cant. γεν ἃς γενεῶν : 18 γεννήσαντα, cant. ποιήσαντα: 1 Regn. ii. τοῦ φρονήσει, cant. copia: 10° ἄκρα γῆς, cant.+dixaos dv. 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’ seems to have been already made when it was translated into Greek, for though the Greek codices have nothing to answer to the head- ings }}WN7 75D, etc., which appear in the printed Hebrew Bible, the Doxologies at the end of the first four books appear in the
in Speaker's Comm. (Apocr. ii. 362 ff.). The Greek text appears in Const. A post. ii. 22 and in the Ddascalia, where it follows a reference to Chron. ἃ c.; in MSS. of the Lxx. it finds a place only among the can- ticles. See Fabricius-Harles, iii. 732, Westcott in Smith’s D. 2. ii. 226, Schiirer*, iii. 337 f.: and for the text with an apparatus, Fritzsche, V. 7’. 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.
1 A pre-Christian arrangement, as Hippolytus already knew (AyZoth. in Psalmos, τὸ ψαλτήριον eis πέντε διεῖλον βιβλία οἱ Ἑβραῖοι). Cf. Robertson Smith, Ο. 7. 22 Fewish Ch., p. τθ4 τ. 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.).
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 255
Greek as well as in the M. T. (Ps. xl. (xli.) 14, Ixxi. (Ixxii.) 18—2zo, Ixxxvili. (Ixxxix.) 5, cv. (cvi.) 48).
PRovERBS. The variations of & and ## in this book are treated by Lagarde in his early book Anumerkungen zur griech. Ubersetzung der Proverbien. There is a considerable number of Greek verses for which {#1 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 {#1 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. iil. 16 = 16a. xlv, 232 + Proy.; xxx. 265! XKVI. TES τς τὸν 21} OF ane fragments of the book which have been accidentally inserted twice (ill. 228. “1. 8, 28c=xxvil. 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. vil. 1a, Vill. 21a, 1x. 12 a—c, 18 a—c, Xll. Il a, 13a, Xvil. 6a, Xvill. 22a, xxi. 8a (cited in 2 Cor. ix. 7), XXlv. 22 a—e, XXVll. 204, 21 a.
Jos. 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 πλεῖστά τε ὅσα διὰ μέσου ὅλου τοῦ Ἰὼβ παρ᾽ ἜἜβραίοις μὲν κεῖται map ἡμῖν δὲ οὐχί, καὶ πολλάκις μὲν ἔπη τέσσαρα ἢ τρία: ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε δὲ καὶ δεκατέσσαρα καὶ δεκαεννέα καὶ δεκαέξ (707. leg. ἐννέα καὶ ἕξ 1). Cf. Hieron. praef zx 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
1 For this correction see a note by Dr Nestle in Exg. 7imes, Aug. 1899 (Ρ. 523):
256 Books of the Hebrew Canon.
Greek Job? 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 #1*.
Dr Hatch’ 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. The same view was maintained in the earlier treatise of Bickell de indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae in interpretando libro Lobi (Marburg, 1862). Recent critics incline to an opposite view. ‘The evident desire of the trans- lator to follow classical models suggests that he was an Alex- andrian Hellenist* who intended his version for general reading, rather than for use in the synagogue’. Under such circum- stances 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 (χρόνου οὐ πολλοῦ προβεβηκότος... λέγων ᾿Ιδοὺ ἀναμένω κτλ.).
The two notes at the end of the Greek Job (xlii. 17a, b—e) scarcely profess to belong to the book. The first (γέγραπται δὲ αὐτὸν πάλιν ἀναστήσεσθαι μεθ᾽ ὧν ὁ κύριος ἀνίστησιν) may be either a Pharisaic or a Christian gloss, intended to balance the ἐτελεύτησεν Ἰώβ of the previous hemistich, and arising out of
1 Cf. Hatch, Zssays, p. 216; Field, Hexagia, ii. p. 1 f.; E. Kloster- mann, Azalecta, p. 63 f.
2 Burkitt, O. 2. and Stala, p. 8. 3 Essays, p. 214 ff.
4 On the translator’s date cf. Schiirer%, iii. pp. 311, 356 f.
5 Cf. Hatch, of. 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 ver- sion shews some knowledge of Homer and Aeschylus (cf. Smith, D. 2.°, vol. I. pt. ii. p. 1723).
—
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 257
xix. 26 ἐπὶ γῆς ἀναστήσαι (Vv. 2. ἀναστήσει) τὸ δέρμα pov, to which passage γέγραπται seems to refer. The second Note, which professes to come from an Aramaic source (otros ἑρμηνεύεται ἐκ τῆς Συριακῆς βίβλου), confuses Job (AN) with the Edomite king
Jobab (331’) (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 (fraep. év. ix. 25). From a comparison of this extract with the note attached to Job, Freudenthal was led to ascribe the note to Aristeas*. Beyond the geographical description of Uz (ἐπὶ τοῖς ὁρίοις τῆς ᾿Ιδουμαίας καὶ "ApaBias), and the statements that Job’s wife was an Arab woman and that her son’s name was Ennon or Enon (v. 4), the note contains nothing new: 17c—d rests upon Gen. xxxvi. 32—35 (LXX.), and 174 on Job 1]. 11 (LXxX.).
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*®. The Greek additions are distributed through the book in contexts as long as average chapters*. In the Latin Bible they are collected at the end of the canonical book, where they fill several consecutive chapters (x. 4—x1. 5=F, Xl. 2—xll. 6=A, xill, I—7=B, xl. 8—xiv. I19=C, xv. 4—I9=D, xvl. I—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. 1., introduces the story by describing the events which led to the first advance- ment of Mordecai at the court of Artaxerxes; B and E, which
1 (Ἔκ τῆς Σ. B. weist doch auf einen Midrasch oder ein Targum hin” (Dillmann, 470d, p. 361).
4 Schiirer®, dis: ps σιν.
3 Cf. Origen, ad Afric. 3 ἐκ τῆς Εσθὴρ οὔτε ἡ τοῦ Μαρδοχαίου εὐχὴ οὔτε ἡ τῆς Εσθηρ... παρ᾽ ᾿Εβραίοις φέρονται" ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ αἱ ἐπιστολαί" ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἡ τῷ ᾿Αμμὰν ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τοῦ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἔθνους γεγραμμένη, οὐδὲ ἡ τοῦ | ciel pan
+ In the Cambridge Lxx. they are distinguished ΒΥ the Roman capitals
A—F, a notation suggested by Dr Hort.
Ἐν 5. 7
258 Books of the Hebrew Canon.
follow ui. 13 and vill. 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.’
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’, as they called it, which had been translated (so they said) by one Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy, a resident at Jerusalem.” As Fritzsche remarks*, 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. 179-8, the fourth year of Philometor*. But the historical value of the note is more than doubtful’.
The Greek text of Esther exists in two recensions (1) that of NABN 55, 934, 108 a, 249 al., (2) that of 19, 93a, 1084; both are exhibited by Ussher (Syzdéagma), Fritzsche (Eo6np, 1848; /2brz apocryphi, 1871), and Lagarde (br. canon. V. T. 1., 1883). The
1 See Ryle, Canon, p. 139 f., 203 ff.; and cf. supra, p. 228 f.
2 Φρουραί (Φρουραια &*, Φρουριμ N°-*), cf. c. ix. 26, and Jos. ans. vi. 13 οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι τὰς προειρημένας ἡμέρας ἑορτάζουσιν προσαγορεύσαντες αὐτὰς φρουρέας (ν. 1. φρουραίας, Lat. conservatores). The ‘Letter of Purim’ seems to be the book of Esther as a whole; cf. c. ix. 20.
3 Handbuch zu d. Apocrypha, i. p. 73.
4 Ryssel (in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 212) inclines to B.c. 114, the fourth year of Soter ii (Lathyrus).
5 See above, p. 25.
Looks of the Hebrew Canon. 259
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 bet dem LXX.in ΖΑ͂ ΤΊΣ, 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’”; and con- cludes 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 Jil; the following are the most noteworthy: viil. 10Ὁ---12, x. 6, 8, 10, xvii. I—5%, xxix. (xxxvil., LXX.) 16—20, xxxili. (xl., LXX.) 1426, xxxix. (=xlvi., LXX.) 4—13, lil. 28—30. Of these pas- sages vill, 10Ὁ---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. I—5? was due to homceote- leuton, the eye of the translator or the scribe of his archetype having passed from yf) (xvi. 21) to ΠῚ) (xvil. 52). It is more difficult to account for the absence from (Ὁ of the Messianic passage xxxlil. 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 head- ing which connects the book with Jeremiah (καὶ ἐγένετο... ἐκά- θισεν Ἱερεμίας κλαίων κτλ.)
1 P.24f. Cf. A. B. Davidson.in Hastings’ D. ZB. ii. 573 ff. 17—2
260 Looks of the Hebrew Canon.
DaniEL. Like Esther the Book of Daniel in both its Greek forms’ contains large contexts which have no equivalent in {. There are three such passages in the Greek Daniel: (1) the story of Susanna (Σουσάννα, Swodvva), which in the version of Theodotion as given by the great uncials precedes Dan. i. 1; (2) the story of Bel and the Dragon (Βὴλ καὶ Δράκων) which follows Dan. xii. 13; (3) after Dan. iii. 23 a digression of 67 verses (ili. 24—90, Lxx., Th.), consisting of (a) the prayer of Azarias (24—45), (0) details as to the heating of the furnace and the preservation of Azarias and his friends (46—51), (ὦ the Song of the Three (52—go0). 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 (ὅρασις ιβ΄ AQ). Internal evidence appears to shew that both these stories originally had a separate circulation; Susanna does not form a suitable prologue to Dan. 1.5, 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” (Szs. 56, 52 f.), iv. 5. 2 “quem et Daniel propheta...annun- tiavit” (Bel 4f.,25). Tert. de <dololatria, 18 (Bel 4f.).. Hippol. zz
1 Vide supra, p. 46 ff. * 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, Ὁ (Lxx.).
Books of the Hebrew Canon. 261
S75: (Lagarde, p p- 145) αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ ἱστορία γεγένηται ὕστερον, προεγράφη δὲ τῆς Bi βλου πρώτης. Africanus, ep. ad O7 tg. θαυμάζω € πῶς ἔλαθέ σε τὸ μέρος τοῦ βιβλίου τοῦτο ΕΠ Chae ov nee Orig. ad African. παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις (LXX. and Theodotion) ἔκειτο τὸ περὶ τὴν Σωσάνναν (ws σὺ φῇς) πλάσμα, καὶ αἱ τελευταῖαι ἐν τῷ Δανιὴλ περικοπαί. 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 (cytvos, σχίζειν) in Sus. 54 f., Ball (Speaker's Comm., Apocrypha, 11. p. 330 f.) has given reasons for believing that both Susanna and Bel once existed in an Aramaic or a new-Hebrew original’. The Lxx. version repre- sents Bel as a fragment of Habakkuk (cod. 87, Syro-Hex., tit. ἐκ προφητείας ᾿Αμβακοὺμ υἱοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευΐ), an attribution evidently due to v. 22 ff., but inconsistent with the place of the story in the Gk. MSS.
The addition to Dan. ill. 23 is clearly Midrashic and probably had a Semitic original’. The two hymns contained in it found a place, as we have seen, among the Greek ecclesi- astical Canticles, where they appear as the προσευχὴ ᾿Αζαρίου and the ὕμνος τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν (cod. A) or v. τῶν τριῶν παίδων (cod. 1).
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. i1.—vi. where “the original thread of the narrative is often lost in a chaos of accretions, alterations, and displacements*.” 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. 111. 1—3,
46, lv. 14 (17), 19 (22), 29—34 (32—37), V. 13—23, Vi. 2—5
1 But see Kamphausen in Zucycl. Biblica, i. 1013, and comp. Roth- stein, Afokr., p. 173 ff. On the Aramaic version of the additions from Theodotion’s Greek cf. Schiirer?’, iii. p. 333.
= BENE 2: }Ρ..398- 3 Bevan, Daniel, p. 46.
262 Books of the Hebrew Canon.
(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 para- phrase rather than a translation of a Hebrew text. In Susanna Theodotion has here and there a much shorter 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 sepa- rately or in groups).
PENTATEUCH. Amersfoordt, Dissert. philol. de variis lectio- mtbus Holmes. Pentateuchi (1815). Hug, de Pentateuchi vers. Alexandrina commentatio (1818). Topler, de Penta- teucht interpretationis Alexandrinae indole (1830). Thiersch, de Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina, libri iii(1841). Frankel, uber den Einfluss der palast. Exegese auf die alex. Herme- meuttk (1851). Howorth, the LXX. and Samaritan v. the Flebrew text of the Pentateuch (Academy, 1894).
GENESIS. Lagarde, Gemests Graece (1868). Deutsch, exeg. Analecten zur Genesisiibersetzung der LXX. (in Jiid. Lite. Blatt, 1879). Spurrell, Geneszs, ed. 2 (1898).
Exopus. Selwyn, Wotae criticae in Verstonem LX Xviralem, Exod. t—xxtv (1856).
NUMBERS. Selwyn, WVofae, &c., Liber Numerorum (1857). Howard, Numbers and Deuteronomy acc. to the LXX. translated into English (1887).
DEUTERONOMY. Selwyn, Wofae, &c., Liber Deuteronomtt (1858). Howard, of. εἶ. (1887). Driver, critical and Exe- getical Commentary on Deut. (1895).
JosHuA. Hollenberg, Der Charakter der alex. Ubersetzung des Buches Fosua (1876).
JUDGES. Fritzsche, Lzber Ludicum sec. LXX. interpretes (1867). Schulte, de restitutione atgue indole genuinae ver- stonts graece Iudicum (1889). Lagarde, Septuagintast. i. (1891), (Jud. i—v., texts of Aand B). Moore, critical and Exegetical Comm, on Fudges (1895). .
RUTH. Fritzsche,‘Pov@ κατὰ τοὺς ο΄ (1867).
Looks of the Hebrew Canon. 263
I,2 KINGDOMS. Wellhausen, Der Text der Biicher Samuelis untersucht (1871). Woods, the light thrown by the LXX. on the Books of Samuel (in Studia Biblica, i. 21, 1885). Driver, Votes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (1890). Steinthal, zur Geschichte Sauls u. Davids (1891). Kerber, Syrohex. Fragmente zu den beiden Samuelis- btichern (ZAW., 1898). J. Méritan, Za Version Grecgue des livres de Samuel, précidée Mune introduction sur la critique textuelle (1898). H. P. Smith, Critical and exeg. comm. on the Books of Samuel (1899).
3, 4 KINGDOMS. Silberstein, Uber den Ursprung der im Codex Alex. u. Vat. des dritten Konigsbuches der Alex.
Ubersetzung uberlicferten Textgestalt (in ZA TW., 1893).
I, 2 CHRONICLES, EZRA-NEHEMIAH. Howorth, 7he true LXX. version of Chr.-Esra-Neh. (in Academy, 1893). Nestle, Warginalien (1893), p. 29 ff.
PSALMS. Sinker, Some remarks on the LX X. version of the Psalms (1879). Baethgen, der text-kritisches Werth des
alten Ubersetz. zu ad. Psalmen (1882). Lagarde, psalterz graect specimen (1887); psalmorum quinguagena prima (1892). Mercati, ws palimpsesto Ambrosiano det Salmt Esaplt (1896). Jacob, Beztrage su einer Einlettung in die Psalmen (1. Exc. V.), (1896).
PROVERBS. Lagarde, Anumerkungen zur griech. Ubersetz. der Proverbten (1863). Pinkuss, de syr. Ubersetzung des Proverbien,..in threm Verhdltntss zu dem Mass. Text, den LXX. τ. dem Targ. untersucht (ZA TW., 1894).
ECCLESIASTES. Wright, Zhe book of Koheleth (1883). Gratz, Koheleth (1884). Klostermann (E.), de “bri Coheleth ver- stone Alexandrina (1892). Ddllmann, aber die Gr. Uber- setzung des Koheleth (1892). Kohl, observ. ad tnterpr. Gr. et Lat. vet. libri Job (1834).
Jos. Bickell, De zudole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae Fobi (1862); der urspringliche Septuaginta-text des Buches Hob (1886). Hatch, on Origen’s revision of the Book of Fob (in Essays, 1889). Dillmann, Text-hritisches zum B. fjob (1890). Maude, de Peschittha zu Hiob nebst einem Anhang tiber thr Verhdltniss zu LXX. u. Targ. (1892). Beer, der Text des B. Hiob (1895).
ESTHER. Jacob, Esther bed dem LXX.(ZATW.,, 1890). On the Greek additions see Ryssel in Kautzsch, Afokr., p. 193 ff.
264
Books of the Hebrew Canon.
DODECAPROPHETON. Vollers, Das Dod. der Alexandriner (1880), continued in ZA TW., 1883-4. Stekhoven, de alex. Vertaling van het Dod. (1887).
Hosea. Treitel, Dze alex. Ubersetzung des Buches Hosea (1888).
MIcAH. Ryssel, Untersuchungen uber die Textgestalt des B. Micha (1887). Taylor, the Mass. text and the ancient versions of Micah (1891).
OBADIAH. Seydel, Vatictntum Obadiaera...... tione habita transl. Alex. (1869).
NAHUM. Reinke, Zur Krittzk der alt. Vers. ad. Proph. Nahum (1867).
HABAKKUK. Sinker, Psalm of Habakkuk (1890). ZECHARIAH. Lowe, Comm. on Zech. (1882).
IsalaAH. Scholz, Die Masor. Text u. alex. Ubersetzung des B. Jesaias (1880). Weiss, Peschitta zu Deuterojesaia u. thr Verhaltniss zu M.T., LXX. τ. Targ. (1893).
JEREMIAH. Movers, De utriusque recens. Feremiae indole et origine (1837). Wichelhaus, de Feremiae vers. Alexandr. zndole (1847). Schulz, de leremtae textus Hebr. et Gr. dis- crepantia (1861). Scholz, der Masor. Text u. die LXX.
Ubersetz. des B. Feremias (1875). Kuhl, das Verhdaliniss der Massora zur Septuaginta in Feremia (1882). Work- man, the text of Feremiah (1889). Coste, die Wetssagung- en der Propheten Teremias (1895). Streane, the double text of Feremiah (1896). The question of the two recensions is dealt with at length in Bleek-Wellhausen, £z7eztung, S τοῦ ff.
LAMENTATIONS. Goldwitzer, Ubersetzung mit Vergleichung ad. LXX. (1828).
EZEKIEL. Merx, Der Werth der LXX. fiir die Textkritik der AT am Exzechiel aufgezeigt (Jb. pr. Th., 1883). Cornill, das Buch des Proph. Ezechiel (1886); cf. Lagarde in Gott. gelerhte Anzeigen (1 June, 1886).
DANIEL. Bludau, De alex. interprete libri Daniel indole (1891); de alex. Ubersetzung des δ. Daniel (1897). Bevan, the Book of Daniel (1892). Lohr, textkrit. Vorarbetten zu einer Erklarung des Buches Daniel (ZATW., 1895). On the Greek additions see Rothstein in Kautzsch, Afokr, Re e727 i.
CHAPTER {ἘΠῚ BOOKS NOT INCLUDED IN THE HEBREW CANON.
Tue MSS. and many of the lists of the Greek Old Tes- tament 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 le 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 Espras. In MSS. of the Lxx. the canonical book Ezra-Nehemiah appears under the title "Eadpas β΄, "Eodpas a’ being appropriated by another recension of the history of the Captivity and Return’. The ‘Greek Esdras’ consists of an
1 Cod. A entitles both books [6] iepe¥s—perhaps in order to distinguish
the canonical Esdras from the ‘ Prophet’=4 Esdras—‘‘liber Esrae prophe- tae” (cf. Clem. M. strom. iii. τ6 "Εσδρας ὁ προφήτης λέγει).
266 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.
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. I—xxxvi. 21; ii. I—14 =Ezra 1. ; ll. 15—25=Ezra iv. 7—24; iil. I—v. 6 is original; v. 7—7o0 = Ezra 11. I—iv. 5; vi., vil.=Ezra v., vi.; vili. I—ix. 36= Ezra vii. I—x. 44; 1x. 37—55=Neh. vil. 73>—viii. 13. The Greek book ends abruptly, in a manner which suggests that something has been lost; cf. ix. 55 καὶ ἐπισυνήχθησαν with 2 Esdr. xvili. 13 συνήχθησαν οἱ ἄρχοντες κτλ. 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 in- teresting 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°), and the story which forms the setting of the proverb is, worthy of the occasion. But in its present form it is certainly un- historical ; Zerubbabel (iv. 13) belonged to the age of Cyrus, and it was Cyrus and not Darius (iv. 47 ἢ) 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’.” In the grouping chronological order has been to some extent set aside; the displacement of Ezra iv. 7—24 (=1 Esdr. 11. 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’, 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 narra- tive the legend of Zerubbabel*. He evades the difficulty
1 The future (Jraevaledzt) is without authority. In v. 38 Cod. A gives ἰσχύσει, but in v. 41 ὑπερισχύει is unchallenged. The Latin texts have the present in both verses.
2 H. St J. Thackeray, in Hastings’ D. B. i. p. 76. 3 ant. X. 4. 4—xXi. 4 ant. xi. 3. 2 sqq.
Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 267
arising out of the premature reference to Artaxerxes by sub- stituting Cambyses*. In the early Church the Greek Esdras was accepted without suspicion; cf. e.g. Clem. Alex. strom. leer Θέ ἢ το \Joain. ti vis ay am! Jes). home ix tes Cyprian, ¢f. 74. 9. Jerome, however (pracf in LEazr.), dis- carded 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’.
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’ Duectionary 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. Howorth*, who adds to it the suggestion that 1 Esdras is the true Septuagintal (1.6. 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 Grfeek] 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.”
2. WispoM ΟΕ SoLomMoNn. ‘The Greek title is Σοφία Σαλωμώῶνος (Σαλομῶντος, Σολομῶντος, Σαλωμών). But the book
Ὁ ἘΠ. 2: τ Ξηῆ. 2 The English Article (vi) follows this numeration. 3 In the Academy for 1893.
268 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.
was often cited as ἡ Sodia, ἡ πανάρετος Σοφία, 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 Safientia or Sophia Salomonis (Cyprian, O. Z.), but also simply lider Sapientiae (Lactantius, Vulg.).
No other book in the Greek Bible is so manifestly Alex- andrian in tone and style. Some early Christian writers attributed it to Philo (Hieron. praef. in bros Salomonis: “non- nulli 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’. 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*. 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 Stoic doctrine of the four cardinal virtues (c. viil. 7 εἰ δικαιοσύνην ἀγαπᾷ τις, οἱ πόνοι ταύτης εἰσὶν ἀρεταί σωφροσύνην γὰρ καὶ φρόνησιν ἐκδιδάσκει, δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀνδρείαν), and with the Platonic sense of ὕλη (Cc. Xl. 17 κτίσασα τὸν νόμον ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης" cf. Philo, de victim. 13, de mund. opif. 12). His ideas on the subject of preexistence (c. vill. 20), of the relation of the body to the spirit (c. ix. 15), of Wisdom as the soul of the world (vil. 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 compo-
1 Ab amicis suggests ὑπὸ φίλων, and ὑπὸ φίλων has been thought to be a corruption of ὑπὸ Φίλωνος. See Tregelles can. Mur., p. 53, and cf. Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, ii. p. 100.
* See this worked out by W. J. Deane, Book of Wisdom, p. 33 f.; C. J. Bigg, Christian Platonists, p. 14 ff.
Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 269
sition which would be produced by the sophistic school of rhetoric,” 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. d«yAc dwros, ἀμβρόσιος, ἔξαλλος, ζωτικός, ἰοβόλος, κακόμοχθος, κινητικός, κρυσταλλοειδής, ὁμοιοπαθής, παντεπίσκοπος, πολυμερής, πρωτό- πλαστος᾽ ἀγερωχία, ἀπαύγασμα, ἀπόρροια, εἰδέχθεια, ἐνέργεια, εὐδράνεια, ῥεμβασμός, συλλογισμός" μετακιρνᾷν, μεταλλεύειν, πρου- φεστάναι". 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—ris δὲ ὃ ypawas...7d μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς οἶδεν. 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 Σοφία Sepay*, but codd. AC give the fuller and more accurate form Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ (cf. c. L. 27 παιδείαν...ἐχάραξα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ ᾿Ιησοῦς vids
1 Westcott in Smith’s B. D. ii. 1780. Cf. Jerome, /. c. ‘‘ipse stylus Graecam eloquentiam redolet.”’
2 See Deane, p. 27, Westcott, p. 178, Ryle, Smith’s B. D®. i. p. 185.
3 Σειράχ Ξε δ. ‘In the Hebrew Josippon (Pseudo-Josephus) the form TV is a transliteration from the Latin” (Cowley and Neubauer, Original Hebrew of a portion of Ecclestasticus, p. ix. n.).
2700 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.
Σειράχ᾽). Jerome had seen a Hebrew Sirach which shared with the canonical book the title of Proverbs (praef. ix libros Salom.: “Hebraicum reperi... Parabolas (Ὁ) praenotatum”). The later name, Zccleszasticus, which appears in Cyprian (e.g. testim. 11. 1 “‘apud Salomonem...in Ecclesiastico 7), marks the book as the most important or the most popular of the 477 ecclestastici—the books which the Church used for the purpose of instruction, although they were included in the Jewish canon.
Cf. Rufin. zz sym. 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 Lcclestasticus appellatur, quo vocabulo non auctor libelli sed scripturae qua- litas cognominata est.”
The Wisdom of the Son of Sirach was the work of a Palestinian (c. L. 27 Ἰησοῦς 6 ἸἸεροσολυμείτης), and written in Hebrew or Aramaic; the Greek version was made by the grandson of the writer during a visit to Alexandria (frolog., 4. 5, 18 ff.). This visit is said to have begun ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ τοῦ Evepyérov BaoiWéws—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 11., i.e. Physcon, and that the translator is counting from the time when Physcon was associated in the government with his brother and prede- cessor Philometor, we arrive at B.c. 132 as the ¢erminus a guo of the Greek version, and the original may have been com- posed some fifty years earlier.
Fragments of the original are preserved in Rabbinic
1 On ’Edeagdp (which follows Σειράχ in the Greek) see Ryssel in Kautzsch, Afokr., p. 253. The newly-discovered Hebrew reads pow NVD 13 ἜΝ ja pie 13, on which see Schechter, ἤεἊοηε of Ben Stra, p. 65.
Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 271
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 em- ployed 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 r1th or 12th century, which may present a cor- rupt 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.’ 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*®. At present few experts accept this theory, but the question must perhaps be regarded as sub zudice.
In all but one’ of the known MSS. of the Greek Sirach, there 15 a remarkable disturbance of the sequence. They pass from ἢ. xxx. 34. tO ¢...xxxllil. 13 b, returning to the omitted passage after xxxvi. 16a. 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*—a fact which is specially instructive in view of the large divergences in the Greek MSS. to which reference has
1 Cf. Hatch, .Zssays, 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. 8. 1. i. p. 842.
2 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 Sen Siva, Ὁ. 1xx ff.
3 The exception is H-P., 248, a Vatican MS. of the 14th century. On this MS. see Fritzsche, p. xxiii; Zenner in Z, K. 7h., 1895.
4 See Fritzsche in exeg. Handbuch, v. p. 169 f.
272. Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.
been made. The true order is preserved in the Old Latin’, Syriac, and Armenian versions.
4. JUDITH (Ἰουδείθ, -δίθ, -δηήθ, =I, cf. Gen. xxvi. 34, where the same spellings are found in the cursives, though the uncials exhibit ᾿Ιουδείν, Ἰουδίν), an historical romance, of which the scene is laid in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (c. 1. 2). The date of its composition is uncertain. A f¢erminus ad quem 15 provided by the fact that Clement of Rome knew the story (1 Cor. 55 ᾿Ιουδὶθ ἡ paxapia...rapédwxev Κύριος ᾿Ολοφέρνην ἐν χειρὶ θηλείας)"; and the name of Judith’s enemy has suggested a terminus a quo, for Olophernes?* 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*. The religious attitude of the author of /udzth is that of the devout Pharisee (cf. e.g. vill. 6, x. 2ff., x1. 13, xl. 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: Ἔβραϊῖοι τῷ Τωβίᾳ od χρῶνται οὐδὲ τῇ Ἰουδήθ, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις Ἔβραιστί, ὡς ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν μαθόντες ἐγνώκαμεν). Jerome, on the other hand, not only says expressly (fraef. in Ludith): “apud Hebraeos liber Iudith inter apocrypha (v.Z hagiographa) legitur,” but he produced a version or paraphrase from an Aramaic source (‘“‘ea quae intellegentia integra ex verbis Chaldaeis invenire potui, Latinis expressi”)®. The relation of this Aramaic text to the original of the Greek book remains uncertain.
1 On the O.L. of the Wisdoms see above, pt. i. c. IV (pp. 96, 103).
2 See Lightfoot’s note ad ἦρε. and his remarks in Clement i. p. 313 ff.
3 Not Ολοφέρνης, as is presupposed by the Latin.
4 Cf. art. Holofernes in Hastings’ D. ZB. ii. p. 402. There were, however, earlier kings of the same name (of. czt. p. 823; cf. Schiirer, iii. p- 169 f., n. 19).
5 See however Ball in Speaker's Comm. Apocr. i. pp. 243, 259 ff.; and F. C. Porter in Hastings’ B. D. ii. p. 822».
Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 273
The Greek Judith is said by Fritzsche’ 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: Tosir (Τωβείτ (-βίτ, -βήτ), Τωβείθ, Tobias, liber Tobiae, utriusgue Tobtae), 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 τῇ δὲ Tod Τωβὴτ βίβλῳ ἀντιλέγουσιν οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς, ὡς μὴ ἐνδιαθήκῳ), or even to include it among their apocrypha (see above, under JUDITH); but it was accepted by the Church (ep. ad African. 1. c. χρῶνται τῷ Τωβίᾳ at ἐκκλη- σίαι), and there is abundant evidence of its popularity among Christians (cf. Ps. Clem. 2 Cor. 16. 4, Polyc. ad Smyrn. to. 2, Clem. Alex. s¢vom. il. 23, vi. 12, Orig. de orat. 11, 7m Rom. wa 1, 5 Ce/s. v. 19, Cypr.. vestim. i. 1, 6, 62). Gnosties shared this feeling with Catholics; the Ophites placed Tobit among their prophetical books (Iren. 1. 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. “exi- gitis 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
1 Fritzsche, rz apocr. p. xviii sq.; Schiirer’, iii. p. 172. The text in codd. 19, 108, is said to be Lucianie (Max Lohr in Kautzsch, AZokr., P- 147).
es. 18
274. Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.
= 9
accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui’”). 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 x. Ince. vi. 9--- ΧΙ]. 18 Fritzsche adds a third text supplied by the cursives 44, 106, τοῦ. The relation of the two principal texts to each other has recently been discussed by Nestle (Sepftuagintastu- dien, 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 δὲ 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 (Bapovx, Ἔπι- στολὴ Ἱερεμίου, | Arophetia| 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. το, Cypr. festim. 11. 6); with Lamentations they form a kind of trilogy supplementary to the prophecy (Athan. ¢f. 39 Ἱερεμίας καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ Bapovy, Θρῆνοι, “ExvoroAy, Cyril. Hier. catech. iv. 33 Ἰερεμίου μετὰ Βαροὺχ καὶ Θρήνων καὶ ᾿Ἐπιστολῆς"). 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.
1 A Chaldee text, corresponding in some respects to Jerome’s Latin, is preserved in the Bodleian, and has been edited by Neubauer (Oxford, 1878).
2 Origen, while omitting Baruch, includes the Epistle in a formal list of the Hebrew canon (Eus. 27. 35. vi. 25 ᾿Ιερεμίας σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ τῇ ᾿Επιστολῇ ἐν ἑνί).
Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 275
The Epistle (ἀντίγραφον ἐπιστολῆς ἧς ἀπέστειλεν ᾿Ἱερεμίας πρὸς τοὺς ἀχθησομένους [v. 2. ἀπαχθέντας] αἰχμαλώτους εἰς Βαβυ- λῶνα) 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, τ"
The problem presented by Baruch is less simple. This book is evidently a complex work consisting of two main sections (1. 1.—ill. 8, 1], g—v. 9)", each of which may be subdivided (i. 1—14, historical preface; i. 15—ili. 8, confession and prayer; lll. g—1iv. 4, exhortation; iv. 5—-v. 9, encourage- ment). Of these subsections the first two shew traces of a Hebrew original; cf. e.g. 1. τὸ μάννα -- ΠΣ, ii. 3 ἄνθρωπον =O, iii. 4 τῶν τεθνηκότων = "Π (for ‘M2)*; the third has been held* to rest on an Aramaic document, whilst the fourth is manifestly Hellenistic.
An investigation by Professor Ryle and Dr James’ 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. v. 30 seems certainly to point to that period. On the other hand it is difficult to understand the unhesitating acceptance of the book by Chris- tian writers from Athenagoras (supp/. 9) until the time of
' On the first point see J. T. Marshall in Hastings’ D. 8. il. p. 579,
and on the other hand Schiirer’, iii. p. 344. Cf. Nestle, Marginathen, - 421.
ἦ 2 In the first section the Divine Name is Κύριος or K. ὁ θεός, while in
the second it is either [6] θεός or ὁ αἰώνιος, ὁ ἅγιος. See Dr Gifford in
Speaker's Comm., Apoc., ii. f. 253.
3 “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 Zucycl. Brblica, i. 494.)
4 E.g. by J. T. Marshall in Hastings’ D. 8. i. p. 251.
> Psalms of the Pharisees, pref., esp. p. lxxvii.
18—2
276 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.
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.’ As to its use by the Jews there are contradictory statements in early Christian writers, for while the Afostolical Constitutions* 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 καὶ yap καὶ viv δεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς Tapmuaiov συναθροιζόμενοι τοὺς Θρήνους Ἰερεμίου avaywaokovow...cal τὸν Βαρούχ. Hieron. praef. comm. tn Lerem. “vulgo editioni Septua- ginta copulatur, nec habetur apud Hebraeos” ; Draef. vers. Lerem. “‘apud Hebraeos nec legitur nec habetur.” Epiph. de mens. et pond. 5 οὐ κεῖνται ai ἐπιστολαὶ [Βαροὺχ καὶ Ἰερεμίου] παρ᾽ EBpaias.
7. ΒΟΟΚΒ oF MACCABEES (Μακκαβαίων a’, Bs γ΄, δ΄, Macha- bacorum libri; τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά, Hippol. zz Dan. iv. 3; Orig. ap. Eus. 7. £. 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* family.
1 MaccaBeEs. This book seems to have been used by Josephus (azz. xii. 6. τ 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. 1. ὃ 123 τὸ τῶν
1 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. ἄβατος, ἀποστολή, δεσμώτης, πει- νῶσα.
2 v.20. But the reference to Baruch is wanting in the Syriac Didas- calia (Smith, D. B.? i. p. 359).
* For the name MaxxaBaios see Schiirer, Z. 7. i. p. 212 f. n.; it
belonged primarily to Judas, cf. 1 Macc. i. 4 dvéorn’Iovdas ὁ καλούμενος M.; Joseph. azz. xii. 6 ᾿Ιούδας 6 kad. M.
Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 277
Μακκαβαϊκῶν, Origen ap. Eus. Zc. τὰ Μακκαβαϊκὰ ἅπερ ἐπιγέ- γραπται Σαρβὴθ σαβαναιέλ (v.2. &. σαβανὲ ἔλ). Whatever may be the meaning of this title’, 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 (fvo/. gal. “Maccabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum repperi”), but it has long disappeared, 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*.
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. 23f.). 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 ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ βίβλῳ τῶν Μακκαβαϊκῶν ἀναγέγραπται, and by Origen, if we may trust the Latin interpretation (22: ef. ad Rom., t. viii. t “in primo libro Machabaeorum scriptum est”) ; the title itself occurs in Eus. praef. ev. vill. 9 (ἡ δευτέρα τῶν Μακκαβαίων). But the evidence goes further back. Philo shews some knowledge of the book in Quod omnts probus liber, § 13, and the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews has a clear reminiscence of its Greek (Heb. xi. 31 ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν κτλ. οὗ; 2 Macc. vi. 19, 30).
1 For various attempts to interpret it see Ryle, Cavon, Ὁ. 185. 2 Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, pp. 62, 68.
278 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.
The writer is described by Clement of Alexandria (stvom. v. 14) as ὃ συνταξάμενος τὴν τῶν Μακκαβαϊκῶν ἐπιτομήν. This is precisely what he claims to do (c. ii. 23 ὑπὸ Ἰάσωνος τοῦ Κυρηναίου δεδηλωμένα διὰ πέντε βιβλίων, πειρασόμεθα δι’ ἑνὸς συντάγματος ἐπιτεμεῖν. The work of the Cyrenian has perished, whilst the Alexandrian epitome survives. For Alex- andrian 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’.” ‘‘The style is extremely uneven ; at times it is elaborately ornate (111. 15-39, ν. 20, vil. 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 composi- tion’ (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 (2γοΐ. gal. “‘secundus Graecus est, quod ex ipsa quoque φράσει probari potest”). The vocabulary is extraordinarily rich in words of the later literary Greek, and the book betrays scarcely any disposition to Hebraise’.
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®.
3 Maccasegs. A third book of Μακκαβαικά finds a place
1 Westcott in Smith’s D. 8.1 11, p. 175.
2 See the list of words given by Westcott, 7. c. i. and in Smith’s D. B.7i. and Apocrypha.
3 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.”
Looks not included in the Hebrew Canon. 279
in some Eastern lists (can. Apost., Niceph. stichom.). A Greek book under that title is found in codd. AV and a few cursives’. 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. 8 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’. The story belongs to the reigns of Ptolemy Philopator (B.c. 222 —z205), and the scene is laid at Alexandria. The king, in- furiated 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. vil. 11] cannot be an inven- tion...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*.” Moreover Josephus has a somewhat similar tale drawn from another source, and con-
1 Fritzsche has used codd. 19, 44, 55, 62, 64, 71, 74; 93-
2 In the Pseudo-Athanasian syzopsis where the MSS. give Μακκαβαικὰ δ΄, Πτολεμαικά. Credner proposed to read M. καὶ (5) Πτολ. An ex- planation of the existing reading attempted by Fabricius, cod. pseud. epigr. V. 7.1. p. 1164, is hardly to be considered satisfactory. Zahn (Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, ii. p. 317) suggests πολεμικά, but this is more ingenious than convincing.
3 Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 267 ff.
280 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.
nected with another reign’ (4 “42. 11. 5). The present book is doubtless Alexandrian, and of relatively late origin, as its inflated style, “loaded with rhetorical ornament’,” sufficiently testifies. Some critics (Ewald, Hausrath, Reuss*) 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.
4 MaccaBees. According to Eusebius and Jerome this book was the work of Josephus‘.
Fs. ἘΣ Wl.) 10 πεπόνηται δὲ καὶ ἄλλο οὐκ ἀγεννὲς “σπού- δασμα τῷ ἀνδρὶ (sc. Ἰωσήπῳ) περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ, ὅ τινες Μακκαβαϊκὸν ἐπέγραψαν τῷ τοὺς ἀγῶνας τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὕτω καλου- μένοις Μακκαβαϊκοῖς συγγράμμασιν ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰς τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβείας ἀνδρισαμένων Ἑβραίων περιέχειν. Hieron. de virr. zl. 13 “alius quoque libro eius qui inscribitur περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ valde elegans habetur, in quo et Maccabeorum digesta martyria” (cf. c. Pelag. ii. 5).
The book is a philosophical treatise upon the question, εἰ αὐτοδέσποτός ἐστιν τῶν παθῶν ὃ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός. But the greater part of it’ 15 occupied by ἃ 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 3 Macc. vi. 18, vil. 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 τῆς δὲ σοφίας εἰδέαι καθιστᾶσιν φρόνησις Kai δικαιοσύνη
1 That of Euergetes II. (Physcon) ; cf. Mahaffy, p. 381.
2 Westcott in Smith’s D. 8. ii. p. 179.
3 Schiirer?, iii. p. 365.
4 The same belief is expressed by the fact that the book is found in some MSS. of Josephus. See Fabricius-Harles, v. 26 f.
5 Viz. Ὁ. II. 19, to the end.
Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 281
καὶ ἀνδρία καὶ σωφροσύνη), and he sternly demands that the πάθη 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, xvil. 5, xvili. 23), and in the atonement for sin which is made by voluntary sacrifice (vis 0 2511. 22).
The style of 4 Macc. abounds in false ornament and laboured periods. But on the whole it is “truly Greek’,” 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 (ra ἐνδιάθηκα, τὰ εἰκοσιδύο) and the ‘external’ books (τὰ ἔξω), 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 ra περὶ (deg. πέρα) τούτων ἔξω (the two Wisdoms, 1—4 Maccabees, Esther, Judith, Tobit), continues: Καὶ ὅσα ἀπόκρυφα: “Addu , Evwox, Λάμεχ, Πατριάρχαι, Προσευχὴ Ἰωσήφ, ᾿Ελδάδ, Διαθήκη Μωυσέως, ᾿Ανάληψις Μωυσέως, Ψαλμοὶ Ξολομώντος, Ἤλίου ἀποκάλυψις, Ἢ αίου ὅρασις, Sopoviov ἀποκάλυψις, Ζαχαρίου ἀποκάλυψις, Ἔσδρα ἀποκάλυψις. The Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis and the Stichometry of Nice- phorus count among the ἀπόκρυφα τῆς παλαιᾶς, together with certain of the above, “ABpaap...Bapovy, ᾿Αββακούμ, "ELexinA, καὶ Δανιήλ, ψευδεπίγραφαθ. Ebed Jesu mentions also a book called Traditions of the Elders, the History of Asenath, and
1 Westcott in Smith’s D. B.1 ii. p. 181.
2 On this list see Zahn, Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, ii. p. 289 ff. and M. R. James, Zestament of Abraham, p. 7 ff. (in Texts and Studies, ii. 2).
282 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.
even the Fables of Aesop disguised under the title Proverbs of Josephus. Besides these writings the following are cen- sured in the Gelasian xotitia librorum apocryphorum: Liber de jiliabus Adae Leptogenesis, Poenitentia Adae, Liber de Vegia nomine gigante, gut post diluvium cum dracone...pugnasse perht- betur, Testamentum Lob, Poenitentia Iambre et Mambre, Solo- monis tnterdictio.
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 Psatms oF SoLomon. This book is mentioned among the ἀντιλεγόμενα of the O.T. in the Stichometry of Nice- phorus and in the Pseudo-Athanasian Syxopszs. 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’. If the Codex itself contained these Psalms, they have perished together with a portion of Ps. Clem. ad Cor. iz., the book which in the list immediately precedes them. It has been conjectured? that they once had a place in Cod. Sinai- ticus, 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.), ὅτι οὐ det ἰδιωτικοὺς ψαλμοὺς λέγεσθαι
ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ οὐδὲ ἀκανόνιστα βιβλία, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ κανονικὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ καινῆς διαθήκης. Happily the Psalms survived in private collections, and find a place in a few relatively
1 The catalogue ends omoy BiBAla .. | and below, yadmol CoAo-
MO)NTOC | IH.
2 By Dr J. R. Harris, who points out (Johns Hopkins Univ. Circular, March 1884) that the six missing leaves in δὲ between Barnabas and Her- mas correspond with fair accuracy to the space which would be required for the Psalms of Solomon.
3 Cf. Babr. af. Beveregii Synod. p. 480 εὑρίσκονταί τινες ψαλμοὶ πέρα τοὺς py’ ψαλμοὺς τοῦ Δαβὶδ λεγόμενοι τοῦ Σολομωντος... τούτους οὖν dvoud- σαντες οἱ πατέρες ἰδιωτικούς.
Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 283
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’.
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.” 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. Professor Ryle and Dr James, who regard Baruch iv. 36—v. g (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.*. They observe that the Mes- slanic 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*.
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 (f 14 f.), a brief tachygraphic extract in cod. Vat. gr. 1809, published in facsimile by Mai (patr. nov. biblioth. i1.), and deciphered by Gildemeister (ZDJG., 1855, Ρ. 622 ff.), and the excerpts in the Chronographia of Georgius Syncellus®>, But in 1886 a small vellum book was found in
1 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.
2 Ryle and James, Psalms of the Pharisees, p. x\ ff., xliv ff. Schiirer?, ill. p. 152 £.
Marie and James, p. Ixxii ff. On the date see W. Frankenberg, de Datierung der Psalmen Salomos (Giessen, 1896).
4 Ryle and James, p. xc ff.
5 These may be conveniently consulted in the Corpus historiae By- santinae, t. 1, where they are edited by W. Dindorf.
284 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.
a Christian grave in Akhmim (Panopolis), in Upper Egypt, which contained zzter 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 publics par les membres de la mission archéologique Francaise au Caire (Paris, 1* fasc. 1892; 3° 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.’. 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. ec/. proph. 2° Orig. de princ. 13. 3; ἅν. 35, hom in Num. 28/°2) ie _ book was not accepted by authority (Orig. ας Cels. v. 54 ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ov πάνυ φέρεται ws θεῖα τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα τοῦ Ἕνωχ βιβλία : in Τοδηη. t. vi. 25 εἴ τῳ φίλον παραδέχεσθαι ὡς ἅγιον τὸ βιβλίον. Hieron. de virr. Wl. 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. 1. 3 “scio scripturam Enoch ...non recipi a quibusdam quia nec in armarium Judaicum 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
1 See Schiirer*, iii. p. 166 ff.
Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 285
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 Akhmim book Enoch is found in company with frag- ments of a pseudonymous Gospel and Apocalypse’.
LITERATURE of the non-canonical Books.
I Espras. De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, δὲ 363—4; Kénig, Einlettung, Ὁ. 146; Dahne, Gesch. Darstellung, iii. p. 116 ff. ; Nestle, Marginalien, Ὁ. 23 f.; Bissell, Apocrypha of the O. T., po? 1.5) ΕΠ ot, J. Thackeray,:a77.-1, Esdras τη, Hastings), 2. Ὁ. 1.; Schtirer’, i. p. 326 ff.; Biichler, das apokr. Ezra-Buchs (UGWF., 1897). Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, t. v.; Fritzsche, /z6rz apocr. V. T. Gr. pp. viii.—x., I—30; Lagarde, lzbr. V. T. canon., p. i. (Lucianic); O. 7. zn Greek, ii. (text of B, with variants of A); W. J. Moulton, ber die Uber- lieferung des texthkrit. Werth der dritten Ezra-Buchs, ZATW., 1899, 2 (p. 209 ff.). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch 5. a. Apokr.,i.; Lupton, in Speaker's Comm., Apocrypha, i.; Guthe, in Kautzsch, Afokryphen, p. | ff.
WISDOM OF SOLOMON. Fabricius-Harles, iii. 727. De Wette- Schrader, Lehrbuch, δὲ 378—382; Konig, Einlectung, Ὁ. 146; Dahne, Darstellung, 1. p. 152 ff.; Westcott, in Smith’s D. BZ, iii. p. 1778 ff.; Drummond, Philo Fudaeus, i. p. 177 ff. Text and apparatus : Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, ΖΖόγ. apocr. V. T. ΟΣ ΠΡ. xxiv. £522 πὸ; ἡ. 7.7% Greek, ii. p. 604, ff (text of B, variants of SAC). Commentaries: Bauermeister, comm. in Sap. Sol. (1828); Grimm, exeg. Handbuch, vi.; Reusch, obser vationes Criticae in libr. Sapientiae (Friburg, 1858); Deane, the Book of Wisdom (Oxf., 1881); Farrar, in Speakers Comm., Apocr., 1. ; Siegfried, in Kautzsch, Apfokryphen, p._ 476 ff. On the Latin version see Thielmann, de /ateinische Ubersetzung des Buches der Weisheit (Leipzig, 1872).
1 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 Zestaments of the XII Patriarchs (ed. Sinker), the Latin Ascension of Isaiah (ed. O. von Gebhardt, with the new Greek frag- ments), 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, ἣ λεπτὴ Γένεσις (ed. R. H. Charles).
28 6 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.
WISDOM OF THE SON OF SIRACH. Fabricius-Harles, iii. 718; De Wette-Schrader, ὃ 383 ff.; K6nig, p. 145. Westcott and Margoliouth, “ccleszasticus, in Smith’s D. B.* i. 841; Schiirer?, 111.. p. 157 ff. (where a full list of recent monographs will be found). Text with apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche; Ο. T. in Greek, il. (text of B, variants of SAC); cf. J. K. Zenner, Ecclesiasticus nach cod. Vat. 346 (Ζ. K. Th., 1895). Bretschnei- der, “éber 7651 Siracidae Gr., Ratisbon, 1806. Cf. Hatch, Essays, Ρ. 296 ff. Nestle, Margtnalien (1893), p. 48 ff. Klostermann, Analecta, p. 26f. Commentaries: Bretschneider (ut supra); Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, v.; Edersheim in Speaker's Comm., Afpocr. 11. ; Ryssel, in Kautzsch, Afokryphen, p. 230 ff.
On the newly discovered Hebrew text with relation to the versions see Cowley and Neubauer, 7he original Hebrew of a portion of Ecclestasticus, Oxford, 1897; Smend, das hebr. Frag-
ment der Weishett des Jesus Sirach, 1897; Halévy, Etude sur la partie du texte hébreu del Ecclésiastiqgue (Paris, 1897); Schlatter, das neu gefundene hebr. Stick des Strach (Giterslob, 1897); Lévi, L’Eccléstastigue, Paris, 1898; C. Taylor, in FQOR., 1898; D. S. Margoliouth, ¢he origin of the ‘Original Hebrew’ of Eccle- stasticus, Oxford, 1899; S. Schechter and C. Taylor, the Wisdom of Ben Stra, Cambridge, 1899; S. Schechter, in FQAR. and Cr. &., Oct. 1899; various articles in Lap. Times, 1899; A. A. Bevan in ¥7/ZSz., Oct. 1899.
JUDITH. Fabricius-Harles, ili, p. 736; De Wette-Schrader, § 373 ff.; Konig, p. 145 f.; Nestle, Warginalien, p. 43 ff.; West- cott-Fuller in Smith’s D. 2.5. 1. i. p. 1850 ff.; F. C. Porter in Hastings’ D..#. il. p.. .822.ff.; Schirer®, iif. p. , 167. Vemieame apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, p. xviii f., 165 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, 11. (text of B, variants of NA). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, ii.; Wolff, das Buch Fudith...erkldrt (Leipzig, 1861); Scholz, Commentar zum B. Fudith (1887, 1896); cf. Ball in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., i.; Lohr, in Kautzsch, Afokryphen, p. 147 ff.
ToBIT. Fabricius-Harles, iii. 738; De Wette-Schrader, ὃ 375 ff.; Konig, p. 145 f.; Westcott in Smith’s D. BZ. iii. p. 1523; Schirer®, 111. p.174. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, γι: Fritzsche, pp. xvi ff., 108 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, ii. (texts of B and δὲ, with variants of A); Reusch, /zdellus 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 iibersetzt u. erklart (Friburg, 1857); Sengelmann, das Buch Tobits erklart (Hamburg, 1857); Gutberlet, das Buch Tobias tibersetzt τε. erklart
Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 287
(Munster, 1877); Scholz, Commentar z. Buche Tobias (1889) ; Rosenmann, Studien z. Buche Tobczt (Berlin, 1894); J. M. Fuller in Speaker's Comm., Apfocr., i.; Lohr, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p.135 ff. Cf. E. Nestle, Septwagintastudien, iii. (Stuttgart, 1899); J. R. Harris in American Fournal of Theology, July, 1899.
BARUCH and EPISTLE. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 734 f.; De Wette- Schrader, § 389 ff.; Konig, p. 485 f.; Westcott-Ryle, in Smith’s D. B.* i. p. 359 ff.; J. T. Marshall, in Hastings’ D. B. i. p. 249 ff. li. p. 579 ff.; Schiirer?, ii. p. 338 ff.; A. A. Bevan, in Ezcycl. Bib- lica, 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 AQT). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg.
Flandbuch, Apokr., i.; Reusch, Erkldrung des Buchs Baruch
(Freiburg, 1853); Havernick, de “bro Baruch (Konigsberg,
1861); Kneucker, das Buch Baruch (Leipzig, 1879); ἃ. H.
Gifford in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., ii.; Rothstein, in Kautzsch,
Apokryphen, p. 213 ff.
1—4 MaccaBkEEs. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 745 ff.; De Wette- Schrader, § 365 ff.; Konig, p. 482 ff.; Westcott in Smith’s D. 5.1 ii. p. 170 ff.; Schirer%, iii. pp. 139 ff., 359 ff, 393 ff.; Rosenthal, das erste Makkabéerbuch (Leipzig, 1867); Willrich, /uden x. Griechen vor der makkab. Erhebung (1895); Freudenthal, de 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, 111. (text of A with variants of δὲ, in
books i. and iv. and v.). Commentaries: Keil, Kom. ziber dte
Biicher der Makk. (Leipzig, 1875); Bensly-Barnes, 4 A/accabees
in Syriac (Cambridge, 1895); Grimm in Fritzsche’s exeg. Hand-
buch, Apokr., 111... iv.; Bissell, in Lange-Schaff’s Comm.; G.
Rawlinson in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., 11. (books i.—ii.); Fair-
weather and Black, 1 Maccabees (Cambridge, 1897); Kautzsch
and Kamphausen, in Kautzsch, Afokryphen, p. 24 ff.
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. The student will find fuller information on this subject in Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus V. T. (Ham- burg, 1722): Herzog-Plitt, xii. p. 341 ff. (art. by Dillmann on Pseudepigrapha des A. T.); Deane, Pseudepigrapha (Edinburgh, 1891); J. H. Thompson, @ critical review of apocalyptical Jewish literature (N. Y., 1891); Smith’s and Hastings’ 4&zble Diction- artes; Schurer*, iii. pp. 150 ff., 190 ff.; the works of Credner and Zahn; M. R. James, Zestament of Abraham in Texts and Studies (11. 11. p. 7 ff.); Lucyclopaedia Biblica, artt. Afo-
1 A collation of the Syriac 4 Macc. with the Greek has been contributed by Dr Barnes to O. 7. tz Greek”, vol. ili. (p. goo ff.).
288 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.
calyptic Literature and. Apocrypha (i. 213-58). For the litera- ture of the several writings he may refer to Strack, Ezn/eztung, p- 230 ff. In Kautzsch’s Apokr. τε. Pseudepigraphen the follow- ing O. T. pseudepigrapha are included: Martyrdom of Isatah (Beer), Szbylline Oracles, iii.—v., and prooem. (Blass), Ascenston of Moses (Clemen), Apocalypse of Moses (Fuchs), Apocalypse of Esdras (Gunkel), Testament of Naphtali, Heb. (Kautzsch), Book of Jubilees (Littmann), Apocalypse of Baruch (Ryssel), Testa- ments of XII Patriarchs (Schnapp). On the eschatology of this literature see Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Fewish and Chris- tzan (London, 1899).
PSALMS OF SOLOMON. Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr.V.T.,i. p. 914 ff.; Fritzsche, br. apocr. V. T. gr., pp. xxv ff., 569 ff; Ryle and James, Psalms of the Pharisees (Cambridge, 1891); O. v. Geb- hardt, die Psalmen Salomo’s (Leipzig, 1895); Old Testament in Greek? (Cambridge, 18991). Ryle and James’ edition is specially valuable for its full Introduction, and Gebhardt’s for its inves- tigation into the pedigree and relative value of the MSS. On the date see Frankenberg, de Datierung der 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, Librz Enoch versio aethiopica (Ox- ford, 1838); Dillmann, Lzber Henoch aethiopice (Leipzig, 1851); Bouriant, Fragments du texte grec du livre d’Enoch...in Meé- moires, &c. (see above); Lods, 16 Livre a’Enoch (Paris, 1892); Dillmann, zber den neugefundenen gr. Text des Henoch-Buches (Berlin, 1892); Charles, the Book of Enoch (Oxford, 1893), and art. in Hastings’ D.B. 1. p. 705 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, iii.” (Cambridge, 1899). For a fragment of a Latin version see James, Apocr. anecdota in Texts and Studies, ii. 3, Ὁ. 146 ff. An intro- duction and German version by Dr G. Beer will be found in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 217 ff.
1 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.
SHAPER TV,
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’, have unhappily disappeared. In modern times the ground has been broken by Sturz and Thiersch’, and within the last few years Deissmann* 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* and the Abbé J. Viteau® 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 is still a real want, and the time has almost come for attempting to supply it. Biblical scholars have now at
1 See Fabricius-Harles, vi. p. 193 f. Both writers lived in the time of Augustus.
2 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.
3 Bibelstudien (1895), and Neue Brbelstudien (1897).
4 Sources of N.T. Greek (1895).
5 Etude sur le Grec du N.T. (1896).
aS. 19
200 The Greek of the Septuagint.
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’. Meanwhile in this chapter nothing more can be attempted than to set before the beginner some of the lin- guistic 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 transla- tions 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 com- plicate 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 trans- lations 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
1 A lexicon was planned in 1895 by a Cambridge Committee, but the work is suspended for the present. There is some reason to hope that a Grammar may before long be undertaken by a competent scholar.
The Greek of the Septuagint. 291
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-Alexan- drian 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* found Alexandria inhabited by three races, the native Egyptians, who occupied the site of the old seaport Rhacotis, the mer- cenary class (τὸ μισθοφορικόν), 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 (εἰ μιγάδες, Ἕλληνες ὁμοῦ ἀνέκαθεν ἦσαν, καὶ ἐμέ- μνηντὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔθους). This fusion of various elements in the Greek population of the city must have ex- isted from the first. The original colony was largely made up of the veterans of Alexanders 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 Fayfiim, as we now know, by the side of the Macedonians there were settlers from Libya, Caria, Thrace, Illyria, and even Italy*, and Alexandria presented without doubt a similar medley of Hellenic types. Each class brought with it a dialect or idiom of its own. The Mace- donian dialect, e.g., is said to have been marked by certain phonetic changes*, and the use of barbarous terms such as
1 ap. Strab. 797.
* Mahaffy in Flinders Petrie Papyri,i. p. 42. Cf. Empire of the Pto- lemtes, p. 178 f.
3 As the change of @ into β (Βερενίκη for Pepevixn, &c.), cf. Sturz, de dial. Mac., p. 51, n.
19—2
292 The Greek of the Septuagint.
ἀδή = οὐρανός, βεθύ᾽ = ἀήρ, δανός = θάνατος, and of Greek words in unusual senses, as παρεμβολή, ‘camp,’ ῥύμη, street”. 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 patots, ἡ ᾿Αλεξανδρέων διάλεκτος, 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 Fayfim, and given to the world under the auspices of the Royal Irish Academy? ; a similar collection has been issued at Berlin*, 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: ἀναδεν Spas, ἀναφάλακρος, ἀναφάλαντος, ἀρχισωματοφύλαξ, ἀρχιτεκτονεῖν, ἄχυρον, βασίλισσα, γένημα, διῶρυξ, ἐπιγονή, ἐργοδιώκτης, εὐίλατος, ἐφιδεῖν, ἐφιορκεῖν, θέριστρον, ὀλιγο- ψυχεῖν, ὀχύρωμα, ὀψώνιον, παιδίον, παραδείξαι, 7 παρεπίδημος, περι- δέξιον, περιοδεύειν, πράκτωρ, πρεσβύτεροι, στενοχωρεῖν, χῶμα. The Berlin papyri yield many other such words, e.g. davapérpyots, γλύμμα, δικαίωμα, ἱεροψάλτης, ἱ ἱματισμός, καταλοχισμὸς, κτηνοτρόφος, μισοπονηρία, ὁλοσχερήῆς, συμπλήρωσις, ὑπομνηματισμός.
1 A list of these words, collected from Hesychius and other lexicogra- phers, may be seen in Sturz, p. 34 ff.
? 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.
3 In the Cunningham Memoirs for 1891, 93, edited by Prof. Mahaffy.
“ Agyptische Urkunden aus den kinigl. Museen zu Berlin. Griechische Urk. i. ii. (1895). Further contemporary illustrations of Alexandrian Greek may be found in Wilcken’s Griechische Ostraka (1899).
The Greek of the Septuagint. 293
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 (δεκάταρχοι) of a gang engaged in a stone quarry to the engineer of the works (ἀρχιτέκτων):
Κλέωνι χαίρειν. οἱ δεκάταρχοι τῶν ἐλευθέρ[ων] λατόμων ἀδικού- μεθα: τὰ γὰρ ὁμολογηθέντα ὑπὸ ᾿Απολλωνίου τοῦ διοικητοῦ οὐθὲν γίνεται ἡμῖν, ἔχει δὲ τὴν γραφὴν Διότιμος. σπούδασον οὖν ἵνα καθὰ ἐξειλήφαμεν ἤδη, ὑπὸ Διονυσίου καὶ Διοτίμου χρηματισθῇ ἡμῖν, καὶ μὴ τὰ ἔργα evhecOn, καθὰ καὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐγένετο. ἐὰν γὰρ αἴσθωνται οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι οὐθὲν ἡμᾶς εἰληφότας τὸν σιδηρὸν ἐνέχυρα θήσουσιν.
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’. To Soter is also attributed the establishment of the great library which is said to have contained 400,000 codices®. 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, Ly- cophron, 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 Ptolemy affected them directly. Such traces of a lite- rary style as we find in the Greek Pentateuch are probably
1 Flinders Petrie Papyri, i. xiii. (p. 33). The reader will notice several LXX. words (dexdrapxos=LXX. δεκάδ., διοικητής, χρηματίζεσθαι, ἐνέχυρον). Sometimes these papyri afford illustrations of the Lxx. which are not merely verbal; cf. II. xiv. 2 és τὰ ἄχυρα πρὸς τὴν πλίνθον.
2 Strabo, 794; cf. Mahaffy, Zmzpzre of the Ptolemies, p. gt ff.
3 Joseph., at. xii. 2. Seneca, de trangutl. animae 9. Cf. Susemihl, Gesch. d. griech. Litteratur in α΄. Alexandrinerzeit, i. 336.
294 The Greek of the Septuagint.
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 κοινὴ or Ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος---- the dialect in general use among Greek-speaking peoples from the fourth century onwards'—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 em- ploy 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’. But the golden age of the κοινή 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 κοινή, although, since the time of Scaliger, it has been distinguished from the latter by the term ‘ Hellenistic®.’ A ‘Hellenist*’ is properly a foreigner who affects Greek manners and speaks the Greek tongue. Thus the Jewish Greek spoken in Pales- tine was ‘Hellenistic’ in the strictest sense. The word is often used to describe the Greek of such thoroughly Hellen-
1 See Professor Jebb in Vincent and Dickson’s Handbook to modern Greek, p. 290.
2 Mullach, Gramm. d. Vulgarsprache, p. 48. H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. τὰ fi.
3 See Winer-Moulton, p. 29.
4 Acts vi. I, xi. 20.
The Greek of the Septuagint. 295
ised 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 κοινή.
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 trans- lation 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.—ii. there are 19 such words; in 1 Regn. 1.--111., 39 ; in 2 Chron. 1.—ii1., 27 ; in Prov. i.—iii., 16; in Jer. i.—i1., 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 LxxX., 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: ἀνδριοῦν, δευτεροῦν, διοδεύειν, ἐνευλογεῖσθαι, ἐξολεθρεύειν, ἐξουθεν οῦν, εὐοδοῦν, κατακληρονομεῖν, κατα- σκοπεύειν, κατεμβλέπειν, κατοδυνᾷν, ὀλεθρεύειν, ὀρθοτομεῖν, ὀρθρίζειν, πνευματοφορεῖσθαι, πτωχίζειν, σκοπεύειν, συνεδριάζειν, τριετίζειν, τρο- φεύειν, φιλεχθρᾷν. Nouns: ἀγάπη, ἀσυνθεσία, ἀσφαλτόπισσα, βδέλυγμα, γένημα, δόμα, ἐργοδιώκτης, θλιμμός, καταπέτασμα, κρίμα, λατόμος, μέθυσμα, ὁλοκαύτωμα, ὁλοκαύτωσις, ὀρόφωμα, παντοκράτωρ,
206 The Greek of the Septuagint.
προσήλυτος, πρόσκομμα, ῥοίσκος, σύντριμμα. Foreign words (a) with Greek terminations: ἅβρα, 0781s, σίκλος" (4) transliterated : αἴλάμ, SaBeip, ἐφοὺδ Bap, νέβελ, ἐλωὲ σαβαώθ, οἰφί, σερσέρεθ, χερουβείμ. -
A similar experiment has been made by Dr Η. 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 Testa- ment; nearly half belonged to the κοινή, 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 a 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.’ 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*, the 51st Psalm alone yields four important words (ἀγαθύνειν, ἀκουτίζειν, ἀνόμημα, ἀνταναιρεῖν) 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: αἰχμαλωτίζεσθαι, ἀποτάσσεσθαι, βασίλισσα, βουνός, βρέχειν (in the sense of ὕειν), γρηγορεῖν, ἐλεύσεσθαι, ἐξάδελφος, κατόρθωμα, μεγιστάν, μέθυσος, οἰκοδομή, παιδίσκη, πάπυρος, παρεμ- βολή, πεποίθησις, πλῆξαι, ῥάπισμα, ῥύμη, σκορπίζεσθαι, σύσσημον. Some of these words are said to be provincialisms; e.g. βουνός is Sicilian, σκορπίζεσθαι is Ionic, παρεμβολή and ῥύμη are Mace- donian 5,
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
1 Kennedy, of. czt., p. 62. Cf. the lists in the appendix to Grimm- Thayer’s Lexicon of N. 7. Greek (p. 691 ff.). 2 Essays, p. 69. 3 See above, p. 292.
The Greek of the Septuagint. 297
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 yoyyu¢ew occurs in a papyrus of 241—239 B.C.; ἐργοδιώκτης; 255 B.C.; παρεπίδημος, 225 B.C.; forms such as ἦλθα, ἐπήλθοσαν, γέγοναν, oides, can be quoted from the papyri fassim; ἀναστρέ- φεσθαι and ἀναστροφή in an ethical sense, λειτουργεῖν in reference to the service of a deity, περιτέμνεσθαι of circumcision, πρεσβύ- tepos 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 follow- ing may suffice: ἄγγελος, γραμματεύς, διάβολος, εἴδωλον, ἔθνη, ἐκκλησία, παντοκράτωρ, πεντηκοστή, προσήλυτος, χριστός.
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. ἀποκρίνασθαι ἀποκριθῆναι μιαρός μιερός ἀφείλετο ἀφείλατο μόχλος μόκλος (MSS.) ἄχρι, μέχρι ἄχρις, μέχρις νεοσσός, -σἰα νοσσός, -σία γενέσθαι γενηθῆναι νουμηνία νεομηνία γλωσσοκομεῖον γλωσσόκομον ὄρθριος ὀρθρινός διψῆν διψᾷν οὐδείς οὐθείς δυοῖν δυσί πεινὴν πεινᾷν ἐδεῖτο ἐδέετο πήχεων πηχῶν εὕρημα εὕρεμα ποδαπός ποταπὸς καθά P καθώς ταχύτερον τάχιον καταμύειν καμμύειν
7. But the vocabulary of the Lxx. is not its most character- istic 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 sen- tences and the disposition of the words, that the Greek of the LXX. is unique, and not only or chiefly in its lexical eccen- tricities. ‘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
298
The Greek of the Septuagint.
the earlier books of the Lxx., and as he quotes his text ver- batim, 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 py. mundt Fide φησὶ δ᾽ ὡς ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὃ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν" τὴν ἀρχὴν παραλαμβάνων, οὐχ ὡς οἴονταί τινες τὴν κατὰ χρόνον, χρόνος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν πρὸ κόσμου, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ σὺν αὐτῷ ἢ μετ᾽ αὐτόν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ διάστημα τῆς τοῦ κόσμου κινήσεώς ἐστιν ὁ χρόνος, προτέρα δὲ τοῦ κινουμένου κίνησις οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο, ἀλλ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον. αὐτὴν ἢ ὕστερον ἢ ἅμα συνίστασθαι, ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα καὶ τὸν χρόνον ἢ ἰσήλικα κόσμου γεγονέναι ἢ νεώτερον ἐκείνου: πρεσ- βύτερον δ᾽ ἀποφαίνεσθαι τολμᾷν ἀφιλόσοφον. De Migr. A brahami 39: ἐὰν μέντοι σκοπούμενος μὴ ῥᾳδίως καταλαμβάνῃς ἃ ἃ ζητεῖς, ἐπίμενε μὴ κάμνων... οὗ χάριν ὁ φιλομαθὴς τοῦ τύπου Συχὲμ ἐνείληπται, μεταληφθὲν δὲ τοὔνομα Συχὲμ ὠμίασις καλεῖται, πόνου σύμβολον, ἐπειδὴ τοῖς μέρεσι τούτοις ἀχθοφορεῖν ἔθος, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ἑτέρωθι μέμνηται λέγων ἐπί τινος ἀθλητοῦ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον Ὑπέθηκε τὸν ὦμον εἰς τὸ πονεῖν, καὶ ἐγένετο ἀνὴρ γεωργός. ὥστε μηδέποτε, ὦ διάνοια, μαλακισθεῖσα ὀκλάσης, ἀλλὰ Kav τι δοκῇ δυσθεώρητον εἶναι,
τὸ ἐν σαυτῇ βλέπον διανοίξασα διάκυψον εἴσω.
(4) Josephus is not a commentator, but a historian who uses the LxxX. 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 Axftiguitties.
Exod. ii. 2—4.
ἐσκέπασαν αὐτὸ μῆνας τρεῖς ««ἔλαβεν αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ θῖβιν, καὶ κατέχρισεν αὐτὴν ἀσφαλτοπίσσῃ καὶ ἐνέβαλεν τὸ παιδίον εἰς αὐτήν ....καὶ κατεσκό- πευεν ἡ ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ μακρόθεν μαθεῖν τί τὸ ἀποβησόμενον αὐτῷ.
I Regn. i. I—4. ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐξ ‘Appadaup .. ἐξ ὄρους Ἔφράιμ.. καὶ τούτῳ Sto γυναῖκες" ὄνομα τῇ μιᾷ Αννα καὶ τῇ μιᾷ Φεννάνα. καὶ ἢν τῇ Φεν- νάνᾳ παιδία, καὶ τῇ ἽΑννᾳ οὐκ ἢν παιδίον... πλὴν ὅτι τὴν Ανναν ἠγάπα ᾿Ἑλκανὰ ὑπὲρ ταύτην.
a Ἄνναν τε καὶ Φεννάναν.
Joseph. az. il. 9. 4.
τρεῖς μὲν μῆνας map αὐτοῖς τρέφουσι λανθάνοντες...μηχανῶν- ται πλέγμα βίβλινον... ἔπειτα χρί- σαντες ἀσφάλτῳ... ἐντιθέασι τὸ παιδίον..-Μαριάμη δὲ τοῦ παιδὸς ἀδελφὴ. «ἀντιπαρεξήει φερόμενον ὅποι χωρήσει ὀψομένη τὸ πλέγμα.
Joseph. azz. v. Io. 2.
ἀνὴρ τῶν ἐν μέσῳ πολιτῶν τῆς ᾿Ἐφράμου κληρουχίας “Ῥαμαθὰν πόλιν κατοικῶν ἐγάμει δύο γυναῖκας ἐκ δὲ ταύτης καὶ παῖδες αὐτῷ γίνονται, τὴν δὲ ἑτέραν ἄτεκνον οὖσαν ἀγαπῶν διετέλει.
»Οσδ Ν Αἁ)|εθθννν πος
The Greek of the Septuagint.
2 Chron. ili. I—2. καὶ ἤρξατο Σαλωμὼν τοῦ οἰκοδομεῖν τὸν οἶκον Κυρίου... καὶ ἤρξατο οἰκοδομὴ ἐν τῷ μηνὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ ἐ ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ τετάρ- τῳ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ.
Isa. xxxix. 6—7.
idov ἡμέραι ἔρχονται καὶ
λήμψονται πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου καὶ...«εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ἥξει...
καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων σου ὧν , , ΩΝ ,
γεννήσεις λήμψονται, καὶ ποιή- κ ,
σουσιν σπάδοντας ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ
299
Joseph. azz. vill. 3. 1. τῆς δὲ οἰκοδομίας τοῦ ναοῦ Σολομὼν ἤρξατο τέταρτον ἔτος ἤδη τῆς βασιλείας ἔχων μηνὶ δευτέρῳ.
Joseph. azz. x. 2. 2.
” > pa , / >
ἴσθι ov μετ᾽ ὀλίγον χρόνον εἰς Βαβυλῶνά σου τοῦτον μετατεθησό-" μενον τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τοὺς ἐκ- γόνους εὐνουχισθησομένους καὶ ἀπολέσαντας τὸ ἄνδρας εἰναι, τῷ Βαβυλωνίῳ δουλεύσοντας βασιλεῖ.
τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Βαβυλωνίων.
Josephus, it will be seen, has rewritten each passage, and in doing so, has not only modified the vocabulary, but revo- lutionised 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 Axtigutties 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
300 The Greek of the Septuagint.
later translators thought it right to conform themselves. Thus the grandson οἵ. Jesus son of Sirach writes his prologue in the literary style of the Alexandrian Jews of the time of Euer- getes, 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 trans- lators, and it is manifest that we have before us specimens of a system which was prevalent at Alexandria’ and other centres of Greek life* 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 (Votes on Orthography appended to Westcott and Hort’s Introduction, and in the best N. T. grammars (Ph. Buttmann, Winer-
1 Cf. Sturz, de dial. Maced., p. 111 ff.
* See (e.g.) K. Meisterhans, Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften (Berlin, 1885); Deissmann, Veue Bibelstudien, Marburg, 1897. E. Mayser,
Grammattk der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemderzett, 1. Teil, Leipzig, 1898 (Progr. des Gymn. Heilbronn).
The Greek of the Septuagint. 301
Moulton, Winer-Schmiedel, Blass). But even in MSS. which like SBAC originally contained the whole of the Greek Scrip- tures, 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 ortho- graphy is of little interest the specimens given below will pro- bably suffice.
Consonants. Assimilation neglected in compounds: ἐνγασ- τρίμυθος, συνκατακληρονομεῖν, συνσεισμός, evKaivia, ἐνχειρίδιον. Assimilation where there is no composition: ἐμ μέσῳ, ἐγ γαστρί. Use of ν ἐφελκυστικόν before consonants (omission is rare, except in a few cases such as πᾶσι before the art.) ; use of the final s in ἄχρις, μέχρις, οὕτως, ἄντικρυς. Retention of the p in fut. and aor. pass. of λαμβάνειν (λήμψομαι, ἐλήμῴφθην), and in words formed from it, e.g. πρόσλημψις, προσωπολημπτεῖν. Οὐθείς. μηθείς for οὐδείς, μηδείς. Τ' dropped in the middle of a word between vowels, aS κραυή, ὀλίος, φεύειν (especially in cod. δ). ‘P not doubled in compounds, e.g. ἐπιραντίζειν, κολοβόρις, κατάρακτος), and reduplicated in the augment (pepavticpévos); oo for tr in ἐλάσσων, ἥσσων, and po for pp in ἄρσην, θαρσεῖν. In some verbal forms consonants are doubled, e.g. Bévvew, κτέννειν, χύννειν. Rough and smooth consonants are occasionally exchanged, e.g. xvOpa (τ Regn. 11. 14, B) for χύτρα.
Vowels. Ex for « in syllables where ὁ is long, e.g. Semitic words such as Aevei, Λευείτης, Δαυείδ, Σειών, and Greek words as τραπεζείτης, yeiver Oa, γεινώσκειν. Also (perhaps by itacism) in innumerable instances of 71: e.g. κεινεῖν, καθεῖσαι, κλείνη, κρεινεῖν. I for εἰ; e.g. τίχος, λιτουργεῖν, ἀλίφειν, ἄλιμμα, κατελίφθην, παράδιγμα,
,ὔ > ,ὕ 7 “- ᾿ , ,ὔ δανίζειν, ὀφιλέτης, αἴγιος, and esp. in nouns in -εία, eta, 6.5. ἀπωλία, ἐνδία, παιδία, Σαμαρία, στρατία, and those in εἴον, as δάνιον, εἰδώλιον. A for ε, as ἐραυνᾷν ; ε for a, as ἐκαθερίσθην, μιερός, τεσσεράκοντα."
1 Especially in cod. Β (O.7. in Greek, τ. p. xiii.).
302 The Greek of the Septuagint.
Omission of a syllable consisting of 1, as in πεῖν, ταμεῖον. Pre- fixing of a vowel, as in ἐχθές.
Breathings. "Rough breathing for smooth: e.g. οὐχ ὁλίγος, ep ἑλπίδι, ἔφιδε, οὐχ εἱσακούσομαι (Jer. vil. 16), καθ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς (Ezech. xx. 14). Similarly we find ἅλσος, ἁλώπηξ, ἑνιαυτός Dt. xiv. 20 (Nestle, Septuagintastudien i. p. 19, il. pp. 12, 13, 20 f.). Smooth breathing for rough: οὐκ ἔνεκεν (2 Regn. vil. 12), οὐκ ὑπάρχει (Job xxxvili. 26, A).
Abnormal spellings such as these occur on every page of an uncial MS. of the Lxx. and sometimes cause great per- plexity 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.
1. AccrpeNcE. We will deal with (1.) the formation of words, (ii.) the declension of nouns, (iil.) the conjugation of verbs.
(i.) Formation of words.
(a) Words formed by termination :
Verbs. In -ovv from nouns in -os: ἀμαυροῦν, ἀποδεκατοῦν, ἀπο- λυτροῦν, ἀποτυφλοῦν, ἀσφαλτοῦν, διαβιοῦν, ἐκτυποῦν, ἐλαττονοῦν, ἐπι- διπλοῦν, ἐπιπεμπτοῦν, ἐρυθροδανοῦν, εὐοδοῦν, θανατοῦν, καταχρυσοῦν, κυροῦν, παλαιοῦν, παραζηλοῦν, περικυκλοῦν, συγκυροῦν. In τ-ίζειν, -ἀζειν, -ἰάζειν, «ὐξειν: ἁγιάζειν, αἱρετίζειν, ἀκουτίζειν, ἀναβιβάζειν, ἀναθεματίζειν, ἀπογαλακτίζειν, αὐγάζειν, ἀφαγνίζειν, ἀφανίζειν, ἀφορί- ζειν, βαδίζειν, γελοιάζειν, γρύζξειν, δανίζειν, διαγογγύζειν, διασκεδάζειν, διασκορπίζειν, διαχωρίζειν, ἐκθερίζειν, ἐκκλησιάζειν, ἐκμυελίζειν, ἐκσπερματίζειν, ἐκτοκίζειν, ἐνταφιάζειν, ἐνυπνιάζειν, ἐνωτίζεσθαι, ἐξεικονίζειν, ἐξετάζειν, ἐξοπλίζειν, ἐξορκίζειν, ἐπικλύζειν, ἐπιραντίζειν, ἐπισκιάζειν, ἐπιστοιβάζειν, ἐπιφημίζειν, θυσιάζειν, καταβιάζειν, κατα- σκιάζειν, κατασοφίζειν, κληδονίζειν, κομίζειν, κουφίζειν, λεπίζειν, λευκαθίζειν, μακαρίζειν, μελίζειν, οἰωνίζειν, ὀνυχίζειν, ὀπτάζειν, ὀρθρίζειν, παραδειγματίζειν, παραδοξάζειν, παραλογίζειν, περιασπί-
The Greek of the Septuagint. 303
ζειν, περιονυχίζειν, περιραντίζειν, πλεονάζειν, πολυχρονίζειν, προσεγ- γίζειν, προσοχθίζειν, σαββατίζειν, σκεπάζειν, σπερματίζειν, στηρίζειν, στοχάζειν, συμποδίζειν, συναθροίζειν, συνοικίζειν, σφακελίζειν, σχολά- ζειν, τειχίζειν, φαυλίζειν, φλογίζειν, χλωρίζειν, χρονίζειν, ψωμίζειν.
In -evew: ἀγχιστεύειν, διοδεύειν, ἐξολεθρεύειν, ἱ ἱερατεύειν, κατα- δυναστεύειν, κατακυριεύειν, ἐπε πέδον κατοχεύειν, μεταλλεύειν, προφητεύειν, πρωτοτοκεύειν, στρατοπεδεύειν, τροφεύειν, ὑδρεύειν.
Nouns. In τμα, from verbs: ἁγίασμα, ἅγνισμα, ἀδίκημα, αἴνιγμα, ἄλλαγμα, ἀνάστεμα, ἀνόμημα, ἀνταπόδομα, ἀπόδομα, ἀσέβημα, αὔγασμα, ἀφαίρεμα, βδέλυγμα, διήγημα, δικαίωμα, διόρυγμα, διχοτό- μημα, δόμα, ἐγκατάλιμμα, ἔδεσμα, ἐκκόλαμμα, ἐκτύπωμα, ἐπίθεμα, ἐπικάλυμμα, ἐπιτήδευμα, ἕψεμα, ἡμίσευμα, θήρευμα, θυμίαμα, θυσί- ασμα, ἱεράτευμα, κάρπωμα, κατάκαυμα, καταπέτασμα, καύχημα, κλέμμα, λέπισμα, ὁλοκαύτωμα, ὃ ὅραμα, ὀφείλημα, ὀχύρωμα, παράδειγμα, παρά- θεμα, παράρυμα, περίθεμα, περίψωμα, προσόχθισμα, πρόσταγμα; πρωτογένημα, στερέωμα, συνάντημα, συν κάλυμμα, σύστεμα, τάγμα, τίμημα, τόξευμα, φαλάκρωμα, φύλαγμα, φύραμα, χόρτασμα, χώνευμα.
In pos, from verbs: ἀφανισμύς, γογγυσμός, ἐνδελεχισμός, ἐνπο- ρισμός, ἐξιλασμύς, ἐπισιτισμύς, ἱματισμός, καθαρισμός, μηρυκισμός, οἰωνισμός, ὁρισμός, ὁρκισμύς, παροξυσμός, πειρασμός, σταθμός, στε- ναγμός, φραγμύς, χωρισμός.
In -σις, from verbs: ἀναίρεσις, ἀνάμνησις, ἀποκιδάρωσις, ἄφεσις, βεβαίωσις, γόγγυσις, γύμνωσις, δήλωσις, διάβασις, διασάφησις, ἐκδί- κησις, ἔκστασις, ἔκχυσις, ἐπερώτησις, κατακάρπωσις, κατάλειψις, κατάσχεσις, κατοίκησις, ὁλοκάρπωσις, ὁλοκαύτωσις, ὁμοίωσις, πλή- ρώσις, πόρευσις, πρᾶσις, σύγκρασις, συνάντησις, συντίμησις, σύστασις, ταπείνωσις, ὑπερόρασις, ὑπέροψις, ὑπόστασις, φαῦσις, χαράκωσις, χήρευσις.
In -ἤ, from verbs : ἀλοιφή, ἀναζυγή, ἀποσκευή, ἀποστολή, ἀπο- στροφή, ἁφή, διασκευή, δοχή, ἐκτριβή.. ἐντολή, ἐπαγωγή, ἐπισκοπή; καταφυγή, ὁλκή, παραβολή, προνομή, προφυλακή, συναγωγή, τροπή.
In τής, from verbs (m.) : αἰνιγματιστής, ἐνταφιαστής, ἐξηγητής, ἐπιθυμητής, ἑρμηνευτής, πολεμιστής, ῥαφιδευτής, σκεπαστής, σχο- λαστής.
Adjectives. In-wos: δειλινός, δερμάτινος, καρύινος, ὀστράκινος, πράσινος, στυράκινος, φλύγινος.
In -ιος: ἐνιαύσιος, ὁμομήτριος, πολυχρόνιος, ὑποχείριος.
In -ικός : ἀρσενικός, εἰρηνικός, λαμπηνικός, λειτουργικός, λιθουρ- γικός, μυρεψικός, πατρικός, ποικιλτικός, πολεμικός, προφασιστικός.
N -Tos: ἀκατασκεύαστος, ἁλυσιδωτός, ἀόρατος, ἀπερικάθαρτος, ἐπικατάρατος, εὐλογητός, λαξευτός, μισθωτός, ὀνομαστός, πλεοναστός,
φορολογιστός. (ὁ) Words formed by composition :
Verbs compounded with two prepositions: ἀνθυφαιρεῖν, ἀντ- αποδοῦναι, ἀποκαθιστᾷν, ἐν καταλείπειν, ἐνπεριπατεῖν, ἐξαναστέλλειν,
304 The Greek of the Septuagint.
ἐπισυνιστᾷν, κατεμβλέπειν, παρεμβάλλειν, συναναλαμβάνειν, συν- αναστρέφεσθαι, συναπολλύειν, συνεκπολεμοῦν, συνεπακολουθεῖν, συνεπισκέπτειν, συνκατακληρονομεῖν, συνπαραλαμβάνειν, συνπρο- πέμπειν.
Nouns. Compounded with nouns: ἀσφαλτόπισσα, δασύπους, ἑτερόζυγος, καμηλοπάρδαλις, κολοβόρις, μακροήμερος, μακροχρόνιος, μικρόθυμος, ὁλόκληρος, ὁλοπόρφυρος, πολυέλεος, πολυχρόνιος, σκλη- ροτράχηλος, χοιρογρύλλιον.
Compounded with a prefix or preposition: ἀντιπρόσωπος, ᾿Αντιλίβανος, ἀρχιδεσμοφύλαξ, ἀρχιδεσμώτης, ἀρχιερεύς, ἀρχιμάγειρος, ἀρχιοινοχόος, ἀρχισιτοποιός, ἐπίπεμπτος, εὐπρόσωπος, κατάλοιπος, κατάξηρος, παράλιος, παρεπίδημος, περιδέξιον, περίλυπος, περίοικος, περίχωρος, ὕπανδρος, ὑπερμήκης.
Compounded with a verb stem, and forming a fresh noun or a verb: ἀνεμοφθόρος, γλωσσότμητος, ἐργοδιώκτης, θανατηφόρος, θηριάλωτος, θηρόβρωτος, ἱπποδρόμος, ἰσχνόφωνος, κτηνοτρόφος, νυμφαγωγός, σιτοποιός, σφυροκόπος, τελεσφόρος, χαροποιός, δι- χοτομεῖν, ζωογονεῖν, κλοποφορεῖν, κρεανομεῖν, λιθοβολεῖν, λιμαγ- χονεῖν, νευρυκοπεῖν, ὀρνιθοσκοπεῖν, συμβολοκοπεῖν, τεκνοποιεῖν,
ψωραγριᾷν. (ii.) Declension of nouns :
Declension 1. Nouns in -pa, -via, form gen. in ns, as μαχαίρης Gen. xxvii. 40, Exod. xv. 9 (“vielfach bei A, bes. in Jerem.,” W.- Schm.), κυνομυίης Exod. vill. 17, ἐπιβεβηκυίης τ Regn. xxv. 20. ©
Declension 2. Certain nouns in -ovs end also in -os, e.g. χείμαρρος, ἀδελφιδός. The Attic form in -εὡς disappears; e.g. λαός and ναός are written for λεώς and vews—the latter however occurs in 2 Macc. (A). Nouns in -apyos pass occasionally into the first declension, e.g. τοπάρχης Gen. xli. 34, κωμάρχης Esth. ii. 3, yeve- σιάρχης Sap. xill. 3.
Declension 3. Uncontracted forms are frequent, as βαθέα Job xii. 22, ὀστέα, πήχεων, χειλέων, and in the plural nom. and acc. of neuters in -as, as κέρατα, πέρατα. Τῆρας makes gen. γήρους dat. γήρει. Metaplasmus occurs in some words, e.g. δύο, δυσί, πᾶν with masc. noun, πύλη, πύλεσιν (3 Regn. xxii. 11, A), σάββατα, σάββασιν, τέσσαρες, τεσσάροις, χείρ, χεῖραν.
Proper nouns. Many are mere transliterations and indeclin- able, e.g. Addu, ᾿Αβραάμ, Ἰωσήφ, Σαμουήλ, Δαυείδ, ᾿Αχαάβ, ᾿Ηλειού, Ἐλεισαῖε, Δανιηλ. On the other hand some well-known names receive Greek terminations and are declined, as Μωυσῆς or Μωσῆς, Ἰησοῦς, ‘E¢exias, "Hoaias, Ἱερεμίας ; while some are found in both forms, e.g. we have both Ἠλειού and Ἠλίε)ίας, Μανασσή and Μανασσῆς, Σολομών indecl. and Σολομών gen. -μῶνος ΟΥ̓ -μῶντος. But in the translated books the indeclinable forms prevail, and there is no appearance of the forms “ASpapos, Ἰσράηλος, ᾿Ιώσηπος,
The Greek of the Septuagint. 305
which are familiar to the reader of Josephus. In the case of local names transliteration is usual, e.g. Ἰερουσαλήμ, Βηθλέεμ, Βαιθήλ, Sev. A few however have Greek terminations, as Σαμάρεια Or Σαμαρία, Ἰόρδανος, and some names of foreign localities are Hellenised, as Βαβυλών, Συρία, ἡ ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα, Ἰδουμαία, Αἴγυπτος, and the two Egyptian towns Ἡρώων πόλις (Gen. xlvi. 28), Ἡλίου πόλις (Exod.i. 11). The declension of the Hellenised names presents some irregularities ; thus we find Μωυσῆς, -σῆ, -σεῖ, -σῆν: ᾿Ιησοῦς, -σοῦ, -σοῖ, -σοῦν: Μανασσῆς, -σῆ.
(11.) Conjugation of verbs.
Augments. Doubled, as in κεκατήρανται Num. xxii. 6, xxiv. 9; ἀπεκατέστησεν Gen. xxiii. 16, παρεσυνεβλήθη Ps. xlix. 13, 21 (A). Prefixed to prepositions, e.g. ἐπρονόμευσαν Num. xxi. 1, Deut. ii. 35, ἐπροφήτευσαν Num. xi. 25 f., ἠνωτίσαντο 2 Esdr. xix. 30 (B). Lengthened, as ἤμελλον Sap. xviii. 4, ἡβουλόμην Isa. i. 29, xiii. 9, ἠδυνήθην, ἠδυνάσθην, 2 Chr. xx. 37, Jer. v. 4. Omitted, as in dvé6n Jud. viii. 3, ἀφέθη Isa. xxxill. 24, αὐτάρκησεν Deut. xxxii. 10, ἐξο- λόθρευεν I Chr. xxi. 15, dev Gen. i. 4, κατορθώθη 2 Chr. xxxv. 10.
Tensesand Persons. (1) Verbs ἴῃ -ω. New presents, as ἀμφιάζω, ypnyop®, βέννω, κτέννω. Futures and aorists with reduplication: κεκράξομαι (Job vi. 5), ἐκέκραξα (Num. xi. 2), ἐπεποίθησα (Jud. ix. 26 A). Contracted futures in -@ from -dow: ἐργᾷ Gen. iv. 2, ἁρπᾷ Lev. xix. 13, ἐκδικᾶται Deut. xxxil. 43, ἐγκαυχᾷ Ps. lii. 3, συμβιβᾷ Isa. xl. 13, ἀποδοκιμῶ Jer. xxxvili. (xxxi.) 37. Irregular futures: ἔδομαι, φάγομαι, xe@ (Exod. iv. 9). Second aor. forms with termi- nation in -a: εἴδαμεν 1 Regn. x. 14, ἔφυγαν 2 Regn. x. 14, épdya- μεν 2 Regn. xix. 42, ἐλθάτω Esth. v. 4. Person endings: 2nd p. 5. pres. pass. or middle in -cat: πίεσαι, φάγεσαι (Ezech. xiii. 18, Ruth il. 9, 14), ἀπεξενοῦσαι 3 Regn. xiv.6. 3rd p. pl. imperf. and aor. act. in -ogav: ἐγεννῶσαν Gen. vi. 4, ἤλθοσαν Exod. xv. 27, κατελίποσαν Exod. xvi. 24, κατενοοῦσαν Exod. xxxiii. 8, ἠνομοῦσαν Ezech. xxii. 11; cf. the opt. αἰνέσαισαν Gen. xlix. 3, ἔλθοισαν Deut. xxii. 16. 3rd p. pl. aor, mid. in -evro: ἐπελάθεντο Jud. iii. 7 (A), Hos. xiii. 6 (B), Jer. xvill. 15 (B¥A), &c. 3rd p. pl. perf. act. in -av: ἑώρακαν Deut. xi. 7; πέποιθαν, Judith vii. Το. 2nd p. 5. perf. act. in -es; ἀπέσταλκες Exod. v. 22; ἔδωκες, 2 Esdr. xix. 10, Ezech. xvi. 21. (2) Verbs in -μι. From εἰμί we have ἤμην, ἦσθα. From κάθημαι, κάθου Ps. cix. (cx.) 1. From torn, ἑστηκέναι, ἑστηκώς. From δίδωμι, ἐδίδετο Exod. v. 13 (A), Jer. xii. 34; dot, Ps. xli. 3 (B), 2 Regn. ili. 39 (A).
III. Syntrax.
Many of the irregularities which fall under this head are
SE Ss. . 20
’
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.
306 The Greek of the Septuagint.
Cases and Numbers. Nom. for voc., e.g. ὁ θεός for θεέ, Ps. xxi. 2, esp. in the phrase Κύριε ὁ θεός ; θυγάτηρ -- θύγατερ, Ruth ii. 2, 22, iii. 1, &c. Disuse of the Dual.
Comparison. Use of a preposition with the positive for the comparative, e.g. μέγας mapa πάντας, Exod. xvill. 11; ἀγαθὸς ὑπὲρ δέκα, I Regn. i. 8.
Numerals. “Exra=énrraxis, Gen. iv. 24. Omission of καί when numbers are coupled, e.g. δέκα δύο, δέκα ἕξ, δέκα πέντε, Ke.
Verbs. Rarity of the optative mood, and disappearance of that mood in dependent clauses. Periphrasis with εἰμί, e.g. πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι, 2 Regn. xxil. 3; ἴσθι πεποιθώς, Prov. 111. 5. Indicative with ἄν : imperf. and aor., ὅταν εἰσήρχετο, Gen. XXxViii. 9; ὅταν ἐπῆρεν, Exod. xvii. 11 ; ὅταν κατέβη, Num. xi. 9; ἡνίκα ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο, Jud. vi. 3; ἐὰν ἔσπειραν, Jud. vi. 2. Coordination of indicative with conjunctive: Exod. viii. 8 ἐξαποστελῶ αὐτούς, καὶ θύσωσι, Lev. vi. 2 ψυχὴ ἐὰν ἁμάρτῃ καὶ. . «παρίδῃ... καὶ ψεύσηται, ἢ ἠδίκησεν...ἢ εὗρεν..«καὶ ψεύσηται... καὶ ὀμόσῃ κτλ. Use of infini- tive, with or without the article, to express object, purpose, sub- ject, or result!; e.g. (4) ἐζήτει ἀνελεῖν, Exod. 11. 15: ἤρξατο τοῦ οἰκοδομεῖν, 2 Chr. ili. 1; (6) παραγίνεται BonOnva, 2 Regn. viil. 5; ἀπέστειλεν τοῦ ἰδεῖν, Gen. viii. 7; (¢) συνέβη κρεμασθῆναι, Gen. ΧΙ]. 13; τὸ προσκολλᾶσθαι ἀγαθόν Ps. Ixxil. 28; (4) ὁ θεὸς ἐγὼ τοῦ θανατῶσαι καὶ ζωοποιῆσαι, 4 Regn. v. 7.
Connexion of the sentence. Use of gen. abs. in reference to the subject of the verb: e.g. πορευομένου cov...dpa, Exod. iv. 21. Anacoluthon: ἰδὼν δὲ Φαραὼ... ἐβαρύνθη ἡ καρδία Φαραώ, Exod. ix. 7. Use of the finite verb where the classical language prefers to employ a participle.
g. 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
11 follow mainly the classification of C. W. Votau in his excellent thesis on the subject (Chicago, 1896). Votau has shewn that in the trans- lated 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.
The Greek of the Septuagint. 307
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 ἀκροβυστία, ἀναθεματίζειν, ὁλοκαύτωμα, προσωπολημπτεῖν, BOS i higew, σπλαγχνίζειν.
3. Phrases answering to the Hebrew idiom: e.g. ἄρτον φαγεῖν
—on? 22, ἔλεος ποιεῖν μετά τινος =OY TDN ΠΟΥ, ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου = nin “352, ζητεῖν ψυχήν = wD? Waa | θυσία σωτηρίου = Mat Dow Wiis πρόσωπον = DE nvr, πᾶσα σάρξ -- W: ΡΝ υἱὸς τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἑνὸς eviavT@v = |, nny DyS Na.
4. Words with a new connotation: ἅγιος, ἁμαρτωλός, ἀρετή; ἀφόρισμα, ἄφρων, διάβολος, διαθήκη, δικαιοσύνη, ἐκκλησία, ἐλεημο- σύνη, ἐξιλασμός, καρδία, Κύριος ΟΥ̓ 6 κύριος, λειτουργεῖν, ματαιότης, ὁσιότης, πειράζειν, προφήτης, πτωχός, σάρξ, φυγαδευτήριον.
(ὁ)ὺ Grammatical’.
Nouns. Repeated to express distribution, e.g. ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος -- ON WN Num. ix. 10; ἔθνη ἔθνη = δὰ 44, 4 Regn. xvii. 29. Similarly ΣᾺ δύο, Gen. vi. 19; κατὰ μικρὸν τ ρου (AF), Exod. xxiii. 30. Emphatic adverbs also are occasionally doubled after the Hebrew manner, as σφόδρα σφύδρα, Exod.,13;12; Ezech: ix. 9; cf. σφόδρα σφοδρῶς, Gen. vii. 19 (A).
Pronouns. Otiose use, e.g. Gen. xxx. I τελευτήσω eyo Gye 358); Exod. ii. 14 σὺ θέλεις (ΟἿΌΝ DAN); Exod. xxxvi. 4 αὐτός, αὐτοί. To Semitic influence is also due the wearisome iteration of the oblique cases of personal pronouns answering to the Hebrew suffixes, e.g. Jer. ll. 26 αὐτοὶ καὶ of βασιλεῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ot ἄρχοντες αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ προφῆται αὐτῶν. The fem. αὕτη is occasionally used for τοῦτο after the manner of the Heb. ΓΝ, 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 ὃ after the Greek relative in such passages as Gen. xxviil. 13, ἐφ᾽ ἧς...ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς (πὸν.. WR); Deut. i. 22 Ov ἧς...ἐν αὐτῆ
1 On this head see esp. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 132 ff.; Thiersch, de Pentat. vers. Alex., p. 111 ff.
20—2
308 The Greek of the Septuagint.
(ΒΞ. Ὁ); Prov. iii, 15 ὧν.. αὐτῶν. A similar redundancy occurs with relative adverbs: Deut. ix. 28, ὅθεν...ἐκεῖθεν (WWE... Dw) ; 2 Chr. 1. 3, av...exes. Verbs. The following Hebraisms may be specially noted.
Various phrases used to eas the Heb. inf. abs. when pre- fixed to a finite verb, e.g. Exod. iii. 7, ἰδὼν ἴδον (NST TN);
Deut. xxxi. 18, ἀποστροφῇ ᾿ς (ΘΝ ADI); also the
Heb. nae ? AD: e.g. Exod. xiv. 13, οὐ προσθήσεσθε ἔτι ἰδεῖν, 1 Regn. iii. 6 προσέθετο καὶ ἐκάλεσεν (cf. uv. ὃ προσέθ. καλέσαι, Job sire I προσθεὶς εἶπεν (TION), . 519"). Constructions with prepositions contrary to the Greek idiom: βδελύσσεσθαι ἀπό (252), Exod. i. 12; φείδεσθαι ἐπί, Deut. vil. 16; ἐπερωτᾷν ἐν Κυρίῳ (MIND NW), 1 Regn. x. 22; εὐδοκεῖν ἐν or ἐπί (3 YBN). Hebrew forms of adjuration as 1 Regn. iii. 14 εἰ (DN) ἐξιλασθή- σεται, ib. 17 τάδε ποιήσει σοι 6 θεός, ἐάν... A question standing for the expressign of a wish: Num. xi. 29 καὶ Tis δῴη πάντα τὸν λαὸν Κυρίου... ; Ps. 111. (1111.) 6 τίς δώσει ἐκ Σειὼν τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ Ἰσραήλ; Ἔῤὶϑ εἰμι followed by an ind. (Jud. vi. 18 ἐγώ εἰμι καθίσομαι, 2 Regn. ii. 2 ἐγώ εἰμι mopevooua)—a construction limited in B to Judges, Ruth, 2—4 Regn. Periphrases such as ἔσομαι διδόναι (Tob. v. 15, BA). Pleonastic use of λέγων -- OND, often soleecistically: e.g. Gen. xv. I ἐγενήθη ῥῆμα Κυρίου...λέγων, xlv. 16 διεβοήθη ἡ pavi...d€éyovTes.
Particles. Pleonastic use of καί and δέ, (1) in an apodosis, €.g. Num. why 14, ἐὰν. .. 7 POOYEVNTAL, sae eae ποιήσει κάρπωμα; Prov. i. 28, ἔσται ὅταν. "ἐγὼ dé...; (2) after a participle: Num. xxi. II, καὶ Beaders! «καὶ παρενέβαλον. Use of καί in a coordinated clause, where a dependent clause might have been expected ; e.g. Num. XXXV. 2, συντάξεις τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, καὶ δώσουσιν κτλ.
Prepositions. See under Verds. Peculiar uses of the Heb. prepositions are often reflected in the Greek; e.g. I Regn. 1. 24, hips ἐν μόσχῳ (ODS); Lev. xxi. 10, ὁ μέγας ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν
αὐτοῦ (N12 2173). A number of new prepositions or preposi- tional phrases are used to express the Hebrew δ, 6.5. ἔναντι, ἀπέναντι, κατέναντι, ἐνώπιον, κατενώπιον, ἀπό, ἐπί, πρό, προσώπου. Similarly ὀπίσω represents JIN; ἐν μέσῳ, ἀνὰ μέσον, διὰ μέσου -- ΓΞ, ἀπὸ (ἐκ) μέσου-- PMD; διὰ χειρός, εἰς χεῖρας, ἐκ χειρός =), ὍΞ; ὁδόν -- JI. The use of σύν to express the prefix NS, 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
The Greek of the Septuagint. 309
cod. B shews this peculiarity, e.g. Eccl. 11. 17 ἐμίσησα σὺν τὴν Cony (ONNI-NN) 1 1o. Both the vocabulary and the syntax of the Lxx. exhibit remarkable affinities with the modern language. Mr Geldart (Modern Greek Language, p. tot 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.” He adds: ‘“‘The phraseology of the Lxx. 15 modern to an extent which is quite marvellous...let me men- tion a few well-known words common to the Lxx. and modern Greek : ἐπισκέπτομαι, ἀποκρίνομαι, ἐπιστρέφω, προσκυνῶ, ἐνώπιον, πρόσκομμα, πειράζω, ἀκολουθῶ, κοιμῶμαι, ὅλος, κατοικῶ, καθέ- ζομαι, καθίζω, τὰ ἱμάτια, ὑπάγω... 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’. 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.
1 See above, p. 39, n. 2.
2 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.”
310 The Greek of the Septuagunt.
11. Some of the non-canonical books of the Greek Old Testament, which were either (a) loosely translated or para- phrased from a Hebrew original, or (4) originally written in Greek, need separate treatment in regard to their lexical and grammatical character. Such are (a) 1 Esdras, Daniel (Lxx.), (ὁ) Wisdom, 2—4 Maccabees.
The J/exicography of the ‘Apocrypha’ has been sepa- rately treated by C. A. Wahl (Claus ibr. 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.
dkodovOws=xard, dat. (2 Esdr., 2 Macc.)
ἀναγνώστης = ypapparevs, 2 Esdr.
ἀναμφισβητήτως
ἀναπλήρωσις (Dan.)
ἀνιεροῦν (3 Macc.)
ἀντίγραφον (Esth., Ep.-Jer., 1, 2 Macc.)
ἀντιπαρατάσσειν
ἀπονοεῖσθαι (2 Macc.)
ἀποσημαίνειν
ἀποστατίς (2 Esdr.)
βιβλιοφυλάκιον
δημαγωγεῖν, -γία
διάδημα (Esth., Sap., 2, 4 Macc.)
δογματίζειν (Esth., Dan., 2, 3 Macc.)
δυσσέβεια, -βημα (2 Macc.)
εἰδωλεῖον (Dan., 1 Macc.)
ἐμφυσιοῦν
ἐπακουστός
ἐπιδόξως
ἐπισπεύδειν (Esth.!, Ῥτον.)
ἐρωμένη, ἡ (cod. B)
εὐθαρσής (1, 2 Macc.)
εὐπρεπῶς (Sap.)
εὐφυής (Sap., 2 Macc.) ἱερόδουλος
ἱεροψάλτης
ἱστορεῖν
καταλοχισμός (1, 2 Chr.) κολακεύειν (Job}, Sap.!) λῃστεύειν
λωποδυτεῖν
μανιάκη (1) 41.) μεγαλειότης
μεριδαρχία μεταγενέστερος ὀνοματογραφία ὁρκωμοσία (Ez.) πειθαρχεῖν (Jer., Dan.) προκαθηγεῖσθαι (cod. B) προπομπή προσκεφάλαιον (Ez.) συνβραβεύειν σωματοφύλαξ (Judith, 2 Macc.) ὑπομνηματίζειν φορολογία (1 Macc.) χαμαιπετής
χάσκειν
χρηματιστήριον χρυσοχάλινος (2 Macc.)
EE νι βἔρρβ
The Greek of the Septuagint. 311
ἀποθαυμάζειν (Sir.)
ἀποτυμπανίζειν (3 Macc.)
ἀρχιεύνουχος
ἀρχιπατριώτης (Jos.) αμάζειν
δημεύειν
διαμελίζειν
διάπυρος (3 Macc.)
διοικητής (2 Esdr., Tob.)
ἐγκύκλιος
ἐποργίζεσθαι (2 Macc.)
ἑστιατορία (4 Regn.)
εὐκαταφρόνητος
εὐσήμως
θερμασία (Τετ.1)
κηλιδοῦσθαι (Jer.)
DANIEL.
κονίαμα
κοπανίζειν (3 Regn.) pavidkns (1 Esdr.*) μεγαλειότης (1 Esdr., Jer.) πρόσοψις (2 Macc.) σαμβύκη
σοφιστής (Εχοά.1) συναλοᾷν συνμολύνεσθαι σύριγξ
ὑπεραινετός ὑπερένδοξος ὑπερμεγεθής (1 Chr.) ὑπερυψοῦν (Ps.?) ὑπερφερής φιλόσοφος (4 Macc.)
WISDOM.
This book contains an unusually large vocabulary, con- sisting in great part of compound words. The following list, taken from c. i1.—vl., will suffice to shew its lexical character*.
ἀγερωχία (2, 3 Macc.) ἀδιάπτωτος ἀθανασία (4 Macc.) ἀκαταμάχητος ἀκηλίδωτος (5.1) ἀκοίμητος ἀλαζονεύεσθαι (5.1) ἀμάραντος ἀμόλυντος ἀναποδισμός ἀνεκλιπής ἀνεξικακία ἀνυπόκριτος
> /
ἀπήμαντος ἀπολογία
ἀπότομος, ἀποτόμως ἀτέλεστος
ἀτίμητος (3 Macc.)
αὐτοσχεδίως ἀφθόνως
βασκανία (4 Macc.) δεκαμηνιαῖος διορθωτής δύσχρηστος (Isa.1) ἐπισφαλῶς ἐπιτήδειος (I Chr., 1—3 Macc.) ἐπιφημίζειν (Deut.!) ἐργατεία
εὐκλεής (Τ6τ.1) εὔκυκλος
εὐμορφία (3 Macc.) εὔστοχος
θυμήρης
ἰδιότης (3 Macc.) Kakotrpayia
Kak OTEXVOS
* Cf. supra, p. 268 f., for some interesting examples from other parts
of the book.
312 The Greek of the Septuagint.
καταδαπανᾷν
κατάλυπος
κατάχρεως
μακρόβιος (154.1)
μονοήμερος
ὁμοιοπαθής (4 Macc.)
ὁπλοποιεῖν
παράδοξος (Judith, Sir., 2, 4 Macc.)
παραμύθιον
πολύγονος (4 Macc.) πομπεύειν πρωτόπλαστος : . στεφανηφορεῖν . συγγνωστός συλλογισμός (Ex.") τεκμήριον (3 Macc.)
φιλάνθρωπος
χρησιμεύειν (Sir.)
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. Speci-
mens follow.
2 MACCABEES.
dyopavopia ἀκαριαῖος ἀκρόπολις ἀκρωτηριάζειν ἀλλοφυλισμός ἀναλημπτέος ἀπευθανατίζειν ἀρχηγενέτης ἀσυλία αὐθαίρετος βαρβαροῦν δειλαν δριᾷν δευτερολογεῖν διάσταλσις δοξικός δυσπέτημα ἐπευλαβεῖσθαι
εὐαπάντητος θεομαχεῖν θωρακισμός κατευθεκτεῖν λεληθότως λιτανεία ὁπλολογεῖν πολεμοτροφεῖν πολυπραγμονεῖν προσαναλέγεσθαι προσυπομιμνήσκειν σπλαγχνισμός συμμισοπονηρεῖν συνεκκεντεῖν τερατοποιός
ψυχαγωγία
2 MACCABEES.
ἀλογιστία ἀμνησικακία
> , ἀνείκαστος ἀνεπίστρεπτος
ἀνέφικτος ἀσινής Bapunxns βυθοτρεφῆς
The Greek of the Septuagint. 313 ypapix os νεανικός δημοτελής πανόδυρτος δικαιοκρίτης παραναγινώσκειν δυσαίακτος πολύδακρυς εὐκατάλλακτος προκατασκιροῦν κισσόφυλλον σιδηρόδεσμος λαογραφία ὑπομαστιαῖος λιβανοῦν ὑπόφρικος μεγαλοκράτωρ φοβεροειδής μεγαλομερής χαρτηρία μιεροφαγία χειρονομία μίσυβρις ψυχουλκεῖν
4 MACCABEES.
αἱμοβόρος ἱεροπρεπής ἀναμοχλεύειν ἰσόπαλις ἀποσκυθίζειν καλλίπαις ἀρθρεμβόλος κηρογονία ἀσθενόψυχος μαλακοψυχεῖν ἀσυρής ξιφηφόρος αὐτοδέσποτος ὀροφοιτεῖν γαλακτοποιεῖν παθοκρατεῖσθαι, -τία γαλακτοτροφία παιδοχαρακτήρ εἰδωλόθυτος πηδαλιουχεῖν ἐναγκάλισμα προσεπικατατείνειν ἐναποσφραγίζειν συμπάθεια ἐπιρωγολογεῖσθαι συναγελάζειν ἑπταμήτωρ φιλομήτωρ εὐλογιστία φιλοστοργία θανατηφόρος φωταγωγεῖν
In the sty/e 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 ~txx. of the Psalms and of Proverbs. In 2—4 Maccabees the influence of the canonical books appears in the retention of transliterated names such as ᾿Αβραάμ, ᾿Ισραήλ, Δανιήλ. But Ἰερουσαλήμ has become ᾿Ιεροσόλυμα, and Eleazar is usually ᾿Ελεάζαρος. Of Hebrew constructions or modes of thought there is only an occasional instance, whilst it is obvious
314 The Greek of the Septuagint.
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 Alex- andrina (1808); H. W. J. Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina, libri 111. (1841); Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Sep- tuaginta (1841); F. W. A. Mullach, Gramm. da. Vulgarsprache in historischer Entwicklung (1856); G. v. Zazschwitz, Profan- gracitat u. hellenist. Sprachgeist (1859); E. Reuss, art. Hedle- nistisches Idiom (in Herzog-Plitt, vi., 1880); W. Schmid, Der Atticismus...von Dionysius v. Halikarnass bis auf ad. zw. Philo- stratus (Stuttgard, 1889—97); K. Meisterhans, Gramm. d. Atti- schen Inschriften (1881); R.C.Jebb, App. to Vincent and Dickson’s Handbook to modern Greek (1881); E. Hatch, Essays zn Biblical Greek (1889), pp. I—130; H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek (1895); G. A. Deissmann, 4zbelstudien (1895), and Neue Bibelstudien (1897),—also his art., Hellenistisches Griechisch, in Hauck, vi. 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, Glossartum ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis (Lyons, 1688); J. C. Biel, Wovus thesaurus philologicus, stve 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 periods* (1888); H. Anz, Swbstdia...e Pentateucht vers. Alex. repetita (in Diss. philolog. Hal. xii. Halle, 1894);
J. Viteau, Etude sur le Grec du N.T. comparé avec celui des Septante (Paris, 1896); E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, Con- cordance to thé Septuagint (1897); Th. Zahn, Eznlectung in das N.T.,1., pp. 24 ff. (1897); Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung (Leipzig, 1899).
Much information on points of grammar and orthography may also be gleaned from the N.T. grammars—A. Buttmann, Grammatik ad. NT lichen Sprachgebrauchs (Berlin, 1859); Winer- Moulton, Zyéatise on the Greek of the N.T® (1877); Winer- Schmiedel, Grammatik d. NT lichen Sprachidioms, Theil 1.—il. (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 WV. 7. zz Greek (Intr., pp. 302—313, Afp., pp. 148—180). The Gramm. Untersuchungen tiber die biblische Gracitdt 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.
CHAPTER ὧν: 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 prin- ciples 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.
τ, (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’ 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* and more especially
1 The external evidence has been briefly stated in Part i. c. i. (p. 23 ff.). 2 Cf. R. Sinker, Some remarks on the LXX. Version of the Psalms,
p- 9 ff.
316 The Septuagint as a Version.
the Book of Isaiah shew obvious signs of incompetence. The translator of Job was perhaps more familiar with Greek pagan literature’ 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® of being a work of the 4th century A.D.; the Greek Ecclesiastes savours of the school of Aquila. 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. (xvili.) 3 ff., 4 Regn. xvi. 17—xx. 19 and Isa. xxxvi. 1—xxxix. 8, or Mic. iv. and Isa. il.
A single specimen may be given from Ps. xvii. compared with 2 Regn. xxiii.
Ps. xvil. 3—6. 3Κύριος στερέωμά μου καὶ καταφυγή μου καὶ ῥύστης pov: ὁ θεός μου βοηθὸς καὶ ἐλπιῶ ΡΠ ἘΠ 4aivOv ἐπικαλέσομαι Κύριον, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου σωθήσομαι. "περιέσχον με ὠδῖνες θανάτου, καὶ χείμαρροι ἀνομίας ἐξετάρ αξ- av pe: δὠδῖνες ἅδου περιεκύκλω- σάν με, προέφθασάν με παγίδες θανάτου. Τ7καὶ ἐν τῷ θλίβεσθαί με ἐπεκαλεσάμην τὸν κύριον, καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεόν μου ἐκέκραξα" ; ; aa ἤκουσεν ἐκ ναοῦ ἁγίου αὐτοῦ φωνῆς μου, καὶ ἡ κραυγή μου [ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ εἰσελεύσεται] εἰς τὰ ὦτα αὐτοῦ.
1-Cf. e.g.. Job ix. 9, xlii.
2 Regn. xxii. 2—6. "Κύριε πέτρα μου καὶ ὀχύ- ρωμά μου καὶ ἐξαιρούμεν ds με ἐμοί: 36 θεός μου φύλαξ ἔ ἔσται μου, πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ .... “αἰνετὸν ἐπικαλέσομαι Κύριον, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου σωθήσομαι. 5ὅτι περιέσχον με συντριμμοὶ θανάτου, χείμαρροι ἀνομίας ἐθάμ- βησάν με: δὠδῖνες θανάτου ἐκύκλωσάν με, προέφθασάν με σκληρότητες θανάτου. 7év τῷ θλίβεσθαί με ἐπικαλέσομαι Κύ- ριον, καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεόν μου βοή- \ > 4 > ~ σομαι, καὶ ἐπακούσεται ἐκ ναοῦ αὐτοῦ φωνῆς Hou, kal 4 κραυγή Ν μου ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν αὐτοῦ.
14; from the latter passage Theodore of
Mopsuestia argued the pagan origin of the book (D. C. 8. iv. p. 939).
2 Moore, Fudges, p. xlvi.
The Septuagint as a Version. our
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
pod, ΠΝ 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 DAWA is uniformly represented in the Hexateuch by Φυλιστιείμ, but in Judges and the later books by ἀλλόφυλοι; NDB is φάσεκ or φάσεχ in Chronicles'®) and Jere- miah(), but πάσχα in all other books; ON is δήλωσις or δῆλοι in the Pentateuch, but in Ezra-Nehemiah φωτίζοντες, φωτίσων ; DM is ἀλήθεια in Exodus, but in Ezra τέλειον ; in Isaiah nS2y is σαβαώθ more than 50 times, whilst παντοκράτωρ, 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; J} is συναγωγή in Gen., Exod., Lev., Num., and again in the Pro- phets, but ἐκκλησία in Deuteronomy (with one exception) and onwards to the end of the historical books. The singular phrase ἐγώ εἰμι-- 35 is limited to Judges, Ruth, and 1—4 Regn. ; σύν = 8 of the object occurs in the true Lxx. only in Ecclesi- astes; ἀμήν is peculiar to Chronicles and Ezra, other books which contain the Heb. word (Num., Deut., 1 Regn., Psalms, Jer.) preferring γένοιτο. Similar results may be obtained from a comparison of the forms assumed by the same proper names in different books. Elijah (17228) is Ἠλειού in the Books of Kings, but “HAéas in Malachi and Sirach. The lists in Chronicles use the Hebrew form of Gentile names (Θεκωεί, ᾿Αναθωθεί, &c.), where other books adopt the Greek (Θεκωείτης,
318 The Septuagint as a Version.
᾿Αναθωθείτης, &c.). In Ezra YINYON becomes ᾿Ασσούηρος, but ᾿Αρταξέρξης is substituted by the translator of Esther, and Ξέρξης by the Lxx. translator of Daniel (ix. 1)’. 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 οὗ the external history of the Septuagint.
(2) 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’ 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) Itis important also to bear in mind the peculiar diffi- culties 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*.” No wonder if even in the later books the Hebrew
1 Theod. has ᾿Ασσουήρου in Daniel.
2 Cf. prol. to Sirach: τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων.
3 A. F. Kirkpatrick in Exfositor, v. iii. p. 268. Cf. W. R. Smith, 0.7, in Fewish Ch., pp. 75 f.
The Septuagint as a Version. 319
idiom refused to lend itself to the forms even of Hellenistic Greek without losing to some extent its identity, as the trans- lator of Sirach complains’. 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 interpre- tation of obscure words and contexts which guided the Pales- tinian Jew. 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®*. 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 con- dition of the Hebrew text which lay before the Alexandrian translators.
(2) 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 corrup- tions 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.
1 Prol. ob yap ἰσοδυναμεῖ κτλ.
2 Even in Palestine ‘‘ before the Christian era...the exegetical tradition was still in a rudimentary stage” (Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, p. 69).
3 Dr Nestle points out that the mistakes of the 1,ΧΧ. are sometimes due to Aramaic or Arabic colloquialisms, and gives the following examples: Aramaic: Num. xxiv. 7 ἐξελεύσεται. Ps. cxl. 4 προφασίζεσθαι. Hos. i. 6 ἠλεημένη, Vi. 5 ἀπεθέρισα, τι ἄρχον. Isa. iv. 2 ἐπιλάμψει, 1111. το καθαρίσαι. Jer. xxxviil. (xxxi.) 13 χαρήσονται. Arabic: Isa. vii. 6 συνλαλήσαντες.
320 The Septuagint as a Version.
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’. 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.
(ὁ) 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". 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* which are used in exist- ing Hebrew MSS. and in the printed Bibles must have been prac- tically complete in our Lord’s time, since He refers to the yodh as the smallest letter, and to the κερέαι which are peculiar to the square alphabet (Mt. v. 18). That the change had begun °
1 See W. R. Smith, O. 7. in F Church, pp. 56f.; 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., 174.4.
2 See pp. 39 f
«
3 yan ans, ery the Talmud calls it, NW "3; see Driver, Samuel, | pp. ix. ff. |
The Septuagint as a Version. 321
in the MSS. employed by the Alexandrian translators’ 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 } and ’, 2 and 9, 4 7 and D, as well as 2 and 3, 7 and 9, were more or less difficult to distinguish’.
A few examples may be given from Driver’s list. (1) 1 Regn. li. 29 ὀφθαλμῷ (f'Y, for JY); xil. 3 ἀποκρίθητε κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ (3 "JY, for ‘2 IY); Ps. xxi. (xxll.) 17 @pvéay (N53, for N35); Isa. xxix. 13 μάτην δὲ σέβονταί pe (ΤΙΣ ONND IN), for NX ΠΝ "ΠΠ))}. (2) 1 Regn. vi. 20 διελθεῖν (TAY, for TVS); Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 25 Tov υἱὸν αὐτῆς (I for NID)?; 1 Regn. iv. 10 ταγμάτων (595, for 1599), xxi. 7 Δωὴκ 6 Σύρος (SOINT INT, for ‘INT 4).
Another cause of confusion was the scrifiio defectiva in the case of ἡ and ° where they represent long vowels, e.g. 1 Regn. xii. 8 καὶ κατῴκισεν αὐτούς (OILY, for DID); Ps, v. tit. ὑπὲρ τῆς κληρονομούσης (nbn ON, for M> nn by); Job xix. 18 els τὸν αἰῶνα (ody, for pony) ; Jer. vi. 23 ὡς πῦρ (UND, for YND). Abbre- viations, also, probably gave rise to misunderstandings; see the instances in Driver, of. cit, pp. lxiil. f., xx. 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 τρία ἔτη, JE ‘seven years,’ where ? has been read for ἃ. Here (ἃ has the support of the Chronicler (1 Chron. xxi. 12): see Konig in Hastings’ D.B., 111. 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* and in the Siloam inscrip- tion® a point has been used for this purpose, but the Phoeni-
1 Except perhaps those which lay before the translators of the Penta- teuch ; see Driver, /.c.
2 A specimen of such a script, but of much later date, may be seen in Driver, of. cit., p. lxv.
3 Cf. Streane ad Joc. and on Jer. xx. 17.
4 See Driver, of. cit., p. lxxxvi., or Hastings’ D.Z. iii. art. Woad.
B Driver, ops tzi.; Ὁ. Xv.
5. S. 21
322 The Septuagint as a Version.
cian 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 TOA. Thus Gen. xlix. 19, 20 αὐτῶν κατὰ πόδας. ’Aonp...= WN + DIPY (fi, WS :3py); Deut. xxvi. 5 Συρίαν ἀπέβαλεν Ξε TIN’ DIN (fH, TAN YOON); 1 Regn. i. 1 ev Νασείβξε A'SII (fA, 418 fA); Ps. xliii. (xliv.) 5 ὁ θεός μου ὁ évreAdSuevos=TSD TON (fA, DTN M3); Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 15 διὰ τί ἔφυγεν ἀπὸ σοῦ ὁ Ἄπις; -- 5) ΜΝ) FN (PA, ANDI 9.12); Zech. xi. 7 εἰς τὴν Χανραν την ee (fa 12? 9),
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’.
A few examples may suffice: Gen. xv. 11 καὶ συνεκάθισεν αὐτοῖς = DAS Avs) (fF, ONS AW); Num. xvi. 5 ewéoxertar= 23 (fH, 7P3) ; I Regn. xii. 2 καθήσομαι -- hw? (ΖΕ, 3); Nah. iii. ὃ μερίδα ᾿Αμμών = δὶς ΓῺ (SH, HON N51); Isa. ix. ὃ θάνατον (33, fA, 231) ἀπέστειλεν Κύριος ἐπὶ Ἰακώβ. In proper names the differences of the vocalisation are still more frequent and appa- rent, e.g. Μαδιάμ (ND); Βαλαάμ (BYPR), Τόμορρα (MOY), Xodod- λογόμορ (WYPITZ), Φασγά (AIDB), Σαμψών (WIL).
(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
1 Jerome in the last years of the 4th century knows nothing of a system of vowel points ; see Nowack, Die Bedeutung des Hieronymus fiir die A Tliche Texthritik (Gottingen, 1875).
The Septuagint as a Version. 323
oldest of our uncial MSS., and the greater number of Greek codices are more or less influenced by the Hexapla. The Lucianic text, if free from this vice, is subject to another, the Antiochian passion for fulness, which encouraged the blending or the accumulation of various renderings and thus created doublets’. Besides these recensional errors there are the mis- takes, 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 con- tinually 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. UV. 4 ava μέσον τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ava μέσον τοῦ σκότους" U. 5 ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα μία: τ΄. 20 ἑρπετὰ ψυχῶν ζωσῶν. 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 ἀφικέσθαι ἕως πρός τινα, παρασιωπᾷν ἀπό τινος, προστιθέναι (τοῦ) ποιεῖν, λαλεῖν ἐν χειρί τινος, ἐχθὲς καὶ τρίτην, ἀπὸ γενεῶν εἰς γενεάς (ews γενεᾶς καὶ γενεᾶς, εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν), may be found in the Prophets and Hagiographa as well as in the Pentateuch. Occasionally the translators set the sense at defiance in their
1 Cf. Driver, of. cit., p. lviii. PJ τς. τ
324 The Septuagint as a Version.
desire to be true to what they conceive to be the meaning of the Hebrew, as when in 1 Regn. i. 26 they render °3 (δέομαι) by ἐν ἐμοί. 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.
(ὁ) 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’, and they are to be found in nearly all the translated books. In some cases they are due to misunderstanding, as in Jud. 1. 19 Ῥῆχαβ διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς where 5}72(7m) seems to have been read as 2) Ἴ2Π, and 357 con- sequently treated as a proper name; in others, the Hebrew form is purposely maintained (e.g. aAAnAowa, ἀμήν). 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 ἐν ταῖς ἁβαρκηνείν, 4 Regn. il. 14 ἀφφώ (sin FN), Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.) 40 πάντες ἁσαρημὼθ ἕως νάχαλ Kedpwv. As in the first and third of these specimens, the article is often included; and when a proper name is trans- literated, the name is sometimes for this reason not easily recognised ; thus Ramathaim (1 Regn. i. 1) becomes “AppaGauu (oynpin). Similarly the 7 local is taken over in the trans- literation, as in Gen. xxxv. 6 eis Λούζα = m2. Sometimes two
words are rolled into one, as in Οὐλαμμαύς = 115 DDI (Gen.
1 Thus Hatch and Redpath take note of 3g 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 con- sonants and vowel-sounds are expounded by Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 107 ff.
2 Unless the a is here prothetic, which is however less probable.
The Septuagint as a Version. 325
xxvill. 19)’. A doublet is occasionally created by adding a translation to the transliterated Hebrew, e.g. in 1 Regn. vi. II, 15 τὸ θέμα ἐργάβ, vil. 4 τὰ ἄλση ᾿Ασταρώθ, xxiii. 14 ἐν Macepeu ἐν τοῖς στενοῖς. 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 trans- literating, e.g. Gen. ili. 20 ἐκάλεσεν “Adam τὸ ὄνομα τῆς γυναικὸς Ζωή (TD); xi. g ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Σύγχυσις (033); XIV. 13 ἀπήγγειλεν ᾿Αβρὰμ τῷ περάτῃ (12913).
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.; eg. the insertion of λέγων 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 ἰδοὺ ἡ γῆ πλατεῖα ἐναντίον ὑμῶν, xl. 17 ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν γενημάτων ὧν ὃ βασιλεὺς Φαραὼ ἐσθίει, Deut. vii. τό φάγῃ πάντα τὰ σκῦλα τῶν ἐθνῶν (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
1 Cf. Hieron. Quaest. hebr. p. 44 (ed. Lagarde), De situ et nom. pp. τοῦ, 158. Pearson (Praef. paraen. p.6) endeavours to defend the Lxx. even here.
326 The Septuagint as a Version.
to be understood (Gen. xxix. 9 αὐτὴ yap ἔβοσκεν ta πρόβατα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς, Heb. ‘fed them’; xxxiv. 14 καὶ εἶπαν αὐτοῖς Συμεὼν καὶ Λευὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ Δείνας υἱοὶ δὲ Λείας, Heb. ‘and they said unto them’), or they add a clause which seems to follow as a necessary consequence (2 Regn. xii. 21 ἀνέστης καὶ ἔφαγες ἄρτον kal πέπωκας: XVI. 10 Kal ἄφετε αὐτὸν καὶ οὕτως καταράσθω =???" (Ρ 73) 33), or they make good δὴ apo- siopesis (Exod. xxxil. 32 εἰ μὲν ἀφεῖς αὐτοῖς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν αὐτῶν ages). Less frequently they insert a whole sentence which is of the nature of a gloss, as in Gen. 1. 9 καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω TOD οὐρανοῦ εἰς Tas συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν Kal whOn ἡ ξηρά, which is merely an expansion of καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως in the terms of the preceding command συναχθήτω κτλ.; or t Regn. i. 5 ὅτι οὐκ ἦν αὐτῇ παιδίον, a reminiscence of v. 2 τῇ “Avva οὐκ ἦν παιδίον. On the other hand the Lxx. not uncommonly present a shorter text, as compared with M.T., e.g. Gen. xxxl. 21 καὶ διέβη τὸν ποταμόν (Heb. ‘he rose up and passed over’), ib. 31 εἶπα yap Μή ποτε κτλ. (Heb. ‘Because I was afraid, for I sald...’); 1 Regn. i. g μετὰ τὸ φαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐν Σηλώ (Heb. ‘after they had eaten in Shiloh and after they had drunk’).
(2) The translators frequently interpret words which call for explanation. Hebraisms are converted into Greek phraseo- logy, e.g. 13333 becomes ἀλλογενής (Exod. xii. 43), and ΓΞ ἐνιαύσιος (Num. vii. 15); OXY ow IN] is rendered by ἐγὼ δὲ ἀλογός εἰμι (Exod. vi. 12). A difficult word or phrase is ex- changed for one more intelligible to a Greek reader; thus ἡ ἔρημος is used for 3435 (Gen. ΧΙ. 9); ‘Urim and Thummim’ become ἡ δήλωσις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια (Exod. xxviil. 26); in the Psalms ἀντιλήμπτωρ is written for 13}2 (Ps. ill. 4), βοηθός for W¥ (xvil. = xviii. 3), and γλῶσσα for 1133 (Ps. xv. = xvi. 9); similarly in Jer. ii. 23 τὸ πολυάνδριον ‘the cemetery’ stands for N20, 1.e. the valley of Hinnom. An effort is made to represent Hebrew money by its nearest Greek equivalent ; thus for opy we have δίδραχμον (Gen.
The Septuagint as a Version. 327
Xxill. 15, Deut. xxii. 29, 2 Esdr. xv. 15) as well as σίκλος, and for 1A ὀβολός. Occasionally a whole clause is interpreted rather than translated ; e.g. Gen. 1. 2 7 δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατα- σκεύαστος, Exod. iil. 14 ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ ὦν, Ps. xl. (xxxix.) 7 σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι. 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/ μηδαμῶς ov ποιήσεις (Heb. ‘that be far from thee’); Exod. iv. 16 σὺ δὲ αὐτῷ ἔσῃ τὰ πρὸς TOV θεόν (πον; XXIV. IO εἶδον τὸν τόπον οὗ εἱστήκει ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (Heb. ‘they saw the God of Israel,’ Aq. εἶδον τὸν θεὸν Ἰσραήλ); ib. 11 τῶν ἐπιλέκτων τοῦ Ἴσ- ραὴλ οὐ διεφώνησεν οὐδὲ cis; Num. xii. 8 τὴν δόξαν (NIDM) Κυρίου εἶδεν ; Exod. xv. 3 Κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους (ποτ ΟΝ Deut. XIV. 23 6 τόπος ὃν ἂν ἐκλέξηται Κύριος 6 θεός cov ἐπικληθῆναι (130%) TO ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖ; Jos. iv. 24 ἡ δύναμις τοῦ κυρίου (MT), Such renderings manifest the same spirit of reverence which led the LXx. to write ὁ κύριος or the anarthrous Κύριος, or not infrequently o Geos, for the Tetragrammaton, just as their Palestinian brethren read for it ‘278 or Dyes), In other places the Lxx. appear to be guided by the Jewish Hadacha, \ e.g. Gen. li. 2 συνετέλεσεν ὃ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἕκτῃ (WIAD, Aq. τῇ ἑβδόμῃ); Lev. xxiv. 7 ἐπιθήσετε ἐπὶ τὸ θέμα λίβανον καθαρὸν καὶ dra"; xix. 7 ἐὰν δὲ βρώσει βρωθῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ, ἄθυτόν ἐστιν (Heb. ‘an abomination’)*. Of Haggada 4150 there are clear traces, as in Exod. ΧΙ]. 40 ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῇ Xavaav, 1 Regn. 1. 14 εἶπεν αὐτῇ τὸ παιδάριον Ἤλεί *; v. 6
1 See W. R. Smith, O. 7. in ¥. 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 “ote cel salt as well as frankincense was used in the actual ritual of their period” (W. R. Smith, of. czt., p. 77).
3 On xxiii. 11 see p. 1
rp 4 **An evident attempt to shield the priest from the charge of harshness” (H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 10).
328 The Septuagint as a Version.
καὶ μέσον τῆς χώρας αὐτῆς ἀνεφύησαν μύες, καὶ ἐγένετο σύγχυσις
/ , ΕἸ - Ls θανάτου μεγάλη ἐν τῇ πόλει.
(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, (xxxvil.) YL is translated by ἁμαρτωλός in vv. 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 32, 40, but by ἀσεβής 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 jj, ‘give’,’ which belongs to this class has received in the Lxx. more than 30 different renderings; sometimes it is translated by a para- phrase, e.g. Jos. xiv. 12 αἰτοῦμαί σε (212A), Deut. xxi. 8 ἵνα μὴ γένηται (J 28); when it is rendered directly, the following Greek verbs (besides διδόναι and its compounds) are used to represent it: ayev, ἀποστέλλειν, ἀποτίνειν, ἀφιέναι, δεικνύναι, δωρεῖσθαι, ἐᾷν, ἐκτιθέναι, ἐκτίνειν, ἐκχέειν, ἐλεᾷν, ἐμβάλλειν, ἐγκα- ταλείπειν, ἐπαίρειν, ἐπιβάλλειν, ἐπιτιθέναι, ᾿ἐπιχέειν, ἐφιστάναι, ἱστάναι, καταβάλλειν, καθιστάναι, κατατάσσειν, κρεμάζειν, παρα- τιθέναι, περιτιθέναι, ποιεῖν, προεκφέρειν, προσιέναι, προστιθέναι, στηρίζειν, συνάγειν, φέρειν. This is ἃ somewhat extreme in- stance, 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: 7’? 15 variously rendered by ἄκρον, ἀρχή, κλίτος, μέρος, πέρας, τάξις,
1 The example is suggested by Dr Hatch (Zssays, p. 18), who gives many of the passages at length. The zadex Hebraeus at the end of Trom will enable the student to add other instances (besides διδόναι and its compounds).
The Septuagint as a Version. 329
χρόνας ; among the equivalents of 13} are ἀπόκρισις, ἐπερώτη- σις, κρίμα, πρᾶγμα, τρόπος, φωνή ; for 2? we have not only καρδία, ψυχή, φρήν, νοῦς, διάνοια, στόμα, φρόνησις, but στῆθος and even σάρξ; for 1P5, ἀριθμεῖν, ἐπισκέπτεσθαι, ἐτάζειν, ἐκδι- kev; for TPIS, δικαιοσύνη, ἐλεημοσύνη, εὐφροσύνη. Conversely, the same Greek word often serves for several Hebrew words. Thus διαθήκη, which is generally the Lxx. rendering of 13, stands also for NIP (Exod. xxvii. 21, xxxi. 7), TA (Dan. ix. 13, Lxx.) and even 737 (Deut. ix. 5); ἐξαιρεῖν, λυτροῦν, ῥύεσθαι are all used to represent 283; εἴδωλον appears in different contexts for 58, miox, bd, mp2, Sya, San, yen, ayy, 2BB, OY, 7pY, D'DIA. Even in the same context or verse this some- times occurs. Thus in Gen. i.—ili. γῇ translates 78, TTS, mw, IY; in Exod. xii. 23 732 and D8 are both represented by παρέρχεσθαι; in Num. xv. 4 f. θυσία is used both for 2D and M3!. 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.
(2) In reference to metaphors the Alexandrians allow themselves some discretion. Thus in Gen. vi. 2 ‘the sons of God’ become οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ; in Num. xxiv. 17 ‘a sceptre (Dav) shall rise’ is rendered by ἀναστήσεται ἄνθρωπος: in Deut. x. 16 ‘the foreskin of your heart’ is turned euphemistically into τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμών; ; in Isa. ix. 14 μέγαν καὶ μικρόν represents Heb. ‘both branch and rush.’ Occasionally the translators indulge in Javonomasia, without authority from the Heb., e.g. Gen. xxv. 27 οἰκῶν οἰκίαν = DTN aw; xxvi. 18 καὶ ἐπωνόμα- σεν αὐτοῖς ὀνόματα ΓΟ; ine δ). Job xxvil. 12 κενὰ κενοῖς; XXX. 13 ἐξετρίβησαν τρίβοι pov.
(ec) Lastly, the reader of the Septuagint must expect to find a large number of actual blunders, due in part perhaps to
330 The Septuagint as a Version.
a faulty archetype, but chiefly to the misreading or misunder- standing 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 trans- lation 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. I—6. I. Ta ῥήματα.. ῥῆμα, Heb. 724...027. Aéyov="0N2; cf. v. 4, where, as elsewhere, Aq. renders, τῷ λέγειν. Ὑπερασπίζω cov,
Heb. ‘am a shield to thee’; cf. Deut. xxxill. 29, Prov. ii. 7, al. Ὃ μισθός σου πολύς. Vulg., A.V., R.V. connect Heb. with the
foregoing, supplying}. 2. Δεσπότης = "218, as in v. ὃ, and not infrequently in Jer. and Dan. (LXX.). ᾿Απολύομαι arexvos—an interpretation rather than a literal rendering of "WY Win, Yios Μάσεκ τῆς οἰκογενοῦς pou= NI NA Pld ja: cf. Hieron. guaest.
1 Philo has ἀπελεύσομαι (see below).
The Septuagint as a Version. 331
im Gen. “ubi nos habemus Et filius Masec vernaculae meae, in Hebraeo scriptum est 3 pd {3}, quod Aquila transtulit ὁ υἱὸς
τοῦ ποτίζοντος οἰκίαν pov...Theodotio vero καὶ vids τοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας μου." Δαμασκὸς ᾿Ἑλιέζερ, a literal rendering of the Heb., leaving the difficulty unsolved. 3. Ἐπειδή =}, and so in xviii.
21, xix. 19; did LXxX. read DN? Οἰκογενής here=M3N Ja. KAn- ρονομήσει we—a Hebraism, Ξε κληρονόμος pov ἔσται. 4. Kai εὐθὺς ..eyévero= 1137}. Φωνή =131, as in xi, 1, but apparently not elsewhere. Ὅς. .«οὗτος, σι TWN. Ἔκ σοῦ, euphemism for Heb. TYPID, unless the LXX. read FPP. 5. Πρὸς αὐτόν, Heb. 6. Καὶ ἐπίστευσεν -- ἢ) 2) Δ) (cf. Haupt ad ἴοε.). ᾿Αβράμ,κ Heb. Τῷ θεῷ Ξ- ΠῚΠ3.: ᾿Ἐλογίσθη....εἰς dux., Heb. ‘he counted it...for righteous-
ness’; possibly the LXX. read as in Ps. cvi. 31 (M.T.), where they have the same rendering. The N.T. follows Lxx. here (jas 23, Ror. iv. "3, Gal. in. 6).
EXOD. xix. 16—24.
16. ᾿Ἐγένετο δὲ... καὶ ἐγένοντο -- "75. ΠΡ), Γενηθέντος πρὸς op θρον = Pan nin, "Ex ὄρους Sewd, Heb. ‘on the mountain.’ Φωνή, cod. F with fA pr. καί. 17. Ὑπὸ τὸ ὄρος 3.*(om. Σ. AF), Heb. ‘at the nether part (N'NND3) of the mountain.’ 18. Διὰ τὸ καταβεβηκέναι, an idiomatic rendering of ὙΠ) WN7IBID. Tov θεόν =i11', cf. 21. ‘O καπνὸς, Heb. ‘the smoke of it.’ Ἐξέστη, Heb. as v. 16 where LXX. renders ἐπτοήθη. Ὃ Aads=DYN; M.T., Wi. 19. Προβαίνουσαι ἰσχυρότεραι -Ξ [ΠῚ Wi. 20. Ἐκάλεσεν ...Movonv, Heb. πον; the > after NP is dropt in accordance with Greek idiom! 21. Aéywv, , Heb. “Eyyicwouw, a soften- ing of the Heb. ‘break forth’ (D171); in the next verse ἐγγίζειν =Wi) mi. 22. καί, Heb. ‘and also’ (O33), usually καί ye, Aq. καὶ καίγε (Burkitt, dgud/a, p. 13). Κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ, a double ren- dering of myn bx. ᾿Απαλλάξῃ am αὐτῶν : another instance of euphemism: Heb. ‘break forth upon them’ (Aq. διακόψῃ ἐν αὐτοῖς).
23. Προσαναβῆναι: the double compound occurs six times in Jos. _xi—xix. ᾿Αφόρισαι: the verb is here as in v. 12 the equivalent
of 533 Ai. ‘enclose,’ but with the added thought of consecration which is latent in ἀφορίζειν, ἀφόρισμα, ἀφορισμός (cf. Exod. xxix.
1 Or, as Dr Nestle suggests, it may have been taken as introducing the acc., as in later Hebrew or in Aramaic.
332 The Septuagint as a Version.
26, Ezech. xx. 40). 24. ᾿Απολέσῃ, euphemistic, as ἀπαλλάξῃ in v.22; Aq. again, διακόψῃ.
NUM. xxiil. 7—I0.
7. IlapaBodnv: here for the first time =v, Lyons Pent., parabula. Μεσοποταμίας, 1.6. O°73 DIS (Gen. xxiv. 10), or 15 DS (Gen. xxv. 20): here an interpretation of the simple DIS. "Ar’, λέγων, Heb. ᾿Ἐπικατάρασαί μοι, and καταράσωμαι in v. 8, represent DY, whilst ἄρασαι answers to TN, and ἀράσωμαι (v. 8) to 3p3, an unusual instance of carelessness or poverty of language on the part of the translator; ὀρέων (v. 9) is equally unfortunate as a rendering of O°, while on the other hand ὄψομαι, προσνοήσω fairly represent the Heb. πΠροσνοεῖν renders NY again in Job xx. 9, xxiv. 15. IO. ᾿Ἐξακριβάζεσθαι (Num.}, Job}, Dan. LXx.}), a late form for ἐξακριβοῦν in LXX. and Jos. To σπέρμα, Heb. ‘the dust’: did Lxx. read YN, or have they glossed “EY? Kai ris ἐξαριθμήσεται, reading 15D* D1. Δήμους Ἰσραήλ, Heb. ‘the fourth part of Israel’ (Aq. τοῦ τετάρτου ’I.). “H ψυχή μου, as Heb., whilst the next word is sacrificed to an alliteration
᾿ (ψυχή, ψυχαῖς). To σπέρμα pov is a gloss on ‘NAS (cf. Brown, Heb. and Eng. Lex., p. 31); ὡς τὸ σπέρμα τούτων, 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. I—9.
1. Αὗται αἱ ἐντολαί, Heb. ‘this is the commandment.’ ‘O θεὸς ἡμῶν, Heb. ‘your God.’ Οὕτως, , Heb. Ἑἰσπορεύεσθε, Heb. ‘go over’; the Greek has lost the local reference, as in iv. 14, 4 Regn. iv. 8. 2. “Iva φοβῆσθε.. ὑμῶν, Heb. 2nd pers. sing. Σήμερον, a 31. Οἱ υἱοὶ κτλ., Heb. ‘thy son and thy son’s son.’ “Iva μακροημερεύσητε, Heb. ‘and that thy days may be prolonged’; paxponpepevery (μακροήμερος γίνεσθαι) represents this or a similar phrase in iv. 40, ν. 30, ΧΙ. 9, 21, XXxxii. 47; μακρο- χρόνιος, μακροχρονίζειν also occur in iv. 40, γι 16, XViL..20, Xxxil. 22. The group is not found elsewhere in the LXX. except in Exod.!, Jud.1, and in Sirach. 3. Aotvvac , M.T.; perhaps
added to complete the sense of the Greek; yet see v. Io ΩΡ nn?).
4. Καὶ ταῦτα... Αἰγύπτου A, Heb; perhaps repeated from iv. 45 toform an introduction to Τὰ aver 5. Acavoias...uyns...duva- pews. The readings vary ; for διανοίας AF Luc. read καρδίας, and the text of B is here super rasuram; for δυνάμεως some texts give ἰσχύος. The N.T. citations (Mt. xxil. 37 = Mc. xii. 29 ff,
The Septuagint as a Version. 333
Le. x. 27) present much diversity, giving both renderings of 3222 and both of FIND ; cf. Dittmar, VY. 7. zz Novo, p. sof. 6. καὶ ἐν τῇ Wuyn cov, κα Heb.; for ‘in thy heart’ Heb. has ‘upon,’ “as it were imprinted there (Jer. xxxi. 33)” 7. Προ- βιβάσεις, Heb. ‘shalt impress them upon’; Aq. δευτερώσεις, as if the root were 13%. Ἔν αὐτοῖς -- 3. Καθήμενος κτλ., Heb. ‘in thy sitting &c.’; ἐν οἴκῳ, ἐν ὁδῷ are inexact, Heb. ‘in thy house,’ ‘in the way.’ 8. ᾿Ασάλευτον (F, ἀσάλευτα) = NEYD?, ‘for frontlets,’ circlets or tires for the head: Lyons Pent. (reading σαλευτά), mobilta. ᾿Ασάλευτον occurs in the same phrase in Exod. xiii. 16, Deut. xi. 18. Aq. seems to have rendered the Heb. here and in Exod. by vakra, i.e. ‘compressed, ‘tight,’ which Field (Hexap/a, 1. 103) explains as the “thecas in quas schedulae membraneae ...Inferciebantur.” The LXX. rendering may be an Alexandrian
name for the φυλακτήριον, but the whole subject is obscure. 9. Φλιάς -- ΠΣ", as in Exod. xu. 7 ff. Jos. x. 12—14.
12. Ἧ ἡμέρᾳ mapédxev...um0xeiptov—idiomatic rendering of a>. nn Dia. The words that follow (ἡνίκα... Ἰσραήλ) seem to be a gloss derived from v. 10. Kai εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς, Heb. ‘and he said in the eyes of Israel.’ Στήτω, Heb. ‘be still.’ Γαβαών, fil ‘Gibeon.’ Aldor, fH ‘Aijalon’ (28); cf. 2 Chron. xi. 10 Α,. Αἰαλών. 13. Ἔν στάσει-- DY, which is thus distinguished from the verb represented by ἔστη. ‘O θεός, Heb. a, Ag. τὸ ἔθνος. Unless a primary error is to be suspected here, the LXx. has glossed its original, from motives of piety. After the stanza JH inserts a reference to the Book of Jashar, which is wanting in non-Hexaplaric texts of the Lxx.; cod. G adds, * οὐχὶ τοῦτο γεγραμμένον ἐπὶ βιβλίου τοῦ εὐθοῦς γ΄. Οὐ προεπορεύετο KTH, a loose rendering of Heb. DYDA DVD NIDD PN NP. 14. Ἡμέρα τοιαύτη οὐδὲ TO πρότερον οὐδὲ TO ἔσχατον, a good example of a conscientious compromise between idiomatic and literal modes of rendering (cf. Heb.). ᾿Ανθρώπου, WS Dia. Συνεπολέμησεν τῷ Ἰ., Heb. ‘fought for Israel.’
JuD. v. 28—30%. 28. &® here omits the difficult word 232) ΠῚ (GA, καὶ κατεμάν-
1 Driver, ad doc. 2 In this passage the text of Bin 0.7. 7” Greek, i. 489, should be compared with that of A (ed. Brooke and McLean).
334 The Septuagint as a Version.
θανεν). ᾿Ἐκτὸς τοῦ τοξικοῦ, ‘forth from the loophole’; cf. Symm. in Ezek. xl. 16 θυρίδες τοξικαί: δὰ διὰ τῆς δικτυωτῆς, ‘through the lattice’ (cf. 4 Regn. i. 2, Ezek. xli. 16). ἘἘπιβλέπουσα.. ‘S.eupe in A appears to be a supplementary gloss. Ἠσχύνθη (B) confuses vw polel with 12 £a/; the general sense of the former is given by ἠσχάτισεν A. For doyariten cf. 1 Macc. v. 53; has it been suggested here by its similarity to the word used in B? Modes:
A more literally ἴχνη, but πούς represents DYS elsewhere, e.g.
Ps... li. (uti) ap POV, RXR. Bo ν 20. «Αἱ σοφαὶ ἄρχουσαι: A, again aiming at a literal rendering, σοφαὶ ἀρχουσῶν. On the other hand B’s ἀπέστρεψεν λόγους αὐτῆς ἑαυτῇ is Close and yet idiom- atic, while A’s ἀπεκρίνατο ἐν ῥήμασιν αὐτῆς goes too far afield; the latter appears to be a Hexaplaric correction (Field, ad loc.). 30. Οὐχ εὑρήσουσιν αὐτὸν διαμερίζοντα σκῦλα; so GBA; Heb. ‘are they not finding, [are they not] dividing booty?’ Lxx. seem
to have read pon for 1pon. Οἰκτείρμων οἰκτειρήσει B, φιλιάζων φίλοις A ; both, while labouring to keep up the alliteration of the Heb., miss its point through ignorance of a rare use of DM1!; for
φιλιάζειν cf. xiv. 20 B, 2 Chron. xix. 2. Ποικιλτών (A, ΠΕΣ misses the dual ‘embroidery on both sides’ (R. V.), or ‘a couple of pieces,’ “ precisely as D°NOM above” (Moore). Βάθη in A seems to be an error for βαφή, which is found in several cursives ; see Field, ad loc., and Lagarde’s Lucian. Τῷ τραχήλῳ αὐτοῦ oxvAa= apparently δον ΩΣ M.T. ‘for the necks of the spoil.’ @4 substitutes the usual ἀνατολή for the spirited and literal rendering of Β (cf. Ps. xviii.=xix. 7), and appears to have read 11233 ; el. FS. sim (XX, ) ἢ:
This passage is a severe test of the translator’s knowledge and skill, and shews him perhaps at his worst.
REGN. xvil. 37—43- 37. Sil begins 11 TON, A, Luc. καὶ εἶπεν A. Ἔκ χειρὸς τοῦ
λέοντος...τῆς ἄρκου, an exact rendering ; ci. Gen. ix, See χειρὸς πάντων τῶν θηρίων. Luc., Th., ἐκ στόματος τοῦ Δ. καὶ ἐκ χειρὸς τῆς ἄρκου. Τοῦ ἀπεριτμήτου, ‘repeated from v. 36 (, ffl). 38. μαν- dvav (Jud. iii. 16, 2 Regn. x. 4): +avrov, A, with fH. Περικεφα- Aaiav x. περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ : Luc. (A), with SH, π. x. χ. ἐπέθηκεν ἐπί κτλ., adding, καὶ ἐνέδυσεν αὐτῷ θώρακα. 39. Ἔζωσεν τὸν Aaveid, sc. Saovd (cf. v. 38); Luc., ‘A, follow Heb. in making David the object of the verb (ἐζώσατο Δαυς δ. ᾿Εκοπίασεν περι- πατήσας (A, περιπατῆσαι) ἅπαξ καὶ δίς, ‘more than once he wearied
1 “Of the versions only [Vulg.] comes near the true sense” (Moore). Jerome renders pulcherrima feminarum.
The Septuagint as a Version. 335
himself with walking (strove to walk) in them, reading ὟΝ 1,.as
yo
in Gen. xix. II INP}, LXX. παρελύθησαν (Wellhausen, Driver,
H. P. Smith). “Azaé καὶ Sis occurs also in Deut. ix. 13 (where, as here, there is nothing in the Heb. to correspond), and in Neh.
ΧΙ. 20, where it represents DIAt DY. ᾿Αφαιροῦσιν αὐτὰ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, reading the verb probably as DD)}, and omitting ὙΠ,
40. Ai@ovs τελείους in B is obviously wrong, and A scarcely mends matters by omitting the adjective. Correct, with Lucian, λίθους λείους. Ἔν τῷ καδίῳ ποιμενικῷ : καδίον τε καδίσκος, here only in
LXxX., and perhaps unknown elsewhere: ποιμενικός (OVI) again
in Zach. xi. 15. Eis ovAdoynv, apparently for pipord (fA DIP"), Aq. καὶ ἐν ἀναλεκτηρίῳ). 41 is wanting in G®, and probably belongs to the same recension of the story which has supplied = great gaps vv. I12—3I, 55—xviil. 5. 42. Heb. ‘looked and saw’; so A, Luc. ITvuppdxns* cf. xvi. 12, Gen. xxv. 25. 43. ‘Qoei, jade by the translators to soften ee opprobrious κύων. Ἐν ῥάβδῳ καὶ λίθοις, ΤΕ “τῇ (with) staves’; καὶ λίθοις is prob- ably intended to make the question correspond to the statement of v.40. The next words in the LXX. καὶ εἶπεν Δαυείδ Οὐχί, ἀλλ᾽
ἢ χείρω[ν] κυνός are evidently of the same character—“a singu- larly vapid reply ” (Driver).
omen. bio.
II. Αὐτῶν πορευομένων ἐπορεύοντο καὶ ἐλάλουν---8ὴ interesting attempt to combine Greek idiom with some reminiscence of the Heb. phrase; Lucian abandons the Heb., and corrects, αὐτῶν πορευομένων καὶ λαλούντων. Ἵππος πυρός, Heb. ‘horses of fire’; cf. immevs, Heb. ‘horsemen, v. 12. “Ava nee (113), cf. Gen. i. 7 Ovexwpicev...dva μέσον. ᾿Ανελήμφθη, Heb. ‘went up’; the Greek verb is apparently repeated from vv. 9, 10, where it mpd, From this passage it has been borrowed by the translator of Sirach (xlviil. 9, 14, xlix. 14, B), and by two writers in the N.T. (‘Mc.’ xvi. 19, Acts i. 2, I 1) ; on its symbolical use see the writer’s Apostles’ Creed, p- 7of. ‘Os, , Heb.; cf. 1 Regn. xvii. 43 (above). 12. Πάτερ πάτερ, Heb. ‘my father’ bis. Aréppnéev...pnypara, after the Heb.: Lucian omits the noun, probably because of the harsh- ness of the assonance. 13. Kai CA aaa ; Luc., καὶ ἀνείλατο. Μηλωτήν, ‘sheepskin,’ an interpretation of NVIS (Vulg. pad/zum) wherever it is used of Elijah’s characteristic raiment (3 Regn. xix. 13, 19, 4 Regn. ii. ὃ ff.) ; cf. Heb. xi. 37 περιῆλθον ἐν μηλωταῖς. ᾿Ἔπάνωθεν, sc. αὐτοῦ (Heb., Luc.) Ἐλεισαῖε, Κα Heb.; καὶ ἐπέ- στρεψεν ἜἘλεισαῖε is Hexaplaric, and wanting in B*, but
336 The Septuagint as a Version.
supplied by BA Luc. 14. Ὁ θεός, fA TN TIM. ᾿Αφφώ, a transliteration answering to Ni7 AN (f#1.); in x. 10 the same form = NDS, which was perhaps the reading before the LXX. in this place. Aq. καίπερ αὐτός, but Symm. καὶ viv, whence Jerome etiam nunc. 15. καὶ οἱ ἐν Ἰερειχώ: , καί A Luc. with fl. 16. 0 is not represented by 648 ; Luc. adds εἰσί. Υἱοὶ δυνάμεως, Senna. Ἔν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ, ‘EXecoate, , Heb., Luc. 18. In A Luc. Aq. Th. fi the verse begins ‘And they returned to him’; cf. v. 13.
Ps. cix. (cx.) I—4. I. [0] κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου, oy, my. Ἔκ δεξιῶν, 1%; in v. 5 the same Gr. is used for *3%'D" Sy. Ὑποπόδιον τῶν πόδῶν gov:
ὑποκάτω is the reading of the best authorities in Mt. xxii. 44, Mc. xii. 36, but ὕποπ. keeps its place in Lc.°- 4, Hebrews. 2. kat κατακυρίευε-: ΠῚ apparently. 3. Mera σοῦ, 3} (SA, TDP). Ἢ ἀρχή seems to point to a reading 73°) or ΠΞ3 2 (cf. Job xxx. 15, Isa. xxxll. 8); τῶν ἁγίων (cov) =DW IP (PR TP); Symm. ἐν ὄρεσιν (793 for IIMA) ἁγίοις. Ἔκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε, 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.93; Cypr. dest. 17, ep. 63) ; inthe Arian age it was commonly cited on the Catholic side —see e.g. Cyril. Hierus., catech. vil. 2, xi. 5; Athan. or. c. Arian. iv. 27 sq.; de decr. 3, &c.; Hilar. de ¢rin. vi. τό, xii. 8. The O.L. seems to have rendered uniformly ex utero ante luct- ferum genut te, with the variant gezeravz in Tert. Z.c.; Jerome’s ‘Hebrew’ Psalter reads with ffl guasz de vulva orietur tibit ros adolescentiae. The LXX. appear to have read their Heb. text
as ΤῈ ἼΠΡΟ on), perhaps dropping δ: as unintelligible. 4. Kara τὴν τάξιν, "2 by Aq. Symm. κατὰ λόγον. Cf. Heb. v. 6 ff., vii. 11, 15 (κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα). The translator probably had before him the Lxx. of Gen. xiv. 18; he transliterates the unique name ΡΣ 222 in the same way.
PROV. villi. 22—25, 30—3I.
22. "Exricév pe. So GRBAct. O.L. (condidit, creavit); codd. 23=V, 252, with Aq. Symm. Th. Vulg. (Jossedit), give ἐκτή- garo—both possible meanings of ΠΡ. The former rendering supplied the Arians with one of their stock arguments (cf. Athan. or. c. Avian. ii. 44. 8qq.). Eis ἔργα αὐτοῦ, a loose and partial translation, probably a confession of inability to understand the Heb.; Th.
The Septuagint as a Version. 337
πρὸ τῆς ἐργασίας ἀπὸ τότε. 23. ᾿Εθεμελίωσέν pe, reading apparently ‘71D’ where {#1 has °M30); cf. Ps. Ixxvii. (Ixxvili.) 69. Πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γὴν ποιῆσαι, 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 sndoyn and 7233, unless they intend to convey the general sense by ποιῆσαι and προελθεῖν. 25. Πάντων, , Jel. Τεννᾷ pe, ft ‘1 was brought forth.’ 30. dp- μόζουσα = }ON, the word being referred by the translator to JON ; similarly Symm. Th., ἐστηριγμένη. Ἢ προσέχαιρεν implies the reading PPiwyY ; Di Di is connected by LXxX. with the next clause. 31. Ὅτε.. συντελέσας : Heb. ‘rejoicing in the world of his earth.” LXX. seem to have read mbana PNWID, as Lagarde suggests ; had 53M stood in their text, οἰκουμένη would have been ready at hand as a rendering (cf. 2 Regn. xxii. 16, Ps. ix. 9, &c.). Evdpaivero, reading YYVYY. Υἱοὶ ἀνθρώπων = DIN 223; cf. υἱοὺς ᾿Αδάμ, Deut. xxxii. 8; DIS “3 is translated by this phrase in Ps. x. (xi.) 4, and repeatedly in the poetical books.
JOB xix. 23—27.
23. Tis yap ἂν δῴη; See above p. 308; the phrase is repeated in the Hebrew, but the translator contents himself with using it once. ‘58 is ignored; its usual equivalent in the LXX. is νῦν or οὖν, unless it is transliterated (p. 324). Eis τὸν αἰῶνα seems .to represent sw, which in ΜΠ belongs to the next verse; Th. translates it εἰς μαρτύριον, reading the word as 1Y?, 24. B* omits ἐν πέτραις ἐνγλυφῆναι which appears to be necessary to the sense ; in supplying it B@>SA prefix 7, a manifest gloss. 25. ᾿Αέναός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλύειν pe μέλλων, a paraphrase of Heb. ‘my Goel lives’; aévaos in the LXx. elsewhere = DY, and δ} is ἀγχιστεύς (Ruth lll. 9, etc.), or λυτρωτής (Ps. xvili. 14, Ixxvii. 35). 25—26. Ἐπὶ γῆς ἀναστήσαι Or ἀναστήσει appears to correspond with ἼΞΨ by (O°%P*) DIP’, and τὸ δέρμα μου τὸ ἀναντλοῦν ταῦτα with NNT ΞΡ) mY, G4 points to MNT 530919 my nvne (Siegfried in Haupt ad Zoc.). But the translator perhaps interprets his text in the light of the doctrine of the Resurrection, which was accepted from Mac- cabean times (cf. Job xlii. 17*, and see Dan. xii. 2, 2 Macc. vli. 14, Χιϊ. 43); as cited by Clem. R. 1 Cor. 26 (ἀναστήσεις
τὴν σάρκα μου ταύτην τὴν ἀναντλήσασαν ταῦτα πάντα), the words are brought into still nearer agreement with the faith of the
S. S. 22
338 The Septuagint as a Version.
Church; see Afostles Creed, p. 89f. Παρὰ yap Kupiov...cuvere- λέσθη corresponds in position with words which ff divides and
MICAH v. I (iv. 14)—4 (3). I. ᾿Ἐμφραχθήσεται θυγάτηρ ἐμφραγμῷ, ie. WW NA WANN. Tas φυλὰς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ: LXX. read Oe aw for’ DAW. 2. Byé- λέεμ οἶκος Ἐφράθα: did LXX. read MOBS MB DME"MND? Ὀλιγο-
στὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ‘art little to be,’ as Heb. The passage is quoted in Mt. ii. 6 in a Greek paraphrase! which substitutes οὐδαμῶς
ἐλαχίστη for ‘little to be,’ and τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν (ΒΡῈ) for ‘thousands’ (DON). 3. Ἕως καιροῦ τικτούσης τέξεται, apparently for ἕως καιροῦ οὗ τίκτουσα τέξεται OF ἕ. K. τικτούσης ὅτε τέξεται. 4. Καὶ ὄψεται, τὸ ποίμνιον αὐτοῦ were obelised in Hex. and find no place in M1; the former has perhaps originated in a misreading of U1) as MANN, so that καὶ oy. καὶ ποιμανεῖ is in fact a doublet. Κύριος, subject; Heb. ‘in the strength of J.,’ the subject being the same asin Uv. 1. Ὑπάρξουσιν, IAW); the LXx. read 110, connecting
the verb with the previous words; for 2) ξοὑπάρχειν cf. Ps. liv. (lv.) 20 ὁ ὑπάρχων πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων.
JEREM. xxxviii. 31--.27 (ΧΧχΙ. 30—36).
Vv. 31—34 are cited in Heb. viii. 8—12, q.v. 31. Διαθήσομαι, in Hebrews συντελέσω, cf. Jer. xli. (xxxiv.) ὃ συντελέσαι (M3) διαθήκην, and ib. 15. Τῷ οἴκῳ dzs, in Hebrews ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον. 32. Διεθέμην, in Hebrews ἐποίησα : the writer appears to dislike the repeated alliteration in διατίθεσθαι διαθήκην. Ἔν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπι- λαβομένου μου, for the more usual τοῦ ἐπιλαβέσθαι pe or ὅτε (7) ἐπελαβόμην. Ὅτι οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ev,..Heb. ‘which...they broke’;
᾿ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, reading ΓΟ for ‘N>ya. 33. ἡ διαθήκη μου, Heb. ‘the covenant.’ Διδοὺς δώσω, a Hebraism not represented in fl; in Hebrews διδούς appears without δώσω, and so AQ in Jer. Eis τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν, Heb. ‘in their inward parts.’ 34. TY 1° has no equivalent in the Greek; τὸν πολίτην αὐτοῦ, Heb. ‘his neighbours’ (cf. Prov. xi. 9. 12, xxiv. 43=28), reminds us that we are dealing
1 The paraphrastic character of the reference appears more distinctly in the second stanza ἐκ got... Iopand, which blends Mic. v. τῇ, 3%. It will be observed that cod. A reads ἡγούμενος with Mt.
The Septuagint as a Version. 339
with an Alexandrian version. ᾿Από.. ἕως, Wi. ΡΝ ἀδικίαις...
ἁμαρτιῶν, ΖΕ, ‘ iniquity,’ ‘sin.’ 55:5. 22, In fH 36, 37 precede 35. 35. Φησὶν Κύριος, Heb. ‘thus saith J.’ (at the beg. of the verse). Ὑψωθῇ, reading 917) for 13°; ταπεινωθῇ, Heb. ‘be searched.’ Οὐκ ἀποδοκιμῶ: dod. is a contracted future (cf. p. 305); οὐκ is inserted, because the drift of the verse has been mis- understood (cf. Streane, p. 156f.). Τὸ γένος Ἰσραήλ, Heb. ‘all the seed of I.’; rece HM again in v. 37. 36. Σελήνην, SA, ‘the
ordinances of the moon’ (but cf. DPM in wv. 35, Heb.). Kpavyny,
reading perhaps 2 or 12 for YA. 37. Κύριος Παντοκράτωρ =MN2¥ mn, as almost invariably in the Prophets! from Hosea
xii. 5 (6) onwards, with the exception of Isaiah, who transliterates MINIS (Κύριος σαβαώθ, Isa. i. 9, al.).
DAN. xii. 1—a.
I. Χώραν (LXX.), probably a corruption for ὥραν (cf. Bevan, p. 48); παρελεύσεται (LXxX.), reading 15)" for Toy’ (ἀναστήσεται, Th.). Ὃ ἄγγελος (LXX.), a gloss; Th. τ ὁ ἄρχων. Ἐπὶ
Tous viovs (LXX., Th.), .. 23 Sy. Ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα, LXX., ἔσται
καιρός Th.; Th. is again more literal than LXX. OAs οἵα οὐ γέγονεν (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 "13, while Th. adds ἐν τῇ γῇ or ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Ὑψωθήσεται LXX.; . Bevansuggestsacorruption for ἐκσωθήσεται or some other compound of σωθήσεται; but vy. may be a gloss upon the tamer word which stood in the original. Th. rightly, σωθήσεται. “Os ἂν evpebn, § §'91937]—overlooked by Th., unless we
accept the reading of AQ, o εὑρεθεὶς [6] γεγραμμένος. 2. Ἔν τῷ πλάτει τῆς γῆς, LXX.; ἐν γῆς χώματι Th.; Heb. ‘in the ground of dust’ (but see Bevan, p. 201 f.). rea. καὶ αἰσχύνην, LXX.;
διασπ. is perhaps a gloss on αἰσχ. ; for the word see Deut. XXViii. 25. 3. Οἱ φωστῆρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, LXX., a reminiscence of Gen. i. 14 vray cf. Sap. xiii. 2. Oi κατισχύοντες τοὺς Reyne) LEX. Vibe red
Ta ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ b aigky thie ordinary Biblical pra used in iii. 36,63; Heb., Th. have ‘the stars.’ 4. ᾿Απομανώσιν (LXX.), διδαχθῶσιν (Th.). "Both senses have been found in the Fgh. ; cf. Bevan, 2 loc. Πλησθῇ ἡ yn ἀδικίας, LXX., reading NY) or NY for mys.
1 Zech. xiii. 2, Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) τὸ are the only exceptions, and in both cases the MSS. are divided.
22———
340 The Septuagint as a Version.
The student who has gone through these extracts, or who is able to dispense with help of this kind, is recom- mended 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’, 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”. 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 ascer- taining 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 trans- lating 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: Pear- sont praefatio paraenetica (Cambridge, 1665; cum notulis E. Churton, 1865); Hody, De Bibl. textibus originalibus (Oxford, 1705); Thiersch, De Pent. vers. Alexandrina (Erlangen, 1841) ; Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841); Veber den Einfluss der paldstinischen Exegese auf die alex. Hermeneuttk, 1857; Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 73 ff. (Berlin, 1875—8); Selwyn, art. Septuagint in Smith’s 2). δ. ii. (London, 1863); Wellhausen, do. in ELacyclopaedia Britannica (London, 1886); W. R. Smith, Old Testament in Fewish Church (1881, ed. 2, 1892); Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford, 1889); Driver, Notes on the Books of Samuel, \ntr. (Oxford, 1890); Buhl,
1 W. R. Smith, Ὁ. 7. in F. Church, p. 83-
2 If the student prefers to begin with Genesis, he will learn much as to the LXx. version from Spurrell’s Votes (ed. 2, 1898). For more ad- vanced study Proverbs will form a suitable subject, and here he may seek help from Lagarde’s Anmerkungen, and Professor Toy’s recent commen- tary in the ‘International Critical’ series.
=
The Septuagint as a Version. 341
Kanon τ. Text des O. T. (Leipzig, 1891); Nestle, Margzalien (Tiibingen, 1893); Streane, Double Text of Feremiah (Cam- bridge, 1896); the various Introductions to the Old Testament ; Commentaries on particular books, esp. those of Dillmann and Spurrell (Genesis), Driver (Deuteronomy), Moore (Judges), Well- hausen, Driver, and H. P. Smith (Samuel), Toy (Proverbs), Ryssel (Micah), Cornill (Ezekiel). A complete commentary on the LXX., or on any of the groups of books which compose it, is still a destderatum.
On the Semitic style of the LXx. the reader may consult the Eicaywyn of Adrianus (Migne, ?. G. xcvili.).
CHAPTER VI.
TEXT-DIVISIONS: S7/CH7, CHAPTERS, LECTIONS, CATENAE.
Tue 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 con-
sequence there are two systems of verse-numeration throughout the succeeding chapter}.
A system of verse-division® is mentioned in the Mishnah (Meg. 4. 4, Kidd. 30.1). The Massorets noted the number of verses (B°PiDB) 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 NV, The parashahs are of two kinds, open and closed, i.e. para-
1 In such cases both systems are represented in the Cambridge edition of the Lxx. (see O. 7. 22, Greek, i. p. Xiv.).
2 For a full account of the divisions of the Hebrew text see Buhl, Kanon u. Text, p. 222; Bleek-Wellhausen, p. 574f.; Ryle, Canon of the O. T., Ρ. 235. Blau, Massoretic Studies, 111.. in ¥.Q.R., Oct. 1896.
Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 343
graphs, which begin a new line, and sub-paragraphs’, which are preceded only by a space. They are still registered in the printed Bibles by the 5 (for ΠῚ ΠΒ, ‘open’) and Ὁ (for MIND, ‘closed’) which occur at intervals throughout the Torah*. (ὁ) 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 Baby- lonian tradition, but into 154 according to the tradition of Palestine. With few exceptions® the beginning of a lesson coincides with that of an open or closed parashah ; the coin- cidence is marked in the Torah by a thrice repeated 5 or ὃ. The Prophets were similarly divided for synagogue reading, but the prophetic lections were known as haphtaroth (N05) 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 (f1228)*. 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 pesukini.
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
1 A similar system of paragraphing has been adopted in the English Revised Version, and in the Cambridge Lxx.; see R.V. Preface, and O.7. in Greek, 1. p. xv.
2 In Baer’s edition they are given throughout the Bible.
3 In the Pentateuch there is only one, the lesson (12) which begins at Gen. xlvii. 28 (Ryle, p. 236).
4 See Gregory, prolegg. Ὁ. 167 ff.
᾽
344 Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.
and verses were applied to the text of the Septuagint before the sixteenth century; the capitulation appeared in the Com- plutensian Polyglott and in the Aldine edition of 1518, and the verse-numeration in the Frankfort edition of the Aldine text’.
Neither the verses nor the chapters of the existing text- division occur in MSS. of the Greek Old Testament, except in relatively later copies*, 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 στίχοι, κῶλα, OF κόμματα.
(a) rixos, Lat. versus, is properly a series of objects — placed ina row. ‘The word is used in the Lxx. of the stones in the High Priest’s breastplate (στίχος λίθων, Exod. xxviii. 17 ff.), the pomegranates wrought upon the capitals of the pillars in the Temple (στίχοι ῥοῶν, 3 Regn. vil. 6), and the rows of cedar-wood shafts (τριῶν στίχων στύλων κεδρίνων, 26. Q). When applied to the art of writing, the word signifies a con- tinuous 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, Κράντωρ κατέλιπεν ὑπομνήματα εἰς μυριάδας στίχων τρεῖς : Dionysius Halicarn. vi. 1126 πέντε ἢ ἐξ μυριάδας στίχων τοῦ ἀνδρὸς (sc. Δημοσθένους) καταλελοιπότος. 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
1 It prints the verse-numbers in the margin, and begins every verse with a capital letter. 2 E.g. H.-P. 38 (xv.), 122 (xv.), where the modern chapters are marked.
Text-divistons: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 345
the sense; or it might depend upon a purely conventional standard. Evidence has been produced’ to shew that the last of these methods was adopted in the copying of Greek prose writings, and that the length of the prose stzchus was deter- mined 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*. 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®*. The compiler of the Cheltenham list explains that dishonest scribes at Rome and elsewhere purposely suppressed or mutilated the sticho- metry*. Thus the careful entry of the στίχοι in the margins of ancient books, or the computation at the end of the number of στίχοι contained in them, was not due to mere custom or sentiment, but served an important practical end.
(ὁ) Besides this conventional measurement there existed another system which regulated the length of the line by the sense. Sense-divisions were commonly known as κῶλα or κόμματα. The colon, according to Suidas, is a line which forms a complete clause (ὁ ἀπηρτισμένην ἔννοιαν ἔχων στίχος) ; the comma is a shorter colon’.
This arrangement was originally used in transcribing poetry, but before Jerome’s time it had been applied to the great prose
1 By Ch. Graux, Revue de philologie, τι. (1878), p. 97 ff.
2 J. R. Harris, Stichometry, pp. 8, 15-
3 See E. Maunde-Thompson, Gr. and Lat. Palaeography, i. p. 80; Prof. Sanday, in Studia Biblica, ili. p. 263 f.; J. R. Harris, of. cet. p. 26.
4 “Tndiculum versuum in urbe Roma non ad liquidum, sed et alibi avariciae causa non habent integrum.”’
5 See Wordsworth-White, Zpc/ogus, p. 733, nn. 1, 2.
346 Texrt-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc.
authors ; cf. Hieron. Jraef. ad Jsa.1: “nemo cum prophetas versibus viderit esse descriptos, metro eos aestimet apud Hebraeos ligari, et aliquid simile habere de Psalmis vel 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.?: “legite igitur et hunc iuxta translationem nostram, quoniam per cola scriptus et commata manifestiorem legentibus sensum tribuit.” Cf. Cas- siod. de inst. div. litt., praef. Hesychius of Jerusalem (+c. 433) treated the Greek text of the Dodecapropheton in the same way *: ἔστι μὲν ἀρχαῖον τοῦτο τοῖς θεοφύροις τὸ σπούδασμα στιχη- δόν, ὡς τὰ πολλά, πρὸς τὴν τῶν μελετωμένων σαφήνειαν τὰς προφη- τείας ἐκτίθεσθαι. οὕτω τοιγαροῦν ὄψει μὲν τὸν Δαβὶδ κιθαρίζοντα, τὸν ἸΠαροιμιαστὴν δὲ τὰς παραβολὰς καὶ τὸν ᾿Εκκλησιαστὴν τὰς προ- φητείας ἐκθέμενον: οὕτω συγγραφεῖσαν τὴν ἐπὶ τῷ ᾿Ιὼβ βίβλον, οὕτω μερισθέντα τοῖς στίχοις τὰ τῶν ᾿Ασμάτων ᾷσματα...οὐ μάτην ἐν ταῖς δώδεκα βίβλοις τῶν προφητῶν καὶ αὐτὸς ἠκολούθησα.
Specimens of colometry may be seen in Codd. & B, where the poetical books are written in co/a 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 1. c. 1.) there are three which are accompanied by a stichometry. We will now collect their measurements and exhibit them in a tabular form.
Stichometry of Stichometry of Stichometry of Book. Nicephorus. Cod. Clarom. 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 udges 2000 17504 Rat ag 250 Hoh’
Migne, /. ZL. xxviii. 771. Migne, P. Z. xxviii. 938. Migne, P. G. xxiii. 1339 sq. Total of first 7 books, ‘ 18000.’
eB ὦ we
Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 347
Stichometry of Stichometry of Stichometry of Book. Nicephorus. Cod. Clarom. Mommsen’s list.
1 Kingdoms 2500 2300
2 Kingdoms ἜΝ ͵ 2000 » 2200
3 Kingdoms me 2600 2550
4 Kingdoms 3 2400 22501
1 Paralip. 2040
2 στον ᾿ 5500 ' 2100
1 Esdras )
2 Esdras ae oe
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 goo
Hosea 530
Amos 410
Micah 310
Joel go
Obadiah 70
Jonah 150
Nahum 140
Habakkuk 160
Zephaniah 140
Haggai 10
Zechariah 660
Malachi 200 (Dodecapropheton 3000 [2970] 3800)
Isaiah 3800 3600 3580
Jeremiah 4000 4070 4450
Baruch 700
Ezekiel 4000 3600 3340
Daniel 20007 1600 1350
1 Maccabees 2300 2300
2 Maccabees 7 300 2300 1800
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees 1000
1 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.
2 Susanna is calculated separately (500).
348 TLert-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.
The figures given above correspond to those in the lists printed in c. i., which follow the text of Preuschen (Axaz/ecta, pp. 156f., 142ff., 138f.). Some variants and suggested rectifications may be seen im 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 stichz 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' 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 Deutero- nomy, 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 s#ciz reaches 3500. But the famous Chigi MS.-of the Prophets (Cod. 87) counts 3820 stichi in Isaiah*?. This approaches the number given by Nicephorus, whilst the total number of s#zchz in BQ, 3600, agrees with the computation of the Claromontane list. The addition of 200 sticht in Nicephorus and Cod. 87 is due, Ceriani suggests, to the greater length of the Hexaplaric and Lucianic texts*. There is a similar disparity between the stichometry of Nicephorus and the reckoning of Cod. F in Deuteronomy,
+ It is printed by Harris, Stichometry, p. 59 ff.
2 wk, or as Allatius read the MS., FWH (3808); see Cozza, Sacr. bi6/. vet. fragm. 111. p. Xv.
3 De cod. March., p. 23 f.
Ἄν es Mate Re ee oe ee oe
Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 349
where in F the s#chz are 3000', but in Nicephorus 3100. On the other hand the later uncial K makes the s¢chz of Numbers to be 3535, which comes very near to the reckoning of Nicephorus’.
Stichometrical variation 1s 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’, or those which were intelligible may have been confused by careless copying. A glance at the comparative table on p. 346f. 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 Avxadecta*, giving the result of his researches among cursive MSS., with some additions supplied by the Editors of the larger LXx.
Genesis 4308° H.-P. 30, 52,85; Barb. iil. 36; Vat. gr. 746; Pal. gr. 203; Athos, Pantocr. 24, Laur. y. 112; Athens, Nat. 44
Exodus 3400 H.-P. 30, 52, 85; Barb. ili. 36; Athens, Nat. 44
Leviticus 2700 H.-P. 309525543185. ,Abarb. 111: -365ARans, Reg. gr. 2; 2000, Athens, Nat. 44
Numbers 3535° H.-P. 30, 52,85; Barb. ili. 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.gt)2 Joshua 2100 H.-P. 30, 54, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Paris, Reg. gr. 2
1 The symbol used is $+, which occurs also in B. On this symbol, see J. Woisin, De Graecorum notis numeralibus, n. 67 (Kiel, 1886).
* The numeration of the s¢zchz in the poetical books ascribed to the greater uncials in the Cambridge manual Lxx. is derived from Dr Nestle’s Supplementum* (Leipzig, 1887), and rests on an actual counting of the lines, and not on statements in the MSS. themselves.
3 Cf. J. R. Harris, Stichometry, p. 31.
4 Seep. oa ff:
5 4400 in H.-P.
4. 6 3530 in H.-P. 54.
σι On
350 TLext-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.
Judges 21001 Barb. ili. 36; 2156, Paris, Reg. gr. 2; Athos, 5 5
Pantocr. 24 Ruth 300 Barb. ili. 36; Paris, Reg. gr. 2
I Kingdoms 2500 Barb. iii. 36 (500, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi) 2 Kingdoms 2600 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. iil. 36
2 Paralip. 3000 Barb. iii. oe 5000, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi
1 Esdras 1300 Barb. ili. 36 .
2 Esdras 2306 Barb. Iii. 33 ShOGN en. Mare (gaia
Psalms 5100 Barb. iii. 36?
Proverbs 1750 H.-P. 161, 248; Barb. ii. 36
Ecclesiastes 750 H.-P: 161, 248; Barb. iil. 36; 782. ἘΠ ΕῚ 253
Song 286 H.-P. 161, 248; Barb. iil. 36; 353, H.-P. 253
Job 2200 (including asterisked lines, 1600 without them) H.-P. 161(?), 248; Barb. iii. 36
Wisdom 1250, Barb. ii. 36; Ven. gr. 1. 13
Sirach 2650 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. gr. i. 13
Esther 750 Barb. ii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi, Ven. gr. Lg
Judith 1300 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi
Tobit 750 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi, Ven. gr. 1.213
Hosea 750 H.-P. 86
Joel 210 H.-P. 86
Habakkuk 150 H.-P. 86
Zephaniah 160 H.-P. 36
Haggai 120 H.-P. 86
Zechariah 670 H.-P. 86; 776, H.-P. 231
Malachi 190 .{1.- 86: ‘204; H.-P. 231 *
Isaiah 3700 H.-P. 231; 3820, Barb. iii. 36
Jeremiah 4500 H.-P. 2313; 3800, Barb. iii. 36
Baruch 514 H.-P. 231; 350, Barb. iii. 36
Lamentations? nH@(?) H.-P. 86; ~(?) H.-P. 231; 860, Barb. iii. 36
Ep.ofJeremiah 200 Barb. iii. 36
Ezekiel 4500 H.-P. 231; 4000, Barb. ili. 36
Daniel 1800 H.-P. 231; 1720, Barb. ii. 36
Susanna 24 AP. 208
ΣΡ ΕΘ Mia, Ps 64,
2 Ecclesiastical Canticles, 600, Barb. iii. 36.
3 Total of Minor Prophets variously calculated at 3750, 3600, 3300 (Barb. iii. 36).
4 Possibly a corruption of Tre (see next page).
Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 351
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’. 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 2 7 Haggai 3 Song 40 5 Zechariah 18 Job 33 Malachi 6 Hosea II Isaiah 74 Amos 6 Jeremiah 100 98 Micah 7 Baruch 9 Joel 3 Lamentations 85? Obadiah I Ep. of Jeremiah 6 Jonah 3 Ezekiel 56 Nahum 3 Daniel far 21 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 (Ὁ that of ‘Clement the Monk,’ the industrious zxzstaurator who has left his name on pp. 238 and 264 of the MS.*). 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 de- tected here and there under the large coarse characters of the later hand, and towards the end of Jeremiah and throughout
1 Tischendorf (Mon. sacr. ined. n. c., 1. prolegg., p. xxvii.) points out that Tertullian recognises a system of chapters in Numbers.
2 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.
3 This number includes the Greek additions.
4 See the pref. to Fabiani and Cozza’s facsimile, p. xvii. sqq.
352 Texrt-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.
Daniel the two sets of numbers are distinctly visible. In Jeremiah the zzstaurator 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, Ὁ τὸ, δ ‘it, “1,17; 14;' in Joshua they hea ix. 1 (8) and proceed regularly (x. 1, τό, 29, 31, 34, 36, 38; xi. 1, &c.) down to xix. 17 (An); in 3 Regn. the first numeral occurs at c. viii. 22 (κβ), and the last at xxi. 17 (v0); 4 Regn. returns only one or two numbers (e.g. 6 stands opposite to ς. 111. 20). In Isaiah, again, the entries are few and irregular ; 8 appears atc. ii. 1, and 6 at xxi. 1.
Cod. δὰ seems to have no chapter-marks prima manu, but in Isaiah they have been added by δὲ“ throughout the book’.
Jeremiah, the Epistle of Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are capitu- lated in cod. Q, and in the two last-named books the capitula- tion 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’.
Cod. M like cod. B exhibits two systems of capitulation’,
1 Tischendorf, notes to facsimile, p. v.
2 Ceriani, de cod. March., p. 24 ff. 3 See Montfaucon, Azdlioth. Coisliniana, p. 4 sqq.
Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 353
one of which is accompanied by brief headings corresponding in general character to the τίτλοι of the Gospels. The two capitulations, which are represented with more or less of com- pleteness in the Hexateuch and in 1-3 Kingdoms}, differ considerably, as the following table will shew:
Marginal Capitulation accompanied Capitulation. by titles. Genesis 106 99 Exodus 84 IIO Leviticus 54 61 Numbers 53 51 Deuteronomy 657 943
Cod. Sin. I. (x.) is divided into κεφάλαια which number as follows: Genesis, 150; Exodus, 88; Leviticus, 63; Deutero- nomy, 69; Joshua, 30; 1 Regn., 66; 2 Regn., 63%.
A list of sections quoted by Dr Klostermann’® from the cursive MS. cod. Barberini 11, 36 (cent. x1.) exhibits another widely different scheme® :
Genesis 26 3 Kingdoms_ τό Habakkuk 2 Exodus 8 4 Kingdoms 17 Zephaniah 3 Leviticus I2 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 I Kingdoms’ 15 Jonah 3 Ezekiel 21 2 Kingdoms [1 Nahum 2 Daniel 9
1 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, I Esdr. 109, 2 Esdr. 80, Esther 55.
* Beginning at c. iv. 41.
3 In Judges there is no capitulation, but the periods of bondage are distinguished as λογλείὰ a, B, &c., and the exploits of the successive judges by κριτὴς ἃ, B and so forth.
4 Cf. the numbers in B. M. Add. MS. 35123: Gen., 148; Exod., 84; Lev., 62; Num., 61; Deut., 69; Josh., 30; Jud., 33.
> Analecta, p. 83 ff.
6 Interesting traces of another old capitulation are to be found in the ἐκλογὴ τοῦ νόμου 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
Sie 23
3504 Text-divistons: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc.
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’. 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.
God: KE. Cod. M. Num.
vii. 10. Ta δῶρα τῶν ἀρχύντων. Περὶ τῶν δώρων ὧν προσήνεγκαν οἱ [ι]8Β΄ ἄρχοντες. see ~ a ΄ > ΄σ an vill. 5. Περὶ τοῦ ἁγνισμοῦ τῶν ᾿Αφορισμὸς τῶν Λευειτῶν εἰς TO
Λευ[ιτῶν]. λειτουργεῖν Κυρίῳ.
xi. 16. Περὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων Περὶ ο΄ πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προφη- ληψομένων" τὸ πνεῦ- τευσάντων. μα.
above, e.g. Exod. xxii. 1—27 forms part of the 68th chapter and Deut. xxv. 11 ff. of the g3rd in their several books, while Leviticus apparently contains 150 chapters and Numbers 140.
1 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. collated 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. x7’), 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. Q. 1. 13, Σ. i. 16; Munich gr. 454; Grotta Ferrata A. y. 1; Leipzig gr. 361; Athos, Pantocr. 24 (double system of capitulation, τίτλοι), Vatop. 513, 516; Laur.,,, (both chapters and στίχοι numbered); Athens, nat. gr. 44; Sinai I, Jerusalem, H. Sep. 2.
2 Tischendorf (Mon. sacr. ined. n. c. i. p. 78) prints AYOMENWN.
Beit Oe ce . a=
Text-divisions :
Cod. K. Num
=i I ᾿Ααρὼν καὶ Μαρία κατὰ Μωυσῆν.
SL. 1. ΠΕΡῚ τῶν κατασκεψαμέ- νων τὴν γῆν.
xiv. 23. Περὶ ΧαΪλεβ] υἱοῦ [Ἰε- φοννή].
Xlv. 34. Ὅτι ὅσας ἡμέρας κατ- εσκέψαντο τὴν γῆν, τοσαῦτα ἔτη ἐποίησαν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.
Χν]. I. Περὶ Kope καὶ Δαθὰν καὶ ᾿Αβιρὼν καὶ Αὐνάν.
ΧΥΠ. I. Περὶ τῆς ῥάβδου ᾿Ααρὼν τῆς βλαστησάσης.
ΧΧΙ. 21. Περὶ Σηὼν βασιλέως ᾿Α- μορραίων.
ΧΧΧΙΙ. I. Ἔπαρσις καὶ σταθμοὶ τῶν
υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ. XXXIll. 3. Περὶ τοῦ νυχθήμερον. Χχχν.9. Περὶ τῶν πόλεων τῶν φυγαδευτηρίων.
The following τίτλοι for Exod.
Vienna MS. (Th. gr. 3):
BIW} OL WA
Stichi,
Chapters, Lections, etc. 355
Cod. M.
Περὶ τῆς λέπρας Μαριὰμ ἣν ἔσχεν ὑβρίσασα τὴν γυναῖκα Μωσῆ. Περὶ τῶν ἀποσταλέντων κατασκο-
πῆσαι τὴν γῆν.
Περὶ τῆς ἐπαναστάσεως τῆς κατὰ Μωσῆν παρὰ τοῦ Κόρε συνα-
γωγῆς.
Περὶ τῶν ἀποσταλέντων πρὸς Σηών, καὶ πῶς ἐνίκησεν αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰσραήλ.
Πῶς διώδευσαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ.
Περὶ φονέως.
11.-- 111. are taken from a
περὶ τῆς γεννήσεως Μωυσέως. πρώτη ὀπτασία πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐν τῇ βάτῳ. περὶ τῆς συναντήσεως μετ᾽ (?) ᾿Λαρών.
εἴσοδος (2) Μωυσέως καὶ ᾿Ααρὼν πρὸς Φαραώ. περὶ τῶν μαστιγωθέντων γραμματέων.
περὶ τῆς ῥάβδου τῆς στραφείσης εἰς ὄφιν. πρώτη πληγή; μεταστροφὴ τοῦ ὕδατος εἰς αἷμα. δευτέρα πληγή, τῶν βατράχων.
τρίτη πληγή, τῶν σκνιπῶν.
Κτλ.
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 τίτλοι for the Twelve
Prophets and Isaiah?.
The numbers are as follows:
Hosea
1 Migne, P. G. xciii., 1345 sqq. The titles for Isaiah with a collection
23—2
356 Lext-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.
20, Joel το, 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. Εἰκὼν τῆς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων συναγωγῆς, ἐξ ἧς ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα τίκτεται, καὶ λαοῦ τὸ μὲν ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ ἔμεινεν, τὸ δὲ ὕστερον ἐπιστρέφει καὶ σῴζεται. (ὁ) The Syro-hexaplaric Daniel is divided into ten chapters, each headed by a full summary of its contents’.
3. One class of sections calls for separate treatment. In Part 1. εἰν. (p. 168 Ὁ) 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 (Le. iv. τό ff, Acts xi. 15, xv. 21; cf. 1 Tim. iv. 13); and ‘theré"is evideree that it was prevalent in Christian communities of the second and third centuries”. At one great Christian centre provision was made for the liturgical reading of the Bible on certain week-days as well as on Sunday. “Αἱ 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’.” Turning to Origen’s homilies on the Old Testament
of glosses, apparently by the same author, have been edited by M. Faul- haber from cod. Vat. Gr. 347 (Hesychit Hieros. interpretatio Isatae, Frei- burg i. Breisgau, 1899).
1 Bugati, Daniel, p. 1. See also the περιοχαὶ (or ὑποθέσεις) εἰς τοὺς ψαλμούς ascribed to Eusebius of Caesarea, which precede the Psalter in Cod. A (printed in Migne, ?. G. xxiii. 67 sqq.).
2 See above, p. 168.
3 H.S. v.22 ἐν ᾿Αλεξαν δρείᾳ τῇ τετράδι καὶ τῇ λεγομένῃ παρασκευῇ γραφαί
Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 357
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 lectio- num 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 disputatio- nis adduci, non ita ordini lectionum satisfacere aequum credidi ut desideriis auditorum.” This homily probably belongs to Ori- gen’s life at Caesarea!, 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 (zz 1 Sam. hom. 111.), Origen complains that the O.T. lesson for the day was too long to be expounded ata single sitting : τὰ ἀναγνωσθέντα πλείονά ἐστι: καὶ ἐπεὶ χρὴ ἐπιτεμνόμενον εἰπεῖν, δυσὶ περικοπαῖς ἀνεγνώσθη τὰ meee Ναβάλ.... εἶτα pera τοῦτο ἡ ἱστορία ἡ περὶ τοῦ κεκρύφθαι τὸν Δαυίδ... εἶτα τὰ ἑξῆς ἡ ἡ ἱστορία ἦν τρίτη, ὅτε κατέφυγεν πρὸς ᾿Αχάρ.. «ἑξῆς τού- τοις ἦν ἡ ἱστορία ἡ διαβόητος ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐγγαστριμύθου.. «τεσσάρων οὐσῶν περικοπῶν...ὅτι ποτὲ βούλεται ὁ ἐπίσκοπος προτεινάτω. On this occasion the O.T. lesson seems to have extended from I Regn. xxv. I to xxvill. 25, including four περικοπαί or shorter sections, which, judging from the description, corresponded in length very nearly to our own chapters?.
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. 11., 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; Le. all the books of the Hebrew Canon, with the exception of the
τε ἀναγινώσκονται, Kai οἱ διδάσκαλοι ταύτας ἑρμηνεύουσι...καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ ἔθος ἀρχαῖον" καὶ yap ᾽᾿Ὡριγένης τὰ πολλὰ ἐν ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις φαίνεται ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας διδάξας.
DOC. WW. pe τοῦὴν
2 Cf. the τίτλοι in the Coislin MS. (M), where μη΄, μθ', ν΄ are nearly identical with cc. xxxi., xxxii., xxxill. respectively (Montfaucon, £2d/. Cois/., p- 28).
3:8 Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc.
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,’ ie. 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’. In the West the ‘prophecy’ was read by the North African Church of St Augus- tine’s time, and it still holds its ground in the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites*. 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’; 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 ἀρχή, τέλος, written opposite to the beginning and end of the περικοπή΄. Such traces of adaptation to liturgical use are found even in cod. B, though not prxzma manu’. 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 avayvworys in the lessons for the day. But special Psalms were recited or sung in the Church, as they had
1 Brightman, Zastern Liturgies, pp. 470, 476, 527, 580. See Chrys. in Rom. xxiv. 3 (cited above, p. 168).
2 D.C. A., Prophecy, Liturgical (ii. 173° ff.).
3 De inst. coenob. ii. 6.
+ On this word see Suicer, 7hesaurus, ii. 673 sqq. It is used by Justin, Dial. 78 and Clem. Al., Strom. iii. 38. In Origen (quoted above) the περι- κοπή is merely a section; at a later time it was used for the ἀνάγνωσμα.
5 Fabiani and Cozza, prolegg., p. xix.
| | ἢ
Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 359
been in the Synagogue’, and in some early monastic com- munities arrangements were made for a regular recitation of the Psalter both in public and private*. 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:
KaNONEC HMEPIN@N YaAM@N. Κ. NYKTEPINO! τῶν YarMON.
nS) A ’ ,ὔ ,ὔ ’ \ ’ὔ , ’ὔ “OpOpwot τὰ EB ap ppa Avxvexott γΎ ρκθ pK ιβ' Ωρ[α] α΄ Ψαλμὸς η΄ pla] α΄ ψαλμὸς οδ΄ 2) β' 2) κθ ” β' ” κθ' ” i ” a P ” x, ” 2 ” ” pa ” ” ξ΄ ν΄ é ; δ΄ ” ” 2) ; ” oe ” ο΄ ” 5: ” μ΄ ” ¢ 2) £0 ” ¢ ” va , 6’ ’ π΄ ” 7 ” ν 2) 2 ” Ν 2) ” pla ” ” πίῷ 7: , ’ 2) ι : ” PP ” ι , ” Co" ” ta ” βρη 3) ta ” ka , / , / ” β ” Pk ” 8 ” vs”
The existing order of the Orthodox Eastern Church divides the Psalter into 20 sections known as καθίσματα, each of which is broken by the recitation of a G/ovia into three στάσεις. The larger sections are i.—vlil., ix.—xvi., XVil.—xxIll., xxlv.—xxxL., XXX11.—XXXVi., XXXVIl.—xlv., xlvi.—liv., lv.—lxill., lxiv.—lxix., Ixx.—Ixxvi., Ixxvii.—Ixxxiv., Ixxxv.—xc., xci.—c., ci.—civ., CV.—CViil., CixX.—CXVli., CXVIli., CXIX.—CXXXi., CXXxxll.—cxlil., cxlii.—cl. In the later liturgical Greek Psalter the cathismata are divided by an ornamental band or some other mark of
Ζ separation, and the s¢asezs by a marginal Ao (δόξα, i.e. the Doxology, which was repeated at the end of each)’.
1. Seeipxosn.
2 Cf. Cassian, Just. iii. 289. ΄ 5. Cf. Const. viii. 37, μετὰ τὸ ῥηθῆναι τὸν ὀρθρινόν.
4 Cf. Const. viii. 34, τὸν ἐπιλυχνικὸν ψαλμόν.
PU, Ch Se Hb Ka Wor Poa Xk
360 Tert-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc.
(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 (τύμος a’—AS”, cf. Eus. HE. vi. 36). Both in Isaiah and in Daniel certain prophetic ὁράσεις were dis-
tinguished. Thus cod. Q™s places Opacic A opposite to Isa. vii. 1, and Opacic η΄ at c. xvii. I. In Daniel cod. A marks 12 ὁράσεις, which begin respectively at Sus. 1, Dan. i. 1, ii. I, iii. 1, iii. 98, v. I, V. 30, Vil. I, vill. I, ix. I, xi. I, Bel 1, and the same method of division is used in codd. QF. In Lamentations each stanza is preceded by a representation of the Hebrew letter with which it begins, e.g. ἀλέφ (dAd, arda'), βήθ, γίμελ (γίμλ), δάλεθ (dered, δέλτ, δέλθ), and so forth. In the analogous case of Psalm CXVill. (cxix.), there are no signs of this treatment, except in the Graeco-Latin Psalters RT.
In the Song a marginal enumeration distinguishes the speeches of the interlocutors, and some MSS. (eg. & and V) add marginal notes after the manner of stage-directions, such as ἡ νύμφη πρὸς τὸν νυμφίον, ταῖς veaviow ἡ νύμφη, ai veavides TO νυμφίῳϑ.
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—1B. A similar treatment but without marginal enumeration is accorded to Deut. xiv. 12—18 and 1 Paral. 1. 51—54, Eccl. iii. 1—8. The ten words of the Decalogue are numbered in the margins of codd. BA, but not 2γΖηεα manu; and the systems of numeration differ to some extent. Thus according to B*, a’ =pro- logue 8 =i+lly γ =i, O=iv,,¢ =v S Hui, CS ae θ΄ =1x, .c'=x,..while A’ makes y=iv, =v, «€=vi; the Omer numbers in A are effaced, or were never appended.
(2) It would be interesting, if sufficient materials were avail- able, to pursue the subject of text-division with reference to the daughter-versions of the LXxX. On the stichometry and capitu- lation of the Latin Bible much information has been brought together by M. Berger (Azstoire de la Vulgate, p. 307 ff.) and Wordsworth-White (Epzlogus, p. 733 ff.); for the stichometry see also Dr Sanday in Studia Biblica, 111. Ὁ. 264f. But it remains
1 The variations in the MSS. are interesting and instructive.
2 Greek numerals are sometimes added in the margin; see above, p. 351.
ὃ In cod. V=23 these become sometimes lengthy τίτλοι, e.g. at v. 7 ἐξῆλθεν μὴ εὑροῦσα τὸν νυμφίον ἡ νύμφη Kal ws ἐν νυκτὶ εὑρεθεῖσα ἀπὸ τῶν φυλακῶν τῆς πόλεως τραυματίζεται, καὶ αἴρουσιν αὐτῆς τὸ θέριστρον οἱ τειχο- φυλακοῦντες.
Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 361
doubtful whether these divisions of the Latin Bible belonged originally to Jerome’s version or were transferred to it from the Old Latin!; 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 cafztula not seldom (ad uxor. 11. 2, de monog. \1, ade 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, Peztat. praef., ad fin., and Lagarde, Orientalia, p. 125 ff.; on the Egyptian lectionary, he may con- sult the list of authorities collected by Brightman, Azczent Liturgies, p.\xix. For the Ethiopic version, cf. Dillmann’s E7zhzo- pic Pentateuch, 1. ii., pp. 163 f., 173. The stichometry of the Syro-Hexaplaric is discussed by Lagarde, M7ttheilungen, iv. (1891), p. 205 f. Α list of Church lessons, taken from the Pales- tinian-Syriac lectionary recently discovered by Mrs Lewis and Mrs Gibson, is given by Nestle in Studia Sinattica, 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 enume- rated in Part 1. 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 con- sider 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”.
Such expositions were formerly described as ἐκλογαί or παραγραφαί, OF as ἐπιτομαὶ ἑρμηνειῶν, ΟΥ̓ ἐξηγήσεις ἐρανισθεῖσαι ἀπὸ διαφόρων πατέρων, Or συνόψεις σχολικαὶ ἐκ διαφόρων ὗπο- μνημάτων συλλεχθεῖσαι, or by some similar periphrasis. The use of the technical term cafena (cepa) is of comparatively modern date. Catena aurea is a secondary title of the great
1 Cf. Sanday, of..cé¢., p. 272.
2 Ch. Q. R. i. 99, Ρ- 34: ‘*the process of drawing up Catenae goes on from the fifth to the fourteenth or fifteenth century.”
362 Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.
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 χρυσῆ ἅλυσις. Σειρά is used in this sense by the editor of the Greek catena of Nicephorus, which bears the title Sepa ἑνὸς καὶ πεντήκοντα ὑπομνηματιστῶν εἰς τὴν ᾿Οκτάτευχον Kal τὰ τῶν Βασιλειῶν. 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 σειραί. 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, Apol- linarius, 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’, but the commentary itself often pre- serves 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
1 See, however, the facts collected in Ch. Q. R. i. 99, p- 468.
Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 363
place where their contributions begin: thus xpycloctémoy], wplirénoyc], eYc[eBioy], @eod[apoy] ἀντ[ιοχέοο],. rpxrlopfoy], Kyp[fAAoy]. Ifa second passage from the same author occurs in the same context it is introduced as τοῦ aytof; an anony- mous writer is AAAoc. 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 con- fidence 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;3 Psalms: B. Corderii exfosttio Graecorum patrum, 3 vols., Ant- werp, 1643; Proverbs: Commentary of Procopius first printed by Mai, andin Migne, P. G. lxxxvii.; Sozg: Commentary ascribed to Eusebius and Polychronius (Meursius, Leyden, 1617); od: Catena of Nicetas of Serrae (P. Junius, 1.6. Patrick Young, London, 1636); /sazah: Commentary of Procopius (J. Curterius, Paris, 1580); eremzah, with Lamentations and Baruch: Catena published by M. Ghisler, 3 vols., Leyden, 1623; Danze/: Catena published by A. Mai in Script. vet. nov. coll, 1. On these see
Ch. Q. R. 1. 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.
364 Tert-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lectzons, etc.
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) 779 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. 3.1.16; Leyden, 13; Munich gr. 82; Athos Vatop. 15, Ivér.15; Athens, nat. 43; Constantinople 224; Smyrna, Ev. sch. 1; Patmos, 216,217; Sinai2; Jerusalem H. Sep. 3. Scholia are to be found in H.-P. 14, 16, 38, 52, 56, 64, 70, 77, 79, 93, 128, I 30, 131, 135, 159, 256, 310; Paris Ars. 8415, Coisl. gr. 184.
On the Paris O.T. catenae see H. Lietzmann, Cavenen, p- 37 ff. Some of the Vatican catenae are handled by Pitra, analecta sacra τι, Klostermann, amalecta, passim; a full and valuable account of Roman MS. catenae on the Prophets is given by Faulhaber (dze 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 im- portant MSS. are enumerated by Harnack-Preuschen, and Heinrici, and in the older work of Fabricius-Harles.
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 Palacographia Graeca, Gardthausen’s Griechische Paliographie, 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 affa- vatus of the Cambridge manual Lxx., or are of frequent occurrence in the principal codices.
ἃ -- Ακύλας. «ς΄, cy’ = ξύμμαχος. θ΄, θε΄ = Θεοδοτίων. OY K π' εβρ΄ -- οὐ κεῖται παρ᾽ ᾿Εβραίοις. οἱ wB oy K π΄ εβρ΄
-- οἵ ὠβελισμένοι (στίχοι) οὐ κεῖνται παρ᾽ Ἔ βραίοις. ομῦ τοιο οἵ -- ὁμοίως τοῖς ἑβδομήκοντα. οἱ Γ-Ξ-οἱ τρεῖς, 1.6. Aquila, Sym-
Pie. x a ae _—
Text-divisions : Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 365
machus, Theodotion. wt -- πάντες. A= Λουκιανός (Field, ο
LFexapla, τ. \xxxv.). 01 ἃ -Ξ οἱ λοιποί. Mo™ = μόνος. ᾧ = ὡραῖον, ο ᾧ or ᾧ -- Ὠριγένης. For tm see above, p. 39 ἢ ΘΒ = σημείωσαι, σημειωτέον, σημεῖον. ΓΡ -- γράψον or γράφεται.
apX = ἀρχή. τε΄-- τέλος. ct’ = στίχος. κε΄-- κεφάλαιον. ka? = κά.
A θισμα. an® = ἀνάγνωσμα. = διώρθωται (1.6. ‘corrected thus far’), a mark inserted by the διορθωτής usually at the end of a book. For further particulars see Field, of. ci?¢., Ὁ. xciv. sqq.
LITERATURE. Stichometry, colometry, &c.
Kitto, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, art. Verse; Herzog- Plitt, art. Stéchometrie; Gregory, i. p. 112 f.; Scrivener-Miller, 1.) p. 52 ff.; Gardthausen, Palwographie, p. 127 ff.; E. M. Thomp- son, Handbook, p. 78 ff.; Zahn, Gesch. d. Kanons, ii. p. 295 ff. ; Sanday in Studia Brblica, iui. p. 261 ff.; J. R. Harris, Stichomeiry, passim; Wordsworth-White, Zfzlogus, p. 733 ff. (Oxford, 1898).
Capitulation.
weuurer, [ft u..79f.; Buhl, Kanon w, Text a. AL Top. 222; Ryle, Canon of the V.T., p. 235; Morinus, Exerc. Bzbl. xvii. 3; Dathius, De ordine pericoparum (opusce. iv.); Zacagni, Collectanea, praef., pp. Ixvil., Ixxxi.; Montfaucon, 4zblzoth. Cots?., p. 1 ff. ; the Benedictine Prolegomena in div. S. Hieron. biblioth. iv. (reprinted in Migne, P. Z. xxviii. τοῦ sqq.); Suicer, Zhes. éccl. 5ινν. κεφάλαιον, περικοπή ; Herzog-Plitt, art. Perikopen : i ἀρ ΠΡ 150. Scrivener-Muller, 1: p: 66; Thomasii off. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, Pp: 323 ff.
Lections.
Suicer, Zhes. eccl. S.vv. ἀνάγνωσμα, ἀνάγνωσις, γραφή; Brill, De lectionariis or. et occ. eccl. (Helmstadt, 1703); Neale, AWzsz. of the Hf. Eastern Church, i. p. 369; Herzog-Plitt, artt. Lectionen, Pertkopen; D.C.A., art. Lections; Burgon, Last twelve verses of St Mark, p. 191 ff. ; 58 Ranke, Das kirchl. Perikopen-system der rom. Liturvie (Berlin, 1847).
Catenae.
T. Ittig, De d¢bliothecis et catenis patrum (Leipzig, 1707); J.C. Wolf, De catents Gr. patrum (Wittenberg, 1742); Fabricius-
366 Tert-divistons: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.
Harles, viii. p. 637 ff.; J. G. Dowling, Wotitia scriptorum 55. patrum (Oxford, 1839); Walch-Danz, Bzblioth. patristica (Jena, πὰς p. 247 B Harnack-Preuschen, Gesch. a. altchr. Litteratur,
835 ff.; G. Heinrici, in Hauck, keal-Encyklop. ii., art. penne P. Batiffol, in Vigouroux’ D. &. ii., p. 482 ff, art. Chaines ’Bibliques : Lietzmann, Catenen (Freiburg 1. By 1897); M. Faulhaber, Dze Propheten-Catenen nach romischen Hana- schriften, 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.
Poke Ei.
TALPERARY USE, VALCE;, AND TEXTUAL. CONDITION OF THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT.
KR Bare ΟΝ
he Pb ieee ν
δ ντε , ᾿ YT oe! wo ivew ‘ef Ae a tt
wid? © ' ΤᾺ: Ween Rar Bat hg ΗΝ, ' ᾿ ‘ nz} ive a eee εὐ 92.) A hi Po te. Meus ἣν ee ee wh, ἢ . 7 ae γι ; ΐ fr. yt ΠΕ Pe i ΒΕ. ; Oth I
t= ‘A i Ἢ
͵ ᾿ as iz λα δ SSRN Uk “AGAGY Ace
ἶ ; ΠΡ he “oa ᾿ ; Γ᾿ ΔΝ i,t .% f, ᾿,᾿ τ ᾿ ‘3 a a na ἣ, 4. ων ‘ :' Ὶ AQ .ς ᾿
ef
PAL, hbk
CHAPTER...
LITERARY USE OF THE LXX. BY NON-CHRISTIAN HELLENISTS.
1. A HAPpPy 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 Corne- lius—better known as Polyhistor (ὁ πολυΐστωρ), from his encyclopaedic learning—wrote a treatise On the Jews which contained extracts from Jewish and Samaritan Hellenistic writings’. 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 ¢erminus ad quem, if we may assume” that he wrote the work attributed to him by Clement and Eusebius.
1 Cf. Joseph., azz. i. 15, Clem. Al. strom. i. 130, Eus. pr. ev. ix. τῇ. 2 See Schiirer®, iii. p. 347 f.
ae 24
370 Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists.
The following references will enable the student to find the fragments: (1) Demetrius: Clem. Al. strom. i. 141. Eus. f7. ev. ix. 19(?), 21, 29. (2) Eupolemus: Clem. Al. stvom. 1.141. Eus. pr. ev. ix. 17, 26 (=Clem. Al. strom. i. 153), 30—34, 39. (3) Arta- panus: Eus. 27. ev. ix. 18, 23,27. (4) Aristeas: Eus. 27. ev. 1x. 25. (5) Philo the poet: Eus. g7. ev. ix. 20, 24, 37 (cf. Clem. Al strom. τ. 154). (6) Theodotus: Eus. 77. ev. ix. 22. (7) Ezekiel the poet: Eus. 27. ev. ix. 28 (=Clem. Al. stvom. i. 155), 29. (8) Aristobulus: Eus. ~~ ev. vill. 10; ix. 6 (=Clem. Al. strom. 1. 22); xiii. 12. (0) Cleodemus or Malchas: Eus. 27: ev. 1x. 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) τὸν θεὸν τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ προστάξαι ᾿Ιςδὰκ τὸν γἱὸν ὁλοκἀρττῶοδι αὐτῷ: τὸν δὲ ἀναγαγόντα τὸν παῖδα ἐπὶ τὸ ὅρος πυρὰν νῆσαι καὶ ἐπιθεῖνδι τὸν Ἰσαάκ’ οφάζειν δὲ μέλλοντα κωλυθῆναι ὑπὸ ἀγγέλου κριὸν αὐτῷ πρὸς τὴν κἄρττωοιν παρα- στήσαντος. (ὁ) ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἐλθεῖν εἰς Xappaea, ἔνθεν παρα- γενέσθαι εἰς ᾿Εφράθα, AN εἶνδι Βηθλέεμ... «καὶ τελευτῆσαι Ῥαχὴλ TEKOYCAN TOV Βενιαμίν 5. (c) φησὶ γὰρ τὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ παῖδας πρὸς ANATOAAC ἐπὶ κατοικίαν πέμψαι: διὰ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ᾿Αὰἀρὼν Kal Λλὰριὰλι. εἰπεῖν ἐν ᾿Αρηρὼθ Μωσῆν Αἰθιοπίλὰ γῆμαι γυνὰϊκδ (Z) μὴ ἔχοντα δὲ yAwp ἐκεῖ γλυκὺ ἀλλὰ πικρόν; τοῦ θεοῦ εἰπόντος, ZYAON τι ἐμβὰλεῖν εἰς τὴν πηγήν, καὶ γενέσθαι γλυκὺ τὸ ὕλωρ. ἐκεῖθεν δὲ εἰς ᾿Ελεὶλλ ἐλθεῖν, καὶ εὑρεῖν ἐκεῖ AWAEKA μὲν TTHPAC ὑλάτων, EBAOMHKONTA δὲ CTEAEXH φοινίκων Ὁ (For other coincidences, see above, p. 18.)
Eupolemus: εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸο ὃς τὸν OYPANON kal τὴν Γῆν ἔκτισεν, ὃς εἵλετο ἄνθρωπον χρηστὸν ἐκ χρηστοῦ ἀνδρός... καὶ ἀρχιτέκτονά COI ATTECTAAKA ἄνθρωπον Τύριον ἐκ μητρὸς ἐτουξοον ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Aav®.
Cf. Gen. xxii. 1 ff.
Cf. Gen. xxxv. 16.
Cf. Gen. xxv. 6; Num. xi. 34—xil. I. Cf. Exod. xv. 23 ff.
Cf. 2 Chron. i..12
a fF ON ν»-
Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists. 371
Aristeas: τὸν “Hoad γήμαντα Βασσάραν ἐν ᾿Ελὼκ γεννῆσαι Ἰώβ: κατοικεῖν δὲ τοῦτον ἐν TH AYCITIAI χώρᾳ ἐπὶ τοῖο ὁρίοις TAC "[Aoymaiac Kal ᾿Αρδβίδο" γενέσθαι δὲ αὐτὸν AfKAION καὶ πολύκτηνον, κτήσασθαι γὰρ αὐτὸν πρόβὰτὰ μὲν ἑπτὰκιοχίλιὰ, κἀλλήλογε δὲ TpicyiAfac, ΖεΥΓΗ βοῶν πεντὰκόοιὰ, ONOYC OHAEIAC NOMAAAC ττεντὰκοοίδο᾽.
Ezekiel (in his tragedy ἡ ᾿Εξαγωγή):
Μαριὰμ δ᾽ ἀδελφή μου κατώπτευεν πέλας" κἄπειτα θυγάτηρ βασιλέως ABPaic ὁμοῦ κατῆλθε λουτροῖς, χρῶτα φαιδρῦναι νέον. ᾿Ιλοζοὰ δ᾽ εὐθὺς καὶ λαβοῦσ᾽ ἀνείλετο, ἔγνω δ᾽ Ἑβραῖον ὄντα" καὶ λέγει τάδε Μαριὰμ ἀδελφὴ προσδραμοῦσα βασιλίδι.- Θέλειο τροφόν σοι παιδὶ τῷδ᾽ εὔρω ταχὺ ἐκ τῶν ᾿Εβρδίων; 7 δ᾽ ἐπέσπευσεν κόρην" μολοῦσα δ᾽ εἶπε μητρί, καὶ παρῆν ταχὺ αὐτή τε μήτηρ κἄλαβέν μ᾽ ἐς ἀγκάλας. εἶπεν δὲ θυγάτηρ βασιλέως Τοῦτον, γύναι, τρόφεγε, κἀγὼ MICOON ἀπολώοσω σέθεν. * * * * *
οὐκ εὔλογος πέφυκα, γλῶσσα δ᾽ ἐστί μου δύσφραστος, ἰοχνόφωνοο; ὥστε μὴ λόγους ἐμοὺς γενέσθαι βασιλέως ἐναντίον “. Aristobulus: (a) ἐν χειρὶ KPATAIA ἐξήγαγεν ὁ θεός ce ἐξ Αἰγύπτου". (ὁ) ἰΔοΥ χεὶρ Kypioy éctai* ἐν ΤΟΙ͂Ο κτήνεοί COY kal ἐν πᾶσι τοῖος ἐν τοῖο TIEAfOIC BANATOC MELac.
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 abundant. Thus the writer of Wisdom knows and uses not only Exodus (Sap. xvi. 22 = Exod. ix. 24,
1 Cf. Job xlii. 17 Ὁ, 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.
2 Cf. Exod. ii. 4 ff.; iv. το, where οὐκ εὔλογος is read by cod. F.
3 Exod. xiii. 9.
4 Exod. ix. 3. Ἔσται A, ἐπέσται B. Kal ἐν πᾶσι, 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 (ἔν τε τοῖς ἵπποις κτλ.).
24—2
372 Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists.
and perhaps also Sap. xii. ὃ = Exod. xxiii. 28) and Deuteronomy (Sap. vi. 7= Deut. i. 17, Sap. xi. 4= Deut. vill. 15), but Isaiah (Sap. li. 12=Isa. ui. 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.’ In 2 Maccabees vil. 6 we have a verbatim quota- tion from Deut. xxxii. 36, and in 4 Maccabees xviil. 14 ff. a catena of references to the Greek Bible, including direct cita- tions of Isa. xlili. 2, Ps. xxxiil. 19, Prov. ii. 18, Ezek. xxxvil. 4, Deut. xxxli. 39, xxx. 20—all from the Lxx. The picture which the last-named passage draws of a Jewish father read- ing and teaching his children out of the Greek Bible (cf. 2 Tim. iil. 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’*.
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. 11. 310 ἐξέχεας is a reminiscence of Ps. Ixxvill. 3, LXX.; 726. 606 χειροποίητα... .ἐν σχισμαῖς πετρῶν κατακρύψαντες is borrowed from Isa. 11. 19 ff., Lxx.; 70. 708 ff. is probably modelled on the Greek of Isa. x1. 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
1 See Edersheim in Wace’s Afocr. ii. p. 26.
2 Cf. A. Deissmann in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 150: “als Abfassungszeit wird man den Zeitraum von Pompejus bis Vespasian annehmen diirfen.”
Ose of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists. 373
A.D.; in 40 A.D. he could speak of himself as already an old man’, but his literary activity was not yet at an end, as ap- pears 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 refer- ence. Cohn and Wendland’s order is followed so far as their edition has been published.
A. Exegetical works. De opificto mundi (Gen. 1... Legum allegoriae (ii. I—iii. 19). De Cherubin etc. (111. 24—I1v. 1). De sacrijicits Abelis et Caini (iv. 2f.). Quod deterius potiort instdiart soleat (iv. 3—15). De posteritate Caini (iv. 16—26). De gigantibus (vi. 1—4). Quod Deus sit tmmutabtlts (vi. 4—12). De agricultura (ix. 20). De plantatione Noe (ix. 20). De ebrietate (ix. 21—23). De sobrietate (ix. 24). De confustone linguarum (xi. I—9). De migratione Abrahami (xii. 1—6). Quis rerum divinarum heres (xv.). De congressu quaerendae eruditionis gratia (xvi. 1—6). De fuga et inventione (xvi. 6— 14). De mutatione nominum (xvil. I—22). De somnits 1., 11]. (xxviii. 12 ff., xxxi. I1I—13, xxxvil., xl., xli.). De Abrahamo. De Fosepho. De vita Moysis. De decalogo. De ctrcumctsione. De monarchia. De praemits sacerdotum. De victimis. De victimas offerentibus. De mercede meretricts. De spectalibus legibus (3rd—i1oth commandments of the Decalogue). De zudice. De tustitia. De creatione principum. De tribus vir- tutibus. De poenttentia. De praemits et poents. De execra- tionibus. Quaestiones et solutiones (1) tu Genestm, (2) in Exodum*. 8B. Philosophical works. De xobilitate. Quod omnis probus liber stt. De vita contemplativa. De tncorruptt- bilitate mundt. De providentia. De ratione animalium. De mundo. C. Political’ works. Jz Flaccum. De legatione ad Cazum.
In his exegetical writings Philo quotes the Lxx. directly, announcing each citation by a formula such as φησί, εἶπεν,
1 Leg. ad Cai. i. 28. 2 On these see J. R. Harris, Fragments of Philo, p. τι ff., and F. C. Conybeare, Expositor, IV. iv. p. 456 ff.
374 Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellentsts.
λέγει, λέγεται, γέγραπται, or some more elaborate phrase’. 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’. Nevertheless his quotations often differ from the Greek of the LXxX., 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. ll. 7 εἰς ψυχὴν ζωῆς (LXx. cis Ψψ. ζῶσαν)". iv. 21 οὗτος ἐστὶ πατὴρ ὁ καταδείξας ψαλτήριον καὶ. κιθάραν (LXX., ἣν 6 k.). Vl. 14 νοσσιὰς νοσσιὰς ποιήσεις τὴν κιβωτόν (νοσσιάς semel LXX.).- kas mais οἰκέτης δοῦλος δούλων ἔσται (LXX. 7. οἰκέτης ἔσται, and so Philo, 11. 225. 20). xv. 18 €ws τοῦ ποταμοῦ, Tov μεγάλου ποταμοῦ Ev@parou (LXX. Om. ποταμοῦ 2°)*, xvill. 12 οὔπω μοι γέγονε TO εὐδαιμονεῖν ἕως τοῦ viv (LXX. omit τὸ εὐδ. and so Philo once, iii. 184. 28). Exod. iv. 10 οὐκ εἰμὶ εὔλογος (so Philo, apparently®: LXxX. οὐκ ἱκανός εἰμι). XV. 17 ἔδρασμα eis καθέδραν σου κατειργάσω (LXX. εἰς ἕτοιμον κατοικητήριόν σου ὃ κατ.). XX. 23 μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ (LXX., ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς). XXlll. 2 μετὰ πολλῶν (LXX., μετὰ πλειόνων). Lev. xix. 23 ξύλον βρώσεως (LXX., ξ. βρώσιμον, and so Philo ii. 152. 8). Deut. viii. 18 ἀλλὰ μνείᾳ ee ΕΙΣ (LXX. καὶ pvno6.). xxi. 16 KAn- podorn (LXX., κατακληρονομῇ B, κατακληροδοτῇ AF, and these readings are found as variants in Phil. i. 209. 4).
1 Cf. Ryle, PAzlo, p. xiv. f. 2 Cf. vet. Moys. 6, 7.
3 On this see Nestle, Zur neuen Philo-Ausgabe in Philologus, 1900, p- 259. Dr Nestle informs me that cod. 75 often agrees with Philo.
4 See Nestle, -of. cz¢., p. 270. 5 See above, p. 371.
|
Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists. 375
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’, 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. xvill. 5 ὁ ποιήσας; Deut. xii. 8 ὅσα, xxxil. 4+ ἐν αὐτῷ.
Besides substantial variants, Philo’s quotations shew many departures from the Lxx. which may be ascribed to inaccuracy, defects of memory, or the writers method of citing. Thus (2) he omits certain words with the view of abbreviating; (4) 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 accord- ance with a correct literary style; (4) he forms a fresh sentence out of two or more different contexts.
E.g. (a) Gen. xxiv. 20 καὶ δραμοῦσα ἐπὶ τὸ φρέαρ ὑδρεύσατο ταῖς καμήλοις (LXX., καὶ ἔδραμεν ἐπὶ τὸ φρέαρ ἀντλῆσαι ὕδωρ καὶ ὑδρ. πάσαις ταῖς καμήλοις). (6) Num. v. 2 ἐξαποστειλάτωσαν ἐκ τῆς ἁγίου ψυχῆς (LXX. ἐκ τῆς παρεμβολῆς) πάντα λεπρόν. (4) Gen. XXVlll. 13 ἡ γῆ (ν. 1. τὴν γῆν) ἐφ᾽ ἧς σὺ καθεύδεις ( -- ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς LXX.)
1 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.
3706 Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists.
σοὶ δώσω αὐτήν. (4) Gen. xvil. I1+xxxv. II ἐγώ εἰμι θεὸς σός" ἐγὼ ὁ θεός cov: αὐξάνου καὶ πληθύνου (Phil. iil. 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’; 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”. 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 Pales- tinian Jew, Flavius Josephus, who represents Jewish Hellen- istic 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*; 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*. His earliest work, on the Jewish War, was written in Aramaic’, and when he desired to translate it into Greek, he was constrained to seek assistance (c. Ap. i. 9 χρησάμενός τισι πρὸς THY Ἑλληνίδα φωνὴν συνεργοῖς οὕτως ἐποιησάμην τῶν πράξεων τὴν παράδοσιν). But the Antigui- ties of the Jews (αἱ Ἰωσήπου ἱστορίαι τῆς ᾿Ιουδαϊκῆς ἀρχαιολογίας),
1 See Ryle, p. xvi. ff. Ci DiC. Be iv. pi 387%:
δ αὶ 4 Jb. 2. 5 B. F. prooem. 1 τῇ πατρίῳ [sc. γλώσσῃ] συντάξας.
Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists. 377
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: Avy. 1.
proem. τ ταύτην δὲ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἐγκεχείρισμαι πραγματείαν,
νομίζων ἅπασι φανεῖσθαι τοῖς “Ἕλλησιν ἀξίαν σπουδῆς" μέλλει γὰρ περιέξειν ἅπασαν τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀρχαιολογίαν καὶ διάταξιν τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἐκ τῶν Ἔβραϊκῶν μεθηρμηνευμένην γραμμά- των. His chief source, therefore, was the Hebrew Bible, with which he was doubtless acquainted from boyhood’. Never- theless, there is ample evidence in the Axtiguities 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. (a2) He interprets proper names as they are interpreted by the LXX. e.g. Ant. τ. 1. 2 Eva...onpaiver...ravtwv μητέρα (Gen. 11]. 20); 1. 2. 1 Κᾶις... κτίσιν (v. 1. κτῆσιν) σημαίνει (Gen. iv. 1); lil. 1. 6 καλοῦσι δὲ “EBpato. τὸ βρῶμα τοῦτο μάννα" τὸ yap μὰν ἐπερώτησις...᾿ τί τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν᾽ ἀνακρίνουσα (Exod. xvi. 15); v. 10. 3 Σαμουῆλον... θεαίτητον av τις εἴποι (1 Regn. 1. 20). (4) His narrative frequently follows a Heb. text different from the M.T., but represented by the Lxx.; e.g. Ant. vi. 4. 1 ἦσαν ἑβδομή- κοντα τὸν ἀριθμόν (1 Regn. ix. 22, {#4 Dyows) ; Vl. II. 4 ὑποθεῖσα τοῖς ἐπιβολιαίοις ἧπαρ (Ἴ33) αἰγός (1 Regn. xix. 13, HA VAD); vi. 12. 4 Δώηγος δ᾽ ὁ Σύρος ὁ τὰς ἡμιόνους αὐτοῦ βόσκων (1 Regn. xxii. 9, $1 ANS aV ΔΨ) ΝΗ ΠῚ INT 2.) Wit, “2.1 ies evpovtes...Tov ᾿Ιέσβωθον καὶ μήτε τοὺς φύλακας παρόντας μήτε τὴν θυρωρὸν ἐγρηγορυῖαν (cf. 2 Regn. iv. 6 LXx. καὶ ἰδοὺ 4 θυρωρὸς ἐνύσταξεν καὶ ἐκάθευδεν); vil. 5. 3 ὕστερον ὃ τῶν
1 He possessed a copy of the sacred books which Titus granted him from
the spoils of the Temple: Vit. 75 τὴν αἴτησιν ἐποιούμην Τίτον... βιβλίων ἱερῶν [kai] ἔλαβον χαρισαμένου Τίτου.
378 Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists.
Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεὺς Σούσακος... ἔλαβε (2 Regn. vill.7, LXX.;, JA). (¢) Whilst retailing in his own words the story of the Hebrew records, he falls from time to time into the peculiar phrase- ology of the Alexandrian version. A few examples will make this evident. Anz. i. 1 (Gen. 1. 1 ff.), ἐν ἀρχῇ ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς TOV οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν...γενέσθαι φῶς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ θεός... διεχώρισε τό τε φῶς καὶ τὸ σκότος...καὶ αὕτη μὲν av εἴη πρώτη ἡμέρα, Μωυσῆς δ᾽ αὐτὴν μίαν εἶπε...τὸ τῶν τετραπόδων γένος ἄρρεν καὶ θῆλυ ποιήσας. 1. το. 3 (Gen. xv. g f.) δάμα- λιν τριετίζουσαν καὶ αἶγα τριετίζουσαν καὶ κριὸν ὁμοίως τριετῆ καὶ τρυγόνα καὶ περιστερὰν κελεύσαντος διεῖλε, τῶν ὀρνέων οὐδὲν διελών. i. 18. 7 (Gen. xxvii. 30) παρῆν “Hoads ἀπὸ τῆς θήρας. i. 20. 2 (Gen. xxxil. 23 f.) χειμάρρουν τινὰ ‘la Baxxov λεγόμενον διαβεβηκότων Ἰάκωβος ὑπολελειμμένος οὐ διεπάλαιεν. ii. 4. 1 (Gen. xxxix. 1) Ἰώσηφον δὲ πωλούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμπόρων ὠνησάμενος Πετεφρῆς ἀνὴρ Αἰγύπτιος ἐπὶ τῶν Φαραώθου μαγείρων. il. 6. 1 (Gen. Χ]]. 45) προσηγόρευσεν αὐτὸν Ψονθονφάνηχον... ἄγεται γὰρ καὶ Πετεφροῦ θυγατέρα τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἡλιουπόλει ἱερέων... ᾿Α σέννηθιν ὀνόματι. il. 7. 5 (Gen. xlvi. 28) ἀπαντησόμενος ἔξεισι καὶ καθ᾽ Ἣ ρώων πόλιν αὐτῷ συνέβαλεν᾽. (4) 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 Zsdras. Ant. xi. 1. 1 (1 Esdr. ii, 3 f.) Κῦρος ὁ βασιλεὺς λέγει Ἐπεί pe ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγιστος τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀπέδειξε βασιλέα, τὸν ναὸν αὐτοῦ οἰκοδομήσω ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ χώρᾳ. Xi. 2. 2 (. Esdr. ii. 21, cf. 2 Esdr. iv. 17) βασιλεὺς Καμβυσῆς Ῥαθύμῳ τῷ γράφοντι τὰ προσπίπτοντα καὶ Βεελζέμῳ καὶ Σεμελίῳ γραμματεῖ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς τοῖς συντασσομένοις καὶ οἰκοῦσιν ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ καὶ Φοινίκῃ τάδε λέγει. Xi. 3. 2—8 =1 Esdr. iii.—iv. Zsther. Ant. xi. 6. 6=Esth. B; xi. 6: 8 ᾿Ξ Ὁ, Ὁ); xi. 6..12 f.=E,, The first Book of Maccanems
1 For some of these instances I am indebted to a collation made by Mr C. G. Wright for the Editors of the larger LXx.
Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellentsts. 379
was also known to Josephus in its Greek form’, which under- lies 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’, into the Biblical text presupposed by Josephus’ history in Azf. v.—vil. 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 #4. (3) In Judges it is frequently, but not constantly, Lucianic; in 1, 2 Kingdoms it agrees with Lucian so closely as to fall into the same omis- sions 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 read- ing 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 re- cension 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. Muller, -ragmenta historica Graeca iil. J. Freudenthal, Hellen- istische Studien i., ii. (Breslau, 1875). Cf. Susemihl, Geschichte der griech. Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzett, ii. p. 356 ff.; E. Schurer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes*, iii. p. 345 ff.
Philo: Text: L. Cohn and P. Wendland, Phzlonis Alexandrini opera guae supersunt (Berlin, vol. i. 1896; vol. ii. 1897; vol. iii. 1898—in progress). Cf. C. F. Hornemann, Specimen exercita-
tionum criticarum in versionem LXX. interpretum ex Philone (Gottingen, 1773); C. Siegfried, Philo und der tiberlieferte Text
1 Bloch, Dze Quellen d. Fl. Fosephus, p. 8 ff. 2 Die Bibel des Fosephus, p. 79 ff.
380 Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists.
der LXX. (in Z. f. wiss. Theologie, 1873, pp. 217 ff., 411 ff, 522 f£.);, A.. Edersheim .in ,.D. :C.; B., iv. p. -357 ff.; 2. (atom Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford, 1889), p. 140 ff.; F. C. Cony- beare, in Eafositor, 1891 p. 456 ff., and Fewish Q. R., 1893, Ρ. 246 ff., 1896, p. 88ff.; H. E. Ryle, Phzlo and Holy Scripture (London, 1895); P. Wendland, in Phz/ologus 1898, p. 283 ff.
Sibyllines. Text: A. Rzach, Oracula Sibyllina, Vienna, 1891. Cf. F. Blass in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 177 ff.
Josephus. Text: B. Niese, Fil. Fosephi opera (Berlin, 1887— 1895). Cf. E. Schirer?, E. T. 1. i. p. 77 ff.; A. Edersheim in DOC hi. ak Ὁ Aart; (οἱ Siegfried in Stade’s Z. |. ὦ tne Wissenschaft, 1883, p. 32 ff.; H. Bloch, 2226 Quellen des Fi. Fosephus in seiner Archdologia (Leipzig, 1879); A. Mez, Die Bibel des Fosephus untersucht fiir Buch v.—vit. der Archaologia (Basle, 1895).
ΟΡ
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 Pales- tinian Jews; a seventh, though ‘a Hebrew of Hebrew paren- tage,’ 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 Mew 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’, 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.
1 See below, p. 403.
382
Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.
By passages formally cited we understand (1) those which are cited with an introductory formula, such as τοῦτο γέγονεν wa πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν (Mt.), οὕτως or καθὼς γέγραπται, or γέγραπται simply (Mt., Mc., Le., Paul), γεγραμμένον ἐστίν (Jo.), Μωυσῆς (Δαυεὶδ) λέγει or εἶπεν, λέγει Or εἶπεν ἡ γραφή (Jo., Paul), or τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα (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.
Gen.
Exod.
Table of O.T. passages quoted in the N.T.
1 7 BG ae 115 2
7
24
Vv. 24 xll. I
3> (xxi. 18) KV. 5
6
12: XV1L. 5 XVIll. 10, 14 0.4 ean Ke)
12 xxii. 16 . XXV. 23 xlvil. 31 ll. 14 lii. 5 ff.
ix. 16
xii. 46 (Num. ix. 12, Ps.
. XXxXlil. 20)
Kill. 12
xvi. 4, 15 (Ps. Ixxvil. 24) 18
xIx. 13
xx. 12—17 (Deut.v. 16 ff.)
xxi. 16 (17)
Mt. Heb. 1 Gor. Mt.
Heb. Acts
Rom. Jas.
Acts Rom.
Gal. Rom. Heb. Rom. Heb. Acts Mt.
Rom. John
‘bet John 2 Cor. Heb. Mt.
*1x.. 4, Mic. = ἢ
Iv. 4
XV. 45
ΧΙΧ 5 f.,: Mic... 7.1, eae
_vi. τό, Eph. v. 31
Xl. 5
Vii. 3
lil, 25, Gal. iu. 8
iv. 18
ili. 23, Rom. iv. 3, Gal. iil. 6
wil. 6 £
iv. 17
ix. 9
30 ix: 7, Heb. πὶ 5 vi. 13f.
ΣΙ ΖῚ
Vil, 27k
Xxli. 32, Mc. xii. 26, Le. _ Xx. 37, Acts vil. 32 ff. ik ΤῊ
x1x. 36
ii. 23
vi. 31 ff.
Vill. 15
ΧΙ]. 20
v. 21, 27, xv. 4—6, xix. 181.) Mc.’ vilv Tepe 19, Le. xviii. 20, James il. 11, Rom. vii. 7, xiii. 9, Eph. vi. 2f.
xv. 4, Mc. vii. 10
Quotations from the LX X.in the New Testament.
Exod. xxi: -24(Ley.: xxiv. 5:20.
Lev.
Num. Deut.
2 Regn. 3 Regn. Psalm
Deutixm, 21) XXll. 28 xxiv. 8 XXV. 40 MXXIL., I
XXxXill. 19
mie Ὁ (Hix. 25 xx. 75/26) xii. 6, ὃ
Xvliil. 5 (2 Esdr. xix. 29) ΙΧ: 18
XxV1.11f.(Ezek. xxxvii.27) XV1. 5 IV. 35 vi. 4f.
1, 16 Vill. 3 1X3: τὸ Evil, 15, τ, 1K) ΤΡ
<x. 25 xv, I Xxv. 4 XXVIl. 26 xx. ἢ 18 XXX. I2—I4 ΧΣΣΙ ΟΣ G(Josi i 5)
XXXll. 21
35 30 (Ps. cxxxiv. 14) 43 (Ps. xcvi. 7) vil. 8, 14 x1x. 10, 14, 18 1 ΝΕ mi viii. 2 7 9 Xlil. 3 (v. 10, ix. 28, xxxv. 2, lil, I—3, Cxxxix. 4, Isa. lix. 7 f.)
383 v. 38
XXlil. 5
x: 194,
Vill. 5
vii. 40
27
ib Peg r=
1. 16
li. 22 ff.
x:( 5 Gaby tity 12
γ- 43)-xix. ΠΟ ἘΠ 40, Me. xu. 91, ΠΟ Χ 2. James ii. 8, Rom. xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14
vi. 16
11. 19
ΧΊ 52
Xxll. 37f, Mex xii: 29— 33, Bex. 27
IV} 25 ΤΟΙ ΤΣ AV, 8. ΤΣ
iV. A, Lesivi
ΧΗ 27 tr)
lik, 2206 wine ay
xvii. 16, Jo. viii. 17, 2 Cor. Xlll. I
lil. 13
Vi 31. ike Zee. χὰ
ix. Ὁ, I Tim. vi 38
lll. 10
x1. 8
ΧΗΣ ΤΕ
x. 6—8
Xlil. 5
x. 19
xii. 19, Heb. x. 30
x: 30
iG
Vi-wbo, Heb! τς
aly 9.0,
ἵν 25'f.
ππῚ..55. ἘΠ τ 5, ve 5
x1. 16
xv. 27, Heb. ii. 6—8
111. 1IoO—18
384 Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.
Psalm xv. 8—II
Prov.
Job Hos.
XVil. 50 XVlil. 5 XX1. 2 9 19 23 Syl. ἢ Xxx. I f.
XXXUl. 13—I7 XXXIV. 19 (Ixvill. 5)
ΧΧΧΙΧ. 7—9Q xl. 10 xl 22 xlivi 74. 1 Ὁ 1 25 Ixvil. 19 lxviil. IO 23f. 26 Ixxvil. 2 Ιχχχι: Ὁ IxxxVill. 21 ΣΟ XCllil. II xciv. 8—II ci. /26—28 Clll. 4 cvili. 8 ΕἸΧῚ
4 Cxi. 9 ἜΝ (ἢ Cxvl. I Cxvli. 6
anf
ΠῚ 178. 54
ΧΙ. 31
xxv. 21 f.
XXVi. II
Vv. 13
1. 10
Acts. ii. 25—28 Rom. xv. 9 x. 18 Mt. xxvii. 46, Mc. xv. 34 RXVIGs..43 Jo. x1x. 24 Heb. ii. 12 i. Core κ᾿ 26; 23 Rom. iv. 6—8 I Pet. 1. Io—12 Jo. XV. 25 Heb. x. 5—7 Jo. ΧΙ]. 18 Rom. viii. 36 Heb. 1-3. Rom. iil. 4 Tet. (veg Eph. iv. 8 Jo. li. 17, Rom: κυ Ὁ Rom. Xi. Of. Acts 1.20 Mt. X1ll. 35 Jo. Χ. 34 Acts xili.22 Mt. iv. 6, Le. 1¥2 19% I Cor: aii. 20 Heb. 111. 7—II i. IO—I2 1. 7 Acts. ἀΞ 29 Μι. Xxli. 44, ΜΟΙ χα 330. Ἐπ xx. 421: Acts 11: 34f,, Heb. 1..13 Heb. | vi δι 9.1 2 Cor, 1x Ὁ iw 12 Rom, (+ xv. 14 Heb. xiii. 6 Mt. xxi. 42,1 Mé. xiL pees Le xx. 17, i ΒΘ Heb. xii. 5f. 785. ἵν 6) 1 Beka I Pet. ἵν. 18 Rom. xii. 20 2 Pet. 2 N22 t.Coer {11/59 Rom. ix. 26
Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament. 585
Hos.
Amos
Mic. Joel Hab:
Zech.
Mal.
Isa.
i. 23 vi. 6 ΧΙ Ὶ ΧΙ]. 14
Vil. 14 Vill. 14 17 ix. ¥ f. eae eo ped 4 exit 13 xxv. 8 ἘΣΎ EI Tf. 16 ¥xix, 16 13 14 xl. 3—5
6—8 15... ΧΙ]. I—4 Ἐν 22 xlix. 6 8 , lil. 5 7 (Nah. i. 15) 14h
Rom. Mt.
t Cor
Acts
Mt. Acts
Rom.
Jude Mt.
Jo. Mt. Rom. Mt.
Rom. Mt.
Rom. Heb. Mt.
Rom.
Cor.
Rom.
Mt.
t Cor
Mt.
Lye es Rom. Mt. Rom. Acts
2 Cor.
Rom.
2 Cor,
IX. 25
1 15: Riis 7
He 5
ἊΝ. ΕΝ
vil. 42 Ὁ
XV. I5—I7
li. 5 f. (Jo. vii. 42)
il. 17--21
ΧΙ]. 41
1. 17, Gal. i. ἘΠῚ Heb. x. 371.
XX. 5, Jo. ΧΠ. ΤΡ
XxVil. Qf.
Xix. 37
XKVI.' 31, Mic. Xv: 27
1x. 13
χι. 10, Mc} 1-27 Le. vm 27
ix. 29
xili. 14 f., Mc. iv. 12, Le. watts ‘fo, 70: χα 201. Acts xxvili. 26f.
i. 23
xX. 33,0 Pew its
ey ease απ Petia. 6
x1. 8
LV. ΘΠ: Mic. vit Of:
1. 19
Hier g, SMe: 35) bey iii 4—6, Jo. 1. 23
1 2A Ὁ
ἘΠ πα Coritii 16
ΧΙ]. 18—21
RIV. ET
Xlll. 47
Vi 2
11:24
Χο Ἐν
Ng Pas i
25
7
386 Quotations from the LXX.in the New Testament.
isa’ Tha: 15 Rom. xv. 21 iii x Jo. xil. 38, Rom. x. 16 4 Mt. Vili. 17 4 Pet. 2 4 Ὁ 71 Acts 1. 521 12 Mc. xv. 28, Le} ΧΧ ΟΣ liv. I ΕΙΣ .1v.27 13 Jo. V1. 45 v3 Acts xill. 34 lvi. 7 Mt. xxi. 13, Mc; αι τῷ τ 1%: 16 lix, 20% Rom. xi. 26f. Ixi. rf. isc: Ve. 164: Ixiv. 4 TG: - UL (Ὁ) eve rt: Rom, (x. Zor, lsd: τς Acts vil. 49f. 24 Mc. ix. 48 Jer. Vii. II Mt. xxi. 13, Μο κί τ ΟΣ ΧΙΧ. 46 ix. 23 f. (1 Regn. 1i. Io) ΤΟΥ: 1: 31,2 (οἵ ἘΠῊΝ XXXVI. 15 Mt. ii. 18 31---34 Heb. ν111. 8—12 Dan. xe ἀπ (x. 227) x1. 31) Mt. xxiv. 15, Mc. ΧΠ ΤῈ
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, CRA Ig: 1: 28 Isa. vii. 14 1. 23°- Exod, xiii: 12
Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.
Mt. Mc. Ee: os. FE, il. 6 Mic. v. 2 15 Hos. xi. I 18 Jer. xxxvill. 15 mM, 3 ΓΞ ili. 4—6 Isa. xl. 3—5 es itt Iv. 4 Deut. vili. 3 6 τον ΡΟΣ TERT. a 12 Deut. vi. 16 Io 8 13 15 f. Isa. ix. 1f. Vo 120 Exod. xx. 13 27 14 31 Deut. xxiv. I 33 Num. xxx. 3 (cf. Deut. xxiii. 21) 38 Exod. xxi. 24 43 Rev. xix. 16 Vill. 17 Isa, 111. 4 eee) FS (xii, 7) Hos. vi. 6 i? Io 1: 2 ὙΠ: 27 Malian. 1 mu) oF Hos. vi. 6 18—2I Tsae xii. xi. τῇ ἢ vi. Of. 35 Ps, lxxvil. 2 iv. 18f. Isa. lxi. 1 ff.+l1viii. 6 xv; a Vii. 10 τ χοῦ χα, ΤΟ ΣΙ τὸ 8 f. 6 Isa xxix. 13 ix. 48 Ixvl. 24 mis GE x. 6—8 Gen. 1. 27 +ii. 24 18 f. x. 19 xvili. 20f. Exod. xx. 12—17 a) 4:1 Zech. ix. 9+.Isa. ἔστι 11 13 RUAT7 xix. 46 Isa. lvi. 7+Jer. vil. 11 16 Ps.ividie2 2 ΧΙ. IO xx. 07 Cxvil. 22 f. ἜΧΗ 2 19 28 Deut.xxv.5(cf.Gen.xxxvill. a2 26 37> ἜΧΟΙ ΗΠ 6 37 29 f. x. 27° Denti vi. 2 39 31 27 εἰ ὃ 44 36. xx. 422 ΒΞ ΤΟΙΣΟῚ 29 Deut. vi. 4 32 ἷν. 35 ποτ: 05 xlli. 14 Dan. xii. II xxl. 370 sas hiv 12 XXVI. 31 XIV. 27 Zech. xili. 7 xxvii. Ὁ f. Ki. 23 46 XV. 34 PS. Sx1. I
25—2
388
Jo.
Acts
Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.
(2) Quotations in the Fourth Gospel.
1.22 Isa 11 17 Ps. vi. 31 Exod 45 Isa x: 34 Ps: pit ae Zech 38 Isa 40 KV 25 Ps ΧΟ (2 26 Exod 37 Zech
ὙΠ 3
Ixvill. IO
Xvi. 4, 15 (Ps. Ixxvii. 24f.)
liv. 13
Ixxxi. 6
ix. 9
1π|:.1
vi. IO
XXXIV. IQ (Ixvill. 5)
ΣΧΧῚ ΤῸ
xii. 46 (Num. ix. 12, Ps. XXXiil. 21)
Xll. 10
(3) Quotations in the Acts.
1. 20 Ps; 11. 17—2I1 Joel 25—28 Ps. ἀρ ραρεν 11:25 {|| 5 7) Deut. 25 Gen. iv. 25-4 Ps: Vil. 3 Gen. Gt 2735 Exod. 331. 40 42 f. . Amos 49 f. Isa. Vill. 32 f. Xlll. 22 Ps. 33 34 Isa. 35 Ps. 41 Hab. 47 Isa. xv. 16—18 Jer. XXVill. 26 f. Isa.
Ixviil. 26+ cviil. 8
11. 28—32 xv. 8—II Cx: ἢ
Xvill. 15, 18 f.
Xll. 3+xxil. 18
te so
Xl. I
xuci3 f
ll. 14
ill. 6—8
xXx 23
ν. 25—27
Ixvi. skid:
tii. Fa
Ixxxvill. 21 etc.
ae
lv. 3
XV. 10
Lis
xlix. 6
ΧΙΪ 15-+Amos ix. 11 f.+ Isa. xlv. 21
vi. 9 f.
Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament. 389
(4) Quotations in the Catholic Epistles.
James 11. ὃ Lev.” ate. 18 II Exod) (xx-1si, 23 Gen. xv. 6 iv. 6 Prov. ili. 34 I Peter i. 24f. Isa. xl. 6—9 ii. 6 XXVIll. 16 111. IO—I12 Bs. ΧΧΧΙΙΙ. 12 —I7 iv. 18 Prov; Xi231 Va Ps, liv. 23 2 Peter it. 22 Prov. Xxv1, ΤΙ Jude 9 Zech; ih -2
(5) Quotations in the Epistles of St Paul.
hom, {41:1 Hab: 11.4 ll. 24 Isa. * “lace ili. 4 Ps. 1. 6 Io—18 ΧΙ]. I—3} 20 ΝΠ 2 15; 22 Gen τ τὸ ihe Be: ed ΓΙ 17 Gen ** XVI. 5 18 XV. 5 Vil 7 ΕΟ xk TA. U7 Vill. 36 Ps. xlill. 23 be 7 Gen” ΧΣΥΓ ΤΣ 9 XVill. 10 ΕΝ τ xxv. 25 13 Many ize 15 Exod. xxxill. 19 7 ix. 16 26 ΗΟ σ᾽ τὸ 27 Isa. x27 Tt 29 1- Ὁ 33 Vill. 14 +Xxvill. 16 x. 6—9 Deut. xxx. II—I4 15 158 ha 7 ΝΑΙ 15) 16 lili. I 18 Ps; XVIl1. 5 19 Deut, :Xxxti. 21 20 f. Isa? Wihtvs FE
1 See above, p. 251f.
999
Rom.
1 Cor:
2. or.
Gal.
Eph.
Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.
χὶ. 14
3f. 8
9 26f. 341 xll. 29 f. Xlil. 9 siy.*r! XV. 3
~
XCill. 14
. X1x. 10, 14, 18
XxIx. 10+ Deut. xxix. 4
Ixvul. 23 f.+xxxiv. 8
lix. 20+ xxvil. 9
Dae
EXV. 211,
xx. 13 ff., Lew. simone
xlv. 23
Ixvili. 10
xvll. 50 (2 Regn. xxii. 50)
XXX11. 43
CXVI. I
ΧΙ. IO
111. 15
XxIx. 14
1x. 24
Ixiv. 4-+Ixv. 17 (?)
vi 13
XCill. II
ll. 24
XXV. 4
XXXII. 6
XXlil. I
XXVill. II f.
EXIL 13
7
xxv. 8+ Hos. ΧΙ]. 14
Cxv. I
xlix. 8
XXXVIl. 27+ Isa. lii. 11
xvi. 18
ΟΧΙ. 9
Ix. 24
cxlil. 2
xv. 6
Xll. 3
XXVil. 26
ll. 4
ΧΡ]. 5
NXis 23
Ise, 1
ΧΧΙ. 10
xix. 18
Ixvili. 19
Vili. 16
Quotations from the 1, Χ Δ΄. 17 the New Testament. 391
Fiph.:,, iy..26 Ps. Iv. 5 Nop ad Gen. .11:.24. vi. 2 Exod, ΣΝ 12
1 Tim. v. 18 Deut. xxv. 4
2 Tim. il. 19 Num. xvi. 5
(6) Quotations in the Epistle
to the Hebrews.
Hebs )) a5 Ps. iil. 7 (2 Regn. vii. 14) 6 xcvl. 7 (Deut. xxxli. 43) 7 ΠῚ 4 8 f. ΣΙ ΤΥ f IoO—I2 ci. 26—28 13 Cm 11. 6—8 vill. 5—7 12 Xi 23 13 Isa. vill. 17 f. 111. 7—I2 Ps: xciv. 8—II lv. 4 Gen. 11.2 ν OVE £75 21) Ps. ΕἸΣ 4 vino t Gen. xxii. 16f. Vill. 5 Exod. xxv. 40 8—13, x. 16f. Jer. XXXVI. 3I—34 im 20 Exod. xxiv. 8 x. 5—I10 Ps: ΧΧΧΙΧ. 7—9Q 30 Deut.) xxxi. ΠΕ 272. Habe 1 St #105 Gen. v. 24 18 ΧΙ 21 xlvil. 31 ἈΠ ΒΕ Prove ii. 11 & 15 Deut. xxix. 18 20 Exod, τ Xix., 12 fi 26 Hagg. 11. 6 ΠῚ 5 Deut) *xxx1-0,"S 6 Ps. Cxvil. 6
Some interesting results follow from an inspection of these lists. (1) The Synoptic Gospels have 46 distinct quotations (Mt. 40, Mc. 19, Le. 17), of which 18 are peculiar to Mt., 3 to Mc., 3 to Le. There are to which are common to the three, 3 common to Mt. and Mc., 4 to Mt. and Lc., but none
392 Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.
which are shared by Mc. and Le. 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!. (7) The Apoca- lypse does not quote, but its language is full of O. T. phrase- ology 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°; and by another that “not more than fifty” of the citations “materially differ from the Lxx.*” 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
1 Westcott, Hebrews, p. 473. 2 Turpie, O.7. ix the N., p. 267. 3 Grinfield, Apology for the LXX., p. 37.
Quotations from the LX X.in the New Testament. 393
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 wiil make this clear. (1) Cztatéons common to nih. | Nite sore n 75. Wie, tt 7 = Lic. xix ΠΟ ΞΞῚῚΣ Χ τ | Me alone completing the verse. Mt. xxi. 42=Mc. xu. 1o=Le. xx. 17=LXx., Le. omitting mapa Κυρίου καὶ. Mt. xxil. 37=Mc. xii. Boe = Len ἌΞΕΙΣ Σ᾿ with ..variants*. -. Mt... xxiii; 39= Mc. ,.xi1. ee eee. | Mite xxi AAs Mic. “xis 36= EO xx. 42 f= LXX. with the variant ὑποκάτω in Mt., Mc. (2) C2tations common to Mt., Mc. Mt. xv. 4=Mc. vil. lO=LXxX., cod. A. Mt. xv. 8f.= Mesvie=- tex with variants’... Mt, xix.5 f= Mcesx, 6fL=1 xx, Mc. omitting προσκολληθήσεται κτλ. Mt. xxiv. 15=Mc. xili. 14= LxXx. and Th. Mt. xxvi. 31=Mc. xiv. 27 (omitting τῆς ποίμνης }ΞΞ LXX., cod. A, with one important variant not found in any MS. of the LXx.; cod. B has quite a different text®. (3) Citations common to Mit. Le. Mt. iv. 4=Le. iv. 4=LxXx., Le. omitting the second half of the quotation. Mt. iv. 6=Le. iv. lof =Lxx., except that the clause τοῦ διαφυλάξαι is omitted by Mt. and in part by Le. Mt. iv. 7=Le. iv. 12=Lxx. Mt. iv. 1o=Le. iv. 8= LXxX., 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.
* On these see Hatch, Assays, p. 104, and the writer’s St Mark, p. 255.
5 ΤΙΝ. 64. ci, p- 177 f. 3 St Mark, p. 318 f.
394 Quotations from the LX Δ΄. in the New Testament.
In Mt. there are 16 quotations which are not to be found in Me. or Lc. (Mt. i. 23, 11. δ. ΕΞ, 18, νοῦ ἢ, v.33, 36, 43> τ ον ΙΧ. 13=xil. 7, xi. 18 ff., xi. 14f,, 35, xxi. 4 £, 16, xxv. On) ee these 4 (Ὁ. 38, ix. 13, xili. 14f., 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}. Neither Mc. nor Le. has any series of independent quotations; Mc. ix. 48, xii. 32 are from the LXxX., but shew affinities to the text of cod. A; Lec. 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 (6) the substitution of a gloss for the precise words which the writer professes to quote, or to (ὦ a desire to adapt a prophetic context to the circumstances under which it was thought to have been fulfilled, or to (4) 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 (4) recensional, whilst others are (/) 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. (@) Mt. ii, 18, xxi. 4f.; (6) Mt. ii. 6, xxvii. of.; (¢c) Mt. 11.15; (41) Le.iv. 18f.; (6) Mt. xii. 18 ff., Mc. xii. 298. ;°(7) eee 35>. 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. li. 15 the substitution of τὸν υἱόν μου for ra τέκνα αὐτῆς 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. (33).
The three last-named causes of variation need to be con- sidered at some length.
1 Cf. Sir J. Ὁ. Hawkins, Hor. Syn., p. 123 ff.
ν |
Quotations from the LX Δ΄. ἐπ the New Testament. 395
(1) A few of the Synoptic quotations are manifestly composite. E.g. Mt. xxl. 4f., which is mainly from Zech. ix. 9, Opens with a clause from Isa. lxii. 11 (εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιών ᾿Ιδού κτλ.). Le. 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. lvill. 6 (ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυ- σμένους ἐν ἀφέσει). Still more remarkable is the fusion in Mc. i. 2 ἢ, where, under the heading καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ “Hoaia τῷ προφήτῃ, we find Mal. 11]. 1+Isa. xl. 2. Here the parallel passages in Mt., Le., quote Isaiah only, using Malachi in another context (Mt. xi. τὸ, Le. 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 Zettschrift f. Wissenschaftliche Theologie’, by Dr W. Staerk, who shews that the witness of the N. T. almost invariably goes with codd. sAF and Lucian against the Vatican MS., and that its agreement with cod. A is especially close’. It may of course be argued that the text of these authorities has been influenced by the N. T.*; 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 remark- able is the occasional tendency in N. T. quotations to support Theodotion against the Lxx.° Some instances have been given already; we may add here Mt. xii. 18 = Isa. xli. 1:
Mt. LXX. fh. ἰδοὺ ὁ παῖς μου ὃν Ἰακὼβ ὁ παῖς pou ἰδοὺ 6 παῖς μου, ἡρέτισα, 6 ἀγαπητός μου ἀντιλήμψομαι αὐτοῦ: ἀντιλήψομαι αὐτοῦ" ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψἕυχηῃ Ἰσραὴλ ὁ ἐκλεκτός ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου ὃν μου. μου, προσεδέξατο εὐδόκησεν ἡ Ψυχή αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου. μου. 1 St Mark, p. 2. 2 In nos. xxxv., XXXVi., XXXVili., xl. ἐπ χ νη Ὁ ΟΕ “Cf. Zain, Einleitune, A. p. 314i
BD Cfo pe 15:
306 Quotations from the 1, .Χ Δ΄. in the New Testament.
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. 1. 6 kal ov, Βηθλέεμ, γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἰ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα: ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου Ἰσραήλ.
ουδαμως] μη D | ex σου] εξ υ (B*)8C(D) | om yap &*.
Mic. v. 2, 4 ,
καὶ σύ, Βηθλέεμ, οἶκος ᾿Εφράθα, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ἰούδα: ἐξ οὗ μοι
a ἣν
ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα
oS = τοῦ Ἰσραήλ....καὶ ποιμαν εἴ...
εξ ov] εκ σου ΒΌΞΑΟ | εξε- λευσεται]- ἡγουμενος A
On the relation of the 1,ΧΧ. in this passage to the Μ. T. see above p. 338. Χιλιάσιν, ἡγεμόσιν answer to different vocalisations
of ‘DON, but οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ and ἡγούμενος ὅστις π. τὸν λ. μου 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.
yn Ζαβουλὼν καὶ yn Νεῴφ- θαλείμ, ὁδὸν θαλάσσης, πέραν
΄ > / » ΄ τοῦ ‘lopdavov, Ταλειλαία τῶν 5 ~ e A iq ΜΝ > ἐθνῶν, ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκοτίᾳ φῶς εἶδεν μέγα: καὶ τοῖς καθημένοις ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου φῶς ἀνέτειλεν αὐτοῖς.
οἱ καθημενοι D | και σκια]) om καὶ D*
Isa. ix. I f.
χώρα Ζαβουλών, ἡ yn Νεφ- θαλείμ, καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ τὴν παραλίαν καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἴορ- δάνου, Ταλειλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν. ὁ λαὸς ὁ πορευόμενος ἐν σκότει, ἴδετε φῶς μέγα" οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν χώρᾳ σκιᾷ θανάτου, φῶς
λάμψει ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς.
Νεφθαλειμ] + οδον θαλασσης &°2AO (Aq. Th.) παραλιαν]- κατοικουντες ΑΘ | πορευ- ομενος]) καθημενος A | σκια] pr και S*@AOT
Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament. 397
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 γῆ Z.,T. τῶν ἐθνῶν, χώρᾳ [καὶ] σκιᾷ. On the other hand ὁδὸν Ne eae εἶδεν, αὐτοῖς agree with M.T. The writer quotes from memory, or from a collection of loosely cited ¢estimonza.
Mt. villi. 17 > x \ > , < ΄ αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλ a A A , > / ἔλαβεν καὶ Tas νόσους ἐβάσ- τασεν.
Isa. 1111. 4 οὗτος Tas ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται.
Mt.’s version is based upon Heb., from which the Lxx. departs.
Cf. Symm.: τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνέλαβεν καὶ τοὺς πόνους ὑπέμεινεν. Mt. xiii. 35 Ps. Ixxvil. 2 ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου: ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμ- ono pov: φθέγξομαι προ-
μένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς. βλήματα ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς.
καταβολης -Ἐκοσμου S*CD
V. 352 in Mt. follows the Lxx. verbatim, while 35 is an inde- pendent 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 ἐρεύξομαι is nearer to MY*AN than φθέγξομαι, ἀπὸ καταβολῆς introduces a conception which has no place in D271, and in this sense the Greek phrase is practically limited to the Me Ti(see’ Lorton & Pet. 1 20):
Mt. xxvii. 9 f.! καὶ ἔλαβον...τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ ΄ ὰ ’ τετιμημένου ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ ΄ > 4 ‘ > υἱῶν Ἰσραῆλ, καὶ ἔδωκαν αὐτὰ
ZACH ΧΙ. 15
καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς μέ Κάθες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ χωνευτήριον καὶ σκέψομαι εἰ δόκιμόν ἐστιν,
A , a eis TOV ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, ὃν τρόπον ἐδοκιμάσθη ὑπὲρ καθὰ συνέταξέν μοι Κύριος. αὐτῶν. καὶ ἔλαβον... καὶ ἐνέ-
> \ 5» \ a BaXov αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν οἶκον Kv- ρίου εἰς τὸ χωνευτηρίον.
εδωκεν A*4 ἐδωκα ἐξ εδοκιμασθην B¥PtXAQO
Mt. has re-arranged this passage, and given its sense, with- out regard to the order or construction of the original. In doing this he has abandoned the LXX. altogether, and approximates to the Heb.; cf. Ag. ἡ τιμὴ ἣν ἐτιμήθην ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν.
1 Mt. ascribes this prophecy to Jeremiah: τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ "Tepeutov τοῦ προφήτου. The slip is probably due to a confusion between Zach. 1. c. and Jer. xviii. 2.
398 Quotations from the LX Δ΄. in the New Testament.
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. Vv. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) which are hardly of the nature of strict citations; the formula ἐρρέθη rots ἀρχαίοις distinguishes them from that class, and suggests that they purport only to give the general sense.
(6) The Fourth Gospel quotes the Lxx. verbatim, or with slight variants, in cc. Ἢ. 17, x. 34, ΧΙ]. 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 1. 23, quoting Isa. xl. 3 he writes εὐθύνατε τὴν δδὸν Κυρίου for ἕτοι- μάσατε τ. ὃ. K., εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους Tod θεοῦ ἡμῶν (cf., Mt. iii. 3, Mc. i. 3, ἴα. 1... 4}} 1 χας μον ἰϑα νιν τ paraphrased τετύφλωκεν αὐτῶν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ ἐπώρωσεν αὐτῶν τὴν καρδίαν, Which agrees neither with the Lxx. nor with M.T.; in xix. 37 ὄψονται eis ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν is a non-Septuagintal rendering of Zach. xii. 10, which was perhaps current in Palestine, since εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν appears also in Theodotion (cf. Aq., Symm., and Apoc. 1. 7).
(ὃ The quotations from the O.T. in the Acts are taken from the Lxx. exclusively. With the exception of the περιοχή in c, viii. 32', 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. (Ῥαμφά(ν) or Ῥαιφαάν, {#4 13)3). Simi- larly in xiii. 34 (=Isa. lv. 3) τὰ ὅσια Δανείδ is read with the Lxx. for 117 "IDD, Ὁ xiii. 22 is a conflation of Ps. Ixxxviii.
1 An exact citation, with one or two variants of the A type.
Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament. 399
21+1]xxi. 20+1 Regn. ΧΙ]. 14+Isa. xliv. 28. C. xv. 16 ff, which is introduced by the formula τούτῳ συμφωνοῦσιν οἱ λόγοι τῶν προφητῶν, καθὼς γέγραπται, 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. μετὰ ταῦτα ἀναστρέψω καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἐκβαλεῖν με αὐτοὺς ἀνοικοδομήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυεὶδ ἐπιστρέψω ... ἀναστήσω τὴν τὴν πεπτωκυΐαν, καὶ τὰ κατε- σκηνὴν Δαυεὶδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν.. στραμμένα αὐτῆς ἀνοικοδομήσω καὶ τὰ κατεσκαμμένα αὐτῆς ἀνα- καὶ ἀνορθώσω αὐτήν, ὅπως ἂν στήσω καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω αὐτὴν ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν καθὼς αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ αἰῶνος, ἀνθρώπων τὸν κύριον καὶ πάντα ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατά- τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾽ ods ἐπικέκληται τὸ λοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, λέγει πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾽ ovs ἐπι- Κύριος 6 ποιῶν ταῦτα * * κέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ 4 eee αὐτούς, λέγει Κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα. κατεστραμμενα] κατεσκαμ- κατεσκαμμενα] κατεστραμ- μενα ACD μενα APO*
οπως- αν Α | ανθρωπων ]-Ἐ
τον κυριον A
The combination in this quotation of looseness with close adherence to the LXxX. even where it is furthest from the Heb. (e.g. in ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν κτλ.) is significant, especially when it is remembered that the speaker is St James of Jerusalem.
(4) 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. i. 8, 117, 23, iv. 6, £ Pet 2474 1V;:18,\v- 5; are substantially. exact. .1)Pet.:il. 6 differs from the Lxx. of Isa. xxvill. 16. 1 Pet. ii. 10 ff., an unacknowledged extract from Ps. xxxil. 12 ff., is adapted to the context by a slight change in the construction, but other- wise generally follows the Lxx.: θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾷν καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ἀγαθάς for θέλων ζ., ἀγαπῶν id. ny. ἀγαθάς is probably
1 On this reading see W. H.?, (Votes on select readings, p. 96. 2 Cf Me) x40; Ec, xviii. 20.
3 On the few variants in this passage see Hort, St Peter, p. 93.
400 Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.
a slip, shewing that the writer was quoting from memory. In 2 Pet. il. 22 (=Prov. xxvi. 11) κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα is nearer to the Heb. than x. ὅταν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἐμετόν, and appears to be an independent rendering.
(6) 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, ll. 24, i. 4, lv. 7f., 18, vu. 7, Vili. 36; 1x: 712,13, 15,26, x. 6 τό; 18; τὸ; 20 fyxineee Saf, xil. 20f., ΧΙ 9, XV. 3,9, 10,15, 12, 213 τ Coma eememe 16; :κ. 7». 26, XV. 325 2 Cor. ἵν. 13, V1» 2,. Ville, του eee ΗΠ 6 τα 12) tw 27, ΝΕ r45 Ephi-iv.' 26; 2 Tim) ΕΝ smaller proportion shew important variants (Rom. ll. 20= Gal. li. 16 πᾶσα σάρξ for πᾶς ζῶν LXX.; 1X. 9 κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἐλεύσομαι, καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ vids for ἥξω... κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον...καὶ ἕξει υἱὸν Σάρρα LXX.; ΙΧ. 17 εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρά σε for ἕνεκεν τούτου διετηρήθης, and δύναμιν for ἰσχύν LXX.'; ix. 27 ὃ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἴ., ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; xiv. 11 ζῶ ἐγώ for κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω, ἐξομολογήσεται τῷ θεῷ for ὀμεῖται τὸν θεόν LXx.; 1 Cor. 1. τὸ ἀθετήσω for κρύψω 1.ΧΧ.; Gal. πὶ. 8 πάντα τὰ ἔθνη for “πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς LXX.; ill. 13 ἐπικατάρατος (cf. ν. 20) for κεκαταραμένος 1ΧΧ.; Eph. iv. 8 ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις for ἔλαβες δ. ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ" LXX.; iv. 25 μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον for πρὸς τὸν πλ. LXX.; V. 31 ἀντὶ τούτου for ἕνεκεν τ.; om. αὐτοῦ 1°, 29; cf. Mt. xix. 5 f, ΜΟΡ ΚΗ ΕΝ eon μακροχρόνιος for κ. ἵνα μακροχρ. γένῃ).
In other passages St Paul departs still further from the LXxX., 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. το ΕΝ ix. 220m, peor; 1 Cor. xis 4, saxon lion
1 BA reads δύναμιν. 2 avos ΒΆΝ 8, 3 On this passage, see above, p. 251 f.
Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament. 401
The following instances will shew how far reconstruction is
carried in cases of conflation.
Rom. ix. 33 ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου" καὶ ὁ πισ- τεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυν-
θήσεται.
Rom. xi. ὃ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμα κατανύξεως, ὀφϑαλ- μοὺς τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα τοῦ μὴ ἀκούειν, ἕως τῆς σήμερον
ἡμέρας.
Ι Cor. li. 9 ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ > , σ΄“ «ς ’, e \ a ἀνέβη, ὅσα ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν ὅ.
αγαπωσιν]
ΘΕ Ἰ 1. 34, 8.
I Cor. xv. 54f. κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος. ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ νῖκος; ποῦ σου,
, \ , θάνατε, TO KEVTPOV ;
υπομενουσιν
Isa. vill. 14 οὐχ ὡς λίθου προσκόμματι συναντήσεσθε οὐδὲ @s πέτρας πτώματι. XXVill. 16 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβάλλω εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σειὼν λίθον πολυ- τελῆ, ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον, ἔντιμον...καὶ ὁ πιστεύων οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ.
Isa. ΧΧΙΧ. 10 πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς Κύριος πνεύματι κατανύξεως. Deut. xxix. 4 καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν καρδίαν εἰδέναι - καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς [τοῦ] βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα ἀκούειν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης.
Isa. lxiv. 3 οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν οὐδὲ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν εἶδον θεὸν πλὴν σοῦ, καὶ τὰ ἔργα σου ἃ ποιήσεις τοῖς ὑπομέ- νουσιν ἔλεον. ἶχν. 17 οὐδ᾽ οὐ μὴ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ καρδίαν.
Isa. xxv. 8 κατέπιεν o θάνατος ἰσχύσας. Hos. xiil. 14 ποῦ ἡ δίκη σου, θάνατε; ποῦ τὸ κέντρον σου, ἅδη;
In some cases a wide departure from the 1,ΧΧ. is probably to be explained by the supposition that the Apostle quotes from
Memory; €.g.:
Rom. xi. 2 ff. οὐκ οἴδατε ἐν ᾿Ηλείᾳ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή.. «Κύριε, τοὺς προφή- τας σου ἀπέκτειναν, τὰ θυσια- στήριά σου κατέσκαψαν, κἀγὼ εξ , , A ~ ὑπελείφθην μόνος, καὶ ζητοῦσιν \ ,ὔ > A , , τὴν ψυχήν pov. ἀλλὰ Ti λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός; Κατέ- λιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ.
1 Aq. καὶ εἰς στερεὸν σκανδάλου.
3 On this passage see Resch, Agrapha, p. 154 ff.
Ss. S.
3 Regn. xix. 14 ff.
καὶ εἶπεν Ἠλειού... τὰ Ov- σιαστήριά σου καθεῖλαν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν οο «καὶ ὑπολέλιμμαι ἐγὼ μονώ- τατος καὶ ζητοῦσι τὴν ψυχήν μου...καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν...καταλείψεις ἐν Ἰσραὴλ ἑπτὰ χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν, πάντα γόνατα ἃ οὐκ ὥκλασαν γόνυ τῷ Βάαλ.
= ΟὟ 1 Pet, 11:.5. (Hort). 4 So Theodotion.
26
402 Quotations from the 7,.Χ Δ΄. in the New Testament.
The following quotation also is probably from memory}, but the Apostle’s knowledge of the original has enabled him to improve upon the faulty rendering of the LXx.
ΕΘ ΟΣ ΣΙ ΟΝ Isa. ΧΡ 11 f. ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται ὅτι διὰ φαυλισμὸν χειλέων, διὰ Ἔν ἑτερογλώσσοις καὶ ἐν χεί- γλώσσης ἑτέρας: ὅτι λαλήσου- λεσιν ἑτέρων λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ σιν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ... καὶ οὐκ τούτῳ, καὶ οὐδ᾽ οὕτως εἰσ- ἠθέλησαν ἀ ἀκούειν.
ακούσονταί μου, λέγει Κύριος.
Jerome, quoting these words from St Paul, rightly adds, “Quod mihi videtur iuxta Hebraicum de praesenti sumptum capitulo.” Aquila’s rendering is remarkably similar, ὅτι ἐν ἑτερο- γλώσσοις καὶ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέροις λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ. Theodo- tion unfortunately is wanting.
(7) 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.?” A considerable number of the passages are cited exactly, or with only slight variation (i. 5, 8f., 13; ἢ, 6 ff, 135 τύ 4, ‘Vv. 6} ‘vi 13 ἘΠ Vill. 5, χρυ, 18,21; Xikepa ΟΝ The writer usually follows the Lxx. even when they differ materially from the Heb. (vii. 8 ff.’, x. 5 ff., σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, 37 ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, Xi. 21 ῥάβδου, xii. 5 μαστιγοῖ). But he sometimes deserts both version and original, substituting a free paraphrase, or apparently citing from memory (1. 6, ix. 20 ἐνετείλατο, X. 30°, ΧΙ]. 19 f., 26). Some of his readings are interesting: in 1. 7 we have πυρὸς φλόγα for πῦρ φλέγον“; in 1. 12 ws ἱματιον seems to be a doublet of ὡσεὶ περιβόλαιον. Notice also il. 12 ἀπαγγελῶ for διηγήσομαι (perhaps after Ps. ΧΧΙ. 31 f.); ill. 9 ἐν δοκιμασίᾳ for ἐδοκίμασαν (EAoKIMacid for edoximacé), and ill. 10 τεσσεράκοντα ἔτη" διὸ προσώχθισα for
1 As ἐν τῷ νόμῳ seems to indicate.
2 Westcott, Hebrews, p- 476.
8. Cf. p. 338.
4 Yet ‘‘he nowhere shews any immediate knowledge of the Hebrew text”’ (Westcott, of. cit., p. 479).
5 Cf. Rom. xii. 19. Apparently a stock quotation, current in this form,
6 A* has πυρὸς pdéya (sic) in Ps. ciii. 4.
Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament. 403
τεσσ. ἔτη προσώχθ.; x. 6 εὐδόκησας for ἥτησας B, ἐζήτησας ΜΑΒΤ; ΧΙ. 15 ἐνοχλῇ for ἐν χολῇ, 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 there 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=Le. xiii. 27, ΠΕ Ὁ ΓΞ ey x1. ΕΣ ἢ xi.5— he: Wi 22) a. Sry 23'S ee te eo a. 3o=' Moc. iv. 32> eva, Fo, xvi 27 = Eo. ΟῚ εἰν ύτ EG, ΘΝ, xi? T= Be: xx: 9, ‘xxiv; 20°: = pres eill.24. its =e. xxi \25 ff, xxiv 3o\— Le: xvi 27) xxvi. b4—Me. xiv. 62=Lc. xxu. 69; Mc. tv. 20, vi. 23, 1x. 48, xvi. 19; Le. xii. 53, xxl. 22, 24, xxlll. 30, 46); (4) in the canticles of Lc. i.—ii.; (c) in St Stephen’s speech, and, though more sparsely, in the other speeches of the Acts; (4) in the Epistle
26—2
404 Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.
of St James’ 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; (/) in the Epistle to the Hebrews (ii. 16, iii. 5 f., vi. 7f, τοῦ, vii. 1 ff., x. 20f, ΧΙ; 12 f., 17 f., 28, ΧΙ]. 12—21, ΧΙ]. 11, 20); and especially (g) in the Apocalypse, where references to the Greek Old Testa- ment 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’*. 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*. 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 tit. (Heidelberg, 1588); J. Drusius, Parallela Sacra (Franeker,
1 See Mayor, St ¥ames, pp. Ixviii. ff., cxxxix.
2 The facts are collected by Dr Ryle in Smith’s D.B.? art. Apocrypha (i. pp. 183, 185).
3 See below, c. iv.
Quotations from the 7, Χ Χ. in the New Testament. 405
1594); H. Hody, De Bzbl. textibus, p. 243 ff. (Oxford, 1705); W. Surenhusius, ΠΡ 5D sive βίβλος καταλλαγῆς (Amsterdam, 1713); H. Owen, Modes of quotation used by the Evangelical writers explained and vindicated (London, 1789); H. Gough, NV. T. Quotations (London, 1855); A. Tholuck, Das A.T. in N.T.—erste Betlage (Gotha, 1836); Ὁ. McC. Turpie, Zhe Old Testament in the New (London, 1868); The New Testament view of the Old (London, 1872); Kautzsch, De Veterzs Testa- mentt locis a Paulo ap. allegatis (Leipzig, 1869); C. Taylor, The Gospel tn the Law (Cambridge, 1869) ; _H. Monnet, Les citations de Ζ᾽ Ancien Testament dans les Epitres de Saint Paul (Lausanne, 1874); Bohl, Die ATlichen Citate im N.T. (Vienna, 1878); C. H. Toy, Quotations in the New Testament (New York, 1884); E. Hatch, Essays zx Biblical Greek, p. 131 ff. (Oxford, 1889); W. Staerk, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeztschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Theologte, xxxv.—xl.: A. Clemens, Der Ge- brauch des A.T. in den NTlichen Schriften (Gitersloh, 1895); H. Volkmar, Die ATlichen Citate bec Paulus (Freiburg in B., 1895); J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 123 ff. (Oxford, 1899); W. Dittmar, Vetus Testamentum in Novo i. (Gottingen, 1899); Th. Zahn, Ezzlectung in das N.T., ii. p. 313 ff, and elsewhere (see Sachregister s. ATliche Citate) (Leipzig, 1899); E. Huthn, Die ATtichen Citate und Reminiscenzen im N.T. (Tubingen, 1900). See also the commentaries on particular books of the N.T., e.g. Bp Westcott, Hebrews, p. 469 ff.; J. B. Mayor, S¢ James, p. \xviii. ff.; H. B. Swete, St Wark, p. Ixx. ff.
6 aN ok Ug oh EM Ne
QUOTATIONS FROM THE LXX. IN EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS.
‘‘THE quotations from the Lxx. in the Greek Fathers are an almost unworked field’.” 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 Zexte und Unter- suchungen, and it may be hoped that the Berlin edition of the earlier Greek Fathers® 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 wnitings, 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.
1 Biblical Essays, p- 133- 2 Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten dret Jahr-
hunderte (Hinrichs, Leipzig). The volumes already published contain part of Hippolytus and an instalment of Origen.
Quotations in early Christian Writings. 407
The following is a list of the exact or nearly exact quotations of the Lxx. in Clem. R. ad Cor. Gen. i. 23 (vi. 3), iv. 3 ff. (iv. 1 ff.), xii. 1 ff. (x. 3), xiii. 14 ff. (x. 4f.), xv. 5 (x. 6), XVlll. 27 (xvil. 2); Exod. ii. 14 (iv. 9); Deut. xxxil, 8 f. (xxix. 2); Ps. il. 7 f. (xxxvi. 4), xi. 5 f. (xv. 5), xvil. 26f. (xlvi. 2), xviii. 2 ff (xxvii. 7), xxi. 7 ff. (xvi. 15 f.), xxii. I (liv. 3), xxx. 19 (xv. 5), sxx. τ (0.6), Io (xxii. 8), xxxili. 12—20 (xxii. 1 ff.), xxxvi. 35 f. (xiv. 5), xlix. 16 ff. ΠΥ (xvil,; ΣΙ Ixi. 1 5Ge 3); ere 36 (xv. 4), Ixxxwilis 21 (xviil. I), ciit. 4 (xxxvis 3), Cix..1 (XxxVi. §), €xvul. 16 (ivi: 2), 10 & (xiviil. 2), Cxxxvill. 7 &.(xxviit. 3),'exl. 5/(Uvi 5); Prov. i, 23 ff. (lvul. 3 ff.), 11. 21 f. (xiv. 4)». 110. 12. (vin 3 £5.34 (exx.2) ax Saat 2): ob, iv, 16 ff. Gotxixs 3 fv. 17 1 (vi. 6 fan ΖΕ (xxx. 4), xix. 26 (xxvi. 2); Sap. xil. 12 ἜΧΙ. 22 (xxvii. 3); Mal. 11. 1 (xxili. 5); Isa. i. 16 ff. (vill. 4), vi. 3 (xxxiv. 6), xill. 22 (xxill. 5), Mala 13 (xv. 2), lili. 1 ff. (xvi. 3 ff.), Ix. 17 (xii. 5), Ixvi. 2 (xiii. 3); ernie. 55 4. (xii 1) 5) Pzech:-xxxiil. 11(vi..2); Dan, viz 10, Uh: (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 ἐξουθένημα, SAR; xxxi. I f. ov, 8*BA (ag. 8° ©); Xxxill. 14 χείλη τοῦ, NAR; 16 om. ort, NM@AR; xxxvi. 36 ἐξεέητησα (H.P. 99, 183); xlix. 21 avoue, 8*; 22 apm. ws λέων, R; 1. 17 τὸ στόμα... τὰ χείλη; Ixxxvili. 21 ἐλέει, B¥; Prov. il. 21 χρηστοὶ ἔσονται οἰκήτορες γῆς, ἄκακοι δὲ ὑπολειφθήσονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς, cf. 8*°*A—a doublet want- ing in B, whose reading ‘“‘appears to shew the hand of an Alexandrian reviser” (Toy, cf. Lagarde); ili. 12 παιδεύει, ΝΑ; XX. 21 (27) λύχνος, a reading found in A as a doublet (φώς... ἢ λύχνος); Job iv. 21 ἐτελεύτησαν (for ἐξηράνθησαν), A; v. 17 ff. is without the additions of the A text, and nearly as in B; Isa. 1. 17 χήρᾳ, Β΄, ag. Β ΝΑ, δεῦτε καὶ διελεγχθ. (διᾶλεχθ. Cle"), sAQ; 1π|. 5 ἀμαρτίας.. ἀνομίας ἴτ., sAQ; 6 ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν; 8 ἥκει for ἤχθη, Q™, 62, go al., ϑγτομεχ.ῖξ, 9 εὑρέθη δόλος, ΑΘ (see Lightfoot’s note); τῆς πληγῆς, Β (A, ἀπὸ τ. πλ.); Ιχ. 17 ἄρχοντας] ἐπισκόπους | ἐπισκόπους] δια- κόνους - Ezech. xxxill. 11 ἁμαρτωλοῦ, A (Β, ἀσεβοῦς) ; Dan. vil. _ 10 ἐλειτούργουν, Th. (ΧΧ. ἐθεράπευον).
1 On Clement’s quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah, see Hatch, Essays, pp. 175—9.
408 Quotations in early Christian Writings.
(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. cxxxviiil. 8 ἐὰν καταστρώσω, "A. Σ. ἐὰν στρώσω (LXX. ἐὰν καταβῶ); Isa. Ixvi. 2 πρᾷον, A. (LXX. ταπεινόν). 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. Ixxxvill, 21 ἐν ἐλέει αἰωνίῳ: Mal. i. 1 ὁ aytos’ for ὁ ἄγγελος.
(2) A large proportion of Clement’s quotations are com- posite”; 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. cxvil. 18+ Prov. ili. 12+ Ps. cxl. 5 (φησῶν) + Job V. 17—26 (καὶ πάλιν λέγει)). In other cases one of the cita- tions is correctly given, and another quoted loosely (e.g. xiv. 4= Prov. ii. 21 f. (A) + Ps. xxxvi. 38, confused with 21>). But more commonly in Clement’s conflate quotations, texts are fused together without regard to verbal accuracy; cf. e.g. xxvi. 20 λέγει yap που Kai ἐξαναστήσεις με καὶ ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι" καὶ ἐκοιμήθη καὶ ὑπνώσα- ἐξηγέρθην, ὅτι σὺ μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ εἶ, where fragments of Pss. xxvil. 7, ill. 5, xxil. 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.. cxxxvni.. 7), xxx. 3. (συ xv.) 5); ee ΓΟ, δε 9}
(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 vil. 3 =Clem. x. 3: Clem. reads ἄπελθε for ἔξελθε (LXx. and Acts), but rejects καὶ δεῦρο with AD against Acts and cod. E.
1 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.
β eyes πο ονὼ quotations from the LXX. see Hatch, of. cit. p- 203 ff.
Quotations in early Christian Writings.
(2) Exod. ii.
14=Acts vil.
27)= Clem:
IV.
409
11: Clem. reads
κριτήν for apxovra— perhaps from confusion with Le. xi. 14”
(Lightfoot).
(2 Corux.oag)= Clem... 15
(3). Jer ax. 23} {1 Regn,
1 tO)=1 or, 4. ΔῈ here the relation of Clement to
the Biblical texts is best shewn by juxtaposition:
jer.-2.6.
μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σο- φὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλού- τῳ αὐτοῦ: ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ ὁ καυ- χώμενος, συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ἔλεος καὶ κρίμα καὶ δικαι- οσύνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
οὐ bs. ΣΙ,
9 = Matt.
I Regn. Zc.* μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ φρό- νιμὸος ἐν τῇ φρονήσει oes ‘ P αὐτοῦ, Kal μὴ καυχά- σθω ὁ δυνατὸς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ" ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυ- χάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος, συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν : ; : ᾿ τὸν κύριον, καὶ ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐν μέσῳ τῆς γῆς. ΘΟΕ Μ ΕΣ
XXVIII.
43 = Clem.
Clem. ἀπ.
μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σο- φὸς ἐν τῇ σοφία αὐτοῦ, μηδὲ ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ, μηδὲ 6 πλούσιος ἐν τῷ π οὐ- τῳ αὐτοῦ" ἀλλ᾽ ἢ +6 καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω, τοῦ ἐκζη- τεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην.
for ΘΟΕ ing ΠΣ ΘΌΥΣ x. 17: see Lightfoot’s note ad Joc.
XV1. Clem.
ΓΒ
agrees with Lxx., Mt. substitutes πέποιθεν for ἤλπισεν, τὸν
θεόν for Κύριον, and εἰ for ὅτι.
(5)_.PS. xxXxI. τ ἢ Ἐξ 7 Pet.
lil. το ff.=Clem. xxii. 1 ff.; Clem. agrees with Lxx. against
St Peter, who changes the construction (6 6édwv.. (Ps: ex. 1— τ xxi 44 {Mec e.), Acts 24 4,
KTA.).
, -TAaAVOaTW
Heb. i. 13 =Clem. xxxvi. 5: Clem. reads ὑποπόδιον with Le.,
Acts, Hebr.,
against ὑποκάτω Mt.,
Mc. (BD). $2 Heb. χη 6=,Clem, lvi..4: see above,, p. 402.
(2) Prov, ul (8) Prov.
ὁ Τρ 0, aoFet. v, 5—Clem. xxx. 2: Weas (ὃ 0. Jas.,
Pet.) against Kvpios Lxx.; [On tags σεῖς, 1.5 again the passages must be printed in full:
M7 in Ὁ. 33. XV. I:
1 See Hatch, of. εἶ, p.1t77 f.
M.T. 81, but with reference to Mt. xv. 8, Me. vii. 6 = Clem.
410
Isa. Lc.
>
ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ dads οὗτος ἐν τῷ στύματι
> a - αὐτοῦ, Kal ἐν τοῖς χεί- λεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν
ε 4 ‘ > ΄“
_ με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν
Mt., Mc. 27,2:
ς \ τ be ὁ λαὸς οὗτος (οὗτος ὁ λαὸς Me.) τοῖς χεί- λεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ / > ~ καρδία αὐτῶν ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ.
πόρρω |
Quotations in early Christian Writings.
Clem. Zc. Otros ὁ λαὸς τοῖς ’ / ΄“ c ‘ χείλεσίν pe τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἄπεστιν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ.
τοῖς χείλεσιν] τῷ στο-
> ~ Ι πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ. ματι Celem,
ἄπεστιν] ἀπέχει Colem,
ἀπέχει] Mc. ἀφέστη-
om ἐν T@ στόμ. αὐτοῦ | κεν 1) ἄπεστιν 1, 2ὉΡ8
καὶ ἐν SAQ.
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 ἄπεστιν shews. (10) Isa. lili; 1—12=Clem. xvi. 3—14; cf. Jo. x. 38 (Rom. x. 16), Mt. vill. 17, Acts viii. 32 f., 1 Pet. i. 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; (4) 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 conclu- sions 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 Light- foot has suggested’, 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,
1 Clement of Rome, p. 61. Dr Nestle (2. f die NTliche Wissenschaft,
i. 2) points out the Semitic style which reveals itself in Clement, e.g. v. 6 ἑπτάκις, Xli. 5 γινώσκουσα γινώσκω.
~
Quotations in early Christian Writings. 411
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 ΠΕ Geni’ 1) 2) {χῖνε 2)°\ Mal? iv:-a" (xvb03) 3 “Tsar! sex. Pas ἀχτῖν A. Cxvises pls Ὁ Gan. ΡΨ απ οὐ Gee’ 3) lxvie τϑ σα £);°'24. ΟΣ xvul.'24); fer: Vili (xiv, £); Ezechs*xiv.; 143, τ8.. 20 Ὁ 8): Fhe ΘΈΡΟΣ these passages is cited very freely or rather summarised, although introduced by the words λέγει ἡ γραφὴ ἐν τῷ ᾿Ἐζεκιήλ. The writer follows Clement in the form of several of his quotihonse(in ss (Clem! +1 Cor. ἌΣ Sav. |'2'= Clem. ὙΠ ΟΣ, XXXill. 5; in xill. 2 he quotes Isa. lil. 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. cill. 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 Theodo- tion’s. The passage runs: 6 κύριος ἀπέστειλεν τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν θηρίων ὄντα, οὗ τὸ ὄνομά ἐστιν teypit!, καὶ ἐνέφραξεν τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ἵνα μή σε λυμάνῃι Compare Dan. vi. 22 (23) Th., 6 θεός μου ἀπέστειλεν τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνέ- φραξεν τὰ στόματα τῶν λεόντων (LXX. σέσωκέ με 6 θεὸς ἀπὸ τῶν λεόντων), καὶ οὐκ ἐλυμήναντό pe”.
4. The Old Testament is quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas even more profusely than in the Epistle of Clement,
1 The acute conjecture of Dr J. Rendel Harris, who saw that the name, which appears in the MSS. as Θεγρί or the like, must be an attempt to reproduce the verb 13D (Dan. /. ¢.).
2 See above, p. 47, 0. 4.
412 Quotations in early Christian Writings.
but with less precision. The writer is fairly exact in well- known contexts belonging to the Psalter or the Book of Isaiah’, 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. xxxill. 1—3 15 quoted in Barn. vi. 8 after this manner: ti λέγει ὃ ἄλλος προφήτης Μωυσῆς αὐτοῖς ; ᾿Ιδοὺ τάδε λέγει Κύριος ὃ θεός Εἰσέλθατε εἰς τὴν γῆν τὴν ἀγαθήν, ἣν ὦμοσεν Κύριος τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακώβ, καὶ κατακληρονομήσατε αὐτήν, γῆν ῥεόυσαν γάλα καὶ μέλι. Similar liberties are taken even when the writer mentions the book which he is quoting: x. 2 Μωυσῆς...λέγει αὐτοῖς ἐν τῷ Δευτερονομίῳ Kai διαθήσομαι πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον τὰ δικαιώματά μου-- ἃ 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 (1x.. 5),, Ps. 1.1, τα xi. Of.), xvil. 45 (ix. 1), xxl. 17, 19 (vi. 6), cix. I (xii. 10), Cxvil. 12, 22 (vi. 4, 6), Prov. i. 17 (v. 4), Isa. i. 2, 10 ff. (11. 5, 1x. 3, xv. 8), 111: Of. (vi. 7), v. 21 (iv. II), xxvili. 16 (vi. 2), xxxii. 13:(1x4 1) ano (xi. 4 £), xl 12 (xvi. 2); ΠῚ 6 ff. (xiv. 7), xlv. 27. (31 τ (xiv. 8), lili. 5, 7 (v. 2), lxi. 1f. (xiv. 9), Ixvi. 1f. (xvi. 2). (6) Partly exact, partly free: Gen. xxv. 21 ff. (xiii. 2), xlviii. g—11, 14 ff. (xiii. 4 f.), Isa. xxviii. 16 (vi. 2), lviil. 4 ff. (11. 1 f.), Jer. ii. 12 f. (xi. 2): (¢) Free: 'Gen.'1..26 (vi. 12),'28 (vi. 18); Lev. xxiii 26 (vie Deut. ix. 12 (iv. 8), x. τό (ix. 5), Ps. xxi. 21, cCxvili. 120, xxi. 17 (v. 13), Zech. xiii. 7 (v. 12), xvi. 1 f. (xi. 3), xl. 3 (ix. 3), Isa. 1. 6 fff (v. 14, vi, 1), Ixv. 2 (xii. 4), Jer. iv. 3 (ix. 5), vil. 2 (ix. 2), 1x. 26 (ix. 5), Ezech. xi. 19, xxxvi. 26 (vi. 14). (4) Free, with fusion: Gen. xvii. 23+xiv. 14 (ix. 8), Exod. xx. 8+Ps. xxili. 4 (xv. 1), Exod. xxxii. 7+ Deut. ix. 12 (iv. 8), xxxiv. 28+xxxi. 18 (iv. 7), Ps. ΧΙ]. 3 Ἔ ΧΧΙ. 23 (vi. 15), 1. 19+apocryphon (ii. 10), Jer. vil. 22f.+ Zech. vii. 10, vill. 17 (11. 7 ἢ). (δ). Free summary: Lev. xi., Deut. xiv, (x. 1), Deut. iv. 10 ff. (x..2), Ezech. xlvii. (xi. 10)... (7) Vergy loose citation: Gen. il. 2 (xv. 3), xvii. 5 (xili. 6), Exod. xvii. 14 (xii. 9), xxiv. 18+xxxi. 18 (xiv. 2), xxxiii. 1 ff. (vi. 8), Lev. xvi. 7 ff.
1 See Hatch, Zssays, p. 180 ff.
i
Quotations in early Christian Writings. 413
(vit. 6), Deut xxvil 1g! (xii: G);. ‘Ps. xxxitisin3 (ix: 2); Sir.<iv.. 31 (ix, 0), sane 17) (ἀν. 3), Datawii 7. fy 24 (iv. 4), ΤΙΣ, 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. 1.1 ἐπὶ καθέδραν, BN (ag. ἐ. καθέδρᾳ AR), 5 οἱ ἀσεβεῖς, ἁμαρτωλοί, Β (ag. ἀσεβεῖς, of du. A). XVil. 45 ὑπήκουσαν, δὲ] μου, N°? RU (ag. pou 1° BN*A). xxl. 17 περιέσχεν; H.-P. 81, 206. cix. I Κύριος, R | ὑποπόδιον (ag. ὑποκάτω, Mc. xii. 36, BD). Isa. ill. 9 ὅτι, AT; v. 21 ἑαυτῶν, AQ; xxvill. 16 ἐμβαλῶ, NAQ; xiii. 7 καὶ ἐξαγαγεῖν | δεδεμένους] πεπεδημένους (as Justin, Dzal. 26, 65, 122). xlix. 6 τέθεικα, NAQ* (ag. δέδωκα BQ™S), 7 λυτρωσάμενος (for puca- μενος); lili. 5 ἀνομίας, ἁμαρτίας, NAQ, 7 τοῦ κείραντος αὐτὸν, δὲ“ "ἃ AQ; lviil. 5 λέγει Κύριος, Q, 6 ἰδοὺ αὕτη ἡ νηστεία Hv; ΙΧ]. I τα- πεινοῖς, N*; Ιὥχν]. 1 ἡ δὲ γῆ, NAQ | ἡ (for καὶ 2°), NA.
The leaning in Isaiah towards the text of Q, especially when found in company with A or ΝΑ, is noteworthy, and it is worth mentioning that in Zech. ΧΙ. 7, where the text of Barnabas does not seem to have been influenced by the Gospels, it agrees with A in adding τῆς ποίμνης. Occasionally the text used by Barnabas seems to have been revised from the Heb.; e.g. in Jer. 11. 12 ἐξέστη, ἔφριξεν become ἔκστηθι, φριξάτω in accordance with M.T.; in Gen. ii. 2 Barnabas has with M.T. ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ where the Lxx. read é. τ. ἡ. TH
- 1 ΕΚΤΉ .
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);
1 For further details see Hatch, of. czt. p. 180 ff.
414 Quotations in early Christian Writings.
two or three allusions (Ps. xxxll. 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 δ᾽ ὑμᾶς διὰ παντὸς τὸ ὄνομά pov βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν appears to be changed into οὐαὶ δι᾿ οὗ ἐπὶ ματαιότητι τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπί τινων βλασφημεῖται---ἃ form which occurs also in Pseudo-Clement (2 Cor. xiii. 2) and Polycarp (Phil. x. 3)'.. (4) The Bishop of Smyrna is no less sparing in his references to the O.7T. than the Bishop of Antioch, He quotes only Isa. lii. 5* (x. 3), Tob. iv. 1o= xii. g (x. 2), Ps. iv. 5 (xii. 1)—the last-named passage perhaps indi- rectly, from Eph. iv. 26—and Proy. 11]. 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 ἐπιστρέψατε, 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 pArvovenance. 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 para- phrase. How copiously he cites, especially in Adv. haereses ill. iv., will appear from the following list”.
Gen. 1. 3 (iv. 32. 1), 5 (v. 23. 2), 26 (ill. 23. 2, Iv. 20.1, vais ee li. If. (v. 28. 3), 5 (iii. 21. 10), 7 (li. 34. 4, iv. 20. I, V. 7--I, Ve 15. 2),(O (iv. 5.1), 16 f::(v, 23. 1);-23, (il, 22.4) Jil. 2 ff, (ea (v. 17. 1), 9 (ν. 15. 4), 13 (iil. 23. 5), 14 (ili. 23. 3), 15 (iv. 40. 3, Vv. 21..1),:19 (v. 16. 1); iv. 7 (iv. 18. 3), °9 (iii. 23.4), TO ἘΠῚ ΤῊΝ
1 On this quotation, however, see Nestle in Exp. Times, ix., p. 14f. 2 The chapters and sections are those of Stieren.
Quotations in early Christian Writings. 415
im, §4(v2 14.71) 5- xi! 14 £.,27° (v.92. 2)$ xiv. 22-(iv. 5, 5) 5.xvx18 (v. 32. 2); xvil. off. (iv. 16. 1); xix. 24 (ili. 6..1), 31 ff. (iv. 31. 1); Xxvil. 27 ff. (v. 33. 3); xlix. Io ff. (iv. το. 2), 18 (111. το. 3). Exod. 1. 13 f. (iv. 30. 2); ili. of. (iv. 7. 4), 8, 14 (ill. 6. 2), 19 (iv. 29. 2); wait. (ἢ. +3214) 3 xx: 3, 5/(1. 29. 4), 12 (ivi Οἱ 3)3 Xxiil. 20 (iv. 20. 5): XxV. 40 (iv. 14. 3); Xxvi. 16 (il. 24. 3); ΧΧΧΙ. 13 (iv. 16. 1); xxxlil. 2 f. (iv. 15. 1), 20 (i. 19. 1), 21 ff. (iv. 20. Ὁ) xxxiv. 6f. (iv. 20. 8). Num. xvi. 15 (iv. 26. 4); xviii. 20 (iv. 8. 3); xxiv. 17 (ili. 9. 2). Deut. iv. 14 (iv. 16. 5), 19 (ill. 6. 5); v. 2f. (iv. 16. 2), 8 (ill. 6. 5), 22 ints. Πρ AY: Vi. Aff.\(AV. 2.2, Vi 22. ΤΊ ΣΎ Gwsi6.i gy2 x EZ (iv.c 16.4), 16 (iv. 16.1); xvi. 5)f. (iv. “to. “1)y 16( five 18271) s EVE E (iv. ΟΣ 2): xxvill.'66.(iv.. Τοῦ ξεν 18/'3)5 xxx 11g αν 16. Apa xa. ? (iv, 2. 1); 4 (ili 18.-7), 6 (vs Tor. 2 3135/2), 8 fim. ora. Oys xxx. +9 (iv, 8.°3)/* .* Regn’ ΧῊΣ af. (iv. 26. 4y; xy: 22 {{ν 5517. Be a ΒΡ ΓΕ} 29. xi PY ve 274 1).173 Regn. vill. 27 (iv. 27. 1); mie Fis ἔπ "9.2: ἘΠ) ΧΥΠ 55. 24, 264i. ὁ: 3) 5) KIX. TPR GY. 20.10). Ps. 11, 8 (iv. 21. 3); iil. 6 (iv, av. F) svi. τ ἔτσι ΑἿΣ ΔΉ 2 (1 4 8 }5 Xi 3.119. Ἰὴς ἈΠ]: χα 14.2 5} ) {533 ΣΕΥ) ἘΣ: «5 {Π|. 34- 3); xxii. 4. (v. 31. 2); xxi. I (iv. 36. 6); χχχί. If. (ν. 17. 3); Xxxll. 6 (i. 22. 1; 11]. 8. 2), 9 (il. 2. 5, 11]. 8. 2); xxxiil. 13 ff. (iv. B71 Sy 30, 2) 17 (iv, 2624) 5) xuxiv,@ (IV. Tae ΚΖ): xxxEx.-7) (ive 17. Pye rlig 3 i: {ἰν 235: τ). 7 (ie ΟΥ ΤῊ ΣΙ ΗΠ Azi(ive al 3), αν. ΠΡ 5) 23 tw: 7.2) 5 ΧΠΧῚ Tin? 6.1), 3 £.(v. 1.8.:-2}} £2 ἀπ τε): bees ats 07.2), 1 Ὁ τ (iverk7s 1 Ye. dvi: (A £2 (ie FOL ΣΝ: Του τι 727 (iii. 22> 2); Iexvy 2<(i 9. 2), ον 33: 11) 3. Lexvin. {ἰ (ito. 3) aikkixy FG FI. 5): ἸΣΧΣΙ 9 6f . Thane) ἐσ ν {π|τ 1. Ixexy. 1 ὑν:..521..1}; 50.9.12 (ile 2%) 7) 5 πεῖν: ΜῈ. (iil. 10. 4); xcv. 1 (iv. 9. I), 5 (iil. 6. 3); xcvii. 2 (ili. 10. 3); XCvill. I (iv. 3 33 152): ον 201]: (iy. τ τ Gill, 30. (3%. ΕἸ ΕΙ beso. 7, ii 0 1). CX. ΤΟ (Mi. 025. δὴ): ΟΧΙΠΙ, TI Gi Θ 7: 9): ἜΧΣΟΙ: Wor (air. \G. 2)»: exlv; 6/ (1. 10.) ¥);-exbvill./ 5.f. 0 538: 2,.ν. 08), Frovisadi2of7(v.. 20. Τὺ; 11.10.1. (ivip202 3); νυ 22 (Hi, 9343); νῆι. eww 21.1.2 2 21 2% (iy. 20. 3): xix. 17 (iv. 18 6): χε ity, 24.15); "" Sap: Viz 19 Gv. 38. 3). HOS..1ve F Ge'19.'.1); xi ie’ (ait. 12, 13, iv. 20. 6). Amos i. 2 (ili. 20. 4); viii. of. (iv. 33. 12). Mic. Vi, LO, (iti... 20.4)... Joel. i11,.:16.(iv,; 33.51). .Jon.4 9, πὸ ὅν i. 9... {π|| 290. Be Habs 111: (i. 16: 7); 2 ΠῚ {Π| 20 A, 1ν 8. 53. 18). Zech. Mi One (vay τὐ τ36,. 2); ΜΠ]. 164, αν τὴ): 3), 17: ν136..2} 7 5 11 ΕΟ {5 τ) ἜΝ |5: τ 10 f..(iv. 17. 5), il. 10 ἢν. 20, 2); iv. τ (iv. Reet hoa. 2. (iVe2, ky 1V- 41. 2), 4. LO. 1), O fs (8. 4: 2y ἵν. 33. Bay, Bs cave τ τ) τον. 17. 1, 1¥. aoen2. IV AES Spee tive ¥2) 1). 23 (iv. 2. 6); 11. 3f. (ν. 34. 4), 17 (iv. 33. 13); ν. 6 (ill. 17. 3), 12 (ii. 22. 2, iv. 2. 4); vi. 5 (iv. 20. 8), 11 f. (ν. 34. 2, V- 35. 1); Vil. 10 ff. (ill. 21. 4); vill. 3f. (iii. 16. 4, iv. 33. 11); 1x. 6 (ill. 16. 3, iv. eae ΤΕ. ΧΙ κα Gib oe)” s),' 6 ff. (visa: 4) S$ 21. 2 (ii 20. '3)> ΣΙ. ὃ iv. 35. 1); ZXV. & (V. 12. 1), 9 (GV, ΟΖ): xxvi. ΤΟΥ: 35. 1), 19 (iv. Batt. Vo 1G. ΤΥ ΠΕ)» RV (eee τὴ: RXV. 16 (il. ΣΙ):
416 Quotations in early Christian Writings.
xxix. (13 (iV.12.4)5 χαρὰ (iv. 28: 3),°25 £)(v..34- 2) see ee 34. 4); xxxil. I (v. 34. 4): xxxiil. 20 (iil. 20. 4); xxxv. 3 f. (ill. 20. 3) ἦν. 33. 12); xl. -25,/17.(y. 20. Τὴ ΧΙ. (iv; 5-3) 5) aig Cpe v. 12. 2), 10ff. (iv. 9. 1); xliil. 5 ff. (iv. 14. 1), 10 (iii. 6. 2, iv. 5. 1), 18.{iv. | 33-. 14) 23 (iv) 17-3), Xlv..7 (ive 40.1); xvi. © Goa xiviit. 22.(i 16. 3)5 xlix. 16(v. 35,:2)5) li. 6 (iv. 3.1), Ind Gee Τὺ 8 (ii. 28. 5); liv. 11 ff. (v. 34. 4); lvil. (iv. 34. 4), 16 (v. 12. 2); Iviil. 6 ff. (iv. 17. 3), ΤΡ (vs 34.2)¢ Ix: 175 lx. 1 f6.Gu.-9. ees (ii1. 20. 4); Ixve 1 (111. 6. .1),.17 ff. (iv. 26. 4; Vs .35-\2, 34.4) ae 35. 1), 22 (v. 15. 1), 25 (v. 33. 4), Ixvi. I (iv. 2. 5), 2 (iv. 17. 3), 3 (iv. 18. 3), 22 (v. 36. 1). Jer. 1. 5 (v. 15. 3); ii. 29 (iv. 37. 7); ἵν. 22 (iv. 2.1); v. 8 (iv. 41. 3, v. 7. 2); vi. 17 ff. (iv. 36. 2), 20 (iv. 17. 2); vii. 2f. (iv. 17. 2), 3 (iv. 36.2), 21 (iv. 17. 3), 25 (iv. 36. 5), 2015 Gy..36. 2); vill. as 30. 2); ix. 2 (iv. 25. 3), 24 f. (iv. 17. 3); xX. II (iil. 6. 3); xi. 15 (iv. 17. 3); xiv. 9 (Iv. 33. 12), xvil. 9 (ill. 18 | 3, iv. 33. 11); xxii. 17 (iv. 18. 3, iii. 21.9); xxiii. 7f. (v. 34.1), 20 J (iv. 26. 1), 23 (iv. 19. 2), 29 (v. 17. 4); xxxi. 10 ff. (v. 34. 3), 26 (iv. 51. ΤῊΣ Xxxv.-P5 (iv.-36. 5) 3) xxxvi. 39 f. (111: 21: οὐ; χανε τ 8. 21). Lam. iv. 20 (iil, 20. 3). Bar. iv. 36—v. fin. (v. 35. 1). Ezech. τ τὸν: 20.510); xx. 412, (iv. 16. 1), 23 f.,(iv. 15. 8) πο 254. (v.. 34.1) xxxvi. 26 (iv. 23..4); xxxvil.1ff. (Vv. 15s/1) dene 34.a).° Dan. ib 234: 41 ff..(v.) 26, 1); 111: 2441. (v. 5.52) 3 ee 25. 33)» 10 (ii. 7. 4), 14 (iv. 20. 11), 20ff. (v. 25. 3), 27 (v. 34. 2); vil. 11 f,, 23 ff. (v. 25. 4); ix. 7 (v. 25. 4); xil. 3f, 7 (iv. 26. 1), of. Gi. 29.2), xu. 13°(v~ 34. 2). Sus. 52 f., 56 Gv. 26. 3.1. ΘΕ ΕΞ Ὶ (το).
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), xlvill. 22 (1. 16. 3), Dan. ΧΙ]. g (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 iili., iv., will shew the general tendencies of his text:
Gen. xlix. 10 cuz repositum est (M™ ᾧ ἀπόκειται); 18 2m salutem tuam sustinut te, Domine (cf. Foor mg ap. Field). Exod. xxv. 40 facies omnia (F ποιήσεις πάντα, Luc.) secundum typum eorum quae vidistt. Num. xxiv. 17 surget dux in Israel (cf. Heb.
bay, Σ. σκῆπτρον ; LXX. ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ΝΥ Deut. v. 22 (19) scrip- sit ea in duabus tabulis lapideis (+Oivas B*A Luc.); xxxii. 6
1 Cf. Justin, Dial. 120.
Quotations in early Christian Writings. 417
et fectt te et creavit te (+kai ἔκτισέν σε AF, +kai ἔπλασέν σε Luc.). 1 Regn. xv. 22 auditus bonus super sacrifictum (ἀγαθή Luc.). Ps. xxxix. 7 aures autem perfecistt mihi (possibly a cor- rection from the Gallican Psalter, but a few cursives read after the Heb. aria or dra); xliv. 17 facts sunt tibi filit (BPART ἐγενή- θησαν, ag. B*N eyevv.); xlix. 10 destiae terrae (ἀγροῦ S°*A, δρυμοῦ ΒΝ), 15 22 die tribulationts tuae (θλίψεώς σου N°#AR); ci. 27 mutabis eos (ἀλλάξεις N*, ἑλίξεις B(NS?)AR(T)); cix. 1 suppeda- neum pedum tuorum (ὑποπόδιον, not ὑποκάτω); CXill. II om. ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (with N°?AT). Mic. vil. 19 zpse (αὐτός AQ)...pro7z- ctet (ἀπορρίψει A(Q), ἀποριφήσονται B), om. πάσας. Hab. iil. 3 pedes eius (οἱ πόδες AQ, κατὰ πόδας B). Isa. 1. 17 custificate viduam (χήραν B*>NAT ag. χήρᾳ B*¥*Q*); xi. 4 arguet gloriosos terrae (τοὺς ἐνδόξους NOS, ag. τ. ταπεινούς BAQ*); xxv. 9 om. καὶ σώσει ἡμᾶς.. ὑπεμείναμεν αὐτῷ (with NAQ*, a hexaplaric addi- tion, cf. Field, ad loc.); xxix. 13 populus hic labits me honorat (om. with NAQ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ ev); xlill. 23 71021 Servisti mihi in sacrifictis=ov{ Se] ἐδούλευσάς μοι ev ταῖς θυσίαις [σου] NX? (AY), fectsti zu (cf. A* ETTOIHCAEEN); lxv. I guz me non guaerunt (ζητοῦσιν NAQ, ag. ἐπερωτῶσιν B). Jer. xlin. 31 cuferam super 605 (αὐτούς NAQ*, ag. αὐτόν BQ"), locutus sum super eos (ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς AQ, πρὸς ait. B®). Bar. v. 2 laetitzae (LXX. δικαιοσύνης).
A special interest attaches to Irenaeus’ extracts from Daniel}. For the most part they follow the version of Theodotion quite closely, even in the Greek additions. Two exceptions are worth noting: Dan. vii. to 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 ᾿Απότρεχε, Δανιήλ" οὗτοι yap ot λόγοι ἐμπεφραγμένοι εἰσίν, ἕως οἱ συνιέντες συνιῶσι καὶ ot λευκοὶ λευκανθῶσι, where ἀπότρεχε 15 a LXX. reading, whilst ἐμπεφραγμένοι is from Th. and the rest of the sentence seems to be suggested by his version (cf. ἕως...ἐκλευκανθῶσιν, 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
1 See above, p. 47.
ΣΡ Ss; 27
418 Quotations in early Christian Writings.
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. (4. 59, 64), 26 ff. (D. '62);: ti. 15 (D2: 102) ον τ 62); ix. 24—27 (D. 139); x1..6 (D. 102); xv:.6:(0; 92); (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. 1o—19 (D. 58, 120); xxxi. 1O—13 (D. 58); xxxil. 22—30 (D. 58, 126); xxxv. 6— 10 (D. 58); xlix. 8—12 (A. 32, 54; D. 52, 120). Exod. ii. 23 (DZ. 59); ill. 2—4 (D. 60), 3 ff. (A. 63); vi. 2—4 (D. 126); xvii. 16 (D. A9); xx. 22 (D.. 75); xxii. “20 f.|(D.- 75) 3 xxxii./6: Digan xxvi- 4of. (D. 16)... Num. xi..23 (D. 126); xxi. δὲ (45 ΘΟ ΕΞ 17 (A. 32, 2) 106). Deut. x. 16f. (D. 16); xxi. 23 ( Θ᾽ eee 26 (D. 95); xxxi. 2f. (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); xxxill. 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. Io, 18 (D. 39). Ps. i. (A. 40); u. (4. 40); 1.7 ΕΠ 122); 15 ae D. ΟΣ): viii. 3 (D. 114); xiv. 2 ff. (D. 27); xvii 4a er xviil. 3 ff. (A. 40, D. 64); xxi. 1---24 (D. 18), 8F. ‘ate 38), 17 ff. (45-35, 38, 22.907}; xxii. (D. 36); xxi. 7 (A. 51, D) ΘΕ. eee (De 141) παν, ΞΘ. 3 xi. ΟΣ 56,64) 5 ΞΙΩ 6. Ὁ (2. 3.7: xlix. (D. 22); Ixvii. 19 (D. 39); Ἰχχὶ.. I—19 (D. 34, 64, 121); Ixxi. 17—19 (D. 64) ; ixxsi. (72. 124); xcy.. 1 ff. (4: Ar), 5 ee 79), Io (25°73) a (D. 37); xcvill. 1—7 (D. 64); -cix. Δ, 32); cix. 1ff. (A. 45, D. 56), 3 ff. (D. 63), 4 (DO. 118);, χα. 5. ΝΣ exlvii. 1 f. (D. 85). Prov. viil. 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. 28f. (D. 87). Jon. iv. 4ff. (D. 107). Zech. 11. 6 (A. 52), 11 (D. 119), Io—iil. 2 (D. 115) 5 ii. 1°ff..(D. 79)3 vic 12'(D. 121) 5 1x. 9 (A: 35, ΕΣ Io—12 (A. 52), 12 (D. 121); xiil. 7 (D. 53). Mal. i. t1o—12 (De 28, 41). Isa. 1. 3 (A. 63), 7 (A. 47), 9 (A. 53, 22. 140), 11f. (Ae 37), 16 ff (A. 44, 61), 23 ff. (D. 27, 82); ii. 38 (A. 39), 5 ff. (Di 24, 135); ili. 9 (D. 136), 9—11 (D. 17), 9—15 (D. 133), 16 (VD. 27) v. 18—25 (D. 17, 133), 20 (A. 49); vi. 10 (D. 12); vil. IO—I
Quotations in early 5 insu Writings. 419
(D. 42, 66), 14 (A. 33); vill. 4 (D. 77); ix. 6 (A. 35); xl. I—3 (2. ΒΘ Ris. el πεζοὺς xvi. 18) 1(D., tna)5 xix. 24% (D. ΤΣ: Κανι: 21 (D. 24); xxix. 131. (D. 27, 32, 78, 123); xxx. 1--- (2). 79); XXxlll. 12. 00 (D. 70); xxxv. 1—7 (D. 69), 4 ff. (A. 48); xxxix. 3 (D. 50); xl. 1—17 (D. 50); xii. 1—4 (D. 123, 135), 5—13 (D. 65), ΙΝ rods), 120) sof. (DD; 123). slim τος (Dy, 322), 15D. 135}. mie 25 Ge 92); xlix..6:.(D. 121), & (72. 422) bh 4 (2)s-802), Oi θὲ 11) 5. li τοῦ (D: 13), 13h 8) (Asso), πὶ 15—lui. 1 (D. 118); lin. 1 ff. (D. 42); li. 8—12 (A. 51), 9 Pg) lav.) 64253) 5, lve. of. (δ. 12); 325, 2. τὴ vite τ Ἢ: (A. 48), 1-4 (D. 16), 1 (D. 110), 2 (D. 97, 118), 5 £ (D. 27); ἐπ ον 61,202. 0s )s20( A. 135 )y 64,04 37)y 13 fen (De 27) 9 de. 1o—lIxiii. 6 (D. 26); lxii. 12 (D. 119); Ixili. 15—I]xiv. 12 (D. 25); Ixili. 17 (A. 52); Ixiv. 10 ff. (4. 47, 52); Ixv. 1 ff. (A. 49, D. 24), I (D. 119), = (A. 35» 38, D. 97), 8 ff. (D. 136), g—I2 (D. 135); τ τη (0. 8t),.1xvini (A- (37, D2. 22), 5-11, Wz, 85), 23 f(D. πὸ ΚΠ (5 52.7) pA) ao fer: M12 OO DIA) αν LO) ΣΙΝΙΞΩ eA) A Val 21 te Ee eo) 1X, 2641, (28), 26. (4. 8a). Sxxwill, Rae an) 29CD as, 51. (2). αν sLbren: iva 2eq (4.155). Ezech. iii. 17—19 (D. 82); xiv. 20 (D. 44, 140); xvi. 3 (D. 77); ee LO - 200). 21.) 51. XXxViJt2., (2)...123)5 XXXVI. 7.f..(4...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. xxviil. Io—19. II ἔθηκε, DE 13 ἐστήρικτο ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν" ὁ δὲ εἶπεν | ὁ θεός Lig pr Κύριος | om ὁ θεός 29 14 γῆς, DE | ἐπί 1°] εἰς | om ἐπί 2°, 3°, 4° (ἐπ᾽) λίβα] νότον 15 ἐν ὁδῷ πάση ἣ ἄν 18 ὑπέθηκεν, st IQ om ἐκείνου | Οὐλαμμαούς, DE* | τὸ ὄνομα. xxxil. 22—30. cA ἄγγελος μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, D 26 με εὐλογήσῃς, SEE, 28 om ἔτι, E | éora τὸ ὄνομά σου, D | rov θεοῦ, E | δυνατός] + ἔσῃ, 251Ὲ 29 om ov, D 30 ἐσώθη] ἐχάρη (but ἐσώθη, infr. D. 126). Deut. xxxil. 16—23. 16 ἐξεπίκραναν, AF 17 om καὶ οὐ θεῷ, θεοῖς | ἤδεισαν] οἴδασιν | πρόσφατοι] pr καί, A 20 OM ἡμερῶν, AF 21 παρώξυναν] παρώργισαν, A 22 καυθήσεται) pr καί | om κάτω. Deut. XXXlll. I13—1I7. 13 ἐπ᾽] ἀπό (cf. ἀπ᾿ AF) | οὐρανῶν, δρόσων ἀβύσσου 14 καθ᾽ ὥραν] καθαρῶν 15 ἀπό] pr καί, AF
27—2
420 Quotations in early Christian Writings.
ἀενάων pr καὶ ποταμῶν 16 καθ᾽ ὥραν] καρπῶν | τῇ βάτῳ | ἐπ᾽ ev, AF 17 τῆς γῆς» AF Jos. v. 13—Vvi. 2. 13 om kai 2° | ἴδεν] ὁρᾷ | ἐναντίον] κατέναντι | OM καὶ ἡ ῥομφαία... αὐτοῦ | ὁ Ἰησοῦς 14 ὁ δέ] καί 15 τὸ ὑπόδημα ἐκ] τὰ ὑποδήματα. | ἐφ᾽ ᾧ | om νῦν (so A, but adding ov) | ἅγιος] γῆ ἁγία. νὶ. 1 ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐξεπορ. | om οὐδὲ εἰσεπορεύετο 2 om ἐγώ Ps. xxi. I—24. 4 τοῦ Ἰσραήλ Sent 7 ἀνθρώπων, NRU ἐξουθένημα, NAR ὃ καὶ (NU) ἐλάλησαν χείλεσιν II ἀπὸ γαστρός, XR? 12 βοηθῶν]-Ἐ μοι, No? R* 14 ὁ ἁρπάζων) om 6, RU 15 ἐξεχύθη, NCAR 16 ὡσεὶ] os, SARU 17 πόδας] "μου, x-2?A RU Ps. xlix. I om kai 22, X°*RT 3 ἐναντίον] ἐνώπιον, RT 4 διακρῖναι) pr του; ΔῈ 6 ὁ θεός, NRT 7 διαμαρτυροῦμαι, Ro? Τ 10 δρυμοῦ] ἀγροῦ, δὰ “3 Α 16 exdinyn, ΘΑΤ 19 δολιότητας, ieee ΚΑ 21 - τὰς ἁμαρτίας cov, BSNS? T 22 ov pn, ΑΕ Τ' 23 τοῦ θεοῦ] pov, NT. Prov. vill. 212—36. 24 Tas πηγὰς προελθεῖν (but in LD. 129 mp. τ. πηγάς) 25 τῶν βουνῶν (but 22. 129 omits art.) 26 ὁ θεός 28 καὶ ὡς (1°)] ἡνίκα, ΝΑ 29 καὶ ὡς] ἡνίκα 35 ἡτοίμασται 36 ἀσεβοῦσιν εἰς, δ 8Α, Amos v. 18--νἱ. 7. 18 τοῦ κυρίου 19 ἐὰν φύγῃ ὅταν ἀκ ως ΑΙ ἄρκτος Ι ὁ ὄφις 20 αὕτη] αὐτοῖς 22 τὰ ὁλο- καυτώματα, A | τὰς θυσίας | προσδέξομαι] + αὐτά, ΑΟΠΕῈ | σωτηρίου,
A 23 ἀπόστησον | ἦχον] πλῆθος ψαλμῶν: dag αι 25 om μ΄ ἔτη | --λέγει Κύριος, AQ» 26 Ῥαφάν͵ | om αὐτῶν, AQ*. αὐτο ἀπετρύγησαν]) pr of ὠνομασμένοι ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀρχηγοῖς (a doublet for the Greek which follows, ascribed to Symmachus by SH) | om καί 2° | αὐτοί] ἑαυτοῖς, Q? | τοῦ “Iop.] om τοῦ 2 -τἰ εἰς Χαλάνην, 22, 36, 42; Heb. | διέλθατε] πορεύθητε | ‘Epa Ῥαββά] ᾿Αμὰθ τὴν μξγῶχην (τὴν μεγ.: Symm. “20, 2061“ 9τ.31}} δι ἀλλοφύλων] pr τῶν] πλείονι, A | Om. ἐστίν | spin ἀδαιὰ ὁρίων] ὁρ. ὑμῶν 3. κα- κήν] πονηράν - καθεύδοντες) κοιμώμενοι | ἐρίφους] ἄρνας 5 ἑστῶτα, AQ 6 τὸν διυλισμένον (a doublet) | ev φιάλαις (Heb. ) 7 δυναστῶν + τῶν ἀποικιζομένων | καὶ μεταστραφήσεται οἴκημα κακουργῶν (a doublet of καὶ ἐξαρθ. κτλ.). Zach. 11. 10—ill. 2. 10 τέρπου] χαῖρε (cf. Eus. d.e., p. 252) | ὅτι, καὶ II καταφεύ- ξονται] προστεθήσονται | canis πῆρ ἕντο Ι ἐπιγνώσῃ] γνώσονται | Παντοκράτωρ] τῶν δυνάμεων ἀπέσταλκε 12 τῇ μερίδι] καὶ τὴν μερίδα, NA, and, without καί, N*QT | αἱρετιεῖ] ἐκλέξεται “ 86 in textu ex alio videlicet interprete” (Field). 111. I om Κύριος, Κυρίου | τὸν Ἰησοῦν) om τόν, AQT | ὁ διάβολος] om ὁ 2 om ἐπιτίμησαι (15)...διάβολε | om ὡς (Heb.). Mal. i. 1o—12. 10 θέλημά μου | τὰς θυσίας ὑμῶν 1 ἀπό, AY | om καὶ 1°, AQ | προσάγεται] προσφέρεται | διότι μέγα] ὅτι τιμᾶται (ὅτι μέγα D. 41) | om Παντοκράτωρ. Isa. i. 16—20. 17 χήραν, B® NAL 18 δεῦτε] + kai, NAQT | διαλεχθῶμεν * | χιόνα, ἔρεον] ἔρεον, χιόνα 19 (A. 61 omits καὶ ἐὰν θέλητε. φάγεσθε.)
1 See above, p. 407.
Quotations in early Christian Writings.
Isa. lil. A.D. ὄψονται A. 4.ρ. ἀνθρώπους, ἡμῶν 3° A. A., ®AQ
13—lill. 12.
AQ*)
Ix. Ὁ: AQ*
6 om Κύριος A.
lii. 13 ἰδοὺ] ἴδε yap A.
15 θαυμασθήσονται D. i om ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ A. lili. 2 ἐναντίον] ἐνώπιον 4. | ἐν. αὐτοῦ ὡς παιδ. τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων] τοὺς ἀνθρώπους A. (cf. πάντας
A2I
14 πολλοὶ ἐπί σε 16 om
5 αὐτός | ἀνομίας, ἁμαρτίας A., XAQ | om
7 κείροντος A.D., B - αὐτόν ὃ τοῦ λαοῦ μου] αὐτῶν A. | ἤχθη] ἥκει A.D., 9 θανάτου]- αὐτοῦ A., B*>XNAQ II αὐτῶν] ἡμῶν A.D.
Ὁ
10 τοῦ πόνου] om τοῦ A. 12 παρεδόθη] pr αὐτός A. II ταῖς θυγατράσιν | σοὶ ὁ σωτήρ, NAQ 12 οὐ καταλελειμμένη, (S). + αὐτοῦ | Bia] pr ἀναβαίνων (cf. Symm. βαίνων, Heb.)
Isa. Ixii. 10 | om αὐτοῦ 19,
Ixtii. I ἐρύθημα, B | eran
3 +Anvov
ἐπάτησα μονώτατος, Symm., Heb. (a doublet of 72. καταπεπ.)]
om μου, ᾷ | εἰς γῆν, Be RAQ 5
ἐξ | om αὐτούς | om pov 19
οὐδείς, NAQ | ἀντελάβετο,
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’.
Justin, Dza/. 31.
ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτου θρόνοι ἐτέθησαν, καὶ ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκά- θητοέχων περιβολὴν ὡσεὶ χιόνα λευκήν, καὶ τὸ τρίχωλλὰ τῆς κεφα- λῆς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔριον καθαρόν, ὁ θρόνος αὐτοῦ ὡςεὶ φλὸξ πυρός, οἱ τροχοὶ αὐτοῦ πῦρ φλέ- γον. ποταμὸς πυρὸς εἷλκεν ἐκπορεγόμενος ἐκ προσώπου ΔΥτοῦ" χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλει- τούργουν αὐτῷ καὶ μύ- ριαι μυριάδες, παρεισ- τήκεισαν αὐτῷ" βίβλοι ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ κριτή- ριον ἐκάθισεν. ἐθεώ- ρουν τότετὴν ΦωΝΗΝ
Dan. vil. 9—14, LXX.
> , -» isd ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτε θρύνοι ἐτέθησαν, καὶ
παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκάθητο ἔχων περιβολὴν ὡσεὶ χιόνα, καὶ τὸ τρίχωλλὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔριον λευκὸν καθαρόν ὁ θρόνος ὡςεὶ φλὸξ πυρός, τροχοὶ αὐτοῦ πῦρ καιόμενον. ποτα- μὸς πυρὸς ἕλκων, καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο KATA πρόσωπον = AYTOY ποταμὸς πυρός" χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐθεράπευον αὐτὸν καὶ μύριαι μυ- ριάδες παρειστήκεισαν
αὐτῷ. καὶ κριτήριον ἐκάθισε καὶ βίβλοι > ,
ἠνεῴχθησαν. ἐθεώρουν
Ibid., Th.
ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτου θρόνοι ἐτέθησαν, καὶ παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκά- θητο, καὶ τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ χιὼν λευκόν, καὶ ἡ θρὶξ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔριον καθα- pov: 6 θρόνος αὐτοῦ φλὸξ πυρός, οἱ τροχοὶ αὐτοῦ πῦρ φλέγον. πο- ταμὸς πυρὸς εἷλκεν ἔμ- προσθεν αὐτοῦ: χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν
ae ς αὐτῷ, καὶ μύριαι μυ- ριάδες παριστήκεισαν αὐτῷ" κριτήριον ἐκάθι- σεν, καὶ βίβλοι ἠνεῴχ- θησαν. ἐθεώρουν τότε ἀπὸ φωνῆς τῶν λόγων τῶν μεγάλων ὧν τὸ
1 Words common to Justin and Lxx. but not in Th. are printed in
small uncials; thick cursives. three texts.
those common to Justin and Th. but not to Lxx., Most of the remaining words are to be found in the
in
422 Quotations
Justin, Dzad/. 31. τῶν μεγάλων λύγων ὧν τὸ κέρας λαλεῖ, καὶ ATTETYMTTANICOH τὸ θηρίον, καὶ ἀπώλετο τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐδόθη εἰς καῦσιν πυρός- καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ "θηρία pete- στάθη τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτῶν, καὶ χρόνος ζωῆς Tots | θηρίοις ἐδόθη € ἕως καιροῦ καὶ χρόνου: ἐθεώρουν ἐν “ὁράματι τῆς νυκτός,
καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφε- λῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου épx6- | μενος, καὶ ἦλθεν τὶ τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμε- ρῶν, καὶ TTAPHN €vo- | πιον αὐτοῦ: καὶ οἷ" TTAPECTHKOTEC προσ-᾿ ἤγαγον αὐτόν. καὶ ἐλόθη ἀγτῴῷ ἐξογείὰ, Kal τιλλὴ βὰδοιλική, Kal TTANTA τὰ ἔθνη. τῆς Γῆς κατὰ Γένη Kal πδοὰ λόξὰ λὰ-, Tpeyoyca: Kal ἡ €2-| oycia ayToY ἐξογοίὰ, ἀἰώνιοα ἥτις OY MA | APOH, Kal H BaciAefa AYTOY OY MH POapH. |
ὡς
in early Christian
Dan. vil. 9—14, LXX. | τότε τὴν φωνὴν Tar | λόγων τῶν μεγάλων ὧν τὸ κέρας ἐλάλει: θεω- ρῶν ἤμην, καὶ ATTETYM- ττὰνίοθη τὸ θηρίον, καὶ ἀπώλετο τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐδόθη εἰς καῦσιν πυρός. καὶ τοὺς κύκλῳ αὐτοῦ ἀπέστησε τῆς ἐξουσίας αὐτῶν, καὶ
XPONOC Cans ἐδόθη av-
Toi €ws XPONOY Kal
καιροῦ. ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτός, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο, καὶ παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν παρῆν" καὶ οἱ Tapec- THKOTEC παρῆσαν av-
τῷ. “Καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῴ ἐξουσία καὶ τιμὴ βα-
᾿σιλική, καὶ πάντα τὰ
ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα. καὶ ἡ ἐξου- σία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώ- νιος ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ
ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.
Writings.
Ibid., Th.
κέρας ἐκεῖνο ἐλάλει, ews ἀνῃρέθη τὸ θηρίον καὶ ἀπώλετο, καὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ἐδόθη εἰς καῦσιν πυρός. καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν θηρίων ἡ ἀρχὴ μετεστά- θη, καὶ “μακρύτης ζωῆς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἕως καιροῦ καὶ καιροῦ. ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτός, καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφε- λῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ws υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμε- νος, καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασεν - καὶ προσήχθη αὐτῷ. καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ 7) ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασι- λεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί, καὶ γλῶσσαι δουλεύουσιν αὐτῷ: ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος ἥτις οὐ παρελεύ- σεται, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσε- ται.
The student will notice that Justin’s O.T. text is ἃ mixed one. (2) In Genesis it contains many readings of D or DE where those later uncials depart from A; (4) in Deuteronomy it oc- casionally supports A or AF against B, and (c) in the Psalms the group ART, with the concurrence sometimes of x*, some- times of δὸς (4) 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 Sym-
machus ;
and as it is in the highest degree improbable that
Quotations in early Christian Writings. 423
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. ᾿Ἐλειτούργουν meets us here, as in Clement of Rome, and the phrases τὰ λοιπὰ θηρία μετεστάθη τῆς ἀρχῆς, μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν ἐρχόμενος, ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ, προσήγαγον αὐτόν, are undoubtedly due to Theodotion, or rather to the version on which he worked. On the other hand ἔχων περιβολήν, τὸ τρίχωμα, πῦρ φλέγον, ἀπετυμ- πανίσθη, χρόνος ζωῆς, οἱ παρεστηκότες, 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’.
In a few instances Justin shews a disposition to criticise the Lxx. reading. E.g. in Ps. Ixxxi. (Ixxxii.) 7, he probably proposed to read ws ἄνθρωπος (8783) for ὡς ἀνθρωποιἥ. Similarly in Deut. xxxii. 8 he realises that the Lxx. has sub- stituted ἀγγέλων θεοῦ for asaya? He maintains that in Gen. xlix. τὸ the reading of the Lxx. is ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ᾧ ἀπόκειται, though according to the Jewish interpreters of his time the words should rather be rendered ἕως ἂν € τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ. His text of the Lxx. contained some remarkable interpola- tions ; thus he quotes Ps. xcv. (xcvi.) τοῦ in the form ὃ κύριος
1 Burkitt, Old Latin and [tala, p. 23 ff.
2 Dial. 124. In the editions ἄνθρωποι occurs twice, but the context appears to shew that the singular should stand in the quotation.
= edie 131%.
424 Quotations in early Christian Writings.
ἐβασίλευσεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου᾽, and ascribes to Jeremiah the words > , Ν ΄ὔ ε Ν > \ > Ἀ “ “ 5 “- A ἐμνήσθη δὲ κύριος ὃ Geds ἀπὸ Ἰσραὴλ τῶν νεκρῶν αὐτοῦ τοῦ κεκοιμημένων εἰς γῆν χώματος, καὶ κατέβη πρὸς αὐτοὺς εὐαγγελί- σασθαι αὐτοῖς τὸ σωτήριον αὐτοῦ. He cites also some words which appear to have found a place in his copy after 2 Esdr. . ἐν > »Μ nw ~ ~ Ν , ε A ε ~ Vi. 21: καὶ εἶπεν Ἔσδρας τῷ λαῷ Τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα ὃ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ καταφυγὴ ἡμῶν: καὶ ἐὰν διανοηθῆτε καὶ ἀναβῇ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν ὅτι Μέλλομεν αὐτὸν ταπεινοῦν ἐν σημείῳ, καὶ \ ΄- > ld ΕΣ 3 / tues ar > Ν 3 θῃ ε μετὰ ταῦτα ἐλπίσωμεν (9 ἐλπίσητε) ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, οὐ μὴ ἐρημωθῇ ὃ / ct > LA 4 / ε Ἂς al ΄ 2X Ν τόπος οὗτος εἰς ἅπαντα χρόνον, λέγει ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων - ἐὰν δὲ μὴ πιστεύσητε αὐτῷ μηδὲ εἰσακούσητε τοῦ κηρύγματος αὐτοῦ, ἔσεσθε ἐπίχαρμα τοῖς ἔθνεσι. 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 _ in- scription on the chair of his statue and from other ancient sources, was the author of a large number of Biblical commentaries*. These included works on the Hexaemeron and its sequel (τὰ pera τὴν ἑξαήμερον); on Exodus, and portions of Numbers and Samuel; on the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs; on Zechariah, Isaiah, Jere- miah, parts of Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel. Of these exegetical works there remains only the commentary on Daniel’,
LAP. i. 41, Dial. 43. Cf. Tert. ¢. Marc. ii. 10, adv. Jud. 30: aaa 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 ἀπὸ τῷ ξύλῳ. A ligno is found 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).
* Dial. 72. The same Apocryphon is quoted by Irenaeus (iii. 20. 4, iv. 22. I, 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’ Creed*, p. 38 f.
3 Dial. tb.
4 On his works see Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, ii. pp. 388 ff., 419 ff.
5 Edited by G. W. Bonwetsch and H. Achelis in the new Berlin Corpus (Hippolytus’ Werke, 1., Leipzig, 1897).
Quotations in early Christian Writings. 425
with fragments of most of the rest. The great treatise Adversus omnes haereses yields but little in the way of Scriptural quo- tations’, but the minor theological works collected by Lagarde’ 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 ἐπάνω] ὑπεράνω 28 κατακυριεύσατε] κατακληρονομήσατε. xlix. ὃ ff. (Lag. 5 (1), 102 (2) 8 αἰνεσάτωσαν (1 1) αἰνέσουσιν (2) 9 ἐκ βλαστοῦ μου υἱέ (2) 10 ᾧ ἀπόκειται (1), τὰ ἀπρκείμεμα αὐτῷ (2) | adros]+ ἔσται (1) 12 χαροποί (cf. Field, ad loc.) | ! ὡς ἀπὸ οἴνου: cf. ἀπὸ οἴνου, ADF. Exod. xx. 13 ff. οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ φονεύ- σεις; οὐ κλέψεις. Deut. xxxil. 34 f. 34 παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ 35 ὅταν] pr ἐν καιρῷ, AF. XXXIll. 22 ἐκπηδήσεται, B. Ruth ii. 9 ὑδρεύονται. A [4 ἐν ro ore, BPA. Ps. ἴχύη. ΤῊ. 4 ἐγγίζειν) ἐλπίζειν (B*>NR) με (R) 5 ἥρπαζον 6 ἔγνως] οἶδας | ἀπε- κρύβησαν, N°? ὃ ἐκάλυψαν ἐντροπῇ 10 κατέφαγε. Prov. Mie 27 ἀποδήσει] ἀποδεσμεύει. ΠῚ 201: 29 ἀηδίαι, XA | ὍΡΟΣ νοί, ΒΡ 30 ἐν οἴνῳ | ἰχνευόντων] κατασκοπούντων. Job i ΤΡ ΟΣ πλανῆτις, ΝΑ. Αἴη.ν. 12 καταπατοῦντες, AQ*. Mic. ii. 7 f. 7 πορεύονται ὃ κατέναντι] κατὰ πρόσωπον | δοράν] δόξαν (sic). ill. 5 ἤγειραν ἡ ἡγίασαν, Q™S, ν. 5 ἔσται αὕτη ἡ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ εἰρήνη ὅταν ὁ ᾿Ασσύριος (cf. AQ) ἐπέλθῃ. Mal. iv. 4 ἀποστέλλω] πέμ- vo | πρίν] +i | ἡμέραν pr τήν, T 5 πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα | ἐλθὼν πατάξω, ae isa: 3. 12 f., 130m. ev bis, xAQr 14 τῇ χειρί] -Ἐ μου, AQ 16 Κύριος σαβαώθ] ἀδωναὶ Κύριος 17 πυρὶ καιομένῳ] φλογί (cf. Symm.). xiv. 4 ff. τι εἰς ἅδου] εἰς γῆν | κατακάλυμμα] κατάλειμμα 12 πρός] εἰς, ἢ 14 νεφελῶν, ΝΑΟΤ' 16 θαυμάσουσιν, NAOT 19 τεθνηκότων] πεπτωκότων 20 καθαρός] κομψός | χρόνον] χρόνιος 21 σφαγῆναι] εἰς σφαγήν. xlv. 11-Ἐ καὶ τῶν θυγατέρων μου (cf. NAQ) 13 om βασιλέα, xo>AO 14 ἐν σοὶ προσκυνήσουσιν. Ixvi. 2s τελευτήσει; BRQ (ag. A, τελευτᾷ). Ezech. xxvill. 5 ἐμπορίᾳ] ἐμπειρίᾳ. Dan. a 51 βασιλεία] + Ναβουχοδονοσόρ, A 5 ἐάν]- οὖν, AQ | ovykpiow|+avrov, Q
The text of Hippolytus, it will be seen, like most of the patristic texts, leans slightly to AF in the Pentateuch, x* or x2 in the poetical books, and AQ in the Prophets. At the
1 The references in the Zuzdex locorum of Duncker and Schneidewin’s edition (Gottingen, 1859) direct the reader for the most part to mere allusions, or citations of only a few consecutive words.
2 In Aippolyti Romani quae feruntur omnia Graece (Leipzig, 1858).
426 Quotations in early Christian Writings.
same time it is full of surprises, and often stands quite alone among existing witnesses,
g. 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 scrip- tures 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 λόγος προτρεπτικός he aims to persuade rather than to compel assent, whilst the Paedagogus and the S¢vomazezs 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’. A generally full and accurate index of Clement’s
1 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
Quotations in early Christian Writings. 427
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) κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν ἡμετέραν (elsewhere Cl. reads 6p. ἡμῶν, or omits the pronoun). XXXVII. 24 (strom. ν. 54) ὁ δὲ λάκκος κενός, DE. Exod. xx. 13 ff. (27ο- trept. 108, strom. 11. 33) ov φονεύσεις ov μοιχεύσεις...οὐ es οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις, AF. αν ΠΥ tie (strom. 11. 46). 3 ἐν αὐτῇ (ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ B*, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς BAF) οὐ ποιήσετε (ποιηθήσεται B*) 4 πορεύεσθε A 5 ὁ ποιήσας αὐτά. Deut. xxxii. 23 ff. (Aaed. i. 68) 23 συντελέσει (συντελέσω AF, συνπολεμήσω, B) 24 ἐπαποστελῶ, A| rns γῆς, A(F) 41 ff. ἀνταποδώσω, AF 42+ καὶ ἡ μάχαιρά μου φάγεται κρέα ἀπὸ αἵματος τραυματιῶν, AF 55: σι τ 2, (serom. tv. T1T): 13 ἡμέρας ἰδεῖν, NAR 14 χείλη σου, ᾿ξ ΑΚ. χον. 5 (protrept. 62) δαιμονίων εἰσὶν εἴδωλα (cit Eren.): 611. 14 (Paed. 1. 62) μνήσθητι, BN* Th. cxl. 5 ( paed. 1. 79) ἐλεγχέτω pe δίκαιος καὶ παιδευσάτω. cl. 4 ὀργάνῳ, BRT. Prov. 1. 25 ( paed. 1. 85) ὑ ὑπηκούετε, NA | οὐ προσείχετε, NAC (ἠπειθήσατε, B). 111. 5 ff. (strom. il. 4). 6 ἐν πάσαις, A | τὰς ὁδούς σου - ὁ δὲ ποῦς σου οὐ μὴ προσκόπτῃ (cf. xc: SH pr +) 12 παιδεύει, NA (ἐλέγχει, B). XXlll. 13 μὴ ἀπόσχου (ἀπόσχῃ LXX.) νήπιον παιδεύων (A; παιδεύειν, B). Sir. 1. 18 ( paed. 1. 68) + φόβος yap Κυρίου ἀπωθεῖται ἁμαρτήματα (so far 248), ἄφηβος δ᾽ ov δυνήσεται δικαιωθῆναι, O.L. ix. 9 ( paed. il. 54) μὴ συμβο- λοκοπήσης] μὴ συμματακλιθῆς ἐ ἐπ᾽ ἀγκῶνα, O.L. XXXIV. 25 ( paed. Π 21) ἀπώλεσεν ἢ ἠχρείωσε. ΧΧΧΥΙ. 6 (αθά. i. 42) ὡς φίλος μῶκος] ὁ φιλήδονος καὶ μοῖχος (cf. ὡς φιλόμοιχος, 55, 254). XXXVIIL I (paed. ii. 68) om. Tipais, 106, 296, O.L. XXxIx. 13 ( faed. ii. 76) ἀγροῦ (ὑγροῦ SAC)] ὑδάτων. 18 ( paed. ii. 44) ὃς ἐλαττώσει] ἐλάττωσις eis, Heb. (c) Am. iv. 13 (protrept. 79) ἰδοὺ ἐγώ, B>AQ (om B*). Nah. iii. 4 ( faed. i. 81) ἐπίχαρις, BQ. Mal. i. 10 ff. (strom. v. 137). 11 om. καί τὸ, AQ ! θυμίαμα] θυσία | προσάγεται] προσφέρεται (cf. Justin). Isa. ix. 6 (paed. i. 24) vids Kat ἐὰν NAOT | om ἐγενήθη, T | ἐκλήθη (καλεῖται, ΒΝΩΡ, καλέσει, A ) | “Εθαυμαστὸς σύμβουλος (x *A) θεὸς δυναστὴς πατὴρ αἰώνιος ἄρχων εἰρήνης (ἰδ 5.3Α). rs μεγάλη ἡ ἡ ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ] τῴ πληθύνειν τὴν παιδείαν, ΤῊ. | ὅριον] πέρας, Th., Symm, xi. I ff. ( paed. i. 61). xl. 4 ἐλέγξει τοὺς “ἁμαρτωλοὺς τῆς γῆς (cf. Iren.). Kix.) £3 (paed. Ἢ 76) 6 λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσί με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν epee ἐστὶν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ: μάτην δὲ σέβονταί pe διδάσ-
of the LXX. is not likely to be equally instructive, but it ought to reward a patient investigator.
428 Quotations in early Christian Writings.
kovtes διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων (cf. Mt. xv., Mc. vii.). Ixvi. 13 (aed. i. 21) ὑμᾶς παρακαλέσω, &. Jer. 1x. 23 f. ( paed. 1. 37): uw. 24 abbreviated as in 1 Cor. 1. 31. xiii. 24 ff. (strom. Iv. 165 f.). 24 διέσπειρα, ΒΟ (διεφθειρα A) | ὑπό, NAQ (ἀπό, B) | φερόμενα) πετώμενα 25 ἀπειθεῖν ὑμᾶς ἐμοί 27 μοιχεία anarthr., Q | χρεμετισμός anarthr., B. = xxiii. 23 f. (protrept. 78). 24 εἰ ποιήσει τι ἄνθρωπος (εἰ ΠῚ τις, Β, εἰ κρ. ἄνθρωπος, AQ). Bar. ill. 13 (paed. 1. 92) om χρόνον, Β. Thres, ΜΗ (paed. i. 80) ἄρχοντα χωρῶν ἐγενήθη εἰς φόρους. Dan. ix. 24 ff. (strom. 1. 125) as in Th. (B*), with the addition καὶ ἡμίν tis ἑβδομάδος καταπαύσει θυμίαμα θυσίας καὶ πτερυγίου ἀφανισμοῦ ἕως συντελείας καὶ σπουδῆς τάξιν ἀφανισμοῦ (cf. ΒΡΑΟ).
1o. 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 Zeaching and Epistle to Diognetus, there will still remain the fragments collected in the Relliguiae 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’. This part of the evidence was collected for Holmes and Parsons, and will be presented in a more perma- nent form, if not at so much length, in the apparatus of the larger Septuagint.
Much useful and interesting work might be done by follow- ing the lines of Dr Hatch’s attempt to collect and compare the early evidence in reference to particular texts and con-
1 See above, p. 97, and the art. Old Latin Versions in Hastings’ 2). 8, iii. (already mentioned, p. 88).
Quotations tn early Christian Writings. 429
stantly recurring extracts from the Lxx.’ 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 quo- tations,” 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 re- served for fuller consideration in a later chapter’.
τι. 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 follow- ing list of his O.T. remains* may be of service to the student of the Lxx. Genests. Fragments of Commentary (t. i., iii.), and notes
from catenae. Homilies (17) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Zvrodus. Fragments of Commentary, and notes. Homilies (13) in Latin,
1 Essays, i. p. 129 ff. (On Early Quotations from the Septuagint.’’) aSee Part 'til— c: "vi, 3 They are collected in Migne, P. G. xi.—xvii.
430 Quotations in early Christian Writings
tr. by Rufinus. JZevzticus. Fragments and notes from catenae. Homilies (16) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Mumbers. Notes from catenae. Homilies (28) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Deuteronomy. Notes from catenae, &c. /oshua. Fragments and notes from catenae, &c. Homilies (26) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. /udges. Notes from catenae. Homilies (g) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Ruth. A note on Ruth i. 4. 1—4 Kingdoms. Homily ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐγγαστριμύθου. 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.]. Pvoverds. Fragments and notes, Greek and Latin. Ecclesiastes. Notes from catenae. Canticles. Frag- ments and notes. Homilies (2) in Latin, tr. by Jerome. Com- mentary (prol., tt. i.—iv.) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. od. Notes from catenae. Fragment of a Homily, in Latin. The zz. Prophets. Fragment on Hosea xii. (in Phzlocal. 8). Lsaiah. Fragments (2) of the Commentaries, in Latin. Homilies (9) in Latin, tr. by Jerome. /eremtah. 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 fatrologia Graeca, in which the authors are to be found; in the case of a few writings which are not included in the Fatrologia 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. (Ixxxix.)
Anastasius of Sinai, cent. vi.—vil. (1xxxix.)
Apollinarius of Laodicea (the younger), tc. 393. (xxxiii, cf. Driaseke’s edition in Zexte u. Unters. vii.)
Quotations in early Christian Writings. 431
Apostolical Constitutions, cent. ili.—iv. (ed. Lagarde).
Asterius of Amasea, c. 400. (xl.)
Athanasius of Alexandria, +373. On the Psalms; Titles of the Psalms, fragments in the catenae, (xxv.—xxviil.)
Basil of Caesarea, +379. Homilies on the Hexaemeron, the Psalms and Isaiah i.—xvi. (xxix.—xxxil.)
Basil of Seleucia, c. 450, Homilies on the O.T. (Ixxxv.)
Cosmas Indicopleustes, c. 550. (Jxxxviii.)
Cyril of Alexandria, +444. Works on the Pentateuch (περὶ τῆς ev πνεύματι kai ἀληθείᾳ προσκυνήσεως, and yAadupa), comm. on Isaiah, comm. on the xii. Prophets; fragments on Kingdoms, Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, and the minor Prophets. (Ixviil. —]xxvii.)
Cyril of Jerusalem, +386. (xxxiii.)
Didymus of Alexandria, +395. Fragments on the Psalms and in the catenae. (xxxix.)
Diodorus of Tarsus, tc. 390. Fragments from the catenae. (XxxIl1. )
Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, cent. v. _ (ill.—iv.)
Dorotheus the Archimandrite, cent. vi.—vil. (1xxxviil.)
Ephraem the Syrian, +373. Fragments of Commentaries on the Pentateuch, the historical and the poetical books. (Rome, hy 32. {2 )
Epiphanius of Salamis, +403. (xli.—xliii.)
Eusebius of Caesarea, + 339. Commentary on the Psalms; notes on Isaiah ; fragments of other O.T. commentaries; books περὶ τῶν TOTLK@Y ὀνομάτων τῶν ev τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ and περὶ τῆς τοῦ βιβλίου τῶν προφητῶν ὀνομασίας.
Eusebius οὗ Emesa, +359. Fragments in the catenae of acomm. 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. (Ixxxv.)
Gregory of Nazianzus, +389. (xxxv.—xxxviil.)
Gregory of Neocaesarea, tc. 270. (x.)
Gregory of Nyssa, +395. (xliv.—xlvi.)
Hesychius of Jerusalem, tc. 438. (xciil.)
Isidore of Pelusium, fc. 450. (Ixxviii.)
John Chrysostom, +407. Homilies on 1 Regn., Psalms (iii.— xll., xlvili.—xlix., cvili.—cxl.); a commentary on Isa. i.—viil. 11; various hands. (xlvii.—lxiv.)
John of Damascus, tc. 760. (xciv.—xcvi.)
Julianus of Halicarnassus, +536. Fragments in catenae.
Macarius Magnes, cent. iv. (ed. Blondel).
Maximus Confessor, t662. (xc.—xci.)
432 Quotations in early Christian Writings.
Methodius of Olympus, cent. ili.—iv. (xviii.)
Nilus of Sinai, tc. 430. (1xxix.)
Olympiodorus of Alexandria, tcent. vi. (xciil.)
Peter of Alexandria, 311. (xvili.)
Philo of Carpasia, c. 380. Commentary on Canticles. (xl.)
Photius of Constantinople, tc. 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.—4 Chr., Prov., Cant., Isaiah. (Ixxxvii.)
Severianus of Gabala, +c. 420. Fragments of commentaries in the catenae. (Ixv.)
Severus of Antioch, tc. 539. Fragments in the catenae.
Theodore of Heraclea, tc. 355. Fragments of comm. on Isaiah. (xviii. )
Theodore of Mopsuestia, t428. 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. (Ixvi.)
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, +c. 458. Eis τὰ ἄπορα τῆς θείας γραφῆς, questions on the Pentateuch and historical books. Commen- taries on the Psalms, Canticles, the xii. Prophets, Isaiah, Jere- miah (including Baruch and Lam.), Ezekiel, Daniel. (lxxx.— Ιχχχῖν.)
Titus of Bostra, tc. 370. (xviil.)
Victor of Antioch, cent. v.—vi. (?).
LITERATURE. T. Ittig, De dcbliothects et catenis patrum (Leipzig, 1707). J. G. Walch, Bzbliotheca patristica, ed. J. T. L. Danz (Jena, 1834). J. G. Dowling, Notitia Scriptorum ss. Patrum (Oxford, 1839). J. Nirschl, Lehrbuch der Patrologia u. Patristik (Mainz, 1881). O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie (Freiburg i. B., 1894). Fessler-Jungmann, /mstetutiones Patrologiae (1890). H. Hody, De textibus Bibliorum, Ὁ. 277 ff. Schleusner, Opuscula critica ad versionem Graecam V.T. pertinentia (Leipzig, 1812). Credner, Bettrage zur Einlettung tn die biblischen Schriften, vol. ii. (Halle, 1834). R. Gregory, Prolegomena (de scriptoribus ecclestasticis, Ὁ. 1131 ff.). Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 167 ff. Hatch, Biblical Essays, p. 131 ff.
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’.
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 increas- ing 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.
1 See .Part. 176. Iv:
434 The Greek Versions as atds to Biblical Study.
A. As the oldest version of the Hebrew Bible, the Sep- tuagint 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 (MDD, NDI, ¢raditzo) is already mentioned in the
saying of R. Akiba, Pzrge Aboth, 111. 20 mind 3D MND, ‘tradition is a fence to the Law’!; but the word is used there in refe- rence 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
(ΘΠ 2.3), who flourished from the sixth century to the tenth, consisted chiefly in reducing to a system of rules the pronuncia- tion of the text which had been fixed by their predecessors. The Massora? embodies the readings which tradition substituted for the written text ("7?, 4°02), the corrections known as the ΠΡ ὩΣ ΞῚ 8, 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.
1 See Schiirer, Z. 7. 11. i. p. 329n.; Dr Ὁ, Taylor, Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, p. 54 f.
2 For the text see the great work of C. D. Ginsburg, Zhe 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, Zzserias, Ginsburg’s /xtroduction (London, 1897), and his edition of the J/assoreth ha-massoreth of Elias Levita, or the brief state- ments in Buhl, Xaxon u. Text (p. 96 ff.), and in Urtext (p. 20 ff.).
3 On these see Dr W. E. Barnes in ¥. 7h. St., April rgoo.
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 435
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’. Origen, when the problem forced itself upon him, adopted, as we have seen’, 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: prot. gal, “ quanquam mihi omnino conscius non sim mutasse me quidpiam de 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.* 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 ex- clusively through Jerome’s Latin, as the Ancient Church had known it through the Lxx.* 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
1 See Ὁ. J. Elliott’s art. Hebrew Learning, in D. C. B. ii., esp. the summary on p. 872 b.
2 Above, p. 60 ff.
3 See his comm. on Isaiah vi. 9 (Migne, P. 2. xxiv. gg).
* A few mediaeval scholars had access to the Hebrew, e.g. the English- men Stephen Harding (+1134), Robert Grosseteste (+1253), Roger Bacon (tc. 1292), the Spaniard Raymundus Martini (tc. 1286), and especially the Norman Jew, Nicolaus de Lyra (¢1340). On Lyra see Siegfried in Merx, Archiv, 1. p. 428, 11. p. 28.
28—2
436 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
1488, and three editions followed before the end of the fifteenth century’. 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 theo- logians 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 Penta- teuch. 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 (71629, 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 Avcanum punc- tuationts revelatum, Amsterdam, 1624; Critica sacra, Paris, 1650; those of J. Morin in Evercitationes ecclestasticae tn utrum- gue Samaritanorum Pentateuchum (Paris, 1631), and Εἰ χεγεζία- tiones de hebraict graecique textus sincerttate (Paris, 1633). The younger Buxtorf answered Cappelle in his treatises De punc- torum origine (1648) and Anzicritica (1653): see Schnedemann, Die Controverse des L. Cappellus mit den Buxtorfen (Leipzig, 1879), Loisy, Histotre critique, p. 167 ff. The formula consensus eccle- starum Helveticarum (1675) declared (cam. 11... ili.): “ Hebraicus Veteris Testamenti codex quem ex traditione ecclesiae Iudaicae, cui olim oracula Det commissa sunt, accepimus hodieque reti-
nemus, tum quoad consonas tum quoad vocalia, sive puncta ipsa sive punctorum saltem potestatem, et tum quoad res tum quoad
1 See De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, p. 217 f.
The Greck Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 437
verba Oedrvevoros...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 iudicant configere eamque ex LXX. seniorum aliorumque versionibus Graecis...emendare religioni neutiquam ducunt?.”
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. xill. 1 ἃ καὶ αὐτὰ ἐκ τοῦ τῶν Sapapetov Ἔ βραικοῦ pereBadopev, XXi. 13 ἃ ἐν μόνοις τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν εὕρομεν : see Field, Hex. 1. p. ΙΧΧΧΊΙ. f.), and Jerome (pro/. gal. comm. in Gal. 111. 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 διαφωνοῦσι τὰ ᾿Ἐβραικὰ ἀντίγραφα πρὸς τὸ Σαμαρειτῶν ἀρχαιότατον καὶ χαρακτῆρσι διαλλάττον᾽ ὃ καὶ ἀληθὲς εἶναι καὶ πρῶτον ᾿Εβραῖοι καθομολογοῦσιν). 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: πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους λαβὼν ἀπὸ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος καὶ τῶν ἐν Ταριζείν, κατῴκισεν ἅπαντας εἰς
Αἴγυπτον ἀγαγών. It is significant that Σαμάρεια occurs among
1 Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum (Leipzig, 1840), p- 731-
438 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
the names of villages in the Fayim, 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 con- tradicts 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 ayainst 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 uni- formity.
On the Samaritan Pentateuch the reader may consult J. Mo- rinus, Evercttationes ecclestasticae in utrumgue Samaritanorum Pentateuchum; L. Cappellus, Crztzca sacra, ili. c. 20; Walton, prolegg. (ed. Wrangham, Camb. 1828), 11. p. 280ff.; R. Simon, Flistoire critique du Vieux Testament, i. c. 12; Eichhorn, £za- leitung, 11. § 383 ff.; Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine indole et auctoritate comm. (Halle, 1815); 5. Kohn, De Penxta- teucho Samaritano eiusque cum verstonibus antiguis nexu (Leip- zig, 1865); Samarettikon τ. Septuaginia, in MGWS., 1893; E. Deutsch, Samaritan Pentateuch, in Smith’s D. δ. iii. 1106 ff. ; J. W. Nutt, Lrtroduction to Fragments of a Sam. Targum (London, 1872).
The prevalent belief in the originality of the Massoretic text appeared to receive confirmation from the researches of Kennicott? and De Rossi*, 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
1 Vetus 7. Hebraicum cum varits lectionibus (Oxford, 1776—8o). 2 Variae lectiones V. T. (Parma 1784—8) : Supplementum (1798).
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 439
earlier than the beginning of the tenth century’, 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*. 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®. 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, Yedma)*, near the Philistine seaboard, by R. Jochanan ben Zaccai. To this
1 “The earliest MS. of which the age is certainly known bears date aged. Arter to tie k.V. of the ΟΣ - p. 1x, 2).
2 Cf. F. C. Burkitt, Aguzla, p. 16 f.
3 Cf. 5. 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.”
4 Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 73 f.
440 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
centre the representatives of Judaism flocked after the destruc- tion 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. go 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 wit- nessed the creation of a standard text not materially different from that which the Massorets stereotyped and which all MSS. and editions have reproduced’.
(4) Itis 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
1 See W. Robertson-Smith, 0.7. im Yewish Ch., p. 62 f.; A. F. Kirk- patrick, Divine Library of the O.T., p. 63 ff.
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 441
which may have been in the hands of the Samaritans in the days of Nehemiah (c. B.c. 432)’; 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*; 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*) 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 reason- ably 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*.” 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’.
1 See Ryle, Canon, p. gt f.
SPL ch -V.,'p. 385.
3 Samuel, Ὁ. xxxix. f.
4 Expositor V. iii., ἢ. 273. 5 See H. P. Smith, Samzel, p. 397 f., and the remarks that follow.
442 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
The following list of passages in which the LxXx. reflects a Hebrew text different from #1 will enable the student to prac- tise himself in the critical use of the Version.
Gen. iv. 8 #1 does not give the words of Cain, though WN") leads the reader to expect them. (ἃ supplies Διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον (1]Wi3 133), and this is supported by Sam., Targ. Jer., Pesh., Vulg. xXxXxi.29 DD°28, G PAN (rod πατρός σου); so Sam., cf. v. 30. (ΧΙ, 56 O32 WW ΟΞ ΠΝ, (ἃ πάντας τοὺς σιτοβολῶνας (732 Πῆγε, cf. Sam., 72. O72 We 52 ΓΝ). xlix. 10 (ἃ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ, perhaps reading 19Y (=i? WW) for fA mY: but see Ball in Haupt, Sacred Books, ad loc., and cf. the Greek variant ᾧ ἀπόκειται. Exod. v. 9 WY. WPM, (ἃ μεριμνά- τωσαν..-μεριμνάτωσαν YO ...IYO). xiv. 25 1D, (ἃ καὶ συνέδησεν (IDS). xxx. 6... ΠἼΞΞΠ D?,..ND5B0 ‘352. G omits the second clause: so Sam. Lev. xiii. 31 Ἵν Wy, G θρὶξ ξανθίζουσα (any Ὁ). Num. xxiv. 23 (ἃ prefixes καὶ ἰδὼν τὸν "Qy (SP APY-NS); cf. vv. 20, 21. Deut. iv. 37 1°08 3y713, 1.6. Abraham’s posterity (Driver, ad loc.); (ἃ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτῶν per αὐτοὺς ὑμᾶς, 1.6. DIAN DYWI; so Sam. Josh. xv. 59 (ἃ - Θεκὼ... πόλεις ἕνδεκα καὶ αἱ κῶμαι αὐτῶν. The omission of these names in fA is doubtless due to homoioteleuton. Jud. xiv. 15 ‘~yawd O12. (ἃ, as the context seems to require, ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τετάρτῃ (39177); but see Moore in Haupt, Sacred Books, ad loc. Xvi. 13 f. G supplies a long lacuna in #8 (καὶ ἐνκρούσης...τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ) caused by homoioteleuton; on the two Greek renderings of the passage see Moore in Haupt, ad Joc. xix. 18 G εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου ἐγὼ πορεύομαι (fA son aN my nan). The final letter of ‘M2 has probably been taken by 2 for an abbreviation of 710". 1 Sam. i, 24 nwo DEA, G ev μόσχῳ τριετίζοντι, dividing and pronouncing ΣΌΣ ἼΞΞ. ii. 33 G supplies 2703 (ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ) which fl seems to have lost. 111. 13 (ἃ ὅτι κακο- λογοῦντες θεὸν υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ, reading ὈΠῸΝ for amd, iv. 1. The first
clause in f#1 is irrelevant in this place, and must either be con- nected with iii. 21 or struck out altogether. In place of it G has
the appropriate introduction, καὶ ἐγενήθη... εἰς πόλεμον (DND3 9%
1 Lagarde (Symmicta i., p. 57) suggests a form NVIWN.
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 443
Saw Sy ΠΌΠΟΙ» onwdp ivap ann). ν. 6. For ΠῚ Tw NMS mia (ἃ has καὶ μέσον τῆς χώρας αὐτῆς ἀνεφύησαν μύες. Cf. vi. 4f., and see Driver and Budde (in Haupt’s Sacred Books) adloc. H. P. Smith would strike out the reference to mice in both contexts. vl. 19 ΦΌΣΣ ΤΟΣ WIND 3. (ἃ καὶ οὐκ ἡσμένισαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰεχονίου ἐν τοῖς ἀνδράσιν Βαιθσάμυς, where the first six words represent an
original of which ##1 preserves only three letters. Restoration is complicated by the fact that dopevifew is dm. dey. in the LXx.
Klostermann suggests 17°33’ 2 ὙΠ NP. ix. 25f. OY II 3 5) 330-3y San, , more in harmony with the context, καὶ Biter besa ay τῷ Σαοὺλ (Dinw> VIAN) ἐπὶ τῷ δώματι, καὶ ἐκοιμήθη (BY). x. 21 (ἃ - καὶ προσάγουσιν τὴν φυλὴν Ματταρεὶ εἰς ἄνδρας, a clause necessary to the sense. xii, 8 13 Ὁ ΟΡ ), (ὦ καὶ ὑπόδημα (cf. Gen. xiv. 23, Am. ii. 6, viii. 6); ἀποκρίθητε κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ (a WY p’>y3}). With G compare Sir. xlvi. 19 χρήματα καὶ ἕως ὑποδημάτων... οὐκ εἴληφα, where for tod. the newly recovered
Hebrew has DOY) ‘a secret gift,’ leg. fort. ody “ἃ pair of sandals’; see, however, Wisdom of Ben Stra, p. xvii. xii. 8 (ἃ supplies kal ἐταπείνωσεν αὐτοὺς Αἴγυπτος, omitted by #1 through homoio- teleuton. xiv. 18 DONA aS marian (ἃ προσάγαγε τὸ ἐφούδ. “The Ephod, not the ark, was the organ of divination” (Driver). xiv. 41 ἢ fl ΟΠ 135. Gls, supplying the lacuna, Ti ὅτι οὐκ ἀπεκρίθης τῷ δούλῳ σου σήμερον; εἰ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἢ ἐν Ἰωναθὰν τῷ υἱῷ pov ἡ ἀδικία; Κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ἰσραήλ, δὸς δήλους (DYN): καὶ εἰ τάδε εἴποις Ἔν τῷ λαῷ ἡ ἀδικία, δὸς ὁσιότητα (Θ 3). Similarly in v. 42 (ἃ preserves the words ὃν ἂν κατακληρώσηται...τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, which fl has lost through homoioteleuton. See the note in Field, Hexapla, i. p. 510. *X. 19 DIN J2NT OMS, G παρὰ τὸ ἐργὰβ ἐκεῖνο -- 10 33987 OM, ‘beside yonder cairn.’ Similarly v. 41 ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀργάβ = ΔΣ ΝΠ νυν. 2 Sam. iv. 6. For the somewhat incoherent sentence in #4, G substitutes καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ θυρωρὸς τοῦ οἴκου ἐκάθαιρεν πυρούς, καὶ ἐνύσταξεν καὶ éxdbevdev —words which explain the incident that follows. xvii. 8 G ὃν τρόπον ἐπιστρέφει ἡ νύμφη πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς: πλὴν ψυχὴν ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς σὺ ζητεῖς. In the archetype of ##1 the eye of the scribe has passed from UN to ΠΝ, and the sentence thus mutilated has been re-arranged. xxiv. 6 ‘WIN DMNA PINON. No ‘land of Tahtim Hodshi’ is known. G*< here preserves the true text, εἰς γῆν Χεττιεὶμ Καδής
444 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
-- ΠΡΡῚΡ pn γὴν by, ‘to the land of the Hittites, even to Kadesh.’ For the last word Ewald, followed by H. P. Smith, preferred ΓΙ, ‘to Hermon. 1 Kings xvii. 1 3 ΤΠ 3 Φ ἘΠ ayba, (ἃ ὁ Gea Beitns ἐκ Θεσβὼν τῆς Γαλαάδ (ἃ ἸΞΦ ΤΟ). 2 Chron. XXxXilii. 19 ‘Hn 34 by. (ἃ ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων τῶν ὁρώντων (DNMN). Neh. ix. 17 oa. (ἃ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ (Ὡ Ν 22). Ps. xvi. (xv.) 2 ΤΩΝ sc. WEI, (ἃ εἶπα (ADS) is manifestly right, and has been admitted into the text by the English Revisers. xxii. 16 (κι: 17) "Sd, Aq. ὡς λέων. (ἃ @pvéav (113 -Ξ 12). XXVii. (xxvi.):13 sdb (so S#) is apparently read by G as 5, and then
connected with the previous verse. See Cheyne, Book of Psalms, p. 379, and Abbott, Essays, p. 25. Wellhausen (Haupt, ad Joc.) would retain 4 without the puncta extraordinaria. xiii. 5
(xli. 6) (ἃ +[kai] ὁ θεός μου, as Min v. 12. xlix. 11 (xlviii. 12) Diy: wna ΞΡ. (ἃ οἱ τάφοι αὐτῶν οἰκίαι αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. lxix. 26 (xviii. 27) BD, (ἃ προσέθηκαν (Di). lxxii. (Ixxi.) 5 wow DY ANT". (ἃ καὶ συνπαραμενεῖ (PIN) τῷ ἡλίῳ. οἱ. (€.) 5 aN xd ins. (ἃ τούτῳ οὐ συνήσθιον bax xd AN). Prov. x. 10°
in fl is repeated from v. 8 which has displaced the true ending of v. Io. restores the latter (ὁ δὲ ἐλέγχων μετὰ παρρησίας εἰρη- vorrovet), and thus supplies the contrast to τοῦ which is required
to complete the couplet. Jer. vi. 29 3PAI xd Dy. (ἃ rovnpialc] αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐτάκησαν] (PID3 xd DY). xi 15 Ὁ) 31. (ἃ μὴ εὐχαί...; (Ὁ 7127); see however Streane, Double text, p. 133. xxiii. 33 Nu MINS. (ἃ ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ λῆμμα (dividing and pronouncing DAN SwDn). Ezek. xlv. 20 wan nyawa. (ἃ ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ μηνί, μιᾷ τοῦ μηνός (wand TOSI yaw). Mal. ii. 3YHO. («ἃ τὸν ὦμον = yin.
(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
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 445
Hebrew, represents in all cases another Hebrew text; for the difference may be due to the failure of the translators to under- stand 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 G and #4 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, (ἃ will usually deserve to be preferred when it (a) fills up a lacuna which can be traced to homoioteleuton in the Hebrew, or (4) removes an apparent interpolation, or (c) appears to represent a dona 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 Samari- tan Pentateuch and the Targum, or of Hebrew variants which survive in existing MSS. of the Massoretic text, or in the Q’ri'. 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. Ubersetzung der Pro- verbien, Ὁ. 1 ff.; Wellhausen, Der Text der Biicher Samuels, p. 1 ff.; Robertson Smith, O. 7: zm the Fewtsh Church?, p. 76 f£.; Driver, Votes 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 LXxX. must be received with even greater caution. It is evi- dent that Greek-speaking Jews, whose knowledge of Hebrew
1 On the relation of the Lxx. to the Q’ri, see Frankel, Vorstudien, p- 219 ff.
446 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
was probably acquired at Alexandria from teachers of very moderate attajnments, 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 exe- gesis of the LXx. in the historical books.
Gen. iv. I ἐκτησάμην ἄνθρωπον διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. iv. 7 οὐκ ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς, ἥμαρτες; ἡσύχασον. V1. 3 οὐ μὴ καταμείνῃ τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας. XXx. II kal εἶπεν Λεία Ἔν τύχῃ" καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Tad. XxxVil. 3 ἐποίησεν δὲ αὐτῷ χιτῶνα ποικίλον (cf. 2 Regn. xii. 18). xli. 43 ἐκήρυξεν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ κήρυξ. xlvil. 31 προσεκύνησεν Ἰσραὴλ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ. xlvili. 14 ἐναλλὰξ [D ἐναλλάξας] τὰς χεῖρας. xlix. 6 ἐνευροκόπησαν ταῦρον. 19 Γάδ, πειρατήριον πειρατεύσει αὐτόν" αὐτὸς δὲ πειρατεύσει αὐτῶν κατὰ meade Exod. i. 16 kal ὦσιν πρὸς τῷ τίκτειν. 111. 14 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὧν. xvi. 15 εἶπαν ἕτερος τῷ ἑτέρῳ Τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; xVil. 15 ἐπωνόμασεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Κύριος καταφυγή μου. ΧΧΙ. 6 πρὸς τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ. ΧΧΧΙΪ. 32 καὶ νῦν εἰ μὲν ἀφεῖς αὐτοῖς τὴν. ἁμαρτίαν αὐτῶν, ἄφες. Lev. xxlil. 3 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ Zin ἑβδόμῃ σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις κλητὴ ἁγία τῷ κυρίῳ. Num. xxiii. 1o> ἀποθάνοι ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν ψυχαῖς δικαίων, καὶ γένοιτο τὸ σπέρμα μου ὡς τὸ σπέρμα τούτων. ΧΧΙΝ. 24 καὶ κακώσουσιν ᾿Εβραίους. Deut. xx. 19 μὴ ἄνθρωπος τὸ ξύλον τὸ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, εἰσελθεῖν...εἰς τὸν χάρακα; ΧΧΧΙΙ. ὃ ἐ ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ. 15 ἀπελάκτισεν ὁ ἤγαπη- μένος. Jos. ν. 2 ποίησον σεαυτῷ μαχαίρας πετρίνας ἐκ “Πέτρας ἀκροτόμου. Jud. 1. 35 ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Αμορραῖος κατοικεῖν ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ ὀστρακώδει (Α τοῦ μυρσινῶνος), ἐ ἐν ᾧ αἱ ἄρκοι καὶ ἐν ᾧ αἱ ἀλώπεκες, ἐν τῷ μυρσινῶνι καὶ ἐν Θαλαβείν (A om. ἐν τῷ p. κ. ἐν O.). Vill. 13, ἐπέστρεψεν Γεδεὼν... ἀπὸ ἐπάνωθεν τῆς παρατάξεως ” Ἄρες (Α ἐκ τοῦ πολέμου ἀπὸ ἀναβάσεως Apes). ΧΙ]. 6 καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ Εἶπον δὴ Στάχυς (A Σύνθημα). xv. 14 ff. ἦλθον ἕως Σιαγόνος...καὶ εὗρεν
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 447
, 4 x). ae e A A 4 ‘ 5 ~ , ‘
σιαγόνα ὄνου... καὶ ἔρρηξεν 6 θεὸς τὸν λάκκον τὸν ἐν TH Σιαγόνι...διὰ - ~ A - ,
τοῦτο ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Πηγὴ τοῦ ἐπικαλουμένου, ἥ ἐστιν ἐν
J
Σιαγόνι. XVill. 30 υἱὸς Γηρσὸμ υἱὸς (A υἱοῦ) Mavacon (ΠΙ ΓΞ : on the 2 suspensum see Moore in comm. on Sacred Books, ad loc.). I Regn. x. 5 οὗ ἐστιν ἐκεῖ τὸ ἀνάστεμα τῶν ἀλλοφύλων: ἐκεῖ Νασεὶβ ὁ ἀλλόφυλος. Xili. 21 καὶ ἦν 6 τρυγητὸς ἕτοιμος τοῦ θερίζειν" τὰ δὲ σκεύη ἦν τρεῖς σίκλοι εἰς τὸν ὀδόντα, καὶ τῇ ἀξίνῃ, καὶ τῷ δρεπάνῳ ὑπόστασις ἦν ἡ αὐτή. XX. 30 υἱὲ κορασίων αὐτομολούντων (Luc. + γυναικοτραφῆ). XXVll. IO κατὰ νότον τῆς Ἰουδαίας. ΧΧΧΙ. 10 ἀνέ- θηκαν τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ᾿Ασταρτεῖον. 2 Regn. i. 21 θυρεὸς Σαοὺλ οὐκ ἐχρίσθη ἐν ἐλαίῳ. ΧΙ]. 31 διήγαγεν (A ἀπήγαγεν) αὐτοὺς διὰ τοῦ πλινθείου (Luc. περιήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἐν pac δεββάλ. xx. 6 μη ποτε. ε“σκιάσει τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἡμῶν. XXIV. I5 ἀπὸ πρωίθεν [καὶ] ἕως ὥρας ἀρίστου. 3 Regn. Xlil. 12 [Καὶ δεικνύουσιν αὐτῷ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν ὁδόν. 4 Regn. 112. ἐπιζητήσατε ἐν τῷ Βάαλ μυῖαν θεὸν ᾿Ακκαρών (Luc. ἐπερωτήσατε διὰ τοῦ Βάαλ μυῖαν προσόχθισμα θεὸν ᾿Ακκαρών). viil. 13 Tis ἐστιν ὁ δοῦλός σου, ὃ κύων ὁ τεθνηκώς, ὃ ὅτι ποιήσει τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο; XX1il. 221. οὐκ ἐγενήθη [κατὰ] τὸ πάσχα τοῦτο ἀφ᾽ ἡμερῶν τῶν κριτῶν...οὅτι ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τῷ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει τοῦ βασιλέως Ἰωσεία ἐγενήθη τὸ πάσχα [τοῦτο] (cf. 2 Chr. xxxv. 18).
(6) 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 11. p. τ ff
Ψαλμός, WD passim (4H in Ps. vii., WY in Ps. xlv. (xlvi.)).
Ὠδηή, VY passim 615 in Ps. iv., fi'97 in Ps. ix. 17).
Ψαλμὸς δῆς, WWD Pss. xxix., xlvii., Ixvii., lxxiv., lxxxii., bexxvi_, XCi., ΞΟΠ: (A); δὴ ψαλμοῦ, “ον Ὦ or Wor Ww (Ixv., Ixxxil., ote Cvli.).
Προσευχή: ban (Pss; xvi, booxv., borxix, ΟΊ ΌΧΙ
“Αλληλουιά, Ayan (Pss. clv.—cvi., Cx.—CXiv., CXvi., CXVii., CXxxXiv., Cxxxv., Cxlv., cxlvi., cxlvili.—cl.).
Αἴνεσις, nban ἘΞ exlty, ).
Στηλογραφία, εἰς στηλογραφίαν, DAD) (Pss. xv., lv.—lix.). Ag. rod ταπεινόφρονος καὶ ἁπλοῦ, Th. τοῦ ταπ. καὶ ἀμώμου.
Eis τὸ τέλος, ny292 (Pss. iv.—xlil., xvii., xviii., xxi., xxix., xxx., xxxV.—1x1., Ixiii—lxix., Ixxiv.—Ixxvi., Ixxix., Ixxx., Ixxxiii.,
1 The titles which are given in the LxXx. but are wanting in ffl, have been enumerated in Pt. Il. c. li. (p. 250 ff.).
448 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
Ixxxiv., Ixxxvii., Cil., cCviii., Cxxxviil., cxxxix.). Cf. Aq. τὰ νικοποιῷ, Symm. ἐπινίκιος, Th. εἰς τὸ νῖκος.
Ἔν ὕμνοις, n3*433 (Pss. vi., liii., liv., lx., Ixvi., Ixxv.).
Ἐν ψαλμοῖς, M3393 (Ps. iv.).
Ὑπὲρ τῆς κληρονομούσης, (?) mb maT-ON (Ps. v.). Aq. ἀπὸ KAnpo- δοσιῶν, Symm. ὑπὲρ κληρουχιῶν.
Ὑπὲρ τῆς ὀγδόης, MDW (Pss. vi., χί.).
Ὑπὲρ τῶν λόγων Χουσεὶ υἱοῦ Ἴεμεν εἰ, "2253 wa II (Ps. vii.). Aq., Symm., Th. περί, κτλ.
Ὑπὲρ τῶν ληνῶν, MAID (Pss. viii., lxxx., Ixxxiii.). Aq., Th. ὑπὲρ τῆς γετθίδος.
Ὑπὲρ τῶν κρυφίων τοῦ υἱοῦ, 125 πλοῦν (Ps. 1x.; cf. ΧΙ). ΤΑ ὑπὲρ νεανιότητος Tov υἱοῦ, Th. ὑπὲρ ἀκμῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ, Symm. | περὶ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ.
Ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀντιλήμψεως τῆς ἑωθινῆς, πα προ τὸν (Ps. xxi.). Aq: ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλάφου τῆς ὀρθρινῆς. Symm. ὑπὲρ τῆς βοηθείας τῆς
ὀρθρ. ἣν πὲρ τῶν ἀλλοιωθησομένων, D'IYW-OY (Pss. xliv., lix., Ixviii., Ixxix.).
Aq. ἐπὶ τοῖς κρίνοις, Symm. ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀνθῶν, Th. ὑπὲρ τῶν κρίνων.
Ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ (δή), ΠῚ (WY) (Ps. xliv.). Aq. dopa
᾿ προσφιλίας, Symm. dopa εἰς τὸν ἀγαπητόν, Th. τοῖς ἠγαπη- μένοις. : :
Ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων μεμακρυμμένου, DPT) DPN ΠΡΊΩΝ, (Ps. lv.). Aq. ὑπὲρ περιστερᾶς ἀλάλου μακρυσμῶν. Symm. ὑπὲρ τῆς περιστερᾶς ὑπὸ τοῦ φίλου αὐτοῦ ἀπωσμένου. Ε΄. ὑπὲρ τῆς π. τῆς μογγιλάλου κεκρυμμένων.
Ὑπὲρ ᾿Ιδιθούν, pnaT oy (Pss. xxxviil., 1xi., Ixxvi.).
“Ymép μαελὲθ (τοῦ ἀποκριθῆναι), (MI3~>) NEN (Pss. lii., Lxxxvii.). Aq. ἐπὶ χορείᾳ (Symm. διὰ χοροῦ) τοῦ ἐξάρχειν.
Εἰς ἀνάμνησιν, dT? (Pss. xxxvii., 1xix.).
Eis ἐξομολόγησιν, nqine (Ps. xcix.). Aq. εἰς εὐχαριστίαν.
Eis σύνεσιν, συνέσεως, SYD (Pss. xxxi., xli—xliv., lii—liii., Lxxiii., Ixxxvii., Ixxxviii., cxli.), Ag. ἐπιστήμονος, ἐπιστήμης, ἐπιστη- μοσύνης. ΔΎ
Μὴ διαφθείρῃς, NNWANPS (Pss. lvi.—lviil., Ixxiv.). Symm. (Ps.
Ixxiv.) περὶ ἀφθαρσίας.
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 449
Tov ἐνκαινισμοῦ τοῦ οἴκου, NAN" n2in (Psi) κεῖσ.) Τῶν ἀναβαθμῶν, nioyan (Rss: CXIX. —cxxxiii.). Aq., Symm., Th.
τῶν ἀναβάσεων, εἰς Tas ἀναβάσεις.
It may be added that 19D! (Pss. iii. 3, 5, iv. 3, 5) vii. 6, &c., &c.)
is uniformly διάψαλμα in the LXx.; Aq. renders it ἀεί, Symm. and Th. agree with the LXX. except that in Ps. ix. 17 dei is attributed to Th. In the Psalm of Habakkuk (Hab. iii. 3) Symm. renders eis τὸν αἰῶνα, Th. εἰς τέλος, and in v. 13 eis τέλος has found its way into copies of the LXx. (cf. 8“, and Jerome: “ipsi 1,ΧΧ. rerum necessitate compulsi...nunc transtulerunt zz fizem’’).
(Ὁ) Exegetical help is sometimes to be obtained from a guarded use of the interpretation affixed by the Lxx. (1) to obscure words, especially ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, and (2) to certain proper names. Some examples of both are given below.
(1) Gen. i. 2 ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος. 6 στερέωμα. ii. ὃ τὸ δειλινόν. 15 τηρήσει... τηρήσεις. Vi. 2 οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. Deut. xxxil. 8, Job i. ΟΣ 1 Des: 48 γίγαντες. vill. 21 διανοηθείς. ΧΧΙΪ. 2 τὸν ἀγαπητόν. six: ΤΟ ἡγούμενος. Exod. vi. 12 dAoyos. vill. 21 kuvdpuca. xii. 22 ὕσσωπος. XXV. 29 ἄρτοι ἐνώπιοι (cf. a. προκείμενοι XXXIX. 18= 36, a. τοῦ προσώπου I Regn. xxi. 6). xxvill. 15 λόγιον, Vulg. rationale. Exod. XXXIV. 13 τὰ ἄλση Vulg. luct, A.V. groves. Lev. xvi. 8 ff. 6 ἀποπομπαῖος, ἡ ἀποπομπή. Dent: x16 ΤΈΛΗ ΘΟΕ ἀρὸ τὰ Jud. X1X. 22 viol παρανόμων (cf. viol λοιμοί I Regn. 1]. 12, and other renderings, which employ ἀνομία, ἀνόμημα, ef ee ἀσεβής, ἄφρων). 2 Regn. i. 1ὃ τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ εὐθοῦς. 3 Regn. x. II ξύλα Terex πα (Ch. 2,Chr. il. Ὁ, tx. ΤΟῚ €. πεύκινα). Ps. vill. 6 παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους. xv. 9 ἡ γλῶσσά pov. xvi. 8 κόρα ὀφθαλμοῦ. ᾿ 14 πνεύμα ἡγεμονικόν. CXXXVill. 15 ἡ ὑπόστασίς μου. 16 τὸ ἀκατέρ- γαστόν gov. Prov, il. 18 παρὰ τῷ ἅδῃ μετὰ τῶν γηγενῶν (a doublet). Job ix. 9 Πλειάδα καὶ Ἕσπερον καὶ ᾿Αρκτοῦρον (cf. xxxviil. save Zeph. i. 10 ἀπὸ τῆς δευτέρας (cf. 4 Regn. xxii. 14). Isa. xxxvill. ὃ (4 Regn. xxil.) rods δέκα ἀναβαθμούς. Ezech. ΧΙ]. 18 Pp opeecde hae, ἐπιβόλαια.
(2) <Abarim, mountains of, ὩΣ ΠΞΏΤΙΓΠ, τὸ ὄρος τὸ ἐν τῷ πέραν,
Num. xxvii. 12 (cf. xxi. II, xxxill. 44). Agagtte, Βουγαῖος, Esth. ili. 1, A 17 (xii. 6); Μακεδών: E (xvi.) ‘Io. Ararat, land of, ΟΝ OS, “Appevia, Isa. xxxvil. 38. Ashtoreth NAWY, ᾿Αστάρτη
1 On this word see an article by C. A. Briggs, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1899, Ρ. 132 ff.
Sos: 29
450 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
(the Phoenician ‘Ashtart), Jud. 11. 13, 4 Regn. xxiii. 13. Baca, valley of, SAD Pry, ἡ κοιλὰς τοῦ κλαυθμῶνος, Ps. lxxxiii. 7 (cf. Jud. ii. 5, 2 Regn. v. 24, 1 Chr. xiv. 14). Caphtor, Caphtorim, Καππαδοκία, Καππάδοκες, Deut. 11. 23, Am. ix. 7. Cherethites, DN ID, Κρῆτες, Zeph. 11. 5, Ezech. xxv. 16. Dodanim, D275, “Ῥόδιοι (DIT), Gen. x. 4. Enhakkore ΡΠ, Πηγὴ τοῦ ἐπικαλουμένου, Jud. xv. 19. Lchabod, W328, οὐαὶ βαρχαβώθ (ΡΞ ΓἸΞΙΠῚΞ 4s, Wellh.), 1 Regn. iv. 21. Favan, ἡ Ἕλλάς, Isa. Ixvi. 19 (cf. Joel 111. 6). Fehovah-nissz, Κύριος καταφυγή pov, Exod. xvil. 15. Keren-happuch, A301 72, ᾿Αμαλθείας κέρας, Job xlii. 14. Atriath-sepher, 12D NYP, πόλις γραμμάτων, Jos. xv. 15 f., Macpelah, naron, TO σπήλαιον τὸ διπλοῦν, Gen. xxiii. 17, 19 (xxv. 9, xlix. 30, 1. 13). Moriah, land of, 77100 YIN, ἡ γῆ ἡ ὑψηλή, Gen. xxii. 2. Pisgah, IDBO, τὸ λελαξευμένον, Num. Xx]. 20, xxill. 14, Deut. i. 27 (cf. Deut. iv. 49). Zaanaim, plain of, DSA Hos, δρῦς πλεονεκτούντων (B), dp. ἀναπαυομένων (A), Jud. iv. 11 (cf. Moore, ad loc.). Zaphnath-paaneah, Nids ΓΩΝΞ, Ψονθομφανήχ, Gen. xli. 45 (Ball, ad doc. compares Egypt. sut’aen pa-any). Pharaoh-Hophra, VEN 'B, ὁ Οὐαφρή, Jer. li. (xliv.) 30 (cf. W. E. Crum in Hastings, D. BZ. 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’. 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 On the quotations see above p. 392 ff.
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 451
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 (4) 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 μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί...οἱ πενθοῦντες.. oi mpaets (Isa. lxi. 1 ff., Ps. xxxvi. 11). vi. 6 eloeAOe eis τὰ ταμεῖόν σου (Isa. xxvi. 20). x. 21, 35 ἐπαναστήσονται τέκνα ἐπὶ γονεῖς.. ἦλθον yap διχάσαι...θυγατέρα κατὰ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ νύμφην. κτλ. (Mic. vii. 6). xxl. 33 ἄνθρωπος ἐφύτευσεν ἀμπελῶνα καὶ φραγμὸν αὐτῷ περιέθηκεν κτλ. (Isa. ν. 25.) Mies ΙΧ. 48 βληθῆναι εἰς γέενναν ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται (isa. Iixvis 2) Jock 52 ὄψεσθε τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοῦ θεοῦ ΠΡ αβα νολδις καὶ κατα- βαίνοντας (Gen. xxvill. 12); (ὁ) in the translated evangelical record: Mc. vil. 32 φέρουσιν αὐτῷ κωφὸν καὶ μογιλάλον... καὶ ἐλύθη ὁ δεσμός κτλ. (Isa. xxxv. ἘΠ xlil. 7). xv. 29 of mapamo- ρευόμενοι ἐβλασφήμουν αὐτὸν κινοῦντες τὰς κεφαλάς: cf. Le. XXlll. 35 ἱστήκει ὁ λαὸς θεωρῶν’: ἐξεμυκτήριζον δέ κτλ. (Ps. xxl. 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; I Pet. 11. 9 ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε κτλ. (Εχοά. ies hfs xxii 58.- xiii. - 20). iil. 14 tov Oe φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε ange ,“ταραχθῆτε, κύριον δὲ τὸν χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν (Isa. viii. 12 f.). Rom. Xl. 17 προνοούμενοι καλὰ ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων: er oar Vill. 21 mpovootpev yap καλὰ ov μόνον ἐνώπιον Κυρίου ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων (Prov. 11]. 4; in Rom. /. c. this allusion is preceded by another to Prov. iil. 7). 2 Cor. iii. 3ff.: Exod. xxxi., XXXIV... (LXX.) are in view throughout this context. Eph. il. 1 17 εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην ὑμῖν τοῖς μακρὰν καὶ εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς (Isa. lvii. 19, cf. li. 7, 1[Χ]. 1). Phil. i. 19 οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι τοῦτό μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν (Job xiii. 16. Heb. vi. 8 γῆ.. ἐκφέρουσα... ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβόλους...κατάρας ἐγγύς (Gen.
ἍΝ
These are but a few illustrations of a mental habit every- where 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
29—2
452 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
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 con- sequently be examined by the light of the cognate documents which form the Lxx.’” ‘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*® 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:
ἀγαθοποιεῖν, ἀγαθωσύνη, ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι, ἀγαλλίασις, ἁγιάζειν, ΄ ΄σ ’ὔ ἁγιασμός, ἁγιωσύνη, αἴνεσις, ἀκρογωνιαῖος, αἰχμαλωτεύειν, ἀλίσγημα, ΄ ΄ > ΄ » ΄ > , ἁλληλουιά, ἀλλογενής, ἀμέθυστος, ἀμὴν, ἀμφιάζειν, ἀναζωννύειν, ἀναθεματίζειν, ἀνεξιχνίαστος, ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, ἀνταπόδομα, ἀποδε- ΄ > ΄ 3 , > , , , κατοῖν, ἀποκάλυψις, ἀποκεφαλίζειν, ἀποφθέγγεσθαι, βάτος, βδέ- - , , , ’ , λυγμα, βεβηλοῦν, βροχή, γέεννα, γνώστης, γογγύζειν, γυμνότης, δεκατοῦν, δεκτός, διαγογγύζειν, δολιοῦν, δότης, “δυναμοῦν, ἑβδομη- | > r > , , κοντάκις, εἰρηνοποιεῖν, ἐκζητεῖν, ἐκμυκτηρίζειν, ἐκπειράζειν, ἐκπορ- ~ », , > ,, ᾿» νεύειν, ἐκριζοῦν, ἐλεγμός, ἔλεγξις, ἐμπαιγμός, ἐμπαίκτης, ἔναντι, , “- σι > , ἐνδιδύσκειν, ἐνδοξάζειν, ἐνδυναμοῦν, evevAoyeiv, ἐνκαινίζειν, ἔνταλμα;, > , > , > , > , > , > ἐνταφιάζειν, ἐνώπιον, ἐνωτίζεσθαι, ἐξάπινα, ἐξαστράπτειν, ἐξολε- - ’ , , Θρεύειν, eEovdevody, ἐξυπνίζειν, ἐπαύριον, ἐπισκοπή, ἐπαναπαΐύειν, ’ ld > ἐπιγαμβρεύειν, ἐπιφαύσκειν, ἐρήμωσις, εὐδοκία, ἐφημερία, ἥττημα,
1 Essays, Pp» 34+ 2 Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 88.
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 453
θέλησις, ἱερατεύειν, ἱεράτευμα, καθαρίζειν, καθαρισμός, κατακαυχᾶ- σθαι, κατακληρονομεῖν, κατάνυξις, κατανύσσειν, κατενώπιον, κατοι- κητήριον, καύσων, καύχησις, κλυδωνίζεσθαι, κόρος, κραταιοῦν, λαξευτός, λειτουργικός, λύτρωσις, μακροθυμεῖν, μάννα, ματαιότης, ματαιοῦν, μεγαλειότης, μεγαλωσύνη, μετοικεῖν, μίσθιος, “μογιλάλος, μοιχαλίς, νῖκος, ὀλεθρεύειν, ὀλιγόψυχος, ὁλοκληρία, ὀπτάνειν, ὀπτασία, ὀρθο- τομεῖν, ὀρθρίζειν, ὁρκωμοσία, οὐαί, παγιδεύειν, παραζηλοῦν, παρα- πικρασμός, παροικία, παροργισμός, πατριάρχης, πειρασμός, περι- κάθαρμα, περιούσιος, περισσεία, πληροφορεῖν, πρόσκομμα, προσ- οχθίζειν, πρωινός, ῥαντίζειν, ῥαντισμός, σαβαώθ, σάββατον, σαγήνη; σατανᾶς, σάτον, σητόβρωτος, σίκερα, σκάνδαλον, σκληροκαρδία, σκληροτράχηλος, στήκειν, στυγνάζειν, συνεγείρειν, ταπεινόφρων, ὑπακοή, ὑπάντησις, ὑπολήνιον, ὑπεροψοῦν, ὑστέρημα, φωστήρ, χερουβείμ, ψιθυρισμός, ὠτίον.
Since the publication of Dr Kennedy’s book some of these words (e.g. γογγύζειν, λειτουργικός 1) 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.
(2) 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 regu- lated 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.
ΒΘ: ἀγαθωσύνη, ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι, ἁγνίζειν, ἀγρυπνεῖν, αἴνιγμα, αἱρετίζειν, ἀλαζονεύεσθαι, ἀλλογενής, ἀδιαλείπτως, ἀμάραντος, ἀμέ- ριμνος, ἀμφίβληστρον, ἄμῴφοδον, ἀπελπίζειν, ἀπερίτμητος, ἁπλότης, ἀπόκρυφος, βδέλυγμα, γλωσσόκομον, γνωρίζειν, διάδημα, δίδραχμα, δίστομος, διυλίξειν, δωρεάν, ἐναγκαλίζεσθαι, ἐνταφιάζειν, ἐνωτίζεσθαι
μος, eee 3 v ? ? ἑορτάζειν, ἐξέφνης, ἐξουδενοῦν, εὔκολος, εὐοδοῦν, GcowzBeta, ikavov- σθαι, ἱκανός, ἰκμάς, ἱστορεῖν, καμμύειν, κατάγελως, καταδυναστεύειν, κατακλυσμός, κατακυριεύειν, καταποντίζειν, καταφιλεῖν, καυχᾶσθαι, κλάσμα, κοράσιον, κόφινος, λιθόστρωτος, λικμᾷν, μεσονύκτιον, μογι- λάλος, μυκτηρίζειν, νεομηνία, νῖκος, νυστάζειν, οἰκουμένη (7), ὁμοθυμα-
gp Oe Tap ’ μῆνια, ) ’ ee. Ps. Oe ae
1 Deissmann, Aibelstudien, pp. 106, 138.
454 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
dov, ὀστράκινος, παγιδεύειν, παιδάριον, παραδειγματίζειν, παρακούειν, παρεπίδημος, πάροικος, περικεφαλαία, περίλυπος, περίχωρος, περί- ψημα, πήρα, πλεονάζειν, πολυλογία, πολυπραγμονεῖν, προσήλυτος, προσκεφάλαιον, ῥάπισμα, ῥύμη, σαγήνη, σίκερα, σίνδων, σκόλοψ, στενοχωρία, συλλογίζεσθαι, συμβιβάζειν, σύμφυτος, ταμ(ι)εῖον, τετρά- δραχμον, τρυμαλία, τυμπανίζειν, ὑπογραμμός, φιμοῦν, χορτάζειν, χρηματίζειν, ψευδοπροφήτης. To these may be added ἃ consider- able class of words which are based on LXx. words though they do not occur in the LXX.; €.g.: ἀπροσωπολήμπτως, βάπτισμα (-pos), δαιμονίζεσθαι, πνευματικός, σαρκικός, Ψψευδόχριστος.
(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:
ἀγάπη; ἀγαπητός, ἁγιάζειν, ἁγιασμός, ἀδελφός, ἀδόκιμος, αἵρεσις, αἰσθητήριον, ἀκρογωνιαῖος, ἀνάθεμα, ἀναζωπυρεῖν, ἀνακαινίζειν, ἀνα- στροφή, ἀνατολή, ἀνεξιχνίαστος, ἀπαρχή, ἀπαύγασμα, ἄφεσις, ἀφο- ρίζειν, βαπτίζειν, βεβαίωσις, βλασφημεῖν, γαζοφυλάκιον, γέεννα, γραμματεύς, γρηγορεῖν, δαιμόνιον, διαθήκη, δόγμα, ἔθνη, εἰρηνικός, εἰρηνοποιεῖν, ἐκκλησία, ἔκστασις, ἐλεημοσύνη, ἐνέργεια, ἐξομολο- γεῖσθαι, ἐξουσία, ἐπερώτημα, ἐπίσκοπος, ἐπισυνάγειν, ἐπιφάνεια, ἐπιχορηγεῖν, ἑτοιμασία, εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, εὐαρεστεῖν, εὐδοκία, εὐλάβεια, ζηλωτής, ζωγρεῖν, ζωογονεῖν, θέλημα, θρησκεία, ἱλασμός, ἱλαστήριον, ᾿ἸΙουδαισμός, καταλλαγή, κατάνυξις, κήρυγμα, κυβέρνησις, Κύριος, λειτουργεῖν, λόγος, λοιμός, λυτροῦσθαι, μεγαλειότης, μεγαλωσύνη, μεταμέλεια, μετεωρίζεσθαι, μονογενής, μορφή, μυστήριον, νεόφυτος, ὁλόκληρος, ὀρθοτομεῖν, ὁσιότης, παραβολή, παράδεισος, πάροικος, πει- ρασμός, περιούσιος, περιοχή, περιποιεῖσθαι, πίστις, πληροφορεῖσθαι, πλήρωμα, πνεῦμα, πρεσβύτερος, προσάγειν, ῥύεσθαι, σάρξ, σκάν- δαλον, σκληροτράχηλος, σεμνός, συνείδησις, σφραγίζειν, σωτηρία, τάρταρος, ὑπύστασις, ὑστέρημα, Ὕψιστος, φιλάνθρωπος, φῶς, χα- ρακτήρ, χειρόγραφον, χριστός. Many of the characteristic phrases of the N.T. also have their roots in the LXx., e. Sg: εἰκὼν θεοῦ (Gen. 1. 26), ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας (viil. 21), πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος (xxill. 4), πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (ΧΧΧΙ͂Ι. .30) λαὸς περιούσιος (Exod, xix. 5), δόξα Κυρίου (xl. 29) θυσία αἰνέσεως (Lev. vil. 2), λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον (xix. 15), ἡ διασπορά (Deut. xxx. 4); yevea διεστραμμένη, σκολιά (Xxxil. 5.) μὴ γένοιτο (Jos. ΧΧΙΪ. 29), ἵλεώς σοι (2 Regn. XX. 20), μικρὸν. ὅσον ὅσον (XXVi. 20), διάβολος ( Chron. XXl. 1), τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ (Ps. xcvii. 3), ῳδὴ καινή, “ὄνομα καινόν, and the like (Ps. cxliii. 9, Isa. [Χ1]. 2, &c.), Κύριος ὁ παν- τοκράτωρ (Am. ix. 5), δοῦλος Κυρίου (Jon. 1 ἜΠΟΣ; τράπεζα Κυρίου (Mal. i. 7), ἡμέρα ἐπισκοπῆς (Isa. x. 3), ΤΉΝ Κυρίου (xii. 6, 9) ὁ παῖς {roo θεοῦ] (xli. ὃ, &c.), ἐγώ εἶμι (xlili. 10), ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 455
(xlix. 1), τὰ πετεινὰ Tov οὐρανοῦ (Ezech. xxxi. 6), ὁ Tay καὶ Maywy (XXXvill. 2).
The non-canonical books have their full share in the contri- bution which the Septuagint makes to the vocabulary of the. N.T. Many Biblical words 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 | ex- amples will repay examination : αἰών, ἀπαύγασμα, ἀποκάλυψις, ἀπο- στολή, ἀσύνετος, ἄφεσις, βαπτίζειν, βασιλεία (τοῦ θεοῦ), δαιμόνιον, διακονία, διαπονεῖσθαι, δικαιοῦν, ἔκβασις, ἐκλεκτός, ἐμβατεύειν, ἐπί- σκοπος, ἐπιστροφή, ἐπιτιμία, ἐπιφάνεια, εὔσπλαγχνος, εὐχαριστία, ἴδιος, iMac pos, ἱλαστήριον, κανών, κλῆρος, κληροῦν, κοινός, κοινοῦν, κόσμος, κτίσις, λειτουργία, λειτουργύς, μυστήριον (τοῦ θεοῦ), νόμος, παρουσία, πεντηκοστή, σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, σκανδαλίζειν, συμπάθεια, συμπαθεῖν, σωτήρ, χάρις καὶ ἔλεος, χριστός.
(dq) “The great majority of N.T. words and phrases express...the conceptions of a Semitic race, and...must con- sequently be examined by the light of...the Lxx.” But the connotation will usually be found to have undergone con- siderable 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’.” These principles led him to
1 Essays, p. 35+
456 The Greck Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
some remarkable departures from the traditional interpretation of N.T. words (eg, dpers=7i0 or MPIM=Sdéa, erawvos: διάβολος -- OY =‘enemy’; ὁμοθυμαδόν = VIN, W=<‘ together’ ; πτωχοί = πένητες = πραεῖς = ταπεινοί = ‘fellahin’; πονηρός, mali- cious, mischievous; ὑποκριτής, the equivalent of πονηρός, πανοῦργος, and the like). A searching examination of these views will be found in Dr T. K. Abbott’s essay On MT. Lextcography’. The πρῶτον ψεῦδος 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. ᾿Αγάπη 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. 111. 9, vi. 18°). 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. ἨἜἘκκλησία in the Lxx. is the congregation of Israel; in the N.T., except perhaps in Mt. XVlll. 17, it is the new community founded by Christ’, viewed in different aspects and with many shades of meaning. Evay- γέλιον in the Lxx. occurs only in the plural, and perhaps only
1 Essays, p. 65 ff. 2 ᾽᾿Αγάπησις occurs in the sense of Divine love (Hos. xi. 4, Zeph. iii. 14, Jer. XXL 5): See Hort, Zhe Christian Ecclesia, p. 9 f.
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 457
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 (Me. i. 1, 14), probably deriving this new meaning from the use of εὐαγγελίζεσθαι in Isa. xl. 9, 11]. ΠΡ dee Gyelagt sat
Thus on the whole it is clear that caution must be used in employing the practice of the Lxx. to determine the connota- tion 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 de- rived 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 κοινή, 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: ‘‘Lxxviralis versio...ad Novum Instrumentum recte intelligendum et accu- rate 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
1 99
Hebraea et ex usu LXx. interpretum facile intelliguntur’.
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 cen- turies, 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 Praef. paraen., ed. E. Churton, p. 22 f.
458 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
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 trans- lating ἐτυμολογικῶς render it easy to recover the text which lay before him. In the large fragments of 3 and 4 Regn. pub- lished by Mr Burkitt, Aquila’s Hebrew text differs from that of the printed Bibles only in thirteen readings’, 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 trans- lates with a full knowledge of both languages and of other Semitic tongues’, whilst the Lxx. too often depended upon guess-work. ‘This merit of Aquila was recognised by Jerome, who makes use of his interpretations inthe Vulgate*. 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®. (4) The paraphrasing manner of Symmachus hinders the free use of his version either for textual or herme- neutical 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 \., p. xxxiv. “quem tam presse secutus est magnus ille interpres Latinus...ut aliquando nobis successerit ex Hie- ronymi Latinis Symmachi Graeca...satis probabiliter extricare.” (c) Theodotion, besides contributing a whole book to the ¢extus
See above, p. 40.
Cf. Aguila, p. 16 f.
Field, Hexapla, τ. p. xxiv. Lbidem.
See Burkitt, Aguz/a, p. 18 ff.
aA . ὦ we
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 459
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°.
2. All the post-Christian translators of the O.T., but espe- cially Aquila, Symmachus, and the author of the Quinta’, 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. 1. 2 NBM) Ο΄ ἐπεφέρετο, ᾿Α.Σ.Θ. ἐπιφερόμενον. 6 WPI, O'A.3.O. στερέωμα. το DNDN, O'3.0. τὰ συστέματα (συστήματα) τῶν ὑδάτων. 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. 19 973 Ο΄ πειρατήριον, A. εὔζωνος, Σ. λόχος. Exod. v. 13 0230 Ο΄ οἱ ἐργοδιῶκται, “A. of εἰσπρᾶκται. Jud. v. τό a2-7EN O’ ἐξετασμοὶ καρδίας, "A. ἀκριβολογίαι κ., Σ. ἐξιχνιασμοὶ x. Ps, Ixxxviii, 8 DWP TID Ὑ2 ON O' δ θεὸς δοξαζόμενος ἐν βουλῇ ἁγίων, “A. ᾿Ισχυρὸς κατισχυρευόμενος ἐν ἀποῤῥήτῳ ἁ., Σ. θεὲ ἀήττητε ἐν ὁμιλίᾳ a. At other times their rendering lies far apart from that of the Lxx., manifesting complete dissent from the Alexandrian version, e.g. Gen. xlvil. 31 020 O' ris ῥάβδου, ᾿Α.Σ. τῆς κλίνης. Num. xxiii, 21 (422) MVNA O' τὰ ἔνδοξα, "A. ἀλαλαγμός, Σ. σημασία, Θ. σαλπισμός. τ Regn. xiii. 20 IAWIND, O' τὸ θέριστρον (A.O. ἄροτρον, &. ὕνιν) αὐτοῦ. Ps. ἴ 1; ἼΖΠΡ2 Ο΄ δράξασθε παιδείας, Α. καταφιλήσατε ἐκλεκτώς,
1 See pp. 47 ff., 395 f., 403, 417 etc. 2 On the excellence of his Greek scholarship see Field, of. ct. p. xliv.
460 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.
>. προσκυνήσατε καθαρῶς. 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 axpo- βυστίαν καρδίας for the euphemistic σκληροκαρδίαν of the Lxx. ; in Ps. xv. 9 ’A.3.@. restore δόξα for the interpretative γλῶσσα.
(2) Dr Hatch points out’ 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 inter- changed 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. ᾿Αδημονεῖν, ’A. Job xvill. 20, >. Ps. lx. 3, cxv. 3, Eccl. vii. 17, Ezech. il. 15 ; amoxapadoxia, οὗ. ᾽Α. Ps. xxxvi. 7 (ἀποκαραδόκει) ; δαιμονίζειν, “A. Ps. xc. 6. ἐνκακεῖν, ‘to faint,’ &. Gen. xxvii. 46; ἐμβριμᾶσθαι, “A. Ps. vil. 12, 3. Isa. xvil. 13; évOvpyous, ‘thought,’ 3S. Job xxi. 27, Ezech. xi. 21; ἐπίβλημα, ‘patch,’ &. Jos. ix. 5; θεομάχος, &. Prov. ix. 18, xxi. 16, Job xxvi. 5; καταφέρεσθαι, ‘to drop asleep, "A. Ps. lxxv. 7; μορφοῦν, A. Isa. xliv. 13°. Even where the unusual word and meaning occur in the Lxx., it will often
1 Essays, p. 28.
2 These instances are chiefly from Hatch (Zssays, 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.
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 461
be found that the later versions supply more abundant or more appropriate illustrations. Thus after the Septuagint these fragments, which are happily receiving continual addi- tions 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 con- tinually 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 re- searches 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. Pear- son, Praefatzo Paraenetica (ed. E. Churton), p. 16 sqq.; H. Hody, de Bibl. textibus orig., 111. c. il., p. 293; J. F. Fischer, Prolusiones de versiontbus Graecis librorum V. T. (Leipzig, 1772) ; Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zur Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841), p. 263 ff.; E. W. Grinfield, VV. 7. Gr., editto Hellenistica (London, 1843); Scholia FHellenistica in Δ. T. (London, 1848); An Apology for the Septuagint (London, 1850); W. R. Churton, Zhe Jufluence 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, 7he Greek Testament, Hebraistic edition [St Matthew] (Cambridge, 1875); E. Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek, i.—iii. (Oxford, 1889); 8. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel, Intr., p. xxxvi. ff. (Oxford, 1890); A. F. Kirkpatrick, Zhe Divine Library of the O. T., Ρ. 63 ff. (London, 1891); Zhe Septuagint Version, in Exposttor, V. iil., p. 263 ff (London, 1896); T. K. Abbott, Essays chiefly on the original texts of the O. and N. Testaments (London, 1891); A. Loisy, Azstotre 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 vocatulary of the NV. T. (Edinburgh, 1895).
Gs eS ap ὖς
INFLUENCE OF THE LXX. ON CHRISTIAN LITERATURE.
1. THE Church inherited from the Hellenistic Synagogue an entire confidence in the work of the Alexandrian trans- lators. 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’, 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?, 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. ill, 21. 3 “quum...Deus...servavit nobis simplices scripturas in Aegypto...in qua et Dominus noster servatus est... et haec earum scripturarum interpretatio priusquaam Dominus noster descenderet facta sit et antequam Christiani osten-
derentur interpretata sit...vere impudorati et audaces ostenduntur qui nunc volunt aliter interpretationes facere, quando ex ipsis
1 See above, p. 30f. 2 See above, p. 13f.
Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 463 |
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 inter- pretatus est bene quae bene prophetata fuerant. Cyril. Hieros. ΩΦ ΙΝ 23 fx; ἀναγίνωσκε τὰς θείας γραφάς, τὰς εἴκοσι δύο! βίβλους τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης ταύτας, τὰς ὑπὸ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα δύο ἑρμηνευ- τῶν ἑρμηνευθείσας.. «οὐ yap εὑρεσιλογία καὶ κατασκευὴ σοφισμάτων ἀνθρωπίνων ἢ ἦν τὸ γινόμενον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου ἡ τῶν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι λαληθεισῶν θείων γραφῶν ἑρμηνεία συνετελεῖτο. Chrys. zn Matt. hom. v. TOV ἄλλων μᾶλλον ἁπάντων τὸ ἀξιόπιστον οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα ἐ ἔχοιεν ἂν δικαίως. οἱ μὲν γὰρ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν ἡρμήνευσαν, Ἰουδαῖοι μείναντες, καὶ δικαίως ἂν ὑπο- πτεύοιντο ἅτε ἀπεχθείᾳ μᾶλλον εἰρηκότες, καὶ τὰς προφητείας συσκιάζοντες ἐπίτηδες" οἱ δὲ ἑβδομήκοντα πρὸ ἑκατὸν ἢ καὶ πλειόνων ἐτῶν τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίας ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἐλθόντες καὶ τοσοῦτοι ὄντες πάσης τοιαύτης εἰσὶν ὑποψίας ἀπηλλαγμένοι. καὶ διὰ τὸν χρόνον καὶ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ διὰ τὴν συμφωνίαν μᾶλλον ἂν εἶεν πιστεύεσθαι δίκαιοι. Hieron. ef. xxxiil. (ada Pammach.): ‘‘iure LXX. editio obtinuit in ecclesiis vel quia prima fuit et ante Christi facta adventum, vel quia ab Apostolis...usurpata” ; praef. zx 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 quieos agebat...Spiritus S. indicavit.” (Cf. guaest. in Heft. i. 169, vi. 19; 2” Ps. cxxxv.; de civ. Det 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*. But they were not content to cite it as the best available version of the Old
1 See above, p. 219 ff. Pari WS δ οἷ
464 Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature.
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’. To Tertullian and Cyprian, as well as to Clement and Barnabas, Justin” and Irenaeus, the Septua- gint 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*, was accustomed to preach and comment upon the ordinary Greek text®. He even builds his system of interpretation on the Lxx. rendering of Prov. xxil. 20°. 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®. Augustine, while sympathising with Jerome’s pur- pose, thought it a doubtful policy to unsettle the laity by lowering the authority of the Lxx.’
The following examples of Christian interpretation based upon the Lxx. will shew how largely that version influenced the
1 See above, p. 87 ff.
* Justin occasionally adopts a rendering preferred by his Jewish an- tagonists, or does not press the rendering of the Lxx. But he makes this concession only where the alternative does not affect his argument; see Dial. 124, 131.
3 See above, p. 60 ff.
4 Comm. in Cant. i. 344, ‘‘tamen nos LXX. interpretum scripta per omnia custodimus, certi quod Spiritus Sanctus mysteriorum formas obtectas inesse voluit in scripturis divinis.”
5 See below, p. 468.
6 See his Preface to the Gospels, addressed to Damasus.
7 Aug. Zp. ii. 82, § 35. He deprecates the change of cucurdita into hedera in Jon. iii. 6 ff. on the ground that the Lxx. doubtless had good reasons for translating the Hebrew word by κολόκυνθα : ‘‘non enim frustra hoc puto LXX. posuisse, nisi quia et huic simile sciebant.”
Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 465
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 ἡ δὲ γῆ ἢν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος. Iren. i. 18. I τὸν ἀόρατον δὲ καὶ τὸν ἀπόκρυφον αὐτῆς μηνύοντα εἰπεῖν Ἢ δὲ γῆ κτλ. Tert. dapé. 3 “(aqua) plurima suppetit, et quidem a primordio... terra autem erat invisibilis et incomposita...solus liquor dignum
vectaculum Deo subiciebat.” ii. 2 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἕκτῃ. Tren. v. 28. 3 φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι ἡ συντέλεια αὐτῶν TO |S ἔτος ἐστί. iv. 7 οὐκ
ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς κτλ. 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 npidunoev...déka καὶ ὀκτὼ καὶ τριακοσίους (cod. Ὁ). Barn. 9. 8 μάθετε ὅτι τοὺς δεκαοκτὼ πρώτους, Kal διάστημα ποιήσας λέγει τριακοσίους: τὸ δεκαοκτὼ (IH) ἔχεις Ἰησοῦν" ὅτι δὲ ὁ σταυρὸς ἐν τῷ Τ ἤμελλεν ἔχειν τὴν χάριν λέγει καὶ τριακοσίους (T). Cf. Clem. ΑΙ. strom. vi. 11. Hil. ἐγ. 86. Ambr. de fide i. 2γο. xxxi. 13 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὀφθείς σοι ἐν τόπῳ θεοῦ (DE). Just. Dial. 58 (cf. 60). xlviii. 14 ἐπέβαλεν... ἐναλλὰξ τὰς χεῖρας. Tert. daft. 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 benedictio- nem in Christum futuram.” Xlix. 10 οὐκ ἐκλείψει ἄρχων ἐξ Ἰούδα καὶ ἡγούμενος κτλ. Justin Dal. 52 οὐδέποτε ἐν τῷ γένει ὑμῶν ἐπαύσατο οὔτε προφήτης οὔτε ἄρχων....μέχρις οὗ οὗτος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ γέγονε καὶ ἔπαθεν (οἴ. Ζό. 120). Iren. iv. 10. 2 “inquirant enim... id tempus in quo defecit Arinceps e¢ dux ex luda et qui est gentium spes...et invenient non alium nisi Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum annuntiatum.” Cypr. fest. 1. 21. Eus. dem. ev. i. 4. Cyril. H. xii. 17 σημεῖον οὖν ἔδωκε τῆς Χριστοῦ παρουσίας τὸ παύσασθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν Ιουδαίων. εἰ μὴ νῦν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίους εἰσίν, οὔπω ἦλθεν ὁ Χριστός: εἰ ἔχουσι τὸν ἐκ γένους Ἰούδα καὶ τοῦ Δαβίδ, οὔπω ἦλθεν ὁ προσδοκώμενος.
Exod. xvi. 36 τὸ δὲ γόμορ τὸ δέκατον τῶν τριῶν μέτρων ἦν. Clem. Al. s¢vom. 11. 11 ἐν ἡμῖν γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρία μέτρα, τρία κριτήρια μηνύεται, atc Onors...Adyos...vovs. XVil. 16 ἐν χειρὶ κρυφαίᾳ πολεμεῖ Κύριος ἐπὶ ᾿Αμαλὴκ ἀπὸ γενεῶν εἰς γενεάς. Just. Dial. 49 νοῆσαι δύνασθε ὅτι κρυφία δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ γέγονε τῷ σταυρωθέντι Χριστῷ. Iren. ill. 16. 4 “occulte quidem sed potenter manifestans, quoniam absconsa manu expugnabat Dominus Amalech.” XXX1li. 19 καλέσω ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Κυρίου ἐναντίον cov (AF). Amb.
Ἐπὶ δ: 30
466 Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature.
de Sp. s. i. 13 “Dominus ergo dixit quia in nomine 500 vocabit Dominum ; Dominus ergo et Patris est nomen et Filii.”
Lev. iv. 5 6 ἱερεὺς ὁ χριστός. Tert. daft. 7 “ Aaron a Moyse unctus est, unde Christus dicitur a chrismate, quod est unctio, quae Domino nomen accommodavit. ᾿
Num. xxiii. 19 οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος 6 θεὸς διαρτηθῆναι οὐδὲ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀπειληθῆναι. Cypr. 2657. ii. 20 [under the heading “Quod cruci illum fixuri essent Iudaei”]. xxiv. 17 ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ἰακώβ, καὶ ἀναστήσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ Ἰσραήλ. Eus. dem. ev. i. 3,6. Cypr. Zest. il. 10 [under the heading, “ Quod et homo et Deus Christus,” &c.].
Deut. xxviii. 66 ἔσται ἡ ζωή σου κρεμαμένη ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν σου... καὶ οὐ πιστεύσεις τῇ ζωῇ σου. Tert. (Jud. 11) quotes this as “Ervit 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 ὅτι ἡ ζωὴ ἦν ἡ ἐπὶ TOU ξύλου κρεμασθεῖσα Μωσῆς ἀποκλαιόμενός φησι κτλ. XxXxii. 8 ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ. Justin (deal. 131) cites the last three words as kK. ἀριθμοὺς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, adding οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα ἐξηγήσαντο ὅτι Ἔστησεν ὅ. ἐθνῶν κ. ἀριθμὸν ayy: θεοῦ: ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ καὶ ex τούτου πάλιν οὐδέν μοι ἐλαττοῦται ὁ λόγος, τὴν ὑμετέραν ἐξήγησιν eirov. Iren. iii. 12. 9; quoting the LXX., comments: “populum autem qui credit Deo iam non esse ‘sub angelorum potestate.”
Jos. v. 3 ἐποίησεν Ἰησοῦς μαχαίρας πετρίνας ἀκροτόμους καὶ περιέτεμεν τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραήλ. Tert. Jud. 9 “circumcisis nobis petrina acie, id est, Christi praeceptis (petra enim Christus multis modis et figuris praedicatus est). ‘
3 Regn. Xxii. 38 ameviypay τὸ αἷμα ἐπὶ τὴν κρήνην Σαμαρείας... καὶ ai πόρναι ἐλούσαντο ἐν τῷ αἵματι : Amb. de SP. 5. 1.16 “Π46]15 δὰ puteum (Gen. xxiv. 62), infidelis ad lacum (Jer. il. 13)...meretrices in lacu Jezabel se cruore laverunt.”
Ps, ii. 12 δράξασθε παιδείας. ΟΥΡ. Zest. il. 66 “adprehendite disciplinam” {under the heading “ Disciplinam Dei in ecclesias- ticis praceptis observandam”]. iv. 7 ἐσημειώθη ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς τὸ φῶς τοῦ προσώπου gov. Amb. de Sp. I. 14 “quod est ergo /umen stgnatum nisi illius signaculi spiritalis 27 750 credentes stgnatt (inquit) estis Spiritu promissionis sancto}, Vi. 6 ἐν δὲ τῷ ἅδῃ τίς ἐξομολογήσεταί σοι; Cypr. dest. iii. 114 [under the heading “Dum in carne est quis, exhomologesin (cf. Stud. Bzbl. iv. 282, 290 ἢ.) facere debere”]. ix. tit. εἰς τὸ τέλος. Hil. ad doc. “ intel- legendum quotiens qui titulos habent im fine, non praesentia in his sed ultima contineri.” Ib. ὑπὲρ τῶν κρυφίων τοῦ υἱοῦ. Orig. ad loc. κρύφιά ἐστι γνῶσις ἀπόρρητος τῶν περὶ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀλη-
1 Eph. i. 13.
Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 467
Owod θεοῦ μυστηρίου. Athan. ad loc. λέγει Ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀκαταλήπτων
μυστηρίων τοῦ υἱοῦ. ΧΧΙ. 7. See under Hab. ij. 11. 30 καὶ ἡ Ψυχή μου αὐτῷ (ῇ. Tren. v. 7.1 “tamquam immortali sub- Stantia eius existente.” XXxXil. 6 TO λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου... «τῷ πνεύ-
ματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ See Iren. iii. 8. 6) Tent: Prax. rf Cypm Wase. ol 3,Ambr. ide 7... 50 11. ἘΠ. “Hil 2977." xi. 30. Xliv. 1 ἐξηρεύξατο ἡ καρδία μου λόγον ἀγαθόν. Tert. Prax. 7 “solus ex Deo genitus, proprie de vulva cordis ipsius secundum quod et Pater ipse testatur Eructavit cor meum sermonem optimum.” Mare. il. 4 “adhibet operi bono optimum etiam ministrum, sermonem suum.” Cf. Cypr. es¢. ii. 3. lxxxvi. 4 μνησθήσομαι Ραάβ. Cyril. H. ll. 9 ὦ μεγάλης τοῦ θεοῦ φιλανθρω- πίας καὶ πορνῶν μνημονευούσης ἐν γραφαῖς (the LXX. having transliterated 27 and 37 alike). CF. Hieron. comm. tn Ps. ad loc. Ib. 5 Μήτηρ Σειὼν ἐρεῖ ἄνθρωπος, καί ΓΑνθρωπος ἐγε- νήθη ἐν αὐτῇ, καί Αὐτὸς ἐθεμελίωσεν αὐτὴν ὁ ὕψιστος. 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 (μὴ τῇ 3.) dicat homo?’...sed vitiose P litera graeca addita fecit errorem.” Jerome however retains the interpretation ‘homo Christus,’ which depends on the LXx. reading ἄνθρωπος. 1xxXvii. 6 ἐν νεκροῖς ἐλεύθερος. Cyril. Ea. %. 4 οὐκ ἀπομείνας ἐν νεκροῖς, ὡς πάντες ἐν ἅδη, ἀλλὰ μόνος ἐν νεκροῖς ἐλεύθερος. XCi. 13 δίκαιος ὡς φοίνιξ ἀνθήσει. Tert. ves. 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. 85n.). xev. 5 a regremOcs, ταν ἐθνών δαιμόνια. Just. dial. 55 οἱ θεοὶ τών ἐθνῶν... εἴδωλα δαμονίων εἰσίν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ θεοί (cf. ib. 79, 83). Iren. iil. 6. 3. Tert. zdololatr. 2ο. Cypr. 2657. ili. 59. Tb. 10 ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσε [ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου] Just. σι 45° Deed, 75. ἘΝ ΒΕ Marc, ti 19:5 fad. 10) “age nunc, si legisti penes prophetam in psalmis: Deus regnavit a ligno, expecto quid intelligas, ne forte lignarium aliquem regem significaril putetis et non Christum.” 2d. 13 “unde et ipse David regnaturum ex ligno dominum dicebat.” Auctor de montibus Sina et Sion g “Christus autem in montem sanctum ascendit lignum regni sui.” Cf. Barn. 8 ἡ βασιλεία Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ ξύλου. ΧΟ, 5 προσκυνεῖτε τῷ ὑποποδίῳ τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. Ambr. de SP. δ. lil. 11 “ per scabel/um terra intelligitur, per terram autem caro Christi quam hodieque in mysteriis adoramus, et quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu...adorarunt.” Cf. Aug. ad loc. evi. 20 ἀπέστει-
1 See above, p. 424, n., and cf. Deut. xxviii. 66.
30—2
468 Influence of the LX Δ΄. on Christian Literature.
Aev τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰάσατο avrovs. Cypr. ¢est. ii. 3 [under the heading “Quod Christus idem sit sermo Dei”). ix. 3 ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά oe. Just. afol.i. 45, dial. 32. Tert. arc. v. 9 “nos edimus evangelia...nocturna nativitate declarantia Dominum ut hoc sit ante luciferum...nec se ze edixisset Deus nisi filio vero...cur autem adiecit ex ufero..
ri quia curiosius voluit intellegi in Christum ex 2670 generavi
id, ΘΞΕ ΕΣ 5010 utero sine viri semine ?” Cypr. dest. 1 487. Cyril H. vii. 2 ἅπερ ἐπὶ ἄνθρωπων ἀναφέρειν πάσης ἀγνωμοσύνης ἀνάπλεων. xi. 5 τὸ “σήμερον ᾿ (Ps. ii. 7) ἄχρονον, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων: ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου κτλ. Cf. Athan. om ¢. A” iv. 2.7.1:
Prov. viii. 22 Κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ. Just. dial, 61. Iren. iv. 20.3. Tert. Prax. 7. Cypr. zest. 11. 1 [under the heading Christum...esse sapientiam Det, per quam omnia facta sunt). Hil. triz. xii. 45 ‘““quaerendum est quid sit natum ante saecula Deum rursum in initium viarum Dei et in opera creari.” Cf. Athan. ov zz Ar. ii. 16ff. xxii. 20 wai ov de ἀπόγραψαι αὐτὰ σεαυτῷ τρισσῶς. Orig. Philoc. ΠΕΣ (de princ. iv.) οὐκοῦν τριχῶς ἀπογράφεσθαι δεῖ εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχὴν τὰ τῶν ἁγίων γραμμάτων νοήματα.
Job xl. 14 πεποιημένον ἐνκαταπαίζεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ. Applied to the Devil by Cyr. ΗΙ: cat. Vili. 4.
Hos. xii. 4 (A) ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου εὕροσάν pe. Tert. Mare. IV. 39
“per diem in templo docebat ut qui per Osee praedixerat,” &c. (For the reading of B, cf. Orig. P&zloc. viii. 1.) Amos ix. 6 ὁ Foe eS eis τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνάβασιν αὐτοῦ. Tert. Marc. iv. 34 “ aedificantem illisascensum suum in caelum.”
Hab. 11. 11 λίθος ἐκ τοίχου βοήσεται καὶ κάνθαρος ἐκ ξύλου φθέγξεται αὐτά. Ambr. zz 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 Theo- dosit 46 “{Helena] adoravit illum qui pependit in ligno...illum (inquam) qui sicut scarabaeus clamavit ut persecutoribus suis Pater peccata donaret.” Hieron. zz Adbac., 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 ἐν μέσῳ δύο ζῴων γνωσθήσῃ. Tert. Marc. iv. 22 “in medio duo animalium cognosceris, Moysi et Eliae.” Eus. dem. ev. vi. 15 δύο (was (reading ζωῶν in text) τοῦ προφητευομένου δηλοῦσθαι ἔφαμεν, μίαν μὲν τὴν ἔνθεον, θατέραν δὲ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην.
Zach. vi. 12 ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ, ᾿Ανατολὴ ὄνομα αὐτῷ. Just. dal. 106, 121. Tert. Valent. 3 “amat figura Spiritus sancti orientem, Christi figuram.”
Isa. i, 22 οἱ κἀπηλοί σου μίσγουσι τὸν οἶνον ὕδατι. Iren. iv. 12. I “ostendens quod austero Dei praecepto miscerent seniores aquatam traditionem.” 111, 9 f. οὐαὶ τῇ ψυχῇ αὐτῶν, διότι BeBov-
|
Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 469
λευνται βουλὴν πονηρὰν καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν εἰπόντες Δήσωμεν (115 ap. Justin., al. ἄρωμεν) τὸν δίκαιον, ὅτι δύσχρηστος ἡμῖν ἐστιν. Barn. Ml. ἢ; Just. dial. 17, 133, 130%. Tert. Marc. mi. 22. Cyril ΕἸ, xii. 12. vii. 14 ἡ παρθένος. Just. dial. 43, 67, 71,84. Iren. ili. 21. 1 ff Tert. Mare. iii. 13, iv. 10. Cypr. ées¢. ii. 9. Eus. dem. ev. vil. 1. Cyr. H. xii. 21. ix. 6 μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος. Hil. riz. iv. 23 “qui Angelus Dei dictus est, idem Dominus et Deus est; est autem secundum prophetam Filius Dei magni constlit angelus.”
X. 23 λόγον συντετμημένον ποιήσει Κύριος. Tert. Marc. iv. 4 “compendiatum est enim novum testamentum et a legis laciniosis oneribus expeditum ” (cf.iv.16), Xxx. 4 ὅτι εἰσὶν ἐν Τάνει ἀρχηγοὶ ἄγγελοι πονηροί. Just. dial. 79 πονηροὺς ἀγγέλους κατῳκηκέναι καὶ κατοικεῖν λέγει καὶ ἐν Τάνει, τῇ Αἰγυπτίᾳ χώρᾳ. Xlv. 1 οὕτως "λέγει Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῷ χριστῷ μου Κύρῳ [read as κυρίῳ]. Barn. ΧΙ]. 11, Tert. Prax. 28, χε, 7, Cypr. test. τ. 21. Th. 14 καὶ ἐν σοὶ προσ- εὐξονται. Ambr. dé Sp. s. ul. 8 “in Christo orare nos debere Deus Pater dicit.” iil. 3 “ἄνθρωπος € ev πληγῇ ὦν. Tert. de carne Chr. 15. Ib. & τὴν γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται; Euis. 2. 2::45.2. liv. 15 προσήλυτοι προσελεύσονταί σοι δι᾿ ἐμοῦ. Ambr. de SA. 5. 11. 9 r Deus Pater ad Filium dicit : Ecce proselyti venient ad Le per
me.” 1%, 17 δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπι- σκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ. Iren. iv. 26. 5 τοιούτους πρεσβυτέ- ρους ἀνατρέφει ἡ ἐκκλησία, περὶ ὧν καὶ προφήτης φησίν Δώσω
κτλ. Cf. Clem. R. 1 Cor. 42. Ilxiii. 1 ἐρύθημα ἱματίων ἐκ Βόσορ. Hieron. comm. in Isa. ad loc. ‘ ‘quod multi pro errore lapsi putant de carne (13) Domini intellegi.” Ib. 9 οὐ πρέσβυς οὐδὲ ἄγγελος, Betas Grantor) Jaen Η3ν.50. 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 tpse Deus salvos eos factet, ipse iam praedicans et implens legem et prophetas.”
Jer. xi. 19 δεῦτε Kal ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον εἰς τὸν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ. Tert. Marc. iii. 19 “ utique ‘in corpus’...sic enim Deus in evangelio... revelavit, panem corpus suum appellans.” Cypr. Zest. li. 20. Xvii. 9 aes ἐστιν, καὶ τίς γνώσεται αὐτόν; Iren. 111. 18. 3, 19. ὍΝ 53 αὐ: Lert, carn. Chr. 15, πώ. 14.
Bar. iii. 38 pera τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὠφθη Kai ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη. Cyril. Η. xi. 15 βλέπεις θεὸν μετὰ τὴν Μωσέως νομοθεσίαν ἐνανθρωπήσαντι ; ;
Lam. iv. 20 πνεῦμα προσώπου ἡμῶν χριστὸς Κύριος συνελήμφθη ἐν ταῖς διαφθοραῖς αὐτῶν. Just. apol.i. 55. Iren. ili.1o0. 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) eum faciem suam ex unitate scilicet pronuntiavit.” Cyril. H. xiii. 7, Ambr. de Sf. 5. 1. 9 “et Christus spiritus dicitur quia Ieremias dixit,” &c.
470 Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature.
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, notwith- standing numerous errors of text and of treatment, ministered to the religious life of the Christian Society. It was from the LXxX. 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’. 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
1 For Chrysostom’s use of the LXx. see F. H. Chase, Chrysostom: a study in the history of Biblical Interpretation, p. 28 ff. (Cambridge, 1887) ; and for Theodore of Mopsuestia, cf. ΗΠ. Kihn, 7%. v. Mops., p. 87 ff. (Frei- burg i. B., 1880).
Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 471
as well as Catholics appealed to the Alexandrian version. Thus Arius did not hesitate to argue from Joel 11. 25, LXxx. (ἡ ἀκρὶς Kal...y κάμπη ἡ δύναμίς μου ἡ μεγάλη) 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’. Both parties had recourse to Prov. vill. 22, where the Lxx. rendering of °232 by ἔκτισέν με seemed to Arius to justify the statement that the Logos Himself had a beginning of existence, like the created universe®. 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 Zrin. 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 tutis- simum portum optati litoris prosequetur”). Neither the con- troversies 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 lan- guage 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)* δὸς αὐτοῖς καρδίαν καινὴν kal πνεῦμα εὐθὲς ἐγκαίνισον ἐν τοῖς ἐγκάτοις αὐτῶν (Ps. 1]. 12); 22. (Β. 8) καὶ ἀποδώσῃ αὐτοῖς τὴν ἀγαλλίασιν τοῦ σωτηρίου καὶ πνεύματι ἡγεμονικῷ στηρίσῃ αὐτούς (Ps. 1. 14); St James (B. 37)
an ε Ν Ν 4 > 3 4 Ν ig σῶσον ὃ θεὸς τὸν λαόν σου καὶ εὐλόγησον τὴν κληρονομίαν σου
i Fragment of the 7hadia, in Athan. or. ε. Ar. i. 6.
2 Jb. ἀρχὴν Tod κτίζεσθαι ἔσχε καὶ αὐτός.
3 The references are to the pages of Mr Brightman’s Liturgies, Eastern and Western, i. (Oxford, 1896).
472 Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature.
(Ps. xxvil. g)'; 26. (B. 55) ἐπιλαβοῦ ὅπλου καὶ θυρεοῦ καὶ ἀνάστηθι εἰς τὴν βοήθειάν μου (Ps. χχχῖν. 2); S¢ Mark (B. 117) ἐξαπόστειλον τὸ φῶς σου καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου (Ps. Χ]Π. 3)... καὶ ταχὺ προκαταλαβέτωσαν ἡμᾶς οἱ οἰκτειρμοί σου, Κύριε (Ps. Ixxviil. 8). (6) Many of their magnificent addresses to God and to Christ are from the Lxx. e.g. St Clement (B. 12) Κύριε παντοκράτωρ, ὕψιστε, ἐν ὑψηλοῖς κατοικῶν, ἅγιε ἐν ἁγίοις ἀναπαυόμενε, ἄναρχε, μόναρχε (Isa. lvil. 15 + 3 Mace. il. 2); ib. (B. 24) ὃ μέγας, ὃ μεγαλώνυμος (Jer. xxxix. 19); St James (B. 44) ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς κατοικῶν καὶ τὰ ταπεινὰ ἐφορῶν (Ps. ex. 5 f.); St MlZark (B. 137) ὃ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῶν χερουβίμ. (Ps. Ixxix. 2); Savapion (J. Th. St. 1.) θεὲ τῆς ἀληθείας (Ps. xxx. 6); τῶν δυνάμεων (Ps. lvill. 6); τῶν πνευμάτων (Num. Xvi. 22). (c) Passing allusions are made to the Lxx., some- times difficult to explain without its aid, eg. S¢ Clement (B. 6) ὃ τὸν ἀνθρωποκτόνον ὄφιν δεσμώτην παραδοὺς ἡμῖν ws στρουθίον παιδίοις (cf. Job xl. 14); 72. (B. 15) λόγον θεὸν ...ayyedov τῆς μεγάλης βουλῆς σου (Isa. ix. 6); St James (B. 55) τῶν τὸ ἁγιόν cov θυσιαστήριον κυκλούντων διακόνων (Ps. xxv. 6); 26. (Β. 57) ἐν χώρᾳ ζώντων (Ps. cxiv. 9); St Mark (B. 126) εἰσόδους καὶ ἐξόδους ἡμῶν ἐν πάσῃ εἰρήνη κατακόσμησον (ἃ Regn. xxix. 6: Ps. cxx. 8); 2b. (B. 133) ἐξ €roimov ΣΝ κητηρίου σου (Exod. xv. 17; 3 Regn. vil. 39 ff); St Basil (B. 335) ἡ ἐλπὶς τῶν ἀπηλπισμένων (Judith ix. 11); Sarapion: ὁ θανατῶν καὶ ζωογονῶν (1 Regn. 1. 6) (4) Much of the technical phraseology of the Liturgies is from the LxXx.: e.g. τὰ ἅγια (Lev. xxil. 2), ἀναφορά (Num. iv. 19), dwpa (Gen. iv. 4), θυσία (Gen. iv. 3), λειτουργία (Exod. xxxvil. 19), θυσία (Gen. iv. 3), πρόθεσις (Exod. xxxix. 18), προκείμενα (Lev. xxiv. 7), mpoopopa (3 Regn. vil. 34), τελειοῦν (Exod. xxix. 9). (e) The same is true with regard to some of the oldest Eucharistic formulae, e.g. the Preface and Sanctus’ which are based on
1 Cf. St Basil (B. 311). 2 The composite quotation in Clem. R. 1 Cor. xxxiv. (Dan. vii. 10+
Influence of the LXX. on Christian Literature. 473
Isa. vi. 2—3, the Ayvze eletson (Psalms, passim), the Gustate (Cyril H. myst. v. 20)’.
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 prepa- ration 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 that he should trace it back to its source in the Greek Old Testament, which was far more familiar to Christian teachers of the first three centuries than the writings of Plato or of the schools of Basileides and Valentinus. The patristic use of such terms as ἄδης, ἀνάστασις, εἰκών, ἐκκλησία, ἐφόδιον, θυσία, θυσιαστήριον, Κύριος, λόγος, μονογενής, ξύλον, οὐσία, παντοκράτωρ, παντοδύναμος, παράδεισος, πνεῦμα ἅγιον, πίστις, προσφορά, σάρξ, σοφία, ὑπόστασις, φύσις, φώς, χάρις, can best be understood by the student who begins by investigating their use in the Septuagint.
Indirectly, but not less extensively, the earliest Latin theology drew a store of theological language from the Lxx. Such words as aeternalis, altare, benedictio, congregatio, con- verti, Mdaemonium, eleemosyna, exomologesis, glorificare, hostia, zustitia, misericordia, oblatio, propitiatio, sacerdos, sacrificium, salvare, testamentum, unicus, viaticum, are examples which might easily be multiplied. In the case of some of these terms (e.g. sacerdos = episcopus, sacrificium =eucharistia) the choice contributed largely to the development of doctrine, and it is reasonable to suppose that they entered the vocabulary
Isa. vi. 3) is probably an echo of an early Roman Preface. A reference to Dan. /.c. in the same connexion is not uncommon; cf. S¢ Clement (B. 18), St Mark (B. 131), Sarapion (/. 7%. St. i. 1, p. 108).
1 To these may perhaps be added the “A ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδε (cf. Clem. R. /.c.). On Ayrte eleison see a paper by Mr Edm. Bishop, in the Downside Review, 1899—1900 (published separately by Walters, Weston-super-mare).
474 Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature.
of the Western Church through the Latin version of the Septuagint, and not directly from Pagan use. It is noteworthy that Cyprian, whose own style has been said to shew “small respect for the language of the Latin Bible’,” persistently used these O. T. words in reference to the Christian ministry and the Eucharistic offering.
5. One great monument of ancient Christianity, which still exercises a direct influence over the vast Latin com- munion, seemed at one time likely to serve as a counteracting force to the Septuagint. It was the deliberate purpose of Jerome to set aside in the West the authority of a daughter- version of the Lxx., and to establish in its place, by means of his new Latin Bible, that of the official Hebrew text. Nevertheless, through a variety of causes, the Vulgate, as it is now read by the Latin Church, perpetuates many of the characteristic features of the Lxx. (a) The Psalter of the Vul- gate, as we have seen, is taken from Jerome’s second revision of the Old Latin, and not from his Psalterium Hebraicum, or trans- lation of the Hebrew text; and the books of Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1, 2 Maccabees, are given in the Old Latin forms*, (ὁ) The rest of the Old Testament retains, in the Clementine Vulgate, numerous traces of Septuagint read- ings and renderings. A few examples may be given: Gen. 111. 15 “tu insidiaberis (τηρήσεις) calcaneo eius”; iv. 8 “ dixit- que Cain ad Abel fratrem eius Egrediamus foras” (διέλθωμεν eis TO πεδίον); vi. 5 ‘‘non permanebit (ov μὴ καταμείνῃ) Spiritus meus in homine”; xlix. 10 “ipse erit expectatio (προσδοκία) gentium”; Num. xxiv. 24 “‘vastabuntque He- braeos”; Isa. vii. 14 ‘‘ecce virgo concipiet”; Lam. iv. 20 ‘Spiritus oris nostri Christus dominus”; Zech. iil. 8 ‘‘ad- | ducam servum meum Orientem” (Ανατολήν). It must indeed
1 E. W. Watson, in Studia Biblica, p. 194 f. 2 See above, pp. 98 f., 103.
Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 475
be remembered that loans from the Lxx. are not always of Jerome’s borrowing; some of them have made their way into the text of the Vulgate during the course of its transmission (see Vercellone, Variae lectiones vulgatae Latinae bibliorum editionum, Il. p. vul sqq.). But they hold their place in the authorised Latin Bible of the West, and represent there to this day the influence of the Alexandrian Greek version. (¢) Many of the words of the Vulgate are more or less complete trans- literations of the Greek words used by the Lxx. in the same contexts, survivals in great part from the O. L., where they had familiarised themselves to Latin ears’. Thus we have arceuthinus (2 Chr. 11. 8), azyma, azymi¢ (Gen. xix. 3, Exod. ΧΙ. 8), dlasphemare (Lev. xxiv. 11), cartallus (Deut. xxvi. 2), cataplasmare (Isa. xXxxvill. 21), cauma (Job xxx. 30), choero- gryllus (Lev. xi. 5), christus (1 Regn. il. 10), chytropus (Lev. Xl. 35), cedaris (Lev. xvi. 4), creagra (2 Chr. iv. 11), doma (Jer. xix. 13), ecclesta (1 Regn. xvil. 47), gazophylacium (Ezech. xl. 17), Aolocaustum (Lev. i. 3), daganum (Exod. xxix. 23), latomus (3 Regn. v. 15), Zuter (3 Regn. vii. 17 = 30), xaulum (Jon. 1. 3), 2ycticorax (Deut. xiv. 17), sabbatum (Exod. xvi. 23), synagoga (Num. xxvil. 21), c¢heristrum (Gen. Xxxxvili. 14), thymiama (Exod. xxx. 1), zelotes (Exod. xx. 5), szelotypia (Num. v.15). If we turn to the books which are directly derived from the O. L., such forms are of course even more numerous ; it is enough to specify acedtarz (Sir. vi. 26), acharis (Sir. xx. 19= 21), allophyli (Ps. lv. 1), artaba (Bel 2), decachordus (Ps. xcl. 4), diplois (Ps. cvill. 29), eleemosyna (Tob. xi. 14 = 22), Ludaismus (2 Macc. vill. 1), neomenta (Ps. Ιχχχ. 4), palatha (Judith x. 5), pentapolis (Sap. x. 6), poderis (Sap. xviii. 24), rhomphaea (Sir. xxi. 4), tympanistria (Ps. Ixvii. 26), zelare (Ps. Ixxi. 3). Several of these words belong to ordinary post- Augustan Latin, but their use in the Vulgate may fairly be
1 Cf. Kaulen, Handbuch zur Vulgata (Mainz, 1870), pp. 83 ff., 130 f., 1809 ff.
476 Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature.
ascribed to the influence of the Lxx., usually through the O. L. The same may be said of many Vulgate reproductions of Hebrew names, e.g. MMJoyses, Balaam, Gomorrha, Gabaon, Terusalem, Pharao, where the Lxx. spelling or pronunciation has been retained, no doubt because of its familiarity.
The influence of the other Greek versions over Jerome’s great work, if less subtle and widely diffused, has been more direct, and in the matter of interpretation more important. Thus it was from Aquila that Jerome borrowed the following readings’: Exod. il. 5 2 papyreone (A. ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παπυρεῶνος) ; Deut. xxxili. 12 guasi in thalamo morabitur (A. παστώσει) ; Job xiv. 12 donec atteratur caelum (7A. ἕως ἂν κατατριβῇ ὃ οὐρανός) ; Amos il. 13 ego stridebo subter vos, sicut stridet plaus- trum (A. τριζήσω.. τρίζει) ; Jer. xlix. (xxix.) 19 ad pulcritudinem robustam (A. πρὸς εὐπρέπειαν στερεάν). His debts to Sym- machus are still more numerous, and only a few can be given here? ; Num. xxv. 8 27 lupanar (3%. εἰς τὸ πορνεῖον) ; Jos. x. 42 uno cepit impetu (3%. ἠχμαλώτευσεν μιᾷ ὁρμῇ); Jud. xv. 19 molarem dentem (%. τὴν μύλην) ; τ Regn. ix. 24 guia de industria servatum est tibi (&. ὅτι ἐπίτηδες τετήρηταί σοι); 4 Regn. 1]. 14 ubi est Dominus deus Eliae etiam nunc ? (3%. καὶ νῦν) ; Isa. liv. 8 in momento indignationis (=. ἐν ἀτόμῳ ὀργῆς); Ezek. viii. 10 in circuitu per totum (Σ. κύκλῳ διόλου). It may be added that not a few of the Greek words retained in the Vulgate are from the later versions and not from the Lxx. ; e.g. grabatus (Amos ili. 12, °A.), Zaicus (1 Regn. xxi. 4, A. 3. @.), Zecythus (3 Regn. xvii. 12 ff.), ¢ristegum (Gen. vi. τό, &.).
The subject is too large to be adequately handled in a single chapter. But enough has been said to indicate the nature and extent of the influence which the Greek versions and the Septuagint in particular have exercised over Christian thought and letters, both in East and West, and the conse-
1 Field, Hexapla, i., p. xxiv. * For other exx. see Field, of. ci¢., Ὁ. xxxiv.
Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 477
quent importance of these translations for the student of eccle- siastical history and literature. Bishop Pearson’s judgement as to the serviceableness of the Lxx. to patristic students will always remain true: “si Graecos patres consulueris, quis eos de rebus divinis disserentes intelliget, qui normam quam semper in animo dum scriberent habuere non ante cognitam atque perspectam habeat?...sed ad Latinos patres non minus quam Graecos recte intelligendos Lxx. viralis versio frequens utilis est, imo necessaria’.” He might have added that in the Latin Christendom of to-day the influence of the Greek versions is not extinct; the echoes of their text, their ren- derings, and their interpretations are still to be heard in the Bible, the worship, and the theology of the Western Church.
LITERATURE (on the general subject of the chapter). J. Pearson, Pracfatio paraenetica ad V. 7. Graecum (ed. E. Churton, Cambridge, 1855), H. Hody, de Bibliorum textibus, 111. 111. sqq. J. G. Rosenmiller, Historia interpretationis librorum σας. tn ecclesia Christiana (1795—1814). W. R. Churton, Zhe influence of the Septuagint version upon the progress of Christt- anity (Cambridge, 1861). F. W. Farrar, Hzstory of Interpreta- tions (London, 1886). A. F. Kirkpatrick, Zhe Septuagint Version (in Expositor, V. vi. 1896).
1 Praef. paraen., ed. E. Churton, p. 25 f.
CHAPTER: VI.
TEXTUAL CONDITION OF THE LXX., AND PROBLEMS ARISING OUT OF IT.
1. WHEN the work of the Seventy-two had been accom- plished, the Jews of Alexandria (so the legend goes) were bidden to invoke curses, after their manner, upon any who should dare to add to the version or take from it, or alter it in other ways (Aristeas ad fin.: ἐκέλευσαν διαράσασθαι, καθὼς ἔθος αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, εἴ τις διασκευάσει προστιθεὶς ἢ μεταφέρων τι TO σύνολον τῶν γεγραμμένων ἢ ποιούμενος ἀφαίρεσιν). The impre- cation, it has been acutely observed, may point to an early deterioration of the text of the Greek Pentateuch, which the Pseudo-Aristeas desired to check. ‘This inference is insecure, for the story is sufficiently explained by a reference to such passages as Deut. iv. 2, xii. 32°; but it is certain that textual corruption began before the Christian era. ‘There are traces of it in the writings of Philo, which cannot be due to blunders in Philo’s own text.
E.g. in guzs ver. div. her. 56 Philo quotes Gen. xv. 15 in the form now universal in MSS. of the LXX. (μετ᾽ εἰρήνης τραφεὶς ev γήρει καλῷ), adding the comment: οὐκοῦν,. τὸ τέλειον γένος... εἰρήνῃ καὶ ἐλευθερίᾳ βεβαιοτάτη ἐντρεφόμενον κτλ. This is perhaps the most convincing example, but we may add Gen. xvi. 14 Bapad=ev κακοῖς (de fug. 38), i.e. Bapax (Luc.); xxi. 6 οὐ xapetrai μοι (de mut. nont. 24, where however, as in /egg. add. 11. 21, lil. 78, guod det. pot. insid. sol. 33, Cohn and Wendland
read ovyx. μοι with cod. A); Exod. xvii. 6 ἕστηκα πρὸ τοῦ σε ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας ἐγχωρεῖν (de somn. 11. 32, cf. Β πρὸ τοῦ σε...ἐν
1 Cf. Apoc. xxii. 18 f.
Textual condition of the LX ΑΧ. 479
Χωρήβ, AF πρὸ τοῦ σε ἐλθεῖν...ἐν X.); Num. v. 28 καὶ ἀθῷος ἔσται ἐκ σπερμάτων εἰς σπέρμα! (leg. all. ili. 51, NBAF ἐκσπερματιεῖς σπέρμα)". Similar corruptions probably exist in some of the N. T. citations, e.g. cava? in Heb. x. § (Ps. xxxix.= xl. 7), and évoyAn* for ἐν χολῇ in Heb. xii. 15 (Deut. xxix. 18 (17)).
Justin, as we have seen’, charges his Jewish contemporaries with the deliberate excision of numerous passages in the Lxx. which were favourable to their Christian antagonists (dad. 71 πολλὰς γραφὰς τέλεον περιεῖλον ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξηγήσεων TOV γεγενη- μένων ὑπὸ τῶν παρὰ Πτολεμαίῳ γεγενημένων πρεσβυτέρων). But of the four passages produced in proof of his assertion three are mere glosses, probably of Christian origin; while the fourth, a genuine part of the book of Jeremiah (xi. 19), is now found in all MSS. of the Lxx. The charge, though made in good faith, seems to have rested on no better foundation than a natural distrust of the Jews, who in Justin’s time were active and bitter opponents of the Church. It is equally improbable that the Greek O.T. was wilfully interpolated by Christians, or that, if they attempted this, the existing text has been affected by it to any appreciable extent. A few traces may be found of the accidental influence of N. T. citations, e.g. the inter- polation in Ps. xii. 3, and perhaps also the reading σώμα in Ps. xxxix.; but apart from these, the Septuagint, during the first two centuries after Christ, suffered little from Christian hands beyond errors of transcription. What Dr Hort has written in reference to the N.T. is doubtless true also of the Lxx.: “accusations of wilful tampering with the text. are...
1 Kis σπέρμα occurs in H. P. 71, which, as Dr Nestle informs me, shews other signs of affinity to the LXx. text of Philo.
2 It may be added that double renderings already appear in Philo. E.g. in citing Deut. xix. 14 his MSS. give οἱ πατέρες cov (B) in ae post. Caint 25, but of πρότεροί σου (A) in ae Justitia 3.
3 As in all our MSS. of Ps. xxxix.
4 See codd. B*AF™ in Deut. /.c.
5 Above, p. 424.
© Chiazal. 120: lren- 1. 21: 1505} Hus. de, cv. Vi. Pp: 257°C, d.
480 Textual condition of the LX X.
not unfrequent in Christian antiquity...but with a single ex- ception, wherever they can be verified, they prove to be groundless, being in fact hasty and unjust inferences from mere diversities of inherited text’.”
Accidental corruptions’, however, and variations of read- ing and rendering grew apace, and in the third century Origen complains of the uncertainty of the Biblical text in both its parts® (comm. in Matt. τ. xv. 14 δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥαθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ adaipovvtwy*). Besides intentional changes he notices else- where (1) double renderings: Aom. im 1 Regn., 1. 4 “non me latet...quod in aliquibus exemplaribus habetur erat wir guidam (ἀνθρωπός τις ἦν; codd. M, 44, &c.), sed in his exemplaribus quae emendatiora probavimus ita habetur, erat vir unus (A, ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος eis)”; (2) transpositions: on Jer. xlvil. 4 he has the note ἡ τῶν οἵ ἔν τισι τόποις μετατεθεῖσα ὥστε τὰ πρῶτα ὕστερα καὶ τὰ ὕστερα πρῶτα γενέσθαι ; (3) errors of transcription: in Jer. xv. 10, where most of his copies read, as ours do now, ὠφέλησα, ὠφέλησεν, he maintains that this reading is a γραφικὸν
1 Tntr. to N.T. in Greek, p. 283. The one exception which Dr Hort mentions in connexion with the N.T., the excision practised by Marcion, finds no parallel in the Christian history of the Greek O.T.
2 A good example of corruption in the Greek is to be found in Num, iii. 24, where all Greek MSS. and the O.L. (Lyons Pentateuch) read Δαήλ
Dael for Aan (x5). The name of Joshua’s father in the Lxx. is Ναυή (O. L. Mave), probably in the first instance an error for Navy (NATH for ΝΑΥΝῚ ΞΞ 73. Another well-known instance is the A text of Jud. v. 8 σκέπη νεανίδων σιρομαστῶν ἀνήφθη Kai σιρομάστης, which, as Ewald pointed out, conceals the doublet (1) σκέπην ἐὰν ἴδω καὶ σιρομάστην, (2) σκέπη ἐὰν ὀφθῇ καὶ σιρομάστης.
3 Though he is referring especially to MSS. of the N.T. his next words shew that the remark is meant to include the LxXxX.: τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν κτλ. (see, for the rest, above,
. 60). ΕἸ The gravest instance of ἀφαίρεσις was found in the book of Job; see above, p. 255-
Textual condition of the LXX. 481
ἁμάρτημα for ὠφείλησα ὠφείλησεν. Such faults were specially common in the case of proper names: 7” Joann, t. vi. 41 τὸ δ᾽ ὅμοιον περὶ τὰ ὀνόματα σφάλμα πολλαχοῦ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν ἔστιν ἰδεῖν, ὡς ἠκριβώσαμεν ἀπὸ ᾽᾿ βραίων μαθόντες, | καὶ τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις αὐτῶν τὰ ἡμέτερα συγκρίναντες.
In these criticisms Origen makes no attempt to distinguish between supposed errors which are properly textual, and those which belong to the translation itself. His sole criterion of error was divergence from the official Hebrew, and he assumed that all divergences were textual only, the translation having been originally exact. Nevertheless there can be little doubt that in the course of four centuries many actual corruptions such as he describes must have accumulated in the MSS. of the Lxx. The κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, as the uncorrected MSS. were called, needed revision, and the literary activity of the third century endeavoured to supply it. At Caesarea in Palestine, at Antioch, in Egypt, independent attempts were made to restore the Septuagint to its primitive purity. But the remedies which were adopted unhappily increased the disease. ‘‘ The Hexapla, from its very nature, encouraged the formation of mixed texts?” ; the Hexaplaric recension, divorced from the rest of the work, accentuated this tendency, and the other recensions had a similar effect, although they aimed at the simpler task of correcting the errors of the κοινή.
2. Of the Hexaplaric, Lucianic, and Hesychian recensions some account has been given already* In this place we have only to consider how far it is possible to employ them in the criticism of the text. Their importance to the critic of the Lxx. lies in the fact that they were based upon copies of the κοινή, aS it was read in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt during the
1 In the context Origen refers to the apparent confusion of Γάδαρα and Tépyeoa in the Gospels.
2 Driver, Samuel, p. xlvii.
3 See above, Part I. c. iii.
5. 5 21
482 Textual condition of the 7, ΧΑ.
third century. But in order to recover from them this un- revised text, two preliminary tasks have to be undertaken. The recensions themselves must first, as far as possible, be restored from existing materials, and we must then proceed to eliminate from them such elements as are recensional, or are due to the reviser’s hand.
As to the first of these processes, the materials from which it is proposed to recover the recensions are fairly abundant and varied, but there is much uncertainty as to the attribution of some of them, whilst others present a particular recension only in certain books or portions of books, or with more or less of mixture. The principal authorities for each recension have already been mentioned, but it may be well to collect them here in a compact form.
Hexzaplaric’. Codd. Ὁ, Μ, Ὁ; 15, 22, 238, 58, 72, 86, 88. 1358. Εἰ Ὁ 138, 139, 161, 248, 249, 250, 252, 255, 256, 258, 259, 264, 268, 273; Paris Nat. Reg. gr. 129, 181: 132, Ars. 8415, Escurial 3.1. 16, Leipzig gr. 361, Zurich c. Athos Vatop. 516, Pantocr. 24, Protaton. 53) ἘΠ Ύ 112» 1 πεαψ α Sahidic (in part), Arme- nian (in part), Syro-hexaplar.
Lucianic*. Codd. 19, 22, 36, 48, 51, 62, 82, 90, 93, 95, 108, 118, 144, 147, 153, 185, 231, 233, 308 ; Paris Coisl. gr. 184, Athens ‘bibl. nat.44. Versions: Old*Latin, Philoxenian Syriac, Gothic, Arme- nian (in part), Slavonic. Fathers: Chrysostom, and other writers of the School of Antioch®.
Flesychian*. Codd. Q, 26, 44, 49, 68, 74, 84, 87, 90, 91, 106, 107, 134, 198, 228, 238, 306. Paris suppl. gr. 609. Versions: Bohairic, Armenian (in part). Cyril of Alexandria; other Egyp- tian writers.
The fragments of the Hexapla have been collected by the labours of a succession of scholars such as P. Morinus, Drusius, Montfaucon, and especially Field, in whose Ovigents Hexa- plorum quae supersunt may be found all the remains of
1 For fuller information see pp. 78, 112 ff., 118 ff., 137 f., 140, 148 ff.
2 See pp. 82 ff., 93, 116 ff., 148 ff.
% Lagarde would add (Ankiindigung, p. 27) the writings of the Em- peror Julian.
4 See pp- 80, 107 ff., 145, 148 ff., and on the recensions generally cf. Ceriani in Rendiconti α΄, R. 751. Lomb. (18 Feb. 1886).
Textual condition of the LX Χ. 483
Origen’s works which were available in 1875. These editions do not aim at restoring the text of the Hexaplaric Lxx. in a connected form. Such a restoration, however, has been attempted in the case of Lucian’s recension by Lagarde’, who desired to see a similar work accomplished for the recension of Hesychius, and an edition in which the two texts should appear facing one another on opposite pages. When this had been done, he proposed (1) to eliminate from these any Hexa- plaric matter, by comparing them with the fragments of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion ; and (2) to collect the readings which departed most widely from the M.T. ΒΥ this process he hoped that a point of departure would be reached from which the reconstruction of the Lxx. might begin’.
This scheme is worthy of the great scholar who initiated it, and it was the first serious effort to grasp the problem of scien- tific reconstruction. But its progress has been checked and perhaps finally stopped by its author’s premature death, and its successful accomplishment under any circumstances was at least problematical. So long as no MS. or version presents an unmixed text of either Lucian or Hesychius, and much uncertainty remains as to the exact sources from which they are to be recovered, restorations of this kind cannot be regarded as more than tentative or provisional. Mean- while, such attempts are not free from danger. Since the publication of Lagarde’s edition, there has been a tendency on the part of Biblical students to cite it as ‘Lucian,’ without reserve. Lagarde himself is careful not to claim finality for his work; he describes it as ‘“‘editionem...in gravioribus omnibus satis fidam,” and looks forward to a more exact
1 See above, p. 83 f.
2 An earlier scheme is set forth in Geneszs Graece, Ὁ. 21: ‘‘primum molior librum e codicum uncialium qui hexaplares non sunt...consensu haud raro certa coniectura emendando edendum...deinceps propositum est ...editionem hexaplarem curare...tertio loco...adparatum criticum integrum adiungere cogito.”
31—2
484 Textual condition of the 7, ΧΑ.
representation of Lucian’s text: “conlatis codicibus versioni- busque eam praebentibus et patrum ea utentibus excussis efficiendum erit ut etiam in minutioribus adcurate edita dici merito possit’.” But this hope has not been fulfilled, and an edition of Lucian which falls short of exactness in smaller details cannot be directly used for the critical editing of the Lxx. It has rendered valuable services in other depart- ments of Biblical study, exhibiting sufficiently the character- istics of this recension, and repeatedly offering, especially in the four books of Kingdoms, renderings of a Hebrew text distinct from {#¥*. But in the delicate task of reconstructing the Greek text, recourse must be had to the actual evidence which lies behind Lagarde’s work. For this purpose it would seem to be more important to provide texts based upon groups of MSS., somewhat after the manner of the Collection of four important MSS. (the Ferrar-group) published by DrT. K. Abbott. Doubtless such groups would mainly follow the lines of the ancient recensions, but the identification would not be complete, and the student would have before him not only the general result, but the whole of the evidence upon which it was based.
3. Perhaps a more lasting service was rendered to the textual criticism of the Septuagint by the axioms and principles which Lagarde’s long study of the problem enabled him to lay down for the guidance of the student and the future editors. His early book Anmerkungen sur griechischen Ubersetzung der Proverbien (1863) starts with the following axioms: (1) Since the MSS. of the Lxx. are all directly or indirectly the result of an eclectic process, any attempt to restore the original text must also proceed on eclectic principles ; and the critic must chiefly depend upon (a) his acquaintance with the style of the
1 Praef. xv.
* See Driver, Samael, pp. 111. f., lviii.: I. Hooykas, Zets over de griekshe vertaling van het O.T., p. 12 ff.
Textual condition of the LXX. 485
several translators and (6) his faculty of referring readings to a Semitic original or, when they are not of Semitic origin, recognising them as corruptions of the Greek archetype. (2) Where the critic has to make choice between two readings, he will do well to prefer (a) a free translation to one which is slavishly exact, and (4) a translation based upon another Hebrew text to one which represents the M. T. In the preface _to his Lucianic Septuagint, published twenty years later, three principles are asserted: (1) A critical text of the Greek O. T. cannot be based on the authority of any one MS. or without regard to the grouping of MSS.; (2) the restoration of the text common to any one family must not be regarded as more than a step forward in the right direction ; (3) even a critical text, when reached by these or other means, will not be free from the element of uncertainty.
Lagarde’s own words are as follows: Ammerkungen, Ὁ. 3: “nur-drei axiome schicke ich voraus: I. die manuscripte der griechischen tibersetzung des alten testaments sind alle entweder unmittelbar oder mittelbar das resultat eines eklektischen ver- fahrens: darum muss, wer den echten text wiederfinden will, ebenfalls eklektiker sein. Sein maasstab kann nur die kenntniss des styles der einzelnen tbersetzer, sein haupthilfsmittel muss die fahigkeit sein, die ihm vorkommenden lesarten auf ihr semitisches original zuriickzufiihren oder aber als original- griechische verderbnisse zu erkennen. II. wenn ein vers oder verstheil in einer freien und in einer sklavisch treuen wubertra- gung vorliegt, gilt die erstere als die echte. III. wenn sich zwei lesarten nebeneinander finden, von denen die eine den masoretischen text ausdrickt, die andre nur aus einer von ihm abweichenden urschrift erklart werden kann, so ist die letztere fiir urspriinglich zu halten.” Lzbr. V.T. can. 1. p. xvi.: “tenenda tria esse aio: [1] editionem veteris testamenti graeci curari non posse ad unius alicuius codicis auctoritatem, sed conlatis inte- gris codicum familiis esse curandam: nam familiis non accedere auctoritatem a codicibus, sed codicibus a familiis: [2] unius alicuius familiae editionem nihil esse nisi procedendi ulterius adminiculum : [3]errare qui si quando ipsa manus veterum inter- pretum inventa sit, in ea legenda adquiesci debere perhibeant, quum conlatis vetera emendandi periculis omnibus indagandum sit quae explicationis veteris testamenti per quatuor saecula fata
486 Textual condition of the LXX.
fuerint, ut tandem aliquando pateat quam incerta in hoc litera- rum genere omnia sint, et quam multa nulla alia re nisi coniec- tura nitantur sciolorum, superstitiosorum, desperantium.”
4. These principles have been stated at length, because they are fruitful in themselves, and they mark an important step in the progress of Lxx. textual criticism. But it is obvious that they do not form a complete and coherent code of critical canons. Indeed, Lagarde’s later axioms to some extent limit and correct the earlier, for the recognition of the principle of grouping the MSS. and taking their evidence according to families evidently serves as a check upon the extreme eclecticism recommended in the first axiom of 1863. Nevertheless the series forms an excellent starting-point for a brief discussion of the problems which lie before the future critical editor of the Lxx. and the principles by which he must be guided.
By a singular accident the first two printed editions of the Greek Old Testament exhibit on the whole the Lucianic and Hesychian texts respectively’, whilst the Roman edition of 1587 and the Oxford edition of 1707—-20 are roughly representative of the two great uncial codices, B and A. Thus the earlier editors anticipated, though imperfectly and (in the case of the Complutensian and Aldine Septuagints) unwittingly, the two methods of editing the Greek O. T. which are still in use. Of the advantages and disadvantages of the recensional method, enough has been said. ‘The other, which consists of printing the text of a single MS., with or without an apparatus criticus, is clearly desirable only in the case of a MS. which sufficiently represents an important type of text, and may thus be profitably used as a standard of com- parison. Such are the two great uncials already mentioned.
Cod. B, as was pointed out by Dr Hort’, ‘‘on the whole
1 Cornill, Zzechzel, p. 79: ““εἰη wunderbar gliicklicher Zufall hatte uns somit in der Aldine im Grossen und Ganzen den Hesych gegeben, wie die
Complutensis im Grossen und Ganzen den Lucian darstellt.” 2 See U.7. in Greek, p. xi. f.
Textual condition of the LX X. 487
presents the version of the Septuagint in its relatively oldest form.” Taken as a whole, it is neutral in its relation to the recensions of the third and fourth centuries; its text is nei- ther predominantly Lucianic nor Hesychian nor Hexaplaric. Cornill, indeed, was at one time led by certain appearances in the B text of Ezekiel to believe that in that prophet at least the scribe of B had extracted his text from the fifth column of the Hexapla, or rather, from the edition of Eusebius and Pam- philus*. Lagarde, however, at once pointed out the difficulties which beset Cornill’s theory?, and Hort, in a letter to the Academy (Dec. 24, 1887), dismissed it with the remark, ‘“What Cornill does seem to me to have proved is that in Ezekiel B and the Lxx. text of the Hexapla have an element in common at variance with most other texts”; adding, “The facts suggest that B in the Septuagint was copied from a MS. or MSS. partially akin in text to the MS. or MSS. from which Origen took the fundamental text for.the Lxx. column of his Hexapla’.” Eventually Cornill withdrew his suggestion, observing that the forms. of the proper names in B shew no sign of having been influenced by Ongen’s corrections*.
If we accept Dr Hort’s view, which at present holds the field, the Vatican MS. in the O. T. as a whole carries us back to the third century text known to Origen, and possibly to one much earlier. In other words, not only is the Vatican MS. our oldest MS. of the Greek Bible, but it contains, speaking quite generally, the oldest text. But it would be an error to suppose that this is true in regard to every context or even every book,
1 See his Ezechzel, pp. 84,95. The theory was suggested by an early hypothesis of Lagarde (A zmerkungen, p. 3) that the text of B was extracted from a glossed codex.
* In Gott. gelehrte Anzeigen, 1886 (reprinted in AZitthetlungen, 11.
ond Guta) i ? On the provenance of B and δὲ see Hort, Jztr.*, p. 264 ff., Harris, Stichometry, p. 71 ff., Robinson, Authaliana, p. 42 ff., and the summary in Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS., Ὁ. 128. 4 Gott. gelehrte Nachrichten, xxx. (1888, p. 194 ff.).
488 Textual condition of the LXX.
and a still graver error to treat the text of B as necessarily representing everywhere the original Septuagint. As Mr Burkitt has pointed out’, “the O. L. and the Hexaplar text convict B here and there of interpolation, especially in Isaiah.” “Certainly (he writes in another place’) in the books of Kings it is free from some of the gross interpolations which have befallen most other MSS. But it cannot claim to transmit to us an warevised text of the κοινὴ éxdoors. Many of its readings shew marks of irregular revision and the hand of an editor. As a result of this critical process, B sometimes tends to agree with the Massoretic text where other Lxx. authorities represent a widely different underlying Hebrew. B also contains a certain number of widely spread corruptions that are of purely Greek origin, which are absent from earlier forms of the Lxx. such as the Old Latin®.” In certain books the general character of B breaks down altogether, 1.6. the archetype of B in those books was of another kind. Thus in Judges B was formerly suspected of representing the Hesychian recension’, whilst a living scholar has hinted that it may give the text of a translation not earlier than the fourth century a.p.° The Cam- bridge editors of the A text of Judges wisely content themselves with “ the surmise that [as regards B and A in this book] the true text of the Septuagint is probably contained neither in the one nor in the other exclusively, but must be sought for by comparing in detail, verse by verse, and word by word, the two recensions, in the light of all other available evidence,
1 Tyconius, p. ΟΧΥ]].
2 Aquila, p. το.
8 An interesting and plausible specimen of this class of errors occurs in © 4 Regn. iii. 21 B, καὶ εἶπον "Q (A, with fl, καὶ ἐπάνω). The process of corruption is evident (ETTANW, EITTANW, EITTONG). In Sirach instances are especially abundant, e.g. xlill. 17 ὠνείδισεν (A, ὠδίνησεν) ; 23 ἐφύτευσεν αὐτὴν ᾿Ιησοῦς (H. P. 248 ἐφ. ἐν αὐτῇ νήσους) ; 26 εὐωδία τέλος (248 εὐοδοῖ ὁ ἄγγελο).
+ Grabe, ep. ad Millium (1705).
> Moore, Fudges, p. xlvi.
Textual condition of the LX X. 489
19)
and especially of the extant remains of the Hexapla a
remark which is capable of a much wider application’.
Cod. A, the great rival of cod. B, “exhibits a text which has been systematically corrected so as to agree more closely with the Hebrew®.” “In all four books of Kings and in some other parts A has been conformed to the Hexaplar text...In fact A is often little more than a transcript of the fourth column of the Hexapla, but without the critical signs by which Origen’s additions were marked off from the rest*.” In other words, adaptation to the Hebrew has been effected not by direct use of the official Hebrew text, but through the medium of Origen’s work. Thus, if B represents in part the text which lay before Origen when he began his task, A, at least in the historical books, answers roughly to the result at which he arrived.
Yet A is very far from being, even in the earlier books, a mere reproduction of the Eusebian recension. It has been extensively hexaplarised, but it possesses a large element of ancient readings which are not Hexaplaric, and which it shares, to a great extent, with the Lucianic family. Moreover, as we have already seen, the citations of the Lxx. in the N.T. and by Christian writers of the first three centuries, often support the readings of A with a remarkable unanimity’. These pheno- mena point to the presence in A of an underlying text of great antiquity, possibly a pre-Christian recension made in Syria’. It must be observed, however, that the text of this MS. is not
1 A. E. Brooke and N. McLean, 7he Book of Fudges in Greek acc. to the text of Cod. Alexandrinus (Cambridge, 1897), p. v.
2 On the B text of Sirach and Tobit see above, pp. 271, 274.
3 Driver, Samuel, p. 1.
4 Burkitt, Aguzla, p.19; cf. p. 53f. Cf. Silberstein, Uber den Ur- sprung der im cod. Alex. τε. Vaticanus des adritten Konigsbuches...tiberlie- ferten Textgestalt (Giessen, 1893).
S Above: pp-. 305 f.,'403; 413,422:
6 It is, however, possible that the readings in B, which have no such support and are indeed almost unique, belong to a still earlier text of the Lxx., which had not received Palestinian revision. Cf. p. 429.
490 Textual condition of the 7, ΧΑ.
homogeneous throughout. The Psalms are evidently copied from a Psalter written for ecclesiastical use, and it is interesting to notice how constantly A here appears in company with the later liturgical Psalters R and T, and with the seventh century corrector of 8 known as ἐδ. In the Prophets xAQ are in frequent coalition against B, and in agreement with the group which is believed to be representative of the Hesychian recension,
As to cod. κα it is more difficult to form a judgement. We are still dependent for its text on Tischendorf’s facsimiles. Moreover, with the exception of a few fragments of Genesis and Numbers, larger portions of 1 Chronicles and 2 Esdras, and the Books of Esther, Judith and Tobit, 1 and 4 Maccabees, this MS. is known to us only in the poetical and prophetical books. Notes at the end of 2 Esdras and Esther claim for the MS. that in those books it was corrected by the aid of a copy of the Hexaplaric text written under the supervision of Pamphilus’. But the first hand of δὶ often agrees with A against B, and the combinations sART in the Psalms, sAC in the other poetical books, and sAQ in the Prophets, are not uncommon. In Tobit, as we have seen, δαὶ follows a recension which differs widely from B. On the whole, however, it comes nearer to B than any of the other uncials, often confirming its characteristic or otherwise unique readings. Cod. C is yet more fragmentary and its fragments are limited to the poetical books which follow the Psalter.
Thus if a single uncial MS. is to be adopted as a standard of comparison, it is obvious that either A or B must be chosen for the purpose, and B is to be preferred as being freer from Hexaplaric interpolations and offering generally a more neutral text. The latter MS. has therefore been employed by recent editors, and this course is probably the best that can be
1 See above, p. 75.
Textual condition of the LXX. 491
followed. But the method of editing the text of a single MS. leaves much to be desired, for, as Lagarde nghtly insists, no single MS. and no single family of MSS. can be regarded as a trustworthy or sufficient representative of the original Lxx.
5. There remains the alternative of constructing a critical text. This can only be done by the scientific use of all exist- ing materials'. The task which lies before the critical editor of the Lxx. is partly similar to that of the N. T. editor, and partly saz generts. The general principles which will guide him are those which have been expounded by Dr Hort in the second part of /utroduction to the NV. Ζ' in Greek*. The documents moreover fall into the same three classes: (1) MSS., (2) versions, (3) literary citations; although in the case of the Lxx., the versions are ‘daughter-versions’ and not based upon an original text, and the citations are not limited to post- apostolic Christian writers, but may be gathered also from Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament. But in the appli- cation of the principles of criticism to these documents the critic of the Lxx. must strike out a path for himself. Here his course will partly be shaped by the fact that he is dealing with a version and not with an original text*, and by the history of the transmission of the version, which is only to a limited extent identical with that of the transmission of the Greek New Testament.
(2) The first business of the critic of the Lxx. is to review the documentary evidence which is available for his use. This has been already described at some length (MSS., pp. 122— 170; Versions, pp. $7—121; Citations, pp. 369—432). The preliminary work of preparing these materials for use is still in progress. We now have access to photographic reproductions
1 Cf. Nestle, Zur Rekonstruction der Septuaginta (in Philologus, 1899).
2 Ed. 2 (1896), pp. 19—72.
3 The original text may be regarded as the primary document for the text of the version.
492 Textual condition of the LXX.
of codd. ABGLQ, facsimiles or printed texts of s;CDEFHKO RTUZIII, and collations of the remaining uncials, and of a large number of the cursives. But the facsimiles are more or less inadequate, and the older collations of unpublished MSS. need careful verification. To turn to the versions, the fragments of the Old Latin are now for the most part accessible in carefully edited but scattered texts, and the more important of the Egyptian and Syriac versions have received much attention; but the Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Georgian and Slavonic are still but partially explored. Good progress is being made in the editing of Philo, Josephus, and the Christian fathers, both Greek and Latin. ‘Thus, while much remains to be done in the way of perfecting the apparatus criticus of the Greek O.T., there is an abundance of materials ready for immediate use, and every prospect that in a few years the store will be largely increased.
(ὁ) When an editor has been found who is competent to undertake reconstruction, he will probably desire to lmit himself to that one task, after the example of the editors of the (ew Testament in Greek’, and his resources, if not as abundant as those of the N. T. editors, will be both sufficient and trustworthy. But with the materials thus ready to his hand, how is he to proceed? As in the case of the New Testament, he will begin by interrogating the history of his text. Here there are certain landmarks to guide him at start- ing. As we have seen, the three recensions which in the fourth century had a well-defined local distribution, have been connected with groups of extant documents—two of them quite definitely, the third with some probability. Other groups representing less clearly recognised families have emerged from recent enquiries, such as that which yields the text characteristic of the catenae (H.P. 14, 16, 28, 52, 57, 73;
1 Cf. Hort, Yntr.4, pe go.
Textual condition of the LXX. 493
77, Paris Reg. Gr. 128, and many others), the pair H. P. 54, 75, with which 59 may also to some extent be classed, and the codices which correspond more or less closely with cod. A and cod. B respectively. It is probable that as the collation and examination of MSS., versions, and fathers proceed, other groups, or other members of the groups already mentioned, will come to light, leaving an ever diminishing number of documents which present a text either too mixed or too peculiar to be classified.
(c) In operating upon the groups thus obtained the critical editor will possess two chief aids towards the discrimination of ancient elements from those which are later or recensional. (1) While the East in Jerome’s time was divided between the Lucianic, Hesychian, and Hexaplaric texts, the great Western dioceses, Carthage, Milan, and Rome, read the Lxx. under the guise of a Latin version, beneath which originally lay a Greek text anterior to the Hexapla itself. Consequently, the Old Latin, in its purest types, carries us behind all our exist- ing MSS., and is sometimes nearer to the Septuagint, as the Church received that version from the Synagogue, than the oldest of our uncial MSS. Readings which have disappeared from every known Greek MS. are here and there preserved by the daughter-version, and in such cases the O. L. becomes a primary authority for the Greek text’. But besides these occasional contributions of a direct nature, this version is of the highest value as enabling the critical editor to detect pre-Origenic readings and to distinguish them from those which are later or recensional. In regard to the latter point the test is not an absolute one, because it is always possible that the reading on which an O.L. rendering is based was one of two or more that were both current in the κοινή before Origen’s time. (2) But the O.L. is not our only witness to the read-
1 Burkitt, Zyconzus, p. cxvii. f.
494 Textual condition of the LXX.
ings of the κοινή. Its evidence may often be checked and confirmed by that of the Syro-Hexaplar and the fragments: of the Hexaplaric Greek, where the obeli and asterisks distinguish readings which existed in Origen’s MSS. from those which were interpolated from other sources, or rewritten with their aid’.
(4) By such means the critic may often satisfy himself that he has reached the text of the Septuagint as it was found in Christian MSS. of the third, perhaps even of the second century. It is another question how far the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις of the Christian Church was identical with the pre-Christian text or texts of Alexandria and Jerusalem. Early citations from the Lxx. suggest a diversity of readings and possibly the existence of two or more recensions in the first century, and lead us to believe that many of the variations of our MSS. have come down from sources older than the Christian era.
Here our documentary evidence fails us, and we have to fall back upon the ‘internal evidence of readings.’ The variants which remain after eliminating Hexaplaric matter, and recen- sional changes later than the Hexapla, resolve themselves into two classes; viz. (1) readings which affect merely the Greek text, such as (a) corruptions obvious or possible, or (ὁ) doublets, whether brought together in a conflate text, or existing in different MSS.; and (2) readings which presuppose a difference in the original. In dealing with both classes much help may be obtained from Lagarde’s earlier axioms*. In detecting corruptions the student must chiefly depend on his faculty of recognising a Semitic original under Greek which does not directly suggest it; in deciding between double renderings, he will set aside that which bears marks of correction or of assimi- lation to the official Hebrew or to later Greek versions based
1 On this point see Burkitt, Aguila, p. 33f. 2 Above, p. 484 f.
Textual condition of the LXX. 495
upon it, choosing that which is freer, less exact, and perhaps — less grammatical, as being probably nearer to the work of the original translator. Lastly, when the variants imply divergent Hebrew texts, he will prefer, ceteris paribus, that which departs from the Massoretic text. The application of these rules, however, calls for knowledge and judgement of no ordinary kind’.
6. It cannot be doubted that the future will produce a school of critics competent to deal with the whole question of Septuagint reconstruction, and that a critical edition of the Old Testament in Greek will hereafter take its place on the shelves of the scholar’s library by the side of the present ew Testament in Greek or its successor. Meanwhile some immediate wants may be mentioned here. (1) Several important uncial MSS. still need to be reproduced by photo- graphy, particularly codd. x, F, R, V, T; and the process might well be extended to some of the weightier cursives. (2) Texts of which photographs have been published, or of which verified transcripts or collations exist, deserve in some cases detailed examination, with the view of determining their precise character in the several books or groups of books, and their relation to one another and to a common standard, such as the text of B. (3) The stores of fresh Hexaplaric matter which have accumulated during the quarter of a century since the publication of Field’s great book?, will soon be sufficient to form a supplementary volume, which might also contain the corrections supplied by photography and by the more exact collation of Hexaplaric MSS. (4) Is it too much to hope that the University which has the honour of hav- ing issued from its Press the Septuagint of Holmes and Parsons
1 On the scope for conjecture where evidence fails, see Hatch, Zssays, p- 281, where some other remarks are to be found which deserve attention but need sifting and safeguarding.
2 These will be digested in the second fasczculus of Mr Redpath’s Sup- plement to the Oxford Concordance.
496 Textual condition of the LXX.
may see fit to reprint at least the apparatus of that monumental work with such emendations and abbreviations as it may be possible to adopt without seriously interfering with the scope and method of the edition? It is improbable that a collection of all the evidence on so vast a scale will ever be attempted again, and until this has been done, Holmes and Parsons cannot be superseded as a storehouse of facts. (5) A pro- posal was made by Dr Nestle at the London Oriental Con- gress of 1892 to compile a ‘Variorum Septuagint,’ giving the text of B with marginal variants sufficient to correct the errors of that MS. There can be little doubt that such an edition would be serviceable, especially if the scheme could be so far extended as to include a selection from all the variants, after the manner of the English ‘Variorum Bible.’ (6) Every stu- dent of the Old Testament will wish success to the undertaking which is now in progress at the Cambridge Press. Although the text of the Larger Septuagint will be simply that of the standard MS. employed in the manual edition, its apparatus will for the first time present to the critical scholar the essen- tial documentary evidence, verified with scrupulous care, and arranged in a form at once compendious and helpful to research.
LITERATURE. W. Selwyn, art. Septuagint, in Smith’s D.B. iii. (London, 1863). P. de Lagarde, Aumerkungen zur gr.
Ubersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig, 1863); Genesis Graece (Leipzig, 1868); Azkiindigung einer neuen Ausgabe der 97.
Ubersetzung des A. T. (Gottingen, 1882); Lzbrorum V. T. canont- corum pars prior (Gottingen, 1883); review of Cornill’s Ezechzel in Gott. gelehrte Anzeigen, June 1, 1886 (reprinted in MWztthed?- ungen, 11. 49ff., Gottingen, 1887). J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Biicher Samuelis (Gottingen, 1871); art. Septuagint in Encycl. Brit® (London, 1886). (. H. Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig, 1886); in Gott. gelehrte Nachrichten xxx. (1888, 8, p. 194 ff.). A. Ceriani, Le recenstont det LXX. é la verstone latina detta Itala in Rendiconti del R. Istituto Lombardo Il. xix., xxi. (1883—4); review of the O.7. zz Greek in Rendiconti
Textual condition of the LXX. 497
11. ΧΧΙ., xli. (1888); De codice Marchaliano (Rome, 1890). W. Sanday and F. J. A. Hort, letters in Academy, Dec. 10 and 24, 1887. V. Ryssel, Untersuchungen tuber die Textgestalt...des Buches Micha, p. 175 ff. (Leipzig, 1887). I. Hooykas, Jets over de grickscthe vertaling van het Oude Testament (Rotterdam, 1888). H.Oort, De Lagarde’s plan van eene vitgaaf der Septua- ginta (21882). E. Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek, iv.—vii. (Oxford, 1889). 5. Driver, Wotes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, Intr. p. xlvii. ff. (Oxford, 1890). A. Dillmann, Textkritisches zum Buche [job (in Sttzungsberichte d. k. P. Akademie d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1890, liii.). E. Nestle, Zhe Variorum Septuagint, in. Proceedings of Oriental Congress held at London, 1892; Urtext p. 77 f. (1897); Zur Rekoustruktion der Septuaginta, in Philologus, N. F., xii. 1 (1899) p. 121 ff. E. Klostermann, De libro Coheleth versione Alexandrina (Kiel, 1892); review of Zhe Ο. 7. tn Greek in Gott. gelehrte Anzeigen
(1895. 4). S. Silberstein, Uber den Ursprung der im Cod. Alex. u. Vat.des dritten Konigsbuches tiberlieferten Textgestalt (Giessen, 1893). Bleek-Wellhausen, Eznlettung tn das A. T., p. 549 ff. (Berlin, 1893). F. C. Burkitt, Ze Rules of Tyconius, p. cxlii. ff. (Cambridge, 1894); Zhe Old Latin and Itala (Cambridge, 1896) ; fragments of the Books of Kings according to the translation of Aguzla (Cambridge, 1897). G. Moore, Commentary on the Book of Judges, p. xliv. ff. H. P. Smith, Commentary on the Books of Samuel, pp. xxx. ff., 402 ff. (Edinburgh, 1899).
ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA.
Page 3, note 1, read πρὴ:,
33
»"» »
» »
6, line 4. On the Ptolemies consult, in addition to books cited, J. P. Mahaffy, History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic dynasty (1900).
17. See also Willrich, /uden u. Griechen, vor der makkabdischen Erhebung (Gottingen, 1895).
27, line 19, read L. Cappellus.
105, note 6. See also Brightman, in 7. 7h. St. 1. ii., 2. 254.
140, line 18 f., for a complete collation, read an edition.
150, line 1. Add Hexaplaric.
169, line το. Add M. Faulhaber, Die Propheten-catenen nach rim. Handschriften (Freiburg i. B., 1899).
214. Add the Latin list printed by Mr C. H. Turner in /. Zh. S¢. arity
271. note 3. An edition of Sirach as given by cod. 248 will shortly be published by the Cambridge University Press.
282, note 3, for Badr. read Bals.
286. To the literature on Sirach add H. Herkenne, De veteris latinae Ecclestastici capitébus 1.—xlizt. (Leipzig, 1899).
314. To the literature on Biblical Greek add G. A. Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforschung der griech. Bibel, and Die Sprache der griech. Bibel (Th. Rundschau, τ. p. 463 ff.).
319, note 3, for Hos. 7.6 7X. read Hos. ti. 23 (25) ἠγαπημένην, and dele τὶ dpxov. Also for /sa. vit. 6 συνλ. read Ps. lxxxtit. 7 δώσει, Dan. vit. 22 (LXX.) ἐδόθη.
380. To the literature on Philo add L. Massebieau, Le classement des auvres de Philon (in Bibliotheque de [école des hautes études, I. pp- I—9g!).
449, line 29, read πνεῦμα.
472, line 29, add θυσία aivécews (Lev. vit. 3f., Ps. xlix. 14, 23).
APPENDPX.
THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS
32—2
ADDENDA
The following are noteworthy emendations and readings adopted in the edition of Wendland and Mendelssohn, which appeared too late for any use to be made of it in constructing the present text.
519. 3 ὑπομιμνήσκειν conj Diels | 10 διοικει. Tv προαιρεσιν εχοντες | 523. 6 τοιουτο Tov βασιλεως προσταξαντος, οσοι | 24 παντι και | 524. 8 αὐτο] autos cum Jos | 527. 24 kata πολλοὺς τροποὺς (cf πολυμερως Jos) | 529. 18 emt Ta THs] emiTayns bene conj Mend. (cf 537. 20) | 531. 3 owows <KaTw Ta> κατα τὴν | 4 διαγλυῴφης wore καὶ κατ audorepa | 6 om wore | 532. 2 evapyws | 3 mponymeva | 533. 14 εστήηκη | 534. 21 συμμετρως εχουσαν | 24 τὸ κλιμα των λειτουργουντῶν Lepewv conj Mend. | 536. 11 wore vrohauBave recte ut vid | 537. 28 αὐτὴν τὴν προς φυλακὴν | 538. τό παντα μετα δαψι- λειας | 539. 23 ὑπεβησαν | 24 εκατοντάρουροι (Mahaffy, Class. Rev. VIII. 349) | 541. 2 και exewos autos χωρις (sine punct) | 4 ποιήσαι] Kat ἡμᾶς Mend. | 5 ev φροντισειν | 542. 3 παντελως δεισιδαιμονως | 545. 10 Tw σημει- ουσθαι | 548. 14 Kexpnuevou | 550. 14 0 de apxedearpos (conj Letronne: Jos hab o δὲ emt τῆς των ἕενων amodoxns TeTaypmevos) | 17 Toes εθεσιν ιδιοις συγχρωνται | 552. 2 εκαστα <KadNioTa> πραττοι | 556. 12 ἡ πολειν] περι- πολειν | 557. 25 map eavrov | 560. 14 ανθυποτιθης | 15 av] dv | 562. 5 To δὲ επιδεσθαι radia σωφρ. | ὃ Eenreca | 563. 22 εν ξενιτεια | 566. 2 oparar] op- μαται con} Mend. | 568. 17 γινομενα Biw συμῴορον και καθηκον | 569. 2 um] ex Mend. | 570. 3 evra πλειονα καὶ] εἰ πεπλεονακα bene conj Mend. | 16 ἡμερας <wpas> o Bac. | 21 παντων] παρα των con} Wendland | 573. τό πολυωριας (cf 565 fin: Mahaffy, Class. Rev. VIII. 349).
CORRIGENDA
532. τό text. et app. crit. Pro χρύσεοι lege χρυσοῖ | 542. 25 app. crit. Pro Geos en corr Wendland] lege @eos ety ex conj] θεωθειη conj Wendland | 561. 2 app. crit. Pro θεὸν con} Wendland lege deov θεον conj Mend.
INTRODUCTION.
The so-called letter of Aristeas to Philocrates appeared first in print in a Latin translation by Matthias Palmerius of Pisa (Rome, 1471). The editio princeps of the Greek text was not published until 1561, when Simon Schard brought out at Basle a text based apparently on an Italian MS., with a few readings taken from a second (Vatican) MS. The particular MS. which was followed in this earliest edition the present writer has not been able to discover. But there exists in the Library at Basle (MS. O. Iv. Io, no. 21 in Omont’s Catalogue of Swiss MSS.) a MS. presented to it by Schard, which is beyond a doubt a copy of the Vatican MS. denoted by K in the present text; and a list of readings appended to Schard’s edition under the heading ‘castigationes in Aristeam juxta exemplar Vaticanae’ appears to be a scanty selection of the readings of K. Schard’s edition was followed by others in the seventeenth century based upon his work; but it does not appear that any fresh collation of MSS. was undertaken! Until 1870 the latest edition of the text was that which Hody prefixed to his work De Libliorum Textibus, published at Oxford in 1705. This was merely a reprint of the text of Schard, Hody naively con- fessing in his preface that he did not consider the work of col- lating MSS. of a work of such doubtful authenticity to be worth the trouble. ‘Non me fugit servari in Bibliotheca Regia Parisina, aliisque quibusdam, exemplaria istius MSS. Sed de tali opusculo, quod tanquam foetum supposititium penitus rejicio, Amicos soli- citare, et in Partes longinquas mittere, vix operae pretium existi- mavi. Eas curas relinquo illis, quibus tanti esse res videbitur.’
The first step towards a critical edition of the text was taken by Moriz Schmidt, who in 1870 brought out in Merx’s Archiv (Band I.) a text based on a complete collation of two Paris MSS., which he denoted by B and C, and a partial collation of a third, A, which was used to supply the opening of the letter which was missing in B and C. Schmidt’s edition, though a valuable begin- ning, is far from satisfactory. A full use was not made of the evidence for the text afforded by the paraphrase of Josephus and the extracts of Eusebius. Moreover a large number of MSS. of the letter is now known to exist; and fresh light has been thrown on the language by the papyri of the Ptolemaic period which have at various times been discovered in Egypt.
The valuable help which these papyri offer as an illustration of the letter, shewing that the writer possessed an accurate knowledge
1 The earlier editions are enumerated by Schmidt in his preface to the text (Merx, Archiv, Bd. 1. 1870).
502 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.
of the official titles and phraseology of the Ptolemaic court, was first pointed out by Prof. Lumbroso. He says!, ‘Depuis quarante ans, un rayon de lumiére inattendu a jailli des inscriptions et des papyrus, qui jette sur elle un jour nouveau; chose frappante : il n’est pas un titre de cour, une institution, une loi, une magis- trature, une charge, un terme technique, une formule, un tour de langue remarquable dans cette lettre, il n’est pas un témoignage d’Aristée concernant l’histoire civile de ’époque, qui ne se trouve enregistré dans les papyrus ou les inscriptions et confirmé par eux’. A close examination of the larger evidence from the papyri now available will probably corroborate the opinion, to which other evidence seems to point, that the letter was written under some one of the later Ptolemies. In any case the evidence of the papyri is an important factor to be taken into account in establishing a text.
Another illustration of the text is afforded by a kindred work, also dealing with the history of the Jews of Egypt under the Pto- lemaic rule, the third Book of Maccabees’.
Prof. Lumbroso further supplemented Schmidt’s work upon the text by collating the Paris MS. A throughout, and also a MS. in the British Museum (F), and one at Venice (G); he also indicated the existence of five MSS. in the Vatican, but it does not appear that he has published any collations of these Roman MSS.
In 1893 the want of an edition of the letter was represented to the present writer, and in a journey to Italy in the autumn of that year he collated the five Vatican MSS. mentioned by Lum- broso (HKLIM), and one in the library of the Barberini palace (P), and revised the collations which had already been made of the MSS. at Venice (G) and Paris (ABC); at Paris he also collated the fragment Q and the MS. D, so far as was necessary to establish the fact that it was a copy of A. He has since col- lated a MS. at Florence (T) and another at Zurich (Z). On his learning subsequently that Prof. Mendelssohn of Dorpat had for many years been preparing an edition of the letter, which was nearly ready, the work which he had begun was put aside. Prof. Mendelssohn’s death postponed the appearance of the expected German edition ; a fragment only, consisting of the text of about
1 Recherches sur Véconomie politique de Egypte sous les Lagides, par G. Lumbroso (Turin, 1870), p. xiii.
2 Some instances are the titles ἀρχισωματοφύλακες, of ἐπὶ τῶν χρειῶν, χρηματισταί, οἱ ὑπηρέται τῶν ταγμάτων (cf. ταγματικοῖς ὑπηρέταις Wilcken, Actenstiicke Pap. Ν111.}, the position assigned to the ἀρχίατρος Nicanor as a major domo (cf. Peyron, 7urin Papyri 1. 2. 25, the position of ὁ βασιλικὸς ἰατρός), the phrase ἐὰν φαίνηται, the correct use of εὐτύχει at the close of a petition from a subordinate to a higher official, the words éxa- τοντάρουρος and παρεύρεσις, the phrase παραγένεσθαι εἰς τοὺς τόπους.
3 Cf. especially 3 Maccabees ili. 25—28 (προστετάχαμεν---διειλήφαμεν---- μηνύειν δὲ τὸν βουλόμενον) with Ar. p. 523. 23 ff. (προστετάχαμεν---διειλή- φαμεν---τὸν δὲ βουλόμενον προσαγγέλλειν).
Introduction to the letter of Artsteas. 503
a fifth of the letter with commentary but without introduction, was published soon after his death!. The remainder of his work, it is understood, has been put into the hands of Prof. Wendland, whose edition has been expected for some time past. Wendland has already brought out a German translation of the letter in Kautzsch’s Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testa- ments, which has been used in constructing the present text. The German edition not however having appeared’, the present writer was entrusted by Dr Swete with the preparation of a text of the letter, to form an Appendix to his Introduction to the Septuagint. Although there are doubtless more MSS. in existence than those which have been used, and although the text in several passages still remains uncertain, it is hoped that the work which has been done may be of some service in grouping the MSS. and preparing the way for a final edition.
The following genealogical table will show approximately how the MSS. are related to each other.
Q a τ- εἰ | | B € | foal ae Giga tl aie) i ΠΗ | aortas ate fer ‘ead ! =a ῖοοο | | aa | | | H G 1 ΓΙΟΟ | ἱ Α | 1200 = K Bes Ue Ni OL 1300 | Q 1400 | 15 | M [500 R 1600
1 Aristeae quae fertur ad Philocratem epistulae tnitium, ed. L. Men- delssohn et M. Krascheninnikov (Dorpat, 1897).
2 It has appeared in the Teubner series of Greek and Latin writers (Leipzig, 1900) as the present sheets were being passed through the press.
504 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.
The MSS. denoted in the above table are as follows:
Th, Vale Yay. M Ottobon. 32.
A Paris 128. Q Paris 950.
D Paris 130. T Florence Laur. Acquisti 44. F Brit. Mus. Burney 34. B_ Paris 129.
L_ Vat. 746. C Paris 5.
K Vat. 383. Ῥ Barberini Iv. 56.
R_ Basle O. Iv. το (Omont 21). S Vat. 1668.
G Venice 534. Z Zurich Bibl. de la Ville C. 11 I Palat. 203. (Omont 169).
It will be seen that the MSS. fall into two main groups, which may for convenience be described as the A and B groups, the A group again falling into two smaller groups HKA and GIM, and the B group into two smaller groups TB and CPSZ. The real problem in fixing the text is to determine the relative value of the A and B groups. An examination of the readings shows, in the opinion of the present writer, that the B group, which was followed by Schmidt, while presenting a specious text, is in reality based on a recension, although in a few passages it has kept the original readings ; in the A group no correction has taken place, and though the text which has here been Landed down is not altogether free from corruption, yet the true reading is in most cases rather to be looked for here than in the revised B text.
The group HA(DFL)K(R). H, CODEX VATICANUS. Rome. Vat. Gr. 747, saec. xi. membr. foll. 260.
fol. 1. Aristeas.
12. Letter of Theodoret to Hypatius. καὶ ἄλλοι μὲν φιλομαθεῖς avdpes—eis προοίμιον τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς.
13. Catena οἵ Theodoret and other patristic writers on the Octateuch.
259. πόσαι παραδύσεις εἰσὶ τῆς θείας γραφῆς.
260. ποσάκις καί ποτε ἐπορθήθησαν οἱ ἐξ ᾿Ισραήλ.
A beautiful MS., in clearly written cursive characters, which hang from ruled lines, containing coloured illustrations throughout (five in the Aristeas portion), ornamental red head-pieces and red _ initial letters in the margm. Single column, 48 lines in a page: size of page 14 Χ 104 in., of writing 11} x 7# in.
The Catena is apparently by the same hand as the Aristeas, the LXX. text being in the same size of writing as the Aristeas, and the marginal Catena in smaller writing (80 lines in a page). There is one large omission in the Aristeas, two leaves of the MS. apparently having been lost. The verso of fol. 3 ends with τὴν τράπεζαν (p. 530. 8), and λείπει is written in an early hand at the foot of the page; fol. 4 begins with μὲν πεδινῶν (538. 11) and + is written in the margin.
Introduction to the letter of Aristeas. 505
K, CODEX VATICANUS. Rome. Vat. Gr. 383, saec. xii.—xiil. membr. 319 foll.
fol. 1. Aristeas.
29. Theodoret to Hypatius. rgvo. Catena on Genesis. 187. Catena on Exodus.
Size of page 122g in., of writing 104 x 74 in.: 38 lines in a page. The leaves at the beginning are soiled and worm-eaten. The words hang from ruled lines: the right-hand margin is irregular, the writing going beyond the perpendicular line in places. The writing is upright with very thick strokes, clear, but rather untidy.
R, CODEX BASILEENSIS. Basle. Codd. Gr. O. Iv. το (Omont! 21). This MS., written in the sixteenth century, apparently for Schard’s edition, but only very sparingly used by him in an appendix of readings, is clearly a direct transcript of the preceding MS. _ This may be shown by the following instances out of many: ov KR (ων cett.) p. 519. 4, διαθεσις καθαρα KR (καθ. διαθεσις cett.) p. 519. 8, κυριωτερον KR (κυριωτατον cett.) p. 519. 9, οἱ avdpes ασῴφαλως KR (aod. οἱ avdpes cett.) p. 528. 10, σαλισγουμενοι KR (συναλισγ. cett.) p. 543. 23, χρώμεθα KR (χρωμενα cett.) p. 544. το, om. kat περι τουτων---σεμνοτήητα KR p. 548. 16f. The MS. has the inscription at the end, ‘donum Simonis Schardii Magdiburgiensis.’
Bee ODES. KEGIUS.. Paris. Bibl. -Nat. Gr.” 128, -saec.. xu. membr. 610 pagg.
p. i. Aristeas. 26. Theodoret to Hypatius. 27. Preface to Genesis from Gregory of Nyssa, inc. ἐπειδήπερ εἰσα- γώγιμον πρὸς θεογνωσίαν.... 28. Catena on the Octateuch. 608. On the versions of Holy Scripture, the names of God, etc.
Single column: words hang from ruled lines, 47 lines in a page: a neat writing in brown ink, initial letters in crimson: size of page 143 X τοῦ in., of writing 11x7in. A hand of the fourteenth century (Lumbroso?) has added some marginal notes (on Theopompus and Theodectes, a saying of Alexander the Great, etc.), many of which are rubbed and almost illegible, but they may be read in D which has copied them. Montfaucon (426/. Bzbliothecarum, 11. 725) mentions this MS., and describes it as written ‘manu XII. circiter saeculi.’ On p. 610 is written a note, +.ow ev (?) ravra es δοξαν | Ov και TNS αγιας TpLados φιΐλα [? φυλλα] τριακοσια y nro (3) Τ Ὑ +. . 1 Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs des Bibliothéqgues de Suisse (Leipzig,
1886). 2 Atti della R. Accad. di Torino, vol. 1v. 1869.
506 Introduction to the letter of ΑΙ γίξίεας.
Descendants of A(DFL). D, CODEX REGIUS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 130, saec. xv. chart. 288 foll.
fol. 1. Aristeas.
26vo. Theodoret to Hypatius.
Ὅς Gregory of Nyssa’s Preface.
28. Catena on Genesis and Exodus, 1—12.
The rest of the Catena and the remaining matter contained in A are to be found in MS. Paris 132, written by the same hand as D. Omont’s Catalogue describes the MS. as ‘copied by George Gregoro- poulus’; Omont takes this apparently from the 1740 catalogue which says ‘ vzdetur a Gregoropulo exaratus’ ; the name of the scribe does not seem to occur in the MS. A clearly written MS. in a hand similar to that of M (of the same century). Page 13% οἱ ἴῃ. : writing g x 54in. Another hand has underlined in red ink passages where there are clerical errors and has corrected the text to that of A. This MS. was not collated throughout, as it appeared certain from an examination of a few passages that it was a copy of A (see below).
F, CODEX BURNEIENSIS. British Museum. Burney MS. 34, 5866. xv. chart. 645 pagg.
Same contents as A, viz.
p. 1. Aristeas.
21. Theodoret to Hypatius. |
22. Passages from Gregory of Nyssa’s book on the six days of creation.
25. Catena on the Octateuch.
643. πόσαι παραδόσεις κ.τ.λ. ;
644. ποσάκις καί ποτε ἐπορθήθησαν οἱ ἐξ ᾿Ισραήλ.
644. Evagrius Scitensis on the ten names of God.
645. Three chronological notes.
645. On the works of God in the six days.
L, CODEX VATICANUS. Rome. Vat. Gr. 746, pt. 1, saecimy, (partim saec. xl.—xil.?) membr. 251 foll.
fol. x. Aristeas. 12. Theodoret to Hypatius. 13. Catena on Genesis and Excdus.
The portion of the MS. containing the Catena is certainly old (eleventh or twelfth century) and possibly a copy of H or of an ancestor of H. There are the same illustrations of O.T. history as in H, better preserved but not so beautifully painted. The writing too is rougher, not so neat as in H, but in the same style. The Aristeas (together with the letter to Hypatius and the first page of the Catena) is supplied by a much later hand on white shiny unruled parchment, the Catena being on a browner parchment, and the letters there hanging from ruled lines. The Aristeas is written in a single column: size of page
Introduction to the letter of Aristeas. 507
13x 11 in., ‘of writing 113 x $Zin., the number of lines in a page varying from 21 to 43. It is written apparently in two different hands ; pp. I—3 are written rather diffusely; from εἰσὶ δὲ πρώτης φυλῆς (p. 528. 10) the writing becomes more compact and neat, with more lines in a page: with the words τὰ συμβαίνοντα τοῖς φίλοις (p. 565. 14) the diffuse writing comes in again. The beginning of the Aristeas is lost ; the MS. begins with -warwy ὦ βασιλεὺ (p. 521. 24). It ends with ριστεας wNoxpare (sic). This ending marks a peculiarity of the MS.; the rubricator has omitted to fill in the initial capital letters, hence we find a for kat, pos for προς, auBavew for λαμβανειν, etc.
HKA. It is clear from their general agreement in readings that these MSS. form one group. Notice the omissions which they have in common:
(1) Ρ. 564. I. προς τουτ---ποιήσεσιν ET LTEAOL (so letters) om HKA(DPL) ins Sma and B group.
(2) 66. ἐστιν επιτελεια-- -διατηρεις τὴν (53 letters) om τ ins "GIM and B group.
(3) 559. 19. καθως υπο---διοικειται κατα (51 letters) om HKA(DFLIGIM ins B group.
From the first two of these omissions it appears that HKA must be derived from an original (y) which omitted these lines, an ancestor of y having probably had lines of the length of 50 letters ; from the evidence of GIM we deduce that this group, while connected with the HKA group, is not derived from y. H and A are more closely connected than H and K; notice 551. 18 αναπτῶ (ow sup lin) H avarrw A*; 562. 20 απαν H (τ suprascr H®") απαν A.
ADFL. That these MSS. form a united group within the HKA group is shown by their almost universal agreement. Notice e.g. the readings 536. I χρώμενοι ADF L (ovpppinievor cett.), 537- 4 εἰσεληλυθεναι ADF L (εληλυθεναι cett.), 547. 3 ευὐλογιας ADFL ιλο- yeas cett.), 569. 21 exaveravoaro (sic) ADFL, and the omissions which they have in common:
539. 27. ουτος de εξεισιν---Αζωτιων χωραν | 550. 21. yap wv avOpwros—ovveatpace δε gic on ΘΗ.
554. 8. προς ευφροσυνην--ελυθη τη δε
That D is a direct transcript of A is proved by its omitting exactly a line of A, so that on p. 558.9 it reads peradopnpeva (sic) σοι διαμενη, where the lines in A are divided thus: perado|rixos ὧν Kat peyadomepns ουδεποτ av ἀπολιποι δοξης ινα Oe Ta προειΐρημενα σοι διαμενη. Moreover, certain marginal notes in A, which are there almost illegible, have been copied by D, where they are all clear: e.g. on 553. 25 ὃ καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρος εἶπεν Fee πῶς ev ὀλίγῳ
508 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.
; μεγάλα κατώρθωσεν, ὅτι, φησίν, οὐδέποτε πράγματα ἐπιβαλὼν ἠμελήθη. At 541. 11 συμβουλευοντῶ of A (the stroke over the being very ; faint) has become συμβουλευοντα in D. That F is a direct tran- script of A is proved by its repeating a line of A twice over, reading at 550. 16 a μεν €TL και νυν εκαστον αποτελειν" nv yap ovT@ | διατεταγμενον ὑπὸ tov βασιλεως a μεν ετι και νυν opas’ ooa yap x.t.A. The lines in A are arranged thus: exeAevoe τὴν ετοιμασιαν εἰς | exagTov αποτελειν᾽ ἣν yap ουτω διατεταγμενον ὑπὸ του βασιλεως a μεν ετι και νυν | opas’ οσαι yap κιτιλ. Lastly, that L is a direct transcript of A appears from 529. 21, where L omits the words συνιδειν πραγματων---καλλονὴν εκελευσε Which form exactly a line ; in A. Just below (530. 1) L negligently inserts in the text (where it is quite unsuitable) after rov χρυσου a gloss which occurs in the margin of A, and which is quoted in the apparatus criticus.
These cases appear to put the parentage of these three MSS. beyond a doubt, and their evidence has therefore not been recorded in the apparatus. The few deviations from their parent MS. which they exhibit may be neglected.
‘The group GIM(Q).
This group presents few substantial variants from the HKA text. It differs chiefly from that text in matters of orthography, the frequent use of itacisms, etc. Its retention of two lines which are omitted by HKA (see above) proves that it is not derived from the immediate parent of those MSS., while its omission of another line in common with HKA is proof that both groups go back to a common ancestor rather higher up in the line.
G, CODEX VENETUS. Venice. Bibl. Marciana, Gr. 534, saec. xi. (circa, Zanetti’s catalogue) membr. 296 foll.
OL, αν Aristeas. 6vo. Theodoret to Hypatius. 4. Catena on the Octateuch.
296. πόσαι παραδόσεις εἰσὶ τῆς θείας γραφῆς.
Size of page 125 Χο in., of writing 9?x7 in. It is written in minuscules hanging from ruled lines in one column containing 67 closely packed and closely written lines, the whole of the Aristeas being com- pressed into 54 leaves. The Aristeas with the Theodoret seems to have been tacked on to the MS. later, as there is a second numbering of pages (a, B, y, etc.) beginning on fol. 7, but it is by the same hand as that which wrote, at any rate, the first few lines of the Catena; the text of the Septuagint appears to have been the work of several hands. The Aristeas is very much stained and blotted, especially the first leaf, which has been in parts rewritten, but in places the writing is utterly illegible. In the Venice Catalogue it is placed first in an ‘Appendix Graecorum Codicum ex legato Jacobi Contareni, Jo. Bapt.
Introduction to the letter of Aristeas. 509
Recanati Aliorumque’; a note in the catalogue adds ‘catenam hanc in Bibliotheca Julii Justiniani D. M. Procuratoris vidit Montfauconius et descripsit in Diario Italico}?.’
I, CODEX PALATINUS. Rome. Bibl. Vatic. Pal. Gr. 203, saec. xl, membr. 304 foll.
ie a Aristeas.
22: Theodoret to Hypatius.
23vo. Catena on Genesis and Exodus.
304vo. ends in the middle of Exodus. At the end is written ‘deest unum et alterum folium.’
It is written in double columns, the words hanging from ruled lines : the size of page being 1211 ΧΊΟΣ in., of writing 114x343 in. The Aristeas and the Catena are by the same hand. The bookplate (ap- parently common to ail the Palatine collection) has the words ‘Sum de bibliotheca, quam Heidelberga capta spolium fecit et P. M. Gregorio XV trophaeum misit Maximilianus utriusque Bavariae Dux etc. S. R. I. Archidapifer et Princeps Elector, anno Christi MDCXXIII.’
M, CODEX OTTOBONIANUS. Rome. Bibk Vatic. Ottobon. Gr. 32, saec. xv. chart. 70 foll.
fol. r—1I4. Παλλαδίου περὶ τῶν τῆς ᾿Ινδίας ἐθνῶν καὶ τῶν Βραγμάνων.
15, 16. blank.
a , ? 4 ? εὖ Cee = a 3
I7—27- τοῦ φιλοπόνου ᾿Ιωάννου eis τὸ ἐπίλοιπον τῆς φυσικῆς ἀκρο- άσεως.
28. blank.
29—44. τοῦ φιλοσοφωτάτου καὶ ῥητορικωτάτου Kiipov Θεοδωρούτου προδρόμου.
45—7ovo. ᾿Αριστέας Φιλοκράτῃ.
Size of page τ4ξ Χ οἱ in., of writing 9}x5 in.; the writing is in single column, bounded by two vertical lines, but no horizontal lines are visible. The contents are all written by the same neat hand in which the tall τ is the chief characteristic ; the Aristeas sheets are rather broader than the rest. On the first leaf is written a list of the contents and the name of a former owner of the MS.: ‘ Anonymi Geographia, Philosophia anonym., Palladius de rebus et moribus Indicis, Aristeas. Ex codicibus Ioannis Angeli Ducis ab Altaemps?.’
1 See Montfaucon, Diar. /tal. (Paris, 1702), 433 ff., where a list of the MSS. in Justinian’s library is given, including a Catena on the Octateuch of the eleventh century. This is apparently the MS. referred to in the Venice Catalogue ; but Montfaucon does not appear to mention that it contained Aristeas. ᾿
2 The library of Colonna was bought by Jean Ange duc d’Altemps in 1611; in 1689 part of the collection was transferred to the Ottobonian palace. See Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul 71... ἃ Paul V. (Paris, 1890),
PP- 57—59-
510 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.
GIM agree in almost all cases, including omissions such as 528. 10 om ασφαλως GIM, mistakes such as 529. [4 καταθηκουσας GIM (xa@nx. cett.), 534. 1 μεγάλοις GIM (peyador cett.), 552. 26 δυναμενων GIM (dvvauewy cett.), and peculiarities of spelling and vocalization. They almost always insert v ἐφελκυστικόν before consonants, write iota adscript, interchange o and @ (προτευουσα, πασχωμεν [-- πασχομεν], perapepov [=-wv]) and « and ἡ (φιλικοος, δαψηλως, τινικαυτα, mpodiAws), and use itacisms such as βουλεσθε for βουλεσθαι, αιρειν for εριν.
It appears that G and I are copied from one and the same MS.; their contemporary date and a few cases where they are at variance (e.g. 520. 12 ἡ madera αὐτὴ G, ἡ παιδειας διαγωγή 1) make it improbable that either is a transcript of the other.
M is undoubtedly a direct copy of I. With the exception of some slight corrections or blunders on the part of M, they are in entire agreement. Notice e.g. 531. 5 πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν τὴν τραπεζαν IM (την τραπ. προς τὴν xp. cett.), 540. 7 pera IM (μεταλλα cett.), 541. 3 γεγραπται IM (γεγραφεναι cett.), 543. 25 βροτων 1M (βρωτων
cett.), 571. 24 ypadns IM (peraypadns cett.). At 573. 21 M omits the words καὶ ta ακολουθα παντα, which form exactly a line in the
double-column MS. I. The readings of M have therefore not been recorded in the apparatus.
To this group appears also to belong:
Q, CODEX REGIUS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 950, saec. xiv. bombycinus, 576 pagg.
This MS. contains a very miscellaneous collection of fragments
beginning with (p. 1) an anonymous fragment on the resurrection, (p. 2)
a fragment of Athanasius on the heresy of Paul of Samosata, and in-
cluding (p. 111) a fragment on the ten feasts of the Jews, and (p. 217)
an anonymous work on the measurement of the earth. On p. 341 occur —
the letters of Abgarus and Christ, on p. 343 a fragment of Photius, ‘de termino vitae et de Spiritus Sancti processione,’ on pp. 351—371 the fragments of Aristeas, followed on p. 371 by the treatise already included περὶ τῶν δέκα ἑορτῶν (here given at greater length), and other fragments which need not be enumerated. The Aristeas fragments are not a sixth part of the letter ; they are (p. 351) 520. 15 inc. κατα- σταθεις emt THS—521. Q ὑποχειρια ποιουμενος, and (p. 353) 529. 24 ine. δυο πήχεων TO μηκος---537. 21 προκαθημενου πρὸς Gewpravy. They are introduced by the heading ἐπιστολῆς ἀρίιστεως προς Φιλοκρατὴν exppacis. χρυσης τραπεζὴῆς nv εἐποιησεν o βασιλευς ἸΠτωλομαιος και απεστειλεν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ προς Tov τοτε apxtepea Eeafapov. Omont’s catalogue merely calls the fragments ‘De Ptolemaeo rege et lege mosaica’; the folio cata- logue of 1740 more correctly describes them as ‘fragmenta ex Aristea.’
There are 24 lines in a page; the writing is rough and untidy with thick strokes, and very rough red initial capitals. Its readings and spellings connect it with the GIM group, e.g. 532. 28 λιαν (for λειαν), 534. 8 avacracw (for avaracw), 535. 4 σμιξιν (for σμηξιν).
Introduction to the letter of Aristeas. 51!
The group TBCPSZ.
We now come to a group which presents considerable varia- tions from those which we have considered. The readings of this group are at first sight attractive and have the appearance of repre- senting a purer text. A closer examination will however, show that a certain amount of revision must have gone on here, not only in some common ancestor of the group, but also in the in- dividual members of it. We find that various members of the group have sometimes corrected the text in different ways, that even where they are consistent in their readings, they seldom have the support of Eusebius, who has introduced other slight alterations of his own into the text, and again we find that in places the reading of the HKA and GI groups, which the B text has rejected, is corroborated by the usage of Alexandrian papyri which are contemporary or nearly contemporary with the pseudo-Aristeas. While, then, in some places it is possible that the B text has retained or has successfully restored the right reading, the text of this group is usually to be regarded with suspicion, as an in- genious attempt to remove the obscurities of a Greek which had become unintelligible. The group is here spoken of as the B group, because the MS. B is that on which Schmidt’s text was based, and it is also the MS. which exhibits the greatest number of variants ; but a far older member of the group and one which exhibits the Aristeas text entire has now come to light, namely the Florence MS. T, which we will describe first.
T, CODEX LAURENTIANUS. Florence. Bibl. Mediceo-Laurent. Acquisti 44.
According to the Catalogue of Rostagno the date of the Aristeas, Pentateuch and Catena is the tenth century, of Joshua and the remaining books about the thirteenth. It seems doubtful whether the former part is earlier than the eleventh century. The material is parchment: number of leaves 384: size of page 144 x121in. There are quires of 8 leaves with signatures of the (?) thirteenth century. To the end of the Pen- tateuch the writing is in single column with 46 lines in a page; in the latter part there are two columns with 65 lines to ἃ page. The writing hangs from ruled lines.
fol. 1. Aristeas to Philocrates. 1tvo. Introduction to O.F. books: τὰ ἐν τῇ παρούσῃ βίβλῳ ava-
γεγραμμένα τεύχη....... διατί ἕκαστον τούτων οὕτως καλεῖται καὶ ἀπὸ μέρους τί περιέχει ἕκαστον...
14vo. Theodoret, εἰς τὰ ἄπορα τῆς θείας γραφῆς. ΕΒ: Pentateuch with Catena.
311. Joshua—Chronicles, Esdras 1— 3, Esther, Judith, Maccabees 1—4, Tobit (to 3. 15).
512 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.
It contains the inscription, ‘Codicem e Liguria advectum propo- nente A. M. Bandinio comparavit Ferdinandus III magnus dux Etruriae et Bibl. Laurent. donavit die 3 Aug. MDCCXCVIII.’
B, CODEX REGIUS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 129, saec. xtiil. bombycinus, 539 foll. ὃ προσ [0]1.2. Aristeas inc. (522. 12) ἅνων υποτιθεμενος λοΎον. 15. Catena on the Octateuch.
It is written in double columns: size of page 13} x 9} in., of writing 1034 x 34 in.; the writing is enclosed by vertical lines, but there are no horizontal lines except at the top and bottom of the page. The Aristeas is in bad condition, being torn and stained. There are a few plain red initial letters. The writing is rather sloping, and fairly large and clear. Schmidt says, ‘This MS. has been subsequently collated most carefully with its original by the rubricator, when the writer himself had already performed this duty quite conscientiously. Hence all corrections of the rubricator and of the first hand are equivalent to the authority of the original MS.’ A later hand has added a few headings in the margin (περὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου, etc.). The Catena is apparently by the same hand as the Aristeas, but has more ornamentation and red initials. In some places part of a leaf has been cut or torn away.
C, CODEX REGIUS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 5, saec. xilil.—xiv. chart. et bombyc., 402 foll.
fol. 1. Aristeas fragments. 14. Anonymous introduction to the books of the O.T. (inc. To μεν ουν βιβλιον). 45. Catena on the Octateuch.
The Aristeas is written in a single column: the size of page being 124 Χο in., of writing varying from 9 x 7 in. to 7?x sin. The Aristeas and the introduction to O.T. are by the same hand, a large square upright writing with thick strokes and red initials in the margin: the page is unruled. In the latter part of the MS., foll. 45—60 are written in double columns in a rougher hand; at fol. 61 the first hand begins again, and the remainder is sometimes in single, sometimes in double columns, text and commentary coming alternately and the order of books being confused (Judges, Joshua, Deuteronomy, Numbers). The fragments of Aristeas contained are less than half the letter; they are 528. 17 Σαββαταιος---532. 17 δυο μεν σαν TH, 553. 10 O δε εἰπεν εὐχομε- vos—563. τό npwra, 567. 7 -σιλευ Kporw de—end.
P, CODEX BARBERINUS. Rome. Bibl. Barberina Gr. Iv. 56, 5466. ἢ xill. membr., 229 foll.
fol. 1. Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis (frag.). inc. πάσα ypadn nuwv των Χριστιανων θεοπνευστος εστι, at end λειπει.
Introduction to the letter of Aristeas. 513
a: Fragment of Aristeas inc. (538. 10) πινοησαντες᾽ τῆς yap xwpas expl. (568. 1) περιβαλλοντας To (nv ws (note λειπει).
Io. Catena on the Octateuch.
224. Catena on the Apocalypse inc. dye (sic) τον τῆς συντελειας
'καιρον.
It is written in double columns in a very minute upright and neat hand, with about 60 lines packed into a column, the words hanging from ruled lines ; the size of page is 9? x 7 in., of writing 83x 32 in. At the bottom of fol. 1 is written ‘ Caroli Strozzae Thomae filii 1635.’
S, CODEX VATICANUS. Rome. Vat. Gr. 1668, saec. ? xiii. membr., 358 foll.
It is written in single column, with 29 lines in a page, the size of page being 125 Χ 88 in., and the writing hanging from ruled lines; there are quires of 8 leaves.
fol. 1—37vo. Aristeas (complete). 37v0.—358. Catena on Genesis.
On the recto of the first leaf is the note ‘ Emptus ex libris ill™ Lelii Ruini ep' Balneoregien. 1622.’
This MS. escaped notice when the other Roman MSS. were examined and has consequently not been collated in full; but some collations of selected passages kindly made by Mr N. McLean, Fellow of Christ’s College, are sufficient to show that it belongs to this group.
Z, CODEX TURICENSIS. Zurich. Stadtbibliothek C. 11 (169 Omont’s catalogue), saec. xili. bombyc., 736 pagg.!
p- 1. Aristeas.
p- 1 (=21). Catena on the Octateuch.
p- 669. Τερωνυμου επιστολὴ προς Δεἕτρον erapxov mpaitwpt απὸ ρωμαικ εἰς ελληνικα μεταβληθεισα (‘S. Hieronymi liber de viris illustribus a Sophronio graece versus,’ Omont). It is written in single column, the size of page being 13} Χο in., and the writing hangs from ruled lines. The Aristeas portion is badly preserved; a hole passes through the twenty pages which contain it, causing lacunae. There are several marginal readings, some of which are obviously conjectural (e.g. wws φιλοφρονησεσι, ισως waddov). The Jerome is not by the hand which has written the remainder of the MS. ᾿
That the above MSS. form a single group appears primarily from their omissions. The following lines are omitted by all? the
1 The greater part of this MS. was collated from the original. The collation of the last few pages has been made from photographs, for which the writer is indebted to the courtesy of the Librarian, Dr Hermann Escher.
2S omits (1), (3), and (7). It has not been tested for the other
passages. Se 33
514 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.
members of the group which are extant at the several passages referred to.
(1) 523. 9. εγκρατεις eyevovro—ka τὴν χωραν (78 letters) om
(2) 529. 11. βουλεσθαι και---δισταζειν δὲ (51 letters) om BCTZ. (3) 532. 17. απο τῆς Bacews—ropera και (48 letters) om BTZ. (4) 533. 13. θεσιν nOehkev—as αν τις (41 letters) om BTZ.
(5) 547. 12. και κακοποιουσι--τροφην adda (48 letters) om
(6) 548. 13. -ras nuepa θυσιαζειν---οἱ προσφερον- (46 letters) om
(7) 552. 13. γενοιο---τὴ περι σεαυτον (47 letters) om BPTZ. (8) 564. 25. θεου de—rois αξιοις (45 letters) om BPTZ. (9) 566. 24. ησαν yap ικανοι πρεσβεις (20 letters) om BPTZ.
Also at 533. 4 the words προς την τῆς αληθειας-- τεθεντων (48 letters) are omitted by ΤῊ 5Ζ (C and P do not contain the passage) ; but they are inserted in the margin of T, apparently by the first hand, and are found in B. These omissions show that an ancestor of the group was written by a careless scribe who dropped several lines (averaging 48 letters) of his archetype. From the last instance — quoted, and from numerous other passages, it appears that B and T bear a specially close relationship ; indeed it is conceivable that B is a copy of T, but in that case it has introduced several cor- rections of its own, not found in the parent MS.!
As to the value of the readings of this group, it appears that the ‘singular’ readings of B are in nearly all cases due to a correction of the text. Instances of these are 522. 18 the insertion of ev Aoyw before βραχει, 525. 12 eav ovy φανηται σοι ἐννομον B (eav ουν φανηται Cett., εαν ουν φαινηται Eus.). The phrases εαν φαινηται σοι and εαν φαινηται are abundantly attested by the Alexandrian papyri in petitions of subordinates to high officials, but the insertion of ἐννομὸν receives no support. Again we have 526. 13 χαριστηριον B (χαριστικον cett. Eus.), 527. 18 avdpes των τετιμημενων παρα cot Ανδρεας και Αριστεας B (Avdpeas των ter. παρα σοι και Ap. cett.: B has misunderstood the genitive), 529. 18 oa yap ws δαψίιλους ths vAns αὐτοις ovons B (ere yap emt τα τῆς ovons cett. Eus.), 538. 1 σχῆμα B (xupa=‘size’ cett.: B has removed a characteristic word of Aristeas, cf. 521. 17,567. 11). The readings of BT, where the other members of the group are opposed to them, are also generally to be rejected : e.g. 525.25 νομίσματα BT (νομίσματος cett. Eus. Jos.), 526.25 δυναμενους BT (duvarovs cett. Eus.): they have occasionally cor- rected the order of words, 551. 19 διατελοιη exwv BT (εχ. dar. cett.),
1 The divergence of the two subdivisions of the B group is seen in the difficult passage (531. 6) where BT omit the words wore καὶ τὴν των κυματων Beow, while CSZ retain them and add πεποιῆσθαι καθ o αν μερος.
Introduction to the letter of Aristeas. 515
569. 5 των ἰδιωτων tives BT (τινες τ. 10. cett.). Where however the members of the group unite as against the HKA and GI groups, the reading gains in probability, and more especially is this the case where the group has the support of either Eusebius or the GI group. Thus in 526. 2 ανασπαστους BTZGI Eus* (αναρπαστους HKA), 526. 6 mpoovras B°"TZ Eus. (παροντας cett.), 547. 7 ins και πότων PZGI Eus' (om cett.), the B reading is right. But in some places the whole group has been affected by correction. Thus in 519. 11 TSZ (the only extant members at this point) read eavrovs προεδωκαμεν εἰς TOY προειρημενον avdpa πρεσβειαν, but the reading eauTous ἐπεδωκαμεν κιτιλ. Of the other MSS. is corroborated by the usage of the papyri of the second century B.c. (Paris Pap. 49 καταπεπειραμαι...εἰς παν TO σοι χρήσιμον εμαυτον επιδιδοναι, Par. Pap. 63 col. 6 προθυμως eavrovs επιδιδοντων, Grenfell, Erotic Fragment, etc. XLII. 6 εἰς τε παν To παρανγελλομενον | rpobuplws eauTous επιδεδωκοτων).
A few instances where correction is seen at work may be quoted. At 550.10 HKAGI read παντα δυναμιν εἰπε παρεσται καθη- KovT@s, ots συγχρησησθε (-σεσθε), καμοι μεθ υμων. Παντα δυναμιν, which is clearly wrong, is corrected by BTZ to πασαν δυναμιν, by P to παντίΞξεπανθ)α δυναιμὴν ; παρεσται is further corrected by BT to mapeorava and καμοι to Kaye, corrections which give a gram- matical but hardly an intelligible sentence. The slight alteration of δ᾽ υμιν for δυναμιν (a correction which Wendland also appears to have adopted) restores sense to the passage, and the B text is seen to be due to conjecture. Similarly at 555.1 B and P have corrected in different ways the characteristic word amednvaro (‘answer’), B reading εἰπε and P amexpuaro: a little before (553. 21) B reads αποκρινεσθαι where the remaining MSS. have αποφαι- νεσθαι. At 527. 1 BTZ read τον αρχισωματοφυλακα (B at first wrote σωματοφυλακα: Tov αρχισωματοφυλακων cett.), thus removing an idiomatic use of the genitive, frequently attested by the papyri. The above instances will afford sufficient proof that a good deal of recension has gone on in this group. At the same time it is clear that in other places it has escaped the corruptions which the other groups have undergone, though it is sometimes difficult to say whether a reading of this group is primitive or due to correction. The agreement of the group with Eusebius (where his evidence exists) is, as was said, sometimes a test; but in the majority of cases the B text is not corroborated by Eusebius, and in a few instances where one or two members only of the group agree with Eusebius, this appears to be due to a fortuitous coin- cidence in emendation. Such passages are 548. 4 μυθωδως B Eus. (θυμωδως cett. incl PTZ): 527. 4 γραφε BT Eus. (γραφων cett.). In the latter instance Eusebius altered the form of the sentence by reading ypade and inserting yap after κεχαρισμενος ; in BT the change to ypade was due to κεχαρίσμενος eon having become
eR Ὁ
516 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.
corrupted to καὶ χαρισαμενος eon ; the participle γραφων is corrobo- rated by Josephus (ἐπιστέλλων περὶ ὧν ἂν θέλῃς ποιήσεις κεχα-
ρισμένα).
The extracts of Eusebius, consisting of about a quarter of the letter, are contained in the eighth and ninth books of the Praefa- ratio Evangelica (Vil. 2—5, 9, 1X. 38). The Eusebian MSS. which are to be followed in these books are, as Heikel! has shown, I (Codex Venetus Marcianus 341) and O (Codex Bononiensis 3643). The extracts from Aristeas in these two MSS. have been collated for the present text, and their evidence is quoted as Eus' and Eus’. For the other Eusebian MSS. the text of Gaisford (Oxford, 1843) has been used ; O was unknown to Gaisford, and his collation of I was incomplete. The Venice MS. by its general agreement with the Aristeas MSS. shows itself to be far the best text of Eusebius ; the Bologna MS. or one of its ancestors has been very carelessly copied, and there are numerous omissions which did not always appear worthy of record in the apparatus to the present text. With regard to the value of the Eusebian text, it may be well to quote the verdict of Freudenthal? on the general character of his extracts from earlier writers. He says, ‘Eusebius shows himself more reliable in the text (Wortlaute) of his originals than in the names and writings of the excerpted authors. It is true that he occasionally allows himself small alterations in the text, most frequently in the opening words of the extracts. He often abbreviates his originals, drops repetitions (beseitigt Doppel- glieder), omits individual words and whole sentences, and no small number of inaccuracies of other kinds are also to be met with. On the other hand it is only in extremely rare cases that he inserts additions of his own, and the cases in which we meet with funda- mental alterations of the text are still more uncommon.’ This estimate is quite borne out by the Eusebian extracts from Aristeas, where there are frequent instances of slighter alterations and omissions, which the paraphrase of Josephus often helps us to detect. Among omissions we have 520. 16 εἰ δυνατον om Eus. (ins Jos. Ar. codd.), 525. 10 καὶ πολιτευομενων om Eus. (ins Ar. codd. : Jos. however omits the words in his paraphrase, and they may be a gloss). Of alterations we may note out of numerous instances 525. 24 where the strange word ρισκοφυλακας 15 altered ἴο χρημα-
τοφυλακας (Jos. paraphrases τοὺς φύλακας τῶν κιβωτῶν, ἐν αἷς ἐτύγ-
χανον οἱ λίθοι), 526.17 επικρινων κατεστησα (a bad correction, because
1 De Praeparationis Evangelicae Eusebit edendae ratione (Helsing- forsiae, 1888).
2 Hellenistische Studien, Alexander Polyhistor (Breslau, 1875) p. 7 f. See also the note on p. 203 on Eusebius and Pseudo-Aristeas.
:
Introduction to the letter of Aritsteas. 517
the royal plural used throughout the rest of the letter of Ptolemy is dropped), 527. 24 κατα πολλοὺυς τροπους (κατα πολλους Ar. codd. ‘in many individual instances’), 572. 9 axpiBos (ηκριβωμενως Ar. codd.), 573. 2 κατα δε την aitnow (κατα de τὴν aveow Jos. Ar. codd.). In a few cases a rather longer addition is made; at 544. 22 before τῶν συγγενικων the words oute των ὑποβεβηκοτων ovre and at 546. 14 the words ἐπὶ των πολεων καὶ orxnoewv δια To σκεπαζεσθαι are probably the insertions of Eusebius; just before the last passage (546. 11) ovvtnpovvtas τας apxas kat μεσοτῆτας και TeAevTas 15 an unintelligible alteration of the correct reading καὶ συντηρουντος. Among passages where Eusebius is certainly right may be men- tioned 526. 2 ανασπαστους Eus' GIBTZ (αναρπαστους cett.), 542. 10 ἐνδεικτικως (ενδικως Ar. codd.), 547.7 the insertion of καὶ ποτῶν Eus! GIPZ, and lastly 541. 21. The readings in this passage are instructive:
(1) προς τα δι ἡμων επιζητηθεντα Eus. (2) προς δι nuov επιζητηθεντα GIMZ*. (3) προς ἡμων επιζητηθενιτα HKADFL. (4) προς δε ημων επιζητηθεντων BPTZ™.
Eusebius preserves the true text; the ra then dropped out, and while in the HKA group the reading was still further cor- rupted, in the B group sense was restored to the passage by a conjectural emendation. Passages where Eusebius and Josephus unite as against the Aristeas MSS. are 524. 18 avaypadgns (αντι- ypadns Ar.), 525. 5 τετυχηκε (rerevye Ar.), 526. ὃ omission of the negative, ἢ 528. 7 the perfect ἀπεσταλκαμεν (Jos. has the perfect πεπομφαμεν : απεστειλαμεν Ar.), 572. 20 ποιητων Jos. Eus. B (ποιη- τικων OF ποιητικως Ar. cett.); in such cases the patristic reading should generally be followed. On the whole the Eusebian evidence is of the greatest importance ; it tends to show that the GI group, especially if supported by any member of the B group, is nearest to the primitive text.
Lastly, with regard to the evidence of Josephus, he gives in the twelfth book of the Jewish Antiquities a paraphrase of about two- fifths of the letter, omitting the central portion, namely the visit to Palestine, the discourse with Eleazar and the seventy-two questions and answers. He has taken the trouble to reshape nearly every sentence, while retaining many of the characteristic words of Aristeas. Under the circumstances it is not always possible to teconstruct his text, and at some of the most difficult passages his evidence is uncertain ; in some cases the text was certainly unin- telligible to him. He is however often useful in enabling us to detect the alterations which have been introduced into the text by Eusebius or the B group. It is needless to add that Niese’s text of Josephus has been followed.
Beside the MSS. of Aristeas above mentioned the following
518 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.
are known to the present writer, which he has not had the oppor- tunity of collating: Codex Monacensis 9 (saec. xi.), quoted in Mendelssohn’s fragment of the text, Codex Atheniensis 389 (circa saec. xv., chart., foll. 328, Aristeas and Catena)!, Codex Sco- rialensis 3. 1. 6 (dated 1586, and written χειρὶ Νικολάου Τουρριανοῦ καὶ βασιλικοῦ ἀντιγραφέως, Aristeas and Catena on Genesis and Exodus)?.
The collations here given are not absolutely complete. Ita- cisms and other orthographical details have not been generally recorded, neither have all the slight omissions of the Codex O of Eusebius or of the fragment Q of Aristeas ; but.apart from these no substantial variants have, it is hoped, been omitted. The dates of the various correctors’ hands have not been accurately ascer- tained ; the symbol B!, T! has been used to denote a correction probably by the first hand or a hand nearly contemporary with the date of the MSS. B and T. Words are enclosed within daggers Τ t where the MS. reading is left in the text, although probably corrupt ; angular brackets < > denote emendations of, or insertions introduced into, the reading of the MSS. ; square brackets [ ] signify that words found in the MSS. are probably to be omitted.
1 Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς ἐθν. βιβλ. τῆς Ἑλλάδος ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου Σακκελλίωνος καὶ ᾿Αλκ. I. Σακκελίωνος (Athens, 1802).
2 E. Miller, Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs de la Bibl. de 1 Escurial (Paris, 1848).
1ΙΟ
15
20
APIZTEA= @IAOKPATEI
3 , ΄ > , \ A CLA Αξιολόγου διηγήσεως, ὦ Φιλόκρατες, περὶ τῆς γενηθείσης ἡμῖν 5 ’ ΟῚ > A Ν ἴω 5 4 > , 7] ἐντυχίας πρὸς EXealapov tov τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀρχιερέα συνεσταμένης, Ν XN Ἂς x ~ ~ » 7 ε ᾽ὔ διὰ τὸ σὲ περὶ πολλοῦ πεποιῆσθαι, παρ᾽ ἕκαστα ΤὐπομιμνήσκωνΎ, an es > , , a συνακοῦσαι περὶ ὧν ἀπεστάλημεν καὶ διὰ TL, πεπείραμαι σαφῶς 5» ’ὔ Ν Ν a Ὁ if i , ἐκθέσθαι cor, κατειληφὼς ἣν ἔχεις φιλομαθῆ διάθεσιν, ὅπερ μέ- Ὑιστον ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ, ΠΡ ἀεί τι καὶ ροσλαμβώμει, ἤτοι κατὰ τὰς ἱστορίας, ἢ καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα Tei pan aa οὕτω yap κατασκευάζεται ψυχῆς καθαρὰ διάθεσις, ἀναλαβοῦσα τὰ / ‘\ ‘\ Ν ἊΝ 3 κάλλιστα' καὶ πρὸς τὸ πάντων κυριώτατον νενευκυῖα, τὴν εὐσέβειαν, 3 a , a \ ΄, » ἀπλανεῖ κεχρημένη κανόνι διοικεῖ τὴν προαίρεσιν. ἔχοντες ε nw οἷ , r nw ’, ἡμεῖς πρὸς τὸ περιέργως τὰ θεῖα κατανοεῖν, ἑαυτοὺς ἐπεδώκαμεν εἰς Ν , ΝΜ / , Ν Su TOV προειρημένον ἄνδρα πρεσβείαν, καλοκαγαθίᾳ καὶ δόξῃ προτε- ΄ὕ A a A ΄ὕ τιμημένον ὑπό τε τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, καὶ κατακεκτημένον , > , “ aN ε ἘΞ \ a κ \ ” μεγίστην ὠφέλειαν τοῖς σὺν ἑαυτῷ καὶ τοῖς κατὰ τοὺς ἀλλους / {A Ν ΝΣ ec / A » / ἣν \ / τόπους πολίταις, πρὸς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ θείου νόμου, διὰ TO yeypa- a) 3 > a 3 ὃ , ε - a / ἃ ἈΝ Ν φθαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐν διφθέραις ἑβραϊκοῖς γράμμασιν. ἣν δὴ καὶ 3 ie ε “ a / \ ᾿ς Ν /, Ν ἐποιησάμεθα ἡμεῖς σπουδῇ. λαβόντες καιρὸν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα περὶ A U “ Ν A τῶν μετοικισθέντων εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἐκ τῆς Ιουδαίας ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς A , , , / M3 ἣν Ν Ν Ν τοῦ βασιλέως, πρώτως κεκτημένου τήν τε πόλιν καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὴν vo Ν “ ΜΔ A Αἴγυπτον παρειληφότος. "Δέιόν ἐστι καὶ ταῦτά σοι δηλῶσαι. 7 ρειλη / ΄“- ΄, Ἂν Ν ,ὔ πέπεισμαι γάρ, σὲ μᾶλλον ἔχοντα πρόσκλισιν πρὸς τὴν σεμνότητα, \ A 3 a Ny \ καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων διάθεσιν τῶν κατὰ τὴν σεμνὴν νομο-
, / Ν = , la 3 ΄, θεσίαν διεξαγόντων, πέρι ων προαιρούμεθα «δηλοῦν, ασμενὼς σε:-
2 εὐτυχιας GZ | συνισταμενῆς T 3 λυπομιμνησκοντα (sed -σκων codd omn) 4 wy] ov Καὶ 6 προσμανθανοντι Ζ = =T om και] | κατ αὐτο] κατα ταυτο HKAGI πεπειραμενων HKGIT 8 διαθεσις καθ. Καὶ 9 κυριω- τερον Καὶ 11 προεδωκ. TZ 12 rere. TZ 13 κατεκτημ. HAI κατακτ. G txt KTZ 16 αὐτου T 19 om ta TZ 21 προσκλησιν codd 23 δηλουντες μεν ws σε codd, txt ex conj Schmidt
HKAGITZ
8 Jos Eus 0
HKAGIQ TZ Jos Eus
520 APISTEAS
3 ’ ied 4 oA ἀκούσεσθαι, προσφάτως παραγεγενημένον ἐκ τῆς νήσου πρὸς ε lal Ν 7 7 Ν A“ ἡμᾶς, καὶ βουλόμενον συνακούειν ὅσα πρὸς ἐπισκευὴν ψυχῆς ε ΄ Ν ΄ δὲ ὃ ΄, Ν τ 4 ὑπάρχει. καὶ πρότερον δὲ διεπεμψάμην σοι, περὶ ὧν ἐνόμιζον > , > Ν 3 ΄ ἃ λά Ν al ἀξιομνημονεύτων εἶναι τὴν ἀναγραφήν, ἣν μετελάβομεν παρὰ τῶν Ἀ “ κατὰ τὴν λογιωτάτην Αἴγυπτον λογιωτάτων ἀρχιερέων περὶ τοῦ / A 3 ὃ ΄, A Ν 5» ΄, Ν a ὃ γένους τῶν Ιουδαίων. φιλομαθῶς γὰρ ἔχοντί σοι περὶ τῶν δυνα- / 3 λῃ / 7, 3 Ν ΄ ΄ Ν A μένων ὠφελῆσαι διάνοιαν δέον ἐστὶ μεταδιδόναι, μάλιστα μὲν πᾶσι a ε ,ὔ a Ν A \ ΄ 3, Ν σ 3 τοῖς ὁμοίοις, πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον σοὶ γνησίαν ἔχοντι τὴν αἵρεσιν, οὐ / Ν Ν Ν 3 A a Ν / 5 Ν ψ a μόνον κατὰ τὸ συγγενὲς ἀδελφῷ καθεστώτι τὸν τρόπον, ἀλλὰ Kal TH \ \ a ¥ an A ‘ a πρὸς τὸ καλὸν ὁρμῇ τὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα ἡμῖν. χρυσοῦ yap χάρις ἢ ’, ” ad s Ν a / > ΄ κατασκευή τις ἀλλὴ τῶν τετιμημένων παρὰ τοῖς κενοδόξοις ὠφέλειαν 3 4 \ > ΄ μέ ε ,ὔ > Ν Ν ε \ ΔΕ οὐκ ἔχει τὴν αὐτήν, ὅσον ἢ παιδείας ἀγωγὴ καὶ ἡ περὶ τούτων / 7 Ν Ν Ν “~ ΄ὔ ΄ 3 / / φροντίς. ἵνα δὲ μὴ περὶ TOV προλεγομένων μηκύνοντες ἀδόλεσχόν Ν Ν Ν lal / , τι ποιῶμεν, ἐπὶ TO συνεχὲς τῆς διηγήσεως ἐπανήξομεν.
᾿ Κατασταθεὶς ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως βιβλιοθήκης Δημήτριος 6 Φαληρεὺς ἐχρηματίσθη πολλὰ διάφορα πρὸς τὸ συναγαγεῖν, εἰ δυνατόν, ἅπαντα τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην βιβλία: καὶ ποιούμενος 3 \ Ν Ν a's / μὰ g 26 a \ ἀγορασμοὺς καὶ μεταγραφὰς ἐπὶ τέλος ἤγαγεν, OTOV Eh ἑαυτῷ, τὴν
“- 7 , , > ε A > / / τοῦ βασιλέως πρόθεσιν. παρόντων οὖν ἡμῶν ἐρωτηθείς Πόσαι
Ν 7 ΄, ΄ φ «ε Ν Ν » τινὲς μυριάδες τυγχάνουσι βιβλίων; εἶπεν Ὑπὲρ τὰς εἴκοσι, βασιλεῦ: σπουδάσω δ᾽ ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ πρὸς τὸ πληρωθῆναι πεντή-
γῳ χρόνῳ πρ po 7 4 \ ΄ ΄ / Ν a? ΄ κοντα μυριάδας τὰ λοιπά. προσαγγέλλεται δέ μοι καὶ τῶν Ιουδαίων νόμιμα μεταγραφῆς ἀξια καὶ τῆς παρὰ σοὶ βιβλιοθήκης εἶναι. Τί τὸ κωλῦον οὖν, εἶπεν, ἐστί σε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι: πάντα γὰρ ὑποτέ- τακταί σοι τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν. 6 δὲ Δημήτριος εἶπεν ε / a“ al Ν 297 Ν \ 2 / Eppnveias προσδεῖται. χαρακτῆρσι yap ἰδίοις κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίων χρῶνται, καθάπερ Αἰγύπτιοι τῇ τῶν γραμμάτων θέσει, καθὸ καὶ
A ἰδί 5, ε ny ͵ὕ ww ~ ΄ 6 A δ᾽ φωνὴν ἰδίαν ἔχουσιν. ὑπολαμβάνονται Συριακῇ χρῆσθαι: τὸ
3 διεπεμψ,. σοι] διεπεμψαμεθα G 6 σοι] μοι conj Schmidt 7 μα- λιστα] μαλλον ἃ 8 γνησιως G 12 παιδεια αὐτὴ G παιδειας diay. I 14 ποιουμεν Z παθωμεν Git | επανηξωμεν Καὶ 16 om εἰ δυνατον Eus 19 οὖν ins Eus om Ar codd 21 σπουδασω Eus πληρώσω Ar 22 προσ-
nyyeATat Eus | των] pr 7a Eus 24 εστι ce] avta G | ἀαποτετακται Eus 28 υπολαμβανονται] -- de Eus
15
25
»-
190
15
20
25
30
ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 521
33 Ὁ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερος τρόπος. Μεταλαβὼν δὲ ἕκαστα ὃ βασιλεὺς a“ Ν ΄, a > od εἶπε γραφῆναι πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιερέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅπως τὰ προειρημένα Ι \ 53 Ξε τελείωσιν λάβη.“ Νομίσας δὲ ἐγὼ καιρὸν εἶναι περὶ ὧν πολ- ΄ὔ ’, ~ 4 λάκις ἠξιώκειν Σωσίβιόν τε τὸν Ταραντῖνον καὶ ᾿Ανδρέαν, τοὺς “ ’ ~ ἀρχισωματοφύλακας, περὶ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως TOV μετηγμένων ἐκ lal > rd ε Ἀ “): Ν cal /, > “ Ν > Ν τῆς Ἰουδαίας ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως---ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἐπελθὼν Ν Ν ’ὔ ’ Ν ’ hd , > / τὰ κατὰ κοίλην Συρίαν καὶ Φοινίκην ἅπαντα, συγχρώμενος εὐημερίᾳ Ν 3 ᾿ , Ν Ν ’ὔ a ar > , id / μετὰ ἀνδρείας, τοὺς μὲν μετῴκιζεν, οὗς δὲ ἡἠχμαλώτιζε, φόβῳ πάντα ΄α΄ a“ an ὑποχείρια ποιούμενος - ἐν Gow Kal πρὸς δέκα μυριάδας ἐκ τῆς τών Ἴ : ΄, ΄ 3 AZ ΄, 9158 ε \ a. Τὰ ουδαίων χώρας εἰς Αἴγυπτον μετήγαγεν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ὡσεὶ τρεῖς μυριάδας “~ A 4 ΄“ καθοπλίσας ἀνδρῶν ἐκλεκτῶν εἰς τὴν χώραν κατῴκισεν ἐν τοῖς / ΒΞ Ὑ Ν Ν / ε had 3 / \ lad φρουρίοις. ἤδη μὲν καὶ πρότερον ἱκανῶν εἰσεληλυθότων σὺν τῷ Ν 7 A Πέρσῃ, καὶ πρὸ τούτων ἑτέρων συμμαχιῶν ἐξαπεσταλμένων πρὸς Ν a 3 4 / / Ν ΄, 3 3 3 τὸν τῶν Αἰθιόπων βασιλέα μάχεσθαι σὺν Ψαμμιτίχῳ: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ A -“ , / 7 ων ε A τοσοῦτοι τῷ πλήθει παρεγενήθησαν, ὅσους Τ]τολεμαῖος ὃ τοῦ ’ὔ / ‘ Ν 4 > / Ἀ 5 6 Λάγου petyyaye’ καθὼς δὲ προείπομεν, ἐπιλέξας τοὺς ἀρίστους lal ε 4 Ν Ὅν. 4 ’ Ν Ν Ν ’ ταῖς ἡλικίαις καὶ ῥώμῃ διαφέροντας καθώπλισε, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν χύμα lal Ν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ νεωτέρων, ἔτι δὲ γυναικῶν, εἴασεν εἰς τὴν οἰκετίαν, a ~ ε οὐχ οὕτως τῇ προαιρέσει κατὰ ψυχὴν ἔχων, ὡς κατακρατούμενος an A \ “- “ ὑπὸ τῶν στρατιωτῶν, du ἃς ἐπεποίηντο χρείας ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς ἴω « ~ 7 > “ ἀγῶσιν---ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐπεί τινα παρεύρεσιν εἰς τὴν ἀπόλυσιν αὐτῶν ἧς ’, ἀπελάβομεν, καθὼς προδεδήλωται, τοιούτοις ἐχρησάμεθα λόγοις ’ὔ ’ ” > ΕἸ ve πρὸς Tov βασιλέα Μήποτε ἄλογον ἢ ἐλέγχεσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν an , Ss ἴω a an τῶν πραγμάτων, ὦ βασιλεῦ. τῆς yap νομοθεσίας κειμένης πᾶσι ὅν, Ἢ ,ὔ ἃ ¢ “- > 4 4 > “ 3 Ν Ν τοῖς Ιουδαίοις, ἣν ἡμεῖς οὐ μόνον μεταγράψαι ἐπινοοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ “ / a 3 ΄ διερμηνεῦσαι, τίνα λόγον ἕξομεν πρὸς ἀποστολήν, ἐν οἰκετίαις “ “a ~ “ 2 \ ὑπαρχόντων ἐν TH σῇ βασιλείᾳ πληθῶν ἱκανῶν ; ἀλλὰ τελείᾳ καὶ - 3 / N πλουσίᾳ ψυχῇ ἀπόλυσον τοὺς συνεχομένους ἐν ταλαιπωρίαις, ΄, ΄ \ , , 9 = ~ ᾿ κατευθύνοντός σου τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ τεθεικότος αὐτοῖς θεοῦ τὸν
/ \ ’ Ν , / , νόμον, καθὼς περιείργασμαι. τὸν γὰρ πάντων ἐπόπτην καὶ κτίστην
4 niwoa συνεχως τους περι τον Tap. G 5 σωματοφυλακας A | εκ] απο TZ 8 μετοικ. Z | ovs] τους Grid 11 εκλελεγμενων T | κατελιπεν ἃ 12 wev]+ouv I | cxavws H | συνεληλ. Z | om σὺν T 14 Αιθ.] Αιγυπτιων T 15 τω πληθ. om TZ 18 vewr. και πρεσβ. I δε7- και Καὶ 21 επει] επι ΑΙ 26 ικετειαις Καὶ 28 απολυσας G 29 σου] σοι ΤΖ
«“ Eus
:ο
HKAGIQ TZ Jos
8 Β
522 APISTEAS
\ © / a Ν ΄ ε lal / a“ , θεὸν οὗτοι σέβονται, ὃν καὶ πάντες, ἡμεῖς δέ, βασιλεῦ, προσονομά- “-“ ‘ / “ > 3 An ζοντες ἑτέρως Ζῆνα καὶ Δία’ τοῦτο δ᾽ οὐκ ἀνοικείως οἱ πρῶτοι « ~ / nw διεσήμαναν, dv ὃν ζωοποιοῦνται τὰ πάντα καὶ γίνεται, τοῦτον ε / c “ ’ὔ Ν / ε Ν Ν 4, > ’ ἁπάντων ἡγεῖσθαί τε καὶ κυριεύειν. ὑπερηρκὼς δὲ σύμπαντας ἀνθρώ- ~ ~ ~ ’ὔ’ - a mous τῇ λαμπρότητι τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπόλυσιν ποίησαι TOV ἐνεχομένων A ΄ ΄ Ν ς Ν ταῖς οἰκετίαις. Οὐδὲ πολὺν χρόνον ἐπισχών, καὶ ἡμῶν κατὰ ~~ ’ ψυχὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐχομένων, τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτοῦ κατασκευάσαι Ν Ν Ν bi 3 “-“ , Ν x “ Ν / πρὸς TO τοὺς ἅπαντας ἀπολυθῆναι (κτίσμα yap dv θεοῦ τὸ γένος “ 3 ΄ ἴω > “ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ μεταλλοιοῦται καὶ τρέπεται πάλιν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ" Ν Lal Ν / 5 4 Ν 4 Ν διὸ πολλαχῶς καὶ ποικίλως ἐπεκαλούμην τὸν κυριεύοντα κατὰ ’ 7 ~ A » 4 ΕῚ 4 ,ὔ καρδίαν, ἵνα συναναγκασθῇ, καθὼς ἠξίουν, ἐπιτελέσαι: μεγάλην X > 3 ὃ Ν , § > , θέ λό Ψ γὰρ εἶχον ἐλπίδα περὶ σωτηρίας " ἀνθρώπων, προτιθέμενος λόγον, ὅτι \ 3 ΄ ε x ΄ A 3 7 ἃ \ \ : τὴν ἐπιτέλειαν 6 θεὸς ποιήσει TOV ἀξιουμένων: ὃ yap πρὸς δικαιο- ΄ Ἂς a 3, > / > ε ΄ / »” σύνην καὶ καλῶν ἔργων ἐπιμέλειαν ἐν ὁσιότητι νομίζουσιν ἄνθρωποι “A 4 Ν / Ν Ν > Ν c "¢ ε , ποιεῖν, κατευθύνει τὰς πράξεις Kal τὰς ἐπιβολὰς ὃ κυριεύων ἁπάντων ΄, - an / / θεός), ὃ δὲ διανακύψας καὶ προσβλέψας ἱλαρῷ τῷ προσώπῳ Πόσας Ν > ὑπολαμβάνεις μυριάδας ἔσεσθαι; ἔφη. παρεστὼς δὲ ᾿Ανδρέας ΄ “- cal /, > ἀπεφήνατο Βραχεῖ πλεῖον μυριάδων δέκα. 6 δέ, Μικρόν ye, εἶπεν, 3 7, δ... ὧς > a A τ' f ‘ Ν δ" ΄ Ἀριστέας ἡμᾶς ἀξιοῖ πρᾶγμα. Σωσίβιος δὲ καὶ τῶν παρόντων Ν a > > 5 Ν 4 / > “ ~~ 4 9g τινὲς τοῦτ᾽ εἶπον Kai yap ἀξιόν ἐστι τῆς TAS μεγαλοψυχίας, ὅπως
- ΄ A “- -“ , χαριστήριον ἀναθῇ τῷ μεγίστῳ θεῷ τὴν τούτων ἀπόλυσιν. μεγίστως
HKAGIBT Z Jos
“~ ~ Ν rd γὰρ τετιμημένος ὑπὸ τοῦ κρατοῦντος τὰ πάντα καὶ δεδοξασμένος \ ’ὔ \ a 4 - / ὑπὲρ TOUS προγόνους, εἰ καὶ μέγιστα ποιήσεις χαριστήρια, καθῆκόν ’, Ν > lal > lal ἐστί σοι. Διαχυθεὶς δὲ εὖ μάλα τοῖς ὀψωνίοις εἶπε προσθεῖναι, Ν ’ὔ Ν Ν ’ καὶ σώματος ἑκάστου κομίζεσθαι δραχμὰς εἴκοσι, καὶ περὶ τούτων 3 a / Ν Ν > με a 3 “ἢ ἐκθεῖναι πρόσταγμα, τὰς δὲ ἀπογραφὰς ποιεῖσθαι παρ᾽ αὐτά, ΔΛ “ “ “-“ lal , μεγαλείως χρησάμενος TH προθυμίᾳ, τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν πᾶσαν ἐπιτελέ- a ‘ Ν a σαντος ἡμῶν προαίρεσιν, καὶ συναναγκάσαντος αὐτὸν ἀπολυτρῶσαι
1) μόνο ὺ ληλυθό D ὃ D πατρός. ἀλλὰ καὶ μὴ μόνον τοὺς συνεληλυθότας τῷ στρατοπέδῳ τοῦ πατρός, ὰ
1 w βασιλευ TZ 2 erepws Ar codd] ετυμως hic hab Jos sed fort pro οὐκ ανοικειως | (nva* (al ζην᾽ a) και δια Touro ὃ codd (6 om T) 3 τουτων Z 5 amon. ποι. αποποιησαι I 6 ικετιαις I 8 ov] wy Z 12 om yap
TZ | νυποτιθεμενος B* (προστιθ. Bor) | ore Z 13 δικαιοσ.} eXenuoovvny ἃ 15 βουλας B επιβουλ. T 16 διακυψας A ανακυψας G 18 Βραχει] pr ev Noyw B βραχυ K | evdexa Jos 19 aiwG 24 εφηὴ Β 25 dpayyas I
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
®IAOKPATEI. 523
” a ED! \ A , 6 > Ν 7 εἴ τινες προῆσαν, ἢ μετὰ ταῦτα παρεισήχθησαν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν. ce Ν \ / 14 ΝΣ / > / > Ν ~ ὑπὲρ Ta τετρακόσια τάλαντα THY δόσιν ἀπέφαινον εἶναι. Kal TOD \ ΄, 4 μὰ προστάγματος δὲ τὸ ἀντίγραφον οὐκ ἄχρηστον οἴομαι κατακε- Ἅ “ Ν c / / ἈΝ ΜᾺ χωρίσθαι. πολλῷ γὰρ ἢ μεγαλομοιρία φανερωτέρα καὶ εὐδηλος δ lal A lal 4, 3. ἔφ, \ ’ ἔσται τοῦ βασιλέως, τοῦ θεοῦ κατισχύοντος αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ σωτηρίαν “ > “ “a , ΄ γενέσθαι πλήθεσιν ἱκανοῖς. ἦν δὲ τοιοῦτο τοῦ βασιλέως προσταξαν- ν ~ an Ν ε a Ἀ τος Οσοι τῶν συνεστρατευμένων τῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν εἰς τοὺς κατὰ ΄, Ν , / 5 4 Ν a > / / Συρίαν καὶ Φοινίκην τόπους ἐπελθόντες τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων χώραν κα ΄ > oA N A , »” ἐγκρατεῖς ἐγένοντο σωμάτων ᾿Ἰουδαϊκῶν καὶ ταῦτα διακεκομίκασιν εἴς Ν ’ὔ ἃ, \ / Xv \ / ε Ζ' 4, ’, Ν Ν τε τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὴν χώραν ἢ καὶ πεπράκασιν ἕτέροις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ μι “ ‘\ ἈΝ a / v3 ~ εἴ τινες προῆσαν ἢ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσιν εἰσηγμένοι τῶν τοιούτων, 9 “-“ » / , , ἀπολύειν παρὰ χρῆμα τοὺς ἔχοντας, κομιζομένους αὐτίκα ἑκάστου ’ὔ \ , wn ~ 2 , σώματος δραχμὰς εἴκοσι, TOUS μὲν στρατιώτας TH τῶν οψωνίων δό Ν Ν Ν Ἂν εἰ ἂν a r “~ / ΄,ὔ ὄσει, τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλικῆς τραπέζης. νομίζομεν wn c “ ’ Ν Ν Ν “A yap καὶ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν βούλησιν Kai παρὰ τὸ καλῶς ΝΜ 5 wn ’ὔὕ Χ XN / ἔχον ἠχμαλωτεῦσθαι τούτους, διὰ δὲ THY στρατιωτικὴν προπέτειαν / , > A / Ν Ν “-“ > ’ὔ Ν τήν τε χώραν αὐτῶν κατεφθάρθαι καὶ τὴν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων μεταγωγὴν \ Δ 2 Ν > ε Ν ΄ς ’ὔ εἰς τὴν Αἴγυπτον γεγονέναι: ἱκανὴ yap ἣν ἡ παρὰ τὸ πεδίον 4 na A Ε] / \ a > / γεγονυῖα ἐκ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ὠφέλεια: διὸ παντελῶς ἀνεπιεικής ε A , 7 nw 3 5 ¢ ἊΝ ἐστι καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καταδυναστεία. πᾶσιν οὖν ἀνθρώποις τὸ / > Δ / A Ν “ A > / δίκαιον ἀπονέμειν ὁμολογούμενοι, πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον τοῖς ἀλόγως 7 An ~ Ν “ ” / καταδυναστευομένοις, Kal κατὰ πᾶν ἐκζητοῦντες TO καλώς ἔχον πρός ἣν ’ / / 7 TE TO δίκαιον καὶ THY κατὰ πάντων εὐσέβειαν, προστετάχαμεν ὅσα ~ -“— A / ’ὔ “ 3. Ὁ la) τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν ἐστι σωμάτων ἐν οἰκετίαις «πανταχῆ:- καθ᾽ ὃντινοῦν ’, a ,ὔ , Ν ᾿ \ / τρόπον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ, κομιζομένους τοὺς ἔχοντας TO προκείμενον /, > / ἣν fg , Ν 4 Ν κεφάλαιον ἀπολύειν, καὶ μηδένα κακοσχόλως περὶ τούτων μηδὲν 3 a Ν 3 3 Ν 3 Cis ish ,ὕ 2 se Ch οἰκονομεῖν: τὰς 6 amtoypadas ἐν ἡμέραις τρισίν, ah ἧς ἡμέρας ~ Ν , “ Ἂς ᾿ς / ἈΝ ἐκκεῖται τὸ πρόσταγμα, ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς τοὺς καθεσταμένους περὶ
2 ὑπερ] Fort deperiit aliquid ante hoc verbum | τριάκοσια TB (τὴ 3 κατακεχωρισθαι ΒΤ 4 Z (-ησθαι)}] κατακεχωρισται cett 9 εγκρατει---- τὴν xwpav 10 om BTZ 12 κομιζομενου T 13 dpayuas BTZ | τους} -Ἐ exovras BTZ 17 om των BTZ 21 ομολογουμενως HKAGIT* vid
-μενοις ZT Vid txt ex corr Schmidt 23 παντα B 24 εστι]- των HAGI | οἰκεταις TZ [|πανταχὴ ex conj] παντι μὴ HKAITZ παντα μὴ G παντι B| ovtwa ουν KBT 28 κατεσταμενους HKATZ κατεσταλμ.
GI
HKAGIBT
Z Jos
8 Eus
HKAGIBT Z Jos Eus
524 APISTEAS
4 ’, > Ν Ν Ν / , Ν \ τούτων, καταδεικνύντας εὐθὺ καὶ TA σώματα. διειλήφαμεν yap καὶ -“ cal ~ 3 ~ ἈΝ ἡμῖν συμφέρειν καὶ τοῖς πράγμασι τοῦτ᾽ ἐπιτελεσθῆναι. τὸν δὲ ,ὔ » Ν “ Ε] ’ὔ 5 9 Φ lal / βουλόμενον προσαγγέλλειν περὶ τῶν ἀπειθησάντων, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τοῦ φανέν- "6 a Tos ἐνόχου τὴν κυρίαν ἕξειν: τὰ δὲ ὑπάρχοντα τῶν τοιούτων εἰς ΄, A ΄ τὸ βασιλικὸν ἀναληφθήσεται. Εἰσδοθέντος τοῦ προσταγ- σ΄ > - cal “ ἈΝ >” ’ὔ’ > »” patos, ὅπως ἐπαναγνωσθῇ τῷ βασιλεῖ, τὰ ἀλλα πάντ᾽ ἔχοντος -“ A xX a , πλὴν τοῦ Kat εἴ τινες προῆσαν ἢ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσηγμένοι εἶσι lal a Ν # τῶν τοιούτων, αὐτὸ τοῦτο 6 βασιλεὺς προσέθηκε, μεγαλομοιρίᾳ \ ͵ὕ / > / 4 - ΄ , καὶ μεγαλοψυχίᾳ χρησάμενος, ἐκέλευσέ τε τῶν διαφόρων δόσιν > -“ ~ ΄ ἀθρόαν οὖσαν ἀπομερίσαι τοῖς ὑπηρέταις τῶν ταγμάτων καὶ βασι- » ~ ¢ εἾ e -“ λικοῖς τραπεζίταις. οὕτω δοχθὲν ἐκεκύρωτο ἐν ἡμέραις ἑπτά" πλεῖον Ν , ε , ee / ε , 2 4 Ν Ν Ν δὲ ταλάντων ἑξακοσίων ἑξήκοντα ἡ δόσις ἐγεγόνει. πολλὰ γὰρ καὶ τῶν ἐπιμαστιδίων τέκνων σὺν ταῖς μητράσιν ἐλευθεροῦντο. προσαν- ΄’ὔ a ενεχθέντος εἰ καὶ περὶ τούτων εἴκοσα δραχμία δοθήσεται, Kal τοῦτ᾽ Bia oe ε \ ~ ε a Ν a / 9 ? ἐκέλευσεν ὃ βασιλεὺς ποιεῖν, ὁλοσχερῶς περὶ τοῦ δόξαντος ἅπαντ ἐπιτελῶν. ~ / Lal Ὡς δὲ κατεπράχθη ταῦτα, τὸν Δημήτριον ἐκέλευσεν εἰσδοῦναι περὶ τῆς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶν βιβλίων ἀναγραφῆς. πάντα γὰρ διὰ / Ν / 3 / - A ͵ προσταγμάτων καὶ μεγάλης ἀσφαλείας τοῖς βασιλεῦσι τούτοις 5 a Ν ὑδὲ 3 ,ὕ ὑδ᾽ > “~ ὃ / \ A a LWKELTO, καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπερριμμένως οὐδ᾽ εἰκῇ. διόπερ καὶ TO τῆς εἰσδόσεως καὶ τὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν ἀντίγραφα κατακεχώρικα, καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀπεσταλμένων πλῆθος καὶ τὴν ἑκάστου κατασκευήν, διὰ τὸ / Ν / / - 3 - cal Q ΕἸ ,ὔ μεγαλομοιρίᾳ καὶ τέχνῃ διαφέρειν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν. τῆς δὲ εἰσδό- σεώς ἐ ἱντίγραφον τόδε Βασιλεῖ LA ὰ A f ς ἐστιν ἀντίγρ τ ασιλεῖ μεγάλῳ παρὰ Δημητρίου. 4 ¢ / “ Ν “a 3 3 XN , προστάξαντός σου, βασιλεῦ, περὶ τῶν ἀπολιπόντων εἰς τὴν συμπλή- A / 7 “» ρωσιν τῆς βιβλιοθήκης βιβλίων, ὅπως ἐπισυναχθῇ, καὶ τὰ διαπεπ-
τωκότα τύχῃ τῆς προσηκούσης ἐπισκευῆς, πεποιημένος οὐ παρέργως
3 ep ὦ ex conj (cf 3 Macc 338)] εφη codd εφην Ivid 5 εἰσδοθεντος] +ov Β 7 exaK | y] εἰ GIZ 10 ovcavy]+doow Β 11 πλείων TZ 12 εξηκ. kat τετρακοσ. Jos 13 ηλευθ. B 15 ολοσχ. ποι. o B. B 17 τω Δημήητριω BT | εκδουναι Eus' et Joscoddalia 18 avaypadys Jos et Eus] αντιγραφης Ar codd omn 19 acdaX.] ακριβειας Eus 20 dtwxnTo Ar codd txt Eus (διωκειται Eus°) | καὶ 1°] ins Eus om Ar [τὸ Eus] τα Ar 21 exdocews BTZ Eus‘odd alia 24 avriypagov (-φα B) ectw ovrws BT 25 mpooreraxoros Eus® | ἀαπολειῴθεντων Eus 26 rys]+ δια Eus°
10
15
20
25
®IAOKPATEI. 525
X > , > , /, / A Ψ τὴν ἐν τούτοις ἐπιμέλειαν, προσαναφέρω σοι τάδε. τοῦ νόμου A Ν Ν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων βιβλία σὺν ἑτέροις ὀλίγοις τισὶν ἀπολείπει" τυγχάνει XA ε “ na / Ν ~ δ / > λέ δέ Ν γὰρ Ἕ βραϊκοῖς γράμμασι καὶ φωνῇ λεγόμενα, ἀμελέστερον δέ, καὶ ’ -“" / οὐχ ὡς ὑπάρχει, σεσήμανται, καθὼς ὑπὸ Tov εἰδότων προσανα- ΄ ’ Ν a > ’ὔ ΄ Pn 9 \ φέρεται: προνοίας yap βασιλικῆς ov τέτευχε. δέον δέ ἐστι Kal Ay ε / , A Ν Ν ‘\ , ταῦθ᾽ ὑπάρχειν παρά σοι διηκριβωμένα, διὰ τὸ Kai φιλοσοφωτέραν > Ἄν: Σ ὦ ἮΝ, 4 , € Ἂ > ,ὔ Ν εἶναι καὶ ἀκέραιον τὴν νομοθεσίαν ταύτην, ὡς ἂν οὖσαν θείαν. διὸ 7 na Ν \ Ν A -" πόρρω γεγόνασιν οἵ τε συγγραφεῖς καὶ ποιηταὶ καὶ τὸ τῶν ἱστορικῶν A “- ΄“ ΄, Ν -“ πλῆθος τῆς ἐπιμνήσεως τῶν προειρημένων βιβλίων, καὶ τῶν κατ᾽ A ἈΝ / αὐτὰ πεπολιτευμένων καὶ πολιτευομένων ἀνδρῶν, διὰ τὸ ἁγνήν τινα Ν Ν > Ν > 3 “ θ ΄ -“ ε “- ε καὶ σεμνὴν εἶναι τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς θεωρίαν, ws φησιν Ἑκαταῖος 6 3 3 A , \ Αβδηρίτης. ἐὰν οὖν φαίνηται, βασιλεῦ, γραφήσεται πρὸς τὸν 5 / Ν > ε 4 > ~ Ν 4 “ ἀρχιερέα τὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις, ἀποστεῖλαι τοὺς μάλιστα καλῶς » " A x βεβιωκότας καὶ πρεσβυτέρους ὄντας avdpas, ἐμπείρους τῶν κατὰ Ν ’ Ν ε al Sees Cees a Ψ Ψ Ν ΄ > TOV νόμον TOV ἑαυτῶν, ab ἑκάστης φυλῆς ἕξ, ὅπως TO σύμφωνον ἐκ a / > / \ ’ Ν \ Ν ε / Tov πλειόνων ἐξετάσαντες καὶ λαβόντες TO κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν - “ a / ~ ἀκριβές, ἀξίως καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων Kal τῆς σῆς προαιρέσεως, θῶμεν ΕΥ̓ κα δι. Ἂς, , a Ν 3 4 , εὐσήμως. εὐτύχει διὰ παντός. Τῆς δὲ εἰσδόσεως ταύτης γενο- ‘ ~ QA > μένης, ἐκέλευσεν ὃ βασιλεὺς γραφῆναι πρὸς τὸν EAedlapov περὶ “ τούτων, σημάναντας καὶ τὴν γενομένην ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν αἰἶχμα- ΄ Ν ~ λώτων. ἔδωκε δὲ καὶ εἰς κατασκευὴν κρατήρων τε Kal φιαλῶν Kat τραπέζης καὶ σπονδείων χρυσίου μὲν ὁλκῆς τάλαντα πεντήκοντα καὶ ἀργυρίου τάλαντα ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ λίθων ἱκανόν τι πλῆθος. > , Ν \ ε ip “ , = xX a ἐκέλευσε δὲ τοὺς ῥισκοφύλακας τοῖς τεχνίταις, ὧν ἂν προαιρῶνται, 4 Ν / τὴν ἐκλογὴν διδόναι, Kat νομίσματος eis θυσίας καὶ ἄλλα πρὸς
/ ε / ΄ £ Ν na a ε xv τάλαντα ἑκατόν. δηλώσομεν δέ σοι περι τῆς κατασκευῆς, WS ἂν
τὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν ἀντίγραφα διέλθωμεν. ἦν δὲ ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπιστολὴ τὸν τύπον ἔχουσα τοῦτον Βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος
1 εν] emt H | rade] τα de cum seqq conj Ar Eus 5 reruxnxe Jos Eus | eve Eus 10 avras Ar et Eusi®. Fort βιβλων supra legendum | κάι πολιτευομενων om Eus et Josvid 11 om φησιν Eusi 12 om ovy Eus? | φαιν. Eus] φανηται Ar codd φανηται σοι ἐεννομον B 14 om οντας Eus 15 ag Jos Eus] e¢ HAGIBT 18 exdocews Eus! 20 σημαναντα Ar txt Eus et Jos¥i4 (δηλουνταΞς) | γεναμενην GBYITZ 23 ικανων I καλον Eus' 24 χρηματοφυλ. Eus | om ros Eus' | om αν BTZ | προαιρουνται B
25 νομισματα B txt codd cett Eus Jos
HKAGIBT Z Jos Eus
HKAGIBT Z Jos Eus
526 APISTEAS
> , 9 ~ , a n~ 3 Ν ’ / Edealapw ἀρχιερεῖ χαίρειν καὶ ἐρρῶσθαι. ἐπεὶ συμβαίνει πλείονας ων ἃ ΄ 9 \ ε ΄ ΄ ΄ , > τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν χώραν κατῳκίσθαι γενηθέντας ava- / 3 A ε , «ες Ν “ > a 5 ΄ σπάστους ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ὑπὸ Περσῶν, καθ᾽ ὃν ἐπεκράτουν ’ὔ »Μ Ν A / “ ν ε ~ ΕῚ ἈΝ » χρόνον, ἔτι δὲ Kal συνεληλυθέναι τῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν εἰς THY Αἴγυπτον ΕἸ , 3 > - ,ὔ 5 Ν Ν ’ὔὕ αἰχμαλώτους,-- - ἀφ᾽ ὧν πλείονας εἰς τὸ στρατιωτικὸν σύνταγμα , murs. ΄ ΄, ε , \ \ \ , κατεχώρισεν ἐπὶ μείζοσι μισθοφορίαις, ὁμοίως δὲ Kal τοὺς προόντας - “ \ “ κρίνας πιστοὺς φρούρια κτίσας ἀπέδωκεν αὐτοῖς, ὅπως τὸ τῶν Αἰγυ- / \ oF 6 al , πτίων ἔθνος φόβον [μὴ] ἔχῃ διὰ τούτων: Kal ἡμεῖς δὲ παραλαβόντες - A lal cal \ X τὴν βασιλείαν φιλανθρωπότερον ἀπαντῶμεν τοῖς πᾶσι, πολυ δὲ “ las “ / e Ν ΄ 49 5 ΄, > μᾶλλον τοῖς σοῖς πολίταις---ὑπὲρ δέκα μυριαδας αἰχμαλώτων ἡλευ- / “ “ > ‘ ΄ θερώκαμεν, ἀποδόντες τοῖς κρατοῦσι τὴν κατ᾽ ἀξίαν ἀργυρικὴν τιμήν, , Ν ” a 2 ΄ Ν Ν a μή ε ΄ διορθούμενοι καὶ εἴ TL κακῶς ἐπράχθη διὰ τὰς τῶν ὀχλων ὅρμάς, A A “. - , A Ἢ διειληφότες εὐσεβῶς τοῦτο πρᾶξαι, καὶ τῷ μεγίστῳ θεῷ χαριστικὸν > θέ a Le) \ B x 4 > 5 / Ν δόξῃ / ἀνατιθέντες, ὃς ἡμῖν τὴν βασιλείαν ἐν εἰρήνῃ Kat δόξῃ κρατίστῃ ΄ >/ ἈΝ παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην διατετήρηκεν: εἴς τε τὸ στράτευμα τοὺς al ε Ν οὐ ἀκμαιοτάτους ταῖς ἡλικίαις τετάχαμεν, τοὺς δὲ δυναμένους καὶ περὶ lal τὸν \ \ an ΄ ἡμᾶς εἶναι, τῆς περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν πίστεως ἀξίους, ἐπὶ χρειῶν καθεστά- ΄, ἀξ καί: A Ν ΄ὔ / Ν “ - καμεν. βουλομένων δ᾽ ἡμῶν καὶ τούτοις χαρίζεσθαι καὶ πᾶσι Ξοῖς \ / > / a , A κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην ᾿Ιουδαίοις Kai Tots μετέπειτα, προῃρήμεθα τὸν lal A “ A > νόμον ὑμῶν μεθερμηνευθῆναι γράμμασιν ἑλληνικοῖς ἐκ TOV παρ “ oo ΄“ ο , Ν -“ > ὑμῶν λεγομένων ἑβραϊκῶν γραμμάτων, ἵν᾿ ὑπάρχῃ καὶ ταῦτα παρ “ ΄ lal 4 “- ΄ “ ἡμῖν ἐν βιβλιοθήκῃ σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις βασιλικοῖς βιβλίοις. καλῶς - ε wn ? ͵7ὔ < ’ὔ 4 οὖν ποιήσεις καὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας σπουδῆς ἀξίως ἐπιλεξάμενος avdpas lal ’ lal , \ καλῶς βεβιωκότας πρεσβυτέρους, ἐμπειρίαν ἔχοντας τοῦ νόμου, καὶ Ν ε lal > 7 © , -“ “5 σ > a / δυνατοὺς ἑρμηνεῦσαι, ap ἑκάστης φυλῆς ἐξ, ὅπως ἐκ τῶν πλείονων Ν ’ e ~ Ν \ 3 / > N / TO σύμφωνον εὑρεθῇ, διὰ TO περὶ μειζόνων εἶναι τὴν σκέψιν.
οἰόμεθα γὰρ ἐπιτελεσθέντος τούτου μεγάλην ἀποίσεσθαι δόξαν.
1 ere: συμβ. KZ Eus] επισυμβαινει codd cett 2 κατοικεισθαι Ar codd κατωκεισθαι Eus txt JosYi4 | avapracrous HKA Eus*4¢ txt GIBTZ Εἰμὶ 4 συνεισελ. GIT Eusi 5 wv)+Ka Eus 6 mpoovras BOYTTZ Eus] mapovras HKAGIB* vid 8 un hab Ar codd omn om Jos Eus recte ut videtur | exe GI 11 apyup. κατ. αἕξ. Z 13 πρασσειν Eus | χαριστη- ριον B txt codd cett Eus 14 δοξη]- τὴ Eus 16 και om GI 17 rns] pr και Eus | agiws ZT? | ἐπι χειρων κατεστακαμεν (-noauev B) Ar codd em- κρινων κατεστησα Eus txt emend Schmidt 21 υμιν (-wv') eBp. Ney. Eus 23 επιλεξας Eus txt Ar Jos 25 δυναμενους BT
σι
10
15
20
®IAOKPATEI. 527
3 / Ν Ν 4 3 / a 5 a ἀπεστάλκαμεν δὲ περὶ τούτων ᾿Ανδρέαν τῶν ἀρχισωματοφυλάκων ee) oo /, 3 Cae 4 Ν 4 καὶ ᾿Αριστέαν, τιμωμένους Tap ἡμῖν, διαλεξομένους σοι καὶ κομί- 3 Ν > Ὄ τῷ Ἁ 5 / ‘ > ἊΨ XN RE 6 Covras ἀπαρχὰς εἰς TO ἱερὸν ἀναθημάτων Kai eis θυσίας Kai τὰ ἄλλα, 3 ΄, 4 ε , ΄ Ν Ν Ν Ν ca bie 58 ἀργυρίου τάλαντα ἑκατόν. γράφων δὲ καὶ σὺ πρὸς ἡμᾶς περὶ ὧν ἐὰν ir / μὴ Ν δῖ, εἰς ’ LE e 5 i βούλῃ κεχαρισμένος ἔσῃ, καὶ φιλίας akiov τι πράξεις, ws ἐπιτελεσ- \ e Ἃ a” Ν θησομένων τὴν ταχίστην περὶ ὧν ἂν αἱρῇ. ἔρρωσο. Πρὸς , Ν 3 Ν 3 / > ΄ «ε 3 / ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἀντέγραψεν ἐνδεχομένως ὃ ‘EXedlapos ἴω 37). ΄ 3 Ἁ A“ / 4 ταῦτα Ἐλεάζαρος ἀρχιερεὺς βασιλεὶ Πτολεμαίῳ φίλῳ / Δ > , 4 \ ε ’ὔ 3 / γνησίῳ χαίρειν. αὐτός τε Eppwoo καὶ ἡ βασίλισσα ᾿ΑἈρσινόη, , “ \ ε n ἀδελφή, καὶ τὰ τέκνα, καλῶς av ἔχοι καὶ ὡς βουλόμεθα, καὶ 3 Ν Ν ε ’ / Ν ‘\ “ 3 / , αὐτοὶ δὲ ὑγιαίνομεν. λαβόντες τὴν Tapa σοῦ ἐπιστολήν, μεγάλως > , \ Ν Α ’ Ν ᾿᾿ Ν / Ν ἐχάρημεν διὰ τὴν προαίρεσίν σου καὶ τὴν καλὴν βουλήν, καὶ συνα- A “ a 7 = a yayovres τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος παρανέγνωμεν αὐτοῖς, ἵνα εἰδῶσιν ἣν ἔχεις Ν Ν Ν ε A > , > SN se Ν \ Ν / ἃ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἡμῶν εὐσέβειαν. ἐπεδείξαμεν δὲ καὶ τὰς φιάλας ἃς ~ Lal , ~ ἀπέστειλας, χρυσᾶς εἴκοσι Kai ἀργυρᾶς τριάκοντα, κρατῆρας πέντε, / Ν Ἁ “-“ καὶ τράπεζαν εἰς ἀνάθεσιν, καὶ εἰς προσαγωγὴν θυσιῶν καὶ εἰς 3 \ Ξ Ἃ 4 A de \ Ξ- s ΄ὔ ε , C7 ἐπισκευὰς ὧν av δέηται TO ἱερὸν ἀργυρίου τάλαντα ἑκατόν, ἅπερ ~ / 2 /, n~ / Ν 5: Ν > id 4 ἐκόμισεν Avdpéas τῶν τετιμημένων παρὰ σοὶ καὶ ᾿Αριστέας, avdpes δ \ Ἁ > 6 \ ‘ ὃ 7 ὃ / ἈΝ “~ A > ~ \ καλοὶ καὶ ἀγαθοὶ καὶ παιδείᾳ διαφέροντες Kal τῆς σῆς ἀγωγῆς Kal ΄ὔ ” Ν ΄ a \ toa Pp δικαιοσύνης ἄξιοι κατὰ TAVTA* οἱ καὶ μετέδωκαν ἡμῖν TA παρὰ σοῦ, \ > ε “" 4 ε , a A ὔ πρὸς ἃ καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀκηκόασιν ἁρμόζοντα τοῖς σοῖς γράμμασι.
/ . ov ἈΝ Ἀ > Ν 4 3 ’ 3 / πάντα yap 07a σοι συμφέρει, καὶ εἰ παρὰ φύσιν ἐστίν, ὑπακουσό-
6 A Ν XN ae ΄ a/ 3 / \ με α' τοῦτο yop du tas και αγαπήησεως σήμειον E€OTL. μεγάλα γάρ.
Ν 3 ’ Ν " ε a Ν Ν 3 , καὶ ἀνεπίληστα τοὺς πολίτας ἡμῶν κατὰ πολλοὺς εὐηργέτηκας.
1 τουτων Jos Eus] τουτου Ar | τον αρχισωματοφυλακα Β (αρχι sup lin prima manu) TZ Jos txt Ar codd cett Eus! (των cwp°) 2 ἀρισταιον Jos Eus?° (-εαν Eus' cum Ar codd) | κομιζοντες Z 4 ypage BT Eus txt codd cett et Jos’i4 | αν B Eus® (εαν Eus! cum codd cett) 5 κεχαρ.] και xape- σαμενος Ar codd κεχαρισμενος yap Eus 7 TauT. την επ.] ταυτα Eus°? 8 rade Eus! (ovTws°) 9 εἰ auros Te ερρωσαι Eus txt (cf 2 Macc 930, 11°78) Ar codd (-σαι Z) 12 συναγοντες K 13 ανεγνωμεν Goo vid Jos παρεγν. IG*? B* + aurnv Eus? Jos 16 προαγωγην Z 17 mpocdenra: Eus txt Arcodd Jos 18 εκομιζον Ar codd -σεν Eus! (-fev cett) -σαν Jos | Avdpeas] ανδρες B| και] pr Avdpeas B | ἀρισταιος Jos Eus? (-eas ἢ) 20 παρεδωκαν B 21 γὙραμμασι] πραγμασι Eus 24 και] pr και συ BT (σοι ἃ και σοι IZ) txt codd cett Eus | ανεπίιληπτα A | πολλοις HA πολυ K πολλοὺς τροπους Eus
HKAGIBT Z Jos Eus
4 Jos Eus
§C
HKAGIBC TZ Jos Eus
528 APISTEAS
3 ᾽ὔ > ’, ε Ν -“ , Ν “ > ~ Ἁ εὐθέως οὖν προσηγάγομεν ὑπὲρ σοῦ θυσίας καὶ τῆς ἀδελφῆς καὶ = ΄, \ A ΄ \ ¥ a \ A “ τῶν τέκνων καὶ τῶν φίλων: καὶ ηὔξατο πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος, ἵνα σοι Ν ~ , \ / Ν , γένηται καθὼς προαιρῇ διαπαντός, καὶ διασώζῃ σοι τὴν βασιλείαν 3 3 ’, Ν / «ες / ε ΄ / Sew! / ͵ ἐν εἰρήνῃ μετὰ δόξης 6 κυριεύων ἁπάντων θεός, καὶ ὅπως γένηταί σοι συμφερόντως καὶ μετὰ ἀσφαλείας ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου νόμου μεταγραφή. ,ὔ ‘ / > LE ΜΝ Ν ἣ 3 . παρόντων δὲ πάντων ἐπελέξαμεν ἄνδρας καλοὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς πρεσ- , 3 > ε 4 ~ 7 [1 Ν 3 , ΝΜ Ν βυτέρους, ad’ ἑκάστης φυλῆς ἕξ, οὗς καὶ ἀπεστείλαμεν ἔχοντας τὸν “ > Ἄ “- / “ἢ ε Xv ε νόμον. καλῶς οὖν ποιήσεις, βασιλεῦ δίκαιε, προστάξας, ὡς ἂν ἡ A 4 nw 4 7 / > -“ Ν μεταγραφὴ γένηται τῶν βιβλίων, ἵνα πάλιν ἀποκατασταθῶσι πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀσφαλῶς οἱ ἄνδρες. ἔρρωσο. Εἰσὶ δὲ πρώτης φυλῆς" Ἰώσηφος ᾿Εζεκίας Ζαχαρίας ᾿Ιωάννης “Elexias “EXtooaios. δευ- τέρας- ᾿Ιούδας Σίμων Σομόηλος ᾿Αδαῖος Ματταθίας “EoyAeuias. τρίτης: Νεεμίας ᾿Ιώῴσηφος Θεοδόσιος Βασέας ᾿Ορνίας Δάκις. τετάρτης: Ιωνάθας ᾿Αβραῖος ᾿Ἐλισσαϊῖος ᾿Ανανίας Χαβρίας... πέμπτης: Ἴσακος Ἰάκωβος ᾿Ιησοῦς Σαββαταῖος Σίμων Λευίς. ἕκτης: Ιούδας Ἰώσηφος Σίμων Ζαχαρίας Σομόηλος Σελεμίας. ἑβδόμης" * SaBBaratos Σεδεκίας ᾿Ιάκωβος “Ioaxos ᾿Ιησίας Νατθαῖος. ὀγδόης: Θεοδόσιος Ἰάσων Ἰησοῦς Θεόδοτος ᾿Ιωάννης Ιωνάθας. ἐνάτης: Θεόφιλος “ABpapos “Apoapos ᾿Ιάσων ᾿Ενδεμίας Δανίηλος. δεκάτης: Ἱερεμίας EXealapos Ζαχαρίας Βανέας ᾿Βλισσαῖος Δαθαῖος. ἑνδεκάτης - Sapovyros Ἰώσηφος ᾿Ιούδας Ιωνάθης Χαβεῦ Δοσίθεος. δωδεκάτης᾽ ᾿Ισάηλος ᾿Ιωάννης Θεοδόσιος “Apoapos ᾿Αβιήτης Ἔζε- “ ε / ε ἊΣ / és Ν Ν Ν \ \ KnAos. οἱ πάντες ἑβδομήκοντα δύο. Καὶ τὰ μὲν πρὸς τὴν “ / 5 Ν ’ 3 ’ὔ 3 “ ε \ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπιστολὴν τοιαύτης ἐτύγχανεν αντιγραφῆς «ὑπὸ:
τῶν περὶ τὸν ᾿Πλεάξαρον.
4 om εν BT | κυριευοντων aravtwv BT 5 om σοι Eus 6 om de Eus | επελεξαμεν Jos] εἐπιλεξαμὴην (sic) Eus! εξελεξαμην Eus® επελεξαμεθα (απελ. BT om Z) Ar codd 7 απεσταλκαμεν Eus Jos’4 (πεπομφαμεν) 10 οἱ ανδρ. acd. K om acd. GI 11 Τωσηπος B | Τεζεκιας B 12 Mar- θιας KA | Σεχλεμιας Bvid 13 Ιωσηπος B* id | Βασαιας T Βασβιας Z 14 Agpavos B | post Χαβριας nomen excidit 15 Σαβατταιος I 16 Σιμων Iwongdos HKA 17, 18 om Yedex.—Oeodoc.os I om Σεδεκ.---[ σοὺς At ins A™S om Icaxyos—NarOaos C 17 Τεισιας GZ | Ματθαιος HKA 18 Τωναθαν B 19 Δανιηλ TZ om C 20 Βαναιας BCTZ | Θαδδαιος Z 22 δωδεκατος C 24 επιβολην AGICT™® (-βουλ. ΤΊ) | vro] ὑπερ codd
5
15
20
σι
Io
15
20
25
®IAOKPATEI, 529
ge x ay ’ Ν Ν A ’ὔ - Ὡς δὲ ἐπηγγειλαμην καὶ τὰ τῶν κατασκευασμάτων διασαφῆσαι, Ψ' ’ ‘\ ὃ ,ὔ ,ὔ an , ποιήσω. πολυτεχνίᾳ yap διαφέροντα συνετελέσθη, τοῦ βασιλέως / \ > [4 A πολλὴν ἐπίδοσιν ποιουμένου καὶ παρ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐπιθεωροῦντος τοὺς ΄ ὃ Ν ὃ A ὑδὲ γὃ ΄ Doe Te.) , τεχνίτας. ιὸ παριδεῖν οὐδὲν ἠδύναντο οὐδὲ εἰκῇ συντελέσαι. “a , >." Ν “ £ > - πρῶτον δέ σοι τὰ περὶ τῆς τραπέζης ἐξηγήσομαι. Προεθυ- A > \ eth , a a , petro μὲν οὖν ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑπέροπλόν τι ποιῆσαι τοῖς μέτροις TO , / δὲ θέ a“ ou Ν Ν ΄ / κατασκεύασμα. προσέταξε δὲ πυθέσθαι τῶν ava τὸν τόπον, πηλίκη a \ ἢ τίς ἐστιν ἢ προοῦσα καὶ κειμένη κατὰ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις. ε ,ὔ ’ ὡς δὲ ἀπεφήναντο τὰ μέτρα, προσεπηρώτησεν, εἰ κατασκευάσει , N N > \ na e ΄ὔ \ aA " " x μείζονα. τινὲς μὲν οὖν καὶ τῶν ἱερέων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἔλεγον μηδὲν 3 , \ a A ἐπικωλύειν. ὁ δὲ εἶπε βούλεσθαι καὶ πενταπλῆν τοῖς μεγέθεσι A ’ὔ , » ,, Ἀ ποιῆσαι, διστάζειν δὲ μή ποτε ἄχρηστος γένηται πρὸς τὰς λειτουρ- “ “ / “A ’ὔ γίας. οὐ γὰρ αἱρεῖσθαι τὸ κεῖσθαι μόνον ἐν τῷ τόπῳ -«τὰ-:- παρ᾽ > ~ δ Ν A 7, ov oN AN , , αὐτοῦ, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον χάριν ἕξειν, ἐὰν τὰς καθηκούσας λειτουργίας a 3 -“ eo n a ἐπὶ TOV ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευασμένων οἷς καθῆκε ποιῶνται δεόντως. > 7 a οὐ yap ἕνεκεν σπάνεως χρυσοῦ τὰ προσυντετελεσμένα βραχύμετρα ΄ > x , , ᾿ ΄ > ¢ καθέστηκεν, ἀλλὰ φαίνεται πρός τινα λόγον, εἶπεν, οὕτως συνεστη- ,ὕ a , ” X ew. \ a 4 32. x 3 ΄, κέναι τοῖς μέτροις. ἔτι γὰρ ἐπὶ τὰ τῆς οὔσης οὐθὲν ἂν ἐσπάνιζε: ὃ ΄ 3 / JCA. 6 / Ν A 3 a Ν ιόπερ ov παραβατέον οὐδὲ ὑπερθετέον τὰ καλῶς ἔχοντα. τῇ μὲν 7 ~ a“ 7 nA οὖν ποικιλίᾳ τῶν τεχνών ἐκέλευσεν OTL μάλιστα χρήσασθαι, σεμνῶς -“ A ἅπαντα διανοούμενος Kal φύσιν ἔχων ἀγαθὴν εἰς TO συνιδεῖν Tpay- , 3 “ Ν Ἃ Ὁ ΤΥ Ν Ν ΓΝ ἢ. μάτων ἔμφασιν. ὅσα δὲ av ἢ ἄγραφα, πρὸς καλλονὴν ἐκέλευσε A 7 = A A ποιεῖν: ὅσα δὲ διὰ γραπτῶν, μέτρα αὐτοῖς κατακολουθῆσαι. ΄ a “ ε ‘AYO γὰρ πήχεων τὸ MAKOC, τὸ δὲ ὕψος πήχεος kal HMicoyc P συνετέλουν, XPYCiOY AOKiMOY στερεὰν πάντοθεν τὴν ποίησιν ἐργα-
24 Ex 25” ff
1 των] pr κατα GIC | επισκευασματων B σκευασμ. C 2 om ποιήσω BT 3 επιθεωρουντας CTZ 4 ovdev] ovde B 6 om ovv C 7 om de Z 11 κωλυειν BCTZ Jos | βουλεσθαι---δὲ 12 om BCTZ 12 μὴ mote] unre GI 18 τα ins Schmidt 14 καταθηκουσας GI 16 evexa B | προσσυν. A* (προσυν. Ar) rporer. B (συν suprascr pr man) 18 ετι--- Tns| oda yap ws dayirous τῆς vAns avros B. Fort legendum εἰ te yap εδεὶ ta THs | Ta] ras CT*Z | αν om H supra lin Z 22 εγγραφα Καὶ
24 πηχεων] pr Kat ἡμισοὺς Jos qui et post μηκος add (ex LXX vid) evos δὲ τὸ ευρος
aS: 34
§ Jos
HKAGIQB CTZ Jos
Η
HKAGIQB CTZ Jos
530 APISTEAS
΄ / Ν 3 ΄ t A“ aA Ν Ν σάμενοι, λέγω δὲ οὐ περί τι περιεπτυγμένου τοῦ χρυσοῦ, τὸν δὲ Ν \ / / ἐλασμὸν αὐτὸν ἐπιδεδέσθαι. CTEPANHN δὲ ἐποίησαν TIAAAICTIAIAN \ Ν , 4 Ν 3 Ν 4 κυκλόθεν: τὰ δὲ KYMATIA CTPETITA, τὴν ἀναγλυφὴν ἔχοντα σχοινι- a a , a ” aA A A dav ἔκτυπον, TH τορείᾳ θαυμαστῶς ἔχουσαν ἐκ τῶν τριῶν μερῶν. - , \ » ὦ , ε A ἦν yap τριγωνία- καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον μέρος ἡ διατύπωσις τῆς ἐνεργείας Ν Δ. Ἃ ὃ (0 Ἂν A θ᾽ aA “ἃ “ , Ν τὴν αὐτὴν διάθεσιν εἶχεν, ὥστε καθ᾽ ὃ ἂν μέρος στρέφοιτο, τὴν ΄ μι Ν δι δ ἢ ! δὲ \ 1 - , \ Ν πρόσοψιν εἶναι τὴν αὐτήν" Τκειμένου δὲ κατὰΐ τῆς στεφάνης τὸ μὲν 3 δ» ταῖν Ν ΄ 4 5 , δ \ ὃ , μὲ a ε / εἰς αὐτὴν τὴν τράπεζαν “ ἀπόκλιμα τὴν διατύπωσιν ἔχειν τῆς ὡραιό- ἈΝ ἈΝ / Ν Ν ἴω > / τητος, TO δὲ ἐκτὸς κλίμα πρὸς τὴν TOD προσάγοντος εἶναι θεωρίαν. Ν Ν ε Ν 3 »" > “ ΄΄ ΄, ΄ , διὸ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ὀξεῖαν εἶναι τῶν δύο κλιμάτων συνέβαινε, μετέωρον ΄ τ ΄ zx AN ἐπικειμένην, WS προειρήκαμεν, τριγώνου κατεσκευασμένου, καθ᾽ ὃ ἂν ’ ’ a > 3 -“ ’ ε a μέρος στρέφοιτο. λίθων τε πολυτελῶν ἐν αὐτῷ διαθέσεις ὑπῆρχον A a “ > / ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν σχοινιδῶν: ἕτερος Tapa ἕτερον πλοκὴν εἶχον ἀμί- lod ’ / > > /, / μητον τῇ ποιήσει. πάντες δ᾽ ἦσαν διὰ τρημάτων κατειλημμένοι la / \ Ἂς a lad χρυσαῖς περόναις πρὸς τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν γωνιῶν αἱ a , Ν \ , 3 ’ὔ Ν Ν κατακλεῖδες συνέσφιγγον πρὸς τὴν συνοχήν. ἐκ πλαγίων δὲ κατὰ \ ,ὔ ΄, Ν ΝΗ ‘ 4 Tine > , τὴν στεφάνην κυκλόθεν TA πρὸς τὴν ἄνω πρόσοψιν ὠοθεσία κατε- , ’ὔ ” A ΄ > σκεύαστο διάλιθος, Τέἐκτύπωσιν ἔχουσα προσοχῆς συνεχέσιν ἄνα-
γλυφαῖς ῥαβδωταῖς, πυκνὴν ἐχούσαις τὴν πρὸς ἄλληλα θέσιν περὶ
Lal
-΄ \ , ΄- Ν Ν Ν ΕἸ ,ὔ ~ / n ὅλην τὴν τράπεζαν. ὑπὸ δὲ τὴν ἐκτύπωσιν τῶν λίθων τῆς 2
lal 4 «ε -
ὠοθεσίας, στέφανον ἐποίησαν οἱ τεχνῖται πάγκαρπον, ἐν ὑπεροχῇ f 4 ΄ Ν , 3 ἊΝ / \ ,
προδήλως ἔχοντα βοτρύων καὶ σταχύων, ἔτι δὲ φοινίκων καὶ μήλων
3 , Ἀν 6 “ Ν a , Ν Ν 4 3 /
ἐλαίας Te Kal ῥοῶν Kai τῶν παραπλησίων. τοὺς δὲ λίθους ἐργασά-
Ν a / a , Ν μενοι πρὸς THV TWV προειρημενων καρπὼν διατύπωσιν, εχοντας
1 χρυσου] ad hoc AS in mg add ov κατα τι μερος τῆς τραπεζὴς συνε-
σταλμενοῦυ του χρυσου και οὐχ ορωμενου adda δια παντων επιλαμποντος᾽ καὶ
κατα τας σωματικας διαστασεις τοι κατα βαθος Kat κατα μῆκος και κατα TAATOS ομοιως EXOVTOS’ στερεὰ yap nV δι ολου του σχήματος. TO δὲ ELdos ὡς φησιν Θεοδωριτος (-ρητ. 1.) τρίγωνος κατα λογον avaywyns υψηλοτερας Kat θειοτερας. Hanc notam L textui inseruit 3, 4 σχοινιδων GIBT**] σχοι- νιδον HKAC -ηδον T!?Z (cxowoedn Jos) 4 εκτυπον ΤΊ exrorov cett 7 κειμενὴης de και B txt cett. Fort κειμένῳ legendum: 11 κειμενην BCTZ 12 ev αὐτω] ev eavtw GIQCZ eavtrw T 16 κατακλειδαι CQ | cvverd.]+ de GICQ 17 ἀαποθεσια Q 18 εκτυπωσιν Β] εκτυπων (ex τυπων GI) cett | Fort legendum προοχὴς (conj Schmidt) | συνοχεσιν GIBC 19 εχου- σας OCZ 22 del]t+xac A
Io
15
20
25
SIAOKPATEI. 531
ἑκάστου γέ ἣν χρόαν, ἀνέδησαν τῷ χρυσίῳ κύκλῳ περὶ ὅλην κάστου γένους τὴν χρόαν, ἀνέδησαν τῷ χρυσίς » περὶ ὅλη Ν nw ‘ 7 \ Lal τὴν τῆς τραπέζης κατασκευὴν κατὰ κρόταφον. μετὰ δὲ THY τοῦ / , ε / Ν \ a 3 ’ ‘ στεφάνου διάθεσιν, ὁμοίως κατὰ THY τῆς ὠοθεσίας διασκευὴν κατε- “a ΄ \ σκεύαστο, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῆς ῥαβδώσεως Kai διαγλυφῆς, -«διὰ TO> \ δ Ν ‘ nw aA κατ᾽ ἀμφότερα τὰ μέρη τὴν τράπεζαν πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν πεποιῆσθαι, ἢ; ἢ “ \ A , \ \ καθ᾽ ὃ ἂν μέρος αἴρωνται, στε Kal THY TOV κυμάτων θέσιν καὶ τὴν “- , Ss \ Ν “ὴ lal , »” Ν > vA τῆς στεφάνης εἶναι κατὰ TO τῶν ποδῶν μέρος. ἔλασμα yap ἐποίη- δ δ᾿ “ / ~ / ἈΝ / ΄ σαν καθ᾽ ὅλου τοῦ πλάτους τῆς τραπέζης στερεὸν δακτύλων τεσσάρων, 7 ~ / \ “ ὥστε τοὺς πόδας ἐνίεσθαι εἰς τοῦτο, περόνας «σὺν: κατακλεῖσιν » > , Ν \ , Ψ 5. A A " ἔχοντας ἐσφίγχθαι κατὰ τὴν στεφάνην, ἵνα, καθ΄ ὃ av αἴρωνται “»" 5 A , a μέρος, ἡ χρῆσις ἢ: τοῦτο δὲ κατὰ ἐπιφάνειαν θεωρεῖται ἀμῴοτε- A “ ” 3 aA “-“ ροδεξίου τῆς κατασκευῆς οὔσης. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς δὲ τῆς τραπέζης ΄ὔ a / \ ΄ μαΐανδρον ἔκτυπον ἐποίησαν, ἐν ὑπεροχῇ λίθους ἔχοντα κατὰ μέσον a a“ ‘ / / πολυτελεῖς, τῶν trvAcadwyt ἀνθράκων τε καὶ σμαράγδων, ἔτι δὲ ” \ a »” “ a ΄, 3 ε ΄ ὄνυχος, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων γενῶν τῶν διαφερόντων ἐν ὡραιότητι. Ν \ \ aA / ὃ ὃ (0 Bia rf \ ΄, μετὰ δὲ τὴν τοῦ μαιάνδρου διάθεσιν ἐπέκειτο σχιστὴ πλοκή, “ ἈΝ 4 θαυμασίως ἔχουσα, ῥομβωτὴν ἀποτελοῦσα τὴν ἀνὰ μέσον θεωρίαν " Sy pe ΄ὔ ΄, Ν Ν / »” > , ἐφ᾽ 4 κρυστάλλου λίθος Kai τὸ λεγόμενον ἤλεκτρον ἐντετύπωτο, 5. κε ΄, 3 a fa θ a Ν δὲ ΄ 3 ΄, ἀμίμητον θεωρίαν ἀποτελοῦν τοῖς θεωροῦσι. τοὺς δὲ πόδας ἐποίησαν \ ΄ 4 4 38 / EN Ν / τὰς κεφαλίδας ἔχοντας κρινωτάς, ἀνάκλασιν κρίνων ὑπὸ τὴν τράπεζαν ΄, Ν ἈΝ A > \ ΄ 3 \ ” \ , λαμβανόντων, τὰ δὲ τῆς ἐντὸς προσόψεως ὀρθὴν ἔχοντα τὴν πετά- > paling a ἈΝ ” wow. ἡ δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐδάφους ἔρεισις τοῦ ποδὸς ἄνθρακος λίθου πάν- θ λ ᾽ὔ τὸ 3 Le Ν Ἀ / 5 \ τοθεν παλιστιαία, κρηπῖδος ἔχουσα τάξιν κατὰ THY πρόσοψιν, ὀκτὼ Ν , Ν / 35 Sages eX ae Ν “ + δὲ δακτύλων τὸ πλάτος ἔχουσα: ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἐπίκειται τὸ πᾶν ἔλασμα “ / , Ν > / Ν 5 Ψ / τοῦ ποδός. κατεσκεύασε δὲ ἐκφύοντα κισσὸν ἀκάνθῳ πλεκόμενον
ἐκ τοῦ λίθου, σὺν ἀμπέλῳ περιειλούμενον κυκλόθεν τῷ ποδὶ σὺν
1, 2 odnv τὴν] ολην T τὴν ολὴην C 3 διασκευηνῚ κατασκευην KBCTZ +7 codd omn 4 δια το] και codd Verborum ordine mutato wore kat την--ποδων μερος και κατ ἀμφοτερα---αἱιρωνται legit Schmidt 5 προς τὴν xp. τὴν Tp. I 6 wote—Oeow om BT | θεσιν]- πεποιησθαι καθ ο αν μερος CZ . 8 στερεων T 9 περονας κατα κλεισιν Codd 11 θεωρηται GI 14 πυλιαδων codd] Jos hab λιθους.. αξιολογους ὡσπερ αστερας ποικιλὴς Leas ex quibus πολυειδων con) Lumbroso 16 σχιστη] κτιστὴ B 18 om ἤλεκτρον C | evrerurwro Jos B'] everur. KAGIB* evererur. ZQ ererurwro C 21 ορθην] apxovyTws T 23 παλαισταιου BCTZ 24 ον] wy C | παν ελασμα] παρελασμα QO 25 ακανθηὴ BT 26 περιειλημενον G
34—2
KAGIQBC TZ Jos
ἰῷ
KAGIQBC ‘TZ Jos
532 APISTEAS nn τὸς δὲ “ρος ee συ. - , \ nw > ’ὔ ~ ~~ c > τοῖς βότρυσιν, ot λιθουργεῖς ἦσαν μέχρι τῆς κεφαλῆς. ἢ ὃ = ~ aA an αὐτὴ διάθεσις ἦν τῶν τεσσάρων ποδῶν, πάντα ἐνεργῶς πεποιη- “- Ψ μένα καὶ προσηγμένα, τῆς ἐμπειρίας καὶ τέχνης τὰς ὑπεροχὰς > , ει Ν Ἀ 5 ’ σ ΙΝ ε 7 -“ ἀπαραλλάκτως ἔχοντα πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὥστε καὶ ῥιπίζοντος τοῦ x Ν ᾿ 4 / > \ 7 A “~ ὕ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα πνεύματος κίνησιν ἐπιδέχεσθαι τὴν τῶν φύλλων ,ὔ Ν Ν Lal 5 4 rd vd ε Ψ θέσιν, πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας διάθεσιν τετυπωμένων ἁπάντων. QA Si ~ 4 c ‘ / ἐποίησαν δὲ τριμερὲς TO στόμα τῆς τραπέζης, οἷον εὶ τρίπτυχον, ,ὔὕ “ Ν A Ἀ ἈΝ ͵7ὔ wn πελεκίνοις συναρμοζόμενα γομφωτοῖς πρὸς ἑαυτὰ κατὰ τὸ πάχος τῆς -“ A nn ε -“ κατασκευῆς, ἀθέατον καὶ ἀνεύρετον τὴν τῶν ἁρμῶν κατασκευάσαντες ΄ὔ ε ,ὔ Ἀ > 2 /, > \ ,ὕ a“ i συμβολήν. ἡμιπηχίου δὲ οὐκ ἐλάσσονος ἣν τὸ πάχος τῆς ὅλης ͵, «“ “ 3 7 Ν Ld / > Ν τραπέζης, ὥστε πολλῶν εἶναι ταλάντων τὴν ὅλην διασκευήν. ἐπεὶ Ἀ 3 ,ὔ “ / 90» θ a ε 4, 7 yap οὐ προήρητο Tots μεγέθεσιν οὐδὲν προσθεῖναι ὃ βασιλεύς, ὅσον 5, n , / an 5 , ἔδει δαπανηθῆναι κατασκευαζομένων μειζόνων, ταῦτα ἀποδέδωκε A n~ πλείονα: καὶ κατὰ τὴν προαίρεσιν αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐπετελέσθη θαυμασίως καὶ ἀξιολόγως ἔχοντα, καὶ ταῖς τέχναις ἀμίμητα, καὶ τῇ καλλονῇ διαπρεπῆ Τῶν δὲ κρατήρων δύο μὲν ἦσαν «--χρύσεοι:- ἢ διαπρεπῆ. ρατήρ μὲν ἦσαν «χρ a® - Ν » 3 Ν “ ,ὔ , nan , τῇ ᾿ κατασκευῇ, φολιδωτὴν ἔχοντες ἀπὸ τῆς βάσεως μέχρι τοῦ μέσου A ἢ, cal , A ‘ n~ / > Ν / ~ τὴν διασκευὴν TH τορείᾳ, καὶ τὴν TOV λίθων ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν φολίδων > A σύνδεσιν πολυτέχνως ἔχοντες. εἶτα μαίανδρος ἐπέκειτο πηχυαῖος 9 A > ΕἸ ͵ὕ 5 ~ Ν 4 / > , vet, τὴν δ᾽ ἐκτύπωσιν ἐνυπῆρχε διὰ λιθώσεως ποικίλης, ἐμφαίνων rt ε 7 4, “ /, ’ὔ > Ν Ν ’ ΠΥ ὦ σὺν ὡραιότητι τὸ τῆς τέχνης φιλόπονον. ἐπὶ δὲ τούτου ῥάβδωσις, > 4 Φ 4 »Ὺ \ ἈΝ / “ sam A ἐφ᾽ ἡ διαπλοκὴ ῥόμβων, δικτυωτὴν ἔχουσα τὴν πρόσοψιν ἕως ἐπὶ τὸ , A > 5 Ν 7 ΕῚ δί Θ ε ’ὔ Le , -“ στόμα. τὸ δ᾽ ἀνὰ μέσον ἀσπιδίσκοι λίθων ἑτέρων παρ᾽ ἑτέροις, τοῖς Ψ, ἈΝ > id ’ὔ 3 ΝΜ 3 , γένεσι παραλλαγὴν ἐχόντων, τετραδακτύλων οὐκ ἔλαττον, ἀνεπλή- » -“᾽ as nw n~ ¢ ρουν τὸ τῆς καλλονῆς ἐναργές. ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς στεφάνης τοῦ στόματος ’,ὔ κρίνων τύπωσις σὺν ἀνθεμίσι καὶ βοτρύων σχοινίαι διάπλοκοι “- φ nm A διετυποῦντο κυκλόθεν. οἱ μὲν οὖν διὰ TOD χρυσοῦ τοιαύτην εἶχον
τὴν κατασκευήν, χωροῦντες ὑπὲρ δύο μετρητάς: οἱ δ᾽ ἀργυροῖ λείαν
1 a] o GI 2 evapyws BZ 4 Tov mv. Kata Tov a. Q 7 στομα] σχημα Jos 8 συναρμοΐομενον KA 9 aderov codd txt ex Jos (aoparor) 10 ημιπηχναιου B | eXaccov Q | nv KB] ἡ cett 11 eredn Ὁ 12 προ- epnto GCTZ | οσων CTZ 13 om μειΐζονων C 14 απετελεσθηὴ BCT 15 την τεχνην CQ 16 xpvceo (om codd) ex Jos supplevi 17, 18 azo της Bac.—Topea και om BYTZ 18 ropea ἃ 19 συνθεσιν GI 25 ? evepyes 26 cxoww codd txt ex Jos conj Schmidt 28 λιαν
QGIZT* fort
10
15
20
25
ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 533
Ν “ A εἶχον τὴν διασκευήν, ἔνοπτρον δὴ γεγονυῖαν πρὸς αὐτὸ τοῦτο θαυμα- cal Ν / σίως ἔχουσαν, woTE πᾶν TO προσαχθὲν ἀπαυγάζεσθαι σαφέστερον A a ~ ξ΄ 3 3 x δ᾽ 3 3 ΄, μᾶλλον ἢ ἐν τοῖς κατόπτροις. οὐκ ἐφικτὸν δ᾽ ἐστιν ἐξηγήσασθαι Ν , \ Ν A 3 ,ὔ ΕΣ ε ἵν τὰ προσυντελεσθέντα πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἔμφασιν. ὡς γὰρ “- / ΄“ ἐπετελέσθη, τεθέντων τῶν κατασκευασμάτων ἑτέρου Tap ἕτερον--- “-“ “ ω > n~ / “ λέγω δὲ πρῶτον ἀργυροῦ κρατῆρος, εἶτα χρυσοῦ, πάλιν ἀργυροῦ καὶ A “ ΄ / -“ ΄, χρυσοῦ-- παντελῶς ἀνεξήγητος ἐγένετο τῆς προσόψεως ἡ διάθεσις, \ - Ν Ν ’ ΄ 5 / 3 / Ἂς καὶ τῶν πρὸς τὴν θεωρίαν προσιόντων οὐ δυναμένων ἀφίστασθαι διὰ / “ ” / “ τὴν περιαύγειαν καὶ τὸ τῆς ὄψεως τερπνόν. ποικίλη γὰρ ἦν ἡ τῆς , \ a ἐπιφανείας ἐνέργεια. προσορώντων yap πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν τοῦ χρυσίου ,ὔ Ss “ A ΕῚ κατασκευήν, ψυχαγωγία τις ἦν μετὰ θαυμασμοῦ, συνεχῶς ἐφ᾽ ἕκαστον 9 ΄ A ΄, ῃ x , τ Ν \ ἐπιβαλλούσης τῆς διανοίας τεχνίτευμα. Kal πάλιν ὅτε πρὸς THY ~ ~ x” τῶν ἀργυρῶν προσβλέψαι τις θέσιν ἤθελεν, ἀπέλαμπε TA πάντα 4, ε y+ a Ἂ ΄ » ve / “a κυκλόθεν, ws av τις ἕστηκε, Kal διάχυσιν ἐποίει μείζονα τοῖς θεω- ͵7ὔ ΄ A ’ -“ μένοις: ὥστε παντελῶς ἀνεξήγητον εἶναι τῶν ἐνηργημένων τὴν πολυτεχνίαν. Τὰς δὲ χρυσᾶς φιάλας διετόρευσαν στεφάνοις - / - ’ \ Ν ἧς ΄ ἴω Ν id »” ἀμπέλου κατὰ μέσον, περὶ δὲ τὰ χείλη κισσοῦ τε Kal μυρσίνης, ἔτι > a δ᾽ ἐλαίας ἀνέπλεξαν στέφανον ἔκτυπον, πολυτελεῖς ἐνέντες λίθους" ¢ καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς δὲ τορείας διηλλαγμένως ἐπετέλεσαν, ἅπαντα φιλοτι- a) / 3 ε \ id “- ΄, a θ ΄ Ν μηθέντες εἰς ὑπεροχὴν δόξης τοῦ βασιλέως ποιῆσαι. καθόλου γὰρ “9... Ὁ “ A lal ovr ἐν τοῖς βασιλικοῖς ὑπῆρχε ῥισκοφυλακίοις τοιαύτη κατασκευὴ a ΄ \ ΄ ay, >) Sy 4 ΄ ΟἿ 9 τῇ πολυτελείᾳ καὶ τεχνουργίᾳ, ovT ἐν τινι ἀλλῳ. προνοιαν γὰρ ov μικρὰν ἐποιεῖτο ὃ βασιλεύς, φιλοδοξῶν εἰς τὰ καλῶς ἔχοντα. / -“ / πολλάκις yap τὸν δημόσιον χρηματισμὸν παρήει, τοῖς δὲ τεχνίταις παρήδρευεν ἐπιμελῶς, ἵνα καθηκόντως τῷ τόπῳ συντελέσωσιν, εἰς a 39 7 Ν “ » « ‘ , - » ,ὔ Ἢ ὃν ἀπεστέλλετο τὰ τῶν ἔργων. διὸ πάντα σεμνῶς ἐγεγόνει, καὶ Ἂ ἴω 5 / / Ν A ‘al καταξίως τοῦ Te ἀποστέλλοντος βασιλέως καὶ τοῦ προστατοῦντος
5 , n , Ν Ν XQ aA , qn ΕΣ ε ἀρχιερέως τοῦ τόπου. καὶ γὰρ τὸ τῶν λίθων πλῆθος ἄφθονον, καὶ
1 δη] δε TZ om BC 2 mpocaxev GI προσταχθεν Z | απεργαζεσθαι Ο 4 προσσυντ. B 4,5 προς την---τεθεντων om Tt (ins™s) Z 6 προτερον Z 8 om ov Q 13 προσβλεψεται T επιβλεψεται B 13, 14 θεσιν--- ws av τις om BTZ 14 εποιει] ewe Q 18 δι eXavas Q | ενιεντες BTZ 19 ropecas KAS] operas cett | διηλλαγμενας B 22 και rexv.] τῆς Texvoupy.as B 23 eros KAGI 24 παριει TZQ 25 επιτελε- σωσιν B*
q Jos
KAGIQBT
Z Jos
KAGIQB Tz
534 APISTEAS
, “ ΄ 3 »” / \ “ ,ὔ μεγάλοι τοις μεγέθεσιν, οὐκ ἔλαττον πεντακισχιλίων καὶ ταῖς τέχναις 4, ΄ 7 Δ “a “A 4 KPQaTLOTEVOVTAa παντα, ωστε πενταπλασίως του χρυσου τιμιωτεραν
> \ a ΄, ΄ Ν ‘ a “ ὍΣ ειναι Τὴν των λίθων δόσιν και τὴν των τέχνων ενεργείαν.
ε / > \ , \ Ε] Ν 2 , > Ὑπολαμβάνων οὖν καὶ τούτων THY ἀναγραφὴν ἀναγκαίαν εἶναι, , > A ΄, \ \ Af. , δεδήλωκά σοι. τὰ δ᾽ ἑξῆς περιέχει τὴν πρὸς τὸν ᾿Βλεάζαρον dddv eon / \ δὲ θέ “ 5X: 4 A ὃ ΄ ἡμῖν γενομένην: τὴν δὲ θέσιν τῆς ὅλης χώρας πρῶτον δηλώσω. \ ἈΝ ‘s »“ /
‘Os yap παρεγενήθημεν ἐπὶ τοὺς τόπους, ἐθεωροῦμεν THY πόλιν μέσην ΄, ἐν 5. Ὁ 3 ὃ ΄ 3. AE ε \ 5 Ν ore κειμένην τῆς ὅλης Ἰουδαίων ἐπ ὁρους ὑψηλην ἔχοντος THY ἀνατασιν. ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς κορυφῆς κατεσκεύαστο τὸ ἱερὸν ἐκπρεπῶς ἔχον" καὶ Ob
΄, a cr τὰ ε / Ν ΄ a ΄, \ Ν περίβολοι τρεῖς, ὑπὲρ ἑβδομήκοντα δὲ πήχεις τῷ μεγέθει, καὶ τὸ / “-“ ~ > “ πλάτος ἀκόλουθον καὶ τὸ μῆκος τῆς κατὰ τὸν οἶκον διασκευῆς ε - / νι ’ὔὕ Ν ’, ε ᾽7ὕ ὑπῆρχε, μεγαλομοιρίᾳ καὶ χορηγίᾳ κατὰ πᾶντα ὑπερβαλλούσῃ ΄ὔ ε , Ν a 4 Ν Ν a Ν ἂν ᾿διῳκοδομημένων ἁπάντων. καὶ τοῦ θυρώματος δὲ καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸ , Ν Ν Ν \ a ~ ε ΄ 3 ’ὔ συνδέσμων κατὰ τὰς φλιὰς καὶ τῆς τῶν ὑπερθύρων ἀσφαλείας μὴ > ε lal ’ a 3 QA , A ἔκδηλος ἦν ἡ τῶν χρημάτων γεγονυῖα αφειδὴς δαπάνη. τοῦ τε ’ an A “-“ καταπετάσματος ἡ διατύπωσις θυρῶσι κατὰ πᾶν ὁμοιοτάτη ὑπῆρχε" Ἀ ΄ Ἂς Ν ω ’ὕ ε Ν 5 7 , καὶ μάλιστα διὰ THY TOU πνεύματος ὑποδρομὴν ἀδιάλειπτον κίνησιν 4 nan “ Ν 3 ‘4 a e λαμβανούσης τῆς διυφῆς, διὰ τὸ ar ἐδάφους γινομένης τῆς ὑποδρο- “ Ν , A + a μῆς <Katateivev> τὴν κόλπωσιν μέχρι τῆς ἄνω διατάσεως, ἡδεῖάν / \ a Ma τινα καὶ δυσαπάλλακτον THY θεωρίαν ἔχοντος TOD πράγματος. . lal / Ἁ Ν Ἥ τε τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου κατασκευὴ σύμμετρον [ἔχουσα] πρὸς τὸν Ν \ lal x ‘ τόπον καὶ τὰ θύματα διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς ἐξαναλούμενα τὴν διοικοδομὴν “ > ΄ - / \ εἶχε, τῆς δ᾽ ἀναβάσεως τῆς πρὸς αὐτό, πρὸς τὴν εὐκοσμίαν ἔχοντος
A ’ὔ / Ν / a lal “ / τοῦ τόπου καθηκόντως, TO κλίμα τῶν λειτουργῶν, τῶν ἱερέων κεκα-
1 μεγαλοις GI | ελαττον] των ΚΑ 4 υπολαμβ.---σοι 5 om Q 5 nu odov B 6 δηλωσον (ΙΖ -σαι Καὶ 7 emt του τοπου BI! επι του και τοπους GIQ et sic cett sed cum lacuna post rov et s pro καὶ posito, emt Tov...s (Ἔτους LD) τοπους. Txt ex papyris confirmatur 8 Tovdacwr KAGI] Iovédaas cett [ψιλην K | avacracw GIQ 9 evrperws BT 12 υπερβαλλ. B] ὑπερβαλουσὴ AT περιβαλουση (-βαλλ. Q) cett 18 Kat 1°] κακ conj Schmidt 16 θυρωσει KABT 17 αδιαληπτον KGIQZ 18 απ] er Β΄ yevou. BTZ 19 κατα codd xararewew conj Schmidt 20 exew ex exovros T* vid 21 om κατασκευὴ T* (ins ΤῊ) Z | exovea hab codd omn omittendum vid -cavy Schmidt 22 οἰκοδομὴν QO 24 λει- τουργιων BT
ro
15
20
25
ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ͂. 535
λυμμένων μέχρι τῶν σφυρῶν BYCCINOIC XIT@CIN. *“O δὲ οἶκος βλέ: Ν μέ Ν eer Je oe 3 a Ν ε ΄ Ν Ν a μ᾿ πει πρὸς ἕω, τὰ δ᾽ ὀπίσθια αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἑσπέραν: τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἔδαφος : 7 λιθόστρωτον καθέστηκε Kai κλίματα πρὸς τοὺς καθήκοντας τόπους ΕΣ A a ε A Ἵ ἃ / \ “- a EXEL τῆς τῶν ὑδάτων ἐπιφορᾶς ἕνεκεν, ἣ γίνεται διὰ THY σμῆξιν τῶν 3 \ A “ Ν A ἀπὸ τῶν θυσιῶν αἱμάτων. πολλαὶ yap μυριάδες κτηνῶν προσά- Ν Ν a ε a ad 3 ὃ δὲ - ee ΄ 3 γονται κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἑορτῶν ἡμέρας. ὕδατος δὲ ἀνέκλειπτός ἐστι ε \ A a σύστασις, ὡς ἂν καὶ πηγῆς ἔσωθεν πολυρρύτου φυσικῶς ἐπιρρεούσης, Ν Ν , Ν 30 ’ὔ e ’ὔ 4 ’ὔ 6 Ν lal ἔτι δὲ θαυμασίων καὶ ἀδιηγήτων ὑποδοχείων ὑπαρχόντων ὑπὸ γῆν, \ > ΄ / , ΄ a ‘ Aye Ν καθὼς ἀπέφαινον, πέντε σταδίων κυκλόθεν τῆς κατὰ τὸ ἱερὸν κατα- XA Ν βολῆς, καὶ ἑκάστου τούτων σύριγγας ἀναρίθμους <éyovtos>, καθ᾽ σ / “a “~ ἕκαστον μέρος ἑαυτὰ συναπτόντων TOV ῥευμάτων: καὶ πάντα ταῦτα μεμολιβώσθαι κατ᾽ ἐδάφους καὶ τοῦ τοίχου: ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων κεχύσθαι πολύ τι πλῆθος κονιάσεως, ἐνεργῶς γεγενημένων ἁπάντων. εἶναι / “-“ lal δὲ πυκνὰ τὰ στόματα πρὸς τὴν βάσιν, ἀοράτως ἔχοντα τοῖς πᾶσι N A e ε ε A ΄ πλὴν αὐτοῖς οἷς ἐστιν ἡ λειτουργία: ὡς ῥοπῇ καὶ νεύματι πάντα ,ὔἹ Ν ᾿ x “ 4 7 καθαρίζεσθαι τὰ συναγόμενα παμπληθεὶ τῶν θυμάτων αἵματα. / a Πεπεισμένος δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς THY τῶν ὑποδοχείων κατασκευὴν δηλώσω \ ΄ ΄ Lal καθὼς ἐπιστώθην. προήγαγον yap πλέον σταδίων τεσσάρων ἐκ τῆς ΄ ἴω πόλεως, καὶ πρός τινα τόπον ἐκέλευσαν κατακύψαντα συνακοῦσαι an ΄, / Lal > / A“ ες , 7 / τοῦ γινομένου ψόφου τῆς ἀπαντήσεως τῶν ὑδάτων: ὥστε συμφανές - / μοι γεγονέναι TO μέγεθος τῶν ἀγγείων, καθὼς δεδήλωται. ΠΩ δὲ ε ’ὕ c Xr , ἐν aA > / Bxr / ΕῚ A ie. 4 ὧν δὲ ἱερέων ἡ λειτουργία κατὰ πᾶν ἀνυπέρβλητός ἐστι TH ῥώμῃ A aA , tal ΄ Ν καὶ τῇ τῆς εὐκοσμίας καὶ σιγῆς διαθέσει. πάντες γὰρ αὐτοκελεύ- A a / / atws διαπονοῦσι πολλῆς γινομένης κακοπαθείας, Kai ἑκάστῳ TO > “ διατεταγμένον μέλει. καὶ ἀδιαλείπτως ὑπηρετοῦσιν, οἱ μὲν τὴν
-“ » ξυλείαν, οἱ δὲ ἔλαιον, οἱ δὲ σεμίδαλιν, οἵ δὲ τὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων, ἕτεροι
1 Ex 36% (28%)
1 αποβλεπει Eus 2 nw Eus 4 emipopas] emippons Eus 6 αν- ἐπίληπτος B txt Eus (-du.°) KTQ ανεκληπτος cett 9 επεῴφαινον Eus 10 exacrov] ex Eus | exovros ins Schmidt 11 eavras Ar codd Eus’® (-racs Eus#) txt Schmidt | ravra παντὰ Eus 12 μεμολιβουσθαι Ar codd txt Eusi° B! | τοὺς τοιχους Eus® (των -ων Eus') | πολυ τι πληθ. κεχ. Καὶ 13 om τι Eus | κονιας ews Ar codd Eus°® ἐνεργων Z 15 os}]+ovx'Q | ριπὴ Toor | ρευματι B 17 πεπεισμενοις (-νως A) et αὐτοῖς codd corr Schmidt
19 εκελευσαν B] εκελευσε (-cev GI) cett 285 μελλει GIBTZ 26 erepos G
§ Eus
4“ Eus
KAGIOB TZ Eus
KAGIQB ΗΖ
536 APISTEAS
τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς ὁλοκαυτοῦντες, ἰσχύι διαφερόντως συγχρώμενοι: 4 \ 3 / “~ 4 Ν ΄ lal ” διαλαβόντες yap ἀμφοτέραις τῶν μόσχων τὰ σκέλη, πλεῖον οντα ’ > ταλάντων δύο σχεδὸν ἑκάστου, ἀναρρίπτουσιν ἑκατέραις θαυμασίως 7 c Ν Ν » c ’ A 3 / τ U Ν ‘ Ν ὕψος ἱκανὸν καὶ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνουσι τῆς ἐπιθέσεως. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ “ ΄ + Ν > = a / ‘ “ / μ᾿ τῶν προβάτων ἔτι δὲ αἰγῶν τοῖς βαρέσι καὶ πιμελῇ θαυμασίως ἔχει. a e -“ κατὰ πᾶν γὰρ ἐκλεγομένων οἷς ἐπιμελές ἐστιν ἀμώμητα καὶ τῇ παχύτητι διαφέροντα, τὸ προειρημένον ἐπιτελεῖται. πρὸς δὲ τὴν . -- ἀνάπαυσιν τόπος αὐτοῖς ἐστὶν ἀποτεταγμένος, οὗ καθίζουσιν οἱ διαναπαυόμενοι. τούτου δὲ γινομένου, τῶν διαλελοιπότων ἐγείρονται πρόθυμοι, οὐδενὸς ἐπιτάσσοντος τὰ τῆς λειτουργίας. ἥ τε πᾶσα x ’ὔ ε , , 9 or ΕἾ > “- σιγὴ καθέστηκεν, ὡς τύπον λαμβάνειν, μηθ᾽ ἕνα ἄνθρωπον ἐν τῷ τόπῳ παρεῖναι, πρὸς τοὺς ἑπτακοσίους παρόντων τῶν AELTOUPyov— Ν a / Ν Ν ’, , a ? Ν / καὶ τῶν προσαγόντων δὲ τὰ θύματα πολύ τι πλῆθος---αὀλλὰ φόβῳ Ν ΄' ,ὔ ’ὔ, σ . 35 “- , καὶ καταξίως μεγάλης θειότητος ἁπαντ᾽ ἐπιτελεῖται. MeyaAnv δὲ δὰ λ ἕ Ἐπ᾿ κῳ 4 ε fH , θ Ν "EA 16 > Cal € ἔκπληξιν ἡμῖν παρέσχεν, ws ἐθεασάμεθα τὸν ealapov ἐν τῇ a ἴων “ \ 4 λειτουργίᾳ, Ta τε τοῦ στολισμοῦ καὶ τῆς δόξης, ἢ συνίσταται διὰ τὴν ἔνδυσιν οὗ φορεῖ χιτῶνος καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν λίθων: χργοοῖ Ν 4 Ν Ἂς / τος > ἴω / > > / yap KWAWNEC περὶ τὸν TIOAHPH εἰσὶν αὐτοῦ, μέλους ἦχον ἀνιέντες 3 5. ὦ ΄ Ν ΄, v , ook ἰδιάζοντα: παρ᾽ ἑκάτερον δὲ τούτων ANOECI πεποικιλμένοι POTCKOI, a“ /, / μὲ / Ἃς / ᾿ τῇ χρόᾳ θαυμασίως ἔχοντες. κατέζωστο δὲ διαφόρῳ Ζώνῃ δια- + , ’ τ 3 \ Ν er / πρεπεῖ, διυφασμένῃ καλλίστοις χρώμασιν. ἐπὶ δὲ TOY CTHOOYC a - ,ὔ φορεῖ τὸ λεγόμενον λόγιον, ἐν ᾧ συνεσφιγμένοι λίθοι AEKAAYO, ὃ AX / lal , “~ AX / a ~ my ΄ ιαλλάσσοντες τοῖς γένεσι, χρυσῷ κεκολλημένοι, τὰ τῶν φυλαρ- A / - > , χων ONOMATA κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς διάταξιν γενηθεῖσαν, ἀπαυγα- lal Ν ζοντες ἕκαστος ἀνεξήγητον τῆς ἰδιότητος τὴν φυσικὴν χρόαν. ἐπὶ “- A ΄ Ν δὲ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχει τὴν λεγομένην κίδλδριν᾽ ἐπὶ δὲ ταύτης τὴν ἀμίμητον MITPAN, τὸ καθηγιασμένον βασίλειον ἐκτΥποῦν ἐπὶ
17 ff Ex 284-27-31 20 1103 21 ff ib15—23 26 ff ib*=*
1 χρωμενοι A 2 πλειων BT 3 rad. δυο] ταλαντου QB 4 vos] pr es BT επιθεσ.] επιθυμιας Z (-εσεως sup ras in T) 5 προβ.] mpayua-
των Zt (apoB. Z™2) 6 ots τι πιμελες ἐστιν B 8 om auras BT 11 wod vrodauBavew conj Schmidt | ev] ἐπὶ A 12 ras επτακοσιας Z 16 »] ns BTZ | συνιστατο KA 19 rovrov Καὶ 20 θαυμασιαν Q 21 διυφασμενοι K 27 exturov GIQ (-πων Z)
uw
το
20
ae ite ory ..
Io
15
20
25
ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 537
7 δὲ ’ὔ, ε ,ὔ + “ “ \ , ~ TTETAAW χργοῷ γράμμασιν ἁγίοις ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ, κατὰ μέσον τῶν 3 , ‘ / ε Ν » Ἂ 5 “ ὀφρύων, δόξῃ πεπληρωμένον" ὁ κριθεὶς ἄξιος τούτων ἐν ταῖς λει-
/ ε Ν / 4 5 a / Ν ΄ τουργίαις. ἡ δὲ συμφάνεια τούτων ἐμποιεῖ φόβον καὶ ταραχήν, “;: 4 3 4 3 ΄ > Ν ca) ΄ Ν ὥστε νομίζειν εἰς ἕτερον ἐληλυθέναι ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου: καὶ διαβε-
lal / »” / A “~ βαιοῦμαι, πάντα avOpwrov προσελθόντα τῇ θεωρίᾳ τῶν προειρη- ΄ 3 a i ¢ \ θ Ν ἰδ , ΄, μένων εἰς ἔκπληξιν ἥξειν καὶ θαυμασμὸν ἀδιήγητον, μετατραπέντα “ ¢ \ τῇ διανοίᾳ διὰ τὴν περὶ ἕκαστον ἁγίαν κατασκευήν. Πρὸς ε ΄ 57 a / γὰρ τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν ἁπάντων ἐπὶ THY παρακειμένην ἄκραν τῆς πόλεως 3 B , 6 οὔ ee. - Ν 3 ε Xr , fsa) , ἀναβάντες ἐθεωροῦμεν: 4 κεῖται μὲν ἐν ὑψηλοτάτῳ τόπῳ, πύργοις -“ , 3 ἐξησφαλισμένη πλείοσι, μέχρι κορυφῆς εὐμήκεσι λίθοις ἀνῳκοδομη- , A ε Σ Ν ~ Ν μένων αὐτῶν, ὡς μεταλαμβάνομεν, πρὸς φυλακὴν τῶν περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ΄ “ ΧΝ ree, ΄, Ἃ \ Ἃ , 3 τόπων: ἵνα, ἐὰν ἐπίθεσίς τις ἢ νεωτερισμὸς ἢ πολεμίων ἔφοδος / \ , ce Ν > \ ΄ ΄ Ν γένηται, μηθεὶς δύνηται ὁδὸν εἰς τοὺς περιβόλους ποιήσασθαι τοὺς
Ν \ > 3 / eae AO oN a , a περὶ τὸν οἶκον: ἐπικειμένων καὶ ὀξυβελῶν ἐπὶ τῶν πύργων τῆς κω , a ΄ 4 - ἄκρας καὶ ὀργάνων ποικίλων, Kal τοῦ τόπου κατὰ κορυφὴν ὄντος τῶν
΄ «ες Ν ΄, A προειρημένων περιβόλων, ὡσανεὶ φυλασσομένων τῶν πύργων ὑπὸ ~ ’ὔ > a“ \ ~ / / 3 ᾽ ἊΣ ¢ / TOV πιστοτάτων ἀνδρῶν καὶ TH πατρίδι μεγάλας ἀποδείξεις δεδωκό- > - n~ y+ -“ των᾽ οἵτινες οὐκ εἶχον ἐξουσίαν ἐξιέναι τῆς ἄκρας, εἰ μὴ ταῖς ε a Ν A“ 3 / 3 Ν 3 7 y 3 / Ν ἑορταῖς, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ μέρους, οὐδὲ εἰσοδεύειν εἴων οὐδένα. μετὰ 3 / Ν a > > ΙΑ > Ἂς / ἃς la) ἀκριβείας δὲ πολλῆς εἶχον, εἰ καί τις ἐπιταγὴ γένοιτο διὰ τοῦ
6 / \ 6 ΄ q > δέ re , a ἈΝ θ᾽ προκαθηγουμένου, πρὸς θεωρίαν ἣ εἰσδέξασθαί τινας" οἷον καὶ κα yee > / / 3 sik e ες ε A , / ἡμᾶς ἐγεγόνει. μόλις yap ἀνόπλους ὄντας ἡμᾶς δύο παρεδέξαντο
Ν Ν a Ν »“" “- 5» “ πρὸς τὸ κατανοῆσαι τὰ τών θυσιῶν. ἔλεγον δὲ καὶ δι᾿ ὅρκων πεπι- »“ Ν nw Ν Ν ,ὔ 5» 5 yA στῶσθαι τὸ τοιοῦτον" τοὺς yap πάντας ὀμωμοκέναι, KAT ἀνάγκην / / Ν an ” <émitehovpevovs> θείως τὸ κατὰ TOV ὁρισμὸν πρᾶγμα, ὄντας πεντα:
/ Ἃ / “ > , , Ν Ν > ΄
κοσίους μὴ παραδέξασθαι πλεῖον ἀνθρώπων πέντε κατὰ τὸ αὐτό: “ -“" ἈΝ a Ss »” TOU yap ἱεροῦ THY πᾶσαν εἶναι φυλακὴν τὴν ἄκραν" καὶ TOV κατα-
βαλλόμενον αὐτὴν τὴν προφυλακὴν τῶν εἰρημένων οὕτως ἠσφαλέ
1 ονομα] pr το Q | κατα] το BTZ 2 δοξης BT 3 εμφανεια IZ | move. B | φοβον] φημὴν Z 4 εισελ. A | διαβεβαιουται B 5 om των
προειρ. Ὁ 6 nxew BT | ανεκδιηγ. BT 11 ws μεταλαμβανωσι προφυ- λακης B 12 τις ἡ ἢ και vewr. BT (τις ἡ και v. Z) 13 δυνηται Β] δυναται cett 19 εἰς μερος BT εἰς μερους Zvid 21 προκαθημενου
ΘΠ ΟἾὝΣΕΤΒΤΈΕ cett 25 επιτελουμενου codd (τελουμενοὺυς 2:5) | του B | πραγματος Β
1Q
KAGIQB TZ
538 APISTEAS
a \ , ΄ 3 Ν ΄ ΄ » e σθαι. Τῆς δὲ πόλεως ἐστι τὸ χύμα συμμέτρως ἔχον, οἷον τεσσα-
’, / ΝΜ “- , / > / ΄ ράκοντα σταδίων ὄντος τοῦ περιβόλου, καθόσον εἰκάσαι δυνατόν. 4 Ν Ν -“ , f a Ν , ΄ ἔχει δὲ τὴν τῶν πύργων θέσιν θεατροειδῆ (καὶ φαινομένων διόδων
a ε / a mS / > ΄ Ν Ν Ν 4 τῶν ὑποκειμένων, τῶν δ᾽ ἐπάνωθεν εἰθισμένων) καὶ τὰς διὰ τούτων
, aay \ + κ A , ε ΕἸ Ὁ, ae a διεξόδους. ἀνάκλασιν yap ἔχει TA τῶν τόπων, ὡς ἂν ἐπ᾽ ρους τῆς 5
, > \ Ν ΄ πόλεως φκοδομημένης. εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ διαβάθραι πρὸς τὰς διόδους. οἱ
Ν Ν / Ν δὸ , ε 5 cae 3 «1X “ \ , μὲν yap μετέωροι τὴν ὁδείαν, οἱ δ᾽ ὑπ΄ αὐτὰς ποιοῦνται, καὶ μάλιστα
~ Ἀ -“ »Μ σ΄ διεστηκότες τῆς ὁδείας, διὰ τοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἁγνείαις ὄντας, ὅπως μηδενὸς / φ᾿ 3 ΄ 3 ΄ 3 35 7 Ν Ν ΄ θιγγάνωσιν, ὧν οὐ δέον ἐστίν. Οὐκ ἀλόγως δὲ τὴν πόλιν 4 “~ Lal $P συμμετρίᾳ καθηκούσῃ κατεσκεύασαν οἱ πρώτοι, σοφῶς δὲ ᾿ἐπινοή- 10 a , “- y+ aA , gH σαντες. τῆς yap χώρας πολλῆς οὔσης καὶ καλῆς, Kal τινων “μὲν -“ -“ “ = ΄“΄ ’ὔ, πεδινῶν, τῶν κατὰ τὴν Yapapeitiv λεγομένην, καὶ τῶν συναπτόντων τῇ τῶν ᾿Ιδουμαίων χώρᾳ, τινῶν δὲ ὀρεινῶν, τῶν «συναπτόντων
A “ / “ Ν Ἀ Ν
τῇ τῶν Ἰουδαίων χώρᾳ, δεῖ:- πρὸς τὴν γεωργίαν καὶ τὴν ἐπιμέ- ~ “ “ ν Ν a “ \ ΕἸ λειαν τῆς γῆς γίνεσθαι συνεχῶς, ἵνα καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὗτοι τὴν εὐ- 15 = ΄“ , ,ὕ καρπίαν ἔχωσιν: οὗ καὶ γινομένου γεωργεῖται μὲν πάντα δαψιλείας ~ A“ ΄ “-“ o πολλῆς ἐν πάσῃ TH προειρημένῃ χώρᾳ. τῶν δὲ πόλεων ὅσαι
, Μ Ἂς Ἂς 3 / > , ’ὔ μέγεθος ἔχουσι καὶ τὴν ἀκόλουθον εὐδαιμονίαν, ταύταις συμ-
΄, 3 A 3 a Ν a , ΄ aS Ν Ν βέβηκεν εὐανδρεῖν, ἀμελεῖσθαι δὲ τῆς χώρας, πάντων ἐπὶ τὸ κατὰ
Ν “ "6 “ tal / > / ψυχὴν ἱλαροῦσθαι νενευκότων, Kal τῇ κατασκευῇ πάντας ἀνθρώπους 20 ee! Ν ε Ν 3 ΄ πὸ a Ν τ ον νὴ δι ἐπὶ τὰς ἡδονὰς εὐκαταφόρους εἶναι. τοῦτο δὲ ἐγίνετο περὶ τὴν
΄ὔ “ Ν /
᾿Αλεξανδρειαν ὑπερβάλλουσαν πάσας τῷ μεγέθει καὶ εὐδαιμονίᾳ ~ XA >
Tas πόλεις. οἱ yap ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας εἰς αὐτὴν ἀποξενούμενοι κατα-
/ agit) Ue Ν > 3 , = Ν a > 7 ᾿ “0 ε
μένοντες ἐφ᾽ ἱκανὸν εἰς ἐλάττωσιν ἦγον τὰ τῆς ἐργασίας" ὅθεν ὃ \ c ~
βασιλεύς, va μὴ καταμένωσι, προσέταξε μὴ πλέον εἴκοσιν ἡμερῶν 25 a “ “ a ? ΄
παρεπιδημεῖν: καὶ τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν χρειῶν ὁμοίως δι᾿ ἐγγράπτων
ὃ Ν 26 2s 3 a = ΄ ὃ , 3
ιαστολὰς ἔδωκεν, ἐὰν ἀναγκαῖον ἢ κατακαλέσαι, διακρίνειν ἐν
ες , \ lal Ν 4 ‘ Ἃ, ele ἡμέραις πέντε. πρὸ πολλοῦ δὲ ποιούμενος καὶ χρηματιστὰς καὶ
HKAGIBP 1 χυμα] σχημα B 2 ovros] evros Z 4 ηθισμενων KGIT* 4Z, ae Fort latet vitium aliquid: sensus totius loci perobscurus est 5 efodous B 8 διεστηκοτας KGITZ (-κυιας edd) | rns] τας K | μηδενι BZ 11 πεδινων μεν P 12 Neyouevwy codd omn 13, 14 των---γεωργιαν)] Tw προς TH γεωργια Β των mp. τὴν γεωργιαν cett verba ex conj addidi 15 om kat P 16 fort μετα δαψιλ. legendum 19 evavdpew] ev (sequente lacuna) B 20 και] και Tw vel dia To conj Schmidt 22 ὑπερβαλλουσα
HA*GIT*Z 23 επιξενουμενοι BP
σι
®IAOKPATEI, 539
4 Ἵ δ᾽ τοὺς τούτων ὑπηρέτας ἐπέταξε κατὰ νόμους, ὅπως μὴ πορισμὸν λαμβάνοντες οἱ γεωργοὶ καὶ προστάται τῆς πόλεως ἐλαττῶσι τὰ “ / Ν δ᾿ ~ ’ / / ταμιεῖα, λέγω δὲ τὰ τῆς γεωργίας πρόσφορα. Παρεξέβημεν Ν a“ Ν Ν a Ces Ν > / ε & Ν δὲ ταῦτα διὰ τὸ καλῶς ἡμῖν τὸν “EXealapov ὑποδεδειχέναι τὰ ¢ a
προειρημένα. μεγάλη yap ἐστὶν ἡ τῶν γεωργουμένων φιλοπονία.
“ a“ / A lal καὶ yap ἐλαϊκοῖς πλήθεσι σύνδενδρός ἐστι καὶ σιτικοῖς καρποῖς
9 a ε ͵ 2 ὧν , m” Ν 3 ᾽ὔ \ , mm Ν αὐτῶν ἡ χώρα καὶ ὀσπρίοις, ἔτι δὲ ἀμπέλῳ καὶ μέλιτι TOAAW. τὰ
" οι
Ν -“ » > ὃ ᾽ὔ \ ’ὔ 20» 5 a 3 3 “ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων ἀκροδρύων καὶ φοινίκων οὐδ᾽ ἀριθμεῖται Tap αὑτοῖς. 4 Ν Lal Ν De ε ᾽ὔ is \ a κτήνη TE πολλὰ παμμιγῆ, Kat δαψιλὴς ἡ τούτων νομή" διὸ καλῶς »” “ ΄ ε ΄ ΄, \ \ ἔβλεψαν, ὅτι πολυανθρωπίας οἱ τόποι δέονται, καὶ τὴν κατα- \ a ΄ \ A A ” Q , \ \ σκευὴν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τῶν κωμῶν ἔθεντο κατὰ λόγον. πολὺ δὲ - \ A > / . , wn \ ~ πλῆθος καὶ TOV ἀρωμάτων καὶ λίθων πολυτελῶν καὶ χρυσοῦ παρα- / \ A > ΄ 3 \ δ 5" / Ν \ Ν κομίζεται διὰ τῶν ᾿Αράβων εἰς τὸν τόπον. ἐργάσιμος γὰρ καὶ πρὸς ’ 7 A τὴν ἐμπορίαν ἐστὶ κατεσκευασμένη ἡ χώρα, καὶ πολύτεχνος ἡ πόλις, > 44 Ν 9 Ν “~ / \ “~ 4 ΕΝ οὐ σπανίζει δὲ οὐδὲν τῶν διακομιζομένων διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης. ἔχει A / A γὰρ καὶ λιμένας εὐκαίρους χορηγοῦντας, τόν Te κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασκαλῶνα Ν 3 / Ν , ε ᾽ Ὧν Ν / Ν ε x ~ καὶ ᾿Ιόππην καὶ Talav, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Πτολεμαίδα τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ “- Ν βασιλέως ἐκτισμένην. μέση δὲ κεῖται πρὸς τοὺς προειρημένους ΄ 3 3 fe 7 4 + x / a yd τόπους, οὐκ ἀπέχουσα τούτων πολύ. ἔχει δὲ πάντα δαψιλῆ κάθυγρος 3 ’ > “ οὖσα πάντοθεν ἡ χώρα καὶ μεγάλην ἀσφάλειαν ἔχουσα. περιρρεῖ > 7 Ν / lal 4 δ᾽ αὐτὴν ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰορδάνης ποταμὸς ἀείρρους. «τῆς δὲ xwpas> > - - y+ οὐκ ἔλαττον ἑξακισχιλίων μυριάδων ἀρουρῶν κατὰ TO ἀρχαῖον ovens a ων fe / (μετέπειτα δὲ of γειτνιῶντες ἐπέβησαν αὐτῆς) ἑξήκοντα μυριάδες ἀνδρῶν ἔγκληροι καθειστήκεισαν ἑκατονταρούροις. πληρούμενος δὲ ε , Ν ε a“ 3 a \ Ν Ν ae? 6 ποταμός, καθὼς ὃ Νεῖλος, ἐν ταῖς πρὸς τὸν θερισμὸν ἡμέραις,
πολλὴν ἀρδεύει τῆς γῆς" ὃς εἰς ἕτερον ποταμὸν ἐκβάλλει τὸ ῥεῦμα
κατὰ τὴν Πτολεμαίων χώραν, οὗτος δὲ ἔξεισιν εἰς θάλασσαν.
23 eink. pvp. ?cf Ex 39? LXx 25 cf [05.215
6 € λαικοις (sic) H εν Nak. GIT evdak. B ev ἐλαικ. KAPZ 7 om autwy BPTZ 9 re] ra HAGIZ 10 προσδεονται BPTZ 14 εστιν ἢ xX. κατεσκ. (κατασκ. T*) BPTZ | πολι:] Ἐ ἐστιν P 16 τον Β] των cett τα edd 17 om Tov P 18 εκτισμενην] κατεσκευασμενὴν P | εἰρημ. BT 19 καθυγρατος GIPZ pr καὶ P 21 verba inserui 23 ὑπεβησαν P απεβ. edd pr | μυριαδων T 26 πολυν B | εμβαλλει GBPZ 27—2 p 540 ovTos de—Al. χωραν om A
HKAGIBP TZ
HKAGIBP TZ
540 APISTEAS
» Ν ’ ’ὔ ἄλλοι δὲ χειμάρροι λεγόμενοι κατίασι, περιλαμβάνοντες τὰ πρὸς Ν ’, of ¥ Ν Ν > , ’ τὴν Γάζαν μέρη καὶ τὴν ᾿Αζωτίων χώραν. περιέχεται δὲ ἀσφαλείαις > αὐτοφυέσι, δυσείσβολος οὖσα καὶ πλήθεσιν ἀπραγμάτευτος, διὰ τὸ \ a ΄, A ‘ στενὰς εἶναι τὰς παρόδους, κρημνῶν παρακειμένων Kal φαράγγων / ” ες / ΄“ A βαθέων, ἔτι δὲ τραχείας οὔσης πάσης τῆς περιεχούσης πᾶσαν THY ΄ 3 “ 3 ig “ χώραν ὀρεινῆς. Ἐλέγετο δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῶν παρακειμένων ὀρέων “ 3 ’ / ἴω τῆς Ἀραβίας μέταλλα χαλκοῦ καὶ σιδήρου συνίστασθαι πρότε- / A pov. ἐκλέλειπται δὲ ταῦτα, καθ᾽ ὃν ἐπεκράτησαν Πέρσαι χρόνον" “A / τῶν τότε προστατούντων ποιησαμένων διαβολήν, ὡς ἄχρηστος ἡ ’, ’ὔ κατεργασία γίνεται καὶ πολυδάπανος, ὅπως μὴ διὰ τὴν μεταλ- Χ ‘OL TO 5 / BH Ν Ν / θ Ἅ θ QA εἰαν τῶν εἰρημένων συμβῇ Kal τὴν χώραν καταφθείρεσθαι, καὶ δὸ ὃ Ν Ἂς 5 ’ὔ ὃ / > “~ ’ σχεδὸν διὰ τὴν ἐκείνων δυναστείαν ἀλλοτριωθῆναι, παρεύρεσιν Δ 3 Ν ’ / λαβόντων εἰς τοὺς τόπους εἰσόδου, διὰ τὸ THY διαβολὴν γεγονέναι ταύτην.
7 Sad Ν Ν , ΕῚ “ / / Οσον οὖν καὶ περὶ τούτων ἔδει, κεφαλαιωδῶς σεσήμαγκά σοι, = ΄, rd a ΄ ὦ Φιλόκρατες ἀδελφέ: τὰ δὲ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἑπομένως δηλώσομεν. ἼΠῚ Nek Ν Ν 5 / ” ὃ Ν ὃ / ὃ / bud 67; πιλέξας yap τοὺς ἀρίστους avdpas καὶ παιδείᾳ διαφέροντας, ate δὴ / / / 7 “ 3 “ “ γονέων τετευχότας ἐνδόξων, οἵτινες οὐ μόνον τὴν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶν / iA , ε “ ἰλλὰ Ν ἴω “-“ EXX “ γραμμάτων ἕξιν περιεποίησαν αὑτοῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς τῶν ἑλληνικῶν / a / ἐφρόντισαν οὐ παρέργως κατασκευῆς" διὸ Kal πρὸς τὰς πρεσβείας »” , \ mie tS , “ 7, \ \ Ν εὔθετοι καθεστήκεισαν, καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπετέλουν ὅτε δέοι, καὶ πρὸς τὰς ε / Ν Ν 5) / Ν Ν ω / 4 > ΄ ὁμιλίας καὶ τὰς ἐπερωτήσεις τὰς διὰ τοῦ νόμου μεγάλην εὐφυίαν = \ / > / , a Ν , ΄ > εἶχον, TO μέσον ἐζηλωκότες κατάστημα (τοῦτο yap καλλιστόν ἐστιν), 5 / x x Ν 4 “A / c / Ν Ν ἀποτεθειμένοι τὸ τραχὺ καὶ βάρβαρον τῆς διανοίας, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ \ / Ν ΄ ε “ ΒΝ ε ΄ Ν τὸ κατοίεσθαι καὶ νομίζειν ὑπερφρονεῖν ἑτέρους ὑπερβεβηκότες, τὴν 2 ¢ / / δ᾽ ὁμιλίαν καὶ τὸ συνακούειν Kal πρὸς ἕκαστον ἀποκρίνεσθαι δεόντως παραδεδειγμένοι, καὶ πάντες ταῦτα συντηροῦντες καὶ μᾶλλον ἐν
/ / ε 4 - ε / Xx “~ / τούτοις βουλόμενοι ὑπερφέρειν ἕτερος ἑτέρου, καὶ τοῦ καθηγουμένου
2 acpartes HKAGI αἀσῴαλως BPTZ txt ex conj Schmidt 5 βραχειας I 7 μεταλα GP pera I 8 Ilepoa] pr o I 11 προειρημενων ἃ 15 om κεφαλ. P | σεσημακαμεν Z 16 δηλωσωμεν GIPZ 17 yap] ovr HKA 18 τετευχοτως Pvid 19 eavros BT 21 απετελουν B 22 δια] ex B 27 παραδεδεγμενοι BPT 28 ὑποῴφερειν KA | erepov] erepw PT*vid
σι
10
15
20
®IAOKPATEI. 541
s 4 Ἀ a Ἂν Le.’ 3 A a “ Φ ε > 4 πάντες ἄξιοι καὶ τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν ἀρετῆς. νοῆσαι δ᾽ ἦν, ὡς ἡἠγάπησαν τὸν ᾿Ελεάζαρον δυσαποσπάστως ἔχοντες, καὶ ἐκεῖνος αὐτούς" χωρὶς
\ “ Ν / ΄, Ν a καὶ τοῦ πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα γεγραφέναι περὶ τῆς ἀποκαταστάσεως αὐτῶν πολλὰ παρεκάλεσε τὸν ᾿Ανδρέαν ποιῆσαι, συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι
a aA oN ΄ ε a
παρακαλῶν, καθ᾽ ὃ ἂν δυνώμεθα. Kal ἡμῶν ἐπαγγελλομένων Τάφρον-
τίσειν' περὶ τούτων, ἔφη καὶ λίν ὃ νιᾷν: εἰδέ ip, ὃ περὶ τούτων, ἔφη lav διαγωνιᾷν: εἰδέναι γάρ, ὅτι
΄, xv ε ΄ ΄, , ε a \ , φιλάγαθος ὧν 6 βασιλεύς, πάντων μέγιστον ἡγεῖται TO μεταπέμ- > ad “Ὁ ΄, 3 “ + ΄ 3 “ πεσθαι, καθ᾽ ὃν av τόπον ὀνομασθῇ τις avOpwros διαφέρων ἀγωγῇ
Ν ΄ Baie... 2 , \ A 8. Ὁ Ἂς / 9 καὶ φρονήσει Tap ἑτέρους. μετείληφα yap καλώς αὐτὸν λέγειν, ὅτι
y ἈΝ περὶ ἑαυτὸν ἔχων ἄνδρας δικαίους καὶ σώφρονας τὴν μεγίστην ἂν Ν “ λ / ee / / Ν Ν φυλακὴν τῆς βασιλείας ἕξειν, συμβουλευόντων παρρησίᾳ πρὸς τὸ ΄ “A ἍΝ a Ἀ ’ ων 5 / ε 3 συμφέρον τῶν φίλων: ὃ δὴ σύνεστι τοῖς ἀποστελλομένοις ὑπ a la) BA αὐτοῦ. καὶ Ov ὅρκων ἐπιστοῦτο, μὴ προΐεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, εἴ 5 - τις ἑτέρα χρεία πρὸς τὰ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν αὐτῷ κατεπείγοι: πρὸς δὲ τὴν Ν ἴω ~ 7, > / 5» / > 4 Ν κοινὴν πᾶσι τοῖς πολίταις ἐπανόρθωσιν ἐξαποστέλλειν αὐτούς. τὸ A A ~ , an 5 A yap καλῶς ζῇν ἐν TO τὰ νόμιμα συντηρεῖν εἶναι: τοῦτο δὲ ἐπιτε- a x a 3 / a A x Ν A 3 ΄ λεῖσθαι διὰ τῆς ἀκροάσεως πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἢ διὰ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως. 3 “ ἈΝ , > προτιθέμενος οὖν ταῦτα καὶ TA τούτοις παραπλήσια φανερὸς ἦν τὴν Ν Φ διάθεσιν, ὃς ἦν πρὸς αὐτούς.
ΛΑξιον δὲ ἐπιμνησθῆναι βραχέων τῶν ὑποδειχθέντων ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὰ δι᾿ ἡμῶν ἐπιζητηθέντα. νομίζω γὰρ τοὺς πολλοὺς περιερ- γίαν ἔχειν τινὰ τῶν ἐν τῇ νομοθεσίᾳ περί τε τῶν βρωτών καὶ ποτῶν,
Ν A / 9 / > , , και τῶν νομιζομένων ἀκαθάρτων ειναι κνωδάλων. πυνθανομένων
20 ff Lev 11. Deut 14°-”
2 δυσαποσπ.}- αὐτου B | exewos]+dnrovore nyarnoev B | avrous]+os B 3 om καὶ P | γεγραπται I 4 τον avépa B 6 τουτου P 7 φιλανος BT 9 αὑτον καλως BTZ 10 avrov BT | exwv]+o Πτο- λεμαιος B 11 efec B 12 συνεστὴη Z 14 om ιδιαν B (in fin lin fort evanuit) | avrwy BT 18 davepws P 20 βραχεων codd et Eus (bis scr Eus°)] δια Bpax. Schmidt fort recte | ἐπιδειχθεντων Eusi 21 προς ἡμων επιζητηθεντα HKA προς δι ἡμων επιζητ. GIZ* προς δε ἡμων επιζητηθεντων BPTZ txt Eus | νομιζειν yap τοις πολλοις Ar codd (B excepto) Eus txt B 22 τινα exe BPT | περι] pr λεγω δὲ Eus | των 2°] om Eus | βρωματων GIBPTZ txt cett Eus 23 om και BPTZ
§ Eus
HKAGIBP TZ Eus
HKAGIBP TZ Eus
542 APISTEAS
Ν ε nw ὃ Ν ’ὔ wn An yy A ‘\ 3 (0 , γὰρ ἡμῶν, διὰ TL, μιᾶς καταβολῆς οὔσης, τὰ μὲν ἀκάθαρτα νομίζεται Ν a Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν ε Ν / Ν Ν πρὸς βρώσιν, τὰ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀφὴν (δεισιδαιμόνως γὰρ τὰ
lal Ν 6 / ” 3. δὲ ,ὔ / U ὃ ὃ / πλεῖστα τὴν νομοθεσίαν ἔχειν, ἐν δὲ τούτοις FraVUT δεισι αιμόνως) Ν a Ad ae he Efe a μὲ Ν 5 Ν πρὸς ταῦτα οὕτως ἐνήρξατο Θεωρεῖς, ἔφη, τὰς ἀναστροφὰς
ἈΝ Ν ε / - > , an , a ε , καὶ τὰς ὁμιλίας, οἷον ἐνεργάζονται πρᾶγμα, διότι κακοῖς ὁμιλήσαντες 5
’ὔ διαστροφὰς ἐπιλαμβάνουσιν ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ταλαίπωροι δι ὅλου τοῦ -“ > ff x “-“ \ ,ὔ a > 5 A > ζῇν εἰσιν: ἐὰν δὲ σοφοῖς καὶ φρονίμοις συζῶσιν, ἐξ ἀγνοίας ἐπανορ- ΄ > Ν 4 > , 3 Ν -“ 3 ΄ θώσεως εἰς τὸν βίον ἔτυχον. διαστειλάμενος οὖν τὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας καὶ δικαιοσύνης πρῶτον 6 νομοθέτης ἡμῶν, καὶ διδάξας ἕκαστα περὶ / 5 > “ , 3 os a Ν Ν , τούτων, οὐκ ἀπαγορευτικῶς μόνον GAN ἐνδεικτικῶς, καὶ τὰς βλάβας προδήλους καὶ τὰς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ γινομένας ἐπιπομπὰς τοῖς αἰτίοις--- , κ᾿ ͵, a «“ , ε , > \ Ἢ προυπέδειξε γὰρ πάντων πρῶτον, ὅτι μόνος ὃ θεός ἐστι, καὶ διὰ πάντων ἡ δύναμις αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται, πεπληρωμένου παντὸς ΄, A / Ν 92 ΧΝ βάν » “a 39 a τόπου τῆς δυναστείας, καὶ οὐθὲν αὐτὸν λανθάνει τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ywo- / ε > 5 / / > > “ ““ > a“ Ν μένων ὑπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων κρυφίως: ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα ποιεῖ τις αὐτῷ φανερὰ , \ \ , , Aes = 9 , καθέστηκε, Kal τὰ μέλλοντα γίνεσθαι. ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἐξεργαζόμενος > a Ν , ’, 3 ῳ Xv > “ / ἀκριβῶς καὶ πρόδηλα θείς, ἔδειξεν ὅτι Kav ἐννοηθῇ τις κακίαν 3 ω 3 Ἃ ΄ AS oe \ , Ν ΄, a ἐπιτελεῖν, οὐκ av λάθοι, μὴ ὅτι Kal πράξας, διὰ πάσης τῆς νομο- Ὁ“ ~ > Gecias τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ δυνατὸν ἐνδεικνύμενος. ποιησάμενος οὖν τὴν καταρχὴν ταύτην, καὶ δείξας ὅτι πάντες οἱ λοιποὶ παρ᾽ ἡμᾶς Ε \ \ > ΄ ΓΒΕ «τ ΄ ἄνθρωποι πολλοὺς θεοὺς εἶναι νομίζουσιν, αὐτοὶ δυναμικώτεροι al “-“ φ , / πολλῷ καθεστῶτες ὧν σέβονται ματαίως---ἀγάλματα yap ποιήσαντες 9 ,ὔ Ν ͵ὕ > ‘4 Ν > Cal 3 ’ \ Ν ἐκ λίθων καὶ ξύλων, εἰκόνας φασὶν εἶναι τῶν ἐξευρόντων τι πρὸς τὸ ζῆν αὐτοῖς χρήσιμον, οἷς προσκυνοῦσι, παρὰ πόδας ἔχοντες τὴν ἄναι- σθησίαν. εἴτε γὰρ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνό τις ««θεὸς εἴη:-, κατὰ τὴν ἐξεύρεσιν, 8 της νομοθεσιας B| πανυ] mace Β παλιν πανυ HKA παλιν cett Eus 5 εργαζονται ΑἸΒΡ Eus‘odd det 6 δια του ζὴην Eusi δὶ odov τὴν ἕωην Eus® 8 ενετυχον BT | ow Eus] δὲ εστι B om cett 9 πρωτον o von. Eus.] o πρωτονομοθετης Ar codd 10 evdickws Ar codd txt Eus 11 προδήλως I ὃ προδηλωσας | ὑπο] ere P Euso°44 | om του P Eus | yevou. P Euso44 (yey. Eus') 12 mpwrov παντων Eus P| om o BPTZ | 7 δυν. aur. δια παντ. Eus° 13 δυναμις] εστιν GIZ | ravros] pr του B 14 οὐδὲν B | των επιγινομενων (-νωμ. 2) PT*Z (yns suprascr Τῇ) 15 ὑπ] vro των B | κρυ- gews GI κρυφαιως Eusi 16 epyafouevos B εξεργασαμενος Eus® 17 προ- δηλωθεις HKA 18 λανθανοι B Aan P | δια macs] δι ολης Eus: εξ odns
Eus°® 22 πολλω Eus P] πολλων Ar codd cett 23 και] ἡ Eus 25 εἰ τι HK AGT | eos evn corr Wendland] θειη codd Eus
“᾿
10
15
20
25
@®IAOKPATEI. 543
΄“- 3 4 “ Ν >. ~ i. ’ QA / παντελῶς ἀνόητοι: τῶν yap ἐν τῇ κτίσει λαβόντες τινὰ συνέθηκαν Ἀ ” Ν An Kal προσυπέδειξαν εὔχρηστα, τὴν κατασκευὴν αὐτῶν οὐ ποιήσαντες Ν A XN αὐτοί: διὸ κενὸν Kal μάταιον τοὺς ὁμοίους ἀποθεοῦν. καὶ yap ἔτι - ΄ a , an , καὶ νῦν εὑρεματικώτεροι καὶ πολυμαθέστεροι τῶν ἀνθρώπων TOV πρίν > ,’ Ν > x FP > Ν “ Ἂς / εἰσι πολλοί, καὶ οὐκ ἂν φθάνοιεν αὐτοὺς προσκυνοῦντες. καὶ νομί- ε Lal 4 Ν / “ ε 4 ζουσιν ot ταῦτα διαπλάσαντες Kal μυθοποιήσαντες τῶν Ἑλλήνων ε ΄ , Cal Ν ” 4 / “ ἈΝ οἱ σοφώτατοι καθεστάναι. τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων πολυματαίων τί δεῖ καὶ , 3 τ Ν a / 4 a. ΄ Χ λέγειν, Αἰγυπτίων τε καὶ τῶν παραπλησίων, οἵτινες ἐπὶ θηρία καὶ a A a ’ τῶν ἑρπετῶν τὰ πλεῖστα καὶ κνωδάλων τὴν ἀπέρεισιν πεποίηνται, lal cal a \ καὶ ταῦτα προσκυνοῦσι, Kal θύουσι τούτοις Kal ζῶσι καὶ τελευ- ΄ x 2 .“ \ xX ε τήσασι;--- συνθεωρήσας οὖν ἕκαστα σοφὸς ὧν 6 νομοθέτης, ~ “a ,ὔ ὑπὸ θεοῦ κατεσκευασμένος εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τῶν ἁπάντων, περιέφραξεν « -“ ’ὔ “-“ a \ A“ ἡμᾶς ἀδιακόποις χάραξι Kal σιδηροῖς τείχεσιν, ὅπως μηθενὶ τών ἀλλ 30 “ > ΄ 6 Ν δέ ε Ν θ “ Ν “ ἄλλων ἐθνῶν ἐπιμισγώμεθα κατὰ μηδέν, ἁγνοὶ καθεστῶτες κατὰ σῶμα ‘\ Ν / > /, δ “ Ν / Ν Ἁ καὶ κατὰ ψυχήν, ἀπολελυμένοι ματαίων δοξῶν, τὸν μόνον θεὸν καὶ Ν , Ss. ¢& Ν lal / Ὁ ε > lA δυνατὸν σεβόμενοι παρ᾽ ὅλην THY πᾶσαν κτίσιν. ὅθεν ot Αἰγυπτίων ιφ ec “ > / > Ν Ν / καθηγεμόνες ἱερεῖς, ἐγκεκυφότες εἰς πολλὰ Kal μετεσχηκότες , A , ee ἃ a a πραγμάτων, ἀνθρώπους θεοῦ προσονομάζουσιν ἡμᾶς: ὃ τοῖς λοιποῖς 3 / > , , Ν \ ar 40 θ 4 aA’ a. ov πρόσεστιν, εἰ μή τις σέβεται τὸν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν θεόν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰσὶν ω -“ a“ Ν ε Ν “ / ἄνθρωποι βρωτῶν καὶ ποτῶν καὶ σκέπης: ἡ yap πᾶσα διάθεσις 3 “-“ 5 ἈΝ Lal ’ὔὕ “"Ἵ Ν Βι, "ὦ a ΕῚ 5» Ν A αὐτῶν ἐπὶ ταῦτα καταφεύγει. τοῖς δὲ rap ἡμῶν ἐν οὐδενὶ ταῦτα λε- I \ “ A ~ , a οὗ A “ ε , λόγισται, περὶ δὲ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυναστείας dv ὁλου τοῦ ζῇν ἡ σκέψις 4 7 > a αὐτοῖς ἐστιν. ὅπως οὖν μηθενὶ συναλισγούμενοι μηδ᾽ ὁμιλοῦν- ΄ Τ᾿ ε “ τες φαύλοις διαστροφὰς λαμβάνωμεν, πάντοθεν ἡμᾶς περιέφραξεν
ε ΄, Ν Ν a \ “ δον δι Laila sya 5 “ Me 7 αγνειαις και διὰ βρωτῶν και πότων και apwv και AKONS και OPATEWS
1 avonrov Eus 2 ευχρηστοτατὴην (- τὴν Eus°) κατ. Eus 3 om auto. P 4 evpnu. AB ευρετικωτεροι Eus 5 φθανοιεν Eus] φθασειαν B (-σοιαν T) φθανοισαν cett 7 των] - μεν Eus | de] δὴ HAGI 9 κνωδ.] pr επι Eus! | απερ εἰσι PT*Z 11 ovy] τοιγαρουν Eus' | om exacra P | o vou. υπο 0. cop. wy P 12 κατεσκενασμενα H (a 3° sup lin) Euscodd det 13 under. Ἐπ Z μηθεν HK AGI 14 και σωμα και ψυχὴν Eus® 15 απο- λελυμενοι Eus Ρ] -μενων cett 16 πασαν την κτ. P | Αἰγυπτίων οἱ Eus 18 εἰς πραγματα | 19 τις] τι HA (s postea suprascr H* vid A* vid) KGT 21 ἡμιν BTZ Eus® 22 om δε HAGI | om τῆς τον Eusi' 28 aurwv B* | ουν Eus] τε ev B ev cett | μηδενι BP Eus | συναλισγομ. T Eus 24 φαυλω Eus® γαμοις P | λαμβανοιμεν Eus | περιεῴφραξαν Eus® 25 agys Eus?
HKAGIBP NZ, Bus
HKAGIBP TZ Eus
544 APISTEAS
“A Ν Ν ΄ ΄ Ν Ν Ν / g νομικῶς. τὸ yap καθόλου πάντα πρὸς τὸν φυσικὸν λόγον ὅμοια Ν a > A καθέστηκεν, ὑπὸ μιᾶς δυνάμεως οἰκονομούμενα, Kal καθ᾽ ἕν ἕκαστον ” , , 53) @ 3 / Ν Ν “ Ν Φ ἔχει λόγον βαθύν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἀπεχόμεθα κατὰ τὴν χρῆσιν, καὶ οἷς ’, θ / δὲ «ε ὃ / a x ὃ ’΄ 3 ὃ ’ συγχρώμεθα. χάριν δὲ ὑποδείγματος ἕν ἢ δεύτερον ἐπιδραμών σοι “ Ν Ν 3 Ν / / μι 9 - σημανῶὐξ Μὴ γὰρ εἰς τὸν καταπεπτωκότα λόγον ἔλθῃς, ὅτι MY@N = 4 ε ΄ ΄ καὶ Γὰλῆο ἢ τῶν τοιούτων χάριν περιεργίαν ποιούμενος ἐνομοθέτει A - a tA AG Ν ε Ν oS \ / 5) ἈΝ ταῦτα Μωῦσῆς: αλλὰ πρὸς ἁγνὴν ἐπίσκεψιν καὶ τρόπων ἐξαρτισμὸν « ~ ’΄ ’ὔ -» -“ ~ δικαιοσύνης ἕνεκεν σεμνῶς πάντα ἄνατέτακται. “ τῶν yap πτηνῶν, : ΄, ¢ , οἷς χρώμεθα, πάντα ἥμερα καθέστηκε καὶ διαφέρει καθαριότητι, “ Ν > / , Ν ‘ ’ὔ e πυροῖς καὶ ὀσπρίοις χρώμενα πρὸς τὴν τροφήν, οἷον περιστεραὶ > 7ὕ + a » «“ A τρυγόνες ATTAKO! πέρδικες ἔτι δὲ χῆνες Kal TA ἄλλα ὅσα τοιαῦτα. - ΄, κ e 7 ” ΄ κ᾿ περὶ ὧν δὲ ἀπηγόρευται πτηνῶν, εὑρήσεις ἀγριά τε καὶ σαρκοφάγα - \ δ΄ ’ καὶ καταδυναστεύοντα τῇ περὶ ἑαυτὰ δυνάμει τὰ λοιπά, καὶ τὴν / - / ε , τροφὴν ἔχοντα δαπάνησιν τῶν προειρημένων ἡμέρων μετὰ ἀδικίας" 3 , Ν A IAA ων \ ¥ τι γί 3 , ov μόνον δὲ ταῦτα, GAAG καὶ τοὺς apvas καὶ ἐρίφους ἀναρπάζουσι, A a , καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δὲ ἀδικοῦσι νεκρούς τε καὶ ζῶντας. παράσημον i 4 Ν ΄ πον , “ ᾿ 2 ‘ Ν οὖν ἔθετο διὰ τούτων, AKABAPTA προσονομασάας, OTL δέον ἐστὶ κατὰ / : ε Α - ψυχήν, οἷς ἡ νομοθεσία διατέτακται, δικαιοσύνῃ συγχρῆσθαι καὶ / “A > μηδένα καταδυναστεύειν, πεποιθότας ἰσχύι τῇ καθ᾽ ἑαυτούς, μηδὲ “- > , Ν “ ᾽ aA ε ἀφαιρεῖσθαι μηδέν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ δικαίου τὰ τοῦ βίου κυβερνᾶν, ὡς τὰ ΄“ a 7 A Ν ’ “ τῶν προειρημένων πτηνῶν ἥμερα CHa τὰ φυόμενα τῶν ὀσπρίων ἐπὶ a ~ ‘ , Ν ἈΝ ’, a γῆς δαπανᾷ, καὶ οὐ καταδυναστεύει πρὸς τὴν ἐπαναίρεσιν τῶν συγ-
΄- A > / a γενικῶν. διὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὖν παραδέδωκεν ὁ νομοθέτης σημειοῦ- & fF Lev τι 11 Lev 11” 17 Deut 1438
1 νομικης ἃ Eus® -κοις P | ro] τω T Eus! 2 dvvamews] + οἰκονομικως P | exacra Eus® 3 Noyov exec BT [απεσχομεθα KAI 5 εἰσελθης Eusi (ελθης9) 6 περιεργιας Eus περιεργασιαν Z 7 Mwons AP Eus | τροπων + efatperov Eus® 8 mavta] tavra BPTZ | werewwv Eus 9 καθεστηκε και Eus] καθεστηκεν a B xadeornxe cett | καθαροτητι HK BPTZ 10 χρωμεθα Καὶ | om την Καὶ Eus? 11 ατταγοι Eus' | om eve Καὶ 12 πε- τεινων Eus 13 περι] παρ K | avra Eus εαὐτων GI | ra πολλα Z* (ra X. Zor) των Koray B 14 δαπανησιν] pr τὴν Eus 15 apragove. Eus 17 deov] δε Eusi 19 μηδενι IB μηδενος T | πεποιθοτας Eus] -θοσιν B -Oores (-Owr. P) cett | ry eavtwy Eus°? 20 μηθεν Eus® | ex δικαιοτατου βιου Eus | διακυβερναν Eus°? 21 (wa nuepa B 22 eravaipecw] + οὔτε των ὑποβεβηκοτων ouTe Eus 23 των τοιουτ.] τουτων Eus® | rapedwxev
Eus P | ομοιουσθαι BT
Io
15
ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 545
θ in ts, εἶναι δικαίους τε Kal μηδὲν ἐπιτελεῖν Bi δὲ σθαι τοῖς συνετοῖς, εἶναι δικαίους μη ιτελεῖν βίᾳ, μηδὲ “ “ ψ τῇ περὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἰσχύι πεποιθότας ἑτέρους καταδυναστεύειν. ὅπου Ν 30° 7 θ θῃ lal / ὃ Ν \ LaF ὃ , γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἅψασθαι καθῆκε τῶν προειρημένων διὰ τὴν περὶ ἕκαστα διά- nm ’ Ν 4 A θεσιν, πῶς οὐ φυλακτέον παντάπασι τοὺς τρόπους εἰς τοῦτο κατακλα- nw ’ὔ 3 Ν ~ / ἴω \ »“». σθῆναι; πάντα οὖν τὰ τῆς συγχωρήσεως ἡμῖν ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ τῶν n ~ / Ν / κτηνῶν τροπολογῶν ἐκτέθειται. TO yap AIXHAEYEIN καὶ διαστέλλειν “ » a/ lal , 7 a ,ἷ ὁπλῆς ONYXAaC σημεῖόν ἐστι τοῦ διαστέλλειν ἕκαστα τῶν πράξεων γ ει Ν “ »” ε Ν > Ν “ μέ / je) , ἐπὶ TO καλῶς ἔχον: ἡ yap ἰσχὺς TOV ὁλων σωμάτων μετ ἐνεργείας 39 / Ἄν. Ν Ν + » Ν Ν at Ν ὃ ; An ES ἀπέρεισιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὥμους ἔχει καὶ τὰ σκέλη. μετὰ διαστολῆς οὖν 7 5 la \ ὃ ͵ὔ 3 ’ὔ \ A 4 ͵ ὃ ν ἅπαντα ἐπιτελεῖν πρὸς δικαιοσύνην ἀναγκάζει TTO σημειοῦσθαιϊ διὰ 7 m” δὲ Ν ὃ / Ν , 3 θ / ὃ aN θ ε τούτων" ἔτι δὲ καὶ διότι παρὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους διεστάλμεθα. οἵ Ν v2 lal a > /, ε \ 4 5 , yap πλείονες τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων ἑαυτοὺς μολύνουσιν ἐπιμισγό- ni A fi: 10 £ \ val \ aN aX μενοι, συντελοῦντες μεγάλην ἀδικίαν, καὶ χώραι καὶ πόλεις ὁλαι Ye \ »” σεμνύνονται ἐπὶ τούτοις. οὐ μόνον γὰρ «προάγουσι: τοὺς ἀρσενας, x Ν \ , ΜΝ δὲ 6 7 4 ε a δὲ 5 \ αλλὰ καὶ τεκούσας ἔτι δὲ θυγατέρας μολύνουσιν. ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀπὸ 4 / Ν «Ὁ δὲ > Ν ε / ”~ ὃ τούτων διεστάλμεθα. περὶ ὃν δὲ ἐστὶν ὃ προειρημένος τῆς δια- a , A > \ A ,ὕ ΄, στολῆς τρόπος, περὶ τοῦτον εἶναι καὶ τὸν τῆς μνήμης κεχαρακτή- / co “ \ > 4 » ρικεν. TIANTA γὰρ ὅοὰ AIXHAET καὶ MHPYKICMON ἀνάγει σαφώς -“ »-“ Ν nw /, ε x 3, 4 ὮΝ \ τοῖς νοοῦσιν ἐκτίθεται TO τῆς μνήμης. ἢ γὰρ ἀναμηρύκησις οὐθὲν [} 3 Ν ad A Ν / ΕἸ / Ν Ν an ἣν ἕτερον, ἀλλὰ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ συστάσεως ἐπίμνησις. τὸ γὰρ ζῇν διὰ
6 Lev 11° ff (Deut 14° ff) 18 Lev 11° ff
1 om re P Eus? vid 2 αὐτοὺς Eus | ετερων BT 4 ov] ow KAIG*t (corr G™s) 5 παντα ουν Eus] παντων (+ δε B) Ar codd | τα Eus] om Ar codd | rns συγχ. Eus' Ar codd] ra συγχωρηθεντα Eus°® | μιν} om Eus° μων evexa B txt Eus! Ar cett 6 εκτεθειται Eus'] εξεθετο B εκθεοιται (-τε GI) Ar codd cett εκτεθεικε Eus® | διχηλιζειν K 7 οπλας B | σημεια B | exaoTynv P 10 το σημειουσθαι HKAGIZ (το σημ. και Eus') το ομοιουσθαι Τ (τω ομ. B) τω σημ. Eus®, pro ἀπαντα 10---μολυνουσιν 12 exhibens βιωσκο- μεν" TW σημειουσθαι οτι Tapa παντας ανθρωπους διαστελλομεθα" οἱ yap αλλοι μολυνουσιν eautous. Fortasse legendum ο σημειουται 12 ανθρωπων] om Eus 13 oda] οσαι B 14 ἐπι Tour. σεμν. Eus® | προαγουσι conj Schmidt] προσαγουσι codd et Eus qui legit προς apoevas (app.°) προσαγουσιν 15 de]+xac HKA Eus° 16 ἐσταλμεθα BPTZ | ov] wy BPT 17 τροπος BPT Eus] τοπος cett | rourwy BPT | και τ. τ. μν. εἰναι Eus® | το τὴν μνημὴν P | κεχαρακτηρικεναι (-τηκεναι Z) codd Ar txt Eus 18 παντα] ειπας Eusi 19 εκτιθεται Eus] εκτιθεμαι (εκτιθημι P) Ar codd | οὐδεν B 20 αλλ ἡ Eus® | συστασεωΞς] pr τῆς B | ὑπομνησις εστι Eus
Su: 35
HKAGIBP TZ Eus
HKAGIBP TZ Eus
546 APISTEAS
τῆς τροφῆς συνεστάναι νομίζει. διὸ παρακελεύεται καὶ διὰ τῆς γραφῆς ὁ λέγων οὕτως: Μνείὰ MNHCOHCH κγρίογ TOY TTOIHCANTOC EN οοι τὰ λεγάλὰ Kal θαγλλὰστά. κατανοούμενα γὰρ καὶ λεγάλὰ Kal ἔνλοξὰ φαίνεται: πρῶτον μὲν ἡ σύμπηξις τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἡ τῆς τροφῆς διοίκησις καὶ ἡ περὶ ἕκαστον μέλος διαστολή: πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον ἡ τῶν αἰσθήσεων διακόσμησις, διανοίας ἐνέργημα καὶ κίνησις ἀόρατος, ἥ τε ὀξύτης τοῦ πρὸς ἕκαστόν τι πράσσειν, καὶ τεχνῶν εὕρεσις ἀπέραστον περιέχει τρόπον. διὸ παρακελεύεται μνείαν ἔχειν, ὡς συντηρεῖται τὰ προειρημένα θείᾳ δυνάμει σὺν κατασκευῇ. πάντα γὰρ χρόνον καὶ τόπον ὥρικε πρὸς τὸ διὰ παντὸς μνημονεύειν τοῦ κρατοῦντος θεοῦ καὶ συντηροῦντος. καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν βρωτῶν καὶ ποτῶν ἀπαρξαμένους εὐθέως τότε Tovy- χρῆσθαιΐ κελεύει. καὶ μὴν καὶ ἐκ τῶν περιβολαίων παράσημον ἡμῖν μνείας δέδωκεν, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πγλῶν καὶ θυρῶν προστέταχε μὲν ἡμῖν τιθέναι τὰ λόγια, πρὸς τὸ μνείαν εἶναι θεοῦ" καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χειρῶν δὲ διαρρήδην τὸ σημεῖον κελεύει περιῆφθδι, σαφῶς ἀποδεικνὺς ὅτι πᾶσαν ἐνέργειαν μετὰ δικαιοσύνης ἐπιτελεῖν δεῖ, μνήμην ἔχοντας τῆς «ἑαυτῶν κατασκευῆς:-, ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τὸν περὶ θεοῦ φόβον. κελεύει δὲ καὶ KOITAZOMENOYC Kal AlANICTAMENOYC μελετᾷν τὰς τοῦ θεοῦ κατασκευάς, οὐ μόνον λόγῳ, ἀλλὰ διαλήψει 2 ff Deut 5:8: 107 14 ff Deut 67 ff
1 om και Eus 2 om o Eus | xupiov]+7ov θεου Eus 3 και mey. (καὶ θαυμαστα P) και ενδ.} και ενδοξα kar μεγαλα Eusi evdoéa Eus® 4 mpwra Eus°? ἡ συμπ. ἡ του σ. Eus' ἡ του σ. συμπ. Eus? | καὶ 295] om BPTZ 5 μερος Eus? 6 7 rwv BP] ἡ τὴς των cett Eus! 8 επε- pacrov περιεχει Καὶ Eus amepavrov παρεχει BPTZ txt HAGI 9 7a προειρ.] om BT +ouvexoueva Eus! | devas δυναμεως P | συν κατασκευὴ ΚΙ] συγκατασκενὴ (και συγκ. BT1A°"T) codd cett Eus' (om Eus®) 10 τοπὸον και χρονον Eus! χρονων kat Tporrov P 11 και συντηρουντος) συντηρουντας Kat τας apXas και μεσοτητας και TeXevTas Eus! (om καὶ συντηρ.---κελευει 18 Ετι59) 12 ποτων] pr των GI | απαρξ.] αρξαμενους I αρπαΐζομενους K om BT | συγ- χρησθαι Eus] συγχωρησαι Ar codd 14 em] pr emt των πόλεων Kat οἰκήσεων δια To σκεπαΐεσθαι και Eus 15 προστεταχε μεν] προστεταχεν Eus 16 το σημ. Stapp. P | περιειληφθαι PZ περι... φθαι (ras 3 litt) T 18 της eavTwy κατασκευὴης Eus] avtns B tos P και τοις Z rns codd cett (cum seqq conj) τῆς nuwy συστάσεως edd pr | om de Z| περι] του P Eus?
19 διανισταμενους] + και πορευομενοὺυς Eus 20 Noyw μονον Eus | αλλα] +xa KP Eus
Io
15
20
ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ͂. 547
A δ , \ ε ΄ὕ ε A “ 9 ” θεωροῦντας τὴν κίνησιν Kat ὑπόληψιν ἑαυτῶν, ὅταν εἰς ὕπνον Ν «ε ἡ) κα / ἔρχωνται, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν, ὡς θεία τίς ἐστι καὶ ἀκατάληπτος τούτων ε / />d> / ‘ \ Ν lal / “ n μετάθεσις. δΔέδεικται δέ σοι καὶ τὸ περισσὸν τῆς λογίας τῆς \ Ἂς Ν δ » ε 2¢ / ἊΝ , \ Ἂς κατὰ τὴν διαστολὴν καὶ μνείαν, ὡς ἐξεθέμεθα τὴν διχηλίαν καὶ τὸν , \ ~ Ν ‘ Ν X\ μηρυκισμὸν. οὐ yap εἰκῆ καὶ κατὰ TO ἐμπεσὸν εἰς ψυχὴν νενομο- 4 ΑΝ ΟΞ 3 60 ‘ / > A / /, θέτηται, πρὸς ὃ ἀλήθειαν καὶ σημείωσιν ὀρθοῦ λόγου. διατάξας ἧς ΕῚ Ν “-“ Ν A Xx “ Ν Ν ¢€ Ν “ Δ γὰρ ἐπὶ βρωτῶν καὶ ποτών καὶ τών κατὰ τὰς ἁφὰς ἕκαστα, κελεύει a , / / / a A μηθὲν εἰκῆ μήτε πράσσειν μήτε ἀκούειν, μήτε τῇ τοῦ λόγου A δυναστείᾳ συγχρωμένους ἐπὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν τρέπεσθαι. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ΄ 3 ΄ a \ / κνωδάλων δὲ ταὐτόν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν. κακοποιητικὸς yap 6 τρόπος ~ a a U ἐστὶ καὶ PaAHC καὶ ΛΎΩΝ καὶ τῶν τούτοις ὁμοίων, ὅσα διηγόρευται. ΄ Ν / \ A , πάντα yap λυμαίνονται καὶ κακοποιοῦσι μύες, οὐ μόνον πρὸς τὴν ε - ΄ 3 Ἁ ΩΝ 5 \ a 4 id Ψ ἑαυτών τροφὴν, ἀλλὰ καὶ «εἰς TO> παντελώς ἄχρηστον γίνεσθαι ἀν- ε \ ΄ ἐς ΄, A , = i θρώπῳ, ὅτι av δή ToT οὖν ἐπιβάληται κακοποιεῖν. TO τε τῆς γαλῆς ΄ ΄ Ν la ΄ γένος ἰδιάζον ἐστί: χωρὶς γὰρ τοῦ προειρημένου ἔχει λυμαντικὸν κατά- \ \ A 7 , “ιν A ΄ στημα' διὰ γὰρ τῶν ὦτων συλλαμβάνει, τεκνοποιεῖ δὲ τῷ στόματι. \ ἈΝ an ε A , ΄ > / > / 7 καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὃ τοιοῦτος τρόπος τῶν ἀνθρώπων αἀκαθαρτίς ἐστιν" “ ‘ ὃ yeas A x , A A λ ΄, ΄, ὅσα γὰρ du ἀκοῆς λαβόντες, ταῦτα τῷ λόγῳ σωματοποιήσαντες, κακοῖς ἑτέρους ἐνεκύλισαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν ἐπετέλεσαν, θέ > \ = S A a 3 / A λῶ δὲ μιανθέντες αὐτοὶ παντάπασι τῷ τῆς ἀσεβείας μολυσμῷ. καλῶς δὲ ~ ε ‘ ς A \ , 3 A \ ἥ ποιῶν ὃ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν τοὺς τοιούτους ἀναιρεῖ, καθὼς μεταλαμβά- > ἧς ? ae \ > \ ” , i ‘ Ν νομεν.--- Eyw δ᾽ εἶπα Τοὺς ἐμφανιστὰς οἴομαί σε λέγειν: καὶ γὰρ ἴω ε αἰκίαις καὶ θανάτοις ἐπαλγέσιν αὐτοὺς περιβάλλει συνεχῶς.----Ὁ δέ
Τούτους γὰρ καὶ λέγω: ἡ γὰρ ἐπαγρύπνησις ἀνθρώπων ἀπωλείᾳ 11 Lev 1179
1 τα κινηματα Eus? | υποληψιν] pr τὴν Eus 2 epxovra GIZ 2f.%7 TouTwy μεταθεσις Eus 3 εὐλογίας A adoyias P 4 εξεθεσθαι Eusi | om τον Eus! 5 και Eus] om Ar codd 7 και ποτων GIPZ Eus‘] om Ar codd cett Eus® 8 τὴ Eus] om Ar codd 9 xpwuevous I 10 ff. ἐστιν o τροπος Eus° 12 λυμαινεται B | και κακοπ.---τροῴφὴην adda (13) om BETZ 13 εἰς τὸ Eus'] om Ar Euscodd cett | yuverar BPZ 17 τουτο] tout ovy Eus'® | τοις ανθρωποις Eus! 19 erepos T | ακαθαρσιαν]-τε Eus | αἀπετελεσαν B* Eusi 21 ἡμων T Eusi? | αναιρειν GI 23 emadyeou (om autous) K |παραβαλλει Eus! (περιβ. Eus?) 24 rovrovs—eraypuTv yas | τουτοις yap emayp. Eus! eraypum. yap Eus® | εἰς ανθρωπων ἀαπωλειαν Eus txt (cf Diod 14. 68 επηγρυπνηκως Tn τουτων απωλεια)ὴ Ar codd
Soi.
HKAGIBP TZ Eus
4 Eus
§ Jos
HKAGIBP TZ Eus Jos
548 APISTEAS
ἍΝ ε Ν / ε a ΄ ΄ ΄ ΄ »” , ἀνόσιος. ὃ δὲ νόμος ἡμῶν κελεύει μήτε λόγῳ μήτε ἔργῳ μηδένα a Ν Ἀ ,ὕ᾿ > 9 oe, A ὃ AAG κακοποιεῖν. καὶ περὶ τούτων οὖν, ὅσον ἐπὶ βραχὺ «διεξῆλθον, / Ν ’ προσυποδείξας:-- σοι διότι πάντα κεκανόνισται πρὸς δικαιοσύνην,
καὶ οὐδὲν εἰκῆ κατατέτακται διὰ τῆς γραφῆς οὐδὲ θυμωδῶς, ἀλλ᾽
΄ > 7 lal ΄- Ν > “ / 5 ων 4 iva δι ὁλου του ζῆν καὶ €V ταις πράξεσιν ασκωμεν δικαιοσύνην 5
΄ / ~ 4 A πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, μεμνημένοι τοῦ δυναστεύοντος θεοῦ. περὶ a = A a / nw βρωτῶν οὖν καὶ τῶν ἀκαθάρτων, ἑρπετῶν καὶ κνωδάλων, Kal πᾶς Ν “ , λόγος ἀνατείνει πρὸς δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων συνανα- Ν ΄ὔ 3 Ν Ν .᾿ a a. ΣῊΜ Ν στροφὴν δικαίαν. Ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν καλῶς ἐνόμιζε περὶ ε ’ > “ Ν Ν 5 Ν “ ᾽ὔ ΕΙΣ ἑκάστων ἀπολογεῖσθαι: καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν προσφερομένων ἐλεγε lal ἈΝ / μὲ “ lal Ν μόσχων τε καὶ κριῶν καὶ χιμάρων, ὅτι δεῖ ταῦτα ἐκ βουκολίων καὶ Ψ, / iA / Ν Ν 4 9 ε ποιμνίων λαμβάνοντας ἥμερα θυσιάζειν, καὶ μηθὲν ἄγριον, ὅπως ot ΄ Ν / 4 A A προσφέροντες τὰς θυσίας μηθὲν ὑπερήφανον ἑαυτοῖς συνιστορῶσι, / / Lal Lal nw n σημειώσει κεχρημένοι TOD διατάξαντος. τῆς yap ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῆς lal / Ν “ Ν τοῦ παντὸς τρόπου τὴν προσφορὰν ποιεῖται ὃ τὴν θυσίαν προσάγων. Ν Ν , > / Ν a ε ,ὔ Sd / , Kal περὶ τούτων οὖν νομίζω τὰ τῆς ὁμιλίας ἄξια λόγου καθεστάναι" / / “ / “ διὸ τὴν σεμνότητα καὶ φυσικὴν διάνοιαν τοῦ νόμου προῆγμαι δια- lal VA \ ΄, σαφῆσαί σοι, Φιλόκρατες, dv ἣν ἔχεις φιλομαθειαν.
ὃ Ὃ δὲ ᾿Ἔλεάζξαρος ποιησάμενος θυσίαν καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐπιλέξας
\ Ν lal a a / / c -»" A καὶ πολλὰ δῶρα τῷ βασιλεῖ κατασκευάσας προέπεμψεν ἡμᾶς μετὰ ἀσφαλείας πολλῆς. ὡς δὲ παρεγενήθημεν εἰς ᾿Αλεξανδρειαν, προσ-
1 ανοσιον Eus® | λογω] vouw BTZ 1f. κακοποιειν μηδενα Eus 2 ow] de P | οσον---διεξηλθον) διεξηλθον Bpaxv Eus° | διεξελθειν Ar codd (-ελθη P) Eus' 3 προσυποδειξαντα Ar codd Eus' δεικνυων Eus® | διοτι]
οτι Eus° 4 μυθωδως B Eus | αλλ wa] adda Η 6 μεμνημενους BPTZ 7 ουν] ον P | και 3°] o Eus 8 avacrpopnyv P 9 Ῥενομιζετο 10 υπο- λογεισθαι G απολελογησθαι Eus | exe Ar codd Eus'] και περι Eus® 11 om
τε Eus' | de. Eus] ἀεὶ Ar codd 12 λαμβανοντες Omissis ἡμερα---προσ- —
φεροντες (13) BPTZ | θυσιαζειν] κατασκευαζειν Eus 13 συνιστορουσι P 14 kexpnuevor Eus] kexpnuevov Ar codd 16 και περι---σεμνοτητα (17)] om K | αξιολογου καθ. HAGTZ αξιολογως καθ. P aka καθεσταναι λογου Eus?
17 διο] δια Eus | και φυσ. διαν. om Eus | νομου] Ἐν Eus 18 om σοι BPTZ Eus? | Φιλοκρατες BT Eus] Φιλοκρατὴη codd cett 20 παρασκευ- agas P 21 AXdefavd.]+Kxac P | προσαγγελλει ἃ (-ελει I -ηγγελει ATZ)
txt HKP (B προσηγγελλη)
Lal
-
Io
15
20
®IAOKPATEI. 549
, A A \ “ ἈΠῸ ἡ ε A δ ᾽ > ἡγγέλη τῷ βασιλεῖ περὶ τῆς ἀφίξεως ἡμῶν. «παρειμένοι-:- δ᾽ εἰς 3 , / > 4 τὴν αὐλὴν ᾿Ανδρέας τε καὶ ἐγώ, φιλοφρόνως ἠσπασάμεθα Tov , \ Ν 3 \ > , Ν Ar > ΄ βασιλέα καὶ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς ἀποδεδώκαμεν παρὰ τοῦ ᾿Βλεαζάρου. \ a Ν ’ ~ > / > , > a περὶ πολλοῦ δὲ ποιούμενος τοῖς ἀπεσταλμένοις ἀνδράσιν ἐντυχεῖν, / ~ ~ a ἐκέλευσε τοὺς λοιποὺς πάντας ἀπολῦσαι τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν χρειῶν, a , Ὄ “ καλεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. οὗ πᾶσι παραδόξου φανέντος---διὰ τὸ ῳ > , > , ” A \ κατὰ ἔθος εἶναι, πεμπταίους εἰς πρόσωπον ἔρχεσθαι βασιλεῖ τοὺς κ᾿ , ΕἸ , ‘ Ἀ Ν ,ὔ x ᾽ὔ > περὶ χρήσιμον ἀφικνουμένους, τοὺς δὲ παρὰ βασιλέων ἢ πόλεων ἐν ε a , > 4 5 Ν 3 Ν / \ Ν ὑπεροχαῖς μόλις ἐν τριάκοντα εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν παρίεσθαι---τοὺς δὲ ψ a - , / a ἥκοντας τιμῆς καταξιῶν μείζονος, Kal τὴν ὑπεροχὴν κρίνων τοῦ 5 4, ἃ / «ε al πέμψαντος, ἀπολύσας οὗς ἐνόμιζε περισσούς, ὑπέμενε περιπατῶν, 9 Xx , δ - ἕως av παραγινομένους ἀσπάσηται. παρελθόντων δὲ σὺν τοῖς 7 ’ a ἀπεσταλμένοις δώροις καὶ ταῖς διαφόροις διφθέραις, ἐν ais ἡ , / ’ ὩΣ “ A / νομοθεσία γεγραμμένη χρυσογραφίᾳ τοῖς lovdaikois γράμμασι, θαυ- 4 “ ε / ‘ ~ ~ μασίως «εἰργασμένου τοῦ vuévos>, καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα συμβολῆς oy τ ν᾽ ᾽ὔ ε 3.0. ε Ν Ἂς yy ἀνεπαισθήτου κατεσκευασμένης, ws εἶδεν 6 βασιλεὺς τοὺς ἄνδρας, ’ ~ 5 ε ζω ἐπηρώτα περὶ τῶν βιβλίων. ὡς δὲ ἀπεκάλυψαν τὰ τῶν ἐνειλημάτων Ν c > ‘ ’ὔ’ καὶ τοὺς ὑμένας ἀνείλιξαν, πολὺν ἐπιστὰς χρόνον καὶ προσκυνήσας ΟΝ Ξ ’, 3 3 an / ΕΣ δ. Ἂς A > 3 , σχεδὸν ἑπτάκις εἶπεν Εὐχαριστῶ μέν, ἄνδρες, ὑμῖν, τῷ δ᾽ ἀποστεί- A “ ~ e / λαντι μᾶλλον, μέγιστον δὲ τῷ θεῷ, οὗτινός ἐστι τὰ λόγια a , , , ΄ π᾿ ταῦτα. ὁμοθυμαδὸν δὲ πάντων εἰπόντων ὑπὸ μίαν φωνήν, τῶν ’ “ > nw , τε παραγεγονότων Kal τῶν συμπαρόντων, Εὖ βασιλεῦ, προήχθη
δακρῦσαι τῇ χαρᾷ πεπληρωμένος. ἢ γὰρ τῆς ψυχῆς ἔντασις καὶ τὸ
1 παρειμεν ὃ HGIZ παρημεν ὃ ΚΑΡΤ ws δε παρημεν B txt ex conj Schmidt 3 επιδεδωκαμεν BZ Fort leg ἀπεδωκ. (απεδοσαν Jos) | rapa] pr tas GIP 4 περι] pr και PTZ | ποιουμενος7- ο βασιλεὺς BP δὃὅ απαν- tas P 7 κατα εθνος HKAGIPT κατα εθνους Z απο εθνους B txt ex Jos
(παρα To εθοΞ) 8 περι] +7. B | χρησιμον] fort χρηματισμον | om ev HP 9 umepoxns P | τριακοντα] ἃ nuepas B 10 του] τους Καὶ 11 ὑπεμεινε Β txt cett cum Jos*4 (περιεμενεν) 12 παραγενομενους BT 14 om τοις Z
15 epyacauevov K (ειργ. 1) εἰργασμενης ΒΊΓοοΙτ (-ov T*) εργασμενης P | rns υμενου HK°GIBPT©™ του ὑμενου A| trys] τοις P | συμπλοκης Z 16 ave-
παισθητως BY° | κατεσκευασμενη HKAGI 17 erepwra GIB*P | εν- εἰληματων Jos] ανειληματων (-λημμ. GIPTZ) Ar codd 20 ovrwos BT] Twos cett (ov Jos) 21 εἰποντων de παντ. ou. Καὶ 23 rns xapas BT
evtacis PZ] εκστασις B ενστασις cett
HKAGIBP TZ Jos
HKAGIBP TZ Jos
550 APISTEAS
nm a a > ‘ / τῆς τιμῆς ὑπερτεῖνον δακρύειν ἀναγκάζει κατὰ τὰς ἐπιτυχίας. > 4 4 Ἀ - ° ΄ κελεύσας δὲ εἰς τάξιν ἀποδοῦναι τὰ τεύχη, τὸ τηνικαῦτα ἀσπασά- Ν ΕἾ > , > a) a »” ὃ - , en μενος τοὺς avopas εἶπε Δίκαιον ἦν, θεοσεβεῖς ἄνδρες, ὧν χάριν ὑμᾶς lal Ν 3 a “ μετεπεμψάμην, ἐκείνοις πρῶτον σεβασμὸν ἀποδοῦναι, μετὰ ταῦτα ~ “-“ “Ὕ -“ £ τὴν δεξιὰν ὑμῖν mpotetvar’ διὸ πεποίηκα τοῦτο πρῶτον. μεγάλην τ ’ > Ν δὲ τέθειμαι τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην, ἐν ἣ παραγεγόνατε, καὶ κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν “ a ε a , Ν ἐπίσημος ἔσται πάντα τὸν τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν χρόνον: συντέτυχε γὰρ “ n / καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὴν νίκην ἡμῖν προσπεπτωκέναι τῆς πρὸς ᾿Αντίγονον ’ an / ΕἸ ε a , ναυμαχίας. διὸ καὶ δειπνῆσαι σήμερον μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν βουλήσομαι. ’ “ 5" e , πάντα «δ᾽ vplv>, εἶπε, παρέσται καθηκόντως, οἷς συγχρήσησθε, > Ν > ε a a ἈΝ > / as oF ’ κἀμοὶ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. τῶν δὲ ἀσμενισάντων ἐκέλευσε καταλύ- an Ν 7 , n~ >” 3 lal Ν Ν \ pata δοθῆναι τὰ κάλλιστα πλησίον τῆς ἄκρας αὐτοῖς, καὶ τὰ κατὰ Ἀ / , τὸ συμπόσιον ἑτοιμαζειν. ε 3 ΄ a δι O δὲ ἀρχίητρος Νικάνωρ Δωρόθεον προσκαλεσάμενος, ὃς -:ἦν:- ‘\ ἐπὶ τούτων ἀποτεταγμένος, ἐκέλευσε τὴν ἑτοιμασίαν εἰς ἕκαστον ἐπι- “ > Ν 9 , eek a / aA Ν ΝΜ τελεῖν. ἣν γὰρ οὕτω διατεταγμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως, ἃ μὲν ἔτι Ν a ε ~ μὲ Ν / 3 , a “ » “ lal καὶ νῦν ὁρᾷς: ὁσαι yap πόλεις εἰσίν, «αἵ τοῖς αὐτοῖς:- συγχρῶνται Ν “ a πρὸς τὰ ποτὰ Kal βρωτὰ καὶ στρωμνάς, τοσοῦτοι Kal προεστῶτες φ ¢ of ἦσαν: καὶ κατὰ τοὺς ἐθισμοὺς οὕτως ἐσκευάζετο, ὅταν παραγένοιντο Ν Ν ων ν Ν ἢ 7 c aA ἣν 4 πρὸς τοὺς βασιλεῖς, ἵνα κατὰ μηθὲν δυσχεραίνοντες ἱλαρῶς διεξά- Ν x yoow: ὃ καὶ περὶ τούτους ἐγεγόνε. προσεχέστατος yap ὧν 4 “ / avOpwros ὁ Δωρόθεος εἶχε τὴν τῶν τοιούτων προστασίαν. συνέ:- Ν / Ν 3 > a / Ν Ν ΄ ε ὃ Ἂν στρωσε δὲ πάντα τὰ OL αὐτοῦ χειριζόμενα, πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας ὑποδοχὰς a a“ lal Ls διαμεμερισμένα. διμερῆ τε ἐποίησε τὰ τῶν κλισιῶν, καθὼς προσέ- 1 τιμη5] ψυχης AZ | νπερ τινων P 4 σεβασμον---πρωτον (5)] om P&t ins P™ | μεταδουναι Z| μετα] pr και B 5 mporewat] mpodovva B 6 τιθεμαι B 8 ra] om PZ hab Β 4 Τ sup lin cett 9 om ka B | μων BZ | βουλησωμαι P 10 παντὰα ὃ υμιν ex conj] παντὰα δυναμιν HKAGI mavTa δυναιμὴν P πασαν δυναμιν BTZ | παρεσταναι BT | συγχρησησθε HKGI] συγχρήσεσθε (-σεσθαι Z) cett 11 καμε BT 12 ra 29] om TZ 14 os nv] os (ws P) wy codd 15 f. αποτελειν BT επιτελη P txt cett 17 αἱ τοις avros] ais BT os cett txt ex Jos (οσαι τοις avrows χρωνται) cor- rexi (fort ac praeferendum) 18 Bpwra και ποτα K | Bpwuara BPTZ | στρωμνας BT] στρωμναῖς cett | τοσουταις P τοσουτο Z 19 παραγενωνται BT 20 μηδὲν B 21 προσεχεστατα et om yap ὡν---παντα (23) A
21 f. wy ανθρωποΞς] avOp. wy B wy P 23 arodoxas P 24 διαμεμετρημενα BPTZ | διμερη BZT (sed ras 1 litt int ε et p in T) Jos] διμετρη P διαμερη cett
σι
Io
15
20
ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 551
ε vi Ν SX ε / 3 ’ - reid lal tagev ὁ βασιλεύς: τοὺς yap ἡμίσεις ἐκέλευσεν ἀνὰ χεῖρα κατα- a Ν Ἀν ‘\ \ Ν ε A δ / ὑδὲ ὃλλ Ν > κλῖναι, τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς μετὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ κλισίαν, οὐδὲν ἐλλιπὼν εἰς lal 5 ε / cal TO τιμᾶν τοὺς ἄνδρας. Ὡς δὲ κατεκλίθησαν, ἐκέλευσε τῷ 7 a 3 a e a / ε Δ Ν Δωροθέῳ τοῖς ἐθισμοῖς οἷς χρῶνται πάντες Ol παραγινόμενοι πρὸς > Nv > \ ων 5 , 7 5 “ \ \ ε , αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας, οὕτως ἐπιτελεῖν. διὸ τοὺς ἱεροκήρυκας Ν ΄ Ν \ ll ss ” Η͂Σ Ν Ν a καὶ θύτας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους, οἷς ἔθος ἢν τὰς κατευχὰς ποιεῖσθαι, ’ὔ -“ ,ὔ N c n 3 y+ παρῃτήσατο: τῶν δὲ παραγεγονότων σὺν- ἡμῖν EXedlapov ὄντα “ ΄, / \ τῶν ἱερέων πρεσβύτερον παρεκάλεσε ποιήσασθαι κατευχήν, ὃς », > ’ ral ~ a ἀξιολόγως στὰς εἶπε Πληρώσαι σε, βασιλεῦ, πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν Ὁ a? ὧν ἔκτισεν ὃ παντοκράτωρ θεός: καὶ δῴη σοι ταῦτ᾽ ἔχειν καὶ γυναικὶ , lal wn A “ al καὶ τέκνοις καὶ τοῖς ὁμονοοῦσι πάντα ἀνέκλειπτα TOV τῆς ζωῆς 4 Ν “ / / cal χρόνον. Εἰπόντος δὲ ταῦτα τούτου κατερράγη κρότος μετὰ κραυγῆς Ν “ cal καὶ χαρᾶς εὐφροσύνου πλείονα χρόνον" Kai TO τηνικαῦτα πρὸς TO ’ὔ nw ε wn nw τέρπεσθαι διὰ τῶν ἡτοιμασμένων ἐτράπησαν, τῶν λειτουργιῶν «ε a ὃ Ν al “ θέ lee 3 λ / > e Ν ἁπασῶν διὰ τῆς τοῦ Δωροθέου συντάξεως ἐπιτελουμένων: ἐν οἷς καὶ
Ν a > \ a , GF -N las / q βασιλικοὶ παῖδες ἦσαν, Kal TOV τιμωμένων ὑπὸ TOD βασιλέως.
/ / 3 , \ 4 Ν Ὅτε δὲ καιρὸν ἔλαβεν ἐκ διαστήματος, ἠρώτησε τὸν ἔχοντα τὴν , 5 / Ss X\ > ε ΄ be > / πρώτην ἀνάκλισιν (ἦσαν yap Kad ἡλικίαν THY ἀνάπτωσιν πεποιη- , “a a Ν V4 / / 4 μὴ μένοι) Πῶς av τὴν βασιλείαν μέχρι τέλους ἀπταιστον ἔχων ~ > ε Ἕ , , διατελοῖ; βραχὺ δὲ ἐπισχὼν εἶπεν Οὕτως ἂν μάλιστα διευθύνοις, a fal / Ν μιμούμενος τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ διαπαντὸς ἐπιεικές. μακροθυμίᾳ γὰρ
Ν 4 39 χρώμενος, καὶ βλιμάζων τοὺς ἀξίους ἐπιεικέστερον, καθὼς εἰσιν
1 εκελευσεν] προσεταξεν P| ava χειρα Jos] αναρχα Ar codd 3f. τὸν HKAGIBP Δωροθεον Jos 4 τοὺς εθισμους BT | παραγενομενοι BPTZ 6 os] ovs H TZ Jos
8 mapexadece A Jos] παρεκαλεσαν cett | ποιησεσθαι P 9 εἰπε] ad hoc
add + edt Gtxt εἶ Ime evxn B™S | βασιλευς 1 10 ka 2°2}om ἃ 11 wns] + σου BPTZ 12 om τουτου BTZ 18 yap] de K | avarrw A* (ow sup lin in H) 19 απταιστον μ. τελους I 19 exw διατελοι H* AGI exwv διατελοιη HO exw διατελειν K διατελοίη exwy BT txt Z 20 μα- Nora] καλλιστα P | διευθυνεις HK*A -vys P 22 βλημαζων codd (βληζων suprascripto μα P). A* βλημαΐζων habuisse videtur, sed βλημ in eroupvid mutatum est. Hinc δοκιμαξζων F ετοιμαζων 1, κριματαζων D* (afwy cum lacuna D*)
HKAGIB i
PTZ
552 APISTEAS
» ‘ 5 a ᾽, Ν ΕἸ 4 Μ Ἵ ἄξιοι, μετατιθεὶς ἐκ τῆς κακίας καὶ εἰς μετάνοιαν ἀξεις. ἔπαι- , ς e¢ ‘ \ a. Ψ Sr: A Ἃ “ , νέσας δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς Tov ἐχόμενον ἡρωτα: Πῶς av ἕκαστα πράττοι; ε Ν > / Ν / > \ . “ ε “- nA ὁ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη To δίκαιον εἰ πρὸς ἅπαντας διατηροῖ, ἑαυτῷ καλῶς τὰ ἕκαστα πράξει, διαλαμβάνων ὅτι πᾶν ἐννόημα σαφές ἐστι θεῷ: ρ ’ " Ἴμ ; ’ὔ / Ν A καταρχὴν δὲ θείου φόβου λαμβάνων ἐν οὐδενὶ διαπίπτοις. Καὶ a \ > , ΄ “ 2 ΄ a Ἃ ε ΄ τοῦτον δὲ εὖ μάλα παραδεξάμενος ἕτερον ἐπηρώτα ἸΠῶς ἂν ὁμοίους ε a 4 ‘ ΄ 3 a ts 3 θ / / ἑαυτῷ ἔχοι τοὺς φίλους; κἀκεῖνος εἶπεν Hi θεωροίησαν πολλὴν σε / e Ν » Ν lal ’ὔ πρόνοιαν ποιούμενον ὧν ἄρχεις ὄχλων: σι δὲ τοῦτο πράξεις ἐπι- lal ~ , βλέπων ws ὁ θεὸς εὐεργετεῖ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος, 6 ὑγείαν an Ν Ν ΄ αὐτοῖς καὶ τροφὴν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ κατὰ καιρὸν παρασκευάζων “ / 4 / > ’ ἅπαντα. Συνεπιμαρτυρήσας δὲ τούτῳ τὸν ἐχόμενον ἠρώτα an Ἅ A “- , Πῶς ἂν ἐν τοῖς χρηματισμοῖς Kai διακρίσεσιν εὐφημίας «τυγχάνοι:- A J > ~ ~ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποτυγχανόντων; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν Εἰ πᾶσιν ἴσος γένοιο TO 4 nr Ν ,ὔ ΄ λόγῳ, καὶ μηδὲν ὑπερηφάνως μηδὲ τῇ περὶ σεαυτὸν ἰσχύι πράσσοις “ Lal / , rs κατὰ τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων. τοῦτο δὲ ποιήσεις τὴν διάταξιν βλέπων Ν 8 a ας ᾿Ν ν ε ΄, a a. ὦ ἐν τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ γὰρ ἱκετευόμενα συντελεῖσθαι τοῖς ἀξίοις, ἰοὺ δὲ 3 ΄ Ἃ ὃ ΄, Ἃ , ΄, 6 Ν τοῖς δὲ ἀποτυγχάνουσιν ἢ δι᾿ ὀνείρων ἢ πράξεων σημαίνεσθαι τὸ βλαβερὸν αὐτοῖς: οὐ κατὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας οὐδὲ <KaTa> τὴν μεγαλω- ~ / “ σύνην τῆς ἰσχύος τύπτοντος αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιεικείᾳ χρωμένου τοῦ “ > Ν Ν “a / ? ΄, Ν ten a θεοῦ. Εὖ δὲ καὶ τοῦτον κατεπαινέσας ἡρώτα τὸν ἑξῆς Πῶς A > an “ ͵ὔ try »” c Ν > > > ἂν ἐν tats πολεμικαῖς χρείαις ἀήττητος εἴη; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Εἰ μὴ Ν ε / a μὲ Ν a , 3 Ν Ν Ν πεποιθὼς ὑπάρχοι τοῖς ὄχλοις μηδὲ ταῖς δυνάμεσιν: ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν > a Ν ΄ ν Ν 3 Ν 3 “ 4, ’ ἐπικαλοῖτο διὰ πάντων, ἵνα τὰς ἐπιβολὰς αὐτῷ κατευθύνῃ δικαίως / 4 3 / Ν \ ων Ν σ διεξάγοντι πάντα. Αποδεξάμενος δὲ καὶ τοῦτον τὸν ἕτερον Aa A “ ~ > “ ἠρώτα Πῶς av φοβερὸς εἴη τοῖς ἐχθροῖς; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Ei τῇ τῶν σ Ν ’ὔ “" ΄“ ’ ΕῚ ͵ ~ ὅπλων καὶ δυνάμεων παρασκευῇ πολλῇ χρώμενος «εἰδείη: ταῦτα
1 μετατιθεις]-τε B μετατιθης Αὖ 8 παντας P | διατηρει ΒΡΤΖ -ροιη ACF | eavrw BPTZ (-το)] eavrov cett 4 πραξοι Καὶ 6 τουτο A | ernpwra BT] emepwra cett | ομοιως B 7 εαὐτω] eavrov H om Z 10 κατασκευαζων P 12 διαρισεσιν Z*t διαιρεσιν ΖΒ | rvyxavw codd omn 13 ισως BPT | γενοιο---σεαυτον (14)] om BPTZ 14 πραττεις P πρασοις H* (σ altera suprascr) Καὶ 18 κατα 2°] om codd 19 avros GI 21 om ταις BPTZ | envy Z | ο BPTZKoorr rw cett 22 ὑπαρχοι K] vrap- χοις HAGI umapxers BPTZ | οχλοις] οπλοις P 23 επικαλὴ B | επιβου- Aas I 25 Tn] Tw T 26 οπλιων P | και δυναμεων] om Z και δυναμενων
G | εἰδείη ex conj] evn εἰ δε evn (over B) codd
15
25
®IAOKPATEI. 553
” eae , , \ \ ΄, a \ ovTa κενὰ ἐπὶ πλείονα χρόνον πρὸς TO συμπέρασμα δρᾶν τι: καὶ Ν ε \ \ > Ν Ν >? ὃ "4 Ν “~ lA yap ὁ θεὸς διδοὺς ἀνοχὰς: καὶ ἐνδεικνύμενος τὸν τῆς δυναστείας , 3 : ΄ Υ / \ A SS φόβον ἐγκατασκευάζει πάσῃ διανοίᾳ. Καὶ τοῦτον δὲ ἐπαι- / > Ν Ν 5 / 7 ’, Sea Ν Ν A xv νέσας εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἐχόμενον Ti κάλλιστον αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸ ζῇν av
4 > - »” Ν , 7 Ν / “~ ε , εἴη; κακεῖνος ἔφη To γινώσκειν ὅτι θεὸς δυναστεύει τῶν ἁπάντων, a / kal ἐπὶ τῶν καλλίστων πράξεων οὐκ αὐτοὶ κατευθύνομεν τὰ βουλευ- ΄ \ τ Aa’ ΄ \ A ; > θέντα: θεὸς δὲ τελειοῖ τὰ πάντων καὶ καθηγεῖται δυναστεύων. ἜἜπι- ΄, \ \ ΄ A , \ “ 58 IA ε a φωνήσας δὲ καὶ τούτῳ καλῶς λέγειν τὸν ἕτερον ἠρώτα Πώς av 7 a 4 “a ἀκέραια συντηρήσας ἅπαντα τοῖς ἐγγόνοις τὴν αὐτὴν παραδιδοῖ Χ “- 5 ΄, διάθεσιν <émi τέλει-:-; 86 δὲ εἶπεν Εὐχόμενος ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν $C > Q > / , Ν Ν / / A “ ἀγαθὰς ἐπινοίας λαμβάνειν πρὸς τὰ μέλλοντα πράσσεσθαι, καὶ τοῖς > , δὰ , X\ > x ‘ 6 ral ὃ ͵7ὔ δὲ “ ἐγγόνοις παρακελευόμενος μὴ ἐκπλήττεσθαι τῇ δόξῃ μηδὲ τῷ , Ν Ν = Ν / a Ν > ten \ πλούτῳ: θεὸν yap εἶναι τὸν χαριζόμενον ταῦτα, Kai od δι ἑαυτοὺς Ε] ’ ἔχειν τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ἁπάντων. Ἐπιμαρτυρήσας δὲ τούτοις a val / a \ Tov peta ταῦτα ἐπυνθάνετο Πῶς av τὰ συμβαίνοντα μετρίως - / iv 7 4 φέροι; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφησεν Hi πρόληψιν λαμβάνοις, ὅτι γέγοναν A“ - 4 A A A ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντες ἄνθρωποι μετασχεῖν τῶν μεγίστων κακών, A » Υ > “ ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἀγαθών" καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπον ὄντα τούτων ἀμιγῆ \ ‘ γενέσθαι. 6 θεὸς δὲ τὴν εὐψυχίαν δίδωσιν, ὃν ἱκετεύειν avay- a A A > 7 καῖον. Φιλοφρονηθεὶς δὲ καὶ τοῦτον καλῶς εἶπεν ἅπαντας > , > / Ν ΕΙΣ A ,ὔ QA = »” ΄ ἀποφαίνεσθαι: ἐπερωτήσας δὲ ἔτι ἕνα καταλήξω τὸ νῦν ἔχον, ἵνα Ν Ν Ν , ΄ ee 4 3 ἐδ Aa Kal πρὸς TO τέρπεσθαι τραπέντες ἡδέως διεξάγωμεν. ἐν δὲ ταῖς \ cal aA een < 7, Ν Ν “ ~ ε ~ , , μετὰ ταῦτα e€ ἑξῆς ἡμέραις Kal παρὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ἑξῆς μαθήσομαί , 3 2 > / Ν δ ,ὕ Zz > 6 3 ἢ ε τι πλέον. εἶτ᾽ ἐπηρώτα τὸν avdpa Τί πέρας ἀνδρείας ἐστίν; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν Εἰ τὸ βουλευθὲν ὀρθῶς ἐν ταῖς τῶν κινδύνων πράξεσιν A Ἁ “ “~ “ ἐπιτελοῖτο κατὰ πρόθεσιν. τελειοῦται δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντα σοι lal [9] / ΕἸ ΄ὔ καλῶς βουλευομένῳ, βασιλεῦ, συμφερόντως. ὁ ᾿Επιφωνησάντων § Jos Ἢ ΄, x , , \ Ἢ , 3 ε δὲ πάντων καὶ κρότῳ σημηναμένων πρὸς τοὺς φιλοσόφους εἶπεν ὃ ‘ 2 2\-F ν᾿ a , ” , \ βασιλεὺς (οὐκ ὀλίγοι yap παρῆσαν τούτοις) Οἴομαι διαφέρειν τοὺς 8 om και ΒΡΤΖ | τουτο Z 9 exyovos ABT 10 επιτελειν ΒΖ θ᾽ HKAGIB emiredn T επιτελοι cett 12 exyovos AB*T 13 om ov B 14 απαν- ©PTZ Jos των] pr των H | rourous I 16 φερει P | λαμβανεις BT | yeyovacow BPT 18 αγαθων] pr των BT 19 om de C 20 rouvrw P 21 αποκρινεσθαι B | om δὲς 23 nuepas GI | εξης 2°] om BPTZ 24 εἰτ ewnpwra
BCTZ (era BC)] ect erepwra cett 27 βουλευομενω BT] βουλομενω cett 28 σημαναμενων CTZ 29 ολιγοις Z
554 APISTEAS
ΝΜ A “- A 4 ἄνδρας ἀρετῇ, καὶ συνιέναι πλεῖον᾽ οἵτινες ἐκ τοῦ καιροῦ τοιαύτας / 4 ΄ > Ν ἐρωτήσεις λαμβάνοντες, ὡς δέον ἐστὶν ἀποκέκρινται, πάντες ἀπὸ cal n / Ν ‘\ ’ὔ / Ν ε θεοῦ τοῦ λόγου τὴν καταρχὴν ποιούμενο. Μενέδημος δὲ 6 > \ ΄ > A , \ 9 Ἐρετριεὺς φιλόσοφος εἶπε Nai, βασιλεῦ: προνοίᾳ yap τῶν ὅλων ων “ A / / διοικουμένων, καὶ ὑπειληφότων ὀρθῶς τοῦτο, ὅτι θεόκτιστόν ἐστιν 5 4 3 -“ “ ᾿ Ν ΄ Ν > Ν ἄνθρωπος, ἀκολουθεῖ πᾶσαν δυναστείαν καὶ λόγου καλλονὴν ἀπὸ “ -“ 4 \ θεοῦ κατάρχεσθαι. τοῦ δὲ βασιλέως ἐπινεύσαντος τὰ περὶ τούτων wy ~ S Jos ἔληξεν: ἐτράπησαν δὲ πρὸς εὐφροσύνην. ἐπιλαβούσης δὲ τῆς / Ν ἑσπέρας τὸ συμπόσιον ἐλύθη. TH δὲ \ nw x. Ἀ QA 3 Ν ὃ ’ὔ ἕ ἈΝ -“ Ἢ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν διαταξιν τὰ τῆς τὸ Ω , Ν ,ὕ 3 tal Ν Ν Ἄν ἐν ε αναπτώσεως καὶ συμποσίας ἐπετελεῖτο. καθὸ δὲ ἐνόμιζεν ὃ δ ἐνῇ > Χ Ν ΄, ΄ a > A βασιλεὺς εὔκαιρον εἶναι πρὸς τὸ πυνθάνεσθαί τι τῶν ἀνδρῶν, 3 , \ “ “ a / ε / Ν ἐπηρωτα τοὺς ἑξῆς τῶν ἀποκεκριμένων τῇ προτέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ. πρὸς Ν ε id eB Ν ’, “a Νῃ Ν > τὸν ἑνδέκατον δὲ ἤρξατο τὴν κοινολογίαν ποιεῖσθαι (δέκα yap ἦσαν > 7 A a δ 4 a“ ol ἠρωτημένοι TH προτέρᾳ). σιγῆς δὲ γενομένης ἐπυνθάνετο Ids 15 x ΄ ΄ ‘ ᾿ς Ὁ Ν ε Ν ee. 2 4 av πλούσιος διαμένοι; βραχὺ δὲ ἐπισχὼν ὁ τὴν ἐρώτησιν ἐκδεχό- > > Ν ᾿ ,ὔ a > A ἈΝ > εν / μενος εἶπεν Εἰ μηδὲν ἀνάξιον τῆς ἀρχῆς μηδὲ ἀσελγὲς πράσσοι, / a Ν ε ,ὔ μηδὲ δαπάνῃ εἰς τὰ κενὰ καὶ μάταια συντελοῖ, τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους “ \ cal εὐεργεσίᾳ πρὸς εὔνοιαν ἄγοι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ yap ὁ θεὸς πᾶσιν A - an a“ > αἴτιος ἀγαθῶν ἐστιν, ᾧ κατακολουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖον. ἔπαι- 2 A “ xX Ν 5 ΄ νέσας δὲ ὃ βασιλεὺς τοῦτον ἕτερον ἐπηρώτα Πῶς ἂν τὴν ἀλήθειαν “- “ ΄ bid / duarnpot; 6 δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο ἀπεκρίθη Τινώσκων ὅτι μεγάλην A lal n \ Lal αἰσχύνην ἐπιφέρει τὸ ψεῦδος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον
τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν: ἐξουσίαν γὰρ ἔχοντες ὃ βούλονται πράσσειν, τίνος ἕνεκεν ἂν ψεύσαιντο; προσλαμβάνειν δὲ δεῖ τοῦτό σε, βασιλεῦ, διότι 2 φιλαλήθης ὃ θεός ἐστιν. ᾿Αποδεξάμενος δὲ εὖ μάλα καὶ τοῦτον ἐπιβλέψας εἶπεν Τί ἐστι σοφίας διδαχή; 6 δὲ ἕτερος
HKAGIB 3 om Tov B | Μενεδιμος BT Bevednuos Z | om δὲ BT 8 de 1° B] be CPTZ Jos σὰ cett | προς euppoo.—rn de (10)] om A 13 rpwrn Καὶ | mpos τον evdex.— mpotepa (15) om Bt ins Bs 15 om οἱ KB | προτερα] mporepea A*
(-paca Ac) + quepa Bm 16 διαμελλοι P 18 συντελει BCT συντελη Z ἀσυντελει P 19 ευεργεσια7- de B | ayer BT 21 ernpwra BT] επε-
pwra cett 22 diarnporn BACT 23 επιῴφερει KB] επιῴφεροι cett 24 εξουσιαν---πρασσειν] om C | 0] wy B 25 av evexev Z | προσλαμβανειν BT] προλαμβανειν cett | σε] σοι A 26 om o Geos P 27 post τοῦτον
fort emt Tov μετ avrov vel aliquid simile excidit
Io
15
20
®IAOKPATEI. 555
/ / “ \ Ν nan ἀπεφήνατο Καθὼς οὐ βούλει σεαυτῷ τὰ κακὰ παρεῖναι, μέτοχος δὲ A A A Ἂ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὑπάρχειν ἁπάντων, εἰ πράσσοις τοῦτο πρὸς τοὺς ὑὕποτε- \ \ x n ταγμένους καὶ τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας" εἰ τοὺς καλοὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς τῶν 3 4 > / paar Ν Ν «ε Ν Ν > 4 ἀνθρώπων ἐπιεικέστερον νουθετοῖς" Kat yap ὃ θεὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους oe , » > Ν a » Ἂν ἅπαντας ἐπιεικείᾳ αἀγει. Ἐπαινέσας αὐτὸν τῷ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν > a“ a a A ε εἶπε Πῶς dv φιλάνθρωπος εἴη; κἀκεῖνος ἔφη Θεωρῶν ὡς ἐν “A Ν / Vg Y ¢ Ν lal τς πολλῷ χρόνῳ καὶ κακοπαθείαις μεγίσταις αὔξει τε καὶ γεννᾶται τὸ A > , / ᾿- id ” 3 / an / » 3) ὟΣ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος" ὅθεν οὔτε εὐκόπως δεῖ κολάζειν, οὔτε αἰκίαις ΄, ΄, “ Ν a > / a > 3907 ‘\ περιβάλλειν: γινώσκων ὅτι τὸ τών ἀνθρώπων ζῇν ἐν ὀδύναις τε καὶ nan > “ Ν τιμωρίαις καθέστηκεν. ἐπινοῶν οὖν ἕκαστα πρὸς τὸν ἔλεον τραπήσῃ:" Ν , ᾿ς la καὶ yap ὃ θεὸς ἐλεήμων ἐστίν. ᾿Αποδεξάμενος δὲ τοῦτον > / “ \ Lee ae Ἂς r / > ᾽ὔ ,ὔ ͵7ὕ ἐπυνθάνετο τοῦ κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς Τίς ἀναγκαιότατος τρόπος βασιλείας ; Ν “ > Ν / \ fs lal Τὸ συντηρεῖν, εἶπεν, αὑτὸν ἀδωροδόκητον, Kal νήφειν τὸ πλεῖον μέρος A , , a Ν \ ’, a τοῦ βίου, καὶ δικαιοσύνην προτιμᾶν, καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους φιλοποιεῖ- Ν Ve / > / σθαι: καὶ yap ὁ θεὸς φιλοδίκαιός ἐστιν. Ἐπισημῆήνας καὶ “ A \ o 5S / Ν “ 3 if. > Ν , τοῦτον πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον εἶπε Τί τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐστὶ κατάστημα; an Ν / 4 / x “ ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Τὸ διαλαμβάνειν ὅτι πάντα διαπαντὸς ὃ θεὸς ἐνεργεῖ \ , \ 53... Ἃ Ψ * U Ἃ Ν 2 4 Kal γινώσκει, καὶ οὐθὲν ἂν λάθοι adikov ποιήσας ἢ κακὸν ἐργασά- » ε \ \ > AN “ , «“ \ μενος avOpwros ws yap θεὸς εὐεργετεῖ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον, οὕτως Kal σὺ μιμούμενος ἀπρόσκοπος ἂν εἴης ᾿Επιφωνήσας δὲ τού μιμούμ ρόσκοπος ἂν εἴης. ἥσας δὲ τούτῳ Ν \ oa > , eo aA , ͵ὔ πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον εἶπε Τίς ὅρος τοῦ βασιλεύειν ἐστίν; ὁ δὲ ἔφη Τὸ καλ a a ε a \ \ A x / x A ὃ Lat ch / ὥς ἄρχειν ἑαυτοῦ, Kal μὴ τῷ πλούτῳ καὶ TH δόξῃ φερόμενον c , \ ΝΜ / ΕῚ θ - 5 n / / ὑπερήφανον καὶ ἀσχημόν τι ἐπιθυμῆσαι, εἰ καλῶς λογίζοιο. πάντα
ab
, / «ε > / ͵ « \ Ngo: le > Ν..9 / yap σοι πάρεστιν Tws ovdevt. ὁ θεὸς δὲ ἀπροσδεής ἐστι καὶ ἐπιεικής.
1 απεφηνατο] εἰπε B απεκρινατο P | βουλὴ HGCZ | om tra BCTZ HKAGIB B CREZ
2 πρασσεις KBCP 2f auapr. και Tous vroreray. P 3 om Tous 19
4 νουθετεις KBPT 6 om αν Z* ins Zoorr 7 om Te I 8 ouTe 1°] ovde Z | αἰκίαις (cf 3 Macc 6. 26) BT]. αἰτίαις HKCPZ αἰτίας GIA 9 tov avov HKB | om τε KB 11 δε] Ἐκαι GI 12 om εἐπυνθανετο Kt ins post e&s K™S | ro] τον K |ἅβασιλειας]) pr τῆς P 13 εαὐτον P 14 φιλοπονεισθαι H 16 om τον BT | om τῆς B| katacrnua εστιν Z 17 om δε K | διαπαντος] - οτι K | evepyer και γινωσκει o Oo P 19 Geos]
proP|omodo P 20 τουτον CPZ 22 eaurov]+ και βασιλευειν ἐστι K 23 υπερηφανον]-Ἐτι BT*? (ras 2 litt) |om τὶ B | εἐπιθυμησαι P] εννοησα- σθαι B επινοησαιο Z επιθυμησαιο cett 24 ws ovdev codd] fort legendum οσων deov
HKAGIB CPTZ
556 APISTEAS
Ν , ,ὔ Ε > / ἈΝ \ an 3 , - ἂν καὶ σύ, καθόσον ἄνθρωπος, ἐννόει, καὶ μὴ πολλῶν ὀρέγου, τῶν δὲ ε A \ \ , ΄ de 9 , ἱκανῶν πρὸς τὸ βασιλεύειν. Κατεπαινέσας δὲ αὐτόν, ἐπηρώτα
lal “Ὁ / 3 an τὸν ἕτερον Πώς ἂν τὰ κάλλιστα διαλογίζοιτο; ἀπεκρίθη δὲ ἐκεῖνος Ei \ δί 4. SN \ B INA a Ν ζ Ν
i τὸ δίκαιον ἐπὶ παντὸς προβάλλοι συνεχώς, καὶ νομίζοι τὴν 3 4 ~ ~ ’ὔ’ > \ Ν ε Ν Ν nn ἀδικίαν τοῦ ζῇν στέρησιν εἶναι: καὶ yap ὁ θεὸς διαπαντὸς τοῖς δικαίοις ἀγαθὰ προσημαίνει μέγιστα. Τοῦτον δὲ ἐπαινέσας ἫΝ Ν Ν εἐπκ veg a > te A — »” ε \ 7 εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἑξῆς Ids av ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις ἀτάραχος ein; ὃ δὲ ἔφη
,ὔ > , a / Ν > 4 Δυσαπολόγητον ἠρώτηκας πρᾶγμα. συναναφέρειν yap οὐ δυνάμεθα 3 ΄, A Ν \ Ψ ε , > Ν , > ’ὔ ἐν τούτοις τοῖς κατὰ τὸν ὕπνον ἑαυτούς, ἀλλὰ περιεχόμεθα ἀλογίστῳ
Ν / > , / \ Ν Ν Ν 3. τὶν “ κατὰ «τάδε:- αἰσθήσει. πάσχομεν γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς ε “ ΄ ὑποπίπτουσιν ὡς θεωρουμένοις" ἀλογιστοῦμεν δέ, καθόσον ὑπολαμ-
΄ κα ἃ Ψ, a ἊΝ ΄ Ἃ a) x ,
Bavopev καὶ ἐπὶ πέλαγος καὶ ἐν πλοίοις ἢ πολεῖν, ἢ πέτασθαι φερο-
/ Ν / 3 ε vs / Ν Lal 7 a <£ asf?
καὶ διαίρειν εἰ υς : ταῦ ένους καὶ διαίρειν εἰς ἑτέρους τόπους, καὶ τοιαῦτα ἕτερα, Τ καὶ ὃ ταῦθ ε δ᾽ ’ U Ν 7 , ὑπολαμβάνων μὴ καθεστάναιΐ. πλὴν ὅσον ἔμοιγε ἐφικτόν, οὕτω
, κ᾿ , 7, , A \ ᾷ, , ‘ ‘
διείληφα: κατὰ πάντα τρόπον σέ, βασιλεῦ, καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα καὶ τὰ , / 9 “ ~ 7 πραττόμενα πρὸς εὐσέβειαν ἐπανάγειν, ὅπως «ἑαυτῷ: συνιστορῇς; OTL “-“ / - / τὸ κατ᾽ ἀρετὴν συντηρῶν οὔτε χαρίζεσθαι προαιρῇ παρὰ λόγον, οὐδὲ \ a / (5 ἐξουσίᾳ χρώμενος TO δίκαιον αἴρεις. ἐπὶ πλεῖον yap, ἐν οἷς ἕκαστος
΄ “ 2.8 . πράγμασιν ἐγρηγορὼς τὴν διαγωγὴν ποιεῖται, καὶ καθ᾽ ὕπνον ἐν τοῖς
3 ro ε , ἈΝ ΕῚ Ν ” δ € Ν / Ν αὐτοῖς ἡ διάνοια τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ἔχει, Tws det πάντα διαλογισμὸν
~ Ν καὶ πρᾶξιν ἐπὶ τὰ κάλλιστα τρεπομένην κατευθύνει καὶ ἐγρηγορὼς
ἣν τὰ 9 Ν ‘ Ν . 9 , 3 > (0 Ρ
καὶ ἐν ὕπνῳ. διὸ καὶ περὶ σὲ διαπαντός ἐστιν εὐσταθεια. Κατ- ΄, Ν Ν “- 3 Ν Ν “ 3γπ Ν ‘\ / ευὐφημήσας δὲ Kai τοῦτον εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον “Exel σὺ δέκατος
Ν 3 4 ” ε va 2 ΄ Ν Ν - / Τὴν αποκρισιν EXELS, WS αν αποφηνῃ; προς TO δεῖπνον τραπησόμεθα.
3 om τα Β 4 εἰ] εἰς G | προβαλοι P προβαλλει C προβαλοις G προ- βαλλοις I | νομιζει P 5 om του (nv Z 9 Tous vmvous P 10 rade] τηδε HKAPT τι δὲ GICZ τα τηδε B (τα excurrit in mg sed prima manu) | πασχωμεν GIP | om τὴν I 11 υπολαμβανομεν BCPT] υὑπολαμβανομενοι cett 12 και 1°] om B| πολειν KGIBT] πωλειν HCPZ πλειν A | πετα- σθαι] μας B 18 και ο ταυθ---βασιλεὺυ (15) om Bet ins in mg Βταδτ [97 om K ΤΟ P 14 υπολαμβανειν KGICPZ | καθισταναι I Locus perob- scurus ῥκατα ταυθ υπολαμβανομεν καθεσταναι 15 tporov παντα Z | σε] σοι KBT 16 cavrw] eavrov codd 17 om ro B 18 apes] avacpers P αιρης Z epas A 19 ποιηται P| ἡ διανοια ev τοις avras BT 20 ws de codd] Fortasse os δε vel os ὃ exer 21 κατευθυνεις ZOO 24 τραπη- σωμεθα GICPZ
Leal
\
Io
15
20
ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 557
3 v, , a x Χ Sele ε a / ε δὲ > npwra δέ Πῶς av μηδὲν ἀνάξιον ἑαυτῶν πράσσοιμεν ; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν 3 , \ > \ A , \ \ ε , “ Ἐπίβλεπε διαπαντὸς εἰς τὴν σεαυτοῦ δόξαν καὶ τὴν ὑπεροχήν. ἵνα , > ΄ x , Ν a , ¢ / = τούτοις ἀκόλουθα καὶ λέγης καὶ διανοῇ, γινώσκων ὅτι πάντες ὧν » Ν A Ν lal \ A 3 Ν 2 ,ὔ ’, ἄρχεις περὶ σοῦ καὶ διανοοῦνται καὶ λαλοῦσιν. οὐ γὰρ ἐλάχιστόν an an ~ \ ~ σε δεῖ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν φαίνεσθαι: τὸ yap πρόσωπον, <6 δέον αὐτοῖς:- ς A an / / / ἐστιν ὑποκρίνεσθαι, τοῦτο συνθεωροῦντες ἀκόλουθα πάντα πράσ- 3 ~ ~ gover σὺ δὲ οὐχ ὑπόκρισιν ἔχεις, ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθῶς βασιλεύεις, θεοῦ ’, las ε lal δόντος σοι καταξίως τῶν τρόπων τὴν ἡγεμονίαν. Τοῦ δὲ / > / / Ν ΄ hE NY , βασιλέως εὖ para συγκροτήσαντος μετὰ φιλοφροσύνης ἐπὶ πλείονα ΄, Ν / nw χρόνον, τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καθυπνοῦν παρεκάλουν. Kal τὰ μὲν πρὸς ε a“ “ : τούτους ws ἔληξεν, ἐπὶ τὴν ἑξῆς ἐτράπησαν τῆς συμποσίας διάταξιν. ~~ , ~ ~ , 7 «ε Τῇ δὲ ἐχομένῃ, τῆς αὐτῆς διατάξεως γενηθείσης, ὅτε καιρὸν ὑπε- ’ \ > An ΄ al na > λάμβανεν ὃ βασιλεὺς εἶναι τοῦ πυνθάνεσθαί τι τῶν ἀνδρῶν, ἠρώτα Ν A A Ν Ν A , TOV πρῶτον τῶν ἀπολιπόντων πρὸς τὴν ἑξῆς ἐρώτησιν Tis ἐστιν 3 Ν 7 > A Qv ve A ε A \ \ ἀρχὴ κρατίστη; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Τὸ Kpatety ἑαυτοῦ καὶ μὴ συγκατα- / “ “ A \ > / Ἂς ον φέρεσθαι ταῖς ὁρμαῖς. πᾶσι γὰρ ἀνθρώποις φυσικὸν εἶναι τὸ πρός Ν , εὖ a Ν > a Tien Ν N Ν τι τὴν διάνοιαν ῥέπειν: τοῖς μὲν οὖν πολλοῖς ἐπὶ τὰ βρωτὰ καὶ \ Ν N ε \ seus > ΄, na \ A uN ποτὰ Kal τὰς ἡδονὰς εἰκός ἐστι κεκλίσθαι, τοῖς δὲ βασιλεῦσιν ἐπὶ 7 ΄ \ \ A Ase , \ 9 A χώρας κατάκτησιν, κατὰ TO τῆς δόξης μέγεθος: πλὴν ἐν πᾶσι Ay a , μετριότης καλόν. ἃ δὲ ὃ θεὸς δίδωσι, ταῦτα λαμβάνων σύνεχε: ~ > > “ “ > τῶν δ᾽ ἀνεφίκτων μὴ ἐπιθύμει. Τοῖς δὲ ῥηθεῖσιν ἀρεσθεὶς , > a X 5 , Ἢ πρὸς τὸν ἐχόμενον εἶπε Πῶς ἂν ἐκτὸς εἴη φθόνου; διαλιπὼν δὲ 3 ων » “ > J 7 ε Ν “ / le ἐκεῖνος ἔφη Πρῶτον εἰ νοήσαι, ὅτι ὃ θεὸς πᾶσι pepiler δόξαν τε
Ἂς , / “ ~ Ν 3 Ν \ ε , 3 και πλούτου μέγεθος τοις βασιλεῦσι, και οὐδεὶς πέρι EAUTOV core
1 avtwy CZ 3 Nevers PZ 5 dec Β] δια cett | 0 deov αὐτοῖς con} Schmidt] οὐδὲ αὐτο (αυτος B) codd 6 τουτο] -- yap GI | ovr (in συνθεω- ρουντες) sup lin T? 8 τον τροπον Zt ηἡγεμονειαν H 10 καθυπνουντας C | παρεκ. καθ. Z 11 τουτοις Z | εἐληξεν corr Schmidt] ἐλεξεν codd | ere] +rovrots (post ras) Z | ws εληξεν---εχομενὴ (13))om H 18 ὑπελαβεν CTZ 14 npwra ex conj] πρωτα codd (ernpwra Z°°') 15 των απολιποντων (-λειπ. P)] τον ἀπολιποντα BCTZ -ηγε B | ερωτησιν] - εφηὴ P 18 om τὴν dav. Z| βρωματα P 19 κεκλεισθαι PB* vid 20 om τὸ] C
a 21 om ταυτα P | cuvexe λαμβανων B* (corr B') 23 πως] ws Z | διαλει- πων 1 24 εἰ νοησαις Z°%P (-ησσ.) ἐεννοησας B 25 πλουτον HGI
HKAGIB CPTZ
558 APISTEAS
/ \ “ an βασιλεύς: πάντες yap θέλουσι μετασχεῖν ταύτης τῆς δόξης, ἀλλ᾽ od δύ Ὲ 6 lal ΄ ΕἸ δό > ᾽ὔ Ν Ν ΝΜ ὕνανται: θεοῦ γάρ ἐστι δόμα. Ezawéoas δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα Ἂς / ΕῚ / Ν “ -“ xa , ~ > ral διὰ πλειόνων ἐπηρώτα τὸν ἕτερον Ids av καταφρονοίη τῶν ἐχθρῶν ; ε > > Ν 3 6 δὲ εἶπεν Ησκηκὼς πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εὔνοιαν καὶ κατεργα- ΄ὔ ΄, φ 5 \ x μὲ Ξ Ν Ν a Ν σάμενος φιλίας, λόγον οὐθενὸς ἂν ἔχοις" τὸ δὲ κεχαριτῶσθαι πρὸς 5 , > / Ν A “ 3 ve! Ἀ -“ a 3 @£ πάντας ἀνθρώπους καὶ καλὸν δώρον εἰληφέναι παρὰ θεοῦ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι ’ὔ / Ν "9 Ν ε Lal 3 /, κράτιστον. Συναινέσας δὲ τούτοις τὸν ἑξῆς ἐκέλευσεν > A Ν δ τῆς > / a Ἅ ΄ ΄ Φ ἀποκριθῆναι, πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰπών Πῶς ἂν δοξαζόμενος διαμένοι ; εἶπε δέ Τῇ προθυμίᾳ καὶ ταῖς χά ὸ ὺς ἀλλ δοτικὸς ὦ Ἢ προθυμίᾳ καὶ ταῖς χάρισι πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους μεταδοτικὸς ὧν Ν ‘ 9, a i 3 / / 9 Ν \ καὶ μεγαλομερὴς οὐδέποτ᾽ av ἀπολίποι δόξης: ἵνα δὲ τὰ προειρη- το / / Ν Ν 3 lal ΄,ὔ > μένα σοι διαμένῃ, τὸν θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦ διαπαντός. Εὐφη- / δὲ “ 7 3 / ΄- Cal / > μήσας δὲ τοῦτον ἕτερον ἠρώτα Ios twa det φιλότιμον εἶναι; > ~ ψ ΎΝΝ Ν. \ ~ ΕἾ ἘΠ ΩΝ »” , 7 ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Πρὸς τοὺς φιλικῶς ἔχοντας ἡμῖν οἴονται TaVTES OTL x ΄ Pet 2 ine Ke , X δ 3 a πρὸς τούτους déov' ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὑπολαμβάνω, πρὸς τοὺς ἀντιδοξοῦντας φιλοτιμίαν δεῖν χαριστικὴν ἔχειν, ἵνα τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ μετάγωμεν 15 3 Ν ἌΡ. Ν θη ‘ » ε - A Ν Ν ‘ αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ καθῆκον Kal συμφέρον ἑαυτοῖς. δεῖ δὲ τὸν θεὸν 7 ~ A λιτανεύειν, ἵνα ταῦτ᾽ émiteAntar’ τὰς γὰρ ἁπάντων διανοίας Pe > De 4 δὲ ᾽’ Ν 7 ΕῚ Ψ' κρατεῖ. υνομολογήσας δὲ τούτοις τὸν ἕκτον ἐκέλευσεν / / al A > ἀποφήνασθαι πυνθανόμενος Τίσι δεῖ χαρίζεσθαι; ἐκεῖνος ὃ 5 Θ ΤᾺΣ A ὃ / ἈΝ Ν ε Ν ’ὔ 2 Ν ἀπεκρίθη Τονεῦσι διαπαντός, καὶ γὰρ ὃ θεὸς πεποίηται ἐντολὴν 20 . ,ὔ - ~ 4 an »" μεγίστην περὶ τῆς τῶν γονέων τιμῆς. ἑπομένως δὲ τὴν τῶν φίλων / ~ ΄ ἐγκρίνει διάθεσιν, προσονομάσας ἴσον τῆ ΨΥχῆ τὸν φίλον. σὺ ᾿ an An σ > / 5 / Ν ε Ν δὲ καλῶς ποιεῖς ἅπαντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς φιλίαν πρὸς ἑαυτὸν καθ- A » δὲ Ν A 3 θά ‘ A LOT OV. Παρακαλέσας δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἐπυνθάνετο καὶ τοῦ a ΄ὕ = , μετέπειτα Τί καλλονῆς ἀξιόν ἐστιν; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν Εὐσέβεια. καὶ 5
‘\ 9 ΄’ 4 > 4 Ν Ν ὃ Ν 3 A yap αὕτη καλλονὴ Tis ἐστι πρωτεύουσα. TO δὲ δυνατὸν αὐτῆς
22 Deut 13° HKAGIB 2 δυναντ av Z 5 φιλιαν Z 6 om και GI 8 εἰπων εἰπεν GIC CPTZ eras Z πως) ws Z 9 προμήθεια K | μεταδοτ. wy προς Tous addous B
10 απολειποι P 11 διαμενοι A 12 de sup lin scr Ζ ἃ 18 ovov rar] οιον και Καὶ 15 δει BP | exew] εἰναι B | τροπω] προσωπῳ CZ 17 em-
τελειται C 18 συνομολογησασθαι P et (δε omisso) Z* 19 om 6Z 20 απεκριθη] eve Z 21 eopuevos P 22 eyxpwew Z 23 προς eavrov | eauTw P 24 και 1°] om B 26 om τις PZ | προτερευουσα H προτευουσα
B a GI | eorw avrns B* (corr B*)
1το
15
20
25
®IAOKPATEI. 559
2 3 ΄ ε 9 Ν 6 A 56 3 Ae. Μ Ἃ \ \ / , ἐστιν ἀγάπη" αὕτη yap θεοῦ δόσις ἐστίν᾽ ἣν Kal σὺ κέκτησαι πάντα A > rs περιέχων ἐν αὐτῇ τὰ ayaba. Aiav δὲ φιλοφρόνως ἐπικρο- Ὁ -“ Δ A -“ τήσας εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον Πῶς ἂν πταίσας πάλιν τῆς αὐτῆς / Q 7 ε Ν Μ Α, Ν | 4 τ “-“ A κρατήσαι δόξης; ὃ δὲ ἔφη Σὲ μὲν od δυνατόν ἐστι πταῖσαι, πᾶσι \ / 3 a a yap χάριτας ἔσπαρκας, at βλαστάνουσιν εὔνοιαν, 7 τὰ μέγιστα τῶν 9 4, 4 \ / 3 / > / ὅπλων κατισχύουσα περιλαμβάνει τὴν μεγίστην ἀσφάλειαν" εἰ δέ # > > e / 3 4 Ἂς A 4 3 Ν τινες πταίουσιν, ἐφ᾽ οἷς πταίουσιν, οὐκέτι χρὴ ταῦτα πράσσειν, ἀλλὰ φιλίαν κατακτησαμένους δικαιοπραγεῖν. θεοῦ δὲ δῶρον ἀγαθῶν 3 4 - . Ν ad 3 », Ν Ν ΄ ἐργάτην εἶναι καὶ μὴ τῶν ἐναντίων. Συναρεσθεὶς δὲ τούτοις Ν Ν “ > A x > Ν / ΄ ε Ἂς εν 46 9 πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον εἶπε Ilws av ἐκτὸς γένοιτο λύπης ; ὃ δὲ ἔφησεν Ei ’ 3 “ ~ a μηδένα βλάπτοι, πάντας δὲ ὠφελοῖ, TH δικαιοσύνῃ κατακολουθῶν᾽ fan Ν 2 ,ὔ , τοὺς yap ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς καρποὺς ἀλυπίαν κατασκευάζειν. ἱκετεύειν δὲ 7 ‘\ Ν ἈΝ ’, ε ~ τὸν θεόν, ἵνα μὴ τὰ παρὰ τὴν προαίρεσιν ἡμῶν ἀνακύπτοντα , / Ν es / / \ / \ lal \ \ βλάπτῃ, λέγω δὴ οἷον θάνατοί τε καὶ νόσοι καὶ λῦπαι Kal τὰ A ΓΝ" Ν Ν 3 a a ’, ϑνχ xv τοιαῦτα. «αὐτῷ- δὲ σοὶ εὐσεβεῖ καθεστῶτι τούτων οὐδὲν av , nw XV Ν “ ΕἸ 7 Ν ΄ 3 / προσέλθοι. Καλώς δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἐπαινέσας τὸν δέκατον ἠρώτα > \ a \ / a Ti μέγιστόν ἐστι δόξης; ὁ δὲ εἶπε TO τιμᾶν τὸν θεόν' τοῦτο δ᾽ - 4, ἐστὶν od δώροις οὐδὲ θυσίαις, ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς καθαρότητι καὶ διαλήψεως lal aA / Aa ὁσίας, καθὼς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντα κατασκευάζεται καὶ διοικεῖται Ἀ Ν > a A n « Ν \ a Ν ,ὔ - κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν᾽ ἣν καὶ σὺ διατελεῖς ἔχων γνώμην, 7 la A “ \ ἴω / πάρεστι σημειοῦσθαι πᾶσιν ἐκ τῶν ὑπὸ σοῦ συντετελεσμένων Kal ,ὔ Ν ΄ δὲ Pe , 3 Ν ε συντελουμένων. Μετὰ μείζονος δὲ φωνῆς πάντας αὐτοὺς ὁ > / Ν 7 “ / βασιλεὺς noraleto καὶ παρεκάλει, συνεπιφωνούντων τῶν παρόντων, ΄, Ὗ a , \ \ A > A \ a , μάλιστα δὲ τῶν φιλοσόφων. καὶ yap ταῖς ἀγωγαῖς Kai τῷ λόγῳ ΄, “ > ε xX Ν a Ν πολὺ προέχοντες αὐτών ἦσαν, ὡς ἂν ἀπὸ θεοῦ τὴν καταρχὴν ποιού- A \ Ν “-“ A μενοι. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὃ βασιλεὺς εἰς TO φιλοφρονεῖσθαι προῆλθε διὰ τῶν προπόσεων.
1 yap] δε B | θῦ δοσις ΒΟΡΤΊ θεοδοσιος cett 2 αὐτὴ] eautn Καὶ avrw B* εαυτω B! txt cett 3 τῆς αυτης παλιν P 5 εσπερκας HA | ευνοιαν +e. de τινες πταιουσιν ep ots πταιουσι K* (del rubricator) 8 κτησα-
μενους BT | ayabov CT*Z 9 συναρκεσθεις B 10 εφησεν] edn AP 11 βλαπτοι] λυπειται Z“'4 (fin ex corr) | ὠῴφελει KT οφελοιη P 12 avrovs K 13 om ta KBCTZ 14 βλαπτοι CPZ | λεγω δὴ (δε Z)] om P| om re P 168 rovavra δε σοι codd (cum lacuna post roavra BC) avrw inserui | αὐτω---καθεστωτι] evoeBer de gor οντι P 19 καθως---κατα (20)] om HKAGI 22 de μειζονος Z 25 mpocexovtes BZ | avrw B* | noay P] om cett 27 προποσεων BT Η “91 πραιποσιτων PK προποσετων cett
HKAGIB CPZ
HKAGIB CPTZ
560 APISTEAS
Τῇ δὲ ἐπιούσῃ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ τῆς διατάξεως τοῦ συμποσίου / A ” > ’ A a ‘ esa > , , γενομένης, καθὼς εὔκαιρον ἐγένετο τῷ βασιλεῖ, τοὺς ἑξῆς ἡρώτα τῶν προαποκεκριμένων, εἶπε δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ Τὸ φρονεῖν εἰ διδακτόν ἐ ; ρ ριμένων, ἐ τῷ πρώτῳ To φρονεῖν εἰ διδακτὸν ἐστιν ; a > > a > 4 Ν , / > / ὃς δ᾽ εἶπε Ψυχῆς ἐστι κατασκευή, διὰ θείας δυνάμεως ἐπιδέχεσθαι a Ν “ > ΄ Ν 3 ΄ / πᾶν τὸ καλόν, ἀποστρέφεσθαι δὲ τἀναντία. Συνομολογήσας > /, nw δὲ τὸν ἐχόμενον ἠρώτα Ti πρὸς ὑγείαν μάλιστα συντείνει; ἐκεῖνος ee ’ / Ν 3 » [οὐ ἮΝ Ἂς Ν δὲ ἔφη Σωφροσύνη: ταύτης δὲ οὐκ ἔστι τυχεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ θεὸς κατα- σκευάσῃ τὴν διάνοιαν εἰς τοῦτο. Παρακαλέσας δὲ τοῦτον πρὸς Ἀ 7 μὴ TL ”~ Ἃ a) Ν ἀξί 3 ὃ ΄ / Ω «Δ δὲ τὸν ἕτερον ἔφη Ilws av γονεῦσι τὰς ἀξίας αποόφη χάριτας; ὃς ὃὲ μὲ Ν > \ rf ἴω > > 3, 3 Ν Ν A εἶπε Μηδὲν αὐτοὺς λυπήσας" τοῦτο δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν, εἰ μὴ θεὸς τῆς δια- ΄ὔ ε Ν / Ν Ν ΄ ’, Ν νοίας ἤγεμων γένοιτο πρὸς τὰ κάλλιστα. Προσεπινεύσας δὲ \ eLa >? , A x / ΕΙΣ 5 5 lal ἵν > τούτῳ τὸν ἑξῆς ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν φιλήκοος εἴη; ἐκεῖνος δὲ εἶπε Δια- μὲ ΄ bd x ‘\ λαμβάνων ὅτι πάντα συμφέρει γινώσκειν, ὅπως ἂν πρὸς τὰ συμ- " > an Baivovra ἐκλεγόμενός τι τῶν ἠκροαμένων ἀνθυποτιθεὶς πρὸς τὰ TOV an x 3 4 ! \ / “ “ 3 > , καιρῶν Τἂν ἀντιπράσσηταιϊ, σὺν χειραγωγίᾳ θεοῦ" τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστίν, ε »“»"ἭἬ / / ε > > lal “ ‘+. > , αἱ τῶν πράξεων τελειώσεις UT αὐτοῦ. Τοῦτον δὲ ἐπαινέσας a. Ν 4 > “~ xX θὲ / / \ cal πρὸς Tov ἕτερον εἶπε Ilws av μηθὲν παράνομον πράσσοι; πρὸς τοῦτο » / a Ἂς 3 , ε Ν δ “ , ἔφησε Τινώσκων ὅτι τὰς ἐπινοίας ὁ θεὸς ἔδωκε Tots νομοθετήσασι Ν Ν 4 6 \ ’ “ 3 θ , 5 ros 6 Υ πρὸς τὸ σώζεσθαι τοὺς βίους τῶν avlpwrwv, ἀκόλουθος εἴης a > / \ av αὐτοῖς. Αποδεξάμενος δὲ αὐτὸν πρὸς ἕτερον εἶπε Tis 3 / / > / ε Ἀν. 8ι ΄ ? Ν “ / ὠφέλεια συγγενείας ἐστίν; ὃ δὲ ἀπεφήνατο Ἐὰν τοῖς συμβαίνουσι a cal ' ~ νομίζωμεν ἀτυχοῦσι μὲν ἐλαττοῦσθαι, καὶ κακοπαθῶμεν ὡς αὐτοί, »΄, ’ φαίνεται τὸ συγγενὲς ὅσον ἰσχῦόν ἐστι--- τελουμένων δὲ τούτων καὶ “ ε ᾿Α Ξ Ν Ν δόξα καὶ προκοπὴ παρὰ τοῖς τοιούτοις ὑπάρξει τὸ γὰρ συγγενὲς 2 γενομενου BT | rous] τοις I 3 αποκεκριμενων T 4 δια] και P 6 exewo B* execvos Bt 7 εανἹ εἰ A | κατασκευασει HAGCZ* 8 om de EBCPTZ 9 εἰπε Z| αποδων G αποδωση Z | yovevow atrodwyn Tas ak. xap. B 10 λυπησας P] λυπησαι cett | της διανοιας ἡγεμὼν bis scripsit Καὶ 12 om αν C | evy] pr αν Z | διαλαμβανειν B 13 συμφερειν T 14 ανθυ- ποτιθης T αντυποτιθεις GICZ 15 αν αντιπρασσηται] αντιπρασσηται (ἃ (αν τι πρασσ.) IB txt (fort recte) cett | συγχειραγωγια A*GITZ | εστιν at] εστι ka P 16 ἡ των mp. τελειωσις T* 17 mpacco παρα Tov vowov BCPTZ 18 δεδωκε P 19 ecyns] pr av BTZ* (post ras) 20 om αν BT | αὑτον] τουτον P | erepov] pr τον HPZ 22 νομιζωμεν KA Bor T] νομιζομεν cett | ατυχουσι KA BPT] ατυχωσι cett | ws avror BCoor Toor) ws avrov
PC*T* vid ws avrwy cett (? wravTws) 23 ocov—oavyyeves (24)] om Bet ins ΒΡ | om καὶ P 24 υπαρχει GI | συγγενες BOT] ouvepyes cett
Io
15
20
®IAOKPATEI. 561
ΝΣ, / ΄ὔ ε > ε “ ὃ , Ν -“ \ δὲ εὐνόως γινόμενον ὡς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ ἀδιάλυτον πρὸς ἀπαντα---μετὰ δὲ 3 ’ Ν a “~ 3 ’, 3 Ν Ν ε ͵ εὐημερίας, μηδὲν προσδεῖσθαι τῶν ἐκείνων, ἀλλὰ -«θεὸν:- ἱκετεύειν, ’, » ἴω ε , Ν 3 te > 4 πάντα ἀγαθοποιεῖν. Ὡσαύτως δὲ ἐκείνοις ἀποδεξάμενος ’ ~ / 3 / 4 αὐτὸν ἄλλον ἠρώτα Πῶς ἀφοβία γίνεται; εἶπε δέ Συνιστορούσης “ “a / Ν τῆς διανοίας μηδὲν κακὸν πεπραχέναι, θεοῦ κατευθύνοντος εἰς τὸ lal ΄ Ν καλῶς ἅπαντα βουλεύεσθαι. Τούτῳ δὲ ἐπιφωνήσας πρὸς ΕΣ nw x‘ , > ἄλλον εἶπε Πῶς ἂν προχείρως ἔχοι τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν “ ’, 4 Εἰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀτυχήματα διαπαντὸς ἐπιβλέποι" γινώσκων - ε Ν > A \ > , ΘΟ Ὁ , > X ὅτι ὃ θεὸς ἀφαιρεῖται τὰς εὐημερίας, ἑτέρους δὲ δοξάζων εἰς τὸ A / ~ Ν Ν la) > / \ τιμᾶσθαι προαγει. Kadds δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἀποδεξάμενος τὸν eg > 67 (λ % a Ἃ Ν 3 ε θ 4 de a \ ἑξῆς ἀποκριθῆναι παρεκάλει Ilws av μὴ εἰς ῥᾳθυμίαν, μηδὲ ἐπὶ τὰς ε \ ,ὕ ε 7 , + 3 “ ΄ ἡδονὰς τρέποιτο; ὃ δέ Προχείρως ἔχων, εἶπεν, OTL μεγαλης ,ὔ / XN tal al 3 “ Ν > “ Ν βασιλείας κατάρχει καὶ πολλῶν ὄχλων ἀφηγεῖται, καὶ οὐ δεῖ περὶ [2 ͵ὕ ἧς , > mn Ν ye 5» fo , > ἕτερόν τι τὴν διάνοιαν εἶναι, τῆς δὲ τούτων ἐπιμελείας φροντίζειν “ « “ 3 θεὸν δὲ ἀξιοῦν, ὅπως μηθὲν ἐλλίπῃ τῶν καθηκόντων. Eza- / Ν \ a Ν ΄ 3 , a BI 3 4 Ν νέσας δὲ καὶ τοῦτον τὸν δέκατον «ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν ἐπιγινώσκοι:- τοὺς ΄ \ Ν ἄς, οἷς ΄ ε ἂν 9 ΄ Ν a > δόλῳ τινὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν πράσσοντας; ὁ δὲ ἀπεφήνατο πρὸς τοῦτο Ei a Ν 3 Ν 3 / Ss \ Ν > / ΄ παρατηροῖτο τὴν ἀγωγὴν ἐλευθέριον οὖσαν, καὶ τὴν εὐταξίαν διαμέ- νουσαν ἐν τοῖς ἀσπασμοῖς καὶ συμβουλίαις καὶ τῇ λοιπῇ συνανα- στροφῇ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ, καὶ μηθὲν ὑπερτείνοντας τοῦ δέοντος ἐν ταῖς ’ὔ \ lad Lal an εἶ Ἂς 3 ΄, Ν Ν φιλοφρονήσεσι καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἀγωγήν. θεὸς δὲ Ν ΄ » lal ‘ ΄ τὴν διάνοιαν --ἀξει-:-- σοι, βασιλεῦ, πρὸς τὰ κάλλιστα. Συγ- / ΝΜ Ν -“ ’, κροτήσας πάντας T ἐπαινέσας κατ᾽ ὄνομα, καὶ τῶν παρόντων ταὐτὰ
, an % Ν / > ΄ ποιούντων, ἐπὶ τὸ μέλπειν ἐτράπησαν.
1 διαλυτον Ζ 2 @eov con} Wendland] deov codd 3 us in exervors sup ras T 4 πως ex orws ΤῊ | om εἰπε δὲ Καὶ 6 amavtas G | rovro
a
Ρ 7 εχη Tov ibs λογον προχειρως B | exer CZ 8 επιβλεπει BP 13 καταρχὴ Z| om οχλων B 15 ελλειπει B* ελλειπη Bor PT 16 epwra codd | αν επιγινωσκοι] επιγινωσκοι B επιγινωσκει (-ers Z) cett 17 dodov τινα A | rpaccovras προς avtov BT | προς τουτο (τουτον B* Toor vid) amepynvato P 18 αὐταξιαν KI (ev sup ras H) 19 συμβου- λιαις (-ειαις GICZ)] συμβουλιας HK (-ecas) A* 20 undev HKBP | υπερ- τεινειν P vmeprewovr B* (as add BO") ὑπερτεινωνται Zr 22 diavoav] δι ανοι C | εξει codd | συγκροτησας] + de B +ovv καὶ P cum praecedd conj cett o de βασιλευς συγκροτησας edd pr 23 7 (re C)] om P | ra aura psa &
3.5, 36
HKAGIB CPTZ
HKAGIB CPTZ
562 APISTEAS
na ἈΝ > , Ν Ν A > 7 Ν esa , > Τῇ δὲ ἐχομένῃ τὸν καιρὸν λαβὼν ἐπηρώτα τὸν ἑξῆς Tis ἐστιν > , / Ν ms £9. oF 5 Ὁ 3, s »” 4 A ἀμέλεια μεγίστη; πρὸς τοῦτ᾽ ἔφη Εἰ τέκνων ἀφροντίς τις εἴη, καὶ μὴ \ a na κατὰ πάντα τρόπον ἀγαγεῖν «σπεύδοι-:-" εὐχόμεθα yap ἀεὶ πρὸς TOV / > 7 A σα “ «ες Ν “ 5 / 9 ~ ,ὔ θεόν, οὐχ οὕτως περὶ ἑαυτῶν ὡς περὶ τῶν ἐγγόνων, ἵνα παρῇ πάντα 3 ae δ (9 / Ν S59 ~ , / a αὐτοῖς τὰ ἀγαθά. τὸ δὲ ἐπιδεῖσθαι παιδείαν σωφροσύνης μετασχεῖν, la / “ lal ει θεοῦ δυνάμει τοῦτο γίνεται. Φήσας δὲ εὐλογεῖν ἄλλον > ,ὔ -“ “ἡ ΄“ ἠρώτα Ilws ἂν φιλόπατρις εἴη; Προτιθέμενος, εἶπεν, ὅτι καλὸν ἐν ἰδί Ν ζῇ ἈΝ X “ ε δὲ ἕ rs A Ν / / ἰδίᾳ καὶ ζῇν καὶ τελευτᾷν. ἡ δὲ ξενία τοῖς μὲν πένησι καταφρόνησιν > ΄ a Ἀν ’ὔ 5» ε Ν / 3 / ἐργάζεται, τοῖς δὲ πλουσίοις ὄνειδος, ὡς διὰ κακίαν ἐκπεπτωκόσιν. A > “ Ξ A a A εὐεργετῶν οὖν ἅπαντας, καθὼς συνεχῶς τοῦτ᾽ ἐπιτελεῖς, θεοῦ διδόντος » \ / / / / / Ν σοὶ πρὸς πάντας χάριν, φιλόπατρις φανήσῃ. Τούτου δὲ > ’ὔ΄ ~ Ἀ \ ε ~ 3 Fr ~ Xv ε ΄ / ἀκούσας τοῦ κατὰ TO ἑξῆς ἐπυνθάνετο Πῶς <dv> ἁρμόσαι γυναικί; , ~ «Γινώσκων; ὅτι μὲν θρασύ ἐστιν, ἔφη, τὸ θῆλυ γένος, καὶ δραστικὸν 35/3) ΝᾺ ΄’ A Ν ΄, ΔΤ ὁ Ν “ ἐφ᾽ ὃ βούλεται πρᾶγμα, καὶ μεταπίπτον εὐκόπως διὰ παραλογισμοῦ, Ν ~ A ͵ὕ 3 / ͵ὔ 3 > Ν XV Ν ε Ν καὶ τῇ φύσει κατεσκεύασται ἀσθενές" δέον δ᾽ ἐστὶ κατὰ τὸ ὑγιὲς χρῆσθαι, καὶ μὴ πρὸς ἔριν ἀντιπράσσειν. κατορθοῦται yap Bios, τὰ ε a 95 Ν ΄ Ν a Ν , a ὅταν <6> κυβερνῶν εἰδῇ, πρὸς τίνα σκοπὸν δεῖ τὴν διέξοδον ποιεῖ- lal “ / σθαι. θεοῦ δ᾽ ἐπικλήσει καὶ βίος κυβερνᾶται κατὰ πάντα. Συν- 6 / \ , ἣν ε ΄σ 3 / an x > a ανθομολογησάμενος δὲ τούτῳ τὸν ἑξῆς Hpwra Ilws <dv> dvapap- 4 ε ἣν > ε σ ‘ ει Ν “ τητος εἴη; ὃ δὲ ἔφησεν Ὥς ἅπαντα πράσσων καὶ μετὰ διαλογισμοῦ, a 5 “ἃ na «al μὴ πειθόμενος διαβολαῖς, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ὧν δοκιμαστὴς τῶν λεγο- μένων, καὶ κρίσει κατευθύνων τὰ τῶν ἐντεύξεων, καὶ διὰ κρίσεως > a A > , ΝΜ x ες > a Ν > ἐπιτελῶν ταῦτα, ἀναμάρτητος, ἔφησεν, av εἴης, ὦ βασιλεῦ. τὸ ὃ
9 a A N Aga ΄ > / / , δ 2 ἐπινοεῖν ταῦτα Kal ἐν τούτοις ἀναστρέφεσθαι θείας δυνάμεώς ἐστιν
2 αφροντις τις etn P] αφροντις (αφροστις G) τις εἰ GIK αφροντις τις 7
cett αφροντιστησει conj Schmidt 3 σπευδοι] σπευδὴ B om cett (spat 5 vel 6 litt hab T) 4 exyovwy A | om apn P 7 προστιθεμενος B 9 εκπεπτωκασιν C 11 φανησει P | om de P 12 κατα το (κατα τον EI)] om P | om αν codd | αρμωσει P 13 ywwoxwy] om codd ex conj sup- plevi | @pacu—yevos] φησι θρασυ To θηλὺ yevos εστι P | εστιν εφη TBrbricator (εστι B*)] eore cett 14 om xa P | μεταπιπτων GI | evkokws P
15 και] kav K |Ικατεσκευασθη P -σθαι CZ 16 εριν] apew GI ερριν PZ 17 o xvBepywy] om P κυβερνων cett | nin H dy KA | διεξοδον BCTZ] e€o- Sov cett 18 xara] και τα I | παν C | cuvavrou. AGICZ 19 rovrw] τουτον PCZ | om αν codd 20 απαν H*A (aray Hor) | om και P | μετα partim sup ras I 23 om εφησεν P
®IAOKPATEI. 563
ὟΝ \ Ν wn > | Ν A > ’ὔ ἔργον. Διαχυθεὶς δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις τὸν ἕτερον ἠρώτα a_ x 3 Ν a , Ν ΠΣ γ΄. , { , Πώς ἂν ἐκτὸς θυμοῦ γένοιτο; πρὸς τοῦτ᾽ εἶπε Γινώσκων ὅτι πάντων 3 , »” / 3 ΄ a / 3 / εὖ Ξ 3 ἐξουσίαν ἔχει, καί, εἰ χρήσαιτο θυμῷ, θάνατον ἐπιφέρει" ὅπερ ἀνω-
~ lal nm Ν ’ φελὲς καὶ ἀλγεινόν ἐστιν, εἰ τὸ ζῇν ἀφελεῖται πολλῶν, διὰ τὸ κύριον ΝΥ / 5 εἶναι. πάντων δ᾽ ὑπηκόων ὄντων Kal μηδενὸς ἐναντιουμένου, τίνος / , ΄ Ν a“ / x \ , 4 χάριν θυμωθήσεται; γινώσκειν δὲ δεῖ, διότι θεὸς τὸν πάντα κόσμον διοικεῖ μετ᾽ εὐμενείας καὶ χωρὶς ὀργῆς ἁπάσης" τούτῳ δὲ κατακο- a an > “ al λουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστί σε, ἔφησεν, ὦ βασιλεῦ. Καλώς Wah ΄ , a 3 ΄ a / ΠΣ δὲ ἀποκεκρίσθαι φήσας τοῦτον ἐπυνθάνετο τοῦ μετέπειτα Τί ἐστιν το εὐβουλία; Τὸ καλῶς ἅπαντα πράσσειν, ἀπεφήνατο, μετὰ διαλογι- “ Ν Ν Ν / \ Ν Ν a Ν σμοῦ, κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν παρατιθέντα καὶ <Ta> βλαβερὰ τῶν κατὰ an 4 ϑ τὸ ἐναντίον τοῦ λόγου διάστημα, ἵνα πρὸς ἕκαστον ἐπινοήσαντες > > / Ν Ν \ th A 9 a ἈΝ > > ὦμεν εὖ βεβουλευμένοι, καὶ τὸ προτεθὲν ἡμῖν ἐπιτελῆται. τὸ δ᾽ αὖ / -“ , a tA , τ} κράτιστον, θεοῦ δυναστείᾳ πᾶν βούλευμα «τελείωσιν ἕξει:- σοι ἧς > / > a / NB) \ “ > \ 15 τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἀσκοῦντι. Κατωρθωκέναι δὲ καὶ τοῦτον εἰπὼν ΕἿΣ ἴω ἄλλον ἠρώτα Ἵ Τί ἐστι φιλοσοφία; Τὸ καλώς διαλογίζεσθαι πρὸς 4 - / 5 ΄ ‘\ x 5 ΄ὔ “ ἕκαστον τῶν συμβαινόντων, ἀπεφήνατο, καὶ μὴ ἐκφέρεσθαι ταῖς ὁρμαῖς, ἀλλὰ τὰς βλάβας καταμελετᾷν τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐκβαι- ΄, A νούσας, καὶ τὰ πρὸς τὸν καιρὸν πράσσειν δεόντως μετριοπαθῆ καθε- A 7 io is / a / ΄ Niel Ν 2. στῶτα. ἵνα δ᾽ ἐπίστασιν τούτων λαμβάνωμεν, θεραπεύειν δεῖ τὸν Ἅ 3 / Ἀ Ν Lal Ὁ 5 ’ὔ ~ x θεόν. Ἐπισημήνας δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἕτερον ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν > a ε ΔΛ , 3 a ” / μὴ Ἂ ἀποδοχῆς ἡ ξενιτεία τυγχάνοι; Πᾶσιν ἴσος γενόμενος, ἔφη, καὶ a 4 τὸ / 4 \ “Ὁ ΄ μᾶλλον ἥττων ἢ καθυπερέχων φαινόμενος πρὸς ovs ἕενιτεύει. κοινῶς γὰρ 6 θεὸς τὸ ταπεινούμενον προσδέχεται κατὰ͵ φύσιν, καὶ τὸ os > ΄ ΄ \ ε ΄, a 3 25 τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος τοὺς ὑποτασσομένους φιλανθρωπεῖ. Επι-
α 7 δὲ τού ἴλλον nowra Πῶς <a> ἂν κατασκευάση καὶ μαρτυρήσας δὲ τούτοις ἄλλον ἡρώτ ὥς <a> ἂν κατα Ἢ
2 γινωσκειν 1 3 ἐχεὶς Α | χρῆσαι τω P| θυμοῦ HKAGICZ | επι- φερειν Β 6 de Ρ] om cett | διοτι] οτι KBT 7 τουτο PZ | κατακολου- θειν] ἘσεΡ 8 σε] οἵῃχ P σοι H° | om εφησεν w Καὶ 10 πραττειν B | μετα] δὲ Ζ 11 ra κατα την ιδιαν βουλὴν παρατιθεντας B | om τα codd | om των B 13 επιτελειται CPZ 14 τελειωσιν εξει σοι ex conj] Tews συνέξει σοι BT ιν εξισοι Z τεως ιν (ινα C) εξισοι cett 15 κατορθωκεναι HKGICZ | eras HGICZ 17 εκαστὰ BPTZ 19 7a] τὰς ΒῚ 20 dew B* δὲ (pro deov ἢ) K txt cett 21 επισημανας P (-μειν. Z*) 22 tTvyxavn PT -ve. Z | ywopevos P 23 nrrov GIZ* | ξενιτευη BT 24 om και B 25 Ὑγενος]- και B | φιλοῴφρονει B 26 om a codd
36—2
qc
HKAGIB CPTZ
564 APISTEAS
Ν a / x Co Ie 9 > ΄, Ν \ a μετὰ τοῦτο διαμένῃ; πρὸς τοῦτ᾽ εἶπεν Ei μεγάλα καὶ σεμνὰ ταῖς “-“ Ἁ “ Ν Ν ποιήσεσιν ἐπιτελοῖ, πρὸς τὸ φείσασθαι τοὺς θεωροῦντας διὰ τὴν “ ~ / καλλονήν, καὶ μηθένα τῶν κατεργαζομένων τὰ τοιαῦτα παραπέμποι, n / Ν Ν Ν 4 μηδὲ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀμισθὶ συντελεῖν ἀναγκάζοι τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν. A \ A > , / διανοούμενος yap ws θεὸς πολυωρεῖ TO τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος, χορη- 5 γῶν αὐτοῖς καὶ ὑγείαν καὶ εὐαισθησίαν καὶ τὰ λοιπά, καὶ αὐτὸς ἀκόλουθόν τι πράξει τῶν κακοπαθειών ἀποδιδοὺς τὴν ἀντάμειψιν. Ν Ν ΕΣ ΄ 7 “ Α / > τὰ yap ἐκ δικαιοσύνης τελούμενα, ταῦτα καὶ διαμένει. Ev lal > ΄ ΄ ’ὔ δὲ καὶ τοῦτον εἰρηκέναι φήσας τὸν δέκατον ἠρώτα Τί ἐστι σοφίας πὶ A “ \ / Ν καρπός; ὃ δὲ εἶπε Τὸ μὴ συνιστορεῖν ἑαυτῷ κακὸν πεπραχότι, τὸν 1 / δὲ βίον ἐν ἀληθείᾳ διεξάγειν. ἐκ τούτων yap κρατίστη χαρὰ καὶ Lal lal Ν re ψυχῆς εὐστάθειά σοι γίνεται, μέγιστε βασιλεῦ, Kat ἐλπίδες ἐπὶ θεῴ lal “ “a A ε ΄, καλαὶ κρατοῦντί σοι τῆς ἀρχῆς εὐσεβῶς. Ὡς δὲ συνήκουσαν πάντες ἐπεφώνησαν σὺν κρότῳ πλείονι. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πρὸς τὸ προπιεῖν ὁ βασιλεὺς [λαμβάνειν] ἐτράπη, χαρᾷ πεπληρωμένος. lal an / / “ Ν / Τῇ δ᾽ ἑξῆς καθὼς πρότερον ἡ διάταξις ἦν τῶν κατὰ TOV πότον 3 / ~ Ν 4 A 3 ΄ ε \ ἐπιτελουμένων, καιροῦ δὲ γενομένου τοὺς ἀπολιπόντας ὃ βασιλεὺς > 4 Ν Ν ~ ἣν y “A Ἃ Ἀ , > ᾿ ἐπηρώτα. πρὸς τὸν πρῶτον δὲ ἔφη Πῶς ἂν μὴ τράποι τις εἰς: ε , > ΄ > Ν 3 / “ \ 79 be ὑπερηφανίαν ; ἀπεκρίθη δέ Ei τὴν ἰσότητα τηροῖ, καὶ παρ᾽ ἕκαστον , 4 “~ ἑαυτὸν ὑπομιμνήσκοι, καθὼς ἄνθρωπος dv ἀνθρώπων ἡγεῖται. καὶ ’ ~ a ἈΝ 6 θεὸς τοὺς ὑπερηφάνους καθαιρεῖ, τοὺς δὲ ἐπιεικεῖς καὶ ταπεινοὺς ὑψοῖ. Παρακαλέσας δὲ αὐτὸν τὸν ἑξῆς ἐπηρώτα Τίσι δεῖ συμβούλοις χρῆσθαι; τοῖς διὰ πολλῶν, ἔφη, πεπειραμένοις πραγ- ” 4 “ μάτων, καὶ τὴν εὐνοιαν συντηροῦσιν ἀκέραιον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ τῶν
΄ ¢ , Sean 6 a δὲ > ΄ ΄, Ν \ TPOTWV οσοι μετέχουσιν avuTw. €OU O€ ἐπιφανεια γίνεται προς TA 2
HKAGIB 1 προς τουτ---επιτελοι (2)])om HKA 2 επιτελοιη P| ras 6.Z 8 .μη- PTZ deva GI | παραπεμπει P 4 αμισθοι Z | αναγκαζει P 6 autos] avras A 8 διαμενοι B 11 διεξαγειν P] διαγειν B διεξαγαγειν cett | χαρὰ κρατιστη Β 13 κρατουν Z* 15 mew AB | λαμβανειν (-νην P)] hab codd omn
Fort cf mew δουναι etc vel προποσιν pro mpomew legendum | xapas KBP xapa τι Z 16 το ὃ εξης B | καθως] - και Bj κατα των rorwy Z 17 ywo- μενου KAGI 18 ἐπηρωτα BPT] επερωτα cett | tparn K τραπειὴ Β τραποιὴ PZ txt cett | om es P 19 τηρει BPT 20 ὑπομιμνήσκει BPT | o] ws B 22 npwra B erepwra Z txt cett | dec ex de vel dn fact in B 23 εφη P] om cett post mpayuarwy ins ZO 24f τὸν τρόπον H 25 θεου —aévows (1, pag 565)] om BPTZ
Io
15
20
25
ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 565
“ “ ὙΜ τοιαῦτα τοῖς ἀξίοις. ᾿Ἐπαινέσας δὲ αὐτὸν ἄλλον ἠρώτα Τίς 3 “ “ 5 ΄ a“ e / ἐστι βασιλεῖ κτῆσις ἀναγκαιοτάτη; Tov ὑποτεταγμένων φιλαν- . ¥ θρωπία καὶ ἀγάπησις, ἀπεκρίνατο. διὰ yap τούτων ἄλυτος εὐνοίας δεσμὸς γίνεται. τὸ δὲ γίνεσθαι κατὰ προαίρεσιν ταῦτα ὃ θεὸς 3 a“ / ἊΝ 3 \ ε / ’ ἐπιτελεῖ. Κατεπαινέσας δὲ αὐτὸν ἑτέρου διεπυνθάνετο Τί πέρας ἐστὶ λόγου; κἀκεῖνος δὲ ἔφησε Τὸ πεῖσαι τὸν ἀντιλέγοντα, ὃ Ν a ¢ , 4Eé Ν “ > ΄ KA Ν ιὰ τῆς ὑποτεταγμένης τάξεως τὰς βλάβας ἐπιδεικνύντα: οὕτω γὰρ ΄ N 3 Ν 5 3 7 4 Ν > / Ν λήψῃ τὸν ἀκροατὴν οὐκ ἀντικείμενος, συγχρώμενος δὲ ἐπαίνῳ πρὸς Ν An a Ν 2 / τὸ ΄ Ἂν Ν τὸ πεῖσαι. θεοῦ δὲ ἐνεργείᾳ κατευθύνεται πειθώ. Ev δὲ NA , a cy aN bd Ne? WG " δ : au ” Ν " έγειν φήσας αὐτὸν ἕτερον ἠρώτα Ilws av, παμμιγῶν ὄχλων ὄντων ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ, τούτοις -ἁρμόσαι:- ; Τὸ πρέπον ἑκάστῳ συνυποκρινό- μενος, εἶπε, καθηγεμόνα λαμβάνων δικαιοσύνην" ὡς καὶ ποιεῖς θεοῦ > Ἂ σοι διδόντος εὖ λογίζεσθαι. Φιλοφρονηθεὶς δὲ τούτῳ πρὸς XN oa > 3 Ἂ / ἴω lad θ Ν A“ 3 Ό Ν τὸν ἕτερον εἶπεν ᾿Επὶ τίσι δεῖ λυπεῖσθαι; Πρὸς ταῦτα, ἀπεκρίθη, τὰ , a , “ a , SA's ly συμβαίνοντα τοῖς φίλοις, ὅταν θεωρῶμεν πολυχρόνια καὶ ἀνέκφευκτα γινόμενα. τελευτήσασι μὲν γὰρ καὶ κακῶν ἀπολελυμένοις οὐχ ὑπογράφει λύπην ὁ λόγος" ἀλλὰ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ἀναφέροντες καὶ τὸ Ν ε \ / “ / 4 θ Ν A> 9 lal πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς συμφέρον λυποῦνται πάντες ἀνθρωποι. τὸ δ᾽ ἐκφυγεῖν an \ cal ΄ὔ c 4 πᾶν κακὸν θεοῦ δυνάμει γίνεται. Ὡς ἔδει δὲ φήσας αὐτὸν > , ἂν Ὡ > ~ 5 » / 5 “~ Ν ἀποκρίνεσθαι πρὸς ἕτερον εἶπε lds ἀδοξία γίνεται; ἐκεῖνος δὲ »Μ ν « ff Q ~ XN 6 ΄ 1A. 3 εφησεν ταν ὑπερηφανία καθηγῆται καὶ θρασος ἀλήκτον, ατιμα- XN > , XN δόέ 3 / ἣν δὲ δόέξ if 4 σμὸς ἐπιφύεται καὶ δόξης αναίρεσις. θεὸς δὲ δόξης πάσης κυριεύει, 4 = , \ ΄ ὩΣ Ἔὶ ΄ Ν - > ῥέπων ov βούλεται. Καὶ τούτῳ δ᾽ ἐπικυρώσας τὰ τῆς ἀπο- ͵ \ e ee 3 / f- Qn A / ε 4 aA Ν Ν κρίσεως τὸν ἑξῆς ἠρώτα Τίσι δεῖ πιστεύειν ἑαυτόν ; Τοῖς διὰ τὴν
» 3 A εὔνοιαν, εἶπε, συνοῦσί σοι, Kal μὴ διὰ TOV φόβον μηδὲ διὰ πολυ-
1 τι] το t 2 βασιλει] βασιλικὴ A | κτισις GI 4 TavTa κατα προαιρεσιν B 5 επιτελοι Z ετερου] τον ετερον BTZ επυνθανετο ΒΖ 7 επιδεικνυντας HGIPZ υποδεικνυντας K 8 ληψει AP Any Zt (ληψαι Zms) | αντικειμενον BPTZ 10 φησαΞ]) πεισας Zt eras Z™S | erepor] pr τον Καὶ 11 αρμοσει Β΄ (-ση BT) apuoon cett | συναποκρινομενος PT 13 τοῦτο PZ*™* (rovroy Z™8) 14 λυπησθαι P 15 ανευῴφευκτα HGI ανεκῴφευτα T avedevxta Z avexpuxta B txt KAP 17 f ro προς eav- τους] προς To εαὐυτοις P 19 δυναμεως ΒΤ 20 αποκρινασθαι (ΘΠ Π δ): ΟΣ το corr 21 καθηγειται GIA 22 αναιρεσις BPT] αιρεσις cett | απασης P 23 τοῦτο Z | ταὶ τὰς GI 25 εἰπε] edn BT
HKAGIB PTZ
566 APISTEAS
/ Ν Ν ὡρίαν, ἐπανάγοντας πάντα πρὸς τὸ κερδαίνειν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ aya- x “ ’ Ν πήσεως σημεῖον, τὸ δὲ δυσνοίας καὶ καιροτηρησίας: ὃς γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸ πλεονεκτεῖν ὁρᾶται προδότης πέφυκε. σὺ δὲ πάντας εὐνόους “ / »“»" ἔχεις θεοῦ σοι καλὴν βουλὴν διδόντος. Σοφῶς δὲ αὐτὸν ae 9 ΄ὕ AS a ΄ ΄ “ Ν a> εἰπὼν ἀποκεκρίσθαι, ἑτέρῳ εἶπε Τί βασιλείαν διατηρεῖ; πρὸς TOUT 5 ΑΡ " 4 Ν ,ὔ ε 3 ‘\ ’ Ν ~ 5 ἔφη Μέριμνα καὶ φροντίς, ὡς οὐδὲν κακουργηθήσεται διὰ τῶν ἀπο- m” a cal ΄ τεταγμένων εἰς τοὺς ὄχλους ταῖς χρείαις" καθὼς σὺ τοῦτο πράσσεις “ ΄ -“ θεοῦ σοι τὴν σεμνὴν ἐπίνοιαν διδόντος. Θαρσύνας δὲ τοῦτον “ > s / ΄ ΄ Ν ΄ ε Ν > ἕτερον ἐπηρώτα Ti διαφυλάσσει χάριτα καὶ τιμήν; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν aA. / r “ ᾿ ” > Ν 5 aN ἃ, δὲ Ν 3 β ρετή. καλῶν γὰρ ἔργων ἐστὶν ἐπιτέλεια, τὸ δὲ κακὸν ἀποτρίβε- a ¢ , ται καθὼς ov διατηρεῖς τὴν πρὸς ἅπαντας καλοκαγαθίαν παρὰ cal “ a > “ ᾽ θεοῦ δώρον τοῦτ᾽ ἔχων. Κεχαρισμένως δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἀπο- . / ~ deapevos τὸν ἑνδέκατον ἐπηρώτα (διὰ τὸ δύο πλεονάζειν τῶν ἑβδο- , a “Δ Ν Ν AS a / > “ μὴ μήκοντα) Πώς ἂν κατὰ ψυχὴν καὶ ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις εἰρηνικῶς ἔχοι; ε | We ΟἹ / / g Ν ENB ” a « ὁ δὲ ἀπεφήνατο Διαλαμβάνων ὅτι κακὸν οὐδὲν εἴργασται τῶν ὗπο- τ > “-“ “ 4 τεταγμένων οὐθενί, πάντες δὲ ἀγωνιοῦνται περὶ τῶν εὐεργετημά- x a ΄“ > "4 “ των, εἰδότες, κἂν ἐκ τοῦ ζῇν ἀποτρέχωσιν, ἐπιμελητὴν σε TOV / > ἣν , 5 a a “a “ βίων. οὐ γὰρ διαλείπεις ἐπανορθῶν ἅπαντας τοῦ θεοῦ σοι καλο- ΄, > / , ΄, 5 Ν φροσύνην δεδωκότος. Ἐπισημήνας δὲ κρότῳ πάντας αὐτοὺς > / / Ν ΄ ε / a? \ ἀπεδέξατο φιλοφρονούμενος, καὶ προπίνων ἑκάστῳ πλεῖόν TL πρὸς “ “ > ΄ Ν a τὸ τερφθῆναι, pet εὐφροσύνης τοῖς ἀνδράσι συνὼν Kal χαρᾶς πλείονος. a ε , ν a ε “ ͵ὔ ~ , Τῇ ἑβδόμῃ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν, πλείονος παρασκευῆς γενομένης,
/ ΄ ε / > Ν ω / > Ν προσπαραγινομένων πλειόνων ἑτέρων ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων (ἦσαν γὰρ
"
HKAGIB 1 επαναγουσι B επαναγαγουσι Ζ 51 eravaywv P txt cett | παντὰας P PIZ 3 το] τω B* (το Bor) T (ex ro fact vid) | opa BT°™ (ται del rubricator) 4 διδουντος Z* | copws BT] σαῴφως cett 5 eras GIZ| διατηροι G 8 θρασυνας KB 9 διαφυλασση I (-λαττει B) 10 καλὸν yap epyov
K | εστιν---διατηρεις τὴν (11)] om HKA 12 κεχαρισμενος AZ* xexapt-, τωμενως 1 18 των Β] τους cett | εβδομηκοντα] ο KGIBT. Ad hoc notat τον ἐνδεκατον δε epwra δια To δυο πλεοναζειν των εβδομηκοντα οπισθεν yap
ava deka npwra Bms (rubricator) 16 ουθενι KPT] ovdexr B ουὐθεν HAGI | δε] yap B* 17 αποτρεχουσιν GIH (-σι) Z* vid 20 προπινων Β] προσπινων cett 21 post τερῴφθηναι fort ετραπη excidit | τ. avd. συν. μετ
ευφ. Z 23 δε BPT]omcett ᾿ 24 προσπαραγενομενων er. πλειονων K | om ἡσαν---πρεσβεις (1, pag 567) BPTZ ;
Io
15
20
25
ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ͂. 567
ε \ / 5 / ts Ν A / Ν ἱκανοὶ πρέσβεις), ἐπηρώτησεν ὃ βασιλεὺς καιροῦ γενομένου τὸν ν΄ “ 3 i“ ~ / A x > / πρωτεύοντα TOV ἀπολιπόντων τῆς ἐρωτήσεως [[ὥς av απαραλό- » ΕῚ A Ν + 7 Ν Ν / Ν Ν γιστος <ein>; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Δοκιμαάζων καὶ τὸν λέγοντα καὶ τὸ , \ \ , , Xs 5 ΄, ΄ \ 4. δ > λεγόμενον καὶ περὶ Tivos λέγει, Kal ἐν πλείονι χρόνῳ τὰ αὐτὰ δι coef / > a Ἂς Ν “ δ 96λ \ , ἑτέρων τρόπων ἐπερωτῶν. τὸ δὲ νοῦν ἔχειν ὀξὺν Kai δύνασθαι
, « A , ΄ > ε \ a , KPLVELV εκαστα Geov δώρημα καλὸν εστιν᾽ WS OV TOVTO KEKTYIOAL,
§ yun > Ε βασιλεῦ. Κρότῳ δὲ ἐπισημηνάμενος ὃ βασιλεὺς ἕτερον
3 , > / Ν 9 Ν > / “ 5 / ἐπηρώτα Διὰ τί τὴν ἀρετὴν οὐ παραδέχονται τῶν ἀνθρώπων [2 ve 7 ΄ “ i 5 A \ > Ν Ν οἱ πλείονες; Ὅτι φυσικῶς ἅπαντες, εἶπεν, ἀκρατεῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς ε Ν , / ἃ 4 / > Ew) , y \ N ΄“ς ἡδονὰς τρεπόμενοι γεγόνασιν᾽ ὧν χάριν ἀδικία πέφυκε καὶ τὸ τῆς / , \ Ἂς = 3 A / , Ν > πλεονεξίας χύμα. τὸ δὲ τῆς ἀρετῆς κατάστημα κωλύει τοὺς ἐπιφε- / > XN Ἂς ef ,’ > ! XN , Ν Δ ρομένους ἐπὶ τὴν ἡδονοκρασίαν, ἐγκράτειαν δὲ κελεύει καὶ δικαιο- / “ ec ΄ς Ἵ Ας ,ὔ e a / ‘ > Ν σύνην προτιμᾶν. ὃ δὲ θεὸς πάντων ἡγεῖται τούτων. Εὖ δὲ cal > / na ἀποκεκρίσθαι τοῦτον εἰπὼν ὃ βασιλεὺς ἠρώτα Τίσι det κατακολου- a Ν ~ "ἢ - Δ “ θεῖν τοὺς βασιλεῖς; ὁ δὲ ἔφη Τοῖς νόμοις, ἵνα δικαιοπραγοῦντες τὰ A A 3 / ἣν “A / ἀνακτῶνται τοὺς βίους τῶν ἀνθρώπων καθὼς σὺ τοῦτο πράσσων 3. / / “ ’ὔ / ἀένναον μνήμην καταβέβλησαι σεαυτοῦ, θείῳ προστάγματι κατα- lal “ ζω 4 Ν / κολουθῶν. Εἰπὼν δὲ καὶ τοῦτον καλῶς λέγειν τὸν ἐχόμενον ΕἸ ,ὕ , An , , ray de i ΄ ἠρώτα Tivas δεῖ καθιστάνειν στρατηγούς; ὃς δὲ εἶπεν Ὅσοι ᾽ Ν “ ͵΄ὕ εἶ Ἀ μισοπονηρίαν ἔχουσι, καὶ τὴν ἀγωγὴν αὐτοῦ μιμούμενοι, πρὸς TO \ 3 , 4 3 ΄ N ΄ ΄, x \ \ διαπαντὸς εὐδοξίαν ἔχειν αὐτούς, τὰ δίκαια πράσσουσι᾽ καθὼς σὺ “ an Ss “ A / τοῦτο ἐπιτελεῖς, εἶπε, βασιλεῦ, θεοῦ σοι στέφανον δικαιοσύνης ’ὔ .-’ὕ Ν Ν a \ \ δεδωκότος. ᾿Αποδεξάμενος δὲ αὐτὸν μετὰ φωνῆς ἐπὶ τὸν an Ἂς “A / ἐχόμενον ἐπιβλέψας εἶπε Τίνας δεῖ καθιστάνειν ἐπὶ τῶν δυνάμεων ” , . > , \ \ ἄρχοντας; ὃ δὲ ἀπεφήνατο Τοὺς ἀνδρείᾳ διαφέροντας καὶ δικαιο-
, \ \ “ ΄, Ν / \ A ὃ Ἃ Ν σύνῃ, καὶ περὶ πολλοῦ ποιουμένους τὸ σώζειν τοὺς ἀνδρας ἢ τὸ
1 επερωτησεν Z | γινομενου HAIPZ | τον] των Z* 2 απολειποντων P 3 evn ex corr] ἡ codd omn | δοκιμαζοντα Z | το] τον codd omn 4 χρονων G 5 ἐπερωτων τρόπων A 6 ws] o HKA | Touro bis scr T 8 επε- pwra Z | om ov ( | tov ανθρωπὼν BPT] τινες των ανθρωπων cett 9 εἰπεν] womep BT εἰπερ CZ* 11 διάστημα CPZ (κατα- sup ras T) 12 και dix. κελευει B 14 amoxpwacba BPT -εσθαι Z| amas GICZ | npwra] αλλον np. H np. ετερον BT np. τον εξης P txt KAGIC τον per avtov np. edd pr 18 emas GIC εἰπε Z 21 avras H 22 εἰπε] om P εἰπεν o C +peytote BT | δικαιοσυνην C 26 το 2°] tw ABCT (fort ex To T)
Q
HKAGI BCPIZ
HKAGI BCPTZ
568 APISTEAS
"Ὁ νικᾶν, TO θράσει -«παραβάλλοντας:- τὸ ζῇν. ws" yap ὃ θεὸς εὖ
-“ \ “~ ’ > “A \ ἐργάζεται πᾶσι, καὶ σὺ τοῦτον μιμούμενος εὐεργετεῖς τοὺς ὑπὸ
ε > , ΄ > »* σεαυτόν. Ο δὲ ἀποκεκρίσθαι φήσας αὐτὸν εὖ, ἄλλον ἠρώτα ΄, Ν ΕἾ Τίνα θαυμάζειν ἀξιόν ἐστιν ἄνθρωπον ; ὃ δὲ ἔφη Τὸν κεχορηγημένον ὃ Lé \ ΑΥ̓͂ ’ὔ Ἂς ὃ ᾿ 4 Ν Ν »” cal 5» Ξ 6 \ 0& καὶ πλούτῳ Kal δυνάμει, καὶ ψυχὴν ἴσον πᾶσιν ovTa’ καθὼς nw A 7x / 5 -“ ~ nw σὺ τοῦτο ποιῶν αἀξιοθαύμαστος εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ σοι διδόντος εἰς ταῦτα Ν > , 3 ΄ Ν Ν 4 \ Ν 9 τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν. Ἐπιφωνήσας δὲ καὶ τούτῳ πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον > 3 a“ ΄ \ ~ Ν / εἶπεν “Kv τίσι det πράγμασι τοὺς βασιλεῖς τὸν πλείω χρόνον διά- > > a 7 ἈΝ n “ a γειν; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν “Ev tats ἀναγνώσεσι καὶ ἐν ταῖς τῶν πορειῶν > n / ov Ν Ν [4 > / ἀπογραφαῖς διατρίβειν, ὅσαι πρὸς τὰς βασιλείας ἀναγεγραμμέναι , / \ 3 / ay τυγχάνουσι, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν καὶ διαμονὴν avOpwrwv. ὃ σὺ 3 ΜΝ ΟἿ: na Ν πράσσων -«-ἀνέφικτον:- ἄλλοις δόξαν κέκτησαι θεοῦ σοι τὰ βουλή- ματα συντελοῦντος. ᾿Ἐνεργῶς δὲ καὶ τοῦτον προσειπὼν , a “ \ lal ἕτερον ἠρώτα Τίνας δεῖ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς διαγωγὰς ἐν ταῖς ἀνέσεσι Ν ε 6 4 A = de ” Θ ae 9 < 16 > \ καὶ ῥᾳθυμίαις; ὃ δὲ ἔφη Oewpety ὅσα <mailetar> μετὰ περι- an \ Ν 5 »- Zz A nn - > 5 στολῆς, καὶ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν τιθέναι τὰ τοῦ βίου per εὐσχημο- σύνης καὶ καταστολῆς γινόμενα, <ei> Biot σωφρονῶν καὶ κατέχων" / εν Ν A ἔνεστι yap καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἐπισκευή τις. πολλάκις yap Kal ἐκ TOV Aa > ἐλαχίστων αἱρετόν τι δείκνυται. σὺ δὲ πᾶσαν ἡσκηκὼς καταστολὴν a“ a - \ ~ διὰ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν φιλοσοφεῖς διὰ καλοκἀγαθίαν ὑπὸ θεοῦ τιμώ- ’, ζω Ν μενος. Εὐαρεστήσας δὲ τοῖς προειρημένοις πρὸς τὸν ἔνατον > n a 90 A , \ εἶπε Ids δεῖ διὰ τῶν συμποσίων διεξάγειν; ὃ δὲ ἔφησε Παραλαμ- a ε ’ XN Bavovra τοὺς φιλομαθεῖς καὶ δυναμένους ὑπομιμνήσκειν τὰ χρήματα na ͵ Ἀν \ rat 3 , , > / ΕΥ̓ τῆς βασιλείας καὶ τοὺς τῶν ἀρχομένων βίους--- ἐμμελέστερον ἢ μου- / \ e Ἀ a“ TLKWTEPOV οὐκ ἂν εὕροις TL τούτων: οὗτοι yap θεοφιλεῖς εἰσι, πρὸς τὰ , lal ’ κάλλιστα πεπαιδευκότες τὰς διανοίας---καθὼς καὶ σὺ τοῦτο πράσσεις,
c ἍἋ ε Ν lal / ε / \ WS GV V7TO θεοῦ σοι κατευθυνομένων ATAVTWYV. Διαχυθεὶς
1 τω] ta P | παραβαλλοντας conj Schmidt] περιβαλλοντας codd 2 πασι) παλιν B 5 ψυχηι πασιν ισον H 7 rovro Z 8 de] de Z | πλειονα A (πλειωι GI) 9 om ev 2° BT 12 πρασσων] πρασσων (-cws K*) ws K | avedixrov Z™S] οὐκ εφικτον K εφικτον cett 13 τελουντος H συντελουμενος CZ | evapyws B | rourw AB | προσειπας GICZ 14 ποιειν K 15 om o δε egy Καὶ [οσα παιζεται (corr Schmidt)] οσα πλιζΐεται HGICTZ* ooa οπλιζεται KAZ™S os ord. B 16 τιθεμενος B 17 εἰ inserui | Bros Καὶ 21 evarov HB*] evvaroy cett 22 om de C 24 τους των apy. βιους B] ros τ. a. Bros cett 27 cov Zt
3
Io
15
20
25
Io
15
SIAOKPATEI. 569
.
Sa Ψ τ᾿. A 3 / > £ cal , , / ys > δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις, ἐπυνθάνετο Tod μετέπειτα Τί κάλλιστόν ἐστι -“" y+ Po / “-“ 5» -“ a τοῖς ὄχλοις, ἐξ ἰδιώτου βασιλέα κατασταθῆναι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, ἢ ἐκ βασι- ΄ 3 3 a a Ν ΝΜ “a , \ Ν λέως βασιλέα; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη «Τὸν: ἄριστον τῇ φύσει. καὶ γὰρ a / \ ΄ ἐκ βασιλέων βασιλεῖς γινόμενοι πρὸς τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους ἀνήμε- ’, “ ““ ““ ροί τε καὶ σκληροὶ καθίστανται: πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον καί τινες τῶν a aA / » ἰδιωτῶν Kal κακῶν πεπειραμένοι Kal πενίας μετεσχηκότες ἄρξαντες Μ / A > , / 2 , > \ ε ὄχλων χαλεπώτεροι τῶν ἀνοσίων τυράννων ἐξέβησαν. ἀλλὰ ws A 4 Ν Ν »” προεῖπον, ἦθος χρηστὸν Kal παιδείας κεκοινωνηκὸς δυνατὸν ἄρχειν ἐστί καθὼς σὺ βασιλεὺς μέγας tra ὺ υ δόξῃ TH ς ς μέγας ὑπάρλεις, οὐ τοσοῦτον τῇ δόξῃ τῆς 3 “ Ν δ ’ὔ f£ Ψ > , Ν Ν 0 / ΄ ἀρχῆς καὶ πλούτῳ προσχών, ὅσον ἐπιεικείᾳ καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ πάντας ͵, A a A “. ἀνθρώπους ὑπερῆρκας τοῦ θεοῦ σοι δεδωρημένου ταῦτα. "Ext / / ἴων an 3 πλείονα χρόνον καὶ τοῦτον ἐπαινέσας τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἠρώτα Τί Α ΄ 3 4 Ν ca) > Ν \ 2 4:. [ἐδ μέγιστόν ἐστι βασιλείας; πρὸς τοῦτο εἶπε Τὸ διαπαντὸς ἐν εἰρήνῃ / καθεστάναι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους, Kal κομίζεσθαι TO δίκαιον ταχέως ἴω Lal / ἐν ταῖς διακρίσεσι. ταῦτα δὲ γίνεται διὰ τὸν ἡγούμενον, ὅταν ΄ > \ ΄ \ \ a ΄ \ μισοπόνηρος ἢ καὶ φιλάγαθος Kai περὶ πολλοῦ ποιούμενος ψυχὴν ΄ ¢ ἀνθρώπου σώζειν: καθὼς καὶ σὺ μέγιστον κακὸν ἥγησαι τὴν 5 ΄ 4 Ν fi a“ Nis Ν \ Ν Q 7 ἀδικίαν, δικαίως δὲ πάντα κυβερνῶν ἀένναον τὴν περὶ σεαυτὸν δόξαν ΄ “ A la κατεσκευάσας, τοῦ θεοῦ σοι διδόντος ἔχειν ἁγνὴν Kal ἀμιγῆ παντὸς “ ‘\ Ms ΄ὔ Ἂς , 7 κακοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν. Καταλήξαντος δὲ τούτου κατερράγη / A a N / κρότος μετὰ φωνῆς καὶ χαρᾶς ἐπὶ πλείονα χρόνον. ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο, ε Ν \ ΄ 3 / \ a / ε ΄ ὁ βασιλεὺς λαβὼν ποτήριον ἐπεχέατο καὶ τῶν παρόντων ἁπάντων Ν a 3 ΄ , 5 5. a Ν > Ν , καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων λόγων. “ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ εἶπε Τὰ μέγιστά μοι ΄ 3 Ν , ε a Ν bs! 5 ΄ γέγονεν ἀγαθὰ παραγενηθέντων ὑμῶν: πολλὰ γὰρ ὠφέλημαι, κατα- λ [4 4 A διὸ Ν > \ \ \ Χ 7 ε / βεβλημένων ὑμῶν διδαχὴν ἐμοὶ πρὸς τὸ βασιλεύειν. ἑκάστῳ ΄, 3 a > , δὲ τρία τάλαντα προσέταξεν ἀργυρίου δοθῆναι Kal τὸν ἀποκαταστή-
1 om δε Καὶ 8 τὸ ἀριστον ΒΟΤΖ το αρεστον HKAGI 4 εκ] pr HKAGIB οἱ K | βασιλεων] βασιλεως Β | om βασιλεις HA | γενομενοι Καὶ 5 om δε CTZ Jos
Ζ των ιδιωτων τινες BT 6 ιδιωτικων Z 8 παιδειας KB (medias B*) TZ (ex -evav)| madera (-δια C) cett 9 βασιλευ T* vid 11 ὑπερηρας KB* | ere πλειονα xpovoy] cum praecedd conj Schmidt (sic HKA). Cf autem p 557 1 9, infra 1 21 13 rovro GICT*] τουτον HKABTSOF 14 νομιΐεσθαι C 17 κακον B] om cett 18 σεαυτου CBvid 19 κατα- oxevacas HI | om exew Z | aucynv C 22 AaBwy cum M restitui] λαλων codd cett 23 τον evpnuevov λογον K | Noyov Z™S | μεγιστα] παμμεγιστα
A 24 παραγεγενημενων B | wheAnua GI | καταβεβληκοτων B
q Jos
8 Jos
HKAGIB CTZ Jos
570 APISTEAS
-“ « ’ Ν ’ὔ »“" > , A σοντα παῖδα. συνεπιφωνησάντων δὲ πάντων, χαρᾶς ἐπληρώθη τὸ ,ὕ > ΄, ~ ΄ > > / 4 συμπόσιον, ἀδιαλείπτως τοῦ βασιλέως εἰς εὐφροσύνην τραπέντος. Ἔγω δὲ εἶ λείονα᾽ καὶ τοὐτοῖς, ὦ Φιλό )
yo δὲ εἶπα πλείονα᾽ καὶ TovTots, ὦ Φιλόκρατες, συγγνώμην »” Ν Ν Ν Ed COs Ν ΄, ΒΟΥ A oe ἔχειν. τεθαυμακὼς yap τοὺς ἄνδρας ὑπὲρ τὸ δέον, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ καιροῦ τὰς > ἴω “ / ~ “ ἀποκρίσεις ἐποιοῦντο πολλοῦ χρόνου δεομένας" καί, τοῦ μὲν ἐρωτῶντος “ lal μεμεριμνηκότος ἕκαστα, τῶν δὲ ἀποκρινομένων ἀλλήλως ἐχόντων δ 5, ἴω -“ τὰ πρὸς τὰς ἐρωτήσεις, ἄξιοι θαυμασμοῦ κατεφαίνοντό μοι καὶ τοῖς ΄- , Ν a / + Ν Ν cal lal παροῦσι, μάλιστα δὲ Tots φιλοσόφοις. οἴομαι δὲ Kal πᾶσι τοῖς Ν 3 Ν ” “A /, ἈΝ παραληψομένοις τὴν ἀναγραφὴν ἄπιστον φανεῖται. ψεύσασθαι μὲν = a a > οὖν ov καθῆκόν ἐστι περὶ TOV ἀναγραφομένων: εἰ δὲ καί TL παρα- / 3 bf 2 ΄ ar 3 ςε , id ὃ cal βαίην, οὐχ ὅσιον ἐν τούτοις: ἀλλ᾽, ws γέγονεν, οὕτως διασαφοῦμεν 5 “ / ΄ “ ἀφοσιούμενοι πᾶν ἁμάρτημα. διόπερ ἐπειράθην ἀποδεξάμενος αὐτῶν lal Ν a ¢ “ τὴν τοῦ λόγου δύναμιν παρὰ τῶν ἀναγραφομένων ἕκαστα τῶν lal “ “ ΄ Ν n γινομένων ἔν τε τοῖς χρηματισμοῖς τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ταῖς συμ- , a 3, ’, 3 θ \ Ν Ν , 24? ποσίαις μεταλαβεῖν. ἔθος yap ἐστι, καθὼς Kai ov γινώσκεις, ad e a “Ay, ε \ » , , e ἧς av ἡμέρας ὃ βασιλεὺς ἄρξηται χρηματίζειν, μέχρις οὗ KaTa- lad , , ra Ν / ΄ κοιμηθῇ, πάντα ἀναγράφεσθαι τὰ λεγόμενα καὶ πρασσόμενα, καλῶς / A“ ral γινομένου καὶ συμφερόντως. τῇ yap ἐπιούσῃ τὰ TH πρότερον πεπραγμένα καὶ λελαλημένα πρὸ τοῦ χρηματισμοῦ παραναγινώ- ’ὔ , σκεται, καί, εἴ TL μὴ δεόντως γεγονός, διορθώσεως τυγχάνει τὸ > a πεπραγμένον. πάντ᾽ οὖν, ἀκριβῶς πάντων ἀναγεγραμμένων, ws 5 / 4 / 930 7 ἃ » ,ἅ ἐλέχθη, μεταλαβόντες κατακεχωρίκαμεν, εἰδότες ἣν ἔχεις φιλομά- / θειαν εἰς τὰ χρήσιμα.
ἐΜετὰ δὲ τρεῖς ἡμέρας 6 Δημήτριος παραλαβὼν αὐτούς, καὶ Ν Ν “a c \ / > ΄ a dé Ν Ν διελθὼν τὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ σταδίων ἀνάχωμα τῆς θαλάσσης πρὸς τὴν
~ / νῆσον, καὶ διαβὰς τὴν γέφυραν, Kal προσελθὼν ws ἐπὶ τὰ βόρεια
6 καταλληλως BT 7 ral] tas C 8 de 29] ως B 9 απιστα Καὶ 12 αφοσιωμενοι HGICZ (αφωσιωμενοι A) 15 om ka I 16 om ay B |
αρξεται B 18 γενομενου I'| τη 2°] om H 19 λαλημενα Z | παρανα- yw. BT] παραγινωσκεται cett 20 deovros CZ | yeyove BT txt (-vws GI) cett | om τὸ πεπραγμενον BT 21 παντ] παντες C | παντ---μεταλαβον-
τες (22)] παντων ovy axpiBws των αναγεγραμμενων μετάλαβοντες παντες BT 22 ελεγχθη Z| κεχωρηκαμεν CZ κατακεχωρηκαμεν codd cett 26 διαβας moos τὴν γεῴφυραν Jos | προελθων Jos | om ws Z
Un
10
15
20
4:
ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 571
, = μέρη, συνέδριον ποιησάμενος εἰς κατεσκευασμένον οἶκον παρὰ τὴν 3...) a ” \ a ε , ” , ἠϊόνα, διαπρεπῶς ἔχοντα Kat πολλῆς ἡσυχίας ἔφεδρον, παρεκάλει 4 “-“ , ~ 4 a ΝΕ Ἂς τοὺς ἀνδρας τὰ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἐπιτελεῖν, παρόντων ὅσα πρὸς τὴν ’ὔἢ »” “ ε δὲ > aN oe 7 A χρείαν ἔδει καλῶς. οἱ δὲ ἐπετέλουν ἕκαστα σύμφωνα ποιοῦντες ~ ΕἸ a ἣν ~ , , πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς ταῖς αντιβολαῖς: τὸ δὲ ἐκ τῆς συμφωνίας γινόμενον a WA a , πρεπόντως ἀναγραφῆς οὕτως ἐτύγχανε παρὰ τοῦ Δημητρίου. καὶ -“ ΄, Ν a > on μέχρι μὲν ὥρας ἐνάτης τὰ τῆς συνεδρείας ἐγίνετο: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα a , / > ,ὕ περὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος θεραπείαν ἀπελύοντο γίνεσθαι, χορηγουμένων > “-“ “-“ e “ ΄’΄ > \ Ν \ 5, ΚΕ 7 αὐτοῖς δαψιλῶς, ὧν προῃροῦντο, πάντων. ἐκτὸς δὲ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, σ an ἧς \ ,ὔ ε / 5 ἢ ὅσα βασιλεῖ παρεσκευάζετο, καὶ τούτοις 6 Δωρόθεος ἐπετέλει" ΄, \ > Sts ὡς x a / ΞΡ Ν a aA προστεταγμένον yap ἦν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βασιλέως. ἅμα δὲ TH Tpwla \ 2\\ a, MEWS ΄ Ἢ παρεγίνοντο εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, καὶ ποιησάμενοι τὸν > \ A , 3 , \ \ ε A , ε Ἢ ἀσπασμὸν τοῦ βασιλέως, ἀπελύοντο πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτῶν τόπον. ὡς δὲ ΝΜ ΕἸ ν᾿ an a 3 ’ 5 , “- ,ὕ Ν ἔθος ἐστὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις, -«ἀπονιψάμενοι:- τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰς τι ΕΑΓ τς " Ν , ΄ τ , χεῖρας, ὡς ἂν ηὔξαντο πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἐτρέποντο πρὸς τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν Ν Ν ε ΄ ΄ q 3 ΄ ἊΝ Ν A Kal τὴν ἑκάστου διασάφησιν. Exnpwrynoa δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ’, “- a » Tivos χάριν ἀπονιζόμενοι Tas χεῖρας TO τηνικαῦτα εὔχονται; διεσά- aes ΄ / ω ΄, / la \ φουν δέ, ὅτι μαρτύριόν ἐστι τοῦ μηδὲν εἰργάσθαι κακόν: πᾶσα yap ’ ~ a an ἐνέργεια διὰ TOV χειρῶν γίνεται: καλῶς Kal ὁσίως μεταφέροντες ἐπὶ Ν »Ἅ \ Ν 3 , ΄ Ν Ν , τὴν δικαιοσύνην Kal THY ἀλήθειαν πάντα. καθὼς δὲ προειρήκαμεν, -“ 4 > / οὕτως καθ᾽ ἑκάστην εἰς τὸν τόπον, ἔχοντα τερπνότητα διὰ τὴν ε ta , ’ὔ ἡσυχίαν καὶ καταύγειαν, συναγόμενοι τὸ προκείμενον ἐπετέλουν. , Ν Ld Y > ¢ / ε ΄ Ν a συνέτυχε δὲ οὕτως, ὥστε ἐν ἡμέραις ἑβδομήκοντα δυσὶ τελειωθῆναι
Aa A“ ’, “ τὰ τῆς μεταγραφῆς, οἱονεὶ κατὰ πρόθεσίν τινα τοῦ τοιούτου γέγενη-
| Jos
μένου. ἐΤελείωσιν δὲ ὅτε ἔλαβε, συναγαγὼν ὃ Δημήτριος § Jos
1 κατασκευασμενον (Ζ 2 niov (ηιων Ζ) αδιαπρεπως H*GICZ nov HKAGIB | CTZ Jos
διαπρεπως A 3 ra Ts] Tas BTZ 5 ταις αντιβολαις part sup ras B yevouevoyv BCTZ 7 evatns HC] @ K evvarns cett | συνεδριας BCTZ 9 avros KBT Jos] aurwy cett 10 Aopodeos C 13 προς] εἰς BT (sed B primum aliud scripsit quod postea erasit) | tov εαὐτων KBT] eavrwy codd cett Tov avrov Jos 14 απονιψαμενους AICYIZ αἀπονιψαμενη B* -μενοις cett 15 εὐξωνται K evéavto GI 16 ernpwrnca CT] ernpwra B erepwrnoa cett | τουτον G 18 μηθεν Καὶ 20 εἰιρηκαμεν I 21 τερπνο- τητα BIZ (-vwr.)] τερπω τια HKA*GIC (τερπωλην τινα Μ τερποτητα Acorr vid) 23 εβδομηκοντα συν dvow K εβδ. και dvow Jos εβδομηκοντα dvo T o8 BZ. 24 ypagdns I 25 ore de ehaBe τελειωσιν B
§ Eus
HKAGIB CTZ Jos Eus
572 APISTEAS
A “- cal 3 / 3 Ν / es \ Ν a“ ε ’ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων εἰς τὸν τόπον, οὗ καὶ τὰ τῆς ἑρμηνείας an / a 7 ἐτελέσθη, παρανέγνω πᾶσι, παρόντων Kal τῶν διερμηνευσάντων, οἵ- “ Ν Ν “ / c xv τινες μεγάλης ἀποδοχῆς Kal παρὰ τοῦ πλήθους ἔτυχον, ὡς ἂν an / c ἈΝ Ν μεγάλων ἀγαθῶν παραίτιοι γεγονότες. ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸν ΄ A a c , Δημήτριον ἀποδεξάμενοι παρεκάλεσαν μεταδοῦναι τοῖς ἡγουμένοις lal / αὐτῶν, μεταγράψαντα τὸν πάντα νόμον. ‘Kaas δὲ ἀνεγνώσθη τὰ val A / , τεύχη, στάντες οἱ ἱερεῖς Kal τῶν ἑρμηνέων οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ - ἴω ΄“ ε A 3 τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ πολιτεύματος οἵ τε ἡγούμενοι τοῦ πλήθους εἶπον a \ ho \ ce / ὃ / Ν Ν a > / Tel καλῶς Kal ὁσίως διηρμήνευται Kal κατὰ πᾶν ἠκριβωμένως, - ΕἾ ΕἸ , 9 ἊΣ ,ὔ af σ ΕἸ Ν Ν / καλῶς ἔχον ἐστίν, iva διαμείνῃ ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχοντα, Kal μὴ γένηται / a μηδεμία διασκευή. πάντων δ᾽ ἐπιφωνησάντων τοῖς εἰρη- / > aN ὃ / 6 . θὰ εθ > “ 5 δ μένοις, ἐκέλευσαν διαράσασθαι, καθὼς ἔθος αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, εἴ τις \ \ lal διασκευάσει προστιθεὶς ἢ μεταφέρων τι TO σύνολον τών γεγραμ- \ / a A μένων ἢ ποιούμενος ἀφαίρεσιν: καλῶς τοῦτο πράσσοντες, ἵνα δια- Ν παντὸς ἀένναα καὶ μένοντα φυλάσσηται. "4 Ἂς Ν ’ὔ “ “ ’ 3 4 . Προσφωνηθέντων δὲ καὶ τούτων τῴ βασιλεῖ μεγάλως ἐχάρη Ν Ν / ca > 5 a ΕἼΣ ΟΝ a τὴν yap πρόθεσιν, ἣν εἶχεν, ἀσφαλῶς ἔδοξε τετελειῶσθαι. παραν- εγνώσθη δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ πά ai λί ἐξεθαύ Ὶ v γνώσθη τῷ καὶ πάντα, καὶ λίαν ἐξεθαύμασε τὴν τοῦ A / x Ν Ν / > “ 4 νομοθέτου διάνοιαν. καὶ πρὸς τὸν Δημήτριον εἶπε Πῶς τηλικούτων a “ BI ~ συντετελεσμένων οὐδεὶς ἐπεβάλετο τῶν ἱστορικῶν ἢ ποιητικῶν > “ ΕἸ a“ ἣν, ΔΒ ἣν Ν Ἅ, > Ν ’ὔ ἐπιμνησθῆναι; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Διὰ τὸ σεμνὴν εἶναι τὴν νομοθεσίαν Ν Ν la , Ν “ 3 ΄ Ν ε Ν A ἴω καὶ διὰ θεοῦ γεγονέναι: καὶ τῶν ἐπιβαλλομένων τινὲς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ / an ΕἸ An > , \ QA 5 > ’ὔ’ πληγέντες τῆς ἐπιβολῆς ἀπέστησαν. καὶ γὰρ ἔφησεν ακηκοέναι
Θεοπόμπου, διότι μέλλων τινὰ τῶν προηρμηνευμένων ἐπισφα-
1 καὶ Τα] κατα Z* 6 om δε Eus? | τα] pr ταυτὰ Eus® 9 om καλως Eus! | και 2°] om I | ακριβως Eus 10 διαμενη Eus! (διαμεν ει Eus® ¥i4) txt ex Jos confirmatur (διαμεῖναι) | om wy Eus! | γίνηται Eusi 12 εκελευσαν Jos Eus&*4] εκελευσε (-cev Eus) Ar codd Eus’® | erapac@a Eus | καθω I καθο A | ἐστιν avtos Eus° 13 μεταφερον GI | om τι Eus® 14 mpac- σοντος HKA txt codd cett Jos (rparr.) Eus 15 και μενοντα] pevovra Eus® μενοντες Eusi vid 17 παρανεγνωσθη KBCT Eus] παρεγνωσθη HAGI 19 τηλικουτων]- πραγματων Eus 20 ereBadkero HKBCT Eus] επελα- Berto AGI | y] οὐδε Eus | ποιητων B Eus Jos ποιητικως HK txt AGICT 22 επιβαλομενων Eus' | om rou Eus? 23 επιβουλης H* AKAGI | εφη-
σαν Eus® 24 Θεοπεμπτου Ar codd txt Jos Eus προερμηνευμενων HKGIC
Io
15
20
®IAOKPATEI. 573
A “a VA ~ λέστερον ἐκ τοῦ νόμου προσιστορεῖν ταραχὴν λάβοι τῆς διανοίας A ε a ΄ \ Ν \ + 3 , Ν πλεῖον ἡμερῶν τριάκοντα κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἄνεσιν ἐξιλάσκεσθαι τὸν ’ % 3 A / , 7, ἣν lal td > 5 θεόν, σαφὲς αὐτῷ γενέσθαι, τίνος χάριν τὸ συμβαῖνόν ἐστι. δὲ 3 , Ἀν ,ὕ “ Ν a 7 ’ὔ > ὀνείρου δὲ σημανθέντος, ὅτι τὰ θεῖα βούλεται περιεργασάμενος εἰς “ 5 nw κοινοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐκφέρειν, ἀποσχόμενον δέ, οὕτως ἀποκαταστῆναι. Χ \ , Ν lal a o “ / > / καὶ παρὰ Θεοδέκτου δὲ τοῦ τῶν τραγῳδιῶν ποιητοῦ μετέλαβον ἐγώ, ΄,ὔ Vas - , an > , ΕῚ “. , διότι παραφέρειν μέλλοντός τι τῶν ἀναγεγραμμένων ἐν TH βίβλῳ ? lal Ν ” > / Ν Ν © / 9 πρὸς τι δρᾶμα τὰς ὄψεις ἀπεγλαυκώθη: καὶ λαβὼν ὑπόνοιαν, ὅτι Levit A Ν ’ ἣν ’ Ν \ διὰ τοῦτ᾽ αὐτῷ τὸ σύμπτωμα γέγονεν, ἐξιλασάμενος τὸν θεὸν ἐν MeradaBov δὲ ὁ βασιλεύς,
4 / \ \ ~ ἊΣ / καθὼς προεῖπον, περὶ τούτων Ta Tapa τοῦ Δημητρίου, προσκυνήσας
“ ε , 3 / πολλαῖς ἡμέραις ἀποκατέστη.
ἐκέλευσε μεγάλην ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖσθαι τῶν βιβλίων καὶ συντηρεῖν
q , Ν Ν Ν ε a 9 , ' παρακαλέσας δὲ Kal τοὺς ἑρμηνεῖς, ἵνα παραγίνωνται
ε n αγνῶς. Ν 3 ΄ +N > a 5 Ν 5 / πυκνότερον πρὸς αὐτόν, ἐὰν ἀποκατασταθῶσιν εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν, > Ν A / δίκαιον yap εἶπε THY ἐκπομπὴν αὐτῶν γενέσθαι: παραγενηθέντας δέ, ε 4 a a / ws θέμις, ἕξει αὐτοὺς φίλους, kal πολυδωρίας τῆς μεγίστης τεύξεσθαι > ΕἸ “ \ Ν Ν Ν ΕἸ Ν > a as ἡ ε ΄ Tap avTov. Ta δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἐκπομπὴν αὐτῶν ἐκέλευσεν ἑτοιμάζειν, “-“ ra > 7 ’ὔ 7 % Ἂν 5 μεγαλομερῶς τοῖς ἀνδράσι χρησάμενος. ἑκάστῳ γὰρ στολὰς ἔδωκε ἴω “ / TOV κρατίστων τρεῖς, καὶ χρυσίου τάλαντα δύο, καὶ κυλίκιον , \ / “- ΄ 4 Ν \ A ταλάντου, καὶ τρικλίνου πᾶσαν κατάστρωσιν. ἔπεμψε δὲ καὶ TO Ἔλεαζα ὰ τῆς € ἧς αὐτῶν ἀργυρόποδας κλίνας δέ ὶ εαζάρῳ μετὰ τῆς ἐκπομπῆς αὐτῶν ἀργυρόποδας κλίνας δέκα καὶ N 5 / ’ Ἂ ᾽’ὔ ΄ , Ἂς \ ta ἀκόλουθα πάντα, καὶ κυλίκιον ταλάντων τριάκοντα, Kal στολὰς
΄ Χ ve \ / “Ὁ Χ ’ 3 4 δέκα καὶ πορφύραν καὶ στέφανον διαπρεπῆ καὶ βυσσίνων ὀθονίων
1 προιστορεν HKAGI txt BCT Ἐὺ5] λαβοι Eus] λαβειν Ar codd 2 τριακοντα]ῇ ἃ KA | aveow Ar codd Jos] αἰτησιν Eus 3 om To Eus°® 4 σημανθεντος) μαθοντος Eus 5 de ovrws] woavrws BT de auvtws CZ
6 mapa] ὃ περι 8 οψις C | απεγλαυκωθη Eus A] απεγλυκωθὴ HK A*GI ἐπεγλυκωθὴ B*CTZ* (-γλαυκ. BOOT Z™S γλαυκωθειὴ Jos) 9 ταῦτ Eus? |
avtw BA‘ Eus] αὐτο cett | om το συμπτωμα Eus 11 προειπε Eusi® | περι---Δημήτριου em Cobet] περι τουτων τὰ περι του A. Eus περι των (om των C) του A. Ar codd (ravra παρα του Δ. Jos) 12 συντηρεισθαι Eus° 13 αγνων CTZ* aya B| ros 1 | παραγινονται GIC 14 αποκαταστωσιν
K |[Τουδαιαν] ιδιαν A 15 om yap B 16 ws θεμις εξει] ws θεμις efers H ὡσαυθις efew ACT (αυθις sup ras et efev ex e€er) | τευξασθαι BCTZ txt cett Jos 18 μεγαλοπρεπως Καὶ 19 κυλικιν ABT Jos] κυλίδιον cett 22 τριακονταῇ ἃ ΚΑ 23 στεῴφον T
4 Eus
HKAGIB CTZ Jos
Eus
574 ΑΡΙΣΤΈΑΣ ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ͂.
ε Ν - , \ , \ ΄, \ a A ΄
ἱστοὺς ἑκατόν, καὶ φιάλας καὶ τρυβλία καὶ κρατῆρας χρυσοῦς δύο \ Male »” Ν \ A 7 ᾽ν a
πρὸς ἀνάθεσιν. ἔγραψε δὲ Kal παρακαλῶν, ἵνα, ἐάν τινες TOV
3 “- “Ἢ Ν a Ν
ἀνδρῶν προαιρῶνται πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀνακομισθῆναι, μὴ κωλύσῃ" περὶ
cal “ / A Χ 4 πολλοῦ ποιούμενος τοῖς πεπαιδευμένοις συνεῖναι, καὶ εἰς τοιούτους
{ Jos τὸν πλοῦτον κατατίθεσθαι δαψιλῶς, καὶ οὐκ εἰς μάταια. .Β
> Σὺ δέ, καθὼς ἐπηγγειλάμην, ἀπέχεις τὴν διήγησιν, ὦ Φιλόκρατες. / \ δ / “ A \ na / “ad / τέρπειν γὰρ οἴομαί σε ταῦτα, ἢ Ta τῶν μυθολόγων βιβλία. νένευκας γὰρ πρὸς περιεργίαν τῶν δυναμένων ὠφελεῖν διάνοιαν, καὶ ἐν τούτοις τὸν πλείονα χρόνον διατελεῖς. πειράσομαι δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἀξιολόγων ἀναγράφειν, ἵνα διαπορευόμενος αὐτὰ κομίζῃ τοῦ βουλή- το
ματος τὸ κάλλιστον ἔπαθλον.
HKAGIB 1 ἰστοὺς Jos] εἰς τους Ar codd | τρυβλια]-Ἑ και σπονδεια Jos 3 προαι- ae ρουνται Z 4 om και HKGICZ | τοιουτοις I 7 ce] om B* ins Β΄ adnotat wows μαλλον ZS 9 πλειον KGICZ πλειω HA | διατελειν Z | λοιπα bis scr C 10 κομιΐει GI 11 om το καλλιστον T CORRIGENDUM
Page 539, line 1. For νόμους. read νομούς
EN Dve iS:
i INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES. I. INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.
ΓΝΤ ΤΟΙΣ
GENESIS
i. 1 ff., 378); 2,327; 440, 459, 468; Ee S055) 523: 86, 4405. 4.501}. 9; 326; 10, 459; 13f., 1345 27, 53
li. 2, 327, 413, 465; 4, 2153 7, 374
bbl 8. 449; 15, 449, 474; 20, 325>
377 iv. 1, 377, 4453 2, 305; 3f., 472; 7, 446, 465: 8, 243, 442, 4743 21,
3743; 24, 306
vi. 2, 57, 329, 449: 3, 446; 4, 305, 449; 5, 474; 14, 374 f.; 19, 3°7
Wit 923307
viii. 7, 306; 21, 449
ix. 25, 374 f.
x. 13- -18, 22—29, 249
xi. 9, 325
ἘΠῚ 1. 7108: 9; 41, 326
xiv. 13, 325; 14, 4655; 23, 445
Ἐν 1, 305016, 330f.;°9 ἔν, 3783 1155 95. 10, 4705 29, 374
xvi. 14, 478
xvii. 1, 376
Xviii. 12, 374; 24—-26, 134; 25, 52, 9.2
xix. 3, 475
xx 154 Ὁ: τὸ
xxi. 6, 478
xxii. 2, 449
xxiii. 16, 305
πεῖν 101: 227: 20.278
XXV. 6, 324; 27, 329
XXVi. 18, 329
XXvii. 30, 378; 46, 460
XXViii. 13, 307, 375
xxix. 9, 326
S. 5.
XXX. 1; 307; 10}. 256: I 70}: 14 f., 18
Xxxi. 21.. 526; 29, 442; 46 ff., 234
Med, 25 Ὁ. 278} 20,000
Xxxiv,.10; 3255 ΠῚ’. 426
EXKV, 6, 9243.11, 2705016 ff., 1232 17, 27, 307
XXXVi. 1, 307; 33 ff., 257
ΧΧΧΥΙΪ. 3, 445
XXXViii. 9, 306
ΣΧΣΙ͂ΧΣ 1,378
M7325 45; 4220
ΧΙ ὉΠ στ; 13. 200543403045 .20. 378; 56, 442
xiii. 16, 134
My. Ὁ. ἘΠ: ΠΥ (10> 442, 4403. 10. 322
xlv. 16, 308; 34, 18
xIlvi. 28, 378, 391
XIlvii. 31, 445, 459
ΣΙΝ. 14, 445, 466; 17 f., 89
xlix. 3, 305; 3—27, 360; 6, 446; 10, 416, 442, 449, 465, 474; 19, 230; 322,"440
EXODUS
Pith, 2055 125 3207 1; 16).410
ii. 5, 476; 14, 307, 409; 15, 306
111, 7, 308; 14, 327, 446
1ν. 09 205. 105 270.43745. 10; 127: 21, 306
V. 9, 442; 13, 305, 459
Vii. 2, 326, 449; 16, 69
Vili. 8, 306; 21, 449
ix. 3, 371; 7, 306; 22, 449
xii. 8, 475; 23, 329; 26, 449; 40, 327; 43, 326
Xiv. 13, 308; 25, 442
37
578
Index 1.
xv. 1—21, 253 f.; 3, 327; 17, 374; 472; 27, 305
xvi. 15, 377, 446; 23, 4755 24, 305; 36, 465
xvii. 6, 479; 11, 306; 15, 446; 16, 465
xviii. 11, 306
Xix.1, 215; 16 ff., 24, 331 f.
xx. 5, 475; 13—15, 234; 23, 374
xxi. 6, 446
xxiii. 2, 374; 20, 57; 30, 307
xxiv. 10 f., 53, 327
XXV. 1—19, 253; 29, 449; 40, 416
XXVii. 21, 329
XXViii. 15, 449; 26, 326
XXix. 9, 472; 23, 475
Xxx. 1, 475; 6, 442
XxXxi. 7, 329
XXxii. 21. 24, 90; 32, 326, 446
XXxiii. 1—3, 412; 8, 305; 19, 465
XXxiv. 13, 449
xxxv.—xl., 234 ff.
XXXV. 8, 243
XxxvVi. 4, 307; 8—34, 243
Xxxvii. 19, 472; 25—28, 243
Xxxix. 18, 449, 472
ΧΙ 6—8, 11, 243
LEVITICUS i. 3, 475 iv. 5, 466; 27—29, go vi. 2, 306 xi. 5, 475; 17, 21; 35, 475 xiii. 31, 442 xvi. 4, 475; 8 ff, 449 Xviii. 5, 375 xix. 7, 327; 13, 305; 23, 374 Xxi. 10, 308 Xxii. 2, 472 =e. 3, 440; 115. 17 BRAY. 7, 327;5,472; 24; 475
NUMBERS
i, 2, 215; 24 ff., 236
lii. 24, 480
iv. 19, 472
v. 2, 375; 15, 475; 28, 479 vi. 22 ff., 236
vii. 15, 326
ix. 10, 307
xi. 2, 305; 9, 306; 25f., 305; 29,
xvi. 5, 322; 21, 472
xxi. 1, 305; 11, 308
xxii. 6, 305
xxiii. 7—10, 332; 19, 466; 21, 459
XXiv. 9, 305; 17, 329, 416, 466; 23, 443; 24, 474
xxv. 8, 476
XXVi. 15 ff., 236
XXVii. 12, 449
XXXV. 2, 308
DEUTERONOMY
i. 17, 372; 22, 307
11. 35, 305
iv. 1—23, 412; 37, 442
v. 17—19, 234; 22, 416
vi. 1—9, 332 f.
Vii. 13, 40; 16, 308, 325
viii. 15, 372; 18, 375
ix. 5, 329
x. 16, 329, 449, 460
xi. 7, 305; 30, 41
xii. 8, 375
xiv. 12—18, 360; 16, 21; 17, 475; 23, 327
Xvii. 18, 215
xix. 4, 479
xx. 19, 446
xxi. 8, 328; 16, 374
xxii. 16, 305; 29, 327
ΣΕΥ. 2, 475; 5, 322
XXViii. 35, 2; 66, 466
xxix. 18, 479
xxx. 4, 2; 20, 372
xxxi. 18, 308
xxxii. 1—43, 253 f.; 4, 375; 6, 416 f.; 7, 466; 10, 305; 39, 3725 43, 243, 305
xxxiii. 1—44, 253 f.; 12, 476
JOSHUA
iv. 24, 327
v. 2, 446; 3, 466
ix. 3 ff., 236 f.
X. 12—14, 333; 42, 476 xi. 10—14, 73
Index 1.
579
xiv. 12, 328
XV. 59, 442
xix. 47 f., 244
xx. 4—6, 244
xxi. 36 f., 42 a—d, 244 xxiv. 30a—33b, 244
JUDGES
i. 19, 324; 36, 446
Vv. 8, 480; 15, 45; 16, 459; 28—30, 3331.
Vi. 2 f.,.306; 18, 308
Vili. 3, 305; 7, 324; 13, 446
ix. 26, 305 ; 42, 53
xii. 6, 446
xiv. 15, 443
KV. 14 ff., 446 f.; 19, 476
Xvi. 13 f., 443
XViili. 30, 447
xix. 18, 443; 22, 449
RUTH
li. 2, 306; 9, 14, 305; 22, 306 iii. 1, 306
1 KINGDOMS
id, 302, 324; δ; 326; 8,-306; 14, 327; 20, 377; 24, 26, 308, 324, 442; 28, 245
jot 0 252 1... 6, 472; .9 ἘΣ 245 f., 409; 12, 449; 29, 321; 33, 442
iii. 6, 308; 13, 442; 14,17, 308
Ἐν 4425; 10, 321
Υ͂. 6, 327 f., 443
Wa. 14, 18, 3255.19) 1443; 20/325
Vii. 4, 325
ix. 22, 3773 24, 476; 25, 443
xX. 5, 447; 14, 305; 21, 443; 22, 308
Kili. 2, 322; 3, 443; 8, 321, 443
xiii. 20, 459; 21, 447
Σίν. 18, 41 f., 443
XV. 22, 417; 23, 41
XVii.—xXviii., 245 f.
Xvii. 37—43, 334 f.; 47, 475
xix. 13, 377
xx. 19, 443; 30, 447
xxi. 7, 321
xxii. 9, 377
xxiii. 11—12, 246; 14, 325 XXVii. 10, 447 XXxi. 10, 447
2 KINGDOMS
i. 18, 449; 21, 447 ii. 2, 308
111. 39, 305
iv. 6, 377; 443
vii. 12, 302
viii. 5, 306; 7, 378 x. 14, 305
Sais 21 446
Xvii. 8, 443
xix. 42, 405
xxii. 2—6, 316; 3, 306 xxiv. 6, 443; 15, 446
3 KINGDOMS
ii. 35 a—o, 46 a—l, 247
iy. 17. 237
v. 13, 475
vil. 17, 475; 48, 475
viii. 17 f., 237; 39, 472; 53 a, 247
ΣΧ. 23—33, 238 f.
xi. 3—8, 239; 34, 451
xii. 24 a—z, 248 f.
xiii. 12, 447
Xiv. 6, 305; 25, 3 f.
Xvi. 7, 11, 26, 43, 51, 253; 28 a—h, 249
xvii. 1, 444
XViii. 22—28, 83 Ὁ
xix. 14 ff., 401
XX., Xxi., 239
xx. 10, 12, 39 f.
xxi. 10—13, 35
xxii. 38, 466
4 KINGDOMS
1. 2 f., 447; 18 a—d, 249
il. TV1—18, 335 f.; 14, 324,476 v. 7, 306
vi. 5, 253
Vili. 13, 447
Xvi. 9, 41
EVIL’ G6, 3; 15, 45; 29, 307 XViii. 17—xx. 19, 316
xix. 25, 41
37—2
580
Index 7.
xxiii. 21—24, 36, 39 f.; 22 f., 447; 24—27, 31—33, 249
xxiv. 14 ff., 3
XxvV. 11, 21f., 3; 20 ff., 275
1 CHRONICLES
i. 10—16, 17 b—23, 249; 44 ἴ., 257 xxi. 12, 321; 15, 305
2 CHRONICLES i. 3, 308 11. 8, 475 iii. 1, 306 iv. 11, 475 : xii δ f., 3 XX. 37, 305 ΧΧΙΧ. 26, 253 Xxxlii. 18, 253; 19, 444 XXXV. 10, 305; 19 a—d, 249 XXXVi. 2 a—c, 5 a—d, 249
1 ESDRAS i. 1, 266 ii. 3f., 378; 9, 48; 1—25, 266; 21, 378
iii. 1. ν. 70, 266 iv. 7—24, 266; 41, ib. xi. 2—8, 378
2 ESDRAS xi. 9, 2 xv. 15, 327 xix. 30, 305 Xxi., Xxii., 249
4 ESDRAS
xiii. 39 ff., 3 xiv. 44, 221
PSALMS i, 1—5, 413 ii. 11 f., 459; 12, 466 iii. 4, 326 iv. 7, 466 v. tit., 321; 10, 251 vi. 6, 251, 466 vii. 12, 460 Vili. 4, 449 ix.—cxlvii., 239 f. ix. tit., 466 f.; 17, 251
xiii. 1—3, 3 a—c, 251 f.
xiv. 9, 472
Xv. 2, 444; 9, 460
Xvi. 9, 326
Xvii. 3 ff., 316 f., 326; 45, 413
xxi, 2, 306; 7, 407, 467; 9, 4093 17, 321, 413, 444; 30, 467
XXV. 6, 472
XXVi. 13, 444
XXVii. 9, 472
XXX. 6, 472
xxxi. 1, 407
XxXxii. 6, 467
Xxxiii. 12 ff., 399, 407, 409
XXXIV. 2, 472
XxXv. 1, 251
xxxvi. 7, 460; 10 ff., 328; 35, 56; 36, 407
XXxix. 7, 417, 479
1%, 3375.18, 255
xli. 3, 305; 6, 444
ΧΙ, 3, 472; δ. 3225 16, 52
Xliv. 1, 467; 117, 457
xlv. 1--3, 62 f.; 2, 33
Xlviii. 12, 444
xlix. 10, 15, 417; 13, 21, 21 f., 407; 24, 53, 305
L., 296; 12, 471; 14 -440, 4755 11, 407
111. 8, 305; 6, 308
lv. 1, 475
viii. 6, 472
lz: 3; 400
Ixvii. 12—14, 18—22, 99; 26, 475
Ixviii. 3, 52; 27, 444
1xxi. 5, 444; 18—20, 255
Ixxii. 3, 475; 28, 306
lxxv. 7, 460
Ixxvii. 2, 397; 3, 372
Ixxviii. 2, 25; 3, 372; 8, 4725 70, 253
Ixxix. 2, 472
1xxx. 4, 475
lxxxvi. 4 f., 66, 467
Ixxxvii. 6, 467; 21, 399
Ixxxviii. δ, 2555 8, 459; 21, 407
xc. 6—13, 37, 40, 460
xci. 4, 475; 5—10, 38, 40; 18; 467
xcv. 5, 467
xevi. J; 4675 7, 242
C. 5, 444
395 5
Index I. 581
οἱ. 27, 417 v.17 ff., 407 Cv. 48, 255 Vi. 5, 305 evi. 20, 467 f. ix. 9, 449 ΟΥ̓. 5, 467; 29, 475 X. 4, IOI cix. 1—4, 305, 336, 409, 413, 417, Xiv. 12, 476
468 Xviii. 20, 460 exii. 5f., 472 xix. 17, τοῦ 18, 321; 23—27, exiii. 11, 417 ΖΒ, bs, 395 £ εν. 3, 460 XXi. 27, 460 CXVii. 25, 307 XXVi. δ, 460; 14, 52 ΟΧΧ. 8, 472 XXvii. 12, 329
CXxXViii. tit., 2; 8, 408; 15 f., 449 CXXxXix. 4, 251 GH. 22) Ὁ,
PROVERBS
i. 28, 308
11. 18, 449
ib, 206; 11’: 257% 12,. 407, 409; 15, 308; 16, 255; 22 a, 28 e, 255, 306
iv. 27 a—b, 255
vi. 8 a—C, 255
Wil. 1a, °255
Vill. 21 a, 255; 22 ff., 57, 386f., 468, 471; 30f., 336 f.
ix. 12 a—c, 18 a—c, 255; 18, 460
x. 10, 444
xii. lla, 13a, 255
XV. 18a, 255, 306
Xvi. 17, 255, 306
XVii. 6a, 255
XVili. 22 a, 255
xxi. 16, 460; 25, 407
xxii. 8a, 255; 20, 468; 28, 61
ΧΧΙ͂Υ.- xxxi., 240 f.
XXiv. 22 a—c, 255
xxvi. 11, 255, 400
XXVii. 20 a, 21 ἃ, 255
Xxxi. 26, 255
ECCLESIASTES i. 1, 215 ii. 17, 309 iii. 1—8, 360 iv. 9, 52 vii. 19, 460
ii. 9, 256 iv. 21, 407
xxix. 1, 308
XxX. 13, 329; 30, 475
XXXViii. 26, 302
ΣΙ. 14, 468, 472
xlii. 7, 101; 17 a, b—e, 25, 256 f.
WISDOM
1 15.3.2
Vind, 312
Vii. 24, 268
viii. 7, 20, 268
ix. 15, 268
X. 6, 475
xi. 4, 372; 17, 268
ait Θ᾽ 172
xv. 10, 372
XVi. 22, 371
Xvill. 4, 305; 24, 475 SIRACH
prol., 217, 269 f.
Vi. 26, 475
xx. 19, 475
xxi. 4, 475
xlix. 10, 217
1. 27, 269
ESTHER
JUDITH
ν..15...2
vii. 10, 305
viii. 6, 272 25,479
ΣΧ. 2 ff., 272; 5, 475 xi. 13, 272
ἘΠῚ 7, 272
582 Index 1.
TOBIT v. 1—9, 253; 26, 414
1. 14.55.5 vi. 9 f., 398 γ. 15, 308 vii. 14, 30, 469, 474 xi. 14, 475 viii. 14, 401 ix. 1f., 396; 6, 460,. 472; 8; 3225 HOSEA 14, 32 .: ΣΧ. 23, 409 xii. 4, 468 xi. 4, 417 AMOS xiii. 9, ἊΣ a ii. 13 ° ii. 13, 476 a anh pe v.26 8 eae ix. 6, 468; 11 f., 399 πος MICAH xxviii. 11, 402; 16, 399 iv., 316 f. xxix. 4, 52; 10, 401; 11, 18, 91; 13, ν. 1—4, 91, 338; 396 wae Cae ὙΠῸ 19,41] XXxiii. 24, 305 JOEL XXXVi. 1—xxxix. 8, 316 ii. 25, 471 XXXViii. 8, 449; 10---20, 253; 21, 475 JONAH xl. 2, 395; 3, 395, 398 ΡΣ Ἢ a. 25. 717 li. 3—10, 253 xliv. 28, 399 ‘ NAHUM xlv. 1, 14, 469 iii. 8, 322 ΧΗΣ. 6, 2 lii. 5, 414 HABAKKUK lili, 1—12, 410; 8, 469; 4, 30753 ii. 11, 468 5, 7, 413 iii. 1—19, 253; 2, 468; 3, 417, 449; liv. 8, 476; 15, 469 13, 56 lv. 3, 398 Ivii. 15, 472 ZEPHANIAH lviii. 6, 395 i. 10, lix.. 72, 25x 449 1x. 17, 469 “ ZECHARIAH Ixi. 1 ff, 395; 12, 413 iil. 8, 474 Ixii. 11, 395 vi. 12, 468 lxiii. 1, 9, 469 xi. 7, 322; 13, 307 lxiv. 3, 401 xii. 10, 48, 398 IXV. 1, 417 xiii. 7, 413 lxvi. 2, 408 MALACHI JEREMIAH 4i. 3, 4445 11, 46; 13, 51 ii. 12, 413; 23, 326; 26, 307 iii. 1, 395, 408 Vv. 4, 305 vi. 23, 321; 29, 444 ISAIAH Vii. 16, 302 i. 17, 417; 22, 408; 29, 305 ix. 23 f., 245, 409; 29, 479 i, στὸν 19) 57. xi. 15, 444; 19, 469
iii. 9, 468 f. xii. 15, 399
Index TI. 583 Xiii. 14, 2 ix’ 1. 518 Xv. 4, 2 x. 20, 48 XViii. 15, 305 xii. 1—-4, 339; 2, 2; 7, 48; 9, 417 Xix. 13, 475 δ xxv.—li., 241 f. 54 f., 261 XXvV1. 15, 322; 25, 321 XXXIV. 17, 2 BEL xxxvi. 1, 275 2, 475 ae εἰ irae 338 f.; 37, 305; 1 MACCABEES ezine 19) 472 1. 4, 27 xl. 14- 26, 44 vil. 17, 25 xliii. 31, 417 xill. 30, 277
Xv. 23,
xXlvi. 4—13, 45 xlix. 19, 476 ΠΡ ΤΕ 1
BARUCH
iv. 36—V. 9, 283 ν- Ὁ. 2171: 50: 275
LAMENTATIONS 1:51: 259 iv. 20, 469, 474
EZEKIEL iii. 15, 460 vii. 3—9, 242 viii. 10, 476 ix. 9, 307 xi. 21, 460 xiii. 18, 305, 449 Xvi. 21, 305 xx. 14, 302 xxii. 11, 305 Xxxiii. 14, 407 XXXIV. 4, 414 Xl. 17, 475
DANIEL i. 2, 48 ii. 35, 48 111. 26, 45; 52—90, 253 v. 23, 48
Vi. 22, 47, 411 wil-.9,.40;5 10, 417, 497; 13; 48, 575 21, 48; 23, 26 f.
fi Xvi. 23 f., 277
2 MACCABEES
3 MACCABEES M2472 vi. 18, 280 Vii. 42, 280
4 MACCABEES i. 18, 280 f. 1x2 9:.7.0951 xiii. 15, 281 ΣΧΥ͂. 9. 291 Xvii. 5, 281 XViii. 14 ff., 372; 23, 281
MATTHEW
ii. 6, 396
iv. 15 f., 396
V.'S ff.,:451 5,18, 320 vi. 6, 451
vill. 17, 397
x. 21, 35, 451
xii. 18, 395
xii. 35, 397
XV. 8, 440
ΧΧΙ. 4, 3053 33, 451 xxiv. 30, 48
XXVi. 64, 48
XXvil. 9 f., 397; 32, 7
584
MARK i. 2f., 395 vii. 6, 409 f.; 32, 451 ix. 48, 451 xiv. 62, 48 Xv. 29, 451
LUKE iv. 18 ff., 356, 395 Vii. 27, 395 XVili. 20, 234 XXiv. 44, 217
JOHN i. 22, 398; 51, 451 vii. 35, 2 xii. 40, 398 xix. 37, 398
ACTS ii. 9, 104; 10, 7; 20, 33, 215 wi..9, 7, 104 Vii. 43, 398 viii. 32 ff., 398 xi. 20, ἘΠῚ. 1, .75.. 15,, 3505.22, 208," 30,
215; 34, 398
XV. 16 ff., 399; 21, 356 XViil. 24, 104
JAMES
1 PETER
i. 24, 399 ii. 6, 3993 9, 451 iii. 10 ff., 399; 14, 451 2 PETER ii. 22, 400 ROMANS iii. 13—18, 252; 20, 400
ix. 9, 17, 27, 400; 25, 215; 33, 401 x. 16, 215
I[ndex 7.
xi. 2 ff., 8, gor xii. 17, 451 xiii. 9, 234 xiv. 11, 400 Xv. 11, 215
1 CORINTHIANS ii. 9, 401 xiv. 21, 402 Xv. 54 f., 48, 401
2 CORINTHIANS iii. 3 ff., 451 viii. 21, 451
EPHESIANS ΠΤ, 45% iv. 8, 25, 400 Vv. 31, 400 vi. 3, 400
PHILIPPIANS ch A ΕΠ
HEBREWS i. 7, 12, 402 11. 12, 402 iii. 9, 10, 402 f. vi. 8, 451 viii. 8 ff., 402 x. 5 ff., 37, 402 f., 479 j xi. 21, 402; 22, 215; 33, 48; 36, 217 xii. 15, 402, 479
APOCALYPSE
LN DEX Ph
A, 125 f., 352, 489 f.5 a, 364
Abbas, Mar, 115
Abbott, T. K., 144, 456
Abbreviations in MSS. 126, 364 f.
Accidence of O.T. Greek, 302 ff.
Acts, quotations in the, 388, 398 f.
Africanus, correspondence of Origen with, 60 f., 255, 260f.
Akiba ben Joseph, R., 32, 434, 440
Akhmim codex, the, 283 ff.
Alexander, policy of towards the Jews, 4 f.
Alexandria, its Church, 104, 413; dialect, 289 f.; population, 291; libraries and museums, τὸ ἔ., 16f., 22 f., 293; writers, 293, 312, 369 ff.
Alexandrine MS., 125 f., 352, 489 f.
Aldine edition of Lxx., 173, 486
Ambrosian Octateuch, 135 f., 348
Amphilochius, 205
Andreas Asolanus, 173
Anonymi a@zal. Timothei et Aquilae, 18, 31 ff., 206
Apocalypse, use of LXX. in, 392; Theodotionic readings in, 48
Apocrypha, 224 f., 265 ff., 281 ff.; vocabulary of the, 310 ff.; ‘apo- crypha,’ 423
Apostolic canons, the, 219
Aquila, 31 ff., 53, 458, 47
Arabic version, 110 f.; colloquial- isms in LXX., 319
Aramaic, 8, 319
Arian controversy, use of LXx. in the, 470 f.
Aristarchus, 69 ff.
Aristeas, 25, 369 ff.
‘ Aristeas,’ letter of, 2, 10 ff., 371, 478; accepted as genuine in the ancient Church, 13 f.; introduc- tion to, 501 ff.; text of, 519 ff.
Aristobulus, 1 f., 12 f., 369 ff.
ΘΕ.
Armenian Version, 118 ff.
Artapanus, 3609 ff.
Ashburnham House, fire at, 133
Asterisk, 70 ff.
Athanasius, 125, 203 f., 431; see Pseudo- Athanasius
Athias, Hebrew Bible of, 343
Augustine of Hippo, 9, 88 f., 211, 223, 464
ἀγάπη, ἀγάπησις, 456 ἀκρίβασμα, -μός, 45 ἀλαβάρχης, ἀραβάρχης, 6 ἁλληλουιά, 250 f.
ἅλυσις χρυσῆ, 362 ἀνάγνωσμα, ἀναγνωστής, 358 ἀντιβάλλειν, 77
᾿Αριστάρχεια σήματα, 69 ff. ἀρχή, 558
B, 126 ff., 348 ff., 375, 486 ff. Baber, H., 126
Babylonian Targum, 3
Barnabas, Ep. of, 48, 411 ff. Barnes, W. E., 287
Baruch, book of, 48, 274 ff.
Bel, 260 f.
Ben Asher, R., 434
Ben Naphtali, R., 434
Bessarion, Cardinal, his MSS., 132,
173
‘Biblical Greek,’ 456
Blunders in the version of Lxx., 220 f.
Bobbio Sacramentary, 213
Bodleian Genesis, 134 f.; Psalter, 141; fragment of Bel, 146; of Ezekiel, 148
Bomberg Bible, 343
Brooke, A. E., 135, 189, 489
Burkitt, Fi; 34, 41; 47; _82, 03; 111; 488 f.
Buxtorfs, the, 436
586
C, 128 f., 490
Caesarea, 74 f., 357
Caius Psalter, 162
Cambridge edition of Lxx., 188 ff., 290, 496
Canticles, the book, 216, 360
Canticles, the Ecclesiastical, 141 f., B53 1.
Capitulation in MSS. of Lxx., 351 ff.; in the versions, 360 f,
Cappellus, L., 436
capsae, 225
Carafa, Card. Ant., 174 ff.
Carthage, 88, 214, 493
Cassiodorius, 211 f.
catena aurea, 361 f.; c. Nicephori, 362 f.; catenae, 361 ff.
Catharine de’ Medici, 129
Catholic Epistles, quotations in, 389, 399 f.
Cells, story of the, 14
Ceriani, A., 39, 80, 108, 113, 496
Chapter-divisions, 342 ff.
Chase, F. H., 470
Cheyne, T. K., 4, 240
Chigi MS., 47 ff., 166, 348
‘Chronicles,’ 216; the book, 249
Church, use of the LxXx. in the Ancient, 27, 87, 433, 462 ff.
cistae, 225
Citation, formulae of, 382, 408, 412; citations of LXx. in N.T.: see New Testament
Claromontane list, 213 f., 279, 346 ff.
Clement of Rome, 406 ff.; of Alex- andria, 13, 369 f., 426 ff.
Cleodemus, 370
Coislin Octateuch, 140, 353 f.
Colometry, 346
Commentaries, 361, 429 ff.
Complutensian Polyglott, the, 171 ff., 486
Concordance to Oxford, 290, 314
Constantinople, 85
Controversial use of the 1,ΧΧ., 470f.
Conybeare, Εν C., 34, 118 f.
‘Coptic,’ 105
Cornill, C. H., 242, 486 f.
Corruptions of the text of Lxx., early, 478 ff.
the. LXX..;. |-the
I[ndex 17.
Cotton Genesis, 132 ff.
Critical text of the Lxx., method of arriving at a, 401 ff.
cucurbita, 464
Cursive MSS., 148 ff.
Cyprian, 88 ff.. 92, 97, 428
Cyprus, 10
Cyrene, Jewish settlement at, 7; Cyrenian source of 2 Macc., 278
Cyril of Jerusalem, 203 f.; C. of Alexandria, 231; C. and Metho- dius, 120; C. Lucar, 125
καθίσματα, 359
καλλιγράφοι, 73
κανόνες (ψαλμῶν), 125, 359
κερέαι, 320
κιβωτοί, 225
Kw, 199
κοινή, ἣ, διάλεκτος, 2943; ἔκδοσις, 68, 8ο, 481, 493
κόμματα, 64, 344 ff.
κῶλα, 64, 344 ff.
Xt περιεστιγμένον, 71
D, 132 ff.; A, 146
Damascus, John of, 207 f., 223
Daniel, book of, 43 f., 46 ff., 113 f., 260 ff., 311, 316, 356, 417, 421 ff.
Decalogue, the, 234 f.
Deissmann, G. A., 21
Demetrius of Phalerum, 2, 11, 18 f., 293; D...the. Hellenist, a7, 369 f.; D. Ixion, 289
Desiderata, 289 f., 495 f.
Deuteronomy, the book, 215
Dialect of Alexandria, 289 ff.; dia- lects of the Egyptian versions, 05 ff.
Dillmann, A., 10g
Dispersion, the Greek, 2 f.; the Eastern, 3; loyalty of the, 7 f.
Distribution of Lxx. MSS., 123 f.
Doctrine, Christian, its terminology partly derived from LXx., 473 f.
Dogmatic interest detected in LXX.,
327 Dorotheus, 81 ‘Double books,’ 220 Doublets, 325
Index 71.
587
Driver, 5: R., 68,.234 ff., 246, 321,
429, 441, 481, 489 ; Dublin fragments of Isaiah, 144
Aanr, 480
diac ropa, 2
διορθοῦν, διορθοῦσθαι, 77 δόξα, 359
δωδεκαπρόφητον, τό, 123, 206
ἘΠ 1245 ἘΠ 53
Ebedjesu, 208 f.
Ecclesiastes, the book, 316
Ecclesiasticus, the book, 2609 ff.
Editions of Greek O.T., 171 ff. ; of particular books, 190 ff.
Egypt, early settlements of Jews in, 3 f.; evangelisation of, 104 f.
Egyptian versions, the, 104 ff.; recension of LXxX., 78 ff.; words I EX 5, 21
Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, R., 440
Emmanuel Psalter, 164
Enoch, book of, 110, 283 f.
Ephraemi codex rescriptus, 128 f., 490
Epiphanius, 31 f., 66 ff., 204 f., 431
Esdras, the Greek, 48 f., 265 ἢ, 310; fourth book of, 110, 285
Esther, the Greek, 20, 25, 75, 229, 257. ff.
Ethiopic version, the, τος f.
Euergetes II., 24, 270, 280
Eupolemus, 24 f., 369 f.
Eusebius, 64, 66, 77, 125
Exodus, book of, 215, 234 ff., 243
Ezekiel, the poet, 569 ff.
Ezra-Nehemiah, 25, 220, 265 ff.
ἑβδόμη ἑρμηνεία, ἣ, 55, 82, 85 "EBpatos, ὁ, 56
εἰκοσιδύο, Ta, 281 ἑκκαιδεκαπρόφητον, TO, 123 ἐκκλησία, 317, 456 ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἔκδοσις, 80 ἐκλογαί, 361
ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος, ἢ, 204 ἐναλλάττειν, 55
ἐνδιάθηκα, τά, 281 ἐξηγήσεις ἐρανισθεῖσαι, 361 ἔξω, τά, 281
ἐπικατασκευάζειν, 65 ἐπιτομαὶ ἑρμηνειῶν, 361 εὐαγγέλιον, 456 Εὐσεβίου, τό, 77
By ΙΓ. 34010.
Fayiim, the, 7, 291
Festival in commemoration of the completion of the LXX., 13
Field, F., 41, 46, 82f., 458
Formula consensus eccl. Helv., 436 f.
Formulae of citation, 382, 408, 412
Fourth Gospel, quotations in the, 388, 398
Fragments, uncial, still unworked, 146 ff.
G, 72f., 78, 137f.; G, 234, 485 ff.; P46
Genesis, the book, 215, 234, 243
Genizah, the Cairo, 34
Georgian version, the, 120
Ginsburg, C. D., 431
Gothic version, the, 117 f.
Grabe, JH; 125 1.,.193 fi-
Graeco-Latin MSS., 141 f.
Graecus Venetus, 56 ff.
Graetz, E.,.17
Grammar of LXX., proposed, 290
Greek versions of the O.T.: before LXX., 1 £; "he τῆν χα Ὁ t-sof.cent. li, A.D., 30 ΠΡ 457 ff.; mediaeval, 56 ff.
Greek of LXX., 9, 280 ff-
Greek, modern, affinity of LXx. Greek to, 309
Gregory of Nazianzus, 205
Grotta Ferrata palimpsest of the Prophets, 146
Grouping of books, 216 ff.; internal order of groups, 226 ff.
Gwynn, J., 48, 50
nts, 3
ἘΠῚ 1581:
Hadrian, 31 f.
Haggada, 327 f.
Hagiographa, date of the Greek, 24 f.; distribution in the Greek
588
Bible, 218, 228 f.; inferior position assigned to, 318
Halacha, 327
Haphtaroth, 343
Harms, J. R., 146 f., 274, 282, 345 ff,
411
Hatch, E., 256, 328, 406 ff., 428 f., 452, 455 ff., 460
Headings to chapters, 353 ff.
Hebraica veritas, 68, 86, 435
Hebrew MSS. of the Lxx., 22, 319 ff.; H. column of the Hexapla, 65,67; mediaeval H. scholars, 435; revival of Hebrew learning, 435 f. ; text, history of the official He- brew, 319 f., 438 ff.; diverse renderings of the same H. words, 317, 328 f.; departure of Lxx. from traditional H. text, 440 ff.
Hebrews, Ep. to the, quotations in,
| 391, 402
hedera, 464
‘Hellenist,’ ‘ Hellenistic,’ 294 f.; LXx. the Hellenistic Bible, 29, 370 ff.
Heptapla, the, 66 f., 113
LHeptateuchus, 227
Hermas, 47, 411
Hesychius, 78 ff.; Hesychian text, $0,107 fh, .144:,.,450.8., 482, 486 ;
Hexapla, 61 ff., 74 ff., 113 f., 482 f.; Hexaplaric recension, 67 ff., 76 ff., 481 ff.; Hexaplaric texts, 108 ff., III, 112 ff., 119, 138, 140, 148 ff., 482
Hilary of Poitiers, 210, 471
Hippolytus, 277, 424 ff.
Hody, H., 15
Holmes, R., 185 ff.
Hort, F: J. A.; 81, 91 f.,.189,. 257 £2, 300, 486 ff., 491
Howorth, H., 267
Hypolemniscus, 7% f.
Hyvernat, H., 106, 111
it local, 324
1, ΤᾺΣ Jacob of Edessa, 116 Jamnia, 320, 439 f.
,
Index 77.
Jashar, book of, 246
Ignatius, 413 f.
Jebb, R. C., 294, 309
Jeremiah, book of, 241 ff., 259; Ep. of, 274 f.
Jerome, 9, 14, 23, 34» 40, 74, 76 f., 89, 98 ff., 273, 277, 435» 464
Jews in Egypt, 3 ff.; Jewish order of O.T. Canon, 200; Jews wrongly charged with corrupting text of LXX., 424, 479
Infinitive of purpose, 306
Innocent I., 211
Inspiration claimed for LXX., 14, 462 f.
Interpretation of O.T., 326 f.; use of LxXx. for the, 445 ff.; patristic int. based on LXX., 463 ff.
Interpolations in text of 1,ΧΧ., 423 f.
Job, book of, 43 f., 69, roo f., 108, 228, 255 ff., 318, 337, 480
Josephus, 12 f., 26, 217, 220, 279 f., 298 f., 376 ff.
Joshua ben Chananya, R., 32, 440
John of Damascus, 207 f.
Irenaeus, 9, 30, 42, 49, 414 ff.; I. (Minutius Pacatus), 289
Isidorus, 212
Jubilees, book of, 110, 285
Judges, book of, 215 ff., 316, 333f., 488 f.
Judith, book of, 103, 222 ff., 229, 272 f.
Junilius, 207
Justin, 30, 417 ff., 464, 479
Justinian, 33
ἰδιόγραφος (ψαλμός), 125, 252 ἴ. ἱστορικόν, τό, 205
Κ, 139, 3495 354 f.
Kaisariyeh, 75
Kennedy, H. A. A., 88, 280 ff., 296, 452 f.
Kenyon, F. G., 130, 225, 487
Kimchi, D., 57
Kingdoms, books of, 214 ἢ; 1 K., 245f.; 3K., 237 ff., 246 ff; ge
249 Kirkpatrick, A. F., 318 ff., 441 Klostermann, E., 58, 132, 353
Index 77.
L, 139 .
Lagarde, ἘΞ de; τοῦ; 218i4.5.,121, 188, 206, 255, 442, 483 ff., 494 Lamentations, book of, 226 ff., 259,
360 Langton, Stephen (Archbp), 343 Laodicene canons, 209, 282 Latin versions, 88 ff., 493 Lections, lectionaries, 168 ff., 343, 6 ff.
Lee, F., 183 Leipzig fragments of Octateuch, 139
lemniscus, 71 f.
Leontius, 207 f., 218
Leontopolis, 8
Lexicography, 290, 302 ff., 310; lexicon of LXX., proposed, 290
Lightfoot, J. B. (Bp), 105
Libraries ‘of Alexandria, rof., 16 ff., 228, 293
Library of Pamphilus, 75
Literature, 10, 27 f., 53, 76, 103, Fee, Pid, F175) 49 f:, 125, 170, 194, 230, 262ff., 285 ff., 314, 340f., 365 f., 379 ἴ., 404 f, 432, 438, 461, 477, 496f.
Liturgical notes in titles of the Psalms, 250 f.
Liturgies, the ancient, use of the Bex ὑπο 470008.
London papyrus fragments of Psalter, 142 1.
Dacian, 81 ff.,- 395 £5. 483. ff; Lucianic texts, 93, 116 ff, 121, 148 ff., 379, 395, 403, 482, 486
Ludovicus de Vives, 15
Λουκιανός, 80, 365
M, 78, 140, 352 ff. 5 fal, 234 Maccabees, books of, 276 ff., 312 f., 2 ἜΣ ΟΣ ΕΝ words, 201 f. Mahaffy, J. P., 5 ff., 21 ff., 279 f., 292
Malchas, 370 Malchion, 81 Manetho, 17 Marchalianus, cod.,
144 f.
2) Oy \EOBy
589
Masius, Andreas, 113
Massora, Massoretic text, 234 ff., 322, 434 ff.
Materials at the disposal of the critical editor, 491 f.
McLean, N., 119, 135, 189, 191, 489
Melito, 203, 221
Mercati, G., 62
Mesrop, 118, 120
Metaphors in LXX., 329
Methodius and Cyril, 120 f.
Methurgeman, 3, 20
metobelus, 7% f.
Minutius Pacatus, 289
Moabite stone, the, 320 f.
Mommsen, Th., 5, 8, 212 f., 347
Montfaucon, B. de, 136
Morinus, J., 436; P., 181 f.
Moses bar-Cephas, 111; M. of Khoren, 118, 120
Muratorian Fragment, 268
Museum, the Alexandrian, 16f., 293
MSS: Gf ἘΣ ΧΟ uncial, 2 1: cursive, 148 ff.; notation of, 122 ff.; grouping of books in, 123; distribution of, 123 f.; dis- placements in, 131, 271
Μακκαβαϊκά, τά, 222 Μωσαϊκά, τά, 206
N, 131
Nathan, R. Isaac, 343
Nestle, E., 112, 127, 133, 169, 181, 187 f., 274, 319, 331, 410
New Testament, the: use of Lxx., 26, 381 ff.; tables of quotations from LXxX., 382 ff.; number of quotations, 386, 391 f.; discussion of passages quoted, 392 ff.; Lxx. indispensable to the study of the N.T., 450 ff. ; vocabulary of N.T., how far indebted to 1,ΧΧ., 452 ff.
Nicephorus, stichometry of, 208 f., 346 ff.; catena of, 186, 362 f.
Nicomedia, 85
Nicopolis, 55
Notation of MSS., 122 f.
Notes at end of Job, 256 f.
Number of books in O.T. canon, 219 ff.
590
Numerals confused, 321 Nav7, 480
O, 144
obelus, 70 ff.
Octapla, the, 66 f.
‘Odes,’ the nine, 254
Old Latin version, the, 88 ff., 493
Olophernes, 272
Origen, 30, 34, 46 f., 49, 53 f., 59 ff.5°77, 209, 222, 242, 356 f., 429 f., 435, 464, 480
Order of books in Jewish lists, 200 ; in uncial Bibles, 201 f.; in patristic lists, 203 ff.; internal order of groups, 226 ff.; order of contents of books, 231 ff.
ὀκτασέλιδον, τό, 66
ὀκτάτευχος, ἢ, 123
ὁράσεις (in Isaiah and Daniel), 360 ᾿Ωριγένης, ᾧ, 72; 77» 365
ΡΣ 964
Pachymius, 79
Pagnini, S., 343
Palaeography, Hebr., 320f.; Greek, 364
Palestinian Syriac version, 114 f.
Palimpsest MSS., 34ff., 128f., 138f., 145 ff.
Palladius, 50
Pamphilus, 76 ff.
Papyrus MSS., 142, 146, 225, 229; ‘transition to vellum,’ effect of, 229 f.
Parashahs, 342 f.
Paris uncial Psalter, 143
Parsons, J., 185
Passages in LXX. discussed, 330 ff.
Patristic quotations, 406 ff.; texts, editions of, 406, 492; comment- aries, 430 ff.
Paul of Tella, 112 f.
Pauline Epistles, 389 ff., 400 ff.
Pearson, J. (Bp), 457) 477
Pentapla, 67
Pentateuch, Greek, the original LXX., 23; Samaritan, 436 ff.
quotations in,
L[ndex 77.
Peshitta, the, 112, 116
Pesukim, 342
Peter, Gospel of, 50
Petersburg, St, palimpsest of Num- bers, 138
Pharisaic influence in LXX., 17, 281, 283
Philadelphus, 10 f., 16 f.
Phileas of Thmuis, 79
Philo, 12 f., 298, 372 ff.,° 478 f3 the poet, 369
Philometor, 17
Philopator, 279
Philoxenus of Mabug, 115
Phrynichus, 296 f.
Points, the Hebrew, 321 f.
Polycarp of Smyrna, 414; chorepiscopus, I15
Polyhistor, 369
Printed editions of LXx., 171 ff.
Prologue to Sirach, the, 24, 300, 319
Proper names, 304, 313, 449f.
Proverbs, book of, 240 ff., 255, 266.
Psalms, 25, 98 ff., 191 f., 239 f., 250 ff., 316, 336, 358 1,7 447 1 titles of the, 250 f., 447 f.; books of the Psalter, 354 f.; Psalms of Solomon, 282 f.
Psalter of the English Prayer-book,
the
99
Psalterium Romanum, Gallicanum, Hebraicum, 98 ff.
Pseudepigrapha, 265, 281 f.
Pseudo-Aristeas, see ‘ Aristeas’ ; Pseudo-Athanasius, 82, 85, 207, 282; Pseudo-Chrysostom, 205; Pseudo-Clement, 411; Pseudo- Gelasius, 211 f.
Ptolemies, list of the early, 5 f.
‘Ptolemy and Cleopatra,’ 25, 258
Παλαιστιναῖον, τό, 77
παραγραφαί, 361
παραινετικά, τά, 208
Παραλειπόμενα, 214
παρθένος (in Isa. vii. 14), 30
περικοπή, 358
TEVTATEVXOS, ἣ, 123, 204 ff.
ΠΙΠῚ (3335). 391
προσευχὴ Afaplov, 253, 260; προσ- εὐχὴ Μαννασσή, 253 f.
I[udex IT.
προσήλυτος, ὁ (1395), 32
ppoupal, 258
προφητικόν, τό, 205; προφητικά, τά, 208
Πτολεμαϊκά, τά, 299
Q, 66, 75. 77, 144 f., 348
Quinta, the, 53 ff.,
Quotations from Lxx. by Jewish Fellenists, 3690. 1.; .in N:T.; 381 ff.; in early Christian litera- ture, 406 ff.
R, 141 f., 495
Rahlfs, A., 135 | Recensions of the Lxx., 76 ff., 481 f. Redpath, H. A., 135, 141, 147, 290,
495 Reuchlin, J., 436 Robinson, F., 105 Ryle. By est. 215,275, 283, 342, 374, 404 Roman edition of Lxx., 174 ff., 486 Ruffinus, 210, 223
5 (=8), 75, 77, 129 ff., 352) 490; Sey 204,3. δ}, 53
Sabatier, P., 02
Samaritans in Egypt, 6, 437 ff, 441 f.; Samaritan Pentateuch, 436 ff.
Sanday, W., 218 ff., 360
scriptio defectiva, 321
Scrivener, F. H. A., 189
Semitic words in LxX., 19, 306 ff.; Semitic idioms, 323 ff.
‘ Septima,’ the, 53 ff.
‘Septuagint,’ the name, g f.; early history of the version, Ὁ (tke; Origen labours upon it, 59 ἔξ; recensions, 76 ff.; versions based upon the Lxx., 87 ff.; MSS. of LXX., 122 ff.; printed editions, 171 ff.; books contained in the Greek O.T., 197 ff.; language and style, 289 ff.; merits and defects, 315 f.; use by pagan writers, 22; by Hellenists, 29 f., 369 ff.; in the N.T., 381 ff.; in the Fathers, 406 ff.; its importance, 433 ff.; textual problems, 480 ff.
591
Sequence, Hebrew and _ Greek, tables of, 231 ff.; discussion of, 234 ff.
‘Sexta,’ the, 53 ff.
Shashanq (Shishak), 3 f.
Sibyllines, the, 372, 380
Siloam inscription, the, 321
Sinaitic MS., the, 129 ff., 490
Sinker, R., 315
Sirach, 269 ff., 372; prologue to, 20, 24, 300, 319; the Hebrew, 270ff.; disturbed order of the Greek, 271 f.; literature. 286
Sixtine edition, 174 ff.
‘Sixty books,’ the, 209 ff., 220, 281
Slavonic version, 120 f.
Smith, H. P., 340, 441; W.R., 30f., 246, 440
Solomon, Psalms of, 282 f., 288; Wisdom of, 267 ff., 285, 311 f.
Soter, 6, 19, 293
Stephen, R., 343
Stichometry, 344 ff.
Stoicism of 4 Macc., 280
Streane, A. W., 259
Susanna, 260 f.
Symmachus, 49 ff., 476, 483
Synagogue use of Lxx., 29 f.
Synoptic Gospels, quotations in, 386 ff., 391 ff.
Syntax of O. T. Greek, 305
Syriac versions, 111 ff.
Syro-Hexaplar, 77,
: 112. ἘΠ 386] 105.
σαρβὴθ σαβανὲ ἔλ, 277 σεγρί, 4τι
σειρά, 561
Σειράχ, 269
σελίς, 64
Σουσάννα, Σωσάννα, 260 στάσεις (in the Psalter), 359 στίχος, 344 ff. συμβουλευτικόν, τό, 205 σύν =N® acc., 39, 308 σύνοψις ἐν ἐπιτόμῳ, 206 Σύρος, 0, 56, 116 σχῖνος, 261
ΠΡΌ, 449
592
I[hdex 77.
T, 142, 4953 θ΄, θε΄, 364
Talmud, Aquila quoted in the, 33
Targum, the Babylonian, 3 Taylor, C., 33, 41, 67, 271, 286
Tertullian, 9, 284, 351
Tetragrammaton, the, 39 f., 320,
327 Tetrapla, the, 65 ff., 73, 113 f. Text-division, systems of, 342 ff. Thackeray, H. St'J-5 135) 267 Thecla the martyr, 125 Theodorus (Egyptian Bishop), 79; Theodore of Mopsuestia, 112, 115, 316, 432 ‘Theodotion, 42 ff., 260 ff., 339 ff., 395 ff., 403, 417, 421 ff, 458 f.,
483
Theodotus, 369 f.
Thomas of Harkel, 112 f.
Timothy and Aquila, dialogue of, 1 £.,:206
Tischendorf, A. F. C. von, 129 ff., 135, 138 f., 140 ff., 187 f.
Titles of Psalms, 250f., 447 ff.; of chapters, 354 ff.; of books, 198f., 214 fff.
Tobit, book of, 273 f.
Transliteration, 46, 324 f.
trifaria varietas, 85 f.
Turin uncial Prophets, 145
ταχυγράφοι, 73
τέλος, 358
τέσσαρες, ol, 123 τετραβασίλειον, τό, 206
τετρασέλιδον, τό, 67
τόμοι (in Isaiah), 360
Θεγρί, 411 DYIBID ΠΡΊΝ, 434
V, 132, 495; U, 142 f
‘Variorum’ LXX., proposed, 496
Vatican MS. (B ), 126 ff., 486 ff.; do. (N), 131 f.; do. (X), 143
Venice MS. (V= 23), 139
Verona Psalter, 141 f.
Versions of the O.T. (Greek) later than 1ΧΧ., 29ff.; their importance, 457 ff., 476
Versions of the LXx., 87 ff., 493 f.
UErsus, 344
Vienna Genesis, 139
Vives, L. de, 15
Ulfilas, 117
Uncial MSS. of Lxx., 124 ff., 201 f.
Votau, C. W., 306
vuleata editio, 68
Vulgate, Latin, 103, 474 ff.
ὕμνος τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, 261
W, 143
Walton’s ΤΟΙ ΜΕΙ͂ΟΝ 182
Westcott, B. F. (Bp), 60, 131, 252, 278, 402
Wigan, W., 183
Wisdom of Solomon, 267 ff., 285, 21:12. 5.1“ 1:
Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach, 269 f., 286
Wulfila, 117
X, 143 Xenophon, Greek of, 294 Ximenes de Cisneros, F., 171 ff.
Y, 145 Yebna, 439 Young, P., 183
Z, 140 f., 145; ζ΄, 53 Zurich Psalter, 142
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. & C. F. CLAY AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
CLAPP
ὝΨΜΨΜΜΙΠ)
5002 00395 3184 duction to the 0 2
wete, Henry Barclay An intro id Testament In
ποτ τς
-
ΠΥ eR Re
“Bas
i ἷ
Meee tee gee
Patgetrnh sary
!
τῷ
Laan
ΟΝ
Δ,